Recently, we saw the growing fight over canine Christians as religious organizations fight to augment their ranks with recruitment of other species.
The inter-species move may reflect recent polls showing a sharp increase in Americans who say that they are not part of any religion.
Given the known violent propensities of this species, the effort to recruit religious rabbits may alarm some citizens.
It is not simply a matter of Baptist Bunnies hopping into Sunday services. The move sparks a race for the rabbits with different faiths claiming particular breeds, struggling over American Fuzzy Lops and American Sables.
The Britannia Petite and Sussex rabbits has been claimed by the Anglicans.
The Florida White is an Evangelical breed.
The Californian Rabbit is strictly New Age.
The German Grey is a protestant stronghold.
The Siberian Rabbit is known Russian Orthodox. 
As herbivores, the Hindu faith may hold a certain appeal for the mammals.
[Kudos to Patty C for the three additional pictures of observant bunnies]
Jill,
I think I’m going to do mine in parts. I’ll have a lot of time on the plane so I’ll probably do a good chunk of it then. Give me a couple of weeks to come back and check out your response. Sarah and I are looking forward to Korea. Dallas is a dump.
Hey Clint,
By the following Sunday (I’m not home much this week) I should be able to tell you what I think of the argument in the book. Korea is supposed to be beautiful from what I”ve heard.
Jill
Thanks Buddha, I’ll have to try them. I’m a big fan of most Korean food. I’m told that since I love kimchi, I won’t have a problem with much of the food. But, I am having trouble getting past the blandness of some of their dessert. Where did you stay in Korea?
Thank you Mike A. and also Buddha and anyone else who does so. There’s no time pressure on anyone. Just thanks for engaging in this work!
Clint,
Enjoy Korea. It’s a beautiful country with wonderful people. The food is simply amazing too. If you’ve never had Korea style ribs, you are in for a treat. Just don’t expect them to look like American ribs – they cross cut them.
Jill,
I’ll try to read those, but I have a pretty large reading load as it is. I may not get to them in time to be of use in this thread.
Jill, I will do so.
To all:
I didn’t mean to be exclusionary. I would like to hear the opinions of any poster on this site who will read both books.
Clint,
I’m not being defensive. This is my true opinion of Kellor and this book. I didn’t have any beef with him that would color my opinion of his work. His book was well reviewed by many so I was suprised that I found so many problems with it.
Mike A.,
Would you read the books Clint and I are reading if you have the time? I would like to hear your opinion of them.
Clint choose: “The Reason for God” by Timothy Keller
I choose: “Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)” by Bart Ehrman
Mike A.,
I’ll keep it in mind. I’m a bit taxed with preparing to move to Korea and reading several different books right now that I don’t want to have to take with me. I wasn’t really expecting Jill to give me the book challenge :).
Very impressive Jill. I will need to step up my reading and analysis of Ehrman. It seems you are much better at this than me.
I don’t expect you to read purely from a neutral position (it is impossible for me) but can you attempt to minimize the defenses a bit? If Keller is doing what you are saying, give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to ignorance. I sincerely doubt his intentions are questionable. I’ll try to do the same with Ehrman.
Clint, I thought I’d add my two cents worth. I have read some of Bart Ehrman’s work. His scholarship pretty much traces his personal intellectual journey on biblical studies. If you are interested in some historical perspective on the development of religious thought in this country, I would highly recommend Garry Wills’ “Head and Heart: American Christianities.” It came out a couple of years ago and is now available in paperback.
Hi Clint,
I’m working on a complete anaylsis of the book where I will reference his writings and say what I think of them. I’d like to do this all at one time. I will absolutely address your question above. One short answer is that he misrepresents the arguments of those with whom he disagrees, then he argues against that misrepresentation in hopes of making his point. I found all of the logical fallacies in this book:
“Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
* Ad hominem – attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from “authority”.
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an “unfavourable” decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god’s will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not “proved”).
* Non sequitur – “it does not follow” – the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after so it was caused by” – confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question (“what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle – considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the “other side” look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term – a subset of excluded middle (“why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?”).
* Slippery slope – a subset of excluded middle – unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man – caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words – for example, use of euphemisms for war such as “police action” to get around limitations on Presidential powers. “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public” from Carl Sagan
Mike,
Also, I’ve seen religious leaders (many claiming to be Christian) surprise a lot of people with their cruelty and greed for power. I don’t think we should be so quick to assume that these specific Jewish leaders were incapable of such cruelty.
Jill,
Wow, Keller seems insincere? I was expecting a lot of things but not that. What statements specifically made you feel that way?
I just wanted your thoughts as to Ehrman’s motives. I’m sure he is sincere. And I am certain that he would not be hostile to me questioning him on it.
Mike,
Constantine edited the thousands of copies of manuscripts from various translations and edited the writings of the church fathers of the 2nd century who quoted a large portion of the gospels? That seems to be a bit of a stretch. It would be more plausible if there were very few NT manuscripts in circulation during that time. There is also correspondence between Roman officials in the 2nd century (?) mocking the fact that Christians worshipped a dead man as God. It doesn’t seem that Constantine even had the opportunity to change centuries worth of history.
Pilate was not portrayed as a good guy at all. In the gospel, a story is told to Jesus of how cruel he was.”There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” (Luke 13:1) He did not ask for Jesus’ pardon from pure motives. And, Philo gave an account of an instance in which the emperor intervenened on the Jews’ behalf. Not long after Christ was executed, Pilate ended up being removed from his position and faced charges of malfeasance back at Rome. It seems that Pilate could have been in a delicate position in which he did not want to please the crowd but also needed to appease them to limit attention from Rome.
The Jews were not fickle. Jesus angered a lot of high-ranking religious authorities. It is entirely plausible that he walked in being praised by a large group of citizens but faced the death penalty in front of a large group of Pharisees and Sadducees. The citizens may have not felt comfortable opposing their religious leaders. Given the account of the cowardice of Peter, one of Jesus’ closest disciples, I’m not sure we can expect much more from the people.
“Also, the Jews in Jerusalem were the ones who forced the Roman governor’s hand.”
Clint,
With all due respect, the idea that the Jews could have forced a monstrous Roman Governor to Crucify Jesus is a fable. Nobody ever forced the Romans to do anything when they were in control.
Also, Jews recognized Cruxifixion as an abomidable act, because of its’ cruelty. No religious Jew whether Pharise, or Sadduce would ever demand Cruxifixion of anyone, much less a Jew. However, if you were a Roman Emperor, who needed Christians to maintain power, it would be in your interest to downplay the Romans in the story and blame the Jews, who by then they had driven from the area.
“Yet, Jesus honored the Roman government even when the Pharisees tried to trick him into criticizing Caesar.”
Clint,
You might remember that my contention is that beginning with the Council of Nicea the Constantine led Romans re-edited the Gospels to make the Jews the villains and Jesus friendly to Rome. Given that the Roman’s were among the cruelest, most bloodthirsty of cultrues, does it really ring true to you that Jesus would honor them and not his own people. Isn’t it strange that the man who rode into Jerusalem on the back of an Ass, to the accolades of the multitudes and who preached the Sermon on The Mount to the cheers of thousands, suddenly becomes reviled.
Are Jews that fickle?
The best clue to this is the portrayal of Pontius Pilate seeming to want to save Jesus, when contemporary Roman accounts detail that he was recalled from the ME and punished for his cruelty. Some official the Romans would think too cruel must have been a monster. Yet in the Gospels he’s portrayed as a good guy.
Hello Clint,
I did start the Kellor book. It’s annoying for me to read because it has so many logical flaws in it and I feel he is, at base, a very disingenuous person. It’s a piece of sophistry. (I don’t think you recommended him because he was a sophist. I think you are sincere. Kellor seems to be a different story.) Nevertheless, a promise is a promise and I intend to keep mine!
As to Ehrman’s motives, I would e-mail him where he teaches and ask him. He seems like a very sincere person to me. He’s a scholar, and as such I believe he wants the best understanding of his subject possible. I don’t think he’s using a tactic in the way you mean it. He’s trying to lay out a thoughtful and well reasoned explanation of his conclusions and how he came to them. But I’d contact him directly with your question and see what he says. I don’t think he would be hostile to you.
Mike,
Okay, I didn’t read your comment right at first. I just jumped on my assumption. My comment above is a better reply.
Mespo/Mike,
Also, the Jews in Jerusalem were the ones who forced the Roman governor’s hand. He did not find their claims legitimate at all. If the Romans really feared Jesus, they would not have been reluctant to crucify him.
Jill,
I’ve started Ehrman’s book. He is very articulate and systematic. I haven’t finished the first chapter though. His tactic in the introduction is very strategic–mention some the most controversial seeming contradictions of the Bible. Some of them are very legitimate questions but others are a bit frivolous. It reminds me of medieval war movies where the archers fire a volley before the ground troops move in. That was just my first impression. I have a question. Every rational being has an end to everything he does. What do you think Ehrman’s purpose for writing this book was?
I’ll try to go more in depth with the book today. Have you had a chance to read Keller? What is your first impression?