This is the fourth part in the series An Evil God?
The Old Testament God
Pullquote: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction.
The Old Testament God is capricious and unpredictable. As Richard Dawkins famously said in The God Delusion:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror.
So far, we’ve seen this God place mankind in a garden with a forbidden tree that he knew they would eat. Then, he punished all the future generations of mankind because two people fell for his trap.
And now we come to the first murder. It might be interesting to pause and guess what God might do to a man who murders his innocent brother. We’ve seen him furious at Adam and Eve for disobeying him by eating the forbidden fruit. What will he do to a man who kills another?
The Story
Here’s the story. Adam and Eve have two boys, Cain and Abel. They both offer sacrifices to God, but God accepts Abel’s lamb offering and rejects Cain’s vegetable offering. I like meat better, too, but why God accepted the blood offering instead of veggies is a hotly debated topic in the land of the faithful.
Filled with jealousy, Cain decides to kill Abel. God warns him, but Cain does it anyway. God looks the other way during the murder (as he does when anything bad happens), but soon after asks Cain where his brother is, to which we get the infamous reply: “I don’t know — am I my brother’s keeper?”
The Punishment
Pullquote: Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand…
Now this is the crucial moment. What is God going to do? Killing a brother makes eating forbidden fruit look mild. If God punished all mankind for eating forbidden fruit, what will he do with Cain, who not only disobeyed God, but killed a man made in God’s image (a man who God liked better than Cain)?
Perhaps a slow and painful death? Eternal damnation? No, far from it. The punishment is, of all things, for Cain to pack up and leave town.
Now if I were Cain, I’d think this was a pretty sweet deal. I just killed my brother because God liked him more, and instead of torturing me or killing me or whatever, he lets me off the hook.
So what does Cain do? Leap for joy? No. He complains that his punishment is too great, as “everyone” who finds him will kill him. (We’re not really sure whom he could be referring to since the Bible only mentions him and Abel, but it’s just this story, you know?)
So, in his infinite kindness, God puts a mark on Cain and says whoever kills Cain will get Cain’s punishment sevenfold. Which, I guess, means they’ll have to leave town seven more times.
Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?
The troubling thing is that Cain goes free with a mere slap on the wrist. He disobeyed God and murdered his brother in cold blood, yet his punishment is to wander around and be protected from anyone from murdering him. Is that just? Does the punishment fit the crime?
Or is this God so forgiving that he is willing to forgive even the worst sin without the punishment of death? Maybe he gave Cain that punishment to protect other people, not because the sin needed a punishment. Or perhaps this is an enlightened example that even the worst crimes should not be paid for with human blood. Is that the case?
Death for Picking Up Sticks
Pullquote: God is love.
Let’s see how God deals with a far more petty situation later in the Bible. A man is caught red handed picking up sticks for a fire on Saturday. I know — shocking, right? How dare he! But this was against the Law of Moses, which commanded people to rest on Saturday and not do any work.
The people seize the man and ask God what they should do with this horrible sinner. God’s response:
The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.
Well now, isn’t that strange? God lets Cain go free when he murders his brother, yet a man who picks up sticks on Saturday must be stoned to death.
Death for Lying
Pullquote: Forgive, and you
will be forgiven.
Many Christians will shrug off the previous example, saying, “That’s how God was in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, he’s love and grace and mercy and ooey gooey goodness.” But this perspective is simply a result of ignorance or cognitive dissonance.
For example, let’s take a look at the New Testament story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). This couple sold some land and claimed they gave all the money to the church leaders, but in reality kept some for themselves.
When the man was confronted about his deception, he fell dead to the ground.
Three hours later, his wife was asked if she sold the land for the claimed amount. She said yes, so Peter replied:
“How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last.
So God killed two people for lying in the New Testament.
Where is God?
Pullquote: God should be executed for crimes against humanity.
If God is in the business of killing people for sins, as the Bible often portrays, why doesn’t he do it when people actually hurt or kill other people?
A man murders his wife and children, yet God does nothing. A stepfather brutally rapes and kills his stepdaughter, yet God is silent. Nevertheless, we have numerous examples of God, in the Bible, killing people for petty things like picking up sticks or not giving all their money to the church!
As Robert Ingersoll said in his 1881 essay “The Great Infidels“:
There is no recorded instance where the uplifted hand of murder has been paralyzed — no truthful account in all the literature of the world of the innocent being shielded by God.
Thousands of crimes are committed every day — men are this moment lying in wait for their human prey; wives are whipped and crushed, driven to insanity and death; little children begging for mercy, lifting imploring, tear-filled eyes to the brutal faces of fathers and mothers; sweet girls are deceived, lured, and outraged — but God has no time to prevent these things; no time to defend the good and to protect the pure.
He is too busy numbering hairs and watching sparrows.
Is this a just, consistent God who deserves to be worshipped, or an evil, capricious God to be feared and hated — that is, if he even exists?
You know, I knew most of the details from the Cain and Abel story from when I was a child. But I haven’t really thought about it much since then. Now that you spell it out it is completely absurd! Where oh where would humanity be without the wonderful morals that the bible has provided for us?
I have to say though, had the garden of eden been in Texas Cain would have absolutely been executed.
You’re doing it wrong. You’re supposed to praise me for the good things I do and ignore the bad things I do (or better yet, blame them on the Fall, the Devil or Free Will).
He complains that his punishment is too great, as “everyone” who finds him will kill him. (We’re not really sure whom he could be referring to since the Bible only mentions him and Abel, but it’s just this story, you know?)
Presumably this comes from the Levitical law where the man-slayer is fair game for vengeance by the victim’s family, unless he reaches a designated refuge city. Note that I’m assuming a literary history (but one that I think is in line with modern Biblical scholarship) in which Genesis receives its final edits during the Babylonian Captivity, and thus such later ideas can be written back into the putative earlier narrative.
@Eamon Knight -
I think Daniel is referring to the fact that there were only four people on the planet at the time, and Cain just killed one of ‘em. If Cain was sent far away from his parent, who on earth is he afraid of?
Of course it’s an etiological story, but the authors didn’t seem to square it with the other stories very well. Sloppy.
I’ve always loved the flood story.
God kills every single person on earth by drowning, feels bad about doing it, and then promises not to do it again. With water anyway. Next time it will be fire. Totally different.
Hey, look! A rainbow!
@Ty: Guess what story’s next? ;)
Well done. It is so fun to use the stories we learned in church as lessons that teach a different story than when we first learned them and support it with scripture. That God is sure a loving dude.
Biblical inconsistecies are very interesting but the last part of your post is what I struggle with the most in my analysis of God. All science, logic and proof aside those sediments represent my first and formost reason for being a non-believer.
Wow, Daniel, I’d never thought of the story this way before. It is remarkable. More and more every day, I cannot believe that anyone can accept the bible literally.
I usually get stuck at the “who the heck are the ‘everyone’ will hurt Cain?” part. Then we get hit a few chapters later when Cain gets married. To WHOM does Cain get married?
@arkonbey
To his sister of course (what? no daughters from Adam and Eve are mentioned? Of course not, they’re GIRLS, they don’t matter.)
LOL – “…they’ll have to leave town seven more times.”
I’m 33 years old and have been a christian my entire life. I was very involved in ministry and very deep in my faith. The problem was the only way I could keep from doubting my faith was by ignoring large sections of the Bible. I had a challenging year in 2008 and decided to really dig into scripture for guidance and to deepen my faith. The more I read, the more angry I became. I decided to type up a list of every question I have about the bible. The document is 10 pages long.
I’m really enjoying this series since it hits on some of the many issues that debunked christianity for me. You can’t have it both ways, god is either cruel or loving. The god of the bible is not someone I’m willing to pray to, even if he is real. Why would I have any desire to spend eternity with a vengeful dictator?
I can just imagine some guy who killed Cain standing on the border of a small village, under the “Welcome to Hicksville” sign.
Behind him are a mob of pitchfork holding villagers, the chieftain saying:
“Get out o’ town! Now come back! Get out! Come back! Get out! Come back! … how many times do we have ta do this? It’s gettin’ right monotonous like…”
Certainly this was one of the biggest issues I had when I was a Christian – how do you rectify the god of the OT with the god of the NT. This has been an issue for centuries. Some Gnostics believed that a new god replaced the old one.
As a Christian, one way I looked at it was that humanity’s understanding of god evolved from the OT to the NT. The OT represented humans’ best attempts to grasp the concept of who god is. As their understanding of god grew, so did their understanding of values and morality.
Now as an atheist, I simply see an evolution of values and morality – from the earliest writings of the OT through the NT. Morality, like our understanding of law or economics, has evolved over time – and outside of the Bible. After all, both the OT and NT condone owning slaves – an act we find unthinkable today.
@Matt -
It gets worse.
Genesis 4:24 – “If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.”
Now THAT is monotonous.
For a Creator of everything, god doesn’t seem to have half the professionalism of human inventors.
Just imagine this: a tinkerer who accidentally makes some prototype robots who are disobedient, randomly violent and mutually destructive.
He’d be like: “Yikes! My precious droids are blowing each other up! Time to take them offline and examine the code.”
*activates fail-safe*
“Dum de dum dum dum… fixed!”
*reactivates robots*
*robots resume shooting at each other*
“Wha…? Still killing each other? Was that a GOTO or a GOSUB? Never mind, back to the code…”
I’m sure a robot designer today can create robots with a reasonable amount of autonomy without excessive amounts of violence. Free will doesn’t necessitate ultraviolence.
Thus, she wouldn’t have to “fix” the robots’ problems by destroying all of them and then recreating them with the same problem again which she would have to “fix” by torturing herself to death.
Nothing makes any sense.
But LH! How dare you compare the All Loving (except for you homos! And brown people in countries with a -stan!) Gawd to a programmer!! Gawd iz TOTALLY smarter than a programmer!
Ahem. Y’know, if you read that Bible with even a first-grade understanding of the world, you’ll find that it’s a pretty horrible text, which is usually why kids’ questions about God (and the absolutely fucktarded things the character does) are usually more profound than the sermons proffered by the adults.
As Penn Jillette said of the Bible:
“Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible.”
“Gawd iz TOTALLY smarter than a programmer!”
Yup Roger, you got me there.
Still, there are times that I wish that god would not be portrayed as such a violent and irresponsible character.
To do my best impersonation of Scott Evil…
Dr. Evil God: “Scott, I want you to meet daddy’s greatest joy-slash-biggest heartache, my Human creations.”
Scott Evil: “What? Are you letting them kill each other? Why don’t you just fix them?
Dr. Evil God: “I have an even better idea. I’m going to place them in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and eternal torment in the afterlife if they defy me. Deploy the prophets!”
Scott Evil: “Wait, aren’t you even going to advise them directly? They could be led astray! ”
Dr. Evil God: “No no no, I’m going to leave them alone and not actually intervene, I’m just gonna assume that everything went to plan. What?”
Scott Evil: “I have their genome sequence in my room, you give me five seconds, I’ll get it, I’ll come back down here, BOOM, I’ll fix them for you.”
Dr. Evil God: “Scott, you just don’t get it, do ya? You don’t.”
Hahahah! LH, FTW!
“So God killed two people for lying in the New Testament.”
You could just as easily say that they died after being forced to face their “sins” once confronted with them (heart attack, aneurysm, or some such).
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have that kind of example in the NT, too. But this isn’t what we’re looking for.
That said, excellent point about the Cain punishment. Thanks for pointing this stuff out.
As a kid, even though my parents had officially stepped out of the church, they let me read a children’s bible.
I loved the stories. It read like a fairytale book, with pretty pictures and life lessons.
Of course there was a lot left out to not upset the young mind too much.
I never believed in god (not even as a kid) and i’m very gratefull that my parents always thought that i should make up my own mind about faith, instead of forcing one on me.
Later i came to realise that the way i read the bible when i was a kid, is the way it actually should be read.
As a fairytale book, where you _can_ get some good life lessons from.
Though i always keep in mind that it’s a human book, from human authors who only saw the world in their time and very subjectively wrote stuff down.
Which was changed a lot of course by the church later on to suit its needs.
Still.. keep these chapters coming, I enjoy them.
Great article Daniel. Well put.
LH, that’s freakin’ hilarious; nice work.
Quick question: What happens to Abel’s soul? I mean, that’s the first death, right? So has God set up the whole heaven hell thing? Or is Abel’s soul lost in the ether?
Also, wouldn’t they have to wait until Sunday to do the stoning? I mean, that’s a bit of a chore isn’t it? Hang on just a second here. Saturday is the Sabbath, yeah? Yet Sunday is reserved for worship. What the…? When did that happen?
Sorry in advance for the big thicko questions. I’m sure there are very very reasonable answers.
“…it’s a pretty horrible text…”
No, it’s an interesting neolithic story book. It just shouldn’t be taken too literally…
Daniel,
Thanks. I love it! The story of Ananias and Sapphira was one of my turning points. It made no sense. Yes, they did wrong for lying. But for the Holy Spirit to kill both of them immediately, it just did not fit.
@Alex: I’d love to see that 10 page list!
@ Rob: It’s quite clear from the Book of Acts the deaths are due to “Testing the Spirit”. Even more:
Acts 5:11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
Is this the act of a loving “god”? Creating “great fear” among his followers. Pentecost had just occurred. The church really needed followers. This was not good PR! And why does this not happen in the church anymore?
@Fleegman: The heaven/hell thing really isn’t worked out until the NT. As for why Christians worship on Sun instead of Sat, it’s because Jesus supposedly was resurrected on Sunday, so they moved the Sabbath.
I especially like how the descendants of Adam and Eve have to commit the incest in order to continue to populate the earth. God expressly forbids it, yet he gives them no choice.
@ Daniel
“As for why Christians worship on Sun instead of Sat…”
Interesting. I’d always assumed (as someone not brought up on this stuff) that it was because God “rested” (isn’t he supposed to be omnipotent? Why does he need to rest?) on the seventh day, so we have to aswell. Shows what I know.
Oh, and “Which, I guess, means they’ll have to leave town seven more times.” Very nice! :)
Daniel:
I thought the resurrection happened on Easter Monday…
I’d hazard a guess that that’s Church of England dogma, but I really couldn’t be sure.
@Rik: You were partially right — that is the Jewish reason for the Sabbath being on Saturday. Their week starts on Sunday (if I’m remembering correctly — if not, someone please correct me!).
@wintermute: Easter is traditionally on Sunday. Wikipedia says:
Daniel:
Well, yes I know that Easter Sunday falls on a Sunday. I just thought that the resurrection was on the Monday. Maybe I just based that on him being crucified on a Friday and staying dead for three days (that’s in the Bible, right? I can’t remember off the top of my head).
@wintermute: That makes sense. Just change “dead for three days” to “rose on the third day” and you’ll have it. ;)
Yes, Sunday is viewed as the start of the week by Jewish people and Saturday as the Sabbath.
My pastor gave a recent sermon saying that we need to look at Sunday as the start of our week instead of the end of our week. His theory is going to church and worshiping god prepares you to go into the work week. I see it as a big waste of 2 hours of your weekend.
dc-Agape:
“Acts 5:11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
Is this the act of a loving “god”? Creating “great fear” among his followers. Pentecost had just occurred. The church really needed followers. This was not good PR! And why does this not happen in the church anymore?”
Doesn’t 1 John 4:18 say that perfect love casts out fear? Doesn’t this mean that God’s love is not perfect, even by His own standards?
Good writing, but not convincing. You blame the Bible for oversimplifying and then oversimplify the Bible. Plus, you completely ignore the cultural context of these stories. Every text has a context that effects the meaning, and you don’t consider that for many people in those times (and probably Cain) being banished is a worse punishment than death. Death is an easy out, but living with guilt and being separated from your family, as well as living in fear for your life, is worse.
Plus, God is just, but that doesn’t mean everyone gets the same exact punishment. Would you punish a 5 year old and a 50 year old the same way if they both stole the same thing? No, because the 50 knows better. People should be held accountable for their actions in accordance with their maturity (including spiritual maturity).
I agree that the Old Testament sounds harsh and drastic, but you cannot judge a text from generations ago by today’s culture. It will make no sense.
@Mindfood:
So much for the Bible being eternal truth and an objective guide to morality.
@TRJ-
A large part of the OT is not historical record…but rather a description of eternal (& internal) processes ongoing within the constitution of man…himself. It helps to understand the symbolism and…the heart of the Author…then things make very good sense…yesterday, today and forevermore.
Its really all about freedom…our’s.
JC
@Joel:
In my experience, when confronted with this, most fundamentalists will say that, yes, incest must have been how Cain was able to get a wife and produce children, but God hadn’t yet laid down all the rules concerning sexuality (he does that later in Genesis), so incest was perfectly all right up till that point. Seriously.
In other words, to these people incest is sinful not because of its inherent nature, but simply because God says so. The act itself appears to be of secondary concern. (Which I don’t think they feel, but it’s the logical conclusion to that argument.)
@ trj
“So much for the Bible being eternal truth and an objective guide to morality.”
Just because a story has a different cultural context and setting doesn’t make its message irrelevant or false for today’s culture. To use again the 5 and 50 year olds– I can explain to both that stealing is wrong. But I will not use the same story. It doesn’t change the point of the story–that stealing is wrong.
Three random thoughts:
first, I remembered a line from “Family Guy”, Stewie the baby saying (IIRC) “I adore God; He’s so deliciously evil!”
Second, the Sandman series by Neil Gaiman includes characters depicted as Cain and Abel living in the Dreamlands; I believe their particular characterizations are based on House of Mystery and House of Secrets, two series of horror comics from the pre-Wertham days, in which Cain and Abel were the ‘hosts’ of the comic books. Cain kills Abel every few days, out of rage, pique or sheer boredom, and Abel always comes back to life.
Third and last, in “Coyote Kings of the Space-Age Bachelor Pad”, a novel by Minister Faust that _really_ deserved a better title, a secondary character comes up with a re-interpretation of the Biblical account that would make a Gnostic blanch. In this version, Cain realizes that God prefers Abel’s sacrifice because animals are higher in the Great Chain of Being than plants, and tries to come up with a sacrifice even MORE pleasing to God.
So he kills his brother. God is so pleased by this, he puts his mark on Cain so all humanity will know that he is favored of God, and prepares a city for him to rule in the land of Nod. Much later, jealous and impious people mangle the story so as to make him look like a bad guy.
For me, personally, the ‘WTF?’ moment in reading the Bible as a youth was the story in which David is required to bring proof of having killed a certain number of Gentiles so as to win the hand of Saul’s daughter (again, IIRC). The proof? The severed foreskins of the aforementioned gentiles.
Hundreds of them. Nice that he was a man after God’s own heart.
@Mindfood:
I agree to a certain extent. However, you can’t just separate the punishment from the rules, as the punishment is just as much divinely decreed as the rules.
Consider the ten commandments. God decreed for most of these that violations must incur the penalty of death. We can both agree that death penalty for breaking the sabbath is ridiculous, but you seem to be implying that it was ok in the Old Testament days due to their different society and culture. How else do you explain that God defines this punishment and, in one case, specifically commands his followers to kill a man for breaking the sabbath?
Indeed, the necessity of administering punishment is by many hardliners seen as a rule in itself, further muddying the separation between rules and punishment.
@mindfood – “… you don’t consider that for many people in those times (and probably Cain) being banished is a worse punishment than death. Death is an easy out, but living with guilt and being separated from your family, as well as living in fear for your life, is worse.”
The problem is that your interpretation makes no sense of the text. Cain shows no symptoms of guilt, and his exile nets him a wife and makes him the patriarch of a great clan.
The “mark of Cain” seems to remove any fear he might have for his life. God promises to avenge him seven-fold; why is he offering such great protection for a disgraced murderer? He is certainly not avenging Abel seven-fold, is he?
His descendants, notably Lamech, don’t seem to show any shame from being descent from an exiled murderer.
Your interpretation requires reading a great deal into the text that is not there. It seems more parsimonious to assume that the story had a different point to make. Most likely, I’d say that it is an etiological story rather than a morality tale. You can interpret the story in which ever way seems most agreeable to you; people have been doing that with the Bible for eons. But if you want to argue about the meaning given to the original story by the fols that told it, you need to make better use of the material that is there and not add in unwritten material.
Mindfood: “Just because a story has a different cultural context and setting doesn’t make its message irrelevant or false for today’s culture. To use again the 5 and 50 year olds– I can explain to both that stealing is wrong. But I will not use the same story. It doesn’t change the point of the story–that stealing is wrong.”
If one is going to use hypotheticals(stories) to illustrate how “stealing is wrong”, then you should also include a hypothetical situation or two when “stealing” is not “wrong”.
To begin with, the word “wrong” in this application implies disrespecting another human being’s ownership of property, thus, presumably causing them some sort of harm, does it not? Let’s assume you agree. Okay, well, there are times when other humans beings don’t deserve this type of consideration.
For example, if you had the opportunity to do so, it would be perfectly ethical to “steal” a bank robber’s weapon if it would eliminate the chance of him turning the bank-teller’s head into red confetti. I realize this is a crude, over-simplified example, but it illustrates the larger point that it is up to us human beings to interpret the circumstances when applying these alleged “Morals”. The same holds true for “thou shalt not kill”. There are times when killing another human being is the “Moral” thing to do.
Thus, there is no “Objective”, “Absolute” morality in the “Body of Christ”, or any other religious body.
@ Jason J Brunet
You said:
“Doesn’t 1 John 4:18 say that perfect love casts out fear? Doesn’t this mean that God’s love is not perfect, even by His own standards?”
Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking! In fact, I wrote a blog entry about this very verse and its inherent contradictions with other Biblical verses and stories this past week.
http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-is-love-examining-biblical-claims.html
mindfood wrote:
>Every text has a context that effects the meaning, and you don’t consider that for many people in those times (and probably Cain) being banished is a worse punishment than death<
Are you commenting on the "times" at the time the story takes place – when humans were first created – or the "times" the story was written?
If the former, there could be no context. The world simply came into existence. No one had to teach Eve or Adam anything – language skills, hunting/gathering skills, etc. – were theirs from the get-go, as they had no parental supervision. The "context" was whatever their god wanted it to be, not what humans had developed.
Some Xtians refer to the context of the times when the Xtian bible was created in order to argue why something like slavery isn’t condemned by Jesus. Yet Jesus could proclaim the need for love and peace – completely out of context from the way the world then supposedly operated. So why "turn the other cheek" and "give away everything you own" but not suggest "free your slaves"?
The obvious answer is that there is no god, just as there was no Jesus, only an imagined one; both entities embody the same successes and failings as the humans who created them. Your answer, mindfood, is the result of tortured logic, understandable in the context of our own, more enlightened times, when humans who should know better than to believe in a book filled with absurdities and contradictions try to hang onto their blind faith.
@Tele-
You cant possibly write an informed viewpoint on the subject anymore than you could tell me about my aunt Elizabeth.
Why? Because you dont KNOW her. You shall KNOW the TRUTH (truth is a person and not a concept or belief system) and the truth shall MAKE you free. Yet, He (truth) told you how you could come to know Him but you are entirely unwilling and then seek to assert your own opinion about someone you are unwilling to get to KNOW???…its nuts…entirely “unreasonable” as you put it.
How long will you be content to wander in the desert of human reasoning? The bottom line is…you dont want to know…but are quite content to know what you now know, that being nothing about TRUTH…and so it is….until you WANT to know badly enough to EMPTY yourself of your…SELF so that you might SEE for yourSELF.
The text itself, apart from knowing the PERSON behind the lettering is pointless and un-interpretable.
First things first…
JC
“You can’t possibly write an informed viewpoint on the subject anymore than you could tell me about my aunt Elizabeth.
Why? Because you don’t KNOW her. You shall KNOW the TRUTH (truth is a person and not a concept or belief system) and the truth shall MAKE you free. Yet, He (truth) told you how you could come to know Him but you are entirely unwilling and then seek to assert your own opinion about someone you are unwilling to get to KNOW???…it’s nuts…entirely “unreasonable” as you put it.
How long will you be content to wander in the desert of human reasoning? The bottom line is…you don’t want to know…but are quite content to know what you now know, that being nothing about TRUTH…and so it is….until you WANT to know badly enough to EMPTY yourself of your…SELF so that you might SEE for yourSELF.
The text itself, apart from knowing the PERSON behind the lettering is pointless and un-interpretable.
First things first…”
I can’t possibly write an informed viewpoint on the Bible? John C, please let me explain my position to you.
You keep saying that I don’t “KNOW” the Bible. John C, I know it very well. I was raised in the Christian belief system. I practiced it for years. But when I started to look at the Bible with a skeptical eye, I don’t receive any answers, only a call for “faith” — blind faith. I wanted to do what I felt was right — the god of liberal Christianity in whom I believed was someone I wanted to serve. It’s not as if I had some giant aversion to the belief system. I wanted much of it to be true, for a long time. However, the god which I worshipped just doesn’t make sense in the context of the Bible. To me, no concept of a god makes sense in the context of the Bible, because there are so many conflicting claims. Yes, it was much easier for me to believe when I didn’t think about it. However, I can’t just snap my fingers and go back to that point in my life where the concept of a god, a specific god, and a specific faith, made sense.
John C, if your god exists he must have invented reasoning, or why would he want me to use it? If your god exists, he must have invented the standards of data quality, or why would he want me to use it? If your god exists, he must have made me who I am, and I am someone who needs things to make sense before I believe them. What you’re saying just doesn’t make sense to me anymore. You’re asking me to play pretend and make that feeling go away. I can’t.
I was not unwilling to get to “KNOW” your belief system — I was unwilling for many years to evaluate it critically. I did accept things on faith — it’s why I remained a Christian for as long as I did. About a year ago at this time, I was asking a Christian mentor of mine a few questions about Christianity. I was just beginning to question my beliefs. She told me, “these are good questions, but you can’t stay in doubt forever.” Well, I didn’t. Doesn’t it say in your Bible that we can test all things and know that they are good, for the glory of your god? Well, by that standard I should’ve been able to retain my faith. However, it didn’t stand up. Instead, it collapsed.
How long will I be content to “wonder” ;) in the “desert of human reasoning?” Until I have some evidence that belief in the supernatural, and in your version of the supernatural, is warranted. For many years, I waded through my experiences without applying human reasoning. The supposed author of human reasoning should be able to understand my rationale.
When you say “you are content to know what you know now”, that describes me perfectly when I was a Christian. I was perfectly satisfied with it. I didn’t examine it. That statement doesn’t describe me now. Now, I am willing to see other points of view. Then, not as much.
So you really do want me to empty myself? Well, it does seem rather fitting. I either did not or would not consider any alternatives to Christianity for much of my life, and then I opened myself up to other possibilities. Now you want me to empty myself again.
John C, you remind me of C.S. Lewis’s criticism of mirrors. He said in “Mere Christianity” that people shouldn’t look into mirrors too much because he believed that it causes people to be self-obsessed. For most of my life, I didn’t look into the mirror of reality. Now, I have looked into the mirror, and what I have seen, I can never unsee. If I close my eyes and pretend that the image isn’t there, I still have the same image imprinted in my mind. C.S. Lewis and other Christian apologists want us to avoid looking in the mirror of our own existence: to avoid looking into the mirror of our own mortality and our own moral accountability and our own development as animals on this planet.
You just don’t want me to look in the mirror anymore, but I did look in that mirror; and though once I did I could not undo it, I am ultimately better for it.
John, you are insane. The truth is not a person. Go find a definition of truth that says ‘the truth is a person’. Go find it, bring it here, quote it. If you can’t, then again I will have to call you a fool. Your opinion is simply foolish, simply wrong. It is not the opinion of a sane person. And you think someone else is unreasonable? WOW.
Considering how often you have lied and how often you have made yourself look incredibly foolish and ignorant, shouldn’t you learn to think before you speak? Please? At least once in a while? Come on, its not that hard. Just pause, read your own words, and think.
@Tele-
No, I didnt say you didnt know the bible, rather the Author not intending that in a harsh way.
If a person is a “christian” for a long time and never pierces into the spiritual but remains in the soulish (human) realms the bible will never make any sense regardless of how much of it one knows or doesnt know…thats my point Tele…
What we are missing here is an understanding that there is another, higher realm in which one can “exist” or function that being the spirit realm where He is known.
JC
Aor…
The definition of truth is found in John 14:6…Christ saying: I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE…no man comes (back) home to the Father (Oneness) except thru me (Jesus).
JC
John C,
What is truth?
Proverbs 14:15 (NIV) — “A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thoughts to his steps.”
This is where I am.
You’re looking for another spiritual realm where these things will make sense. If the Bible is divinely inspired, and your god really wants to have a relationship with us, why don’t they make sense in the here and now?
I agree. I think John C is mentally ill. It’s the reason I personally have stopped engaging him. I feel like I’m pushing an autistic kid into a mud puddle. It makes me feel dirty.
@Tele-
I understand your question. I am saying that as opposed to a set of beliefs or a religion, that truth is literally (think about what I am saying here) a PERSON and He can be known in the here and now in the same way you can know anyone…personally. He is outside the bounds of time existing in the realm of the spirit….but we can know Him in exactly the way He said we could.
We are essentially foreigners sojourning in a distant land land. What we see now was never our intended or ideal dwelling…how could it be when so much of it is opposed to our true nature, ie violence, corruption, danger, evil…you name it. Most christians are still in the flesh. This meaning their true identities (in Him) are not their conscious, waking identities and the realm of the spirit is still a mystery to them so hence they “lose faith”.
Most christians have their passport (holy spirit) but they never “travel” and their destination is back…home. Home is the realm of the spirit where Father resides being that He is spirit (according to Jesus). So naturally, if we are in the flesh & soul realms understanding the spiritual realm of truth (where Jesus spoke from) will not make sense in the here and now.
But since time is only in the natural (flesh & soulish) where man “resides” and spirit is outside the realm of time…spiritual “truths” will not make much sense in the here and now until we pierce the veil…of the flesh and enter into what Christ has accomplished for us…by faith into the “holy of holies”…that is His very presence by the blood.
This is why God says…”as many as are led by the SPIRIT, these are the sons (offspring of) God”.
Hey i have to go feed my growing boy before he whoops my #$@…we can pick it up later if you care to continue.
Thx…JC
John, the bible is not a dictionary. Stop being an idiot.
By the way, are you going to respond to this thread http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/29/believers-make-your-best-case-for-god/#comments ? You know, the one where you made an ass of yourself yet again and said something about being a different species? The one where you stopped commenting after you again got caught in a lie, and did your usual stick-your-head-in-the-sand-and-pretend-it-didn’t-happen routine? Maybe you lost track of that thread when you lost your mind?
Sure, John. Truth is literally a person. And, from another thread..
Yeah, I read you loud and clear. The truth is a person, and you are not the same species as we are. Gotcha.
Aor-
Thanks…this is a major improvement in our attempts to communicate. I will try & answer. We are as two different species…this is true in that while we are mere men…one is living (internally) from the spiritual substance within and the other (outwardly) from himself or from his self identity apart from the uncreated life of the eternal nature.
So, while we look the same as mere men we think very differently, speak differently and have very dis-similar passions & interests and therefore are truly as two different species.
I have said many times that religion (endless rule-keeping devoid of love) was not what He came to bring, not even close. I am not bringing a message of religion…I despise it more than anyone else on this fine forum. Jesus was always at odds with the religious leaders. Yes, this is a great mystery but truth…is a person and His name is…wonderful, counselor, prince of peace, eternal Father.
Thanks Aor…all the best.
JC
Wow, some of these comments have just become name calling, which I find to be a rather weak reply to was originally a decent dialogue. Of course, saying that I realize I may just be exposing myself to name calling. But I love having conversations like this, and I assume everyone who writes on here does as well, so why get so emotional and personal about it? Anger is just unhealthy.
As for the whole “species” thing. The problem was that Aor and JC have different definitions of species. I am a biology major and my professors have told me that even today’s scientists cannot define what a “species” is. The most commonly used definition for a species is that the individuals are able to reproduce with each other. But what about mules, which are a cross between a donkey and a horse? Mules cannot be made from other mules, so are they a species? My point is that people often start arguments simply because they assume they have the same definition for a word/ concept when they do not.
@trj
“I agree to a certain extent. However, you can’t just separate the punishment from the rules, as the punishment is just as much divinely decreed as the rules.
Consider the ten commandments. God decreed for most of these that violations must incur the penalty of death. We can both agree that death penalty for breaking the sabbath is ridiculous, but you seem to be implying that it was ok in the Old Testament days due to their different society and culture. How else do you explain that God defines this punishment and, in one case, specifically commands his followers to kill a man for breaking the sabbath?”
You have a good point about separating the punishment from the rules. I don’t necessarily agree that the death penalty for breaking the sabbath is ridiculous. I am in no way saying that I think that’s how things should go down today (to each his own, I can respect that), but that’s assuming that God has some sort of scale of badness (murder > no sabbath). But all unholiness is unholy—there is no more holy or less holy, just holy and unholy. Also, the Jews did not have good or bad. Their religious states were holy, clean, and unclean. Only God and priests were holy. Clean and unclean did not involve right and wrong, but was more based on rules, such as if one had sex, they were unclean, if a woman was menstruating, she was unclean, etc. This is all to say that cultures vary so extremely that we cannot assume anything is “ridiculous”. It would seem ridiculous that some cultures require young boys to have sex with men in order to be seen as men, but it happens. Or it seems ridiculous that Aztecs would line up to have their heart ripped out and their bodies thrown from temples, but it happened.
I hope that answers that somewhat, but if it need further answering: what if the punishments are by situation? As in, yes they are decrees by God, but are they exactly the same as the laws? That might make God seem inconsistent, but even our judicial system is not that formulaic.
@ Vorjack
“The problem is that your interpretation makes no sense of the text. Cain shows no symptoms of guilt, and his exile nets him a wife and makes him the patriarch of a great clan.
The “mark of Cain” seems to remove any fear he might have for his life. God promises to avenge him seven-fold; why is he offering such great protection for a disgraced murderer? He is certainly not avenging Abel seven-fold, is he?”
Here is the text: 12When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.13And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
“My punishment is greater than I can bear.” That’s pretty strong language. He’s not saying, “Yipee, at least I didn’t die.” I stand by my point that in many cultures shame is worse than death. Even if there is no guilt, Cain expresses a great dismay at his punishment.
True, Cain expresses a concern that people will kill him. But is God protecting Cain? Or is he trying to stop a cycle of killing in general? Or is God trying to make him suffer by not letting him get off the hook with death. Think of how many people commit suicide because they cannot bear life.
Yes, these are all interpretations. And people will give all sorts of interpretations, but in the end there is one correct interpretation, and that is the author’s intent. I can send an email and every reader can read it differently–but the meaning of the email will still ultimately be my ultimate meaning, as I am the author.
I’m not claiming to have the absolute correct interpretation or to know Moses’/ God’s exact meaning in this. I am not a scholar. But there is a correct meaning, and it is through exploring the text that we find it, so by all means, let’s talk about it. I’d rather be wrong in an argument than wrong in my understanding of the Bible.
@ Dave
I’m sorry for the confusion, let me clarify. When I say context, I mean the context of the verse in the story, and the story in the book, and the book in relation to the Bible. I try to use (and should have used there) the term culture to refer to culture of the times the Bible was written. I do apologize for writing that bit misleadingly. When I said times, I meant the times of Cain, not Moses’ time.
And even if is a limited number of people on earth, there is still a culture. Culture is inherent in any sort of society. If there is a mother and a father and a son, there is a culture because they have roles they play in society (which would be in relation to each other). So there is a culture. Culture does not increase in strength or legitimacy with time or technology or any other factor or where it comes from. Amazonian tribes have as much culture as the Japanese. And if God gave them a culture, that is still a culture. They were enculturated with beliefs from God.
Also, you said: Some Xtians refer to the context of the times when the Xtian bible was created in order to argue why something like slavery isn’t condemned by Jesus. Yet Jesus could proclaim the need for love and peace – completely out of context from the way the world then supposedly operated. So why “turn the other cheek” and “give away everything you own” but not suggest “free your slaves”?
Jesus did talk about slavery, look up Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, and 1 Timothy 6:1-3. No, he doesn’t say “abolish slavery,” but he does essentially say to treat them with love and peace.
“The obvious answer is that there is no god, just as there was no Jesus, only an imagined one; both entities embody the same successes and failings as the humans who created them. Your answer, mindfood, is the result of tortured logic, understandable in the context of our own, more enlightened times, when humans who should know better than to believe in a book filled with absurdities and contradictions try to hang onto their blind faith.”
I resent your assumption that all Christians “try to hang on to their blind faith.” There are intelligent people who believe in God, believe it or not (which you probably don’t) and try to better understand him. I know plenty of Christians who apply philosophy and especially epistemology to their faith. It’s also a bit arrogant to assume that our times are the climax of intelligence of all times. If there’s one thing history has shown, it’s that people can be very wrong about how “advanced” they are. Science and technology can be a religion too.
OK John. You are officially insane. You believe that you are not the same species as I am. Literally.
Even after that, I expect that you still deny being a bigot.
You have claimed that athiests cannot feel love the way you can. Now you claim to not even be the same species. You are a bigot, John. Plain and simple. You think you are better than us. So I have proved you to be a liar and a bigot yet again.
Seek help. Find someone out there and say, “Uh, hey, sorry to bother you but I just claimed to be a different species on the internet. Can I get some medication?”
@Mindfood
Actually the issue with John C is that he refuses to accept the definition of words. In this case he isn’t talking biology at all. He just wants a way to claim to be superior to atheists, since he needs to imply that we are somehow missing something critical to humanity. He either thinks he is superhuman, or that we are subhuman. In past ages his kind would have led hordes of ignorant villagers with torches in parades to burn down the houses of atheists.
Your idea that the death penalty for breaking the sabbath is not ridiculous makes me wonder if you are truly understanding your own words. You think people.. who don’t go to church on the right day.. should die. Are you a sociopath? Should an old woman in a hospital be stoned to death because she can’t get out to go to church? Are you really that much of a cold blooded killer that you can say those words and not feel shame?
Mindfood,
While I do understand your premise that “anything unholy is unholy” in such that missing the Sabbath would be interpreted by OT people as a death-penalty worthy offense, I am wondering as to how you reconcile this justification with Jesus’s tacit approval of OT laws. Thanks.
1) mindfood wrote:
>They were enculturated with beliefs from God.No, he doesn’t say “abolish slavery,” but he does essentially say to treat them with love and peace.Science and technology can be a religion too.I resent your assumption that all Christians “try to hang on to their blind faith.”<
Resenting something doesn’t negate its truth. And for the record, I didn’t say, as you claim I did, that "all Christians" try to hang onto their blind faith. The person who created this blog is a perfect example of a Christian who managed to see through the shortcomings of his blind faith.
5) Nor did I write, as you claim I did, that humans today are more intelligent than at any other time in our history. I said we live in times that are more enlightened than the time when your bible was created by people who didn’t even understand the mechanics of rainfall. I stand by that.
And I stand by my assertion that humans today should know better than to believe in a book filled with absurdities and contradictions. That humans try to hang onto their blind faith – which is what believing in a book filled with absurdities and contradictions means – is a statement of fact, mindfood, whether or not you think I’m arrogant for making it.
I don’t resent anything you say, and I don’t think you’re arrogant. I do think you indulge yourself – whether you’re intelligent or not – in absurd and contradictory beliefs.
mindfood:
By the way, when I wrote that humans should know better than to believe in a book filled with absurdities and contradictions, I wasn’t necessarily referring just to Christians and the NT. I think the same thing about Jewish people who believe in the words of the OT. I think the same thing about the Muslim religion, too.
That’s not to say that some of what’s written in the bibles of the world doesn’t contain some beautiful language and good thoughts. But so much of so many of them are filled with absurdities and contradictions, too. So “love your neighbor?” Yes. Using supernatural powers to send a herd of demon-possessed swine over a cliff? No.
@Mindfood -
There’s an old joke about two Rabbis arguing over the Jewish tradition of the yarmulke. The first Rabbis asserts that there is no scriptural basis for the tradition. The second says, “On the contrary, look as Genesis such-and-such.”
The first Rabbi looks at the reference and sees, “And Abraham went out from there.” He turns back to the other and says, “I’m sorry, I don’t see how this has anything to do with it.” The second Rabbis responds, “Do you really think that Abraham would go out without his yarmulke?”
The moral is, if you’re allowed to read whatever you want into the story, you can reach whatever conclusion you want to rach. You read an emotion that is not depicted into Cain. You attribute a motivation that is not provided unto God. If you allow me to do the same sorts of things, I can completely change the meaning of the story to whatever I want.
For example, let’s say I want this to be a story about Jewish purity law. Well, that’s easy enough. First off, the story makes explicit that the murder happened in the field, so Cain’s real crime was spilling blood on the crops of the field. Cain has rendered the fields unclean, hence he is “cursed from the ground…” He has also rendered himself unclean by spilling blood, and only the pure may enter the presence of the Lord. So God exiles Cain from his sight; “and from thy face I shall be hidden;”. God goes further, marking Cain with a symbol so that all will know that he is unclean. No one will seek to slay him, because that would compound Cain’s uncleanliness with the uncleanliness of the slaying, rendering the slayer impure “sevenfold.”
The logic of a story is internal. If there is an element that is important to the story, it must be provided. Context can reveal the meanings of phrases, references, allusions and euphemisms, but it cannot hide whole elements of the story. When a story teller wants you to know that the character is shamed, he tells you. Here, Cain shows fear, as he’s been stripped of his livelihood and his God and then cast out among strangers. He does not show shame.
Again, I argue that the correct way to interpret this story is as an etiological tale, a “just so” story,” which is attempting to explain how things got to be the way they are. It does not dwell on shame, guilt or remorse. Instead it jumps immediately to Cain’s creation of the city of Enoch, it’s location east of Eden, and the succession of Cain’s family. It seems more interested in explaining how the city dwellers to the east were separated from the herders in the highlands.
@Mindfood – “And people will give all sorts of interpretations, but in the end there is one correct interpretation, and that is the author’s intent.”
As long as we’re on rabbinical stories, here’s a famous one from the Talmud [heavily adapted from memory].
—————
Rabbi Eliezer stood before the assembly. He was trying to end an interminable debate over the interpretation of a bit of kosher law. The rabbi tried to persuade the others that his Torah interpretation was the correct one. He cried, “If I am right, let the carob tree outside prove it!” No sooner had he done so than the carob tree uprooted itself and marched around the council. But the assembly muttered and a call came from the back, “Proof cannot come from a carob tree!”
So Rabbi Eliezer spoke again, saying, “If I am right, let the stream outside prove it!” And immediately the stream outside redirected itself, running through the door of the council building and out the other side. Again the Rabbis muttered, and one stood up and said, “That was pretty impressive. But it still does not prove your point.”
Rabbi Eliezer ground his teeth but tried again, “If I am correct, let the very walls of the House of Study prove it.” And at that moment, the walls began to fall inward toward the occupants. Rabbi Yehoshua, one of Eliezer’s opponents, snapped at the walls, “What right do you have to interfere?” The walls stopped half way in respect for Rabbi Yehoshua, but remained at an angle. The assembly muttered that the walls were bowing to Eliezer, but they still did not relent.
Rabbi Eliezer, now furious, spoke once more, “If I am right, let the heavens proclaim it!” Whereupon a heavenly voice was heard, “Why do you dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, seeing that in all matters he is right?” But Rabbi Yehoshua did not back down. He responded by quoting Deuteronomy, “The Torah is not in heaven.” Another Rabbi explained, “The Torah was given to us at Sinai. We pay no attention to a heavenly voice. The majority must decide the meaning, and the one must accept.”
And for a time there was silence. The assembly had spoken back to the heavenly voice and rejected the interpretation of the ultimate author of the Torah. And then, the entire assembly was shaken by the sound of laughter from above, and the heavenly voice was heard rejoicing, “My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me!”
—————————–
This is the nature of a text. It’s meaning is decided by the people using the text. Even the author is just one more partisan is the argument. Even when the author is God.
And by “Jesus” you mean “Paul”, right? Because I’m pretty sure that most Christians believe that they’re in fact two different people. In Luke 12:47-48 Jesus (actual Jesus, not Paul) talks about how it’s OK to beat your slaves. Which doesn’t sound like “love and peace” to me.
Mindfood: “And people will give all sorts of interpretations, but in the end there is one correct interpretation, and that is the author’s intent.”
Response: Irrelevent conclusion.
Clearly, for the “intent” of the “author”(who is not “God”, BTW, but those *claiming* to speak for “God”) to be gleaned, it is totally dependent upon the interpretation of fallible, imperfect, human beings. Thus, at the end of the day, the supposed “Absolute, Universal Truth” is dependent upon *subjective* standards of ascertaining knowledge.
See the problem? I do, and it is blatant: It is a cornerstone of the Christian philosophy that human beings cannot be trusted because of their innate predisposition to error. Notice, when these very beings are skeptical of the bible’s contents, supporters of the “Christian” philosophy play their “human fallibility” card…i.e..”you’re not interpreting it correctly!”…or…”you’re taking it out of context!”, yada, yada. Yet, in order for *them* to “know” the “One True” interpretation of the Bible’s contents, they’d have to be exempt from human “error”…i.e..”perfect”.
‘Got double standards?
@Aor
“You think people.. who don’t go to church on the right day.. should die. ”
Reread what I wrote:
“I am in no way saying that I think that’s how things should go down today (to each his own, I can respect that), but that’s assuming that God has some sort of scale of badness (murder > no sabbath).”
So—no.
@ Teleprompter
While I do understand your premise that “anything unholy is unholy” in such that missing the Sabbath would be interpreted by OT people as a death-penalty worthy offense, I am wondering as to how you reconcile this justification with Jesus’s tacit approval of OT laws. Thanks.
Matthew 5:17-48
Jesus does not negate the OT, and he many times reaffirms its validity.
“27″You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
He is not saying the OT law was wrong, but rather showing the full meaning of the law–that the law was not just talking about physical acts, but was addressing a sin against God.
And just to say: I don’t believe he literally means gauge out your eyes. It’s a literary device.
@ Boomslang
“Got double standards?”
No, like I already said:
“I’m not claiming to have the absolute correct interpretation or to know Moses’/ God’s exact meaning in this. I am not a scholar. But there is a correct meaning, and it is through exploring the text that we find it, so by all means, let’s talk about it. I’d rather be wrong in an argument than wrong in my understanding of the Bible.”
@ Dave
Resenting something doesn’t negate its truth. And for the record, I didn’t say, as you claim I did, that “all Christians” try to hang onto their blind faith. The person who created this blog is a perfect example of a Christian who managed to see through the shortcomings of his blind faith.
5) Nor did I write, as you claim I did, that humans today are more intelligent than at any other time in our history. I said we live in times that are more enlightened than the time when your bible was created by people who didn’t even understand the mechanics of rainfall. I stand by that.
You are completely right, and I suppose I should not have used the word resent or said anything about it. Bringing emotion into these conversations gives no benefit. Sorry. And I’m sorry for assuming that was aimed at Christians when it seems you really mean religion in general.
Also, thank you for your clarification between being enlightened and being intelligent.
@Mindfood
“And just to say: I don’t believe he literally means gauge out your eyes. It’s a literary device.”
So on what do you base that assertion and how do you deceide what else in the Bible is a literary device?
@ wintermute
“In Luke 12:47-48 Jesus (actual Jesus, not Paul) talks about how it’s OK to beat your slaves. Which doesn’t sound like “love and peace” to me.”
Jesus did talk of love and peace but he wasn’t some “all rainbows and butterflies” hippie. There were times when Jesus got angry (like turning over tables at the Temple). And the Bible says to be slow to anger.
As for your biblical reference, this is exactly what I mean when I say that verses have a context. That verse comes from a parable, and it is symbolic for followers and God, not slaves and their masters. So it’s not really talking at all about how it’s OK to beat your slaves.
O, and you were right about me saying Jesus said when really Paul said. My mistake. I should have said the Bible says.
Aor-
You have taken some liberty’s my friend in claiming that I ever said unbelievers could not love or feel compassion, etc…this is not true. What I said (im sure you could locate the original post) was that we (collectively) love, feel and demonstrate compassionate virtues etc tied to how close we are to the original mold…ie our first condition which was in the “image & likeness of God”.
I dont mind the constant name-calling, accusations, but for communication purposes please make sure you quote accurately so we can at least attempt to continue in some sort of (albeit challenging) dialogue.
Also, you reference me thinking I am better than anyone? No, if anything its more the opposite. I am nobody.
JC
@Mindfood & Winter-
The whole supposition that religion (endless rule-keeping devoid of love) was what Christ was about will put you both in an immediate deficit…communicationally speaking.
When we really understand who He was and what He was offering, then and only then can we begin to speak of the true things of God…which are love, forgiveness, reconciliation, restoration, mercy, fellowship, etc.
The law of love is now the only (remaining) law and all others fall naturally under it and are subject to it like branches on a tree…of life.
Religion= bad, Spirituality=good.
JC
Yes, he tells a parable in which he points out that it’s OK for a master to beat his slaves if they fail at their jobs, as an analogy for the way that it’s OK for God to kill people if they displease him.
If he disagreed with the right of masters to beat their slaves, why did he use parables that reinforced that right?
@mindfood
You don’t think that killing people for not going to church on the proper day is ridiculous. I’m afraid that you sound like a sociopath. You may want to pretend that your other words make these ones irrelevant, but thats not the way things work. If you don’t believe what you said, admit it. Clarify your position. If you want to retract those words, do so. Pretending those words aren’t hateful just won’t cut it. Those kinds of beliefs feed into the worst in people.. the belief that they have the right to kill others simply for not following their beliefs.
You can see that, can’t you? Now why not admit it and attempt to improve your beliefs by dropping the hate mongering?
@john c
You don’t even have the guts to respond on the article where you got caught claiming that you aren’t the same species as the rest of us. Each time you say something hateful or outright false you pretend it didn’t happen. Well, you have been caught. I quoted you accurately there, and you just denied your own words. Those words were right in front of you, your very own, and you still denied them and haven’t commented on that article since. You are ashamed of your own words yet completely unwilling to accept that you made any mistake at all. All you do is evade and hope that nobody will call you on your past actions. I’m afraid thats not going to happen. Even in your denial here you still claim that atheists can’t feel emotions the way you can.
Your own words, from a couple comments above:
The less religious people are, the less compassion love virtue and feeling they have. Your words are clear. Atheists cannot feel love the way you can, cannot feel compassion the way you can, cannot have virtue the way you can, because they don’t believe what you believe.
I’m sure you will come up with another ridiculous denial, but they are falling on deaf ears. You are a bigot who thinks non-believers cannot feel true human emotions the way believers can.
I’m sure you will just try to pretend that you didn’t mean it that way, like you always do. Constant intellectual dishonesty is what you show to us. Not once have you retracted anything you said. Not once have you apologized for your hate mongering. That is what claiming atheists are physicaly mentally and emotionally different means, John. You are spreading hate.
Again you disgust me.
And John, considering your history of misdefining words (do you still claim to not be religious?) I am stunned that you would claim anyone else is in a ‘communication deficit.’ You have repeatedly shown that you either do not understand common english terms or you purposely redefine those words to suit yourself.
Previously, boomslang to Mindfood: “ ‘Got double standards?”
Mindfood….”No, like I already said:
I’m not claiming to have the absolute correct interpretation or to know Moses’/ God’s exact meaning in this. I am not a scholar. But there is a correct meaning, and it is through exploring the text that we find it, so by all means, let’s talk about it.”
Response:
I’m sorry, but you have not overcome the very present; very real existing conundrum before you, and until you do, there’s nothing to “talk about”, as in the end you are speculating.
Again, you/we can do all of the “exploring” of “text” you’d like. The fact remains, and that is, unless you can proffer demonstrable evidence that you are exempt from human error(and by your own admission, you are not), there is *always* a chance that your interpretation of the “correct meaning” is INcorrect.
Let’s review: You will have us believe that you, Mindfood, a self-professed adherent of the Christian philosophy, can “explore” the parables, metaphors, poetic “truths”, symbolism, etc., throughout the Bible, and ferret out the “Absolute Truth”. While at the same time, I’m confident that you will insist that those who disagee with your interpretation(including other “Christians”) have a proclivity to error.
Again – implicit, or otherwise – there is a double-standard going on. This was my original point, and I stand by it.
Good day.
@ boomslang
“Let’s review: You will have us believe that you, Mindfood, a self-professed adherent of the Christian philosophy, can “explore” the parables, metaphors, poetic “truths”, symbolism, etc., throughout the Bible, and ferret out the “Absolute Truth”. While at the same time, I’m confident that you will insist that those who disagee with your interpretation(including other “Christians”) have a proclivity to error.”
I am not saying that I have some special gift for finding the truth while everyone else cannot. Yes,I believe there is an abosolute truth, and I believe that it can be found by anyone. I did not say I have the absolute truth. I said that I believe it can be found and that is the point of discussions such as these, for us to find the absolute truth. Of course I personally believe that I am right, just as you boomslang personally believe you are right. That’s inherent in believing something–believing you are right about it. But if I came across a Christian who interpreted the absolute truth to be something else, I would took at the Bible with them and discuss the issue. I would not assume I had the absolute truth because I had some superhuman quality of being right, or they were not able to understand the Bible better than me. If they had more reason than I did for their interpretation, than their interpretation would be better than mine.
Yes, there is always a chance my interpretation is incorrect. I am imperfect. I admit to both those things. I never said my interpretation was 100% infallible.
Is there still a double standard here?
@Aor
“I don’t necessarily agree that the death penalty for breaking the sabbath is ridiculous. I am in no way saying that I think that’s how things should go down today (to each his own, I can respect that), but that’s assuming that God has some sort of scale of badness (murder > no sabbath).
You don’t think that killing people for not going to church on the proper day is ridiculous. I’m afraid that you sound like a sociopath. You may want to pretend that your other words make these ones irrelevant, but thats not the way things work. If you don’t believe what you said, admit it. Clarify your position. If you want to retract those words, do so. Pretending those words aren’t hateful just won’t cut it. Those kinds of beliefs feed into the worst in people.. the belief that they have the right to kill others simply for not following their beliefs.”
You can see that, can’t you? Now why not admit it and attempt to improve your beliefs by dropping the hate mongering?
You asked me to clarify, so I will: I don’t think that people in the culture of that story thought killing for breaking the Sabbath was ridiculous. Hopefully they didn’t, otherwise they did something they thought was ridiculous.
That is why I said: “I am in no way saying that I think that’s how things should go down today (to each his own, I can respect that)”. Because I obviously don’t believe people should be killed for breaking the Sabbath. God-fearing or not.
Aor-
…dignify each and every trial my friend.
All the best….
JC
@ wintermute
“Yes, he tells a parable in which he points out that it’s OK for a master to beat his slaves if they fail at their jobs, as an analogy for the way that it’s OK for God to kill people if they displease him.
If he disagreed with the right of masters to beat their slaves, why did he use parables that reinforced that right?”
The parable is a metaphor, and I don’t think it’s meant to be used as a commentary from Jesus on slave owning. I don’t think that his using that story can show that he does or does not approve of beating slaves. The point of the story is that followers must be ready for the Son of Man.
John, why even speak if you won’t respond to the points I raise? Are you a coward as well as a liar and bigot?
You speak of dignity, and have shown none. I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word. You came to this site and lied almost immediately.
If he doesn’t approve of the behaviour of the slave-owner, then the logical conclusion is that he also doesn’t approve of the person that the slave-owner represents in this metaphor. That’s how metaphors work. The relationship between the “slave-owner” and the “slave” is clearly intended to be considered a healthy one.
If you assume that Jesus doesn’t approve of the relationship he describes, the logical meaning of the parable is that it is unjust of God to punish people, but he still does it anyway. Is that really what you interpret this parable to mean? Or do you take away the obvious meaning that the punishment is just and reasonable?
@ Mindfood
So it was fine to kill people for breaking the sabbath in the path because that was culturally acceptable. What does that imply for this concept of absolute moral truths? If what is culturally acceptable in one era trumps this supposed absolute standard, then it can and does trump it in all other eras. Like our own. Which is why we don’t have slavery anymore… culture trumped religion. Why don’t we have polygamy? Because culture trumps religion. Why don’t we beat our wives into submission? Because culture trumps religion.
Cultural truths trump religious truths. The enlightenment has brought us freedom from religious dominance in our lives and thinking and the result was improved lives and improved thinking. Our culture shed slavery DESPITE the bible. Our culture shed the idea of women being less than men DESPITE the bible.
The idea of followers interpreting the bible came from the enlightenment. Prior to that only the priests were allowed to read it and interpret it. Once people got the ability to do that on their own, the enlightenment crept into the beliefs of the various religions that sprung up. Culture infected the christian religion yet again and improved it. It hasn’t been many generations since christians used the bible to justify slave owning, fewer since they used it to justify depriving women of rights. Christianity has been changed by improvements in human culture.
I realize that you believe in your religion quite deeply, but you are detached from history. The freedom you have in your life nowadays, the vastly improved standards of living the most of the human race enjoys, was achieved DESPITE the various religions of the world.
Mindfood wrote: “If they had more reason than I did for their interpretation, than their interpretation [of the Bible] would be better than mine.”
For you, of course, “they” can only mean other Xtians. But reasonable thought has nothing to do with religion. Religion is based on faith, not reason.
What’s reasonable is that the Xtian bible is full of absurdities and contradictions. Yet you would only change your mind about your bible based, not on what is reasonable, as you assert, but on what another Christian has to say.
Well, there’s one, Daniel Florian, who, before he stopped being a Christian, had far more “reason” for his interpretation of the Xtian Bible than you do, reason that led him to stop being a Christian. You are incapable of following suit, because you aren’t able to work with reason – you build your worldview based on religious faith.
Mindfood,
You have admitted that you have your own personal interpretation of Christianity. You have also admitted that other Christians have their own personal interpretations of the Bible. You have admitted that both your interpretation and your fellow Christians’ interpretations could be incorrect. However, our interpretations as just as likely to be correct as yours, are they not?
http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/01/christian-bible-is-magic-introducing.html
Therefore, I would like to invoke Vjack’s Law:
“Provided sufficient time and responses from Christians, any critical analysis of the Christian bible performed by an atheist will inevitably lead some Christian to claim that his or her bible can only be correctly understood by the Christian faithful.”
I think all of these posts have culminated into one issue–religion is based on faith and not reason. I believe it’s possible to have reasonable faith, whereas you (everyone who disagrees) do not.
Also, I recognize that truth can come from anywhere, even a madman, and so I do not ignore religious comments or comments on reason from those who do not believe in God. If I did, I would not have spent so much time on this blog talking with non believers about the Bible.
Since I think this has come to the point where we just have to agree to disagree, I will say thank you for the discussion. I hope if nothing else I have shown you that not all religious people blindly follow faith without thinking about it. Not to say that’s what you thought before, but if you did, I hope I’ve at least challenged that notion.
Thats an important point actually, Mindfood. True faith requires that reason be completely removed from the picture. If you have a reason to believe, then you don’t need faith at all. When things can be proved, there is no faith. The fact that you appreciate the value of reason implies that you understand that faith is just not enough for you.
By admitting to yourself and others that faith alone is not enough you have made steps toward abandoning faith entirely. Congratulations.
“I believe it’s possible to have reasonable faith, whereas you (everyone who disagrees) do not. ”
No offense, but did you like at the title of the blog before you starting commenting? It seems like that could have saved you a lengthy argument.
“Also, I recognize that truth can come from anywhere, even a madman, and so I do not ignore religious comments or comments on reason from those who do not believe in God. ”
Watch yourself. A less generous soul might conclude that you’re calling atheists madmen. Some of us aren’t men.
Anyway, I’m less interested in the question of where the truth comes from and more interested in how we know it to be truth. What’s your principle of justification? How do you judge between one religious truth claim and another? I know that each religion has its own precepts that later theology can be judged on, but is there anything non-sectarian?
Often we get those christians who like to say, god is love, god is truth, etc.
Yet when it comes to learning the truth, they refuse. It disagrees with the supposed words of their god. If they truly believed ‘god is truth’ then they would be out trying to get closer to the truth because in that way they could get closer to their god. Their religion would be entirely about searching for the truth, the objective provable truth, and then they would alter their beliefs to match those truths. The fact that they don’t go searching for the truth is a good indication that they don’t really care about the truth at all.
When a believer says ‘god is truth’ it has the same validity as Pink singing ‘god is a DJ, life is a dancefloor.’
Mindfood: “I did not say I have the absolute truth. I said that I believe it can be found and that is the point of discussions such as these, for us to find the absolute truth”
So, assuming you are not equivocating, the implication is that you don’t possess this alleged “Absolute Truth”.
So, while this admission elimates the double-standard(for you, but not those who claim to know the One True Interpretation), the conundrum then becomes a question of how you can be 100% certain that this “Truth” can be found where you believe it can be found.
Mindfood: “Yes, there is always a chance my interpretation is incorrect. I am imperfect. I admit to both those things. I never said my interpretation was 100% infallible.”
Thus, underscoring my original point, both here, and on another thread: As long as revealed “Truth” is actually *dependent* on the interpretation of fallible, prone-to-error beings, it is perfectly rational to be skeptical of those who hold the position that they “know” the “Objective, Absolute Truth”, and/or, that said “Truth” can be gleaned objectively via revelation—even if we pretend we know where such information can be found(as you pretend to know it)
I do think that there is a truth that can be found. But I also believe there is very little that can is “objective provable truth” as Aor says.
Consider some basic philosophy: how do we know we exist? How do I know that I am actually a human being, built with eyes, nose, ears, etc. and that I have real experiences in a real world? How can I objectively prove that?
The answer is, I really can’t. There is no way for me to prove that I’m not just some brain like thing in a vat of juice receiving impulses from some other being making me think that everything else is real. To be cliche, think of the Matrix. Everyone in the Matrix thinks it’s real.
Rene Descartes gave us cogito sum (I think therefore I am). Which I think is pretty good evidence I exist. But it does not prove anything other than the fact that I have a conscience/ awareness.
So to me the picture looks like this: Everyone has some sort of faith. Some people have faith in God. Some people have faith in what society and culture tells them is real. They trust their own senses and what they can reason and experience for themselves. People who believe in God trust God. Not to say that I count all my experiences/ senses to be false. But if you live that way, you still don’t know what is “real”. You could be hallucinating and then your senses are still wrong.
So you have to have faith in something, and accept something as your base of what is true/ real.
I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus was a real person that was God. And I believe his claims are validated by the fact that he died and came back to life. Yes, that sounds crazy, but I believe it to be true–that he died and came back to life. There are plenty of examples of things that seem unbelievable. People doubted the video of the US landing on the moon. Strange creatures in the deep ocean sound made up until you see one. Would you believe a tsunami was a real event if you had never seen some sort of video of one? If you grew up in a desert would you believe someone who told you snow existed?
Hooray, solispsism. Followed by selective redefinition of the word ‘faith.’ I’ve been expecting both of those approaches. Raising solipsism is the tactic of last resort for most theists, at least the ones that don’t outright lie. Rather than admit they don’t know any given thing they chose to claim nobody actually knows anything. Redefinition of terms is quite common also. Please look up the word ‘faith’ and when possible use trust when you mean trust, confidence when you mean confidence, and faith when you mean belief despite lack of evidence.
You are a christian because you meet the definition of christian. This doesn’t really say anything, know what I mean?
And you believe his claims because of what someone else claimed many years later, despite the fact that the stories of his return disagree and involve zombies. Claims by other religions don’t convince you, claims by your own do. This isn’t surprising, but it should be.
Maybe you need to explain to people why you discount every religion other than your own. If you can explain that in a paragraph or two it would be great.
Maybe there are some things about the history of your own religion that you might appreciate learning.
Back in the early days, before christianity was the official religion of the roman empire, it had a greatly varied set of beliefs. We have information on those beliefs, brought to us by historians and archeologists. Some of the barbarian tribes(gauls and visigoths etc) for example had converted to early christianity.. pre-holy trinity. Once the church fellows got together to sort out what they wanted to weed out of their religion, those christians who didn’t believe in the holy trinity (a new invention) were labelled heretics. One day christians, the next day not… in the eyes of the roman church. Because of a meeting, far far away from where they lived. This was called the Arian heresy. You can look it up.
Think about this… until the council of nicea, there was no doctrine of the holy trinity. By modern standards, those early christians were not christians at all but heretics. No holy ghost, Jesus not the equal/part of god. Do you know the names of early christians? Like Paul, for example? Well, no, you don’t. They weren’t christians, by modern standards. They were largely Arians, meaning they didn’t believe in the holy trinity (which, like I said, wasn’t invented yet).
Most of the so-called early christians were not christians by modern standards. Interesting isn’t it?
“But it does not prove anything other than the fact that I have a conscience/ awareness. ”
I went through a tedious phase when I was an undergrad where I thought about the “brain in the vat” problem. In the end, I just decided that the pragmatists had the answer. Whatever it is that I’m experiencing, I appear to be stuck here. Better to make the best of it than fret about whether it’s “real”, whatever than means in this context. If I am part of a divine VR simulation, the only reason I’d want to know is so I could figure out the cheat codes. [upupdowndownleftrightleftrightBABAselectSTART! Yes, just lost 15 pounds!]
Anyway, I wouldn’t label this “faith,” it’s sheer pragmatism. There’s nothing I can do about it, why worry about it?
“So you have to have faith in something, and accept something as your base of what is true/ real. ”
You do know this doesn’t actually help, don’t you? If it’s all faith, we still have to select between different examples of faith. Again, I think the problem here is your criteria: how do you decide which faith to accept? As others have ably pointed out, claims of resurrection and other miracle are a dime-a-dozen in the ancient world. If I’m to make a leap of faith, which direction should I leap in?
I admit that much of the the post-modern critique is chastening. But I take comfort from the fact that everybody uses reason, evidence, observation and discussion. Buddhists, Rabbis, Imams, Priests, Wiccan Priestesses, and all the rest sit around discussing and reasoning out the tenets of their faith. It seems to me that since everybody uses these tools, these should be the baseline. Instead of trying to pick between the 40,000 varieties of religion, I’ll just take the thing they all have in common and let it take me where it will.
@Aor
“Rather than admit they don’t know any given thing they chose to claim nobody actually knows anything.”
I made the point not to show that I am correct, but that we could both be wrong. Which I stand by as something that is worth considering in arguments such as these. I recognize it is an argument that goes both ways in this discussion.
“You are a christian because you meet the definition of christian. This doesn’t really say anything, know what I mean?”
Yes, and I suppose I should have given my definition of Christian. As was said earlier in this thread, differing definitions lead to muddled communication in arguments such as these.
“And you believe his claims because of what someone else claimed many years later, despite the fact that the stories of his return disagree and involve zombies. Claims by other religions don’t convince you, claims by your own do. This isn’t surprising, but it should be.
Maybe you need to explain to people why you discount every religion other than your own. If you can explain that in a paragraph or two it would be great.”
If you ask me about a religion I will tell you why I do not believe it to be true. I don’t have the time to create a catalogue of every religion. But like I attempted to say before, I believe that Jesus was a historical person that was God, that what he said was true, and that rose from the dead. I don’t automatically discount things because they come from ancient sources or because I didn’t see it myself, which I also tried to say earlier.
As for the Holy Trinity–it may not have been a formal doctrine but Jesus said himself he was God. Why else would he have created such a stir and been killed? The Pharisees accused him of blasphemy–because he claimed to forgive sins, something only God can do.
@ Vorjack
I agree with your pragmatic approach–I think that’s where most people end up after about 2 months of any philosophy class leading to no firm conclusions.
I also respect your reasoning, logic, and humor. If you were a close friend, I would suggest that you still search for a truth. Instead of seeing it as picking a religion, it should be searching for the truth. Because if one of those religions is true, it has serious life changing consequences (and I’m not covertly advertising Christianity here, I’m talking about all religions).
But it seems to me you have already decided that the search would be futile, and as I said I respect that too because of your reasoning. I’m glad people can still have these types of discussions without being aggressive about it. :)
>As for the Holy Trinity–it may not have been a formal doctrine but Jesus said himself he was God. Why else would he have created such a stir and been killed?<
You start with an assertion, mindfood, based on no evidence, that there was a Jesus who was a god. And then you ask a question that asserts the reality of two events for which again, there is no evidence.
Can you explain why you think there is a god, and how you know this god "created a stir" and was killed?
So far you’ve admitted you might be wrong about everything, you’ve asserted it wasn’t necessarily wrong for those who observed their holy day to kill people who didn’t observe their holy day, and you’ve failed to address why a god would bring a new covenant about love and peace (and burning in hell forever), but leave out any condemnation of slavery.
In Matthew 10:24-25, Jesus himself reminds slaves that they are never above their masters. And he says that slaves should strive to be like their masters.
This is the "truth" you believe in. And your claim to know the truth is why it’s impossible for me to give credence to anything you write here.
That verse is in the context of Jesus telling his disciples about their discipleship, not about slavery. I would suggest reading the entire chapter to better understand what that verse means.
“You start with an assertion, mindfood, based on no evidence, that there was a Jesus who was a god. And then you ask a question that asserts the reality of two events for which again, there is no evidence.”
The point of that argument was to show that the Trinity was not created randomly by a group of men, but that Jesus claimed to be God. You do not need to believe in God or anything about God to argue as to why Jesus was killed.
“So far you’ve admitted you might be wrong about everything [Yes, I think any open person should not assume they are right, but they should instead search for the validity of their beliefs] , you’ve asserted it wasn’t necessarily wrong for those who observed their holy day to kill people who didn’t observe their holy day, and you’ve failed to address why a god would bring a new [Yup, how would we know? We didn't live in those times. I gave examples of other "crazy" cultural events already] covenant about love and peace (and burning in hell forever), but leave out any condemnation of slavery[as I said, look at the context of that verse].”
Jesus claiming to be god is not the same as Jesus/God/Holywhatchamacaller. The trinity is a construct that came up many years into the religion.
As for the solipsism again..
That is exactly why I mentoined it. When believers can’t make prove their position they frequently (damn near always) fall back to the position that nobody can really prove anything. Its a cop out. Rather than really say anything about their beliefs, rather than say nothing at all, they say that nothing at all has any meaning. Nobody turns to that argument willingly, it always comes when they are out of real ways to justify their position.
Do you have an opinion on why the resurrection stories don’t match? Why nobody living at the time mentioned the zombies? Seriously! Dead prophets return to life for days. Nobody writes it down. Then 70-100 years later some guy writes it down and that makes it true?
“I would suggest reading the entire chapter to better understand what that verse means.”
Mindfood, I would suggest you read the entire chapter, as well as the entire Bible, to reaffirm that nowhere within its pages is slavery condemned. Don’t think you can weasel out of the reality that slavery is condoned, not condemned, in the Bible.
>”You do not need to believe in God or anything about God to argue as to why Jesus was killed.”<
Then again, there was no Jesus, and so he was never killed.
"The point of that argument was to show that the Trinity was not created randomly by a group of men, but that Jesus claimed to be God."
As there is no Trinity, so there is no point. Assuming a point doesn’t create one.
"as I said, look at the context of that verse"
And I said to explain, if you can, why slavery isn’t condemned in the Bible. Again, you simply avoid the issue. Again, why does your bible, which brought a new message of love and peace to humanity, not address the issue of slavery?
"I think any open person should not assume they are right, but they should instead search for the validity of their beliefs"
Good idea. But you don’t live by it. That is, you don’t search for validity in your beliefs, you simply believe what you’re told on faith. It’s why you can’t address the issue of slavery in your bible, mindfood. It would lead to the conclusion that your god is less than moral, and in fact not a god.
Mindood: “I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus was a real person that was God.”
Belief and “Truth” are not mutually inclusive(like we should need to go over that again)
Mindfood: “And I believe [biblegod's] claims are validated by the fact that he died and came back to life.”
What “fact”?!?!? So soon you forget…… you cannot even “prove your own existence”, remember?… thus, there are no “facts”…you’re in the “Matrix”, bro. Anything goes, but nothing goes.
As someone pointed out, this whole “Solipsism” argument for the existence of invisible, conscious beings, is fallacious, not-to-mention, absurd.
Are you sure this isn’t the “Two Sided Apologetics” thread?
MF: My god died and rose again!
US: How do you know that?
MF: You can’t know anything!
US: So how do you know he died and rose again?
MF: ….
MF: Jesus died and rose again
YOU: How do you know that?
MF: You can’t know anything!
YOU: So how do you know he died and rose again?
MF: I was trying to play by your rules of what can be reasonably proved. Precious little can be “proved”, about ANYTHING. Hence I brought in that we can not “know” anything by your standards. I think we are somehow agreeing in some twisted way–but you’re misunderstanding why I brought that point up. If you want to prove things 100% objectively and reasonably, you will not get very far at all. Because those are your exclusive standards of knowledge, I was attempting to show what can be concluded from that.
If this is a more satisfactory answer, I believe the Bible is historically accurate in its telling of the events of Jesus.
“And I said to explain, if you can, why slavery isn’t condemned in the Bible. Again, you simply avoid the issue. Again, why does your bible, which brought a new message of love and peace to humanity, not address the issue of slavery?”
Why isn’t slavery condemned in the Bible? Because the Bible isn’t about slavery. It’s not about creating the perfect society. It’s about God. It’s not about man it’s about God. And it is intentionally silent on some things so as to not confuse what is really important. And since the verses brought up which have been said to speak on slavery have been taken out of context, we can see that trying to MAKE the Bible give an opinion on slavery will lead nowhere.
@Mindfood:
Since there is nothing written in Jesus life or even shortly after the life of Jesus, how would you know that they are historically accurate? We know they are not historically accurate when it comes to Herod killing the make children or that there was a census that required everyone to go to their home lands, for instance.
In other words, we don’t have any reason to think the regular events are historically accurate, much less all the supernatural crap. We have no reason to believe those events happened. If we did, I’d believe. I have no reason not to.
Are you kidding me? God had opportunity to condemn slavery in both the OT and NT — instead, he encouraged it. Gave detailed instructions about what to do with them. Commanded his people to take other people as slaves. Even in the NT, Paul commands slaves to obey their masters like they do Christ.
The Bible’s main point certainly isn’t slavery, but it addresses the issue many times — and each time, it’s a epic moral FAIL.
I’m sure glad I’m not using the Bible as my moral foundation — and I’m glad you aren’t either.
mindfood wrote:
>Precious little can be “proved”, about ANYTHING.I believe the Bible is historically accurate in its telling of the events of Jesus.
It’s more accurate to say you have faith in the belief that your bible is historically accurate. You have no evidence for your faith. There’s plenty of evidence that such events could not have happened.
For example, the claim that zombies “saints” walked around Jerusalem, based only on a bible claim, is ridiculous on its face. There are no zombies, there have never been zombies, there is no known way for zombie saints to walk the earth.
By the same token, I’m pretty certain Allah didn’t ascend to heaven on a white horse. There are no flying horses, and no reason to think there were, are, or ever will be flying horses. Extraordinary claims, whether about Jesus, Allah, flying horses or pink elephants, require extraordinary proof. There isn’t even ordinary proof about Jesus.
As for your claims about taking things out of context, could you enlighten me on how much context is necessary before I can understand something written in the Bible? Exodus 21 offers up plenty of advice – but no condemnation – on how to deal with slaves.
How much earlier do I have to go in Exodus, how much farther, to understand the context of slavery? How far forward?
Come back with me, mindfood, to Exodus 20:3 – “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Is that sentence something that god means, or is there some other meaning that would put it in context? Based on what you claim, we’d need to read more than that sentence to understand it. Yet it seems clear to most people who read it. Why not to you?
Just as it’s easy to see that your god wants no others before him, so it should be easy to realize there is a total lack of the condemnation of slavery, in or out of context, in your bible.
There are in fact clear instructions for continuing the practice, which should give you a clue to the moral paucity of your bible. That it doesn’t indicates your mind is not capable of dealing rationally with some subjects.
Mindfood: “Why isn’t slavery condemned in the Bible? Because the Bible isn’t about slavery.”
Goodness gracious!….Nice dodge!
I’m sorry—-the Christian philosophy, which is founded upon the contents of the “Holy Bible”..i.e..the supposed inerrant, “Word” of the supposed “Creator of the Universe”..aka “God”, claims to have a monopoly on the Universal, Objective, Absolute “Truth”, INCLUDING objective “Morality”. This “Morality” would obviously include how humankind should be regarded, and how they should regard one another.
Trying to circumvent a question on the topic of how certain groups of people are/were supposed to be treated, by saying that the Bible “isn’t about” such things, is, quite frankly, laughable. The Bible is crystal-clear on the topic of how women, rebellious teens, prostitutes, nonbelievers, and yes, *slaves*, are to be regarded.
As a civilized society in 2009, we *know*(or should know) that “Morality” is simply based on the avoidance of unnecessary harm to human beings—causing it, or receiving it. We *know* it’s unethical to throw rocks at prostitutes and rebellious teens; we *know* its unethical to keep slaves and lynch “niggers”; we *know* it’s unethical to KILL nonbelievers. ‘Question is….how did we come to *know* all of this, if such things are condoned, and in many cases encouraged, in the supposed UNchanging “Word of God”???? Please don’t hand me that “context” crap.
It is clear—there is something above the bible’s “Moral Codes”. “God’s Word” is NOT intrinsically “good”, or “right”, or “Moral”.
“If this is a more satisfactory answer, I believe the Bible is historically accurate in its telling of the events of Jesus. ”
I’m always baffled by this. Even when I was going to a hopelessly mainstream Catholic high school, the bible teachers and nuns wouldn’t describe the book as “historically accurate” without some qualifiers.
You do know that there is no other book from the ancient world that we’d say this about. The concept of “history” was still in it’s infancy. Despite the fact that we consider Herodotus the “father of history,” we still don’t treat his works as historically accurate in the modern sense. The same with Josephus, and I’ve met no sane person who would describe the works of Eusebius of Caesarea as historically accurate.
And yet you describe the Gospels, contradictory as they are, as historically accurate. I have a hard time seeing this as something more than special pleading.
If you want to talk about things in the Bible, please provide a verse reference. If your flying horse reference is in relation to Revelation, than again you prove my point of taking things out of context. I have yet to meet a Christian to believes Revelation is literal, as opposed to a metaphor.
You are correct about Exodus 21. There the Bible is actually talking about slavery (finally a relevant example). God gave many rules to Moses for the Israelites, who had just come out of Egypt (hence Exodus). But that is not a comment from God about slavery, rather he was helping to establish a new society for the Israelites, who were in many ways starting over. But still the Bible does not ADVOCATE slavery, although you could say it ACCEPTS it. But regardless it teaches that abusive masters would be accountable to God for their actions (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1).
Of course the next logical question is which old testament laws do we still follow? Look at Matt 19: 16-28. There Jesus shows which laws should still be obeyed. For everything else, Jesus fulfills the law, meaning his death and resurrection removed the law as a means to coming to God, replacing it with salvation by faith.
“There’s plenty of evidence that such events could not have happened. ” This is an empty statement which you need to supply with examples for it to hold any worth. As for believing the historicity of the Bible, yes I suppose you can say I have faith that it is true. But I believe it is provable. As in archeologically, historically, etc. I wish I could give you examples, but I am not trained as a historian to prove it. I’m guessing you’re not a historian either, and so I wonder if you have specific examples to disprove it. But if you really actually want to know, as opposed to just knocking me down, there are plenty of references out there. One I just found is here http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html.
It is important to realize that the Bible is essentially a religious history, even though secular events are referred to. It is a book about God and his relationship with man. However, people and events mentioned in the Bible might be found in the historical writings of other nearby countries and in the historical records of the Israelite nations other than the Bible.
Also, I hope this dialogue can continue without smart-alec comments that contribute nothing to the argument and derogatory tones.
“However, people and events mentioned in the Bible might be found in the historical writings of other nearby countries and in the historical records of the Israelite nations other than the Bible.”
This borders on being a non-sequitor. “Might be”? Yes, we can find some references to the existence of Israel, but this does not prove the historical accuracy of the Bible. In some cases we even find sources that cast doubt on the biblical narrative. For example, the Assyrian records cast doubt on the biblical story of the death of Ahab. According to the Assyrians, Ahab was actually allied with the people that the bible says he died fighting.
Then there are sticky problems with archeology. The archeological record does not support the story of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Biblical minimalists go farther and say that the evidence does not support the descriptions of the Davidic and Solomonic empire. Israel Finkelstein maintains that the first real empire of note in the region was the Omri Dynasty in northern Israel.
As for the New Testament, there are no contemporary sources that tell us about the existence of Jesus. The closest thing we have are sources from the late 1st century that attest to the existence of Christians.
Thank you for the direction, I will have to educate myself more on the historicity of Jesus. I have read some facts here and there, but I have not done a serious study from a historical viewpoint. I’m thinking there are some good debates out there.
Slavery is even in the ten commandments.
Oops quotefail.
@mindfood “I will have to educate myself more on the historicity of Jesus.”
Oh, hell, I feel like we’ve just sent the lamb off to visit the lions.
Mindfood, the field of historical biblical studies is a colossal mess right now. Maybe it’s always been that way, but the historicity debate seems to be making it worse. Ancient history is always tricky, but historians will usually admit to what they don’t know. In biblical history, people will state things with absolute confidence that have little backing evidence. And it’s not just an atheist vs. believer thing. Some believers and some atheist come up with some wacky ideas. I’m a big fan of Dr. Robert Price, of the Jesus Seminar and now the Jesus Project, but he’s got some ideas that he’s just pulled out of the aether. He can be relentlessly logical and skeptical one moment, then go off on a Jesus myth tangent the next.
Hector Avalos wrote a book called the “End of Biblical Studies.” It’s a depressing polemic, and it exaggerates as all polemics do, but I think it’s correct in it’s essential point. Biblical studies is close to becoming a useless discipline, where factions and cliques of scholars entertain different theories but never seek to create discipline wide consensus. Richard Carrier, another historian, concurs. For a very quick look at some of the problems in biblical history, check out his blog post “Ignatian Vexation.” [alternate title: "Ignatius, Matthew and Gin Straight From the Bottle: How Biblical History Drove Me To Drink."]
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/09/ignatian-vexation.html
Oh, and one last thing. If anyone in the historical Jesus debate suggests you read books by Robert Eisenman, or watch his lectures on youtube, remember: this person is not your friend. This person wants to see you driven to the brink of gibbering insanity.
That is all.
Vorjack, thank you very much for the help. I obviously didn’t think it was a simple cut and dry study, otherwise there would not even be a controversy, but it’s nice to have some leads to start with.
Aor:
So we’ve established that slavery is part of the Bible. But wasn’t the original point of bringing up all of this slavery stuff that:
1. The Bible’s teachings on slavery are inconsistent with Jesus’ message of love and peace
and
2. The Bible addresses the issue of slavery
Neither of those have been proven. The verses brought up from Jesus on slavery are not about slavery. And the other verses that bring up slavery are not promoting slavery. Even the verse you brought up from the ten commandments is not talking about slavery, it’s talking about coveting.
I still maintain that the Bible does not advocate slavery, even it if is present. It does not address slavery as an issue. It addresses how to treat your slaves. But not the issue of slavery. If you want to believe that because the Bible does not outright explicitly condone slavery that that is a silent implication of an advocation of slavery, then that is your choice.
Mindfood wrote:
“But still the Bible does not ADVOCATE slavery, although you could say it ACCEPTS it.”
IT doesn’t CONDEMN it. This is the problem. Acceptance of slavery is immoral.
“he was helping to establish a new society for the Israelites, who were in many ways starting over.”
Think through what you wrote, mindfood. Your god restarted a society, yet allowed the old tradition of slavery.
The reason, mindfood, that slavery was acceptable was that the bible was written by men who thought it was acceptable. That an all powerful god would allow it is, on it’s face, ridiculous.
My white horse comment? You missed my reference to Allah. But if, as you claim, we can’t take Revelations literally, how is it you know what parts ARE to be taken literally?
The Bible is an old book created by people ignorant about the processes of the natural world.
“There’s plenty of evidence that such events could not have happened.” This is an empty statement which you need to supply with examples for it to hold any worth.”
I did – you glossed over them. There are no zombies, except for one reference in the Bible. No horses, other than the one mentioned in the Muslim bible, have been observed to fly. We know these things are impossible by natural processes.
You believe the one claim – zombies walked into Jerusalem – and deny the other – flying horses. You’re completely inconsistent in your assertions and thus you can’t be trusted to make sense about anything, even if by coincidence, you do.
You wrote: ” I’m guessing you’re not a historian either” No, I’m not, but I was trained as an historian, and I have written extensively about history. That’s just one reason I know the bible is full of nonsense.
And it’s not up to me to disprove claims of the historicity of your bible. It’s up to you to prove them, since you are making the assertion. But you can’t, as there is no evidence to support your claim, so there’s no reason believe it.
Dear Dave,
“We know these things are impossible by natural processes.”
If you do not believe in the possibility of the supernatural, than this conversation was extremely pointless. Isn’t it inherent in any religion that there is more than just the natural world? Take away religion, just bare spirituality believes in spirits. Do you believe in souls? If not, why are you even spending time arguing against the validity of the Bible, God, etc? If there is no such thing as souls, then all you have is the here and now. If I believed that I ceased to exist after I died, I would not be spending my short time reading and arguing about things I thought were false.
There is no point in arguing about the specifics of the Christian Bible if nothing would ever provide satisfactory evidence for you that there could be more than just the natural world. And the tone you assume makes me think you just like to argue and name call. If you were actually curious, you would be looking solely at the arguments themselves and not making statements such as “You’re completely inconsistent in your assertions and thus you can’t be trusted to make sense about anything, even if by coincidence, you do.” Even if that were true, that adds nothing to the discussion.
But for the benefit of anyone who is curious:
“But if, as you claim, we can’t take Revelations literally, how is it you know what parts ARE to be taken literally?”
The author shows his meaning through what he writes. As in: Every text’s meaning is the meaning the author intended (as opposed to what I think it means, you, Joe six pack). The meaning is made evident by the author’s construction of the text.
For example, Psalms is not literal because it is poetry. We know it is poetry because it is written in a meter. They were meant to be set to meter, as they said they are. Another example would be Paul’s writings. They are letters, as he says they are.
The bible addresses the issue of slavery. The ten commandments say thou shalt not covet thy neighbors slaves. That is quite clear. Slavery is fine, but covetting someone else’s slaves is not.
You are simply deluding yourself. You pick and choose which parts to take literally and which to take metaphorically, out of a book that is known to be a mistranslation, some of it deliberately.
Congratulations on finally catching on to something you should have known from the beginning. Skeptics don’t believe in the supernatural? Who’d have thought?
The ten commandments say thou shalt not covet thy neighbors slaves. That is quite clear. Slavery is fine, but covetting someone else’s slaves is not.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors slaves= slavery is fine.
That’s like saying
Don’t buy child labor products = child labor products are ok.
Your analogy is flawed, as well as ridiculous. A better one would be thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, therefore wives are fine.
You are in over your head here. Aren’t you ashamed that you have to defend things you don’t actually agree with in order to defend the entirety of your religion? Why not just accept that the bible has obvious flaws? If your beliefs are true, why would you ever feel the need to avoid the truth?
There is no need to mention not to covet slaves if the bible wanted to take a stand against slavery. Slavery is all through the bible. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, the bible is simply another collection of myths like the most religions have.
mindfood: I read the web page you suggested in your effort to show that there is a historical Jesus. You should be embarrassed to have put a link to such an obviously biased website.
And you should be ashamed that you stole some of the words from the website and used them as your own, rather than attributing them properly.
No proof of the historicity of Jesus was made. The best your source could offer was a claim that historians wrote about Jesus many years after he supposedly lived. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t count as evidence. There was never a Jesus, just as there was never a census at his supposed birth, and thus the claim that he was a god fails.
@ Dave
Well, there could have been a Jesus or a Jesus-like figure. I’m not sure that we can say it definitively either way.
Nonetheless, there isn’t much evidence to suggest that he did a lot of the things he was said to have done even if he did exist.
“If you do not believe in the possibility of the supernatural, than this conversation was extremely pointless.”
Hardly – thinking people can see what they’re up against when they read your words.
“If I believed that I ceased to exist after I died, I would not be spending my short time reading and arguing about things I thought were false.”
That’s your problem. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it so, and you’ve ably demonstrated your belief is rooted in nothing more than blind faith.
“There is no point in arguing about the specifics of the Christian Bible if nothing would ever provide satisfactory evidence for you that there could be more than just the natural world.”
Another fallacious assertion, mindfood. Provide satisfactory evidence – provide ANY evidence and perhaps there would be no argument.
“If there is no such thing as souls, then all you have is the here and now.”
That is correct. Stop wasting your time here. But you can’t, because you’ve been so thoroughly brainwashed that you cannot think logically.
You’re so cock sure in your faith that until now, you’ve haven’t been able to conceive that most of the people here don’t believe in souls, or zombies, or resurrection from the death.
You’re so clueless, you think if I don’t believe in a soul that our conversation is pointless. Yet the point of our conversation, of Daniel’s blog entry from the beginning, has revolved around whether or not your bible makes sense.
Teleprompter wrote:
“Well, there could have been a Jesus or a Jesus-like figure.<
Yes. But there could be pink elephants, too. Maybe Abraham Lincoln had a third cousin 4th removed. But there’s zero evidence for any of these possibilities.
Certainly there was no Jesus who performed miracles, who cursed a fig tree and caused it to wither, and who rose after death from his tomb.
Perhaps there’s an alternate universe where there is a real Harry Potter, or Huckleberry Finn. Just because they are mentioned in books in this universe doesn’t mean they were real.
By the same token, just because a book – the Christians’ bible – mentions a supernatural figure, doesn’t mean Jesus was real, either. And there’s no evidence he ever existed.
In fact, given the claims in the bible about what Jesus did, he seems to be less believable than either Harry Potter or Huck Finn, neither of whom exhibited supernatural powers.
@mindfood – “For example, Psalms is not literal because it is poetry.”
Ah, form criticism. Recognizing genre is one of the first steps towards understanding the claims being made by the author. The trick is to reach back 2000-3000 years and recognize the genres that no longer exist or try to judge a genre that was still in development.
For example, your line here is problematic. Some scholars believe that 1/3 or more of the old testament was originally poetry. Poetry is the way oral cultures construct and pass on their stories. If nothing else, its an aid to memory; how often have you have the lyrics of a song stuck in your head? At some point, the original form was lost and the text was converted to prose. Poetry is easier to remember, but prose is easier to read.
So the statement “poetry is not literal” is too broad. Some poetry, like the lamentations and praise songs in the psalms, are not intended to be descriptions of history or reality. They fill another function. The same with the exhortations used by the prophets, which again were likely recited in verse. Epic poetry, however, like the stories of Genesis and Exodus, is a different matter. It is supposed to tell a story about the past. But again, can it be said to be historic?
Pingback: gravity’s rainbow » What I’ve noticed
Mindfood: “There is no point in arguing about the specifics of the Christian Bible if nothing would ever provide satisfactory evidence for you that there could be more than just the natural world.”
Amazing. This statement is problematic because it is said with an eye of “Omniscience”…. that is, you’d have to know the mind of every individual in this discussion to be able to accurately make such a statement. You don’t know me. You haven’t a clue as to what I’d accept for “satisifactory” evidence; you only know what I, and many others, will NOT accept. You really shouldn’t confuse the two.
Mindfood: “If you do not believe in the possibility of the supernatural, than this conversation was extremely pointless.”
Even if we did believe in such a “possiblity”, “Christianity” doesn’t become “the point”, by default. If we all adopted Supernaturalism by noon tomorrow, there’d still be the issue of which “Supernatural” belief it the legit’ one, and which ones are the result of delusional minds. “Christianity” is not the only revealed “Truth”—you’d be bumping heads with Mormons, Buddhists, and Muslims, etc., if you were not doing it with Atheists/Naturalists.
Eesh. One more time:
Dave:
“Yet the point of our conversation, of Daniel’s blog entry from the beginning, has revolved around whether or not your bible makes sense.”
So if you “know” it does not make sense, why are you spending time reading about it? Wouldn’t it be much wiser to spend time with your family, friends, etc., instead of arguing with someone you believe is “so thoroughly brainwashed that you cannot think logically.” It’s like you believe you are arguing with a madman, yet you continue to do it.
Vorjack: Thank you for an actually constructive comment. You raise an intelligent point about poetry, and to be honest I don’t know if Genesis and Exodus are meant to be 100% historic. But I do believe the Bible is intended to be about God, not history.
Boomslang:
“you’d be bumping heads with Mormons, Buddhists, and Muslims, etc., if you were not doing it with Atheists/Naturalists.”
True. But at least Mormons, Buddhists, etc. and I believe there is an eternal consequence to the discussion.
I feel I have annoyed/entertained you all for a good time now, and I have a life I have to get back to. No this is not a cop out. I have spent hours responding to this blog. But here is the problem:
Some of you think you are providing enough evidence to disprove the Bible, I think I am providing enough evidence to refute your claims, and both sides think the other side is blocking out what they think it doesn’t want to hear.
And it’s just getting to be too hostile. So peace out, good luck with your lives, and thanks to the people who were actually looking for a discussion and not just a fight.
“I have a life I have to get back to”
How soon they melt away.
“Wouldn’t it be much wiser to spend time with your family, friends, etc., instead of arguing with someone you believe is “so thoroughly brainwashed that you cannot think logically.”
There is always hope, mindfood, that you will see the Light! We need more reality-based converts. You, my son, can still be saved, if you allow reason, rather than blind faith, to cloud your vision. But then again, you’ve left the building.
“But I do believe the Bible is intended to be about God, not history.”
Only when it suits your purpose, mindfood. You were willing earlier to claim there is historical evidence, when you thought it served your purpose. If I’m going to put any credence into what you say, I need consistency of thought. So far, I see nothing but rationalizations, backpedaling, assertions without evidence, etc.
“I think I am providing enough evidence to refute your claims”
You, mindfood, have provided the claims, but no evidence, while those who think more or less rationally have provided the evidence to support their claims.
“So if you “know” it does not make sense, why are you spending time reading about it? Wouldn’t it be much wiser to spend time with your family, friends, etc., instead of arguing with someone you believe is “so thoroughly brainwashed that you cannot think logically.” It’s like you believe you are arguing with a madman, yet you continue to do it.”
No, that is the question we’re asking of you. You’ve come onto this website to argue your points.
“But I do believe the Bible is intended to be about God, not history.”
God is Evil.
“True. But at least Mormons, Buddhists, etc. and I believe there is an eternal consequence to the discussion.”
Same here. Time moves in one direction, what are the consequences of devoting so much of your life to a Faerie Tale.
“Some of you think you are providing enough evidence to disprove the Bible, I think I am providing enough evidence to refute your claims,”
That word, Evidence, I don’t think it means what You think it means.
” looking for a discussion and not just a fight.”
Just because people disagree with you and ask you to back up your claims, doesn’t mean they are fighting with you.
Mindfood: “…. at least Mormons, Buddhists, etc. and I believe there is an eternal consequence to the discussion.”
Which seems to suggest that there is more at stake for proponents of these types of “faith”, and in that case, you’d think that one of these groups of people would have proven their case by now, thus, disqualifying all opposing faith-based religious beliefs.
But of course, that’s not going to happen, hence, the problem with religious “faith”.
And this: “Some of you think you are providing enough evidence to disprove the Bible, I think I am providing enough evidence to refute your claims,”
It’s astonishing to me how Theists, namely Christians, still don’t understand the concept of the ‘burden of proof’.
Mindfood, if you’re lurking, please take with you, at least this much:
It is *not* the non-Christian’s burden to “disprove the Bible”, similar to how it is not the Christian’s burden to “disprove” Dianetics, or The Book of Mormon, or the Holy Qu’ran. The onus of proving one’s religious belief – including their respective doctrines – is firmly in the lap of the one who holds that their respective religious belief is the “One, Universal Truth”. I’ve seen no such evidence in this thread that the Christian philosophy is the “One, Universal Truth”, at least, no more evidence than the Mormon, the Scientologist, or the Muslim offers.
Moreover, you seem mystified that the people you engage become “hostile”, when it’s more like frustrated, but regardless: You repeat the same fallacious arguments over, and over, and over, throughout the same discussion..i.e..shifting the burden of proof, fallacy of negative proof, affirming the consequent, special pleading, and question-begging, to name a few. If you have zero intention of even entertaining anything that anyone says to you, then that’s when the discussion becomes “pointless”.
Hey, i love this series! It’s great that you are starting them up again. With gusto i see. I’ll have to actually come back and read the whole thing, but i think that anyone who ever reads the bible ought to make a point of visiting this blog- for a different perspective, at the very least…
Keep up the good work, Florian. :)
I can’t give credit to this because I can’t remember where I saw it, but I remember someone had a great explanation for God’s attitude change between the OT and NT – he got laid. :)
Pingback: The Bible Argues Against Blind Faith « Unreasonable Faith
»Many Christians will shrug off the previous example, saying, “That’s how God was in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, he’s love and grace and mercy and ooey gooey goodness.”«
The heresy of Marcionism. If Christians want to give the semblance of an apologetic, it’d best be checked for heresy, no? Gimmicky Christian institutions (or lack thereof) makes for impoverished Christian faith and practice, that’s for sure.
thanks Daniel for the great website and quality discussion. I stumbled on it yesterday and really enjoy what you put together. Here’s my thoughts on this topic taken from one of my favorite books – God’s Debri.
Does it make sense to think of God as wanting anything?
A God would have no emotions, no fears, no desires, no curiosity, no hunger. Those are human shortcomings, not something that would be found in an omnipotent God. Omnipotence means that nothing is a challenge.
Everything that motivates living creatures is based on
some weakness or flaw. Hunger motivates animals. Lust
motivates animals. Fear and pain motivate animals. A God
would have none of those impulses. Humans are driven by
all of our animal passions plus loftier-sounding things like
self-actualization and creativity and freedom and love. But
God would care nothing for those things, or if he cared
would already have them in unlimited quantities. None of
them would be motivating. Isn’t it arrogant to think that the love generated by our little brains is the same thing that an omnipotent being experiences? If you were omnipotent, why would you limit yourself to something that could be reproduced by a little clump of neurons?
It is absurd to define God as omnipotent and then burden
him with our own myopic view of the significance of
human beings. What could possibly be interesting or important to a God that knows everything, can create anything, can destroy anything? The concept of ‘importance’ is a human one born out of our need to make choices for survival.
An omnipotent being has no need to rank things. To
God, nothing in the universe would be more interesting,
more worthy, more useful, more threatening, or more
important than anything else.
-Scott Adams
So the question I have for people of religious faith is: What could possibly anger god? Christians have a real hard time answering that question. I would love to see a video with some of their responses. Here are just a few random quotes where god is angry:
Ezek. 8:18 “Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity; and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet I will not hear them.”
Isa. 63:3 “I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.”
Isa. 66:15. “For behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.”
Rev. 19:15 “the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”
This is so fascinating! I am learning so much, and enjoying it so much.
I can really understand the really desperate attempts by a few posters to hang on to their God with the circular arguments. I went through that. I was Catholic, so I didn’t have the literal Bible to deal with. I was way into a charismatic Catholic prayer group (I know, right?) I started asking the usual questions – why do people that never heard of Jesus go to hell? Why is there so much pain in the world? I started reading about religion, evolution and physics. My sister joined a fundie church and said, “I don’t believe in evolution anymore.” She seemed so peaceful, so I went to her church and Bible studies, but every question I asked led to, “We can’t know the ways of God.” I talked to my parish priest a few times, was saved at a Billy Graham rally, and started reading Neale Donald Walsh: “We are God, we are part of God that is on earth to know itself, then we go back to being a part of God. Does a parent get upset at seeing their child ‘die’ in a game of cops and robbers? No, because they know it is just pretend.”
I joined a Unity church, and that was OK for a while – you just believe there is some kind of higher power, no specifics needed. But the miracles drove me off: A couple separated by the Holocaust find each other 40 years later through a bizarre set of circumstances. Isn’t God great? I wanted to scream, “Wouldn’t have been easier for God to prevent the frickin’ Holocaust in the first place??” In my reading of physics, I learned that there really are energy fields that connect us. Ok, maybe THAT’S God! Then, finally – Wait a minute. What reason is there to believe that energy has a personality and an opinion and cares about us at all?
DING! I was free! There is no higher power of any kind with an opinion or preferences about us, and this life is it – my consciousness stops in every way when i die. I’m still a little new to actually being responsible for my own life, so the blogs I’ve found have helped me so much to think it through and drop the fairy tales that run my life.
We could no more abandon the “faith” that has us, than ceasing to love. It is with ease a gaunlet is formed to evaluate or repudiate the compelling nature of God’s love and omnipotence. Far easier to stipulate why, a seemingly gross injustice of Celestial judgement rendered, absolves us of continuing a relationship with the one responsible for our being. The very act of of contemplating the rightness or wrongness of the judgement itself lends credence to the existence of God. For, in the absence of an ultimate morale authority of right or wrong, upon whose opinion do we ultimately rely? In the absence of God’s creation how did we ultimately arrive at such a level of sophistication capable of contemplating good and evil. Can we conclude irrefutably man’s conscious sense of fairness and instinctive integrity developed in the form of an evolutionary process? I personally struggle as well seeking answers to questions posed and I will continue to visit this site and share my hope for an awareness within all, the significance of an empty tomb.
> in the absence of an ultimate morale authority of right or wrong, upon whose opinion do we ultimately rely?<
We humans rely on our own moral judgement, ultimately. How else could it be?
That you, Timothy, must rely on an external moral code suggests to me that you haven’t thought through the ramifications of what that means. Should your god, if he exists, decide to change the rules of morality tomorrow, would you follow it’s commands?
If murder were suddenly allowed, encouraged, would you murder? According to your belief system, the answer would be yes.
You start with the assumption that there is a god, and you have to turn reason on its head to do so. You deny the ability of humans to wonder about good and evil. You deny the evolutionary process – which has been irrefutably proven – which has led to our current state of conscious self-awareness.
If you struggle to seek answers, it’s because you suspect the truth: there is no proof of a good, and lots of evidence to more than suggest there isn’t one. Once you accept that, everything else – why terrible things happen, for example, and what happens after you die – begins to make sense.
Good luck on your journey, Timothy. I’m not holding out much hope for you, give what you’ve written, above, but keep seeking answers.
Hello Dave,
I appreciate the sentiment and expect to seek and find answers throughout my life. Struggles are what make us stronger. Looking for answers is is a satisfying joy that stimulates my mind. I have faith all things are subject to a potential for improved understanding.
The morality of which you write, goodness or otherwise is internal not external. I did not have to read a law to become aware that abuse of an animal feels wrong. But that is a feeling within me. Another person feels no such compunction, which of us holds the ultimate objective morale authority? If humans have, rely and are allowed to exercise free morale judgement what authority other than power and force does society, have to cause them to cease from such action. Their’s is but a different opinion of right or wrong in greater numbers, is it not? Which is conforming to an external force. I just ask the question how did my conscience evolve.
The idea that evolution has irrefutably been confirmed and is undisputable? In every aspect? Let’s understand the term therory. Every aspect of evolution considered has not conclusively satisfied many of the questions existing about our world and universe.
Finally you state that I started with an assumption which invalidates my thought process before I begin. You know little of the cause, depth, nature or resources of my study. I make no such presumption regarding your thought or convictions. But I do recognize the argumentative nature of the comment.
People of all walks are turning away from or have never known the potential of a relationship with God. I wanted to read the thoughts of such individuals. Not to judge and certainly am in no position to disparage. If it seems an intrusion, my seeking to hear views expressed so I can better understand those close to me, having expressed similiar sentiments, I won’t bother you with comments. Especially if it seems to make people angry. If however civil discourse can increase your awareness about why those who feel differently concerning God’s soverignty of the world could prove beneficial have at it.
Timothy,
First, you didn’t answer my question:
If murder were suddenly allowed, and encouraged, by your god, would you murder?
You wrote:
“I did not have to read a law to become aware that abuse of an animal feels wrong. But that is a feeling within me. Another person feels no such compunction, which of us holds the ultimate objective morale authority?”
Neither.
“If humans have, rely and are allowed to exercise free morale judgement what authority other than power and force does society, have to cause them to cease from such action.”
Come on, Timothy. Think through your statements. According to your god, humans have and are allowed to exercise free will, so your sentence doesn’t make sense.
You are thinking in only one direction: that free moral judgement leads to actions that we need to cease (things like murder, torture, theft, etc). Of course, the opposite is just as true. Free will can lead to compassionate actions that we need to continue.
“Every aspect of evolution considered has not conclusively satisfied many of the questions existing about our world and universe.”
Timothy, this is embarrassing, because you should be, as a thinking adult, aware of what the Theory of Evolution covers. Evolution doesn’t attempt to answer many of the questions about the world and our universe. It is an explanation about the origin of species, and nothing more. It does not cover the origin of life itself, or the origin of the universe.
Because the concept of evolution doesn’t square with your idea of how the universe came to be – i.e. it doesn’t require a god – you reject the facts. And so you conflate the origin of the species with the origin of life itself. The two are separate issues, although you are, at present, unable to understand this.
“You know little of the cause, depth, nature or resources of my study.”
Irrelevant. I don’t have to know anything about what you’ve studied, Timothy, to recognize you’ve not thought much about your own beliefs, much less mine. Your ignorance about the Theory of Evolution is an ample demonstration of your blind reliance on faith.
“People of all walks are turning away from or have never known the potential of a relationship with God.”
There you go again. You come to a forum conducted by an atheist and lead with the assumption there is a god, yet you’ve made no effort to demonstrate why you believe there is a god, especially one so absurd as the one Christians claim to believe in.
According to the Bible, the dead wandered the streets of Jerusalem after Christ was resurrected. It’s an absurd claim on its face. Do you believe it?
If people are turning away from a relationship with a god, perhaps it’s because people realize there is no god. Perhaps they know zombies didn’t wander the streets of Jerusalem. (A recent poll found a large drop in the number of self-professed Christians in the U.S., for example).
“If however civil discourse can increase your awareness about why those who feel differently concerning God’s soverignty of the world could prove beneficial have at it.”
Yet again you make an assumption, without offering evidence, about the reality of your god.
I already have irrefutable and indisputable awareness about why people like you feel differently than I do about the sovereignty of your god. I am aware, unlike you, that there is no god, particularly a logically impossible omniscient god, except in your mind.
The frame of reference I used was not intended to exclude positve aspects of moral choice. Freewill is the latitude to make a moral decision at any given moment under any circumstance. Certainly kindness, courtesy, patience, indulgence, bravery, self sacrifice and forgiveness constitute forms of such action. I also hold no contention that persons expressing free choice are any more or less inclined to perform such acts as a person professing faith in a supreme being. In fact altruism could surely rest more comfortably in the heart of a free thinker considering the absence of motive based on reward. As opposed to a relgious person who feels compelled to perform such acts but only under duress of religious teaching and expectation.
I just ask about ultimate authority on moral value; with whom does it reside? from whom did it originate? and ultimately how is it maintained?
Referencing the aspect of evolution and cosmology in the same sentence detracted from my intent. I shall endeavor to be circumspect in word usage. I am not a professional writer or language expert but I can see where poorly conceived sentences can prejudice awareness of my intent. But then again, I could beg the question has the universe not evolved and is is not continuing to evolve?
Dallas Willard writes, imagine you have landed on a planet for the first time and you happen upon a formation of rocks in the configuration of a welcome sign. After years of conjecture and study, the explanation has been determined; that thru eons of times floods, wind, rain and volcanic upheaval shaped that message into it’s current form. Now imagine landing on that planet for the first time and finding a hand written note saying “welcome, sorry we couldn’t be here to greet you, there is some left over meatloaf in the refer, make yourself a sandwitch. Could there be any doubt as to the intent? Such is his faith in the presense of evidence of a supposed God’s handiwork on earth.
I will say questions I struggle with include those of evolution. Francis Collins (the head of the national genome project) wrote an article expressing his expert opinion and he is a devout believer in God. Others maintain a skepticism some of which is based on the cambrian layer I consider myself in this group. Anthony Flew ,Richard Dawkins have other opinions.
I happened upon this site seeking better awareness of people exercising free choice. There could be and are a number of grivences against A God, if he were to exist, for being inconsistent, murderous, indiifferent, manipulative, devious, vengeful to name a few.There are those close to me that feel the same way, or have tried to express similiar feelings but find it difficult. Surely I need to be a better listener.
You have been most generous with your time. Thank-you
another note could not find the verse referenced “the dead walking the streets of Jerusalem after the resurrection
wintermute,
Pat response and you almost had it verbatim. next time copy and paste. Just kidding, I appreciate the answer.
However I hold that to be pure theory at this time. With the understanding socio-bioligist would love to discover the morality gene. In fact there has been some evidence of a distaste which occurs involving something abhorent to a subject group which has significant biological ramifications.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks Vorjack,
I was searching in the wrong time frame, at the end of the crucifiction not his resurrection.
I’m still waiting, Timothy, for you to answer my question, to wit:
If your god suddenly allowed murder and in fact encouraged you and all humans to murder, would you carry out his wishes?
Yes or no will suffice, but feel free to elaborate on either choice.
“I just ask about ultimate authority on moral value; with whom does it reside”
I already offered an answer: with each individual.
“from whom did it originate?”
You’ve already had answers to that question. Don’t repeat it. Discuss your responses.
And you asked what ultimately enforces morality. There is no ultimate enforcer, in the sense of a god, which is obvious given the horrors perpetrated by humans against each other throughout the course of time.
Timothy wrote:
“I was searching in the wrong time frame, at the end of the crucifiction not his resurrection.”
Do you think the dead walked the streets of Jerusalem after the death of Jesus?
Faith has me, that the Bible is inspired of God. The writings, wisdom, history and morals present amazingly consistent doctrine. Given the scope of time it has endured, the difference in styles, background, occupations and education of authors fortifies, a resiliancy of expectaion, truth exists within the context. The comparability of the dead sea scrolls to modern translations was, In my estimation, reaffirmation of a Godly hand in it’s formulation. Bart Erhman’s recent text on the “Jesus we never Knew” has certainly added fuel to the fire that dispute the claims of Biblical inerrancy. I appreciate your questions as well I do his scholarship. My transaltion stated holy ones appeared to many. I can imagine an ancient writer inspired by God, professing incredible joy at the culmination of Christ’s suffering. Many of the Holy ones had certainly endured humiliation pain and suffering often times to the point of death proclaiming the sovereignty of God. Could it be that metaphysical spirits of those diseased appeared? As Moses and Elijah did on the mountain to the deciples. Or could it be that the joy of those professing faith in Christ envisioned them in their own minds, as we may when remembering deceased love ones, I can’t say. It does not infer aimless pointless wandering zombies. Faith has me, God’s words have a purpose. Sometimes difficult in meaning to percieve and the meanings perceived are not universally accepted. I find it interesting and worth contemplating the timing of the tombs being broken open at the “end of the crucifiction” and the delayed appearences “after his resurrection.” The question you ask are fair and difficult. I am certainly not qualified to present myself as a trained theologian or biblical authority. But still, resources exist which provide lay persons a means to rationally explain or defend the reason for the hope which resides within us.
First, you didn’t answer my question:
If murder were suddenly allowed, and encouraged, by your god, would you murder?
Is not murder already allowed?
Which society within the world today, does there exist an interpretation of moral relativism which allows for vindication of such an action?
Which religion is suffering the most persecutions by death or incarceration worldwide. Would not a vengeful God, recognizing such injustice to religious freedom initiate a call to arms. Not if it goes against the teachings upon which Faith in such a God is found. Teachings that predict such persecution.
The question could be asked in a different way would you fight or kill for your “country” as opposed to your religion in a time of war. How about in a time of peace?
But neither is something I concern myself with, anymore than where I would fly if I sprouted wings.
Men, not the God from whose faith has me, is the source of encouragement that perpetrates the greatest travesties perpetuated against humankind.
But, If God had created us, would he not have the authority or right to speed our demise as he sees, in order to conform the world and it’s people to His ultimate vision. Like my Dad used to threaten me, all be it jokingly, “I brought you into this world , and I can take you out!”
After I get bored with the landscape I created in my front yard do I not have the perogative to remove, replace, trim or graft the envirionment to better suit my wishes. A neighbor may not posess such a right but surely I would.
Can we know the ultimate good an infinite being is capable of orchestrating through the eons of time?
Was the wrath or direction given by the “supposed God” of the old testament arbitrary, unnecessary carnage? Destruction was brought upon the 7 kingdoms standing in the path of a covenent which this God had “potentially” given to Israel’s ancestors.
What kind of God would he have been if he did not keep his promise. Had he not previously encountered the people of these 7 Kingdoms and presented them opportunity to abandon paganism. Had he not previously demonstrated to them the fallacies of their religion. If, all this in fact played out in history, as depicted in Biblical accounts, does this represent a God of compassion and mercy?
Did the Isrealites fail to comply with their God’s directive as told in the Bible and were they not then corrupted to a degree which ultimatley led to another period of exile?
Is a God formulating a world compelled to take actions in spite of and because of the ultimate love he has for his creation?
Timothy wrote:
“Or could it be that the joy of those professing faith in Christ envisioned them in their own minds, as we may when remembering deceased love ones, I can’t say.”
Timothy, if you can’t say what your bible means, then there’s not much point in putting faith in anything you say about the bible, is there? If you admit that you can’t understand it, then don’t expect that anyone else can.
“I find it interesting and worth contemplating the timing of the tombs being broken open at the “end of the crucifiction” and the delayed appearences “after his resurrection.”
I’m sure you do, from your perspective, which is one based on faith. As I prefer a more rationally based perspective, i.e. on based on evidence, I don’t begin with the assumption that any tombs were broken open, as you do.
Just as there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus, so there is no evidence for tombs opened at the end of Christ’s crucifixion – and without the first event, there surely wasn’t the other.
The crucifixion and the open tombs only exist in your mind and the minds of other believes. These beliefs are delusions which you are unable to see.
“resources exist which provide lay persons a means to rationally explain or defend the reason for the hope which resides within us.”
What keeps you, Timothy, from using these resources?
Timothy wrote:
“Is not murder already allowed?”
Again, you evade my question, Timothy.
I asked: If murder were suddenly allowed, and encouraged, BY YOUR GOD, would you murder?
I didn’t ask if murders occur already. I asked if god gave you permission and in fact encouraged murder, would you follow the new commandment.
“But neither is something I concern myself with, anymore than where I would fly if I sprouted wings.”
No, because if you thought it through, you’d have to admit your beliefs are absurd. Hence your psychological inability to answer my question.
“Is a God formulating a world compelled to take actions in spite of and because of the ultimate love he has for his creation?”
If the god you believe in switched back to OT mode, and ordered up killings, ordered up the rape of virgins, ordered the destruction of cities, would you comply with your god’s commands?
If you wish to answer, feel free to elaborate on either of the two words I’m looking for from you, which are “yes” or “no.”
The crucifiction only exists in the minds of believers? So then I would imagine that puts you in the Legends camp. I say Christ would have had to be one of 4potential persons; Legend, Lunatic, Liar or Lord. I am sure your seasoned group of free thinkers has encountered this before. The evidence, you contend does not exist, has some how managed to weave it’s way into the fabric of an influential worldwide philosophy. Would you not consider that evidence?
Possibly the most written about and thoroughly examined legend or, real life figure for that matter, in the history of the world.
That you have accepted the premise Jesus never existed must mean you possess knowledge and proof, verifying validation of his non existence. Do tell!
If attacking my lack of interpretive scriptural expertise blows your skirt up, your briefs will derive plenty of airtime. Just because I dont currently have the meaning of a particular passage doesnt mean there isnt one. The faith that has me, allows for an awareness I can not explain or obtain all the information within the Bible at a glance. The more I read the better I understand the deeper the meaning I obtain. There is a dimension to the words of scripture, when read on subsequent occasions offers greater insight to an authors message.
The thought I shared were in fact this lay persons opinions. Just as your opinion was that it meant “zombies were roaming around”. If you want to tell people that’s what you think the verse is about, Fine. But logically we have to know, either we are both wrong, one of us is right but we can’t both be right.
The statement if I dont know what the Bible means there isn’t much point in believing anything I say about the Bible. You must live in a very exclusive space and time. Where every bit of information you receive comes from the ultimate expert in her field. I enjoy learning from people of all walks at any time using the adage “trust but verify” or is that an axiom? And don’t take my word at book value find out for yourself.
Thanks again for the time.
An itinerant preacher? A bit of a stretch but doesnt change the question were the words attributed to him and the actions attributed to him blown out of proportion making him into a legend then?
“A bit of a stretch”
In what way? There were a number of apocalyptic teachers wandering the countryside during the period when Jesus is supposed to have lived. Yeshua was a very common name. When you say bit of a stretch, do you actually mean something? Or are you just ignorant of the historical period in which these events are supposed to have taken place?
“were the words attributed to him and the actions attributed to him blown out of proportion making him into a legend then?”
Perfectly real people get nonsense attributed to them all the time. Ever heard of George Washington’s cherry tree?
Timothy wrote:
“I say Christ would have had to be one of 4 potential persons; Legend, Lunatic, Liar or Lord.”
No, you don’t say it, you parrot it. Yes, these are the thoughts of deluded folk who have come up with the same argument long before you took it up.
There never was Jesus Christ, Timothy. Hence he was neither legend, lunatic, liar or lord. But because you are unable to admit the lack of evidence for Christ, because you implicitly believe he existed, you make your claim about what kind of person he was, when in fact, he never was.
“The evidence, you contend does not exist, has some how managed to weave it’s way into the fabric of an influential worldwide philosophy. Would you not consider that evidence?”
That is not evidence. Come up with some. You’ve admitted you’re no scholar, but don’t make an assertion if you can’t back it up. I could say as you have that there is evidence for Allah or Santa Claus because people believe in them.
“Possibly the most written about and thoroughly examined legend or, real life figure for that matter, in the history of the world.”
You have no knowledge that this is true. And if true, it wouldn’t mean Jesus is anything more than the figment of the imagination that he is.
“That you have accepted the premise Jesus never existed must mean you possess knowledge and proof,”
I accept nothing – you are the one claiming knowledge of Christ’s existence. The burden of proof lies with you, then, and you’ve utterly failed to substantiate your claim. If you admitted to me that you’re having sex with a lovely, but invisible pink elephant, would it be up to me to disprove it? Or up to you to prove it to your psychiatrist who had you locked up in a mental ward?
Do you think there are invisible pink elephants? Of course not. Just as I don’t think there is an invisible and absurd god floating above us.
“There is a dimension to the words of scripture, when read on subsequent occasions offers greater insight to an authors message.”
The message may have more meaning for you, but it will be just as absurd. In your delusional state, you’re unable to comprehend that.
“one of us is right but we can’t both be right”
Correct – you’re wrong. Zombies – the dead – did not walk the streets of Jerusalem, as proclaimed by the Bible, after the death of Christ. This is especially true, because there was never a Christ.
You claim to have a different translation of the Bible than I do. Pray tell, what is that verson – and you may explain why it is in conflict with all the other many versions of the Bible that make very clear that the dead roamed the streets of Jerusalem.
Here’s the King James version:
“Mat 27-52: And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose”
You wrote: “I enjoy learning from people ”
I don’t think you do. You’re only here to test your mettle against the unbelievers. You’ve offered nothing, and you’ve gained nothing.
Your bold statement is supported by what? Or whom?
G.A.Wells?
To quote ” Modern critical methods fail to support the Christian Myth theory. These positions have been annihilated by the best scholars because the critics have not succeeded in disposing of much stronger indeed abundant, evidence to the contrary.
G.A. Wells basically proposes that the stories of Jesus originated some 70 years after his crucifiction, if he in fact existed at all, and that he had exhibited limited influence during the course of his life. Stories expounding on the works of his life should not be considered because actual persons who would have been able to offer 1st person accounts.
Without going into great detail about the timing of the authorship of the gospels and personal references Paul makes in his epistles, having the potential then for first hand accounts. The book of Acts , an early history of the formation of the Church, depicting Peter and Paul’s travels , the martyr’s deaths of Stephen and James ends without detailing Paul or Peters death around 64 A.d. Nor does in mention the Jewish revolt which occured in Jerasalem around 65A.D. Historical conclusion, Acts was written around 60AD.Prior to the revolt in Jerasalem. Acts was written after Luke and Luke was written after Mathew and Mark but all within approx 30 years of the crucifiction
Aside from gospel accounts they are a few non biblical sources, including oral traditions and liturgy which became ceremonial aspects of the worship soon after the crucifiction.
The Historian Josephus in his work of antiquities cites Jesus twice.( It is widely accepted that a later addition to Joesephus’ works is of Christian origin a forger so to speak) Historians do conclude that a portion of the writing still refers to Jesus however.
Tacitus writes of Jesus as do Polycarp and Thalus . There is also a fairly dispicable reference to how Jesus may be spending enternity, I believe in the Jewish Talmud.
I would cite the enduring legacy of Christ teachings as proof of his existence as I would of Budda , Mohammed, Confucious.
TImothy wrote: “I would cite the enduring legacy of Christ teachings as proof of his existence as I would of Budda , Mohammed, Confucious.”
Then you would also cite the enduring legacy of the teaching of Hinduism as proof of the existence of Vishnu and Krishna, and other earthly manifestations of the Hindu god.
By the way, I don’t think you’ve answered my question yet: if your god changed the moral rules and commanded you to kill, would you do so?
You seem incapable of addressing that question.
Dave,
You did not respond concerning the sources which have you imagine that Christ did not exist. Apparently yours is just opinion mouth and mimic with little or no foundation.
I did not mention Hinduism! or any of their Gods.
Thanks for asking perhaps I’ll formulate some thoughts for you to rant or rail about.
“you did not respond concerning the sources which have you imagine that Christ did not exist.”
OK, now I’m leaning to the theory you’re a troll, Timothy.
Or are you that obtuse?
“I did not mention Hinduism! or any of their Gods.”
Of course you didn’t; the analogy I presented passed completely by you.
You’re hopeless. And you still haven’t answered my question: if your god told you to kill, would you?
I wrote:
“You’re hopeless.”
No, that was wrong. I refuse to give up on you, Timothy.
Kind thoughts I appreciate the sentiment. Your convictions born of life’s experience and study I hope you serve you well.
People of faith in a God, always asssociating with like minded individuals sustain patterns of thought mutually exclusive. I want to read and hear the thoughts of those that find what I belive to be truths, of an ultimate creator, objectionable and distainful. Conceptually within your thought process, there has developed a potential for greater morality, honest scientific explanation of nature’s wonders and thus a better world society. On the other hand, Objective moral values exist only if God exists. Objective moral values do exist, there fore God exists
I offered previously, all people have goodness and morality with or without religion. People holding a faith have no more claim on morality because of their professed faith than of any other.
Thank you for continuing to share disparage and mock. C.S. Lewis commented, to paraphrase, “nothing is as challenging to my faith and draining of my spirit as is defending it”. I realize athiests and free thinkers have probably been more exposed to the writings of apologists than many people of faith. So I try not to quote to often. Yours is a conscious decision to follow a different path.
I respect your choice.
Guys – you are arguing over nonsense. If there was a god he would never just “decide one day” to do anything. He already knew everything that would occur in the entire universe from the birth of the universe to its death. If he had a “plan” then it is in full effect right now and would require zero tweaking or intervention or manipulation by said being at any point in time whatsoever. It’s pointless to say what if god told you to do this etc. god would never do such a thing so why bother arguing about it?
Is it all right then for me to be a Racist? Is it all right to judge myself superior to another based on the color of his or her skin?
There are several things that I do not like about this story and the expulsion of Adam and Eve, among others in the Old Testament, but one is outright unsustainable: God was angry, even furious.
To be furious you have to be unhappy (of course) but more important you have to be surprised. There is some logic (not much) in the reasoning that an omniscient god might create imperfect beings as an experiment, to have someone to indulge with his love, or as a simple amusement. But him, being omniscient, would know that they would eat the forbidden fruit, kill siblings, even work on Saturdays. He would have been sad (or maybe indifferent) when he knew what free will would bring, but he would have acted accordingly, either not creating us or expecting the outcome since before the Creation.
If God was not surprised by all of these infractions committed by humans, he would not have been angry. He could have thrown the whole experiment to the garbage bin, or could have repeated it with better temptation control, or could have decided that it was not worth the trouble and let it develop on its own. But I cannot find a scenario where he would continue caring, helping out, admonishing, punishing, and in the end, getting angry again and again.
I’d love to see more of this series. I read the entire series and forwarded it to friends and family (all of whom do not know I am an atheist – but damnit I just can’t help myself). Awesome series.
I have loved this series so far. Will there be more episodes?
> “He is too busy numbering hairs and watching sparrows.”
…and putting pictures of his mum on people’s toast.
I’ve noticed many people in the comments taking issue with the fact that Cain had just killed one of four people on the planet, so who would kill him?
As a former Christian, I’m very familiar with the Bible and would like to point out that at this point in time, people were supposed to live for centuries. We do not know how when this story took place after the expulsion from the garden; it could have been centuries after. This would give sufficient time for the humans to grow (through incest, woohoo!) and Cain would have had dozens or even hundreds of relatives.
A complex question, but the 25-cent answer is group selection. Tribes that could work together without killing each other outcompeted those that couldn’t, so the genes for a basic form of morality quickly spread throughout our ancestors, even before we were human. Once we had the mental organs to deal with morality, and we also had language, we were capable of discussing and even defining morals, and groups could create a moral code that they would teach to their children. Between the basic biological building blocks and social fine-tuning of those structures, we see the wide range of moral codes that exists today.
Yes, lets. A theory (in scientific parlance) is a hypothesis that not only explains all available evidence, but predicts evidence not yet known, and does so in a manner superior to all competing hypotheses. Compare the germ theory or medicine, or the atomic theory of matter: like the theory of evolution, these have been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to deny them.
True, it says nothing about the formation of the universe, or the charge of the electron, but in the field in which it operates (the development of our current biodiversity), it answers every significant question. There are some minor questions yet to be resolved, but there always will be; that is the nature of science.
Depends on your definition of “evolve”. In a strict sense, no it has not evolved, as that requires it produce baby universes that differ from it slightly, and they compete differentially for resources.
More colloquially, the universe has changed, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In this sense, my telephone is very slowly evolving into a pile of dust.
Collins absolutely accepts that evolutions (from protocells to humans) happened without needing any divine intervention. He believes that the laws of genetics (which he understands) work perfectly well without miracles. His arguments for god are all from fields such as cosmology, where he is no more expert than I am.
You find it somehow implausible that, over a period of tens of millions of years, complex organisms would develop hard parts that were capable of fossilising? Or is there something else about Cambrian rocks that is hard to explain?
“Dallas Willard writes, imagine you have landed on a planet for the first time”
Must we continually recapitulate William Paley’s argument from design? Not only is it 200 years old, but all these new iterations lack the clarity of the original “watch on the heath” argument.
Matthew 27:50-54:
“And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe, and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”‘
True, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are young fields with little in the way of empirical evidence. However, these are valid hypotheses that lead to testable predictions. Some of these predictions have been tested – for example that we’ll find similar “moral” behaviour in other social animals, or that almost all cultures will have rules against taking more than your fair share – and they seem to be holding up pretty well. Which puts them at least half a step above “pure theory”. Indeed, it’s arguably better science than most of sociology.
Obviously, there is no single gene that controls such a complex range of behaviour. But in principle, you’re right: If we were to identify a gene complex that allowed up to predict which individuals would be amoral, that would be a great boon to at least half a dozen sciences, such as anthropology, genetics, psychiatry and neurology.
Yes, there does seem to be a hardwired revulsion of faeces and corpses (especially of disease victims), just as there seems to be a hardwired fear of snakes. In each case, this grants an obvious advantage. There really isn’t any significant difference between this and a genetic basis for morality.
“I say Christ would have had to be one of 4potential persons; Legend, Lunatic, Liar or Lord.”
This is a false dilemma. It is entirely possible for him to have been none of those things.
For example, merely one of many itinerant preachers of the time, whose followers generated a lot of legends about him in the fifty years before the first accounts were written.
See? Not so hard.
Good luck getting an answer; Christians totally avoid this question. As soon as they see their morality as superior to God’s, the whole house of cards crumbles.
Timothy Mark: “On the other hand, Objective moral values exist only if God exists.”
In a word, bull’.
There are no “Objective moral values”..i.e..values of ethics, that are applicable 100% of the time, whether in the Body of Christ, or anywhere else.
Take, “Thou shalt not kill”, for instance. Is it *always* immoral(“wrong”) to kill? No, of course it isn’t. Even for the “Christian”, their biblegod is (seemingly) content with leaving it up to its creation – who, BTW, are deemed incapable of knowing “right” from “wrong” on their own – to *interpret* or assess any given situation, and act accordingly. For example, if a madman came waltzing into a restaurant and started waving a gun around asking for people’s wallets, etc, it would be perfectly “moral” for a patron who happened to be an off-duty police officer to pull out his or her service revolver and kill that man DEAD.
Moreover, if/when a “Christian” argues in favor of a “Sovereign God”, then they are essentially living by a standard that says “anything goes”(just as they assert the Atheist can live by such a standard). Why?…..because if the judgement of “God” is intrinsically “good”, then God could decide one day that all non-Christian children should die, and command Christians to kill all non-Christian children.
I’m pretty sure that most professing Christians would out-and-out disobey such a command. So, if you are a “Christian”…why?…WHY would you disobey “God”?
*Please don’t tell me that the deity of the Christian bible would never order such a thing; it commanded the killing of children more than once in the bible.