I came across an article the other day from Dr. Aaron Menikoff, a Christian pastor, who asks if the Bible is reliable for “the truth” about Jesus Christ. That’s a great question — one I answer negatively — so I was curious about his perspective. His two main arguments are:
- We should believe the Bible because Christ believed the Bible.
- We should believe the Bible because it accurately explains and powerfully changes our lives.
As far as arguments go, I’m afraid I must classify both as terrible.
Christ Believed It
Pullquote: Christ is trustworthy and He trusted God’s Word. So should we.
Regarding the first point, Menikoff says:
Such reasoning may sound circuitous or circular. It is not…. If Jesus Christ is trustworthy, then His words about the authority of the Bible should be trusted as well. Christ is trustworthy and He trusted God’s Word. So should we. Without faith in Christ, you will not believe the Bible is the self-disclosure of God. With faith in Christ, you cannot help but believe the Bible is God’s Word.
So we should believe the Bible is a reliable guide to the truth about Jesus… because Jesus believed the Bible? Sounds like a circular argument to me. And even if it could be shown that Jesus thought the Bible was reliable, what Bible would he be referring to? Certainly the New Testament wasn’t written when Jesus was alive, so he can’t be referring to that, which is the topic of discussion. We’re asking if the New Testament can be trusted about it’s extraordinary claims about Jesus — you can’t answer it by saying the Jesus of the New Testament trusts the Old Testament, therefore we know we can trust the New Testament. Only a believer could swallow that kind of circular reasoning and then have the audacity to repeat it, insisting it’s not circular.
Menikoff may want the logic to not be circular, but wishing doesn’t make it so. You can’t make logical fallacies go away simply by closing your eyes and insisting they don’t exist.
It’s Life Changing!
Pullquote: People of all religions — and even those of us who are not religious — have life-changing experiences. It’s part of being human.
In my experience there is only one argument that remains for why people believe in the Bible and Christianity — the argument from personal experience. This is known as a “testimony” and evangelism classes teach proselytizers to use them because “they are the one thing that cannot be argued against.”
Which is true, in a way. There’s no reason to argue that a person didn’t have an experience. People of all religions — and even those of us who are not religious — have life-changing experiences. It’s part of being human.
But they don’t always interpret their experiences rationally. A person may have stopped drinking a bottle of vodka a night, but that doesn’t mean Jesus had anything to do with it. They might claim that at first, saying “I once was a drunk, until Jesus picked me up out of the miry clay and changed my life. Thank you Jesus!” Yet if you dig a little deeper, it ends up there is a lot more to the story — usually you’ll find they had the help of a substance abuse program, a new community of friends to help keep them accountable, and/or a new-found religious obsession to take the place of their old addiction.
My life was changed by Christianity. It has also been changed by books I’ve read and experiences I’ve had. One of my favorite books is East of Eden by John Steinbeck, which powerfully describes human nature. Does that mean it’s divinely inspired because it gives insight into our common struggles? Of course not — it’s just a good book.
The Bible is a myth — a sweeping narrative that tries to explain the human condition. Some people (including myself at one time), find it speaks powerfully and provides a framework for understanding the world. It’s a superstitious framework, but it’s better than nothing. For people who are wandering aimlessly, have trouble being moral, or are in a time of crisis, it can be a stabilizing influence. And I’m glad it works for them!
Yet people have the same experience with the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, and others. Does that mean we must take them all to be reliable guides to truth and their holy prophets? If so, then what truth should we believe — they all contradict each other!
These arguments will not convince someone who is searching for truth. His points will get head nods from the choir, but they are not challenging or persuasive to a skeptic. He’s talking in a different epistemological language that unfortunately makes us talk past each other.
Menikoff already knows his arguments fail. That’s why he says, “Without faith in Christ, you will not believe the Bible is the self-disclosure of God.” In other words, you have to already believe the Bible is reliable to know it’s reliable — which doesn’t help any of us who question it’s reliability.
But who needs facts, when you can stick your head in the sands of faith?
So we should believe the Bible is a reliable guide to the truth about Jesus… because Jesus believed the Bible? Sounds like a circular argument to me.
More to the point, we should believe in the bible because the bible says Jesus believed in the bible. If the question is, how can we know a document is accurate, it is utterly ridiculous to rely on assertions made by the document about itself, whoever is being given the voice.
You beat me to it.
Although we can assume that if jesus actually existed he probably believed in the bible (OT that is) just like most of his ignorant and superstitious contemporaries.
[long wall of copy/paste removed. durrrr jane —DF]
You don’t actually know what evolution IS if you believe that crap. I didn’t read it because of the myriad mistakes contained in the FIRST PARAGRAPH of that wall of dreck.
Also, copy/pasting giant blocks of someone else’s text is a no-no ’round here.
Stop talking, Jane. You are making yourself look really, really ill-informed. Why don’t you read the ACTUAL scientific material before you comment.
Here you go:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
I think this is the best example of a circular argument I’ve ever heard, actually. I remember taking Logical Reasoning in university – I wish I would have thought of this example then. It’s TEXTBOOK!!!! (I know the bible is true because the bible says that jesus says the bible is true – awesome – lol)
Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible. Archaeology has therefore played a key role in biblical studies and Christian apologetics (defending the faith) in several ways.
First, archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible. It has verified many ancient sites, civilizations, and biblical characters whose existence was questioned by the academic world and often dismissed as myths. Biblical archaeology has silenced many critics as new discoveries supported the facts of the Bible.
Second, archaeology helps us improve our understanding of the Bible. Although we do not have the original writings of the authors, thousands of ancient manuscripts affirm that we have an accurate transmission of the original texts.{1} Archaeology can also help us to understand more accurately the nuances and uses of biblical words as they were used in their day.
Third, archaeology helps illustrate and explain Bible passages. The events of the Bible occurred at a certain time, in a particular culture, influenced by a particular social and political structure. Archaeology gives us insights into these areas. Archaeology also helps to supplement topics not covered in the Bible. Much of what we know of the pagan religions and the intertestamental period comes from archaeological research.
As we approach this study we must keep in mind the limits of archaeology. First, it does not prove the divine inspiration of the Bible. It can only confirm the accuracy of the events. Second, unlike other fields of science, archaeology cannot re-create the process under study. Archaeologists must study and interpret the evidence left behind. All conclusions must allow for revision and reinterpretation based on new discoveries. Third, how archaeological evidence is understood depends on the interpreter’s presuppositions and worldview. It is important to understand that many researchers are skeptics of the Bible and
hostile to its world view.
Fourth, thousands of archives have been discovered, but an enormous amount of material has been lost. For example, the library in Alexandria held over one million volumes, but all were lost in a seventh century fire.
Fifth, only a fraction of available archaeological sites have been surveyed, and only a fraction of surveyed sites have been excavated. In fact, it is estimated that l
ess than two percent of surveyed sites have been worked on. Once work begins, only a fraction of an excavation site is actually examined, and only a small part of what is examined is published. For example, the photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls were withheld from the public for forty years after they were uncovered.
It is important to understand that the Scriptures remain the primary source of authority.
We must not elevate archaeology to the point that it becomes the judge for the validity of Scripture. Randall Price states, “There are indeed instances where the information needed to resolve a historical or chronological question is lacking from both archaeology and the Bible, but it is unwarranted to assume the material evidence taken from the more limited content of archaeological excavations can be used to dispute the literary evidence from the more complete content of the canonical scriptures.”{2} The Bible has proven to be an accurate and trustworthy source of history.
Noted archaeologist Nelson Glueck writes, “As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”{3}
The Discovery of the Hittites
The Hittites played a prominent role in Old Testament history. They interacted with biblical figures as early as Abraham and as late as Solomon. They are mentioned in Genesis 15:20 as people who inhabited the land of Canaan. 1 Kings 10:29 records that they purchased chariots and horses from King Solomon. The most prominent Hittite is Uriah the husband of Bathsheba. The Hittites were a powerful force in the Middle East from 1750 B.C. until 1200 B.C. Prior to the late 19th century,
nothing was known of the Hittites outside the Bible, and many critics alleged that they were an invention of the biblical authors.
In 1876 a dramatic discovery changed this perception. A British scholar named A. H. Sayce found inscriptions carved on rocks in Turkey. He suspected that they might be evidence of the Hittite nation. Ten years later, more clay tablets were found in Turkey at a place called Boghaz-koy. German cuneiform expert Hugo Winckler investigated the tablets and began his own expedition at the site in 1906.
Winckler’s excavations uncovered five temples, a fortified citadel and several massive sculptures. In one storeroom he found over ten thousand clay tablets.
One of the documents proved to be a record of a treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite king. Other tablets showed that Boghaz-koy was the capital of the Hittite kingdom. Its original name was Hattusha and the city covered an area of 300 acres. The Hittite nation had been discovered!
Less than a decade after Winckler’s find, Czech scholar Bedrich Hronzny proved the Hittite language
is an early relative of the Indo-European languages of Greek, Latin, French, German, and English. The Hittite language now has a central place in the study of the history of the Indo-European languages.
The discovery also confirmed other biblical facts. Five temples were found containing many tablets with details of the rites and ceremonies that priests performed. These ceremonies described rites for purification from sin and purification of a new temple. The instructions proved to be very elaborate and lengthy.
Critics once criticized the laws and instructions found in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as too complicated for the time it was written (1400 B.C.). The Boghaz-koy texts along with others from Egyptian sites and a site along the Euphrates called Emar have proven that the ceremonies described in the Jewish Pentateuch are consistent with the ceremonies of the cultures of this time period.
The Hittite Empire made treaties with civilizations they conquered. Two dozen of these have been translated and provide a better understanding of treaties in the Old Testament. The discovery of the Hittite Empire at Boghaz-koy has significantly advanced our understanding of the patriarchal period. Dr. Fred Wright summarizes the importance of this find in regard to biblical historicity:
Now the Bible picture of this people fits in perfectly with what we know of the Hittite nation from the monuments. As an empire they never conquered the land of Canaan itself, although the Hittite local tribes did settle there at an early date.
Nothing discovered by the excavators has in any way discredited the Biblical account. Scripture accuracy has once more been proved by the archaeologist.{4}
The discovery of the Hittites has proven to be one of the great archaeological finds of all time. It has helped to confirm the biblical narrative and had a great impact on Middle East archaeological study. Because of it, we have come to a greater understanding of the history of our language, as well as the religious, social, and political practices of the ancient Middle East.
Sodom and Gomorrah
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has long been viewed as a legend. Critics assume that it was created to communicate moral principles. However, throughout the Bible this story is treated as a historical event. The Old Testament prophets refer to the destruction of Sodom on several occasions (Deut. 29:23, Isa. 13:19, Jer. 49:18), and these cities play a key role in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (Matt. 10:15, 2 Pet. 2:6 and Jude 1:7). What has archaeology found to establish the existence of these cities?
Archaeologists have searched the Dead Sea region for many years in search of Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 14:3 gives their location as the Valley of Siddim known as the Salt Sea, another name for the Dead Sea. On the east side six wadies, or river valleys, flow into the Dead Sea. Along five of these wadies, ancient cities were discovered. The northern most is named Bab edh-Drha. In 1924, renowned archaeologist Dr. William Albright excavated at this site, searching for Sodom and Gomorrah. He discovered it to be a heavily fortified city. Although he connected this city with one of the biblical “Cities of the Plains,” he could not find conclusive evidence to justify this assumption.
More digging was done in 1965, 1967, and 1973. The archaeologists discovered a 23-inch thick wall around the city, along with numerous houses and a large temple. Outside the city were huge grave sites where thousands of skeletons were unearthed. This revealed that the city had been well populated during the early Bronze Age, about the time Abraham would have lived.
Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one kilometer outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.
Dr. Bryant Wood, in describing these charnel houses,
stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, “The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom.”{5}
Five cities of the plain are mentioned in Genesis 14: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoar, and Zeboiim. Remnants of these other four cities are also found along the Dead Sea. Following a southward path from Bab edh-Drha there is the city called Numeria. Continuing south is the city called es-Safi. Further south are the ancient cities of Feifa and Khanazir. Studies at these cities revealed that they had been abandoned at the same time about 24502350 B.C. Many archaeologists believe if Bab ed-Drha is Sodom, Numeria is Gomorrah, and es-Safi is Zoar.
What fascinated the archaeologists is that these cities were covered in the same ash as Bab ed-Drha. Numeria, believed to be Gomorrah, had seven feet of ash in some places.
In every one of the destroyed cities ash deposits made the soil a spongy charcoal, making it impossible to rebuild. According to the Bible, four of the five cities were destroyed, leaving Lot to flee to Zoar. Zoar was not destroyed by fire, but was abandoned during this period.
Although archaeologists are still disputing these findings, this is one discovery we will be hearing more about in years to come.
The Walls of Jericho
According to the Bible, the conquest of Jericho occurred in approximately 1440 B.C. The miraculous nature of the conquest has caused some scholars to dismiss the story as folklore. Does archaeology support the biblical account? Over the past century four prominent archaeologists have excavated the site: Carl Watzinger from 1907-1909, John Garstang in the 1930′s, Kathleen Kenyon from 1952-1958, and currently Bryant Wood. The result of their work has been remarkable.
First, they discovered that Jericho had an impressive system of fortifications. Surrounding the city was a retaining wall fifteen feet high. At its top was an eight-foot brick wall strengthened from behind by an earthen rampart. Domestic structures were found behind this first wall. Another brick wall enclosed the rest of the city. T
he domestic structures found between the two walls is consistent with Joshua’s description of Rahab’s quarters (Josh. 2:15). Archeologists also found that in one part of the city, large piles of bricks were found at the base of both the inner and outer walls, indicating a sudden collapse of the fortifications. Scholars feel that an earthquake, which may also explain the damming of the Jordan in the biblical account, caused this collapse. The collapsed bricks formed a ramp by which an invader might easily enter the city (Josh. 6:20).
Of this amazing discovery Garstang states, “As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely, the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins of the city.”{6} This is remarkable because when attacked city walls fall inward, not outward.
A thick layer of soot indicates that the city was destroyed by fire as described in Joshua 6:24. Kenyon describes it this way. “The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire and every room was filled with fallen bricks.”{7}
Archaeologists also discovered large amounts of grain at the site. This is again consistent with the biblical account that the city was captured quickly. If it had fallen as a result of a siege, the grain would have been used up.
According to Joshua 6:17, the Israelites were forbidden to plunder the city, but had to destroy it totally.
Although the archaeologists agreed Jericho was violently destroyed, they disagreed on the date of the conquest. Garstang held to the biblical date of 1400 B.C. while Watzinger and Kenyon believed the destruction occurred in 1550 B.C. In other words, if the later date is accurate, Joshua arrived at a previously destroyed Jericho. This earlier date would pose a serious challenge to the historicity of the Old Testament.
Dr. Bryant Wood, who is currently excavating the site, found that Kenyon’s early date was based on faulty assumptions about pottery found at the site. His later date is also based on the discovery of Egyptian amulets in the tombs northwest of Jericho. Inscribed under these amulets were the names of Egyptian Pharaohs dating from 1500-1386 B.C., showing that the cemetery was in use up to the end of the late Bronze Age (1550-1400 B.C.). Finally, a piece of charcoal found in the debris was carbon-14 dated to be 1410 B.C. The evidence leads Wood to this conclusion. “The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of the Late Bronze Age, about 1400 BCE.”{8}
T
hus, current archeological evidence supports the Bible’s account of when and how Jericho fell.
House of David
One of the most beloved characters in the Bible is King David. Scripture says that he was a man after God’s own heart. He is revered as the greatest of all Israelite kings and the messianic covenant is established through his lineage. Despite his key role in Israel’s history, until recently no evidence outside the Bible attested to his existence. For this reason critics questioned the existence of a King David.
In the summer of 1993, an archaeologist made what has been labeled as a phenomenal and stunning discovery. Dr. Avraham Biran and his team were excavating a site labeled Tell Dan, located in northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon.
Evidence indicates that this is the site of the Old Testament land of Dan.
The team had discovered an impressive royal plaza. As they were clearing the debris, they discovered in the ruins the remains of a black basalt stele, or stone slab, containing Aramaic inscriptions. The stele contained thirteen lines of writing but none of the sentences were complete. Some of the lines contained only three letters while the widest contained fourteen. The letters that remained were clearly engraved and easy to read.
Two of the lines included the phrases “The King of Israel” and “House of David.”
This is the first reference to King David found outside of the Bible.
This discovery has caused many critics to reconsider their view of the historicity of the Davidic kingdom. Pottery found in the vicinity, along with the construction and style of writing, lead Dr. Biran to argue that the stele was erected in the first quarter of the ninth century B.C., about a century after the death of King David.
The translation team discovered that the inscription told of warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans, which the Bible refers to during this period. In this find, a ruler of the Arameans probably Hazael is victorious over Israel and Judah. The stele was erected to celebrate the defeat of the two kings. In 1994 two more pieces were found with inscriptions which refer to Jehoram, the son of Ahab,
ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah, who was the ruler over the “House of David” or Judah. These names and facts correspond to the account given in chapters 8 and 9 of 2 Kings. Dr. Hershel Shanks of Biblical Archaeological Review states, “The stele brings to life the biblical text in a very dramatic way. It also gives us more confidence in the historical reality of the biblical text.”{9}
The find has confirmed a number of facts. First, the use of the term
“House of David” implies that there was a Davidic dynasty that ruled Israel. We can conclude, then, that a historic King David existed. Second, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were prominent political entities as the Bible describes. Critics long viewed the two nations as simply insignificant states.
Dr. Bryant Wood summarizes the importance of this find this way. “In our day, most scholars, archaeologist and biblical scholars would
take a very critical view of the historical accuracy of many of the accounts in the Bible. . . . Many scholars have said there never was a David or a Solomon, and now we have a stele that actually mentions David.”{10}
Although many archeologists remain skeptical of the biblical record, the evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible continues to build.
I just want to be the first to say it, “Jane you ignorant slut!”
Though I fully expect to be labled a ‘fundy’ I have to respond to this. (I notice that the ‘no name calling’ thingy doesn’t apply to Sunny Day. Interesting. Though it will be hard to have an intelligent conversation with such as that I digress. First of all, I have to agree with Mr. Florien in that the first point this man makes is indeed terrible. He said “We should believe the Bible because Christ believed the Bible.” This is a real stupid point because it misses the truth. Jesus is the Author of the Bible so when He recited a Bible passage, He was reciting His own words. Why a ‘pastor’ can’t figure this out is beyond me.
We might as well say “Christianity must be true…just look at how many people believe it.” Just as nonsensical premise would be: “Neanderhal man must be real…just look how many ‘fossils’ there are.” Unfortunately these ‘fossils’ are a hoax, cooked up by very clever scientists who will not acknowledge the truth…they cannot…for if they did acknowledge that there is God to whom they must give an account they would have to leave behind their very lucrative jobs. It is always about money…always has been…always will be. And trust me when I tell you that loss of income is the least of your worries.
His second point actually has some validity. He said: “We should believe the Bible because it accurately explains and powerfully changes our lives.”
The Bible, the Word of God does change lives as the the Holy Spirit convinces us of sin, righteousness and judgment. The Truth thus revealed does three things: it either makes a sinner religious, it makes a sinner rebellious, or it drives the sinner to despair of himself and cast his all upon the Lord Jesus Christ, pleading for mercy and deliverance from the wrath to come.
But the Bible is not some magic talisman. Just reading the bible does not a Christian make…just look at Mr. Florien. In his own words he claims to have been a Christian at one time but now is an atheist. Any real Christian can see through this argument. Understand that when a sinner has truly been born again he has passed through a cataclysmic event. Just as when a baby is born so too is it when a sinner is born again. And Jesus said of those whom He saves: “I WILL RAISE HIM UP ON THE LAST DAY.” and “HE WHOM THE SON SETS FREE IS FREE INDEED.” There are accounts of men in the Bible who followed Jesus for a time but then left, Simon the Sorcerer for one. But this man was never born again. Neither was Mr. Florien.
Jane you did a great job of speaking truth. You demonstrated very conclusively the truth of the Scriptures…which Mr. Florien and his friends would refer to as ‘your personal holy book’. I found it quite humorous that the only responses you recieved were insults. Sunny Day is expecially origional. This is characteristic of someone who cannot offer an intelligent reply…who has no answer for truth and therefore must vilify the speaker. And of course, even though you dealt with archeology and history, this just isn’t enough. It never is and never will be for those people who are clinging desperately to a myth, and hoping beyond all hope that the Bible is wrong and Jesus isn’t real…because if He is, then they will have to stand before Him on Judgment Day…ooooohhhhhh…another of those horrible myths. Listen, not only is the world going to end one day but it ends for many people each and every day as they step out of this sphere of existence into eternity.
Those who have done so know that there is only One Truth…His Name is Jesus! He has not been silent but has spoken, both in the Bible and in His Creation; The Heavens Declare the Glory of God and the Earth shows forth the works of His hands. You can close your eyes to the truth and cling to your myths of evolution and global warming and whatnot but there is a day of reckoning coming for all men. “It is appointed unto man to die once, and after that to face judgment“ ”For we shall all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. So, way to go Jane…and I await the insults of the atheists.
“Neither was Mr. Florien.”
Neither can you predestined dear fellow Florien by the mere words of your interpretation of his destiny. Stop insulting life out of nothing.
What do you know about predestination…or destiny? It is you who claim that life just ‘began’ that 0+0 somehow equals everything. This is clearly an insult to the intelligence of any truly thinking individual!
Your description is an insult to intelligence for sure, but you will fail to see this.
Yet another data point in my “Fundies are incapable of detecting irony” hypothesis.
If you really think you can boil the astonishing science being done on abiogenesis and evolution down to “0+0 equals everything” then you are approaching fractal ignorance.
Too bad you are not one of them by your blame shifting insult. They won’t make claims like you do, foolishly.
@Ty
His website is just a whole load of crazy … some of my favourites:
“For he [Glen Beck] has involved imams and priests and rabbi’s and women preachers, all of whom have a different god.”
“Not only is he [Obama] a muslim but he is an antichrist who, with his band of perverts in his cabinet have been working tirelessly to eradicate Christianity from America.”
“The federal government, now being run by democrats; who can be more accurately described as socialists, communists, hate God and are openly raising their fists in His face.”
“The hate speech is being spewed from the homosexual community, from the pedephiles and other deviants who want to practice their sinful behavior without opposition.”
(I notice that the ‘no name calling’ thingy doesn’t apply to Sunny Day. Interesting. Though it will be hard to have an intelligent conversation with such as that I digress.)
Sunny Day was quoting a famous line from a Saturday Night Live “Weekend Update” sketch. Seriously, google it.
As for having an intelligent conversation, I submit that would be difficult to have with someone who believes in *massive* scientific conspiracies. I think you fail to comprehend just how impossible it would be to maintain such a incredibly detailed and widespread hoax as the existence of Neanderthals, if it were one.
Occam’s implement lies rusting on the floor. . .
I actually watched Saturday Night Live so I understand. But this was directed specifically at Jane. Clearly and insult. As for maintained scientific conspiracies we have such nonsense as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFO’s, Haeckels embryos, Piltdown man: these hoaxes have been maintained and sustained for many years…as long as these people have an audience, as long as they can provides some ‘shock value’ like “We found the missing link” or Richard Dawkins’ latest book that denies God, well they will continue to enjoy their 15 minutes of fame.
But this was directed specifically at Jane. Clearly an insult.
Yes, well, sometimes the temptation of a juicy pop culture reference overrides the dictates of decorum. As far as it goes, Daniel and the mods are tolerant almost to a fault for technical violations of the rules so long as they don’t become flagrant and repetitive. FWIW, a ton of evangelizing is let in under the wire too, lest you think this leeway only runs one way.
As for maintained scientific conspiracies we have such nonsense as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFO’s, Haeckels embryos, Piltdown man: these hoaxes have been maintained and sustained for many years…
Many of those don’t begin to qualify as “scientific hoaxes” (never having been embraced by the scientific community or having had claims tested in peer-reviewed journals and forums), but those few that are were *miniscule* compared to what you’re talking about here. We are talking about several orders of magnitude difference in the number of people that would have to be “in on it” and the quantity of data that would have to be altered.
Bigfoot, UFO’s, Jesus, intelligent design and the loch ness monster were never accepted by any actual scientists so they can’t really count as scientific hoaxes. Piltdown man is a rare example of a hoax that managed to get through initially but it actually illustrate the strength of the scientific method. it’s authenticity have been questioned by some from the get go and it was exposed as a forgery by the scientific community itself. Scientists occasionally fake data but they eventually get caught and have their careers destroyed. When was the last time your faith has questioned its ideas, hell you wouldn’t even report child rapists to the police for fear it will make you look less then perfect. Your magic book have this line with motes and logs, look it up.
“I actually watched Saturday Night Live so I understand.”
It’s good to see you admit your martyr complex. Acknowledging you have a problem is one of the first steps.
“Though I fully expect to be labled a ‘fundy’”
Fundy.
“Myths of evolution” Really? How can you be anything BUT a fundy?
How can you continue to wander in the darkness of your ignorance and like it? This is something I will never understand.
The Fundy!
You are single handedly proving my “fundies are incapable of detecting irony” hypothesis.
“I await the insults of the atheists.”
Someone’s got a bit of a persecution complex! Y’know, you don’t have to type in “unreasonablefaith.com” into your web browser, and you don’t have to read the mean, MEAN things the Bad Ol’ Atheists say about your imaginary sky friend (though how you can consider that misogynistic, crazy, megalomaniacal, dim-witted, short-sighted, bloodthirsty, perpetually cranky deity of yours a “friend” is beyond me), and you definitely don’t have to write long winded missives in the comments section. So when you do all of the above–on an atheist’s blog–don’t be butthurt when a few people either a)poke fun at you or b)take you to task for not making logical sense, your crazy book of Bronze Age nonsense, be damned.
This post is filled with all kinds of fun crazy tidbits – many of which we have dealt with here before – but I think this one is my favrorite:
“Jesus is the Author of the Bible”
I can’t wait to hear how Jesus sat down and wrote a book much of which predates his own alleged birth. Although I suspect the explanation will be something like: “Jesus is magic. He can do anything.”
Didn’t you hear that a fundie archeologist has found Jesus’ Delorian on top of Noah’s ark.
“and I await the insults of the atheists.”
Dan you self important Swine-Ass.
Here’s the whole to the arguement of acheological accuracy:
The existance of items and buildings only supports that the group of people existed. However, it is not evidence for supernatural occurances such as Jesus curing the blind, David and Goliath, etc etc. Under that same logic, greek mythology that mentions real towns and buildings is true. This also makes the Aztec myth that Huitzillopochtli told the nomads to build the city of Tenochtitlan where they found a lake with a nopal cactus and an eagle eating a snake on it, true. The lake exist, so that must make it true right?
This same logic would also mean that all of today’s contemporary fiction novels are true or will be considered true 2000 years from now becuase they talk about real cities and often times mention real buildings, events, or things that have happened in our lifetime.
Is the Bible historically accurante? probably so. Is the theology and mythology mention true? who knows. Given the lack of evidence, the human condition, and the ability of humans to invent explanations for things they do not understand, they’re probably not true.
sorry, that should have said “hole” not “whole” at the beggining.
Yes, such collateral proof is available,” and we will at some of it now.
Let’s begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.”{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have “suffered the extreme penalty,” obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus’ rather enigmatic statement that Christ’s death briefly checked “a most mischievous superstition,” which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here “bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.”{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?
Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan’s advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny’s statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, “unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth.”{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny’s letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus’ person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny’s reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the “love feast.”{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing “ritual cannibalism.”{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus’ teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one “James” by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul’s description of James in Galatians 1:19 as “the Lord’s brother.”{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that “few scholars have questioned” that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the “Testimonium Flavianum,” the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}
Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}
For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, “if indeed one ought to call him a man,” is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as “the so-called” Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus’ resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus’ later reference to Jesus as “the so-called Christ,” a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the “biblical Jesus” and the “historical Jesus” are one and the same!
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”{21}
Let’s examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named “Yeshu.” So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, “Yeshu” (or “Yeshua”) is how Jesus’ name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus “was hanged”? Doesn’t the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term “hanged” can function as a synonym for “crucified.” For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was “hanged”, and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus cast out demons “by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus’ miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke’s account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus’ powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
Evidence from Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}
Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, “who introduced their novel rites.” And though this man’s followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He “was crucified on that account.”
Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That’s harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It’s not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn’t say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!
Let’s summarize what we’ve learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus’ followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!
I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative “life of Jesus!”
Notes
1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.
5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.
6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.
Or it could be said this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S_XWuKpHc
You are aware, of course, that all of this “collateral proof” you cite is very much second-hand in nature? The earliest of them, Flavius Josephus, was born AFTER Jesus supposedly died. He had NO direct knowledge of anything about Jesus. Moreover, he wrote his chronicles in Rome in the 90s CE, decades after the last of the events he reports on … meaning he’s not even that reliable concerning things he DID personally witness.
Not to mention, scholars have serious doubts as to whether or not Josephus’ reference to Jesus was even genuine. That particular blurb does not fit into the narrative sequence before or after it. The language itself is not the same as the rest of Josephus’ material. Not to mention, some patristic references to Josephus (e.g. by Origen) state that Josephus had never believed Jesus to be the Messiah … yet the passage you cited calls him “the Christ” which means “the Messiah.”
All the rest of your “collateral proof” is even more deficient than that, having been written even later and even further removed … both in time and physically … than Josephus had been.
Clearly you do not understand something: Historical evidence of something does not actually become valid, merely because you possess the metaphysical belief that it’s valid, or because you can hurl out enough apologetic drivel so as to make it appear valid. It must truly be valid — in its own right — and without regard to anyone’s beliefs. It’s great that you believe in Jesus … but you are not entitled to pronounce him “historical” when he is not, merely because of that belief. Your belief in Jesus’ historicity also does not grant you the credentials to decide what is and what is not “collateral evidence.”
“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous, but…”
—Dr. Craig Blombery to Lee Strobel
The Case For Christ, page 22 [emphasis added]
There is no ‘but’; the gospels are either anonymous compositions or they are not, and no amount of apologetic sophistry or argument from tradition is going to turn them into eyewitness accounts or first-person accounts or even ‘hearsay’ accounts once removed. The PLAIN-AND-SIMPLE TRUTH of the matter (although truth is hardly plain and rarely simple) is that (1) the four Gospels are copies of copies of copies of original documents that (2) no one has actually found, that (3) no one knows who wrote, and (4) were finally ‘given names’ a hundred or more years after the fact so as to make them appear authoritative.
The anonymity of the Gospels may come as a complete surprise to a majority of the faithful (although this information is clearly stated in most Bibles’ own introductions to each of the the four Gospels). This knowledge is not controversial among biblical scholars, although it is deliberately kept from general church-goers or conveniently ignored. What is controversial is the dubious attempt to assign actual authorship to these anonymous works, and to insert them into historical, social, cultural, and theological context as testimony. Most believers might be shocked to learn that the Gospels were not eyewitness accounts, or even second-hand accounts (‘hearsay’), of Jesus’ time. Rather, they are contrived products of a complicated theological advocacy created generations after the time described.
Too often Christian apologists use the argument that “by all historical accounts Jesus rose from the dead.” Ask them what they mean by “historical accounts” or what they are using for historical records and they will quickly point you to the New Testament, specifically the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But is it at all reasonable and rational to consider the Gospels ‘historical accounts’ beyond the basic fact that they were created sometime in history? When Christians use the terms ‘historical accounts’ or ‘historical records’ what they want to mean is ‘eyewitness accounts’.
But are the Gospels ‘eyewitness’ accounts? Were they composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as witnesses to the life of Jesus?
As any true student of the Bible and church history can tell you, the four gospels are not eyewitness accounts: (1) they were written as third-person narratives, and (2) they were originally composed anonymously and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ascribed to them were actually second century “guesses” in order to give them the appearance of legitimacy and credibility. So what does it mean when someone makes the claim that ‘by all historical accounts Jesus rose from the dead’? It actually means that according to an anonymously written third-person narrative a supernatural and/or magical event occurred in which a character called ‘Jesus’ circumvented the Laws of Physics and Biology and rose from the dead. And what, exactly, is an anonymously written third-person narrative? It is nothing more than hearsay thrice-removed! Not only is there (1) not an eyewitness account, but (2) only a third-person account, without (3) a named or recognized author taking credit for the composition of that third-person account! That is why the Gospels are hearsay three-times removed. No one knows who wrote the Gospels or if any of the events contained therein actually happened. In other words, millions of people may be using as a “testimony” of their faith four documents describing magical and supernatural events that may have been created out of whole cloth and motivated for purely political or religious reasons.
Which explanation is more feasible given what we know about the way the world works? That magical/supernatural/miraculous events occurred two thousand years ago, although such events haven’t occurred since, or that these documents were deliberately and anonymously created in order to satisfy a political or religious agenda? Since they were anonymously written and in the third-person, it would be irrational to attribute to them any sense of validity because the events they describe simply do not correspond with the way we know the real world works. Miracles and magical and supernatural hocus-pocus simply do not occur, so the simplest explanation (by way of Occam’s Razor) is that these anonymously-written third-person narratives were created solely as a tool for propaganda in order to entice superstitious or magically-inclined people to climb aboard a particular band-wagon.
What does it mean that the Gospels are hearsay three-times removed?
(1) Hearsay Once Removed: I overheard somebody say something to somebody else, then repeat what I overheard. My repeating of what I heard is not the original source. It is once-step removed from the original source, and it wasn’t even said to me directly. Anything I say could be pure invention, so this is hearsay once removed.
(2) Hearsay Twice Removed: I repeat something that somebody else claims to have seen or overheard or read. I didn’t actually see or overhear it, but only repeat what somebody else claims to have seen or heard. The problem with this form of hearsay is that whatever I am told and then repeat might never have happened at all. The person telling me the story may have fabricated the whole thing out of whole cloth. This is hearsay twice-removed.
(3) Hearsay Thrice Removed: Suppose I pick up a notebook written in the third-person claiming all sorts of fantastic things, strange and magical events that simply do not happen in the ‘real’ world. There is no author’s name on the notebook, so I have no way of knowing who wrote it. Not only do I have no idea who wrote it, because it is written in the third-person (because it doesn’t claim to be a first-person ‘eyewitness’ account) I have no way of knowing if any of the events or any of the conversation described therein actually occurred. Since the events it describes are strange and magical, it would be particularly foolish of me to take the events described in the notebook as true and at face value, because (1) I don’t know who wrote the notebook, (2) I don’t know where it came from, (3) because it is written in the third-person I have no way of knowing if anything the notebook describes ever happened at all, and (4) if strange and magical events don’t typically occur in the ‘real’ world, why would I start believing them only because they were described in an anonymously written third-person narrative? Now, suppose fifty years later somebody slaps an author’s name on the notebook simply to make it look more appealing and legitimate; does the fact that it’s now been associated with an arbitrary name alter the fact that it is still hearsay, still a third-person narrative account, still reciting strange and magical stories that don’t actually occur in the ‘real’ world? No! However you try to argue around it, the notebook is still hearsay, still a third-person account, still not an ‘eyewitness’ account or so-called ‘historical record’. If I quote from this notebook, what am I actually quoting? Am I quoting the words and deeds of ‘real’ people or simply made up characters? Because it is a third-person narrative I have absolutely no way of knowing, none of it may never have happened, so in the end all such supernatural claims, accounts, and conversations contained within the notebook are ultimately meaningless.
Just like the Gospels.
Moby Dick as a work of fiction is actually more believable than the Gospels because with Moby Dick not only is there no magic or supernatural hocus-pocus involved, but you can actually say with certainty who wrote the book! What’s astounding is that people will recognize that Moby Dick is a work of fiction and then turn around and call anonymous third-person narratives compiled by vote over several hundred years the indisputable ‘Word of God’.
Anyone who would believe in the bible without giving a reason for their belief, just “I believe ” is not following scripture. God tells us to give a reason for the hope that resides in us. In other words, people are going to want proof, and that we should be able to show them why it is reasonable. Science does this over and over and over and over and over. Also, In Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey discusses many of the so-called “icons of evolution” that Jonathan Wells documents in his book by that title.{9} These examples show up in nearly every high school and college biology textbook. But these examples which are used to “prove” evolution are either fraudulent or fail to prove evolution.
Let’s start with a piece of evidence for evolution that was found where Charles Darwin first got his inspiration for his theory of evolution: the Galapagos Islands. The islands can be found off the coast of South America. On those islands are finches, which have come to be known as Darwin’s finches. It’s hard to find a biology textbook that doesn’t tell the story of these finches.
One study found that during a period of drought, the average beak size of these finches increased slightly. The reason cited for this is that during these dry periods, the most available seeds are larger and tougher to crack than at other times. So birds with larger beaks do better in conditions of drought.
I spent an afternoon looking at specimens of Darwin’s finches when I was in graduate school at Yale University and should point out that the changes in beak thickness is minimal and thus measured in tens of millimeters (thickness of a thumbnail). Moreover, the changes seem to be cyclical. When the rains returns, the original size seeds appear and the average beak size returns to normal.
This is not evolution. It is an interesting cyclical pattern in natural history. But it’s not evolution. Nevertheless, one science writer enthusiastically proclaimed that this is evolution happening “before [our] very eyes.”{10}
If this is evolution occurring then we should be seeing macro changes that would allow these finches to evolve into another species. But this cyclical pattern shows just the opposite. These minor changes in beak size and thickness actually allow them to remain finches under changing environmental conditions. It does not show them evolving into another species.
So what has been the response from the scientific establishment? The National Academy of Sciences put out a booklet on evolution for teachers. The booklet did not even mention that the average beak size returned to normal after drought. Instead the booklet makes unwarranted speculation about what might happen if these changes were to continue indefinitely for a few hundred years. “If droughts occur about once every ten years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only 200 years.”{11}
Is this an accurate conclusion based upon the facts of natural history? It seems to be a clear example of misleading teachers (who in turn will unintentionally mislead their students). The booklet teaches that the beak sizes in Darwin’s finches are directional and evolutionary rather than cyclical and reversible.
A column in the Wall Street Journal made this point. “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail,” Phillip Johnson said, “you know they are in trouble.”{12}
Ray Bohlin’s review of Jonathan Well’s book, Icons of Evolution, provides further detail on some of these examples.{13}
Peppered Moths
One example that appears in most biology textbooks is the story of the peppered moths in England. The moths appear in two forms: dark gray and light gray. During the Industrial Revolution, the factories produced pollution that darkened the tree trunks. This made it easier for birds to catch and eat the lighter colored moths. Later, when pollution was cleaned up, the tree trunks were lighter and it made it easier for the birds to catch the darker colored moths.
On its face, all this example proves is that the ratio of dark colored and light colored moths changed over time. In many ways, this is nothing more than another example of cyclical changes that we just discussed concerning Darwin’s finches.
But there is much more to the story. Peppered moths don’t actually perch on tree trunks. Actually they are quite torpid during the daylight hours and rest in the upper canopy of the trees.
If you have ever been in a biology class you have seen pictures of these moths on the tree trunks. You might even have seen a film that was made decades ago of birds landing on the trees and catching moths. It turns out that in order to create the photos and the film scientists put the moths in a freezer to immobilize them and then glued them to the tree trunks.
How did this example become such an enduring icon of evolution? Scientists accepted it for many years uncritically because they wanted to believe it and needed a visual example to show evolution. The peppered moth story fit the bill and quickly became “an irrefutable article of faith.”{14}
Now there are journal articles, and even books, that document the scientific scandal surrounding the story of the peppered moths. One leading evolutionist noted that the story was a “prize horse in our stable of examples.” He goes on to say that when he learned the truth, it was like learning “that it was my father and not Santa Claus who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.”{15}
But what is so amazing is that this example still shows up with regularity in biology textbooks, even though most scientists and textbook writers know the story is untrue. One reporter even interviewed a textbook writer who admitted that he knew the photos were faked but used them in the biology textbook anyway. “The advantage of this example,” he argued, “is that it is extremely visual.” He went on to add that “we want to get across the idea of selective adaptation. Later on, they can look at the work critically.”{16}
The examples of the falsified “icons of evolution” demonstrate the extremes to which many Darwinists will go to “prove” the theory of evolution. They keep an incorrect example in the textbooks simply because it is visual and supports the theory of evolution and worldview of naturalism.
Fraudulent Embryos
Nearly every textbook has pictures of developing vertebrate embryos lined up across the page to demonstrate an evolutionary history being replayed in the womb. These pictures are placed there to show common ancestry and thus prove evolution. During this day, Charles Darwin called the similarity of vertebrate embryos “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory of evolution.{17}
In biology class many of us learned the phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” That means that these developing embryos go through similar stages that replay the stages of evolution. So this supposedly was embryological proof of evolution.
But it turns out that the pictures were and are an elaborate hoax. German scientist Ernst Haeckel drew them in order to prove evolution. He deliberately drew the embryos more similar than they really are.
What is so incredible about this hoax is that is was known more than a century ago. Scientists knew the drawings were incorrect, and his colleagues accused him of fraud. An embryologist, writing in the journal Science, called Haeckel’s drawings “one of the most famous fakes in biology.”{18}
Now you would think that a hoax uncovered more than a hundred years ago would certainly not make it into high school and college biology textbooks. But if you assumed that, you would be wrong. Many textbooks continue to reprint drawings labeled as a hoax a century ago.
So why do Darwinists continue to believe in the theory of evolution and even use examples to “prove” evolution that are not true. It may be due to a bias in their worldview. The only theories that they believe are acceptable are those that are developed within a naturalistic framework.
Richard Dawkins noted: “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory . . . we would still be justified in preferring it over rival theories.”{19} Think about that statement for a moment. Even if there were no evidence for evolution, Darwinists would still believe it because it is naturalistic.
Another professor made an even more incredible statement. He said: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”{20} Now think about that. Even if the evidence points to intelligent design rather than to evolution, it is excluded from consideration because it is not naturalistic.
As you can see from these two quotes (as well as from some of the other material presented here), the commitment to evolution is more philosophical than scientific. Nancy Pearcey concludes that “the issue is not fundamentally a matter of evidence at all, but of a prior philosophical commitment.”{21}
Again, let me also recommend Probe’s DVD series on “Redeeming Darwin” that is available through Probe’s website http://www.probe.org.
Notes Article found at http://www.probe.org
Johnathan Wells is not a scientist. He’s not a Christian either. He’s a Moonie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)
Intelligent design is not science, it’s pseudo-science:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
Jane is not a real poster, she’s full of crap.
“Graduate work at Yale” indeed.
If you are going to do an obvious authority grab like claiming to be a grad student from Yale, then give a full name and years attended, or STFU.
Jane, your habit of pasting massive amount of crap copied out of creationist websites doesn’t make your argument that impressive. From a quick read through all I can see is the same old arguments that have been dismantlement and trashed thousands of times already (same go for your, the buybull is an accurate historical document, post)
that’s why its called a *Theory* of Evolution and Law of Evolution. Physics have laws. They have been proven over and over, whether you believe in God or not, they’re there. Theology is a theory, Evolution is a theory. Evolution has easier and more sound reasoning. People are hesitant of thoelogy because of the circular reasoning and faith based belief.
If the theory of evolution is proven wrong, its followers would be surprised, but then they’d move on to the next most reasonable explanation. If theologies are proven wrong, they’re whole life would end.
Regarding Jesus’ belief in the bible, I suppose a true believer could argue that Jesus did believe in the new testament because he was god and knew what would be written after he was gone. If you think about it, in the eyes of the believer, the bible was written at the beginning of time since god knew every single thing that would happen in the universe past, present and future.
I don’t think the average christian thinks that way. Because then, God would have know that he created Adam to kill practically all his off-spring but Noah, and that would have been horrible and pointless, as he could have created Noah and his mates at the beginning.
ahh yes horrible and pointless indeed. the response to that is, just because you think it’s horrible and pointless doesn’t mean it is – god is all knowing and it’s just part of his plans. the 10 year old dying of cancer? part of his plans – he works in mysterious ways you know.
Yeah right, that is what a dog also thinks when he gets beaten by his master. My master works in mysterious ways, I probably deserved it.
Of course an atheist dog would think, damned he is drunk again.
That one got me to chucklin’
Many atheists say, “I cannot believe in a God Who is so horrible and pointless.” Well, if that is way God is, that is the way He is, and whether you “believe in” Him or not makes no difference.
A thread that will not die.
John wrote:
“Many atheists say, “I cannot believe in a God Who is so horrible and pointless.” Well, if that is way God is, that is the way He is, and whether you “believe in” Him or not makes no difference.”
Is this the best you have to add to an old conversation, “John?”
Many atheists will say they like chicken soup and don’t like cars that get poor gas mileage. Those ideas don’t define them as gourmet cooks or automotive engineers, any more than then your unsupported claim about what “many” atheists say about a non-existent god defines them as atheists.
Whether or not “many” atheists believe as you say they do, is a non-sequitor, John; it has nothing to do with the fact that there is no god. And whether you believe in a god or not doesn’t make any difference, either. There is no god.
By the way, I do like they way your shifted from “many atheists” to “you.”
Actually the nature (not just the existence) of a God determines whether or not he is worthy of worship. An evil God should never be voluntarily be worshipped by any moral person, even if he exists and demanded to be worshipped.
This is the basic mistake that most theists make. They think that, once they’ve “proven” their deity exists … or even merely forced someone to concede their deity might exist … that they have won the battle and thus shown their religion to be valid.
Sorry. Doesn’t work that way. It’s not enough to prove your deity exists or might exist. There’s another step beyond that, which is to show that said deity is worthy of being worshipped. Upstanding, moral people should not worship or submit to an evil deity merely because that deity exists; quite the opposite, the obligation of moral persons is to do everything in their power to resist and defy an evil deity … to the limit of their ability to do so.
As an agnostic, I concede a deity might exist. However, I can say that, if the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God does exist as most JCI believers consider him to be, that he would be a thoroughly malevolent creature who must be rejected, not honored and obeyed.
Why do you believe that God is evil?
It’s right there in the link!
Freakin’ god-bots………
I think he is exactly as evil as Skeletor, from Masters of the Universe cartoons.
Aw, c’mon, Ty! Skeletor was just misunderstood.
:P
Have you read your magic book? Your sky daddy come out as a jealous, homicidal, self absorbed, megalomaniac that make Kim Jong-Il look like Nelson Mandela. And since you claim he wrote the book himself you can’t even claim he’s been misquoted.
I see Yoav is still choosing to see Him in his own light as opposed to seeing Him in the Light He offers us by which we may see in a true Light. Ps 36:9
Yah john, you babbling nincompoop, it’s always a sad time when people judge me not my what I tell them, but by my actions.
John, I choose to see him as described in what is supposedly his own book. Kim Jong-Il’s slaves are ordered to call him beloved leader but that doesn’t make him any less of a homicidal SOB.
I don’t know about anyone else, but my own reasons for concluding that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is malevolent, can be found here.
I know that this thread is really old, but I’m compelled…
@ PsiCop:
there is no such thing as “natural” evil; no known natural occurance that is destructive in nature, with the exception of a black hole, doesnt also include within it some sort of process in its breakdown that eventually contributes to the propegation of existance/ reality. (as black holes have a gravity pull so intense that not even light escapes; although there are some new exciting theories concerning where matter disapears once swalloed) This is going with the logic that all destructive processes’ are evil in nature. And by default anything that includes creative processes’ is good in nature.
You and I are Deists, together, here. So I have to get in on this. A deity (regardless of the percieved morality) is worth worship because it is related to the purpose of your existance.
If we can assume that God is the reason for existance, then you are an extension of that God as apart of its creation. By extension, we can reasonably conclude that this God cannot be characterised by any dominant personality trait at a constant, as all of creation would reflect said trait. What room would there be for “good” to be?
Lets look at “evil” for a second. I am going to interject a radical thought. Its a combination of the Illusory, Free Will & Deceptive theodicy. It is, in short, that evil is not the opposite God; its definition is found more in what isn’t God.
I am going to say that evil is not a seperate entity in-it-of-itself. Good and evil are unrecognizable traits without the other. If we lived in a completely good or completely evil world, we’d never know. The manifestation of a physiological state of being has no way to be measured without a counter experience. Therefore since we have a counter experience; God cannot be completely anything, or is everything completely all at once.
Many of these definitions are found within the universe. For example, to an organism that lives in a predominantly “wet” environment; the word “dry” does not exist, as its definition is based on the condition & experience of the opposite. Much like dark, as It can also only be defined as the absence of light.
Humans have the capacity for understanding which leads to the assertion of one’s free will. An excersize in understanding. Because we have understanding combined with free will; we can recognize each condition of the universe (good and evil within the moral scope including) Understanding and the assertion of free will causes the ability to “judge”. (also called the conscience) Thus it is an invention of the ill willed, that cause evil. And the actuazation of the act is the only form evil can take.
“If we can assume that God is the reason for existance, …”
Which we can’t, in fact all the evidence (or lack of) points to a god or gods not existing at all.
“By extension, we can reasonably conclude that this God cannot be characterised by any dominant personality trait at a constant, as all of creation would reflect said trait.”
… and that’s just rubbish. How can you assume anything about a universe creator?
Actually, black holes do emit energy and matter along their poles. Also, if they get too massive they explode. See: Big Bang.
Jabster- Yes- Glad to see you’re here. Atleast I have the comfort of not being a tree in the woods with no one around. (I hope someone gets that)
Ok….
1> I understand that re-iteration. For your sake, please just humor me. This was more aimed at the “if God exists, he must be evil” concept. Which PsiCop seems to be into.
2> I’m not sure what you mean. I think we can reasonably assume that IF (and again humor me) a God exists he is a God of diversity. NOT a God of evil. I’m trying to illustrate here that God cannot be summed up by any humanly defined character traits, let alone evil. And that it must be remembered that by this logic (of because evil exists God must be evil) that EVIL created the universe, EVIL created our world, EVIL created your condititions now. Whether good or bad. And if you were to say that you were ever in a good position, that wouldn’t accurately reflect a unifomly EVIL godly creation.
Jabster, PsiCop, LRA and anyone else. You need to remember something when engaging people on this website. It is primarily owned by Athiests. Christians and the like are only “visiting.” Please do not reduce yourselves to the same level of ignorance that you so ademetaly accuse a God fearing person of. Even though you may feel like you are repeating yourselves> prove me wrong. This is where I’m at. I see where you’re at. Come see where I’m at. Honestly, if I sound like I’m trying to convince you that the moon is made of cheese, meet me on my level. Don’t tell me I’m rubbish. Thats just as unappealing to me as if the rolse were reversed.
In my experience, Christians really do believe that The Bible is the oldest authority – that it holds the knowledge about the beginning of time and everything after. This is why so many believe the Earth is a few thousand years old. They also believe that Christianity has been around forever, in some form or another. Judaism was in the Garden of Eden, which is the dawn of the universe, so therefore, The Bible must be that old. No thinking or questioning goes into it.
It is my impression that most Christians don’t or won’t take the trip through Logic Town that non-christians might not be so fearful of – that is, thought experiments that deconstruct their views. Like yours an Noah – or – one I usually like:
God created everything. God created Hell. Those who don’t believe in God, or trip up enough, go to Hell to be tortured unimaginably forever. He created this system of birth and death and a game to be played during it where you simply must believe in something by the end – if you do = paradise, if you don’t = eternal damnation. If God always knew everything about past, present, and future – he knew he was going to do all of this before he did it. Why did he create this game, create the creatures in it, knowing which creatures would be tortured in his dungeon? Why create such a wicked and twisted game?
“He is all knowing.” So an all knowing being decides to create the Absolute torture – there is nothing that exists worse than Hell, and he created it knowing his children – who he loves with a love that cannot be surpassed – will suffer at his hands. (We may hear objections that it is not God hurting them, however that argument would go)
If I build a fire and throw a kitten in it – I do the torturing, not the fire. If I have the power to make that kitten stay alive and the fire to burn forever and keep her in there – I am even more responsible than in the prior scenario. I am not merciful.
Why did he create this game, create the creatures in it, knowing which creatures would be tortured in his dungeon? Why create such a wicked and twisted game?
Heaven must be a F****ing boring place with nothing to do but sit all day and listen to evangelicals singing your praise.
I guess that according to religious people of all faiths (x-tian don’t hold the monopoly on that kind of stupidity) the world is just a really big D&D board for god to pass the time.
Ah, but also they will delight in observing the tormented in Hell. 100% more things to pleasantly engage the mind.
I like that thought experiment. Our lives are pitifully short and yet if we are born into a culture that has no idea about Jesus we’re doomed to suffer for ETERNITY! Yes ETERNITY – after living out say 30 years or so in a hut somewhere worshiping your cultures god. Seems a tad unfair – suffering for something you didn’t even know was wrong. Another thought experiment I like is – Does anything happen outside of god’s will? If the answer to this is no, then every murder or cruel unfair suffering of human beings is god’s will. If the answer if yes then god is not omnipotent. In conjuction with this is Would god create anything in vain? If the answer to this is no, then why did he create the billions upon billions of other galaxies? This one stumps a lot of Christians. It’s comfy to think we’re the sole reason for the universe.
The people in the huts were not ignorant. God said the the whole world would know before the end came.
Jane… In the nicest possible way… STFU.
Oh, please. I’ve been reading this for a while without commenting but this one pissed me off. You honestly think that Aborigines who never, and I repeat, EVER, had any contact with the outside world are going to know about a god who originated in the Middle East? Open your ****ing eyes!
pick your arguement response:
a)we just don’t understand or know how God really works. He is all omni[insert trait].
or
b)he created hell and knew all those people who would deny him, but he gives them free will to change it (and i choose to ignore the concept that he would know they would not choose to believe in him) and wants the others to reach paradise.
my main question is: if he is so perfect, if he is so powerful, why was he lonely? why did he need a bunch of lesser beings to worship him? did he need to feel important? if you feel lonely (as a sentient earth being) dont you want friends? you want equals? only humans would think of a concept of feeling lonely and wanting to be worshiped. A lonely, narcisitic, self-important god doesnt seem very perfect and powerful.
One thing that always confused me with this go does temporal mechanics. Since god can do anything so he must be able to time travel back in time and change his mistakes he made before they will occur. But somehow the god in the bible has no knowledge of time travel.
>Since god can do anything so he must be able to time travel back in time and change his mistakes<
What a great comment. Perhaps the Christian god is not quite perfect, and has been going back and forth – endlessly – trying, but always failing, to make things right.
That would explain those cracks….
Wibbley wobbley timey wimey!
Thats why Gawd made Doctor Who aka The Time Lord!
the best arguement I have heard for this (from the LDS bunch) is that even he must have rules that he cannot break -mainly to prevent certain ["bad"] things from happening. SOOOOO i guess God is limited to physics!!! or maybe physics is GOD! either way, it belittles the argument that he is all powerful.
I’m not sure that #1 is coherent enough to be circular. I usually hear a variant that goes like this:
1. We know from the ministry of Jesus that God is loving and just.
2. A just and loving God would not leave us with a flawed instrument to guide our lives.
3. Therefore, the Gospels must be reliable and accurate.
This variant has the appeal of being more “coherent” as you said, although it also makes some unprovable assertions at any rate.
I’ve also heard a lot of what I’m going to call “2.a”, per your propostional layout:
2.a. We know that the Bible has been preserved via multiple translations and multiple persecutions that attempted to prevent the Bible from being placed in the hands of the common man and the common vernacular (e.g. Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Knox, etc.). These translations are consistent with the earliest known fragments and sources and evidence the Holy Spirit maintaining God’s Word for future generations.
Ehhhh, maybe. Still requires some large assumptions.
Hahahahha. People really use this? Because if I were to say:
1. We know from the ministry of Jesus that God is loving and just.
2. A just and loving God would not send his creation to eternal tortue in hell.
3. Therefore, hell must not exist.
Those same people would say we can’t judge God or what God thinks is loving and just.
Yet obviously they do it ALL THE TIME.
Well, some Christians do make just that argument against the existence of Hell.
“Well, some Christians do make just that argument against the existence of Hell.”
Obviously someone making that argument is no Christian. ;-)
The word ‘hell’ is mentioned int he bible more than any other word. It must be important.
Actually, the word “money” is mentioned in the bible more than any other word…
Yeah, Jane is pretty spectacularly full of crap.
Ah! I stand corrected… the word “Lord” is the most common. My bad.
Dung shows up a lot.
Queue the Pink Floyd song.
Jane keeps digging herself deeper. Hell is the most common word! Ha! Jane stick around you’re hilarious! Let me guess, you have a BS in the Bible!
This is blatantly false, and no one with an ounce of biblical training would fall for it. The word “Hell” appears in the KJV 31 times. If you count ANY appearance of the word “Sheol”, which is sometimes translated as “hell”, sometimes as “grave”, and occasionally as “pit”, then it’s still only 65 times.
Which is, I believe, fewer times than the word “dung” appears.
I think I’m misremembering a sermon in which “money” was more frequently discussed than most other common, every-day-life sorts of items.
Wait! I was right–
http://www.fpch.org/Stewardship/treasure.htm
The bible talks A LOT about money!
“Bread is for the worker, and wine makes the heart rejoice, but money is what meets a response in all things.”
More to the point believing in the bible because Jesus believed in it is like saying believe in the Torah because Noah believed in it. There is absolutely nothing beyond the mythology that proves either lived…
“One of my favorite books is East of Eden by John Steinbeck, which powerfully describes human nature. Does that mean it’s divinely inspired because it gives insight into our common struggles? Of course not — it’s just a good book.”
East of Eden, by John Steinbeck, is a re-working of the Book of Genesis, and a story of good and evil. (The movie, with James Dean, was a waste of celluloid.)
Except for the author’s omnipotent voice, the book explores its characters, and explores the character of what it means to be human, without recourse to the supernatural. And in that sense, the made-up story of the Hamiltons and Trasks is more true than the story of Cain and Able.
This supports the concept that nothing in our human existance is an original idea. Everything created by humans is inspired by something else from the past. Specially stories.
You ask “Is the Bible Reliable for Truth about Jesus Christ?”, yet you limit your question to only be responded to through the New Testament. If one holds the Old Testament to be true and accurate (which I realize is not your position), then the claims of Christ begin there. There are hundreds of prophecies that he had to fulfill, most that He would have had no control over. His city of origin (bethlehem), His family of origin (line of David), His name, the response of current day leaders to kill children at mention of His arrival, His early life in Egypt… The story of Christ started literally thousands of years before His birth, and these documents were written hundreds and thousands of years before His arrival.
On top of this, so many other prophecies written hundreds of years before He lived were fulfilled through his life, and not one was missed. How He would live, how others would respond to Him, what He would look like, how He would suffer, how He would die… There is no prophecy that is recorded about the coming Messiah in the Old Testament that was not fulfilled – with the exception of those that alert us to His final coming. Do you believe that He busied Himself with the claims of the Old Testament only to keep Himself in line with prophecies that really had nothing to do with Him? If so, He was an extraodinary man. He convinced people to talk about healings (prophesied in the OT) that He never did – because the claims of his healing go well beyond the records of the Bible. He convinced His followers to spread a story about Him (prophesied in the OT) that was not true – even to the point of their own demise – without one dissenter. He orchestrated His own execution by crucifixion (prophesied in the OT) – and the Romans obliged. He even worked it out so that one of His friends would betray Him (prophesied in the OT) – again, this is recorded in places other than the Bible. He was an extraordinary man.
If a book was written 50 years ago detailing my life and death (I am presently 41), I would be amazed, but if a book was written 500 years ago about my life and death, especially if it included details, I would be hesitant to call it a fairy tale or a myth.
Just a thought.
Ken-
Are you familiar with the wealth of criticisms leveled at this argument? Most of these OT prophesies are co-opted by the NT writers but were clearly contextually about something else. Of the 10 or so that might go beyond this there are still very strong arguments against your position. For instance, what evidence do you have that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem?
Sorry for the short and not so precise response but I’m in a hurry and on my way out the door.
Please provide this other source at it is amazing news if true.
Can you say ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’? The writers of the books that ended up in the Christian testament were very aware of the prophecies in the Hebrew testament and easily included them in their stories about Jesus. If if could be shown (and it can’t) that Mark, et al, knew nothing of the HT prophecies, we would have to treat Jesus’s fulfillment of those prophecies as, well, miracles. But…
self-fullfilling prophecy? so…..you knew that the Bible said that we Christians would be hated for our faith, and decided to hate us?
John 13:19 Now I tell you before it comes, that when id does come to pass, you may believe that I am him.
self-fulfilling prophecy? So, all the great domineering nations of the world were formed and fell just like the Bible said they would (the bible was written by God almost 3000 years ago, before many of these nations came into existence) because the leaders read the bible and said “oh, well, we better throw this battle so we can align with the bible!” Check your history books against the bible. YOu’ll see it’s true. Of course you’ll also have to find an ancient map on the internet, because the names of the countries have been changed over time, but you can find anything on the internet.
What about all the prophecies that could not be self-fulfilled, unless of course you’re talking about God fulfilling his own prophecies. such as:
Global communications forseen (Revelation 11:9-10; 17:8) The bible prophesies that the entire world will “see” certain events unfold. The invention of the television and the delployment of global satellite networks during the 20 century allow news to travel the world at the speed of light for the first time ever. Remember that in the apostle John’s day, news traveled at the speed of horseback.
Mankind would be capable of destroying all life (Matthew 24:21-22). consider that when Jesus made this prophecy the armaments of his day were swords and spears. but today, with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, it is possible to wipe out all flesh on planet earth.
The use of nuclear weapons anticipated (Zechariah 14: 12). The neutron bomb melts (dissolves its victims-just as God warned 2500 years ago- “Their flesh shall disslve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets, and their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.” This was unimaginable in Zechariah’s day.
There would be a move toward global government (Daniel 2:40-44; 7:23; Revelation 13:7-8). The former Roman empire-which encompassed presnt-day Europe – would rvive and eventually dominate the world. The european Union has steadily moved forward intis attempt to unite europe politically and economically. It has succeeded in creating a “European parliament, a cout, and a common currency. And globalizaiton is not unique to Europe, it is lhappening everywhere.
Literal Babylon (formerly called Babel-Genesis 10:10) would reemerge in the land of Shinar-known today as Iraq(Zechariah 5:11; Isaiah 13). saddam Hussein spent over 20 years rebuilding the city of Babylon. Today, with Saddam’s regime overthrown, the international community is discussing how to rebuild Iraq.
The fact that God once flooded the earth would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the sicentific world becasue itwas judgment from God on man’s wickedness
Increased interest in vegetarianism anticipated (1 Timothy 4: 3-4). The New Age Movement has swept the globe during the past 40 years popularizing this.
The Earth wiould be filled with violence (Luke 17:26; Genesis 6:11-13). In the United States along, violent crime has increased nearly 500% since 1960. Fifty years ago abortion (the violent murder of an unborn child) was illegal in most countires. today, abortion is legal in most countreis and 46 million children are aborted each year.
Multitudes would travel two and fro (daniel 12:4). Prior to the Industrial Revolution, few individuals traveled beyond their own communities. Until recently, horse, foot, and boat were the only mode of transportation. Yet today, we travel by car, bus, plane, train, subway, ect. Millions and millions are running to and fro just as Daniel prophesided 2500 years ago!!
Knowledge would increase (Daniel 12:4). Today we are witnessing an explostion of avialable knowledge with the advent of the Internet, it is estimated that our cumulative knowledge is doubling every five years. This exponential increase is beyond what anyone could lhave imagained.
Deadly diseases which the bible calls “pestilences”) would be common (Matthew 24:7, Revelation 6:8). emerging diseases such as AIDS, ebola, Hanta virus, Dengue, West Nile, SARS, bird flu, etc., underscore this fact. Ironically, just a few decades ago, some scientists were forecasting that advances in medicine might soon redaicate deadly diseases. A lgobal economic system would exist (Revelation 13:16-18.) This was unthinkable in the apostle John’s day. Yet today, globalists in every level of government are seeking to unite the word. Connecting the world montetarialy is crucial totheir goal.
A man would control all banking and commerce (Revelation 13:16-18). Remember, this prophecy was penned 2000 years before our com0uter-driven society. Yet, until recently, you couldn’t have even dreamed how a person could control all commerce
The nation of Israel would be reborn in ONE DAY (Isaiah 66:8) On May 14, 1948 Israel became a nation.
Israel, once a desolate desert, would blossom in the last days and export produce to the world (Isaiah 27:6; 35:1-2;Ezedial 36: 34-36). Israel’s increased rainfall and world-renowned irrigation technology have caused the land to blossom. Incredibly, as foretold, they currently export over 800 million dollars worth of fresh produce each year, includi9ng over 200 million in flowers and ornamental lants!
Jerusalem would be trampled by Gentiles untilt he times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24). Since 70 A.D., Jerusalem had been trampled by Gentliles until the Jews regained control of the city during the 1967 six-day war.
There are many more which could not be self-fulfilled. But, I have to go now. If you would like for me to give you all of the prophecies that have been, or are being fulfilled at this time, you can e-mail me at janesorganizedhome@yahoo.com. I am willing to talk to you about anything you don’t understand, or doubt about Christianity.
You have a wonderful day, and God Bless!!
“self-fullfilling prophecy? so…..you knew that the Bible said that we Christians would be hated for our faith, and decided to hate us?”
False.
“What about all the prophecies that could not be self-fulfilled, unless of course you’re talking about God fulfilling his own prophecies. such as:”
Where got?
Yeah, I’ll buy that “Christians are hated” crap when it is no longer a requirement that you belong to a very specific and narrow type of Christianity in order to hold public office in this country.
What do you mean by “Where got?”
Don’t be lazy. Google the meaning yourself.
Most of these are either so vague they can mean anything or are Crap.
One example: The nation of Israel would be reborn in ONE DAY (Isaiah 66:8) On May 14, 1948 Israel became a nation.
Many countries have an official day they were established, it’s usually called independence day or something of that type and involves fireworks and BBQ s. If you actually learned history you would have known that May 14th 1948 was a result of nearly a century of fighting and political lobbying and was followed by a war that to some extent is still going, hardly a miraculous rebirth in a single day.
Yoav,
The Israel referred to in the Bible is not the Israel you are thinking of. Israel in the Bible refers to the promised land, a literary motif used primarily in the book of Exodus which solidified a covenant between God and Moses. The “rebirth” you speak of was not supposed to be the birth of a country forged from political aggression, but rather, a state of being that all men and women enter into when they learn to love one another.
The thing with the arguement of “the bible said this would happen and it did” is that human history repeats itself. Every generation makes the same mistakes as the previous one. If you read history books from different nations, from different times, you will find that history repeats itself. All great nations will fall, all humans will kill/torture other humans at one point or another, some are always rich, some are always poor.
You can infer from non-biblical history books that if something has happened more than once in the past, it will happen again.
I could write a great academic piece, saying that a great leader will fall as a result of its haters. But unless I say his/her exact name and the exact way he/she will fall and why, it could be anyone, anywhere. Also, it would mean its essentially true, because it has happened over and over and over in history. But does that make me a God inspired being? no.
“If a book was written 50 years ago detailing my life and death (I am presently 41), I would be amazed, but if a book was written 500 years ago about my life and death, especially if it included details, I would be hesitant to call it a fairy tale or a myth.”
Ken – presumably you are a real person. There is no evidence Jesus existed.
It would be just as easy to write a book showing how foolish the OT was – and is. Hey, there ARE books that do just that. How is it you believe a fairy tale book about an imaginary character – Jesus – but don’t believe the many books debunking the obvious nonsense in the OT?
You’re blind to reality because you start with an assumption that Jesus was real, and are therefore willing to believe any amount of nonsense in order to back up your delusion.
Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if many could fit into the many different prophecies of the bible. You say you would be amazed at someone being able to write about your life before you were even born. I would only be surprised if it accounted for every single detail even those that we all keep hidden from others. A good example of how words can be twisted check out Nostradamus and all the ways things have been said of each of his predictions have been interpreted.
I understand you believe that the NT proves that Jesus fulfilled those predictions of the OT. Now it is known that most of the NT gospels were written well after his supposed death. It is to easy to alter facts when you know that people from the actual time aren’t there to counter that they are false. A good example of this is how writers have alter the personal history of some of the founding fathers to make them into something they weren,t.
Unfortunately, Mr Ivins, a great many of those prophecies that Jesus is said to have fulfilled, are questionable. The quotations of OT prophecy found in the gospels and the rest of the NT, which the evangelists said Jesus fulfilled, actually did not apply to him. A few:
Matthew cites Hos 11:1, saying that it’s a prophecy pointing to Jesus being taken to Egypt to avoid Herod’s slaughter of newborns. But that passage was not prophecy! It was, instead, an allusion to the past (i.e. the Exodus).
Matthew also makes an even bigger mistake when he says the OT predicted Jesus would be called “a Nazarene” … but not only does the OT not contain this word, it was not even a known word in the time when OT books were written; it comes from Aramaic, not Hebrew. (In fact, “Nazarene” had no meaning even during Jesus’ supposed lifetime … it was never used, until the Nazarene movement came into existence in the late 1st century, around the time of the Roman-Jewish War and immediately thereafter.)
Note, this and other facts about the gospels are why they are dated to the late 1st century rather than closer to Jesus’ lifetime. They contain words and phrases, such as “Nazarene,” that would have been gibberish during the time he was supposed to have lived. Given the decades-long lapse between Jesus’ supposed life and the evangelists’ writing, it’s relatively easy for them to have engineered the appearance of fulfilling prophecy. That they did so in rather poor or even erroneous fashion, tells us a great deal. It may not be something you want to acknowledge, but it is there nonetheless.
The aforementioned are just two of MANY problematic “fulfillments of prophecy” which Christians believe are manifest in the NT as reflected from the OT. When you actually backtrack them, however, you find more often than not, that the quotation does not exist (e.g. Matthew and the “Nazarene” thing) or that the “prophecy” is not a prediction at all (e.g. the sojourn in Egypt).
i dont know about your old testament but mine contains the word nazerene, and the laws they live by. Actually Samson was a nazarene. Though my bible is the good news bible which is notoreous for mistranslations.
Samson was a “Nazirite,” not a “Nazarene.” They aren’t the same thing. Here are references to each (Nazirite and Nazarene).
Yeah right so the OT predicted the coming if a Christ. They only forgot to mention when exactly he would be there. So most probably many people have taken this Christ role and failed, one called Jezus was lucky to get his role far enough so people would think he was the real one.
Look predicting is simple.
• I predict a big earthquake will come that will shake the Earth.
• I predict that some person will come and start a big war.
• I predict that some person will become insanely rich overnight.
• I predict that a false prophet will come and lead people to their death.
I predict the next thread will involve a deity-eating feline!
lol
That was a good example!
Your prophecies are very vague, and are not specific. God’s prophecies are detailed. And, he said they would all be fulfilled in ONE GENERATION. Which is the generation that witnessed the rebirth of israel. And, since the rebirth of Israel, these prophecies have started coming true.
John 13:19 Now I tell you before it comes, that when id does come to pass, you may believe that I am him.
self-fulfilling prophecy? So, all the great domineering nations of the world were formed and fell just like the Bible said they would (the bible was written by God almost 3000 years ago, before many of these nations came into existence) because the leaders read the bible and said “oh, well, we better throw this battle so we can align with the bible!” Check your history books against the bible. YOu’ll see it’s true. Of course you’ll also have to find an ancient map on the internet, because the names of the countries have been changed over time, but you can find anything on the internet.
What about all the prophecies that could not be self-fulfilled, unless of course you’re talking about God fulfilling his own prophecies. such as:
Global communications forseen (Revelation 11:9-10; 17:8) The bible prophesies that the entire world will “see” certain events unfold. The invention of the television and the delployment of global satellite networks during the 20 century allow news to travel the world at the speed of light for the first time ever. Remember that in the apostle John’s day, news traveled at the speed of horseback.
Mankind would be capable of destroying all life (Matthew 24:21-22). consider that when Jesus made this prophecy the armaments of his day were swords and spears. but today, with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, it is possible to wipe out all flesh on planet earth.
The use of nuclear weapons anticipated (Zechariah 14: 12). The neutron bomb melts (dissolves its victims-just as God warned 2500 years ago- “Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets, and their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.” This was unimaginable in Zechariah’s day.
There would be a move toward global government (Daniel 2:40-44; 7:23; Revelation 13:7-8). The former Roman empire-which encompassed present-day Europe – would revive and eventually dominate the world. The European Union has steadily moved forward in its attempt to unite Europe politically and economically. It has succeeded in creating a “European parliament, a cout, and a common currency. And globalization is not unique to Europe, it is happening everywhere.
Literal Babylon (formerly called Babel-Genesis 10:10) would reemerge in the land of Shinar-known today as Iraq(Zechariah 5:11; Isaiah 13). saddam Hussein spent over 20 years rebuilding the city of Babylon. Today, with Saddam’s regime overthrown, the international community is discussing how to rebuild Iraq.
The fact that God once flooded the earth would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the sicentific world becasue itwas judgment from God on man’s wickedness
Increased interest in vegetarianism anticipated (1 Timothy 4: 3-4). The New Age Movement has swept the globe during the past 40 years popularizing this.
The Earth wiould be filled with violence (Luke 17:26; Genesis 6:11-13). In the United States along, violent crime has increased nearly 500% since 1960. Fifty years ago abortion (the violent murder of an unborn child) was illegal in most countires. today, abortion is legal in most countreis and 46 million children are aborted each year.
Multitudes would travel two and fro (daniel 12:4). Prior to the Industrial Revolution, few individuals traveled beyond their own communities. Until recently, horse, foot, and boat were the only mode of transportation. Yet today, we travel by car, bus, plane, train, subway, ect. Millions and millions are running to and fro just as Daniel prophesided 2500 years ago!!
Knowledge would increase (Daniel 12:4). Today we are witnessing an explostion of avialable knowledge with the advent of the Internet, it is estimated that our cumulative knowledge is doubling every five years. This exponential increase is beyond what anyone could lhave imagained.
Deadly diseases which the bible calls “pestilences”) would be common (Matthew 24:7, Revelation 6:8). emerging diseases such as AIDS, ebola, Hanta virus, Dengue, West Nile, SARS, bird flu, etc., underscore this fact. Ironically, just a few decades ago, some scientists were forecasting that advances in medicine might soon redaicate deadly diseases. A lgobal economic system would exist (Revelation 13:16-18.) This was unthinkable in the apostle John’s day. Yet today, globalists in every level of government are seeking to unite the word. Connecting the world montetarialy is crucial totheir goal.
A man would control all banking and commerce (Revelation 13:16-18). Remember, this prophecy was penned 2000 years before our com0uter-driven society. Yet, until recently, you couldn’t have even dreamed how a person could control all commerce
The nation of Israel would be reborn in ONE DAY (Isaiah 66:8) On May 14, 1948 Israel became a nation.
Israel, once a desolate desert, would blossom in the last days and export produce to the world (Isaiah 27:6; 35:1-2;Ezedial 36: 34-36). Israel’s increased rainfall and world-renowned irrigation technology have caused the land to blossom. Incredibly, as foretold, they currently export over 800 million dollars worth of fresh produce each year, includi9ng over 200 million in flowers and ornamental lants!
Jerusalem would be trampled by Gentiles untilt he times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24). Since 70 A.D., Jerusalem had been trampled by Gentliles until the Jews regained control of the city during the 1967 six-day war.
Isreal would be partitioned by all nations (Joel 3:2; daniel 11:39). This is another unimaginable prophecy! In 1947, UN Resolution 181 planned the partitioning of Israel. Currently, the West Bank and Gaza have been seperated into Jewish and Palestinian settlements. Dividing Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria are also being negotiated today in order to create a Palestinian state.
Though Israel would be the focus of many fulfilled prophecies, most Jews would remain blind to the fact that Jesus is their Messiah until the very end (Luke 19:41-42; Luke 13:34-35; Romans 11:25-26). Remarkably, in recent years, thousands of Jews have trusted in Jesus as Messiah.
Iran(Persia, Sudan (Cush), and Libya (Put) would also partake in the Ezedial 38 attack with the invaion from the north (Ezekiel 38; 8-11). “Anti-Semitism in the Islamic world is rampant. According to the Koran and Hadith, Muslims are commanded to “fight and slay non-believers in Jihad (holy war) unless they convert to Islam (Surahs 9:5 and 47:4; vol. 1, b. 2, Hadith # 24 and 35. )
Ironically, Egypt and Jordan would not participate in this attack. (Ezekial 38). Interestingly, these two nations have signed recent peace treaties with Israel – Egypt in 1979 and JOrdan in 1994.
Marraige wold be forbidden by many. (1 Timothy 4:3). The bible states that marraige is honorable among all (Hebrews 13:4). Despote this, the Cath9olic Church forbids their 400,000 priest, 800,000 nuns and numerous bishops, cardinals, and monks from marrying. The Orthodox Church, as well as Hindus, Buddhists, and other religious groups also impose mandatory celibacy for certain orders.
Men wold be lovers of themselves (over others, and over God) ( 2 Timothy 3:1-2). This generation, like no other, regards self above all else. Self-love, self-esteem, self-reliance, self-gratifications, are encourged by the media, schools, psychologs, et. In contrast, Jeus taught self-denial. Even many chulrches today preach a “feel good about yourself” message. In other words, noone can do anything wrong. All your problems are your parents,teachers, the bully in school’s, any one else’s fault, but your own. It’s all about me, me, me, me; whatever makes ME happy. No wonder parents leave their children at home alone to go party. There’s no shame in it any more. No wonder people get divorced. Noone wants to put effort into anything that they don’t get immediate gratification from, and does not revolve around them. No wonder, we have so many kidults today. “I dont feel like going to work today. Think I’ll call in, sit on my parents couch, play video games and dream about what new game mom and dad are going to get me for my 35th birthday.” I’m not saying YOU re that way. but, that’s one of the bad things about me’ism.
Youth would become increasingly rebellious (2 Timothy 3: 2-3; Mark 13:12). No comment necessary!!
Humanity would become increasingly materialistic and lovers of pleasure (2 Timothy 3: 1-5). No generation in history has had so many means to entertain and arouse the senses. Every imaginable hedonistic pleasure is available and has become big business.
Jesus said Christians would be hated for His names sake (Luke 21:17; Revelation 6:9-11; 20:4 ). The banning of the Bible, prayer, the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes, Christmas songs, ect.. reflects this trend. Also consider that more Christians were martyered during the past century than during all previous history. What’s so totally awesome is the way in which God is using the martyrdom. In the countries and times of persecution (we’re talking major torture, houses burnt, family members killed, …..) the church grows the most. god said that in the end times he would pour out his spirit on his believers and that they would preach and teach Jesus. That the believers would grow in numbers.
Homeosexuality would be flaunted at the end of the age. Jesus warned tlhat the last days would be like the dys of Lot – whol lived in wicked sodom (Luke 17:28-30). We know that the root of Sodom’s sin was pride and complacency (Ezediel 16:49). – as it is today. However, sodom’s lasting infamy stemmed from their aggressive homosexual sin (Genesis 19; Jude 1:7). today, the homosexual agenda is flaunted and forced upon our entire city.
Environmental devastation of the planet forseen (Revelation 11:18). Our generation has done more to ravage the enviroment than any previous generation.
I have to go now. If you would like for me to give you all of the prophecies that have been, or are being fulfilled at this time, you can e-mail me at janesorganizedhome@yahoo.com. I am willing to talk to you about anything you don’t understand, or doubt about Christianity. I don’t believe everything I hear just become someone said it. Live with your bible in one hand, and the newspaper in the next. You’ll see the alignment. Times that have never been before. And all occuring TOGETHER, on ONE GENERATION .
You have a wonderful day, and God Bless!!
Can somebody PLEASE ban evangelist idiot troll? Evangelist idiot troll is an evangelist idiot and is seriously getting on my nips.
God bless you, Custador. God bless you to hell!
I prophecise Jane will post of her self deception again.
Look, if my name was jezus and I read the OT, then I would find it really cool to try to live and fulfill the prophesies described in the OT. At some point in time I would start to actually believe that I am the real Christ. Look at all the sects round you; many people actually start to believe that they are god.
It is all about marketting.
You believe you are god. As a matter of fact, you are your own God. Anything (cigarettes, money, sex, ) that controls what you do is a God. the problems is that your God (you ) cannot guarantee to take care of yourself. Take example: My God (Jehovah, among other admirable names ), tells me not to worry about anything. That he will take care of me, because I am a child of his (no. not everyone is a child of God), and that I do my best to live within his will. If I lose my job and my rent is due, and I have no food, and my car has a flat tire, NO NEED TO WORRY!!!! he (my God) takes care of me, and makes sure I have what I need. He’s done this numerous times. Your god (you) boasts of being able to take care of you, but there are no guarantees. I mean, your God can’t make an employer find favor with you and hire you instead of someone else. Your god (you) can’t lay it on someones heart to loan you a tire to get to the next job, or make someone give you food until you get your first paycheck. Your god (you) can’t do anything, other than wait on the mercy of the real God. It’s great to live life knowing “If our God is for us, who can be against us?” I’ve lived the secular, non christian life, and I’d be crazy to go back!!!!
Nonsensical poster posts nonsense.
*yawn*
The best you can do is put people down? That’s what we USED to do in middle school.
You used to do that in middle school? God I hated you people. Just leave me alone! And stop stealing my lunch money, I’m hungry!
BTW, if I did worship money as a god… that would mean there’s actual evidence for my god. How about yours? But I don’t worship money. Or sex. Or nasty cigarettes.
I do worship Chili’s molten lava cake though. mmmmm
My god is tasty, filled with chocolatey goodness, and has the benefit of existing. Finally an object worthy of my worship!
Wow, you are a total heretic if you are arguing that chocolate cake is better than sex.
Jihad!!!
omg! have you tried the white chocolate one???
om nom nom nom nom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yummy!
It’s better than some sex.
But good sex is definitely better than chocolate; I repent.
I have to agree with Ty here. If forced to choose between the two, the obvious choice is sex.
Now combining chocolate cake and sex….
I dunno, Ty. Good chocolate is pretty orgasmic! LOL!
How can I combine chocolate and sex? TELL ME NOW
“How can I combine chocolate and sex? TELL ME NOW”
I suggest googling “chocolate cake and sex.”
Don’t do it. You’ll get ants, you know.
Chocolate lava cake, sex, and a garden tub. The trifecta!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Don’t do it. You’ll get ants, you know.”
Googling causes ants?
“I dunno, Ty. Good chocolate is pretty orgasmic! LOL!”
You poor dear woman.
Were I not a married man, I would help you realize that this is not true. :p
Haaaahaa! Now I’m blushing a little. Aw shucks!
:P
“Googling causes ants?”
No combining but chocolate and sex might become threesome with ants.
Oh you poor heathen fools! Choosing between chocolate cake and sex! Do you not know that it is written in the Good Book (“Custador’s Bumper Guide to Shagging and How To Do It in Really Filthy Ways”) that the two can be COMBINED! Can I get a HALLELOOO-JAH!
HALLELOOO-JAH! Where can I get a copy?
Wait for it to come out on video, it’s easier to follow ;-)
“The best you can do is put people down?”
That’s what you are also doing now.
Some arguments are so lacking in merit that the only real response is mockery.
If you argue that the moon is made of cheese, I can give you a lot of scientific information demonstrating you’re wrong. Or, I can recognize that a person making that statement is so lacking in even a baseline understanding of the issues raised by it that there is no common ground for discussion.
You speak nonsense, and any argument that uses rationality to debate you will fail. Hence, mockery.
ignorant people, with nothing to back up their claims only insult others.
Can our gods have a competition? My lava cake against Jehova. I’ll bring the cake…
What would be on the undercard of this fight?
A brownie vs. Vishnu?
Mrs Fields cookies vs Allah?
Thanks for adding another data point to my hypothesis:
Fundies are incapable of recognizing irony.
“You believe you are god. As a matter of fact, you are your own God. Anything (cigarettes, money, sex, ) that controls what you do is a God’
I don’t think “god” means what you think it means. Nor do I think I’m god. That thought would require acknowledgment of god’s existence, which I just can’t do.
“(you ) cannot guarantee to take care of yourself.”
Now this is just sillty. No only do I take care of myself. I take care of a bunch of other people too.
“My God (Jehovah, among other admirable names ), tells me not to worry about anything. That he will take care of me”
Ok, let’s try an experiment. You sit down in one spot. Do nothing. No work. No play. Nothing. Just wait for god to provide you all you need to live. (No asking for help from other living humans, just god.) I will go about life the way I always do, providing for myself and my family. Let’s see who’s still alive in one month.
“your God can’t make an employer find favor with you and hire you instead of someone else”
Actually I can, and have, done exactly this. By helping myself. By getting education. By learning how to interview well. By making myself the most qualified.
“god (you) can’t lay it on someones heart to loan you a tire to get to the next job, or make someone give you food until you get your first paycheck.”
You are stunningly thick. My “god” can get himself to work so that he doesn’t have to rely on strangers for tires and food.
I have had atheist friends help me fix a tire before.
I rarely ask the religious views of the people I pay (with the money I earn at my job that I got all on my own) to fix my tires.
Yes, but friends help for FREE!
Then I can use the money I earn at my job that I got all on my own to buy beer and Xbox games.
Ty – you are clearly smarter than me….and have better friends.
(Please keep in mind I’m a lawyer so people rarely want to be my friend.)
I will be your friend. I like friends with money.
99.99999 percent of the time, I pay with my money too. But, we all need some help sometimes.
…and like friends with xbox games.
Does god make my atheist friends help me when I need help?
“Does god make my atheist friends help me when I need help?”
Probably. I read this book once that said he is totally cool with forced labor.
“99.99999 percent of the time, I pay with my money too. ”
Why? If “god provides” that seems like a rather stupid waste of money.
“I read this book once that said he is totally cool with forced labor.”
Correct – just ask that virgin, Mary.
“…and like friends with xbox games.”
This is a match made in heaven. Should we be picking out china patterns?
Jane you sound like a Bum.
It’s probably more of a 4th century scribe writing the story of jeebus. He has access to the OT some 2nd or 3rd hand stories about jeebus and a clear knowledge that the story better make the emperor look good. With that knowledge he organize the story to fit some OT prophecies and presto we have proof of the prophetic powers of the buybull.
I am not sure that Jesus found the Bible inerrently true. He may have relied on it as having some truth but there is zero evidence he believed it held absolute truth. He worked on the sabbath for one example. He overturned the eye for an eye scripture for another. The way Jesus used the Bible was not the way fundamentalists Christians use it today.
One of the things that ended my belief in Christianity was the fact that Jesus spoke of the flood as though it were an actual event.
“One of the things that ended my belief in Christianity was the fact that Jesus spoke of the flood as though it were an actual event.”
I also found it odd that he made that fig tree wither and die because it had no fruit on it. Being god couldn’t he just conjure up some fruit? I struck me as quite petty and unbecoming of the creator of the universe.
For me it was, “If he can’t even be relied on to know that the flood is pre-babylonian mythology, why should I listen to anything else he is claiming to know?”
What makes you think is a myth?
What makes you think it isn’t?
Have you researched it? have you compared it against archaeology, or anything?
Jane- where did you get your PhD in archaeology again???
I never said I had a phd in archaeology. I was just wondering why he didn’t believe in the flood. Aren’t we SUPPOSED to compare each other’s thoughts on this site as any who will come, or are we required to have a phd? Do you have a phd in Archaeology? seriously. Just wondering. never know. you may. if you do, let’s talk about it. I’m always up to hear what others have to say. Without trying to put them down.
I’m not trying to put you down. I’m trying to point out that you are clearly not engaged in the scholarly conversation concerning artifacts that date from the various millinea of the biblical era. Equally, you are clearly not engaged in the scientific scholarly conversation. For this reason, it seems really ascenine to me that you would criticize what you clearly don’t know about. Ask questions by all means, but don’t criticize.
BTW I have a Masters in molecular bio and neuroscience from Columbia (cc 2004). I am applying for a PhD in interdisciplinary studies for science and society later this year.
That’s a big ‘by the way’ you got there. Now to rain on your parade: It’s spelled asinine.
Aw dude, that was a low blow!
D’oh! LOL! My new computer does not have spell check on the internet. Sometimes I just don’t catch ‘em.
Muhahaahahaha, you cannot stop my grammar justice!
I was thinking “ascertain” as I was spelling “ascenine” which is clearly “asinine”
LRA, use firefox and install a dictionary add-on, it’ll do your internetz spell checking for you.
Internet’s… damn you sarcasm!
ok- got firefox and it is definitely underlining words it doesn’t recognize.
ascenine. yup- underlined in red.
asinine. clearly correct.
:D
YAY! (also underlined)
Ouch!
Yes, yes, and yes. You, clearly, have not.
“The way Jesus used the Bible was not the way fundamentalists Christians use it today.”
I think you meant old testament instead of bible. The bible hadn’t even been assembled in the life of Jesus, as far as I know. The new testament certainly didn’t exist. He probably relied on old testament literature passed down verbally, but I’m just guessing about that. Maybe someone a little better versed in biblical history could expound on that for us.
There was a canon, of sorts, of Jewish scripture in Jesus’ time. Actually it was layered. Some books were “canon” to all Jews, others by certain groups and in different arrangements. Keep in mind that I’m really breezing over this. A blog comment is really not sufficient to explain this.
First, the Torah, the first five books of the OT, were considered scripture, and were spoken of as a body under this name. It’s safe to say all Jews viewed the Torah as canon.
Second, there was a collection known as the Neviim or “the prophets.” These are Joshua, Judges, the Samuels, the Kings, and all the rest of the books which are named for prophets. While different sects viewed some of these in various ways, it’s safe to say that the books I named, as well as those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were canon, and even those “prophets” which were not considered wholly canon, were still revered by most Jews.
Third come the Ketuvim or “writings,” but those books were not accepted as a package by all the Jewish sects. Nevertheless those known as the “poetic” books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job) were considered canon by most Jews.
Now, by the 1st century when Jesus lived, most Jews were not literate in Hebrew; they knew the Jewish scriptures in translation … either in Greek, the Septuagint, or in Aramaic, the Targumim. A number of Septuagint and Targumim collections were trafficked, but the overall effect of this was to stabilize what most Jews viewed as “canon” — in a manner similar to Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate having stabilized the Christian canon later on. Particular collections ended up being more common than others.
So by Jesus’ time, there was something of a “canon,” (actually 3 of them) which as it turned out are pretty close to what is now accepted. But which canon you followed, depended on your native language (Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew if you were one of the few who knew it). It was only later in the 1st century, at the Council of Jamnia, that rabbis hammered out once and for all what was “canon.”
And one of the decisions they made was to dispense with the varied translations of the Septuagint and Targumim, and keep only the Hebrew as “canon.” Since then, Jewish scripture has been incredibly stable … much more stable than the Christian canon, which still has a lot of variation.
One final consideration to be recalled is that Judaism was not iconic or unified in Jesus’ time. Josephus famously referred to three main sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) but there were more than that. Groups such as the Therepeutae (made famous by Philo of Alexandria) cannot be counted out, nor can one safely assume that later sects, such as the Nazarenes, did not have precedents in Jesus’ day. So while I can point to some books that all of the many Jewish sects accepted as “canon,” there was no universal “canon” (not even Jamnia accomplished that since it decisions applied only to rabbinic Judaism and not the other sects).
As for the Christian canon, it’d be best if I just refer you to this page and left it at that. I’ve already bored people to tears.
yes in Jesus’ time there was a canon to which the JEWS subscribed. What is telling is when Jesus himself quotes from a Greek mistranslation of that canon! It is the most striking example of the fallacy of the Jesus story.
I’ve already bored people to tears.
Not at all. I knew (and still know) very little about the pre-Christian period of textual adoption and canonization. This was very interesting; provided some place to start. :)
@Ken well if there was any evidence that “Jesus” was actually born and lived on this earth then you might have something there…but you don’t.
Before any discussion about your topic, you should first address the FACT that the biblical character Jesus NEVER HISTORICALLY EXISTED! Do your research! Nowhere in history is any such person mentioned. Anywhere at anytime.
While I tend to believe that you are correct, one cannot disprove a factual assertion by pointing to a lack of confirming evidence.
Exactly.
It is, unfortunately, not possible to “prove” that no Jesus ever existed. Really, the truth about whether or not there was a Jesus, or if there was, what he truly said and did, probably will never be discovered.
Now, what we need is a De Lorean and some plutonium for the flux capacitor…
Do you think we could speak with Jesus and fix the Bible a little bit? I’m thinking about thinks like slavery, genocide or patriarchy…
slavery, the way we know it today, was not condoned in the bible. In Jeremiah, God commanded for all slaves to be let loose. The people let the slaves go, but them recaptured them soon after, and put them back into slavery. Just because something happened in the Bible does not mean that was the way god wanted us to live. A lot of the stories in the Bible showed how things turned out when people didn’t obey God.
By the way, you are a slave. If you have a job, and a boss, you are a slave. And God has very specific guidlines for how a “slave” should be treated. They’re all good.
No they’re not. There is NOTHING good about slavery. Especially if you are made a sex slave after your city has been conquered and your family has been slaughtered, all because you are a virgin. The Israelites were commanded to do this heinous act by God.
What are you talking about? Slaves are held against their will and aren’t paid the last time I checked. What job you do is your choice. Your analogy failed.
Guess again, Jane. Every mention of the word “servant” in your King James version is a DELIBERATE mis-translation of the the word “slave”. I love Christards who know less about their BuyBull than I do, they’re great fun…
“I no longer call you servants…but I call you friends’ John 15:15
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” Colossians 3:22
Some of us are slaves without our own knowledge, that is the ultimate enslavement.
“For I say to you, whoever commits sin (lives the lie of the false and fallen nature) is a slave to sin, but a slave does not remain in the ‘house’ (the spiritual house, whose house we are-Heb 3:6) forever, but a son (those in whom the heart of sonship has been awakened, the kind Christ had/has) will remain in the ‘house’ forever and He who the Son sets free shall be free indeed” John 8:34 & 35
You wanna keep playing Bible verses at 40 paces Ty? Love wins in the end friend and you shall know the Truth-He will see to it Himself, the truth of His love for you.
Dylan had it right…ya gotta serve somebody. Self or Christ (Love), those are the only two choices, you have no others. Hint…the latter is Life and Peace. All the best.
That verse you referenced in Colossians is analogous to your boss (in the workplace) telling you that you have to do what he says. But to do it as unto the Lord with ‘sincerity of heart’, yes in all things have this humble attitude.
Don’t do the typical John C patented point dodging.
Your lame holy book absolutely has scriptures that support the institution of slavery, and THAT’S the point of my quote. Not to engage you in pointless theological whacking off.
I don’t type one handed as well as you appear to.
Yes, the enslavement is to a false and fallen (foreign, dark-seeded) nature, freedom from it is offered only to those who would long to be set free from it, to be ‘delivered from the bondage of corruption and into the glorious liberty (freedom not enslavement) of the sons of God. Romans 8:21
Nah, you’re not interested (yet) but I love you still Ty. All the best sir.
No, the enslavement was to actual humans who could:
*Be bought and sold like livestock*
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
*Have their children and wives taken away and used a hostages to keep the person enslaved*
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
*Buy and sell young women as sex slaves*
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
*be beaten nearly to death, but not quite all the way to death*
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
*possibly be converted to Christianity by good slaves, but would have no obligation to no longer keep slaves once converted*
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
We’ve all been ‘bought with a price’ Ty. 1 Cor 6:19-20.
You can quote scripture verses all day but (respectfully speaking) you don’t understand what they mean. Not because you aren’t intelligent (to the contrary) but because you are not (yet at least) in the spiritual family. So it will make no sense to you whatsoever, in fact will seem quite foolish as it does.
‘If you don’t have His spirit abiding in you, you are none of His (do not yet belong to Him). Romans 8:9
‘My words are spirit and they are life’ John 6:63
‘Where would we go Lord? Only you have the words of life’. John 6:68 (Pete says to Christ after most of His disciples abandoned Him after a hard teaching).
I’m going to dinner man, all the best Ty.
You are spectacularly full of shit, John.
Just to continue pointing out to those reading how full of crap you are, please explain to use the deep spiritual message in a man selling his daughters as sex slaves.
Or the deep spiritual message in a man holding another man’s wife and children hostage in order to force that man to enslave himself permanently to get them back?
@John:
Strange how God denies sharing himself to anyone of intellect, yet the most straightforward and literal Bible passages, such as the ones Ty mentions, must always be interpreted through some convoluted reasoning.
But then again, you appear to have no other choice, lest the words be read for what they literally say, which puts the lie to the claims of God’s unassailable morality, justice and love.
Ty, they are ‘types and shadows’ (Heb 8:5) as are all the OT ‘picSURE’s for us to see, they are ILL-US-STRAY-SHUNS of our own condition, they speak to our bondage to a lower form of life and nature than that which we were originally created for. The problem is, you are acclimated to this one (kind & quality) of adamic life and living experience and know no other and so to you, this is ‘normal’ but if you really want to see what He originally intentioned man to be like (made in His very image and likeness) then you have to ‘see’ (know) Christ in truth, in beauty and yes, even in you (spiritually speaking) as your very life. Of course that makes no sense to you now I realize, I am merely trying to answer your question.
The ‘book’ the Bible is not where the Life itself is found Ty, Jesus said ‘you search the scriptures in hopes of finding again what you lost (eternal kind and quality of life, meaning the kind we had in Him before we went ‘out’ of God and into ourselves in the garden, in the fall) but you refuse to come to Me (personally) that I may give it to you’. John 5:39 & 40.
You keep trying to pin me to an OT verse about slavery as if I am a slave and not the freest (sp? ha) man you will ever meet (save Christ alone). ‘You shall know the truth and (the effect of knowing the Truth Himself) will make you free’.
The kingdom is a paradox, a beautiful paradox. Yes, religion is a terrible bondage, is not the truth, is not liberating. But despite what you think, Jesus did not come to bring ‘religion’ in its cultural context, but life and liberty. What is your answer to why Christ was always at odds with, saved his harshest rebukes for the ‘religious’ types of the day? What do you say about that Ty? I know, this is an ‘atheist’ forum right. No its first a human forum and God will always be found among men (mankind), He is Love.
As far as those OT verses go, I could quote you innumerable verses in the NT that speak to the new (and better covenant, Heb 8:6), to God’s love, to mercy, kindness, compassion, grace, etc ad nauseum and what would you say to those friend? There is no light in unbelief, that’s the starting point of a beautiful, life-long journey that will take you through (if you stay the course) all the religious pooh and doctrines of men, etc until you reach the ‘seventh’ day.
Old (secular) song lyrics ‘nothing good comes without some kind of fight, gotta kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight’. All the best.
*yawn*
Ever met a point you couldn’t dodge with nonsense? I’ve never seen it happen.
“slavery, the way we know it today, was not condoned in the bible”
Evidence please.
“Just because something happened in the Bible does not mean that was the way god wanted us to live”
So god isn’t “all powerful?” He’s not capable of stopping things he finds morally repugnant?
“If you have a job, and a boss, you are a slave.”
I don’t think slave means what you think it means. (You seem to have this problem with a lot of words.)
I think god hates jane by putting her in such a bad spot here.
let’s see.
A Hebrew male slave is released on the 7th year but his wife and kids are not so he is forced to choose between leaving them behind or give up his right to be released (notice that this is only apply to a male hebrew slave female and non-hebrew slaves remain slave for ever. You aren’t allowed to beat yor slaves to death but it’s OK to beat them to within an inch as long as they don’t die on the spot (Ex 21).
And of course good old Leviticus never fail to provide:
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. (Lev 25:44-6).
Sound like slavery to me.
Re: “By the way, you are a slave. If you have a job, and a boss, you are a slave.”
You cannot seriously be comparing employment with slavery. Can you? Employment is a voluntary contractual relationship between two parties, where one side offers labor in return for remuneration. It can be ended by either party, depending on the circumstances.
Slavery is completely involuntary, does not involve any remuneration for the labor-providing party, and cannot be ended by the latter. It is also not a contract but a form of ownership.
Look, I get that you’re trying to make the Bible look better than it does. Really. But you’re doing yourself no favors by redefining basic words to make them something other than they actually are.
You must be pretty desperate, if you feel the need to make slavery seem this innocuous and normal.
Also, my boss is not allowed to beat me to within an inch of my life, nor to take my wife hostage to keep me from leaving his service.
In fact, early Greek, Roman and Jewish sources make mention of Jesus. These include Tacitus (Annals), Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), Pliny the Younger (Epistles) and Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). As well, there is a letter from a Syrian, Mara Bar-Serapion, to his son. In it, he compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras and Jesus.
Please do your homewoek before you make such rash assertions
Those sources are from the late 1st and 2nd century. It is false that “nowhere in history is any such person mentioned”, but it is true that there is no mention (of any kind, historical or otherwise) of Jesus during his alleged lifetime or about a hundred years afterward.
“In fact, early Greek, Roman and Jewish sources make mention of Jesus”
If i remember correctly they make mention of Crestus or Christ which is a label meaning the anointed one and could have applied to anyone.
A Biblical Definition: comparing scripture with scripture
“…We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.”
John 1:41
“…I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ…”
John 4:25
These two passages of scripture define Christ as Messiah. Therefore, we can say that the word Christ means the same as Messiah or:
Christ = Messiah
There is NOTHING circular about this at all!
Nope.
10 PRINT “It must be true because it says so in the bible.”
20 GOTO 10
RUN
The bible says it’s true, and the bible wouldn’t lie, because then it wouldn’t be true, and the bible says it’s true. . .
Sorry
“Homework”
The Tacitus and Pliny mentions are very questionable, with significant evidence that they are later additions to the text.
The most reliable mentions don’t ascribe any mystical powers to him, or describe him as much more than an itinerant rabbi preaching an apocalyptic message at about the same time that a hundred other itinerant rabbis were wandering around preaching apocalypse. The Roman occupation of Jerusalem was a fertile breeding ground for this sort of message. The fact that the name Yeshua, and incredibly common name in Judea is attached to one or more of those rabbis is pretty unremarkable.
Honestly? Your list of mentions is pretty thin sauce. There are any number of minor Roman functionaries and legionaries from the same time period that we know much much more about. Odd, considering that this mas supposedly raised the dead, and the world went dark when he died that no one ever mentions either thing.
Doing the homework on this issue is not good for building faith.
Also, what Rodney said.
FWIW using the name “Yeshua” had some symbolic importance for the movement, in addition to it having been a common name. This name is identical to that of Moses’ successor (usually called in English “Joshua” — but despite this difference in translation, they were originally the same name). Calling the new sage “Yeshua,” then, indicated the end of “the Mosaic age” and the start of a new era, “the Yeshuan age” I guess one could call it.
You don’t believe anything you can’t understand? I don’t understand why we can fell and see the effects of the wind, but can’t see the wind. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Two minutes on google would answer that question.
http://tinyurl.com/25ch859
You keep thinking that your own ignorance makes good debating points. It doesn’t.
but but… Jesus used that analogy, too! Ty by trying to educate Jane you’re insulting Jesus!
Well, if Jesus hadn’t been so damn ignorant, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
There’s really no way to wrap your mind around such terrible logic. Xians (not xtians because that would be christtians) aren’t really thinking when they say this stuff. In their own circles, you can say anything you want without being challenged. How useful is logic in such a scenario?
I love the argument against the appeal to emotion ‘It changed my life for the better, it can change yours too, therefore it’s true’. For an 18 year old who’d just gone through my first major depressive episode having recently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, I guess you could say I was perfectly primed for my life to ‘change for the better’. Since leaving the church I realise that much of the great change in my life came through the social aspects of the church (the sense of community in a church really can be something special), and can be traced easily to rational explanations that have nothing to do with ‘being saved’ or ‘having divine revelation of God’s Word as through the Holy Spirit’.
Now when I look back I recognise just how many of those life-changing moments I’ve had over the years, many from books, fiction and non-fiction alike. I remember feeling completely changed at 14 or 15 when I first read Neal Donald Walsch’s Conversations with God – a couple of years later the same thing happened when I was reading the Lord of The Rings. Again recently when reading the last installment of the Harry Potter series. It’s not so much what the books had to offer as to what I was able to see in them all. Life changed because that’s what happens, all the time.
Please excuse my Christian ignorance, but many of you seem to deny the existence of a historical Jesus. Where do you get evidence for this (or what are the major claims)? I would really like to know. Thanks!
You first … I’d be intrested in your evidence for a historical Jesus and the major claims you would make for him?
There is no evidence of his existence outside your own mythology. Using the bible to say Jesus existed is like using the flood story to prove Noah existed. Please come back with a better argument for his existence…
ali -
The argument is that Jesus was a mythical character, along the lines of Hercules or Robin Hood. There are a number of lines of argument, but it mostly comes down to arguments that the stories in the gospel are literary and theological rather than historical. The folks who promote this theory are usually called ‘mythicists.’
For a quick summary, you can read Robert M. Price’s essay Christ a Fiction. Another good starter guide is Richard Carrier’s interview on “Faith and Freethought Radio” entitled How Not to Argue a Mythicist Position.
It does not matter. It is not about Jesus. Anyone can see the way things are and what is true. We can not escape it.
There is still another option: Jesus was real but his tales on the bible weren’t. His life was “improved” to justify his deification
If he was real the romans took no notice and wrote nothing down, which would be odd because they recorded the most petty of crap in triplicate and then had it translated for good measure.
If he existed, he was a pretty ordinary man. He only could convince a bunch of followers, unlike Mohammad :-)
You wouldn’t expect references about every man, even in the roman empire, would you?
In fact, if he existed and was not a god or if he didn’t existed at all, I don’t think that makes any difference.
This is very possible. The problem is that any evidence that would point to such a person specifically, has been trampled by Christianity since that time. Barring some sort of major discovery, we will never know anything certain about a Jesus who may have lived but was not the Jesus of the gospels.
There is far more evidence that Santa Clause exists since many people have seen him even spoken to him than jezus. Many different books all talk about santa clause whil only one book talks about jezus.
Sometimes I wish I had an example that wasn’t so insulting to believers, but Santa Claus is the quintessential analogy for unreasonable faith.
Jesus believed it, so we should believe it? Seriously?
This is my favorite verse to prove how Jesus believed the Old Testament:
Remember Christians … Jesus believed you should kill any child that curses his father or mother. Jesus believed it, so you should believe it too.
Well…
They’re welcome to try.
I thought the oldest written records were from Sumeria and are receipts. Life changing book “Republic” by Plato. Great book. Way older than the bible written by a real guy we have empirical proof of. Maybe some Aristotle of whom we only have pieces. The biggest life change I ever had was writing about Epicurius and coming to understand what he was really about. He was not interested in just going out and having a good time, but about enjoying your life. After reading his philosophy, I really did make a change. If you use Christian reasoning, he must be God not a Greek man with a good idea. I do recommend just reading philosophy to find how others have believed. Opens the mind greatly. Evangelicals would say I have been taking over by the devil. Oh well. I like to know things and have an open mind.
I consider myself something of an Epicurean too. In the most positive sense of the word.
“Is the Bible Reliable for Truth about Jesus Christ?”
No.
How about a really tough question, like…what is Dark Energy? Or…how many licks DOES it actually take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? http://www.tootsie.com/comp_faq.php
The circularity of the argument is so bloody obvious, prima facie blatant that it must have taken some effort to describe it. (“describe how you walk” “dunno, just do”) I mean of *course* TInkerbell is real; if you don’t believe it, Peter Pan will vouch for her!
And I think people with genuine human intuitive experiences or epiphanies (“gotta get outta this gutter”) have plenty of xians around just shitting their britches to tell them what’s really causing their experience.
Well crowed!
Francesc:
“There is still another option: Jesus was real but his tales on the bible weren’t. His life was “improved” to justify his deification”
I think this is a really lame cop-out. Atheists should just decide that Jesus was totally fictional and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter.
So, am I to say that the main basis for atheism is the lack of historical evidence? If (and a big IF) the veracity of the Scriptures describing Jesus existence was proven, would atheism be falsified?
“Atheists should just decide that Jesus was totally fictional and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter.”
Fortunately, no one cares about your opinion on the topic.
“So, am I to say that the main basis for atheism is the lack of historical evidence? If (and a big IF) the veracity of the Scriptures describing Jesus existence was proven, would atheism be falsified?”
Joseph Smith was a real person. Does that make Mormonism true?
The historicity of an itinerant apocalyptic rabbi named Yeshua says absolutely nothing about the existence of a god/gods.
“I think this is a really lame cop-out. Atheists should just decide that Jesus was totally fictional and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter”
Yep, I think christians should just decide that slavery and child abuse is inmoral and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter. Atheism is not even a philosophy, it is just the lack of religious beliefs; we are not a “we”. Different opinions on some matters are natural.
And by the way, how could you “decide” that? I don’t know wether Jesus existed or not. I don’t have enough evidence of his existence, but there is a book who state he existed; and we know that a few people “close” to that moment believed he existed. I think doubt then is justified.
But don’t worry, as opinions, doubt is also natural. I don’t need to KNOW anything by divine revelation, I just can live without being certain.
Lastly, I’m not sure about the existence of an historical jesus, but I’m pretty sure that, if (and that’s a big IF) he existed, he wasn’t the son of God
Atheism would be falsified by the proven existence of god – in any of its million incarnations.
And even if someone proved, beyond doubt, that a god exists – doesn’t mean I’d worship it.
@Siberia @Francesc:
You both, with your answers, have exposed what atheism is really about: Not EVER recognizing or accepting God or to ever worship Him, even if proof is at hand. Atheism=Rejection with or without proof of His existence… Don’t bother to reply to any christian…Just nicely say: I choose not to believe…I choose to live without complete certainty that God might or might not exist.
@All Christians: Try not to preach to atheists, for them we are “insulting” their intelligence…only to those hungry and thirsty for a Living God… Atheists are not enabled to hear his Voice…Don’t force His words into deaf ears….First they need to open them…and that is their call, when their good and ready to give it a try…
Francesc, the TRUE evidence of the existence of God is by divine revelation…He reveals Himself to those who seek Him… I couldn’t have said it better than you…
P.D.: Excuse my poor english…
Your English is fine. The point you are making is, however, inane.
Ali:
Re “Atheists should just decide that Jesus was totally fictional and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter.”
Why is that? Who are you to decide that atheists are ONLY permitted to think that? This is a transparent attempt to invoke the fallacy of the false dilemma. Reality is that there are MANY possibilities available, not just two (i.e. that Jesus existed and was exactly as portrayed in the gospels, or that there was no such person at all). There is, for example, the possibility that there was someone named Jesus who maybe had a few followers and who died young; his followers embellished the truth of his life and said he’d been killed, ascended, and would return, in order to explain his absence. There might also have been a Jesus, about whom different stories were told, not all of them accurate and some embellished; but the groups later got together, collected all of the stories into one, and thus telescoped the embellishment. There might also have been a group of people who had certain ideas, and in order to package them conveniently and lend them some credence, they followed an old Hellenic tradition of attributing those ideas to a single charismatic teacher and came up with a life for him to explain how he taught it all.
I could go on with more proposed scenarios, but doing so is unnecessary. I’ve already shown that your forced choice between only two options, is invalid.
Re “So, am I to say that the main basis for atheism is the lack of historical evidence?”
Atheists are atheists because they don’t see any evidence for God’s existence … at all … and that refers not merely to the historicity of Jesus specifically, but to every other possible deity as well. Being an atheist means believing in NO gods, not merely not believing in the Christian God.
Atheists should just decide that Jesus was totally fictional and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter.
Why? Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. Beyond that, it’s got nothin. We’ve got no creed, no gospel, no church, no central organization, nothin. It’s not a life philosophy or a worldview or a set of traditions. So there’s really no need for people to share the same views on every matter.
Plus, as Carrier pointed out, the mythicist arguments can be really arcane. You really have to know something about Hellenistic Jewish mysticism, mystery cults and ancient historiography to really get deep into the debate. Mythicism itself is really an extension of 150 years or so of Higher Criticism, so it also helps to know something about those methods. The short of it is that it’s hard to be too critical of folks who don’t accept the theory.
So, am I to say that the main basis for atheism is the lack of historical evidence?
Well, no. Firstly, as Ty pointed out, the fact that other religions may have accurate historical records do not make them true. If Muhammad was real, that doesn’t necessairly make Islam true. (and yes, there are mythicists who say that Muhammad is fictional. I don’t know their arguments, though.)
And there are plenty of Christian scholars who go at least half-way towards mythicism and still remain Christians. I’ve heard theologians and Christian historians who argue that the gospels are literary and theological works that are not reliable as history.
And of course, the mythicist argument is that the first Christians didn’t believe in a historical Jesus. They believed in a divine or semi-divine figure who never came to earth, and the stories of his baptism and crucifixion are extensive parables teaching the theology of the movement. So they believed that the gospels were fiction – since they wrote them that way – and still believed in a divine Jesus who remained in heaven.
I’m hard pressed to think of a single “main basis” for atheism, but I think a simple “lack of evidence for the existence of a deity” would probably be safest.
Hey vorjack, thanks for asking my question simply and clearly. It was a helpful response.
This may not be a related, but could I ask something else? If we look at statistics, it seems that most of the world still believes in the major religions — Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc — only a\small percentage (maybe abt 8%?) have declared themselves atheist. Of course, this is not a case AGAINST atheism, because statistics don’t prove anything. But what I want to ask is this: if atheism is true, then why isn’t it more obvious to the populations of the world? What is it that keeps us back from this simple truth that god does not exist? Is it a lack of intelligence?
It is often the lack of applied intelligence, but more often than not it is kept alive buy tradition, indoctrination, fear, ostracization, economics, politics, and good old ignorance.
Also, culture (tradition implies this a bit but not completely).
Quite a few imagined fairy tales, myths, and superstitions that some might not consider religious are still kept alive. Breaking mirrors, umbrella inside, Santa, Bigfoot, electoral college, profit based health care. Some of these belief systems are not logical, not rational, not proven, not scientific – but they have been around so long we hold to them simply because we are used to them.
I also forgot to add religion is a social institution. Go to any church ask the pastor what he preaches or more importantly what the particular tenets of his denomination are and then go and ask regular attendees if they believe the same thing and as often as not they won’t. They attend because friends or family do and they want to be part of the gang or not upset wife/in-laws. I can cite many times my friends (as teenagers) showed up at one church or another so a girl’s parents would let her date them. I, as a well known teenage agnostic, even officially belonged to the the local parish so I could remain a member of the softball team. As I was a kick ass short stop and had no love for the obnoxious baptist team was accepted as a nominal catholic.
“if atheism is true, then why isn’t it more obvious to the populations of the world? What is it that keeps us back from this simple truth that god does not exist? Is it a lack of intelligence?”
I shouldn’t answer for vorjack, and I’m not, this is my thought: humans are brainwashed from infancy – by their parents, by culture – to believe the otherwise incredible. I’m not sure intelligence has anything to do with it. I’m guessing those less well educated are more likely to believe something obviously absurd than those who have a broader understanding of how the world operates.
Just look at the cases of those who have suffered from the Stockholm Syndrome. For example, there is the case of the young woman kidnapped in California 18 years ago, at age 11 – after a time, she came under the spell of the monster who kidnapped her.
Patty joined her new Symbionese Liberation Army comrades after she was locked in a closet and raped repeatedly over the course of a few weeks.
We coe into the world as infants with a blank slate, which makes it easy for our parents and for our culture to instill a belief system in us, one that even the truth can’t easily rip away.
What is it that keeps us back from this simple truth that god does not exist? Is it a lack of intelligence?
That’s a good question. The problem isn’t that I don’t have an answer. The problem is that I have too many answers, and I’m not sure which ones are useful or meaningful.
Obviously, I think part of the answer lies in what other comments have said: the greatest determinate of what faith you accept is what faith your family and your society accept – and I don’t think most believers would argue with that. We’re social animals, and we’re socialized by the people in our communities. This establishes our preconceptions, and our preconceptions control what makes sense to us.
So the religion you were brought up with just makes more sense to you. To break away from that frequently requires a “de-conversion” experience that’s often just as profound as the conversion experience of born-again Christians. Read lukeprog’s story over at Common Sense Atheism for a very well written example.
So the fact that there aren’t many atheists could simply be because there aren’t many atheists. We’re not breeding fast enough and raising kids in non-religious communities. In light of that, the fact that we’re growing at all is pretty impressive.
But I think there’s something more than that. I tend to think that religion fulfills a number of cravings in the human animal.
I talk with people, and I find that many of them crave some feeling of overarching purpose to their life. Religion gives them a role in the universal narrative of God’s creation. Others need to feel that there’s some guiding force to the apparent randomness in life. Everything must happen for a reason. Some folks just don’t seem to feel comfortable without an authority figure overhead, giving their actions a stamp of approval.
Religions seem to fill some of those cravings. But different people have different cravings, which explains the different flavors within a religion – compare Rob Bell’s “emergent Church” to neo-orthodoxy. Atheists frequently seem to be people for whom these cravings are weaker, or who just have different sorts of cravings altogether. We’re therefore less attached to religion, and when doubts creep in – as they do for everybody – they meet less resistance.
So I think part of the answer may be that the conditions aren’t right for most of the world’s population to lack those cravings. I think ti’s clear that affluence plays a part of it; the world’s most naturally atheistic countries (rather than those countries where atheism is imposed) are usually the most affluent countries: Denmark and Sweden are good examples. But most of the world remains dirt poor.
Last stats I saw said the non-religious were the 3rd largest group in the world, comprising 16% of people worldwide.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
confusion :1) The bible tells us God said to love our enemies but he is going to kill his without end
2) Isaiah 45:7 God says he created Evil and all things
3) An angel told Mary she will bear Gods son – so if Jesus was Gods son in heaven before the foundation of the earth, he has to cheat on his heavenly wife and put his seed into a very young earthly girl (which today would be an act of pediphillia) via surrogate Holy Spirit. Mary did not have a choice in the matter, only that she found favor with God who is not a respector of persons, impregnant her so Jesus can be his earthly son as well. Now that is a miracle, but very confusing! However, I do think there are a lot of helpful and loving verses to draw on to help humans in their lives, i.e. love one another, forgive etc.
If you know the early history of the church hierarchy — e.g. the fact that they murdered anyone, like Arius, who disagreed with their dogma — you know that the Christians were born in blood and born dedicated to promulgation of myth at any cost. So many questions are begged by the creation of the canonicals it is impossible to tell myth from fiction, and as Robert Anton Wilson once pointed out, the original writings were in koine Greek. It so happens that koine had no punctuation, so the line “God is not here” could just as easily have been “God is nowhere.” Josephus’ accounts of the guy we call Jesus have been discredited; among other things he did not live in Jesus’ time. What do we end up with over 2,000 years later? Pedophile priest and a Poop who is covering for them.
To all athiests: what if you’re wrong?
“To all athiests: what if you’re wrong?”
Have you chosen a religion to believe in? Which one? What if picked, out of the thousands available, the wrong one?
Then God will forgive me. On the other hand, it YOU’RE wrong, you’ve wasted your whole life. Sleep tight now!
If we’re wrong it doesn’t mean you’re right.
In that case I guess we’ll share the same destiny as the billions and billions of religious people who worshiped the wrong god, or worshiped him the wrong way.
Then we are wrong.
I guess it never occurred to you that you could be wrong? If we are wrong, you may also be wrong. Or you could be wrong, and we are right, or you are right, but probably not.
Why should it matter whether or not we are “right” or “wrong”? Why should our eternal fates depend on believing a preposterous story? Why does an omnipotent being care so deeply about whether or not people believe in him and the ridiculous scenario that he (Christians claim) cooked up, sight unseen?
Why does it matter to a supposedly self-sufficient being that people have “faith” in him? What does he get out our having “faith” in him, that he cannot seem to get, any other way? And if he can get it no other way, then can he even be omnipotent at all (omnipotence means — among other things — always have infinite choices of doing anything or getting anything he wants)?
Have you even begun to ask even one of these questions? If so, why not? Are you so intellectually deficient that they’ve never crossed your mind?
To Shrek: what if Donkey doesn’t really like you?
well at least you’re responding to real scholars. A local pastor? wow. Next you can take on little girls coming out of Sunday School.
Most Christians are not reading Tillich and Kierkegaard. What they know of their religion they learn from their local pastor, and so these pastors more than anyone define and shape the nature of what Christianity is, how it is practiced out here in the world.
Why am I not surprised that Elemeno is familiar with both of these fine gentlemen, Tillich and Kierkegaard? The latter strikes me as a rather melancholy, almost afflicted and lonely soul while Tillich very much the cerebral, bordering on what is often called ‘new thought’ Christianity.
Ever read any Walter Lanyon?
Faith, the trusting suspension of disbelief, fails the sniff test
• canonic xian texts approved 400 years after their alleged events
The “Good News” did not drop out of the sky into eager hands of true believers. There was no Newsweek for Occupied Roman Palestine in the first century CE. No xian text in Aramaic, the language Jesus would have spoken, has ever been found. They are written in a Greek used by traders and international commerce throughout the eastern Mediterranean.
Xian texts which appear together under a (question begging) name, ‘New Testament’ were written in koine (common) Greek over a span of about a century 50CE-150CE. The gospels were authored (70CE-110CE), later altered and added to by persons who are unknown. Paul (fl 50-65CE) like Mohammed, started out as an artisan and trader. He made tents. Not all the letters attributed to Paul are genuine.
The 27 canonical books of NT were selected from a large number of xian texts and variants in circulation in the mid-fifth century CE. Leftovers were confiscated and burned. By good fortune single copies were discovered in a cave at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945 — a treasure urn filled with gnostic texts deliberately saved from the flames.
• xian texts are historical comix and fifth-rate fan fiction
Only taboo prevents grasping that the life of Jesus is identical to the life of Sherlock Holmes. They had no lives.
They are fictional characters. Holmes and Jesus/Christ have also taken on a “life of their own” outside of canonic primary writings “about” them. Witness first-rate Holmesian fan fiction novel, ‘The 7% Solution’ — the title refers to Holmes’ addiction to injectable cocaine. Theology starting with Paul (fl. 50-65 CE) is fifth-rate fan fiction about a typical hellenistic world divine personal savior.
Perhaps best known hellenized personal svaior: Isis. Without social standing and the money to go with it, membership in Queen Isis’ entourage proved impossible. However, for poor folk was the rather rude phallic god Sabazius. From his hand gesture bestowing blessing xians appropriated the one still seen today.
Even if a stage set is historically appropriate, Holmes’s England and Jesus’ Palestine are also fictionalized. There never has been a 221B Baker Street. Dr Watson did not write The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Pilate was never governor of Judea — that higher office did not exist until after Jesus’ alleged death. None of the four gospels was written by the people whose name each bears.
In the so-called “good news” Pilate was an important minor figure. Pilate’s personality and actions had to be improved for political reasons to protect underground xian cells. Jesus did not talk to Pilate, certainly not using the grandiloquent rhetoric attributed to him by “John”. Pilate was noted for cruelty and disdain for the people. Jesus was an apostate from Judaism according to xians; such local affairs were of no interest to Rome. The penalty for his religious crime was being stoned to death by religious authorities.
Now Rome had no problem putting upstart rebels to death on a cross — but there was no crucifixion, no stoning because Jesus could no more die on a cross than Holmes could die from a cocaine overdose.
Only after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) did xians commit to writing an antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jewish religious authorities and “the people” accused Jesus of claiming to be “King of the Jews.” Siding with Rome in appearance — as Paul also advises — was a xian survival strategy. Jews were tolerated, but not appreciated, by the Roman state and its educated elites.
In 40CE Emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from Alexandria (Egypt) for rioting. Xians, emerging as they had from jewish roots, had to distance themselves from those traitors in Palestine and possible sympathizers in large cities of Rome’s empire: Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome itself.
Pilate had to get his coat of whitewash — thus the famous Ecce Homo scene where he is willing to return Jesus to his fellow Jews or release another criminal. “Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, ‘I find no basis for a charge against this man.’” Luke23:4 NIV. Pilate (and the Empire) were not at fault. So, the “Jews” took the rap. Those lying xians happily portraying Jews as guilty of claiming that Jesus was a traitor to Rome. Even if he had been aware of it, Pilate certainly would not have observed a Jewish custom of mercy during Passover. In the middle ages an even more sanitized Pilate became a minor saint.
Xians are fond of claiming that better evidence is available for Jesus’ life than for that of Julius Caesar. They lie. Our evidence for Sherlock Holmes is more solid than that for Jesus. And, that’s the “gospel truth”.
the anti_supernaturalist
The link for this was just above and to the right of today’s post of Tim Minchin and the Good Book. So appropriate!
“I know the Good Book’s good because the Good Book says it’s good;
I know the Good Book knows it’s good because a really good book would”
http://donstuff.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/circular-reasoning1.jpg
Those who deny anti-circular-reasoning are anti-christ.
I like your point about all religious books touching lives. As a Christian, I find that God puts many things in our lives to mold and shape us. The Bible has moved me, the Book of Mormon has moved me, but I would sat the Section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price have moved me the most.
My biggest grip about my fellow Christians, regardless of their faiths, is when faulty logic like this is used. Another I dislike – “Be good and believe, just in case!” While it is true that our faith grows as we do, fear and illogical conclusions are not going to help anyone. We all have faith in something, even if your faith is in nothing. My prayer is that we let God make us in His image, rather than us trying to make God in ours.
Enjoyed reading you opinions, God bless!
You do know that the Book of Abraham is really not about Abraham, right? They found the actual papyri that Smith “translated” and they are from ancient Egypt, and are about rituals associated with preparing a body for burial.
No, we *don’t* all have faith in something. Some of us adults like to use our brains.
“Jane… In the nicest possible way… STFU”
“Jane is pretty spectacularly full of crap”
“Jane you ignorant slut!”
It appears Jane has had an easy time collecting goats here.
Well, that second quote is right after having demonstrated that Jane made a factually incorrect statement, one of many, that was incredibly easy to demonstrate. That fits the criteria for full of crap.
And the last quote there is from a famous Saturday Night Live skit.
the first one, on the other hand, was me telling a mosron to shut the f*%k up ;-)
*Moron.
Ironically.
You can detect irony.
According to my hypothesis, that means you are not a fundie.
John C. wrote: “you are none of His (do not yet belong to Him).”
John C., you’re such a Johnny One-Note, in for the long haul with your single vision. A salute to you for your tenacity.
Your above quote, though, while lovely, merely points up how limited in power your god is in your own mind, a god, I will presume, that is a projection of someone you know.
Apologies if quoting the bible is an oxymoron in this comment thread, “Is the Bible Reliable for Truth about Jesus Christ?” Where else do we learn about Jesus Christ, but in our hearts and in the bible?
1. Please check today’s day and date – Yes you can count backwards to the birth or conception of Jesus Christ. Please consider this carefully – it’s not Socrates, Alexander, Mohammad or Darwin or Lady Gaga.
2. Please remove the ten commandments and the teaching of Jesus Christ – as found in the bible, and offer up a better foundation on which to live.
3. Please be honest – I have yet to read an athiest dialogue that says specifically that the end of our mortal life on earth is just that – the end.
4. If there be anything else, it relates to not putting the cart before the horse as far as the bible is concerned. As per the Apostle Paul – it is not of the letter, but of the spirit.
From the bible – Jesus explains why he was born, and came into the world:
Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.John 18:37
From the bible – Jesus explains why the word he has spoken – as only found in the bible – is worth considering.
I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:46-48
Before any readers fall off their chairs in derision – please consider whether, “live – die – food for worms”, truly answers your life questions?
1. You can count backward from today’s date on the Gregorian Calendar and find the date for Jesus’ birth that was made up in 1582. The fact that pope Gregory XIII declared Jesus to have been immaculately conceived on a specific date almost 1600 years earlier is irrelevant. We actually know what year Socrates and Muhammed were born, and for Alexander I, Charles Darwin, and Lady Gaga we have the exact dates. A Darwin based calendar would actually make more sense than a Jesus based calendar.
2. Can you really not think of a better foundation on which to live than “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” or “And if thy right hand offend thee cut it off”? I’ve always preferred “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring”.
3. What? You’ve yet to read an atheist dialogue that the end of our mortal life is the end? Can you maybe clarify the question? The end of brain activity? The end of the decomposition process? Most of the atheists I know are of the opinion that life ends at the end of life. I am an atheist and I honestly believe that the end of our mortal life is the end of our mortal life. Not sure what the confusion is. Maybe I am not understanding your question.
4. Quoting the bible to argue for the reliability of the bible is not exactly an oxymoron. But it is certainly “putting the cart before the horse as far as the bible is concerned”. We’d first have to establish whether the bible is an accurate source of information about Jesus before the bible can be relied upon for truth about Jesus. Since the four gospels tell completely conflicting versions of almost every event or teaching that they mention, you would also have to determine which part of the bible to believe (not to mention all four make statements that are known to not be true). Going right to unquestioningly quoting the least reliable gospel without even considering the central question (“Is the bible reliable for truth about Jesus christ?”) is a definite cart horse mix-up.
5. Consider whether “live, die, food for worms” truly answers my life questions? Well it depends which life question. There are a couple questions about life that I would give similar answers to.
How about unbiased, independent sources? What’s that? You don’t have any? Too bad.
The Golden Rule is a very good moral foundation, though it isn’t original from Jesus. At least Confucius already said it four centuries before Jesus.
And of course, there is also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Are those foundations good enough for you?
In that case, let me be the first atheist to tell you that yes, the end of your mortal life is just the end. That’s what I think, anyway. I can’t possibly know for sure, but neither can you. Believing in the afterlife is just wishful thinking.
Actually, it does. The bottom line here is that you don’t like those answers, so you choose to believe other baseless, convoluted, and incoherent answers because they make you feel better.
I understand your point about many Christians using circular arguements as proof of Christ. As an agnostic for three decades, I used many of the same arugments when I would have discussions about Faith and Religion. I would use various problems in “logic” the Bible presents to disprove their positions.
Before I was an agnostic, I had been saved in a Baptist church when I was in 8th grade. I drifted away for various reasons. A few months ago, for a reason I won’t go into here, my Faith was restored.
Do all of the questions I had in my head as agnostic still roll around in my head. Yes, of course they do. The only thing I can tell any of you that are in my former camp is, you just don’t get it and you can’t until you have had the experience that brings you to God.
I use to believe that all things are knowable, that if I just studied long enough and hard enough, I would find the answers. I believed science was the way.
I still believe in science. I still believe in evolution. But do I think science can give us all the answers? No, no I don’t. I don’t think humans are meant to know all of the answers.
Listen, we can sit and debate this point and that point and you can point out to me how flawed my logic is, or shout me down in any number of ways, but the fact is I have Faith and always will.
I do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But it is NOT like any other book, first of all. Secondly, as important as the Bible is, it’s not the main point of Christianity.
Your relationship with God, through Jesus is. That’s the thing that matters most. It’s the only thing in this world that can give you true peace.
As I said, you just don’t get it. I wish you did.
In a few months, I will release a memoir that chronicals my experience. It will be an e-book and it will be available for Kindle and other electronic devices.
Now, don’t miss understand. I’m not trying to peddle books by saying that … but if you read my story, perhaps you’ll have a better grasp of what I’ve tried to say here.
Translation: “I’m a thoughtless spammer, BUY MUH BOOK!”
Oh, and: BELIEVE IN TEH JEEBUS!!
Gosh, I don’t know how I can top that intelligent response.
Sunny,
Speak for yourself. Just because I have a different POV doesn’t make me a mindless spammer.
Correct, your writing does.
PJ Lincoln wrote:
“I use to believe that all things are knowable, that if I just studied long enough and hard enough, I would find the answers. I believed science was the way.”
That’s your problem. Science isn’t that “way,” despite your earlier hopes that it would be.
Science is a process for understanding reality. It’s not, as you wanted it to be, a path to ultimate truth. Since you are apparently looking for ultimate truth, you’ve turned away from rational thought.
“the fact is I have Faith and always will”
That is your cross to bear.
By the way, no one will put credence in what you say, when you so completely contradict yourself.
As in:
1) “you just don’t get it and you can’t until you have had the experience that brings you to God.”
which is followed by
2) “if you read my story, perhaps you’ll have a better grasp of what I’ve tried to say here.”
Which is it, PJ – we can’t “get it,” or reading your book will allow us to “get it?” If the former, then your book is good for nothing. If the latter, then your first claim is a delusion of grandeur.
Dave,
I’m well aware of what science is and is not. I never looked for it to be my God, but I thought that through it, I could better understand the world and the universe. Guess what? I still believe that …. in my opinion, believing in God and being scientific isn’t a mutually exclusive proposition.
That said, there does come a point where Faith kicks in, even in the world of science. I’m not sure what your personal beliefs are, but if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory you are taking a leap of Faith. While there is evidence to suggest the Theory my one day be provable, we aren’t there yet. Even if we do get there, where exactly did all of that matter come from to blow up? Perhaps you also subscribe to the oscillating universe idea, too. It’s interesting as a concept, but far from proven.
I have not turned away from rational thought, by the way. By the sounds of it, you think that only your own position is rational. I think that’s extremely arrogant of you, sir.
Faith is no burden, either.
As for your other point, I can see the contradiction. Dave, I can’t make you or anyone else believe in God. All I can do is point to my own example.
My older brother was an atheist for many, many years. About a decade ago, he found his way back to God. At that point, I was still very much an agnostic. I scoffed at him at first. As time went by, I saw that his Faith was real, even though I couldn’t understand it.
So, I get, I think, where you’re coming from to a degree.
The problem is when you’re looking at God through the lens of atheism or agnosticism, your heart is closed. Christianity and every other religion looks like a big sham to you, and I understand … I was there for a long, long time.
But when you get right with God, when you have your religious experience, or however you want to phrase it, it’s as if a vale is lifted. All of the things that you missed before are visible. It makes sense in your heart.
In my book, I will attempt to take readers through the entire process of what I went through, how I went from being an ardent agnostic to Christian. Will the book turn you into a Christian?
Nope. Not likely.
I do hope that it will make you curious enough to investigate Christ and the Bible on your own. Have you read the Bible, Dave. All of it? Any of it?
If not, how can a rational person have a position one way or another? Examine and study the Bible as closely as you would any text in any course, then come back and tell you don’t believe it.
That said, there does come a point where Faith kicks in, even in the world of science. I’m not sure what your personal beliefs are, but if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory you are taking a leap of Faith.
Er, one does not subscribe to a scientific theory the way one subscribes to, say, beliefs in religion or politics. A theory (like, say the Big Bang) is just a convenient model that happens to explain the plurality of data thus far and indicates conducive structures for experimentation for possible falsification. I’ll grant you that the layperson’s approach to science may be to “believe in” or “subscribe to” one or another scientific theory or model, but that’s not what actual scientists are engaged in doing.
“Have you read the Bible, Dave. All of it? Any of it?”
Yes, yes, and yes. That you think the ideas in it, other than in a metaphorical manner, have validity (historically, morally, or scientifically) indicates you haven’t read or thought much about the entire Christian bible.
“where exactly did all of that matter come from to blow up?”
This makes me suspect you are a high school student – possibly home-schooled – living in the hinterlands Indiana (or perhaps somewhere in Orange County, California).
Where exactly, PJ, did your god come from to claim its omnisciency? If you need to ask where the matter from the Big Bang had to have a place of origin, then why not ask where you god came from? (Hint: the brainwashed aren’t able to ask the important questions.)
PJ – I just traveled over to your blog. OK – you appear not to be a home-schooled student. On the other hand, you just “got religion.” Suddenly you’re an expert in matters of you bible?
When YOU’VE read through, and thought about your bible, report back to us.
And I’ll also expect that you’ll have re-read “Why I Am Not A Christian,” by Bertrand Russell, and “Letters to a Christian Nation,” by Sam Harris, and you might as well spend some time with Dawkins and Hitchens.
When you’ve gotten through that, then report back here and let us know what you think.
You’ve been ‘cycling’ through the desert of human reasoning long enough Dave. There’s another Route friend, its a beautiful path and it has absolutely nothing to do with ‘religion’.
Yep, a religion you can claim to know without using the bible, and yet you quote from it whenever you think it suits your point. get lost
John wrote:
“You’ve been ‘cycling’ through the desert of human reasoning long enough Dave. There’s another Route friend, its a beautiful path and it has absolutely nothing to do with ‘religion.’
John – you’ve been reading my own blog! It actually cycles through the meaning of life – with the help of bikes and cameras – but I don’t expect you’d figure out what it’s really about unless you spend a little time there, decompressing from your normal (?) life.
Metaphorically speaking, I hope you continue the journey through my “desert,” John. I promise not to take you up any hill you can’t surmount. Imagine: as one of my traveling companions, you might find what you need in my company, if not what you are looking for.
Or as you might say, no truth is so worthy of discovery as a truth not sought.
Dave,
I did respond to your question on my blog.
“When YOU’VE read through, and thought about your bible, report back to us.”
- That’s a fair point. I make no claims about being an authority on the Bible. I am just starting out. I’m reading books from both the OT and NT, but have a long way to go.
- Perhaps I jumped the gun, in terms of making comments in this forum. I was also coming from the perspective that you all must be in a similar place as to where I was as an agnostic. That was a faulty assumption. So, to that point, I will apologize.
- You are welcome to comment on my blog anytime you like, Dave. Actually, anyone from this forum is welcome. I want to encourage debate and discussion … I believe those are good things. We need not agree on every point to have meaningful discussions. The only thing that I ask is that we not hurl insults … it serves no purpose. I can’t speak for this blog, but on mine, it won’t be tolerated.
- Despite what others have said, I AM NOT TRYING TO PUMP SALES OF MY BOOK. First of all, the book isn’t even done and probably won’t be until April. If you want to look at when it’s done, fine. If not, that’s also fine. I’m not writing it to make money. By the time it is properly formatted and edited and a book cover is done for it, I most likely will never earn back the money I invested in it. I’m fine with that fact.
And I’ll also expect that you’ll have re-read “Why I Am Not A Christian,” by Bertrand Russell, and “Letters to a Christian Nation,” by Sam Harris, and you might as well spend some time with Dawkins and Hitchens.
- Touche. While I’ve certainly heard of Russell’s book, I’ve not read it. Perhaps I will at some point.
You are a wishful thinker! I can’t believe you think anyone is interested in your book, but that’s what you are here for. You want to give us a taste of your experience, pretend you have a grasp of basic arguments and logic (you don’t), and keep mentioning that you wrote a book. I mean, I get that you think you’ve been on a fascinating journey, that we must want to hear about it, but no, we don’t.
Well, I don’t. I can’t speak for people with no sense.
You are flat wrong, Kodie. I ventured onto the site with good intentions. You can read my response to Dave as to the rest of your response.
Going by what you’ve written, your intention was to show godless people the way, that it can be done, we’re not as hopeless as we think! That doesn’t sound as good as you think it did, as far as intentions go. You ever stop to think how formulaic religious beliefs are? If they are to spread, people have to spread them (because there is no god to reveal itself, only emotions, which you take for proof). And how? A small variety of basic sales techniques. It is a sales manual some call “The Bible,” and some age-old sales techniques some like to call “prophesy,” on the basis these sales techniques were outlined inside the bible a couple thousand years ago, particularly on how to gain converts to Christianity. The same techniques are used to sell sneakers and floor wax and snack foods today.
1. Your customer is useless without this product – make them feel a lack of something so that they want to know more about the product.
2. Tell them that only idiots don’t have the product.
3. Personally endorse the product – if they see it worked for you, they are willing to give it a chance.
4. Our best salespersons are enthusiastic users of the product.
Shim-sham with the flim-flam. You came here to learn nothing, only to push your story, so that you can lead others to the lord and profit while you’re at it. You call that a “good” intention, I mean I think you just admitted you believe you’re doing folks like us a favor. Like I said, you think you have made an amazing journey that merits publishing, and though you can’t exactly prove god exists or transmit your emotional certainty of god’s existence to another person, you hope to inspire those among us foolish enough to spend money on your book. How many books or personal accounts of people’s deconversions from the foolishness of supernatural belief? It seems like you would not agree that is good news. It seems like you would not accept the marketing of such stories in the good intentions they were forwarded to you. Most Christians love their cognitive dissonance more than the Christ, but some manage to shake it off. I can’t help it you felt too empty and searching that you didn’t take very much care what you put in that space in your mind. I’m terribly sorry you lost your way and you think that’s good news.
Kodie,
I’ve already apologized for how I entered the blog.
It may surprise you, but I actually agree with several of your points. There are many folks involved in organized religion who are in it for the money. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert and their like are nothing more than shakedown artists. Even on a smaller scale, I’ve met numerous pastors who come off like used car salesmen.
But not every church is like that …. the truth is, I could live without church if I had to. What I don’t want to live without is my relationship with God. All I can tell you is that it has made a profound difference in my life, which was already pretty darn good.
You are also correct in that I do want to lead people to the Lord. Not for money, not for any other reason than I believe it’s the right thing to do. So, in that respect, yes I did have an agenda.
But I have no right to force my opinions. Again, for that I am sorry and I have learned from my mistake.
Copying and pasting a wall of text from somebody else’s work without accreditation is neither a valuable contribution nor allowed on the site. Especially not when it’s so bloody obvious. Accordingly: DELETED. – Custador.
PS, anybody who wants to read the comment I deleted can read it in context here.
“PS, anybody who wants to read the comment I deleted can read it in context here.”
Custador, I think you jumped the gun deleting this comment. How do you know Craig isn’t the author of the comment? It’s taken, after all, from a review written by one Carson Durant (C.D), and the link here provided by Craig D (C.D.) leads to the same link on the amazon review page, i.e, to http://www.control-z.com/. And when you click on that link, whose name pops up? Why, Craig D’s – Craig Lee Duckett – C.D.
In addition, the Moby Dick comment appears on the same control-z.com website (although it has to be googled, as the page it appears on can’t be reached from the control-z.com home page).
There’s nothing wrong with Carson/Craig posting a comment here when it rather appears he IS the author of the comment. Even if he first made the comment on another web page as a book review, there is no reason he has to disclose it here.
Personally, I thought it was a bit wordy for this venue, but I don’t think it deserved censure when it was so easy to see where it really came from.
All of the so-called miracles of the Booble have been explained away by science, from the destruction of Sodom (ignition of subsurface mephitic gases during an earthquake) to the “virgin birth.” Yeah, virgin. It was common in Booblical times to stone to death an adulteress, and what better evidence of adultery than an unwed mother? Hence the ruse that the baby Jebus was a miracle, “God” having sent his “only begotten son” (aha! “God” liked to screw virgins). When the Booblical nut comes to your door, ask him why he condemns homosexuality in Leviticus but believes in a “God” who approves of father-daughter incest. And while you’re at it, find out why the proselyte shaves his beard, eats pigs, and lets his children sass him.
Look, I know we called a truce awhile ago. Unfortunately, I still get e-mail alerts every time there’s a new post to this thread, I get it.
Mr. Martin’s comments, though, are just over the top. First of all, Leviticus is an OT book that pertains to God’s directions of how Jewish Rabbi’s should conduct themselves. I think what you’ve done here, sir, is taken the Bible out of context.
Speaking for myself, I don’t get wrapped up in topics like homosexuality and others. The bottom line for me is my relationship with Christ. While I do study the Old Testament, I adhere more closely the NT and try to follow the example that Christ set.
Mr. Lincoln – I enjoyed Mr. Martin’s comment, even as I was amazed that he was able to find his where here.
Leviticus, Mr. Martin, isn’t just all for the rabbis. Even if that were so, does that exculpate a god from coming up with some terrible rules? Hardly (except, of course, in people with beliefs similar to yours).
“I don’t get wrapped up in topics like homosexuality and others.”
Of course you. You’d have to confront your contradictory belief system head-on.
Mr. Wyman,
Christianity is not a belief system. It’s not like being Marxist, or a follower of Ayn Rand, Socrates of Plato.
For me, Christianity is simply about my relationship with Christ. If you believe in Christ with all your heart, Grace will be granted to you. It doesn’t require a belief system, it doesn’t require you to say 100 holy-holys a day, it doesn’t require turning your life savings over to any church. Being a Christian only requires Faith and trust that Jesus was who he claimed to be.
But, it is your choice. My hope is that all of you will eventually find your way to god through Christ, that you might now what true peace really feels like.
PJ Lincoln, Christianity IS a belief system. The strange habit that theists have of saying “it’s not a belief, it’s a relationship!” like that declaration somehow changes the definition of “belief” is utterly absurd. It’s no more a “relationship” that the average fifteen year old boy has a “relationship” with his right hand.
You even said it yourself: “If you believe in Christ with all your heart, Grace will be granted to you.”, a faith-based assertion which you then followed with “It doesn’t require a belief system” . Er, what?! Translation: “You need to believe this, but it’s not a belief!”
The semantic bollockery is just mind-numbing from you, seriously.
“Christianity is not a belief system.”
No of course not, just like you’re not posting bollocks – right I’ll try it … “PJ Lincoln is not posting bollocks.”
… erm doesn’t feel quite right does it?
Being a Christian only requires Faith and trust that Jesus was who he claimed to be.
Yeah I know it’s the ultimate lazy mans religion. All you have to do is stop thinking, turn to faith and just believe in Jeebus. Yet somehow that’s never quite the end of it. There’s always something else to being a christian. Some other important things that Christians just have to believe in and do, or indoctrinate your children with, or pass laws forcing people to act in accords with your beliefs.
Stop lying for your religion. It cheapens you and it cheapens your beliefs.
Y’know, PJ, you can set it up so you don’t get email alerts. That would probably make your little life easier.
Real faith starts in your heart and until you open your heart you will never understand. God is not an equation to be solved or a theory to be proven.
If your waiting for an argument from me or any person of any brand of faith, you will never hear it. Keep shaking your fists at whoever will listen and see where it lands you; nowhere. In the end all you will know is despair and hopeless chasing after your tails. Have it!
So, you’re planning on telling all godtards to stop posting here on UF? Huzzah!
Many of us have come away from life of faith. Now we’re free, no longer blind. Read your holy book, see what it really says. That’s what helped many of us.
So Len, what have you red in your holy book that has helped you…. that has opened your eyes?
If your waiting for an argument from me or any person of any brand of faith, you will never hear it
Just what the fuck do you think you are doing now?
Keep shaking your fists at whoever will listen and see where it lands you; nowhere. In the end all you will know is despair and hopeless chasing after your tails.
This is exactly what you are doing. Remember you came here to talk to us. Nobody dragged you here to yammer away about your faerie tales.
PJ you are a stupid stupid person.
Thanks for another data point for the Fundie Irony theory.
Funny, because last I looked atheism is on the rise in a big way.
“God is not an equation to be solved or a theory to be proven.
You’re right, a god is not an equation. Stories about the gods are metaphors to help understand reality. And unlike equations and theories, they are simple (I’m tempted to say “simpleminded) metaphors.
So simple, they let you skate on “topics like homosexuality and others,” because to confront them would mean realizing just how dumb the stories in the Bible are, on a literal level. (And perhaps you have issues with your own sexuality.)
The the story of Jesus is itself no more than a metaphor: his death and his resurrection are metaphors about sacrifice and redemption. The literal story itself is lame, and part of your brain is lame to believe it literally, PJ.
Jesus, himself, in the fairy tale, doesn’t believe he will be brought back to life. This is the central point of the story of Jesus, why he cries out, as he is about to die: “Father, why have you forsaken me?”
If he thought he could resurrect himself, the point of the story – the need for sacrifice and the consequent potential – not promise – for redemption – would be lost.
Similarly, why does Jesus speak constantly in parables, rather than speak the literal truth? We know his simple stories aren’t to be taken literally, rather they teach larger lessons. These parables are, in fact, extended metaphors.
The entire Bible is a metaphor, PJ, even if you entertain the baseless faith that chunks of it, like the story of Jesus, should be taken literally.
So Dave, I’m curious as to how you came to the conclusion that those who believe that Jesus really existed are deluded by their beliefs. Do you have factual evidence that Jesus is just a metaphor, or is that just what you believe?
‘So Dave, I’m curious as to how you came to the conclusion that those who believe that Jesus really existed are deluded by their beliefs.”
1) No evidence for the existence of Jesus, just as there is no evidence for the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Father Christmas, Davey Jones, Bigfoot, Tarzan, etc, though many people at one time or another in their lives believe in these characters.
2) In its details, the long story of Jesus is ludicrous, as ludicrous as the details in the short story about Santa Claus.
One example: giving a man blind from birth sight. That would be miraculous enough. We know now that people who are given sight as adults, who never had use of their eyes before, are largely incapable of making sense of what they are seeing. They can’t tell the difference between a ball and a square block, can’t differentiate faces, etc.
The message of the story is, among others, that Jesus is so powerful that he can make the blind see. The unmentioned miracle – pre-loading the blind man with a way to recognize his parents and know which was which, to recognize his house, the Pharisees, his neighbors, or a dog vs. a cat – are conveniently left out of the story.
That unmentioned miracle is left out, not because it’s an unnecessary detail, but because the science-simple minds of the time, who made up the story of Jesus, were clueless about the way sight works.
If we can’t believe the story of the blind man, which upon close inspection is ludicrous on its face, then we can’t believe any of the supernatural elements of the story, either.
There is a very serious logical flaw in the argument presented. We can’t compare a belief in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus with a belief in God, simply because there is no evidence of either. Here’s why: it isn’t just that there is no evidence of Santa Claus existing – there is EVIDIENCE OF THE NONEXISTENCE of Santa Claus. We see mommy and daddy putting the christmas toys under the tree. We have radar, cameras, motion detectors, and infrared detectors, so we know that there are no flying reindeers going from house-to-house… and why would they, since mommy and daddy (not Santa Claus) put the toys under the roof in the first place.
Do you understand my point Dave? There is a difference between there being no proof that God exists, and there being proof that God does not exist. Over and over I see posts that seem to indicate that we aren’t seeing and\or understanding the difference.
Which car would you rather ride to work in – a car where there is no proof (either way) that it has an oil leak, or a car where there is proof that it doesn’t. Clearly there is a difference, and the difference is a very important one.
Another key point that seems to be missed in these arguments is that a miracle BY DEFINITION is a highly improbably or hitherto impossible event. That’s why it’s called a miracle!…So to say “hey, that miracle couldn’t have happened – it’s too improbable” is something we would find laughable if our six-year old said it. But when we as adults use such obviously circular reasoning, it may be interesting to ask ourselves why.
I’m sure everyone reading and\or responding to these blogs is an intelligent person. I wouldn’t doubt it for an instance. So why are we using such flawed logic to defend and debate our positions? I think it’s because we are so emotionally invested in our position being correct that logic flies out the window. We argue from emotion, instead of from reason, because if we argued from reason, we would be forced to consider the possibility that we are wrong.
People are choosing to take time away from their busy lives.. away from family, friends, and activities in the real world to come and defend (even illogically) the idea that there is no God. Tempers fly, names get called, insults get hurled and feelings get hurt. I think it might be interesting to ask ourselves why. Why is it so, so important to try and offer logical arguments and\or proof that God does not exist? I’d really like to know, if someone – anyone – would care to comment.
Joe Lewis wrote:
“Do you have factual evidence that Jesus is just a metaphor, or is that just what you believe?”
Joe, you read what I wrote, above. You didn’t think about it. Your simple response completely overlooked my analysis, because you are incapable of critical thought when it comes to the story of Jesus. Nevertheless, I’ll offer up the following:
Of course I have factual evidence that the story of Jesus is a metaphor, not a recitation of actual occurrences.
For example, over and over and over again, in the Bible itself, we are told that we are reading parables, which are stories that illustrate a religious (or ethical) point. The details of the story may or may not be true, while the point of the story is supposed to be true. The silly story of The Ten Virgins, for example, is an example, not a real story about five smart and five foolish young women.
Flip on the radio, as I often do (740 am in Los Angeles), to a station that offers religious programming. Over and over again, a preacher will tell us “what Jesus is really saying here,” or “what Jesus really means here,” etc.
The stories Jesus tells us, the preachers freely admit, aren’t necessarily to be taken literally. In fact, the details of the stories Jesus tells us – his parables – are NOT to be taken literally. It’s the point of the story that is to be taken literally.
(By the way, to listen to religious programming on the radio is to realize that the story of Jesus has spawned a vast, commercial enterprise.)
So, just as the stories Jesus himself tells are not to be taken literally, so the story of Jesus is not a literal story, because the details of the story of Jesus are absurd, just as the details of the story of The Ten Virgins and the other parables are absud, just as the details of the story of Santa Claus are absurd.
What does the story of The Ten Virgins tell us? That there were once five foolish virgins? No. It tells us, among other things, to be prepared.
What does the Santa story really say? Be good, and be rewarded.
If the parables Jesus tells us aren’t true, with absurd/impossible details that serve to illustrate a larger point, then the story of Jesus, with it’s absurd details, isn’t true, either, except that it offers a larger truth.
What does the overarching story of Jesus tell us, what is that larger “truth? I wrote about that above, and it wasn’t a parable. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote, and think about it, instead of plaintively asking me for “evidence.” Then, if you have something of substance to say, feel free to comment again, or question me.
All religions preach the glory of suffering. How convenient to keep people both down and happy to be there. There is enough suffering in a world of death without glorifying it and creating some fictional reward for it. Heaven and Hell are human constructs created by people who want to manipulate others. It is the cultural, historical version of mommy and daddy telling stories about the boogey man and santa claus to keep their ignorant and superstitious children in line. Religion is the ultimate expression of a culture based on reward and punishment rather tha a culture based on internally satisfying and compassionate drirected behavior. We don’t need religion. In fact, we would evolve to a much deeper and more loving cultural state without religion. Religion is nothing but politics and Jesus is a brand based on myth and manipulation. Take these religious pundits, remove their costumes of power and put them all in a hot tub and who would take them seriously? Jesus never came to save anyone. The new book, The Second Coming, The Last Parable of Jesus will settle all the prophesies and debates about the second coming and the end of days. Read it and finally relax in the truth instead of the anxiety that comes from elitist propaganda. For Christ’s sake…GROW UP! Get the book at the above website
Is the Bible Reliable for Truth about Jesus Christ?
Yes it is. There are over 400 prophecies about Christ in the writings of the Old Testament. The only ones which have not come to pass are the ones concerning his next coming. Here is a list of them:
http://www.granbychurchofchrist.org/Reference/Prophecy.htm
Only an eternal being with power over time itself can look down the roads of time and predict with 100% accuracy things that will come to pass. The Bible is self authenticating.
Psalms 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
KJV
Friend, both your links lead back to your church. Just curious, who is your God, your church…or your God?
When even JohnC can tell you’re full of bovine fecal matter it mean you’re really loaded with it. None of your so called prophecies can be read as saying anything about jesus without some massive mental gymnastics.
you guys say that the world has no need of religion, yeah that is right we do not need Catholic friars to conduct the inquisition, with guys like you who respond always with such arrogance and offensive words- an atheist can do the job just as well. By the way do you know that according to Willam Durant on his books on history, there were many friars who were atheist but kept the robes, probably because of the power it entailed. just as the historicity of Jesus is a matter of research so, according to Churchill will be the historicity of Gandhi. I agree with you all that the Jesus of the bible is not the Jesus that historically existed, the whole thing about the ‘immorality’ of the writers in trying to make it look that way and many other arguments you present are not irrefutable, if to present my views I have to submit myself to your ridiculous vituperation. Oh, yeah, I forgot you guys do not care. you are only interested in chating with people with similar views, arent you? You know you guys have similar attitudes to a group of fundamentalists, narrow-minded and full of prejudice.
1) Please try to make concise points rather than a rambling rant.
2) Yes, an atheist can be immoral just as can a religious person… your point? This doesn’t make religion any more factual.
3) I can’t speak for everyone here, but I am perfectly willing to converse with others with differing views… so long as things are kept polite and logical. Unfortunately, you have demonstrated yourself to be neither.
1. excellent.
2.you just said it but maybe did not realize it. religion is not more factual than atheism or vice versa, right. but you wish to speak like a god: no refutation allowed.
3. “polite and logical”, yeap, you certainly do show these qualities.
1) Re your second point: sorry, it doesn’t work that way. We don’t play the “well I can believe this if you can believe this” game. Atheism is a lack of belief, religion is a set of beliefs. You tell me which is more factual – a lack of belief in the tooth fairy, or an insistence upon worshiping the tooth fairy. You’re welcome to refute me, but you’ll need logic and evidence to do so. Mere assertions of “you’re just as bad as me” are not refutations.
2) Erroneous sarcasm does not further your cause. I responded to you with an observation regarding your methods of argumentation; you, on the other hand, compared atheists to the Inquisition.
3) Do you have any desire for honest debate, or are you simply posting here out of anger and resentment towards people unlike yourself? I find it amusingly ironic that those who call themselves the followers of Jesus are often the ones who act most unlike him. [1]
[1] Just a disclaimer, I do not promote the gospels as a factual account of the life of Jesus, but I do find it useful to point out the discrepancy between gospel accounts of his actions, and the actions of those who claim him as their inspiration/role model/messiah.
Of course. But I can’t remember atheists being an organized religion and claiming to be morally superior. As humans, atheist are able of good and bad things. Just as religious people can. So where is the holy spirit? Why should have a church privileges?
Well, that’s not surprising. imagine that you are allegedly the minister of god in the earth (the pope) and you can’t communicate with him. If there is left any reasonable thought in you you should become atheist.
The difference is that we know about Gandhi’s existence and works from a lot of different sources, while the existence of Jesus is recorded only in a book promoting his religion. The historicity of jesus is in the same level that the storicity of king Arthur, below Socrates’ historicity.
Uhm… no. People with similar views are boring. Instead, people like you are funny to chat with until they begin to repeat themselves.
In this blog are a lot of different people and each one answers differently to casual commenters. But, in general, we answer with arguments to the people who expose arguments. Fortunately enough, not every religious person is like David here.
1.”If there is left any reasonable thought in you you should become atheist.”
Sorry guys I forgot, many of you belief you are descendants of Aristotle, masters of logical thinking, and owners of the Truth.(oops sorry truth). Any differing thought better not even enter here. I am afraid to see what would happen if someone with your philosophy have power.
“Either believe like me, otherwise you are not thinking clearly and must be made to conform to our way of thinking.” said the bishop to the poor lady about to be put to fire for ‘witcraft’.
Ironic, indeed.
2. “The difference is that we know about Gandhi’s existence and works from a lot of different sources, while the existence of Jesus is recorded only in a book promoting his religion.”
If you recall what Churchill said, he was referring to the future. I thought that would be easy to grasp. Obviously contemporary people know who Gandhi is. dah.
But imagine that atheist and religious fanatics enter into a war and we end up blowing half civilization. And imagine that 1,000, or 2,000 years passed. Will people think that getting independence from an empire like England by means of nonviolence resistance is absolutely a myth?
People of Jesus’ time and country must have said the same thing as you: of course we know he existed, we have still his mother and family with us. dah.
3. “..we answer with arguments to the people who expose arguments.”
and your well exposed argument is: “If there is left any reasonable thought in you you should become atheist.” do you notice any inconsistency here. Oh right you are trying to be funny like me.
And you say SHOULD, ok and you do not like telling people what to do, your powerful arguments suffice to convince them.
Oh, sorry, I forgot according to your well reasoned argument: I would be totally convinced if I were not a Christian, right?
There is so much wrong with your thinking I’m not even sure where to begin… I think for now I’ll content myself with pointing out that your supposed war between “atheist fanatics and religious fanatics” is highly unlikely to happen. Rarely do you find atheists willing to violently impose their beliefs on others; on the other hand, this continually happens anywhere religion is found.
Also, reasoning is reasoning, regardless of philosophical convictions. You’re attempting to play the “it’s all relative so my view is just as valid as yours” game.
Sorry guys I forgot, many of you belief you are descendants of Aristotle, masters of logical thinking, and owners of the Truth.(oops sorry truth). Any differing thought better not even enter here. I am afraid to see what would happen if someone with your philosophy have power.
We have come a long way since Aristotle. People like us have held power. Such as in the czech republic prior to the invasion of Nazis. Women were given equal rights and a bohemian revolution and liberalism provided a breeding ground for such authors as Oscar Wilde.
We don’t own the ultimate truth, but we are a lot closer to it than people who blindly accept that there is a god rather than questioning how our world works.
But imagine that atheist and religious fanatics enter into a war and we end up blowing half civilization. And imagine that 1,000, or 2,000 years passed. Will people think that getting independence from an empire like England by means of nonviolence resistance is absolutely a myth?
Maybe, maybe not. We do keep phenomenally good records compared to people back then. They may survive. And Gandhi never stated that we should worship him. He is just a man and had some pretty daft ideas as well as some pretty good ones.
It is you who has come here to argue. We encourage discourse and conversation. There are more things in this universe than in your tired philosophies (Hamlet…) and we know that there are more things. How many more things we don’t know but want to find out while your faith has declared itself to know the ultimate truth. So far we keep finding out that your faith is just “small” compared to the sheer magnitude of earth.
So calm down and read something outside of a bible and read it critically. If you cannot understand take another book which explains it in a simpler fashion and work your way up. Then perhaps you will understand what we see and respect the difference.
However as long as people of faith (any faith) attempt to pass of their religion as fact on us and force us to follow their version of faith, we will disagree vocally.
1. a Context. I said “imagine that you are the pope and god is not answering your calls.
1.- b The fact that I think you are wrong doesn’t means that I want to impose my views on you, I want to convince. See? It is diferent to burn someone and to speak with someone. Don’t try to put in my records your faults.
1.- c I have heard catholic propaganda forever. I was raised catholic. Did you ever thought that God could not exist? Or that it could be a different god?
2.- a I know who Gandhi was. I didn’t know Churchill’s words. Churchill is not in my mark of reference as I am not anglosaxon.
2.- b We have a lot of documents from the roman empire. We have some cronists from the alleged time of Jesus. The problem is that they don’t speak about him, appart from a quote from Josephus that was added some centuries later in the original text. Now is your knowledge of history wich fails.
2.- c We are here speaking about Gandhi, a lot of different people has written about him. If only three of these books would survive your apocalypsis, there would be more proofs of his existence than of Jesus’ existence.
3.- a Tergiversation and quote mining seems to be the most impressive of your skills, are you an ID apologist?
3.- b I said that would you come with arguments, we would answer with them. You came here with prejudices and calling us fundamentalists.
Pedro: first, paragraphs are your friend.
Second, you wrote: “You know you guys have similar attitudes to a group of fundamentalists, narrow-minded and full of prejudice.”
That’s a sweeping generalization, the kind you were supposed to learn not to make when you were a high school student.
Third, even if everyone here were narrow-minded and prejudicial, it wouldn’t effect whether or not the Bible is a reliable way to know about Jesus Christ. And of course, it’s about as reliable as one of the Harry Potter books are for thinking that Harry is a real person.
As for those atheist friars, Friar Tuck springs immediately to mind. What an awesome, immoral, robe-wearing role model he was!
Which was the graver, more immmoral offense, Pedro: a religious woman or man who became an atheist, or an atheist who took up the mantle of religion? Or as I always like to say, “Liar, Liar, Robes on Friar!”
1. “That’s a sweeping generalization, the kind you were supposed to learn not to make when you were a high school student.”
right. you do not make any. except that all religious people are either deceived or deceivers themselves. And any religious argument coming from someone that believes in Jesus or the Bible is, what the word you like, crap.
anyway sorry, I did not go to your high school.
2. “Third, even if everyone here were narrow-minded and prejudicial, it wouldn’t effect whether or not the Bible is a reliable way to know about Jesus Christ. ”
And the answer is…A Christian could the same thing, you know?.
Yeah, is like no one cares for those good character traits. If believers can be like that, why can’t you, right Dave.
Pedro, why is it that ALL of your arguments so far have come down to “You’re just as bad as us”? Do you really think you are furthering the case for Christianity by attempting to prove that not only can Christians be nasty lil mofos, but atheists can to? :P
And I guess you cannot read very well, let me put it one more time:
we do not need Catholic friars to conduct the inquisition, with guys like you who respond always with such arrogance and offensive words- an atheist can do the job just as well.
I am not attacking an atheist for being one. I am attacking those of you here(which seems to be the majority) who, thinking are teachers of philosophy, judge their own ranting as logical arguments and anything that anyone writes about the Bible being right or God and Jesus being real as illogical to be the least.
And who can show it otherwise, you are on your own turf?
A converted atheist could come to you and present a powerful argument about the value of the gospels in presenting the life of Jesus, and you would dismiss him without even saying that the argument sounds strong.
But anyway, this is your turf. This comments section is open for you to do this, so go ahead. enjoy your trip.
As somebody said over on the forum, even the best philosopher cannot philosophise something that doesn’t exist into being. It takes far more than a cogent philosophical argument – And you’re not even presenting that. Is this some kind of test for you? Come among the atheists and expose yourself to our Satanical presence so you can go away feeling all smug and self-righteous and make up lies to yourself and your friends about how you owned us all at logic and showed us the error of our ways? Because, seriously, most of us have debated with some very thoughtful, insightful theists and not gotten answers to very real questions, and you are showing yourself to be neither thoughtful nor incisive.
1. We can read fine, you seem to have had an issue typing.
2. We never tortured people for our atheism. I believe you are referring to communist movements in the USSR? Have a look at the orthodox church prior to the october revolution to see why they were so mad. It was just an arm of the state that encouraged people to give up what little food they had to the state while they starved. Cannibalism was common in some parts of Russia due to incredible famines that would take place while the church ensured its priests were well fed.
3. If you have proof of your God or Jesus then provide it to us. And please justify as to why you think the proof supports Jehovah rather than Shiva.
4. If a converted christian walked into church and showed you how the teachings of Krishna improved his life would you listen?
Please, let us hear that argument instead of waving your hands around!
“A converted atheist could…present a powerful argument about…the life of Jesus, and you would dismiss him without even saying that the argument sounds strong.”
There you go generalizing again, Pedro. You have no idea who would make such a dismissal. And you’re assuming there is a powerful argument to be made about Jesus.
Some of us here would be open to such an argument. Yet you can’t present one yourself, nor even point us to one, from a converted atheist or anyone else.
Pedro, you sarcastically claim I make no generalizations to show that I do make generalizations, and then you list two of my generalizations, without having a clue as to anything I’ve written here or anywhere else.
“anyway sorry, I did not go to your high school”
You should be, as you not only did you not learn about the evils of overgeneralizing, you appear not to have learn about critical thinking, either.
However, I do see rapid improvement with separating what thoughts you do have to offer into paragraphs. You’ll soon be up in the pantheon of Christian apologists.
Unfortunately, you fell down a bit with your third point. You left out some words, and you didn’t make much sense; you completely missed the point about the irrelevancy of whether or not a closed – or open – mind has anything to do with whether or not the Bible is a book we can rely on for truth. Given the high school you attended, that doesn’t surprise me.
yeah, the high school I went to was bad for teaching people. and just which one was that. Oh, yeah, you do not know. All you know is that is not the one you did not go to. Oh my man you are a trip. You, you, you and only you are the top. everyone else falls short. ha.
Of course I would not make sense to someone who thinks he is the one and only, the best of the best of the apologists for atheism, and of course, for himself.
*yawns* Okay, bored already (I really need witchy powers to punctuate that with… points to anyone who gets the Buffy ref :D). Pedro doesn’t even try bad reasoning, he just disses people. :P
Okay. Grammar and Punctuation need to be followed here.
Actually you wouldn’t make sense to most people who speak english as a first language. Your aren’t making sense at all in this case.
Any argument that can be summed up as you just need to believe it because our magic book say so is indeed crap. If you have anything else why don’t you bring it instead of whining about the mean atheists laughing at you, it will be a first.
Yeah atheists using stern words and arrogance is just like the Inquisition. http://www.exposingchristianity.com/Inquisition.html
Churchill and Gandhi have contemporaries who mention meeting them. Not so much for this jesus critter. Oh wait you mentioned the historically wasn’t the same for Jesus. Why even bother.
I get it you’re just ranting incoherently. Ok rant on nimrod.
Many people have pretended to be religious to avoid persecution.
Gandhi never claimed you should believe in him. Gandhi fought and died so people would have freedom. It is an insult to his memory if we decided to live in a hut and make our own clothes in order to be just like gandhi. He died so Indians could be free, not so that they replaced logic with a belief in his magic powers. If you want to learn from him, learn tolerance and being peaceful and be willing to fight for freedom.
Wearing simple clothes and living in a hut is completely missing the point of Gandhi who is very real since his son and his grandson are still knocking about and we have photos and recordings of Gandhi doing stuff.
We are open minded, just critical of what we believe in. Being open minded does not mean believing everything we see or hear.
There is no “god”, there was no “jesus”. There is no proof. If there is that god, would he let me call him a bitch?….He’s a bitch……….hmmm….just another day…….
The logical fallacy goes beyond whether or not Jesus could have believed in the New Testament if he wasn’t alive when it was written – and thus could only have believed in the Old Testament, at best. How do we know that Jesus believed that ANY of the Bible is true – if not from the Bible… unless there has been some “out-of-band” communication between Jesus and humanity that I am unaware of.
To the best of my knowledge, everything we know about Jesus comes from the Bible. Well if the bible is untrustworthy, then anything it says about Jesus is untrustworthy – including any statements that says Jesus considered the Bible to be trustworthy.
I must say though that if we criticize the logical soundness of statements based purely on belief (which by definition lacks any proof) that there is another logical fallacy in this posting. Since none of us were there when the Bible was written, we cannot say with any certainty that it was Divinely inspired by God. But the converse is also true: since we weren’t there when the bible was first written, we cannot say with any certainty that it wasn’t.
As is often the case with complete opposites, both religious dogma and atheism resemble each other – they are both beliefs, they both cannot be proven, they could both be correct, and they could both be wrong.
Since neither of us were there, I’m sure that you’d agree that Mohammad was also divinely inspired. So, I must ask, do you follow Christianity of Islam? Perhaps a different religion? After all, almost every religions predate your existence. Perhaps the monotheism of the Egyptian Amarna period is the true one? Since neither of us were there to witness the divine inspiration of Pharaoh Akhenaten, it must be true.
Religious belief and atheism do not resemble each other. Atheism by the definition is “without” (greek, “a-”) “god” (greek, “-theism”). The reason we don’t believe is because your evidence is not compelling or makes no sense– such as a circular argument. And no, they cannot be both be correct (or conversely wrong); one postulates that there are gods, one postulates that there are not. You cannot have both at the same time.
What I said is that if we were not present at the time and place of an alleged occurrence, and have no sensory evidence of the time and place in question, we are in no position to say for sure whether or not the occurrence actually happened. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t – but since we weren’t there, all we can express is our BELIEF on the matter. We are in no position to assert facts. Would you agree with that Paul?
Saying that “since I wasn’t there, I cannot say whether or not it happened” (which is what I aid) is NOT the same as “since I wasnt’ there it happened” (which is what YOU said I said!)
So I am in no position to know for sure whether or not Mohammed was divinely inspired. If I had to offer an opinion (or a belief) I would say that he was, since some of the teachings of Islam are the same as the teachings of Christianity. For example one of the Articles of faith states that there is good and evil in all things, and that God commands us to do good. there is also a belief in resurrection and divine judgement.
If I believe that God exists even though there is no proof, and you believe that God doesn’t exist because there is no proof, do you really see no similarity in the way we are both thinking Paul. In both cases, aren’t we taking a stance based on belief, instead of factual evidence. Bear in mind now that just because two things are similar doesn’t make them the same. Apples and tennis balls are similar (they are both round and small enough to fit in my had) but I wouldn’t try eating a tennis ball!
I must apologize for assuming too much of your position; since you were making the converse point that we cannot disprove divine inspiration, that you were trying to use this as an argument.
In logic, the default position for existence proofs is that the hypothesis is false. There are many examples of things that we can imagine that may not exist (most of which are absurd), e.g. Russell’s Tea Pot, or the invisible pink unicorn. Now, we don’t have evidence that can prove or disprove the existence of these things. But the logical conclusion is that they don’t exist, since, for all intents and purposes, they don’t exist. They do not affect the real world in any way.
This is part of why people, as far as I am aware, come to conclude atheism. The evidence that we do have is quite circumspect and not in large quantities, which is curious (but not anything to conclude with) since one would imagine much greater scope if the mythology was true.
I do, however see some similarity, although I would rather call it a relation, between religious belief and atheism. From my perspective, it’s not that we both have an unprovable position and accept it on faith. The relation is that religious belief says that we are accepting the proposition on faith, while atheism sees that lack of evidence and says, “why should we believe without any proof?”
Regarding Mohammad, it is my understanding that the historical consensus was that much was taken from earlier Christian and Jewish works, and the rest was his amendments (of questionable divinity).
From reading Joe L’s posts he seems to be taking the position that you can’t prove it’s true but neither can you prove it’s false so therefore we should be opened minded and assign it some sort of 50/50 probabilty of it being true. Sounds much the same as the creationist habit of trying to drag evolution down to thier level as they have no evidence to back up their faith.
I didn’t say that if something can’t be proven true or false then there is a 50% chance that it is true. YOU said that. Why couldn’t there be a 10/90, or 99/1 probability, based on facts and reason?
What i DID say though is that it if something can’t be proven true or proven false, we should have an open mind to the possibility that it could be other true or false.
How does me suggesting that we keep an open mind put me on the level of a creationist? A creationist has already decided that something is true, but what I said is that it could be true or false. Might i suggest reading what I wrote again – but this time with an open mind?
This is a very old argument. Russell’s Teapot comes to mind. It cannot be proven true or false, but there is nothing in my experience that suggests to me that it is reasonable to consider it true.
A typical atheist does not disbelieve that God exists, he does not see the need to posit the existence of a God in the first place, due to lack of evidence, just as he does not see the need to posit the existence of anything else for which there is no evidence. This is a crucial distinction to grasp.
I presume that you don’t believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And I’ll bet that you never looked out the window at the world and said to yourself, “Hmmm, the very existence of nature implies an invisible pink unicorn. And maybe a small teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars.” You would probably look funny at anybody who scolded you for not taking these as serious possibilities, because you could not disprove them.
That’s pretty much how the God concept looks to me. Not, “I don’t believe this”, but more like, “Where did you get that idea from, and why are we even considering it seriously?”
“If I believe that God exists even though there is no proof, and you believe that God doesn’t exist because there is no proof, do you really see no similarity in the way we are both thinking Paul. In both cases, aren’t we taking a stance based on belief, instead of factual evidence.”
Not at all, one is a belief when there is no evidence and one is a belief because of lack of evidence. In general the formed is called faith and the latter what we as humans do rather a lot of. The only reason that you think there are similarities between the two positions is due to your mis-understanding of how the word belief can be used.
Contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
“absence of evidence really is evidence of absence” has a nice ring to it… it really does :-0)
But let me ask you this Custador: until you read my first post, did you have any evidence of my existence. No, you didn’t. As far as my existence goes, you had an “absence of evidence”, which you are saying is “evidence of absence”. Yet here I am, responding to your post. How do you explain that?
I’ve seen plenty of evidence for the existence of theists who don’t understand the scientific method. Evidence for one particular individual out of the millions of you is somewhat moot. Besides which, prior to your posting here there was plenty of physical evidence for your existence – But because I was unaware of the possibility of your existence (i.e. it had never been postulated to me), I never looked for it. God? Looked for god. Never found it though.
You are really confusing two separate issues here, Joe, the existence of the general class and the existence of the specific member of that class. We have ample evidence that people exist, and anyone who goes out in public meets people that he has never seen before every single day. Ergo, not only do people exist, but we know that since we keep meeting people whom we haven’t encountered before, we can reasonably infer that that are many people still out there that we have yet to meet.
Your specific existence is not predictable from the evidence, but the possibility of someone like you existing is implied by that same evidence.
I must also point out that you haven’t yet proved to us that you exist. I have never actually met you. The text that I am seeing could be generated by a sophisticated computer algorithm.
Well, not that sophisticated…
Cheap shot, Custy. The extraction of semantic content from our posts and the formation of even a half-assedly relevant reply is a formidable accomplishment.
Yeah, but it was still funny :-D
@Custy/Ursa M
It’s a good question though … if god’s so bloody marvellous why does he allow such idiots to be his spokespeople?
Let’s not fall into the trap of overthinking and overcomplicating matters, in order to wriggle away from their simple implications. You had no evidence of my existence, yet I exist. At one point we had no evidence that the world was round (actually we had ‘evidence that it was flat) and yet it is. At one point we had no evidence that the Sun was the center of the solar system (actually we had ‘evidence’ to suggest that the earth was the center) and yet it is.
Clearly, we have only to take an honest look at our individual lives, and our collective lives.. at history… to see that if we only accept the possibility of what our ‘evidence’ suggests today, we can end up being proven wrong tomorrow. Does that mean we should attach no credence to physical evidence and logic. Not all… Just bear in mind that with the passage of time today’s ‘facts’ may become tomorrow’s fictions. That’s why keeping an open mind seems the right thing to do. Does anyone disagree with that?
BTW I never said that I knew for sure that God exists. I said that I BELIEVE that he exists, and that my belief could be correct or false – because that’s what a belief is.
So – in the spirit of keeping an open mind, I would love to hear any physical evidence, or logical proof that any cares to provide\discuss to show that God does not exist. I’m not being facetious, I really mean it. Perhaps I will learn something here that I didn’t know before.
What I will ask though is to please spare me the circular reasoning. For example if a miracle BY definition is a highly improbable event, then the improbability of an event can’t be used as a logical argument for why it can’t be a miracle!
I think it is also important to think things through, and be consistent within the logical framework. For example if there is a God, and Jesus was the “Son” of God, then it stands to reason that his credibility as a divine entity would have to have been established from day one… otherwise who would listen to him… who would believe that he was anything other than a mortal man with delusions. What better way for Jesus to have established himself as a divine being, as the son of the almighty, than to perform miracles? So IF there is a God, and IF Jesus was the son of God, I think it totally plausible that he performed miracles. (please note that I said ‘IF’, twice!!!)
Someone mentioned that if it was stated in the bible that Jesus restored a blind man’s sight, why was it not mentioned that he “preloaded” the man’s brain with memories so he could recognize his house, his family, and so forth. Isn’t that reaching a bit, for a logical argument to refute that he really restored the man’s sight. IF (again, the “IF” word) Jesus had the power to restore human sight, does it seem more logically consistent that he also had the power to enable the man to recognize his home and loved ones – or that he would just restore his sight and walk around asking everyone “do I know you…. who are you.. are you my wife….. lol….”
I mean, where the miracle that described raising Lazarus from the grave, it also doesn’t say that he restored the rotten, worm-eaten flesh, and removed the stench, so Lazarus would be wandering around the place with decayed body parts hanging off his corpse, followed by a cloud of flies, as everybody up-wind projectile-vomited and children ran around screaming and women fainted.
What I’m saying is either you are willing to entertain the possibility of a miracle or you aren’t. If you are, then any arguments raised within the world of the miracle should probably be a bit stronger to refute it than “why didn’t it say he preloaded the memories!”
To switch gears a bit, you mentioned that you looked for God but didn’t find him. I’d love to hear more about that. How did you look? Why did you look? Why did you give up looking? Is the fact you didn’t find him a reason you became a contributor to the site. Were you disappointed that you didn’t find God? Do you think you’ll ever look again?
So… We answered your question, and because we successfully pointed out that you’re talking bollocks, we’re over-thinking and over-complicating matters? Right.
Okay.
You can’t grasp the difference between not personally knowing every individual human being on the face of the planet (but knowing that humans do exist), and not believing in a specific deity when there’s nothing to suggest that there’s any such thing as deities anyway.
Really, seriously, your example is fucking ridiculous.
Joe Lewis wrote:
“if it was stated in the bible that Jesus restored a blind man’s sight, why was it not mentioned that he “preloaded” the man’s brain with memories so he could recognize his house, his family, and so forth. Isn’t that reaching a bit, for a logical argument to refute that he really restored the man’s sight.”
I agree with you, Joe, to an extent. After all, there wasn’t enough water on earth to cause the flood described in the Bible. But of course, an all-powerful god is just that, and the Christian god could therefore simply create enough water out of nothingness to cover the earth.
That begs the question – why does the Christian god have to do anything? Why create humans, why find fault with them? Why bother with a Flood when he could have wiped out humanity in between the blink of an eye? He’s all effing powerful. Yet his magic tricks are pitiably limited in scale.
The reason the Bible doesn’t go into the mechanism of what happens when site is given to someone born blind, is that the people dreaming up the stories in the Bible were unaware of the consequences of what that means in the real world. Bestowing sight for the blind was just a cheap literary trick.
And it’s the same with the story of the Flood. The idea that there wasn’t enough water to cover the earth never occurred to even the most learned of the Bronze Age.
Joe, you know there isn’t enough water to cover the earth, you know that those who gain sight after a lifetime of blindness can not navigate the world with their sight for a long time, if ever. So you have to continually invent rationalizations to explain away absurd claims in which you put your faith.
You haven’t bothered to address comments directed your way by others about that imaginary teapot, or the unicorn. What’s stopping you, Joe? I believe it’s your blind faith in your own imaginary teapot – Jesus – that keeps you from seeing how absurd your own claims are.
Come on, Joe, tell us your thoughts about a magic teapot hiding behind the backside of Jupiter. Could there be such a thing? Yes or no, or do you have any thoughts about that to share?
I think I’ll have to split my answer into two parts. First, miracles. They are easy to dispose of.
Anything that has a non-zero probability of occurring is not a miracle.
Anything that has a zero probability of occurring according to what we know of the universe, which happens anyway, is a candidate for a miracle. Show me an amputee’s entire leg growing back in five minutes during a faith-healing season. Then we’ll talk about miracles.
Now, you might very well argue that the resurrection of Lazarus constitutes a miracle by that definition- but the problem is, it’s unsubstantiated, and I could name examples from a dozen other religious traditions that claim the same thing. So, even if I accept the Lazarus legend at face value as proof that the Christian god exists, we are left with a theological problem, in that I have no reason not to accept that all other claims of miraculous resurrections are also true, and therefore all those other gods exist, too. Do you see the problem with this sort of proof claim? Let me spell it out for you: it is not unique to Christianity, and at best, it could only establish that multiple gods exist.
Most Christians don’t grasp the question I am about to ask, but it’s a central one:
Why should I presuppose that the Christian god exists, and have to provide evidence that it does not? There are an infinite number of thought constructs that I could come up with, for which I have no evidence for their existence, and I could equally well challenge you to present me with evidence for the non-existence of Santa Claus, Thor, Gollum, the Easter Bunny, Osiris, Fred Hoyle’s superintelligent alien Black Cloud… the list is endless. I’ll bet that you cannot offer me proof that any of the above do not exist, and I will further bet that you consider the question trivial or irrelevant.
In the absence of positive evidence, there is no reason to believe in something (and hence no reason to seek a disproof of it). If you are going to cling to a notion of a being for which there is no evidence, you are opening up a huge can of worms by demanding disproof for that unseen being before you stop believing in it. That attitude demands that you believe in all unseen beings whose existence has not been disproved; if you do not, you are simply being arbitrary by believing in your favorite entity with no rational basis for doing so, and your choice is essentially a random one.
I have brought this point up to many Christians that I’ve debated, and they have universally either refused to acknowledge it, or summarily dismissed it without offering a valid counter-argument.
We used to have misconceptions about cosmology, they were the best data available until people realized that the previously unexplainable evidence wasn’t what was wrong with the theories. What changed is the data, we got better data and re-analyzed the data that we had. So if you do want us entertain the idea of a god, logically, the onus of proof is on you. Logical reasoning is complicated and simplification often leads or erroneous reasoning.
“…to see that if we only accept the possibility of what our ‘evidence’ suggests today, we can end up being proven wrong tomorrow.”
Well, yes… but that’s why we aren’t saying we know anything for certain, and why we openly try to acquire newer and better evidence. Which is another reason the need for a deity’s existence is so flimsy. We’ve always used gods to explain the unknown, that’s what they were originally dreamed up for. More and more, we have made the unknown known, and gods have been reduced to a mere god of the gaps. It is not proof, but it is compelling and solidifies in the light of the fallacies that religions triumph.
Regarding miracles, since they are highly improbable by their nature, it is perfectly reasonable to require higher standards of proof. It would be one thing for the bible to say something like “Jesus had a pet dog,” it is quite a different assertion to say “Jesus raised the dead.”
There are several of those guys walking around right now. They all have believers that follow their every word and will proclaim the miracles they have done. Aside from the passage of time and the fact that your Jesus critters isn’t walking around shaking hands and kissing babies, whats the difference between your belief and the other guys?
” if there is a God, and Jesus was the “Son” of God, then it stands to reason that his credibility as a divine entity would have to have been established from day one… otherwise who would listen to him… who would believe that he was anything other than a mortal man with delusions.”
Joe, Joe, Joe. According to your bible, even those who saw him perform his miracles didn’t believe he was the son of God. This includes his various disciples!
In John 20:29, after Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, he appeared before Thomas, who at first didn’t believe it was Jesus, until he stuck a finger in Jesus’ wounds.
Then, according to the gospel of John, Jesus said, “Thomas, because you have seen me, you believe in me: blessed are they that have NOT seen, and yet HAVE believed.”
In fact, even when Jesus explained, on multiple occasions, to his disciples that he was going to be crucified and would rise from the dead, the disciples were unable to believe him.
Joe, earlier you told us that your god can do anything, including pre-load images of people, places and things into someone who was given sight after being born blind.
NOW you tell us that Jesus couldn’t make his disciples believe who he said he was, until they poked fingers into his wounds.
Which Jesus do you believe in? The one who could raise the dead and give the gift of sight, or the Jesus who couldn’t make his disciples believe what he said, or even what he had done?
that’s what i like – a post with some logical meat- instead of just circular reasoning and blind faith (that God doesn’t exist) Thank you for that Dave. Yes, certainly, if there actually was a flood there should have been enough water to cover the earth. I totally understand and share your frustration when you’re trying to get a logical handle on the matter of God’s existence, or have a logical debate, and what you get back is “well he’s God so anything is possible!”
Unfortunately, if we are going to argue a point of view, we need to be as logically consistent within that view as we are able to. So – from the point of view of logical consistency: if God was able to create the entire world from “nothing” and “all the oceans” I daresay that a world flood is well with the logical framework.
I am NOT saying there is a God. I’m saying that IF there is a God then the argument “there isn’t enough water to cover the earth” seems ludicrous, since obviously a being capable of creating the entire world should also be capable of creating as much water as he wants!
As an aside, did you know that according to some scientists who actually get paid to study geology and whose professional reputations reflect the work they do, a world flood IS within the realm of scientific possibility… even without a giant teapot :-0). The US News & World Report, 6/16/97:55-58 describes work by a pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection (the process by which the earth develops volcanoes, earthquakes, and the movement of continental plates, which described how a world flood could have occurred.
I’m sure if you do enough research you can find other scientists who describe how a world flood could have occurred – as well as those who may say it is impossible. So without being experts ourselves, and having access to the data and a means of accessing the reliability and reproduciblity of the studies, I think the best we can conclude is that a scientific for a world flood has been proposed.
But again, if there is a God, whether or not science came up with a possible explanation or not, a God should be able to create a world flood – again, logical consistency.
If you are going to be very scientific about the whole thing, even if there was a world flood it still doesn’t mean there is a God… or that there isn;t… Maybe science is correct – maybe a wordl flood did occur,,, but it could have occurred from natural phenomena that didn’t involve a supernatural deity,.
COULD have occurred – without leaving any evidence whatsoever? The fact is, a “global flood” DIDN’T happen. And that IS a fact.
Hi UrsaMinor, I wanted to respond to the following:
you said “First, miracles. They are easy to dispose of.”. What do you mean by “dispose of”?
I have never witnessed a miracle- including those described in the Bible. By your own definition, I would expect a miracle to seem highly improbable – something I wouldn’t believe unless I saw it with my own eyes. have any miracles actually occurred? I honestly don’t know, I wasn’t there.
BTW, in my opinion, the existence of a miracle isn’t the same as proof that there is a God. A lot of what modern science can do an explain would have been considered a miracle a mere century ago. I would also say that the absence of a miracle – in my opinion- isn’t proof that there is no God. Maybr God doesn’t do miracles. I dont know…… if God exists he doesn’t confer with me on his modus operandi.
.
Did you actually read Ursa’s post that you just replied to?! Because you clearly didn’t comprehend it if you did. You’re re-stating questions he already answered.
Dave,
It’s not a literal flood so all the externals, ie debates, etc are moot points. JC told us the kingdom of heaven could be found within us (Luke 17:21). The flood that ‘covered the whole earth’ is symbolic, is a washing away of the old sin consciousness (every thought of man being ‘only evil’ as Genesis says just prior to the flood) and the ushering in of a whole new paradigm within. This is also what Peter writes by inspiration in 1 Pet 3:21 saying that the flood pre-figured ‘the acquisition of a pure conscience before God’. 2 Cor 5:17 also speaks to the same saying which ‘if any man be in Christ he is a new creation, old things have been washed away’.
The ark is a type of Christ that we ‘enter in’ to be ‘saved’ from the old world within (the one we all inherit in the natural, human birth, ie Adam’s fallen world/consciousness/reality). The patriarchs stories pre-figure the plan of redemption for man(kind) by stages, evolutions of development.
All the best.
Joe – you’ve turned into a major embarrassment. Either you’re a troll or your intellectually challenged, and either way, you’re an embarrassment here.
While you did a good job of parroting back my comments about the flood, you made zero attempt to discuss the issue I brought up with you, i.e. why your god can sometimes do anything (bring on a world-wide flood, implant visual recognition in a blind person, etc), yet be so pathetically weak at other times, e.g. when he couldn’t convince his disciples who he was after his death.
You’ve come up with one stupid rationalization after another, Joe, and in the process disgraced yourself.
Discuss my question about your god’s inconsistent powers, discuss the questions put to you about the teapot/unicorn scenario, otherwise you’re simply another troll and/or high school student and/or you are at least a little unhinged from reality.
First of all, although geophysics does deal with plate tectonics, volcanoes, etc.; it seems a stretch for it to talk about the meteorology involved with an event like the global flood. Care to point us towards the actual research? The U.S. News and World Report was not forthcoming as a reference for your claim.
It is curious that geophysics would corroborate the claim of a global flood, when the related field of geology shows no evidence, and in fact evidence against the claim of a global flood. All of which is marked in the geological records. If a single meteor impact can show up, something much more destructive like a 40 day flood should also show up.
And we certainly can figure out the reliability of scientific articles. How? By reading the follow up research done by other scientists. If they can independently reproduce the results and reach the same conclusions as the first scientist, it’s no longer a circumspect article (or at least less circumspect). Keep in mind, other scientists will be trying to disprove the first article, not affirm its results.
So far, it seems you are simply content to say some fancy-smancy-sciencey stuff and hope it does in fact back you up.
John C. You mention that the flood is not meant to be taken literally…that it is symbolic. I’m just wondering how you know that. Since you weren’t there when the bible was written, how do you know who wrote it, and what parts were meant to be taken literally and what parts weren’t.
I don’t think you are saying that you were sitting there and heard God say to whoever was transcribing his words “now what I want you to write didn’t really happen…its all symbolic”…. or that God spoke to you directly, or the spirit of whoever wrote the passage, and told you it was not meant to be taken literally.
I’ve had discussions with people who – unlike me – have spent years studying divinity… I’ve read books written by people who make a living studying the origins of the Bible, its history and so forth, and they don’t claim to know for sure which occurrences (like a global flood) are symbolic and which actually occurred. So where did you get YOUR information from?
John C, you said “you made zero attempt to discuss the issue I brought up with you”…. and “Discuss my question about your god’s inconsistent powers, discuss the questions put to you about the teapot/unicorn scenario”
Sorry I haven’t had a chance to get back to you yet, but there were almost 40 email responses in my inbox from this discussion, and I’ve been doing other things. I really do appreciate people’s feedback (even if i have a different opinion) so I’m trying to answer all of them as time allows. FOr some of the responses I do some online research first, because some good points are raised and I want to be able to offer more than just opinions and belief in return.
Unfortunately, I have to go for the evening (went and saw Transformers – good special effects but some bad acting in my opinion), but before I do, I’ll respond to “i.e. why your god can sometimes do anything (bring on a world-wide flood, implant visual recognition in a blind person, etc), yet be so pathetically weak at other times, e.g. when he couldn’t convince his disciples who he was after his death.”
As a general comment let me say – yet again, just for you :-0) – that I did not say that I know God exists. I said I believe that there is a God (or Gods) bu also recognize that since it is a belief. I could be wrong. You know….it’s okay to admit sometimes “I don’t know….. I could be wrong” It doesn’t make you any less intelligent, any less of a man (or woman), and is probably a better habit to get into (from the point of view of mental health) then always believing that we are right, despite lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary.
But bacl to you question. Actually I think it’s a good one. Let me say – yet again – that if there is a God (did you see the “if” ) he does not confer or confide in me. If you want to gain insight into why – if there is a God – he would think this versus that way, or do this versus that, perhaps you should try meditation, contemplation, prayer, and all the other religious\spiritual practices that are supposed to help us draw closer to an understanding of God – IF he exists….
I’m going to go do a bit of research on the whole matter of his disciples not recognizing him, and see if anything jumps out as a possible explanation for your question. And I WILL respond to the post about unicorns and teapots (sounds intriguing!) once I’ve gotten a chance to read it.
Right now though, the missus is getting ready to hit the sack, and as much as I’m enjoying these debates…………….
Custador, if you do some research you’ll find that similarities between world-wide fossilization has been offered as possible proof of a global catastrophic flood.
When you say “The fact is, a “global flood” DIDN’T happen. And that IS a fact.” do you have any data from the scientific community to susbtantiate that, or is a fact because you believe it to be true… like Christians say that God exists because they believe it to be true.
I’m also curious as to why you are totally ignoring what science has demonstrated as a possibility. Do you not believe in science, do you believe that the data was contrived (like..some kind of conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to trick us into believing there was a global flood), do you have an alternate intepretation of the data?
It just seems to me that when we choose to ignore what science states as a possibility, about technical matters that we have neither the experience or training to assess the validity of, we are guilty of intellectual arrogance, and confusing facts with faith.
Joe,
You’re still operating in the natural/temporal/seen realm my friend (2 Cor 4:18) Remember, this whole kingdom experience is a spiritual one, a beautiful, true fairy tale of sorts. Its intended for the childlike at heart, JC saying that we’d have to be like little children again if we wanted to ‘enter in’ to the kingdom of God in the here and now. Luke 18:17
That’s why its rarely advantageous to have ‘grown ups’ (even ‘Christian’ PhD’s, professionals, etc) who are overly reliant on their over-developed faculties of reason and logic try and explain spiritual truths to us, they’re no help at all really. They are abiding in the ‘all grown up and away from Him’ mind.
I’m afraid you don’t know your bible too well friend. When you say things like ‘you don’t know who wrote it’. Does 2nd Tim 3:16 ring a bell?
At some point we shed the literal, the outer form (fundamentalism) to hear the hidden, beautiful and inward meaning of the text. This is the life of faith, to transition from earthly (seen) to heavenly (unseen) things.
Stay thirsty my friend :~
I almost hope Joe…is a Poe.
@Joe L
So here’s the question then – do you believe that a global flood as described in the Bible happened and why do you, or do you not, believe?
Doing the same thing over here, I see, Jabster, winkling an answer out of people, making them think. It is your modus operandi. And, it is the true meaning of “education” – you don’t stuff knowledge in, you draw it out of someone…they already know the answer, they just don’t know they know.
And, just how is it possible for you and John C to be in the same boat together? It’s like the lion sleeping with the lamb! Well, more so if it was Nzo – I can see him a bit further down giving another unsuspecting visitor a savaging!
What is a “poe”?
Poe’s Law is an axiom suggesting that it’s difficult to distinguish between parodies of religious fundamentalism (or, more generally, parodies of any crackpot or extremist belief) and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. -wikipedia
Joe, creationists who advocate a Global Flood are notorious for twisting science to say the opposite of what was concluded, not to mention they often simply make shit up.
Therefore, until you can provide some actual sources for your claim that “some scientists” support a Global Flood, I’ll make the assumption – which I don’t think is unreasonable – that your claim originates from a creationist with a biblical agenda, such as the Answers in Genesis web site.
But feel free to point us to the research. Sources, please.
“Do you not believe in science … ?”
This could very well be innocuous, but, judging from how you talk about science, I’d like to point out that science isn’t something you believe in. Of course, we may play semantic games with what “believe” means since your statement is perfectly fine if we are taking loose definitions in every day speech. The problem with “believing” in science is that you are simply doing it wrong. Science isn’t something to take on faith; in fact, in science, you are actively encouraged to question, learn what the science actually is, and accept conclusions based on the available data.
I do not believe in evolution, I do not believe in the big bang, I do not believe in plate tectonics; however, I do accept all of these things.
“Since none of us were there when the Bible was written, we cannot say with any certainty that it was Divinely inspired by God. But the converse is also true: since we weren’t there when the bible was first written, we cannot say with any certainty that it wasn’t.”
We can however say with quite reasonable certainty that the bible is wrong about thousands of things. If the bible makes clear statements which are clearly incorrect, then it is not a leap of faith to say that either the bible was not divinely inspired, or it was inspired by a god who was completely ignorant of his own creation.
Joel wrote: “either you are willing to entertain the possibility of a miracle or you aren’t.”
I’m willing to entertain the possibility of a miracle. However, as someone else wrote a long time ago, “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” That is, an extraordinary claim – for a miracle for example – needs extraordinary proof.
The claims in the story about Jesus are extraordinary. There is zero proof Jesus existed, much less any proof that any specific supernatural elements in the story are true.
We are all born in the very same condition, ie (spiritually) ‘blind from birth’. Christ restores our ‘sight’ (John 1:4) unless we think we see (on our own, apart from the Light) and are content to see (in our own dim-compared-to-His) kind of Light. In that case, we will remain in our ‘blind from birth’ condition. This is the meaning of the story. The natural illustrates the spiritual. Prov 4:18 conveys this process by degrees. All the best.
John C wrote: “It’s not a literal flood”
Gosh, we are finding some agreement.
“The flood that ‘covered the whole earth’ is symbolic”
Very good, John!
“The ark is a type of Christ that we ‘enter in’ to be ‘saved’ ”
Yes, it’s all metaphor.
” JC told us the kingdom of heaven could be found within us”
Yes, even heaven is a metaphor. And so, John, is JC, although that’s the truth I don’t think you have been able to express, to your readers or to yourself.
Okay, I’m two years late to the party, but this is a “featured article”, so that’s my excuse. Secondly, I have not read through all 400+ comments, so I ask for leniency if I repeat what anyone else has said.
A great deal of what Jesus said and did was coloured by the fervent belief that he was the Messiah. Many of the events in the gospels have to be read with this understanding – so it is very unlikely that much of what is recorded as being said by Jesus was actually said by him. And certainly not much of what he is purported to have done! Did he really believe what was in the scriptures? Well, he was a man of the times, and an Israelite – if it was commonly believed at the time, he probably believed it. It doesn’t mean that what we read in Genesis (for example) must be taken as literal. I’m not sure that there is any reason to doubt certain sections of the history of the Israelite nation as a kingdom – but, I think Jesus could see that it was a nation at odds with God, rather than having God’s backing.
Personally, I think there are good reasons for seeing the Bible as a book that stands out from the crowd – some of which I have written about over at A Carpenter from Nazareth.
Also, I think “faith” is a misunderstood word that is given a bad rap.
Simple arguments. There is overwhelming evidence for the gospels, far in advance of many historical “facts”. Many arguments against are in fact down to the will, rather than relating to any evidence or lack of. To believe means the resitrictions of actions to many, so many disbelieve by choice. That is not to say there are not genuine disbelievers. The argument is often made that the gospels were written many years after the time of Christ, so cannot be depended upon. This is often from people who are aware of the real position. The true position is that the facts about Jesus were passed down in writing and orally, and used in the gospels. The gospels are not the original manuscripts, but were written from the evidence of individuals both made in writing and orally at the time.The gospels were written on papyrus, and date back close to the time of Jesus. These were more durable copies and a summary of the written and oral evidence provided. Even then the papyrus copies from that time have disintegrated to some extent. Original copies can be traced back to close to the time of Jesus, and these can be checked against current interpretations. The interpretations can be seen to be accurate, dating back to 100 to 200 AD I believe. There are in fact thousands of manuscripts available, which interrelate and tell the same story from many different individuals from different places.
Cite your sources, or apologize for making such a stupid statement. (hint: just f*ck*ng apologize, the sources aren’t there)
There are no original copies. Perhaps you should study outside the realm of ‘apologists’. After all, learning from someone that has an agenda to push is purely masturbatory for the fantasy-inclined.
First sentence: WRONG
Second sentence, cite sources, because if you have 3rd-party documentation of magic/miracles in the bible, you’ll be famous for finding them. (hint: they don’t exist)
Why don’t you go actually LEARN something instead of spouting the easily-debunked drivel from answersingenesis.org? Just FYI, for any REAL evidence of the bible’s validity, for really any purpose at all, would have to be a new discovery you just made, ‘cuz otherwise, it doesn’t exist.
Not sure if Poe or just really stupid.
I’m going for the latter, though it’s probably because I couldn’t wrap my mind around being this convincing of a poe.
WARNING: Long and possibly uninteresting rant!
=======================================
The circular logic you describe often makes logical discussion about faith/religion seem impossible to have. If a person believes the bible is factually true and reliable (see footnote #1 below), how can you ask that person to NOT cite the bible as evidence to support their views? The bible is THE defining source/guidebook for the Christian way of life (it’s not as if there is a whole shelf at the library reserved for divine authors). To ask a true Christian to support his/her views by citing examples from anywhere else would be like taking a pair of eyeglasses away from a near-sighted person and asking them what they see in the far distance…to them, it would be speculating about something that has a true definition.
And this argument works in the other direction, too. How can a true Christian listen to an argument from a non-believer, only to compare sources and say in the end “The bible is divine, and your source is NOT, so your argument is not valid.” You can’t possibly expect the non-believer to use only the bible to create an argument against it.
The bottom line is that people who have committed themselves to a belief or non-belief of a certain religion or faith, and who believe their views are fact and not opinion, have removed themselves from the “logical discussion table.” As Florien states above, it’s as if these people are speaking a special language. If you know the language, they are talking WITH you. If you don’t know the language, then they are talking PAST you, or AT you, but not WITH you.
I have found that logical discussion about faith/religion can only take place when all who are involved in the discussion can admit this one simple fact: THEY SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW! Personal belief to YOU can easily be seen as OPINION by others, and vice versa. As much as I want to believe I know everything, I accept that I am human, and I have never met a human who knows all, so why would I know all? (Is THAT circular logic?!) So if people can admit this, I feel they put themselves on level playing ground and it’s as if they are deciding to speak in a common language. At that point, TRUE and UNDISPUTED FACTS, as well as true personal experiences (see footnote #2), can be used to motivate arguments rather than citing sources that were written by people you never met and possibly had motives you will never know about (see footnote #3).
(Footnote #1: I’ve seen many comments above stating that the bible is factually true because archaeology and science support it, and that we know certain people and places in the bible have been proven to exist, and so the bible is reliable. Please , please, PLEASE do not be so quick to cite science and archaeology to support this view, because science and archaeology go so much further in proving much of the bible is impossible. I’ll stop after pointing out that science dates the earth at approx 4.5 Billion years of age, although many biblical scholars place the earth at approx 6,000 years of age (see footnote #4). Also, I’d like to point out that many fiction novels take place in real cities such as New York, and the characters have very real names that I could find in the phonebook, and they have very real jobs like we have today, and etc…, but it doesn’t mean that these books are real. HOWEVER, there is a possibility that 2,000 years from now archaeologists will uncover some of our now-great cities (which became buried under dust and rubble from who-knows what kind of disaster), and they could find documentation (like a phonebook) with some peoples’ names, and they might find these places and people in a long-ago written work of fiction, and they might assume that THAT fiction novel was real……do you see where I’m going with this?)
(Footnote #2: Florien mentioned the idea of the “Testimonial.” The idea that a person developed a belief because they actually had an experience of their own which left them with little or no doubt is one that makes for interesting and logical discussion. If we base our beliefs on our experiences, and we all have many unique experiences, then there is so much we can discuss and possibly learn from each other. I think a lot of the logic that comes from these types of discussions is not circular at all, but more of a post-modern logic….it’s like we accept that we all see pieces of the whole from a certain perspective, and by gathering other peoples’ views, we can see more of the whole. Imagine if everyone in the world used this approach….What could we learn from each other?….Is it possible that all of our “pieces” would fit together and show us all one, harmonious, truth?….And if so, what would that truth be? The only problem is that people often lie about their personal experiences for the purpose of manipulating others, and that creates a whole new problem.)
(Footnote #3: If the bible IS factual in its entirety and totally reliable, how can God or Jesus Christ expect me to accept it unless they personally deliver some sort of divine order or message that I need to accept it? The bible is so old, and so much history has been lost/buried over the millennia, that it’s impossible to verify whether it was written by reliable sources who just wanted to state the facts, or by people who were misguided, misunderstood, or just flat out lied. A little side story….I grew up Christian; went to bible school every Sunday and church camp every summer; grew up best friends/neighbors with our pastor’s kids; and I was “saved” when I was about 11 or 12 years old (I can still recite John 3:16 by heart to this day). I used to argue with my friends about heaven and Jesus and Christianity, and I was always trying to convince them that it was all true. I told my best friend that I knew it was all true because God “showed” it all to me. I peer pressured him pretty bad (even at a young age), and he came to church with me one day and became “saved.” But I was full of crap. When I got older, I came to realize it was my parents who TOLD me and CONVINCED me everything, not God who showed me everything. I really didn’t believe any of it and finally admitted that to myself. Long story short, I shoveled a bunch of BS that I didn’t even believe in, and I got someone to buy into it. One important lesson I take from that (my own personal experience!), is that people, no matter how close they are to you or how convincing they are, can lie. So now, how the heck am I going to accept the bible as truth/fact just because YOU say it is? And how the heck am I going to take John the Baptist’s written words or Moses’s written words as fact of what God wants from us just because they may have been real? The only thing I know is real is what I experience for myself, and God should know that. That being said, he hasn’t given me any kind of experience to convince me the bible is factual, so I remain a skeptic for now. I can accept that it is POSSIBLE that it is authentic, but it’s also possible that it’s NOT. Is that wrong?)
(Footnote #4: And please don’t say that the bible is symbolic in some ways (Creation, for example), and straight up literal in others (Jesus’s miracles to include his rising from the grave). If such symbolism is indeed interwoven with factual accounts, then how on earth do you expect to know which is which? It would sound to me like way too much of this critically important book is up to way too much interpretation.)
(One last footnote for fun: As far as passing on these stories orally…If you line up 20 people and whisper a couple sentences to the person on the end, and he whispers it to the next person, and so on and so on, the 20th person will likely be way off from the original couple sentences (try it…it’s pretty fun actually). Now, pass hundreds of stories to millions of people over thousands of years and see how much the details change. Is it possible that some, if not all of the bible is something completely different than what it was originally meant to be?)
Oh, okay then, I’ll have a go.
Let me rephrase your question in a way that might make it clearer:
The issue here is pretty straightforward: If a person of faith wants to venture away from faith (i.e. belief without evidence) and into the zone of trying to back up their views with evidence, then they need to provide a good standard of evidence. Using the Bible to make claims about Jesus is about as valid as using the Wizard of Oz to back up the existence of The Yellow Brick Road. There must be some reason why the person believes the Bible to be true and accurate – it’s not evidence (because there is none), therefore it must be faith – Therefore the person of faith should just admit that and stop trying to make out that the Bible is evidence when it’s not.
This begins insightfully but draws the wrong conclusion, in my opinion. Using the Bible is actually an excellent way of arguing against Christianity. The book itself is so internally inconsistent and contradictory, and contains much that a sane person in the modern world could simply not agree with. The trick is to point out a few choice passages that a theist’s preacher will certainly have been careful never to mention and let them read them for themselves. This works particularly well with passages that the standard apologist websites offer bizarre or absurd excuses for (since the first thing most computer literate Christians will do is Google for the AiG solution). As atheist, we can’t de-convert people (and in my opinion it’s not our place to try to do so), however what we can do is respond to them trying to foist their absurd views onto others by calmly pointing out the absurdities and asking the awkward questions, and letting them think about those things for themselves. Cognitive dissonance like that only has one eventual outcome.
“There must be some reason why the person believes the Bible to be true and accurate – it’s not evidence (because there is none), therefore it must be faith – Therefore the person of faith should just admit that and stop trying to make out that the Bible is evidence when it’s not.”
But what if there IS no reason why they believe?….Or at least no reason that would contribute to a better understanding of the subject? For all you know, that person could have been psychologically bullied into believing it (for example…raised in a very strict and even possibly abusive religious family environment). These type of people would never admit their “faith” is not their own….they don’t know because they have practically been brainwashed!!! They will cling to the bible as fact and evidence, not because it truly is, but because they are “Christian,” and they have no true testimony of their own to draw upon. So what would be the point in trying to have a logical discussion with someone like this? You may come out of the discussion with a better understanding of how parental views can influence or even control children, but you will learn nothing new about religion/faith.
There are plenty of other types of people out there whom I speak of, who are self described Christians, but they have reached that conclusion through means other than true religious enlightenment. With no personal experiences to draw upon, yet with a position to defend, they turn to the bible as their only means of defending that position.
And on the flip side of that coin, a person who is convinced that God does not exist, but has arrived at THAT conclusion based on something other than their own “anti-religious enlightenment,” ALSO has no place at the discussion table. It could be a person who attended religious school their whole childhood and was alienated or put down by all the other kids, and just grew to hate the religion by association. This person will also defend their position using whatever they can, having never considered the possibility of finding truth in the bible because they’ve never LOOKED for truth in the bible. The whole idea of religion is flawed to them just because they were picked on in school.
I don’t know about you, but I have no interest in talking with any of these people.They cannot contribute anything to the discussion that could help me better understand God. And that is ultimately what I am talking about. You cannot have a logical discussion with somebody who hasn’t arrived to their own beliefs in a logical way. It’s possible that the southern baptist kid who was beaten by his pastor father during childhood and was too scared to ever question his religion (even in his own mind)…it’s possible that this kid HAPPENS to be “following” the “correct” religion, but he can’t shed any useful light on what led him there. So how could he ever help anybody else in the journey?
I’m not one of those people who believes that each person is governed by a different set of rules, or that each person will experience their own, unique fate or afterlife. I believe that the big picture is the same for all of us. Unfortunately, I don’t see the whole picture right now (perhaps I never will). But what I DO see, I’ve seen it through logic, open-mindedness (in that anything is possible since we don’t know everything, and therefore cannot disprove everything), and personal and shared experiences. And if it IS the same for all of us, then it’s possible that other people have seen different parts of the picture. To me, knowing WHAT they saw and HOW they saw it might come in handy one day.
And in my previous post, when I stated “You can’t possibly expect the non-believer to use only the bible to create an argument against it,” this came out wrong.
When I (as a non-believer in Christianity) discuss Christianity with my Christian friend, he expects me to use the bible to support arguments against Christianity. But when I cite something from the bible which contradicts Christianity from a scientific or archaeological or even logical standpoint, he counters by presenting my point through the “correct, divine, Christian” interpretation….something that I just don’t “get” because I don’t believe in it and I don’t know the TRUE meaning of the bible. So basically, I say to him and other people like him, “if I have to come into your comfort zone to make my argument, then you have to come into my comfort zone to make your arguments.”
Ok, I’m done rambling now.
Btw….HOLY CRAP!!!!….This is one old featured article!
There’s always a reason that somebody is a believer.
Um… That is a reason that some people believe.
The reason that most people believe in a religion (any religion) is that they were raised in a culture that believed in that religion, and indoctrinated into that religion from birth. Kids aren’t given an alternative, they’re simply raised to believe that “this is the way the world is”.
I was at least ten years old before I figured out that there were living religions besides Christianity. I knew about classical paganism (presented to me as “mythology”), but I was surrounded by Christians in a Christian community, who never talked about stuff like Islam and Buddhism. I didn’t know any Jews until I was in junior high school. My world was entirely saturated in Christianity for the first decade of my life, with no alternatives visible.
Psychological bullying? Nah. But definitely indoctrination.
Sorry UrsaMinor….that other comment was meant for Custador.
As far as indoctrination goes, I am all too familiar with it. It was the same with me. Believe it or not, I fell out with Christianity as a result of a series of discussions I had with a non-believer friend. I was trying to convince him to keep an open mind about Christianity and the bible. Over time, he made a lot of valid points against Christianity and the bible that I just could no longer defend it. It’s not so much that I COULDN’T defend against his arguments (I was trained well in the bible at the time), but I DIDN’T WANT TO because at a certain point, I just accepted that I was putting so much effort into defending something I didn’t truly believe in my heart. I was just regurgitating info that I grew up with, even though I had never seen any of it come to fruition with my own eyes.
So anyway, I believe that people who were simply indoctrinated into a certain religion (without having been drawn to it through their own “enlightened experiences”) can still fall victim to “logic” in a religious conversation. I don’t mean that these people are easy to manipulate and get on your side….what I mean is that I believe these people are more inclined to eventually think logically about what you and themselves are actually saying. It may be that there logic supports Christianity in a lot of ways, but at least they’ll be drawing upon true beliefs, and not just beliefs that were force-fed to them growing up.
The people I was speaking about above when I said “psychological bullying” would be a slightly more extreme case scenario. I grew up next door to my Pastor and was best friends with his children. He would beat his kids if they ever talked back and if they dare questioned the faith. He was so controlling in everything, and their mother was worse in a lot of ways. This is not simple indoctrination. Many of us have a choice…I would never expect THEM to ever grow up and question the beliefs there parents forced them into. I sympathize with people in these kinds of situations, and I hope they can get help if such parenting causes them to have emotional issues, but I cannot discuss true faith with these kind of people because I don’t believe they have TRUE faith.
Of course it’s a reason, but not one that lends itself to a logical discussion about that person’s “faith.”
So do you still expect this “person of faith” to just admit that their own personal faith is misguided, and that the only reason they have faith in the first place is because they were bullied into it? Do you actually expect them to admit that the bible is not evidence, even though it is the only source they can come up with to support their so-called faith because they don’t have any personal experiences to draw upon?
Good luck with that. I say it’ll never happen, and if it does, it’s rare. And I’m ok with that. I can respect that a person blindly clenches onto a belief because they were bullied into it since the day they were born. I don’t know that I would be able to break out of such a mental/emotional situation myself without help from a psychologist, so how can I expect them to be able to do so? But what I won’t do is take their faith arguments as anything but unverified. So there really is no reason for me to discuss faith with them (unless, of course, I’m an @$$hole and I’m looking to use their flawed upbringing as an excuse to debunk the religion that they claim to believe in…what kind of @$$hole does that?)
You are right, faith does not need reason. It’s a blind pursuit of what you believe in, just like passion, which is a thing we like to do but don’t know why. Human logic is also unreliable, reason could turn wrong if your premises are wrong. Sadly, we don’t have all the facts in this world so most likely our premises could be wrong. Reason is only used as a justification of what we did, what we are doing and what we want to do.
Reason is only used as a justification of what we did, what we are doing and what we want to do.
Reason (and its handmaiden, empiricism) also gave us the computers we’re typing on, the tools, refrigerators, vehicles that get food to us to ensure we don’t starve, the antibiotics and soap that kept us alive long enough to have this conversation.
It’s like the scene in The Life of Brian: “What did the Romans do for us?”
Besides the roads, the schools, the aqueduct, the law enforcement, irrigation, wine, medicine, public baths and sanitation…nothing. Right?