Everybody has their own version of Christianity. But each person is convinced his or her version of Christianity is the right one and everyone else is wrong. Some people are “real Christians” and others are “fake Christians”.
I’ve been accused of this countless times by commenters on this blog. I walked away from Christianity because I “never truly believed” or ”wasn’t doing it right”. I guess these people would know since they are experts in their own version of infallible Christianity.
But I agree, the majority of Christians in America are “fake Christians”. They don’t actually believe it. It’s sort of an insurance policy just in case Jesus is real. If you believe you’re going to a better place when you die, why are you wearing a seatbelt?
Thanks to Hedi for this hilarious video clip that sums it up well:
Tags: Agnostic, Atheist, Bible, Christianity, Denomination, God, Jesus, Skeptic, Version
July 2, 2009 at 7:06 pm |
I like the idea of the Bible being printed on Captain Crunch cereal boxes. He has a point… if someone knew nothing about the Bible or Jesus or God, and then as an adult happened upon it… how many people would throw it in the trash because the stories were crazy?
Oh, and his follow-up point about getting it into kids heads when their young… spot on.
July 5, 2009 at 1:18 pm |
He asks “why are you crying” if they’re in a better place? And thebeattitude asks “why wear a seatbelt if you believe you’re going to heaven anyways?”
Well, um, hopefully I’m not going out on a limb here, but I would say it’s because God made us with emotions. Further, if the gospel message of how Christ lived the life we couldn’t, died the death we deserved, and rose again to prove it all satisfactory so that we could know Him and His chosen people forver then that could reach out to anyone. Also, it’s the Holy Spirit who testifies to us that that message is true. That’s why the gospel is transrational, not irrational or purely humanly rational (which is limited to finite reason).
Also, Christians wear seatbelts because its the law in many places (Rom 14 talks about obeying laws of the land), and becasue they want to live and do God’s will as long as He allows (John 4:15, Eph 2:10).
And as far as being a hypocrite, everyone is a hypocrite in some way shape for form. Especially those who condemn Christians for bying hypoctrites. This is one reason I’m always curious to know other people’s worldviews, which thebeattitude won’t tell me because he knows I’ll take him out to the wood shed on it, because then I can point out why hypocricy probably doesn’t matter in their worldview. Take naturalism for example. If we are all just made up of atoms, then we can’t help but by hypocrites because we’re acting in accordance to our biological make up. Further, there would be not such thing as hypocricy. There’s only the illusion of it! So why have a comedic act about it! This is the problem when people want to borrow what only Christianity can provide, then take the things they don’t like and throw them back into God’s face and His people’s face.
July 5, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
Come on Cameron. I’m afraid to find out what you have in that bizarre woodshed of yours.
And by the way, throwing things back into an imaginary guy’s face can be fun. Try it sometime.
July 5, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Cameron–
Please be gentle so you won’t “spoil my fun”.
You just don’t seem to get it. I don’t believe in any theistic deities, thus the “atheist” name for what I don’t believe. Your not going to somehow reveal my flawed worldview. You believe in an invisible man-made god and attempt to use highly flawed 2,000 year old texts to discredit me. Not exactly compelling.
I don’t pretend to know if there is anything beyond the “physical realm”. Their is no absolutely no evidence to convince me of otherwise. Only weak religions and flawed theologies to reaffirm my belief that their is no divine and holy creator up in the clouds. Science and technology will continue to uncover the true reason we are here on earth.
And as I’ve said to you in the past. I focus my criticism on Christianity because I was a Christian for 33 years of my life. I’ve spent my entire life openly rejecting every other man-made god on earth. I’m not an expert to discuss any of these religions in depth and don’t care to learn more about them. But I do find them equally as bunk as I do Christianity.
July 5, 2009 at 9:32 pm
First of all, that doesn’t even make sense. And yes I am certain, because without absolute proof certainty can not exist. Your faith doesn’t equate to certainty. It equates to wishful thinking.
I don’t assume design, intention, purpose or meaning. I just don’t prescribe to your archaic perspective of these things.
July 5, 2009 at 2:17 pm |
thebeattitude, that’s very very funny. Is that your indirect way of saying “I’m too affraid to have my “new” outlook in life challenged because I’m comfortable here and I don’t want Cameron to spoil the fun, so I won’t tell him what I believe because then I’ll have to feel ashamed of wasting so much time on and off the internet being inconsistent.”
So what is your worldview Sir? Is there anything that exists beyond the natural or physical realm? Is the universe finite, infinite?
It’s fun to throw things back into an imaginary guy’s face? Interesting how I see you throwing more things back into Jesus’ face then Allah, Santa Clause, the gods of Greek and Roman mythology, the gods of Hindusism, the gods of Buhdism, etc. But then again, you’re fulfilling Scripture’s teaching with this exclusively Christ hostile behavior (Rom 1:18-20, 6:6-8).
July 5, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
Oh yeah, and you also state that “happy are those who ask question”. Well, I’m right there with you! I want to make you happy Sir! I want to do this by asking you questions about what you believe! So what do you believe?
Everyone please note: I’ve been trying to ask thebeattitude to tell me this for a while now. Maybe he’ll finally discuss it.
July 5, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
Cameron – The fact you believe, means you are not smart enough to ruin his fun.
Your bible you are quoting is made up. Have you looked into that? Jesus in the bible … never existed. He is total fiction. So quote away dummy.
I believe the universe is infinite. Oh boy. Now what. Another poorly argued dumbass barrage of first cause? That argument does not work. It is unknown. God is not the only answer, when answer is unknown. Then you are going to make up a deity that is eternal and did not have a first cause. More stupidity. Pull your head out of your ass, so you can see when you attempt to throw things.
July 5, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
No guy in the sky, I have looked into it. So has Bart Ehrman who is an agnostic and would totally disagree with you as for as Jesus existing historically. I’m inviting thebeattitude to reply to me with his worldview.
But I’ll still address your statements. You say the universe is infinite. Well the universe can’t be infinite because that would require an infinite amount of time to have passed first before we got here. But that’s impossible because infinite is forever. Most scientists today believe that the universe is finite. This does not prove Christianity deductively, and I never said it did, but I’m am asking questions like thebeattitude claims to be doing with Christianity. Not only am I asking questions but reaseaching possible answers to those questions. Scripture lines up with the notion that the universe isn’t infinite.
July 5, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
thebeattitude, thanks for answering me. I see you are rolling your eyes. That type of reaction sounds like you’re already prepared to not question your “new” beliefs, when YOU are the one who states “happy are those who ask questions”.
Are you just as willing to question your current beliefs as you are any other worldview, especially Christianity? I really hope you are for the sake of consistency and your own rational integrity.
you said, “I don’t pretend to know if there is anything beyond the “physical realm”. Their is no absolutely no evidence to convince me of otherwise.
I challenge you to question the notion that you can only know something, or know something to be true by way of being convinced with your 5 senses, because that standard itself cannot be detected with the 5 senses. Further, you already accept realities which are abstract (immaterial) such as universal and absolute meanings (the laws of logic). You must use abstract absolute meanings to reply to me and they must be universal to both of us for us to have this discussion.
July 5, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
you also said Science and technology will continue to uncover the true reason we are here on earth.
For science to be a possibility, you have must intelligent observers who obersve (using the laws of logic), the obersable (finite matter). All of which can’t be accounted for by something mindless, finite, and physical. But you say science will lead us to the true reason we are here on earth. OK. So where does truth and real reasons come from in your worldview, or how do you account for these as being realities? This seems to imply purpose, intention, and design. These are metaphysical and philosophical endeavors, not things we can come to conclusions by looking at a Universe made of mindless particles.
July 5, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
Cameron – You are wrong. Bart Erhman says specifically there is no proof of Jesus from the time he lived. Not one document. Yes he is an expert on this. He was a believer, and says agnostic. If you read his stuff, and listen. He is an atheist. Start with his book “God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer” You will see. Also for ease here is a video lecture given by him. http://christianpwnage101.blogspot.com/2008/01/lecture-series-bart-ehrman-misquoting.html
Great come back. You asked what I thought, and I told you. Where is your proof? Time? Time is said not to exist before the universe. Hmmm. If it did. Then it to could be infinite. You have shown nothing. You bring nothing. Now I see you are on your God made logic, reason bullshit.
Your an idiot that thinks he is smart. Keep twisting shit. There is no written record of Jesus. There were 30 something Jesus peeps running around that time proclaiming to be the messiah. I assume the writers picked a name out of a hat. Just like they wrote him in from Nazareth. Oh ya it wasnt built yet. It was a new budding city when the dummys wrote about their fictional character 60-100 years after the fact. You would think following the exploits of the chosen one. They could have jotted something down. Huh? They didnt , in fact nobody did. There are records for all sorts of people back then. Sorry no true messiah named jesus.
Since you think God created logic and reason. Where is his fucking logic?All knowing being creates two people. He knows bitch will eat his fav. fruit, and doesnt even protect it. Kind of like leaving $100 bill on the ground. Will it be there when you get back? No Dumbass it wont. Captain all knowing didnt see it coming. So he gets mad, for her eating his fruit. Punishes all of mankind to burn in hell for an apple. He made them in his image. Doe that mean God would steal their apples? Hmmm. Well then your loving being that KNOWS so much. Sends his son as his big messenger for the whole planet 4000 yrs later. Did he rape a virgin on every continent(rape is crime right?)? No just a married desert woman. In an unpopulated area. Makes sense. Loving God says believe and you will be saved. Sends donkey thief to desert. So 99.99999999999% of planet doesnt get to meet his made up son. So all the peeps on planet all went to hell. Every man, woman and child. Even today, if you live somewhere remote. God sentences you to hell. He is a jealous cuss. Doesnt make sense? Huh? Nope. All knowing all powerful God should easily be able to handle that task. He didnt, failed miserably, because HE IS NOT REAL! They made him up! Ya idiot. @:-D)
July 5, 2009 at 7:28 pm |
noguyinthesky,
Erhman said in a recent debate with James R. White that it is very likely that Jesus existed historically.
So many atheist and agnostic scientists are idiots to you too who don’t believe in an infinite universe. That’s fine. And I showed you a rational proof that it could not be infinite because that would mean we wouldn’t be here then b/c we’d have to wait for an infinite amount of time to pass first before we got here. But an infinite amount of time can only be in process, never reached.
And I never said “God made logic”. You might want to represent people fairly so that when you argue against them you do so sufficiently.
He knows bitch will eat his fav. fruit, and doesnt even protect it.
These are thug responses. There are no real objections which you are offering. You’re only showing that you 1. havent’ studied much about what the majority of Christians have believed for centuries (which you can find in many of the creeds), and 2. just don’t like it. The Christian position is that God allowed sin for His own glorious purposes in predestining to redeem His chosen people.
So he gets mad, for her eating his fruit.
God was mad that His specific command was broken, thus they did evil by idolizing what they could have, other then what God gave them already.
Punishes all of mankind to burn in hell for an apple. Read Rom 5.
He made them in his image. Doe that mean God would steal their apples?
What?
Sends donkey thief to desert.
Let’s critique your worldview. If you care to let me know what it is then I assure you I will offer a cogent internal critique and wont strawman it like you are with Christianity. So on what basis is stealing really wrong in your worldview?
All knowing all powerful God should easily be able to handle that task. He didnt, failed miserably, because HE IS NOT REAL!
Heb 11 says there will be countless who are saved. Further, God does not will all to go to heaven. He saves whom He wills. It’s His universe, His planet, His plan, His purpose, for His own glory, not yours.
July 5, 2009 at 7:55 pm |
Of course I’m prepared to question my worldview. I question everything. That is the entire bases for my rejection of Christianity, along with all other man-made religions. As I’ve said, I don’t claim to have all the answers. As soon as a person closes their mind and believes they have all of the answers, they become blind.
The hard fact is none of us know with absolute certainty why we are here on earth. You’re just willing to believe ancient texts written by highly flawed men were inspired by God. I think that is ridiculous considering how poorly written the Bible is.
Your attempt to prove the intelligent design of the universe in no way proves your version of god is real. You’re telling me that because the earth is complex, it proves a Jewish man from 2,000 years ago was God’s son. You’ve only proved that the earth is complex. I view it is a complete cop out to point to a god every time we don’t understand something.
July 5, 2009 at 8:05 pm |
Cameron – Look dummy. You wanna know why you are WRONG! This THUG will tell you. We are in this time. It does not matter how much time was before. We are here now dumbass. Get it! Just like how improbable the universe for us to exist is. We won the lottery and we are here. Can you think of more STUPID responses? I vote yes.
So you believe in Adam +Eve. lol That is funny stuff. You got mad at me calling a fictitious savior a donkey thief. Funny how your God(Jesus) is immoral stealing some poor desert dudes donkey. You just let that slide. Its not really stealing if God does it. He created everything, and has ownership. God commits murder/genocide its OK. He orders murder and genocide. Its OK. It shows how low you would slink to sleep at night, affraid of the world, living and death. As far as bart E. goes you obviously did not watch the video I gave you. I am sure you cherry picked your quote from Bart. (Typical Christian lies deceit and BULLSHIT.) I will try and find a video of that.
Also you think the fairy tale written by children for children, with a God that is loving caring and compassionate. That just lets billions burn in hell because they didnt live in Jesus’s zip code. You are a FUCKING IDIOT! Wow you smoke much crack? If you are going to create a God, at least make him so he gives a shit. Also try editing his Fucking words for him, since all knowing Gods can not edit. Oh but just like the fossils in the ground are placed to test us. So must be the dumbest book ever written. Ya it is all just a big fucking test!
If you want my world view, come read my blog. ZZZ you can see my name is lit up to link. Ya sleeping. The lights never turn on? Nobody ever home?
Please visit me. Bring friends.
July 5, 2009 at 8:14 pm |
thebeattitude,
As soon as a person closes their mind and believes they have all of the answers, they become blind.
This assumes there is truth. What is your foundation for truth existing? Does a mindless universe of atoms, time, space, and electromagnitism account for truth? Further, assuming that there is a truth, I agree with you that we should not close our minds to all possibilities of it.
The hard fact is none of us know with absolute certainty why we are here on earth.
Do you know that for certainty? If yes, then how did you come to know something for certain (which means you contradict yourself)? If no, then it’s possible that people do know for certain.
You’re just willing to believe ancient texts written by highly flawed men were inspired by God. I think that is ridiculous considering how poorly written the Bible is. it’s funny how you say it’s written so poorly when I’ve rebut 2 of your supposed contradictions with not satisfactory response on your part. How do you expect ME to see where you’re coming from as to it being “poorly written” if that’s the case?
Your attempt to prove the intelligent design of the universe in no way proves your version of god is real.
When did I offer this proof in our discussion so far? I said that YOU are assuming design, intention, purpose, and meaning when saying “we will discover the true reason we’re here”. This is a metaphysical claim for metaphysical reasons. You cannot be a Naturalist if you make that claim. If you’re not one then great. I’m still confused as to what you are other then a Christian hostile floating thinker who is uncertain. Doesn’t sound like much of a better place to be!
July 5, 2009 at 8:26 pm |
noguyinthesky,
We are in this time. It does not matter how much time was before.
So it sounds like you’re conceding to the universe being finite.
So you believe in Adam +Eve. lol That is funny stuff.
laughing isn’t an argument. It’s just a noise. And do you believe that intelligence comes from non-intelligence? That is something worth laughing at.
You got mad at me calling a fictitious savior a donkey thief. Funny how your God(Jesus) is immoral stealing some poor desert dudes donkey. You just let that slide.
Maybe someone left the donkey there and wanted to get rid of it. Who knows? And you still haven’t accounted for why stealing is really wrong. You’re borrowing from my worldview to say it is, especailly when you accuse Jesus of stealing.
He orders murder and genocide. Its OK.
the wages of sin is death, Rom 6:13.
I am sure you cherry picked your quote from Bart. (Typical Christian lies deceit and BULLSHIT.) I will try and find a video of that.
Listen to him on theinfidelguy, and listen to the mp3 of the James R. White/Ehrman debate at aomin.org.
Also you think the fairy tale written by children for children, with a God that is loving caring and compassionate. That just lets billions burn in hell because they didnt live in Jesus’s zip code. You are a FUCKING IDIOT! Wow you smoke much crack? If you are going to create a God, at least make him so he gives a shit. Also try editing his Fucking words for him, since all knowing Gods can not edit. Oh but just like the fossils in the ground are placed to test us. So must be the dumbest book ever written. Ya it is all just a big fucking test!
If you want my world view, come read my blog. ZZZ you can see my name is lit up to link. Ya sleeping. The lights never turn on? Nobody ever home?
I’ll meet you over there!
July 6, 2009 at 10:45 am |
thebeattitude,
are you listening to yourself? First of all, you skim over half of my arguments against your points, thus are conceding and my Christian worldview is winning.
Second, you said “First of all, that doesn’t even make sense.”
So it doesn’t make sense to have a standard of truth? While you are the one saying that science and technology will show us the true reasons we are here?!
And yes I am certain [that you can know why we are here], because without absolute proof certainty can not exist. Your faith doesn’t equate to certainty. It equates to wishful thinking.
This is a logical fallacy. 1. Certainty could exist without absolute proof, it just means we wouldn’t be able to know it. What you meant to say was “if we are to know something for certain, this requires absolute proof”, however this is circular reasoning because you’d have to be certain that you had absolute proof! So it’s the same as saying “you have to be certain to be certain”. 2. Many things in science do not have absolute proof. Science mostly works off of induction, not deduction. Deduction only works theoretically, not practically. Scientific conclusions are based on propensities or likelihoods i.e. something is 55% or 69% true. We can’t know for sure that the laws of physics will stay in tact or that the sun will come up tomorrow with 100% certainty. The % that we are unsure of this requires faith based on a likelihood from what we know of the past. 3. How do you know for certain that you know for certain why we are here? Did you observe this or test it in a laboratory? How did you prove this with 100% certainty?
I don’t assume design, intention, purpose or meaning. I just don’t prescribe to your archaic perspective of these things.
You’re being even more “archaic” because you don’t even realize that you must assume purpose, meaning, etc when you make subjective claims which can’t be detected with our 5 senses, such as “we will someday know why we are here”. To assume that there is a reason why we are here, is to assume a reason. This is a metaphysical endeavor because “reasons” aren’t found in a Universe of atoms. Or are they to you? If so that’s pretty “archaic”.
July 6, 2009 at 11:10 am |
no guy in the sky,
I went to your blog and I see you don’t like Islam, which we would both have in common. Yet I do love Muslims and hope they come to know Christ as they’re Lord and Savior. But I do not see your worldview. How about you just spell it out to me so I can challenge you on it. Are you a Naturalist? Do you believe humans are just physical or also have spirits? Where do the laws of logic come from? Where does morality come from? Things of this nature.
You also said: Also you think the fairy tale written by children for children, with a God that is loving caring and compassionate. That just lets billions burn in hell because they didnt live in Jesus’s zip code.
You are only demonstrating how you don’t study the worldview you are seeking to critique. That’s not going to convince us who know and understand our worldview. It will only convince you who remain ignorant about it. God is being compassionate and loving when sending deserving God hating sinners to punishment because He is being loving to Himself. This is the greatest commandment, (Deut 6, Mat 24).
You are a FUCKING IDIOT! Wow you smoke much crack? If you are going to create a God, at least make him so he gives a shit. Also try editing his Fucking words for him, since all knowing Gods can not edit. Oh but just like the fossils in the ground are placed to test us. So must be the dumbest book ever written. Ya it is all just a big fucking test!
Scripture offers the only epistamological foundation for the way the world is. Do you know what that means? Do you want me to spoon feed you? Have you looked into these things? Or do you just want to ignore these things and instead try to look cool because you know how to cuss on blogs?
July 6, 2009 at 11:21 am |
@Cameron: It might help if you spelled it right. It’s “epistemological.”
Seems like a pointless field of study to me, but whatever gets you through the night, I guess.
July 6, 2009 at 11:28 am |
Heidi,
Thanks. And it’s interesting how you correct that spelling and don’t correct all the rest of my typing errors on here, as though that somehow slows the thrust of my statement by simply pointing out a misspelling.
Did you look that word up on the internet Heidi or did you already know what it means. So it’s pointless to have an epistemological foundation for reality? This is basically saying it’s OK to have a worldview which is inconsistent with reality. I hope you really don’t believe that because the logical conclusion to that is “all inconsistent beliefs are rational”.
July 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
no guy in the sky,
you said that Bart Ehrman was an atheist. Lol. Have you ever heard of him before I mentioned him to you?
http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20090113fta.mp3
If you listen to this, at a little over 1/3 in the conversation, you will hear Ehrman state that he’s an agnostic!!!
Am I going to have to disprove your research all the time or just sometimes?
July 6, 2009 at 12:28 pm |
no guy in the sky,
I forgot to mention, directly right after Ehrman states that he’s an agnostic, he states that he believes that Jesus historically existed!!!
THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!!! Professional scholars believe that Jesus historically existed! Time to pack up and go home now on that one.
Ehrman states, “for him to say and do anything, he [Jesus] had to exist. I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money, who say Jesus didn’t exist, but I don’t know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.”
July 6, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
Uh, Cameron? The reason I corrected that specific word, was that I thought perhaps it would be easier for people to look up if it were spelled correctly. So that would be why. Nice try with the righteous indignation, though.
And actually, I am looking it right up now to be crystal clear on the definition. Dictionary.com defines it as the philosophy of knowledge. So it’s basically occultism. In which case yes, I think that is a pointless, academic study with no real world application. Besides, apparently, religious apologetics.
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but for me, there is no argument you can make, no tantrum you can throw, and nothing you can say that will make me believe in the paranormal, other than “here’s the proof.” If any other people feel the same way, you might want to factor that into your expectations in case you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. Just saying.
July 6, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
Heidi,
The reason I corrected that specific word, was that I thought perhaps it would be easier for people to look up if it were spelled correctly. So that would be why. Nice try with the righteous indignation, though.
Nice righteous indignation with my righteous indignation. And it’s easy to misunderstand someone on an impersonal blog.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Dictionary.com defines it as the philosophy of knowledge. So it’s basically occultism.
How did you get from the philosophy of knowledge to occultism? The study of how we know what we know deals with our justification of what we claim to be the case or to be real. What worldview do you personally have Heidi which accounts for a finite universe, a real morality, the laws of logic, intelligence, life, human dignity, etc?
In which case yes, I think that is a pointless, academic study with no real world application. Besides, apparently, religious apologetics.
Religious apologetics? Does that include Naturalists trying to account for the above criterion with their own presuppositions and worldviews? Such as the Universe being comprised of only time, space, mindless matter, and energy?
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but for me, there is no argument you can make, no tantrum you can throw, and nothing you can say that will make me believe in the paranormal, other than “here’s the proof.” If any other people feel the same way, you might want to factor that into your expectations in case you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. Just saying.
So you’re skeptical of the possibility of their being a realm beyond the mere physical? What is the mere physical ultimately comprised of to you so that you know what it is beyond that substance which you reject? What do you mean by “proof”? Historical proof, empirical proof, theoretical proof, etc, or a combination of these?
Lastly, if by “paranormal” you mean metaphysical or abstract (non-material), then you require the acceptance of this realm because you are using abstract absolute meanings to write your replies to me and to understand mine. But you have never physically observed an abstract absolute meaning, yet except it as reality.
July 6, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
Nice righteous indignation with my righteous indignation.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
And yet you did it again in the preceding sentence, presuming that I was indignant, when I was actually completely amused.
How did you get from the philosophy of knowledge to occultism?
From wikipedia: “Occultism is the study of occult or hidden wisdom. To the occultist it is the study of “Truth”, a deeper truth that exists beneath the surface: ‘The truth is always hidden in plain sight’. It can involve such subjects as magic (alternatively spelled and defined as magick), alchemy, extra-sensory perception, astrology, spiritualism and numerology. There is often a strong religious element to these studies and beliefs,”
What do you mean by “proof”? Historical proof, empirical proof, theoretical proof, etc, or a combination of these?
Empirical, please. But short of a god flying down from the sky, I’m not really sure what would do it. I suppose I’d have to wing it on that one. But it’s obviously non-existent, as theists would most certainly shout it from the rooftops if they had any real proof.
Lastly, if by “paranormal” you mean metaphysical or abstract (non-material),
Well by paranormal I mean outside the normal, just like the word says. Supernatural. Woo.
I’m not going to argue about my worldview, because no matter what I say it’s going to start with “I see no evidence of supernatural happenings,” and you’re going to tell me I’m wrong.
The rest of your post was irrelevant, IMO.
July 6, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
Camoron – You say so much crap.I do not have a lifetime to debate you, when you can not listen or learn. I said Bart says he is an agnostic. I also said if you listen to him, you realize he is really an atheist. Remember? Selective reading. Cherry picker? I also said there is no proof of Jesus existing. PROOF! (insert expletive). Did you listen to video? Nope. (insert expletive). In video in ENGLISH he says there are NO written document. PERIOD! (insert multiple expletives) So you have not corrected me. Dumbass! (I needed that one
)
So lets put this in simple english, everyone here knows but you. WE all know you know shit. Anybody dumb enough to come to a post and ask, what is your world view. Is pretty much an idiot. What the hell kind of question is that? Pretty fucking stupid! What is your world view. LMAO. So you found out about epistamology and now you are going around trying/attempting to seem smart. Sorry you are failing miserably.
Nobody knows the beginning of the universe. If it is finite or not. Time can go on infinitely. Is there a beginning? I dont know. Neither do you. If I say time is infinite and the universe is infinite. That is what I believe now. You asked. I didnt study or look anything up. You try and then be stupid enough to tell me, I think the universe is finite. lmao. Dumbass. I just told you. For your information, it wouldnt matter if time was infinite before us. Time is now. Past is past. you do live in the now. Right? So even if an infinitely long past happened. Things still happen in those slices of time.It does not really matter when we are here now. Can you get that?
Why do you need to know where logic, morality and reason is from? More stupid line of questions? Oh ya … epistamology. ZZZZ Why dont you get off the dumbass pedestal you are on and get to a real point! You are not smart! Just say…You are dumb enough to believe.
FYI – I tend to swear at people like you. You aggravate me to no end. Your stupid questions. Avoiding questions. Cherry picking. Most of all, pretending to be intelligent. Stay on topic! Nobody cares about epistamology.(insert expletive)
Logic, thought, memories, and reason all come from some people brain (insert funny at you) Human brains evolved to the point we can reason, think and be logical. What demon do you get your sub par logic from? Morality is from society, definitely not your crazy ass maniac of a god. FYI – Jesus did not exist. Jesus = Horus. Trust this dummy Horus was here first! Ask your god why Paul, Mark, Mathew and Luke can not be original?
Oh ya. Try to say what you believe. Instead of asking. Try answering the post.
July 6, 2009 at 11:23 pm
no guy in the sky,
Do your panties always get in a bundle this easy? Especially when having discussion with people who simply and politely disagree with you?
You said “If you read his stuff, and listen. He is an atheist.” You never said “he is really an atheist (but doesn’t realize it – which is still just your opinion]”. So your opinion of the man trumps the man’s clear opinion of himself?
What the hell kind of question is that? Pretty fucking stupid! What is your world view. LMAO.
Again, a laugh isn’t an argument. It’s a sound. I think you’re too afraid of stating, or even formulating (because you probably haven’t thought about it) your actual worldview because you know that I’d pull the roof back and let it get rained on. In case you figure it out, let me know and we can talk. I’ll be purely objective an not overly emotional in doing so too.
Sorry you are failing miserably.
I don’t think you’re used to arguing, or using real argumentation. A real argument that is worth considering (which I assume you might want me to do) offers “reasons” , not just blank assertions.
Time can go on infinitely.
I know but it can’t reach infinity, thus the universe can’t be infinitely old in the past because that would require an infinite amount of time to have passed before we got here, and that’s impossible. Deal with the actual argument I’m presenting.
Why do you need to know where logic, morality and reason is from?
Because if the answer (if it’s real) can determine whether or not we are under the illusion of logic and morality, or if these things are actual. In other words whether we should listen to them, or if saying anything and acting any way is permissable. The Christian worldview perfectly accounts for these things to be taken seriously. Imagine if mindless atoms banging around is all there were to work with. Something mindless can’t account for a mind, and something only physical can’t account for the non-physical, like the laws of logic.
You keep saying that I pretend to be intelligent and smart. Since you brought that up, I’ll take that as a compliment.
FYI – I tend to swear at people like you.
Notice here folks what effect a challenge on someone’s presuppositions and TRADITIONS can do to a person. It can make them a big jerk!
Note, the beattitude, says “happy are those who ask questions.” You should seek to be like him and be happy that I’m presenting all these questions and challenges to you.
Logic can’t come from the physical brain, because absolute meanings are what we must use to identify things, not what we happen to. They must come from a mind, but b/c their eternal they must come from an eternal mind.
Morality can’t come from societies because which society might change it’s mind, thus not society can be more right, and society might decide that societies no longer determine it. Also, there must be a standard outside of societies which says that societies determine morality, but what is that?
And even Ehrman would disagree with you on the Horus thing.
July 6, 2009 at 7:03 pm |
Cameron –
“As for Ehrman’s own attitude toward Christianity, it evolved in a long and complex process. His realization that the Bible is an all-too-human document ended his literalist faith, but did not cause him to leave the church. Instead, he embraced Christianity as a “beautiful myth,” in effect taking what he needed from it and leaving the rest. He practiced this “soft” Christianity for years, but abandoned it too. What ultimately led him to leave the church was a more profound issue: the problem of evil, what theologians call theodicy. In his 2008 book “God’s Problem,” Ehrman explains that he could no longer believe in an all-knowing and all-powerful God in a world in which an innocent child dies of hunger every five seconds.”
http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2009/04/03/jesus_interrupted/
He is an atheist but just can not pull the trigger. So he call himself an agnostic. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
July 6, 2009 at 11:27 pm
That just means he doesn’t like Yahweh. Allah would probably fit that category too. He still could be a theist of another kind, or even a Deist, which is a sub-category of theism.
Notice, he claims to have been influenced mostly with Christian ideologies especially in his Biblical studies. This really only speaks to his experience with Christianity then. You seem to be interpreting this as: “if someone isn’t a Christian then they’re an atheist”. That’s the unwarranted leap you’re making with Ehrman.
July 6, 2009 at 10:55 pm |
Heidi,
And yet you did it again in the preceding sentence, presuming that I was indignant, when I was actually completely amused.
Your replies are no where tantamount of your “true” emotional state which you seem to reveal afterhand. You’ll have to start putting emoticons or descriptions in parenthesis to help clarify. Sorry, I’m not a mind reader. And you said that you corrected my misspelling of epistemological because you wanted to do us all a favor so we could research it. I find that hard to be the case considering you seemed to find it OK, and anyone can do a Google for that word and get the correct spelling easily. Further, you didn’t originally state that that’s why you corrected me. Thus, you could possibly just be doing clever “innocent” back peddling.
From wikipedia:
OK. Herein lies the big problem with this kind of Alice in Wonderland rabbit trail. You are researching “occultism”, not what philosophers have studied and understood for centuries to be an epistemological foundation for reality. I did you a favor and translated what that means and looks like. It deal with the foundation for every day living and thinking, not occultism. I could go down these semantic rabbit trails too and say “well philosophy is the study of wisdom and the occult ties into hidden wisdom so all philosophy is occultic!” There you have it!
Empirical, please. But short of a god flying down from the sky, I’m not really sure what would do it. I suppose I’d have to wing it on that one. But it’s obviously non-existent, as theists would most certainly shout it from the rooftops if they had any real proof.
What is your definition of a “god”? And if it flew down from heaven why would you trust it to be god? What standard would you consult to know that it was god? Because it flew? Maybe it was given the power to fly by another god, and it was tricking you. And if God is spirit and outside of space and time, it is convenient for you to only want to use empirical evidence which is limited to time and finite physical matter. Here’s the thing though, you can’t empirically account for empiricism! To do empirical science you must have observers (intelligent life) which observe (laws of logic) the observable (finite matter). We have never observed how life comes from non-life, we have never observed how we observe (we can’t detect abstract absolute meanings with our 5 senses), and we can’t study finite matter to know how it got here (there must be something beyond finite matter to have caused it, for it didn’t cause itself).
Well by paranormal I mean outside the normal, just like the word says. Supernatural. Woo.
The “Woo” part is cute. You already accept your definition of the paranormal here, because you are using abstract absolute meanings which you can’t detect with your 5 senses to reply on this blog.
I’m not going to argue about my worldview, because no matter what I say it’s going to start with “I see no evidence of supernatural happenings,” and you’re going to tell me I’m wrong.
I just showed you above why you accept supernatural happenings. YOU are proof of that every time you reply on here, especially with your cute “witty sarcasm”.
July 6, 2009 at 11:32 pm |
So now I’m a liar, too. How considerate of you. So we can be clear, my state before was that I was laughing in your face. Thus, as I said, amused. Your rambling assertions are ridiculous, irrelevant and nonsensical, and until you started calling me a liar, they were a source of amusement. Bored now.
How would I know someone who flew down from the sky (notice I said nothing about some “heaven”) was a god? Dunno. The idea is so ludicrous, I have to say I haven’t given it any more thought than I have to whether I would believe a tiny winged person if s/he told me s/he was a straight-out-of-Peter-Pan fairy. I’ll let you know if someone claiming to be a god ever gets here. But I’d be perfectly willing to listen to what a sky-flying entity had to say before I made my decision. Would I *worship* him or her? Absolutely, unequivocally not. And were it an entity claiming to be the Abrahamic god, he’d better have a damned good explanation for all the murders and genocide in the OT, or I’d actively work against him. The Egyptian firstborns thing? It’s not ok. The children eaten by bears? Not ok. The human sacrifices? (Think Jephthah.) Not ok.
Now if we were talking about a being claiming to be a different god, I’d have to have a different conversation with him/her. If somebody showed up who was a five-headed dragon, that would give him/her a little credibility in the woo department. We’d have to have some discussion before I could decide whether to consider him/her a god.
I could go down these semantic rabbit trails too and say “well philosophy is the study of wisdom and the occult ties into hidden wisdom so all philosophy is occultic!”
Please, go right ahead. I don’t have a problem with that.
I just showed you above why you accept supernatural happenings.
LOL. If you’d like to think so. Basically, you just spouted some nonsensical gibberish that in no way relates to what I said, nor does it “prove” anything. It’s just intellectually dishonest.
I did not say what you insist I said. I said “paranormal” = “supernatural” = “outside the normal or natural realm.” Thoughts and emotions are chemical reactions, and wholly within the realm of normal. Mystic woo, isn’t. Who’s playing semantics, again? Btw, I’m glad you liked “woo,” but it isn’t mine. IIRC, I got it from Dawkins. I don’t know if he coined the word, but look around; it’s common usage.
July 6, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
So now I’m a liar, too. How considerate of you. So we can be clear, my state before was that I was laughing in your face. Thus, as I said, amused. Your rambling assertions are ridiculous, irrelevant and nonsensical, and until you started calling me a liar, they were a source of amusement. Bored now.
You’ll have a hard time copying and pasting any of my replies which says you are a liar… because I didn’t say that. I said it was hard to believe you, and for good reasons which I pointed out and you didn’t respond too. Instead you assume I’m calling you a liar, which from my angle, is something you came up with on your own, thus might be something on your own conscious or sub-conscious.
How would I know someone who flew down from the sky (notice I said nothing about some “heaven”) was a god?
So it has to be the sky, not heaven? Oh OK, thanks for that extremely important and pertinent bit of information in regard to our discussion. Wew. Good thing you clarified. Even though heaven can refer to the sky in some contexts, but whatever.
Dunno. The idea is so ludicrous, I have to say I haven’t given it any more thought than I have to whether I would believe a tiny winged person if s/he told me s/he was a straight-out-of-Peter-Pan fairy. I’ll let you know if someone claiming to be a god ever gets here. But I’d be perfectly willing to listen to what a sky-flying entity had to say before I made my decision. Would I *worship* him or her? Absolutely, unequivocally not. And were it an entity claiming to be the Abrahamic god, he’d better have a damned good explanation for all the murders and genocide in the OT, or I’d actively work against him. The Egyptian firstborns thing? It’s not ok. The children eaten by bears? Not ok. The human sacrifices? (Think Jephthah.) Not ok.
OK, so the answer is you’d have to wait for something to fly before you’d consider listening to it say it was god? Again, why? It could still be tricking you. That’s the point. What standard would you use to know if it was tricking you?
Now if we were talking about a being claiming to be a different god, I’d have to have a different conversation with him/her. If somebody showed up who was a five-headed dragon, that would give him/her a little credibility in the woo department. We’d have to have some discussion before I could decide whether to consider him/her a god.
My same question applies here.
I could go down these semantic rabbit trails too and say “well philosophy is the study of wisdom and the occult ties into hidden wisdom so all philosophy is occultic!”
Please, go right ahead. I don’t have a problem with that.
I’m sure you wouldn’t. Unless you really would have a problem with that and I’m misreading you again.
LOL. If you’d like to think so. Basically, you just spouted some nonsensical gibberish that in no way relates to what I said, nor does it “prove” anything. It’s just intellectually dishonest.
It’s intellectually dishonest to say someone is intellectually dishonest and not show exactly how, and just make the blank assertion that they are. I proved it, but my proof didn’t convince you. You haven’t even provided a standard which would convince you with 100% that something was god, so I’m not going to waste my time on that. I did prove that you are evidence of the paranormal (supernatural). You are using the supernatural laws of logic to reply on here. You are using meanings to write your responses right?
I did not say what you insist I said. I said “paranormal” = “supernatural” = “outside the normal or natural realm.” Thoughts and emotions are chemical reactions, and wholly within the realm of normal.
Meanings are absolute, thus can’t change, therefore can’t be chemical reactions, because chemical reactions can function differently. Yet, you and I are using the same meanings with no problem. Chemical reactions don’t hold the meaning of “1″, or “prime number”, or “addition” in place. Meanings are immaterial, however, do correlate with our physical minds. If meanings only come from chemical reactions, then once all people die, then “1+1=2″ is no longer true, thus on what basis should we say it’s true now? Lastly, on what basis do we take a chemical reaction seriously and know we should listen to it. It could be false.
July 7, 2009 at 12:59 am |
Cameron, I was going to reply to your post with a point-by-point. But my computer crashed and I lost my text had to reboot. I don’t feel like typing all that in again, so I’m just going to sum up what I said.
I don’t have a definition of what would constitute proof of gods for me. You are correct there. The idea that there might be gods is so completely absurd that I haven’t much contemplated it, any more than I have contemplated what would constitute proof of the boogeyman. What would convince you of the reality of the boogeyman? Have you contemplated this? For me, it would have to be something demonstrable, and not conceptual. But I am willing to listen to any being claiming to be a god before I make my decision. I’m like that. Evidence first, decision afterward. When I was in high school, I listened to the homeless guy at the convenience store who kept telling me he was Jesus. But he didn’t have any proof, either. He couldn’t do the least bit of woo. But he was really sure that he was Jesus. If he was, then I’m not impressed and his woo-maker is broken.
No matter how many times you insist that it’s so, I’m not going to agree with you that logic = woo.
If everyone was dead, no one would care about math, so that is irrelevant. Also, if a tree falls in the forest, there is always someone around to hear (animals), and an infinite number of monkeys will never type up Shakespeare, because there are not and never will be, an infinite number of monkeys or an infinite number of typewriters. Both of which are about as relevant to the topic at hand as your arithmetic.
So it has to be the sky, not heaven? Oh OK, thanks for that extremely important and pertinent bit of information in regard to our discussion. Wew. Good thing you clarified. Even though heaven can refer to the sky in some contexts, but whatever.
I see that even though you were snarky about my sarcasm, there you are emulating it. Perhaps you are striving to be more like a thinking person, and you just can’t admit it to yourself yet. So maybe there is hope for you yet. If I can be of any assistance in your journey toward the reality checkpoint, please let me know.
July 7, 2009 at 1:11 am |
@Heidi,
Epistemology, the “philosophy of knowledge”, is the study of how we know the things we know. It is, therefore, one of the core subject matters of this blog. It deals with belief, knowledge, and truth. Also limitations on knowledge, what constitutes reliable information from the various sources, etc.
So it is not pointless and everyone ought to know something about it in order to be confident about how they understand the world.
But it is apparent that even some people who know a lot about epistemology believe things that are not supported by evidence and are not objectively true. And like every other tool it can be used well or badly or as a weapon.
July 7, 2009 at 1:29 am |
Well, if it is indeed useful, then he’s not exemplifying it very well, IMO. The vast majority of what he’s saying is irrelevant abstraction.
July 7, 2009 at 4:34 am |
Cameron – “Logic can’t come from the physical brain, because absolute meanings are what we must use to identify things, not what we happen to. They must come from a mind, but b/c their eternal they must come from an eternal mind.”
Where do you get this shit? Stupid fucker. Lets remove your brain and see if you are still as logical as ever. Oh ya your escape clause will be you need a brain to live. Lets just try this one for science.
“Notice here folks what effect a challenge on someone’s presuppositions and TRADITIONS can do to a person. It can make them a big jerk!”
Your trying to play mister smarty pants. Who wouldn’t get mad at someone, you can even discuss the beautiful sky with. I would say it is blue and you would either tell me some obscure name of blue its. Or ask something more ridiculous like what is my world view, so you can understand why I see blue and not cyan blue.
“The Christian worldview perfectly accounts for these things to be taken seriously.
Really? So does the FSM. Tea Pot. Pink Unicorn. The giant Iron Butterfly that flew the universe and crapped the universe. Creating all in it. I feel much better now. When I die the Giant Iron Butterfly will swoop down and carry me away to an alternate universe. Where Christians sit in a corner and continue to listen to there eternally mindless dribble.
Seriously. Christian world view? Your an IDIOT!(ooops I am a jerk) So please explain away how logical Horus did all the same things? So when logically looking at it, hmmm the answer can only be God placed Horus there to test us. Or … Bible is totally plagiarized. Obviously written by uncreative copying desert dudes.
“I know but it can’t reach infinity, thus the universe can’t be infinitely old in the past because that would require an infinite amount of time to have passed before we got here, and that’s impossible. Deal with the actual argument I’m presenting.”
I understand the logic, I didnt say it didnt have a beginning. I said it could be infinite. You never dealt with any slice of time before us, something happened. We are here in this time. Right now. What is hard to grasp? Saying I am wrong, is not proving I am wrong. Also I said I didnt read, look up. I just gave you aan answer. What possible difference could it make? None. We live now.
“You said “If you read his stuff, and listen. He is an atheist.” You never said “he is really an atheist (but doesn’t realize it – which is still just your opinion]”. So your opinion of the man trumps the man’s clear opinion of himself?”
I will paste this again. Since you ignored it. In his 2008 book “God’s Problem,” Ehrman explains that he could no longer believe in an all-knowing and all-powerful God in a world in which an innocent child dies of hunger every five seconds. http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2009/04/03/jesus_interrupted/ You sent me a link to radio show of alpha omega christian bs network. Hmmm You cant see cherry picked? What is your world viw? So I can understand why you can not logically grasp cherries.
World view is such an ambiguous thing. Hmmm you think some one so logically driven(to dribble) could formulate better questions. It stands to reason you are at the back of the epistemology class. More likely an epistemological drop out.
Cam – I know you are not smart enough to know this, I have to ask. Did you ever notice nobody talks to you in the real world? If they do, it is only you talking, or just asking questions of their world view and clarifying until there is nothing to clarify. That is my world view of you.
July 7, 2009 at 4:47 am |
Cameron – FYI you are not challenging me. You are horribly deluded. You want God to be real, you would like God to be real, and you need God to be real. To fulfill your world view. To help you sleep at night.
Where would you be going if you were born in 1602 on the island of Motuhope? Heaven or hell? Where is your world view now?
July 7, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Cameron – This is the last.
Infinite time only matters when talking of to specific points. Like it would take an infinite amount of time to get there. It is meaningless used else where. So obviously your rudimentary understanding of that, did not allow you to see that. Huh? I didnt study. I didnt read about it. I just thought it. Hmmm. What were you doing? Sleeping?
Morals are formed from the needs of society and individuals. Not God. Yes societies morals can change/evolve. If they deviate to much, it risks losing the individuals. Wow tough concept.
You seem to think thought, logic and reason come from an eternal conscience. Funny. So you are thinking a ghost brain is following your corporeal body around, like God? Funnier. Thoughts stop from a blow to the head. You can not only be knocked out, but lose memory. Short term and long term. Brain injuries can cause a loss of memory and the ability to think/reason. Also a full frontal lobotomy. The patient lives but for all purposes is a vegetable.
So you believe a blow to the head/brain injury/full frontal lobotomy can cause your ghost conscience to float away? Exactly how does a ghost brain get hurt? We can not touch the ghost brain? Right? Is your logic circuit frying now? Where is your world view now? Toilet? You should reboot the ghost brain, or take it back to its maker for a full refund. It is totally defective. Try and get him to give you an atheist brain, one that functions with all the options. Clear thought, reason, logic, skepticism, and anti fairy tale blocker.
Later burnt toast.
July 2, 2009 at 8:52 pm |
Glad you liked that. It’s high up on my list of favorite YouTube videos.
July 3, 2009 at 4:50 am |
I have to agree with him on the video. He is right when he says each christian creates their own version and even then they don’t truly believe.
July 3, 2009 at 10:33 am |
It’s all really indicative of a larger issue. How many times have you seen someone scale back their definition of God from the deity mentioned in the Bible to simply a powerful force that keeps everything going? In this case, it’s the shifting sands defense all over again.
Their version of Christianity is never hateful, never judgmental, and, really, how can you disagree with that, isn’t it all based on morals anyway? Of course, this is directly contradictory with the notion of hell, not to mention the way their manual instructs them to treat women. All of a sudden, they go from being a firm believer in the Bible to utterly dismissing almost all of it as nonsense. Face it, your book comes as a complete set. There’s nothing else that holds your book up as anything special, so when you’re dismissing it out of hand to me, you’re undermining the entire point you’re trying to make.
If your book can’t stand on its own, on its own merits, and requires nearly all of it to be removed in order to be palatable to modern sensibilities, then maybe it’s not all that awesome to begin with. And without the Bible, Jesus and the Judeochristian God go with it. There aren’t any other texts that describe these figures, so why would you keep believing they exist when you already deem the source inaccurate?
I’m not going to believe in Bat Boy because the Weekly World News isn’t a credible source of information. Since I don’t trust the source and there’s nothing to corroborate the story, then why would I believe any of the claims?
July 3, 2009 at 11:22 am |
and, really, how can you disagree with that, isn’t it all based on morals anyway?
I tend to get suspicious when someone has to lie so much to defend morality.
July 3, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
Well your not gonna like this but some Christians believe that the Bible contains the Gospel. It is like a ship carrying a cargo – the important thing is the Gospel, and not the ship that contains it.
So Hebrew history helps us understand the Gospel, but not everything in Hebrew history IS Gospel or intended to be held up as acceptable Christian behavior. There is Gospel in both Old and New Testaments, but discerment of the Gospel within the Bible is the chief task of the Christian reading it. This is not easy – it requires an understanding of the culture and people who were its original and intended audience. It can be a life’s work. The Bible may not address everything in our contemporary world and we do not expect it to. But we have to use the guidence of the Gospel to do the best we can as we live our lives.
That’s just the nature of it – the Bible is not a textbook or literal guide to everything that ever was or will be. I know this will be cause for its dismissal by rationalists, but there you are.
July 3, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
@PaulM
Some sects of Christianity may believe this way… but many do not. In fact, many believe the Bible, in its ENTIRETY, is the written word of God with no flaws. This is what the church I went to believed. However, when I’d ask them about inconsistencies, or about why women were so mistreated and considered 2nd class citizens… they would find very creative ways to (not) answer these questions.
So, there are many of us who, even when we were Christians, would not agree with this particular assessment of the Bible.
I’m still trying to figure out how it is that some think that one part can be considered a ‘story’ and not really important to the Christian Faith, and yet, other parts can be considered fact and very important. If this is the Bible, the handbook for the religion… doesn’t it stand to reason that if one part can be false, it can all be false. Also, I’ve yet to see consensus across the sects as to which parts are fact and which parts are fiction. So, have a hard time believing anyone has got it right.
July 4, 2009 at 6:15 am
LeavingReligion-
The Bible doesn’t endorse women as 2nd class citizens, but merely reports it. Would you not believe any history book that talks about Women’s suffrage because it talks about women as 2nd class citizens?
The first 2 women who saw Jesus raised were women, this was RADICAL for the time as 2 women’s testimony did not even count as 1 man in a court of law.
You might say, “What about King David? He had many wives and was a man after God’s own heart.”
Look at how he suffered for it! His own son was killed for his sin, his heart wandered after the foreign gods of his wives, his marital practice was FAR from endorsed in the Bible.
July 4, 2009 at 10:05 am
That is just not true. There are many passages in the Bible which are clearly telling women how they should be in order to serve the Lord.
Colossians 3:18 – Wives are to submit to their husbands
Titus 2:4-5 – Wives subject to their husbands so the word of God is not dishonored
1 Corinthians 11:3 – Husband is the head of his wife
1 Corinthians 11:7-9 – We’re not the glory of God, but the glory of Man.
I could go on, but why. You can Google this yourself. It is clear that this is NOT a history lesson. You can keep telling yourself it is, but that doesn’t make it true.
Also note that the New Testament is just as harsh on this as the Old Testament, so that is also not an argument (you know the one, where Jesus came so the OT is now irrelevant).
July 4, 2009 at 12:26 pm
LeavingReligion-
You said,
“the New Testament is just as harsh on this as the Old Testament”.
Everything you quoted was actually from the NT…
I’m assuming by that comment that you haven’t actually read the Bible beyond what is stated on Google.
Don’t you think you’re gambling with your soul pretty heavily here?
Wives should be submissive to their husbands AS CHRIST WAS TO THE CHURCH (Ephesians 5). Jesus died for His church. This was far from a subjective sexist act, but Paul saying, “Women, love your husbands as the Church loves Christ. Because your Husband is called to die for you if need be.”
July 4, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I quoted New Testament because generally, if I use OT verses, Christians will say… “Oh, that’s the *OT*, it no longer applies… Jesus died to change all of that.” Fact is, he didn’t change anything at all as far as women’s place in the world is concerned. The NT has laws for women that are just as they were in the OT. Period.
Also, I have studied the Bible extensively. I grew up in a conservative Baptist Church, and was heavily involved. I learned that you either take the Bible in its entirety, or not at all. I actually still believe this to be true. Once a piece of it is considered false, the rest fails to stand on its own as the holy, perfect, amazing word of God… IMO.
If you really think that all I’ve read from the Bible is through Google searches, you are sorely mistaken. I was in church well before Google was even a thought in someone’s garage.
July 5, 2009 at 7:59 pm
leavingreligion,
religion is what you do to become right with God, while redemption is that God did for us to become right with Him.
Also, compare how Islam treats women to Christianity, hence muslims burrying many women alive and being able to beat them (Surah 4:34). In fact, Christianity is one of the only religions (maybe the only) that has a foundation for why women and men are equal in nature, hence how they were both created in God’s image. Yet just as the Son within the Trinity submits to the Father, so also God has designed Christian marriage as men are to lead their wives in marriage. This only applies to Christian marriage however.
And as far as things being OT only, it is the civil and ceremonial laws which were given to ethnic Israel only, not the entire church age, hence why Heb 8 says the old covenant is obsolete, and 1 Cor 3 says we are in a new covenant.
July 3, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
Thus, Make Your Own Christianity. You pick out the parts you like and ignore the rest. Which is the point here.
July 4, 2009 at 12:14 am |
The problem, Paul, is that when someone becomes a Christian, they are not presented with cultural or historical context. They’re told to just believe the book, and that’s it. They learn about the context later, at which point they already believe the book without context.
Learning about what the book says within a historical/cultural context is not faith; it’s scholarship. Faith is what they’re supposed to have to believe it in the first place. So you wind up with people who believe something, then inform themselves about it.
It’s entirely contrary to the idea of learning as applied to anything else.
July 5, 2009 at 8:42 am |
Well your not gonna like this but some Christians believe that the Bible contains the Gospel. It is like a ship carrying a cargo – the important thing is the Gospel, and not the ship that contains it.
Jesus H. Christ didn’t like it either. He said (Matt 5:17-18)
July 5, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
… the Bible contains the Gospel. It is like a ship carrying a cargo – the important thing is the Gospel, and not the ship that contains it.
But if the ship has a lot of holes in it, will it not take the precious cargo down with it?
Seriously, though, this is a description of sloppy communication:
It is the reader’s task to figure out what is important? Well, granted, a reader needs to read thoughtfully. But a book that requires a lifetime of study just to discern which parts are important, is useless for nearly everyone. Even for someone who can dedicate that kind of time to it, by the time he knows what is important for the big decisions in his life, he has already made most of the big decisions of his life.
It seems that the omniscient, omnipotent, loving god, at the very least, could have provided a cogent, consistent set of introductions to the works included in the anthology so that readers would know what to make of them. This would have saved a lot of time and energy which could be used more productively. It would have substantially reduced the amount of squabbling among Christians. And it would have saved some lives.
July 4, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
Amen Brother
I couldn’t have said it better.
July 3, 2009 at 11:31 am |
Oh God! I am now in love with Doug Stanhope. That was great!!! Thanks!
July 3, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
This “If you really believe” game can be played by both sides.
If you really believed there was no God, than that snake that recently killed a young girl in Florida was not a bad thing. It was just one species of animals overcoming another, weaker species. Happens every day in nature. Survival of the fittest is all that matters, and when a Predator (human or otherwise) overpowers a young child it is simply nature.
So, why wear a Seat-belt?
Because, as Paul said, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Phil 1:21)
We must stick around so that a few more blogging Atheists can respond to the calling God is placing on their hearts
July 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
Yes, a death like this is certainly a natural act of nature. But for the family involved it is a very bad thing whether there is a god or not. Belief in God doesn’t change death, it only changes where you believe a person goes after they die. Whether it is an act of nature or an act of a guy in the clouds, death is death.
July 3, 2009 at 7:04 pm |
That made zero sense. You’re saying because I don’t believe in the supernatural, I should be cheering on the death of a child? Dude, I don’t even like that wolves have to eat bunnies. They have to eat something, but I don’t have to be thrilled about it. To me, each person’s death is like a candle being snuffed out, and the world is a little dimmer for the loss.
Sadly, you are clearly ignorant of the meaning of survival of the fittest. Natural selection just means that the members of a species who are better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive. So if an arctic fox happens to grow a thicker coat than its fellows, it’s more likely to survive and pass on the genes for a thicker coat. You have been mislead at some point during your education, and that hurts my heart. Also, it is the perfect example of why we should always teach evolutionary biology in science classrooms, and never teach superstitious nonsense.
July 3, 2009 at 7:36 pm |
HEIDI : I could not agree more, you see, the creationist demand to teach biblical myth alongside and as an alternative to scientific theory, specifically, Darwin’s theories of natural selection and evolution, is predicated upon neither evidence nor logic generally, but rather upon faith. As Christopher Hitchens asks, where would this end and why? Why just the biology class room and Christian extremist dogma? Why not in conjunction with chemistry also teach alchemy? Or how about astronomy followed by astrology? The straightforward answer is because that would be absurd and insulting to the intelligence of the teachers, the students and the general public (religious extremists notwithstanding), not to mention stultifying of the intellectual growth of American children already ranked rather poorly internationally.
As comedian and columnist for the Independent, Mark Steel wrote, “If all theories are given equal status, teachers could say: ‘Your essays on the cause of tornadoes were very good. Nathan’s piece detailing the impact of warm moist air colliding with cool air, with original sources from the Colorado Weather Bureau, contained some splendid detail. But Samatha’s piece that went ‘Because God is cross’ was just as good. So you all get a B+,’” thus humorously illustrating the “god of the gaps” fallacy as well as the sheer craziness and stupidity of the creationists.
July 3, 2009 at 7:56 pm
LOL. The scary thing is how many people actually do blame things like Hurricane Katrina and the Asian tsunami on godly anger.
I’m waiting for the day when we teach Yoda’s Jedi regimen in gym class. Rock levitation and all.
July 3, 2009 at 9:13 pm
The truly baffling aspect of this movement is that they aren’t a bunch of religious fanatics living out in the wild. They live in modern suburbs, drive cars, enjoy modern medicines and vaccines developed through medical knowledge only made possible with an understanding of the evolution of viruses and diseases and yet they still fervently cling to a myth created through the ignorance of the human species at a time when people thought that, rather than bacteria or viruses, invisible demons and spawns of Satan were possessing people (in a manner similar to the way in which “body thetans” attach themselves to people in the crazed space opera of Scientology) thus making them ill.
July 3, 2009 at 9:35 pm
And yet what would they say if Scientologists tried to get Xenu taught at school?
July 4, 2009 at 6:07 am |
Heidi,
I did not say, “cheering the death of a child”, but it is a neutral occurrence, void of happiness or sadness (in your world-view).
“Survival of the Fittest” implies that the strong (lion) will overpower the weak (young, elderly animals). If we are no different than the animals (void of God, that is the case) then a Pedophile who overpowers a young child to do his sick will is merely an extension of nature and therefore we cannot mourn or rejoice, but merely accept.
July 4, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“it is a neutral occurrence, void of happiness or sadness (in your world-view)”
Happiness and sadness are natural human emotions, they have no connection with belief in god or gods whatsoever.
Whether or not one is sad or otherwise about the death of the child in your example depends entirely on whether or not one has empathy with other human beings. Empathy is something we learn in infancy. And empathy can be explained without the need for a god. Humans as a species prosper better and reproduce more effectively when they work in cooperation with each other. Although individual human beings may prosper without such cooperation, on the whole, cooperation is more successful for the survival of the species.
And you are wrong on two counts re “survival of the fittest”. As has already been pointed out, this refers to the survival and procreation of a species as a whole, not to survival of individuals. Also, you imply that “believing in” survival of the fittest means that one must automatically “believe” that it is a moral force, i.e. that survival of the fittest is somehow “right and proper”. This is not true. I believe in the scientific proof for evolution by natural selection, I believe it is a natural phenomenon, but this does not mean I cannot be sad if a species becomes extinct.
I also believe it is natural for wild animals to kill humans. This doesn’t mean I cannot be sad if a human is killed in this way.
July 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Freeware – Wow. I mean wow. I am almost speechless. You are truly stupid enough to think in an atheist world view. A pedophile attacking a child is just an extension of nature. What dumbass stick did you get beat with. Animals and creatures have instincts. They must eat. They must kill to eat. There is no reasoning with a shark, lion or rattle snake. They live by taking advantage of situations for survival. Child killed by snake is unfortunate. Shit happens.
The pedophile on the other hand, might have instincts to attack the child. Unlike these animals he has a brain that allows him to know that in our society that is wrong and must control his actions, or face consequences. Since most of the population think(exclude theists), care, feel. We all know there is a difference. Child hurt by pedophile is unfortunate, and a crime. Pedophile had a choice. Just like you. You choose not to think.
Do you have anymore well thought out analogies?
July 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm
And I’ll say it again, Freeware. You are operating with a complete misunderstanding of both my worldview and the definition of survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest does NOT imply the strong overcoming the weak at all. You are inferring a definition that is simply not there.
Since you clearly didn’t read what I wrote, I’ll say it again. Survival of the Fittest does not mean what you think it means. It means that if one lion, bunny, or flower is better adapted to its environment than the other lions, bunnies, or flowers, then it is more likely to survive and pass on its improved genetics.
I would love to know where you get off telling me what my world view is, btw. In my world view, as I believe I said, every life is precious, and irreplaceable. And there are no gods, fairies, Easter bunnies, minotaurs or gremlins.
This is not a subjective matter. You are objectively wrong with your definitions both of my worldview and of survival of the fittest. It does not mean what you think it means. Look it up.
July 5, 2009 at 5:28 am
No Guy-
For someone who’s “speechless”, you still managed pontificate for 2 paragraphs. Congrats.
Heidi-
In a world of Carnivores, what “bunny” do you think “is better adapted to its environment than the other… bunnies”. It’s the ones who aren’t weak or old. Yes, in the case of flowers it is truly an evolutionary process based on the better genes, but for most of the rest of the world it involves the Lion attacking on Gazelle slightly weaker then the rest.
Also, when I referred to your worldview I was assuming it to be logically consistent, which means Morality is relative without a higher being setting said morality. You cannot be logically upset with Hitler, any more that you are happy with Mother Theresa. They were both good in their own eyes, and in their societies, therefore they are good people.
July 5, 2009 at 6:26 am
Sigh. Freeware, you’re being deliberately obtuse. A bunny with better hearing will be more capable of evading predators. A bunny with better peripheral vision will be better at evading predators. A faster bunny will be better at evading predators. A bunny with coloring that better camouflages it will be more likely to survive. And these are the animals which will pass on their genes to the next generation of bunnies. If you honestly couldn’t figure that out for yourself, then your education was exponentially worse than I originally thought.
I’m fairly certain you wouldn’t read Darwin, but I suggest you pick up a book called ‘The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in our time’ by Johnathan Weiner. It explains the idea of natural selection (survival of the fittest, if you prefer), and how it manifests itself even today. Here’s a link to it on Amazon: http://bit.ly/zNxxB
The reason that the term “survival of the fittest” was originally coined, was that Darwin’s associate Wallace (who also discovered evolution, quite separately from Darwin) believed that ‘natural selection’ misrepresented evolutionary theory, by implying something was actively selected. But they mean the same thing.
As for the rest, I have told you more than once what I believe. You refuse to hear it because it doesn’t fit it with what you’ve been told to think I believe. So you stick your fingers in your ears and go “LALALALALALA I can’t hear yooooouuuu!!!!” I find that sad.
Life is precious to me. ALL life. This life here on earth is all you get. There’s no magic wonderland over the rainbow. If someone dies, it’s game over, the end. And yes, I can damned well be upset about it. I’m not obedient; you don’t get to tell me what to think and feel. If you were speaking of the case I think you were, my initial reaction on reading about the child’s death was ‘WTF was that guy doing with an illegal snake around a baby?’ My second reaction was deep sadness and empathy for the child’s mother, who has lost her daughter for all time. I am also a mother. Humans call this feeling empathy. It has nothing to do with magic sky fairies, genies in lamps, or trolls under bridges.
And just to clarify, I am NOT happy with Mother Theresa. Not by a long stretch. I wouldn’t rank her with Hitler, but I certainly don’t support her activities in any way shape or form. And no, I’m not going to argue about that with you, as it’s irrelevant.
July 5, 2009 at 7:25 am
Freeware – So you ignore everything I said and then give Heidi the same BS. So you think you are no different than any other species? Judging from your responses… maybe you are as smart as a lemming.
You seem to bypass the fact we humans can think and reason(except you and all other theists). We have set societal standards higher, so we do not accept Hitlers or pedophiles. So as humans we have evolved to think, reason and create a society. That protects to old and weak. Our society is natural selection. Our societies morals is natural selection. There are no morals from your immoral god. Our morals come from what is best for society and the individuals. Most of us evolved. Some higher than others. Theists are definitely lower rung humans.
July 5, 2009 at 8:56 am
In a world of Carnivores, what “bunny” do you think “is better adapted to its environment than the other… bunnies”. It’s the ones who aren’t weak or old. Yes, in the case of flowers it is truly an evolutionary process based on the better genes, but for most of the rest of the world it involves the Lion attacking on Gazelle slightly weaker then the rest.
You should study some actual evolutionary biology. Some species of rabbits are doing much better than others.
U.S. weighs protection for pygmy rabbits
Scientists clone endangered Amami Rabbit
Ways other than brute force or raw speed that animals might be better adapted for survival:
More flexible diet
Better disease resistance
Limited predator exposure through lifestyle (stay underground, adjust schedule)
Better camouflage
Better defensive armour
Accumulate toxins and advertise their presence
Cooperation with others of your species
Cooperative symbiotic relationship with a different species
Better ability to withstand extremes of weather
Better ability to withstand food shortage
… this list is by no means complete.
July 5, 2009 at 10:40 am
Atheism isn’t a worldview…
And survival of the fittest doesn’t mean Carnivore>Herbivore
Oh…My…God…
If you’re gonna attack evolution, at least do some research on it…
July 5, 2009 at 10:49 am
Somehow we’ve managed to go off topic to Evolution, I recognize my hand in this tangent, and you all obviously know more about the subject than me or Dawkins.
July 5, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Freeware – Do you understand the question you are dancing around? Acting like Dawkins does not know evolution. That is his field. Evolutionary Biology and Ethology. Genomes are code to build what ever creature they are for. Every mutation would change or increase information stored. He has one brain cramp for a question, and every stupid Christian trots this video out. It shows how truly ignorant you are. Ask him again. I guarantee he won’t hesitate on that one again. ZZZZ you bore me. Try looking up genome, Dawkins, and evolution before you make yourself look worse than you do.
July 5, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Oh, hold the presses, Freeware! Richard stopped to think! Thinking is clearly unacceptable to theists, so I can see how you’d have a problem with this. If one guy starts thinking, pretty soon they’ll be doing it all over town!
You may notice that everybody else here gets how evolution works. And it works exactly like Richard said it does. Really, please go get that book I recommended. Or at least watch the Scientific American documentary about it. Feel free, of course, to disagree with their conclusions, but at least learn what you’re talking about before you you start shooting things down.
I fear for the education of our children.
July 6, 2009 at 8:57 pm
So yeah…
One guy couldn’t answer a question regarding evolution, hence it is false?
Wake up.
July 4, 2009 at 12:16 am |
You can’t get an “ought” from an “is”.
Yes, it’s purely natural. No, that is not an argument that we ought to disregard it and move on.
Survival of the fittest is not a guideline for morality or for responding to events. It’s simply a fact of nature. How we behave or respond is up to us, and has nothing to do with base facts.
If “to die is gain” then you should be eager to die. God is not placing any calling on anyone’s hearts for two primary reasons: 1. There isn’t a god. 2. Hearts pump blood – brains think.
July 3, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
Where are all the writings of Jesus? He supposedly lived in an era and a place where writing was common and abundant. To take just one prominent example, let’s consider another famous figure with the initials J. C. Dying a mere forty-four years before the supposed birth of Christ, Julius Caesar lived and ruled and wrote of his activities. To this day we have his Commentaries on the Gallic War, a collection of seven books, each covering one year of the campaign in Gaul between 58 and 52 BC. The better part of 400 pages altogether (in economical Latin!), the Commentaries are rich in detail about not only Caesar but the world he was conquering. Undoubtedly the greatest military commander since Alexander the Great, Caesar nevertheless was not later credited with miracles and being the Son of God and the Savior of Humankind and so on, yet we know so much about him, and a great deal from his own pen.
To go back further, two of the greatest works in Western literature are the Iliad and the Odyssey, both by the Greek poet Homer around eight centuries before the alleged birth of Jesus. Going back even further, the Egyptian “Book of the Dead” is a collection of Egyptian funerary literature. The texts consist of charms, spells, and formulas for use by the deceased in the afterworld. At first inscriptions, the texts were later papyrus rolls placed inside the mummy case. Essential ideas of Egyptian religion are known through them. The earliest collection is from the XVIII dynasty, 1580–1350 B. C. We’re talking old here. But we have access to them and can still read them today.
In stark contrast, that shadowy, silent character called Jesus Christ left not a word of his own. Why? Why did he write nothing? Was he illiterate? All we have are four very contradictory stories of his life, the so-called Gospels. They were all written after the destruction of the great temple in Jerusalem (for which there is much verification) which means that nothing was written about this Jesus until a minimum of 70 years after the birth of the purported miracle-worker. Why? The earliest Gospel, the Book of Mark (there was no one by that name; it’s just an identification mark) makes no reference at all to Jesus’ birth. The other three books mention scattered bits of a life, but they do not agree with each other. Paul, the real founder of Christianity, does not mention Jesus’ human family or human activities, but rather refers to him as an ephemeral, ethereal spirit of some kind.
How do we explain this mystery? Where are the words of Jesus himself? Surely this divine being had something to say in his own words. Why must we rely on third-hand accounts of highly questionable events? Didn’t Jesus ever send a letter to anyone? Did he find his thoughts not worthy of writing down? If Jesus did everything the Bible says he did, we should have mounds of scrolls written in his own hand, and further mounds of scrolls written about him at the time of his existence—not most of a century later. The Savior of the World, sent to earth to accomplish the most important assignment in the history of the world, doesn’t even leave us a note, let alone extended commentaries. Nothing. Not even a post card. This silence demands an explanation. Of course if such a Savior never existed, the silence makes obvious sense.
The burden of proof does not lie with me. I am not obligated to prove the nonexistence of Jesus. No, Christians bear the sole responsibility for making this Jesus character believable, a part of human historyand rests in the Bible itself. It is the only reference to anyone named Jesus, and it can hardly be called a history book! There are a couple of awkwardly brief mentions of a “Christ” in a couple of other documents, though scholars long ago discredited them as later Christian interpolations. (And even if they weren’t, shouldn’t the Savior of the World deserve more than a couple of footnotes in history?) Here is all the proof there is: The Bible says there was a Jesus. If you ask how Christians know the Bible to be true, they will say, “Because it’s the Word of God.” If you ask how they know it’s the Word of God, they say, “Because it’s in the Bible!” Circular. Perfectly, geometrically circular.
July 3, 2009 at 9:23 pm |
“Where are all the writings of Jesus? He supposedly lived in an era and a place where writing was common and abundant.”
Jesus spoke Aramaic, could read Hebrew and probably Greek. He could probably write in those languages as well.
One thing to keep in mind is that in ancient times paper or papyrus was very expensive. We think nothing of buying 500 sheet of paper for a few dollars, but in ancient times writing materials were very costly.
If you wanted your writings to last, you would use parchment and this was very expensive. To get enough parchment for a book, you first had to have a flock of sheep. They you slaughter them, skin them to make thin sheets of parchment. The process took weeks and when it came time to write on the pages you would hire a scribe who trained to write in small, neat letters to save space on the expensive parchment.
Jesus did not belong to the class of people who could have afforded this. He was a carpenter and associated with fishermen and other such tradesmen. (Paul, however, was wealthy by comparison and did write letters that comprise part of the New Testament.)
I think Jesus purposely did not leave any writings. For a long time Christians told the story of Jesus orally – it was not written down for 30 to 50 years after the crucifixion and the collection of writing we know as the New Testament was not official until about 400 AD. The Bible carries the word of God but not everything written there is Gospel. Christians reading the Bible today must try to extract the word of God and the Gospel message from all the text. This is a long term process.
July 3, 2009 at 9:42 pm |
I think Jesus purposely did not leave any writings.
Convenient.
July 6, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Heidi, neither did Alexander the Great. The earliest manuscript evidence we have of his existence is 400 years after he died. But isn’t that convenient too? And do you reject his existence since we have even LESS manuscript evidence which dates much much longer after he lived? If not, I’m interested to know why.
July 6, 2009 at 10:45 pm
It’s irrelevant whether Alexander existed. No one is shoving an Alexanderian book in my face telling me I’m going to burn forever if I don’t voluntarily surrender my thought processes and believe in him with no proof. And more importantly, no one is trying to pass legislation that affects me personally based on a book of Alexanderian stories.
Why do you keep coming up with these irrelevant non-arguments?
But as Christopher Hitches once said, “at least we have coins with Alexander on them.” Lends a bit of physical credibility, even if it’s not proof.
Also, and I’m asking this because I don’t know, aren’t there statues of Alexander that were purportedly carved during his lifetime? I think I will go look this up, because I’m interested now.
July 4, 2009 at 12:21 am |
Papyrus was expensive, so Jesus didn’t write anything?
… But you’d like us to believe that at least 1/3 of his original followers did.
You’re telling us Jesus couldn’t have afforded paper, when he was supposedly GOD? What, he couldn’t just will paper into being? You’re talking about a guy who supposedly walked on water and manifested loaves and fishing out of nothing. Paper was too miraculous for him?
Your entire reply was nothing but a special pleading fallacy. “Oh, we wouldn’t *expect* Jesus to write anything!” Please.
And again you hit us with the idea of being unable to interpret scripture without spending a lot of time getting the correct meaning. Tell me, Paul, how many Christians sitting in churches every Sunday do you honestly believe are doing anything like this?
You’re painting a picture of Christianity that no reasonable person believes is accurate in any way.
July 4, 2009 at 5:58 am
Mike,
I’m not sure how you expected Jesus to write a Gospel when he was hanging on the Cross.
Do you imagine him up requesting of the Romans, “Please leave one arm free so I can record this as it happens.”
The Gospels most important aspect is that Jesus died. Of course he didn’t write one, that’s like expecting JFK to write a full biography. Rather difficult when a major portion is the fact of his death.
July 4, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Apart from the modest circumstances of Jesus and his followers and the cost of writing things down, Jesus did not write anything because he wanted people to hear and believe his story, not study his writings. The story was eventually committed to paper some years later, and look at what has happened – all the little details and inconsistancies are argued over.
I think the strategy worked – the story of Jesus has been known by Christians for 2000 years.
July 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm
You’re telling us Jesus couldn’t have afforded paper, when he was supposedly GOD? What, he couldn’t just will paper into being?
Mike, that was awesome! LOL.
@Paul M: And the stories of the Egyptian gods have been known for at least 5000. Does that make them true?
July 4, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Freeware Gospel,
I can think of a million ways how our dear omnipotent friend could write down his death. Including simply will it into being, complete and free of all grammatical/spelling/punctuation errors with a bright red “Sincerely, Jebus Christ” at the end of it all.
Remember? He’s God, not human…
Oh, and Paul M,
It’ll really help in the “believing his story” part if Jesus actually wrote down what happened himself.
I don’t think the strategy worked. Generally, virgin birth is considered impossible and my calculator just told me that Pi is not equal to 3.
July 4, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Butterfly has a really good point. He’s supposed to be god in human form. He planned the whole thing. He therefore must have known ahead of time that he would be crucified, since that was the whole point. So why couldn’t he write about it before it even happened?
Jesus spoke Aramaic, could read Hebrew and probably Greek. He could probably write in those languages as well.
If he’s a god, shouldn’t he be able to read and write anything he damned well pleases? He should be able to invent his own languages, and then read and write those if he wants. Tolkien could do it, so a god shouldn’t have any problem.
July 5, 2009 at 9:02 am |
One thing to keep in mind is that in ancient times paper or papyrus was very expensive.
Too expensive for someone who could turn water into wine? Too costly for someone who could multiply loaves and fishes?
July 4, 2009 at 5:22 am |
I am very interested in the supposed “Verification” that all books where written after 70 AD (Temple Destruction), a major event like that would have been mentioned in the Bible, if that is the case.(That theory is based on circular reasoning premise that Jesus didn’t know the future, I will expound if necessary). Paul was imprisoned the 2nd time in 61 AD, which the book of Acts (Primarily about Paul) left out. A major event like that should have been included. We therefore have to assume 60 AD, you are right, Mark is the earliest manuscript, which Acts is a continuation of, meaning Mark would have to have been written before 60 AD. Mark wasn’t written in a day, therefore the latest logic can allow for is 27-30 years after Jesus’ death.
July 4, 2009 at 3:27 pm |
Well, just to clarify, the earliest writings in the NT are Paul’s letters, 1st Thessalonians, I & 2 Corinthians, Romans & Galatians – these between 50 and 60 AD. His later letters from prison – Philippians, Ephesians, Ephesians and the pastorals probably date between 60 AD and his death (63 or 65?). Mark was thought to be written around 65 AD, just prior to the execution of Peter and Paul.
Luke and Acts were written together and the thinking is that this was after Paul’s execution and the destruction of the temple, although neither are mentioned. Luke 19:41 – 44 and Luke 21:20-24 are descriptions of the destruction of Jerusalem that might have been included by Luke because it matched the actual events so closely.
The church was under Roman persecution at the time and it would not have been a good idea to say much about these events.
July 5, 2009 at 8:59 am |
All we have are four very contradictory stories of his life, the so-called Gospels.
The three “synoptic gospels,” Mark, Luke and Matthew are not even independent, and still they contradict each other.
There are other gospels (Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene, etc.) which got left out when the New Testament was assembled a few centuries after Jesus’ death.
July 3, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
Irish Comedian Dave Allen remembers his introduction to religion – his first day of school. LOL !!
July 3, 2009 at 9:43 pm |
Great videos! Thanks for the laugh. =)
July 4, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
I continue to be amazed that somehow attacking a book means God is non-existant. Never have I seen such a furor over a book. This is not a manual, not a textbook for living. It is a collection, and a somewhat arbitrary one at that of writings about God and how it appeared he worked in the word according to the author and later editors who added, subtracted, and modified the texts based on the realities of the times.
We can, through various historical critical methods discern some of what jesus himself taught. But much of the bible is commentary on what the writer thought. It is his vision of God and the events of the day.
Perhaps one of the problems is that none of the bible is in any historical timeline. The books are all jumbled because both the Jews and the later Christians had a point of view and organized the books to support it.
More problematical are that within books there are older and newer writings. Only the scholars have the time and knowledge to pull all this stuff apart and put it into context. When they do, some surprising things emerge.
Mostly we see a growth and maturity of faith. We move from polytheism to monotheism, from a vengeful, warlike God used to justify invasion and slaughter, to a God who is more all embracing and forgiving. We move from human to animal and then elimination of sacrifice at all.
We can see that religion can be used for war and killing but also to cement alliances and interfaith and international conciliation. We see blending moving to strict separation to all encompassing love.
So many of you speak of wiki arguments, and frankly such sites as the typical “lets show how the bible is inconsistent with itself” and disprove God, are childish and absurd. First and foremost, your ideas and proofs are not new, they have been known for centuries. Philo wrote in Jesus time, and wrote how Genesis was allegory and not scientific fact. Some of you act like you discovered all this. You haven’t.
And, worse, proving all that you claim to prove proves what? That the fundamentalist view of scripture is faulty, wrong and silly. Most of us believers agree. And in the end, proving the limits of the Bible, prove exactly nothing regarding God.
Jesus existed. He is attested to in other ancient documents by Tactitus, Suetonius, Josephus and so on. Jesus may or may not have been able to write. Most people of his time and from his village surely could not. His disciples for the most part were poor fisherman and such. They surely couldn’t write. Jesus was a simple stoneworker or carpenter depending on the translation. That he could read is clear, probably both greek and Aramaic and probably Hebrew. That he could write is not so clear.
I see a lot of confusion here. And frankly I blame fundamentalism for most of it. Your claims about the bible that you now seek to destroy are all fundie in nature. You fail to understand that that is not the way most Christians view either the bible or the contents of it.
July 4, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
Um, Sherry? You’re totally missing the point here. If a book that makes no sense and is not internally consistent tells you that there is an invisible man in the sky who is part Boogeyman and part Santa Claus, why on earth would you believe it? Aesop wrote fables too, but I don’t suppose you believe for one minute that foxes talk to crows, or tortoises hold races against hares.
I’m not claiming to “prove” anything. But I see no reason to believe in the supernatural, therefore I don’t. It’s really that simple. The gods are no more real to me than ghosts or fairies.
July 5, 2009 at 12:40 pm |
Heidi, you confusing apples and oranges here. God is not the exclusive domain of the Christian church. He exists or not independent of it. You can go anywhere in the world and find people who believe in God, and a good chunk of them are not Christian. Thus to “prove” inconsistencies within a type of writing certainly doesn’t logically prove anything about God, other than that he might not be as envisioned by this particular document.
You are trying to read, it seems a bible as if it were a book, written by one person. It is not. If you speak of Jesus only, then the majority of the book doesn’t address him at all.
Your’re coming straight out of fundie speak. They do believe that the bible is akin to God, and you are quite right, that if that is your assumption, then God is rather difficult to follow, and is a rather poor historian to boot. that’s the point you are missing.
Now, it is fine that you conclude that Christianity has failed to convince you of its claims. That however has zero to do with God. I agree whole heartedly that God cannot be proven by rational evidence that we would use in a scientific sense. However, although you are not requred to disprove God, you obviously know that that is not possible either. You simply don’t know whether God exists any more than I do.
The only difference is that my experiences and my logical deductions for me give me reason to believe that he does. Yours don’t. To then insult people by calling them names such as “believing in an invisible friend” only shows your utter lack of rational understanding. You can rationally determine that the evidence is insufficient to convince you, and thus you wish to devote no time to “something that MAY not exist.” But you cannot deride others as being stupid or naive, since you cannot prove they aer wrong either. You should properly claim to be an agnostic since that is what you are whether you are smart enough yet to figure it out or not.
July 5, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Sigh. You totally missed the point. Again. Not only do I not believe in the Christian god, I also do not believe in Zeus, Thor, Osiris, Vishnu, or any other gods, whether or not they have special books.
As I have said before, I am not amenable to being told what I can and cannot do. So that bit isn’t going to get you anywhere. But to paraphrase Dawkins, I am agnostic about gods to same degree that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. I don’t *know* for a fact that there’s no Santa Claus, but I don’t believe in him, either.
July 6, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Except when an angry mob of believers come running after you condemning you to hell.
Ergo;
I’ll leave you alone if you do the same.
But clearly, there are IDiots out there who are having a very hard time understanding how that works.
July 5, 2009 at 9:07 am |
Jesus existed. He is attested to in other ancient documents by Tactitus, Suetonius, Josephus and so on.
No, not one of those authors met Jesus. They only attest to the existence of early Christians, which is not what’s being questioned.
July 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm |
You are free I suppose to believe that Jesus didn’t exist. However, very few if any real agnostics would argue that point. Most freely admit that the evidence is good on this point. And frankly much of what you read as ancient history is written by folks who never “met” the people they report upon, but rather report the oral histories of such persons.
Like I said, few are as far out as that claim. You are free to hold it, but I fail to see the reason. I seems that some agnostics desire to prove there is good reason for their beliefs, rather than keeping an open mind which most thinking persons continue to maintain even when they make claims about what the evidence thus far suggerts to them.
July 5, 2009 at 10:17 am |
Dude,
Read what you just wrote in the mirror.
Do you seriously think that most “Christians” think the same way as you do?
They think that the Bible is the infallible word of God who could supposedly created a rock so heavy that he can’t lift and then lift it. Somehow.
Its no use posting “moderate” or “liberal” thoughts here since ITS NOT THE MODERATES OR THE LIBERALS THAT WE’RE ATTACKING HERE!!!
Its those IDiots who think that we’re going to get a special indestructable body Intelligently Designed for eternal torture after death.
*Cough*
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx
Clearly, “most christians” do not share your line of thought…
July 5, 2009 at 12:46 pm |
Yes dude, most people do think as I do. Most are not fundies.
You don’t need to scream.
You seem to be attacking the existence of God? Am I wrong?
I have no quarrell with your taking on fundies. But that is never the tenor of what you say. You make fun of Christianity period.
And dude, don’t say “most Christians believe in the bible as the Infallible word of God” when you link to a poll that says 1/3 do. Dude, that is not “most”. Check the math.
July 6, 2009 at 9:18 pm
What I am attacking here, is some of the ideas that fundies have of God, e.g. Complete omnipotence/Burning in hell…etc.
I think we agree that the Bible is not infallible.
I think we agree that God is not completely omnipotence; no lifting rocks too heavy for him.
I think we agree that God does not judge people solely upon whether if they believe in him.
And yes, sorry about the screaming…
God exists; Christianity true, no contradiction
God exists; Christianity false, no contradiction
God doesn’t exist, Christianity true, impossible
God doesn’t exist, Christianity false, common sense
I’m not sure how many Americans are Christians but I’ll guess it around 75%. Add the fundy teenagers and you’ll get “most Christians”.
Oh, and Sherry, how do you know that “most Christians” are liberals and moderates? I’m talking from a mix of personal experience and Gallup here.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15313/Teens-Stance-Word-God.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105544/Easter-Season-Finds-Religious-Largely-Christian-Nation.aspx
July 4, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
Sherry – You seem to think your bible is true. Nothing in the bible is true. It was all fabricated, plagiarized and or stolen. Jesus never existed. Period. Never. There are accounts of other desert dudes named Jesus. Quite a few. Not yours! Nazareth didn’t even exist when Jesus was growing up. Does anyone think it takes decades to write about anything? If you are truly witnessing the one true God, walking the earth. Someone might have made a little post it note. Huh? The writer forgets that small point. Yahweh is the god in the bible. Yahweh is a manifestation of other previous deities. Noahs flood. stolen. Jesus = Horus. When all the lies and falsehoods are stripped from the bible. You are left with a front and back cover. Followers around the globe that are stupid enough to think, God waited 4000yrs to send his son to be tortured and killed for a sin that did not happen. When this god sent his one big messenger, he sent him to one of the least populated areas. Strange since he is an all knowing loving god. You can not go to heaven if you do not believe. He is a smidge jealous. He is god after all, why didnt he send Jesus to every area of the planet at once. Omniscient does not equal smart? Wouldn’t he known intelligent humans would want more the stupid rambling of fools that needed an editor? As omniscient he knew only humans that evolved to the lower rung of the evolutionary ladder would be dumb enough to believe. Good excuse.
So while you are pondering that. If he waited 4k yrs. Where did all the babies, women, children and good men go? I will help. They all went to hell. After Jesus up to now. All the babies that are born out of Jesuses area. Hell. They can not accept what they do not know. Loving God that knows all, does not seem so loving. Huh?
Get a clue. Save the planet. Recycle bibles.
July 5, 2009 at 10:25 am |
There can be no faith without the possibility of doubt.
July 5, 2009 at 12:00 pm |
Then it is not faith !
July 5, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Of course it is. We’re not required not to doubt. That is human. We are called to believe through our unbelief, and continue to search.
God doesn’t require what is humanly impossible. Try not doubting about anything you must acccept on faith. You can’t. The mind doesn’t work that way.
July 6, 2009 at 10:27 am
The point is that there will always be a rational explanation. But we are called to believe.
If you want to limit your experience of truth to what rationalism allows, you have the freedom to do so.
But believers have access to a greater truth.
July 6, 2009 at 9:35 pm |
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
July 5, 2009 at 12:50 pm |
I hardly believe all parts of the bible are literally true. And the rest of your remarks show such an utter lack of understanding of what the bible contains as to be impossible to answer. You think you’re the first to discover than all ancient people have creation stories and flood stories? ROFL.
I don’t have to ponder any of what you said, since I don’t vision God as you do, through a book. I don’t worship a book.
Your conclusions about people going to hell before Jesus are bizarre and don’t reflect any theology I’ve ever heard of. Grow up child. Perhaps as you age, you might, just might gain some wisdom.
July 5, 2009 at 8:32 pm |
Oh, now isn’t that funny how you insisted that I cannot deride others as being stupid or naive, since you cannot prove they aer wrong either. Nice spelling, btw. And then went on to say,
You should properly claim to be an agnostic since that is what you are whether you are smart enough yet to figure it out or not.
You just told me I wasn’t smart enough to understand your drivel.
Grow up child. Perhaps as you age, you might, just might gain some wisdom.
You just told No Guy he was too naive to understand the same drivel.
Oh, the bloody HYPOCRISY! (Yes, I really did need to shout that, actually.) Thanks for the laugh, though.
July 4, 2009 at 10:46 pm |
IN THE MEANTIME !!!
July 5, 2009 at 11:48 pm |
You obviously were a horrible Christian, that is the only logical reason for why you left the church. = )
Of course I’m joking. I’ve heard all of those statements before too and think they are ridiculous. A friend recently told me that I was questioning The Bible and Christianity because I was just thinking too much. She suggested that instead of thinking about my beliefs and examining them to just simply believe it. Now, if reason is not an accepted part of any philosophy I don’t really want anything to do with it.
July 6, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
It’s a good policy to not believe things simply because someone tells you it’s true. Faith that requires a person to ignore every ounce of reason and rational thought is crazy. I just don’t understand why fear of the unknown requires a god to explain everything and make people feel comfortable in their own existence.
Why should a person believe the Bible is truth? Because my parents told me too? Because a bunch of folklore and ancient theology says it’s true? No thanks, I’ll save my belief for things that are actually possible.
July 6, 2009 at 5:04 pm |
thebeattitude, allow me to re-quote everything you just said from a theistic or Christian angle:
“It’s a good policy to not believe things simply because someone tells you it’s true. Faith that requires a person to ignore every ounce of reason and rational thought is crazy. I just don’t understand why people have to deny God as a possibility to explain everything and make people feel comfortable in their own existence.
Why should a person believe atheism is truth? Because atheistic blogs told me too? Because a bunch of Scriptures taken out of context and impossible alternative worldviews says it’s true? No thanks, I’ll save my belief for things that are actually possible.”
July 6, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that atheism requires faith. It requires absolutely no faith to say “I see no evidence of gods.” It’s just a statement of fact.
July 6, 2009 at 6:00 pm |
I’m not trying to push a personal agenda. You’re welcome to disagree with me. In fact, I welcome your opposing views to the discussion. It makes for more interesting conversation.
The purpose of my blog is only to question the credibility and legitimacy of religion for the purpose of discussion. I’m not looking to evangelize for the sake of my non existent god.
I couldn’t possibly care less if you believe in God. As long as your religion is inspiring you to do good things, you’re welcome to waste your time worshipping Jesus as much as you want to. But as soon as people start using the Bible to justify hypocrisy, discrimination and hate towards people, that is when I start caring very much about the god they worship.
July 6, 2009 at 9:21 pm |
Sorry but that was just hilarious….
July 8, 2009 at 9:33 am |
I’m sure thousands of advocates of Ponzi and Pyramid schemes will agree with your method of circular argument… <_<
July 6, 2009 at 10:59 pm |
* “Do you believe in the Easter Bunny, too?”
* “We’re all atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do.”
* “If God’s all good, why’d he make malaria?”
* “Where did Cain’s wife come from?”
* “Pi is 3. It’s in the Bible.”
* “God has breasts and wings. It’s in the Bible.”
* “The Bible says rabbits chew their cud and bats are birds. It’s in the Bible.”
* “Slavery’s okay. It’s in the Bible.”
* “Donkey’s sometimes talk. It’s in the Bible.”
* “If Methuselah was such a great guy, why did God let him die in Noah’s flood?”
* “What did Noah do with all the poo on the ark?”
* “If you walk at an average speed of three miles an hour and rest 18 hours every day, you can circle the globe in 40 years. That must have been one big desert!”
* “God would have had to stop the Earth to make the sun stand still in the sky, and if he did that momentum would throw everyone off the planet.”
* “So lobster’s an abomination but you can eat locusts?”
* “There’s a psalm blessing people who crush babies with rocks.”
* “You know that the end of Mark is a forgery, right?”
* “Jesus only had one human parent, so he would have been a clone of Mary.”
* “If Jesus is God, and God got Mary pregnant, then Jesus got his own mother pregnant.”
* “Why is Jesus such a jerk to his mom?”
* “Jesus hung around with a bunch of guys, never got married, and talked about his dad all the time. Are you sure he was against homosexuality?”
* “How did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two animals at the same time? Was he an acrobat?”
* “If Sunday morning is three days after Friday night, then is tomorrow morning two days from now?”
* “If Jesus turned water into wine, then why is there still water?”
* “Jesus said that some of his contemporaries would still be alive when he returned. How’d that work out?”
* “Why don’t the Gospels agree about who found the empty tomb or what Jesus’ last words were? That seems kind of important.”
* “Have you given away all your stuff and abandoned your family like Jesus said to?”
* “Hitler thought he was doing God’s work, too.”
* “So, how about those Crusades?”
July 6, 2009 at 11:38 pm |
Were there termites on the ark?
July 7, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
Intelligent design, my dear. Also the dinosaurs were too big to fit in the arc so they were left behind !
July 9, 2009 at 10:05 am |
Krixstianity………… The greatest lie ever perpetrated upon the Human race
July 9, 2009 at 10:06 am |
The mystery of the “immaculate Deception”? Who was Mary f–king when she got knocked up?