Did Herod want to put John the Baptist to death?
Yes. But Herod refrained from killing John only because he feared the crowd.
For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because John had been telling him, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her.’ Though Herod wanted to put him to death, he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet.
– Matthew 14:3-5
No. Herod knew John was a holy man and protected him.
For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because Herod had married her. For John had been telling Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’ And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him.
–Mark 6:17-20
Tags: Christianity, God, Bible, Jesus, Conflicting, Flawed, Inconsistent, Scriptures, Error, New Testament, Herod, Inconsistency
March 8, 2010 at 10:25 pm |
Why keep fighting against the concept of inerrancy? It’s not hard to show the discrepancy. Should we throw it out completely? Perhaps like everything else in the cosmos, we have to look at it, evaluate it, take some responsibility for our own thoughts, and move on.
March 9, 2010 at 1:07 am |
Clergy Guy, now there is the rub, for me. Look at it, evaluate it, take some responsibility for our own thoughts and move on… sounds good in that semi-earnest live and let live kind of way. The trouble is that this book is held up as THE word of THE god. When I look at it, evaluate, have my own thoughts and ask why I should believe this book at all, it’s proponents get all upset. This only leads me to ask _why_ they get upset. The more of this onion that you peel back, the closer to the truth you get, and the truth *sounds* like: it’s a tie.
Was John the Baptist borrowed from the Horus story? Was he reincarnated? To which version of THE truth do you subscribe? While you’re evaluating it, perhaps you can explain why an omniscient and omnipotent deity needs men to interpret his word to mankind? Why is it so unclear, so inconsistent, so… unverifiable? If your deity is not clear in his own book, how can your deity be made clear to those who question? Don’t tell me an omniscient deity didn’t think of that problem, or that I simply have to accept it on faith because you said so, or some religious nutjobs from the arse end of the Roman Empire said so. I’m here to question, not accept on faith.
March 9, 2010 at 3:29 am |
The problem being that it is rare to find a proponent of the Good Book that doesn’t hold the Bible or God responsible for actually answering questions, or backing up his own claims.
March 9, 2010 at 5:30 am |
Mr Z, it sounds like you have a problem with the people who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I can relate to that.
Not sure I’d call myself a proponent of the Bible and I don’t consider it a deity that has let me down. Although after growing up in an arch conservative denomination and working through my issues of faith, I still have some affection for it.
You articulated the biggest complaint I still direct toward God, which is if he is so powerful and sends his spirit to help us undershand him, why is it all still so confusing? Since he chooses not to give me a clear answer to that question either, I can either plop myself down and say “waah” or I can stand up and move on to find the answers tha are available. If I sound flip about this, I’m really not–I’ve had more frustration than I know how to say.
March 9, 2010 at 11:34 am |
Clergy Guy, even as a child I was able to articulate the question of why God allows bad things to happen. The Bible says God loves us, that he exists, that he is the Truth la la la la la la Without the Bible, God is nothing. Some people when shown the follies of the Bible or hypocrisy of the righteous, agree that this can’t be right, but there is something out there. They want to believe there is some greater being. They _want_ to believe in a higher power. Some have fallen back to believing in aliens or quantum physics magic, or other things. This is mankind’s undoing.
I think you will find it’s been a waste of time being angry at God. He didn’t listen to your prayers, he won’t listen to your anger either. If you find something that has truth in it, be sure to come back and let us know.
March 9, 2010 at 9:54 pm
But if you have decided the Bible is not true, why spend any time at all debating with it? Why spend your time talking about what is not true. When you find out what IS true, come back and let us know.
March 9, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Clergy Guy, the answer is simple for me. Somewhere along the line it stopped being a case of let the people believe whatever insanity they want to about the origin of the universe and if we have a purpose in this life, and changed into:
Holy #$%ck, they want to enact a law that says what? They have no right telling others what they can or can’t do with their bodies. No, the 10 commandments do NOT belong in the court, courtroom, or courthouse. No, religious figures should not be lobbying congress on behalf of their faith. These and many other separation of church and state issues make it my business as they materially affect my life.
While they’re busy shouting about the TRUTH they find in their Bible and faith, they’re cutting the truth of our constitution to ribbons. So, despite the freedom to believe as you wish, you do not have the freedom to demand that I obey laws based on morality from an ancient text which is anything but what it claims to be. It is Christians themselves that make it my business to discuss and argue about the validity of this religion.
Does that answer the question?
March 9, 2010 at 11:16 pm
And this blog is the venue in which you choose to voice your opinion in the hopes of changing things?
March 9, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Lewstherinpm, LOL, it is but one place. I’m fairly well known as opinionated. I found this blog in a round about way, it was not my purpose to come here and opine. That just happened.
March 9, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Mr Z, If you examine your history, the constitution does not, in fact, concern itself with protecting the government from religions. As a matter of fact, it concerns itself with protecting religious practice (including atheism) from the government. Your atheistic political motivations are in no way more objective or non-religiously informed than are my Christian political motivations.
March 10, 2010 at 12:01 am
Mr Z, I hope that you realize that my comments are in no way intended to be “trollish” (and I hope that they don’t come across as such to you or the author of this blog) as I fully recognize opinions that differ from mine. That is not to say that I will necessarily obstain from objecting when I feel that it is appropriate for me to do so, even to the point of including a dab of humor (as I hope my previous post came across as, as that was its intent), but that it is my hope to maintain cool, collected and yet thought provoking debate about differing opinions.
March 10, 2010 at 12:13 am
“And this blog is the venue in which you choose to voice your opinion in the hopes of changing things?”
If Z went to a pro-Christian blog he’d similarly be flagged as a troll. If Z went public – well:
Had a pastor here who decided to rail on non-believers and other religiions, and got rapped by the government (yes, the government stepped in!). For his statements, while correct in his eyes, are likely to cause needless conflict and infighting in a cohesive society.
Would it not then be wiser to keep these controversial issues in, than to have Court On The Street?
There is no hope of changing things, so long as any one faction sits on the negotiating table – with preconceptions.
Be careful what you wish for, and be careful of what you request of others.
March 10, 2010 at 12:25 am
Mr. Chicken, my response to your comment here is the same to some of your previous responses to my previous posts…and that is: ????
Are you saying that your “faction” is free of “preconceptions”?
March 10, 2010 at 1:26 am
Joel said “Mr Z, If you examine your history, the constitution does not, in fact, concern itself with protecting the government from religions.”
You are woefully misinformed, though I can understand how you would misconstrue it this way. Perverting the intent to meet your needs and all.
Joel said “As a matter of fact, it concerns itself with protecting religious practice (including atheism) from the government.”
When any religious party deems to run the government their way, it affects my ability to enjoy freedom of belief.
“Your atheistic political motivations are in no way more objective or non-religiously informed than are my Christian political motivations.”
This is patently wrong. The US government is a government of the people for the people and not founded on Christian principles. When such religious principles invade my government it is my right, my DUTY to object. Any government run by religious rule is necessarily antagonistic to any other religious or non-religious beliefs. It is sound logic then to say that religion must be separate from government, even Christianity. Atheism is not a religion, it is the lack of belief in any deity, therefore secular in nature, not religious. Trying to say that atheism is the same as religion is to admit you have no clue what the word means. To protect my non-religious beliefs and practices from the government, it is absolutely necessary that religious belief not be part OF the government. period.
March 10, 2010 at 11:04 am
Mr Z,
Any government run by atheistic/non-religious rule is ALSO necessarily antagonistic to any other religious or non-religious beliefs. It is sound logic then to say that religion AND atheism must be separate from government. Except, of course, this isn’t possible. Everyone’s worldview is going to affect them. My Christianity, your Atheism. You simply cannot claim that your Atheism is somehow automatically better for running government than my Christianity is.
Atheism is more than a lack of positive belief in a a deity. That would be a form of agnosticism. An atheist is one who believe that there can be no deity. Call it secular if you like, but that does not mean it has any more right to govern than does my Christianity.
March 10, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Say, Joel, on that assertion that we can’t claim that Atheism is better for running a government than Christianity is… why are there more Atheistic governments in this day and age, than ones based on superstition and religion?
(The subject of how governance should be carried out is a different kettle of fish altogether. At least with Atheistic governments we have less problems calling corrupt officials out.
If you want to make a stupid, corrupt government be backed by the *conviction AND absolute unquestionably* that religion espouses, you’re only making things worse. With Atheistic governments the British could still call out Gordon Brown, and the world could still rail on China for suppressing Tibet, no problem.
Mind you, the promise of God to the Israelites and Allah to the rest have kept the Middle East from finding real, lasting peace for a long time. All is as iit was, simply because BOTH factions believed that God Promised Them Something, and No Other Shall Take It Or Negotiate It From Them.
Remember that, for it is the reason behind the separation of Church and State. )
March 10, 2010 at 1:01 pm
A Chicken,
In your response to my assertion that you can’t claim that Atheism is better for running a government than Christianity is, you only cited the most successful governments- governments that historically have been influenced by Christianity. Other Atheistic governments that need to be noted are numerous and obvious. North Korea. Soviet Russia. Nearly every communist and socialist state that has ever existed. All of these are examples of atheism, in on form or another, taking over.
I wholly agree with you that if a terrible government claims to be backed by a divine influence, that makes things worse. But that is a religious lie making things worse- it is not proof that no one should vote based on their own religious beliefs. One reason for the separation of church and state is (among other things) to prevent “secular” men from saying that I cannot vote in a way educated by my religion; which is synonymous with saying that I have to vote against what I believe.
March 10, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Wait, did I cite any government?
Oh, British.
Oh, China.
I don’t know why you thought they were the BEST EXAMPLES… they certainly aren’t.
I used the best examples of a government ran by the Lord’s rules: Israel. (IIRC I think, along with Malaysia, they do… and Malaysia is going bonkers with its Allah-based roots.)
In any case, I agree about Soviet Russia (tho their govenrment sucked because of fear of the United States leading to their paranoia…).
But: North Korea is a different kettle of fish altogether. It is not an Atheistic government per se, it is (rather unfortunately) a religious-based one. See: Cult of Kim Jong Il. At one point in time, it got so bad, it had its citizens worship Kim Jong Il as if he were The Golden Cow idol.
” But that is a religious lie making things worse- it is not proof that no one should vote based on their own religious beliefs.”
Malaysia, a country that has enacted Muslim laws, has recently declared that No Other Religion Shall Use The Name of Allah other than Muslim. This ruling was specifically targeted at the Catholic Church in the country.
I rest my case.
March 10, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Chicken,
Yes, Britain and China are among the best examples of secular government. North Korea, which is officially atheistic, even if it sets up it’s own religious-like practices, is among the worst.
I’m not sure what your case is. I don’t inherently support religious governments. I am not, for example, a Muslim.
March 10, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Joel, did you really just say that England is a secular government? Really? No, really, did you just say that? How do you arrive at such a conclusion?
March 10, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Yes Mr Z, in all practicality, both Britain and the United States are essentially secular, whether they are labeled such or not.
March 10, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Yes Mr Z, in all practicality, both Britain and the United States are essentially secular, whether they are labeled such or not. As I said, they are some of the best examples of secular government. (I.E, in these two cases things have turned out fairly well, as opposed to North Korea, for example)
March 10, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Joel, I don’t think secular government means what you think it does. The ruling monarch of England is the head of the state sponsored Church of England. I’m not sure how you make that out as secular. In either case, I still think you are wrong: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece I don’t see this as what can be described as ‘turned out fairly well’
Different law systems for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. It would appear that it’s not working out at all, never mind fairly well.
March 10, 2010 at 9:18 pm
“I’m not sure what your case is. I don’t inherently support religious governments. I am not, for example, a Muslim.”
The point here is that Malaysia is a shining example of how religious-based governments cannot be trusted to make decent, impartial decisions.
That you aren’t Muslim means that this will affect you, if you lived in Malaysia, or travelled to Malaysia (In fact, it would also affect me). IIRC, it promises jail time if it was flouted by a non-Muslim.
See, that ruling NEEDS NO VOTE from you or me, so it doesn’t matter if you get the vote or not. It is a government’s decision; Citizenry is always overruled when it comes to people in power.
This particular decision was laced with religious faith, from people who genuinely believed in God. Now, I cannot confirm or deny that the people at the head of Malaysia are faithful to their deity, BUT a holy book is indeed what their law is based on. It’s not as bad as the ones in the middle east, but still:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Malaysia
(Well, I guess the same can be said for most governments but you seem dead set on proving that Atheistic governments suck.
I can’t argue with you on that as a closet anarchist myself, who believes no perfect government exists.
But one thing that gets me is your propensity to DENY that an obviously religious based government ISN’T ONE on the basis that it doesn’t believe in your God.
You would then decide that, because it doesn’t believe in your God, iit is simply another Atheistic government using a false religion as a banner.
And then decide it’s justification enough to lump these sorts of governments with Atheistic governments to prove your point.
You’re treading into Double Standard territory.
It doesn’t matter who runs the reigns up there. As long as it has some form of deity at the very top of the helm, and as long as that deity influences ANY ruling, it’s a religious government, full stop – even if the deity were just a man who has propped himself up with a false religion.
Just so you know, I’d lump Papa Doc era Haiti under this category, as well as one other who would trigger Godwin’s Law. <_<
I appreciate that you agree with me that terrible governments claiming to be backed by divine influence is a bad thing. But that's not the only problem here.
There is NO WAY to prove that claims of divine influence are FALSE.
I'm sure you can run it through your "Only My God Is Real" filter. The problem is, like in the example of Malaysia, you have to consider that others have a similar filter, which will exclude your God and your beliefs, at your expense.
We don't need another layer of complication over fighting decisions which have human rights implications, thank you very much.
PS: NK is only "Atheistic" because, well, they have nukes. Yes, such things can influence global statisticians in the "insult our leader or insinuate anything and face the consequences" manner.For the purposes of this discussion, I'm calling a spade a spade.
Let's not get me started on the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials.
Don't forget that Christianity was once very much like the extremist Muslims today, and it took hundreds of years for the Pope to even see that what they put Copernicus through was questionable.
}
March 10, 2010 at 12:43 am |
A one-person faction can hardly be called a faction (I seem to be the only polytheist on this board).
My POV is not truly free of preconceptions, and I freely admit this.
But are you now basing your counterargument on the basis that I have a preconception?
And doing so, knowing full well that your “faction” and belief system works upon assumptions as well, no less?
March 10, 2010 at 2:40 am
A chicken passeth by, for my part, I enjoy discourse with you. You bring a different view, a calm view. I enjoy all of it actually. Even those that are steadfast in not understanding others’ views. Without discourse there is no learning, no understanding. Lewstherinpm represents one of those views. In the confusion of what we argue is a common bond or truth we can agree on, and an understanding of what we won’t agree on.
I am an atheist, and I do not believe there is any proof that the Christian religion, Bible, or God is anything but a myth. I will not argue that the Bible teaches ethical lessons. I will say that we do not need a religion to arrive at such, so the extras are adding bs to what is otherwise a basically good set of ethics (though I’m not so sure about murdering people for eating crabcakes etc.). I am heterosexual, but I will defend the right of those who are not to live unmolested in our society. I defend the right of everyone to believe what they want in the inside of their homes. To do so necessarily means I cannot let any religious ‘faction’ gain control of the government or its direction, not even atheistic non-religion. Freedom is just that… when one group deigns to control what freedoms I have, it is tyranny, no matter how small it seems. When they try to do so, it opens their belief to criticism, examination, and ridicule… no way around that. This is why I speak my opinion. I will not be bullied, nor should I as a citizen allow others to be bullied. No law should be enacted in favor of a single god, or many gods, or any god. Law should be ethical, not moral in nature.
If it was merely a case of closet Christianity, it would be no problem at all. It no longer is. Christianity is trying to run this country, it’s media, and it’s laws. It is my DUTY to object, where ever, and when ever I am able. Not simply in support of atheism, but in support of all those that would lose a voice if a religious morality came to rule, no matter how small it starts. The Christian creed clearly states it is against homosexuals, abortion, and many other things that are personal choices. Enacting laws in line with Christianity is nothing less than prejudice of the highest order.
Yes, I take a contentious stand, and perhaps do not argue it extremely well. But I hold that I am right, lawful, and just. Arguing against Christianity is to argue for those that it would oppress. Argument of its flaws is merely one way to achieve this goal.
March 10, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Well, you place a bit too much emphasis on calm discussion here. I tend to degenerate into snark if the other party’s deserving of it.
On my end, everyone has a right to his own beliefs, so long as he doesn’t force his beliefs on others. All life is equal, and none are more equal than others.
Yes, I know very well I can be accused of the same thing. Eventually, the Intervention Paradox will always be quoted. My only response is, well, who started it? Who made the claims, the promises? <_<
"The Christian creed clearly states it is against homosexuals, abortion, and many other things that are personal choices. Enacting laws in line with Christianity is nothing less than prejudice of the highest order."
But you do have to note that even non-Christian secular governments can do so, with impunity (Singapore…).
Unfortunately, here we have run into yet another one of those circular arguments, where the same argument can be used by both factions in different forms. Worse still, because religion is in the "I cannot confirm or deny that" territory, it is difficult to tell the difference between a government running a false religion, and one who genuinely makes moral decisions based on the words of any god.
I don't argue against or for any religion in particular. I speak out when people suddenly decide that they're allowed to judge people in the name of their deity, because it reeks of anti-life, anti-human-rights.
I simply do not believe that the advertised loving and fair God will give any human such hostile thoughts.
March 10, 2010 at 10:53 pm
A chicken passeth by: I think I verbalized it well when I said in this confusion we’ll find what we can agree on.
1 – speak out when people suddenly decide that they’re allowed to judge people in the name of their deity, because it reeks of anti-life, anti-human-rights. – Agreed
2 – I simply do not believe that the advertised loving and fair God will give any human such hostile thoughts. – I agree with this philosophically, but have trouble believing that any such advertised God exists, or that the God of the Christian Bible is loving and fair.
3 – But you do have to note that even non-Christian secular governments can do so, with impunity (Singapore…). Agreed. I only ask that church and state be and remain wholly separated. To imbue the government with any religious or anti-religious taint is to kill that separation, and human rights along with it. The separation itself does not prevent governments from being wrong, it just gives them a basis to avoid it.
I wonder (as an aside and completely OT) what your view of Christmas trees is?
March 10, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Actual ones don’t grow here. We only have fake ones.*
The last Christmas Tree I set up was just a decoration on the wall with furry foil.
Christmas is a public holiday. I know what the festivities is about, and I know its real origin, and I know it doesn’t add up to the actual Birth of Christ.
But religious holidays like this let people take a day or two off, so I’m not complaining.
PS: The real ones look impressive – as long as it isn’t chopped down and dragged home. if you do uproot it, please replant it and don’t throw it away after the festivities are over. Thanks.
March 10, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Awesome, one more (group of)thing(s) to add to the list of things we do agree on
Took real convincing to get the family to use a fake tree. I think that this year I’ll try to get them to start a new tradition: plant a tree or pay for one to be planted in a public space etc.
March 8, 2010 at 11:09 pm |
Come now, these verses are not contradictory in any way. They can both be true at the same time, or even be addressing different times.
March 8, 2010 at 11:35 pm |
I think the point is that the book was not written by a single author, nor inspired by a single source. It’s just story tellers telling their version of the same story. It can’t be taken as the inerrant word of any god. It’s not reliable as a source of truth. It’s simply the words of men. Great scholarly effort is expended on validating the variations on a theme, to verify any consistencies and white wash any ‘issues’ found inside; to hold it up as THE truth. The sad but real truth is that it’s a fairy tale, borrowed and plagiarized from dozens of sources, written and rewritten to proclaim the truth of facts which simply are not so. In short, it is a lie, not the work of an inerrant deity.
If we want to break it down and simply say these are good ethical teachings, leave me and my copy of Aesop’s fables be, we don’t need you and your false claims to knowledge of things beyond the realms of this universe. Take your damnations and pious premonitions and go weep alone in your bedroom. Stop bothering me with your knowledge of gods and souls and spirits and prophecies. Stop … just stop.
If you want to say that you have and know the truth of the universe and life, then you will be questioned, queried, and analyzed. Can you prove your claims? Can you validate your knowledge? No? Then why are you so bold with your tongues and so timid with your hands?
These two verses could also be (and more likely are) just interpretations of cramming the life of Horus into ancient Jewish prophecy: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm and the more troubling issue with JtB: Reincarnation – http://www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation3.html
Now, when you want to say that there is nothing wrong with these two ‘different’ views of one story, can you explain why they sound so much like an earlier story from an earlier religion and why we should not believe that the two authors involved here rewrote different accounts of the Horus story? Or is it wholly to be believed that they came up with this story independent of the Egyptians, despite the uncanny similarities, and that only the Christian Bible has the true story?
Sure, the story of Horus is completely unbelievable and myth, but this whole Jesus thing… hmmm, now that’s THE truth of THE God, right?
Seriously, question everything.
March 9, 2010 at 4:03 am |
Unfortunately, there’s nothing in the book that says both of them are correct, making the claim that “both are right” itself also questionable.
This is why any official body asks for hard evidence, not just witness testimony. Relative truths are common, but no matter how you combine them, you will never get an absolute truth.
March 9, 2010 at 8:35 pm |
Actually, if by “the book” you mean the Bible, yes, it does claim that they both are right, as it claims that all its components are.
Also, do you not realize that you are attempting to change my belief system just as much as I am attempting to change yours? It is part of my belief system to proselytize. It is part of your belief system to stop Christians from proselytizing. If we step outside of both our belief systems, there is no way to say that I should stop any more than there is to say that I should proselytize. It is only your worldview that can say that I should “just stop,” and saying that is, in fact telling me to just give in and accept part of your worldview.
March 9, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Joel, I think you are replying to two different posts in one reply. When I said “Take your damnations and pious premonitions and go weep alone in your bedroom. Stop bothering me with your knowledge of gods and souls and spirits and prophecies. Stop … just stop.” It was in conjunction with the thought of deciding to just say that the Bible is not inerrant, but lets just look at the good parts, the good moral lessons. I’m not particularly trying to change YOUR belief system, just asking people to question everything and not tell me the Bible is THE word of THE god, oh yeah, and stop voting with your religion. When you do that I get to complain about it.
If you want to tell me about ghosts, spirits, and supernatural beings and further that they are real and in charge, then I will question, analyze, and ask for proof. If you want to say that is me asking you to accept my world view, so be it. I don’t think everyone has to think like me, but I would ask that they lose the insanity when they go to the voting polls and other such things that materially affect my life.
March 9, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Yes, I am indeed responding to more than one comment at once. It is a bad habit I need to break. In response to your comment, though, Mr Z, I have a few things to say. Yes, you are trying to change my belief system. Anything you tell me to do is a demand for change. I am not complaining about that, though. I am merely complaining about your complaints about my demands for you to change.
Sorry for that tangle of words; I’m now moving on to something slightly more straightforward. “Stop voting with your religion.” Complain about it all you want, but I am going to vote according to my moral system, and my moral system is governed by my worldview. The same is true for everyone. You vote according to your worldview. Everyone does. For me not voting according to my worldview is synonymous with voting against myself.
March 10, 2010 at 12:15 am |
My worldview is “not voting for anyone”, so DON’T MAKE ME VOTE! >_>
(Even for myself <_<)
March 9, 2010 at 4:42 am |
I see these two verses as another example of the interpretation problem. Those of us that feel the bible is a collection of contradicting stories and verses will see it that way but those that are believers will see it as nothing but atheist trying to steal their beliefs from them.
People who really want to believe in the god of the bible will always find a way to interpret the bible to fit their beliefs. They don’t see the conflict that they are creating themselves. These two verses do say something different but with a small amount of twisting you can easily make them seem the same to yourself. I wonder if pointing out the conflicts within the bible is a good way to point out the folly of their beliefs. Look at how easily they can throw scientific evidence out the window or reinterpret the bible to make it fit the science.
March 9, 2010 at 8:41 pm |
Yes, Baconsbud, I (sort of) agree, but I will put it another way. Those who really want to not believe in the God of the Bible will always find a way to interpret the Bible to contradict itself and Christian beliefs. How can you claim to know that that actual way it is intended is full of contradictions, when there is another way to take it that does not have contradictions?
March 9, 2010 at 9:23 pm |
Joel, can I ask you what you are advocating here? Are you saying that atheists interpret the Bible so that it sounds contradictory? I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
March 9, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Yes Mr Z, that is exactly what I am saying non-Christians, especially atheists, intentionally interpret Bible passages in nonsensical or contradictory ways when there is another, equally obvious, perfectly logical interpretation.
March 10, 2010 at 12:03 am
Well, then, this perfectly logical interpretation, does it require faith, blind or otherwise? How exactly is it that people are supposed to read the Bible? Is there a special way? If we read it in the way we read any text for factual, real, reasonable, logical content and it doesn’t make sense, does that mean we read it wrong? theBEattitude is showing where a simple reading of the Bible shows it to be contradictory. How did s/he do that wrong? What then is the “perfectly and equally obvious, logical interpretation of these contradictory stories?
Why do they sound so very much like the Horus story?
March 10, 2010 at 10:53 am
Mr. Z. First, you seem to have an abysmal misunderstanding of the concept of faith. Faith is not blind belief. It is, in fact, any belief that is based on the testimony of another, whether that person be a scientist, a two thousand year old writer, an archeological expert, or a witness to a crime.
Second, in response to your quote…
“theBEattitude is showing where a simple reading of the Bible shows it to be contradictory.”
No. A simple reading would take these the two passages as non-contradictory. It is only if you have a vested interest in disproving the Bible that you will interpret them as contradictory.
March 9, 2010 at 9:48 pm |
Joel said “…. when there is another way to take it that does not have contradictions?”
The very fact that it must be interpreted to garner any meaning coupled with the many ways it is interpreted leads one to believe that perhaps this is not an inerrant text never mind the almighty word of an all powerful being.
Are you saying that THE word of THE god was written to be confusing and inconsistent?
March 9, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Mr Z, everything is interpreted. I interpret the Bible, you interpret the Bible, just like we do with any other text. Anything can be taken several ways, and Atheists without fail take any given Bible passage in the worst possible light.
As far as proof, IF the Bible is reliable, THEN it is God breathed. (because it claims to be, and IF it is reliable, then its claims are reliable) The evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible is breathtaking.
Cities, weapons of the time, wars, architecture… archeology constantly uncovers more.
The Bible is internally consistent. (UNLESS you intentionally interpret it in a particular way)
The Bible is misused, as anything and everything in this world is, but in other, distinct cases, knowledge of the Bible and belief in it brings about amazing change- things often cited: breaking free from drug addictions, defeat of alcoholism, confession of wrongdoing.
The Bible cites witnesses of particular events. Unfortunately, we can’t talk to them today, but only a fool would cite non-existent witnesses who are supposedly still alive at the time of the writing. If the gospel writer’s witnesses were fictitious, their work would have been utterly shredded by the countless men who wanted to do their teaching in.
All in all, nothing that is not self evident has perfect proof, unless based upon other non-self evident things. The Bible though, has a myriad of evidence in it’s favor.
March 10, 2010 at 12:16 am
“Atheists without fail take any given Bible passage in the worst possible light.” Prove this please, citation needed.
“As far as proof, IF the Bible is reliable,” It’s not, next
“The evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible is breathtaking.” And so, on those grounds, is the evidence for the book ‘The Davinci Code’… next
The Bible is internally consistent. (UNLESS you intentionally interpret it in a particular way) – prove this please, citation needed
“The Bible cites witnesses of particular events. Unfortunately, we can’t talk to them today, but only a fool would cite non-existent witnesses who are supposedly still alive at the time of the writing.” That, sir, is an assumption of the highest order of foolishness. It is precisely a fool that believes such nonesense. There were no eyewitnesses who were also authors of the Bible. period. Next
‘If the gospel writer’s witnesses were fictitious, their work would have been utterly shredded by the countless men who wanted to do their teaching in.” Apparently you are unaware of the effect that a few charismatic men can have on the world. Need I mention Hitler, Mousolini, the Pope(s), and on and on. Your argument is based on sheer speculative assumption, not evidence, science, or even sound reasoning. Next.
“All in all, nothing that is not self evident has perfect proof, ” This statement is misleading. Algebra is not self evident. There is proof that it works. Statistical analysis is not self evident… and on and on and on… Next.
“The Bible though, has a myriad of evidence in it’s favor.” Oh yeah? show me? Lets see that evidence? That is kind of why we are here. I’m not going to simply take your word for it, show us.
March 10, 2010 at 10:43 am
“Prove this please, citation needed.”
The evidence is both above and below your comments. The original post is evidence that yes, atheists interpret in the worse possible way. Janus’s post is evidence… evidence is all around you. To ask for me to prove that is ridiculous. The proof is all around you.
““As far as proof, IF the Bible is reliable,” It’s not, next”
We already KNOW that you BELIEVE it isn’t. I at least have shown the decency to not constantly repeat my BELIF that it is, instead choosing to argue for it. Would you please demonstrate the same courtesy?
“And so, on those grounds, is the evidence for the book ‘The Davinci Code’… next”
No. This is absurd. I am talking about archeological evidence, kings, conquests, buildings… all things that people who do not believe the Bible denied the existence of, and were later proven wrong by archeology.
“The Bible is internally consistent. (UNLESS you intentionally interpret it in a particular way) – prove this please, citation needed” Prove it? I am sorry, the assumption of internal consistency is just that; an assumption. Unless you can prove that it is internally inconsistent in every possible interpretation, then it is assumed to be consistent. That is the courtesy given to other historical texts, please do the same for the text that you have a vested interest in disproving.
“There were no eyewitnesses who were also authors of the Bible. period.” How do you know this? Are you assuming that the events can’t have happened, using that to negate the idea of witnesses, and then using the non-existence of witnesses to argue against the events?
“Apparently you are unaware of the effect that a few charismatic men can have on the world. Need I mention Hitler, Mousolini, the Pope(s), and on and on. Your argument is based on sheer speculative assumption, not evidence, science, or even sound reasoning. Next.”
Whether they were charismatic men is irrelevant. Even if the early believers were, to a man, amazingly convincing, the fact I cited still remains: they were surrounded by people who opposed them just as adamantly than you are doing now.
“Oh yeah? show me? Lets see that evidence? That is kind of why we are here. I’m not going to simply take your word for it, show us.”
Excuse me, I just listed some of it, albiet in a broad way. Any one detail I give would be explained away as coincidence, or a different interpretation would be given to intentionally disassociate it from the Bible. The details are countless, though. Men, palaces, temples, theaters… all are mentioned in the Bible, and found in archeology.
March 10, 2010 at 4:26 am |
Joel the only way you can read the bible without contradictions is to change the meanings and intent of the writers. Look at the way people interpreted the bible 100 years ago and I would bet you would find they are a little different their your interpretation. I have to agree with Mr. Z on this. You look at the bible with blinders on and will change the meanings of words or even go as far as completely ignoring verses to make sure it doesn’t contradict with itself.
If you have to alter the words of the bible to make sure it fits your view of what it is, aren’t you assuming to know the mind of, by many christians views, an unknowable?
March 10, 2010 at 12:20 am |
I have to agree with the idea of “everything is interpreted.” I have heard the argument of “well, that’s your interpretation.” Well, don’t you also offer YOUR interpreation of the passage? Isn’t this, and every previous post the “interpretation” of the author of the post? How can we objectively criticize the “interpretation” of critics when the post is based on the interpretation of the author in the first place?
“Cities, weapons of the time, wars, architecture… archeology constantly uncovers more. The Bible is internally consistent.” I agree with Joel. if archaeologists agree that Luke was 100% accurate (archaeologicaly speaking) in Acts that it only begs the question of why he would intentionally make the rest up (i.e. the rest of Acts and the gospel of Luke)
March 10, 2010 at 12:34 am |
An argument that can be used and twisted by both factions should by all rights be discounted by both factions, for it will have no answer and no end.
In this sense, it doesn’t matter if The Author Started It, or if his Critics Started It. Because everything is interpreted, NOBODY CAN RIGHTFULLY GAIN THE MORAL HIGH GROUND.
Thus I have to fall back on the doctrine of beliefs on both camps.
It is in the Christian doctrine to not question God at all, or be condemned (“Thou shalt not test the Lord…”). It is in the Christian doctrine to believe. Just believe. To their credit, there’s nothing about the Book, IIRC.
Atheists have no such doctrine, or dogma that I know of, and it all is truly down to personal belief.
March 10, 2010 at 3:18 am |
In the wider view, why is John the Baptist even considered a real person? When the Christianity story is compared to previous religious stories, why should we believe that this is not just a copy, a plagiarism? First explain why the story is not a plagiarism, then we can continue to discuss why conflicting stories of John the Baptist is significant or not. No pro-Bible person on this blog roll has yet answered that. Why? I ask why the Bible version should be accepted as anything but a myth in the first place, never mind why it is inconsistent. The pro-biblical arguments assume that it is not a plagiarism. Show me the proof of that first, then we continue.
March 10, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
Yes it is easy to get the weapons, cities, and other things pretty close to right when you study a little history of the area you are writing about. Have you ever read a historical fiction? It isn’t that hard to get the basics right and then add your own twist to it. Why would someone make up a story about a fictional person? I can think of a few reasons. If I am talking to people who aren’t educated I can make up super type people as a means of control and power. It is much easier to live when people feed me and provide all the clothing I will be needing. With people who are abused by the rulers of an area, if I promise them a better life after death as long as they suffer properly in life, I am allowed more power by the rulers of the area.
March 10, 2010 at 9:42 pm
“Have you ever read a historical fiction?”
Case in point:
Currently, there are people who believe Atlantis exists because Plato mentioned it. Now I’m not arguing for the existence or non-existence of the sunken city, but it has to be said that Ptolemy told it as a parable, and not as a fact.
It’s a very good example of a story that came quite close to be considered as historical fact.
March 10, 2010 at 9:43 pm
*correction, I didn’t change the second Ptolemy to Plato.
Damn Greek philosophers and their names.
March 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm |
Wow, in the spirit of fairness, I was actually going to suggest that it was before and after Herod was seduced to put John’s head on a plate. However, this is pretty contradictory, any way you slice it.
What’s even more odd is that, in true narrative style, the authors suggest they know Herod’s private feelings on the matter. Given that these were written decades after this event took place and that they couldn’t possibly have asked Herod himself, even at that time, why does this belong in what should be a factual, historical, non-fiction account? It doesn’t. It fits perfectly in a fictional story, though.
March 9, 2010 at 8:47 pm |
You are correct, Janus, in saying that Herod’s thoughts don’t belong in a normal historical non-fiction account. However, this is hardly dealing with his inner thoughts. These passages refer only to things that could be read from the surface by watching Herod. Therefore, an interview with someone who spent some time around Herod could easily give this information- interviews with separate men could easily give the two accounts, and the two accounts are not mutually exclusive by.
Also, as the Bible already claims to be God-breathed, if it is true then knowing someone’s thoughts to write them down is not really an issue. You are assuming that the Bible is not what it claims to be (God breathed) in order to prove that there is no way it could be true (because the writers wouldn’t know) and therefore that it cannot be God breathed. That, my friend, is classic circular logic.
March 9, 2010 at 9:32 pm |
Joel, circular logic aside, this is yet another post where I cannot understand what you are trying to say. There is no reason for anyone to ‘assume’ the Bible is THE word of THE god, fully inspired by a supernatural all powerful being. There are some who read it and think that, others who read it and ask why should I believe that? The fact that there are two tellings of the same story with two different meanings is indicative that the information source for the two are different… apparently God wanted it to be confusing, or more probably, the two authors got different tales when they plagiarized the Horus story. There is far more than one reason to be doubtful of this book than this one inconsistency.
In the very first place, prove a God exists without the Bible. Second, prove the Bible is God’s word, the word of an inerrant supernatural being. Give me a solid reason to believe any of it and to stop thinking those who do believe it are causing more harm than good to society. Your very difficult to follow, try explaining what you mean a bit better.
There is no assumption that the Bible is not God inspired, there simply is no proof or reason the think it is. The only assumption is on the part of people who assume that because the book says it’s inerrant, that it must be inerrant. Where is the proof of god, a soul, spirits and ghosts, proof of biblical writings as fact.
March 9, 2010 at 9:37 pm |
The Bible is true and “God breathed” because the Bible says it is? How convincing.
That is the best demonstration of circular logic a person could possibly display.
http://thebeattitude.com/2009/08/02/the-circular-logic-of-christianity/
There is absolutely no evidence to believe these ancient texts were divinely inspired. Their extremely barbaric and flawed nature don’t display the work of a perfect and all-powerful god.
March 9, 2010 at 11:26 pm |
I didn’t say that. I merely said that it does claim to be God breathed, so IF it is correct, then it is more than correct. Your claim that I was using circular logic here is another error: a strawman.
March 9, 2010 at 11:56 pm |
Joel, are you confused, or really as insidious as you seem? The assumption, as you call it, that the bible is not god breathed is not an assumption. There is no proof for it, and no logical reason to think that it is. At this point, your reasoning fails. You argue what it could be, and that not considering such wild fantasy is wrong. You do so without offering anything in the way of evidence either way, or even cogent argument either way. You’ve not actually answered any questions put to you either. So is it your point to simply stir things up with circular argument?
March 10, 2010 at 10:08 am |
“I didn’t say that. I merely said that it does claim to be God breathed, so IF it is correct, then it is more than correct. ”
Unfortunately, if it is wrong, not only does it put God into doubt, it puts the entire religion, AND its branches, into doubt as well.
Perhaps this is why it is in the doctrine to never question. It’s just like the engineer’s term “magic smoke”.
Thus, every argument from religion comes from the conviction that they are right – and their interpretation is the only answer.
Well, Joel, I never did stop you from doing anything.
But as your fellow believers have warned me about disbelief and doubt, I must now warn you about the similar consequences of bearing false witness to God’s deeds and words…
And count this as the only time where I try to change your beliefs.
March 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm |
Joel, it would appear that your only answer is that the Bible must be true because it has survived. There is no proof ‘all around me’ and you offer no convincing argument that the Bible is true. There are plenty of fiction works that are based in real places. That doesn’t make them non-fiction. Any simple reading of the Bible will create more questions than it answers. You remain adamant that only twisting the words causes inconsistency. How do you feel about the ‘day’ problem in Genesis? A day is one revolution of the Earth. Before it was created, how did He measure time in days? Who did Cane and Able marry? Why did God put temptation in the garden with Adam and Eve and then allow the evil talking snake inside? Why does the Christ story sound so very much like the stories of Mithra and Horus? Why didn’t God just tell the story once? What was Jesus like as a boy? What kind of houses did carpenters build in a land with no trees? Was Jesus Caucasian? Why did God allow people to have slaves? Why did they allow them to have many wives? Can God help me interpret my dreams too? Why did it rain for 40 days and 40 nights? Why didn’t it rain for years, Seattle gets lots of rain? Who was Constantine? Why did he kill Christians? Did Judas really hang himself? If he was special to Jesus but committed suicide, how does that work?
Joel, any 10 year old can ask these questions after reading the Bible. Do you have answers? The Bible is inconsistent and there is reason to believe it a plagiarism and work of fiction. Where is the historical evidence for the man called Jesus who did miracles? Not just any Jesus, but the one that did miracles. Asking you for proof is not ridiculous. Any 10 year old would ask too. Show us the evidence that the Bible is THE word of THE god, inerrant, holy and so on.
We can move on to deeper problems of philosophy if you like.
We already KNOW that you BELIEVE it isn’t. I at least have shown the decency to not constantly repeat my BELIF that it is, instead choosing to argue for it. Would you please demonstrate the same courtesy? I’ve asked you several questions that you have not answered. You’ve dodged giving any real answers. Argue for your belief now.
“And so, on those grounds, is the evidence for the book ‘The Davinci Code’… next”
No. This is absurd. I am talking about archeological evidence, kings, conquests, buildings… all things that people who do not believe the Bible denied the existence of, and were later proven wrong by archeology.
How, exactly, does that make the story THE word of THE God? Fictional stories are not forced to take place in fictional places. Are you saying that because some small tidbits are true, it must all be true? If you are, you’re going to fail.
“The Bible is internally consistent. (UNLESS you intentionally interpret it in a particular way) – prove this please, citation needed”
Prove it? I am sorry, the assumption of internal consistency is just that; an assumption. Unless you can prove that it is internally inconsistent in every possible interpretation, then it is assumed to be consistent.
Okay, you assume it’s consistent. theBEattitude and others have said that no, it’s not consistent. See the beginning of this post. It does not have to be shown to be internally inconsistent throughout to run into trouble with the claim that it’s the inerrant word of an all powerful being. If it’s not the inerrant word of THE God, why does it claim to be?
That is the courtesy given to other historical texts, please do the same for the text that you have a vested interest in disproving. I hope that you actually start studying about some of these things you claim. Historical texts have always been read with a kind of skepticism and only said to be true when there is sufficient corroboration and historical evidence to go along with it. Except in the case of the Christian Bible. Its adherents claim it is true without such corroboration.
“There were no eyewitnesses who were also authors of the Bible. period.” How do you know this? Are you assuming that the events can’t have happened, using that to negate the idea of witnesses, and then using the non-existence of witnesses to argue against the events? Do you even know to when the Biblical books were dated? Have you studied your Bible, or simply believed what others tell you about it?
“Apparently you are unaware of the effect that a few charismatic men can have on the world. Need I mention Hitler, Mousolini, the Pope(s), and on and on. Your argument is based on sheer speculative assumption, not evidence, science, or even sound reasoning. Next.”
Whether they were charismatic men is irrelevant. Even if the early believers were, to a man, amazingly convincing, the fact I cited still remains: they were surrounded by people who opposed them just as adamantly than you are doing now.
Starting about the time of Constantine, those who opposed the Bible, or the Church were generally put to death. There was always that chance to recant, but death often followed it anyway. Christendom has not been long persecuted. Sure, the first couple of hundred years were a bit shaky, but since then Christians have been doing a lot of persecution themselves. The Christians before the time of Constantine had no Bible, just a few books (depending on where you were) and some charismatic leaders. They also probably the supposed bones or relics and talismans of soon to be saints, or prophets. Some of the NT hints at how life was for early Christians.
In addition to that, the opposition to Christianity was not in all parts of the world wont to run around beheading Christians. There were those theologically opposed, and over time most of them have been forgotten. We still have Judaism, Islam, and a couple others. And so it went up till about the time of Martin Luther. Now, it seems, there are hundreds of right ways to worship THE God, using hundreds of singularly correct interpretations of THE word. Not even Christians can agree on how to read the Bible, Joel. Some think the Earth is less than 10000 years old. If Christians can’t seem to get it right, how should I look at that book and interpret it? Why shouldn’t I think it’s just a fairytale that has to be interpreted to be believed?
If you want to argue for your book and your faith, perhaps you can answer these questions.
Why do you believe this book is the inerrant word of an all powerful being, Joel? What evidence made you believe that? Why should I believe that?
March 10, 2010 at 3:36 pm |
How on earth could my arguments possibly reduced to such a statement? “The Bible is true because it has survived.” I did not say that.
The “proof all around you” I cited was proof that atheists intentionally interpret the Bible in such a way as to make it inconsistent.
A day, in the way define it now, is one revolution of the earth, yes. A more everyday definition though, is a period of twenty four hours. There is, however, some debate over whether or not this is what the Bible means.
Cain probably married his own sister. This was not forbidden until later. You will probably say that this is proof of the falsehood of the Bible, because of the problems that intermarrying would cause. This is because you are reading your presuppositions into the Bible. Cain marrying his sister would have worked if their was enough genetic variety in the family to start with, which is the only idea that makes sense with a Christian view of things. (more so than there is in any example of humanity available today)
Why shouldn’t God put the tree in the garden?
Of course Jesus wasn’t Caucasian… what an absurd question. Jesus was a Jew, a direct descendant (through Mary) of the Biblical King David, who archeology has confirmed the existence of.
The so called slavery God endorsed in the Bible was really a form of indentured servitude: a TEMPORARY forced labor to repay debt. Of course, other, evil forms were committed, and recorded in the Bible, but that is not really relevant.
Yes, Judas committed suicide. That is patently obvious from the Bible. It was an evil thing, but it in no way disputes the validity of the Bible.
Yes, fictional stories can take place in true places. I fail to see the relevance though- all I am saying is that the Bible is set forth as a historical document, and that is has much more “going for it,” archaeologically speaking, than many commonly accepted works.
The claim that Christians haven’t been long persecuted is truly worthy of ridicule. Until Christianity outgrew Judiasm, Christians were hated and attacked on all fronts by the Jews. The Jewish leaders would have loved to produce Jesus’s body, but they couldn’t They would have loved to say “you have no witnesses,” but, in fact, witnesses are recorded. Eclipsing, (but not eliminating) Jewish persecution was the Roman persecution. Burned alive, fed to lions, speared- Christians were executed in countless ways. It *largely* tapered off shortly before Constantine rose to power, but it has never stopped. Christians have been being killed by other religions, by atheists, by people claiming to be Christians, (but who proved by their actions that they didn’t really follow the Bible) by all varieties of people as far back as you care to go, and it is still going on.
Of course Christians disagree on how to read the Bible. Pardon the expression, but “DUH!” Atheists disagree; I am sure you wouldn’t approve of the Chinese persecution of Christians. Muslims disagree, and even kill each other over those disagreements. Internal disagreement among followers pf something is in no way proof against what is being followed.
“Historical texts have always been read with a kind of skepticism and only said to be true when there is sufficient corroboration and historical evidence to go along with it. Except in the case of the Christian Bible. Its adherents claim it is true without such corroboration.” Actually, the archaeological evidence in favor of the historicity of the Bible is overwhelming- much greater than that of many accepted historical accounts.
March 10, 2010 at 3:46 pm |
Joel, Why do you believe this book is the inerrant word of an all powerful being? What specific evidence made you believe that? Why should I believe that?
March 10, 2010 at 4:24 pm |
I’m up to almost 40 posts on conflicting Bible verses. Care to explain how I misinterpreted all of them? Most are cut and dry factual inconsistencies. The rest are teachings that completely contradict each other. You claim I intentionally misinterpret these texts when in reality you justify every absurdity by any means necessary.
The fact you are claiming archeology helps prove Bible history is comical. You speak of Cain as though he was a real person that existed when the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Do you believe all the animals of the earth lived on a boat for 40 days and water covered the highest mountain? Or that a man can live inside a whale for 3 days? Or that a man had supernatural strength because his hair was long?
Fables are not history. And testimony from anonymous authors written 40-70 years after the alleged events happened is not remotely credible.
March 10, 2010 at 8:38 pm
It’s easy to explain absurd folklore when you use the god miracle card. But you have to wonder why we don’t see any of these miracles today. When is the last time you saw a dead man come back to life, or a blind man suddenly regain sight, or a pillar of fire coming from the sky? Miracles were common place a few thousand years ago, but today God is silent. I would have no problem believing in miracles if we actually saw them today and didn’t have to read about them from primitive texts.
If you want to live your life wearing a blindfold of superstition, that’s your choice. It makes no difference to me. I just find it willfully ignorant.
March 10, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
BEattitude, I simply do not have time to read through 40 different posts, explain how all of those particular verses can be taken to be non-contradictory, and then respond to all of the objections that will arise. Point out a few of your best ones, though, and I will respond to them.
You are setting up a massive straw man argument in this post. No, all the animals of the earth did not live on a boat. Most of them, in fact, were killed. The animals we see today are descendants of those few that survived. Naturally, we have a lot more variety today than there would have been at that time, because genetic change has gone on for a long time since. Can a man survive inside a whale for three days? Does long hair make you strong? No. Not by the normal laws of nature, no. However, as we already call such an event a miracle, do you actually think that saying it is impossible by normal natural process is going to convince us? Of course all these things are not naturally possible. That is one thing that makes them miracles.
Just for your information, many of the Biblical texts are not anonymous. A few are, yes, but in many, the writer is identified.
March 10, 2010 at 7:08 pm |
Joel said “No, all the animals of the earth did not live on a boat. Most of them, in fact, were killed. The animals we see today are descendants of those few that survived. Naturally, we have a lot more variety today than there would have been at that time, because genetic change has gone on for a long time since.”
Does this statement mean that you believe in evolution?
We know from the story that Rip VanWinckle slept for 20 years under a tree. Was that a miracle too? Saying a miracle happened does not make it true.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090520235604AA8p1W9 AND
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982807-1,00.html AND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle illustrate why people will question the veracity of any book that claims miracles. If you can explain why I should accept the Bible miracles but not these others, I’d like to hear it.
Just for your information, it is anything but clear who wrote the books of the Bible, look here for an example of why it is unclear: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1985/who-wrote-the-bible-part-1 If you can explain why this is wrong, I’d like to hear it.
March 11, 2010 at 10:43 pm |
A Chicken,
Your most recent post is somewhat disappointing. There are simply so many things in it that demonstrate either a total dishonesty or a huge lack of perception.
I never, ever, in any way, stated or implied that Muslim governments were not religious governments. I never said or implied that they were Atheistic. I also never said that I support so-called “christian” governments that show such horrible, hideous flaws as those that were apparent in the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or anything else. However, no single government (Malaysia, for example) can possibly ever be “a shining example of how religious-based governments cannot be trusted to make decent, impartial decisions.” It CAN be (and very well might be) a shining example of why a radical Islam-based government cannot be trusted to be decent, impartial decisions. To say though, that it provides evidence that religious government is bad (because it is a bad religious government) is no more convincing than if I said that Malaysia is a shining example of how non-Christian governments cannot be trusted.
Incedentally, I also happen to believe that there is no perfect government around, but that does not make me an anarchist.
“…one thing that gets me is your propensity to DENY that an obviously religious based government ISN’T ONE on the basis that it doesn’t believe in your God.”
Absolutely, utterly absurd. I never said, in any way, that an Islamic government is not a religious government.
“NK is only “Atheistic” because, well, they have nukes.” Perhaps. I have not studied their political history.
“Don’t forget that Christianity was once very much like the extremist Muslims today, and it took hundreds of years for the Pope to even see that what they put Copernicus through was questionable.”
In all honesty, many of the events often cited as examples of evil Christianity are no more Christian than a praying man is an Atheist. Sure, they may have called themselves Christians, but that doesn’t make them Christian. These acts were as blatantly non-Biblical (and therefore non-Christian) as prayer is non-atheistic.
March 12, 2010 at 11:18 am |
Joel, personally, there’s no need for name calling.
If I’m a little annoyed, it’s because you didn’t see NK’s Cult of Kim Jong as a religion, as I have done. My apologies.
However, I still have issues with your double standards. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why they are not, in fact, double st
“To say though, that it provides evidence that religious government is bad (because it is a bad religious government) is no more convincing than if I said that Malaysia is a shining example of how non-Christian governments cannot be trusted.”
A religion is a religion is a religion. The same thing could very much happen with the enlightened Buddhist religion, the Deiistic Hindu religion, or even human philosopher’s philosophies. Each has a form of text that professes love for fellow man and respect for God, that can become tyrannical when written into books of law and enforced.
Why are you trying to exclude Christianity from this? Why should the religion, as a religion itself, not be called to the fore to prove itself?
When I discuss these things with Christians who declare that God’s servants can do it better than Allah’s, there seems to be this assumption that God is merciful. That he can’t possibly be so strict with his 10 commandments. That his declarations about other Gods and non-believers are just made in a fit of temporary anger. That he truly has forgiven all.
I take it that if you can defend Christianity this way, by quoting the benefit of the doubt…. you have similar beliefs.
Had a talk with an Islamic friend about what’s going on in Malaysia. He, too, viewed Allah in the same light as a believer of Christ would view God. He said, they’re going about it wrong. Allah won’t do things like that, and doesn’t like things like that.
But how can anyone disprove or prove this, aside from a bystander’s moral point of view?
What happened in Malaysia was : the rules stated in the holy text became not just word of law. but strict word of law. One misinterpretation of the holy text later, this happens, and because it is in the doctrine to not question or test God, the flaw is perpetuated for a long, long time.
I ask you this: what do you think will happen if the 10 commandments became law? Will you be overjoyed?
What does the Bible say about other religions?
What does the Bible say about those who doubt God?
What does the Bible say about converts?
Maybe I shouldn’t have asked that. I’ve seen first hand what believers thought of me when I asked too many questions.
I think I can safely assume, all things being equal, the same thing will happen if the Bible replaced the Talmud in Malaysia.
Unless you tell me of a difference between the Bible and the Talmud, aside from the potrayal of the prophets. One that can definitively prove, all other things being equal, that God’s rules will not cause as much grief as the Talmud’s.
Otherwise, I’m afraid Christianity doesn’t get an exception.
“In all honesty, many of the events often cited as examples of evil Christianity are no more Christian than a praying man is an Atheist. ”
Yet another double standard.
The men who were involved in the persecution of Copernicus genuinely believed (or so they say, the authenticity of which cannot be proven…) that they were doing God’s work. You cutting them off or declaring them not true Christians does not erase the fact that their crimes have been committed in the name of Christ and God.
Stalin and Hitler* have always been resurrected as part of the standard Christian argument against Atheism. Atheists have never denied that they exist, nor have they ever denied that they had questionable beliefs.
Why is it that Christianity allowed to dredge up the past as an excuse against Atheism, whereas those who question Christianity are not in the right to tell Christianity of the past it has tried so hard to wash its hands from?
March 12, 2010 at 12:43 pm |
*honest mistake #1. sorry, that mention of the Talmud shouldn’t be Talmud, which is Jewish.
That should be Koran.
I keep getting Jewism, Christianity and Islam mixed up. Their OTs are so similar, it’s disturbing. Its as if they’re praying to the same God.
March 12, 2010 at 11:25 am |
PS: this does not imply that you support Christian governments.
However, the fact is, you’re trying to say something to the effect of:
We cannot prove that religious governments cannot work.
Thing is, that’s why I pointed you to Malaysia (And you moved the goalposts in response.)
If you’re not a supporter of Christian government or ANY government at all, then surely you should know at least why you do not completely support such a cause.
The very reason you can quote to that will give you a definitive answer of why any religious government simply can’t be trusted.
There wasn’t any need to drag this out.
March 11, 2010 at 10:59 pm |
To whom it may concern,
As things stand, I am now trying to respond to three people at once, answering different but overlapping questions, and generally trying to keep up. As demonstrated by the inconsistency with which I have responded to you, I am not managing to keep up. I know you all think that my beliefs are patently false, but at this point I am merely talking about keeping up to the conversation itself. Therefore, I am going to break this conversation off shortly. I will trying to respond to a few of the more major issues briefly, and perhaps even respond to your responses (on those topics only).
Mr Z,
Do I believe in evolution? In all honesty, it depends on what you mean by evolution. Do I believe that massive biological change has taken place since the beginning of life on this earth? Yes. That much is obvious. Do I believe in exactly the same type of change, occurring over the same amount of time and in the same way as many scientists today do? No.
Saying that something is a miracle is never an argument for its having happened. I never pretended that it was. I was merely saying that, since I already believe it is a miracle, you shouldn’t be surprised that I admit that it is impossible, by normal natural law.
BEattitude,
On the subject of miracles, there is some debate over them. Some Christians believe that yes, they still happen. In this vein, C.S.Lewis has an interesting explanation for why we see few-to-no supernatural events in the modern west. Other Christians believe that the age of miracles is (at least temporarily) over. Many of these Christians might even join you in attempting to disprove some self-proclaimed miracle workers.
A Chicken,
“Unfortunately, if it is wrong, not only does it put God into doubt, it puts the entire religion, AND its branches, into doubt as well.”
Yes. If the Bible is wrong Christianity is false. Again, pardon the expression, but DUH! The Bible itself says that if Christ’s resurrection did not actually happen, then we (Christians) are of all men most to be pitied.
“Perhaps this is why it is in the doctrine to never question. It’s just like the engineer’s term “magic smoke”. ”
No. I’m sorry, there is no “do not question!” doctrine. Faith is NOT blind belief, it is belief based on a testimony or a witness. Christians question. The Bible even gives a few examples of things that we should constantly question.
March 11, 2010 at 11:24 pm |
So, evolution as an explanation for the disparity between the bible stories and reality is ok, but not evolution in general? How did evolution happen for the animals in the ark, but not before that?
I don’t think the word faith means what you think it does. While you may have your own definition, the rest of the world uses a definition that is in line with that from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/:
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
There is nothing in there about witnesses, but there is mention of ‘no proof’ and thus the phrase ‘blind faith’. Perhaps if we all work from the same understanding of the words we use, the discussion will be more profitable?
Sorry, there IS a do not question doctrine. It is not vocalized as such, but the doctrine that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, the truth, it is not to be questioned, only understood. This is an unstated doctrinal principle. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine
If you have the time, I’m interested in answers to some of the other questions I asked:
Why do you believe the Christian Bible is the inerrant word of an all powerful being?
What specific evidence made you believe that?
Why should I believe that?
March 14, 2010 at 10:23 pm |
Mr. Z
1) As I said, if one is a follower of the Bible (I.E, a Christian), one will follow the Bible. (Duh) Therefore, if a professing Christian demonstrates by his action that he does not truly follow the Bible, it’s a pretty sure sign that he isn’t, in fact, a Christian.
2) Evolution, in the sense that I believe actually takes place, would have occurred since the beginning of the world as we know it today.
3) I am speaking of a particular sense of the word “faith.” I am not redefining the word, merely bringing up what the word means in (many, at least) Christian contexts. Christian writers as far back as Augustine have discussed faith in this way.
4) Why do I believe the Christian Bible is the inerrant word of an all powerful being?
Combined evidence of all varieties contributes to my opinion. This evidence includes archeological evidence, the only thing you seem to care about.
March 14, 2010 at 10:56 pm
In earnest Joel,
What you’re saying is that only non-Christians can be identified as we cannot see the deeds of all persons at all times, not even just the subset of persons who identify as Christians. We then have to trust self proclaimed Christians that they are Christians. This balancing act means that pretty much all those claiming to be Christians are not, at least part of the time. That’s a pretty elusive definition, to say the least. It’s a shame, it would be much easier if you would just admit there are bad Christians.
If evolution has occurred since the beginning of life on this planet, Why is there a need for a creator god? Why is it that evolution could not have gotten us to where we are today?
The Christian context of a word is hardly a common context. You may well choose to believe in the word of a 2000 year old author who was not an eyewitness, and in all probability is not the person you think they claim to be, and all without positive evidence to your benefit. That does not make it true. As was mentioned, we could believe in Atlantis too. If you truly believe that the Bible authors were eyewitnesses or spoke to such, it is not faith, it is belief. You choose to believe the tale they tell. Faith is belief without evidence.
There is philosophical evidence also Joel, scientific evidence, all sorts that do not support the belief and faith that you have. This is why I asked you why I should believe it is the inerrant word of an all powerful supernatural being.
So you are saying that nothing convinces you in particular, but the story taken on the whole makes sense and you want to believe it is so. No concrete evidence. No hard details. You just want to believe the stories.
Why should I or anyone else believe the Christian Bible is the inerrant word of an all powerful supernatural being who is the creator god of this universe and all things? What would remove our doubts?
March 14, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Mr Z
You are partially correct on the issue of identifying Christians. There is an incredible amount of gray area; however, that does not mean that there are no black and white areas. The original examples given are so extreme that they can be identified.
The problem with saying that there are bad Christians is that it is redundant. I happen to believe that no one is good, Christian or Atheist.
I didn’t say that evolution has occurred since the beginning of life on this planet, I merely spoke of the earth as we know it today. I only subscribe to specific types of biological change, and I believe that some of them had a beginning distinct from the beginning of life. The arguments from order and design have the final word on the subject: life cannot exist without an original designer.
Faith is belief based on a particular type of evidence: testimony.
Proof for anything outside of abstract logical concepts, does not exist. We make decisions based on evidence, not proof. Archeological, teleological, historical, personal, testimonial and effectual evidence all play a role. My decisions are based on the weight of evidence.
March 14, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Joel, so I take it that you believe in the God of the gaps … God is used to fill in the gaps between reality and what the Bible says. Where the two disagree, you believe God just made it that way.
Theopedia.com says: Thomas Aquinas argued that because there is order and predictability in inanimate objects, which clearly cannot create order for themselves, there must be an intelligent being ordering them:
We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
The argument is based on an assumption, two actually, that objects work to an end, and that there is order in the universe. Neither is true, unless you just want to believe that your life has some greater purpose than simply to carry on your specific genetic lineage. The desire to establish a meaning to life has created all religions and that was used to justify an awful lot of evilness. There is no order in the universe, and objects simply obey the natural laws of the universe. To the universe, mankind is no more important than a pockmark on the side of Pluto. To reason that we are important above all things in the universe is to hearken back to days when the Sun was believed a perfect sphere, the Earth was believed to be flat, and all believed that all the universe revolved around the Earth.
We are not special, there is no great meaning to life, and there is no creator god. Only superstitious people could believe otherwise.
If you want meaning for your life, it’s up to you to create it for and by yourself. If you think a mythical supernatural being will give meaning to your life, you might as well carry a rabbit’s foot in your pocket. Both will do you the same amount of good.
Your continued argument that there are no bad Christians is befuddling. More confusing than that is why ‘real’ Christians don’t do more to keep their good name from being sullied. To the rest of us, you good Christians are no better than the bad ones. An individual might be ok, but ‘Christians’ as a group are the same group of people that did many bad things… even if your particular sect is not currently overtly prone to violence or oppression of non-believers.
Good luck with that. Not sure how you plan to convince anyone to be a Christian though.
March 12, 2010 at 11:29 am |
“No. I’m sorry, there is no “do not question!” doctrine. Faith is NOT blind belief, it is belief based on a testimony or a witness. Christians question. The Bible even gives a few examples of things that we should constantly question.”
I’m sorry I have to make do with a webpage, but….
http://biblenotes.homestead.com/files/bn9972.htm
Tell me how this does not relate, or cannot be interpreted or misinterpreted to “do not question”.
I appreciate that you see it from the seeker’s perspective, tho.
March 12, 2010 at 12:36 pm |
Joel, please add one more question to my short list of question that need an answer: How can the rest of us tell a real Christian from the rest of those ‘Christians’ who just claim to be Christians? Do they wear WWJD arm bands? Do they have fish on their bumpers? Do they read a certain Bible or go to a certain church? Just how are we supposed to tell them apart so that we can stop thinking the ‘real’ Christians are guilty of doing bad things.
Maybe this is why it’s so confusing for the rest of us. We don’t know what a real Christian is. Please explain.
March 11, 2010 at 11:40 pm |
Mr Z,
Whether England is officially christian or not, it is, in all practicality and actuality, a highly secular nation. With the rise of certain issues, particularly related to Islam, that may be in the beginning stages of changing.
As far as working out fairly well, I never said it was perfect. Conditions are, however, much better than in many, if not most, other places throughout history. It is, therefore, working out fairly well.
March 11, 2010 at 11:59 pm |
Your propensity for (re)defining words to meet your personal requirements makes it difficult for you to communicate with others and difficult for them to communicate with you. Just an FYI
March 12, 2010 at 11:55 am |
Wouldn’t worry too much about it, Z, God’s rules are different, changable and open to interpretation. Get used to the Calvinball. You’ll see a lot more of it, so long as the Bible exists and God Himself doesn’t clear anything up.
I never did say that they were Christian anyway, so… not an issue.
(I still cannot fathom why he says China and Britain are the best examples, tho. Perhaps they’re the best examples of the flaws of an Atheistic government… )
The inclusion of a Shariah Court in Britain’s nothing more than a political courtesy anyway. That’s a far cry from Malaysia, where the Shariah Court does indeed work alongside the main court and one can refer cases to the other. Now, in Malaysia’s case, yep, that system doesn’t seem to work right, now, does it. <_<
March 12, 2010 at 12:44 pm |
A chicken passeth by, the inclusion of Shariah courts may appear to be a political courtesy at this time, but they are paving the way for different laws for different people classes of people, categorized by religious belief. Soon the laws that protect women from abusive spouses will only apply to women of certain religions. This is why it cannot be allowed to creep into the law, even as a political courtesy. The first little bit of rolling snow is nothing to worry about … if you’re at the top of the hill.
On another note, I think your comments about Joel’s use of double standards for Christians are particularly poignant. It’s a wonder we don’t see more Christians trying to convert the bad Christians to good Christianity.
March 12, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Damn, thanks for reminding me that women don’t really have any rights in the Torah.
(I live in a land where religious harmony is enforced, and each of the major religions here have changed some of their policies to reflect that. The Torah is still valid but those laws in particular are relaxed.
We have another problem ’round here, tho. Our heads are corrupt, know it, and flaunt it and their ability to be corrupt with impunity. At least they got one thing almost right. ‘Cept for the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Falun Gong thing.)
March 12, 2010 at 2:53 pm |
Mr Z,
If you want the Bible’s opinion on how to recognize a true Christian teacher: “You will know them by their fruits.”
A Chicken,
As I have already said before England is a an example of one of the better ways a secular government can work out. Whether it can last much longer is another issue.
There is a difference between saying “do not test the Lord,” and “do not question.” I question all the time. Testing the Lord would be demanding someone of a much higher “rank” than you do something special for you, based on your own whim.
To whom it may concern,
As I said before, this may or may not be my last comment on this page.
March 12, 2010 at 5:20 pm |
Joel, actually I was asking you how to tell which are the good Christians. The Biblical answer you gave is no answer at all. (tongue in cheek, Christians apparently don’t like fruits) The Christians I’ve known don’t distinguish between good Jews and bad ones. They don’t distinguish between good Muslims and bad Muslims. You seem to think there is a distinction between good Christians and bad people who claim to be Christians, so I was asking you how the rest of us can know which are the good ones. How do you tell them apart? I can’t think of a group that has good and bad members as different classes. Once you profess Christian faith, you’re a Christian till you renounce that faith. So I’m asking for you to tell us how to tell them apart. How can we know the good Christians from those that just say they are Christians? Remember, this is about the argument that people who claim to be Christians but do bad things aren’t really Christians. The Biblical answer and the way you use it gives the rest of us leeway to dis pretty much all Christians. A large enough section of them to make the actual goodness pale in comparison.
Parables are great. Lets have a look at Mathew 7:
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (How to know which are false?)
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (Oh wait, we’ll know the false prophets by their fruits, not the good Christians? Huh?)
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. (So the Christian faith can’t bring about bad Christians? Or are we supposed to judge Christians by what they do? I think this is where we started, when you claimed they were not really Christians)
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (So I have it on good authority then, that bad men can do no good. I don’t think you have the time for me to argue with you on that one, it requires a definition of ‘corrupt tree’ and/or ‘bad men’ and you’re already pressed for time)
March 15, 2010 at 11:49 am |
Mr Z,
“The God of the gaps?” No, my worldview is selected because it fits the external evidence, internal evidence, and generally makes sense. “God just made it that way” is not a phrase I use. Everything going on around is is ridiculously complex, but that does not excuse us from studying it. We acknowledge that men built the Greek buildings whose ruins we have today, but that does not mean we do not study why, when, and how.
Order exists in the universe. This is self evident. The very fact that the universe consistently follows particular laws means necessarily that the universe is ordered.
As far as “creating our own purpose,” the idea is non-nonsensical. Even if we decide what we WANT our purpose to be, either that was what the designer purposed, or it wasn’t. So, if nature is our sole creator, and she had no purpose in mind, we cannot achieve purpose, anymore than a fork can decide that its purpose in life is as an automobile tire.
“We are not special, there is no great meaning to life, and there is no creator god. Only superstitious people could believe otherwise.”
Go on reciting your beliefs all you want, but if you do, expect nothing more from me than recitation of Bible verses. Obviously I disagree with this statement. I have refrained from calling you a blind fool for not seeing the obvious order around you, please refrain from calling me a superstitious fool; it accomplishes nothing, it is merely obnoxious.
“Your continued argument that there are no bad Christians is befuddling.”
Utterly false. I never said or implied that there are no bad Christians. All Christians are bad, as are all Atheists, Muslims, Deists… etc.
“An individual might be ok, but ‘Christians’ as a group are the same group of people that did many bad things… even if your particular sect is not currently overtly prone to violence or oppression of non-believers.”
I am realizing now that we are debating over definitions over words. When I say “Christian,” I am referring exclusively to those who hold to certain doctrines both by their words and their deeds.
March 15, 2010 at 12:54 pm |
Mr Z,
“The God of the gaps?” No, my worldview is selected because it fits the external evidence, internal evidence, and generally makes sense. …Order exists in the universe. This is self evident. The very fact that the universe consistently follows particular laws means necessarily that the universe is ordered.” BTW, what is ‘internal evidence’? The phrase ‘generally makes sense’ lends itself well to personal choices, but not so much to fact. Calculus, statistics, and a whole lot of other things do not generally make sense to many people, yet they are true and factual. Your world view is no different from those who thought the world as the center of the universe hundreds of years ago, with the minor exception of changes in theology to fit current science; god of the gaps.
It is said by some that chaos has an order to it. It’s still chaos and without purpose.
“So, if nature is our sole creator, and she had no purpose in mind, we cannot achieve purpose, anymore than a fork can decide that its purpose in life is as an automobile tire.”
You again seem to be mixing definitions. in this case ‘divine purpose’ and the general definition: something set up as an object or end to be attained. Purpose can indeed be achieved by mankind on it’s own, as in: I want to be remembered as a good person, or I want to be a rock star.
“I have refrained from calling you a blind fool for not seeing the obvious order around you, please refrain from calling me a superstitious fool; it accomplishes nothing, it is merely obnoxious.”
Refrained, except for just then. I did not use the word fool, nor imply it. Again, what ‘obvious’ order are you talking about? Why should it be attributed to a supernatural being? Is this ‘blind fool’ part of how you convince others to follow Christ?
“I am realizing now that we are debating over definitions over words. When I say “Christian,” I am referring exclusively to those who hold to certain doctrines both by their words and their deeds.”
The speed with which you came to this conclusion may explain some of your beliefs. When you communicate with others, it is always helpful to use the same definitions as they do, or be explicit in what you mean. The rest of the world refers to Christians as any who claim to be Christian, or profess belief in the Christian faith. This is without regard to how well the adhere to the tenants of that faith or religion.
I have yet to understand why it is that you think others should believe as you do.
March 17, 2010 at 2:44 am |
[...] to say ‘no.’ Join the conversation — if you’re up for it — at The BEAttitude. (Caveat: This one is not exactly a Christian blog. Not even [...]
March 23, 2010 at 11:59 pm |
Doesn’t seem to be contradictory to me…?
April 5, 2010 at 9:31 pm |
Well, after reading this through a few times, the contradition is in whether John the Baptist was spared through public opinion or whether he was spared because Herod could genuinely see that he was holy.
If the former, John may not necessarily be holy, inasmuch that Madoff lasted so long without persecution because everyone thought he was a genius investor.
July 10, 2010 at 6:47 am |
Beattitude – Accidents…
I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…