Try reading Exodus from the point of view of an Egyptian farmer, Genesis from the POV of a Shechemite's daughter. Try reading Joshua as a citizen of Jericho. Think what the destruction of Gomorrah felt like to a five-year-old. Imagine yourself as a parent, trying desperately to save your children from the Flood. Imagine you're one of Job's children, with the house flying apart around you in a wind-storm, seeing no way you're going to get out alive. What would it be like to die in agony in the act of child-birth, knowing that this is a curse set upon you to punish the actions of a woman who died thousands of years before you were born? How would it feel to hold your stillborn baby in your arms as the priest tells you that the baby's soul is consigned to Hell as a consequence of that original sin, because there wasn't time to baptise it?
All the acts, so we're told, of a loving god. Because… erm, he says so.
Hey, I've got this bridge for sale. Interested?
—Daz
You may use these HTML tags in comments<a href="" title=""></a> <abbr title=""></abbr>
<acronym title=""></acronym> <blockquote></blockquote> <del></del>* <strike></strike>† <em></em>* <i></i>† <strong></strong>* <b></b>†
* is generally preferred over †
That would be a damn good plotline!
I’m not sure. Sounds a bit Cecil B DeMille to me…
Quite the opposite. Series of shorts telling the story from some innocent bastards point of view.
Ah I see what you mean. Yeah, great plot.
Like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead with Hamlet going on in the background, except shorter and perhaps less obvious… until the cataclysm unexpectedly comes.
Stonyground:
A while ago I seem to recall that schools somewhere were using the Lego Brick Bible to teach RE to kids. Parents and teachers noticed for the first time that the Bible is unsuitable for children and then blamed the makers of the Lego Bible for making an apparently children friendly Bible without taking out all the sex and violence.
Yes, but the rest of the story is that the divine Jesus died on the cross to take our judgment and ANYBODY who will can receive that free gift if they want to.
Jericho was a Canaanite city which worshiped idols, was a rat’s nest of incestuous relationships, and who offered their children up to Molech to be sacrificed in the fire. (Exodus 18)
You appear to miss my point, or at least the one I’ve made many times on this blog. That ‘gift’ you mention is merely your alleged god allowing a method of avoiding the unjust punishment which he built into the system in the first place.
And, from the point of view of a Canaanite, the Israelites were those who worshipped a false god. Oh, and Abraham seems to have been perfectly willing to make the same sacrifice.
So now please do what I asked in the OP. Don’t judge the Jericho citizen’s character from your point of view as a Christian. Look at the Israelites and their ‘false god,’ and their attack on your city from the point of view of that citizen.
Daz, I think you’re brilliant. I also think I could debate with you until I’m old and wrinkled and never be able to convince you that God is good, or that he provided an extraordinary way to redeem humanity.
Did you know that the shepherds in Bethlehem had the special role of watching over the flock of sheep that were being prepared for the temple sacrifice? These sheep were birthed in the tower of Edar and had to be without blemish. Therefore these little lambs were always wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger so they wouldn’t injure themselves while their little legs were wobbly.
The angels proclaimed to the shepherds: “This will be a sign to you. You will find a babe laying in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes.” The shepherds knew exactly where Jesus would be found after this announcement. He would be found in the place where lambs were being prepared for sacrifice.
When the Israelites were in bondage in Egypt, the only way that a family (Jewish or Egyptian) could be spared from the death angel was by placing the blood of a lamb on the doorpost. This act of salvation was to be commemorated each year by the celebration of the Feast of Passover. The Lamb was a major part of the Jewish faith.
Isaiah 53:7 says that the messiah would be bought as a lamb to the slaughter. John the Baptist declared, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!”
On the road to Emmaus, after Jesus was resurrected, the two men said their “heart burned within them” as Jesus explained how the Old Testament spoke of Him.
God’s plan of salvation would take centuries to unfold through the history of the Jewish people.
Would you be willing to learn more about the many ways Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets before you reject Him?
Yes I did, thanks. And we’ve discussed Isaiah before, I seem to remember. Have you since earned a PhD in physics, and are returning to explain to me the mechanics of prophecy; of the receipt of information from the future? Have you perhaps returned to explain to me how allegedly god-given free will is possible in the deterministic universe which would be required for prophecy to work?
Or would you perhaps be willing to stay on-topic, and place your own beliefs to one side for a minute in order to look at the world honestly through someone else’s eyes; specifically those of the people I mention in the OP?
What about the God who watches a baby be sacrificed to a god? Or watches a little girl be abused by a man who wants to use her to get off? Or the slave who has a whip applied to his back?
Do you want a God who ignores their cries? Where is the justice in that?
Unfortunately, children are under the authority of their parents and leaders. If Kim Jong-Un lobbed a nuclear missile at Japan or South Korea, and war was declared, the little children of North Korea are going to suffer. Why? Because the North Korean leaders were idiots and didn’t heed the warnings.
The parents in Noah’s day were violent and immoral. Noah preached to them for 100 years and told them that a deluge was coming. They could have received his message, but they didn’t. Instead they ridiculed and scorned him. And their children died. Noah’s children didn’t.
In the meantime, Jesus said “let the little children come unto me.” He loves little children, and when men reject the message of salvation, and continue in their hurtful ways, if their children die, they come into his arms. (I don’t care what a Catholic priest says, most of their doctrine doesn’t come from the Bible.)
Unfortunately, children suffer the same penalty as their parents. I just went through a financial difficulty and my children suffered also. Job came under attack from the devil and his children suffered too. Women get pregnant and decide they don’t want their baby and terminate their pregnancies. It’s their decision. They had the authority over their children.
The same is true with leadership. Pharoah decided to ignore the warnings from Moses and the little farmers in his nation suffered. What if he had just let the Israelites go? Nobody would have suffered.
What about you? You seem to know about Jesus and how he paid the penalty for your sins and how he longs to redeem you, but you scorn him, mock him, and reject his offer. God is the source of light, goodness, and all that’s satisfying, and when you don’t want to be with him, then you decide you want darkness, evil, and emptiness. It’s your choice, but God did all he could to make a way for you to be with Him.
No no no, you’re still avoiding the issue. I didn’t say “Pharoah,” I said “Egyptian farmer.” And so on.
And I didn’t ask what the justification for God’s actions was, I asked you to look through the eyes of an innocent caught up in his machinations; and by implication, I asked whether they would see that god and his followers as ‘all-loving.’
(Oh and as a bonus, regarding Pharoah; the Bible says that God deliberately hardened the Pharoah’s heart and prevented him letting the Israelites go, then proceeded to punish both the Pharoah and his innocent and powerless subjects for the very act which he had forced him into. This is morally justified how, exactly?)
To take your second point:
Indeed, I know about the story. The fiction. The myth.
Why do I reject his offer? Because it’s not real. He doesn’t exist. His offer doesn’t exist. Your very phrasing—would you claim that I ‘rejected’ an offer made by Harry Potter?—shows that you don’t believe my statement of disbelief, deep down, but I assure you it’s true.
Why do I scorn and mock him and his offer? What I mock is the idea. He and his father who is also him, as presented in the Bible, are not merciful. They are not all-loving. They are not kind. They are nothing but bullying control-freaks running a universe-sized protection-racket. What I mock is the obscene idea that the god presented in the Bible would be in any way worthy of obedience, praise or worship.
Stonyground:
“Would you be willing to learn more about the many ways Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets before you reject Him?”
Would you be willing to Diana? The notion that the acts of Jesus fulfilled any Old Testament prophesies was demolished over two hundred years ago, I would particularly refer you to this essay:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/paine/proph.htm
The Gospels simply took random OT verses out of context and wrote fictional accounts of Jesus doing something that was supposedly predicted by those verses. You don’t have to take my word for it, the essay gives chapter and verse on every single example so that you can easily verify what is said. A real give-away is the way in which so many of these supposed predictions about the future are in the past tense. My answer to your question is that I have learned everything I need to know by studying the matter in considerable detail.
Daz,
Are you seriously calling Jesus a mythological figure?
When you read the gospels and see Jesus, do you see a control freak?
Liz671,
Thomas Paine is not an expert on the scriptures. It’s very easy to counter so many of his arguments!
For example, he says about Isaiah 53:
“It is no exclusive description to say of a person, as is said of the person Isaiah is lamenting in this chapter, He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. This may be said of thousands of persons, who have suffered oppressions and unjust death with patience, silence, and perfect resignation.”
But Isaiah 53 also says this person was “wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.” (v. 5) It also says the Lord shalt make his soul “an offering for sin” and that the righteous servant “shall justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” (v. 10)
This can not be said of thousands of persons! None of us are righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10) except Jesus. He alone was the righteous servant who took the penalty for our sins.
Paine also says of Isaiah 9:2:
“The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”
He explains:
“All this is historical, and not in the least prophetical. The whole is in the preter tense: it speaks of things that had been accomplished at the time the words were written, and not of things to be accomplished afterwards.”
Isaiah 9 is about how the darkness that came upon Zebulun and Naphtali, and even Galilee, shall be in the past because they, who walked in the dark, will see a great light. They shall come out from under the rod of oppression. How? Verse 6 and 7 explain how:
“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His government and its peace will never end. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity.”
This is clearly a messianic prophecy!
Paine was a deist. He believed in a Newtonian god who wound up the universe like a clock and let it go. To say that God was now interjecting Jesus into the picture didn’t fit in with his world view, so he grasped at straws to try to discredit the gospels, but he failed to convince any studious biblical scholar that these were not actual messianic prophecies mentioned in the gospels.
Please consider learning more about the amazing light of the world, who was the lamb of God, that takes away your sins if you just receive as a gift what he completed on the cross.
Diana, this is the most important point, regarding the subject introduced in my OP, and the one you have yet to address. Please answer the question implied by the OP:
How would you view the god of the Israelites if you were in the positions of those I use as examples?
I’m not looking for justifications of, excuses for or explanations of Yahweh’s and his followers’ behaviour and actions. I’m merely asking you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a minute or two; to view the world through a different lens, even if only hypothetically. We call the ability to do this “empathy” and it could quite easily be said to be one of the major defining characteristics of the human species.
And it is certainly the basis for morality – unless you can’t do it and have to get your morals from a book!
O.K. Daz,
I’ve thought about your “Egyptian farmer” challenge and this is how I would respond:
The Egyptian farmer was probably very frightened by the frogs, lice, flies, hail, bloody river, dead cattle, and so on, but in the end I think the Egyptian farmer saw three things about the conflict between the Pharaoh (who claimed to be a god) and the God of the Israelites.
1. The Israelite God was a god who cared about his people enough to set them free from slavery.
2. The Pharaoh god held the Israelites in slavery and put a whip to their back.
3. The Israelite God was more powerful than the Pharaoh god.
Perhaps the Egyptian farmer would now question the power and authority of the tyrannical Pharaoh and not be living in fear of his power any more.
Praise God! Yahweh not only set the Israelites free, but he also set the Egyptians free from the bondage of a false god.
Even though it seemed frightening for a time, I think the Egyptian farmer was intelligent enough to make these connections after the whole ordeal was over, don’t you?
What is “love” for the Egyptian farmer in this situation? The status quo, or the revelation to the Egyptians of a God who cares by having a very public showdown with the Pharaoh?
O.K. Daz,
I’ve thought about your “Schechemite Daughter” challenge and this is how I would respond:
Yes, initially the daughter of the Schechemite would have been very frightened by the Israelites who killed the Schechemite males. She may have weeped and cried and feared for her life. But then a new scenario may have developed as she realized three things.
1.) The Israelites rescued their sister, Dinah, from her Schechemite rapist and kidnapper.
2.) The Schechemites practiced incestuous sexual relationships. They put no guardrails around their sexual activity. As the rape of Dinah revealed, they satisfied their sexual urges through power relationships, rather than through love relationships. As Canaanites, they also practiced child sacrifice, especially to the god Molech. (Leviticus 18 discusses this.)
3.) The Israelites killed the Schechemite men–those who were abusing the Schechimite women and children.
4.) The Schechemite women were now taken in by the Israelites and were living under the protection of Israelite law which didn’t allow incestuous relationships or child sacrifice.
Praise God! The Schechumite daughter was set free from her horrible circumstances! She was given protection and her children were protected and safe also.
What is “love” for the Schechemite daughter in this situation? Is it the status quo, or is it her deliverance by the hands of people who believe in a God who cares for women and children?
Did God lack empathy or act immorally toward the Schechemite daughter?
Okay, the Egyptian farmer:
The Egyptian farmer would have been extremely lucky to survive the famine caused by the widespread, almost total, loss of livestock, crops and clean drinking water, coupled with massive outbreaks of disease. This, I venture to suggest, makes “very frightened” pale somewhat into understatement.
You’re still ultimately avoiding the question. Would you, could you, see a god who purposefully starved you, your spouse, your children, servants and slaves to death, as “all-loving”?
And the Schechemite Daughter.
Let’s be clear here. She would not be “protected.” As with most tribes at that time, the Israelites would have slaughtered all men of fighting age in the village. According to the Bible, they also slaughtered all the boy-children. Depending on the accuracy of the story, it’s possible they were “merely” forced into slavery. All women who had “known men” would be slaughtered. All other women would be raped by the victors—a wartime-occurence which survived unchallenged until very recently (read this little Shakespearian gem, for instance). They would then be forced into marriage and/or slavery and./or used as concubines. The only “protection” they would receive would be that their male owner would fight to keep other men off his property.
Wow, Daz,
First of all, you have no proof of what happened to they Egyptians after the Exodus. Neither you, nor I, know whether they starved when the Israelites left. All I know about Egypt is that it was never the same again. Perhaps there was a quick recovery from the ordeal. We know that the Israelites (through Joseph) taught the Egyptians to store grain for a time of trouble.
I would also like to take issue with your characterization of the way the people of Israel treated the strangers in their midst.
God demanded that the Jews treat the foreigners, aliens, strangers among them with respect. Beginning with the idea that they were to “love their neighbor” (Lev. 19:18), they were also commanded to “love the stranger in your midst” (Lev. 19:34), have the stranger “rest on the Sabbath” just as the Jew rested (Lev. 25:6), and God said that he, himself, ensures that “orphans and widows receive justice. He shows love to the foreigners living among you and gives them food and clothing. So you, too, must show love to foreigners, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.” (Deut. 10:18-19).
Women and little ones were not to be treated harshly. They were to be taken in as family and be loved and cared for by the Israelites. They weren’t turned into slaves. Women were treated as though they could be married, just as a Jewish woman. There are many instances where Jewish men had children with Canaanite women. One example was “Shaul.” He was the son of Simeon, and his name means “asked of God.” (Not a second-rate citizen.)
I believe it was loving for God to deliver the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and to reveal to the ancient world that they were worshipping false Gods who cared nothing for them except to be their cruel taskmaster.
I believe it was loving for God to use the event of the Exodus to reveal Jesus to us in a way that’s symbolic — as a type and shadow of the work of the Savior. Jesus was, symbolically, our Passover lamb. He is also our manna from heaven, sustaining us daily. He rescues us from the bondage of sin and death. The whole gospel is right there in the Exodus!
Yes, amazing love! How can it be, that you, my King, would die for me?
“Wow!” indeed. You have a way of avoiding unpleasant facts which is simply breathtaking. No doubt you had, as a child, a colouring-book of Bible-scenes, containing a picture of a few Egyptians standing around looking a bit sad, with the occasional unburst boil on nose or neck. Maybe a few Israelites could be seen scarpering in the distance. I highly doubt it contained a rotting cow-carcass, crawling with maggots and enveloped in a cloud of flies, for instance, or a swarm of locusts so dense that it obscured those fleeing Israelites.
Throw that picture away.
Take a large civilisation which relies completely for its subsistence on a very narrow strip of land to either side of a river. Exchange every drop of water in that river for biomass in the form of blood.
Result 1: no drinking water; or water for hygiene, which is going to be almost as important, given what’s coming next.
Result 2: huge swarms of disease-carrying insects will invade the area, feeding off that biomass.
result 3: Assuming the blood is human, any bacteria which breed in the human bloodstream will be given a huge new breeding-ground.
Yahweh doesn’t really have to put in much effort to create the plague of pestilence. It mostly created itself from the conditions engendered by the plague of blood, adding all that rotting cattle-flesh—which itself provides food for even more species of insect and microbial life.
Given that all humans in the area are now covered in huge open sores from the plague of boils, and are weakened from lack of food and water, we can all pretty much guess what the consequences of this “loving act” of God would be, had it actually happened.
Part, the second: Strangers In Our Midst.
Why is it that people who claim to read the Bible literally never read the Bible literally?
Do you really believe, that the word “stranger” with no gender-qualifier would have been taken to mean a woman? I completely agree that God gives such instructions regarding strangers; taken by mutual assumption to mean male strangers. (Indeed, if I recall correctly, it was unkindness to strangers which was the major sin of Sodom and Gomorrah; homophobes’ re-interpretations notwithstanding.)
Oh? Try this for size:
Do you imagine that their eyes met across a crowded ballroom, love blossomed at first sight? Did a nightingale sing in Berkeley Square?
I invite you to consider, literally (hah!), the much-used expression “took her as his wife.”
If the Israelite men had raped the women, they would have broken God’s law. (Deuteronomy 22:25-26)
And yes, I believe there could have been a love connection. Who knows?
As you indicate, “took,” can mean more than kidnap and rape. For example:
“Do you, Greg Lesperance, TAKE Diana Lesperance to be thy wedded wife?”
I wasn’t raped or kidnapped. I was a very willing participant.
The Song of Solomon is a love song that was written about a gentile (Shulamite) woman and Solomon, the son of the Jewish King David. It’s not so far-fetched that an attraction could occur between a gentile woman and a Jewish man.
Right now there are 2 major criminal cases in the news in America:
One involves a woman (Jodi Arias) who violently murdered her boyfriend, stabbing him 27 times, cutting his throat from ear to ear, and shooting him with a gun in the forehead.
The other case involves a man named Ariel Castro who kidnapped, raped, and held three girls hostage in his home for a decade.
Both are stories of violence and one involves sexual perversion. The outrage of the citizens in America is palpable. The media interviews people who are rejoicing that the jury found Arias guilty of pre-meditated first-degree murder. They interview daughters and uncles who say they are ashamed of their criminal relative.
We also had a terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon. It was very violent. Many people had their legs blown off. The city rejoiced when the perpetrators were caught.
The main complaint mentioned against the Canaanite culture was that it was violent and sexually corrupt. This was the fruit of worshiping evil gods. Most people would agree there is a need for justice. They cry out for it, just like the blood of Abel, who was murdered by his brother, Cain.
I find it extremely troubling that you would rather maintain the status quo and allow violence and evil to continue, accusing God of being like a god who produced rape, slavery, and violence — when God was the opposite of Molech, Baal, Isis, etc . . He was setting people free from rape, violence, and slavery!
Your view of the past appears to me to be more like a Disney cartoon than reality. I’m afraid I do not have the slightest idea how to disabuse you of your habit of viewing past culture through your Enlightenment + Feminist + Christian lens.
The main complaint against the Canaanite culture was that it was situated on real-estate which the Israelites wanted to occupy. The main excuse was that the Canaanites worshipped a different god than they did. And the people Yawheh was allegedly setting free were the Israelites. They were as perfectly happy with slavery, viewing women as property yada yada as any other culture in the time and region. As long as it wasn’t them being enslaved, of course.
Oddly, it isn’t atheists who shoot abortion-doctors, want homosexuals treated as second-class citizens, fly aircraft into buildings, plant bombs to “make a point” etc, now is it? No, it’s those who claim to follow the commands of a god; most often the very same god of Abraham who you claim loves peace and harmony.
I use words, nothing more. I do not try to bar you from political office for believing in gods. I do not claim that you are a traitor to your country, or try to impose my views on you by force of law. I don’t make children recite poems every day whose theme is that there is no god. I don’t try to force bullshit into school-lessons in the guise of “science.”
You’re a Christian. The icon of your faith is a man being tortured to death to appease a god, and yet you claim to oppose violence and human sacrifice?
Just want to address this again:
I find it extremely troubling that my not turning for help to a being in whose existence I do not believe should be equated to preferring violence. You might want to rethink the internal logic of your statement.
Hi Daz,
Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Isn’t it a fact that Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were mocked and persecuted for their heliocentric view of the universe? They had evidence for their position, but the Catholic Church had already adopted the Aristotelian geocentric view and rejected the evidence of these scientists out of pride. (Especially since the heliocentric view was being supported by the Protestants.)
You question God’s goodness in setting the people of Israel free from a dictatorial tyrant god (kind of like Kim Jong-Un) who was putting a whip to their back. And your justification for thinking God was evil is that you think the Egyptian farmer MAY HAVE been starved (without any evidence to that fact), therefore God is evil, unjust, and unloving.
Do you think it’s wrong to put kidnappers and rapists in prison because their children might be humiliated or destitute as a result? (Western civilizations generally care for the children of criminals.)
You can’t look at a criminal who’s receiving a penalty, and point to the judge and say he’s evil for convicting and sentencing them! (Especially when the law and the consequences have been laid out ahead of time.)
You may not choose to believe in God . . . and you have your reasons (bless your heart), but honestly, if you would rather that God had not set the Israelites free because of some perceived harm that may have come upon the Egyptian farmer, then you ARE preferring the maintenance of the status quo of tyrannical violence over the miraculous deliverance of those in slavery by their loving God, Yahweh.
Do you not see the logic in this?
‘Ello Diana
Indeed. But the opposite is also true, and the weight of, or rather weight of lack of evidence would seem to point to mine being the more sensible position.
And, by the way, I do not choose to believe or not to believe. My beliefs are dictated by the available evidence, and thus I have no choice, unless I wish to delude myself.
No I do not. I question his methods. I look at the fact (according to the Bible) that he prevents the Pharaoh from letting them go, and then punishes him for not letting them go. I look at his punishment of ordinary Egyptians, who have no control over the situation, for the acts thus forced upon the Pharaoh. I look at these things and perceive them to be immoral acts on the part of Yahweh, even if he accomplishes a morally good thing at the same time. To mangle a well-known sophistry, he’s not merely breaking a few unavoidable eggs, he’s purposefully smashing a two-dozen box-full to make a two-egg omelette.
Regardless if any starved or succumbed to disease or not, they were still unjustly punished for things not of their doing. Still, I can see no other outcome to such a disaster as that described as the plagues of Egypt. Destroying all the sources of fresh water and even just “most” of the food, and introducing huge amounts of animal-derived biomass which could do nothing but immediately begin to rot, could have no other effect.
Of course I don’t. What I keep trying to make you see is that the Israelites, just like all the other tribes, would not have “cared for” the children of their vanquished enemies, in any way that the Western civilisations you mention would define “care.” They were no worse than those other tribes, I’ll grant you, but neither is there any reason to suppose that they were any better. That’s just how life was at the time. Nasty and brutal.
This statement is even more confused in its logic than the previous time you made it.
A hypothetical: Suppose I said to you “You must be in favour of allowing earthquakes to happen, because you refuse to ask Harry Potter for help, even though I assure you that HP knows a spell for stopping earthquakes.”
Would you not feel justified in pointing out to me that it’s perfectly possible to wish to stop the destruction caused by earthquakes even though you believe Harry Potter to be nothing but a fictional character who can’t actually do anything to help, what with not really existing, an’ all?
Would you not, in fact, want to tell me that my time spent trying to contact HP and ask for his help, might be better employed in the seismology department of a university, where I might actually accomplish some real good?
I HAVE asked you to receive as a gift what Jesus did for you on the cross, but the main purpose of my comments here has been to defend the character of God.
I guess “evidence” and the abundance or “lack” thereof must lie in the eyes of the beholder.
I see extensive evidence for the existence of God.
I see it in archaeology, which has only confirmed everything in the Bible.
I see it in prophecy (regardless of what Thomas Paine claims). Hundreds of prophecies have come true.
I see it in the way the scriptures were written (66 books that are all unified in thought and purpose, yet written by so many different authors in different times and places).
I see it in changed lives — such as John Newton, the slave trader who turned to Christ and consequently worked to rid the world of slavery.
I see it in the heroic actions of those who love and serve Jesus–the great William Wilberforce of your nation, for example–who worked tirelessly to rid the British Empire of the slave trade.
I see it in the great advances of science that have been wrought by those who loved God. (Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Bacon, and on and on and on.)
I see evidence in the heroic lives of those who countered the religious tyranny of the medieval Catholic church. (Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Huss.)
I see it in the lives of the great missionaries who traveled to the ends of the earth and rid the world of cannibalism, widow burning, and tribal warfare.
I see evidence of God in the great writings of those who laid the foundation for free society — such as Locke or Montesquieu.
I see evidence of God in my own life. I was an unwed mother who grew up in a home where sexual and physical abuse occurred. I had no self esteem or worth. I have children from three men. I’m not standing before you as a self-righteous religious prig. I stand before you as a grateful soul who was transformed by the love of God.
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
Oh dear. We’ve been here before, I seem to remember.
And the aim of sceptical-reasoning is to try, as far as possible, to correct or biases in the eye of the beholder. In short, evidence should be testable, for it to have any reasonable value.
Citation really really needed.
Still an’ all, even if such evidence was as abundant as you claim, it would only point to the actions and beliefs of those involved in the events. It would add not a jot of support for the existence of Yahweh, the object of those beliefs, or that Jesus was anything more than a perfectly human man who merely claimed to be Yahweh’s son.
Then you go on to cite a lot of people who’ve done some good stuff. Which, again, doesn’t provide a jot of evidence that the object of their beliefs exists.
Oh, and tribal warfare based around religious sentiment appears to be very much with us, to this day. Just thought I’d mention that.
And I stand before you as a person who grew up equally abused, though violently, not sexually. I also have managed to overcome this bad beginning, and yet I never needed to turn to a god to do so. (I also try not to make a habit of using my abuse in debate: it strikes me too much as a method of trying to make the opposition uncomfortable about answering.) And, again, your belief in a god may well have helped you through such times, but that is not evidence for the existence of the object of that belief.
“Oddly, it isn’t atheists who shoot abortion-doctors, want homosexuals treated as second-class citizens, fly aircraft into buildings, plant bombs to “make a point” etc, now is it? No, it’s those who claim to follow the commands of a god; most often the very same god of Abraham who you claim loves peace and harmony.”
First of all, Muslims worship Allah, not Yahweh. Allah is not the god of Abraham.
Secondly, you seem to have a case of pointing out the sliver in a brother’s eye when you have a log in your own.
Atheist communists have ravaged the planet over the last century. Have you never heard of the “gulag?” Have you never heard of the “killing fields” of Cambodia? Have you never heard of Tienanmen Square?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
You say that my “view of the past appears to me to be more like a Disney cartoon than reality.” I would say that is the pot calling the kettle black.
You live in a comfortable western society which has been formed and developed by those who served and loved Jesus, yet you would reject Him who is the source of your blessings. (Political and religious freedom, scientific advances, education, medicine, and on and on.)
Truly, evidence lies in the eyes of the beholder.
(I posted a similar comment, but it must have been lost in cyber-space, so I rewrote my comment.)
“All the acts, so we’re told, of a loving god.”
An angel’s smile is what you sell
You promise me heaven, then put me through Hell
~Jon Bon Jovi
‘Peace upon earth!’ was said. We sing it,
And pay a million priests to bring it.
After two thousand years of mass
We’ve got as far as poison-gas.
—Thomas Hardy
Diana
Sorry, you got caught in Word-Press’s spam-trap. Don’t know why.
Could you please point to any of those atrocities which you believe to have been committed in the name of atheism, rather than just by atheists?
I ask because all the things I mentioned were not merely done by religious people, but either in the name of religion itself or with religion used as an excuse. Oddly, “In the name of a lack of gods!” is a battle-cry I’ve yet to come across.
Nor do I contend that religion has never been used as a reason to do good; just that the good done in its name is generally done in order to correct a wrong which it caused or excused in the first place.
Want to oppress women? “Eve’s sin.”
Abortion’s bad because there’s a “soul” which enters at conception. (No, you can’t see it, but it’s there; just take our word for it.)
Want to oppress black people? “Descendants of Ham.”
Want to oppress homosexuals? Leviticus to the rescue!
Don’t like condoms? Tell the poor uneducated sods that the AIDS virus somehow migrates through “little holes” in latex, which oddly still manages to trap the thousands-of-times-smaller water molecule.
Want to default on a debt? Don’t worry, the lender is a Jewish Christ-killer; just chuck him out of the country or kill him. And his wife. And his kids.
Catholic emancipation! Woohoo! Oh, except it was the state religion which made the Catholics second-class citizens in the first place.
For God and country! Go get blown to smithereens, lads!
The list goes on, and is soaked in the blood of the innocent.
Oh and this:
You need to catch up on your Comparative Religion homework. And, yes, Jesus is considered to be a prophet in Islam.
I think this is a good response to anyone claiming that god is good.
Hi Daz,
It’s been a while. Life takes over sometimes.
In regards to Allah vs. Yahweh, just because Muhammed claimed Abraham as his own doesn’t make it so.
Jesus must be a false prophet to Muslims because he claimed to be the son of God, yet they don’t accept his claim. This makes him a false prophet to them, doesn’t it?
I believe that most genocides are committed by those who are trying to bring about their own version of utopia. For some it might be a theocracy. For some it might be a “worker’s paradise.”
Why do you think the Israelites had a whip on their back? Because the Pharaoh had his own vision of glory and paradise.
Why do you think Marxist communism is so appealing to young idealists? It offers hope for the construction and ordering of a just world.
Why do you think Calvin ruled with an iron rod in Geneva? It was to construct his vision of an ordered society around Old Testament law.
Think about the motives of Mao-tse Tung, Hitler, Stalin, or any other number of tyrannical leaders. They promised hope and heaven on earth.
All of these men tried to construct a society according to their own vision of paradise.
Rather than religion or non-religion being the source of genocide, I believe it’s the pursuit of paradise which drives humanity to sink such low levels of human behavior.
Paradise was lost at Eden–and somehow we WILL get it back . . . no matter who or what gets in the way.
No worries
In regards to Jesus, just because Christians claim he was the son of God does not make it so.
In regards to Abraham, just because all three religions claim that he worshipped the one true god does not make it so.
See where I’m going with this?
Well all I can say is that they don’t seem to see it that way. Of course, if you have concrete, testable evidence in support of any of the above conjectures, we could clear up three-quarters of the world’s sectarian struggles in one fell swoop…
I completely agree with your second comment above. I merely choose to make my battle against the religious forms of idealism.
The problem is that you choose to oppose ALL forms of religion, lumping them together as though they were all the same, and as though all religions produced the same fruit.
I believe there is one religion that has produced beautiful fruit. It has produced most of the advances in western civilization. And even the advances in the rest of the world can in many ways be attributed to this religion.
Where did Locke get his ideas on religious toleration? From his faith and the Bible.
How did Paine support his revolutionary essay, “Common Sense?” The Bible.
Why did Isaac Newton study the universe? To find the mind of God in His creation.
What did Martin Luther King, Jr. use to argue for civil rights? The Bible.
Who helped to overthrow the corrupt Catholic theocracy? Luther, Huss, Tyndale, Wycliffe, et. al. — all standing on the words found in the Bible.
How was cannibalism, infanticide, and widow burning banished from the planet? By the influence and work of those who carried the good news of the Bible.
What did Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect use to support their antislavery position? The Bible.
I could go on and on.
If a tree is known by its fruit, as Jesus said, then those who hungered and thirsted for goodness and kindness found a resting place in the branches of the tree of life–the gospel. The fruit of this tree has been the redemption of slaves, rescuing abandoned children, caring for the sick and needy, opposing irrational religion, advances in political freedom, educational advances, medical advances, scientific advances and even peace and prosperity.
Most of the great men and heroes of history have believed in and lived for this religion.
There is a difference in the fruit produced by different ideologies, philosophies, and religions and I think the fruit produced by Christianity has the greatest track record.
I think you’re being a little unfair here. Certainly I choose to attack the basis of that idealism: the unproven claim that a god exists, wishes for us to act in certain ways, and is worthy of obedience. Most of my posts, though, are slanted much more toward the scriptural literalists who would force young-earth creationism into schools, and scriptural law into secular law etc.
The above post is a perfect example. Those who don’t take their Bible to be literally true have no need to defend the acts therein. Those, if they exist, who claim literal truth but not that god is all-loving and perfect, also have no reason to defend those acts. Only those who claim perfection, omni-benevolence and a literally true Bible find themselves in the position of defending the indefensible; and that section of believers also happens to contain most of those who do the most harm in the name of their faith.
At the end of the day, though, ramblings on the morality of gods is something of a side-issue. As a secularist, my main point is, and always will be, that untested or untestable statements like “God doesn’t want gays to marry each other” should not be the basis for law.
And I happen to live in a country which has a privileged state church: which means that all members of that church are being treated as “more equal” than me. Do I not have the right to point out that this is unfair, especially given the unproven basis (“god”) of their belief?
Are you saying that all those people who did good things would not have done them without belief in a god? That a curious person would not investigate the world around them unless they could frame it as “investigating God’s universe”? Are you saying that MLK would not have noticed that he and his fellows were being persecuted, and felt the need to do something about that, unless their obvious lack of equal rights hadn’t been pointed out to him by a god?
Most of those people would have lived at a time when such belief was so institutionalised that to challenge it would seem unthinkable. Indeed, professed atheism would have seen many them burned/sacked/ostracised etc. Newton, for example, had to keep his disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity secret.
Still an’ all, you’ll find some quite exhaustive lists, including philosophers and scientists, linked from this page, which point rather glaringly to the fact that belief in gods is not necessary to be good, clever or inventive.
Diana, I second Daz here. If you really have archaeological evidence for the veracity of the Bible I, and countless others, would very much like to see it.
I am an archaeologist. Though based in London, I have worked in Israel on many sites and have seen nothing to support the supernatural claims made by your, or any other Abrahamic religion.
I have read, extensively, pretty much every book and journal regarding both the Judaic (OT) and Christian (NT) periods and can honestly say there is not a shred of evidence that would suppose such accounts are anything other than myth.
If you have evidence to the contrary I would be grateful if you could enlighten us.
Yep. Thought not!
Remigius, if you fancy doing a guest post on the subject…
I have had a very hectic week. As I might have mentioned before I’m the mother of 8 kids, so I do this as a passion whenever I find time between dishes and laundry.
In response to Remigius:
Here is a short list of archaeological finds that confirm the truthfulness of the Bible:
1. References to the “House of David” and the “king of Israel” on the Mesha Stele.
2. The Behistun Rock, which helped to translate near-east inscriptions that over and over have confirmed the Bible.
3. The discovery of Hittite monuments and documents (historical critics had always pointed to the Hittites as Biblical “myths”).
4. The Lachish Ostraca, which confirmed the truth of the Babylonian captivity. 5. Seventeen thousand cuneiform tablets at Elba which confirm the existence of writing before the time of Moses (critics had said Moses couldn’t have written the Pentateuch because writing wasn’t in existence).
6. Razors found in Egyptian tombs that proved Joseph shaved (when critics scoffed at Genesis 41:14 saying that it wasn’t possible because razors didn’t exist).
7.Cuneiform records from the excavated libraries of Assyrian kings which confirm the Biblical record of the thirty-nine Kings of ancient Israel and Judah. 8. A clay prism describing Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah.
9. The discovery of the Egyptian cities Pithom and Ramses (whose buildings have a layer of bricks that have less straw in them, just as Exodus 5 claims).
10. Four clay cylinders in the city of Ur which confirm the existence of King Belshazzar.
11. The Black Obelisk of Shamaneser which confirms the existence of the Israeli King Jehu.
12. The Siloam Tunnel Inscription which confirms the biblical story that a reservoir was constructed in anticipation of the siege of Assyria.
13. The Cyrus Cylinder.
14. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which include the messianic prophecies were written before Jesus lived.
15. The excavation of Gezer. 16. The historical accuracy of the book of Luke. 16, The discovery of Jericho with the walls collapsed from the inside out. (In spite of what Kathleen Kenyon says.)
I could go on and on and on. The historical truthfulness of the stories in the Bible have been confirmed repeatedly.
This is Remigius’ bailiwick, really, so I’ll leave the bulk of it to him.
Re the Mesha Stele. Oddly enough, I posted a video the other day which addresses this. The first of the three on this post.
I hadn’t realised that there had been any kerfuffle over razors. I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall claims that flint razors had been found from the stone age, though I might be misremembering a statement about “sharp enough to shave with.” Either way, proving that someone might have shaved is hardly going to affect our view of the history of the region, except in that we might now mentally picture some of the figures as having no beard.
Re the Dead Sea scrolls. No one has disputed that messianic prophecies existed. We merely contend that (a) true prophecy is impossible and (b) later events were interpreted in such a way as to give the appearance of fulfilment of those prophecies—hardly a difficult thing to do.
Oh, and razors having been found merely proves that Joseph might have shaved if he existed. It adds no supporting evidence to any argument that he did, indeed, exist.
“Those who don’t take their Bible to be literally true have no need to defend the acts therein. Those, if they exist, who claim literal truth but not that god is all-loving and perfect, also have no reason to defend those acts. Only those who claim perfection, omni-benevolence and a literally true Bible find themselves in the position of defending the indefensible; and that section of believers also happens to contain most of those who do the most harm in the name of their faith.”
I have to take issue with your claim that literalists are the source of most harm in the world,
Did you know Pasteur discovered pasteurization because he was trying to prove a literalist translation of biblical creationism over the belief in Aristotelian “spontaneous generation”? Untold BLESSINGS to humanity have resulted.
Did you know Isaac Newton was a literal creationist? He was determined to prove the Bible was true, especially in opposition to Aristotelian philosophy. As a result we have the “Principia Mathematica” which he claims to have been motivated to write so that “men would have a belief in a Deity.”
Francis Bacon, who developed the scientific method, was motivated by the desire to overcome the stronghold that Aristotelian philosophy had on the Catholic Church. He wanted biblical truth to be upheld in the church, rather than Greek philosophy.He said truth had two sources: the “volume of scriptures” and the “volume of creatures” (creation). Thus he outlined the use of experimentation, observation, and induction from data as the method to discover truth from the physical world.
Joseph Lister, who developed the method for sterile surgery, was also motivated by a desire to overthrow Aristotelian “spontaneous generation” and affirm the Bible. How many lives have been blessed by this revelation?
Even Galileo was a literalist who opposed the Catholic Church because they embraced Aristotelian philosophy as truth, rather than the Bible. His main argument was against Aristotle’s geocentric view of the universe, not the Bible.
Again, I could go on and on with many, many more examples of how those who loved the Bible, and were motivated to defend it, have blessed humanity. I chose to focus on those who believed in one simple scripture:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .” (Genesis 1:1)
Prove it.
As far as literalists being those who have done the “most harm in the name of their faith,” I would have to completely disagree with you again.
The medieval Catholic Church decided to blend Aristotelian philosophy in with the gospel, often times giving precedence to the Greeks over the Bible. It was this anti-literalist blend of man-made truth with biblical truth which led to the squelching of science. It took the heroism of people like Galileo, who appeared before their Inquisition, to counter their wrong doctrine.
In the enlightenment era, there were those who decided not to take a literal view of the scriptures. They were known as deists. They cut out the parts of the Bible they didn’t believe in. Yet these brilliant men were scientific racists who believed that blacks were inferior, based upon scientific research. Among their number were Thomas Jefferson, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant. It took the heroism of the abolitionists, who were often tarred and feathered, to overcome this wrong doctrine.
Many scientists held the racist, polygenist view that the races were birthed at different places by different parents, therefore they weren’t equal. Harvard’s Samuel George Morton, the HEAD of the National Academy of Science held this view. He taught a whole generation “phrenology” and “ethnology.” His views gave “scientific” support to Southern slavery. The main opposition to this view were those who LITERALLY believed Acts 17:26: “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.” It took those who held a monogenistic view, such as the Ethnological Society of London, founded merely to battle the polygenist view, and whose motto was “ab uno sanguire” (from one blood), to counter this wrong doctrine on the origin of men. Numbered among these heroes were Joseph Lister (of antiseptic surgery fame) and Frederick Douglass, who often gave speeches on the wrong doctrine of ethnology (i.e. a speech given in 1854 entitled “The Claims of the Negro, Ethnologically Considered”). It also took the heroism of those in the American north, almost all Christians, who fought and died to overthrow southern slavery. They believed the scriptures, and after hearing explanations by multitudes of writers and thinkers, were not convinced that the Old Testament law endorsed slavery. They also put the literal interpretation of the scriptures over the latest scientific theory.
I could also point to the next racial philosophy, social Darwinism. This was a view held by those who decided to embrace the newest scientific theory– evolution. Social Darwinism would claim that the darker races were less evolved. In other words, the lighter your skin, the more evolved you were. This led to the belief that the white man was destined to care for the less evolved of the species–the “white man’s burden.” (Usually it meant that they could be exploited for cheap labor.) Numbered among its proponents would be Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, Josiah Strong and most of the intelligentsia of the Victorian era. Opposing these views was one group of people known as the evangelical missionaries. One of their main motives was to disprove the wrong doctrine of social Darwinism — that being that the darker races were unintelligent and needed white leadership. Believing in a literal interpretation of the existence of Adam and Eve, as found in Acts 17:26, they went out, not only with the Bible, but also with textbooks. They believed that all races were equal– they just needed to be educated. This is why most of the colleges and universities in places like China and Africa were started by missionaries–to counter social Darwinism!
I could go on and on with evidence of the blessings to humanity brought about by those who held a literal interpretation of the Bible, but perhaps I should concentrate on the horrors brought about by those who rejected a literal interpretation of the Bible . . .
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”
Prove it.
Ha! lol!
You prove your position–not sure what that is since the latest scientific theory on this is always changing.
🙂
“Re the Dead Sea scrolls. No one has disputed that messianic prophecies existed. We merely contend that (a) true prophecy is impossible and (b) later events were interpreted in such a way as to give the appearance of fulfilment of those prophecies—hardly a difficult thing to do.”
I hope you aren’t referring to Thomas Paine’s explanation. As I’ve mentioned before this is a lame defense.
How do you explain other types of prophecies, such as the return of Israel to her nation in 1948, after 2000 years, just as promised in Scriptures?
Oh dear.
• Proof that lots of people have believed things is not proof that what they believe is true..
• Your contention is that something—a god—exists. It is up to you to show that this contention is correct.
• Even if the current scientific explanations for various phenomena were to turn out to be false, that would not add supporting evidence for your contention. For example, proving that the moon is not made of green cheese does not add support for the contention that it is made of white cheese.
In reference to your mocking Genesis 1:1, the whole point of my post was to show how others had desired to prove the truthfulness of Genesis 1:1 and how it had blessed humanity.
No I’m referring to simple reasoning. If you have a book full of vague prophecies, it’s easy to interpret new events so that they appear to fulfill those prophecies.
Oh, come on! Some bloke a couple of thousand years ago, on seeing his nation being dismembered by a colonial power, makes a patriotic speech about “We will be back. you haven’t heard the last of us!” This speech, or one very like it, has been made by people in every occupied country in the world. Two thousand years later, after some of his putative descendants have survived an awful atrocity, the UN decides to give those descendants a land to call their own. Where do you think they’re going to place that land? Antarctica?
I wasn’t mocking Genesis 1:1. As a creation-myth, genesis is pretty bog-standard. What I mock is the idea that it should be taken as literal truth.
Let’s just look at what a literal rejection of the Bible has brought to humanity in the last century.
The historical/critical method of Christianity, which was birthed out of Germany in the end of the 19th century, claimed that the scriptures were no longer trustworthy because of the latest knowledge in science and archaeology. German theologians, such as Schleiermacher, Bauer, and Wellhausen claimed that the Bible was no longer the plumb line to which science and history must align themselves. Instead the Bible’s truthfulness must be aligned with scientific and historic evidence.
This gave birth to liberal Christianity–those who don’t take a literal interpretation of the scriptures. (This battle still rages on and can be seen in our political disagreements also.) Every generation of Christians seems to believe they must concede (or at least blend) the scriptures to the latest scientific theory only to be despised and looked upon as fools by future generations of not only Christians, but also secularists. After all, who believes the Aristotelian geocentric view anymore? Who believes in scientific racism anymore?
I digress.
Not only did the German Church reject the literal interpretation of the Bible because of historical criticism, they also embraced Hegelian philosophy and Darwinism in its stead. (I could go into these views later if you want me to.)
It was a direct result of the rejection of biblical literalism that led to the nightmare of Nazi Germany. Hitler’s Nazism was based on a blend of “scientific” philosophy and “scientific” racial theory.
The only organized opponent to this false doctrine was the “Confessing Church.” Barth, Niemoller, and Bonhoeffer were evangelical Christians who wrote in their Barmen Declaration that the church needed to “stand upon scripture.” They challenged German Christians to reject “false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events, powers, figures, and truths, as God’s revelation.” They were claiming that the Word was their source of truth, not philosophy, science, or men.
For this, Barth was arrested and sent out of the country, Bonhoeffer was arrested and died in a Nazi concentration camp. Niemoller once met Hitler and refused to shake his hand. Once, while in prison, he was visited by a Catholic priest who asked him, “Martin, what are you doing in here?” Niemoller responded, “What are you doing out there?”
Daz,
I realize I wrote a lot of things today (and I haven’t even gotten into your lists of atheists, which includes Che Guevera).
But I want to show you that people who believe in God aren’t just ignorant and deluded. We don’t base our views on mythological fairy tale claims. And when you disrespect your opposition like this, you only show your own lack of understanding of their position.
While throwing out cliches and simplistic attacks (as though none of your arguments had ever been heard before — Fuerbach and Strauss come to mind) you are countered by books and books of information which can disprove your claims.
Unfortunately, the response to some of your arguments takes measured, rational responses that can sometimes be too long to read. This is why I think atheists are gaining ground. They can lob out their attacks in short, easy-to- understand phrases which people who are uneducated in the Bible, history, or even the philosophy of science can latch on to and be worked up into a frenzy against God and his Word.
The world is replete with examples of those who hate the Bible, in its purity, attacking those who love its teachings. There’s nothing new under the sun.
I plead with you to stop attacking God and look at the evidence . . . not for my sake, but for yours.
With love in Christ,
Diana
Diana, you end your posts, all 10 miles of them, by saying stop attacking god. How can we attack what is not there, it is the religion we are disagreeing with and there is good enough reason, despite your long-winded and pseudo-educational replies, to show that we should.
Your reasoning for is a prime example of apologist cherry picking and false reasoning. I am not going to go into specifics as most on here will know what I mean and you will not listen but just come back with more of the same and, I suspect, at intolerable length.
However, for a start, you may like to look into the history of Nazareth, where your one of your heroes was supposed to live. It was not built at the time. So one of the main stories of the bible is false.
Again, you show your lack of scriptural knowledge, Daz. 🙂 The prophecy was stated over and over by many different biblical authors in different times and places with many different details in each prophecy.
In other words, the “re-gathering” prophecies didn’t come as a result of some “bloke a couple of thousand years ago, on seeing his nation being dismembered by a colonial power, makes a patriotic speech about “We will be back. you haven’t heard the last of us!” Instead, the prophecies were written BEFORE they were even dispersed.
If a bloke were to start talking about a re-gathering, he wouldn’t have to create any new prophecies, he would only have to point to those prophecies that were already there. In fact, there weren’t any more Jewish prophecies added after the dispersion of the Jews in AD 70. The Old Testament ended 400 years before Christ.
Stephen,
1. Daz attacked God in “Acts of Love.” He may simply be trying to prove the foolishness in believing in this God, but in so doing he also attacked God, whether he believes in Him or not.
2. Why does Nazareth exist NOW? Who established it?
3. It’s difficult to defend something without being somewhat long-winded. Sound-bites aren’t always enough to defend against the accusation that literalists “do the most harm in the faith.” It takes a few sentences–or even paragraphs, since we’re talking about hundreds, if not thousands of years of history.
Stephen,
Finally, I’m glad that Jesus is my hero. He fed the hungry, healed the sick, loved immoral people such as adulterers, thieves, and prostitutes, giving them hope for a new life, opposed proud and self-righteous religious leaders, and died for OUR sins, so we could be reconciled to God if we want to be. Who did he hurt? He was beautiful.
Can you find a better hero? Would you share?
Diana, I will ignore your claptrap about healing the sick and all that, it is unproven myth. However, you show a complete lack of intelligence by asking the question, why does Nazareth exist now? Why not ask why does London, Paris or Berlin exist? Because they became settlements and were built upon. The same happened with Nazareth but not at the time the bible states and there is plenty of historical and archaeological evidence to show that.
Your only ‘proof’ of god is faith and faith is not evidence it is blind belief without supporting evidence. Just because we are here does not prove the existence of a god.
If I were looking for a hero it would be a real person whose deeds could be shown to be true, perhaps a brilliant nurse or doctor. Not someone who is the stuff of legend. I liked the stories of Robin Hood as a child, in fact they are still quite good now when Hollywood does not get hold of them, but all they are are legend or myth, the bible is the same.
I am prepared to accept someone called Jesus existed and was executed but much of the rest is not only made up but bears remarkable resemblance to many of the other religious myths around at the time.
Stephen,
The reference to Jesus coming from Nazareth was found in documents written by John that have been dated to 200 AD. The papyrus is at the Bodmer Library in Switzerland.
The writings of the disciples were passed around from church to church throughout the middle east. If there was no city named Nazareth, wouldn’t that have been mentioned by those who opposed Christianity? Wouldn’t the early church have somehow scrubbed that from their testimony? Matthew and John both mention it. Why would they have put such an obvious lie in their writings for people to easily dispute? 200 years later the reference to Nazareth remained in their writings.
If the disciples of Jesus were liars who could so easily be disproven, why would thousands of JEWS follow them, including even Paul, their worst enemy. He hunted Christians down and had them stoned and killed, yet he was willing to convert even though they lied about Nazareth?
THINK!
What is your “historical and archaeological” evidence that Nazareth didn’t exist at the time of Christ?
“Your reasoning for is a prime example of apologist cherry picking and false reasoning. I am not going to go into specifics as most on here will know what I mean and you will not listen but just come back with more of the same and, I suspect, at intolerable length.”
Stephen,
I’m curious to know what you mean.
Diana
There is no mention of Nazareth on maps of that time or in any of the histories written. The mentions are only in the gospels and a few other tracts written many years after and they are based on hearsay and myth. A papyrus of 200 CE is not evidence as it is written far later and cannot use witnesses of the time in question, it is just another useful tool among the church’s many lies.
Archaeological studies have shown that at the time of Jesus all there was at Nazareth was at old burial site. Jews always had out of town cemeteries, so it would not have been a dwelling place. All you need to do is look up a few histories on this that are not written by apologists but genuine historians and scientists.
As far as cherry picking, I thought that was obvious, it is picking stories/evidence that suits your needs but ignoring that which does not. I forget now exactly what you said about Hitler but it is certainly more complex that your potted history and blaming social Darwinism is a simple cop out, there were many reasons. Try reading Mein Kampf and you will get a few more ideas about the man.
You have to face the facts Diana, the bible is not a reputable source of history. The old testament has been proven to have been rewritten to make some prophecies look better and correct other errors and the new testament gospels were written well after the time of jesus and are not evidence. At that time gospels were quite a popular source of simple literature, yet out of the many the early church chose only four, simply because they were the best ones to shape the way the church wanted religion to be. The others were no less or no more accurate.
Stephen,
Concerning Nazareth, what is your point?
Is your point that Nazareth didn’t exist in the spot the Scriptures say, until AFTER Jesus?
Why would this be? Did Christians in later years build a village in the same spot the disciples said Jesus lived, just to confirm the scriptures that were supposedly a lie? (“They said Jesus came from here, but there’s no town here, so let’s build one now. Maybe this lie will please Jesus, who loves truth.) Is that the point you’re making? I don’t see why it’s important to prove that Nazareth didn’t exist before Christ, but years after Christ it appeared in the same spot the disciples said it was.
Stephen,
” I forget now exactly what you said about Hitler but it is certainly more complex that your potted history and blaming social Darwinism is a simple cop out, there were many reasons. Try reading Mein Kampf and you will get a few more ideas about the man.
Since Daz was accusing literalists of “doing the most harm in the faith,” my point on that post was that literalist Christians weren’t the cause of Nazism, they were the only organized opposition to it.
The point is it is a lie. The bible states Jesus lived in a Nazareth but he could not have done as it was not there then. Why Nazareth came to be built is not relevant, probably like most places, it became a settlement and was built up by those who settled there.
If you believe the bible to be true and you have alluded to the fact that you think that, then surely it is important to you that there is a blatant lie in it. If the truth is not known, why make it up, unless you are a novelist, which is basically what early gospel writers were, or you want to add weight to your story.
Accept it Diana, the bible is nothing more than a book of stories. I accept that some of the characters may be real but, like all stories, they are embellished over time. A repository of the truth the bible certainly is not.
Why cant you accept the reality of the world for what it is, hanging on to myths is pointless and dangerous. Take a look at all of the good you have done in Africa. Kinshasha is a good example, there are more churches there than schools and thousands of homeless children. Many of these homeless have been thrown out by their parents because they have been accused of being witches. Others have been tortured or killed. This is because of the evangelicals who have thrust religion on the people and it has helped to enhance tribal superstitions. The vicars, priests etc confirm witchcraft is real and as well as causing a massive amount of suffering make a good living from exorcism fees, about three months wages for the average member of that city.
As someone who promotes christianity the way you do you are complicit in these crimes and human rights violations. Regardless of your exact beliefs you are helping this sort of loathsome treatment of people to spread.
It is not about Jesus, a real person probably but much embellished by the story tellers, and it is not about a god, whose existence cannot be proven, it is about the power churches want and strive for and, when they have it, too often use it for selfish reasons and cause suffering for it.
Have you seen the case of the American couple who have allowed two of their children to die, while refusing medical treatment for them. Prayer really works doesn’t it?
Stephen,
You still haven’t established that Nazareth didn’t exist at the time of Christ, or even why it’s an important point.
Can you not see why I ask how it started? Why would somebody name their village a name that was spoken of in the gospels-in exactly the same spot the disciples said the village was? Why is it so hard to believe it was there all along, especially since small villages in the middle east probably didn’t leave much of an archaeological footprint.
I completely agree that “religion poisons everything” as Christopher Hitchens would have put it. Incidentally, Jesus would have agreed with Hitchens, too. So would John the Baptist. And most of the Old Testament prophets. They all railed against false religious leadership calling them vipers and fat shepherds.
There is nothing worse than using the name of God to abuse people.
The first church I got kicked out of was a church that was falsely accusing women of being witches. (If you can believe that!) I was attacked and called a Jezebel for taking a stand. I understand the frenzy that can develop by those embracing false doctrines and teachings.
In many ways, Hitchens is a hero of mine. He fearlessly spoke out against false religion for much of his life. He made me cheer at times.
But I also see the beauty of Jesus lived out in the lives of his people in history. Those who believe in the gospel of grace and love have blessed humanity more than any other group of people in history.
Stephen,
“As someone who promotes christianity the way you do you are complicit in these crimes and human rights violations. Regardless of your exact beliefs you are helping this sort of loathsome treatment of people to spread.”
I find it interesting that atheists don’t apply this very same standard for the crimes committed by atheists in the 20th century.
Crimes committed by atheists are not because they are atheists, there is no atheist movement which sets out how people should live, those crimes are committed in the name of their chosen politics, whether it be Stalin and communism or Hitler and National Socialism, although Hitler was a christian and did use christian ideals as part of his theory on the final solution.
Crimes committed in the name of religion are totally different as the religion is telling people how they must act, atheism does not do that. I am surprised you tried such a childish argument, that sort of sophistry does you no credit.
As for Nazareth, I am pressed for time so you will have to make do with one website: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
I suggest you look into some genuine history books, not the bible, for your studies, you may learn. Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, the name used in the gospels is most likely a mistaken version of Nazarene, a gnostic sect of the time. That would fit in with him being a prophet, which I accept but not the magical powers.
Yowsers! I’ve never woked up to so many comments in me mailbox! I’ve only skimmed so far, and I’ve got other stuff to go off ‘n’ do (breakfast and a gallon o’ coffee for starters), so I’ll just confine myself to this one for now:
My ‘bloke making a speech’ was a figure of speech. That said, the “many different details in each prophecy” are exactly what I mean. It means there’s lots of ways an event can be interpreted in order to fit it to that body of prophecy.
~Diana
The text on the cylinder praises Exalted Marduk, Enlil-of-the-Gods, for granting Cyrus kingship over everything. (Source)
So if anything, this artifact more appropriately confirms the truthfulness of the Enûma Eliš and the existence of Marduk.
Hi Ron,
The point of the Cyrus Cylinder is that it confirms the historical existence of King Cyrus, just as the Bible said.
The Bible never said Cyrus was a believer.
Diana, there are things/people in the bible that did exist but that does not prove the whole thing is true. It is no different to a historical novel, some of the characters/settings are correct and the rest is embellished to make it a good read.
The OT was rewritten several times to make it fit better with history, as people became to understand and it is plainly stupid to see it as a valid historical document. In other cases they just carried on with lies.
The advent of the internet, making it easier for people to check and research these so-called facts has been a major boon for those of us who are fed up with religions trying to run our lives.
The church has always wanted power and to control us and the bible was written to facilitate that, it is blindingly obvious to those who are willing to open their minds and think rationally that much of the bible is false. Faith proves nothing apart from the fact the person who has blind faith is too lazy, stupid, frightened or dishonest to look at things in a rational manner.
Stephen,
“As for Nazareth, I am pressed for time so you will have to make do with one website: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html”
Here is my response:
http://narrowwayapologetics.com/2013/05/31/did-jesus-exist-a-response-to-www-jesusneverexisted-com/
I wrote it a while back, but I never published it.
One of the main points of the post is to ask who the mystery writer is that created the mythological Jesus. What is his name? When did he write the gospels? How did he accomplish the amazing feat of “creating” a sinless man who fulfilled not only the messianic prophecies, but also all the intricate details of the law (for example, fulfilling the feasts)?
When did he write these gospels and letters–which are extremely intelligent and filled with detailed explanations and arguments describing how the Old Testament law and prophets were fulfilled? The character “Paul” explained how the death and resurrection of Christ revealed the grace of God. Some of the words in the New Testament were the most beautiful and hopeful ever penned by any human being. Who was this person?
Why are you willing to believe in the “mystery writer” when you have no evidence of his existence, yet you don’t believe in Jesus, of whom there’s ample evidence of his existence?
If Humphreys is your source for doubting the existence of Nazareth at the time of Christ, I would be concerned. In fact, any Google search would reveal that evidence is now coming forth, even from the Israeli government, confirming that Nazareth existed at the time of Christ.
Again, I plead with you to look at the evidence for Jesus. The most brilliant minds in history have embraced the gospel, yet you treat Christians like they’re deluded idiots.
Think beyond the sound-bites.
Diana, you are ignoring many vital points. That site I pointed you to has taken information from many genuine sources of history and archeology. You also need to face the fact that there were not four gospels but very many and ask why the early church decided to include only four.
I have never denied the existence of a person called Jesus, I just do not credit him with the magical powers you do and there is no real evidence to do so. You really must learn the difference between hearsay and academic evidence.
There is much in the bible that can be proved to be false and the existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus is one of them. The existence that is here and forthcoming for the existence at the time is from parties who have a direct interest. The Nazareth tourist board being one, religious bodies who have no interests in the truth being the others.
Grow up Diana and start looking for facts outside of religious propaganda. Yes I do treat religious people like deluded idiots because I think you are, worse I think you are dangerous. Look at the damage your religion has done to the world. And dont hit back with idiot arguments about atheists doing wrong, I accept they do but the difference is they do it because they are bad people not in the name of a belief system. The churches continually mess about with people’s lives because they claim a divine right to do so.
How do you fell about Zaire, especially the capital Kinshasa , where there are thousands of homeless children, children who have been tortured and some murdered, all in the name of christianity. Your idiot type evangelistic religion, coupled with local superstitions has created a massive rise in the number of ‘witches’ identified. This is not only pathetic, it is tragic as children are suffering because of the delusion you and your type have.
Unless you can come back with genuine evidence, not some crap from an interested party or your own less than academic interpretation of things like the dead see scrolls dont bother. I had originally thought you were worth talking to but now see that all you care about is your Jesus character and the stories made up about him. Try caring about people and what goes on around you and try to solve problems in a logical way. Praying for solution is the method of the stupid and the lazy.
As for the website in response, the fact he quotes the four canonical gospels as evidence does not inspire me. However, he goes on to cite the works of Josephus, although I did not see a mention of the fact that some of the works of Josephus had been tampered with. It was church historians who showed that Josephus’ writings on the crucifixion were a forgery added many years later. I do no know why these church people were so honest, it is rare, but it could be that the forgery was so obvious they thought it better to admit it and avoid later embarrassment.
As I said, read some books, not the fucking bible or stuff by apologists, but books by genuine historians and archaeologists if you want to search for any truth.
I apologise for going on for so long, especially as I have accused you of being long-winded, but I am fed up of reading half-baked apologist crap. Your religion has poisoned and is still poisoning the world.
As for the think beyond sound-bites insult, I have read the bible and studied religious history and make my judgements from my knowledge and the greater knowledge of academics. There is nothing sound-bite about it. However, I could easily respond by suggesting you start to think, it has not been obvious from your posts that this is something you do that often.
Stephen,
Regarding your comment: ”
“Take a look at all of the good you have done in Africa. Kinshasha is a good example, there are more churches there than schools and thousands of homeless children. Many of these homeless have been thrown out by their parents because they have been accused of being witches. Others have been tortured or killed. This is because of the evangelicals who have thrust religion on the people and it has helped to enhance tribal superstitions. The vicars, priests etc confirm witchcraft is real and as well as causing a massive amount of suffering make a good living from exorcism fees, about three months wages for the average member of that city.
As someone who promotes christianity the way you do you are complicit in these crimes and human rights violations. Regardless of your exact beliefs you are helping this sort of loathsome treatment of people to spread.”
I am a “fundamentalist” Christian, meaning I believe in the Bible. I cannot find a scripture anywhere in my Bible that says children who fly like birds are witches and consequently they deserve to be tortured and beaten (as this UK Guardian news story explains):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/12/theobserver.worldnews11)
Clearly, Jesus said, “Let the little children come unto me . . . ”
What’s happening in Kinshasa is a blend of Christianity and paganism. What the people of Kinshasa need is sound doctrine, based on the truth of the Gospel.
Instead of the complete abolition of the Gospel, they need the PURE Gospel, which loves and cares for little ones.
http://www.worldvision.org/m/sponsor-a-child/?open&campaign=1193519&cmp=KNC-1193519&gclid=CNzOkJ_jwLcCFZE-Mgod7X4AHw
http://www.compassion.com/
http://vimeo.com/37615360# (This a video about street children in Kenya who are being helped by Christians.)
I could post innumerable Christian relief organizations that are caring for children in the name of Jesus.
Those who corrupt the Gospel are guilty of human rights violations, but those who uphold the Gospel in purity are the heroes of history!
Diana, FYI.
The discussion-settings on this blog hold for my approval any comment containing more than two (just changed to three, but I don’t know whether the effect is immediate) links. The easiest method of posting more would be to use two comments instead of one.
I now return you to your regular programming…
What you mean is you could post numerous videos where christian organisations are forcing their beliefs on people. You could do good works without all of the god-shit. Blaming pagans is easy but it is also lazy. It is a mixture of the two beliefs and the christians have not helped.
However, you have admitted you are a fundamentalist, therefore there is little point in trying to engage you in logical debate. The bible, especially the OT, is one of the nastiest works written in terms of violence and retribution. Your god spends as much time killing as anything else.
But since you are a fundamentalist, no form of logic is necessary for you, you will continue to believe and promote the same crap with a selfish disregard for the consequences.
If you want to help children, educate them but educate them in science and morals that have a relevance to their life, not a relevance to your bronze-age belief system.
You will never see it, because you will not try to but if you genuinely cared about people you would try to see other sides to your world view.
As for pure gospel, you might as well say pure fart. There were many gospels, not just the four used by your lot. All were written well after the events they claim to portray. You are looking for truth in things which are nothing more than novels.
I repeat, good can be done purely for the sake of good. Not only does it not need religion it is better off without it. Jesus existed, I will agree to that but the rest is just a load of made up crap to help the church take control of people.
Stephen,
“You also need to face the fact that there were not four gospels but very many and ask why the early church decided to include only four.”
There are reasons why the early church only accepted four gospels as authoritative.
1. They wanted eyewitness historical accounts. The “gospels” you speak of are generally “Gnostic” accounts. This was a group of people who claimed to have a secret (gnosis) revelation from Jesus, rather than a real-world testimony of what they saw and heard.
2. The “gospels” you speak of are generally spiritual concoctions attaching the name of Jesus to their transcendental religious experiences.
For example, the “Gospel of Mary” sounds like this:
“When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, which took seven forms. The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven powers of wrath.
They asked the soul, Whence do you come slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space? The soul answered and said, What binds me has been slain, and what turns me about has been overcome, and my desire has been ended, and ignorance has died. In a aeon I was released from a world, and in a Type from a type, and from the fetter of oblivion which is transient. From this time on will I attain to the rest of the time, of the season, of the aeon, in silence.”
What does this mean?
Compare the Gnostic gospel to this clear historical claim found in the first chapter of Luke:
5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.
The Gnostic gospels aren’t included because they weren’t rooted in history. If the church had embraced them, there would no longer be a standard of truth based on REALITY. Anyone could develop their own religion based on the authority of their latest dream, vision, or feeling. But Christianity is based on eyewitness accounts!
Thank you for the info, Daz. I will honor those settings. 🙂
I’ve been pretty happy to just watch from the sidelines, but I have to jump in on this:
None of the canonical gospels is held to be a first-hand account, by any reputable biblical scholar; be that scholar religious or not. For dating, see here.
It’s not a matter of trying to hold numbers of links down. As I say, if you want to post consecutive comments to get more links in, be my guest. It’s set that way because many spam messages tend to contain multiple links. What I really wish they’d do would be to let me allow more from a user once I’ve verified them as not-spam. Ho-hum.
Diana, the four gospels chosen are not eyewitness historical accounts, most church people will admit that. So your whole argument falls down straight away. Face it, your religion is based on a few truths, some half-truths and a mass of hearsay, stories and complete lies.
That fact you say this: “They wanted eyewitness historical accounts.” shows how easily deluded you are and that you are happy with faith over reason. Your blind faith makes me think of the following.
The etymology of the word bigot is not proven and there are several theories, one is that it was an early phrase used by pagans to describe their oppressors, the bei Gotts (old Germanic meaning with god). Listening to the pathetic arguments put forward by fundamentalists like yourself I can see why this is a popular idea.
And before you bleat on about immoral pagans and human sacrifice, I am aware of that and find it horrible. However, your method of murdering many of them if they did not convert is no better. Surely a law banning sacrifices would have sufficed. However, human sacrifice was not banned by the christians, they just called it by a different name, burning the heretics.
Your fundamental religion stinks, as it has done throughout history. Considering the Roman empire about 200-400 CE, the days of the despotic emperors were gone, the cities were clean and had good water supplies, including public toilets with a flush-type system (there is archaeological evidence for this), plus science and medicine were advancing well.
Then Constantine broke the tetrarchy, installed christianity as the state religion and a series of despotic christian emperors saw the empire fall apart, where money used to be spent on public amenities, such as water and libraries, all the money was spent on churches, temples etc. Religion took everything, it also hounded scientists and learned people, accusing them of heresy, the lucky were ridiculed and banished, the less lucky were tortured and/or killed. As a civilisation we did not just stand still we went backwards.
Think about, 200 CE and there are public toilets, running water and some quite good early medical knowledge. Thanks to the church destroying all this, 1500 years later people were emptying chamber pots into the streets and there was no sanitation. The church actively fought against science and progress. Dont come back with great scientists who believed, there would have been a lot more scientists if it had not been for christianity and we would be a lot more advanced as a civilisation.
The same thing is happening today, as a fundamentalist you may well be a YEC as well, so you will agree with perverting education. But your people are trying to force evolution out of classrooms and replace it with creationism, which is absolute bunk. As for evolution, if you dont agree dont bother to tell me why, the one thing I have learned from you people is that you think failing to understand something is proof it is not true.
Stephen,
“Grow up Diana and start looking for facts outside of religious propaganda. Yes I do treat religious people like deluded idiots because I think you are, worse I think you are dangerous. Look at the damage your religion has done to the world. And dont hit back with idiot arguments about atheists doing wrong, I accept they do but the difference is they do it because they are bad people not in the name of a belief system. The churches continually mess about with people’s lives because they claim a divine right to do so.”
I don’t understand how atheists believe they are justified in separating their beliefs from their crimes. I’m a little perplexed about this claim. Marx was a conscious atheist, who studied Fuerbach’s “The Life of Jesus” and believed that Christianity was simply the expression of the mind of man, and that WE created God. (Sounds a little like Stephen or Ken Humphreys.)
You treat me in the same way Marxists have treated Christians in the past. Believing they were deluded, believers such as Anna Chertakova, were declared mentally ill and placed in insane asylums. After all, isn’t this what society does with deluded people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
Why were Christians specifically targeted in atheist purges? Was it because the atheists were merely bad people, or was it because their atheism influenced their actions against Christianity?
Those crimes were not committed in the name of atheism. Atheism wasn’t used to excuse them. No one claimed that a non-god told them to commit them.
Contrast with way too many religiously excused, endorsed and encouraged crimes and atrocities.
Actions against christianity are done because of the actions of christianity, as simple as that, or do you believe everything done in the name of christianity to be good.
Also, no answer about the historicity of the gospels, the books you claim to be eye-witness accounts. Like all fundamentalists you ignore questions you do not like and bend arguments to suit your beliefs.
I disagree with persecuting people and would not do it, even to people like you, Lenin and Stalin thought differently but that was their interpretation of Marxism, not because they were atheists. Try to understand Diana, atheism is not a religion, it is not a philosophy it is simply the rejection of the notion of gods. How individuals decide to express their atheism is down to their own philosophies.
Your line: “I don’t understand how atheists believe they are justified in separating their beliefs from their crimes.” is a non-argument. They are not separating their beliefs from their crimes, their beliefs are their life-philosohy, whether it be marxism, capitalism etc. I repeat, atheism is a rejection of the notion of gods, it does not have a philosophy attached to it, there is not a book of rules for atheists. Is that really too hard to understand or are you just clutching at straws and spewing out the same old apologist arguments that have been used many times before.
Stephen,
“And before you bleat on about immoral pagans and human sacrifice, I am aware of that and find it horrible. However, your method of murdering many of them if they did not convert is no better. Surely a law banning sacrifices would have sufficed. However, human sacrifice was not banned by the christians, they just called it by a different name, burning the heretics.”
First of all, I’m not a Catholic; I’m a Protestant. I would have been one of the heretics who was burnt. (John Huss, for example.) I abhor the actions of Catholic explorers and missionaries such as Cortez and Pizzaro.
Secondly, the only reason there are very few cannibals and human sacrifices is directly because of the work of evangelical missionaries such as John Paton and Mary Slessor. Read their heroic stories. They’re amazing! They went directly into the darkness (such as that you lament over in Kinshasa) and presented Jesus, the Light of the World. The atheist did NOTHING to overcome this darkness.
Thirdly, a large part of the darkness in the world in the 20th century was a direct outcome of atheistic belief as they hunted down and imprisoned or killed Christians such as Richard Wurmbrand (Rumania) or Watchman Nee (China).
Who murdered who?
It seems like atheists such as yourself live a secure and free life in the “Christian” world. Unfortunately, Nikolai Khamara, who had his eyes gouged out for reading the Bible, and his tongue cut off for praising Jesus, didn’t enjoy such protections under atheist governments.
Daz,
“Those crimes were not committed in the name of atheism.”
Then why did they hunt down Christians and try to re-educate them through torture and abuse?
Firstly, protestants burned witches and heretics as well. Secondly, I do not deny christians have been tortured and murdered for their beliefs, but that is for reasons I have already said, not atheism but because of the philosophy or politics of those doing it. It is not really that hard to understand.
Thirdly, it was right to try to stop sacrifice and things like that but not to enforce christianity along side it, basic humanism would have been much better.
You blame paganism for the problems in Kinshasa, yet the people who are proclaiming the children witches are ordained ministers of christian churches, so your lot should share a large part of the responsibility.
If atheists are doing nothing to try to overcome this darkness, how come there are many campaigns to set up truly secular schools in the third world and to help people regardless of their faith and, in the progress, refuse to try to indoctrinate them into any faith.
We can all do good, we dont need an ancient and misguided philosophy to do it and the sooner people like you realised that the better the world would be. We can both spend hours fining individual examples but the simple fact is, the church exists to promote itself, good deeds are secondary to bleating on about god and Jesus.
Try being nice to people, just because they are people, it would be good for them and it would also show you had a mind of your own. As it is, you harp on like the typically indoctrinated and brainwashed, oblivious to any good any atheists have done and making up pathetic arguments to try to blame atheists for the atrocities of Stalin (someone who set out to be a priest) and Pol Pot (a former Buddhist monk) and every other despot, who warped a philosophy to justify their actions.
Because they saw the church as a hindrance. They wanted to wipe out a perceived threat to their power.
Look, if a Christian does something bad, whether to other religious people or to atheists, which isn’t encouraged or engendered by their church or their scripture, that Christian is not an example of “Christianity doing bad stuff.” It’s an example of “A person who just happens to be a Christian doing bad stuff.”
See what I mean? It’s not enough to merely say “atheists did this.” It’s not enough to say “here’s some atheists who did bad stuff (whether to religious people or not)” unless you can point to something unique to atheism which caused them to do bad stuff.
Given that we have no equivalent of scripture, or any central belief-system, good luck with that.
Daz,
“Contrast with way too many religiously excused, endorsed and encouraged crimes and atrocities.”
The problem is that you lump all religions together, whereas I try to present evidence that one religion, evangelical Christianity with its literal interpretation of the Bible in light of the Gospel, is the TRUTH.
I claim this by looking at the fruit, which I could abundantly list.
I agree with you and Hitchens that “religion poisons everything!”
But I also ask you to consider that the Gospel of grace and love is not about religion, but about a passionate relationship–something that so grips the hearts of its followers that they would die trying to share the message with cannibals, that they would die trying to usher slaves through an underground railroad, that they would be willing to appear before the Inquisition and not recant–even if it meant being burnt at the stake, and on and on.
Did you know that nearly every underground opposition to tyranny was carried out by believers?
If you want to be a part of anything heroic and beautiful, believe in the pure Gospel of Jesus.
And if you think the fruits of atheism are anywhere near comparable to this, I’d really like to hear your perspective.
Yep.
They all propagate themselves by promoting “faith” as a virtue.
It is not.
And once you’ve encouraged—indoctrinated might be a better word—a person into the idea that lack of sceptical enquiry is a good idea, you have weakened their defences against other “faith based” thinking. Not only this, but they place the reward in a putative next life, where it can’t be checked for little things like, oh, just off the top of my head… “actual existence.”
This means that unlike, say communism, which eventually fell because the promised results could be seen to be non-existent, religion cannot be checked. “Oh, it works. There’ll be cake and jam in heaven. Just take it on faith!”
And that’s why religion, regardless of creed, is the most dangerous of all ideologies.
Daz,
“Look, if a Christian does something bad, whether to other religious people or to atheists, which isn’t encouraged or engendered by their church or their scripture, that Christian is not an example of “Christianity doing bad stuff.” It’s an example of “A person who just happens to be a Christian doing bad stuff.”
It wasn’t just a few rogue politically motivated atheists who MASS MURDERED millions of people. It was a systematic attempt to cleanse Christianity from the planet.
This is different from Jimmy Swaggart going to a prostitute.
Daz,
“This means that unlike, say communism, which eventually fell because the promised results could be seen to be non-existent, religion cannot be checked. “Oh, it works. There’ll be cake and jam in heaven. Just take it on faith!”
I try to show you the heroism and beautiful fruit of the Gospel in this world. It can be seen all around you. I’ve been trying to show you how it CAN be checked!
Enjoyed visiting for a while, but gotta go take care of the family. Have a blessed day!
if you can show me where in the quoted comment, I made any reference to the scale of the “bad stuff,” I will gladly correct or retract. Until then, your comment appears to be nothing but obfuscation.
Now, give me Jesus’s phone number, and I might be impressed. You’ve made a lot of noise about Biblical historicity, which whether you’re right or not, merely points, as I’ve said many times before, to the fact that the Israelites, and later Christians, held certain beliefs. No one here disputes that. Unfortunately, as I’ve said many times before, this adds no evidence pointing to the existence of the objects of those beliefs.
You’ve alluded to prophecy, which even from my reading of the Bible seems dubious at best. You’ve not yet produced a physics professor to explain how information may be realistically received from the future. You may find this convincing: we don’t.
I was reading something about atheists becoming evangelical in their desire to share the atheistic message. I was just wondering what the Good News of the atheist is.
Why should I reject God and become an atheist? What’s so appealing about atheism?
Good question. And I’m completely the wrong person to ask. 🙂
I’ve never been religious, and never associated much with people of very strong faith. With your permission, I’d like to make a short post of your question; see if we can’t get a few answers from folks who’ve seen both sides of the fence, as it were.
Hi Daz,
“None of the canonical gospels is held to be a first-hand account, by any reputable biblical scholar; be that scholar religious or not.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that the earliest copies we have aren’t original copies?
No, what Daz is saying is that the canonical gospels are not first hand eyewitness accounts but pieces that were written anywhere between 60 and 100 CE. These are church historian views as well as the views of other historians.
It is nothing to do with original copies or not, simply when they were first written, that is not difficult to understand. I feel you are being deliberately obstructive when you hear things you do not like, rather than accepting facts, agreed by church and scholar alike.
The fact is they were written long enough after the events they portray for memories to have dimmed, even if the writer was about at the time, and for stories to have become embellished.
What Stephen said.
Basically; there are no first-hand accounts of the words and actions of the Jesus character portrayed in the Bible—even in the Bible.
You might find this interesting viewing.
Some more interesting stuff about the bible: http://www.christianpost.com/news/agnostic-scholar-bart-ehrman-on-who-wrote-the-bible-and-why-it-matters-97169/pageall.html