| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Is it Contradictory? |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 13 2004, 03:05 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Is It Contradictory? Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 1 2004, 01:49 AM Hello to all of you... First, I want to say that I've enjoyed my time here so far. I've gained personal respect for many of you, and the challenges you've given me have been substantial. Thank you to those of you who have welcomed me generously, and communicated with me respectfully. I look forward to continuing our discussions! I've been thinking a lot about the different things that have been said here. Different issues that have been brought up in our conversations. You all know how it is, you read something here, and it causes you to think a bit - to consider how you might reply to the question. Ok, well if you don't - I do! Ok, so here's the thing. It all started when I was driving in my car today. Something hit me that had never occured to me before, and it came in the form of a question. One that seemed to pose some sort of contradiction. This is the reason for this particular post. Most of you here are professed atheists, right? Meaning primarily and conclusively - you do not believe in God - especially the God of the Bible. Knowing this, I have a question for some of you. The question only pertains to those it includes (obviously), and you will know if you're "included" when you see the nature of the question. I don't believe this question only pertains to one or two individuals either, which is why I'm looking for feedback from many. And so I ask: If you don't believe in God - especially the God of the Bible - then why do you use instances in the Bible to defend your disbelief? In other words, you don't believe in God, yet you'll hold the Biblical stories of "genocide, rape, mistreatment of women, slavery, etc." against God, and use these examples as reasons to deny Him. If you don't believe in God, why would you believe the stories in the Bible? If you don't believe in the Bible, then how can it make sense to use it for your defense? And/or to justify your disbelief in a God that would do these horrible things? Is this contradictory? Isn't it supposed to be one or the other - all or nothing? I might be missing something, so any feedback on this is appreciated. In my next post, I'm going to answer the questions regarding those "horrible" things that God did in the Bible. Just to set the record straight - even though some of you don't believe any of it anyways. "DISCLAIMER" - I have to do this because the intention of a post can sometimes be misunderstood or taken the wrong way. (Interesting how we can all do that). SO, I want you all to know that I don't mean anything harshly here, I'm not trying to put anybody down, etc. I'm simply asking, because I would like to know your feedback on the question. I really feel like it's a good and valid question. Respectfully, Jay Posted by: Doug2 Feb 1 2004, 02:30 AM Jay, I don't believe harry potter actually has the ability to fly on a stick, but once the book starts calling for genocide, slavery, abolition of women's rights, killing homosexuals, and that I have to follow it or I go to hell, I can say that I don't like it, and don't think it is a good book. We use the bible that way to show the problems with it. We show the contradictions, the promises that are unfulfilled, and the poor moral standing of the book. We don't believe it is the inerrant word of god and that is how we can say these things. I think most of the things in the bible are either fiction, or exaggerated tall tales. I like to say, look, if these are real, they are not a good thing. I like to point out some of the horrible things these tales are saying, and how they create a damaging mentality in the christian society. If you want to explain away some of the problems in the bible, you can start with Bruce's thread which had 1 million and 1 biblical errors. Just be ready for us to disagree with your solutions. Viewpoints mean a lot. We've seen your viewpoint. If you can see ours, major points to you. Posted by: Fweethawt Feb 1 2004, 02:39 AM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 1 2004, 01:49 AM) Most of you here are professed atheists, right? Meaning primarily and conclusively - you do not believe in God - especially the God of the Bible. Knowing this, I have a question for some of you. The question only pertains to those it includes (obviously), and you will know if you're "included" when you see the nature of the question. I don't believe this question only pertains to one or two individuals either, which is why I'm looking for feedback from many. And so I ask: If you don't believe in God - especially the God of the Bible - then why do you use instances in the Bible to defend your disbelief? In other words, you don't believe in God, yet you'll hold the Biblical stories of "genocide, rape, mistreatment of women, slavery, etc." against God, and use these examples as reasons to deny Him. If you don't believe in God, why would you believe the stories in the Bible? If you don't believe in the Bible, then how can it make sense to use it for your defense? And/or to justify your disbelief in a God that would do these horrible things? Is this contradictory? Isn't it supposed to be one or the other - all or nothing? An Atheist is someone without a "God" belief, not someone who doesn't believe in God. For the most part, the Bible is used by Fundamentalists in order to justify hateful acts toward believers, and non-believers alike regardless of how "moral" these people are. We also find it strange, and somewhat disturbing, that "believers" actually want us to "come to know" this God, by either stating that it is a God of love, or the use the mental trap of damnation for not being a believer. It is not true worship, if it is based on punishment and reward. Therefore an ExChristian could never really be accused of hypocrisy, whereas a Christian can not help but be a total hypocrite. We hear all the time how we are supposedly this Gods greatest creation and yet the same people who state this, never realize that their God keeps them in line with techniques quite similar to how we treat dogs. Then there is this little bug in our brains called honesty. If one truly holds onto honesty while reading the Christian doctrines, the whole thing comes crashing to the ground. If anyone honestly looks at it, you can see that it is from a time when man didn't have any other methods of passing his time, so his imagination ran wild, thus creating the obvious alternate reality which simply just can't be if you are honest with yourself. Was this the type of answer you were looking for? Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Feb 1 2004, 07:23 AM Jay, Most of the people who come here are EX-CHRISTIANS. Some were Christians for years of their lives. Naturally they use parts of the bible to explain why they don't believe the bible. Many people, like myself, stopped believing primarily because of the very book that is supposed to make a person believe. Another reason people use the references from the bible, is because they are discussing these things with CHRISTIANS like yourself, whose minds are all tangled up in the bible so that certain verses are like magic mantras, repeated in a manner as a wizard would cast a spell. The point of throwing it back in the Christian's face is to show that it is not powerful and does return void time and time again. I don't think that was too hard to figure out. I took all dozens of apologetic and witnessing classes when I was a Christian. Since Christianity is built on a very weak foundation, it is a common technique to put the other person on the defense and make them justify themselves. That way the Christian is in control of the conversation and can help bolster their fragile faith. Putting the other person on the defensive all the time is a good way to avoid actually answering questions, because the other person is always answering questions instead. That works if all you want to do is put down the other person, but does nothing for actually addressing the topic. Now the fact that evil infidels use that technique is to be expected, from a Christian viewpoint. But the fact that Christians use it too, shows the disingenuous nature of Christianity. It is not really interested in proving itself, it is only interested in keeping those who have been captured by its siren song in line. Posted by: HeathenM0M Feb 1 2004, 07:33 AM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 1 2004, 04:49 AM) If you don't believe in God - especially the God of the Bible - then why do you use instances in the Bible to defend your disbelief? Jay, I, personally, only refer to the bible when dealing with Christians who refer to it. I know the bible well, and so when someone starts spouting off verses about how their loving God is going to burn me in hell, I tend to point out the verses that prove that their God is not loving. Because I use the bible as a reference doesn't mean that I believe there is a God but choose not to believe IN him. It's just that some Christians eat, sleep & breathe the bible and don't understand (or won't bother with) anything else. I am an Atheist and it was the Bible itself that made me that way. Posted by: HeathenM0M Feb 1 2004, 07:36 AM QUOTE (WebMaster @ Feb 1 2004, 10:23 AM) Jay, Most of the people who come here are EX-CHRISTIANS. Some were Christians for years of their lives. Naturally they use parts of the bible to explain why they don't believe the bible. Many people, like myself, stopped believing primarily because of the very book that is supposed to make a person believe. Another reason people use the references from the bible, is because they are discussing these things with CHRISTIANS like yourself, whose minds are all tangled up in the bible so that certain verses are like magic mantras, repeated in a manner as a wizard would cast a spell. The point of throwing it back in the Christian's face is to show that it is not powerful and does return void time and time again. Well said, Dave. (I must've been composing my post when yours came through). Posted by: PseudoGod Feb 1 2004, 09:04 AM QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Feb 1 2004, 02:39 AM) An Atheist is someone without a "God" belief, not someone who doesn't believe in God. Actually I think an atheist can be either of these. A gnostic atheist "knows" no god(s) exist (through reason) and is therefore without belief, where an agnostic atheist "believes" no god(s) exist, but absolute knowledge of said non-existence is not possible. I think all of this is really just semantics however.... Posted by: Tocis Feb 1 2004, 09:07 AM QUOTE (WebMaster @ Feb 1 2004, 07:23 AM) I took all dozens of apologetic and witnessing classes when I was a Christian. Since Christianity is built on a very weak foundation, it is a common technique to put the other person on the defense and make them justify themselves. That way the Christian is in control of the conversation and can help bolster their fragile faith. Putting the other person on the defensive all the time is a good way to avoid actually answering questions, because the other person is always answering questions instead. That works if all you want to do is put down the other person, but does nothing for actually addressing the topic. Gee, Dave, you gave me enlightenment Now I understand the ludicrous tactic I encounter again and again in the newsgroups, from fundies who desperately try to evade unpleasant statements and questions by pretty much asking anything even if it's totally unrelated to the unpleasant words. If this is really taught to the US christians, many of my questions are answerred Posted by: TruthWarrior Feb 1 2004, 09:14 AM It is necessary to fight fire with fire with Christians. Otherwise you'd be going in circles. Not that one doesn't even when debating verse for verse. It tends to end up he said she said because of the endless interpretations of it. I see the bible as the word of man, plain and simple. It's akin to the http://www.nationalgeographic.com/grimm/index2.html. Lot's of fable mixed in with some facts to make it believable and get the moral across clearly. Some of their tales may even based off of real events but imbellished heavily so the kids can enjoy reading it and learn from it. Now you say no, it's the word of god, because it says so right here! That's when the "he said, she said" argument starts. Now to counter this I show, within it's books, that it is the words of man. But I suppose it only works if the other's mind is open to such a possibility. That is rare among christians. Posted by: PseudoGod Feb 1 2004, 09:23 AM QUOTE (WebMaster @ Feb 1 2004, 07:23 AM) Now the fact that evil infidels use that technique is to be expected, from a Christian viewpoint. But the fact that Christians use it too, shows the disingenuous nature of Christianity. It is not really interested in proving itself, it is only interested in keeping those who have been captured by its siren song in line. <PseudoGod clapping>. Very well said! Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 1 2004, 09:27 AM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 1 2004, 04:49 AM) If you don't believe in God - especially the God of the Bible - then why do you use instances in the Bible to defend your disbelief? In other words, you don't believe in God, yet you'll hold the Biblical stories of "genocide, rape, mistreatment of women, slavery, etc." against God, and use these examples as reasons to deny Him. Jay, Maybe it would help if you thought about how you'd convert someone to Christianity from Mormonism or Islam. Part of your approach is to show what's right about your belief. But that often isn't enough, since the person you're talking to thinks their current belief is also right and offers good things. So, another thing you might try would be to show them how their currentl belief is based on something faulty. You might show them the contradictions in the Book of Mormon or in the Koran. You might point out that a god that says that men can have many wives or that wives are property doesn't fit in with modern human values. You don't believe the Book of Mormon or the Koran yourself. Instead, you're trying to get the Morman or Muslim person to understand that the book they believe is perfect has errors, or that the god they are worshipping is not the perfect being after all. You're trying to get them to open their eyes and start questioning the foundation of their faith. Atheists don't use the bible because we believe it, we use it because Christians believe it. Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 1 2004, 09:56 AM One more thing. Lots of times I'll write "but god said this", or "god did that". It doesn't really mean I think there is a god who said or did something. It's simply that I'm too lazy to write each time "But according to the bible, the god you believe in said this", etc. That could also be the cause of some of the confusion. Posted by: Reality Amplifier Feb 1 2004, 12:28 PM QUOTE Most of you here are professed atheists, right? Meaning primarily and conclusively - you do not believe in God - especially the God of the Bible I especially do not believe in the God of the Bible. I am a professed Deist though. QUOTE If you don't believe in God - especially the God of the Bible - then why do you use instances in the Bible to defend your disbelief? To quote Monty Python, In order to argue with you, we must take up a contrary position. Our connected series of statements establishes our propostion that we see your belief system (based on the bible) resting on a weak position. So using the bible to direct your attention to parts that are illogical, absurd, horrible, or irreconcilable with the actions of morally just and omnipotent God is an integral and indispensable part of the exchange. QUOTE In other words, you don't believe in God, yet you'll hold the Biblical stories of "genocide, rape, mistreatment of women, slavery, etc." against God, and use these examples as reasons to deny Him. I don't believe the bible-God exists, so there's not much point in denying what I don't believe in. I also don't believe in Allah, the God of the Mormons, or any other God based on "revealed religious texts". Using examples in the bible is an effective attention directing exercise for Christians to weigh and come to terms with the stories attributed to their God...if they can. Through intricate intellectual gymnastics, they often do. QUOTE Is this contradictory? Isn't it supposed to be one or the other -all or nothing? Presenting only two options is a classic logical fallacy (False Dilemma/Excluded middle). The one or the other---all or nothing paradigm likes to insert itself, as we often see two likely options right away. It is challenging for us with our limited perspectives and thinking abilities to generate and see other alternatives. We all too seldom apply our brains to that end. Unfortunately, Christianity programs its adherents from an early age to suppress reason and common sense (an enforced mental retardation was placed on our reasoning skills). Instead of thinking and employing reason, a Christian’s actions in life are influenced, constrained and wasted “studying” and propagating beliefs in ancient myths and making vain supplications (prayer) to the bible-God. To accept the stories Christianity wants you to believe, one must shut off at least part of the section of the human mind that deals with the rational world. Here’s some the more options I just thought up, but there are probably more (resident Atheists please chime in if these need find tuning) – Scenario: The Bible is true Percieved Reality: The bible-God Exists exactly as the bible reports. Belief System: Rigid/Fundamentalist Christianity Scenario: The Bible is true Percieved Reality: The bible-God Exists, but the morally irreconcilable acts of the bible-God, and the contradictory and absurd portions of the bible are “explained” away. Belief System: Flexible Christianity – Christians with their own questions (and their own answers). Scenario: Bible is not true – Percieved Reality: God does not exist. Determination is partially based on reasoning from the portrayal of God reported in the bible, which in this scenario, is not true. Worldview: Strong & Weak Atheists Scenario: Bible is not true Percieved Reality: God Exists, or it is likely that God exists, but obviously not the Deity (bible-God) that the bible speaks of, and he does not interfer with creation. Belief System: Agnostics & Deists QUOTE In my next post, I'm going to answer the questions regarding those "horrible" things that God did in the Bible. Just to set the record straight - even though some of you don't believe any of it anyways. Your forthcoming post to justify some of the more “horrible” parts of the bible has likely been done before. Keep in mind when you write it, that the ability any intelligent thinker has to support a particular point of view does not remove the necessity to examining other points of view, nor does it remove the necessity of always reevaluating and validating the soundness a view you hold on the subject. Apply the lens of reason when you do it. "When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself." – Mark Twain Posted by: Loren Feb 1 2004, 12:59 PM From the Sufi: Mullah Nasrudin once entered a store and asked the proprietor, "Have you ever seen me before?" "No," was the prompt answer. "Then," cried Nasrudin, "how do you know it IS me?" Posted by: Loren Feb 1 2004, 01:25 PM RA, I completely agree. One of my greatest frustrations in discussions with Christians is the deeply seated prediliction for dualistic thinking. I understand that one of the contributing factors in this Christian (and Western) failure is that the early scriptures were written in or translated into and out of classical Greek. I understand that Greek is a very dualistic language, not easily given to shades of grey, let alone colors. I understand from the Jewish sources I've persued that whole worlds of subtle understanding were lost completely in these translations. It's like taking a photo of a rainbow using grainy black and white film. A huge amount of "could be, maybe or possibly" thinking got buldozed by "either it is, or it isn't!" Now, many, many generations have produced people who don't even realize that there may be other ways to think than the single one they're familiar with. It's not about doctrine. It's about the ability (or lack therof) to handle concepts in an effective way. This is one of the strong peripheral reasons I left Christianity. I became thoroughly disgusted by hundreds of thousands of damned preachers being willfully derelict in their duty to educate, train and equip their communities to deal with life. Personally, I've found the many models approach to be the most effective and useful to me in daily life. But few are the Christians who are even remotely be able to understand me when I answer, "D. All of the above." They aren't able to deal cogently with "both AND neither" concepts because they have not been properly equipped by the damned clergy. rant rant rant Posted by: bob Feb 1 2004, 01:51 PM QUOTE (Jay) If you don't believe in God - especially the God of the Bible - then why do you use instances in the Bible to defend your disbelief? In other words, you don't believe in God, yet you'll hold the Biblical stories of "genocide, rape, mistreatment of women, slavery, etc." against God, and use these examples as reasons to deny Him. If you don't believe in God, why would you believe the stories in the Bible? If you don't believe in the Bible, then how can it make sense to use it for your defense? And/or to justify your disbelief in a God that would do these horrible things? Jay, The only reason I do not believe in the existence of a god is because said existence has never been proven, nor has one shred of evidence for said existence been given. The only reason I would use an example of a biblical atrocity is to show the believer that the very god he/she worships, according the very book that brought them to said belief, is a cruel, despicable god, not the loving god they proclaim him to be. That does not mean that I believe all of those atrocities actually happened. But the believer in bible god, if he/she holds a literal interpretation of the bible, does believe all those atrocities happened, yet will justify those actions as acts of divine love and justice. As I have said before, if proof was given for the existence of the bible god, I would then believe in his existence, but I would not worship him because of all the cruelty he and his followers inflicted on humanity, in biblical and post biblical times. QUOTE (Jay) In my next post, I'm going to answer the questions regarding those "horrible" things that God did in the Bible. Just to set the record straight - even though some of you don't believe any of it anyways. Jay, please, before you begin your scholarly attempt at explaining to us why it was ok, (again, I'm not saying these events actually happened) for the followers of your god, and at his command, to commit these few examples of the many cruel actions in your bible..... NU 31:17-18 Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children and "... every woman who has known man. NU 31:31-40 32,000 virgins are taken by the Israelites as booty. Thirty-two are set aside (to be sacrificed?) as a tribute for the Lord. DT 2:33-34 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Sihon. DT 3:6 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Og. ...please ask your self, "How would I feel today, right here, today, in the world I live in, if the god of the bible commanded the modern day Israelites to commit acts similar to the above listed OT passages?" Jay, to be honest, if you actually believe that your god had a good reason for doing what he did, then you would fit right in with the Inquisitors, Crusaders, and Reformers of the past. You would fit right in with the heretic burners and the witch drowners. When a woman in an Islamic country, accused of adultery, is buried up to her chin in the sand and stoned to death, in this enlightened time we now live in, you would fit right in with the other barbarians throwing the stones at her. Any christian who says that the bible god was justified in his actions by causing a flood that (supposedly) wiped out all life on our planet, is a simpleton...in my humble opinion. Posted by: chefranden Feb 1 2004, 01:52 PM QUOTE (JaySaint) If you don't believe in God - especially the God of the Bible - then why do you use instances in the Bible to defend your disbelief? Mostly because Christians use it. It would be more useful to debate the mind/body problem to determine if you even have a soul that needs to be saved. I have never seen a christian approach religion from a secular postion on this forum. Nevertheless, I have considered the option not to admit any thing from scripture or derived from scripture as a ligimate premise for argument. However if I did, if all exchristians did, there would be little point of interaction with christians. QUOTE In other words, you don't believe in God, yet you'll hold the Biblical stories of "genocide, rape, mistreatment of women, slavery, etc." against God, and use these examples as reasons to deny Him. I don't think the stories are true, that is real history. The point of the exersise is that you do and still hold that TriGod, Yahweh/boy/ghost, is real and has no evil found in it, in spite of the evidence that you hold to be true, that is real history. This problem of evil is the major proof for the non-existance of christian god. It is Christians, such as youself, that fail to see the contradiction, or if you see it you ignore it and/or create countless theodicies in defense. QUOTE Is this contradictory? Isn't it supposed to be one or the other - all or nothing? I could hold that some of the stories may be true without damaging the position of no god. Ancient people did write some actual history in which they atributed success or failure to various Gods. Nevertheless, correlation is not causation. Until lately I thought the OT could be considered a rough and prejudiced account of Hebrew history, but I doubt that much of it is real history anymore. I think that the gospels, are fabricated history. Acts is a much embellished account of Paul's travels. I think that Paul was the author of some of his letters. I doubt John or Peter were the authors of their letters. Posted by: chefranden Feb 1 2004, 01:56 PM QUOTE (JaySaint) In my next post, I'm going to answer the questions regarding those "horrible" things that God did in the Bible. Just to set the record straight - even though some of you don't believe any of it anyways. It will be interesting to see if you come up anything we haven't heard, or said ourselves in days of yore. Posted by: moorezw Feb 1 2004, 02:12 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 1 2004, 04:49 AM) If you don't believe in God - especially the God of the Bible - then why do you use instances in the Bible to defend your disbelief? JayS8NT- No, it's not contradictory at all. When I communicate with Christians, I have to find a common set of knowledge that we both can share. Since the Bible contains most of Christian doctrine, 'biblespeak' is the language that I have to use. It does not mean that I believe in the concepts within the language, just that I know what Christians believe them to mean. For example, how would you try to explain to someone that Santa Clause did not exist without referencing the North Pole, the flying reindeer, or the helper elves? Posted by: pitchu Feb 1 2004, 02:30 PM I know anaolgies are inadequate, but this one popped into my head and I can't resist sharing it. Vaccuum Cleaner Salesman: With this here item, Little Lady, your cleaning worries are over! Just sign here... Little Lady: I bought one of those a year ago. The brochure that came with it described another model entirely; every time I plugged it in I got a shock; the exhaust was the intake and vice versa; the more I used it the dirtier the house got; finally the thing just fell apart, piece by piece, and I said, "That's it! I've had it!" Vaccuum Cleaner Salesman: Why do you Little Ladies always refer to the vaccuum cleaner as the reason you're not buying one? Posted by: Loren Feb 1 2004, 02:39 PM QUOTE (pitchu @ Feb 1 2004, 02:30 PM) Vaccuum Cleaner Salesman: Why do you Little Ladies always refer to the vaccuum cleaner as the reason you're not buying one? There you go! Right to it. Posted by: pitchu Feb 1 2004, 08:04 PM I'm glad you enjoyed it, Loren. Posted by: chefranden Feb 1 2004, 09:11 PM Pitchu, That is one analogy that seems very adequate to me. chef Posted by: Outsider Feb 1 2004, 10:21 PM Jay, Well, I came in this thread late and there is not much I need to add. I wish you well in answering all these questions. I think you might have quit your day job, if you want to post to everyone! I agree with what TexasFreethinker pointed out about how christians deal with other religions. You cannot tell me that Christian apologists do not spend huge amounts of time studying the errors in other holy texts. I think I might have a couple books that dealt with Mormonism and Buddhism and how they are "false" faiths. Does it mean that since Christian apologists study other holy texts then they contradicting themselves? I think most people see what you are getting at with this thread. It comes from that verse (sorry, do not know it off the top of my head) of, "Do you hate me because I bring the truth?" Also in church a pastor might give a sermon on how people hate the truth of the Gospel. However, I am afraid this perception is only that, a perception and one that is not based in reality. No one is plugging their ears and saying, "no no no, I know it is true, but I don't want it to be true, nonononono.... ahh". People here have come to the conclusion that the bible is not true. That is it, nothing more nothing less. Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 2 2004, 10:23 AM Hi everybody, Thanks for all the feedback! Tex, great post! The comparitive reasoning you provided really spelled it out for me. I never thought of it that way, but you're right - I studied the books of other religions, and although I didn't believe in the books, I used them to defend my faith - or show the apparent errors in theirs. Thanks again. Pitchu, what an analogy. It got me thinking, and contrary to what you said - it was very adequate! Thanks. Moorezw: QUOTE When I communicate with Christians, I have to find a common set of knowledge that we both can share. Since the Bible contains most of Christian doctrine, 'biblespeak' is the language that I have to use. It does not mean that I believe in the concepts within the language, just that I know what Christians believe them to mean. For example, how would you try to explain to someone that Santa Clause did not exist without referencing the North Pole, the flying reindeer, or the helper elves? Point well taken! Thanks, I understand more. Hi Chef - I thought I lost ya! QUOTE I have never seen a christian approach religion from a secular postion on this forum. Nevertheless, I have considered the option not to admit any thing from scripture or derived from scripture as a ligimate premise for argument. However if I did, if all exchristians did, there would be little point of interaction with christians. Good point Chef. It would seem that to remove the Bible from conversation with Christians, there wouldn't be much to talk about. I think there really is more to discuss than just the Bible, I just don't think Christians take that approach (as you said). Interesting... Hi Doug, QUOTE If you want to explain away some of the problems in the bible, you can start with Bruce's thread which had 1 million and 1 biblical errors. Where/what is "Bruce's thread"? Please let me know - thanks! Hi Webmaster ("Dave" is it?), I believe this is the first time we've interchanged posts. Thanks for your reply/insight. QUOTE Most of the people who come here are EX-CHRISTIANS. Some were Christians for years of their lives. Naturally they use parts of the bible to explain why they don't believe the bible. Many people, like myself, stopped believing primarily because of the very book that is supposed to make a person believe. Makes sense. Since the majority here were Christians at some point, it would be a normal expectation to see them use the Bible in discussion topics. QUOTE Another reason people use the references from the bible, is because they are discussing these things with CHRISTIANS like yourself, whose minds are all tangled up in the bible so that certain verses are like magic mantras, repeated in a manner as a wizard would cast a spell. The point of throwing it back in the Christian's face is to show that it is not powerful and does return void time and time again. Although I understand your point, I can't agree. I've seen too many lives (including my own) that have been changed - not returned "void." Not that the Bible changes the lives, but that the God of the Bible changes lives. QUOTE I don't think that was too hard to figure out. I took all dozens of apologetic and witnessing classes when I was a Christian. Since Christianity is built on a very weak foundation, it is a common technique to put the other person on the defense and make them justify themselves. That way the Christian is in control of the conversation and can help bolster their fragile faith. Putting the other person on the defensive all the time is a good way to avoid actually answering questions, because the other person is always answering questions instead. That works if all you want to do is put down the other person, but does nothing for actually addressing the topic. Once again, I have to disagree. In all the apologetic & witnessing classes I've taken, I've never been taught a way of "technique" as you say. Maybe you had teachers that didn't know how to communicate the foundation of faith, so they passed on the very thing they relied on - technique. If that's what you think I'm doing here, you're sadly mistaken. I've been answering as many questions as I've been handing out - if not more. Making deductions based on the facts is one thing. Making deductions based on assumptions is quite another. I do my best not to do this, and find it fair to request the same of everyone else. If Christianity is built on such a "weak" foundation - if my faith is so "fragile" - why hasn't it (Christianity) been destroyed? Many have tried through the past 2000 years - NONE have been successful. Anyone knows that without a strong foundation, the building cannot stand the test of time, weather the storms, or last through the "wrecking balls" of those trying to destroy it. Yet Christianity has. You can believe (which you do) that it is based on a "very weak" foundation, but unfortunately history proves otherwise. I know this is completely another topic, but I was compelled to reply to your statements. QUOTE Now the fact that evil infidels use that technique is to be expected, from a Christian viewpoint. Another assumption - at least when it comes to my viewpoint. I don't expect anyone to "use that technique." I simply expect to discuss things together. Why does there have to be a technique behind discussion? Why does there have to be different intentions other than just talking to people? Not happening here. QUOTE But the fact that Christians use it too, shows the disingenuous nature of Christianity. It is not really interested in proving itself, it is only interested in keeping those who have been captured by its siren song in line. You're right - the motive of a Christian shouldn't be to "prove" God to people. God says He's given all the "proof" anyone would need. I'm not a hired attorney of Jesus, He needs no defense. I am however, inclined to give an answer to anyone that asks. Provide reasoning to the reason. Defend the faith that I've been given. Learn, grow, discuss, build relationships, and have fun - that's why I'm here. Thanks to all of you who replied. I don't want to make this anymore of a novel than it already is. Respectfully, Jay Posted by: moorezw Feb 2 2004, 10:40 AM JayS8NT- QUOTE If Christianity is built on such a "weak" foundation - if my faith is so "fragile" - why hasn't it (Christianity) been destroyed? Many have tried through the past 2000 years - NONE have been successful. Anyone knows that without a strong foundation, the building cannot stand the test of time, weather the storms, or last through the "wrecking balls" of those trying to destroy it. I bet I could keep a house together that was built on a weak foundation, assuming I had an army of builders eager to patch it together and 2000 years to work on it. Posted by: Lokmer Feb 2 2004, 12:07 PM QUOTE If Christianity is built on such a "weak" foundation - if my faith is so "fragile" - why hasn't it (Christianity) been destroyed? Many have tried through the past 2000 years - NONE have been successful. Actually, the attempts have only come in the last 300 years, and there are a few reasons for this. One is that the Catholic Church controlled all of the information in the Western world for 1300 of those years - it was able to destroy most of the proofs against it (though it missed a few). The second answer is that Christianity HAS been destroyed. Europe has a Christian population of under 10% - less that 1% in places like Holland (meaning that Christians are rarer than homosexuals and multiple scleurosis victims!). Outside of Africa and the U.S., Christianity might as well not exist in today's world, for the amount of people that espouse it as more than cultural background. By the best estimates I've seen (U.N. figures) there are ~2 billion Chrstians in the world. There are 6.5 billion people in the world. And that does not differentiate between one who can say the creeds and believe them from one who happens to stop by Church for a wedding or a funeral. The only reason you don't see that it's destroyed is that you live in America. QUOTE Anyone knows that without a strong foundation, the building cannot stand the test of time, weather the storms, or last through the "wrecking balls" of those trying to destroy it. Yet Christianity has. You can believe (which you do) that it is based on a "very weak" foundation, but unfortunately history proves otherwise. I know this is completely another topic, but I was compelled to reply to your statements. But by this reasoning, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and Egyptian Necromancy are all far truer faiths than is Christianity. All of them pre-date Christianity by at least 500 years, and in one case (Egyptian Necromancy) it predates Christianity by 3,000-4,000 years. All of these faiths ar still practiced in one form or another (Egyptian Necromancy is practiced in a modified and diluted form by the Rosecrucians, if I'm not mistaken), and have been continuously since their inception. The reason that weak foundations do not make a faith whither and crumble is that people want to believe - they need to believe - in something to give their life meaning. The vast majority of people never question the beliefs they were raised with, regardless of what they are. The force of cultural continuity is enough to keep even Egyptian Necromancy going all these years. Why should Christianity be any different from any other man-made religion in this respect? -Lokmer Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 2 2004, 05:31 PM Hi Lokmer, QUOTE Actually, the attempts have only come in the last 300 years, and there are a few reasons for this. One is that the Catholic Church controlled all of the information in the Western world for 1300 of those years - it was able to destroy most of the proofs against it (though it missed a few). Actually, the attempts began right away! You've probably heard of the "Gnostic" movement. Also, the Romans tried to bury the first church. The government tried to keep Paul and others from "preaching" about Jesus. Many of them were martyrs, killed for their faith. It's never stopped since the resurrection. So yes, it has been for the past 2000 years. QUOTE The second answer is that Christianity HAS been destroyed...(shortened for length purposes)...The only reason you don't see that it's destroyed is that you live in America. You are right, latest statistics show that there are approximately 2 billion Christians in the world. However, you are wrong in saying it "HAS been destroyed." Compare it to other world "religions" and you'll see that the next largest is Islam with a bit over 1 billion, then Hinduism at 900 million, and then Buddhism at 3.5 million. Christianity makes up 33% of the world population (more than any other religion). And your statistics in Europe may be a little foggy (they do have lots of it I understand). A recent poll shows that Christianity is the dominant religion at over 71%. QUOTE But by this reasoning, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and Egyptian Necromancy are all far truer faiths than is Christianity. All of them pre-date Christianity by at least 500 years, and in one case (Egyptian Necromancy) it predates Christianity by 3,000-4,000 years. All of these faiths ar still practiced in one form or another (Egyptian Necromancy is practiced in a modified and diluted form by the Rosecrucians, if I'm not mistaken), and have been continuously since their inception. Yes, these other religions pre-date Christianity. However, I'd like to look at the comparison of attack on these religions too. I doubt (don't know for sure) that any of these other religions have endured as much attack and persecution. Or had so many attempts to cage it's spread. QUOTE The reason that weak foundations do not make a faith whither and crumble is that people want to believe - they need to believe - in something to give their life meaning. The vast majority of people never question the beliefs they were raised with, regardless of what they are. The force of cultural continuity is enough to keep even Egyptian Necromancy going all these years. Why should Christianity be any different from any other man-made religion in this respect? I can only partially agree here. The foundation of Christianity as started from the early church was based on people that were eyewitnesses to the events regarding Christ. They believed it to the point of death. Many say, "So, what's the big deal - people die for their faith all the time, why would that mean anything different for Christianity?" The answer is this: Nobody knowingly, willingly, dies for a lie. Jay Posted by: woodsmoke Feb 2 2004, 05:38 PM 2000 years is not withstanding the test of time. I'm sure near the end of it's prime, the citizens of the Roman Empire scoffed at those foolish enough to even suggest such a thing as the fall of the greatest empire ever known to humanity. Here we sit over a thousand years later, and while it is still remembered as the wondrous achievement it was, the "immortal" Roman Empire is now the stuff of history texts. Rome didn't fall over night. The empire slowly came apart over the course of many years, until the pathetic husk that was left finally toppled upon itself. By this point, however, the vast majority of people populating the regions which had once been included within this empire probably barely noticed--much less cared. The same is true of Xianity. It lived its prime when it ruled over Europe for centuries--the result of which has come to be known as the Dark Ages. Now, however, the inward decay of this once-mighty empire has begun and been in process for a few decades now. Just as those living in Rome itself undoubtedly did right up until the clock struck midnight (so to speak), the hardcore fundamentalists in the world are vehemently denouncing this decline in power and popularity. Their objections don't make it any less real. Slowly but surely, Xianity is dying. No one knows how long it will take for the pitiful husk--all that remains of the cult's once-great power--to finally collapse, but it will happen. My only regret will be if I don't live long enough to see it. As I said, 2000 years is not withstanding the test of time. If there actually is some kind of afterlife from which we'll be able to view the Earth and life in the universe, I'd say give it another 10,000. After that, if Xianity is still around and as predominant as it seems to some, then it may have begun to face that test. Posted by: bob Feb 2 2004, 06:20 PM QUOTE (Jay) Also, the Romans tried to bury the first church. The government tried to keep Paul and others from "preaching" about Jesus. Many of them were martyrs, killed for their faith. What is your source. Who told you that Rome was against the first church? Who told you Paul, or any of the apostles were martyred? QUOTE (Jay) ...Yes, these other religions pre-date Christianity. However, I'd like to look at the comparison of attack on these religions too. I doubt (don't know for sure) that any of these other religions have endured as much attack and persecution. Or had so many attempts to cage it's spread... Where do you read that the church has been attacked? Who has been doing the attacking? From what I have read, christians have suffered mostly at the hands of christians. Posted by: Libertus Feb 2 2004, 06:29 PM QUOTE Yes, these other religions pre-date Christianity. However, I'd like to look at the comparison of attack on these religions too. I doubt (don't know for sure) that any of these other religions have endured as much attack and persecution. Or had so many attempts to cage it's spread. Jay, even if everything that the church supposedly underwent were true, what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. Xpen Posted by: Doug2 Feb 3 2004, 12:40 AM QUOTE (bob @ Feb 2 2004, 06:20 PM) Where do you read that the church has been attacked? Who has been doing the attacking? From what I have read, christians have suffered mostly at the hands of christians. What about the crusades, wait, that was christians attacking muslims. Oh...Oh! The inquisition! Wait, no that was christians attacking jews and non-christians. I've got it! The witch trials. Damn, again christians attacking anyone that didn't fit in with them. Posted by: Doug2 Feb 3 2004, 01:05 AM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 2 2004, 10:23 AM) Hi Doug, Where/what is "Bruce's thread"? Please let me know - thanks! Actually there have been a lot of great posts on this board with biblical absurdities. Bruce just posted the longest one. Here it is: http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=953&hl=errors Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 3 2004, 06:05 AM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 2 2004, 08:31 PM) Many say, "So, what's the big deal - people die for their faith all the time, why would that mean anything different for Christianity?" The answer is this: Nobody knowingly, willingly, dies for a lie. I see four problems with this argument. 1. We don't know for certain how any of the "founding fathers" of christianity died. 2. Even if a "founding father" - someone who personally knew Jesus - was killed, it doesn't validate what you believe - they may have been killed for reasons other than their beliefs, and the early church turned that into a martyr story (think David Koresh in Waco - he wasn't killed for what he believed, but because he was accused of sexual child abuse and defied the government when they attempted to investigate or arrest him. However, he's seen as a martyr by his followers.) - they may have been killed for their beliefs, but those beliefs may have been real but misplaced. Just because they really thought Jesus was worth following doesn't mean he was a god. People died for Jim Jones, people died for the Heaven's Gate cult leader, people died for Joseph Smith but you don't think they were what they claimed to be. 3. All others killed may have genuinely believed (just like you do), but all that means is that they died for something they felt was true. It doesn't make chrisitianity true any more than someone being killed for their Muslim beliefs would make it true. 4. I'm not sure that nobody willing dies for a lie. Think about mercenaries. They put their life willingly on the line for money or adventure or glory even though they may not believe in or even support the cause they are fighting for. *************** Using the death of a person for a cause as the validation of that cause is an extremely weak argument. Posted by: moorezw Feb 3 2004, 06:16 AM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 2 2004, 08:31 PM) Many say, "So, what's the big deal - people die for their faith all the time, why would that mean anything different for Christianity?" The answer is this: Nobody knowingly, willingly, dies for a lie. JayS8NT- This leaves a few options, actually: 1) The founders of Christianity were correct, and died for believing the truth. 2) The founders of Christianity were incorrect, and died because they were deceived. 3) The founders of Christianity were never martyred at all, save through Church tradition. The lack of evidence supporting the first two leaves the third as a virtual certainty. Posted by: woodsmoke Feb 3 2004, 03:27 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT) You are right, latest statistics show that there are approximately 2 billion Christians in the world. However, you are wrong in saying it "HAS been destroyed." Compare it to other world "religions" and you'll see that the next largest is Islam with a bit over 1 billion, then Hinduism at 900 million, and then Buddhism at 3.5 million. Christianity makes up 33% of the world population (more than any other religion). And your statistics in Europe may be a little foggy (they do have lots of it I understand). A recent poll shows that Christianity is the dominant religion at over 71%. I'm not going to discount this claim off-hand, as I don't know the statistics myself, but I can't help but remain skeptical of the claim, and I'd like to see some actual census results. Tocis, care to chime in about "Christianity" in Europe? QUOTE (JayS8NT) Yes, these other religions pre-date Christianity. However, I'd like to look at the comparison of attack on these religions too. I doubt (don't know for sure) that any of these other religions have endured as much attack and persecution. Or had so many attempts to cage it's spread. Let's see.... For starters, Paganism and Wicca. They were ancient before Christianity's umbilical cord was cut. Let's not forget who their main prosecutor was, either. Persecution against Christians doesn't come anywhere near persecution by Christians in this arena. Your nasty little cult did all they could to wipe these religions from the face of the Earth, and yet even here in parts of fundie HQ USA, they're still going strong. And for the ultimate biggie when it comes to monotheism: Judaism. Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria, Arabia, Germany, and seemingly counless others; a very large amount of the world's nations have tried to eradicate this belief system from history's eye. As with paganism, Judaism was setting records for longevity when Christianity had it's first diaper changed. Christianity is the theological equivalent of school-yard bully. It will intimidate everyone to no end, but when someone else finally gets sick of their shit and throws a few punches back, it will run crying to the principal and demand vengance. The worst thing that's happend to Christianity practically since its inception was facing the lions in the Roman colosseum. Since then, Christianity has become the lion, and it's done infinitely more brutal and inhuman things than a natural feline could ever imagine doing. QUOTE (JayS8NT) I can only partially agree here. The foundation of Christianity as started from the early church was based on people that were eyewitnesses to the events regarding Christ. They believed it to the point of death. Wrong! The gospels were written at least a full 100 years after the death of Jesus by people who could not possibly have witnessed his life or ministry. Taking into account the mortality/life-expectancy rate of the time, the chances that there was even anyone still alive who did are slim, and the chances that the writers of the "gospels" would have known and been able to divulge information from these people are even more unlikely. This is assuming that there ever even existed a Jesus, there were no legitimate and verified eye-witnesses to the events allegedly performed in his life's course. Everything we know about this only possibly existant Jewish radical comes from--at best--second or third hand information recorded well over 80 years after the fact. Christianity is entirely built upon hearsay, works of fiction, and blind, irrational belief. Perhaps it's true that nobody knowingly and willingly dies for a lie, but people die all the time for personally accepted and believed deceptions. Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 3 2004, 04:02 PM Hi Woodsmoke, I'm sure the statistics can be easily found on the internet site of a trusted source. I can save you the time though, since that's where I found them. QUOTE Wrong! The gospels were written at least a full 100 years after the death of Jesus by people who could not possibly have witnessed his life or ministry. Taking into account the mortality/life-expectancy rate of the time, the chances that there was even anyone still alive who did are slim, and the chances that the writers of the "gospels" would have known and been able to divulge information from these people are even more unlikely. Unfortunately for you in this case, I was the one that did the studying. I made that claim for a reason: Luke 1:1-3 "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you..." 2 Peter 1:16 "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." Your "full 100 years" theory is incorrect also. Starting in about 40 AD and continuing to about 90 AD, the eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude wrote the Gospels, letters and books that later become the New Testament. These authors quoted from 31 books of the Old Testament, and widely circulated their material so that by about 150 AD, early Christians were referring to the set of writings as the New Covenant. QUOTE This is assuming that there ever even existed a Jesus, there were no legitimate and verified eye-witnesses to the events allegedly performed in his life's course. Everything we know about this only possibly existant Jewish radical comes from--at best--second or third hand information recorded well over 80 years after the fact. See above. QUOTE Christianity is entirely built upon hearsay, works of fiction, and blind, irrational belief. Wrong again - see above. QUOTE Perhaps it's true that nobody knowingly and willingly dies for a lie, but people die all the time for personally accepted and believed deceptions. The difference is that these early believers did know what happened, and couldn't deny it even to the point of death! It wasn't a game of telephone, or story-telling - I would argue that nobody would die for that. But if you saw something so impactful and influential that you would be willing to die for it, that is a different thing altogether. Contrary to what Tex said: QUOTE Using the death of a person for a cause as the validation of that cause is an extremely weak argument. Not when you look at the context/circumstances surrounding the first martyrs of Christianity. Jay Posted by: Lokmer Feb 3 2004, 04:09 PM The first martyr was Stephen. We don't have records of martyrs or how they died after that until Polycarp. -Lokmer Posted by: MalaInSe Feb 3 2004, 04:39 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 3 2004, 04:02 PM) QUOTE Christianity is entirely built upon hearsay, works of fiction, and blind, irrational belief. Wrong again - see above. Cheese and crackers got all muddy! Do I HAVE to explain hearsay AGAIN? Whilst I look for my last explanation, please see my signature quote, and ponder this definition: Hearsay is an out of court statement made for the truth of the matter asserted. Unless you can show me that anything in the Bible is court testimony made under oath it's hearsay. Renee Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 3 2004, 04:41 PM Lokmer, Yes, it was Stephen - in the book of Acts. On a personal note: You are another that I have gained a good amount of respect for on this board. You've been very insightful, you seem to have a great grasp and understanding of the Bible and Christianity, and you've been careful not to endulge in sarcasm (although I've seen hints of it, lol). I read your testimony, and it was very sobering, very honest, very interesting, and I wanted to talk to you over coffee! Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Sincerely, Jay Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 3 2004, 04:45 PM Hi Renee, Thanks for your input. So are you saying, in essence, you'd like to put the Bible on trial? Examine the evidence? Provide the proof and make a judgement? It's been done, many times over (probably even on this board). I'll be more than happy to re-open the "case" if you'd like to. It's already been suggested by some in this thread. Just let me know... Jay Posted by: MalaInSe Feb 3 2004, 04:52 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 3 2004, 04:45 PM) Hi Renee, Thanks for your input. So are you saying, in essence, you'd like to put the Bible on trial? Examine the evidence? Provide the proof and make a judgement? It's been done, many times over (probably even on this board). I'll be more than happy to re-open the "case" if you'd like to. It's already been suggested by some in this thread. Just let me know... Jay Actually, my last lengthy post demonstrated why the Bible was not admissable as evidence, based mostly on the hearsay rule with a little bit of the previously named "best evidence rule" thrown in. The problem is, the Bible is clearly inadmissable hearsay, and you cannot provide a true and accurate copy of the original to the Court, so the Bible is pretty much excluded as evidence. Edited to clarify: You don't even get to the point of putting the Bible on trial, because it doesn't even make it to court. That's the fundamental problem with the Bible from an evidentiary standpoint, in my mind. I'm looking for the last post. I keep meaning to write one I can cut and paste, because the hearsay rule is pretty misunderstood by those outside the legal community. It would be a fun brief to write, I think, except that I have some that I already have to write for work. I may have some time coming up next week to tackle a full brief. Ren Posted by: moorezw Feb 3 2004, 04:59 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 3 2004, 07:45 PM) It's been done, many times over (probably even on this board). I'll be more than happy to re-open the "case" if you'd like to. JayS8NT- No thanks, I don't think we need a transcript of Lee Strobel's book. Especially if you haven't read Earl Doherty's rebuttal. Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 3 2004, 05:08 PM Moorezw, You're a clever one! Did you read Lee's book? I haven't read Earl's, (I'm sure you're not surprised). Renee, I've always liked the name Renee BTW. QUOTE The problem is...you cannot provide a true and accurate copy of the original to the Court, so the Bible is pretty much excluded as evidence. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? I understand your arguement regarding the definition of "hearsay" - however, based on that qualifier, it would eliminate nearly every ancient non-fictional book in history - would it not? Jay Posted by: sexkitten Feb 3 2004, 05:10 PM QUOTE (woodsmoke @ Feb 3 2004, 03:27 PM) Since then, Christianity has become the lion, and it's done infinitely more brutal and inhuman things than a natural feline could ever imagine doing. So true! -Sexkitten Posted by: moorezw Feb 3 2004, 05:10 PM JayS8NT- QUOTE You're a clever one! Did you read Lee's book? I haven't read Earl's, (I'm sure you're not surprised). Thanks, yes, and |