Everything is going to be O.K. President Bush is praying for the victims of the Virginia tech massacre. I just can’t say this enough. How much more productive would our society be if people stopped praying and started doing. Who is to say that if someone was paying attention instead of talking to God that this whole situation could have been averted? O.K. to be fair it doesn’t appear that religion was in any way a causal factor in this incident but the aftermath sure brings out the religions wackos!!!
When I was young I was beat by my father. Some people knew about it and they prayed for me. Guess what, it never helped. I remember riding in a car on the freeway with a Christian friend and a car went speeding down the freeway past us at about 150 mph. My friend pulled over to the side of the road to pray over the situation. Um…… how about using that cell phone to call the police? When a drunk driver nearly took my life it wasn’t prayer that facilitated my rehabilitation but hard work and determination to get better. If God is in control of everything and God has ordained everything then our prayers are pointless anyways. This would explain why prayer doesn’t work. If things are happening a certain way in your life or in the world, do you really think that you asking God to make them change is going to be effective. Like God is going to hear your prayer and be like “oh I didn’t realize how this string of events was effecting him/her, I suppose I will stop.
The notion that God exist is much scarier than the notion of their being no God. If God exist then we are all pawns that are subject to his often violent and masochistic tendencies. If he doesn’t exist then we are forced to take responsibility to repair the needless chaos in the world ourselves. We must take responsibility to our fellow man and accept the consequences of any actions that we make that cause our lives or the lives of those around us to be impaired.
One of my only regrets in life, one of the only things that I can’t seem to get a handle on is religion. I wish that I wasn’t so heavily indoctrinated in religion as a child. I wish that there was never a point in my life where I accepted this stuff, believed it and followed it. I was so serious that I even created my own very successful ministry. To this day I find myself exhibiting behavior that is indicative of my religious upbringing. It absolutely drives me nuts that I can’t get a handle on this. The things that you are fed as a child are things that you will have to deal with for the rest of you life. I understand that many parents believe that church is a good place to raise children because it teaches them good moral values but they simply don’t realize that even if the child absorbs the good moral values out of the biblical lessons, that they will be practicing them for the wrong reason. Fear is the wrong reason and to please God is the wrong reason. Both of these reasons take away from the beauty of simply doing good because it benefits your family, fellow man or society. Doing good to please God is a process the strips the humanity out of the action.
There is a lot of brilliant apologist out there. I have found that debating them, even with the upper hand, is a lost cause. I have also discovered that any need to debate them stems, once again, from my religious upbringing. It stems from a need to win converts, even if that means to convert them into a deconversion. This has left me with a feeling of despair and contempt for religion and for America as a whole. I am not one to give up, but I simply don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel, so here I hide, tucking my ideas into my blog. Here I hide because if I utilize my right to free speech, in this country, I will be ostracized or possibly even killed if someone feels that God has commanded them to do so.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
God is in control!
-UPDATE- So often events like this are used to further agenda's. I am obviously guilty of that with this blog. I wanted to take a moment to apologize. We should be honoring and remembering the victims here. This was a horrible tragedy. This was senseless. I can only imagine the feeling of hopelessness that must accompany the survivors and the families of the victims. So do what you need to do. Think good thoughts, pray for them, or (my favorite) take action to help. All we have in this world is each other and we need to take care of one another regardless of our disagreements. Here is a link of the victims VA Shooting, Victims
Praise the Lord! God has again carried out his holy and blessed will in his omnipotence by allowing 32 people to die at the hands of a senseless gunman in what is being hailed as the worst school shooting ever in American history. As we cannot know God’s divine plan we can only make the assumption that the 32 people killed were evil. Perhaps they were rapist or were murderers that had not yet been found out. Perhaps one of the people killed was going to be the next Hilter and now the world is spared of so much more pain. I suppose the other 31 was a small sacrifice. Of course I suppose a better way to go about it would have been to not create the evil people in the first place, but who am I to question God. So let’s pray for the departed as they are all now in a better place. We did not ask God the condition that we came here so we cannot ask him the condition that we leave here. Of course having a viewpoint that doesn’t allow for a supreme being to make sense of these horrible acts, makes them much more difficult to deal with. Some of us choose to live in the real world nonetheless.
Praise the Lord! God has again carried out his holy and blessed will in his omnipotence by allowing 32 people to die at the hands of a senseless gunman in what is being hailed as the worst school shooting ever in American history. As we cannot know God’s divine plan we can only make the assumption that the 32 people killed were evil. Perhaps they were rapist or were murderers that had not yet been found out. Perhaps one of the people killed was going to be the next Hilter and now the world is spared of so much more pain. I suppose the other 31 was a small sacrifice. Of course I suppose a better way to go about it would have been to not create the evil people in the first place, but who am I to question God. So let’s pray for the departed as they are all now in a better place. We did not ask God the condition that we came here so we cannot ask him the condition that we leave here. Of course having a viewpoint that doesn’t allow for a supreme being to make sense of these horrible acts, makes them much more difficult to deal with. Some of us choose to live in the real world nonetheless.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Don Imus is an "UnNappy Headed White Non Ho!"
Usually I reserve this site for religion related blogs. I wrote one on my personal site thought that I think you will find interesting even though it is more political than religious. It is in regards to the whole situation that is going on with Don Imus. Click the link above (The headline) if you are interested. Thanks!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Death is Forever
I am heading into what I hope will be my final surgery to reconstruct my bone structure after the Christian man Mark Nigon nearly took my life while driving drunk last July.
As I prepare to go under the knife, I am forced to think about the permanence of death and how Christians seem to have absolutely no understanding of it. If you are interested in the accident please visit www.nomoredrunks.blogspot.com
I have discussed the detriments of how Christians live for the next life instead of living for the one that they are in here. The mindset that you are going to spend eternity in another world can only have a negative effect on how you treat the world that you are currently in. After all if this world means nothing compared to the next then what possible reason could there be for you to take care of it? I would like to discuss another danger of this type of thinking though. This involves the permanence of death.
Because Christians are living for the next life and not for this one they will likely miss out on what this life has to offer. The idea of living for the next life has been used effectively throughout history as a means to keep the masses under control. With this idea so embedded into the majority of the population though a new danger has come about. Christians genuinely believe that there is another life beyond this one. This belief leads to a general downward spiral that devalues human life, or any life for that matter.
Christians believe that when you die you will either go to Heaven
or Hell. Because of this belief mixed with the selfish nature of human beings, an utter disregard for life
will be created. If a human is “evil” or “wicked” and he is killed then he will go to hell and thus get what he/she deserves. If a person is “good” or “just” then he/she will go to heaven and yet again, will get what they deserve. Most people regardless of their religious affiliation are assumed to go to heaven because it is just much nicer for us to think of them in that way after they have departed. If you ever go to a funeral you will hear things like “He is in a better place” or “He is with God now.” The only people that are assumed to go to hell are criminals that are high profile in our media, or people that may have had very few others that cared about them.
Here is the problem. If there is no wrong in death because everyone that dies will get their “just desserts” then there is no wrong in taking a life by accident or through negligence. This gives people a free pass to be reckless with human life. A Christian man can drive drunk and nearly kill someone then go to the trial and say that they are praying for that person in an attempt to have the judge reduce their sentence based on their faith and good candor. A Christian might feel that they are doing God’s work by removing a non-believer from this world.
It is no secret that Christian belief is deadly in many areas. The interpretation of scriptures by different people can result in varying beliefs about the meaning of that scripture. This is dangerous because Christians feel that their laws are superior to the laws of the land even though countries that are more secular tend to be more progressive and humanitarian. In other words, if you injure or kill someone out of negligence or religious intentions, you will be punished in the same manner as if it was intentional. There is no way to reverse the damage that you do by ending someone’s life. They are gone, dead, finished. There is no heaven or hell or afterlife, however comforting you might find the thought. You must directly pay for your actions. So what is the answer for the person that is concerned that they might be caught in the crossfire, in the wrong place at the wrong time? Make better decisions, don’t be in bad places, and don’t hang with bad people. If you are putting yourself in situations that increase the possibility of you being involved in the harming of another human being then be prepared to accept responsibility.
As I prepare to go under the knife, I am forced to think about the permanence of death and how Christians seem to have absolutely no understanding of it. If you are interested in the accident please visit www.nomoredrunks.blogspot.com
I have discussed the detriments of how Christians live for the next life instead of living for the one that they are in here. The mindset that you are going to spend eternity in another world can only have a negative effect on how you treat the world that you are currently in. After all if this world means nothing compared to the next then what possible reason could there be for you to take care of it? I would like to discuss another danger of this type of thinking though. This involves the permanence of death.
Because Christians are living for the next life and not for this one they will likely miss out on what this life has to offer. The idea of living for the next life has been used effectively throughout history as a means to keep the masses under control. With this idea so embedded into the majority of the population though a new danger has come about. Christians genuinely believe that there is another life beyond this one. This belief leads to a general downward spiral that devalues human life, or any life for that matter.
Christians believe that when you die you will either go to Heaven
or Hell. Because of this belief mixed with the selfish nature of human beings, an utter disregard for life
will be created. If a human is “evil” or “wicked” and he is killed then he will go to hell and thus get what he/she deserves. If a person is “good” or “just” then he/she will go to heaven and yet again, will get what they deserve. Most people regardless of their religious affiliation are assumed to go to heaven because it is just much nicer for us to think of them in that way after they have departed. If you ever go to a funeral you will hear things like “He is in a better place” or “He is with God now.” The only people that are assumed to go to hell are criminals that are high profile in our media, or people that may have had very few others that cared about them.
Here is the problem. If there is no wrong in death because everyone that dies will get their “just desserts” then there is no wrong in taking a life by accident or through negligence. This gives people a free pass to be reckless with human life. A Christian man can drive drunk and nearly kill someone then go to the trial and say that they are praying for that person in an attempt to have the judge reduce their sentence based on their faith and good candor. A Christian might feel that they are doing God’s work by removing a non-believer from this world.
It is no secret that Christian belief is deadly in many areas. The interpretation of scriptures by different people can result in varying beliefs about the meaning of that scripture. This is dangerous because Christians feel that their laws are superior to the laws of the land even though countries that are more secular tend to be more progressive and humanitarian. In other words, if you injure or kill someone out of negligence or religious intentions, you will be punished in the same manner as if it was intentional. There is no way to reverse the damage that you do by ending someone’s life. They are gone, dead, finished. There is no heaven or hell or afterlife, however comforting you might find the thought. You must directly pay for your actions. So what is the answer for the person that is concerned that they might be caught in the crossfire, in the wrong place at the wrong time? Make better decisions, don’t be in bad places, and don’t hang with bad people. If you are putting yourself in situations that increase the possibility of you being involved in the harming of another human being then be prepared to accept responsibility.
Shaking in Frank Walton's Boots!
To be fair to Christians I must say first and foremost that Frank Walton is not your typical Christian. As a matter of fact most Christians find him embarrassing. Frank Walton is scared to debate me after our last encounter and is using his tactics to keep voices like mine silent in his forum. This type of censorship of information does not lead to healthy discussion. It is the type of totalitarian technique that has been employed throughout history by fascist regimes. I am just thankful that Frank Walton is alive in this day and age and that he is only a college student with no real power. History has shown that Frank Walton under different circumstances, in a different time, would be the type that would condone the torture and murder of anyone who did not have a view similar to his own.
I have offered to debate Frank Walton. He has turned it down. Frank Walton is scared. He should be scared. If he debated me he would be forced to answer real questions that he does not have the answer to. He would be forced to admit that he censors comments on his site based on more than just his “rules.” I have even offered to answer his question directly. Frank Walton is scared. He might say he isn’t but his refusal to answer me clearly shows that he is. Actions always speak louder than words. So keep that tail tucked between your legs Frank Walton. I am watching you.
I have offered to debate Frank Walton. He has turned it down. Frank Walton is scared. He should be scared. If he debated me he would be forced to answer real questions that he does not have the answer to. He would be forced to admit that he censors comments on his site based on more than just his “rules.” I have even offered to answer his question directly. Frank Walton is scared. He might say he isn’t but his refusal to answer me clearly shows that he is. Actions always speak louder than words. So keep that tail tucked between your legs Frank Walton. I am watching you.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Drunk Christians!
Ever wonder who the Christians in your community are?
http://nomoredrunks.blogspot.com/2007/03/mark-nigon-aka-drunk-fuck-lakewood.html
http://nomoredrunks.blogspot.com/2007/03/mark-nigon-aka-drunk-fuck-lakewood.html
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Think People, Think!
A while back I made the statement to my mother that if someone could present proof that God existed that I would have no choice but to believe. My mother, having genuine concern for where my soul will eternally rest found Laura, who claimed that she had the evidence that I was looking for. This is the resulting email that I received from her. My Critique is in bold and the chit chat “nice to know you” stuff has been edited out. Christians think that the Bible is proof of their claims. They need to understand that the Bible is fundamentally flawed and that if they want to convince anyone of its divinity that they have to look for outside sources. This is what it will take to convince the world. The scientific community would call it “empirical evidence.” Enjoy!
In 1613 the Italian scientist Galileo published a work known as "Letter on Sunspots." In it, he presented evidence that the earth rotates around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth. By writing this work, he set in motion a series of events that finally brought him before the Roman Catholic Inquisition under emotionally charged suspicion of heresy. Eventually, he was forced to recant. The reason for him being so mistreated was that the Church claimed that what he said was contrary to what the Bible says. If the Bible is so accurate in scientific fields, why did the Catholic Church say that Galileo's teaching that the earth moved around the sun was not scriptural? Because of the way the authorities (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, 1967, p.252) interpreted certain Bible verses. Were they correct? There are some scriptures they quoted so let me share them with you. Ecclesiastes 1:5 says, "The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and there it rises." According to the Church's argument, expressions such as "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" mean that the sun, not the earth, is moving. But even today we say that the sun rises and sets, and most of us know that it is the earth that moves, not the sun. When we or others use expressions like these, we are merely describing the apparent motion of the sun as it appears to a human observer; The Bible writer was doing exactly the same.
First and foremost I would agree with you that the majority of the damage that has been done throughout history has been done by religious organizations. The Bible in and of itself is only indirectly responsible. Its inaccuracies and inconsistencies are the reasons that such assumptions are reached. So this topic makes me wonder, if “God” knew that the sun was already fixed and that the earth rotated around it then why is it written that Joshua made the sun stand still? Joshua 10:13. How did Isaiah make the sun move backwards? 2 Kings 20:11 and Isaiah 38:8. Also I have to wonder if the true size and movement was understood by biblical authors then how come they were under the assumption that these massive things in the sky called “stars” could fall to the ground? Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:24-25.
The other scripture says: "You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakable for ever and ever." (Psalm 104:5) This statement by the Church back then interpreted it to mean that after its creation the earth could never move. Another scripture at Ecclesiastes 1:4 says, "A generation is going and a generation is coming but the earth is standing even to time indefinite". Actually, the verse stresses the permanence of the earth, not its immobility. (The earth will never be shaken out of existence, or destroyed, as other Bible verses confirm. Psalm 37:29 says, "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it." So much for everyone dying and going to heaven or a fiery hell; just a little Bible side point for those who believe in it)
I believe that the point you were trying to get at here was that of a fixed earth. Although you quote a vague scripture in Psalms that is easily interpreted many different ways, the Bible is actually very clear on the earth being non-moveable. It is only our nature to think that we are the center of all things. The Bible states that when God created the earth that he set it on Pillars. 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3. The Bible is also very clear on its claim that the earth does not move. Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 104:5.
So in Galileo's time, it was the Church, not the Bible, that hindered free scientific discussion. The Bible really does not get involved in saying whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth. They should have listened to Galileo.
Actually yes it does get involved, and yes they should have listened to Galileo.
Also we can think back to the time of Columbus and how the general consensus was that the earth was flat. If they would have read their Bible they would have learned that the earth was round and it had nothing holding it up. The scriptures that tell us that are, one, Job 26:7 and it states," He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing."
Actually, the notion that the earth was flat was only generally held amoung the uneducated. Thank you though for showing the Bible points out that the earth hangs on nothing. But the Bible also says that the earth is set on pillars and that it was built on a foundation. Seems that God couldn’t remember how he set up the universe when he created it. Here are some scriptures pointing out the earth being set on things. Joshua 10:12, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Jeremiah 31:37, Micah 6:2, Hebrews 1:10. We call these Biblical contradictions.
Also Isaiah 40:22 reads, "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." The picture conveyed of a round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in 'the empty place' reminds us of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth floating in empty space.
The notion of the bible calling for a round earth is debatable through interpretation. Sure if they were able to see it in a vision from space it would appear to be a circle. They may have written that from their limited perspective and it would have been perfectly acceptable. But there are other contradictions that are not. For example the Bible talks about the earth having corners. Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1 How could a round or even a circular earth have corners?
Then there is the water cycle. Compton's Encyclopedia describes what happens: "Water...evaporates from the surface of the oceans into the atmosphere...Steadily moving air currents in the earth's atmosphere carry the moist air inland. When the air cools, the vapor condenses to form water droplets. These are seen most commonly as clouds. Often the droplets come together to form raindrops. If the atmosphere is cold enough, snowflakes form instead of raindrops. In either case, water that has traveled from an ocean hundreds or even thousands of miles away falls to the earth's surface. There it gathers into streams or soaks into the ground and begins its journey back to the sea." This process, which makes life on dry land possible, was well described about 3,000 years ago in simple, straightforward terms in the Bible: "All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again."
The Rivers run into the ocean and the ocean doesn’t overflow!!! It’s amazing! How did they know!
Ecclesiastes 1:7. Also, Isaiah 55: 10 says in part, "For just as the pouring rain descends, and the snow, from the heavens and does not return to that place, unless it actually saturates the earth and makes it produce and sprout........"
Rain makes stuff grow? This Bible is truly pure genius! Are you making a point here?
There is also the Bible's insight into the history of mountains. This is what a textbook on geology says: "From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. ......Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated." That statement was made by The Book of Popular Science (Grolier, Inc.) This can be compared with the poetic language of the Psalmist, David. It reads, "With a watery deep just like a garment you covered it (the earth). The waters were standing above the very mountains. Mountains proceeded to ascend, Valley plains proceeded to descend, to the place that you have founded for them." Psalm 104:6,8.
The geological record actually does nothing but contradict the Bible. Noah’s flood would have left some interesting geological evidence on the peaks of our mountains that is just not there. According to Genesis 7:4 it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. This was sufficient rain to cover the highest mountains. Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. How much rain would have to fall per hour to cover it 40 days and 40 nights? There are 40 × 24 = 960 hours of rain. You would need 8,848 ÷ 960 = 9.21 meters of rain per hour. Rain is usually measured in cm or inches. This would be the same as 921 cm per hour or 8,712 inches per day. 10 inches per day is the most ever recorded in a hurricane? It would be like a fire hose squirting down on every inch of earth. It would flatten the ark. We must presume God somehow redirected the rain away from the ark. I know it does not bother fundamentalist Christians, but where did all that water come from and where did it go? Why did it not leave a trace in the geological record? That huge weight should have buckled rocks. It should have left a fine silt layer all over the earth. Yet there is no trace of it.
The very first verse of the Bible states and I'm sure you remember it, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen.1:1) Observations have led scientists to theorize that the material universe did indeed have a beginning. It has not existed for all time. Jastrow, an agnostic in religious matters, wrote: " The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."
Even if scientist are beginning to suggest that there must have been a creator the Bible is inconsistent on its own creation story. Genesis 1:25-27 has humans being created after the animals while Genesis 2 18:19 has Humans being created before the animals. Genesis 1:27 has man and woman being created simultaneously while Genesis 2:18-22 has man being created before woman. I believe that we should nail down the basics before you start diving into the complex.
It is true that many scientists, while believing that the universe had a beginning, do not accept the statement that "God created". However, some now admit that it is difficult to ignore the evidence of some kind of intelligence behind everything.
Evidence? Surely you can’t mean the Bible!
Physics professor Freeman Dyson makes this comment, "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming."Dyson goes on to admit: "Being a scientist, trained in the habits of thought and language of the twentieth century rather than the eighteenth, I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning." His comment certainly betrays the skeptical attitude of our time. But putting that skepticism aside, one notes there is a remarkable harmony between modern science and the Bible's statement that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
But which did he create first? The creation account in Genesis conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. As Henry Morris wrote "...the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural theology."
On to Health and Sanitation. Consider the Bible's coverage of this topic. If an Israelite had a skin blemish suspected of being leprosy, he was put in isolation. The Bible says, "All the days that the plague is in him he will be unclean. He is unclean. He should dwell isolated. Outside the camp is his dwelling place." ( Leviticus 13:46) Even infected garments were burned. The account says, "And he must burn the garment or the warp or the woof in the wool or in the linen, or any article of skin in which the plague may develop, because it is malignant leprosy. It should be burned in the fire. (Lev. 13:52) In those days, this was an effective way of preventing the spread of the infection.
Another important law had to do with the disposal of human excrement, which had to be buried outside the camp. Deuteronomy 23:12&13 says, "And a private place should be at your service outside the camp, and you must go out there. And a peg should be at your service along with your implements and it must occur that when you squat outside, you must also dig a hole with it and turn and cover your excrement." This law no doubt saved Israel from many sicknesses. Even today, severe health problems are caused in some lands by the improper disposal of human wastes. If people in those lands would only follow the law written down thousands of years ago in the Bible, they would be much healthier.
The Bible is not the only holy book to give sanitation and health guidelines. In order to protect the earth and man's environment, the Islamic law has established two fundamental principles. The first one holds that any environment-unfriendly action constitutes an offence, and it sentences the guilty ones to undergo severe punishment. As to the second one, it makes room for measures aiming at making up for the harm done to the environment, at promoting and improving the base structures of man's environment. The Islamic texts and principles that govern man's relationships with the environment severely condemn environmental pollution, and they are taught in nearly all schools of law. These texts and principles are based on Almighty Allah's command: "You shall not damage the earth like vandals." We find this divine injunction in many surat(s) of the holy Quran: "Al Baqara" ("The Cow,") verse 60; "Al Aaraf" ("The Heights,") verse 74; "Houd,"verse 85; "Ash-shouaraa" ("The Poets,") verse 183; and "Al Ankabut" ("The Spider,") verse 36. Is the Quran Holy and inspired by God? If so you have more contradictions to deal with!!!
The Bible's high standard of hygiene even involved mental health. A bible proverb said: "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones." (Proverbs 14:30)
And a wise man once said “a woman who flies upside down will have crack up.”
In recent years, medical research has demonstrated that our physical health is indeed affected by our mental attitude. For example, Dr. C. B. Thomas of Johns Hopkins University studied more than a thousand graduates over a period of 16 years, matching their psychological characteristics with their vulnerability to diseases. One thing she noted: The graduates most vulnerable to disease were those who were angrier and more anxious under stress.
Duh!!! Well Laura, I am not trying to be mean, but your so called “evidence” for the existence of “God” is nothing short than ramblings of your personal beliefs and half witted uneducated interpretations of what Biblical passages have said to you. If the values preached by the Bible speak to you then so be it. Please don’t go around spouting that you have empirical evidence when you clearly don’t. If I said that there was a purple three eyed monster living off of rat carcasses on Mars the burden of proof to support that claim would be on the person making it. Me! You are saying that there is this fantastic apparition in the sky and that he can be known through a holy and unique book called the Bible. The burden of proof is on you, and you have none. You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. My best to you. (Thanks to skeptics annotated bible and Roedy Green)
In 1613 the Italian scientist Galileo published a work known as "Letter on Sunspots." In it, he presented evidence that the earth rotates around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth. By writing this work, he set in motion a series of events that finally brought him before the Roman Catholic Inquisition under emotionally charged suspicion of heresy. Eventually, he was forced to recant. The reason for him being so mistreated was that the Church claimed that what he said was contrary to what the Bible says. If the Bible is so accurate in scientific fields, why did the Catholic Church say that Galileo's teaching that the earth moved around the sun was not scriptural? Because of the way the authorities (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, 1967, p.252) interpreted certain Bible verses. Were they correct? There are some scriptures they quoted so let me share them with you. Ecclesiastes 1:5 says, "The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and there it rises." According to the Church's argument, expressions such as "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" mean that the sun, not the earth, is moving. But even today we say that the sun rises and sets, and most of us know that it is the earth that moves, not the sun. When we or others use expressions like these, we are merely describing the apparent motion of the sun as it appears to a human observer; The Bible writer was doing exactly the same.
First and foremost I would agree with you that the majority of the damage that has been done throughout history has been done by religious organizations. The Bible in and of itself is only indirectly responsible. Its inaccuracies and inconsistencies are the reasons that such assumptions are reached. So this topic makes me wonder, if “God” knew that the sun was already fixed and that the earth rotated around it then why is it written that Joshua made the sun stand still? Joshua 10:13. How did Isaiah make the sun move backwards? 2 Kings 20:11 and Isaiah 38:8. Also I have to wonder if the true size and movement was understood by biblical authors then how come they were under the assumption that these massive things in the sky called “stars” could fall to the ground? Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:24-25.
The other scripture says: "You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakable for ever and ever." (Psalm 104:5) This statement by the Church back then interpreted it to mean that after its creation the earth could never move. Another scripture at Ecclesiastes 1:4 says, "A generation is going and a generation is coming but the earth is standing even to time indefinite". Actually, the verse stresses the permanence of the earth, not its immobility. (The earth will never be shaken out of existence, or destroyed, as other Bible verses confirm. Psalm 37:29 says, "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it." So much for everyone dying and going to heaven or a fiery hell; just a little Bible side point for those who believe in it)
I believe that the point you were trying to get at here was that of a fixed earth. Although you quote a vague scripture in Psalms that is easily interpreted many different ways, the Bible is actually very clear on the earth being non-moveable. It is only our nature to think that we are the center of all things. The Bible states that when God created the earth that he set it on Pillars. 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3. The Bible is also very clear on its claim that the earth does not move. Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 104:5.
So in Galileo's time, it was the Church, not the Bible, that hindered free scientific discussion. The Bible really does not get involved in saying whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth. They should have listened to Galileo.
Actually yes it does get involved, and yes they should have listened to Galileo.
Also we can think back to the time of Columbus and how the general consensus was that the earth was flat. If they would have read their Bible they would have learned that the earth was round and it had nothing holding it up. The scriptures that tell us that are, one, Job 26:7 and it states," He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing."
Actually, the notion that the earth was flat was only generally held amoung the uneducated. Thank you though for showing the Bible points out that the earth hangs on nothing. But the Bible also says that the earth is set on pillars and that it was built on a foundation. Seems that God couldn’t remember how he set up the universe when he created it. Here are some scriptures pointing out the earth being set on things. Joshua 10:12, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Jeremiah 31:37, Micah 6:2, Hebrews 1:10. We call these Biblical contradictions.
Also Isaiah 40:22 reads, "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." The picture conveyed of a round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in 'the empty place' reminds us of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth floating in empty space.
The notion of the bible calling for a round earth is debatable through interpretation. Sure if they were able to see it in a vision from space it would appear to be a circle. They may have written that from their limited perspective and it would have been perfectly acceptable. But there are other contradictions that are not. For example the Bible talks about the earth having corners. Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1 How could a round or even a circular earth have corners?
Then there is the water cycle. Compton's Encyclopedia describes what happens: "Water...evaporates from the surface of the oceans into the atmosphere...Steadily moving air currents in the earth's atmosphere carry the moist air inland. When the air cools, the vapor condenses to form water droplets. These are seen most commonly as clouds. Often the droplets come together to form raindrops. If the atmosphere is cold enough, snowflakes form instead of raindrops. In either case, water that has traveled from an ocean hundreds or even thousands of miles away falls to the earth's surface. There it gathers into streams or soaks into the ground and begins its journey back to the sea." This process, which makes life on dry land possible, was well described about 3,000 years ago in simple, straightforward terms in the Bible: "All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again."
The Rivers run into the ocean and the ocean doesn’t overflow!!! It’s amazing! How did they know!
Ecclesiastes 1:7. Also, Isaiah 55: 10 says in part, "For just as the pouring rain descends, and the snow, from the heavens and does not return to that place, unless it actually saturates the earth and makes it produce and sprout........"
Rain makes stuff grow? This Bible is truly pure genius! Are you making a point here?
There is also the Bible's insight into the history of mountains. This is what a textbook on geology says: "From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. ......Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated." That statement was made by The Book of Popular Science (Grolier, Inc.) This can be compared with the poetic language of the Psalmist, David. It reads, "With a watery deep just like a garment you covered it (the earth). The waters were standing above the very mountains. Mountains proceeded to ascend, Valley plains proceeded to descend, to the place that you have founded for them." Psalm 104:6,8.
The geological record actually does nothing but contradict the Bible. Noah’s flood would have left some interesting geological evidence on the peaks of our mountains that is just not there. According to Genesis 7:4 it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. This was sufficient rain to cover the highest mountains. Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. How much rain would have to fall per hour to cover it 40 days and 40 nights? There are 40 × 24 = 960 hours of rain. You would need 8,848 ÷ 960 = 9.21 meters of rain per hour. Rain is usually measured in cm or inches. This would be the same as 921 cm per hour or 8,712 inches per day. 10 inches per day is the most ever recorded in a hurricane? It would be like a fire hose squirting down on every inch of earth. It would flatten the ark. We must presume God somehow redirected the rain away from the ark. I know it does not bother fundamentalist Christians, but where did all that water come from and where did it go? Why did it not leave a trace in the geological record? That huge weight should have buckled rocks. It should have left a fine silt layer all over the earth. Yet there is no trace of it.
The very first verse of the Bible states and I'm sure you remember it, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen.1:1) Observations have led scientists to theorize that the material universe did indeed have a beginning. It has not existed for all time. Jastrow, an agnostic in religious matters, wrote: " The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."
Even if scientist are beginning to suggest that there must have been a creator the Bible is inconsistent on its own creation story. Genesis 1:25-27 has humans being created after the animals while Genesis 2 18:19 has Humans being created before the animals. Genesis 1:27 has man and woman being created simultaneously while Genesis 2:18-22 has man being created before woman. I believe that we should nail down the basics before you start diving into the complex.
It is true that many scientists, while believing that the universe had a beginning, do not accept the statement that "God created". However, some now admit that it is difficult to ignore the evidence of some kind of intelligence behind everything.
Evidence? Surely you can’t mean the Bible!
Physics professor Freeman Dyson makes this comment, "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming."Dyson goes on to admit: "Being a scientist, trained in the habits of thought and language of the twentieth century rather than the eighteenth, I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning." His comment certainly betrays the skeptical attitude of our time. But putting that skepticism aside, one notes there is a remarkable harmony between modern science and the Bible's statement that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
But which did he create first? The creation account in Genesis conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. As Henry Morris wrote "...the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural theology."
On to Health and Sanitation. Consider the Bible's coverage of this topic. If an Israelite had a skin blemish suspected of being leprosy, he was put in isolation. The Bible says, "All the days that the plague is in him he will be unclean. He is unclean. He should dwell isolated. Outside the camp is his dwelling place." ( Leviticus 13:46) Even infected garments were burned. The account says, "And he must burn the garment or the warp or the woof in the wool or in the linen, or any article of skin in which the plague may develop, because it is malignant leprosy. It should be burned in the fire. (Lev. 13:52) In those days, this was an effective way of preventing the spread of the infection.
Another important law had to do with the disposal of human excrement, which had to be buried outside the camp. Deuteronomy 23:12&13 says, "And a private place should be at your service outside the camp, and you must go out there. And a peg should be at your service along with your implements and it must occur that when you squat outside, you must also dig a hole with it and turn and cover your excrement." This law no doubt saved Israel from many sicknesses. Even today, severe health problems are caused in some lands by the improper disposal of human wastes. If people in those lands would only follow the law written down thousands of years ago in the Bible, they would be much healthier.
The Bible is not the only holy book to give sanitation and health guidelines. In order to protect the earth and man's environment, the Islamic law has established two fundamental principles. The first one holds that any environment-unfriendly action constitutes an offence, and it sentences the guilty ones to undergo severe punishment. As to the second one, it makes room for measures aiming at making up for the harm done to the environment, at promoting and improving the base structures of man's environment. The Islamic texts and principles that govern man's relationships with the environment severely condemn environmental pollution, and they are taught in nearly all schools of law. These texts and principles are based on Almighty Allah's command: "You shall not damage the earth like vandals." We find this divine injunction in many surat(s) of the holy Quran: "Al Baqara" ("The Cow,") verse 60; "Al Aaraf" ("The Heights,") verse 74; "Houd,"verse 85; "Ash-shouaraa" ("The Poets,") verse 183; and "Al Ankabut" ("The Spider,") verse 36. Is the Quran Holy and inspired by God? If so you have more contradictions to deal with!!!
The Bible's high standard of hygiene even involved mental health. A bible proverb said: "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones." (Proverbs 14:30)
And a wise man once said “a woman who flies upside down will have crack up.”
In recent years, medical research has demonstrated that our physical health is indeed affected by our mental attitude. For example, Dr. C. B. Thomas of Johns Hopkins University studied more than a thousand graduates over a period of 16 years, matching their psychological characteristics with their vulnerability to diseases. One thing she noted: The graduates most vulnerable to disease were those who were angrier and more anxious under stress.
Duh!!! Well Laura, I am not trying to be mean, but your so called “evidence” for the existence of “God” is nothing short than ramblings of your personal beliefs and half witted uneducated interpretations of what Biblical passages have said to you. If the values preached by the Bible speak to you then so be it. Please don’t go around spouting that you have empirical evidence when you clearly don’t. If I said that there was a purple three eyed monster living off of rat carcasses on Mars the burden of proof to support that claim would be on the person making it. Me! You are saying that there is this fantastic apparition in the sky and that he can be known through a holy and unique book called the Bible. The burden of proof is on you, and you have none. You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. My best to you. (Thanks to skeptics annotated bible and Roedy Green)
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Christians are scary
From Associated Press NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Christian music singer Gary Chapman will have to serve only two days of a 12-month sentence from a driving under the influence charge.He pleaded guilty to the charge on Thursday.Police arrested him for DUI and drugs during a traffic stop last year.Under his plea deal, he will serve 48 hours and pay a $350 fine. He will also lose his driver's license for a year and must take a course on alcohol.
Monday, March 5, 2007
I hate John Elway
Yea…. Football!!! There is nothing like having to wade through 50 drunken meatheads in order to get a nice tequila and an order of hot wings. They are all hi-fiving and rooting for their favorite team as they make the heroic march to the in-zone to seal the victory. They love to say things like “we won” even though I can clearly see that they have been in the bar through the whole game and never set foot onto the field. Football is so huge that they can’t even take a season off. They have created arena football so that there is something that resembles real football that you can follow in the off season. Then there are the sports interviews. These are always really entertaining. They go something like this. Q. “What were you thinking when you caught that winning touchdown pass?” A. “Well I was running down the field and the ball was coming at me, so I put my hands up, caught the ball, and then kept running!” Brilliant!
I live in Denver and John Elway is a Denver hero. Elway doesn’t play football anymore but he led the Denver Broncos to a couple of Superbowl victories. (I think, maybe someone can fill me in.) So as you drive around in Denver and the surrounding suburbs you see the Elway name all over the place. There is the Elway auto dealership, the Elway scrap yard, the Elway restaurant, the Elway dry cleaners and even the Elway high rise. (OK, I made that one up!) The funny thing is that if people see a John Elway business they feel safer purchasing a product from it because they think “Hey, John Elway is a good guy, he wouldn’t put his name on a dishonest business.” I don’t think that they understand that the real way this works is that the business calls John’s manager and ask if they can use his name. The manager says “Sure, for $1000 a month it’s all yours.” Walah… an Elway dealership.
This is the same type of mentality that occurs when dealing with a Christian business. People love to put that little fish symbol next to their ad in the phone book because they think that people will have positive associations. I am sure that there are people that look through the phone book for a service and will only call the businesses with the little fish. Of course it becomes profitable to have that little fish. In my experience the businesses that are openly Christian are actually the ones that are the best to avoid.
As I am in the process of moving I have been selling a lot of stuff. I had 4 showings in one day. Three from apparently normal people and one from an apparent Christian. She felt is necessary to tell me that they couldn’t come until the evening because they were leaders in a ministry. They also told me that they had been praying and felt that God had told them that the washer and dryer that we had for sale was meant for them. The next day all of the evil heathens that had made appointments to come see our stuff showed up to buy our stuff, the Christian couple did not show. They called about 30 minutes after they were scheduled to arrive. They explained to me that God had told them that they required further prayer before purchasing our washer and dryer and assured me that God was watching over me. I suppose it is best not to deal with Christians because you never know what God will tell them to do next.
It seems that almost everyday you can find God telling people to do crazy things. I was thinking today that maybe I shouldn’t read the news anymore. It only depresses me. Is it worth it to know what is going on in the world at the expense of always being depressed? For example…….
WILLIAMSBURG, Virginia (AP) -- A longtime donor to the College of William and Mary is withholding a $12 million pledge because of the decision to remove of a cross from a campus chapel, the school said.
The donor, who was not identified, changed his mind after school President Gene Nichol decided in October that the cross should be stored in a sacristy to make the chapel welcoming to students of all faiths, Nichol spokesman Mike Connolly said.
The loss of the funds "represents a serious setback to the college," Nichol wrote in an e-mailed statement Tuesday. "While I know it is intended to make a policy statement, ultimately it only hurts our students."
Advocates of keeping the cross in Wren Chapel pointed to the school's founding 300 years ago as an institution of the Anglican Church. The cross, they argued, should be displayed not only as a symbol of faith but as an acknowledgment of history and tradition.
Nichol's supporters say the school, which has been public since 1906, is obligated to make people of different faiths feel comfortable.
Here is an institution that is open to the public, trying to be sensitive to the fact that there are many different faiths and beliefs. As silly as most of them are, people have a right to them. The ultimate purpose of this institution is education though. Why are people so insistent in making their religious statements on public institutions? Why can’t the chapel cater to everyone equally? Is their belief system so inferior that it can’t exist in the presence of another belief system? Nichol responded to the loss of funds by saying that it was time for the school to move forward and that all religions and belief systems must be represented equally. Here is his entire statement. (http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=7434&readMore=true#readMore) I have to say that I have the utmost respect for this man. For 12 million dollars I would probably get crosses tattooed all over my body. To me it makes no difference. It is just a symbol.
I am fascinated by the concept of wanting to display crosses in the first place. It seems a bit morbid. I mean the cross is the means by which people were put to death. The modern day equivalent would be like walking around with an electric chair or a lethal injection needle hanging around your neck on a necklace. Fine for Goth kids, but is it really appropriate for your marquee or your jewelry? People are always going to have varying beliefs and opinions, and that is fine. It just really gets under my skin when those beliefs and opinions slow or halt what could be a progressive society. We have so much opportunity in this country and we are wasting it on myths and fables. While I know that none of this is John Elway’s fault, it doesn’t make me like him anymore.
I live in Denver and John Elway is a Denver hero. Elway doesn’t play football anymore but he led the Denver Broncos to a couple of Superbowl victories. (I think, maybe someone can fill me in.) So as you drive around in Denver and the surrounding suburbs you see the Elway name all over the place. There is the Elway auto dealership, the Elway scrap yard, the Elway restaurant, the Elway dry cleaners and even the Elway high rise. (OK, I made that one up!) The funny thing is that if people see a John Elway business they feel safer purchasing a product from it because they think “Hey, John Elway is a good guy, he wouldn’t put his name on a dishonest business.” I don’t think that they understand that the real way this works is that the business calls John’s manager and ask if they can use his name. The manager says “Sure, for $1000 a month it’s all yours.” Walah… an Elway dealership.
This is the same type of mentality that occurs when dealing with a Christian business. People love to put that little fish symbol next to their ad in the phone book because they think that people will have positive associations. I am sure that there are people that look through the phone book for a service and will only call the businesses with the little fish. Of course it becomes profitable to have that little fish. In my experience the businesses that are openly Christian are actually the ones that are the best to avoid.
As I am in the process of moving I have been selling a lot of stuff. I had 4 showings in one day. Three from apparently normal people and one from an apparent Christian. She felt is necessary to tell me that they couldn’t come until the evening because they were leaders in a ministry. They also told me that they had been praying and felt that God had told them that the washer and dryer that we had for sale was meant for them. The next day all of the evil heathens that had made appointments to come see our stuff showed up to buy our stuff, the Christian couple did not show. They called about 30 minutes after they were scheduled to arrive. They explained to me that God had told them that they required further prayer before purchasing our washer and dryer and assured me that God was watching over me. I suppose it is best not to deal with Christians because you never know what God will tell them to do next.
It seems that almost everyday you can find God telling people to do crazy things. I was thinking today that maybe I shouldn’t read the news anymore. It only depresses me. Is it worth it to know what is going on in the world at the expense of always being depressed? For example…….
WILLIAMSBURG, Virginia (AP) -- A longtime donor to the College of William and Mary is withholding a $12 million pledge because of the decision to remove of a cross from a campus chapel, the school said.
The donor, who was not identified, changed his mind after school President Gene Nichol decided in October that the cross should be stored in a sacristy to make the chapel welcoming to students of all faiths, Nichol spokesman Mike Connolly said.
The loss of the funds "represents a serious setback to the college," Nichol wrote in an e-mailed statement Tuesday. "While I know it is intended to make a policy statement, ultimately it only hurts our students."
Advocates of keeping the cross in Wren Chapel pointed to the school's founding 300 years ago as an institution of the Anglican Church. The cross, they argued, should be displayed not only as a symbol of faith but as an acknowledgment of history and tradition.
Nichol's supporters say the school, which has been public since 1906, is obligated to make people of different faiths feel comfortable.
Here is an institution that is open to the public, trying to be sensitive to the fact that there are many different faiths and beliefs. As silly as most of them are, people have a right to them. The ultimate purpose of this institution is education though. Why are people so insistent in making their religious statements on public institutions? Why can’t the chapel cater to everyone equally? Is their belief system so inferior that it can’t exist in the presence of another belief system? Nichol responded to the loss of funds by saying that it was time for the school to move forward and that all religions and belief systems must be represented equally. Here is his entire statement. (http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=7434&readMore=true#readMore) I have to say that I have the utmost respect for this man. For 12 million dollars I would probably get crosses tattooed all over my body. To me it makes no difference. It is just a symbol.
I am fascinated by the concept of wanting to display crosses in the first place. It seems a bit morbid. I mean the cross is the means by which people were put to death. The modern day equivalent would be like walking around with an electric chair or a lethal injection needle hanging around your neck on a necklace. Fine for Goth kids, but is it really appropriate for your marquee or your jewelry? People are always going to have varying beliefs and opinions, and that is fine. It just really gets under my skin when those beliefs and opinions slow or halt what could be a progressive society. We have so much opportunity in this country and we are wasting it on myths and fables. While I know that none of this is John Elway’s fault, it doesn’t make me like him anymore.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Losing my Religions
I was raised in church. I know that this statement is not profound. Roughly 80% of Americans are raised in church. Now don’t get me wrong, when I was young I believed in this stuff intensely, but some of the questions I had then were profound for a child. I remember being in Sunday school at about the age of 10. I was having difficulty taking the story of Jonah seriously. I remember saying to my teacher “the great thing about the Bible is that even the stories that are not true still have value because they teach us morals.” My teacher responded that my statement was true but that the Biblical stories had even more value because they were true.
One time in youth group (a term for a church geared towards young teens) I was in charge of putting out a column for the church paper to represent our group. I wrote an article about how being drunk was wrong but drinking was not. I mean how could drinking alcohol be wrong if the foundation for our religion (Jesus) drank wine? I was reprimanded by the pastor of the church (Pastor Craig) for posting the article because he said that all alcohol consumption was wrong. I argued with him and quoted scripture. Pastor Craig’s rebuttal was to say that the wine that they had in those times didn’t have any alcohol. Here was someone who spent 8 years in college studying the Bible and he was making up his own rules that weren’t even backed up by his holy book.
In my late teens I pioneered a Christian punk band named DERT that had some mild success. We played with many popular Christian bands and one thing that I began to notice was that Christian bands were not much different than secular bands when touring. There was just as much drinking, drugs and sex in Christian bands as there was in secular bands. When my band was destroyed because of the sexual misconduct of our drummer, Shannon, I went to L.A. to audition for a well established Christian band named Blackball. I was a huge fan of this band and the lead singer, Chris, was a personal hero of mine. He was a very intelligent man and a philosopher. His lyrics were insightful and his music was heartfelt. I thought that I had arrived in my place and that I would finally be around people that had the same conviction and love for God that I did.
I am sure that it is no surprise to the people reading this but I was caught off guard. I moved over 600 miles to join Blackball and the first thing that they did was change their name to SuperUnknown. From there they decided to change the style and start over to appeal to the secular market. We brought in a keyboard player named Darrin who was eventually fired because he couldn’t come up with original material but we kept the second guitarist, Damien, even though he couldn’t properly play half of the songs. Damien was fucking his girlfriend despite not being married to her. I would see the old guitarist Rocco running around town, always strung out on god knows what. I remember one time being in Chris’s house when he broke out a giant six shooter and started giving lessons on how to handle a gun. He was talking about flying guns down to these missionaries in a hostile area in Africa so that they could defend themselves. I had a hard time reconciling the violence with my Christian upbringing. One of the catalysts for me losing my faith was the bass player Tom. Through this part of the band he was in the process of changing his name. He was dating a 16 year old. His favorite joke was something about killing babies and doing drugs with a spoon. He got drunk a lot, and he was a huge jerk to me. We would make plans to do things together and he would simply not show up. He was close friends with Damien which is likely why Damien was allowed to stay in the band despite his lack of ability on the guitar. Tom was one of the worst Christians I had ever met. He was known for being a good Christian, but I assure you he was not. Tom is a really cool guy though; he was just a bad Christian. Tom was the straw that broke the camels back. It was because of him that I started seeking out other answers. To this day I owe my mindset as a free thinker to him. I will be eternally thankful to Tom. Because of him I am not living my life in a naïve religious mindset.
I started attending atheist forums online and had an ongoing dialogue with a character named MelanieWalker. We had many insightful conversations. One thing that she said to me really stuck though. She said that as a Christian that I was brainwashed and that as soon as I got over the fear of looking outside of my preprogrammed mindset that the truth would be as clear as day. Although she was correct it was still difficult to reconcile the truth with my religious indoctrination. My life spun into a downward spiral. While still a member of this prestigious Christian band I began drinking heavily, doing drugs, and having sex with random girls. I had become everything that I despised but little did I realize at that time that the whole experience was part of my healing and eventual enlightenment.
When I discovered the truth about the falsity of Christianity I was angry. I wanted all of the Christians that had fed me lies and mislead me to pay for their deception. I started becoming very vocal about the bullshit that was going on in my band. This ultimately led to squabbles and the eventual breakup. I accept full responsibility for it. The band stole $1000 dollars from me and I bailed. Everyone was supposed to put in $1000 to fund an E.P. Only the Drummer, Larry and I did though. I never saw any of the fruits of my labor or money. Everything that went wrong in that band was a direct result of my inner explosion. I was very vocal about hating Christians. As a result the large majority of my Christian friends and acquaintances simply abandoned me. Of course as a Christian they should have shown unwavering love and acceptance for me in my time of crises, as humans they did what I would expect.
As I started my new life as an Agnostic free thinker I had to acclimate to a whole new world. This was a world were the people were honest and upfront. People spoke their mind and responsibility for ones actions had to fall solely on that individual. You were never caught off-guard because you went into every situation with your eyes open. The friends that I made during this period were some of the best and most loyal friends. I am still very close with many of these people. These people didn’t buy into fantastic claims. Science was revered. The world had more meaning. Love was more real. Relationships had more depth. Suddenly I was spending less time trying to please an apparition in the sky and more time building solid friendships. Everything suddenly made sense.
I know that freeing a mind is a difficult thing to do. Our massively complex and over developed frontal lobe just has a difficult time accepting that there may not be much more to this life than the short time that we get here on earth. Everyone that breaks out of the shackles of organized religion will have different experiences. One thing will be in common though. Your experiences will be richer. You will live for this life instead of the next. Your life will be full of meaning and you will prefer action to prayer. Best of luck to all of the aspiring free thinkers. “Welcome to the world of the real.”
One time in youth group (a term for a church geared towards young teens) I was in charge of putting out a column for the church paper to represent our group. I wrote an article about how being drunk was wrong but drinking was not. I mean how could drinking alcohol be wrong if the foundation for our religion (Jesus) drank wine? I was reprimanded by the pastor of the church (Pastor Craig) for posting the article because he said that all alcohol consumption was wrong. I argued with him and quoted scripture. Pastor Craig’s rebuttal was to say that the wine that they had in those times didn’t have any alcohol. Here was someone who spent 8 years in college studying the Bible and he was making up his own rules that weren’t even backed up by his holy book.
In my late teens I pioneered a Christian punk band named DERT that had some mild success. We played with many popular Christian bands and one thing that I began to notice was that Christian bands were not much different than secular bands when touring. There was just as much drinking, drugs and sex in Christian bands as there was in secular bands. When my band was destroyed because of the sexual misconduct of our drummer, Shannon, I went to L.A. to audition for a well established Christian band named Blackball. I was a huge fan of this band and the lead singer, Chris, was a personal hero of mine. He was a very intelligent man and a philosopher. His lyrics were insightful and his music was heartfelt. I thought that I had arrived in my place and that I would finally be around people that had the same conviction and love for God that I did.
I am sure that it is no surprise to the people reading this but I was caught off guard. I moved over 600 miles to join Blackball and the first thing that they did was change their name to SuperUnknown. From there they decided to change the style and start over to appeal to the secular market. We brought in a keyboard player named Darrin who was eventually fired because he couldn’t come up with original material but we kept the second guitarist, Damien, even though he couldn’t properly play half of the songs. Damien was fucking his girlfriend despite not being married to her. I would see the old guitarist Rocco running around town, always strung out on god knows what. I remember one time being in Chris’s house when he broke out a giant six shooter and started giving lessons on how to handle a gun. He was talking about flying guns down to these missionaries in a hostile area in Africa so that they could defend themselves. I had a hard time reconciling the violence with my Christian upbringing. One of the catalysts for me losing my faith was the bass player Tom. Through this part of the band he was in the process of changing his name. He was dating a 16 year old. His favorite joke was something about killing babies and doing drugs with a spoon. He got drunk a lot, and he was a huge jerk to me. We would make plans to do things together and he would simply not show up. He was close friends with Damien which is likely why Damien was allowed to stay in the band despite his lack of ability on the guitar. Tom was one of the worst Christians I had ever met. He was known for being a good Christian, but I assure you he was not. Tom is a really cool guy though; he was just a bad Christian. Tom was the straw that broke the camels back. It was because of him that I started seeking out other answers. To this day I owe my mindset as a free thinker to him. I will be eternally thankful to Tom. Because of him I am not living my life in a naïve religious mindset.
I started attending atheist forums online and had an ongoing dialogue with a character named MelanieWalker. We had many insightful conversations. One thing that she said to me really stuck though. She said that as a Christian that I was brainwashed and that as soon as I got over the fear of looking outside of my preprogrammed mindset that the truth would be as clear as day. Although she was correct it was still difficult to reconcile the truth with my religious indoctrination. My life spun into a downward spiral. While still a member of this prestigious Christian band I began drinking heavily, doing drugs, and having sex with random girls. I had become everything that I despised but little did I realize at that time that the whole experience was part of my healing and eventual enlightenment.
When I discovered the truth about the falsity of Christianity I was angry. I wanted all of the Christians that had fed me lies and mislead me to pay for their deception. I started becoming very vocal about the bullshit that was going on in my band. This ultimately led to squabbles and the eventual breakup. I accept full responsibility for it. The band stole $1000 dollars from me and I bailed. Everyone was supposed to put in $1000 to fund an E.P. Only the Drummer, Larry and I did though. I never saw any of the fruits of my labor or money. Everything that went wrong in that band was a direct result of my inner explosion. I was very vocal about hating Christians. As a result the large majority of my Christian friends and acquaintances simply abandoned me. Of course as a Christian they should have shown unwavering love and acceptance for me in my time of crises, as humans they did what I would expect.
As I started my new life as an Agnostic free thinker I had to acclimate to a whole new world. This was a world were the people were honest and upfront. People spoke their mind and responsibility for ones actions had to fall solely on that individual. You were never caught off-guard because you went into every situation with your eyes open. The friends that I made during this period were some of the best and most loyal friends. I am still very close with many of these people. These people didn’t buy into fantastic claims. Science was revered. The world had more meaning. Love was more real. Relationships had more depth. Suddenly I was spending less time trying to please an apparition in the sky and more time building solid friendships. Everything suddenly made sense.
I know that freeing a mind is a difficult thing to do. Our massively complex and over developed frontal lobe just has a difficult time accepting that there may not be much more to this life than the short time that we get here on earth. Everyone that breaks out of the shackles of organized religion will have different experiences. One thing will be in common though. Your experiences will be richer. You will live for this life instead of the next. Your life will be full of meaning and you will prefer action to prayer. Best of luck to all of the aspiring free thinkers. “Welcome to the world of the real.”
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
The type of man I want to be
The Liberty Of All (1877)
Robert Green Ingersoll
THE LIBERTY OF MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD (excerpts)
Women have been the slaves of slaves; and in my judgment it took millions of ages for woman to come from the condition of abject slavery up to the institution of marriage. Let me say right here, that I regard marriage as the holiest institution among men. Without the fireside there is no human advancement; without the family relation there is no life worth living. Every good government is made up of good families. The unit of good government is the family, and anything that tends to destroy the family is perfectly devilish and infamous. I believe in marriage, and I hold in utter contempt the opinions of those long-haired men and short- haired women who denounce the institution of marriage.
The grandest ambition that any man can possibly have, is to so live, and so improve himself in heart and brain, as to be worthy of the love of some splendid woman; and the grandest ambition of any girl is to make herself worthy of the love and adoration of some magnificent man. That is my idea. There is no success in life without love and marriage. You had better be the emperor of one loving and tender heart, and she the empress of yours, than to be king of the world. The man who has really won the love of one good woman in this world, I do not care if he dies in the ditch a beggar, his life has been a success.
I say it took millions of years to come from the condition of abject slavery up to the condition of marriage. Ladies, the ornaments you wear upon your persons to-night are but the souvenirs of your mother's bondage. The chains around your necks, and the bracelets clasped upon your white arms by the thrilled hand of love, have been changed by the wand of civilization from iron to shining, glittering gold.
But nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nobody but men.
I read in a book -- and I will say now that I cannot give the exact language, as my memory does not retain the words, but I can give the substance -- I read in a book that the Supreme Being concluded to make a world and one man; that he took some nothing and made a world and one man, and put this man in a garden. In a little while he noticed that the man got lonesome; that he wandered around as if he was waiting for a train. There was nothing to interest him; no news; no papers; no politics; no policy; and, as the devil had not yet made his appearance, there was no chance for reconciliation; not even for civil service reform. Well, he wandered about the garden in this condition, until finally the Supreme Being made up his mind to make him a companion.
Having used up all the nothing he originally took in making the world and one man, he had to take a part of the man to start a woman with. So he caused a sleep to fall on this man -- now understand me, I do not say this story is true. After the sleep fell upon this man, the Supreme Being took a rib, or as the French would call it, a cutlet, out of this man, and from that he made a woman. And considering the amount of raw material used, I look upon it as the most successful job ever performed. Well, after he got the woman done, she was brought to the man; not to see how she liked him, but to see how he liked her. He liked her, and they started housekeeping; and they were told of certain things they might do and of one thing they could not do -- and of course they did it. I would have done it in fifteen minutes, and I know it. There wouldn't have been an apple on that tree half an hour from date, and the limbs would have been full of cobs. And then they were turned out of the park and extra policemen were put on to keep them from getting back in.
Devilment commenced. The mumps, and the measles, and the whooping-cough, and the scarlet fever started in their race for man. They began to have the toothache, roses began to have thorns, snakes began to have poisoned teeth, and people began to divide about religion and politics, and the world has been full of trouble from that day to this.
Nearly all of the religions of this world account for the existence of evil by such a story as that……………..
………….In my judgment, the woman is the equal of the man. She has all the rights I have and one more, and that is the right to be protected. That is my doctrine. You are married; try and make the woman you love happy. Whoever marries simply for himself will make a mistake; but whoever loves a woman so well that he says, "I will make her happy," makes no mistake. And so with the woman who says, "I will make him happy." There is only one way to be happy, and that is to make somebody else so, and you cannot be happy by going cross lots; you have got to go the regular turnpike road.
If there is any man I detest, it is the man who thinks he is the head of a family -- the man who thinks he is "boss!" The fellow in the dug-out used that word "boss;" that was one of his favorite expressions.
Imagine a young man and a young woman courting, walking out in the moonlight, and the nightingale singing a song of pain and love, as though the thorn touched her heart -- imagine them stopping there in the moonlight and starlight and song, and saying, "Now, here, let us settle who is boss!'" I tell you it is an infamous word and an infamous feeling -- I abhor a man who is "boss," who is going to govern in his family, and when he speaks orders all the rest to be still as some mighty idea is about to be launched from his mouth. Do you know I dislike this man unspeakably?......................
………………Think of the intellectual strain that must have been upon that man, and when he gets home everybody else in the house must look out for his comfort. A woman who has only taken care of five or six children, and one or two of them sick, has been nursing them and singing to them, and trying to make one yard of cloth do the work of two, she, of course, is fresh and fine and ready to wait upon this gentleman -- the head of the family -- the boss!.....................................
…………………Get the best you can for your family -- try to look as well as you can yourself. When you used to go courting, how elegantly you looked! Ah, your eye was bright, your sleep was light, and you looked like a prince. Do you know that it is insufferable egotism in you to suppose a woman is going to love you always looking as slovenly as you can! Think of it! Any good woman on earth will be true to you forever when you do your level best.
Some people tell me, "Your doctrine about loving, and wives, and all that, is splendid for the rich, but it won't do for the poor." I tell you to-night there is more love in the homes of the poor than in the palaces of the rich. The meanest hut with love in it is a palace fit for the gods, and a palace without love is a den only fit for wild beasts. That is my doctrine! You cannot be so poor that you cannot help somebody. Good nature is the cheapest commodity in the world; and love is the only thing that will pay ten per cent to borrower and lender both. Do not tell me that you have got to be rich! We have a false standard of greatness in the United States. We think here that a man must be great, that he must be notorious; that he must be extremely wealthy, or that his name must be upon the putrid lips of rumor. It is all a mistake. It is not necessary to be rich or to be great, or to be powerful, to be happy. The happy man is the successful man.
Happiness is the legal tender of the soul…………………
………………………..It is not necessary to be great to be happy; it is not necessary to be rich to be just and generous and to have a heart filled with divine affection. No matter whether you are rich or poor, treat your wife as though she were a splendid flower, and she will fill your life with perfume and with joy.
And do you know, it is a splendid thing to think that the woman you really love will never grow old to you. Through the wrinkles of time, through the mask of years, if you really love her, you will always see the face you loved and won. And a woman who really loves a man does not see that he grows old; he is not decrepit to her; he does not tremble; he is not old; she always sees the same gallant gentleman who won her hand and heart. I like to think of it in that way; I like to think that love is eternal. And to love in that way and then go down the hill of life together, and as you go down, hear, perhaps, the laughter of grandchildren, while the birds of joy and love sing once more in the leafless branches of the tree of age.
I believe in the fireside. I believe in the democracy of home. I believe in the republicanism of the family. I believe in liberty, equality and love.
Robert Green Ingersoll
THE LIBERTY OF MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD (excerpts)
Women have been the slaves of slaves; and in my judgment it took millions of ages for woman to come from the condition of abject slavery up to the institution of marriage. Let me say right here, that I regard marriage as the holiest institution among men. Without the fireside there is no human advancement; without the family relation there is no life worth living. Every good government is made up of good families. The unit of good government is the family, and anything that tends to destroy the family is perfectly devilish and infamous. I believe in marriage, and I hold in utter contempt the opinions of those long-haired men and short- haired women who denounce the institution of marriage.
The grandest ambition that any man can possibly have, is to so live, and so improve himself in heart and brain, as to be worthy of the love of some splendid woman; and the grandest ambition of any girl is to make herself worthy of the love and adoration of some magnificent man. That is my idea. There is no success in life without love and marriage. You had better be the emperor of one loving and tender heart, and she the empress of yours, than to be king of the world. The man who has really won the love of one good woman in this world, I do not care if he dies in the ditch a beggar, his life has been a success.
I say it took millions of years to come from the condition of abject slavery up to the condition of marriage. Ladies, the ornaments you wear upon your persons to-night are but the souvenirs of your mother's bondage. The chains around your necks, and the bracelets clasped upon your white arms by the thrilled hand of love, have been changed by the wand of civilization from iron to shining, glittering gold.
But nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nobody but men.
I read in a book -- and I will say now that I cannot give the exact language, as my memory does not retain the words, but I can give the substance -- I read in a book that the Supreme Being concluded to make a world and one man; that he took some nothing and made a world and one man, and put this man in a garden. In a little while he noticed that the man got lonesome; that he wandered around as if he was waiting for a train. There was nothing to interest him; no news; no papers; no politics; no policy; and, as the devil had not yet made his appearance, there was no chance for reconciliation; not even for civil service reform. Well, he wandered about the garden in this condition, until finally the Supreme Being made up his mind to make him a companion.
Having used up all the nothing he originally took in making the world and one man, he had to take a part of the man to start a woman with. So he caused a sleep to fall on this man -- now understand me, I do not say this story is true. After the sleep fell upon this man, the Supreme Being took a rib, or as the French would call it, a cutlet, out of this man, and from that he made a woman. And considering the amount of raw material used, I look upon it as the most successful job ever performed. Well, after he got the woman done, she was brought to the man; not to see how she liked him, but to see how he liked her. He liked her, and they started housekeeping; and they were told of certain things they might do and of one thing they could not do -- and of course they did it. I would have done it in fifteen minutes, and I know it. There wouldn't have been an apple on that tree half an hour from date, and the limbs would have been full of cobs. And then they were turned out of the park and extra policemen were put on to keep them from getting back in.
Devilment commenced. The mumps, and the measles, and the whooping-cough, and the scarlet fever started in their race for man. They began to have the toothache, roses began to have thorns, snakes began to have poisoned teeth, and people began to divide about religion and politics, and the world has been full of trouble from that day to this.
Nearly all of the religions of this world account for the existence of evil by such a story as that……………..
………….In my judgment, the woman is the equal of the man. She has all the rights I have and one more, and that is the right to be protected. That is my doctrine. You are married; try and make the woman you love happy. Whoever marries simply for himself will make a mistake; but whoever loves a woman so well that he says, "I will make her happy," makes no mistake. And so with the woman who says, "I will make him happy." There is only one way to be happy, and that is to make somebody else so, and you cannot be happy by going cross lots; you have got to go the regular turnpike road.
If there is any man I detest, it is the man who thinks he is the head of a family -- the man who thinks he is "boss!" The fellow in the dug-out used that word "boss;" that was one of his favorite expressions.
Imagine a young man and a young woman courting, walking out in the moonlight, and the nightingale singing a song of pain and love, as though the thorn touched her heart -- imagine them stopping there in the moonlight and starlight and song, and saying, "Now, here, let us settle who is boss!'" I tell you it is an infamous word and an infamous feeling -- I abhor a man who is "boss," who is going to govern in his family, and when he speaks orders all the rest to be still as some mighty idea is about to be launched from his mouth. Do you know I dislike this man unspeakably?......................
………………Think of the intellectual strain that must have been upon that man, and when he gets home everybody else in the house must look out for his comfort. A woman who has only taken care of five or six children, and one or two of them sick, has been nursing them and singing to them, and trying to make one yard of cloth do the work of two, she, of course, is fresh and fine and ready to wait upon this gentleman -- the head of the family -- the boss!.....................................
…………………Get the best you can for your family -- try to look as well as you can yourself. When you used to go courting, how elegantly you looked! Ah, your eye was bright, your sleep was light, and you looked like a prince. Do you know that it is insufferable egotism in you to suppose a woman is going to love you always looking as slovenly as you can! Think of it! Any good woman on earth will be true to you forever when you do your level best.
Some people tell me, "Your doctrine about loving, and wives, and all that, is splendid for the rich, but it won't do for the poor." I tell you to-night there is more love in the homes of the poor than in the palaces of the rich. The meanest hut with love in it is a palace fit for the gods, and a palace without love is a den only fit for wild beasts. That is my doctrine! You cannot be so poor that you cannot help somebody. Good nature is the cheapest commodity in the world; and love is the only thing that will pay ten per cent to borrower and lender both. Do not tell me that you have got to be rich! We have a false standard of greatness in the United States. We think here that a man must be great, that he must be notorious; that he must be extremely wealthy, or that his name must be upon the putrid lips of rumor. It is all a mistake. It is not necessary to be rich or to be great, or to be powerful, to be happy. The happy man is the successful man.
Happiness is the legal tender of the soul…………………
………………………..It is not necessary to be great to be happy; it is not necessary to be rich to be just and generous and to have a heart filled with divine affection. No matter whether you are rich or poor, treat your wife as though she were a splendid flower, and she will fill your life with perfume and with joy.
And do you know, it is a splendid thing to think that the woman you really love will never grow old to you. Through the wrinkles of time, through the mask of years, if you really love her, you will always see the face you loved and won. And a woman who really loves a man does not see that he grows old; he is not decrepit to her; he does not tremble; he is not old; she always sees the same gallant gentleman who won her hand and heart. I like to think of it in that way; I like to think that love is eternal. And to love in that way and then go down the hill of life together, and as you go down, hear, perhaps, the laughter of grandchildren, while the birds of joy and love sing once more in the leafless branches of the tree of age.
I believe in the fireside. I believe in the democracy of home. I believe in the republicanism of the family. I believe in liberty, equality and love.
Are you in fact a real Christian? (Take this test to find out)
Here’s a short test for Christians (and anyone who wants to understand them). Just answer the following questions, in your mind, with a “yes” or a “no”.
1. Do you believe homosexuals should be killed? Not just “they’re going to hell”, but actually executed?
2. Do you believe women are inferior to men, should remain submissive, and can never be allowed to teach men or have authority over them?
3. Do you believe slavery is OK?
4. Do you believe disobedient children should be killed?
5. Do you believe that, when waging war, it is proper to commit genocide, killing every man, woman and child in the enemy nation — except for, in some particular cases, female virgins, who can be taken as “spoils”?
6. Do you believe that anyone who suggests to a Christian that he follow other gods should be killed?
7. Do you believe that an old grandmother, who lived a life of caring for others, bringing joy to dozens, will be condemned to an afterlife of eternal suffering if she didn’t accept Jesus as her savior?
8. Do you believe that there are cases in which a raped woman should be killed along with, or even instead of, the rapist?
If you answered “no” to even one of the above, you’re not a real Christian. You believe you know more than the God you say you worship. You’re guilty of picking and choosing from your divinely inspired holy book, ignoring more than half of it. You only follow the teachings you already agree with. In effect, you’re creating your own religion.
If you answered “yes” to even one of the above, then you are a repulsive, evil monster. Please never visit this blog again, and go play in traffic, or at least don’t reproduce.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Contradictions with the Apostle Paul
The Apostle Paul is a big player in the history of Christianity. He is credited with writing close to 60% of the New Testament; though many of those manuscripts have no verified authorship.
There are conflicting accounts of Paul’s conversion. Acts 9:7 states that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man:
“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”
According to Acts 22:9, however, the men saw a light but didn't hear the voice speaking to Paul:
“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.”
Paul’s letters reveal perhaps more about himself than the actual Jesus of history. The Pauline Epistles were written before the traditional gospels. The four Bible gospels articulate an earthly messiah; a Jesus Christ messiah, born into this world. Paul is almost silent regarding an earthly Jesus, and for good reason; the earthly Jesus history had probably not yet been written (or created). Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to the birth, he says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Rom 1:3) and was “born of a woman,” not a virgin (Gal 4:4). Had he been privy, much of that Jesus information would have been very useful to the doctrinal points Paul was making in the Epistles. Paul almost never mentions the teachings of Jesus. The earthly The Apostle Paul is a big player in the history of Christianity. He is credited with writing close to 60% of the New Testament; though many of those manuscripts have no verified authorship.
Paul (or whoever the authors were) rarely places a physical Jesus in his teaching. His references to Christ seem to be on a spiritual ministry and resurrection. Obviously, Paul never claims that he knew a physical Jesus. What isn’t so obvious is the earliest (biblical) gospel (Mark) makes no mention of the virgin birth. Paul’s Epistles (and Romans) were written about 10 years or more before Mark. Paul never mentions the virgin birth either. This coincides with many other Christian teachers during that same time period. They believed in a spiritual (never physical) Christ savior who conquered evil in the spiritual realm by way of a spiritual crucifixion and resurrection. This is very interesting when you go back and read the words ascribed to Paul. The earthly Christ, as seen in the later-written gospels, places Jesus as the Christ on earth.
Editing and multiple authorships can be seen in the fusion of teachings and doctrines. Put simply, many early Christians never believed that a physical Christ existed (they had nothing to do with a Jesus). Later Christians claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. One can easily see how a physical Jesus could be added to the later doctrines seen in the gospels. We tend to look upon the early church as neat little groups within a short time period with just a few problems in conflicting doctrine. This is simply not history. There were many years involved with many differences in belief about whom Christ was and who Jesus was. The group that “won” the battle of doctrine was the council of Nicea under Constantine’s rule. They were the chief editors of the Bible canon and therefore took the liberty of deciding that the person Jesus was the Christ. There were many believers who simply rejected an earthly physical Jesus as the Christ; they simply believed in a spiritual Christ. The many books and writings were fused together and traces of different doctrines are seen throughout the New Testament and apocryphal writings. In short, the Council of Nicaea was an early form of fundamentalism. They insisted on a “legal” book to rule the physical church. The other groups of Christians observed that real faith was spiritually internal; written documents were not authoritative to them. There were many kinds of Christians then and many now. (Thanks to Gary Lenaire)
There are conflicting accounts of Paul’s conversion. Acts 9:7 states that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man:
“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”
According to Acts 22:9, however, the men saw a light but didn't hear the voice speaking to Paul:
“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.”
Paul’s letters reveal perhaps more about himself than the actual Jesus of history. The Pauline Epistles were written before the traditional gospels. The four Bible gospels articulate an earthly messiah; a Jesus Christ messiah, born into this world. Paul is almost silent regarding an earthly Jesus, and for good reason; the earthly Jesus history had probably not yet been written (or created). Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to the birth, he says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Rom 1:3) and was “born of a woman,” not a virgin (Gal 4:4). Had he been privy, much of that Jesus information would have been very useful to the doctrinal points Paul was making in the Epistles. Paul almost never mentions the teachings of Jesus. The earthly The Apostle Paul is a big player in the history of Christianity. He is credited with writing close to 60% of the New Testament; though many of those manuscripts have no verified authorship.
Paul (or whoever the authors were) rarely places a physical Jesus in his teaching. His references to Christ seem to be on a spiritual ministry and resurrection. Obviously, Paul never claims that he knew a physical Jesus. What isn’t so obvious is the earliest (biblical) gospel (Mark) makes no mention of the virgin birth. Paul’s Epistles (and Romans) were written about 10 years or more before Mark. Paul never mentions the virgin birth either. This coincides with many other Christian teachers during that same time period. They believed in a spiritual (never physical) Christ savior who conquered evil in the spiritual realm by way of a spiritual crucifixion and resurrection. This is very interesting when you go back and read the words ascribed to Paul. The earthly Christ, as seen in the later-written gospels, places Jesus as the Christ on earth.
Editing and multiple authorships can be seen in the fusion of teachings and doctrines. Put simply, many early Christians never believed that a physical Christ existed (they had nothing to do with a Jesus). Later Christians claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. One can easily see how a physical Jesus could be added to the later doctrines seen in the gospels. We tend to look upon the early church as neat little groups within a short time period with just a few problems in conflicting doctrine. This is simply not history. There were many years involved with many differences in belief about whom Christ was and who Jesus was. The group that “won” the battle of doctrine was the council of Nicea under Constantine’s rule. They were the chief editors of the Bible canon and therefore took the liberty of deciding that the person Jesus was the Christ. There were many believers who simply rejected an earthly physical Jesus as the Christ; they simply believed in a spiritual Christ. The many books and writings were fused together and traces of different doctrines are seen throughout the New Testament and apocryphal writings. In short, the Council of Nicaea was an early form of fundamentalism. They insisted on a “legal” book to rule the physical church. The other groups of Christians observed that real faith was spiritually internal; written documents were not authoritative to them. There were many kinds of Christians then and many now. (Thanks to Gary Lenaire)
Friday, February 2, 2007
Shaking down Trey
This is a conversation that I had with a Christian on myspace. As always any commentary from me is in parenthesis. Please do not be confused on this article as references to outside literature are in parenthesis as well. These were included in the original text and not added after the fact. This blog is pretty long but it is worth the read if you are interested in understanding the mentality of Christian thought. Although Trey’s stance is mostly well thought out you will notice that he ignores many topics and that when he does respond to something that it is necessary for him to twist words in order to make concepts fit into his world view. Trey is representative of many that I have met.
(Trey’s initial post)
I always think it's interesting in discussing theology, politics, philosophy or science with a person and they chime in with "I use to be a Christian..." I don't know why people mention this because maybe it's me but I don't believe them. One guy told me how he used to go door to door and preach the word to people but he woke up and realized he was living a lie. I simply replied "you weren't saved." Of course they don't like to hear that but it is true.
Once someone has tasted the grace of God it will be impossible to leave. Without a rebirth their is no new life. God doesn't try He does.
(My first reply to Trey)
Wow! Trey your utter ignorance of the faith that you claim to follow never ceases to amaze me. (OK, I admit, a little harsh) A little bit of knowledge is truly deadly to your argument. I have to wonder how many Christians have actually read the bible and how many just go on feeling and gut instinct. You said “Once someone has tasted the grace of God it will be impossible to leave.” Well guess what? Peter, the author of the book of the Bible named after himself disagrees with you! Here is what he has to say about it.
“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them”…….. (2 Peter 2:20-21)
These people that Peter is talking about knew God and fell away. How could that be? Didn’t you say that if someone has tasted the grace of God that this would be impossible? Is Peter a liar? This is not the only example of Christians falling away in the bible.
Here are a couple of more for you.
“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being assembled to meet him ... Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [in the original Greek: apostasy - 'great falling away'] comes first, and the lawless [one] is revealed, the son of perdition..." (2 Thess 2:1,3)
Or how about this one
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils..." (1Timothy 4:1)
How could one depart from the faith if they weren’t a part of it in the first place? Is Timothy lying? How about the author of Thessalonians Paul? Was he lying? Give me your address and I will send you a bible to read before you make anymore contradictory statements. (I know I know, I will try to be nicer) “When I used to be a Christian” I read the bible hundreds of times. I sat in on study groups. I carried it with me everywhere I went. It was through reading it that I understood its intricacies and its errors. Maybe if you read it for yourself you might have a little more insight.
Hey Chris, why are you giving this guy kudos on this blog. (On Myspace if you agree with someone’s post but don’t have anything to say you can give Kudos. Yes, Chris is the same Chris mentioned in previous blogs.) Out of all of the Christians that I know I would expect you to see how false his statement is!!!
(Trey by default does not have the mental capacity here to respond directly here so he quotes a bible verse)
“Many will say to Me in that day,'Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
And I will declare to them,'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”
(Matthew 7:22-23)
p.s. you weren't saved (This is almost smug, as if he doesn’t realize that this verse made his case worse, not better)
Regards
Trey
(My response was easy here)
LOL
Dude, good job! By finding a scripture that says the exact opposite of the scriptures that I quoted you point out something that the bible seems to be full of….. “contradictions!” The great thing about being a Bible believer is that you can back up pretty much anything that you want to because in one place the Bible will say one thing and in another place it will say something completely different. Don’t give me that old testament, new testament bull either because some of the contradictions exist within the same testament if not sometimes within the same book. -See “intelligent design not so intelligent” at www.angelsdepart.blogspot.com- I found a scripture that says that Christians will fall away and you found one that says that they were never Christian. How can that be if the Bible is perfect and inerrant? By the way, good job on dodging the meat of my argument. When I was a Christian I was pretty good at that too. It seems to be the only way that faith can survive given its many inconsistencies.
(Trey responds)
if you were honestly asking I would show you or help you out. (Remember this cop out argument from Frank Spencer (ie Frank Walton) gets schooled? They must teach this response in church) But you're not so that's why I didn't entertain it. There is a difference that you are not seeing. (Explain it!!! I want to know) But that's not in my hands. (Dammit foiled again man!) I could sit and defend the Bible all day and not get anywhere. (This is so true!) Regarding ID feel free to post the scientific rebuttal anytime on the blog that I post. Bring your model out and put it to the test. (I didn’t bring up ID but OK)
regards
trey
(Me responding)
I am honestly asking…..How the Bible can be perfect and inerrant if it contradicts itself. How is it that you feel it necessary to question how I feel? If one Christian could give a good, sound, logical argument, I would believe in a heartbeat. Any takers? As far as intelligent design is concerned, there is no rebuttal. The whole theory rest on circular reasoning. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. This is the only reason why intelligent design hasn’t gone the way of Greek mythology. If you say 1. The Bible is true 2. The Bible says that God created the world 3. Therefore God created the world is true, then you have just participated in circular reasoning. It is the equivalent of me saying that I am never wrong, and the sky is green. The sky must really be green since I am never wrong, right? The “I am never wrong portion of the argument is assumed, just as the Bible is true, perfect and inerrant is assumed. I respect your right to believe in God, believe that there are no errors in the Bible, or even believe that the world is flat and the sun rotates around the earth. -Like the Christian’s believed before Galileo and Copernicus- The reason that I respond is because you try to push this on our educational institutions as fact. School is for teaching scientific theories and skills that will be used to further society, not the religious agenda -whether that be Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah witnesses, ect ect ect.- If you disagree then don’t send you child to a public school. Find a private school that teaches the things you believe. When our forefathers called for the separation of Church and State it was because they understood how dangerous it was for the two to be combined. If it is run by the State, the Church cannot be a part of it. Please just stop focusing on pushing your agenda on the rest of us. By the way, nice dodge on not answering the contradictions in the Bible that are clearly present on this very page. If I was claiming that a book was perfect and then it was so clearly proven wrong I suppose that I would simply try to ignore it as well.
(I give Trey props on this response for at least making an attempt at some of my questions)
“I am honestly asking…..How the Bible can be perfect and inerrant if it contradicts itself. How is it that you feel it necessary to question how I feel? If one Christian could give a good, sound, logical argument, I would believe in a heartbeat. any takers? “
Are you saying in the last 2000 years of the church’s history not ONE person has written anything that is a good, sound, logical argument? (Nope, never said that!)One or two things are being said here. 1 You are smarter than any of the church fathers and most influential theologians (Nope never said that) i.e. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Schaffer, Lewis, Edwards, etc. and in every single thing that they’ve written NOT ONE SINGLE THING was a GOOD, SOUND, LOGICAL argument. (Nope never said that either) Which I suppose is a “possibility” (This sort of condescending tone reminds me of myself. I must say I am starting to like this guy) Or 2 You haven’t looked enough. Only you know the answer to that. (True)
Again when science is the concern. It’s simple. Bring out your science and put it to the test. You obviously know little about ID. (Oh Yeah!) Maybe when you “were a Christian” you thought the earth was flat but it’s never been in a creed so I don’t see how the church believed versus scientists thinking it. I assume you follow the theory of evolution (To a point) I guess I wonder why you aren’t as skeptical about that as you are a Creator. (Oh, but I am) There’s a theory full of holes. Feel free to rebut any of the other blogs I’ve written with your science as background. Eventually, you have to follow the evidence. (YES! This is so true, apparently Trey doesn’t though)
You said “Please just stop focusing on pushing your agenda on the rest of us.” So why are you focusing on pushing your agenda on the rest of us? (Am I?)
I didn’t ignore anything. (Yes you did, You wont answer me about the contradictions in the bible!) I told you why I wouldn’t respond. (Because I don’t really want to know right?) See I have had these discussions with plenty of non-believers, skeptics and cynics. I know the arguments you have already and there is no more originality in them. They get old and you aren’t looking for the truth you are only looking to slam Christianity. (Not so.) I laid one of many scriptures as a background of my evidence already. (Even with the Bible as the basis for this argument the evidence is shaky at best) You not being able to see past that is frankly not my problem. (It is your Christian duty to explain it to me and win over my soul.) Discussing biblical doctrines with someone who doesn’t even believe in God is just a waste. (Then how do you convert people to your faith?) You remember casting pearls I’m sure. Same thing here.
You have an incredible gift at least one I know of and have been saved from a situation that arguably no one else could have. (I think he is referring to an accident that I was involved in were a drunk hit me and almost killed me) It could be an awesome opportunity to be used to encourage others I hope you find it and use it.
(And my response)
No, I never said that in the last 2000 years that there were no logical arguments. -Where did I say that?- I said that there were contradictions! I also never said that I was smarter than anybody but since you want to use that style of argumentation then let’s call up some other names like Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, and Charles Dickens? Are you saying that you are smarter than all of them? Of course you didn’t say that, just like I never claimed that I was smarter than anyone. Jeez you take this so personally. Still you haven’t given a good sound argument. You do realize that whether or not something was in a creed does not negate the fact that the church tried to put Galileo to death when his theories on the movement of the heavens threatened the churches already established view. I never claimed that science was perfect either; actually science doesn’t even claim to be perfect. Science is progressive though. New theories are constantly replacing old ones. As our knowledge progresses, we do as well. Religion and churches fear change. When someone creates a new theory in a religious organization they are branded as an “Infidel.” This is the cause of the multiple denominations of churches in existence today. It’s easy to make a statement that the theory of evolution is full of holes. In all likelihood if Charles Darwin was here today, he would tell you that his theory is not conclusive. If you had ever read “The Origin of Species” you would know this already. His theories are not conclusive because there is so much that we just cannot know. I am not saying that I know the truth; I am just saying that you don’t. I find it funny that you think I am forcing my agenda on you. I am simply trying to uphold the status quo. Our forefathers knew very well the dangers of allowing the church and the state to work together. They were very clear in their language to keep them separated. For you to say that I am only looking to slam Christianity is a shame and a cop out. I said to you that if you were to present me with a good, sound logical argument that I would believe in a heartbeat. Your response is the same as every other Christian when presented with this challenge “you aren’t looking for the truth.” Well I am! I seek the truth on a daily basis. This brings me back to my initial question that you have continued to dodge throughout this conversation through the use of rhetoric and clever misdirection. How can the Bible be perfect and inerrant if there are such clear contradictions as the ones that I listed for you? What possible context could there be for you to explain it away? Why do you insist upon telling me that I am not receptive to the truth about God when I clearly have asked for it and I am ready to hear the answer with an open mind? Explain it to me! I would have to assume that the answers to these questions are so difficult for you or anyone because they can not be explained without the assumption that the Bible is perfect. Even if the Bible could be proven it commands you to accept its principles on faith so the proof would not even be usable without you being viewed as a heretic! I understand the need for religion, but I also understand the need to keep religion out of the government. That is my goal. -Read “On the Complications of Moral Absolutes” at www.angelsdepart.blogspot.com- So if you feel that I am being pushy I apologize. I thought we were just exchanging ideas.
(Trey’s response)
“No, I never said that in the last 2000 years that there were no logical arguments. (Where did I say that?) I said that there were contradictions! “
I guess I misunderstood. I thought when you wrote:
“If one Christian could give a good, sound, logical argument, I would believe in a heartbeat. Any takers?”
That this meant every Christian past, present or future. I guess “any takers” didn’t open that up as much as I thought.
I know you never claimed being smarter than anyone else I was just trying to understand the rationale for the above claim. (That was not a claim, it was a call to action)
The issue that you “feel” I didn’t make a sound argument is purely subjective to your opinion and what you consider sound. (What! No it’s not!) I gave the scripture, you see it as a contradiction. (They clearly contradict, is this guy high?) I don’t. Not my problem. (again, it is!) You said you hadn’t seen one good sound logical argument. I am under the impression you haven’t looked. (Wrong again)
The Earth-centered Universe that you claim was an “established view” did not begin with the church. Just FYI it started with Aristotle and Ptolemy who went on to influence all scientists following them. Later the scientists influenced the multitude. If you study the philosophy of science you would see the clear distinction. It was the Inquisition that put Galileo on trial not Christians. (Led by John Calvin, a protestant reformer!)
“Religion and churches fear change.” you assume Humanism isn’t a religion. (Never said that! Who ever said anything about Humanism?)
“It’s easy to make a statement that the theory of evolution is full of holes. In all likelihood if Charles Darwin was here today, he would tell you that his theory is not conclusive. If you had ever read “The Origin of Species” you would know this already. His theories are not conclusive because there is so much that we just cannot know. “
You are correct I haven’t read “The Origin of Species”. Though I have read a lot on the subject and hardly ever do I run into a student of evolution that can speak somewhat intelligibly on it. I usually end up explaining the sub theories to them. Man has been trying to explain God away for centuries using science.
“I am not saying that I know the truth; I am just saying that you don’t.”
If you don’t know the truth how do you know that I don’t. (You got me there. This is called an ontological quandary. I don’t know that you don’t know. I am just pretty sure. Is that better?) I have no problem being corrected on something I think, believe or feel. As long as the correction is logical and coherent.
You not seeing how you are forcing or trying your agenda on others is simply odd (Well I am rubber and you are glue)
“Your response is the same as every other Christian when presented with this challenge “you aren’t looking for the truth.” Well I am! I seek the truth on a daily basis. “
If I have told you the same thing as every other Christian I guess the problem would have to be with us because surely every other Christian could be right. Personally I think if you were indeed seeking the truth about the Bible you would have read the great thinkers I had listed previously. I told you why I won’t get into scripture defenses with you already. (Right, because I don’t want to know the truth….Oh, wait, is it because there are no rational defenses? No no, that couldn’t be it!)
“I would have to assume that the answers to these questions are so difficult for you or anyone because they can not be explained without the assumption that the Bible is perfect. Even if the Bible could be proven it commands you to accept its principles on faith so the proof would not even be usable without you being viewed as a heretic!”
God does want us to have faith but not “stupid faith”. I think Christians should be skeptical of their faith and ask the hard questions. (The Bible disagrees.) I don’t believe in having a faith based on feelings or a moment. That’s my opinion anyhow. I’m sure some Christians would disagree.
I read your blog. You made some interesting points but there are some significant issues I’ll address in another blog.
(Here comes the heavy hitter. Put on your helmets. My response to Trey “you don’t want to know the truth.” Preacher man!)
Well Trey, when I said “any takers” I was thinking maybe someone that is alive could explain it, rather than handing me a pile of literature and saying go figure it out for yourself. But since you brought up these fine upstanding leaders in Christian thought I decided to do some research on their philosophies. I was shocked at what I discovered. Let’s start with Augustine shall we?
Augustine was an avid woman hater. In his time he elevated misogyny to a whole new level. Augustine felt that a woman’s inferiority to a man was obvious. This led him to beg the question why women were even created at all. “I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?” (St Augustine Ranke-Heinemann, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: p88) I actually pick up some homosexual tendencies from this passage, but maybe I am just reading into it to much. Augustine taught that sex between a man and a woman was only for the purpose of procreation, and while sex for pleasure was pardonable, it was still a sin! (Ibid: p77, 94) As a misogynist, Augustine practiced what he preached. His friend Possidius described his conduct thus: "No woman ever set foot in his house, he never spoke to a woman except in the presence of a third person or outside the parlour, he made no exceptions, not even for his elder sister and his nieces, all three of them nuns." (Ibid: p122)
Let's Discuss Martin Luther next. Luther was born in 1483. In his time he was well known for being an anti-Semite -hated Jews- and a stern misogynist. He also vocally supported the massacre of over 100,000 peasants in the great peasant massacre of 1525 in Germany. In his pamphlet addressed to the princes and nobles entitled “Against the Murderous Peasants” he said: “Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel.” Acting with Luther’s approval the military slaughtered the peasants in what was considered in its time to be one of the greatest massacres ever recorded. Luther, like all good Christians, hated the devil. He was known to have yelled at the evil one thus: "I have shit in my pants, and you can hang them around your neck and wipe your mouth with it." Luther felt that the spirit of God was strong in him for he could drive the devil away "with a single fart." (Wallace et.al., The Intimate Sex Lives of Famous People: p281) Luther's views on sex and women also deserve mention. He believed that women have stronger sexual urges than men and that if a man is impotent he should supply a sex partner for his wife. He taught that women were inferior to men and were created to be ruled by men. As proof, he sighted the shape of a woman's hips; its broad base indicates that God meant for them to sit at home. (Ibid: p281) As metioned before Luther also harbored a morbid hatred of Jews. Given below is an excerpt from his essay On the Jews and Their Lies: “Beware then the Jews and know that the Jewish school is nothing other than a nest of the devil ... And when you hear a Jew teaching, then realize that you are hearing a venomous basilisk that can poison and kill people with the sight of his face.” (quoted in Knight, Honest to Man: p101) Adolf Hitler is said to have cited Luther’s work on several occasions.
John Calvin was next right? Calvin, like Luther, was anxious to recapture the essence of primitive Christianity. Thus he drew up a constitution for a Christian theocratic state for Geneva, the city where he lived from 1536 to his death in 1564. In his constitution, the death penalty is the prescription for blasphemy, heresy and witchcraft. He also advocated the death penalty for adultery. The prescribed form of death penalty for adultery was drowning for the woman and decapitating for the man. (Roberts, History of the World: p551) Calvin showed his true colors when a man named Miguel Servetus (1511-1553) began writing views that were contradictory to Calvin’s. Calvin called for Servetus death. When Servetus was captured and executed in Geneva, Calvin wrote “One should forget all mankind when his glory is in question...God does not allow whole towns and populations to be spared, but will have the walls razed and the memory of the inhabitants destroyed and all things ruined as a sign of His utter detestation, lest the contagion spread.” (ibid: p290) Wow can you think of anyone else in the world today that just kills people heartlessly to get their way? You were just fighting one personally a few years ago weren’t you? (This is in reference to Trey being a soldier in the Iraq war.)
If you would like me to keep going with my findings on the teachings of the others that you listed let me know, but for one blog response I think you will agree, it is taking up to much space. So let’s move on.
As far as ID is concerned I can see that this is a touchy subject with you. You continually reference even though I had not brought it up once. -Other than it mentioned in the title of a blog which by the way has nothing to do with intelligent design- I will make these quick four points. If you want to discuss it further let’s start a different string because this one is getting ridiculous.
1. Creationism is not science for it bases its fundamental beliefs not on empirical research but on a belief in biblical inerrancy.
2. The creationist arguments for a young earth, one that is only a few thousand years old, fails upon closer examination.
3. The creationist argument for that the rock strata were all laid at the same time, during the Noahchian flood, fails.
4. The creationist have two pseudo-methods of trying to impress their readers:
a. They use credential mongering, trying to impress their readers with PhD's that have no relevance to the issue at hand.
b. They very often quote their opponents and scientists out of context which creates an opposite impression than what was originally intended.
(Thanks to Paul Tobin for all this info)
So here we are again. I have addressed all of your questions and you are still avoiding mine. Here I will spell it out as simple as I can. Please explain this to me!
You quoted this verse “Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'And I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”(Matthew 7:22-23) Your intention was to say that this verse validates what you said about “True Christians not being able to fall away.” I agree with you that this is what this verse says. Then I posted three verses that contradict this one. Here is one of them “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (1Timothy 4:1) If this verse is not saying that “believers” will “fall away” then you need to explain what it is saying or else you need to concede that this is a contradiction. If you have some spare time and want to check out a much larger list of contradictions please reference -www.angelsdepart.blogspot.com, “Intelligent design not so intelligent”- Please keep in mind the title to this blog is a bit misleading. Don’t let it trick you again! (ha ha ha) Thanks for your time.
(An actual heartfelt response by Trey)
"Well Trey, when I said “any takers” I was thinking maybe someone that is alive could explain it, rather than handing me a pile of literature and saying go figure it out for yourself. "
I guess I was under the assumption you had already looked into it. Guess not.
Ok I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are “seeking” though I really don’t think you are. So here you go:
VERSE 1
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them…….. 2 Peter 2:20-21
(Clearly saying that they knew it at one time, is Trey Delusional?)
20For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
21For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.
2Pet 2:20-21 NASB
Now to your questions on this verse.
1. These people that Peter is talking about knew God and fell away. How could that be?
They didn’t know God. They knew about him. There’s a difference. (The verse says they knew him. Are you more authoritative than the bible?
2. Didn’t you say that if someone has tasted the grace of God that this would be impossible?
Yes this passage makes no reference that they’ve tasted God’s grace but that they “knew” something. (Yes it does!!!)
3. Is Peter a liar?
Peter did not lie here.
VERSE 2
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being assembled to meet him ... Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [in the original Greek: apostasy - 'great falling away'] comes first, and the lawless [one] is revealed, the son of perdition..." 2Thess 2:1,3
Man of Lawlessness
1Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
2that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
3Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Thess 2:1-3 NASB
I think a good cross reference verse for you on verse 3 is:
1 Timothy 4
Apostasy
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
The verses you made reference to are a warning again to people who will fall away from the faith. Again, they may have the saving knowledge but they aren’t saved. This is not a contradiction with what Jesus claimed would happen in Matthew. (Where does it say that? IT DOESN’T SAY THAT!!! You don’t get to make stuff up!)
VERSE 3
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (1Timothy 4:1)
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
1 Tim 4:1 NASB (Yes it says abandon the faith, good job proving me right.)
This is a great passage where Paul in the person of Timothy forewarns not only the Ephesians but all the churches throughout the world, about hypocritical teachers, who by setting up false worship adulterate the true worship of God and corrupt the pure doctrine of faith. This is the real object of the passage. (Says Pastor Trey)
This shows the great care God exercises about his Church, when he gives so early warning of dangers. We suffer the punishment of our carelessness and idleness, when we are led aside from the right way of salvation.
Clearly here these people have a knowledge. Just as in the passage in Matthew, these men had a “knowledge” of God. It doesn’t matter. No contradiction here. (Where does it say knowledge? You made that up too.)
Now your questions regarding this passage:
1. If this verse is not saying that “believers” will “fall away” then you need to explain what it is saying or else you need to concede that this is a contradiction.
It doesn’t say “believers” it says “some” to be correct. But I think I explained sufficiently above. (No you didn’t)
2. How could one depart from the faith if they weren’t a part of it in the first place?
They had a knowledge of the scriptures, but their own carelessness and idleness demonstrated they really weren’t saved. Who knows maybe they were there for other reasons. Case by case basis for each individual. (Excellent dodge.)
3. Is Timothy lying?
Timothy? Do you mean Paul? Paul wrote this to Timothy. I thought you said you studied the Bible and that was why you left Christianity? (Oh! You got me!)
4. How about the author of Thessalonians Paul? Was he lying?
No
Give me your address and I will send you a bible to read
That’s ok I think you need it. (Actually I don’t, thanks though)
Your questions are important but when you start off by saying I was ignorant is going to get a very a responsive answer. (I speak the truth.) Additionally saying “I have to wonder how many Christians have actually read the bible and how many just go on feeling and gut instinct.” should have been asked to yourself before you wrote your comment.
And yes I read your blog on “contradictions”. I already told you why I don’t get into defending Bible verses with non-believers. They just start nit picking (By nit picking you mean pointing out contradictions that destroy your world view?) then the next thing you know you spent almost 2 hours telling them something they never really wanted to know. So here’s your “benefit of the doubt”. You said you were honestly seeking and there you go. Otherwise I just take it as taking shots at the Bible and Christianity.
I’m not touchy on ID at all. I am always reading on scientific discoveries and looking to see what truth they have uncovered. Like I said it’s not much to argue about bring the science out and let it speak for itself. Post your rebuttal on any of the science blogs I write.
(My final reply )
So it seems as if your interpretation of abandoning the faith are people leaving the church that had knowledge of being saved but weren’t really. That is a good twist. Ever think about being a lawyer? One thing that I had to take note of is that you needed a different version from the King James and that the version you used has entirely different wording? Which one is inspired by God? If the Bible is continually tweaked and doctored maybe all of the contradictions can be removed eventually! How exciting would that be for you?! So did you tell me why you really won’t defend the bible contradictions that I posted? Is it perhaps because there is no defense? Am I nitpicking by posting Bible contradictions? If they are not really contradictions then explain them.
Nice how one mistake in my blog means that I know nothing about the subject to you. You make massive amounts of mistakes in your responses in this string alone and when they are pointed out you simply ignore them. For example, your hero’s, who happen to be perverts, homosexuals, woman haters and murderers. You seem to have nothing to say about them. I will confess that I always read Timothy without knowledge that it was written by Paul. Not that it being written by Paul is a cause for relief. Paul’s version of Christianity is in many ways contradictory to the version of Christianity that Jesus taught.
Look I am glad that you live as a Christian. I believe that you are someone who would be very dangerous to society if you did not have these doctrines being waved over you by a “man in the sky.” I guess the only thing that is scarier is that “God might tell you to do something.” Under those circumstances you would do whatever you felt this apparition asked you to do and feel no remorse for your actions. Please keep the faith. The free thinkers of the world beg you. I will post a blog on ID soon. Your incessant ramblings will be welcome there. Look, this conversation is pointless because you are only assuming my view. You are arguing from religion and I am arguing from science. I have read your book –The Bible- and you have admitted to not reading mine. –The Origin of species- Go read it, so that you have both arguments, then we’ll talk.
(Trey’s initial post)
I always think it's interesting in discussing theology, politics, philosophy or science with a person and they chime in with "I use to be a Christian..." I don't know why people mention this because maybe it's me but I don't believe them. One guy told me how he used to go door to door and preach the word to people but he woke up and realized he was living a lie. I simply replied "you weren't saved." Of course they don't like to hear that but it is true.
Once someone has tasted the grace of God it will be impossible to leave. Without a rebirth their is no new life. God doesn't try He does.
(My first reply to Trey)
Wow! Trey your utter ignorance of the faith that you claim to follow never ceases to amaze me. (OK, I admit, a little harsh) A little bit of knowledge is truly deadly to your argument. I have to wonder how many Christians have actually read the bible and how many just go on feeling and gut instinct. You said “Once someone has tasted the grace of God it will be impossible to leave.” Well guess what? Peter, the author of the book of the Bible named after himself disagrees with you! Here is what he has to say about it.
“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them”…….. (2 Peter 2:20-21)
These people that Peter is talking about knew God and fell away. How could that be? Didn’t you say that if someone has tasted the grace of God that this would be impossible? Is Peter a liar? This is not the only example of Christians falling away in the bible.
Here are a couple of more for you.
“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being assembled to meet him ... Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [in the original Greek: apostasy - 'great falling away'] comes first, and the lawless [one] is revealed, the son of perdition..." (2 Thess 2:1,3)
Or how about this one
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils..." (1Timothy 4:1)
How could one depart from the faith if they weren’t a part of it in the first place? Is Timothy lying? How about the author of Thessalonians Paul? Was he lying? Give me your address and I will send you a bible to read before you make anymore contradictory statements. (I know I know, I will try to be nicer) “When I used to be a Christian” I read the bible hundreds of times. I sat in on study groups. I carried it with me everywhere I went. It was through reading it that I understood its intricacies and its errors. Maybe if you read it for yourself you might have a little more insight.
Hey Chris, why are you giving this guy kudos on this blog. (On Myspace if you agree with someone’s post but don’t have anything to say you can give Kudos. Yes, Chris is the same Chris mentioned in previous blogs.) Out of all of the Christians that I know I would expect you to see how false his statement is!!!
(Trey by default does not have the mental capacity here to respond directly here so he quotes a bible verse)
“Many will say to Me in that day,'Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
And I will declare to them,'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”
(Matthew 7:22-23)
p.s. you weren't saved (This is almost smug, as if he doesn’t realize that this verse made his case worse, not better)
Regards
Trey
(My response was easy here)
LOL
Dude, good job! By finding a scripture that says the exact opposite of the scriptures that I quoted you point out something that the bible seems to be full of….. “contradictions!” The great thing about being a Bible believer is that you can back up pretty much anything that you want to because in one place the Bible will say one thing and in another place it will say something completely different. Don’t give me that old testament, new testament bull either because some of the contradictions exist within the same testament if not sometimes within the same book. -See “intelligent design not so intelligent” at www.angelsdepart.blogspot.com- I found a scripture that says that Christians will fall away and you found one that says that they were never Christian. How can that be if the Bible is perfect and inerrant? By the way, good job on dodging the meat of my argument. When I was a Christian I was pretty good at that too. It seems to be the only way that faith can survive given its many inconsistencies.
(Trey responds)
if you were honestly asking I would show you or help you out. (Remember this cop out argument from Frank Spencer (ie Frank Walton) gets schooled? They must teach this response in church) But you're not so that's why I didn't entertain it. There is a difference that you are not seeing. (Explain it!!! I want to know) But that's not in my hands. (Dammit foiled again man!) I could sit and defend the Bible all day and not get anywhere. (This is so true!) Regarding ID feel free to post the scientific rebuttal anytime on the blog that I post. Bring your model out and put it to the test. (I didn’t bring up ID but OK)
regards
trey
(Me responding)
I am honestly asking…..How the Bible can be perfect and inerrant if it contradicts itself. How is it that you feel it necessary to question how I feel? If one Christian could give a good, sound, logical argument, I would believe in a heartbeat. Any takers? As far as intelligent design is concerned, there is no rebuttal. The whole theory rest on circular reasoning. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. This is the only reason why intelligent design hasn’t gone the way of Greek mythology. If you say 1. The Bible is true 2. The Bible says that God created the world 3. Therefore God created the world is true, then you have just participated in circular reasoning. It is the equivalent of me saying that I am never wrong, and the sky is green. The sky must really be green since I am never wrong, right? The “I am never wrong portion of the argument is assumed, just as the Bible is true, perfect and inerrant is assumed. I respect your right to believe in God, believe that there are no errors in the Bible, or even believe that the world is flat and the sun rotates around the earth. -Like the Christian’s believed before Galileo and Copernicus- The reason that I respond is because you try to push this on our educational institutions as fact. School is for teaching scientific theories and skills that will be used to further society, not the religious agenda -whether that be Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah witnesses, ect ect ect.- If you disagree then don’t send you child to a public school. Find a private school that teaches the things you believe. When our forefathers called for the separation of Church and State it was because they understood how dangerous it was for the two to be combined. If it is run by the State, the Church cannot be a part of it. Please just stop focusing on pushing your agenda on the rest of us. By the way, nice dodge on not answering the contradictions in the Bible that are clearly present on this very page. If I was claiming that a book was perfect and then it was so clearly proven wrong I suppose that I would simply try to ignore it as well.
(I give Trey props on this response for at least making an attempt at some of my questions)
“I am honestly asking…..How the Bible can be perfect and inerrant if it contradicts itself. How is it that you feel it necessary to question how I feel? If one Christian could give a good, sound, logical argument, I would believe in a heartbeat. any takers? “
Are you saying in the last 2000 years of the church’s history not ONE person has written anything that is a good, sound, logical argument? (Nope, never said that!)One or two things are being said here. 1 You are smarter than any of the church fathers and most influential theologians (Nope never said that) i.e. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Schaffer, Lewis, Edwards, etc. and in every single thing that they’ve written NOT ONE SINGLE THING was a GOOD, SOUND, LOGICAL argument. (Nope never said that either) Which I suppose is a “possibility” (This sort of condescending tone reminds me of myself. I must say I am starting to like this guy) Or 2 You haven’t looked enough. Only you know the answer to that. (True)
Again when science is the concern. It’s simple. Bring out your science and put it to the test. You obviously know little about ID. (Oh Yeah!) Maybe when you “were a Christian” you thought the earth was flat but it’s never been in a creed so I don’t see how the church believed versus scientists thinking it. I assume you follow the theory of evolution (To a point) I guess I wonder why you aren’t as skeptical about that as you are a Creator. (Oh, but I am) There’s a theory full of holes. Feel free to rebut any of the other blogs I’ve written with your science as background. Eventually, you have to follow the evidence. (YES! This is so true, apparently Trey doesn’t though)
You said “Please just stop focusing on pushing your agenda on the rest of us.” So why are you focusing on pushing your agenda on the rest of us? (Am I?)
I didn’t ignore anything. (Yes you did, You wont answer me about the contradictions in the bible!) I told you why I wouldn’t respond. (Because I don’t really want to know right?) See I have had these discussions with plenty of non-believers, skeptics and cynics. I know the arguments you have already and there is no more originality in them. They get old and you aren’t looking for the truth you are only looking to slam Christianity. (Not so.) I laid one of many scriptures as a background of my evidence already. (Even with the Bible as the basis for this argument the evidence is shaky at best) You not being able to see past that is frankly not my problem. (It is your Christian duty to explain it to me and win over my soul.) Discussing biblical doctrines with someone who doesn’t even believe in God is just a waste. (Then how do you convert people to your faith?) You remember casting pearls I’m sure. Same thing here.
You have an incredible gift at least one I know of and have been saved from a situation that arguably no one else could have. (I think he is referring to an accident that I was involved in were a drunk hit me and almost killed me) It could be an awesome opportunity to be used to encourage others I hope you find it and use it.
(And my response)
No, I never said that in the last 2000 years that there were no logical arguments. -Where did I say that?- I said that there were contradictions! I also never said that I was smarter than anybody but since you want to use that style of argumentation then let’s call up some other names like Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, and Charles Dickens? Are you saying that you are smarter than all of them? Of course you didn’t say that, just like I never claimed that I was smarter than anyone. Jeez you take this so personally. Still you haven’t given a good sound argument. You do realize that whether or not something was in a creed does not negate the fact that the church tried to put Galileo to death when his theories on the movement of the heavens threatened the churches already established view. I never claimed that science was perfect either; actually science doesn’t even claim to be perfect. Science is progressive though. New theories are constantly replacing old ones. As our knowledge progresses, we do as well. Religion and churches fear change. When someone creates a new theory in a religious organization they are branded as an “Infidel.” This is the cause of the multiple denominations of churches in existence today. It’s easy to make a statement that the theory of evolution is full of holes. In all likelihood if Charles Darwin was here today, he would tell you that his theory is not conclusive. If you had ever read “The Origin of Species” you would know this already. His theories are not conclusive because there is so much that we just cannot know. I am not saying that I know the truth; I am just saying that you don’t. I find it funny that you think I am forcing my agenda on you. I am simply trying to uphold the status quo. Our forefathers knew very well the dangers of allowing the church and the state to work together. They were very clear in their language to keep them separated. For you to say that I am only looking to slam Christianity is a shame and a cop out. I said to you that if you were to present me with a good, sound logical argument that I would believe in a heartbeat. Your response is the same as every other Christian when presented with this challenge “you aren’t looking for the truth.” Well I am! I seek the truth on a daily basis. This brings me back to my initial question that you have continued to dodge throughout this conversation through the use of rhetoric and clever misdirection. How can the Bible be perfect and inerrant if there are such clear contradictions as the ones that I listed for you? What possible context could there be for you to explain it away? Why do you insist upon telling me that I am not receptive to the truth about God when I clearly have asked for it and I am ready to hear the answer with an open mind? Explain it to me! I would have to assume that the answers to these questions are so difficult for you or anyone because they can not be explained without the assumption that the Bible is perfect. Even if the Bible could be proven it commands you to accept its principles on faith so the proof would not even be usable without you being viewed as a heretic! I understand the need for religion, but I also understand the need to keep religion out of the government. That is my goal. -Read “On the Complications of Moral Absolutes” at www.angelsdepart.blogspot.com- So if you feel that I am being pushy I apologize. I thought we were just exchanging ideas.
(Trey’s response)
“No, I never said that in the last 2000 years that there were no logical arguments. (Where did I say that?) I said that there were contradictions! “
I guess I misunderstood. I thought when you wrote:
“If one Christian could give a good, sound, logical argument, I would believe in a heartbeat. Any takers?”
That this meant every Christian past, present or future. I guess “any takers” didn’t open that up as much as I thought.
I know you never claimed being smarter than anyone else I was just trying to understand the rationale for the above claim. (That was not a claim, it was a call to action)
The issue that you “feel” I didn’t make a sound argument is purely subjective to your opinion and what you consider sound. (What! No it’s not!) I gave the scripture, you see it as a contradiction. (They clearly contradict, is this guy high?) I don’t. Not my problem. (again, it is!) You said you hadn’t seen one good sound logical argument. I am under the impression you haven’t looked. (Wrong again)
The Earth-centered Universe that you claim was an “established view” did not begin with the church. Just FYI it started with Aristotle and Ptolemy who went on to influence all scientists following them. Later the scientists influenced the multitude. If you study the philosophy of science you would see the clear distinction. It was the Inquisition that put Galileo on trial not Christians. (Led by John Calvin, a protestant reformer!)
“Religion and churches fear change.” you assume Humanism isn’t a religion. (Never said that! Who ever said anything about Humanism?)
“It’s easy to make a statement that the theory of evolution is full of holes. In all likelihood if Charles Darwin was here today, he would tell you that his theory is not conclusive. If you had ever read “The Origin of Species” you would know this already. His theories are not conclusive because there is so much that we just cannot know. “
You are correct I haven’t read “The Origin of Species”. Though I have read a lot on the subject and hardly ever do I run into a student of evolution that can speak somewhat intelligibly on it. I usually end up explaining the sub theories to them. Man has been trying to explain God away for centuries using science.
“I am not saying that I know the truth; I am just saying that you don’t.”
If you don’t know the truth how do you know that I don’t. (You got me there. This is called an ontological quandary. I don’t know that you don’t know. I am just pretty sure. Is that better?) I have no problem being corrected on something I think, believe or feel. As long as the correction is logical and coherent.
You not seeing how you are forcing or trying your agenda on others is simply odd (Well I am rubber and you are glue)
“Your response is the same as every other Christian when presented with this challenge “you aren’t looking for the truth.” Well I am! I seek the truth on a daily basis. “
If I have told you the same thing as every other Christian I guess the problem would have to be with us because surely every other Christian could be right. Personally I think if you were indeed seeking the truth about the Bible you would have read the great thinkers I had listed previously. I told you why I won’t get into scripture defenses with you already. (Right, because I don’t want to know the truth….Oh, wait, is it because there are no rational defenses? No no, that couldn’t be it!)
“I would have to assume that the answers to these questions are so difficult for you or anyone because they can not be explained without the assumption that the Bible is perfect. Even if the Bible could be proven it commands you to accept its principles on faith so the proof would not even be usable without you being viewed as a heretic!”
God does want us to have faith but not “stupid faith”. I think Christians should be skeptical of their faith and ask the hard questions. (The Bible disagrees.) I don’t believe in having a faith based on feelings or a moment. That’s my opinion anyhow. I’m sure some Christians would disagree.
I read your blog. You made some interesting points but there are some significant issues I’ll address in another blog.
(Here comes the heavy hitter. Put on your helmets. My response to Trey “you don’t want to know the truth.” Preacher man!)
Well Trey, when I said “any takers” I was thinking maybe someone that is alive could explain it, rather than handing me a pile of literature and saying go figure it out for yourself. But since you brought up these fine upstanding leaders in Christian thought I decided to do some research on their philosophies. I was shocked at what I discovered. Let’s start with Augustine shall we?
Augustine was an avid woman hater. In his time he elevated misogyny to a whole new level. Augustine felt that a woman’s inferiority to a man was obvious. This led him to beg the question why women were even created at all. “I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?” (St Augustine Ranke-Heinemann, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: p88) I actually pick up some homosexual tendencies from this passage, but maybe I am just reading into it to much. Augustine taught that sex between a man and a woman was only for the purpose of procreation, and while sex for pleasure was pardonable, it was still a sin! (Ibid: p77, 94) As a misogynist, Augustine practiced what he preached. His friend Possidius described his conduct thus: "No woman ever set foot in his house, he never spoke to a woman except in the presence of a third person or outside the parlour, he made no exceptions, not even for his elder sister and his nieces, all three of them nuns." (Ibid: p122)
Let's Discuss Martin Luther next. Luther was born in 1483. In his time he was well known for being an anti-Semite -hated Jews- and a stern misogynist. He also vocally supported the massacre of over 100,000 peasants in the great peasant massacre of 1525 in Germany. In his pamphlet addressed to the princes and nobles entitled “Against the Murderous Peasants” he said: “Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel.” Acting with Luther’s approval the military slaughtered the peasants in what was considered in its time to be one of the greatest massacres ever recorded. Luther, like all good Christians, hated the devil. He was known to have yelled at the evil one thus: "I have shit in my pants, and you can hang them around your neck and wipe your mouth with it." Luther felt that the spirit of God was strong in him for he could drive the devil away "with a single fart." (Wallace et.al., The Intimate Sex Lives of Famous People: p281) Luther's views on sex and women also deserve mention. He believed that women have stronger sexual urges than men and that if a man is impotent he should supply a sex partner for his wife. He taught that women were inferior to men and were created to be ruled by men. As proof, he sighted the shape of a woman's hips; its broad base indicates that God meant for them to sit at home. (Ibid: p281) As metioned before Luther also harbored a morbid hatred of Jews. Given below is an excerpt from his essay On the Jews and Their Lies: “Beware then the Jews and know that the Jewish school is nothing other than a nest of the devil ... And when you hear a Jew teaching, then realize that you are hearing a venomous basilisk that can poison and kill people with the sight of his face.” (quoted in Knight, Honest to Man: p101) Adolf Hitler is said to have cited Luther’s work on several occasions.
John Calvin was next right? Calvin, like Luther, was anxious to recapture the essence of primitive Christianity. Thus he drew up a constitution for a Christian theocratic state for Geneva, the city where he lived from 1536 to his death in 1564. In his constitution, the death penalty is the prescription for blasphemy, heresy and witchcraft. He also advocated the death penalty for adultery. The prescribed form of death penalty for adultery was drowning for the woman and decapitating for the man. (Roberts, History of the World: p551) Calvin showed his true colors when a man named Miguel Servetus (1511-1553) began writing views that were contradictory to Calvin’s. Calvin called for Servetus death. When Servetus was captured and executed in Geneva, Calvin wrote “One should forget all mankind when his glory is in question...God does not allow whole towns and populations to be spared, but will have the walls razed and the memory of the inhabitants destroyed and all things ruined as a sign of His utter detestation, lest the contagion spread.” (ibid: p290) Wow can you think of anyone else in the world today that just kills people heartlessly to get their way? You were just fighting one personally a few years ago weren’t you? (This is in reference to Trey being a soldier in the Iraq war.)
If you would like me to keep going with my findings on the teachings of the others that you listed let me know, but for one blog response I think you will agree, it is taking up to much space. So let’s move on.
As far as ID is concerned I can see that this is a touchy subject with you. You continually reference even though I had not brought it up once. -Other than it mentioned in the title of a blog which by the way has nothing to do with intelligent design- I will make these quick four points. If you want to discuss it further let’s start a different string because this one is getting ridiculous.
1. Creationism is not science for it bases its fundamental beliefs not on empirical research but on a belief in biblical inerrancy.
2. The creationist arguments for a young earth, one that is only a few thousand years old, fails upon closer examination.
3. The creationist argument for that the rock strata were all laid at the same time, during the Noahchian flood, fails.
4. The creationist have two pseudo-methods of trying to impress their readers:
a. They use credential mongering, trying to impress their readers with PhD's that have no relevance to the issue at hand.
b. They very often quote their opponents and scientists out of context which creates an opposite impression than what was originally intended.
(Thanks to Paul Tobin for all this info)
So here we are again. I have addressed all of your questions and you are still avoiding mine. Here I will spell it out as simple as I can. Please explain this to me!
You quoted this verse “Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'And I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”(Matthew 7:22-23) Your intention was to say that this verse validates what you said about “True Christians not being able to fall away.” I agree with you that this is what this verse says. Then I posted three verses that contradict this one. Here is one of them “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (1Timothy 4:1) If this verse is not saying that “believers” will “fall away” then you need to explain what it is saying or else you need to concede that this is a contradiction. If you have some spare time and want to check out a much larger list of contradictions please reference -www.angelsdepart.blogspot.com, “Intelligent design not so intelligent”- Please keep in mind the title to this blog is a bit misleading. Don’t let it trick you again! (ha ha ha) Thanks for your time.
(An actual heartfelt response by Trey)
"Well Trey, when I said “any takers” I was thinking maybe someone that is alive could explain it, rather than handing me a pile of literature and saying go figure it out for yourself. "
I guess I was under the assumption you had already looked into it. Guess not.
Ok I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are “seeking” though I really don’t think you are. So here you go:
VERSE 1
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them…….. 2 Peter 2:20-21
(Clearly saying that they knew it at one time, is Trey Delusional?)
20For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
21For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.
2Pet 2:20-21 NASB
Now to your questions on this verse.
1. These people that Peter is talking about knew God and fell away. How could that be?
They didn’t know God. They knew about him. There’s a difference. (The verse says they knew him. Are you more authoritative than the bible?
2. Didn’t you say that if someone has tasted the grace of God that this would be impossible?
Yes this passage makes no reference that they’ve tasted God’s grace but that they “knew” something. (Yes it does!!!)
3. Is Peter a liar?
Peter did not lie here.
VERSE 2
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being assembled to meet him ... Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [in the original Greek: apostasy - 'great falling away'] comes first, and the lawless [one] is revealed, the son of perdition..." 2Thess 2:1,3
Man of Lawlessness
1Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
2that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
3Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Thess 2:1-3 NASB
I think a good cross reference verse for you on verse 3 is:
1 Timothy 4
Apostasy
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
The verses you made reference to are a warning again to people who will fall away from the faith. Again, they may have the saving knowledge but they aren’t saved. This is not a contradiction with what Jesus claimed would happen in Matthew. (Where does it say that? IT DOESN’T SAY THAT!!! You don’t get to make stuff up!)
VERSE 3
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (1Timothy 4:1)
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
1 Tim 4:1 NASB (Yes it says abandon the faith, good job proving me right.)
This is a great passage where Paul in the person of Timothy forewarns not only the Ephesians but all the churches throughout the world, about hypocritical teachers, who by setting up false worship adulterate the true worship of God and corrupt the pure doctrine of faith. This is the real object of the passage. (Says Pastor Trey)
This shows the great care God exercises about his Church, when he gives so early warning of dangers. We suffer the punishment of our carelessness and idleness, when we are led aside from the right way of salvation.
Clearly here these people have a knowledge. Just as in the passage in Matthew, these men had a “knowledge” of God. It doesn’t matter. No contradiction here. (Where does it say knowledge? You made that up too.)
Now your questions regarding this passage:
1. If this verse is not saying that “believers” will “fall away” then you need to explain what it is saying or else you need to concede that this is a contradiction.
It doesn’t say “believers” it says “some” to be correct. But I think I explained sufficiently above. (No you didn’t)
2. How could one depart from the faith if they weren’t a part of it in the first place?
They had a knowledge of the scriptures, but their own carelessness and idleness demonstrated they really weren’t saved. Who knows maybe they were there for other reasons. Case by case basis for each individual. (Excellent dodge.)
3. Is Timothy lying?
Timothy? Do you mean Paul? Paul wrote this to Timothy. I thought you said you studied the Bible and that was why you left Christianity? (Oh! You got me!)
4. How about the author of Thessalonians Paul? Was he lying?
No
Give me your address and I will send you a bible to read
That’s ok I think you need it. (Actually I don’t, thanks though)
Your questions are important but when you start off by saying I was ignorant is going to get a very a responsive answer. (I speak the truth.) Additionally saying “I have to wonder how many Christians have actually read the bible and how many just go on feeling and gut instinct.” should have been asked to yourself before you wrote your comment.
And yes I read your blog on “contradictions”. I already told you why I don’t get into defending Bible verses with non-believers. They just start nit picking (By nit picking you mean pointing out contradictions that destroy your world view?) then the next thing you know you spent almost 2 hours telling them something they never really wanted to know. So here’s your “benefit of the doubt”. You said you were honestly seeking and there you go. Otherwise I just take it as taking shots at the Bible and Christianity.
I’m not touchy on ID at all. I am always reading on scientific discoveries and looking to see what truth they have uncovered. Like I said it’s not much to argue about bring the science out and let it speak for itself. Post your rebuttal on any of the science blogs I write.
(My final reply )
So it seems as if your interpretation of abandoning the faith are people leaving the church that had knowledge of being saved but weren’t really. That is a good twist. Ever think about being a lawyer? One thing that I had to take note of is that you needed a different version from the King James and that the version you used has entirely different wording? Which one is inspired by God? If the Bible is continually tweaked and doctored maybe all of the contradictions can be removed eventually! How exciting would that be for you?! So did you tell me why you really won’t defend the bible contradictions that I posted? Is it perhaps because there is no defense? Am I nitpicking by posting Bible contradictions? If they are not really contradictions then explain them.
Nice how one mistake in my blog means that I know nothing about the subject to you. You make massive amounts of mistakes in your responses in this string alone and when they are pointed out you simply ignore them. For example, your hero’s, who happen to be perverts, homosexuals, woman haters and murderers. You seem to have nothing to say about them. I will confess that I always read Timothy without knowledge that it was written by Paul. Not that it being written by Paul is a cause for relief. Paul’s version of Christianity is in many ways contradictory to the version of Christianity that Jesus taught.
Look I am glad that you live as a Christian. I believe that you are someone who would be very dangerous to society if you did not have these doctrines being waved over you by a “man in the sky.” I guess the only thing that is scarier is that “God might tell you to do something.” Under those circumstances you would do whatever you felt this apparition asked you to do and feel no remorse for your actions. Please keep the faith. The free thinkers of the world beg you. I will post a blog on ID soon. Your incessant ramblings will be welcome there. Look, this conversation is pointless because you are only assuming my view. You are arguing from religion and I am arguing from science. I have read your book –The Bible- and you have admitted to not reading mine. –The Origin of species- Go read it, so that you have both arguments, then we’ll talk.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
The Prayer Challenge
This Blog is one of the most hilarious things I have ever read. It really makes you think about the idiocy of Christian thought. Make sure you read through the comments as well. Aaron Kinney is an absolute genius! http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com/2007/01/prayer-challenge.html
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Debunking Christianity: Things I Like About No Longer Being a Christian
This is a pretty cool post. While some of it is a bit hollow the general point gets across. The most important thing is how we cannot rely on the next life so we need to make the most of this one. Please read, you will enjoy Debunking Christianity: Things I Like About No Longer Being a Christian by Theresa Frasch
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
On the complications of moral absolutes (Why can't we just get along?)
The Idea of moral absolutes is one that is inherently dangerous and complicated. It would seem that in order to believe in some sort of moral code would be beneficial on the surface and would suggest some sort of higher order, or meaning. Moral absolutes do not take into account circumstances that generally accompany a situation. Even Christians, while claiming to follow the “absolute and inerrant” doctrines of the bible, tend to bend the rules that it puts forth in order to allow it to have an application to modern day life.
Christians feel that they have the only platform for the ability to be wrong or right. This belief makes their position difficult to argue. Fortunately for me, I am not seeking an argument, so my work here today should be quite easy.
The bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13) This is a plain and simple rule. Not much room for interpretation here. Put simply, those four words mean, don’t kill. It doesn’t specify who, or what. It simply says don’t kill. As a Christian and as a believer in the bible you should follow this rule to the letter. Unfortunately without some tweaking this rule will make survival difficult for you in the real world. Not being able to kill immediately diminishes your food source. All meats are immediately out of the question, as are eggs. Eggs after all are unborn chickens, the equivalent of an unborn baby to humans. That insect or rodent infestation you have in your home is now unsolvable, unless you are willing to capture every single one of the vermin and transport them to another location. Then there is the topic of self defense. If I am lying in bed and hear someone break into my house do I have the right to protect myself and my wife from the perpetrator. What if he wants to rape my wife? Am I supposed to passively watch, or can I kill him? Well you can better believe that I would kill him. Christians though should not.
Of course Christians don’t live this law to the letter. I would have to believe that even with the most intense belief in the inerrancy of the bible that a Christian would kill someone who was raping his wife without even thinking twice about it. The Christian argument to the argument that I just presented would be one of context. Christians love to put arguments into a matter of context because this allows them to make different interpretations of the more vague scriptures in order for ideals to be presented that the original passage may not have necessarily intended. They would say something like “well what God meant was not to kill people unprovoked” or “God gave us dominion over the animals so animals do not apply to the killing rule.” (Genesis 1:26) The first argument here is an argument from interpretation. It means that the person interpreting what the passage is saying is assuming the position of someone who is holy or has a direct pipeline to speak to God about his intentions. The passage clearly says not to kill. There is no room for interpretation. The second argument uses another scripture in order to change the meaning of the first. This is a style that is used by Christians repeatedly. Although it may make a point, the contradiction does much more damage than the point it is defending since it proves that the bible is not inerrant. If the bible is the inerrant word of God then there can be no contradictions, yet it seems to be full of them. (See blog “intelligent design, not so intelligent.”) This is the reason why Christians have to always be on the defensive in arguments.
The real problem though comes through in the mentality of those who try to refute Christianity. These are typically atheist and agnostics that take it upon themselves to attack those who possess religious views concerning the world and the way things are. In many ways these people are doing more harm than the Christians. Yes it is true that faith tends to slow or halt scientific progress but it also subdues some of the scarier elements of human nature. Atheist love to attack the doctrines that led wars and mass genocides to be carried out in the name of Jesus. To my understanding of the life of Jesus though, this is not something that he would have condoned. Atheist love to attack the fallen Christian leaders such as Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, and most recently Ted Haggard. Why wouldn’t they do this? Even an atheist of the most mediocre intelligence can appear to be an intellectual giant when challenging the majority of Christians in philosophical debate. The problem arises when trying to tie these evils together with a particular religious belief structure. Just as many atrocities have been carried out in the name of Islam, Buddha, Allah and even non-theistic types as have been in the name of Jesus. These atrocities are not directly a result of a religious condition, but rather of the human condition. Human leaders will use whatever popular belief system its population is currently the most influenced by in order to further their agenda. Thus the atrocities get tied to the religion at hand.
The point here is that living in a free country means it will have its advantages as well as its disadvantages. While you will be allowed to follow any belief structure you want, you will not be able to infringe on the belief structure of anyone else. You can be Christian and you can try to get you value system placed in the government, but you need to remember that all other religions and anti religious people have the same right. This nation was not founded on religion; mind you this nation was founded by people. (All men are created equal….to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…..Declaration of independence) Our forefathers, coming from England, knew the dangers of having the church and the state working together, this is the very reason why they entered the following into the Constitution of the United States of America “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This not only protects Non-believers from the potential life threatening beliefs of believers but it also protects the church from becoming corrupted by the government. So you can fight for the church to be more involved in the political process and you can fight for religious ideals to be taught in the public school system, you have that right. Just remember you are fighting a lost cause because in this country, if it is a part of the government, then it is not a part of the religious institution.
Please I am begging you please stop fighting about religious beliefs. Christians, you should be content enough in your beliefs that you don’t have to go around pressuring everyone to join you. If you genuinely believe in Jesus then that should be enough. Offer to share if you would like but when someone says that they are not interested; make that the end of it. Secularists, we all know that you think the Christians are stupid for following their belief systems, but put your egos down and let them have their belief systems. Fight to keep those beliefs out of the political process, but other than that, leave them alone. Don’t accuse them of having mental disorders; don’t say that they need to be locked up. The great thing about his country is that we can all live in unity regardless of race, sex or religion. I don’t have to agree with you to be your friend. Furthermore my beliefs do not require that you believe in them too.
Christians feel that they have the only platform for the ability to be wrong or right. This belief makes their position difficult to argue. Fortunately for me, I am not seeking an argument, so my work here today should be quite easy.
The bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13) This is a plain and simple rule. Not much room for interpretation here. Put simply, those four words mean, don’t kill. It doesn’t specify who, or what. It simply says don’t kill. As a Christian and as a believer in the bible you should follow this rule to the letter. Unfortunately without some tweaking this rule will make survival difficult for you in the real world. Not being able to kill immediately diminishes your food source. All meats are immediately out of the question, as are eggs. Eggs after all are unborn chickens, the equivalent of an unborn baby to humans. That insect or rodent infestation you have in your home is now unsolvable, unless you are willing to capture every single one of the vermin and transport them to another location. Then there is the topic of self defense. If I am lying in bed and hear someone break into my house do I have the right to protect myself and my wife from the perpetrator. What if he wants to rape my wife? Am I supposed to passively watch, or can I kill him? Well you can better believe that I would kill him. Christians though should not.
Of course Christians don’t live this law to the letter. I would have to believe that even with the most intense belief in the inerrancy of the bible that a Christian would kill someone who was raping his wife without even thinking twice about it. The Christian argument to the argument that I just presented would be one of context. Christians love to put arguments into a matter of context because this allows them to make different interpretations of the more vague scriptures in order for ideals to be presented that the original passage may not have necessarily intended. They would say something like “well what God meant was not to kill people unprovoked” or “God gave us dominion over the animals so animals do not apply to the killing rule.” (Genesis 1:26) The first argument here is an argument from interpretation. It means that the person interpreting what the passage is saying is assuming the position of someone who is holy or has a direct pipeline to speak to God about his intentions. The passage clearly says not to kill. There is no room for interpretation. The second argument uses another scripture in order to change the meaning of the first. This is a style that is used by Christians repeatedly. Although it may make a point, the contradiction does much more damage than the point it is defending since it proves that the bible is not inerrant. If the bible is the inerrant word of God then there can be no contradictions, yet it seems to be full of them. (See blog “intelligent design, not so intelligent.”) This is the reason why Christians have to always be on the defensive in arguments.
The real problem though comes through in the mentality of those who try to refute Christianity. These are typically atheist and agnostics that take it upon themselves to attack those who possess religious views concerning the world and the way things are. In many ways these people are doing more harm than the Christians. Yes it is true that faith tends to slow or halt scientific progress but it also subdues some of the scarier elements of human nature. Atheist love to attack the doctrines that led wars and mass genocides to be carried out in the name of Jesus. To my understanding of the life of Jesus though, this is not something that he would have condoned. Atheist love to attack the fallen Christian leaders such as Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, and most recently Ted Haggard. Why wouldn’t they do this? Even an atheist of the most mediocre intelligence can appear to be an intellectual giant when challenging the majority of Christians in philosophical debate. The problem arises when trying to tie these evils together with a particular religious belief structure. Just as many atrocities have been carried out in the name of Islam, Buddha, Allah and even non-theistic types as have been in the name of Jesus. These atrocities are not directly a result of a religious condition, but rather of the human condition. Human leaders will use whatever popular belief system its population is currently the most influenced by in order to further their agenda. Thus the atrocities get tied to the religion at hand.
The point here is that living in a free country means it will have its advantages as well as its disadvantages. While you will be allowed to follow any belief structure you want, you will not be able to infringe on the belief structure of anyone else. You can be Christian and you can try to get you value system placed in the government, but you need to remember that all other religions and anti religious people have the same right. This nation was not founded on religion; mind you this nation was founded by people. (All men are created equal….to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…..Declaration of independence) Our forefathers, coming from England, knew the dangers of having the church and the state working together, this is the very reason why they entered the following into the Constitution of the United States of America “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This not only protects Non-believers from the potential life threatening beliefs of believers but it also protects the church from becoming corrupted by the government. So you can fight for the church to be more involved in the political process and you can fight for religious ideals to be taught in the public school system, you have that right. Just remember you are fighting a lost cause because in this country, if it is a part of the government, then it is not a part of the religious institution.
Please I am begging you please stop fighting about religious beliefs. Christians, you should be content enough in your beliefs that you don’t have to go around pressuring everyone to join you. If you genuinely believe in Jesus then that should be enough. Offer to share if you would like but when someone says that they are not interested; make that the end of it. Secularists, we all know that you think the Christians are stupid for following their belief systems, but put your egos down and let them have their belief systems. Fight to keep those beliefs out of the political process, but other than that, leave them alone. Don’t accuse them of having mental disorders; don’t say that they need to be locked up. The great thing about his country is that we can all live in unity regardless of race, sex or religion. I don’t have to agree with you to be your friend. Furthermore my beliefs do not require that you believe in them too.
