-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Jesus Invented By The Romans?
- Thread starter exo_doc
- Start date
Free episodes:
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
I'll just leave this here...
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
And that will probably be the extent of my contribution to this thread. I just can't do it anymore. I can't argue with indoctrinated religious fundamentalists who are willing to believe such obvious tripe anymore. I've only been here a little over a year and I'm already so sick of trying to reason with these people that I could vomit. Every couple of months the same religious arguments crop up and we do this little dance and afterwards, nothing changes at all, it's pointless and I refuse to try and make people see the painfully obvious anymore. Still, for anyone else reading this thread who may be taken in by this nonsense, I invite you to read the article I posted above, it even links to a rebuttal article by a YEC proponent and a rebuttal to that rebuttal, it's actually a very balanced look at the evidence, although I'm sure that will be disputed by the die hard believers.
In the end there's very little to no evidence supporting the idea of a global flood and a metric shit ton of evidence that suggests it never happened. Either you're intellectually honest enough to recognize that fact or you can keep believing in horseshit, the choice is yours.
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
And that will probably be the extent of my contribution to this thread. I just can't do it anymore. I can't argue with indoctrinated religious fundamentalists who are willing to believe such obvious tripe anymore. I've only been here a little over a year and I'm already so sick of trying to reason with these people that I could vomit. Every couple of months the same religious arguments crop up and we do this little dance and afterwards, nothing changes at all, it's pointless and I refuse to try and make people see the painfully obvious anymore. Still, for anyone else reading this thread who may be taken in by this nonsense, I invite you to read the article I posted above, it even links to a rebuttal article by a YEC proponent and a rebuttal to that rebuttal, it's actually a very balanced look at the evidence, although I'm sure that will be disputed by the die hard believers.
In the end there's very little to no evidence supporting the idea of a global flood and a metric shit ton of evidence that suggests it never happened. Either you're intellectually honest enough to recognize that fact or you can keep believing in horseshit, the choice is yours.
Last edited:
I agree that there are problems with our understanding of the flood event as described in the Bible. At first someone said it was absurd to think it could hold all the animals. The point of the last email was to show that not all the animals could fit, but by the kinds descibed in the Bible, that it was possible. I agree, there would be huge problems feeding and cleaning up waste. But, in a time where God intervened regularly in activities, i dont rule out the possibility that there was help here.
Otherwise, if no help from God, i see this being unrealistic by our standards.
So, i am waiting to hear someone who doesnt believe in God to tell explain their existence?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Otherwise, if no help from God, i see this being unrealistic by our standards.
So, i am waiting to hear someone who doesnt believe in God to tell explain their existence?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
I know I said I wouldn't respond further but this is something I see all the time from believers that irks me just a bit. The thing is, most of us who don't believe in a God believe in the power of science to illuminate these deep questions that we have about ourselves and our place in the universe. As of now, science hasn't been able to 100% explain our existence to the satisfaction of all involved, so we don't have any answers for you. I'm more than comfortable saying "I don't know" when being asked to explain something as complex as life itself.
You don't have any real answers for us either, though. Simply saying "God did it" creates more questions than it does answers, and you have no answers for the questions that it creates beyond canned responses like "He works in mysterious ways" or "We'll never know" Not to mention the fact that these "answers" that you might hypothetically put forth require that you be correct in your understanding of God and his methods, otherwise these so called "answers" are not only worthless, but they're actively harmful in discouraging us from seeking the truth by deluding ourselves into thinking we already have the "answers."
I mean, I could give you a preliminary idea of what science has to say on this question, basically a what we know so far. I could talk about the competing theories for the origin of life on Earth like abiogenesis or panspermia and then I could move into evolution, but what's the point? I'm not going to change your mind and in the end, we don't fully know the answer yet, but in my opinion, science is a lot closer to giving us a real answer to that question than some 2,000 year old superstitious nonsense ever will be.
Life is what you make of it, and I don't require the existence of a supernatural deity to give me purpose, I'll find my own.
Last edited:
I like most of this note and agree with some of it. You don't need to lecture me in science as that is my day job. I too believe science will uncover allthe truths and details of creation, etc. I also believe that in the end, science will be consistent with what the Bible says. I believe the body of scientific evidence points to intelligent design by a personal God and it is very evident to me in my work and experience. I think there is less evidence and no theory to support randomness as the cause of existence.
I've stated from day 1 that there are many difficult things to grasp orbelieve in the Bible and that it wasn't meant as a science text book, despite people taking everything literally from it. From a perspective of someone who believes in God (and they believe not just for the sake of believing, but believe based on personal experience), there is complete consistency in the full story of the Bible (and yes, that means God intervened at various times) so that we are left wondering about the details. There are verses in the Bible that show thatGod has a secret will, and it is for that reason it is not written in the Bible and doesn't make sense to us. (But that alone, doesn't mean it didn't happen). I am fine with this just as I am fine with not knowing the full description or explanation of how the universe works.All this discussion in this thread hasn't proven to me that there wasn't a God who intervened to make things (like the Flood story) happen, even if we don't understand them. Likewise, I haven't proven that it is possible based on human experience and capability (I note . I would like to point out that I am enjoying life to the fullest and look to life once I die. If I am wrong about all of this, then I am wrong but I've still lived a good life and accomplished what I wanted to do, just as any of you. You could say the same perhaps, except that if you are wrong, then you loose out big time. Something worth thinking about. So in the end, we will have to agree to disagree.
I've stated from day 1 that there are many difficult things to grasp orbelieve in the Bible and that it wasn't meant as a science text book, despite people taking everything literally from it. From a perspective of someone who believes in God (and they believe not just for the sake of believing, but believe based on personal experience), there is complete consistency in the full story of the Bible (and yes, that means God intervened at various times) so that we are left wondering about the details. There are verses in the Bible that show thatGod has a secret will, and it is for that reason it is not written in the Bible and doesn't make sense to us. (But that alone, doesn't mean it didn't happen). I am fine with this just as I am fine with not knowing the full description or explanation of how the universe works.All this discussion in this thread hasn't proven to me that there wasn't a God who intervened to make things (like the Flood story) happen, even if we don't understand them. Likewise, I haven't proven that it is possible based on human experience and capability (I note . I would like to point out that I am enjoying life to the fullest and look to life once I die. If I am wrong about all of this, then I am wrong but I've still lived a good life and accomplished what I wanted to do, just as any of you. You could say the same perhaps, except that if you are wrong, then you loose out big time. Something worth thinking about. So in the end, we will have to agree to disagree.
RenaissanceLady
Paranormal Adept
Since the last time I had logged onto the forum a couple of days ago, I've had 82 alerts, 78 of which were about this thread. Needless to say, that's a lot of e-mails I've had to sort through, as well.
So, what has changed? As with virtually every other thread on this forum, we have the science crowd, we have the religious crowd, and we have the conspiracy theory crowd. The ones who reject science are always part of the religious crowd and usually in the same group as the conspiracy fetishists. If they're American, we can usually determine the politics of a person by his views toward science and religion. We see the same people making the same arguments, often admitting they don't even read opposing arguments, telling the world that their blind faith should be respected as much as hard science.
The thing about blind faith is that it never allows anyone to change sides. Everything which refutes their faith is simply considered to be a challenge to their faith, which needs to be overcome - with even more blind faith. For the anti-science crowd, the lack of evidence for what they proclaim only "proves" the conspiracy is working. Claims made in tabloids which are easily disproved are elevated to the ranks of the science journals. It's everyone else, of course, that "drinks the Kool-aid" that is otherwise known as reality.
Haven't we yet noticed that a forum allegedly about paranormal events has remarkably few threads about paranormal topics? What are the most discussed topics? Well, there's this one, about religion. We had one innocently asking about who would be getting a flu shot, only because the initial poster thought he was being clever by trying to ambush the science crowd. We've had two recent threads about politics, one about music, one about books, and one about jokes. When we do cover a topic about anything remotely "paranormal," it usually made by a new(er) member and tends to fall through the cracks rather quickly. What incites our most fevered passions isn't about debating UFOs or cryptids, but rather the same topics that have been rehashed ad naseum in every comments section of every "news" source or forum on the Internet.
Why do we need to do this here? I'll admit I'm as guilty as anyone else, about this. I genuinely love doing research and debating other people. We all love being the center of our own little worlds, having a place to discuss what's the most important in our lives. Still, is there any point in arguing the same topics with those who live in bubbles?
Religion is the hired assassin of intellectual curiosity. If someone lacks the curiosity to even consider the opposing facts, that person is simply never going to be a member of the evidence-based world. All of the arguments to the contrary, no matter how thoroughly researched nor eloquently made, will simply never penetrate the bubble. The absolute most hopeful outcome would be that there is someone, in some gray area, who might be swayed by our use of reason.
Don't hold your breath.
So, what has changed? As with virtually every other thread on this forum, we have the science crowd, we have the religious crowd, and we have the conspiracy theory crowd. The ones who reject science are always part of the religious crowd and usually in the same group as the conspiracy fetishists. If they're American, we can usually determine the politics of a person by his views toward science and religion. We see the same people making the same arguments, often admitting they don't even read opposing arguments, telling the world that their blind faith should be respected as much as hard science.
The thing about blind faith is that it never allows anyone to change sides. Everything which refutes their faith is simply considered to be a challenge to their faith, which needs to be overcome - with even more blind faith. For the anti-science crowd, the lack of evidence for what they proclaim only "proves" the conspiracy is working. Claims made in tabloids which are easily disproved are elevated to the ranks of the science journals. It's everyone else, of course, that "drinks the Kool-aid" that is otherwise known as reality.
Haven't we yet noticed that a forum allegedly about paranormal events has remarkably few threads about paranormal topics? What are the most discussed topics? Well, there's this one, about religion. We had one innocently asking about who would be getting a flu shot, only because the initial poster thought he was being clever by trying to ambush the science crowd. We've had two recent threads about politics, one about music, one about books, and one about jokes. When we do cover a topic about anything remotely "paranormal," it usually made by a new(er) member and tends to fall through the cracks rather quickly. What incites our most fevered passions isn't about debating UFOs or cryptids, but rather the same topics that have been rehashed ad naseum in every comments section of every "news" source or forum on the Internet.
Why do we need to do this here? I'll admit I'm as guilty as anyone else, about this. I genuinely love doing research and debating other people. We all love being the center of our own little worlds, having a place to discuss what's the most important in our lives. Still, is there any point in arguing the same topics with those who live in bubbles?
Religion is the hired assassin of intellectual curiosity. If someone lacks the curiosity to even consider the opposing facts, that person is simply never going to be a member of the evidence-based world. All of the arguments to the contrary, no matter how thoroughly researched nor eloquently made, will simply never penetrate the bubble. The absolute most hopeful outcome would be that there is someone, in some gray area, who might be swayed by our use of reason.
Don't hold your breath.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
I just wanted to say that I appreciate the level headed manner in which you're able to discuss this subject, it's not typical of most believers, at least in my experience, so kudos to you for your tolerance and attitude.
I'll tell you how I feel about the whole Pascal's wager type scenario you just laid out. The only way I'm going to lose is if Christian/Abrahamic theology is correct about the fundamental nature of God, ie he's the jealous, angry type who throws people into a burning a lake of fire because they weren't convinced by flimsy arguments and even flimsier evidence. I find that attitude so inconsistent with something that is supposed to be all powerful and so far beyond the comprehension of human beings as to be almost laughable, it's a very human perspective, don't you think?
Furthermore, I don't find the evidence compelling that the bible has almost anything completely right, so much of it has just been destroyed by what we now know that I don't find it to be credible at all, certainly not credible enough to base my life around. So I am more than willing to gamble that if there is a God, which I admit I doubt, but if he does exist, I find it hard to believe that we have any solid concept of what that being is like, what he thinks or what he does.
When you really look at the bible, and believe it or not I have, you find a book that is very human, it gets very little right and none of it required supernatural intervention to invent, most of us could've made up something similar as children. I'm not trying to be insulting towards religion at all, this is just how I feel about it after many years of study and contemplation. I'm perfectly comfortable agreeing to disagree, I'm not trying to convince anyone of my particular brand of agnostic atheism, at least not anymore. I don't believe that we have gotten it right with the concept of a personal god, I don't see any evidence for it whatsoever and I certainly don't see the positive results in the world that the care of an powerful interventionist God would almost certainly bring.
If there is a God out there, I'm more than willing to bet that he isn't enough of an asshole to allow me to burn for eternity simply because I wasn't convinced by the flimsy arguments of human beings, I have a feeling that an all powerful being would have a much better understanding of human beings and wouldn't view things in such simplistic, ridiculously black and white terms and that if us believing and praising him was really that important, he'd make his presence known like the bible claims he once did. If he doesn't exist, then I win, because I didn't spend my time and energy conversing with and trying to please something that was never listening in the first place and I can redirect those energies into doing things like loving my family and helping my fellow man.
Either way, I think that if God exists, then how we live and what we do will be much more important to him than whether we picked a religious team to root for. I'm comfortable making that wager, because if God is anything like what's portrayed in the bible, I think I'd rather burn in hell.
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Fantastic summing up.. if I could like this a 1000x it would still not be enough.
starise
Paranormal Adept
Mike- I am truly sorry I can't come here more often and make a more complete response to some of your arguments concerning the God of the Bible.
I'll do my best to address at least a few of the key points in response to you.
One of the things that jumps immediately to the forefront of this entire exchange in regards to anything Biblical is what I see as the total lack of context on your part. If you don't have context you don't have the true meaning and if you don't have that you might as well not bother. You have also raised some good points IMO concerning the God of the Bible .
In one case you use the Jews or Jewish faith as a way to undermine the NT because they don't accept the NT or Jesus as the messiah , yet you also attempt to undermine the OT which they support. If you rely on them in one case why not the other? And it isn't surprising that they don't believe Jesus was the messiah because they were the ones who crucified him. The main motives there being jealousy and the fear of loosing control. When Jesus was here He pretty much commanded the floor. They hated that and they hated the influence He had. Just recently Nick Redfern said that sometimes the lack of evidence in a certain area can point to a conspiracy if it points to something being removed. The resurrection was a big blunder by the Roman government. The Bible says that they were paid off to keep quiet. They posted the Guard around the entrance to the tomb. This isn't the kind of thing they would have wanted to get out. Jesus asked forgiveness for His tormentors because " They know not what they do". They really didn't have any idea who He really was.
I agree with you that the view of a God that allows but doesn't indirectly cause evil comes off as a cop out. I also think that almost every example you have given with regards to God and what surely looks to you like an evil killer is taken out of the context it was intended. It also seems to be a cop out to say that God created evil beings and then because they were evil He executed them.
If God creates us it is only logical that He knows what we are capable of doing and He could probably easily see those inner workings if He wanted to. In this theory God has this ability but in order to make sure we have free will He chooses to shut the lid or look the other way on purpose. He decides not to look at the outcome because if He looked He would know and if He knew He would be meddling in free choice. In that case we could approach Him and say, You set us all up. You knew we would fall. I don't think He gets that involved in our choices so as not to create a bunch of robots. In Romans He says as much in saying that " even as they chose not to retain God in their knowledge He gave them over to their own devices". One consequence of this action is that the individuals involved are blinded to some truths that the obedient are not blinded to. When God gives a person up to their own free will and they choose to divert God from their life, then they are left with only their own knowledge and reasoning. God allows this action, but He clearly says in His word that He wants all men to come to Him. He doesn't want anyone to suffer. This is mostly in the NT which for some reason you largely ignore.
On the point of God and evil. Let me try to give a rudimentary example. President Obama likes to use drones to kill people. Sometimes the drones kill innocent civilians in an effort to accomplish a military goal. The GP seems to like Mr Obama so much that you don't hear much about this in the press. In one way of looking at this Obama has killed innocent civilians. If that's all I said and that was the end of the story how much different would public perception be? An explanation always follows that makes sense, at least to some even though human life was lost. You might say, but God was downright cruel in what He did. It might look that way to you but since we all have free choice, and if it follows that God purposely doesn't meddle in our choices He is left to sometimes clean up the mess. I might never convince you otherwise to say that God is good. If you read the rest of the Bible you can find multiple examples of God as also good, probably more examples of good than what you think looks like bad.
One other place where we really part Mike is on the point of God seen as a "murderer". If a man kills another man in cold blood that is surely murder, but since God gives us life He also has every right to take life when He sees fit to do that. We might not understand that and in my opinion we don't always need to. A complete understanding of God would put us on His level and since He made us...well, to say that's reaching a little high is a gross understatement. He gives knowledge and wisdom to those who ask.This is also backed up by the Bible.
What I see in the present Atheist movement is an appeal to emotionalism, yet they claim to only look at things scientific. They themselves are guilty of the very thing they accuse others of. The present Atheist movement knows no one likes to see people or animals die for any reason, but especially if it looks like it was cruelty. They play this card to the hilt and omit any context. Just like the press spins a story these guys put a spin on God.
I think Muadib is a very intelligent guy . Muadib you made me dig a little deeper on some of the issues you have discussed in the past. One of the single largest hindrances to understanding a Biblical subject are people who claim to be experts on the book over reaching what it really says and giving this as an answer to scientific questions. I don't know it all but I have seen so called experts mess it up for the rest of us. The Bible only makes so many claims and sometimes those claims are blown way out of proportion by so called experts.
The age of the earth is not really known with any exactness. The Bible surely doesn't attempt to tell us this. Plenty of others think they know but I'm not convinced. The flood is another epic subject. The scientific doesn't seem to fit the story as of right now. In my humble opinion I think there have been many floods and then one BIG flood.I'm no scientist but this is my take on it. There almost surely had to have been paranormal interventions for the flood to take place. To the natural scientific thinker this won't wash. In my thinking it fits.
RL I have to respectfully disagree with you. If God isn't paranormal what is? If we are to reason that we were created then a being with the ability to step outside of the natural laws had to exist. This God created the laws and has the ability to break them, go outside them at will. The very definition of paranormal would include Him in a discussion on the topic. If a ghost is a soul and if, as some believe, God makes our souls, then you don't get much more relevant than that.
Stoneheart I laugh at myself, I think humor is a good thing as long as it's not a distraction to a reality that must be dealt with.Sorry I don't have time to look at those.
I'll do my best to address at least a few of the key points in response to you.
One of the things that jumps immediately to the forefront of this entire exchange in regards to anything Biblical is what I see as the total lack of context on your part. If you don't have context you don't have the true meaning and if you don't have that you might as well not bother. You have also raised some good points IMO concerning the God of the Bible .
In one case you use the Jews or Jewish faith as a way to undermine the NT because they don't accept the NT or Jesus as the messiah , yet you also attempt to undermine the OT which they support. If you rely on them in one case why not the other? And it isn't surprising that they don't believe Jesus was the messiah because they were the ones who crucified him. The main motives there being jealousy and the fear of loosing control. When Jesus was here He pretty much commanded the floor. They hated that and they hated the influence He had. Just recently Nick Redfern said that sometimes the lack of evidence in a certain area can point to a conspiracy if it points to something being removed. The resurrection was a big blunder by the Roman government. The Bible says that they were paid off to keep quiet. They posted the Guard around the entrance to the tomb. This isn't the kind of thing they would have wanted to get out. Jesus asked forgiveness for His tormentors because " They know not what they do". They really didn't have any idea who He really was.
I agree with you that the view of a God that allows but doesn't indirectly cause evil comes off as a cop out. I also think that almost every example you have given with regards to God and what surely looks to you like an evil killer is taken out of the context it was intended. It also seems to be a cop out to say that God created evil beings and then because they were evil He executed them.
If God creates us it is only logical that He knows what we are capable of doing and He could probably easily see those inner workings if He wanted to. In this theory God has this ability but in order to make sure we have free will He chooses to shut the lid or look the other way on purpose. He decides not to look at the outcome because if He looked He would know and if He knew He would be meddling in free choice. In that case we could approach Him and say, You set us all up. You knew we would fall. I don't think He gets that involved in our choices so as not to create a bunch of robots. In Romans He says as much in saying that " even as they chose not to retain God in their knowledge He gave them over to their own devices". One consequence of this action is that the individuals involved are blinded to some truths that the obedient are not blinded to. When God gives a person up to their own free will and they choose to divert God from their life, then they are left with only their own knowledge and reasoning. God allows this action, but He clearly says in His word that He wants all men to come to Him. He doesn't want anyone to suffer. This is mostly in the NT which for some reason you largely ignore.
On the point of God and evil. Let me try to give a rudimentary example. President Obama likes to use drones to kill people. Sometimes the drones kill innocent civilians in an effort to accomplish a military goal. The GP seems to like Mr Obama so much that you don't hear much about this in the press. In one way of looking at this Obama has killed innocent civilians. If that's all I said and that was the end of the story how much different would public perception be? An explanation always follows that makes sense, at least to some even though human life was lost. You might say, but God was downright cruel in what He did. It might look that way to you but since we all have free choice, and if it follows that God purposely doesn't meddle in our choices He is left to sometimes clean up the mess. I might never convince you otherwise to say that God is good. If you read the rest of the Bible you can find multiple examples of God as also good, probably more examples of good than what you think looks like bad.
One other place where we really part Mike is on the point of God seen as a "murderer". If a man kills another man in cold blood that is surely murder, but since God gives us life He also has every right to take life when He sees fit to do that. We might not understand that and in my opinion we don't always need to. A complete understanding of God would put us on His level and since He made us...well, to say that's reaching a little high is a gross understatement. He gives knowledge and wisdom to those who ask.This is also backed up by the Bible.
What I see in the present Atheist movement is an appeal to emotionalism, yet they claim to only look at things scientific. They themselves are guilty of the very thing they accuse others of. The present Atheist movement knows no one likes to see people or animals die for any reason, but especially if it looks like it was cruelty. They play this card to the hilt and omit any context. Just like the press spins a story these guys put a spin on God.
I think Muadib is a very intelligent guy . Muadib you made me dig a little deeper on some of the issues you have discussed in the past. One of the single largest hindrances to understanding a Biblical subject are people who claim to be experts on the book over reaching what it really says and giving this as an answer to scientific questions. I don't know it all but I have seen so called experts mess it up for the rest of us. The Bible only makes so many claims and sometimes those claims are blown way out of proportion by so called experts.
The age of the earth is not really known with any exactness. The Bible surely doesn't attempt to tell us this. Plenty of others think they know but I'm not convinced. The flood is another epic subject. The scientific doesn't seem to fit the story as of right now. In my humble opinion I think there have been many floods and then one BIG flood.I'm no scientist but this is my take on it. There almost surely had to have been paranormal interventions for the flood to take place. To the natural scientific thinker this won't wash. In my thinking it fits.
RL I have to respectfully disagree with you. If God isn't paranormal what is? If we are to reason that we were created then a being with the ability to step outside of the natural laws had to exist. This God created the laws and has the ability to break them, go outside them at will. The very definition of paranormal would include Him in a discussion on the topic. If a ghost is a soul and if, as some believe, God makes our souls, then you don't get much more relevant than that.
Stoneheart I laugh at myself, I think humor is a good thing as long as it's not a distraction to a reality that must be dealt with.Sorry I don't have time to look at those.
Because they are two seperate issues, jews dont accept that JC is their prophesised messiah, there can be no debate on this its fact pure and simple.
The reasons why are simple enough as ive outline earlier, and its not because they asked the romans to crucify this character, its because it didnt fulfil the original prophecys, and again ive posted links that support this fact, you can propose all the alternative theorys you like but thats the pov of Tulmudic scholars.
As for double dipping you just did it yourself, you claim the jews dont accept jesus because "they" killed him
But how often do you also hear in church
God so loved the world, he sent his only son to die on the cross for our sins.
As far as the OT is concerned, ive simply pointed out the blood thirsty nature of its central character, its dare i say schitzophrenic behaviour
First he creates the whole shebang then
And the LORD said, "I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thing--all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them."
Then decides the whole lot is no good, even the birds of the sky......
Thats the hallmark of an incompetent idiot, not an all knowing supermind.
Your lot may have bound them into a single book, but the fact remains they are two seperate books, written by two seperate cultures.
Criticising both, doesnt undermine the arguments made against each of them seperately.
Nuts, the whole metastory is just nuts
And the whole "out of context" excuse is just silly
Now, am I taking things out of context? I quote entire verses, and I don't omit any text details which might change the meaning. In almost all cases, I supply the reader with chapter and verse numbers, so they can be looked up. What theologians mean when they say I take things out of context is that I take verses out of the context of the "overall biblical message". But what does that mean? That is purely subjective framework. Their biblical message is their interpretation. They are really saying that I don't read it like a true believer would. They're right. That's because I'm not a true believer. I read it like any other book.
I suggest that the reason is that he WANTS to believe, and is unwilling to give up his set of beliefs, no matter what. That is what is truly disturbing about the religious mindset. The unsettling part is how Christians can be faced with overwhelming amounts of evidence that should at least cast doubt on their holy scriptures and belief system, and yet remain unfazed. The same thing can be seen in cults, and the difficulty in trying to "de-program" ex-members. People believe what the cult has taught them, and nothing in the world will change their minds.
A note to Apologists
What's wrong with the "out of context" excuse that Christians use to defend Old Testament barbarity?
The god of the Old Testament approves of slavery…"Oh, you're taking that out of context!"
The god of the Old Testament ordered the killing of innocents…"Oh, you're taking that out of context!"
The god of the Old Testament made she-bears maul to death a bunch of kids…"Oh, you're taking that out of context!"
In what context is it acceptable for slavery to be approved, for the killing of innocents to be approved and for kids to be mauled to death by she-bears?
Now, am I taking things out of context? I quote entire verses, and I don't omit any text details which might change the meaning. In almost all cases, I supply the reader with chapter and verse numbers, so they can be looked up. What theologians mean when they say I take things out of context is that I take verses out of the context of the "overall biblical message". But what does that mean? That is purely subjective framework. Their biblical message is their interpretation. They are really saying that I don't read it like a true believer would. They're right. That's because I'm not a true believer. I read it like any other book.
I suggest that the reason is that he WANTS to believe, and is unwilling to give up his set of beliefs, no matter what. That is what is truly disturbing about the religious mindset. The unsettling part is how Christians can be faced with overwhelming amounts of evidence that should at least cast doubt on their holy scriptures and belief system, and yet remain unfazed. The same thing can be seen in cults, and the difficulty in trying to "de-program" ex-members. People believe what the cult has taught them, and nothing in the world will change their minds.
A note to Apologists
What's wrong with the "out of context" excuse that Christians use to defend Old Testament barbarity?
The god of the Old Testament approves of slavery…"Oh, you're taking that out of context!"
The god of the Old Testament ordered the killing of innocents…"Oh, you're taking that out of context!"
The god of the Old Testament made she-bears maul to death a bunch of kids…"Oh, you're taking that out of context!"
In what context is it acceptable for slavery to be approved, for the killing of innocents to be approved and for kids to be mauled to death by she-bears?
Last edited by a moderator:
When a contradiction or an error in the Bible is pointed out to a Christian, more often than not, the Christian will have some lame excuse to try and show that what you are reading is not really a contradiction or an error at all. These are some of the many arguments I have encountered for explaining the fallacies in the Bible.
Verse taken out of context
This is probably the more common excuse used to try and explain away an error or a contradiction. Christians claim that in order to get the full meaning of the verse, it must be left in context; that you have to read the whole chapter to understand what is being said. This comes from the same people that throw verse after verse at you to try and support their argument about why their religion is right. If they feel that a particular verse seems pretty straight forward, they have no problem with taking it out of context and throwing it in your face.
You have to know how to interpret the Bible
I get this a lot. "The reason you think there are problems with the Bible, is because you don't know how to interpret it". I was unaware that the Bible was written in some sort of code. If there is only one way to interpret the Bible, why do so many Christians interpret it differently? Some Christian sects have a literal interpretation of the whole Bible, while other sects interpret certain parts as literal and other parts metaphorically or figuratively.
That's not what's really being said
This argument falls into the same category as interpretation. I have shown people that Jesus didn't always teach love, by presenting Luke 14:26 in which Jesus says, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple". Of course I've gotten the, "You're taking it out of context" excuse, but most of the time I get this..."Jesus isn't saying that you have to hate your parents and family, he's just saying that you have to love him more than you love them". Clearly that is not what is being said in this verse. Having more love for 'A' than for 'B' does not mean that you have to HATE 'B'.
In Matthew 24, Jesus gives his disciples signs to look for, announcing the end of the world and his second coming. After giving these signs, Jesus says...
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Notice here that Jesus says "this" generation; he is speaking in the present tense. Clearly he is talking about his generation. Since his generation passed almost 2,000 years ago, then all those signs in Matthew 24 should have already been fulfilled, and his second coming should have already taken place.
I have gotten four different explanations as to what Jesus is "really" saying here.
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
That's a God day
According to the Bible, if you accept its literal interpretation, the earth is only about 7,000 years old. Because the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and conflicts with the Bible's account of creation only taking 6 days, some Christians claim that a day back then was much longer, something like a million years. This is considered a "God day". So in actuality, God created the universe in 6 million years. This sorry explanation creates many different problems. If a "God day" is a million years long, and God supposedly created man on the 6th day, that would mean that the 6th day hasn't ended yet. Counting back the generations to Adam and Eve, only 7,000 years have passed, meaning we still have over 990,000 years left before the 6th day ends. How could God have rested on the 7th day, since the 7th day hasn't even gotten here? Confused yet? What about the Christian's argument that time to God is not as long as it seems to us? They say that 2,000 years to God is merely a nanosecond. If you take the "God day" concept as equaling a million years, then 2,000 years to God would really be...let's see...2,000 years x 365 days = 730,000 days. 730,000 days x 1 million = 730 billion years. Well 730 billion years is much longer than a nanosecond.
So how long is a "God day", or a "God minute", or a "God second"? Well they are as long as Christians claim they are, in order for them to fit into their belief system. Sometimes a "God day" is a million years, sometimes it's a billion, and in some cases it's only a second long.
© 1998 Derrick Miller
Verse taken out of context
This is probably the more common excuse used to try and explain away an error or a contradiction. Christians claim that in order to get the full meaning of the verse, it must be left in context; that you have to read the whole chapter to understand what is being said. This comes from the same people that throw verse after verse at you to try and support their argument about why their religion is right. If they feel that a particular verse seems pretty straight forward, they have no problem with taking it out of context and throwing it in your face.
You have to know how to interpret the Bible
I get this a lot. "The reason you think there are problems with the Bible, is because you don't know how to interpret it". I was unaware that the Bible was written in some sort of code. If there is only one way to interpret the Bible, why do so many Christians interpret it differently? Some Christian sects have a literal interpretation of the whole Bible, while other sects interpret certain parts as literal and other parts metaphorically or figuratively.
That's not what's really being said
This argument falls into the same category as interpretation. I have shown people that Jesus didn't always teach love, by presenting Luke 14:26 in which Jesus says, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple". Of course I've gotten the, "You're taking it out of context" excuse, but most of the time I get this..."Jesus isn't saying that you have to hate your parents and family, he's just saying that you have to love him more than you love them". Clearly that is not what is being said in this verse. Having more love for 'A' than for 'B' does not mean that you have to HATE 'B'.
In Matthew 24, Jesus gives his disciples signs to look for, announcing the end of the world and his second coming. After giving these signs, Jesus says...
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Notice here that Jesus says "this" generation; he is speaking in the present tense. Clearly he is talking about his generation. Since his generation passed almost 2,000 years ago, then all those signs in Matthew 24 should have already been fulfilled, and his second coming should have already taken place.
I have gotten four different explanations as to what Jesus is "really" saying here.
- Jesus is not talking about his generation, but the generation in which these events will happen, and when his second coming will occur.
- Jesus is actually talking about the Jews. In this sense, "generation" means a race of people, so Jesus is actually saying that the Jewish people will not pass away until all those things are fulfilled.
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
- Jesus is referring to mankind.
- Jesus is speaking of Christianity.
That's a God day
According to the Bible, if you accept its literal interpretation, the earth is only about 7,000 years old. Because the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and conflicts with the Bible's account of creation only taking 6 days, some Christians claim that a day back then was much longer, something like a million years. This is considered a "God day". So in actuality, God created the universe in 6 million years. This sorry explanation creates many different problems. If a "God day" is a million years long, and God supposedly created man on the 6th day, that would mean that the 6th day hasn't ended yet. Counting back the generations to Adam and Eve, only 7,000 years have passed, meaning we still have over 990,000 years left before the 6th day ends. How could God have rested on the 7th day, since the 7th day hasn't even gotten here? Confused yet? What about the Christian's argument that time to God is not as long as it seems to us? They say that 2,000 years to God is merely a nanosecond. If you take the "God day" concept as equaling a million years, then 2,000 years to God would really be...let's see...2,000 years x 365 days = 730,000 days. 730,000 days x 1 million = 730 billion years. Well 730 billion years is much longer than a nanosecond.
So how long is a "God day", or a "God minute", or a "God second"? Well they are as long as Christians claim they are, in order for them to fit into their belief system. Sometimes a "God day" is a million years, sometimes it's a billion, and in some cases it's only a second long.
© 1998 Derrick Miller
If we are going to use science fact to provide arguments against the Bible, then at least pull some credible data together. Who is this person and what credible background does she have, i.e. what is the degree and background, what peer reviewed publications has she published, and why is she doing this on Youtube? Funny pictures and Youtube videos don't cut the mustard when it comes to credible science.
These are almost as good as the computer scientist who created the article that started this whole mess to begin with:
Was Jesus a Roman Invention? | Joel L. Watts
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Ah the old attack the person gig ... oh well if you don't like what she has to say or don't believe her qualifications please feel free to ask her that question personally .. I can even give you a contact point.
Message her here WildwoodClaire1 - YouTube .. she is very nice and will be happy to answer a theist question I am sure.
Guess you over looked this video.. watch it