I believe religion and god are facades that people like to hide behind; convictions used to rationalize their actions (or inactions) and (for some) to control the masses. These facades of the insecure and the control freaks are inhibiting our evolution.
Mr. Cook (post #7738), you and I can be respectful and tolerant of each other’s beliefs. We are capable of having healthy discussions. However, the majority of people are not like us.
Following a religion and/or believing in god is accepted. Not doing either is not mentioned because it’s a taboo in American communities. 

“I remain sublimely unconvinced that life without a relationship to God can possibly be as full and as complete as a life lived in relationship to God.” You haven’t been to my home and met my family

So much of the *fundamental* thrust of Sam Harris’ original post is being ignored—I can well imagine that many of the believers (like David Cook, who doesn’t even get Mr. Harris’ name right) have simply come here to proselytize, or threaten us non-believers with (presumably) an eschatological “rude awakening.”  Hey, thanks for sharing Jesus’ love, Mr. Sociopath.  You must be swell at parties.

But believers—why bother?  Why does your all-powerful god need defending from people who aren’t even attacking him in the first place?

The point of the piece, and of atheism in general, is not to *oppose* any god or any faith therein, nor even set forth some sort of replacement code of ethics/morality/belief—it’s to simply acknowledge that there is *no logic behind faith*, and as a result, the conclusions people draw based on that faith are all too often—speaking strictly in terms of verifiable evidence—erroneous (to say nothing of extremely hazardous to the health of many of the rest of us). 

And it’s not open to discussion.  There’s no part of the statement that faith and logic are totally antithetical concepts and neither has anything to do with the other that requires any debate.  Simply claiming that your faith is logical and rational doesn’t make it so.  Nor does it do any good to cite any amount of Bible/Talmud/Egyptian Book of the Dead/Qu’ran/Desiderata/My Pet Goat Loves Jesus, Too! (ad nauseam) verses or quotes from philosophers/scientists, etc. to support your convictions.  And they ARE convictions, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but don’t even think of calling them arguments.  Because they’re not.

And while you’re at it, do please stop with the “atheism is a logical fallacy” bullshit sophistry.  It’s not a fallacy to not believe.  You only choose to call it that because you happen to believe, and you’ve doubtless got some reason for doing so.  Not a logical reason, but a reason nonetheless.  We’re all very happy for you, but we who don’t believe don’t care about why YOU believe.  In the end, your belief is founded on conjecture and speculation; no matter how pretty the castle that you pile on top of that foundation may appear to you, it’s still built on a foundation of sand that is washed away when struck by even the smallest waves of logic. 

And no, atheism isn’t just another belief system.  If the world’s religions/systems of belief were ice cream, you’d not find anything atheistic amidst the Vanilla-Fudge Shiva Swirl or The Prophet’s Cherries Jubilee.  Atheism isn’t on the menu.  It’s not even an ethical or moral system, and it’s not supposed to be.  So, consequently, when some of you lot start saying crap like, “Where’s the morality that I get with my delicious Mocha Christ Crunch in your Atheism Mint?” the response is that THERE ISN’T ANY DAMNED ATHEISM MINT ON THE FRIGGIN’ MORALS/RELIGION ICE CREAM SHOPPE MENU, so why are you bothering to critique the moral quality of it? 

To me—and I could be wrong, because I’m not “Scott” Harris, and don’t claim to speak for him—this is a plea for all of us humans to collectively set aside religious beliefs, because we’ve never been able to agree about them anyway, and it’s not likely we ever will (Christianity, for just one example, has more denominations than I can even hope to enumerate.  And if you say it doesn’t matter, that all denominations agree on fundamental points, then why bother with the distinction in the first place?) . . . and instead use the tools we all have in common.  We possess the ability to reason, and to observe our world and to compile factual information and to learn.  These are the things that matter in the here and now, and they are what will save us and our children. 

It’s not even so much about rejecting something, or trying to prove something does or doesn’t exist. It’s about agreeing that—regardless of whether or not religion causes the violence and suffering, etc. in our world, or if it only ever produces lollipops and pony rides so long as the *right* people believe the *right* way—these varying faiths and irrationalities don’t unite us as a species.  But if we set these things aside, and instead embrace the things we all have in common and things that are genuinely and verifiably true over and above the things that are subjective and irrational (and never mind the spiritual or social or psychological value of these things.  Bollocks to that.  You do what you have to do to get you through the night, but don’t expect anyone else to validate your spirituality or whatever you choose to do *instead* of acknowledging the things we all can actually agree on), we might be able to come to some sort of consensus on all manner of things—even morality. 

(Okay, now that I’m done, what are the odds on at least three condescending posts from believers in response to this?  Seriously, believers?  Don’t.  Just—no.  I don’t care.  If it makes YOU feel better to heave a sigh and wring your hands with an air of righteous superiority, that’s fine.  Just don’t reach for the keyboard to instruct me on the error of my ways, or tell me how Jesus loves me or even threaten me with an eternity in hell if I don’t change my sinful ways.  I don’t care.  No atheist actually does, except to the extent—as has been said many times here—that you believers want to force your beliefs on us.  We don’t come to church and smack the communion or hymnals out of your hands, now do we?  All we ask is that you do unto others . . . well, you know the rest, right?)

Top Ten Signs that You’re a Fundamentalist

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

9 - You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune (that is, three-in-one) god.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua”—including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life, and then ascended into the sky. (But he’ll be back!)
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically-established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic, uneducated tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet, with the exception of those who share your beliefs—though excluding those in all rival sects—will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering, sent there by a being capable of “infinite love”. And yet you consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving”.
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot con-man rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history—but still call yourself “well read”, “knowledgable”, or “expert”.

The Bible On Slavery

“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.”..........Leviticus 25:
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”..........Exodus 21:
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ….”..........Ephesians 6:
“Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever.”..........Leviticus 25:45-46
(And the Christians in the North in the days of the Civil War thought slavery was wrong?  Which Bible were they reading?)
“Let all who are under the yoke slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those that benefit by their service are believers and beloved.”..........1 Timothy 6:
“Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect…”..........Titus 2:
“If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the manservant’s do.“Leviticus 21:6-
“Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes….”..........Luke 12:37

“And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.”
..........Luke 12:47

I don’t believe in a God for several reasons. I am persuaded by the arbitrariness of the first cause argument, for instance, and the Buddhist concept of dependant origination which doesn’t allow for anything, including God or a soul, to exist indepenantly of other things.

However, I often see atheism confused with a sort of areligion that I think is ultimately harmful. A human value (ultimately relative) that I believe is beneficial to society in general is tolerance. If every religious or areligious tradition respected the points in every other that led to the betterment of mankind—universal love, charity, respect for the Earth and living creatures—then the world would, without question, be a better place. What matters a hell of a lot more than what’s Up There (or Down There) is how we treat our fellow man, and I see a lot of atheists, while trumpeting loudly scientific dogmas that, I’m convinced (after reading Kuhn, Lakatos, Popper, Duheim, Quine, and Feyerabend), are no better than the religious belief they deride so scathingly. All you believers in the gospel of science out there: how do you justify the a priori assumption that the world is an ordered place discoverable by human methodologies? How do you explain away Kuhn’s assertion that scientific revolutions are ultimately irrational, thus betraying one of science’s cherished tenets? After all, “rationality” itself changes over time; to hold it up as an absolute is just as silly as holding up God as one.

Furthermore, many atheists claim that religion is ultimately detrimental to society because it promotes hatred and intolerance while practicing the same hypocrisy of which they accuse the religious—engaging in ad hominem attacks against believers of every stripe without bothering to learn the tenets of their faith (with a few exceptions), or submitting to a simplistic conception of religion in which all faiths, regardless of their statements on God, are lumped together as one ultimately-detrimental whole.

The fact is, there are atheistic religions (Buddhism is one) that are governed by principles such as universal compassion. Has religious war been committed in the name of even Buddhism? Yes (see Brian Victoria’s work for examples—lots and lots of examples). However, wars are committed for plenty of secular reasons; see our present war in Iraq, our war in Vietnam, the Gulf War, the US invasion of Panama. The evil of war can’t be laid at the feet of any single human institution, and the reality is that religion, as one of the mixture of causes that makes up any event, probably plays some small part in all of them. If we truly want to end war, what we need to do is to promote the recognition of human beings and the entire planet as “holy”: deserving of the ultimate respect. We are one interconnected system, with each part dependent on everything else. Arrogant intolerance of nonscientific systems of belief is just as reprehensible as blind belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, as is the warping of the Qu’ran to justify murder; blind faith in science is just as reprehensible as blind faith in religion. Science is a mode of thought just like any other and is no more worthy of absolute faith than anything else.

The world is a complex place that is irreducable purely religious or purely scientific modes of thought.

regarding belief in a God:
You cannot disprove there is a God that created YOU and all that is around you.  This frustrates you greatly because you don’t want to be accountable to anything other than yourself, but you are inadequate. Look at the instructions laid forth in the Bible.  Would your life be better or worse if yo followed int’s principles.  If God were true and he created the intelligence in us to read and learn, would it not make sense to give us a manual??  Living as the Bible instructs is hard, atheist call christians hipocrits b/c living by what the Bible says is difficult and Christians are no better than others.  What sets Christians apart is they know they need help and don’t reject is as do others.  If you think you can do it without help you are an idiot. That is my honest opinion.  I ask you to do this.  Read Job (int eh Bible) and see in the first couple of chapters where hardships in this life come from and then put everything in perspective with the last couple of chapters (but don’t skip those in between).  Then I ask you to evaluate the tenants laid forth in the Bible and tell me how they are not productive to mankind.  Tell me how they are destructive to the human race and don’t help it?

For instance gays…  how do gays help reproduce the human race?????

Arguing about the Bible is about as relevant as arguing about Star Trek. There’s merit in debating the existence of a god, but if you believe in talking snakes and dudes rising from the dead, you’re just a fool.

The notion of an all-knowing god that passes moral judgment on every individual is such a transparent ruse that believing it borders on a mental disorder.

There is no question that “religion” has been used to exploit even the smartest in the ignorant masses.  As my father would say, “Faith is for sceptics.”.  All of the points in this essay are well taken.  However, there is an underlying self interest behind all of this Hocus Pocus of the supernatural, this is evident.  I am comfortable with my own belief in science which has so far provided me with sufficient evidence to withdraw from any and all organized religions, specifically those with hierachies and authoritative dogmas.  Hang them all and Praise the Lord.

1. It may well be that we are hard-wired to be rather gullible, which would be useful in lining up behind leaders as tribes/family groups. There is work looking into the possibility that religion is part of that wiring.

2. The biggest mass murders of the 20th century were atheistic and Darwinist—Russia’s and China’s.

To Emily (post #7643)

That post is long - to long to respond to all you rediculous reasoning - but I must take issue with two points in particular.

First, you say “No where in Christianity does it say that those who don’t agree with it should be killed or mistreated in any way.”  Wrong.  Simply wrong.  Matthew 5:17 - 18…“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”  From the mouth of your savior, the old laws (meaning the laws of the old testament) are to be followed.  The old testament is quite clear about the many, many reasons people should be slaughtered - and not following the right god is one of them.

Second, the doll story.

So GOD ALMIGHTY told you where your lost doll was?  I simply cannot comprehend what it must be to have a mindset that would allow me to believe in a god who will answer the prayer of a little girl who lost her doll but ignores the prayers of billions of people with more pressing concerns.  How many people - at this very second - are praying to god to relieve their illness or the illness of loved ones?  How many are begging for love or happiness or enough money to feed their family?  To use one Sam Harris’ examples, how many are praying for the safe return of their lost daughters who are already raped and dead?  Your god ignores those pleas but, holy shit, he told a little girl where her doll was.

Simply pathetic.

I am posting a rather long and formal reply to Sam Harris’  Atheist Manifesto. I write from the perspective of a “progressive Christian” who is neither offended nor upset about Sam’s Manifesto, but because it is a broadside attack on “religion” really demands a “reasoned” response from someone who is “religious” in a particular way and takes his religion seriously and does not find his religious practice or “religious beliefs” in any way incompatible with using his reason and rationality. If you think you might be interested in this sort of “critique” of Sam’s manifest please read on. If not, skip it. I would welcome any and all replies. Dave Cook

Reply to An Atheist Manifesto
By David Cook
As a life long church going Christian I don’t get to talk much, hardly ever, to an atheist. So when I stumbled on Sam Harris’s Atheist Manifesto on truthdig.com I was eager to read it. I found it quite interesting, if not eye opening.
I can’t remember the source of this anecdote, but a “believer” was in a conversation with an “atheist” who remarked, “I don’t believe in god,” to which the believer replied, “What god do you not believe in?” As it turns out there is a fair degree of overlap to the God that Sam Harris doesn’t believe in and the God I don’t believe in either.
Of course, the problem for Sam Harris is not just God but more broadly “religion.” For Sam religion is at best bad thinking and at worse downright dangerous. But once an atheistic critic starts down that road the brush tars not only a multitude of sins but also blots out a multitude of “good works” over a multitude of centuries, if not millennia.
I will begin by identifying, as best I can, the category of Christian into which I fall. That I am a self-identified “Christian” does, of course, make me a “believer in God” as opposed to an “atheist”, but that isn’t saying much. Sam identifies two categories of Christians – fundamentalists and moderates. Since I am definitely not a fundamentalist Sam would mark me as one of those cowardly “moderates” who don’t have principled beliefs like the fundys do (however irrational, if not idiotic, those beliefs may be). But I don’t recognize myself in that category.
To begin with, a serious follower of Jesus can’t be a moderate because Jesus was the farthest thing from a moderate. But given that quibble, let’s just say that this critique is made from the point of view of a “progressive mainstream protestant” Christian who is a member of the United Church of Christ denomination. This denomination was formed from the Congregational tradition of Pilgrims, the German evangelical and the European reformed traditions. Our denomination was one of the first to ordain women, the first to ordain an openly gay person, the first denomination (I think) to pass a resolution in support of “marriage equality” for same sex couples, and a denomination that, among other things, believes that God gave us minds and He intended us to use them.
Points of Agreement With Sam
I think it would be useful to identify as many of the points in Sam’s manifesto with which I can agree in whole or in part. I agree that over millennia religious sectarianism has been responsible for terrible violence and crimes against humanity. Violence has been carried out between sects of the same religion and between the faithful of different religions.
I agree that “we live in a world where all things, good and bad, are finally destroyed by change.” I agree that “religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory” is a problem for American education and for our current government’s support of science. I also agree that “atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society.” I agree that there is a “dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values.” And I agree with Sam’s inference that the great disparity between the haves and have nots in America and the world is a grave moral problem and reflects poorly on the alleged identity of America as a “Christian nation.”
I can give partial assent to this statement: “One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the 21st century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns – about ethics, spiritual experience and the inevitability of human suffering – in ways that are not flagrantly irrational.” For me it is my Christian faith that speaks most deeply to those concerns and I find nothing particularly irrational in that.
There is certainly a sense in which “religious faith is a conversation stopper”, but if you can accept this reply to Sam’s manifesto as the start of a conversation between one man’s Christian faith and another’s atheism, then this belies your contention. But the old saying that “religion and politics” are to be avoided in polite conversation only means that where you are likely to find sharply divergent points of view you may find uncomfortable conversation. Not everyone is equally uncomfortable with differing points of view. For myself, I revel in such conversations.
I will cite one further point of agreement that is more or less implied in Sam’s manifesto, and that is that I believe “atheists” are as likely as any “religious” person to have high ethical standards of behavior and a deep sense of morality and what constitutes “moral behavior.” However, I don’t see any reason to think that “atheists” would be more ethical or moral than “religious” people.
Finally, on the positive side, I would argue that all human beings, in some way and at some level, yearn that the world would be a better place. One theologian has suggested this as a general human yearning for a “deeper connection to what is.” And here is how Rabbi Michael Lerner, a progressive Jew puts it: “…the yearning of human beings for a world of love and caring, for genuine connection and mutual recognition, for kindness and generosity, for connection to the common good, to the sacred and to a transcendent purpose for our lives.”
It is hard for me to imagine that Sam or any other atheist cannot find that kind of yearning within themselves, though I also recognize that there might be some sort of reflexive pulling back from the notion that anything might be thought of as “sacred” or that any purpose for our lives might be “transcendent.” If that is the case, then I can only say, “so be it” but you are missing something.
Where Sam Goes Wrong Mostly Out of Ignorance
It is clear that Sam and his compatriots have a huge problem with “dogma” and “certainty” and they tend to identify these irrational faults with “religion”, essentially equating a belief in god, which is by definition irrational, with dogma and certainty. Sam says, “Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.” And he further argues that if I (or anyone) claim to believe in God, nor have any doubts as to the existence of God, I “should be obliged to present evidence for his existence.”
Since I obviously can’t provide such evidence on Sam’s terms that ends the discussion. But it doesn’t end it because Sam is stuck in his own “ism” that is as much a blinder for him as for the fundamentalist nut cakes he scorns. Here, I fall back on Rabbi Lerner to help me out.
Sam is confusing science with “scientism.” Rabbi Lerner defines scientism as “the belief that the only things that are real or can be known are those that can be empirically observed and measured.” He goes on to say this, and he is speaking for me: “As a religious person, I don’t rely on science to tell me what is right and wrong or what love means or why my life is important. I understand that such questions cannot be answered through empirical observations. Claims about God, ethics, beauty and any other face of human experience that is not subject to empirical verification – all these spiritual dimensions of life – are dismissed by the scientistic worldview as inherently unknowable and hence meaningless.”
Sam has expressed a genuine concern for the role that religion (as he tends to define it) plays in the fight over evolution and the stem cell issue and the general diminishment of the place of good science in the religious right’s dominion over our current government. But Sam is blind to the basis for his dismissal of all religion.
Rabbi Lerner spells it out for me. “Scientism thus extends far beyond an understanding and appreciation of the role of science in society. It has become the religion of the secular consciousness (emphasis added). Why do I say it’s a religion? Because it is a belief system that has no more scientific foundation than any other belief system. The view that that which is real and knowable is that which can be empirically verified or measured is a view that itself cannot be empirically measured or verified and thus by its own criterion is unreal or unknowable. It is a religious belief system with powerful adherents. Spiritual progressives therefore insist on the importance of distinguishing between our strong support for science and our opposition to scientism.”
OK, so I am one of those “spiritual progressives” on the Christian side of the religious divide, though there is precious little that divides me from Rabbi Lerner. And, I might also assert here, that I have listened to and read some of the work of a young Muslim progressive in America that makes him feel kindred to my own faith.
Whereas Sam equates religious belief with irrationality, I am here to say that there is no divide. Rationality is as sacred a gift of God as intuition, emotion, “inner experience” or any of the other multitude of ways in which a human being can be human. Religion does not make a person irrational. Nor does rationality and the rejection of the existence of God spare such a person from believing in some other God, such as “the God of Reason” and the religion of “scientism.”
It is clear to me that Sam is well read, has a knowledge of philosophy, and has probably read the Koran, which I have not, and he might have even read as much or more of the Bible than I have. But his ideas about religion in general and Christianity in particular are seriously distorted. And I don’t think he is fair to Islam either. It isn’t easy to place one’s self completely outside what you regard as “religion” and then proceed to make a critique of “religion” from within all your anti-religion biases.
I see my own perch as a bit more clear eyed because I am not representative of the Christianity that Sam despises (either moderate or fundamentalist), nor am I a stranger to reason. I use my mind and my rationality all the time, sometimes to excess. At the same time I live and have my being within my religious faith as a Christian in a way that eschews, so far as I can help myself, dogma and certainty about almost anything I believe. I am also familiar with the history of Christianity and have read extensively about fundamentalist religious movements. Sam is right that “certainties” can be demonizing. He just misses his own “certainties.”
Consider this observation made by scholars of religion. Christianity tends to be much more of a religion of “belief” than does Judaism and Islam which are much more toward being religions of “practice.” Though my knowledge of the other great religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Chinese religions, etc. is sparse, I believe they would tend to fall more on the “practice” side than the “belief” side.
These are important distinctions and, of course, there are many “practitioners” in the Christian faith and many “believers” in the Muslim and Hebrew faiths. I fall seriously on the “practice” side of Christianity. Unfortunately, for all the more conservative branches of Christianity, the tendency is for the most important aspects of one’s faith to come down on the side of “right beliefs.” This makes for a very divisive kind of religion and is as true of Judaism and Islam where correct belief has become paramount.
Well what are some of the specific problems with Sam’s manifesto? To begin with he throws a lot of statistics around in such a way as to suggest that the mass of Americans are infested with a form of madness characterized by the absolute belief in an “omnipotent and omniscient” God that is nothing more than a “fiction”, and which is stupid at best and downright dangerous at worst. He sets up statistical straw men such as the one who will rape, torture and kill a little girl whose parents believe at the moment of this violence in “an all-powerful all-loving God [who is] watching over them and their family.” Is it right and good that these parents believe this? Sam asks. The proper answer of the atheist is “no”.
This is rational nonsense concocted to show how dumb and pointless and bad it is to believe in God. But the straw man doesn’t exist in any palpably human form nor do the parents or the little girl.
It is demonstrably true that little girls have, in fact, been raped, tortured and killed by dangerous and predatory men. It is certainly a fact that the parents and other family members of any such little girl who has suffered such violence will then have to deal with that tragedy for better or worse. The inner state and religious beliefs of those parents, however, is pure invention/speculation on Sam’s part, but even if any particular set of such parents did in fact believe in the God Sam describes it does not follow that this belief is either wrong or not good. Sam assumes that because the belief is “irrational” according to Sam’s own scientism, that this belief will somehow be a bad thing for these shocked and grieving parents.
Sam provides no plausible scenario to support his notion that he is simply “refusing to deny the obvious.” But what is “obvious” about this scenario? Stuff happens to the godly and the ungodly alike and still must be dealt with. On what basis can one argue that, by definition, the godly are ill equipped to deal with tragedy and the ungodly are fully prepared? Certainly no purely rational or empirical analysis will be able to predict how such a tragedy will be faced and dealt with. But in my experience, a belief in God, by itself, is seldom an impediment to dealing with life’s changes and tragedies. What kind of God one believes in or what image of God one has can and does make a difference in how one responds to changes and tragedies.
Here’s another rational howler. “It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient and compassionate God.” This is another piece of statistically meaningless nonsense. The combination of “omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God” is just a setup for the argument that might be summed up as: You stupid fools. Where is that all powerful all loving God now? Can’t you see you’ve been duped? All your prayers were a waste of time. You died talking to “an imaginary friend.”
But not only Katrina and New Orleans were victimized by their faith somehow, Sam points out, but so were the Muslim Shiite pilgrims who were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq, going to their deaths believing mightily in the God of the Koran. So what? Is the point that the stupidity of their belief in God led them to be on the bridge with too many people and thus get killed? What about any Sunni or unbeliever who might have been on the bridge and got crushed? What difference does it make when tragedy strikes, when “stuff happens”, what is the religious “belief”?
Sam rails on and on about the “boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved”, about “how vast and gratuitous a catastrophe would have to be to shake the world’s faith” and about the impossibility that an “omniscient and omnipotent” God can also be absolved of any responsibility for human suffering. “If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore is either impotent or evil.” This, of course, is another one of Sam’s scientistic straw men.
The question of suffering and evil in the world is a deeply spiritual and theological question. To some degree it challenges believers and unbelievers alike. If, as is the case with many Christians (to stay just within my own faith for the moment), one believes in the “theistic God” who is omnipotent and omniscient and who meddles directly in human affairs, this will lead one to have some serious struggles with “stuff” that happens in life and/or to put a particularly rigid template over one’s understanding of things that can sometimes add to human suffering.
But many Christians, myself included, do not understand the God of the Bible as omnipotent and omniscient. We have no question that this God is loving and compassionate. His Old Testament prophets railed against injustice. Speaking through the Prophet Micah, God said that all he required of his people was that they “act justly, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God.” Those are prescriptions for behavior, not belief. My Christian “belief” has everything to do with my “relationship” with God, not any creedal or dogma I am to believe. The relationship God expects me to have with Him is a “humble walk.” This precludes arrogance. The justice and kindness part also precludes harming my neighbors, it precludes violence and it requires me to confront and attempt to correct injustice. To the extent that I am able to fulfill those expectations my “humble walk with God” will be closer or more distant.
As shocking as this may sound to Sam and his cohorts, Christianity is fundamentally a religion of non-violence. One has only to study the life, teachings, and ministry of Jesus in the Gospels to see that nonviolence is fundamental to being a follower of Jesus. Jesus’s teachings stand “conventional wisdom” on its head. Turn the other cheek. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. If you really want to follow me give all you have to the poor and come along.
What you “believe” as a Christian, in my view, is completely secondary to how you live and what you do and/or fail to do. By their actions you will know them. The predations of Christians in the name of Christ are idolatrous if not blasphemous. The same is true of Islamist jihadis. Their behavior blasphemes their religion. I disagree with Sam that Islam is inherently violent based on statements from the Koran, any more than one can judge Christianity or Judaism to be inherently violent because of the stories in the Bible of God wiping out men, women and children deemed to be his enemies.
Any religious scripture can be twisted by believers to justify their actions. That does not make violent actions right. Nor do such actions in the name of religion make that religion somehow null, void, and dangerous. Nor does it mean that “religion” is somehow the “cause” of violence or other negative effects on human existence. Sam’s scientism, his own religion, leads him to condemn any religious belief in God as the problem for which his rational scientism is the answer.
This brings me to my final argument with Sam. The main “devil” in Sam’s argument against religion are the so-called “religious moderates” whom he accuses of appeasing religious extremists of all faiths and which “continues to be the greatest threat to world peace and a sustained assault on reason.” This strikes me as one of the most breathtakingly wild conspiracy theories ever uttered in the name of reason.
“Religious moderation”, of course is another of Sam’s straw men. I think it is safe to assume that I would be among these dangerous “moderates”, if for no other reason than I cannot be included with the “fundamentalists.” Let me first assert that I believe religious fundamentalists of all persuasions do pose a dangerous threat to the world. Karen Armstrong has written extensively about these believers in her book with the apt title: “The Battle for God.”
It seems ironic to me that Sam heaps so much scorn on moderate religionists, even arguing that the fundamentalists are more “rational” than the moderates, even though the principled fundamentalists justify themselves with “extraordinarily poor evidence.” We moderates, however, say we believe in God only because this belief “gives our lives meaning.” Among our other sins is the fact that we “refuse to draw any conclusions whatsoever about God from his works. God remains a perfect mystery, a mere source of consolation that is compatible with the most desolating evil.” What exactly does Sam think “God’s work” is if there is no God who does any work in the world? But because he thinks I must believe God’s “work” includes catastrophes like the tsunami I must be an idiot for glossing over this outrage with the wimpy notion that God is a mystery but he still consoles me in the face of the evil which I suppose God has let loose on the world.
I cannot accuse Sam of being irrational here, as irrational as his claim is. I have to resort to ignorance of what it really means to be a Christian as the explanation for his accusation against the “moderates”. Of course I do not believe that God sends tsunamis, floods and hurricanes or murderers to rape and kill little children. What I do believe, without empirical proof, of course, is that God suffers deeply over all these things. This is, after all, the God who suffered on the cross with Jesus for the sake of what it means to live life fully, even unto death, even forgiving those who murdered him for “they know not what they do.”
For a moment, let’s just take one real life Christian, not a straw man, and take a look at what he did and how he did it. I speak of Martin Luther King, Jr. (This Christian man, by the way was also deeply influenced in his thinking and acting by the Hindu, Ghandi.) King, who was a flawed man who cheated on his wife, who sometimes got drunk and screamed at his friends, and occasionally was felt to have betrayed some of his followers, led non-violent marches for civil rights and justice for poor people that changed the dominant power structure of this nation for the better. In doing so he suffered physical assault, incarceration, and finally assassination. But it was not only him, but hundreds of other Christians who felt called to join his “crusade” for justice, and who also suffered and even died. This is what I understand to be living out the practice of Christianity. No offense, but a crusade of rational atheists, foreswearing violence in the name of securing justice for the poor and the marginalized has, to my knowledge, never happened.
But back to the charge that “moderates” are more dangerous than fundamentalists because we appease them.  Beginning with the fact that Sam is simply ignorant of what it means to be the sort of “progressive Christian” that I am, albeit part of that vast amorphous group of “moderate” Christians that Sam condemns. The very fact that Christianity in America appears to the Sams of the secular non-believing world to be the dominant “face” of Christianity is largely a testimony to the extent to which “the religious right” has hijacked Christianity and entered politics in a big way. These Christians have also taken over the airwaves where they spew out their apocalyptic dogmas and other certainties that are far removed from the actual practice of Christianity.
We so-called “moderates” cannot battle this army with better dogma or beliefs, which seems to be Sam’s irrational idea. Sam is stuck in the notion that being “religious” or being a “believer in God” or being a Christian is all about having irrational beliefs. It is not. It is about how we live. We can only really answer fundamentalism by how we live out our faith, which among other things, requires us to be non-violent. So we oppose war, we oppose injustice, including economic injustice, and we can also help our fellow Christians to struggle with the questions that inevitably trouble honest people of faith.
A growing literature that spells out how we view our Christian faith and how that faith calls us to live is out there in the public domain. Rabbi Lerner’s book, “The Left Hand of God” is just one of the latest. We progressive Christians are essentially “followers of Jesus”. There is, indeed, a good deal of irrationality required to seriously follow Jesus because “the way” is difficult but the reward is a “full life”, which includes suffering as a part of what must be faced, whether it comes upon us personally or upon some part of the human body, such as those who were living in the path of Katrina.
Sam argues that “The problem that the atheist exposes is none other than the problem of dogma itself – of which every religion has more than its fair share.” Yet Sam cannot see the “beam in his own eye”, the dogma of “scientism.” As a Christian I have come to understand that it is “dogma” and “certainties” that can blind me to what is essential in my faith. These become the “false gods” that Yahweh warned us against in the first commandment to “have no other gods before me.” Yes, dogma is a human problem but “religion” is not the cause. To be human is to be prone to the “sin” of idolatry and there is nothing in rationality and atheism that can guarantee a human being to be free of dogma and free of the demonic tendency to do violence in the name of that dogma. Nor is “being religious” and “believing in God” a guarantee that one will be trapped in dogmatism. Religion and rationality are not mutually exclusive!
Falling prey to dogma is a spiritual problem of humanity. A religious faith that can be lived out in freedom with the help of a compassionate God who shares in our suffering, is a great antidote to life strangling dogma. I remain sublimely unconvinced that life without a relationship to God can possibly be as full and as complete as a life lived in relationship to God. But I understand how Sam can remain sublimely convinced that a life resting on reason and rationality alone is not only necessary but also sufficient. I can accept necessary but I cannot accept sufficient.

To Emily, Re: post 7643

You wrote:

(Please note, sir, that you are referring to the behavior of men, NOT the God they claim to serve. People are flawed. People are of a fallen nature. In their natural state, morality is a hindrance and self-interest reigns supreme. God calls us to be better than ourselves. We are supposed to love others more than ourselves. (Real love means self-sacrifice, not some abstract warm-fuzzy feeling.) The people you describe are not truly following God. They are self-serving and hypocritical. But we are not supposed to follow them, we are supposed to follow GOD. You deny He exists, so the issue remains moot.)

Prove god exists, then we’ll discuss this.  Once again, you assume the existence of this being as a given, and go from there.

You wrote:

(And you’ll find most Christians think the government is slanted against them. I don’t know who the government is really representing, but it isn’t me, and many other Christians would say the same.)

Of course they do—since the government doesn’t allow believers (at least for now) to shove their beliefs down the throats of everyone else.  Therefore, they must be slanted against Christians, right? Just as if I were to form a group, decide that basketball is evil, then try to persuade the government that legislation should reflect our beliefs—then, if our beliefs weren’t properly adhered to, we could claim that the government is slanted against us.  The martyr syndrome doesn’t impress me.

You wrote (regarding the election to public office of admitted atheists):

(Well, that would be because Christians are still in the majority. Knowing how you feel about religious type, I somehow doubt you’d be all that keen to elect a Bible-thumper. It goes both ways then, doesn’t it?)

Show me a politician that doesn’t pander to the religious, and I’ll eagerly vote for him.  As to the majority gambit, I could just as easily tell you that the majority of humans are just plain stupid, too, couldn’t I? But the majority—no matter the subject—should have the ultimate say.  At least according to your somewhat dubious logic.

You wrote (regarding the progenitors of the belief system, and their subsequent acts of violence):

(Ahh, but now you’ve veered off into Islam. No where in Christianity does it say that those who don’t agree with it should be killed or mistreated in any way. In fact, we are to “love our enemies”. I defend no one else’s beliefs but my own.)

Actually, I was referring to the Israelites and their massacre of the Canaanites.  After all, God told them they could have the land, correct? So, using that twisted reasoning, I should be able to come over to your house, proclaim that God told me I could have your TV, CD player, and various other appliances, and that would be okay, right? But God said I could have it, and I’m sure I can provide the written evidence (anybody got a pen?).

You wrote (regarding the fear of death):

(I don’t fear it. It is inevitable. We all die. I am confident that death is not the end of the thinking part of me, my soul, and so I see my eventual demise as a change (like birth) and nothing more. I don’t look forward to it, certainly, but I don’t fear it. And, if forced with the choice, I would rather be deluded and unafraid then completely rational and scared stiff. If you can’t avoid it anyway, what can it hurt?)

This is Occam revisited.  Might as well believe it, just in case.  What would it hurt, to have all your bases covered, in the event it all might be true? In fact, why not convert simultaneously to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, and Shintoism—after all, any one of them MIGHT be the ONE TRUE BELIEF too, right? What would it hurt? I’m reminded of the old quote: “everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.” It seems to me that Christians should refrain from going to the doctor, taking prescriptions, and living healthful lives. Aren’t you eager to meet your loving god in the afterlife? What’s the holdup?

You wrote (regarding the arrogance of Christians):

(No, it is not right to smirk smugly. Worry about and try to help them to choose the right path, yes. How evil it would be to take delight in someone else’s folly. (There, but for the grace of God go I, I’m sure.)

Yes, I’m sure you have a handle on the “right path”.  It’s not like this belief system is the dominant doctrine in the current regime that rules the current era.  I’m sure your “right path” was discovered independently of any outside influence whatsoever.

You wrote (regarding Biblical authority):

(Christians (as such) have already decided for themselves that there is only one true God and Jesus Christ is the only Way to Salvation. They aren’t seeking to change that. If you accept Christ as Savior, you are agreeing that the Bible is God’s Word, the Truth. To accept the “authority” of some other text over the Bible would be to call God a liar. This being the only unforgivable sin, I doubt many Christians are eager to be testing that one out. Either you believe Him or you don’t. And if you believe Him, you’re going to stand firm, even if it kills you, sometimes quite literally.)

At last, an honest answer.  God is real because the Bible tells us so, and the Bible is the final workd since it’s God’s word.  No circular logic there.

You wrote (regarding Biblical inerrancy):

(Just because you say something is so, doesn’t make it so. When people read the Bible leaning on their own understanding of the words, they will very nearly (if not absolutely) always get it wrong - even if they are a Christian. If you read and misunderstood a book on chemical engineering, does that mean that what the book said was wrong? Should the chemist now forsake all of his previous education on the subject because YOU believe you see mistakes in the text?)

It’s all a matter of how you look at it, right? Okay, so how do YOU look at, say, the Koran? Or the Tao Te Ching? Are you honest enough to see that if you found a contradiction in the holy texts of others, that their prevarications that it’s all “contextual” or “how you look at it” is
verbal gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty?

You wrote:

(Christians today are regularly ridiculed, derided, mocked and, in certain parts of the world, tortured and killed. Finding an error in the Bible could hardly add to the problem.)

I’ll give you “ridiculed” (and justly so), but please provide the instances of tortured and killed here in the U.S. And I’ll need documentation of this.  Of course, I have ample evidence of Christians, ridiculing, deriding, mocking (by the way, all words having the same essential meanings), torturing, and killing those who don’t believe as they do.  It’s called history.

In closing, let me state that you have admirably made my points for me.  You assume what you believe to be true, and no argument to the contrary will sway you.  But let me posit the following mental exercise:

If Jesus were to appear before me right this very instant, and perform miracles proving his supernaturally-endowed divinity, I would be a fool not to accept him as a god.  Would you agree?

Now, give me a reason—any reason at all, be it evidenciary, historical, or otherwise—that would make you doubt your beliefs enough to cast them off permanently.  There isn’t one, is there?

Do you see the difference? I admit that something might (at least in theory) force me to change my views.  You, on the other hand, will admit to nothing of the kind.  You believe, you believe, and you believe, and that’s all that matters to you.  Period.  Using logic and sound reason is useless with those who don’t have the first clue as to what those words mean.

Proclaimed knowledge without material evidence is one or more of the following; pure fiction, wishful thinking, suspect theory, careless supposition, short circuited psyche or blantant insanity.  The wicked cool thing about being an atheist is that I get to select which categories god-nuts fall into.

So for instance Osama Bin Laden is a wishful thinking fiction god-nut.  Jerry Fallwell is suspect theory careless supposition god-nut.  And George Bush is a pure fiction short circuited psyche blatant insanity god-nut.

Biblical Science, Historical Errors (and Absurdities)

Genesis

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used “for signs”. This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read “the signs” in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14

After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-22

God fashions a woman out of one of Adam’s ribs.
Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy. 2:19

God curses the serpent. From now on the serpent will crawl on his belly and eat dust. One wonders how he got around before—by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don’t eat dust, do they? 3:14

“There were giants in the earth in those days.” Well, I suppose it’s good to know that. But why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants? 6:4

Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn’t germinate and grow leaves within a seven-day period. 8:8-11

When the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided? 8:19

Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats. 30:37-39

Leviticus

The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they “chew the cud” but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not “chew the cud.” 11:5-6

Bats are birds to the biblical God. 11:13, 19

Be sure to watch out for those “other flying creeping things which have four feet.” (I wish God wouldn’t get so technical!) I guess he must mean four-legged insects. You’d think that since God made the insects, and so many of them (at least several million species), that he would know how many legs they have! 11:23

Numbers

“And there we saw the giants ... And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” This statement may have been figurative, hyperbole, typical biblical exaggeration, or an actual description of the sons of Anak, in which case they must have been about 100 meters tall. These are the same giants (the Nephilium) that resulted when the “sons of God” mated with “the daughters of men in Gen.6:4. Of course these superhuman god-men should have been destroyed in the flood. So what are they doing still alive? 13:33

God’s cure for snakebite: a brass serpent on a pole. 21:8

God has “the strength of a unicorn.” (Oh heck, I bet he’s even stronger than a unicorn). 23:22, 24:8

Deuteronomy

Og, the king of the giants, was a tall man, even by NBA standards. His bed measured 9 by 4 cubits (13.5 feet long and 6 feet wide). 3:11

This verse mistakenly says that the hare chews its cud. 14:7-8

“Their wine is the poison of dragons.” I wonder what genus and species the bible is referring to when it mentions dragons. 32:33

Joseph’s “horns are like the horns of a unicorn.” 33:17

1 Samuel

“The pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them. 2:8

1 Kings
This verse implies that the value of pi is 3. (The actual value is approximately 3.14159.) 7:23

2 Kings

A dead body is brought to life when it accidentally touches the bones of Elisha. 13:21

Isaiah, with a little help from God, makes the sun move backwards ten degrees. Now that’s quite a trick. All at once, the earth stopped spinning and then reversed its direction of rotation. Or maybe the sun traveled around the earth in those days! 20:11

1 Chronicles

“The earth ... shall be stable, that it be not moved.” It doesn’t spin on its axis or travel about the sun. 16:30

King David collects ten thousand drams (or darics) for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. This is especially interesting since darics were coins named after King Darius I who lived some five hundred years after David. 29:7

2 Chronicles

Since the molten sea was round with a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits, we know that the biblical value of pi is 3. (The actual value is approximately 3.14159.) 4:2

Esther

“Haman thought in his heart.” Most people think with their heads, but biblical folks think with their hearts. 6:6 (Hah! I knew it!)

Job

1.The earth rests upon pillars and doesn’t move (unless God gets angry or something). 9:6
2.“Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not.”
The earth is fixed and the sun travels about it. 9:7
3.Heaven is set upon pillars that tremble when God gets mad. 26:11
4.The earth is set on foundations and it does not move. 38:4-6
God spread out the sky, which is a solid structure, hard and strong like a mirror. 37:18

Bible believers have identified the behemoth as a hippopotamus, dinosaur, wildebeest, or crocodile. But my favorite is the way these verses are translated by Stephen Mitchell: “Look now: the Beast that I made: he eats grass like a bull. Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor.” 40:15-16

Psalms

1.The earth shakes whenever God really gets mad. 18:7
2.“The foundations of the world were discovered ... at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.” (The earth is set on firm foundations and does not move—unless God blows his nose.) 18:15
3.“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” 19:1
4.The sun moves around the earth. 19:4-6
5.From his seat in heaven, God can see the whole earth and all its inhabitants.
(He sits directly above the earth, which is a flat disc below him.) 33:14-15
6.Diseases are sent by God to punish sin. 38:3
7.According to the psalmist, snails melt. But they don’t, of course, they simply leave a slimy trail as they move along. 58:8
8.God is so strong that he can break the head of dragons and of leviathan. 74:13-14
9.God holds the earth up with pillars. 75:3   Another reference to “the foundations of the earth”, implying that the earth is fixed and does not move. 82:5
1.“Thou hast broken Rahab [the sea monster] in pieces.” 89:10
2.“The world also is established, that it cannot be moved.” 93:1
3.“The world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.” 96:10
4.“The Lord ... who healeth all thy diseases.” God heals all diseases. Medical science is unnecessary. 103:2-3
5.“God ... who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain” (The earth is stationary and does not orbit the sun.) 104:5
Isaiah

God will gather up the people of Judea “from the four corners of the earth.” In the Bible’s view, the earth is flat with four corners. 11:12

According to the Bible, the moon produces its own light and the earth does not move. 13:10

Dragons will live in Babylonian palaces and satyrs will dance there. 13:21-22

Out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.” What ever happened to these fascinating biblical creatures? 14:29

God will turn the earth upside down, knock it off of its foundations, and then shake and bake it until it “reels to and fro like a drunkard.” 24:1, 18-20

God will punish the leviathan (“that crooked serpent”) with his own sword and will kill the sea dragon. 27:1

Among the many strange creatures mentioned in the Bible that no longer seem to exist is the “fiery flying serpent.” 30:6

“And the unicorns shall come down with them.” 34:7

Dragons and satyrs may not seem real to you, but they did to the author of these verses. 34:13-14

The earth is a flat disc that God looks down upon from his throne in heaven. 40:22

Even the dragons honor God. 43:20

God cut Rahab (the sea monster) to pieces, wounded the dragon, and dried up the sea. 51:9-10

Bad people hatch poisonous cockatrice eggs. Whoever eats the eggs will die, and when the eggs are crushed a viper hatches out of them. 59:5

Ezekiel

1.“The firmament ... the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.” 1:22
2.The world is flat and has four corners. 7:2
3.The firmament is over the heads of the cherubim. 10:1
4.God “will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.” To Ezekiel, the sun is just a little light that can be covered with a cloud, and the moon produces its own light. 32:7
Daniel

The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be 606 BCE, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was 597 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem for the first time (without actually destroying it). By that time Jehohiakim was dead and his son, Jehoiachin, was ruling. 1:1
Apparently, the author of Daniel knew of only two Babylonian kings during the period of the exile: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who he wrongly thought was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk (referred to in the bible as “Evilmerodach” [see 2 Kg.25:27 and Jer.52:31]). In 560 BCE, Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was a the son and viceroy of Nabonidus. But he was not a king, and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar. 5:2,11,18,22

Darius the Median is a fictitious character whom the author perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, who came to the throne in 521 BCE, 17 years after the fall of Babylon. The author of Daniel incorrectly makes him the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus. 5:31

The earth is set upon strong foundations and therefore does not move. Micah 6:2

Matthew

Herod kills all boys in and around Bethlehem that are two years old and under. Such a massacre would certainly have been noted by contemporary historians. Yet not even Josephus, who documented Herod’s life in detail, mentioned this event. 2:16

The devil kidnaps Jesus and takes him up to the top of the temple, and then to the top of “an exceedingly high mountain,” high enough to see “all the kingdoms of the world.” I guess the earth was flat in those days. 4:8

Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. And since there are no trees in the mustard family, mustard seeds do not grow into “the greatest of all trees.” 13:31-32

Mark

Jesus heals a boy with “a dumb spirit” by saying, “Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him and enter no more into him.” (Sounds like a script from Monty Python, doesn’t it?) But how could a deaf spirit hear the words spoken to it? And how could a dumb spirit cry out? 9:17, 25-26

John

“These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.” But no such site is known in history. Some translations (ASV, NAB, NIV, RSV, NRSV) rename Bethabara as Bethany, but Bethany is a suburb of Jerusalem and, therefore, not “beyond the Jordan.” 1:28

“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”
Good question, Jesus! He was wrong about creation in Mk.10:6, wrong about the flood in Lk.17:26-27, and wrong about the smallest seed in Mt.13:31-32. So why would anyone believe him when he talks about heaven in Jn.3:16? 3:12

Acts

“Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?”
This verse was used by a Dominican friar to discourage the use of Galileo’s telescope. (Notice the pun on Galileo’s name in “men of Galilee”.) 1:11

The prophets have spoken “since the world began,” which means that humans have been around since the creation of the world. But humans are recent arrivals on an ancient earth. There were no prophets when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. 3:21

Romans

Paul says that everyone, even in his day, had the gospel preached to them. Even the Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders? 10:18

Paul shows his ignorance (and God’s) of biology by saying that only dead seeds will germinate. Actually, a seed must be alive to germinate.  1 Cor. 15:36

Avoid science, especially that which disagrees with Paul (“science falsely so called”). Other versions translate this phrase as “false knowledge”, which may be more correct. However many fundamentalist Christians still use this verse (“science falsely so called”) to justify their rejection of any idea, scientific or otherwise, they believe contradicts the bible. 1 Tim. 6:20

God set the earth on a foundation; therefore, it does not move. Heb. 1:10

James

James says that, even in his day, all beasts, birds, serpents, and sea creatures had been tamed by humans. 3:7

If you are sick, rely on the power of prayer. It works every time. 5:14-15

Revelation

“And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth….” To John, the stars are just little lights a few miles away that can easily fall to the earth. 6:13

John “saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth.” Well, I guess that settles it: the earth is flat and square-shaped, or at least quadrilateral in shape. 7:1

To Emily, Re: post 7643

Uh, I think you proved my point for me most admirably.  You once again start from the premise that there is a God, and go from there.  Any other possibility is automatically,to you, inadmissable.  You believe it, so it must necessarily be so.

I’m happy for you.  Live long and prosper.

True Origin of Christian “FISH” Symbol

 
  For many pop-culture Christians, the “fish” decal on the back car bumper, or attached to a key chain or door is a symbol of their religion, and a feel-good statement about Jesus Christ. Early
Christians used the fish as a recognition sign of their religion.
    It is also identified as the “Ichthus,” an acronym from the Greek, “Iesous Christos Theou Uios Soter,” or “Jesus Christ the Son of God, Saviour.” Oxford English Dictionary (C.E.)dwfines “Ichthyic” as “of, pertaining to, or characteristic of fishes; the fish world in all its orders.”
  But contemporary Jesus worshippers might be surprised, even outraged, to learn that one of their preeminent religious symbols antedated the Christian religion, and has its roots in pagan
fertility awareness and sexuality. Barbara G. Walker writes in “The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects,” that the acronym
pertaining to Jesus Christ was a “rationale invented after the fact… Christians simply copied this pagan symbol along with many   others.” Ichthys was the offspring son of the ancient Sea goddess Atargatis, and was known in various mythic systems as Tirgata, Aphrodite, Pelagia or Delphine. The word also meant “womb” and “dolphin” in some tongues, and representations of this appeared in the depiction of mermaids. The fish also a central element in other stories, including the Goddess of Ephesus (who has a fish amulet covering her genital region), as well as the tale of the fish that
swallowed the penis of Osiris, and was also considered a symbol of the vulva of Isis.
  Along with being a generative and reproductive spirit in mythology, the fish also has been identified in certain cultures with   reincarnation and the life force. Sir James George Frazer noted in his work, “Adonis, Attis, Osiris: Studies in the History of Oriental Religion” (Part Four of his larger work, “The Golden Bough”) that among one group in India, the fish was believed to house a deceased soul, and that as part of a fertility ritual specific fish is eaten in the belief that it will be reincarnated in a newborn child.   
  Well before Christianity, the fish symbol was known as “the Great Mother,” a pointed oval sign, the “vesica piscis” or Vessel of the fish. “Fish” and “womb” were synonymous terms in ancient   Greek,“delphos.” Its link to fertility, birth, feminine sexuality and the natural force of women was acknowledged also by the Celts, as well as pagan cultures throughout northern Europe. Eleanor
Gaddon traces a “Cult of the Fish Mother” as far back as the hunting and fishing people of the Danube River Basin in the sixth millennium B.C.E. Over fifty shrines have been found throughout the
region which depict a fishlike deity, a female creature who “incorporates aspects of an egg, a fish and a woman which could have been a primeval creator or a mythical ancestress…” The
“Great Goddess” was portrayed elsewhere with pendulous breasts, accentuated buttocks and a conspicuous vaginal orifice, the upright
“vesica piscis” which Christians later adopted and rotated 90-degrees to serve as their symbol.
    Along with the fish used as a code sign for early Christian communities, the ichthys also found its way into the ritual and decor of church rites. One case in point is the church mitre worn
by prelates. Where did this originate? Dr. Thomas Inman discussed this phenomenon in his two volume opus, “Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names,” (1869). He included a representation of a sculpture from Mesopotamia, observing “It is the impression of an ancient gem, and represents a man clothed with a fish, the head being the
mitre; priests thus clothed, often bearing in their hand the mysticbag…”   
  “In almost every instance,” added Inman, “it will be recognized that the fish’s head is represented as of the same form as the modern bishop’s mitre.” The fish also appears in another sacred iconograph, the Avatars of Vishnu, where the deity “is represented as emerging from the mouth of a fish, and being a fish himself; the
legend being that he was to be the Saviour of the world in a deluge which was to follow…”   
  From its focus of worshipping a god-man born of a virgin to the selection of holidays and symbols, Christianity appropriated the   metaphors of earlier pagan religions, grafting them into its own account of the creation and beyond. Few Jesus worshippers are aware of this. Even fewer know that when they flaunt the “Ichthus” or Ichthys on a tee-shirt, car bumper or even the door of a state legislative office as a representation which originated in Christianity, they are in fact, displaying a more ancient symbol indicative of female anatomy and reproductive potency—the very sign of the Great Mother.

To Issak:

You say my arguments are “weak”.  That I choose to point out that Christians are responsible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust, the massacre of 20-22 million North, Central, and South American natives, and the Salem Witch Trials is a “weak” argument? Gee, I wonder what would constitute “strong” in your remarkably diplomatic lexicon.  A “non-religious Jew” (by the way, why must the cultural terminology apply only to Jews? Do we look at an Arab, and call them “Muslim” automatically? Do we look at an Asian, and assume they’re “Buddhist” or “Daoist” or “Shinto”? What’s wrong with calling yourself “of Israeli descent” or “Israelite”? But I digress) defending Christians? What are you, running for office?

Your remark regarding my “need of healing” sounds like the tired, old argument I’ve heard thousands of times before:  “You’re mad at God,” or, “some Christian must have really hurt you,” or, “there must be some reason for this rebelliousness.”  It couldn’t be that I find this religion silly, contradictory, immoral, hypocritical, and of dubious (at best) origins.  Nah.

So let me give you a few reasons to reconsider your defense of Christianity:

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator.
By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
        [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as
a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
  In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.
  Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
  As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…
  And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.
  When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.”
    [Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922)

“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without
the practical existence of a religious belief.”
  [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]

“I am now as before a Christian and will always remain so”
  [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

“Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual
base, will be wavering and uncertain.  It lacks the
stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook.”
  [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, p. 171]

“For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions
of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!
      [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

“The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude.  The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy.”
      [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

“Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change
than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to
the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less
in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism
which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward.”
      [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

“The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea
in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance
with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it
intolerantly imposes its will against all others.”
    [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

“The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.”
        [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

“Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable
stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin
the fight for the ‘remaking’ of the Reich as they call it.”
    [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

“The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral
purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life”
  [Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]

“The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty
to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will
preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national
morality, and the family as the basis of national life….”
        [Adolf Hitler, Berlin, February 1, 1933]

Had enough? Or how about the following, more up-to-date attitudes:

“No, I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considered as patriots.  This is one nation under God.”
      [Republican Presidential Nominee George Bush, 1987
      to reporter Rob Sherman at Chicago’s O’Hare airport]

“I don’t believe that an atheist could be President of the
United States - anybody that did not have something bigger than himself or herself. And faith is the answer, and I’ve said this to friends. To some degree religion for me has been a private thing. But I can tell you that when the going is tough, and even when it’s not - in our family we say our prayers. We say our prayers at meals and we say our prayers when we go to bed. Barbara and I do. But it’s something that the more I’m there, the more I understood what Lincoln meant.”
  [President George Bush, in a August 27, 1992 “700 Club” interview]

“Our new faith-based laws have removed government as
a roadblock to people of faith who hear the call.”
    [George W. Bush, September, 2000]

“I hope I live to see the day, when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!”
      [Rev. Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, (1979)]

“If you’re not a born-again Christian,
you’re a failure as a human being.”
      [Jerry Falwell]

“The idea that religion and politics don’t mix
was invented by the Devil to keep Christians
from running their own country.”
      [Rev. Jerry Falwell]

“..it is high time that scholars of all godly religions united to confront the forces of immorality in the present day under various names such as secularism, human rights, freedom of speech.”
  [Tehran’s Kayhan International newspaper urging cooperation with
    the Vatican in opposing the U.N. population control document]

“Communism was the brain-child of German-Jewish intellectuals.”
  [Pat Robertson, in The New World Order, (1991), p.17]

“In the 1990s and beyond, the battle is not going to be fought
much longer between Christianity and atheistic humanism, but
between Christianity and satanic-inspired Eastern religions.”
      [Pat Robertson, The Secret Kingdom, 1992]

“Therefore the spiritual standard for America would be the
gospel of Jesus and everything in the Old and New Testaments.”
            [Pat Robertson]

“There will never be world peace until God’s house and God’s people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy moneychangers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?”
  [Pat Robertson, “The New World Order”, 1991, P. 227, Word Publishing]

“We want…as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican
Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996.”
        [Pat Robertson, Denver Post, 10/26/92]

“We are not one nation, we are two nations entirely
separate (Christian and non-Christian).”
            [Pat Robertson]

I think I’ve beat the proverbial dead horse enough.  Maybe you should open your eyes and understand that Christians aren’t exactly enamored of Jews, either.  And if you don’t believe me, spend a few weeks in a good library.

Mike,

In a previous thread you titled “Bible Study part two; false prophecies, broken promises, and misquotes in the Bible,”  you cited Mark 9:1 as an example of an unfulfilled prophecy.  (‘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.’—Mark 9:1)

My response: 

This prophecy was indeed fulfilled as many of the people He spoke this to, including all of the disciples except Judas saw the risen Lord.  What’s more, all eleven disciples received the Holy Spirit (‘Power from on high’) at the upper room in Jerusalem, and these two things together are the very things that turned the disciples from a broken band of men to the boldest witnesses the world has ever known. 

You also said…(The prophecy given in Is.7:14 referred not to a virgin but to a young woman, living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus—and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament. Matt. 1:23)

My response:

First, the passage:  Isaiah 7:14

‘Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Emmanuel’

To begin with, the Hebrew terms used in Scripture to denote a virgin are almah (which was the term used in that passage) and bethulah.  While the term almah can also mean young woman, in hindsight it was clearly meant in that passage to mean virgin, and in the context of what we know of Mary, it would have been a more appropriate term to be used in the prophecy in Isaiah, since it indicates a more demure woman than bethulah, which indicates a more vigorus woman.

Secondly, while I doubt my people fully understood the prophecy itself until it came to pass, (something common to some of the prophecies given by the Lord), there was no doubt in their minds as to the correct wording.  In the 2nd and 3rd century…BC, Hebrew scholars translated the Old Testament scriptures from Hebrew to Greek (the Septuigant).  And when they translated this passage, they translated the Hebrew term almah to the Greek term parthenos, which has only one meaning; virgin!  There were many other Greek terms available to them had they not believed the word should have been translated virgin, but the term they used could only mean virgin.

As to what He would be called, (Emmanuel), that term actually means “God with us.”  And that is indeed what He was, and is called.  If you look to understand this in conjunction with Isaiah 9:6-7,

(‘For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.’)

it should be clear that the term Emmanuel would be what He was referred to, and what He is referred to; not the name He would be given at birth, but the name by which He would be called; God with us, the Son of God, and God.

Finally, contrary to what you said, He was not named Jesus. The name He was given at birth was Yeshua, which literally means “salvation”, or “the Lord saves’.  The name Jesus is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua.

Tomorrow I’ll continue with responses to another couple of the items you cited in your threads.  Until then, remember, Jesus (Yeshua) is who the Bible says He is, and He did what the Bible says He did.

Until tomorrow…

In response to Comment #7587 by Mike

Mike said - Christianity, like all other belief systems, is a religion propounded and encouraged by those who would rather have others pay their way for them…. (edit pejorative paragraphs on ethics of various clergy)

My reply - Please note, sir, that you are referring to the behavior of men, NOT the God they claim to serve. People are flawed. People are of a fallen nature. In their natural state, morality is a hindrance and self-interest reigns supreme. God calls us to be better than ourselves. We are supposed to love others more than ourselves. (Real love means self-sacrifice, not some abstract warm-fuzzy feeling.) The people you describe are not truly following God. They are self-serving and hypocritical. But we are not supposed to follow them, we are supposed to follow GOD. You deny He exists, so the issue remains moot.

Mike says - It’s a con game, one supported and endorsed by our shortsighted and self-serving government

My reply - And you’ll find most Christians think the government is slanted against them. I don’t know who the government is really representing, but it isn’t me, and many other Christians would say the same.

Mike said - (when was the last time anyone elected an admitted atheist?)

My reply - Well, that would be because Christians are still in the majority. Knowing how you feel about religious type, I somehow doubt you’d be all that keen to elect a Bible-thumper. It goes both ways then, doesn’t it? 

Mike says - These self-styled “holy men” do nothing more than play on their congregations’ hopes and fears, misrepresenting and falsely interpreting the meanings of their alleged holy works—anything that furthers their own ends, of course. 

My reply - No kidding. I’ve seen it myself. Sickening. However, that has nothing to do with God. Following Christ is up to the individual. What those people do is on their heads. I can’t see my way clear to rejecting God because of what some other guy did. That would be like refusing to ever speak to your parents again because your brother was a jerk.

Mike says - ...then has the sheer audacity to demand ten percent for their trouble.  And that ten percent is not subsequently taxed.  The indolent clergy often make better salaries than many doctors,...

My reply - Yes, there are selfish dishonest people everywhere. Many people work their way into positions of power because that’s where the money is. The clergy, politicians, media, law enforcement, etc. If there’s money to be had, you’ll find someone dishonest there to take it. Again, what does that have to do with God? (You still pay your taxes don’t you, inspite of all the dishonest, money-grubbing politicians in control of it?)

Mike says - And where is the ironclad proof that this belief system offers? It comes in the form of a collection of writings, ... (edit for space)... they were right and that everyone else was wrong, and any who disagreed with them deserved to be slaughtered, oppressed, and treated as immoral savages—all merely because they didn’t share in the belief system (hey, their God told them as much, right?).

My reply - Ahh, but now you’ve veered off into Islam. No where in Christianity does it say that those who don’t agree with it should be killed or mistreated in any way. In fact, we are to “love our enemies”. I defend no one else’s beliefs but my own.

Mike says - We all fear death, so we come up with or willingly follow any notion that allows us to believe that death isn’t really the end. 

My reply - I don’t fear it. It is inevitable. We all die. I am confident that death is not the end of the thinking part of me, my soul, and so I see my eventual demise as a change (like birth) and nothing more. I don’t look forward to it, certainly, but I don’t fear it. And, if forced with the choice, I would rather be deluded and unafraid then completely rational and scared stiff. If you can’t avoid it anyway, what can it hurt?

Mike says - We don’t like to think we might merely be a cosmic accident, so we buy into an idea that tells us a Superbeing, the Creator of All the Universe, made us for a mysterious celestial game of chance. 

My reply - Actually, I see the very idea of evolution - a “cosmic accident” that winds up with us as the highest living form - to be verging on the egomaniacal. The thought of God, a Heavenly, all-powerful Father is more humbling than anything. I have no idea what you mean by a game of chance. It appears to me you’ve been fed quite a few lines on the meaning of Christianity, and none of them were the truth.

Mike says - We don’t feel comfortable without believing there’s Something Out There that cares for us, that watches our every move and has a Grand Plan for us—even if we don’t happen to be privy to what it is. 

My reply - Is there something wrong with having someone care for you? What are parents for? God is our spiritual Father. No different, except He’s perfect and won’t take any crap from us.

Mike said - We take the road more heavily traveled—blind belief—than that very difficult and painful road—honest investigation—which might make us strive honestly and question who we are, where we’re going, and what it all means…

My reply - The road most traveled by is indeed filled with a great deal of misguided Christians. Blind belief in God is only the first step of faith. It ceases to be blind faith once He begins to work in your life. Then, blind faith is required in other areas. However, most Christians take the wide path and are content to do so. There is indeed a narrow path (the Bible says so - Mt 7:13-14, Luke 13:24) but it is not merely salvation as many church leaders would have you believe. It is the Kingdom itself, the Kingdom on earth, and very few get there. It can be done, but few choose to. I have questioned who we are, why we are here and what it all means…. but the answers aren’t to be found in us, they are found in God. (Mt 7:7) I got my answers and I wonder no more. You can keep on asking yourself, but without God, life has no meaning, our lives are pointless and we are nobody.

Mike - Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny? Eventually our parents reveal that these figures don’t actually exist, don’t they? Yet when they guarantee us that God (in whichever form) is for real, why don’t we make the logical comparison?

My reply - My parents only allowed me to believe what my childish heart wanted to believe. (The tooth fairy and the Easter bunny never existed for me) They also told me that platypus existed. A bizarre creature that’s furry and gives milk, but looks like a duck and lays eggs? Riiiiight. I’ve still never seen one in person. (Have you?) Talk about unbelievable. Thing is, I learned about God very early on, and my first experience with Him told me He was real, I didn’t need outside proof. I was only 4. I was looking for my doll that had gone missing and I couldn’t find it anywhere. My mother, too busy to help, suggested I ask God where it was. So I did, and very clearly came the immediate answer. I went directly and got it. He has spoken to me ever since. (I’m not crazy. Many people hear from God. Satan speaks too, be aware of that.) What proof have I that YOU exist? I must take it on blind faith that you “are”. Otherwise, my only proof, deemed I’m sure by you to be sufficient,... you’re speaking to me here.

Mike says - A small child hopes fervently for a new bike; an old child hopes fervently for eternal life. 

My reply - Is it wrong to want to keep living? There is a great deal of difference between “I want a bike” and “I don’t want to die.”

Mike says - A young boy slides his envelope-encased molar under the pillow in hopes of a crisp dollar bill; an older boy folds his hands together to ask the Unseeable and Unknowable for that promotion, or for his wife’s ovarian cancer to clear up.

My reply - I’ll clear up a little (or great) misunderstanding here… We are not really supposed to expect God to bend to our will. It doesn’t work that way. We are His children. We can ask, but we can’t expect everything we ask for. “Thy will be done” is what we really are supposed to ask for, because He knows best, He has all knowledge and we don’t. He knows if that promotion would be good for you, or if it would wind up ruining you when you hire that hot secretary that you would wind up cheating on your wife with and then end up divorced and alone with all of your paycheck going for child support.
He knows if your wife would be best off cured of her cancer or if she would only live to wish she were dead. Or, perhaps something better awaits and they don’t know it. A better job opportunity, a better life on the other side of the curtain we can’t see beyond.

Mike said - Is it really okay for a Christian to smirk smugly and roll his eyes at the Scientologist, yet fail to use the same logic and cynicism when it comes to his own belief system?

My reply - No, it is not right to smirk smugly. Worry about and try to help them to choose the right path, yes. How evil it would be to take delight in someone else’s folly. (There, but for the grace of God go I, I’m sure.)

Mike said - Isn’t it true that the Christian is an atheist in regards to every belief system but his own? Isn’t he merely making that one exception?

My reply - No. Look up “atheist” in the dictionary. The “a” in atheism requires that the atheist believes in NO gods whatsoever. (Think of the term “asexual”. One cannot be asexual except when it comes to women. Asexual means without sex period. Atheist is without any gods, period. I am a monotheist. I believe there is only One True God.

Mike said - How is it that the average Christian shrugs off the authority of the Vedas, the Bagavad Ghita, the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, the Torah, and Dianetics, yet stands resolute and firm when their own religious texts are attacked, often by people using the very same reasoning the Christian himself uses against, say, the Koran?

My reply - Christians (as such) have already decided for themselves that there is only one true God and Jesus Christ is the only Way to Salvation. They aren’t seeking to change that. If you accept Christ as Savior, you are agreeing that the Bible is God’s Word, the Truth. To accept the “authority” of some other text over the Bible would be to call God a liar. This being the only unforgivable sin, I doubt many Christians are eager to be testing that one out. Either you believe Him or you don’t. And if you believe Him, you’re going to stand firm, even if it kills you, sometimes quite literally.

Mike said - If someone came along and asserted that they could move mountains, wouldn’t the Christian demand a demonstration? Would the Christian merely accept the foregoing claims “on faith” and quietly respect that person’s beliefs and assertions,...?

My reply - Actually, the statement about moving mountains can be found in the Bible itself. (1 Co 13:2) There would be one more option for the Christian that others wouldn’t have. They can ask God. Unless the knowledge was gratuitous (“You have no need to know” and James 4:3) He would tell them the Truth. I rarely take anything on faith, unless it comes from God, then, of course, I have complete faith.
Fath is nothing more than believing in God’s Truth. Once you determine that God would never lie, then anything He says must be true. Therefore, like a wife has faith that her husband would not cheat (although he is only a fallible man, so the comparison only goes so far), the Christian has faith in whatever God says. Luckily, the Christian is never disappointed.

Mike said - So why does the Christian refuse to accept—in any way—that his own holy text is full of thousands of contradictions, errors, and absurdities?

My reply - Just because you say something is so, doesn’t make it so. When people read the Bible leaning on their own understanding of the words, they will very nearly (if not absolutely) always get it wrong - even if they are a Christian. If you read and misunderstood a book on chemical engineering, does that mean that what the book said was wrong? Should the chemist now forsake all of his previous education on the subject because YOU believe you see mistakes in the text?

Mike said - The answer, of course, is simple:  he doesn’t want to.  To admit even one error makes the shaky belief system seem more insupportable than he cares to admit. 

My reply - To admit one error would be to negate the whole. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If there is even one error, then who is to say what is true and what is not? It would make God, if He even existed, a liar. However, it is not blind acceptance of the Scriptures that keeps a Christian’s faith strong. A Christian is encouraged to read, study and compare Scriptures to each other to ensure they have the correct understanding of it. If something they believe doesn’t stand up to another passage of the Bible (taken in context of course) then they should disgard that previously held belief and seek the truth, because THEY were in error, not the Bible.

Mike said - If this or that verse contains… edit… errors, that might mean I just might 1) die the true death, one without the possibility of an after life;

My reply - And if it was true that there was no God, but I died believing there was, and we both just disappear forever… How would I be worse off than you? And yet, if it WAS true and there is one true God, and you denied He existed, calling Him a liar… I die and go to Heaven and you, well, you get the picture.

Mike - 2) look like an idiot for believing something that is so palpably ridiculous;

My reply - Christians today are regularly ridiculed, derided, mocked and, in certain parts of the world, tortured and killed. Finding an error in the Bible could hardly add to the problem.

Mike said - 3) have to actually deal with life as it really is, to look at life honestly and courageously, without having everything spoon-fed to me by those with an ulterior agenda;

My reply - It takes more courage to look at the world and deal with your life knowing what God expects. An atheist owes no personal responsibility to anyone, he is his own god as it were. He is a mere animal and his morals are whatever he feels like doing. The Christian sees life through God’s eyes and knows it is a narrow, rocky path he has to tread, and that the only way he can avoid the inevitable pitfalls is to keep his eyes on God and not do what comes naturally to him. An atheist’s only real concern is himself - his concern for family goes only so far as it relates to himself. The Christian’s concerns must needs abandon self-interest and seek to do the will of God, and look to the well-being of everyone else around him. Which takes more courage - to look out for your own interests, or to look out for everyone else’s and trust that someone else will look out for your’s?
And no one should have God’s wisdom spoon-fed to them by anyone but the Holy Spirit Himself.

Mike said - 4) have to actually go to the trouble of learning how this thing called the Universe actually works; and 5) abandon those bigotries I’ve so carefully cultivated all these years.

My reply - And what have you figured out about the universe so far? Why would a cynical approach aid you in any way?
Just because you label something as bigotry doesn’t make it so. Are you not being a bigot when you assume you are right and that all Christians are dishonest pablum-fed morons? (Mt 7:2)

Mike said - If an assertion must be accepted on faith, then it fails on its own merits.

My reply - Faith comes first, proof follows. But I can’t prove God to you. No one can come to the Father but by Jesus Christ (John 14:6), and no one can believe in Jesus Christ unless God first calls them. (John 6:44)
You must accept many things on faith. You accept that when you leave your house, your dog won’t destroy all your furniture. You accept that when you leave work you will still have a job when you return. Do you watch the news with faith that they are being honest, or do you research every little fact, every night? Do you have faith that your wife, if you have one, will not cheat? Do you have faith that your doctor didn’t cheat his way through medical college? I could be wrong. I suppose it’s possible that you sit in a quivering mass at home afraid to function in society because not everything can be proven to you. I’ll take it on faith that you don’t.

Emily

Atheism is a Myth.

Scott Harris’ article reflects a common theme among so-called atheists – that the world is such a terrible place, no just God would ever allow such things to happen.  What do you suggest, Scott?  That God take away our free will and exert total control over our every movement?  Of course not.  You don’t believe in God, do you?  Well I don’t believe in atheism.

Atheism claims that the universe created itself.  The last time I checked, the universe contained some pretty amazing machinery.  I’m not talking about laptops or I-pods.  That stuff is crap compared to the machinery I have in mind.  I’m talking about living organisms – machinery so advanced that they can actually make complete copies of themselves, enabling them to theoretically exist forever.  No man-made machine can come close to that kind of technology.

But atheists try to convince us (and themselves) that this hyper-advanced machinery is simply the product of undirected chance chemical reactions.  I personally have never seen any machine, even the most simple one, that came about simply by chance. 

Now I hate to have to use logic with you, but you’ve left me no choice.  It seems that you have forgotten some basic principles of common sense.  If the complexity of a machine reflects the intelligence of its designer, then the designer of hyper-advanced machinery would have to be…?  For lack of a better term, let’s call it … God.

I’m not talking about Yahweh or Jesus or Allah.  I’m simply talking about something so impressive that it can build machinery that we could only dream about making ourselves.

What’s that, you say?  Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have got you covered?  Well, why don’t you take a good hard look at these “theories”.  Don’t worry, I know you won’t.  You have too much invested in your atheistic faith to ever want to challenge it with unpleasant facts.  Your belief in the ability of hydrogen gas to turn itself into human beings is just as strong (actually it is much stronger) than any religious fundamentalist’s faith.

But why?  Why deny something so obvious as an intelligent creator?  Every other machine has one, so why not us?  Are you too arrogant to believe that you are merely the result of some omnipotent superbeing’s tinkerings?  Perhaps.  But most likely your atheistic faith can be traced to one powerful root cause – ANGER!  Anger at the religious fundamentalists and their hypocrisies.  But more importantly, anger at God.  You have suffered much pain in your life and you have witnessed the pain and suffering of so many others.  So you will retaliate against God in the strongest way that you can – by denying his/her/its very existence. 

So, does your angry atheism make you feel better?  Or do you just continue to be angry?  May I suggest that you try to make peace with this God fellow.  First, stop kidding yourself that he doesn’t exist.  You’re not fooling anybody.  Once you accept the incurable logic of it, try a new approach.  Assume that God doesn’t want you to be angry or unhappy.  Instead, assume the very opposite.  Assume that God holds you as precious as you hold your own child or your favorite loved one.  That will give you a very different feeling than the anger that has sustained and constrained you for so many years.  It might take a bit of getting used to.  But maybe, just maybe, you will find that God offers a great and subtle power that can slowly but assuredly transform your very soul.

And to think it all started with some simple Vulcan logic.

It never fails.

Every forum I visit where free ideas are discused will always have its share of individuals stubbornly doing their best to keep things the way they’ve always been.

I think I’ll move to Sweden, where being an atheist is not considered a matter of national security.

Mike,

in your post #7607

*  You said…“I’m always mildly amused at how little of the Bible believers seem to actually know.  I’ve noticed that nonbelievers are generally better acquainted with the “Good Book” than its adherents.  For instance, Isaiah 45:7 tells us that God created evil.”

My response: 

Unfortunately, your first point is more often than not correct.  Many people who profess to be followers of Messiah (“Christians”) are, in my opinion, in varying degrees, Christians in name only.  But even many of the true followers of Messiah do not have a solid fundamental knowledge of Scripture, which is, in part, why so many are inadequate to defend their faith when confronted by people who question their beliefs.

However, as to your second point (your comment about God being the creator of evil), on the contrary, He is not, nor does Scripture state that He is.

The exact Scriptural quote is as follows:

Isaiah 45:7
“I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.”

Now I presume that you were equating disaster with evil, but that is simply not the case.  God is sovereign, and as such, He executes judgment as He sees fit.  Because of the attributes of His nature, whatever judgment He executes He does with absolute moral authority and righteousness. 

Now, to us, disasters in one form or another are quite horrific, and tremendously sorrowful.  But those terms and perspectives are in the eye of the beholder, (contrast the views of victims and perpetrators of 9-11 for example) and since we (all mankind) have a very fractional view of what is going on behind the scenes to bring about whatever happened, we simply cannot presume to judge that which we do not know.

Let me give you an example using a modern day issue.  Suppose Bird Flu begins to transmit human to human.  The current contingencies call for quarentining entire cities to prevent the spread of the disease.  That would mean literally millions being forcibly interrned, against their will, suffering and dying absolutely horrific, agonizing deaths, with their “carcases” being bull dosed into common graves. Someone looking at this situation who had no idea what was going on and had no prior knowledge as to why the “authorities” were taking the action they did would, for the most part, presume that the authorities were among the most heinous and evil people that had ever lived, causing literally millions to suffer and die like that.  In reality, the action taken by the authorities would be engaged to prevent even greater tragedy.

Or take the case of the executioner who executes government mandated judgment against a criminal.  Someone without knowledge of the situation might think the executioner to be totally unjustified taking the life of another.  In reality, that executioner would be doing exactly what was required of him.

Point is, we do not know the motives or reasons why God brings whatever judgments He does.  But because we do know His nature, and because we know that He cannot violate His nature, we can be sure that whatever He does is done with absolute justice to do so.

*  You also said (in that same post)...”(The two angels that visit Lot wash their feet, eat, and are sexually irresistible to Sodomites. Gen. 19:1-5) “

My response: 

I’m not sure what you were trying to drive at here, but I’ll tenor my response on the subject of the physicality of the two angels (which is what I think you might be trying to drive at).

These two angels in Lot’s presence were the same two angels that, along with the Lord, had physically been in Abraham’s presence a short time earlier (Genesis 18:1-22).  Throughout Scripture we are told of angels taking on physical appearance, so two of them having physical appearance while with Lot should not be of any suprise.  The attitude of the people within Sodom as demonstrated by their conduct towards the angels was but one demonstration of why the Lord was about to execute judgment against them.

I would spend more time on this tonight but I’ve got to prepare a Bible lesson for class tomorrow.  I’ll try to continue tomorrow evening addressing 1-2 subjects per day you’ve raised in your preious posts.
until then, do remember…Jesus is who the Bible says He is, and did what the Bible says He did.

I find it interesting and confusing that many of those who claim to be atheists get caught up in discussions and arguments over “the scriptures”. In my opinion, if you’re are an atheist, by definition, you do not believe that there is a god or any set of gods who influence or control your life and what goes on around you. Therefore, if there is no god there can be no “word of god”.

That being the case, I cannot discuss atheism with anyone who uses the bible or any other scripture as his/her reference. They have no argument.

Comment #7587 by Mike  on  4/21  at  2:01 am

“Regarding Christianity

Christianity, like all other belief systems, is a religion propounded and encouraged by those who would rather have others pay their way for them.  Rather than go to work like the rest of us and put real effort and time into a career, holy leaders seek to spend a minimum of time at their chosen vocation for maximum payoff.”

Mike, yours has to be one of the most simple minded long winded rants I’ve read in a long time.  I say this as a non religious Jew, who rejects organized religion, but who is willing to recognize how some people derive solace and comfort from certain practices.

Syncretic systems, which all organized religions appear to be, might’ve had a some point in their development some useful kernels perhaps by now spent.  Either way, to simply dismiss the religious intent of some as no more than ignorance and stupidity seems rather short sighted and no more enlightened than the rantings of dishonest preachers.

Your position seems weak and unacceptable, and it sure isn’t indicative of someone truly in possession of a developed mind, it seems more an angry reactive conscience in need of healing.

Very disappointing.
I don’t want to spend a minute of my life even thinking about what people call god. I have way enough to think about and act upon, right here on this earth, among humans.
Yet, I find this manifesto very disappointing.
It addresses in no way why people believe or why people act irrationally.
The main factor that drives our life is fear of death. Most of the irrational behavior that Harris attributes to religious belief is really driven by our fear of death. Heck, religion itself is driven by our fear of death.
I’m glad that Harris takes on such a subject but his reasoning seems completely illogical to me.

Regarding Christianity

Christianity, like all other belief systems, is a religion propounded and encouraged by those who would rather have others pay their way for them.  Rather than go to work like the rest of us and put real effort and time into a career, holy leaders seek to spend a minimum of time at their chosen vocation for maximum payoff.  The evidence is ample:  visit your local church and ask the preacher how many hours he spends in actual labor; a couple of hours coming up with a carefully slanted sermon, perhaps; a few hours put in on Sunday mornings (maybe even for a second morning service!), with two or three more hours on Sunday evening; two hours on Wednesday evening for prayer services; perhaps a visit or two to a hospital, with the extremely rare house call thrown in (especially if the issues require his hands-on attention—say, for instance, if one of his flock has discovered rational thought and has decided the religion is pure bunk); maybe a marriage ceremony (that he charges for) or a funeral (that he also charges for).  And look closely at their churches, cathedrals, and synagogues; how many poor people would all of those icons to pure drivel have fed, clothed, and housed?
It’s a con game, one supported and endorsed by our shortsighted and self-serving government (composed largely, of course, of the very mindless masses of which I speak—when was the last time anyone elected an admitted atheist?).  These self-styled “holy men” do nothing more than play on their congregations’ hopes and fears, misrepresenting and falsely interpreting the meanings of their alleged holy works—anything that furthers their own ends, of course.  Not only do these charlatans get to sit on their ivory pedestals of assumed moral superiority, they have protection from taxation, they influence elections and public policies, and they are never taken to task for their outlandish beliefs (not without doubters incurring the wrath of the polity, not without doubters being called “rude” or “immoral” merely for their honest inquiries).
The lazy but cunning rule over the weak-minded and the ignorant, and then has the sheer audacity to demand ten percent for their trouble.  And that ten percent is not subsequently taxed.  The indolent clergy often make better salaries than many doctors, men and women who actually have to work and be trained in a field that requires knowledge and scientific expertise.  These very holy-rollers then have the audacity to complain about any governmental welfare system that might otherwise cut into their profits, while doing the bare minimum themselves to help the very people their own “messiah” ordered them to aid.  And this scam is unassailable; none can question it strongly without the questioner being vilified by the overwhelming majority who buy into the scam without question.  Amway is taken to task far more harshly than the average religion, but why? Religion is merely a publicly accepted pyramid, one that is shoved down the throats of small children (and willfully ignorant adults) by the millions every Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday night. Conmen go to prison; preachers, priests and rabbis claim to deserve—and actually receive—our unconditional respect.
And where is the ironclad proof that this belief system offers? It comes in the form of a collection of writings, a work gathered and promulgated by a group with a very specific agenda, an anthology originally written by a bunch of smelly nomads certain only of their own professed superiority because they’d gotten together and decided that they were right and that everyone else was wrong, and any who disagreed with them deserved to be slaughtered, oppressed, and treated as immoral savages—all merely because they didn’t share in the belief system (hey, their God told them as much, right?).
And because some easily-persuaded emperor of the long-dead Roman Empire decided that this was the religion for him, we in the West now have to suffer the smug superiority and irrationality, the indignity, of a group of self-righteous, poorly-educated people who wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit them on the proverbial ass.
The truth of it is that this and all religions answer a number of emotional and pseudo-intellectual needs that people who aren’t courageous enough to accept life as it really is absolutely must have.  We all fear death, so we come up with or willingly follow any notion that allows us to believe that death isn’t really the end.  We don’t like to think we might merely be a cosmic accident, so we buy into an idea that tells us a Superbeing, the Creator of All the Universe, made us for a mysterious celestial game of chance.  We don’t feel comfortable without believing there’s Something Out There that cares for us, that watches our every move and has a Grand Plan for us—even if we don’t happen to be privy to what it is.  We take the road more heavily traveled—blind belief—than that very difficult and painful road—honest investigation—which might make us strive honestly and question who we are, where we’re going, and what it all means without the conceited but insupportable assurances our more ignorant acquaintances would have us believe.
Consider this:  why do we not take our parents to task for allowing us to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny? Eventually our parents reveal that these figures don’t actually exist, don’t they? (At least, I certainly hope so.) Yet when they guarantee us that God (in whichever form) is for real, why don’t we make the logical comparison? Don’t our governments, because this particular belief is enforced in the home, support it, and by the time we might use evaluation regarding those other types of allowable beliefs (that are eventually done away with), it’s too late to actually realize just how much wool has been pulled over our eyes? How many “Churches of Santa Claus” are there? How many cathedrals to the Easter Bunny have you come across lately? How many Tooth Fairy synagogues are there? None, of course, because those beliefs were destroyed early and mercilessly—but replaced by one no less questionable.  A small child hopes fervently for a new bike; an old child hopes fervently for eternal life.  A young boy slides his envelope-encased molar under the pillow in hopes of a crisp dollar bill; an older boy folds his hands together to ask the Unseeable and Unknowable for that promotion, or for his wife’s ovarian cancer to clear up.
How many Christians scoff at Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, and Wiccans? Yet where is the yardstick of incredulity, the demand for evidence, regarding his own cherished beliefs? Is it really okay for a Christian to smirk smugly and roll his eyes at the Scientologist, yet fail to use the same logic and cynicism when it comes to his own belief system? Isn’t it true that the Christian is an atheist in regards to every belief system but his own? Isn’t he merely making that one exception? How is it that the average Christian shrugs off the authority of the Vedas, the Bagavad Ghita, the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, the Torah, and Dianetics, yet stands resolute and firm when their own religious texts are attacked, often by people using the very same reasoning the Christian himself uses against, say, the Koran? Is the story of Noah’s Ark really less absurd than, for instance, the story of Joseph Smith’s golden breastplates? If someone made a claim that they could defecate gold bullion, wouldn’t the average Christian ask for verification? If someone came along and asserted that they could move mountains, wouldn’t the Christian demand a demonstration? Would the Christian merely accept the foregoing claims “on faith” and quietly respect that person’s beliefs and assertions, especially if the believers attempted to subvert legislation and the public education system?  Of course they wouldn’t.  And if a geology text were full of errors, contradictions, and absurdities, wouldn’t the Christian be justified in throwing it in the trash because of its many inherent flaws? So why does the Christian refuse to accept—in any way—that his own holy text is full of thousands of contradictions, errors, and absurdities?
The answer, of course, is simple:  he doesn’t want to.  To admit even one error makes the shaky belief system seem more insupportable than he cares to admit.  To admit that Jesus’ genealogy might be contradictory is to admit that the basis of their entire worldview (bought at great expense by their indolent clergy, their well-meaning but ignorant parents, or their self-serving government) might be intrinsically flawed.  To admit that the Bible’s mention of dragons, satyrs, cockatrices, unicorns, a world resting on pillars, a talking donkey, and a disembodied hand writing by itself might be ridiculous opens the door to many more uncomfortable possibilities.  If this or that verse contains nonsense, or if this or that verse contradicts another, or if this verse clearly contains mathematical or scientific errors, that might mean I just might 1) die the true death, one without the possibility of an after life; 2) look like an idiot for believing something that is so palpably ridiculous; 3) have to actually deal with life as it really is, to look at life honestly and courageously, without having everything spoon-fed to me by those with an ulterior agenda; 4) have to actually go to the trouble of learning how this thing called the Universe actually works; and 5) abandon those bigotries I’ve so carefully cultivated all these years.
It’s time for Christians—and, for that matter, every other adherent in anthropomorphic, theistic religions—to be intellectually honest.  If an assertion must be accepted on faith, then it fails on its own merits.  If all the thousands of gods worshipped in humanity’s past are regarded as mythological and quaint, then why is this one deserving of that unique status accorded it by so many whose reasons are so terribly obvious to the rest of us.  This belief system has its only basis in its emotional appeal.  And since blind faith is the final bulwark in the believer’s arsenal, then perhaps the believer should be a bit more convivial and humble in his dealings with those of us who live in the real world.
But, of course, history is replete with examples of why that simply will never happen.  As Santayana remarked, “Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”  The U.S. is sinking into the quagmire of fascistic theocracy, and anyone who points this out is immediately denigrated and ignored.  And all because the willfully ignorant and the intellectually weak actually have more say than those who have the courage to face life as it is without imposing their hopes and fears on an indifferent universe.
And, just for a moment, consider something:  imagine how far along humanity could have progressed had the Dark Ages never happened.

Mike,

I didn’t want to get into a tit-for-tat discussion at this point in time, because you have already raised so many issues in many of your other posts that will themselves take a fair amount of time to respond to.

However, on this one occasion I’ll indulge you.

As I said before, the genealogies noted in Matthew and Luke are different because they represent two different lines of Messiah’s lineage, with that noted in Matthew demonstrating Messiah’s spiritual right to David’s throne, (through Solomon), and that in Luke demonstrating Messiah’s physical right to David’s throne, through Nathan to David, and all the way back to Adam.

Now, as to several of your questions/issues in your post.

*  You said…”One need only read the text to see that Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus from Jesus back to Adam and God while Matthew begins with Abraham and tracks it to Jesus. Luke lists 77 generations while Matthew has only 44”

My response:  That is correct.  The reason why they are different is because of the audiences the Lord had them addressed to, and the purposes for which they were written.  Matthew was written to the Jewish people (my people, BTW), with, among other things, having the purpose to demonstrate Jesus as the promised Messiah who fulfilled the Messianic prophecies of lineage the Messiah would fulfill.  Luke’s gospel is written as a historical narrative, from the perspective of a historian, to give a much fuller account to the historical details concerning Messiah’s life and lineage.

*You said… “If horizontal lines are drawn to connect the same names, one can easily see that the lists are almost identical from Abraham to David. However, from David onward there is no similarity despite the fact that they both conclude with Joseph as the father of Jesus. The major reason for the contradictory names given after David is that the account in Luke traces the genealogy through David’s son, Nathan, while that in Matthew traces it through another son, Solomon.”

My response:  That is absolutely correct.  From David to Abraham the genealogies are basically the same because it is the same genealogy from David to Abraham.  After David, Matthew’s gospel traces his lineage through David’s son Solomon to Joseph, while Luke’s gospel traces his lineage through David’s son Nathan to Mary.  That is the reason the two genealogies differ after David.

*  You asked…”How could Joseph and Jesus be descended from two different sons of David. How could two sons of David father two completely different genealogies which merge together with the last two individuals and (b) How could Jesus have contradictory genealogies?”

My response:  My answers above should have resolved these questions.  Joseph descends from Solomon.  Messiah descends from Solomon and his progeny on his “father’s” side, and Nathan and his progeny on His mother’s side.

*  You said…”First, Mary’s name is nowhere to be found in Luke’s genealogy. Everybody’s name is mentioned but hers. Imagine a genealogy in which every name is mentioned but that of the person whose lineage is being traced!”

My response: Jewish society did not trace ancestry through females.  In the whole of the Old Testament, you will not find ancestral lines traced through the females.  Any ancestry that purported to trace decendancy of a child through the female would have ended with her husband, and would have been so noted, just as it was in the gospel of Luke.               

*  You said:  “there is no genealogical record of any woman in the entire Bible. Are we to believe Mary is an exception?”

My response:  No, the lineage for Mary is perfectly consistent with what would have been expected at that time.  Everyone at that time would have understood this to be Messiah’s lineage through His mother.  And the reason for noting it is to demonstrate Messiah’s legal authority to David’s throne.

*  You said:  “Joseph’s name is mentioned in Luke’s genealogy so one can reasonably conclude that it’s his lineage, not Mary’s”

My response:  No Mike, one would not conclude that then, and no evangelical scholars that I know of do now.  It is exactly how it would be listed to denote lineage through Mary.  In addition, the Lord takes great care to differentiate as to how Joseph in noted in the two genealogies.  In Matthew, he is denoted as “Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ (Messiah)”.  Joseph is denoted as the husband of Mary, not as the one who begat Jesus.  That’s because he did not have anything to do wth the procreation of Jesus.  Meanwhile, in Luke, Joseph is denoted as “he was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph.”  Everyone else in that genealogy is listed of as “the son of”  Only in Joseph’s case was the child referred to as “so it was thought.”  That’s beacause he was not the child of Joseph; only Mary.  Perfectly consistent with Matthew’s gospel.

*  You said…“Fourth, and last, according to OT prophecy, the Messiah would be a physical descendant of David. Mary appears to have been from the house of Levi, not David, since her cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron (Luke 1:5), i.e., from the house of Levi. If Mary was from the house of Aaron, how could either genealogy be hers since they relate David’s lineage?”

My response:  As noted from the above, you should be able to easily see now that Mary was also of David’s lineage.  As to your question about Elisabeth…c’mon Mike.  This should not be tough at all.  Someone (a brother or sister of Mary’s mother or father) married someone perhaps from the tribe of Levi, who then had a daughter named Elisabeth, while Mary’s parents had her and named her Mary.  Elisabeth’s mother or father (the parent not of Mary’s sdirect family) might well have been of the tribe of Levi, which means Elisabeth might well have too, but what on earth would that have had to do with Mary’s genealogy?  With all due respect Mike, it would have had nothing to do with Mary’s lineage!

The balance of points in your post seem only to be a rehashing of what you already asked above.  I hope my answers have resolved these issues for you.  They should cealrly demonstrate that there is no contradiction in Messiah’s genealogies; they are perfectly consistent with one another, and are a perfect compliment to one another.  But would anyone expect anything less from the very Word of God?

Tomorrow I’ll beging addressing everyday (hopefully) 1-2 other issues you’ve raised in your posts in this thread.  Please give me a little room, as you have raised many, many issues, and it will take some time to respond to them all.

Finally, to you and everyone else on this board, Jesus really is who the Bible says He is, and really did what the Bible claims He did. He is the hope for those that hurt, the comfort for those that mourn, and the literal expression of God’s great love for us!

Until tomorrow

Sam must be deeply disappointed in all the meaningless discussion re details of the bible in these comments, or maybe he feels that they only show just how right on he is about the lack of reason in our society. The point is, the bible doesn’t matter folks.

Why is noone defending the koran or other “devine” texts?

I for one am relieved that I am not the only rational person in America.  Sometimes it seems like I am…. And I am glad that Sam took the time and effort to detail the evidence showing why religion is such a horror.  Now I’d like to know what he thinks about nationalism…

In reply to Comment #7524 by Mike

Mike says - Please provide the ironclad evidence for the existence of your so-called “god” (that is, that deity largely accepted by the current ruling class in the current ruling culture). 

My reply - If you want proof, look around you, the complexity of nature demands belief in its Creator. There is no need to go into details, but to believe in evolution you must needs suspend a great deal of disbelief. All the proof I need I can find in my own life. I have read the Bible, and have found it, from my own experience, to be true. As for God, He has no need to prove Himself to anyone. If you don’t believe in Him, if you don’t accept His gift of salvation, that’s your loss, not His. If you want to go through life without Him, He is willing to let you do so. He is a loving Father, not a tyrant. He forces Himself on no one. You may not see proof of God in your own life, but that is because you have no experience with Him. How would you recognize something you know nothing about? How do you describe a sunset to a man who has never been able to see? He may yet choose to intervene in your life, and give you undeniable proof, but otherwise, you are free to think as you choose.

Mike says - You assume what you believe to be true, and expect the rest of us to play by your rules. 

My reply - I have been given the truth, and choose to believe it to be so. You have obviously read the Bible, “the Word of God”, and chosen to say it is lies. I have never set any rules. You either believe, or you do not. You want to say the Bible is false and expect people to believe you. So, in essence, you’re the pot calling the kettle black.

Mike says - And since I can only assume you deny the deities listed below, you labor under the same need of evidence I do—In other words, you are as much an atheist as I (when it comes to the deities of others, anyway).  I merely make one less exception than you do.  So I will play the game by your rules:  please disprove the existence of the following deities:

Moloch, Baal, Isis, Osiris, Astarte, Shiva, Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Hera, Poseidon, Hermes, Hephaestus, Odin, Thor, Quetzlcoatl, Horus, Krishna, and Mithra.

My reply - First off, by definition, an atheist believes there is NO deity. One cannot be an atheist and still believe in any god whatsoever. So, you are wrong, I am by no stretch of the imagination an atheist.
That said, you are also wrong in your other assumptions. I have never claimed to have proof the others do not exist. You will find the Bible chock full of references to other gods. At one point (it is repeated later as well) He even refers to men as “gods”, meaning they are mighty and powerful (the judges). (Ps 82:6) Some gods are deputed ones, like princes and other powerful men, and others are false gods, idols and such. Some people fall to worshipping men - think of Egypt’s pharaohs or China’s emperors. Others fall to worshipping idols (like statues or the sun) or even demons. However all of them are powerless in the face of God. There is only one almighty and omnipresent God. There are many gods created and/or worshipped by men. Therefore, you could say that all of those gods you listed do indeed exist. In fact, you can go out right now and make your own god if you feel like it. You could worship your shoe if it suits you.
However, none of these gods is the One in control. None of these gods has any power against the one true God.

Again, there is no need to prove it. God is not Someone to be intellectually argued into belief. You either hear His Word and believe Him, or you call Him a liar. God doesn’t need you to believe in Him. I don’t need you to either. It’s a free country, do as you please.
I just can’t sit by and allow you to spread lies about what the Bible says. You can read it, but as we are required not to lean unto our own understanding (Pr 3:5) and you are not blessed with the Holy Spirit (Ac 2:38)(Ac 5:32), it cannot be that you could know the truth about the Gospel. (1 Co 12:3) (1 Co 2:13) (John 14:26) (1 Co 1:21)

Nuff said for now…

Emily

Re: post 7492, “jesuslovesyou”

First of all, tell me how Jesus could be of the family of David AND be the supernatural offspring of the Almighty.  Can’t be both, can he? I mean, he’s either the son of a.(the mortal) or b.(the superduper invisible being in the sky).

Secondly, how would you reply to my earlier posts regarding Jesus’s sinlessness (Even though he says man is to keep the commandments, he himself seems to have violated most of them and taught others to do as well. According to Matt. 5:19 Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, says anyone teaching against or breaking the commandments is bad; yet, Jesus did not follow his own advice. (Ex. 20:3)—Thou shalt have no gods before me. Jesus put himself before god when he said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6). See also John 6:44 where “no man can come to Jesus except the Father draw him”). (Ex. 20:8)—Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Jesus and his disciples plucked and ate corn on the sabbath and Jesus said, “The sabbath was made for men and not men for the sabbath” (Mark 2:23-28). (Ex. 20:12)—Honor your father and mother. Jesus told others to honor their father and mother to gain eternal life (Mark 10:17-22) and yet to be a disciple of Jesus a person must violate this commandment according to Luke 14:26. (Ex. 20:14)—Thou shalt not commit adultery. In the OT anyone guilty of adultery was condemned to death and when a woman taken in adultery was brought to Jesus he let her go without condemning her even though she did not repent and ask forgiveness (John 8:3-11). (Ex. 20:15)—Thou shalt not steal. Jesus taught a parable about a man who found a treasure in someone else’s field and rather than tell the owner about it, he hid it and bought the field (Matt. 13:44). (Ex. 20:16)—Thou shalt not bear false witness (lie). In John 7:8-10 Jesus said he wasn’t going to the feast and then as soon as the others left, he went to the feast in secret. (Ex. 20:17)—Thou shalt not covet. Jesus taught a parable about a merchant who saw a pearl and coveted it so much that he sold all he had and bought it (Matt. 13:45-46)), the treatment of women in the Bible, and various absurdities I listed throughout your most heavenly guide?

As to your response regarding the genealogical contradiction:

One need only read the text to see that Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus from Jesus back to Adam and God while Matthew begins with Abraham and tracks it to Jesus. Luke lists 77 generations while Matthew has only 44. In order to see the problem in proper perspective one should create a chart listing the names in correct sequence in parallel columns. If horizontal lines are drawn to connect the same names, one can easily see that the lists are almost identical from Abraham to David. However, from David onward there is no similarity despite the fact that they both conclude with Joseph as the father of Jesus. The major reason for the contradictory names given after David is that the account in Luke traces the genealogy through David’s son, Nathan, while that in Matthew traces it through another son, Solomon. This would easily account for the wide divergence in names following David but raises a couple of crucial questions: (a) How could Joseph and Jesus be descended from two different sons of David. How could two sons of David father two completely different genealogies which merge together with the last two individuals and (b) How could Jesus have contradictory genealogies? Few apologists deny differences exist so that’s not in dispute. The real issue revolves around the common explanation given by most biblicists for two widely different genealogies of the same man. Their strategy hinges on a rather simple ploy. Jesus’ genealogy is allegedly traced through Joseph in Matthew and Mary in Luke. Unfortunately for them, the shortcomings in their rationalization are equally simple. First, Mary’s name is nowhere to be found in Luke’s genealogy. Everybody’s name is mentioned but hers. Imagine a genealogy in which every name is mentioned but that of the person whose lineage is being traced! Second, there is no genealogical record of any woman in the entire Bible. Are we to believe Mary is an exception? Third, Joseph’s name is mentioned in Luke’s genealogy so one can reasonably conclude that it’s his lineage, not Mary’s. Fourth, and last, according to OT prophecy, the Messiah would be a physical descendant of David. Mary appears to have been from the house of Levi, not David, since her cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron (Luke 1:5), i.e., from the house of Levi. If Mary was from the house of Aaron, how could either genealogy be hers since they relate David’s lineage? On the other hand, Luke 1:27 and 2:4 show Joseph was of Davidic descent. The attempt to attribute Luke’s genealogy to Mary is one of the more transparent subterfuges employed by dishonest apologists. Desperation set in because they just can’t think of any other rationalization.
Another reason for their devious ploy is that it solves a problem created by the Virgin Birth. According to prophecy the Messiah must be a physical descendant of David. If Jesus’ only connection to David is through Joseph, then Jesus couldn’t be physically connected to David because the birth was virginal; Joseph was not his biological father. So apologists must attribute one of the genealogies to Mary in order to extend a physical connection from Jesus to David. Hence, the rationalization. One can only wonder why they didn’t apply the genealogy in Matthew to Mary instead of the one in Luke since one is no more applicable to her than the other.

“Religion as a Source of Violence”

I think, in most cases, religion (though it is an imperfect human construct like any other) is more often used by those with political or economic power to motivate and provide the bodies to engage in violent conflicts. Stupid street gang kids use emotional snares like “your mama” or the threat or fear of losing some deluded sense of one’s territory to inspire gang attacks. Demagogues (like Bush and others) tap fear, religion, or some other emotional lightningrod to gain support and enthusiasm for their irrational wars.

Islam means peace, Christ inspired peaceful and loving relations, Buddha inspired peaceful contemplation about one’s existence and ones world; these elements of religion can hardly be said to inspire violence—that, sir, is a distortion of reality.

The “official” story of what happened on 9/11 is also a fairy tale, and Sam Harris certainly seems to believe firmly in that!

Wake up everyone.  Arguing about whether or not there is a God is a just a distraction.  Our time and efforts would be much better spent figuring out how to get these insane neo-cons out of office before we are all living under a fascist police state with it’s finger on the button ready to begin WW III.
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!

Belief in God is belief in the Blue Fairy.
Some people never stop with fairy tales.

Oh, Emily, Emily:

Please provide the ironclad evidence for the existence of your so-called “god” (that is, that deity largely accepted by the current ruling class in the current ruling culture).  You assume what you believe to be true, and expect the rest of us to play by your rules.  And since I can only assume you deny the deities listed below, you labor under the same need of evidence I do—In other words, you are as much an atheist as I (when it comes to the deities of others, anyway).  I merely make one less exception than you do.  So I will play the game by your rules:  please disprove the existence of the following deities:

Moloch, Baal, Isis, Osiris, Astarte, Shiva, Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Hera, Poseidon, Hermes, Hephaestus, Odin, Thor, Quetzlcoatl, Horus, Krishna, and Mithra.

I eagerly await your response.  (Keep in mind, I need empirical evidence here, not emotionally-driven, parentally-brainwashed, holy-leader-approved gibberish spouted by every weak-minded and intellectually-bankrupt moron that attends their church of choice every time their doors swing open.) The onus is upon you to prove these deities do not exist, not upon me to prove they do.  After all, this is your tactic revisited.

I’m not smart enough to know if there’s a God or god…

but Jon K. Walser says he doesn’t believe in flying elephants (and, can we assume flying spaghetti monsters?) because it violates natural law that is known to be true

but he also says

...God is “supernatural”. That is, the creator of the laws of nature and certainly not bound by them, or rather by our knowledge of them. 

Does that mean God might actually be a flying elephant, since God and the flying elephant both by Jon’s definition must be either supernatural or imaginary?  So why Jesus and not a flying elephant (although it looks the flying spaghetti monster has a head start on the flying elephant)?

Candide, Bush is not a Christian.  The “god” he prays to and worships is known to most of us as “Satan.”

Sam Harris is a philosophy graduate? He considers himself rational? To me his announcements and pronouncements are child like and narcissistic. Is this the best Stanford can offer. I guess it is the way today. In my opinion His book will sell well to those who want simple (self justifying) pablum. His writing works well to keep us in wishful thinking based on feelings only as the guide to enlightenment. But Rational? The Devil and his minions. (“Mr. rapist? I think other people believing in God makes you want to rape me. Maybe even you believe in God and that’s why you want to rape me. But I don’t believe in God so therefore you won’t have to rape me”. “Thanks little girl, It is Gods fault but now I have my reasoning back and I don’t want to rape you anymore, I’ll see myself out) Philosopher Sam Harris. Now there is an oxymoron. Try A J.P. Morgan book for philosophical comparison.

Mike and Emily, a specific response is not warranted to your comments.  The two of you are looking at the bible through rose colored glasses, and cherry picking select neat phrases out of the bible.  I have read the bible in its entirety, and found it full of half truths, misconceptions, contradictions, violence beyond belief and all of them perpetrated by your god. 

I have a simple solution, but of course you have an out:  Whistle up this god and tell him it is way past time for him/her to come down and straighten things out.  He/she has been an absentee parent for way too long and living life by the contradiction you call a bible has only resulted in millions of deaths, and money donated to churches that would have been better spent on schools and hospitals. 

Real life awaits, not some unseen, unheard from god living in a cloud city.  Wake up and smell the coffee.

You people call yourself logical.  Lets look at the facts.  You believe everything just happened by chance.  None of you who believe this have seen the complexity that exists in nature.  Why is it that the best engine that was designed by humanity is the Carnot engine and it has only around upper @ efficiency and the human body has upper 90% efficiency??  We had to design the Carnot engine (millions of dolars and much time) and you are saying that the human body just evolved without being designed??  Why don’t some of you try and design and build a chicken??  Surly if it is by chance it should be easily replicated eventually??  Lets get easier… try photosynthesis.  Lets see you convert solar energy to power with the efficiency that a leaf does…..  after you do this, call me and I will share in the millions of dollars you will make with this process.  I am an engineer and what I am saying is true.  I have studied this and I laugh at your ignorance and stubbornness saying there is no God.  I invite your rebutttal.

Response to Comment #7165 by Mike

Mistakes made by people (fallible humans at best) in interpreting scriptures do not equate falsehoods in the Bible. Most people make the mistake of allowing others to tell them what it means instead of studying it for themselves and allowing the Holy Spirit to be the interpreter. (1 Corinthians 1:10-13) They blindly follow the teachings of this preacher or that cardinal or some theologian they admire. Most people, therefore, have misinterpreted scripture to mean many things it does not. No one sect of Christianity (nor any other of the sundry religions on earth) have all of the Truth of scripture. All have falsehoods, sometimes abounding. This is because all of them have chosen to follow man and not God Himself. When you follow flawed men, you wind up with flawed religion. Not everything done in the name of “religion” or even “God” is done by true followers of God. I would probably not be far from correct in saying most things done in “His name” are actually done for far more selfish reasons by less than scrupulous people. (If someone went to your neighbor and said “This is from Mike” and then punched him in the face, would that action have been done by you, ordered by you or even accepted by you? No, but it would still have been done “in your name”.)

There is no point in arguing intellectually about the truth of God. Scripture says that He has hidden it from the wisdom of the world. He has saved His Truth for those who are willing to simply believe without the benefit of explanation or proof. (1 Corinthians 1:17-31)

However, I will be happy to address a few of your examples here (limited only due to time constraints)...

Mike’s False Prophecies, Broken Promises, and Misquotes in the Bible

Mike - (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.—Mark 9:1)

My reply - Popular opinion says that Christ is coming again in glorious battle mode to conquer the earth and all Christians shall reign with Him. However, that would be the teaching of man. The Kingdom of God is not a physical one at all, but a spiritual one. The Kingdom of God is the reign of Christ in each individual’s life. It requires a Christian living as God directs through God’s power. All that scripture promises is fulfilled to that person.
Just because God’s Kingdom doesn’t look like people think it should doesn’t make it untrue. Jesus didn’t look like the messiah to the Jews either. They were looking for a warrior, an interesting parallel to what most “believers” are looking for today.

Mike says - The prophecy [Micah 5:2](if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.

My reply - Ahh, but you are laboring under the same misconceptions that the Jews had about the Messiah. No where does it say anything about being a military leader. In fact, where it does mention Assyria, you will find it says that it will be defeated by a “sword not of man”.
(Isa 31:8) Consider this: If you look at the Assyrians of today, you will find they are almost exclusively Christians. Jesus indeed conquered them, just not with a violent sword of battle. Men do not get to decide what God will do. Just because some like to interpret scripture to say that He will be a warrior beating down our enemies does not mean He will do that.

Mike said - (Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre. Matt. 2:17-18) 

My reply - A prophet speaks God’s truth. This Truth is never something so trivial as recounting a bit of history. God doesn’t waste words. If God says something, it is important and useful. The quote in Jer 31:15 was not a picture of the past, but a reflection of the future. History tends to repeat itself.

Mike said - (“He shall be called a Nazarene.” Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Matt. 2:23)

My reply - Not every prophecy is to be found in the Bible. Prophecy occured almost constantly back then. To include it all would be to create a “book” so large as to be unreadable. Prophecy occurs even today, though not as a prediction of future events as some people believe it to be. Prophecy is simply God’s Truth given directly to man.

Mike says - (This verse claims that Jesus fulfills the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. Matt. 21:4)

My reply - Jesus came in to the city riding on a donkey. Again, don’t assume that the verses mean a warrior or an earthly king.

Mike said - (Mark claims that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy given in Malachi (3:1, 4:1, 5). But the Malachi prophecy says that God will send Elijah before “the great and dreadful day of the LORD” in which the world will be consumed by fire. Yet John the Baptist flatly denied that he was Elijah (Elias) in John 1:21 and the earth was not destroyed after John’s appearance. Mark 1:2)

My reply - Not everything the Bible says is to be taken literally. God is not so interested in the physical world as in the spiritual one. He is not a physical ruler, He is a spiritual one. His is not a physical kingdom, it is a spiritual one. Likewise, the fire spoken of is a spiritual one. Trials and tribulations in a person’s life is the fire. When we let them, with God’s help, our troubles refine and purify us. The dross is burned out of us.

Mike says - (“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me.” These words were spoken by Isaiah and referred to Isaiah. They were not a prophecy about a future prophet, as Jesus claims here, where he supposedly read these verses in the synagogue while applying them to himself. Luke 4:16-20)

My reply - One must always study the verses in context. The quote you claim is Isaiah referring to himself (Isa 61:1) is nothing BUT a prophecy. Note that in the verse just prior to Isa 61:1, Isa 60:22, Isaiah uses the phrase “I, the Lord”, and Isa 61:1 just continues the thought on. Are you also saying that Isaiah was claiming to be God as well? Prophets speak the Words of God directly to the people.

Mike said - (Jesus claims that Moses wrote about him. Where? It’s a shame he didn’t give us chapter and verse. John 5:46)

My reply - Moses wrote about God. Jesus and God are One.

Mike - (Jesus says that those who believe in him will, as the scripture says, have living waters flowing out of their bellies.  There is no such scripture in the Bible. John 7:38)

My reply - Read John 4:4-26… The “water” isn’t literal water.

Mike said - (Verse 33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead. Verse 36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: “Not a bone of him shall be broken.” But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Ex.12:46, Num. 9:12 and Ps.34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 and Num.9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse 19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person. John 19:33, 36)

My reply - Once more, not all prophecies are written in the Bible, and one cannot base the validity of the scriptures on how some man has interpreted it. If a man is wrong in his understanding of what he read, that doesn’t mean the words were wrong.

Mike says - (In one of the few times that Paul quotes Jesus, he attributes to him words that are not found in the gospels. Acts 20:35)

My reply - Since the Bible was physically written by men, everything Jesus said was being quoted by someone. And if it was only quoted once, then you won’t find it anywhere else in the Bible. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t said by Him. It just means they weren’t following Jesus around with a tape recorder.

Mike said - (Paul says that everyone, even in his day, had the gospel preached to them. Even the Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders? In any case, if Paul is right about that, then Jesus is a false prophet, since he said he would return before the gospel was preached to everyone. (Matt.10:23) Rom. 10:18)

My reply - Mistakes in interpretation by men. He did indeed return. He returned once to Mary Magdelene, once to his Disciples, and once more to each person individually. He has returned to everyone, time after time, to judge us and to mete out our reward or punishment. You don’t see it coming, it just happens. If you are found to be following Him, leaning on Him and obeying Him, He will open the Kingdom to you where blessings abound. (This is in the present world, mind you, here and now, not in an afterlife) If you are found to be going your own way, then he will allow you to wander in the wilderness some more. (You already know what that looks like.)

Sorry this was so long…

Emily

To believe, or have “faith” in an unsupported asserted conjecture that rates with the likes of a talking Porky The Pig, Donald Duck, or a Mickey Mouse is not only “irrational” it is absolutely INSANE!

It makes sense that Bush believes in God.  He is stupid, arrogant, ignorant, deluded, and mendacious.  Only a fool or a knave could claim belief.

Until this day, no religious person can provide me with a reasonable answer to this simple question:
So who made god?

The typical answers I often get, often interrupted with a lot of uhhs, are something along this line:
“He just was always there.”

In order to learn something, you’ve got to start with the basics, so why the hell can nobody provide me with a sensible answer to a question that is the crux from which a threaded hierachy of religious matters hangs?

Okay, so assuming someone comes up with a convincing answer to my question, then my next question:
If god exists, and is so great (and all other kinds of flattering stuff), what makes you so sure that this entity is the good entity you think it is, and not an evil entity convincing you that it is the good entity (i.e. a god-like con-artist)? That should be quiet easy to achieve for such a supreme being.

so many erroneous presumptions and assumptions, so little time. 

I’ll try to respond to one or two of the “issues” and/or “contradictions” noted herein each day, but truth be told, there is so much to respond to that i may never get done responding.

I’ll start with a simple assumed “contradiction”:  the geneaologies of Messiah Jesus. 

The different geneaologies noted in Matthew and Luke are done precisely because they are different, and both fulfill different prophecies about His coming.  The geneaology in Matthew shows Messiah’s ancestry through his “father” Joseph, through Solomon, to His father David, and back to Abraham.  It was this lineage that gave Messiah the Spiritual right to David’s throne, since God promised that one of Solomon’s descendants would reign on the throne of his father David…forever.

However, there was a problem with Solomon’s ancestral line that also made it impossible for a physical descendant of his to ever fulfill this prophecy.  One on his physical descendants, Jeconiah, had a curse pronounced on him by God that none of his physical descendants would ever sit on the throne of David.  Since Messiah was indeed in the lineage of Jeconiah, it would have been impossible for Him to be King over David’s throne unless He was not of the physical seed of jeconiah.  Welcome to the virgin birth! Is God awesome, or what? This accomplished the fulfillment of the promise prophesied to Solomon, and does not violate the curse God pronounced on Jeconiah.

The lineage noted in Luke is that of Jesus’ physical ancestry, and denotes His mother’s lineage, also back to King David, and all the way back to the beginning of mankind.  This lineage too fulfills a number of prophecies of God, and gives Messiah the physical authority to sit on David’s throne forever, being his physical descendant, thus fulfilling the promised prophecy to King David that one of His physical descendants would sit on his throne forever.

Now, I’m sure that if one were to recount any person’s lineage through both parents on this site, the chances are very remote that the names of their lineage through their mother and their father would be the same (if they were, there might be a real problem).  Messiah’s lineage was no different in that respect; hence the different names noted in the two lineages.

Hopes this clarifies that “supposed contradiction”

BTW, folks, Jesus loves you.  He is who the Bible claims He is, and did what the Bible claims He did. He is the light in a world of darkness, hope for those that hurt, comfort for those that mourn.  It is my sincere, heartfelt prayer that one or more on this site will personally come to know the reality of this truth.

until tomorrow…

Interesting but insufficient.  The basic questions one should ask believers include:

* How does one count gods? Why assume only one?
* How does one know they’ve got the right god(s)?
* How does one know their god(s) give(s) a shit?

Meanwhile, those who assail communism as an atheist religion nearly have it right—political beliefs are equivalent to religious beliefs.  Human belief systems (religious, political, economic, athletic, artistic, etc) are equally built on irrational basics, and their enthusiastic followers will merrily assault and slaughter each other, egged on by manipulative leaders.

We need to expand the scope of this discussion beyond the merely religious.  ALL irrationality is dangerous.  It’s vastly entertaining, however.

It seems to me that the problem with atheists is their reactionary position, one where in essence they accupy the flip side of the Mr.“GOD” coin.

One where they adamantly reject that childish notion of a very large bearded supra-humanoid micro managing human affairs.

Atheism as a position, unfortunately seems as reductionistic and silly as the fundamentalist notions of a vengeful god who always requires adulation and lots money.

Can we graduate to a position that can at least consider that there appears to be an underlying coherence in the midst of chaos? it’s called information. The question then is what is information? without it, no possibility for organic matter would exist…..many scientific areas point to this, eg., the “implicate order” of David Bohm suggests it, Information theory itself a young science raises questions not easily answered by a simplistic, random universe concept.

“Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not . . . “

Where did you get the idea that this action was wrong?  Did you come up with it by yourself?

To me, belief in a kind and loving God is perfectly rational and logical, and to not believe in God is the opposite. (On a side note: I am also one who deals with logic on a daily basis, being a logic circuit design engineer).
Regarding the supposed lack of God’s positive intervention in human affairs, God’s positive intervention most indeed does occur, as evidenced by the many millions throughout the world, in the past and present, who can testify to divine intervention at points in their lives, as can I. It comes as a result of our seeking after him, usually in prayer. Bad things often happen to good people as well as bad people - that was meant to be and was part of the plan of our earthly existence. We must experience the bad to appreciate the good, and people must be free to choose the path they will follow, what their heart really desires. When we see that this earth life is just a short but important part of our eternal existence, then everything fits and makes sense from this standpoint, that all wrongs will be righted, all good rewarded and all bad punished, in the broad spectrum of eternal life. To me this is logical and right, and it helps one deal with the injustices and tragedies common to our earthly existence, and makes sense in every way to me, and is a positive, uplifting philosophy. A God who forced his will on everyone, forcing them to do the right thing, and not giving us the freedom to choose one or the other path, would be an unkind and unloving God, and that would make us essentially robots, not able to learn or grow from our mistakes and not able to progress.
To blame religion on all or most of the world’s problems is very short sighted, foolish and just plain wrong. It is the mis-use of religion and the lack of religion which the author of this article is referring to, which cause the ill. It is very common for people to use religion as a “tool” for gaining power and authority over people, and pervert the true purpose and meaning of that religion. To blame the religion itself and not the persons who commit the abomination is short sighted, pessmistic, and just plain stupid. It is like blaming “metal” for all the deaths in WW2 rather than the people who fashioned the tools and weapons used to kill and maim others.
It is my belief that many atheists hate religion because they simply don’t want to believe in a God, because of the responsibility that would entail: adherence to a full set of ethics and morals, some of which would put a damper on their pet philosphies, lifestyles, or habits. Or it may be simply that they have been misguided into thinking that all religious people are hypocrites. Certainly none of us are perfect, but many of us who are religious really are trying to do the right things, to learn from our mistakes, and really are open to new ideas and new paradigms, and also try to be compassionate and understanding of others, all attributes which one would hope that all people would aspire to. We also recognize that there is alot that we don’t understand, and are willing to take what we do understand at face value, and not throw it all away just because not all of our questions are answered. I would ask the most fervent athiest to ask themselves this question: If you did know for certain there was a kind and loving God who created you and made your life possible, and that he loved you and wanted what was best for you, would you then be willing to commit yourself to living the way such a God would want you to? If so, then why not seek him out to find out if he really does exist? I can testify that he will answer you in the affimative if your desire is right, if you are willing to committ to doing his will in return for getting an answer.
It has also been my experience that not all prayers are answered to our liking. For example, a prayer to save the life of a loved one might not result in the loved one surviving. One has to be willing to accept that God had another “mission” or purpose for that person in the next stage of our existence and that their time with use must be shortened. In an eternal perspective, it all makes perfect sense, and to me is very very logical and empowering, uplifting, and positive.
  -Phil Andrews

Why do many, if not most, theists (and fundamentalists in particular) seem so unsatisfied by the extent of their own belief?  And why do they persist on picking on the rest of us?

If it’s true, as both theists and pollsters are fond of reminding us, that non-believers are a small and dwindling minority, why do we bug them so?

Hey.  If “those of faith” want to believe in a great blue shoe that one day will fall from the sky and unlace itself to spill blood and grace into the streets of Denver that’s fine by me.

All I ask of the theists is that they allow us (the unfaithful) the elbow room to believe or not as we choose.

I don’t claim to have answers to many of life’s most vexing questions.  And I especially don’t know precisely from whence we came (has the universe always been ... will it always be) or what happens when we die. 

But here’s the deal.

I am okay with NOT knowing.  I am okay with wondering and thinking and imagining and theorizing.  I don’t need closed loop stories.  In fact, I am more than okay about it.  I rather like it.

So I say bring it on ... death and the end of the universe that is.

What if all the suffering and evil we see around us every day is not God’s fault? What if He created a perfect world without suffering and pain with one rule (and consequences for disobedience) for the crown of His creation?  What if the crown of His creation (the first couple) willfully disobeyed God’s one rule?  What if that act of disobedience resulted in all the ‘bad’ in the world? 

Is the creator of the universe obligated to fix what willful disobedience of humans, or would He be just if He let mankind suffer the stated consequences of disobedience forever?  What if He loved His creation so much that he sent His own Son to die so that mankind had a chance?  What if He also planned to one day usher in a new perfect world like the one He initially created?

What is so sad is that atheism is, in fact, a religion by definition with human reasoning as the god (belief system) of that religion.  The self proclaimed atheist merely worships the created being instead of the creator.

What a wacky piece of irrational fluff.

First of all, Sam Harris spent most of his four pages merely attacking the concept of “god” without distinguishing between different concepts of god. One concept of god builds hospitals and schools, while another straps bombs on as suicide/murderers, yet Sam lumps them both in the same pot.

Secondly, all people have faith in something that cannot be proven rationally. Sam Harris’ faith is that rationality exists, and that it is better than irrationality. This faith is no less a religion than a theistic religion.

Third, he confuses the verbal claim to a religious belief as the same as actually believing it. It is not. The unbelieving con man knows that the best way to separate a believer from his assets is to pose as a fellow believer through outward words and signs of piety. If the con man can insinuate himself into a position of authority within a believing organization, all the better. When believers don’t practice their professed beliefs, it is the same as not believing it.

Fourth, he makes the claim that atheism is the cure for religious wars. But it is professing atheistic governments declaring war on their own citizens that have been the most murderous in the history of the world: Mao, Stalin (the pagan Hitler a distant third) have murdered more people than all the religious wars put together, many times over.

Fifth, another example of Sam Harris’ irrationality, he mentioned “the fact of evolution”. It’s not even a scientific theory, unless one redefines “science” away from a search for the truth about the physical universe through a study of observable phenomena, to a defense of atheistic naturalism (which is itself a religion) where theory is more important than fact. Galileo was convicted by this type of “science”.

Sixth, he labels as religious conflicts those where religion plays a tangental relationship at best. For example, the conflict in Northern Ireland was between “protestants” which represented one socio-economic group, against another labelled “catholic”, where even the atheists of each group are called “protestant” or “catholic”. As such, it’s absurd to call that primarily a religious conflict. The same is true of many other similar conflicts in the past.

Seventh, and most importantly, he fails to show how atheism can lead to an utopia of peaceful living. If it failed in the cases of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and others of their ilk, why should it work with Sam Harris?

Once again I am led to the conclusion that Atheism is not a logically supportable belief system. Let us examine just a few of the tired, replayed logical fallacies that this “Manifesto” contains to insult our intelligence.

Atheism is by definition a logical fallacy.  Atheism is a belief in the NON-existence of God, or even a god. There are only two (logical) reasons to believe in the non-existence of anything:
1. The existence of that thing (flying elephants perhaps?) violates natural law that is known to be true. For example, I believe that there is no flying elephant (Disney’s Dumbo) anywhere in the world, and never will be, because the support structure of the ears, laws of aerodynamics and the weight distribution all mandate against it.
2. I can see everywhere, at once, where the thing (a car in my living room) could possibly exist and it is not there.

In the case of Deity: (1) cannot apply because God is “supernatural”. That is, the creator of the laws of nature and certainly not bound by them, or rather by our knowledge of them. Neither does (2) apply because the entire Universe is the area we would have to look, and we haven’t the capability.

The Actual arguments foisted by “logical” atheists degrade down to
1. “God doesn’t behave the way that I expect him to behave, therefore He doesn’t exist!” This is usually phrased as some sort of description of personal or public tragedy that God “allowed”, to happen. All this shows is a profound misunderstanding of the scriptures and the nature of our sojourn in mortality. It also shows a level of hubris almost beyond comprehension. 
2. “I know someone that professes to believe in God, and he is a bad person, a hypocrite.” Gee, I know of authors that are idiots, child pornographers and liars. This must mean that… Who cares what it means, Christ railed against hypocrites in His day. So He agrees with you. Jesus said, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Perhaps we should be less willing to listen to the lies of politicians’ words and observe their belief system by their actions.
3. “I’ve never seen Him, therefore He can’t exist.” I’ve never seen an electron, or electricity, or the wind either, but I’ve seen their effects. In the case of God, there are eyewitnesses of His existence. There are also scriptural procedures to confirm His existence, on a personal level.

There is plenty of evidence of God’s existence and continued work among men. All that is required is a more open and honest inquiry after truth than I have seen here.

Jesus is the Christ. He lives today. I have proven that fact to myself, and know it to be true.

I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find it to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. If I were a sovereign, I would not wish to have to deal with atheist courtiers, whose interest it would be to poison me: I should have to be taking antidotes every day. It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people’s minds.

Bayle says, in his “Thoughts on the Comets,” that there are atheist peoples. The Caffres, the Hottentots, the Topinambous, and many other small nations, have no God: they neither deny nor affirm; they have never heard speak of Him; tell them that there is a God: they will believe it easily; tell them that everything happens through the nature of things; they will believe you equally. To claim that they are atheists is to make the same imputation as if one said they are anti-Cartesian; they are neither for nor against Descartes. They are real children; a child is neither atheist nor deist, he is nothing.

What conclusion shall we draw from all this? That atheism is a very pernicious monster in those who govern; that it is also pernicious in the persons around statesmen, although their lives may be innocent, because from their cabinets it may pierce right to the statesmen themselves; that if it is not so deadly as fanaticism, it is nearly always fatal to virtue. Let us add especially that there are less atheists to-day than ever, since philosophers have recognized that there is no being vegetating without germ, no germ without a plan, etc. and that wheat comes in no wise from putrefaction.

Some geometers who are not philosophers have rejected final causes, but real philosophers admit them; a catechist proclaims God to the children, and Newton demonstrates Him to the learned.

If there are atheists, whom must one blame, if not the mercenary tyrants of souls, who, making us revolt against their knaveries, force a few weak minds to deny the God whom these monsters dishonour. How many times have the people’s leeches brought oppressed citizens to the point of revolting against their king!

Men fattened on our substance cry to us: “Be persuaded that a she-ass has spoken; believe that a fish has swallowed a man and has given him up at the end of three days safe and sound on the shore; have no doubt that the God of the universe ordered one Jewish prophet to eat excrement (Ezekiel), and another prophet to buy two whores and to make with them sons of whoredom (Hosea). These are the very words that the God of truth and purity has been made to utter; believe a hundred things either visibly abominable or mathematically impossible; unless you do, the God of pity will burn you, not only during millions of thousands of millions of centuries in the fire of hell, but through all eternity, whether you have a body, whether you have not.”

These inconceivable absurdities revolt weak and rash minds, as well as wise and resolute minds. They say: “Our masters paint God to us as the most insensate and the most barbarous of all beings; therefore there is no God; but they should say: therefore our masters attribute to God their absurdities and their furies, therefore God is the contrary of what they proclaim, therefore God is as wise and as good as they make him out mad and wicked. It is thus that wise men account for things. But if a bigot hears them, he denounces them to a magistrate who is a watchdog of the priests; and this watchdog has them burned over a slow fire, in the belief that he is avenging and imitating the divine majesty he outrages.

Problem of atheists is not that they do not believe in God, problem of atheists is that they believe everything else but God.

A basic premise of this work is that irrationality breeds evil and rationality, good.  Most of this manifesto is just exhaustive treatment of the problem of evil.  Thus, it seems that a declaration of the principles that atheism is founded upon ought to treat how atheism itself resolves the irrationality that follows from faith.  One would expect more than pragmatic rejection of theism.  If anything, this essay seems to be as guilty of wishful thinking as it accuses religious faith of being.

Therefore, concerning the RATIONAL issue of theism vs. atheism, how does atheism, after admitting the law of causality, address that same law’s application to the very universe? Applying the law to evolution, how does atheism contend that life has a dignity above and beyond lifeless existence without raping causality of its essence (i.e., the effect cannot exceed its cause).  Further concerning evolution, could the most fundamental property of life—the will to procreation, most aptly characterized as purpose, arise from a purposeless existence?  Would life’s means of reproduction have to be a preposterously random event within a preposterously random event?

Another criticism I’d wager against this work is that it claims atheism to be rational, but it seems to me that atheism demands the negation of the sciences, which doesn’t seem terribly rational.  Science induces general laws from particularities.  We obviously live in a rational universe.  Thus, reality must be shaped and structured by principles and laws that can be abstracted from the concrete.  These laws transcend existence, so to speak.  It is much more difficult to conceive of an abstract principle as existing per se, ungrounded any actual existence, than it is for the imagine the universe as existing per se.  It seems reasonable to me that these transcendent laws must follow from the nature of something also transcendent of this immediate existence.  No god means no laws, no order, no blueprint, which science could access.  Conversely, the success of science certainly suggests principles and laws, and thus suggests a transcendent existence.

This manifesto ultimately strikes me as empty claims, concealed by the guise of reason.

Sam, you put into words the feelings I could not get out. Great article!

...and to those who continue to Bible thump, where did your God come from? The universal question that not one Christian can answer. Just have faith!

The writing by Sam Harris and most of the posted comments was quite interesting.

I find it curious and condescending how some people hold themselves out to be such intellectuals by denying the obvious and calling those with whom they disagree “out of touch with realty”.

Sam Harris stated evolution is a biological fact.  Where is the scientific evidence of spontaneous life (without scientific intervention)?  Where is the scientific evidence of an explosion creating order (big bang theory)?  If there was a big bang, what is the mathimatical probability that the earth could form and be habitable and that it would be at just the correct distance and angle from the sun to sustain life?  And then this matter that somehow comes into existence, somehow evolves to contain the data to create (oh strike that) to by magic develope into a living being.  But since life cannot exist without everything being in balance, how did everything come together at just the correct combination if it all evolved over billions of years?  Then, of course, there is the lack of a fossil record.  Unless you still want to claim the discredited Nebraska Man created (oops) from a pig’s tooth, or the Piltdown man created from a human skull and the jawbone and teeth of an orangutan.  And since you believe in evolution, how can you be sure of what you think or believe since you do not know at what stage of evolution you are and therefore, cannot trust what you think or believe to be correct?

No, the evidence for God and his creation, as contained in the Bible, is all around us (...plants bearing seed accordingto their kind and trees bearing fruit…according to their kind); it is just that Sam Harris and those who hold to the same thinking, are too narcissistic to notice.

This manifesto is based on bad analysis and sloppy thinking.

Atheists have no special claim over religious when it comes to anything.  Last century atheists killed, maimed, and imprisoned more people than all of the religious wars in history put together. 

The problems that are laid at the doorstep of religion are MUCH more fundamental than such a simplistic analysis as the ones defined in this site can accommodate. 

As near as I can define it the problem comes down to groups: religious, tribal, ideological, political, racial, social, class, or whatever—take your pick.  Differences of ANY type between people or groups can lead to violence.  It can be spontaneous or drummed up by others and used for their own ends.

I know religion (or the lack-thereof) is your particular hobbyhorse.  God knows it lends itself to criticism.  But as far as I am concerned, atheists are just another (frequently) bloody-minded group.

Theophobia is an ugly bigotry.

The great atheistic religion of communism has murdered upwards of 100 million people in the 20th century alone.  That is more that all the other religions combined in the past two-thousand years.  Sam Harris’ rant is a load of self-serving, hypocritical crap.

May Jesus have mercy on your souls. You people are in for a rude awakening. As Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. I for one am glad that I have recognized the truth.

As a pessimist who is also an atheist I think we have to bear in mind that the force of religious belief derives from the imagination and the will to believe as well as the need for reassurance and comfort.  These sources of belief are much more powerful than reason, evidence, argument, and truth.  And although I commend Sam Harris for his strong stand against religious delusion I fear that such high mindedness is in vain against the tide of human frailty.  Nevertheless we must carry on and fight the good fight; it is our duty to the truth.

Sam Harris verbalizes in his Atheist Manifesto what every atheist,agnostic and independent thinking Christian (oxymoron?) feels in his heart of hearts.  However, as a Deist who does not subscribe to a Bible God but does believe in a Creator of the Universe (who has pretty much left us to our own devices) I find atheists somewhat arrogant in that they reject the existence of any higher being or force, if you like.  Could it be that our human intelligence is too limited to even imagine such a force? Is there another dimension we cannot even begin to grasp because of its enormity and complexity?  I find it hard to believe that our universe was created just by accident and coincidence.

Have you ever wondered what Christian fellowship really is?  Christians need other Christians around them to feel secure.  They know deep down that their beliefs are rather ridiculous, but they are comforted by others who seem to share their beliefs.  Christians cannot exist without others to reassure them that their crazy beliefs are shared by others.

All the more reason for unbelievers to shout their unbelief aloud.  People are being misled who need to know that there are people who understand that Christianity is bunk.

G0ood for Thomas Bregman for stating that unbelievers are too inhibited.  I think those of us who know that religion is baloney ought to be more outgoing in our views.  Millions of people too timid to say so would love for us to give them a reason to stick their nose out at believers.

I am an atheist. My wife is Catholic. My two daughters seem to be agnostic. I haven’t asked them and I won’t. I really have to laugh when I hear the need for religion for being moral. Last Wed. was our 48th wedding anniversary. Both my daughters are very nice respectful moral people. I submit this as a prelude to my comment, maybe to parry any assault that may follow that I am a nut like some people that thought Terri Schiavo would someday, with “God’s” help, would walk again. Beth Quinn has an article in the Record Tribune-Herald regarding religion and the situation that is present in our country. (paraphrasing) “A fundamentalist Christian nut and a fundamentalist Islamic nut equals a Holy War.” And my observation: Is there any other kind of war?

In my experience atheists have always been too damn nice.  What we need to do is lean forward into the blizzard of bullshit and call out the charlatans in their thick headed pre-enlightenment ways.  By the measure of expanding and scientifically supportable explanations for the hows and whys of the world and the universe - the fictions of the old testament, the gospels, the koran and other religious texts make them no more than quaint historical artifacts of human development.  Created in a magical past, they have little power to coherently explain, and should be given credence only as an early link in the soft fossil record of our social, cultural and intellectual progress.  Bravo to Sam Harris for stating so clearly and directly the basic kookiness of literal religious beliefs in light of provable alternatives.

American atheists and agnostics need to stop being so cautious and fearful.  There is absolutely no evidence of a god, there is ample evidence that the Bible, Old and New Testaments both, is bullshit.  Don’t get discouraged, don’t forget you are right.  Show your cojones!

Be abrasive, intolerant, in-your-face when confronting Christians.  Don’t give them an inch.

Amen, brother!

We’ll all be better off when the last priest is strangled in the entrails of the last mullah and the Pope is strangled in the entrails of the last rabbi.

Whattapileacrap

Are you really that impressed by Sam Harris’s demolition of fhe Great Straw God of the Scriptures ?  Really ?

Any competent Sophomore can do that. I did it myself, as a Sophomore. In Portsmouth High School. With little more to go on but what I had learned at 2nd Presbyterian, a lot of reading, and keeping my crap detector focussed.

The fault, Dear Brutus, is not in our Gods, but in ourselves, that we accept so cramped and mean and frankly silly definitions of Deity.

There might have been some excuse when we, the hoi polloi, were illiterate peasants and craftsmen, in thrall to our learned priests, but today ?

If you can’t get beyond biblical scripture in defining God, then God help you. If you really haven’t figured out that this is a random collection of the guesses of our fathers, then I guess you will just have to settle for what you will settle for, and for you, the sun goes around the earth as any fool can plainly see. In a way, I envy you. If I could only quell my doubts, and live as God intended I should ...

But even if you kick this, you may still have to dredge and drudge through the sophistricated philosophers determined to make it all mean something, torturing some meaning out of the canon, desperate to refine or to salvage something golden out of all the dross. It just HAS to be / we NEED it/ we cannot live WITHOUT it…

But, at some point, maybe you discover the Unitarians, or the Quakers, or some other authentic way, or just even figure it all out on your own mountaintop. Maybe it just occurs to you that god is a metaphor, that’s a simile without like or as, since there is nothing like or as, but a metaphor for WHAT ?

And then, you’re on your way.

thank you. thank you for this. after reading your article, i got inspired, and in many ways gained a bigger knowledge than i have. youve helped me put my thoughts into words, ill spread the word around cause there are so many arrogant idiots out there who need to know this. thanky ou once again, -sam

Listen everybody.  God is obviously Italian. 

Allow me to explain.

In the beginning God created tomatoes, basil and garlic.  And god said, “mmm, this is good!”  The next day he created pasta.

Why God isn’t Norwegian:  lutefisk!  On the other hand, based on their meatballs, he could be Swedish.

Dr Johnson wrote;

“Believing that people and everything in this world all came from some primordial “soup” takes a lot more faith than believing we are not alone and we do have a Creator. What in the world is there to be happy about, if this world and all the suffering and troubles is all there is?”

Well, once you gotten over the hummock that you are the only thing that answers to yourself, the people around you and the rest of the world, you can start working to make it a better place for everyone without hiding behind a deity, and it gives you a certain amount of perspective about those people that conspire to make it a fairly miserable place while mouthing orisons to something that they have no real alignment with.  Taking responsibility.  Making a stand.  Reclaiming Sundays.

BTW, the timescales to go from ‘primordial soup’ to digital watches, hummus and The Eagles is a considerable one; geological, even.  This is based on theory, observation and not the odd fistfight, whereas the religious side of things _requires_ acceptance of a mutually contradictory book that vascillates between _opinions_ of people and has been heavily manipulated throughout it’s history.

And understanding the vast body of work in the origins of man doesn’t require faith, it requires understanding.  Compare the two.

Sam Harris, you’re a courageous and brilliant defenderer of Truth.  Thank you for seeking to point out the absurdity of faith in ancient superstition to the millions who haven’t bothered to question their beliefs.  Long live reason!  One day, you’ll be remembered as a hero.

Bible Study, Part Three

Biblical Contradictions Regarding Jesus, etc.

(Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.)

(Who was at the Empty Tomb?
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.)

(Is Jesus equal to or lesser than God?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.)

(Human vs. divine impregnation
ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.)

(Jesus’ last words
Matt.27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”
Luke 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”
John 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”)

(The GENEALOGY OF JESUS
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus(PBUH). The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.)

(Judas died how?
“And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself.” (Matt. 27:5)
“And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out.” (Acts 1:18)

(What was Jesus’ prediction regarding Peter’s denial?
Before the cock crows - Matthew 26:34
Before the cock crows twice - Mark 14:30)

(How many times did the cock crow?
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.
JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.)

(How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount?
MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and per- secute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.)

(Whom did they see at the tomb?
MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.)

(When is the second {third actually, if you think about it} coming?
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
1 thessalonians 4:15-18)

(What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
scarlet - Matthew 27:28
purple - John 19:2)

(What did they give him to drink?
vinegar - Matthew 27:34
wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23)

(How long was Jesus in the tomb?
Depends upon where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”, and Mark 10:34 has “after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again”. As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have “after three days”, but the post-resurrection narratives have “on the third day”.)

Next:  Part Four (even more contradictions)

Re: Susan’s 7121 post.

You wrote:

(What is this obsession with “Prove to me there is a God!” I have no interest in proving to anyone that God exists for me. Most Christians (and I assume Jews and Muslims) think of God as a supernatural being. Apparently a lot of atheists do too, which is why they reasonably and logically reject the notion of God. But when you say you believe in God, some atheists apparently want you to produce Polaroids. This would only be possible if God were a supernatural being, which I certainly do not believe. God is inexplicable and cannot be reduced to human symbolism (words), and if I accept that you have not experienced God and have no interest in experiencing God, I sort of think it would be reasonable to allow me to experience God and not have to produce those Polaroids.)

That you have no interest in proving God exists for yourself is all you really need to say.  If faith is all you need, then I actually have more respect for your beliefs than for those who attempt to prop them up with pseudo-scientific nonsense and claims to Biblical inerrancy.

The problem—for me, anyway—begins when those who (at least claime to) believe seek to legislate their beliefs onto those of us who don’t, when they make claims of moral superiority, and when they are completely dishonest regarding their own doctrines.  It is those people—those with a rigid, unbending dogma—I require proof from, not those who say, “I believe because of faith, and that’s good enough for me.”

After all, that’s supposed to be the way to heaven anyway, right?

To Mike # 2, re: post 7172.

You’re welcome.

Re:  Post # 7208 by DJ

You wrote:

(Believing that people and everything in this world all came from some primordial “soup” takes a lot more faith than believing we are not alone and we do have a Creator. What in the world is there to be happy about, if this world and all the suffering and troubles is all there is?)

First question:  Have you taken any science courses? (outside of public education)

Second question:  Are you familiar with evidenciary procedure?

Third question:  Are you referring to Campbell’s or Top Ramen?

I believe you answered your first sentence with your closing question, if you see what I mean.  Obviously the notion of an all-caring, all-knowing deity comforts you, whereas the idea that we are all “from a primordial soup” (that is, a cosmic accident, that there is no Grand Plan and no Great Destiny in a Great Beyond waiting for us) makes you feel lonely and uncomfortable.  If not, you probably wouldn’t have posed your question and statement in such a way.

As for happiness, we have to make that for ourselves.  If you’re waiting for it in the next life, you might be investing heavily in a happy ending that may not come true.  Doesn’t it make much more sense, if in fact there is no afterlife, that we would make the most of this one? It seems to me that too often those who truly expect to have a second go-round may not make the most of the first.

As to the scientific notions you refer to (I assume), I can only tell you that faith plays no part in the honest scientist’s lexicon.  He digs for evidence, he experiments, he interprets, and he posits hypotheses and theories regarding what he’s learned and observed.  There is no hard evidence (that is, evidence not relying on revelation, emotion, or quaint holy works) for the existence of a Creator, so it must remain outside of the scientist’s sphere of expertise.  How could it be otherwise?

Thomas:

Talking (so to speak) with you has reminded me of something I hadn’t really throught through, at least not much until now.  So I’ll ask your opinion on something.  (And maybe some forgiveness and understanding, as well).

I’m originally from the Dallas area.  My exposure to Catholics was almost nil until I was in junior high.  I also lived in northern Missouri some, as my dad’s job sometimes took us to different states.  In St. Louis, I encountered quite a number of Catholics.  Later, when I was in the Marine Corps, I met and befriended even more Catholics.  After I mustered out, I got into the restaurant/bar business, and lived mostly in Florida for a number of years.  Most of the Floridians I knew were actually from somewhere else (usually New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc).

My father was an evangelist (yes, Protestant) until I was about eight, then he got his own church.  Know this about him:  he is a bully, he smacked my mother around, he was pretty rough on my brother and I, and he is a hypocrite of colossal proportions.  His parents and siblings aren’t much better.  And they are all racist, super-conservative, gay-bashing misogynists.

Well, now you know.

As it stands now, about half of my best friends are in fact Catholic (and yes, the remainder generally unbelievers—I have little or no time for Protestant fundamentalists) And I realized eventually that something was missing from these people (the Catholics, that is) that was overt in the Protestants I’d known: mindless bigotry.  None of my Catholic friends (or, for that matter, prior acquaintences) ever used/uses ethnic slurs, treated women as objects, or gave me such a ration of hell over being a nonbeliever.

My question is…why? Understand, though I don’t believe as you or they do, I’m curious as to why I never hear the mouth-breathing, mindless bigotry so common with Baptist, Assembly of God, and Pentecostal practitioners.  I know you’ll point out, yet again, about the fundamentalist aspect, but I’m more interested in knowing how the more progressive thinking (with Catholics) evolved.  This isn’t a religious question, but a sociological (?) one.

Mike.

(p.s.: sorry I get so worked up; it’s not you, trust me. My history with Christians (at least the Protestants) has not been a good one.  I’m guilty sometimes of lumping people together, I admit it.)

“I do thank you for this website and the discussions within.  To be confronted with ideas and opinions that are contrary to my beliefs is like a knife being sharpened against a sharpening stone.”

I couldn’t ask for a better example of what the religious want—no matter what, just to keep talking about religion.  Note as well the insistence of actually refusing to think in the guise of belief.

Also note the threat, beautifully demonstrating the violent impulse of the religious.

And to respond to someone who says we can’t prove God doesn’t exist: you’re right.  I can’t prove whether or not a supernatural being exists.  All of it is perfectly irrelevant to the life we live.

The true moral life is to do good for the sake of goodness; to love for love’s sake; to care because we care; to live because life is worth living.

I appreciate the idea of an atheist manifesto. More people—especially in the U.S.—have to know that reason is valued.

But what disheartens me—and that’s putting it mildly—is that this is exactly where the irrational people want us.  Only religious debate excites them.  Witness their frenzied posting to any non-religious thread. They think they’re thinking, but of course they arrive at the same place they started: a confirmation of what they need to believe. 

So while we debate these superstitions, we are booged down.  We end up almost inevitably talking about Jesus—whether he existed or not; what he would do . . .  It is frustrating, because most people who aren’t superstitious want to engage in more interesting things in life, and to get on with life.  So much time and energy is wasted on negotiating the Big Fiction.  And those of us who care about this earth—here and now—waste time.  Witness me now, in the heartland, rushing off to my son’s public school to make sure the phrase “Trusting in God” is taken out of the spring singing program.  I have better things to do.

And I think Harris misses the boat about what motivates belief.  I think any rise we see is the mark of a collective desperation about the fate of our planet.  That catastrophe is unfolding and it is overwhelming.  It seems like the end, which is too much to bear.  A fervent fantasy of their continuation is the result.

All the intellectual tripe! Nature gods, sky gods, animal gods, spooks, spirits, saints! Gods who descended upon earth in human form never wrote a word! Free will and religion???? Every church and shrine that is converted into a dance hall or supper club brings us all one step closer to enlightment.

Believing that people and everything in this world all came from some primordial “soup” takes a lot more faith than believing we are not alone and we do have a Creator. What in the world is there to be happy about, if this world and all the suffering and troubles is all there is?

Thomas:

You didn’t address this point in your previous post, would you like to (esp. vis free will)?

You wrote:

All events have virtually (i.e. by immutable decree) happened in the eternal divine will. 

Congratulations, I see you concede that if there is a god, he could not be otherwise, his will could not be otherwise, he is necessary and consequently all events in time or otherwise (extra-temporal events are absurd) are necessary.  So you will admit that material creation is necessary and not contingent (i.e. when god came into being creation became necessary)? 

Also, I think you have been treated rather rudely during some discussions here.  I hope I have not come across in a rude fashion.  I do really enjoy have these sorts of arguments, if only for the mental exercise they provide.  I think in the course of such discussions we often come to realize that our differences tend to result from beginning with different premises rather than from a misapplication of logic to those premises.  Put another way, when in disagreement about epistemology, it is near impossible to agree metaphysically.

Thomas:

You wrote:
The essence of being human is to be rational and volitional.

Response:
You are free to simply assert that humans are essential endowed with free will.  This of course does not make it so.  In an atheistic schema, free will is difficult (try willing yourself to think without thinking; it seems that thoughts spontaneously occur eh?).  In a theistic schema, I still assert that it is impossible.  You can assert that an omnipotent being can co-exist with other potent beings (here you reference secondary causality), but it does not make it so.  For god to be truly omnipotent or omniscient, it would be impossible for anything to occur that was not willed by god and/or known by god (this statement is tautologous). 

You wrote:
Calvinism refuses to recognize secondary causality.     

Response:
They rightly dismiss secondary causality, because for any schema in which god is omnipotent or omniscient this follows by necessity.

You wrote:
It is a kind of inference.

Response:
It is a kind of extremely weak inference.  When you refer to god as one in an infinite and transcendental sense, only the idea of one-ness is accessible to you.  The infinite and transcendental are available to you only by negation.  This leaves you with a proposition in which the subject and both modifiers to the predicate are beyond your apprehension.  Perhaps Christian apologists have a different definition of cogency.

You wrote:
“There are apparently a lot of things god cannot do for being an omnipotent being.”

This amounts to saying that there are an infinite number of ways in which God cannot be finite. 

Response:
If you recall the context of this statement it referred to the possibility of divine intervention. 

“I would reject it also.  Intervention etymologically, from inter- between, venti- come.  God certainly could not come between events (i.e. god cannot interrupt itself).  There are apparently a lot of things god cannot do for being an omnipotent being.”
You have asserted (above) that humans have free will (or can we have volition without free will?) and here you concede the impossibility of divine intervention.  This is a contradiction.  Further, you assert the possibility for secondary causality, which if you are using its common philosophical usage, allows god to affect his will through common events, which implies there are times when god does not employ secondary causality, which makes causality effectively a form of intervention.  Alternatively, you could assert universal application of secondary causality, which would be identical to primary causality and then we are back at Calvinism with no free will.  So which is it, do we have free will and god intervenes via secondary or primary causality or can god not intervene and we are without free will? 

You wrote:
You have to define what you mean by ‘perfect’.  An infinite cause can produce a finite effect.  I do not see the problem.

Response:
Perfect (adj) Being without defect or blemish.  To be a perfect creator of (wo)men would require creation of perfect (wo)men.  I’m not a Platonist so I don’t really believe in such things, but for god to be a perfect creator you would have to assert that all the corporeal world is a perfect fulfillment of form (thus erasing any distinction between form and particular), and this would be a problem for you vis-à-vis sin.

You wrote:
By “outside of space” do you mean outside the universe or corporeal, i.e. composed of the dimensions of time and space.  I have never had an experience outside of the universe but I have encountered many things that are not corporeal.  Such would be thought, ideas, forms, concepts, and the laws which govern them.  Is logic a material form?  And if so, are there parts of the universe where it does not exist?   

Response:
For empiricists:
Logics are constructed descriptions of relationships between ideas which are analogues of material/sensory phenomenon.  What you list are all more or less organization principles that exist as functions of thought, if you want to put god in this category, I’d be happy to tell you I believe in such a god for certain people. 

For rationalists:
Logic is the way in which our world is organized, we encounter it directly in the relationships between <strike>mental</strike> events (thoughts, ideas, forms, concepts) which constitute the set of things that are.  Is god a <strike>mental</strike>  event?

You wrote:
Some of my “sophistical gymnastics” is aimed at showing that your arguments against the possibility of the existence of God do not follow [sic].

Response:
They do follow if common definitions of omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, and perfect are accepted.  They do no follow if you define omnipotent and omniscient in such a way as to allow free will.  They do not follow if infinite is not a physical characteristic. 
Side note: you concede that the idea of an infinite physical entity is impossible, and rather than dismiss the possibility of an infinite being, you posit that the being is infinite in a metaphysical sense.  Basically, you create a new system and create rules within that system such that it is possible for the infinite and the finite to coexist because they are infinite and finite in different respects.  Could you produce some evidence for the existence of this metaphysical schema please?   
Further, they do not follow if you allow for a definition in which god is perfect in all respects, but can create a corporeal world in which sin exists.  This is what I mean by sophistical gymnastics.  I could make a strong argument that I am nine feet tall for all schemas in which nine feet tall means five feet and ten inches. 

You wrote:
The problem with this objection is that it misrepresents Aristotle’s notion of the causal character of the first cause.

Response:
It does not misrepresent Aristotle’s notion of the first cause, it rejects it.  The necessity for a first cause arises from the question: If every event requires a cause, how did the first event come to be?  Of course any temporal cause will just result in a furtherance of the infinite regress so we arrive at the need for an atemporal cause.  This requires asking: what caused time?  Or more aptly: what happened before time?  Asking what came before time is absurd; there is no before time.  Events and causality are functions of time; the question of first cause incorrectly extends causality beyond time. 

You wrote:
Also, the platonic metaphor of an eternal foot in eternal sand is a hypothetical example of non-temporal causality.  Surely the foot is the cause of the footprint in the sand, however, not in time since they are both eternal.

Response:
Surely nothing, there is no causality in this example.  Also, is your argument for the possible existence of god really contingent upon acceptance of forms?  Are you really prepared to defend the Platonic Realism?

I want to thank the other Mike for posting several quotes from the bible that show how ridiculous it is.  My observation is that most people who say they believe in god or that practice a particular religion do so not out of any real conviction, but because it is a central part of their family’s culture that they would not want to destroy so they just don’t analyze it.  The idea is this: “My parents raised me with this belief system.  If I reject it then I am rejecting them.”   

Most Americans inherited their religion from their immmigrant ancestors and it has become a key part of maintaing their identity in the American melting-pot, whether it be Irish-American catholics,  German-American lutherans, or Polish-American Jews.  Many don’t really believe in the dogma, but they believe in their need to be part of a group, so they continue to claim to be a Presbyterian, etc.  In present Europe people don’t feel this need to be part of a religious group to maintain an identity or social commmunity, and consequently most have jettisoned the whole concept as quaint ancient history.  It will be more difficult to get Americans to do this.

Bible Study, Part Two

False Prophecies, Broken Promises, and Misquotes in the Bible

(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.—Mark 9:1)

(The prophecy given in Is.7:14 referred not to a virgin but to a young woman, living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus—and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament. Matt. 1:23)

(Matthew claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils the prophecy in Micah 5:2. But this is unlikely for two reasons.

“Bethlehem Ephratah” in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).

The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.
It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda” rather than “Bethlehem Ephratah” as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan. Matt. 2:5-6)

(“Out of Egypt I have called my son,”
Matthew claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all, as is clear when the entire verse is quoted (“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.”). It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse. Matt.2:15)

(Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre. Matt. 2:17-18) *It should also be noted that, nowhere in secular historical accounts, did Herod’s “massacre” take place.

(“He shall be called a Nazarene.” Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Matt. 2:23)

(When Jesus and his disciples are accused of breaking the Sabbath, he excuses himself by referring to a scripture in which priests who “profaned the Sabbath” were blameless. But there is no such passage in the Old Testament. Matt. 12:5)

(This verse claims that Jesus fulfills the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. Matt. 21:4)

(Mark claims that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy given in Malachi (3:1, 4:1, 5). But the Malachi prophecy says that God will send Elijah before “the great and dreadful day of the LORD” in which the world will be consumed by fire. Yet John the Baptist flatly denied that he was Elijah (Elias) in John 1:21 and the earth was not destroyed after John’s appearance. Mark 1:2)

(Ezekiel (26:14, 21, 27:36) prophesied that Tyre would be completely destroyed, never to be built again. But it wasn’t destroyed and continued to exist, as shown by this verse in which Jesus visits Tyre. Mark 7:24, 31)

(“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me.”
These words were spoken by Isaiah and referred to Isaiah. They were not a prophecy about a future prophet, as Jesus claims here, where he supposedly read these verses in the synagogue while applying them to himself. Luke 4:16-20)

(Jesus claims that Moses wrote about him. Where? It’s a shame he didn’t give us chapter and verse. John 5:46)

(Jesus says that those who believe in him will, as the scripture says, have living waters flowing out of their bellies.  There is no such scripture in the Bible. John 7:38)

(Verse 33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead. Verse 36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: “Not a bone of him shall be broken.” But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Ex.12:46, Num. 9:12 and Ps.34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 and Num.9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse 19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person. John 19:33, 36)

(In one of the few times that Paul quotes Jesus, he attributes to him words that are not found in the gospels. Acts 20:35)

(These verses claim that Moses and the prophets prophesied that Jesus would suffer and rise from the dead. But in what scripture is such a prophecy made? Acts 26:22-23)

(Paul says that everyone, even in his day, had the gospel preached to them. Even the Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders? In any case, if Paul is right about that, then Jesus is a false prophet, since he said he would return before the gospel was preached to everyone. (Matt.10:23) Rom. 10:18)

(These verses claim that the scriptures prophesied that Jesus would suffer, die, and be resurrected from the dead. But where are the prophecies that are referred to here? Hosea 6:2 perhaps? But this verse refers to the people living at the time (hence “us”) and therefore cannot be fulfilled by the the death and resurrection of Jesus. 1 Cor. 15:3-4)

(James quotes a scripture that says, “The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy.” But there is no such verse in the Bible. James 4:5)

Tune in next time to Bible Study, Part Three, where we discover the contradictions regarding Jesus in the Gospels.  Bye bye, now.

Thomas:

Finally, some emotion! That’s the ticket!

First, let me make clear that the “snake oil salesmen” I was referring to was your Church.  Secondly, intellectual dishonesty refers to the “multiple-out”, “question-dodging” tactics taught in every church and Sunday School class in our flagging republic.  (If an unbeliever asks this, respond thus.  If an unbeliever says this, respond thus.)  And thirdly, the monetary amounts, the “rolling in the dough”, refers to your Church (and the Protestants’).  (It makes me sick to know that believers congregate in multi-million dollar buildings, with beautiful stained-glass windows and air-conditioning and extravagant lighting, yet the homeless and hungry are virtually ignored—despite what Jesus said to that effect).  None of the aforementioned necessarily applied to you personally.  Kind of like how you stated, “since I don’t the details of know your situation, I won’t comment”, when I gave you the example you requested regarding Christian persecution toward me.  I could believe you were calling me a liar, couldn’t I? After all, you asked for “the details”, so it would be logical to assume that you don’t take me at my word, que no? But I guess I won’t take it personally.

I also know that your personal reaction has nothing to do with the aforementioned (and I think you know that, as well).  I believe your response is in keeping with people who have strong feelings about being conned.  No one wants to be a mark, right? No one likes to find out, later, that they were duped into believing something that has such a profound emotional aspect to it.  So I shouldn’t be surprised when a believer feels insulted when someone like myself seriously challenges them about their beliefs.

You posed the following:

(Explain to me how, as an atheist, you can demand that I prove my Faith according to the canons of fundamentalism?  In other words, why do you – as an atheist – care whether or not I can support my beliefs by explicit biblical texts?)

Ah, at last, the question I’ve actually been waiting for lo these many posts.  Tell me, Thomas, how else you know anything about your beliefs.  What is the original source? And I’m not talking about the years of writings and doctrinal interpretation of the Church, I’m talking about the source.  Is it, or is it not, that collection of books known as the Bible? We both know it is.  Now, you say that you don’t take a strict interpretationist view of the book, so I will forego the obvious begged question and ask the following:  what else is there? You might say “revelation”, but we’ve covered that.  It might be revelation for you, but it would only be “hearsay” for me, correct? I mean, would you believe me if I told you, quite earnestly, that I have a pink unicorn in my backyard, and that only fervent people of faith could see it? Of course you wouldn’t.  So please give me the same opportunity to remain incredulous regarding your beliefs.

As to the accuracy of the Bible, I think it makes sense that if a book contains errors, contradictions, absurdities, and atrocities, then one would be…shall we say…understandably reluctant to accept even its most appealing tenets.  And since this book is, after all, the main guide of the Christian believer, then one could also conclude that the belief system itself sits on an unstable foundation to begin with.  In addition, why should I accept a faith (Christianity) that is, quite frankly, a branch, an offshoot of another (Judaism) that, quite understandably, rejects the proposed Messiah of the offshoot system? In other words, if the Jews don’t accept Crist as the Messiah (and it’s their religion, at least in its original form), why should I?

You can believe as you choose, and I couldn’t care less.  In fact, I support your right to do so.  All I ask is the same courtesy.  I don’t care if a person caresses crystals, plays with Ouija boards, carries rabbits feet, or sacrifices chickens for his beliefs.  All I ask is the following:

1) Keep your beliefs off of my laws.

2) Keep your beliefs out of the domain of public education.

3) Refrain from these asinine assumptions of “moral superiority” over me merely because I don’t believe in your Superbeing in the Sky.

4) Stop the revisionist history.

Otherwise, there can never be rational discourse between believers and the “unchurched”.  You can take it to the bank that we will not sit still for another visit to the Dark Ages.

Well, no one responded to my post about Sam Harris’s book, but it is interested that at booktalk some readers have suggested he comes off as a fundamentalist atheist. What is this obsession with “Prove to me there is a God!” I have no interest in proving to anyone that God exists for me. Most Christians (and I assume Jews and Muslims) think of God as a supernatural being. Apparently a lot of atheists do too, which is why they reasonably and logically reject the notion of God. But when you say you believe in God, some atheists apparently want you to produce Polaroids. This would only be possible if God were a supernatural being, which I certainly do not believe. God is inexplicable and cannot be reduced to human symbolism (words), and if I accept that you have not experienced God and have no interest in experiencing God, I sort of think it would be reasonable to allow me to experience God and not have to produce those Polaroids.

Response to Comment #7096 by ontos on 4/13 at 6:27 am

Dear onots:

You wrote: “If god is omnipotent, there is not such thing as non-participation in god’s will (i.e. to be omnipotent, as in all-powerful, means the only power that is to be had is god’s).  Welcome to Calvinism, I’ll see you in whatever location has been pre-determined as our fate.”

Response: Created being is itself a participation in the infinite esse of God.  There is therefore also participation in divine power, i.e. created power.  A created thing participates through its essence.  The essence of being human is to be rational and volitional.  Participation in God’s will requires a knowledge of that will and assent to it.  The created rational and volitional being of its own created power can give such assent.  Thus it is possible for a created being to not participate in the divine will.  If I refuse to will what God wills, I am not participating in God’s will. 

Calvinism refuses to recognize secondary causality.  Thus, God becomes the immediate causal link between everything in the universe, including man and his actions.  I do recognize secondary causality.  Thomism is no nominalism.   

You wrote: “This is a clear instantiation of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.  I refuse to believe in anything that cannot be adequately expressed.  If it is beyond our capacity to know, it is beyond our capacity to know…”

Analogical predication is rational.  When I say that God is one, for example, I do not mean nothing by it.  At the same time, I do not mean that God is one in the same sense that an immanent and finite nature is one.  He is one in an infinite and transcendent sense.  It is a kind of inference. 

You wrote: “There are apparently a lot of things god cannot do for being an omnipotent being.”

This amounts to saying that there are an infinite number of ways in which God cannot be finite. 

You wrote: “…option 2 is essentially divine exceptionalism, which of course would pre-suppose the divine (this is very cyclical reasoning).”

It is cyclical if you presume that this argument is intended to be demonstrative, i.e. proves the existence of God; but it is dialectical, i.e. gives a possible counter-interpretation to your own.  If God exists, which rests on other evidence, then absolute immutability must be attributed to his nature alone.  What I have already argued follows logically from this.

You wrote: “…a perfect creator (to be a perfect creator) would certainly have to produce perfect (morally or metaphysically) creations…

You have to define what you mean by ‘perfect’.  An infinite cause can produce a finite effect.  I do not see the problem. 

You wrote: “So what you’re saying is that for god to be possible (not even necessary) we must first accept non-spatial existence?  I don’t know about you, but I have yet to encounter anything that exists outside of space.”

By “outside of space” do you mean outside the universe or corporeal, i.e. composed of the dimensions of time and space.  I have never had an experience outside of the universe but I have encountered many things that are not corporeal.  Such would be thought, ideas, forms, concepts, and the laws which govern them.  Is logic a material form?  And if so, are there parts of the universe where it does not exist? 

You wrote: “Really all of your sophistical gymnastics (e.g. no the other infinite and some different omnipotence; god lives in a metaphysical realm; of course I can’t show it to you) are required simply to maintain the possibility of a god, they speak not at all to any necessity for a deity.” 

Some of my “sophistical gymnastics” is aimed at showing that your arguments against the possibility of the existence of God do not follow.  This is what I have posted.  Some is aimed at demonstrating the existence of God by showing the necessity of God’s existence either in itself or in relation to the world.  I have actually not given an example of the latter. 

You wrote: “As a good defender of Thomasism, I’m sure you will lay some version of the unmoved mover/first cause argument out to justify the necessity for the divine.  The funny thing is that the first cause argument fails through a misunderstanding of time.  Causality is a temporal notion, Hume (am I allowed to leave 14th century philosophy?) famously noted that causality is not perceived but inferred from the close temporal relation of events.  The cause always comes before the effect, never after.  Before and after are temporal notions.  Time, as you have noted, is a function of the created world, not a function of the divine.  The first cause argument tries to answer the question: what caused the material world and with it time?  This is the same as asking: what happened before time?  Of course, without time there is no before and there is no cause or effect.  The necessity for Aristotle’s unmoved mover comes from a category error which would require that time itself be caused.  Applying causality to the non-temporal, is like trying to discuss wetness without liquid.”

The problem with this objection is that it misrepresents Aristotle’s notion of the causal character of the first cause.  You wrote that, “The cause always comes before the effect, never after.”  However, the first cause, in the peripatetic account, moves not by efficient causality, but by final causality.  Also, according to Aristotle the world is eternal.  Thus, cause does not always come before (temporally understood) the effect, at least conceptually in this matter.  Also there are other types of cause that are not strictly temporal.  For example, the formal and cause.  Something not subject to generation still has a formal cause.  Yet this cause has no temporal quality.  Also, the platonic metaphor of an eternal foot in eternal sand is a hypothetical example of non-temporal causality.  Surely the foot is the cause of the footprint in the sand, however, not in time since they are both eternal.

Thomas

To Mike #6932

Before I answer a few of your questions, let me remind you again that I am not a fundamentalist.  Some of your comments suggest that this is the only kind of Christianity of which you have any knowledge.  For example, your reaction to my use of the Creed was, “Lots of spouting doctrine, very little Biblical knowledge….Please tell me: where can I find this exact text in the Holy Bible?”  Explain to me how, as an atheist, you can demand that I prove my Faith according to the canons of fundamentalism?  In other words, why do you – as an atheist – care whether or not I can support my beliefs by explicit biblical texts?  Only fundamentalists demand such a correspondence.  And only fundamentalists reject the authority of ancient tradition, of which the Creed is the principle expression.  You also asked me to show you evidence for the Rapture from the Bible.  Again, your knowledge of Christianity is extremely limited.  Most believers do not believe in anything like the Rapture.  It has only been around since the 19th c.  It is peculiar to American Fundamentalism.  Where you are coming from?  If you are an atheist, it makes no sense to argue like a fundamentalist.   

You wrote:  “I only just realized—you have yet to address the sinlessness (that is, moral perfection) of Christ,…”

Response: “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin.” (Heb 3:14-15)

Your wrote: “I’d like clarification on where in the Bible I can find the Books, chapters, and verses regarding the following terms:  Rapture.  Christmas.  Easter.  Trinity.”

Response: I have already addressed the Rapture.  Christmas and Easter are liturgical traditions not biblical doctrines.  The Trinity is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in one God.  Scripture in many places speaks of the distinct persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  It also ascribes to each of them divine attributes.  “Trinity” is the ecclesiastical form of the same biblical teaching.   

You wrote: “I’ve also noticed that you seem reticent to quote directly from the Bible—you’re far more likely to slip Church doctrine over the transom.  (How to Answer Unbelievers, chap. 4, paragraph 7, line 23, etc.)”

Response: Again with the fundamentalist stereotype.  I would be shocked if the answers I have given you were found in any fundamentalist literature.   

Your wrote: “You also continually accuse me of having been a former fundamentalist….This smacks of the usual diatribe I hear constantly:  “Boy, you must really be mad at God,” or, “Man, some Christian must have really pissed you off,” or, “You’re quite rebellious against God, aren’t you?”, regarding my lack of religiosity.  This also assumes that I must have been a former believer.”

Response: It is not your anger that leads me to wonder if you are a former fundamentalist.  It is the fact that the references you continually make to Christianity reflect exclusive and intense exposure to the fundamentalist type.   

You wrote: “But never has my initial demand—the proof of the existence of said God—been provided; you folks assume the existence of God to be a fact, and go from there.  You refuse to prove anything.  That God exists is accepted without question, and anyone that questions it must be immoral.”

Who are the “you folks”?  Again, this justifies my suspicion that you only have knowledge of fundamentalism.  There have been many arguments made by Christians for the existence of God over the millennia.  Also, it is just plain wrong to say that God’s existence is accepted in Christianity without question.  Volumes have been written by Christian theologians and philosophers on this question – albeit not by fundamentalists.

For an example of arguments for the existence God that take seriously the objections to the existence of God, and which are effective in my opinion, see the following text of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica written in the 1270’s: 

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2A3THEP1

Your wrote: “I find your tactics to be intellectually dishonest as a whole.  I don’t see any evidence that you believe any of this for more than personal, emotional reasons….Eternal life appeals to you, so you choose to believe it.  Moral superiority appeals to you, so you adhere to the idea that it must apply to you, ipso facto.  The notion that you are nothing more than a cosmic accident, an assemblage of cells, is distasteful, so you reject any proof of it.  And since the political and social climate of the times “happens” to fall in line—for the most part—with your beliefs, you defend it.”

Response: Thanks for the psychoanalysis.  I know you don’t appreciate it when it’s done to you, but hey, there’s no god, so why not be a hypocrite?  As for my intellectual dishonesty, I refute your stereotypes and I make counter arguments, none of which can be honestly accused of making an emotional appeal.  If you don’t like my arguments, challenge them.  Calling me names does no good.   

You wrote: “Though you seem to have a decent vocabulary, good typing skills, the ability to cut and paste, and the ability to recite doctrine verbatim, I see no essential difference between your “doctrine” and the average snake-oil salesman.” 

What is the doctrine of the average snake-oil salesman?  As for reciting “doctrine verbatim”, I have only quoted for you the Nicene Creed.  I did so because I recognize it as an authority.  There is nothing intellectually dishonest about that. 

You wrote: “You merely have sheer numbers, political patronage, and lots more money backing you up.”

Response: Oh yeah!  I’m roll’n in the dough.  Ha, wouldn’t my wife and son – who are at this very moment back home in our tiny two bedroom apartment we can barely afford – like to hear that.  Also, the notion that Christians defend their Faith only when they are culturally dominant is wrong.  Many Christian communities have existed for centuries under suppression and oppression and have continued to celebrate and defend their Faith. 

Response to Comment #6934 by MIke on 4/12 at 12:40 am

You wrote: “Read your Bible.  God repented making man, and thus destroyed the world (except for Noah & Co.).  This is clearly a “reaction”. Gen.  32:24-30 describes a wrestling match with God—this indicates reaction of some sort.  How about Gen. 32:14? Or 2 Sam. 24:16?....God has “parts”.  These are described many times in the Old Testament.  Gen. 24:10, for example.  Or Gen. 31:18.  Or 2 Sam. 22: 8-16.”

Response: The language of Scripture is poetic, didactic, legal and sapential.  It describes God in anthropomorphic categories.  The ancients wrote phenomenologically, meaning they wrote in accordance with the superficial appearance of things.  The sacred writers did not aim to express their beliefs in metaphysical, historistic, or scientific terms. 

Thomas

Dear Mr. Aquinas,

You wrote:

The best definition of prayer, from the metaphysical point-of-view, is a participation in the will of God.  Prayer does not change the divine mind and will, but rather conforms one to it.

If god is omnipotent, there is not such thing as non-participation in god’s will (i.e. to be omnipotent, as in all-powerful, means the only power that is to be had is god’s).  Welcome to Calvinism, I’ll see you in whatever location has been pre-determined as our fate.

You wrote:

With respect to the difficultly of expressing the attributes of God, I would go even further and say that it is impossible to adequately express or conceive anything about the nature of God.  All of our thoughts and words are based upon the experience of finite things.  We must use them analogically when speaking of God, but we must do so with the recognition of their radical inadequacy. 

This is a clear instantiation of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.  I refuse to believe in anything that cannot be adequately expressed.  If it is beyond our capacity to know, it is beyond our capacity to know (yeah I heard about that faith thing, it’s daft, we can discuss further when we get to every Christian apologist’s best mate Soren). 

You wrote:

If you define intervention as action subject to time, then I would reject the attribution of such action to God in his essence.

I would reject it also.  Intervention etymologically, from inter- between, venti- come.  God certainly could not come between events (i.e. god cannot interrupt itself).  There are apparently a lot of things god cannot do for being an omnipotent being. 

You wrote:

All events have virtually (i.e. by immutable decree) happened in the eternal divine will.   

Congratulations, I see you concede that if there is a god, he could not be otherwise, his will could not be otherwise, he is necessary and consequently all events in time or otherwise (extra-temporal events are absurd) are necessary.  So you will admit that material creation is necessary and not contingent (i.e. <strike>when</strike>  god came into being creation became necessary)? 

You wrote:

These attributes cannot be opposed on account of their substantial unity.  In fact, God’s omnipotence cannot exist without his immutability.  Were God to change, i.e. lose his immutability (which is an unintelligible proposition), he would also lose his omnipotence.  Thus he would lose the very means by which he would cause himself to change.  The problem thus can be solved either (1) by denying immutability or omnipotence or both, or (2) by recognizing that they are not in themselves distinct attributes but rather one in the divine essence.

I’ll take option 1(c) (deny both), because option 2 is essentially divine exceptionalism, which of course would pre-suppose the divine (this is very cyclical reasoning).  Basically your contention is: omnipotence and perfection cannot co-exist as we understand them, it would be nice if something was both omnipotence and perfect, we’ll invoke divine exceptionalism and allow both as a function of divine essence. 

You wrote:

Are you using ‘imperfect’ in the metaphysical or the moral sense?  If the metaphysical, then logic does not require that an effect be equal to its cause, but only that it not be greater than its cause with respect to act or potency.  God is infinite, creatures are finite.  There is no problem.

Generally, you are correct in you understanding of the logical implication of causality, however, in the case of a perfect being this principle does not hold.  A blue cause certainly needn’t cause a blue effect, but a perfect creator (to be a perfect creator) would certainly have to produce perfect (morally or metaphysically) creations (e.g. perfect pitchers don’t throw balls).  Unless of course you are positing that god is imperfect with respect to creation.

You go on to write:

A spatial metaphor is inapplicable.

So what you’re saying is that for god to be possible (not even necessary) we must first accept non-spatial existence?  I don’t know about you, but I have yet to encounter anything that exists outside of space. 

Really all of your sophistical gymnastics (e.g. no the other infinite and some different omnipotence; god lives in a metaphysical realm; of course I can’t show it to you) are required simply to maintain the possibility of a god, they speak not at all to any necessity for a deity.  As a good defender of Thomasism, I’m sure you will lay some version of the unmoved mover/first cause argument out to justify the necessity for the divine.  The funny thing is that the first cause argument fails through a misunderstanding of time.  Causality is a temporal notion, Hume (am I allowed to leave 14th century philosophy?) famously noted that causality is not perceived but inferred from the close temporal relation of events.  The cause always comes before the effect, never after.  Before and after are temporal notions.  Time, as you have noted, is a function of the created world, not a function of the divine.  The first cause argument tries to answer the question: what caused the material world and with it time?  This is the same as asking: what happened before time?  Of course, without time there is no before and there is no cause or effect.  The necessity for Aristotle’s unmoved mover comes from a category error which would require that time itself be caused.  Applying causality to the non-temporal, is like trying to discuss wetness without liquid.

I’m always mildly amused at how little of the Bible believers seem to actually know.  I’ve noticed that nonbelievers are generally better acquainted with the “Good Book” than its adherents.  For instance, Isaiah 45:7 tells us that God created evil.  Bet most Christians didn’t know that.  How many Christians know, from their Sunday School lessons, that David beheaded Goliath after felling him with a rock? Somehow, that tidbit isn’t included in issues of Children’s Bibles sold at Wal-Marts, etc.

Bible Study, Part One

How about these goodies? Who’s seen these verses taught in Sunday School:

(The two angels that visit Lot wash their feet, eat, and are sexually irresistible to Sodomites. Gen. 19:1-5)

(Lot and his daughters camp out in a cave for a while. The daughters get their “just and righteous” father drunk, and have sexual intercourse with him, and each conceives and bears a son. Gen. 19:30-38)

(After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to “go in unto they brother’s wife.” But “Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother’s wife ... he spilled it on the ground…. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also.” This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. Gen. 38:8-10)

How about Biblical advice regarding the treatment of women? (And keep in mind—Jesus came to keep the law—the New Testament says so).

[Matt. 5:17—Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill].

(“The male and his female ...” Notice that in the Bible female animals are the property of male animals, as women are the property of men. Gen. 7:2)

(Jacob has two wives and two concubines, continuing the biblical tradition of polygamy. Gen. 32:22) *Note that adultery only applies to women—men can do as they please.  Of course!

(Dinah’s brothers, to justify the massacre of a town for the rape of their sister, say: “Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?” To the author of Genesis, rape is a crime against the honor of men rather than against a woman. Gen. 34:31)

(Rachel dies in childbirth; but at least she had another son. And in the Bible, a woman is expected to die happily as long as she has a son. Gen. 35:17-18)

(God explains how to go about selling your daughter—and what to do if she fails to please her new master. Ex. 21:7)

(If you “entice” an “unmarried maid” to “lie” with you, then you must marry her, unless the father refuses to give her to you, in which case you must pay him the going price for virgins. Ex. 22:16)

(“Their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.” God always blames the women; it is they who “go a whoring” and then “make” the men “go a whoring.” Ex. 34:16)

(Women are dirty and sinful after childbirth, so God prescribes rituals for their purification. If a boy is born, the mother is unclean for 7 days and must be purified for 33 days; but if a girl is born, the mother is unclean for 14 days and be purified for 66 days. This is because, in the eyes of God, girls are twice as dirty as boys. Lev. 12:1-5)

(When “Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord” he was told to count “every male from a month old and upward.” Women and girls didn’t count as persons. Num. 3:15-16)

(If a man dies and has no son, then his inheritance goes to his daughter. But if he has a son, then the daughter gets nothing. Also no mention is made of wives, sisters, or aunts. Num. 27:8)

(If men make vows, then God expects them to keep them. But a woman cannot make a vow, unless it is “allowed” by her husband or father. If it is “allowed,” then she must keep it—but even so, she is not responsible (her husband or father is). Num. 30:3-16)

(If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn’t a virgin when they were married. If her father can’t produce the “tokens of her virginity” (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father’s doorstep. Deut. 22:13-21)

(If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her. Deut. 22:28-29)

(“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean. Not one.” So according to the Bible, women are dirty (sinful), giving birth is dirty (sinful), and the newborn baby is dirty (sinful). Job 14:4) *Does this apply to Jesus, too?

(“Who can find a virtuous woman?” Virtuous men are much more common. Prov. 31:10)

(Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn’t seem to care about that. Matt. 5:32, 19:9)

(Males are holy to God, not females. Luke 2:23)

(Paul explains that “the natural use” of women is to act as sexual objects for the pleasure of men. Rom. 1:27)

(Paul says “the head of the woman is the man,” meaning that the women are to be subordinate to men. 1 Cor. 11:3)

(Women are commanded by Paul to be silent in church and to be obedient to men. He further says that “if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in church.” 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

(“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” 1 Tim. 2:11-12)

(In relation to her husband, the wife is “the weaker vessel.” 1 Peter 3:7)

Seems to me, lady Christians haven’t bothered to read their own Holy Tome.  (George Carlin said, “It’s a sad thing to see an Indian wearing a cowboy hat.” I feel the same when I meet a Christian woman.)

More nonsense Sunday School apparently ignored:

(God divided the sea with a “blast of [his] nostrils.” Ex. 15:8) *So much for “God has no parts”, eh?

(God has feet. Ex. 24:10)  *Umm-hmmm.

(God’s finger. Ex. 31:18)

(God’s name is Jealous. Ex. 34:14)

(Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would “profane” it. Lev. 21:16-23)

(“Their wine is the poison of dragons.”  Deut. 32:33)

Joseph’s “horns are like the horns of a unicorn.” Deut. 33:17)

(“The Lord ... could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” Judges 1:19) *Huh?!

(After striking the Philistines with hemorrhoids “in their secret parts,” he demands that they send him five golden hemorrhoids as a “trespass offering.” 1 Sam. 6:4-5, 11, 17)

(The Amalekites are a tough tribe. Twice they were “utterly destroyed”: first by Saul (1 Sam.15:7-8) and then by David (1 Sam.27:9-11). Yet here they are, just a few years later, fighting the Israelites again! 1 Sam. 30:1

David spends the day killing more of those pesky Amalekites. They are completely wiped out again. (See 1 Sam.15:7-8, 20 and 27:8-9 for the last two times that they were exterminated.) 1 Sam. 30:17)

(The earth shakes, the foundations of heaven move, smoke comes out of God’s nostrils, and fire out of his mouth. 2 Sam. 22:8-16) *More parts, eh?

(God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head. 2 Kings 2:23-24)

(Elisha makes an iron ax head swim. 2 Kings 6:6)

(A dead body is brought to life when it accidentally touches the bones of Elisha. 2 Kings 13:21)

(Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, began to reign when he was 25 years old. His father was 36 years old when Hezekiah took over (16:2). So Ahaz was only eleven years old when he fathered Hezekiah! 2 Kings 18:1-2)

(“His breasts are full of milk.” Job 21:24)

(Job is the brother of dragons. Job 30:29)

(“Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee?” Job 39:9-10)

Ah, the Psalms!

(God made the heavens with his fingers. 8:3

God’s eyelids. 11:4

The earth shakes whenever God really gets mad. 18:7

Smoke comes out of God’s nose and fire comes out of his mouth. 18:8

God curved the heavens and came down to earth with darkness under his feet. 18:9

God rides upon cherubs and flies through the sky. 18:10

“The foundations of the world were discovered ... at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.” (The earth is set on firm foundations and does not move—unless God blows his nose.) 18:15

God is so strong that he can break the head of dragons and of leviathan. 74:13-14

The psalmist has a horn that he’d like God to erect—“like the horn of a unicorn.” 92:10

Even the dragons praise the Lord. 148:7)

(“And the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.” {A cockatrice is a mythical serpent, hatched from a cock’s egg, that can kill with a glance}. Isaiah 11:8)

(Dragons will live in Babylonian palaces and satyrs will dance there. Isaiah 13:21-22)

(“Out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.” Isaiah 14:29)

(God will turn the earth upside down, knock it off of its foundations, and then shake and bake it until it “reels to and fro like a drunkard.” Isaiah 24:1, 18-20) *Origins of the Flat Earth nonsense?

(God will punish the leviathan (“that crooked serpent”) with his own sword and will kill the sea dragon. Isaiah 27:1)

(God’s lips, tongue, and breath are described for us. Isaiah 30:27-28) *More parts.

(“And the unicorns shall come down with them.” Isaiah 34:7)

(Dragons and satyrs. Isaiah 34:13-14)

(God shows off his bare arm. Isaiah 52:10)

Tune in next time for Bible Study, Part Two!

The idea that we will go to paradise for leading a good life does not arise among the religions that believe in a god.

Those religions - the Middle Easterns - believe that the admission ticket is worship of the father figure irrespective of what sins or crimes the bootlicker might have committed.

If one of my acquaintances (let’s call him Mr. Wonderful) judged everyone by whether they worshipped Mr. W., I would think him too narcissistic to be allowed loose without an attendant.

If he piled on by gloating over neverending torment to be inflicted on everybody who failed to be enraptured by his wonderful self, and looking forward to spending eternity within earshot of their screams of anguish, I would score him subhuman on the morality scale. What moral person could float along blissfully ignoring the terrible suffering of most of humanity?

And if it was suggested I should worship God because he created ME ... boy, it’s all narcissism all the time, isn’t it?

These religions certainly lack the social utility of the Egyptian belief that one would be judged by weighing one’s heart, lightened by good works and weighted down by sins.

Don Albert’s comment on the bible almost comes right out of Boccaccio.  He had a story about a Jew who refused conversion til he had visited Rome.  When he returned his friends were sure he would never become a Catholic Christian after having seen the depravity of papal Rome.  But he did—saying that the Church must be supported by God since by itself it was far too evil to last.

This is fun of course, but the Catholic Church is probably surpassed in evil only by the Nazi SS which modeled itself on the Jesuit Order.

Religion seeks, like Marx’s opium, to make a difficult life easier.  But it doesn’t work because new fears are created which are much worse than the old ones.

It seems to me that the bible has to be devinely inspired; how else could a book so full of villiany and nonsense have existed for so long?

Thomas:

You wrote the following:

(Obviously, given my definition of God as pure act, I would reject the idea that God reacts.  A ‘reaction’ by definition is a distinct action.  In the divine essence there are no acts distinct from the pure act of being.  Thus God does not react.  For the same reason, God cannot be acted upon.  The notion of passivity cannot be separated from the notion of potentiality.)

Read your Bible.  God repented making man, and thus destroyed the world (except for Noah & Co.).  This is clearly a “reaction”. Gen.  32:24-30 describes a wrestling match with God—this indicates reaction of some sort.  How about Gen. 32:14? Or 2 Sam. 24:16?

You also wrote:

(If there were nothing that was not God, then there would be no creation.  In that case, “everything”, i.e. God, would be perfect and immutable.  God has no parts.)

Again, read your Bible.  God has “parts”.  These are described many times in the Old Testament.  Gen. 24:10, for example.  Or Gen. 31:18.  Or 2 Sam. 22: 8-16.