Biblical Websites Review
Offline Note: This is from a different forum, but I will also post this here. For not just reference but also for debate.
In the Christianity thread, Tau-Killer posted these as if this were some sort of explanation towards finding sanctuary with the posts Veq had borrowed from me. In that thread, I promised never to go back, and leave that for the discussion of Christianity, and to leave it to the Christians.
However, I felt reason deserved a fair hearing, and thus I decided to take it upon my self to critically look over these sites and see if they really DID answer any of the problems I had listed elsewhere, and which Veq had used.
I have a few rules I request from anybody wishing to reply in this thread.
- NO - absolutely NO - replying to a post on here without a.) quoting what you are responding; b.) replying directly to that quote, i.e. no saying ?That?s stupid??. That?s not acceptable. However, saying ?That?s stupid?because?*point 1* etc?? is acceptable; and c.) when using scripture, please be sure to post chapter and verse. Quoting out the whole verse is probably the best way, and helps points get across easier. For a good search engine on the bible, www.biblegateway.com is a great starting point. They have every translation in multiple languages available.
- Try to keep flames to a minimum. This is a serious discussion where peoples entire belief structures are on the line. If your skin is not tough enough to handle a little heat, my suggestion is to stay out of it in this thread. Words will be written and things will get hot. Although we all try to do our best to hold back, sometimes people get irritated and junk happens. Keep in mind, like above, calling somebody stupid is considered a flame in my book. Calling a POINT stupid and then backing it up with evidence (i.e. giving reasons WHY you feel that POINT in particular is stupid) is not flaming, it?s debate.
- Try not to bring up dogma and Christian philosophy in this thread, unless it relates somehow. I don?t want proselytizing and preaching in this thread, this thread is about the Bible, and that?s about as far as I think it should go.
Keep in mind, I am a very free-thinker. My atheism is simply a part of that, just as any free-thinker could easily be a theist. I am searching to find out the truth here, not to criticise religion or belief in this thread. I will be analyzing these sites individually and determine if there is anything worth merit. And unlike with the tings I post, I will be reading the entire site, and not skip over most of it and pretend I think I know what is being said. As a reasonable human being, I don't think anything should be ignored, instead I think everything should be questioned. The only way to question ios to know what answers were first given and to do that one has to read and learn with an open mind.
I'm a blunt person and have no problems getting straight t the point. Keep in mind, this thread is NOT a thread for discussing Christian philosophy. If you have any intentions of starting such a discussion, bracnh it off and start a new thread. (It will also help with thread and post counts here on TO as well) These are the sites TK posted:
If you want explanations for Bible discrepancies - here's a whole range of websites to have a look at:http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/26.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/sort-2-1-100-title
http://www.apologeticspress.org/sensiblescience/
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html
I decided to start with one and work from there.
At http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/ we have 100 items for review. One hundred topics are far too many to cover in one sitting, so I will work with the first five of each site, and continue from there. Right now, I will start with the first topic listed, which had some relevance to the information used in the Christianity thread.
[quote=" Addition Does Not a Contradiction Make;
by Kyle Butt, M.A.; http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/507"]Suppose a man is telling a story about the time he and his wife went shopping at the mall. The man mentions all the great places in the mall to buy hunting supplies and cinnamon rolls. The wife tells about the same shopping trip, yet mentions only the places to buy clothes. Is there a contradiction between the stories just because the wife mentions clothing stores but the husband mentions only cinnamon rolls and hunting supplies? No. They are simple adding to (or supplementing) each other?s story to make it more complete.
That's a cute anaology, but most assuredly inaccurate when applied to the Bible. The contradictions in the Bible do not come from omitting information and then readmitting addition information later. Far from in. The contradictions in the Bible come from authors making the same but opposite claims. Such examples follow below in the discussion. Quite a few are already posted in the Christianity thread, and had any one bothered to read them, I would not be having to go through these sites to begin with.
The Bible is usually found within direct opposition to itself. And these are but merely a few of which I have hundreds listed, and I?m not the only one to see them. All one has to do is read to see just how contradictory the Bible can get. Thomas Paine, Dennis McKinsey, Robert Ingersoll, just a few of those before me who have gone out of their way to read the Bible in it?s whole countless times to analyze it and discover it?s true form.
The problem is, people are told from a young age that the Bible is seemless, perfect, and therefore they never question and never read it. As Farseer Restayvien put it, ?Also, I wouldn't post that much because I know most people wouldn't want to read it all.? Indeed?
How can one honestly say that they can believe in something without ever wanting to know the other side? What is so horrible about possibly asking questions about your faith, and examining it to be sure it?s what you want? I find this to be quite the opposite of free-thought. Sounds more like restricting thinking.
Let?s continue.
That happens quite often in the resurrection accounts in the Gospels.For example, the Gospel of Matthew names ?Mary Magdalene and the other Mary? as women who visited the tomb early on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Mark cites Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the callers (Mark 16:1). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and ?the other women? (Luke 24:10). Yet John talks only about Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb early on Sunday (John 20:1). Do these different lists contradict one another? No, not in any way.
Wow, this is called grasping at straws. It seems Mr. Butt is having problems with the English language. Let?s look at the exact verses here, just the parts in question, and then after Mr. Butt explains his theory we?ll see the problems with it. And go over the full chapter, because we should always try to look at everything in context.
Matt. 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.?
Mark 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.?
Luke 24:10, ?It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.?
John 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.?
Got them all? Good, let?s continue.
They are supplementary, adding names to make the list more complete. But they are not contradictory. If John had said ?only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,? or if Matthew stated, ?Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,? then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, no contradiction occurs.
First, after reading the passages, the text talks of ONLY the two women in Matthew, three women in Mark, countless women in Luke, and only Mary Magdalene in John. Mr. Butt is assuming additional women exist in the accounts, even though they are not referred to in any other way. Imagine that, Luke has no problem talking about others, yet the other three seem to completely omit them, as if they were never there.
Second, Butt is assuming the larger number is always correct and the lesser is not. He speaks of the authors 'adding names to make the list more complete', but really this is what mr. Butt is doing here. Not the authors.
Further, why couldn't the reverse be true? If four different witnesses to a hit-and-run accident say there were one, two, three, and four people in the car, respectively, are police to automatically assume four is the correct number? Are they to automatically accept the higher figure? Are they to ignore the possibility of shadows, faulty vision, distorted angles, distractions, human-like contents of the automobile, etc.? Or should they just immediately assume the greatest number is valid?
That's the procedure apologists, such as Mr. Butt here, want critics of the Bible to follow. Why couldn't the lower number be correct and the higher number be erroneous?
And third, if we are going to make assumptions here, why can't we assume 6, 8, 10 or even 50 people in the car were present and all four accounts are invalid? Why can't we let our imaginations run wild and concoct any figure that strikes our fancy? If proof is not required, we could say the hit-and-run car was crammed with people, although the highest number said was four that were seen.
After all, two can play that game. Apologists operate on the assumption that anything possible is actual, until disproven, which is only another ruse by which to shift the burden of proof and ignore our time-honored maxim that The Burden of Proof Lies on He Who Alleges.
However, since we are talking about the Bible here, perhaps we should show how the Bible can be used against such ruses as this. Let?s use the Bible here and show how wrong this theory of Mr. Butts' is.
In John, not only does this specifically state ONLY Mary Magdeline, but in fact, Mary had to run to tell OTHERS because she found the tomb empty! Had people been there, such as in Luke, they all would have gone, and would have discussed it with the disciples.
John 20:1-18, ?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. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 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. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my LORD, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her."
In fact, she had to keep getting the others to see for themselves, because they didn?t believe her. If there had been more people present, not only would the Bible have stated such (as it has time and time again, and as they did in Luke, when more people are around or involved) but had they actually been there as Mr. Butt has suggested, why didn?t the disciples talk to them about their opinions? Why didn?t they ask for others who saw it?
I find it preposterous to believe Mr. Butt?s explanation when the chapter even goes as far as to state that Simon was faster at running then Peter (a very irrelevant point for the context, I might add) and somehow forgot about or neglected to mention the droves of supposed women who accompanied Mary to the tomb.
Incidentally, this chapter also states that there is a scripture reference in the Torah where the Messiah is to rise from the dead. There is no such prophecy in all the Old testament.
Let?s more on to the other chapters for more, and see what else we can find.
Matt. 28:1-9, ?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. 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. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.?
Now again, how anybody can add in more then the two women here is beyond me. I can just picture Mr. Butt trying to explain how a grove of women - as he suggests the chapter implies - were all at once holding Jesus? two legs. Unless Mr Butt wants us to believe he grew an abundance of legs as well, but again, I would have to require a verse for such a claim.
Also, on another note here, the earthquake mentioned seems to have gone completely unnoticed by ALL those who were alive during this time period. Seneca and Pliny the Elder, who recorded all the great earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses they could find and who lived during the period of Jesus, failed to mention the event.
Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This work perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the 9th century, was acquainted with it and said, "He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did" (Photius, Bibliotheca, Code 33).
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place--when Christ himself rose from the dead. Yet, these events were not mentioned by him. Curious.
On to the other.
Mark 16:1-14, ?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. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. 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. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.?
Again I have to ask, where are these other women? Mr. Butt has tried to infer that these women were here the entire time, but I find it hard to believe that if such a crowd has gathered the authors would have neglected to state such a fact. Elsewhere in the Gospels they go to some extent to be sure to include large crowds in their story-telling.
Large crowds had gathered at the Sermon on the Mount. Large crowds had gathered at the synagogues. There are been lots of people at the wedding where Jesus turned water into wine. It seems that the gospel writers are obsessed with using people as eye-witnesses, as if stating that there are lots of people wit say these things would somehow validate them.
Yet here we have a case where we don?t see that. We only hear of three women. Just three. No more or less are mentioned. And they are given to us with names. It leads to a point, in which Mr. Butt does not seem to want to accept. That the authors did not mean to suggest any more people were there except those who were mentioned. Which means this contradiction still remains.
And this critique wouldn?t be complete without showing the large amount of inconsistencies and contradictions just within this event alone.
In Matthew, the sequence of events is as follows: Sunday at dawn, Mary and Mary came to the tomb. There was an earthquake and one angel appeared. The Angel is the one who opened the tomb but none enter. The angel tells them to tell the disciples, but before they could get to the disciples they ran into Jesus. Mary recognized Jesus. They both touch Jesus.
In Mark, Mary, Mary and Salome came to the tomb with spices. The tomb was already opened. They all went into the tomb and found one man in white. They all fled. But later when Jesus had risen he appeared only to Mary, who recognized him. Then Mary went to tell the disciples who didn?t believe her. Then Jesus appears to them later.
In John, Mary alone went to the temple when it was still dark outside. The tomb was already open, and then she ran away to tell the disciples. The disciples all came to look inside the temple to make sure she was telling the truth. Then they left her alone. Two angels appear. They ask her a question and then she turns around. She sees Jesus inside the tomb, but thinks he?s the gardener as she didn?t recognize him. Jesus tells her not to touch him. He commands she goes and tells the disciples what has happened.
And in Luke, a group of women come to the tomb early in the morning with spices. They find the tomb open. They enter and don?t see Jesus. Two men appear in white garments. They commanded the women to tell the disciples. It says, ?It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.? (Again, this is the sort of exact phrasing this author uses, where the others do not seem to know of these other women at all) The apostles don?t believe them. Peter himself goes to the tomb and finds it empty. Then at the same day, two disciples go to Emmaus (Funny, since I live in a town with the same name?heh) and Jesus appeared to these two first. They did not recognize them. (Stating, ironically, ?Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; ). Then the two men invited Jesus along with them to dine with the rest of the disciples.
These are the contradictions I speak of. The direct contradictions which stare the reader in the face. One cannot seem to reconcile these, as they are so out of place and so inconsistent that in order to make them appear as one, you really need to take liberties and remove key verses, or add in additional ones.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
PART I
Hey there Ray (Whitefox from the Infidelguy boards), as promised I will be doing a critique of your website. Let's start right away with your first page.
First page states: A portal to the word of God and messages of encouragement.
I want everyone to remember this. This is, I think, a message that speaks volumes to the rest of the critique ahead.
You use two verses right under a very heavenly picture of a door, which opens up (seemingly) into a breautiful ontourage of clouds and sky, sun and atmosphere. The message, with the picture and the verses make a very good theme. However you probably didn't realize that when you first created this page, you were causing the first point of conflict.
The two verses used: Rev 3:20; Rev 3:8. Let's examine them for a moment.
Revelations 3:8, "I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name."
Revelations 3:20, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
Two verses which imply that God is the way, and he offers us a path to take. If we choose it, we can go to him and will always be accepted. Right?
Wrong. The Bible conflicts here, as it is shown that not all those who come to God are accepted, with such verses as: "Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isa. 6:10). "So you see God is kind to some just because he wants to be, and he makes some refuse to listen" (Rom. 9:18). "This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving" (Matt. 13:13-14). See also: John 12:39-40, Mark 4:10-12, and Luke 8:9-10.
All of these verses clearly show that God hardens hearts and forces people not to hear his word. According to the Bible, it's at God's whim who he does this too and when. And for reasons usually just because of certain wants of his - for his entertainment.
Some loving God, right?
Let's continue. I clicked on the door, and after three tries (I am not sure why it timed out on me but it did) I managed to get into the site. Plush with links and sites of Christian nature, mostly containing online Bibles and search sites, including my favorite: Bible Gateway. Heck, you even included the imfamous spinning Jesus logo in the upper-right corner. You really went all out.
In the words of the almighty Jake, "oooooo a spinning 3d Jesus image ! IT MUST BE THE TRUTH !"
Sorry, but I laughed so hard when he told me that! I had to include it!
Although, I have to tell you; That damned green scrolling marquie almost made me leave the site. It gets in the way and when you use the drop-down menues, it covers up the second option - so I can't read it.
It's ashame, but I can deal I suppose. Now, as with all my website reviews, I don't go over all the information on them, simply because I do not have the time for it. I usually review one page of commentary per website so there are two seperate conclusions on it - yours and mine.
So don't get offended that I only critiqued a few commentaries of yours.
For starters, lets go after the first link in your "Ray's Bible Study" page.
Wow. Just wow. So many problems abound here, it's not even funny. Not in the least. Although my quick and decisive hacking of it may be.
For starters, we have two unknowns in this little "story." The first is, we have no identity of the Professor. No name to give to the antagonist. Vaguely resembling the lack of a name for egyptian Pharoah in the exodus myth. Both stories - this and that - are false, and this is simply one evident supporting factor.
Second, what university this partakes in. Also another key factor that writes this story off as false. Christians will use any tactic in an attempt to prove their claims right, including making up false "historical" legends like this that hold no ground - as Einstien himself even claimed to be an agnostic atheist who dispised religion.
I would do some homework before posting up such absurd comments as this. Whitefox, I expected better.
Now onto the real meat.
One of the problems I've always had with theism is that nobody ever thinks they are wrong, and always feels like they have the patent on what is good and righteous. You are no exception to that rule, Whitefox.
The reason this is so, is because nobody can actually agree as to what it is to be righteous and good. There are so many things commanded of theists (we'll use Christianity here, as that is what this tract is concerning) in the Bible which conflicts with each other one is often doomed either way. We shall discuss this as we go through the rest of your commentary here. But in light of the Bible verses, allow me to retort.
Had you read further down, Proverbs 16:4, it states: "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Wow. Apparently God created the evil for entertainment - purely for punishment. Remember when I said that I wanted to keep that phrase handy from your website? That's some message of encouragement. You may be one of those people he has created whom he will punish and send to hell for his ammusement. Sort of gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
As for the last bit (Prov. 16:25), the preceeding and following deal with wisdom. This has nothing to do with a spiritual death or righteousness. But the actual doing of things. For example, it may seem right to jump into the water to save somebody from drowning. But if you can't swim, and the current pulls you under - you're dead. This passage has nothing to do with your point.
And finally, according to the Bible - NONE are righteous. That's right. None. Not you, or me, nor Jesus, or Job, nobody. Romans 3:10, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." Funny how reading through the Bible can destroy the very points you're trying to make by using it.
I'll let you go through the list before I reply.
I'm guessing you listed this in the most important order to you? Either way, let's see how well God and Jesus compare to the questions above, and compare that to other people we know of.
Throughout the Old and New Testements, the Ten Commandments (and all others - over 600 statutes) are looked at as the law. Several times in the OT; we are commanded to uphold them, and neither add to or deminish from them.
Even Jesus himself claims that not one line of the old law shall be tampered with:
Yet Jesus breaks his own maxim repeatedly, indeed he is his own worse enemy!
Jesus omitted 5 of the 10 commandments and created one of his own 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself'.
Once more we see Jesus omitted commandments and adds another, "defraud not".
Jesus also violates the commandments as well:
God goes against his commandments as well:
And one need only look at the Patriarchs to see they were not followers of the law either:
Second are those individuals who are not only well known but committed a wider assortment of nefarious activities:
According to 2 Chron. 30:16 Moses was the Man of God; yet, he...
David...Despite all of the above, no individual in the Bible had a more disreputable, more scandalous career. Although the recipient of numerous accolades:
Anyone approaching the Bible for goodness, decency, role models, and morality, enters at his own peril. The Bible is a festering pit of evil.
The Bible is so full of contradictions, in so many different areas, it is astounding how intelligent people can still claim it to be inerrant. One must wonder to the level of mental scaring such lies they tell themselves has caused.
The Bible claims, "... and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16) With all the contradictions of the Bible, is it a wonder why this has never materialized?
As a final quote from Mr. McKinsey, "One can easily understand how a book as inconsistent as the Bible has given rise to more that fifteen hundred separate Christian denominations. The deficiency lies not so much with the preachers as the book from which they preach."
Indeed I couldn't have said it better.
Remember that phrase again? "A portal to Gods word and messages of encouragement?" We should all strive to be more like God and Jesus, and in so be the evil God created. That is, after all, what we are supposed to do, whitefox? Follow the word of God? Let's continue.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
PART II
Ooo, judgement day! And the all important "all have sinned" verse from the New Testament. I love the fact that you put that passage in; "All have sinned." It's such an absolute word. "All." It's clear, to the point. It doesn't say, "Some have sinned." It doesn't say, "Most have sinned." It states, "ALL," with confidence and generalizations abounding.
I like this quote because of it's purely strict sense. Because this no doubt dabbles in Original Sin. An idea that suggests every human born is held accountable for Adam and Eve's sin. That is what Paul is talking about, after all.
And this is so great, as this goes against the Bible, Ray. "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut. 24:16). This means that children born - who die are not sinful. It means that people who live good lives are not sinners. It proves your thesis wrong.
And, according to the Bible, not all were born of sin, or sinned during their lives. Such as Job, Elisah, Mary...the list goes on. Heck, even Joseph, "Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man..." Hmm.
You've also opened up a whole can of worms. How are we, humans, judged by God? Is it through words and deeds, as you have suggested here using Matthew? What about with John 5:29, "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
But the Bible conflicts here as well, because it also states that we are ONLY to be saved by faith (or being born again). Such passages include: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16) and "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) So which is it? Is it by words and deeds alone as Jesus said? Or...by faith alone...as...Jesus said? What did Jesus say exactly? One would never know for sure, judging by the Bible. Even if one were to completely give themselves to the teachings in the Bible, you still would have no clue how to be saved. As God is not clear on how we're to be judged.
Ahem, according to the Bible, death is the final end. No more life after death - just death.
Job 7:9, "As the cloud is consumed and vanishes away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more."
Job 20:7, "Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung."
Pslm 115:17, "The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence."
Ecc. 3:19, "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast."
Ecc. 9:5, "The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward."
Ecc. 9:10, "For there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."
Isaiah 26:14, "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased they shall not rise."
Isaiah 38:18, "For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth."
Shall I go on? In the end, nobody will be going anywhere, as there is no life after death. Wow, what fun it is, showing contradiction after contradiction. I bet you didn't even know these existed, did you?
Um, God sent "eternal" fire to reign down on the cities. Problem is, it hasn't lasted for an eternity. In fact, noi mention of such an event has ever been documented. Ever. And most assuredly it didn't last for eternity - not even close.
Wow. What a great inspirational statement! What a message of encouragement! Cut off your hands! Everyone! Let's go to the altar right now! Follow Ray! Ray has to do it first. Just to prove to us he practices what he preaches. Go on Ray, cut off that pesky, sinful hand.
What...can't do it?
Wow, so much here is wrong, it's hard to know where to begin! Jesus says that his disciples must hate their families (mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children) and themselves.
Jesus claims that, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6) A popular phrase used during the inquisition.
Such is Jesus' way, using violence and torture to promote his orders. As Dan Barker asked, "Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with threats of violence? Is hell a kind and peaceful idea?" No, in fact, Jesus is prone to using threat tactics, such as his paranoid statement, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30).
Where was Jesus' family values here? What about when he states "I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10:35-36). Where ARE these supposed words of encouragement? Where are they when one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, and Jesus rebuked him by saying "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22).
To his own mother - which the Bible discribes as "highly favored!" - he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4).
Some encouragement. I guess Jesus has no problems breaking the commandment, "Honor thy mother and father."
Both Peter and Paul disagree with this, saying, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21, Rom.10:13). Again, absolutes like "whosoever" and "shall be." Not, "may be" or "possible be". They SHALL be saved.
Let me give you a little analogy from a friend of mine, Robert Reames, "If God knows that we will sin "since we are human," then God also knows that we aren't to blame for our actions since he created us human.
If you build a Ford truck and then expect it to be a Cadillac that's your problem, not the truck's. If you build a Ford truck and somehow grant it the ability to choose to become a Cadillac and it does not, again, what possible blame could you apply to the truck? It's a truck, not a Cadillac. And, finally, if you build a truck with the ability to choose to be a Cadillac and then demand that it become a Cadillac or be junked in the junkyard for all eternity never to be anything but junk in the junkyard with all of the other discarded junk in the junkyard, then why didn't you just build a Cadillac to begin with and leave the poor truck alone?
That's your psychosis acting out and has nothing to do with the truck. It's not its fault for being created a truck; it's your fault for creating it as a truck when what you wanted the whole time was a Cadillac. If you now claim (as so many do) that what you REALLY wanted was for the truck to see how beautiful it could be if only it would CHOOSE to be a Cadillac and that all you ever wanted was for the truck to CHOOSE to be a Cadillac instead of what you created it to be (a truck), then you are more in need of therapy than anything else and should seek serious help, even if you are (and especially if you are) claiming to be God."
Indeed. God is now punishing us, even though he knows everything that is going to happen, saw it happen before creation as he is omnipotent, he still created us, and then saw everything he already knew was going to happen, play out before him. And then, condemns us for doing exactly what he could have prevented early on. Interesting. That's some encouragement.
God loves you! He loves you so much that he wants you to not feel his wrath! His wrath that he knows he will either cast down on you or not, even if you don't know it! He loves you and his son, but he killed his son. He killed his son because he loves you! He punished his son for YOUR sins. He ... wait...didn't we already cover this one?
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut. 24:16)
Oh right. Yeah, so if Jesus was taking on all our sins, which we commited...he was held accountable for them and then what? So...God had to break his own rules, and then creates new ones because they were logically flawed...to begin with...? Wow, some God. *rolls eyes*
Again, I pose these questions for you.
People were living qwuite fine before Jesus came. Living and dying, just like today. What changed? You claim Jesus died for us, so that we could live. But we were living before him. We are still living after him.
And although a magnanimous gesture, how does the death of someone's flesh (even if that someone is supposedly God or God's son) save us from all sin? Remember that a sacrifice is nothing more than a man-made symbolic action and has no actual relevance to anything. There is absolutely no physical altercation, (and if you claim it's spiritual, you're going to have to bring about some actual evidence of spirituality, and then show me how the transformation took place) nothing really happens.
You can sacrifice a goat to make it rain, but that does not mean that it rained because you sacrificed a goat. In the words oir Reames, "It?s pure poetry", but you like every other Christian, are taking it to mean literal fact.
So Ray, explain exactly how this works, I want details, and not the poetic imagery. What is the mechanism of salvation that happens because someone?s flesh died? Not to mention the idea that Jesus is supposed to also be God, so if you persist in misunderstanding the word "sacrifice," the next question would be, to whom was the sacrifice offered?
And if you are continuing to claim that a sacrifice was made, and we were saved by Jesus, why aren't we born directly into paradise? According to the only authority on this subject (the Bible) the only reason Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise was because of sin. The only reason we are denied entrance into paradise is a result of Adam and Eve sinning
Ignoring the passage which I used above which completely destroys every concept of origional sin, if we, as you say, were cleansed of the original sin from birth by Jesus' death on the cross, then why wouldn't we be birthed directly into paradise?
We did nothing wrong! Adam and Eve did, and as you've just stated, Jesus saved us of original sin two thousand years ago. Why should we be punished today by automatic exclusion from paradise when we have done nothing wrong?
Oh I know. It's the whole, "You have to accept Jesus as your savior" line. So Jesus did not die for us, as you claimed earlier, cleansing us of our sin. It is only when we "accept Jesus as our savior" that the death provides salvation. So you're saying that Jesus put limitations on his gift. All of a sudden we have to do something to get this "gift." We must accept him to be our savior or we can't be saved.
For what possible reason would a savior require anything of us in order to save us? Isn't that the purpose of a gift that it is given freely without any consideration for anything at all on the part of the gift recipient? This is what you're saying God is doing here, "I'll give you my love and protection but only if you believe that I am God."
Doesn't that sound a bit egomaniacal to you? As objectively as you can, don't you see what an incredibly non-messianic condition that is, beyond the fact that it makes no basic sense?
What exactly do you think Jesus did?
More poetry. You continue to misunderstand (willfully or not) what exactly a sacrifice is. Again I ask, what did Jesus really do for you? If you accept he was a man, then the only thing he did was a symbolic gesture that is completely irrelevant but nice symbolism and if you believe he was God, God can not die nor could he "sacrifice" anything to himself. What would be the point?
Again, Rob Reames put this more eloquently then I have, "I can proclaim that I will die for you so that you will escape jail or punishment or death or whatever and even actually die protecting you so that you don't go to jail or are punished or killed or whatever, but beyond the word play, I haven't actually died for anything at all. I've just died. The poetry may be added later, but that's all it is, poetry. I would have done a magnanimous thing, yes, and you would indeed still be alive if it weren't for my gesture on your behalf. You would thank the memory of me, but I certainly would hope you wouldn't suddenly proclaim that I am God and the One True Savior of Mankind simply because I died "for you." It would be kind of you, but it wouldn't make it so. You can believe it, but it wouldn't make it so."
Exactly. And that is where your point fails. You can not suffer a difference between gesture and reality. Between claiming something and actually having evidence. You cannot decipher the gap between opinion and reality.
I find that ironic. Here is what the Bible demands of you in order to be saved, as a true follower of Jesus would have to be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial churchmouse:
Imagine Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Rex Humbard, Robert Schuller, Herbert W. Armstrong and thousands of other wealthy religious leaders heeding such pronoucements! It's much easier, and far less painful, to rationalize away clear-cut statements than surrender great wealth because of Biblical injunctions. By very right, Ray, by having a computer, you are already breaking God's laws and are subject to hell and fire and brimstone.
In the end, I do know what Jesus did for us, Ray. Nothing. Apparently, you have not yet discovered that fact, or are unwilling to accept it.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
It always amazes me when I'm sitting in a church and the pastor-preacher-teacher//whatever thumbs through the bibliography of books and comes to the book of Job for example.
He will start quoting from the book of Job, and say,,,;
""Job 8
1Then answered Bildad the Shuhite, and said,
2How long wilt thou speak these things? and how long shall the words of thy mouth be like a strong wind?
3Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?
4If thy children have sinned against him, and he have cast them away for their transgression;
5If thou wouldest seek unto God betimes, and make thy supplication to the Almighty;
6If thou wert pure and upright; surely now he would awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous.
7Though thy beginning was small, yet thy latter end should greatly increase.""
Then he will go on and on, and in the end everyone sits there looking dumbfounded yet amazed and trying to act like they understand anything at all.
In the end though, they miss the point.
""Job 42:7;;; After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.""
The bible is filled with errors. Anyone who disagrees with that is an idiot. Idiots are innocent as far as I'm concerned. They don't know any better is all.
""Psalm 19:12...Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.""
Hi, not sure if you're still busy with the sites already listed, here's a good one for somebody with access to more reference materials than me though!
http://www.godandscience.org/index.php
Hi,
I'm new to this site and this is my first post, so let me know if I've done this wrong.
"Oh I know. It's the whole, "You have to accept Jesus as your savior" line. So Jesus did not die for us, as you claimed earlier, cleansing us of our sin. It is only when we "accept Jesus as our savior" that the death provides salvation. So you're saying that Jesus put limitations on his gift. All of a sudden we have to do something to get this "gift." We must accept him to be our savior or we can't be saved.
For what possible reason would a savior require anything of us in order to save us? Isn't that the purpose of a gift that it is given freely without any consideration for anything at all on the part of the gift recipient? This is what you're saying God is doing here, "I'll give you my love and protection but only if you believe that I am God."
I wish to make a response to one particular point you are making in the quoted text above. You appear to be saying that if a free gift needs to be accepted that it is not a free gift?
If that is what you are saying then I would have to completely disagree with you. Some years ago, one of the current affairs programs in my country (Australia) had a man go out on the street and try and give $20 to people as they walked down the street. (I forget why they did this, something about the last of trust in our sociaty I think.) Some people took the twenty and just kept going, many refused it, some even got angry at the giver. Anyway, the $20 was a free gift to everyone it was offered to, regardless of their response, but only those who accepted it recieved the benefit. ($20) It was still a free gift to those who refused it, but they did not have the $20.
I know that you are arguing a lot more than just, a gift is not a gift if you have to accept it. However, I am just responding to that point at this time. I'm new here and I want to read a lot more before getting into other issues. However, this one point struck as just so wrong that felt the need to resond to it. I guess I have to start somewhere.
No offense then, but the point went over your head.
Was this your answer to me? If so please elaborate.
Hi Rook,
I want to say that my intent here is not to preach, but to discuss - ok? When you look/read the Bible, are you reading it with the assumption that the God of the Bible is "Sovereign"? Meaning, He is the creator and can do whatever He pleases. If so, it is my opinion that applying "sovereignty" to these two passages, as well as the entirety of the Bible, helps with understanding. In Rev 3:8 the Church of Philadelphia is spoken to and they are lauded for keeping His word and not denying His name: Their faith isn't empty, they act on it. And those within will hear the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Matthew 25:21). In the chapter preceding we have a discussion in verse 42 speaking to "being ready." So, in this context we have a reward for the faithful. In Revelation 3:20, we have the exact opposite, and those in Laodecia are vomited out, because they were fence sitters, neither hot nor cold in their faith. I believe you are not entirely correct in your analysis here. The premise as stated in Romans and elsewhere, "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" is an absolute. A correct assumption of the Church in Laodcia is it appears it was all lip service. Again, with sovereignty, He allows choice. You want to go on without Him - go ahead. 2 Timothy 2: 11-13 says, "11 Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; 12 if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; 13 if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself." Yes, and we see in Romans 1 where God allows those that deny to continue to deny. Now, having said that, there's are a couple of overarching verses, John 3:16 "Whoever", meaning God loves His creation so much that 'anyone' can come, all that is required is "belief", and 2 Peter 2:9 announcing that God's will is that "no one" perish. His love is universal, His will is for all. The end point is will you come or not? I liken it to family, meaning, I have a wife, a son, and a daughter - I love them unconditionally - they are family. If one errs, my love in not diminished; however, there's a consequence that comes from error, and the action taken toward them isn't from the basis of entertainment or hate, it is from love. I love you so much that I don't want you to err, although I know you will. I still love you and I want you to excel.
Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.
Hesed, FYI, Rook has not been active on this site for a couple of years, so it is extremely unlikely he will either see your post or respond.
Note the date of his last response.
Anyway, since even if there is a God, who is indeed of overwhelming power to do anything he wants, any discussion about what he 'would' do is utterly futile, since his motives, his intent toward us, if any, are inherently unknowable by us, and he could have arranged the Bible to contain whatever he wanted, whether to inform OR deceive us, any such discussion could only meaningfully be about the historicity of the Bible and associated claims, and the psychology of believers.
By its direct contradiction with the nature and origins of the Universe, the Bible looses any credibility as an account of origins.
The deeply immorality and/or confused nature of much of the claimed actions and edicts of this being, especially in the OT, and study of the actual history of mankind and the afflictions we have had to live with, render it of no moral authority either.
You are dealing with product of deep wishful thinking, combined with the primitive beliefs of some ancient tribes from the Middle East, reworked over centuries since originally written.
Basing one's world-view on such things, as opposed to studying them as historical documents to gain understanding of the culture of that era, is a deep error, at least if you are genuinely seeking Truth.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Bob,
Ah, ok - I'm still getting used to this forum and overlooked that point. I was just trying to stay within his constraint and discuss a passage he labeled contradictory. And I believe that if you stay within the context of 'sovereignty' one can see that these two verses are not confusing at all.
Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.
Sure, if you start with certain assumptions, you can find a way to make sense of it.
Doesn't give the text any claim to actual objective truth, since I'm sure there are a whole variety of presuppositions you could make that would also give it a workable context.
Once you have a text that does not have a pretty unambiguous meaning, requiring you to start 'interpreting' it, you really cannot honestly derive any certain knowledge from it.
That is strong evidence against there being a God behind it who really wants us to get his message, rather than just play games with us.
Anyway, that is my current PoV. I am much more into Science and related areas, rather than picking over the bones of dying memes, or ones that should be dead, long ago gave up on Philosophy as having nothing new to offer but more opinions, often ill-informed ones at that. Been following the progress of science, and wrestling with my personal search for the 'Truth', for 50 years or so now...
I am not really into dissecting and debating the Bible, but there are others on this site who are, and may well be happy to 'take you on', so to speak.
They may check into this thread, but if you don't get someone coming in here more interested in this sort of debate, you could try starting anew thread with a title making it clear what your issue is. Many don't seem as inclined to go into an old thread that someone has posted into, they are often spammers.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Understood. I'm over 50. Got knocked off my horse (so-to-speak) when I was 36 and things haven't been the same since. Not really here to debate the Bible, just make clear the exegesis and how the passage is viewed from a point of Christianity. The Bible itself stands alone for sure. Thanks for your honesty and friendliness. Maybe I will start a thread, more interested in reading and commenting as I discover. Thanks for the advice as well.
Hesed - Jeremiah 31:3
Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.
Remember that Yeshua says to bring his enemies before him and slay them as he was the king in that parable as I fathom it. What do other rationalists maintain about it? What rationalizations do believers give about it?
Errantists are guilty of rationalising their anthologies.
" God is in a worse posiition than the Scarecrow who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He as none."Ignostic Morgan
"Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn