I was watching a PBS science special recently (some of the most profound evolutionary propaganda out there, but still interesting to explore the wonder of God’s creation) and I heard this quote from a scientist:
One of the key things that every scientist keeps in mind is you should never fall in love with your theory. So it’s an idea, it’s a hypothesis, it fits all the known facts. But it has not yet been proven, and we must be willing to give it up and modify it if it is not proven. But we will learn something in doing so.
He was talking about an astronomical theory that he had, but he made a very good point that should be applied to all theories—including evolution.
Most of the secular scientific community has fallen in love with evolution as a theory. They don’t like to question it, they don’t like to look for answers anywhere else, they don’t like to test it. All these things should be done with a normal theory, but they aren’t with evolution.
Once, a scientist wrote a preface to an edition of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, by Charles Darwin, saying that the book gave Western Civilization the excuse to pursue their sexual lusts. The secular scientific community has fallen in love with evolution because it has given man an excuse to reject God and live as he pleases. As the racist eugenics advocate, Friedrich Nietzsche, once said,
The Greatest modern event—that God is dead…—has now begun to cast its first shadows over Europe…. In fact, we philosophers and “free spirits” feel ourselves irradiated as by a new rosy dawn by the report that “the old God is dead”; our hearts overflow with gratitude, astonishment, presentiment, and expectation. At last the horizon seems once more unobstructed.
The secular world does not want to give evolution up, even if it no longer fits all the known facts. Evolution has not, and cannot be proven. The secular community must be willing to give it up. Modifying has run its course; the theory still isn’t working. It’s time to move on to another view, one that the Western scientific community embraced for a thousand years. It’s time to move on to the view that all the facts seem to imply. It’s time to move on to the view that God has revealed to us in His Word. Maybe they will learn something in doing so.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…
February 19th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
The theory of evolution is questioned and tested all the time. Scientists are always looking for answers. Are you insinuating the Bible should be used to look for answers? There are more and more facts to support evolution now than ever before. It’s only been around 150 years imagine in another 150 years! Then there will be even more passages in the Bible that we’ll know we can’t take literally!
“Once, a scientist wrote a preface to an edition of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, by Charles Darwin, saying that the book gave Western Civilization the excuse to pursue their sexual lusts.”
1. Who was the scientist?
2. So what? Maybe he said a bone-headed remark that he later regretted, or may he WAS a bone-head. It really has nothing to do with evolution.
“As the racist eugenics advocate, Friedrich Nietzsche, once said…”
That’s it …attack him, he’s an atheist! I know of more racist Christians than racist atheists.
“The secular world does not want to give evolution up, even if it no longer fits all the known facts.“
And what are the “known facts”?
“Evolution has not, and cannot be proven.”
We have observed evolution, it has been proven, you just refuse to believe it because it goes against your beliefs. Here are a few transitional fossils that show the evolutionary process, the list is far from complete, but it’s a start;
Fish to amphibian: Cheirolepis, Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, and Sterropterygion
Amphibian to reptile: Hylonomus, Limnoscelis, Paleothyris, and Proterogyrinus.
Reptile to bird: Coelophysis, Compsognathus, Deinonychus, and Oviraptor.
And some sites so that you may understand better;
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
It sounds like your just scared, Creationists are always attacking Evolution because they feel threatened.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
The theory of evolution is questioned and tested all the time.
And yet, they won’t allow discussion in schools. They won’t allow articles in scientific journals that question evolution. They won’t allow books with an alternative worldview on the shelves of a national park bookstore.
Are you insinuating the Bible should be used to look for answers?
For basic answers, yes. (Basic, meaning the origin of the universe, it’s present condition, and its ultimate fate, your only hope of salvation, etc.) Imagine that, actually using a historical text to find out what happened.
There are more and more facts to support evolution now than ever before.
Than how come you guys change the age of the earth every 2.5 days by 2.5 billion years? Than how come you guys say Darwin was completely wrong scientifically (but he still had a few good ideas)? Than how come you guys still haven’t come up with an answer for the problems of genetics, irreducible complexity, and many astrophysical problems?
Then there will be even more passages in the Bible that we’ll know we can’t take literally!
Name a few historical passages that we can’t take literally.
So what? Maybe he said a bone-headed remark that he later regretted, or may he WAS a bone-head. It really has nothing to do with evolution.
My point is that evolution has been used (rightly) as a liberation from God and morality. Since you love this type of “independence,” you throw out the scientific method and mindset that arises out of Christianity.
That’s it …attack him, he’s an atheist! I know of more racist Christians than racist atheists.
If they are racist Christians, than I would attack them as well. Evolution leads to racism.
known facts
Facts of genetics. Facts of astrophysics. Facts of physics. Facts of geology. Facts of paleontology.
We have observed evolution, it has been proven, you just refuse to believe it because it goes against your beliefs.
Chocomel, please don’t say that. Please don’t go against all science. You cannot observe evolution. You cannot observe creation. You cannot observe intelligent design. You cannot observe the Big Bang. Those things happened in the past; unless you have a time machine, you cannot observe them. You cannot conduct repeatable scientific experiments on the past. The past is beyond the reach of the scientific method. You can hypothesize from the evidence, but you cannot prove conclusively anything.
You refuse to believe creation because it goes against your beliefs.
I like your links. The Berkeley one fails to take into account that human geneology is the narrowing of a gene pool, whereas evolution is the expansion and creation of new genes (impossible, according to laws of genetics). The talkorigins one has lots of outdated stuff that many evolutionists don’t even use anymore. The Wikipedia article doesn’t take into account many things that I won’t go into now because the article is so comprehensive.
It sounds like your just scared
I’m perfectly calm, but yes I’m scared for the sake of humanity. I’m scared that millions more are going to be taught this lie. I’m scared that America will continue to degrade morally. I’m scared that America will continue to plunge deeper into scientific and educational ignorance until the other nations overcome us.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Althusius,
That was a breathtakingly fact-free post.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Um, let’s see…
The two conflicting ways Judas Iscariot supposedly died?
Jesus’ two discrepant pedigrees?
The fact that Jesus supposedly said that some he was speaking to would not die before the second coming?
The impossibility of constructing a coherent timeline of the time between the resurrection and the ascension?
OK for starters?
February 19th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
As a Calvinist, I don’t know why you should be scared for anyone or any thing, because your deity already knows who is going to hell and who isn’t— it is predestined. You must even acknowledge the possibility that you yourself are going to hell and I am not, because you cannot presume to know what Calvin’s God has preordained.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I would also add that the other societal ills you claim to be in fear of are also part of your deity’s master plan— you can neither aggravate nor mitigate them against God’s will— you are essentially his puppet. So if all is going according to plan, then why do you claim to fear?
February 21st, 2007 at 7:05 am
Althusius,
What? No comments on this?
Fish to amphibian: Cheirolepis, Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, and Sterropterygion
Amphibian to reptile: Hylonomus, Limnoscelis, Paleothyris, and Proterogyrinus.
Reptile to bird: Coelophysis, Compsognathus, Deinonychus, and Oviraptor.
“And yet, they won’t allow discussion in schools. They won’t allow articles in scientific journals that question evolution. They won’t allow books with an alternative worldview on the shelves of a national park bookstore.”
Basically that is because “creation science” is not science, if you want to talk Creationism do it in Sunday school. If you want to teach religion in public schools, personally I say fine - as long as it’s ALL the major world religions. National parks don’t want the stuff because they will look like idiots. The scientific method is a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps used to acquire an explanation for observed phenomena. A preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed on the basis of careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. This hypothesis is then tested by further observations and experiments. If the information gathered from observations and experiments over time satisfies the conditions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis eventually becomes accepted as a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is the only explanation for the origin of life that accounts for the fossil, anatomical, molecular (including genetic), behavioral and geological evidence. Although they continue to argue over the details of exactly how the various mechanisms of evolution operate, biologists long ago concluded that evolution happens. This is because evolution explains all of the evidence far better than all other proposed explanations for the origin of life. Creation science is based on an old, flawed set of fables and fairy tales.
“For basic answers, yes. (Basic, meaning the origin of the universe, it’s present condition, and its ultimate fate, your only hope of salvation, etc.) Imagine that, actually using a historical text to find out what happened.”
What happened? I don’t deny the Bible is historical text. But that doesn’t mean that is “what happened”.
“Than how come you guys change the age of the earth every 2.5 days by 2.5 billion years? Than how come you guys say Darwin was completely wrong scientifically (but he still had a few good ideas)? Than how come you guys still haven’t come up with an answer for the problems of genetics, irreducible complexity, and many astrophysical problems? ”
There are no “instant” answers, science is full of changes as more evidence is found theories or parts of theories will change. (every 2.5 days?)
“Name a few historical passages that we can’t take literally.”
Ironwolf has done so and there are more, if I say that the Bible says the earth is on pillars and is immoveable you will say it’s either a metaphor or taken out of context or something to that effect. However, when the pillars are mentioned you cannot take them literally. Someday you may find out that the ark/flood is a metaphor, or the six days of creation might not be literal.
“My point is that evolution has been used (rightly) as a liberation from God and morality. Since you love this type of “independence,” you throw out the scientific method and mindset that arises out of Christianity.”
There is absolutely no reason you can’t believe in evolution and God, the Bible as literally “Gods Word”, yes, but not your belief in God. As far as morals go…that is/was another post.
“Please don’t go against all science. You cannot observe evolution.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Yes, you can.
First you have to understand what evolution is.
1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species.
2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common descent.
3. All life on earth has a common origin.
4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.
So now knowing that, we have observed evolution, for instance - very rapid evolution of viruses and bacteria. Antibiotic resistant strains of many types of bacteria have evolved from strains that were very susceptible to these same antibodies. The part of evolution that concerns you the most however happens over such a long period of time that the only way we have to observe the evolution of life is through the fossil record, which supports evolution and an old earth.
“The talkorigins one has lots of outdated stuff that many evolutionists don’t even use anymore.”
Maybe, but the outdated stuff (lots?) is updated elsewhere on talkorigins, also if you have any doubts…ask them. But you may not like what they will say. It is a very good site however.
Wikipedia is always a bit iffy but it does have some useful information and links.
One I forgot;
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
February 21st, 2007 at 8:23 am
Oh and to comment on your “Evolution leads to racism.” link, which was incredibly one-sided (of course).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html
One of the many things I found funny on the link was this;
“But if you look at the accounts, true Christians treated their servants with kindness.”
Kindness? Then how were the lowest of slaves treated? Let’s not just talk about slavery either when it comes to racism. Christianity is the source for a lot of bigotry over the years as you briefly touched on - you didn’t even mention the KKK!
March 10th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Chocomel,
Ah, but those weren’t true Christians! Actually they weren’t true Scotsmen, either.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Commemorating over 30 days with no response to the previously mentioned “historical passages that we can’t take literally.”
March 21st, 2007 at 12:35 pm
30 days? My how time flies!
Althusius, whenever you get the time I also posted at your
“Christianity and Racism” link…or whatever it’s called.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Thank you gentlemen, for your responses, mine is coming up soon.
I might add, Ironwolf, that you haven’t gotten a response to me out on this post for over 90 days besides a lame comment by someone calling something that I said bullshit. Yeah, that’s a good response.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Althusius,
Well, here’s the thing. To get my very polite (and, I think formidable) response from Dr. Berger, all I had to do was write to him and ask. Has it occurred to you that you could do the same thing?
And as a matter of fact, I did contact Dr. Berger again and point out your response. I must keep his reply off the record, but believe me— his tone was hardly one of fear. We may (or may not) yet hear from him again, but as I said, silence shall not be construed as a concession in that discussion. I invite you to contact him directly and add your voice to mine in politely requesting his response.
And the gentleman who left the “bullshit” comment did not merely call a name— he also directed us to his own blog article that pertains directly to the topic we were discussing? Have you read and commented on it on his blog? He seems quite well-educated and would probably love to engage you directly.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Commemorating over 60 days with no response to the previously-mentioned “historical passages that we can’t take literally.”
You must be a busy guy, Althusius.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Althusius,
Your silence is odd, so I hope you will let us know you’re OK.
Robert
June 19th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Commemorating over 120 days with no response to the previously-mentioned “historical passages that we can’t take literally.”
Thanks for letting me know you’re still alive and kicking.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
All I can say: “Wow”
If he doesnt answer this soon I may have to for him…
June 19th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
….not saying its my preference or anything….
June 19th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
but 120 days is a while
June 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Ironwolf, i just have one question for you.
Why are you so moved by what Althusius says, so that you appear very bothered and find time to make attempts to prove him wrong in most areas? Why is this?
June 20th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Anonymous,
It is certainly not a matter of proving him wrong… it is nothing personal at all as a matter of fact. In my experience, it is pointless to try to change someone’s mind on deeply-held religious beliefs anyway— either they will see the sense of what is being argued, as I once did and gave up religion, or they will not, and will remain whatever they were. The real prize is in not letting absurd myths go unanswered in the sphere of public discourse. And blogs, whether my own or Althusius’, are a vital part of that. This is part of my own small contribution to clearing the air over myths that, whatever benefits they may have or had at some time, are now causing great harm to humanity.
Besides, Althusius himself threw down the gauntlet. He takes a literalist position and asked for historical passages we can’t take literally. I have only taken his request seriously. Why would that be a problem?
June 20th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“…it is pointless to try to change someone’s mind on deeply-held religious beliefs anyway— either they will see the sense of what is being argued, as I once did and gave up religion, or they will not, and will remain whatever they were.”
Well, someone was obviously arguing over matters. And from their arguments came your beliefs, or in this case non-beliefs. You said you saw the sense of what was being argued; so if arguments made by somebody caused your views to change, how is trying to change someone’s mind on a deeply-held religious belief pointless? It obviously worked. And by all the arguing you do, it appears to be more than trying to disprove “myths;” it appears more of arguing to win others to your point of view, as you were once a victim yourself.
And by reading your first posts, it wasn’t the myths that so bothered you to write on them. It was the Bible itself and Calvinism.
And how are the so-called “myths” harming humanity? I’m sorry, but thats absurd. Please explain the following statement more: “…clearing the air over myths that, whatever benefits they may have or had at some time, are now causing great harm to humanity.”
I will agree. You cannot take all Bible versus “literal.” Ever heard of context? Ever heard of analogies? You’re doing what many present-day reporters and journalists do: you take part of what is said, eliminate the whole picture, and only take the part you want so you can completely twist it.
Another question: would I be correct if I said you God?
June 20th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
A word was automatically omitted on my last post. So I will pose the question again.
Would I be correct if I said you * * * God?
June 20th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
OK. It was omitted again. The word is -
June 20th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I’m going to try one more time.
H A T E
June 20th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
=)
June 20th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Nice, Anonymous, go at it. But my response should be coming within the hour. argh.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
By the way Ironwolf -
I have found an inspiring video on the topic of evolution for you. It would be my pleasure for you to view it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edfnna3nxuI&NR=1
June 20th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Hello?
June 20th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Thank you for your concern. I did mean to continue responding and posting every once in a while on here, but things piled up very fast and kept piled up. I’m fairly free right now, so I’ll try to answer your comments and keep posting new entries.
The two conflicting ways Judas Iscariot supposedly died?
As far as I know, there is only one account of his death: by suicide (hanging) in Matt. 27:3-9.
Jesus’ two discrepant pedigrees?
One was his father’s; one was his mother’s. When it says, “the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,” it is referring to the fact that Joseph took up the male lineage of Heli by his marriage to Mary. Heli had only two daughters, leaving no male descendant to continue the family name; Joseph fulfilled the role.
The fact that Jesus supposedly said that some he was speaking to would not die before the second coming?
That passage is in a highly complicated eschatological context. Most of those statements are talking about the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and that’s what that particular statement is talking about. John the apostle was one who lived beyond that date. I think there were a few others, but I’m not sure.
The impossibility of constructing a coherent timeline of the time between the resurrection and the ascension?
I can’t completely answer for that since I’m not a Greek scholar, but I will say that a lot of what that guy says is nitpicky and can be explained by the fact that Jesus was capable of doing supernatural things, and also considering that many of Dan Barker’s assumptions are unfounded and could easily go another way.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
As a Calvinist, I don’t know why you should be scared for anyone or any thing, because your deity already knows who is going to hell and who isn’t— it is predestined. You must even acknowledge the possibility that you yourself are going to hell and I am not, because you cannot presume to know what Calvin’s God has preordained.
Wow, uh, no. Thanks for identifying me as a Calvinist; I’m honored, but I’m not a hyper-Calvinist. I do not worry incessantly about the future of the world, but I do try positively (as God has commanded and ordained me to do) to change things for the better. God has given me assurance by the Holy Spirit that I am going to heaven, and that that is His revealed Will. God’s Word also says that those who will not believe on Jesus Christ will go to hell. God’s Will is knowable in certain areas.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Fish to amphibian: Cheirolepis, Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, and Sterropterygion
Amphibian to reptile: Hylonomus, Limnoscelis, Paleothyris, and Proterogyrinus.
Reptile to bird: Coelophysis, Compsognathus, Deinonychus, and Oviraptor.
Fish to amphibian
Cheirolepis sounds pretty much like a fish to me.;
Eusthenopteron - 100% fish;
Osteolepis - sorry, nope
On Sterropterygion, I dug up a link to this page right here, another comment by Chocomel, and a card saying that Sterropterygion is not extinct. Dunno, but if it’s the same as your other three, you’re in trouble because you need more missing links than one species.
Amphibian to reptile
Hylonomus - considered a reptile, and it looks like one, too.
Limnoscelis - a possible stem form that shows some interesting characteristics. Hardly a down-to-earth, certifiable missing link, though.
Paleothyris - Sorry, no cigar here either.
Proterogyrinus - an amphibian with teeth, you need more than that to be a transitional between reptiles and amphibians.
Reptile to bird
Coelophysis - a Velociraptor-like dinosaur with hollow bones.
Again, a small theropod, not lookin’ like a bird, visually or biologically.
Deinonychus - contains the characteristics of Archeopterx, so the same arguments apply, it has a bird-like claw, but so does velociraptor. It supposedly had feathers, but those are pasted on from two other species that supposedly lived 10 million years earlier. A lot of assumptions, in other words.
Oviraptor - skeleton’s pretty good, still missing some key elements though. It’s feathers are again pasted on from another species that it supposedly is descended from. Still doesn’t have wings, either.
Wow, you made me go through all that just to prove what we’ve been saying for many years. You guys only have a very small amount of very controversial missing-links. By the way, where are the missing links from “Nothingness to fish,” or from “Birds to Humans,” or from “Nothingness to Plants”? You guys need thousands of missing links to give the diversity of life today. You just put a couple. Come on, guys, impress me.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
The scientific method is a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps used to acquire an explanation for observed phenomena. A preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed on the basis of careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. This hypothesis is then tested by further observations and experiments. If the information gathered from observations and experiments over time satisfies the conditions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis eventually becomes accepted as a scientific theory.
Excellent summary, I completely agree with you. The only thing that I have to keep on saying is that you can’t observe the past in the present, you can’t experiment on the past, you can’t repeatedly test your hypothesis on control groups of fossils, etc. We creationists (and a few honest evolutionists) acknowledge that. You can only say that the evidence seems to indicate such and such hypothesis, but origins science is a lot less solid than the usual present day observational science.
The theory of evolution is the only explanation for the origin of life that accounts for the fossil, anatomical, molecular (including genetic), behavioral and geological evidence.
Well, no, I’d have to say that creationism fits it quite well. If you’ll go to sites like answersingenesis.org, read the papers of ID scientists and researchers, and (with all modesty) read my posts in the Creation vs. Evolution category; you’d find that it fits quite well into the Creation account.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
What happened? I don’t deny the Bible is historical text. But that doesn’t mean that is “what happened”.
Read it through, and may the Holy Spirit enlighten your mind to understand and believe.
There are no “instant” answers, science is full of changes as more evidence is found theories or parts of theories will change.
Which is the whole point of my post. Thank you.
(every 2.5 days?)
That was a joke, I couldn’t resist.
However, when the pillars are mentioned you cannot take them literally. Someday you may find out that the ark/flood is a metaphor, or the six days of creation might not be literal.
No offense, but this betrays your lack of study in the Bible and in its original languages. There are simple differences between prophecy and history in Biblical Hebrew. One of them is the “waw” consecutive, which I don’t want to explain now. But I will say that if the text says something like “The prophecy of Isaiah concerning…”, it’s prophecy that usually contains many poetical expressions. The text of Genesis is obviously historical, looking at the Hebrew.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
And as a matter of fact, I did contact Dr. Berger again and point out your response. I must keep his reply off the record
Interesting. Maybe I should contact him.
Hope that answers a few questions.
I’ll try to get to those other threads soon, and start posting entries. Posting… oh boy.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Ah, but those weren’t true Christians! Actually they weren’t true Scotsmen, either.
That’s not a falacy when it comes to Christianity. True Christianity is in the hearts of those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Other people can claim that they’re Christians, but they’re obviously not, as shown by their works (e.g. the KKK). It works in a distantly similar way with Atheism too. Eric Pianka and others like him claim to be atheists, but advocate genocide and mass destruction of human life for the sake of the environment.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
So now knowing that, we have observed evolution, for instance - very rapid evolution of viruses and bacteria. Antibiotic resistant strains of many types of bacteria have evolved from strains that were very susceptible to these same antibodies. The part of evolution that concerns you the most however happens over such a long period of time that the only way we have to observe the evolution of life is through the fossil record, which supports evolution and an old earth.
Refer here.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Anonymous,
What I mean was it’s pointless to try to convince any particular person. It is better to debate for the benefit of the audience. No one person “argued” me into becoming an atheist— it was the slow accumulation of understanding that finally tipped the balance.
Myths don’t bother me. People trying to live their lives by myths, and threatening other people with myths, bothers me. When people live by myths, the often feel that they can act with the certitude of divine authority, and there are many examples of this harming society.
Context gets widened and analogies get stretch to the point where the text can support anything you want it to. It becomes, in essence, meaningless— a mirror in which people see what they want to see. But I’m glad to know you’re not a literalist.
I don’t h-t- God, because it is impossible to h-t- anything that doesn’t exist. Do you h-t- unicorns?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:44 pm
In Matthew 27:3-5 Judas hung himself.
In Acts 1:15-19 Judas fell headlong in a field, splitting himself open.
According to the myth, Jesus had none of Joseph’s blood. Pedigrees have always been about blood relatives, so there is no reason to make an exception in Jesus’ case. So in what sense is this patrilineal pedigree to be taken literally?
The statements Jesus made about his second coming were obviously made with the expectation that those living would see it happen in its fullness in their lifetime. This is the basic literal reading of this text. The fact that you place it into a “complicated eschatological context” shows that you do not, in fact, take it literally.
The Easter Challenge was to simply construct a sequence of events between the resurrection and the ascension that omits no biblical detail. It is an extremely simple request. And, it does not take a Greek scholar to see that this is impossible— many of the events conflict on their face, and are not even adequately answered by invoking miracles. Your dismissive answer to this challenge shows that you choose to not take these passages literally, but for some rather more vague meaning they convey to you.
So what is left of “literalism” as you hold to it? What does it mean, if not that you can hold to the details as well as the overall hermeneutic you like to draw from it? I would argue that you have failed to show any substance to the idea of literalism.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Althusius,
I’m curious: you say “God’s Word also says that those who will not believe on Jesus Christ will go to hell.” But if your God exists, then he knows exactly what it would take to get me to believe, and he has chosen to not do that. So in what sense am I unwilling to believe? To me, it is much more a matter of my being unable to believe based on the absurdly low standard of evidence presented. It is like a jury, for lack of evidence, being unable to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
As a Calvinist (even the non-hyper type) you believe in Irresistible Grace, which I take to mean that if God wants me to believe, then I will believe, period. Isn’t the converse true? Looked at this way, isn’t it God’s will that I do not believe?
To summarize: the idea that there are people who will not believe in Jesus is nonsense.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Althusius,
You say, “True Christianity is in the hearts of those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Other people can claim that they’re Christians, but they’re obviously not, as shown by their works…”
There are other Christians who would argue that the principles of TULIP are, in fact, unrepresentative of the true God and Jesus of the Bible as their faith gives them to understand. To them you are not a “true Christian.” So in what sense is the No True Scotsman fallacy not applicable to Christianity? You can say that God will sort it all out in the end, but here and now it’s just your word against theirs.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Anonymous,
I have seen that South Park clip. I thought it was quite funny.
…and your point is?
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 am
Whoa…he’s back!
Althusius,
I’m sorry you looked up all those evolutionary links thinking that they were complete! They were only meant as examples, far from complete.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:53 am
Althusius,
There are no “instant” answers, science is full of changes as more evidence is found theories or parts of theories will change.
Which is the whole point of my post. Thank you.
But there has been nothing to disprove the theory some parts have changed yes, but that’s ok. And it makes more sense than Supernatural happenings.
I did go to your “Natural” Selection link. So you believe in Natural Selection you just call it “Divine” Selection.
As far as my understanding of the Bible goes, if there is anything that needs to be questioned and anything that is wrong (the age of the earth and the ark story are two examples) then it can’t be “God’s Word”. It’s historical yes, full of legends and fairytales and ancient ways of life, but “Gods Word” no.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“Eric Pianka and others like him claim to be atheists, but advocate genocide and mass destruction of human life for the sake of the environment.”
Forrest Mims took some statements from his speech out of context. Pianka was stating what would happen from biological principles alone if present human population trends continue, and that he was not in any way advocating for it to happen.
The Texas Academy of Sciences hosted the speech and released a statement stating that “many of Dr. Pianka’s statements have been severely misconstrued and sensationalized.”
A transcript of the speech is available if you would like to read it.
Ok, so who are “others like him”?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
1) What does it matter to you if i live my life by “myths?”
2) How can you be so sure they ARE “myths?”
3) And i still think that attempting to persuade a particular person on certain issues can have enormous affect. Do you disagree with that?
4) You still haven’t given me any of those many “examples” you keep talking about
5) “Context gets widened and analogies get stretch to the point where the text can support anything you want it to. It becomes, in essence, meaningless— a mirror in which people see what they want to see.”
Well, can you give me any examples of this in the Bible? Still, context in the Bible can get very large, and the text still holds meaning. In fact, portions of the Bible are very hard to understand if you don’t know anything else about the Bible. That is why I think it is weak for you to use Bible verses in your arguments, you don’t even get the big picture.
I would like to note that unicorns, although ‘non-existent,’ are used about 3 times in the Bible. They are used as a metaphor, symbolizing strength. And more, unicorns were not used in Greek MYTHOLOGY, they were used in ancient Greek HISTORY.
And how did you spontaneously jump to the conclusion that God is all of the sudden, “non-existent” according to you?
I would like to add, that from your own words all I can come up with is that you indeed H A T E God because you not only deny His existence, but you make it a strong point in your life to argue Biblical topics, facts, and the sovereignty, divinity, nature, and being of our Lord and Creator.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
the point of the clip:
evolution is ridiculous
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Just to jump into Anon and Chocomel’s discussion here, I’d like to rephrase Anon’s question to Chocomel.
Why do you hate the notion of God?
Why do you hate the idea of God?
You get my idea.
Carry on.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
*Ironwolf
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Anonymous,
1) You can live your life believing in the Man in the Moon for all I care, but when you (or your ilk) try to impose your regressive “morality” on me, then I take exception. It is the same reason you would argue with Muslims or Mormons if they were trying to take over your government.
2) Because, aside for an appalling lack of corroborating historical evidence, they follow the same patterns as many other stories you would agree with me are myths. Check out jesusneverexisted dot com and the excellent documentary The God Who Wasn’t There for an introduction.
3) Of course it can have an enormous impact on the individual being debated, but in general that is not the focus of public debate.
4) Examples of harm range from the Dark Ages through the federal ban on funding for stem cell research, to the continuous assault on the separation of Church and State here in the U.S. Religion’s followers have tried to deny every advance in scientific understanding (e.g., heliocentrism, evolution) and social reform (e.g. slavery, women’s rights) and they continue to do so today. See my debate with Althusius on my own blog on The Golden Rule for more details.
5) Christians can neither agree on how to be saved, nor on the right way to live one’s life. They have used scripture to justify every every bit of harm I cite in the previous paragprah. Search on my blog for “A house divided.”
What makes you assume that my conclusion that God is not existent was either “spontaneous” or “sudden”?
I do not h-t- God any more than I h-t- Zeus or UFOs, both of which you would probably agree are non-existent. It’s just that God’s followers are continually attempting to take over my pluralistic, secular government and threatening me and those I love with eternal torment. To answer Althusius’ question, I don’t h-t- every notion or idea of God, but I do h-t- the intolerance many people’s notion of God engenders. Yes, I admit it freely: I am intolerant of intolerance.
Finally, if you knew anything about either satire or evolution, you’d know that the point of the clip was not that evolution is ridiculous, but that the typical anti-evolutionist’s gross misunderstandings about what evolutionists actually teach is ridiculous.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
1) & 3) In your last post you just contradicted yourself 2 times:
“People trying to live their lives by myths…bothers me”
“You can live your life believing in the Man in the Moon for all I care”
“What I mean was it’s pointless to try to convince any particular person”
“Of course it [attempting to persuade a particular person] can have an enormous impact on the individual being debated”
2) “an appalling lack of corroborating historical evidence”
I just visited Greece Turkey, and saw firsthand an appalling amount of corroborating historical evidence. So explain to me all of that? I must have really missed something the whole 2 weeks. And all the tour guides and archaeologists must have missed it too.
Can you back that statement up with any examples and evidence?
4) That was a very opinionated view. You’re are assuming, backed with no facts, that funding for stem cell research and evolution are right, and thus it is harmful to be against them. As to heliocentricism, Roman Catholics were against that, not Christians. I don’t see how Christians denied advances in slavery and women’s rights.
5) “Christians can neither agree on how to be saved, nor on the right way to live one’s life. They have used scripture to justify every every bit of harm I cite in the previous paragprah.”
That is interesting. I go to a church, and we all agree on how one is saved. Not only my church, but the whole denomination. And what do you mean by “the right way to live one’s life?” And for the ‘harm’ you cited in that paragraph, I’m sorry but that was nonsense.
6) You did not give any arguments or facts, and you did not say yes or no. You just said God does not exist. If you would like me to rephrase the question however…: Can you give me hard factual evidence that God does not exist? And can you give me hard factual evidence that you exist?
And on your last point, I’d have to disagree with you. However I don’t think its worth our time to argue over a South Park clip.
Lastly, you speak as if you have no moral standards. Am I correct? “Examples of harm range from the Dark Ages through the federal ban on funding for stem cell research.” So defendless children is alright? And how is morality “regressive?”
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
again it omitted a word. On my last point: So K I L L I N G defendless children is alright?
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Anonymous,
You’re asking me to rehash a lot of territory I have already been over with Althusius, and other Christians, on my blog. It is quite apparent that you have not followed my directions to it yet. So please trouble yourself to do so: every one of my comments here has a link. Use search strings like “morality”, “Golden Rule”, “House Divided” and “Lunacies”.
And Althusius, don’t you think your word filter is a bit over-zealous?
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Don’t blame him, I think it is my computer.
Ironwolf, if you are passionate enough about this area in your life, I would think you would be more than willing to ‘re-hash’ over it. You certainly don’t address those contradictions you made in the links you gave me, I know that. And that jesusneverexisted.com link was nonsense too. So if you aren’t willing to directly answer my questions, tell me why you completely contradicted yourself those two times
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Anonymous,
Apparently I am not so passionate about this topic as you have judged, and you have mistaken me for someone who likes to repeat himself.
I’m not sure which “last two lines” you’re referring to so please explain precisely which “contradictions” you would like me to address.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:34 am
So is commenting on Sunday not allowed or something?
June 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I don’t make a habit of it.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Anyways…
Apparently you completely missed it, but I’ll copy and paste your contradictions from my previous post:
“People trying to live their lives by myths…bothers me”
“You can live your life believing in the Man in the Moon for all I care”
“What I mean was it’s pointless to try to convince any particular person”
“Of course it [attempting to persuade a particular person] can have an enormous impact on the individual being debated”
Also Ironwolf, I am very disappointed you are stuck on abstaining from answering my questions. Yes, you did give me links. I did in fact view the ‘jesusneverexisted.com’ link, and that really turned me off from viewing any others in detail do to the complete absurdity it held. And honestly, no matter how many links you give me, they will not directly answer, in your own words, the exact questions I am posing to you.
“you have mistaken me for someone who likes to repeat himself.”
And on that little quote I took suprise. I am shocked you are one who abstains from repeating yourself, being one who debates and blogs. You will never get far with new people you talk to if you just tell them, “Oh, I’ve already talked about that, so I’m not going to answer your questions.” I’m sorry, but I find your response to my questions utterly lacking and disappointing.
And so, I plead with you one more time to take my words into consideration.
I would like to add one more note, Ironwolf. I give you my compliments. You have posed many logical and understandable arguments, and you appear very well thought-out in many areas. You also have a distinct talent in putting your views into words. And more, you have even helped me to more thuroughly think through, and flesh out my own views and beliefs. Thank you.
P.S. If you decide not to answer my hanging questions, you can count on hearing from me again. I attempted to post a comment on your blog on a specfic post you made, but it failed to go through. I will try again, and if it fails maybe we could talk about it on here?
Regards,
“Anonymous”
(With the newly assumed screename of, “Flyboy”)
June 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Curiosity urges me to ask you Althusius, why in the world is that prohibited? I don’t see any calvinistic views that would support that. I am actaully seeing the contrary
June 25th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
By the way Althusius…
I’d like to run a couple of ideas by you to see what you think on a certain topic. Let me know if you’re alright with that.
Thanks!
June 25th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Flyboy,
Your strategically-placed ellipsis drops some important context: “…and threatening other people with myths…” I wonder why you took that out? It is not simply living by myths, but that in combination with (hence the “and”) that bothers me. Apart from the threats (and often consequent actions), absolutist systems of thought, whether they are supernatural or political, are necessary precursors to such threats.
“Pointless” is too strong a word. It is minimally useful to spend time debating an individual you don’t even know in an effort to get them to change their world view— there are just too many of you. Other than close friends and relatives, who I have a great deal of personal attachment to, I believe it is better to “cast one’s (rhetorical) bread upon the waters” of public discourse, hoping to influence a relatively large number of lurkers a little bit, than to merely cast one’s pearls before the swinish hardcore of closed-minded believers who are quite unlikely to ever change their view. (BTW, I hope you like biblical literary allusions, because I often use them.)
If you would like me to answer a concise question, then I would be happy to tackle it. But from what I can see your questions are often of the form, “I just visited Greece Turkey, and saw firsthand an appalling amount of corroborating historical evidence. So explain to me all of that?” [Emphasis mine.] First of all, I don’t know how much evidence you require to consider it an “appalling amount”, and secondly, you don’t even say what it is. So how in the world am I supposed to explain it all to you? Also, calling something “absurd” or “nonsense” does not count as either a refutation nor even a question. So if you honestly want to know what an atheist thinks, feel free to ask simply and clearly— I may in fact direct you to my previous writings or those of others, and if you want to ask followups you feel have not been adequately addressed, I will do my best to answer them. But I’m not going to spend time going over things that I think are quite clearly addressed in other places. When I was a Christian, I read a great deal of atheist writings before I ever ventured to actually strike up a conversation with an atheist, and I feel that doing so helped my questions to be more relevant. It is basically a matter of respecting an individual who would take the time to answer your questions.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
“Your strategically-placed ellipsis drops some important context: “…and threatening other people with myths…” I wonder why you took that out? It is not simply living by myths,
but that in combination with (hence the “and”) that bothers me. Apart from the threats (and often consequent actions), absolutist systems of thought, whether they are supernatural or political, are necessary precursors to such threats.”
I freely admit that I did indeed omit the second part of your statement, for thats not where my focus lies. Maybe it was a
simple typo, but statement was a two part statement.
“People trying to live their lives by myths, and threatening other people with myths, bothers me.”
Your 1st problem: People trying to live their lives by myths
Your 2nd problem: Threatening other people with myths
There is a distinct ‘comma AND’ that separate the two thoughts. Hence its not a combination, but a list.
So yet my question remains, how can you say “People trying to live their lives by myths bothers me,” while at the same time saying, “You can live your life believing in the Man in the Moon for all I care.”
Accepting your complete change in wording, I now compare the two statements yet again:
“It is minimally useful to spend time debating an individual you don’t even know in an effort to get them to change their world view— there are just too many of you”
“Of course it [attempting to persuade a particular person] can have an enormous impact on the individual being debated.”
And to add another statement: “…merely cast one’s pearls before the swinish of closed-minded believers who are quite unlikely to ever change their view.”
So you are just assuming that I am one of these?
You don’t agree that it is much, much, much more effective to talk to someone person to person, rather than just speaking to a general audience?
“If you would like me to answer a concise question, then I would be happy to tackle it.”
I will again do some copying and pasting.
1) “an appalling lack of corroborating historical evidence”
I just visited Greece Turkey, and saw firsthand an appalling amount of corroborating historical evidence. So explain to me all of that? I must have really missed something the whole 2 weeks. And all the tour guides and archaeologists must have missed it too.
CAN YOU BACK THAT STATEMENT UP WITH ANY EXAMPLES AND EVIDENCE?
(Kudos to catching the more rhetorical question that was in the very middle)
2) “Christians can neither agree on how to be saved, nor on the right way to live one’s life. They have used scripture to justify every every bit of harm I cite in the previous paragprah.”
That is interesting. I go to a church, and we all agree on how one is saved. Not only my church, but the whole denomination. AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “THE RIGHT WAY TO LIVE ONE’S LIFE?” And for the ‘harm’ you cited in that paragraph, I’m sorry but that was nonsense.
3) You did not give any arguments or facts, and you did not say yes or no. You just said God does not exist. If you would like me to rephrase the question however…: CAN YOU GIVE ME HARD FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT EXIST? AND CAN YOU GIVE ME HARD FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU EXIST?
4) Lastly, you speak as if you have no moral standards. AM I CORRECT? “Examples of harm range from the Dark Ages through the federal ban on funding for stem cell research.” SO K I L L I N G DEFENDLESS CHILDREN IS ALRIGHT? AND HOW IS MORALITY “REGRESSIVE?”
As for the other points, technically they are not ‘questions.’ But it is expected that you would reply to comments like those. That’s what we’ve been doing anyways….
I don’t see why you abstain from that all of the sudden.
“First of all, I don’t know how much evidence you require to consider it an “appalling amount”, and secondly, you don’t even say what it is. So how in the world am I supposed to explain it all to you?”
May I remind you, you were the one to use the word “appalling.” So you tell me. And as for what it is: what else is there? Archaeological findings. Cities, documents, other writings. The only other physical evidences there are. And as for explaining it to me, I mean what I said. Although I used it more in a rhetorical sense, I would be interested to hear an answer now that you bring it up. I will put it in context:
Ironwolf: “Myths don’t bother me. People trying to live their lives by myths, and threatening other people with myths, bothers me. When people live by myths, the often feel that they can act with the certitude of divine authority, and there are many examples of this harming society.”
Flyboy: “How can you be so sure they ARE ‘myths?’”
Ironwolf: “Because, aside for an appalling lack of corroborating historical evidence, they follow the same patterns as many other stories you would agree with me are myths.”
Flyboy: “I just visited Greece Turkey, and saw firsthand an appalling amount of corroborating historical evidence. So explain to me all of that? I must have really missed something the whole 2 weeks. And all the tour guides and archaeologists must have missed it too.”
How can there be an appalling lack of corroborating evidence when its already been dug up?
“So if you honestly want to know what an atheist thinks, feel free to ask simply and clearly…”
Please tell me where I am not being clear.
As for your ending point, I see what you mean. But rather than reading things you’ve written in the past and directing me to atheist links, and other sorts of anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Holy Spirit, and anti-Christian links, I would much rather see what you have to say for yourself in answering my questions on here. Why do you come onto this blog, argue the author, and when someone else comes in and challenges what you say you abstain to answer their questions and direct them to other places?
I hope this helps make things clear.
~Flyboy
June 25th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I hope you don’t take my capitol letters as shouting, but rather as a means of clarification, as I just learned the art of making letters bold
June 25th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Flyboy,
I think you are becoming rather pedantic about my explanation of my so-called “contradictions.” I don’t think I have been obscurant with my explanations, and frankly, when I begin to get into a conversation where my interlocutor begins to pick apart my admittedly less-than-perfect grammar, I begin to wonder whether there is any useful resolution in store. And again, what is at stake here for me is not convincing you personally, but in making my position clear to the silent majority who come to these sorts of places. This I believe I have done with regard to my alleged “contradictions.”
The fact that some of the places mentioned in the Bible happen to be corroborated by historical evidence in no way corroborates the miraculous stories of the Bible. The existence of Julius Caesar is far better corroborated than many historical personages, but do you believe the miracle stories told about him? So again, you are vaguely pointing at “tour guides and archaeologists” as if these people somehow substantiate your interpretation of the Bible. They do not.
I used the word “appalling” in its simple dictionary sense: awful or terrible. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” goes the saying, and surely you would agree that the Bible makes extraordinary claims. For those claims the standard of evidence is naturally much higher than run-of-the-mill claims such as “such and such a city existed” or “people kept such and such an observance at such and such a time.” Evidence that is trotted out to corroborate the existence of Jesus, from the mundane such as the existence certain places he was said to have travelled, to a plethora of mutually incompatible and provably fraudulent holy relics said to belong to him or parts of his body, are of such poor quality as to fit the term I used to describe them: appalling. Why you used the term, I can’t explain.
Your sect or congregation may agree on the “right” way to live one’s life, but Christianity as a whole is a “house divided.” Since I think I am permitted one link without subjecting my comment to moderation, I will use this one. Please read not just my article and the comments, but also follow the link to the excellent article called “Christian Salvation”.
When one asserts that such-and-such an entity exists, the burden is upon them to prove it. You wish to assert that God exists, and therefore I lay the burden of proof where it naturally belongs: you.
On the other hand, I have not asserted to you that I exist. Whether I do or do not is, frankly, immaterial to the discussion. You are under no compulsion to believe that I, as an individual, exist. I could be a committee of several people, or a computer program, or you might be dreaming our entire conversation, and that would not change whether what I am saying is valuable or true.
You are not correct. My supreme moral standard is The Golden Rule, which I have defended at length in a conversation on my blog that Althusius instigated. I also explained at length to him what I mean by regressive morality. I will not repeat my defense here.
With regard to stem cell research (and abortion in general), I believe that an embryo amounts to a potential human life, which is not the same as a human life, which therefore does not have the same moral standing as a child. A simple hypothetical demonstrates this: You are in a fertility clinic and realize that the building is burning. You are able to save yourself and exactly one of the following: A) A five year-old child, or B) A cannister containing 50 frozen embryos. The one you do not save will definitely perish. Which do you choose?
I have addressed the questions you placed in BOLD, and good for you for learning how to emphasize properly in HTML.
Please understand that I am not going to pick over every bit of your copy-and-pasted text for things to respond to. If you want an answer, then make your question clear and concise.
And as for those “anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Holy Spirit, and anti-Christian links,” I think you need to come to terms with the idea that not everyone thinks as you do, and that sometimes people may have extremely good reasons for not thinking as you do. But unless you are willing to fearlessly explore their thoughts, you are essentially hiding in fear. As far as I know, hiding in fear is not a Christian virtue. Besides, your approach so far straddles the line of asking me to do your homework for you.
Originally I invited Althusius to comment on my blog, and since then we have had some stimulating and reasonably cordial exchanges. It would therefore appear the invitation has been mutual, and so far he has not asked me to go away. He has even done me the unasked-for courtesy of adding me to his blogroll. Those are some reasons why I sometimes come here to debate.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Ironwolf,
Judas’ suicide
When he was hanging himself from a tree, (the only reasonable way to hang in a field of that area) the branch broke and he hit a rock, causing his entrails to gush out. The valley of Hinnom (the traditional site of Judas’ suicide) is full of trees with dead branches (easily breakable) that hang out over a precipice that falls into a canyon. The accounts are two different ways of looking at the same thing.
According to the myth, Jesus had none of Joseph’s blood. Pedigrees have always been about blood relatives, so there is no reason to make an exception in Jesus’ case. So in what sense is this patrilineal pedigree to be taken literally?
As I said (and proved) before, one was his father’s, and one was his mother’s. The Joseph genealogy in Matthew goes through the royal line of David, emphasizing the kingship of Christ (since God could bestow the kingship of Israel on anyone, it didn’t have to be a blood-son. Cf. David and Saul, Jeroboam and Rehoboam, Jehu and Ahab). In Matthew, the form of the genealogy changes to “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ,” breaking from the blood lineage to show that Jesus was not begotten of Joseph.
In the Mary genealogy (again, going through Joseph as the name-upholder of Heli’s family) goes through to Adam and the non-royal line of David, emphasizing the humanity of Christ. In Luke, the genealogy refers to Jesus, “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph…,” again affirming the Virgin Birth.
Yes, there is reason to make an exception in Jesus’ case because the Virgin Birth was an exceptional event. The eternal Son of God descended from heaven and took on humanity. That’s a good reason for making an exception to rules. Genealogies are about the covenant of God passing from one generation to another in the nation of Israel. With the coming of the Messiah, the covenant was fulfilled, and genealogies were no longer important after Christ. With Him the genealogies ended.
The statements Jesus made about his second coming
Not all of them were about his second coming, some of them were about the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., including the passage where he makes the statement in question. The text is prophetic of events to come. In prophecy, there is a dynamic of multiple fulfillments in various ways. This is expounded in Fairbairn’s book on prophecy, but I’m not going to go into all of the specifics now. The point is that the text is multi-layered, and that part is about the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Easter
You know, I just want to say that it’s interesting to note that if this whole thing was rigged by the apostles, they would have left the story simple and with almost all the loose ends tied up. I also want to say that all these contentions are very small (except the Ascension, which is assumed by later writings of John and Luke, implied by Matthew’s continuation of preaching with the apostles, and Mark’s evangelism with Paul and Barnabas; all of which assume the Ascension.) that can be made up for by exceptional circumstances at the time and different perspectives of the accounts. However, I will deal with a few of them.
The Stone at the Grave
It has been suggested that Mary Magdalene and possibly the other Mary ran ahead of the other women to see the grave before the others anointed it with spices. They saw the stone role aside, the other accounts are of the other women as they arrived after the stone had been rolled away.
The first appearance
None of the accounts say concretely which was the first appearance of Christ to the disciples. You may be able to make some guesses, but Dan Baker’s assumptions are largely shaky and unfounded.
The Appearances in general
They happened as the Gospels say, in the places that they say. There is no need to have all of this stuff happen in one day, except for some of the events of John and Luke (which say it was on the first day of the week), which both agree that Jesus appeared to His disciples that evening in Jerusalem as they were eating.
When did the Women visit?
The group of women came in early morning. Mary Magdalene ran ahead early and saw it when it was yet dark; or she departed from her house to go to the tomb when it was dark.
Who were they?
The sacred writers made a habit of not mentioning everyone in the crowd when they were referring to a large group of people. The different apostles referred to different individuals in the group.
What was their purpose?
As I said before, Mary Magdalene (and possibly another person) ran ahead to see the body before the others came to anoint it (after their own fashion; the men had already anointed it when they laid Him down).
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
The apostles all talked to different people for their accounts of the Resurrection; thus there can be different perspectives from the different people involved, depending on when they came. Matthew has Mary Magdalene seeing the tomb closed and then opened because she probably ran ahead first. John has an almost similar story that can be accounted for by John talking to different people (possibly Peter, who heard it from Mary, who was in an excited state). Mark and Luke have the tomb open because it was then telling of the larger group of women who came after Mary Magdalene to anoint the tomb.
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Two angels as Luke and John say, but Matthew and Mark focus on the one who spoke.
Where were these messengers situated?
There are different answers based on different perspectives of the different people talked to for the accounts. The appearance in John might have happened later in the day, since it was after Peter and John left.
What did the messengers say?
There are different answers based on different perspectives of the different people talked to for the accounts, but the essence of the message in Matthew, Mark, and Luke remains the same. As I said before, the appearance in John might have been a different appearance.
Did the women tell what happened?
Yes, most of them did, as Matthew, Luke, and John say. Mark might have talked to a different woman who did not tell the disciples.
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
It could have happened this way:
Mary Magdalene runs ahead to the grave, sees the open tomb, immediately rushes back to tell the disciples (leaving before the angel message) and then comes back with Peter and John after the other women had left to tell the other disciples. She later receives the message from the two angels and Jesus Himself.
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew doesn’t say whether Mary Magdalene stayed with the women who heard the angel at the tomb and saw Jesus on the way back. Mark says that she saw Jesus on the first day of the week, but he doesn’t say when. It could easily have been after she returned with the disciples, as John says.
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
John does not say in 20:17 that Jesus could not be touched; it says the Jesus commanded Mary not to cling to Him. There’s a difference between when you are unable to be touched, and when a child comes and starts hanging on to your leg as you walk, and you tell him to get off.
Did the disciples believe the two men?
It could have happened like this:
The two men come to the disciples and tell them that Jesus is risen. The disciples don’t believe them. (Mark 16:13) Then Simon (Peter) and “those with them”(Luke 24:33) arrive, tell their story, and then they believe and start saying it is true what the two men said. Then the two men tell their whole story. Again, from talking to different people who were in different parts of the room, you get slightly different perspectives.
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: There is nothing to suggest that it was done in one day. It says “Afterward,” denoting future, but not necessarily in that particular day.
Luke: Possible points when time could have elapsed between the events are verses 36 (not likely, but still possible), 44, and 50.
So that answers a few questions, I hope. Again, read what I said at the beginning. These contentions are very small and are not outlandish enough to be explained by some untold parts of the background story. The important facts are clear. Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to other humans, and rose to heaven.
So what is left of “literalism” as you hold to it? What does it mean, if not that you can hold to the details as well as the overall hermeneutic you like to draw from it? I would argue that you have failed to show any substance to the idea of literalism.
Literalism means that you take the historical passages of the Bible as valid history. It means that you take the prophetic passages of the Bible as valid prophecy. It means that you interpret the book like any other, checking context, reading cross-references, etc., keeping in mind that this is the Word of God.
I’m curious: you say “God’s Word also says that those who will not believe on Jesus Christ will go to hell.” But if your God exists, then he knows exactly what it would take to get me to believe, and he has chosen to not do that. So in what sense am I unwilling to believe?
You refuse to believe, and God has not ordained to make you believe. You are the one who’s not believing, God’s just not choosing to intervene.
To me, it is much more a matter of my being unable to believe based on the absurdly low standard of evidence presented. It is like a jury, for lack of evidence, being unable to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
I feel sorry for you. See Romans 1.
As a Calvinist (even the non-hyper type) you believe in Irresistible Grace, which I take to mean that if God wants me to believe, then I will believe, period. Isn’t the converse true? Looked at this way, isn’t it God’s will that I do not believe?
Currently it looks that way in your life, yes. But it’s more like God is not going to intervene in your course of unbelief; you’re the one who’s doing it, and you’re going to receive the consequences for it.
To them you are not a “true Christian.”
Actually, a lot of them say I am a Christian, just one in error.
So in what sense is the No True Scotsman fallacy not applicable to Christianity? You can say that God will sort it all out in the end, but here and now it’s just your word against theirs.
You missed my statement, “by their works.” If you can see the marks of a Christian in someone and they profess that they do believe in Christ and trust in Him alone for salvation, as far as we can tell, they are Christians. But for people who join a cult and go around killing black people as a matter of course, they are not showing the marks of Christians at all.
The Bible is also a good standard to judge. The Bible is the standard that defines what a Christian is. By the Bible, you can see who is a Christian and who is not. Of course, there are those who would disagree on certain matters of theology, but as long as they are not extremely important, you can still say they are Christians. Certain people (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Cults) would debate in the Bible with me about whether or not I’m a true Christian, but in the end, they admit that they have to reference the writings of their church councils as authoritative, instead of the Bible. Others wouldn’t even use the Bible at all to determine whether someone is a Christian. That doesn’t really make sense, since then you have to get rid of the word “Christian,” since that comes from the Bible, along with everything that denotes a Christian.
By the way, Ironwolf, there’s more addressed to you below; I’m going in chronological order of comments.
Chocomel,
They were only meant as examples, far from complete.
Ah, thank you. And as I said, they are only a few, controversial ones; far from what you need.
But there has been nothing to disprove the theory
Here’s my quote again, that you didn’t really respond to:
Than how come you guys still haven’t come up with an answer for the problems of genetics, irreducible complexity, and many astrophysical problems? ”
There are no “instant” answers, science is full of changes as more evidence is found theories or parts of theories will change.
Ironwolf,
Examples of harm range from the Dark Ages through the federal ban on funding for stem cell research, to the continuous assault on the separation of Church and State here in the U.S. Religion’s followers have tried to deny every advance in scientific understanding (e.g., heliocentrism, evolution) and social reform (e.g. slavery, women’s rights) and they continue to do so today.
The Dark Ages was the result of the Roman Catholic Church and heathen nations destroying culture. Even then, the monasteries were the places where learning was preserved (ever heard of the Book of Kells?), eventually becoming the very places where universities were founded.
Stem Cell research is fine, as long as you’re not going to destroy human life in the process. More and more research is coming out that umbilical cord stem cells have equal potential and work just as well as embryonic stem cells. There have even been lives saved already with pioneering umbilical cord stem-cell research, in comparison to the lack of any lives saved (that means zero, 0) with embryonic stem-cell research. And yet, funding has been cut for umbilical cord stem-cell research, even though it hasn’t run its course. I wonder why?
Separation of Church and State is not found in the Constitution; it is found in one of Thomas Jefferson’s personal letters. The First Amendment provides a prohibition on the US Congress establishing a religion by making a one of them the official religion, or providing special favors to one of them over the rest. It did not say that no mention could be made of any religion in public, or that the states could not establish religions.
Heliocentrism was opposed by Roman Catholics, not Christians; In fact, the great Calvinist Johannes Kepler was foundational in the heliocentric movement. It’s a common myth though.
Evolution is what we’re debating presently, so I can’t really comment on that.
Slavery was opposed by many, many Christians. Some went a little overboard in the fiery abolitionist movement, but many remained peaceful abolitionists all the same. Ever heard of Wilburforce?
Christianity has stood for the basic rights of women for thousands of years (going back through the Old Testament), when much of the rest of the world held a very low view of women. Modern times have brought some new developments, and have redefined what the “rights” of a woman are (along with the “entitlements” of the common worker, etc.)
I don’t h-t- every notion or idea of God
It sure seems like you do, reading your posts. (e.g. “I am surrounded by idiots”, some of your cartoons, and of course multiple posts, etc.)
I am intolerant of intolerance.
Interesting.
Flyboy,
1) “an appalling lack of corroborating historical evidence”…CAN YOU BACK THAT STATEMENT UP WITH ANY EXAMPLES AND EVIDENCE?
It is up to you to fill in the lack that Ironwolf has described. He says that there’s a lack; no one can prove a lack. You have to prove that there isn’t a lack, but that there is plenty of corroborating historical evidence.
4) Lastly, you speak as if you have no moral standards. AM I CORRECT?
He does have a moral standard; it’s awfully flimsy though.
Ironwolf,
I don’t think I have been obscurant with my explanations, and frankly, when I begin to get into a conversation where my interlocutor begins to pick apart my admittedly less-than-perfect grammar, I begin to wonder whether there is any useful resolution in store.
Objection sustained. You guys shouldn’t quarrel about grammar.
Since I think I am permitted one link without subjecting my comment to moderation
You’re now allowed five, I just changed it. That is for spam-blocking purposes. Sorry for any inconvenience.
On the other hand, I have not asserted to you that I exist.
You assert it every time you use the word “I”.
You are under no compulsion to believe that I, as an individual, exist.
That should be fun.
regressive morality
Flyboy, he means that when you impose your morality on someone (such as when a court condemns a criminal) it leads to all sorts of bad things. Sorry, that probably wouldn’t be how Ironwolf would phrase it, but you really should look back to the previous post. By the way, I want to respond soon on that, Ironwolf; I just haven’t got around to it.
With regard to stem cell research (and abortion in general), I believe that an embryo amounts to a potential human life, which is not the same as a human life, which therefore does not have the same moral standing as a child.
Oh boy. Guys, could you stop talking about everything under the sun? For every activity, there is a time and a season; for every discussion there is a post; for every debate, there is an entry.
You are in a fertility clinic and realize that the building is burning. You are able to save yourself and exactly one of the following: A) A five year-old child, or B) A cannister containing 50 frozen embryos. The one you do not save will definitely perish. Which do you choose?
First of all, you probably shouldn’t be in a fertility clinic.
Second, a five year-old should definitely not be in a fertility clinic.
Third, if you took the cannister containing 50 frozen embryos, then they would perish as a result of being unfrozen.
Fourth, is the five year-old child an atheist? Just kidding. Sorry. [[Althusius slaps himself in the face.]]
To conclude, and based primarily on my third point, I would have to say I would rescue the five year-old child, regardless of the answer to my fourth point.
I’m going to try to get responses out for the post after this and the post before this. Thank you again, gentlemen, for your responses.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Well Ironwolf,
Seeing you have no clear and concise questions for me
(=p), and also seeing that Althusius did a masterful job on arguing the main points, I see our debate(s) as being nearly over. However, I would still like to make a few comments on some things you said:
On the subject of “appalling evidence,” I believe there was a miscommunication and misunderstanding on my part. I took “appalling” in another sense. My bad. And, as it seems now, it is up to me to prove it. Well we all know I can’t prove everything in the Bible. And you can’t prove everything in history either, even pertaining to Julius Ceasar. Miracles for example: those can’t be proved. It is an matter of faith. However in terms of physical evidence, you need to understand that there are cities, there are documents, and there are inscriptions that heavily back up certain aspects, and prove the existence and influence of certain men in the BIble. For instance: the
Pontius Pilate Inscription. It was in 1961 that the first archaeological find was made with reference to Pontius Pilate. (the person who put Jesus to ). This was a stone slab located at Caesarea, which bore in Latin the name of Pontius Pilate. Also under recent archaological findings is the inscription on the Lechaion Road in the city of ancient Corinth. There is an inscription made on the road commemorating the city’s treasurer, Erastus. Paul the apostle refers to this man several times in the Bible, and refers to be specifically being located in Corinth. Coincidence?
And to take a direct quote:
“Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ in A.D.14 to Nero’s in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s and finish with Domitian’s in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s , he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.
Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.
Suetonius
Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].
Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.
Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.
Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the !”
Like I said, I can’t argue you into believing Jesus existed. Its going to take a large heap of faith to make that happen. I know this isn’t all of it, but I hope this helps you understand what I mean by evidence.
“My supreme moral standard is The Golden Rule, which I have defended at length in a conversation on my blog that Althusius instigated.”
I’m sorry, but you must understand how amazingly hard it is for me to believe that. I will however soon undergo the task of reading all of the golden rule postings. And if you’re supreme moral standard is indeed the golden rule, you’ve obviously taken that from the Bible….
And on your hypothetical question, thats a bad idea. Don’t get into the ‘what if’ situations, because I can pose situations for you that won’t happen. It doesn’t help the argument. Althusius did make some rather good points on the matter.
“But unless you are willing to fearlessly explore their thoughts, you are essentially hiding in fear. As far as I know, hiding in fear is not a Christian virtue. Besides, your approach so far straddles the line of asking me to do your homework for you.”
That is a bold statement that I simply do not agree with. I’m not automatically hiding in fear if I do not consent to viewing links you give me. Like I said, i saw that jesusneverexisted.com and it was, as I said nonsense. What if I am willing but I dont have the time? am I still hiding in fear?
And as for my quote: “anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Holy Spirit, and anti-Christian links…”
That was not a thought of mine, as you merely view it. That is a fact. Maybe they don’t believe what I believe. Isn’t that the point?
June 27th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Althusius,
Your lengthy attempts to harmonize these contradictions are not unexpected. They are required because the stories of the Bible simply defy common sense. The only way to have them make sense is to construct tortuous, extra-biblical yarns about how they could possibly make sense. Since you presuppose the Bible to be literally true, this sort of doublethink is what you must go through to salvage that presupposition.
On the other hand, the form in which we find these biblical stories is easily explained by understanding them as myths— written, re-written, and re-re-written to suit each author through whose hands they pass. Even children understand the game of Operator, and appreciate how easy it is for a message to become garbled. They also learn of Tall Tales, and how they get better in the re-telling. They learn of other ancient myths, and how primitives created and passed them on to explain a frightening and often inexplicable world.
Yet you want to deny that any of that could possibly be happening here.
You insist that the Bible stories are consistent and coherent, when you still haven’t even risen to the real crux (pun intended) of the Easter Challenge, which is: to construct a simple, plausible timeline of the events from the resurrection to the ascension without omitting a single biblical detail. Again: you have not done this— you have merely taken the usual “divide and conquer” approach of answering biblical contradictions one-by-one, out of context from each other.
You say, “I just want to say that it’s interesting to note that if this whole thing was rigged by the apostles, they would have left the story simple and with almost all the loose ends tied up.” But I have never asserted a conspiracy of apostles. Rather, the morphing and divergence we see is exactly what we would expect to see if the stories of Jesus were folk tales; allegories with no more factual credibility than the tales of Paul Bunyan.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. For an all-powerful and all-knowing being, not willing a thing to happen is exactly equivalent to willing it to not happen. When you are all-knowing, you can’t remain neutral on any topic. When you are all-powerful, “inaction” is just another form of “action.”
Frankly, I would agree that you are all Christians if you say you are. And that goes for the Westboro Baptists as well.
No, I didn’t miss it at all. But “by their works” is a subjective standard. Any given set of “Christians”, will deny that some other set of “Christians” deserve the appellation based solely on their judgment of “their works.” You may consider it argumentum ad absurdum, but the Westboro Baptists are quite consistent and scriptural in their theology, and they judge others by their works as scripture leads them. Yet I take it you would judge them by their works as not “true Christians.”
That’s easy for you to say, but very hard to reconcile with the history of Christianity and the various atrocities carried out by Christians in the name of God. The fact that your morality is enlightened with modern, humanistic values is sadly lost on you.
The Catholics seem to always be the whipping boy of the Protestants. But, as I said, you are all Christians to me, and it makes my jaw drop whenever one of you talks about them like they worship some other God— they just have their own little take on it, as you do. Whether or not you are good people, as individuals, is what is important.
Oh, and the heathens. Those crazy guys— always destroying culture but never preserving it! So… who was it that ran roughshod over the native Americans in the name of Manifest Destiny— Catholics or heathens?
Yes, yes, I’m all for the research into alternative sources of stem cells if it will shut you guys up so science can advance. Unfortunately, when you see things in primitive, black and white terms as you will, then you cannot see the beauty and complexity of the real world as science reveals it.
I am continually astonished that people such as you think we atheists are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to eliminate any “religion in public.” I live in a town with pretty much a church on every other block, and I have no problem with that. Taxpayer money, however, should not be used to favor one religion over another, and to do so is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Our Founding Fathers, whatever their diverse personal beliefs, were clearly united in their intention to create a pluralistic, secular government— its founding documents are much more based on ancient Greek ideals than popular Christian ideas of the time. (And no, “secular” does not mean “atheistic.”)
On the topic of Christians, slavery, and the rights of women: we have already established in our discourse on my blog that your personal ideals on both of these counts, based on your personal interpretation of scripture, are regressive. (And by “regressive”, I mean what my dictionary says: “becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less-developed state.”)
Um… The t-shirt on my site actually says, “I am surrounded by idoits.” [sic] See, I deliberately mis-spelled it as a form of self-deprecating humor. Sorry you missed it. I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with God— I wear it around other computer geeks, and they get the joke.
And again, I have to ask: how is satire of someone’s shibboleths the same as hatred of some supposed existent deity? I also make fun of Islam at times— would you say that I hate Allah? I also make fun of UFO believers at times— would you say that I hate UFOs?
Well, if you’d only post more often…
With regard to the fertility clinic hypothetical, your only real argument appears to be that the embryos in the canister would not survive the rescuing process. But such containers are often designed to survive for many hours outside of a containment unit, and I am presuming that they would not lose viability before they could again reach safety, just as the five-year old would probably get fed sometime after being rescued.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Flyboy,
I have never claimed I can. Besides, the standard of historical evidence is “preponderance of the evidence” and “assumption of natural regularity,” not mathematically-perfect, deductive proof. While these standards do not rule out “proving” miracles, they understandably raise the bar very high. After all, do you believe all the miracle stories of other religions? Why not? They far outnumber those of Christianity, you know.
But we basically agree that belief in miracles requires a leap of faith. Through the lens of presupposing miracles occur, I can see pretty much any old grilled cheese sandwich becoming evidence of a miracle.
I have already addressed that historical corroboration of places and people mentioned in the Bible does not come anywhere close to sustaining the claims made about it— do you believe Muslim presuppositions because some of the places and people mentioned in the Qur’an probably existed? Why not?
Again, you’re asking me to do your homework for you. Please see this list of Golden Rules from other wisdom texts, many of which far pre-date the writings that became the Bible.
If Althusius made some good points, then why is discussing a hypothetical a bad idea? You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Of course not. But if you are avoiding learning what atheists (besides myself) think simply because you feel exposure to their ideas might be bad for you, and particularly if you are relying a great deal on what other Christians say about atheists, then you are probably doing so out of fear.
No, that isn’t the point, and I always feel astonishment when I have to make it again: “anti-God” implies “against God”— it presupposes that atheists actually harbor a belief in God in the same way that “anti-war” protesters openly believe that war exists, or why would they protest? But calling atheists “anti-God” is an absurd and condescending insult. I have no trouble understanding that you believe in your God and that Muslims believe in Allah, and that Hindus believe in Vishnu, and that Mormons believe in a concept of God quite distinct from most other Christians, and that Scientologists believe in Xenu. I have no trouble thinking that all the plethora of different Christian sects believe in their interpretation of scripture and are quite well-meaning when they damn other Christians to hell for their well-meaning interpretations. Do you secretly believe in Vishnu? Allah? Xenu? UFOs? Why then do you and your ilk have such trouble understanding that atheists really are a-theists, not anti-theists? Ah, yes: “The fool saith in his heart ‘There is no God.’” Your inviolable presuppositions again.
*sigh*
June 28th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Althusius,
One additional point I wanted to respond to:
If this is truly the case, then isn’t your God using a superfluous word when he allegedly states: “I AM”? What is the purpose of the second word?
June 28th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
“After all, do you believe all the miracle stories of other religions?”
I do believe the events took place, yet at the same they are not miracles in most cases. They are demonic tricks. And of course, it depends upon the ‘other religions’ you talk about.
Lets take it one step at a time. You obviously believe Christ didn’t exist. Do you also believe that Mohammed did not exist? How can you prove he did exist? Just because the cities, documents, and all the other historical writings dated to his time - that doesn’t mean he existed? How in the world are we ever going to be able to prove ANYTHING if you wont take historical writings, undug cities, discovered documents, and the testimonies from even those against Christianity seriously?
I’m saying Althusius made good points on the matter, but I was not going to get into that myself. I’m saying he made the best points possible on a very poor question.
And I still don’t agree with you on the matter of ‘hiding in fear.’ That may be a very personal view of yours that is not worth arguing.
“But if you are avoiding learning what atheists (besides myself) think simply because you feel exposure to their ideas might be bad for you”
That can be more than true in many cases. When I have children, I will simply not permit their being exposed to all kinds of radical views at an early age. Thats not hiding them in fear, its hiding them in wisdom. Also, I’d like to add that on that jesusneverexisted.com link, they used their saying that Nazereth never existed as a main argument that Christ never existed. Does that ring a bell?
Well making all kinds of arguments that Christ never existed sounds pretty “against-Christ” to me.
You also said “other wisdom writings.” That implies you consider the Bible a wisdom writing. Now is this another grammatical error?
And as for the Bible verse you used, yes, the Psalms too are inerrant.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Ironwolf:
I have one more question for you. Did you get my comment on the post you made on your sight about your becoming a minister? If not, I would like to follow up on that
June 28th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Flyboy,
Ah, yes… the “bad guys” perform miracles too. Except for one thing: your all-knowing, all-powerful God is letting them, and since he could prevent them he is responsible for them.
Correction: I think I have good reason to doubt the existence of a historical Jesus.
I am not making the argument that he did exist, so there is no burden of proof upon me to show that he did.
I have never argued that “Christianity” does not exist. In fact, there is ample evidence that it did and do