skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Randal believes that the Christian god would have his bible written by people so that it is indistinguishable from any other book that people have written - full of contradictions, depicting the flawed human knowledge of the time, unclear, employing the same technics that people use when they write, like irony, etc.
In fact, Randal believes that the Christian god didn't even interfere in any way with the actual writing and compilation of the Christian bible - that was all done by people and people alone. Randal has written that he believes that the Christian god, when he created the universe, did so with the full foreknowledge that people would evolve billions of years later to independently write exactly the book that the Christian god would want them to write, full of human flaws and appearing as an all too human creation, as his bible.
Accordingly, no evidential case could possibly be made that the Christian bible is not divinely "inspired". Randal's beliefs are insulated from evidential considerations such as Loftus' and Babinski's. Of course, this also makes them absurd.
Randal merely defends the position that his belief in the divine inspiration of the Christian bible is 'properly basic'. That is, IF the Christian god DID inspire the Christian bible, then Randal's belief that this is the case may be rational. Of course, this is a tight and perfect circle that begs the questions of whether the Christian god (a) exists and (b) did do this.
So it should be no surprise that TCD has no "evidential force" upon someone who holds extraordinary beliefs without requiring evidence, beliefs that no evidence could possibly address.
What should be surprising is that Randal has the gaul to criticize the authors of TCD for what they have written. Link
22 comments:
So what Randal is saying is that tens or hundreds of millions of Christians, who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, are wrong.
As I always say: If we atheists want to refute some religious claim, we need to get in line behind the hundreds of millions of religious believers screaming in protest against that particular claim.
(PS: Randal has gall, not gaul. He's not Napoleon.)
"gall", as in gall bladder, not "gaul" as in, France, when Caesar conquered it.
(that's all I've got, a spelling correction.) :D
Rauser believes that the "truths" in the bible are not factual, but moral and poetic and romantic truths. He feels sorry for those of us who would prefer to believe in actual reality and find our pleasures in the natural world rather than fantasies. (see his blog post on romantic love)
What doesn't make sense to me is that Randal claims that God did not interfere with the creation of the Bible but then he said that God mapped out destiny so that humans and life as we know it would evolve in the way that he desired it to in order to make things, like the Bible, exactly the way he wanted them to be. If he paved destiny to make things happen the way he wanted them to, did he not, in a way, interfere? I am rather perplexed by what seems to be a complete contradiction by Randal.
I am adding this comment so I can get follow-up comments in my email. I experienced a rather strange error.
Rauser frequently contradicts himself. He believes the bible is "god-breathed" so apparently the humans who did it all without any interference from him were channeling him or something. ...which isn't interference, apparently.
"What should be surprising is that Randal has the gaul to criticize the authors of TCD for what they have written."
Well, what "they" have written, is, ultimately, their opinions. Nothing wrong with that. Anybody can do that. What's more to the point, is: Do critics of the Bible demonstrate the errors and contradictions, etc. they claim the Bible contains to be just that? I say No. Sorry, guys, until any error is proven as such, without an explanation for it, the inerrancy of the Bible will stand.
Jorge,
No matter what we tell you about errors and inconsistencies in the bible. You're gonna find some way to argue your way out of it, citing some historian or philosopher, etc...
How about these though?
---------------------------
Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli
--------------------------
Snails do not melt
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
--------------------------
Can God be seen or not?
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)
------------------------
Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)
The last one is the only one worthy of talking about.
The first 3 can be explained with logic and common sense. Clearly the first 3 were never historically a problem for Christians to explain.
1. Jesus' had no earthly biological father... but Joseph was acknowledged...just like we would acknowledge a step father.
2. Water doesn't melt either. Just look at verse 7 (the prior verse). David wasn't writing a science textbook on the difference between evaporation or melting.
All you need is to use common sense here...and not employ ridiculous hyper-technicality.
3. God is an Infinite Existence...no one can see infinite. God is spirit and we worship Him in Spirit. Face is clearly anthropomorphic. (unless you are talking about the face of Jesus who is God incarnate in the flesh.
4. Breckmin will hold his tongue on this one (for now).
The first logical error is that they cannot even agree on who is the actual father of Joseph.
The second logical error is that whether seeing god was a spiritual, rather than physical, experience, they still shouldn't have been alive to say so according to the words of the other passages provided.
I think those things are pretty easy to understand, Breckmin.
Sad. Just sad.
@ Breckmin:
"1. Jesus' had no earthly biological father... but Joseph was acknowledged...just like we would acknowledge a step father."
The issue was NOT who was Jesus' father, but who was JOSEPH'S father, and there are two different answers given in side-by-side gospels. Willful misunderstanding on your part. I guess the imperfection of language gets you, too.
But I had no trouble seeing what Les said.
Hi, The differences in genealogies is because both the genealogies were acceptable by Jews. One delineates the legal genealogy, the other the biological genealogy. What is important to know is that the genealogies proved Jesus was from the lineage of David, therefore entitling Him to fulfill prophecies concerning the Messiah.
Breckmin, Good job with 2 and 3. What people do here is what they do when the Bible says the sun rises and sets, claiming the science has proven that, since the earth is actually revolving around the sun, the Bible is wrong. In some matters, the Bible speaks in a plain way that's easier understood. In others, more study is required.
Re Judas. Is it utterly impossible to believe that Judas hanged himself, then fell and burst asunder?.
People, even in Bible interpretation, sometimes the simplest explanation is most accurate.
Jorge, if we put his two ways of dying together as you seem to be trying to, it sounds quite ridiculous with either definition of "headlong":
Haste
1. He hanged himself, but somehow he fell through whatever he hanged himself with, then exploded into pieces ("burst asunder"), and then whatever waste was in his body was randomly unleashed.
Head facing downwards
He hanged himself, fell through whatever he hanged himself strangely and somehow flips himself so now his head is facing the earth rather than the sky, and then again, his waste was unleashed.
Either way, each death is umm.... unbelievable. They would have to be seperate events. The only believable death was the one mentioned in Matthew, because people do not just explode into several pieces. Maybe in your world, but not in ours. I think you perhaps didn't know the definition of asunder, which is:
"•apart: into parts or pieces; 'he took his father's watch apart'; 'split apart"; 'torn asunder'"
According to the many definitions of asunder, "burst asunder" could only mean that he exploded into many pieces. I'm sure people don't die via exploding into many pieces, and I'm fairly certain that it was not a method of execution way back when.
- Flora Korkis
Oh yes, and in the 2nd combined death, he explodes again.
@Flora Korkis
Re "Jorge, if we put his two ways of dying together as you seem to be trying to, it sounds quite ridiculous with either definition of "headlong":"..and.."According to the many definitions of asunder, "burst asunder" could only mean that he exploded into many pieces."
Hi, Flora. I never meant that those were two separate events where Judas died in each. I think it's plain that he hanged himself, died, and after that fell and burst asunder. In Mathew it's written that he went and hanged himself, without mention of his falling afterwards. In Acts, it says Judas fell headlong, then he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out (not "exploded into many pieces" necessarily), without mentioning he hanged himself first.
Jorge, that's why I was combining the two different deaths like you were. And to "burst asunder" could only mean to explode into many pieces. The definition of asunder is something being in many pieces and I can only imagine that to burst into many pieces means to explode.
There's more inconsistency in the story of Judas than just how he died;
See Matt 27:1-5 and Acts 1:18-19 regarding what happened to the thirty pieces of silver.
In Matt., he throws the silver back at the Pharisees, then goes out and hangs himself; in Acts, he buys a field with it and straightaway falls headlong into it and bursts asunder (without hanging himself first!): (19-Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this... NIV)
Your attempts to reconcile these two very different stories are strained and weak, jorge.
@GearHedEd wrote
"There's more inconsistency in the story of Judas than just how he died;
See Matt 27:1-5 and Acts 1:18-19 regarding what happened to the thirty pieces of silver.
In Matt., he throws the silver back at the Pharisees, then goes out and hangs himself; in Acts, he buys a field with it and straightaway falls headlong into it and bursts asunder (without hanging himself first!): (19-Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this... NIV)"
Hi, GHE. It's recorded in Mathew that, after Judas left, the money could not be kept in the treasury because it was blood money (a very big deal, apparently). It was still Judas' money, since they could not keep it, so they bought a field (that's what happened to the money); then, in Acts, when it says Judas acquired the field, it means it was acquired with his money, therefore it was his, even if he did not know it at the time. After all, the chief priests could not call that field their own, or would like to have any connection to Judas.
The book of Mathew does not tell everything that happened to Judas after he hung himself.
The book of Acts does not tell everything that happened to Judas before he hung himself.
But by taking both accounts, one can understand a very, very probable story, in which Judas hangs himself, then drops, or falls to the ground, bursting open in the middle and making a mess.
The concept of buying something on someone else's behalf (willingly or not) should not be an improbable concept.
@Flora Korkis
In the two accounts, it wasn't necessary that Judas died right after he hung himself as I wrote in Oct 25th. He could have died then, OR after he fell and burst open. But I do believe he only died once ;-)
"Hi, GHE. It's recorded in Mathew that, after Judas left, the money could not be kept in the treasury because it was blood money (a very big deal, apparently). It was still Judas' money, since they could not keep it, so they bought a field (that's what happened to the money); then, in Acts, when it says Judas acquired the field, it means it was acquired with his money, therefore it was his, even if he did not know it at the time. After all, the chief priests could not call that field their own, or would like to have any connection to Judas."
That's an incredibly weak argument.
"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity..." Acts 1:18, KJV
Not
"A field was purchased in his name because the Pharisees could not purchase it with blood money."
jorge: "The concept of buying something on someone else's behalf (willingly or not) should not be an improbable concept."
It's not improbable; it's also NOT what is stated clearly in Acts.
Jorge: "The book of Mathew does not tell everything that happened to Judas after he hung himself. The book of Acts does not tell everything that happened to Judas before he hung himself."
There was nothing left to tell. When one hangs himself, one dies. No bursting of intestines necessary. And if Judas didn't purchase the field, but it was purchased "in his name", how did he know where to go when he hanged himself? Did he wait for the Pharisees to tell him where to go before hanging himself, and then fall headlong into the field purchased in his name so he could spew his intestines?
You're really grasping at straws here.
@GearHedEd wrote:
"There was nothing left to tell. When one hangs himself, one dies. No bursting of intestines necessary. And if Judas didn't purchase the field, but it was purchased "in his name", how did he know where to go when he hanged himself? Did he wait for the Pharisees to tell him where to go before hanging himself, and then fall headlong into the field purchased in his name so he could spew his intestines? "
Hi, GHE. I just mentioned that Judas may not have died after he hanged himself only because the Bible does not say he died. I myself do believe he died then, but that would be only my opinion.
His falling, and bursting open may have happened right after the hanging, or days later, we cannot tell from what's written. I've heard it said that after a few days hanging dead, a body can become swollen and then it would be easier to burst if subjected to a fall. Again, I keep silent about that because the Bible does not say that's what happened.
Re "..how did he know where to go when he hanged himself? Did he wait for the Pharisees to tell him.."
How can anyone know what was going through Judas' mind?. Remember that prophecies were being fulfilled there (mainly, two prophecies in Jeremiah, plus Psalms 41:9, Zecheriah 11:12-13, and others), therefore everything that happened had been predetermined.
Those two events, as written, were a straightforward account of what happened to Judas to fulfill prophecies. Nothing more, nothing less.
Post a Comment