Two Challenges for Christians
We have a couple of pests here at DC whom I consider ignorant Christian defenders. Not all Christians are this ignorant, of course, since some are quite knowledgeable (usually the more they know the more liberal-secular they are). One Christian here goes by the name Jason, and the other one goes by the name Dan Marvin. They think they have answers for almost everything, and yet it's clear from reading what they write they have not had a background in some basic level apologetics. Okay. Fine. So here are my two challenges to them...
Why don't each one of you truly test your faith? If you are as cocksure of it as you say you are such that nothing can move you off your faith then you should have no fear in taking the Debunking Christianity Challenge along with the Outsider Test For Faith. No excuses will do here. I invite all Christians to take up these two challenges. That's what I would've done had I been challenged to do so as a Christian, if they were made known to me. I would want to know what the best arguments are against my faith just in case I was wrong. I would try to argue why I shouldn't take The Outsider Test, and I would take up the DC challenge. I challenge you, Jason and Dan Marvin, and all other Christians. Or, you can keep spouting off prooftexts without a good grasp of what they mean.
My claim is that most Christians defenders do not understand how we got the Bible, and that they do not understand it. My claim is that most Christian defenders do not fully appreciate the nature of historical studies when it comes to believing something miraculous took place in the past, nor the true nature of interpreting a given text, any text, much less one among high context societies in the Biblical era. My claim is that most Christian defenders do not understand the results of biblical archaeology. My claim is that most Christian defenders do not understand the nature of science and how it makes us all different than the superstitious people of the past. My claim is that most Christian defenders do not understand how psychology undermines the the free will defense to the problem of evil, and a wrathful God. My claim is that most Christian defenders do not understand the full impact of global religious diversity that is caused by "when and where" people are born. My claim is that most Christian defenders are simply ignorant and that's one major reason why they continue to believe, and this includes Jason and Dan Marvin.
Sorry, but that's what I think. Prove me wrong.
Why don't each one of you truly test your faith? If you are as cocksure of it as you say you are such that nothing can move you off your faith then you should have no fear in taking the Debunking Christianity Challenge along with the Outsider Test For Faith. No excuses will do here. I invite all Christians to take up these two challenges. That's what I would've done had I been challenged to do so as a Christian, if they were made known to me. I would want to know what the best arguments are against my faith just in case I was wrong. I would try to argue why I shouldn't take The Outsider Test, and I would take up the DC challenge. I challenge you, Jason and Dan Marvin, and all other Christians. Or, you can keep spouting off prooftexts without a good grasp of what they mean.
My claim is that most Christians defenders do not understand how we got the Bible, and that they do not understand it. My claim is that most Christian defenders do not fully appreciate the nature of historical studies when it comes to believing something miraculous took place in the past, nor the true nature of interpreting a given text, any text, much less one among high context societies in the Biblical era. My claim is that most Christian defenders do not understand the results of biblical archaeology. My claim is that most Christian defenders do not understand the nature of science and how it makes us all different than the superstitious people of the past. My claim is that most Christian defenders do not understand how psychology undermines the the free will defense to the problem of evil, and a wrathful God. My claim is that most Christian defenders do not understand the full impact of global religious diversity that is caused by "when and where" people are born. My claim is that most Christian defenders are simply ignorant and that's one major reason why they continue to believe, and this includes Jason and Dan Marvin.
Sorry, but that's what I think. Prove me wrong.
47 comments:
I welcome all respectful and intelligent comments from everyone. When I say a couple of Christians are pests here I don't mean to suggest anyone else is at all. Sometimes the repeated ignorance becomes too much to bear, that's all. Even when I was a Christian I would argue against how these two Christians argue their cases. You simply cannot quote the Bible to people who do not believe it and expect that there will be a meeting of the minds.
So, put up or shut up Jason and Dan Marvin, and I mean this. Take these two challenges, or take a few college classes, and then come back to discuss these issues with us.
It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see the problem. - G.K. Chesterson
No matter what side of an argument you’re on, you always find some people on your side that you wish were on the other side. –Jascha Heifetz
He who knows all the answers most likely misunderstood the questions.
John~ The problem is, at least in my opinion, that you and others like you, don't believe that Christians like me (and those that you mentioned) review your material and the material of other atheists and backsliders.
I can't speak for others and their argumentive styles, but I do review anti-God dogma and material to get a more complete understanding of the arguments. However, unlike you, (I believe)I read both sides of many of the arguments so that I can better examine the real truth.
Barnes and Noble has an adequate selection of religious atheist dogma and they let you take as much time as you like reading it without having to purchase it. So you won't find your stuff on my shelf (unless it's given free)
I've also noticed a rise in non Christian anti-atheist books and publications. One that stands out is by Vox Day. I found that to be quite interesting.
Now I haven't read your book, but from what you've stated here and there, I can see that the only new material would probably be your particular personal experiences.
And yes, since I've been visiting this site and after reading some of the material you recommend (even without knowledge of your recommendations)I can honestly say that I have an even more knowledgeable confidence in scripture and the God of the bible than I had before. The knowledge I've gained has empowered me to preach even harder and broaden the perspectives of our membership so they won't be duped by these fallacious arguments.
Out of all I've read on DC, I can see maybe a few technical arguments that, by the way, have nothing to do with shaping or destroying faith, and a whole bunch of one sided arguments and theories (which I appreciate from time to time) and most of that constructed based on many of the authors you recommend.
So thanks John, but I think you can be challenged to do the same with current and modern apologetic work. But I do remember you saying at least at one point (If memory serves me correctly) that you refuse to read apologetic work. (that may have been Evan...excuse me if I'm wrong) But if that is you, I'd like to know why.
Peace!
I’ve told Jason before he has the mentality of a very conservative Bible Institute teacher. His mind works in a highly simplistic manner in that by denying Form Criticism, Literary Criticism, or the Historical Critical Method in general his scholarship remains on the Primary Sunday school level. I have challenged Jason over and over to write something original and creative, he can’t! He just repeats his Christadelphain dogma over and over (but not overtly unless pushed). He seems unable or unwilling to advance beyond the Primary Sunday school level.
Dan Marvin is another simplistic thinker who has a one track mind which is summed up in: “If you lost your salvation, you were NEVER saved!” But since Dan Marvin feels he does not need to sight read the Hebrew and Greek text to make such a statement, he feels just as confident telling any former Christian here that they never were a former Christian. Dan once made the statement that no atheist could have any morals and ethics with out God, but when I told Dan I would put my atheistic life with its godless morals and ethics up against 98% of preachers today (including him), he said I was arrogant and boastful.
So Dan Marvin knows it all; he knows who is REALLY a Christian and he knows that atheist REALLY do not have any moral or ethics since they deny God and the Bible. Dan strikes me a some one who would be highly unstable without a rigid dogmatic Christian life.
Atheist are original thinkers who write and think progressively. We are not scared to ask question and learn objectively. We often see how being religiously dogmatic is another term for being religiously ignorant.
As for as many conservative Christians go (and to phrase it in Dan Marvin’s terms), the old Baptist slogan is: “Once saved; always saved!” is better stated with the two above name people: “Once stupid; always stupid!”
If you two do not like what you read, then prove me different!!
Harvey, did I read you correctly?
Are you really reading books in a book store and not buying them?
You do realize that that's stealing don't you? I mean, what if everybody just read what they wanted to read without actually purchasing any books.
You may think that its just the atheists that your sticking it to but its not; its the publishers and the binders and the distributers and the guys who stock the shelves for $8.00 an hour who are losing out. Why make all of them suffer just because you're prejudiced against atheists?
If you are benefitting from reading these books (as you say you are) then you should pay for them just like everybody else.
Or do you consider your wallet to be more important than living by the morals and ethics of religion you say you believe in.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett, can you recommend a current and modern apologetic book? So far everything I've read that has been recommended to me has been like a refresher course in the apologetics I used to practice years ago.
Hi John,
We have some common ground here. I don't like several tactics that some Christians use, maybe even myself sometimes I will admit. I just hope you all feel I am respectful of you and you beliefs, as I try to be. You may find that I suddenly disappear from a thread, that has to do, in some cases with certain people that take away the exchange of ideas going on to begin "preaching." I have continually tried to look at what my beliefs must seem like to an outsider, and it's not to hard to find outsider opinions about my beliefs. I do respect thoughtful opinions.
He who knows all the answers most likely misunderstood the questions.
This is a great quote, is that a Loftus original? If you say it with a Chinese accent it sounds like a "Confucius says".
dshb, I've been reading your exchanges here and you seem educated and intelligent, although abrasive.
Go to a library then, grasshopper. There you can read these books I've recommended. Mine will be there before long. In the meantime you can read a summary of my case here. Read it and let me know what you think. Remember, it's just a summary, the arguments defending it are to be found in my book, and it only summarizes half my argument.
For the record I have read most of the Christian apologetical works. See the bookshelf on the right here.
As far as the outsider test goes, you don't need any books for this. I provided a link to it. Read through it and tell me what you think.
------------
Rich, no I didn't make that last saying up. I wish I had.
Cheers.
Well that was certainly polemical! I'l certainly grant that Dan is often full of vitriol, I myself, at least in what I have read, have found Jason less so. I myself have rarely seen him actually expound "Christadelphian dogma" at all unless, you, Harry Mccall, push him to do so. Concerning the comments made about how Christians simply dont know the material, are you serious John? Granted many Christians do not know how to properly argue for their Christianity, the same is true of plenty, and indeed probly the majority, of atheists. Concerning those issues biblical archaeology is hardly as clear cut as you make it seem, I imagine you probly have in mind issues like Israel Finklestein's low chronology- a topic that is certainly advocated by an awful lot of atheists on the internet but, interestingly, very few archaeologists of the ancient world.archaeologist has been arguing for that anyways. One could likely go on and on about the issues, such as the comment that psychology disproves free-will or at least a libertarian notion of it (it doesnt), but il simply rest in saying that yes, there are Christians who have read atheist works, who are indeed quite familiar in them, and find their arguments tired, circular, or simply wrong. Oh but one thing, just to give you a pat on the back John
"You simply cannot quote the Bible to people who do not believe it and expect that there will be a meeting of the minds."
I cant agreee more.
"archaeologist has been arguing for that anyways." oops, was going to expand the discussion into other topics but figured it wasnt worth the time for either me or anyone else. Just left that in accidently.
John,
It's a rather ironic post considering it's pretty obvious that you, and most other DC contributors, believe you know everything when it comes to the untruthfulness of the Bible and Christianity. You automatically assume most Christians are wrong, you continually censor comments you deem off topic, and you clearly don't appreciate a Christian defending his or her faith on account of them subsequently being labelled 'ignorant'.
John, you once stated you thought "circumcision was probably a substitutionary child sacrifice." This was quite obviously incorrect yet even after being shown why, you couldn't bear admitting you were wrong. You've shown you're not willing to lead by example so why would I, or anyone else, trust you to suddenly change your ways in these challenges?
Until I see a little more intellectual respect and honest, I'm not interested. I will continue to post my objections and counter-points when false accusations and misinterpretations of Scripture are raised even though I expect the censoring trend to continue with Big Brother DC doing its best to subvert anything Christian.
As for Christians reading arguments against Christianity, we all agree and know that it occurs. However, speaking as a former Christian, I too read many atheist books that I argued against; however, they did chip my armor and eventually create doubt. Our own neural pathways become accustomed to a particular way of thinking. It does not matter what we practice (within reason), if we practice it enough, it will eventually provide comfort, regardless of its veracity or benefit. When I first started working with severely abused children who had been taken away from their parents, I was at first amazed that they wanted to go back to their parents whom they were taken away from. At times, I confused this emotional tie to the abusive parent as a possible indicator of the parent(s) maybe not having been that abusive. No, mostly it just illustrates that our brains become accustomed to it ways of thinking, which is why many of the abused children I would with will go on to abuse their own children.
Personally, I think that there are several arguments Christians simply refuse to fully resolve because it is too uncomfortable for them to process. That is what I used to do anyway. I'd say, things like, "I know the Bible says...but I trust God and know that He did that because it was needed and He knows best. After all, he's a kind and loving God."
So, if you're a Christian and you've read the arguments against the Bible, you've obviously come up with answers to:
1. Why does God kill people?
2. How many times did he commit genocide in the OT?
3. How many times did he order children and infants to be killed in the OT?
4. If God grants us free will to chose want ever we want to believe, why does he kill people frequently in the OT for believing differently?
5. Why does God kill people for taking communion wrongly in the NT?
6. Why did he kill a couple for merely lying about giving more money than they claimed to the church (Ananias and Saphira)?
At first, I was arrogant and said, this kind of stuff is what Muslim God, Allah, does, not the Christian God. It was so incompatible with my thoughts and my view of God, that I was simply unable to process these ugly and horrific aspects of the Jewish/Christian God. So, Christian reader, explain away, tell us why each and everyone of these killings is necessary as "God is the one who only truly understand why." Tell me why Hitler was evil for he did (which he most certainly was), but God is not evil for doing the same thing over and over again.
As a parent I am responsible for the care and outcome of my two children. If they grow up to be evil men, as a psychologist I know the fault will rest mostly with me and my wife because we will have failed in our responsibilities as a parent. As adults my children will still be responsible for their decisions. However, as my children grow, I do ever thing necessary to ensure that my children grow to be healthy and productive members of society. How come God does not take responsibility for children in this way. To me, that is like the parent who says, "I just don't understand why my child grew up to be a criminal." In a minority of the cases, it is not the fault of the parent, but usually it is. So God's idea of taking responsibility for his children is to kill them? Is God still committing these atrocities? The Bible says, "By him and through him all things were created. Things both seen and unseen." So God created viruses (again because of sin in your mind) and pushes both the wicked and sinless (innocent infants and children) with this invention of his. He continues to use nature to kill indiscriminately as well. "But God created everything perfectly according to His will." Then I want nothing to do with God, because he's a mass murderer who kills without regard, without mercy, and does not hear the pleas of the innocent or righteous, the mother or father, or even the babes who cry out to him to be saved. That God is a fucking bastard and why would you serve him?
I've also noticed a rise in non Christian anti-atheist books and publications. One that stands out is by Vox Day. I found that to be quite interesting.
Theodore Beale aka Vox Day is a Christian, and an odious one at that. He has written that he will gladly do anything he thinks God wants him to do, including exterminating all toddlers from the face of the earth (yes, I know that is not the original source, but I refuse to link to that toad, so deal with it), who directly equated the National Education Association to forcing Saudi girls to have clitorectomies, the man who encouraged Bush to export millions of illegal Mexican immigrants because, after all, Hitler was able to rid himself of 6 million Jews, so it can't be that hard, and that date rape is not really rape, and even in genuine rape the woman was asking for it, and hey, what are you moral relativists so pissed about since a woman's body is communal property anyway?
If you find the musings of this choad to be "quite interesting", then hell, I guess it's a free country and you can be quite interested in whatever you like. But don't you dare try to pawn this piece of human offal on some other theology; he's 100% Christian.
Jason,
You said "It's a rather ironic post considering it's pretty obvious that you, and most other DC contributors, believe you know everything when it comes to the untruthfulness of the Bible and Christianity."
I am not a contributor, but I am a frequent commenter and no one here is claiming to know everything when it comes to the untruthfulness of the Bible and Christianity. However, I have yet to see anything, but the same tired old arguments, that many of us who used to be Christians used to make, and those are the arguments that we easily and casually dismiss.
I cannot speak to comment censoring as I only see the ones that are posted. Maybe you should create a third blog and post those comments there.
gordonblood: Christianity of the conservative brand lives in a glass house. I can pull up most any conservative Christian college or university website and simply look at the required courses for the Old Testament or New Testament. Most college have a professor’s website where I can also pull up his course syllabus and quickly see that most book are from conservative publishing houses such a Zondervan, Herald, Moody Press or Broadman.
I have called local Christian Universities around the state here and found most skimp on the Biblical languages and (unless Catholic), big time on Patristic and the Church Fathers. Most or geared to creating “preachers” who can not be effective if they have any doubts which equates to the school being very selective on what is taught.
As my professor friend at Furman University told me one time. He asks his students at the start of the course on the New Testament if they want a critical course to learn about Jesus or do they want to learn to preach “J-E-S-U-S!”
Example, when I was a student at Bob Jones University (a school which only allows its graduates to teach in the religion department…creating scholastic inbreeding), the require the eschatology book by J. Dewight Pentecost, “Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology” first published in 1965 and was a textbook for advanced reading on the doctoral level in New Testament and theology. Typical for such conservative works is Pentecost’s totally refusal to acknowledge: A. The Dead Sea Scrolls; B. The extra Biblical texts which preceded Revelation such as the Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha dealing with the apocalyptic era of both early Judaism and Christianity. C. The inability to engage in any serious discussion with the Greek language in Revelation (that is that whoever wrote this work were not a nature speaker of Greek / not the writer of the Fourth Gospel and made grammatical errors).
While the Bible is full of “Signs and Wonders” which the Biblical authors used to prove God existence and the truth of their religious world, the modern apologist is left simply with philosophical logic to try and defend an inactive (promises only) Biblical text.
Christianity is so fragile that one must be doctrinally interrogated to be ordained or be a missionary least, God knows, the damage the wrong faith can do.
As one fellow student preacher told me when I told him about the relationship between the book of Revelation and the Dead Sea Scrolls; “You’ll not get in my pulpit and say that!”
Truly, most conservative Christianity is grown in a shelter green house call the Church!
Example, when I was a student at Bob Jones University (a school which only allows its graduates to teach in the religion department…creating scholastic inbreeding...)
Just to point out to those who do not know, this practice is explicitly discouraged in real colleges and universities. Unless you are outstanding, it is EXTREMELY difficult to get a professorship at the same university you attended as a graduate student. The reason is to avoid the intellectual inbreeding and stagnation that inevitably occurs, but apparently Bob Jones Play College sees this as a feature, not a bug.
For What It's Worth Department
Here is a letter I emailed to 6 professors in the graduate religion department at Bob Jones University three years ago:
"The question is whether an exegetical study on the Greek text of the Synoptic Gospels is done based on the factual elements of the syntax of Hellenistic Greek and not a theological matter of subjectively labeled either Liberal or Conservative.
The fact that most (if not all) Biblical dissertations done at Bob Jones University are unpublished for review by the scholarly world reveals a weakness in the objective methodological approach to academics. Such is what I would expect in the 1983 dissertation done by Dr. Mark Minnick: The Matthean Genealogy and Birth Account of Jesus Christ. Such a work (if published) would show how religious dogmatics dictates the outcome of objectivity when driven by apologetics.
In light of the above, I would invite any professor or graduate student in Bible at the University or in the Seminary to pick a disputed text which affects the “divine inspiration of the Bible” as can be found in Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece (27 edition) or the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4 edition) to engage me in an academic debate over the internet. This will be done based on our educational backgrounds as to what constitutes objectivity of the Greek text, the Hellenistic language and the text critical use of the Greek New Testament. Mastery of Hellenistic Greek is much more than declining nouns and parsing verbs; it’s the ability to think critically and objectively.
If you fail to respond or you decline, I’ll accept your defeat and leave you and your students to the cloistered compound behind the limited academically protective fences at Bob Jones University where reality is obscured by theological dogmas on the same level as Roman Catholicism.
Harry H. McCall
Mike,
The problem is, the 'same old arguments' are sometimes correct. When a Christian posts an argument that's been heard or used before, it's hardly justification to discount it simply because it's old. It's ludicrous to behave as if an argument or evidence is only worth considering if it hasn't been used before. The real irony though is that when a new argument is presented, some grumpy atheist will come along and criticize the argument for not being in sync with mainstream Christian teachings and that the individual is a heretic. Sometimes, in an effort to save face, an individual's beliefs will also be ridiculed in an attempt to sabotage the legitimacy of future arguments (as can be seen in a few posts here already)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Well I'm not a very intelligent person and I don't think I have all the answers and I know my comments don't sound very sophisticated.
I use to though. I'm not sure if it was pride and ego or just because I had convinced myself (or maybe it was the apologetic books I read) that I did have all the answers. Well, most of them at least. For me I wanted Christianity to be true.
Read all the top notch Christian philosophers like James Sennette, Alvin Plantinga, Kelly James Clark etc. and see that you cannot prove that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is his word like many overzealous apologists would have you believe. Get John's book and read it from start to finish. The part that really convinces me is that after you have established that you cannot prove the Bible to be the word of God then it becomes a real possibility that you are wrong. You are no longer without excuse. For all I know Islam is the true religion or maybe some religion across the globe that I've never even heard of is the true religion. Now if I die tomorrow I'm going to go to hell because I don't believe in the true God. What am I to say? I didn't know? I thought the Christian God was the true God. Well, ignorance is no excuse. I thought that I made it plain to you that Allah is the one true God and off to hell I go.
God has not made it plain to me that He is the God of the Bible. There are just way too many religions out there and the only one I have even began to look at is Christianity. There's so much that I don't know. So many things that I'm not aware of.
Understand this Christian: You cannot establish the Bible to be God's word. Realize you could be wrong. Take the outsider test. Realize that you may be on your way to hell because of your ignorance.
To summarize:
Fuck religion
Fuck the Bible
And Fuck Jesus Christ.
Jason stated: “John, you once stated you thought "circumcision was probably a substitutionary child sacrifice." This was quite obviously incorrect yet even after being shown why, you couldn't bear admitting you were wrong. You've shown you're not willing to lead by example so why would I, or anyone else, trust you to suddenly change your ways in these challenges?”
Sorry Jason, but here I go again with all my expensive books. Pardon the expression, but what the hell are you talking about!! Get and education, man!
Lesson one for starters; try the one by the late Yale University professor Bervard Childs, “The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary”, Westminster Press, 1995 or “Exodus 1 -18” (vol. 2, 2006) The Anchor Bible by W.H Propp.
Jason, faith can ONLY take your so far. You show up here and remain ignorant as a way to show it off as a sign of true Christian dogmatic faith when all it is, is total intellectual dishonesty, or you are too cheap to buy a book…hell man, go to the library!
May I make a suggestion, try picking up and objective book on Exodus such as the ones by Childs or Propp. Educate yourself and, for once in your life, be original and creative…be objective!
PS: Here is a typical Jasonic response to the above critic:
“Where in the Bible does it say I need to be original and creative? Can you prove the Bible says this?” Duh!
Harry,
"You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you." (Gen 17:11). Instead of picking up on objective book on Exodus, why not just read Genesis...?
You don't have to know it all to know at least this much.
Jason,
I apologize. I should have clarified that we reject said arguments because we have refuted them or just plain found them unconvincing, not simply because they are old. Truth is the same regardless of age. If I read a convincing argument I will accept that it is convincing.
As to things being heretical to one branch of Christianity or another, that is useful to point out because it shows that no two denominations agree, but all think they have it right.
Creating straw men may in fact "sabotage the legitimacy of future arguments", but it shouldn't. Just because you haven't convinced me with an argument so far does not mean you won't with one in the future, regardless of whether or not I find your past arguments inadequate.
Jason, there ya go quoting the Bible as if that's all you need to do. Say, if you cannot buy the better commentaries get and read a popular work on this matter by Jonathon Kirsch called The Harlot by the Side of the Road, chapters 8-9. It's cheap on amazon if you get it used. $1.95. Stop spouting off. Read. Learn. Think. Grow.
Jason, I have not published a few of your comments, yes. After 100 comments in a thread where you kept saying the same thing over and over without adding anything new, it gets old to publish them. In other cases I have followed our comment policy. Have you read it recently? Any respectful comment that is on topic and contributes to the discussion with be published, period. It says a great deal that you and you alone of all the posters here complain about it, simply becuase your comments waste our time. The added irony is that you don't think so because you are too ignorant to know differently.
Jason, one last thing. Take a lesson from Cole above. He went by the name "Calvin" about six months ago here, and he sounded just exactly like you do now. Exactly. Ignorant. Spouting off prooftexts, etc. (Sorry Cole). But he bought my book and now he denies Christianity. The arguments are not there. What are you afraid of? The truth? Don't you want to know if you believe a delusion? There are billions of people who are deluded. What if you are one of them? Test your faith against my book, and the others on the DC Challenge. Do what Andrew Atkinson did.
Of, you can hide in the dark. In ignorance. Afraid of testing your faith against the real world arguments of people like me.
Has it ever occurred to you that you prefer that Christianity is true? Yes, that's right. YOU PREFER THAT IT'S TRUE! Doesn't that fact alone make you pause and ask yourself if you believe that which you prefer to be true?
Harry, the letter you sent BJU is very interesting.
I have a couple of colleges I could do that with.
Hmmmmm.
Thinking.
John,
I was responding to Harry's comment regarding Biblical circumcision. Call me crazy but personally, I find it helpful to quote the Bible when discussing Biblical issues!
And yes, I'm well aware of the comment policy. I'm also well aware of the double-standard considering the number of disrespectful and off-topic anti-Christian comments that keep finding their way past the censors. Funny how that works, isn't it.
Finally, I'm not interested in reading your book but it was a good plug nonetheless.
Jason, you have read the blurbs about it, right? I'm not peddling it. I would recommend it even if I hadn't written it. It would be the sort of book I had wished I wrote.
And since I'll make about 50 cents if you buy it, I'll give you 50 cents to do so.
Stay ignorant. Be afraid. But you time is limited here if you don't grow a brain, and I'm serious. You need to learn from some good Christian apologists. You'll listen to them. Then we can discuss the issues that divide us.
Jason,
Quoting passages of the Bible when discussing them does make sense, but the theory of the origins of circumcision being discussed was extra-biblical so quoting the Bible and letting it be the end of the discussion isn't very helpful. Even if the Bible is 100% accurate and 100% the word of God, that does not make it the sole source of the history of Israel or Hebraic practices.
Jason, I would buy you a copy if you would read it.
So now with Mike's offer there is no excuse Jason.
If I am wrong your faith will grow and be stronger. If I am correct I've saved you a life of delusion. You have nothing to lose. The only excuse would be that you are afraid. What? Jason, afraid? Afraid of what? More knowledge?
John and Monolithtma~ I'm sorry for the abrasiveness... I've always been a very passionate person about what I believe...I think I may try to force feed at times...I'll work on that.
So far as reads Monolithtma, how about The Jesus Legend by Eddy & Boyd. They adress many of the issues I've seen here almost directly. Another would be Dethroning Jesus by Bock and Wallace. Once again, they take apart many of the exact arguments I've seen here on DC. They're not all inclusive, but they address some pertinent issues.
Now, Ehrman's work...at first I was VEHEMENTLY opposed to but...because of the "freakish" way that I've seen some people hold on to the "exact" letter...I'm somewhat more lienent on him and his position. Although I do believe that we can get back to what Jesus said with confidence, I am less inclined to state thing like on "Nissan 15 30 AD Jesus spoke (This EXACT) word" etc. The choices of words are limited and context gives me the answer to what was said, BUT the point I'm trying to make is that Ehrman's work shouldn't be tossed out the window totally-LOL
Anyway. Thanks for the response and I'll look at that material.
Mike,
The Bible says circumcision is a sign of the covenant between God and man. It doesn't say it was a substitutionary child sacrifice. Therefore, the Biblical teaching on the matter is that it circumcision is a sign of a covenant and not a substitutionary child sacrifice.
And thanks for the offer but I'm still not interested in John's book.
I've said what I needed to say here. Toodles.
Jason, you are not interested in learning from us. You do not believe we have anything to say that you can learn from. We exist only for you to show us wrong.
You are hereby banned.
No more posts from you will be published, until or unless you take Mike up on his offer.
Toodles.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett,
Thanks for the recommendations. I ordered Dethroning Jesus and put The Jesus Legend on my wish list.
Jason, I understand what the Bible says about circumcision. That does not mean the practice began there. I know little about the subject, but am open to truth wherever it can be found.
Also Jason, my offer to buy you John's book stands. If you want to take me up on it days, weeks, or years from now I will still honor that offer.
tigg13 correctly pointed out that district supt. harvey burnett is actually stealing when reading books in the book store without paying. This is a violation of Ex. 20:15 and thus constitutes a sin. If there were an actual reality to Harvey's religion such that the presence and influence of his alleged god were indwelling his emotional-intellectual core, then that influence (often referred to as the Holy Spirit) would remind Harvey, when browsing in the bookstore, that violation of Ex. 20:15 is a no-no. What is observed is the opposite of what is expected under the supernatural religion hypothesis. This is very strong empirical evidence that Harvey's Christianity is false.
Well, I for one am not going to say it's stealing to read books at a bookstore. I left that Pharisaical attitude when I left the church. Some bookstores have benches to read the books, right there! And who actually has the time to read a book in a bookstore anyway? Most often the reader will want to buy it to take it home since he cannot read it all. That's why there are the benches in the first place.
As an author I'd rather have people read my book than not read it at all, anyway. So when it comes to my book, go ahead and read it in the bookstore. If you damage it or crinkle the pages, then you should pay for it.
just because the advocates of a thing do not attribute something as a reason for it does not rule that thing out as a reason. most agree that many christian traditions are pagan traditions repackaged. if you read christian literature on the meanings of those things, they don't say "a tradition whose origins are pagan' but they say what christain meanings have been now given to them. so john could be totally correct and of COURSE the bible would not give the source reason but the newly made up reason. it is silly to say that because it isn;t in the bible, it can;t be where it came from. most agree that santa come from st. nick but the 'night before christmas' poem does not mention that so it can't be the origins??? kinda like that.
John~ Thank you for a REASONABLE answer on my behalf regarding the book readings. That speaks a lot.
Like I'm gonna damage the book and put it back or read evey page...get outta here.
Anyway thanks John and I may just go ahead an order yours on line. I think it's at least fair, if I'm gonna fully understand your position that I give it an independent and personal look.
Thanks.
I'm with John on the "book store stealing", although I think it unethical to use a bookstore as a library. They rely on an infusion of cash from purchases, not taxes or charity. The benches are kind of a nicety to let you relax and check out the material in hopes you'll buy. Anyway, perusing a book to see if it's what you want...a-okay. Using the store as a library...not cool. Kind of like sneaking into a movie...sure the cinema and the movie producers didn't "lose" any money, but if everyone did it they'd have to shut down.
My 2 cents.
John:
None of the 6 of the professors at Bob Jones University ever took up my offer. After several months, I re-emailed them another offer to debate the “truths of the Bible”. Three blocked my email, one asked me to take his name off my email list and two never responded. All this from a university which emphatically states “We stand without apology for the absolute truth of the Bible” that is the “plenary” / “verbal inspiration of the Bible”.
Most conservative schools are like those front wheel drive cars with glass pack muffles; they make a lot of noise in the take off, but the performance just an’t there!
Several times I have heard or seen an evangelist on the radio or TV making apologetic claims that they had proof the Bible was true. However, when I made contact with them, they either backed down or accused me of being “snared by Satan” and hung up.
Most apologists have a bunch of ancient Biblical promises (better know as myths) held in the hand of faith. I have to admit one thing, even they are not as stupid as the Christian faith tells them to be!
Forgive my hard line on the subject of book stores: my wife manages a book store and we both have a great respect intellectual property in general and the written word in particular.
Spirula is correct that those benches are there for people who are uncertain about a given book and need a chance to sample it before buying so that they can get what they really want.
There are people, tho, who abuse this privilege by reading entire books and then return them stained, dog-earred and un-sellable to the shelves without paying for them.
Obviously there are much more serious issues here that need to be discussed. I only brought it up because, to me, this kind of thing tends to say a lot about a person's moral and ethical values and how much honest respect they have for the thoughts and ideas of others.
Regarding grazing at book stores, I have always thought that if I'm going to extensively read a book I know I'm not going to buy at a book store, I buy a coffee or something else there while I do it. It's the same way I am about the indoor playgrounds at fast food restaurants--if we take our kids to play there, I always buy something from the restaurant, even if I'm not hungry (and it drives my wife crazy). Of course, if you damage the book while reading it, you MUST buy it.
Back on topic, I would like to make a very, VERY important point to all Christians (and others) who read the Old Testament as authoritative. The Old Testament is NOT SUPPOSED to be the definitive Word of God according to the Rabbinic tradition. Let me repeat that for those in the back...the Old Testament was NEVER MEANT to be the definitive Word of God to the Jews! The Old Testament is supposed to be somewhat analagous to the Cliff's Notes of the Hebrew covenant with God. There was also an extensive oral Torah that, according to classical Rabbinic tradition, was given to Moses simultaneously with the Torah, and Moses handed down the oral tradition to Israel, forbidding it to be written as any text would rob the oral tradition of its necessary detail and subject it to misinterpretation and abuse (which anyone familiar with various Christian fundamentalist sects can sympathize with). However, after the dispersion and persecution of the Jews, the rabbis decided the only way to ensure the survival of the Oral Torah was to write it down so it could be accurately disseminated to the scattered pockets of Judaism remaining. If you want to get a complete notion of what the Hebrews claim their relationship to God is, reading just the OT is like trying to write a book report based on the blurb from the dust jacket. You have to read both the OT AND the Talmud.
But don't take my word for it...go ask your friendly local neighborhood rabbi (seriously, ask 'em--they are usually happy to correct polite, attentive misinformed gentiles). The argument "It doesn't say it in the OT, so it wasn't so" is just ignorant, because according to the traditions of the Jews (you know, the people the OT was supposedly entrusted to by God), the OT only tells a small part of the story.
Can we let this issue die?
the bookstore thing does seem a trivial issue...
Agreed.
'same old arguments' are sometimes correct
Too bad you banned Jason. I was waiting to see which argument was correct.
I don't read apologetics anymore; it all comes back to PZ Myers' Courtier's Reply. None of them answer the essential question: Where's the beef (proof of any deity's existence)?
Anything beyond that is talking about the naked Emperor's fictitious clothes. I don't give a hoot about what this phrase of the Emperor's catalogue (Hebrew Fairy Tale) means. None of that matters.
Prove any deity exists. Make him appear in a verifiable way--a way that can be repeated, and always get the same result: Poof! The deity is there! And have everyone who does it that way have a deity appear. Every single time. No anecdotes. No appeals to emotion. No arguments about what archaeologists supposedly find or don't find.
Deities are usually all powerful. I think any of them could handle verifiable testing. That's the only way I'll be convinced.
Otherwise, it's all b.s.
Aquaria, go to Mama Guzzardi's Italian Restaurant in North Canton, Ohio, and you will find irrefutable proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is very real. Oh yes, he will touch you with his noodly appendage. ;-)
Darn, now I'm hungry and I've got another hour or so until lunch.
Cole said,
"To summarize:
Fuck religion
Fuck the Bible
And Fuck Jesus Christ."
See, you left the door open to those who would minister to you. You have to blaspheme the Holy Ghost. So take that extra step then you won't have anyone being lead to witness to you because the Holy Ghost will not lead them to talk to you. If they do, you know that they are not listening to the Spirit but their feeble little minds.
Maybe we should all blaspheme the Spirit then these apologists would not feel they have a Ghost of a chance in converting us.
Fuck the Holy Ghost!
Post a Comment