Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?
by Richard Dawkins, The Independent
Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2970799.ece
[Below is the full, un-edited letter originally sent to The Independent]
Sir: Peter Stanford ("Doubts about Dawkins",14 September) writes that the recent books by Christopher Hitchens and me "deserve a decent response. But how to fashion it?" A decent start would be to read them. Page 1 of The God Delusion would suffice to demonstrate that I don't "caricature all church-goers as simple-minded fundamentalists" (Google: "Affection that I still retain for the Church"). Of course the church-goers that Stanford or I meet socially are not simple-minded fundamentalists. Unfortunately they are heavily outnumbered, especially in the most powerful country on Earth where nearly half the population believes the universe began after the domestication of the dog, and a slightly smaller proportion yearns for a Middle East Armageddon when they'll be raptured out of their clothes and "up" to Heaven. These people have the vote and we all live with the consequences, which are made all the more dangerous by the equally simple-minded fundamentalists of the Islamic world.
The "response" that Stanford recommends, by John Cornwell, does not display a very Christian standard of decency, as Stanford will discover if he Googles "Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity". He may have better luck with some of the other thirteen "replies" that have been published, under titles that monotonously permute "Dawkins", "God" and "Delusion", many in jackets that are equally derivative (Google: "The Fleas are Multiplying").
Cornwell's slighting of my reading list is singled out for special praise by Stanford. This is a stock criticism. It assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology, which one must study in depth before one can disbelieve in God. My own stock reply (Would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?) is now superseded by P Z Myers' brilliant satire on the Emperor's New Clothes (Google "Courtier's Reply").
Stanford's trump card is his observation that "religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith." Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts." Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Richard Dawkins
Oxford
[Also see this forum post by Richard, which is a follow-up letter to The Independent highlighting some errors.]
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2970799.ece
[Below is the full, un-edited letter originally sent to The Independent]
Sir: Peter Stanford ("Doubts about Dawkins",14 September) writes that the recent books by Christopher Hitchens and me "deserve a decent response. But how to fashion it?" A decent start would be to read them. Page 1 of The God Delusion would suffice to demonstrate that I don't "caricature all church-goers as simple-minded fundamentalists" (Google: "Affection that I still retain for the Church"). Of course the church-goers that Stanford or I meet socially are not simple-minded fundamentalists. Unfortunately they are heavily outnumbered, especially in the most powerful country on Earth where nearly half the population believes the universe began after the domestication of the dog, and a slightly smaller proportion yearns for a Middle East Armageddon when they'll be raptured out of their clothes and "up" to Heaven. These people have the vote and we all live with the consequences, which are made all the more dangerous by the equally simple-minded fundamentalists of the Islamic world.
The "response" that Stanford recommends, by John Cornwell, does not display a very Christian standard of decency, as Stanford will discover if he Googles "Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity". He may have better luck with some of the other thirteen "replies" that have been published, under titles that monotonously permute "Dawkins", "God" and "Delusion", many in jackets that are equally derivative (Google: "The Fleas are Multiplying").
Cornwell's slighting of my reading list is singled out for special praise by Stanford. This is a stock criticism. It assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology, which one must study in depth before one can disbelieve in God. My own stock reply (Would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?) is now superseded by P Z Myers' brilliant satire on the Emperor's New Clothes (Google "Courtier's Reply").
Stanford's trump card is his observation that "religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith." Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts." Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Richard Dawkins
Oxford
[Also see this forum post by Richard, which is a follow-up letter to The Independent highlighting some errors.]
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2007 | PermalinkComments 601 - 650 of 1335 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers602. Comment #73029 by CHeard on September 23, 2007 at 9:42 pm
BAEOZ (602)Do you believe Moses existed and a few hundred thousand Jews wandered the Sinai for 40 years without leaving a trace by the way? ;-)I'd say that the jury's still out (for me) on whether there ever was a real Moses or a real exodus from Egypt. We know without question that the Egyptians did use "Asiatic" (an Egyptian designation that would include Israelites) slaves, but we can't identify specifically "Israelite" populations among them until a time after the exodus supposedly occurred. Certainly the numbers given in the book of, er, Numbers are waaaaay too high for any such slave escape, but something like that on a smaller scale isn't unthinkable. It's a long way from proven, though. There's a book out supposedly detailing Egyptian evidence for something like the biblical exodus, but I'm afraid I've not yet read it. In sum, I think a small-scale slave escape is possible, but it's very far from proven; the story as told in the Bible is clearly exaggerated at best. I think the story is probably a post hoc attempt to construct a national identity, but I remain open to the possibility that there is some historical experience (rather different than the narrated one) in the story's kernel.
BTW, it's not just "a few hundred thousand Jews." Never mind that the word "Jews" is terribly anachronistic in the context. The figure of approximately 600,000, given in the book of Numbers, is for able-bodied males over the age of 20. Make some very rough estimates and you quickly end up with 2.5 million or more Hebrews/Israelites traipsing through the Sinai Peninsula, somehow operating as a group without modern means of communication, and somehow managing to leave nary a trace of themselves to be found by later archaeologists (who are good enough to trace the movements of neolothic nomads in the same region).
Other Comments by CHeard
603. Comment #73031 by BAEOZ on September 23, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Never mind that the word "Jews" is terribly anachronistic in the context.
Mea culpa. A few hundred thousand self-described chosen people is better?
Thanks again for your replies. I edited my previous post to answer the point about physics.
Cheers.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
604. Comment #73038 by CHeard on September 23, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Goldy (604)Are you sure Christianity's core claims are due to God/Jesus or are they just that, core values, intrinsic to all, no god needed? Are you sure this belief is because of what you were taught?What I'm sure of, Goldy, is that my conscious appreciation and embrace of the core values we're talking about came about through my Christian upbringing—in my case. It would be absurd for me or anyone to claim that these values originated in Christianity; I'm talking about my own personal history. It's entirely possible that my genes code for morality (so to speak), and that I would have been a good person anyway (pardon the hubris); certainly there are many good, moral atheists who basically share the same sense of core values that I do. Of course I also know Christians who would argue from that for a God-implanted "natural law" (that's an old, old argument, as I'm sure you realize). In short: I know for certain how I came to appreciate these values. I do not know for certain the ultimate source of these values in myself or the human population generally.
Other Comments by CHeard
605. Comment #73113 by ktillyer on September 24, 2007 at 6:37 am
That's got my God off to a weak start.Inspiration courtesy of [4. Comment #70809 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 1:24 am]
Other Comments by ktillyer
606. Comment #73122 by black wolf on September 24, 2007 at 7:24 am
Robert Maynard, #72497I found this explanation of the 'seeming' inconsistency (written by a German author, translation automatic):
This ostensible contradiction in the information about the fathers for "Josef" arises by the fact that in general is always assumed from the fact that the Josef mentioned in both Gospels is the one and same person, namely the husband of Maria, which of mother Jesus Christ.
In the solution of this ostensible contradiction one must note that the family trees differ in Mattew and Lukas immediately in several points. They serve obviously different purposes, and indicate that Jesus Christ is the son of David and Abraham (Mattew) and the human son (Lukas). Hence, in Mattew the family tree leads from Abraham up to Christ, in Lukas however from Jesus back to Abraham up to Adam. In Mattew the line is given to Christ through his mother Maria, in Lukas however the line by Jesus through his assumed father Josef. Both lines go back to king David, but through different sons of David. In Mattew the lawful claim of Jesus to the throne of David is put aside, because it is founded on account of the descent of his mother Maria from the royal line of David (through Salomo), while this is also indicated in Lukas of Jesus' stepfather Josef who was from the house of David (through son Nathan).
The fact that in Mattew the line of Maria (and not of her husband Josef) is given, arises from the text itself which divides the line of Abraham to Jesus into 3 x 14 links (Mt 1.17). If one orders the given links accordingly, 14 links, then from Salomo to Jojachin arise from Abraham to David likewise 14 links, but from Schealtiel to Christ only 13 (!) links, if the mentioned Josef is the husband of Maria who acts as mother to Jesus, but about 14 links if the mentioned Josef is the father of Maria.
The word for "man"("husband") in Mt 1.18 in the Greek text (aner) and in the Aramaic text (gavra) designates primarily only an adult "man(husband)" and can become according to the context even more exactly definiet (cf. Lk 24.19 – a prophet; Apg 3.14 – murderer; Rom 7.2 – husband, etc.). In Mt 1.19 the word is used, by the way, in the Aramaic text for "man"("husband") for husband (bala). Now from the information in Mt 1.17 about 14 links in each case of 3 segments of this family tree arises that in Mt 1.16 this Josef, the " man of Maria " must have been not her husband, but rather her father , and better so should have been translated.
Thus the information in Mattew stands in harmony, and also the ostensible contradiction between Mattew and Lukas with regard to the different fathers of Josef is solved. Mattew mentions Josef, the father of Maria whose father was Jakob ; Lukas mentions Josef, the husband of Maria whose father was called Eli.
Other Comments by black wolf
607. Comment #73131 by revcort on September 24, 2007 at 8:17 am
Sorry for coming back, but this stuff from CHeard must be addressed. (and I won't be responding to others)If a Christian "doctrine of the inspiration of scripture" is to have any meaningful connection to the real claims made in the Bible about the way the texts themselves originated, then the term "inspiration" has to be stretched to include not just the "dictation" experience claimed for Moses, but all the other processes mentioned above, too: quoting traditional poetry, reporting hallucinations visionary experiences, "applying one's mind" (doing philosophy), doing research, and giving one's opinion about questions posed. That's an awfully big tent, wouldn't you say? Using just one word, "inspiration," to embrace all of these processes makes the word so vague as to be almost useless. And while it would be eminently reasonable for a non-Jew/non-Christian (be they atheist, Buddhist, or whatever) to disbelieve the claims made on behalf of Moses and Ezekiel in the passages quoted above, it makes no sense for a self-proclaimed "Bible believer" to disbelieve what "the Teacher," or the evangelist "Luke," or the apostle Paul (author of 1 Corinthians) said about their own writing activity. If God "inspired" Qoheleth, and Luke, and Paul, to write what they wrote as quoted above, then God did so by such "stealth" means that it's undetectable in what these men wrote—to the point that they take credit not just for the words, but in Qoheleth's and Luke's cases, at least, for the very idea of writing anything at all (and Paul is answering questions, as 1 Corinthians 7:1 makes clear).
So it's not that I "disbelieve" in the inspiration of scripture; it's that my definition of "inspiration" is so broad as to be almost meaningless—which it must be, if the writers' various attestations to their own writing processes are taken at face value or less (and if they're taken at more than face value, you're rewriting the Bible).
Here is my simple question, and this should settle the entire issue, and will likely, effectively end our conversation, because, if you answer this question as I suspect you will, then we're really not even dealing with the same god here...
Do you believe God to be sovereign? Omnipotent? And if so, can He not preserve for a people writings that have come from Him? Can He not allow them to "think" whatever they want to think their reason for writing it was? Can He not further, even in allowing them to write their own thoughts, sovereignly direct what the finished product would be? If He can't, He is not God and He deserves nothing from us- not our worship, not our lives, not our tithes, not our teaching of our children about Him. Nothing.
Both the "what good is it" question posed here, and the "slippery slope" argument posed in the prior quotation from revcort, proceed from a logical fallacy. "If S, then P," where P is an outcome considered undesirable by the speaker, simply does not entail "S is false." The effects of believing or not believing that "scripture is inspired" actually have no bearing on the historico-ontological claim "scripture is inspired."
As for the implicit definition of "inspired" as "given by God," well … the Christian church has historically "received" the Bible as if it were a gift from God, but the actual texts testify—and I mean explicitly, as quoted above, without (yet) doing any reading between the lines—to a much messier, much more human process. Just take the gospel of Luke. I can either believe what the author tells me—which is that he decided to write the book, and he wrote it only after conducting research by interviewing eyewitnesses and preachers ("servants of the word")—or I can disbelieve it. Ironically, it's usually evangelical-to-fundamentalist Christians who disbelieve what Luke says about his own authorial activity, and who instead attribute both the motive and the process to God or "the Holy Spirit." Yet, if God is the real author (in a literary sense) of the gospel of Luke, then Luke 1:1–4 is basically a divinely perpetrated hoax. Not that the God of the Bible is entirely above deception; see 1 Kings 19:22–23, although to be fair, in this story God doesn't lie directly, but subcontracts the job to an "angel." But isn't it strange that any atheist could cheerfully endorse the claim made in Luke 1:1–4 (the author decided to write a book, did some research, and wrote it up) while conservative Christians go into gyrations trying to make it say something different?
Certainly, the argument seems like a logical fallacy to you because I didn't spell it out. I assumed you would know why not believing in the authority of Scripture would lead us down a slippery slope. Boy, was I wrong in making that assumption! Shall I spell it out for you? (I guess I must)
Here, let's use what you said at the very end of your writings toward me as an example...
But seriously, it's not my call. I don't know. I hope there's no such "place" or "state" or whatever. If I got my way, nobody would go to hell, if there is a hell to go do. Except that guy who cut me off so rudely on the 101 the other day.
oops, there you went... and you've just slipped off of the very slippery slope I mentioned. Now, you're even questioning whether or not hell even exists. Do you see a problem here? (once again, if not, we're in BIG trouble- and you may be in greater trouble than the atheists here)
Here's the simple argument. If A. Scripture is not inspired, then B. No Scripture can be relied on as definitely true, and C. The entire Bible is thrown into doubt, and D. It should be taken as a fairy tale.
Now, I have some pretty good suspicions as to why anyone would rejoice in claiming that Scripture, at least for doctrinal purposes, has no true authority in the life of a believer. I suspect that this person could believe pretty much ANYTHING he wants to believe and justify it with his own logic or personal beliefs.
And let me add one further caveat here CHeard, which should definitely be cause for concern for you. Ever since I came here, I have been called various names, accused of being brainwashed, told I was basically an idiot, and told in various vulgar ways to leave. You, on the other hand, have been receiving compliments left and right for the comments you are leaving, and for being such a breath of fresh air. See anything wrong here? I do. I realize that quoting a Scripture to you means nothing (because it has no real authority in your life) but I'll quote one anyway.
18 "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.John 15:18-20
So, I must warn you CHeard, because you claim to be a brother in Christ, what you are teaching here places you in serious danger. I know this won't make me popular here, but, again, I care not what people think of me. On the day of judgment, I will be able to stand and say that I sounded a clear call. Your blood is on your own hands, and the sink for washing is before you.
Other Comments by revcort
608. Comment #73137 by GoneGolfing on September 24, 2007 at 8:41 am
This should be good :-)CHEARD....response to that ?
BTW: Thx for all your open and honest posts :-)
Other Comments by GoneGolfing
609. Comment #73138 by irate_atheist on September 24, 2007 at 8:45 am
In those immortal words uttered by Chris Morris:"Institutionalised cruelty is one thing, but the twisted brain-wrong of a one-off man-mental is quite another."
I couldn't put it better myself.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
610. Comment #73146 by Bonzai on September 24, 2007 at 9:15 am
revcort wrote:Ever since I came here, I have been called various names, accused of being brainwashed, told I was basically an idiot, and told in various vulgar ways to leave. You, on the other hand, have been receiving compliments left and right for the comments you are leaving, and for being such a breath of fresh air
CHeard receives compliments because he deserves them. His posts are thoughtful, knowledgeable and display a lot of intellectual honesty. He is open about his own doubts and convictions. When he doesn't know the answer to some questions he admits it. You on the other hand sound like a typical use car salesman for Jesus.--aka missionary,-- with all the predictable prefabricated lines and canned answers. There is a lack of sincerity in you that pisses people off. It is not just what you believe. See the difference?
Other Comments by Bonzai
611. Comment #73150 by steveroot on September 24, 2007 at 9:26 am
609. Comment #73131 by revcort on September 24, 2007 at 8:17 am
Here is my simple question, and this should settle the entire issue...
Do you believe God to be sovereign? Omnipotent? And if so, can He not preserve for a people writings that have come from Him? Can He not allow them to "think" whatever they want to think their reason for writing it was? Can He not further, even in allowing them to write their own thoughts, sovereignly direct what the finished product would be?
Then why did "He" allow the final product, as Hitchens and (I believe) Dawkins have said, to be so poorly written? And nothing new (no "updates") for 2000+ years? Give me a break.
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
612. Comment #73172 by hungarianelephant on September 24, 2007 at 10:42 am
oops, there you went... and you've just slipped off of the very slippery slope I mentioned. Now, you're even questioning whether or not hell even exists. Do you see a problem here? (once again, if not, we're in BIG trouble- and you may be in greater trouble than the atheists here)
Revcort, do enlighten us. Are you saying that there's a worse hell for believers who don't think your book is the incontrovertible word of God, than the bog-standard hell for total non-believers?
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
613. Comment #73175 by Robert Maynard on September 24, 2007 at 11:00 am
revcort,(and I won't be responding to others)AWW.
Don't you have anything to say to my last comment to you? I haven't been "vulgar" towards you, have I?
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
614. Comment #73184 by CHeard on September 24, 2007 at 11:38 am
And to think that all I really wanted to begin with was to debate the shape of the toes of leprechauns' shoes …I will do my best to answer revcort's questions (609) in a brief, clear, and straightforward way. I admit that, at one level, I really don't want to; it feels very strange to me to be at odds with another theist in front of an overwhelmingly atheistic forum. Nevertheless, the questions have been posed, and at least one bystander (GoneGolfing, 610) seems to want to (over)hear the answers (though I can't help but hear echoes of "Girl fight!" from my junior high school halls). So, here goes. All quotations are from revcort (609).
Do you believe God to be sovereign? Omnipotent? And if so, can He not preserve for a people writings that have come from Him? Can He not allow them to "think" whatever they want to think their reason for writing it was? Can He not further, even in allowing them to write their own thoughts, sovereignly direct what the finished product would be? If He can't, He is not God and He deserves nothing from us- not our worship, not our lives, not our tithes, not our teaching of our children about Him. Nothing.I don't know whether I can answer the first question without some additional clarification on what "sovereign" is supposed to mean. If "sovereign" is supposed to mean something ontological like "finally in charge of everything," then on that definition, I would answer "Yes." That is, "the buck stops with God," in my considered opinion. Please note, onlookers, that this obviously a theological claim based entirely on considerations from within my native Christian tradition. I cannot demonstrate that God exists, much less that this God in fact possess such ontological power.
I'm not a big fan of the word "omnipotent." It's actually a very difficult word to define, and one can't read very much of the theological literature on the "attributes of God" without learning that different theologians mean different things when they use the word "omnipotent." The word is not a biblical term, but one invented by Christian theologians later in church history, when they desired to give an account of God that would be "befitting of God" (theoprepes, in the theological vocabulary). The problem is that "omnipotent" sounds like it should mean "able to do anything" (cf. the biblical question, "Is anything to hard for God?"). But almost no philosophically savvy theologian takes it that way. Almost all immediately redefine omnipotent to mean "able to do anything logically possible," and then the "death of a thousand qualifications" begins as theologians try to define exactly what is and isn't "logically possible." Later, of course, questions about voluntary self-limitation and a divine commitment to human free will come into the picture. Since I don't accept being backed into a "yes-or-no" corner on questions this complicated, let me say this: if the claim "God is omnipotent" is meant to entail the further claim "God always gets God's way," then the Bible clearly doesn't depict God as omnipotent in that sense: "I gave you cleanness of teeth [due to lack of food] in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places, yet you did not return to me, says the Lord" (Amos 4:6); "Oh, rebellious children, says the Lord, who carry out a plan, but not mine; who make an alliance, but against my will, adding sin to sin …" (Isaiah 30:1). If your definition of "omnipotence" means that God always gets what God wants, then no, I can't sign on to that sort of definition—and by the time you've qualified the definition of "omnipotence" to allow for human "free will," then "omnipotence" has become something rather different. Even if the limits are self-imposed, a limited omnipotence isn't "omni" any more.
By now, I imagine that revcort has sadly (at least, I hope that's the operative emotion) written me off as hopelessly non-Christian, a worshiper of some "different god," even though I am quite certain that my explanations of the biblical material, at least, can stand up to exegetical scrutiny (though they may well fall victim to theological special pleading). Nevertheless, I'll go ahead and try to answer some of the other questions as well.
What I find really interesting about the quotation from revcort above is the shifting goalposts. The real underlying topic of the paragraph quoted above is the "inspiration" of scripture. I think it's fair to say that on that topic, as discussed in this comment thread, I have consistently shown, with specific quotations from the Bible, that the biblical writers made a wide variety of explicit claims about how their writings originated, and with just a tiny application of the same interpretive principles we use when listening to just one side of a telephone call, we can make solid inferences about how certain other texts (psalms, prayers) came to be written. But, revcort, in the paragraph I quoted above, you attempt to shift the debate from what God did or didn't do to what God conceivably could have done. Those are different questions. If you believe that God is a sovereign, omnipotent creator, then perforce you must believe (it's logically entailed) that God could have created human beings capable of photosynthesis, that God could have given pigs wings, that God could have eliminated all evil, disease, death, and decay from the world. If you don't believe that God could do these things, then you manifestly don't believe that God is an omnipotent sovereign—a belief you seem to think is crucial not just to "sound doctrine" but to God's very identity. But if there really is a sovereign, omnipotent, creator God, that God manifestly has not created human beings capable of photosynthesis, or given pig wings, or eliminated all evil, disease, death, and decay from the world. Your questions seem to imply that the claim "S can have done P" entails "S did P," but anyone who stops to think about it only for a moment will see how fallacious that is.
Moreover, your positing of "stealth inspiration" is both really odd and self-defeating. Let's imagine a scenario in which God secretly wants "Luke" to write a gospel, so God stealthily plants in "Luke's" mind the idea of writing a gospel. Why would God hide God's motives from "Luke"? Why would God allow "Luke" to think that he was writing his gospel because there were multiple competing gospels in circulation, and "Luke" was interested in nailing down an accurate report (that's what "Luke" self-reports as his motive)? You suggest that God might manipulate the writers' thoughts without their knowledge, but why would God do that instead of just telling them what to write, á là Moses and the Ten Commandments—and if God did that, then the thoughts are not "their own thoughts" any more, are they? The dilemma on which you are hoisting yourself is this: you are denying explicit biblical statements of human motive and authorship in order to affirm divine motive and authorship, but if you do this, then you are saying that the plain statements of those scriptures cannot be trusted, yet your whole motive for affirming divine authorship is to establish the trustworthiness of what is said; moreover, your model posits that God actually engineered this situation in such a way that logically guarantees nobody who buys your model can trust the document that God supposedly authored. Isn't it much more parsimonious—not to mention more respectful to and trusting of the scriptures—to take the writers at their word about how they came to write? As I've said before, it's perfectly reasonable for a nonbeliever to disbelieve that God really dictated the Ten Commandments to Moses, since that nonbeliever has no stake in biblical authority, but it's quite another thing for a professed believer who places high value on the Bible to claim that God controlled the content of the biblical texts with such stealthiness that the writers inadvertently lied about the authorial process and, without knowing it, took credit for God's work (as I recall, that's a bad thing). Your version of inspiration, revcort, is a house of cards. That's a harsh thing for me to say, but it's how I see it—and remember, I come at this not as an atheist or an anti-Christian or any such thing, but precisely as a Christian bent on giving an honest, accurate, and exegetically responsible representation of what's really in the Bible.
Oh, my. That was a very long answer to a very short question. This does not bode well, but let's move on.
Certainly, the argument seems like a logical fallacy to you because I didn't spell it out. …No, revcort, it seems like a logical fallacy to me because it is a logical fallacy. "Believing S leads to undesirable consequences" simply does not logically entail "S is false." Here's a simple example: "Believing that nuclear fission can generate large amounts of destructive energy might lead to the creation and use of potentially genocidal weapons" does not contradict the fact that nuclear fission can, in fact, generate large amounts of destructive energy.
oops, there you went... and you've just slipped off of the very slippery slope I mentioned. Now, you're even questioning whether or not hell even exists. Do you see a problem here?Yes. The problem I see is that you have decided that unless your interlocutor agrees with you on a specific metaphysical doctrine of the afterlife derived from fewer than a dozen individual Bible verses, you are eager to brand that individual a nonbeliever.
Here's the simple argument. If A. Scripture is not inspired, then B. No Scripture can be relied on as definitely true, and C. The entire Bible is thrown into doubt, and D. It should be taken as a fairy tale.There are so many problems with your chain of reasoning that I hardly know where to begin. Let's take them in order.
First, you continue to use this very vague word, "inspired," without defining what it means. Implicitly, based on your other comments, I have to conclude that what you mean is something like "ghost-written by God"—let's say "worded by God" so as not to sound so snarky. I have shown, on the basis of explicit statements from scripture itself, that this definition of "inspired" is totally untrue to what the texts themselves actually say, and yet you continue to use it. Very well. Your
Second, your move from "B. No Scripture can be relied on as definitely true" to "C. The entire Bible is thrown into doubt" is either a false dichotomy, as if the only alternative to "all S is true" is "no S is true," or a mere tautology: "if the truth of S cannot be assumed, the truth of S must be demonstrated." Pardon my bluntness, but it sounds to me like your doctrine of inspiration is a (weak) defense against facing up to hard questions of epistemology.
Third, the move from "C. The entire Bible is thrown into doubt" to "D. it should be taken as a fairy tale" is, I'm sorry to say, just laughably stupid. I know that's a mean way to put it, but come, on revcort. "S might not be true" does not logically entail "S is false." There's just a huge amount of additional work to be done before you can move between those statements. Never mind that "fairy tale" is a fairly specific literary genre to which no biblical materials really belong. And while we're on the subject, who says a fairy tale couldn't be divinely inspired? Are you trying to argue that straightforward historical narration is the only manner in which scripture communicates theological truth? If so, you're going to have a problem with Jesus, who used patently fictional stories—you know, we call them "parables"—to communicate theological ideas.
Now, I have some pretty good suspicions as to why anyone would rejoice in claiming that Scripture, at least for doctrinal purposes, has no true authority in the life of a believer. I suspect that this person could believe pretty much ANYTHING he wants to believe and justify it with his own logic or personal beliefs.Right. Actually accepting at face value what the writers say about their own writing activity and trying to honestly and forthrightly represent those claims can't possibly have anything to do with it. Forgive the sarcasm, but your arrogance in demonizing my motives is extremely aggravating.
And besides, you're shifting the goalposts again. When did we shift from a conversation about the literary origins of biblical texts to a conversation about "authority"? They're not one and the same.
And let me add one further caveat here CHeard, which should definitely be cause for concern for you. Ever since I came here, I have been called various names, accused of being brainwashed, told I was basically an idiot, and told in various vulgar ways to leave. You, on the other hand, have been receiving compliments left and right for the comments you are leaving, and for being such a breath of fresh air. See anything wrong here? I do.Yes, I do see something wrong here. I see the term "non-Christian" being implicitly defined as "person who doesn't agree with me on my preferred doctrines." I see Bible verses being deployed as weapons to beat people up with. I see a Christian engaging non-Christians belligerently and then taking scripture out of context—Jesus was not persecuted by atheists, nor for being a theist—as a means of self-congratulation. I see Christianity being represented by rigid, arrogant dogmatism. I see one Christian threatening another with the fires of hell over an irreducibly ambiguous word used once in the entire Bible. Yes, I see a problem here.
You seem to think there is something terribly, terribly wrong with open, honest assessment of scriptural phenomena and a calm, reasoned approach to discussing differences. How very, very sad.
Other Comments by CHeard
615. Comment #73188 by CHeard on September 24, 2007 at 11:45 am
steveroot (613)Then why did "He" allow the final product, as Hitchens and (I believe) Dawkins have said, to be so poorly written? And nothing new (no "updates") for 2000+ years? Give me a break.Allow me to suggest that saying that "the Bible is poorly written" is a little bit like saying "the Norton Anthology of Literature is poorly written." Admittedly, revcort operates with the presumption that the Bible was divinely guided, intended from the very beginning to be exactly the final product that he picked up at his local Christian bookstore. But that claim is historically specious, and if you evaluate the individual books, well, individually, I don't think it is true that they are "poorly written." Particularly when read in their original languages, some display remarkable literary achievement, given the time frames. This is not true across-the-board … but my point really is that you can't make an across-the-board statement about whether the Bible is "poorly" written or not without playing right into the fundamentalist misconception of the Bible as a unified work rather than an anthology. (And if we're talking aesthetics, I'm not sure I'd look to Dawkins or Hitchens as authority figures.)
Other Comments by CHeard
616. Comment #73191 by Robert Maynard on September 24, 2007 at 11:52 am
Thanks, black wolf - I have seen a similar explanation for the discrepancy, but it doesn't sit right with me. He doesn't tell us exactly what contextual use of "man" is used in Mt 1:16; While he confirms the use of a phrasing identifying a Joseph as "husband" elsewhere, he stays silent on which variation is actually used in the place where it counts, verse 16. In actual fact, (according to my handy-dandy E-Sword), the Greek word used in 1:16 is anèr, the same word used in Matthew 1:19, the one which is ambiguous and generally 'male', but is used not three verses later to clearly refer to a husband. Why not use something like pater, specifically for "father", or better yet, why not use the word indicating someone begotten, gennaò, like had been used for the other 40 generations sitting right on top?
We're left postulating that the greek manuscripts used in translation contained a copying error from an earlier manuscript, but this is pure speculation based on an assumption that the original author didn't either make a counting mistake with those generations, or was simply bluffing.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
617. Comment #73215 by walk on September 24, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Boy, this is getting good! CHeard (616) - brilliant! Revort, in my posts to you I believe I've been respectful, but when you whine,
"Ever since I came here, I have been called various names, accused of being brainwashed, told I was basically an idiot,"
Cheard said it for all of us:
"Yes, I do see something wrong here. I see the term "non-Christian" being implicitly defined as "person who doesn't agree with me on my preferred doctrines." I see Bible verses being deployed as weapons to beat people up with. I see a Christian engaging non-Christians belligerently and then taking scripture out of context—Jesus was not persecuted by atheists, nor for being a theist—as a means of self-congratulation. I see Christianity being represented by rigid, arrogant dogmatism. I see one Christian threatening another with the fires of hell over an irreducibly ambiguous word used once in the entire Bible. Yes, I see a problem here."- Bravo, CHeard!
Other Comments by walk
618. Comment #73310 by NormanDoering on September 24, 2007 at 5:01 pm
CHeard wrote:I have a friend, a Christian (well, a heretical outlier, like me) psychologist, who is really impressed with something he calls "the hard problem of consciousness." I need to learn more about that.
The first hard problem is defining what you mean by "consciousness." You think the word "omnipotent" is fuzzy? Try defining consciousness.
If you're interested in the atheistic side of that question a good place to start might be with Marvin Minsky describing consciousness as a "suitcase term." Like intelligence, it's not a singular thing, it's a collection of introspective abilities:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky/index.html
His book, "The Emotion Machine" is partially on his website:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky
The truth is that human beings are not as conscious as they like to think. People can't stop themselves from making up post-hoc explanations for whatever it was they had just done for unconscious reasons. Look into Michael Gazzaniga's research on split brains.
Consciousness is more the wagging tail, rather than the dog.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
619. Comment #73319 by BAEOZ on September 24, 2007 at 5:35 pm
CHeard:Even if the limits are self-imposed, a limited omnipotence isn't "omni" any more.I've used variations of this argument with theists and they never seem to get it. If god can't do everything, then he isn't omnipotent, just potent. Glad to see a believer state that (I'm sure many have, but usually in the arcane world of university theology, not in the wild of TV evangelists).
As for the rest of you post. A tour de force. If there is a god and he sends you to hell for using your "god-given" reason, and rewards close-minded dogmatists like revcort, then he's an evil son of himself isn't he?
Other Comments by BAEOZ
620. Comment #73329 by Goldy on September 24, 2007 at 6:47 pm
CHeard - thanks for the reply. And golly, good writing!Rev, you have to understand our point of view. Sayiing we're doomed is not going to win you friends and accolades, is it? And your writings do suggest a ..... disturbed mind. I have tried to give you the benefit of doubt but you're.....odd, man! I never realised people like you existed outside, say, Stephen King's mind. I have been verily proven wrong.
Back ot reality, I understand what you said there, CH (hope you don't mind being referred to thus) about how you got your core values. As good a reason as any and open to further research and finding. I had these values described to me as Christian throughout my childhood - made me look harder and find it was not really so. Indeed, pagan roots started showing more strongly and further research (as much as a kid can do in pre-internet days) showed culture was more important. One of the things that made me realise I was athiest in outlook and that I enjoyed history :-)
Other Comments by Goldy
621. Comment #73347 by CHeard on September 24, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Goldy (622)Back ot reality, I understand what you said there, CH (hope you don't mind being referred to thus) about how you got your core values. As good a reason as any and open to further research and finding. I had these values described to me as Christian throughout my childhood - made me look harder and find it was not really so. Indeed, pagan roots started showing more strongly and further research (as much as a kid can do in pre-internet days) showed culture was more important. One of the things that made me realise I was athiest in outlook and that I enjoyed history :-)CH is fine; those are my initials (which I share with an atheistic journalist whose book I just started reading today). The "C" is for "Chris" or "Christopher" (take your pick; another thing I share with said journalist). As I tell my students, you can call me anything you want, as long as I know you mean me. :-)
On the matter of values, instead of saying that the values I hold dear are "not really" Christian values because they can be found elsewhere, independently and earlier, I would rather say that those values are genuinely Christian, but—as many here well know—not uniquely Christian. I hope that distinction makes sense without a long-winded description, because, well, Monday Night Football is on right now, and then there's Heroes (whose writers misunderstand evolution as badly as any YEC, but it's still a fun show).
Other Comments by CHeard
622. Comment #73350 by Goldy on September 24, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I would rather say that those values are genuinely Christian, but—as many here well know—not uniquely Christian
I think I sort of understand. You say the values are genuinely Christian like I am genuinely English. It is just that to me, while it may be genuinely Christain, is is a product of time - my DNA will show I am not really English (even the English part) but older, mostly pertaining to Britain. The same thing would have been genuinely pre-Christian and probably pre-whatever before that, and so on. To describe it as Christian to me is...not 100% accurate. It is Christianity assuming a mantle that really should be referenced :-) Like a good idea that comes from reading other ideas, if you see what I mean.
3:15 pm - still got a wee while to go. Hopefully honours student doesn't screw up the incubations too badly and the results will look OK. Enjoy telly!
Other Comments by Goldy
623. Comment #73375 by CHeard on September 24, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Goldy, I do see what you mean (624). Reconstructing the genealogies of morality memes can be difficult, especially when we're reaching far into the past. I would at least entertain the possibility that functionally identical morality memes—the "Golden Rule" meme, for example—could develop quite independently. (An analogy from biology could be the development of bat wings and bird wings, for example.)Other Comments by CHeard
624. Comment #73377 by Veronique on September 24, 2007 at 10:22 pm
623. Comment #73347 by CHeardThis is utter levity, but you may enjoy the send-ups. I don't know you so I don't know what your sense of humour runs to. So I am apologising in advance if these offend you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42p2SO5wQag
I want to thank you also for your posts. I know I have before – just reiterating it:-).
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
625. Comment #73390 by Goldy on September 24, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I would at least entertain the possibility that functionally identical morality memes—the "Golden Rule" meme, for example—could develop quite independently. (An analogy from biology could be the development of bat wings and bird wings, for example.)
Maybe with a large enough starting population. But if, as research suggests, we came from Africa originally as a rather small population, wouldn't the analogy be like...ummmmm, the relationship of my Ural M66 (Russian bike) and the BMW R60 (50/60s BMW bike)? Look them up - they're on the net and you'll readily see the similarities :-)
Unless morality is like language, in which case I may be wrong...
Buggers, have I been sucked into another morality debate? Run, Mike, run!
Other Comments by Goldy
626. Comment #73398 by CHeard on September 25, 2007 at 12:47 am
Veronique (626), I have seen these before and I think Carlin is a comic genius. I love his performance as a priest in Dogma. Of course, if someone wanted to seriously advance Carlin's points as criticisms of my religion, I'd have issues to discuss. But as a matter of sheer levity, I laugh at Carlin's jokes as hard as anybody else.Other Comments by CHeard
627. Comment #73419 by Paul Creber on September 25, 2007 at 1:47 am
Chris (616): I've only just read your eloquent response to Revcort. With forthright, flowing prose and solid, cogent argument, you have accomplished precisely what Dawkins, Harris and others have been asking of moderates for some time. You have emphatically distanced yourself from the insane and dangerous world of the Christian Taliban and at the same time made out an articulate case for reason over dogma. Thank you so much. We have no right to ask anything more of you. Unless, of course, you have any influential contacts in the Islam world…Other Comments by Paul Creber
628. Comment #73530 by revcort on September 25, 2007 at 7:48 am
Ah CHeard, you have a truly dizzying intellect. There is no question who would win between you and myself in a formal debate. You're head and shoulders above and beyond me, and that likely doesn't do the comparison justice.Alas, your fight is not with me. Your fight is with all of Christendom. You are at odds with all of the Reformers and with all of the early church writers. This is your trouble. Peter, Paul, and John disagree strongly with you. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, John Wycliffe, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wycliffe, and all Puritan writers, including Jonathan Edwards, strongly disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I don't know of anyone not considered a heretic who has such a loose interpretation of the word "inspired" as you have.
Fortunately for you, my ignorance has allowed you to appear to get the upper hand here on a message board, but the things you have brought into doubt are things that no believer has ever doubted. So, I suggest you start your own religion because what you are proposing is not Christianity. Maybe you could use the word "Heard" and start an organization called "The Heard Mentality." Hey, that's pretty catchy. Can you make kool-aid?
Now, let me show you more specifically how casting doubt over certain parts of the Bible can lead to an entirely new religion altogether.
I'm assuming you don't believe in a literal creation story from Genesis, correct? Why would you? I mean, it's not consistent with nature, right? The Big Bang and Evolution is the obvious answer. It's easy enough to throw God into that mix- just say that God caused the Big Bang and that he uses evolution, and "bang!" you're there. Were there 900 year old people? Very funny. Enoch was taken to heaven without dying? Let's be reasonable. Oh, and a literal world-wide flood? It's not true. Nearly every ancient culture has a flood myth. Ever read The Epic of Gilgamesh? Further, there couldn't have been plagues sent from God to Egypt. Perhaps those could be explained by some natural phenomena. And was there a parting and crossing of the Red Sea? Certainly not, it must have been during a drought and they crossed in shallow water, but it appeared a miracle to those foolish people. And God appeared to the Israelites? Ha! I just don't know about this cloud by day and pillar of fire at night. It must have been some strange weather and a big bunch of fireflies or something. Water from a rock? Manna on the ground? And what about the sun standing still? Nah! It couldn't have happened. It's simply foolish to believe it. And what of the walls of Jericho falling down because of people marching around it. That's funny stuff- great comedy by people who wanted to give a good show and psychologically brainwash a group of people. And Elijah carried to heaven in a chariot of fire? A talking donkey? A man surviving the night in a den of lions? 3 Hebrew boys thrown into a furnace and not die? Whew! That's just nonsense- and it really means nothing because these writers just wrote whatever they thought was important.
Oh, and not we get to the really preposterous stuff! A baby born of a virgin? Is that possible? Not the last time I checked. I guess Mary just fabricated that to cover up her infidelity. Angels appearing to Mary, to Joseph, to Elizabeth, and later to shepherds? Please! These are probably just exaggerations, maybe just dreams. And what about this Jesus dude? Boy, these writers just got it in their heads that he was like god or something! What a bunch of dolts! Turning water into wine? Healing the sick? Healing the lame? Raising the dead??!!! Ok, that's a bit much, don't you think? I sure do. And what of this Jesus's teachings? A literal hell? Ha! A literal heaven? Well, maybe, I like that. But come on! He rose from the dead? Ha! Perhaps his body was stolen. Perhaps his followers went to their deaths for a lie- because that's what it was. What a joke! He ascended to heaven? Ha! Sounds like a bunch of guys were smoking some grass and had simultaneous hallucinations to me.
And what of the Bible anyway? These are simply the thoughts of men. Sure, they may have believed what they wrote, but maybe they were deceived. Or maybe they really weren't so godly at all. Maybe they were charlatans. Sure, they have concocted the greatest ruse ever known to mankind, but maybe they were just that clever. I don't know, but I do know one thing. You can't put much stock into what they wrote because it's straight from their own minds.
Now, this is a little bit of an exaggeration CHeard, but it's not far off. I'm not saying that every single word is absolutely perfect in the Bible, but I am saying that the events are accounts of actual events, and the teachings are presented as fact and are intended to be followed by those who call themselves Christians. There are no irrelevant teachings, like teachings about hell that you dismiss so summarily.
And further, I can see that you have no absolutes in your beliefs CHeard. That's handy, isn't it? Dismiss what you don't like. Embrace what you do. I don't like hell, so it's probably not even real. I don't like judgment, so it's out. I don't believe in miracles, so they were simply the imaginations of good men. What you have painted here for these folks is a pit of quicksand that is as dangerous, and probably even more so, as atheism. The reason I say that you may well be in danger is because you are not only believing these things yourself, but you are giving these guys exactly what they want- something that will neither save them nor give them sleepless nights. It's just enough of God to make you feel warm and fuzzy, but nowhere near enough to actually save a man, if you actually even believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That's why there is much danger in your words.
Now, to the onlookers. Listen to this man who argues as you do and who is very good at it. But know this, what he is telling you is only half true- and it does not live up to the standard of God, and it does not represent the teachings of Christianity at any point in its history.
Other Comments by revcort
629. Comment #73535 by epeeist on September 25, 2007 at 7:56 am
Comment #73530 by revcort
Alas, your fight is not with me. Your fight is with all of Christendom. You are at odds with all of the Reformers and with all of the early church writers. This is your trouble. Peter, Paul, and John disagree strongly with you. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, John Wycliffe, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wycliffe, and all Puritan writers, including Jonathan Edwards, strongly disagree with you.
This is Jonathan Edwards the atheist we are talking about is it?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article1991114.ece
Other Comments by epeeist
630. Comment #73537 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 7:59 am
...the things you have brought into doubt are things that no believer has ever doubted.Listen to yourself. Listen to the narcissism in those words.
You're whistling in the dark. But in reality, life without the magical power of "I believe" isn't so bad.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
631. Comment #73538 by CHeard on September 25, 2007 at 8:00 am
revcort (630)Can you make kool-aid?Somebody please tell me that revcort isn't seriously recommend that I should commit (and encourage mass) suicide. Please.
I don't have time right now to comment on revcort's other, um, statements. I have to go teach some ministerial wannabes how to use Iron Age Hebrew adjectives. (Seriously.) Back later.
Other Comments by CHeard
632. Comment #73542 by revcort on September 25, 2007 at 8:12 am
revcort (630)
Can you make kool-aid?
Somebody please tell me that revcort isn't seriously recommend that I should commit (and encourage mass) suicide. Please.
I don't have time right now to comment on revcort's other, um, statements. I have to go teach some ministerial wannabes how to use Iron Age Hebrew adjectives. (Seriously.) Back later.
No, it was a joke- a poor one. But I do look forward to your response to my, um, statements.
Other Comments by revcort
633. Comment #73548 by BillySands on September 25, 2007 at 8:45 am
Oh, and not we get to the really preposterous stuff! A baby born of a virgin? Is that possible? Not the last time I checked. I guess Mary just fabricated that to cover up her infidelity.
More likely it is a myth created to compete with the concurrant and similar mythologies of Mithras and Dionysis.
Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with predicting Jesus will be born of a virgin
Other Comments by BillySands
634. Comment #73555 by BillySands on September 25, 2007 at 9:20 am
If you knew but a small fraction of basic theology then you would understand that part of what defines "God" as "God" is his self-existent nature.
Ah, I missed Biz. He needs to start following quetz.
And what is the foundation of theology? Where is the evidence that we should accept the bible? If you knew anything about logic, you would know you have to establish that god exists before you can start discussing what his favorite pudding is. The fact that you have given god a definition does not make him real. You just seem to think your definition should be accepted, and then discussion should follow from there.
What do you make of them chickens with teeth then?
Found any out of place dinosaur fossils?
Other Comments by BillySands
635. Comment #73568 by SRWB on September 25, 2007 at 10:10 am
Revcort,So, I suggest you start your own religion because what you are proposing is not Christianity.
How do you think any other religion gets started, including your very own version of Christianity? Consider how every religion ever known to humans got started and then tell us why it was the right, or wrong, one. I would suggest that every religion started as a human idea, and all it took was a charismatic and reasonably educated individual to run with it and cultivate a gullible following. If that was not the case, why has history been bedevilled by so many of them?
Now, to the onlookers. Listen to this man who argues as you do and who is very good at it. But know this, what he is telling you is only half true- and it does not live up to the standard of God, and it does not represent the teachings of Christianity at any point in its history.
So this kind of proves my point from just above. Just one more interpretation looking for a loyal, faithful following.
Other Comments by SRWB
636. Comment #73569 by hungarianelephant on September 25, 2007 at 10:14 am
CHeard - Ditto what Paul Creber (629) said.Do you post anywhere else? I'm sure there are some of us who wouldn't mind dropping in and returning the compliment of a reasoned discussion with sensible people of a different set of beliefs. (I can't guarantee to match your eloquence in dealing with revcort.)
You started by saying that you feel closer to the Dawkins / Dennett / Harris camp than that of Robertson / Falwell / Insert Wingnut Here. Unfortunately we don't see enough of that, and the result is too often atheists and moderates chucking insults at each other. That's not good for any of us.
Also, it might be fun to annoy some of the fundies.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
637. Comment #73572 by BMMcArdle on September 25, 2007 at 10:26 am
If I held a certain belief in something, and someone asked me why, I sure as hell wouldn't say "I don't know".Other Comments by BMMcArdle
638. Comment #73574 by walk on September 25, 2007 at 10:30 am
Revcort (630)The reason I say that you may well be in danger is because you are not only believing these things yourself, but you are giving these guys exactly what they want. (...) That's why there is much danger in your words.
Rev, are you now THREATENING CHeard with the wrath of god? It must be terrible for you, living in constant fear of being tortured for eternity by your imaginary sky-bully. Sorry for the disrespect, but you're starting to sound like a scared kid. ("If you don't believe what I tell you to believe - - my big brother will beat you up!")
Other Comments by walk
639. Comment #73587 by captain underpants on September 25, 2007 at 11:18 am
revcort (630),You seem to be saying that the claims of the Bible are implausible but you are obliged as a Christian to believe them. You consciously will yourself to believe something that you know is rubbish. How do you manage to do that?
Take heed of Dr Benway's wise words:
But in reality, life without the magical power of "I believe" isn't so bad
Other Comments by captain underpants
640. Comment #73590 by BillySands on September 25, 2007 at 11:38 am
How do you manage to do that?
That's easy, you ignore it and live in denial
Other Comments by BillySands
641. Comment #73591 by Bonzai on September 25, 2007 at 11:39 am
revcort wroteAnd further, I can see that you have no absolutes in your beliefs CHeard. That's handy, isn't it? Dismiss what you don't like. Embrace what you do. I don't like hell, so it's probably not even real. I don't like judgment, so it's out. I don't believe in miracles, so they were simply the imaginations of good men.
Don't you all cherry pick? I assume that even you don't support stoning people to death for Sunday shopping (ok, technically Saturday), cheating on their spouses or having gay sex, do you? Do you eat pork products? (I know the ban was supposedly lifted by Paul but who was he to change God's explicit ban on the pig? Jesus said something that was open to interpretation.)
Other Comments by Bonzai
642. Comment #73592 by Galactor on September 25, 2007 at 11:43 am
revcort (630)You reel off a list of preposterous, laughable, derisable, contemptible biblical tenets in which you have absolute faith and belief. You clearly understand what it is that atheists and moderate Christians have trouble with - the plausibility of it all which has been highlighted to you in this whole thread - one ridiculous notion after the other.
You have the temerity to say
... but you are giving these guys exactly what they want - something that will neither save ...
when I would suspect that what people want on this forum is an understanding of what is likely to be the truth.
While I am in awe of CHeard's rebuttal to you - it is erudite and measured - I would say that his gaining the upperhand derives not from the mismatch in debating skills of which I say nothing - it has been gained by the position on the subject matter.
What is it with you, that you can identify what is plainly cuckoo but nonetheless embrace it so wholeheartedly? All of our (mankind's) reasoning and rationale point away from what you maintain as truth. What has happened to you that you cannot bring a balance to your beliefs?
Other Comments by Galactor
643. Comment #73595 by captain underpants on September 25, 2007 at 11:54 am
Billy (642),Yes, we all know that, but I wanted to elicit a response from revcort himself
Other Comments by captain underpants
644. Comment #73597 by Galactor on September 25, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The Day of JudgementGod is weeding out the sinners from the saints as our hero revcort comes in to bat. CHeard can be seen looking on nervously and somewhat sheepishly. Over in the corner is a group of atheists looking onward with concern …
God (enthusiastic): "Aha! Revcort! I've been so looking forward to meeting you. How are you old fellow? "
revcort (reticent and somewhat taken aback): "Well, God, I'm just fine thankee."
God (serious and in earnest): "Now then revcort, what are we going to do about this CHeard fellow? I understand he's been on some slippery slope and despite your warnings, he's not taken heed.
revcort (spiffingly): that's right G. I told him he'd be in serious trouble if he didn't repent – told him to wash his hands, I did. I, on the other hand can claim that I sounded a clear call.
God (proud): "Indeed you did, lad, indeed you did and it didn't go unnoticed, never you fear. In fact, we've been rather impressed in the manner that you've been psychologically bullying and threatening all those mortals who didn't toe the line. And you know what I really like about you? Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you, among so many, have been able to put purblind faith in me without a single jot of doubt. Now that's what I really appreciate"
revcort (gushing): "well, I knew this evolution thing was a just a hoax, I mean really, who would put faith in science and our respected scientists?"
God: "Exactly! Anyway, what should we do with this CHeard fellow?"
revcort: "Well, I was kind of upset with the way all the atheists kept complimenting him and deriding me, so I was kind of hoping you could, well, turn up the heat on him, if you like.
God: "Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you revcort, but it's not that simple any more; things have moved on a bit in the last two thousand years, don't you know?"
revcort: "Really?"
God: "What with this greenhouse thing – heavenly warming – to give it its proper name; these days we're not really able to stoke the fires as we'd like to. And the costs are astronomical. Unfortunately, all we can really give 'em these days is a nice warm feeling. Eternal torture is just too far out of budget I'm afraid. Sorry about that, revcort. Besides, to be honest with you, I've kind of mellowed out a little bit since all that fire and brimstone stuff. I still quite like the adulation though. Would you mind, revcort?"
revcort: "Pardon me?"
God: "A bit of adulation if you don't mind, there's a good fellow."
revcort (on knees, hands clasped together, eyes shut (although one does from time to time take a peak)) "Oh God, you are really great, you really are, gosh, the things you do, …."
God: "Ah, that's more like it; I do seem to enjoy being worshipped. Now then, what should we do about those atheists ?"
Other Comments by Galactor
645. Comment #73598 by BillySands on September 25, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Captain UnderpantsI'm sure he wont see it that way. Once he realises that is what it is, he can be cured
Other Comments by BillySands
646. Comment #73602 by walk on September 25, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Galactor, thanks, I needed a good chuckle! Other Comments by walk
647. Comment #73603 by NormanDoering on September 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Galactor wrote:revcort (630)... You reel off a list of preposterous, laughable, derisable, contemptible biblical tenets in which you have absolute faith and belief. You clearly understand what it is that atheists and moderate Christians have trouble with - the plausibility of it all which has been highlighted to you in this whole thread - one ridiculous notion after the other.
Don't blame revcort, God reached into his mind and turned him into a loony. He knows no one can believe this crap until God induces the proper brain damage. You just have to pray to God until you're insane enough to be saved.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
648. Comment #73605 by captain underpants on September 25, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Billy (647),He's obviously not going to say, in a sudden flash of insight, "I now realise that I've been deluding myself all these years". But there have been moments where he seemed to show the beginnings of a small smidgeon of uncertainty. And maybe he's realised now that unbelievers are not subhuman monsters who are out to eat his children. FWIW, I didn't stop being a diehard Trotskyist from one day to the next.
Other Comments by captain underpants
649. Comment #73606 by GoneGolfing on September 25, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Exactly, Walk #640As I've stated before he is driven on by fear.
Revcort....When you began to debate with us you were cordial..... When you began to see what you were up against you became intense....When you realized you were making no headway you started to become belligerent.....Now with your responses to CHeard it has been confirmed to me that you are an incoherent bigot.
Can you make Kool-Aid ? For goodness sakes man !!
Ezekiel 23:19-21...Revcort I want you to explain this passage for us, as it is not often touched by biblical expositors and expert theologians. You seem to think that every verse is God inspired, so what was God really saying with this most unusual and perplexing reference.....In it God is denouncing Samaria and Jerusalem, calling them she, for their idolotries and harlotry with the Egyptians, and at the same time inserts a rather bizzare deriding of Egyptian men saying in verse :20 "" For she lusted after their men whose cocks were the size of donkeys and whose ejaculations were as those of horses.""....
Er..What! ? Like ask us if we care ! Geeee God thanks for that info! Or was it really Gods info ? Perhaps it was simply Ezekiels' own twisted misconception of Egyptian men ? Don't you find it a bit uncanny that God would want all generations to come to know that little tid-bit of info ? Don't you find it a bit freakish for God to deride his own creation for something that he created them with ? We all know that God refers to himself as a Jealous God , but surely he wouldn't ridicule these men because of that would he ? Some have tried to pass this off as a metaphor but I don't think so, as it says at the beginning of the chapter that ""The word of Lord came unto Ezekiel"", but even if it were , is it not still a very strange insertion into the passage ? I found the passage quite understandable without Gods (Ezekiels?) injection of a comparative description of the Egyptian mens genitalia and its capabilities.
Please Expound
GG
BTW: I apologize to anyone who may have been
601. Comment #73025 by Goldy on September 23, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Are you sure Christianity's core claims are due to God/Jesus or are they just that, core values, intrinsic to all, no god needed? Are you sure this belief is because of what you were taught?
Not that it matters much - if it gives you....strength, then so be it. I dare say you'll not really be convinced otherwise, much like I'll never be convinced of some entity "out there" I should worship (even when I can't explain things or understand how they are, I know inside me that there is a rational answer. I just haven't read about it or understood it :-))
Don't you think it, on another topic, rather odd ot be discussing this? Good for me, I shall have to discuss Father Christmas with my daughter in about a decade or so (I'll let her believe in him first - athiesm doesn't mean I can destroy the magic of an occasion....and I like presents too!).
Other Comments by Goldy