10 questions to ask at a basics night February 2 2010
1. Why are there contradictions in the Bible?
2. Why does the Revival Fellowship preach tongues ‘as a sign’ if Jesus stipulated
that no signs would be given except the resurrection? (Matthew 12:38-40,
Mark 8:12-13) Are tongues “for a sign” or not? (1 Corinthians 14:22)
3. Why do transitional/intermediate species appear in the fossil record if the Bible
repeatedly says species are to reproduce after their own kind? (Genesis 1)
4. Why does God approve so much immorality in the Bible that today we find
repulsive? E.g. why do both Testaments endorse genocide, animal torture and
slavery? If society has moved on since then – how is Jesus the same yesterday,
today and for ever? (Hebrews 13:8)
5. Why don’t the promises of prayer in the Bible align with reality?
(E.g. Matthew 7:7, John 14:13, John 15:16)
6. Why is God’s only outward and manditory sign of salvation a well documented
(a) learned behaviour that (b) historically pre-dates Christianity?
7. If ‘answered prayer’ is credited to God, and unanswered prayer to
‘bad faith’ – how does one avoid making self-fulfilling “selective observations”?
8. Why is the Bible of 400 CE and the Bible today different by dozens of chapters
and thousands of parts? Which Bible is the Word of God? And why does man
edit it? Why are there conflicting salvation messages in God’s only book?
9. Why are the observations of the natural world documented in the Bible
so similar to the author’s pagan contemporaries at that time? Why is there so
much anti-science in the Bible?
10. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross if people in the Old Testament were
saved by their works? In any case, why did God have to sacrifice Himself to
make Himself happy with His own creation?
Please share anything discussed at a Basics Night in response to this.
The second half of question 10 is very interesting. I hadn’t ever thought about it like that before; it really highlights the whole absurdity of Christianity. Chuck into the mix the idea that it’s all part of some divine predestined plan. Thanks for posting. It’s a shame these thoughts won’t ever be discussed at a Basics Night.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“Unsuitable” or any really probing questions tend to be quickly shut down at RF basics nights, usually with a phrase about it getting too complex, too detailed, “we can discuss this another time”, this night is only for “basics” etc..
On the other hand, Christian thinkers (as opposed to Revivalist ones) have been tackling the “hard questions” since the birth of the faith. If question 10 really highlighted the absurdity of Christianity, then Christianity must have had something else really going for it, since these sort of questions were already being asked by pagan critics in the 2nd century AD.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree – it’s a shame these “basic” and foundational questions will probably not be discussed in any real depth, if at all.
In reference to the absurdity of Christianity, I think James S nailed it with his comment.
When a book claims to be “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and Jesus Himself says “scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:34-35) — yet still contains a plethora of contradictions, it forfeits any right to authority. Especially the kind of authority that defies logic, let alone the physical laws of nature, including the proposed supernature.
From your comment I gather you concede the Bible contain errors.
Overlooking the sheer illogicality of a God having to sacrifice Himself to make Himself happy with His own creation, what credibility can the Bible lend to this nonsensical “good news”?
If there is no inspired Word of God; Christianity lacks substance. The central claims of Christianity are intrinsically interwoven into the text, as the Bible is the only text in history that documents the supernatural Resurrection of Jesus. No Resurrection – no Christianity. Paul (even without having met Jesus) acknowledges this when he writes, without a resurrection “we are of all men most miserable” (1 Corinthians 15:19).
These are the credentials of the Gospels, the only written source of Jesus’ resurrection (ergo Christianity):
• They were written by unknown authors
• more than 40 years after the alleged events
• based on word of mouth
• they contain many obvious and undeniably fictional elements
• each gospel has a clear theological bias
• they contradict many known facts
• they are inconsistent with each other
• contain little-to-no corroboration with non-Christian sources
• and all testify to occurrences which, in any other context, would be regarded as extremely unlikely
Interestingly, Jesus’ own disciples did not recognize him after the ‘Resurrection’ (John 20:14, Luke 24:16) and even after recognizing him some still doubted (Matthew 28:17). How is this possible? What is the most plausible explanation?
Excluding one’s feelings and these incredibly unreliable and contradictory sources, what evidence is there of Christianity’s central claim to a Resurrected Jesus? How is Christianity plausible with a flawed and erroneous, yet supernaturally-fixated text?
It is little wonder it has been discussed by it’s “pagan critics” since the second century!
What do you suggest Christianity has got “going for it”, other than a positive outlook? How does one determine Christianity is God’s religion-of-choice other than, again, relying on one’s feelings and/or upbringing? And of course, without wanting to dispute the colour of the Emperor’s non-existent clothing, what evidence is there of God in any case?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@ Why I Left The Revival Fellowship
You make many claims and ask many questions ;) I can attempt to answer them, but not in one hit, and only if you are interested in hearing the answers from an illogical and superstitious christian ;D
In the meantime, let me zoom in on one aspect: the idea that James “nailed” the absurdity of Christianity with his post (btw was the christian pun intended?).
James said he “hadnt thought of that [question 10] like that before, but that it really highlights the absurdity of Christianity”. Very interesting; he basically admits up-front that he hasn’t actually taken the time to understand christianity yet (hadn’t thought of it like that before), yet at the same immediately comes to the conclusion that the absurdity of Christianity has been highlighted. Perhaps he is a lightning-fast thinker, with grey matter the area of a football field? Maybe he can rationally weigh up, logically dissect and conclusively dismantle Christianity faster than I can do 2 farts? I don’t know. Hence my suggestion that Christians have been interacting on topics such as these with their critics for almost 2000 years, and both sides have “thought of it like that before”, yet the Christian religion has grown and flourished. Something to think about.
But suppose we granted your (and James’) premise that Christianity *is* an absurd religion. It is merely some carpenter’s son from the backwaters of some hole near the edge of the Roman empire, who gets some funny idea that he is the embodiment of Jewish messianic prophecies, and gets himself killed a mere 3 and a half years into the process… It would seem even more absurd to me that Christianity would be well and thriving some 2000 years later, having become a major world religion (and the fastest-growing one at the present time, notwithstanding the logical and scientific age we find ourselves in). One *can* take 3 seconds to dismiss Christianity as an absurdity, but I would wager that it will be Christianity which will continue, and, rather, that the dismissers’ dismissals will be dismissed in the long run ;)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I am not convinced the growth of a religion validates it’s divine master-mind nor does it negate any inherent absurdity.
Depending on the source, many religions can claim to be the “fastest growing”. For example, ABS has Buddhism as the fastest growing – a religion without a dogmatic idea of God’s very existence!
Regardless, dismissing the absurdity because it is “well and thriving some 2000 years later” represents flawed logic. I am certain other world religions that are “thriving” are not tempting you, as am I equally sure you haven’t found God in any cargo cults. I would be asking myself why. E.g. how does Christianity differ from a cargo cult?
At the risk of being repetitive: how is Christianity plausible with a flawed and erroneous, yet supernaturally-fixated text? What grounds do you have for pairing God with Christianity – other than feelings? What does Christianity have “really going for it”? And finally, is God’s existence even a provable hypothesis?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
OK, I’ll try to keep this short.
I’m glad you’re not convinced by my post, but you seem to have misunderstood it. I didn’t claim that the growth of Christianity *proves* a divine master-mind (what constitutes a proof of something can make for a long discussion), just that it cannot be dismissed quite so hastily as some do.
Anyway, my “look, Christianity is alive and kicking” comment was meant also as a bit of a tease, since I thought you might like the idea of it being an extremely strong “meme” 2000 years later after its founder died ;) Imagine the shock horror if the superstitious “Christian” meme was much stronger than any other meme (regardless of the truth of its claims). (See, the world is a scary place, especially for atheists ;) Or is there an inviolable natural law that states that true memes must always prevail?
The statistics you post are very interesting, but unfortunately they are from 2003 and only collate Australian data, whilst I was talking globally and at the present time. A good book to check out re the resurgence of belief in God would be “God is Back” I havent read it but I did hear a very interesting interview of the author by one of Australia’s pre-eminent atheists, Phillip Adams. You can find it here.
Re Christianity’s resemblance of cargo cults. Indeed every religion has characteristics of curgo-cultishness, since we (humans) are the relatively ignorant natives, who are aware they are living inside a huge piece of cargo (the Universe), a cargo that makes rational sense when investigated (hence the success of science along a certain line of inquiry), but which, ultimately, most of the natives still regard as quite a mystery. One of the main claims of Christianity is that the creator of the cargo “condascended to the natives” and made himself one of us, (which is something I consider to be true, hence my Christianity).
Which brings us straight to the claims of Christianity being “absurd” again. I would say that Christianity “seems” absurd at first glance, but during proper investigation its claims become clearer and clearer and continue to make more sense (this has, at least, been my experience to date). It is a question of something being apparently absurd, yet still true, like pretty much every thing in this world. There are many absurd things walking and moving around this rock-n-rolling planet. A famous atheist, Bertrand Russell, once made a lot of mileage from remarks about not believing in a supposed “celestial teapot”, but the fact that there exists a mostly molten ball of rock careering round a star, on which there are millions of teapots, (not to mention million of strange fairies operating the teapots) didn’t strike him as being even wierder. One might criticise me for claiming that “a small pink bear could exist” and say that is an absurd statement, until they consider that there exist places in this world of ours, where people were afraid to go into the forest because they might get eaten by “huge cats which are striped yellow and black”.
What I am trying to say is that the apparent absurdity of a thing has absolutely no bearing on whether a thing as (A) possible or even (B) true in our present world. An absurd thing is still a possible thing, and could even be a true thing; quantum mechanics, for example. The other reason I know this is true is because I look in the mirror every day.
Oops, I didn’t answer your last 3 questions, so I’ll give the extremely short and cheeky versions of the answers: Christianity was plausible even before the “text”, and I think your perspective on the level of “supernatural fixedness” is a furphy and is more due to your long background in “extreme pentecostalism” (ie RF).
There are very many grounds for pairing God with Christianity, the two things go together quite well ;)
And last, but not least, Christianity has “truth” going for it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
@JP
I have heard the argument you present here many times in my years as a christian turned athiest. It usually begins with a casual dismissal of any evidence contrary to the bible and/or Jesus christ as eternal saviour of the people. This dismissal is then followed up with a rather ambiguous statement about how christianity is still quite popular now and that this must mean it is correct and true because why else would it thrive still?
There are many factors that could be discussed in relation to christianity’s ongoing public relevance. Firstly, consider this; most of our western democratic governments push a subtle but all too real christian agenda and have been for a long time. Many ‘moral panics’ present in the mainstream media are fundamentally based in Christian ideals. It is a lot easier to govern people and make decisions with moral implications when you have a religious foundation to work from. Christianity and the POWER it gives individuals and organisations is part of the reason it has been perpetuated within our culture. Take a look at the catholic church! I’m sure being a progressive christian yourself you would agree that the catholic church have done many wrongs throughout history and that their interpretation of certain scriptures are not entirely correct. Yes? Still, the catholic church have been a dominant powerhouse in christianity for centuries. Is this because there is a power in the truth of Jesus or simply because the church used the ‘good news’ to perpetuate hate crimes and wield power over helpless citizens? I would propose that money and greed for power were just some of the contributing factors that kept the catholic church a relevant and powerful social institution. These thoughts are not just some internet wise-cracks from a conspiracy theory nut; there have been many peer-reviewed and academic papers published on the power that christian values give organisations in western culture.
When so much of our history and societal structures have been built on Chritian ideologies, it will remain relevant and continue to attract those who believe our world is ‘going to hell’.
Of course I could also point out the other obvious point that other ancient religions (much older than christianity) have continued to thrive in other cultures.
Your claim that Christianity is the fastest growing religion has no bearing on the truthfulness of it. Although I cannot validate your claim, lets say for a moment that it is correct, people are flocking to the arms of Jesus. I would propose that with western culture influencing SO much of this modern ‘global village’, christianity is the likely succesor to many traditional beliefs in foreign countries. Again, this probably has a lot to do with modern christianity presenting a guilt-free, ‘live as you were’ lifestyle that appeals to younger generations. Particularly those who have been brought up in stricter Eastern religions. However, go to China and Japan and you won’t hear much about JC and his pa in the sky GOD.
I think the logic you’ve applied here should apply to other such things as well. Ultimately, we can only validate logic when it’s been set in many and varied frameworks.
Let’s look at homosexuality. Homosexuality has been seen as a very unnatural phenomenon by Christain groups and aside from a few progressives, many continue to do so. Does this mean that homosexuality is indeed incorrect and unnatural? If this idea has been perpetuated throughout Christian history it must be right, right? Well, what if I told those Christians that homosexuality is just as natural and ‘God-given’ as heterosexuality? (I’m sure you already know this but for the benefits of those conservatives who make up WELL over half of your amazing religion). Did you know that a lady’s womb does not recognise the male body at first? It sees it as an alien and attempts to inject female hormones into it. Did you know that because of this process, if a woman has 5 boys they will get more feminine each birth and the last two have a greater chance of being homosexual? So this evil, unnatural thing is just as natural as any other sexual orientation. So for centuries this christian ideology was WRONG yet it managed and continues to permeate our MODERN culture as it has done for so long. It is wrong yet widely frowned upon. This is evidence that sheer NUMBERS does not equate to knowledge or truth.
Of course, now christian groups are scrambling to re-interpret scripture to fit the homosexual thing. Good on them (sarcasm intended).
Christian ideology is SO deeply imbedded in our power structures that it will remain for a long time. The truth of thr whole thing is secondary and numbers or relevance has no bearing on that fact. Christianity is becoming smaller and smaller in it’s moral influence and more liberal and liberal to keep up with the trends. The truth is, if christianity doesn’t keep up, science and enquiring minds will take over. What brand of Christianity is correct, the neo-liberals? Those who burned others at the stake? The neo-conservatives? It’s all been perpetuated and changed so much that it’s vastly different to its original form. The argument is a joke. A complete and utter joke and fails to address or even COMPREHEND the contradictions, strangled logic and stupidity of the Bible and Christanity as a whole. From the stake burners to the liberal minded “all are welcome, everything is OK”
What form of christianity to you adhere to Jara? And is that the form you refer to when you speak of christians ongoing influence and relevance? If so, why do you think that is? Have Christinas morphed into something COMPLETELY different to keep up?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@JP
to continue…
Your next statement is also familiar. “The world is actually quite strange so is it such a stretch to believe in an all-knowing omnipotent God?”
YES! the striped monster in the forest and the planet full of tea-cups and fairies are ALL observable facts of existence. That striped monster (which we now know is a tiger as opposed to the Neolithic superstitious times you refer to) evolved from matter. It can be seen, touched and consequently studied. Tea pots or cups have been manufactured by fairies using materials at their disposal. And fairies are actually humans who, like the tiger, have evolved from matter over time. They can be touched, seen and consequently studied. The mystery of this abet is hardly mysterious, we happen to live on an inhabitble planet that sits in a perfect position from the nearest star. This is observable!
Superstitions and supreme beings cannot be observed or studied or verified and are therefore, absurdities. This world is not strange, it is what it is. A planet that happens to successfully facilitate living organisms who all die and decay to dust. *que Elton John classic ‘circle of life’*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Troy
“This world is not strange, it is what it is” but claiming this apparent absurdity validates other absurdities is strange :)
@JP
The 3 questions you briefly flirted with still remain unanswered ;)
1. How is Christianity remotely plausible “even before” the Bible?! The only document of Christianity’s central claims lie in this flawed book. (And claiming God “had it planned all along”, aside from being illogical – ultimately relies on the Bible! *cue Dead or Alive’s – You Spin Me Round [Like a Record]*) What would you believe if the Bible didn’t exist?
2. Claiming Christianity has “truth” going for it is neither an objective or logical response. I have a sneaking suspicion members of a cargo cult would have the same response ;) By what criteria does one define ‘truth’? How is one to determine which religion God is ‘interested in’?
3. Most importantly: is God’s existence provable?
I think it is important to determine whether or not there is a Loch Ness Monster before discussing whether he had fins or not. [As an aside; would you believe in a Loch Ness Monster if the only evidence was contained in an ancient superstitious book, with a devoted support-base, in the face of scientific proof to the contrary? Why not?]
Do you like challenges?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Troy
You wrote (my asterisk emphasis added): “This dismissal is then followed up with a rather ambiguous statement about how christianity is still quite popular now and that this *must* mean it is correct and true because why else would it thrive still?”
So I will repeat again from my earlier post: “I didn’t claim that the growth of Christianity *proves* a divine master-mind (what constitutes a proof of something can make for a long discussion), just that it cannot be dismissed quite so hastily as some do.”
I hope you can see how subtly you have mis-represented my position! (A small step for a word, a huge leap for logic-kind..) I had even added a qualifying statement suggesting that I have an idea about what is and isnt a “proof” in the strict locigal sense of the word.
And the tiger is *still* a yellow and black striped monster today. Locking it in a cage, dissecting it on a steel bench, or writing peer-reviewed academic theses about it detract nothing from its monstrous reality, something I’m sure you would understand in a split-second were you to meet one :) Whether it’s made of atoms, or evolved a long time ago “from matter” have absolutely nothing to do with it. A scientific reductionist, especially of the purely materialistic type (i mean materialistic in the philosophical, not moral sense) will never really understand a tiger, because they are required by their own dogma to consider the actual “tiger” as a kind of transient illusion caused merely by a particular configuration of nucleotides in a vigorous molecule called DNA.
Anyway, the reason I brought up the tiger was to start to highlight the difference between 3 categories of possible existence of “things”, which were meant to serve as a later introduction to my (hopefully) interesting rendition of a “teleological” argument for the existence of god(s). The three categories of things were:
1) Things which do exist (Eg a yellow and black tiger)
2) Things which can exist, but don’t exist. (Eg a pink bear – or, very relevantly, a Loch-ness monster!)
3) Things which cannot exist. (A square circle)
Investigating these three categories of things could illuminate much about what the word “logical” actually means, and highlight the difference between induction and deduction as modes of thought, and how this all relates to the question of the possibility of the existence of god(s)…..
But then you came in with your post about this that and the other, so now I’m unsure whether to respond to your post, or to actually develop my argument. I hope our discussion could be a bit different than the standard web “debate” of: “Christianity is idiotic, end of debate!”.
And, lastly, the place on earth where Christianity is growing the fastest at the moment is, ironically, wait for it…China! But I’m not claiming this *proves* anything, just saying it needs to be taken slightly more seriously. Especially since, as you said, its values permeate western society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JP
I am very interested in your argument and would appreciate hearing it. Despite the apparent aggressive tone of my original post, I am a believer in open discussion and feel that it can enlighten all parties.
One thing I feel I should point out before we continue is this:
I *want* there to be a God. I would prefer it if there was a supreme being that I could come in contact with and who could guide me through the perils of modern life. Honestly, I’m not adverse to the idea of a higher being and I believe that perhaps there is a higher intelligence. I think it’s foolish to suggest that one day science will discover the answer to everything. I will go out on a limb here and say that science will discover a speck of dust on an endless kitchen table (I’m quite the poet).
I believe that there is some sort of higher being behind the initial creation of this big, seemingly pointless universe. However, as it stands, I’m not sure how much higher that intelligence actually is. The idea of an all-knowing, all-loving God just doesn’t translate into what I see around me. Also, I think the Bible is a truly flawed book and if it really is inspired by the genius behind the universe, it’s slightly underwhelming. A lot of it seems to be ancient, religious esoteric nonsense that makes sense only through the lens of the period in which it was created.
But you sound like an intelligent person and you are a much more adequate writer than myself so I would love to hear your thoughts on all of this.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
God or no God?
How did the earth get here?
How is it suspended in space?
How does it revolve around the sun?
Where did those forces come from?
“Oh Lord, the way of man is not in himself. it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps. O Lord, correct me, but with justice; not in your anger, lest You bring me to nothing.” ~ Jeremiah 10:23
“God thundereth marvelously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot understand” – Job 37:5.
Submit to God J. Joy and peace is there. Come back for a meeting and see if God will not speak to you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
@Troy
Thanks for your post. I’ll put some thought to keyboard soon, but as time is a precious commodity, for the time being I’ll have to restrict myself to answering the 3 questions that “WhyILeftTheRevivalFellowship” said I flirted with.
@WhyILeftTheRevivalFellowship
Hi, sorry for the delay. Here are some thoughts:
Q1: How is Christianity remotely plausible “even before” the Bible?! The only document of Christianity’s central claims lie in this flawed book. (And claiming God “had it planned all along”, aside from being illogical – ultimately relies on the Bible! *cue Dead or Alive’s – You Spin Me Round [Like a Record]*)
A1: Regardless of whether you believe Christianity or not, it must have been plausible (as a system, or a movement, or whatever) even before the Bible, since “the Bible” as an integrated whole is an 4th century construct; so Christianity existed before the Bible existed. This is common knowledge. Many Christians today view the 66 books as a sort of “perfect object”, but this would hardly be the view of early Christians. Christianity was plausible to them because, rather than centering around a “perfect book”, it was centred around human testimony of a “perfect man” (amongst other things).
Q2. Claiming Christianity has “truth” going for it is neither an objective or logical response. I have a sneaking suspicion members of a cargo cult would have the same response ;) By what criteria does one define ‘truth’? How is one to determine which religion God is ‘interested in’?
A2: You’re, right. The same could be said about anything. This was meant tongue-in-cheek.
Q3: Most importantly: is God’s existence provable?
A3: What a hard question. And potentially confusing. I’ll try to explore a bit.
First there is the strictest sense of the word “prove” which is the sense it is used in logic and mathematics. I.e. Given axioms, (or agreed upon pre-suppositions) labelled “A”, “B”, “C” etc, does “Statement X” logically follow from these axioms? In mathematics it is possible (provided we agree on the axioms) to prove a statement *without any shadow of a doubt*, hence the word “prove” in its fullest meaning. This process is called “deduction”.
Then the word is used in the scientific sense (which is the usage I suspect you intended), as in: A theory is “proven” to be true (and therefore generally accepted) when it makes scientific (that is, testable) claims which line up with a body of experiments, and therefore correspond with observable reality better than another theory. Science proceeds forward in this fashion to create theories which are more and more true in their reflection of observed reality. This process has inherent limitations, one of which is the simple problem that at any given point in time, your theory may exactly correspond with all of currently observable reality, and indeed may be extremely useful (for practical purposes), but may at the same time be conceptually exactly wrong. Such is the case, for example, with Newton’s Thory of Gravitation. He proposed that all objects with a mass attract each other with a certain force, gravity, for which he devised a simple equation which, at the time, corresponded *exactly* to all known experiments, proved to be immensely useful in many technical endeavours, and so, for 2 and a half centuries, it was considered to be “proven” (even today most people think that 2 objects with mass attract each other, such is the power of this mental model). The only problem is there is actually *no such force*, as Einstein “proved” in 1915! Indeed, his new theory fit the newly available experimental data much better, and included no such idea of a “force” between two objects. So any proofs which come only from observation and empirical evidence may have an aspect of unreliability and possible untruthfulness (regardless of how right they “seem”) which may go undetected (and undetectable!) for centuries until new data arrives or is made possible.
To use a crude analogy, it is like a colony of polar bears on Baffin Island conducting a survey of “all the bears in the world” (their world being restricted to Baffin Island) and, from this, concluding that the statement “All bears are white” is “true”. For them the idea of a black bear might be as absurd as the notion of curved space-time is to most people today.
This problem of coming to strict conclusions based on empirical knowledge was already described by a (atheist) philosopher called David Hume in the 17th century, as a critique of this method of logic, which is called “induction”.
So, stricktly speaking, no, I don’t think God is provable in the sense that you might require, but then again, there are many things that are not provable at all, yet people still believe them. Here’s an example. A commonly held belief is this: “All humans are equal”, actually it is a philosophical cornerstone of humanism. Suppose we agree on some axioms: 1) There are no gods of any kind and 2) Evolution alone (including natural selection) is a satisfactory explanation of the existence of humanity today.
Here’s my question: Can the belief in the equality of humans be deduced from the axioms? (Feel free to propose extra axioms if needed)
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Your question about human equality is complex and obviously, for you, suggestive, of God-given objective morality. (I can sense a telelogical Lewis-esque argument approaching involving a priori objective morality in conjunction with a Magical Soul!)
I do not find this line of reason convincing. The axioms do not point to divine objective morality, rather simply highlight the inherently fuzzy nature of meta ethics. Which is a moot point, unless you are insinuating Goddunnit ;)
Human equality, or more broadly human ethics, potentially have two places of origin (that is, if there is a such thing as moral absolutism). Lets contrast the two:
Origin A: morality evolved with modern humans (the founding premise of which you already recognise). The advantage of a sociobiological, culturally relative, moral compass to survival and reproduction is both well documented and easily envisaged – both at an individual level and through group selection. Human morality, although more complex than other species, is still a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism and to help group cooperation (look at our journey!). If specific to humans, how does one explain modified, altruistic or moral behaviour apparent in other social species? Are animals too evolving a soul? At which point are they eligible for salvation? (preach the Gospel to every creature?) ;) If not specific to humans, your point is redundant.
Origin B: God injected modern humans with objective morals. This moral injection leads us to believe that we are, or at least should be, all equal. If there was a such thing as objective morality, for the sake of the argument, it makes little sense in a world created by a “loving-God” through the evil, cruel and unforgiving process of evolution, to which you subscribe. (And no, the fact I recognise this clash of love and evil is not a glitch in the Matrix). At which point did God slip in the soul? Six thousand years ago? Or did the soul evolve slowly with modern humans? In any case, what evidence is there of this dualist man or his soul? Notwithstanding, what does the Bible say about human equality? As far as I can see, correct me if I am wrong, God seems to have a lots of hang ups: He doesn’t like women, blind people, dwarfs, cripples, hunchbacks, homosexuals (whose image were they created in?). If morality does come from God, He hasn’t led the best example. Interestingly, you latch onto God as a source of “human equality” but offer no explanation to His penchant for slavery, mass genocide or the very problem of evil.
As you illustrate, Einstein was wrong about quantum theory in curved spacetime. In addition to Einstein, you could have picked anyone, only a few centuries ago – even the smartest people alive, who were also completely wrong, about nearly everything! They were wrong about astronomy, disease, physics, geology, chemistry, evolution, heredity (not to mention the existence of God[s]). Does this mean our knowledge is superior at this point in history? Or our “truth”, now, is in any way more reliable than their “truth”? Of course not. However, our method for uncovering truth, the scientific method, is superior and more reliable. The process by which Einstein’s misjudgement was calculated trumps his initial oversight; as the scientific method is always refining itself. The scientific method has probably added more usable truths to our understanding of the world we live in than all the other methods for thousands of years, combined. Which brings me to the point: what yardstick are you using? What self-refining process are you employing to bring you closer to understanding your idea of God?
Pursuing “truth” is a difficult thing. As an agnostic I am not convinced truth is ever completely knowable. What I am convinced of however, is that I would be better equipped to find “truth” given my superior weaponry. Scepticism is my virtue, faith is yours. I start with “axioms” and work forward. In contrast, you start with your desired result (Christianity, especially your particular variant) and post-rationalize your way backwards. It is my opinion that as long as faith cushions you and your “truth”: you are cheating. For where does one draw the line? There are potentially hundreds of “unprovable” hypotheses out there that may seem superficially plausible; unless one is willing to relinquish faith, the “truth” remains, at best, “unprovable”. (Insert every other religion here).
As a thought experiment, lets grant God some existence: bing! How does one connect the dots from this vague notion of a higher intelligence to the very specific God of Christianity? Again, what yardstick is used here? Why does everyone seem to have their own yardstick? (perhaps the yardsticks being used are those pesky God-given moral compasses?)
Back to our “agreed axioms”: (1) God is unprovable [by your admission] (2) He is being squeezed into a very small and specific, Christian-shaped box (3) He flies in the face of critical issues to the contrary.
Speaking of “testable claims”, what testable claims does Christianity make?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
@WILTRF
I think you have me a bit confused..
For example, you write: “As an agnostic I am not convinced truth is ever completely knowable. What I am convinced of however, is that I would be better equipped to find “truth” given my superior weaponry.”
How on earth can you have “superior weaponry” to find truth when you have just admitted that you think it cannot actually be found in the first place? If it’s “not knowable”, how can some “weaponry” know it better than other “weaponry”?
Maybe we could take the issues slowly, one by one, and thereby keep each other accountable on the logicality of our arguments? I am convinced that, whilst your post sounds plausible as a whole, a careful analysis would show that it is in fact non-sensical ;)
Also, you took my quite specific question re the “equality of humans” and magically turned it into a general discussion of the origin of morality, which it definitely was not. What I *was* trying to point out(were we to actually discuss this issue) is that it would be far more logically consistent to deduce (from the 2 axioms) the belief in the non-equality of humans, rather than their equality.
Shall we go over the individual issues slowly and carefully? One cannot be hasty to arrive at conclusions, esp. with 3000 unanswered questions piled up in a website…
JP
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
JP, good idea. Although taking each others points slowly and individually assessing logic may damage your argument ;)
As it stands: you are making very specific claims about a God you acknowledge is unprovable! I am very interested in slowly dissecting your logic.
It appears you are more interested in dodging questions than answering them. Instead of engaging in two-way dialogue by addressing the issues, you simply choose to latch onto one single, misunderstood, point and declare case closed. Depending on how much of Jesus’ divinity you subscribe to; you may want to take note of His criticism of people who “strain at a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24). I’d be happy swallowing a red-herring, but perhaps not a camel.
For your convenience, the cumulative total of unanswered questions thus far are as follows (as discussed in one way or another):
1. The original question: how does God sacrificing Himself to make Himself happy with His own creation make any sense? Especially since He foreknew how the situation would play out (Isaiah 46:10, Revelation 21:6) and later would ask us to understand a simple gospel, like a child (Matthew 18:2-6). Additionally, why does the barbaric doctrine of the “atonement”, the central tenet of Christianity, seem so out of place in today’s society but fit so snugly in our superstitious past?
2. You infer ‘even’ Einstein made mistakes. Scientists have since acknowledged and rectified his miscalculations by methodically and objectively fine-tuning their science. What “method” are you using to acknowledge and rectify your errors? What objective and self-refining “yardstick” are you utilising to fine-tune your understanding of God? (Other than your own predispositions which have changed more than once.)
3. How do you connect the dots from a “vague notion of a higher intelligence” to the very specific God of Christianity? Again, what metaphorical yardstick is being used? Other than the circumstance of your birth, what prerogative do you have pigeonholing “God” to the “God” of Christianity?
4. How does God qualify as a source of human equality or morality given His terrible track-record which includes slavery, mass genocide and the unfortunate problem of evil?
5. Regardless of God’s role in supplying us morality: why are we able to easily identify flaws in His “ethics”? Especially if He never changes.
6. Why would God allow mankind to evolve for millions of soulless years, in a brutal existence only to “add in” a soul later and then show up a few thousand years later to change the whole plan with Jesus?
7. What testable claims does Christianity make?
8. I am still interested in your tease that Christianity has “something more to offer” – I’m still not sure what this is, are you? (Of course “truth” still doesn’t qualify as an answer.)
9. Is becoming a Christian a rational decision? Is Christianity a rational worldview?
10. How is one justified making ANY claims about God’s nature, given your own admission, God is unable to be proven? As an analogy, how would scientists be justified defining anatomic details of the Loch Ness Monster they can’t prove? (E.g. “it has 3 dorsal fins, 1 gall bladder, no underwater vision” etc.) How is defining an unprovable God any different?
Lastly, a bonus question, by what intellectual feat did you shift from being a creationist to an evolutionist? I am going to assume you exercised “reason” over “faith” and weighed up the evidence; correct me if I am wrong. Why did science trump faith in that instance but not the God hypothesis? Is there any reason other than birth circumstance, special pleading or wishful thinking that God gets a logic-free ride?
In the interest of taking things slowly; lets just start with question 10.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Why are you both trying so hard to intellectualize something as ambiguous and unknowable as a God?
Why do you think the concept of faith is brought up so many times in religious discussions? It’s because faith is the vital ingredient that separates Christian from non-Christian. Faith is the enemy of logic and logic is the enemy of faith. They are ideologically and philosophically opposing forces.
You have both seemingly admitted that God cannot be proved or disproved. Should that not be the end of the argument? You could go over every single question on this site together and still find yourselves in the same ideological positions as when you started. That is the nature of logic and faith. What they share in common is this; they are both essentially immovable forces. Once a Christian discovers faith through an apparent divine intervention or a young man discovers some new brand of logic he adheres to, it is very hard to change their minds.
I’m not suggesting you end this debate (although I think you could both spend your time doing something more productive), I’m merely stating my thoughts on the overall approach. Both of you should consider a life in politics! Many words with little meaning! (don’t take offense lads, I’m having a bit of fun)
I hope you both find what it is you’re looking for. JP, you can never appeal to someones intellect when it comes to Christianity. Agnostics or atheists or whatever label they give themselves have a plethora of angles and arguments at their disposal, it literally does not matter what you tell them. Unless they have an experience of their own, it is useless.
And to the young lad who runs the site, I admire your tenacity and your youthful energy and fight. However, I would say this; to turn people away from their religion of choice is not a noble act despite what the Richard Dawkins of this world may tell you. Many people build a life around the moral compass that Christianity provides them. Have you considered the fact that many of these people may not actually care if it is indeed the one truth of existence or not? Sure, religion has done damage, but humans will do damage under any ideological banner. It is our animalistic past rearing it’s ugly yet entirely natural head. I would wager that if Christianity were to die tomorrow (which it never will), the world would fall into a panic like none of us have ever witnessed. Humans need divine law and morality to govern them. Not all of them do, but many will simply fall into a heap without it.
I do not adhere to any such divine compass, yet I’d be a fool to suggest I don’t see its value in some lives. That is the first step to true logical enlightenment.
Anyway, carry on lads! Just thought I’d throw in some elderly wisdom for what it’s worth. Is 54 elderly? I believe it probably is.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Anonymous said:
Why are you both trying so hard to intellectualize something as ambiguous and unknowable as a God?
JP@Anonymous
I suppose we enjoy discussion (would you agree, WhyILeftTheRevivalFellowship?) :) We’ve been discussing various things on and off for a long time, it’s just a bit more visible here on this website.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@WILTRF
It will be a pleasure to answer your question number 10 soon.. ;) Since it is a particularly easy question, maybe you could have a go at answering it too?
;)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@JP, I think you should start from question 1 and go from there :)
In relation to @WILTRF’s first question I ask this: Why do Christians refer to the sacrifice of Jesus as the ‘ultimate sacrifice’?
He suffered for a total of 3 days. Sure, it would have been quite painful and I wouldn’t wish that upon my worst enemy but, is it not true that cancer sufferers or children who starve to death in third world countries would suffer a great deal more?
Perhaps the only difference between the two is that the cancer patients or starving children have no divine purpose for their suffering, it is simply random pointless suffering.
Some of these children will suffer in extreme agony for months on end. Some of them will be eaten alive by God’s wonderful creatures as they lie helplessly on a hot desert Earth. Sorry to be so emotive and graphic but Christian’s go in to such detail over the death of Jesus and get so emotional, yet when it comes to the real world situation of a child suffering in extreme pain and discomfort we put it down to God’s will?
I know, I know, the main reason it’s seen as the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ is because Jesus carried the burden of our sin. The sin that hadn’t actually occurred yet for billions and billions and billions of people who hadn’t yet flourished into existence. Oh, but I forgot about the magical original sin that means we’re all guilty simply by association.
Why should we think so highly of his sacrifice when others are going through so much more pain on a daily basis, for a lot longer than three days with absolutely NO hope of eventual restoration.
It is morbid. WE ARE MADE TO FEEL GUILTY SIMPLY BECAUSE WE WERE BORN. This sacrifice was made FOR US without our consent.
How’s this for circular logic: God made humans. I repeat, God MADE humans from scratch. EVERY element of a human being was created by God. His creation turned against him by taking an apple from a tree. I repeat, HIS creation turned on HIM. As a result, all future creations were damned as sinners unless they repent and *insert whatever gospel you have chosen out of the 40000, 6768669696,69686860 variations on the simple book known as the Bible by the big guy who doesn’t want to be an author of ‘confusion’ you adhere to’. Then, to “help” us all out, the guy who created us turned himself into a human being on Earth, waited for 30 odd years, preached some fairly basic stuff about being good and what not, and then got himself morbidly tortured for three days so that we could have a VERY SLIM chance of avoiding hell fire by being born in the correct location, at the correct time, with the correct parents who adhere to the CORRECT religion. And then, after suspending all GOD GIVEN LOGIC for the remainder of your life, you can walk streets of gold with your buddies whilst all the other people suffer forever in hell. May of whom would have NO IDEA WHY because they were never preached to or decided to not believe by exercising the GOD DESIGNED and ordained human brain that just happened to evolve over millions of years.
Sure, there are questions. How did we get here? Don’t know. Why are we here? Don’t know. Who made the universe? Don’t know. But just because you don’t know it doesn’t mean you have to believe in a sadistic creator who’s going to wipe us out one day. It DOES NOT make sense no matter how you look at it. Therefore, if God is real and I’m going to hell it’s HIS fault for making me an atheist. It is HIS fault for creating my logic ridden brain.
So now you hit me with some Christian rhetoric, explain away the suffering of thousands upon thousands of starving children each day with a couple of scriptures (or are you one of the modern Christians who have abandoned the Bible and come up with your own interpretation of things?) and then sleep warm in your bed knowing you and your buddy Jesus are going to do the intergalactic tourist tour one day in heaven.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
I recently posted this video on Selah. I think it may be worth reposting here:
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
The thing is though, there are many *facts* that *do* point to the divinity of Jesus.
Jesus existed. Fact.
Jesus was crucified. Fact.
His crucifixion was predicted/foretold in the scriptures that were available to people prior to his coming on Earth. Fact.
Jesus rose again from the dead on the third day. Fact.
Fact? Yes, its a fact – he appeared again to over 500 witnesses, which was documented and passed down through the ages in scripture.
Christianity is far deeper than the Pentecostal world, namely revivalists would have you believe. Lack of knowledge, theology, history and facts are what makes the ‘Revivalist’ movement, in particular, fail in so many ways.
Anyway, sorry for the abrupt interruption.. as you were :)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
10. How is one justified making ANY claims about God’s nature, given your own admission, God is unable to be proven? As an analogy, how would scientists be justified defining anatomic details of the Loch Ness Monster they can’t prove? (E.g. “it has 3 dorsal fins, 1 gall bladder, no underwater vision” etc.) How is defining an unprovable God any different?
One can proceed along a strictly logical line of reasoning: [if(A), then(B)] and make claims that way. In this way, logic explores possible worlds, not just the actual world. (This is especially valuable in the creative fields, where an intentional transformation of the possible into the actual occurs, but lets not get sidetracked :)
One can make such explorations regardless of whether one believes in a god or not, as was amply shown by the recent atheist poster “anonymous”. (Ie if(a creator of the universe exists) then (he/she/it is evil because all of the suffering in the world ultimately comes from him/her/it). I don’t think there are many positive claims one could make re god with absolute certainty, but there are definitely some that can be made Eg if (a creator doesn’t *actually* exist), then (we cannot say anything real about him/her/it) Phew, hope we can agree on that one! On the other hand: if(a creator actually exists) and if(the universe began with a singularity, ie the Big Bang) then (he/she/it transcends material human reality by at least many orders of physical magnitude given his/her/it’s ability to create such a singularity).
But I don’t think you can get very far with this sort of approach, given the vast chasm between human and god (even if we admit god only for reasons of logical inquiry). This conceptual “distance” would be much greater than the conceptual distance between a dog and a human, or even between an amoeba and a human, so any human claims of “God must be X” or “God can’t be Y, because it would mean Z” must be treated skeptically.
Clearly it is easy to settle for an agnostic position, especially if one limits one’s self to only admitting scientific information. Science is unlimited in studying measurable phenomena, but completely restricted when the phenomena under question are not measurable. For a human to be able to properly measure a property of God would be the physical equivalent of my goldfish trying to discern why I enjoy minimalist art.
Anyway, there are some thoughts, and I hope that *anonymous* is happy that I haven’t “hit them with Christian rhetoric”. But I do take offence to the idea that Christians “sleep warm in your bed knowing you and your buddy Jesus are going to do the intergalactic tourist tour one day in heaven” whilst elsewhere “thousands of children are suffering”. This juxtaposition is most unkind! Many of the Christians I know are very aware of evil in this world and many make substantial efforts to alleviate such. For example, recently, a couple I know just gave up well paid careers as a doctor and nurse in Australia, to go to a very poor area of Tanzania for seven years to help people medically on a daily basis. I am sure the “problem of evil” will be a practical (as well as conceptual) issue for them on a regular basis.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@From the stalls,
Jesus existed. Fact.
Jesus was crucified. Fact.
His crucifixion was predicted/foretold in the scriptures that were available to people prior to his coming on Earth. Not a fact.
Jesus rose again from the dead on the third day. Not a fact.
If you are genuinely interested in the historical Jesus (as opposed to the mythical Jesus) this is an introduction to what we know, facts, if you will:
Further reading.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
@JP
Again, you provide absolutely zero insight into how you justify defining God.
Granted, science cannot measure the unmeasurable – how are you an exception?
You say:
I don’t think there are many positive claims one could make re god with absolute certainty
and:
For a human to be able to properly measure a property of God would be the physical equivalent of my goldfish trying to discern why I enjoy minimalist art.
Yet, you continue to define God!
Is this a logical oversight or a dead-end? You concede science points to agnosticism, yet you are not an agnostic. Please explain how you transcend this logical void, moreover, with such specificity.
Recognizing the “gap” between our understanding and God’s character (assuming He exists) represents only a fraction of the problem – the real issue is how one claim to know the unknowable.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Hang on son, not so fast, we are proceeding slowly, remember? ;)
Apart from your incredulity at my supposed “defining” of God, am I to assume you basically agree with the rest of my latest post?
:)
Please be assured there are no logical oversights or dead-ends for the Christian, only for the agnostic who restricts his/herself to a scientific perspective.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I’m all ears.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@WILTRFABAA/A ;)
Just to reclarify,
Jesus existed. Fact.
Jesus was crucified. Fact.
His crucifixion was predicted/foretold in the scriptures that were available to people prior to his coming on Earth. Again, Yes a fact.
Jesus rose again from the dead on the third day. Ever been in a court of law? (yes, I have) Fact.
now, just a bit more reading for you, if you will :)
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
@From the stalls.
Thanks for your link, I enjoyed reading it. What did you think of mine? What were your thoughts on the video I posted that outlined the history of Jesus?
Thanks also for posting your thoughts two times, and informing me you have visited a court. Unfortunately, posting your opinion twice or having visited a court does not add any truth to your claims.
In addition to McDowell’s article you provided, I have also read his comprehensive Evidence for Christianity. Yet I still don’t find the “evidence” for a physical Resurrection convincing, there is just too much special pleading required. For example, McDowell quotes Prof. Blaiklock as saying: “the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history”. This statement is completely biased and historically inaccurate. This skewif and cart-before-horse type thinking demonstrates the “logic” required to make the claims Christianity so heavily relies on. Do you think Professor Blaiklock is making an objective and rational statement here? I don’t think it is a coincidence that McDowell is quoting someone that approaches history this way.
In any instance – we agree on Jesus’ existence and His crucifixion. But we disagree on the Bible “predicting” the event, and we disagree on the actual physical Resurrection.
Maybe we could start by finding a Biblical prophecy along the lines of:
“I will send my only Son Jesus to Earth, to be crucified, on a cross, to atone the sins of the world, and my new plan for my creation is giving eternal life to everyone who believes in Him (or who speaks in a special language)”.
Once we establish the Biblical “prediction” we can move on to the history and statistical odds involved with Him rising from the dead. Lets explore these statements as “facts”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Thanks for your link, I enjoyed reading it. What did you think of mine? What were your thoughts on the video I posted that outlined the history of Jesus?”
No worries. Unfortunately, I have not yet had time to listen to the whole 50 mins but would like to soon. I have had a quick gloss over your links, however, the thing is, this *is* an age old debate and I know and have read many books myself in direct contradiction to what many of these links/docs/articles etc are proclaiming and time just does not permit, unfortunately.
Good luck with your quest.
Oh and I didn’t say the Bible predicted it – as obviously it didn’t exist as a book at that time.
Oh and just one more thing, re:
“Thanks also for posting your thoughts two times, and informing me you have visited a court. Unfortunately, posting your opinion twice or having visited a court does not add any truth to your claims.”
Striking a line through a statement doesn’t make it any more untrue either.
;)
I was just restating my position as you had crossed it out as opposed to repeating it in an attempt to make it more true :)
Similarly, I was not stating that I had been in a court of law to prove my case either, merely inferring from it the point that facts are determined by assessing all available evidence and all things taken into consideration etc.
Anyway, being just ‘from the stalls’, I never intended to join those ‘inside the ring/on the playing field’ although it seems I accidentally ran in there only intending to dash across the playing field call something out and then run off again but got entangled along the way. My bad. I really do wish you well.
FTS
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@WILTRF
Pardon my slowness ;P
I’m still unsure whether you generally agree or disagree with my post from the 29th March, so let me sum up in a nutshell:
“Science” “points to” agnosticism on every imaginable issue which is non-falsifiable, and especially any issue that is non-measurable, or non-quantifiable. That is to say, science comes up with theories about the material world which can be quantified in the form of mathematical equations, and then subjected to experimentation in order to be falsified. If you are talking about an issue which cannot be measured, and claim to be proceeding scientifically, then you are as much a “son of faith” as any religious person. Hence the trouble with anti-theists who claim science somehow disproves the actual existence of a creator.
So, would you agree that science (as apart from logic, reason, philosophy) has no way of telling us authoritatively whether a creator exists?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JP
No. God is a scientific hypothesis. If science can’t prove a creator, it’s not unprovable, it lacks proof!
The supernatural claims Christians make about God apply to the natural world we live in. This intersection begs evidence. The suggestion, ‘science can’t disprove God, therefore He is “outside” science’ is a nonsensical and meaningless statement. What does it mean to be “outside of science”? (To preempt your response, a triangle, as a mathematical concept, does intersect the physical world, therefore is not “outside” science [sorry about the geometry-pun, I'm a bit of a square]). Existing only outside science seems an awfully convenient way of absolving one’s self from logical argumentation. Moreover, a God only existing outside science seems utterly pointless.
For example, Russell’s teapot only remains unprovable until the claims intersect our existence; a la Christianity. A (rough but suggestive) analogy could be: the scientific method points to our existence within a universe; not a multiverse. The multiverse theory will only ever validate if adequately tested by observation or experiment. Thus “real world” evidence is needed to shift the burden of proof.
Furthermore, the absence of evidence for God is, indeed, evidence of absence when the evidence should be there and is not.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hi WhyILeft and JP
Firstly, I’m writing from my iPhone in a restaurant, so please excuse briefness, format, spelling etc etc
Secondly, I feel truly honored to be a friend of you both.
WhyILeft, seeing you grow from my fellow inquisitive minded revivalist at ccs into the cognitive powerhouse that you have become is truly heartwarming. Especially your ability to overturn over two decades of HARDCORE RF indoctrination is a testament to your towering testicle size ;-)
Likemannered compliments to you JP. Thus it can be derived from what I have aforementioned that I love and respect you both.
So here it goes……… A simple set of questions that I would appreciate a fair and direct answer to.
JP, we were brought up that the bible is the “infallible” word of Yawheh……. True.
Infallibility infers absence of errors, no matter how insignificant…….True.
The Bible contains specific numerical errors that WhyILeft has more than illustrated on his website……. True.
Therefore, the presence of errors negate Christendom’s claim that the bible is infallible.
Therefore, the fallible text cannot be the infallible work of an infallible God as errors and infallibility are mutually exclusive.
Therefore the bible is not the word of God…… True.
Any verbal accounts existing before the culmination of the Bible are the fallible accounts of fallible men or women.
Question……. Please answer this directly with a non- tangential answer……. In other words no philosophical BS.
Question…….. How can you subscribe to Christianity when ALL accounts I.e the text and any prior chatter are FALLIBLE and therefor not the work of God.
We were ALL misled……… From Kuhlman to Kernahan………. From you to me ;-)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Hi Guys/Gals
@Jamie
Hi, good to hear from you! Just quickly, as I’m in a bit of a hurry…
To answer your question as simply as possible: no, I don’t think the Bible is ‘infallible’ in the sense that fundamentalists and revivalists sometimes claim. (I think I already made a remark earlier in this thread about the Bible not being “a perfect object”). So it is not a purely divine object, let alone something to worship or have as an idol (which is almost how some fundamentalists seem to look at it).
But at the same time, I don’t think it’s a case of the Bible having to be either “infallible and therefore the word of god” or “fallible and hence not the work of god at all”. This way of looking at the problem is quite modern (as in “recent”) and I think is largely the by-product of some unfortunate interpretations of what the Reformation meant. But that’s a long story…
On the other hand, If you read accounts about scripture by Christians from the 3rd through 5th centuries (for example), you would probably be quite surprised at how candidly they dissected it, how openly they questioned how authoritative this or that part was, and how this or that text should be viewed by the Christian. I know when I had a read of some of the early commentary writings I was surprised at the level of critical thinking and intellectual honesty therein, because, like most people of today’s “enlightened” era, I was pre-conditioned to expect general superstition and extreme gullibility.
@WhyILeft
Your post deserves a good reply, so all in good time ;) However, I’m not sure what you mean by the “triangle” bit. I know I mentioned the concept of a triangle in a recent private message to you, but that was only to do with trying to understand why John Lennon would call god “a concept” in a particular song of his. I also made it clear that this wasn’t my view of God.
Anyway speaking of geometry, did you ever hear the story about the investigative reporter from the ABC’s Four Corners program, who travelled to the USA for a special assignment, but just couldn’t understand it when they refused to let him into the Pentagon?
OK, I know that’s not funny but I’ve always had a liking for anti-humour…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Dear JP
Thank you for your direct reply, honestly appreciated. Once again I’m on my iPhone and it’s 3:33 am so please forgive errors or non-sensical grammar ;-)
My problem with taking the Bible as inspired by God but not the infallible word of God (the former refers to your take on the text) is that each book within the text is then subject to human error, superstition, spin and even lies not to mention the memes phenomenon. Putting it simply, which part is God inspired and which part isn’t. where does one finish and the other start. Surely this state of affairs would lead to a considerable number of different interpretations which would be the antecedent for a plethora of different “Christian” groups. Surely this would cause serious and Iean serious confusion for would be christian adherants. And as I’m sure your aware as I am after more than two decades of revivalists cognitive rape, that “the devil is the author of confusion”. I cannot subscribe to an all powerful and jelous Yawheh that perfectly created the universe and then left the salvation of his most beloved creation to be explained away in a group of books that when culminated are erronious and riddled with the word of men amongst his pearls. It’s non-sensical brother. If the all powerful God was to let the tranferance of knowledge regarding the salvation of his beloved race of Adam to be left in a book, then surely that book would be seamlessly perfect like all his other creations. Problem is, it’s not seamless. It’s not infallible AND IF it’s part him part us, the part him bit of the Bible is undistinguishable from the part us bit of the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is rendered inneffective whether held out as infallible or not. Altough an untenable position to hold by an objective person, the infslibility paradigm makes more sense in theory.
Thus, like Baal Yahweh is a false god. Lucky for all those who were sheduled to burn in hell for behing subject to the human condition, at the hands of a loving god.
With kind regards and lots of respect, Jamie Young
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
“Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces”. Malachi 2:3
Does that make sense? No
Is God love? No
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Now when you want to discuss Acts-Corintians, Re: Apostle Pauls’s letters, I have learned you need to be listening to scholarly level academic folfkf doctorate level studies. The reason for this is that there is so much more info in terms of looking at these letters in a retorical/retrospective way that actually really does put some of revivals’ understandings in a completely different context. You find these people also have no vested interest in defending organisations, rather they present the info/findings far more truthfully.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
With total respect to the historical bible, much of the “wisdom” “ethics” and spirituality is already themed in the Tao 500 years before biblical times. So what inspiration did the people of this era have in an eastern sense and how does, , could or would it ever be able to tie up with the christian/judaic understanding?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
to the aurthor of this article;
most likely you are set in your ways of thinking which is fine, however if you find the desire to continue your research in order to satisfy your soul please consider removing the limataions of your imaginations and expand your resourses. the use of the internet is a great tool to quickin your travels. My suggestion on your travels would be to remove all ideas that you have acquired concerning religion and start over. And try to remove the imaginations of Man during your search and look for the basics which points towards how we became into begin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Robby. I’d like to think this website adequately demonstrates that I am not “set in my ways of thinking”. Contrary to your suggestion, this website is dedicated to “remov[ing] the imaginations of man”. Rebuilding one’s entire worldview from the ground up isn’t for the faint of heart nor is it the hobby of choice for the narrow minded.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
It appears beyond any doubt that anyone who becomes seduced or addicted into any Pentecostal speaking in tongues fellowship is quickly drugged and infected with a virulent disease that can never be treated or exterminated by any known antidote. The poisonous venom is expertly directed to prevent the mind from ever forming a morsel of thought and efficiently closes the reason perhaps never to be resurrected again. The shot gun salvation strategy appears to work effortlessly and with a measure of efficacy. Christ came to set us free not imprison us in a rigorous Pharisaic set of rules and closed dogma. After all to whom did he direct most of his barbed invective – the Pharisees! Blind guides!
The deadly evangelical fundamentalist worm once invited in, crosses a slippery threshold and is like a demon that refuses to leave the body or mind. And once it enters the intestines resides there forever refusing to leave the colon. Note where I draw my metaphors – they reside not in the mind, heart or reason but in the lower portions of the body where waste products are generally evacuated. Potent words? – far from it – my words are not rigorous enough. This site has sadly become like a pond of inert water that lacks any fresh intake to circulate, add bite or piquancy or to stimulate either faith or reason.
Within the already sluggish and placid water the bacteria forms to structure a stagnant and lifeless liquid – hastily losing any potency or value. This site should have provided a solace, an oasis of comfort and a spiritual asylum for those fortunate souls who have escaped what is clearly the only hell that ever existed! Had I become a fugitive from its barbed wire clutches – I would never have found any peace or rest. Biblical interpretation remains a battle field and debating post where no one ever wins but where unfortunate victims can only find temporary rest on an indecisive fence. And I do have great respect and sympathy for agnostics. But beware of that group also who believe that in scientific knowledge lies the answers. Isn’t Dawkins as arrogant as fundamentalists?
Michael Angrave south western France
michael.angrave@gmail.com
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Michael,
As I have previously said, you are quite the wordsmith. However, I am beginning to realise this talent of yours rings hollow. For your eloquence fails to mask the glaring lack of substance within. I still have no idea why you defend Christianity – especially so on a website which questions the very fundamentals. And I am not convinced you do either.
It is ironic you suggest “this site has sadly become like a pond of inert water that lacks any fresh intake to circulate“. For it is the longwinded, indirect, question-dodgers that oxygen-starve and stagnate this proverbial pond.
In the interest of injecting “fresh intake” I challenge you to directly and succinctly respond to the questions that beg to be answered. Perhaps you can start with the 10 I have posted for the RF Basic Nights. Or maybe, as previously requested, you could guide me on an intellectual “dot-to-dot” from God’s proposed existence to your particular anti-ecclesiastic slant on Christianity. Or respond to this comment etc. You are more than welcome to use bullet points if that will aid concision.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Says the bull in the china shop: “These fragile teacups and silly vases are no match! Ha! Wherein is their purported beauty, when they are smithereened beneath my hooves! A graceful line is nothing compared to force. Show me your theories, and watch how fast I can smash them.”
Ha ha ha, hey WILTRF, don’t mind me, I’m just trying to be a parabolic wordsmith ;) hee hee
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Hello again – I would like very much like to avoid the danger of making your site become like the innane, fatuous and completely pointless “Facebook”. I would like to rename “Facebook” but as the moderator of this site you may choose to delete my thoughts but I am sure you see the point I am making regardless.
However, a series that fascinated me was “The Atheism Tapes” by Doctor Jonathan Miller made in 2003 for British television which sadly I cannot send to you. I found it fascinating as Atheists are invariably more interesting and stimulating than believers ever are. Believers often sound woolly and totally unconvincing as Richard Dawkins fairly claims but I hasten to add that while Dawkins is fascinating, I find he goes beyond reasonable levels of arrogance and evolutionary intolerance!
Could I ask you to follow this link: http://mcginn.philospot.com/ – because I would like your thoughts on his philosophy of being an Atheist – although I suspect you lean more, at present, in the direction of agnostism. Please pardon any presumption on my part? This philospot of Mcginn’s is not taken directly from the Atheism Tapes but does express his thoughts in cogent terms.
By the way I hope you had a wonderful wedding anniversary and may I wish you many years of happiness with your wife – who when I eventually visit Australia I would love to meet you both.
Michael Angrave
Like or Dislike:
1 
0