Sea Salt asks “Q: How do Christians argue with Muslims when they say the Koran is the final word of God as revealed by Mohammed?”
Quite easily actually. When you read the Bible there are many books written by many authors over thousands of years. Each author adds without taking away from the other. There is a consistency that leads people to think that they are reading one book and not 66 books. In other words many witnesses. We even have four accounts of Jesus earthly ministry. Each account is different yet consistent with the others.
The Qur’an is one book written by one man. Its history is inconsistent with other much older historical accounts. Its practices often counter other codes of conduct consistent with other Abramic religions, of which it claims to be one. It claims to be Abramic in its theology but is alien to older Abramic theologies and the character and lifestyle of the author would lead one to doubt the claim of the author’s self proclaimed prophetic ability.
Finally through out the Bible are accounts of God’s direct intervention in events (miracles) that bolster the basic theology and the people’s claims about their God. There are no such accounts in the Qur’an. Mohammed did not miraculously feed the hungry, turn water into wine, open the eyes of the blind and raise the dead.
Thanks, Me No Dhimmi, for the “Christmas present” of the article outlining the history of slavery and Christianity’s leading the charge to abolish it. One thing the author of the article said which was telling and chilling as it affects what has happened in Canada:
“Hitchens isn’t this stupid, and neither are his readers. But they have not troubled to learn this history, and no one is telling them about it.”
Over ten years ago, when my children were in the elementary public school system, I caught wind of a new history curriculum the Board of Ed., under the auspices of the Ministry of Education (then NDP), was proposing. There was a general invitation to all parents to come to an information session one evening at the Board Office.
A friend and I drove the 80 kms (round trip) and found ourselves in a room with about 20 other “interested parents.” Not exactly an overwhelming show of curiosity on the part of parents about what history their children were going to be taught which, of course, is one of the reasons Canadians are so ignorant of so many things, especially the history of our country.
I was not particularly surprised, though I was extremely alarmed, to discover that this so-called “Common Curriculum” (in keeping with the change in our designation of time from “AD” to “Common Era”) was proposing that Canadian history, essentially, begin in the here and now–being the early 1990s–with very little reference to either our British or Judeo-Christian heritage which, if one is being accurate and/or honest, had a huge impact on Canada’s democratic institutions.
Both Christianity and Britishness were being summarily airbrushed from Canadian history. Very few people mounted an objection, though I did that night, getting odd and hostile glances from the Board officials on the panel.
I think the so-called Common Curriculum was deep-sixed when the Conservatives got back into office, though Canadian students are still in the dark when it comes to the actual history of our country. Most young people have no concept of the positive role played by both the British rule of law and order and the Judeo-Christian foundations of our public institutions in the making of Canada as the liberal democracy it is today. In fact, most of them would take Christopher Hitchen’s uninformed and rather nasty view that faith–in particular, the Christian faith–is a positive ill and evil which is responsible for many of the problems in our world today.
All one can continue to do–aside from rent one’s garments asunder and tear one’s hair out–is to speak truth into lies wherever possible. This Dinesh D’Souza and a few others eloquently do, but not in the numbers I’d like to see.
This is what I and a few others, like lookout and Joe Molnar, try to do on forums like SDA. I kind of see it as the drip, drip, drip, effect, which eventually wears down the stubborn hardness of the rock…but probably not in my lifetime!
Anyway, great food for though. Thanks again, MND!
@ Joe
Sorry man, that wasn’t an easy refutation. The alledged Judeo-Christian miracles, one has to take on an article of faith. (Faith being, I’m willing to accept the implausibility of it, but I still believe it.) So they might not have happened, and in all likelihood didn’t. And as for Islam, wouldn’t you say God giving personal dictation to Mohammed constitues a miracle?
-Sea Salt
Sea Salt (as in “stinging” I guess: ouch!), I actually WRITE that stuff!
Speaking of reading, did you read anything else I said? Based on the empirical evidence of my long-term experience with people like Hitchens (including his prima donna posturing in this debate), I think I made a reasonable case for his being an insufferable bully/bore bantam.
So, just what is your point? (BTW, not just off-the-top-of-your-entitled head, toddler-so-far: I’m mad! opinion, please, but some engagement with the facts I’ve presented. Maybe you can fill in the blanks Hitchens refused to—or couldn’t—do.)
Go for it, SS!
One of the more interesting arguments that Dinesh used was when he talked about Hume and scepticism in general. It was the notion of absolute scepticism and the example used was the speed of light but could have been any one of a number of things. An absolute sceptic will say that no matter how many times you see or measure something there is always a chance that next time it will be different. As Karl Popper, another famous sceptic would say it is not that the exact speed of light has been proven to be true again it has just once again failed to be proven false.
Christians like Dinesh leap on this as evidence that miracles are then ‘theoretically’ and even scientifically possible.
Absolute sceptics have an answer for this, but I am not an absolute sceptic, a healthy one yes but not an absolute one. I believe that one can know the truth about something, be absolutely certain about it and it does not require faith. 2+2=4 it always has and it always will it is absolutely true and there will never come a time when it will equal something other than 4.
Using the same methodology it is safe to say no one has ever risen from the dead in the manner that Christ supposedly did, you can not create something(like the Universe) out of nothing and there is no afterlife. Its not that there is little evidence of any of this, it is that there is NO empirical evidence to back any of this up.
I don’t have faith that 2+2=4, I don’t have too, it is based completely on verifiable and absolute facts of reality.
Either something is part of the natural world(Universe) or it is not, it cannot be both.
And as doug Newton said earlier, “The believer however,in the absence of knowledge, chooses to believe that there is life after death.” This is not an absence of knowledge it is an absence of evidence, there is no evidence to back up the claim, hence the leap of “faith”. As an Atheist who follows the evidence I don’t have faith that death is final, the evidence shows me that it is. And every person that has ever died and will die in the future is the verification. Hitchins is right when he says, “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence”.
And yes I am a “prick” thank-you for noticing.
I have a deep and profound philosophic question:
At every opportunity she tells us over and over that she is an atheist. So where is she now? Of course I mean ET. I would like to hear from her even if I have to listen to her telling us she’s an atheist seven or eight times in a single posting.
I don’t like to put words in people’s mouths, but I have a deep suspicion that ET is cringing at what Christopher Hitchens, fellow-atheist, puts forward as “reasoned (and reasonable?) debate.”
In his debate with D’Souza, I don’t think Hitchens answered one question. He reframed them, danced around them, twisted them, ridiculed them–in short, he did everything but answer them.
It was rather hilarious to watch his contortions, both physical and metaphysical.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Christopher Hitchens is not to be taken seriously. He, rather, is a comedian, bent on entertaining rather than enlightening his audience. He doesn’t seem to care a hoot at what an ass he looks (c’mon, beer to wet his whistle?). And I’m sure there’s good money in playing the fool, a role he plays admirably well.
That’s funny I thought the same thing about D’Souza.
Isn’t it strange that the NT – despite the dark ages, the hegemony of the Catholic Church, the Crusades, the inquisition and the desires of ‘Christian’ Princes – was not rewritten to sanctify and justify immoral, political, imperialist and violent actions?
Now contrast the above fact to the Quran.
On top of that, science claims its source to be fact based on observation. The Christian doctrine has some 25,000 credible, accurate, eyewitness and factual texts that support it.
Furthermore, how can an athiest know that nothing exists after life? For that to be proven true, ‘nothing’ would have to be observed. The required presence of an observer proves that nothing cannot exist.
“One of the other contradictions that gives me a chuckle is all the “peace on earth and good will towards man” stuff we get this time of year. When the man himself said…
” Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
-Luke 12:51-53″
Farmer Joe. Are you simply moonbat stupid, or willfully ignorant? To make any criticism valid, you must first fully understand the message that you are attacking. Furthermore, you must validate your objection based on the actions of the messenger.
“I was not particularly surprised, though I was extremely alarmed, to discover that this so-called “Common Curriculum” (in keeping with the change in our designation of time from “AD” to “Common Era”) was proposing that Canadian history, essentially, begin in the here and now–being the early 1990s–with very little reference to either our British or Judeo-Christian heritage which, if one is being accurate and/or honest, had a huge impact on Canada’s democratic institutions.”
A walk through any cemetary will prove the ‘new’ curriculum to be false.
Farmer Joe says, “I don’t have faith that 2+2=4, I don’t have too, it is based completely on verifiable and absolute facts of reality.”
So far, so good. But, wouldn’t the opposite end of the same stick be that “the verifiable and absolute facts of reality” for the West are that a great civilization came to be, based on the radical idea of equality before God (from Judaism) and the altruistic beliefs of Christianity? As a direct result of Christian belief, its followers produced among the greatest works of art, including music, as well as great feats, never seen before, in the areas of education, medicine, care for the downtrodden, jurisprudence, and democratic government. Those of us who live in the free countries—for now, sort of—of the West are all the beneficiaries of the Judeo-Christian dispensation.
Farmer Joe and his ilk recognize the obvious where they wish to and disregard it at will, it seems to me, when it doesn’t. Where, Farmer Joe, do you think the West would be without Christianity?
I suggest you watch a series, such as HBO’s Rome, in order to see what pagan life was like: the pagans didn’t lack belief. They did lack belief in gods with compassion or grace, though. Their sacrifices were blood sacrifices, not the sacrifice of “a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51: check out Allegri’s sublime setting of this), which is all that the Christian God requires—as a free will offering: neither He nor I will make you or Christopher Hitchens fall in line.
Please note that the changing dispensation in the West is towards paganism and coercion: e.g., Christians are now marginalized and hauled before Human Rights (sic) Commissions, where the right of due process is denied and re-education, ridicule, fines, and loss of livelihood are all part of the punishment. Right here. In Canada. I’m not making this up. This observation “is based completely on verifiable and absolute facts of reality.”
Farmer Joe, what do you think of that?
Personally, the “verifiable and absolute facts of reality” of the country Canada is fast becoming show that Christians like me could lose our jobs, not because we’re not good at them—some of us are exemplary—but because our thoughts don’t meet the state mandated “group think” (Orwell’s “doublethink” and “duckspeak”).
Farmer Joe, what do you think of that?
As I started out by saying, “verifiable and absolute facts of reality” cut both ways. But, regarding the positive fruits of Christianity, are the Farmer Joes, Christopher Hitchens, Sea Salts, and ETs of this world willing to be real? Unfortunately, the “verifiable and absolute facts of reality” seem to indicate the negative.
(People, like Me No Dhimmi, do not fit this category.)
Sea Salt
Leon Uris wrote in his book Exodus about the Six Day War and had the characters speak of that war as being miraculous. Then one of the characters said words to the effect that in the future someone is going to say that the war wasn’t 6 days it was 6 years and that the number of hostile enemies faced by Israel was much lower than the number given in the historical account. Denying an event because it doesn’t fit your preconceived idea of how things work is a mugs game played by fools. The earth was flat and you would fall off the edge – until someone sailed across the ocean and discovered not only land but people living on that land. Proving the flat earth believer doubly foolish.
One other incident that reminds me of how ignorant is the atheist’s position. For many years serious scholars doubted the existence of Sodom. There was no archaeological evidence showing that such a town ever existed. Then one day an ancient Egyptian library was discovered and in that library was an extant contract between the leader of Sodom and the Pharaoh of Egypt.
I’ve never seen a virus but because they make me sick I know they exist. I have seen miracles, and through interaction with Him I know that Yahweh exists.
My Father would often say that the two things we should never argue about, were religion, and politics. i don’t know where the quote came from but it is true.
bart, as Scout in “To Kill a Mockingbird” would say, “What in TARNATION are you talkin’ about?”
My dear, how about taking some smelling salts?
This is obviously no place for you. Why not head out to one of those churches where the last thing they’ll talk about is religion? I could supply you with a list of “safe spaces”.
@Farmer Joe (1:03 PM):
If I wanted to horse around with the “2 + 2 = 4” bedrock, I could say that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11.
To get more serious: are you the type who believes that a politician out hustling votes on the stump is at his/her most truthful? If not, then why would you supply a quote from 1928 Hitler which only shows, prima facie, that he was vote-grubbing? The leader of a party that could at the time garner only a small minority of votes, and yet seriously intended to govern Germany, would have had to have been a bloody fool to say anything to alienate the majority faith.
That’s why the anti-Christian Table Talk quotes are typically considered to be solid evidence of the ‘real Hitler’ with respect to Christianity. His power was secure at that point, so he didn’t have to worry about ticking off the majority all that much by then.
If you want to brandish Hitler around, kindly consider the point that the antidemocrat can do so far more credibly. What was National Socialism, if not a program of setting the majority against a stigmatizable minority? (Of course, this particular argument fails because it assumes that human beings, as voters, are group-chained monads that don’t sympathize with others from different walks of life. ‘Democratists out of their skulls’ like Hitler are so rare because that assumption is false.)
“It would help if Christians could show some evidence of God or Jesus rather than just quoting what is obviously ineffective.”
Posted by: Jim Pettit
In the Bible is the testimony of men and what they saw with their eyes and heard with their ears….you’ll need a heart to believe though as stated in the Bible. Prophecy abounds in the Bible, of which has come about in all cases to present, except for the prophecies still to occur. History is a wonderful thing, and the Bible is a record of the past and a record of what is to come in the future. There is plenty of proof in the Bible; it is one’s choice to believe it or not.
>He he …your timeline is a tad distorted and you knowledge of theology is also a tad distorted…
No, the point is, which you seem to miss, that people’s religion is based on what they were taught by their parents. You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country.
If you had been born a Greek in the ancient times, you would believe in Zeus and Apollo, if you had been born in ancient Egypt you would believe in Ra and Horus.
Do you really believe that you would still believe in Jesus if you were born to Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia ? The odds are very slim. Too bad you don’t seem honest enough to yourself to admit that. You did not address the point at all.
The bible is so prophetic yet jesus didn’t even know enough to tell us to wash our hands before eating and that this simple commandment could have helped prevent all sorts of disease.
Nostradamus and daily horror-scopes have as much true predictions as the bible.
The problem with “faith” should be all clear to us by now, it is dangerous. Faith means believing in things with no evidence and once you accept that this is ok, then you have no basis to complain about anyones else faith.
The muslim who kills infidels because it is his faith, the jewish settlers who think god ‘gave’ them the west bank, the people who have doomsday suicide cults, or the utterly stupid Christian-Zionists who cynically ally themselves with Israel to format war because they believe this will bring the end times, these are the end results of “faith”
There are many miracles in the Bible that were doubted in the past and used as examples of why the Bible cannot be true, such as:
– virgin birth; and
– Christ arising from the dead.
With the wonders of modern medicine, both can and have been achieved. Funny, that.
The Bible said that the stars in the sky were as numerous as the sands on the beach…absolutely correct and unlikely to be in keeping with contemporary thought. The Bible spoke about currents or rivers in the sky, leading to the discovery of the jet stream. There are many such examples.
Now, there are other accounts that I find much harder to believe, such as the account in the Old Testament of Moses (or was it Aaron) holding aloft his staff and causing the sun to stand still in the sky.
Many scholars said there was no evidence of Pontius Pilate existing…until they found evidence finally.
Funny, that. No proof of veracity necessarily, but very interesting nonetheless.
As for Farmer Joe slamming Christianity during Christmas…very, very tactless and in poor taste.
>Sea Salt asks “Q: How do Christians argue with Muslims when they say the Koran is the final word of God as revealed by Mohammed?”
> joe : Quite easily actually. When you read the Bible there are many books written by many authors over thousands of years. Each author adds without taking away from the other. There is a consistency that leads people to think that they are reading one book and not 66 books. In other words many witnesses. We even have four accounts of Jesus earthly ministry. Each account is different yet consistent with the others.
Gee Joe, you must have a read a totally different book then the one I read.
Please google “bible contradictions”
You claim above is completely false.
Christianity is the only religion which has seen God in his human form.
Christ said he was the Son of God and if this were not true, then it would be insane to believe the rest of his message of redemption, which is also different from all other religions.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit … the Divine Tri-Unity is clearly articulated in the Old Testament by the experience of Abraham, considered to be the inspiration of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Gen. 18:1: And the Lord appeared unto him at the Oaks of Mamre …
2: And he lifted up his eyes and, lo, three men stood by him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground.
3: And said, My Lord … (Notice, not my LordS)
Therefore, is God one as the Jews through Isaac and the Moslems through Hagar claim? Is he just the creator or does he bring, through Jesus, a way to redemption?
Isaac himself was born of an older mother, sterile and in old age against the laws of nature, in much the same miraculous way Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin.
John writes, “. . . people’s religion is based on what they were taught by their parents. You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country.”
John, this is hogwash. There are/have been MILLIONS of Christians whose parents aren’t/weren’t Christians and there are probably millions—and certainly will be after the atheist brainwashing of our public schools—whose parents are/were Christians whose children aren’t. Dinesh D’Souza’s forbears were Christianized by missionaries. I know people—here, in Canada, I’m not making this up—who became Christians as adults, even those who grew up in other religious faiths—or none.
John, where have you been, that you could make such an outlandish claim?
To quote an ancient Scottish prayer, followed by my addition: “From ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties, and things that go bump in the night” and, from John’s invincible ignorance, good Lord, deliver us!
Many thanks, fc. I hope Farmer Joe will give it a listen. (I’ve sung this sublime music many times.) IMO, the most beautiful music I know was inspired by the love of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus. For those who don’t believe, this is no proof that Christianity is true, but it sure leads one to suspect it might well be!
“The bible is so prophetic yet jesus didn’t even know enough to tell us to wash our hands before eating and that this simple commandment could have helped prevent all sorts of disease.”
This statement is the product of an idiot IQ equal to that of a baby seal after being clubbed.
And worse,
“. . . people’s religion is based on what they were taught by their parents. You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country.”
Soooooo, how do you ‘splain the emergence and quick growth of Christianity in pagan countries?
It’s amazing that John has even the mental capacity to perform mechanical tasks like breathing.
What is this, the radical athiest ‘B’ team?
John are you that dense as to think that I haven’t read the Biblical contradictions? Let me give you but one example. One Gospel account says that Judas went out and hanged himself. Another Gospel says that Judas fell down and the fall caused his intestines to fall out. Inconsistent, yes? Actually, no. Tradition has it the Judas hanged himself from a tree on the edge of a cliff. When he hanged himself the rope or the branch holding the rope broke and he fell to his death.
Now why don’t you look up fulfilled prophecy of the Bible and be amazed. For example there is a passage that says that the power of the King of Israel shall not fail until the Messiah comes. That power was often interpreted to mean capital punishment. In fact during the early first century one Jewish sage commented that the sceptre had departed the King when Rome removed the power of capital punishment from the king of Israel. Funnily enough it happened when the Messiah (Jesus) was living in Nazareth.
As an atheist, I WOULD be interested in hearing a defence of some of the “facts” as presented in the bible as part of the “proof” of Jesus’ “resurrection”; for example, we’re told that Mary Magdalene “discovered the resurrection” when she went to “anoint Jesus’ body” after it had laid in the tomb for three days.
There are several reasons why this could not have happened under Jewish law, including the fact that it is not permitted to interfere with a body after it has been placed in a tomb. Under Jewish burial rituals, a body must be ritually cleaned, have prayers recited, etc., and it must be accompanied from the moment of declaration of death until that body is interred (the Jews have official “accompaniers” who do this, called “shomerim”, who themselves follow certain rituals while they watch over the body). After that body is interred, it is anathema to touch or interfere with it, so the idea that an observant Jew in Judea would have gone to “anoint” a body that had already been buried for three days is plainly ludicrous. Second, because much of the ritual behind preparing a body for burial under Jewish law involves cleaning that body, only males are allowed to perform those rites on males, and only females are allowed to perform those rites on females; therefore, “Mary Magdalene”, being a woman, would not have been ALLOWED to perform these rites on a male body. It may certainly be an interesting story, but I don’t see anything that approaches “proof” that someone was a “messenger from god” 2000 years ago.
SDC
Let me get this straight, because a woman who followed Jesus wanted to annoint His body which she believed was improperly prepared before burial in a heavily guarded tomb therefore Jesus couldn’t be the Messiah. Sorry but I don’t quite follow your logic. The actions of the woman have no bearing on the Person of Jesus.
There are several reasons why this could not have happened under Jewish law…
Christians aren’t under “Jewish ordinances” (rituals).
Colossians 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Colossians 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Colossians 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
…and
“Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” – Romans 10:4 (NKJV)
We sinned. Christ died in our place. Game Over. No more law.
“having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it away, having nailed it to the cross.” – Colossians 2:14 (NKJV)
SDC –
Okay I just lost my entire post, so instead of being able to read Bible passages, you’ll have to look them up, if so inclined.
St. John 19:38-42
Herein states two men prepared Jesus’s body according to the manner of the Jews with a hundred pound weight of myrrh and aloes.
St. Luke 16:1
Mary Magdalene went with two other people with sweet spices so that they might anoint him.
SDC – I would suggest you actually read the Bible and not rely on heresay.
Stephen – when Christ was crucified, he was the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind. The laws and statues still exist.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18).
I should also point out the Mary Magdalene went to anoint Jesus after he was already wound in linens and prepared according to the manner of the Jews by Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus.
The laws and statues still exist.
Yes, only the ordinances (rituals) were done away with.
[quote]SDC
Let me get this straight, because a woman who followed Jesus wanted to annoint His body which she believed was improperly prepared before burial in a heavily guarded tomb therefore Jesus couldn’t be the Messiah. Sorry but I don’t quite follow your logic. [/quote]
The only logic required is to know that the story as presented in the Bible COULDN’T and WOULDN’T have happened as presented, because if these people are who the Bible says they were (Jews), their actions would have been prohibited under Jewish law. That means that there is a hole the size of a Cat D50 in the story.
[quote] Christians aren’t under “Jewish ordinances” (rituals).[/quote]
Ol hoss, you DO realize that the people being written about in the Bible were Jews, don’t you? Christianity is an ofshoot of Judaism, just as Protestantism is an offshoot of Catholicism, and Mormonism is an offshoot of Protestantism. Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Apostles, and the other primary characters in the story were all Jews, who lived according to Jewish laws (except, we’re told, in this particular case).
[quote]SDC – I would suggest you actually read the Bible and not rely on heresay. [/quote]
Joanne, I HAVE read the Bible, but this issue is only one of the many loose ends and contradictions that means I can’t force myself to believe in this particular version of an invisible man in the sky. My above points (Jewish law prohibits interfering with a dead body after it has been buried, and allowing a female to have anything to do with preparing a male body for burial) aren’t simply “wouln’t haves”, they are “COULDN’T HAVES”. It’s not a case of “Mary Magdalene wouldn’t have gone to anoint a dead body that had already been buried for 3 days because handling a dead body in the desert is icky and a pretty good recipe for catching a number of gruesome diseases” (though that is the likely explanation for the Jewish prohibition in the first place), it’s a case of “they COULDN’T HAVE served ham sandwiches and lobster bisque at the Last Supper, because observant Jews are prohibited from eating pork and shellfish”. The same Jewish laws that cover these aspects of Jewish life also cover things like burial, and those laws say that any preparation of a body (including “anointing”) for burial has to take place BEFORE a body is placed in a tomb (you can’t come back 3 days later and say “Ooops, I forgot something” and do it then), and only males are allowed to have anything to do with preparing male bodies, and only females are allowed to prepare female bodies. Both of these stand out as not making any sense in the story as presented. The OTHER aspects of the story likewise depend on which specific version of the story you decide you want to believe, such as who we are told went to perform this “anointing”. John 20 only says that it was Mary Magdalene, Matthew 28 says TWO women did this (Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary”), Mark 16 says THREE women did this (Mary Magdalene, Mary “the mother of James”, and Salome), and Luke simply says “women” without specifying how many.
SDC
You know how many different kinds of ways there are to be a Christian today?
That is how it was among Jews 2000 years ago when Judea was occupied by Rome. Rabbinic Judaism, as it is known today, did not exist yet – the Talmud, Mishna, had not yet been written. There were Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, and many other smaller sects. It was a very intense period and Jews thought that End Times were near. This tension built and built until the Jewish Revolt broke out in 66. The Romans had to send several Legions to put down the revolt which lasted 4 years and ended at Masada.
The reason that I say all this is that for you to pick a few Jewish laws and put down the whole of Christianity based on your speculation that no Jews would have broken the law/commandment to not go back to the body, is well, kind of silly. There were of course many Jews at the time, breaking many commandments (eating non-kosher food with their Roman neighbours and overlords for instance).
Something obviously happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, something that changed the world for the better. For you to dismiss Christian belief just because you think some Jews would not have broken a few mitzvot/commandments/laws is not rational.
[quote]Something obviously happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, something that changed the world for the better. For you to dismiss Christian belief just because you think some Jews would not have broken a few mitzvot/commandments/laws is not rational.[/quote]
I don’t DOUBT that something happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, what I don’t see any evidence for is that this “something” was “the execution and resurrection of the son of god”. If these people followed the codes of behaviour that the Bible TELLS us they followed, the story falls apart under its own weight. Since the story the Bible tells is an extraordinary claim to begin with, should we not expect some sort of extraordinary PROOF to go along with that claim? Well, rather than offering any sort of extraordinary proof, the best that the Bible has to offer is four conflicting accounts of who, what, where, when, and how (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). I don’t believe any OTHER religion when it has inconsistencies like this, so why should I make some sort of exception in this case?
SDC
So you think that the contemporary Jews who wrote the story didn’t know about that contemporary traditon and all its strictures? I think that the inclusion of the story lends credence to the story not de-legitimizes it. Had it not happened it would not have been invented because of the very tradition you quote.
Lets put it this way if no one ever broke the tradition of the elders then Mary would not have been there to begin with. Until Jesus drove out her demons she was a prostitute. What Jewish Rabbi would have anything to do with prostitutes.
“So you think that the contemporary Jews who wrote the story didn’t know about that contemporary traditon and all its strictures? I think that the inclusion of the story lends credence to the story not de-legitimizes it. Had it not happened it would not have been invented because of the very tradition you quote.”
exactly Joe
It’s called “inconvenient history” and there is plenty of it in the Bible.
– would you create a history of your nation that says you used to be slaves, unless there was no way to ignore that this happened?
– if you were trying to claim the land of Canaan, would you admit that your ancestors actually came from Mesopotamia (Abraham is from Ur)unless they actually did come from there, and everybody knew it?
– if you were a group of temple priests writing up a saga to convince your people to restrict their diet, their sex life, take a day off work, not mix linen and wool in their clothing, etc., would you actually admit that the ancestor of the priests, Levi, was involved in a terrible mass murder?
SDC says: “If these people followed the codes of behaviour that the Bible TELLS us they followed”
SDC everything we know about Jews back then, indicates that they were much the same in their temperament, outlook, observance patterns etc as the Jews of all times – argumentative, loving debate and dialogue, idealistic and ranging in their observance levels of the mitzvot/laws. Try to imagine Jews arguing and differing from each other? Not too difficult right. Peter and James the brother of Jesus had a big difference of opinion recorded in the Book of Acts. Both Jews. Peter advocated abandoning the dietary restrictions and need for circumsion for the followers of Jesus. But according to you, all of the Jews were monolithic in their outlook and observance levels. Yup, that makes sense.
SDC you mention the execution of Jesus – the Romans crucified thousands of Jews, especially those that might cause trouble for the Roman Empire. If you doubt the resurection, whatever. Jesus lives in the deeds, ideals, and accomplishments of those who established a religion in his name.
Kate thanks very much for posting that. I enjoyed both debaters.
I find there is a good deal of hypocrisy within the Christian community. The most obvious and simple example is the politician, who states for example that he is a Catholic, and who then proceeds to pass laws which directly contradict his purported faith.
Unfortunately Christianity is too riddled with inconsistencies and hypocrisy for me to take it very seriously. Nothing against Christians per se, I know many a good Christian, but I find religion as whole, Christian or otherwise, logically flawed.
It is so sad how almost every internet debate on christianity I have witnessed degrades into an US vs THEM session.
I hope by sharing some of my views and feelings,I can help broaden the base of understanding here.
Personally,I regularly congratulate my christian friends on their faith,but only those I see actually living what they preach.I understand it’s a damn hard path to stay true to and have deep respect for them when I witness the integrity and bravery it often demands.The problem being for many of us non-religious folks is that we regularly witness much hypocrisy by many who claim to be deeply christian but often ACT anything but.That actually goes for ANY religion.
You see,I have been a christian,so I have some understanding of their faith and what it entails.On the other hand,most life long christians have no idea what it is like being an athiest and struggling with the areas that belief takes you.
You see,the big problem with forums like this is that one or two anonymous assholes claiming to be athiests come along to take some potshots at christians,then the next thing I know,I’m being labelled anti-christian because I have athiistic beliefs.That is simply bigotry,and I get frustrated when I witness that hateful behavior from a few who claim to believe in the message of God.It is further disturbing when those hateful remarks go UNCHALLENGED by other christians posting on the same thread.
The biggest myth I see generally fed on sites such as these is that athiests are somehow organized and have an agenda.
First of all,I don’t have an agenda and don’t like being pidgeon-holed with a group of others who I don’t associate with.I do understand however that many who frequent sites such as these can only think in simplistic terms of left/right,black/white,good/evil and have nary a clue that any shades of grey even exist in our reality.
Secondly,I can’t imagine any atheist,who has seriously thought through the truth of his convictions,who would not GLADLY be proven to be wrong.Just think about the how honest someone has to be with themselves to decide that their beliefs are actually the LAST thing they want to believe.It took me 25 yrs to make the transition from agnostic to athiest because of the fear and guilt I was taught in a Catholic household.
No intelligent individual WANTS to commit himself to mortality.
I am often left wondering….”Would I be the person I am today if I wasn’t brought up as a christian?”I guess I will never know.
What I do know now however,from raising my two fine daughters,is that it is entirely possible to create good,honest,empathic and moral citizens outside of religion too.
The bottom line to me is…..
Anyone,no matter their spirituality,can be taught moral character.
I see far too often religion used as a force to seperate as opposed to bring together.
Just like partisanship…race…economic status,etc.
Finally,to those trapped in that sad “us and them mentality”,my intentions here are NOT to tell anyone what to think,but instead to help them understand what others may think.
To my many christian friends and family members…
Merry Christmas and may peace be with all of us some day.
teddy, thank you very much for a thoughtful, charitable post. I appreciate what you have to say and respect your obvious intelligence and goodwill.
I do have a concern, however, which you allude to when you write:
“I am often left wondering….’Would I be the person I am today if I wasn’t brought up as a Christian?’ I guess I will never know. [I think I have an idea . . . ]
“What I do know now however, from raising my two fine daughters, is that it is entirely possible to create good, honest, empathic and moral citizens outside of religion too.”
teddy, probably most of the assumptions of “the good”, by which you live a good life and have raised two fine children, are based on the Christian civilization which formed you. So, in reality, I don’t think you have raised your daughters “outside of religion”. You’ve passed on to them the moral understanding inculcated in you by your Christian upbringing.
How long do you think the Christian assumptions, well summed up in The Golden Rule, will survive, outside of a specifically Christian society? I posit, not very long. As I’ve mentioned many times, I see a precipitous decline in civil behaviour in the public school system and in society as a whole. Believe me, we’ve now spent most of the moral capital of Christian civilization and, without a refill—none on the horizon that I can see—we’ll soon be a much more pagan, coercive, superstitious society than we’ve been under Christianity.
Interestingly, the same theme was discussed in the pages of the National Post today: Barbara Kay, a Jewish columnist—whom I greatly admire—also posited that, although she does not believe in a personal God, she loves Judaism because it promotes moral behaviour.
A letter writer says, “Thousands of years of adherence to the Jewish religion has presented Ms. Kay with the cultural richness she now enjoys. But what about her children and grandchildren—and theirs? Without belief, there will be nothing to sustain what she is now benefiting from.” I say Amen.
It seems to me that the many difficult sacrifices—delayed gratification, fidelity, etc.—that belief gives one the stamina to uphold (imperfectly) over the long run become quickly watered down when belief is sidelined. The idea that the fruits of faith will long outlast actual faith itself is, I believe, a delusion. teddy, you and your children are the beneficiaries of centuries of Christian belief and practice. I think you fool yourself if you think The Golden Rule will prevail in a secular society.
Power is a constant: when it is subordinate—always imperfectly—to a higher, benign power, such as the Judeo-Christian God, it is modified. When there is no such restriction—note the 20th century Communist regimes—tyranny and slaughter prevail.
“The wages of sin is death.” Yes, we are altogether free to reject faith: indeed, no one can coerce us to believe. However, believe me, once the Christian faith no longer has a prominent place in the public square, that vacuum will be filled—it’s already happening. IMO, secularism is not a pretty sight and a terrible threat to the good as we perceive it.
P.S. fc, many thanks for the sing-along Allegri: I love it! The Bryd Ave Verum is an old friend; the Verdi I haven’t sung: wonderful to listen to.
Different apostles stating the version of the same events differently is absolutely and utterly normal and expected. If, we wanted no ‘inconsistencies’ and I use this word loosely, there would be only one or two books in the New Testament, if the apostles were to tell the exact same chain of events. An apostle naming the names of the people who went to anoint Jesus or an apostle just stating women went to anoint Jesus is not an inconsistency, it is just a different version of events.
Jews in the Bible refers to the people of the tribe of Judah, not the religion of the Jews of the modern day Jew who denies Jesus as the Son of God. Many people of the tribe of Judah believed and believe Christ to be the Son of God.
Who cried out for Jesus to be crucified? The Jews cried out for Jesus to be crucified; those who denied Jesus as their King. It is no great wonder Jews of today and yesteryear have been persecuted throughout the ages. There has never seemed to any great logic to the continued persecution of Jews even unto this day, unless you take into account the sins of their fathers and their present continued denial of the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I realize the Bible’s writings sound rather ‘bogus’ to the unbelievers, but to walk in the word of God is a journey, not an event, and the truth will be revealed to those who seek it with all their heart.
lookout at December 27, 2007 2:32 PM
Bravo – excellent post.
Joanne, I agree with you about lookout’s post at 2:32, bravo lookout.
But Joanne you may want to reconsider your idea that Jews are persecuted because they do not recognize Jesus as the son of God – are you actually saying that God punishes people who deny the birth and resurrection of Jesus?
By the way, Jews do not deny that Jesus lived. Jews just do not think that Jesus is the son of God. Big difference.
Also the Jews living at the time of Jesus (yes from the tribe of Judah, the other tribes having become the lost tribes of Israel after loosing to the Assyrians and being dispersed around 800 BC)were doing exactly the same things that Jews do today, and that they had been doing for approx. 1300 years before that: ie. Passover, Shavuot, Sukkot, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, kosher food laws, Shabbat, etc. The difference is that at the time of Jesus the Temple still stood in Jerusalem. There have been two Jewish Temples in Jerusalem – one destroyed by the Babylonians in about 500 BC and the other destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Jews living at the time of Jesus practiced Temple Judaism with animal sacrifices.
ex – liberal
Hebrews 12:6 “If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?”
It is best to read verses before and after verse 6 for further clarity.
Matthew 5:45 “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
I believe God disciplines those he loves and regards as his sons. I know God loves me and has disciplined me; I do not believe the Jews would be exempt, and if God did not punish the Jews for their transgressions, and let’s face it – calling for Jesus to be crucified would be the ultimate sin – then I may be led to believe that God no longer regards them as sons and their salvation is naught. I believe Jesus is all but pounding on their door to be let in, but to little avail. I understand many Jews – the religion – are accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour these days.
Yes, I believe people were punished throughout the Bible for their transgressions, as we are being today for our transgressions. I believe denying Jesus is the Son of God certainly has negative ramifications; there is no salvation for those who deny the same since our salvation is through Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, collateral damage is extensive and the greater our nations’ sins, the greater the collateral damage.
Joanne,
for Jesus to be the Saviour, did he have to be crucified? shouldn’t Christians then be thankful to Judas, Pontius Pilate, and the Jews shouting for his crucifixion?
are future generations guilty for transgressions of their ancestors?
Jews who accept Jesus as son of God, will not have Jewish grandchildren (ie children who identify as Jews)
I support you in your Christianity, but God has not abandoned the Jews for not becoming Christians, in fact the opposite is true. For instance the promise of the ingathering has occured and Jews are once again sovereign in Jerusalem. I understand that this is something that some Christians cannot accept, because they think that Jews were sent into the diaspora for not accepting Jesus as their Lord and therefore they are against Jews being in control of Jerusalem. It goes against their (replacement) theology.
(thank you to Kate for indulging in this exchange)
lookout: “P.S. fc, many thanks for the sing-along Allegri: I love it! The Bryd Ave Verum is an old friend; the Verdi I haven’t sung: wonderful to listen to.”
And in return thanks for your great post today at
2:32 PM. I also read the Barbara Kay column, and thought on it for awhile, but until your post today, I wasn’t able to complete those thoughts.
If you live in or near a major centre, eventually your arts community will decide to produce the Verdi Requiem and you will have your chance to sing in it. Here in frigid Winnipeg, practices begin next month for the performance Easter Saturday. Plenty of “diei irae” between now and then. But a wonderful feast of sound for Christians and lovers of Italian opera.
fc
lookout,
Thank you for obviously putting some effort into understanding my thoughts and offering your own.
As per the point you raise…thus my use of the words “I am left wondering…”
I did not want to write a novel on the topic,but had I no respect for Kate’s bandwidth,I would have extrapolated on where some of these points were taking me.Let me see if I can communicate this now efficiently and briefly.
I have been quite frustrated for some time now,as I eluded to before,that our religions,races,political beliefs,etc.are being used to drive people apart,not closer together.
For example,I have found many religious people to be quite hostile towards members of any other belief system.
Thus,we face a very fragmented society here in Canada.The result of this,which I would think most people would agree with,is that we have a general lack of kindness,empathy,respect and personal responsibility in our society today.
My point being….Why the hell is teaching morality and personal responsibility not up their with reading,writing and math in our schools?
Surely their are some basics we could ALL agree on,no matter our backgrounds.
Sea Salt asks “Q: How do Christians argue with Muslims when they say the Koran is the final word of God as revealed by Mohammed?”
Quite easily actually. When you read the Bible there are many books written by many authors over thousands of years. Each author adds without taking away from the other. There is a consistency that leads people to think that they are reading one book and not 66 books. In other words many witnesses. We even have four accounts of Jesus earthly ministry. Each account is different yet consistent with the others.
The Qur’an is one book written by one man. Its history is inconsistent with other much older historical accounts. Its practices often counter other codes of conduct consistent with other Abramic religions, of which it claims to be one. It claims to be Abramic in its theology but is alien to older Abramic theologies and the character and lifestyle of the author would lead one to doubt the claim of the author’s self proclaimed prophetic ability.
Finally through out the Bible are accounts of God’s direct intervention in events (miracles) that bolster the basic theology and the people’s claims about their God. There are no such accounts in the Qur’an. Mohammed did not miraculously feed the hungry, turn water into wine, open the eyes of the blind and raise the dead.
Thanks, Me No Dhimmi, for the “Christmas present” of the article outlining the history of slavery and Christianity’s leading the charge to abolish it. One thing the author of the article said which was telling and chilling as it affects what has happened in Canada:
“Hitchens isn’t this stupid, and neither are his readers. But they have not troubled to learn this history, and no one is telling them about it.”
Over ten years ago, when my children were in the elementary public school system, I caught wind of a new history curriculum the Board of Ed., under the auspices of the Ministry of Education (then NDP), was proposing. There was a general invitation to all parents to come to an information session one evening at the Board Office.
A friend and I drove the 80 kms (round trip) and found ourselves in a room with about 20 other “interested parents.” Not exactly an overwhelming show of curiosity on the part of parents about what history their children were going to be taught which, of course, is one of the reasons Canadians are so ignorant of so many things, especially the history of our country.
I was not particularly surprised, though I was extremely alarmed, to discover that this so-called “Common Curriculum” (in keeping with the change in our designation of time from “AD” to “Common Era”) was proposing that Canadian history, essentially, begin in the here and now–being the early 1990s–with very little reference to either our British or Judeo-Christian heritage which, if one is being accurate and/or honest, had a huge impact on Canada’s democratic institutions.
Both Christianity and Britishness were being summarily airbrushed from Canadian history. Very few people mounted an objection, though I did that night, getting odd and hostile glances from the Board officials on the panel.
I think the so-called Common Curriculum was deep-sixed when the Conservatives got back into office, though Canadian students are still in the dark when it comes to the actual history of our country. Most young people have no concept of the positive role played by both the British rule of law and order and the Judeo-Christian foundations of our public institutions in the making of Canada as the liberal democracy it is today. In fact, most of them would take Christopher Hitchen’s uninformed and rather nasty view that faith–in particular, the Christian faith–is a positive ill and evil which is responsible for many of the problems in our world today.
All one can continue to do–aside from rent one’s garments asunder and tear one’s hair out–is to speak truth into lies wherever possible. This Dinesh D’Souza and a few others eloquently do, but not in the numbers I’d like to see.
This is what I and a few others, like lookout and Joe Molnar, try to do on forums like SDA. I kind of see it as the drip, drip, drip, effect, which eventually wears down the stubborn hardness of the rock…but probably not in my lifetime!
Anyway, great food for though. Thanks again, MND!
@ Joe
Sorry man, that wasn’t an easy refutation. The alledged Judeo-Christian miracles, one has to take on an article of faith. (Faith being, I’m willing to accept the implausibility of it, but I still believe it.) So they might not have happened, and in all likelihood didn’t. And as for Islam, wouldn’t you say God giving personal dictation to Mohammed constitues a miracle?
-Sea Salt
Sea Salt (as in “stinging” I guess: ouch!), I actually WRITE that stuff!
Speaking of reading, did you read anything else I said? Based on the empirical evidence of my long-term experience with people like Hitchens (including his prima donna posturing in this debate), I think I made a reasonable case for his being an insufferable bully/bore bantam.
So, just what is your point? (BTW, not just off-the-top-of-your-entitled head, toddler-so-far: I’m mad! opinion, please, but some engagement with the facts I’ve presented. Maybe you can fill in the blanks Hitchens refused to—or couldn’t—do.)
Go for it, SS!
lookout said:
Christopher Hitchens comes across as an angry, self-satisfied, graceless prig
See the sheer venality of the man who after all was a Trotskyite well into his 50s.
Hitchens being a a**hole at Reason Magazine
d’Souza: Haven’t had a chance to look at the debate, but do search jihadwatch for his nutty apologetic theories for Islamofascism — revenge against Brittany Spears. No really.
One of the more interesting arguments that Dinesh used was when he talked about Hume and scepticism in general. It was the notion of absolute scepticism and the example used was the speed of light but could have been any one of a number of things. An absolute sceptic will say that no matter how many times you see or measure something there is always a chance that next time it will be different. As Karl Popper, another famous sceptic would say it is not that the exact speed of light has been proven to be true again it has just once again failed to be proven false.
Christians like Dinesh leap on this as evidence that miracles are then ‘theoretically’ and even scientifically possible.
Absolute sceptics have an answer for this, but I am not an absolute sceptic, a healthy one yes but not an absolute one. I believe that one can know the truth about something, be absolutely certain about it and it does not require faith. 2+2=4 it always has and it always will it is absolutely true and there will never come a time when it will equal something other than 4.
Using the same methodology it is safe to say no one has ever risen from the dead in the manner that Christ supposedly did, you can not create something(like the Universe) out of nothing and there is no afterlife. Its not that there is little evidence of any of this, it is that there is NO empirical evidence to back any of this up.
I don’t have faith that 2+2=4, I don’t have too, it is based completely on verifiable and absolute facts of reality.
Either something is part of the natural world(Universe) or it is not, it cannot be both.
And as doug Newton said earlier, “The believer however,in the absence of knowledge, chooses to believe that there is life after death.” This is not an absence of knowledge it is an absence of evidence, there is no evidence to back up the claim, hence the leap of “faith”. As an Atheist who follows the evidence I don’t have faith that death is final, the evidence shows me that it is. And every person that has ever died and will die in the future is the verification. Hitchins is right when he says, “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence”.
And yes I am a “prick” thank-you for noticing.
I have a deep and profound philosophic question:
At every opportunity she tells us over and over that she is an atheist. So where is she now? Of course I mean ET. I would like to hear from her even if I have to listen to her telling us she’s an atheist seven or eight times in a single posting.
I don’t like to put words in people’s mouths, but I have a deep suspicion that ET is cringing at what Christopher Hitchens, fellow-atheist, puts forward as “reasoned (and reasonable?) debate.”
In his debate with D’Souza, I don’t think Hitchens answered one question. He reframed them, danced around them, twisted them, ridiculed them–in short, he did everything but answer them.
It was rather hilarious to watch his contortions, both physical and metaphysical.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Christopher Hitchens is not to be taken seriously. He, rather, is a comedian, bent on entertaining rather than enlightening his audience. He doesn’t seem to care a hoot at what an ass he looks (c’mon, beer to wet his whistle?). And I’m sure there’s good money in playing the fool, a role he plays admirably well.
That’s funny I thought the same thing about D’Souza.
Isn’t it strange that the NT – despite the dark ages, the hegemony of the Catholic Church, the Crusades, the inquisition and the desires of ‘Christian’ Princes – was not rewritten to sanctify and justify immoral, political, imperialist and violent actions?
Now contrast the above fact to the Quran.
On top of that, science claims its source to be fact based on observation. The Christian doctrine has some 25,000 credible, accurate, eyewitness and factual texts that support it.
Furthermore, how can an athiest know that nothing exists after life? For that to be proven true, ‘nothing’ would have to be observed. The required presence of an observer proves that nothing cannot exist.
“One of the other contradictions that gives me a chuckle is all the “peace on earth and good will towards man” stuff we get this time of year. When the man himself said…
” Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
-Luke 12:51-53″
Farmer Joe. Are you simply moonbat stupid, or willfully ignorant? To make any criticism valid, you must first fully understand the message that you are attacking. Furthermore, you must validate your objection based on the actions of the messenger.
“I was not particularly surprised, though I was extremely alarmed, to discover that this so-called “Common Curriculum” (in keeping with the change in our designation of time from “AD” to “Common Era”) was proposing that Canadian history, essentially, begin in the here and now–being the early 1990s–with very little reference to either our British or Judeo-Christian heritage which, if one is being accurate and/or honest, had a huge impact on Canada’s democratic institutions.”
A walk through any cemetary will prove the ‘new’ curriculum to be false.
Farmer Joe says, “I don’t have faith that 2+2=4, I don’t have too, it is based completely on verifiable and absolute facts of reality.”
So far, so good. But, wouldn’t the opposite end of the same stick be that “the verifiable and absolute facts of reality” for the West are that a great civilization came to be, based on the radical idea of equality before God (from Judaism) and the altruistic beliefs of Christianity? As a direct result of Christian belief, its followers produced among the greatest works of art, including music, as well as great feats, never seen before, in the areas of education, medicine, care for the downtrodden, jurisprudence, and democratic government. Those of us who live in the free countries—for now, sort of—of the West are all the beneficiaries of the Judeo-Christian dispensation.
Farmer Joe and his ilk recognize the obvious where they wish to and disregard it at will, it seems to me, when it doesn’t. Where, Farmer Joe, do you think the West would be without Christianity?
I suggest you watch a series, such as HBO’s Rome, in order to see what pagan life was like: the pagans didn’t lack belief. They did lack belief in gods with compassion or grace, though. Their sacrifices were blood sacrifices, not the sacrifice of “a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51: check out Allegri’s sublime setting of this), which is all that the Christian God requires—as a free will offering: neither He nor I will make you or Christopher Hitchens fall in line.
Please note that the changing dispensation in the West is towards paganism and coercion: e.g., Christians are now marginalized and hauled before Human Rights (sic) Commissions, where the right of due process is denied and re-education, ridicule, fines, and loss of livelihood are all part of the punishment. Right here. In Canada. I’m not making this up. This observation “is based completely on verifiable and absolute facts of reality.”
Farmer Joe, what do you think of that?
Personally, the “verifiable and absolute facts of reality” of the country Canada is fast becoming show that Christians like me could lose our jobs, not because we’re not good at them—some of us are exemplary—but because our thoughts don’t meet the state mandated “group think” (Orwell’s “doublethink” and “duckspeak”).
Farmer Joe, what do you think of that?
As I started out by saying, “verifiable and absolute facts of reality” cut both ways. But, regarding the positive fruits of Christianity, are the Farmer Joes, Christopher Hitchens, Sea Salts, and ETs of this world willing to be real? Unfortunately, the “verifiable and absolute facts of reality” seem to indicate the negative.
(People, like Me No Dhimmi, do not fit this category.)
Sea Salt
Leon Uris wrote in his book Exodus about the Six Day War and had the characters speak of that war as being miraculous. Then one of the characters said words to the effect that in the future someone is going to say that the war wasn’t 6 days it was 6 years and that the number of hostile enemies faced by Israel was much lower than the number given in the historical account. Denying an event because it doesn’t fit your preconceived idea of how things work is a mugs game played by fools. The earth was flat and you would fall off the edge – until someone sailed across the ocean and discovered not only land but people living on that land. Proving the flat earth believer doubly foolish.
One other incident that reminds me of how ignorant is the atheist’s position. For many years serious scholars doubted the existence of Sodom. There was no archaeological evidence showing that such a town ever existed. Then one day an ancient Egyptian library was discovered and in that library was an extant contract between the leader of Sodom and the Pharaoh of Egypt.
I’ve never seen a virus but because they make me sick I know they exist. I have seen miracles, and through interaction with Him I know that Yahweh exists.
My Father would often say that the two things we should never argue about, were religion, and politics. i don’t know where the quote came from but it is true.
bart, as Scout in “To Kill a Mockingbird” would say, “What in TARNATION are you talkin’ about?”
My dear, how about taking some smelling salts?
This is obviously no place for you. Why not head out to one of those churches where the last thing they’ll talk about is religion? I could supply you with a list of “safe spaces”.
@Farmer Joe (1:03 PM):
If I wanted to horse around with the “2 + 2 = 4” bedrock, I could say that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11.
To get more serious: are you the type who believes that a politician out hustling votes on the stump is at his/her most truthful? If not, then why would you supply a quote from 1928 Hitler which only shows, prima facie, that he was vote-grubbing? The leader of a party that could at the time garner only a small minority of votes, and yet seriously intended to govern Germany, would have had to have been a bloody fool to say anything to alienate the majority faith.
That’s why the anti-Christian Table Talk quotes are typically considered to be solid evidence of the ‘real Hitler’ with respect to Christianity. His power was secure at that point, so he didn’t have to worry about ticking off the majority all that much by then.
If you want to brandish Hitler around, kindly consider the point that the antidemocrat can do so far more credibly. What was National Socialism, if not a program of setting the majority against a stigmatizable minority? (Of course, this particular argument fails because it assumes that human beings, as voters, are group-chained monads that don’t sympathize with others from different walks of life. ‘Democratists out of their skulls’ like Hitler are so rare because that assumption is false.)
“It would help if Christians could show some evidence of God or Jesus rather than just quoting what is obviously ineffective.”
Posted by: Jim Pettit
In the Bible is the testimony of men and what they saw with their eyes and heard with their ears….you’ll need a heart to believe though as stated in the Bible. Prophecy abounds in the Bible, of which has come about in all cases to present, except for the prophecies still to occur. History is a wonderful thing, and the Bible is a record of the past and a record of what is to come in the future. There is plenty of proof in the Bible; it is one’s choice to believe it or not.
>He he …your timeline is a tad distorted and you knowledge of theology is also a tad distorted…
No, the point is, which you seem to miss, that people’s religion is based on what they were taught by their parents. You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country.
If you had been born a Greek in the ancient times, you would believe in Zeus and Apollo, if you had been born in ancient Egypt you would believe in Ra and Horus.
Do you really believe that you would still believe in Jesus if you were born to Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia ? The odds are very slim. Too bad you don’t seem honest enough to yourself to admit that. You did not address the point at all.
The bible is so prophetic yet jesus didn’t even know enough to tell us to wash our hands before eating and that this simple commandment could have helped prevent all sorts of disease.
Nostradamus and daily horror-scopes have as much true predictions as the bible.
The problem with “faith” should be all clear to us by now, it is dangerous. Faith means believing in things with no evidence and once you accept that this is ok, then you have no basis to complain about anyones else faith.
The muslim who kills infidels because it is his faith, the jewish settlers who think god ‘gave’ them the west bank, the people who have doomsday suicide cults, or the utterly stupid Christian-Zionists who cynically ally themselves with Israel to format war because they believe this will bring the end times, these are the end results of “faith”
There are many miracles in the Bible that were doubted in the past and used as examples of why the Bible cannot be true, such as:
– virgin birth; and
– Christ arising from the dead.
With the wonders of modern medicine, both can and have been achieved. Funny, that.
The Bible said that the stars in the sky were as numerous as the sands on the beach…absolutely correct and unlikely to be in keeping with contemporary thought. The Bible spoke about currents or rivers in the sky, leading to the discovery of the jet stream. There are many such examples.
Now, there are other accounts that I find much harder to believe, such as the account in the Old Testament of Moses (or was it Aaron) holding aloft his staff and causing the sun to stand still in the sky.
Many scholars said there was no evidence of Pontius Pilate existing…until they found evidence finally.
Funny, that. No proof of veracity necessarily, but very interesting nonetheless.
As for Farmer Joe slamming Christianity during Christmas…very, very tactless and in poor taste.
>Sea Salt asks “Q: How do Christians argue with Muslims when they say the Koran is the final word of God as revealed by Mohammed?”
> joe : Quite easily actually. When you read the Bible there are many books written by many authors over thousands of years. Each author adds without taking away from the other. There is a consistency that leads people to think that they are reading one book and not 66 books. In other words many witnesses. We even have four accounts of Jesus earthly ministry. Each account is different yet consistent with the others.
Gee Joe, you must have a read a totally different book then the one I read.
Please google “bible contradictions”
You claim above is completely false.
Christianity is the only religion which has seen God in his human form.
Christ said he was the Son of God and if this were not true, then it would be insane to believe the rest of his message of redemption, which is also different from all other religions.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit … the Divine Tri-Unity is clearly articulated in the Old Testament by the experience of Abraham, considered to be the inspiration of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Gen. 18:1: And the Lord appeared unto him at the Oaks of Mamre …
2: And he lifted up his eyes and, lo, three men stood by him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground.
3: And said, My Lord … (Notice, not my LordS)
Therefore, is God one as the Jews through Isaac and the Moslems through Hagar claim? Is he just the creator or does he bring, through Jesus, a way to redemption?
Isaac himself was born of an older mother, sterile and in old age against the laws of nature, in much the same miraculous way Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin.
John writes, “. . . people’s religion is based on what they were taught by their parents. You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country.”
John, this is hogwash. There are/have been MILLIONS of Christians whose parents aren’t/weren’t Christians and there are probably millions—and certainly will be after the atheist brainwashing of our public schools—whose parents are/were Christians whose children aren’t. Dinesh D’Souza’s forbears were Christianized by missionaries. I know people—here, in Canada, I’m not making this up—who became Christians as adults, even those who grew up in other religious faiths—or none.
John, where have you been, that you could make such an outlandish claim?
To quote an ancient Scottish prayer, followed by my addition: “From ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties, and things that go bump in the night” and, from John’s invincible ignorance, good Lord, deliver us!
lookout 2:30 pm “Psalm 51: check out Allegri’s sublime setting of this..”
This will help him out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x71jgMx0Mxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgZ0K8vCdbo
Sublime and ethereal.
fc
Many thanks, fc. I hope Farmer Joe will give it a listen. (I’ve sung this sublime music many times.) IMO, the most beautiful music I know was inspired by the love of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus. For those who don’t believe, this is no proof that Christianity is true, but it sure leads one to suspect it might well be!
“The bible is so prophetic yet jesus didn’t even know enough to tell us to wash our hands before eating and that this simple commandment could have helped prevent all sorts of disease.”
This statement is the product of an idiot IQ equal to that of a baby seal after being clubbed.
And worse,
“. . . people’s religion is based on what they were taught by their parents. You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country.”
Soooooo, how do you ‘splain the emergence and quick growth of Christianity in pagan countries?
It’s amazing that John has even the mental capacity to perform mechanical tasks like breathing.
What is this, the radical athiest ‘B’ team?
John are you that dense as to think that I haven’t read the Biblical contradictions? Let me give you but one example. One Gospel account says that Judas went out and hanged himself. Another Gospel says that Judas fell down and the fall caused his intestines to fall out. Inconsistent, yes? Actually, no. Tradition has it the Judas hanged himself from a tree on the edge of a cliff. When he hanged himself the rope or the branch holding the rope broke and he fell to his death.
Now why don’t you look up fulfilled prophecy of the Bible and be amazed. For example there is a passage that says that the power of the King of Israel shall not fail until the Messiah comes. That power was often interpreted to mean capital punishment. In fact during the early first century one Jewish sage commented that the sceptre had departed the King when Rome removed the power of capital punishment from the king of Israel. Funnily enough it happened when the Messiah (Jesus) was living in Nazareth.
As an atheist, I WOULD be interested in hearing a defence of some of the “facts” as presented in the bible as part of the “proof” of Jesus’ “resurrection”; for example, we’re told that Mary Magdalene “discovered the resurrection” when she went to “anoint Jesus’ body” after it had laid in the tomb for three days.
There are several reasons why this could not have happened under Jewish law, including the fact that it is not permitted to interfere with a body after it has been placed in a tomb. Under Jewish burial rituals, a body must be ritually cleaned, have prayers recited, etc., and it must be accompanied from the moment of declaration of death until that body is interred (the Jews have official “accompaniers” who do this, called “shomerim”, who themselves follow certain rituals while they watch over the body). After that body is interred, it is anathema to touch or interfere with it, so the idea that an observant Jew in Judea would have gone to “anoint” a body that had already been buried for three days is plainly ludicrous. Second, because much of the ritual behind preparing a body for burial under Jewish law involves cleaning that body, only males are allowed to perform those rites on males, and only females are allowed to perform those rites on females; therefore, “Mary Magdalene”, being a woman, would not have been ALLOWED to perform these rites on a male body. It may certainly be an interesting story, but I don’t see anything that approaches “proof” that someone was a “messenger from god” 2000 years ago.
lookout,
More examples of the sublime, in case the last wasn’t enough to soften the heart of the Farmer. I would guess you’ve also sung at least one of these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBYLNbKoPP0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL9TXRzXt_0
fc
SDC
Let me get this straight, because a woman who followed Jesus wanted to annoint His body which she believed was improperly prepared before burial in a heavily guarded tomb therefore Jesus couldn’t be the Messiah. Sorry but I don’t quite follow your logic. The actions of the woman have no bearing on the Person of Jesus.
There are several reasons why this could not have happened under Jewish law…
Christians aren’t under “Jewish ordinances” (rituals).
Colossians 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Colossians 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Colossians 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
…and
“Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” – Romans 10:4 (NKJV)
We sinned. Christ died in our place. Game Over. No more law.
“having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it away, having nailed it to the cross.” – Colossians 2:14 (NKJV)
SDC –
Okay I just lost my entire post, so instead of being able to read Bible passages, you’ll have to look them up, if so inclined.
St. John 19:38-42
Herein states two men prepared Jesus’s body according to the manner of the Jews with a hundred pound weight of myrrh and aloes.
St. Luke 16:1
Mary Magdalene went with two other people with sweet spices so that they might anoint him.
SDC – I would suggest you actually read the Bible and not rely on heresay.
Stephen – when Christ was crucified, he was the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind. The laws and statues still exist.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18).
I should also point out the Mary Magdalene went to anoint Jesus after he was already wound in linens and prepared according to the manner of the Jews by Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus.
The laws and statues still exist.
Yes, only the ordinances (rituals) were done away with.
[quote]SDC
Let me get this straight, because a woman who followed Jesus wanted to annoint His body which she believed was improperly prepared before burial in a heavily guarded tomb therefore Jesus couldn’t be the Messiah. Sorry but I don’t quite follow your logic. [/quote]
The only logic required is to know that the story as presented in the Bible COULDN’T and WOULDN’T have happened as presented, because if these people are who the Bible says they were (Jews), their actions would have been prohibited under Jewish law. That means that there is a hole the size of a Cat D50 in the story.
[quote] Christians aren’t under “Jewish ordinances” (rituals).[/quote]
Ol hoss, you DO realize that the people being written about in the Bible were Jews, don’t you? Christianity is an ofshoot of Judaism, just as Protestantism is an offshoot of Catholicism, and Mormonism is an offshoot of Protestantism. Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Apostles, and the other primary characters in the story were all Jews, who lived according to Jewish laws (except, we’re told, in this particular case).
[quote]SDC – I would suggest you actually read the Bible and not rely on heresay. [/quote]
Joanne, I HAVE read the Bible, but this issue is only one of the many loose ends and contradictions that means I can’t force myself to believe in this particular version of an invisible man in the sky. My above points (Jewish law prohibits interfering with a dead body after it has been buried, and allowing a female to have anything to do with preparing a male body for burial) aren’t simply “wouln’t haves”, they are “COULDN’T HAVES”. It’s not a case of “Mary Magdalene wouldn’t have gone to anoint a dead body that had already been buried for 3 days because handling a dead body in the desert is icky and a pretty good recipe for catching a number of gruesome diseases” (though that is the likely explanation for the Jewish prohibition in the first place), it’s a case of “they COULDN’T HAVE served ham sandwiches and lobster bisque at the Last Supper, because observant Jews are prohibited from eating pork and shellfish”. The same Jewish laws that cover these aspects of Jewish life also cover things like burial, and those laws say that any preparation of a body (including “anointing”) for burial has to take place BEFORE a body is placed in a tomb (you can’t come back 3 days later and say “Ooops, I forgot something” and do it then), and only males are allowed to have anything to do with preparing male bodies, and only females are allowed to prepare female bodies. Both of these stand out as not making any sense in the story as presented. The OTHER aspects of the story likewise depend on which specific version of the story you decide you want to believe, such as who we are told went to perform this “anointing”. John 20 only says that it was Mary Magdalene, Matthew 28 says TWO women did this (Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary”), Mark 16 says THREE women did this (Mary Magdalene, Mary “the mother of James”, and Salome), and Luke simply says “women” without specifying how many.
SDC
You know how many different kinds of ways there are to be a Christian today?
That is how it was among Jews 2000 years ago when Judea was occupied by Rome. Rabbinic Judaism, as it is known today, did not exist yet – the Talmud, Mishna, had not yet been written. There were Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, and many other smaller sects. It was a very intense period and Jews thought that End Times were near. This tension built and built until the Jewish Revolt broke out in 66. The Romans had to send several Legions to put down the revolt which lasted 4 years and ended at Masada.
The reason that I say all this is that for you to pick a few Jewish laws and put down the whole of Christianity based on your speculation that no Jews would have broken the law/commandment to not go back to the body, is well, kind of silly. There were of course many Jews at the time, breaking many commandments (eating non-kosher food with their Roman neighbours and overlords for instance).
Something obviously happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, something that changed the world for the better. For you to dismiss Christian belief just because you think some Jews would not have broken a few mitzvot/commandments/laws is not rational.
[quote]Something obviously happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, something that changed the world for the better. For you to dismiss Christian belief just because you think some Jews would not have broken a few mitzvot/commandments/laws is not rational.[/quote]
I don’t DOUBT that something happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, what I don’t see any evidence for is that this “something” was “the execution and resurrection of the son of god”. If these people followed the codes of behaviour that the Bible TELLS us they followed, the story falls apart under its own weight. Since the story the Bible tells is an extraordinary claim to begin with, should we not expect some sort of extraordinary PROOF to go along with that claim? Well, rather than offering any sort of extraordinary proof, the best that the Bible has to offer is four conflicting accounts of who, what, where, when, and how (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). I don’t believe any OTHER religion when it has inconsistencies like this, so why should I make some sort of exception in this case?
SDC
So you think that the contemporary Jews who wrote the story didn’t know about that contemporary traditon and all its strictures? I think that the inclusion of the story lends credence to the story not de-legitimizes it. Had it not happened it would not have been invented because of the very tradition you quote.
Lets put it this way if no one ever broke the tradition of the elders then Mary would not have been there to begin with. Until Jesus drove out her demons she was a prostitute. What Jewish Rabbi would have anything to do with prostitutes.
“So you think that the contemporary Jews who wrote the story didn’t know about that contemporary traditon and all its strictures? I think that the inclusion of the story lends credence to the story not de-legitimizes it. Had it not happened it would not have been invented because of the very tradition you quote.”
exactly Joe
It’s called “inconvenient history” and there is plenty of it in the Bible.
– would you create a history of your nation that says you used to be slaves, unless there was no way to ignore that this happened?
– if you were trying to claim the land of Canaan, would you admit that your ancestors actually came from Mesopotamia (Abraham is from Ur)unless they actually did come from there, and everybody knew it?
– if you were a group of temple priests writing up a saga to convince your people to restrict their diet, their sex life, take a day off work, not mix linen and wool in their clothing, etc., would you actually admit that the ancestor of the priests, Levi, was involved in a terrible mass murder?
SDC says: “If these people followed the codes of behaviour that the Bible TELLS us they followed”
SDC everything we know about Jews back then, indicates that they were much the same in their temperament, outlook, observance patterns etc as the Jews of all times – argumentative, loving debate and dialogue, idealistic and ranging in their observance levels of the mitzvot/laws. Try to imagine Jews arguing and differing from each other? Not too difficult right. Peter and James the brother of Jesus had a big difference of opinion recorded in the Book of Acts. Both Jews. Peter advocated abandoning the dietary restrictions and need for circumsion for the followers of Jesus. But according to you, all of the Jews were monolithic in their outlook and observance levels. Yup, that makes sense.
SDC you mention the execution of Jesus – the Romans crucified thousands of Jews, especially those that might cause trouble for the Roman Empire. If you doubt the resurection, whatever. Jesus lives in the deeds, ideals, and accomplishments of those who established a religion in his name.
Kate thanks very much for posting that. I enjoyed both debaters.
I find there is a good deal of hypocrisy within the Christian community. The most obvious and simple example is the politician, who states for example that he is a Catholic, and who then proceeds to pass laws which directly contradict his purported faith.
Unfortunately Christianity is too riddled with inconsistencies and hypocrisy for me to take it very seriously. Nothing against Christians per se, I know many a good Christian, but I find religion as whole, Christian or otherwise, logically flawed.
It is so sad how almost every internet debate on christianity I have witnessed degrades into an US vs THEM session.
I hope by sharing some of my views and feelings,I can help broaden the base of understanding here.
Personally,I regularly congratulate my christian friends on their faith,but only those I see actually living what they preach.I understand it’s a damn hard path to stay true to and have deep respect for them when I witness the integrity and bravery it often demands.The problem being for many of us non-religious folks is that we regularly witness much hypocrisy by many who claim to be deeply christian but often ACT anything but.That actually goes for ANY religion.
You see,I have been a christian,so I have some understanding of their faith and what it entails.On the other hand,most life long christians have no idea what it is like being an athiest and struggling with the areas that belief takes you.
You see,the big problem with forums like this is that one or two anonymous assholes claiming to be athiests come along to take some potshots at christians,then the next thing I know,I’m being labelled anti-christian because I have athiistic beliefs.That is simply bigotry,and I get frustrated when I witness that hateful behavior from a few who claim to believe in the message of God.It is further disturbing when those hateful remarks go UNCHALLENGED by other christians posting on the same thread.
The biggest myth I see generally fed on sites such as these is that athiests are somehow organized and have an agenda.
First of all,I don’t have an agenda and don’t like being pidgeon-holed with a group of others who I don’t associate with.I do understand however that many who frequent sites such as these can only think in simplistic terms of left/right,black/white,good/evil and have nary a clue that any shades of grey even exist in our reality.
Secondly,I can’t imagine any atheist,who has seriously thought through the truth of his convictions,who would not GLADLY be proven to be wrong.Just think about the how honest someone has to be with themselves to decide that their beliefs are actually the LAST thing they want to believe.It took me 25 yrs to make the transition from agnostic to athiest because of the fear and guilt I was taught in a Catholic household.
No intelligent individual WANTS to commit himself to mortality.
I am often left wondering….”Would I be the person I am today if I wasn’t brought up as a christian?”I guess I will never know.
What I do know now however,from raising my two fine daughters,is that it is entirely possible to create good,honest,empathic and moral citizens outside of religion too.
The bottom line to me is…..
Anyone,no matter their spirituality,can be taught moral character.
I see far too often religion used as a force to seperate as opposed to bring together.
Just like partisanship…race…economic status,etc.
Finally,to those trapped in that sad “us and them mentality”,my intentions here are NOT to tell anyone what to think,but instead to help them understand what others may think.
To my many christian friends and family members…
Merry Christmas and may peace be with all of us some day.
teddy, thank you very much for a thoughtful, charitable post. I appreciate what you have to say and respect your obvious intelligence and goodwill.
I do have a concern, however, which you allude to when you write:
“I am often left wondering….’Would I be the person I am today if I wasn’t brought up as a Christian?’ I guess I will never know. [I think I have an idea . . . ]
“What I do know now however, from raising my two fine daughters, is that it is entirely possible to create good, honest, empathic and moral citizens outside of religion too.”
teddy, probably most of the assumptions of “the good”, by which you live a good life and have raised two fine children, are based on the Christian civilization which formed you. So, in reality, I don’t think you have raised your daughters “outside of religion”. You’ve passed on to them the moral understanding inculcated in you by your Christian upbringing.
How long do you think the Christian assumptions, well summed up in The Golden Rule, will survive, outside of a specifically Christian society? I posit, not very long. As I’ve mentioned many times, I see a precipitous decline in civil behaviour in the public school system and in society as a whole. Believe me, we’ve now spent most of the moral capital of Christian civilization and, without a refill—none on the horizon that I can see—we’ll soon be a much more pagan, coercive, superstitious society than we’ve been under Christianity.
Interestingly, the same theme was discussed in the pages of the National Post today: Barbara Kay, a Jewish columnist—whom I greatly admire—also posited that, although she does not believe in a personal God, she loves Judaism because it promotes moral behaviour.
A letter writer says, “Thousands of years of adherence to the Jewish religion has presented Ms. Kay with the cultural richness she now enjoys. But what about her children and grandchildren—and theirs? Without belief, there will be nothing to sustain what she is now benefiting from.” I say Amen.
It seems to me that the many difficult sacrifices—delayed gratification, fidelity, etc.—that belief gives one the stamina to uphold (imperfectly) over the long run become quickly watered down when belief is sidelined. The idea that the fruits of faith will long outlast actual faith itself is, I believe, a delusion. teddy, you and your children are the beneficiaries of centuries of Christian belief and practice. I think you fool yourself if you think The Golden Rule will prevail in a secular society.
Power is a constant: when it is subordinate—always imperfectly—to a higher, benign power, such as the Judeo-Christian God, it is modified. When there is no such restriction—note the 20th century Communist regimes—tyranny and slaughter prevail.
“The wages of sin is death.” Yes, we are altogether free to reject faith: indeed, no one can coerce us to believe. However, believe me, once the Christian faith no longer has a prominent place in the public square, that vacuum will be filled—it’s already happening. IMO, secularism is not a pretty sight and a terrible threat to the good as we perceive it.
P.S. fc, many thanks for the sing-along Allegri: I love it! The Bryd Ave Verum is an old friend; the Verdi I haven’t sung: wonderful to listen to.
Different apostles stating the version of the same events differently is absolutely and utterly normal and expected. If, we wanted no ‘inconsistencies’ and I use this word loosely, there would be only one or two books in the New Testament, if the apostles were to tell the exact same chain of events. An apostle naming the names of the people who went to anoint Jesus or an apostle just stating women went to anoint Jesus is not an inconsistency, it is just a different version of events.
Jews in the Bible refers to the people of the tribe of Judah, not the religion of the Jews of the modern day Jew who denies Jesus as the Son of God. Many people of the tribe of Judah believed and believe Christ to be the Son of God.
Who cried out for Jesus to be crucified? The Jews cried out for Jesus to be crucified; those who denied Jesus as their King. It is no great wonder Jews of today and yesteryear have been persecuted throughout the ages. There has never seemed to any great logic to the continued persecution of Jews even unto this day, unless you take into account the sins of their fathers and their present continued denial of the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I realize the Bible’s writings sound rather ‘bogus’ to the unbelievers, but to walk in the word of God is a journey, not an event, and the truth will be revealed to those who seek it with all their heart.
lookout at December 27, 2007 2:32 PM
Bravo – excellent post.
Joanne, I agree with you about lookout’s post at 2:32, bravo lookout.
But Joanne you may want to reconsider your idea that Jews are persecuted because they do not recognize Jesus as the son of God – are you actually saying that God punishes people who deny the birth and resurrection of Jesus?
By the way, Jews do not deny that Jesus lived. Jews just do not think that Jesus is the son of God. Big difference.
Also the Jews living at the time of Jesus (yes from the tribe of Judah, the other tribes having become the lost tribes of Israel after loosing to the Assyrians and being dispersed around 800 BC)were doing exactly the same things that Jews do today, and that they had been doing for approx. 1300 years before that: ie. Passover, Shavuot, Sukkot, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, kosher food laws, Shabbat, etc. The difference is that at the time of Jesus the Temple still stood in Jerusalem. There have been two Jewish Temples in Jerusalem – one destroyed by the Babylonians in about 500 BC and the other destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Jews living at the time of Jesus practiced Temple Judaism with animal sacrifices.
ex – liberal
Hebrews 12:6 “If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?”
It is best to read verses before and after verse 6 for further clarity.
Matthew 5:45 “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
I believe God disciplines those he loves and regards as his sons. I know God loves me and has disciplined me; I do not believe the Jews would be exempt, and if God did not punish the Jews for their transgressions, and let’s face it – calling for Jesus to be crucified would be the ultimate sin – then I may be led to believe that God no longer regards them as sons and their salvation is naught. I believe Jesus is all but pounding on their door to be let in, but to little avail. I understand many Jews – the religion – are accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour these days.
Yes, I believe people were punished throughout the Bible for their transgressions, as we are being today for our transgressions. I believe denying Jesus is the Son of God certainly has negative ramifications; there is no salvation for those who deny the same since our salvation is through Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, collateral damage is extensive and the greater our nations’ sins, the greater the collateral damage.
Joanne,
for Jesus to be the Saviour, did he have to be crucified? shouldn’t Christians then be thankful to Judas, Pontius Pilate, and the Jews shouting for his crucifixion?
are future generations guilty for transgressions of their ancestors?
Jews who accept Jesus as son of God, will not have Jewish grandchildren (ie children who identify as Jews)
I support you in your Christianity, but God has not abandoned the Jews for not becoming Christians, in fact the opposite is true. For instance the promise of the ingathering has occured and Jews are once again sovereign in Jerusalem. I understand that this is something that some Christians cannot accept, because they think that Jews were sent into the diaspora for not accepting Jesus as their Lord and therefore they are against Jews being in control of Jerusalem. It goes against their (replacement) theology.
(thank you to Kate for indulging in this exchange)
lookout: “P.S. fc, many thanks for the sing-along Allegri: I love it! The Bryd Ave Verum is an old friend; the Verdi I haven’t sung: wonderful to listen to.”
And in return thanks for your great post today at
2:32 PM. I also read the Barbara Kay column, and thought on it for awhile, but until your post today, I wasn’t able to complete those thoughts.
If you live in or near a major centre, eventually your arts community will decide to produce the Verdi Requiem and you will have your chance to sing in it. Here in frigid Winnipeg, practices begin next month for the performance Easter Saturday. Plenty of “diei irae” between now and then. But a wonderful feast of sound for Christians and lovers of Italian opera.
fc
lookout,
Thank you for obviously putting some effort into understanding my thoughts and offering your own.
As per the point you raise…thus my use of the words “I am left wondering…”
I did not want to write a novel on the topic,but had I no respect for Kate’s bandwidth,I would have extrapolated on where some of these points were taking me.Let me see if I can communicate this now efficiently and briefly.
I have been quite frustrated for some time now,as I eluded to before,that our religions,races,political beliefs,etc.are being used to drive people apart,not closer together.
For example,I have found many religious people to be quite hostile towards members of any other belief system.
Thus,we face a very fragmented society here in Canada.The result of this,which I would think most people would agree with,is that we have a general lack of kindness,empathy,respect and personal responsibility in our society today.
My point being….Why the hell is teaching morality and personal responsibility not up their with reading,writing and math in our schools?
Surely their are some basics we could ALL agree on,no matter our backgrounds.