Over at The Reformed Gadfly, the blogger posted his call to action against McDonald's, joining in with the likes of the American Family Association, those appointed by them selves to watch over the sinfulness of the entire US of A, and probably beyond.
I left a comment for the reformed gadfly but, as has been the case before, it probably will fall short of approval, so I thought I would post my comment to him here.
What is it exactly that you are against? It's obvious you are against homosexuality? Are you against homosexuals being able to make a living? I have to guess you are. Are you against anyone offering to help homosexuals make a living? Again, I have to assume you are. McDonald's wants to put some of their resources and influence to work "promoting "gay" and "lesbian" business ventures." In other words, to help gays and lesbians make a living, correct? What other "sins" do you believe should keep a person from making a living? How about fornicators? Do you think Christians should boycott any business owned by a person who had sex before marriage? What about cigarette smokers? If the owner of your local KFC is addicted to cigarettes but is heterosexual, would you consider boycotting his restaurant? How about gluttony? What if your banker is 50lbs over weight, are you going to pull your money out? Since being any religion other than Christian is sinful, just to be consistent, why don't you limit your patronage to only business that display a cross or Jesus fish in their window?
I have no confidence that you will be able to see the absurdity in your stance, but I had to try.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Am I an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian...?
Over at "The Reformed Gadfly" there is a post, which, as is the case for so many Christian blog posts, shows definite signs of straw-man building. Allow me to illustrate. Referring to an atheist encounter (probably with me) he says: "...they are "struttin' their stuff", acting all intellectual about how God doesn't exist." First of all, I, as an atheist, have never claimed to know that any gods, including the Christian God, do not exist. So, I generally refrain from "struttin'" my "stuff", since I am open to persuasion. It would be rather embarrassing to claim that I know there is no god, only to have some Christians prove to me that their God is in fact real. So, since I do not know, I just admit that I do not believe.
As for the next accusation, "acting all intellectual" since I barely graduated high school and never went to college, I don't think I could even begin to know how to act intellectual. So, I think it is blatantly obvious that the blog author, Tim, is using dishonesty to draw a picture of an atheist. Since I do not agree with him, he resorts to name calling.
He continues his description with such phrases as, "big ornery atheist", "someone who proudly says "there is no God", and "those who put on the appearance of intellectualism". All accusations against a people simply because they don't believe as he does. Why do so many Christians resort to this type of defence (offence?)?
Somewhere amongst all the straw, he draws the readers attention to a pie chart showing Christians how to get an atheist to admit that, since we don't have all knowledge of everything in the universe, we then must admit that we are really not atheists after all, but are actually agnostics. Problem is, I am still an atheist. I have no belief in any gods. I am without belief in gods. I do not believe the Christian God exists. I do not KNOW that the Christian God does not exist, I just do not BELIEVE that the Christian God exists. I am an atheist.
Now, let's use Tim's illustration, creatively? Tim says, "..."agnosticism", which is a more accurate term, which means "I don't know".
Well, Tim, do you KNOW that your God exists? Do you actually have any more knowledge about the existence of your God than I, a former believer of 25 years, have? Belief does not equal knowledge with regard to religious faith. You probably feel like you KNOW, or think you KNOW (that your God exists), but do you actually know, in the same way we have knowledge of proven scientific and historical facts? I think we know what the answer is - Tim, and all the millions and millions of Christians in the world, do not KNOW that God exists. Accurately speaking, they believe that God exists.
Tim instructs further: "...ask them "Do you possess the sum total of all knowledge?" If they are being honest at all, they will have to admit they don't know everything." I, as an atheist, have never claimed to know everything. So we have to wonder who Tim is asking his Christian friends to direct this question to (hint-strawmen)?
Do Christians "possess the sum total of all knowledge"? If not, won't they have to follow Tim's admonition and "admit they don't know everything."
My point is, if Christians will be honest, and apply Tim's instructions for dealing with us big ornery atheist, they will have to admit, since they actually DO NOT KNOW that their god exists, they will have to admit that they are, in reality, agnostics. For an agnostic, according to Tim, just doesn't know. Let them claim "Christian-Agnostic" if they want, but to be honest, they have to admit that they are just as "agnostic" as Tim claims I am.
As for the next accusation, "acting all intellectual" since I barely graduated high school and never went to college, I don't think I could even begin to know how to act intellectual. So, I think it is blatantly obvious that the blog author, Tim, is using dishonesty to draw a picture of an atheist. Since I do not agree with him, he resorts to name calling.
He continues his description with such phrases as, "big ornery atheist", "someone who proudly says "there is no God", and "those who put on the appearance of intellectualism". All accusations against a people simply because they don't believe as he does. Why do so many Christians resort to this type of defence (offence?)?
Somewhere amongst all the straw, he draws the readers attention to a pie chart showing Christians how to get an atheist to admit that, since we don't have all knowledge of everything in the universe, we then must admit that we are really not atheists after all, but are actually agnostics. Problem is, I am still an atheist. I have no belief in any gods. I am without belief in gods. I do not believe the Christian God exists. I do not KNOW that the Christian God does not exist, I just do not BELIEVE that the Christian God exists. I am an atheist.
Now, let's use Tim's illustration, creatively? Tim says, "..."agnosticism", which is a more accurate term, which means "I don't know".
Well, Tim, do you KNOW that your God exists? Do you actually have any more knowledge about the existence of your God than I, a former believer of 25 years, have? Belief does not equal knowledge with regard to religious faith. You probably feel like you KNOW, or think you KNOW (that your God exists), but do you actually know, in the same way we have knowledge of proven scientific and historical facts? I think we know what the answer is - Tim, and all the millions and millions of Christians in the world, do not KNOW that God exists. Accurately speaking, they believe that God exists.
Tim instructs further: "...ask them "Do you possess the sum total of all knowledge?" If they are being honest at all, they will have to admit they don't know everything." I, as an atheist, have never claimed to know everything. So we have to wonder who Tim is asking his Christian friends to direct this question to (hint-strawmen)?
Do Christians "possess the sum total of all knowledge"? If not, won't they have to follow Tim's admonition and "admit they don't know everything."
My point is, if Christians will be honest, and apply Tim's instructions for dealing with us big ornery atheist, they will have to admit, since they actually DO NOT KNOW that their god exists, they will have to admit that they are, in reality, agnostics. For an agnostic, according to Tim, just doesn't know. Let them claim "Christian-Agnostic" if they want, but to be honest, they have to admit that they are just as "agnostic" as Tim claims I am.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
love one another...?
I honestly don't mean to keep commenting on the postings of Pastor Buck. I mean, I really have nothing against the guy. He seems nice enough. I think he is genuine (what ever that means). But since I really only read two Christian blogs, and since his church is in my community, I guess if I am going to respond to the words of a church leader, may as well keep it close to home.
Below are his word from a recent post to his blog, and my comments will follow.
“We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.” (I John 3:14)
If I were forced to choose just ONE verse that best describes our church family, I’d have to go with John’s description the Christian life. For John, LOVE is one the defining factors that you’ve truly been saved. Love evidences the fact that what we have is the real deal. . . it evidences the fact that we have truly passed from death to life!
I don't know. I mean, I give out of love to those I love. My family, my friends, I give to them out of my love for them. How can I do that if I am not a Christian?
I just don't understand how Pastor Buck can read a bible verse, such as the one above, and completely ignore the FACT that born again Christians are not the only people who love, give out of love. Read the verse again: “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers." I love my brother. I love my sister, my parents, my kids, my pets, my friends. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN! How can it be that I love people?
Out of all things for which I am thankful about our church family (and there are MANY!), what touches me the most is the love of Christ that fills our fellowship. You don’t just talk a good game, you live it. You genuinely care about those inside and outside our church family, and it shows, repeatedly.
Over the past couple years I have attended Pastor Bucks church from time to time with some friends. I can count on one hand the number of members there who have come up to me and started a conversation with me. I am largely ignored. I am not ugly, I don't stink, I am not mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, but I am rather introverted. It is difficult for me to put forth an effort to make new friends. But once a person approaches me, I am friendly and can be conversant.
I can think of perhaps 4-6 people, members of the church, who have actually made an effort to talk to me beyond the tepid "good morning, how are you..." So, can anyone describe to me this "love of Christ" he is talking about?
The bottom line, you guys are the real deal! I love serving Jesus with you and I truly see Him in you! In John 13:35 Jesus summed it up in a single sentence - “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”
Oh, I can see it. I can see them "loving one another", but I do not experience any of that love. I mean, what does a person have to do, be a member in good standing for 36 months before he or she fits in?
What I experience in Pastor Bucks church, is the exact same thing I experience or have experienced in every other church I have ever visited, or been a member of. Pure and simple - Human Nature. Some people are genuinely caring and compassionate. Some are not. But most will fall in the middle.
It doesn't matter if they are Christian or not. It makes no difference. And this is the chief reason that I find no reason, any longer, to believe in the Christian God. Christians do not, in any way, display any evidence that they have been motivated (transformed) by a supernatural being. What they do display, in their attitude and approach toward their close friends-vs-people they do not know, is exactly what you would expect to see in any group, club, church, gathering, etc. If you are their friend, you fit right in. If you are not their friend, you are largely ignored. And believe me, I have sat many a Sunday in Pastor Bucks church and been completely and totally ignored. Do I hold that against them? Absolutely not. As I have stated, it is human nature. What I do protest though is the largely held Christian belief that they, (and THEY all pretty much believe THEY are the "they") by reason of their faith, have been transformed. And that as a result of that supernatural transformation they now display such a love for all humanity.
The news is, THEY don't. They are just people who believe they do. And as they gather with each other every Sunday, they reinforce each others delusion, and keep ignoring that fellow sitting...over there. ("I can't go up and talk to him now. I mean, I have been ignoring him for months. I didn't mean to. Time just got away from me. I missed a few Sundays in a row and when I came back, there he was. How long has he been coming now? What will he think of me if I go up to him now? No, the easiest thing to do is just keep ignoring him...")
For what it's worth, during this time, I have had one person (1), out of perhaps 200-300 members, ask me if I knew Jesus as my saviour. No one else in that church has ever asked me anything about God, Jesus, church, the bible, etc.
That, my friend, is Human nature.
Below are his word from a recent post to his blog, and my comments will follow.
“We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.” (I John 3:14)
If I were forced to choose just ONE verse that best describes our church family, I’d have to go with John’s description the Christian life. For John, LOVE is one the defining factors that you’ve truly been saved. Love evidences the fact that what we have is the real deal. . . it evidences the fact that we have truly passed from death to life!
I don't know. I mean, I give out of love to those I love. My family, my friends, I give to them out of my love for them. How can I do that if I am not a Christian?
I just don't understand how Pastor Buck can read a bible verse, such as the one above, and completely ignore the FACT that born again Christians are not the only people who love, give out of love. Read the verse again: “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers." I love my brother. I love my sister, my parents, my kids, my pets, my friends. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN! How can it be that I love people?
Out of all things for which I am thankful about our church family (and there are MANY!), what touches me the most is the love of Christ that fills our fellowship. You don’t just talk a good game, you live it. You genuinely care about those inside and outside our church family, and it shows, repeatedly.
Over the past couple years I have attended Pastor Bucks church from time to time with some friends. I can count on one hand the number of members there who have come up to me and started a conversation with me. I am largely ignored. I am not ugly, I don't stink, I am not mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, but I am rather introverted. It is difficult for me to put forth an effort to make new friends. But once a person approaches me, I am friendly and can be conversant.
I can think of perhaps 4-6 people, members of the church, who have actually made an effort to talk to me beyond the tepid "good morning, how are you..." So, can anyone describe to me this "love of Christ" he is talking about?
The bottom line, you guys are the real deal! I love serving Jesus with you and I truly see Him in you! In John 13:35 Jesus summed it up in a single sentence - “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”
Oh, I can see it. I can see them "loving one another", but I do not experience any of that love. I mean, what does a person have to do, be a member in good standing for 36 months before he or she fits in?
What I experience in Pastor Bucks church, is the exact same thing I experience or have experienced in every other church I have ever visited, or been a member of. Pure and simple - Human Nature. Some people are genuinely caring and compassionate. Some are not. But most will fall in the middle.
It doesn't matter if they are Christian or not. It makes no difference. And this is the chief reason that I find no reason, any longer, to believe in the Christian God. Christians do not, in any way, display any evidence that they have been motivated (transformed) by a supernatural being. What they do display, in their attitude and approach toward their close friends-vs-people they do not know, is exactly what you would expect to see in any group, club, church, gathering, etc. If you are their friend, you fit right in. If you are not their friend, you are largely ignored. And believe me, I have sat many a Sunday in Pastor Bucks church and been completely and totally ignored. Do I hold that against them? Absolutely not. As I have stated, it is human nature. What I do protest though is the largely held Christian belief that they, (and THEY all pretty much believe THEY are the "they") by reason of their faith, have been transformed. And that as a result of that supernatural transformation they now display such a love for all humanity.
The news is, THEY don't. They are just people who believe they do. And as they gather with each other every Sunday, they reinforce each others delusion, and keep ignoring that fellow sitting...over there. ("I can't go up and talk to him now. I mean, I have been ignoring him for months. I didn't mean to. Time just got away from me. I missed a few Sundays in a row and when I came back, there he was. How long has he been coming now? What will he think of me if I go up to him now? No, the easiest thing to do is just keep ignoring him...")
For what it's worth, during this time, I have had one person (1), out of perhaps 200-300 members, ask me if I knew Jesus as my saviour. No one else in that church has ever asked me anything about God, Jesus, church, the bible, etc.
That, my friend, is Human nature.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Jesus to the rescue
From Pastor Buck's blog:
This video is definitely worth five minutes of your time. It creatively portrays the following truth: “You, dear, children, are from God and have overcome them, because the One who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. . . everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” (I John 4:4, 5:4)
The video is basically from a play, contemporary Christian music is the soundtrack, and depicts a young woman experiencing a new relationship with the Jesus character. But then the cares and influences of the world creep in, distracting the young woman, and drawing her away from her loving relationship with Jesus.
Things soon turn bad, as they always do when you forget about Jesus (sarcasm). Jesus is off to the side, wooing her back, but to no avail.
Jesus finally jumps in to protect her from her bad choices (audience breaks into cheers and applause).
What a wonderfully appealing story, if only it were true, as Pastor Buck claims. Being a sensitive atheist guy, I even felt a tug of emotion as I watched Jesus hold back all the bad in the world from reaching the young woman. But as life continually proves, it is just a story. A myth. Strip away the music, the facial expressions, the choreographed dancing, and all you have left is a few sentences in an old book. That's all.
This video is definitely worth five minutes of your time. It creatively portrays the following truth: “You, dear, children, are from God and have overcome them, because the One who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. . . everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” (I John 4:4, 5:4)
The video is basically from a play, contemporary Christian music is the soundtrack, and depicts a young woman experiencing a new relationship with the Jesus character. But then the cares and influences of the world creep in, distracting the young woman, and drawing her away from her loving relationship with Jesus.
Things soon turn bad, as they always do when you forget about Jesus (sarcasm). Jesus is off to the side, wooing her back, but to no avail.
Jesus finally jumps in to protect her from her bad choices (audience breaks into cheers and applause).
What a wonderfully appealing story, if only it were true, as Pastor Buck claims. Being a sensitive atheist guy, I even felt a tug of emotion as I watched Jesus hold back all the bad in the world from reaching the young woman. But as life continually proves, it is just a story. A myth. Strip away the music, the facial expressions, the choreographed dancing, and all you have left is a few sentences in an old book. That's all.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Have I Been Educated?
Pastor Buck posted a list on his blog with numerous comparisons of secular learning-vs-religious learning:
Have I Been Educated?If I learn my ABCs, can read 600 words per minute, and can write with perfect penmanship, but have not been shown how to communicate with the Designer of all language .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can deliver an eloquent speech and persuade you with my stunning logic, but have not been instructed in God's wisdom.... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I read Shakespeare and John Locke and can discuss their writings with keen insight, but have not read the greatest of all books -- the Bible -- and have no knowledge of its personal importance... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I have memorized addition facts, multiplication tables, and chemical formulas, but have never been disciplined to hide God's Word in my heart .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can explain the law of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity, but have never been instructed in the unchangeable laws of the One Who orders our universe .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can classify animals by their family, genus and species, and can write a lengthy scientific paper that wins an award, but have not been introduced to the Maker's purpose for all creation, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can recite the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble to the Constitution, but have not been informed of the hand of God in the history of our country .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can play the piano, the violin, six other instruments, and can write music that moves men to tears, but have not been taught to listen to the Director of the universe and worship Him, ... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can run cross-country races, star in basketball and do 100 push-ups without stopping, but have never been shown how to bend my spirit to do God's will, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can identify a Picasso, describe the style of da Vinci, and even paint a portrait that earns an A+, but have not learned that all harmony and beauty comes from a relationship with God, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I were to graduate with a perfect 4.0 and am accepted at the best university with a full scholarship, but have not been guided into a career of God's choosing for me, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I become a good citizen, voting at each election and fighting for what is moral and right, but have not been told of (or believe) the sinfulness of man and his hopelessness without Christ,... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
However, if one day I see the world as God sees it, and come to know Him, Whom to know is life eternal, and glorify God by fulfilling His purpose for me, THEN I HAVE BEEN EDUCATED!
There is a marquee at a Baptist church in my town that says something like: "Success is gaining eternal life - all else is failure".
That kind of goes along with this "Have I been educated" theme. Looking at it from a purely rational perspective, which is all I have, some Christians would equate a person who has read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, all 20+ volumes, as being less educated than a person who has read only the bible.
It would seem to me that Pastor Buck is equating education with religious belief. Lack of religious belief, lack of education. I will forever wonder how a persons faith can be equated with education.
Is there any non believer who he could then concede is more educated than even the most uneducated believer? Does mere faith in the God of the bible trump all the learning of an engineer or medical doctor, if they do not have a belief in the Christian God?
If that is what Pastor Bucks belief is, it is that primitive belief that kept humanity wading through the dark ages for 500 years. It is just that mentality that the Taliban possesses which restricts females from going to school.
That mentality, while it is music to the ears of the believer, terrifies the non believer. It truly frightens me to think that Christians in my community actually think a non believing college professor is less educated than the little five year old boy who got saved in last Sundays service.
Am I exaggerating? Only if Christians like Pastor Buck don't really believe what he is trying to tell us he believes.
Have I Been Educated?If I learn my ABCs, can read 600 words per minute, and can write with perfect penmanship, but have not been shown how to communicate with the Designer of all language .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can deliver an eloquent speech and persuade you with my stunning logic, but have not been instructed in God's wisdom.... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I read Shakespeare and John Locke and can discuss their writings with keen insight, but have not read the greatest of all books -- the Bible -- and have no knowledge of its personal importance... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I have memorized addition facts, multiplication tables, and chemical formulas, but have never been disciplined to hide God's Word in my heart .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can explain the law of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity, but have never been instructed in the unchangeable laws of the One Who orders our universe .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can classify animals by their family, genus and species, and can write a lengthy scientific paper that wins an award, but have not been introduced to the Maker's purpose for all creation, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can recite the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble to the Constitution, but have not been informed of the hand of God in the history of our country .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can play the piano, the violin, six other instruments, and can write music that moves men to tears, but have not been taught to listen to the Director of the universe and worship Him, ... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can run cross-country races, star in basketball and do 100 push-ups without stopping, but have never been shown how to bend my spirit to do God's will, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can identify a Picasso, describe the style of da Vinci, and even paint a portrait that earns an A+, but have not learned that all harmony and beauty comes from a relationship with God, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I were to graduate with a perfect 4.0 and am accepted at the best university with a full scholarship, but have not been guided into a career of God's choosing for me, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I become a good citizen, voting at each election and fighting for what is moral and right, but have not been told of (or believe) the sinfulness of man and his hopelessness without Christ,... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
However, if one day I see the world as God sees it, and come to know Him, Whom to know is life eternal, and glorify God by fulfilling His purpose for me, THEN I HAVE BEEN EDUCATED!
There is a marquee at a Baptist church in my town that says something like: "Success is gaining eternal life - all else is failure".
That kind of goes along with this "Have I been educated" theme. Looking at it from a purely rational perspective, which is all I have, some Christians would equate a person who has read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, all 20+ volumes, as being less educated than a person who has read only the bible.
It would seem to me that Pastor Buck is equating education with religious belief. Lack of religious belief, lack of education. I will forever wonder how a persons faith can be equated with education.
Is there any non believer who he could then concede is more educated than even the most uneducated believer? Does mere faith in the God of the bible trump all the learning of an engineer or medical doctor, if they do not have a belief in the Christian God?
If that is what Pastor Bucks belief is, it is that primitive belief that kept humanity wading through the dark ages for 500 years. It is just that mentality that the Taliban possesses which restricts females from going to school.
That mentality, while it is music to the ears of the believer, terrifies the non believer. It truly frightens me to think that Christians in my community actually think a non believing college professor is less educated than the little five year old boy who got saved in last Sundays service.
Am I exaggerating? Only if Christians like Pastor Buck don't really believe what he is trying to tell us he believes.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Bible...skepticism...archeology...
I visit some Christian blogs from time to time. Well, really only two: Pastor Buck and nakedpastor. I have posted on nakedpastor before. It is a very welcoming place.
I try to keep my comments limited, only posting when I feel I must, when something is said that I feel I really must respond to. I have made a few comments in the past on Pastor Bucks blog.
I realize that I am really wasting my time doing this. There is little hope that anything I might say could penetrate through a long held and cherished religious faith.
I really don't think my purpose in responding to Christians is to get them to consider anything I have to say other than to attempt to convince them to exercise some integrity when it comes to what they consider to be supporting evidence for the claims of their faith. They can believe what they want to believe. All I ask is that they refrain from offering "proof" in support of what they believe, (whether it be scientific or historical findings) without actually examining this "proof" before hand.
A few weeks ago I posted some links in a response on Pastor Bucks blog, when someone made mention of Werner Keller's book, "The Bible as History". I read the book many years ago when I was a bible believer.
Anyway, I really don't want to take up space on Pastor Bucks blog. I mean, it is a Christian blog, and I am not a Christian. I doubt many ministers would want their blog hijacked by an infidel.
Torn between just keeping my mouth shut, or speaking out when I see the need, I try to compromise and speak out just a little when visiting Christian blogs, and then invite them to read my response here...well...at least that is what I will do from now on.
Anyway, my response is below.
Hi Pastor Buck,
You said,
"The articles seem to be pretty consistent with others I have read from those whose worldview approaches the issue of faith with skepticism."
Of course. But how do you feel about "skepticism"? It is difficult to tell from your comment. Is it a good thing? Aren't you skeptical? Are you not just as skeptical about the historical accuracy of Islamic texts and their claims of inspiration, as, say, an agnostic is of Christian texts and their associated claims? Just a guess, but I would bet that you are.
So could we agree that we are both skeptical, just to differing degrees? Surely you will admit that you view "issues of (other religions) faith" with just as much skepticism as some view yours...?
I read some of the links you posted. I will read further, but I have to comment on what is said right out of the blocks.
From the first link: "Because the Christian faith is based on historical events, Christians welcome any evidence that archaeology can provide, but they do not anchor their faith to it. No lack of evidence nor critical scepticism can disprove God’s Word."
I really have a hard time responding to such a statement. It is so full of "We believe what we believe and there is absolutely no amount of "facts" that will persuade us otherwise because what we believe is true".
Is the Christian faith based on historical events, or is it based on claims of historical events as written down in the bible? How many Christians actually researched the faith before they became believers?....very, very few? And once they are believers, if they do any research, isn't it almost exclusively in literature designed to bolster the faith. How often do you, or your Christian friends, read, I mean really read, with mind open, scientific material that is not written from the Christian perspective, but solely from the scientific perspective? Will you admit, very seldom if ever?
As the statement from the first link above says: "Christians welcome any evidence that archaeology can provide, but they do not anchor their faith to it. No lack of evidence nor critical scepticism can disprove God’s Word.", there is nothing that the non believer can present that will persuade the believer, if the believer is not willing to consider that they may be wrong. It is that simple. I think many claims in "God's Word" can be shown to be false, but in the mind of the believer it will never be dis proven.
I listened on-line to one of your sermons many months ago, on the book "The Da Vinci Code", and you made a statement that went something like this: Archeology has confirmed the trustworthiness of the bible. Excavations of Jericho has proven that the walls are confirmed to have fallen outward.
But, if you cared to look further, you might find conflicting data and conflicting conclusions, even from believers, as to when that happened:
Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua.
Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record. The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer .
(Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24
(This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.)
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests.
This link, from a conservative Christian, shows that the above conclusions are most likely correct.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php
My point is not to throw dates back and forth in a battle of evidences, but to just point out that you made a claim based on what...Christian apologetic literature, void of any referencing to non Christian literature, neglecting to do any further research to see if what you were saying was actually based on scientific fact.
From the second link you provided: "Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible.
Biblical archaeology has silenced many critics as new discoveries supported the facts of the Bible."
I just don't understand how a "faith" can be based on known facts. Doesn't it cease being "faith" if faith is no longer needed after one offers confidence in "known facts"? In other words, once I "know" something as fact, faith in that 'something' is rendered obsolete, is it not?
That first statement in the link - "Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible." is where this argument begins to fall apart. Right from the beginning, the author misrepresents his own religion. Christianity is not a faith that is based on known factual events. From what I know, Christianity is based, by faith, on the biblical claim of the life, death, and resurrection of the God-man Jesus the Christ. Am I correct?
The authors use of the word "actual" is where problems arise, for we can't even begin to confirm that Jesus was born (of a virgin no less), that he lived, died, nor arose after death. And if we can't confirm, by scientific means, any of those supposed "actual events" how could we even begin to confirm that the Jesus of the bible was God, or that there even is a God?
What it boils down to Pastor Buck, is this: Christianity is a faith. A faith based on the writings in a 2,000 year old book, nothing more. It is not based on any scientific or historical evidence at all. No evidence outside of the bible is needed for anyone to believe what the bible says. No factual confirmation is necessary. Therefore, Christian apologists are wasting their time searching for confirmation in the dirt or in the sky, because what ever they will find (as evidenced by the past conclusions of many a Christian) they will use, or misuse to bolster their faith, when their faith is all that is really needed...correct?
I guess what it comes down to is this: I would have much more respect for modern Christianity if they would simply and honestly admit the facts;
Christians believe that Jesus was born, died, and arose from the dead.
Christians believe that God is real.
Christians believe that the words in the bible are true.
And when a Christian says to me that I should believe as he does, or I will go to hell, if he was honest, he would end his plea with, "...but that is just my belief, for I actually don't have any factual evidence to back it up."
That would be honest, wouldn't it?
bob
I try to keep my comments limited, only posting when I feel I must, when something is said that I feel I really must respond to. I have made a few comments in the past on Pastor Bucks blog.
I realize that I am really wasting my time doing this. There is little hope that anything I might say could penetrate through a long held and cherished religious faith.
I really don't think my purpose in responding to Christians is to get them to consider anything I have to say other than to attempt to convince them to exercise some integrity when it comes to what they consider to be supporting evidence for the claims of their faith. They can believe what they want to believe. All I ask is that they refrain from offering "proof" in support of what they believe, (whether it be scientific or historical findings) without actually examining this "proof" before hand.
A few weeks ago I posted some links in a response on Pastor Bucks blog, when someone made mention of Werner Keller's book, "The Bible as History". I read the book many years ago when I was a bible believer.
Anyway, I really don't want to take up space on Pastor Bucks blog. I mean, it is a Christian blog, and I am not a Christian. I doubt many ministers would want their blog hijacked by an infidel.
Torn between just keeping my mouth shut, or speaking out when I see the need, I try to compromise and speak out just a little when visiting Christian blogs, and then invite them to read my response here...well...at least that is what I will do from now on.
Anyway, my response is below.
Hi Pastor Buck,
You said,
"The articles seem to be pretty consistent with others I have read from those whose worldview approaches the issue of faith with skepticism."
Of course. But how do you feel about "skepticism"? It is difficult to tell from your comment. Is it a good thing? Aren't you skeptical? Are you not just as skeptical about the historical accuracy of Islamic texts and their claims of inspiration, as, say, an agnostic is of Christian texts and their associated claims? Just a guess, but I would bet that you are.
So could we agree that we are both skeptical, just to differing degrees? Surely you will admit that you view "issues of (other religions) faith" with just as much skepticism as some view yours...?
I read some of the links you posted. I will read further, but I have to comment on what is said right out of the blocks.
From the first link: "Because the Christian faith is based on historical events, Christians welcome any evidence that archaeology can provide, but they do not anchor their faith to it. No lack of evidence nor critical scepticism can disprove God’s Word."
I really have a hard time responding to such a statement. It is so full of "We believe what we believe and there is absolutely no amount of "facts" that will persuade us otherwise because what we believe is true".
Is the Christian faith based on historical events, or is it based on claims of historical events as written down in the bible? How many Christians actually researched the faith before they became believers?....very, very few? And once they are believers, if they do any research, isn't it almost exclusively in literature designed to bolster the faith. How often do you, or your Christian friends, read, I mean really read, with mind open, scientific material that is not written from the Christian perspective, but solely from the scientific perspective? Will you admit, very seldom if ever?
As the statement from the first link above says: "Christians welcome any evidence that archaeology can provide, but they do not anchor their faith to it. No lack of evidence nor critical scepticism can disprove God’s Word.", there is nothing that the non believer can present that will persuade the believer, if the believer is not willing to consider that they may be wrong. It is that simple. I think many claims in "God's Word" can be shown to be false, but in the mind of the believer it will never be dis proven.
I listened on-line to one of your sermons many months ago, on the book "The Da Vinci Code", and you made a statement that went something like this: Archeology has confirmed the trustworthiness of the bible. Excavations of Jericho has proven that the walls are confirmed to have fallen outward.
But, if you cared to look further, you might find conflicting data and conflicting conclusions, even from believers, as to when that happened:
Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua.
Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record. The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer .
(Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24
(This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.)
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests.
This link, from a conservative Christian, shows that the above conclusions are most likely correct.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php
My point is not to throw dates back and forth in a battle of evidences, but to just point out that you made a claim based on what...Christian apologetic literature, void of any referencing to non Christian literature, neglecting to do any further research to see if what you were saying was actually based on scientific fact.
From the second link you provided: "Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible.
Biblical archaeology has silenced many critics as new discoveries supported the facts of the Bible."
I just don't understand how a "faith" can be based on known facts. Doesn't it cease being "faith" if faith is no longer needed after one offers confidence in "known facts"? In other words, once I "know" something as fact, faith in that 'something' is rendered obsolete, is it not?
That first statement in the link - "Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible." is where this argument begins to fall apart. Right from the beginning, the author misrepresents his own religion. Christianity is not a faith that is based on known factual events. From what I know, Christianity is based, by faith, on the biblical claim of the life, death, and resurrection of the God-man Jesus the Christ. Am I correct?
The authors use of the word "actual" is where problems arise, for we can't even begin to confirm that Jesus was born (of a virgin no less), that he lived, died, nor arose after death. And if we can't confirm, by scientific means, any of those supposed "actual events" how could we even begin to confirm that the Jesus of the bible was God, or that there even is a God?
What it boils down to Pastor Buck, is this: Christianity is a faith. A faith based on the writings in a 2,000 year old book, nothing more. It is not based on any scientific or historical evidence at all. No evidence outside of the bible is needed for anyone to believe what the bible says. No factual confirmation is necessary. Therefore, Christian apologists are wasting their time searching for confirmation in the dirt or in the sky, because what ever they will find (as evidenced by the past conclusions of many a Christian) they will use, or misuse to bolster their faith, when their faith is all that is really needed...correct?
I guess what it comes down to is this: I would have much more respect for modern Christianity if they would simply and honestly admit the facts;
Christians believe that Jesus was born, died, and arose from the dead.
Christians believe that God is real.
Christians believe that the words in the bible are true.
And when a Christian says to me that I should believe as he does, or I will go to hell, if he was honest, he would end his plea with, "...but that is just my belief, for I actually don't have any factual evidence to back it up."
That would be honest, wouldn't it?
bob
Friday, August 10, 2007
scenario
A pilot, who is an atheist, is flying over the ocean in a small plane with a friend, who is a Christian.
They run into bad weather and crash on an uncharted, deserted island with no hope of ever being rescued.
They both survive the crash, but suffer permanent amnesia due to a head injuries. The only useful thing that they remember is how to read.
Surviving the crash with them are two books: one is a book on island survival tips, including farming, edible plants, hunting and fishing, and the other book is the Bible.
The survival book suggest, if there is no dry wood available, to use pages out of a book as kindling to start a fire.
The Bible says, "In the beginning, God..."
My questions:
Which book should they use as kindling to start the fire?
They run into bad weather and crash on an uncharted, deserted island with no hope of ever being rescued.
They both survive the crash, but suffer permanent amnesia due to a head injuries. The only useful thing that they remember is how to read.
Surviving the crash with them are two books: one is a book on island survival tips, including farming, edible plants, hunting and fishing, and the other book is the Bible.
The survival book suggest, if there is no dry wood available, to use pages out of a book as kindling to start a fire.
The Bible says, "In the beginning, God..."
My questions:
Which book should they use as kindling to start the fire?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)