Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I find it sad how religious folks will accuse non-believers of being "disingenuous" in their reliance on fallible science. For instance, "evolution is not a law" therefore to "believe" in it (which WOULD be the appropriate term) is akin to believing in religion. What absolute horse shit! The tenets and history of Christianity (for example) are intrinsically supernatural, meaning it defies natural explanation. Faith is faith because it LACKS proof, if there were proof it would be called KNOWLEDGE and getting into "heaven" would be easy peasy. Now, that being said, "believing" in science seems FAR less disingenuous than believing religion. Science provides direct and indirect, repeatable observation. By it's very design science must endure logical scrutiny in order to survive. Of course that is in stark contrast to religion where, for instance, "knowledge" is depicted as the fruit of "satan" and of course traveling down that path will get you a one way ticket to ETERNAL DAMNATION. Yeah, great argument there. I can see Jesus was the captain of HIS debate team...
Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" and it is by faith that "we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." Faith doesn't lack proof, but it is ultimately reliant on (and you are right on this point, if nothing else)
supernatural ("greater than or above what is natural"). The inherent problem with science is not actually the problem with science itself, but the way in which some people (mainly atheists who vehemently declare that God does not exist) hijack science and turn it into a faith of its own. By definition, science cannot and does not deal with absolute truth, and its results or "facts" are always subject to change because there are aways new discoveries or corrections that come along. You are right that science must endure logical scrutiny. So must faith. No one asks you to check your brain at the door when you read the Bible (at least no one should). In fact, critical thinking and questioning are important things for all true Christians to have. The Bible commends anyone who closely examines what is being touted as true, and to see if it is really true or not.
Science is NOT an enemy to faith as some would make it out to be. Science further confirms what I believe, and what I believe confirms science. But just because a particular branch of science or a particular theory is held by many to be true doesn't mean that it is. Again, the very definition of science will tell you that you cannot make a claim to absolute truth (though faith can). And yet time and time again I have been insulted because I do not hold to the theory of evolution as put forth by Darwin and has been revised over the years. I've said it before and I will say it again: the fundamental and foundational assumption of evolution (on a macro scale) is faulty and false. Does that make me a Bible thumping idiot? Feel free to think so if you want, but that does not make it so.
And where you get that knowledge is the fruit of Satan? The tree in the garden in Eden was "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", not "the tree of scientific knowledge". The knowledge of good and evil is what we call morality, and by eating of it mankind gained the ability to know (and therefore choose) between good and evil, but by disobeying God in that very action, man set himself on the path of evil. True knowledge itself is neither good nor evil, but the use of knowledge can be either for good or evil. I can use the knowledge of human anatomy to help the wounded and sick, or I could use it to maim and kill. The knowledge of good and evil is not what damns man, it is when man 's disobedience (sin) that damns him; it is being evil that damns a man to hell, not knowing what is right and wrong.
Now as for the fallibility of the bible, wasn't Revelations (the juiciest part that every evangelical romanticizes) written AT LEAST two generations after the time of Christ? I thought Christ was the final prophet.
Where in the Bible does it say that Christ was the last prophet?
And exactly what does that imply about the time-line within which the "good book" was penned by the almighty? Did he forget what amounts to the most important part of the book for many and said "aw shit, hey buddy I need you to do me a favor and write another chapter of the bible for me. The apostles are already dead and buried so you're my man." Or was it that "the man" was so disappointed by the reception his newest book received (didn't even break 10 on the the NYT best sellers list for 70 years!) that he felt he needed to add a little more incentive for people to take the stuff seriously by threatening to torment their fickle asses for all eternity?
The Revelation of Jesus Christ has an ending that clearly concludes the Word of God and perfectly complements the way the Bible begins in Genesis. The Gospels do not end in such a way, neither do the epistles. There is nothing that either Jesus said directly or that is said in the Bible by anyone else that would indicate that the gospels closed the revelatory Word of God.
Oh and then there's good old King James of the New King James Version Testament, he wasn't even Christian! By all accounts he was a horrible person, and we're supposed to assume he changed NOTHING in the bible?
You are absolutely right about the guy not being a Christian, and by all accounts he wasn't a good person. He wasn't the creator of the Bible, however. All he did was commission scholars to translate the books of the Bible into (what was then) modern English. And God isn't limited to using "good" people (no one is good anyways, apart from imputed righteousness from God) to achieve His will - just look at people like the Pharaoh (Rameses II?) and Nebudchadnezzar II to see how God can use even those who hate Him and work against Him to glorify Himself. King James didn't change anything himself, and neither did the translators. How do we know? We have many manuscripts from multiple sources from multiple time periods from multiple cultures going back nearly 2,000 years that indicate that the content of scripture remains essentially the same. Is clarity sometimes lost in translation? Yes, of course (which is why it is sometimes best to read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek), but the essential content and meanings of passages have not changed. There is no more reliable or confirmed source going that far back in history, and it is even more reliable than many historical sources referenced in textbooks that came way after it.
Right... and what about the other gospels? Truth or fiction? Protestants don't exactly embrace their Catholic counterparts and go as far as to accuse them of being "unholy", of following a false path.
I agree with the protestant view that Catholics are following false teachings, as well as Mormons, Muslims, and other religions. There are no other true gospels or books of the Bible than the ones found in it presently (the 66 books). If you really want to know the confirmation process used in the early centuries to determine the legitimacy of the books put forward to be acceptable into the Bible, I will gladly go into it, but for the sake of brevity in this post, I will do so only if requested.
Well guess what, up until good old crazier-than-shit Martin Luther and his protestant revolution, EVERYONE WAS CATHOLIC.
"Everyone" was not Catholic, and there were many (including Martin Luther) who saw how false teachings contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ has slowly over the centuries crept into the church. Martin Luther and the Reformation brought many back to the true reading and examining of scriptures that was not found in the Roman Catholic system. Just because many people are led astray does not mean that all were.
So do we believe the bible remained intact throughout all the iterations of corrupt clergy and papal thugs? Maybe it WAS disfigured, but was UNdisfiguered by the far holier protestant leaders henceforth. Yeah, that's it.
Like I said before, we have sources that predate the corrupt system (I would not call them a church) of that time. Even if there was some editing done to copies of the Bible, it was found out and destroyed (even during a corrupt time like that). Regardless, there are many untainted sources (like the Dead Sea/Qumran scrolls) that confirm the validity of the Bible today.
How about the contradictions between the accounts OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST between the different books? I mean wtf, you think of all things the very foundation of the religion would at least have some consistency between two or three different authors.
Point out the contradictions in the Bible between the accounts. Even a lot of the extrabiblical sources support the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I mean we're talking about a religion (Christianity for example only, but don't think I'm any more thrilled by Islam or Judaism) that are older than the Mayans, and those guys worshiped frigging jaguars. It's so damn archaic and bizarre that the vast majority of modern civilization is still holding on to these mythologies that only once in a blue moon am I even willing to acknowledge it. Otherwise I do what I can to put religion OUT of my life and give those who submit themselves to the Mighty Jaguar, er... Lord, a extremely WIDE berth. I can only imagine how this post will be perceived, but it just so happens that the moon is blue and I'm genuinely interested.
There are plenty of bizarre religions out there, no doubt. My national heritage is India, a place where the dominant religion is Hindusim, a religion in which anything and everything can be a 'god'. I'm not mocking them, they really do millions of gods. I don't point and laugh at them, I feel sorry and sick to the stomach that so many people are led astray by error. They aren't he only ones, though, and even many who claim to be Christian don't even know the truth of the Bible. People who don't know the Bible say Christianity is "archaic" or "bizarre", but like the Bible says, the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world, but the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.
Just because there are many, many false religions out there (for every human being
there is a false religion) it doesn't mean that there isn't a True Religion, and in fact there could only be one and there is only One. The reason there are so many religions is very simple: we human beings, in our sinful state, don't want to worship God, so we invent other things (ourselves, animals, nature, money, etc.) rather than submit to the loving God who created us. It is pride that is the issue that prevents people from worshiping the true God, and not a lack of proof or anything else. We would rather exalt ourselves as god by putting ourselves first, and doing what we what, when we want, and deny that there is accountability to God. But you are accountable, as am I, for what you are and for every action that you take. The actions of a man don't condemn him, what he is (a sinner) is what does that, but the actions of a man do add to the debt of sin that, like I said before, can only be paid in one of two ways (see previous post). If it were not for the salvation given to me by God (it is a gift of God for all who will receive it, not something earned), I would be going to hell just like every accountable human being who does not repent. I deserve hell, and so does everyone else, and it is only God's grace that saves me from what I deserve. All humans are as evil as Hitler or any other famously evil person was, even though we don't all find ourselves in situations where our environment or power lends us to commit such atrocities. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to himself or herself.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." - Romans 1:18-21
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" - Romans 6:23
Facebook
Twitter