What’s more likely?
We can say nothing of the heart and mind nor even existence of invisible things—of sprites and fairies and goblins and gods, but we are all too familiar with the heart and mind of man. So let us simply ask ourselves what is most reasonable to believe about the bible.
When the married couple, Ananias and Sapphira, dared keep a portion of the money garnered from a private sale rather than giving every cent to the church they were immediately killed in Peter’s office. The writer would have us believe an invisible hand from heaven struck down this couple, but is it not more likely it was the hand of man—that perhaps Peter himself acted out in anger? (Acts 5:1-10) Or knowing Paul’s penchant for zealot religious persecution, is it more likely an invisible holy spirit blinded Elymas or that an incensed Paul who had just demonized Elymas as "a child of the devil” did so? (Acts 13:10-11)
Is it more likely that an invisible being told Moses to “kill your brothers, your friends, and your neighbors” for the crime of worshipping another god or that Moses did so to strengthen his position of power as Yahweh’s spokesman? (Ex 32:25-29)
Is it more likely that an invisible being deemed selling daughters into life-long slavery acceptable or that men did? And is it more likely that an invisible being repeatedly rained suffering upon humans with all manner of disasters and diseases or that the writers of such stories were simply ignorant of the workings of nature? (Dt 28:58-59, Zec 14:12, 2 S 24:15)
Is it more likely the often vengeful, bigoted, misogynistic, ignorant, slave-happy and a million other ways bloodthirsty and superstitious stories found in the bible are the revelations of a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent invisible being which we have absolutely no evidence of, or the ramblings of primitive men?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Does any of this prove the non-existence of God?
Perhaps all this proves is that your perception of Christianity is misguided, bigoted, and vengeful. Maybe, your thoughts and perception here is nothing more than the ramblings of a "primitive" man such as yourself.
"Perceptions are always flawed," is what you've said elsewhere. I am thankful that you allow that something in this description/perception is flawed. Hopefully your readers can spot the flaws.
Of course no one can “prove the non-existence of God” just as no one can prove the non-existence of fairys or the non-existence of the leprachaun I shared a bowl of cereal with this morning.
Rather than relying on my many likely non-existent readers to “spot the flaws” in my argument why don’t you do it? Why don’t you just answer the few questions I asked?
1. Is it more likely a human who had much money to gain by instilling fear in other church members killed a couple himself or that an invisible being killed them?
2. Is it more likely Paul, known as a previously intolerant religious zealot who persecuted those who held religious beliefs other than his own, angrily blinded a man he deemed a child of Satan or that an invisible “holy spirit” did?
3. Is it more likely men, who had a profit to gain by selling their daughters to other men as slaves deemed such an evil act acceptable or that an invisible being did?
4. Is it more likely that Moses had his followers murder 3,000 brothers, friends and family that broke rank with him or that an invisible being commanded such an atrocity?
5. Is it more likely that an invisible god rained all manner of suffering down on people like hail, drought, disease, famine, etc or that ancient people were ignorant of the workings of nature?
I thought you didn't like to resort to using math? When you say "more likely?" Doesn't that deal with probability?
Your questions are misguided and loaded with bias. A simple reading of the text will reveal that you are (assuming or taking by faith) a lot.
Again, none of your bigoted, misguided, "primitive man" ramblings prove that atheism is true.
It's all YOUR perception, and thankfully you've admitted all perceptions are always flawed.
I
I am not sure where you got the idea I did not like using probability to determine the likelihood of truth. I believe that is the best way.
Perceptions are always incomplete experiences of reality and so cannot possibly be 100% accurate. This does not mean we cannot rely on reason to determine the likelihood of truth.
These are terrific arguments! And I apologize in advance to homesicksooner, but you make absolutely no arguments for the reliability of the bible. You did not answer the questions posed to you. Let's face it - God is now virtually unemployed. He used to actively
1) cause illness (now we know about bacteria, viruses, and the immune system);
2)God was invoked for demon possession (which we now know is usually schizophrenia or epilepsy);
3) God caused bad weather to punish people (now we know what causes weather patterns);
4) God sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins because we are fallen, sinful creatures (we now know about evolution and that Genesis cannot possibly be true - no Genesis, no Adam and Eve, no fall from grace, no need for a saviour - christianity crumbles).
People who wrote the bible were superstitious; not through any fault of their own, but because they did not know better.
And it has always been christians who have fought knowledge. They were angry about the theory of gravity; they were angry that the earth was no longer flat; they fought against abolition of slavery.
Another argument; it is the christian regions of the United States that have MUCH HIGHER rates of murder and rape than less religious regions.
Almost all serial killers came from christian fundamentalist homes.
Let's face it - the bible is the supersitious ramblins of ancient nomads; and the fruit of christianity is dark indeed.
Are you married Janet?
Just kidding! But what a pleasure to get some support on my little blog. Thank you and …“God” bless you! :)
Hi John - actually, I'm the same person who connected with you by email in response to the youtube video. That's how I found your website, which I love. I have made quite a few comments already.
Thank you for doing this!
Rev. E, I will attempt to answer your questions posed to homesicksooner.
1.) The couple died not because they did not give all of the money but because they lied. Not to men, but the holy spirit and said they gave all the money. It was never about the amount of money given, but the attitude of the heart in which it was given. As far as the manner in which they died, I am sure if an autopsy had been performed at that time there could be a reasonable explanation for their deaths: heart failure, aneurysm, whatever, but I believe my God is able to cause and control such things in the world He created.
2.) The verses you cite specifically mention that he would be "blind for a season." How possibly could a man cause another man to only be blind for a period of time?
3.) The scripture you cite does not coincide with the story. Possibly a typo?
4.) If you study the character of Moses, you will see he is not a jealous man. In Numbers 11:26-30, two men stood up as prophets in the midst and could potentially take power away from Moses. Joshua was jealous for Moses and proposed they go take care of them. Moses saw that it was good and let them continue what they were doing. Clearly, not a jealous, control freak. His brother and sister tried to say they were equal to him in Numbers 12, and Moses did nothing about it. God struck his sister with leprosy, and Moses asked that she be healed. Again, not a jealous man in search of ultimate power.
5.) As Creator, why can't God use His creation to work His perfect will. God can use people places, time, nature, etc., to work His will. I do not pretend to know His will in every situation, but I do realize He is ultimately in control
Hi Jarrett. Welcome! You have made my day just by sharing your thoughts and encourage you to continue to. It’s so much more interesting to have many perspectives in these conversations.
Thanks for pointing out the typo--I will correct that. As to your other comments...I find it quite ironic that it is often the atheist that is defending the honor if you will of a possible God. Not that I think it likely that one exists in any shape or form we could begin to comprehend but at least the atheist says that if one does exist it certainly is not the violent cartoon character of the bible.
I thought I presented a reasonable scenario giving your God an out but you insist that it was indeed your God who killed a man and wife sending waves of fear through the church community, left a man to stumble around in complete darkness and fear, commanded the butchering of 3,000 brothers, friends and neighbors creating an atmosphere of unimaginable fear and suffering that must have lingered for years if not lifetimes, sent poisonous snakes to kill people, wild animals to devour children, hail to pummel them to death, disease to cause intense suffering including making their eyes rot in their sockets and tongues rot in their mouths, drought to dry their fields, starvation to the point of making them cook their own children and so and so on again creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty and continual suffering.
Even if such a God did exist, how could you possibly praise such a being? Seems believers—like the Romanians who justify the evil of Vlad the Impaler, or the Germans who justified Auschwitz, or Americans who justified Hiroshima— can justify the Abrahamic God’s wickedness because it is their ticket to heaven and fear if they don’t they will be tortured in hell.
A little thought experiment: What if there is indeed a God and the bible is his test? What if he will only accept people into heaven who are not afraid of denouncing injustice and cruelty even in the highest authority— people who denounce the biblical God as a Demon even it means being thrown in hell?
And what if those that praise the God of the bible despite his wicked character are the ones that are hell bound?
John, that is an interesting hypothetical! Wow, I never thought of that. If this is true, we will all be very surprised at the pearly gates! But at least I will be in heaven with other rational people of like mind!
Post a Comment