Saturday, April 26, 2014
DIU blog posts and comments
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
09 November 2007Losing the Lamanites
The LDS church is changing a single word in its introduction to the Book of Mormon.
If you go get your Book of Mormon (or go to LDS.com) you'll find the following words in the last sentence of the second paragraph: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
But the new version will say, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
Now if you haven't read the Book of Mormon, this might not seem like such a big deal to you. But the idea that Native Americans are the degenerate offspring of the Lamanite tribe is absolutely central to the Book of Mormon. In fact, other than Jesus showing up now and then in the New World, there just isn't much else to the silliest book every written.
So why did the leaders of the Mormon church drop the teaching about the Lamanites?
Because they had to.
Of course, anthropologists known for many years that Native Americans migrated from Asia thousands of years ago, long before the Jaredites and the Nephites supposedly made their incredible journeys. But recent DNA evidence makes it impossible to deny any longer. The Book of Mormon is wrong; Native Americans did not descend from the Lamanites.
That is what the LDS church is admitting with the 1-word change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.
Posted by Steve Wells at 11/09/2007 07:23:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
6 comments:
Robert O'Brien said...
You are right about the "Lamanites," of course, but the average rank-and-file Mormon will not be phased by the change, as can be observed here and here.
Sun Nov 11, 06:03:00 PM 2007
TOR Hershman said...
Howdy do, Steve,
Here's a lill' YouTube film you may/should(?) dig.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90
Mon Nov 12, 05:19:00 AM 2007
angelsdepart said...
Interesting! The Mormons seem to change their tune quite often. At one point in time they couldn't drink caffeine and people with black skin were considered evil. I guess the one thing that we can't fault the Mormons for is evolving!
Mon Nov 12, 03:57:00 PM 2007
McGuire said...
Religions don't "evolve" they merely gain a deeper understanding of the authors words ;)
Sun Nov 25, 12:05:00 PM 2007
Kevin said...
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=17&num=1&id=568
http://mi.byu.edu/display/topical.php?cat_id=488
The funniest thing is that if all you people think that Mormonism and religion in general is just silly (its also intresting that you would use the word silly to describe religion, sounds a little familiar especially verse 31) why do you waste your time with it? why read teh bible and the Book of Mormon and the pearl of great price? why not just let the crazy be crazy and do something productive? I think Neal A. Maxwell (who had a lot to say about your type) said it real well
"they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone. Like the throng on the ramparts of the “great and spacious building,” they are intensely and busily preoccupied, pointing fingers of scorn at the steadfast iron-rodders (1 Ne. 8:26–28, 33). Considering their ceaseless preoccupation, one wonders, Is there no diversionary activity available to them, especially in such a large building—like a bowling alley? Perhaps in their mockings and beneath the stir are repressed doubts of their doubts." from hereYour whole blog is dedicated (atleast from my quick look) to the idea that God doesnt exist because there is suffering and pain in the world (be it by Him directly, or by his creations etc) And I will admit, that without the unique teachings of Mormonism, that is a great question that would cause me to doubt as well, but there is an answer! one that puts in all in place and makes it all makes sense, one of those things that went out with the apostasy. I wont tell you what it is (though it is mentioned 7 times in the first 7 paragraphs of the the outline for the first lesson that the missionaries would teach you if you listened so its not some deep dark truth only taught to the elite) Because I don't think you really care, you have all the ammunition you could ever want (there is a lot with an uninspired reading of the scriptures) and seem to take some joy out of ridiculing and wagging your finger while not giving any real answers to the questions that we all want answered. Why do I exist? Why is there something rather than nothing?
mormon.org
Fri May 15, 03:32:00 PM 2009
Stephen said...
This is an old thread, but since I only recently discovered this blog, I'm going to try to "resurrect" it. ;-)
@ Steve Wells: "Losing the Lamanites"... is that like having a "Lamanectomy"? :lol:
@ McGuire: Yes, and the more we learn about the authors, the more certain we are that their product is of exclusively human origin. Try reading "Misquoting Jesus- the story of who changed the bible and why", by Bart Ehrman.
@ Kevin:
1) The reason why "my type" can't just let the crazy be crazy (nice choice of words!) is that "your type" just can't stop proselytizing and trying to control how others live. I think of it as a sort of defensive action; plus, it doesn't help to stand by and say nothing when baloney is being purveyed. It's lowering to my pride.
2) There you go proselytizing again: "...there is an answer!" to the problem of suffering that only makes sense in the light of mormon theology. But, durn it, I have to get the secret from a mormon missionary. Curses; foiled again!
And here I was, going to suggest that you read Bart Ehrman's book "God's Problem: how the bible fails to answer our most important question- why we suffer"... but an uninspired reading would give you plenty of ammunition for criticism.
3) Some of us understand that it takes time to get the answers to those Big Questions, and we realize that we may not have those answers soon, or even in our lifetimes. But we would rather wait, and have answers based on adequate evidence than those pulled out of a hat (so to speak) by a con artist. And those answers have been forthcoming; we know an awful lot more about the way the universe works than people in Galileo's ... or even Joseph Smith's... time did.
Cheers!
Steve Weeks
Mon May 09, 07:55:00 PM 2011
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
18 December 2007In case you missed it, the answer to Huckabee's question is yes
(But don't say anything about it to anyone or think about it yourself. It's unconstitutional!)
Back in February, when Mitt Romney announced his intention to run for president, I suggested that someone should ask him about the Mormon Jesus. And,as we all know, someone did.
I doubt if Mike Huckabee was taking my suggestion, though. He probably doesn't read my blog or visit the SAB.
But it was a good question, nonetheless; and although neither Romney nor the LDS church would answer it, the answer is yes. Mormons believe that Jesus is Satan's older brother.
The question is answered in the Pearl of Great Price, which (along with the Bible and the Book of Mormon) is a part of LDS scripture. So I've decided to include it at the SAB. I've just got started on it (I'm on the first chapter of the Book of Abraham). I'll have more to say about it as I go along.
Until then, here's a good summary of what Mormons believe (but refuse to say) about Jesus.
Oh, and here's a picture of the two brothers. (Jesus is on the right.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 12/18/2007 09:52:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
9 comments:
XXX said...
You can definitely see the resemblance.
Wed Dec 19, 04:19:00 PM 2007
zooplah said...
I found that thing about Jesus being Satan's brother hilarious. Only later did I realize you were being serious. Hmm.
Fri Dec 21, 10:37:00 AM 2007
Gene said...
I hope you don't mind but I used your terrific picture along with the proper accreditation an on my blog.
http://pittsburghthoughts.blogspirit.com/
Sun Dec 23, 08:04:00 AM 2007
Brucker said...
You're going to do the Pearl of Great Price as well?! You're a glutton for punishment aren't you?
Wed Dec 26, 07:28:00 AM 2007
Rob said...
Did anyone else think the Devil looks just like John Travolta?
Sun Dec 30, 04:31:00 PM 2007
angelsdepart said...
I did a study on the Mormon religion in High school. It is quite interesting. Not only are Jesus and Satan brothers, but according to them all of the angels that chose to remain neutral in the big war against heaven and hell were eventually sent to earth to live as humans and were cursed with black skin. I believe that it wasn't until sometime in the 50s or 60s that the Mormon church actually allowed black people in. Well at least there is one religion that is willing to admit that they are wrong and change their ways huh?
Mon Dec 31, 05:46:00 PM 2007
XXX said...
>> at least there is one religion that is willing to admit that they are wrong and change their ways huh?
They are making progress. If they recant on the whole seer stone in a hat thing, I might consider converting.
Tue Jan 01, 04:32:00 PM 2008
Curtis said...
Angels: try 1978.
Sat Jan 05, 12:06:00 PM 2008
Mike said...
I just stumbled on this blog and the Skeptics Annotated Book of Mormon website. You all seem like nice people, I just wanted to clarify the whole people who were neutral in the war in heaven coming to the earth as black people.... I've never heard that before... and i know for certain it isn't church doctrine... maybe some random general authority said it in the 30's... but it's not doctrine. Also, the whole Satan and Jesus being brothers thing isn't some hush hush doctrine, they are brothers just as much as any male on this earth are brothers with jesus, they were both spirit children of the father... so hence, brothers. This brotherhood being Independent of Christ's mortal ministry, satan has nothing to do with being Jesus's brother when he was born of mary, just as a spirit child of the Father before the foundations of the world. That whole thing may just seem weird to trinitarians who equate christ with the father... Just fyi about those.... have a nice day.... and that satan definitely does like like John Travolta
Wed Dec 02, 11:23:00 PM 2009
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
04 December 2007Name your dog Muhammad
The Sudanese government released Gillian Gibbons, who was imprisoned for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad. If it weren't for British intervention, she might have gotten 40 lashes or even faced the death penalty. I guess it offends Muslims when inanimate objects are named Muhammad.
Which is why I now name pretty much everything Muhammad. I named my bike Muhammad, and my favorite rocking chair. And my laptop. I just wish I had a teddy bear. Oh well, maybe Santa will bring me one for Christmas. (Some brave person should sell "Muhammad" teddy bears. She'd probably make a fortune before getting beheaded.)
But the best thing to name Muhammad is a dog.
Muhammad didn't like dogs much. He thought that they were dirty and evil (black ones especially). He said that angels refuse to enter a house if there's dog a inside, and that whatever good deeds a person might do are undone by owning a dog.
So do a good deed that can't be undone. Name your dog Muhammad. (I think I will, if I can talk my wife into letting me have one.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 12/04/2007 10:25:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
4 comments:
XXX said...
This post made me laugh out loud. Hopefully the wrong crowd doesn't see it, though. Forget Danish newspapers: that dog may just be the most blasphemous picture possible in the eyes of conservative Muslims.
It seemed like in the coverage that I saw, most Muslims in the world don't actually believe the woman should get 40 lashes or prison time, which goes to show maybe there is still some hope for the world.
Tue Dec 04, 08:27:00 PM 2007
Brucker said...
You know, it's funny, but even though I think this was an overreaction, I've rethought my position on the matter. That is to say, I had often said that if I had a son, I'd like to name him Muhammad, as I think it's just a nice name. Now, I'm realizing that if something like this creates such an uproar, it would be rather disrespectful to do something like that.
I do like to try to be respectful of others' beliefs whether I agree with them or not. Still, the whole teddy bear incident is blown way out of proportion.
Mon Dec 10, 01:02:00 PM 2007
Satantiago said...
Ouch! Rejected by his own child wife. I guess that deserved a nice spanking.
From Bukhari Vol. 1, #490
Narrated 'Aisha: "The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away, for I disliked to face him."
Tue Dec 11, 07:04:00 AM 2007
Asana Bodhitharta said...
In Islam it is forbidden to worship Muhammad in any way. When you see people worshipping Muhammad you are not seeing True Islam just as when you are seeing people worship Jesus The Christ as God you are not seeing True Christianity. People of course tend to be sensitive to any thing they perceive as disrespectful to what they love but it is wrong to worship a man.
Sun Dec 16, 11:29:00 AM 2007
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
29 February 2008All Ceatures Great and Small: The Lord God Drowned Them All
You'd think that when God repents, he'd behave better afterwards. But not the God of the Bible; he's at his worst after making a public confession.
Take the flood, for example. God creates all creatures great and small and declares them "very good" in Genesis 1:31. He then makes them not so good in 3:17-18 (either immediately in an evil re-creation or through 1656 years of God-directed super evolution), repents of ever having made them in 6:7, and finally drowns them all in 7:21-23.
What was the point of all that? If God was trying to punish people for misbehaving, then why did he drown the animals, too?
Posted by Steve Wells at 2/29/2008 07:11:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
4 comments:
Berend de Boer said...
I hope Steve you put a different value on the life of an animal than on a human.
But God didn't drown them all as you say in the title. Ever heard of the Ark?
Animals are not punished as they do not sin. But they have to suffer the consequences of sin.
Sun Mar 02, 11:22:00 AM 2008
XXX said...
But God didn't drown them all as you say in the title. Ever heard of the Ark?
Genesis 8:21 quotes God as saying to himself "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake[...]; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."
Obviously the flood story in the Bible indicates some living things were spared. Yet God is quoted as saying he smote every living thing, even though he spared some. Do you think Steve should be held to a higher level of precision when talking about the flood than God himself?
Animals are not punished as they do not sin. But they have to suffer the consequences of sin.
Why would they have to suffer the consequences of sin? If he wasn't trying to punish sinless animals, God could have killed just humans, right? By striking down all humans (except Noah et al.), turning them to salt, simply making them vanish, etc.
Steve didn't say he valued animal life the same as human life, but obviously animals have some worth, otherwise God wouldn't have commanded Noah to save them. So why not just spare animals in the first place and get rid of the humans, who were the intended target here?
Sun Mar 02, 02:49:00 PM 2008
RationalMuscle said...
Berend;
I've been reading some of your posts. With all due respect, your understanding of hermeneutics and context are sorely lacking. This I can understand. I am a (former) theologian, ex-apologist, and ex-youth minister, so a large portion of my life was spent wrestling with the quagmire of the Bible.
However, "reason" is another story.
You said, "Animals are not punished as they do not sin. But they have to suffer the consequences of sin."
So, suffering consequences is not a form of punishment? This is meandering wordplay.
To fully grasp the context of the day, you'd have to study a lot more Jewish history. (I do not recommend it as its dreadfully boring.)
While you are correct in saying "animals do not sin", although humans are animals (but that's another post), you fail to see the historical connection between Jewish property and one's spiritual worth. A man cursed by God, or any of the other deities of the day, would usually have the story exaggerated and wind up with everyone and everything he owned (his wife, his children, his animals -- all his property) cursed as well. It was part of the Jewish idea of responsibility.
Sick, but true.
This is why you find equally asinine scriptures about how the sins of one generation "follow" into the next. This dogma even makes its way into the NT, although at least Jesus bothers to sidestep the question via a clever rebuttal.
Oh, and concerning the flood? While I could write a book on the subject (fear not, I won't), you can start by explaining how penguins, koala bears and bison made it on Noah's Party Barge.
Hopefully you'll have something more clever than "catastrophic plate tectonics" to toss my way.
Wed Apr 09, 03:37:00 PM 2008
mariolandblog said...
What bothers me the most about the flood story - besides of course the genocide - is that every believer seems to be Okay with the fact, that there are TWO of every kind. That would mean the second post-flood generation of every species are brothers and sisters. Then what?
The humans at least got to get together with their cousins...
Allthough, to be precise, in Genesis God asks Noah to bring 7 pairs of some animals. But Noah forgot or something, so he only took 1 pair each.
Of course it is possible to build a species on one pair but it is not healthy. You can't build a species on one animal however.
So Noahs first act after the flood - animal sacrife - meant extinction for that whole species.
But humans and animals are not the only living things...
In the old days, there were also giants (which were offspring of the "sons of god" and "daughters of men", also famous, says Genesis). It was never mentioned that there were giants on the Arc, so I guess they drowned too.
The giants mentioned later must be some new kind of giants, perhaps even unfamous ones (at least I don't know any famous giants today)
@RationalMuscle
I would read that book, seriously.
@Berend
"Animals are not punished as they do not sin. But they have to suffer the consequences of sin."
But what about justice, what about equality. The fish did not have to suffer anything. Damn Fish!
Mon Jun 21, 07:47:00 AM 2010
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
24 February 2008Evolution Creationist Style: It all happened in 1656 years
In the beginning, God created everything good. No predators, parasites, pathogens, pain, disease, or death for any of God's creatures. Every living thing (except for maybe the plants) lived forever in a vegan paradise that was all "very good."
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. Genesis 1:30-31
But Adam screwed all that up by sinning (or whatever) and God cursed the ground causing thorns and thistles to grow (Genesis 3:17-18), creating the cruel and brutal place that we see today. It went from "very good" to "no country for old men" in just 1656 years.
How do we know this? The Bible tells us so. Here's how.
Years after the creation of Adam
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son ... and called his name Seth: Genesis 5:3 130
And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos. Genesis 5:6 235
And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan. Genesis 5:9 325
And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel. Genesis 5:12 395
And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared.Genesis 5:15 460
And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch. Genesis 5:18 622
And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: Genesis 5:21 687
And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech. Genesis 5:25 874
And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: Genesis 5:28 1056
And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. Genesis 7:6 1656
Okay, so the flood happened 1656 years after the creation of Adam. But how do we know that creation had completed its transformation (evolution?) from kind and gentle to cruel and brutal by the time of the flood?
Well, again the Bible tells us so.
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Genesis 6:11-13
The whole earth "was filled with violence" (God made it that way), so God had to kill everything on earth to make it less violent. Fair is fair.
So nature was "filled with violence" by the time of the flood. The only question is how did it get that way? Did God re-create it immediately after Adam's fall in a second "there will be blood" creation? Of did it evolve naturally without God's involvement in the 1656 years between fall and flood?
Can some Bible believer clarify this for me?
Posted by Steve Wells at 2/24/2008 05:15:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
28 comments:
Hugo said...
Just yesterday I was wondering about the vegan-to-carnivore transformation. Man bites an apple, and suddenly all carnivores (that we know as carnivores) have their digestive systems transformed. Did they suddenly grow nasty teeth, or did they always have teeth? I think they probably always had teeth, because that's what a lion "looks like". Bacterial-level stuff can spontaneously change and still have it be the "same creature", because we cannot naturally see bacterial-level stuff?
Anthropocentric to the max.
Mon Feb 25, 12:45:00 AM 2008
Deane said...
It's a bit odd. The idea of all flesh (all animals, including humans) being violent isn't really carried through in the story. On the one hand, you have examples of the violence of humans (but not other animals), and of the righteousness only of Noah, a human (yet some animals being saved along with, and perhaps because of, the righteous Noah). On the other hand, you have "all flesh" referring to both humans and other animals in all later references.
I suspect the only thing to be concluded from this is that the story is vague enough for there to be great doubt as to whether Gen 6.11-13 refers to both humans and other animals. Given the fractures throughout Gen 6-9, even if the reference to "all flesh" includes animals elsewhere, in Gen 6.11-13 the phrase's proximity to human-only sin in 6.1-10 may be the relevant context. In 6.5-7 the death of animals is clearly only a result of humans (not other animals) sinning. So, later references might be read in that light in the final form of the text. That is, only humans were violent.
This tension seems to be related to the general tension cause by a polytheistic story of one god wanting to kill humans and another god wanting to save them being transformed into a monotheistic statement about one God saying he will kill them all and then saying he will save one.
Mon Feb 25, 01:42:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
It evolved naturally without God's involvement in the 1656 years between the fall and the flood.
Mon Feb 25, 05:28:00 AM 2008
sconnor said...
Hey Steve,
What I would love to know, is it even possible that Adam and Even and their descendants could -- mathematically -- have populated the earth to the estimated 30,000,000 people in 1,656 years, before the flood? I know there would have to be a fair amount of conjecture. We would have to figure out the percentages of twins, triplets, etc. and the death to birth ratio. It's an interesting math dilemma. I'm mathematically deficient, can you figure this one out?
Thanks, Scott
Mon Feb 25, 10:30:00 PM 2008
derbaron said...
Sconnor;
We don't even need to "do the math".
According the the bible, people back then reached sexual maturity much slower. "And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech." If it takes from 60 to 180 years between each generation, then it is ludicrous to suggest that 2 people could "beget" 30 000 000 in such a short time period.
However, since believers don't place much stock in scientific fact, I suspect they'll just claim the the population of the earth was not, in fact, anywhere near 30 million at the time. Despite the necessity of a large population to support thriving civilizations such as Egypt.
I think a more compelling argument is that the major civilizations of the time - Egypt, Assyria, China - did not suddenly vanish. Can you imagine how long it would take the 8 people aboard the ark to rebuild China?
Tue Feb 26, 05:43:00 AM 2008
derbaron said...
Oh, addition to my last post; I didn't notice that Steve's list actually shows the complete supposed sequence of generations between Adam and Noah. There were 9 generations. From 2 to 30 000 000 in 9 generations. I guess they really "worked it" back in those days. ;)
Tue Feb 26, 05:51:00 AM 2008
sconnor said...
derbaraon,
Yeah but that doesn't mean that the woman wern't pushing out 2-3 baby girls a year 9 (low probability of twins and triplets, I know) and when they came of age, they repeated the process. I don't know, I would love to see the math on paper with all the variables and possibilities -- infant mortality rate, probabilities of multi-births, birth and death rates, etc. I wonder what would be possible given two people and 1,656 years?
Tue Feb 26, 12:33:00 PM 2008
McGuire said...
Quite a lot of incest no doubt
Wed Feb 27, 09:56:00 AM 2008
GAD said...
"So nature was "filled with violence" by the time of the flood. The only question is how did it get that way?"
Isn't the follow on question what was the point in the flood? Since all the violence came right back and multiplied! I mean right of the bat Ham is cursed. If you think about it the whole world should be Jewish, but god only choose one group as his people, so Ham (and Cain before him) must have done most of the "knocking boots" and even with his badness he manged to out breed the "good" Jews to the tune of 10's of millions to 1.
Wed Feb 27, 10:21:00 AM 2008
Berend de Boer said...
Steve, read for "The earth also was corrupt ... filled with violence" the people in the world.
Animals do not sin. You cannot say from them "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth."
Genesis 6 is talking about people here.
So a phrase like "how do we know that creation had completed its transformation" is meaningless. The thing that is happening, and easily confirmed in a laboratory, is that things devolve. Things get less good. Harmless things can become harmful through mutation.
Thu Feb 28, 12:04:00 PM 2008
Berend de Boer said...
sconner, the US was empty compared to the current population just 400 years ago. Now there are 300 million people. Did you know that in 1900 there were about 1,6 billion people? We now have over 6 billion. In just 100 years.
What you should be aware of is that the Bible does not give the genealogies for Cain's offspring. Only for Seth's. So were are mostly in the dark about their numbers.
But let's do the math, it is actually quite simple. In year 0 we have Cain and his wife. Assume that he got 4 children. Also assume that every kid marries and they get 6 children as well. And that it takes 100 years to get 6 children and for them to get at a marriable age.
So in year 0 we have 2 people.
In year 100 we have 2 + 6 = 8.
In year 200 we have 2 + 6 + 18 = 26 people.
In year 400 we have 2 + 6 + 18 + 54 = 80 people.
If you continue that you get 2.5 billion at year 1600 (to make things easier I have assumed no one died, but if you do that doesn't change the final total a lot).
Basically adding 2.5 billion in 1600 years is nothing compared to adding 4.5 billion in 100 years as we recently experienced.
Thu Feb 28, 12:29:00 PM 2008
GAD said...
Berend de Boer:
Check your math. Basically you get 3 kids per new person per 100 years, so 2*3 Y^16 = 86,093,442 people being born in the last 100 years. If no one lived over 100 then that's all there were at the end of 16 100 year generations. If everyone was still alive it would be about 130 million. This is no where near 2.5 billion unless everyone was still alive and had 6 kids every hundred years they were alive.
Thu Feb 28, 02:19:00 PM 2008
Jeffrey Stingerstein said...
"sconner, the US was empty compared to the current population just 400 years ago." You can't possibly be proposing that the US is like the beginning of "creation". Maybe you missed the news about this one, but people came to the US from elsewhere on the planet. The rest of your post at least makes sense (except for the part that you actually believe the Bible). By the way, why has the life expectancy dropped off so dramatically since the early days. Must be our diets. I mean Noah lived a nice long ripe life, and so did Homer!
www.DisillusionedWords.com
Fri Feb 29, 05:48:00 AM 2008
Jeffrey Stingerstein said...
"Harmless things can become harmful through mutation." Not in 1600 years! You can twist and twist and twist but you can't get that one to fit in with science, not on that scale at least.
Fri Feb 29, 05:50:00 AM 2008
GAD said...
The bible tells us why we don't live longer any more.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
I wonder, when the first person lives past 120 years old, does that prove that the bible is false?
Fri Feb 29, 07:59:00 AM 2008
Jeffrey Stingerstein said...
Of course the Bible has already been proven wrong on hundreds of accounts, but the thiests' job is make the science fit the bible. we'll probably be told that we were using the wrong standard to measure years.
Fri Feb 29, 08:27:00 AM 2008
McGuire said...
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/04/obit.oldest/
Jeanne Calment lived to be 122 years old (1875 - 1997). A few others possibly breaching Gods 120 year age limit too (Somewhat contentious due to poor records - they were born in the mid/late 1800s!).
Fri Feb 29, 01:02:00 PM 2008
GAD said...
Well then, I guess that's it, god has been definitely disproved! He said no human shall live longer then 120 years, if even one does then god is proven wrong, and by definition god can't be wrong, therefore god does not exist.
That was easy, I don't know what all the fuss has been about. :)
Sat Mar 01, 08:30:00 AM 2008
Nathan said...
The Bible basically disproves itself here. Doesn't it say that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses all lived longer than the allotted 120 years?
Really, I'd say the fact that the writers of the Bible called 120 as the upper limit for human life was rather impressive, since although some people have surpassed it, it's definitely a rarity. Did very many people in the time that Genesis was being written live that long? I know lifespans have fluctuated greatly throughout history, but someone in that time and place living to anywhere close to 120 seems unlikely.
Sat Mar 01, 11:04:00 AM 2008
GAD said...
A quick search of the web shows all kinds schemes for the 120 rule. Most seem to believe it was phased in over time with Moses being the cut in point. This site details it all pretty well.
http://www.biblecodeintro.com/intro15.html
Sat Mar 01, 03:54:00 PM 2008
Berend de Boer said...
gad, appear very confused. The 120 years is the 120 years left before the flood. It has nothing whatsoever to do with life span, but is the time Noah had to build the Ark.
Sun Mar 02, 11:19:00 AM 2008
GAD said...
Berend de Boer,
If I'm confused I'm not alone. Besides all the Christians trying to get around this 120 year lifespan deal many scholars seem to see it that way to, the OAB (my reference bible)interprets that way as well.
Sun Mar 02, 12:57:00 PM 2008
McGuire said...
Certainly do seem to be a lot who'd disagree with your interpretation, e.g. http://www.direct.ca/trinity/120years.html
Before the flood, according to the Bible, many people lived longer than 120 years. In Genesis 6:3 God declares an end to these long life spans. And the Lord said, "My Spirit will not strive (abide) with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:3)NKJV
Some scholars suggest that this 120 years was a prophetic time line until the flood took place. However, we see God's decision was made in Genesis 6:3 after Noah turned 500 in Genesis 5:32.
Noah was 600 years old when the floodwaters were on the earth. (Genesis 7:6)NKJV
Taking these passages we can determine that the flood took place within 100 years after God's decision.
So the prophetic interpretation of the Genesis 6:3 is a wrong one...
You will not find another person in the Bible from this point on that exceeds 120 years.
What God is saying is that the long life span He allowed us to have, created too much evil and wickedness. By shortening the span to 120 years He was also helping man to reduce the evil we individuals are capable of over long periods of time.
I.e. 120 in the age limit & not how long Noah had to prepare for the flood.
Mon Mar 03, 10:35:00 AM 2008
Berend de Boer said...
mcquire, thanks for the link, makes me understand a bit more how people come to this reasoning.
But my I respectfully point out that you should consult better sources. God send Noah to be a preacher in 1536 AM, the flood was in 1656, exactly 120 years.
Noah got his first son when he as 500, so in 1556.
What your author reads is that God commanded Noah to build the Ark when he got his first son, i.e. when he was 500. But I think that's reading a contradiction into the text.
Chapter 5 is a genealogy and ends with all people born before the flood. Chapter 6 doesn't start when Noah is 500. It starts at some indeterminate date, see Genesis 6:1, a time when the people started to fill the earth. But from verse 3 we know it was 120 years before the flood and therefore 20 years before Noah got his first son. God called Noah at that time to become a preacher, verse 8. And in verse 10 we read he got sons, i.e. after he was called by God.
Mon Mar 03, 11:38:00 AM 2008
GAD said...
Well everyone has an opinion and I see no reason take yours over what the OAB or what others state.
In the course of thinking about the above I came across the below. Another bible contradiction?
From the below we know Noah was 600 when the flood came and Shem was 100 years old 2 years after the flood, so he was 98/99 at the time of the flood so that makes Noah 502 (503 depending on how you define "after") at the birth of Shem. Ham was younger then Shem so he came sometime after that. That only leaves Japheth as possibly being born when Noah was 500, but depending on how you translate Gen 10:21 (see link) he comes out younger then Shem more times then not, in which case Noah had no sons at 500 and Japheth came after he was 502/503.
7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
10:21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=Gen&chapter=10&verse=21&version=KJV#21
11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
Thu Mar 06, 09:53:00 AM 2008
Nathan said...
I agree that 120 was intended to be read as an age limit, but it's also true that the Bible doesn't totally stick to this. Lifespans of the patriarchs continue to decrease, but all of them up through Jacob live to be older than 120.
Sat Mar 08, 03:14:00 PM 2008
Kevin Crady said...
The Genesis Flood story tells us that Yahweh destroyed the world because human society had become pervasively violent. But how did it become that way?
Turn in your Bibles to Genesis 4:23 and 24:
"And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a young man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."
By publicly shielding Cain from punishment for the murder of Abel while providing a sevenfold punishment should he be killed, Yahweh established as a principle that it is acceptable to commit murder, but only if your victim is not a murderer. Lamech's little ditty makes it clear that word of this got around.
Then Yahweh goes on vacation for 1656 years. When he comes back, he is shocked--shocked!--to find a violent society. Being himself opposed in principle to violence, he...well...violently exterminates the entire biosphere. Thereby showing us by example that violence isn't the answer...um yeah...well anyway...
Then as Noah, his family, the dinosaurs, etc. exit the Ark, Yahweh does a headsmack and comes up with the idea that murder ought to be a crime and, in his infinite foreknowledge, proscribes capital punishment for it rather than the reward of a protective curse against one's enemies.
A little too late for those 2.5 b-b-b-billion antediluvians though.
Mon Mar 17, 05:27:00 PM 2008
Robert said...
Ok, I'm a nihilist hardcore, but you fellow's don't seem to know much of anything about real nature as studied by science, OK In an oxygen rich environment (about 30% of the atmosphere) cellular repair increases at a phenomenal rate, a human will be able to live an estimate 300+ years with the original atmosphere the chances for have more one child at a time quadruples and also it takes about 500,000,000 years for our galaxy to go in a full rotation each revolution of the galaxy is a galactic day, this is the original measurement of "a day" but in terms of the age of humans the years would also be slightly different since our plant, it's axis, it's revolution rate and orbital rates have changed dramatically due to many cosmic events I.E. massive meteorites and other calamities.
Thu May 19, 11:10:00 AM 2011
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
27 March 2008Fitna the movie: Tear out the hateful verses from the Quran.
Everyone on the planet should see this movie.
[March 28 Update: As you will find if you try to view this video, it is no longer available at LiveLink.com. The LiveLink staff have received death threats from peace-loving followers of the Quran. An English version still seems to be available here. But don't wait too long to view it. Most of the world is busy appeasing Islam.
I should also mention that there appear to be a few problems and/or errors in the movie. The cartoon was used without permission (I guess I, too, am now guilty of that) and an individual in the movie might have been misidentified. More information about the movie can be found at Wikipedia.]
Quran verses from the movie (Pickthall translation):
Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Quran 8:60
Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Quran 4:56
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds ... And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. Quran 47:4
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them. Quran 4:89
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do. Quran 8:39
At the end of the movie there are these words:
It is not up to me, but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Quran.
I agree. I suggest beginning by removing these verses.
The same approach should be taken with the Bible. Here is a similar list from the Bible.
Moderate Christians, Jews, and Muslims (if there are any) ignore these verses anyway. Why not make it official? God did not inspire the cruel, intolerant, and hateful verses from either the Quran or the Bible.
It's time to tear them out of the "Holy Books" -- or just throw the whole books away.
Posted by Steve Wells at 3/27/2008 01:58:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
13 comments:
Erwin said...
Mirrors:
http://nederkrant.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/fitna-the-movie/
http://atelier.kw.nl/~gerard/video/
http://pyroforum.nl/fitna/
http://www.fok.nl/mirror/fitna.html
http://www.zeepvrij.nl/2008/03/11/fitna/
http://www.debaasjes.nl/index.php/comments/fitna1/
Thu Mar 27, 04:06:00 PM 2008
Erwin said...
Did some plugging for "http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm"
I thought it might be usefull, if more people did some reading.
So heads-up for more trafic, and keep up the good works.
Thu Mar 27, 04:17:00 PM 2008
Jeroen said...
You might want to know that Fitna was made by a political party with the sole purpose to stop immigration.
Fri Mar 28, 09:49:00 AM 2008
Steve Wells said...
Yes, jeroen, I know that Geert Wilders is anti-immigration. Does that make the movie less truthful to you?
Fri Mar 28, 10:52:00 AM 2008
Jeroen said...
Yes, because there are different intentions. It is a political film made by a party leader of a party that has just one member Geert Wilders. And just one issue. It is in no way a democratic party. There are only voters, it is not hard to guess what ideology they support.
The Danish cartonists started a lawsuit against the maker Wilders for misusing the famous cartoons without permission. The film is full of bad mistakes. The picture of Mohammed B - the murderer of van Gogh - is not Mohammed B but a Dutch 'comedian' and singer who proved succesfully that the Dutch see a killer in all Maroccans. Wilders made himself the laugingstock of holland by this terrible mistake.
There's more: the pictures of the children in blood a not victims of violance by muslims but are actually children in a festival.
I had some hope your intentions were very different from Wilders. But I see I was wrong. Shame on me.
Fri Mar 28, 12:20:00 PM 2008
McGuire said...
The motives behind the making aren't exactly benign... then again neither were the sentiments expressed by the Muslims in it. It's a 15 minute montage of religious extremism.
Fri Mar 28, 12:24:00 PM 2008
Steve Wells said...
Thanks, Jeroen, for pointing out errors in the movie. I'll try to address them in another post on the topic.
There is no doubt, however, that the Quran inspires a great deal of religious hatred and violence. It is that that I object to.
Fri Mar 28, 12:39:00 PM 2008
McGuire said...
There's a lot of info. here on it;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)
e.g.; The picture was shot for the rapper's album 'Nederlands Grootste Nachtmerrie' (Netherlands' Worst Nightmare), which according to the singer's website, was shot to be 'exactly like the mugshot of convicted killer Mohamed B'.
Fri Mar 28, 12:55:00 PM 2008
Jeroen said...
The point is that the movie also inspires hatred. The maker never tells us that there is another side of islam. He doesn't tell us that there were muslim victims on 911.
Wilders wants a society based on judaic-christianity (whatever that me be!). He wants it written down in the constitution. He is not making a statement on religion, he is making a statement on islam.
Fri Mar 28, 01:49:00 PM 2008
Deus X. Nihilo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sun Mar 30, 08:28:00 PM 2008
Greg said...
Wilders has done society a great deed! It is time we (western society) truly wakeup and understand and accept that Islam has one purpose and that is to kill all non-believers and to put all of earth back about 2500 years in our standard of living.
We all need to speak out more about the dangers and truth of Islam.
Mon Mar 31, 09:19:00 PM 2008
Jason Macker said...
Wilders is a Roman Catholic. He says he supports freedom of speech, yet he wants to ban the Quran. Which means this website would be shut down (if it was in the Netherlands) since it hosts the Quran.
also, I don't see how the amount of violence in a religion is relevant to how true it is.
I don't see the point of arguing over violence anyways, as the inherent contradictions in idea of God is enough to disprove theistic religions in the first place. There's no reason to go further, since it then means that other religions can use specific criticisms to bring followers to their own faith (which is what Wilders is doing).
Wed Apr 02, 12:03:00 PM 2008
Dye said...
What is wrong with not wanting muslims in ur country???Would any sane non-muslim want muslims or sharia law??? I don't
Thu Apr 10, 07:51:00 PM 2008
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
24 March 2008BC (Biblically Correct) Tours
Sometimes it's hard to be biblically correct. But these folks try really hard.
Here are some fun quotes.
Narrator: They say Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs. And there was no such thing as death, not even meat eating animals, until Eve ate fruit from the tree of knowledge. So, for instance, they say that Tyranosaurus rex with those enormous, ripping teeth was designed to eat vegetables.
BC tour guide (pointing at a T. rex): If this creature was designed to eat meat from the very start, what would he have to do until Adam and Eve sinned and death entered the world?
(Tour Guide answers since none of the kids knew the BC answer): Fast and pray until the fall.
Tour Guide: Is that likely?
Tour Guide (not waiting for a response): The answer is, everyone look at me and say, "no".
Tour guide (since the kids didn't respond satisfactorily): Try that with me: "No".
The kids looked confused by all that. I don't blame them.
But they were no more confused than the BC tour guides.
Narrator: Their time line for their 6000 year history is a little hazy.
BC tour guide: For the flood there was a period there where we believe people lived to be 800, 900 years old, almost 1000 years old.
Narrator: So how long was that? How many generations of 800 year old people did we have?
BC tour guide: Without doing the math, I think there's about 6 or 7 generations.
Narrator: In doing the math that would take about 5600 years during which people lived roughly 800 years.
BC tour guide: So from Adam to Noah, I think it's about 1000 years. I could be wrong about that.
The biblically correct answer is 1656 years. (The ABC folks forgot to figure in when the old guys did all that begatting.)
BC tour guide: Is evolution a religion?
Everyone (more or less) answers together: Yes
BC tour guide (pointing to some fossils): What do you see right here?
BC tour guide (not waiting for a response): You're looking at God's judgment of a sinful world. You're looking at the remains of the flood.
Narrator: Why are human and dinosaur remains not found in the same sedimentary layers?
BC tour guide: Okay, there are several problems for the creationist. There's no doubt about that. And one would be that.
BC tour guide: How do we know that God made birds to be birds?
Everyone all together: It says it in the Bible.
(via Pharyngula)
Posted by Steve Wells at 3/24/2008 01:16:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
6 comments:
Pinksy said...
We're all doomed, we really are. Jesus Christ.
Mon Mar 24, 02:27:00 PM 2008
Michael said...
"How do they date the fossil? By the level in which they find it. They date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer and the layer by the fossil. What kind of reasoning is that? That's called circular reasoning."
Correct. Here's another example:
The Bible is the word of God. We know this because it says so in the Bible. We know the Bible is correct because it's the word of God. We know this because it says so in the Bible. We know the Bible is etc. etc. etc. etc.
Mon Mar 24, 03:50:00 PM 2008
~GreyMatters said...
The study of agnoiology should be established as a predominant study; we really need to learn about the art of ignorance in order to avoid it. We're in a tough chronological spot right now. What I find bewildering, is how people lean to the fantastical and aesthetic absurdities of the Bible; it just seems so juvenile, but "Lo! the Holy Texts are attractive of belief for their anachronistic aesthetics, and their aggressive Appeal to Emotion".
"How do they date the fossil? By the level in which they find it. They date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer and the layer by the fossil. What kind of reasoning is that? That's called circular reasoning."
he erred right there. They date the fossil by the layer. Period. They don't justify the date the layer of the fossil gives by asserting the fossil has the date the layer said it was. The layer says that's the date, it then must be correct, why? examine science further, and it's logical justification behind that, and thus it is not circular reasoning anymore. Plus, circular reasoning has to do with the art of justification, not of action ("they date the fossil by the layer, and the layer by the fossil")
michael: "The Bible is the word of God. We know this because it says so in the Bible. We know the Bible is correct because it's the word of God. We know this because it says so in the Bible. We know the Bible is etc. etc. etc. etc."
Hypocrites.
Mon Mar 24, 06:06:00 PM 2008
GAD said...
Jesus Camp: The field trip
Wed Mar 26, 06:28:00 PM 2008
sconnor said...
Actually, are there any savvy evolutionist that can help me out here? I have been in a debate, god, faith, creationism and the religious guy said, "Science is in the present. You can't prove something scientifically from the past. You can't test or repeat the big bang or biblical creation."
Can I get a little help here? I know there has to be a plethora of scientific study that backs up evolution or specifically how old the earth is. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks,
--S.
Wed Mar 26, 11:26:00 PM 2008
Dave said...
Try http://www.talkorigins.org
Thu Mar 27, 12:02:00 PM 2008
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
21 March 2008Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene
Posted by Steve Wells at 3/21/2008 08:13:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
21 March 2008PZ Myers expelled from Ben Stein's 'Expelled' movie
But his companion, Richard Dawkins, was allowed in.
I guess they didn't recognize him!
Read all about it in Pharyngula.
Posted by Steve Wells at 3/21/2008 07:29:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
20 March 2008CNNN: Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
CNNN: The issue that's threatening to split the church in two: That's right, the controversy over gay bishops just won't go away. And it's good to see Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen maintaining the position that he's had for years.
Dr. Peter Jensen: The Bible does forbid us to bless homosexual unions or practicing homosexuals from joining the ministry of the church.
CNNN: Unpopular sure, but he's got something there, I think. The Bible is very clear on this in Leviticus that a man should not lie with another man.
(Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22)
Oh yes, and who could question Leviticus? Laws like putting to death those that curse their mother and father ...
(For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9)
... are just good old-fashioned common sense. We'd have a whole lot less lip from teenagers if we had more respect for God's word on that one.
But which bits of the Bible are we still to believe? We asked Archbishop Peter Jensen to help us out.
CNNN: I just wanted to congratulate you on returning the church to the Bible.
Dr. Peter Jensen: Very kind of you.
CNNN: I was just wondering Dr. Jensen, do you agree with Exodus 35 that we should put to death those that work on the Sabbath?
(Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Exodus 35:2)
Dr. Jensen: Thank you. I always believe that the Bible is the truth and the word of God.
CNNN: So we should put to death those that work on the Sabbath.
Dr. Jensen: Well, no, because you have to read the whole Bible, and when you read the whole Bible you see that that's not true.
CNNN: Where's the part in the Bible that says Exodus is not right?
Dr. Jensen: We don't do that anymore.
CNNN: You're wearing glasses, Dr. Jensen. Doesn't it say in Exodus Leviticus 21:20 that those that have defective sight cannot take the communion of God?
Dr. Jensen: Now you know...
CNNN: Nor dwarfs nor hunchbacks, I think.
Dr. Jensen: Shall we look it up?
CNNN: Sure, you're more than welcome to look it up. Here it is, Leviticus...
Dr. Jensen: You're so good looking.
CNNN: You don't want to say that because a man shouldn't lie with a man like he would a woman, otherwise he's an abomination. That's Leviticus 18 isn't it?
Dr. Jensen: You are obviously well educated. (Begins walking, almost running, away.)
CNNN: I'm seeking more information, Dr. Jensen, as to why is it that Leviticus 18 is still relevant, whereas Leviticus 21, 22, and all these others aren't relevant.
Can you put out a new Bible with the true bits highlighted? I'm just so confused. Which bits do I follow?
Dr. Jensen: (Getting into his car.) I'm very impressed. I do congratulate you.
CNNN: He tried to pick you up I think, Craig?
Yeah, Lucky I had Leviticus to protect me.
Posted by Steve Wells at 3/20/2008 04:30:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
14 comments:
Darren Delgado said...
I am surprised he didn't come up with the usual pat answer, the one about how Jesus negated the silly Old testament laws.
Fri Mar 21, 01:01:00 AM 2008
Leatherdykeuk said...
Ho! I loved it. This has been brought out many times, of course, but it still brings amusement to see the vicar's face.
Fri Mar 21, 02:41:00 AM 2008
ER said...
Funny that the labels for this blog were Bible, Homosexuality, Levitcus. It would be more appropriate for Church or a Person (Dr. Peter Jensen) to be labeled.
Fri Mar 21, 01:40:00 PM 2008
Ryan said...
"You are very good looking."
HAHA this is made of so much win.
Mon Mar 24, 12:31:00 AM 2008
Aquaria said...
Funny that the labels for this blog were Bible, Homosexuality, Levitcus. It would be more appropriate for Church or a Person (Dr. Peter Jensen) to be labeled.
Yet another example of a failure in Reading Comprehension 101. It's apparent that the blogger deemed the critical factor for labels as the CONTENT of the article not who/what was involved.
Thu Apr 17, 02:09:00 PM 2008
Thomas said...
The excuse that Jesus negated the Old Testament won't work, because the anti-homosexual laws ARE part of the Old Testament!!!
Sun Jun 08, 04:43:00 AM 2008
the christian-teen said...
We no longer have to sentence people who work on the sabbath to death because christ fullfilled the law
Sun Jun 08, 10:25:00 AM 2008
Steve Wells said...
But it was the right thing to do back in the good old days, eh Christian Teen?
Sun Jun 08, 10:29:00 AM 2008
Tammy said...
My GOD have mercy on all your souls....those who question and do not believe.
Thu Jul 23, 10:55:00 PM 2009
jazz said...
Those who don't question, are fools.What better way to keep a flock close to you and control their thinking? teach them that they must not question what you tell them, just believe it. I quess its eaiser than checking things out your self.
As far as I am concerned, I havent been convinced of god ever showing mercy to anyone. And what really bothers me also is .....If there is a god, he is very obsessed with others suffering for some reason. And all the arguements go out the window about its because we are sinners and blah, blah,blah exspecially when he supposedly created all the animals too, Im guessing again is because he wanted to have them suffer needlessly.....they have no choices, no freewill, no understanding of god, yet they suffer terribly at the hands of who? man? Yes!! made by god? (according to christians) then it pretty much concludes to me that pain and suffering is needed for god to amuse himself. So on that, I can't say if he is or isn't, but I can say if he is, hes not very nice and stadistic really.
Sun Aug 02, 08:58:00 AM 2009
Anban M said...
"Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers." - Bruce Calvert
Sun Mar 14, 03:03:00 AM 2010
player congratulator said...
This has got to be a fake video, but let me straighten out the NT law about homosexual behavior for you...
Romans 1:26-32 tells you all you need to know about how God feels about homosexual behavior. Besides that reference, up until the mid-70s, the American Psychology Association still considered homosexual behavior to be deviant sexual behavior. That is until LGBT groups pressured them into changing it.
Finally, I didn't need the APA or the Bible to tell me it was sick, creepy, and unnatural when a childhood friend tried to persuade me to be gay with him and showed me homo-erotic pictures. I immediately knew it was sick.
Why didn't you? Now you can amuse yourself with fantasies about what you want to believe really happened to my childhood friend. But the fact remains we are not friends any more. It ended that day.
I killed him. (gotcha)
Still, gay behavior is unnatural in any species for a reason. Quit trying to bash Christians and the Bible. Even those that don't go to church STILL think it's sick and should remain private.
Fri Apr 02, 12:09:00 PM 2010
Michael said...
Yo, Player-dude, if you still surf this blogs then realize this, homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom. As a populace grows, the hormones can grow thin, resulting in all kinds of different results. Bonobos are an example of creatures that exhibit homosexual behavior on a regular basis. There's also a lizard species that is entirely female and reproduce through natural cloning that is stimulated by achieving orgasm with another of the same species.
I'm sorry that your ex-friend made a bad judgment in thinking that you were gay, too. Instead of breaking ties with him, you should have simply said 'Sorry man, but I'm not gay." A pity that you made an enemy out of someone over something so small.
Also, the APA was ran by Fundamentalist Christians for years, as was most of the country. As such, they made the laws to fit their beliefs. With influence from both growing Secular and LGBTQ organizations,but mostly from the Secular organizations, the APA changed some of the oudated research tactics that were used to verify mental illnesses. With the new procedures, new mental illness that were ignored for a while were classified and some of the older ones, including homosexuality, were either changed or eliminated from definition altogether.
I know I just wasted my time trying to explain this to someone who will most likely twist my words or ignore them altogether just so that they can continue feeding there own beliefs.
Thu May 27, 10:54:00 PM 2010
Xaratherus said...
@player congratulator: "Still, gay behavior is unnatural in any species for a reason. Quit trying to bash Christians and the Bible. Even those that don't go to church STILL think it's sick and should remain private."
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
For something that's unnatural, there sure are a whole lot of natural species that practice it.
Would you also like to comment on the fact that the original Greek phrase translated as "vile affections" has multiple meanings, and in this context is most likely to not refer to "affections" at all, but rather to the drug- and wine-induced frenzies common to Roman fertility cults of the time?
Thu Jul 29, 01:55:00 PM 2010
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
18 March 2008Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union'
If you haven't heard this speech, you should.
Full Text of Speech
Posted by Steve Wells at 3/18/2008 03:21:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
2 comments:
Anon said...
Very powerful speech. It seems to be a very a-religious speech. My impression from it, unless I'm reading too much into it, is that Obama doesn't literally believe the Bible, but feels people unite under some of its powerful stories to find inspiration and move forward towards improving their lives.
I don't think the Bible as a whole is inspirational (far from it), but there are admittedly some good stories in it here and there. If all people could only view religion as Obama seems to in this speech, then the world would be a much better place.
"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."
Wed Mar 19, 08:16:00 AM 2008
Ladyasha09 said...
I thought it was a very good and powerful speech! I heard everyone talking about it and i had to see what all the fuss was about. Well i am impressed and it was worth the whole entire time it took. The things he said about racism and how we can change as a nation were so on the money. I hope a lot of people look at this speech and take it into consideration. I do agree with you that he looks at religion in different way, and its very inspirational. Way to go Obama.
Sat Mar 22, 08:26:00 PM 2008
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
23 April 2008Five Golden Hemorrhoids
My last post listed the top ten biblical plagues, one of which involved five golden hemorrhoids. Since that probably bothered a lot of you, I thought I'd tell more about it.
It all started when the Philistines stole the ark of the covenant from the Israelites and brought it to the city of Ashdod. They put the ark in the temple next to their god, Dagon. The next day they found Dagon face-down on the floor. So they put Dagon back up again, but they found him on the floor again the next day with his hands and head cut off. The Bible tells us (1 Samuel 5:5) that no one ever went into that temple again.
But God was just messing around with Dagon. Next he gets down to serious business by striking the people of Ashdod with emerods (hemorrhoids).
But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods. 1 Samuel 5:6
The people of Ashdod figure it's the God of the Israelites that is smiting them with hemorrhoids (who else would do something like that?), so they try to get rid of the damn ark, since God seems so pissed off about it. So they send it to the city of Gath, which didn't work out too well for the Gathites.
The hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts. 1 Samuel 5:9
And the Gathites packed up the ark and sent it to the next city, Ekron, with much the same result.
There was a deadly destruction throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there. And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods: and the cry of the city went up to heaven. 1 Samuel 5:11-12
Finally, the Philistines ask their priests if they have any ideas. The priests tell them to make five golden hemorrhoids and five golden mice as a trespass offering, put the ark and the trespass offerings in a cart pulled by two cows. Then let the cows go wherever they choose. If they go toward Bethshemesh, then it is God who was striking the people with hemorrhoids in their secret parts.
Since that sounded like such a reasonable plan, that's what they did. And the cows headed straight for Bethshemesh "and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left." So the world now knows for sure that it was God who had killed the Philistines by putting hemorrhoids in their secret parts.
That would have been a happy ending, I suppose, except some of the Bethshemeshites looked into the ark. So God had to kill 50,070 of them. (A God's gotta do what a God's gotta do.)
And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter. 1 Samuel 6:19
Stories like this can only be found in the Bible.
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/23/2008 08:14:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
8 comments:
emodude1971 said...
This is hilarious. Why any intelligent, reasonable person would think this behavior is appropriate for the creator of the universe is insane. Do stories like this not make it plainly obvious that the bible was written by a bunch of stupid primates, whose primary purpose was to instill fear and awe in the power of their god?
Thu May 01, 11:28:00 AM 2008
Randy said...
If I might go off topic: Happy National (U.S.) Day of Prayer. The only way that I see that this could possibly be Constitutional would be if we declare June 1st to be National Day of Admitting that Organized Religion is B.S.
Thank you.
Thu May 01, 02:24:00 PM 2008
v_quixotic said...
The LORD seems to be very hard on His chosen people. The Philistines who steal the ark and defile it by installing it in a pagan temple are only punished with hemorrhoids and some minor vandalism. The Israelites on the other hand are subjected to the collective punishment of genocide for just checking to see if the tablets were still there. Brutal, and inconsistent!
Thu May 01, 10:52:00 PM 2008
Aquaria said...
I always have to read certain versions of the Hebrew fairtyale (like the KJV) carefully, because they sometimes make things sound worse, or at least more confusing, than some of the other translations. For instance, read a certain way, 1 Samuel 5:6 as listed above (KJV) almost makes it sound like the imaginary sky guy first destroys the people of Ashdod then he smote them with hemorrhoids, which would seem like unnecessary effort. I mean, why give dead people hemorrhoids?
As it is, why hemorrhoids, anyway? I mean, the guy turned somebody into a pillar of salt once. Had he forgotten how to do that? Or was it "been there, done that"?
So much about the guy in the sky doesn't make sense...
Fri May 02, 04:47:00 PM 2008
N T Wrong said...
Have you seen Aren Maeir's recent theory on the meaning of the 'opalim?
See http://ntwrong.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/aren-maeirs-philistine-penis-in-full-colour/
Fri May 02, 08:39:00 PM 2008
Steve Wells said...
Thanks N T Wrong! I'd never heard that theory before. I've added a links in the blog entry and at the SAB.
Sat May 03, 06:14:00 PM 2008
BCPipes said...
On the other hand, emodude, the authors of the Bible may have been more with-it than we think. Read the directions for constructing the Ark of the Covenant in Exodus. What better to awestrike the meeping primates to enslavement than a Superheterodyne demodulator with a capacity for around 50MJoules?
Strange that they were also instructed to walk around with it a lot. To build up a charge, I suppose?
On a smaller scale, behold the "speaking tube" at Mystery Hill NH.
"A 4 inch by 6 inch shaft, lined with thin facing stones, runs from the exterior and enters through the interior wall at about chin level. The “Speaking Tube,” as it is called, emerges above ground, yet concealed underneath a sacrificial altar with runnels. It would seem that the speakers within the Oracle Chamber could talk into the tube, their voices warped and amplified, carrying up to the altar above and creating quite an impressive sound to a group of worshippers who might be gathered around the altar—in effect making the altar talk."
http://planetvermont.com/pvq/v9n1/megaliths.html
Then there's Penn and Teller.
Wed Aug 13, 10:45:00 PM 2008
Bukko Canukko said...
With apologies to the late Johnny Cash and "A boy Named Sue", I just gotta say that if I ever have a son, I'm naming him Bethshamesh.
Wed May 26, 07:56:00 PM 2010
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
22 April 2008The Top Ten Biblical Plagues
I recently listed the top ten biblical massacres and the ten plagues of Egypt. And although the Egyptian plagues are by far the best known, there are just a sample of the plagues sent by God in the Bible.
Here is my top ten list of plagues. (See here for a more complete list.)
When traveling through Egypt, Abram worried that the Pharaoh couldn't resist hitting on his 70 year old wife, Sarai. So he told Sarai to say she is his sister. Then when the Pharaoh believed the lie and took Sarai into his harem, God sent a plague on the Pharaoh and his household.
And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. Genesis 12:17
God kills all Egyptian firstborn humans and animals.
At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. ... and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. Exodus 12:29-30
God tells the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill their family and friends for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf. "And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men."
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men ... And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. Exodus 32:27-35
When the Israelites complained about the lack of food during the Exodus, God sent them quails to eat until it came out their noses. And then, to punish them for whining, "while the flesh was still between their teeth, the Lord smote the people with a very great plague."
Ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? ... Therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat. Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you. ... And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth. ... And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague. Numbers 11:18-33
For complaining (again) about the lack of food and water, God sent "fiery serpents" to bite his chosen people, and many of them died.
And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Numbers 21:5-6
After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sent a plague that killed another 14,700.
All the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the LORD. ... And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment. And they fell upon their faces ... for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun ... Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah. Numbers 16:41-50
God sent a plague that killed 24,000 Israelites for "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab." (The plague was finally stopped when Phinehas speared an Israelite man and his Moabite companion through their bellies.)
And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab ... and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor. And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses ... And when Phinehas, ... saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand ... and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. Numbers 25:1-9
God killed 50,070 men for looking into the ark. (This was after the Philistines gave God five golden hemorrhoids as a trespass offering. See also Plague #10 below.)
And these are the golden emerods which the Philistines returned for a trespass offering unto the LORD ... And the golden mice ... And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter. 1 Samuel 6:17-19
God offers David a choice of punishments for having conducted a census (that either God or Satan requested): seven (or three) years of famine, three months fleeing from enemies, or three days of pestilence. David can't decide, so God chooses for him and sends a pestilence, killing 70,000 men (and maybe 200,000 women and children).
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah ... And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king ... And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people ... So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? ... So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men. 2 Samuel 24:1-13
God smites the people of Ashdod with hemorrhoids "in their secret parts."
The hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts ... And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods: and the cry of the city went up to heaven. 1 Samuel 5:9-12
Number 10 is my favorite. Which is yours?
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/22/2008 03:08:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
8 comments:
v_quixotic said...
The thing I like about plague number 3 is how Aaron who led the gullible astray escaped the punishment inflicted on the gold calf worshipers . Nothing beats having friends in high places, eh?
Tue Apr 22, 11:49:00 PM 2008
emodude1971 said...
So god created a plague that could be beaten by a tube of Preparation H? God must really hate science, as it requires him to come up with more powerful and creative plagues.
God: "Damn those humans and their science; I can't use the hemorrhoid plague anymore. I know, I'll make AIDS to deal with those pesky homosexuals that annoy me so much"
10-15 years later...
God: "Damn those humans and their science; they've got a good handle on the disease, people are using condoms (which I thought I made clear to the pope is a no-no), and now they'll probably have a cure in another 10 years! Now what?!"
Wed Apr 23, 07:57:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
That's a well researched list. Thanks.
Wed Apr 23, 08:11:00 AM 2008
McGuire said...
It's somewhat comical that God is attributed with bestowing us with Free Will, yet exercising that same free will (As illustrated here) results in a severe punishment / massacres.
Wed Apr 23, 10:39:00 AM 2008
Aquaria said...
Or if you don't exercise your free will (David), other people can be punished.
I think I like the David one best. It's so typical of him to fuck up like mad and get even more people killed while he scampers away scot-free. Then again, despite being one of the most loathsome people in the big book, David is my favorite, simply because he's one of the few three-dimensional characters in the whole thing.
Wed Apr 23, 05:30:00 PM 2008
Anon said...
I think the list of plagues is good. I think #5 shows God's character best.
You dare complain about not having the basic necessities to live? Instead of giving you bread and water, I will send fiery serpents to kill you. That'll shut you up!
But the most ingenious plague of all is not on the list. What single thing has arguably caused the most human suffering in the world? Why, it's...
The Bible!
This plague has spread everywhere. It was behind the death, destruction, and suffering experienced during the Crusades, the Inquisition, Ireland vs. Northern Ireland, witch burning, American slavery, and countless other incidents in ancient and moden times. Christians fighting non-Christians. Christians fighting Christians. With a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other.
The Bible has plagued humanity for ages, and telling from the recent CNN faith forum with Clinton and Obama, I don't think the Bible is a plague we will be rid of anytime soon. All the other plagues pale in comparison, in my opinion.
Wed Apr 23, 08:36:00 PM 2008
Skeptical Simsam said...
Surely plague #6 is the best. I mean, the Israelites raise a legitimate question, and he kills even more of them. Surely excellent lessons for parenting.
Thu Apr 24, 01:15:00 AM 2008
Jacob Hart said...
I just found this blog. My compliments. My favorite is the 50,000+ who are killed for looking in the ark. Do you think they all looked in at the same time, or did they take turns looking in and dying?
Tue Apr 29, 12:12:00 PM 2008
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
21 April 2008Angel sex, giants, and and an 8-fold reduction in the human life span (all in four verses)
Don't you just love how action-packed the Bible is? I do.
Take Genesis 6:1-4, for example. Here are the first two verses:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1-2
How's that for a great story, eh? The sons of God had sex with the daughters of men.
But who were the sons of God, you ask?
Well, it beats the hell out of me. Christians often call Jesus the son of God, but he wouldn't have been one of the guys having sex here, would he? I doubt it. It was probably a bunch of perverted angels. At least that's what most believers seem to think.
Okay, so angels came down and had sex with women. Why would that matter to anyone?
Because that is why God decided to reduce the human lifespan from 900+ to 120 years. The reason no one is older than Edna Parker (who turned 115 yesterday), is that those damned angels had sex with women. At least that's what God seems to say in the very next verse:
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Genesis 6:3
So God reduced the human life span by a factor of 8 because angels had sex with women. (Or because all men are flesh. But that doesn't seem likely -- even for a half-crazed God.)
Oh, there are a couple other things to tell you about: giants and "men of renown". Here's what the Bible has to say.
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4
I don't know whether the "mighty men of renown" were giants or what. But I just thought I'd throw that in, since it was just thrown into the Bible.
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/21/2008 12:22:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
55 comments:
Jason said...
Steve,
Who do you think the sons of God were?
Mon Apr 21, 02:04:00 PM 2008
Steve Wells said...
I don't think they existed, Jason. They are part of a story that no one should take seriously.
Mon Apr 21, 02:10:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
Whether or not they existed isn't what I'm asking. I'm wondering who you think the sons of God were?
Mon Apr 21, 02:37:00 PM 2008
Steve Wells said...
How can I tell you who they were if I don't think they existed at all?
It's like asking me, How tall are Santa's elves?
Mon Apr 21, 02:45:00 PM 2008
Dave said...
The elves really exist and are about 3 feet tall. Prove me wrong.
Mon Apr 21, 03:35:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
Steve,
Actually, it's like asking if Santa has elves or goats.
Nonetheless, are saying there's no information whatsoever in Scripture that would lead anyone to conclude who exactly the sons of God are? Because it would appear you're choosing to take it on faith that the sons of God are angels. I'm interested in why you support this particular idea, and not, for example, the idea that the sons of God are anything else.
Mon Apr 21, 03:52:00 PM 2008
Aquaria said...
Uh.... Reading comprehension 101, Jason:
But who were the sons of God, you ask?
Well, it beats the hell out of me. Christians often call Jesus the son of God, but he wouldn't have been one of the guys having sex here, would he? I doubt it. It was probably a bunch of perverted angels. At least that's what most believers seem to think.
I would say that would answer your question, but you're a creationist. It has to be explained to you. S L O W L Y:
Steve is not saying he thinks that angels are these "sons of God." He's saying believers say it. He provides a link to demonstrate the point.
Do you see that now?
Mon Apr 21, 06:17:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
Aquaria,
I'm interested in why Steve supports the idea that the sons of God are angels. I'm wondering if it's because "most believers" told him so or if he came to this conclusion on his own.
Because if it "really beats the hell" out of him, I'm confused as to why he's defending the idea the sons of God and the daughters of men are "two very different groups".
Mon Apr 21, 07:48:00 PM 2008
Steve Wells said...
Jason,
I'm not "defending the idea that the sons of God and the daughters of men are two different groups." I don't think I ever even suggested that, did I?
I said that the men that had daughters and the sons of God who had sex with the daughters seem like two very different groups to me. One group sounds like ordinary men; the other group (sons of God) sounds like something entirely different.
I know what men are, but I'm not familiar with sons of God. You see, sons of God are a lot like Santa's elves: nonexistent.
But the guy who made up the story probably believed in them and he probably thought they were angels. But probably is the best I can do here, Jason.
I'll let you believers argue about true nature and identity of the mysterious and nonexistent sons of God.
Mon Apr 21, 10:12:00 PM 2008
v_quixotic said...
I suppose one really needs a working knowledge of Hebrew, and access to the original texts, and a good understanding of the social context in which the texts were written to be sure... However, it seems reasonable that if sons of God and 'men' are one in the same, the same term would have been used... you know, to avoid confusion.
Apart from Jesus, are sons of God mentioned anywhere else?
Tue Apr 22, 01:17:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
And why do you believe the writer 'probably' thought they were angels, Steve? Is it because that's what most Christians told you to believe?
The problem is you're saying you're non-committal and neutral about the identity of these "sons" and don't really care either way, yet you're claiming the writer "probably" thought they were angels. What's going on?
Tue Apr 22, 06:05:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
v_quixotic,
Scripturally, "sons of God" can refer to angels, as is the case in Job 38:7, the only time it used this way.
In the rest of the cases, "sons of God" is an expression about human worshippers of God. See Hosea 1:10, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:14-16, 1 John 3:1-2.
To further support this point, the "sons of God" cannot be angels since angels "do not marry" (Mat 12:25).
Tue Apr 22, 06:28:00 AM 2008
Anon said...
This site, http://www.rationalchristianity.net/nephilim.html, discusses three options.
1. "Sons of God" refers to fallen angels who lived on earth and married human women. The Nephilim are giants of extra-human strength who were the offspring of these marriages.
2. "Sons of God" refers to descendents of Seth, who were godly men who sinned by marrying descendents [sic] of Cain, who would have been pagans. The Nephilim were simply "heroes", not giants, and may or may not have been the offspring of the mixed marriages.
3. "Sons of God" is better translated as "kings" or "sons of nobles" and "Nephilim" is best translated as "princes" or "great men." That is, the "sons of God" were royalty or aristocrats who were generally immoral and married common women, possibly against their will or despite their already being married.
I think an argument presented for the 3rd is the most interesting. It mentions that
The Hebrew word in the phrase "sons of God" is Elohim
My understanding is "Elohim" is problematic for translators and biblical scholars. There are many words used for God in the Hebrew version: El, Elohim, Yahweh, etc.
The link I cited doesn't take the next logical step here, but it's possible that "sons of God" is trying to make at least in part a distinction between the various gods of the Bible.
I looked for other discussion and verses with Elohim in it, and Job 1:6 may shed some light here: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."
According to this site: http://www.yrm.org/sons_of_elohim.htm, if we use the actual words for God that the original uses, we come up with:
"Now there was a day when the sons of Elohim came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan came also among them."
It seems pretty clear here to me that Elohim and Yahweh are referring to two separate entities. Satan here seems to be a third being (God is Satan may be argued for some verses, but not this one).
So from these verses in Genesis 6 and Job 1 we appear to have at least five distinct beings (I'll leave out the giants from Genesis 6, since it's unclear what if any relationship they have to the others):
1) Elohim (creator of the universe in Genesis 1)
2) Sons of Elohim, referred to in Genesis 6 as marrying the daughters of men
3) Daughters of men, whom the sons of Elohim are marrying in Genesis 6
4) Yahweh, a separate being that the sons of Elohim present themselves to in Job 1
5) Satan, whom Yahweh converses with about Job
This doesn't clarify who the sons of Elohim are, but it would appear to show who they aren't
1) They're not Elohim, they're the sons of Elohim
2) They're not the daughters of men, since they marry the daughters of men.
3) They're not Yahweh, since they go to present themselves to Yahweh.
4) They're not the sons of Yahweh, otherwise it would just say "Yahweh's (or his) sons"
5) They're not Satan, since Satan was with Yahweh and the sons of Elohim
So they can be any number of things: angels, deities, demigods, etc.
It wouldn't make sense for the sons of Elohim to simply be men (like Adam), because then why would it be a bad thing for the daughters of men to marry the sons of Elohim? Why would God decide to limit man's days to 120 because men were marrying women? Doesn't follow.
So the Bible doesn't appear to tell us who the sons of God are, but they are the sons of Elohim. After that, it looks to be difficult to say exactly what they are, just what they're not.
But for me, I find it interesting that the Genesis 6 verses about the sons of God seem to make clear, through the book of Job, that Yahweh and Elohim are not the same being. I wasn't taught this in Sunday School, maybe because it's so hard to figure out what on Earth (or in heaven) the Bible is trying to say.
Sorry for the long post, it would be helpful if the Bible just came out and told us things!
(Note: I deleted my previous post because I accidentally referred to Job 6:1, when it's actually Job 1:6)
Tue Apr 22, 07:51:00 AM 2008
Aquaria said...
Jason:
More reading comprehension: "Many" does not equal "all." Now would you admit that there are "many" believers of the Yahweh fantasy who believe the sons of God equal angels? Or do we need to post links/sources until we reach a number that constitutes "many?" How many is many?
From my investigation of the issue, it's not one Christian. Or just a few. It's a whole heckuva lot of them. Thousands of them. Maybe even millions. Enough that it seems to be accepted doctrine by "many" believers. It's not some fringe notion in Christianity, and you are either ignorant or mendacious to imply that it's not a common Christian belief.
So stop nit-picking that Steve used only one link and not each of the thousands he could have included. You know he had no need to link to every single one of them--and that the page would be nothing but one long page of links if he had.
It also doesn't matter what Steve thinks about what the sons of God are supposed to be. It's like asking someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus if he wears red underwear or white, or if elves are shorter than four feet (or is it three???). What do YOU think they are, since you're obviously a Yahweh fantasist?
Tue Apr 22, 08:59:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
Anon said: So they can be any number of things: angels, deities, demigods, etc.
They can't be angels since angels neither sin nor marry.
It wouldn't make sense for the sons of Elohim to simply be men (like Adam), because then why would it be a bad thing for the daughters of men to marry the sons of Elohim?
"Sons of God" are most often human worshippers of God. Therefore, it's no stretch to view these men as the righteous line of Seth (Gen 5 for context), marrying into the wicked line of men.
Why would God decide to limit man's days to 120 because men were marrying women? Doesn't follow.
Why not? The less time people have, the less the time it gives them to screw things up.
Tue Apr 22, 09:02:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
Aquaria,
If you're comfortable taking it on faith that the Christian majority is always right, even though you hold Christianity to be wrong, so be it.
It also doesn't matter what Steve thinks about what the sons of God are supposed to be.
It matters to me. Steve says there seems to be two different "types" of people. It's fair for me to enquire how he came to this conclusion. Either he doesn't know or he does know from his own research or someone else told him this is what he should believe.
What do YOU think they are, since you're obviously a Yahweh fantasist?
Already answered. Please read my previous posts.
Tue Apr 22, 09:13:00 AM 2008
emodude1971 said...
Jason said: Why not? The less time people have, the less the time it gives them to screw things up.
Wow Jason. Are you actually making a case for child sacrifice with that statement?
Tue Apr 22, 09:26:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
Nope.
Tue Apr 22, 10:28:00 AM 2008
McGuire said...
Why not? The less time people have, the less the time it gives them to screw things up.
So abortion is, in a roundabout sense, good then... right?
& where do Jeanne Calment & others fit into the whole 120yr age limit?
Tue Apr 22, 10:34:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
Mcguire,
Relevance?
Tue Apr 22, 11:08:00 AM 2008
McGuire said...
You tell me, they're you're words :) I'm merely making logical implications.
If, as you say, God reduced life span so we could "screw up less", then abortion is just a man-made extension to Gods work...
Tue Apr 22, 11:13:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
Sorry, I'm not sure what the logical implications are. We're talking about Genesis 6 and you're getting into abortion. I don't see the fit.
Tue Apr 22, 12:09:00 PM 2008
emodude1971 said...
If you don't explain things to Jason in excruciating detail so he can dismiss it in a couple of words, he won't give you any real response at all, so I'll try.
BTW - Steve, sorry for the slight threadjacking here.
Jason, let's take myself for example. I'm 37 years old, and I was probably a Christian up until 30. Looking at the BIG picture in terms of your dogma, would it not have been better for me to either have been killed as a child, or died before 30, then to reach the point I'm at now? I'll never be a christian again, and thus I'm likely to suffer some form of eternal punishment (which you of course debate about anyway). At any rate, I won't enjoy 'eternal happiness'. So...by this example, if my mother had killed me as a child, would this not have been a better alternative?
Tue Apr 22, 02:06:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
A more detailed explanation was all I was asking for. Thank you for providing it.
Looking at the BIG picture in terms of your dogma, would it not have been better for me to either have been killed as a child, or died before 30, then to reach the point I'm at now?
Er, I don't see how.
I'll never be a christian again, and thus I'm likely to suffer some form of eternal punishment (which you of course debate about anyway).
Psa 31:17 "...but let the wicked be put to shame
and lie silent in the grave." :)
At any rate, I won't enjoy 'eternal happiness'. So...by this example, if my mother had killed me as a child, would this not have been a better alternative?
So if you won't ever enjoy eternal happiness, you'd prefer not to be alive at all...? A tad dramatic, don't you think?
Tue Apr 22, 06:53:00 PM 2008
Anon said...
Jason: "Sons of God" are most often human worshippers of God. Therefore, it's no stretch to view these men as the righteous line of Seth (Gen 5 for context), marrying into the wicked line of men.
Why would Satan accompany the righteous line of Seth to go see Yahweh to discuss Job? (Job 1:6)
emodude1971: At any rate, I won't enjoy 'eternal happiness'. So...by this example, if my mother had killed me as a child, would this not have been a better alternative?
Jason: So if you won't ever enjoy eternal happiness, you'd prefer not to be alive at all...? A tad dramatic, don't you think?
I don't think that's what emodude1971 was saying, Jason. He was just following your logic from earlier (that the less we live, the less time we have to screw things up).
I personally feel though that if God really existed, and he was a good being, then he should just come out and tell us he's up there watching over us. He wouldn't expect us to figure out he exists from some thousands-of-years-old unclear, contradictory text.
If God exists and there is a Heaven, given his track record (flood, mass killing of Egyptians, etc. etc.) maybe we'd be better off dead in the ground than right next door to him.
Tue Apr 22, 07:29:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
Anon said: Why would Satan accompany the righteous line of Seth to go see Yahweh to discuss Job? (Job 1:6)
As previously stated, the “sons of God” are most often human worshippers of God.
I don't think that's what emodude1971 was saying, Jason. He was just following your logic from earlier (that the less we live, the less time we have to screw things up).
I understand that and I’m pointing out the ridiculousness of the scenario. I fail to see the logic or rationale in stating a mother is better off killing her child if the child won’t ultimately be given eternal happiness.
If God exists and there is a Heaven, given his track record (flood, mass killing of Egyptians, etc. etc.) maybe we'd be better off dead in the ground than right next door to him.
Bizarre.
Tue Apr 22, 08:40:00 PM 2008
Anon said...
Anon said: Why would Satan accompany the righteous line of Seth to go see Yahweh to discuss Job? (Job 1:6)
Jason said: As previously stated, the “sons of God” are most often human worshippers of God.
This doesn't answer the question, so I'll restate it (with a different emphasis to make my point clearer): Why would human worshipers of God go with Satan to see Yahweh about discussing Job? Wouldn't this upset God that Satan is leading around his worshippers? It's clear that Satan ≠ God here, unless you think God accompanied God's worshippers to go see God.
Anon said: If God exists and there is a Heaven, given his track record (flood, mass killing of Egyptians, etc. etc.) maybe we'd be better off dead in the ground than right next door to him.
Jason: Bizarre.
God reportedly does a lot of things that frankly scare me. Look at what he put Job through, just because Satan double-dared him to. And Job was a man who was "perfect and upright" (Job 1:1), so just imagine what God might do to imperfect old me.
Wed Apr 23, 04:00:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
Anon said: Why would human worshipers of God go with Satan to see Yahweh about discussing Job? Wouldn't this upset God that Satan is leading around his worshippers?
Firstly, who's Satan in Job 1? Secondly, the human worshippers didn't meet with God to discuss Job. Thirdly, the text doesn't say this 'Satan' person "led" God's worshippers.
God reportedly does a lot of things that frankly scare me. Look at what he put Job through, just because Satan double-dared him to. And Job was a man who was "perfect and upright" (Job 1:1), so just imagine what God might do to imperfect old me.
I don't see how this justifies killing yourself or your child.
Wed Apr 23, 06:25:00 AM 2008
emodude1971 said...
I asked you to look at the BIG picture Jason, which you either refuse to or can't do.
You say you can't see how it would've been better for me to die before 30 as a christian than to reach the point I'm at now (whether by natural causes or my own mother killing me). And in your very next response you post Psa 31:17 - let the wicked be put to shame and lie silent in the grave. Are you truly unable to see the hypocrisy in your responses? Look at the BIG picture!
And then finally, you say: So if you won't ever enjoy eternal happiness, you'd prefer not to be alive at all...? A tad dramatic, don't you think?
First off, I never said I'd prefer to be dead than alive. Second, and again, the BIG picture here was whether it would've been better for me to have died already; which I believe I've answered for you above.
Wed Apr 23, 07:08:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
emodude said: You say you can't see how it would've been better for me to die before 30 as a christian than to reach the point I'm at now (whether by natural causes or my own mother killing me). And in your very next response you post Psa 31:17 - let the wicked be put to shame and lie silent in the grave. Are you truly unable to see the hypocrisy in your responses? Look at the BIG picture!
The BIG picture is that you will live out the rest of your life, as will everyone else, believers and non-believers. You will die and go to the grave, as will everyone else, believers and non-believers. When Christ returns, there will be a resurrection and a judgment of believers and non-believers.
Ending your life before 30 as a Christian gains or spares you nothing. Living after 30 as an unbeliever gains or spares you nothing. The only way this would be untrue is if a Christian is somehow guaranteed salvation simply because he's a "Christian". Unfortunately, things don't work this way.
First off, I never said I'd prefer to be dead than alive.
You said: “At any rate, I won't enjoy 'eternal happiness'. So...by this example, if my mother had killed me as a child, would this not have been a better alternative?”
Since you don’t think you’ll enjoy eternal happiness, you’re claiming it would have been a better alternative if your mother had killed you as a child. Once again, I fail to see the logic or the rationale of this position.
Wed Apr 23, 08:51:00 AM 2008
emodude1971 said...
Jason,
Your play on words to avoid answering questions grows tiring.
Jason said: Ending your life before 30 as a Christian gains or spares you nothing. Living after 30 as an unbeliever gains or spares you nothing. The only way this would be untrue is if a Christian is somehow guaranteed salvation simply because he's a "Christian". Unfortunately, things don't work this way.
Fine - let's define me being a Christian as a person who believes in Jesus as my savior with all my heart and soul and thus will likely receive salvation.
Now answer the question with this definition in mind.
Jason said: Since you don’t think you’ll enjoy eternal happiness, you’re claiming it would have been a better alternative if your mother had killed you as a child. Once again, I fail to see the logic or the rationale of this position.
Again, on the premise that I have now doomed myself to some form of eternal unhappiness, then you can't see the rationale for dying early? You said yourself, god lowered the age limit to give people less time to screw up! How can you NOT see the rationale to what I'm arguing for?
Wed Apr 23, 01:53:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
Fine - let's define me being a Christian as a person who believes in Jesus as my savior with all my heart and soul and thus will likely receive salvation.
You misunderstand the concept salvation. No one can say they will “likely" receive salvation. It’s is something that is given out of God’s mercy and God’s mercy alone.
Again, on the premise that I have now doomed myself to some form of eternal unhappiness, then you can't see the rationale for dying early?
Absolutely not. Since a Christian is constantly sinning and failing, there’s no one point in his life where he can say, “Okay, I’ve just earned salvation, now, someone kill me before I turn into an unbeliever.” That’s ridiculous.
You said yourself, god lowered the age limit to give people less time to screw up! How can you NOT see the rationale to what I'm arguing for?
Because you’re trying to argue something you clearly misunderstand.
Wed Apr 23, 04:59:00 PM 2008
emodude1971 said...
Jason, you are clearly so much wiser than me that you're going to have to clarify something for me. Can you please explain how my position - that for any chance of christian salvation I would've been better off dying as a child or before I became an atheist, differs from your statement that god decreased our life span so that we don't have as much time to screw up? Because as you say I clearly am trying to argue something I don't understand, so you're going to have to explain it more thoroughly for me.
Wed Apr 23, 05:51:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
E,
There's no need to be sarcastic.
You stated it would have been better for your mother to kill you as a child as if this would have somehow 'improved your odds' of salvation. Scripturally, there's no support for this, so let's ignore this particular comment.
Secondly, I now understand where you're coming from. You were confusing me with your "better alternative" phrase and assumption of salvation arguments. Sorry for taking so long to get here :)
Anyhow, back on topic. The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is still no, it wouldn't have been better if you died before you turned 30 because under Christ, no one is past redemption as long as they remain alive. If you had died, it wouldn't have been better, it just 'would have been'.
The 'better' part only works if you died tomorrow without repenting. In this case, you'd have had a better shot at salvation during your Christian years then dying in unbelief.
Hope that answers your question.
Wed Apr 23, 06:36:00 PM 2008
Anon said...
Jason said:Firstly, who's Satan in Job 1?
Why don't you tell me? I am able to determine logically that he's obviously not God. But the Bible doesn't tell us.
By the way, I don't know why you are having me and others define everything in the Bible when you're the one who believes it. Shouldn't the burden fall on you to correct me or inform me if I'm off track on something?
Secondly, the human worshippers didn't meet with God to discuss Job. Thirdly, the text doesn't say this 'Satan' person "led" God's worshippers.
You are correct that it doesn't say that Satan led them there.
Job 1:6, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."
Since God subsequently appears to ignore the sons of God and addresses himself only to Satan, it left me with the impression that Satan was leading. So Satan came with the sons of God (whoever they may be), and God talked to Satan (whoever he may be).
I don't see how this justifies killing yourself or your child.
I never said anything about killing my child or killing myself, just not wanting to spend eternity with God.
Wed Apr 23, 08:14:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
Anon: Why don't you tell me? I am able to determine logically that he's obviously not God. But the Bible doesn't tell us.
I happily agree. The Bible doesn’t tell us.
By the way, I don't know why you are having me and others define everything in the Bible when you're the one who believes it. Shouldn't the burden fall on you to correct me or inform me if I'm off track on something?
No, since I’m not the one making assertions about who these various groups of people are. If someone says the “sons of God” are angels, the burden of proof is on the person making this claim to prove their point.
So Satan came with the sons of God (whoever they may be), and God talked to Satan (whoever he may be).
That’s right.
I never said anything about killing my child or killing myself, just not wanting to spend eternity with God.
My original comment on this matter was directed to Emodude.
Thu Apr 24, 06:16:00 AM 2008
emodude1971 said...
Thanks for your reply Jason. And sorry I resorted to sarcasm, but our failure to come to an understanding was getting frustrating.
But now that we've gotten there, I've got another question. I'm going to assume you're not a big proponent of 'God's Plan', but perhaps we can agree that god is at least omniscient enough to have understood what was going to happen in my life, and that I was going to become an atheist. In that respect, why didn't god arrange my death before I became an atheist? People die at early ages all the time, for various reasons, and from Christians you'll often hear 'Well, god has a plan for everyone'. Why did god plan for me to become an atheist, and perhaps doom another generation of children (my kids are being raised atheist), instead of killing me while I still had a chance with him?
Thu Apr 24, 06:40:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
In that respect, why didn't god arrange my death before I became an atheist?
Because you made a voluntary decision to become an atheist. As far as God is concerned, you knew the laws and commandments but decided to go the other way regardless. It's no different then anyone who has gone before you who decided to do something contrary to God's law. God allows it to happen because we have freewill.
Why did god plan for me to become an atheist, and perhaps doom another generation of children (my kids are being raised atheist), instead of killing me while I still had a chance with him?
I’m not sure anyone can say God “planned” for you to become an atheist. I don’t see how anyone could make that kind of call other then God Himself. Regardless though, since it was your decision to become an atheist and it’s your decision now to raise your children this way, you’re the one ‘dooming’ (to use your word) your children. We’re all responsible for how we raise our children – from a religious perspective, it’s no different.
Thu Apr 24, 08:38:00 AM 2008
emodude1971 said...
Jason said: God allows it to happen because we have freewill.
This whole concept is extremely debatable as you well know. What about people who did die young, as Christians, but may possibly have grown up to be atheists? Does god take that into account when judging them? Or what about people who don't know your god, and live in an area where they'll never hear the good word? Where's their freewill?
At this point, we're basically boiled down to the omniscience vs freewill debate, which is not going to get solved here. I think you know my opinion: if there's an omniscient god, then freewill is an illusion.
As far as God's Plan is concerned, I'm sure you're aware that many Christians would disagree with you regarding this, in that they believe God does have a plan, and it's being played out right now. If this is true, then the scenarios I have laid out cause extreme paradoxes.
Thu Apr 24, 10:23:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
What about people who did die young, as Christians, but may possibly have grown up to be atheists? Does god take that into account when judging them?
We’re not told what He takes into account. All we know is that salvation is given out of mercy, not from something we’ve specifically done (Romans 9:16).
Or what about people who don't know your god, and live in an area where they'll never hear the good word? Where's their freewill?
Whether or not someone has heard the gospel doesn’t remove their freewill. And how they will ultimately be judged, again, we’re not told.
As far as God's Plan is concerned, I'm sure you're aware that many Christians would disagree with you regarding this, in that they believe God does have a plan, and it's being played out right now. If this is true, then the scenarios I have laid out cause extreme paradoxes.
God’s ultimate plan, that is preparing the world for Christ’s return, is being realized every day. The role we play as individuals in this is completely unknown.
Thu Apr 24, 11:33:00 AM 2008
emodude1971 said...
Jason said: God’s ultimate plan, that is preparing the world for Christ’s return, is being realized every day.
Don't hold your breath on that one. Considering all of Jesus' followers expected it to be during their lifetime, because of numerous statements from Jesus such as this:
Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
That didn't happen, now did it?
Here's one of my favorite articles on what a nut-job Jesus was as well.
As well as Steve's collection about when the end is supposed to come.
Not to mention that I've debated with several preterist apologists as well who, unlike you, don't think Jesus will ever return. Well, which is it?
I'm thinking our Sun is gonna burn out before anyone sees Jesus again.
Fri Apr 25, 07:06:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
That didn't happen, now did it?
The generation Jesus is referring to in Luke 21:32 is the same one he alludes to in his parable in the verses prior. When whatever generation sees the things he mentions come to pass, that same generation won’t pass away until all those things are fulfilled.
Fri Apr 25, 08:03:00 AM 2008
emodude1971 said...
Jason said:The generation Jesus is referring to in Luke 21:32 is the same one he alludes to in his parable in the verses prior. When whatever generation sees the things he mentions come to pass, that same generation won’t pass away until all those things are fulfilled
That's a really weak argument, and as I mentioned, clearly not one embraced by a preterist.
Fri Apr 25, 10:55:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
Whether or not it's embraced by a preterist doesn't make it right or wrong.
Nonetheless, I don't see what makes it a weak argument. The "generation" Christ refers to can, and does, refer to the group of people he mentions in his parable in the verses immediately prior.
Fri Apr 25, 12:13:00 PM 2008
emodude1971 said...
And whether or not you believe it doesn't make it right either. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense for god to send his son to lecture to a bunch of people about the second coming who are never gonna witness it, nor anyone for 2000+ years, now does it? Must be some more of his 'mysterious ways'.
Fri Apr 25, 09:15:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
And whether or not you believe it doesn't make it right either.
I haven't said it does. I'm saying whether or not this view is embraced by a preterist is irrelevant.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense for god to send his son to lecture to a bunch of people about the second coming who are never gonna witness it...
You forget that many of Christ's words also had a clear future application, words that were applicable to a much later generation then that of the disciples. Consider that the entire book of Revelation was given as a prophecy of things that wouldn't occur until after the disciples had died.
Fri Apr 25, 10:32:00 PM 2008
sconnor said...
God sure did a shitty job of trying to get his convoluted ideas across. So many people, sects, and denominations have so many varying views and interpretations, but little Jason Christian's interpretation is the one and only truth -- he's got his shit down pat. God surely blessed him with a gift of wisdom, that far and away exceeds...at least, the ninth grade. Everybody listen to little Jason Christian -- he's got it all figured out, hallelujah, praise the lord -- glory!
--S.
Sat May 03, 10:26:00 PM 2008
Aquaria said...
Jason:
You still don't get it. Just because you, as a Christian, don't believe something doesn't mean that other Christians don't. You're not all of Christianity. The point is that numerous Christians do believe that the "sons of God" were angels. Just because you don't think that doesn't negate that fact. And don't try to pull the "true" Christians number. You're not the one who will determine who is or isn't a true Christian. According to your fairytale book, only one entity will decide that. So stop acting like you're the ultimate authority on Christianity. You're not.
It matters to me. Steve says there seems to be two different "types" of people. It's fair for me to enquire how he came to this conclusion. Either he doesn't know or he does know from his own research or someone else told him this is what he should believe.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to Google "sons of God angels", and find thousands of sites--exclusively Christian sites, no less--that make various claims, especially about the sons of God = angels. If you're too lazy to type that into Google, that's your problem. Period. And don't resort to the "true" Christian nonsense again in regards to the sites claiming this. I'm sure the Koinonia House or Rational Christianity people sincerely believe they are Christians. Or any of the other thousands of people behind the sites that make such claims.
That "not a true Christian" argument is one of the most arrogant, bigoted things someone can say. That kind of thinking has gotten people killed.
Mon May 05, 05:44:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
Aquaria,
There's no need to get so defensive. I've made no reference whatsoever to "true Christianity" so just relax. I've simply been asking WHY the atheists here believe that the Christians who claim the sons of God are angels are right, when the evidence clearly suggests they're not. You shouldn't care either way but if you're going to argue about it when you've got no reason to, then I'll argue back.
I've given you ample evidence why the sons of God aren't angels - either respond to it with other Biblical references or say nothing.
Mon May 05, 07:40:00 PM 2008
Jonathan said...
I haven't had time to read all the comments to see if someone's suggested the same.. but just for fun - humor yourself and read into this story with myths and legends in mind. It offers an interesting potential origin to the old Myths and Pantheons. It would explain mythical beings like Hercules.
Sat Aug 09, 06:51:00 PM 2008
ramonxna said...
Sons of God may well be a metaphor to describe something not easily described. From one point of view, angel visits happen only to the feeble minded. It could be though that intellectual "strength" cuts us off from perceiving certain things outside of the boundaries of healthy cognition.
Fri Aug 15, 06:54:00 AM 2008
Chokula99 said...
My point of view is agnostic since I'm an agnostic christian I can tell you the problem with the story is that, the core of traditional christians believe that those sons of God are actually Angels, based on the Preachers whom at the same time based their Ideas on a book called the book of Enoch which at the same time The church don't recognize as a Holy book, but it doesn't stop the modern preachers to base themselves in to it to manage the most renoun and accepted interpretation of that scripture. what happens is; if you tell them that they are basing their interpretation on a book thats being banned by church itself. they will deny that, and if you tell them then that since that interpretation belongs to an unholy book then the scripture should be taken as the sons of God where Demi-gods who came down to earth to have children with women and those children where Demi-gods themselves. which supports the demigod-mythology. they will slap you in the head screaming ''Herecy!!. so its pretty much messed up. and contradictory.
Fri Jul 29, 06:41:00 PM 2011
Chokula99 said...
another thing I want to point out. not to be rude, is that Steve which is an Atheist: I do understand your an Atheist and thats cool but you killed the flow of the disscution by insisting you don't believe in thr bible regardless the question Jason made about another subject we already know you dont believe in the bible since you stated from starters you are an atheist, and it reminds me a Jahova witness friend of mine from school who didn't believe in elves so he stated nummerous times during an argument about the movie Lord of the Rings he didn't believe in Elves because he was a Jahova Witness over and over.it kills the flow... another thing I want to add that Santas Elves are freaking 2/half fit tall no higher than that.
Fri Jul 29, 07:01:00 PM 2011
Chokula99 said...
Aquaria is Right I have the right to call my self a christian even if the Vatican and the Pope itself say I don't. I consider myself an Agnostic Animist Christian. so there.
Fri Jul 29, 07:20:00 PM 2011
Kamagra UK said...
Wow, nice post,there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post
Mon Dec 26, 04:25:00 AM 2011
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
21 April 2008I've Converted To EVERY Religion (Just In Case)
via Cynical-C
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/21/2008 12:02:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
1 comment:
Mike aka MonolithTMA said...
Awesome!
It reminds me of the scene in The Mummy where Benny is confronted by the mummy and pulls out all his charms and says all his prayers for each religion until he gets to Hebrew and Imhotep recognizes that and decides to keep him as a servant.
Mon Apr 21, 12:39:00 PM 2008
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
16 April 2008The Top Ten Biblical Massacres
And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him ... and he [Samson] found a new jawbone of an ass ... and slew a thousand men therewith. Judges 15:14-15
Today is the sad anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre, the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. On 16 April 2007, 32 students were killed and many more wounded before the shooter, Sueng-Hui Cho, committed suicide.
The massacre was one of the worst in U.S. history, but it was small indeed by biblical standards.
Here is a list of massacres from the Bible, in ascending order by the number of victims. The list includes only those with a single killer where the number of victims is specified.
Elisha (with help from God) sent two bears to kill 42 children for making fun of his bald head. 2 Kings 2:22-23
Abimelech killed 69 of his brothers on a stone. Judges 9:5, BT
Doeg the Edomite killed 85 priests and all the men, women, children, infants, oxen, donkeys, and sheep with a sword. 1 Samuel 22:18-19, BT
Elijah (and God) burned to death 102 men. 2 Kings 1:10-12
David killed 200 Philistines to purchase his first wife with their foreskins. 1 Samuel 18:25-27, BT
Abishai killed 300 men with a spear. 2 Samuel 23:18, 1 Chronicles 11:20, BT
The chief of David's captains killed either 300 (1 Chronicles 11:11) or 800 (2 Samuel 23:8) men with a spear. (Sometimes it's hard to correctly count the number of dead bodies in a massacre.)
Elijah killed 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest. 1 Kings 18:22-40
(The total in this massacre may have been 850 if it included the priests of the groves.)
Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad. Judges 3:31, BT
Samson killed 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. Judges 15: 14-15, BT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 1: Forgot the 85 priests that that were killed by Doeg the Edomite. (Thanks Aquaria.)
Update 2: Corrected the confusion between Elijah's massacres. (Thanks David.)
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/16/2008 09:49:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
45 comments:
Michael said...
Actually, the worst school mass murder in American history was in Bath, Michigan, when a school board member who was upset about increasing property taxes, rigged the school building with dynamite and pyrotol. On May 18, 1927, he detonated the explosives, killing 46 children and injuring scores more. More than half of the explosives did not detonate or many more would have died. But that was not a school "shooting".
Wed Apr 16, 12:53:00 PM 2008
Jim Thompson said...
Number 4 is my favorite children's Bible story. Kill 200 men and
castrate them and bring the parts
back to buy your wife.
Some great family values.
Wed Apr 16, 01:54:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
History sure is violent.
Wed Apr 16, 03:57:00 PM 2008
Steve Wells said...
So you think these silly stories are history, eh Jason?
You believe that Samson killed 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass?
How about Balaam's talking donkey? Is that history, too?
Wed Apr 16, 04:39:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
That sounds about right. Nice one, Steve.
Wed Apr 16, 06:05:00 PM 2008
Aquaria said...
What about Doeg the Edomite, who killed 85 priests of Nob? David, of course, is in the middle of this saga.
Thu Apr 17, 01:06:00 AM 2008
Anon said...
I love the Christian response about the discrepancy over how many people David's chief captain killed.
From:
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20050306.htm
"Lest the believer be discouraged or the unbeliever feel bolstered in his opposition to the accuracy of the Bible..."
I would hope the believer would be discouraged as much (if not more) by the fact that God seems perfectly okay with the killing of hundreds of people.
"...it should be noted that occurrences such as this are few and far between."
Even if this were true, it only takes one error to shatter the concept of inerrancy claimed by many churches.
<< The nature of the discrepancy regards material of very minor consequence. >>
"Very minor consequence"? 300 people dead, 800 dead, hey, what's the diff?
I'm sure the families wouldn't even have noticed the extra 500 were gone. (Mommy, didn't I used to have a Daddy?)
Maybe if the good book was 500 off how many shekels someone had, that may not be all that important in the grand scheme of things. But you would think the mass loss of human life might merit more careful accounting.
Then again, I guess when you've got a book where millions of people are killed by your god (or allowed to be killed while your god cheers on the murderer or at best sits idly by), a few hundred more lives lost here and there must not seem all that important.
Thu Apr 17, 08:07:00 AM 2008
David said...
Re #4. Didnt Elijia have the contest vs Baal in 1 Kings(18:22, 40, 46)? The body count there was 450. The 102 from 2 Kings(1:12-12) were 2 captains and 100 men. Still a good body count (or not since they were consumed by fire) but I wouldn't count this as a "prayer contest" wich God vs Baal definately was
Thu Apr 17, 09:50:00 AM 2008
Tari Akpodiete said...
well, the biggest murderer in the bible - and for the stupidest reasons - is 'god' himself. EvilBible.com is one of my fave sites ever. i just love showing it to die-hard christians who like to pontificate, but who really don't know what is in the bible. with regard to murder stuff, check out - http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
here's a quote that is fully supported by bible passages: "In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for absurd reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents, or not being a virgin on your wedding night. In addition to these crazy and immoral laws, there are plenty of examples of God's irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport. There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children."
Thu Apr 17, 09:53:00 AM 2008
David said...
What about the murder of the Egyptians' firstborn? Human and livestock alike... one per household... certainly in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
Thu Apr 17, 10:15:00 AM 2008
Zach said...
And what about Noah's flood? That certainly killed just about everybody that wasn't a fish.
Thu Apr 17, 10:55:00 AM 2008
WordzGuy said...
You might be overlooking the biggest mass murder of them all, wherein the Lord Our God, you shall have no others before him, wiped out all human and animal life on earth save Noah and his little boatload. Although he did promise, it's true, that he wouldn't do that again. ("Sorry.")
Yer more sophisticated Christian will point out that the deity who seems to relish murder is primarily an Old Testament kind of guy, whereas the "good news" of the newer testament is that it's all about love, love, love. In practice, of course, this turns out to be more of an abstract concept than a code for daily behavior; the Lord could not possibly have meant that we are obliged to love people who are not Christians just like us. And anyway, it's not like the messiah didn't have his tantrums now and again, although he did not personally smite down his enemies, it's true.
Thu Apr 17, 11:00:00 AM 2008
David said...
Actually, I was taught as a tot that Noah's flood killed the fish too, except for the ones who stuck close by the ark
Thu Apr 17, 11:27:00 AM 2008
Sterling "Chip" Camden said...
@WordzGuy: even in the New Testament there are a few examples of God smiting people. My favorite is the story of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-10) wherein God smites the couple because they fibbed about how much of their gain from a land sale they gave to the church. And just in case we wondered whether they brought on their own deaths through a sense of guilt or anxiety, Peter predicts the second one.
Thu Apr 17, 11:43:00 AM 2008
Aquaria said...
Number 4 is my favorite children's Bible story. Kill 200 men and
castrate them and bring the parts
back to buy your wife.
You forgot the punchline: Even though you're sleeping with her brother (Jonathan).
Thu Apr 17, 12:00:00 PM 2008
sconnor said...
Wordzguy said,"Yet more sophisticated Christian will point out that the deity who seems to relish murder is primarily an Old Testament kind of guy, whereas the "good news" of the newer testament is that it's all about love, love, love."
Yeah, it kind of makes you wonder why it says in Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord All-Powerful, and I never change.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm?
"God, so atrocious in the Old Testament, so attractive in the New--the Jekyll and Hyde of sacred romance."
-- Mark Twain - Notebook, 1904
Thu Apr 17, 10:05:00 PM 2008
Brian said...
@Wordzguy: The response you name wouldn't come from a "more sophisticated" Christian at all, since that position is unambiguously heretical according to every Christian tradition (whether or not individual Christians are always aware of it) and has been recognized explicitly as such since the second century.
And for what it's worth, much of the Christian tradition has not accepted these stories as flatly 'historical' precisely because, if they were meant according to the most literal sense, they would plainly conflict with the character of the God who delivered Israel from slavery and who, in Christ, loved the world even to the point of death. Other meanings were found there instead, according to the rule of St Augustine that no interpretation of the Bible should stand that does not recommend love of God and neighbor (and enemy). (None of which is to say, of course, that the Christian tradition denies that the judgment of God is real and sometimes terrible, and comes down even--perhaps most often--on the heads of those who love him.)
Fri Apr 18, 10:35:00 AM 2008
WordzGuy said...
>that position
Which position is heretical?
>whether or not individual Christians are always aware of it
I think that's a great deal of the point here -- unlike students of theology, many people who grew up in the Christian tradition cannot articulate the evolution of thinking that reconciles a murderous deity with the message of the messiah. Evidence for that is that a vocal minority claims literal interpretation of the Bible (to the point of deeply distoring any archeological or geological evidence that might contradict with it), and which invokes the wrathful Old Testament God today to bring punishment down upon those who do not agree with these people. Anne Lamott: "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
Fri Apr 18, 10:52:00 AM 2008
Brian said...
Sorry for my lack of clarity; what's heretical is the idea that the God of the OT is one of punishment, and the God of the NT is one of love, love, love. Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed (I wish it were unnecessary to say) that God is changeless and eternal love--though certainly not a 'love' that excludes punishment or discipline.
You're right to say that the trouble is that many Christians fall into such heresy, sometimes vocally and with unfortunate influence, which must be admitted as a failure on the church's part to properly form its members. But it's also true that these kinds of passages are just hard to know what to do with, and always have been hard for Christians and Jews alike. I am a student of theology, and I usually just try to forget about them, to my shame. (The early church talked about such passages as the 'meat' of Scriptures, as opposed to its 'milk' whose messages are clear and much more obviously serve the life of love. The meat, they thought, is rich and wonderful, but should only very carefully be given to the younger in faith--not because of any elitism, but precisely to avoid the terrible misinterpretations to which these texts lend themselves.)
Fri Apr 18, 12:03:00 PM 2008
WordzGuy said...
@Brian -- very interesting, thanks for your thoughtful
clarification on this.
Fri Apr 18, 01:09:00 PM 2008
sconnor said...
"Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed (I wish it were unnecessary to say) that God is changeless and eternal love--though certainly not a 'love' that excludes punishment or discipline."
Yes, it is what they affirm, but punishing or administering discipline, that includes massive suffering and death, is the complete antithesis of love.
Punishing and administering discipline in the form of suffering and death is not constructive, nor beneficial. And it is the complete opposite of the New Testaments teaching of how much one should forgive "...Jesus answered, "I tell you, (about forgiveness) not seven times, but seventy-seven times." -- Matthew 18:22
--S.
Fri Apr 18, 04:06:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
Scripture doesn't teach an omnibenevolent God, neither in the OT or NT and it's a mistake for anyone, Christians included, to claim as such. God punishes, God kills, God blesses, God gives life. This is what God does.
Sat Apr 19, 06:02:00 AM 2008
Brian said...
@sconnor: I tend to agree with you, but I belong to a self-consciously pacifist tradition (Mennonite) which has always believed that Christ overcame every form of violence and death--so the church no longer acknowledges their power nor makes use of them. For just the reason you say, forgiveness is seen as the new and greatest power. Other traditions would disagree that the church can never take life, but (in complicated ways) they would affirm that such a terrible act--and they would always think it that taking life, in itself, is terrible and belongs only to the world's sin--would need to have their place in a broader context of love.
@Jason, that's absurd. If God is not entirely love, entirely good, even in his punishment, then he's a wicked and fickle despot and deserves no worship at all.
Sat Apr 19, 07:17:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
Brian,
What evidence do you have to suggest God is omnibenevolent?
Sat Apr 19, 09:16:00 AM 2008
McGuire said...
The Bible.org explanation of Gods bear execution duo is highly amusing (emphasis mine);
This seems harsh, but God and His leaders have, on occasion, acted harshly...
If God is love, then he's fair to say that it loves to kill.
Sure, some will provide justifications for these actions... though I guess Osama Bin Laden, Hitler & others... were also rather eloquent in their reasonings - should we worship them too?
Sat Apr 19, 01:07:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
There's no indication God 'loves' killing. In fact, God wishes that "no man should perish" (2 Pet 3:9).
Sat Apr 19, 01:43:00 PM 2008
sconnor said...
Jason said, "There's no indication God 'loves' killing. In fact, God wishes that "no man should perish" (2 Pet 3:9)."
Well god can keep on wishing, because he doesn't mind if a person who takes another life, perishes.
Genesis 9:5-6 "I created humans to be like me, and I will punish any animal or person that takes a human life. If an animal kills someone, that animal must die. And if a person takes the life of another, that person must be put to death."
So then someone kills the person who took a life; does that mean someone must kill that person and then that person has to be killed and on and on and on?
--S.
Sat Apr 19, 11:29:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
S,
My point was that there's no indication God "loves" killing, as was originally stated.
does that mean someone must kill that person and then that person has to be killed and on and on and on?
Not unless there's Scriptural evidence supporting this.
Sun Apr 20, 11:15:00 AM 2008
fabio said...
Isn´t Lord of the Rings a much better fairy tale ?? And more precise too ?? after all MR. Tolkien was a scholar ...
Sun Apr 20, 05:12:00 PM 2008
sconnor said...
Jason said,
"My point was that there's no indication God "loves" killing, as was originally stated."
Right, I know what your initial point was, but then you stated, "God wishes that "no man should perish" (2 Pet 3:9)."
Which is contradicted with this, Genesis 9:5-6 "I created humans to be like me, and I will punish any animal or person that takes a human life. If an animal kills someone, that animal must die. And if a person takes the life of another, that person must be put to death."
If he wished no man to perish, why does he decree that someone who kills has to perish?
Does that mean someone must kill that person and then that person has to be killed and on and on and on?
Not unless there's Scriptural evidence supporting this.
Genesis 9:5-6 "I created humans to be like me, and I will punish any animal or person that takes a human life. If an animal kills someone, that animal must die. And if a person takes the life of another, that person must be put to death."
So scripturaly speaking, god decrees that if a life is taken then the person taking the life must be put to death. So if a person puts to death that person, now he has taken a life, which god decrees that his life must be taken -- and on and on and on.
Your Bible god is not worthy of worship he is not even worthy of being a crap stain in my underwear. How can anyone worship an all-loving, creator, God, who would cause the suffering and deaths of innocent children? How could anyone worship a supposed, all-loving god who let's millions of children, suffer -- all individuals, with their own hopes and dreams and loves, whose lives have been cut short, leaving misery, devastation and despair in their wake. Innocent children have suffered and died from heinous diseases, starvation, unclean water, natural destruction, war, genocide, horrendous, sadistic and unimaginable ways. Why would I put any amount of faith in a God who would let this happen?
How can I possibly worship and have faith in a God that lets cruel, inhuman, unimaginable, mass suffering, happen?
How can I worship and have faith in a god, who as part of his creation (the system he created), would allow egregious suffering, on a massive level?
In god's ultimate, infinite wisdom, couldn't he have achieved, what he wanted to do, without all the sick, cruel, horrific suffering in the world?
Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, have the capacity to bestow free will on his earthly children, achieve all his goals, without the monstrosities of human suffering? Presumably, in heaven, we are not robots and have free will, apparently without any kind of suffering.
I just can't get past an all-loving god using suffering, in his creation or letting suffering be a by-product of his creation.
Loving and suffering are two diametrically opposing terms. If god allows suffering, causes suffering or uses suffering as a tool for learning or uses it as a punishment, all god is -- is a cruel, vindictive, sadistic, megalomaniac, only worthy of complete and utter contempt! And anyone (Jason) defending this crazy, brutal, violently destructive, sadomasochist should be thoroughly evaluated and held in the same contempt.
--S.
Sun Apr 20, 10:14:00 PM 2008
Jason said...
Sconnor said: If he wished no man to perish, why does he decree that someone who kills has to perish?
Because that person broke one of God's commandments and under the old law, this was punishable by death.
So scripturaly speaking, god decrees that if a life is taken then the person taking the life must be put to death. So if a person puts to death that person, now he has taken a life, which god decrees that his life must be taken -- and on and on and on.
The problem is there’s no Scriptural evidence supporting this “on and on and on” method of retribution. Have a read through the OT laws regarding murder. The answer to your questions are there.
Your Bible god is not worthy of worship he is not even worthy of being a crap stain in my underwear.
Unnecessary and disrespectful. A little more maturity would be appreciated.
How can anyone worship an all-loving, creator, God, who would cause the suffering and deaths of innocent children?
Problem solved if the children all grow up to be as wicked as their parents. The point is, God doesn't owe His creation anything. He's fair and just, asking only that people do what He says. If they don't, they pay the consequences. It's a simple equation.
How could anyone worship a supposed, all-loving god who let's millions of children, suffer -- all individuals, with their own hopes and dreams and loves, whose lives have been cut short, leaving misery, devastation and despair in their wake. Innocent children have suffered and died from heinous diseases, starvation, unclean water, natural destruction, war, genocide, horrendous, sadistic and unimaginable ways.
The vast majority of these are the fault of man, not God.
Why would I put any amount of faith in a God who would let this happen?
Because you also know God is patient and longsuffering and blesses those who follow His commandments.
How can I possibly worship and have faith in a God that lets cruel, inhuman, unimaginable, mass suffering, happen?
Man has personal responsibility. Your issue is with wicked human beings, not God.
...And anyone (Jason) defending this crazy, brutal, violently destructive, sadomasochist should be thoroughly evaluated and held in the same contempt.
Argumentum ad populum. If you’d like to intelligently discuss the topic of suffering and fairness by looking at Scripture, I’d be more then happy to do so, whether here or on my site.
Mon Apr 21, 09:23:00 AM 2008
sconnor said...
Jason,
Sconnor said: If he wished no man to perish, why does he decree that someone who kills has to perish?
Jason said, Because that person broke one of God's commandments and under the old law, this was punishable by death.
But isn't it breaking a commandment when one kills? If a person executes a murder isn't he breaking the commandment thou shalt not kill?
So scripturaly speaking, god decrees that if a life is taken then the person taking the life must be put to death. So if a person puts to death that person, now he has taken a life, which god decrees that his life must be taken -- and on and on and on.
Jason said, The problem is there’s no Scriptural evidence supporting this “on and on and on” method of retribution. Have a read through the OT laws regarding murder. The answer to your questions are there.
Once it is scripturaly stated that you must take the life of a person who kills, then isn't the executioner a killer, also? Then, by god's very decree, doesn't his life have to be taken? He killed someone, he is a murderer and under god's commandment he too should be put to death. I'm not the idiot who made the asinine decree; your mixed up god did, evidently not thinking it through.
Your Bible god is not worthy of worship he is not even worthy of being a crap stain in my underwear.
Jason said, Unnecessary and disrespectful. A little more maturity would be appreciated.
I'm sorry, you have me confused with a person who may have respect for your silly superstitions and delusions of authority. Again, your Bible-god isn't even worthy of being a semen stain in my underwear. And you know what god did to people who spilled their semen? What an asshole.
How can anyone worship an all-loving, creator, God, who would cause the suffering and deaths of innocent children?
Jason said, Problem solved if the children all grow up to be as wicked as their parents. The point is, God doesn't owe His creation anything. He's fair and just, asking only that people do what He says. If they don't, they pay the consequences. It's a simple equation.
The point is, if a Deity causes the suffering of an innocent child before it supposedly, becomes wicked, then god is just a torturer, who tortures little children. Additionally, if god knew they were going to grow up to be wicked then why create them in the first place -- for his amusement, so he could torture them? Point is if god causes his creation to suffer he is not all-loving; he is a demented fuck.
How is it "just" for a baby to live in misery because it has third and fourth degree burns over it's body? How is it "just" that a little six year old girl is being repeatedly, anally, raped by a perverted uncle, while she screams in her head, please god help me? How is it "just" that a tornado ripped through a town causing, suffering, death and destruction -- causing a child to be mentally retarded and suffer for the rest of it's life, on machines? How is it "just" that a baby is born with it's heart on the outside of it's body, to suffer for three months, only to die? All the while god does nothing.
How could anyone worship a supposed, all-loving god who let's millions of children, suffer -- all individuals, with their own hopes and dreams and loves, whose lives have been cut short, leaving misery, devastation and despair in their wake. Innocent children have suffered and died from heinous diseases, starvation, unclean water, natural destruction, war, genocide, horrendous, sadistic and unimaginable ways.
In Jason's lame explanation, he said, The vast majority of these are the fault of man, not God.
Yet god stands by and does nothing. Don't give me your free will argument because it doesn't hold water. Presumably, in heaven we are not robots and we have free will, but suffering doesn't exist in heaven, because it's heaven -- right?
Man doesn't cause genetic diseases, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, diseases passed by ticks and mosquitoes, droughts, sunstroke, death by umbilical cord, and hurricanes. This is what your dumb-ass god created. Intelligent design? Far from it. If a person created the umbilical cord and the design was flawed, too long, causing it to wrap around a babies necks in utero, depleting precious oxygen, causing the baby to be born with defects, mental and physical -- to suffer the rest of their lives or causes death -- the person who invented it, would be brought up on charges, life in prison, or executed. But yet, you defend this inept god, who can't even get the umbilical cord right.
Why would I put any amount of faith in a God who would let this happen?
Jason, wearing his rose colored biblical glasses said, Because you also know God is patient and longsuffering and blesses those who follow His commandments.
I know nothing of god. You only have a deluded finite human construct of god based in scripture, that has absolutely no validity.
How can I possibly worship and have faith in a God that lets cruel, inhuman, unimaginable, mass suffering, happen?
Jason said, Man has personal responsibility. Your issue is with wicked human beings, not God.
That is a crap pat answer. My issue is with god who created this miserable excuse of a creation, with all it's flaws. There is more then just wicked human beings involved and you know it. Not to mention he punishes, causes to suffer and kills all throughout the Bible, as we know was accompanied by the greatest of success. He continued to cause suffering and he killed, but they never listened. They always went back to their wicked ways. Why couldn't the almighty control his people? Why did god even try, when he knew they weren't going to listen anyways?
This isn't a god of omniscience; it is a god of stupidity and cruelty.
...And anyone (Jason) defending this crazy, brutal, violently destructive, sadomasochist should be thoroughly evaluated and held in the same contempt.
Jason said, Argumentum ad populum.
This was not a false argument that appeals to the masses or majority or any sense of the definition -- you really shouldn't play with big words, if you don't know what they mean.
In actually, this is an argument, that you are a delusional, christian zealot -- with zero authority or validity -- who has to defend your warped biblical view and your equally warped and demented god, at all costs, to protect your flimsy, fairytale illusion, from magically turning into fairy dust, before your very eyes. You've got nothing.
--S,
Tue Apr 22, 01:57:00 AM 2008
Brian said...
@sconnor: Even as a Christian, I actually think you're right that the 'free will defense' can't deal adequately with the senseless suffering of children that occurs for all kinds of 'natural' reasons; and I think you're right that such suffering constitutes one of the most profound challenges to Christian faith--and for that matter, to any real trust and confidence in the goodness of life, no matter its religious or philosophical context. I doubt you're really interested in talking through the more sophisticated and humane theological responses the Christian tradition has tried to provide over the centuries, but I would beg you to remember this: for the Old and New Testaments alike, it's not only the human race but all of creation that's in bondage in death. The biblical hope is that children will one day play over adders' nests, without fear of death--because then God will be all in all, and creation, no longer estranged from the love that gave it birth, will attain its final harmony. The death of children is due to the reign of death itself, which God hates and promises to destroy. Maybe that's too pretty and unbelievable a hope for you, and maybe it's proven wrong by the fact that God hasn't done it yet; I won't blame you if it is. But that is the Christian hope, as I understand it, and one we find the strength to believe because we know that Jesus of Nazareth died and yet was risen in triumph.
Tue Apr 22, 05:56:00 AM 2008
Jason said...
Sconnor,
You’re obviously not interested in genuinely discussing the topic in a mature and intelligent manner. Like many other atheists, your powers of persuasion are limited only to criticizing and mocking. This behaviour is not only crippling to a proper exchange, it is fundamentally discourteous, and shows no respect whatsoever either for the subject, or those involved with the discussion of it.
All the best.
Tue Apr 22, 08:52:00 AM 2008
McGuire said...
Jason, you should be happy that it's atheists you're arguing with, because we don't presume that that entitles us to the right to kill those that argue with us... out of love of course. Unlike, say, God.
Tue Apr 22, 09:11:00 AM 2008
sconnor said...
Brian,
If both my legs were blown off in a war and I was left with stumps, the rest of my life, I could have the hope that they would magically regenerate, right before my eyes -- but that would be an unrealistic hope.
You said, The biblical hope is that children will one day play over adders' nests, without fear of death--because then God will be all in all, and creation, no longer estranged from the love that gave it birth, will attain its final harmony.
This is the same kind of unrealistic hope, that is in my amputee analogy. An illusion -- wishful thinking.
You said, The death of children is due to the reign of death itself,...
Yeah, death is death. We are fragile, biological, creatures susceptible to disease, injury and death -- nothing profound here.
You continued, ...which God hates and promises to destroy.
If god hates it and wants to destroy it, then god should get what he wants, being god and all.
But yet, he can't or he won't.
You said, I doubt you're really interested in talking through the more sophisticated and humane theological responses the Christian tradition has tried to provide over the centuries,...
The last year and a half I have been studying and researching (more of an obsession, really) god and the problem of suffering. I've heard it all. Absolutely nothing resonates with me.
But be my guest, give me your best shot. Give me the one sophisticated, zinger, that will lay my worries to rest.
You said, But that is the Christian hope, as I understand it, and one we find the strength to believe because we know that Jesus of Nazareth died and yet was risen in triumph.
Hope, based on faith in christian doctrine and the bible is no hope at all, for it was only men -- in the guise of god's supposed voice, lending undeserved validity and authority -- to wishful, magical thinking, to give us comfort, in the finality of death.
--S.
Tue Apr 22, 09:27:00 PM 2008
sconnor said...
Jason,
even if I was the most belligerent, disrespectful, prick on the face of the earth, you shouldn't hesitate, by putting me in my place, with your supposed incontrovertible, iron-clad arguments. There's nothing like grabbing a prick by the balls and slamming him with indisputable, evidence, but you got nothing.
Come back, if you ever want to be spanked again.
--S.
Here it is again for your reading enjoyment:
Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Really try hard and absorb this quote.
Tue Apr 22, 09:49:00 PM 2008
sitbaddoggy said...
God seems all the less Omnipotent and all the more Incompetent, if he has to actually wait to stop "death's reign".
Mon Nov 24, 11:56:00 PM 2008
gritpipe said...
I'm really surprised that nobody here mentioned the story of Esther. Thousands dead.
Wed Feb 04, 05:31:00 PM 2009
seo expert said...
very nice post
web design India
Wed May 20, 06:08:00 AM 2009
destructo_man said...
@wordzguy
According to texts suspected to be candidates for the original New Testiment, young Jesus killed a few children. Until Joseph told him that that wasn't a good use of his powers. Unfortunately, it's only apocryphal =/
And I'm atheist, but I'm not out to break anybody's faith haha
Mon Apr 11, 12:10:00 AM 2011
j said...
the bears mauling the children is my favorite Bible verse, pure comedy.
Thu May 05, 07:03:00 PM 2011
Josh4 said...
"Some people say that God ain't real 'cause they don't see how a good God can exsist with all this evil in the world. If God is real then He should stop all this evil, 'cause He's all-powerful right? What is evil though man? It's anything that's against God. It's anything morally bad or wrong. It's murder, rape, stealing, lying, cheating. But if we want God to stop evil, do we want Him to stop it all or just a little bit of it? If He stops us from doing evil things, what about lying, or what about our evil thoughts? I mean, where do you stop, the murder level, the lying level, or the thinking level? If we want Him to stop evil, we gotta be consistent, we can't just pick and choose. That means you and I would be eliminated right? Because we think evil stuff. If that's true, we should be eliminated! But thanks be to God that Jesus stepped in to save us from our sin! Christ died for all evilness! Repent, turn to Jesus man!"
Lecrae "Truth" from the Album Rebel
Wed Jul 20, 07:20:00 AM 2011
www.kusadasi.tv said...
Should I thank who - ''god" --
If these lies were not fed to our ancestors - there would have been no Christianity and the Christians would not have killed Millions and Millions of people in the name of religion and till this day this slaughter is going on.
The stories which are taught to us as facts in the so called Holy books - a kid will laugh at it and he/she can make up better and more believable stories. http://www.acaiberryforsale.org/
Thu Apr 05, 11:20:00 AM 2012
paleo said...
Josh4, your argument that God has to stop all evil or none at all, has no basis. it's like saying as a parent, you have to let your children do anything they please, or let them do nothing. Good parents give children certain freedoms, but don't let them run with knives, play in a busy street, or do other things that greatly risk their own or other's health and safety..So God could easily pervent say, murders, rapes, and child molestation. and still give us plenty of free will. The world would be a far better place, would it not? And as others pointed out, the concept pf heaven refutes the free will argument. Unless you're suggesting there is no free will in heaven, God can allow free will without allowing pain and suffering. I'm not saying I think heaven exists, just that it refutes the free will argument.
Sat May 18, 01:22:00 PM 2013
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
02 April 2008The worst beasts in Allah's sight
The Quran (24:45) says that all animals were created by Allah. But not all animals were created equal.
Take apes, pigs, and dogs, for example. Here's what the Quran says about them.
And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! 2:65
(Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine. 5:60
So when they took pride in that which they had been forbidden, We said unto them: Be ye apes despised and loathed! 7:166
Therefor his likeness is as the likeness of a dog: if thou attackest him he panteth with his tongue out, and if thou leavest him he panteth with his tongue out. Such is the likeness of the people who deny Our revelations. 7:176
But there are some things that Allah likes even less than apes, pigs, and dogs.
Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the deaf, the dumb, who have no sense [Non-muslims]. 8:22
Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe. 8:55
Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings. 98:6
So there you have it. Non-muslims are "the worst beasts in Allah's sight."
Now that you know who (and what) you are, why not join with the Sons (and Daughters) of Apes and Pigs?
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/02/2008 09:11:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
4 comments:
bug_girl said...
I kept reading "Lo!" as LOL!
Which makes it a lot more entertaining, actually.
LD
Fri Apr 04, 08:42:00 AM 2008
Tuff said...
But is it even remotely comparable to Talmud? Decide urself!
* * *
Very funny! Freedom of Expression is selective in the WEST!
Talking about freedom of expression last week a senior French civil servant by the of name Bruno Guigue was dismissed from his post by the Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie.
It appears that Bruno Guigue's "crime" seems to be that he expressed himself pretty much like Geert Wilders over the internet but in Guigue's case he lost his job
* * *
Abodah-Zarah 26b, says: “The best among the gentiles deserves to be killed. The best of snakes ought to have its head crushed.”
“Just the Jews are humans, the Non-Jews are no humans, but cattle.” (goyim - human cattle) - (Kerithuth 6b page 78, Jebhammoth 61a)
“The Non-Jews have been created to serve the Jews as slaves.” - (Midrasch Talpioth 225)
“The Non-Jews have to be avoided, even more than sick pigs.” - (Orach Chaiim 57, 6a)
“Sexual intercourse with Non-Jews is like sexual intercourse with animals” - (Kethuboth 3b)
“The birth-rate of the Non-Jews has to be suppressed massively” - (Zohar II, 4b)
“As you replace lost cows and donkeys, so you shall replace dead Non-Jews.” - (Iore Dea 337,1)
“To box an Israeli on the ear, is like to box on the ear of god.” - (Sanhedrin 58b)
"God (Jahveh) is never angry about the Jews, just about the Non-Jews” - (Talmud IV/8/4a)
“The human (Jew) has to pray every day three times, because Jahveh didn’t make him a goyim, not a female and not an ignorant.” - (Talmud V/2/43b + 44a)
"There is no wife for the goyim, they really aren’t their wives” - (Talmud IV/4/81 + 82ab)
“Jews always have to try to deceive Non-Jews” - (Zohar I, 168a) - Very true!
“Non-Jewish property belongs to the Jew who uses it first” - (Babba Bathra 54b)
“If two Jews have deceived a Non-Jew, they have to split the profit” - (Choschen Ham 183,7)
“Every Jew is allowed to use lies and perjury to bring a Non-Jew to ruin” - (Babha Kama 113a)
“The Jew is allowed to exploit the mistake of a Non-Jew and to deceive him” - (Talmud IV/1/113b)
“The Jew is allowed to practice usury on the Non-Jew” - (Talmud IV/2/70b)
"If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there" (Moed Kattan 17a) - Very righteous advice!
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles (non-jews) are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel." - EACH YEAR, US gives more than $4 BILLION tax money of it's people to Israel!!
Yebamoth 98a. All Gentile children are animals.
Abodah Zarah 36b . "Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth." - Do you hear it gals?!
Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . "Gentiles prefer sex with cows." - An outright lie!
Gittin 57a . Says Jesus ( see footnote #4) is being boiled in "hot excrement."
Shabbath 116a (p. 569). Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament. See footnote #6.
Menahoth 43b-44a . A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a slave.
“A woman must wash herself again if she sees any unclean things, such as a dog, an ass, or People of the Earth; a Christian (Akum), a camel, a pig, a horse, and a leper.” [Biur Hetib, a commentary on the Schulchan Arukh]
Sun Apr 06, 01:03:00 PM 2008
Skeptical Simsam said...
What's your point tuff? Steve has posted endlessly on the evil of the god of the old testament - the Jewish god. Moreover, the quotations here, many of which are dubious, come from mostly non-binding opinions on the oral law in Judaism (mishnah). I don't want to defend Judaism particularly, but your response is typical of Muslim anti-Semitic attacks. In the case of the quotes used by Steve however, they were all from the Qur'an - the holy and unalterable word of God in Islam.
Wed Apr 16, 06:11:00 PM 2008
twillight said...
Ok, I know Tuff's post was created loooong ago now, but still a short comment on it:
The first "quote" is NOT in the reference, but in one of the Smaller Tractates (and those are not really part of the Talmud).
Until the Sanhedrin-quote (it is very hard to quote the Talmud most of the times, the supposed quotes are mostly suimmerisations) no pointed reference is Talmudic tractate (and I don't knw wether they are existing sources or not).
Any source with "slashes" are not fitting to the topic.
Zohar is a the book of the Kabbala. It is so hugh like the Talmud, and has its own tractates.
(I won't go through the whole list)
-------
There ARE that kind of things in the Talmud, but please, do your homework properly, ok?
Here is a link to the complete Talmud on english language, not doubted by any source I've come across: http://halakhah.com/
Fri Sep 17, 03:38:00 AM 2010
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Dwindling In Unbelief
This Blog Linked From Here
This Blog
Linked From Here
01 April 2008How could anyone be a Lutheran?
Okay, I admit it. I don't know how any sane, honest, moral person could believe in the Bible, Quran, or Book of Mormon.
But I am even more surprised that anyone could be a Lutheran.
Here's what Martin Luther wrote in On the Jews and their lies:
It serves them [the Jews] right that, rejecting the truth of God, they have to believe instead such abominable, stupid, inane lies, and that instead of the beautiful face of the divine word, they have to look into the devil's black, dark, lying behind, and worship his stench.
...
Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter and feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified, and cursed by them, and to suffer every evil at their hands -- these venomous serpents and devil's children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord and of us all. And if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind and worship this holy object. ... Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy for which Christ will reward him on the day of judgment, together with the Jews in the eternal fire of hell!
...
There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses, namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them.
Is there a Lutheran out there who can explain it to me?
Posted by Steve Wells at 4/01/2008 08:31:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Reactions:
19 comments:
Skeptical Simsam said...
I often ask this question myself.
Wed Apr 02, 07:02:00 AM 2008
Jason Macker said...
Most Lutherans denounce Luther's antisemitic writings. "Luther was human and made mistakes."
Wed Apr 02, 11:57:00 AM 2008
Steve Wells said...
Well, yes, Jason, I suppose that most modern Lutherans reject Luther's antisemitic rantings, if they know about them at all, that is (which most probably do not). I'm sure that most Lutherans also reject Hitler's antisemitism, which was very similar to Luther's. In fact, Hitler was just carrying out the suggestions of Luther. Yet very few would be willing to associate themselves with anything having to do with Hitler. Why is that?
"Luther was human and made mistakes," you say. You could say the same of Hitler.
Wed Apr 02, 10:14:00 PM 2008
P.S. an after-thought said...
Somehow your question implies that Lutherans worship Luther or his writings, but that isn't the case. Not at all. Luther himself rejected the name Lutheran to be applied to the Christians that broke away from the Catholic church after he posted his objections to certain practices, but the name stuck.
Lutherans don't worship the Bible, but rather worship the God of the Bible.
Thu Apr 03, 06:30:00 AM 2008
Steve Wells said...
PS: Somehow your question implies that Lutherans worship Luther or his writings.
No, it doesn't imply the "worship of Luther or his writings." But the name "Lutheran" does imply approval of Luther's teachings, doesn't it? If not, then Lutherans should select another name.
PS: Lutherans don't worship the Bible, but rather worship the God of the Bible.
The God of the Bible is even worse than Luther. (How do you think Luther became so damned nasty?)
Thu Apr 03, 07:48:00 AM 2008
Scotty B said...
As a former Lutheran, let me just say that we are a bunch of Jew haters. No, just kidding, but if I may quote M.Luther out of context:
"they have to believe instead such abominable, stupid, inane lies"
Now I tend to agree with him on this point although I would apply it to all religions (and put it less harshly).
Scotty B
Thu Apr 03, 02:33:00 PM 2008
Aquaria said...
I went to Lutheran school, and my distinct memory of who we were taught to hate wasn't the Jews (not even mentioned), but the Catholics. But that might have been a peculiarity of time/place (East Texas/1970s).
Thu Apr 17, 01:15:00 AM 2008
avery said...
When I was a Christian, my denomination had always been Lutheran (except in the very end when I was slowly realising the error of my ways), and I'd never heard of this until now. Imagine that!
Sun Apr 20, 03:28:00 PM 2008
Daniel said...
When the protestant reformation occured, their were two main groups - one group who was breaking off from the Catholic Church for reasons outlined by Calvin and one by Luther. Neither group necessarily agreed with everything their respective leaders said. But these two people provided the most compelling reasons for a break with the Catholic Church. And because Protestants were not one united group, but were rather 2 groups, people needed names to distinguish them. The Calvin followers were generally identified by their country (i.e. Dutch reformed). However, those who broke off along lines Luther outlined were termed Lutherans.
Since this point, the so-called Lutherans have done everything they can to bring aboout unification in the Christian Church but have so far, like all other Christians, failed. And as divisions become more numerous among Christians, the need to distinguish the beliefs of one group of Christians from another does not diminish. And so the Lutherans are still called Lutheran. And to change that name now would just mislead people, because everyone knows that Lutherans are Christians with a certian set of beliefs as opposed to the beliefs of Christians who are not called Lutheran. So, Lutherans keep their name.
If you dislike the name because of objectionable aspects of Martin Luther's character, then so be it. But I don't think that after 500 years that Lutherans are going to change their name. It's much easier to just tell people that they are anti-anti-semitism and don't always agree with Martin Luther than to change their name, now, after so long.
Fri Jul 30, 08:09:00 PM 2010
AltWorlder said...
Many great people do terrible things. George Washington is called Town-burner by the Iroquois for his campaigns of destruction against them. Many of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners.
How could anyone be American?
Sat Nov 19, 11:35:00 AM 2011
Dan said...
Right on, AltWorlder.
Sat Nov 19, 04:59:00 PM 2011
Steve Wells said...
Well, ArtWorlder, a person can be an American just by being born in the United States. (That's the way I did it.) You don't have to agree with any of the Founding Fathers about anything at all.
But a person becomes a Lutheran by choice. Presumably because she or he admires and agrees with the beliefs of its founder -- Martin Luther -- including all the nasty beliefs that he expressed in On the Jews and Their Lies.
Sat Nov 19, 05:25:00 PM 2011
Dan said...
Steve Wells, do you think Dietrich Bonhoeffer agreed with Luther's essay On Jews and Their Lies? In fact, do you think that any Lutheran in the United States of America agrees with that essay? Indeed, instead of assuming you know what it means to be a "Lutheran," maybe you should do research, first.
Sat Nov 19, 06:08:00 PM 2011
Steve Wells said...
I imagine that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was as deeply ashamed of Luther's essay on Jews as he was about Deuteronomy 13:6-10, or most of the Bible for that matter. But somehow he managed to pretend it wasn't there. That is the secret to believing nasty things.
I doubt if 5% of the Lutherans in the United States know that Luther's essay on the Jews exists. Those that do try to hide it under a basket, rather than put on a lamp stand so that all the world can see. Why is that, Dan?
Sat Nov 19, 07:20:00 PM 2011
AltWorlder said...
Are you serious? Do you have no concept of human nature?
Many great or famous or important people throughout world history held ideas that would be reprehensible to people living later on in history. People can believe in the good parts of what they espoused while rejecting the rest. The very fact that there were Lutheran resistance members who fought against the Nazi regime and were executed for it shows that maybe, just maybe, what Luther said wasn't just on anti-Semitic and reprehensible subjects? That maybe there's more to his theology than hating on Jews?
Why should someone have to "pretend it wasn't there"? One acknowledges that someone had bad views, and condemn them, and move on to the good views. It's not even on Lutheranism. You could say this about any sort of "mainstream" belief system or identity. Hence the reference to America.
Finally, this is all moot because every Lutheran denomination, or at least the American ones, all have admitted Luther's failings and have rejected them. Being Lutheran is hardly being crypto-Nazi.
Mon Nov 28, 10:55:00 PM 2011
Dan said...
I totally missed Steve Wells' response to my earlier comment. I agree with AltWorlder, but instead of just restating his points, I'll merely make a direct reply to Steve's comment.
"I imagine that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was as deeply ashamed of Luther's essay on Jews as he was about Deuteronomy 13:6-10, or most of the Bible for that matter. But somehow he managed to pretend it wasn't there. That is the secret to believing nasty things."
You're accusation that Bonhoeffer pretended that that passage wasn't there is unsupported. Perhaps Bonhoeffer didn't believe in that passage... did you ever think of that? After all, it's debateable whether or not Bonhoeffer even believed in the resurrection of Christ (and therefore debateable whether he was or was not a true Christian). As such, he might not have been the best example for me to bring up.
But there's a point, here. Bonhoeffer did not believe in the whole Bible (this is fact). But he still considered himself a Christian (rightly or wrongly). You'd have to read his writings to find out why (I haven't, so I couldn't tell you).
Here's my point: If someone could call themselves a Christian while not believing in the whole Bible, couldn't someone state that they subscribe to Lutheran views of the Bible, without agreeing to everything Luther said?
To make my point more sharply: I could agree with Luther's interpretation of the Bible, but disagree with him on whether or not dogs are better than cats or whether ice cream is better or worse than cake.
To proclaim oneself "Lutheran" in this sense, has nothing to do with Luther's views on things unrelated to theology. As such, Luther's anti-semitism would have nothing to do with the label "Lutheran" when used in this way.
It's like someone calling themselves Aristotelian. That means they agree with many principle Aristotle outlined. That doesn't mean they agree with everything he said or wrote.
Similarly, not all Marxists agree fully with Marx (most don't).
However, (and please pay close attention here), what I think you're really taking issue with is the idea that, unlike Luther's opinion on the cat versus dog question, his thoughts on Jews are so obscene that these thoughts clearly make the name "Lutheran" into a very undesirable descriptor of oneself or one's beliefs.
I'll address this in my next comment since I wrote too much to fit on one post. Thanks for your patience in reading all of this.
Wed Dec 07, 01:21:00 PM 2011
Dan said...
What you have to understand, is that the group of Christians who agreed with Luther theologically (back before he was anti-semite ---- this is something that's also HUGE: Luther fought the Catholic Church's anti-semitism for sometime, but then became an anti-semite later in life...) --- those who agreed with Luther theologically before he took a turn for the worse on the Jewish issue -- those people didn't want the name "Lutheran."
Again: They did not want the name, even before he became an anti-Jewish bigot.
Further (and this is also crucial), Luther himself advocated that the name not be used, because he wasn't making a religion about himself. He wasn't even trying to make a denomination, let alone a religion. He was just trying to reform understanding of the Bible.
But what happened was that Catholic opponents (Catholic being a term that means "universal") sought to denegrate the views of these new Christians by labeling them "Lutheran" -- implying that their views weren't universal and that they were just following a very very imperfect man, rather than true Christianity.
This became such a popular line of slander, that these new Christians resigned themselves to being called this name. In the face of this unpleasant reality, Luther himself basically said, (I can't find the exact quotes, but this was the point he was making) "We are not Lutheran since I am nobody and would hate to have a religion crafted around me. However, if in the mind's of our opponents, to be "Lutheran" means to have the reading of the Bible that we do (premise 1), and if this reading is correct (premise 2), then to be Lutheran means to have this correct reading of the Bible (conclusion). And if to be Lutheran means to have this correct reading of the Bible, then we should gladly call ourselves Lutheran and encourage others to be so convicted and called."
Basically, he was saying that if the word Lutheran, which could no longer be resisted (and had been permanently attached to them against their will) -- if that word could be reconstituted not to mean "a follower of Luther" but rather to mean "someone with this reading of the Bible" -- then, assuming this reading is correct, everyone should be Lutheran -- but only in this sense.
That was how the name got started.
As you can see, it only ever had anything to do with Luther insofar as it was slander by his opponents. And Luther didn't want the name to be used, but when it appeared that there was no other choice, to define Lutheran to mean something beyond Luther himself was an option. And it was an option Luther and those in approximate agreement with him (who had as much agreement as a Marxist does with Marx or as an Aritotelian does with Aristotle), decided to pursue.
That's what happened. Therefore, logically speaking, insofar as the name "Lutheran" has NOTHING to do with following Luther and NOTHING to do with his opinion on cats and dogs and NOTHING to do with his later anti-semitic views and EVERYTHING to do with a certain view of the Bible that he initially advocated for --- insofar as this is true, it is perfectly alright for someone to call themselves Lutheran.
If you understand my point, I'd love to hear your response. But if you think that you might not understand me, I'd prefer you to ask questions rather than just putting forth your argumentation. You can only argue for or against what you understand. I hope this helps you understand. If not -- again, please ask questions!!!
Wed Dec 07, 01:33:00 PM 2011
Dan said...
I forgot to respond to the last part of your comment, Steve:
"I doubt if 5% of the Lutherans in the United States know that Luther's essay on the Jews exists. Those that do try to hide it under a basket, rather than put on a lamp stand so that all the world can see. Why is that, Dan?"
I myself am a generic Protestant, uncommitted to any denomination. There is a Lutheran church I have been attending (ELCA), but I am not a member, nor am I in enough agreement with Lutheran theology to become a member (in my opinion). Therefore, I am not a Lutheran.
As far as I can tell, in the middle of all the important teaching that Lutheran pastors have to do from the Bible (teaching that has immediate effect on the congregation), it would be foolish to focus on random essays from Luther. It's just not that important.
Further, Lutheran pastors don't care about their "Lutheranism" as much as they do about Jesus Christ. Again, given the history I just related to you, the name Lutheran merely implies a certain view of Biblical truth. Therefore, the pastors are focused on bringing a light to Jesus and a light to that view of the Bible (aka Lutheranism). Luther himself is immaterial except insofar as he states tenets central to "Lutheranism." His essay on the Jews does no such thing, so is irrelevant. And to emphasize irrelevant matters would take focus away from what belongs on the lamp stand -- Jesus. The last thing a Lutheran would wish to do is that. Further, the Lutheran pastors I know are more than open about Luther's shortcomings, and would be more than happy to talk about the horrific nature of the essay you pointed out, if someone so desired. As I've been saying, said essay has nothing to do with "Lutheranism" (the "ism," being key), so it's not like they have something to cover up.
However, a person who doesn't know the history like I do or doesn't even know about the essay, might get awkward if someone equated this essay with Lutheranism. So, I can't guarantee that every Lutheran will respond to you the same way I do. Getting awkward due to not being well educated about something is an feeling many people feel. That sort of thing happens all the time.
But an easy solution to all of this ( that would put the focus on what deserves to be on the lamp stand) -- would be to abandon the Lutheran name.
However, since "Lutheransim" doesn't have anything to do with that essay, it's not an issue. To change a name would make it seem like there is an issue when there isn't (especially when the name was adopted for the principled reasons I mentioned above). Further, when many other denominations have since formed that "Lutherans" need to differentiate themselves from, they do need a separate name. So, they stick with the one they got.
As such, if someone agrees with them, they invite them to be Lutheran. If said person doesn't agree with them, they encourage that person to look for other groups. If someone agrees with them but hates the name despite the noble reasons why it was adopted, Lutherans would rather encourage them to still look to Jesus and find another church, then do something they feel uncomfortable with. Why? Because to them, it's not an issue and is unimportant, so why raise a big fuss over it?
So, in sum, if Lutheran theological views are important, they need to maintain their separate identity, and they will happily address this issue with anyone concerned. After all, it's not even an issue, given that the word "Lutheran" has nothing to do with Luther's later anti-Semitic views. To change the name would be to pretend an issue exists when it doesn't.
I hope that answers all your questions!!!
Wed Dec 07, 02:08:00 PM 2011
Dan said...
Caps on an earlier post were for emphasis, not shouting, btw. I don't know if there was an option to use bold or italics, but that was what I was going for. Hopefully it didn't come across wrong.
Sat Dec 10, 09:24:00 PM 2011
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
New Audiobook
New Audiobook
Subscribe to our mailing list
International SAB order
Drunk With Blood Audiobook:
Introduction
Subscribe To
Posts
Atom Posts
RSS Feed
Search This Blog
powered by
A biased sample
A Challenge to Christians
How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)
Islam: It's mostly about going to the bathroom
Blogging the Book of Mormon
50 reasons to be ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus
Who has killed more, Satan or God?
God's Top 50 Killings in the Bible
Where do evil spirits come from?
David, a man after God's own heart (WWDD?)
The worth of a woman: The Bible vs. the Quran
208 ways to get yourself saved
Real men pee standing up
Everybody must get stoned
Where do evil spirits come from?
What does Jesus have written on his testicles?
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong
Is it wrong to burn people to death?
The Top 50 Bible Stories for kids
Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?
Blog Archive
Blog Archive April (8) March (5) February (12) January (13) December (7) November (11) October (6) September (6) August (12) July (11) June (4) May (11) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (10) December (9) November (13) October (14) September (10) August (5) July (9) June (7) May (10) April (12) March (12) February (5) January (3) December (2) November (6) October (5) September (13) August (6) July (4) June (6) May (7) April (13) March (10) February (4) January (8) December (8) November (8) October (11) September (6) August (12) July (8) June (21) May (8) April (13) March (28) February (36) January (17) December (11) November (11) October (29) September (14) August (9) July (17) June (9) May (6) April (7) March (9) February (5) January (11) December (2) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (6) July (4) June (8) May (8) April (11) March (8) February (3) January (3) December (4) November (3) October (5) September (1) August (1) July (2) June (2) May (1) April (2) March (2) February (4) January (6) December (6) November (11) October (9) September (8) August (12) July (15) June (16)
Contributors
Steve Wells
Philip Wells
Site Meter
Follow by Email
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Social Networks, Website Sites and Search engines are 3 of my online best friends. This is the major reason why I spend a good deal of time online. As I was looking for pertinent weblog to read, I came across your blog and I couldn't help but be inspired. Its really awesome post to read. A huge thumbs up for you.
ReplyDeleteTop 5 Medical Website Design for Physicians.