Dear Kathy,
Since you graciously agreed (in our recent conversation) to let me present you with some examples of the Bible’s problems, I decided to do it in this way so it would have its own comment thread. As I’ve said, when I was a Christian, one strike against the Bible was not enough to shake my faith — maybe it only seemed problematic, maybe there was an explanation we hadn’t uncovered yet, maybe the historical accounts were wrong, etc. But as the problems began to mount up, I reached a point where I could no longer deny the fact that the Bible had actual errors.
A couple of suggestions before we begin. Try to be as open-minded about this as possible. As you go through these examples, ask yourself if God would allow such problems to exist in a message that he wanted all people to accept and believe? According to the Bible, whenever God sent someone a message, whether it was Pharaoh or Gideon or Nebuchadnezzar or Paul, they had no question whom it was from. They didn’t always follow it, as we see with people like Pharaoh and Solomon, but they didn’t question the source of the message or what it stated. So why would God operate differently today? Why would he want us to be so confused about his message that we’re able to question whether or not it’s really from him?
Another thing to keep in mind is that even if you come to the conclusion that the Bible has actual problems, that doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. There are a number of Christians who don’t believe in inerrancy. And even if you lose faith in the Christian god, that still doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. A number of people, including several of our founding fathers, were deists. I have a lot of sympathy for that view and plan to do a post on it soon.
Some of the items listed here will have links that provide additional information, especially when the issue is too detailed to list here. I hope that you’ll check out those links, since some of them are quite significant points. And regardless of how this article strikes you, I hope it will help serve as a great springboard to launch you into your own research.
Some of the Problems
Creation
The creation accounts in Genesis do not match what we’ve learned through science. This isn’t shocking news, but it bears looking into. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory had nothing to do with my deconversion, but I’ve learned more about both since leaving Christianity. It’s shocking how much misinformation I had been operating under. Not to say that all Christians are that way — that was simply my experience. But the evidence for both evolution and the Big Bang are far more substantial than I had ever realized. Two good resources for learning more about these issues are the following (though I’d also recommend checking out the recent Cosmos series, as well as some of the PBS NOVA specials):
Another problem with the creation accounts is that Genesis 1 says that plants and trees were made on the 3rd day, while man was made on the 6th. But Genesis 2:5-9 says that man was created before there were any plants or trees in the land. Also, the 1st chapter says that man was created after all the animals, but the 2nd chapter implies that it was the other way around. It seems strange that such discrepancies would exist only a chapter apart, but there are a number of textual clues that suggest the first 5 books of the Bible were assembled over a long period of time from various writings written by a number of different people. Many scholars believe that Genesis 1 and 2 represent two separate versions of the creation story that were both included because the compilers didn’t know which was more accurate. Whatever the reason, there’s no question that the differences exist and are hard to explain.
10 Plagues
During the 10 plagues, God afflicts all of Egypt’s livestock with a disease (Ex 9:1-7), and it specifies that it would affect the “horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks.” We’re told that all of Egypt’s livestock died. But the later plague of boils was said to affect both man and beast (verse 10 of chapter 9). Maybe it meant non-livestock animals. But Ex 11:5 says that the death of the firstborn would also affect Egypt’s cattle, and in Exodus 14, Pharaoh pursues the Israelites with horses.
Hares Chew the Cud
Leviticus 11:6 tells us that hares chew the cud. They do not. Animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. When they eat plant matter, it goes to their first stomach to soften, and then it’s regurgitated to their mouth. They spend time re-chewing it, and then it is swallowed and fully digested. Ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, etc.) are recognizable because their chewing of the cud is very obvious. Hares (rabbits) don’t chew the cud; however, their mouths do move frequently, so it’s possible to see why some people may have assumed that they do chew the cud. Of course, God would know they didn’t, and this is why the passage is problematic. You can read more about this here.
Arphaxad
In the genealogy given in Genesis 11:10-12, we see that Noah fathered Shem and Shem fathered Arphaxad. At the age of 35, Arphaxad fathered Shelah. This information is confirmed in 1 Chron 1:18. But Luke 3:35-36 tells us that Arphaxad’s son was Cainan, and he was the father of Shelah.
Where does Luke get this information? It disagrees with the Old Testament, so who should we believe? Some have suggested that Genesis and 1 Chronicles simply left out Cainan for some reason. But why would they do that? To further complicate it, how could Cainan have fit in there? Genesis tells us that Arphaxad was 35 when he fathered Shelah. Does it really seem likely that Arphaxad became a grandfather by 35, especially when you consider the extreme old ages that people lived to at that time?
Another explanation is that some copyist messed up when copying Luke and Cainan is just a mistake. But this is not much better. First of all, the error would have needed to occur early for it to be in all our copies of Luke. Secondly, are we really comfortable saying that we have the inspired word of our creator, but it got messed up by some guy who wasn’t paying close attention? To me, that doesn’t lend a lot of credence to the idea of inspiration or inerrancy.
Instead, the most likely explanation is that Luke made a mistake. This, of course, would indicate that he was not inspired.
Problems in the Book of Daniel
In Daniel 5, the writer refers to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar 7 different times. Yet we know from multiple contemporary sources that Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus, who was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. The same chapter says that Darius the Mede took over Babylon, but this person does not seem to have ever existed. Daniel says that he was the son of Ahaseurus, and in mentioning this, the author of Daniel indicates that he was thinking of a later ruler — the persian emperor Darius the Great, whose son was Ahaseurus. This post in particular goes into the problems surrounding the 5th chapter, but if you’d like to learn about the problems in the rest of the book, you can access each article in the series here.
Jairus’s Daughter
In Mark 5:23, Jairus finds Jesus and says that his daughter is at the point of death. While they’re on their way to the house, some of his servants find them on the way and say that she has died and there’s no point in troubling Jesus further.
However, in Matthew 9:18, Jairus already knows that his daughter has died, but tells Jesus that if he’ll lay his hands on her, she’ll live. This may seem like a minor difference, but honestly, there’s only one scenario that could be true. Either the girl was already dead, or she wasn’t. And if Jairus already knew she was dead, then there was no point in his servants coming to tell him that (so of course, they don’t appear in Matthew’s account).
The Centurion
This is similar to the previous issue. Matthew and Luke both record a centurion who asks Jesus to heal his sick servant. Matthew 8:5-13 says that the centurion himself comes before Jesus to ask for help. Luke 7:1-10 says that the Jewish elders went on his behalf, and then he sent servants to follow up. In Luke, Jesus never speaks to, or even sees, the centurion at all.
Hight Priest
In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus talks about the occasion from the Old Testament when David ate the showbread, which Jesus said was in the days of Abiathar the high priest. However, in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, it appears that Ahimelech was the high priest. Some have tried to answer this problem by saying that Abiathar was alive during that particular episode, so Jesus’ statement is still true. But that’s obviously not the intent of the passage. After all, we would correct anyone who said that the tragedy of 9/11 occurred during the days of President Barack Obama. He may have been alive at the time, but that event did not happen while he was President.
430 Years
Galatians 3:16-17 says this:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
Here, Paul says that the law came 430 years after the promises were made to Abraham. But in Exodus 12:40-41, we see:
Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt.
If the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, then there could not have been 430 years between Abraham’s promises and the law. God made the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, and as we read on through Genesis, we see that Abraham had no children at this time. Later, he had a son named Isaac. When Isaac was 60 years old, he had Jacob (Gen 25:24-26), and Jacob had 12 sons that produced the 12 tribes of Israel. Already, we can see that some time has passed since Abraham received the promise. Once Jacob’s sons were all grown with families of their own, they finally settled in Egypt. Jacob was 130 years old at this time (Gen 47:9), and this marks the beginning of that 430 year period that the Israelites spent in Egypt.
That means that the time between the promise to Abraham and the giving of the law was actually over 600 years. So why did Paul say 430 years? I think it’s obvious that this was a simple mistake. He remembered the 430 year figure because that’s how much time the Israelites spent in Egypt, and so he simply misspoke. It’s not a big deal… except that he’s supposed to be inspired by God.
Jesus’ Birth
There are a number of issues surrounding Jesus’ birth. First, Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts contradict one another on virtually all the details, which you can read about here. Secondly, Matthew seems to invent an episode where Herod kills all the children in Bethlehem who are 2 and under, causing Mary, Joseph, and Jesus to flee to Egypt (instead of just returning home to Nazareth, because only Luke says that they started in Nazareth). Matthew does this in order to “fulfill” some Old Testament passages that actually have nothing to do with Jesus or killing babies. You can read about Matthew’s misuse of the Old Testament here — it’s quite blatant.
The Virgin Birth is one of the most famous aspects of Jesus’ story, and it was supposedly done in fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah. But it turns out that Isaiah was prophesying no such thing — he was talking about an event that was happening in his own time, and Matthew (once again) just appropriated the “prophecy” for his own devices. You can read all the details here.
Another problem concerning Jesus’ birth narratives is that Matthew and Luke both offer genealogies for Jesus, but they are completely different from one another. Worse, they don’t match the genealogies listed in the Old Testament, either. And Matthew claims that there was a pattern in the number of generations between Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian captivity, and between the Babylonian captivity and Christ. But to get this neat division, he is forced to leave out some names. In other words, that pattern didn’t happen. You can read more about that here.
The Triumphal Entry
While not as blatant as most of these other issues, when Matthew recounts Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he once again borrows from the Old Testament, but seems to make a mistake in his implementation. See here for more info.
Judas’ Death
Judas is well known for being the disciple that betrayed Jesus, but what’s not as well known is there are two different accounts of his death, and it’s very hard to reconcile them. According to Matthew, Judas threw his money down at the chief priests’ feet and went out and hanged himself. We’re not told where he did this. The priests then take the money, and instead of putting it back in the treasury (since it’s blood money), they buy a field to use for burying strangers. Because they bought the field with this money, it’s called the “Field of Blood.”
According to Acts, Judas bought a field with his money (we’re not told that he was remorseful), and he somehow fell down, bursting open in the middle and bleeding to death. The field was called “Field of Blood” after that because of the manner in which Judas died.
To make things more complicated, Matthew (of course) says that this happened in accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecy, but there’s nothing in Jeremiah that matches up. The closest reference comes from Zechariah, not Jeremiah.
These issues really complicate the notion of divine inspiration, and you can read more about them here.
The Crucifixion
There are several big problems with the way the gospels record the events of Jesus’ death, including the fact that different times of day are given for it, and even different days altogether. You can read more about this here.
The Resurrection
There are also a number of problems concerning the resurrection, some minor, some major. They’re too involved to get into here, but you can read all about them here and here.
The Problem of Hell
The notion of Hell is fraught with problems. It might even surprise you to learn that the Bible’s teachings on the afterlife change dramatically between the Old and New Testaments. I go into detail about Hell’s problems here, here, and here.
The Problem of Evil
Another huge problem for Christianity is the problem of evil, which I talk about here. This post also addresses the “problem of Heaven.”
The Bible’s Morality
While a number of people believe that the Christian god is the source of all morality, the Bible is actually filled with some monstrous acts that are either commanded by God, done with his consent, or carried out by him directly. I talk about some specific examples here, and I address some of the common responses to them here.
Conclusion
Kathy, there are a number of other examples that could be given, including the prophecy of Tyre that we’ve been discussing. But to me, these are some of the most significant and clear-cut problems. We could try to manufacture explanations for every one of these — some might be more believable than others. But why should we have to? If a perfect God inspired this book, why should it contain so many discrepancies? And honestly, some of these issues can’t be explained. They’re just wrong. The problems go well beyond internal contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. There are problems of authorship, problems with the doctrines, and problems with the way the texts were written, transcribed, and compiled.
I’m sure you’ve spent your time as a Christian trying to reach those who are lost. You’ve always believed that Christianity is truth, and it’s the one thing that everyone needs. But could it be that Christianity is just as false as every other religion in the world? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t you want to leave it behind? When one is dedicated to finding truth, they have to be prepared to follow it wherever it leads. It’s not always easy or popular. It’s not even a guarantee that you’re right. All it means is that you follow the evidence where it leads to the best of your ability. If you find out that you’re wrong about something, you adjust course when the evidence dictates. If God exists, and if he’s righteous, what more could he ask for than that? I’ll close with my favorite quote:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
— Marcus Aurelius
Finding Truth 
Heh! Ron?!?
I’m not sure how he’ll feel about this, Arch! 😉
LikeLike
Nate, I’m posting the date/ time of my last comment to you..
I’m really hoping you’ll respond to those points & questions.
Kathy (@kayms99)
July 5, 2014 at 2:21 pm
LikeLike
Mike, it was very nice to meet you also..
yes, contact me through twitter.. I’ve followed/ friended you there.
“like a car wreck”.. yep, sadly it’s a lot like that. 😦
LikeLike
Arch, you said:
“Personally, Kathy, I find you to be a mindless twit. You are entirely closed-minded – you have no idea who wrote the Bible, where it was written, when it was written, who and what kind of people wrote it, or why, and yet you don’t care or feel you have any need to know those things. ”
The person who claims God doesn’t exist even though he has no proof or EVEN evidence!.. says that “I’M” closed minded. There is TONS of evidence for God’s existence.. and again NONE for His non existence.. yet, again, I’m the one who is closed minded.
You say I have “no idea” about the authors or dates of the Bible.. again, more deliberate ignorance.. we have very GOOD ideas of the answers to those questions.
Your entire comment perfectly displays YOUR ignorance, Arch. Those who apply objectivity will clearly see this, those who don’t apply objectivity, will agree with your comment.. and that will be every single liberal who reads it, I’m pretty sure.
Oh, and what exactly am I trying to “sell” to you Arch? An eternity in Heaven instead of Hell? Shame on me.
LikeLike
Ruth, you said:
” The 50/50 argument is called “hedging your bets”. If that’s the reason a person “believes” then, according to fundamentalism, that’s not real Christianity. ”
Ruth, this site is FULL of my reasons for believing. The 50/50 odds are correct.. that’s called “reality”. It’s to point out how atheists do NOT apply objectivity. You all aren’t saying you “don’t know”.. you’re claiming that the God of the Bible or any other god, doesn’t exist.
That’s the basis of your argument. I’ve not once read anyone’s comments here that indicate that God “may” exist.. not once.
My claims of “certainty” of based on my faith.. I’ve never indicated otherwise.. I’ve never claimed to have empirical proof. And you have done no differently.. you are claiming the very same “certainty” for your views.. but somehow, your “certainty” is “ok” even though you have no empirical proof either. This is hypocrisy/ double standards.
Your claims of certainty don’t offend me one bit.. but boy are the liberals offended when Christians express their certainty. Why is that?
And again, this site is full of my reasons for my certainty. Please don’t try to take away my right to be certain.. because that’s what you are doing.. what all liberals do.. you try to silence those who disagree with you.. either by telling us we are “wrong” for having a belief that we are certain about or by hindering our ability to share our opposing views/ beliefs though various forms of censorship.
LikeLike
Your question dealt with which religion was best, and you stated that Christianity was. Terms like “better” and “best” are always subjective, so you’re always going to get different answers. I think Buddhism’s teachings are better than Christianity’s, and that’s why I answered the way I did.
Yes, claims of reincarnation should have evidence if someone is to believe them. But the core teachings of Buddhism don’t deal with reincarnation. They’re simply principles for living, and as such, they don’t really need evidence in the way we normally use it. The principles either work, or they don’t, and this is what makes them similar to principles of mathematics.
My original point was that some religions don’t even need credentials, which (in my view) makes them superior to Christianity. But even if that weren’t true, this is like asking which garbage dump is the prettiest. Christianity has too many problems — it just doesn’t make sense to use terms like “superior credentials” in relation to it.
I’m sorry if you feel that way. All I can say is that I’ve been completely honest in all my comments to you. You may not like my responses, just as I often don’t like yours. But that doesn’t mean either of us is being dishonest.
There are actually many rational arguments that support it. This blog post, in fact, goes into some detail about why the martyrdom argument is not very good. For one thing, it’s not based on real evidence at all.
This is a really important point, and I hope it’s something you’ll research before using this argument again. The disciples dying for their beliefs is apparently very strong evidence to you, but I’m telling you, under the surface, there’s nothing there. It’s definitely true that some Christians died for their beliefs, but these are 2nd and 3rd generation Christians, at best. They did not personally know Jesus, but were converted by evangelists like Paul. This means that their dedication, while admirable, has no bearing on whether or not Jesus did any of the things claimed for him.
I also think it would help you to really consider how unlikely the whole story of Christianity is anyway. Several times you’ve used this “50/50” thing in reference to the likelihood of the Christian god existing. That’s just not true. The number is far lower.
Christianity hinges on the resurrection, which is a miracle. It’s easy to overlook how unlikely a miracle is when you’re raised believing that they’re real. But think about it for a moment. A miracle, by definition, is an event that violates the known laws of reality. Let that sink in for a moment and consider how unlikely it would be for an actual miracle to explain anything from history. By default, it’s usually going to be the least likely explanation. I mean, think of all the other miracle claims that have been made by other religions and cultures, yet most of us don’t believe those are true.
That point alone shouldn’t convince you of anything. But it should make us at least try to explore every other possible explanation for an occurrence before accepting the miracle claim.
Furthermore, people have died for all kinds of false beliefs. Look at the Heaven’s Gate folks. They willingly killed themselves based on the unsubstantiated claims of one man. Look at all the people who gave away all they had when Harold Camping said the end of the world would happen in 2012. Now think back to a largely illiterate and superstitious culture 2000 years ago — is it really that unlikely that a charismatic individual gathered a following who were dedicated enough to die for their beliefs? We see it happen today; why not back then?
LikeLike
William, you said:
“Kathy, didnt all of jesus’ body die? the parts of the body that we can observe and measure through biology?”
Yes, but is that what Jesus said? “all of the seed that we can observe and measure will die”?
Again, there is an ADDING to the actual words.
If you leave the words alone, Jesus’ words are correct.
I see this, and the Tyre arguments as arguments of desperation. There is a NEED to falsify
the Bible. Again, you/ Nate/atheists CAN accept these claims as fulfilled or accurate.. but you instead seek reasons to not accept them as truth.
“Certain terms imply the whole – unless they clearly demonstrate that they are referring to only part.”
I agree. But ALSO the reverse can be true.. when we say that NYC was attacked on 9/11.. does that mean “all” of the city? No. And there is no “clear” demonstration that only the WTC was attacked when we say NYC was attacked.. or when we said/ say that the United States was attacked.. no “clarification” is added that it meant only the WTC in NYC.
“For instance, If I said that i was underwater for a long time – it’s implied that I was holding my breathe and submereged for an extended period. If I told you that I was underwater for a long time, but then you learn that only my feet ever got wet, you’d feel like I was misleading you due to my wording – technically itcould be argued to still be true, but we all understand the common usage or words and implications that they carry, so if all I meant was that my feet were wet, then i would need to explain further to clarify that point and avoid confusion.”
Here’s the difference that you aren’t seeing.. there is a significant difference between the 2 “truths”. One implies possible death.. the other doesn’t. So, yes that would be a major deception. But what is the major deception in the Tyre prophecy or the seed analogy?
Only those who choose to apply THEIR word of “all” are the ones who feel “deceived”.
We don’t have the right to apply our own words to God’s prophecies.
“I think you have to take the real conclusion of tyre and the real biology of the seed to make your arguments that only part was meant to have been destroyed (never mind the “never rebuilt” part) or that “part” of the seed will die, while other parts of the seed must live….”
“Old Tyre” is underwater and will never be rebuilt”
The seed “dies” in order for new life to come forth. Again, Jesus didn’t specify that the entire
biological seed dies.. He doesn’t have to be this clear.. it’s HIS words and His meaning.. not what you want HIS words to mean. If none of the seed “died”.. then you would have an argument.
“When demolition contractors are hired to demolish a building, are they considered done once they demolish a wall of the building, or once they demolish the entire building? See what I mean? I think what i am describing is very obvious and easy to understand. ”
Yes, and it’s also very obvious to understand that when the US was attacked on 9/11, it didn’t mean all of the US.
“I think if you step back a moment, you’ll see the ridiculousness of these assertions.”
It’s not ridiculous at all.. I had also pointed out that there are portions of the 3 chapter prophecy where it obviously does NOT mean all of Tyre.. that it’s specific to the island or mainland without either of those being specified. My arguments are very reasonable. You don’t get to ADD your own words to the prophecy.
LikeLike
” is it really that unlikely that a charismatic individual gathered a following who were dedicated enough to die for their beliefs? We see it happen today; why not back then?”
Only we don’t see what happened in the NT days happening now. Your comparisons are weak. It might be true that Heaven’s gates and even Jim Jones managed to dupe a relative few into dying for them but Christianity went on to conquer the world. The other small groups fizzle out particularly because they are NOT considered credible by enough people to sustain themselves. Though I would agree that an isolated person here and there dying for a belief is ot convincing the testimony of a large group of pople who go on to onvince the world is not something tht can jsut be shifted aside logically or compared to a few cults.
In addition your second and third generation comment concerning converts of Paul is just meaningless. I can have a fourth generation convert in a church with in a year.
LikeLike
Nate, thanks for responding..
me: I don’t understand how you could have mistaken my question.
you: Your question dealt with which religion was best, and you stated that Christianity was. Terms like “better” and “best” are always subjective, so you’re always going to get different answers. I think Buddhism’s teachings are better than Christianity’s, and that’s why I answered the way I did.”
I had RE posted the context of that exchange/ my question in an earlier comment.. that you didn’t answer.. so I had to ask again, and didn’t include that context (again).. after so much time has passed since the original question with THE context, it does make it easier for you to answer the question.. doesn’t it?
“I’m sorry if you feel that way. All I can say is that I’ve been completely honest in all my comments to you. You may not like my responses, just as I often don’t like yours. But that doesn’t mean either of us is being dishonest.”
Maybe.. MAYBE.. you aren’t fully aware of this dishonesty Nate…. but when you “buy” time by not answering.. this is what happens.. you get to give answers that aren’t in line with the context.. that I now have to find and repost yet AGAIN..
Here’s my previous request for clarification with the context included..
“Kathy (@kayms99)
July 4, 2014 at 2:10 pm
Nate,
me:
“And so, you are making the claim that the compelling evidence is equal for the God of the Bible and the thousands of others? Equal in martyrs, fulfilled prophecies, archeological evidence? Then where are all of their followers?? Yes, lots of followers for Islam but again.. they get “punished” if they don’t follow Muhammad. So…
you: I think this illustrates one of our key differences. You seem to assume that God exists, so whichever religion is best must be the right one. But I’m not looking for the best of the bunch — I’m looking for the right one. You can look for the best apple in a barrel of rotten ones, but it’s still going to be rotten — that’s what we have with Christianity. Even if it is the best (and I don’t think it is), it still has too many problems to be the work of an all-good, all-powerful being.”
This was the context for my question: ” What is the best if not Christianity? I really want to know what it is.. ”
And then you said:
“We’re misunderstanding one another. I didn’t say Buddhism was true, nor am I a Buddhist. You asked me what I thought the best religion was: I think Buddhism is a better religion than the other religions I’m familiar with, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s true.
And if you think Buddhism needs credentials, then you don’t understand Buddhism. It needs no more “credentials” than geometry does.”
1) Did you really not understand what I meant?
2) Why would I care about which religion you *liked* the most?
3) Aren’t we debating what the TRUTH is?
I don’t understand how you could have mistaken my question.
And why would Buddhism be the “best” is it isn’t even based on truth?? Makes no sense.
And if Buddhism makes ANY claims, or TEACHINGS.. like we are reincarnated.. then they SHOULD have something to back up their claims.. any rational person would require this. This is just another question that I’m more confused about after you’ve answered it.. because the answers don’t make sense.”
So, your latest answer:
“you: Your question dealt with which religion was best, and you stated that Christianity was. Terms like “better” and “best” are always subjective, so you’re always going to get different answers. I think Buddhism’s teachings are better than Christianity’s, and that’s why I answered the way I did.”
this claiming of the subjectivity of “better” & “best” doesn’t answer my points/ questions. The context is clear.. again, I ask:
1) Did you really not understand what I meant?
2) Why would I care about which religion you *liked* the most?
3) Aren’t we debating what the TRUTH is?
I STILL don’t understand how you could have mistaken my question, based on the very FIRST line of the comment you were responding to where I said:
“And so, you are making the claim that the compelling evidence is equal for the God of the Bible and the thousands of others? Equal in martyrs, fulfilled prophecies, archeological evidence? ”
THIS is the context NATE.. how does Buddhism apply if you don’t even believe it is true?? What compelling evidence is there for Buddhism??
So, if you now want to acknowledge that your answer does not apply, then what if any other religion is more credentialed?? And if you don’t have an answer, how about an acknowledgment that Christianity is the most credentialed??
LikeLike
“Christianity hinges on the resurrection, which is a miracle. It’s easy to overlook how unlikely a miracle is when you’re raised believing that they’re real. But think about it for a moment. A miracle, by definition, is an event that violates the known laws of reality. Let that sink in for a moment and consider how unlikely it would be for an actual miracle to explain anything from history.”
This is the usual anti supernatural claim that has debunked before on this blog with Kathy admitting, and even Ark appealing to the supernatural (everything out of nothing). Let it sink in for a moment. The universe’s HISTORY demands a supernatural event. There is no way around it. How unlikely is it that materialism is the explanation for reality when materialism demands cause and effect and the chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite.
there is no known law of reality that allows for an infinite regression. So if Christian miracles must automatically be rejected as an explanation for anything in history then so to must atheistic materialism.
The real answer for people who think it through is that the supernatural and what would be considered a miracle (something that has no material cause or explanation) is not only likely. Its inevitable.
LikeLike
Kathy, I’m sorry if I misunderstood what you were asking. At this point, let’s just chalk it up to that and move on. I don’t think any religions are true or have compelling enough evidence to warrant belief. I am trying to be as straightforward as possible, and I think any more discussion about Buddhism, etc, is only going to make things more confusing.
LikeLike
That’s a silly assertion, Mike. When we all earn our PhDs in theoretical physics, maybe we can discuss this again. Until then, we just don’t know what we’re talking about.
LikeLike
Seeds contain three parts:
– an embryo
– a food supply
– a seed coat
Nothing “dies” when a seed germinates. This is grade two science.
LikeLike
Nate, that’s fine.. I don’t want to know about Buddhism, I know enough.. it makes claims with no compelling evidence to back up it’s “truth”. That’s all that needs to be known.
Yes, my comment was long.. I’ll just repost this last part.. if you could address the last paragraph, I’ll be happy and we can move on..
“I STILL don’t understand how you could have mistaken my question, based on the very FIRST line of the comment you were responding to where I said:
“And so, you are making the claim that the compelling evidence is equal for the God of the Bible and the thousands of others? Equal in martyrs, fulfilled prophecies, archeological evidence? ”
THIS is the context NATE.. how does Buddhism apply if you don’t even believe it is true?? What compelling evidence is there for Buddhism??
So, if you now want to acknowledge that your answer does not apply, then what, if any other religion, is more credentialed?? And if you don’t have an answer, how about an acknowledgment that Christianity is the most credentialed??”
LikeLike
“That’s a silly assertion, Mike”
Just say you have never thought it through and are incapable of handling it Nate. Its obvious thats the case which is why you dodge it instead of dealing with it..
“we earn our PhDs in theoretical physics, maybe we can discuss this again. Until then, we just don’t know what we’re talking about.”
Theoretical physics PHds have nothing to do with it. You either have an infinite regress of causes or you have something that has no cause. Those are your logical options and besides one physicist has already claimed that everything come out of nothing for much the same reason that you barf is silly (to save face).
If you are going to do a pretzel impersonation and insist that nothing is material let me know and I can get my popcorn and some Pepsi while you perform
LikeLike
“and what exactly am I trying to ‘sell’ to you Arch? An eternity in Heaven instead of Hell?” – no, you vacuous twit, a trip through your fantasy world.
LikeLike
Kathy, I’m not going to comment on how good or bad Christianity’s credentials are as compared to all other religions. I don’t know enough about other religions to be able to comment on that intelligently. Sorry.
LikeLike
Nate, that’s ok.. just base your answer on your knowledge to date of Christianity and the other religions that you’ve also rejected.. and also compared to Buddhism that you like but don’t believe is true.
LikeLike
Also, as to your comment to William about Tyre and seeds, I don’t think anyone is going to be swayed by your argument. “Die” and “destroy” have very specific meanings that already include the notion of “all” or “completely” in their definitions. If we have to argue over semantics like that, then there’s little hope of any of us getting anywhere. We’re basically not even speaking the same language.
LikeLike
Nate,
Here is a link I gave earlier.. which explains Jesus’ meaning of the seed analogy.
http://www.cupofwrath.com/bible-questions/john-12.24.php
And here is my last comment, right before yours up above, in regards to how the credentials of Christianity compares to other religions… incase you missed it..
“Nate, that’s ok.. just base your answer on your knowledge to date of Christianity and the other religions that you’ve also rejected.. and also compared to Buddhism that you like but don’t believe is true.”
LikeLike
Kathy, there’s just nothing to compare. I think they’re all false. I think Christianity has a number of major points against it, which is what the majority of my blog is about. I know this isn’t what you’re looking for, but I’m afraid it’s just all I’m going to say about it.
And I’m afraid the article you linked to still doesn’t answer the issue. It’s simply a fact that seeds don’t die — they transform. A dead seed won’t do anything. I think the best explanation for this passage is to just say that Jesus was being figurative, or that he chose to describe the huge change a seed undertakes as “death,” when obviously that’s not really what it is. I think any other attempt at explaining this is just going to look too manufactured to most people.
LikeLike
Nate, you said:
“Kathy, there’s just nothing to compare. I think they’re all false. I think Christianity has a number of major points against it, which is what the majority of my blog is about.”
Nate, I’m not asking if you believe any are false or not.. that’s just not what I’ve asked. I’m asking, which religion, based on what you do know.. is the most credentialed. You don’t have to believe in any of them to answer this.. and you don’t have to know about every religion or have extensive knowledge of all the religions you do know about. I’ve made a statement that Christianity is the most credentialed, you stated that you didn’t believe this to be the case.. I’m only asking which religion you believe is more credentialed since you don’t think it’s Christianity.
That I’m having such a hard time getting you to answer this question is very telling, Nate. It just makes me question even more your claim of seeking truth.. “wherever it may lead”.. it’s clear that you don’t like where my question leads. Christianity is the most credentialed religion. You didn’t like that I made that claim, you disagreed with it, yet you can’t disprove it. And you’re really going out of your way to not acknowledge this truth.
And as for your insistence that martyrdom isn’t compelling evidence.. it just made me think of Mormonism’s teachings that Jesus’ death on the cross is not enough to save us.. that our good works are also required to get to Heaven. This is the ultimate message of evil. It tries to take away what Jesus did on the cross. It teaches that what He did was not enough to save us.. that we still have to “save ourselves” with good works.
What you are trying to do is almost as bad.. people who gave their lives, including/ ESPECIALLY Jesus’ disciples who knew Him and loved Him, is extremely valuable testimony and compelling evidence of the truth of the Gospels. The best way to deceive people and lead them away from God and His grace is to try to devalue what Jesus did on the cross, and then attack the most powerful testimony a human being can give. Anyone who gives their life for another is giving the strongest testimony possible.. whether it’s a parent to save their child or Jesus’ disciples or anyone else testifying to Him and His love for us. Again, that you can’t acknowledge this powerful testimony is very revealing of your bias/ lack of objectivity.
I don’t deny that there are/ have been people who’ve been mistaken, who are victims of cults etc, people who are told they’ll receive 70 virgins if they kill others while they kill themselves.. or any other scenario.. I don’t deny that those people also have “given” their lives. But as I’ve explained and what you’ve obviously dismissed without providing any argument.. you have to analyze the SPECIFICS of these examples.. what did they believe? what credentials supported their beliefs? Like say, Buddhism.. if anyone martyred themselves for Buddhism, that would be meaningless… because we both know, there’s nothing to support it’s truth. If someone kills themselves to testify to the flying spaghetti monster.. to anyone who has critical thinking skills, they are going to chalk that “sacrifice” up to someone who’s got sanity issues.. since there is zero compelling evidence for the FSM. Same with people in cults, who believe things that there is no compelling evidence to support their beliefs. Same with Islam, or Buddhism or any of the others.
And further, you don’t acknowledge the major difference between your examples and Christian martyrs.. Christians don’t take their own lives.. they preach the Gospel.. and there lives were taken FROM THEM for doing so.. much much different than the Heaven’s Gate people, Muslims or any other cult/ religion.. extremely different circumstances. You don’t seem to think that the individual specific circumstances are pertinent.. that’s incredibly irrational reasoning.
LikeLike
Nate, you said:
” I also think it would help you to really consider how unlikely the whole story of Christianity is anyway. Several times you’ve used this “50/50″ thing in reference to the likelihood of the Christian god existing. That’s just not true. The number is far lower. ”
Wrong. My 50/50 odds are for either us being created beings, with a Creator, or were part of a giant accident.. with no Creator.
As for the God of the Bible being our Creator.. I don’t have odds.. but I assert that Christianity is the most credentialed… far more than any other religion/ cult out there.
“This is a really important point, and I hope it’s something you’ll research before using this argument again.”
Yes, I already addressed this point, but, reading this again.. it just makes me cringe..
You hope that I won’t use this point again.. that’s what you mean. What “research” is going to “tell” me that martyrdom isn’t valuable evidence Nate?? There is no “research” to do.. it’s fundamental common sense. Anyone who values their lives and who isn’t full of incredibly bias will see the truth of the value of martyrdom. Why do you want so badly to silence this argument? If it’s so meaningless, why should you care?
And further, why do you care if others believe in God?? Don’t you think you should be absolutely SURE of your chosen belief that God doesn’t exist BEFORE you make such an effort to lead people away? ESPECIALLY when people like me and Mike and others have pointed out your obvious lack of objectivity? Why would you and others here want to “convert” people to atheism?
“The disciples dying for their beliefs is apparently very strong evidence to you, but I’m telling you, under the surface, there’s nothing there.”
And any rational human being would tell you that you are wrong. People who march on preaching God’s word, people who refuse to denounce their faith.. when they are faced with death, THAT’S the MOST POWERFUL testimony there is. You can try to devalue that, just as the satanic cult of Mormonism tries to devalue Jesus’ sacrifice as not being enough to save us, but you’re fighting a losing battle.
“It’s definitely true that some Christians died for their beliefs, but these are 2nd and 3rd generation Christians, at best.”
Peter was crucified upside down because he didn’t feel worthy to die in the same way as Jesus did. All of the disciples died horrible deaths, except for John, for spreading the Gospel.. that’s WHY it spread! Without this powerful testimony, Christianity would have never survived considering all the oppression and persecution of Christians. Yet you are trying to claim that martyrdom isn’t powerful testimony / evidence. It was enough to make Christianity the largest FREE WILL faith today.
LikeLike
From Wheatmania.com :
“As the air and soil temperatures rise in the spring, the wheat plants will break dormancy and start growing again. As the wheat plants mature, they will produce a seed head – one head of wheat per stalk. **Once the seeds in the head of wheat have been pollinated and have matured, the wheat plant itself will begin to die. The wheat seeds, also called kernels, will be harvested when they have dried and developed a hardened outer shell. ”
**Once the seeds in the head of wheat have been pollinated and have matured, the wheat plant itself will begin to die.
LikeLike
Are you unable to see how daft this question is, Kathy?
This is like acknowledging that religion is corrupt but trying to force Nate to state which religion he believes is the least corrupt.
No religion is ‘credentialed’. To even suggest this means you have to either produce evidence of the religion’s bone fides; the veracity of its claims, or , as you all do, start from a position of supposition.
In other words, faith.
LikeLike