Hi NeuroNotes, that at least is reassuring! Though perhaps on this blog you should have used the singular! 🙂
On this blog any comment I make seems to attract many responses and leads to my spending more time than I can afford, so I’m trying to ease out and simply not respond to everything. But I felt your comment merited a response, especially as it allows me to rave about something a bit different to what I usually end up talking about.
“It is terribly saddening to know, however, that your god decided to save you but not the starving children under 5 who die every 3 to 5 seconds.”
Yes, indeed, it is. If you say you can’t believe in God for that reason, I will be very sympathetic to that view. Some aspects of the world are truly terrible, and even though people’s choices are responsible for much of the evil and suffering, it is hard to see how a good God created such a world.
But if we are going to focus on the bad, we should also in fairness focus on the good, and the reasons to believe in God – fairness is right and good don’t you agree? And so I write about both. if you looked around my website you would see I have addressed both. The one doesn’t negate the other. The good and the bad need both to be considered.
“It just comes across “me”, “me”, “me” — “I’m so special god heard my prayer and saved me.””
If I tell a story about my own life, it will use the pronouns “I” and “me”. The same would be true if you did. But there as no suggestion in my story that “I’m so special”, you read that into it.
“She’s Wiccan. Wicca has no high authority, no single leader, no prophet and no Bible to dictate its laws and beliefs.”
We could have a discussion about which has the most evidence, Christianity vs Wicca, but I don’t think that’s really a debate you would want to take the Wicca side on, do you?
“You may think you decided to read this story — but in fact, your brain made the decision long before you knew about it.”
This is the thing I wanted to rave about a bit, forgive me.
Let’s assume that is true for a moment. Then I cannot do anything other than be a christian because that is what the physical processes in my brain made me do. Truth has nothing to do with it. So you shouldn’t criticise me for it. But then, you can’t help criticising me for it because that is what your brain made you do. Truth has nothing to do with that either. And so on. There is no reason to have this conversation and all the other conversations on this blog, it is actually quite pointless, except none of us can do anything other.
But it gets worse. You have no reason to think those starving children dying is anything to worry about because you could just as easily think differently if your brain chemistry was different, and anyway, what is good and bad, just blips in our neurones?
Further, you can never know it is true that we don’t decide things, because that is just the way your brain is disposed to think, regardless of truth. So what you say may be true, but very few people (if any) can live as if it were true. In fact, what you are saying is that evolution has led us to live as if we have free will when in reality we don’t. So evolution has led us to have a deep belief in a lie. So evolution has led our cognitive faculties to be unreliable. And so we can’t trust what we think, and so we can’t trust neuroscience and we can’t trust your original statement that we can’t decide,
So it may be true, though I doubt it, but it is a totally self-defeating belief, in my view.
“researchers using brain scanners could predict people’s decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them.”
Yes, I’ve read this sort of thing too. If the physical is all there is, then we clearly have no choice – the physical processes control us – and in fact there is no “us” apart from the processes in our brain. That is logical and I agree with what I presume you are saying here.
So if we do indeed have any genuine free will (libertarian free will if you like), there must be more than the physical, which must mean dualism is true. Which means what makes choices in our brain is something not physical, and therefore not measured by the neurological experiments, which assume dualism is untrue. So they make the assumptions and get the expected answers, but don’t actually consider or rule out dualism.
It is the same self-defeating argument I think.
“Don’t you think you are being a wee bit assuming — wishing thinking?”
No, I think I am just reporting what I have experienced. And I think it is the viewpoint you have put forward here that is totally unrealistic. I think you have suggested beliefs that your are quite unable to live by, that are self-refuting and would be highly destructive to humanity if generally believed. I think they will never be believed by the majority of human beings, and even by the majority of neuroscientists and philosophers. But I guess they will be used when useful and set aside when not useful, which is most of the time.
Obviously that won’t be a response that will please you greatly, but we could analyse that in the same way, couldn’t we? But I really feel you are a much nicer person than your neuroscience-driven philosophy logically allows. And how should we explain that?
Now I’ve probably stirred up a hornets nest of discussion, most of which I’ll have to pass on, but I couldn’t resist. The snake made me do it! 🙂
The remains of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered today in an unmarked, common grave in the criminal section of a large first century cemetery east of the old city wall. The remains of the deceased were positively identified by five of the worlds’ top forensic laboratories as that of Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth using the latest and best DNA analysis comparing samples taken from descendants of Jesus’ brother, James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, whose grave was excavated in May of 2014.
Representatives of liberal Christian denominations were unfazed by the news: “We have always asserted that Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual, not physical, ” said their spokesperson.
Conservative and orthodox Christian denominations on the other hand were outraged and quickly attempted to discredit the findings. “The DNA testing is obviously fallacious. it couldn’t possibly be correct. Look right here in the Bible, in FOUR different books, it clearly states that Jesus rose bodily from the tomb. We are going to take God’s Holy Word as the truth over the findings of God-hating, atheistic scientists any day of the week! We will never accept the results of this study.”
Josh, in other words, the Beatles had it right like 50 years ago: “All you need is LOVE!” There’s precious little of that in this comment thread, though, I must say. 😉 So Christians certainly don’t have a corner on the lack of it. hehehe
For me, what can happen at the subatomic level is as mysterious as what the Bible calls a miracle; and convinces me that there is more to this life than meets the naked eye. But, then, I guess that’s jus’ me.
“I don’t think the amount of research done after the fact has any bearing on whether or not the accounts were based on an actual miracle or not.”
I don’t suggest it determines whether an actual miracle occurred, but it surely gives us much more confidence in the evidence, which is one of the things we were talking about.
“Earlier it was said that historians think that Jesus was known as a faith healer. You have not demonstrated that historians actually think the miracles themselves are historical.”
No, I have never claimed that. What I have said is that the historical evidence is there, but history can only determine what people observed or reported. Whether their explanations are believable or not depends on our metaphysics.
“How does the number of miracle claims improve the odds of an actual miracle occurring?”
My point was that our assessment of miracle claims will depend on many factors. Obviously the evidence, also our metaphysics, but also our assessment of the person(s) reporting the miracle and the person doing the healing. If someone claims the son of God healed someone I would be more inclined to believe it than if they said their cat healed someone. If someone says the son of God was resurrected I’d be more willing to believe them than if they said Elvis was resurrected.
So I’m suggesting there is a whole package we need to consider – the historical evidence about the miracles and who Jesus claimed to be and was believed to be, what impact this had, etc. And I’m suggesting Jesus was unique – a healer like no other of his time, plausibly resurrected, a monotheistic Jew who claimed more than any other good Jew would claim and backed it up with the miracles and the resurrection. (The number of miracles is important to differentiate him from other jews like Honi who is reported as just doing one – from memory).
I can accept that a modern person was healed, but that in itself wouldn’t lead me to believe they were the son of God, especially as the documented healings I have seen occurred by calling on the name of Jesus as son of God.
“We still need to ask ourselves what is the most probable explanation.”
This of course is where we differ. I think the whole package of Jesus’ life and teachings make the resurrection more believable than hallucination, but you don’t. I’m not sure I have anything more to say.
“Is there evidence to show that they died because of their belief in the resurrection / miracles?”
I think the NT is pretty clear that belief in the resurrection was a strong motivator. Larry Hurtado, who has made a particular study of how the early church came to believe Jesus was divine argues that t was the resurrection appearances that were crucial. Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 15) that if Jesus wasn’t raised then christianity was futile. And when he preached in Athens (Acts 17) he so much emphasised the resurrection that they thought he was teaching about two gods, Jesus and Anastasis.
Ark, “You really think so? Then I wonder how he views Nate? The same?”
I can’t say what unk would feel about Nate. I can say as matter of fact that he questioned just how much of a Christian I was when I told him I had been one for almost 50 years. I could go find his quote but he made it over a year ago . I believe it was here on Nate’s blog.
This is a ploy I have seen used often by Christians who exchange comments with de-converts.
“I can say as matter of fact that he questioned just how much of a Christian I was when I told him I had been one for almost 50 years. I could go find his quote but he made it over a year ago . I believe it was here on Nate’s blog.”
Hi Ken, I am indeed sorry if I have offended you and said something about you without justification. I don’t recall that, and it is the opposite of what I usually say, which is that I cannot know that about someone else.
Since I cannot recall it, I would appreciate if you could go to the trouble of finding it please. If it occurred as you say, I will readily apologise that I said something I shouldn’t have, but if you cannot find it, I can only apologise if I did that. Thanks.
I don’t think the average Christian has taken a good look at the many glaring discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts in the four Gospels. I personally never noticed these discrepancies when I was a Christian until I read straight through the New Testament in my forties! And I was a preacher’s kid. Prior to that, I just assumed they all said the same thing. However, reading straight through the NT, instead of reading it “shotgun” style, as most Christians do, I would read something in a later gospel that directly contradicted something I had read only a few weeks earlier in one of the earlier gospels. I was startled and unnerved that my “inerrant” Bible seemed to be so contradictory.
I am going to list some of the biggest discrepancies in the Resurrection stories and let’s see if any Christian wants to address them. I challenge all Christians to look at the discrepancies and ask yourself this question: “Even if UnkleE is right that the majority of “scholars” believe that the NT presents accurate historical information, do YOU believe the Resurrection story really occurred when all we have to base our decision upon is these four very conflicting stories. And remember, none of the Gospels claim that the author was sitting outside of Jesus’ tomb watching the women, angels, guards, and disciples come and go. These four “testimonies” cannot be compared to four eyewitnesses to a traffic accident. The four eyewitnesses to the traffic accident report seeing the accident. None of the Gospel writers report seeing Jesus leave the tomb or watching angels move the stone. Again, THERE IS ZERO RECORD OF ANYONE WITNESSING THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS!
First major Resurrection discrepancy: The Date and Day of the Week of the Crucifixion:
When examining the four crucifixion accounts as they are presented in the New Testament, it is difficult to identify a single event upon which all four Gospel writers agree. Even the date of the crucifixion is an issue of contention among the four Gospels.
A perfunctory examination of New Testament texts reveals that the Books of Matthew1 Mark2 and Luke3 all agree that the Last Supper was actually a Passover Seder. Bearing in mind that Jesus was crucified on the very next day following the Last Supper, that would mean that according to all three synoptic4 Gospels, Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover, or the 15 day of the first Jewish month of Nissan (for example, if tonight were a Passover Seder, tomorrow would then be the first day of Passover).5
The author of the Book of John, however, completely contradicts this crucial element of the crucifixion story as they are presented in the first three Gospels. The author of the fourth Gospel maintains that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, or the 14th day of Nissan. The Book of John identifies the date of the crucifixion in the following manner:
“Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover… Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.”
(John 19:14-16)
The implications of this stunning contradiction cannot be overstated. Both claims cannot possibly have occurred. These conflicting claims cannot be explained away with the well-worn assertion that each Gospel writer expressed his own unique perspective. Jesus was either crucified on the eve of Passover, which is the 14th day of Nissan, as John contends, or on the first day of Passover, which is the 15th day of Nissan, as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke maintain. Jesus could not have been crucified on both days.
Conservative Christians tell us that the gospels of Matthew and John were written by two of the original eleven disciples and are therefore eyewitnesses testimonies. However, the following contradiction between these two gospels regarding Mary Magdalene is overwhelming evidence that these two books were not written by eyewitnesses:
Second Major Discrepancy in the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection: Mary Magdalene at the Tomb of Jesus:
Matthew presents us with a post-resurrection story where an angel who had just rolled away the stone from the tomb’s entrance greets Mary Madeline and “the other Mary.” After revealing to both women the empty place where Jesus’ body once laid, the angel informs them that Jesus had already risen from the dead. The angel then instructs both Marys that they are to tell the disciples that Jesus had gone before them to the Galilee to meet them.
After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for 2 an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.”
(Matthew 28:1-7)
If that encounter wasn’t convincing enough for the two women, Matthew claims that after leaving the tomb, both Marys unexpectedly encounter the resurrected Jesus himself, whom they both worship. Jesus then essentially repeats the angel’s instructions, and sends both women to inform the disciples that they are to go to the Galilee to meet Jesus.
So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.9Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
(Matthew 28:8-10)
Like Matthew’s account, John’s resurrection narrative also contains the story of an empty tomb. That is, however, where the similarities between the first and fourth Gospel come to an end. In John’s version of the first Easter morning, when Mary Magdalene arrives alone at Jesus’ tomb, there is no angel to greet her with information about Jesus’ whereabouts, or instructions about a rendezvous in the Galilee, as we find in Matthew’s account (Matthew 28:5-7). On the contrary, in John’s story, after Mary finds the empty tomb, she concludes that someone had removed the body from the grave. Mary certainly had no reason to believe otherwise. She therefore quickly runs back to the disciples and reports,
“They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him!”
(John 20:2)
This account in the Book of John could not have occurred in Matthew’s post-resurrection narrative. How could Mary have not known that Jesus’ body was not laid anywhere? In Matthew’s story, the angel had already revealed to her that Jesus rose from the dead and had gone to the Galilee. It would have been preposterous for her to think that someone had moved the body when the angels had already informed her that Jesus’ resurrection had occurred.
Moreover, if the angel’s instructions to her were not convincing enough, Matthew claims that Mary also met the resurrected Jesus himself immediately after leaving the tomb (Matthew 28:9) – and all this transpires before Mary ever sees the disciples! Why then in John’s Gospel is Mary clueless as to where Jesus’ body was moved, when according to Matthew, the angel at the tomb and Jesus himself had already informed Mary that Jesus rose from the dead?
Third Major Discrepancy in the Resurrection accounts in the Gospels: Were there Roman guards at the tomb?:
Further contradicting Matthew’s post-resurrection account, John’s story lacks the Roman guards whom Matthew places at the tomb to prevent anyone from removing Jesus’ body. How could John’s Mary have thought that someone removed the body, when according to Matthew, Roman soldiers were placed at the tomb for the specific purpose of preventing just such an occurrence? Obviously, the author of the fourth Gospel has no need for Roman guards at the tomb, so in John’s crucifixion account they simply do not exist.
This Gospel problem of the missing Roman soldiers in the Book of John raises another important issue. Missionaries often contend that it would have been impossible for anyone to have surreptitiously removed Jesus’ corpse from the tomb because there were guards posted at the tomb who would have prevented such an occurrence. Therefore, they argue, without any possibility for the body to have been quietly whisked away, the only other logical conclusion is that Jesus must have truly arisen from the dead.
The argument completely collapses in John’s account because according to the fourth Gospel, this is precisely what Mary thought had occured. Mary clearly didn’t feel as though the scenario of Jesus’ body being removed was unlikely. In fact, according to John, that was her only logical conclusion. Clearly, Matthew’s guards didn’t dissuade John’s Mary from concluding that someone had taken Jesus’ body because Roman guards do not exist in John’s story.
To further compound the problem of the conflicting resurrection accounts, John’s Gospel continues to unfold with Mary returning to the tomb a second time, only to find two angels sitting inside the tomb. Mary is still unaware of any resurrection as she complains to the angels that someone had removed Jesus’ corps. As far as John’s Mary is concerned, the only explanation for the missing body was that someone must have removed it, and she was determined to locate it.
But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying12 , one at the head and the other at the feet. 13They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”
(John 20:11-13)
Although in Matthew’s account the angel emphatically tells Mary about the resurrection (Matthew 28:5-7), in John’s Gospel the angels do not mention that anyone rose from the dead. The angels only ask Mary, “Woman, why are you weeping?” Mary responds by inquiring whether the angels removed Jesus’ body. Then, Mary turns and sees Jesus standing before her, but mistakes him for the gardener. Mary is still completely unaware of any resurrection, and therefore asks the “gardener” if he was the one who carried away Jesus’ body. It is only then that Mary realizes that she was speaking to the resurrected Jesus.
When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? For whom are you looking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” which means Teacher.
(John 20:14-16)
It is at this final juncture of the narrative that the accounts of Matthew and John become hopelessly irreconcilable. The question every missionary must answer is the following: When Mary met Jesus for the first time after the resurrection, had the angel(s) already informed her that Jesus had arisen from the dead? According to Matthew, the angels did inform Mary of the resurrection, but in John’s account they did not. As we survey the divergent New Testament accounts of the resurrection, we are not just looking at contradictory versions, we are simply gazing at two entirely different stories.
Conclusion: Christians like to compare the four Resurrection accounts in the Gospels to eyewitness accounts of a traffic accident: “Yes, there are minor variations and possibly even minor discrepancies in what each eyewitness recounts seeing in an accident, but the overall story is intact. The minor discrepancies in the four Gospels accounts assure us that the Resurrection story was not a lie concocted by a group of collaborators. The minor variations in the stories actually help to validate the veracity of the stories.” But here’s the problem: We expect human eyewitnesses to make mistakes, but if Christians are correct that the actual author of the Gospels is God, these discrepancies/errors should not be there…but they are. That’s a problem!
And why don’t we have any contemporaneous accounts of a resurrection of a messiah pretender, great earthquakes, and the resurrection of dead saints walking the streets of Jerusalem? A Jewish-Roman conspiracy?
Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), a renowned philosopher and a contemporary of Jesus, wrote extensively about his time. Yet, nowhere in his entire corpus of works does Philo mention a word about Jesus or his alleged resurrection. Josephus’ silence on this matter is deafening as well. Consequently, the only information we have of this 2,000-year-old tale is the New Testament. However, the moment our finger begins to navigate its verses, we are confronted and appalled by the plethora of glaring irreconcilable inconsistencies. Every element of the resurrection narrative is recklessly contradicted by another.
There is, however, a more significant issue here – the source. When a number of people in different places and at different times write a description of an event that occurred in the significant past – whether a year ago, a decade ago, or a half a century ago – we expect many contradictions. Why would we anticipate conflicting accounts? Because humans are fallible, and are therefore likely to make all sorts of errors for a variety of reasons. Accordingly, when we read descriptions of what transpired during a historical event, such as the assassination of JFK, disparities will inevitably exist among the accounts. Therefore, when various individuals witness a traffic accident and then attempt to clearly transmit the information they saw, errors will be made. This is what we expect from imperfect humans!
The Church, however, does not make this claim. Its authors and those who promoted the Christian religion claim that its content was divinely inspired, i.e. every word is from God! Christendom insists that the authors of the Christian Bible were inspired by the Holy Ghost. With this assertion, we must hold the Gospels to an entirely different standard of accuracy – that of perfection. Well over a half century passed from the time that Paul wrote his first letters until the last words of the Book of Revelations were penned. Moreover, these books were written from one end of the Roman Empire to the other. Thus, if we are to assume they were written by mere mortals, without Heavenly inspiration, mistakes and inconsistencies are expected. God, however, is inerrant.
There is another significant difference between conflicting accounts of a traffic accident and contradictory stories of the resurrection narratives. The testimonies of a traffic accident are believable because they are likely to have occurred, and make sense in our world. The resurrection story, on the other hand, is a biological and scientific impossibility. Thus, the only reason for believing the numerous fantastic claims of miraculous occurrences in the New Testament – defying all natural laws – is the believer’s total reliance on the credibility of the divine author. Since the stunning contradictions clearly establish the human origins of the resurrection stories, we can no more accept their testimony than we can that of the Book of Mormon. Moreover, the resurrection story is a self-serving rationalization to account for a messianic failure.
I know that many frantic attempts have been made to explain away some of the countless inconsistencies that exist in the four canonical Gospels. These answers, however, are so plainly contrived that even a perfunctory examination of these rationalizations cast serious doubt on the claim that they were divinely inspired. God doesn’t suffer from human fallibility and certainly wouldn’t present such a garbled account of what Christians consider the most crucial event in world history.
UnkleE, your response tickled me and hey — I feel “so special” — especially since you have bigger fish to try and fry. 😉 I really do think you missed the whole point of my comment, or I just sucked at making that point clear. My point was that it is most likely that your senses picked up and sent messages to the brain before you were consciously aware of a potential accident.
You wrote: “So evolution has led us to have a deep belief in a lie. So evolution has led our cognitive faculties to be unreliable. And so we can’t trust what we think, and so we can’t trust neuroscience and we can’t trust your original statement that we can’t decide,”
It is true that our brain can dupe us, which is why you shouldn’t be so assuming that the god of your culture chose to spare your life and not those starving children. For the most part, indoctrination (especially children who look up to adults and put there trust in them) has led people to have a deep belief. One of my close friends is from Denmark. He was never indoctrinated with religion, and every person he knows, family, friends and within his community are non-believers. When he was introduced to the common beliefs of Christianity for the first time he thought it was hilarious that people actually believed these myths were true.They use the churches there for freebies, weddings, funerals, etc, but rarely does anyone in that country actually buy into the Abrahamic fairy tales unless they are Muslim.
If ever there was a person who wanted to believe there was a benevolent, loving god it was me. If she existed, I’d know about it. 😉
Anyone else see this on the news last night: 23% of Americans now classify themselves as “no religious affiliation”. The number of “nones” has now surpassed the number of Americans who identify as Catholic (which is 21%).
America is heading the way of Europe, and it is happening very rapidly.
I have heard several firm believers criticize non-believers anytime they use the bible to make a point. the believer will say something like, “you dont believe in the bible, so you cant use it…” or “are we going to agree that the bible is the authority…”
They do this while ignoring the point made. and obviously a non-believer does not see the bible as the authority, but use it because the audience they’re speaking to does view it as authority.
but regardless, we can easily turn the tables, I think. Believers will use reason or try to use logic when it suits them, in either creating ways why a perfect and all powerful god wouldnt help children or why he’d kill children, or whatever other short comings we see… But are we going to agree that reason and logic should always be used?
I hope we do. But why use it selectively? Why apply reason and logic to help justify the absurd, unreasonable and illogical?
“God wants us to use reason and logic. Both tell us that miracles are unreasonable and illogical, unless we understand that miracles are possible, and unless we accept that their is a creator who would want to have people write his book for him, then we understand that miracles and the bible are both now reasonable and logical…”
I have realized that when i was a christian, I accepted and believed silliness that I would not have entertained from any other source. I always gave the bible special treatment – trying to prove it right, while trying to prove all other religions wrong. there was nothing fair or reasonable about it.
While I can understand how people believe it, i do not understand how they continue to believe when they have been made aware of the issues… It’s senseless. at the very least, it’s an example of extreme bias.
“kcchief1
May 12, 2015 at 8:58 pm
Ark, “You really think so? Then I wonder how he views Nate? The same?”
I can’t say what unk would feel about Nate. I can say as matter of fact that he questioned just how much of a Christian I was when I told him I had been one for almost 50 years. I could go find his quote but he made it over a year ago . I believe it was here on Nate’s blog.
This is a ploy I have seen used often by Christians who exchange comments with de-converts.”
Nate can probably locate all unklee’s comments in his ADMIN area by doing a search there. That would narrow it down though I realize their are likely countless comments from him. Still, might help though Nate probably doesn’t have the time for all that either unless you could narrow it down to the post where it occurred.
I watch way too much Christian tv and the Christians are involved in a “spiritual”, “heavenly” battle against you William and Gary. they say it’s your kind of thinking being taught to the youth is what is bringing on the wrath of god, America is no longer the Christian nation as she was founded, oh, no, and what will fix it is prayer in school.
I’m not making this sh!t up, it’s for real,
they all talk about it, all of the time.
jeezzzzuuuussss’ arrival is at hand,
it’s going to happen any day now,
it’s happening already.
unkleE, “Since I cannot recall it, I would appreciate if you could go to the trouble of finding it please. If it occurred as you say, I will readily apologise that I said something I shouldn’t have, but if you cannot find it, I can only apologise if I did that. Thanks.”
I have no reason to lie about it. It was over a year ago and can’t remember if it was Nate’s Blog or yours. I would have to review 1000’s of comments in order to find it. Suffice it to say, the comment itself stuck in my mind but not the location of it.
No, I wasn’t insulted. I just remember telling you about my Christian background and you saying something to the effect that you didn’t know “how Christian I was” to be able to deconvert.
KC’s statement rings very true. Even though at the age of nine, I sincerely and with all my heart believed in Jesus as my Lord and Savior, asking him to forgive me of all my sins and committing to follow his will without question—evangelical Christians still deny that I was ever saved/was ever Christian. To those who believe in OSAS (once saved, always saved) it is just incomprehensible. To them, I must have done something wrong.
But if salvation requires me doing something “correctly” then that means that salvation is not a free gift. Salvation depends on me doing the salvation act correctly. So either I was a true Christian and now am not, which destroys the doctrine of Eternal Security, or salvation is not a gift, which destroys the doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone, not of Works.
Finding Truth 
“UnkleE, we are glad you are alive.”
Hi NeuroNotes, that at least is reassuring! Though perhaps on this blog you should have used the singular! 🙂
On this blog any comment I make seems to attract many responses and leads to my spending more time than I can afford, so I’m trying to ease out and simply not respond to everything. But I felt your comment merited a response, especially as it allows me to rave about something a bit different to what I usually end up talking about.
“It is terribly saddening to know, however, that your god decided to save you but not the starving children under 5 who die every 3 to 5 seconds.”
Yes, indeed, it is. If you say you can’t believe in God for that reason, I will be very sympathetic to that view. Some aspects of the world are truly terrible, and even though people’s choices are responsible for much of the evil and suffering, it is hard to see how a good God created such a world.
But if we are going to focus on the bad, we should also in fairness focus on the good, and the reasons to believe in God – fairness is right and good don’t you agree? And so I write about both. if you looked around my website you would see I have addressed both. The one doesn’t negate the other. The good and the bad need both to be considered.
“It just comes across “me”, “me”, “me” — “I’m so special god heard my prayer and saved me.””
If I tell a story about my own life, it will use the pronouns “I” and “me”. The same would be true if you did. But there as no suggestion in my story that “I’m so special”, you read that into it.
“She’s Wiccan. Wicca has no high authority, no single leader, no prophet and no Bible to dictate its laws and beliefs.”
We could have a discussion about which has the most evidence, Christianity vs Wicca, but I don’t think that’s really a debate you would want to take the Wicca side on, do you?
“You may think you decided to read this story — but in fact, your brain made the decision long before you knew about it.”
This is the thing I wanted to rave about a bit, forgive me.
Let’s assume that is true for a moment. Then I cannot do anything other than be a christian because that is what the physical processes in my brain made me do. Truth has nothing to do with it. So you shouldn’t criticise me for it. But then, you can’t help criticising me for it because that is what your brain made you do. Truth has nothing to do with that either. And so on. There is no reason to have this conversation and all the other conversations on this blog, it is actually quite pointless, except none of us can do anything other.
But it gets worse. You have no reason to think those starving children dying is anything to worry about because you could just as easily think differently if your brain chemistry was different, and anyway, what is good and bad, just blips in our neurones?
Further, you can never know it is true that we don’t decide things, because that is just the way your brain is disposed to think, regardless of truth. So what you say may be true, but very few people (if any) can live as if it were true. In fact, what you are saying is that evolution has led us to live as if we have free will when in reality we don’t. So evolution has led us to have a deep belief in a lie. So evolution has led our cognitive faculties to be unreliable. And so we can’t trust what we think, and so we can’t trust neuroscience and we can’t trust your original statement that we can’t decide,
So it may be true, though I doubt it, but it is a totally self-defeating belief, in my view.
“researchers using brain scanners could predict people’s decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them.”
Yes, I’ve read this sort of thing too. If the physical is all there is, then we clearly have no choice – the physical processes control us – and in fact there is no “us” apart from the processes in our brain. That is logical and I agree with what I presume you are saying here.
So if we do indeed have any genuine free will (libertarian free will if you like), there must be more than the physical, which must mean dualism is true. Which means what makes choices in our brain is something not physical, and therefore not measured by the neurological experiments, which assume dualism is untrue. So they make the assumptions and get the expected answers, but don’t actually consider or rule out dualism.
It is the same self-defeating argument I think.
“Don’t you think you are being a wee bit assuming — wishing thinking?”
No, I think I am just reporting what I have experienced. And I think it is the viewpoint you have put forward here that is totally unrealistic. I think you have suggested beliefs that your are quite unable to live by, that are self-refuting and would be highly destructive to humanity if generally believed. I think they will never be believed by the majority of human beings, and even by the majority of neuroscientists and philosophers. But I guess they will be used when useful and set aside when not useful, which is most of the time.
Obviously that won’t be a response that will please you greatly, but we could analyse that in the same way, couldn’t we? But I really feel you are a much nicer person than your neuroscience-driven philosophy logically allows. And how should we explain that?
Now I’ve probably stirred up a hornets nest of discussion, most of which I’ll have to pass on, but I couldn’t resist. The snake made me do it! 🙂
LikeLike
Breaking News
Preuters News Agency
Jerusalem
The remains of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered today in an unmarked, common grave in the criminal section of a large first century cemetery east of the old city wall. The remains of the deceased were positively identified by five of the worlds’ top forensic laboratories as that of Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth using the latest and best DNA analysis comparing samples taken from descendants of Jesus’ brother, James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, whose grave was excavated in May of 2014.
Representatives of liberal Christian denominations were unfazed by the news: “We have always asserted that Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual, not physical, ” said their spokesperson.
Conservative and orthodox Christian denominations on the other hand were outraged and quickly attempted to discredit the findings. “The DNA testing is obviously fallacious. it couldn’t possibly be correct. Look right here in the Bible, in FOUR different books, it clearly states that Jesus rose bodily from the tomb. We are going to take God’s Holy Word as the truth over the findings of God-hating, atheistic scientists any day of the week! We will never accept the results of this study.”
LikeLike
Josh, in other words, the Beatles had it right like 50 years ago: “All you need is LOVE!” There’s precious little of that in this comment thread, though, I must say. 😉 So Christians certainly don’t have a corner on the lack of it. hehehe
LikeLike
I don’t know, I have to say that quantum physics is way out there in the supernatural.
Here is but one example of what we have just begun to discover about how the particles that make up our world behave: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113650683910039135
For me, what can happen at the subatomic level is as mysterious as what the Bible calls a miracle; and convinces me that there is more to this life than meets the naked eye. But, then, I guess that’s jus’ me.
LikeLike
Hi Dave,
“I don’t think the amount of research done after the fact has any bearing on whether or not the accounts were based on an actual miracle or not.”
I don’t suggest it determines whether an actual miracle occurred, but it surely gives us much more confidence in the evidence, which is one of the things we were talking about.
“Earlier it was said that historians think that Jesus was known as a faith healer. You have not demonstrated that historians actually think the miracles themselves are historical.”
No, I have never claimed that. What I have said is that the historical evidence is there, but history can only determine what people observed or reported. Whether their explanations are believable or not depends on our metaphysics.
“How does the number of miracle claims improve the odds of an actual miracle occurring?”
My point was that our assessment of miracle claims will depend on many factors. Obviously the evidence, also our metaphysics, but also our assessment of the person(s) reporting the miracle and the person doing the healing. If someone claims the son of God healed someone I would be more inclined to believe it than if they said their cat healed someone. If someone says the son of God was resurrected I’d be more willing to believe them than if they said Elvis was resurrected.
So I’m suggesting there is a whole package we need to consider – the historical evidence about the miracles and who Jesus claimed to be and was believed to be, what impact this had, etc. And I’m suggesting Jesus was unique – a healer like no other of his time, plausibly resurrected, a monotheistic Jew who claimed more than any other good Jew would claim and backed it up with the miracles and the resurrection. (The number of miracles is important to differentiate him from other jews like Honi who is reported as just doing one – from memory).
I can accept that a modern person was healed, but that in itself wouldn’t lead me to believe they were the son of God, especially as the documented healings I have seen occurred by calling on the name of Jesus as son of God.
“We still need to ask ourselves what is the most probable explanation.”
This of course is where we differ. I think the whole package of Jesus’ life and teachings make the resurrection more believable than hallucination, but you don’t. I’m not sure I have anything more to say.
“Is there evidence to show that they died because of their belief in the resurrection / miracles?”
I think the NT is pretty clear that belief in the resurrection was a strong motivator. Larry Hurtado, who has made a particular study of how the early church came to believe Jesus was divine argues that t was the resurrection appearances that were crucial. Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 15) that if Jesus wasn’t raised then christianity was futile. And when he preached in Athens (Acts 17) he so much emphasised the resurrection that they thought he was teaching about two gods, Jesus and Anastasis.
I’m sorry about the link – hope this one works – Jesus – son of God?.
Thanks again.
LikeLike
Ark, “You really think so? Then I wonder how he views Nate? The same?”
I can’t say what unk would feel about Nate. I can say as matter of fact that he questioned just how much of a Christian I was when I told him I had been one for almost 50 years. I could go find his quote but he made it over a year ago . I believe it was here on Nate’s blog.
This is a ploy I have seen used often by Christians who exchange comments with de-converts.
LikeLike
“I can say as matter of fact that he questioned just how much of a Christian I was when I told him I had been one for almost 50 years. I could go find his quote but he made it over a year ago . I believe it was here on Nate’s blog.”
Hi Ken, I am indeed sorry if I have offended you and said something about you without justification. I don’t recall that, and it is the opposite of what I usually say, which is that I cannot know that about someone else.
Since I cannot recall it, I would appreciate if you could go to the trouble of finding it please. If it occurred as you say, I will readily apologise that I said something I shouldn’t have, but if you cannot find it, I can only apologise if I did that. Thanks.
LikeLike
I don’t think the average Christian has taken a good look at the many glaring discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts in the four Gospels. I personally never noticed these discrepancies when I was a Christian until I read straight through the New Testament in my forties! And I was a preacher’s kid. Prior to that, I just assumed they all said the same thing. However, reading straight through the NT, instead of reading it “shotgun” style, as most Christians do, I would read something in a later gospel that directly contradicted something I had read only a few weeks earlier in one of the earlier gospels. I was startled and unnerved that my “inerrant” Bible seemed to be so contradictory.
I am going to list some of the biggest discrepancies in the Resurrection stories and let’s see if any Christian wants to address them. I challenge all Christians to look at the discrepancies and ask yourself this question: “Even if UnkleE is right that the majority of “scholars” believe that the NT presents accurate historical information, do YOU believe the Resurrection story really occurred when all we have to base our decision upon is these four very conflicting stories. And remember, none of the Gospels claim that the author was sitting outside of Jesus’ tomb watching the women, angels, guards, and disciples come and go. These four “testimonies” cannot be compared to four eyewitnesses to a traffic accident. The four eyewitnesses to the traffic accident report seeing the accident. None of the Gospel writers report seeing Jesus leave the tomb or watching angels move the stone. Again, THERE IS ZERO RECORD OF ANYONE WITNESSING THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS!
First major Resurrection discrepancy: The Date and Day of the Week of the Crucifixion:
When examining the four crucifixion accounts as they are presented in the New Testament, it is difficult to identify a single event upon which all four Gospel writers agree. Even the date of the crucifixion is an issue of contention among the four Gospels.
A perfunctory examination of New Testament texts reveals that the Books of Matthew1 Mark2 and Luke3 all agree that the Last Supper was actually a Passover Seder. Bearing in mind that Jesus was crucified on the very next day following the Last Supper, that would mean that according to all three synoptic4 Gospels, Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover, or the 15 day of the first Jewish month of Nissan (for example, if tonight were a Passover Seder, tomorrow would then be the first day of Passover).5
The author of the Book of John, however, completely contradicts this crucial element of the crucifixion story as they are presented in the first three Gospels. The author of the fourth Gospel maintains that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, or the 14th day of Nissan. The Book of John identifies the date of the crucifixion in the following manner:
“Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover… Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.”
(John 19:14-16)
The implications of this stunning contradiction cannot be overstated. Both claims cannot possibly have occurred. These conflicting claims cannot be explained away with the well-worn assertion that each Gospel writer expressed his own unique perspective. Jesus was either crucified on the eve of Passover, which is the 14th day of Nissan, as John contends, or on the first day of Passover, which is the 15th day of Nissan, as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke maintain. Jesus could not have been crucified on both days.
LikeLike
Conservative Christians tell us that the gospels of Matthew and John were written by two of the original eleven disciples and are therefore eyewitnesses testimonies. However, the following contradiction between these two gospels regarding Mary Magdalene is overwhelming evidence that these two books were not written by eyewitnesses:
Second Major Discrepancy in the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection: Mary Magdalene at the Tomb of Jesus:
Matthew presents us with a post-resurrection story where an angel who had just rolled away the stone from the tomb’s entrance greets Mary Madeline and “the other Mary.” After revealing to both women the empty place where Jesus’ body once laid, the angel informs them that Jesus had already risen from the dead. The angel then instructs both Marys that they are to tell the disciples that Jesus had gone before them to the Galilee to meet them.
After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for 2 an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.”
(Matthew 28:1-7)
If that encounter wasn’t convincing enough for the two women, Matthew claims that after leaving the tomb, both Marys unexpectedly encounter the resurrected Jesus himself, whom they both worship. Jesus then essentially repeats the angel’s instructions, and sends both women to inform the disciples that they are to go to the Galilee to meet Jesus.
So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.9Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
(Matthew 28:8-10)
Like Matthew’s account, John’s resurrection narrative also contains the story of an empty tomb. That is, however, where the similarities between the first and fourth Gospel come to an end. In John’s version of the first Easter morning, when Mary Magdalene arrives alone at Jesus’ tomb, there is no angel to greet her with information about Jesus’ whereabouts, or instructions about a rendezvous in the Galilee, as we find in Matthew’s account (Matthew 28:5-7). On the contrary, in John’s story, after Mary finds the empty tomb, she concludes that someone had removed the body from the grave. Mary certainly had no reason to believe otherwise. She therefore quickly runs back to the disciples and reports,
“They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him!”
(John 20:2)
This account in the Book of John could not have occurred in Matthew’s post-resurrection narrative. How could Mary have not known that Jesus’ body was not laid anywhere? In Matthew’s story, the angel had already revealed to her that Jesus rose from the dead and had gone to the Galilee. It would have been preposterous for her to think that someone had moved the body when the angels had already informed her that Jesus’ resurrection had occurred.
Moreover, if the angel’s instructions to her were not convincing enough, Matthew claims that Mary also met the resurrected Jesus himself immediately after leaving the tomb (Matthew 28:9) – and all this transpires before Mary ever sees the disciples! Why then in John’s Gospel is Mary clueless as to where Jesus’ body was moved, when according to Matthew, the angel at the tomb and Jesus himself had already informed Mary that Jesus rose from the dead?
LikeLike
Third Major Discrepancy in the Resurrection accounts in the Gospels: Were there Roman guards at the tomb?:
Further contradicting Matthew’s post-resurrection account, John’s story lacks the Roman guards whom Matthew places at the tomb to prevent anyone from removing Jesus’ body. How could John’s Mary have thought that someone removed the body, when according to Matthew, Roman soldiers were placed at the tomb for the specific purpose of preventing just such an occurrence? Obviously, the author of the fourth Gospel has no need for Roman guards at the tomb, so in John’s crucifixion account they simply do not exist.
This Gospel problem of the missing Roman soldiers in the Book of John raises another important issue. Missionaries often contend that it would have been impossible for anyone to have surreptitiously removed Jesus’ corpse from the tomb because there were guards posted at the tomb who would have prevented such an occurrence. Therefore, they argue, without any possibility for the body to have been quietly whisked away, the only other logical conclusion is that Jesus must have truly arisen from the dead.
The argument completely collapses in John’s account because according to the fourth Gospel, this is precisely what Mary thought had occured. Mary clearly didn’t feel as though the scenario of Jesus’ body being removed was unlikely. In fact, according to John, that was her only logical conclusion. Clearly, Matthew’s guards didn’t dissuade John’s Mary from concluding that someone had taken Jesus’ body because Roman guards do not exist in John’s story.
To further compound the problem of the conflicting resurrection accounts, John’s Gospel continues to unfold with Mary returning to the tomb a second time, only to find two angels sitting inside the tomb. Mary is still unaware of any resurrection as she complains to the angels that someone had removed Jesus’ corps. As far as John’s Mary is concerned, the only explanation for the missing body was that someone must have removed it, and she was determined to locate it.
But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying12 , one at the head and the other at the feet. 13They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”
(John 20:11-13)
Although in Matthew’s account the angel emphatically tells Mary about the resurrection (Matthew 28:5-7), in John’s Gospel the angels do not mention that anyone rose from the dead. The angels only ask Mary, “Woman, why are you weeping?” Mary responds by inquiring whether the angels removed Jesus’ body. Then, Mary turns and sees Jesus standing before her, but mistakes him for the gardener. Mary is still completely unaware of any resurrection, and therefore asks the “gardener” if he was the one who carried away Jesus’ body. It is only then that Mary realizes that she was speaking to the resurrected Jesus.
When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? For whom are you looking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” which means Teacher.
(John 20:14-16)
It is at this final juncture of the narrative that the accounts of Matthew and John become hopelessly irreconcilable. The question every missionary must answer is the following: When Mary met Jesus for the first time after the resurrection, had the angel(s) already informed her that Jesus had arisen from the dead? According to Matthew, the angels did inform Mary of the resurrection, but in John’s account they did not. As we survey the divergent New Testament accounts of the resurrection, we are not just looking at contradictory versions, we are simply gazing at two entirely different stories.
LikeLike
Conclusion: Christians like to compare the four Resurrection accounts in the Gospels to eyewitness accounts of a traffic accident: “Yes, there are minor variations and possibly even minor discrepancies in what each eyewitness recounts seeing in an accident, but the overall story is intact. The minor discrepancies in the four Gospels accounts assure us that the Resurrection story was not a lie concocted by a group of collaborators. The minor variations in the stories actually help to validate the veracity of the stories.” But here’s the problem: We expect human eyewitnesses to make mistakes, but if Christians are correct that the actual author of the Gospels is God, these discrepancies/errors should not be there…but they are. That’s a problem!
And why don’t we have any contemporaneous accounts of a resurrection of a messiah pretender, great earthquakes, and the resurrection of dead saints walking the streets of Jerusalem? A Jewish-Roman conspiracy?
Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), a renowned philosopher and a contemporary of Jesus, wrote extensively about his time. Yet, nowhere in his entire corpus of works does Philo mention a word about Jesus or his alleged resurrection. Josephus’ silence on this matter is deafening as well. Consequently, the only information we have of this 2,000-year-old tale is the New Testament. However, the moment our finger begins to navigate its verses, we are confronted and appalled by the plethora of glaring irreconcilable inconsistencies. Every element of the resurrection narrative is recklessly contradicted by another.
There is, however, a more significant issue here – the source. When a number of people in different places and at different times write a description of an event that occurred in the significant past – whether a year ago, a decade ago, or a half a century ago – we expect many contradictions. Why would we anticipate conflicting accounts? Because humans are fallible, and are therefore likely to make all sorts of errors for a variety of reasons. Accordingly, when we read descriptions of what transpired during a historical event, such as the assassination of JFK, disparities will inevitably exist among the accounts. Therefore, when various individuals witness a traffic accident and then attempt to clearly transmit the information they saw, errors will be made. This is what we expect from imperfect humans!
The Church, however, does not make this claim. Its authors and those who promoted the Christian religion claim that its content was divinely inspired, i.e. every word is from God! Christendom insists that the authors of the Christian Bible were inspired by the Holy Ghost. With this assertion, we must hold the Gospels to an entirely different standard of accuracy – that of perfection. Well over a half century passed from the time that Paul wrote his first letters until the last words of the Book of Revelations were penned. Moreover, these books were written from one end of the Roman Empire to the other. Thus, if we are to assume they were written by mere mortals, without Heavenly inspiration, mistakes and inconsistencies are expected. God, however, is inerrant.
There is another significant difference between conflicting accounts of a traffic accident and contradictory stories of the resurrection narratives. The testimonies of a traffic accident are believable because they are likely to have occurred, and make sense in our world. The resurrection story, on the other hand, is a biological and scientific impossibility. Thus, the only reason for believing the numerous fantastic claims of miraculous occurrences in the New Testament – defying all natural laws – is the believer’s total reliance on the credibility of the divine author. Since the stunning contradictions clearly establish the human origins of the resurrection stories, we can no more accept their testimony than we can that of the Book of Mormon. Moreover, the resurrection story is a self-serving rationalization to account for a messianic failure.
I know that many frantic attempts have been made to explain away some of the countless inconsistencies that exist in the four canonical Gospels. These answers, however, are so plainly contrived that even a perfunctory examination of these rationalizations cast serious doubt on the claim that they were divinely inspired. God doesn’t suffer from human fallibility and certainly wouldn’t present such a garbled account of what Christians consider the most crucial event in world history.
Best regards for a happy Passover.
Very truly yours,
Rabbi Tovia Singer
LikeLike
UnkleE, your response tickled me and hey — I feel “so special” — especially since you have bigger fish to try and fry. 😉 I really do think you missed the whole point of my comment, or I just sucked at making that point clear. My point was that it is most likely that your senses picked up and sent messages to the brain before you were consciously aware of a potential accident.
You wrote: “So evolution has led us to have a deep belief in a lie. So evolution has led our cognitive faculties to be unreliable. And so we can’t trust what we think, and so we can’t trust neuroscience and we can’t trust your original statement that we can’t decide,”
It is true that our brain can dupe us, which is why you shouldn’t be so assuming that the god of your culture chose to spare your life and not those starving children. For the most part, indoctrination (especially children who look up to adults and put there trust in them) has led people to have a deep belief. One of my close friends is from Denmark. He was never indoctrinated with religion, and every person he knows, family, friends and within his community are non-believers. When he was introduced to the common beliefs of Christianity for the first time he thought it was hilarious that people actually believed these myths were true.They use the churches there for freebies, weddings, funerals, etc, but rarely does anyone in that country actually buy into the Abrahamic fairy tales unless they are Muslim.
If ever there was a person who wanted to believe there was a benevolent, loving god it was me. If she existed, I’d know about it. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi NeuroNotes, I’m glad you felt tickled and special. At least I have kept one customer satisfied! 🙂
LikeLike
Anyone else see this on the news last night: 23% of Americans now classify themselves as “no religious affiliation”. The number of “nones” has now surpassed the number of Americans who identify as Catholic (which is 21%).
America is heading the way of Europe, and it is happening very rapidly.
Reason, Logic, and the Internet be praised!
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have heard several firm believers criticize non-believers anytime they use the bible to make a point. the believer will say something like, “you dont believe in the bible, so you cant use it…” or “are we going to agree that the bible is the authority…”
They do this while ignoring the point made. and obviously a non-believer does not see the bible as the authority, but use it because the audience they’re speaking to does view it as authority.
but regardless, we can easily turn the tables, I think. Believers will use reason or try to use logic when it suits them, in either creating ways why a perfect and all powerful god wouldnt help children or why he’d kill children, or whatever other short comings we see… But are we going to agree that reason and logic should always be used?
I hope we do. But why use it selectively? Why apply reason and logic to help justify the absurd, unreasonable and illogical?
“God wants us to use reason and logic. Both tell us that miracles are unreasonable and illogical, unless we understand that miracles are possible, and unless we accept that their is a creator who would want to have people write his book for him, then we understand that miracles and the bible are both now reasonable and logical…”
I have realized that when i was a christian, I accepted and believed silliness that I would not have entertained from any other source. I always gave the bible special treatment – trying to prove it right, while trying to prove all other religions wrong. there was nothing fair or reasonable about it.
While I can understand how people believe it, i do not understand how they continue to believe when they have been made aware of the issues… It’s senseless. at the very least, it’s an example of extreme bias.
I really don’t understand it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In regards to this post here:
“kcchief1
May 12, 2015 at 8:58 pm
Ark, “You really think so? Then I wonder how he views Nate? The same?”
I can’t say what unk would feel about Nate. I can say as matter of fact that he questioned just how much of a Christian I was when I told him I had been one for almost 50 years. I could go find his quote but he made it over a year ago . I believe it was here on Nate’s blog.
This is a ploy I have seen used often by Christians who exchange comments with de-converts.”
Nate can probably locate all unklee’s comments in his ADMIN area by doing a search there. That would narrow it down though I realize their are likely countless comments from him. Still, might help though Nate probably doesn’t have the time for all that either unless you could narrow it down to the post where it occurred.
LikeLike
unkleE’s
LikeLike
I watch way too much Christian tv and the Christians are involved in a “spiritual”, “heavenly” battle against you William and Gary. they say it’s your kind of thinking being taught to the youth is what is bringing on the wrath of god, America is no longer the Christian nation as she was founded, oh, no, and what will fix it is prayer in school.
I’m not making this sh!t up, it’s for real,
they all talk about it, all of the time.
jeezzzzuuuussss’ arrival is at hand,
it’s going to happen any day now,
it’s happening already.
I don’t understand it, either.
LikeLiked by 2 people
makes no kind of sense
LikeLike
Yes, SPG, you definitely do watch too much Christian TV. Better be careful … they might convert you! LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
like watching a train wreck
LikeLiked by 1 person
unkleE, “Since I cannot recall it, I would appreciate if you could go to the trouble of finding it please. If it occurred as you say, I will readily apologise that I said something I shouldn’t have, but if you cannot find it, I can only apologise if I did that. Thanks.”
I have no reason to lie about it. It was over a year ago and can’t remember if it was Nate’s Blog or yours. I would have to review 1000’s of comments in order to find it. Suffice it to say, the comment itself stuck in my mind but not the location of it.
No, I wasn’t insulted. I just remember telling you about my Christian background and you saying something to the effect that you didn’t know “how Christian I was” to be able to deconvert.
LikeLike
Nan,
I’m a masochist,
I watch fox and friends, too,
they have an “attack on faith” segment every morning.
I have to watch,
they are waging a war,
and we all know the best rule of war is to “know your enemy.”
William,
it’s worse than a train wreck,
it’s Arma-freakin-geddon !!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
KC’s statement rings very true. Even though at the age of nine, I sincerely and with all my heart believed in Jesus as my Lord and Savior, asking him to forgive me of all my sins and committing to follow his will without question—evangelical Christians still deny that I was ever saved/was ever Christian. To those who believe in OSAS (once saved, always saved) it is just incomprehensible. To them, I must have done something wrong.
But if salvation requires me doing something “correctly” then that means that salvation is not a free gift. Salvation depends on me doing the salvation act correctly. So either I was a true Christian and now am not, which destroys the doctrine of Eternal Security, or salvation is not a gift, which destroys the doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone, not of Works.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I notice that no Christian has refuted my three discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts. But we should not be surprised.
No amount of evidence is going to change the Christian mind when his “heart” has the final say on what is Truth.
LikeLike