Well, it’s that time of year again. Regular church attendees are going to have to share their pews with people who have finally decided to make it out for their second service of the year. Their belief that Jesus bled and died so they can gain eternal salvation might be unshakable, but it apparently isn’t all that motivating, considering how little these believers seem to do in response. Nevertheless, they can at least be counted on to show up for a retelling of Jesus’s miraculous birth.
But what version will they hear? More than likely, they’ll hear a “Hollywood” version of the tale that incorporates the most exciting elements of the two versions that we read about in Matthew and Luke. A quick Google search turned up this one, which illustrates my point perfectly. But what if someone tried to tell the full version? A version that included every detail that both Matthew and Luke provide?
Honestly, it just can’t be done. I had wanted to attempt it here, but there’s just no practical way to do it. For example, the version I linked to above goes like this:
The Standard Tale
- Mary’s visited by an angel who tells her about the pregnancy (Luke)
- She and Joseph live in Nazareth of Galilee, but are forced to travel to Bethlehem in Judea for a census commanded by the Roman authorities (Luke)
- They’re unable to find normal accommodations and are forced to room in an area intended for livestock. Mary gives birth there and is visited by local shepherds (Luke)
- Wise men far to the east see a star that somehow signifies the birth of the Jewish Messiah (Matthew)
- They travel for an unspecified period until they reach Jerusalem, where they inquire about the child (Matthew)
- These inquiries reach Herod, the ruler of the region, and he asks the wise men to send back word to him once they find the child, so Herod himself can also pay his respects (Matthew)
- The wise men make their way to Bethlehem, find the family, bestow their gifts, and return home via a different route (Matthew)
- An angel tells Joseph to hightail it out of Bethlehem, because Herod’s sending a posse to wipe out all the children 2 years old and under in an effort to stamp out Jesus (Matthew)
- Joseph and his family flee to Egypt and remain there until an angel tells him it’s safe to return, because Herod has died (Matthew)
- Joseph intends to go back toward Bethlehem, but after finding out that Herod’s son is in charge, he takes the family to Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew)
So what’s wrong with this story? I mean, it’s very cohesive, and it makes for a compelling tale. What’s not to like? Its only real problem is that the very books of the Bible that provide its details, contradict its overall narrative.
Two Very Different Stories
Let’s go back to Luke’s version. After Jesus’s birth and the visit from the shepherds, we don’t read about wise men or Herod’s animosity. Instead, Luke 2:22 says that after the days of Mary’s purification were over, the family went to Jerusalem. The “days of purification” are referring to Leviticus 12:1-4, where the Law of Moses stated that a woman was to be considered “unclean” for 40 days after giving birth to a male child. So when Jesus was about 40 days old, Luke claims that they all traveled to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices as thanks for his birth. While there, two elderly people see Jesus and begin proclaiming praise and prophecies concerning Jesus. And there’s no indication that an effort was made to keep any of this quiet, which is very different in tone to what we read in Matthew. Finally, in Luke 2:39, we read “And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” We’ll come back to this point in a moment.
The synopsis we looked at earlier incorporated most of Matthew’s version of the story. As we just read, his story ends very differently from Luke’s. However, it’s also significant to note that Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth. Matt 1:18 through the end of the chapter talks about Mary’s pregnancy, even though she and Joseph had never slept together, but it never specifies where they’re living. Chapter 2 begins with the sentence “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?'” Of course, it’s possible that Matthew still knew they were originally from Nazareth and just doesn’t bother to tell us that or divulge how they got to Bethlehem in the first place. But there are three context clues that point against such a possibility. First of all, regardless of how far the wise men had to journey, it likely took them quite a while to make the trip. When Matthew says “the east” he certainly doesn’t mean “east Jersualem,” and travel being what it was back then, any journey would have taken considerable time. The second clue is that Herod supposedly kills all the male children of Bethlehem who are 2 and under. So it’s unlikely that we’re supposed to still be thinking of Jesus as a newborn. Finally, Matthew says that when the family was able to leave Egypt, Joseph wanted to go back to Judea (where Bethlehem is). But after finding out Herod’s son was ruling, he became afraid and “went and lived in a city called Nazareth” (Matt 2:23). This is a very strange way to refer to Nazareth, if it’s where Joseph and Mary were already living.
So Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary were just visiting Bethlehem. He never mentions a manger; instead, he references a house that they were staying in. He never talks about the shepherds from the fields, but has wise men who visit the child. He includes a story about Herod slaughtering a town’s children, though no other historical or biblical source ever mentions this. He claims that the family flees to Egypt until Herod’s death, that they want to return to Bethlehem, but finally settle in “a city called Nazareth.”
Luke, on the other hand, says that Nazareth is their home town, and they’re only visiting Bethlehem. He has no story about wise men, but does talk about shepherds from the fields that visit the newborn Jesus. Instead of Herod attempting to hunt them down and a subsequent flight to Egypt, the family travels straight to Jerusalem, where Herod lives. And there’s no effort to keep Jesus’s identity secret while they’re there, as two elderly prophets begin proclaiming who he is. And after making their sacrifices, the family simply goes back home to Nazareth, far from Herod’s reach (not that Luke indicates Herod’s even interested).
Can These Stories Be Put Together?
The main sticking points between the stories are the flight to Egypt and the trip to Jerusalem. On the one hand, Luke is very clear about his timeline: Jesus was only about 40 days old when they went to Jerusalem and then went home to Nazareth. Matthew doesn’t give specifics on how old Jesus was when the family was forced to flee to Egypt, except that it must have occurred before he was 2 years old.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened before the trip to Jerusalem?
No. First of all, considering all the details Luke provides, why would he have left out such an important event? Secondly, this means Herod would have needed to die within the 40 day purification period, but Matthew tells us that this still wouldn’t have been good enough, because Joseph was determined to avoid all of Judea while Herod’s son was reigning. There’s simply no way he would have felt safe enough to travel directly into Jerusalem. That just makes no sense.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened after the trip to Jerusalem?
No. Luke 2:39 is clear that the family went straight back to Nazareth after their trip to Jerusalem. And considering Luke claimed that Nazareth was already their home, why would they have needed to go back to Bethlehem anyway?
In fact, Luke’s claim that the family was from Nazareth creates a lot of problems for Matthew’s account. Nazareth was far outside of Herod’s reach. So if Herod really had hunted Jesus in Bethlehem, the family could have simply gone back to Nazareth rather than flee to Egypt. But this isn’t a consideration in Matthew’s account, because for him, the family has never been to Nazareth until they simply can’t go back to Bethlehem anymore, even after Herod’s death (Matt 2:23).
Additional Problems
I don’t want to spend too much time here, but for completeness sake, I need to mention a couple of historical issues. Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great. Historians usually place his death in 4 BCE, which means Jesus would have been born sometime before that. However, Luke says that Mary and Joseph had traveled to Bethlehem, because Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had commanded a census. However, Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 CE — 10 years after Herod’s death. You can find additional resources about these two issues here.
Finally, Luke’s claim is that this census required Joseph to travel back to his ancestral home of Bethlehem, since he was of King David’s lineage. But David would have lived some 1000 years before Joseph. It’s ludicrous to think that the Romans would have cared about such a thing, or that they would have wanted their empire to be so disrupted by having people move around like that for a census. It would have been an impossible feat and would have made for a highly inaccurate, and therefore useless, census.
What Do We Make of All This?
The easiest way to understand why these accounts have such major differences in detail is to understand why either writer bothered with a story about Jesus’s birth at all. You have to remember that the writers of Matthew and Luke didn’t know one another and didn’t know that they were both working on the same material. They certainly didn’t know that their books would one day show up in the same collection. Both of them were working with two basic facts: Micah 5:2 seemed to prophesy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem; Jesus came from Nazareth (John 1:45-46).
Since those two facts were at odds with one another, it’s easy to see how both writers would have been compelled to explain how Jesus could be from Nazareth but still be from Bethlehem. Unfortunately for them, close comparison shows that both versions simply can’t be true.
How would people react if they showed up for church this weekend and were presented with the full details from both of these stories? I like to think it would spur many of them into deeper study. That it would possibly make them question some of the things they’ve been taking for granted. But 2016 has been pretty demoralizing when it comes to the number of people who seem concerned about what’s true, and I’m not sure how many of them would see this information as a call to action. I know there are people who can be changed by facts. Perhaps there aren’t as many of them as I once thought, but I know they’re out there. And with the way information spreads these days, I’m sure they’ll eventually find the facts they’re looking for.
Finding Truth 
Hi William,
It’s not my business to try to convince you, but I will try to explain so you can decide.
“ColorStorm is saying the bible is perfect and without error and stands up to scrutiny, yet nate, on this very blog post, demonstrated how the bible conflicts at least in regard to the birth narrative.”
People “know” things in different ways. For example, there have been many cases where people have been wrongly convicted (so DNA testing later proved) and served long gaol sentences. The jury “knew” beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty, but they truly knew that they hadn’t done it.
Nate has “demonstrated” an anomaly to his satisfaction and yours, but that doesn’t mean there is really an inconsistency. It is always possible there is a reasonable explanation. Your judgment is that is unlikely. But Colorstorm judges differently. He may be making his judgment on good personal grounds, or he may not. He may be right even if his judgment is flawed.
I don’t think the same as him, but I recognise that talking to him on my terms is unlikely to be fruitful, so I haven’t tried, just as I don’t try with others too.
“I want a discussion and ColorStorm wants to make mandates. It sounds like he’s the one who wants things on his terms, if anyone is.”
Yes, I’m sure that’s true. But understanding where he’s coming from and deciding if there’s any point in discussing may be a better option than trying to get him to do things your way.
I am reminded of the old cartoon of the wife in bed calling for her husband to get off the computer and come to bed. But he replies, “But wait! Someone’s wrong on the internet!”
LikeLike
UnkleE, it’s not a matter of “my way.”
I understand and accept that I could be wrong and that others are entitled to different opinions and that their opinions may even be based on more knowledge than my own. That’s all well and good. But that’s one thing, but what we’re talking about here is something else.
Nate has given his opinion on Matthew and Luke, but in addition to that opinion, he has walked us through the information he has based his opinion on, as well as offered additional explanation as to how and why he arrived at his opinion, based on the information he had available.
ColorStorm has offered his opinion and supports it only with what is essentially, “nuh uh.” Now, to be fair, he may also offer bible quotes – but this is silly, since he’d no doubt not find Koran passages that say how true the Koran is as good evidence for the Koran – and he shouldn’t, as it’s ridiculous.
Again, it’s fine that he has an alternate opinion, and it’s fine that he disagrees. This is not what I see as a problem. The problem, as I see it, isn’t one of me wanting things my way, it’s one of expecting a normal conversation and discussion from someone who voluntarily comes to an open discussion. ColorStorm says nate (and we) are wrong and blind and whatever else (which could be true) but he offers no information, no explanation to support his claim – no one can do anything with that. Thus, there cannot be a discussion, not a real one, not a rational one.
“That’s an interesting point, guy who says I’m wrong. Why do you think that?”
“Just because.”
Not a valuable or productive argument. That’s not even an opinion.
I would love to understand more of where ColorStorm coming from, but so far all I can do is guess since he’s not offering anything other than unsupported opinion after unsupported opinion, claim after claim – anyone can do that, and usually it’s children. OR I used to think it was typically children. The only way any of could even begin to see where he’s coming from, or begin to understand the thought process from one bit of info to another, is for ColorStorm to share and explain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
William, I think unkleE is saying that the discussion you’re (we’re) trying to have with ColorStorm is like two people trying to communicate who are speaking different languages. ColorStorm seems to be approaching these topics from a completely different angle. When he answers with “he made the stars also,” I think he really does think he’s demonstrating his point.
If you remember, when I conceded to him that God might exist, but then asked how he knew the Bible was from God, he replied that no human could have explained the stars so simply. To him, that’s part of the evidence for the Bible’s inspiration. Such a statement doesn’t work for you and me, because we think it would have been very easy for a human to think of such a statement (especially if they thought stars were just minor lights stuck in a dome-like sky).
So I don’t think CS is simply refusing to engage — he’s just engaging in a way that seems very foreign to us. We may be unable to find a translation that will allow us all to have a meaningful conversation. UnkleE is just saying (if I understand him correctly) that our current attempts are just flying past one another. We can continue that, or we can attempt to find a common language, or we can just stop wasting the energy. I don’t think he’s criticizing your approach — he’s just pointing out that your (and my) approach is so different from CS’s that we’re not going to make any progress. I think he’s probably right about that.
LikeLike
I just disagree. I mean, I do think ColorStorm believes the bible’s word settles all of it, but I also think it’s a dodge, a lazy retort that gets him out of having to do any real work or from offering any real explanation.
And if two people who try to communicate don’t speak the same language, they could simply keep trying the same failed routine or they could try new ways of broaching the problem. Giving up, as if it;s simply impossible is one option, but it doesn’t have to be the only option.
And, if he’s speaking a different language than us, fine – he shouldn’t be a jerk about. It’s like an american going to china and saying the Chinese are stupid for not speaking English. He came here and keeps coming back.
And so, he wants to say that the bible proves the bible – but that is STUPID. It is. It is because a Mormon could use the Book of Mormon to prove Mormonism. A Muslim could use the Koran to prove Islam and a Buddhist could use the Tripitaka to prove Buddhism, so could every religion or philosophy use their texts to prove their positions… A football coach could use his playbook or the rule book to prove football is batter than baseball, and on and on.
And it ignores the overall main point – WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS FROM GOD?
Saying, “because the bible says you should,” doesn’t do it. If that’s ColorStorm’s language, then he speaks dumbass.
But I don’t think he’s an idiot, I think he’s keeping himself from self reflection and from investigating the claims of the Bible and from considering whether his position with the bible is consistent with his position on everything else – Like a smart guy making himself stay out of the library. And because of that, I do not want to give him a pass and say, “hey, you know, he’s right, we’re right, we’re all really trying,” because I dont think he’s trying to find accuracy or reason or truth, but I think he’s only trying to defend what he already thinks is right, like some mormons do, like some Muslims do, and like some people of all religions and those without religion do.
You and I have gone from one extreme opinion to another, so at the very least, if we’re still wrong, it’s not lack of effort and it’s not because we’re closed off to learning new things and changing sides if the information suggests we do so. But with ColorStorm, his “nope the bible’s right because the bible says it’s right, and you’re wrong because you think the bible’s wrong,” is a better commentary of his “language” and goals than what i could offer.
I do not think there’s anything wrong with expecting someone to explain the position their giving, especially when acting like it’s a superior position. He’s come here, again and again, so I believe it’s even more appropriate to question him and show where holes exist in his claims. and again, that’s what a conversation is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Like giving directions from New York City to Phoenix.
A: “How do you get there?”
B: “Pfft, it’s obvious; you leave New York and head to Phoenix – smart people will understand this.”
A: “k. But how Do you get from New York to Phoenix?”
B: “I the route needs no explanation.”
A: “what does that mean?! I don’t think you know how to get there do you?”
B: “I do. All honest people do.”
A: “then what roads do you take?”
B: “Obviously the you takes the roads from new York to Phoenix.”
A; “I am wasting my time…”
B; “only because you are stubborn and unwilling to learn.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nate
While I also appreciate the points Unklee made about different premises and approaches, I think you are being too charitable to Colorstorm.
He is not simply starting from a different premise or communicating differently. I could accept that. He is making a conscious choice to ignore what others say, to ignore that others are coming from a different place and to avoid even attempting to be responsive to others.
What’s more, if you look at his blog, it is clear that he is not coming from a place of charity or goodwill. He thinks we are “criminal, diabolical, nefarious, lying” leeches and “bastards” who are “wrecking theft and forgery upon decency and order.” We are “evil” people persecuting Christians with a hostility “the world has never seen.”
This is not a person who is communicating in good faith.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe this will help nate and etc:
When I say ‘He (God) made the stars also,’ I say this keeping in mind what happened previously in the scriptural narrative, which is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. The sun and moon were created for great lights to rule the night and day.
God is explaining simply through the power of words, that these ‘lights’ are temporary. He called them into existence.
So after His demonstration that it was He, and not some random serendipitous accident whereby after there was flora and fauna, grass, seed, and fruit, we read, and oh by the way…………..’He made the stars also,’ this unfathomable dazzling display of his jewel work in the heavens.
Note the simple eloquence of scripture, not some exaggerated wordy wasted display meant to impress. No. A simple rendering of God’s order. The entire warp and woof of scripture, INCLUDING the accounts of Matthew and Luke is one voice, all speaking in agreement.
When I say there are no contradictions, I say this positively because scripture interprets itself; there is no other source material that has this built in genius. If the account of Genesis is not believed, it is rather pointless to look for so-called ‘flaws’ in Luke. God has no imperfections, and since He is the Alpha and the Omega, He has a pretty good grasp of the Alphabet.
Four men come into your house and write down what they saw. Each of them saw nothing but which was relevant to them. One saw a computer. The other did not see it. One saw a red carpet. One saw a green carpet. One saw a piano. One did not see a piano bench.
According to your take on scripture, these men were lacking in their observations, yet none of them were either misleading, contradictory, or liars. We are not careful enough when it comes to our handling of scripture, period. We think there is misleading information because we have not thought of times, places, context, and purposes. We do not consider WHY. We are lazy when it comes to scripture.
How about try assuming the scriptural narrative is correct, and the men wrote exactly what they were inspired to write, and watch your disappointments vanish. But maybe try again the opening of scripture: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
If one does not believe this, I dare say he is unqualified to teach anything of scripture. Just sayin.
But tkx for the opportunity to engage.
LikeLike
@jon
Tkx for this. I do agree UncleE is more gracious than myself. This however should not be a deterrent from the truth of scripture.
But indeed, yes, SOME are lying bastards…………….children of an illegitimate father, as are many false apostles. A colorful way to express the egregious nature of false doctrine and much vitriol coming from people who say Christians should have no contact with children……………
Really? Really? Once more, REALLY?
So in this, I appear to be rather restrained in my language! You brought up something unrelated, just wanted to add context, which is always valuable.
LikeLike
William and Jon, you both make good points.
CS, thanks for providing more detail about your approach, and thanks for giving more context around Jon’s observations, too. Are you open to discussing your view of scripture further?
LikeLiked by 2 people
ColorStorm,
Truly, the stars and all the celestial bodies are breathtaking and awe inspiring, but I am not inclined to accept anyone one’s claim that this or that made them, simply at their claim.
I would think that you’d agree that if God made all of creation, then creation is one of God’s revelations? Is that fair? I mean, men couldn’t have made the universe, so no one can say creation is a revelation of Man.
The bible could be a revelation of God, or it could be the product of man, since man has written all the other books we have with us. In fact, even the bible was written by man, men who just say that they speak for God. So how do we come to know it’s actually the revelation of God along with creation?
If, like the bible claims, God made Adam, it would appear that Adam was made as a fully grown man, even though he were only a a few moments old. maybe, if it were true, had someone performed a detailed physical of Adam, just hours after his creation, they would have discovered that he appeared to be middle aged, maybe even even his organs weighed and appeared to be consistent with that of other middle aged men, and we can imagine that the rest of him may appear to be the same. So, it could be that God made Adam appear much older than what he actually was. Perhaps then, if that were the case with Adam, that this also the case for the universe.
So, I can agree that if the bible is true, that this could explain the discrepancy between the bible’s account of creation and what the hard data actually shows.
But one shouldn’t be expected to accept the Bible’s claims because we can imagine a resolution to this apparent contradiction.
For example, if anything is possible for God, then nothing is impossible, right? So, why couldn’t God have sent Judaism to the Hebrew, then later Christianity to the Hebrew and Greeks, but decided also to send Muhammad to the Arab? Does it matter if it makes sense to us fallible mortals – perhaps God’s ways are simply higher than ours? Who are we to question God, etc, etc? We could literally imagine resolutions to any and all contradictions, and because of this, I am not so sure our imaginations should count as evidences for or against anything – instead, it should based on something more tangible than what we want to be true or want to be false.
So, what do we do then? Especially considering that men have constantly been shown to make mistakes, to lie with malice, to lie without malice, and to believe things that simply aren’t true at all. men have been known to believe very wrong things for very long times. Considering these things, it seems sensible for at least some people to be skeptical of claims from yet another old book (the bible), and yet another religion (Christianity), that claim to know what God wants for us, and what God did and said. How can we trust those men?
Matthew and Luke do not seem to agree on several things, but specifically related to this thread, they do not seem to agree on the birth narrative when looking at the details. And it isn’t as easily dismissed as “one guy was looking at the bookshelf along the north wall of the living room while the other guy was looking at the chair along the east wall of the living room.” Matthew and Luke, as nate has pointed out, explain different things and events and fears and routes that seem to contradict the other.
Can you show how those issues aren’t really issues?
because when I see problems in the bible, it becomes hard for me to believe that God actually told these men what to write, and so I have difficulty simply accepting what it says about creation, or anything else that I cannot easily prove or verify – since I have trouble making sense or reconciling the things in the bible that I can actually check and verify.
PS – (This ignores the thought that since everything proven has only been shown to be on natural and physical processes, even things that were once believed to be supernatural, therefore, based on what’s happened and been discovered before, all things could be the result of more physical processes and supernatural ones, since no supernatural processes have been proven. I’m just ignoring that for now)
LikeLike
And to another side point,
ColorStorm, for what it’s worth, i do not think Christians should be kept away from children or should be muted or whatever else.
Like everyone else, Christians are people, many good, some bad, others in between. I know many and was once one myself.
So not everyone here hates Christians or wants to see anything bad happen to them or anyone else.
LikeLiked by 2 people
CS said…
Nate, take a look at what CS did here.
I pointed out what he said about us — in a post he had written about this discussion — and he responds with a non-sequitur about how he was responding to “people who say Christians should have no contact with children”, which I’m reasonably sure includes zero people on this thread. Heck, if my wife and I were to die, we have designated a Christian family to raise our children.
So he follows up one defamatory smear with another factually irrelevant and/or inaccurate smear. And by doing all this, he A) avoids answering difficult questions, B) derails productive conversation, and C) makes the resulting conversation about him rather than about substantive issues.
Tell me, how is CS distinguishable from a troll?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good gravy jon, grow a spine. The post you are speaking of is similar to THIS one below, as is many others. For gosh sakes, I have a category with 40 plus posts on this topic. Some pretty good actually.
And nate, please feel free to delete this link, as I have no interest in promoting my blog at your expense. tkx.
https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/now-theres-a-rebel/
LikeLike
@ Everyone talking to CS in the hope of getting a straight answer.
Can I claim my $50 now, please?
LikeLiked by 2 people
CS: Why would anyone tolerate such things from someone like you, a rotten paunch, crude ass and fart-ass?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alright Gary, I know there’s an underlying point you’re making (though I haven’t figured it out yet either), but I’ve got to ask you to lay off the personal stuff now. We’ve been having some real dialogue with ColorStorm so far today, and I don’t want us to go backwards. Cool?
LikeLike
@Gary.
To be perfectly honest, mate I’m going to side with Nate on this one.
I think ”fart ass” really is below the belt … about 8 inches below, in fact.
LikeLike
I apologize. I got carried away.
At one time I was doing exactly what CS is doing. Roaming the internet attacking atheist blasphemers with the same circular arguments he is using. I should have more patience with him.
No one guessed who I was quoting. He is only one of the great Christians of all time: MARTIN LUTHER!
Check this out: http://ergofabulous.org/luther/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi CS,
I want to quote what I felt was the main point of your comment:
1) I would push back a bit on your use of “demonstration.” Since we’re just talking about a verse in Genesis, this doesn’t seem like a demonstration to me, but simply an unsubstantiated claim. We don’t have to get bogged down in that, I just wanted to point it out so that we never forget that the reliability of the Bible’s claims is exactly what’s in question here.
2) I disagree that the entire Bible is all written in one voice and speaks in agreement. Again, that’s kind of the question we’re considering, and I think we would need to talk about specific passages rather than talk about the Bible as a whole.
3) How do you mean that the Bible interprets itself?
And to be clear, I spent most of my life believing that the Bible was the word of God. I expected it to be coherent and consistent. My doubts didn’t come in because I suddenly had problems with Genesis. Like William said, I was able to find rationalizations to keep believing the Genesis account, and I was always prepared to think that modern science was just wrong about some things. I started questioning my stance on scripture for two main reasons. First, I had a hard time making sense of the salvation-Heaven-Hell connections. Secondly, I was finally confronted with information that showed potential contradictions in scripture. Those two things started the ball rolling for me, and when I quit believing in Christianity altogether, I still believed in a Creator.
LikeLike
Hi William, I think I don’t want to get too involved with the personal aspects of this discussion. It’s not my job to defend ColorStorm or attack him, or you, or anyone else. But let me have a go at describing things more generally as I see them.
Life and religion are not all about rationalism and evidence. Some people are more analytical, some are more intuitive. Most of us use both modes in different degrees in different situations. Loyalty, love and commitment can go beyond mere rationalism. Sometimes we get caught out and hurt by that, but most worthwhile relationships work that way too.
So some christians and some atheists approach their belief/disbelief in a fairly rational way, but even then, other factors come in as well. And some from each viewpoint approach things much more intuitively or experientially.
So an atheist may talk about the hurts they experienced while a christian, or the harm they have seen some christians do to others, and for some these feelings may be more important for their disbelief than evidence. Likewise a christian may reflect on the darkness they felt when they were an atheist and the blessings they have found as a christian, and those things may be more important to their faith then evidence.
And so some atheists feel an almost evangelical zeal to deconvert everyone, and their zeal can lead them into saying quite nasty things about christians’ honesty, thinking processes, closed-mindedness, etc. Again it can be similar with some christians, whose zeal may lead them to call atheists immoral or rebellious or stupid. I deplore both sides doing that, but it happens, especially on the internet. To not see both sides of this is to be blind.
If we want to move forward from the battle lines, the first step is surely to try to understand. I remember when I first came to this blog I was a little more pushy. Fortunately, Nate was his genuine polite self, we apologised to each other a few times, and we are now on friendly terms. On my part, I understand his experience and viewpoint much better now. We still disagree just as strongly, but we don’t make unkind assumptions about each other (I’m not sure he ever did!).
So atheists need to understand that many christians have experiential reasons for belief as well as external evidential ones. For example, I read in a book by a philosopher investigating visionary experiences, the story of a man who suffered a skiing accident that broke 3 vertebrae. His recovery was expected to require 3 months in hospital and another 8 months in a neck brace. But a week after the accident he had what he thought was a vision of Jesus visiting him, he took off the next brace, and when he awoke the swelling and pain were gone, the fractures were healed and he was allowed to go home. Now I cannot prove that story to you, and doubtless you will be sceptical, but neither you nor I had that experience so we cannot say. What I do know is that man wrote a comment on my blog twice after I reported the story, saying that 40 years later the experience of God’s love he felt at that time was still amazingly strong with him. Can you blame him for believing strongly in God and in healing after that? Now few christians have such dramatic stories to tell, but I could tell you minor stories of less dramatic healings, people’s lives being given new purpose and hope, etc. Some of them talk about it, for some it is too personal.
My point is this. None of us know another person’s life experiences, but these can be formative. Who knows what Colorstorm has experienced of God, maybe nothing, maybe lots? I didn’t understand Nate until I understood his church background.
So people’s belief and behaviour may be quite explicable if only we knew. But mostly we don’t know.
I’m not suggesting we don’t examine other people’s beliefs, question them, test them. But we must realise that such an approach only examines and tests a part of what makes each of us tick and believe what we do. Some people have personal reasons that you and I may not know, and if we are too rational and too sceptical, we may never know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Unklee
There are several major consistencies that seem to run throughout the whole Christian/atheist debate.
The two most consistent are these:
First . Adult conversion, almost without exception, involves a component that focuses heavily on some form of abuse or emotional trauma previously suffered by the convert, be it relationship trauma, business failure, drugs, alcohol, severe depression, etc.
Testimonials from such people make this such a regular occurrence one could say for all intent and purpose it was cliché.
We have all encountered such people strewn across the internet, from Facebook to Twitter, to YouTube to the blogs, and based on these, one is reasonably justified in concluding this is de rigeur .
In fact, I have yet to come across a single case of a perfectly content individual that suddenly decided their life could only be made whole with god at the center of it. And when I write god I am in this instance, of course, referring to Yahweh/Jesus of Nazareth.
Second; of the adult christian deconversions I have encountered, a great many deconverts have written or alluded to the difficulties they suffered whilst a believer, often as a child/young person. Ironically, these are frequently similar trauma that adult converts claim to have suffered prior to ”finding the lord”.
Also, as difficult a process as deconversion is for many, I cannot recall reading or hearing of a single individual that regretted the decision to reject Christianity in its entirety, no matter the initial and sometimes long term personal cost ( loss of spouse, family, friends etc) and this alone should be a clear indication of the damage religion often causes.
You might consider this if you decide to address this comment in one form or another.
Furthermore, the foundation of Christianity is built almost exclusively on the doctrine of sin: that humans are basically unworthy creations of the god, Yahweh and can only be redeemed by acknowledging how sinful and, to a degree, how worthless we are.
That is not a good foundation to build any human relationship upon and, along with a general disbelief in the supernatural, is probably a major factor in why Christianity,in the long run, does not look likely to survive and will eventually dwindle to be nothing more than a quaint oddity.
Ark
LikeLiked by 1 person
UnkleE,
I appreciate the comment and actually think I agree. The thing is though, with ColorStorm, I know that I do not know all there is about him or why he believes, and that is precisely why I ask him to explain.
He doesnt explain, really. And if he does, it’s something like, “the bible says so,” which of course is fine. But it brings up another question, which is, “why should we trust the bible and why do you trust the bible,” and a retort of “just because,” or again with, “the bible says so,” isn’t really an explanation, instead just another statement that begs explaining.
Ive even shown why it’s a problem by saying that a Muslim could say, “well we know islam is right because the Koran,” or a Mormon could say, “Mormonism is right because the Book of Mormon.” Those statements are clearly, clearly not explanations or in any way any type of evidence, not in regard to any religion, including Christianity.
I am asking. I keep asking. I think I even explain why I am asking. If ColorStorm and myself are still having difficulty communicating, I do not think it’s my fault.
Are you saying that he and I should cut our losses and give up, or do you have a suggestion that either he or I may be able to benefit from?
LikeLike
Unklee, I think you are making terrific and important points — points we would all do well to take to heart. I just don’t think they are relevant to the proximate case of Colorstorm.
That said…
I agree with this, but I think research indicates that a lot of beliefs have a strong emotional component. Beliefs don’t tend to stand on their own. They are part of a bundle, a framework of beliefs, and those frameworks play a significant role in how we add (or reject) new beliefs. Beliefs can change, but it sometimes requires substantive restructuring of our framework of beliefs and that is difficult. For some people, it takes a long time. For others, it happens in an instant. For some people, belief changes are triggered by an inability to reconcile conflicting beliefs. For others, belief changes are more of a gradual social process.
The point you make that “atheists need to understand that many christians have experiential reasons for belief as well as external evidential ones” is important and correct. I would only add that people of every religion identify that kind of (very powerful) experiential reason (spiritual experience) for belief.
This is a powerful video showing members of a wide variety of faiths who all say they KNOW their belief is true due to a powerful spiritual experience, the Holy Spirit, revelation from God, and a feeling of deep connection with Truth: https://youtu.be/UJMSU8Qj6Go
My point is that, while you are right about the power and persuasive impact of spiritual experiences, but (given how universal it is to all faiths) it is difficult to see such experiences as valid sources of knowledge.
But it’s sure understandable why those experiences have value to the people who experience them! And understanding that, I can agree 100% with what you say here, too….
I do wish some of the more zealous atheists would discard the idea that religious beliefs are related to intelligence. They are not. There are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheists and people of many other faiths who are far, far more intelligent and educated than I am.
Now, it’s certainly true that some specific religious (or related) beliefs can be related to a lack of knowledge of a subject area — e.g., creationism, Jesus mythicism, etc — but people have strongly held beliefs that are contrary to the well-established consensus of experts on lots of non-religious things, too (anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, climate change denial, and many popular misconceptions).
For my part, I can accept and appreciate a person who simply says “I believe” or who attributes their belief to faith. I recently asked some Mormons why they believed it was wrong to drink coffee or tea. If they had tried to claim it was a scientifically validated belief, I would have objected. But they said it was a belief they held on faith because it was what their religion taught. I just said “I understand” and changed the subject. It would have been rude of me to argue with them past that point.
What irks me is when people make inaccurate arguments about empirical facts (or misuse reason) to justify their beliefs. If you want to belief in a 6,000 year old earth or a global flood 4,400 years ago, fine. I obviously disagree, but I can understand why people believe things like that. But if you want to argue that the empirical evidence supports YEC and a global flood, then you don’t get a free pass.
Even then, I agree with you that we should all strive to be charitable to each other.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@William.
As a long time Colorstorm ”observer”, I fully sympathize with the frustration you are all going through.-
However,I did warn you, did I not?
Understand this; his aim is not to convince you or demonstrate the veracity of his claims/belief but to simply tie you up in knots with flowery rhetorical jibber-jabber.
He is, in many ways, the same as Unklee ( has it not crossed anyone’s mind why Unklee has not openly lambasted Colorstorm for his Creationist/literalist-sounding claptrap?)
They are cut from the same cloth.
Now, if you want to have a whip-round for my $50 we can make arrangements as to where it should be deposited.
William should pay the Lion’s share ( ha ha) as he still thinks he will be able to have intellectually stimulating and meaningful dialogue.
Gary was on the right track a few comments ago with the erudite ”Fat Arse” retort.
But sadly, like unkle-consensus- e, ”Our John, the mange-ridden feline” is an old hand at this game and hell will likely freeze over before you can walk away with a genuine sense of having broken through to the other side ( thank you Jim Morrison).
And like unklee, he knows this only too well.The one possible outcome is that he will make you a nutter like him (them?) !
So, enough already … just cough up!
😉
LikeLike
Ark,
nicely put – but I dont really have high hopes for ColorStorm; either that he’ll actually engage in reasonable discourse or his motives for being here or that he’ll even begin to try to offer anything meaningful.
But, I just want to remind him, and any other potential passerby who views this down the road to remember at very turn, at every baseless claim, that no one fell for it, or was sidetracked by it, but he was instead held to task, being notified each time he chose to dodge a question or point.
I’m under no delusion, really. I just have a hard time letting the last word be, “You’re dumb because the bible is right, and because jesus!”
So, I’m not wasting any real effort or anymore time than I would otherwise. I’m not frantic or stressing out with frustration. It’s more a mix of sympathy and entertainment. There is some disappointment and frustration, but nothing that would be consuming or burdensome.
LikeLiked by 3 people