Christopher Hithens, God rest his soul, was on of the world's most famous Atheists and this is video debate against John Lennox and used his best argument against Christianity that I have heard him use and was refuted many times, but Professor's Lennox counter-argument is so spot-on. So wonderful. No wonder there was a need to put it into a separate clip. I hope he found Jesus before he died, but Hitchens was clearly over-matched here by sheer weight of logic and by what Christians really believe in spite of what Hitchens thought we believed. Hitchens was owned.
Showing posts with label FacePalm of the Day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FacePalm of the Day. Show all posts
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Friday, October 18, 2019
FacePalm of the Day: Richard Dawkins tries to debate John Lennox, get's OWNED...
This is why Richard Dawkins does not debate anymore
Sunday, October 23, 2016
FacePalm of the Day Debunking Christianity - Jesus Got It Wrong, Really Wrong
Jesus gets major demerits for hardening the Old Testament teaching about divorce, thereby bringing incalculable anguish during the ensuing centuries.
Unfortunately, many Christians have the wrong understanding about what Jesus taught about divorce. They just don't go as far as adding blasphemy to their error as David Madison does in his post. Jesus teaching does not being anguish. If there is anguish it comes from disobeying Jesus. All one has to do is look at how divorce devastates lives and families.
Many billions of people have gone into marriages for a wide variety of reasons, e.g., convenience, lust, desperation, family obligations and alliances, pregnancy—sometimes even love. It dawns on a lot of people, months or years into a marriage: “Well, this was a mistake.”
The issue is that people get married for the wrong reasons. Marriage does not fix problems or heal wounds. And if you get a divorce at the first feeling of having made a mistake you have definitely missed the point. What I like about Jesus' teachings on marriage is that He makes it clear what the point of marriage is and what it is not. When Madison points out that people sometime marry for "love" what kind of "love" does he refer to. Bet it isn't the kind of love the Bible says married people should have for each other.
Unfortunately, many Christians have the wrong understanding about what Jesus taught about divorce. They just don't go as far as adding blasphemy to their error as David Madison does in his post. Jesus teaching does not being anguish. If there is anguish it comes from disobeying Jesus. All one has to do is look at how divorce devastates lives and families.
Many billions of people have gone into marriages for a wide variety of reasons, e.g., convenience, lust, desperation, family obligations and alliances, pregnancy—sometimes even love. It dawns on a lot of people, months or years into a marriage: “Well, this was a mistake.”
The issue is that people get married for the wrong reasons. Marriage does not fix problems or heal wounds. And if you get a divorce at the first feeling of having made a mistake you have definitely missed the point. What I like about Jesus' teachings on marriage is that He makes it clear what the point of marriage is and what it is not. When Madison points out that people sometime marry for "love" what kind of "love" does he refer to. Bet it isn't the kind of love the Bible says married people should have for each other.
Jesus is guilty of a grievous logical fallacy in his pronouncement on divorce. Why do men and women get married? Jesus sees the “natural order” as God’s idea, and said this to the Pharisees:
“Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them
male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his
father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God
has joined together, let no one separate." (Matt. 19:4-6)
Jesus was not responding to the question "Why do men and women get married?" The question that the Pharisees asked was “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (vs 3) Therefore Jesus' answer was that it's not lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason because divorce is not part of God's perfect plan.
Jesus was not responding to the question "Why do men and women get married?" The question that the Pharisees asked was “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (vs 3) Therefore Jesus' answer was that it's not lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason because divorce is not part of God's perfect plan.
If you operate within a theological context, there’s nothing wrong with the idea that God arranged for men and women to hook up, but it doesn’t follow at all that God has actually arranged all marriages, picking each woman for each man, ever since humans began cohabitating.
I think this point brought up by Madison is very important. Why is this conclusion untenable? The Bible teaches that God has put each and everyone of us in the circumstances we find ourselves in so that we can best Find him (Acts 17:24). This would have to include our births and assigning who are parents are,
I think this point brought up by Madison is very important. Why is this conclusion untenable? The Bible teaches that God has put each and everyone of us in the circumstances we find ourselves in so that we can best Find him (Acts 17:24). This would have to include our births and assigning who are parents are,
It is shortsighted, destructive and dangerous to argue that God’s law and intent are violated when couples don’t get along after all. Yet Jesus does just that in Mark 10. He condemns divorce, culminating in the famous verse 9: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one
separate.” Did Jesus really think that it is God who makes all the matches, so many of which are disastrous?
Interesting how Madison asks the next logical question as if the Pharisees did not also ask it. Look at Matthew 19:7
The Pharisees did not like Jesus' answer and sought to justify the view that they could divorce their wives with impunity, Jesus explains why the Torah makes provision for divorce.
God permitted divorce to keep society intact because people are not able to live the right way.
Interesting how Madison asks the next logical question as if the Pharisees did not also ask it. Look at Matthew 19:7
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
The Pharisees did not like Jesus' answer and sought to justify the view that they could divorce their wives with impunity, Jesus explains why the Torah makes provision for divorce.
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:8-9
God permitted divorce to keep society intact because people are not able to live the right way.
To Mark 10, we can add Matthew 5:31-32: “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
In Mark and Luke we do not find the words “except on the ground of unchastity.” Somehow, in a small mercy, Matthew saw fit to add that modification.
It is not a modification. Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are parallel passages and answering a specific question. Matthew 5:31-32 is in another context. He gives these commands in Matt 5:31-32 right after Jesus taught about adultery. Not a modification but a clarification.
It is not a modification. Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are parallel passages and answering a specific question. Matthew 5:31-32 is in another context. He gives these commands in Matt 5:31-32 right after Jesus taught about adultery. Not a modification but a clarification.
Let it be noted, by the way, Christians have shown far more common sense than Jesus on this matter: They do get divorced as much as their non-Christian neighbors. They’ve figured out that the layer of theology imposed on marriage (“what God has joined together”), is irrelevant and impossible to sustain in reality. They know that Jesus was wrong. This is one of his failures as a moral teacher.
No Way. Jesus words about why why people, even Christians, get divorced is still true today: we are sinners who are unable to perfectly follow God's laws. However with the power of God that saves us from sin and death we can keep our marriage vows. My parents have been married for 58 years. It's possible. Divorce is not a sign of God's failure but of human sin and depravity. A failed marriage has many different causes but the bottom line is one or both spouses decide not live according to God's way.
No Way. Jesus words about why why people, even Christians, get divorced is still true today: we are sinners who are unable to perfectly follow God's laws. However with the power of God that saves us from sin and death we can keep our marriage vows. My parents have been married for 58 years. It's possible. Divorce is not a sign of God's failure but of human sin and depravity. A failed marriage has many different causes but the bottom line is one or both spouses decide not live according to God's way.
The Catholic Church has maintained a level of rigidity on divorce that defies all logic and compassion—based on Jesus’ bad counsel on the matter. Yet the church has, for money, figured out ways to help couples escape matrimonial bonds. Don’t we all have our favorite stories of
shrewd Catholic maneuvering? Mine is about the man who, for enough cash, after more than 20 years of marriage and three children, was able to buy an annulment. The church, it would seem, is not opposed to laying up treasure on earth.
I don't see how any church's twisting of Jesus' commands nullify what Jesus said. Buying an annulment is an example of ignoring Jesus' teaching not upholding it. As for the opposite extreme of counseling a person to stay in an abusive marriage, this is also not what Jesus was saying. If you can read what Jesus said and think that Madison is right about what he thinks Jesus said about divorce, you should re-read it.
I don't see how any church's twisting of Jesus' commands nullify what Jesus said. Buying an annulment is an example of ignoring Jesus' teaching not upholding it. As for the opposite extreme of counseling a person to stay in an abusive marriage, this is also not what Jesus was saying. If you can read what Jesus said and think that Madison is right about what he thinks Jesus said about divorce, you should re-read it.
DavidMadison has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. He has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University, and was a pastor in the
United Methodist Church for nine years. His book, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, was published by Tellectual Press in August.
Debunking Christianity
Thursday, December 26, 2013
FacePalm of the Day - Who is really Specal Pleading?
Description of Special Pleading
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
- Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
- Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
- Therefore A is exempt from S.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
Once again let me say that all attempts to defend Christianity are little more than special pleading to a conclusion based on other grounds, most notably one's culture and private subjective experience. To see this for what it is just look seriously at how Muslims, Mormons and Moonies defend their faiths. Don't just note that their conclusions are different. Look at how they reason. So the only way to defend Christianity is to argue that one's culture and private subjective experience are reliable guides to the truth about the nature and workings of the universe. But anyone who has visited a different culture, or took seriously the fact of religious diversity, should see quite clearly that neither of them are reliable guides to the truth. Christians are therefore in denial.
So let's try to understand what Loftus is arguing. He is saying that Christians are in the same circumstances C as Muslims, Mormons, Moonies, and all other religious people because the standards S by which we reason and accept reality are blinded by our own culture and private subjective experiences. It is true that if Christianity was only based on culture and private subjective experience, Loftus would be right. But this where his reasoning goes off the rails. Biblical Christianity is independent of opinions and culture for its truth claims. The commands given in the Bible are independent of your culture and what you feel about them. So is Jesus' sacrifice - his death, burial, and resurrection. This also transcends whatever religious diversity arguments anyone might even think of raising. Just because they are rejected by another religion does not make them wrong. True that depending on your own experience or understanding will not lead you to any truth. Christianty is not based on either.
They prefer to live in a childish pretend world where they have an unfounded hope because of the perceived need for hope. Faith is a pathology that keeps Christians from taking responsibility for their own lives, that keeps them from thinking for themselves, that allows them to mindlessly quote-mine from the Bible, that forever keeps them from growing up. I have never been more convinced of this as I am today.
This sure is a lot of accusations being thrown around. Loftus can't substantiate any of it. He has readily admitted in several other posts and books that we can only talk about probabilities because we can't be certain. He even has said that we don't need certainty if we know how likely something is to be true. Yet, he is so certain that the Bible is wrong. The most he can argue is that he thinks that the Bible is probably not true. His "reasoning" for this conclusion is dubious because he agrees that human reasoning is flawed and yet he is using his own reasoning to come that conclusion. He is asking us to think that his reasoning is worth trusting. Yet, I see no reason to drink that kool-aid. The Bible is reliable and more than likely true - it is true.
Christian, you can show us otherwise and here's how. Just produce a series of arguments, along with the objective evidence that backs them up, that your sect-specific type of Christianity is the one true faith without any special pleading.
Biblical Christianity is more than up for this challenge. I would like to see Loftus first make his arguments without special pleading.
The pathological nature of faith should be seen in any attempt to do so. The hard part is to show this is exactly what you're doing, since the nature of the pretend game of faith blinds you from seeing the double-standards you use to defend it. You can see the double-standards in people who defend other faiths. You are blind to this same thing when it comes to your own. You think you have the requisite evidence, but this so-called evidence isn't objective evidence that could convince a reasonable outsider at all. You only accept this so-called evidence because of the need to have hope, even if it's an unfounded one.
I find it amazing that Loftus can't see how the above "observations" apply to him as well as it does some religious proponents. He is truly special pleading because he assumes a standard for evidence for Atheism and pretends that he is using logic and reasoning but Christians are not. All Loftus is using is emotional and based on his own culture and subjective experiences.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Basis for Morality is Empathy
Do non-believers have a basis for saying some things cause harm? I think so. Just look at a burning child. We have a computer that computes the steps. Our brains. Such things cause harm. It's obvious. The basis for morality is empathy. The divine command theory has no room for it. If God is thought to command killing witches then empathy be damned. While there are two greatest commandments the only one that counts is the first one. Christians need not be concerned with the plight of human suffering, only loving the god in one's head.
Why the fail? Simple: True burning a child causes harm to the child, but why should that matter if I don't care? Loftus claims that empathy should be the basis of not doing such evil acts as burning a child, but does that mean that it's okay to burn a child to death if I don't care about causing harm to the child? According to his logic, the only reason I would not cause another living thing wrong is because of the empathy I feel for other living things. But what do you do with people who feel no such empathy. Are they wrong? How can you tell? Loftus' basis for morality has no firm foundation. Why should I care about human suffering as long as it's not me? Loftus and other atheistic grounding for morality is no grounding at all.
Debunking Christianity: The Basis for Morality is Empathy
Friday, August 23, 2013
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Rhetorical Bullshit: The John Loftus Trinity Argument
Just like Loftus, this man can't tell a difference between "being" and "person". This is a category error. "Being" and "person" are not the same thing at all. Christians do not believe that God is three person in one person or three beings in one being. God is three persons in one being. If you make the correct distinction between "being" and "person" there is no need for confusion. A human being is one person. Who say that God, who is infinite and so different from us on any measurable level, why would we think God is limited just as us.
Another example of where the video fails is the "Logos" discussion. The mistake is thinking that Jesus had a beginning. He didn't. The Logos is eternal.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. - John 1:1-3
Well at least the man recognized that Jesus is the Logos.
Debunking Christianity: Rhetorical Bullshit: The John Loftus Trinity Argument
Thursday, August 1, 2013
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Neuroscience is Destroying the Notions of Free Will, Sin and Salvation by Faith
Neuroscience is making it extremely difficult for believers to still claim that by freely choosing to believe we are saved (or condemned), that we freely choose to sin, or that there is a wrathful God who will judge us on the last day. Case in point, girls and boys, are the following two essays, the last of which I will quote from. The first is Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes. Now for the second one, "The Brain on Trial." [Be sure to read this essay at least as far as the highlighted money quote in red!].Where does the Bible say that we freely choose sin? But I want to hold off on that a moment and point out what Loftus considers the main point.
The crux of the problem is that it no longer makes sense to ask, “To what extent was it his biology, and to what extent was it him?,” because we now understand that there is no meaningful distinction between a person’s biology and his decision-making. They are inseparable.Has Loftus ever read the Bible? I ask because he seems to fail to recognize that the Bible does not teach that people are "all adults possess the same capacity to make sound choices." We don't. We, by default, are broken and hostile to God and God's ways. We are not good outside of God's mercy and influence - even the atheist who does something good for someone else. This is not new information. Sin is hardcoded in us - post fall. Adam and Eve are the only other human beings other than Jesus Christ who know what it is like not to be driven to commit sin. Therefore neuroscience does not destroy what Christians believe about sin or salvation but instead underscores why we need it. Everyone is broken to different degrees and in different ways. You might not desire to kill others, but just like the articles point out, given the circumstances you don't really know what you would or would not do. Everyone needs a savior because we are not free or independent. We are held hostage by sin - which is even a part of our biology.
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. - Psalm 51:5
22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. - Romans 3:22-24
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— - Romans 5:12
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
I can already hear the objection because people have been using it since Adam messed up in the Garden of Eden. If we are slaves to sin, and God allowed us to come here that way, why does he hold us responsible? Asked and Answered along time ago.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 8:19-24
It's tight but it's right. You can fool yourself into thinking that you just happen to be better than the people you like compare yourself with or you can admit your own failing and be free of your prison. If you want to be free that is God drawing you to Jesus. Reach out and take the salvation Jesus is offering you.
Debunking Christianity: Neuroscience is Destroying the Notions of Free Will, Sin and Salvation by Faith
Friday, July 12, 2013
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: God's Burning Orphans - The Problem of Divine Hiddenness
Debunking Christianity: God's Burning Orphans - The Problem of Divine Hiddenness
The thing that seems to be completely lost on most Atheists, like the one who made this video, is that they don't understand Christianity. No where in the entire Bible does God tell us that he is obligated to save anyone! By default, every human being sins and deserves to go to hell. Bottom line. God would be fully justified if every human being ended up in hell - including me and you. The guy in the video is indeed correct about "free will". It's not an issue here but not because of the reasons he thinks. None of us are freed from sin except by Jesus. This means that while you reject God, you ain't free - except which sins you voluntarily do. As for the "good" things you may do best thank God for His mercy that you were allowed to do them - but it's not enough to keep you out of hell without Jesus.
The other bone of contention this video brings up is that the video author thinks that God has not done enough to make himself known to everyone. I agree. God has revealed himself to humanity the way He has wanted to on His terms not ours. We may not have free will because our servitude to sin, but God is not fettered as such. Look at what the Bible say.
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[c]
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” - Acts 17:24-31
Paul in his proclamation was clear: God placed each one of us in the best possible circumstances to easily find Him so that we would seek Him out and the God is not far from either one of us. God is calling for each and everyone of us to repent. Want proof? Look no further than Jesus' resurrection from the dead.
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. - Romans 1:18-25
God has clearly made His existence known through what He has created. We have no excuse for unbelief. How does faith come in?
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:1-6
Lastly, the example of the burning orphans is really bad and shows that the guy in the video has no idea what Christianity is teaching. This is what the metaphor should be. We are not like sweet innocent orphans. Imagine a house full of mass murderers, liars, cheaters, rapists, molesters, and people guilty of manner of evil. The house catches fire because the people inside set the fire. It's not a fireman, one whose job and obligation it is to put out fires and save lives, but one who is completely innocent who decide to save the undeserving people in the burning house although it will cost him his own life. That is what Jesus did. Given that everyone in that house deserves death and suffering, I see no problem with Jesus electing the ones he saves. He is just and free to do it according to his own will. Neither you nor I have the right to select who lives and who doesn't but God does and remain perfectly just and merciful!
Saturday, June 29, 2013
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: F**ked-up Heroes of the Bible: Samson (continued)
Recap: In Part 1, our hero has met a hot lady whom he wants to marry. He loses a riddle bet due some trickery by the aforementioned lady friend, and is forced to kill thirty guys so he can steal their clothes to pay the bet. He’s bummed, so he bunks out at his mom and dad’s, and while he’s gone, his disloyal fiancé marries the best man from the canceled wedding. Time for some good, old-fashioned revenge!
First and foremost, as I commented in the last post, Samson as just a man. Same frailties and kinds of sins. Wouldn't you want revenge after all of that? Fortunately we don't have to make the same mistakes Samson made. What I get most out of Samson's failures is that God is so powerful and merciful that he can use our issues to glorify Himself and help His people.
Exhibit 5:
Samson said, “This time I cannot be blamed for everything I am going to do to you Philistines.” Then he went out and caught 300 foxes. He tied their tails together in pairs, and he fastened a torch to each pair of tails. Then he lit the torches and let the foxes run through the grain fields of the Philistines. He burned all their grain to the ground, including the sheaves and the uncut grain. He also destroyed their vineyards and olive groves.Arson and animal cruelty. That’s two out of three of the psychopath indicators. Definitely not PETA-approved,and we have the deliberate destruction of private property.
Judges 15:3-5 (NLT)
Again, nothing is being said that the foxes were harmed in any way and the private property belonged to people who were oppressing and subjugating his people. Samson was waging a one-man war.
The Bible is silent as to whether the Spirit helped him with his vengeful destruction. Samson’s fiery fox assault sets off a chain of events in which the Philistines retaliate and kill Samson’s ex-fiancé and her father by burning them alive. Fighting fire with fire, I guess. I don’t remember this part of the story being mentioned in my Sunday School days! I guess they didn't have any flannel graph figures of people being burnt alive that they could use. Either that or my mind blocked the traumatic memories. This, of course, makes Samson angrier and he kills a bunch of Philistines and then camps out in a cave.
So the good and righteous Philistines executed two of their own people (Judges 15:6) because they were too cowardly to attack Samson. Green seems to forget who the bad guy is.
The Philistines start hunting for him in Judah, which makes the Judahites nervous. 3000 men of Judah erop by Samson’s Flintstone abode, for a visit. They’re like “Dude, you’ve pissed off the Philistines and they’re our rulers, so now we have to turn you over to them.” And he’s like “Well, okay I guess, but just promise me that you’ll only tie me up, but not kill me.” And they did what he asked.
Many of the Israelites at the time fear the Philistines so much that they were willing to turn over one of their own to the Philistines rather than fight for their own freedom. I think this was also from God. We see God miraculously using one man to free them all in a way that it could only have been God.
Exhibit 6:
As Samson arrived at Lehi, the Philistines came shouting in triumph. But the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon Samson, and he snapped the ropes on his arms as if they were burnt strands of flax, and they fell from his wrists. Then he found the jawbone of a recently killed donkey. He picked it up and killed 1,000 Philistines with it.Holy Ghost tweaker Samson channels the Incredible Hulk, busting his rope bonds like they were mere spaghetti noodles. Using a donkey jawbone, he proceeds to ass-whip the Philistines to death, adding an even thousand names to his kill list. Creative weapon choice. Not what I'd pick, but hey, anything can happen in the Bible! It’s important to have faith when reading passages like this, since it’s pretty ridiculous to try and imagine how one guy playing whack-a-mole with a donkey jaw could have taken out that many men. But once you start believing some of the crazy stuff in the Bible, you’re kind of stuck with the whole truckload. Who knows, maybe the Spirit hypnotized them and they all marched up single file to get whacked.
Judges 15:14-15 (NLT)
Green obviously has not seen a donkey's jawbone and wouldn't you think that if Samson was strong enough to do all the physical feats the Bible says he did, that superhuman strength means that just about anything Samson put his hands on would be an effective weapon ? I would. Honesty would help Green a lot in understanding what the Bible says.
Samson as a hero of the faith? Well, this guy might be ideal for running a Comumbian [Columbian?] drug cartel, but certainly not a good role-model for kids. And about this energizing Spirit – somewhere between the Old and New Testaments, I guess, it switched from turning people into stone killers, to making them speak in tongues. Slight career change.
Calling Samson a "hero of faith" is not referring to everything he did or thought. Although God was using him throughout the story it wasn't about Samson being a man of faith He did what he did when he wanted to do it. God used what Samson did but it wasn't until later he could be considered a role model.
Exhibit 7:
One day Samson went to the Philistine town of Gaza and spent the night with a prostitute. Word soon spread that Samson was there, so the men of Gaza gathered together and waited all night at the town gates. They kept quiet during the night, saying to themselves, “When the light of morning comes, we will kill him.”
But Samson stayed in bed only until midnight. Then he got up, took hold of the doors of the town gate, including the two posts, and lifted them up, bar and all. He put them on his shoulders and carried them all the way to the top of the hill across from Hebron.
Judges 16:1-3 (NLT)
They shut the gates to keep him in the city. Samson carried the gate showing that they could not contain him. The hooker? Nope not a good choice on Samson's part. This is why he is not yet the man spoken of in Hebrews.
Exhibit 8:
Some time later Samson fell in love with a woman named Delilah, who lived in the valley of Sorek. The rulers of the Philistines went to her and said, “Entice Samson to tell you what makes him so strong and how he can be overpowered and tied up securely. Then each of us will give you 1,100 pieces of silver.”
So Delilah said to Samson, “Please tell me what makes you so strong and what it would take to tie you up securely.”
Judges 16:4-6 (NLT)
Finally, Samson shared his secret with her. “My hair has never been cut,” he confessed, “for I was dedicated to God as a Nazirite from birth. If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me, and I would become as weak as anyone else.”Samson should have stuck with hookers. This poor guy sure is unlucky in love! His new girlfriend keeps on pestering him, and like a fool, he tells her that his superpowers come from his magic hair. A barber’s razor is his Kryptonite. She was talking about tying him up, so maybe he thought she was into S&M and bondage. Instead of getting freaky, she sells him out, for a big payday. Not sure what moral lessons are to be gained here. Never trust a woman? Keep the details of your superpowers top secret? Kinky sex will make you go blind… but I am getting ahead of myself. Anyway, poor Delilah has gotten a bad rap all these years. Who knows, she may have really needed the money for a boob job or a new camel or something.
Judges 16:17 (NLT)
Delilah deserves the bad rap she betrayed Samson for money. However Samson was an idiot. Twice, he lied to her about the source of his strength and twice he woke up with her trying to take his strength away. Why was he dumb enough to trust her a third time? How many times have you done something stupid just to make a love interest happy? We all know what's that like. Again Samson is not the man referred to in the Book of Hebrews...yet! In addition the lesson here is to obey God and protect your relationship with God. Samson's hair was not the source of his power - God was. Samson's hair was a symbol of his covenant with God. When he cavalierly told Delilah about his hair he threw his relationship with God under the bus.
I’d also like to take a moment and point out that it seems God got confused, or changed his mind. According the Apostle Paul:
Isn't it obvious that it's disgraceful for a man to have long hair?Hmmm…, so Samson’s long hair was mandated by God, and was the source of blessing and power. Come the New Testament, it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair. I guess maybe God’s grooming taste changed, somewhere along the way.
1 Corinthians 11:14 (NLT)
Green should have read further:
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. - 1 Corinthians 11:13-16
Therefore no where is God saying that men should never have long hair. Remember the Nazirites in the the Book of Numbers? Remember, kids, context matters.
Delilah lulled Samson to sleep with his head in her lap, and then she called in a man to shave off the seven locks of his hair. In this way she began to bring him down, and his strength left him.
Then she cried out, “Samson! The Philistines have come to capture you!”
When he woke up, he thought, “I will do as before and shake myself free.” But he didn’t realize the LORD had left him.
Judges 16:19-20 (NLT)
So the Philistines captured him and gouged out his eyes. They took him to Gaza, where he was bound with bronze chains and forced to grind grain in the prison.Well, our hero of faith has hit a small setback. Blind, shackled, and doing hard labor. Fortunately for him though, the Philistines are dumbasses who forgot to keep his magic hair shaved. And his hair is growing… Hair grows! Who knew?
But before long, his hair began to grow back
Judges 16:21-22 (NLT)
I wonder if Green actually understood the story. Maybe a different translation would help. Samson was allowed to be brought so low so that he would get closer to God. He was not so stupid not to get closer to God in those weeks and months when he was blind and shackled and doing hard labor. I bet he was praying longer and harder than he ever had in his life. God didn't leave Samson Samson left Him. Samson had begun to think that the power was his and he could just go out like before and kick Philistine butt. He had began to think that he didn't need God. Same mistake that Atheists like Green continue to make.
Our man is down, but not out. The Samson saga will have a grand finale in which our hero goes out in a blaze of glory, thus securing his place as an MVP in the Faith Hall of Fame!
The Philistine rulers held a great festival, offering sacrifices and praising their god, Dagon. They said, “Our god has given us victory over our enemy Samson!”
When the people saw him, they praised their god, saying, “Our god has delivered our enemy to us! The one who killed so many of us is now in our power!”
Half drunk by now, the people demanded, “Bring out Samson so he can amuse us!” So he was brought from the prison to amuse them, and they had him stand between the pillars supporting the roof.
Samson said to the young servant who was leading him by the hand, “Place my hands against the pillars that hold up the temple. I want to rest against them.” Now the temple was completely filled with people. All the Philistine rulers were there, and there were about 3,000 men and women on the roof who were watching as Samson amused them.
Then Samson prayed to the LORD, “Sovereign LORD, remember me again. O God, please strengthen me just one more time. With one blow let me pay back the Philistines for the loss of my two eyes.” Then Samson put his hands on the two center pillars that held up the temple. Pushing against them with both hands, he prayed, “Let me die with the Philistines.” And the temple crashed down on the Philistine rulers and all the people. So he killed more people when he died than he had during his entire lifetime.
Judges 16:23-30 (NLT)
Our tale finishes out with a heartwarming ending. The evil Philistines gather to worship their god, Dagon and to gloat over Samson’s capture. Samson braces himself against the pillars of the temple and sends up a prayer to God asking for strength one last time, for vengeance. Yes boys and girls, if there is ever a pr or Dirty Harry proud. The Good Lord grants Samson’s request (being pleased that his magic tresses had regrown), empowering our righteous warrior to literally bring down the house, snuffing all 3,000 men and women. To put it into perspective, Samson’s final act was equivalent to the September 11th terrorist attack on the Twin Towers, killing roughly the same amount of people. And yes, it was a suicide mission.
Green manages to be highly controversial here. The 3000 people in the Temple of Dagon were not innocent. They were there to disrespect God. They were there to mock God and God's people. They literally deserved what they got. What about the people that died in the 9-11 terrorist attacks? They were killed by people in the name of the wrong god. A god that does not exist. The God that empowered Samson was and is and will always be. Everything is God's and God can do anything God wants in any way God wants. That's the difference
As the Bible helpfully points out, Samson killed more people in his death than he did in his life. It would appear that despite a personal life worthy of extensive National Enquirer coverage, Mr. S was ensconced in the Faith Hall of Fame because of this ‘redeeming’ factor: He murdered a lot of people who worshiped a different god than he did, and if we know anything about the Lord, we know that he is a jealous god. Kids, if you are willing to kill for God, then you too can be famous! Remember how Samson did his god’s dirty work and got his name in lights. Or at least, that’s how the story goes… if you can believe the Good Book.
Written by J. M. Green
Green is profoundly wrong. Samson is not in the "roll call of faith" in Hebrews 11 because he managed to kill a bunch of people. He is in the Faith Hall of Fame because God elevated Samson above his own frailties and he learned to trust God. Samson did not live the kind of life he was supposed to do but he didn't become part of the roll call of faith until he lost everything and got closer to God! You can do the same.
Debunking Christianity: F**ked-up Heroes of the Bible: Samson (continued)
Facepalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: New Puzzles About the Divine Attributes by Moti Mizrahi
The first puzzle he presents about omniscience purportedly shows that the divine attribute of omniscience is incoherent. The second puzzle about omnibenevolence and omnipotence shows that these two divine attributes are logically incompatible. The third puzzle about perfect rationality and omnipotence shows that these two divine attributes are logically incompatible. See what you think:
Before we jump into the puzzles, I wonder if Mizrahi understands what the Bible says about omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience.
Could an omniscient being know what it is like to be finite?
1. Either God can know what it is like to be finite or God cannot know what it is like to be finite.Good start and I don' t see anything wrong at this point.
2. If God can know what it is like to be finite, then God is not omniscient (since to know what it is like to be finite, God must be finite).Off the rails here. Who says that knowing what it means to be finite means that you are finite? Finiteness is part of being a human being. We all agree that no human being is omniscient so how do we know what an omniscient being does know and does not know. Mizrahi is sloppy here IT seems that he is conflating two types of knowledge: know of something versus experiencing something. God knows everything - that is what being "omniscient" means. If you wanna be picky and say that God does not know what it is like to be finite because God does not experience finiteness but this is fallacious. God did experience finiteness - it's called the incarnation - God became man without loosing his divinity. Surely an omnipotent God can do that.
3. If God cannot know what it is like to be finite, then God is not omniscient (since there is something that God cannot know, namely, what it is like to be finite).Nope. Again Mizrahi does not explain what he means by "knowledge" - what kind of knowledge? He also has not proven that God cannot know what it is like to finite.
4.(Therefore) Either way, God is not omniscient.Not even close.
Could a being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent choose the lesser of two evils?
1. Either God can choose the lesser of two evils or God cannot choose the lesser of two evils.This one is flawed from the first premise and devolves from there. God does not make decisions based on "the lesser of two evils". That is how human being do things and not the way God does because God is sovereign over everything and is not restricted by options presented to God God determines God's options. For example look at the story of Joseph in Genesis. How did God get Joseph into position as the second most power man in the world at that time? Joseph was betrayed and sold into slavery by his own brothers, falsely accused of attempted rape and thrown into prison! Could God have done things differently? Sure but Joseph recognized that God was behind everything that happened to him and summed it up when he told his brothers:
2.If God can choose the lesser of two evils, then God is not omnibenevolent (since God can choose evil).
3. If God cannot choose the lesser of two evils, then God is not omnipotent (since there is a possible state of affairs that God cannot bring about).
4.(Therefore) Either God is not omnibenevolent or God is not omnipotent.
15 When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?” 16 So they sent word to Joseph, saying, “Your father left these instructions before he died: 17 ‘This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.’ Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father.” When their message came to him, Joseph wept.
18 His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. “We are your slaves,” they said.
19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. 21 So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them. - Genesis 50:15-21
Could a being that is both omnipotent and perfectly rational form a belief on the basis of
fallacious reasoning?
1. Either God can form a belief on the basis of fallacious reasoning or God cannot form a belief on the basis of fallacious reasoning.LINK.
2. If God can form a belief on the basis of fallacious reasoning, then God is not perfectly
rational (since God can reason fallaciously).
3. If God cannot form a belief on the basis of fallacious reasoning, then God is not omnipotent (since there is a possible state of affairs that God cannot bring about).
4. (Therefore) Either God is not perfectly rational or God is not omnipotent.
Now this is truly funny. God is not rational because God cannot believe something that is not true and cannot reason wrongly? So God is not rational or omnipotent because God does not share our limitations. Now that is an example forming a belief on the basis of fallacious reasoning. I would not serve a God that would do anything on the basis of fallacious reasoning. That means that God would be fallible and not omnipotent or omniscient. The God of the Bible does not move on belief. Why would he? He knows everything. There is nothing He does not know. That means that this reasoning is completely silly
My problems with this whole line of reasoning is that 1) we need to first ask what kind of evidence there is for such a being out of the many others that supposedly exist, 2) why such a being isn't to be found in the Bible since that's the raison d'etre of their faith, and 3) theists will simply gerrymander around these puzzles by changing what they believe about the divine attributes (which, if that happens is at least something).
Loftus should have more problems than these. He seems to have missed the fact that Mizrahi is granting that God exists for the sake of argument and then tries to argue against a god that's not present in Judaism or Christianity. Well, I have to give Loftus some credit: the god Mizrah is discussing is not in the Bible.
Debunking Christianity: New Puzzles About the Divine Attributes by Moti Mizrahi
Saturday, June 22, 2013
FacePalm of the Day - F**ked-up Heroes of the Bible: Samson
16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.17 Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. 18 Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops. - James 5:16-18
F**ked-up Heroes of the Bible: Samson:
This article by J.M. Green attempts to show that heroes in the Bible should not be looked up but failed to be heroic. It seems that this is meant to be a series of articles. It will be interesting to see if he can explain why the people he choose to spotlight weren't heroic and why he seems so very angry at the suggestion that they are worthy of being looked up to. I do admit that in Sunday Schools, an incomplete picture of these people are shown to children and the Biblically illiterate. Terrible things about their character and actions are glossed over and no discussed although they are clearly in the Biblical text. This is not a good thing. However presenting those things out of context and with no understanding, as Green does, is equally silly.
Today’s example: Samson, who even has been immortalized as an children's action figure.
Pretty Cool but I doubt he dressed like that.
Samson’s sordid saga is detailed in Judges, chapters 13 through 16. It is like one long and violent soap opera. For the sake of brevity, we’ll just hit the low-lights as I present evidence that this hero of the faith (Hebrews 11:32) was just a scoundrel living the thug life.
Wow. Tough words. I think terms like "scoundrel" and "thug" are unwarranted. I'd like to see what about Green makes him better than Samson. Anyone who knows Samson's story would agree that he was not the most moral or best person ever. Samson made a lot of bad decisions. But before going on remember what Hebrews 11:32 says about why Samson was a "Hero of Faith"
32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samueland the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms,administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. - Hebrews 11:32-34
Let's compare what Green says with what the Bible says and what "faith" is.
First of all, let me set up the story by saying that in chapter 13 of Judges, we find out right away that Samson is going to be special because his mom is infertile and the ‘angel of the Lord’ shows up and informs her that she is going to have a baby. There is a definite pattern throughout the Bible of women turning up pregnant after a visit from an angel. Ladies, just to be on the safe side, if you are ever visited by an angel, keep those knees together!
Yes Green tries to be funny...and fails. The angel does not touch Samson's mother at all in the text. Reduced to lying on angels....well Green has to use what he has in absence of any real arguments.
Anyway, his mom is told that he is not to have booze, forbidden foods, or haircuts. He gets the rock star look, without the partying. But, he will get the chicks, oh yes he will!Hmmm...wonder if Green knows what a Nazirite is? Does he know what it signified in the Laws of Moses? Guess not He should have read Numbers 6
One day when Samson was in Timnah, one of the Philistine women caught his eye. When he returned home, he told his father and mother, “A young Philistine woman in Timnah caught my eye. I want to marry her. Get her for me.” His father and mother objected. “Isn’t there even one woman in our tribe or among all the Israelites you could marry?” they asked. “Why must you go to the pagan Philistines to find a wife?” But Samson told his father, “Get her for me! She looks good to me.” His father and mother didn’t realize the LORD was at work in this, creating an opportunity to work against the Philistines, who ruled over Israel at that time. Judges 14:1-4 (NLT)
Basically, Samson is a horndog who dates pagan women. He has all the charm of a cave man: “Me want woman!” Not the best example for Christian children. But happily, our hero’s desire for bad girls is all part of God’s secret plan to ass-whip the Philistines.
Evidence for Samson being a "horn dog"? He is going to marry a woman who want to marry him. His parents knew the trouble it would cause him, that is why they did not want her to pursue this. It is funny how some atheists complain that God does not intervene in human affairs and yet here is one clear case where God did and God intervenes today. And here is Green complaining about God about to deliver Israel from the Philistines just because he does not like the way God is doing it. Whine much?
Exhibit 2:
As Samson and his parents were going down to Timnah, a young lion suddenly attacked Samson near the vineyards of Timnah. At that moment the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon him, and he ripped the lion’s jaws apart with his bare hands. He did it as easily as if it were a young goat. But he didn’t tell his father or mother about it. When Samson arrived in Timnah, he talked with the woman and was very pleased with her. Judges 14:5-7 (NLT)
It is widely known that torturing animals is a warning indicator that you just might be a psychopath. That, along with lighting fires and late bedwetting. The Bible is silent as to whether Samson had incontinence problems, so we’re two out of three on the psycho checklist. But, it’s all good because it was the Spirit of the Lord that made him do it. As you will see, every time Samson is touched by the Spirit, he clicks into Viking berserker mode and death and destruction are unleashed. Anyway, the Philistine chick was indeed one hot mamma, and that made Samson happy.
Reading comprehension appears to be a lost art in this case. The text clearly says that the lion attacked Samson and Samson was defending himself! I'm assuming that Green is hot and bothered about Samson tying torches and foxes together and setting Philistine fields on fire and accusing Samson of being an arsonist. Has Green ever heard of scorched earth tactics in warfare? The Philistines had subjugated and oppressed his people. Granted that wasn't why Samson began to fight them, but God used Samson's personality against Israel's enemies Additionally, how does Green know that that the foxes were hurt in anyway? He doesn't. Do I think I should behave and think like Samson did? Nope. But was Samson psychotic? Double Nope.
Exhibit 3:
Later, when he returned to Timnah for the wedding, he turned off the path to look at the carcass of the lion. And he found that a swarm of bees had made some honey in the carcass. He scooped some of the honey into his hands and ate it along the way. He also gave some to his father and mother, and they ate it. But he didn’t tell them he had taken the honey from the carcass of the lion. Judges 14:8-9 (NLT)
Okay, so the dude is now scooping honey out of the rotting lion corpse, and giving it to his parents to eat. Creepy and sick! His depravity knows no bounds. This Bible hero is a psycho, for sure.
Unsanitary? Maybe. Some Bees made a hive in the lion corpse. It wasn't even the same day that Samson killed the lion. Depraved? Nope. Depravity is exampled by rejecting God. Psycho is hurting yourself and others when there is a way out of your servitude to sin and death.
Next, Samson makes a riddle-bet with thirty young gentlemen. If they solve the riddle, then he has to buy them all some fancy new designer togas. They end up putting the pressure on Samson’s bride, who worms the info out of him. They then give the correct answer to Samson, and boy, is he pissed. Apparently the Spirit of the Lord was pissed too, as we shall see.
Samson is just a man. He behaved poorly. This part of the story is clearly describing what happened not prescribing how you or I should behave.
Exhibit 4:
Then the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon him. He went down to the town of Ashkelon, killed thirty men, took their belongings, and gave their clothing to the men who had solved his riddle. But Samson was furious about what had happened, and he went back home to live with his father and mother. So his wife was given in marriage to the man who had been Samson’s best man at the wedding. Judges 14:19-20 (NLT)
Hello! This is just all kinds of wrong. Samson goes and kills thirty strangers so that he can steal their clothes and pay the riddle-winners. We can only hope he at least laundered the clothes before he gifted them, but the Bible doesn’t really say. Apparently, murdering strangers in order to steal their clothes was perfectly alright in this case, because the Spirit of the Lord empowered him to do it. When God moves us to kill and steal, who are we to argue with him – right? After all this ruckus, he is so butt-hurt that he decides to move back in with mom and dad. The final humiliation? Samson’s best man scores his bride. Needless to say, Samson is not a happy camper when he finds out.
Samson killed thirty Philistines who were part of the people and were oppressing them? Do you really want to go there? Really? It wasn't murder. It doesn't say that these guys were innocent in the slightest. Again should I do as Samson did? No way. Of course Samson went back to his Parents. Was he supposed to stay and live in Philistine town with a woman whom he cannot trust. I find it way more creepy and stupid to think that was a good idea than eating honey from a lion carcass
That's all for now, kids. The amazing story of our Bible hero Samson will be continued in Part 2.
Written by J. M. Green
Oh goodie! More fail.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Sinner, Do You Know Jesus?
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12
There is no one else through whom we must be saved other than Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ - son of the Living God. This is definitely what Peter was saying. However McCall attempts to make the following argument:
To keep our souls out of an eternal fiery Hell, we need to be “washed in the blood of the Lamb”, that is the blood of Jesus. But since the Gospels can’t agree (see below) on just who and what this Divine Man is, we are forced to look outside of the New Testament of a savior named Jesus.
McCall is wrong.The Gospels are not confused. McCall is confused. He offers the following "evidence" that the Gospel of Matthew is confused as to which Jesus we need to put our faith in.
A major problem in the Gospel of Matthew 27: 17 is that we have more than one Jesus crucified by Ponitus Pilate! As pointed out by Bruce Metzger in his A Textural Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., 1994 p. 56 states:
In a tenth century uncial manuscript (S) and in about twenty minuscule manuscripts a marginal comment states: “In many ancient copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called ‘Jesus’; that is, the question of Pilate . . . “ συνηγμένων οὖν αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Πειλᾶτος• τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν; (So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?")
Dr Bruce Metzger was only talking about one manuscript and it's not saying that Pilate did not know which man was the Messiah.
In a closing statement on this verse Metzger notes that “A majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the original text of Matthew had the double name in both verses and that Ἰησοῦν was deliberately suppressed in most witnesses for reverential consideration” or we might more accurately note for apologetic / theological purposes!
Metzger was not making an apologetic or a theological point but McCall want to make a point but only manages to fail miserably. Before I explain the main thing he misses, I want to point out that he tries to give multiple examples of other men named "Jesus".
What is really sad is that McCall mistake is so obvious! He is making the assumption that the name "Jesus" would have to been unique for scripture to be true. "Jesus" wasn't even the name in the Aramaic. His name is "Yeshua". "Jesus" is the Greek transliteration of "Yeshua" and in English "Yeshua comes to us as "Joshua". It doesn't matter what language you use - Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or English - the name was a common name in 1st century Palestine. There are more than 14 men referenced as Jesus from that time period. Extremely popular. This is why they did a lot of disambiguation. And in each of McCall's examples there is disambiguation in the examples. Thanks, McCall, for making my point for me. In no way is anyone in the Bible confused as to which Jesus they were referring too - any more than I can confuse John Loftus with my grandfather just because they have the same first name.
To add insult to common sense and scholarship, John Loftus offered the following *ahem <cough> insight.
Harry, you're good at unearthing this interesting stuff. Keep it up.
If Loftus is the learned scholar he pretends to be - the one whom Dr William Lane Craig - is too scared to debate, then why could he not identify such an obvious flaw in logic?
Perhaps Loftus and McCall should learn something from a real scholar.
Debunking Christianity: Sinner, Do You Know Jesus?
Saturday, April 27, 2013
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Jesus Versus Paul: The Greatest Love?
According to the famous Whitney Houston song, the greatest love of all is to love oneself.
Travelling back in time long before Grammy awards were handed out, we find that Jesus, (according to the Gospel of John), had a different idea:
“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.Well at least Green recognized that Jesus was teaching something different that what our culture says so he gets a point there. It all goes downhill from there.
John 15:13 (NIV)
But, the Apostle Paul (not-surprisingly) had his own take on it:
For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us… For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Romans 5:7-8, 10 (NASB)
I find several things interesting about this. First, I have to side with Paul on this. I know he usually comes across like an arrogant know-it-all, what with his self-declared apostleship and talk of trips to the Third Heaven, but when he’s right, he’s right. Dying for one’s enemies, for those who are unworthy, is a hell of a lot more nobler and impressive than dying for one’s friends. Friends mean something to you. An act of self-sacrifice for a friend, while admirable, is not unthinkable, but dying for an enemy is a very strange thing indeed.
What I find most interesting that J.M. Green (who wrote this post) thinks that Jesus and Paul are saying contradictory things to one another. I should point out that he later changed the post to say that dying for one's enemies is "unusual". Let's look at the context for John 15:13.
9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other. - John 15:9-17
It should be obvious that Jesus is not talking to the same audience as Paul was talking to. Jesus was talking his followers and admonishing them to love one another. And they were all Jesus' friends (except Judas). Paul was talking about the love Jesus has for all us.
So, sorry Jesus, but Paul wins this round. You really should have thought that line through a bit more carefully (or at least, the gospel writer who placed that line of dialog in your mouth should have). That sort of easy mistake tends to undermine the idea that you were supremely wise. And, if you truly had foreknowledge, you would have known that Paul would come along and trump your pronouncement.
Interesting how Green gives Paul's context but not Jesus' context. Either he is ignorant or dishonest. Also Paul did not say the dying for your enemies is greater than loving your friends. He was saying that Jesus showed His love for us in that he died for us inspite of us being His enemies. Green is still Jesus' enemy. Green is arguing that Jesus did not tell us to love our enemies. Is there a single scripture that tells us not to love our enemies? Not a chance. In fact we have the opposite. Jesus said:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. - Matthew 5:43-45
I know this may seem minor to some of you, but when a ‘mere ma’n one-ups the ‘Son of God’ in defining the highest pinnacle of love, then that is somewhat of a big deal.
Paul didn't contradict Jesus here. I would argue that no where did Paul contradict Jesus. Atheists will have to do better than this to prove this canard.
The other interesting thing is how often the teachings of Paul are at odds with the teachings of Jesus. Oh I know, the letter to the Romans was written decades before the Gospel of John and all, but still, these kind of discrepancies in the ‘amazing unity of the Bible’ should give Christians pause. But, sadly it doesn’t seem to. Perhaps another time, we will take a look at some of more pronounced differences between Paul’s gospel, and that of the Jesus he claimed to have been personally selected and tutored by.
Written by J. M. Green
Poor J.M. Green Of course an outright contradiction should give us cause in accept Christianity. The
David Heddle • 4 hours ago Hmm, lots o' confirmation of
Debunking Christianity: Jesus Versus Paul: The Greatest Love?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)