Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Bill Honsberger - Why not burn witches? - YouTube
Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 1 | Reflections
People often ask why a good God would allow human beings to suffer. In fact, the problem of pain and suffering (theodicy) is arguably the greatest challenge to the truth of Christian theism. But if suffering is the only way or perhaps the best way to move people toward ultimate truth and virtue, then God’s goodness is compatible with pain and suffering (this is known as the “greater good” response to theodicy).
Obviously, people can still ask why certain folks suffer when they don’t appear to be the direct beneficiary of the good that can come from sorrow. Or people can ask why there is so much suffering in the world. From a Christian apologetics standpoint there is no one response that explains, let alone solves, all of the problems connected to suffering. But the Christian response that God has dealt decisively with the problem of human suffering and evil through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ appears to be a far greater explanation than other worldviews offer.
The Gospel offers humankind hope and purpose because the Lord Jesus Christ suffered with us and for us. The historic Christian claim to the believer is that the suffering one endures in this life cannot compare with the glory that will be revealed in the next life.
Read the whole thing at:
Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 1 | Reflections
Given what I've just gone through watching my sister waste away and finally succumbed to the suffering she courageously endured from the cancer that attacked her body, this post carried with it a different feel than when I usually think of theodicy. Dr Samples' article is indeed true. My sister lived it and I witnessed it - God is indeed enough.
Monday, March 12, 2012
FacePlant of the Day - Mis-Defining Faith
Yesterday, John Loftus posted a few article attempting to attack what Christians mean by "faith". He issues the following challenge:I think that John Loftus has no idea how Christians understand faith. His first premise is easy to prove, but the second is silly. The Christian argument is not that atheists have the same kind of faith that Christians do because atheists don't know how to understand what Biblical faith is. Loftus has written several times akin to the following mis-definition of Biblical faith.
Christian theists make two claims about faith: 1) That atheists define the concept of faith wrong, and 2) That atheists have faith just like Christian theists do. So here's my challenge: Define faith in such a way that it fulfills both requirements!
An Open Challenge to Christians About Faith
I've been writing about faith lately, claiming it is an irrational leap over the probabilities. Faith is IrrationalIn short, Loftus keeps arguing that if something is improbable then there isn't any reason to believe it. This is flawed for many reasons but two of the major ones are just because something is improbable does not mean it is also false. And no where in the Bible is believing something that is not true condoned or commanded. The ancients were commended for believing things that were improbable and impossible on the basis of what God said to them and on the evidence of their relationship with God. Not wishful thinking or a shot in the dark. The second premise is flawed because Christians are not arguing that Atheists operate on blind faith but on evidence of past experience and inferences that seem reasonable to them although they may not be able to empirically prove those assumptions and conclusions correct. This is not the definition of Biblical faith.but it is faith such as the world has come to define it. The premiss fail and so does Loftus' arguments.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day by Kayt Sukel
Technology and science have now advanced to the point that disciplines like biology, genetics, epidemiology, evolutionary science, psychology, philosophy, computer science, and medicine have converged into the catchall field of neuroscience. More and more, neuroscientists are demonstrating that the brain is behavior—the two simply cannot be teased apart.
Sukel is author of Dirty Minds: How Our Brains Influence Love, Sex, and Relationships. This reminds me of Helen Fisher's TED talk on Why We Love and Cheat, as well as Jesse Bering on the Klüver-Bucy Syndrome and Nymphomania. I think the days of faith talk, sin talk, and final divine judgment talk are over.
Here is the problem: Loftus and Sukel are arguing that people are hard-wired to cheat on people they love. In other words, sinning isn't something everyone has control over. In other words people are held captive by their own passions and lust. Some people even go as far as arguing that one can't be held accountable for such things beyond their control. John Loftus seems to think that this means that Christian theism is undermined. This isn't true in the slightest. If anything it confirms what the Bible says about sin:
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in 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. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:21-26
And
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. - James 1:13-15
23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:23-25
14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. - James 1:13-15
So in effect Sukel and Loftus are agreeing with the Bible, bringing up the question: Does one have to be enslaved to your own lusts and desires even if they are bad for you? No, you don't. That is why Jesus came and died in your place and raised for your justification.
23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:23-25
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day by Kayt Sukel
The Day we Stopped Dreaming About Tomorrow [Video]
The Day we Stopped Dreaming About Tomorrow [Video]
Calvinistic Cartoons: It Could Happen...
Calvinistic Cartoons: It Could Happen...
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Debunking Christianity: What Would a Secular Translation of the Bible Look Like?
What if one were to translate the Bible according to the same principles as we translate Homer, Aristotle, and Freud? What if we were to translate the Bible regardless of the faith of its potential readership, regardless of any investment in the question of whether the texts are right or wrong, and regardless of how the texts might be used to address contemporary faith? Link
I find the article written by Zeba Crook of Carleton University, Ottawa very good. I think the author is not correct in everything but at least it's clearly written. I wonder if Loftus' definition of "Secular" matches what the author of the article defines as secular. I agree with the author's definition so let's use it:
A secular translation, in contrast, might be backward-looking: it might seek to bring modern readers back in time into the world of these ancient stories and characters. Let me not, at this point, say more than that. Let the rest of this paper be an exploration into what a secular translation might do, and how it might differ (if at all) from a theological translation. Let me say at the outset: there are no easy or obvious answers to the question of what might distinguish a theological from a secular translation.
I would argue that all the good translations attempt to give you what the original text says without bias, but none of them does this perfectly. This is why it's important to consult many translations. The majority of the article attempts to raise examples of how theological concerns trumps good translation in today's main English translations.
1) The perfect example of a translation governed by theological interests relates to Zechariah 11:13 in Christian Bibles, which is often forced to corroborate Matthew’s fourteenth fulfillment formula. Matthew 27:3-10 relates the story of Judas trying to return the money he took for betraying the location of Jesus. After Judas hangs himself, the priests take the money and buy “the potter’s field” as a place to bury foreigners. All this happened, according to Matthew’s fourteenth Fulfillment Formula, because “Jeremiah” foretold it: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded.”
This is one of the more challenging of Matthew’s Fulfillment Formulae. We search in vain in Jeremiah for the prophesied details to this story: in Jeremiah 32:8-10 we find a field being purchased, and some silver pieces (though 17, not 30); in Jeremiah 18:1-3 we find a potter working at his wheel. Perhaps, some have surmised, Matthew had Zechariah in mind despite naming Jeremiah, and indeed at Zechariah 11:12-13 we find thirty pieces of silver, a price being set on someone, and the money being thrown somewhere. The where, in this instance, is the crux of the problem. Matthew claims that the where is “the potter’s field.”The key term in Zechariah is yotzer. The noun derives from the Hebrew verb yatzar, the most common meaning of which refers to the act of shaping something, often clay, and metaphorically to God’s identity as Creator (or “shaper”). Another metaphorical usage is the process of melting metal in a foundry (which also involves creating something by shaping it). And finally, the analogical use of yotzer reaches its most extreme limit when it comes to refer to the treasury, as the place where “shaped” coins are kept. The latter is clearly its meaning in Zech 11:13. As Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer say so forcefully, “there is no discoverable reason why the money should be thrown to the potter in the temple or elsewhere.”3 They argue, quite logically, that the command refers to the temple treasury in this passage.
There is only one explanation then, for why some English translations go with “potter” when translating Zech 11:13: to make it confirm Matthew’s fulfillment formula. Matthew claims that it has been prophesied that money would go to a potter, and though it is found in Zechariah, not Jeremiah, something no translator can change, translators can salvage Matthew’s claim by translating Zechariah in a way that makes no sense in Zechariah, but in a way that supports Matthew’s claim.
There are a number of modern mainstream translations that translate Zechariah so that it corroborates Matthew’s claim (with “potter” for yotzer): American and New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, King James Version, New English Translation, and New International Version, and Today’s New International Version. I draw your attention to the fact that these are not “fringe” Bibles: they are mainstream Bibles. So in this instance, a “secular” translation would go with “treasury” because it makes the most sense in its literary context and because a secular translation cannot be concerned with corroborating Matthew’s fulfillment formula. In other words, the secular translator cannot be concerned with upholding the “truth” of some religious idea.
I would not agree with this point. A secular translation should agree with thoughts and ideas that the original readers would have understood it. From this context, the problem disappears.
"While commenting on
what happened to Judas Iscariot and
his blood money, Matthew introduces a reference to the prophets as part
of his
favorite theme of the fulfillment of Scripture. He clearly cites
Jeremiah as
the prophet who gave the saying, but the saying itself is from Zechariah 11:12–3. Did Matthew make a
mistake?
The
quotation is not entirely a quotation of
Zechariah. The majority of the quotation does come from Zechariah 11:13, but there is a change
from the first person
singular (“” to the third plural (“hey”. Furthermore, there is no field
mentioned in Zechariah (in fact, in Matthew the NSRV
follows the Syriac translation and has “he treasury”instead of “he
potter”because Matthew clearly is not quoting Zechariah about the
location).
Finally, Zechariah does not include the phrase “s the Lord commanded
me.”
Second,
Jeremiah is also involved with potters (Jer
17:1–1; 19:1–3—n
this second passage he purchases something from a potter). Furthermore,
Jeremiah purchases a field (Jer 32:6–5),
although the price is seventeen pieces of silver rather than thirty.
Finally, Jeremiah 13:5 has the
phrase “s the Lord commanded
me”(RSV) (which also has to do with
a
purchase).
In
the first century the Old Testament did not come
as a bound volume with chapters and verses. Instead, the work was a
series of
scrolls. Shorter books were often put together on a single scroll. For
example,
Zechariah would be part of “he Book of the Twelve,”a single scroll
containing
all twelve minor prophets. There were paragraph divisions, but they
were not
numbered. It would be after a.d.
1500 before chapter and verse divisions and numbering were introduced.
That
means that Jesus in Matthew would have cited an Old Testament passage
simply by
the name of the author.
When
it came to interpreting the Old Testament, it
was common to bring passages together based on words they had in common
(this
is the second of Hillel the Elder’ seven rules of interpretation). In
this
case, it is clear that Jeremiah and Zechariah have several words in
common,
especially potter and shekel. Probably potter
is the key
term. As even the English reader might suspect from the information
above, the
quotation in Matthew is really Zechariah mixed with several phrases
taken from
Jeremiah. Again, we need to remember that while this may not be an
acceptable
way of citing Scripture today (although it is still done by accident!),
it was
a perfectly acceptable technique in the Palestine of Matthew’ day.
(Matthew was
probably written in Syria or northern Palestine; he is certainly
focused on the
Jewish community. Thus he reflects the usage of Scripture in such
communities.)
What
we have, then, is Matthew pulling together at
least two texts in Jeremiah with one text in Zechariah to show that
there was a
type of biblical prefiguring of Judas’ actions, down to the amount of
blood
money and the fact that it was given to a potter and was used for the
purchase
of a field. While the logic of this type of exegesis is strange to the
modern
Western way of thinking, it would have been viewed as quite normal in
Matthew’
time. Likewise it was normal for Matthew to cite the more important
prophet,
Jeremiah, despite the fact that most of his material came from
Zechariah. Thus
judged by first-century standards, Matthew is quite accurate and
acceptable in
what he does. [Hard
Sayings of the Bible]
The article then brings up Isaiah 7:14 as a further example.
Precisely the same thing occurs in Isaiah 7:14, which is too well known to detain us for long: Matthew’s first fulfillment formula (1:22-23) relies on the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 7:14, which has parthenos, which means unambiguously “virgin,” whereas the Hebrew of Isaiah has almah, which unambiguously means “young woman.” Of course, in this culture, one hoped that a young woman was a virgin (which possibly explains the Septuagint translator’s decision), but there was a Hebrew word for virgin (betulah) that was not used by Isaiah here, which presumably he would have done if that was what he meant to say. At any rate, my point is not to argue about what Isaiah meant, but to point out that many translations of Isaiah 7:14, like the translations of Zech 11:13, do so in a way that confirms Matthew’s Septuagint-derived fulfillment formula. They go with the Septuagint’s and Matthew’s “virgin” when translating Isaiah 7:14 rather than with “young woman” as it is in the Hebrew original (again, these include mainstream bibles like American Standard Version, New American Bible, New American Standard, and New International Version).
No Dice. The Greek Version of the Isaiah found in the Septuagint was translated by Jewish Rabbis couple centuries before Jesus Christ who had no interest in trying to show that Jesus was born of a virgin but that the Messiah would be. Further, look at the Hebrew for Isaiah 7:14. The word translated "sign" denotes a miraculous quality - something out of the ordinary thereby leading to a conclusion that "virgin" is an acceptable translation not based on theology.
2) Another example of a clearly theologized translation is the universal tendency to translate charis as “grace,” especially when it occurs in an “of God” phrase. Charis is an extremely common word in ancient Greek; its lexical context is ancient Mediterranean patronage and reciprocity, sometimes referring to patronage and reciprocity between humans and sometimes between humans and their gods. The context of patronage and reciprocity accounts for two of the most common uses of charis: to refer to the thing that is given (benefaction or favor), and to refer to the response of the recipient (gratitude). Thus the two most common ways of translating charis ought to be “benefaction” and “gratitude.” Frederick Danker calls charis “a t.t. [technical term] in the reciprocity-oriented world dominated by Hellenic influence.”4In other words, there is nothing unclear about the meaning of this term in its original context: it has to do with ancient patronage.5 But modern translations are more interested in the theological weight of the term and less in its original usage. And here, the theological context is a post-Lutheran understanding of God’s grace, and the central position it comes to have (which came to affect Catholic theology as well). And what is at stake is not just the word one has chosen: the contemporary theological (post-Lutheran) understanding of Grace is that it comes to people from God free of charge, without merit, and with no strings attached. But this could not be further from the Greek meaning and context of charis.In terms of ancient patronage and reciprocity, a benefaction could be earned, could be sought out. It might have at times been unearned, spontaneous, but that quality is not part of what makes it a charis. What makes it a charis (whether it comes from a god or from a human) is that it comes at all, and that the recipient could not have attained it alone. And benefactions do come with strings attached: the recipient is expected to honor and praise the benefactor or patron loudly and publicly. Anything less would be construed as ingratitude: ranked, by Seneca, among the most egregious social diseases.6Here then, a secular translation would not allow the translation of the ancient Greek term charis to be colored by a post-Lutheran theology of grace.
I wonder why the article does not give an example of scripture where an understanding of reciprocity between God and man is shown to better explain what the New Testament says. I can't think of a single Bible text that can be spin this way. The reformers did not make this up. Luther got this teaching from the Bible not the other way around.
3) Another modern translation challenge has to do with gender inclusivity. As a rule, translating for gender inclusivity recognizes the very high likelihood that men and women were present in certain situations. So a translation of adelphoi (which means, literally, “brothers”) that has “brethren” or “brothers and sisters” when a large group is being addressed is entirely fair: since surely there were men and women present. This is surely the case in most of Paul’s uses of adelphoi to address the people hearing his letters. We know there were women in his communities; it is inconceivable that Paul did not think he was addressing them too. This was Schussler-Fiorenza’s seminal point, and I think it is unassailable.
Agreed.
On the other hand, the point of translating for gender inclusivity and neutrality is rarely solely for historical accuracy. For example, the NRSV does not consistently translate adelphoi as “brothers and sisters.” Several times in Galatians, the NRSV uses “friends” for adelphoi. Is this because they felt it was unclear whether Paul wrote adelphoi because that is what he meant? If so, then the translators have not felt comfortable adding “sisters,” but have nonetheless avoided the patriarchalism of the text. One example can suffice: in 1 Cor 11:9, Paul claims that when he was among them in need, he was not a burden because his needs had been met by the adelphoi from Macedonia. Perhaps Paul uses adelphoi because he means adelphoi. It is certainly not as clear here as in other places that Paul would have in mind both men and women. And yet the committee still avoids making Paul look dated and irrelevant by avoiding the androcentric language Paul uses by translating adelphoi as “friends” there.
We know that historically women helped to support Churches by service and finances. I see no reason to think that Women are not included in 1 Cor 11:9. And just because some translations translate it differently doesn't mean that they have some kind of theological ax to grind or trying to play up or hide patriarchalism.
Thus, gender inclusive and gender neutral translation is also useful, theologically, because it hides the strong patriarchalism and androcentricity of the New Testament writers. I think it is a fair guess that the goal of gender inclusive and neutral translations is theological, and not historical: it is to avoid making Christian women feel alienated from their scriptures.
I think it's hard to argue that the New Testament is strongly patriachialistic and man centered given that the New Testament upholds the ontological equality of men and women.
So, how might a “secular critical” translation respond to this? On the one hand, gender inclusive translation makes the text more historically accurate, for it recognizes the almost certain presence of women. On the other hand, it also makes the text less historically accurate, for it hides the androcentricity and patriarchalism of the biblical world. In this way, the motivation of gender inclusive translation is almost certainly theological. Perhaps a secular critical translation ought to have as a modus operandi retention of cultural realism. For example, gender inclusive language, even where the concern is historical, still operates in the service of modern liberal concerns, not ancient ones. If we “correct” the ancient text on issues of sexism, then we would be obligated to correct it as well on issues of factual inaccuracy (such as Mark naming Abiathar as High Priest in 2:26). Modern concerns, whether theological or social, cannot be the concern a secular translator.8
While the ancient world was patriarchal in the culture of the first Christians, you can't really argue that this is the attitude to be picked up from the Bible. Instead of trying to "correct" the ancient text, we should try to "correct:" our attitudes and presuppositions on the text. As an aside, Mark 2:26 was cited by Dr Bart Ehrman as the first text the lead him to doubt the reliability of the Bible because he thought Mark made a mistake, as if in 2000 years no one had ever thought there was a problem and people just threw up their hands and there was no solution. Read Did Jesus make a crucial historical blunder in the Gospel of Mark?
4) My final example pertains to the issue of sexuality, and it revolves around to terms found in 1 Cor 6:9: malakos and arsenokoites. It is the issue I find most challenging to address. It is by far the norm for translation to relate these terms to homosexuality or homosexual behavior in one way or another. Sometimes, translations conflate the two terms, as the old Geneva Bible does colorfully with “buggers.” In addition, the 1985 RSV does so with “sexual perverts”; 1992 Good News with “homosexual perverts”; 1995 God’s Word with “homosexuals”; 2001 English Standard Version with “nor men who practice homosexuality”; 2011 NIV with “men who have sex with men.” As a rule, however, most translations distinguish between the two terms by referring to active and passive homosexual roles: 2004 New Living Translation and 2005 Today’s New International Version with “male prostitutes, or those who practice homosexuality”; 2005 New English Translation with “passive homosexual partners and practicing homosexuals.” The 1989 NRSV has “male prostitutes and sodomites.”
I think this is an example of how translations can become biased. In this section, the article discusses how homosexuality in the Bible. I think that the problem is that people go to extremes. Either to demonize homosexuality as if it is the worst possible thing you could ever do or try to excuse it as just another lifestyle or way living your life. Both are wrong. Even the article's author agrees, reluctantly.
How to translate these terms, the extent to which these translations are theological, and how a secular translation would differ are each complex questions. On the one hand, concerning the first two questions, I would say only this (necessarily briefly): malakos refers to softness. While “softness” includes the act of being penetrated, it is a much broader term than that, including any male who lives extravagantly (Xen, Hiero 1.23; Plutarch Moralia 831B, 136B), who cannot handle hard work (Xen, Memorabilia 1.2.2), who reads too much (Dio Chrysostom Orations 66.25), who has sex with women too much or who seduces other men’s wives or who dresses up in order to attract women (Plautus, Truculentus; Chariton; Pseudo-Aristotle; P. Hibeh 54.11). In other words, most of the things malakos refers to are not in the slightest bit “homosexual.”The problems with how to translate arsenokoites are well-known, owing to the fact that it is a neologism, containing the words for “male” and for “sleeping”: apparently “sleeping together” is a euphemism in many languages in addition to English! It is also clear that many translations of these terms seek to be polite, but perhaps they over-sanitize the language. The possibility should not be overlooked that Paul had no desire to be polite here. Donald Harman Akenson has argued that Paul intended this neologism arsenokoites to carry all the rhetorical force of “butt-fuckers.”9So here is the difficulty I am faced with. On the one hand, people are correct to object to the claim that malakos refers solely to men penetrating men, and people are right to point out that arsenokoites is a neologism, and thus its exact meaning is difficult to know. But some translators and scholars make these points in order to avoid having Paul condemn modern homosexuality. It is a theological agenda meant to disarm Paul, meant to disarm homophobes who use the Bible to justify acts of hatred, prejudice, and violence against homosexuals. It is hard to disapprove of such an agenda, but it misses one very important point: I think it is beyond debate that Paul would have found homosexual behavior extremely objectionable and immoral. Paul was not a 20th century liberal, open-minded metrosexual. Translations that work too hard to hide or deny Paul’s objection to homosexual behavior risk anachronism. For example, I think Dale Martin’s contention that arsenokoites refers not to homosexuality per se but to male homosexual extortion has many historical-critical merits, but I wonder if its intention is to make Paul more pleasing, less alarming, and less alienating to a diverse and modern Christian readership.10
I doubt that the author would agree that Paul and the rest of the New Testament is factually correct and should be used as a guide for living, but at least the author seems willing to let text speak for itself without bias. That is a goal I can get behind.
Debunking Christianity: What Would a Secular Translation of the Bible Look Like?
Thursday, March 8, 2012
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Even Christians Agree That Faith is Opposed to Reason
Yep, that's right. What's all the hullabaloo about? Christians themselves agree with skeptics:
Not all Christians.
Christians have taken an unenthusiastic view of philosophy because there are dangers in it for their faith.
I'm sure Doctors of Philosophy like Gary Habermas. William :Lane Craig, Timothy McGrew, Paul Copan, JP Moreland, and many others would find it hard to believe that they are unenthusiastic about philosophy.
According to Paul in Colossians 2:8, “See no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy.”
Is Paul really throwing Philosophy under the bus? No, unless you wanna argue that all Philosophy is hollow and deceptive? No? I wouldn't. But maybe John Loftus would given that his philosophy is hollow and deceptive.
Jesus purportedly said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.” (Luke 10:21).
Again, Jesus does not say that philosophy or reason is bad. He is saying that God chose to give truth to people who have not been educated instead of people who think they have the truth because they think they have been looking for it.
Paul wrote, “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? . . . For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:18–25).
Paul is correct. Again wisdom and reason are not said to be evil or to be shunned. The Bible never says that. Paul is writing about how you can't get to God based on your own intellect.
Tertullian (160–220 CE) asked: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” In words reminiscent of Søren Kierkegaard, Tertullian wrote of the incarnation of Jesus by saying, “Just because it is absurd, it is to be believed . . . it is certain because it is impossible.” Martin Luther called reason “the Devil’s Whore.” As such, reason “can do nothing but slander and harm all that God says and does.” William Lane Craig agrees with Luther’s viewpoint. He argues that “reason is a tool to help us better understand our faith. Should faith and reason conflict, it is reason that must submit to faith, not vice versa.” Immanuel Kant said that he “found it necessary to deny knowledge of God…in order to find a place for faith.”
I don't have the time to discuss this scattershot approach in suggesting that Tertullian, Martin Luther, William Lane Craig, and Immanuel Kant all think/thought that reason should be thrown out in favor of faith But let's look at that whole quote from Martin Luther.
Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.:”
And try this one
But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.:”(Note that at present I have not verified this citation, which I found in a secondary source. That source gave the following attribution: Martin Luther’s Last Sermon in Wittenberg … Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17 January 1546. Dr. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. [Weimar: Herman Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1914], Band 51:126, Line 7ff)”:
I found a great site that discusses what Martin Luther meant. Read it here by Tim Enloe. Enloe observes
We can neither prove nor disprove that reason is reliable, because all attempts to prove or disprove it would have to use it to make their arguments. Reason, defined as our basic human rational ability, is literally the standard by which we determine whether a thing is true or false. We have to just accept its reliability because without it we cannot think at all – let alone think that reason is unreliable!
This is the type of theology that Luther was referring to when he spoke of “reason” proudly presuming to tell us what God requires of us for salvation. This is why in one place he railed against what he called “the accursed fictions of Aristotle,” and in another place of how “this damned, conceited, rascally heathen [Aristotle] has with his false words deluded and made fools of so many of the best Christians. God has sent him as a plague upon us for our sins.”
Let me close this short treatment with one of the clearest citations of Luther’s view of reason, from the 1522 Postil for Epiphany on Isaiah 60:1-6:
In temporal affairs and those which have to do with men, the rational man is self-sufficient…here he needs no other light than reason’s. Therefore, God does not teach us in the Scriptures how to build houses, make clothing, marry, wage war, navigate, and the like. For here the light of nature is sufficient. But in godly affairs, that is, in those which have to do with God, where man must do what is acceptable with God and be saved thereby – here, however, nature is absolutely stone-blind, so that it cannot even catch a glimpse…of what those things are. It is presumptuous enough to bluster and plunge into them, like a blind horse; but all its conclusions are utterly false, as surely as God lives.Note the two sides of reason for Luther in this quote. In temporal affairs, that is, affairs having to do only with man’s earthly life, human reason is sufficient and no other light is needed. However, on “those things which have to do with God” and man’s salvation, nature, and therefore, man’s natural reason is “stone-blind” and “cannot even catch a glimpse” of the truth.
It should be clear, then, that when Luther called reason “the Devil’s Whore,” he was not being an irrational fool or exempting himself from criticism by the basic standards of logic. The “reason” that Luther identifies as “the Devil’s Whore” is not basic human standards of logic, but the intrusion into the things of God by a certain mode of doing theology.
There is something wrong with any belief system that needs to disparage reason like this. To read what skeptics say see here.
Agreed there is something wrong with such a belief system. Disaraging reason is stupid because you in doind so you are using bad reasoning. Fortunately, Biblical Christianity is not like that.
Debunking Christianity: Even Christians Agree That Faith is Opposed to Reason
First Look: Armie Hammer As The Lone Ranger And Johnny Depp As Tonto
First Look: Armie Hammer As The Lone Ranger And Johnny Depp As Tonto
Infographic: Two Years Later, Where Are the Haitian Recovery Funds? - News - GOOD
According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 60 aid groups have raised $2.1 billion for recovery efforts since the earthquake in Haiti two years ago. But a significant fraction of that money has yet to be spent, while half a million Hatians remain living in displacement camps and a cholera epidemic has killed more than 7,000 people.
Infographic: Two Years Later, Where Are the Haitian Recovery Funds? - News - GOOD
Where Bacteria Meets The Matrix: Wastewater Could Provide Electricity to Clean Itself Up - Environment - GOOD
Where Bacteria Meets The Matrix: Wastewater Could Provide Electricity to Clean Itself Up - Environment - GOOD
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
A Tribute To my Sister - Chauming
My sister, Chauming was born September 18, 1961 in
California to Clarence and Barbara Allen McElhaney Sr. She was one of the most
generous, loving, kind, intelligent people I have ever known in my life. She
was educated in the Oakland Public Schools, graduating from Oakland High School in 1979, but despite that she
earned a Bachelors of Science degree in Nursing from California State
University Hayward (now called Cal State East Bay) in 1984. Chaum was a
registered nurse for many years. She endured many challenges and grew as a
woman and professionally throughout her life. Much of her career was spent at
Kaiser Permanente Hospitals working as a Maternity Nurse or an Advice Nurse and several other departments. Chauming wasn’t just an intellectual. She was
an artist and a musician and and a singer.
Unfortunately, after fighting pancreatic cancer for several
months courageously with the support of family and friends, she died peacefully
March 1st 2012. She leaves behind her parents, 4 brothers and their
wives, three children – Shekhiynah, Pardes, and Gregory, and more family and
friends that have been blessed beyond measure with having had known her and
loved her and been loved by her.
There is so much that should be said. Chaum will never be
forgotten. She has sown good seed in so many lives and God blessed her to be
able to see and feel the results of the
service she had so fully rendered to others. There is not a single person that
knew her that did not benefit from selflessness. She was blessed during the last few months of
her life with family and friends coming to see her, some from all over the
country, so that they could tell her face-to-face how much she means to
them.
All of us who knew her have stories of her . You can tell yours, here are some of mine. I
couldn’t begin to express all that I am grateful for that God has given me
through Charm, but there are a few that just come to my mind when I think of
her. I am her little brother and I love
her very much. She was accused often of spoiling me. And she would admit that
she did. I’ll be honest , she did. And I wouldn’t trade her for anything.
Chaum already had an older brother , Clarence Jr, and a
younger brother, Vincent, and when Chaum was a young teenager she ached for a
little sister, but instead she got two knuckle-headed brothers . I was the first of these new brothers she was
stuck with. To make up for us not being
a girls, my mother allowed Chaum to pick our first names. She was so good at picking names. She named me “Marcus” and our youngest brother “Maurice”. I love my name and I told her that as often as
I could. When I was a baby , our mother found her crushing pomegranate seeds
into paste so she could spoon feed it to me. When our mother asked her why she
was doing it, Chaum replied, “But Mommy, he likes it.” Chaum always made me
feel wanted and helped our parents in my upbringing. My parents never made my older siblings take
care of me or watch me when they didn’t want to. She used to even take me with her when she
went to get her hair done sometimes. I
didn’t mind because I was with her. When
my older siblings took me with them to
see the first Star Trek movie, it was Chaum’s lap I was sitting in. One of her
first jobs while she was in High School
was working in a toy store at Eastmont Mall and she brought me home a
new toy almost every day. Another thing
that comes to mind is when I was in the 2nd grade, Chaum used to sometimes pick me up from
school. One day another student stole my homework, erased my name and put his
on it. I was punished for not doing my homework, but by the end of the day they realized the mistake but didn’t do
anything to correct it. I was very upset and when Chaum came to get me I told
my big Sister. She had me wait in in her car, she went and…handled the
situation. Did she spoil me? Yes. Don’t
be mad, just because she loved me.
Chaum also taught me so much. It was through her, I learned
to read and not just learning the skill but learned to love to read and to
learn. She, like my other older siblings
and parents, used to read books to me.
She once read the entire first 2 books
of the Bible to me and Maurice over a
few weeks time while we sat in her lap. I watched her and learned from her how
important God is. I saw God working
through her life and blessing her and
guiding her. She was the first person I personally knew show interest in the
original languages of the Bible and not
just English Translations. I can
literally remember Chaum typing her college papers on typewriter and working so
hard. She even worked at a bank and other jobs while she was in college. She and my elder brothers made college not
only seem possible but inevitable. I could reason: Chaum made it , I can too. I
hope she knew just how motivating and helpful that was to me. Chaum would always encourage and show me so
much love, even when I made mistakes and messed up. I’ve seen her give to the poor and help others in need when ever she had the
opportunity. It’s this God-given gift for service that I believe drove her to
become a nurse. She not only wanted to help others but she wanted to glorify
God with her life. And she did.
Starting in 1986, Chauming moved to Southern California. I
remember the year, because Chaum left home the day after my 11th
Birthday party. I thought I was going to
be sick. But as always she went out her way to show me how much she loved
me. She not only stayed for the party
but helped our Mom and played games and
entertained the guests. Chaum continued
her career down there in Southern California.
I confess I was a child during most of that time and I don’t know everything that happened I do remember she’d call home to talk to me and
she did come home to visit from time-to-time. The one thing that comes to mind
that I know that happened to her once was a patient, whom was racist, was in
distress but would not let Chaum touch him. ME, I would’ve probably let him
die. I think most people would
have. But Chaum was better than most of
us. She got other nurses and doctors to
help and just stood by in case she was needed.
In 1990, Chauming returned to Oakland. She faced one of the greatest challenges of
her life. God saw her through a health scare. She was diagnosed with a hyper
thyroid and the medical field told her that she had to undergo radiation
therapy or she would die. She realized that God had directed her to use a holistic
treatment and diet change. She recovered. I saw the power God. We all did.
Chaum used that experience along with medical training and experience to help
everyone who would listen to her and what she learned about eating and living
more healthy.
In 1997, Chaum became a mother for the first time. Her three
children were not just a blessing to her but to everyone who knows them. They are just like their mother: intelligent,
awesome, and beautiful. There is so much
that can be said, I can’t tell it all but I want to make it clear that Chaum’s
life from beginning to end, is nothing but a gift from God. In Vietmanese
“Chauming” means “precious” and she was precious to everyone who’s life she
touched. If you thought Chaum spoiled me when I was child you should know some
of the things she did that blessed me even after I grew up. One of Chaum’s
customs was to run interference for anyone she knew needed an advocate in a
medical setting. For example she came all the way from Oakland to Vallejo so
she could be present at the births of both of my children being familiar with
Kaiser maternity policies. She could ask the questions I couldn’t and made sure
my Wife, Mitsouky, and our babies got the best care possible. She didn’t just do that me . She was there at
many a cousin’s birth, or her neices or nephews. She was always quick to point out when
someone was not getting the care they deserved as a patient – strangers included.
In Chaum’s final days, she experienced so much pain and
suffering, but despite that she kept being more concerned for her parents,
children, siblings, family, and friends.
She made sure we were okay. I can’t express how much I appreciate all the
people – her friends and family – who helped my parents care for Chaum. People helped her by bringing food for her and family, cleaning
the house, sitting with her, gave
her medication, and so many other things. God blessed her so
much that I am certain that she knew she was loved just as much we all know she
loved us. She would lay in bed and use everything she had to try to get well.
She did the best she could and prayed. But she had the correct attitude: She knew our God was able to heal her, but she
would serve him even if he does not. She taught me throughout my life to trust
God no matter what happens. She not only taught me that in word, she modeled
that for me in deed. She desired to hear
a song often during those days: It Is Well With My Soul. That was her
testimony. When all things were shaken.
When she was at death’s door – that was her testimony. She died peacefully in our mother's arms with this song playing in the background.
What will we say to this? The most important thing to Chaum
in life was to lead people to Christ. There are many people God used to bring
me to Himself. Chaum is one of those.
She trusted God and watching God take of Her, taught me to desire the
same kind of relationship with God from a young age. This faith, these facts, help me and comfort
me even in this time. A time in which I had hoped to never really see, a world
without Chauming in it. I can hold to
the same hope she held to. Scripture comforts me and sustains me as it did her.
13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. - 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
23 “Oh, that my words were recorded,
that they were written on a scroll,
24 that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead,
or engraved in rock forever!
25 I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me! – Job 19:23-27
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Does Morality Come From God?
Written by J. M. Green for DC:
Since becoming an atheist, one of things that I hear over and over from Christians is that I now have no basis for morality because morality only comes from their god and their Bible. They claim ownership of true, unchanging morality and yet the Bible they revere sends conflicting messages.Let's take a look at this his examples and see if he can substantiate the charge of Biblical contradiction.
Consider these examples:13 “You shall not murder.- Exodus 20:!3
Murder is wrong… if God orders it however, then murder is right, and failing to murder is a sin.
Exodus 20:13 versus 1 Samuel 15:1, 7-11
7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.- 1 Samuel 15:7-11
19 God is not human, that he should lie,Lying is wrong... but, if God orders or sanctions it, then it is right.
Numbers 23:19 versus Ezekiel 14:9
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill? - Numbers 23:19
6 “Therefore say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!
7 “‘When any of the Israelites or any foreigner residing in Israel separate themselves from me and set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet to inquire of me, I the LORD will answer them myself. 8 I will set my face against them and make them an example and a byword. I will remove them from my people. Then you will know that I am the LORD.
9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. 10 They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. 11 Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign LORD.’”- Ezekiel 14:6-11
Reading is Fundamental 101: If there seems to be a contradictions, find the context. Yes, the Bible does teach that lying is a sin. God does not lie. Ezekiel 14:9 does not tell us that God lies. It says that God will allow the prophet to think that they are giving a good prophet and it would cause that false prophet to be cut off because being a false prophet would a capital offense in Ancient Israel because it amounted to lying on God. God is promising to expose liars not condoning lying. Fail number 2.
22 The LORD detests lying lips,Proverbs 12:22 versus Genesis 12:10-20
but he delights in people who are trustworthy. - Proverbs 12:22
10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe. 11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.”
14 When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman. 15 And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels.
17 But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai. 18 So Pharaoh summoned Abram. “What have you done to me?” he said. “Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!” 20 Then Pharaoh gave orders about Abram to his men, and they sent him on his way, with his wife and everything he had.- Genesis 12:10-20
Okay. So because Abram lied about his wife being his sister, Green thinks that the Bible contradicts itself about lying being bad. No where is Abram's actions in this condones or prescribed as what God desires from us to do. Get real. That passage reports what Abram did and why, showing us that Abram is just as fallible as the rest of us - not that it's okay to lie. Failure number 3.
Link to the scripturesChildren must honor their mother and father… but not according to Jesus.
Exodus 20:12 versus Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26, John 2:1-5
Seriously? None of these scriptures say Do not honor mother and father. Let's look at the one of them cited that might be mistaken by Green.
26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
Do you think that God expects you to hate your life? No. So why think that Jesus is saying to hate your spouse, siblings, children, or parents? Nope that's stupid. Jesus is talking about making following him our highest priority and not use your responsibilities as an excuse for not obeying Him. I'll be generous and count this as one fail and not 4 because he misrepresented 4 scriptures.
There is no contradiction. Genesis 22 is not about Abraham sacrificing his Son to appease an idol It was symbolic of how God would really go through sacrificing His son. Abraham didn't need to go through with it. As for Jephthah in Judges11, God didn't tell him to make a human sacrifice. Now is there any condoning of his rash vow. He stands as an example that no one should make rash vows. As for 2nd Samuel 21 and Numbers 25, neither of these cases involved sacrificing people to some deity. They are both examples of a public execution to expatiate crimes. Failure number 5Human sacrifice is wrong… however, if God orders or sanctions it, it is right.
Leviticus 18:21 versus Genesis 22:1-15; Judges 11:29-38; 2 Samuel 21:1-14; Numbers 25:3-4
Stealing other people’s property is wrong… unless if God orders it.Link
Exodus 20:15 versus Exodus 3:22
So according to Green, asking someone for valuable things and they give them to you is the same as stealing. It's not. Failure number 6
Breaking the Sabbath is a sin punishable by death… but, if Jesus or his disciples decide to break the Sabbath, then it is OK.Link
Exodus 31:13-15 versus Matthew 12:1-8
I find it amazing that Green makes the same mistake as the Jews had accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath.I think Jesus answered this charge best. He said:
Hmmmm. No where did he say to Jews "Go ahead and break the Sabbath". Failure number 7
7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” - Matthew 12:7
Killing an unborn child or a baby is wrong… unless God orders it.Link
Hosea 13:16; Isaiah 15:9,16-18; Ezekiel 9:6; Deuteronomy 2:33-34; 1 Samuel 15:3
None of these passages are commands to kill unborn children or babies - for the reasons that people abort children today. In these cases, entire cities were destroyed in Acts of war and in judgment for sin. There was no pronouncement that it was okay to murder babies and children. That's what clinical abortion is for if you want that. Failure number 8.
Taking another man’s wife is wrong… unless God decrees it.Link
Exodus 20:17 versus Isaiah 13:16; 2 Samuel 12:7,11
Green makes another mistake. No where do these verses say that Adultery is good. The Bible reports and condemns David's adultery. No where does the Bible condone rapes but it does tells us that it's consequence of sin. We are never told, that it's pleasing and honorable to God. No contradiction. Failure number 9.
Making a graven image is wrong… unless God orders it.Link
Deuteronomy 4:15-18; Exodus 20:4 versus Numbers 21:6-9; Exodus 25:18; 1 Kings 7:29; 1 Kings 6:27-28
Is all images that people make "graven"? No. A graven image is something made by people specifically for the purpose of worshiping it. None of the things commanded to be made in Numbers 21:6-9; Exodus 25:18; 1 Kings 7:29; and 1 Kings 6:27-28 had anything to do with worshiping them. Failure number 10.
Cannibalism is wrong… unless God decides to inflict it on people.Link
Deuteronomy 28:53; Jeremiah 19:9; Ezekiel 5:8-10
Judgment is usually not pretty. God does not enjoy punishing us. However when we suffer for our sins, it's not that God causes the suffering. Instead he just doesn't prevent the harm that is coming. Israel is a good example. They were always on the edge of being conquered. Just like today, the only way they stayed a recognizable nation is because of God. protecting them. Failure number 11.
Punishing an innocent party for the sins of another is wrong… unless God decrees it.Link
2 Kings 14:6 versus Exodus 20:5; 2 Samuel 12:7-15; Genesis 12 (Abram lies, but Pharaoh is punished)
No one is good and innocent to the point that they deserve no punishment. These scriptures that are raised to provoke thoughts of a contradiction is truly sad. For example: Do you really think that the Pharaoh in Genesis 12 had never taken another man's wife and killed him? I mean do you really think that Abram's fear of being killed and his wife taken was for no reason? I doubt it was the first time. Pharaoah deserved the punishment. Failure number 12
Rape is wrong… unless God commands it.Link
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 versus Numbers 31:15-18; Isaiah 13:16; Zechariah 14:2
No. God does not command or condone rape. It's a lie. It's not in the Bible. Read the passages for yourself. It's not okay to rape. I've posted on Rape in the Bible before. Rather than rehash it, here is a linke for more on rape: here.
Clearly, the Bible does not show objective morality. ‘Biblical morality’ is situational, based on the arbitrary whims of Yahweh. According to the stories found in the Bible, God may command us to do things we would consider morally wrong. If he commands such things, then the fact that he commands them makes them right (according to the Christian belief system). If we fail to carry out his commands, then we are sinning and rebelling against God.
Here is where we find out where Green really goes off the rails. YHWH's commands are far from arbitrary or whimsical and he fails to demonstrate that it is. What Green further fails to understand is that God will not just command anything.He does not command people to sin.
Ultimately, determining what God wants is based on the subjective thoughts, and emotions of fallible human beings. If someone thinks that God is telling her/him to do something and there are biblical examples of God ordering people to do similar actions, then what Christian can tell them they are wrong? The Bible shows us that at any moment, for some mysterious hidden purpose, God may overturn our instinctive moral knowledge, and even contradict things that he has previously said.
This is not even true. Green failed to show that God contradicts himself in the Bible. You can know if you are really hearing from God or not by just comparing what you think you are hearing with the Bible. If there is a conflict than you know it's not God. This means you have to know the Bible. Green demonstrates that he does not.
‘Objective’ biblical morality is nothing more than each believer determining what they think God wants in a given situation, based on their own thoughts, and their understanding of the Bible and how God may be ‘leading’ them, through signs, inner impressions, and voices.
There is only one God. God won't tell me something and then tell someone else the exact opposite. If you think you cannot find out God's will for your life then you might as well throw the whole thing out...like Green does. People like to pretend that the Bible is unreliable or not understandable to a strong enough degree to know anything about God but that's not true.
In light of the biblical story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac in response to God’s horrific command, no Christian can ever be certain that God would not require them to take a course of action which to them seems immoral, in order to demonstrate their faith.
Was Abraham required to go through with it? No. Is there a single case in the Bible of anyone having to do that because God told them to do that? No. Therefore we know that God would never tell someone do that. On top of that, Abraham's experience was not so that God could know if Abraham would obey, but that Isaac symbolized Christ.
For example, if a pregnant woman is suddenly under the strong impression that God wants her to get an abortion, the only way she can demonstrate her faith and trust in God is by proceeding to have an abortion. There is no arguing with the ‘inner leading’ or ‘voice’. Whatever Yahweh wants must be obeyed, even when it flies in the face of reason and morality. Unfortunately, people have acted upon such ‘divine guidance’ impulses, with horrific and deadly results.
There is no reason to think that God would ever ask a woman to get an abortion. If someone told me that God told them to have an abortion, I would ask them how can they support that in the Bible and because they can't the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are either mistaken or lying on God.
Consider the following chilling examples:
Yeah, lets:
Mom: God Told Me To Kill My Baby
August 17, 2001|By Gabriel Margasak
PALM CITY — "Just like Jesus raised Lazarus, I threw the baby on the stones ...
In the Bible, a believer cannot be possessed by a demon. Demons can be exorcised by prayer and fasting. The Bible does not teach that only certain people can cast out a demon. The power is God's and not the exorcist.
Those were the words of a 21-year-old mother charged with murdering her 8-month-old son.
Jennifer Cisowski's statements, along with prosecutors' statements and court documents released this week, tell the story of a morning fraught with biblical references, feared demonic possession and pleas for exorcism that ended in death…
In the days before the baby's death... Jennifer and Christopher were "completely normal and doting parents" to their only child.
But something happened at 2 a.m. Tuesday: Awake in the deepest of night, Jennifer and Christopher began a conversation about faith and how she believed God spoke to her.
"Essentially at some point in time, she becomes convinced that he [the father] is possessed by some demonic spirit and wants Tabitha to exorcise the demons," prosecutor Tom Bakkedahl said. "She believed only her sister could exorcise the demons from him."
Jennifer told investigators a "spirit" voice told her to harm the baby as a test of faith, according to court documents. "She said she knew that it was wrong to harm the baby, but that the `spirit' voice assured her that the baby would be returned from the dead," the documents state. "Just like Jesus raised Lazarus, I threw the baby on the stones by the pool," she told investigators.So....the Bible says that there are other spirits and when you hear one of them, test it by the word of God. Jesus was tempted by satan and satan tried to use scripture by twisting it and taking it out of context. It's the same thing that this woman experienced, however she listened instead of resisting the devil. God would not ask someone to do that today. We ain't Abram.
"She is told allegedly by these voices to throw her baby down on the ground and he will be healed," Bakkedahl said. "She was of the opinion it was God speaking to her."
We have no excuse.
"At first the child cried, but then became silent," Jennifer told detectives…
Obeying The Law of God
On July 1, 1999, brothers Matthew and Tyler Williams murdered a gay couple, Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, in their home near Sacramento, California.
“In his account of the murders, Tyler Williams said that his brother did not consider the killing of Matson and Mowder to be murder, but a "judgement" instead.[15]
In November 1999 Matthew Williams began giving interviews to various media outlets. In an interview with The Sacramento Bee, he admitted to the murders and said that when he killed Matson and Mowder he was "obeying the law of God." Williams said that he committed the murders because he believed their homosexuality violated God's laws, and he hoped his actions would incite more killings. [16]
Williams insisted that his actions did not constitute murder. Because the Bible holds that homosexuality is a sin that must be punished by death, he claimed, the responsibility lies with the victims. Williams expressed regret that more "people who claim to be Christians" didn't "have the guts" to act as he had. Facing the possibility of execution, he said he hoped to become a "Christian martyr" whose death would inspire others to lash out against Jews, homosexuals, and other minorities.
Dumb. Dumb. Know how we can tell Williams was lying on God? He wants to inspire violence against Jews. The Jews are God's chosen people. Why would God want us to hate Jews or anyone? Simple: He doesn't.
God Told Me To Kill Boys, Says Mother
By David Usborne
Saturday, 3 April 2004
A Texas woman who stoned two of her children to death and seriously injured a third on Mother's Day last year told psychiatrists she was driven to kill by a message from God and that she was sure they would rise again from the dead.In this last example, Deanna Laney’s lawyer makes some insightful observations which have bearing on the whole question of ‘biblical morality’.
Jurors in the trial of 39-year-old Deanna Laney watched a gruelling video-tape made just days after the murders in which she told a prison psychologist, Phillip Resnick, that she felt she had no choice but to bludgeon her children.
"I felt like I obeyed God and I believe there will be good out of this," she explained in the interview, looking wide-eyed and sometimes smiling. "I feel like he will reveal his power and they will be raised up. They will become alive again."
"The dilemma she faced is a terrible one for a mother," Files said. "Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"
Files said he would present witnesses who would corroborate Laney's love of her children as well as her belief "that the word of God was infallible."
"It destroyed her ability to discern the wrongness of her act," he said.
When you serve a god who must be obeyed unquestioningly, and follow a morality which is based on the momentary whims of this god, then you must prove your faith and loyalty by acting on your subjective impressions of what your god wants. There is a diagnosis for this condition. We call it mental illness. In the case of religion, it is an artificially-induced mental illness.
The Bible does not destroy our ability to discern the wrongness or rightness of an action. It's basically wrong to kill your children. We all agree with that and the Bible teaches that. You don't need "subjective impressions" to figure out what God wants. The Bible is clear enough without looking for things no one else believes. I find that most cults and heresies start with people having subjective and private revelations that contradict the Bible. All three examples Green raises demonstrate this. God would not a person to kill their children and make them go through with it. There is no example in the Bible nothing one can appeal to.
By J. M. Green
Debunking Christianity: Does Morality Come From God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)