The Richard Dawkins website today published a post that contains an email sent out to members of a Church. This particular email was regarding the Church’s new drive to combat so called “militant atheists”, although they weren’t educated enough to call them such. It’s all fairly standard stuff really, and I’m sure many of you would have seen things like this before, albeit as flyers in local shops and suchlike. Thankfully, they include a free copy of “Skeptics Answered” by “Dr” James Kennedy, a book that’s already been wildly discredited.
However, this email did flabbergast me. In it lies the following:
Jesus said, “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42 NKJV).
Now, I’ve posted ridiculous bible quotes here before, but I missed this one. It begs three questions. Firstly, if I was a Christian, would this justify me drowning somebody who tried to teach my children an alternative way of thinking? It sounds like it. Secondly, how can Christians “love” a “person” who shows such contempt for those who do not share his point of view? Could you see President Bush telling his supporters to drown and kill anyone who was going to vote for the other guy? Ok, bad example. But can you imagine the uproar? Yet in the Bible, it’s fine. Par for the course.
The third question, and this really tells me allot about the proponents of Christianity, why wouldn’t you question someone who tells you not to question them? If a scientist came to me and said “I’ve discovered how to travel through time, but I can’t prove it, and anyone who questions me should be punished” I would be immediately suspicious. In fact, I would challenge them as hard as possible. Yet, the Bible makes claims, amazing claims that can’t be proved, and then threatens those who don’t believe those claims. Why are people not challenging it? It ASTOUNDS me.
It does not say I would like him to die… It says that it would be better for you than to cause anyone to stumbe because you are, simply put: Condemning your self.
It is an advise. He is not condemning you but you are yourself.
I am so sorry 4 all off you that know the word off God. (If you only were ignorant to it.)
And still you do not accept him. And futher more comndemn yourselfs… But you still have time to regret…
I know you are laughing right now but look in your heart. You know the truth. And you still have time.
And he still loves you.
I think you’ve raised a very important point, X, albeit inadvertently. See, that passage of the bible has been interpreted completely differently. How do you know that your interpretation is the right one? The simple fact is, you don’t. And that’s true for the entire bible, and all other “holy books”. Language is ambiguous, especially when it’s been translated between dialects.
I also think you’ve missed the point of my argument. If I was your father, brother, son, Jesus would rather me drown than teach those around me the truth, that there is no God. Doesn’t that worry you? This great being you believe in wants to drown people who dare to point out alternative beliefs? Do you have any idea what the implications of that are? If it were enforced, there would be no freedom of thought, no freedom of expression and no freedom of speech. You would HAVE TO believe and what the law told you. Hmm, sounds like Iran, doesn’t it?
Come on, Atheist, just be reasonable. Surely you have read enough of the Gospel to realise that Christ often uses hyperbole. (Like “if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off”) – in fact when fundamentalists through history have done just that, the whole Christian world has condemned it. You don’t have to be a genius to understand this. It’s not just that “X” has interpreted it to suit themself, but the quite plain message that it is a tragedy to be led away from the truth of the Gospel message.
Which leads me to a point I find rather more interesting: your assertion that there is no God is “the truth”. I would love you to give me your reasons for believing this so utterly. If you sound credible, I’m willing to be ‘converted’.
How do you know that your interpretation is the right one?
We need to read the bible in context. Who wrote it and to whom are they writing to? Read scripture in light of scripture.
Jonathan, I ask you what’s more reasonable, to believe in the immaculate conception, an invisible imperceptible being who created everything and a man who can perform miracles, but not believe that families should be drowned, and hands cut off because they sinned – or – to not believe any of it?
I’m genuinely interested in why you accept some parts of the Bible are hyperbole, fables, stories not to be believed and teachings not to be obeyed, whereas other equally fantastical parts are to be taken, pardon the phrase, as “gospel”? This is something I cannot get over, and I’m yet to hear any Christian clearly explain why they chose to believe certain parts of their holy book, but not other parts? And remember that not too many years ago, those fundamentalists were just normal practising Christians, it is our society that has changed and, it would seem, Christian’s interpretation of the Bible has changed with it.
Seriously, I’m genuinely intrigued.
Are you being serious? My wife often says to our children to their delight: “You are so delicious I could eat you!” Why do you think that this doesn’t terrify them? And yet when she says: “I love you” to them they don’t doubt it for a second.
It is context. There is a whole science about the interpretation of texts (called exegesis) and applies to any text, not just a religious one. It is a favourite atheist game to pull a text out of context (and that includes historical context) for amusement, which is fine with me – they do indeed sound funny when looked at this way. However, some seem to think that they are actually making a real point when they do it. I thought you preferred science to wild guesses…