Many Atheists, myself included, point to the ambiguities, contradictions and inaccuracies in the holy books as evidence for a lack of a perfect God. After all, if God can’t convey his thoughts and instructions in a clear, consistent and unambiguous way, then why should he be followed at all?  For many people who see the world through from a logical perspective, basing your entire view of reality on such an unreliable source would be madness.
Apparently, theists don’t quite follow that logic. Â A recent article in the Washington Post has highlighted the way some Christians approach the Bible, in particular the inconsistencies found within.
Some scholars “get fixated on some of the marginal issues about who was where and when,” said Craig Evans, professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia.
In the Gospels, “the discrepant witnesses are allowed to stand side by side, and I think that’s a strength in the end, not a weakness. But the naive reader — the person beguiled by the notion that discrepancies somehow cast doubt on the truth of the entire report — might not know that,” Evans said.
There are two alarming aspects to that quote. Â Craig Evans seems to think that having a book with inconsistencies in it is a strength, rather than a weakness. Â It’s also alarming that he treats this wholly misguided opinion as fact and suggests that less knowledgeable people may not know that inaccurate sources are better than accurate ones. Â Note that he uses the word “know” rather than “believe” or “think”.
The implication that those who demand consistency and unambiguity are “naive” seems particularly irrational and disingenuous.
The obvious response, and one that’s been thrown around in faith discussions for some time, is “how do you know which bits to believe?” Â In this case, I’d like to propose a different approach for dealing with Professor Evans. Â Let’s accuse him of something criminal and make him stand in front of a judge and jury. Â Then, let’s parade witnesses in front of said judge and jury, some of which are to lie with the aim of incriminating the good Professor. Â And furthermore, let’s tell the judge and jury that they should treat the lying witnesses with more respect than the ones telling the truth. Â Maybe this scenario will hammer home the reality of just how mind-numbingly stupid his statement is.
Professor Evans and his ilk are not demonstrating faith in these cases, they are demonstrating delusion and a complete failure to utilise the logical capacity of their brains.
The ones who deny that Allah exists are deluded; There are no discrepancies in the Torah, Bible or the Quran. The Quran confirms what was sent before it. Unfortunately the previous books were changed and altered by men and are prone to ‘mistakes’, however the fact remains that it was revealed to man by God. If you are so sure that the Quran could have come from a man (an illiterate man) than you have to prove this. No one has to prove the existence of the Almighty God who they are aware of. The proof is the Creation of the heavens and the earth and the alteration of night and day. Those who are AWARE know that HE is there, Those who are to preoccupied or choose to hide believe that they can escape his Might.
Read the Quran and prove that Allah didnt send it – dont rely on make-belief excuses either.
If you were in a room and someone entered in your presence, you would only notice them if you were aware or you had some senses to indicate like hearing or seeing, if you chose to ignore them or were unable to perceive them would that mean those who knew someone was present were deluded??? it would then be near enough impossible for any to convince you that a man was standing near you because you have chose to believe he isn’t there.
That is why in Islaam we say that whoever Allah guides none can misguide and who whoever is led astray there is none to guide (except Allah).
Most arguments are futile, will you spend your whole life trying to convince yourself and others that The One who created you from a drop of semen doesn’t exist? A believer loves science as it only strengthens their belief in the Almighty, in The Originator and The Lord of everything that exists.
I hope you find your way and realise what a delusion truly is. You would be better off not believing anything but you choose to ‘believe’ that God doesn’t exist.
so you have faith an are more erroneous in your belief than those who say Allah begot a son or than those who assign divinity to other than Allah. They at least acknowledge He created them.
If you read the “God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins you would realise that the Quran and the Torah are chalked full of inconsistincies and untruths, even more so then the bible. As for your “God”, read the old testament then tell me he’s not a mean and vicious god, someone who toys with humanity is someone I want no part of! Get your head out of the clouds and wake up for christs sake!!
“That is why in Islaam we say that whoever Allah guides none can misguide and who whoever is led astray there is none to guide (except Allah).”
This is contradictory. How can a man who is ‘led by Allah’ be ‘led astray’ if the statement ‘whoever Allah guides non can misguide’ is true?
Surely you are already ‘led astray’ by believing this statement.
“The Quran confirms what was sent before it.”
If this was true then Muslims would believe in Jesus as God’s Son, as the Bible is God’s Word and Jesus’ teachings are very specific on showing love and He has said many times that He is the only way to the Father. Also, the God in the Torah and the Bible did not force anyone to believe in Him or force them to worship Him in a certain way or pray to Him so many times a day. The Christian God (the ONE AND ONLY God) gives us a choice, and free-will. We can worship Him any way we want to, we can pray whenever we want to and we dont even have to go to Church to be a Christian (although it is a good way to grow spiritualy). For non-believers, they chose the choice of not believing in Him. That was THEIR CHOICE! They didnt get killed because they didnt believe (like so many ex-muslims have been).
When I asked my Muslim friend if God has ever spoken to Him, he answered, “Are you mad, God cant speak!”. I was shocked at that answer because, how can you say that God created EVERYTHING but He can’t speak… Doesn’t make sense because when God created everything, He did it with one WORD.
Yes, Muslims are very disciplined in their religion.. But I can tell you now that that is all it is, disciplined, cold religion. There’s no love, relationship or spiritual growth. And yes, there are many false Christians, but God will deal with them (Revelations 3:15-16 – The Holy Bible) but if you look at the real Christians, the ones who are on fire for Jesus, you will see real love, real compasion and real people who can admit to their sin (as we are all human, it is human nature to sin) and can move on to praise God in everything they do!
You could not be further from the truth. Prove Allah does not exist? Prove to me that there is no Zeus and I’ll just use your method. The fact of the matter is that none of that stuff ever happened. Not only is there a total lack of evidence, but the concept of what you propose is absurd. Here is how I can prove it. Religion exists for one purpose only and that is the acquisition and maintenance of great wealth and political power. Remove the money and the politics from Islam or Christianity and you have no religion. Now, prove me wrong. Have your mosque, or church give away all of its wealth and divest it of all political affiliations. Once that is done get back to me and let’s see just how well your religion survives.
SOLID REPLY! I AGREE 100%
You are an incumbent fool Darryl.
Funny. If there was a method, it would be called a miracle, and would probably work >0.0001% of the time.
Apparently, tones of people have experienced miracles, like asking for rain and it rained. Even funnier, is that you’d think they would remember what date it happened…
See religilous- great film
You are correct to think that in “religion” money and politics are deeply involoved. But I think that you are only familar with the religions that seek to gain wealth under the guise of “faith”. But I dont believe that you have witnessed the true church of Christ and the relationship that exists between God and His people. If you were to look back into history you would see the True church of God thriving under political persecution. If you were to study such things out, you would find that the church has grown and edured inspite of their poverty and persecution. And Christianty (not Catholicism) has lasted throughout history. I do suggest you do some studying before you make a claim of such magnitude. I wish that you would one day be able to experience the joy and peace that comes from haveing a personal relationship with the God who created you and the world around you and doesnt charge for it.
Respectfully,
Christian
Prove Allah does exist; you can’t. Now are you saying the
default is to belive in religion? Now I will use your logic against
you, respectably. I can not disporve Jesus, Allah, Zeus or the
invisible pink unicorn so I will by defalt belive in them all.
(Your logic)
Allah exists by the creations you see all around you.Even your lousy pants is created by someone.You are lying to yourself if more wondrous creations are not created by someone.Zeus or Ra or Pink Unicorns are just idols created by men. There is no whatsoever proofs of their real existence or origin.
With your skeptic mind you are only mking accusations & mere guessing Mark.
On the contrary, there is A LOT of proof pro-Jesus. Also, if the Church had to get rid of politics and its wealth it will be stronger than it was with politics and wealth because that is when the real believers stand out.
Yes, there are many churches that are hypocritical, but there are many churches that are really on fire for Jesus and they will thrive and grow stronger! So next time you try label God’s church, please make sure of your facts. Thank you! 🙂
Sorry buddy, thats wrong.
There is a lot of evidence that Jesus as a man did exist, but as a god, there is none.
Sure, you have the bible, but that was written some 200 years after he died, and therefore was easily corrupted by peoples ‘recollections’ as it was passed down through the ages.
“Yes, there are many churches that are hypocritical”- in the same way you see illegitimate churches, so to do we see yours as the same, and probably for similar reasons.
Please make sure you know your facts mate. Looks like the difference between your perception and reality is a sea of research.
Firstly, the bible was not written 200 years after Jesus. It was compiled 200 years after.
Secondly, there are tons of proofs that Jesus is the Son of God. If He was not, His ministry would have failed, He wouldnt have been able to perform miricles because God wouldnt have honoured Him and also many miricles of healing and many prophetic words that have been spoken wouldnt be true. And in fact, there have been many healings, prophetic words, etc that I have witnessed and that have come true all the time.. Whos name were they done in? Jesus’ name. – So there are many proofs that Jesus is the Son of God.
Thirdly, Every church has its strong and weak points and so does every person. We all have a different view on the different churches, or even all the churches. And Im ok with that.
Finally, I do know my facts. Facts that I have witnessed, researched and done. Looks like you need to go do some research buddy! 🙂
“Firstly, the bible was not written 200 years after Jesus. It was compiled 200 years after.” lmao after what?
Second, there is not that much evidence. You say there is, but realistically speaking there is the bible, and theologically based texts (most of which refer to the bible).
Also, Jesus isn’t the only person from that time to have ‘performed miricles’- there were tones of similar movements. This one just became popular.
Either way, it doesn’t defeat what I was getting at, which is a time lag between when something occured, and the time it is written down, leaves it open to corruption, especially something written generations apart.
You would be a fool to argue otherwise. Just like how do you don’t remember what you had for breakfast 365 days ago, how would someone remember the whole story correctly? It’s like that game, chinese whispers (if you’ve ever played it).
Also while ‘healings’ have been done by the name of Jesus Christ, so has there been similar cases by other people. Google: Sai Baba (spelling correction needed xD)
“Thirdly, Every church has its strong and weak points and so does every person. We all have a different view on the different churches, or even all the churches. And Im ok with that.”- completely missed my point, but nice try.
“Facts that I have witnessed”- do share. Pictures, dates, video if you have, anything would be useful. I find people generally say they experience them a lot, but rarely take the time to document something so amazing and rare.
““Firstly, the bible was not written 200 years after Jesus. It was compiled 200 years after.†lmao after what?” – After Jesus’ death, dude! lol…
There is tons of evidence. Not all facts and all evidence have to be written texts just by the way! lol
The gospels were written during Jesus’ life. (Matt, Mark, Luke, John). They were scribes, and it was them who wrote those gospels at the times that they occured. I can agree with you though that the books Acts – Revelations were written from the time after Jesus’ crucifiction until about 100 years after. The Holy Bible itself was compiled 200 years after His death.
I dont currently have pictures or videos of healings or miricles that I have experiences because we dont worry about any of that when we are praying for people. But I am going on a Mission to Madagascar from 1-8 October so when I am there I will try my best to take videos and pics for you! 🙂
““Thirdly, Every church has its strong and weak points and so does every person. We all have a different view on the different churches, or even all the churches. And Im ok with that.â€- completely missed my point, but nice try.” – I get that you think that every church contradicts themselves (if that was the point you were getting at?) But just as I dont agree with the Catholic way of things, you dont agree with the Christian way of things because of the same reasons, you probably believe that we are all hypocritical. I am ok with that – As I said, we all have different opinions.
PS. I will definitely try remember to take some pics for you in Madagascar! 🙂 Have a good Sunday! 🙂
You forgot about the First Council of Nicaea, which definately edited them
“I get that you think that every church contradicts themselves”- Not my point at all. What I was trying to get at is in the same manner you disagree with people within your own faith, so do other faiths disagree with yours.
Also might I add, these ‘facts’ are kept under lock and key by the Vatican, and so you will never know how much was changed, and how much is really what you should be following.
Btw I think it was OT, they said something about Mana and speaking different languages? Do some research on that. Apparently, Mana translates to shrooms, so essentially everyone got high and thought it was a religious experience. Just something interesting.
““I get that you think that every church contradicts themselvesâ€- Not my point at all. What I was trying to get at is in the same manner you disagree with people within your own faith, so do other faiths disagree with yours.” – I disagree with some people within my faith because they have brought in extra, contradictory aspects which are not biblical at all. These things they have brought in are contradictory to the Bible. For eg: Mary, the Apocrypha, etc..
“Also might I add, these ‘facts’ are kept under lock and key by the Vatican, and so you will never know how much was changed, and how much is really what you should be following.” – But I dont believe that much of the ESV Bible, which I use, (closest to the original greek, hebrew and latin texts) is changed. If any changes occur in the ESV it will be because of translation losses. But that is all and very little.
“Btw I think it was OT, they said something about Mana and speaking different languages? Do some research on that. Apparently, Mana translates to shrooms, so essentially everyone got high and thought it was a religious experience. Just something interesting.” – So people got high when they spoke different languages that they have never spoken or heard before? Doesnt make sense, especially when it happens today where there are no herbs, incenses or anything except the Holy Spirit that is effecting the people.
It has been a while since I’ve put my 2 cents in to this blog. I just caught sight of this and thought it rather interesting. It is a clear and typical case of how easy it is in this debate to talk ‘across’ other so that in the end each thinks the other a total fool, but in reality neither has understood the other.
So first, I would like to reassure Atheist that I that Craig Evans (whoever he is) is more than likely a coherent person who accepts the principle of non-contradiction (if A is true, then not A is false).
I suspect the problem lies in what the Professor means in the final sentence quoted: “But the naive reader — the person beguiled by the notion that discrepancies somehow cast doubt on the truth of the entire report — might not know that.”
It is interesting that Atheist proposes an analogy with a court case, for that is an excellent way to understand what I think Evans is getting at. Imagine witness 1 says: “I saw two men walking along the path.” while witness 2 says: “I saw three people on the path”. The question is: are they contradictory and therefore is one of them either lying or mistaken? I have no doubt that anyone involved in criminal cases will come across this sort of thing all the time. The witnesses are often in different places and see exactly the same event from different perspectives.
Thus witness 1 may be telling the truth, because she couldn’t see the other person from where she was. Secondly, even if there were only two people walking along, the other witness might be correct eg he saw a third person a little further along on the path but not walking.
The point that is being made when we go back to the Biblical text – here we are almost certainly refering to the three “Synoptic” Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) whose material is much the same, but the perspectives are very different. eg one is a Jew, one a gentile convert. one is an educated greek doctor, the others are not. two elaborate on details, the other is rather terse etc…
So when one writer says, (to oversimplify) for example, “there were three women at the cross” (of Jesus) and another lists only two, Evans is saying that their differing perspectives shed light on what struck each particular observer, and that this is a strength. Similarly in the court case just mentioned, assuming we could verify that both witness 1 and witness 2 were not lying, their ‘conflicting’ testimony actually increases our understanding of what happened on the path.
In this way, then, I think it is right that the early Christians happily accepted both versions, and didn’t feel the need to edit them in an attempt to make them ‘agree’ in every detail. We therefore get two very fresh accounts (and this definitely comes through the text) in which the details sometimes do not match exactly.
Thus, indeed someone “less knowledgeable” about how the Gospels came together might well prefer a ‘sanitised’ version, that say, might indeed be appropriate for a summing up by the lawyers, whose job it is to piece together the events as they relate to the cold facts of the crime. Some Biblical scholars like to play that game too, and try to figure out eg whether there were really two or three women at the tomb, but this is clearly tangential to the point that either author is trying to establish.
So I would agree that it is quite naive to demand total unambiguity in these matters. Evans could have gone on and said it is not just naive, it is boring and prosaic. It is certainly not the way profound experiences happen. When you ask a married couple how they met, or what they did on their first date, they invariably each tell you the “real” version and warn you that their spouse will try to convince you of something else. Go on try it! I bet you’ll be amazed – the reason is simple. Each one has a particular memory that stuck out, say, and even if their long walk along the beach was not exactly on the first date – in fact, even if we could prove that in fact it was their seventh date, we are not being “more accurate” by insisting on the fact, we are being quite foolish. For it was certainly at the very beginning of their relationship, and may well have been the first “real” date in his eyes, for it was what first made him really look at her as a potential mate, and what drove him to seek other dates afterwards.
Having said all of this, to quote Atheist himself: “The obvious response, and one that’s been thrown around in faith discussions for some time, is “how do you know which bits to believe?— I think it makes sense to recognise that the two different memories of each of the spouses played a key role in their relationship, and not get hung up about whether it was technically their first or not… who really cares? Certainly not them (except for the fun they get in reigniting the debate every time the question is asked).
In conclusion, I would argue, to directly contradict Atheist, that, Professor Evans and his ilk are not demonstrating delusion and a complete failure to utilise the logical capacity of their brains, but a sensible acknowledgement that a broader picture is gained of an event the more witnesses you ask. Doing this you will, in all likelihood, get the same crucial facts from most of them, but at the same time, there will be all kinds of differing views eg on how much fun it was… who was there… what most people enjoyed most… etc… which gives each of their reports some interest.
Hope this helps….
The fact that there are discrepancies between the different accounts shows that they are original and composed independently of each other. If the details were exactly the same then people will think that the authors copied the material from each other. One of the criteria for authenticity is to have multiple attestations from independent sources. Craig Evan’s statement that in the Gospels, “the discrepant witnesses are allowed to stand side by side, and I think that’s a strength in the end, not a weakness,†points out that it is more reliable to have multiple attestation that have minor differences than to only have one source or to have sources so similar to each other that they cannot considered to be from independent sources. Considering the differences that are found in the various accounts of major historical events, the differences in the Gospel accounts are inconsequential and do not discount their credibility. There is much more consistency and unambiguity in the Gospel accounts than other historical accounts. The difficulties in the Gospels show the authenticity because if the accounts were fabricated by the early church at a later date then wouldn’t they be able to formulate a consistent account and take out all the ambiguities? These factors fit the criterion of embarrassment and show that the early church made every effort to preserve the original accounts even if it meant that it created difficulties and embarrassment for them.
First of all, I would like you to define what inconsistencies/discrepancies you are reffering to. I would also like to point out that we do not base our beliefs on ambiguous inconsistencies, if there were to be four different people observing the same event such as a car accident, they would all have different views of that accident based on what was important to them. What I am trying to communicate through this is that the authors of the Gospels all have different perspectives on the events that took place during the course of Jesus’ life, but that none of them are wrong or that they contradict one another. Also, if we knew everything there is to know about God then we would be as God is and He would cease to be God. Therefore, there are areas of Scripture that we as finite human beings are not going to be able to understand.
Respectfully,
Maia
I dont see how your post defends your title. Your title claims that there is “faith” and a “delusion”. So, my question is what do you mean by “faith”? In reading your post I was not able to catch it.
Give me one example of evidence that god exists. Again,
give me one example of evidence that god exists. Do not combat my
request by asking me to disprove god; I can’t. If you use this
logic then I must belive in ever religion because I can not
disprove them, am I not right? Also why is your religion better
than other religions?
to simply answer your final question. Christianity isn’t a better religion because it is not a religion in fact. The base of Christianity, though not depicted in the Catholic faith, is a relationship with Christ Jesus. i will not try and prove God exist because that something that you should find on your own and possibly you may never but if you are bold enough to say he doesn’t just think, what if he does? are you doing any wrong if you don’t believe? will you die the same way if you believe and He doesn’t exist? believe in what you wish because i will not shove it down your throat but please just think about it.
Just avoiding the answering again. So typical of religious people. And please don’t tell us that you are not following a religion, because you are.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com.
Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Also, I would ask you to really look at why you choose to continue to follow your devotion to wizards and fairy tales. Just because you have been brainwashed since you born to believe in this, it does not mean you have to follow it or for that matter that it is true. Really think about it. Ask yourself, does there really have to be a “god.” Ask yourself, if jesus is so great, why would millions of people have to go to hell either because they have no idea what your religion/jesus is or that they were born into a completely different society with another “savior” on their plate.
“If you are so sure that the Quran could have come from a man (an illiterate man) than you have to prove this.”
You used ‘than’ instead of ‘then’, therefore your argument is invalid.
Counter Strike posted this just to spark a conversation. I suspect he/she is actually an atheist as well.
Go free thinkers!
I think what’re we’re forgetting here, is that religious and non-religious people are essentially the same. What I mean by this is, we look at our experience of the world, and try to find something that resonates with that experience.
Now, for you if that is Jesus, or Mohammad, that’s ok. Why would I say that even though I’m a non-believer? It is simple.
Religious people don’t believe in all of the other gods, but they believe in one. Non believers just take it one god furthur. I think Dawkins said that, and it makes sense.
So, why would I accept religion? Shouldn’t people grow out of it?
Again, no. Just like I have my right to not believe, they have their right to believe. If we start drawing the line between believing and not believing, it will simply be one more thing that segregates the population, and it will cause more hate and violence than there is now.
So let’s take this comment by comment.
“The ones who deny that Allah exists are deluded; There are no discrepancies in the Torah, Bible or the Quran. The Quran confirms what was sent before it”- The Quran was written AFTER the Bible and Torah. Even if it was written before, my friend told me it clearly states that one should respect all other religions.
“Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans or anyone – those [among them] who believed in God and the Last Day and did righteousness – will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.”Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:62
So, the Quran says, those who live righteously will still be rewarded in heaven. So tell me, why do people like you hate other religions? The Holy Quran tells us that we are all on different paths, but if the goal is the same, it does not matter. Of course, Atheists do not believe in a god, but they still believe in righteousness, and therefore, have nothing to fear in terms of Allah. My friend told me Allah speaks to everyone differently- he does not care if you are black or white, a muslim or a jew, a believer or a non-believer. As long as one is righteous, they will be rewarded.
I’d also like to reply to this one
“And Christianty (not Catholicism) has lasted throughout history”. Sorry, this made me laugh, but only because it seems you forgot about Hinduism, which is about 2x as old. And of course, just because something is old doesn’t make it better.
“I do suggest you do some studying before you make a claim of such magnitude”- I suggest you take your own advice here.
O look it’s been all of 2 seconds and Soloman fails again.
“Allah exists by the creations you see all around you.”- I could just as easily say that Jesus and the Christian god made everything we see. Both reference a holy book, and both say they are correct. How you ask?
What if, instead of God creating the world, he guided it instead. So, say God made everything, then the big bang happened, then earth was made, then there was the spontanious generation of the organic molecule, therefore single cell organisms, therefore complex cell organisms, and therefore us.
Still means god made everything, right?
Also, what if your god, and their god is the same? means you’ve been wasting your time instead of living like god told you to. Good job.
(TL;DR)
What I am trying to get at, is every point can be countered, but it isn’t the POINT OF RELIGION! Religion tries to bring people together, and create inner peace, so that individuals can band together and create a wider spreading peace (and hopefully world peace). The fundementals don’t matter, as long as you conduct yourself in a respectful manner.
“ambiguities, contradictions and inaccuracies in the holy books as evidence for a lack of a perfect God. After all, if God can’t convey his thoughts and instructions in a clear, consistent and unambiguous way, then why should he be followed at all? For many people who see the world through from a logical perspective, basing your entire view of reality on such an unreliable source would be madness.”
You write well from a post-enlightenment perspective. You should remember that all of these books come from a time long ago. There was no internet, no typing. Everything was copied by hand.
The “thoughts and instructions” of God, as you call them were certainly conveyed in a clear and unambiguous way – at least to those who they were directly conveyed to. They had very specific and relevant cultural import at the time of writing. And they sustained communities of faith for hundreds of years.
To sit back, hundreds of years later, and demand that ancient texts conform to your digital age standards of accuracy or coherence is just cultural arrogance.
The task of the modern interpreter of these books, is to seek to understand what they conveyed in their original setting. To force them to speak directly to our age is unreasonable.
There is a lot of silliness from religious people, but that does not, to me, nullify the concept that there may be a divine inspiration in an ancient text. It may not speak to me, but the testimony of history is that it has spoken to millions and been meaningful in their lives.
If it is to speak to me I have to first come down from my cultural high-horse and humbly approach it as an historical document, and try to get at its initial cultural meaning. I’m not saying this is easy to do, just that this is the task with ancient texts.
I have to disagree with you a little there lachie
The texts might be old, but they still have historical and social value. It not only holds the history of a faith, but the core teachings which can be applied and reapplied to the digital age.
A weak example would be theft and downloading, but to demonstrate my point, I’ll look at abortion. Now, abortion wasn’t common place back in the day, but the introduction of drugs like RU-486 (or whatwever it was) raised ethical issues. Now the Bible, Torah, Quran, Upanishads, Veedas, ect are unlikely to say anything about it, because it didn’t exist as an issue.
However, they do cover things like the sanctity of life, and therefore can help adherents make decisions.
So in that instance, it does speak directly.
But the rest of your argument is very well thought out, and I certainly do agree
Where to start
“brought in extra, contradictory aspects which are not biblical at all.”- Who says Christianity needs to be based on the bible? Isn’t it the bible that was based on Christianity? Meaning, it is probable that when the Bible was compiled, it was tweaked. We know for a fact that many books were excluded, cause they didn’t fit the agenda.
“But I dont believe that much of the ESV Bible, which I use”- Pre council, there were no ‘bibles’. It is the source of all bibles (as far as I can remember. Link me to contradictory information)
“Doesnt make sense, especially when it happens today where there are no herbs, incenses or anything except the Holy Spirit that is effecting the people.”
*sigh* really mate, really? >.>
Ok, yeah sure. But, they are under the belief that they can, so they act randomly and attributed it to the same thing. So kind of like hysteria, the placebo effect, ect work, they suddenly find themselves able to speak ‘languages’. Clearly, they aren’t languages, cause no one understands them (apart from the person who vomits the randomness, who under all intents and purposes is lieing to justify the act).
*lol reply fail
but Follower of Jesus, that last part has been your weakest reply so far. I was actually kinda disapointed 🙁
Believe what you want, dude! 🙂 Im talking about languages like portugese, malagasi, french, etc… Not some made up language that anyone has made up.
Oh by the way. I am 16. So if my english is a bit bad or whatever, then please understand that I am only 16. 🙂 lol
lol what?!
The Holy spirit didn’t make language >.> that’s a regional/cultural thing
speaking in tongues => Glossolalia => total crap, which is what the bible refers to, NOT actual languages.
I know the Holy Spirit didnt make languages! (face palm) haha… But he has unlocked the ability to speak different languages (like french, malagasi, etc withoutany training) and tongues. The bible refers to both languages and tongues – I will give you the scriptures if you want? 🙂
PS. I also just failed at replying to the right place! LOL xD
No thanks, thats unnecessary
“They are one people and have one language, and nothing will be withholden from them which they purpose to do.” So God said, “Come, let us go down and confound their speech.” And so God scattered them upon the face of the Earth, and confused their languages, and they left off building the city, which was called Babel “because God there confounded the language of all the Earth.”(Genesis 11:5-8).
OT god punished us for being arrogant.
But let me give you the scripture that I was gonna give you. lol
“Acts 2
The Coming of the Holy Spirit
1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and restedt on each one of them.4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language.7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome,11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?”13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”
Peter’s Sermon at Pentecost
14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day…””
So you see… Even then people thought they were high or drunk. But they werent because drunkeness and highness can never make you speak in a nother known language that u have never learnt.
no, but it could alter your memory of events……
more like
http://www.mannabook.ca/english_ver.html
Acts 5 was apparently a huge drug fueled event. Google the mana thing!
This is Acts 2 that i just gave u….
Go read Acts 5. Im sure you made a mistake because there is no mention of mana in Acts 5 (Not that i just read any ways) and alo, Acts 5 doesnt even seem like a crazy event that would make u think that they were high…
I dont think those men were drunk or high because they were disciples of Christ. They werent people who went against God’s laws.
What exactly must I google about manna? Im just getting the description of manna and it says nothing about people getting high off it…
Lol. That website is so wrong it isn’t even funny.
Manna was not a drug. The mushroom drugs they are comparing the manna to do NOT taste like honey. The John2:6-9 interpret attempt of the site is also wrong. Jesus asked them to fill the pots to the brim. Then he told them to take the water out the pots and give them to the master of the feast. He didn’t mix the water with anything because there is no record that He did, also, the pots were filled to the brims and so couldn’t be mixed with anything because the pots were full.
So the information on that website isn’t accurate at all. It is also one of the only websites that would say that. It is wrong.
I ment like that, it did look bad, but lol look for something like that.
“There’s Faith, and Then There’s Delusion”. Precisely! Those are the alternatives ;p
If we were to consider that Darwinian evolution is true, then an obvious corollary would be that religion came about because somewhere along the way a person or a group of persons found it to profitable for their survival. However, this would also be true for reason. An argument against religion is that is simply a sociological phenomenon which has its roots in the evolutionary process, and is therefore not a credible source regarding ontological truth. I understand this argument, and I would like to add to it that if this is the case, then reason, too, if there is no intelligent designer, came about simply by evolutionary processes, and also, thus has no absolute truthfulness or reliability. For instance, if it for some crazy reason was profitable in a certain society for a certain person to scream every time they saw a goose, then as time went on and as every person screamed at geese, this goose-screaming craze would have no reasonableness to it except in that it assisted in the process of one crazy man to survive over others. Perhaps all of reason is just goose screaming. Any thoughts?