 |
|
|
|
 The Bible presents us with an evolving story, writes John Shelby Spong.
December 29th, 2011
09:10 AM ET
My Take: The 3 biggest biblical misconceptions
By John Shelby Spong, Special to CNN The Bible is both a reservoir of spiritual insight and a cultural icon to which lip service is still paid in the Western world. Yet when the Bible is talked about in public by both believers and critics, it becomes clear that misconceptions abound. To me, three misconceptions stand out and serve to make the Bible hard to comprehend. First, people assume the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it. The facts are that Abraham, the biblically acknowledged founding father of the Jewish people, whose story forms the earliest content of the Bible, died about 900 years before the first story of Abraham was written in the Old Testament. Actually, that's not in the Bible Can a defining tribal narrative that is passed on orally for 45 generations ever be regarded as history, at least as history is understood today? Moses, the religious genius who put his stamp on the religion of the Old Testament more powerfully than any other figure, died about 300 years before the first story of Moses entered the written form we call Holy Scripture. This means that everything we know about Moses in the Bible had to have passed orally through about 15 generations before achieving written form. Do stories of heroic figures not grow, experience magnifying tendencies and become surrounded by interpretive mythology as the years roll by? My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality? Jesus of Nazareth, according to our best research, lived between the years 4 B.C. and A.D. 30. Yet all of the gospels were written between the years 70 to 100 A.D., or 40 to 70 years after his crucifixion, and they were written in Greek, a language that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples spoke or were able to write. Are the gospels then capable of being effective guides to history? If we line up the gospels in the time sequence in which they were written - that is, with Mark first, followed by Matthew, then by Luke and ending with John - we can see exactly how the story expanded between the years 70 and 100. For example, miracles do not get attached to the memory of Jesus story until the eighth decade. The miraculous birth of Jesus is a ninth-decade addition; the story of Jesus ascending into heaven is a 10th-decade narrative. In the first gospel, Mark, the risen Christ appears physically to no one, but by the time we come to the last gospel, John, Thomas is invited to feel the nail prints in Christ’s hands and feet and the spear wound in his side. Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark’s gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all. My Take: Yes, the Bible really condemns homosexuality Instead, it’s an interpretive account designed to conform the story of Jesus’ death to the messianic yearnings of the Hebrew Scriptures, including Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. The Bible interprets life from its particular perspective; it does not record in a factual way the human journey through history. The second major misconception comes from the distorting claim that the Bible is in any literal sense “the word of God.” Only someone who has never read the Bible could make such a claim. The Bible portrays God as hating the Egyptians, stopping the sun in the sky to allow more daylight to enable Joshua to kill more Amorites and ordering King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites. Can these acts of immorality ever be called “the word of God”? The book of Psalms promises happiness to the defeated and exiled Jews only when they can dash the heads of Babylonian children against the rocks! Is this “the word of God? What kind of God would that be? The Bible, when read literally, calls for the execution of children who are willfully disobedient to their parents, for those who worship false gods, for those who commit adultery, for homosexual persons and for any man who has sex with his mother-in-law, just to name a few. The Bible exhorts slaves to be obedient to their masters and wives to be obedient to their husbands. Over the centuries, texts like these, taken from the Bible and interpreted literally, have been used as powerful and evil weapons to support killing prejudices and to justify the cruelest kind of inhumanity. The third major misconception is that biblical truth is somehow static and thus unchanging. Instead, the Bible presents us with an evolutionary story, and in those evolving patterns, the permanent value of the Bible is ultimately revealed. It was a long road for human beings and human values to travel between the tribal deity found in the book of Exodus, who orders the death of the firstborn male in every Egyptian household on the night of the Passover, until we reach an understanding of God who commands us to love our enemies. The transition moments on this journey can be studied easily. It was the prophet named Hosea, writing in the eighth century B.C., who changed God’s name to love. It was the prophet named Amos who changed God’s name to justice. It was the prophet we call Jonah who taught us that the love of God is not bounded by the limits of our own ability to love. It was the prophet Micah who understood that beautiful religious rituals and even lavish sacrifices were not the things that worship requires, but rather “to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.” It was the prophet we call Malachi, writing in the fifth century B.C., who finally saw God as a universal experience, transcending all national and tribal boundaries. One has only to look at Christian history to see why these misconceptions are dangerous. They have fed religious persecution and religious wars. They have fueled racism, anti-female biases, anti-Semitism and homophobia.They have fought against science and the explosion of knowledge. The ultimate meaning of the Bible escapes human limits and calls us to a recognition that every life is holy, every life is loved, and every life is called to be all that that life is capable of being. The Bible is, thus, not about religion at all but about becoming deeply and fully human. It issues the invitation to live fully, to love wastefully and to have the courage to be our most complete selves. That is why I treasure this book and why I struggle to reclaim its essential message for our increasingly non-religious world. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Shelby Spong. soundoff (6,068 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next »
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Thursday, December 29
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor’s note: John Shelby Spong, a former Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey, is author of "
This guy is posing as a godly man when in acuallity the Bible is VENOM to him.
Satan works thru surogates that stand behind the Bible. Thats the best way to deceive.
Does it work ??
So what is the truth that you tell? Believe as I do or you will be burning for all eternity no matter how good of a person you are?
Apparently, it does. How many Christian denominations are there?
That's why you, Bishop Spong, and others of your education and sense are NOT the problem; you folks know how to "rightly divide" the "word of truth." The problem is with those who read the same book but extract from it messages that are opposite of the ones you espouse, here. Yet, both you and those who think opposite of the way you do utilize the same text. What are you (sensible believers) going to do about that?
HawaiiGuest, my first part was meant as tongue-in-cheek. Spong is a decent man with a decent mythology of god in his head. I say that this does not absolve him of the "works" of other christians who are not decent and believe in such violence and nonsense as hell and a hell-creating god. Spong's decency does not excuse him from the vile words and deeds of his "brothers in the lord."
A refreshingly frank and candid article from a former Bishop. There is a 800 lb gorilla in his room though. If he accepts that the Bible is rife with historical innaccuracies, myths, legends and shockingly outdated morality, does that not make it totally unreliable for the vast bulk of its claims, including those key to the Judeo-Christian faiths?
Of course it does. There is no god, no life after death, no magic sky-fairies performing miracles or answering prayers when called upon by human beings.
Colin you are correct about this guy which is why he was tossed out. You are also correct in that if you do not believe in God you will face death. Unfortunately, you violate your own rules of evidence by stipulating that you know what happens in the afterlife. I suspect your evidence is no better than some religions person may put forth yet unacceptable none the less. How can you be an atheist yet express such faith in that which cannot be seen or heard?
fred, once again you lie. The good bishop was not tossed out. He retired after 40+ years of service to your imaginary god.
fred: believe or face death? wow, sounds like a real sweetheart you worship
Rick
This is the afterlife Colin believes in and I cannot say if that is what he will receive. Based on the evidence that is acceptable to Colin his conclusion is as valid as mine. I was being supportive of his life decision.
Given the lack of evidence the conclusion that there is no God and no life after death is opinion. Colin and I have different opinions.
HotAirAce
The Bishop made a career of rejecting fundamental Christian doctrines and was retired. He was repudiated by 50 fellow Bishops prior to being retired. If you would like to assume he was not tossed out I would agree with whatever words you choose to use.
Let me get this strait the account of Abraham was written 900 yrs after his death and we are supposed to know that 2500 yrs after scholars say it was written GOD is A GOD who calls what is as if it isn't and what isn't as if it is so HE dictates what is reality and fact from what I read from the author and a lot of posts they have tried to set themselves up as GOD knowing more than GOD and attempting to make him irrelevant I have degrees in hard science not just digging through some dirt or reading books and I have found nothing in my studies to support anything the author has states radio carbon dating is joke at best and not trust worthy as far as Cg=Christians being correct on who goes to heaven Jesus stated no-one goes unto the FATHER except by ME so all the other religions and the atheist and yes that's a religion also you have been shown the right way and you chose to follow the wrong path so trust in your god or lack there of and I will trust in mine you only have your spirit to lose
I find it hard to believe that someone who prefesses to have degrees in "hard science" (not entirely sure what would be considered soft science) would write something so stupid. Punctuations would help to dispell the image of stupidity you have made from yourself.
I went and found a definition for the rest of us:
Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when comparing scientific fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard meaning perceived as being more scientific, rigorous, or accurate. Fields of the natural, physical, and computing sciences are often described as hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described as soft.
The hard sciences are characterized as relying on quantifiable empirical data, relying on the scientific method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.
However, our "hard scientist" needs to learn about spell cheque.....
@onecryinginthewilderness
"Jesus stated no-one goes unto the FATHER except by ME." What a bunch of mumbo jumbo BS coming from the Christian faith. All three major religions have a believe of an atonement or a judgment day and on that day EVERYONE will be judged by God. Your statement was used by the church to convert non-believers and/or to keep its congregation in line. If you look closely at Saint John's revelation, you will see that Jesus returns with 144,000 virgin Jews and NOT CHRISTIANS. And if you read revelation correctly, you will see that the kingdom of heaven is reserved for Jews. So where the hell are Christians going? I believe I have already stated that.
This author represents a whole movement of thinking among “historical Jesus” scholars that was popularized in the 1980’s and 90’s by the Jesus Seminar. His positions are compelling here when presented unbalanced by their corresponding refutations. It’s unfortunate that in our impatient, lazy culture almost everyone who reads this will just accept it as a valid position, rather than pursue info about potential counterpoints. William Lane Craig disputes each of these claims in his most recent edition of Reasonable Faith, as does Craig Evans in Fabricating Jesus, as does Greg Boyd in The Jesus Legend.
@ Johnny – Your co-mplaint regarding an unbalanced point of view applies as much to the fundamentalists, as it does to the those of us who do not take the Bible literally. Having been born and raised as a fundamentalist Christian, I believe I have indeed taken a close look at both sides of the arguments regarding Biblical "truth". I am an ordained minister, but I do not use the Bible, nor any other scripture, to brow-beat anyone to lead them to "salvation". Fundamentalist Christianity, and other fundamentalist religions such as Islam, are fear-based. Being led to salvation based on reward and punishment shows God as a tyrant, and He (God) is anything but that.
In that the Bible is "evolutionary" that is because it was passed along verbally for several generations before it became written; thus evolving into something different from the original.
Personally, I see too much of the ancient culture written into the Bible. I once had a supervisor who said "of course I am a chauvanist, read your Bible and see how they treated women".
Where were the women of Nicaea? Why were women not included as part of the decisions and the church? Jesus included women as equals in his life, yet the Christian church allowed a simple meeting among a few men to be a faith of all people. The Roman church chose what gave them wealth and power over truth. That alone is a sad beginning for any religion.
Typical pompous sounding drivel passed off as scholarly opinion. No wonder he is an x-member of the clergy. I love how he universalizes his opinion by saying "every religious scholar" believes such and such...
As opposed to your pompous sounding drivel?
To me, it sounded like this guy was trying to discard Jesus and every other meaningful thing to Christianity...not cool, not cool.
Check John Shelby Spong's web site. I couldn't find that he actually claims to be a Christian. Strange for an Episcopalian Bishop.
That is strange..... I also find it strange that so many non-believes read and comment on articles like this; If they truely could care less about religion, I think they would keep their noses out of it...but nope. Always find them trollin', causing fights.
To be an Episcopalian one does not have to beleive in christ the Son of God anymore. They having itching ears have surrounded themselves with people who speak what they want to hear.
Ashtin: Non-believers enjoy articles like these. With all the blathering that Christians do about the bible (the inspired word of god, literally true, blah blah blah), it is amusing to see one of their own say it ain't necessarily so. If it bothers you, deal with it. Also, the phrase is "couldn't care less"
... is Psalms spelt backwards! Think about it!
no...
Spong writes that "all of the gospels were written ...... in Greek, a language that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples spoke or were able to write."
Spong always was a bit free with his facts, but he older he gets, the more he just seems to make "facts" up as he goes along. I guess the good Father never heard of the apostle Philip, and he was apparently absent from history class the day they learned about the Seleucid Empire, who ruled Judea for over 150 years. Antiochus' aggressive Hellenizing activities provoked the Maccabean Revolt, which effectively ended Greek rule in Judea, but by that time the Greek language and literature were firmly entrenched in the area – most Jews could speak Greek, and most literate people could write it as well.
Not only that, but it was common place and acknowledged in several of Paul's letters that authors dictated to others (Romans 16:22 cites a scribe named Tertius for example). Why in the world would anyone think it even slightly unreasonable that the Gospels were dictated by the authors to Greek speaking brothers?
Spong has another agenda, he is sloppy and intellectually dishonest.
Cynthia- better put than most, and yes, it appears that Philip at least spoke Greek. However, many of the disciples were subsistence-level fishermen, fearful of their foreign masters (rightfully so, for the usual response to transgressions was execution) and not likely to be interacting with them on a daily basis. If one looks to other occupied countries of the era, we find that the puppet rulers (installed sycophants), senior clergy (assuming the clergy wasn't simply wiped out) and the rich merchant classes were the ones who learned the new languages. Ordinary peasants in France, Britain, Spain and the rest tried their best to AVOID contact with the conquerors. There is little or no reason to assume that peasant villagers in Judea would be all the different.
That you claim to know what EVERY biblical scholar thinks and knows is a huge red flag. It is sad that your a HATER and trying to persuade others to hate as well. Try speading Love, Not Hate!
@LinCA "I don't believe te Tooth Fairy exists. Neither do I believe in The Abominable Snowman, Santa Claus, Loch Ness Monster, Pink Unicorns and Bob the Magical Blue Sock. Any gods, including yours, fall squarely in the same category"
=> First, the fact that something can't be disproved says nothing positive or negative about it's existence. As such, it's a logical fallacy to group all things that can't be disproved and either explicitly or implicitly state that belief in one implies belief in all, or disbelief in one or more implies disbelief in all. Each must be examined critically and evaluated based on the merits, yes?
=> Second, there is very good empirical evidence FOR the existence of God. The origin of the universe, the fossil record, the existence of universal morality, Jesus Christ, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, historical accuracy of the bible. All speak to the existence of the God of Abraham.
@Chad –
This ramble coming from one (Chad) who believes a valid theory of evolution by natural causes (punctuated equilibrium) supports the perverse hypothoses of Christian apologists. And, let us not forget Chad also recently uttered these nonsensical gems –
"Every book that purports to accurately record history needs to be examined critically for internal consistency and for its accuracy in detail. The bible succeeds on all accounts."
"The Genesis account stands alone amongst all creation stories of the time, a fact universally acknowledged...We are only know [sic] beginning to scientifically discover how accurate it is indeed."
"I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."
@Chad –
And, Chad, there is NO empirical evidence for the existence of the "God of Abraham" and there never has been (I believe you mean "implied", not empirical). To be fair, no empirical evidence exists disproving the existence of the "God of Abraham" or any other god, so I guess we'll all just have to wait and see (but, I won't be wasting any Sundays in church while I wait).
Erratum –
"...perverse hypothoses of Christian apologists" should have read, "perverse hypothoses of Christian apologists and advocates of intelligent design (and creationists, same thing)".
Have another go at it Really-O? That's hypotheses.
@A Little Help –
Thanks for the help, A Little Help...you are certainly correct. Darned copy/paste...propagates typos nicely.
@A Little Help –
...but, you do have to admit...Chad's quotes are spectacular.
Isn't it funny how Chad and fred respond in the same stupid way. LOL!
@Chad
Universal morality?
How do you think God feels about cannibalism?
Our culture has a very strong cannibalism taboo, but it cannot be "human nature" to feel repulsed by it as virtually every branch of the human species has praticed it at some point in their development.
The Wari, The Kuru, Fore, Caribs, Fijians, Popayans, Serengipeans, are all fairly modern examples (within the last 500 years).
The Aztecs believed in transubstantiation. They consumed their human sacrifices in the belief that the dead literally became a part of the God to whom they were given.
Binerwurs in India ate the sick amongst them to please Kali.
The Karankawa, an indigenous Texan tribe, ritualistically consumed their enemies to gain their strength.
Easter Islanders considered eating your neighbour as more of an insult than a crime.
So if morality is truly a universally instrinsic part of human nature, put there by God to guide us – why hasn't every culture throughout history considered the consumption of human flesh to be a grievous sin?
@Really-O? "And, Chad, there is NO empirical evidence for the existence of the "God of Abraham" and there never has been (I believe you mean "implied", not empirical"
=>right, I should have just said "evidence", which there is plenty of, namely:
1. The scientifically required necessity of an uncaused cause at the origin of the universe. The universe is expanding in all directions and cooling. Going backwards there was a point in time when the universe had infinite heat and density. Prior to this point in time (labeled a singularity) there was nothing. Not “something”, nothing. Science tells us that ALL matter and even time itself was CREATED at that point of rapid expansion. What caused this? What created everything from nothing? By definition whatever caused this expansion could not have itself had a prior cause (the infinite regression problem). Whatever caused it must have always existed. That is what physicists call the “uncaused cause”
Atheists who dont want to believe in an uncaused cause, are stuck with either the problem of an infinite regression, or the problem of the universe being created out of nothing, by nothing.
Atheists who do believe in an uncaused cause but don't believe it is a personal god, are stuck with the issue of having an ent ity creating the universe, but after that taking no interest in it, which would be really weird..
2. The phenomenal preciseness and delicate balance of the properties of the“big bang” expansion which was required to allow stars/planets to form. It didn’t just randomly explode, rather it expanded in such a precise manner that an infinitesimal change would have rendered a universe where matter was so spread out no formation of stars could have possibly occurred. Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of expansion of the universe initially was slower by one in 100,000,000,000,000,000 (one hundred thousand million million), the universe would have collapsed on itself.
A change in the strength of gravity of one part in 10^100 would have prevented star/planet formation. When you compare the range of possible values with the range of life permitting values you get unbelievably small values.
Atheists are stuck with the “well, even though it was fantastically improbable to have happened, it somehow did!” The fine tunning was due to chance.
3. The fact that the universe obeys laws and that science by definition relies on that which it can not by definition EVER explain: "Science starts from the existence of those laws, can NOT EVER disprove God". – Leonard Mlodinow Co-author along with Stephen Hawkings of A Briefer History of Time.
An atheist must ignore the fact that the universe obeys laws, or like Leonard Mlodinow, just “wonder from time to time why they do”, but do nothing about it.
4. The fossil record which shows millions of years of stable species, then an explosion of necessary mutations, all occurring at the precise necessary time required for complex organisms to develop, and ALL escaping fossilization
“the sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation” – Wikipedia
Why does stasis dominate? Some species exist unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, what does that say about the ability of mutations to survive in a gene pool? Why are these extraordinarily long periods of stasis ALWAYS followed by innovative bursts in the fossil record?
An atheist needs to believe that ALL species, every single one, millions of them “evolved” along this pattern: nothing happens for millions of years, then in a time period short enough to ALWAYS escape fossilization ALL of the mutations occur, precisely orchestrated such that complex organs can develop. All speciations always obey that fantastically improbable sequence. Is this even possible to believe? The big problem with atheists is that they will keep a failed model if there is no superior one to take its place
5. The historical evidence of Jesus Christ “Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi who was regarded as a teacher and healer in Judaea,[18] that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[19] Critical Biblical scholars and historians have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement.” –Wikipedia
An atheist needs to believe that Jesus Christ was an insane man, truly insane, who believed he was fathered by a deity. We arent talking sort of nuts, we are talking really really nuts. Then you have to explain how that crazy person sounds so fantastically logical and rational in the gospel accounts.
6. The historical fact that Jesus died and was buried in a tomb. Three days later that tomb was found to be empty, following that hundreds of people reported they witnessed the resurrected Jesus and were willing to go to their death saying that.
An atheist is stuck with trying to understand how so many people could have been tortured to death knowing it was for a lie,
7. The demonstrated historical accuracy of the biblical narrative in all accounts, the Gospel of Luke alone has hundreds of verified historical accuracies and has NO historical inaccuracies.
An atheist has to believe that the authors of the Gospels a) said what that what they were writing was true and in some cases claimed to be witnesses of Jesus b) were extremely diligent with recording historical details and yet, were completely and utterly hallucinating about having seen a resurrected Jesus.
8. The fact that we have a universal understanding of good and evil.
– If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
– Evil exists.
– Therefore, objective moral values exist. (Some things are evil!)
– Therefore, God exists.
An atheist has to believe that some how a universal morality “evolved”
@ Doc Vestibule "Universal morality? How do you think God feels about cannibalism?
Our culture has a very strong cannibalism taboo, but it cannot be "human nature" to feel repulsed by it as virtually every branch of the human species has praticed it at some point in their development.
....
So if morality is truly a universally intrinsic part of human nature, put there by God to guide us – why hasn't every culture throughout history considered the consumption of human flesh to be a grievous sin?"
=> Couple points:
1) There are several references to cannibalism in the bible, the context in each case is one of complete and utter despair as a result of Gods judgement.. where people are in such dire straits, they have no food, they are starving to death. So, even though there is no specific biblical prohibition I think it's safe to assume God does not care for it.
2) Societies often embrace morally wrong behaviors, slavery, racism, killing innocent children. That doesn't change the fact that we know they are morally wrong, right?
"...killing innocent children. That doesn't change the fact that we know they are morally wrong, right?"
Semantics aside w/ respect to "innocent" (here taken as without the ability to consciously chose evil perhaps?), couldn't agree more with this statement, yet, 1 Sam 15:3...
"the fact that something can't be disproved says nothing positive or negative about it's existence"..
Ok so, do you believe in Tooth fairy? How about pink unicorns? How about the magical sock? There is no evidence that they exist.. nor there is that they do not exist..
These fall in the same bin.. along with the god guy.. no difference!
Q "...killing innocent children. That doesn't change the fact that we know they are morally wrong, right?"
Semantics aside w/ respect to "innocent" (here taken as without the ability to consciously chose evil perhaps?), couldn't agree more with this statement, yet, 1 Sam 15:3...3"
=>1 Sam 15:3 "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Romans 11:22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. "
Terrifying stuff really, this reality that you and I live in, it's His..
@Snow "the fact that something can't be disproved says nothing positive or negative about it's existence"..
Ok so, do you believe in Tooth fairy? How about pink unicorns? How about the magical sock? There is no evidence that they exist.. nor there is that they do not exist.. These fall in the same bin.. along with the god guy.. no difference!"
=>To count as science, hypotheses and theories should make predictions that might turn out to be wrong. In other words, it should be possible to falsify these ideas. (I found this online, seemed to fit your claim, right?)
The error you are making, is when you take that and apply it to a person.
A person can not be proven.
Can you prove that King Henry existed? No.. you have a lot of evidence, that could be accepted by rational people. But it cant be proven in a laboratory. He cant be observed, measured.
Likewise, you cant disprove his existence either. Can you prove people walked on the moon? Can you disprove it?
as you can see: not being able to prove or disprove the existence of a person doesn't say anything either way about the truth or their existence. You can't measure people with the same tools you use to measure the laws of nature.
@Chad
"Societies often embrace morally wrong behaviors, slavery, racism, killing innocent children. That doesn't change the fact that we know they are morally wrong, right?"
But purportedly devoutly Christian societies have practiced slavery, racism, and infanticide becuase God told them it is OK, not in spite of God's commands.
If morality is universal, why is there any debate regarding the supposedly unambiguous Will of God?
Perhaps because according to teh Bible, the last time humankind worked together towards a common goal, God struck it down and ensured that man could never again communicate effectively with each other...?
@Chad – "=>right, I should have just said "evidence", which there is plenty of, namely:..."
Blah, blah, blah...ad nauseam.
Doc Vestibule "But purportedly devoutly Christian societies have practiced slavery, racism, and infanticide because God told them it is OK, not in spite of God's commands. If morality is universal, why is there any debate regarding the supposedly unambiguous Will of God?"
=> There isn't any ambiguity wrt Gods will. And the nature of your observation indicates you are appealing to that universally understood morality.
=>Slavery:
Yes there are rules in OT and NT regarding the treatment of slaves, but you have to remember the type of slavery they are talking about there was quite different than slavery you are talking about. Those rules existed to protect the slave.
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." Exodus 21:20
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." Exodus 21:26-27
'If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. Leviticus 25:39-43
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." Exodus 21:2
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:12
He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son. Proverbs 29:21
=>Racism:
Jews are God's chosen people, but not the only people that God has a relationship with.
'When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. Leviticus 19
'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19
"And you shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt. Exodus 23
"And you shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Exodus 22
and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.' Zechariah 7
'Thus says the LORD, "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place. Jeremiah
"But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circ umcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. Exodus 12
"The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you." Exodus 12
'Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19
'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'" Leviticus 24
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference. Romans
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him;
=>infanticide
– all people are sinners and will be judged, God's righteousness requires that judgment.
– God did not want the children of corrupted civilizations marrying Israelites and leading them astray
– you can discuss this with Him when you meet Him.
@Chad – regarding slavery, racism, infanticide.
Well folks, there you have it....Chad – who hijacks good science and corrupts it to support his warped cosmology, history, ethics, and morality – defending slavery and infanticide (I'm not sure from his passage-laden post where he resides with regard to racism, but if it's "bible based" it's almost certainly objectionable). These positions are clearly reprehensible…more good evidence that Christopher Hitchens was right when he claimed "religion poisons everything”. You should be ashamed of yourself Chad.
Really-O: You are an extremely dishonest person.
For the record:
– I abhor racism
– I abhor enslaving a person by force (that is different than most of the slavery in the bible which is more akin to indentured servitude)
– I abhor killing of anyone, man-women-child, I recognize that in war it is necessary, but nonetheless abhorrent.
I think the condition of humanity with respect to God stinks. It is an impossibly difficult situation that we are born into, I do not like it one bit. I don't like having to live with the consequences of one couples sin so long ago.
On the other hand, we have Jesus Christ. The fact that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life, gives me hope every day.
It breaks my heart that a clergyman (if a former one) so freely overlays the Bible with his own perspectives and ideals, then still calls it the Bible. Sad as this is, it is far too common. Scholarly arguments aside, the Bible itself claims to be the Word of God (II Timothy 3:16). Therefore, it must either be a lie, or truth to be reckoned with.
Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the Bible by removing passages he was did not think fit. Spong (and countless others) have done the same, consciously or not.
We may reject the Bible entirely.
We may embrace the Bible as the Word of God, which is the claim it makes for itself.
If, however, we choose to embrace some parts of the Bible while disregarding others, we have created our own religion, our own rules, and our own message of salvation. What we have really done is reject the Bible. If then we herald these truths (truths of our own making) as preserving the Bible's "essential message", we are grossly deceived. We are both blind and wrong to embrace only what we understand or are comfortable with and do it in the name of Biblical truth.
well said
what kind of arrogance does it take to do something like that? On what basis does Jefferson or Spong evaluate what is true and what isn't? Picking and choosing that which conforms to what they want it to be...
Chad – you honestly must be an idiot have you ever heard of the Council of Nicaea? It was there that the elders of the young church gathered together to decide which of the hundreds of gospels and canons of Christ to include in the Bible that fit their interpretation of his life. The bible is NOT the word of god and is/was a collection of works and ideas that evolved and continues to evolve over time. Also, do not underestimate how countless translations have altered the meaning of the books that make up the Bible. The Bible cannot be fully understood and appreciated unless read in it's original tongue – which would be very difficult because the works were written in several languages before they were aggregated as the Bible we know today.
@Josh "you honestly must be an idiot have you ever heard of the Council of Nicaea? It was there that the elders of the young church gathered together to decide which of the hundreds of gospels and canons of Christ to include in the Bible that fit their interpretation of his life."
=>No.. guided by the Holy Spirit that group was able to discern the teachings of the Apostles. That has withstood continuous examination for 1700 years, proof of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
@Josh "The bible is NOT the word of god and is/was a collection of works and ideas that evolved and continues to evolve over time."
=? not sure what you mean, Old Testament has been unchanged for ~3000 years, the NT over 1900 years.. What is your evidence of evolution?
@Josh " Also, do not underestimate how countless translations have altered the meaning of the books that make up the Bible."
=>think you need some education on biblical preservation.. 🙂 see for example the dead sea scrolls as proof of accurate preservation throughout the ages.
@Josh "The Bible cannot be fully understood and appreciated unless read in it's original tongue – which would be very difficult because the works were written in several languages before they were aggregated as the Bible we know today"
=>wow, wrong both times 🙂
a. extremely good translations exist for virtually every language on earth. They are continually scrutinized.
b. OT written in Hebrew, NT in Greek
No, Chad, true arrogance is assuming that one's beliefs are guided by the holy spirit and everyone else is just out on their own and therefore in error. You are a shallow, arrogant man.
JohnR "No, Chad, true arrogance is assuming that one's beliefs are guided by the holy spirit and everyone else is just out on their own and therefore in error. You are a shallow, arrogant man."
=>I would disagree, I would be arrogant if I thought my beliefs ALONE were guided, but the Holy Spirit is available for everyone that accepts Jesus Christ.
@Josh / JohnR –
Your both right...Chad is a tool. Check out the following recent statements he made on this blog:
"Every book that purports to accurately record history needs to be examined critically for internal consistency and for its accuracy in detail. The bible succeeds on all accounts."
"The Genesis account stands alone amongst all creation stories of the time, a fact universally acknowledged...We are only know [sic] beginning to scientifically discover how accurate it is indeed."
"I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."
Clearly he's a knucklehead.
Sadly, this article goes to prove the slip into liberal thought that today's Christians and non-Christians alike have taken.
"The third major misconception is that biblical truth is somehow static and thus unchanging. Instead, the Bible presents us with an evolutionary story, and in those evolving patterns, the permanent value of the Bible is ultimately revealed."
That is the epitome of foolish thinking. The Word of God IS unchanging because it is the Word of the God who IS unchanging. God hasn't changed his mind on things. Some of the rules of the law have certainly changed, and no scholar would argue against that. But the Bible is not an evolutionary story in that it continues to change meaning and the text can be reworked to say anything we want it to say. We then put our human intellect, logic and wishful thinking above the Scriptures, completely removing any changing power over our lives. No longer must we conform to a standard but we get to write the standard. Well that's certainly an easy life. We can all decide our own standards, but when we submit our lives to the blueprint, the never-changing Word of God which has remained pure and wholly able to change us, then we live according to God's standard.
We cannot say that God's standards change, because Scripture doesn't allow for that. However in reworking the Bible in an "evolutionary" way, we are re-writing the standard, something we have no right to do.
http://www.jonyshuk.weebly.com
The mere fact that humans wrote the bible is itself proof that it is not the "word of god". Since humans cannot fully grasp who or what exactly god is, whatever is written in the bible is at best an educated guess.
Joel, granted there has been little 'evolution' of the Bible since it was collated into the form we have today, but prior to Nicea, almost every Christian sect essentially incorporated different books and writings into their own testaments. One of the overriding reasons behind the Council of Nicea was standardization- the incorporation of only selected writings into the New Testament, the lmiting of the number of Gospels to 4 (apparently based as much on the four seasons as for the veracity of any of the rejected writings)- all of this was evolution. Then once the Church resolved the issue in typical Roman fashion ("we're right, you're heretical and will be put to death"), the Bible was canonized and decreed to be the Word of God. The word of god chosen by man, decided upon for politcal gain, and sanctified by the Emperor of an over-reachine, tyrannical empire that bore no dispute. The same Empire than scarcely 325 years earlier crucified the very man they now deified.. Simply amazing.
T
"[The gospels] were written in Greek, a language that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples spoke or were able to write."
– Strange thing to say, since St. Luke has long been acknowledged as a Greek physician. What's more, Jews in Palestine had long been exposed to Greek thanks to the popularity of the Septuagint.
"In the first gospel, Mark, the risen Christ appears physically to no one."
– Not sure what Bible you're reading, but it's not one you'll find in any church book shop. Christ appears first to two disciples, then to the Apostles.
"It was the prophet Micah who understood that beautiful religious rituals and even lavish sacrifices were not the things that worship requires, but rather “to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.”
– Okay, now we know somebody hasn't been reading his Psalter.
This entire article is riddled with misinformation, regardless of your creed, and seems rather poor scholarship.
Actually the earliest manuscripts of Mark (i.e. the ones most trustworthy before revision) do NOT have Jesus appearing – it ends with Mark 16:8 at the tomb. Mark 16:9-Mark 16:20 seem to be a later addition.
It doesn't matter since the assertion of the physical resurrection is clear – you don't mess up something like that orally – either you lie or it happened. So someone either revised it at some point in the gospels (i.e. lied) or it carried down orally with truth – Paul addresses this somewhat when he says people are asking questions and asserts we are fools if the resurrection didn't physically happen. (Cue people saying: all Christians are fools etc.).....
A relationship with Christ and God is a matter of faith ultimately, not empirical evidence.... not blind faith, but nor will it be proven in a scientific sense.
While Luke was very likely a physician (there is still debate), he himself wrote that he did not meet Jesus, and is thus disqualified from any first person narrative.
RELIGION can be both a pathway to God and a barrier to God.
It is important to question and not give all authority to one source, one book, one expert, but to be seekers of truth and be careful not to exclude the "stranger at the gates" of our lives because many times we find the "stranger" is only strange because they are different from us. Different is all that bad...helps all of us to expand our thinking...not be brainwashed. It isn't easy to be open, as openess has the ability to change us, and change isn't easy or always comfortable. I appreciate the
article above because it shows that humans are involved and humans make alot of mistakes in, even, their truth seeking. I think that Jesus died because Jesus threatened the status quo. I think Jesus still threatens the status quo. I also think there are those who use Jesus for their own self centered reasons, manipulations of others, power over others, fear based manipulations. I don't think that is what Jesus was really about and like anything can be used for good or for evil, so can Jesus, RELIGIONS, scientific research/discoveries, etc. It helps to explore all we can and questioning is good...
"The Bible is, thus, not about religion at all "
Really? My library has it Totally misfiled!
Question for whoever:
If archaeologists found the flowers god brought Mary on the night the deed was done, what would they be worth in dollars? I mean, if they came with a letter of authenticity.
Cheers!
Ash the Pawn Stars .. I'm sure they'll have a botanical expert ready for your question!! 🙂
I happen to have those flowers. I am offering them for sale for $100,000,000. I am also providing a letter of authenticity as well as testimony from my business partners that they are authentic.
@Satan, you do know Jesus and His true nature. You are jealous of Him and reject Him. Heaven would be hell to those who don't love God. God is kind of the whole point of Heaven. Sin cannot exist in God's presence. We were all created with the choice to accept the one means of salvation, Jesus Christ, or reject Him. It's your decision. Before you decide for good, though, make sure you do all you can to find out who God really is, not who you want Him to be so you can feel justified in your rejection.
I would reject the god this author presents also, if it were a correct representation of Him. It's not. His true nature will be revealed to you if you earnestly seek Him. He knocks, but you must open the door and let Him in.
Are you saying of all the gods and understandings and interpretations of gods and religions that people have adopted the correct one is yours?
Sadly One one, that is exactly the point. There is a prevailing doctrine in churches that says they are completely right on God and all others aren't. Even among different denominations they are saying that. So Baptists would say Methodists are wrong, Episcopalians waould say the same about Pentacostals, and so on and so forth. It's a messed up situation that is doing way more harm than good.
Accordibg to the Book you obviously have not read, the path to God is very wide but because you cause others to stumble, and the is road to heaven isvery narrow and only a few will find it . If we are right then you lose! If we are wrong we all lose and there is no hope and all will pay the price for the sin that must be atoned for. Fortunatly Enough of us feel the Bible Is the true and accurate word of God, who chose to be born of a woman, and chose to experience what everyday people have to live with and then chose to give ud the hope within us and chose to die (becuse he loved us) and chose to rise again to defeat death and hell so we could choose to take up our own crosses and follow him. Where is your hope? Are you choosing to live a lie so that your followers can reject Christ's love and mercy and end up before the judgement of God. That cant be danced around or sugar-coated. You will be asked what you have done for the Christ. That is all because Satan want's you soul. Give it to him but understnd you will be held resposible for the comments you make. The Bible says ALL WILL BOW BEFOR THE THRONE BOTH GOOD AND BAD WILL BE JUDGED NOT BY MAN BUT BY THE KING OF KINGS THROUGH JESUS WHO SAVED US.
@ Ben ... what about the 80% of the world who do NOT folow your book? Are they automatically sent to your "hell" just because they don't have your beliefs? If you say 'god' made us, and I'm sure you think that, why throw away 80% of your product? You DO realize thet x-tians are a minority on this planet, right?
Ben, you are saying god created people and, in the end, sends the majority of them to hell to be tortured forever. Do you find that to be acceptable? I assume you do since you apparently worship this god that you believe does this.
Well said. Can't believe people like this call themselves Christian. That 's a misconception if ever I saw one.
I meant well said Christfollower, I was referring to the original post.
Joke out of the subject;
Sikhs Vs Pope.. [ JOKE ]
Once upon a time in Italy, About a century or two ago, the Pope decided that all the Sikhs had to leave Italy. Naturally there was a big uproar from the Sikh community.
So the Pope made a deal He would have a religious debate with a member of the Sikh community If the Sikh won, the Sikhs could stay.
If the Pope won, the Sikhs would leave.
The Sikhs realized that they had no choice. So they picked a middle-aged man named Harbinder Singh to represent them.
Harbinder asked for one additional condition to the debate To make it more interesting, neither side would be allowed to talk. The Pope agreed.
The day of the great debate came. Harbinder Singh and the Pope sat opposite each other for a full minute Then the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers.
Harbinder looked back at him and raised one finger.
The Pope waved his fingers in a circle around his head.
Harbinder pointed to the ground where he sat.
The Pope pulled out a wafer and a glass of wine.
Harbinder pulled out an apple.
The Pope stood up and said, "I give up. This man is too good. The Sikhs can stay."
An hour later, the cardinals were gathered around the Pope asking him what had happened.
The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the holy trinity.
He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was still One God common to both our religions.
Then, I waved my finger around me to show him that God was all around us.
He responded by pointing to the ground and showing that God was also right here with us.
Then, I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us from our sins.
He pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin.
He had an answer for everything. What could I do?"
Meanwhile, the Sikh community had crowded around Harbinder Singh.
"What happened?" they asked.
"Well," said Harbinder, "First he said to me that the Sikhs had three days to get out of here.
I told him not one of us was leaving.
Then he told me that this whole city would be cleared of Sikhs.
I let him know that we were staying right here."
"Yes, and then???" asked the crowd.
"I don't know", said Harbinder,
"He took out his lunch, and I took out mine!!...
That's hilarious!
That is absolutely hilarious, what little I know of Sikh traditions and beliefs intrigue me, but it makes me want to learn more.
Another one;
Pathan Doesn't Pay
One fine day, a bus driver went to the bus garage, started his bus, and drove off along the route. No problems for the first few stops – a few people got on, a few got off, and things went generally well.
At the next stop, however, a big hulk of a Pathan got on. Six feet four, built like a wrestler, arms hanging down to the ground. He glared at the conductor and said, "Pathan doesn't pay!" and sat down at the back.
Conductor didn't argue with Pathan, but he wasn't happy about it. The next day the same thing happened – Pathan got on again, made a show of refusing to pay, and sat down. And the next day, and the next..
This grated on the bus driver, who started losing sleep over the way Pathan was taking advantage of poor conductor. Finally he could stand it no longer. He signed up for body building courses, karate, judo, and all that good stuff.
By the end of the summer, he had become quite strong; what's more, he felt really good about himself. So, on the next Monday, when Pathan once again got on the bus and said, "Pathan doesn't pay!"
The driver stood up, glared back at Pathan, and screamed, "And why not?"
With a surprised look on his face, Pathan replied, "Pathan has a bus pass."
Moral: Be sure there is a problem in the first place before working hard to solve one.