New Reality TV Show
CNN report:
A Turkish television show is offering contestants what it claims is the “biggest prize ever” — the chance for atheists to convert to one of the world’s major religions.
The show, called “Tovbekarlar Yarisiyor,” or “Penitents Compete,” features a Muslim imam, a Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi and a Buddhist monk attempting to persuade 10 atheists of the merits of their religion, according to CNN Turk.
If they succeed, the contestants are rewarded with a pilgrimage to one of their chosen faith’s most sacred sites — Mecca for Muslims, Jerusalem for converts to Judaism, a trip to Tibet for Buddhists and the chance to visit Ephesus and the Vatican for Christians.
I hope they show it here, along with the audience reaction shots!
Hat Tip: Andrew Bolt
July 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
For it to be really meaningful though they’d have to have an atheist who thinks a lot about religion to go on the show, ‘cos you could just easily get a slightly less thoughtful atheist to go on and it’ll be no different to say an atheist who walks into a Church and decides to put up their hand during an altar call at some Pentocostal service and “give their life to God and enter into a relationship with Jesus”.
Alternatively, it should be a contest between the four religious representatives to convert each other.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Isn’t this kind of lose-lose for the “contestant”? They are presumable bombarded with religious proselytising, and they either lose the competition, or they acquiesce to the irrational idiocy of religion and come another blind ignorant follower? Who would actually volunteer for this? No rational atheist I’ve met, myself included.
edit: Ruby, I like your idea of four religious sects competing for each others’ assent.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Reality TV is obviously the ideal forum for theological debate so I’m sure this will settle the “which is the true religion” question once and for all. I can’t wait.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
And a trip to New York for the Clarkists?
July 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The Imam will surely win. When you convert to islam you get a free vest that has all sorts of electronic timers attached to it. Who could turn that down.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I can see it now. Contestant, which door do you choose. Remember, there are four choices but only one offers eternal salvation.
Of course, the booby prize probably four Al-Queda guys with a knife.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“The Imam will surely win. When you convert to islam you get a free vest that has all sorts of electronic timers attached to it. Who could turn that down.”
Not to mention the Seventy virgins ready and waiting for you when the timers go off.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Ah, the holy sites. 50 percent more God than any other part of the universe. I hope they do a US version. I can totally see Tom Cruise jumping on the couch for Scientology.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Bahahahahaha! That’s awesome.
TVNZ will no doubt rip the concept off and make a local one if it’s a hit overseas?
July 9th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Tibet for Buddhists. Sigh.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
“Tibet for Buddhists.”
Unless your name happens to be Mr Dalai Lama
July 9th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Organised Religion seems like a gameshow anyway so this idea isn’t so out there.
What I would prefer to see is something along the lines of Pop Idol but for Muslim fanatics.
Imagine the fun they could have practicing their suicide attacks. It would be like that Monty Python skit about the Kamakaze Highlanders.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Hat tip – Andrew Bolt??
Gee thanks DPF: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/07/general_debate_8_july_2009.html#comment-581594
I still reckon the Scientologists should get a go – do you get a trip to their home planet??
July 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
It’s no longer DC10s. They use Concorde now.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Who would actually volunteer for this? No rational atheist I’ve met, myself included.
I could see some seizing as a chance to do their own prosthelytising.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Ryan, where then?
‘cmon India!!’
July 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Yeah, India. Bodh Gaya, if you’re going to have anything like a pilgrimage goal with Buddhism, which is moderately absurd in itself. 6% of all Buddhists in the world are Tibetan Buddhists, yet the Dalai Lama’s treated like the Pope of All Buddhists or something.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Ahh Gosman But then you find out the 70 virgins are…………………………….goats
July 9th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I think the original article got it ‘slightly’ wrong – there needs to be a fifth category with relevant destination city:
1) Muslim imam – prize: trip to Mecca.
2) Catholic priest – prize: trip to Vatican city.
3) Jewish rabbi – prize: trip to Jerusalem.
4) Buddhist monk – prize: trip to Tibet.
5) Bible believing Christian – prize: [future] trip to the heavenly Jerusalem.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
It should be last one standing, like the island thing or the dance thing or the singing (Fredian slip? I typo-ed sining) thing where each week the weakest is eliminated. Means of elimination could be appropriate.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
gd – not goats. The correct translation is raisins.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
6% of all Buddhists in the world are Tibetan Buddhists, yet the Dalai Lama’s treated like the Pope of All Buddhists or something.
Some good old fashioned sectarian violence would get the distinction out there. Maybe.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Yeah, seriously. Everyone knows that Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims disagree on shit. The Buddhists need better PR guys.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
@ MyNameIsJack
“The correct translation is raisins.”
I have actually read somewhere a Muslim scholar argue that very point.
I bet there are some seriously pissed off Muslim terrorists out there when they are presented with 70 rasins instead of what they thought they were going to get in Paradise.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
5) Bible believing Christian – prize: [future] trip to the heavenly Jerusalem.
Yes Kris, obviously in your opinion a Catholic doesn’t fall under the category of a Bible believing Christian. I think the term you are actually looking for is “fundamentalist Pentecostal” Christian.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Chuck in a Druid and a trip home to Blighty and I’m there…
July 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
TimG_Oz says:
“I still reckon the Scientologists should get a go – do you get a trip to their home planet??”
Regrettably not in these trying times Tim. They have to make do with Disneyland.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Ruby 4:27 pm,
I think ANYONE who misapplies the word of God is, by definition, NOT a ‘Bible believing Christian’.
Whether they be Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican, Baptist, fill in the blank.
After all, Christians are instructed to ‘rightly divide the word of God’.
I wasn’t intending to make this a huge theological debate, but Catholics do ADD to the completed works of Christ; infant baptism gets you into heaven.
I also think the Pentecostals are wrong: speaking in tongues as evidence of salvation – I don’t think so!
July 9th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Hell I think Satanists should get a look in ( feel free to suggest destinations ) and I also was under the impression you had to be born to a Jewish mother to be a Jew. Always keen for some free travel and Tibet sounds like the most fun
July 9th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
H Stewart 6:29 pm “Hell I think Satanists …”
Was that a freudian slip?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Can I nominate MNIJ as first contestant, fuck, he was born for stuff like this. Not sure he would know what to do 70 virgins though.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Hell no
July 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
“also was under the impression you had to be born to a Jewish mother to be a Jew”
No, this is not correct. Anyone can become Jewish (by conversion). Hinduism has no conversion mechanism.
However, I doubt the Rabbi would be very successful – I mean the sales pitch is basically “Don’t become Jewish – it sucks to be us. Everybody hates us. We do all these crazy things, and you can’t eat what you want or work when you want. And if you’re a bloke, then you’ve got a little chop-chop to go through before you start.”
July 9th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
“Ahh Gosman But then you find out the 70 virgins are…………………………….goats”
They also don’t mention which gender the virgins will be either………………..
July 9th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
They forgot to represent the most popular religion………. anthopogenic global warming.
Russel could talk the arse off an ass, they should send him over to convert those dastardly atheists.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Guys this is all nonsense, no goats in the arab world are virgins…
July 10th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Kris K (55) Vote: 2 1 Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Ruby 4:27 pm,
I think ANYONE who misapplies the word of God is, by definition, NOT a ‘Bible believing Christian’.
Whether they be Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican, Baptist, fill in the blank.
After all, Christians are instructed to ‘rightly divide the word of God’.
I wasn’t intending to make this a huge theological debate, but Catholics do ADD to the completed works of Christ; infant baptism gets you into heaven.
I also think the Pentecostals are wrong: speaking in tongues as evidence of salvation – I don’t think so!
You don’t believe speaking in tongues is evidence of salvation? Well guess what, the Pentecostals happen to believe that you’re someone who misapplies the Word of God then and thus by definition not a “Bible believing Christian”, just as you believe the Catholics aren’t Bible believing Christians because they believe infant baptism gets you into Heaven (which of course is you making a stereotypical generalisation of what they believe).
July 10th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Ruby [July 10th, 12:47 pm],
I think the central issue is rightly dividing God’s word, as I stated earlier.
You have to ignore and take out of context a whole lot of scripture to support either Catholic or Pentecostal doctrine [and I use that term loosely].
I believe God has revealed extremely clearly EXACTLY what is required to obtain salvation, and that an individual can KNOW whether they are indeed one in Christ according to His word.
Do you believe in absolute truth Ruby, or is everything whatever shade of grey you may settle upon?
July 10th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Ruby,
Counter to infant baptism:
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Belief, and therefore understanding, is required prior to baptism. Infants fail on both counts of belief and understanding.
Counter to speaking in tongues as evidence of salvation:
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
1Co 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
Clearly, Paul is saying not ALL speak with tongues [just as not all interpret], therefore how can speaking in tongues be evidence of salvation? [Whether all of these gifts, etc are appropriate for today is entirely another matter].
July 10th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Interesting, interesting. So I take it you are one who considers himself someone who doesn’t misapply the Word of God?
Luke 18:18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19″Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” 21″All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. 22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
How much assets do you own Kris K? Would you be able to provide an account of giving it to the poor?
Or how about this:
Matthew 18:7 “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
I presume, of course, that you have applied this to your life. In which case I must ask you, in light of Luke 18, how are you able to have a computer, and in light of Matthew 18, how are you able to view these posts with your eyes and type your responses with your hands? Are you a true Bible believing Christian or just a cherry picker like the Catholics and Pentecostals?
Don’t you dare have the gall to judge them if you consider yourself a Christian, because you’ve just got a bit of plank in your eye there.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
And following from your final sentence – do you believe the above verses to be absolute truth Kris K or perhaps a shade of grey?
July 11th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Ruby [July10, 8:35 pm],
As someone who professes that they were once a Christian I feel sorry for you if you never grasped the issues you have raised. I also get the impression that perhaps you are being perverse, but nonetheless I will assume that you are asking honest questions. Many churches don’t give clear teaching on such topics after all.
As you haven’t refuted the infant baptism and tongues as evidence points I went through earlier, I presume that you accept that the scriptures are actually sufficiently clear on these two points.
Let’s look at Luke 18:18-22.
Christ, as God, knows the hearts of all men. This is a heart issue and not one of external observances [All these have I kept from my youth up]. The thing preventing this ruler from qualifying for salvation was not his wealth, but his attitude toward his wealth.
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: …
Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
This ruler’s heart was fixed on ‘earthly treasure’, and this was his master, not Christ or God. Christ proves his point by the fact that the ruler wasn’t prepared to give up his earthly treasure.
This is the one of the problems of modern society: the rich aren’t prepared to sacrifice [attitudinally] wordly riches for heavenly ones. It is not a sin to be rich, but if our riches ‘rule’ us then this is our true treasure.
Christ highlights this with the following verses [a shame you didn't read on]:
Luk 18:23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
Luk 18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
Luk 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Now let’s look at Matthew 18:7-9.
Once again Christ is speaking of the human heart. He is also employing hyperbole.
I also suggest you read the first six verses of Matthew 18.
The overall theme is of causing “little ones which believe in me” [v6] to be “offended” or stumble.
It is not so much our “hands”, “feet”, or “eyes” which cause us to sin by leading others astray, but the heart/mind which empowers our bodily parts. Indeed, we can sin in our mind alone [lust, covet, hate, etc].
And yes, I do endeavour to live by these same standards.
If I am confronted with biblical error, whether from Catholics, Pentecostals, or, in fact, my own Pastor I am instructed scripturally to challenge these errors. [I have in fact challenged my Pastor on several points in recent times].
Judgement begins in the house of God:
1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
We need to study to ensure we are being taught the truth:
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
We need to search the scriptures to ensure that what we are being taught is in fact true:
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Christ challenged the Pharisees of His day; we as His disciples are to do the same.
Oh, and Ruby, it is not me that judges anyone, but the word of God. Even Christ won’t judge anyone that rejects His words:
Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
And yes, I do regard ALL of God’s word to be absolute truth [in light of 2 Timothy 2:15].
July 11th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
As you haven’t refuted the infant baptism and tongues as evidence points I went through earlier, I presume that you accept that the scriptures are actually sufficiently clear on these two points.
Oh yes, it’s sufficiently clear – just as the Koran is sufficiently clear on the five pillars of Islam and Bhuddist Satsungs are sufficiently clear on being one with nature – whether I am retarded enough to apply what the Bible says to real life is another matter.
Christ, as God, knows the hearts of all men. This is a heart issue and not one of external observances [All these have I kept from my youth up]. The thing preventing this ruler from qualifying for salvation was not his wealth, but his attitude toward his wealth.
I’m sorry, but on what basis are you making the factual presumption that Christ knows the hearts of all men?
Secondly, you still haven’t provided an account of your monetary circumstances and what you spend it on. I wasn’t disputing what the scripture says – but asking you whether you actually apply it to your life?
Now let’s look at Matthew 18:7-9. Once again Christ is speaking of the human heart. He is also employing hyperbole.
You have failed to actually show why Christ is speaking in hyperbole or the fact that he is referring to the human heart as opposed to actually meaning what he is saying. On what grounds are you making that presumption? You just simply say: “he’s being hyperbolic here” without backing that up.
It is not so much our “hands”, “feet”, or “eyes” which cause us to sin by leading others astray, but the heart/mind which empowers our bodily parts. Indeed, we can sin in our mind alone [lust, covet, hate, etc].
Actually no, I’m pretty sure it is so much our hands and feet or eyes or genitalia that cause us to sin. If you applied what Jesus said literally and cut those members off, you would actually literally stop having lustful thoughts, as it is those body members that cause you to have lustful thoughts (if you had no ballsac, you would not have the hormones that cause you to have an erection and lust after a woman, for example. If you cannot view pornography on the internet, you would not see images of naked women and be attracted to it). If you take what Jesus said seriously, rather than use your own “feel-good interpretation” for it to mean he’s just referring to the mind, then you are discarding the seriousness of him warning people they will enter into hell with their members.
You are confusing judging people (criticising them of not being ‘true Bible believing Christians’ for example and in your pride presuming you’ve got your interpretations right and they don’t, as the Pharisees did in their day and what you are doing when you presume you know better than Pentecostal Christians and Catholics), with punishment, the power to hand down and carry out the punishment being in God’s domain. Christ was not light in his judgment of people, and said people are capable of judgment. Therefore if you are a Christian and believe in the Bible don’t say crap like “it’s not me that judges anyone” because you are denying the fact that Biblically everyone judges.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
As someone who professes that they were once a Christian I feel sorry for you if you never grasped the issues you have raised.
I feel sorry for you that you haven’t grown out of it. I look at your posts and am reminded of how I used to lead Bible study groups for Christian youth explaining things in the very same manner as you are doing now and how I was unable to see how I was simply stretching the Bible to fit what I liked believing and what was in line with what I heard in Church, and then compromising on areas that would sicken modern society (e.g. Luke 18 above). For example, agreeing with Intelligent Design over evolution.
I would recommend to you the following reading to deconstruct your way of thinking (in this order) – all these books are generally available from public libraries:
What’s So Amazing About Grace by Philip Yancey
Grand Theft Jesus by Robert McElvaine
Christianity Without God by Lloyd Geering
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
July 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
*Sigh* Ruby,
“I would recommend to you the following reading” … the Bible. But before you start ask the Holy Spirit to give you understanding.
I think Yancey is a nut – idiots like him emphasise God’s love but ignore the fact that He is also a God of justice.
I don’t consider Geering a Christian; his denial of much of the scripture is legendary – especially core Christian doctrine.
Dawkins is another nutjob, evolution is my ‘god’, arrogant, God denying atheist.
I could also provide a long list of ‘recommended’ books for your consideration. At the end of the day, though, it doesn’t really matter what some ‘bloke’ thinks. The Creator God, Redeemer, Coming King, Lamb of God, Lion of Judah is the only one whose opinion actually matters.
It is to Him that we will ALL give an account, whether we believe or not.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“I would recommend to you the following reading” … the Bible. But before you start ask the Holy Spirit to give you understanding.
I would recommend to you the following reading… The Koran. But before you start, ask Allah to give you understanding. I’m pretty sure BlairM earlier used a similar line of reasoning – that being a Christian is not about using your intellect but using your faith – however, that is the exact rationale every other religion uses and Christian apologists would argue against.
I think Yancey is a nut – idiots like him emphasise God’s love but ignore the fact that He is also a God of justice. I don’t consider Geering a Christian; his denial of much of the scripture is legendary – especially core Christian doctrine. Dawkins is another nutjob, evolution is my ‘god’, arrogant, God denying atheist.
I would not even expect you to read these books with an open mind. But the very least you could do would be perhaps to give actually reading these books a chance?
At the end of the day, though, it doesn’t really matter what some ‘bloke’ thinks. The Creator God, Redeemer, Coming King, Lamb of God, Lion of Judah is the only one whose opinion actually matters. It is to Him that we will ALL give an account, whether we believe or not.
Do you honestly think I could have been a Christian for 10 years and not heard, preached and practiced everything you’ve said before, possibly more than yourself? Including of course praying, reading the Bible, asking the Holy Spirit to live in me, etc. etc. And as for the books you could potentially provide to me – I’ve probably already read them all before. Mere Christianity by CS Lewis? Way of the Master by Ray Comfort? The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel? Born Again by Charles Colson? 40 Days of Purpose by Rick Warren? Ravi Zacharias, Greg Laurie, Derek Prince, Joyce Meyer – if it’s on the Mana Christian bookstore’s shelves or in a Church library then I’ve probably read it before. And those are just the populist books – I went to Bible College for a year so am also familiar with scholastic theology – ironically enough in 2007 my final year of being a Christian in an attempt to save and reconfirm my faith before I finally realised that no matter how far and deep I searched in the end it was no longer something I could non-superstitiously hold on to.
However, you would never do the exact thing you expect from non-Christians – which is to give their philosophies, religions and opinions the same level of consideration and investigation you would expect from them towards Christianity.
As I highly doubt you have even bothered to read a single chapter from The God Delusion (correct me if I’m wrong and if so I apologise), here’s something for you to ponder:
On Wednesday I wrote a study for my little youth group kids about the origins of evil according to Christianity and all that, and came across the following conundrum, which I have puzzled over before, and which I wonder if any of you can help me with:
My argument was that God allowed evil to enter the world as part of the risk He took in giving humanity free will. i.e. He loved mankind so much that He wanted to give us the chance to grow and mature and choose Him and the good life for ourselves, rather than being set on auto-pilot. All of which I’m sure you’re all familiar with. I think it’s a nice idea – the end goal being that God gets a family of children who have developed hearts and wisdom like His, and turned away from evil.
Obviously there are questions as to whether it was fair of Him to allow us to stuff things up so badly when a little more guidance might have spared us a lot of pain, and might have made His ‘family’ rather bigger. But I guess I’m basically willing to give Him the benefit of the doubt on that one, and assume He knew what He was doing, and has some kind of plan to tie up the loose ends. We’ll see.
My real conundrum, though, is about the actual story in Genesis 2-3 – and please note I don’t wish to open the debate on the literal/metaphorical nature of this story, which I think I pretty much know all your various opinions about. Rather, I’m going to assume that, either way, the story has an emblematic status which somehow applies to theology.
My question is, if God wanted us to develop maturity and discernment, doesn’t it seem slightly backward that the tree they were forbidden to touch was said to offer that very thing – the knowledge of good and evil? God says ‘if you eat from it you will surely die’. Which is true of course – when they figure out they can try things their own way they pretty much immediately start stuffing things up and killing each other and things. The serpent says of it “You will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” And perhaps that’s true too – there’s no certainty they’ll die; there’s a slim chance they’ll get it right themselves and not ruin everything. In any case the serpent is just trying to incite them to rebellion – don’t listen to everything Mr Big says; don’t submit to being His slave. Do what you want.
Some possible solutions to the puzzle:
1) My argument is wrong: God didn’t want us to develop maturity etc.; He wanted us to get everything right, and for the world to stay perfect, and therefore when He said He didn’t want them to eat the fruit, He meant it.
>>Question: so why put it there? To give them the choice? But if they’re better off without the choice, isn’t that kinda stupid?
2) God knew all along that they’d take the fruit, and put it there intentionally, so that they’d take it and learn some important lessons – painful though it would be for all concerned – which would ultimately be to their/humanity’s betterment.
>>Question: so why does He forbid them to touch it?
>>Question: is it even plausible to say we’re somehow better off in a post-fall world? Is that kind of sick and sadistic? Or is that like saying it’s sadistic of a parent to take the training wheels off their kid’s bike, knowing they’ll fall off the first time, but will eventually acquire a new skill?
3) Perhaps it wasn’t so much that He was forbidding them, but just that He had to warn them, in all fairness, that it would be a path of suffering, even though it would ultimately be the best.
>>But in that case, why not just say ‘kids, you have the following two options – you decide’? Instead, He says ‘you must not take option 2′.
4) Perhaps in their auto-pilot state they’re not able to make decisions like that anyway, so He has to trick them, and maybe overstate the case a little just to make it more interesting.
>>Hm, oh dear, interesting questions arise as to the nature of God. Though potentially it could be seen as a parallel to a parent who tells his kid not to cross the road on her own, not because he never wants her to cross the road, but because she’s not ready yet, and in this stage of her development what she needs is set rules that will keep her safe. So, uh, we’re currently in the state of having disobeyed, strayed onto the road, been hit by a bus, and are now very slowly recovering, and very slowly figuring out how to conduct ourselves better in future – possibly mixed with a good deal of angst directed towards our dad who should have protected us better.
*
Now I know that the creation/fall story was not written as a philosophical argument, but simply as a story, and perhaps in that sense can’t support, or was not designed to support, analysis of this kind.
Still, I think these questions can be drawn from it, in combination with some good old western philosophising: did God actually intend for us to develop autonomy? Did He create us in order to be ourselves, or in order to be His? Is the whole journey of self-discovery that humanity has been on since then good in God’s eyes, or bad? Did He want us to be ‘gods’ – capable of determining our own future? And if so, are we in some sense genuinely independent of Him now…?
July 11th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I don’t consider Geering a Christian; his denial of much of the scripture is legendary – especially core Christian doctrine.
I can guarantee that if you read his earlier publications you will soon see that his knowledge of scripture and supposed ‘core’ (AKA mainstream) Christian doctrine is much more deeper than yours.
July 11th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
By the way, did you see the post I made above the one I made about book recommendations in response to your interpretations of Matthew and Luke?
July 11th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Ruby,
I guess it all boils down to the question Jesus posed to Pilate: ‘What is truth?’
Either there is, or isn’t, absolute truth. Although I realise that there are many analogies, parables, hyperbole, grammatical devices, etc, in the Bible, there are also truths that are not negotiable. For example, ‘Christ is the way, the truth, and the life’ [Jn 14:16], and I believe the creation ‘story’, and Noah’s flood are also actual accounts of real events. What separates Christianity from any other religion or human phiosophy is
1) the claims of Christ.
2) the fact that only the Bible is established upon fulfilled prophecy.
3) Only the Bible shows just how ludicrous evolution and other human phiosophies and religions are.
You are right, though, that it requires a step of faith to become a Christian. Just as it does to embrace any other ideology you may care to suggest. You are left with essentially two choices: does absolute truth exist or not. If it does, based on all the available ‘evidence’, what best represents that truth. That is the journey each of us must take. Making no choice is not a valid response. Just as convincing yourself that one cannot now for certain is not a valid response. Our acceptance or denial does not, ultimately, alter reality.
Let me put a question to you Ruby: If you were God and you created Mankind so that you could have perfect communion with them, but with still leaving them freewill how would you direct them? Freewill [as you posited] allows for the ability of wrong choices/sin. Once made the road back is out of the hands of the ones who sinned. I won’t go on as I think you’ve worked out where I’m going with this.
Anyway, whether you would have done it as God chose to, or not, is irrelevant. Bottom line is; God makes the rules. We either accept or reject them.
To pick up your final point: God made us to be His children. We have freedom within the guidlines that God set down. Salvation is based on coming to God on His terms, and as He prescribed. So yes, we do have the ability to detrmine our own future. Of course, those that are “genuinely independent of Him now” are likely to be “genuinely independent of Him” for all eternity.
Bottom line is, though, either I’m right, your right, or we’re both wrong and there is another ‘truth’.
You may mock me, or simply disagree with me, but for me, I’ll stick with my view.
PS do you actually believe in anything? Or have you fully converted to the ‘religion’ of Atheism? By the way, atheism does require faith.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Ruby 5:06 pm,
“By the way, did you see the post I made above the one I made about book recommendations in response to your interpretations of Matthew and Luke?”
Yes I did, I just disagree with you opinions and feel I have adequately addressed the points you made. But I will add that none of the disciples had any ‘body parts’ removed, nor is this evident anywhere else in the NT, as a result of causing others to be offended, or for any other sin for that matter.
“I’m sorry, but on what basis are you making the factual presumption that Christ knows the hearts of all men?”
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Act 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
July 11th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Ruby 4:53 pm,
I don’t consider Geering a Christian; his denial of much of the scripture is legendary – especially core Christian doctrine.
“I can guarantee that if you read his earlier publications you will soon see that his knowledge of scripture and supposed ‘core’ (AKA mainstream) Christian doctrine is much more deeper than yours.”
Perhaps, but he certainly lost the plot later on IMHO.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Like I said, there is very little, in fact, nothing that you have said that I haven’t myself said before in the past, and of course I was guilty of doing the exact same thing as you are now when I was a Christian. If you go to Ian Wishart’s website http://www.tbr.cc and look up the thread The Divinity Code you will see that we have already debated free will (the comments span about 20 pages).
I don’t think you are actually able to see how you are coming across, which is kinda why I’d want you to read Dawkin’s book, because he explains it in a way that helps Christians see things more objectively, because it is so easy to think that you know everything so well but the truth is you don’t know anything. It would be the equivalent of me saying to you:
The messenger of Allah said: “Islam is to testify that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, to perform the prayers, to pay the zakat, to fast in Ramadhan, and to make the pilgrimage to the House if you are able to do so.” He said: ” You have spoken rightly”, Jebreel (Gabriel) from Number 2 of “Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths.” 1 “If anyone harms (others), God will harm him, and if anyone shows hostility to others, God will show hostility to him.” Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith 1625.
A Muslim could say that to you and you would be like, WTH? However, to him it makes perfect sense and if you can’t accept it then he would think that you are just being ignorant and that you don’t know about the love of Allah and how Muhammad is the only way and that his teachings and claims are unique, not Jesus’. Before you say Christianity is the only religion that has grace which no other religion does – answer me this: how much do you actually know about other religions? Chances are that’s just a statement you heard on one of Radio Rhema’s teaching programmes and you took it to be the truth, thus further filling your Christian sense of truth in your own faith.
Take for example your question: If you were God and you created Mankind so that you could have perfect communion with them, but with still leaving them freewill how would you direct them?
You cannot really answer that question, and then instantly say hey you don’t believe this is logical therefore you must be an atheist. How can I explain this, OK like back when I was a Christian one question I received from a nonbeliever once was: “if God made you, who made God”? And so I said to him – your life is like a book, its pages are blank. Nothing is written yet, but you can choose what you write in it. And that’s the beautiful thing about Christianity – because if you accept Jesus as your Savior then God becomes the author of your book and you can have a happy ending. So life is like a book, and God is the author of that book, therefore does not need to be created because He is the Creator.
Looking back I see just how absolutely ridiculous and rubbish that sort of answer was, and how it didn’t actually address what that man had asked me. It was just a feel good answer, much like all the verses you quoted above: You are right, though, that it requires a step of faith to become a Christian. Just as it does to embrace any other ideology you may care to suggest. You are left with essentially two choices: does absolute truth exist or not. If it does, based on all the available ‘evidence’, what best represents that truth. That is the journey each of us must take. Making no choice is not a valid response. Just as convincing yourself that one cannot now for certain is not a valid response. Our acceptance or denial does not, ultimately, alter reality. I don’t think you are actually able to see how narrow minded what you have written is, because you are putting philosophy in a box, the edges (or ‘limitations’) of the box being your own illogical and Christian-influenced view of choice and reality. Anyway, I’m not good at explaining it, I really would recommend reading The God Delusion, and if you are so convinced that Dawkins worships evolution then you obviously have nothing to be afraid of and can just see his propositions as a joke rather than relying on second hand information about him that you’ve probably heard from a pastor who hasn’t read the book himself. It may be a populist book which is why Christians are so quick to discard it, because they think if non-believers are going to fall for it then it must not be very theologically sound, but the truth is a lot of what he writes is very well-informed and profound.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
And here’s a counter question – if God is good and nothing evil is in Him, which is why we cannot go to Heaven unless Jesus washes our sins away, how is He capable of creating Satan?
To answer your question though – in short, if I was God and I created knowing all things and how it would turn out, knowing that free will required pain and suffering, knowing that I would be eternally sad if some of My children fell through the cracks and end up in Hell by their own accord, yet still went ahead and created, I would not have created in the first place.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Here is the thread I was referring to: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/11/the-divinity-co.html – make sure you click ‘next’ at the bottom of the comments.
“I’m sorry, but on what basis are you making the factual presumption that Christ knows the hearts of all men?”
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Act 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen.
See… This is kinda what I was trying to get at above… Your argument is the equivalent of a Muslim saying: “The Koran says the Koran is true therefore the Koran is true”.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
3) Only the Bible shows just how ludicrous evolution and other human phiosophies and religions are.
As for your comment here, have a look at this separate debate with Sid over the last few days: http://debatinggod.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/why-i-believe-god-made-man-as-is/comment-page-1/#comments – spans about ten pages. Click ‘newer comments’ at the bottom of each page to continue reading.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Ruby, you are correct inasmuch as the Bible is my spiritual authority. Of course, you ignore the issue of fulfilled prophecy. Only the God of the Bible knows the future [not the Koran, etc]
You pose a scriptural question, and when I answer using scripture you imply that this is somehow ‘intellectually dishonest’. How else does one know that “Christ knows the hearts of all men?” apart from the Bible?
You say I can’t use the Bible as a ‘proof’ of His existance, His values, His essence, etc. and then say I need to read another ‘book’ by some ‘bloke’ and for some unknown reason I need to accept the authority of this ‘bloke’.
Only the Bible, and therefore the God of the Bible, reveals the future. Not the Koran, not Dawkins, not any other man made philosophy or individual. If I’m wrong on this ONE point show me. By the way, you’ll need to refute all the prophecies concerning the foretelling of Christ; His birth, place of birth, lineage, methods and types of physical traumas, method of His death, etc, etc. These span from Genesis through to Malachi. Good luck.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I guess it all boils down to the question Jesus posed to Pilate: ‘What is truth?’ Either there is, or isn’t, absolute truth. Although I realise that there are many analogies, parables, hyperbole, grammatical devices, etc, in the Bible, there are also truths that are not negotiable. For example, ‘Christ is the way, the truth, and the life’ [Jn 14:16], and I believe the creation ’story’, and Noah’s flood are also actual accounts of real events. What separates Christianity from any other religion or human phiosophy is 1) the claims of Christ. 2) the fact that only the Bible is established upon fulfilled prophecy.
As for this comment. If you asked me what I believed a few years back, I would agree with what you wrote above 100%. Then gradually, through searching for truth and through searching for a way to bring the truth to the world my view of the world changed. It took me a couple of years the entire process. I was noticing that at the two church services I went to, I didn’t sing much anymore, because I was too busy analysing the words to see whether I agree with them. If I didn’t agree with them, I seemed to automatically assume an attitude of aloofness, so the good stuff can’t get in either. I kept my eyes open during prayer – which obviously is not so bad in itself, but is indicative of my inability/refusal to engage personally. I found it difficult to pray myself, either aloud in group settings or on my own. When listening to teaching, I thought hard about the words being said and whether or not they’re good and right, but I didn’t let in the good, and my attitude is probably a proud one. I bestow my intellectual assent where appropriate, and leave it at that. At least that’s how it felt after years of doing the exact same thing and listening to the exact same message every Sunday, even when changing Churches. And there is no need to tell me Christianity is about living a Christian life not just listening, I volunteered relentlessly for the Salvation Army and City Mission for years. When I talked about the services with people afterwards, we frequently fell to discussing the bad points. This was so with family as well as friends. I asked myself, was there any escape from intellectualism once one is hooked on it? Is it possible to ‘let go’ without compromising one’s intellectual honesty? And I had to stop being myself and try to look at things objectively. Regardless of anything the Bible says, if the Bible itself isn’t true, then what is in it is (as far as basing a faith on) worthless.
And so I tried really hard to find any proof that the Bible was historically legitimate outside of Christian books and teachings. And I came up with lots of conflicting evidence, some saying Jesus is only a myth, some saying he existed but wasn’t God, others saying the Bible is true, but in the end it just seems so clear to me that the New Testament does not accurately describe history.
And another time I read some Jewish apologetics, kind of like Christian apologetics where Christians defend God to non-Christians but this was Jewish people defending Judaism to Christians and when it was highlighted it was pretty clear that Jesus didn’t meet up with the Hebrew concept of a Messiah on a LOT of grounds, so even if I could believe the NT was historical, I couldn’t believe it tied to the OT. See this quote:
In a recent radio interview I was sternly asked by the host, who did not consider himself a Christian, to defend Christianity. I told him that I couldn’t do it, and moreover, that I didn’t want to defend the term. He asked me if I was a Christian, and I told him yes. “Then why don’t you want to defend Christianity?” he asked, confused. I told him I no longer knew what the term meant. Of the hundreds of thousands of people listening to his show that day, some of them had terrible experiences with Christianity; they may have been yelled at by a teacher in a Christian school, abused by a minister, or browbeaten by a Christian parent. To them, the term Christianity meant something that no Christian I know would defend. By fortifying the term, I am only making them more and more angry. I won’t do it. Stop ten people on the street and ask them what they think of when they hear the word Christianity, and they will give you ten different answers. How can I defend a term that means ten different things to ten different people?
And then after making that decision I basically allowed myself for the first time ever to view God not as “my Driend” but without rose coloured glasses on and saw the God of the Old Testament as a mean jealous horrible individual that encouraged rape and killing and the only reason He got away with it was because He was stronger and in no way worthy of worship, if I was to believe it.
Of course that’s only the bad stuff there is a lot more stuff in there but it seems crazy to me those things are overlooked because God did them. If the Hebrew people were Gods chosen people He should have held them up to a higher standard.
From Grand Theft Jesus, one of the books I recommended above:
In the early books of what Christians call the Old Testament and the last book of the New Testament we find a god made in man’s image, a god with a human nature. He is quick to anger, violent, vindictive, and demanding of obedience and tribute as a human monarch would be.
In the Gospels we find a very different God. The God of Jesus (and of the later Isaiah and some of the other Hebrew prophets) is loving, non-violent, accepting of enemies as well as neighbours, and a champion of the poor.
The early Old Testament and late New Testament god is the way we are. The God Jesus describes is the way we ought to be. The first god is one to whom we can easily relate because he is like us. He will smite our enemies, not love them. The God is Jesus, on the other hand, tells us about the very unnatural way we need to behave. We must choose to be selfless, generous, and kind.
The radical difference between the two gods is evident. In contrast between Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey: Behold, your king is coming to you, humble and mounted on an ass” and the Rider on the White Stallion who goes conquering and bringing death and destruction in the Book of Revelation: A white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed which no-one knows but himself. He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is the Word of God. And the armies of Heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed him on white horses. From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Christians will preach that in Revelation the second ressurection occurs. The violent, vengeful god of the early parts of the Hebrew Bible is raised in place of the God described by Isaiah and the Jews. And, as there are two different gods in the Bible, there are two different Jesuses in the New Testament.
Unless you accept Jesus, you’re going to Hell, is a threat commonly heard from the lips of such self-styled Christians. While insisting that people “accept Jesus”, they refuse to accept Jesus as the interpreter of the meaning of the Old Testament. I believe that if any faith compels, if any faith forces, if any faith threatens, all under the guise of ‘free will’ and ‘choice’, it is no faith at all.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Kris K, you are correct inasmuch as the Koran is my spiritual authority. Of course, you ignore the issue of fulfilled prophecy. Only Allah of the Koran knows the future [not the prophet Jesus, etc]. You pose a scriptural question, and when I answer using scripture you imply that this is somehow ‘intellectually dishonest’. How else does one know that “Allah knows the hearts of all men?” apart from the Koran?
You say I can’t use the Koran as a ‘proof’ of His existance, His values, His essence, etc. and then say I need to read another ‘Bible’ by some ‘Christian’ and for some unknown reason I need to accept the authority of this ‘Christian’.
Only the Koran, and therefore Allah of the Koran, reveals the future. Not the Bible, not Dawkins, not any other man made philosophy or individual. If I’m wrong on this ONE point show me. By the way, you’ll need to refute all the prophecies concerning the foretelling of Mohammad; his birth, place of birth, lineage, methods and types of physical traumas, method of his death, etc, etc. These span from 114 Suras of the Islamic Koran. Good luck.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Parroting what I said, with a few key word changes doesn’t get around the fact the Bible does, and the Koran doesn’t, fortell the future.
The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy:
Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
By the way, you’ll need to refute all the prophecies concerning the foretelling of Christ; His birth, place of birth, lineage, methods and types of physical traumas, method of His death, etc, etc. These span from Genesis through to Malachi. Good luck.
I have absolute faith that you have no idea about the prophecies concerning the foretelling of Christ, his birth, place of birth, lineage, methods and types of physical traumas, method of his death etc yourself and are relying on what you’ve heard in Church. You say the Koran doesn’t foretell the future – really? What do you know about the Koran? Have you ever read a single chapter from it before or are you relying on secondhand knowledge yet expecting Muslims to read the Bible and believe on it when you won’t even consider their documents? Do you not find it at all interesting that the faith people conclude to be the truth is 90% the faith of the dominant religion in their own country?
It’s pointless continuing on this discussion with you as you are unaware of your own narrow-mindedness and inability to look outside your own beliefs. The Pharisees were likewise as absolutely sure of their own favour in God as you are now.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO MAY WADE THROUGH ALL THIS:
I think Ruby and her ilk aren’t really interested in getting to the truth – as they already [in there minds] have it. It’s a shame Ruby wasn’t prepared to actually ask me whether I had any ‘evidence’ of fulfilled prophecy. There are many numerous phrophecies from Genesis to Malachi that were fulfilled in the New Testament; indeed many concerning Jesus Christ. I would have been happy to go through these with Ruby, or indeed anyone else.
This is one of the things which separates Christianity from the rest: Fulfilled prohecy; God revealing the future. It is ONLY Him that has this foreknowledge.
This is one of the things that convinces me of the ‘truth’ of the Bible, Christianity, and the claims of Christ – who He was, and why He came.
I would encourage others to seriously consider their eternal future in light of their current spiritual condition. Of all the choices we make in life there is only ONE that has eternal consequences: Have we accepted payment on our behalf for our sins by Jesus Christ, or are we still in our sin and will have to pay our debt personally, for all eternity.
At the end of the day the choice is ours individually to make.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Kris,
You’re saying that prophecies in the Bible are fulfilled by Jesus’s birth, life and death as told in the Bible?
July 13th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
For anyone who enjoys the hypocrisy of organised mainstream christianity, check out http://www.cults.co.nz for a good christian view of why every other form of creator-worship (and even most of the more peripheral versions of chiristianity) is either a false religion, or a scam, or just WRONG, Dammit! Hours of laughs for the whole family.
(Did you know Harry Potter is “dangerous” and leading our children to experiment with the Occult?)
July 13th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
What’s hypocritical about it? They’re just saying that they’re right and that (therefore) anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
MY invisible, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent creator spirit is real. Yours isn’t. So there.
Sorry you’re right, that itself contains no hypocrisy. But it’s not the attitude I’d expect from a group of people supposedly striving to be good to their neighbours, behaving unto others as they would have others behave unto themselves, etc.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Yeah, India. Bodh Gaya, if you’re going to have anything like a pilgrimage goal with Buddhism, which is moderately absurd in itself. 6% of all Buddhists in the world are Tibetan Buddhists, yet the Dalai Lama’s treated like the Pope of All Buddhists or something.
The problem there is that Bodh Gaya is in Bihar, the shittiest, poorest most horrible state in India.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Well, fuck. How about those bloweds-up statues in Afghanistan? They’ve been liberated for years now.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Ryan Sproull [July 13th, 2009 at 12:52 pm],
“Kris,
You’re saying that prophecies in the Bible are fulfilled by Jesus’s birth, life and death as told in the Bible?”
There are many prophecies from the OT that have been fulfilled, but yes, Jesus’ birth, life, death were foretold in the OT, and fulfilled in the NT.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
The self-referential perfection of that is truly a thing of beauty.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
And who chose which books and letters to include in the New Testament, and which weren’t?
July 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Ratbiter 123 pm,
The latest OT writings were completed at least 400 years prior to any writings of the NT. You may say the Bible is “self-referential”, but that doesn’t invalidate my argument.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Ryan Sproull 1:26 pm,
And who chose which books and letters to include in the New Testament, and which weren’t?
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Just as “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”, I believe “holy men of God” compiled the NT “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”. God directs “holy men of God”.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
David Beckham is the greatest footballer of his generation.
Just ask any of his fans.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Fine for you, but can you see how it wouldn’t be convincing to someone who doesn’t already believe what you believe?
July 13th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Ratbiter,
You could right about David Beckham too.
Thinking about your earlier comment about the Bible being “self-referential”: Of course it is. If the God of the Bible only ‘wrote’ one book [the Bible is of course 66 books], then He requires nothing else to reference too. But the 66 books do reference each other as one would expect.
God ‘requires’ no other authority but Himself, and why would He as the creator God?
July 13th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Ryan Sproull 1:52 pm,
Just as “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”, I believe “holy men of God” compiled the NT “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”. God directs “holy men of God”.
“Fine for you, but can you see how it wouldn’t be convincing to someone who doesn’t already believe what you believe?”
As a ‘stand-alone’ in essence I agree. Hence my argument that fulfilled prophecy is one of the things that validates the Bible, and hence Christianity. No other religions or human philosphies can make this claim.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Whether or not they do – I’m not familiar with many prophecies in the Koran that are fulfilled within the Koran, for example – doesn’t really matter. The point is that the prophecies are both made and fulfilled in the same collection of books – a collection compiled by people who had a vested interest in those things matching up. It doesn’t matter how many religions or people have made the claim: the claim is convincing only to the convinced.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388.
14 centuries after the life of Christ. That is 14 centuries of adapting christianity to suit a european audience (like how so many pictures of Christ show a white guy). The translated bible is a construct of western christianity, and any scripture quotes could no doubt be re-translated from their original language into english with completely different meanings.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
RightNow,
Many Christians these days use the NRSV, which is translated from the oldest extant Greek and Hebrew texts. Dedicated Bible readers also use a concordance, which enables them to see how each word was translated.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:14 pm,
“The point is that the prophecies are both made and fulfilled in the same collection of books – a collection compiled by people who had a vested interest in those things matching up. It doesn’t matter how many religions or people have made the claim: the claim is convincing only to the convinced.”
I have to take issue with you about that on one level.
The Bible is regarded as one book; in a sense it is in that all 66 books are compiled ‘together’. But on the other hand the 66 books were written by 40 different authors [holy men of God] over a period of approx 1500 years. Many of these authors never met or knew each other. The only thing they had in common was faith in God, and their willingness to serve Him. Having a “vested interest” would also imply collusion between these same individuals, which is clearly impossible given the 1500 year time frame.
I struggle to see how the Bible can have such harmony within the 66 books, unless the God of the Bible ‘oversaw’ the whole process, and directed and guided these 40 men.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I’m aware of the popularity of concordances and the various versions. I’m also aware that some 500+ books were excluded from the bible by the emperor Constantine back in the 4th century when he was shaping the future of the church.
So the modern english bible is actually a construct of Constantine’s vision for the church, translated a thousand years later into english (and undoubtedly influenced by medieval church leaders)
July 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Kris K, I think my 2.34pm post explains how the bible has such ‘harmony’ among it’s 66 books. They were chosen by Constantine from almost 600 books, to suit his 4th Century agenda for the church.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
It makes more sense when you consider the disharmony there would be if those who compiled those 66 books into the canon had included another 100 or so that didn’t match up with each other.
Would you find it similarly surprising when 50 poets who’d never met each other all managed to write about cats in a compilation called “Poems about Cats”? It doesn’t imply any collusion between the authors, only a motivation in the compilers’ minds to make everything match up.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
More Irenaeus of Lyons than Constantine. Irenaeus’ list compiled in the second century is almost identical to the canon today.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Ryan, although the choices were similar it was still the latter that chose the books that still make up today’s bible. I’m not trying to downplay the role of Iranaeus but even he had his own agenda in selecting the books he chose. It is worth noting that he also was a European Christian and this influenced his selection of books (including the omission of the gospel according to the Hebrews).
July 13th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
RightNow 2:36 pm,
I think you give Constantine too much credit. When he integrated Christianity into his pagan beliefs we ultimately ended up with the Roman Catholic church. Technically he was the first Pope. Many/all of there source texts were perverted [Vaticanus and Sanaticus primarily] and actually make up a very small percentage when compared to the majority texts. From this we get the Roman Catholic bible. All the modern bibles source these same texts [even the NRSV about 20%]. The KJV is the only Bible that wholly sources from the majority received texts. This is primarily why Bible believing Christians have been persecuted by the RC church [even more than the Jews] throughout history [rejecting infant baptism, authority of the Pope, etc].
July 13th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:40 pm,
“It makes more sense when you consider the disharmony there would be if those who compiled those 66 books into the canon had included another 100 or so that didn’t match up with each other.
Would you find it similarly surprising when 50 poets who’d never met each other all managed to write about cats in a compilation called “Poems about Cats”? It doesn’t imply any collusion between the authors, only a motivation in the compilers’ minds to make everything match up.”
No, but imagine if “50 poets who’d never met each other all managed to write about” the SAME ‘cat’. And on top of that the “50 poets” lived over a period of 1500 years. What would you conclude about the ‘cat’?
July 13th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Kris – so what? How does this relate to the bible you use as your spiritual authority?
July 13th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Kris – re the 3:16 comment, other religions write about the same ‘cat’ too but give it different names and the stories vary. Nonetheless it is the same ‘cat’
July 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Correction: My post 3:06 pm:
[even the NRSV about 20%] – I meant the NKJV, not the NRSV.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
RightNow 3:18 pm,
“other religions write about the same ‘cat’ too but give it different names and the stories vary. Nonetheless it is the same ‘cat’”.
Disagree [my perogative], I think we’re talking differnt ‘cats’.
Fulfilled prophecy [I believe] validates my ‘Cat’ and His genuine writings.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Kris, I completely support your right to believe what you choose.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
JESUS CHRIST FORETOLD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
So much is predicted about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that we can only give
here a brief summary. We know that the Bible is the Word of God because it predicts
so many details of Jesus Christ’s life. Consider the following prophecies:
1. Born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14; Genesis 3:15. “A virgin shall conceive, and bear a son”.
2. Tribe of Judah. Genesis 49:10. “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah…”
3. House of David. Jeremiah 23:5. “I will raise unto Judah a righteous Branch,and a King”
4. Born at Bethlehem. Micah 5:2. “Thou, Bethlehem..Judah, yet out of thee shall come..”
5. Visited by wise men with gifts. Isaiah 60:3,6,9. “Gentiles shall come…and kings”.
6. Would be in Egypt for a time. Hosea 11:1. “called my son out of Egypt”.
7. Infants killed at His birthplace. Jeremiah 31:15. “Rachel weeping for her children”.
8. Preceded by a messenger (John the Baptist) Isaiah40:3. “Prepare ye the way of the Lord”.
9. Ministry to begin in Galilee. Isaiah 9:1. “Zebulun, & Naphtali.. have seen a great light”
10. Perform miracles. Isaiah 35:5,6. “blind,..deaf,..lame,..dumb sing”.
11. Teach parables. Psalm 78:2. “I will open my mouth in a parable,..”
12. Heal many. Isaiah 42:7,16; Matthew 8:16,17. “To open the blind eyes..”
13. His miracles not believed. Isaiah 53:1. “Who hath believed our report?”
14. Enter Jerusalem on a donkey. Zechariah 9:9. “thy King cometh…riding upon an ass.”
15. Betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver. Zechariah 11:12.‘they weighed for my price 30’
16. Money then used to buy a potter’s field. Zechariah 11:13. “cast them to the potter..”
17. Money thrown on the Temple floor. Zechariah 11:13. “cast them…in the house of the Lord”
18. Forsaken by His disciples. Zechariah 13:7. “Smite the Shepherd, & sheep shall be scattered”
19. False witnesses accuse Him. Psalm 35:11. “False witnesses did rise up:”
20. Silent before His accusers. Isaiah 53:7. “He was oppressed,…, yet he opened not his mouth.”
21. Be scourged and spat on. Isaiah 50:6. “I hid not my face from shame and spitting.”
22. Crucified between two thieves. Isaiah 53:9. “He made his grave with the wicked..”
23. Buried in a rich man’s tomb. Isaiah 53:9. “His grave … with the rich in his death.”
24. His side pierced. Zechariah 12:10. “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced”.
25. Given vinegar to drink. Psalm 69:21. “in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.”
26. Garments gambled for. Psalm 22:18. “They part my garments among them, cast lots on my..”
27. No bones broken. Psalm 34:20. “He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.”
28. His forsaken cry. Psalm 22:1. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
29. Darkness over the land from noon. Amos 8:9. “I will darken the earth in the clear day.”
30. Hands and feet pierced. Psalm 22:16. “they pierced my hands and my feet”.
31. Raised from the dead. Psalm 16:10. “thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption”
32. Ascend to heaven. Psalm 68:18. “Thou hast ascended on high..”
33. Rejected by His own nation, Israel. Isaiah 53:3‘He is rejected of men. We esteemed him not’
34. Gentiles believe on him. Isaiah 60:3. “Gentiles shall come to thy light.”
35. Messiah comes, is killed, then Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed (fulfilled in 70AD).
Daniel 9:26. “shall Messiah be cut off,.. people..destroy city and sanctuary”
36. Jews to lose power to pass the death sentence 23 years before the trial of Christ.
Genesis 49:10. “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between
his feet, until Shiloh come;” This was confirmed by Josephus describing the Romans
taking this power away from the Jews in 11AD.
37. Messiah would offer Himself as Prince to Israel 173,880 days after 5th March 444BC.
Daniel 9:26,27; Luke 19:41-44. “From the going forth of the commandment to restore and
to build Jerusalem to Messiah the Prince shall be 69 weeks (heptads=7×360 days)”
Conclusion:
If we assign a probability of guessing each of these predictions correctly, we see that
from a human viewpoint it is impossible to predict these events as the Bible has. Not
one prediction failed. All are correctly fulfilled. This proves that the Bible is not humanly
authored, but authored by God who ALONE knows the future.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Kris,
In the context of the analogy, the compilers wanted all of the poems to be about the same cat. They had a motivation not to choose any poems that varied from the others’ description of the cat. Etc.
So there’s nothing fabulously special about all of the authors in a compilation being in agreement when the collection was compiled specifically to create a volume that agreed with itself.
There’s no point in you quoting what you believe to be fulfilled prophecies when this remains the case. It’s perhaps encouraging to you, already believing, but unconvincing to anyone else.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Ryan Sproull 4:45 pm,
“There’s no point in you quoting what you believe to be fulfilled prophecies when this remains the case. It’s perhaps encouraging to you, already believing, but unconvincing to anyone else.”
Of course, I believe God directed and convicted these men individually. When they came together to ‘compare notes’ they found that they, by default, had achieved consensus. That is, there was a ‘super-natural’ element to the consensus they achieved.
Fulfilled prophecy further validates the supernatural nature of the Bible, and the claims it makes.
Not all will accept this, of course, but how do you dispute things told of in advance which can be proven to have occured exactly as predicted?
If I tell you that tomorrow at 11:03 am you will have a serious accident in which you will lose two fingers on your right hand, sprain your left ankle, and the woman driving the other car will die in the A&E 15 minutes after admission. Not only that, but twenty other people are given this same ‘knowledge’, diarise it, and later on all 21 of us ‘discover’ each other and realise that all our diaries agree with transpired events.
Now I hope, of course, nothing like this befalls you, but I think you see the point I’m trying to make. Fulfilled prophecy validates the Bible in the same way.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
There are many ways. The two most obvious are…
1. Suggest that the authors of the gospels twisted accounts to match OT prophecies.
2. Suggest that the compilers of the NT selected only accounts that matched OT prophecies.
That’s not analogous. Firstly, if we are taking the prophecies you listed as a guide, your prophecy would not be remotely as precise as that. It would be more like, “A person born in Mosgiel will suffer from the wagon disaster” or something. Someone else would write something like, “A woman who knows someone from a southern nation will be slain from the quarter.” And so on.
Secondly, to make it properly analogous, there’s a third person claiming that the event occurred to me.
Finally, to make it properly analogous, it would be 2000 years later, read by yet another person.
Picture this. In 2000 years’ time, someone is reading a collection of books that have been put together by people who wanted the books to all agree with each other, several centuries after the events allegedly occurred, and selected from a number of books with accounts and prophecies that did not match up with the others. One book writes about me getting bit by a car, losing two fingers, etc. Another bunch of books have your and other prophets’ vague predictions – “from the five, he will lose two” and so forth.
You really think this guy 2000 years from now should be convinced? Would you be?
July 13th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Ryan, I think the specificity and the number of fulfilled prophecies push this well beyond the realms of possibility.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
3. Authors of the NT wrote a conclusion that nicely resolved various narrative threads in the OT?
(Don’t get me wrong – the story of Jesus is a great story and almost universally known in the western world. But a billion Muslims think Jesus was merely a prophet/activist, not the son of God. And this seems to correspond nicely with non-biblical records of Jesus of Nazareth, who by all accounts was a bit of a… political activist!)
July 13th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Kris, nothing you’ve said addresses the central problem, which is that the (heavily interpreted) fulfilment of these prophecies were written by people who wanted to be telling a story that matched up with their religious tradition’s prophecies, and the prophecies and the fulfilment stories were both compiled together by people who were specifically selecting books for their agreement with each other.
I think these factors push your beliefs beyond the realms of possibility.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Ryan Sproull 5:56 pm,
“Kris, nothing you’ve said addresses the central problem, which is that the (heavily interpreted) fulfilment of these prophecies were written by people who wanted to be telling a story that matched up with their religious tradition’s prophecies, and the prophecies and the fulfilment stories were both compiled together by people who were specifically selecting books for their agreement with each other.”
The “central problem” as you see it is only your opinion, I don’t see any problem whatsoever. I don’t see any agenda or collusion amongst either the original writers, or those that later compiled the scriptures. Once again “holy men of God spake [/wrote/compiled] as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”
The Holy Ghost which indwells me as a believer is the same Holy Ghost which indwelt these “holy men of God”, maybe that’s the difference[?].
Maybe we have to just agree to disagree – and I’m ok with that. But I would encourage you to keep an open mind. I genuinely pray that you ask God to reveal Himself to you. I firmly believe that those that truly seek Him will indeed find Him. After all I did. Nice chatting with you Ryan.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
You’re right that it’s not a problem, unless you’re trying to convince others. You said, “The choice is yours to individually make.” But if all of the reasons that make sense to you make no sense to me, what choice do I have? I can only believe things that make sense to me, and trying to choose to believe something that makes no sense to me is a bit like trying to wag my tail – I wouldn’t know where to start.
It was nice chatting with you too. I appreciate your time and patience. I hope I didn’t come across too argumentative or nasty.