Is Christianity Irrational?

Re: Jesus rocks
-



Rather than playing that silly game, Eastree, why don't I just give a link to a listing of some discrepancies. You'll find that the link provides over a thousand possible discrepancies.

Read them over.

If any resolve themselves by translation errors, mention it.

I love getting new information.





http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html

Excellent link, Frank. Thanks.

Faith
Perhaps this is why i prefer Buddhism to Christianity. Buddhism agrees with the laws of Science and not blind faith.

Feel free, but keep in mind that I am speaking mainly about the prophesy of Jesus Christ, The Messiah, coming to Earth to save it. No one 4000 years ago could have known that. It's all throughout the Old Testament.
There are also many prophesies about what will happen in the world, written 2000 years ago that is actually happening. The Book is true.

Eastree, regarding Christian Scientists and the kidney, I was just being flippant. As for faith, I suppose that first off, I have faith that human commonalities outwiegh our differences. I also have faith that one day, people will be smart enough to realize that ALL the prophets who were sent here, if you go in for that sort of belief, were preaching the SAME message, there is one true message, but absolutely no one true book, IMO.

Well, Southerngrl, I already furnished you with a link to over a thousand different discrepancies -- which was furnished because you said there were "no discrepancies."

Now you are not even acknowledging or disputing those discrepancies -- and you are changing the parameters. Now you say we are not really talking about discrepancies -- but about the so-called prophecies of Jesus' coming.

Okay...let's give this a try and see what happens.

You claim these many, many prophecies exist "throughout the Old Testament." Good...that means there are plenty of them.

Mention five! Give us the citations.

My guess is that they can all be debunked, because most of the so-called prophecies are so contrived and so ambiguous, they could apply to anything -- at any time -- anywhere.

So pick out your favorite five -- and we'll take a look at 'em and see how they hold up when looked at with objectivity.

As for your comment "The book is true" -- well, you certainly are entitled to your opinion, SG, but I think any reasonable, objective look at the book shows that it is essentially a history of the early Hebrew people (which history itself is more self-serving than accurate) with an almost comical mythology interspersed.

But...we'll take a look at what you come up with and discuss all this.

Before you put too much work into this, SG, I suggest you look over the following links. They debunk so many of the so-called prophecies here, you may be able to narrow down your search for your favorite five to five that do not appear here.

I have other links for other "prophecies" but we'll hold them in reserve for now.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/links.shtml

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Raise your hands, anyone over 2000 years old who can verify any religious text as the true gospel! What, no takers?

OK. I can begin your idiotic "discrepancies" where the link you sent started off. The first thing sited is the claim of two separate stories of creation. Tje verst cited for the second is Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

This is a misunderstanding of the context. It is simply a recap of what had happened: God made the stuff.

From the site: Were plants
created before
or after humans?

Both here, and in the first chapter of Genesis, plants were created first. This site is assuming few will look back at what is written before.
Genesis chapter 1
God creates heaven and Earth
then light
then separated seas and dry land
then "Let the earth bring forth grass, herb that bears seed, fruit trees
then sun and moon (maybe stars)
then sea life and birds
then land animals
then man

Genesis 2:4-7
the word "generations" (Hebrew toledoth) is used in the translation on the site with the link you provided, because the word has a very wide definition, and its literal meaning here is history.
This gives no account of the order of creation. THe statement "this is the history ..." refers to what was just said, not what was about to be said.

BEFORE there were plants and BEFORE there were humans, there had been no rian (v. 5) This establishes the scene for events after this point in the story as well. It just means that there had never been rain on the earth, only a nightly mist -- dew. Then it goes to the creation of man, not as a retelling but as a way to bring the reader up to speed. This is very clear.

The writer of the site claims that the garden planted refers to the creation of plants, but it is quite obviously saying that God created a place for Adam.

site:
No -- pnce again, the writer of this text i taking things way out of context. 1:24 :Let the EARTH bring forth the living creatures according to its kind . . ." God didn't form every creature by hand, with as much care as he did humans. This is setting the stage to how special we are to Him.



Why is this so difficult to understand? This statement is not a contradictin or a discrepancy. God said Adam could eat the fruit of any tree, except the one. Thsi is just picking on grammar and the way someone decided the context of this translation. When did Adam die? Immediately he began to die. There is no given time of how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, and it could have been thousands of years. God is eternal. If He made people in His image, they would also be eternal. Rebelling against Him, in the only rule He set, would carry its sentence. The penalty was eventual death.


site:


Was this specifically meaning marriage, or simply a human counterpart, for sharing ideas? Could God have just decided to give Adam a companion?

Humans were created in the sixth period of time before God rested -- there is nothing that places that event after the sixth day/epoch/billion years before or after the creation of the garden.

Much of this site seems to simply be mocking what the author does not understand. Why wouldn't Adam have named the animals? He was the one in the garden, walking around with the animals. Who would have been better to set the stage for human speech that a human?

site:
Why did this person have to ask when it was just stated that the birds were created from the dirt like every other animal?

Then the site's writer decides to mock Adam for not finding a suitable companion among the animals? Does this person feel mentally complimented by conversations with gold fish? Does he find sheep better? Poor guy ...

Why was Eve made from Adam's rib? This made them "one flesh" as the Bible puts it. This was symbolic of the first covenant between two people as married.

Polygamy? Several of the "yes" (as in polygamy is OK) scriptures are taken out of context and manipulated to try to force the point.

Genesis 16:1-4 is not what the site tries to make it seem. Abram had made a covenant with God, and he had become impatient. His wife urged him to sleep with the hand maid because she didn't want Abram to be disapointed by not having any children. This was not God's plan, but because of the covenant God still blessed Ishmael (the son with the hand maid). As it is apparent in 17:20, Abram (at theat point Abraham) had begged God to give Ishmael favor since it was not the child's fault what had happened.

Genesis 25:6
Were these concubines in the sense most people think, or were they servants allowed into the old man's chamber to care hor him in his late years, and therefore named more than hand maids? This cannot truly be answered.

Also beyond this point is the fact that people do have free wills, and may not have done everything the way God wouldhave intended. For those with innumerable (almost) wives, most of those were political in status only, though there is no real account of whether they took any more of a stand. Most of the citations are simply stating that someone had several or many wives and not whether it was right.

Matthew 25:1
It was not a way to say that the 10 virgins would all have been married to the same man, but they were all going to the wedding ceremony as guests.

1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6-7
This is saying that if someone has more than one wife, that person is not blameless -- that person has done somehting wrong. How can it be used as a support for polygamy?

This is only Genesis chapter 2. I know many people may not agree with much of what I say. But now this has changed from being accused of asking someone to play a little game, t finding the person's source for mockery is not even taking a serious look at what is being said with most of these issues. Though I will say that the site has some well-researched points and does a great job of disproving many controvercies in seperate "Christian" religions. JW's are very mixed up -- I wouldn't take anything they say seriously (referring in point to their date for the second coming, as well as the 144,000 as in Revelation -- I have too much to say about that alone)

Thaks for the sarcasm. Do you agree that we will all find out the truth one way or another at the end of our lives? So why don't you go find a few dead people and ask them?

Not only are there more than 5...there are over 2,500 prophesies in the entire Bible with 2,000 already being fulfilled. Here are a few links...I don't feel like typing them all!

http://www.wordsoftruth.net/otprophesychrist.htm

http://allanturner.com/bibleproofs.html

An avatar with Thomas Jackson and Robert Lee before a Confederate battle flag, and believes that that 2000 biblical prophecies have come to pass . . . ah, the comic relief, it has to be true, nobody could make that up . . .

Eastree, waiting for the 'true' answers until you die is just postponing recognizing that the divine is already all around you, and smacks to me of waiting for a special door prize when you get to heaven. If there is a heaven, and you have simply been good to people throughout your life, I expect it will just be more of a "Come on in, sit by the fire" kind of thing, rather than a flame of judgement and justice. Life is simple, it's only religion that's complicated.

SG


Mind you, I am no biblical scholar, but even I, a novice, can look at the biblical passages you offered and see problems with them:

Let's take the very first one offered in the first link:


As the Son of God: Psalms 2:7
Fulfilled: Luke 1:30-33 and John 3:16

Just read the Psalm!


This psalm says: "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee."

This psalm was written 500 years before the birth of Jesus. It states that the person called "the son" had already been born. It also goes on to talk about what the person would do:

"Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost part of the earth for thy possessions. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Jews have always claimed "the son" being spoken of here was David.

I don't know for sure if it was David or someone else 500 years before the birth of Jesus, but it sure was not Jesus. And this "prophecy" has nothing to do with Jesus.

So here we have one that is shattered -- and that should be enough to refute your contention that ALL have come to pass.

Like most of the so-called prophecies, this is not a prophecy at all.

But I'll do the second one also.


As the seed of Abraham: Genesis 17:7; 22:18
Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1

Here is what it says at Genesis 17:7: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed aafter thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

And at Genesis 22:18: "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."

And this is the "fulfillment at Matthew 1:1: A geneology -- a geneology of Joseph who, according to you Chrisitans, had absolutely nothing to do with the conception or birth of Jesus. Not physically related to Jesus in any way.

Moreover, if you read the material provided in the links I offered, you would see that the geneology is suspect even for Joseph.

So this is the way it goes with your prophecies.

Whether over a 2000 like you say; whether 500 like some say; whether 362 like I'm sure others say -- tripe. Contrived tripe.

You gotta do better than this, SG.

Look through the list of supposed prophecies -- and come up with the five you consider the best. Make it three if you don't want to put too much work into it.

But since the first two you offered by proxy are laughable -- your contention that all the prophecies were fulfilled is shattered.

Too bad that an open examination of the so-called Bible prophecies reveals otherwise. In many cases in the NT, the Gospel writers simply claimed prophecy fulfillment because they were trying to draw in the Jewish believers. In many of the so-called prophecies, if you go back and look at the original OT passage, you find that they weren't prophecies at all, the NT writers simply invented prophecy so they could claim to fulfill it.

The Bible is crap. Figure it out.

Eastree, I directed a post towards you, but did not get a response yet.

Southerngirl- I am convinced you are an imaginary figment my brain put on the page to annoy me, an antithesis of what I stand for. I don't know why I did this, maybe as a focal point of things I disagree with. Let me guess, You're religious without questioning and think yours is the only possible correct choice, believe women should be in the home first and foremost, are a pro-lifer, and don't think dark skinned and light skinned people should marry. You think prayer should be in schools. You think gay people should not be allowed to marry, and you are a creationist.

How many did I get right? 8/8?

Sorry, I am very amused by this. I guess this shows that Americans are not a homogenous people.

Oh, just so you know, I believe in greater power to states and their rights. So that might be one thing we would agree on.


Let me ask you one question: How can you know your facts are true when you don't know the opposing arguments? (And no, I don't mean summary of opposing arguments with prefabricated answers of why they are wrong by the people who want you to continue to believe. I mean the arguments from their own, unmediated sources. Ex: if you don't believe in evolution, read Darwin's Origin of species. If after reading the book, you disagree, you will have stronger arguments.)

truth
Of course Christianity is irrational (or at least arational) and that is because it's not supposed to be rational. If that were its mission it would be a science or at least a branch of philosophy. And we know that's not so. Any anthropological survey of mythological systems of the world would indicate that their function is not the objective examination of physical reality; they are designed to serve other societal and psychological functions. It seems to me that mythological world views work just fine until science develops or shows up (in the culture of colonialists), THEN debate begins. Look at our world with the conflict between theocratic tendencies and secular constitutions and between evolutionary science and creationism.

"I don't mind someone holding a personal belief that is not my personal belief, or even an irrational personal belief."

Then why bash Christianity if you don't mind that people believe something you don't?

"Many (if not all) of the cases are fraud, especially t.v. healings. "

There are many times that there have been staged healings to try to draw the masses. I am not referring to those, I assure you.
But you might not be too happy to know that I am referring to miracles rather than medical success. I know that you will not accredit any healthful improvement to anything but science. But when a close friend of mine who was deaf from birth, her ear drum ruptured in the birth canal, can suddenly hear again and has an ear drum in that ear for the first time since birth, I will say it's a miracle. Doctors did not implant anything into her ear. She was receiving no treatment, as her ear was not perpetually infected, and she had accepted her deafness. This did not occur on television, it happened in front of my eyes. All of a sudden she was shocked, screaming about the fact that she could suddenly hear. How would you explain this?

"If you are speaking of the poll published showing christians had more health benefits than non-christians ..."

I had never heard of that story.

What I mean by a non-Christian healing is any purported healing by a non-medical method, and the credit given to a religion, belief, or alternate medicine which is not accepted as valid. I know that there are people who are taking herbal treatments for cancer. But I'm not talking about that; it has its merits for those who feel it's right for them. I am talking about psychic healings, shamanic healings, and other types of faith healing. I have never witnessed one simply because I choose not to. I know they happen. I will not deny that.


"However, when people make claims for something they believe in that is inconsistent with logic or science, and they try to impose those beliefs in education or in other people's lives (i.e. creationists, miracle healers, late night scary loudspeaker convert missionaries) in which case I strongly oppose them. "

Many things may be inconsistent with science or logic, even things tat are not religious extremes. People are often illogical or irrational without religion. But when someone tries passionately to prove an irrational point, does it always mean that person needs to be opposed? Maybe not always.

As far as creationism, I do believe. But things must be read more than literally. The word day can easily be translated as a period of time -- nay period of time. And God did not dig in the mud for every little creature. In Genesis, God tells the Earth to "bring forth" the animals, and the water to "bring forth" the fish. This to me definitely signifies a long process. Also, science has proven more than easily that all things change over time.

And I definitely do not believe in forcing my views on anyone else. I know it seems that way at this pint, with all the arguments I have made. But everyone will defend their own beliefs when so fervently opposed.

There is probably a logical reason for your friend's ability to hear for the first time. Problem is, when people do not understand the mechanisms of a happening, they ascribe it to a "miracle". Over the centuries, people treated all sorts of natural phenomena as "miracles". When understanding supplanted faith in mysticism, these "miracles" no longer seemed so astounding.

How would you explain the event?