A Christian recently sent me this email:
I was in your shoes once. All I can say is if you don’t believe there is a God, then you certainly don’t believe in Lucifer and Satan. And if you don’t believe in any of the above, I’d suggest you try to score yourself a ringside seat at a full blown Catholic exorcism. Because it isn’t until you’ve had a demon levitating while recanting to everyone in the room your darkest most private evil doings that you might find yourself back on the right track again.
This person seems to speak from personal experience. But I wonder — did he really see a “demon levitating”? What did the demon look like? Are there clear videos of this? Or did he just hear that these things happen, and take someone’s word for it?
People don’t levitate, and neither do demons (they don’t even exist). This person is either imagining it or being duped. Illusionists can levitate and levitate objects — they’ve fooled scientists countless times — but they admit they’re using trickery. Psychics and mediums and religious people use the same tricks, but insist it is paranormal or supernatural.
But you know what — if I did see a demon levitating and telling me specifically about my “darkest most private evil doings” which nobody could possibly know about, then maybe I would believe. So, I’m waiting. Demon, show yourself! In the name of Jesus, show yourself! Hmm. Oh well.
(By the way, here’s one way to do levitation.)
Debbie: It must be such a rewarding life making others’ lives... 
John C: Anti-no, “I” dont have any credibility either but the difference is that “I”m not... 
Custador: “Matt and Mark record “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me?”; John, “It is finished”; and Luke,... 
Daniel Florien: When you have indigestion when you’re reading it, you know it’s true! 
Mary Lynne: Hmm – I wonder what a “true fairy tale” would be. Is that like jumbo... 
Antiutopia: John C — Christ himself doesn’t have any credibility with these ignorant morons — do you... 
Uzza: Cool story. It reminds me of Confucius, meeting the mad hermit of Chu, who told him it was... 
86 Comments
Wow, Catholics are selling tickets to exorcisms now? You gotta hand it to the Catholic church, this is a much smarter way to raise money than indulgences!
My darkest, most evil doings? I almost hate to admit this, but that won’t take long. Ok, I admit it, I’m very dull. I don’t torture small animals, or set bugs on fire with a magnifying glass… or anything else for that matter. I dunno, might be interesting to find out what a demon would think was worth “outing” about me.
Daniel,
Some purple, one-horned, flying, canibalistic demon-thingy just popped by my place asking for directions to your house. Gave me quite a start, I must say. When I admitted I didn’t know where you live he broke a vase, pooped on the rug and said that if I saw you I should tell you that he knows about the Life savers you stole when you were ten and about the nudey magazines in the back of your closet.
So, it looks like proof of concept to me.
But this raises a common question I have. If God can give us absolute proof of his existence, and does do it at these “full blown Catholic exorcisms,” then why doesn’t he do it for everyone?
I mean, I know, I know that people say that God cannot prove himself to us, because we need to have faith, proof denies faith, we need to make the choice to follow him by ourselves and all that. But then why can he give proof to some?
A bit off-topic from here, but this is just something that gets to me. A lot of Christians I have encountered tell me that I have to accept Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior to get to heaven and if I don’t I will burn in hell in immense agony for all eternity. That’s a good selling point if it’s true, but a pretty evil one I would say.
I often ask them if God wants people to go to hell. They invariably say no. I ask them “If good knows everything he knows that I will not accept things without any evidence. Then he knows that I will go to hell if he doesn’t provide evidence of his existence. Why doesn’t he?” That’s when they come back to the “choice” thing. They say that we must choose for ourselves. They say that God leaves the question open to give us free will. It is all about freedom, making us free by not giving away the answers, making us free to choose. And we should be thankful for having been given that freedom!
But I mean, really, how can they keep calling that freedom?
Let’s say that I live in a horrible dictatorship. They say that if I live my entire life without publicly questioning the regime, without saying a bad word about them, I will get to live my retirement in a nice, comfy retirement home. But if I go out in the public and say something bad about our dear ruler, then I will be horribly tortured to death.
Would you agree that that dictatorship has freedom of speech?
No? But I’m FREE to choose if I want to live a decent life or be tortured to death. Truly I have been granted the great gift of freedom of speech and freedom of choice from our fearless leader! I should be thankful to be so free! Whenever I want I can stand on a podium and tell the world about our slave mines; I am totally free to do so. Sure, I will be tortured to death, but that doesn’t take away my freedom of speech does it?
If you agree with that, I guess you also agree that the promise of heaven and threat of hell gives you freedom of choice if you want to follow the Lord Jesus or not…
Very entertaining stuff Daniel! I also got an e-mail this week in which a reader tried to convince me that god was real through the story of her own demon possession. I just blogged about it and since both stories are similar I included a link to this post.
Here it is if anyone is interested: Demon Encounters
Demon posession flies in the face of the entire concept of Faith.
If it were possible to see a person levitate, or turn their head 360 degrees and vomit pea soup, then that would be definitive proof of the validity of christian mythology. That would remove the concept of Faith from christianity, and then priests would simply provide video of the thousands of exorcisms they would then regularly perform on us demon posessed masses. Since you have not seen these vast amounts of videos of such events when they would be readily available to exorcists, one must assume that they do not in fact exist.
You see, it destroys itself when you simply look at it rationally.
If there are demons, if exorcisms are real, then no faith is required, and religions fall apart.
The system that depends on non-existence of a flying devil is no better that a system that depends on existence of a flying devil. That would be just a belief, not science. Presented with hard facts, a scientist should try to come up with a hypothesis, and scientific explanation, and not give up the scientific method just because the facts are very unusual. People of 18 century, would they see the technology today, would probably decide this is pure magic. But it’s not. There are things in the world that we don’t know yet, but there’s no need to involve God / supernatural in the explanation, because God / supernatural is beyond the scope of natural phenomena, by definition.
What things are there in the world that we don’t know yet?
I’d honestly like to hear some answers other than ‘What makes the sun shine?’ and vague anecdotes about ‘mysterious’ occurrences like coincidence? (Who would knew that it was possible for entirely separate events to coincide?)
Daniel, you are a fool. How are you any different than these christians so seem to disagree with. If I saw demons floating around, I would realise that I am delusional, and go seek some medical help. But you, you would just give up all logic, stop thinking from that point onward, and believe in God? How are you different than the christians, just that you haven’t had your delusional moment yet?
Sad to see that you are trying to represent us Atheists.
Proto: There’s a lot of unsolved problems in physics, too many to list here. This page gives some overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
In 50 years from now, this list will be different. Some mysteries hopefully will be explained, but there will be new discoveries and new things to explain.
This is why I’ve always found satan worship a little strange.
By professing belief in and worshipping satan you by default acknowledge the God of the Bible
The supernatural is, in some cases, I suspect, just the natural that has not yet been naturalised or explained.
Once the levitation trick is achieved it would be fairly easy to reveal someones “private evil doings” since most people have similar shortcomings.
Some mediums call this “fishing” – working from the general to the specific.
Such as; “You had a man in your family who died?. Oh- was it your grandfather? Oh- He said this or that” etc.
Privet: I am impressed, the last thing I was expecting was to have actual unsolved phenomenon presented. Usually, I’m only answered with hearsay and blank stares.
Murrowcronkite: How is Satan worship any stranger than worshiping a jealous, wrathful god who enjoys toying with his believers, turning people into salt and drowning the entire planet’s population minus a dingy full of transients? (Can you say inbreeding?)
@Jon: Great way to represent kindness. Do you call everyone you disagree with a “fool”? Geesh.
If I saw a real demon, and could prove that others saw it, that it could tell the past and future, etc, then I’d believe it. That is, if there was real evidence for it, I’d believe it. And so should you. But of course it would never happen — but I believe what there is evidence for, and if there was evidence for demons, I’d believe it.
murrowcronkite:
regarding your comment about Satanism: I’m a little fuzzy. Are you equating Satanism and atheism? Satanists (at least the ones I’ve known) do not deny the existence of YHVH, they simply choose not to follow him. But it depends on whether they are ToS, or CoS, I think.
Your comment #13: they call those “cold readings”. John Edwards, Sylvia Browne, Char, are all classic examples of “cold readers”. Oh, and that pet psychic lady, I can’t recall her name. I’ve often wondered why if she could communicate telepathically with the animals, she always had to ask the owners the pets’ names…
@Zabimaru:
Interesting point. Why does god only turn out for the faithful? They need his presence in their lives less than us godless types do!
Zabimaru,
I believe that God will give proof to anyone who needs it. Or, likely, even most anyone who truly wants it. However, you don’t truly want it, do you? i’m not insulting your intelligence, i mean, but truly, for you it would complicate your life unbelievably. You don’t really WANT it, do you? And even if something divine did happen, would you believe it? Don’t get me wrong, most “divine” things are natural things blown up. But every once in a while, i believe miracles do happen.
You people keep talking about The Exorcist. This is largely blown up. For instance, it was a teen-age boy. Who spit. He didn’t “puke pea soup”, Aor.
You say that most Christians say that you’ll burn in Hell. That id God’s choice. No one has the right to say that. You may go to Heaven. I don’t know.
Ps: As for levitation, its rare. Cases: roughly 1/200 TRUE exorcisms. Yeah.
Levitation during exorcisms simply does not occur. If it did, that would be proof of christianity, which would mean it was no longer a faith issue. You simply cannot get around this point: if exorcisms are real, then christianity is not.
So whenever you start to think that there is proof, real proof, of your religion.. give your head a shake. The existence of any proof of your religion would be against the teachings of your religion. Your lack of knowledge of your own belief system is disappointing.
PS. The Exorcist was also a movie, and she did indeed vomit pea soup in that movie.
Aor,
The Exocist is based off of, what i believe, a true event. That is what i was talking about.
Proof doesn’t make faith invalid. It can help, that’s all. If i saw a miracle, it might cement my faith in God. Therefore, you say, it wouldn’t be faith. It would be knowledge. However, this can also go down to my personal beliefs and thoughts. To me, faith isn’t saying “even though i don’t have proof, i believe in God”. To me, faith is saying “i KNOW God is real, no matter what”. Then, these miracles don’t affect my personal faith what-so-ever. These exorcisms are simply to make people pray harder and draw closer to God. They are not to be interpreted as proof.
P.s. i’m sorry, we are sold out on tickets for exorcisms.
@Francis: You say it’s “rare” — do you have any evidence that levitating has ever occurred? I don’t think you’ll find any.
As for God giving proof to anyone who needs it — doesn’t anyone who doesn’t believe need proof? I need proof and want proof. If there is proof, I’d believe, just like anything else. So… I’m waiting.
Daniel,
But again, do you WANT proof? And why? Do you want to believe in God and worship and serve Him like I do? If you truly do, I have no doubts.
As for levitation, you are correct. I have never seen one. I’m stating this openly now. This is what i’ve heard about. That is all, so i really can’t argue on that in particular.
P.s. Be patient. God has waited for you. Wait for him
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post tenubris, lux.
Proof makes faith unnecessary, which destroys the core of christianity, as well as most other religions. If proof of a god exists, then faith in that god is unnecessary. Its inescapable. No amout of denial or willful ignorance will change this.
Your alteration of the definition of faith does not solve this dilemma. It merely shows that you want to avoid thinking about a serious flaw in your belief system.
Try this: analyze your beliefs, all of them. Internally consistent beliefs will not show the kind of contradictions that the most of the worlds religions do. If you find a problem, perhaps a situation where you feel the urge to avoid thinking about a particular thing because it makes you doubt, then explore that. Why is there a conflict? Since an internally consistent belief system would lack such conflicts, you can only conclude that if you find those conflicts then your beliefs are not internally consistent (meaning they don’t match up, don’t make sense).
True beliefs would never require a believer to lie to defend those beliefs, would never require a believer to refuse to think about something since the only reason to not think about something is to not see the conflict, etc.
If you doubt your faith, even in the slightest, then that shows that at least part of you sees those contradictions. You may not have reached the point where you can admit that publicly, but please be honest enough with yourself to think those thoughts, to actually consider what your beliefs truly are and whether they are consistent with your other beliefs.
The only people who would ever refuse to question or doubt their beliefs are those who are afraid they will convince themselves not to believe.
Don’t be afraid of this. If your faith is so fragile that rational thoughts can destroy it, then destruction is the appropriate solution.
@Francis: Of course I want proof. If he exists, I’d like to know. I’ve looked for proof and haven’t found any. But if there was, I’d believe. There’d be no reason not to — I follow the evidence.
Glad you are honest about levitations. They don’t happen and you would have only seen one if you were tricked. But rarely does anyone even think they saw levitation. It’s a trick that illusionists do.
Daniel,
Truly, is there really any proof that God doesn’t exist? What if God MADE everything and how everything works, like i think? Then, therefore, wouldn’t everything be proof of God?
Aor,
I do have troubles with undeerstanding my faith. All of the time. This doesn’t change the fact of it, because it is just something i can’t comprehend. These “internal inconsistencies” pop up, and we call them mysteries. They are not understandable. This is why we have faith. They don’t necessarily conflict with any other teachings, unless you interpret them that way. It’s all about interpretation.
Aor, what is your interpretation of the word “faith”? What exactly does it mean to you?
@Francis: A disproof cannot be proven. You can’t disprove Joseph Smith didn’t have golden tablets from heaven, or that Muhammad didn’t ascend into heaven, or that fairies don’t exist. So you are right, I cannot prove God does not exist. But to believe in something, I require evidence.
IF God created the world, then you are right, everything would be evidence. But we can see that life itself evolves. You would need to show that God did indeed create the world first, which cannot be proven, only speculated. For all you know, aliens or Zeus or Leprechauns created the world — you’re just guessing because you want to believe that something created everything.
Look around. In this world of carnage and horrible religious history, do you think there was some god behind all of it? Where are all the miracles — nay, where is A miracle? Nowhere to be seen. We see no evidence for God, but we see lots of evidence that design was created by evolution, that the stars formed from elements, that there was some kind of big bang (and who knows what before that).
If there was evidence, I would believe. There is none.
Faith has multiple definitions. I assume you mean religious faith, and not faith in the loyalty of your partner etc.
In that case, my definition of religious faith would be belief in the supernatural, or belief despite contradictory proofs.
But that is a digression, a common tactic from those who are unwilling to deal with the conflicts within their own belief systems. They try to change the topic, redefine terms, avoid the internal inconsistencies. For example, no god can be both omnipotent and omniscient. Those two attributes contradict each other and cannot be present in the same god.
Redefining a contradiction to be a mystery is an act of deception. There are two very different definitions of those words in any dictionary you choose to look in, and yet rather than accept this many theists choose to deceive, both themselves and others. It is not a rational approach. An intellectually honest person would have no reason to redefine the terms in such a way.
Its all about interpretation? You mean, if the literal words are clearly contradictory then start using other definitions until the contradiction disappears? Surely you can see how dishonest that approach is. It can be used to justify ANY behavior, even the most foul.
If one must believe in the supernatural, then it should be done honestly. There should be not a single moment when you feel the urge to lie or deceive or hide the facts from yourself or others. A true belief system would not require such actions. After all, only a false belief would need lies to defend itself. Yet the deceptive tactics of many theists point another direction.. toward shame and fear that they might just be wrong and would rather lie to themselves to shore up their beliefs than be honest and accept the flaws in those same beliefs.
Aor,
Out of curiosity; why are omniscience and omnipotence mutually exclusive?
If god is omniscient, he must know how he is going to change the course of history using his omnipotence. This means he can’t change his mind about that intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.
Its really the same as the immovable object vs unstoppable force. It is simple to prove that the two cannot both exist in the same universe as they are directly contradictory to one another. Similarly no god can posess the attributes of being both all-knowing and all-powerful.
Similarly, an omniscient god cannot allow his followers to have free will. If the god knew the decisions before they were made, then there was not truly a moment of free choice.
Okay. Works for me.
Aor,
By interpretation, i meant that sometimes what Jesus said can be thought of differently by people today than people who lived back then. He spoke very radically, because He was such a big change that He knew He needed to speak with force, and stay in memory for millenia to come. He couldn’t say “I want you to love God very much”. He needed to say things like “Love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and being” to make it stick around for so many centuries. Because of this, somethings that aren’t really contradictory may sound it.
As for free will, God loves us enough to let us make our own choices, even if it hurt Him. Our bad choices do not reflect God’s ignorence or powerlessness, it was our choice. He often finds ways to make good come out of even the worst choices. We always have a choice, even with God’s omnicience. This is my argument for you, too, Daniel F.
About God’s omnicience. I’m not entirely sure. You seem to have a fair point. I GUESS (i am not sure) that because God is omnicient, He knows our choices. Therefore, He knows how He will need to alter the future. There is no reason for Him to change His mind about it. He could if He needed to, He just doesn’t need to.
We don’t lie. We have faith that God has it all worked out. Therefore, we know we misunderstood. By the way, are there any internal contradictions in particular that you are talking about?
If any of you are really curious, go talk to a Christian minister or priest. They’ll be able to answer your arguments much easier.
Aor, you use rather big words. And you have good arguments. You really make me think about my faith. So, i guess in a way, i should thank you. I still believe in God, but you make me think about it, which is good. It’s probably not the reaction you want, but it’s how i feel. Thanks.
The internal contradictions I am talking about are the ones you are discussing now, although there are probably others. Search some of the free thought pages, there are plenty of rigorous analyses of various religions.
No god, under any conditions, can have both the attribute of omniscience and omnipotence. Free will also is directly contradictory to a god with omniscience. If god knows your choice before you made it, and has known that choice since the beginning of time, then you never actually had a choice at all and free will does not exist. That means that god not only did not allow you free will, he presented the illusion of free will which makes god deceitful. Not to mention that Jesus was a horse thief, or rather the leader of a gang that he ordered to steal a horse. Once you actually sit down and read the bible front to back, you find an incredible amount of contradictions and simply unbelievable claims.
It is inescapable. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. To choose freely implies god has no knowledge of what you will do, as well as no ability to alter what you choose. If freewill exists, the christian god does not.
As for Jesus speaking.. well. We don’t know what he said. We have the much altered writings of people who did not see what they claimed to see because they simply were not alive at the time to see it. Not to mention the utter ridiculousness of many of the stories. For example.. have you read Matthew? The two guards that watched over Jesus’ tomb, the ones that saw a white robed angel appearing as lightning appear before them and smash a rock in half.. yet they ignored it. The ignored an angel, directly in front of them, smashing rocks! They were unconvinced by the most absolute proof of the christian religion that is possible, so unconvinced that they did not feel the slightest fear that this so-called messiah their people had killed might actually be real, and that their only chance to save themselves from enternal torture in a lake of fire was to bow down before this angel.. this angel directly in front of them, within arms reach. Not even the awakened corpses of hundreds of dead jewish scholars wandering the streets of Jerusalem for days was enough to convince them! Or, it just didn’t happen. I know which side I come down on, and it is difficult for me to not openly laugh at any person who claims to believe in the account of Matthew. It is that ridiculous, expecting the reader to believe two guards would act like that with their lives (and souls!) on the line.
Also, I’m not convinced that a priest is a reliable source of information on any given religion since they have a vested interest in promoting their religion over all others, as well as over the truth itself. Once they admit their religion is wrong, you see, they are no longer a priest of that religion. Professors of theology are a much better source of information, and their writings and interpretations of biblical issues are often available online.
Aor,
The bible is a little faulty sometimes. I’m not just saying this to worm out of Jesus being a thief, though. From what i know, the people knew He was coming, and that horse was set out specifically for Him. His disciples were told that if anyone asked what they were doing, to say that it was for the master. This implies that He was allowed to borrow the horse, and it was intended. As far as I know, He returned the horse later with His thanks.
As for the bible being a little bit faulty, we believe it’s INSPIRED by God, not written by HIm. Therefore, it’s filtered though the imperfections of humans, getting a little muddied.
especially with the angels and all, at Jesus’s tomb. I read the part of the bible that explained the actual passages, and it seemed to say that this was either symbolic, or was a prophecy of what was (is) to come.
About free will. I think, personaly, i just disagree with you on this one. Just because He knows what your going to do doesn’t take away your choice. He doesn’t tell you what you’re going to do, you still have to make the choice. He won’t let Himself directly change it, but He can make good come out of anything.
If you don’t want ot talk to a priest or minister, that’s fine. A theologist would probably be pretty good. However, even though you’d disagree, actually, for that reason, you might want to see one that does believe.
Happy Halloween!
I find your version of free will to not be free will. If the choice is never a choice (and it isn’t if it was a foregone conclusion since before the universe came into existence) then there is no free will. If there is free well, then god does not know the choice until you make it, meaning god is not all-knowing.
As for discussing things with a priest, or theologist.. why? The likely goal of your suggestion is to convert me, yet no appeal to emotion or authority or any other flawed logical approach will convince me. By definition, no faith can have proof and a logical proof is.. yes.. a kind of proof. As for as disagreeing with a theologist, that is much less likely for myself than disagreeing with a priest. Theologists in general are well aware of the vast flaws in the bible, they tend to take a rational approach and largely study the field as if it were half history and half philosophy. Many theologists are atheists because of their knowledge of the bible and christian thought in general.
If you mean that I should discuss religion with someone who knows it, I have. Most atheists understand christianity better than most christians, which may be why they aren’t believers.
A piece of advice, just as a general point. If one wants to learn about communism, then reading entirely communist books and speaking only to communists would not be a good method. Similarly for people who want to understand the KKK. A neutral and unbiased source would be more effective than one that is indoctrinated in communism or racism, in other words. Similarly if you want to learn about religion, a priest is a horrible source of information. They lie in defence of their religion. For example, if a lie brings a person closer to god then that lie is justifiable. When priests find a statue or icon in their church crying blood and suspect fraud, they do not admit it. To do so would be not to take advantage of the increase in attendance at their church, which is why you see priests in those situations say things like ‘I do not know if its true, but as long as it brings people into the pews its a good thing.’ This makes it clear that given a choice between telling a truth that will cost them followers and telling a lie that will gain them followers, they will and do tell that lie.
A person with a vested interest in one particular ‘version of the truth’ is less likely to give an accurate and unbiased version of that ‘truth.’ Given that, not only should a priest not be thought of as a good source of information on any given religion, they should be thought of as if they were completly untrustworthy due to their tendency to lie to defend the faith.
Aor,
I agree, actually, about un-biased sources. I suggested priests merely because i figured they’d know lots about the faith. However, i disagree with your other reasoning. The priests i know would never lie about that type of thing. Sadly, i can’t speak for all priests, though…
Who says i’m trying to convert you? I’m just defending my faith. I rather enjoy the argument. If you were to convert, i’d be very happy. However, that is your choice completely.
About priests lying, again. If you don’t believe anything about the religion, to you, everything they say is a lie. Therefore, how could a priest lie to you? Do you mean that they say things about their faith that they themselves don’t believe?
Its quite simple. There is every incentive for a priest to lie, and none to tell the truth. If a person truly believes that, by lying, then can and will save another person’s soul.. then they would be a fool not to lie and thus save that soul. If they did not lie, then they would not be doing everything possible to save souls. The drive to save souls thus leads to deception. It cannot lead to the urge to tell the truth, because telling the truth saves less souls. If a priest knows, or suspects, that a holy icon or supernatural effect (jesus on a piece of toast, a crying statue, a nun who claims to bleed from her hands) may be false they may lose followers by revealing their doubts and if they truly KNOW something to be false, there is no incentive to reveal that truth and every incentive to hide it. Such events happen all the time, you see priests interviewed on their local media about the latest mystical event, and they tend to say the same thing, as I mentioned earlier.. ‘as long as it brings people closer to god, its good’.. even if its false.
You say the priests you know would never do such things.. I say that is utterly ridiculous. Priests are as human as anyone else and have all the same weaknesses. I doubt that you disagree with my analysis of the forces that may push a priest towards lying, but you simply prefer not to accept the conclusion despite presumably agreeing with the premise and the reasoning.
I’m sorry, but it is inescapable. Belief in souls and the ability to save them leads to deception in order to save more souls.
Aor,
I definitely agree that priests would be tempted to lie. That much is true, as they are trying to save as many souls as they can. However, if they are true priests, they will resist the urge, as this is against God’s will. Trying to see it from a priest’s point of view, i disagree. The urge to obey God would be stronger than the urge to deceive someone to make them believe a greater truth. Truth based on lies cannot and will not last. Sadly, though, some priests probably DO get blinded by the desire to save as many souls as possible. Priests only are human, after all, and just as fallible as the rest of us. I have a lot of trust in my local ministry. I can only hope that most of all of the other priests throughout the world are strong enough to resist the urge…
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. One does not often hear believers say things like ‘I will tell the truth to anyone who asks a question about my beliefs, even if it convinces them that I am wrong.’ I do see evidence for what I mentioned above, a clear indication that deception benefits them more than telling the truth does. For example, how often do christians freely discuss the various contradictions and flaws in the bible, or openly question central tenets of their religion? Certainly there are some, but they appear to be a distinct minority. If truth was really an overriding concern then there would be far more christians being open about their doubts rather than hiding them in order to act pious and fit in with the crowd. Priests are no more or less susceptible to that tendency to decieve themselves and others.
Consider.. the belief in confession. Think about a priest who believes that simply by lying to a potential follower then confessing to his lie to another priest and doing a minor penance he could save a soul, or many souls. Perhaps there would be thousands of people he could convert in his life using lies, at the cost of mouthing a few words once in a while. In this situation, even the most moral and honorable person can and will be moved toward becoming more deceptive.
Now, given this situation.. which priests get more followers? Which priests gain more popularity, both from their followers and their fellows? And, is it truly against god’s will to save souls at the mere cost of a fib? Do you really think priests will see a small lie, or even a large one, as being remotely comparable to saving a person from eternity in a lake of fire? I do not. I find that to be entirely unbelievable.
You see, deception leads to success. Success leads to advancement within the church. Given that link, it seems likely that the higher any given priest’s rank within a church the more likely that priest is to knowingly decieve those who go to him for answers to religious questions. The only ‘true’ answer to a believer is the answer that reinforces the belief. If reality reduces the power of that belief, then reality is to be hidden and avoided at all costs.
I do not see a comparable urge to be truthful. There is no punishment by god for lying to a person to save their soul.
Aor,
I, too, see your point. However, i think you’re underestimating most priests. You don’t understand how close most of them are to God. Most would lie, if it were just them, the person, and, especially, the person’s soul. However, all (or most) priests know its them, the person, and God. They wouldn’t do that to the person, or God. God would be mad. Trust me.
Also, if it is the absolute truth, it shouldn’t convince the person that christianity is wrong. Remember, the bible is just a guide. An uncannily and incredibly accurate guide, most of the time, but filtered through humans and thousands of years. There are probably some miniscule mistakes, especially in translation and all.
P.s. I have no problem discussing my faith’s problems. I just feel that these are made by people, not God.
God would be more angry at a priest telling a fib than he would be at a priest who didn’t do everything he could to save a soul?
Aor,
Yes.
I find that completely unbelievable. A soul in torment for eternity on one hand, and a priest telling a fib on the other.. and your god chooses to torture that soul eternally because a fib is just tooooooo much for him to handle. Do you truly believe this, or are you just trapped in a position where to admit the truth and validity of what I said would create a critical gap in your belief system, sending it all crashing down?
I mean, really. Really.
Unbelievable.
Talk to your priest about it. You do not need to frame it the way it has been here, just ask the one straightforward question: If a priest can be certain of saving souls, is lying in order to do so justifiable? Ask them in public, where their followers can hear the answer. I truly doubt you will get the answer you hope for.
I think that you have an unrealistic impression of priests in general, that you take them to be somehow superhuman, immune to temptation, so much so that they are unlike their followers, superior moral persons with not the slightest flaw who would never in any imaginable situation tell the slightest falsehood in order to save any number of souls. Do you truly believe that one fib outweighs hundreds of thousands of souls? Because that is the position you are taking. If lying to save a soul is always wrong, then lying to save 100 souls is always wrong, and then lying to save billions of souls is always wrong. That is simply an unbelievable position to take. No person reading your posts will find them believable.
Rethink your position.
Aor,
A priest sould never have to lie to cover his religion. It should all work out. If he doesn’t know, he should admit it, not make up some fanciful lie. Repeat: He should never NEED to lie. If he thinks he does, then he needs to sit down and think about it. And i repeal my earlier comment. That’s God’s decision, not mine, sorry. That was my best guess. Again, this is a completely hypothetical question. Lying should never be necessary.
“I find that completely unbelievable. A soul in torment for eternity on one hand, and a priest telling a fib on the other.. and your god chooses to torture that soul eternally because a fib is just tooooooo much for him to handle. Do you truly believe this…?”
I agree. I don’t know what i believe, on this certain point. I can only guess, here. Once more, though, this should be a purly hypothetical question.
I agree that a priest should never need to lie to cover his religion.. provided it is true of course. Since they presumably believe in souls and the possibility of saving them, the situation I have described in these posts is unavoidable. It is not merely hypothetical, these are real world situations of people turning to priests with doubts regarding their faith. No priest would allow those doubts to carry on if they had a way of removing such doubt and increasing a person’s faith. It is their responsibility to remove such doubt and reinforce the faith of their followers. Since deception can be used for that purpose, it is naive to assume it is not.
It is just the way things are. If a person believes in souls and the saving of souls, then the value of a saved soul is clearly far greater than the value of a simple lie, so therefore priests will lie to save souls. Not to mention the smaller deceptions they commit in order to keep people attending church.
Christian apologetics is full of lies and deception. Those lies are taught in seminaries (they lie about the second law of thermodynamics amongst other things) and those lies are repeated to the flock. Those lies appear on websites like Answers in Genesis, despite repeatedly being proved false the lies continue. They will not remove them because to remove them would increase doubt and not save any souls. Since most people understand that nobody who has the truth on his side would have any reason to lie, we must conclude that priests do not have the truth.
Aor,
No, my point is that my religion should have everything covered. There should be no reason to provide a false answer, because everything has a true answer that works. Of course, that is if you believe that my faith is true, anyway.
About these lies, could you give a link or something? It bothers me that this is being circulated…
Smaller deceptions?
By the way: If a priest needs to say something that may make a person turn away from the faith, they should do everything possible, outside of sinning, to make a person stay, and yet still tell the person the truth. Yet again, it sould all work out.
… you’d make a very good catholic…
Take it as a complement.
The lies are easy to find. Just check the many links from this blog, or google them.
What is the incentive for a priest to not lie? Especially for a catholic. There is no punishment for telling a lie when you can just apologize on Sunday and its all forgotten, except the priest has ’saved a soul.’
I know you want to believe that this does not happen, but I feel I have presented a solid chain of reasoning and described the situation accurately. You do not deny that there is an incentive to lie, but you simply do not believe it happens even given the absolute lack of meaningful punishment should it occur.
That is just wishful thinking. Those priests will still say ‘as long as it brings people closer to god’.. and the only possible interpretation of that sentence is ‘true or false does not matter, only whether they attend church because of this.’ You have heard them say this, if you attend church at all regularly. What is your interpretation of those words? How can they mean anything other than to say that truth counts for nothing in the face of the belief in souls and the saving of souls? Given that, how can your blind trust in priests continue?
Aor,
I think i partially understand something now. You feel that a priest will say that ‘Oh, it is okay to lie if it saves a soul, because i can apologize for lying later.’ Actually, that is a much greater sin. Its called presumption. Its when a person thinks its okay to sin because they’ll just go to penance later. Again, we believe this is worse than lying. A priest would, or should, recognize this.
I do realize that some priests probably do lie. It makes me very sad…
Also, in the cases that you have presented, i don’t think the priests find themselves intentionaly thinking ‘Okay, i’n gonna lie and say this is real’ or anything like that. If they are lying, in a sense, its not their clear intention. That being said, i must again admit that, sadly, some priests do lie. However, to get this straight now, i fully believe that no bishop or up would lie about the faith.
What is your justification for believing bishops and up would not lie? Are they somehow better than the rest of humanity?
Would they not have all the same flaws as the rest of us? Do they not rise through the ranks, do they lie for a few years and stop when they get promoted to bishop?
The fact is, any religious leader who does not admit to having doubts about things like crying statues and mary’s face on a tortilla is being deceptive. They do not come out and say ‘if this brings you to church, this crazy little tortilla, then you are very mistaken.’ No, they say the same as the other preachers. If it brings people closer to god, true or false, then they will quietly allow people to believe things they know to be false because they believe souls can be saved by doing so.
I see zero justification for thinking bishops or any given rank of any given religion would be somehow superhuman and immune to any and all temptation including the temptation to deceive in order to save souls.
Aor,
I must take that back. Sorry, i don’t quite know why i wrote that. I’m sure, that somewhere in the world, a bishop has lied. Be it about running over his neighbor’s cat, or Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist. I’m just saying that the higher up you go, i’ll bet the less common it becomes. These people have a stronger relationship with God (if you believe in Him) than do most. The higher up you go, the stronger they are to RESIST temptation. No one is immune. Not even Jesus (if you want to argue this, i’m already prepared). They just are closer to God. And even if you don’t believe in God, the human mind is pretty strong. These people will ‘think’ that they are closer to God. Therefore, they’ll think about Him more, and start to see things how they imagine He would see things. And this view will be closer to the truth because they’ll be guided, of course, by the Bible. They’ll just go over God’s will more in their heads, and eventually, their judgement will grow closer to His.
P.s.
About miracles, read the following:
“…If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you…” Luke 17: 5?-6
and this:
“…1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry. 3 And the devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.” 4 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’”
5 And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 “Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours.” 8 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’”
9 And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; 10 for it is written,
‘HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU TO GUARD YOU,’
11 and,
‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP,
SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’”
12 And Jesus answered and said to him, “It is said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.’”
13 When the devil had finished every temptation, he left Him until an opportune time…” Luke 4: 1-13
Repeat: ‘YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.’
Therefore, these passages may contain another reason why you find no miracles. Think about them.
I award that as the understatement of the year! ;)
Thou shalt not questions, thou shalt not doubt, etc. That is yet another pattern that defends liars. A priest who lies can just say ‘thou shalt not put your invisible man in the sky to the test.’
Lets see. We have hundreds of millions of believers, and if any single one of them had true faith then *poof* we would have walking mulberry trees. And presumably world peace. One true believer is all it would take, by the words of the book you believe to be holy. That is what your book says, and you must come to one of two possible conclusions if those words are true; either the bible is wrong, or there are no people with faith.
Naturally I find that unconvincing. It is utterly ridiculous to a thinking person. I’m not sure if you even believe what you quoted because it is flat out silly.
You have been indoctrinated into a belief system that is heavily based on deception. You are told not to question, and there is only one reason to not ask questions… because the answer is not what they are telling you. Anyone who had the truth on their side would be completely willing to answer questions truthfully, would encourage people to doubt.. because the solution to their doubts, the answer, the truth, would be there to remove all doubt.
Think about that.
Aor,
To let you know, i do doubt. However, i find answers that satisfy me.
Also, God’s not going to just give you anything. It has to be in accordance with His will. This isn’t something i know all that much about… But from my best knowledge, He’ll give you anything if He approves it. He’s ‘The Father’. He’s obviously not going to strike someone with lightning because they irke you. ;P
I’m not going to be able to post for a while.
That is a normal development at this point in a discussion between theist and atheist, Francis. When the theist is shown to be wrong, or deluded, or deceptive, or incapable of discussing things rationally, and thus unwilling to continue the discussion they can only lose, they gradually take the conversation into bible quotes and then when that fails, they run away.
Naturally that implies that they lack the requisite amount of faith to make a mulberry tree walk, or whatever the ridiculous claim of the moment would be.
The points I made stand. Belief in the supernatural, in souls and the saving of souls, can and does lead to deception from the practitioners of that religion. Denial, as well as being a river in the northeast quadrant of Africa, is a required element of religious belief.
Aor,
I have not run away. And i thought that the biblical quotes might have helped to answer some questiuons. As for walking mulberry trees, it’s possible. However, do you think God wants that? It’s not the way God works. Sure, back in Jesus’ time, Jesus managed to raise the dead. I personaly find that more amazing than walking trees. However, that was to start things off. God really doesn’t usually work that type of stuff. When you think about it, would that cause more good or bad? It would probably do just as much evil as good. Again, God has to approve it.
@Francis: Well what are some things that God wants that are supernatural? How about curing world poverty right now? What about stopping women being raped today by sending angels to protect them? What about stopping murderers today supernaturally and showing everyone beyond a doubt that God exists and loves his creation?
So nothing happens unless god approves. In other words, no amount of faith will make a mulberry tree walk when god does not want it to, therefore the bible is wrong when it says that only faith is required. Its nice to see you accept that the bible is wrong, at least on specifics. That is progress.
But do you really believe god raised the dead? Why do the histories of the time not mention this? There are writings from this era that would surely mention if hundreds of dead jewish scholars rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem for days, as mentioned in Matthew. What does that imply? How did nobody alive at the time mention ZOMBIES IN THE STREETS OF THEIR CITY!
I mean really. That would be fantastic, don’t you think? The jewish scholars of the past, walking around amongst the people for days! Its quite magnificent, so magnificent that no sane person watching it occur could not immediately realize that this religion had something very amazing going on. Except, they didn’t… there was no mass converstion to proto-christianity. They didn’t mention the zombies in their writings. The romans in charge, the ones that kept copious notes of legal proceedings etc, failed to mention hundreds of zombies. Does that make sense to you? How can you believe the stories of raising the dead when other sources of the time make no mention of something that would be world-shattering to every person who was present?
Have you actually read Matthew? Please go through it, carefully. Put yourself in the shoes of the roman guards, the ones that saw an angel appear and smash open Jesus’ tomb. They actually saw a physical angel, within a few paces of them, smashing rocks.. and they did not believe. How could any person not believe, if the story is true? Do you know a person who could see those things and just ignore them? Do you truly believe people would act that way? Wouldn’t those two guards immediately think ‘whoa, that guy our people killed who said he was the messiah? Looks like he really was the messiah, and we will burn in hell for eternity unless we immediately bow down before this angel and change our ways and become followers of this dead messiah’… except they didn’t. They just went back to their bosses, and spoke the truth as they saw it: the followers of christ snuck in and took his body in the night. You see, those actions make sense to me.. they fell asleep, when they woke up the body was gone. They report to their superiors, all making perfect sense. People behaving as normal people. Compare that to the wishful thinking version of a believer… those two guards see a life size angel, breaking things, they both know that they have offended a GOD, but what do they do? They take a few pieces of gold to tell a lie, despite knowing this meant their souls would be damned to hell.
Please, think things through. Read your bible, because it is truly unbelievable. It is merely the philosophical writings of a bronze age warrior culture, filtered through the minds of people who thought high technology meant attaching blades to the wheels of their chariots.
Truly, I do not see how any sane person can believe the bible when it contains such ridiculous stories. People just do not behave that way, and yet theists would have us believe they do.
I hope you can see how absolutely wrong that is, now that it is right in front of you in text.
Rethink your beliefs. They do not match reality, and reality is not going to change to suit you.
Daniel F.,
God does things HIS way, not yours. If you were God, or at least had God’s powers, you’d do those things, wouldn’t you? You’re a good person for it. However, that’s not how God usually works. He likes to work through people, not against them. There are hundreds of relief programs fighting world hunger today. I’m willing to bet a fair amount of them are religious. Is that not God working to solve the hunger issue?
Sure, it’s not the way YOU would do it, but still…
Also, God brings good out of bad. Thats another way He fixes these things. I myself don’t really like it. But do i have to? If God says so, okay, i’ll put my trust in God.
Aor,
… I’m not sure. Still thinking…
P.s. Does the Bible specifically say ONLY faith is required?
You brought the bible quote, I’d think you knew what it said and what context it was in.
No time to post full comment. Hello, all.
P.s. Yeah, it’s my immpression that faith is only one of the necessary requirements.
P.s.s. I can’t guarentee that everything i post is 100% accurate. I’m not lying, i may just be mistaken.
I’ve experienced levitation. At the time I was not a Christian and had no idea about the history of levitation or that it was even possible… I didn’t try to levitate myself, but it did happen. The only way that I can describe it is the way that mother Teresa and other Christians who have been levitated have described it, as rapture. Like a Holy battle around your body. I don’t expect anyone to believe me, but I’d just like to add my part there. I am not a Catholic and I’ve never been to an exorcism nor do I believe that I was ever possessed by demons, but I do believe that some type of evil spirit has tried to attack me several times through levitation and through seizure type episodes in which I felt hands hold me down and shake me and I was not able to speak, but my eyes were open and I was completely conscious. Yes, I know, mild epilepsy, but I find that hard to believe that I had mild epilepsy at the age of 14 and it went away completely by the age of 15. And I am 21 know. So I don’t know. It’s an interesting discussion.
Michelle,
Yes, very interesting… i’m curious, though, as to what you think it WAS. If you don’t think it was a medical thing, i’m wondering what your opinion is. Were you affiliated with anything the Christian faiths might find questionable or worse? i dunno, just wondering. Please post again, maybe. More in-depth history or something.
Aor,
Are you there?
P.s. My birthday is very soon!
Back up your impression with sources. For example, post the section you find relevant here.
I doubt you will find what you are looking for though Francis. The bible is not what you think it is. Look into the history of the book, the stages it went through during its compilation, the various authors and their tendencies. Once you realize that the entire thing is based on just another middle eastern sacrificial animal cult, the exact wording of one phrase by some crazy guy in a desert becomes unimportant compared to the silliness of it all.
Aor,
We have faith that it was guided by God. It’s that simple. And, regardless of what i may have said earlier, miracles are to help with faith. They solidify it.
An actual miracle would be proof, taking things entirely out of the realm of faith into the realm of the observable and provable. I think you may not realize what you are claiming.
Aor,
I still haven’t had anyone’s definition of faith but your’s and mine. Naturally, i still feel more like mine is closer, that faith is, well, at least similar to, knowledge. Therefore, these miracles, i don’t know, maybe tell us more about God? I’m not sure. However, faith isn’t believing without proof. At least not Christian faith. Maybe other types of faith. And before you reclaim that i am just redefining faith to fit, i had never thought about it before. I’m not re-defining it, i’m defining it for the first time, at least to myself.
If you want a definition of faith, look it up. You will find it easily. Here’s one from Mirriam Webster.
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Your own definition may not match those above, but it should. If it does not, then you must change your definition so that it does. If you find yourself having to hide from the true definition, then that is a sign. People who have the truth on their side would not feel a reason to hide from the facts, so the moment you feel the need to alter a definition in a way that the world in general would not agree with, you are moving toward deception. A critical part of discussion is agreement on what words mean. None of us has the right to apply their own definition if it contradicts the accepted definition of a term. If we did, then I would redefine cheese to mean chocolate and make myself a nice grilled chocolate sandwich.
People, experts, theologians and philosophers, have had thousands of years to go over this. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Once you have evidence to back up your faith, you no longer need faith. These are elementary concepts that you ought to understand if you intend to take part in rational discussion of your beliefs.
If faith was similar to knowledge, then all faiths would be true as they would all be based on knowledge. That means all versions of christianity, all versions of islam, all versions of animism, all versions of every possible faith. That is what knowledge would imply. Since those faiths contradict each other, you cannot be a rational person and still claim that faith is knowledge or nearly knowledge. It does not make sense.
I know you feel that you are being pushed into a corner, where to admit that what I have said is true would be to admit to a big flaw in your personal beliefs. An intellectually honest person will admit when those things occur and attempt to learn and improve upon their beliefs. There should never be a situation where you feel the need to deceive, and redefining a term to directly contradict the accepted definition is nothing but deception. You may be attempting to deceive us, or you may be in a dilemma and merely deceiving yourself.
I hope I don’t sound too harsh, but to me these are elementary concepts. We must have shared definitions if we are to engage in discussion at all.
Aor,
It was very nice of you to call me intellectually honest. Yes, i do admit it. I am stumped. You have beaten me. However, i still believe in God. I am not ready to completely give up faith by any means. I am going to have to get some help on this. I don’t know. Of course, my continuing faith in God will probably make you think i’m very stupid. It should work out, though. I still have MY faith.
I just remembered: My religion teacher said “How do we know where these miracles come from?” That requires faith, too. So really, i guess, miracles require faith just as much as anything else in life does. They can help, or you can brush them off, andd they’ll probably harm your faith.
p.s. I turned 14 around the 23rd of November. That’s why i have a religion teacher. Christian school. Just thought i’d clarify that, so you didn’t think i had some freaky memory or something.
Another thing to all. Look up Our Lady of Guadalupe. It’s really very fascinating. The tilma has several mysteries surrounding it. Just a thought.
@Francis: All anecdote, no evidence.
Really? My knowledge is pretty limited, and i need to research it more, but i’m pretty sure there’s been lots of unexplainable scientific evidence. Like how there’s actually no paint on the tilma. The image just seems to float there. And how the stars on Mary’s cloak are the constallations on that very day. There people in her eyes! When Juan Diego let the roses fall, the pictures of the people seem to have been caught in her eyes. Also, did you hear about the explosion?
@Francis: People are easily fooled. You have to check out Derren Brown’s “Trick of the Mind” TV series. People have been looking for scientific evidence for that stuff for hundreds of years, and nothing has ever been found — and it’s not for want of searching or trying!
You are asking us to believe something extraordinary, with no evidence, much less any extraordinary evidence. We all know things like this don’t happen in our own lives — why are we so quick to believe they happen in others?
Instead of believing everything to hear, don’t you think it would be good to be a bit skeptical, especially knowing that humans are incredibly easy to fool and manipulate?
Just my two cents, but on the topic of the guards witnessing the angel rolling Jesus’ tomb stone away, am I the only one who read this?
“2.There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3.His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4T.he guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. ”
You do mean Matthew 28, don’t you??
Also, a bit later on in the same chapter:
“11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.”
Surely that can account for why it wasn’t recorded; since the only soles the guards told were the priests (who were the ones who were responsible for Jesus’ murder, btw).
” 52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
These people weren’t half rotted, muddy zombies – they would have arisen fully healed, with all their flesh accounted for. They could have walked through Jerusalem like anyone else, and not been noticed. “Appeared unto many” could be speaking of them preaching about God. Certainly if you’d died and been awoken once more this would be the first thing you’d want to do!
Surely day to day people wandering the streets, preaching, would not demand historical documentation – it was hardly out of the ordinary unless you knew the people doing so had already died.
I’ll just leave you with this verse, 1 Corinthians 2:14;
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.”
Quillink,
Why, thank you. Do i have an ally?
Daniel,
Yes, i know humans are easily fooled. I was just saying it’s something that i find intriguing, and thought you might as well. I got my info from a video in class one day, and from a priest’s homily. Again, i’ll look into it. And it seems you’ve rubbed of on me. I actually find myself being more skeptical of everything every day.
@ Francis; Meh, I might stick around. ;)
And I completely agree. Reading through this argument has revealed to me just how little I understand the Bible, and you guys have inspired me to more firmly root my faith.
Thank you!
Yeah, me too. That’s one of the reasons i come here so much. It helps me to understand my faith better.
Quillink, are you really saying that the entire population of Jerusalem saw their culture’s greatest philosophers and teachers reawaken from the dead and walk the streets preaching for three days and not write it down? Nobody? There was another jewish rebellion a generation or so later, and plenty got written down about that. Why not mention the zombies? This would be a massive life changing experience for the entire population of Jerusalem. I think something would have been written. If the guards and priests told nobody, how did someone write it down a hundred years later? Ask yourself.. does the story make sense, does it have internal consistency?
You really want people to believe that the guards who saw an angel appear directly in front of them, proving that the so-called messiah their people had killed was actually the messiah, and just took bribes to go against the will of a god that had just proved his existence to them directly? Have you thought that through, at all? That is claiming that these two guards knowingly chose to go against the will of a god. Consider that. How realistic is it? Would people behave that way, or does it sound more like a piece of fiction created many years later to defend a belief system?
Have you ever wondered why the other gospels tell the story differently? Which one is true? Can they all be true when they say different things? Was there a sermon on the mount, or a sermon on the plain? Why do the ‘holy books’ not describe both, if both occurred? Why do different authors give different geneologies for Jesus?
Think about these things, read your bible, read the works of those who have analyzed the bible.
If you are really interested, I recommend reading the different accounts of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Some is in Acts and Corinthians, I think. Take notes of where the tales agree and where they disagree, and when you have that done put together a version of the tale that includes only the elements that all four books contain, in chronological order. Doing this will convince you that the tales are unreliable. Ohers have done so and you would have their works to compare it to.
http://de-conversion.com/2007/04/08/taking-the-resurrection-challenge/
@Aor: Great questions!
It is well known that if you interview witnesses of an event they will give difering accounts of it.
Aor,
Hmmm… well, from what i know, what i said earlier still applies. It seems as if the Bible says in the little script on the sides (it explains the readings), that part of these stories of Jesus’ ressurection is in some way a prophecy (if thats the right word) of the future. Or, to put it another way, it hasn’t exactly happened yet. It doesn’t really make sense to me, but that’s what the part that WASN’T written a couple thousand years ago says, so…
I agree with Daniel, though. You ask very good questions.
If it doesn’t makes sense, then it doesn’t make sense. Anyone who tries to convince you that something that doesn’t make sense makes sense, isn’t making sense. If you know what I mean.
Aor,
Why, that actually makes sense. However, that is quite obviously the most close minded thing i have ever heard from you. I’m shocked. It’s quite ridiculous to say that if someone is ignorant, then they are correct and you are deluded. Have you by any chance ever had the opportunity to argue with a three year old? It’s the most exasperating arguement i have ever heard. “Yes, i know the little boy hit you, but it’s not okay to hit him back.” “Yes it is!” “No, it’s not.” “Yes it is!” and on and on and on. Was it right ot hit him back? Lets move that up a step. A man kills your wife (or husband), is it right to kill his spouse?