The mistake that Christendom makes is assuming that the writers of the NT books knew any more about God than preachers do today. Toss a story and a rumor around about a dead leader for about 40 years before anyone writes the story down and there's no telling what the original story and rumor was.
Assuming that the words of the rumor spreaders are God-breathed is another mistake.
The more likely story is that Jesus was a Jewish itinerant preacher going around preaching that God would restore the kingdom to Israel - soon. He ran afoul of the authorities and got himself crucified.
To add insult to injury, his grieving followers discovered his body missing from his temporary tomb. What was his followers to do, since the authorities were hunting for them for sedition too?
They scatter, that's what they do. Then lo and behold, one of them claims to have seen the leader alive and that gets the ball rolling on a resurrection story because, not to be outdone, others start claiming to have seen him alive again also.
Then all kinds of things get invented about the leader; miracles, virgin birth, ascension to heaven, holy spirit possession etc. Eventually, the leader becomes God himself and part of a Trinity.
And, here we are today, with people seriously discussing the nonsensical rumor of a god-man as if it were all true.
Christadelphia and Evolution
Over at the Christadelphian "Bible Truth Discussion Forum", BTDF for short, the battle is raging once again over the theory of evolution. There seems to be, to my surprise, some Christadelpians who are educated enough to accept evolutionary biology and the facts of evolution, such as common descent.
The problem arises from how to reconcile evolution with the Bible and Genesis in particular. Therefore, most Christadelphians will probably choose to believe the literal reading of Genesis and ignore the scientific facts.
The real answer is rather obvious: That the science is correct and the Bible is wrong. However, history proves that Christians will fight against any truth that contradicts the literal reading of the Bible and we need not go any further than Galileo and Bruno to prove it.
Science is based on facts in evidence and the Bible is based on beliefs with no evidence. Scientific theory is falsifiable by testing, religion is not falsifiable.
I remember people saying that we couldn't fly to the moon because of the canopy of water above the earth - yes, that's right, the blue you see up there above your head is water, a canopy of water over the earth, from which God flooded the world in the days of Noah. Hey, but we got a pretty rainbow out of that deal, didn't we?
The problem arises from how to reconcile evolution with the Bible and Genesis in particular. Therefore, most Christadelphians will probably choose to believe the literal reading of Genesis and ignore the scientific facts.
The real answer is rather obvious: That the science is correct and the Bible is wrong. However, history proves that Christians will fight against any truth that contradicts the literal reading of the Bible and we need not go any further than Galileo and Bruno to prove it.
Science is based on facts in evidence and the Bible is based on beliefs with no evidence. Scientific theory is falsifiable by testing, religion is not falsifiable.
I remember people saying that we couldn't fly to the moon because of the canopy of water above the earth - yes, that's right, the blue you see up there above your head is water, a canopy of water over the earth, from which God flooded the world in the days of Noah. Hey, but we got a pretty rainbow out of that deal, didn't we?
Repent!
Adam sinned and condemned us all to death (huh?) or so the story goes. And here we are now, all condemned and everything and our righteousness is as filthy rags and we are all blind, miserable, poor and naked (spiritually, that is) and the only thing to do is repent and get fixed - 'cause we're broken, you see? And it's all Adam's fault . . . or Eve's - one of 'em anyway - because of eating a magical fruit from a magical tree in a magical garden that doesn't exist.
Anyway though, have you ever noticed that those who go to church, get converted and study the Bible day and night to "get fixed" are the most hateful people in the world?
I noticed, and that's why I started my new blog, The Failure of Christianity. I want to show that the Christian religion is a monster, not just an ordinary murderous monster (which it is) but the most evil, monstrous thing ever invented by humans (which it is).
Since its very beginning there was the infighting between the apostle over circumcision and the law of Moses. This humble, pious beginning escalated into wars between nations and has not yet ceased to satiate its appetite for blood.
The idea that Jesus is going to return and make peace at long last is not what is said in the Christian's holy word - "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus". (2 Thess 1:7-8)
No, Jesus is to return and cause war and destroy and inflict plagues on all the world, killing nearly everyone in the most horrible ways according to the book of Revelation.
But, that's nothing new, there are plenty of examples of God ordained murder and genocide in the Old Testament.
Therefore, I believe it is the Christian who needs to repent and "get fixed", because they are the ones who are broken, not the ones on whom they wish God's wrath to fall. After all, the magical tree and the magical serpent and the magical garden never even existed, and just think of all the millions who have died (been tortured and murdered) because of ignorant people believing that old Mesopotamian myth of Adapa.
Anyway though, have you ever noticed that those who go to church, get converted and study the Bible day and night to "get fixed" are the most hateful people in the world?
I noticed, and that's why I started my new blog, The Failure of Christianity. I want to show that the Christian religion is a monster, not just an ordinary murderous monster (which it is) but the most evil, monstrous thing ever invented by humans (which it is).
Since its very beginning there was the infighting between the apostle over circumcision and the law of Moses. This humble, pious beginning escalated into wars between nations and has not yet ceased to satiate its appetite for blood.
The idea that Jesus is going to return and make peace at long last is not what is said in the Christian's holy word - "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus". (2 Thess 1:7-8)
No, Jesus is to return and cause war and destroy and inflict plagues on all the world, killing nearly everyone in the most horrible ways according to the book of Revelation.
But, that's nothing new, there are plenty of examples of God ordained murder and genocide in the Old Testament.
Therefore, I believe it is the Christian who needs to repent and "get fixed", because they are the ones who are broken, not the ones on whom they wish God's wrath to fall. After all, the magical tree and the magical serpent and the magical garden never even existed, and just think of all the millions who have died (been tortured and murdered) because of ignorant people believing that old Mesopotamian myth of Adapa.
A Corrupt and Scandalous Faith
By Joe E. Holman
Smith:
The year was 1928. The place was Arkansas. Charles Lee Smith, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was arrested “on charges of blasphemy.” His crime? Passing out atheist tracts in a local town. After spending one night in jail, Smith was released with one charge dismissed while the other was never set for trial. Just like the famous blasphemy trial of C.B. Reynolds decades earlier, Mr. Smith was just one more victim of the American legal system, hijacked by Christianity.
Inoculation:
The year was 1722. The date, July 8th. The place, St. Andrew’s Church in London, England. A bold, determined preacher walked up to his pulpit and delivered a heartfelt sermon entitled, “Against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation.” . . . Read More
Smith:
The year was 1928. The place was Arkansas. Charles Lee Smith, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was arrested “on charges of blasphemy.” His crime? Passing out atheist tracts in a local town. After spending one night in jail, Smith was released with one charge dismissed while the other was never set for trial. Just like the famous blasphemy trial of C.B. Reynolds decades earlier, Mr. Smith was just one more victim of the American legal system, hijacked by Christianity.
Inoculation:
The year was 1722. The date, July 8th. The place, St. Andrew’s Church in London, England. A bold, determined preacher walked up to his pulpit and delivered a heartfelt sermon entitled, “Against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation.” . . . Read More
Is Unbelief a Sin?
Over at the Christadelphian "Bible Truth Discussion Forum" I asked the wrong questions and got slammed in a PM by moderator, "nsr".
Corky: What I am getting at is whether or not God requires people to believe in hearsay about fantastic, impossible things recorded by nobody knows who thousands of years ago.
nsr: Here you are making your trademark assertion about the reliability of the canon, despite the fact you've never done any research into the matter, and have been warned several times before about this.
Comment: In other words, nsr thinks he knows who wrote the books in the canon when the real biblical scholars of the world don't know. Plus, he assumes that I have never done any research into the matter.
Corky: If that is required, does God only desire gullible, naive people?
In other words, is unbelief in unbelievable things worthy of destruction? If so, why would God hate people who are not gullible and naive and want proof and evidence of such things? Is it just a stumbling block so that intelligent, reasonable, rational people are left out? And, wouldn't that be a little bit unbelievable too?
nsr: Here you are implying that belief in God is the preserve of the "naive and gullible", and that "intelligent, reasonable, rational" people do not believe in God because there is no evidence. This is again an assertion about a lack of evidence when you haven't actually looked to see if there is any, and a blatant attempt to elicit angry responses, which you have also been warned about before.
Comment: Now, is that what I said or is nsr misreading what I wrote? I said nothing about a belief in God (unless nsr thinks God is one of those "unbelievable" things). I also did not say "there is no evidence". I simply asked pointed questions that evidently they can't answer so it offends them.
Those who are not offended by a few questions may comment on my blog, I'm easy and I won't ban you.
Corky: What I am getting at is whether or not God requires people to believe in hearsay about fantastic, impossible things recorded by nobody knows who thousands of years ago.
nsr: Here you are making your trademark assertion about the reliability of the canon, despite the fact you've never done any research into the matter, and have been warned several times before about this.
Comment: In other words, nsr thinks he knows who wrote the books in the canon when the real biblical scholars of the world don't know. Plus, he assumes that I have never done any research into the matter.
Corky: If that is required, does God only desire gullible, naive people?
In other words, is unbelief in unbelievable things worthy of destruction? If so, why would God hate people who are not gullible and naive and want proof and evidence of such things? Is it just a stumbling block so that intelligent, reasonable, rational people are left out? And, wouldn't that be a little bit unbelievable too?
nsr: Here you are implying that belief in God is the preserve of the "naive and gullible", and that "intelligent, reasonable, rational" people do not believe in God because there is no evidence. This is again an assertion about a lack of evidence when you haven't actually looked to see if there is any, and a blatant attempt to elicit angry responses, which you have also been warned about before.
Comment: Now, is that what I said or is nsr misreading what I wrote? I said nothing about a belief in God (unless nsr thinks God is one of those "unbelievable" things). I also did not say "there is no evidence". I simply asked pointed questions that evidently they can't answer so it offends them.
Those who are not offended by a few questions may comment on my blog, I'm easy and I won't ban you.
Who is Antichrist?
Of course, the short answer is that the antichrist is the Jews, because the Jews deny that the Jewish Messiah has come in the flesh. However, the Jews are not who the author of the epistles of John is writing about. The author is writing about people who have left the Christian faith.
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:18-19).
Evidently the folks leaving the faith were calling the faithful a bunch of liars because the author says that what he is teaching “is no lie” (verse 27) but the real liar is the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah (verse 22).
Now, why were these former believers denying that Jesus was the Messiah? Because, just as above, they had been taught that it was “the last time” and that Jesus would return in their generation.
They went out saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2 Pet. 3:4).
So, the dissenters had finally realized that the generation Jesus was talking about in Mark 13, Matt. 24 and Luke 21 was past, “since the fathers fell asleep”, and they were the next generation and the end still had not come and Jesus still had not returned. However, the author of the epistles of Peter still wanted them to believe that the time of the end was at hand.
“But the end of all things is at hand:” (1 Pet. 4:7).
The New Testament is full of passages that say that “the time is short” and it is “the last days” and the time is at hand etc.
What conclusion could those Christian dissenters have come to except that they had been deceived and Jesus was not the Messiah? Therefore, it was Christian dissenters who the author of the epistles of John is calling the antichrist and are the same ones who the author of 2 Peter calls “scoffers” and this also makes him declare that it was “the last days”, 2,000 years ago (2 Pet. 3:3).
No! Obama is not the antichrist.
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:18-19).
Evidently the folks leaving the faith were calling the faithful a bunch of liars because the author says that what he is teaching “is no lie” (verse 27) but the real liar is the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah (verse 22).
Now, why were these former believers denying that Jesus was the Messiah? Because, just as above, they had been taught that it was “the last time” and that Jesus would return in their generation.
They went out saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2 Pet. 3:4).
So, the dissenters had finally realized that the generation Jesus was talking about in Mark 13, Matt. 24 and Luke 21 was past, “since the fathers fell asleep”, and they were the next generation and the end still had not come and Jesus still had not returned. However, the author of the epistles of Peter still wanted them to believe that the time of the end was at hand.
“But the end of all things is at hand:” (1 Pet. 4:7).
The New Testament is full of passages that say that “the time is short” and it is “the last days” and the time is at hand etc.
What conclusion could those Christian dissenters have come to except that they had been deceived and Jesus was not the Messiah? Therefore, it was Christian dissenters who the author of the epistles of John is calling the antichrist and are the same ones who the author of 2 Peter calls “scoffers” and this also makes him declare that it was “the last days”, 2,000 years ago (2 Pet. 3:3).
No! Obama is not the antichrist.
The End of All Things
For all those people who imagine that they are going to reign on the earth for a thousand years, I have some bad news.
"I will remove man and beast; I will remove the birds of the sky And the fish of the sea, And the ruins along with the wicked; And I will cut off man from the face of the earth," declares the LORD (Zephaniah 1:3).
"Neither their silver nor their gold Will be able to deliver them On the day of the LORD'S wrath; And all the earth will be devoured In the fire of His jealousy, For He will make a complete end, Indeed a terrifying one, Of all the inhabitants of the earth" (Zephaniah 1:18).
" Therefore wait for Me," declares the LORD, "For the day when I rise up as a witness Indeed, My decision is to gather nations, To assemble kingdoms, To pour out on them My indignation, All My burning anger; For all the earth will be devoured By the fire of My zeal" (Zephaniah 3:8).
See also: Isaiah 13:9, 24:6, 28:22; Jeremiah 4:23-26, 25:32-34; Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:7, 10.
Yes, no one left to reign over as priests and kings, because 2,000 years ago (whew, an awful long time) "the end of all things is (was) at hand" (1 Peter 4:7).
This time it's worse than Noah's flood, because instead of destroying all the living things on earth, God is going to destroy the entire universe.
Well, it wasn't "at hand" and it simply didn't happen - unless I woke up on a new earth this morning and saw a different universe.
"I will remove man and beast; I will remove the birds of the sky And the fish of the sea, And the ruins along with the wicked; And I will cut off man from the face of the earth," declares the LORD (Zephaniah 1:3).
"Neither their silver nor their gold Will be able to deliver them On the day of the LORD'S wrath; And all the earth will be devoured In the fire of His jealousy, For He will make a complete end, Indeed a terrifying one, Of all the inhabitants of the earth" (Zephaniah 1:18).
" Therefore wait for Me," declares the LORD, "For the day when I rise up as a witness Indeed, My decision is to gather nations, To assemble kingdoms, To pour out on them My indignation, All My burning anger; For all the earth will be devoured By the fire of My zeal" (Zephaniah 3:8).
See also: Isaiah 13:9, 24:6, 28:22; Jeremiah 4:23-26, 25:32-34; Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:7, 10.
Yes, no one left to reign over as priests and kings, because 2,000 years ago (whew, an awful long time) "the end of all things is (was) at hand" (1 Peter 4:7).
This time it's worse than Noah's flood, because instead of destroying all the living things on earth, God is going to destroy the entire universe.
Well, it wasn't "at hand" and it simply didn't happen - unless I woke up on a new earth this morning and saw a different universe.
The Virgin Birth
Recently I had the privilege of posting on an exclusive Christadelphian forum a thread concerning the virgin birth of Jesus and was accused of everything from trolling to fishing to misbehaviour just for asking a simple question. Okay, you talked me into it, here's the question:
Since Christadelphian theology doesn't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus was God or a god/man, why believe in the virgin birth?
Of course, that's only a paraphrase of what all I said but just so you get the idea of the thread over there (entitled, "The Only Begotten Son").
After several warnings and no answers to the questions, I came to the conclusion that Christadelphians only believe in the virgin birth of Jesus because of being literalists and inerrant scripture believers.
The Christadelphians believe that Jesus was only a flesh and blood man like any other man except without sin - that being made possible by his being filled with the Holy Spirit (without measure) at his baptism. His resurrection being when he became "the only begotten son" and not at his birth.
This cult cannot grasp the possibility of the virgin birth being interpolated to support the later Catholic doctrines of the Trinity, even though the earliest gospel (Mark) and the apostle Paul do not mention a virgin birth.
This cult cannot grasp the idea that {a god + a woman = a god/man} even though there were many other such god/men in existence at the time of early Christianity. Instead they want to deny that Jesus is God yet retain the virgin birth doctrine, being too stupid to realize that it means the same thing.
Since Christadelphian theology doesn't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus was God or a god/man, why believe in the virgin birth?
Of course, that's only a paraphrase of what all I said but just so you get the idea of the thread over there (entitled, "The Only Begotten Son").
After several warnings and no answers to the questions, I came to the conclusion that Christadelphians only believe in the virgin birth of Jesus because of being literalists and inerrant scripture believers.
The Christadelphians believe that Jesus was only a flesh and blood man like any other man except without sin - that being made possible by his being filled with the Holy Spirit (without measure) at his baptism. His resurrection being when he became "the only begotten son" and not at his birth.
This cult cannot grasp the possibility of the virgin birth being interpolated to support the later Catholic doctrines of the Trinity, even though the earliest gospel (Mark) and the apostle Paul do not mention a virgin birth.
This cult cannot grasp the idea that {a god + a woman = a god/man} even though there were many other such god/men in existence at the time of early Christianity. Instead they want to deny that Jesus is God yet retain the virgin birth doctrine, being too stupid to realize that it means the same thing.
The Goodness of God
Hey, this is my kind of God . . . yeah, I like horror movies, science fiction and macabre. Stephen King and God are my favorite authors.
The Branch
In the first century there was a movement in Galilee and Judea led by Judas of Galilee in 6 AD. After Judas was killed by the Romans, his followers were driven underground and became know as the Zealots.
In modern times and the search for the historical Jesus the evidence is pointing more and more to the Jesus movement being a branch of the Zealots who sought the independence of Israel from Rome through less violent means, i.e., God would restore the kingdom to Israel by destroying the Romans himself.
In other words, the Romans didn't hunt down and crucify Christians because of their religious beliefs but because they were Zealots.
Being the curious sort, I typed "Jesus was a Zealot" in my Google search and found some very interesting articles and books on the subject. Here is one at the top of my list.
Maybe that article will spur someone else to look further into it and maybe, just maybe check out what the Emperor Julian (Julian the Apostate) had to say about the church created by Constantine and Eusebius.
In modern times and the search for the historical Jesus the evidence is pointing more and more to the Jesus movement being a branch of the Zealots who sought the independence of Israel from Rome through less violent means, i.e., God would restore the kingdom to Israel by destroying the Romans himself.
In other words, the Romans didn't hunt down and crucify Christians because of their religious beliefs but because they were Zealots.
Being the curious sort, I typed "Jesus was a Zealot" in my Google search and found some very interesting articles and books on the subject. Here is one at the top of my list.
Maybe that article will spur someone else to look further into it and maybe, just maybe check out what the Emperor Julian (Julian the Apostate) had to say about the church created by Constantine and Eusebius.
The Ten Commandments Part 2
Jon Morgan offers an adequate answer to my last post. Not entirely satisfactory but adequate:
Hmmm... While there are many who claim Christianity without reading the Bible (and particularly the Old Testament), such ignorance would be surprising. Fortunately, it's also wrong. If you read from Deuteronomy you will find:
Deuteronomy 5:22 (ESV) 22 “These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.
So the original ten commandments on the original tablets of stone were those spoken on the mountain (and listed again in Deuteronomy 5). They were not just the verbal communications of Moses. If we read further in Deuteronomy we find:
Deuteronomy 10:1-5 (ESV) 1 “At that time the LORD said to me, ‘Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to me on the mountain and make an ark of wood. 2 And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets that you broke, and you shall put them in the ark.’ 3 So I made an ark of acacia wood, and cut two tablets of stone like the first, and went up the mountain with the two tablets in my hand. 4 And he wrote on the tablets, in the same writing as before, the Ten Commandments that the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. And the LORD gave them to me. 5 Then I turned and came down from the mountain and put the tablets in the ark that I had made. And there they are, as the LORD commanded me.”
God wrote the second tablets with the Ten Commandments with the same words that were on the first tablets of stone, and they were the Ten Commandments that God spoke on the mountain in the midst of the fire.
It all seems to add up to the traditional interpretation being correct. Exodus 34 is certainly interesting, but if you read it carefully you find that these words were for Moses to give to the people and written by Moses, while the stone with the Ten Commandments was said to be written by God. The way I reconcile these is to assume that the two are different, which harmonises with the clear statements of Deuteronomy that give the words to the people on Mount Sinai as the Ten Commandments.
You are of course welcome to invoke any documentary hypothesis you choose or discount the testimony of Deuteronomy, but I accept both it and Exodus which together show clearly that the Ten Commandments were those revealed on Mount Sinai in fire to the people, not those given to Moses personally in Exodus 34.
It is true that Christ gave new commandments, and that these replace the law given to Israel. However, to say that they are entirely different is misleading. Christ fulfilled the law and replaced it, and it is noticable that some of his sayings are of the form "You have heard it said ... But I tell you ..." actually giving a harder command (for example, replacing "Do not kill" with not being angry).
Hmmm... While there are many who claim Christianity without reading the Bible (and particularly the Old Testament), such ignorance would be surprising. Fortunately, it's also wrong. If you read from Deuteronomy you will find:
Deuteronomy 5:22 (ESV) 22 “These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.
So the original ten commandments on the original tablets of stone were those spoken on the mountain (and listed again in Deuteronomy 5). They were not just the verbal communications of Moses. If we read further in Deuteronomy we find:
Deuteronomy 10:1-5 (ESV) 1 “At that time the LORD said to me, ‘Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to me on the mountain and make an ark of wood. 2 And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets that you broke, and you shall put them in the ark.’ 3 So I made an ark of acacia wood, and cut two tablets of stone like the first, and went up the mountain with the two tablets in my hand. 4 And he wrote on the tablets, in the same writing as before, the Ten Commandments that the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. And the LORD gave them to me. 5 Then I turned and came down from the mountain and put the tablets in the ark that I had made. And there they are, as the LORD commanded me.”
God wrote the second tablets with the Ten Commandments with the same words that were on the first tablets of stone, and they were the Ten Commandments that God spoke on the mountain in the midst of the fire.
It all seems to add up to the traditional interpretation being correct. Exodus 34 is certainly interesting, but if you read it carefully you find that these words were for Moses to give to the people and written by Moses, while the stone with the Ten Commandments was said to be written by God. The way I reconcile these is to assume that the two are different, which harmonises with the clear statements of Deuteronomy that give the words to the people on Mount Sinai as the Ten Commandments.
You are of course welcome to invoke any documentary hypothesis you choose or discount the testimony of Deuteronomy, but I accept both it and Exodus which together show clearly that the Ten Commandments were those revealed on Mount Sinai in fire to the people, not those given to Moses personally in Exodus 34.
It is true that Christ gave new commandments, and that these replace the law given to Israel. However, to say that they are entirely different is misleading. Christ fulfilled the law and replaced it, and it is noticable that some of his sayings are of the form "You have heard it said ... But I tell you ..." actually giving a harder command (for example, replacing "Do not kill" with not being angry).
The Ten Commandments.
Is it just me, or does it seem like atheists, agnostics and free thinkers in general have read and know much more about the Bible than the average Christian?
I could give many examples of why this seems to be the case, but one of most compelling to me is the case of the 10 Commandments as pointed out in a recent pamphlet by M. Lee Dietz.
As he correctly pointed out, most all Christians, including politicians who want them prominently displayed in government buildings, seem to think the 10 Commandments that God supposedly etched in stone tablets and gave to Moses are as follows...
1.Thou shall have no other gods before me.
2.Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image.
3.Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy god in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor thy father and mother.
6.Thou shall not kill.
7.Thou shall not commit adultery.
8.Thou shall not steal.
9.Thou shall not bear false witness...
10. Thou shall not covet..
I'm always seeing things like sketches, recreations and artists' renderings of the stone tablets that God gave to Moses. And 100% of the time, the above "charges" will be on them. But these were just verbal charges that God gave to Moses in Exodus 20 and told him to verbally communicate them to the people of Israel. They were never etched in stone and the Bible is very clear about this.
The commandments that were actually supposed to have been carved in stone by the finger of God, not once but twice, didn't appear until Exodus 34 and were as follows...
1. Thou shall worship no other god, for the Lord whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god.
2. Thou shall make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep
4. Six days thou shall work, but on the seventh day, thou shall rest
5. Thou shall observe the feast of weeks
6. Thrice a year your men children shall appear before the Lord, the God of Israel.
7. Thou shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven
8. Thou shall not leave the feast of the passover unto the morning
9. The first of the fruits of the land thou shall bring into the house of the Lord thy God
10. Thou shall not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
As anyone can see, there is very little resemblance to the 10 charges that most Christians believe to be the commandments that were etched on those stone tablets. Its bad enough that they believe in a book of fairy tales, but it doesn't even look like most of them have even read it to begin with.
I could give many examples of why this seems to be the case, but one of most compelling to me is the case of the 10 Commandments as pointed out in a recent pamphlet by M. Lee Dietz.
As he correctly pointed out, most all Christians, including politicians who want them prominently displayed in government buildings, seem to think the 10 Commandments that God supposedly etched in stone tablets and gave to Moses are as follows...
1.Thou shall have no other gods before me.
2.Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image.
3.Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy god in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor thy father and mother.
6.Thou shall not kill.
7.Thou shall not commit adultery.
8.Thou shall not steal.
9.Thou shall not bear false witness...
10. Thou shall not covet..
I'm always seeing things like sketches, recreations and artists' renderings of the stone tablets that God gave to Moses. And 100% of the time, the above "charges" will be on them. But these were just verbal charges that God gave to Moses in Exodus 20 and told him to verbally communicate them to the people of Israel. They were never etched in stone and the Bible is very clear about this.
The commandments that were actually supposed to have been carved in stone by the finger of God, not once but twice, didn't appear until Exodus 34 and were as follows...
1. Thou shall worship no other god, for the Lord whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god.
2. Thou shall make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep
4. Six days thou shall work, but on the seventh day, thou shall rest
5. Thou shall observe the feast of weeks
6. Thrice a year your men children shall appear before the Lord, the God of Israel.
7. Thou shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven
8. Thou shall not leave the feast of the passover unto the morning
9. The first of the fruits of the land thou shall bring into the house of the Lord thy God
10. Thou shall not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
As anyone can see, there is very little resemblance to the 10 charges that most Christians believe to be the commandments that were etched on those stone tablets. Its bad enough that they believe in a book of fairy tales, but it doesn't even look like most of them have even read it to begin with.
Blame the Victim
It was bound to happen and sure enough it did. George Tiller, an abortionist doctor, deserved to be murdered! So says Edward Fesar, who teaches for a community college Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California.
In this blog post Edward Feser compares Tiller to Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed, dismembered and ate 17 men and boys. Feser claims that "Tiller was almost certainly a more evil man than Dahmer was."
Actually, this is just typical of what happens when a Christian commits a crime in the name of God - blame the victim. It is always the victim's fault for being an abortion doctor to start with - or a homosexual or an atheist or whoever else the Christians are hating these days.
You would think a professor at a community college would be above such things but not this guy. He even has an atheist hate, book length, diatribe against the new atheists, "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism."
In this blog post Edward Feser compares Tiller to Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed, dismembered and ate 17 men and boys. Feser claims that "Tiller was almost certainly a more evil man than Dahmer was."
Actually, this is just typical of what happens when a Christian commits a crime in the name of God - blame the victim. It is always the victim's fault for being an abortion doctor to start with - or a homosexual or an atheist or whoever else the Christians are hating these days.
You would think a professor at a community college would be above such things but not this guy. He even has an atheist hate, book length, diatribe against the new atheists, "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism."
A Group For Ex-Christadelphians
A discussion group for Ex-Christadelphians has been created on Facebook.
This is a closed group. Members must be invited or approved by the administrators.
Once a Christadelphian but not anymore?
Join this group!
This group is aimed toward people who were once members of the christadelphian religious belief system. The purpose of the group is to facilitate friendly, open and informative discussion about Christadelphia, including why you joined, why you left and what you have learned along the way.
This is a closed group. Members must be invited or approved by the administrators.
Once a Christadelphian but not anymore?
Join this group!
This group is aimed toward people who were once members of the christadelphian religious belief system. The purpose of the group is to facilitate friendly, open and informative discussion about Christadelphia, including why you joined, why you left and what you have learned along the way.
Abraham and Hercules
HOW THE NATION OF THE TROGLODYTES WERE DERIVED FROM ABRAHAM BY KETURAH.
ABRAHAM after this married Keturah, by whom six sons were born to him, men of courage, and of sagacious minds: Zambran, and Jazar, and Madan, and Madian, and Josabak, and Sous. Now the sons of Sous were Sabathan and Dadan. The sons of Dadan were Latusim, and Assur, and Luom. The sons of Madiau were Ephas, and Ophren, and Anoch, and Ebidas, and Eldas. Now, for all these sons and grandsons, Abraham contrived to settle them in colonies; and they took possession of Troglodytis, and the country of Arabia the Happy, as far as it reaches to the Red Sea. It is related of this Ophren, that he made war against Libya, and took it, and that his grandchildren, when they inhabited it, called it (from his name) Africa. And indeed Alexander Polyhistor gives his attestation to what I here say; who speaks thus: "Cleodemus the prophet, who was also called Malchus, who wrote a History of the Jews, in agreement with the History of Moses, their legislator, relates, that there were many sons born to Abraham by Keturah: nay, he names three of them, Apher, and Surim, and Japhran. That from Surim was the land of Assyria denominated; and that from the other two (Apher and Japbran) the country of Africa took its name, because these men were auxiliaries to Hercules, when he fought against Libya and Antaeus; and that Hercules married Aphra's daughter, and of her he begat a son, Diodorus; and that Sophon was his son, from whom that barbarous people called Sophacians were denominated."
Flavius Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 15
ABRAHAM after this married Keturah, by whom six sons were born to him, men of courage, and of sagacious minds: Zambran, and Jazar, and Madan, and Madian, and Josabak, and Sous. Now the sons of Sous were Sabathan and Dadan. The sons of Dadan were Latusim, and Assur, and Luom. The sons of Madiau were Ephas, and Ophren, and Anoch, and Ebidas, and Eldas. Now, for all these sons and grandsons, Abraham contrived to settle them in colonies; and they took possession of Troglodytis, and the country of Arabia the Happy, as far as it reaches to the Red Sea. It is related of this Ophren, that he made war against Libya, and took it, and that his grandchildren, when they inhabited it, called it (from his name) Africa. And indeed Alexander Polyhistor gives his attestation to what I here say; who speaks thus: "Cleodemus the prophet, who was also called Malchus, who wrote a History of the Jews, in agreement with the History of Moses, their legislator, relates, that there were many sons born to Abraham by Keturah: nay, he names three of them, Apher, and Surim, and Japhran. That from Surim was the land of Assyria denominated; and that from the other two (Apher and Japbran) the country of Africa took its name, because these men were auxiliaries to Hercules, when he fought against Libya and Antaeus; and that Hercules married Aphra's daughter, and of her he begat a son, Diodorus; and that Sophon was his son, from whom that barbarous people called Sophacians were denominated."
Flavius Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 15
Hunting Unicorns
What the hell has Michele Bachmann been smoking? America's favorite batshit-crazy Minnesotan has introduced a bill to "bar the dollar from being replaced by any foreign currency." Not that anyone's proposing we do that, mind you. I guess it's just in case.
I guess the wingnut "global currency" question at Obama's press conference has Michele all freaked out. But would a global currency actually be a foreign currency? I think logic would say no. They eat cheese in Europe, we eat cheese here, does this make cheese a "foreign" food?
Anyway, it doesn't matter much. The whole thing's a bunch of crap and Shelly's saving us from a made-up currency that probably wouldn't be anymore problematic than traveler's checks anyway.
Next up, a ban on hunting unicorns . . . (Yglesias)
I guess the wingnut "global currency" question at Obama's press conference has Michele all freaked out. But would a global currency actually be a foreign currency? I think logic would say no. They eat cheese in Europe, we eat cheese here, does this make cheese a "foreign" food?
Anyway, it doesn't matter much. The whole thing's a bunch of crap and Shelly's saving us from a made-up currency that probably wouldn't be anymore problematic than traveler's checks anyway.
Next up, a ban on hunting unicorns . . . (Yglesias)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)