'When the facts change I change my mind' and so should you.
Show MoreWhat would you do as a judge in a court trial in which you have conflicting testimony from eye witnesses? One thing you certainly would not do is assume that each witness is 100 percent correct. Someone—or everyone—is getting some information wrong. The trick would be to figure out who is wrong and who is right—if anyone is right.
Bart D. Ehrman - on Christians who begun with the assumption that all discrepancies in the Bible can be reconciled from his book Jesus, Interrupted
It’s often stated by Evangelical Christians that the Bible is the inerrant word of God,” that the words of the book were inspired by god and that it contains no mistakes. Ignoring for a moment that there’s no evidence for this god, that we know of many factual errors and contradictions in the Bible, there’s still a huge problem: We don’t have any original copies of the bible for any books. We don’t even have copies of the originals or copies or copies of the originals.
In fact the texts we do possess are made much later, several decades or centuries after the original texts were composed, and every copy we have contains copying mistakes some of which were inadvertent and others intentional. Every version of the Bible in circulation is based on these error-filled texts and the older versions like the King James Version were based on merely a handful of particularly bad texts. In other words even if the Bible was literally inspired by god we don’t have those words. Moreover unless you speak Hebrew, Greek and Latin you don’t even have those significantly altered versions but rather committee rendered translation of these texts. Simply put if you don’t have the original text you don’t have those words which were said to be inspired and hence it’s pointless to claim that the originals were inspired.
Besides this obvious problem with not having the original text the only reason that it would make sense for a god to inspire the words of the Bible was if that god intended on people having those actual words, which we do not, and as Bart Ehrman says of God in his popular book on textual criticism of the New Testament Misquoting Jesus:
[I]f he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them.
So let’s now reexamine the claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God: It is a bald assertion about a collection of texts we no longer possess in their original form and this assertion doesn’t even make sense in light of the very fact we no longer have the original texts.
Seems legit.
I’ve read these passages in context several times and I’m well aware that he was speaking to Greeks in Acts 17 but more broadly in Romans 1 but that in no way changes the problem. In Romans Paul says everyone knew and as a result would be accountable, in Acts Paul says some are ignorant and that this ignorance has been overlooked. This has nothing to do with the punishment once you are aware of Christianity but rather or not everyone was always innately aware of the truth of Christianity.
Moreover I agree with waskommenmag who replied:
Since Barth’s Romerbrief, very few Protestant theologians actually agree with Paul’s words in Rom. 1. Unfortunately, very few Protestants read Protestant theologians. They instead like to argue on the internet.
One reason to disregard Paul in Romans is to say otherwise is to postulate that everyone is who isn’t Christian is essentially insane. If you really think, as you’ve said, that I secretly know that Christianity is true, and that I’ll be punished (presumably) eternally for not following it, but that I deny it for any reason you have assumed that I am literally insane. As The Rationalizer once put it:
I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks I know there is a man with a gun to my head but I deny it so that I can go down the pub and have a bacon sandwich is being very silly!
Lastly, I didn’t feel as though I was being overly dismissive but just because we are entitled to our opinions does not make them all equal. Respect is for people not opinions as it is obvious that some opinions are closer to the truth and supported by more evidence than others. I still await this evidence you say think I’m denying that demonstrates Christianity is true. If you have this evidence I’d honestly love to see it.
loudmouthlove asked:
im sorry but i have to correct you. romans and acts say the same thing. the idols ( stone.gold, silver) whatever represents other religions. everyone whether they may know, understand it or not everyone has seen evidence of Christianity. Both texts when broken state the same thing: EVERYONE will account for their denial of God he has made it apparent through Christ that he exists. its kinda hard to deny that when most religions do acknowledge Jesus (Christ) and thus your statement is flawed. js.
By definition you can not both be ignorant of something and know it, it just isn’t possible. Acts 17 clearly says people didn’t know Christianity was true at least until they heard of the resurrection and Romans 1 says they knew “God’s invisible qualities” “since the creation of the world.” Even if we accept the idea that people somehow instantly know that Christianity is true upon hearing the story of the resurrection it still wouldn’t be true that they both knew innately before they heard this information and that they were ignorant of this knowledge.
Moreover “most religions acknowledge Jesus?” As what? Agreeing that he existed doesn’t substantiate the claims that he was the son of god, or that a god even exists. Only Islam, some of Judaism and Christianity denote Jesus as anything of importance. Some Baha’i and Hindu traditions incorporate him but those kind of traditions incorporate practically anyone claimed to perform miracles as an incarnation of their gods. Besides that it’s hard to count the number of religions (though here’s a start) but there are at least several hundreds of them the vast majority of which have nothing to do with Jesus.
[E]veryone has seen the evidence of Christianity?
Besides the problem of assuming everyone that isn’t a Christian secretly knows that Christianity is true but is pretending they don’t, exactly what is this evidence? If you have some evidence for the truth of Christianity I’d genuinely like to see it.
Anonymous asked:
I just wanted to know what comparison you were trying to make with the Romans and Acts excerpt, I'm confused.
A common claim among Christians, especially fundamentalist Christians, is that non-Christians, and atheists specifically, are “without excuse” for not believing in the all-everything god of Christianity. To justify this claim these Christians point to a passage in Romans in which Paul directly said this:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20
This justifies, among other things, saying that anyone who claims to be an atheist is really just “denying god” and that it’s fair to send people to hell for not believing in Christianity even if they were raised in a different religion or if they realize the external evidence doesn’t seem to support Christianity because Paul here claims the truth of Christianity is innate within everyone.
However the problem with claiming this is that the Paul presented in Acts doesn’t think non-Christians are “without excuse” and instead accounts for non-Christians as those simply ignorant of the truth and thinks god gave proof of Christianity through the resurrection of Jesus saying:
“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” - Acts 17:29-31
Both of these claims can not be true. People can not have been ignorant of the truth of Christianity and had an innate knowledge of the truth of Christianity. However both of these are claimed by Paul, one in his own writings in Romans and one in Acts. Also, if the Paul in Acts is correct then anyone who hasn’t been presented with the alleged evidence for the resurrection doesn’t know Christianity is true and therefore they would be “with excuse” for not believing.
The point is even within the New Testament the claim that people are “without excuse” for accepting Christianity is contradicted and contradicted by no less than the person who claimed it. Even if a Christian were to take sides and say one is right it discredits the veracity of the other book and potentially the other author as a whole. With letters attributed to Paul making up nearly half of the New Testament, though only 7 are universally considered actually written by Paul, and the author of Acts also being the author of the Gospel of Luke, this poses a serious problem for anyone claiming Biblical inerrancy or even consistency on an important issue in the Bible.
Moreover without even consistent Biblical support of this claim that non-Christians are “without excuse” to fall back on even hardline fundamentalists Christian should realize they actually have to present evidence that Christianity is true and not just say “you know you secretly believe in god and are just denying it.”
Thanks for the question.
charlesgomesI’ve shaken my fist in anger at stalled cars, storm clouds, and incompetent meterologists. I’ve even, on one terrible day that included a dead alternator, a blaring blaring tornado-warning siren, and a horrifically wrong weather forecast, cursed all three at once. I’ve fumed at furniture, cussed at crossing guards, and held a grudge against Gun Barrel City, Texas. I’ve been mad at just about anything you can imagine.
Even if you ignore the glaring fact the studies mentioned didn’t refer to a specific theist god, so it’s pointless to try to say everyone really knows Christianity is true no matter what they say, such Christian apologetics write-ups like this offer little more than the silly and refuted “I told you they really believe but are just angry at god” stereotype about atheists. Further these types of screeds belittle the suffering that humans go through and presume that belief in god is the starting point for all individuals which can only later be altered. However, people who’ve gone through awful suffering, like parents who’ve watched a child die, have first-hand experience with the problem of suffering and whether or not they formed their experience into a syllogism is not representative of whether or not the problem of suffering is a deal-breaker for the idea of an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent god. Whether or not those individuals would just develop anger at this proposed deity or draw the logical conclusion that such a being doesn’t exist ignores the larger point that those who face a tragedy are forced into grappling with this issue in a manner unlike most in the developed world. Tragedy can mar your perception but apologetics like this would have you believe that such an experience prohibits even the possibility of using the real suffering they’ve been through as a model for testing the problem of suffering in the world.
Additionally all apologists who favor ideas like this and who like to promote the concept that all nonbelievers are “without excuse” for not believing in their god highlight flaws in the Bible and reveal they don’t understand the nature of evidence. If you are to say someone is without excuse for not believing something you must then be able to point to the list of objective reasons why they should believe it. If you are unable to do so, as clearly is the case with the concept of god in general and certainly the Christian god, then those who withhold belief are not only not without excuse but totally justified in not believing. Further the quote from Paul which says believers are without excuse is taken from Romans 1:18-32 however Paul displays quite a different take on nonbelievers and those of different religions in Acts 17:22-31 saying saying those of other religions were “ignorant” and that such ignorance would be overlooked. As a nonbeliever I can say that this is just one of many instances of Paul being portrayed differently in Acts than how he appears in his letters and one of the many contradictions or discrepancies between passages in the Bible but the Biblical inerrantist must paradoxically say that they are both correct. Such a person has to conclude that people of non-Christian religions were both simply ignorant and will have their ignorance overlooked and knowingly chose not to worship the true god so will be punished as they are without excuse.
In short I could have said this article fails on nearly all accounts as it only serves to highlight the problem of suffering, contradictions in the Bible and a basic lack of knowledge of the author about the nature of evidence.
Biblical Archeology Debate on SkepticTV
This week, Falchion49 will be debating MrDathon1577. The topic: Is the Bible supported by archaeological evidence?
Where: http://www.blogtv.com/people/skeptictv
When: Saturday 16 July
8pm UK time
3pm Eastern Standard time
Falchion49 is a professional field archeologist and nonbeliever who will be arguing against the motion and MrDathon1577 is a creationist, presumably a young earth creationist, who will be arguing for it.
When in doubt… just call god
Truth Surge dials up god’s customer service line to ask about a few problems with the Bible.
What the Bible Got Wrong: A Flat Earth Part 4 (Conclusion)
The Bible Skeptic wraps up his look at the flat earth described in the Bible with an examination of the edges of the world.
Do YOU Know Your Bible? (Part 22)
A look at a few of the failings of omnipotence of both YHWH and Jesus in the Bible from TaylorX04.
