10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-08-25 02:41am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ

Great video!

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-08-25 08:43am

Hah! I like it. One minor nitpick: the tone of the narrator's voice sounded slightly condescending throughout the video. That's only very minor, though.

My answers:

God can't heal amputees.
God can't do anything about starving children.
The OT was written by power-hungry men.
The Bible was written by ignorant primitives.
Again, the Bible was written by ignorant primitives.
Because God can't do anything to help the good people.
Because Jesus lived 2000 years ago and there's barely any evidence of his existence, let alone any miracles he did. (Also, they probably didn't happen).
Because if he did, I would have serious mental issues.
Jesus said "eat me, drink me" because he was about to be a sacrifice for sins, and that's what you did with sacrifices: you ate them (i.e., this does not explicitly contradict the rest of the faith structure). Of course, it makes more sense for the ritual to have been adopted from other cults in the Roman world.
Because they're only human, after all.

I only take issue with one of his later claims: my beliefs are harmful to me personally. How is that the case? I can certainly see how many people believing in different forms of Christianity (or Abrahamic religions in general) are harmful to society as a whole, but how do my personal beliefs harm me?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-08-28 06:46pm

Amazing how quickly the fundies jumped in there and started preaching.

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2007-08-28 07:18pm

Surlethe wrote:Hah! I like it. One minor nitpick: the tone of the narrator's voice sounded slightly condescending throughout the video. That's only very minor, though.

My answers:
God can't heal amputees.

God can't do anything about starving children.

I though He was omnipotent?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2007-08-28 07:34pm

Could someone post the questions asked for the video deprived?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-08-28 09:43pm

andrewgpaul wrote:I though He was omnipotent?

I don't know the God you believe in, but mine is incapable of contradicting himself or contradicting the laws of nature in a measurable, repeatable manner.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-08-28 09:50pm

Frank Hipper wrote:Could someone post the questions asked for the video deprived?

Why won't God heal amputees?
Why are there so many starving people in our world?
Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles leave behind any evidence?
How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
Why would Jesus want you to eath is body and drink his blood?
Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-08-29 01:28am

An attempt to "prove" one of Jesus' miracles:

Okay, you want some proof?
In Mark 8:28, Jesus heals a blind man. He "spit on the man's eyes and put his hands on him." Jesus then asked, "Do you see anything?" The man said "I see people; they look like trees walking around." Then Jesus put his hands on Him again and the man's sight was completely restored. Now, let me explain to those of who that don't understand the significance of this, Post-Blind Syndrome. After a blind person has had, say, a vision-restoring surgery, they usually cannot adapt to the world around them, having not seen anything and are completely unprepared. For example, a recently healed person will see, say, a flower, and not know what it is. They will see a stem, petals, a leaf perhaps, but can't put it together as a unit. A second surgery is often needed to fix this Post-Blind Syndrome. And how, in Jerusalem what, 2000 years ago, would they have scientific knowledge of this syndrome (how many blind men were healed before Jesus? Hm?) and be able to "make it up" when they wrote the Bible?

As if describing men looking like walking trees even begins to compare to the problem the guy is describing.

Feel free to poke other holes in the argument.[/quote]

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2007-08-29 12:47pm

Surlethe wrote:Hah! I like it. One minor nitpick: the tone of the narrator's voice sounded slightly condescending throughout the video. That's only very minor, though.

My answers: [snip]

How are you a Christian at all, with answers like those? I hardly ever see or hear of Christians sensible enough to give those answers.

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2007-08-29 01:39pm

I just don't get it why some Christians want to read and believe the word of the bible LITERALLY.

Why can't they just accept the bible as a...metaphorical story? Like the fact that there is SOME or little truth to most myth. Some of it may contain some word of truth...from a certain point of view...but other parts of the story are...well 'added-on' facts.

Like the simple fact that 'creation' means well...creation of universe and space and time...instead of creating earth. Or the fact that Moses part the red sea may be not in a literal sense...like he led the Jews pass the Egypt blockade at the red sea...to the reed sea being mistaken as the red sea. The 'reed sea' is a swamp if I heard correctly...I've heard of it somewhere.

Noah's flood could be a mass extinction event that only a portion of humanity survive...maybe due to well going to high ground and built a shelter. After time pass, younger generation with no recount of the event would refer to those 'shelters' as an ark...because an ark can float, and if the flood is that bad...you need a big ark to well...survive.
While on the other hand...the flood can be well...a act of god if you will in a metaphorical sense.

Moreover...we know that most of the bibles stories was started as an oral story...and we know how reliable oral tales can be after it was spread to well...lots of people.

Just because some things seem big in the past does not mean they are considered big now. Take buildings for example, the high rise in the past can mean buildings that is 10 stories high. Now we have buildings that is above a 100 stories. What things may seem big to our forefathers does not mean it will look big to us in the modern day. Or will the event be well...exactly the way our forefather told us to be...to us.

I mean...there should be a choice on how one should view the bible right...if they are calling themselves Christian? After all...that was what free will is about right?

As long people know how to separate metaphorical faith from day to day life, I will be happy enough. Even if god is well...omnipotent does not mean he has to well...be in charge of your everyday life.

Let's put it this way, if you 'create' a life...like having a child...you will look after some of their needs until they learn to mature. I doubt anyone would want to look after a grown up or adult if he is fully capable of well...looking after himself.

If one that faith as a spiritual help...or physiological (if that is how you want to put it) help to ensure people have the strength to live on...I think that is quite logical. To base your health on spiritual help alone and reject medicine is insane. Come to think of it...you can say modern medicine is 'from god' in a sense...as god create man (to Christian at the least) which learn science from a environment which god has created (to Christian) to make modern medicine.

So basically...we could argue to Christian that all things come from god from a certain point of view. I guess the problem is getting some Christian to stop looking at the bible LITERALLY…

Just my few cents

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-08-29 01:51pm

ray245 wrote:I just don't get it why some Christians want to read and believe the word of the bible LITERALLY.

Why can't they just accept the bible as a...metaphorical story? Like the fact that there is SOME or little truth to most myth. Some of it may contain some word of truth...from a certain point of view...but other parts of the story are...well 'added-on' facts.

Like the simple fact that 'creation' means well...creation of universe and space and time...instead of creating earth. Or the fact that Moses part the red sea may be not in a literal sense...like he led the Jews pass the Egypt blockade at the red sea...to the reed sea being mistaken as the red sea. The 'reed sea' is a swamp if I heard correctly...I've heard of it somewhere.

Because if they accept that some of their Bible isn't true, then they have to accept that the rest of it might not be true, and make their faith in general meaningless. This terrifies them to no end, so they cling to literalism.

Noah's flood could be a mass extinction event that only a portion of humanity survive...maybe due to well going to high ground and built a shelter. After time pass, younger generation with no recount of the event would refer to those 'shelters' as an ark...because an ark can float, and if the flood is that bad...you need a big ark to well...survive.
While on the other hand...the flood can be well...a act of god if you will in a metaphorical sense.

The existing scientific evidence suggests a mass extinction event via flooding was not possible. More likely a local, unpredictable flood was over exaggerated and given undue importance.

I mean...there should be a choice on how one should view the bible right...if they are calling themselves Christian? After all...that was what free will is about right?

If you start accepting that parts of the Bible are open to interpretation, then you have to start accepting parts of the Bible are not correct if you hope to maintain any type of logical consistency.

As long people know how to separate metaphorical faith from day to day life, I will be happy enough. Even if god is well...omnipotent does not mean he has to well...be in charge of your everyday life.

Let's put it this way, if you 'create' a life...like having a child...you will look after some of their needs until they learn to mature. I doubt anyone would want to look after a grown up or adult if he is fully capable of well...looking after himself.

If one that faith as a spiritual help...or physiological (if that is how you want to put it) help to ensure people have the strength to live on...I think that is quite logical. To base your health on spiritual help alone and reject medicine is insane. Come to think of it...you can say modern medicine is 'from god' in a sense...as god create man (to Christian at the least) which learn science from a environment which god has created (to Christian) to make modern medicine.

Unless God told men how to suture wounds or perform open heart surgery, this is a massive leap in logic.

So basically...we could argue to Christian that all things come from god from a certain point of view.

If your point of view involves your own asshole perhaps.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-08-29 01:56pm

ray245 is on the right track, but he only took one hesitate baby step on it. Instead of thinking that the Book of Genesis describes real events but in a metaphorical way, he should realize that it's all pure fiction, and its purpose was to serve as a moral lesson and tribal heritage, not as an historical document. The entire Pentateuch is basically like Aesop's Fables, and that's all it was ever meant to be. People back then didn't even bother differentiating between fact and fiction. Did a Bronze Age farmer really give a shit about whether his tribal stories were factually accurate? As long as they were cool stories and he could tell them to his children, they were good enough for him. We're talking about a period in which not even 0.1% of the population could read, for fuck's sake. I don't think most modern people can grasp just how different life would have been back then.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-08-29 02:04pm

The existing scientific evidence suggests a mass extinction event via flooding was not possible. More likely a local, unpredictable flood was over exaggerated and given undue importance.

That part of Genesis was actually written during the babylonian exile when Rabbi's got their grubby mits on a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which itself was derived from the story of a real Merchant-King by the name of Viasudra who rode out a particularly bad flood of the tigress and Euphrates river on a commandeered river barge full of livestock. He got washed out into the ocean and landed in IIRC Kenya, where he made a sacrifice to the gods on a hill.

And there is actually evidence to support that.

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2007-08-29 02:20pm

Screw the story of the flood, I'd like to know how he got home again. That must've been an interesting journey.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-08-29 02:21pm

There's evidence that he was real and washed out to Kenya? Gonna have to call bollocks on that one. AFAIK, Ziusudra/Utnapishtim aren't any more verifiable than Noah.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-08-29 02:43pm

Zuul wrote:There's evidence that he was real and washed out to Kenya? Gonna have to call bollocks on that one. AFAIK, Ziusudra/Utnapishtim aren't any more verifiable than Noah.

Going on P&Ts Bullshit here. The Ben is no historian. Bu they usually have their facts right (even if they distort them sometimes)

Of course I may also be remembering things incorrectly, could have washed out to Oman looking at a map. But still...

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-08-29 03:06pm

ray245 wrote:I just don't get it why some Christians want to read and believe the word of the bible LITERALLY.

So basically...we could argue to Christian that all things come from god from a certain point of view. I guess the problem is getting some Christian to stop looking at the bible LITERALLY…

The response I've gotten to that question on more than one occasion is "Its the word of God. God can't lie. Metaphoric storie that didn't actually happen constitutes lying". And yes, their response to bringing up Jesus' parables was "You don't know they didn't actually happen!!!" Like God is really going to send literal sheep to heaven and goats to hell.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-08-29 03:15pm

ray245 wrote:Noah's flood could be a mass extinction event that only a portion of humanity survive...maybe due to well going to high ground and built a shelter. After time pass, younger generation with no recount of the event would refer to those 'shelters' as an ark...because an ark can float, and if the flood is that bad...you need a big ark to well...survive.
While on the other hand...the flood can be well...a act of god if you will in a metaphorical sense.

Its also interesting how their interpretation of "the world" changes from one verse to another. When talking about the dream of the funky statue in the Book of Daniel, the "kingdoms" (Babylon, Rome, etc.) ruled "all the earth" and they respond that "It was all the world that they knew about" but when the "Great Flood" covered "the whole world", it MUST have been the entire planet.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2007-08-29 04:09pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:And there is actually evidence to support that.

Really?

I thought that was pure speculation.

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-08-29 05:57pm

andrewgpaul wrote:Screw the story of the flood, I'd like to know how he got home again. That must've been an interesting journey.

It better have involved ninjas.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-08-29 09:03pm

sketerpot wrote:How are you a Christian at all, with answers like those? I hardly ever see or hear of Christians sensible enough to give those answers.

Well, I'm a Christian because I believe in (read: trust in, folly though it may be) Jesus Christ, his resurrection from the dead, and his ability to expurgate sins. I just happen to be a very, very liberal Christian who recognizes the irrationality of his faith and works to mitigate that as much as possible without entirely discarding it.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2007-08-29 09:34pm

Darwin wrote:
andrewgpaul wrote:Screw the story of the flood, I'd like to know how he got home again. That must've been an interesting journey.
It better have involved ninjas.

All stories involve ninjas, however they frequently remain hidden from beginning to end and thus aren't mentioned.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-08-30 12:10am

Darth Servo wrote:
ray245 wrote:I just don't get it why some Christians want to read and believe the word of the bible LITERALLY.

So basically...we could argue to Christian that all things come from god from a certain point of view. I guess the problem is getting some Christian to stop looking at the bible LITERALLY…
The response I've gotten to that question on more than one occasion is "Its the word of God. God can't lie. Metaphoric storie that didn't actually happen constitutes lying". And yes, their response to bringing up Jesus' parables was "You don't know they didn't actually happen!!!" Like God is really going to send literal sheep to heaven and goats to hell.

In my experience, they don't bother trying to argue their way out of a jam like that. When they paint themselves into a corner, they just box their way out with the "I'm not an expert. If you want a good answer you should come to my youth group or visit my church or talk to my minister or whatever" trick. Funny how they would never accept anyone telling them to go talk to a scientist about evolution.

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2007-08-30 01:19am

Darth Wong wrote:ray245 is on the right track, but he only took one hesitate baby step on it. Instead of thinking that the Book of Genesis describes real events but in a metaphorical way, he should realize that it's all pure fiction, and its purpose was to serve as a moral lesson and tribal heritage, not as an historical document. The entire Pentateuch is basically like Aesop's Fables, and that's all it was ever meant to be. People back then didn't even bother differentiating between fact and fiction. Did a Bronze Age farmer really give a shit about whether his tribal stories were factually accurate? As long as they were cool stories and he could tell them to his children, they were good enough for him. We're talking about a period in which not even 0.1% of the population could read, for fuck's sake. I don't think most modern people can grasp just how different life would have been back then.

In regards to genesis...when I mean it happen on a metaphorical way...I am referring it as...well more on a cosmic level. In some way...we can say there is 'something' that indirectly creates us, like the big bang for instance. How do we treat the big bang...either as a event or a form of god in purely optional.

But on issues like how life started, I prefer the theory of evolution because accepting the literal creation of living things is...well quite weird.

Let's say you believe that god create earth in 7 days...that does not mean LITERALLY 7 days as the 7 days to god could be 7 billion years to us. That is if you choose to believe in god at all.

But the more...ground base events like the parting of the red sea COULD be a metaphorical story rather than a literal one.

As long people know how to separate metaphorical faith from day to day life, I will be happy enough. Even if god is well...omnipotent does not mean he has to well...be in charge of your everyday life.

Let's put it this way, if you 'create' a life...like having a child...you will look after some of their needs until they learn to mature. I doubt anyone would want to look after a grown up or adult if he is fully capable of well...looking after himself.

Hmm...How to put it in another way...let's say you are in god's shoes, and assuming god does have Human emotions. You create something alive...but do you think you would want to well...help out your creations in minor things like sickness when there is already a medicine available to them. And bear in mind that it is not just ONE family that is asking for your help...but rather millions of them.

The existing scientific evidence suggests a mass extinction event via flooding was not possible. More likely a local, unpredictable flood was over exaggerated and given undue importance.

That was what I meant by the flood is not literally a massive flood all around the world. However, I've heard somewhere that the current humans have descended from a population stock around 10,000.

It is POSSIBLE that the surviving group encountered a flood of some kind that occurred due to the extinction event. Let's assume an asteroid hits earth when humans have evolved. And let's say it landed somewhere in the sea. Sure...there would not be a worldwide flood. But what happens if the survivors encountered a flood of some kind. Then when they find the rest of the world have a lot less animals, they may assume it is the flood that killed everyone instead of other kinds of events.

Because if they accept that some of their Bible isn't true, then they have to accept that the rest of it might not be true, and make their faith in general meaningless. This terrifies them to no end, so they cling to literalism.

The most important role of the bible is to serve as a moral story teaching humans the right values. I mean it isn't hard for them to accept the more spiritual side of the bible. It’s really the teaching of the bible that counts the most, rather than accepting a literal meaning of the bible.

Or we might as well just tell them that if god is omnipotent, then how on earth can a simple human understand god's thinking?

With Fundies...we can't really push them to reject religion all of a sudden...but rather push them towards a more moderate approach.

Coming from a rather multi-religious background (with my family members having different religions including free-thinkers, Buddhist, Christians and Taoism...) I fail to understand why the United States can’t be more...open minded in terms of religious text and teaching.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-08-30 01:22am

ray245 wrote:In regards to genesis...when I mean it happen on a metaphorical way...I am referring it as...well more on a cosmic level. In some way...we can say there is 'something' that indirectly creates us, like the big bang for instance. How do we treat the big bang...either as a event or a form of god in purely optional.

But on issues like how life started, I prefer the theory of evolution because accepting the literal creation of living things is...well quite weird.

Let's say you believe that god create earth in 7 days...that does not mean LITERALLY 7 days as the 7 days to god could be 7 billion years to us. That is if you choose to believe in god at all.

You're still missing the point. They didn't give a shit whether it happened like that, even if you interpret it non-literally. The whole introduction to Genesis is nothing more than a preamble and it's only meant to impress listeners with how powerful God is. Neither the people who heard the story or the people who spoke it could have cared less whether it was true. To even call it a vague metaphor for real events is to assign motives to the writers without cause.