Another Stupid Question

[sctmom]

Rooster, Yes I can see the difference and fully understand. I felt that Dedicated Dad was being disrespectful to me about my posts as well as being disrepectful to others who believe differently than he does. If you respect someone you do not make fun of them or their beliefs, even if you disagree.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Rooster,

 

I may not have made my intention clear. As a human organization, Christianity has not always been the Model I think Jesus wanted. That is all I meant. I dont disparge any thing about the faith at all.

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

I understand. Still, I think it's a mistake to point to overt behavior (good or bad) as a yardstick to measure the effectiveness of being a Christian. Certainly Christ does change lives (i.e. change peoples' behavior for the better), but this is merely a byproduct. Redemption and Salvation is the ultimate "prize", not necessarily good behavior. I'm sure you know this, but I don't want others to be confused. "Forgiven, not perfect"at least not while still on this planet.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Ok, let me try this again.

 

Sometimes people (scouts included) will point to some person or organization embroiled in scandal and say they have lost all respect for that person or organization and all that they stood for.

 

I say that as long as humans run things, organizations will have human flaws. The failings of humans should not distract from the fundamental message. Instead of Christianity I could have used the US Government. Since it is run by humans, it has its share of flaws and scandals. However, just because scandals occur in the Government, it does not mean the concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are flawed. Just because election fraud and "irregularities" exist does not mean democracy is flawed, it just means humans run it.

 

That is all I meant

 

 

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

I did not mean to ruffle your feathers, but alas, I can see how my words managed to do so. It was not my intention. I'm a little hyper sensitive about this topic (scandals, etc.) when Christianity is brought into the picture. Many anti-religious folks like to point to the failings of Christians as if it was evidence that their faith was useless. Obviously this was not your intention, but I wanted to make it clear for others. Thanks.

 

 

[evmori]

"Much of the Bible is legend and myth as well. Recent article in National Geographic about Abraham was wonderful. Some of the religious leaders interviewed said they had no proof that man named Abraham as described in the Bible had lived, but it was a great story to believe in. "

 

I have to take issue with this. As a Christian, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Therefore, the content of the Bible is the truth. Stating much of the Bible is legend & myth is a false statement. The proof comes from faith. And yes, it is a great story. A TRUE STORY!

 

By stating the Bible is all smoke & mirrors denies belief in the one true God. I can't accept this.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[sctmom]

Mr. Mori

I didn't say and didn't intend to say that the Bible is all smoke and mirrors. I also believe it is true but it is just as believable as say some of the Native American stories. It is easy to pick it to pieces and say "well the ark would never have floated", but does that matter? It what the story of Noah represents that is important. Even if it is the word of God, it is not absolutely the exact story of what happened. It is also easy to pick apart stories such as Native American legends about how the earth began and say "that could have never happened". Sure it sounds unreasonable that an eagle flew and as his wings touched the mud that mountains and valleys were formed. Some of the Bible stories are just as hard to believe if you put them in context of today.

 

You believe the Bible because of faith not hard proof. That's great. I'm not saying you shouldn't. If there was hard core proof, then you wouldn't need faith. But to condemn other beliefs as being "myth" and denying that some of the Bible is falls into the same category is wearing blinders. Many are just as believable as the Bible.

 

I recently saw a web page where someone tried to "prove" the Bible was all invalid because he said if you went by the dimensions of the ark, it would not float. So? I'm sure most of you would agree the man was really missing the point. And even if the ark would not float, what does that proof? Right? Okay, use the same logic when you presented with someone else's beliefs. Men have translated the Bible and maybe the dimensions got mixed up over time, does it make the story any less inspiring? Not to me. But take the time to listen to other's and put yourself in their shoes. It doesn't mean you have to believe what they do, but at least try to understand where it came from. Many stories from many religions deal with the same issues -- creation of the world and people, what happens when people don't listen to God (or gods), a great flood, angels, life after death.

 

[Dedicated Dad]

 

By stating the Bible is all smoke & mirrors denies belief in the one true God. What are you talking about, the Nation Geographic said so, what more proof do you need? If you respect someone you do not make fun of them or their beliefs Sorry to confuse you with metaphor and opinion, even though that happens quite frequently, there is always some sort of vast conspiracy against Political Correctness for you to manifest into some grandeur mission to defend. Wicca is no more of an occult than some churches I've seen (and attended). Can you please tell me what Christian churches youve seen and attended, in your vast experience of worship, that practice Occultism? What supernatural powers do the clergy and congregation claim to have? What magic spells do they use exactly? Wiccans do NOT believe they can control nature. Yep, you think all that supernatural power the witches and warlocks have isnt used for the practice necromancy, who are you kidding, that is pure BS (Barbra Streisand)? The definition of supernatural power to transend the laws of nature, try reading your dictionary. What is the purpose of praying for someone to get well? Isn't that to "control" nature? No, what are you saying, that Christianity attempts to control nature and Wicca doesnt? Do you know the difference between prayer and conjuration; they are not the same. you liked the Crusades? You are proud of destroying not just beliefs but innocent people? Where on earth did I say or insinuate this, you have real issues, and hope you can take a step back and see how out of line this kind of innuendo really is. Either you have genuine comprehension problems or youre looking for any excuse to project some kind of guilt by association image of modern

Christianity to the Crusades. Proud of destroying beliefs and people, how dare you, have you no shame? Just because YOU don't believe something doesn't mean others are wrong.At any point, in your world, can their be any wrong belief? Obviously there is because you were disrespectful of those whom believe in the Great Pumpkin. How about those who believe in Mythology are you going respect their belief in Zeus? How about the ancient Egyptians who believed the earth was a flat platter of clay afloat on a vast sea of water, from which the Nile River sprung, are you going to respect these religions too? Are you going to respect anything that is proclaimed as religion, how nave are you? But to accuse all non-Christians as being "mis-informed" is beyond pompous. I accused nothing of the sort, perhaps you really do have some reading comprehension problems, your buffoonery is spectacular and beyond any accuracy. Show me where I said anything close to all non-christians, you cant even quote me correctly, show me where I said, mis-informed? I also believe it is true but it is just as believable as say some of the Native American stories. Ok, can you show me a Native American bible, you cant because the religion was transmitted orally form one generation to the next. So you think that a verbally communicated religion is as believable as a written one, youre pretty accepting of information based on the validity of ones own interpretations of event handed down to another. And yet you have the audacity to question the translation of the Bible? Men have translated the Bible and maybe the dimensions got mixed up over timeYou are shameless. The Bible was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic, perhaps you should learn these languages and read it for your self, otherwise stop slinging all the

ignorant generalizations and equivalencies that have no basis in fact or truth.

 

[sctmom]

Dedicated Dad,

Do you think Christianity has been always written down and handdown orally? The histories of the Bible I have read all state that most of the Bible was written well after the events that occured. This is from religious (Christian) leaders.

 

 

You really should read the article I refer to in the National Geographic Magazine. It was done with much research by a very religious man, who consulted with highly respected religious leaders. One of these highly religious leaders stated they had no proof that Abraham lived and traveled exactly as told in the Bible but the basis of the story is what is important. Some of the irrelevant stories of Abraham don't add up (they would not have used camels at that time for travel), but does it make the story invalid? I for one say no.

 

By the way, sounds like you read Arabic and Hebrew, care to translate the Bible for me? Why does it threaten you so that I say the Bible cannot be picked apart word for word and still make sense? Why is that a threat to you?

 

"Either you have genuine comprehension problems or youre looking for any excuse to project some kind of guilt by association image of modern Christianity to the Crusades."

 

Look again at your statements, you are doing the same when you claim that all witches "conjure" up bad things and control nature.

 

I quote you:

"Christianity was very effective in destroying these belief systems, via The Holy Roman Empire and The Crusades."

 

I didn't say all Christians are bad. But you made it sound like the Crusades were "effective" (producing a desired effect) by killing out other belief systems. Is that always the right thing to do? Were people killed only in defense?

 

By the way, why does Christmas fall on December 25th? Why is Easter in the spring and changes every year? Ever read about where these traditions came from...you might be surprised.

 

"How about the ancient Egyptians who believed the earth was a flat platter of clay afloat on a vast sea of water, from which the Nile River sprung, are you going to respect these religions too? "

Ummm, I think you already told me that flat earth is not a truth therefore it doesn't need to be discussed. Right?

 

 

"And yet you have the audacity to question the translation of the Bible? "

YEP, and proud of it. I do question the Translation of it, not the inspiration of it. Does that mean my questioning always means I'm out to prove something is wrong? No, it means I use my brain. I don't take everything at face value. And you've made it very clear that neither do you.

[Pioneer DC]

I just have to weigh in here when I hear people talking about the Bible being myth and stories and that there is no literal factual basis for many of the Old Testament accounts (and for all I know you may be addressing the New Testament as well). As a geologist and avid student of Genesis, I can assure you that there is sound factual basis and, in many cases, archaeological evidence supporting the Bible.

 

I too once thought that, as a scientist, that the Bible was a collection of fables, myths and stories designed to illustrate a point, but that they were not literally true. When I began an active inquiry into Genesis and Creation several years ago, I changed my mind. When you delve into the scientific evidence and details, you realize that the hearsay about the Bible as a series of fables and myths is merely another part of the humanist agenda to corrupt our thinking.

 

I have accumulated reams and reams of data on the solid science behind the Genesis account and am finding abundant archaeological evidence for much of the rest of the Old Testament. New archaeological discoveries always seem to verify Biblical accounts.

 

If you truly take the time to study this issue, you will be amazed at what you will find. The hooey about the ark not being able to float is just that - hooey! The seaworthiness of the ark has been proven on several occasions through the use of computer modeling using the specifications found in Genesis 6:14-16, yet we still hear that it could not possibly have been seaworthy or been able to hold all the animals, etc. The Bible holds up very well to honest scientific scrutiny.

[sctmom]

My point was that even if the ark as described in the current day Bible can't float, so what? Does that make the story less important? NO!

 

I wasn't discrediting the Bible. Even Bible scholars say you can't pick the Bible apart word for word and not everything is scientifically provable. Same with other religious texts and the same with orally handed down stories.

 

No one was standing there with a pen and paper writing down word for word what was happening as Moses travelled around or when Jesus was speaking. These things were written down centuries after they happened. Does that make it less valid? Again, I think NOT! Taking the Bible word for word is meaningless, it's the overall message. The same for other faiths.

 

[Khepera]

sctmom:

 

Is it legitimate to condemn religion for historical atrocities? First we had better examine the facts.

 

I got a call from a gentleman from San Francisco who was exercised about Christian missionaries going into foreign lands. Then he started talking about not only the destruction of indigenous beliefs, but also the destruction of missionaries. That's what he wanted to see happen. He also said that Christians and religious groups are responsible for the greatest massacres of history. It turns out he was quite supportive of Wicca and indigenous religions which worship the Mother Earth force, Gaia. This is essentially the basic foundation for witchcraft.

 

The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.

 

But a couple of the things that he said were a challenge to me. Not only did he assert that historically missionaries have destroyed cultures and indigenous religions at the point of a gun, but also Christians and religion were responsible for most of the bloodshed in the world, or the great majority of it. I've heard this claim before. I wanted to respond with more detail because I'm sure you've heard these things as well.

I have a tactic that I employ in situations like this that is called "Just the Facts, Ma'am." In other words, there are times when you're faced with objections to Christianity or your point of view that really fail with an accurate assessment of the facts. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.

 

The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. The greatest atrocities committed against man were done in the name of God.

 

Before I get to the particular facts, there is more than just a factual problem here. There is a theoretical problem as well and I tried to make the point that we must distinguish between what an individual or group of people do and what the code that they allegedly follow actually asserts. The fact is that there are people who do things consistently that are inconsistent with the code that they allegedly follow. But often times when that happens, especially where religion is concerned, the finger is pointed not at the individual who is choosing to do something barbaric, but at the code he claims to represent. The only time it's legitimate to point to the code as the source of barbarism is if the code is, in fact, the source of barbarism. People object to a religion that used barbaric means to spread the faith. But one can only use that as an objection against the religion if it's the religion itself that asserts that one must do it this way, as opposed to people who try to promote the spread of the religion in a forceful fashion in contradiction to what the religion actually teaches.

 

It's my understanding that much of Islam has been spread by the edge of the sword. That isn't because Muslim advocates were particularly violent. It's because their religion actually advocates this kind of thing. The difference between that and Christianity is that when Christianity was spread by the edge of the sword it was done so in contradistinction to the actually teachings of Christianity. This is when individual people who claim to be Christians actually did things that were inconsistent with their faith.

 

I've had some people that have told me when I've brought this up, "That's not a fair defense. You can't simply say that those people who committed the Crusades or the Inquisition or the witch burnings weren't real Christians. That's illegitimate." My response is, why? We know what a real Christian is. A real Christian is someone who believes particular things and lives a particular kind of lifestyle. John makes it clear that those who consistently live unrighteously are ipso facto by definition not part of the faith. So why is it illegitimate for me to look at people who claim to be Christians, yet live unrighteous lives, and promote genocide to say that these people aren't living consistently with the text, therefore you can't really call them Christians. I think that's legitimate.

 

 

It's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches.

 

 

For example, no one would fault the Hippocratic Oath, which is a very rigid standard of conduct for physicians, just because there are doctors who don't keep it. We wouldn't say there's something wrong with the oath, the code that they allegedly follow. We'd say there was something wrong with the individuals who don't live up to the ideals of that code. That is the case frequently where people waving the Bible in one hand are also waving a bloody sword in the other. The two are inconsistent. So it's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches ought to be done.

So that's the first important thing to remember when you face an objection like this. Distinguish between what a person does and what the code they claim to follow actually asserts. Christianity is one thing, and if we're going to fault Christianity we must fault its teachings and not fault it because there are people who say they are Christians but then live a life that is totally morally divergent from what Christianity actually teaches.

 

As I said earlier, this kind of objection falls when you employ a tactic I call "Just the Facts, Ma'am," and I'd like to give you some of those facts. My assertion as I responded to the gentleman who called last week was simply this: it is true that there are Christians who do evil things. Even take people's lives. This is an indication that these people aren't truly Christians, but it may be true also that people with the right heart, but the wrong head do things that are inappropriate, like I think might have been the case in the Salem Witch Trials.

 

My basic case is that religion doesn't promote this kind of thing; it's the exception to the rule. The rule actually is that when we remove God from the equation, when we act and live as if we have no one to answer to but ourselves, and if there is no God, then the rule of law is social Darwinism-- the strong rule the weak. We'll find that, quite to the contrary, it is not Christianity and the belief in the God of the Bible that results in carnage and genocide. But it's when people reject the God of the Bible that we are most vulnerable to those kinds of things that we see in history that are the radical and gross destruction of human lives.

 

Now for the facts.

 

Let's take the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Apparently, between June and September of 1692 five men and fourteen women were eventually convicted and hanged because English law called for the death penalty for witchcraft (which, incidentally, was the same as the Old Testament). During this time there were over 150 others that were imprisoned. Things finally ended in September 1692 when Governor William Phipps dissolved the court because his wife had been accused. He said enough of this insanity. It was the colony's leading minister, by the way, who finally ended the witch hunt in 1693 and those that remained in prison were released. The judge that was presiding over the trials publicly confessed his guilt in 1697. By the way , it's interesting to note that this particular judge was very concerned about the plight of the American Indian and was opposed to slavery. These are views that don't sit well with the common caricature of the radical Puritans in the witch hunt. In 1711 the colony's legislatures made reparation to the heirs of the victims. They annulled the convictions.

 

I guess the point is that there was a witch hunt. It was based on theological reasons, but it wasn't to the extent that is usually claimed. I think last week the caller said it was millions and millions that were burned at the stake as witches. That certainly wasn't the case in this country. It seemed that the witch hunt was a result of theological misapplication and the people who were involved were penitent. The whole witch hunt lasted only a year. Sixteen people were hanged in New England for witchcraft prior to 1692. In the 1692 witch hunt nineteen were executed. So you've got thirty-five people. One hundred fifty imprisoned. This is not at all to diminish or minimize the impact of the American witch hunts which resulted in thirty-five deaths. But thirty-five is not millions. It is not hundreds of thousands. It's not even hundreds. It's thirty-five. This was not genocide.

 

Now in Europe it was a little different. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for practicing witchcraft in 1431. Over a period of 300 years, from 1484 to 1782, the Christian church put to death 300,000 women accused of witchcraft, about 1000 per year. Again, I don't want to minimize the impact of 1000 lives lost a year, but here we're talking about a much, much smaller number over a long period of time than what has been claimed in the past.

 

In America we're talking thirty-five people. In Europe over 300 years, we're talking about 300,000. Not millions. The sources here are World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana . You can also read in Newsweek , August 31, 1992. I was accused of being a liar last week. I'm trying to give you the facts from reputable sources that show that the accusations from last week aren't accurate.

 

There were two Inquisitions. One of them began right around the end of the first millennium in 1017. It began as an attempt to root out heretics and occurred chiefly in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The Spanish Inquisition followed in the fourteenth century and was much bloodier. It began as a feudal aristocracy which forced religious values on society. Jews were caught in the middle of this and many of them were killed. About 2000 executions took place. The Inquisition that took place at the turn of the millennium, less than that. So we're talking about thousands of people, not millions.

 

There were actually seven different Crusades and tens of thousands died in them. Most of them were a misdirected attempt to free the Holy Land. Some weren't quite like that. There were some positive aspects to them, but they were basically an atrocity over a couple hundred years. The worst was the Children's Crusade. All of the children who went to fight died along the way. Some were shipwrecked and the rest were taken into slavery in Egypt.

 

 

The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

 

 

A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religion criminals have committed.

My point is not that Christians or religious people aren't vulnerable to committing terrible crimes. Certainly they are. But it is not religion that produces these things; it is the denial of Biblical religion that generally leads to these kinds of things. The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

 

My source is The Guinness Book of World Records . Look up the category "Judicial" and under the subject of "Crimes: Mass Killings," the greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against the government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed the parameters of the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32 and 61.7 million people. An estimate of 63.7 million was published by Figaro magazine on November 5, 1978.

 

In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million.

 

Finally, in Cambodia (and this was close to me because I lived in Thailand in 1982 working with the broken pieces of the Cambodian holocaust from 1975 to 1979) "as a percentage of a nation's total population, the worst genocide appears to be that in Cambodia, formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister, more than one third of the eight million Khmer were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property were abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club was introduced for such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking too many questions, playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being the offspring of an undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact, deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day."

 

Then in Chinese history of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries there were three periods of wholesale massacre. The numbers of victims attributed to these events are assertions rather than reliable estimates. The figures put on the Mongolian invasion of northern China form 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both on the order of 35 million people. While the number of victims of bandit leader Chang Hsien-Chung, known as the Yellow Tiger, from 1643 to 1647 in the Szechwan province has been put at 40 million people.

 

China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism.

 

 

Religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world.

 

 

It seems to me that my colleague Dennis Prager's illustration cannot be improved upon to show the self-evident capability of Biblical religion to restrain evil. He asks this in this illustration. If you were walking down a dark street at night in the center of Los Angeles and you saw ten young men walking towards you, would you feel more comfortable if you knew that they had just come from a Bible class? Of course, the answer is certainly you would. That demonstrates that religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world.

It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.

 

 

 

[Khepera]

sctmom:

 

I wasn't discrediting the Bible. Even Bible scholars say you can't pick the Bible apart word for word and not everything is scientifically provable. Same with other religious texts and the same with orally handed down stories.

 

Actually the text of the New Testament was in the form of letters and sermons which where address to churches of the time. These texts where presented orally to the congregations of the church. Many of these people where present when Christ spoke and performed miracles. Some were even non-believers. Not once is it noted that anyone who heard these texts protested or said that they where not 100% accurate or untrue.

 

Lets play with this sentence

 

Even Science scholars say you can't pick their works apart word for word and not everything is scientifically provable.

 

There thats better and another point.

 

No one was standing there with a pen and paper writing down word for word what was happening as Moses traveled around or when Jesus was speaking. These things were written down centuries after they happened

 

Actually it was not centuries after it happened. The New Testament was written about 20 years after the death of Christ. The disciples didnt live for centuries.

 

[Khepera]

My first post was written by Greg Koukl. For more enlightenment visit his web site at http://www.str.org/

[sctmom]

"Is it legitimate to condemn religion for historical atrocities? First we had better examine the facts. "

 

I wasn't condemn religion for it's histrocial atrocities / inaccuracies.

My Bible (NIV Study Bible published by Zondervan) says there is some question about if Matthew and Luke drew more on Mark's account of Jesus than on their own first hand accounts, even though they saw Jesus first hand. But since Jesus didn't speak modern day American English, I can safely bet that he didn't say word for word what is in my Bible. Yet the meaning is the same. Or is it? I personally find it interesting to compare different versions of the same verses. I know many Church going Christians who also find this interesting. A verse or passage can take on a whole new meaning just be hearing it from a different Bible version. I'm not saying that's bad, in fact often it is good. But it shows that how translation of each and every word is important. Also, important is studying the context, author, time and setting of the text. And what about all the other documents that were left out of the Bible? Maybe they aren't religious but they still give us important background information about the Bible itself.