Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to One time at band camp...
Cosette
I have studied the Christian faith as well as several other religions. That is one of the reason why I feel I can say some of the things I say. I have not sat back and looked at it all from a far.
I have been to Church services and talked with people of various religions. I have formed my views from what I have learned.
I have no problem with reading C.S. Lewis' book. I'll have to hunt it down once I get my stack of books to read down a little. Like other books of its king I am sure it will help defend your view point, but it will most likely leave me with a lot more questions than answers, which is what I have found in most every book I have read that deals with religion.
posted by
kooka_lives
on October 25, 2003 at 8:41 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka
I guess that is where faith comes in. It is essential in a relationship with the Creator. "...that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)
I argue the historical accuracy of the Bible merely to demonstrate that it is not a collection of stories as so many who have not done their homework believe, and to show that the people who wrote the texts were not uneducated fools but they knew what they were about. But, to go from using it as a history book and believing it is the word of God is an act of faith, but in believing you receive great rewards. If our faith was not so rewarding and not so true, it wouldn't have stood the test of time - over 4,000 years.
By the way, I did read your post about Hank. It attempts to show the typical "self-righteous and hypocritical" caricature of believers that unbelievers like to present. (By the way, I've always found the term "self-righteous" to be amusing when applied to believers since correct-thinking Christians do not believe that any righteousness they have comes from themselves but as an undeserved gift from God). At any rate, your picture of Hank in no way matches the character of God, shown from the Old to the New Testaments. It is far from the truth. No where, at no time, does God require undeserved and unrequited adoration. People who attack the character of God don't know Him. They only way to know Him is to read his word, which I have done and continue to do.
Here's a challenge. You can ingore it or not, as you please. How about reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? I don't say this in an attempt to get you "converted", but as a way for you to better understand the reasoning of the Christian faith. I understand that it is probably not your intention to understand the Christian faith - that's why it was posed as a challenge. It's not a long read.
posted by
Cosette
on October 25, 2003 at 12:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Cosette
I have already talked about how the Bible would have accurate history in it. Please read my post form yesterday 'Kissing Hanks A$$' and go over the part that has list. It is the same logic you are using here. Just because the parts of the Bible that deal with what was happening in the world did happen, does not mean 100% of the thing is true. If we used that logic a lot of the fiction that is out there would become historical fact real quick. It is very common for fiction to follow events in order to give a better sense of reality in the story.
posted by
kooka_lives
on October 25, 2003 at 7:50 AM
| link to this | reply
cosette
you will have to forgive my emotional outburst. I did not realize that 'rational discussion' had begun. But I am afraid that when someboby declares the bible to have been 'scrupulously' copied from the original without change, because the people who did the translating believed in God and "would not have dared to change anything", I am unable to perceive that as a rational argument.
There have been so many examples of the evil performed by those who believed in God, (think of the current sex scandals in the Church) that to assert that belief in God somehow gaurantees one's honesty is extraordinary to say the least. That is not a rational argument - but an unproven assertion. I am sure even you will admit that believing in God does not make one infallible. Yet your faith in biblical accuracy depends on the apparent infallibility on those who translated it - where may I ask is the evidence for this assumption? Have you any evidence - other than blind faith?
As you rhetorically put it in regards to evolution - did you ever meet anyone who wrote the Bible? How do know the honesty of people that you have never met?
posted by
pg_scott
on October 25, 2003 at 12:51 AM
| link to this | reply
kooka and pg scott
kooka, sorry about the mix-up. I've been talking to many people here lately and the names sometimes blur together.
First, let me say, pg scott, that when we leave rational discussion behind and react emotionally it reflects badly on us. Shame on both of you for trying to ridicule anyone for what they say or believe. I've left many comments and discussed many issues but I have never used sarcasm or intimidating emotional outbursts. You may argue that at one time or another a Christian behaved that way toward you. What bearing does that have on your behavior at any time, especially toward another person?
I have addressed many of our discussion points in my latest post in my blog "Christianity- what is it about". It is long, but I felt it was warranted.
I wonder where people get the idea that we don't know who wrote the gospels? Only one gospel was written anonymously, but even so early church tradition unanimously recognises it as Matthew. Remember that Matthew was part of the beginnings of the church. Please remember that these are not ancient manuscripts that no one had ever heard of before they were dug up out of the ground one day. Just because these accounts are up to 3500 years old (Genesis is dated about 1440 B.C) doesn't mean they weren't tracked. The Hebrew Bible came down through the ages by the ancient scribes who scrupulously copied the original text from generation to generation. And before you say that they could have fudged or changed the words, please remember that to them, if not to you, these are the very words of God. They would not have dared to change anything. Just because we're looking at a period of time a couple of thousand years prior to us, it does not follow that the people writing the texts, or the persons involved with Jesus in any way were not intelligent enough to know the difference between fact and fiction, or not be able to keep track of what went on. Just because they wouldn't have known what a high IQ meant doesn't mean they weren't as smart or smarter than any of us today. What I'm trying to say, is that the Bible is a work accurate in its historical accountings. It is recognized even by non-Christian scholars as an impeccable historical accounting, so why would you question its validity when you have not studied the history in minute detail as they have? And when I spoke of the hundreds of witnesses, I am speaking of the period of time after the resurrection when Jesus walked from town to town and was seen, touched, ate with and talked with many people. The Wachowski brothers had not been born yet- there were no special effects.
posted by
Cosette
on October 24, 2003 at 11:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Cosette my dear
You might want to reread what you just comment about. It was I Kooka, not gomedome who wrote it.
pg scott says most of what I would say.
Would love to know what proof there is of the Red Sea having been parted many thousands of years ago. My guess is it is as good of proof as the proof of evolution.So scientific proof is only good if it works for what you want and not against it?
So what are cave men then? How come we have so many fossils out there that form a pattern we can follow to the point where we see how animals off branched into different species? Is this some test by God to see if we are blind enough to believe a book over physical evidence?
posted by
kooka_lives
on October 24, 2003 at 10:17 AM
| link to this | reply
cossette
"There were over 500 individuals who witnessed Jesus alive after his death and burial?" What an extraordinary claim! Do you mean that there are over five hundred SEPERATE written accounts of Jesus being alive after his death? Where may I find these accounts?
I mean pleeeeease: we don't even know for a fact who wrote the gospels, let alone whether they are reliable witnesses - let alone have five hundred SEPERATE accounts.
Science has found evidence of miracles? Where? What science does is give a NATURAL explanation of phenomena - to give a SUPERNATURAL explanation is not science. Science cannot explain miracles, as miracles, by definition.
All I can say is that I hope to God that you (Cossette) are not a presiding Judge somewhere.
posted by
pg_scott
on October 23, 2003 at 11:10 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
I disagree. With God, we have an historical accounting based on the first hand experience of literally hundreds of persons throughout history. I can give you example after example where scientists have found that the Bible is exact in it's historical accountings. They have even found evidence of miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea. There were over 500 individuals who witnessed Jesus alive after his death and burial. If we were in court today questioning the truth about something and there were 500 witnesses of the situation in question, I think that would satisfy the court. No speculation of how else this could have happened has ever been satisfactorily explained, let alone proven. Otherwise, don't you think the Romans and the Pharisees would have taken care of that right away?
However, evolution is and always has been a matter of hypothesis, theory, educated guesses. Where is the first hand accounting of the evolutionary process? Who was around to witness it? Where is the physical, irrefutable proof of Darwin's theory?
Anyway, I would love to hear from you again if you have any other thoughts, but maybe you could comment behind one of my blogs, or send me an email? I'm wondering how long kooka will exercise his patience with us.
posted by
Cosette
on October 23, 2003 at 10:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Cosette
I will agree that Evolution is a theory. Yet you can find more to prove evolution than you can find to prove God. The Bible is really the only thing that says there is a God. We find more and more proof of evolution everyday.
In fact from what I have seen, those who go with science are more likely to admit when a mistake is made than those who go with religion. Science can admit when it is wrong and find the correct answers, while religion is just too stubborn to admit when it is wrong, claiming to never make mistakes.
If only time travel were possible.
posted by
kooka_lives
on October 23, 2003 at 7:43 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
You may want to think that you always use the qualifier, stated or implied. However, that simply is not true. No one does all the time. I'll give you an example. I don't know if this really is your belief but we'll use this hypothetically. When you speak of the age of the Earth, or the origin of man, do you always begin with "I believe...". No, nor is it even implied. You take it as a given: it took 62 million years for man to evolve into what we are today, and we have the same ancient ancestors as the apes. However, I hope you are aware that the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. No one has ever scientically proven it. I'll give you a million dollars if you prove it to me. Or maybe Hank will (reference later post in this blog). If I had said "After 62 million years of evolution you'd think we'd have grown beyond dependency in deities," Would you have gotten upset even though I didn't begin with the "mandatory" qualifier?
posted by
Cosette
on October 23, 2003 at 7:34 PM
| link to this | reply
When I do state something I beleive to be true a few rules apply.
If it is a proven fact, scientifically or historically we can all speak with some confidence in absolutes. To speak or give opinions on other subjects which are not proven in absolutes without the qualifier "I beleive....either stated or implied one is jumping to the conclusion that others are of like mind. When I asked you how you could say that I am suggesting that adherrants to the other so called inspired books of faith The Ghita, The Koran or The Teachings of Buhdda as well as others may not be of like mind. As they collectively outnumber us on this planet who's opinion has more credence? There probably isn't an answer to that but it may raise a few more questions.
posted by
gomedome
on October 22, 2003 at 11:08 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
I can say it because I believe it. Don't you say what you believe?
posted by
Cosette
on October 22, 2003 at 10:21 PM
| link to this | reply
HOW CAN SOMEBODY SAY THIS?
" The Bible is God in the Word," to paraphrase. That fact that a number of people want to beleive it so makes it no more true than wanting to beleive the world is flat !
posted by
gomedome
on October 22, 2003 at 9:41 PM
| link to this | reply
I wouldn't say they are weaker,
just ignorant. Some people will come to Christ and decide to follow and love Him, but then they don't read the Bible. The Bible is God in the Word, it is the only way to truly get to know Him. They take their salvation and run with it, making assumptions and drawing their own human conclusions about God Himself, and that is their downfall. The answers are in the Bible, for anyone who cares to actually read it. Many new believers don't because it is not something they're used to doing and they are not being taught how to assimilate such a large amount of information. Unbelievers don't because they discount it as untrue and unnecessary. The problem with that is that they also come to their own conclusions. That's where I come in, right? 
I hope you are not beginning to hate me.
posted by
Cosette
on October 22, 2003 at 9:11 PM
| link to this | reply