Sunday, July 19th, 2009
I am posting an email response that I wrote up to one of the many people that email me. The background context you need is essentially: she claimed that there was a prophecy that Herod would kill the children of Bethlehem because of Jeremiah 31:15. After telling her the reasons why I thought this was inadequate, she pointed me to an article called: The King Fulfills Prophecy–Part 2. The following is my response.
I fully read the article you recommended to me (I read the version here: http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2186.htm) regarding whether Jeremiah 31:15-17 was a prophecy of the coming messiah, or not.
Jeremiah 31:15-17 (NSRV) “Thus says the Lord: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.
Thus says the Lord: Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for there is a reward for your work, says the Lord: they shall come back from the land of the enemy; there is hope for your future, says the Lord: your children shall come back to their own country.”
I found it an interesting article for a number of reasons. I agree entirely with the scene that the author of the article vividly paints: “I can imagine the terror that those bands of soldiers caused as they went from house to house, chasing fleeing mothers who clutched to their breasts their little ones. Torn out of their mother’s arms, the babies were pierced with swords until they were all dead. That’s what went on in Bethlehem because of the rage of this man.”
Indeed, if this happened it’s an atrocity. This is what happens when soldiers are sent in to kill every infant in an area.
This bring me to my first question. For all the hatred and condemnation brought down on Herod for his ordering male infants under the age of two to be slaughtered, how can you worship a God that previously commanded the same? I’m thinking specifically of:
1 Samuel 15:2-3 — “Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” ’”
God, Himself, apparently ordered His followers to kill every infant, child, man and woman — He orders an even greater genocide. Are the scenes of terror and slaughter any less vivid in your mind when you think of the consequences of what God ordered in 1 Samuel? If they are, how can you possibly worship such a God — and I mean this entirely seriously — if you think that God ordered such a terrible act, how can you think that God is worthy of worship?
Now, onto the alleged prophecy:
“The prophecy about Ramah is recorded in Jeremiah 31:15, and what’s interesting about it is that it doesn’t appear here to be a prophecy. But it is a prophecy because Matthew said it was, not because it’s inherent in this text.”
I agree entirely with half of this statement. Jeremiah 31:15 does not appear to be a prophecy at all. I disagree that it is a prophecy because Matthew said it was — that is just an intellectually dishonest way of thinking.
By the way, you are claiming something much greater than what this article claims.
You said, “it was prophesied … that Herod would kill the children in Bethlehem”.
No, that is simply a false statement. If the ‘prophecy’ does not contain the name “Herod” — it cannot predict that “Herod” would do anything. So, at best, you should fix your claim to say something like, “it was prophesied that children in Bethlehem would be killed.”
Of course, that is false, too because “Bethlehem” is not mentioned, and thus, as before, the prediction cannot be said to predict anything specific about “Bethlehem”. With that consideration, you should fix your claim to say something like, “it was prophesied that children near Ramah would be killed”.
But darn it all, it doesn’t say anything about killing either — it says, “the Lord: your children shall come back to their own country.” So the prediction is about children in Ramah who are ‘no more’, but will come back to their own country. So… how do we fix the prophecy further? “It was prophecied that children would be ‘no more’ — perhaps killed? — in or around Ramah (which is close to Bethlehem) but that they would return from the enemy country.”
But now the prophecy isn’t true (the children didn’t return from the enemy country), so I can see why you wouldn’t want to properly state the ‘prophecy’ — resist the urge, and embrace intellectual honesty. The article you sent me to is very forthright about what they are doing: 1. Realize that Matthew thinks that this verse in the Old Testament is a prophecy. 2. Since Matthew is inspired by God, he’s not mistaken, so we have to figure out exactly why this verse that no one else thinks is a prophecy — from the Old Testament, to the New Testament — actually is a fulfilled prophecy.
You do not work backwards starting with the assumption that a prophecy is true then force the interpretation to guarantee that it is true.
There are even more problems, but by now I feel that I’ve sufficiently countered the claim, so I’ll retire my effort on this unless you honestly think you still have a case.
Tags: God, Intellectual Honesty, Prophecy
Posted in Prophecy, Religious Interaction | 6 Comments »
Thursday, July 9th, 2009
A couple of months ago I tried drawing a comic for the first time in my life — and it showed in the artwork at least. I was trying to show how Ray Comfort’s logic would have worked in the past to conclude that there are wind gods: Comic: Ray Comfort Billboard.
Most of the responses were one of a few types: 1. learn to draw! 2. Right on! 3. Not all Christians are like this! etc. But, a few comments on StumbleUpon suggested that I had setup a straw man to knock down — that Ray couldn’t possibly be making arguments as stupid as I was implying.
Now, I took extra care to try and avoid this charge — I try to honestly represent the position of those I disagree with. But in Ray’s case especially, his arguments are so lame that I really shouldn’t need to exaggerate anything.
Anyway, here’s a quote from an argument that Ray posted on July 7th in his blogpost: The Myth of Creationism -
If you think atheism is scientific and reasonable, let me ask you some questions. Do you believe that nothing created everything? If you do, that’s not only unscientific, it’s unreasonable. This is because your “nothing” isn’t nothing. It is something because it had the amazing ability to create everything.
I’m convinced that his position is unsatirizable.
Tags: Billboard, Ray Comfort
Posted in Anti-Thinking | 5 Comments »
Tuesday, July 7th, 2009
Definitions of insanity are notoriously difficult to pin down. Sometimes, however, there are clear examples that one can point to and say, “Ha, there. I know it when I see it. That’s insane!”
In an unrelated story, a woman was beaten and spit upon by a mob of Orthodox Jews because she turned on a tape recorder. Not because they didn’t want to be recorded — that could conceivably make sense. No, the non-Jewish woman did work (turning on a tape recorder) on a day that Jews are not supposed to do work.
By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker
…
As the protest became noisier and the crowd began yelling, I took my recorder and microphone out of my bag to record the sound.
Suddenly the crowd turned on me, screaming in my face. Dozens of angry men began spitting on me.
Spit like rain
I found myself herded against a brick wall as they kept on spitting – on my face, my hair, my clothes, my arms.
It was like rain, coming at me from all directions – hitting my recorder, my bag, my shoes, even my glasses.
Big gobs of spit landed on me like heavy raindrops. I could even smell it as it fell on my face.
Somewhere behind me – I didn’t see him – a man on a stairway either kicked me in the head or knocked something heavy against me.
…
I knew about the parking lot riots, and was considering writing a post about it in the future. But this afternoon I read this account over at Pharyngula, and I had to make sure that I recorded the story for the future.
Tags: Insanity, Orthodox Judaism
Posted in Insanity, Judaism, Negative Religious Influence | 4 Comments »
Monday, July 6th, 2009
I just published a new short article that asks, “If a person thinks that Jesus’ sacrifice is valid, why was it imperative for Jesus to survive Herod’s massacre of the innocents?”
The goal of the article is to generate new thinking on the point of Jesus’ alleged sacrifice — it’s a worthwhile endeavor for both Christian and non-Christian to try and fully understand what each believes about vicarious redemption.
Article: Jesus: Possibly Acceptable Child Sacrifice
Tags: Jesus, Massacre of the Innocents, Sacrifice
Posted in Announcements, Religious Interaction | 1 Comment »
Saturday, July 4th, 2009
::EDIT:: I switched hosting servers a few nights ago, and I thought I made it through to the other side unscathed, but I got notified that this entry had disappeared. I’ve replaced it, and I’m in the process of finding and repopulating it with the old comments. Special thanks to I Am over at twitter for pointing this out. ::EDIT::
To Billy: if you are going to play the fool verse in an article, be sure that your article is passably cogent.
Billy Graham wrote an article in response to a question about atheists. His article:
I have developed a useful habit where I track the conclusions and the corresponding evidences that people use as they craft an argument. Try it yourself with the closing paragraph:
Don’t be misled by those who claim God doesn’t exist, because he does. And the ultimate reason we know it is because he came down from heaven and walked on this earth in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ was God in human flesh, and he proved it by rising from the dead.
Let’s follow the two arguments and attempt to order them so that they flow from evidence to conclusion.
Billy’s Argument 1:
Evidence: God came down from heaven and walked on the earth in the person Jesus Christ.
Therefore, (conclusion) God exists.
Billy’s Argument 2:
Evidence: Jesus rose from the dead.
Therefore, (conclusion) Jesus was God in human flesh.
The first argument is the most ridiculously circular argument that I have encountered in print.
The second argument is invalid and false — and I don’t think that even Billy believes what he wrote. If he honestly thinks that the statement “Jesus is God in human flesh” is a proven statement, there is no room for faith that “Jesus is God.” There are critical problems with his argument even granting the evidence to be true.
Consider the fact that we do not have direct evidence of Jesus rising from the dead. The absolute best evidence that could even be hoped to be marshaled is: written accounts of his death and resurrection by eyewitnesses who swore under penalty of death that their account was true. (Which, by the way, we don’t have — and if you want to get technical, there is far greater evidence that could exist). But, for fun, let’s grant the absolute best case evidence — the testimony and willingness to die for the testimony is so overwhelming that it convinces anyone and everyone that this evidence CANNOT be explained except by a supernatural intervention.
How many possible supernatural explanations are available to explain something so precise and amazing as written accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection by eyewitnesses who swear under the penalty of death that what they wrote was true?
An infinite number of supernatural explanations. There are an infinite number of ways that such amazing evidence could be attained through supernatural means BESIDES the one conclusion that Billy thinks is inevitable: that Jesus is God in human flesh.
Just to get the list started:
1. spirits possessed all alleged eyewitnesses and wrote the accounts and allowed the host body to die for these accounts.
2. Two gods got together and created the universe and the world 50 years ago — and made it look like everything has been around for a long time planting evidence of a continuous (false) history; even gave people older than 50 years false memories of the past.
3. etc.
For all of my criticism, Billy’s article is not a complete waste: I have a new example for when I teach circular reasoning.
Tags: Billy Graham
Posted in Theology, debate | No Comments »
Saturday, July 4th, 2009
Tom Cocklereece writes a blog called: Simple Discipleship Weblog — Helping Churches Make Disciple-Making Disciples. He posted an entry by a guest writer called:
Why Don’t Smart People Get Jesus? By Guest Writer: Rachel Fox
I was quickly reading through the article, thinking about how choices in fonts can really impact the joy of reading, when a few sentences just jumped out at me. Sometimes a quote is so honest that it hurts to read.
So, why don’t smart people get Jesus?
*Spoiler Alert*
“So, why don’t smart people get Jesus?
Simply because they lack a child-like faith. Instead of beginning with the foundation, they attempt to begin by building the high walls of theology and education.”
How does one “begin with the foundation?”
“We should reason according to the beliefs we already have, according to our simple faith. We should learn about Christian theology and other theologies with the understanding that what we already believe is totally true.”
It’s rare that I get an example of “How to not think about things and other self-delusions” in such succinct and coherent language. It is simply amazing to me that a person could actually write those sentences and not realize that they are promoting Anti-Thinking as a virtue.
Want to know an exact formula for propagating dogmatic belief through the ages? Encourage children to “learn about other theologies with the understanding that what we already believe is totally true.”
At an absolutely fundamental level, that approach is an intellectually dishonest way of operating.
Posted in Anti-Thinking | 6 Comments »