ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

Archived Articles

1/03/2008                                                                                       View Comments

More Bible Jeopardy!

There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in the , how can anyone take it seriously? Here's a nice example. What were ' last words? Three books in the have three different answers.

Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

It's as if none of the New Testament authors were actually there (ha ha)...

For many more Bible contradictions, see the Skeptics Annotated Bible!

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Truthfully, two can play at this. Let's highlight some atheist contradictions.

How is it that the atheist can claim they can be moral without God? Without God, prove to me that morality even exists. Can you see morality under the microscope?

Also, the whole point of all this reasoning impies that the world is a rational logical place. How can there be logical rational order without a Creator to put that form in place? Atheist must first assume the existance of God before they even begin to argue. Otherwise how could it be anything other than just noise?

exfundie said...

Anony,
I know a lot of godless, but moral people. I treat others the way I want to be treated. Now yes, this is a biblical idea, but it also runs through every modern religion. This tells me that men sought to take a universal idea, and make it particular to their religion.

... and to this moronic statement
"Can you see morality under the microscope?"

I reply... no silly, morality exists only in our consciousness, and by my definition the Christian god has no idea what it means to be moral. This is true even if you discount the old testament.

If you truly want to understand an atheist point of view you should read something. I recommend "End of faith" by Sam Harris. Otherwise you'll just continue to look like an ass with all of your presumptions.

Anonymous said...

To "anonnymous said"

...ARE YOU JOKING? "Without God, prove to me that morality even exists" ????
And you think WITH GOD that there is morality? Check this site and you'll see that almost every day someone will share articles on "annointed" pastors/preists, that have committed IMMORAL acts on children!

.:webmaster:. said...

Anony-fundie, could you please define morality for me?

Thanks.

.:webmaster:. said...

Oh, and anony-fundie,

Before you respond that morality is whatever is commanded by the Bible, you might want to peruse the Wikipedia page on the topic.

CLICK HERE

.:webmaster:. said...

And if all that reading is beyond your ability, anon-fundie, consider these two questions:

Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?

And...

Is an action morally wrong because God prohibits it, or does God prohibit it because it is already wrong?

I await your answer.

lothartx said...

Anony troll...

You stated:

"Let's highlight some atheist contradictions."

followed by this inane comment:

"How is it that the atheist can claim they can be moral without God? Without God, prove to me that morality even exists."

The above statement is baseless and stupid in so many ways I hardly know where to begin.

God doesn't exist, I don’t fear hell. I consider myself "moral", by my standards. My general moral standard is I try not let my actions or words negatively affect another persons well being. I actually don’t like the word “moral” or “sin” because to me the presume the validity of religion.

How do you define "moral"? Do you use the christain bible god as a moral standard? He's a murdering bastard full of hate and bigotry, much like a lot fundamentalist christains. Maybe that is your standard? I would not consider you a "moral" person.

Which god to you use for a moral standard? There are buckets full of gods to pick and chose from out there, several of which made into your bible. That still leaves several thousands from which to pick your morality.

How about societies that self-destructed due negative social behavior? Those societies would not survive to reproduce. Societies that tended to have less negative behavior did tend to survive and reproduce. The societies that were generally the most prosperous and healthy survived. Evolution of societies?

"Can you see morality under the microscope?"
The above is an utterly stupid statement.

“Also, the whole point of all this reasoning impies that the world is a rational logical place. How can there be logical rational order without a Creator to put that form in place? Atheist must first assume the existance of God before they even begin to argue. Otherwise how could it be anything other than just noise?”

Nothing but baseless assertions, straw man tatics and presumptions, your ignorance is showing. (yep, ad-hominem attack, but rather accurate)

DocMike said...

"Morality" based on the Bible:

I am good to others because I will be rewarded (Heaven) or I will be punished (Hell).

Morality based on humanistic values:

I am good to others because it causes others to be good to me.

Which is more moral?

Anyway, Anonymous: The point of the comic is not morality, but the inconsistency of the Bible. Pointing out Atheist contradictions is irrelevant. Christians claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Atheists make no such claim.

Spirula said...

Also, the whole point of all this reasoning impies that the world is a rational logical place.

No. It means that reason and logic, which evolved as functions of the brain, can be used to understand the natural world and its processes. No god needed. Just good old natural selection. Even a dog can be demonstrated to use reason and logic. That is what "hunting strategy" is based on.

Morality is a set of behaviors expressed by social animals that best serves the survival of the group, and individuals within the group. Again, it arises by natural selection. Destructive behaviors will ultimately lead to the collapse of the social group. Constructive behaviors lead to its success. No god. Just natural selection.

Try reading outside your pathetic god's romper-room library.

Keven said...

There is no difference between god and Hitler when it comes to moral values.

Both are murderers, rapist, baby killers, practice ethnic cleansing, lie, unjust, encourage slavery, jealous, fool of hatred, and the best of all; very stupid.

We came easily say when we look at their morality standard, that the Christian god and Hitler comes from the same mold.
Keven

Bob P said...

Moraltty is based on the clubability rule: Club not me, as I will club not thee. Cheistianity makes some claim for a similar rule...I forget it's name........

slingshot said...

Anonymous, first of all, this is not an atheist website. Some here believe in the existence of a "creator," while others consider the possibility thereof. The problem is with the christian god, who will cast yer ass into burning fiery eternal torment worse than anything one may imagine for looking at a beautiful woman lustfully. Is this your idea of morality? If I would never do such a thing to my own children, does this not put me above the christian god from a moral standpoint? Of course it does.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. There is something seriously wrong with the bible...

slingshot said...

The desire for a free ride to heaven is selfish, and it is fearful to be afraid of hell. Is this moral? Selfishness and fearfulness?

Cast the beam out of thine own eye, christian.

Do you know that the bible says that a person who claims to know Jesus and does not keep his commandments is "a liar, and the truth is not in him?" Do you keep the commandments of Jesus, anonymous? To the letter? Don't lie, now. That would be immoral.

Do all christians keep his commandments, to the letter? If they do not, then the truth is not in them, and would it not be true from a christian standpoint, that Christ is not in them, since the truth is not in them?

Do you believe everything the bible says, anonymous?

slingshot said...

The fact that I would not throw my children into eternal torment to burn forever shows that morality can exist without the christian god, btw, since I do not believe in said god and still would never do such a thing.

Again, the problem is the christian god, who is insane, frankly.

Again, there is something wrong with the bible...

Nekkid A said...

As if on cue the Dumb Bell begins ringing .

Anonytard wrote

Truthfully, two can play at this. Let's highlight some atheist contradictions. . .

Which one of the 2850 and still counting god(s) are you talking about?

Got any evidence for this god of yours?

I'm waiting.

Kevin said...

I love reading the rational intelligence coming thru these comments. I saw "Jesus Camp" the other night on IFC and saw the Christian insanity alive and thriving. What really got to me was seeing those little children taught to grow up living a life of fear and fantasy. It was very sad. BTW, I choose to be ethical not out of fear of retribution (unless you're the IRS) but because it's the best way to co-exist and be in harmony with my fellow man/society.
I've recently admitted to being an atheist after many years of having my Mormon version of Christianity being slowly chipped away. It's much easier to believe. It's a good out. But, being an atheist makes the responsibility of my life all mine. It's a lot tougher but once the reality sets in, what the hell else can one do? I can still have hope and dreams only now I know it's all up to me. But, on the plus side I'm no longer afraid of death.

whateverlolawants said...

Dear first anonymous poster,

I doubt you've ever returned to read this page, but in case you have, I won't rehash the good points others have made.

I will simply point out that atheism is not a religion or all-encompassing philosophy; it simply means that an atheist does not believe in any gods AND/OR believes there ARE no gods. While some atheists have similar beliefs, there is no "atheist" position on morality, ethics, etc.

And we don't have to assume there is a creator before we discuss the topic. I don't consider discussing things with my fellow human beings just "making noise"- it's an activity that can have very real outcomes and effects.

eel_shepherd said...

exfundie wrote:
"...I treat others the way I want to be treated. Now yes, this is a biblical idea, but it also runs through every modern religion..."

I'm convinced that not only does this theme run through every religion, and other systems of ethics, but that sooner or later someone's going to write some high-level computer code, in which the programs can modify themselves based on results of experience, where the principle known as the golden rule will evolve in silicon-hosted simulation.

To suggest that we needed religion, let alone any one particular religion, as the anonymouse suggested, to develope this no-brainer of a principle of mutual philanthropy (or at least mutual non-misanthropy) is blinkered, inside-the-box, thinking of the narrowest kind.

Hells Bells said...

When did the Jewish/Hebrew religion upon which our Western society is based first appear. Probably not much earlier than aroun 1500BCE - slightly before the reign of David of Jerusalem. What morals were in place before then? Well, Babylon (that den of iniquity according to the Bible) had Hammurabi's code at least 300 years earlier - and they definitely had no contact with the Jewish gods.

Evolutionary biologists have shown that there is great benefit in individuals acting for the greater good of the society as a whole. You'll always get individuals who try to take advantage, but they tend not to be so successful in the long run - people and animals like to be able to trust others. What is that if that's not morality?

Also, there was a study about "Biblical morality" and how religion skews perceptions of morality. Around 1,500 Jewish schoolchildren were given the story of Joshua and Jericho. Almost all of them thought that the destruction of Jericho was moral - on the basis that God had commanded it and God couldn't do anything immoral. Showing another 150 Jewish schoolchildren the same story but with the names changed, most of them now viewed the story as immoral - in what way was it right for someone to destroy a city and murder all of its inhabitants just because they believed their god had told them to do so?

Laughing Buddha said...

That last comment reminds me of the laughable names that Joseph Smith came up with as he wrote the Book of Mormon and other nonsense... show Jewish children "Joshua" and "G-d" and they understand the writing to be "inspired". Smith, on the other hand, had to come up with names that he thought sounded "Biblical", so he managed to invent "Zeezrom" and "Amulek". Oh, brother. When are the religious idiots out there going to realize that pious-sounding language does not mean you are reading an infallible holy-book?

There are grunting, loincloth-wearing tribesmen shitting in the woods somewhere who have "gods" that "command" them to kill the other tribes around them. We call them savages. Take the religion of some desert-dwelling nomads, add some Catholic hocus-pocus, sprinkle in some pseudo-intellectual "theology", and, wham-o! you've got TODAY'S grunting tribesmen, all set to destroy tribes in the name of their "god". Sheesh.

Aspentroll said...

"There are grunting, loincloth-wearing tribesmen shitting in the woods somewhere who have "gods" that "command" them to kill the other tribes around them. We call them savages. Take the religion of some desert-dwelling nomads, add some Catholic hocus-pocus, sprinkle in some pseudo-intellectual "theology", and, wham-o! you've got TODAY'S grunting tribesmen, all set to destroy tribes in the name of their "god".

Kudos, Laughing Buddha, that very well describes what happened in the desert all those years ago. Constantine
who was directly responsible for all the christian religions of today knew what he had to do to control the "grunting tribesmen".

Your excellently described
formula for todays religions is a KEEPER.

Connor and Dad said...

Wow....such anger for people who "feel" there is no God. Anger at a type of God or a book written by men about someone they thought was God. If you see a painting, you know a painter must of existed and painted it. So when you look at the ocean, the stars, the entire universe, you must know something put it there... to deny a creator is to deny the stars exist.

.:webmaster:. said...

You see a painting, you know there was a painter. You look at the oceans, stars, etc., you know there was an oceaner-starer commonly referred to as a god.

You look at a god and you know there is a god-maker. You look at the god-maker, and you know there is a god-maker-god-maker.

If you god created and is in control of everything, then she is repsonsible for the floods, the hurricanes, the high winds, the earth quakes, the super novas, the diseases, the inhospitaple sun that gives skin cancer, the inhospitable climate that would kill us all were it not for clothing and shelter...

Do you think God's mind is in the path taken by a tornadoe? Or is it random forces of nature?

Becareful how you answer. You can't have things both ways.

stronger now said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
stronger now said...

C&D:"Wow....such anger for people who "feel" there is no God."

Wow.. such a brilliant straw-man of the natural reaction to having been brainwashed into a cult called christianity. And why should we "feel" that there is a god if there isn't credible evidence for one?

"Anger at a type of God or a book written by men about someone they thought was God."

The anger isn't directed at a book, but the actions of people stemming from a morally repugnant belief system.

"... to deny a creator is to deny the stars exist."

It's like saying that magnetic attraction only works because invisible pixies are pushing things together. Then claiming that if you deny the existence of pixies, you deny magnetism.

Unless you can provide some credible evidence for invisible pix...er...your god, then why expect anyone to believe it?