Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Biblical Contradictions

When I was a christian, I constantly heard about these 'contradictions' in the bible, and I either completely ignored the claims (as I imagine many still do) or I searched for some explanation as to why the contradiction was there.
After reading The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, I saw these contradictions in a new light, that they were apparent, obvious and irreconcilable. One of the most acute contradictions are the conflicting genealogies of Jesus found in the New Testament.

The account in Matthew goes as follows (from christ back to David):
Christ, Joseph, Jacob, Matthan, Eleazer, Eliud, Achim, Sadoc, Azor, Eliakim, Abiud, Zorobabel, Salathiel, Jechonias, Josias, Amon, Manasses, Ezekias, Achaz, Joatham, Ozias, Joram, Josaphat, Asa, Abia, Roboam, Solomon, David. That is 28 generations in total.

The account in Luke is rather different, and is as follows:
Christ, Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melchl, Janna, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Naum, Esli, Nagge, Maath, Mattathis, Semei, Joseph, Juda, Joanna, Rhesa, Zorobabel, Salathiel, Neri, Melchi, Addi, Cosam, Elmodam, Er, Jose, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Juda, Joseph, Jonan, Eliakim, Melea, Menan, Mattatha, Nathan, David.

Thomas Paine postulates that if Jesus' natural genealogy was 'invented' as it most certainly was (shown by the conflicting accounts), we then have no reason not to suppose that his divine genealogy was also invented, in simpleton terms, that he was not the son of god.

This kind of reason I found very intriguing because it uses the bible to prove christianity wrong.


  1. KJ I have a question:
    If I was to follow your fathers blood line back for 15 generations.. then I followed your mothers bloodline all the way back 15 generations..
    Then I wrote it on 2 pieces of paper and gave it to a stranger and said "this is KJ, and this where he came from"..
    Do you think this stranger would think a few thoughts:
    1. im confused
    2. this person is an utter freak
    3. this person cant have 2 geniologies he musnt be a real person
    4. this person is a walking contradiction
    5. maybe he's an alien?

  2. ...That wasn't me. Stop using my name, niggerfaggot.

  3. Ok you deceitful anonymous Namida impersonater, you do realise your comment makes absolutely NO sense at all. Not even a milligram of sense. Either you have an IQ of 60 or you were drunk when you made this comment.

    "If I was to follow your fathers blood line back for 15 generations.. then I followed your mothers bloodline all the way back 15 generations.."

    Look at how the genealogies start. They both start the same and end the same. "Christ, Joseph, ... David" So unless you think that Jesus' mother and father were both called Joseph, and that King David was Asexual.......

    Sorry, I have no respect for you at all, considering your obvious lack of intelligence and the fact that you impersonated someone else.

  4. Hm. I think it should be a bit harder to do that now, if this OpenID thing works...

  5. Great, now people will not be able to moronically impersonate you.

  6. Why is this such a contradiction? If you read this contextually, Matthew and Luke were writing to 2 different audiences. One account is an account of actual blood line through mary, and the other is an account of the royal succession.
    Joseph doesn't have 2 actual blood fathers, but he does have a Father-In-Law because of his adoption of a child with Mary.

  7. I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. Both of the accounts do not allow for this wacky interpretation.

    In Matthew it is written like this:
    "Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph" and it carries on back to David.

    In luke it is written like this:
    "Jesus... the son... of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat" and it carries on down to David, and then to Adam and then to god.

    When one actually examines what is written in the two books your explanation doesn't hold up.

  8. People always have different accounts of stories it doesnt mean they're not true. It was probably just one dude bullshitting or something. Maybe he made a mistake when he was writing it. I dont think they had like proof readers or anything. Also they didn't have in depth genealogy accounts or anything either. I dont think contradicting stories in the bible can prove that jesus wasnt the son of god, or make you give up your beliefs in christianity.

  9. Ecclesiastes (or however it's spelt) 7:20 contradicts the fact that Jesus would even be *able* to exist.

  10. Ok seriously dude stop talking you are making every christian in the world look bad...
    You just said that Matthew or Luke was bullshitting or was wrong so your saying that jesus' disciples the ones he entrusted to write the bible (which apparantly comes from God) were wrong/bullshitters now im just guessing you are a christian by the way you are argueeing but dude please read your bible first and bring evidence to back it up. everything you have said either makes no sense or is just plain stupid. How can you say that luke and matthew could be wrong/bullshitting and then say jesus is the son of god? couldnt all of jesus' disciples be wrong/bullshitting??? im a christian just for your information which is why im writing this to you and ive already said this in another one of kjs blogs but if you dont back your statements up with research its not gonna convince him just some friendly advice :D

  11. Jake you have a point except you got one thing wrong.
    The gospels almost definitely were not written by anyone who knew jesus. The most conservative dates attributed to the are about 40-60 years after the supposed date of the death of christ. The other spectrum of opinions saying around 100-150 years after the death.

  12. oh yea tru tru sorry my bad but everything else still stands on the whole wrong thing if the people that wrote about it was wrong/bullshitting they could have been wrong/bullshitting about jesus being the son of god also :)

  13. Yup.

    And also, the anonymous' argument fails on another level.

    Anon said that one of them was wrong.
    1) how do you know which one is wrong?
    2) what makes you think the other one is right?
    3) (as you said) if they're wrong on one thing, they're most likely wrong about other things
    4) if 2 of the gospels are wrong about a lot of things, how can you trust the other gospels?
    5) if we can't trust the gospels, why should we trust Pauls epistles since we know he never met Jesus (he was decades after christ)
    6) If we can't trust the new testament, and we cant trust the old testament, why follow the bible at all?

  14. Cos it's good :)

    - Ryan

  15. I'm not even going to bother making a proper reply to that Ryan......

  16. Ryan again.

    But seriously though, I think the daunting concept that is EVOLUTION poses a much greater threat to the authenticity of the Bible than a few minor self-contradictions do. Whether these are to do with translation or interpretation of the text or whatever.

    I, for one, trust the Bible and don't suspect I would trust it in the slightest had all the accounts of Jesus been word for word consistent with each other. This would cause me to presume that many books claiming to be authored by different people had in fact been written by a single person, therefore falsifying the claim of "multi-authorship" if there is such a term.

    Concerning specifically the genealogies of Christ, I know that, over the decades, much theological discussion has been conducted on the issue resulting in various proposed explanations.

    "Every explanation requires a conjecture that we cannot establish, so which approach might be right is uncertain." - BibleGateway

    It seems ironic to quote a Harry Potter movie in Biblical defense, but as one wise old wizard said to a particular student of five years in reference to the student's nemesis,
    "It is not how you are similar, but how you are different that defines you" ...or something along those lines, I'm no avid J. K. Rowling reader. Consult Blair Campbell :) I would simply like to suggest inverting this statement while investigating Jesus' recorded history.

    It is not how they are different, but how they are similar.

    "Regardless of which option is chosen, what is clear is the list's intention. Jesus has a claim to the throne through David and is related to all humankind through Adam. He has the proper roots to be God's promised one. He has the right heritage to inherit this ministry of deliverance. His roots extend to David, Abraham and Adam. God has carefully designed his plan. There are no historical surprises in Jesus. Ultimately all humanity is a unit, and Jesus is concerned with more than deliverance of the tiny, elect nation of Israel. With him comes realization of the Old Testament hope for that nation, but bound up in him also is the fate of all people." - BibleGateway

    Of course, for anyone to call these BibleGateway quotes a 'bias opinion' would be an entirely understandable stance to take. In fact I would say you were correct in saying so. This chap Jesus did say "if you're not for me you're against me" so there's only ever going to be two teams to bat for regarding the matter anyway. And I will personally always thank the Creator that we have been granted the free will to choose our stance.

    - Ryan

  17. Dude.. you know nothing about the bible.... why did you even say this?? QUOTE "Ecclesiastes (or however it's spelt) 7:20 contradicts the fact that Jesus would even be *able* to exist"

    If you believe this statement is true, then you must have to believe other statements in the bible are true.. Jesus was SINLESS so this statement cannot refer to him.. Jesus was/is the MAN.

  18. Hi Kj,

    I've only read your blog a couple of times, but I've found it both refreshing and reaffirming. I'm sure a lot of people have given you their two cents worth of opinion, but I'd just like to add mine. I really respect your stance, and your willingness to examine the difficult questions. It's a shame there aren't more people in the world like you.

    Kind regards,
    Harry. KBE till I die, homie

  19. Thanks Harry :-)

    Response to Ryan:

    I've come to the point, where no matter what the bible says, I cannot fathom a reason to believe that it could be true. Not even taking into account the absurdities, contradictions and errors. It doesn't prove itself true, and sources outside the bible do not prove it. It's a 100% faith issue, faith that has no rational justification in fact also known as blind faith.

    Anonymous person, I'm afraid what Namida said flew straight over your head. Here was the dialogue in a nutshell.
    Namida: Ecc. 7:20 contradicts Jesus.
    "There is not a righteous man on earth
    who does what is right and never sins."
    You: Nah, but Jesus WAS sinless so it can't refer to him!
    I hope you can see the argumentative fallacy here, if not I can not help you.

  20. Ryan agrees with the following statement.

    The Bible/Christianity - "It's a 100% faith issue, faith that has no rational justification in fact also known as blind faith."

    You are entirely correct :)
    Though 'faith' doesn't really need 'blind' before it. That is similar to saying 'wet water' :D

    With regards to the point you have come to. I guess I see it as a good thing. Meaning I think it is good that you have reached a final decision in what direction you want to take your life. Using your 'free will' (if you still see it as that) to it's full potential, instead of sitting on the fence or 'thumb-twiddling'.

    As to this pathetic debate concerning Ecclesiastes 7:20.

    It does not contradict Jesus.

    To even believe that scripture in the first place, one must trust the Bible, and to trust the Bible, is to also confess that Jesus was 'Immanuel' or 'God with us', not solely human. This scripture, like many others found in the Old Testament and the commonly known Romans 3:23 are specifically referring to us. 'Man'. The verses say things like:
    "All have fallen short"
    "No man living is righteous"
    "Who can say they have cleansed their heart?"
    "There is no man who does not sin"
    etc. etc.

    Ecclesiastes 7:20 is not even for a second a contradictory verse! There are so many others that affirm it.

    If anyone is looking for some Biblical reading that remotely involves anything that is being discussed in these blogs, view that scripture in context and read to at least verse 25.

    "Surely there is not a good person on earth who always does good and never sins.

    Don't listen to everything people say, or you might hear your servant insulting you. You know that many times you have insulted others.

    I used wisdom to test all these things. I wanted to be wise, but it was too hard for me. I cannot understand why things are as they are. It is too hard for anyone to understand. I studied and tried very hard to find wisdom, to find some meaning for everything. I learned that it is foolish to be evil, and it is crazy to act like a fool." - NCV translation

    I admire the use of the word 'anyone' in this passage.

    - Ryan

  21. Im the one that wrote the bullshitting post. I also wrote a post in your other blog. To sum it up, its a fucking story that people use to help them. Also im not a chrisitan and dont believe in god. Pretty much the only reason im commenting, is that I dont like the way you disregard other people when they try to bring up a discussion. Youre taking too personally grammar boy.

    PS: Shutup Woong-Sun you fucking batty

  22. No. Jesus is always claimed to be 100% man, as well as 100% god, so that 100% man would include the whatever% that contains the sin. Else, he's not 100% man, which in itself would make the bible incorrect in claiming that he is. Or else, incorrect in that every man has sin. Your pick, either way, it still makes it incorrect.

  23. Namida my friend, it is true that many times in the Bible both Jesus' manliness AND Godliness are mentioned. However, these usages of '100%' that seem to be stumbling blocks for you are never found in the Bible. I can only propose you heard these particular percentage labels from the mouth of a youth pastor and/or preacher in the past couple of years. My apologies, but I'm afraid I cannot answer for what these people have said :)

    I repeat, Ecclesiastes 7:20 and similar verses do NOT in any way include Jesus. In fact, they only amplify Jesus' as being the only man without sin! Ecclesiastes 7:20 is talking about me and you, Namida! :)

    - Ryan

    Bit of trivia: The only person in the Bible to ever refer to Jesus as being purely man or "100%" man was Pontius Pilate - the Roman governor of Jesus' time, responsible for the slaughter of Galileans and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ himself.

  24. KJ, your slippery slope fallacy earlier made me laugh. if one is wrong, then the other is wrong, then they might all be wrong, then this guy later might be wrong, then the whole thing is wrong.

    Although my view on religion in general is quite clear (IDGAFism[ish]) one cannot assume that something is not true due to conflicting accounts.

    Tarn is believed to have a quite inaccurate account of Alexander the Great's Plans in some respects (such as the building of some pyramids to commemorate his father). Badian's accounts are more reliable but both rely on similar historical (primary resources).

    At a base level one can assume that Alexander the Great did have Plans and that inaccuracy in the primary resources has contributed to a range of understandings.

    This analogy applies to the current discussion in that the each genealogical account could be rendered inaccurate of itself but this fact does not result in a genealogical argument in itself being absent. Further, an error in an account does not mean that other errors are prevalent (albeit it increases their likeliness). One has to look at the full body of evidence in order to draw a conclusion. Slippery slope fallacies are to be avoided, perhaps.

    I like the reference to wet water and blind faith.

  25. Yes, my slippery slope there was a bit unjustified, but trust me I do have good reasons for it.
    The genealogical contradictions are not the only blatant errors. Some other errors include things like saying that the roman census of the jews was during the reign of King Herod, which is wrong. Herod died around 4BC and the census was decades later. (plus hundreds of other errors and contradictions throughout the old and new testaments)
    The comparison to Alexander was interesting, but doesn't really apply. For the most part, the people writing about Alexander were historians, on the other hand, the people writing about Jesus, were religious zealots, writing decades or centuries later. In other words, they all had an agenda.

  26. I'm not going to bother touching on the ancient discrepancy in opinions regarding Jesus actual birth date or the Quirinius census, etc... I will only say that I consider it a trivial issue upon which to start an argument, let alone base a faith.

    What I am most curious to hear is what exactly you propose the 'zealous agenda' of the Apostles to be, KJ... :)

    - Ryan

  27. Followers of any religion writing about their own religion show bias towards that religion. Read any book about mormonism written by a mormon. Read a book on islam written by a muslim. Read a book on catholic tradition written by a catholic. Read about about jesus written by a christian.

    I think you get my point.

  28. I find your point to be daft, KJ!

    "Read a book on Atheism written by an Atheist."

    Therefore everyone walking the planet is 'bias'?

    An Atheist will write a book in support of God the day a Holden fan speaks in favour of a Ford.

    Every human worships someone or something. To this person, object or concept they will always present a 'bias'.

    "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21, Luke 12:34 -- it seems the doctor and the tax collector agree on at least one hundreds of others, I might add ;)

  29. So you agree that the authors of the New Testament were bias?

  30. Because that was my whole point.

  31. I do agree to an extent, for want of a better word than 'bias', but I care little for semantics as do you :D

    I feel I must repeat, that your point does not apply solely to the faithful of the world. It includes all people, would you agree?

    This is the reason I found it daft for your point to be used as a statement against 'religion' :)

  32. Yeah I'm not denying that.
    Religious believers probably have a tendency to be more biased than non-believers I'd say though.

  33. Kj, that is a stupid comment coming from you as you cannot justify it..
    Thats called being proud and arrogant..

  34. My justification for it is this:

    People who believe things for irrational reasons do not rationalise evidence against their irrational belief.

    People who believe things for rational reasons do rationalise evidence against their rational belief.

    Religious belief is an irrational belief aka. faith.

  35. And yes I am proud of my atheism, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this blog.

  36. Uhhh... well if you mean biased in the specific sense of 'towards the Bible', then you are simply stating the obvious KJ :)

    But, if you mean biased in general as in 'Religious people are more biased in life than non-religious people', then I think another daft point has been made :D I refer back to my previous comment! EVERYONE is biased towards their "passion" or "object of worship" as every human is a worshiper. I'm in no way saying every human is RELIGIOUS...purely that every human is a worshiper. Therefore, I disagree with "Religious believers probably having a tendency to be more biased than non-believers..." as I don't think bias can be measured on a scale of 'more or less' when it comes to different subjects of bias. A hypothetical statement like "Christians are more biased towards the Bible than Atheists are towards science" for example, would be an invalid statement to make. That would be as difficult as trying to justify how you are better at playing guitar than I am at playing drums :) Hard one to put a finger on. By the I read that statement I find the opposite to be closer to the truth! Many Christians embrace at least some science, but few Atheists embrace the Bible. Would you agree? It's just a thought.

    Anyway, as for your next post, your justification, I hear what you're saying :) I might add/substitute these words though:

    People who believe in natural things for rational reasons do rationalise natural evidence against their natural belief. Everything adds up here and works in our minds understanding.

    Next group of chaps...

    People who believe in supernatural things for seemingly irrational reasons do not rationalise natural evidence against their supernatural belief.
    To attempt to do this would quite simply be in vain. They can try all they may and suggest ideas like "Look at the trees, they're beautiful" or "This shows evidence of supernatural design" etc. etc. :D But words or little else natural for that matter will never be able to fully describe or fathom the depth of a supernatural faith.

  37. On another note, is it possible to block 'Anonymous' commenters? They ARE becoming more and more annoying. While your page might drop in popularity, I think it would rise in intellectual content? :D

  38. I'm pretty certain that I don't 'worship' anything.

    I guess the point I'm really getting to is this.

    There is no reason to believe the bible is true/word of god. There is SO much wrong with it, and nothing really RIGHT about it.
    You've even admitted that the bible is flawed. What reasons (outside the bible itself) are there to believe that this flawed compilation of ancient texts IS the word of god?

    Also, there is no such thing as supernatural evidence. So people who believe in supernatural things don't have any real reason to.

  39. Oh but you do worship KJ :) We all do. The human soul longs for something to worship. This is the reason God made it clear in his first commandment that he is to be the centre of all our worship because he knows how he designed us man! He wants to be the centre because he knows he alone is worthy of all our worship! Nothing else compares bro!!

    I think you are just detesting the idea of wearing a 'spiritual-sounding' label such as worshiper :D Regardless, all you have to do to find out what you worship is take a look at your life and observe what you
    can't stop talking about,
    can't stop thinking about,
    can't stop pouring your time into,
    can't stop pouring your money into
    etc. etc.
    Literally giving all of you towards insert "object of worship" here
    And there you have it.

    Mind you, I do think this would be a good challenge for all Christians to undertake this exercise, and regularly. It doesn't take much for many (including me) to knock God down the stairs and put something else on the throne of our life aye! Would you agree?

    I would suggest the next question to ask after you have an answer to "What do I worship?" would be "Is it worthy of my worship?" :D

    Peace brother,
    - Ryan

    P.S. If you want an objective opinion, I don't really know you as well as I used to but I could still tell you what I think you might possibly worship ;D

  40. I think worship is definitely the wrong word to describe that. I don't see that enjoying something or having an obsessive hobby is equivalent to worshipping.
    Worship implies a few of the following things:
    a great reverence for, adoration or subservience.
    I just looked up a definition after writing that and it said the following

    1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
    2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
    3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
    4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
    5. (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually prec. by Your, His, or Her).
    –verb (used with object)
    6. to render religious reverence and homage to.
    7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
    –verb (used without object)
    8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.
    9. to attend services of divine worship.
    10. to feel an adoring reverence or regard.

    None of those possible definitions make sense at all when you're talking about a hobby or about enjoying playing a game (perhaps a little too much), in fact using the word worship in that sense just sounds silly.

  41. Haha :) I was really do detest the idea! :D Never mind, it's semantics buddy. Besides, definitions 3, 4, 10 and particularly 7 relate entirely to what I was saying.

    Call it what you want.

    "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet" - Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet

  42. I do detest the idea of worshipping anything, because I think it's rather bronze-age-ish.

    I think I would know if I 'worshipped' something. In fact I do know that I don't worship anything.

    If I HAD TO say that I 'worshipped' something. It would be reason/knowledge.

  43. YESSSS!!! Correct, KJ wins the $1,000,000 ;)

  44. I only used the word worship for the sake of argument because you (and most other christians) have this obsession that atheism is a religion and worships science.

    I'd take reason/knowledge/science over an imaginary friend and bronze age scribblings any day though.

  45. I would too. Good thing the God I worship is much more than an imaginary friend.

  46. Hes not convinced Ryan..^^

  47. You keep saying that KJ has no facts but I have never heard any good facts about any religions. If religions had any solid facts then maybe more people would believe in god.

  48. Dylan Strachan

    Ryan. Are you saying god created man to worship something? I believe evolution changed man to worship something, and christens have put god there as an image on top of those stairs, this creates peace so they have kept it up there.

    Imo religion was created to keep lower class people following the king’s direction and to keep them from over throwing him, by saying if you disobey me a huge hand from the sky will push you down a huge fiery hole in the ground where you will spend entirety in pain.

    The bible has good morals that following would make you and everyone around you life happier and more enjoyable. But you shouldn't take it to far it is only a story. There are no facts that it ever happened that I'm aware of. And when/if they find those facts I will believe in God.

    I don't think I worship anything BUT if you’re saying
    "Can't stop talking about,
    Can't stop thinking about,
    Can't stop pouring your time into,
    Can't stop pouring your money into"
    World of Warcraft fits perfectly into all of them for me. A drug addict would say the same thing about drugs. I don't think you can call it worshipping... Isn't it called enjoying?

    To me you will do what you enjoy and make it feel right for you. What was that quote? "Your brain will find any excuse for your heart to do what it wants" (or something!). If you enjoying something lots you will enjoy being around people that enjoy it to, guild/church/sports team. To me christens enjoy those good morals and want others to enjoy them to make it more enjoyable for themselves by having more people enjoy it together! Like I enjoy playing WoW with people I know. But what I think I don’t like is that Christianity focuses on believing a god/power that can’t be explained and they think a story is a historical event. When they should be focusing on the good morals of the Bible.

    I don’t think you should call atheism a religion… your labelling someone that DOESN’T believe in god… you shouldn’t be able to label people who aren’t in your group. Its kind of like Maoris calling everyone else pakeha. Or everyone not in your guild a PUG >_> its rude.
    There should be some law on it… because what your saying is that they aren’t one of you so they MUST BE something that I don’t care about!

    It can't be bias if there is no in-between. There was a quote somewhere up there (rawr can’t find it) "your with god or your against god" (or something) your not bias, your supporting your idea. Because there is only two sides. It’s not a rugby game.

    God? I was thinking really hard IF GOD IS REAL! Then show me something. Then I went into my room and my light didn’t work!?! Omgomgomg then I put a new one in and it didn’t work… it still doesn’t work…. Fucking wire is broken… but anyway why would god have time for me? How powerful is god? Is he like that blue guy off Watchmen?? Can he talk to multiple people at once? If I’m in space can god still come to me? Cause people are made for earth aren’t they? I just googled it and it said the bible shows us a lot about astronomy if so I think you should watch the start of this film…
    I believe this is the most likely story of the bible.

    It also says there is a new religion every 2250 years because that’s when we go into a new “age” why don’t we make the next religion with NO ERRORS!

    Sorry for all the bad grammar, I done my best :)

  49. KJ, I cannot convince you :) That's not my job. I, like all Christians, have been instructed by Jesus to share what I have found. Not force it upon people. Am I coming across as forceful? I don't think so. Maybe I should stop posting if I am, but to be truthful, I'm enjoying our conversations!

    To use the common analogy,
    "I am just one beggar showing another beggar where to find bread."

    We have just tasted each other's bread it seems and found our own bread's to be better :)

  50. Hmmm, as for the 'Anonymous' people... I only really want to discuss things with KJ but since it's an open blog as such...

    No he is not convinced Anonymous 1. ^ ^ You're a genius.

    Anonymous 2, when it comes to facts, I have said nothing of the sort except that they are irrelevant. I cannot present you or KJ with facts for religion, nor can either of you present me with facts against it. Anonymous 2 AND Dylan, if religion had any solid facts, it would be called science.

    Now... specifically regarding Mr. Dylan Strachan.

    Yes, I am saying I believe God created man to worship. I believe Evolution explains how our bodies and minds as well as every other facet of nature we see around us has, to use your words, changed over the years. 'Developed' is probably a better word to use.

    But I don't think it is the body or mind that does the worshiping. There is no doubt that the body can aid or illustrate our worship externally in posture or movement and that both the body AND the mind can be the subject of worship, e.g. your example of the drug addict, or perhaps someone who is addicted to going to the gym. Because in a sense... worship is an addiction.

    I believe that it is a spirit that all humans have installed in them by God that just longs to worship something. If you are having trouble with the word 'worship' then a similar word/s would be 'devoting your whole being'. But who can be stuffed saying that? It's called 'worship'.

    - 'Enjoy'ment is not the same as worship.

    I enjoy a cold glass of Coke on a hot day (in fact on any day actually). I too enjoy the odd computer game, not specifically W.O.W. though, I enjoy the classic A.O.E. :D
    I do not worship these things though.

    In most cases enjoyment is a feeling that results from the action that is worship. I say "in most cases" because Christian worship focuses on God's enjoyment first, before our own enjoyment. We are to worship like Job - even in the worst of worldly circumstances. Haven't heard of Job? Read the book if you want, it's interesting.

    *sigh* Atheism doesn't have to be a religion if you don't want it to be. I simply described it using a few 'religious' words. I'm SOOOOO sorry.

    *sigh sigh* With regards to the word 'bias', ask KJ about that one. It wouldn't be the word I'd choose to use either. It was first used in KJ's post which contained the following:

    "Followers of any religion writing about their own religion show bias towards that religion."

    I prefer the way you put it, Dylan. "your not bias, your supporting your own idea". But yes, it is a "rugby game". You follow Jesus or you do not. A lot of things in this life are "rugby games". Only two-sided that is.

    "but anyway why would god have time for me?" Because He loves us and cares about us - The Bible
    "How powerful is god?" He is All Powerful - The Bible
    "Can he talk to multiple people at once?" Yes, He's All Powerful.
    "If I’m in space can god still come to me?" Yes, He's All Powerful.
    "Cause people are made for earth aren’t they?" - No, we are made for heaven, should we accept God's grace through Jesus' death - The Bible.

    The Bible teaches us bugger all about Astronomy. The writer described only what he observed with his naked, "Bronze Age" eye, not a Hubble telescope. Funnily enough though, it still lines up with what you can see with your naked eye if you go stand outside and look skyward.

    I'm afraid I do not have broadband so I cannot watch your video, it freezes on me. If I could recommend a DVD for to watch it would be: "Worship, That Thing We Do" - Louie Giglio. I warn you, it is blatantly Christian. It supports the Bible.

    I wish you all the best designing your new religion. Though, you might want to consider not labeling it a 'religion' otherwise you've instantly ruled out all the Atheists of the world.

  51. Dylan Strachan

    I am enjoying this discussion to :)

    “When it comes to facts, I have said nothing of the sort except that they are irrelevant. I cannot present you or KJ with facts for religion, nor can either of you present me with facts against it. “ !!! is that the dumbest thing ever? There are no facts for religion or against it because god doesn’t exist! It is a lie/story.

    You cannot prove me wrong that there is a huge 4 legged, invisible, silent, alien ghost living under my house. But you cannot present me with facts that there is. Just because a story is believable doesn’t mean it is real.

    Spirit? I know my mind is real because I can think for myself. I know my body is real because I can breath and feel. But for spirit? I have no proof that my spirit is real? I’ve never seen a ghost or a soul. So prove to me how will my spirit go to heaven? If it does I will have no control over it because I have no control over it now.

    Life is not a test, heaven is just there to make you (and people thousands of years ago) feel good about dieing just like the tooth fairy is there to make you feel good about losing a tooth.

    An addiction means: obsession, compulsion, or excessive psychological dependence. These things are bad! In no way addiction is good for you. Addiction is getting way too much of something!

    This book sounds like a story to me…….

    I disagree. It is not a rugby game because there is no referee if god was a referee he would be bias because he supports religion. Keeping in mind that their are some people who haven’t made their mind up. I keep trying to understand/convert myself to believe but it just isn’t happening…

    Wow if god can talk to multiple people that kind of takes the meaning away… I don’t want to be part of something if my leader just wants numbers… so if god can talk to multiple people why doesn’t he talk to me? Or everyone else I know. Simple he doesn’t exist.
    Why did god create evolution? You can not deny evolution. Facts are real.

    There are a lot of connections to astronomy and the bible… the movie explains it.
    Here I wikid the video for you,_the_Movie

    I guess my whole view on this is you can SEE science, you can not see god therefore I KNOW science is real and I have NO proof that god is real. And what I have no proof of doesn’t exist! If you belief something is real, it can still be false. But if you KNOW it’s real though knowledge, it can’t be false.

    I would love to read what you have to write, about why I think religion was created.

  52. TriviLizE/Jerr:

    Just like everything in life, it comes down to how you interpret things. People still go around the world preaching that the theory of "gravity" is wrong. I am not trying to disprove science but only contradict what dylan has said.

    I am not going to go around protesting my faith, i am not going to say im 100% pure and i'm not going to force my beliefs on anyone. Life is just a box full of questions. And ironicly death will only answer.

    Dylan, your a pussy. Your a person who needs the feel of proof, certainty and understanding. Life is all about uncertainty and curiousity.
    My science teacher once told me; "Science may not be right, all it is is just the best guess". And funnily enough he was right. Science gets disproven all the time, based on theories with other theories constantly contridicting each other. How can you base your argument of certainty and proof on something that isnt certain about itself either. Riddle me that dylan.

    While i was looking for answers myself i came across the behavioural side of things. The idea of god itself helps people live. With all the destruction, hate and death that surronds our daily lives we have to believe its all for something. It gives me solace when i see a terminal 7 year old child with cancer that there is a reason, a plan. Rather than just thinking "shit happens".

    Dylan, the question "why did god create evolution" is irrelavent. Evolution along with "the origins of species" are again just theories. Darwin, being a great mind, created his theory off another theory that was proven wrong later BY darwin. Funny isnt it? How darwin himself disproved Facts. But i thought they were ALL real and certain.
    Just being a story seems believable doesnt mean its real.

    I was born a christian and will forever stay a christian. Wether i practice it or not, i will say i believe in god.

  53. I'm a Christian, I was just joking the whole time.



  54. Dylan Strachan

    I was at work today thinking about god and everything, it has been riddling my mind all week. I couldn’t hold it in so I turned to a girl next to me who I have been working with for about a year, I asked her “do you believe in god” she snapped at me and said “yes I do, are you trying to convert me?” I replied no I’m not and asked her what she knew about spirits, then I felt huge tension between us. I just realized that in person it is a HUGE deal to most people. But when I “ask the internet” or write on this thread I spoke my full mind. Not taking into account how much I am hurting people but trying to get my message though. I have been very very rude and I apologize to who ever I have hurt.

    Now Jerr.
    “Dylan, your a pussy. Your a person who needs the feel of proof, certainty and understanding. Life is all about uncertainty and curiousity.”
    Yes I need these things! I’m trying to image my life without proof, certainty and understanding. Id feel doubtful, I wouldn’t care about my life and I wouldn’t know what is the right move to make.
    No life is FULL of uncertainty and curiosity and your not meant to go “oh well I give up no body will ever know” your meant to go “dam I don’t know! I’m going to find out! And make sure I understand it completely so I don’t stuff up again!” but you are kind of right you need all of these things.

    I understand what you mean about that boy. But I’ve had a change of heart and I think if we didn’t have religion and we had all of these religious minds working for sciences wouldn’t we have a higher chance of finding a cure for cancer? To heal this kid so he can live his life now not in the so called “after life” that many people cling onto.

    I just think humans are too developed to have faith and preach about religion.

    I was born to choose the right path and I will find the right path to choose. If you have been brought up in a way it is very hard/almost impossible to break away so everything I say to you is pointless. The only person I know who has done this is KJ. And he done it by himself so to my conclusion it is a personal thing and no one can take it away from you.

    I think the next move we should do is to document creatures today and compare them in 10,000 years that is the only way we can fully prove evolution right or wrong. There might still be a creator then. I fucking don’t know! RAWRAWRAWR. Ok, ok I don’t believe in the stories of the bible (ark, Adam and eve etc) but I believe their could be a God and a Jesus.

  55. To the person pretending to be me, you're not cool. I'm not a christian and I'm not joking.

    To Jerr: Science doesn't get "proven wrong" all the time like you said, we are constantly adding to and revising, but what we currently know won't be considered "wrong" in a few decades, just incomplete.

    Evolution, and common descent IS A FACT the "Theory of evolution by natural selection", is sciences best explanation of HOW life evolved.

    Being a christian 'just coz' you were born one doesn't seem a very good reason, or even a good reason to believe in god[s].

    To Dylan: You shouldn't have to apologise for expressing your views, the christians who preach the bible don't apologise for offending non-religious people, and don't apologise for teaching their bronze age myths of hellfire, brimstone and damnation.
    They also don't apologise for teaching children in our tax-payer funded schools about sadistic bronze age torture and vengeful mass-murdering gods. They don't apologise for spreading mis-information and lies about how the world works.
    You shouldn't apologise for saying "Well I think you're wrong, and this is what I believe..."

  56. WOW. A lot has been said in a day.

    I will say only a few things:

    - Please, PLEASE, let's stop stating things don't exist when there are no facts that support existence or non-existence. We're beyond this now.

    -Addiction, obsession, compulsion, or excessive psychological dependence are not in themselves bad. They are only commonly associated with bad subjects.

    - KJ, from what you said to Dylan, I get the feeling that you're angry about something and venting frustration. You know full well that Jesus did not teach hellfire, brimstone, damnation, sadistic torture or vengeful mass murder. And you know these things are certainly not taught to children in schools! Your mother will tell you this!

    I say again, the Bible brings nothing else but a message of grace, mercy, hope and love for all mankind.

  57. "Jesus did not teach hellfire, brimstone, damnation, sadistic torture or vengeful mass murder."

    Mark 8:38
    "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed."
    If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. (And you'll go straight to hell.)

    Matthew 3:10
    "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

    Luke 10:14-15
    "But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell."

    John 3:36
    "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

    Luke 13:28
    "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth"

    "And you know these things are certainly not taught to children in schools! Your mother will tell you this!"

    My mother is doing a school production at the school she works at that's called "Captain Noah and his floating zoo" or something. It is the story of Noah, and his global genocidal/infantidal friend called god, aka. Yahweh.

    "I say again, the Bible brings nothing else but a message of grace, mercy, hope and love for all mankind."

    Ezekiel 21:3-4

    "I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth out of his sheath against all flesh."
    God will kill everyone... good and bad, just and unjust...

    Hosea 8:14
    "I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour the palaces thereof. "

    Revelation 21:8

    But the fearful, and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

    Jesus definitely taught about hell, there is no denying it.


    I don't know about your definition of grace, mercy, hope or love, OR "all mankind", but according to the standard definitions of all of those words, the bible teaches nothing of the sort.

  58. Aaahhhh... KJ...

    Firstly, I apologise. After "all mankind" I should have included "for those who accept Him". This relates to all the Biblical references you made.

    Now, of course Jesus taught about Hell and the punishment for unbelievers. But you know what I mean when I say "taught hellfire, brimstone and damnation." That kind of teacher has no love in them, no "Good News" only "Bad News". They are the 'Bullhorn Street Preachers'. Jesus DIED FOR US. There's no greater love than this.

    Just now I thought about delving into scripture and pulling out all the many verses on God's grace, mercy and love and also putting all your quoted verses back into their correct context of the 'Big Picture'... but, I can read between the lines and I see that you will simply turn a blind eye to all I say in defense of the hope and goodness contained within the Bible and you will continue to quote "contradictory" or "abhorrent" scripture until you go blue in the face.

    KJ, it seems you are hellbent on viewing the Bible as an utterly evil and disgusting book. You are entirely free to hold this stance. You have heard my thoughts and I feel that I need say no more than I already have in my other posts.

    I'll see you around buddy,

  59. I've never denied that there are noble or moral parts of the 'good book'. My problem with the bible is that most of it isn't like this at all, and a lot of it is quite simply, just ridiculous or irrelevant.

    I can't see how your concept of the 'big picture' of scripture justifies the abominable things attributed to god in the old testament (and even in the NT in revelation).

    Big picture (very simplified with a lot left out):
    God (and god and god) created the world and said it was good. God then created people to sin. Then they changed their mind and killed everyone except one guy and his family and friends. Over the next few centuries, god instructs the descendants of Noah to go around slaughtering and raping all the other descendants of Noah. During this time, god gave these people some ridiculous rules to make themselves (god) feel better.
    Some time later, after millions of animals have been sacrificed, and millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of god, and millions raped in the name of god, god decides to send his son, who is also himself to be tortured and killed so he can forgive himself (after all he MADE people with a sinful nature).
    And some time later god will come back to kill more people for not following his absurd religion and accepting his suicide.
    All the while, god writes a book that is wrong about things, contradicts itself, is so morally detestable that it turns people away from god, and creates a world that points to naturalistic causes for things as opposed to the supernatural causes that his book suggests.

    /end big picture

    It's not a hell-bent mission to hate the bible. It's a view I've developed over some years of reading the bible and thinking about it critically.

  60. Jerr:

    @KJ: Yeah i understand where your coming from, i was born into christianity. Without a choice i was force fed the mindless drivvle and forced to believe. Now at this time in my life i do question the beliefs and teachings i experienced as a child. Why should i miss out on some of the fundamentals of life? But if someone asks if i believe in god i'll always say yes, and ill always say it sincerely. And i do not have to justify my faith to you, dylan or anyone else in this world apart from myself.

    Teaching Christian beliefs in public schools is ALWAYS optional. Everything is optional, you can block out the hum of a nun by just simply thinking about something else. No one forces you to go to church or believe in it, thats what we call "preagency". We shouldn't have to apologize for something that is based on the choice of a person. Christianity isn't a communism.

    The origin of species and Natural selection is science's "best" conclusion about Life. But are you willing to bet your life on something that preached the world was flat only a few hundred years ago? And yes we live in a more modern day with more technology, but who's to say we haven't made or going to make the same mistakes.

    And your living in an idealistic world if you truely believe that science doesn't give disproven constantly. Theory after theory gets released and constantly proven wrong by other previous/current theories.

    @dylan: As KJ said, Dont feel ashamed about your beliefs. I'd just apprieciate it if you didnt say "You believe in god? WHy? Your so stupid" on hamachi like you do:P Asshole D:.

  61. Dylan Strachan

    It maybe optional at public schools but I believe that they are trying to get the kids when they are far to young. as you said before you were brought up as a Christian and I personally think if you started choosing what path you wanted to take, at the age of AT LEAST 13 it would be more clear to you. And you wouldn't be Christian "just coz". you can not block things out as a child!

    I would rather put my life on the origin of species and natural selection then ANY religion.

    science surely doesn't get dis proven by Christianity. its the opposite: science disproves Christianity but Christians choose to "believe" it doesn't.

  62. Jerr:

    @Dylan: What the shit are you on dude. I never once said Christianity disproved science. What the shit.

    Indeed Children are still naive, but thats when "parents" come in. They control what is exposed to their children until they are at a mature age to choose themselves.

    Stop saying "Just coz". As i said, i don't have to prove my faith, that is not the discussion.

  63. A flat earth is a terrible analogy to science proving itself wrong constantly, because humankind has known that the earth is spherical since the 3rd century B.C.E. and the greeks first postulated the theory of a spherical earth 300 years before that. So it has been around 2600-2700 years since we first realised the earth was round, The scientific method originated around 1000 C.E. which is at least 1500 years after we realised the earth was round.

    You'd be hard pressed to find an instance where science has been flat out wrong about something in the last few decades. Science revises itself and updates information, that is the BEAUTY of science and is an argument in its favour.

    You're right in that you don't have to justify your faith to anyone. If you want anyone to take your position on the issue seriously though you may have to reconsider.

  64. Peter W >_>
    If you don't want to justify your faith to anyone this is definatly the wrong blog to be on Jerr.

  65. Jerr:

    Too right, this is not my argument, religion vs science arguments are never going too end and my interest in them is easily compared to my interest for glimour girls.

    Thats me, God bless. (see what i did there?)

  66. my mum loves that show...

    >_________> Darwin is god!

  67. Ash:

    Before i say anything, im in gat and im so shit at english that im in 101 english not 100, soo dont correct my english xD

    I dont get why jerr is insulting science because in science they fight for the truth untill they have found out the truth but do they do this in religion ?

    i hope im making sense

  68. In religion, the default status is that they are already right, so if facts come up such as evolution or the fact the earth is round and revolves around the sun, they must either deny these facts, change their religion to fit them, pretend they are still right and just misinterpreted it, or they twist the facts.

    Long run on sentence, but I think you'll get my point.
    But yes, you're correct ash.