Why Jesus is not God, and the bible is an evil book - Page 2 - Religion, God, and Theology

I will give you my reaction. Your posts just looked lazy to me. You pasted ~5000 words out of some 19th century book that you may or may not have understood, gave it a title that might have been the points you wanted to discuss, and then just sat back to see what happened.

If you want a discussion, do a little work. State your point clearly and use well chosen succinct quotes to support it, and then be prepared to defend it. Otherwise do not expect me to waste my time with you.

Quote

06-22-2009 , 02:52 PM

#27

HobbyHorse

Allegedly Attractive

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,223

Well, I'm not a Christian but I feel that me (and Google) are up to your challenge, Dominic:

Notes on Ingersoll by Louis Lambert

From Chapter V:

Quote:

INGERSOLL—" The justice of God is not visible to me in the history of this world."

Comment—Might not this strange circumstance arise from intellectual Staphyloma? Grant that it is not visible to you, does it follow that it is not in this world? Does your failure to see it demonstrate that it is not? When you make your limited vision the measure of God's justice you usurp the attributes of the infinite, put your judgment above his, and attempt to assume his place. Men have been kindly, but firmly consigned to insane asylums for such philosophy; and curious visitors meet with them almost every day. It is in the last analysis a question of God's existence, for if there is an infinite self-existent Being, he must, from his very nature, be infinite in everything, and if in everything, infinite in his justice. To assert that he is not infinitely just is to deny his existence. But your statement supposes his existence and therefore grants his infinite justice. If then that justice which exists by the logic of your position, is not visible to you, you should doubt, not it, but the powers of your vision. This is difficult to a man of almost infinite self-assertive capacity, but it is wisdom.

Ingersoll—" When I think of the suffering and death, of the poverty and crime, of the cruelty and malice, of the heartlessness of this ' plan' or ' design' where beak and claw and tooth tear and rend the quivering flesh of weakness and despair, I cannot convince myself that it is the result of infinite wisdom, benevolence, and justice."

Comment—As you are not required by Christian philosophy to believe that the evils you describe were a part of God's plan or design in creating the universe, you are not called upon to reconcile those evils with God's wisdom, benevolence or justice. If you have been laboring under the notion that God planned and designed the miseries of this world, and under that delusion have tried to reconcile the original plan of this infinitely just God with the facts of life, you have been exhausting your energies in a very foolish piece of business. Your very effort in that direction proves that you have not grasped the situation. In the article of yours that I am now commenting on, you confess your ignorance of the divine plan or design, and yet you presume to attribute suffering, death, crime, cruelty and malice to that plan. Above all things it behoveth a philosopher to be consistent. It is unphilosophical to attribute to a plan objectional features when you confess ignorance of that plan.

Ingersoll—" Most Christians have seen and recognized this difficulty (that of reconciling the miseries of this life with the justice of God), and have endeavored to avoid it by giving God an opportunity in another world to rectify the seeming mistake of this."

Comment—When the position of " most Christians" is properly and truthfully stated there is no difficulty to see or avoid. The other world exists without reference to man's innocence or guilt, happiness or misery in this. Your insinuation that Christians invented the future state shows either discreditable ignorance of the history of human thought, or a desire to misrepresent. There is no middle way out of the dilemma for you. Ignorance is a crime in one who assumes the office of a teacher of his fellow-men, and misrepresentation is, as you would say, ''singularly and vulgarly out of place" in treating of a subject that requires the exercise of the highest facul» ties of the human mind.

The doctrine of a future state of existence has been universally believed, especially by the well-informed of mankind in all ages and places. History clearly shows that the united voice of ancient nations proclaimed this doctrine. The Egyptians, the Persians, the Hindoos, both Brahmists and Buddhists, the Chinese, whether the followers of Lao Tzue, Confucius, or Gautama; the Phoenicians, Assyrians, Scythians, Celts and Druids, as well as the Greeks and the Romans, believed in a future state. There is not an ancient nation or tribe of which history furnishes an account, which did not, with greater or less clearness, believe in a future state. The notions of many of them were very obscure and unsatisfactory, embracing much that was ridiculous and absurd; but still, though shadows and and darkness and clouds rested upon their minds, their hopes penetrated the gloomy future, giving evidence of an internal consciousness of the insufficiency of the present world to satisfy the ardent aspirations of their souls. Our American Indians believe in a future state. The human race, then, in all times, has believed in a future state, and yet, in the face of this Mississippi current of human thought, you have the unutterable audacity or ignorance to say that Christians invented it to give God a chance to rectify the mistakes of this! Are these the kind of weapons you hope to destroy the Christian religion with? Can you afford thus to play with the credulity of your readers, and with your own reputation? Honor bright!

Ingersoll—''Mr. Black, however, avoids the question by saying: We have neither jurisdiction nor capacity to rejudge the justice of God."

Comment—To state a truth is not to avoid the question. You, however, avoid the question by not admitting Black's proposition, or disproving it. It is the hinge on which the argument turns, and you should not have avoided it. If Mr. Black's statement is true then you .are wrong in attempting to judge of God's justice. If his statement is false, then you are right in so judging.

The statement of Mr. Black, instead of avoiding the question, brought it to a direct issue. His proposition, reduced to its simplest form, is this: The finite cannot be the measure of the infinite. God's justice is infinite; the human mind is finite; hence the latter cannot be the measure of the former—in other words, we have not the capacity, and, for a stronger reason, not the jurisdiction to rejudge the justice of God. This is the clear issue Mr. Black made with you, but, instead of meeting it squarely, as candor would dictate, you proceed to avoid it by misstating it. Thus you say:

Ingersoll—" In other words, we have no right to think upon this subject—"

Comment—This is neatly done. But it will not succeed. Mr. Black did not say we have no right to think. He said we have no right to judge, and it seems to me that any adult, whose intellect is not below the average, will see a difference between thinking and judging. You honor the truth in Mr. Black's proposition when you try to torture it out of shape before you attempt to answer it.

Ingersoll—"—no right to examine the questions vitally affecting human kind."

Comment—Here you are again. This is the pettiest kind of verbal thimble-rigging. Mr. Black did not say we have no right to examine these questions. He said we have no right to rejudge the justice of God. You need not be told that there is a difference between examining and judging. I cannot believe, in view of your knowledge of the English language, that you change these words without a purpose, even though you hold that " candor is the courage of the soul."

Ingersoll—" We have simply to accept the ignorant statements of the barbarian dead."

Comment—We accept neither the ignorant statements of the barbarian dead, nor the ignorant statements of the atheistic living. We are averse to accepting ignorant statements from any man, be he an ancient barbarian or modern pagan. The question between you and Mr. Black, as to whether the finite can be the measure of the infinite, is one that cannot be settled by the statements of anyone, ignorant or otherwise. It is a question of pure reason, and anyone gifted with the use of reason, who comprehends the meaning of the terms finite and infinite will know that the former cannot include the latter—in other words, that the finite mind has not the capacity or jurisdiction to rejudge the ways of the infinite intelligence.

From Chapter VIII:

Quote:

T NGERSOLL—" He (God) ordered the murder of millions."

Comment—He never authorized or ordered the murder of any one, from Abel to Garfield. God is the author and giver of life, and those he places on this earth he can remove at his will. No man has a right to live one instant longer in this world than his Creator wills him to remain, be he yet unborn, or innocent, or guilty. As creatures of God we are absolutely his, and can have no rights whatever as against him. To God the death of man is but the passing from one state of existence to another, from one department to another in the same universe. Death is not annihilation, or reabsorption into the elements of matter, but a transportation from one state to another in which man retains his individuality and conscious identity as truly and really as does he who' passes from one room to another in the same house. Physical death, therefore, is a trifling circumstance in man's immortal career. Now, he who has the absolute right to transpose man from one state of being to another, has equally the right to select the method of his removal, whether by old age, disease, the deluge, the sword, or by what we call accidents. By whatever method man is withdrawn from life's fitful fever, his death is in pursuance of the original sentence passed on the race by an infinitely just Judge. This sentence awaits you, and your philosophy will not obtain you a stay of proceedings or an exemption.

But to return. He who has the absolute right to take life, cannot be guilty of murder in taking it, for murder is an unjust killing, and there is no unjust killing in the taking of life by him who has the absolute right to take it. There is no escape from this reasoning except by denying the absolute right, and you cannot deny this but by denying God's existence; for on the hypothesis that he exists, he is Creator, and being Creator, the absolute right of dominion over his creatures necessarily follows. Then in the last analysis, to deny this right is to deny God's existence. But you cannot logically deny his existence, since you say in your lecture on " Skulls" that you do not know whether he exists or not.

It follows from what has been said that when God ordered the execution of the guilty Canaanites it was not a command to murder. Nor was it a violation of his own Commandment, for it was unjust killing that he forbade, and the destruction of that guilty people was just, because ordered by him who had the absolute right to order it, whether they were guilty or not.

I have dwelt at some length on the absolute right of dominion of the Creator over his creatures, because you harp on what you call his murders through your whole article. That which one has an absolute right to take at
any and all times, one cannot be unjust in taking when he pleases.

As to the Canaanites, they were guilty of death, although they were not put to death, but driven from Palestine in about the same manner that the Whites are driving the Indians from the homes of their forefathers. The unparelleled wickedness and filthy abominations of the seven nations of Palestine, commonly called Canaanites. were such as to make their national expulsion or extermination a just punishment and a useful lesson to other nations. The nature of their crimes may be found in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. Read that chapter, and you will understand why Jehovah held these beastly people in abhorrence. The Mormons andOneida Communists are as pure as the driven snow in comparison with them. To give the reader an idea of their incredible debasement, I quote some verses from the end of the chapter wherein God warns the Hebrews not to imitate their example:

"Defile not yourselves with any of these things with which all the nations have been defiled, which I will cast out before you. And with which the land is defiled; the abominations of which I will visit; that it may vomit out its inhabitants. Keep ye my ordinances and judgments, and do not any of these abominations. * * For all these detestable things, the inhabitants of the land (Canaanites, Amhorites) have done that were before you, and have defiled it. Beware of them lest in like manner it vomit you also out, if you do like things, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people."

These abominations are described in the first part of the chapter. Read it carefully that you may know the abominable wretches you sympathize with.

The author of the Book of Wisdom describes some of the sins of those people, and justifies their punishment in words that I cannot do better than quote:

" Thou chastisest them that err, by little and little; and admonishest them, and speakest to them, concerning the things wherein they offend; that leaving their wickedness they may believe in thee. For those ancient inhabitants of the holy land, whom thou didst abhor, because they did works hateful to thee by their sorceries and wicked sacrifices, and those merciless murderers of their own children, and eaters of man's bowels, and devourers of blood from the midst of thy consecration; and those parents sacrificing with their own hands helpless souls, it was thy will to destroy by the hands of our parents. * * Yet even those, thou sparedst as men, and did send wasps forerunners of thy host, to destroy them little by little. Not that thou wast not able to bring the wicked under the just by war, or by cruel beasts, or with one rough word to destroy them at once. But executing thy judgment by degrees thou gavest them a place of repentence, not being ignorant that they were a wicked generation and their malice natural, and that their thought could never be changed. * * Neither didst thou, for fear of any one, give pardon to their sins. For who shall say to thee: What hast thou done ? or who shall withstand thy judgments ? or who shall come before thee to be a revenger of wicked men ? or who shall accuse thee if the nations perish, which thou hast made ? For there is no other God but thou, who hast care of all, that thou shouldst show that thou dost not give judgment unjustly. Neither shall king nor tyrant in thy sight inquire about them, whom thou hast destroyed. For so much then as thou art just, thou orderest all things justly; thinking it not agreeable to thy power to condemn him who deservest not to be punished. For thy power is the beginning of justice, and because thou art Lord of all, thou makest thyself gracious to all. For thou showest thy power, when men will not believe thee to be absolute in power, and thou convincest the boldness of them that know thee not. But thou, being master of power, judgest with tranquillity, and with great favor disposes! of us, for thy power is at hand when thou wilt. * * Thou hast made thy children to be of good hope, because in judging, thou givest place for repentance for sins. For if thou didst punish the enemies of thy servants, and them that deserved to die, with so great deliberation, giving them time and place whereby they might be changed from their wickedness, with what circumspection hast thou judged thy own children, * * therefore whereas thou chastisest us, thou scourgest our enemies in very many ways, to the end that when we judge we may think on thy goodness, when we may be judged, we may hope for thy mercy. Wherefore thou hast also greatly tormented them who in their life have lived foolishly and ungodly, by the same things vvhich they worshipped. For they went astray for a long time in the ways of error, holding those things for gods which are the most worthless among beasts, living after the manner of children without understanding. Therefore thou hast sent a judgment upon them. * * But they that were not amended by mockeries and reprehensions, experienced the worthy judgment of God." (Wisdom, Chapter xii.)

Here we find that those people, whom you beslaver with your gushing sympathy, were sorcerers, murderers of their own children, offering them with their own hands in sacrifice to idols, and man-eaters. On the other hand we learn the merciful way in which Jehovah warned them and gave them time and place for repentance. When they rejected his mercy ne punished them with justice, and, for doing this, you accuse him of murder. Those who, knowing the crimes of these people, condemn the punishment inflicted on them are as guilty as they. You condemn Mormonism and Oneida communism, and yet you volunteer to advocate those bestial Sodomites of Canaan whose unnatural crimes disgraced the race to which they belonged, and contaminated the land which God had given them to dwell in.

"A fellow-feeling makes us wondrous kind."

* * *

Ingersoll—" He (God) sent abroad lying spirits to deceive his own prophets."

Comment—I will give one hundred dollars to the poor of this village if you or any of your disciples will make good your statement. I am familiar with the texts in Kings and Ezechiel which you probably imagine will bear you out, but if you carefully compare those texts with your statement you will find that your zeal has run away with your discretion, and that your hatred of your Maker is more intense than your love for the truth.

God abhors lying spirits, false prophets, false philosophers and deceivers of all kinds, ancient and modern, and yet he permits them to exist because he cannot make them impossible without destroying free will or human liberty. There were laws enacted condemning these false prophets and other popular seducers, but these laws were not enforced because the false prophets, etc., flattered the passions of the people, telling them pleasant thing?. They were popular lecturers in their day, and they did not die without issue.

From Chapter XIV:

Quote:

Ingersoll—"Will you tell me why God failed to give the Bible to the whole world?"

Comment—God did not fail to give his revelatiop to the whole world. In the beginning, he revealed himself and his will to man, who afterwards to a great extent forgot that revelation. Man began on this earth with a true knowledge of the true God, but subsequently fell into idolatry. The wise sayings and moral precepts of the philosophers in the remoter ages were but the echoes of that original divine revelation. The nearer we approach to the origin of the human race the purer we find both doctrine and morals. This has been demonstrated by Thebaud in his remarkable work on Genlilism.

God then gave mankind originally a revelation, but man, in the course of time, failed to keep it in his memory and fell into ignorance, idolatry and barbarism. He became a victim, not of evolution, but of devilution.

Ingersoll—"If Jehovah was in fact God he knew the end from the beginning. He knew that his Bible would be a breastwork behind which tyranny and hypocrisy would crouch."

Comment—Granted. What then ? Because he knew that his revelation would be abused, misrepresented and ridiculed by some, must he therefore refuse it to the world ? Every gift of God—food, life, health, ability, reason, are abused by some. Must he deny to man, groping in error, the light of revelation because he knew the hopocrite would deny it and blaspheme ?

Ingersoll—God knew " that it would be the defence of robbers called kings, and hypocrites called priests."

Comment—He knew that it would be misquoted in defence of tyranny, and that it would be misrepresented by hypocrites called infidels, but that is no reason why he should not give his revelation to man.

Ingersoll—" He knew that he taught the Jewish people but little of importance."

Comment—You only imagine that you know this. You must not confound your knowledge with that of Jehovah. How do you know what he knew ? You evidently do not need to pray the old Scotch dominie's prayer: "O Lord, gie us a gude conceit o' oursel'."

Ingersoll—"He knew that he found them free and left them captives."

Comment—He knew that he found them in Egyptian slavery and made them a powerful nation.

Ingersoll—" He knew that he had never fufilled the promises made to them."

Comment—He knew that the promises made to the Jews were expressly and distinctly conditional on their obedience to his commands and laws, and that they had disregarded those commands and broken those laws. They disobeyed him and in cousequence fell again into bondage—the sceptre passed from the hands of Israel.

I think that addresses some of your points. Louis Lambert was a priest and journalist from Ingersoll's own period.

ENJOY!

Last edited by HobbyHorse; 06-22-2009 at 03:09 PM.

Quote

06-22-2009 , 05:32 PM

#28

surftheiop

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 5,162

So I assume this Ingersoll fellow has looked through his magic telescope all the way through eternity and heaven to know for sure that Jesus' actions were not morally optimal?

It might be similar to looking at a surgery in a freeze frame, you might assume the surgeon is a demonic murderer if all you saw was the fact he was sawing some guy's skull open.

There are plenty of what I would consider good arguements about why christianity is a crock, but the supposed morality of jesus' actions doesnt seem to be one of them.

Quote

06-22-2009 , 05:42 PM

#29

dknightx

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 6,497

only difference is that a surgeon isnt god, and isnt omnipotent. If the surgeon was omnipotent but chose to put the patient through pain, suffering, and possible death to heal him (when all you had to do was snap your fingers), you would call him cruel as well.

the argument that evil exists in order for humans to have free will is a ridiculous one. First off, humans don't have complete free will, their free will is a subset of complete free will. That said, humans could still have "free will" that is relatively equivalent (to the set of complete free will) to our current free will without evil, suffering, etc existing.

if that didnt make sense, think of it like this, compare to the set of all real numbers, the set {1...1 trillion} is relatively the same as {1 .... 1 million}. God just happened to, in his "omnibenevolence", pick the set that includes pain, suffering, and evil.

Quote

06-22-2009 , 06:58 PM

#30

surftheiop

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 5,162

Quote:

Originally Posted by dknightx

only difference is that a surgeon isnt god, and isnt omnipotent. If the surgeon was omnipotent but chose to put the patient through pain, suffering, and possible death to heal him (when all you had to do was snap your fingers), you would call him cruel as well.

the argument that evil exists in order for humans to have free will is a ridiculous one. First off, humans don't have complete free will, their free will is a subset of complete free will. That said, humans could still have "free will" that is relatively equivalent (to the set of complete free will) to our current free will without evil, suffering, etc existing.

if that didnt make sense, think of it like this, compare to the set of all real numbers, the set {1...1 trillion} is relatively the same as {1 .... 1 million}. God just happened to, in his "omnibenevolence", pick the set that includes pain, suffering, and evil.

How do you know that the "set" that does not include pain,suffering,evil is "better"? (Or can even posibly exist, remember god can't make a round square).

Quote

06-22-2009 , 07:39 PM

#31

loK2thabrain

Tiger > Jack

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 23,203

Quote:

Originally Posted by surftheiop

How do you know that the "set" that does not include pain,suffering,evil is "better"? (Or can even posibly exist, remember god can't make a round square).

Is it better to wake up each day and get stabbed in the head with a knife, or not?

Would a parent think it's better to have their child raped every day, or not?

Some things are ****ing obvious. And don't EVEN bust out the, "well, God has a plan and how can we know what is "better"?" card...

Quote

06-22-2009 , 08:13 PM

#32

Claudius Galenus

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by surftheiop

How do you know that the "set" that does not include pain,suffering,evil is "better"? (Or can even posibly exist, remember god can't make a round square).

Why would an all-powerful all-knowing god do such a ****ty job that he leaves mere humans in a position of having to try and defend him?

Quote

06-22-2009 , 08:33 PM

#33

surftheiop

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 5,162

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butcho22

Not as obvious as you might think.

Is it better for knives to be used occasionally for stabbings or to live in a world with no sharp objects?

Is it better for children to be occasionally raped or to live in a world without sexual reproduction?

Is it better for all humans to be invincible or for us to be fragile?

(Obviously this aren't neccersarily either/or but its important to think about how eliminating certain phenomena would effect the world as a whole)

Quote

06-22-2009 , 10:04 PM

#34

surftheiop

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 5,162

Also even atheist philosopher's admit that the existence of evil and an omnipotent, benevolent god are not mutually exclusive.

" J. L. Mackie one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the mid-twentieth-century and a key exponent of the logical problem of evil has this to say about Plantinga's Free Will Defense:

Since this defense is formally [that is, logically] possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question. (Mackie 1982, p. 154)
"

Quote

06-23-2009 , 01:29 AM

#35

Pletho

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 4,271

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic

We who frequent this forum are all familiar with the “New Atheists” authors like Dawkins and Harris, but take a look at Robert Ingersoll, the prince of atheists. In 1894 he wrote “About The Holy Bible,” and utterly destroys all arguments for Jesus Christ and this so-called "Word of God." And in the sections of that work below he discusses the two foundational beliefs of Christianity and slays them down to dust:

If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before him like a panorama moved the history yet to be. He knew how his words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, what infamies, would be committed in his name. He knew that the hungry flames of persecution would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He knew that; thousands and thousands of brave men and women would languish in dungeons in darkness, filled with pain. He knew that his church would invent and use instruments of torture; that his followers would appeal to whip and *****, to chain and rack. He saw the horizon of the future lurid with the flames of the auto da fe. He knew what creeds would spring like poisonous fungi from every text. He saw the ignorant sects waging war against each other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests, building prisons for their fellow-men. He saw thousands of scaffolds dripping with the best and bravest blood. He saw his followers using the instruments of pain. He heard the groans -- saw the faces white with agony. He heard the shrieks and sobs and cries of all the moaning, martyred multitudes. He knew that commentaries would be written on his words with swords, to be read by the light of *****s. He knew that the Inquisition would be born of the teachings attributed to him.

He saw the interpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy would write and tell. He saw all wars that would he waged, and he knew that above these fields of death, these dungeons, these rackings, these burnings, these executions, for a thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross.

He knew that hypocrisy would be robed and crowned -- that cruelty and credulity would rule the world; knew that liberty would perish from the earth; knew that popes and kings in his name would enslave the souls and bodies of men; knew that they would persecute and destroy the discoverers, thinkers and inventors; knew that his church would extinguish reason's holy light and leave the world without a star.

He saw his disciples extinguishing the eyes of men, flaying them alive, cutting out their tongues, searching for all the nerves of pain.

He knew that in his name his followers would trade in human flesh; that cradles would be robbed and women's breasts unbabed for gold.

And yet he died with voiceless lips.

Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not tell his disciples, and through them the world: "You shall not burn, imprison and torture in my name. You shall not persecute your fellow-men."

Why did he not plainly say: "I am the Son of God," or, "I am God"? Why did he not explain the Trinity? Why did he not tell the mode of baptism that was pleasing to him? Why did he not write a creed? Why did he not break the chains of slaves? Why did he not say that the Old Testament was or was not the inspired word of God? Why did he not write the New Testament himself? Why did he leave his words to ignorance, hypocrisy and chance? Why did he not say something positive, definite and satisfactory about another world? Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven into the glad knowledge of another life? Why did he not tell us something of the rights of man, of the liberty of hand and brain?

Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to misery and to doubt?

I will tell you why. He was a man, and did not know.

**************************

And on the "inspired Word of God":

Not before about the third century was it claimed or believed that the books composing the New Testament were inspired.

It will be remembered that there were a great number of books, of Gospels, Epistles and Acts, and that from these the "inspired" ones were selected by "uninspired" men.

Between the "Fathers" there were great differences of opinion as to which books were inspired; much discussion and plenty of hatred. Many of the books now deemed spurious were by many of the "Fathers" regarded as divine, and some now regarded as inspired were believed to be spurious. Many of the early Christians and some of the "Fathers" repudiated the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jade, James, Peter, and the Revelation of St. John. On the other hand, many of them regarded the Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, the Preaching of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Bar nabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the Gospel of Nicodemus, inspired books, equal to the very best.

From all these books, and many others, the Christians selected the inspired ones.

The men who did the selecting were ignorant and superstitious. They were firm believers in the miraculous. They thought that diseases had been cured by the aprons and handkerchiefs of the apostles, by the bones of the dead. They believed in the fable of the Phoenix, and that the hyenas changed their sex every year.

Were the men who through many centuries made the selections inspired? Were they -- ignorant, credulous, stupid and malicious -- as well qualified to judge of "inspiration" as the students of our time? How are we bound by their opinion? Have we not the right to judge for ourselves?

Erasmus, one of the leaders of the Reformation, declared that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, and he denied the inspiration of Second and Third John, and also of Revelation. Luther was of the same opinion. He declared James to be an epistle of straw, and denied the inspiration of Revelation. Zwinglius rejected the book of Revelation, and even Calvin denied that Paul was the author of Hebrews.

The truth is that the Protestants did not agree as to what books are inspired until 1647, by the Assembly of Westminster.

To prove that a book is inspired you must prove the existence of God. You must also prove that this God thinks, acts, has objects, ends and aims. This is somewhat difficult.

It is impossible to conceive of an infinite being. Having no conception of an infinite being, it is impossible to tell whether all the facts we know tend to prove or disprove the existence of such a being.

God is a guess. If the existence of God is admitted, how are we to prove that he inspired the writers of the books of the Bible?

How can one man establish the inspiration of another? How can an inspired man prove that he is inspired? How can he know himself that he is inspired? There is no way to prove the fact of inspiration. The only evidence is the word of some man who could by no possibility know anything on the subject.

What is inspiration? Did God use men as instruments? Did he cause them to write his thoughts? Did he take possession of their minds and destroy their wills?

Were these writers only partly controlled, so that their mistakes, their ignorance and their prejudices were mingled with the wisdom of God?

How are we to separate the mistakes of man from the thoughts of God? Can we do this without being inspired ourselves? If the original writers were inspired, then the translators should have been, and so should be the men who tell us what the Bible means.

How is it possible for a human being to know that he is inspired by an infinite being? But of one thing we may be certain: An inspired book should certainly excel all the books produced by uninspired men. It should, above all, be true, filled with wisdom, blossoming in beauty -- perfect.

Ministers wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack the Bible.

I will tell them: This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death, the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of man.

This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants -- the enslaver of women and children. This book has corrupted parliaments and courts. This book has made colleges and universities the teachers of error and the haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with hateful, cruel, ignorant and warring sects. This book taught men to kill their fellows for religion's sake. This book funded the Inquisition, invented the instruments of torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh, erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled *****s about the feet of the just. This book drove reason from the minds of millions and filled the asylums with the insane.

This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on which the slave- mother stood when she was sold from her child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader and made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the fires that burned "witches" and "wizards." This book filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts, and the bodies of men and women with devils. This book polluted the souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain. This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and investigation the greatest of crimes. This book filled nations with hermits, monks and nuns -- with the pious and the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book taught man to despise the joys of this life, that he might be happy in another -- to waste this world for the sake of the next.

I attack this book because it is the enemy of human liberty -- the greatest obstruction across the highway of human progress.

Let me ask the ministers one question: How can you be wicked enough to defend this book?

*******************************

And finally, Ingersoll leaves us with what he thinks SHOULD be the Real Human Bible:

For thousands of years men have been writing the real Bible, and it is being written from day to day, and it will never be finished while man has life. All the facts that we know, all the truly recorded events, all the discoveries and inventions, all the wonderful machines whose wheels and levers seem to think, all the poems, crystals from the brain, flowers from the heart, all the songs of love and joy, of smiles and tears, the great dramas of Imagination's world, the wondrous paintings, miracles of form and color, of light and shade, the marvelous marbles that seem to live and breathe, the secrets told by rock and star, by dust and flower, by rain and snow, by frost and flame, by winding stream and desert sand, by mountain range and billowed sea.

All the wisdom that lengthens and ennobles life, all that avoids or cures disease, or conquers pain -- all just and perfect laws and rules that guide and shape our lives, all thoughts that feed the flames of love the music that transfigures, enraptures and enthralls the victories of heart and brain, the miracles that hands have wrought, the deft and cunning hands of those who worked for wife and child, the histories of noble deeds, of brave and useful men, of faithful loving wives, of quenchless mother-love, of conflicts for the right, of sufferings for the truth, of all the best that all the men and women of the world have said, and thought and done through all the years.

I agree that if Christ were God then we all would have some problems and some major explaining to do!!!!

Jesus Christ was not God and is not God. How many times does one have to say this before they are heard? It says at least 75 times that he was the SON OF GOD. HOw can you be a son and the father of yourself? This is the stupid logic that gives atheist fuel to mock Christians and God. They make there beliefs and decisions on false Christians doctrines and beliefs.

Don't blame God for people not being able to read correctly.

Quote

06-23-2009 , 01:40 AM

#36

dknightx

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 6,497

Quote:

Originally Posted by surftheiop

this is what you fail to understand. God could *easily* make it so that knives could only cut people when doing good, or that rape would be impossible, all the while MAINTAINING THE SAME RELATIVE AMOUNT OF FREE WILL THAT WE HAVE NOW.

Let's just take this one item at a time. please tell me if you disagree or not. If God were to make it so that rape were impossible (through whatever means), while still allowing for sexual reproduction, would the world be a better, happier, more loving place?

if your answer is no, then I guess I can't help you.

if you answer is yes, then do you believe that the type of free will that we have in this situation is any different than the type of free will we have now?

Quote

06-23-2009 , 01:55 AM

#37

Zeno

Le Misanthrope

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,561

Want to add an off-the-cuff remark about the post title: I disagree that the bible is an evil book. Though I understand why the title is what it is for this Forum.

-Zeno

Quote

06-23-2009 , 02:02 AM

#38

Pletho

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 4,271

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeno

Want to add an off-the-cuff remark about the post title: I disagree that the bible is an evil book. Though I understand why the title is what it is for this Forum.

-Zeno

Light dispells darkness! The word of God is light and the forum is full of darkness. They cannot stand the word being taught or shared or believed here.

Quote

06-23-2009 , 02:35 AM

#39

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic

i'm still waiting for a Christian to respond to any of the points Ingersoll has made. But i guess I shouldn't hold my breath, huh?

I'm not going to respond to a shotgun approach. OK, I will. Cf Craig and all the rest of all the Christian theologians who have ever lived.

If you want to pick one that you think is best, go ahead. But I'm only going to destroy one. I'll leave the rest to you.

Quote

06-23-2009 , 02:50 AM

#40

thirddan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 11,695

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotReady

i think its funny that you have such conviction that the argument you find is going to "destroy" the arguments above...im quite certain that no matter what defense you post the atheists will think its full of holes and is weak and the theists will like it...

it goes both ways, of course...i think terms like "destroy" are just weird for this situation since there aren't really new arguments or defenses...

Quote

06-23-2009 , 02:56 AM

#41

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by thirddan

I've read some Ingersoll. Destroy is the correct word.

Edit: Of course, thinking any atheist on this forum would recognize it is entirely different.

Quote

06-23-2009 , 09:41 AM

#42

timhardawyhatesu

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 4,245

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pletho

What is the trinity then? I thought that most christians belived that god is the father, the son, and the holy spirit? I am not a christian and i have always taken this as that they are all the same person, am i wrong? This always was the thing that confused me the most about.

Quote

06-24-2009 , 02:07 AM

#43

batair

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 16,802

I like how Ingersoll uses the bible to argue against the bible. Science takes enough heat on its own without being lumped in with evil atheist.

Quote

06-24-2009 , 02:19 AM

#44

furyshade

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 10,138

OP, while you seem legitimately interested in discussion you are as bad as they are when you post chapters of a book, mostly unedited, and ask why no christians responded to the points in it.

Quote

06-24-2009 , 02:41 AM

#45

Pletho

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 4,271

Quote:

Originally Posted by timhardawyhatesu

The trinity is a lie. It is a made up doctrine that has nothing to do with God at all.

The mass majority of Christians now days have either a strong or semi strong belief in it and do not understand it or knowits origins and how it came to exist.

The trinity is basically a triune God thing. It is very common to pagan religions and worshipping. That is one of the reasons it was instituted as a doctrine among other things. It was a great political move by a man names Constantine. It caused alot of of people who were pagans and worshipped 3 gods in one to let down their gaurd and join in with Christians who happened to water the truth down. The whole thing was political and spiritually evil. It still is and many people are dooped by it because they do not study the word nor know how to rightly divide the word to get to the truth about the subject.

Really its quite simple, Jesus Christ is called the son of God I believe at least 75 times in the bible, no where is he called God the son ever! There are a very few hand full of scriptures that are highly misunderstood and taught wrong to back up the lie of the trinity, but these are easily corrected and understood if someone actually cares enough to learn...

Pletho

Quote

06-24-2009 , 12:38 PM

#46

Mark1010

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 634

I am inspired to read the actual book, thank you.

Quote

06-24-2009 , 03:44 PM

#47

Dominic

Tripod

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 74,607

Quote:

Originally Posted by furyshade

OP, while you seem legitimately interested in discussion you are as bad as they are when you post chapters of a book, mostly unedited, and ask why no christians responded to the points in it.

well, I just thought Ingersoll made some very interesting points and others would probably enjoy reading it.

Quote

06-24-2009 , 05:22 PM

#48

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic

well, I just thought Ingersoll made some very interesting points and others would probably enjoy reading it.

I loved reading it. Ingersoll completely destroys (sorry Thirddan

) Christianity imo. I'm definitely buying the book Zeno mentioned so this thread delivered for me.

Quote

06-24-2009 , 06:38 PM

#49

furyshade

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 10,138

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic

well, I just thought Ingersoll made some very interesting points and others would probably enjoy reading it.

i understand that, and many on the forum will be very interested. but think about when theists have a book they feel the same way about yet atheists aren't convinced of. the atheists generally don't sit there and read enormous walls of text if they aren't already in agreement on the topic. i think the OP alone is fine, but to expect christians to read that much of a book to find the points they should respond to when they already are uninterested in the book is unfair. like when theists posts pages of books like The Language of God and expect people to read them.

Quote

06-24-2009 , 07:21 PM

#50

Dominic

Tripod

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 74,607

I don't know, I usually read the links theists post if I hadn't already done so...hard to argue a point if you don't understand where the other side is coming from, you know?

Quote

Page 2 of 7

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 7

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Last