Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Bible verses that bug me part 2! Jesus and the fig tree
Here are 2 different passages regarding a fig tree in the Bible.
Matthew 21:18-22
18 Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.
21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
and
Mark 11:12-14
12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.
(full entry below the fold)
Let me start with the verse from Mark. When I see this verse I see what I call evil and wrong. First of all, as a story about Jesus, this verse is VERY open to interpretation. That in and of itself is a flaw. I could argue that according to this story anything that doesn't bear fruit when you desire it to deserves to die. In fact, in this story that is exactly the lesson I take from Jesus' actions. That's why I call this story evil and wrong. If you apply this story as a parable it's an excuse to do harm to any number of people...notwithstanding the lazy or indolent. When applied to women if the woman is barren or even just older (past menopause) it would seem that Jesus is saying that it would be OK to kill them. In fact, this same reasoning could be applied to anyone or anything that is even perceived to be worthless. The very most forgiving reading of this verse shows Jesus to be a selfish and childish charachter. He curses a fig tree, out of season, simply because it doesn't have any figs when he wants it to. There are more questions that this action leads to. If the man really wanted to have a fig why the hell didn't he just conjure one up or at least use his powers to cause the tree to have ripe figs for him? The whole thing doesn't pass the smell test.
As for the verses in Matthew I find it odd that the disciples reactions were limited to, "How did you do that?!!!" rather than the why. Instead, we're given the "faith can move mountains" tripe that is also found elsewhere in the Bible. I have the same objections to this verse as the one in Mark, with the added note that the disciples are apparently incurious idiots.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Hope I'm not repeating...
I didn't take the time to read all the comments, of which most (especially by the Christians) were far too long winded.
There are many tiers to this verse, and details to this story. But mainly, Jesus saw a fig tree with leaves from far off. The appearance of leaves on a fig tree is SUPPOSED to mean there WILL be fruit. You should be able to lift the leaf and find a fig. So in season or not, the fig tree was giving off the impression it would have fruit. But the tree was a hypocrite, a fake. And if Jesus cursed one thing while he was on this earth (and still today) it was hollow, religious attitude that bore no fruit.
And that's one reason the disciples asked "how did you do that" and now "Why?" The 'why' was obvious to them because they fully expected to see fruit under those leaves, too.
Well, Atheists never seem to
Well, Atheists never seem to see the fruit. They all seem to only see the sin. If an Atheist saw a fig tree in the distance with leaves on it, The Atheist would probably turn away even if he was starving because he would say, I see no fruit, only leaves and and some leaves are even fallen off the tree.
Then the Atheist would turn away and starve, and the worms would then fill their bellies as the Christians fill theirs with good fuit from the fig tree, feeling sorry for the fallen fruit but casting it away anyway.
My thoughts...
Wow! some of you folks really go to great lengths to rationalize a satisfying meaning to that story...
... when it really "could" simply be a story of an imaginary character displaying a thuggish (this could be you) use of his "superpowers" to those around him.
I believe Jesus was a real person (not magical). And, I believe in God. I just don't believe the rest of it.
I don't need a promise of "living forever" in order to enjoy living, loving and being moral today. That would be like not enjoying some pasta at the Olive Garden Restaurant because they stopped promising you the endless salad. Ok, well not exactly, I love my family, my friends and my life. I would love to live forever and have them around me forever. It's definitely not a happy thought to think that might all end someday. So, I can sympathize with the temptation to hold onto an ancient book's promise that there is a way to keep the good times going. But, seriously...
It's a mistake to personify God through stories such as these, God is way bigger than all that. God is... to all things in the Universe... like DNA is... to the human egg. God's the grand designer of it all. God is far too big and abstract for a book like the Bible to define. It's too big for any of us to get our heads around. People trying to understand God is like a frog trying to understand how a motorcycle works. We just don't have the capacity. Our little brains can't do it. Nor, could the brains of the people who wrote the Bible or any other book for that matter. Don't forget, it's "people" who said that "God is the true author of Bible".
True love is good! I suppose it's even ok to love your DNA. There's nothing wrong with loving God either (so long as you don't try to prove it by offering to kill your child). Love is good. It often brings out the best in people. Just don't let it upset you if, like DNA, it doesn't have the capacity to love you in return.
This ain't no dress rehearsal.
Love. Help others. Be happy and have a great life!
That's sorta like seeing
That's sorta like seeing Senior High School in the phone book, but then saying, "I know it's a shool, but I don't think they teach anything there."
Well, I only read your first
Well, I only read your first line, since I right away had a question. If you believe Jesus was real, and you believe God is real, then why not the rest of it? Do you have better info that the first part is true but not the rest? Where did you get the supporting data?
Heh.
And yet here you are making definitive statements about your god's nature.
"It's impossible for humans to understand God, but while we're all waiting, I'm going to hand out this list of God's attributes, which I know for a fact. Don't ask me how I know. It's just because."
I can never figure out where people get this nonsense. And I can never figure out why they can't see the galaxy-sized holes in the logic of what they're saying. It's like listening to children tell how the window got broken. "See, there was this man, and he drove by, and he shot this gun at us, only we all ducked, and then the bullets hit the limb of the big oak, and then it fell and broke the window, and then this other man came along and picked up the limb and drove away with it, and then the oak tree just, like, grew another limb. Real fast."
I guess if we couldn't laugh about it, things would really suck:
"Let us praise God. Oh Lord, oooh you are so big. So absolutely huge. Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here I can tell you. Forgive us, O Lord, for this dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery. But you are so strong and, well, just so super. Fantastic. Amen." — Michael Palin, The Meaning of Life
.....
And just FYI: If "our little brains can't do it" isn't the most nihilistic, anti-freedom, anti-progress, anti-hope crap I ever heard, I don't know what is.
"Our little brains" is godder code for "Don't ask questions, you insignificant little worm. Just shut up and listen to the people smarter and better than you, the ones who really know."
Hi
Hi and thanks for opening a little dialogue with me.
Regarding my "Our little brains can't do it" statement. This speaks more to the simple fact that, although humans are impressive, we haven't evolved to that degree of intelligence and there's probably a good chance that we never will. I have a dog that watches TV sometimes. She even acts excited when she sees other animals on TV. However, I'm reasonably sure that it would be fruitless for anyone to explain how a TV works to her. In other words (as funny as it sounds), I feel that I look at God in a similar way that my dog looks at the television. I acknowledge that it's something that causes me wonderment but I strongly doubt that any member of my species understands it.
You're right that I probably shouldn't have been so, "mater of fact" about my God is like DNA theory. True, it's the first sparkle of what "I believe" to understand about God. But, admittedly, it's just "my" belief. And as an even more accurate representation to my belief is should say that on a scale of understanding it's the tiniest first sparkle of the brightest light that none of us will ever be able to imagine. I don't feel sorry and saddened by hopelessness that my dog will never understand TV. I accept it and still manage to have a great day.
I feel wonderment in life and that wonderment is related to what I call God (just not, at all, the way the Bible portrays it).
I believe in God with every cell in my body. So, I'm not an atheist.
I also strongly believe in the importance of morality so, it's inaccurate to refer to me as a "nihilist".
"anti-freedom"? I'm in fact a really strong advocate of freedom and I'm not sure how you derived the idea that I wasn't. The Bible explicitly promotes and advocates slavery (I could quote scripture here). Slavery, i.e. the treatment of people like farm machinery, which I hope we can both agree, falls under the banners of "anti-moral" and "anti-freedom".
Now, "anti-hope"? Really? I'd like to be able to simply flap my arms and fly around in the air like a bird... but... my accepting that I will probably never do such a thing wouldn't really warrant labeling me as someone who is against hope. Similarly, I just don't believe that the Bible's promise is a true reality. I have tones of hope and I face each day with new excitement. I just don't share "your hope" that it will all last forever.
correction...
... I shouldn't assume that it's "your hope" that it will all last forever. (I just wanted to make that correction. thanks).
ole robby roby
oh michael...you would've thought that after the millionth time you told him the figs were a symbol he would've thought "oh.....so it's not literal." IT'S A SYMBOL ROB. so how bout we move on from your intense defensive standpoint of "but, it was a tree out of seasons..jesus us unfair...blah blah."
Mr Cowboy: you're right...being a cowboy is not a religion. seeing as religion is basically "your point of view about god..or A god" it doesn't really apply to being a cowboy..at all. because i'm sure there are christian cowboys... and nonchristian cowboys. unless i was unaware that all cowboys were of the same religion.
it's always easy to testify against god. all it takes is to apply your own logic or theories to whatever is said. but what you don't see is that it just becomes an opinion battle. opinion...is not the bible. the bible has a specific purpose or meaning, and sometimes we miss out on the facts because we apply our own biased knowledge to what we think we know.
some people believe in taking the bible at word for word what it says, and using that as the "true" meaning. when that cannot be applied, because in corinthians paul is talking to the church.. so sometimes when he uses the word "all" he really is talking to "all in the church"
You know, it's almost scary . . .
. . . to think that you probably actually believe this almost incoherent argument.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Almost?
Almost incoherent? Wait... what? ;)
Dead Fig Tree - Not!
First... while it is a common translation (no more fruit forever) it is a bad translation that stems from the Catholic belief that the Church replaced Israel. The Fig Tree in the Bible is a symbol of Israel.
What Jesus literally says in the Greek is: ‘No more shall there be fruit from you until the Age’ (or ‘end of the Age’ as Greeks would understand it).
With this the tree's leaves withered. And in the Greek the disciples did ask Jesus why he did this not how. When Jesus then teaches about Moving Mountains and faith, what he has teaching about was “believing what God literally said in the Bible” and having the kind of faith that takes action on that. The Bible is equally clear that God only answers prayer to the degree that it conforms to His will. He is not a genie in a bottle at anyone’s beckoned command, despite what some of the name it, claim it crowd teaches (Yuck!). And I suspect it upsets me more than you. Anyway…
The next morning after the tree was cursed, Peter stops everyone on the road when they are on their way back to Jerusalem again. The same Fig Tree is now “dried up from its root” not dead, but rather completely dormant. It is in a "winter" state. NOT DEAD! Jesus then teaches the same thing about faith.
That same evening, Jesus states in the temple that Jerusalem’s House has been left to them desolate. Then he states that they (Jews) will not see him again until they say; “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” This freaks the disciples out because two days before Jesus was hailed as the Messiah (the Anointed) by all Israel and the one who was to be the King of Israel, and now he says Jerusalem is desolated and he is going away. Not what they wanted or expected to hear.
They then ask Jesus three questions... 1) what will be the sign of the end of the Age? (the tree was cursed to the Age). 2) What would be the sign of his return? and 3) how would they know that these things were taking place?
Jesus then answers their questions and as he finishes the answers he states; “Now learn the parable from the ‘Fig Tree’ (Yes the same fig tree). When you see it (Israel) put forth its leaves again (Spring), you will know that Summer is near and that I (Jesus) am right at the door (his return).
The passage that you are talking about is actually the literal fulfillment of a prophecy in the Bible that brought on the foretold curse upon Israel that put Israel out of the Promised Land until 1948.
Now, there is actually allot more to it than this, but it was being misunderstood and changed into something that this passage isn't. It has nothing to do with anything written here in the comments. So, while you complain that this can be twisted into something ugly as some have twisted some other Scriptures (and they have), you are actually unknowingly taking this passage out of its context.
P.S. I didn't believe in God for 37 years. Then without my knowing it an Atheist proved to me that God had to be real.
And, yes I can literally prove everything I just said about the fig tree and I can prove it to the degree that it is impossible to refute.
The Bible is not exactly what you think it is and an honest investigation proves this to be true with impiracle evidence that is irrefutable.
If anyone is truly interested, drop me a line at matthew24@prodigy.net
Priceless!
Michael, what justification do you have for saying the common translation is wrong? Are you a Koine Greek scholar? Or are you just repeating something from Young's Literal Translation? I'd be interested in knowing where the justification for this comes from.
But more importantly, I'd really love to know what convinced you that "god" HAD to be real. Not just possible, or even probably, but HAD to be real.
I think Hank's on to something, though; when you say it's impossible to refute your evidence, I believe you are saying that you've closed your mind to any possible evidence contrary to your pre-conceived notions.
But at the very least, answer me one question: whether Jesus killed the fig tree or just put it to sleep for roughly 20 centuries, why is he justified in punishing the tree for not bearing fruit when it's not the time for it to bear fruit? Either way, he's acting like a dick.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Justified
Rob,
As to your one question… If within a society we set a law that is for the good of all, as examples: don’t speed, don’t take what belongs to someone else, don’t murder anyone. Then we clearly state what the consequences will be for violating the laws, you lose your license, you go to jail, you go to jail and never get out. Now, when someone then breaks theses laws, would you find it strange that they had to bear the known consequences of their actions? None of us would. It’s no different with God. He gave Israel laws and He gave Israel specific consequences for breaking those laws. Why then is it strange or unfair that the consequences came? Nor does it make Jesus a “dick” for imposing the consequence upon Israel. This was not a first offence where such a penalty was imposed, it was their third and final penalty like this. It was deserved; they broke the law and got the clear written consequence in the Bible. That’s unfair?
As for the Greek… it says what it literally says. The word in question is “aion” and it means “a span of time.” In English as we know this word as “eon.” It is found in both Mat 21:19 and 24:3. In the first it is translated “No longer shall there ever (aion) be any fruit from you.” This is literally word for word in the Greek; “no more / fruit / from / you / to / the / age (aion). In the second, the same word is translated: “what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age (aion)? Now let’s try it like this: “what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the ever (aion)” It doesn’t work very well. Also between Mat 21:19 and 24:3 there is not one other single use of this word. This word is used once by Jesus in the curse and then once by his disciples in the question. Jesus’ use of this word in the curse is what prompts the exact question.
As to what I use, well to name a few; The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek New Testament and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, and I could go on, but no, not just Young’s Literal Translation.
Now this is not to say that “aion” cannot and often is translated as “forever” and when we see the phrase “Forever and ever” it is always “aion, aion.” However, of the 118 occurrences in the New Testament it is only twice preceded by the genuine article “ho” (the), and the preposition “eis” which means: to, into or unto. These are found only in the Matthew passage and in its parallel in Mark. The genuine article identifies it as one specific “aion” among others. The preposition marks it as a long defined period of time that has a limit as opposed to finding “aion” by itself which would then be “forever” or a span of time without limit.
I hope that answers your question well enough as to why it is not “ever” nor is “forever” even implied. It is clearly a specific “age” with a limit because the words that immediately precede it, limit it.
As for being out of season, if you knew the prophecy that this fulfilled, you would know that it was the land that was actually struck with the curse. The fig tree (or Israel as a nation) drew its life as a nation from the land. All trees draw life from the land. As I said, there is a lot more to this. In the NASB try Malachi 4:4-6 (the last words of the O/T), Luke 1:13-17 (the opening words of the N/T), and Mat 14:9-10 and Mat 17:11-13. Now ask a few questions; “What does the Bible say the consequences would be for rejecting Elijah?” Then ask yourself what Jesus did (at the fig tree) and what happened to Israel in A.D. 70? You won’t find this taught anywhere. Interesting, a planted prophetic fulfillment by those who wrote the Bible, but after planting it, they forgot to teach it. I always thought the whole point of planting evidence was to use it, not keep it secret and hope someone might find it someday. Food for thought.
I think you missed the point, somewhere..
The Bible tells us what Jesus (supposedly) did to a fig tree; a tree that was not in season for figs, so Jesus gets all dicky and punishes it for not doing what it wasn't supposed to be doing. You can see it as an allegory for Israel, but we're talking about what Jesus did (if you can believe the Bible) to a tree.
I wouldn't get too excited about it being a good example of a fulfilled prophecy of what happened to Israel in 70 CE, either. There's no evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John were written significantly (if at all) prior to 70 CE. By the time the "prophecy" was most likely written, Israel had probably already fallen, or it was obvious that it would soon.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
all
All excellent points. Thanks.
Good Questions
Rick:
It's been a while since I looked in here...
I think you ask some good questions, but there are a few points that you may have missed...
Fig trees nearly always have some form of fruit on them, whether premature, green, ripe, whatever. Especially when they have leaves on them. So having none would be a rarity.
Jewish farmers were commanded by law to leave some of their harvest on the tree or in the field for travelers, homeless, poor, etc.
There is no mention of this tree being part of a cultivated orchard or someone's yard. It may have been a roadside tree that was not 'owned' by anyone. We cannot tell either way.
And who says that taking the life from a plant [or tree] is 'punishment', any more than pulling up a weed or picking a flower?
Sure, you have raised questions, and some good ones, but I think you may be applying modern morality and speculations to an ancient story with somewhat differing social norms.
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
Differing social norms
Never mind that the story itself points out that the tree was not in season for figs, if the problem is simply that there were different social norms then than there are now (which I agree with completely), it kind of makes the morality that the Bible is supposed to be teaching null and void. Oh, I'm sure *some* of the morals the Bible teach can be translated to today's social norms, but many of them can't.
Today, "killing" a tree for not bearing fruit when it wasn't in season to bear fruit might not be considered morally bankrupt, but it would be considered pretty fucking stupid. The Jesus portrayed in the Bible isn't exactly a genius, though, is he?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Man ...
I have to wonder if there were people in ancient Egypt who spent equivalent amounts of time at "understanding" the Book of the Dead. Or if there's some kid out there who has memorized and dissected every scene from the Star Wars movies having to do with Jedi-ism, and who has elaborate theories and conclusions about its real, true nature.
And then I think about multiplying that amount of scholarly brainpower by, oh, 20 million or so, to take in all the goddy scholars since we started walking upright ... and I can't help but wonder what might have been accomplished if it had been applied to REAL things.
One of the common beliefs about religion, even among many unbelievers, is that it is, even at its worst, harmless. Pascal's Wager is based on the idea. But if there's important work to be done on the farm and you have a big new tractor, but you take it to the tractor pulls every day until it wears out, and never do any plowing ... that's not exactly harmless.
Literal translation
Literal translation eh? Well, that's a foolish way of interpreting a foreign language. I don't know Latin, Greek or Aramaic. I do know though that language often doesn't lend itself to literal translation and that translation is often much more nuanced.
Let's just take a simple French phrase, "Pourquoi pas"
The literal translation of that is "For what not". The actual translation is "Why not?".
A coworker went to Brazil recently and brought back some candy to share. It had a saying on the inside (Similar to kids bubble gum w/ the jokes inside) in Portuguese. I typed it in to Babel Fish and got the literal translation...It was nonsensical. Once I had a friend who knows a bit of Portuguese translate it though, it made a lot more sense.
Michael
Matthew 24, huh? You actually chose THAT for your email address? Damn.
And then this:
Well, at least you're honest enough to admit — even if it’s in this oblique way — that you wouldn't be willing to listen with an open mind to any attempted refutation.
I used to wonder what drove people like you to be as you are, but these days I can see it more and more clearly as simple fear, a sort of despair of understanding and coping with the unknowns of the real world. You have to carry this brittle shield of certainty, and never listen to anything that contradicts it, because otherwise ... what? That part I haven’t yet figured out. I’m pretty sure none of you know it, either, though.
I could live with the things you believe, if you were content to just sit in a rocking chair somewhere and read your holy book and nod fervently at its glorious truth. You’d leave a hole in the world – the hole of a human who consumes the products of reason but doesn’t produce any of his own (you are using a computer, after all, a thing that neither you nor anybody else would ever have been able to produce if we all lived via the mindset you advertise) – but for some people, that’s the best they can ever do.
But no, you came HERE, as I’m sure you go elsewhere, not just living in that hole, but trying to seduce others to join you there. And not only will you never know just what you’re doing to yourself, you’ll never know what you’re doing to others, and to the larger world.
For a time after I got free of religion, I used to see people like you as victims. But as things continue to worsen in the world we all live in, I can’t help but see this other aspect of you, that you’re also a destroyer. Every problem that could be made better by the application of reason (overpopulation always springs first to my own mind), there you are, or someone like you, dragging us all deeper into the blind, unreasoning, deadly mud.
And you, with your Matthew 24 email label, you’re one of the worst of them ... not just one of the wounded, not just a simple fool or idiot, but one of those who wishes for destruction, who takes fierce joy in the idea of it, and hopes it comes in his lifetime.
I have this sudden picture in my head of a poisoned carcass set out by a cattle-country wolf hunter. It’s not just a dead cow, it’s a dead cow that kills ... until it’s the focal point of concentric circles of indiscriminate death.
Death on steroids. That’s how I see you.
Death on Steroids
Hank,
I have no problems with hearing any logical argument against any evidence I would present. Nor should you fear any logical argument I would make in favor of God being real. My point in saying that the evidence I have is irrefutable, is that I happen to be a skeptic’s skeptic. The first thing that I try and do to any religious claim is tear it apart. Everybody should do this. Most claims are very easily torn apart. Seldom is any great effort required and I’m very good at it. Truth doesn’t exist for someone else in my personal experience, nor does it exist in yours. Anyone can present subjective evidence about anything, and most do. For them, their experience is true. Good for them, it does nothing for me. Truth only begins to be known by objective evidence. I am one who wants to see it, taste it, smell it, touch it, or literally hear it. If any supposed “god” has made any clear statement that He has given us proof that He exists, then I want to see it, but it better not be something I can’t personally verify. However, if this evidence is something that exists outside of a single persons experience I want to know what it is and examine it for myself. How about you?
As for having an open mind, I was an atheist for 37 years. But, I was one who did have an open mind. I would listen to what others said without personally attacking them or making assumptions about them. Usually I just rolled my eyes and turned away. Actually, I was more polite than that, I usually turned away first and then rolled my eyes. I thought they deserved at least that much respect.
You have stated that I somehow desire or long for everyone’s death and destruction. Just the opposite is true. I don’t want you or anyone to die. My preference is that everybody live forever completely absent of the worsening pain in this world that you mention. That is the message of hope that Jesus held out unconditionally. I also find it somewhat ironic that while you seem to acknowledge the worsening global condition, you fail to recognize that the Bible says that this will be exactly the case in what it identifies as the end-days, which by the way is not the “end” but rather the next beginning for the earth and those in it.
As for being someone how frequents “these” sites. Sorry, this is the first such site that I have ever been to and I have no desire to go looking for another. The only thing that got my attention was what was being said about the “fig tree.” I happened to know something about that. It was being taken out of context. All I did was put it in its correct and full context. If you then choose to dislike it, you are welcome to do so, but at least dislike it for honest reasons. There are things in the Bible I don’t personally like. As an example: if the Bible is true, people who don’t believe in God will be the ones who try and kill me for what I believe and for no other reason. How does the Bible say I should respond? I am supposed to love them. Excuse me, but I’m supposed to do what? I don’t much like this. What I like, dislike, believe, or disbelieve will never change truth.
You see religion (what someone believes about God) as being the problem and I don’t disagree. In fact, I strongly agree. However, Atheism is a religion also. It is what you believe about God and you practice your religion, I assume peacefully. And, I would know, I practiced it too. What you don’t want to do is historically compare religious atrocities especially in the 20th Century. Atheist nations have murdered in excess of 70 million people for their differing faiths in just the last 100 years. It’s hardly a belief that has fostered peace. China, Russia, and North Korea are the most glaring current participants. Based on where these countries are headed today, there is no reason that in the next 15 years they can’t make it to an even 100 million. Now there is population control. Today, if you killed every man, woman and child in the fifty most populated cities in the U.S. you would only get half way to hitting the mark set by these atheist nations. Do you live in one of these cities?
I am often puzzled as to why universal labels are applied by others. I believe in the Bible and God, so that makes me what you say I am? Are all atheists the same? Should I assume that all atheists are the same? How about Blacks, Hispanics or Jews? Do you really believe my email address defines me, who I am, or even what I believe? I sort of enjoyed that remark. You have no idea why I chose that email address, but you were very quick to judge and condemn me for it. I have never been judged for an email address and I have several. That was a first. You have no idea what that passage means to me. For me it is an end to injustice, sickness, starvation, war and every atrocity man has invented or caused. No more pain! And that is a bad thing?
One final thing, I couldn’t help reading the comments about the pigs running into the sea. It’s funny that Jesus was asked to leave the area because they valued a bunch of pigs more than the health of a person. So what is a person’s life worth exactly? 1 pig, 10 pigs, 10,000 pigs? I would say; to save one person’s life, get rid of all the pigs. I can live without bacon. Some see pigs in the sea, I see a man healed. The whole point to this was what people truly valued.
How do I see you? I don't know you well enough to comment.
Heh.
If you think that, you were never an atheist; you were a confused child claiming to be one, a Roomba vacuum cleaner brainlessly bumping up against the wall of Christianity. Oh yeah, atheism is a religion, just like bald is a hair color and "off" is a cable TV channel. Every day, we atheists go to the Atheist Church and pray to Dawkins. Why, I myself say my atheist Hail Madalyns every morning while fondling my atheist prayer beads.
Ha-ha. Good one. Rather than explain why you have no idea what you're talking about bringing up "atheist nations" -- was that out of one of those Chick Tracts? -- I'll just let that one slide. After all, I'm way behind on the weekly murders required to keep my membership in my atheist church, and then there's all that rape and torture I have to get done before the SatanFest this weekend. Yes, fuck you very much, we atheists just loooove to kill people. What can I say, it's part of our Faith.
So I'm making "assumptions" about you, and you verify them -- you really DO drink the biblical End Times Kool-Aid -- and there's something wrong with ME?? I "fail to recognize" the truth of the Bible?
Damn, dude.
................
You know, the really weird thing about goddy people is how they're absolutely convinced that THEY are the rational ones. "I REASONED it out. I believe in casting demons into swine because of LOGIC and EVIDENCE. All you unbelievers, you're IRRATIONAL because you ignore all the PROOF."
And then they go making the claim that not having a religion is itself deeply religious.
I've been meaning to talk with you about that.
Yeah, Hank, I've been meaning to talk with you about that. Not only is your current quota sub-par, but for the last two quarters you're also down from the performance we expect from someone in your leadership position. Yes, yes, I know that you exceeded all expectations the first half of 2008, what with that spectacular cannibal feast you hosted, but still we need to maintain some regular minimums in this economy!
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Ahem.
On the other hand, if you check my performance reports, you'll find that I'm well ahead of the first-quarter quota on viewing Japanese schoolgirl softcore web porn, and that I've shown a 98-percent rise in spitting on street beggars.
Not to mention my inventive campaign to silence church bells.
Strobel's Law In Action
Hi Michael,
My first inclination was to question your claim of being a former atheist. It has always seemed to me that apologists make that claim as some sort of badge of honor. "I was an atheist, but then I found Jesus" (Or whatever.) I like to call it "Strobel's Law".
For the purposes of this conversation - should you choose to continue it, that is - I will take your assertion at face value. OK. You were an atheist. Good for you. Reading the context of your previous comments seems to indicate that after 37 years you discovered some hard, independently verifiable physical evidence which proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only A god existed, but a SPECIFIC "God" existed - and that this god was the "God" of Christianity.
Does that about cover it?
Me too. What is the evidence that convinced you that the God of Christianity actually existed after being an atheist for 37 years? Is this evidence something that I can personally verify? Does it exist outside of a single person's experience? Like you, I would like to examine it for myself.
In other words, put up or shut up. :)
If there is any one thing you have said in your comments here at UTI that would cause me to seriously doubt your "former atheist" claim, it is this one.
If your definition of "atheist" is "It is what you believe about God...", then I have to point out that you probably weren't an atheist at all.
"Atheism" and "theism" are not "religions". Rather, they are descriptions. They describe one single aspect of a person. That is, whether god-belief - of ANY kind (not just belief in your flavor of magical man in the sky) - is either present, or absent, within that person.
That's all. Nothing more. It is a binary equation. There or not-there. Present or absent. One or zero. Off or on.
BOTH words have NOTHING to do with "religion". The words describe the reality of a single human person - whether or not god-belief is present or absent within that person. The words do not indicate anything further than that.
To intimate that they DO, means that you never understood the words and that you have imbued them with meaning far beyond what they actually mean.
For example, the phrase "atheist nations" is LITERALLY meaningless. People can be atheists. People can be theists. But an nation can never be an atheist or a theist. They very idea is ridiculous.
So, if you would like to reply, I'd sure appreciate it. However, if you still insist that atheism is a "religion", and that it deserves a capital letter like "Catholicism" or "Baptist", then I daresay that this conversation won't go very far.
I'd also be extremely interested in this irrefutable, independently verifiable physical evidence of the existence of the specific Christian God of the bible (and not just a deistic "god", which is a lot more credible.) I mean, if it converted a former 37-year atheist like yourself, it must be pretty spectacular! Let's haul it out and take a look at it together, shall we?
Not that I expect you'll actually produce any real evidence, but I am interested in how you will attempt to wiggle out of actually showing it. Heh. I am going to predict that it will probably be anecdotal evidence, or personal experience of some sort, but that you will assert that since a lot of folks claim to have this same anecdotal evidence, then it must be true. Or something similar.
I sure hope you show me how wrong I am.
Sincerely,
-Brent Rasmussen
Wanna Bet!
Hi Brent,
Webster’s defines an atheist as “one who believes that there is no deity.” It is no more complicated than that. It defines a nation as “a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government.” While I will grant you that the territory cannot be atheist, a territory by itself is not a nation, it’s just dirt. A nation is a people and its governmental system that occupies a given territory. Both of these can be atheist in the denial of any deity. Russia, China and North Korea officially deny the existence of any deity. On the flip side the United States and Great Britain officially acknowledge a deity. If not defined as either an “atheist nation” or a “theist nation,” how would you mark and identify this major difference between the two ideologies? I did not create these definitions and if the entire world has them wrong, someone should correct them.
Based on the definition, and as I have always understood it, I was an atheist. Now as for atheism being a religion, one definition of a “religion” in Webster’s is: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Atheism has a system of beliefs. Evolution, science and no God to name the more common ones that are probably shared by everyone on this site. As for “adore” there is plenty of fervor and zeal present among everyone here. And, “faith” is simply the actions one takes based on their beliefs and nothing more. No one here is sitting idly by. Their very speech is an expression of their faith.
If you’re really interested in the evidence, I would be glad to walk you through it. It will take some time and I would be willing to do this via emails due to the information I will be sending you. As for your “bet,” this could be fun, but based on the above, I had better get your definition of anecdotal first. Perhaps you have a different definition than I do. If Webster's will do, then we have no issue. So, just to make this interesting, what did you have in mind as to the bet? Let’s agree on the terms, definitions and rules… then we’ll see who wins the bet!
In all fairness, I should warn you, you have never seen what I have, and only a few people have ever seen it. It’s being published for the first time within the next 60 days. So, wager carefully. I’ll bet there is no real wager, which would be wise on your part.
I’ll take the time if you will. Sorry, no wiggling here, you stuck your foot in it this time dude.
Sigh.
I don't know why I still try sometimes. I really don't.
Michael, I have quite literally spoken with thousands of religious folks like you over the past 20 years. You folks don't ever seem to have the ability to understand what I am saying to you, and sometimes I don't think that you ever will. It is not for lack of trying on my part. I thought I was pretty clear and cogent with you in my last comment.
Atheism is not a religion. Theism is not a religion. Until you understand this very basic, very easy-to-understand point, then I don't think that further discussion will be fruitful.
As to your "wiggling out" of showing me this hard physical evidence that you claim to have that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only a god exists, but YOUR own personal, specific god named "God" exists, well... you're doing it right now.
I still don't see any evidence. You haven't shown any. Instead, you are weaseling-about with the definitions of words like "atheism" and "anecdotal", and claiming not to understand what "anecdotal evidence" means.
Then, again, instead of actually, oh, I don't know, showing me your fucking evidence, you slyly tantalize me with an offer of a long, drawn-out email exchange. Ostensibly because you claim that the information that you'll be sending me is just so important that you couldn't possibly, oh, show it or anything.
I will say again: Shit or get off the fucking pot already. I'm tired of playing word games with you.
I will make another prediction: You will not deign to show me, or anyone, this "evidence" of yours. You will possibly claim to have shown it to someone, or maybe even bring someone by who will have claimed to have seen it, but we will never see it.
You know why? Because whatever it is, it's most-likely anecdotal evidence, or it doesn't actually exist. That is to say (since you don't seem to understand what "anecdotal" means), it will be a personal experience, a just-so story. It will not be hard physical evidence at all. Merely soft, ephemeral, "I swear it's true!" "evidence".
And just so you understand, anecdotal "evidence" is not really evidence at all. It's an assertion at best, with no real, independently-verifiable hard physical evidence to back it up. It's a sucker's game, a coward's way out. A small-man's way of feeling not-so-small.
"I do so have evidence! Why, just listen to this story about my personal, unverifiable experiences!"
I will ask you again: Put up, or shut up.
Now, now,
Now, now, I'm sure that he'll send over his friend who will testify that he was right there with him when Mr. Harris heard God speak to him. You shouldn't be so cynical, Brent.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Oh, shit.
He's got you, Brent. I knew it had to happen. Someday a Christian would come along who would have absolute, rock-solid proof that God exists – the true God, the one and only God, different from all those other gods.
And everything else he says here ... it's just right. I mean, he's the one who's finally gotten it right. He understands that atheists are not what THEY think they are, but what HE thinks they are. And after all, he has a dictionary to back him up. I mean, whoa. It's like he's saying "HA! YOU ATHEISTS! YOU'RE NOT EVEN ATHEISTS!"
Jeez, you mean we have to fight the Bible AND the dictionary? Good gosh, I give up. I mean, there's just no more to be said. There's no possible way to answer his perfect reasoning. We just have to admit that he’s RIGHT.
.................
Okay, enough kidding around. This is me heaving a deep, deep sigh: SIGHHHHH. Because I’m pretty sure this chirpy Christian can’t even imagine being wrong. Which means he’s incapable of listening to new ideas, and therefore won’t get what I’m about to say.
But ....
Cherry-picking asshattery. Some other definitions of the word “religion”: “a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.” “The expression of belief in a divine power.”
Supernatural power. Divine power. Funny how atheism, which admits of no divine power, can be described – by smug little chumps, anyway – with the very same word used to describe strong belief in a divine power. It’s like saying chocolate isn’t vanilla, therefore it’s vanilla.
Smash-and-grab conceptual fuckwittery. First, evolution and science are not subsets of atheism. Second, “having a system of beliefs” or holding to them with ardor, doesn’t define “religion” and nothing else.
I was an actual cowboy for much of my life, and I can tell you that cowboying has a rather elaborate system of beliefs, and they are held to with extreme ardor by the people who hold them. But being a cowboy is not a religion. It’s a CULTURE. Atheism isn’t even that.
(As to atheism having a system of beliefs ... damn, I wish someone would tell ME what they are. Because I’ve had to figure most of it out on my own. I have yet to see a handbook of atheism. Hell, I’d settle for a little book of official songs.)
If you were speaking loosely, you could easily say Algebra has a “system of beliefs.” But it isn’t a religion. Chess has a “system of beliefs.” It’s not a religion. Ballet has a “system of beliefs.” Still no religion. More than that, in each case, the system of beliefs probably isn’t even a matter of faith. Because in each case, there’s some serious real-world support for those beliefs.
Fervor and zeal, right. Just like that found in women’s rights advocates, racial justice advocates, sexual orientation equality advocates. Unfortunately, ardor, fervor and zeal do not a religion make.
Okay, now you’re just making shit up. Faith is “actions”?? When did THAT get decided?
Here’s me quoting the first three definitions of the word “faith” from the 1913 Webster’s Dictionary:
I’m looking through that and I’m failing to see any mention of “action.” Anybody else see the word “action” in there anywhere? Anybody see the IMPLICATION of the word “action” in there anywhere? Bueller? Bueller?
No.
Therefore, as near as I can make out, faith is not “the actions one takes based on their beliefs ...” And the “nothing more” added onto the end of that sentence is sheer “Nyah, nyah!” smugbastardism.
What you’re doing, Michael, and you probably don’t even know it (because I don’t think you’re that bright), is attempting to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean so as to lend support for the irrational conclusions which you have already reached. Or simply to win arguments (solely in your own mind, unfortunately).
Sorry, but that’s just juvenile sophistry, playing semantic games like asking if a tree makes a sound if it falls in the forest and there’s nobody to hear (yes it does, or no it doesn’t, depending solely on how you choose to define the word “sound”), or asking which came first, the chicken or the egg (it’s the egg, unless you specify a chicken egg, in which case the true answer is stretched out over millions of year, and the question doesn’t really apply).
“Faith,” as it is commonly used, has no “taking action” component. It’s a purely mental exercise. Everywhere outside your head (or maybe your church), this is known.
There’s an interesting side issue here which will enter many minds as they read the probably-insulting tone of my reply. And I’m talking to you guys now.
You think we should be nice to such idiots, because there’s something to be gained from it. You think they might be persuaded to change their minds, or that we have to live with them so we might as well be nice, or maybe that we should be better than them.
First, “Nobody was ever reasoned out of a conclusion which he did not reach by reason in the first place.” I’m more and more convinced that some people get religious stuff into their heads and then suffer the equivalent of brain damage. The questioning, reasoning parts of their brains, if they ever had them, shrink and wither until they just don’t WORK anymore. You might as well talk to a dog about purple, for all the success you’ll have in getting them to think about what you’re saying. It’s independent thought vs. allegiance to authority – you can have one or the other, but not both at the same time. And the deeper and more fervently you get into religion, which is allegiance to authority on steroids, the more you MUST give up the ability to think on your own about the subject at hand. Faith can’t survive skepticism, so skepticism is murdered by faith.
After years of responding to authority, their so-called Word of God, godders no longer have the capacity for independent thought.
I’ve thought at times that what they do in arguments – making stuff up on the spot, for instance, but also redefining words and making insulting generalizations about other people – doesn’t really constitute lying, or even antisocial behavior. Because – like a cat murdering a baby rabbit over a long period of time – they lack the capacity to understand what they’re doing.
For a cat to demonstrate compassion to the baby rabbit, it would have to be able to imagine not-Cat, other-than-Cat, and they’re just not wired up for that. Their brains have room for Cat, and nothing extra beyond it. For them, within the necessary confines of their own cattish heads, killing something is a deep personal pleasure.
Likewise, with all-too-many Christians, including Mikey “I Know a Secret” McJesus here, to appreciate that language doesn’t necessarily mean what they say it means, to be able to tell the difference between a true statement and a false one, to understand that there are people who have good reasons for not agreeing with them, they have to be able to understand not-Christian, or other-than-Christian. But the very process of becoming that sort of Christian demands they cast all other possibilities out of their heads. There’s nothing left that can question, or doubt, or second-guess.
BUT THEY DON'T KNOW IT.
I’m convinced there’s a real neurological basis for the trait: I used to play handball. I built up eye-hand coordination so good it was scary. And then I quit playing. Sometime later I tossed up a peanut, intending to catch it in my mouth, something I’d done a thousand times in my handball days, and I missed. Surprised the hell out of me because I had no idea I'd lost it.
The circuits built up in my brain, those big healthy neurons that gave me that superb coordination, had gradually shrunk back to “normal.” And I simply no longer had the ability they’d given me to catch peanuts in my mouth.
Religious thinking exercises certain parts of the brain, certain collections of neurons, and ignores or allows to atrophy certain other collections of neurons. Reason and open-mindedness are among those parts of the brain which are allowed to atrophy. Think about it: The people who are MOST religious are the ones who are LEAST able to appreciate countervailing arguments, or to understand that others might be right and themselves wrong.
Lying isn’t really lying, to some people, because to tell a lie you have to understand that there’s someone else – some OTHER – to transgress against. If you can’t detect the feelings of that other, you can’t see anything wrong with making up stories about how they eat Christian babies, or are shiftless, lazy welfare queens, or want to steal all the jobs from hardworking Americans. These are not lies, they’re just ... explanatory stories. And they’re not insulting, because there’s nobody there to be insulted. It’s OKAY.
This guy is one of those people. Not just a believer, but a SALESMAN. Come here to play out some sort of personal myth – “My War With the Unbelievers!” maybe, or “I Sally Forth to Win Souls for Jesus, and Thus Become Righteous!” Or maybe even “I’m Better and Smarter Than Anybody, So I Automatically Always Win Arguments, Even If Others Are Too Stupid to See It.”
Enough of the rant. The point is: I’m convinced it’s no use arguing with this guy. Most of us are used to talking to people of reason, however small or large an amount of it they have, and that’s not the situation here. He’s not going to get it. Not because he doesn’t want to, but because he can’t. And he has no more respect for you or your arguments than a cat could have for a mouse.
Master Class
All I have to say Hank is that this piece of writing is a Master Class in how to deal with, um, salesmen.
It is a thing of beauty, and it should be shared with the world.
Kudos, my friend. Kudos.
Geeze, you guys.
You're a little hard on the Beav, er, Micheal today. Ya never know: he may have a hat with a stone and gold plates in it and then what would you say?
Yeah, me too. Never any proof cuz that's part of the rules.
Heh! What Jesus didn't know
was that the man who owned and tended the tree had just the day before picked all the figs from the tree and taken them into town. There, he distributed them among the widows and urchins who are always hungry.
Epic omniscient Fail.
On the same subject...
Have a look at this!
http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/Lessons-from-scripture.html
Twisted.
Like the tree under discussion, this "logic" has grown more twisted with subsequent layers of interpretation through the centuries. Not only does it demonstrate the problems that Rick mentions, but this passage:
is used to support the so-called "prosperity gospel" and such nonsense as "The Secret".
(I'm off in the urban jungle of the NE currently, visiting friends. So not much time online - I can't even remember my login info! Pathetic. But here's a shout out to y'all - Jim D.)
Ah yes
Jesus lost me when he killed the 2,000 swine for no reason.
That and when his "father" sent 2 she-bears out of the wilderness to kill children for teasing an old man about being bald.
People 2,000 years ago did the best they could to survive a very tough life, but they had no methodology for understanding the world they lived in. It wasn't their fault, there was no way to investigate claims or any basis for objectivity. To think that the stories they wrote down in their "holy" books are "timeless" or that they are a basis for modern morality is simply wrong.
Back to my drawing board... literally.
Hey!
See my comments here http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/2170 regarding Jesus and the pigs.
sorry
I missed that. But besides the pig herder... I just like pigs. And he's a lousy pig "herder too. Do you have any idea what that hillside looked like after 2,000 pigs had been rooting around in it? That story is awful on so many levels.
Missed those
In the ten (or so) years I went to church I'd never come across those two fig tree kills. I suppose it's not a likely candidate for the subject of a Sunday sermon.