I know this is old news but the way it is being reported uncritically baffles me.
So god allowed the church building to burn so she could save a few bibles. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think there is something really unstable about such a mind and those who praise her, but that’s just me.
The author of this post in making a case for Jesus H Christ tells us there were five hundred witnesses to the resurrection, and some of them famous. I for my case, would want to know the name of one eye witness among the five hundred.
He also says there were witnesses to the resurrection. Now, all my reading of the bible tell me all the people who went to the tomb found an empty tomb and Mary Magdalene did not observe the resurrection event.
He also claims as support for the resurrection story, that several names are given. How this builds the case for the resurrection when we don’t have independent accounts of these various witnesses I don’t see.
I am not a lawyer, but I think the claim that
The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ would stand up in a court of law.
Is untrue. There are few Bible stories, if any, that would stand in a court of law. Unless of course, that court was one that ruled based on miracles.
Happy Sunday everyone.
Here Nan has an excellent post that there is nothing yours truly can add to. But borrowing from her line of thought, how do the people who take the bible as god inspired deal with the injustice in it?
Take for example Isaac’s blessing to Jacob. He says
May peoples serve you and nations bow to you be your brothers’ superior, and may your mother’s sons bow to you may those who curse you be cursed and those who bless you be blessed.
And shortly afterwards, from want of extra blessings to pass around, he tells Esau
Here, away from the fat of the earth will be your home, and from the dew of the skies from above and you will live by your sword. And you will serve your brother and it will be that when you get dominion you’ll break his yoke from your neck.
Some people argue that this was the way the authors of the bible explained conflict between nations or beginning of strife that still plague the world.
To imagine that these fellows were living at a time when YHWH would drop by for visits and they did not seek his advice! Shortly we have Esau planning on dispatching his brother to the netherworld following a botched blessing ceremony. Maybe this is why lawyers insist on everyone being present during the reading of wills and final testaments.
He was right who said a god who drowned his children cannot teach me how to raise mine.
Is making a case for there being a single author of a story spanning genesis all the way to the David’s court history. It does make for interesting reading. I have not finished it yet and I think it will take some time since I may need to look up some verses in my bible as I read along.
In a different story, is it possible the whole town of Sodom and Gomorrah had wind of the visitors who had sought lodging from Lot and all boys and men wanted a piece of the action? Were they all sexually starved? Who did the poster back then? Or the whole town was on telegram and someone sent nudes?
And still on this Sodom business; is it possible that in a town of several hundred, every damn person was involved in debauchery? Is it not more convincing that this is taking liberties with fact?
The authors of the Uncensored Bible write and I quote
Many people try to follow the Bible’s teachings so they can have a happy home. But the truth is, there aren’t many happy homes depicted in the bible. The real inheritors of the bible example are families who have experienced divorce, deception, adultery, and incest or have a murderer or rapist in the family. The good book is simply loaded with bad kin. And it’s a virtual handbook for how not to raise children.
It must have been Bertrand Russell who said a god who drowned his children cannot tell him how to raise his. I think he was right.
I would go beyond this question and say that even Adam and Eve shouldn’t have been punished for their small transgression.
The chapter of genesis that talks about the fall of man says thus
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?
The good book says this of the tree
For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
from where I am justified in concluding that A&E were dumb as a dodo. They did not know shit. In fact, I would go as far as argue that the serpent knew more shit than the two combined which brings us to some very interesting questions
- why was the serpent created sly? did she just become sly?
- is knowledge bad? or was it just particular knowledge the gods were not interested in men having?
But back to the question, how are we, who if the story were story, several generations removed from Adam, who were not in the garden where, if god was present, his presence and goodness and whatever else one feels in the presence of a god could be felt, there was enough room and time for the serpent to be crafty, it is akin to asking a Nigerian who has is so far removed from the state to obey its directives.
This brings us to a final question, when the author of genesis writes that god saw that whatever she had created was good, what does this mean?