Exams ended and a comment on Ham…

And so exams ended yesterday and there was much feasting and rejoicing. Last exam, geography was far easier than I expected. Overall I think all my exams went quite well and I am quite happy. Now it’s time for me to just practice drumming, write and play on the computer excessively.

Just before I start doing that though, I’ll dedicate this post to a comment made recently on my previous post by QMP. (I’ll be adding in the relevant section of text from my previous post for the reader’s benefit). Here is the comment as a whole:

“If the Bible did do one thing it was start the Dark Ages.”
–> In my opinion the aforementioned authors Ham etc. all were referring to the translated ‘Protestant’ Bibles following the so-called ‘Reformation Movement’ in 1618, if I’m not mistaken.
–> The Dark Ages began after the removal of order (i.e. the Roman Empire), which was surprisingly ‘Christian’-ised order if that makes sense.
–> Although I am skeptical, you cannot simply discount the claim that ‘The Bible changes lives’. Personal experience (if I may cite yours) is the most powerful/convincing ‘argument’ there is.

“If you are a drunk and have no money and when you receive the gospel and ‘miraculously’ have your life transformed, tell me, are you truly better off than the man who thinks realistically?”
–> Perhaps it is prudent to consider the mentality of the person. considering he has been ‘truly saved’ so to speak, his mentality has changed; perhaps the authors mean to say he has transformed to stop drinking. “Thinking realistically” is all well and good, but when one’s inner mentality and mindset is compromised, “realistic thinking” is out of the question.

Just some things I thought you might want to know; otherwise, you propose an interesting case for agnosticism. However, your innate bias against Christianity puzzles me: why so hostile? And in addition, science was originally conceived to understand the physical world and its supposed supernatural origin so what Ham etc. all say does seem to have a case: the predominant attitude of ’science is anti-god’ nowadays is rather presumptuous, since all it does is examine the physical and observed natural world. Because I’m sure we both agree that any scientist who studies the supernatural is either a fool or insane.

Alright I’ll address each point in order. QMP makes several good points although I must disagree with most of them.

Finally to end I’ll mention a book I saw, ‘The Answer’s Book’. Edited by Don Batten, Ph.D, by Ken Ham, Jonothan Sarfati and Carl Wieland. A most offensive part I came across was “The Bible’s civilizing influence. The Bible’s message elevated the blood-drinking barbarians of the British Isles to decency”

I, despite not being in any way related someone English or having a Celtic or Anglo background think that is extremely bigoted. If the Bible did do one thing it was start the Dark Ages.

–> In my opinion the aforementioned authors Ham etc. all were referring to the translated ‘protestant’ bibles following the so-called ‘reformation movement’ in 1618, if I’m not mistaken.
–> The Dark Ages began after the removal of order (i.e. the Roman Empire), which was surprisingly ‘Christian’-ised order if that makes sense.

Okay, the Dark Ages, were they started by the Bible? I say not exactly the Bible, but the Dark Ages were more or less a time of superstition and I should rephrase in previous post that ‘The Bible, or religious and superstitious beliefs were one of the primary causes of the loss of knowledge and the bringing about of the Dark Ages’. Although you state it was the removal of order (The Roman Empire) which caused the Dark Ages, the Roman Empire and it’s Emperor’s had more or less ‘Christianized’ their kingdom for political reasons. During the Dark Ages itself, Christianity was still quite prevailant, which goes to show Christianity doesn’t necessarily equal order one hundred percent of the time. I would say that the collapse into superstition was fueled partly by the spread of the Bible and Christianity.

Concerning the Bible and it converting “The blood-drinking barbarians of the British Isles to decency” as cited in the book ‘The Answer’s Book’. Edited by Don Batten, Ph.D, by Ken Ham, Jonothan Sarfati and Carl Wieland, I as mentioned before think that that is an extremely offensive and arrogant statement and you can’t say that the early English were blood drinkers or savages. They had established society and order. Besides most of what Christianity did was cause more superstition.

Also in alot of cases where Christianity ‘converted’ natives from their savage states, it was forced upon them unfairly. In other words how would you like it if I came up to you and forcefully made you accept my Atheistic beliefs? Afterwards you may go, ‘Oh yes life is all better now I am an atheist’ but do you think that me forcing such philosophies upon you is a justified representation of Atheism? Did Jesus ever say ‘Thou shalt teach thine neighbor and his children of the ways of God and if they refuse thine blessings, thou shalt beat them until they plead for thine mercies’ ?

Also in this book of total ass holity (I know not a real word, but the book’s authors would have probably done the same knowing their intellect) is talk of how the Bible mends lives, in particular one ‘Dr. Ironside’ who was challenged by an agnostic to a debate. Ironside challenged the agnostic to bring forth any criminal or drunkard who has been living a degraded life and show that the philosophy of agnosticism has ‘improved’ or brought them out of their situation. In return Ironside said he would bring forward a hundred men and woman who have had their lives and wellbeing changed through the Gospel. The agnostic withdrew his challenge.

Several problems there Mr. Ham and fellow authors, first of all the book never actually said anything about any hundred people materializing. The very promise of such a deed seemed to have made the agnostic shy away. I could quite easily say that sure the Bible may mend lives, how it does I have no idea, money raining from the sky? People suddenly claiming their situations are all fine because they know they are saved? Look the problem is I went through the same thing, I thought I was saved at one point, all the worries of the world went away for quite awhile. Then it all came back to me, the reality of it all.

If you want to go about thinking everything is just fine and such then go right ahead. If you are a drunk and have no money and when you receive the gospel and ‘miraculously’ have your life transformed, tell me, are you truly better off than the man who thinks realistically?

–> Although I am skeptical, you cannot simply discount the claim that ‘The Bible changes lives’. Personal experience (if I may cite yours) is the most powerful/convincing ‘argument’ there is.

My personal experience, like I already mentioned lead me to realise that my belief was futile. I was probably not meant to be a Christian and that it was just a belief that couldn’t suit me, after abit more of an in-depth look I found that there were things wrong with Christianity and religion itself. The onset of accepting Christ for the first time and becoming a believer is an almost overwhelmingly beautiful feeling, but I find that tearful testimonies just don’t cut it. Saying ‘I feel God in my heart’ doesn’t do much to convince me you actually do. Relying on pure emotion doesn’t cut it either. Look seriously, you can’t just rely on someone else’s or your own big tearful emotional testimony, that is a thing which is of purely human consequence and does very little to tell me of why God is real and why Jesus is real. I could have the exact same feeling if I became a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Bhuddist. Yet the thing is, I don’t need such a special ‘Feeling’. It is meaningless to me, it tells me nothing.

–> Perhaps it is prudent to consider the mentality of the person. considering he has been ‘truly saved’ so to speak, his mentality has changed; perhaps the authors mean to say he has transformed to stop drinking. “Thinking realistically” is all well and good, but when one’s inner mentality and mindset is compromised, “realistic thinking” is out of the question.

So just believing, even in something which is false is a good enough excuse to justify that the Bible should be used to change lives? Also by saying:

“Thinking realistically” is all well and good, but when one’s inner mentality and mindset is compromised, “realistic thinking” is out of the question.

You are suggesting that the Bible is not for those who think realistically. I am guessing though that what you mean is that the drunk man already cannot think realistically and that it is pointless even if he does because he is so very compromised by his habit?

I say that if faith can do such a thing, which clearly it does as I have seen and heard, such as changing the drunk man and breaking a gambler’s habit, then perhaps it may be such that such beliefs may be good. But even if their intentions are good, are they true? And what about other religions? They change lives to and they all claim to be true. Doesn’t that mean the formerly drunk man is living in a lie? You can’t say that exclusively it is Christianity which changes everyone. We live in the West, it is drenched in Christianity. That’s why we mainly here about ‘Christian deeds’. Besides Christianity over the course of history has been far from kind. I can cite dozens of examples. Crusades, Northen Ireland, Inquisition, exiling of Jews not to mention the atrocities in the Bible itself.

You propose an interesting case for agnosticism.

Yes my case as I will quote from my last post was:

The agnostic philosophy is not some rigid set of rules as the Bible is. It doesn’t demand anything except the belief that we cannot know God, let alone if there is a God. It doesn’t demand you to love Jesus, it doesn’t demand you blindly believe or put your faith in something. Does it promote morality? No, it is unrelated to morality, it merely says that God’s existence cannot be known and that the individual’s actions are up to them.

Which is pretty much saying that Agnostics are by no means immoral. Agnostics I have met seem to have just about the same social values as you and me and are by no means drunks, drug addicts or murderers and to classify the philosophy of agnosticism as immoral would be extremely unfair, which I am glad to see QMP seems to understand.

However, your innate bias against Christianity puzzles me: why so hostile?

My hostility to Christianity mainly revolves around fundamentalism. If the Bible changes lives, and I accept it does, I do not mind if people wish to believe in it. I regard it as a lie, but others may not, which I think is fair enough. Although I feel that I should at least point out that there are some problems with the Bible. Believe in it if you will, just don’t go about telling me that atheists are criminals or drunks or go around acting arrogant and bigoted. Although I feel that I should at least point out that there are some problems with the Bible.

And in the case you decide to do so, I’ll do just have to go about telling people that you are wrong and that you should shut up. Keeps everything in balance. Although I’ll only really pick on pricks like Ham and others fundamentalists. Liberals and such are fine to me.

Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.

Robert Ingersoll

Many today think science is anti-god. Atheists encourage this view by claiming that their way of thinking is ’scientific’.

The Answers Book

And in addition, science was originally conceived to understand the physical world and it’s supposed supernatural origin so what Ham etc. all say does seem to have a case: the predominant attitude of ’science is anti-god’ nowadays is rather presumptuous, since all it does is examine the physical and observed natural world. Because I’m sure we both agree that any scientist who studies the supernatural is either a fool or insane.

Yes I agree that science is here to explore and bring understanding of the natural and physical world around us. But I don’t see how it is anti-god. It is the truth and nothing more. Science can be proven and examined. Supernatural occurrences are usually hoaxes or superstition. I don’t exactly understand the point you are making here because science is not anti-god although it may disprove him.

Anyway thanks QMP for your comment and sorry if you feel that any of this is offensive. Now I’m off for a good long couple of hours of drumming, see you later folks!

~ by Charybdia on November 3, 2007.