Your favourite Bible absurdity

Completely out of my field, but the 11 April 2003 issue of the journal Science has an article on Shoshenq's leavings at Tel Rehov, with bunches of 14C dates around 920 BC. The authors say their findings argue strongly for the historicity of Solomon. Email me if you can't find a copy and want to read it.[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-18-2003]

I will post this for sagg because the chances are he/she will be lurking.Firstly, I never directed a single ‘insult’ directly at you. I simply stated my belief that anyone who believes in God is a nut, and that anyone who takes the biblical ‘fall of man’ myth, lives in cloud cuckoo land. You took this personally. I never attached it to you. The first post wasn’t even addressed to you! Why is no other Christian at the site spitting out their dummy and going in a huff. If you do not want to debate with me just say so, there are many more here who you could debate with. Everything I have said is rational, belief in God as portrayed in the Bible is irrational, I suggest that you read some of writings from the various schools of bible criticism that were given freedom to express themselves after the Enlightenment.I would read Reimarus, Colenso, and Strauss, if I were you and get a bit of background knowledge of Bible criticism.You are the one going on about how each one of us is entitled to our beliefs and that they are all equally valid, yet my belief that someone who believes in God has had a cerebral bypass and that anyone who swallows the Christian salvic myth lives in cloud cuckoo land is offensive to you. It may be offensive but I am entitled to believe it according to your own statement.If you think I am not allowed to believe something because it is offensive to Christians then ask yourself how offensive Christianity and Bible inerrancy is to other people. The Bible asks us to believe all sorts of impossibilities and it is nothing less than an insult to our intelligence to take these things literally.How can anyone belief that the world was flooded 4400 yeas ago without a single shred of proof, and the concept itself is so ludicrous, when we look at it objectively, that to ask us to accept the Flood myth as a real event is to assume that we are of very low intelligence, and that is insulting. No, this is rational and based on years of study and observation. I would say that to be arrogant and to make harsh judements means that they are not Christians. So you are not a Christian then, to have these doubts means that you have not accepted Jesus in your heart and that you haven’t been ‘born again’. There is still time to save you You assume that you are the first person that has come here with these wild claims. I have arrived at my conclusions through having an open mind and through years of study. My belief that theists and Bible inerrantists have some serious psychological problems is not the product of a closed mind. It may appear closed to you because I cannot be bothered going over the same tired old chestnuts everytime a new poster arrives here. If any credible evidence is ever presented then maybe I would admit that I could be wrong, but as the debate stands, there is nothing credible to consider.I think that the reason you are going isn’t because of my ‘insults’ it is because you know that you are unable to defend your fantasy through rational debate.

Hi Could you quickly summarise why they believe the historisity of solomon is supported?Many ThanksBrian

I'll let the authors do that; a news article in the same issue led me to believe that they are not "low chronology" fans - that term is apparently Finkelstein's.
The cite is H.J.Bruins et al, Science, vol 300, pp 315-318, (2003)
Abstract: and an excerpt: The ruin at Tel Rehov is of a fairly impressive city, 10 ha in area. But like I said, this is way outside my areas of expertise.....

Many thanks.

quote:

---

If you think I am not allowed to believe something because it is offensive to Christians then ask yourself how offensive Christianity and Bible inerrancy is to other people. The Bible asks us to believe all sorts of impossibilities and it is nothing less than an insult to our intelligence to take these things literally.

---

Your choice of examples was very interesting to me. I have trouble seeing how it is "offensive" to have someone ask you to believe something that is absurd. I think most people, trying to make your point, would have used the fact that literalists believe you deserve to bake in endless torment in a lake of fire as punishment for the heinous crime of not seeing any evidence for their beliefs. Being told that you are so evil that you deserve eternal torture seems a lot more offensive than being nagged about believing something you see as absurd.I'm not trying to make a point or correct you. Your choice of how Christians are offensive just seemed pretty unusual, and I couldn't resist commenting.

Hi, thank you for your reply. I think that telling people that they must take the Bible literally is an insult to their intelligence and I find that offensive. For example, I have pointed out to many Christians that the 70 people that went into Egypt could not possibly multiply into 2.5 million people in 430 years, you would not believe the contortions they perform to explain that one. So in order to take these verses literally I have to ignore every shred of evidence to the contrary, why should I do this? I find it offensive that I am, in a way, being bullied into ignoring common sense.This does lead to your point about Hell, because invariably when I point out these absurdities the Christian reminds me of the day of judgement. So not only do I have to swallow all sorts of fairytales, I have to answer to Jesus for my stance before he lobs me into the pit.I also think that literalists, or at least the ones I have been involved with, really need to take some courses in biblical studies. They will find that many of the narratives in the Bible need to be interpreted and cannot be taken at face value. A literal reading of the Bible doesn’t necessarily say that the universe is 6000 years old, or that the entire Earth was flooded, or that Adam literally lived to be 930 years old. But these people seem to either be too lazy or too dense to be bothered studying their scriptures in detail. Yes of course this is offensive too, but it is the reasons why I am going to Hell that I find offensive, not just the end product. I believe that anyone who says this has to justify their conclusions and they have to explain each individual reason for damnation. Now (in simple terms) these people are telling me that I have to believe that the first woman ate a fruit and God totally overreacted and kicked her and her partner out of Eden. He then decides that the whole of mankind will pay for her mistake but in a moment of regret he decides that mankind can do something to make everything all right again. What is the deal then, say sorry and promise not to do it again, get grounded for a week? No, we have to torture and crucify his son! Now to ask me to take this literally is insulting, it demands that I ignore my common sense and ignore everything I have learned as a person. So, in a way I agree with you to some extent, but I also find the reasons why I am going to Hell offensive to my intelligence.I honestly believe that people who force a literal reading of the Bible onto others are not Christians. They seem to forget that telling people that they are going to hell is not their job. Sure they can spread the Gospel, and the consequences of ignoring it, but I don't remember the good news saying that they have to rant and rave and condemn people who question the validity of the Gospel.These people may be surprised to know that their approach only puts more distance between the unbeliever and Christ. Do I really want to convert to Christianity if the end product means that I am going to be one of these raving lunatics?What are these people going to say to Jesus at Judgement Day when He asks them why they drove so many people furthee away from his flock?Anyway, thanks for the reply, I reckon that people just find different things offensive, maybe I am a little bit more sensitive than the average person.Best WishesBrian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Howdy,I read Brian's reply, and essentially, I agree. The way that Christians present Christianity, and the way they present themselves for that matter, is offensive to me as well. I won't apply this to all Christians, of course. I absolutely marvel at your lucidity, for example, but you are rare. I just wanted to let you know that Brian's point of view on this is shared by someone else.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I won't apply this to all Christians, of course. I absolutely marvel at your lucidity, for example, but you are rare.

---

Well, that's nice to hear, particularly from you. I'm still stinging a bit about combining posts from you and Brian in a previous thread and being rude for no good reason. Sounds like you let go of it easier than me.

Certainly the notion of mustard seed growing into a great tree is my favourite absurdity. At least it became so when a Christian asked me what a mustard tree looks like. I thought what??? You read what where? Oh, well I think Jesus was prone to a little exaggeration for reasons of theatre. A humorous chap no doubt.

Also, the following on thhe Tel Rehov Site is interesting. Certainly anything associated with Mazar carries a fair degree of credibility.

I personally find the entire Bible pretty absurd - I couldn't possibly find just one thing above all else Then again I'm not Christian, so my opinion here doesn't really mean much.The Rock Hound

quote:

---

I'm not Christian, so my opinion here doesn't really mean much.

---

If a book which you find absurd is actively affecting your country's laws and society, then your opinion does matter.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

Good point... I suppose what I really meant was that I'm more or less prejudiced against it, so my opinion shouldn't count as much as some one who's being objective. I certainly can't quote from it to back up my opinion, like other people have been doing.As for it affecting the laws and society of my country, well... this is Ireland. It's not like I'm not used to it at this stage. The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

Certainly the notion of mustard seed growing into a great tree is my favourite absurdity. At least it became so when a Christian asked me what a mustard tree looks like. I thought what??? You read what where? Oh, well I think Jesus was prone to a little exaggeration for reasons of theatre. A humorous chap no doubt.Hey, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. An all-powerful being can create a great tree from a mustard seed because it's all-powerful. Just thought I'd let you in on that little secret..