Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Rapture
I have been following a breaking story on PZ Myers blog about the coming Christian rapture. I know everyone is already tense about the 2012 end of the world scenario (yeah right!), but the news is that the end is going to happen on September 21, 2009.........October 21, 2009.........on or before December 14, 2009...
Wait, I think they have the date right this time; now it will happen on December 21, 2009. So unwrap and return all of those Christmas presents you bought or give them away early, because we aren't going to see Christmas this year. Actually, considering the track record of the fella (gal?) running this website predicting the rapture, I wouldn't. Though I will be happy to take any early Christmas gifts if you want! Any guesses on what the next date will be?
D
Wait, I think they have the date right this time; now it will happen on December 21, 2009. So unwrap and return all of those Christmas presents you bought or give them away early, because we aren't going to see Christmas this year. Actually, considering the track record of the fella (gal?) running this website predicting the rapture, I wouldn't. Though I will be happy to take any early Christmas gifts if you want! Any guesses on what the next date will be?
D
Jesus, Interrupted Part Two
I wanted to expand a little bit on the "Jesus, Interrupted" post. I really felt like I left the reader (you) hanging a bit. I didn't come full circle as it were. I really wanted to finish the post with, what I consider, a very important point that Dr. Ehrman puts forth.
As I recall I left off with the point that you have to read each gospel writer for themselves. You can't read John for Luke or Mark for Matthew. To do so is to miss the theological point that the writer was trying to convey (e.g. In John's gospel Jesus' divinity is of extreme importance compared to Mark, for instance). From here, while it is implied, when you mash gospels together you end up making your own gospel (e.g. the nativity story or the crucifixion). Therefore, in making your own gospel you inadvertently (or, for some, on purpose) change what was described by the author.
It is true that there are many discrepancies and errors in the Bible; this is to be expected, since it was written by many different authors; with different theological views; over large expanses of time. Because there are errors, does this mean that we can say anything about the existence of god? Absolutely not. The big idea to grasp here is that the Bible is a very human book. So this leaves us with a question: Have those who believe that the Bible is inerrant misplaced their faith? In other words, do people have faith in the Bible or god?
As I recall I left off with the point that you have to read each gospel writer for themselves. You can't read John for Luke or Mark for Matthew. To do so is to miss the theological point that the writer was trying to convey (e.g. In John's gospel Jesus' divinity is of extreme importance compared to Mark, for instance). From here, while it is implied, when you mash gospels together you end up making your own gospel (e.g. the nativity story or the crucifixion). Therefore, in making your own gospel you inadvertently (or, for some, on purpose) change what was described by the author.
It is true that there are many discrepancies and errors in the Bible; this is to be expected, since it was written by many different authors; with different theological views; over large expanses of time. Because there are errors, does this mean that we can say anything about the existence of god? Absolutely not. The big idea to grasp here is that the Bible is a very human book. So this leaves us with a question: Have those who believe that the Bible is inerrant misplaced their faith? In other words, do people have faith in the Bible or god?
A New Skeptic
Sorry I haven't been on the interwebs lately. Mrs. Skeptic Dave and I have just added a new skeptic baby to the family. I present to you skeptic Gabriel (Gabe).
To my beautiful children Jocelyn and Gabriel (above):
"May your generation see wonders undreamt."
Love,
Daddy
P.S. The above quote is by Carl Sagan. It was taken from his book Pale Blue Dot.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Jesus, Interrupted
Currently I am reading a book by Dr. Bart Ehrman New Testament Scholar and Professor at the University of North Carolina titled “Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing The Hidden Contradictions in the Bible and Why We Don’t Know About Them.”
So far it is a fascinating account of discrepancies in the Bible. Most of the inconsistencies are minor and not really noteworthy. However there are several inconstancies that are seemingly, if not completely, irreconcilable. These include the stories of Jesus’ birth, miracles, life, death, trial, and resurrection. And all of these discrepancies are learned by all who attend seminary; this is common knowledge to all pastors, priests, reverends, clergy, and so on. The question is why don’t pastors pass on this historical/critical information onto their parishioners? Are they afraid that such information will lead to the faithful losing their faith? I don’t know, but if that is the case I think that pastors are underestimating the faith of their congregations. While there are many discrepancies, Dr. Ehrman maintains, even though he is a self-professed agnostic, that one can know about such contradictions and still maintain faith in god. However one cannot believe that the Bible is inerrant, it’s not.
Often I have wondered, as have many others, why I haven’t caught many of these very obvious contradictions. Dr. Ehrman has an answer to this, vertical reading. Most people read anthologies from the top of the page to the bottom and from the first chapter to the last. So when you read the crucifixion story of Jesus in Matthew you don’t realize the differences in the story by the time you get to read it John. You end up naturally weaving the stories together; you fill in the blanks. The solution to this is what Dr. Ehrman calls horizontal reading. So instead of reading through Matthew then Mark and so on; read the resurrection story in Matthew then read the account in John keeping track of the details of both. Basically you want to read the accounts side-by-side. It is when you read horizontally that you notice the inconsistencies in the different gospel accounts.
Since it is Christmas time I thought I would talk a bit about the nativity and what the Bible says about it, or rather what Dr. Ehrman says about it. We all know the story of Jesus‘ birth and according to Dr. Ehrman we get our account of the birth of Christ from two gospels: Matthew and Luke, and these two accounts are irreconcilable; at the very least difficult to reconcile. Dr. Ehrman explains below:
“The differences between the accounts are quite striking. Virtually everything said in Matthew is missing from Luke, and all the stories of Luke are missing from Matthew. Matthew mentions dreams that came to Joseph that are absent in Luke; Luke mentions angelic visitations to Elizabeth and Mary that are absent in Matthew. Matthew has the wise men, the slaughter of the children by Herod, the flight to Egypt, the Holy Family bypassing Judea to return to Nazareth, all missing from Luke. Luke has the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Caesar, the trip to Bethlehem, the manger and the inn, the shepherds, the circumcision, the presentation in the Temple, and the return home immediately afterward, all of them missing from Matthew.” (Jesus Interrupted pg. 33)
Do these contradictions mean that the event didn’t happen? No, not necessarily. It just means, at the very least, that someone was wrong in their account of the event. I think what is important here, as does Dr. Ehrman, is that when one reads the Bible that one should read each gospel for itself. In other words, read John for John; not Luke for John. Each author had a particular theological theme that they were trying to convey. If you read Matthew to fill in or understand Mark then you are missing the point of Matthew. This idea of reading a single gospel for itself is something that Dr. Ehrman discusses in more detail in his book, and something that I hope to expand on here at a later date.
So far it is a fascinating account of discrepancies in the Bible. Most of the inconsistencies are minor and not really noteworthy. However there are several inconstancies that are seemingly, if not completely, irreconcilable. These include the stories of Jesus’ birth, miracles, life, death, trial, and resurrection. And all of these discrepancies are learned by all who attend seminary; this is common knowledge to all pastors, priests, reverends, clergy, and so on. The question is why don’t pastors pass on this historical/critical information onto their parishioners? Are they afraid that such information will lead to the faithful losing their faith? I don’t know, but if that is the case I think that pastors are underestimating the faith of their congregations. While there are many discrepancies, Dr. Ehrman maintains, even though he is a self-professed agnostic, that one can know about such contradictions and still maintain faith in god. However one cannot believe that the Bible is inerrant, it’s not. Often I have wondered, as have many others, why I haven’t caught many of these very obvious contradictions. Dr. Ehrman has an answer to this, vertical reading. Most people read anthologies from the top of the page to the bottom and from the first chapter to the last. So when you read the crucifixion story of Jesus in Matthew you don’t realize the differences in the story by the time you get to read it John. You end up naturally weaving the stories together; you fill in the blanks. The solution to this is what Dr. Ehrman calls horizontal reading. So instead of reading through Matthew then Mark and so on; read the resurrection story in Matthew then read the account in John keeping track of the details of both. Basically you want to read the accounts side-by-side. It is when you read horizontally that you notice the inconsistencies in the different gospel accounts.
Since it is Christmas time I thought I would talk a bit about the nativity and what the Bible says about it, or rather what Dr. Ehrman says about it. We all know the story of Jesus‘ birth and according to Dr. Ehrman we get our account of the birth of Christ from two gospels: Matthew and Luke, and these two accounts are irreconcilable; at the very least difficult to reconcile. Dr. Ehrman explains below:
“The differences between the accounts are quite striking. Virtually everything said in Matthew is missing from Luke, and all the stories of Luke are missing from Matthew. Matthew mentions dreams that came to Joseph that are absent in Luke; Luke mentions angelic visitations to Elizabeth and Mary that are absent in Matthew. Matthew has the wise men, the slaughter of the children by Herod, the flight to Egypt, the Holy Family bypassing Judea to return to Nazareth, all missing from Luke. Luke has the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Caesar, the trip to Bethlehem, the manger and the inn, the shepherds, the circumcision, the presentation in the Temple, and the return home immediately afterward, all of them missing from Matthew.” (Jesus Interrupted pg. 33)
Do these contradictions mean that the event didn’t happen? No, not necessarily. It just means, at the very least, that someone was wrong in their account of the event. I think what is important here, as does Dr. Ehrman, is that when one reads the Bible that one should read each gospel for itself. In other words, read John for John; not Luke for John. Each author had a particular theological theme that they were trying to convey. If you read Matthew to fill in or understand Mark then you are missing the point of Matthew. This idea of reading a single gospel for itself is something that Dr. Ehrman discusses in more detail in his book, and something that I hope to expand on here at a later date.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Collision
I would really like to see this.
D
"Collision: Hitchens vs. Wilson" - EXCLUSIVE 13 minute preview from LEVEL4 on Vimeo.
D
"Collision: Hitchens vs. Wilson" - EXCLUSIVE 13 minute preview from LEVEL4 on Vimeo.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
A Little Humor
After the Rick Warren post I thought it might be appropriate to have a laugh. I present to you Dara O'Briain. Enjoy!
D
D
Rick Warren, will you find your way?
I just learned of this story as I was watching the Rachel Maddow show. Apparently, the Uganda wants to pass a law which will put homosexuals to death and those who know of homosexuals in the country in prison for three years. So what is the connection to famous television pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren?
"Now Warren's on the defensive again, this time for his affiliation with Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor who has endorsed proposed legislation in Uganda that makes certain homosexual acts punishable by life in prison or even, in some cases, death. Ssempa has made appearances at Saddleback and has been embraced warmly by Warren and his wife, Kay."
To Warren's credit, he has supposedly distanced himself from Mr. Ssempa this past October. This would generally be considered a good thing, next you would expect Pastor Warren to condemn such legislation. That has not happened.
"The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations."
AND
"On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides."
Wait, what? As a pastor in America you feel that it isn't your calling to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations? Even when a government, in this case the Ugandan government, wants to imprison or put people to death for being or knowing a homosexual? So what would have Pastor Rick done during the holocaust? What are pastor Rick's views of Iran murdering homosexuals or non-believers? Rick Warren's refusal (at this point at least) to condemn such inhumanity and brutality says something not only about his personal character but also his theological views.
D
All quotes were taken from the original story on the Newsweek website found below:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)