This is why Christianity is made fun of

Speak your mind, or lack thereof. There may occasionally be on-topic discussions.
User avatar
Esrever
Drano Master
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:26 am
Contact:

Post by Esrever »

You mean, maybe God didn't consider the back two to be legs, right? Because those are His words, not the words of regular human beings who wouldn't have had a sufficient knowledge of insect biology to know that they were legs.

Right?

User avatar
chriscaffee
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:43 am

Post by chriscaffee »

Hate to be technical but based on that picture it does look like they "walk on four legs." The Bible, supposedly, was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they were still people. But most importantly it was written for people. If people at that time only recognized those particular insects as having four legs, then remarking about six-legged insects would not result in effective communication.

User avatar
Light Speed
Sexified
Posts: 2529
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Park City, Utah
Contact:

Post by Light Speed »

Yeah, but I think Esrevers point is that nowadays everyone regards the Bible is some sort of infallible truth written by God.

User avatar
Esrever
Drano Master
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:26 am
Contact:

Post by Esrever »

But Chris is right. The bible was written for people. And just think of the world of possibilities that opens up if we assume that the bible was written with intentional errors expressly so that the people of the time would understand and embrace it better.

The bible text depicts a false assumption about insects that would be common among those who lived nearly 2000 years ago and did not know very much about entomology. There are lots of interesting explanations for why the error is in there, including the possibility that it was intentional, but it is in there, it is completely and totally incorrect, and we'd all do well to acknowledge that before we talk about how the bible is utterly infaliable.

User avatar
Wooduck51
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: apparently, in front of my computer

Post by Wooduck51 »

After my recent university lecture on scientific creationism, a student referenced a Bible passage in Leviticus regarding insects to imply that the Bible contained errors and that Christianity and creation thinking are false.

The passage? "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22). Tucked within a list of dietary regulations for the people of Israel, it refers to a number of animals whose exact identification is obscured by antiquity. But let's look closely.

First, we must recognize that modern day taxonomic categories, like species, genus, family, etc., are not the same as the Biblical "kind." Even the term "creeping thing" finds wide application meaning, in general, small animals which exist in great numbers. In this chapter it is used for insects (v. 21), various small mammals and reptiles (vv. 29,30), as well as animals which "move" in the ocean (v. 10).

Likewise the term "flying" applies both to flying insects and birds (vv. 13-19). Obviously, the context and description must take precedence in identification, and in this case, the "four legged insect" applies, in particular, to the grasshopper/locust kind.

In our modern classification system, all insects have at least six legs. They are members of the large and varied arthropod phyla, which includes also the eight-legged spiders, the multi-legged centipedes, as well as crabs—anything with segmented legs. Some insects also have wings, but these don't count as legs.

Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct.
One explanation, Hebrew translations can be notoriously inaccurate.

User avatar
Light Speed
Sexified
Posts: 2529
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Park City, Utah
Contact:

Post by Light Speed »

Yeah, but how inaccurate can you be when it comes to translating 6?

User avatar
Shadow Hog
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:21 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Shadow Hog »

This just in: the authorities down at the Vatican have unanimously announced that there was a gargantuan translation error present in most all current translations of the Bible. The number of the beast, 666, was actually 444 all along. All future editions of the Bible, in any language, will correct this glaring error.

User avatar
mad_cat_42
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:39 pm

Post by mad_cat_42 »

If you want to be technical about it, crickets walk using the front four legs and use the back two for jumping. So to call a cricket an animal that walks on four legs is technically correct. But to assume that the terminology is that precise when faced with several disputed translations would cause an argument to hand on a thread. Personally, I don't believe the Bible to be infallible. It was written by humans after all, whether it was God's words or not.

Incidentally, check this out:
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Leviticus.html

User avatar
Esrever
Drano Master
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:26 am
Contact:

Post by Esrever »

Again, as the passage Wooduck51 cited reinforces, it would be perfectly reasonable for the people of the time to believe that locusts and similar insects had only four legs.

But they were wrong. Why is their error in God's book?

Maybe God left the error in their deliberately, so that the people of the time would understand his words. Or maybe the humans who originally captured his words are the ones who introduced the error. Or maybe it DID say six legs once, but someone "corrected" this number to four at a later date. Or maybe that passage was made up by some random guy and has no godly origins whatsoever.

You can come up with countless explanations. And certainly, not all of them require that the bible be purely ficticious or that God never existed. But they DO all require that there is at least one factual inaccuracy in the bible. Because it doesn't just say that crickets walk on four legs, it says that they HAVE four legs. And there has never, ever been a four-legged cricket, or even a cricket-like animal that might have been referred to by the same name.

I'm just using this as a single example of how the bible is, as mad_cat says, not infalliable. And in my opinion it, like any falliable source should be approached from a critical perspective, without assuming that anything in it is instantly right, OR instantly wrong, by merit of mere inclusion.

That link mad_cat points to is a great example of critical thinking! But I wonder how many Christians, or non-Christians for that matter, just make up their minds in an instant without any critical thought at all... more content to have a definite "ultimate answer" than to live in ambiguity and actually look deeper into the subject.

User avatar
mad_cat_42
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:39 pm

Post by mad_cat_42 »

What's funny about my arguments is that I'm Christian.

The way Catholicism and the other organized religions teach it, God is all knowing which means he would know they would make this mistake. However, he would also know that they would sin vehemently which means God should not have been angry when they did. But he was, which resulted in wars and ultimately the capture of Israel by the Babylons and later-on the Romans.

I just really hate organized religoin.

User avatar
Radrappy
Posts: 1329
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 10:53 pm
Now Playing: MvC3, Vanquish, Skies of Arcadia Legends
Contact:

Post by Radrappy »

Agreed. I have respect for those of faith who do not shove their beliefs in the faces of others. You can believe anything you want to. It gets me though when others are damned to hell for not doing so. On the same note, proclaiming you and your immediate community members to be the chosen people of an almighty devinity is bound to stir up feelings of discomfort in the hearts of others.

User avatar
Frieza2000
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:09 am
Now Playing: the fool
Location: confirmed. Sending supplies.

Post by Frieza2000 »

I really think they didn't consider the back two appendages to be legs, and so God described it as such so they'd know what he was talking about. He gave Man the authority to name his creations, so there would be no reason for him to "correct" their definition of leg.

The Bible is one of those books that you need to read along with another book that tells you how to read it. Not only do you need the cultural and historical context, it wouldn't hurt to have a good elaboration of the words or phrases that don't fully translate if you intend to interpret it for yourself. It's when people try to interpret it without context that we end up with the crazier ideas like Fundamentalism.

User avatar
Omni Hunter
Omnizzy
Posts: 1966
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:50 am
Location: MK, Satan's Layby
Contact:

Post by Omni Hunter »

Radrappy wrote:Agreed. I have respect for those of faith who do not shove their beliefs in the faces of others. You can believe anything you want to. It gets me though when others are damned to hell for not doing so. On the same note, proclaiming you and your immediate community members to be the chosen people of an almighty devinity is bound to stir up feelings of discomfort in the hearts of others.
I agree with that, I think as long as people believe and don't force anything upon others, it's fine.
The way I see it, I'm not going to say a Christian isn't going to heaven or a Buddhist won't be reincarned or whatever else for any other religion.
In turn, I'd like people to respect that I believe I have one life and nothing happens to me after that.
I don't even see not believing in a religion is lack of faith, I'd see it as having faith in science and how I percieve the world for myself.

But yeah, the fact that some people claim they have some form of special divinity gets to me, especially when they use it to gain an advantage.

User avatar
gr4yJ4Y
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 10:14 am
Now Playing: Breath of the Wild (Switch), Resident Evil VII (PS4)
Location: Crescent Knoll

Post by gr4yJ4Y »

There seems to be some confussion about a few things.

1. It shouldn't be taught that any person can persuade one from their own beliefs by debating. I'm glad I was never taught that way. I don't expect anyone to stray too far from what they've found a solid foundation in this life just because of words on a message board (an unrelated message board at that). It's the Christian belief (in some areas and it should be in more) that someone has to be willing or be lead by God to convert into Christianity. There's nothing I can do that will garuntee me being able to convert someone else, just because I feel I should.

2. The reason that they force it on others is an act of love. They know that one day everyone will die. And they'd rather not see them go to hell for it because they weren't warned ahead of time.

User avatar
Kishi
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:07 am

Post by Kishi »

gr4yJ4Y wrote:2. The reason that they force it on others is an act of love. They know that one day everyone will die. And they'd rather not see them go to hell for it because they weren't warned ahead of time.
The greatest harm can result from the best intentions. Righteousness doesn't excuse the arrogance of missionism.

User avatar
Esrever
Drano Master
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:26 am
Contact:

Post by Esrever »

Indeed. It's totally weak sauce.

You don't even have to be outright asking people to convert. All you have to do is say things like: "They know that one day everyone will die. And they'd rather not see them go to hell for it because they weren't warned ahead of time."

No one likes to be told that they are going to hell. When someone tells you this, it makes you want to start debating the merits of their reasoning. And then, you discover that there IS no merit, no actual evidence to back up that statement. It all comes down to "it is true because I have faith," which basically means "it is true because I believe it is true."

So, you start trying to debate with them, and you just get told that you "can't debate faith," or worse, that it is OFFENSIVE to debate their beliefs because that would make you intolerant. It's a trap! They don't have to defend the statement and you are not allowed to attack it. They get to tell you that you are going to burn in hell and you're just expected to put up with it. :P

User avatar
chriscaffee
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:43 am

Post by chriscaffee »

You know what bugs me? When the atheist says there is no evidence. There is evidence. It might not be enough evidence for you and it might not be convincing enough for you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are philisophical and historical arguments for Christianity and I'm not going to argue them here or get into their merit, but they exist and are more than just rhetoric.

You're getting mad because Christians are assuming that what they believe is true. Newsflash: most people assume what they believe is true or they wouldn't believe it. The only people that don't operate on what they believe are the ones are very unsure of what they believe. For example, you operate as if you aren't going to hell as if that is the only possibility. You aren't even acknowledging the fact that they might be right, in which case, if they were then they wouldn't be arrogant but loving. I mean you are basically in the same position they are in. "I'm not going to hell because I don't believe in it, and furthermore it doesn't even exist because I don't believe in it, and you are arrogant and pretentious to think that just because you believe in it that it must exist and by the way your faith is illogical."

I honestly don't see much of a difference.

User avatar
Frieza2000
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:09 am
Now Playing: the fool
Location: confirmed. Sending supplies.

Post by Frieza2000 »

I was going to bring up the evidence thing too. I'll add that not only is there historical and philosophical support for the belief, but God continues to act in the world today and it can be seen in miracles. The word miracle is tossed around a lot, but apart from all the small ones that have no credibility there are major ones like Guadalupe, Fatima, Lourdes, and the like that are well documented. The documentation may be questionable and miraculous events don't automatically prove the religion they're associated with, but it's enough to give pause to the idea.

Almost every major religion has some kind of phenomenon that it points to as proof of what it claims. Whether or not it's real or credible or actually proves anything, there is <i>something</i> to give the belief some weight. I've never heard of anybody that, on hearing a story, decided to randomly base every aspect of life on it without any further proof than the storyteller's word.

User avatar
Popcorn
The Peanut Gallery
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: UK

Post by Popcorn »

chriscaffee wrote:You know what bugs me? When the atheist says there is no evidence. There is evidence. It might not be enough evidence for you and it might not be convincing enough for you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are philisophical and historical arguments for Christianity and I'm not going to argue them here or get into their merit, but they exist and are more than just rhetoric.
The thing that you miss is that atheists regard the alleged 'evidence' as nonsense. No-one's denying that there are arguments for the existence of God; all any atheist is saying when they say 'there is no evidence' is 'I do not not consider the puported evidence for the existence of God to constitute legitimate foundation for religious faith'.
You're getting mad because Christians are assuming that what they believe is true.
You're responding to Es here, but since he and I seem to be the same wavelength, I'm gonna argue my own case here: yes, atheists 'get mad' when Christians assume their beliefs are true when they have, in an our eyes, no legitimate reason to make that assumption. That's what we're criticising here: the assumption. It's a false assumption. That's our criticism.
For example, you operate as if you aren't going to hell as if that is the only possibility.
Yes, we do. No-one's criticising Christians for taking what they think is true to be true; what we're saying is they shouldn't think it's true, because it's not.

If you believe something, great; our suggestion, however, is that you make sure that what you believes is correct.
You aren't even acknowledging the fact that they might be right, in which case, if they were then they wouldn't be arrogant but loving. I mean you are basically in the same position they are in.
No we're not, because we think we're right. You can respond with "So do Christians!", but that does not have any bearing on our case.

I honestly don't see much of a difference.
Of course there's a difference, and I don't see how you can fail to grasp it. Atheists and theists-- one of the two parties is going to be right and the other is going to be wrong. Are you denying this?
Last edited by Popcorn on Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Popcorn
The Peanut Gallery
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: UK

Post by Popcorn »

Frieza2000 wrote:I've never heard of anybody that, on hearing a story, decided to randomly base every aspect of life on it without any further proof than the storyteller's word.
Are you kidding? Kids are programmed to do that. It's where religious people come from.

User avatar
Omni Hunter
Omnizzy
Posts: 1966
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:50 am
Location: MK, Satan's Layby
Contact:

Post by Omni Hunter »

The thing I don't get is that I'm quite a charitable person but I'm told that unless I believe in God, it accounts for nothing because I will go to an alleged Hell.
So it's not about being good, it's about saying you believe in a deity because even a mad axe murderer could allegedly go to heaven if he confessed his sins and his belief in God and Jesus.
My last statement is debatable, but according to Christianity, I could do a lot of wrong things for many years, then "find" religion and be safe in the knowledge I could go to heaven when atheists who work for the NSPCC, Red Cross or Tsunami Foundation would all burn in hell.
I find that view wrong.

User avatar
Shadow Hog
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:21 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Shadow Hog »

I think that the view I have, as a Christian, is that perfectly good people of other religions <i>will</i> go to heaven. Sure, they might not believe in God, and thus they may have to spend time in Purgartory or in the first circle of Hell with the virtuous pagans (you know, with Caesar and Vergil and all them), waiting it out until God's willing to let them in - which might take a while, but would eventually happen.

What I <i>don't</i> like is all the people saying that other people are going to Hell, plain and simple, for not believing or doing exactly as the former people tell the latter to do. There are plenty of examples around; off the top of my head, the only one that comes to mind is Jack Thompson (if I was counting the number of times he said all gamers are going to Hell, I'd have run out of fingers <i>and</i> toes to do it on), but you all already know the others anyway. My point being, that's just flat-out rude and disrespectful. And since the general rule of thumb is "love your neighbor", I'd just let the people do whatever the hell it is they wanna do, so that they'd do the same to me. After all, that abides by the aforementioned rule.

User avatar
Omni Hunter
Omnizzy
Posts: 1966
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:50 am
Location: MK, Satan's Layby
Contact:

Post by Omni Hunter »

Exactly, I respect that. That's how I try to live, I wouldn't say a Christian wouldn't go to heaven or hell, just that I wouldn't go to either. At the end of the day, getting along with others is the main thing for me, not because of religion, just because it makes my life a hell of a lot easier.

User avatar
Esrever
Drano Master
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:26 am
Contact:

Post by Esrever »

I love the way that Chris just assumed that, because I'm not a Christian, I must be an atheist. :P

And yes Chris, there IS a difference between what I'm saying and what they are saying. When someone tells me "You're going to hell," I don't respond with "No I'm not!" I respond with "You don't know that." I ask them to defend their argument.

In my life, I try not to make up definitive answers where they don't exist. When things are uncertain, I strive to find the truth, but until I do I try to accept the uncertainty rather than just making something up so I feel comfortable about it.

It's not like I'm saying that the bible is a wall-to-wall pack of lies. There are some things in the bible that are supported by historical and biological evidence, and there are some things that are contradicted by it. And mostly, there a lot of things that are neither supported or contradicted by anything we've discovered yet.

In my mind, that makes it an open book. It's up for debate. It's worth looking into. Is that so offensive?

So when someone comes up to me and says "You're going to hell," I will debate the point with them. I ask them to show me why they are so certain Hell is real, because I'm certainly not yet. And if their argument breaks down to nothing more than "Because I believe Hell exists, so there," then yes, I will get very critical with their reasoning.

Because that doesn't wash, man. It certainly doesn't anywhere else in this world. History, science, sociology, politics, law.... in every other aspect of life, in every other field, we are expected to behave like logical human beings who question everything, assume nothing and value knowledge and research over assumption and laziness.

But for some reason, in the realm of faith and spirituality, arguably the most important aspect of human existence, we are supposed to just shut our brains off, sign up for one of the pre-exising religious denominations and then accept every one of their teachings completely and unquestioningly. Most people just believe whatever their parents believe, and that's the end of it. I think that's terrible.

User avatar
Popcorn
The Peanut Gallery
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: UK

Post by Popcorn »

Esrever wrote:I love the way that Chris just assumed that, because I'm not a Christian, I must be an atheist. :P
I assumed that too. To be fair, you're deploying all kinds of typically atheist anti-God arguments that tend to work against all the 'big' holy scriptures/established religions. So what are you, a Scientologist? (Or perhaps just an agnostic!!)

Locked