For any interested parties who might wish to read or comment,
My name is Mark. Among other things, I am a comic enthusiast. Last week while visiting dummcomics.com (a wonderful collection of web comics by several talented animators) I came across a strip that expressed an anti-Christian sentiment. Now, I am a Christian. This site has a comments section, so I commented. A fellow reader from this site disagreed with me and we began to debate, but since we were getting off topic, the other gentleman suggested that we relocate the conversation to a blog, which is what you’re looking at right now.
He posted an article that he felt provided suitable evidence for an argument against Christianity. All in all, it was good reading. I’ll provide a brief surmise of it below, but for those interested in reading the actual article, here’s the address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Early_Christian_Church
The article lists a number of Christian teachers, St. Augustine among them, who felt that there could be no such things as antipods (that is, people living on the other side of the earth) because it would be too widespread a population to have been descended from Adam and Eve. It also lists a number of amusing explanations as to the actual shape of the Earth.
First let me say that this is interesting reading and it does show where some people, very respected theologians, stuck their foot in their mouth. That being said, Antipods aren’t a very strong argument when attempting to disprove creationism. After the tower of Babel fell the inhabitants of the earth scattered in all directions. The Egyptians in the days of Moses had contact with various civilizations at the far corners of the globe. It’s even been argued that the ships of Tarshish reached the Americas and there is archeological evidence to that effect scattered all over the country, particularly around the banks of the Mississippi. People traveled. By the time St. Augustine came on the scene, the human race would have been around (following a creationist calendar) for more than 4300 years. To say that the descents of two people couldn’t transverse the earth in more than 4000 years is absurd.
I can’t comment on the other scholars listed, because St. Augustine is the only one I’m familiar with. I generally make it a rule not to speak of things I know nothing about (I find it saves on embarrassment), but I do know that at the end of his life, St. Augustine began to reexamine a number of his views and even wrote a book called Retractions wherein he corrected a number of opinions he had previously stated. This book is not reprinted as often as some of his others, and as such I have never read it. I’ve seen paperbacks on amazom.com occasionally, but I’m personally holding out for a hard back. (As a rule, any book that might be called on for reference (history, theology, philosophy, ect.) I try to buy in hardback because they hold up so much better upon repeat reading). As I’ve never read this book, I can’t really comment as to whether or not he retracted his opinion concerning the antipods, however, it does show that he was a reasonable man who was willing to admit he was wrong when confronted with new information. Were he privy to our knowledge, he probably would have retracted his antipod opinion as well.
I enjoyed this article all the same. Still, it really does nothing to disprove Christianity and this is why. The basis for all Christian doctrine is the Bible. The Bible is (I believe) a group of books that God inspired men to write. These men did color the language of their books, but the ultimate outcome was something greater than any man could have accomplished. This is why Scripture is so important to the Christian. See, men are imperfect. We say stupid things and we don’t know everything, so when we try to make educated guesses based on incomplete facts we usually end up saying even more stupid things. Everyone has their own take on life and every Christian has his own take on the faith. It’s colored by personal experience and their own range of doctrinal knowledge. Doctrine can be a good thing when taken from scripture. It can be a bad thing when people try to twist scripture to fit their own agenda. But at the end of the day believers always have the scripture to go back to and check with. This is why the apostles exhorted the early church to study as much as they could, which wasn’t an easy thing considering most of them at that time were outlaws and didn’t have easy access to it.
Even if the article was a hundred times more damning, it would only disprove the words of men and Christianity is not about that. It’s about the word of God. I really appreciate the article, but if you’re going to make any headway in terms of convincing me that Christianity is false, you’re going to have to find a suitably convincing argument against the scriptures themselves. People who study the Bible, good or bad, don’t apply. The Bible says even the Devils believe and they tremble. Satan himself quoted Scripture to Jesus. Those who read the word will do as they will. Those who believe the word will try to be perfect as he was perfect and ultimately fail. The only thing worth defending, the only thing that really matters, in the realm of Christian thought is the word. All else is conjecture. Only by disproving the word itself can an argument against Christianity stand.
To the gentleman for whom this article was written,
I look forward to your next volley. See you around Dumm.
To any interested readers, thank you for checking this out. Now that I’ve got a blog, I should be posting all kinds of things as they occur to me, and while this blog was intended as a carry over from a previous conversation, I welcome any and all comments and feedback, positive or negative.
Take care everyone.
July 22, 2008 at 7:18 am
Hey Mark, I’m so glad to see that you got the blog up! This will be a lot of fun…I’m in the middle of wrapping up a little project at the moment that has me all stressed out, but as soon as I wrap it up I will answer to your thoughtful post.
Oh…and feel free to use my full name if you like(Robert Hume), I don’t mind.
July 22, 2008 at 9:36 am
ugh, more fanatical christians contaminating the web trying to justify their brainwashed minds.
July 22, 2008 at 10:45 am
Wow, two posts already!
Mr. Hume,
Glad you to see you made it. I’m looking forward to your reply.
Some Jerk,
Sorry you didn’t enjoy my blog, but all the same I’m glad you could make it. Feel free to stop by any time. Perchance, hast thou a blog? I’m new to this site and I’m looking forward to checking out all sorts of things. Thanks.
July 22, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Good deal Mark! I’m glad that Dumm Comics played a part in inspiring you to start a blog. I’ll give you a big plug in the comments section this week on my new comic, when I reply to my comments! Godspeed!
July 24, 2008 at 8:53 am
Ok, a lot of good stuff to reply to here Mark…but first off let me point out that this article was not about disproving the whole Religion of Christianity in it’s interty(that can wait for another day
). It was merely to answer your call to show proof that Religion(Christianity in particular) has taught things over the years that were later proven to be wrong, and then later changed it’s interpretations to match up with the new science that disproved those aspects of the religion.
The Article from Wikipedia that I provided shows how some Early Christians tried to offer explanations to answer certain questions about the earth, all by using the Bible as their reference source. The bible was used as a reference in declaring that the earth was Flat also…
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm
http://bible.cc/isaiah/11-12.htm
…Later when it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth was in fact round, once again the bible was used to justify that the Earth was round as well.
http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-22.htm
The Bible was also used as a reference to justify slavery…
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_slave_owners_justify_slavery
…later when societies laws and views changed towards frowning apone the notion of slavery, the bible was then used to justify the total abolishment of slavery as well.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071023151946AAwHm7t
How can the Bible be used as evidence in proving that the earth is both FLAT and ROUND? That slavery is both RIGHT and WRONG?…Because I believe the bible is not a book of answers at all. It’s simply a collection of ancient scribes, myths, and superstitious stories that are used to serve a single specific function…To keep the masses in LINE!
The Bible can be used to justify any prejudice, hatred, or ignorant belief system, and has(Just ask Hitler). It can also be used to justify it’s own continued existence as well by being reinterpreted to match the findings of modern science, or to match up with societies latest popular moral views, laws, and beliefs if it so chooses.
Right now the Christian religion is taking the stand of being against the Theory of Evolution…but I say give them time. Just like they always do, the readers of the bible will see that Evolution is not going anywhere and will eventually decide that the bible(in order for it to survive) can be reinterpreted to reinforced the theory of evolution, instead of opposing it.
Do you not believe me? It has happened before, I have proven this to you. It will happen again…and Again…and AGAIN. Facts do not threaten the bible’s existence at all, it can change with the times, and HAS…repeatedly…insulting all of our intelligence, and the intelligence of those who loyally followed it’s writings for centuries apon centuries.
I say we just call the book what it is and stop pretending it has the answers to all the World’s questions…it doesn’t.
July 24, 2008 at 9:25 am
To aid me in further discussions with you on this subject Mark, what do mean exactly by “disproving God’s Word”? I want to try and create arguments that might resinate more effectively with you, but first I need some clarification as to what you specifically mean. You want me to prove that the bible is NOT God’s word?…or that the word contradicts it’s self? What sort of argument are you referring too?
July 25, 2008 at 7:51 am
Robert,
First let me commend you a pointed and thorough article. I can’t possibly answer all of your comments right now (I am at work). I’m going to print out a copy of your articles and read them over the weekend. I’ll have a response for you on Monday.
I would ask that you not submit further material until I can review the sources you’ve already provided. I’m busy of late and stand a good chance of getting buried.
As to a definition, back on dumm you mentioned that the Bible had been disproved a number of times (or something to that effect). I’d heard a lot of arguments that claimed to disprove the Bible, but all the ones I’ve seen so far had holes in them. I was interested in finding out what you were referring to (I’m always interested in new information) and asked if you could provide some examples, which is the reason this blog was started.
Your first argument pointed to some statements from various theolgians, but theologians only comment on the Bible. What I am interested in some concrete evidence, historical, scientific, ect. That proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bible itself is wrong.
Evolution doesn’t really cut it, because there’s a lot of scientific evidence that actually works against it rather than for it. In the future I’ll list a few so we can compare notes.
Talk to you later.
-Mark
July 25, 2008 at 11:00 pm
“Your first argument pointed to some statements from various theolgians, but theologians only comment on the Bible. What I am interested in some concrete evidence, historical, scientific, ect. That proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bible itself is wrong.”
What I did was point out that it does not matter if I show you evidence, historical, scientific, ect., because you will change your interpretations of the bible to fit around what ever evidence I may present you with. You say that evolution doesn’t count for whatever reason, but then you also said in a past argument on Dumm that you acknowledged that the primordial ozz that life has been theorized to have originated from, could in fact be interpreted as the clay god used to make Adam in the old Testament.
You see, you changed your interpretation of the bible to wrap it around the facts. It does not matter what evidence I present you with to disprove the bible, because you will alter your interpretations of the bible as you please to match up with the facts on the ground…that is my basic point.
First you claimed that evolution is full of holes and that there is proof that Creationism is a sound Theory…then you suggested the notion that even if the Theories behind evolution ARE legitimate, the bible can still fit into the picture somehow.
How can I sway someone when put up against this line of reasoning?
I will hold off on presenting you with hystorical evidence(which I would like to do next), until you get some more free time Mark. Things are hectic with me too man, and I know how long these posts tend to take.
Thanks for reading my response by the way!!
July 26, 2008 at 6:13 am
Robert said,
“What I did was point out that it does not matter if I show you evidence, historical, scientific, ect., because you will change your interpretations of the bible to fit around what ever evidence I may present you with. You say that evolution doesn’t count for whatever reason, but then you also said in a past argument on Dumm that you acknowledged that the primordial ozz that life has been theorized to have originated from, could in fact be interpreted as the clay god used to make Adam in the old Testament.”
I don’t recall saying that at all. What I did say was that there had been a scientific study done trying to determine if human DNA matched sea water. It didn’t. The study then tested it against other things and they found out that it matched dirt, and that is what the Bible says God formed man out of. I said nothing about it being primordial ooze.
So far, I have tried to be very open to your point of view. I would respectfully ask that you return the favor. You’ve presented some evidence, and I would like a chance to answer you. I already have my answer, but I want to gather documentation on my resources to further back it before I respond.
July 26, 2008 at 7:15 am
Hey Mark, I am sorry if my accusation rang unfair to you. I will wait for you to respond again before commenting further.
Thanks for being open minded.
July 26, 2008 at 7:15 am
I will try to be more open minded as well.
July 26, 2008 at 10:37 am
Robert,
I actually think that you’re very opened minded, and I’m exceedingly thankful for your politeness. A lot of these debates degenerate quickly into name calling and accusations, but such has not been the case with you and I deeply appreciate it.
(Just so that last statement is not misinterpreted, I would like to acknowledge that Christians can often be the ring leaders in such activity as much as any other group)
I’ve always assumed the point of a debate was to trade knowledge, present sides, and hopefully reach a more educated stance on an issue. You’ve done a wonderful job presenting your side of things, and I hope you’ll equally enjoy my response. Whether or not one side coerces the other is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that we learn from each other and I’m learning a lot from you. I hope the same can be said of myself.
Talk to you later,
Mark
July 29, 2008 at 3:48 am
Robert,
Sorry it’s taken me so long to answer you. I’ve been having some financial trouble lately and have had to take on an extra job that’s really eating into my time. Explanations done, I’m ready to begin.
I want to answer your overall intent first. As I understand it, you stated that Christians over the years have changed their interpretation of the Bible many times in order to keep it alive. It should be noted that their first folly was in trying to interpret (or rather reinterpret) the Bible in the first place. Let me explain.
The original copies of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. The original copies of the New Testament were written in koine (pronounced coin-A) Greek (Which, for any scholars in the crowd, was the layman’s Greek of the day. This was done so that common people and not just the educated could read what was written). Greek and Hebrew are very interesting languages, because once a tense is put on a word in either tongue, that word takes on a very specific (some would say almost scientific) meaning. It makes it nearly impossible to change or reinterpret the meaning. Some people did try and the Apostles did everything in their power to stop that.
2 Peter 1:20 states: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
The Bible is not, nor does it claim to be, a guide to every social, geographical, and scientific query ever known. What it does claim is that what’s written in it is true. To use one of my favorite movie quotes: “They aren’t rules, ya’ see. They’re more like guidelines.”
As far as people changing their minds about what the Bible says, I suppose some might. Many of these are people who do so because they try to use the Bible as justification for whatever it is they want to do. Others are people who don’t have a full knowledge of scripture or the history relevant to it, and speak from a half knowledge of the Bible.
I’m not entirely blameless of this. Keep in mind that the Old Testament is a collection of books written sometime over a 3600 year period in various different locations, amidst different customs, and at different time periods. Regional history is very important to the language and purpose of each book. Phrases are used that only have a clear meaning in this setting. In terms of the New Testament, many of the quotations used by Jesus and other Theologians are actually taken from other books both within and without of the Old Testament cannon. Again, this is another reason why the early Church and the Hebrews themselves encouraged study. I said before I was not entirely blameless and I’m not. I’ve read things in the Bible that seemed clear enough, but then came across new knowledge that revealed things I was hitherto ignorant of, and had led me to a false conclusion of scripture. In cases such as this, the Bible didn’t change. It was as it ever was. The only thing that had changed was the scope of my knowledge.
To elaborate on this point, in school I learned that whenever the human body touched something, the skin cells that made contact would die. I always assumed that an itch was an irritation of skin cells and that by scratching you killed the offending tissue and what’s dead can’t itch. A doctor later explained to me that I was incorrect. He said that an itch was an accumulation of electricity along the surface of the skin, and the act of scratching dispersed the charge. My new knowledge no more altered science than someone learning something new alters the Bible. It simply means we’ve been enlightened as to the correct answer.
Now, lets move on to your two resources that say the Bible teaches the Earth is flat.
At http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm we find references from various different scriptures. The main arguing point for a flat Earth in most of these is the usage of the phrase Four Corners of the Earth. I think it should be noted that this is an expression and not a geographical claim. This is what I meant in my first post when I said that the people who wrote the books ‘colored’ the language of their script. While this is my principal explanation for the usage of the term in Jeremiah 16:10, some of the other scriptures have more obvious alternative answers which I will include below. (For those interested, there’s actually a lot of literature on the regional languages and phrases used in the Bible. Whether you’re Christian, a linguist or a curious layman, they can prove a fascinating read.)
Daniel 4:11 makes mention of the phrase THE ENDS OF THE EARTH. Answering-christianity argues that the Earth has no ends. However, if the people at this website had done any research they would realize that this verse is part of a description given by a pagan king of a dream he had. He’s describing the Earth as he saw it in a dream and not the Earth itself.
Next we come to Isaiah 11:12 where we have the same problem. Yes the verse does use the phrase FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, but if you actually check, Isaiah is describing a vision from God (which is a dream with a purpose, but still follows the same rules as a dream). Isaiah says four corners because the vision showed the Earth with four corners. I once had a dream where Zombies were chasing me. That doesn’t mean I believe in them. However, a psychologist might see a hidden meaning in that symbolism, just as Isaiah saw a meaning, which was, that the Lord would gather his people from the farthest reaches (or four corners) of the Earth.
Revelation 7:1, also describes a vision. The same rule applies. I’ll move on.
Job 38:11 is at least a good try. Job is one of the oldest pieces of literature in the world. Only the Epic of Gilgamesh can assuredly claim an earlier date of authorship. The fact is, we’re not sure who wrote Job or even who Job was, though theories vary far and wide.
When we begin, God has appeared to Job, right after Job has accused God of various different things. Chapter 38 is God’s reply. He asks if Job can command the dayspring and cause it to take hold on the ends of the Earth and shake it. The dayspring is the dawn, which in itself is a cause of nature and not a thing one would generally command and even if you could, it certainly couldn’t grab hold of anything. God in effect is chiding Job because Job was chiding him. Job could no more take hold of the ends of the earth than the dawn could, even if Job had the authority to command it. It’s a mock challenge, and hardly worth scientific consideration.
Finally we come to Mathew 4:8. The scripture says that Satan took Jesus to a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the Earth. The website argues that no point on Earth could be high enough for Jesus to view them all. I know it’s become popular to believe that everyone born less than two hundred years ago was an infantile caveman, but in the days of the Romans people were pretty advanced in comparison to certain other ages and even if they weren’t, I would hope the previous statement would go without saying.
This scripture records the final challenge of Satan’s initial meeting with Jesus. This is significant because it follows a forty day period of fasting and prayer by Christ which took place immediately after his baptism which officially began his ministry. Satan had first challenged Jesus to perform a miraculous work, then challenged him to call on Angels to do the same, and finally Satan himself preformed one here. From its earliest writing, it was understood that Satan showed the kingdoms of the world to Jesus by a miraculous show of his own power. I would need to read this verse in Greek and examine the tense of the word in order to confirm that, but I don’t read Greek as yet (though I’m hoping to learn in the near future).
Your second source again utilizes Isaiah 11:12, which I’ve already addressed so we’ll move on to the next subject. This website attempts to use scripture to confirm that the Earth is round, but really this verse isn’t very solid ground for that argument.
Concerning Isaiah 40:22, what you need to understand, is once again, Isaiah is revealing another prophecy to the people of Israel A vision is not mentioned, but (to my knowledge) neither is the exact way in which the Lord revealed this knowledge to the Prophet. Yes he does mention the earth is a circle, but some circles are smashed flat like a plate and others are round like a ball. The reason I’m bringing this up is because it has absolutely nothing to do with Geography. You could just as easily say this verse claims that men have the same anatomy as Grasshoppers.
Remember, it’s not a rule book, it’s guidelines. It helps us through life, but it doesn’t bathe us, dress us, and put us to bed. God never told us the sun was bright, and as far as I know, he never told us the Earth was round either. I guess he hoped we’d figure it out on our own.
Onto the Slavery Issue. I was much more impressed with the research on this site than the ones previously used. It makes a pointed argument, but still one that is easily answerable in the light of historical context. At this time, slavery had been around for as long as people could remember. There was an entire slave culture and this is important to note. It was not uncommon for a man who was in deep debt to sale himself into slavery for a prearranged measure of time, and use the money to pay off the debt. This is what is more commonly known as indentured servitude, and the Bible doesn’t condemn that.
What the Bible does condemn is the act of taking someone forcefully against his will and making him serve against his will. This is the reason that Paul refers to slavedealers as men stealers in 1 Timothy 1:10.
The first verse used by this site is from Ephesians which was written by Paul not long after composing the book of Colossians. A fellow believer named Epaphras had contacted Paul and told him of a Gnostic heresy going through the churches at Colossae and Laodicea. Paul wrote Colossians to combat the heresy by with a polemic describing the overviews of Christ’s teaching, so as to give the believers a general idea of how a Christian should act. He wrote Ephesians as a follow up, to spell out the logical conclusion of his doctrine.
In Ephesians, Paul does exhort slaves to obey their masters, not because slavery is a justifiable practice, but because their ministry as Christians was more important. At the time Paul wrote this, he was in prison awaiting trial before Ceaser. Paul would already have been declared innocent of the crime he was accused of, but because he was a Roman citizen (a position that was hard to get and carried with it a number of privileges, among those the right to appeal to Ceaser for any crime) and because Ceaser was not a Christian and would probably never get another chance to hear one otherwise, Paul chose to remain in Jail and endure its hardships on the slim hope that he might convert one of the Christian’s chief persecutors. It should be noted that doing so eventually cost Paul his life.
When Paul writes to the slaves among the congregations, he asks them to do their jobs well, and to serve their masters faithfully, but he does so for a reason. The ultimate outcome is the hope that they might convert the house they serve so that all might be saved. This does not justify slavery anymore than Jesus’ submitting to Pilate’s beating justifies beatings. Christ told Pilate he could summon down a legion of angels to rescue him any time he wanted, but he submitted because it was better for others if he did something that was not good for himself. The purpose of this letter was to teach Christians how they should conduct themselves in order to follow in the footsteps of Christ. It’s also important to note that this was written only for Christians. If you’re not of the faith, if you’re a tribesman in Africa being loaded on a ship, guess what, it doesn’t apply to you! If someone says it does and quotes scripture, well, let me tell you, Satan quoted scripture too and it certainly didn’t justify his actions.
God often calls people to walk through unpleasant circumstances. He called Paul to go to prison and later to die. Paul called others to put aside what was right for them and do what was best for others, even those who oppressed them.
It should also be noted that while still in prison Paul encountered an escaped slave named Onesimus. Paul preached to and converted Onesimus while in prison. Not long after, he learned that Onesimus was being sent back to his master who was a Christian as well. Paul wrote a letter to him (the epistle of Philemon) asking him to receive Onesimus not as a slave but as a son.
Following this we turn to the version of Colossians 4:1 utilized by the website, uses the word slaves, but the original KJV uses servants. The emphasis here is on indentured servants which the Bible does not have a problem with. I prefer the KJV because honestly, more scholarship and research went into it than either other English translation available, at least that I’m aware of.
Again the (KJV) substitutes the word servant for slave in Exodus 21:2. As I’ve said before the Hebrews practiced only indentured servitude and scripture has no problem with that.
Having said that, I believe I’ve answered all of your questions, so I’d like to take time to answer one of your comments.
As far as Hitler being a Christian goes, I suppose he was, in as much as Pope Pious XII was silent during World War 2. Read on and I’ll explain my obscure reference.
Bill Clinton thought Hitler was a Christian. So apparently do a lot of other people. I don’t believe history supports that and I now present two sources, one written while Hitler was alive and another written some time after his death to support my view.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/9587/attrelig.html
http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm
If you want further proof I would point out that Jews were not the single largest group exterminated in death camps. That place belonged to Christians. While five million Jewish people died under the Nazi’s watch around Seven Million Christians were likewise slaughtered.
Still not convinced? I mean a lot of authoritative sources claim Hitler was a Christian? How do things like this get started? Maybe like this …
During World War 2, then Catholic Pope, Pious XII, began a movement to secretly remove Jews from areas of German occupation. This so enraged Hitler that he planned to kidnap the Pope and have him brought back to Germany as a prize. Luckily that particular Nazi mission ended in failure.
So moved was the Jewish community because of Pope Pious’ actions that the following gestures of gratitude were enacted: In his biography Before the Dawn, Eugenio Zolli, former chief Rabbi of Rome, explains that he converted to Christianity as a way of showing appreciation to Pope Pious; the second Prime Minister of Israel Moishe Sharat personally met with Pope Pious and thanked him for his efforts; and upon Pious’ death in 1958 there was a serious movement in Israel to have a forest named after him.
Now, we skip ahead to 1963. Rolf Hochhuth, a socialist and former member of Hitler’s Youth, writes a play entitled The Deputy. In the play he makes Pope Pious out to be a spineless Nazi stooge. This play draws upon no historical references and is complete fiction, however, it didn’t stop John Cornwell from following in Hochhuth’s footsteps and writing another such account entitled Hitler’s Pope. It also didn’t stop 60 Minutes from using both resources (one of them was a play for crying out loud, not a history book!) as the basis for a scathing expose on why Pope Pious XII was an evil son of the fatherland. I wonder if they would mind telling that to the descendants of the 800,000 Jews he transported to safety? While they’re at it, why not tell the surviving relatives of the 7,000,000 Christians who died by Nazi atrocities that Hitler was a Bible thumper.
I hope I answered the questions to your satisfaction and I look forward to the next volley. I’m going to be extremely busy for the next seven days. I’m doing an interview with a mystery author that will be posted online soon, and on top of that I have two jobs and a fiancé that demand my attention. Please feel free to respond before then and I’ll try and do the same. I just can’t write anything in depth before half a fortnight or so.
Take care all.
–Mark
July 30, 2008 at 8:29 am
I liked this last post of yours a lot Mark! I’ll need a few days to deliver an appropriate response for it.
I am also very busy and so blogging is at the bottom of my priority list at the moment.
I hope your work situation gets better for you though man, I know how it feels to work two jobs at once to make ends meet, it’s a tough way to live.
Take care!
-Rob
August 5, 2008 at 11:19 am
Ok there is a lot too comment on here Mark, but the first and easiest remark here to dismiss is your claim about Adolph Hitler and the offensively untrue statement that more Christians were singled out to be killed during the Nazi Holocaust than Jews, is just simply not true. I am well aware of how much Christians just love to forever play the role of the “O-pressed minority” and “persecuted ones”(even when they are controlling EVERYTHING), but to wrap your selves in this role at the expense of history and the remembrance of the sufferings of others is in my opinion just appalling and disturbingly self involved(not that I think you are doing this intentionally Mark, I can see that you are just hugely misinformed).
You can debate wether or not Hitler honestly believed in the writings of the bible or not, or honestly considered him self to be a Christian, (I personally don’t believe that he did, from what I have read of him at least) but the truth remains that he did in fact use the bible and religion as a tool to manipulate the masses of Germany, threw his own personal “interpretations” of it, and that is all that I have ever laid claim to.
You will find sufficient evidence to support this from the links that I have included bellow…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
There is no existing evidence that suggest that Christians were persecuted to the same extent that the Jews were during Nazi Germany. However he did have personal distaste for the religion of Catholicism as has been documented in personal statements he had made. However he continued to used references to God, and Jesus in his speeches, writings, and other public statements.
“…Why not tell the surviving relatives of the 7,000,000 Christians who died by Nazi atrocities that Hitler was a Bible thumper”, you say? Well I simply don’t have to, they can view it in his own public statements, propaganda, and writings for them selves…
“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.”
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race…so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe…Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence.”
“The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. … We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people.”
…By the way, how many of those 7,000,000 Christians that you say were killed by Hitler’s Army, were White Caucasians? Because Hitler was also a White Caucasian, are you going to ask me to point this fact out to their surving children as well as if it was intended to mean something? No, the Jews were targeted the largest in number by Hitler’s army in being intentionally sought out and persecuted during the Holocaust. I am sure if given enough time though he might have succeeded in pushing to surpass that number with the persecution of maybe Christians and others, as he was already in the process of doing. However, to suggest the intended persecution of Christians during the Holocaust was equal to that of the Jews is simply a manipulation of the facts, and untrue.
I will comment on the rest of your post very shortly…you have responded with a very long well written, and well thought out post(although misinformed in part I’m afraid), so I will have to try and tackle it in stride. :S
Give me a couple days and I will try to respond sufficiently to the rest of your comments. Thanks for being patient….
-Rob
August 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Robert,
First let me apologize for holding your post up. It’s been a few days since I’ve been by the blog and for some reason the site marked your last post as spam. Go figure.
I know that you’re working on a reply to my full post, but I want to answer the portion that you’ve already listed. For one thing, you stated the opinion that Christians complained about persecution, even though they control everything. Not to be abrasive but what exactly is everything? To date, we do not control any significant portion of Hollywood, the press, or the capital. Last I checked, the democrats were the majority in the house and senate and that party is so far removed from the teachings of the Bible it’s not even funny. (Though, despite a lot of lip service, the Republicans ain’t so hot either when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it).
Follow that, you are right in that I did go overkill on the Hitler argument. Upon closer examination of your comment, I realize that you did only accuse Hitler of twisting the Bible and not of being a Christian himself. But even in light of that, twisting something doesn’t make it special. Two other points Hitler used to gain favor were economics and science. At the time Hitler came to power, Germany was a slum. He created new jobs and invested in cheap automobiles so Germans could have a mode of transportation, all of these were key factors in his rise to power! The Nazis pioneered all types of science, including artificial insemination. Does that mean that science and economics are evil? No, it means Hitler did whatever he had to do to get what he wanted. The Bible was in vogue, so he used it. If the Koran or the complete works of Darwin were the state’s preferred literature he would have made speeches about them as well.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Satan quoted scripture to Jesus, and if you actually look at what he said, and then look back at how that same verse was originally written, you’re going to find that he took it out of context to advance his own agenda. Remember what I said in my first post. Those who read the Bible will do what they will. Only those who believe it will try to follow its precepts.
There’s nothing in this world that can’t or hasn’t been twisted for one aim or another. The fact that Hilter twisted scripture doesn’t make a case against it. If you’re going to disprove Christianity you have to disprove the Bible itself.
Moving on to my final observation, I presented you with a fact about the Christians in the Holocaust. That estimate came from “Jews, God, and History” by Max I. Dimont who, aside from being a Jew himself and the author of several fine books on Jewish history, worked for army intelligence during World War II. He saw first hand the atrocities of the Nazis against his own people and others.
I won’t mask my feelings, I’m a little hurt by the way you casually dismissed my argument. I have answered every comment, question, and challenge you have so far given, but when I present you with a fact, recorded by a respected historian, you call it offensive and dismiss it without a second thought. Why? Where’s your evidence to the contrary? What reason do you have to shove it aside? Even if had you said, “You’ve mentioned in the past that the only way to disprove the Christianity is to disprove the Bible, and since the holocaust has no bearing on that, I’m dismissing it as irrelevant,” I would have accepted that and moved on, but just because you don’t agree with it, you can’t say ‘It’s offensive. You’re wrong. I’m moving on.’ and dismiss it. You’ve referred to the Bible, a collection of teachings that I hold dearer than my own life, in every kind of derogatory way imaginable. Did you never think that was offensive to me? In fact it was, but I let it go because I was trying to exercise a degree of academic detachment because this is a debate, or at least I thought it was.
A debate, by definition, is two sided. Each side gets to make its case. In a debate you have to address each article as it comes up and you have to present suitable evidence to debunk the statement in order to dismiss it. You’ve previously accused me of twisting evidence to fit the Bible’s world view, (though to your credit you did relent on that accusation once I had shown that I had not). But what you’ve done here is even worse.
You’ve closed your mind to an opinion that is contrary to your beliefs and then engaged accused me of being misinformed. On what ground am I misinformed? I don’t mind being wrong about Christians in the Holocaust, but if I am, show me where I am misinformed! Provide me with suitable proof that Max Dimont was wrong. I realize that I am partially to blame for failing to list him as my source, but you could have asked where I got the information instead of instantly condemning it.
If you need time to acquire suitable facts for the defense of your statement, I’m okay with that. You don’t have to reply in a hurry, I realize that you’re very busy. I am too. Take a few weeks if you need to. But this point is essential because the end result is that the moment one of us decides that he’s too good to listen to the other, this ceases to be a debate and becomes an inquisition.
August 8, 2008 at 10:10 am
Ok I am going to try my best to make this as brief as possible…
You have NOT listed any reference or evidence of your own to back up your claim that Christians were persecuted in Greater numbers than the Jews. I do not have to supply you with evidence to contradict this statement(even though I HAVE, read the Wikipedia articles), because you have not supplied any evidence that suggests to support it. I read both of your articles in their entirety and neither of them state anything of the sort.
As far as supplying evidence to disprove the bible, I have never claimed to have offered such a thing, nor have you offered any evidence to prove that it is true. I have merely claimed to have proven that it does not matter what I show you, because you will find a way to justify your bible’s continued existence regardless…evidence or not.
I am not going to comment on everything else you have written, because it is getting to far away from the original point I was trying to make. Which is highly crucial, being that no matter what evidence I show you from this point out, you are going to still find a way to justify your faith’s continued existence. You reject rationality as a way of life, all Christians do. If you think that manipulating the bible’s writings are limited to only Satan and Hitler then I am sorry but you are blind. All Christians have partaken in this act. I am tiered of trying to make this case with you though, because you have already seemed to have dismissed it’s relevance(which is EVERYTHING).
I will now move on and show you some historical evidence that discredits the bible, if you are at all interested that is…
By the way, i am really sorry that you think I am close minded to your beliefs, but the fact remains that you have still failed to show me any evidence to prove the Bible’s legitimacy. The burden of proof is on you my friend, I am not the one who is making the claim that a collection of ancient writings are the direct word of God. I can do my best to prove to you that they are NOT, but you are already willing to believe that it is God’s word, with no existing proof, so there is little I can do to sway you on this I am afraid. You have already sacrificed rational thought to sustain this irrational belief.
I am not trying to insult you either Mark…I use to be a Christian as well(whether you believe that or not), but after years of fighting with rational arguments against my irrational beliefs, I was finally forced to reject the faith I was raised in and believed in strongly for several years…Because no matter how strongly you believe in something, it does not make it true.
August 9, 2008 at 9:57 am
Robert,
Hi. Sorry if I miffed you. It was not my intent. I think we’ve had a breakdown in communications and as a way of repairing that rift, I would like to try and explain my position. We’re obviously expecting different things out of this blog page. I’m hoping that by putting down exactly what I thought and why I thought it, we might be able to reconcile with one another.
Back on dumm, you worte:
“…mocking Christianity itself is extremely old hat at this point. Everyone has done it, and there’s really no new ground to cover.”
(Note to readers: The above line is a quote taken from another post on dummcomics.com. I only listed it to put the main body in perspective)
SURE there is! There is PLENTY of humor and unexplored material to use in relation to the subject of both Christianity and Religion in general. New religions are being formed almost every day, and the old ones like Christianity are always patheticly trying to somehow bandage up the biggest of the glaring flaws to their dogmatic belief system, so that they can somehow find a way to co-exist in a world that has proven their teachings time and time again to be complete bull****.
(To Robert: Sorry about having to block out that last word. Word press has a rule about profanity and I didn’t want to get reported.)
To which I responded:
You’re showing an awfully lot of zeal in your post. This debate must mean a lot to you. You mentioned that there were all sorts of examples of how religion has been proven false? I’ve heard a lot of arguments but most of the ones I’ve seen are as refutable as they claim Christianity to be. Still, I’m always open to new information. Would you care to list a few specific examples for the readership?
To which you responded:
As far as showing the proof goes, do you REALLY need me to do this Mark, or is this just a retorical question?…because you know darn well this is going to take a while, and I don’t want a fourty page long post about debating religion to keep Ricky from making more comics on this subject.
…SO how about this, you make a blog and I will post some links for you to check out and you tell me what you think? Fair? I’m trying to keep this short and clean…it’s also why I didn’t go into further detail in debating you on a past post dealing with evolution.
Maybe I misunderstood this, when people communicate through type it’s easy to get things backwards. But up there, you said debate. That’s what I thought this was. If you were only referring to the debate as something that might have happened on dumm, and not as something you intended to do on my blog, then that’s fine. I misunderstood and I’m sorry, but I did think this was a debate.
Also, in my post, I asked you to list a few specific examples. You had previously mentioned that there were lots of people who claim that Christianity is refutable. That’s when I asked for examples, and the examples I was asking for, were of arguments that disproved Christianity. This is probably where things got foggy. I wanted examples of articles that would disprove Christianity. You used the word debate. I thought this blog was a place for us to debate the validity of that religion. That’s what I founded this whole page to do. If I got it backward, then I am sorry.
If this blog was not intended as a place to debate, but as a place for you to present your findings, I’m cool with that. I won’t debate. I’ll just read and respond to what you put down. My ultimate goal in this, as in all things, is to accumulate knowledge. I can still do that without submitting findings of my own. However, if this is the intended case, if you submit something and I have evidence that I feel counteracts it, then I would like to reserve the right to submit the reason I do disagree with you and I would ask that you treat my findings with the same respect with which I treat yours. If you don’t wish to respond to my findings, that’s fine. If you don’t believe what the material that I put forth and want to respectfully disagree, that’s equally fine.
Also, while I’m clarifying my position, I would like to say that when I said you were being closed minded, I didn’t mean that you as an individual were close minded as a whole, and I’m sorry if it came out that way. I only meant that you seemed to be closed minded on a particular subject (which in all fairness you seem to hold that I’m closed minded on Biblical topics, so I’d say we’re even). A person can be closed minded on a variety of subjects and still be open minded on many more. For instance, I’m very close minded when it comes to culinary pursuits, not that I have a problem with ethnic or exotic dishes, I’m just honestly happy with meat, bread, and vegetables.
Regardless of what you may think, I am open to your statements, but I’m not an idiot. I wasn’t always a Christian. I am a well read, rational man, with a high I.Q and a deep sense of curiosity. I became a Christian based on evidence. My conversion to Christianity is as valid as your renunciation of it. My evidence does not disprove your lack of it, nor does your lack of it disprove the things I’ve seen with my own eyes, time and again. Different investigators working on the same case will often come to different conclusions. This is apparently what has happened with us. However, these same investigators may arrive at the same conclusion if they compare evidence.
As for my not supplying evidence, I have not provided any to prove the validity of scripture, but then so far, I’ve really only replied to your comments. I’ve been planning to put something up, and will, if you want me to. The reason I’ve waited it that I wanted to give you more time to build your case before I responded in kind.
However, while I did fail to document my argument about the Holocaust, I have apologized for that and I’m doing so again now. I should have said that estimate came from “Jews, God, and the Holocaust”, but there is evidence for that estimate in that book. It was written by Max I. Dimont, a respected historian, who witnessed the evidence of that atrocity first hand. Court’s call on eyewitnesses and use their testimonies as evidence for trials all the time. That book is account by a reliable witness, and I present it now, as I did in my last post.
I did read the wikipedia articles you submitted, but I don’t believe they disprove the statistic I gave you. The articles listed some churches that accepted Hitler. They even alluded to many individual believers accepting him, but many are not all. Many Frenchmen accepted defeat at the hands of Germany and lived. Many others formed an underground to fight and many of that number were killed as a result of the actions. Which were the true patriots? Those who fought for their freedom, or those who became slaves? I submit that the same was true of Christians and that those who resisted because they saw the error of Hitler’s personal faith and died for their conviction.
Both Satan and Hitler have twisted the Bible. They aren’t the only ones. That should go without saying. There are many people who twist the Bible, I realize that. Again, I mentioned in a past post that’s been happening from the very beginning of the church and that’s why the Apostles exhorted people to study! The Bible can be twisted, but it you study it and know what it says, you will not be fooled! Many people were fooled by Hitler. Seven million Christians (again according to Max I. Dimont (who was Jewish and wrote a number of books on Jewish history)) were killed in death camps for not being fooled. I don’t twist the Bible. At times I read things in there that are hard for me accept and would like to twist it to fit my own world view. So far, I have not. I try to accept truth, even when it is unpleasant, which, unfortunately, it usually is.
Finally, though I addressed this in the past and even alluded to it above, you have repeatedly accused me of rejecting rational thought out of some misplaced dogma. I do not now, nor feel that I have in the past, dismissed anything you have posted without a good reason and I always list them afterward. Please refrain from referring to me in that way in the future. I don’t want to be rude, but it implies a severe lack of respect, and I don’t think I’ve done anything to deserve that. I have striven to be polite and reasonable, even under duress. Furthermore, I have been ready to admit fault at ever conceivable junction of miscommunication. This is not the effort of a fanatic and I don’t appreciate being labeled one.
I hope this resolves the purpose of this blog, and any hard feelings (if there are any at all). If you hadn’t intended to debate wasn’t meant to be a debate, then I’m sorry, and shall refrain from treating it like one.
I hope this message finds you in good health.
–Mark
August 13, 2008 at 8:18 am
Ok these posts are getting far too long I think, with far too little content on both ends to hold one’s interest…so instead of addressing all of your comments, I will simply do this. I will offer you an article of evidence which I feel disproves or at the very least discredits the bible and the religion of Christianity.
You then feel free to comment on it as you must, but then you must also at the same time provide an article of evidence that you feel supports the bible’s scriptures as well…it could be completely unrelated to mine, it does not matter. That way we are not just chewing over each other’s words in our posts, but actually responding to something substantial, while at the same time providing substantive evidence or our own as well, and not just criticizing one another…does that sound like a better format for discussion and debate than what we are currently doing?
If you are cool with this just give me the word and I will show you my first piece of evidence against Christianity, then you can comment on it, and I will let that be and just comment on what ever piece of evidence you provide to support your case for Christianity. That way we are not arguing but rather simply sharing notes so to speak…does this make more sense?
BTW I don’t think your an idiot either, but I do not claim to be a smart man my self…I am a cartoonist after all. Certainly no one of “special” intellect that is for sure.
August 13, 2008 at 10:48 am
Please forgive the following off topic comments,
Hold it, you’re a cartoonist? I had no idea. What do you draw? Is it a web comic? A newspaper strip? One of those trendy underground comix? Please do tell.
Now for the on topic bit.
Sounds great. Go ahead and send it whenever you can. I look forward to it. And as far as you not being smart, I would argue the point that the smartest man in the world is the one who realizes that he still has a lot to learn. I debate all the time. Trading information is something I really enjoy. I have entire friendships that are built on debating and you have done very well in this one. I happen to think you’re very smart, or if you’re not, you’ve done a heck of job acting the part.
P.S. Sorry if its been a few days since I’ve responded. I’ve had a couple of things sneak up on me that have been eating up a lot of my spare time.
August 14, 2008 at 5:28 am
No I have not done my own web comic or anything of that nature…yet. I am currently working as a freelance artist/illustrator/animator for various small studios, and have work on everything from video games to commercials, but I would love to get into television and film, that’s what I am currently interested in.
I don’t have a lot of my work on the Internet, I am kind of weird about that. I guess I feel if my ideas aren’t being published that I would prefer to keep them mostly to just my self. However here are some samples of my doodles, caricatures, and cartoon designs I have done over the years. I never completed this site, I sort of got off track and never completed it. I should really get back to finishing it some day soon.
http://www.theartofroberthume.com
August 14, 2008 at 5:32 am
By the way, what is it that you do Mark?
August 14, 2008 at 5:43 am
I know I promised that I was going to show you historical evidence next, to help support my case against the religion of Christianity…However sense this discussion got started on the topic of evolution to begin with, I thought it would be fun to dove into that a little bit first…plus I just saw the most delightful series on the subject today and wanted to share.
I think Ritchard Dawkins does a very good job in this series of explaining the process and theories behind evolution for both those who may, or may not be familiar with them…
Part One:
http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0808/thegeniusofcha
rlesdarwin1.mov
August 14, 2008 at 5:46 am
Ah the link got cut in two…here let me try again.
Part One:
http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0808/thegeniusofcharlesdarwin1.mov
August 14, 2008 at 6:08 am
Part Two:
http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0808/thegeniusofcharlesdarwin2.mov
August 14, 2008 at 6:09 am
Part Three Airs next week.
August 17, 2008 at 6:01 am
Robert,
Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply. I’ve been buried under the last week and I’ve have hardly had a chance to get online.
As it stands, it’s probably going to be another week before I have time to check out and reply to your links. I’m sorry about that, but I do thank you for putting them up and I’m actually looking forward to viewing them.
I do want to say that I went ahead and checked out your website. I really hope you do open that site to the public some day. Your drawings are amazing! I’m glad to hear that you’ve got work as an animator even if it’s not in the area you want to work in.
As for me, my current occupation is a night clerk in a hotel, which is largely why I only get online at night. Just to clarify, because I know I mentioned this somewhere on Dumm, I used to co-own a construction company, but with the economy in the sorry shape it’s in, we went out of business, which is why I’m working in a hotel. Right now, construction is not a good place to find gainful employment. It pays well enough, but the work is scarce, at least where I’m at.
My ultimate goal is to be a writer, and I have had a little exposure. I’ve been hired to write at least one screenplay, though I was never paid because the project was cancelled, and my contract stated I would only be paid if we actually got our funding. I’ve had a little poetry published here and there, but never in any noteworthy publications. Though I will say that I do know a film critic from New York who really likes some of my short fiction. That’s something at least.
I’ve got to go, but I’ll be back, hopefully within the next seven days to respond. Thanks for bearing with me and thanks for the links.
Take care, Robert.
–Mark
August 20, 2008 at 7:13 am
Hey thanks for the compliment Mark! I really appreciate it.
Here is the 3rd and Final Part to the 3 Part series I have been sharing with you…
http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0808/thegeniusofcharlesdarwin3.mov
Feel free to take your time responding to it, and I look forward as well to seeing what ever article of evidence you have to share to support your case for Christianity as well.
Take Care!
August 29, 2008 at 8:00 am
Robert,
Sorry I’ve been gone so long. Things have been crazy lately. I wanted to let you know I’ll have a reply for by sometime before Monday. Take Care.
August 31, 2008 at 7:58 am
Robert,
Hey, sorry it’s taken me so long to comment. I won’t waste your time with excuses; we’re both busy men, after all.
I’ve watched all three parts of the “Genius of Darwin”, sadly I couldn’t get your links to work, but I was able to find all three parts on you tube. The documentary was very well constructed and entertaining without losing its academic edge. It laid out the basic ideas behind natural selection and the resulting history behind it very well.
I am afraid, however, it did little if anything to change my mind on the subject. I was familiar with Richard Dawkins prior to this, and to be honest, I kind of feel like he’s the Stephen Hawking of evolution. Let me explain. While Hawking is a great physicist and certainly the most well known by the general public, he is not the greatest laborer in his field by any means. In fact, some years ago, there was a list complied of the top 20 most influential and groundbreaking physicists currently working. On this list Hawking was placed at #20. To even place at all is a great accomplishment, but there were still 19 guys ahead of him.
Dawkins is a great proponent of evolution, but not the greatest and certainly not the most authoritative. While I do respect him, I question many of his debate methods. His insistence that there is no controversy on evolution is absurd. Even if the theory was a fact, which I’m not convinced it is personally, that would not stop it from being a controversy so long as there were a significant number of people to oppose it.
As Michael Crichton said in his 2003 address to Caltech:
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
He wasn’t addressing the subject of evolution when he said it, but I can’t help but think of Richard Dawkins’ refusal to debate whenever I read it.
Likewise Dawkins discussion of the eye brought to mind an article by mathematician David Berlinski that addressed, among other things, a claim by Dr. Dawkins concerning a study that produced a computer model showing the evolutionary development of the eye. The problem is that no such model exists. In fact, Dan E. Nilsson, who was the senior author of the study Dawkins cited, said that no such model had ever been produced, and then went a step further, suggesting that Dr. Dawkins had made the whole thing up.
That was Dr. Nilsson’s opinion. Frankly, I think he was pushing it a bit. Richard Dawkins is certainly a great scientist, but his unerring faith in evolution, and his consistent refusal to debate or question it, leaves one feeling that he might be as dogmatic as he claims religious people are.
I’m not trying to make him a whipping boy. A lot of people on my side of the debate do, and that’s the wrong way to approach an argument. You don’t win the day by knocking down your detractors; you do it by knocking down their argument. Not a lot of people understand that. Dawkins himself doesn’t seem to. Outside the documentary, I’ve noticed that whenever I see him debating or hosting a talk, if someone begins to question evolution, Dawkins first response will be something akin to, “Now I assume you come from a Christian background”. There’s a myth that only religious people oppose evolution. I won’t go into a lengthy argument on the subject matter, but I would like to give you an example of an evolutionary critic who was extremely irreligious. I’m speaking of the late Colin Patterson, a former senior paleontologist at the British Museum.
Colin believed in natural selection and felt that the work he did with fossils at the museum helped to back it up. One night, he said, that after working in paleontology for twenty years, he suddenly realized that he didn’t know a single concrete fact about natural selection. He began inquiring to various groups, asking if they could tell him anyone thing that was true about evolution. Among those he asked were the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and certain members of an Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago. The geology staff was unable to answer him, and the only answer he received from the Seminar attendants was a joke (that’s not an insult, they quite literally responded with a joking answer). As Patterson continued digging, he was unable to find any tangible evidence of the evolutionary process.
Some years passed and Patterson received a letter regarding an introductory text he had written for a pamphlet on evolution. The letter inquired as to why Patterson had not included in his text any direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions. Patterson replied to the letter thusly:
“You say I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection, but such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”
The thing that bothered Patterson so much and that he really came to voice was that all we really see in fossil record are patterns of similarity or difference, but these patterns do not tell us what process, if any, created them.
I would like to note that Colin Patterson did not believe in creationism and had regarded religion in general as a pack of lies. Despite his anti-religious nature, he could not reconcile the problems he saw in evolution with what he knew of paleontology. He was still open to the theory on some levels and referred to himself as a ‘non-evolutionist’ instead of an ‘anti-evolutionist’.
If you want to discuss this further, I am ready, willing, and able to do so or if you want to avoid a lengthy debate that is fine as well. I’m busy and I’m sure you are too. For a matter of record, the majority of my information came from several different books, but you can find citations on all of them in a single volume, should you wish to verify my arguments. The volume of which I speak is: “The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science” by Tom Bethell. It’s fairly well documented and a quick scan of its index should give you an idea of where my information comes from. If you don’t wish to purchase it, you can probably get a copy from your local library.
Thanks for your time and attention and also thanks for pointing out “Genius of Darwin”. Whatever my feelings on the matter may be, it was a good piece of work and I enjoyed it. Take care.
—Mark
August 31, 2008 at 7:59 am
Robert,
Following my response to your last recommendation, I thought that I might take this time to present my own argument in favor of Christianity. To understand Christianity, you need to understand the Bible and what it means. A lot of people go to a church and they hear the Bible preached through a jaded denominational filter, and they think, ‘Oh, so that’s what it’s all about’. I hate to admit it, but going to church can just as damaging in some cases as it is helpful in others. People try to use the scripture to justify or reinforce whatever social, economic, or philosophical trend they happen to like. That’s not what the Bible’s about. However, a lot of people have trouble excepting what the Bible is about. I run into this quite frequently, in church and out of it. Most people want to pick and choose what they believe or twist something they don’t like into something they do.
See, the Bible, the whole Bible, is a guidebook, an outline for living one’s life according to the precepts of God. It contains history, poetry, philosophy as well as Biblical law and all of these are important and all of these (even the poetry) reveal very real, literal and spiritual truths about our nature and our world.
How does one prove that, you may ask. It’s difficult question. I have my proof and have had it since my conversion. Anytime I encounter a problem I go to the Bible and the answer will often times stare me in the face. Even if I read from a place that I previously marked the night before, I open the book and nine times out of ten, what I see resolves my trouble. It’s almost like God’s speaking directly to me.
Okay, that works for me, but it probably doesn’t work for you or anyone else. You would probably want some kind of scientific confirmation on the matter. Therefore, I would like to direct your attention to a 1998 New York Times bestselling book, “The Bible Code” by journalist Michael Drosnin.
According to Drosnin’s testimony, in the mid 90’s he heard of an Israeli mathematician, Dr. Eliyahu Rips, who was doing research on the Bible. An Israeli soldier told Drosnin that Rips had found a code capable of predicting the future in the pages of the Old Testament. Drosnin was not religious and thought it was a hoax. He went to see Dr. Rips expecting to expose him as a fraud. Their first meeting changed his mind completely.
Dr. Rips claimed to have found references to the Gulf War encoded in the Bible three weeks before the war began. He even found the exact date that Israel was fired upon during the conflict along with the name Saddam Hussein. By the time Drosnin saw this information, the war was long over. It didn’t mean anything to him. Dr. Rips did ask a favor of him, though. He had found a sequence in the code that seemed to predict that someone would kill then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in late 1995. Drosnin was interested by what Rips had showed him and decided to go along with it. He had contacts that could get a message to the Prime Minister. He used them, the message was sent and ignored. In late 1995 Prime Minister Rabin was indeed assassinated. Dr. Rips found the name of his killer in the same block of scripture that predicted his death. The reason he had not found it before was because the code only searches for specific words. No one had thought to search for the particular name his killer bore until it was known. This was the event that convinced Drosnin that the code was real.
For other examples, the name of the Shoemaker-Levy comet, coupled with the phrase ‘Will Pound Jupiter’, and the date 8th AV (the date of July 16 in the ancient Hebrew calendar) were found in the code two months before Shoemaker-Levy collided with Jupiter on July 16th of 1994. To be precise that bit of information was found in the book of Isaiah. That’s interesting because a complete copy of Isaiah dating back several thousand years was recovered by the Israeli government from the Dead Sea Scrolls. We know from the ancient copy that the book of Isaiah is the same today as it was more than two millenniums ago, and since the vintage book lines up exactly with the current book, it means that in ancient times someone wrote a book that contained a code that predicted an astronomical event that happened within our lifetime.
Within this code in different places in the Bible they have found the names of every President of the United States coupled with information about them. They have found a record of the moon landing, of William Shakespeare, of Mahatma Ghandi, and numerous other modern and ancient people. Not only that but the code is consistent throughout the Bible.
When Drosnin wrote his book ten years ago, the subject had scarcely been explored outside of himself and a few select others, and only a very few books of the Bible had actually been searched. A number of investigations into other Biblical cannon have been undertaken and a lot of books have been compiled on the subject since then. This code, which cannot be duplicated by any technology we now possess is the same throughout the entire Bible. Dr. Rips has gone on record saying that such a code would not be possible unless every book that entails it were written or at the very least conceived at the same time. We know by way of history that the books of the Bible were written over a number of centuries by various different men. If they were not truly divinely inspired, how could this code come to be? Drosnin, who is not a believer, hints at, but never says, that the code might have been written by aliens. Who’s to say? At the very least, however, it does seem to put to rest the idea that the Bible is nothing but a bunch of hokey stories.
To any questions about authenticity to rest, I will quote a brief passage from the first chapter of Drosnin’s book:
“The code was discovered by Dr. Eliyahu Rips, one of the world’s leading experts in group theory, a field of mathematics that underlies quantum physics. It has been confirmed by famous mathematicians at Harvard, Yale, and Hebrew University. It has been replicated by a senior code-breaker at the U.S. Department of Defense. It has passed three levels of secular peer review at a leading U.S. math journal (That magazine is Statistical Science which published Dr. Rips first paper on the code. (Vol. 9, No. 3, Pg 429-438, 1994)).
Incidentally, the article I mention above is reprinted in the back of Drosnin’s book. The code has never been disproved and a number of leading secular experts have come to accept it (though they seem to share Drosnin’s preference to alien authorship over God).
To break down the mechanics of it, the Bible code is an equidistant letter sequence hidden in the text of the Hebrew translation of the books of the Bible. The way the code works, is that you take a book from the Bible, translate it into Hebrew, remove all punctuation and spaces between the letters so that you only have row upon row of letters. The computer program designed by Dr. Rips takes these letter blocks and begins scans them. It will take ever second letter out of the book and block them together to see if it can find any recognizable words or sentences. If it fails to do so, it will go back to the beginning of the book, and take every third letter, then every fourth and so on. Words and phases found together will be identified and displayed.
Also, this code has been applied other books, both secular and religious. It appears nowhere outside the Bible, at least that they’ve been able to find.
I could go on, but my purpose isn’t to give you the full history of the Bible Code, but only to make you aware of it. I would recommend Drosnin’s book, he does a good job of laying things out and it’s a fairly easy read as such things go. It is a bit dated being about a decade old, but it’s a good place to start if you’re interested in looking into to it.
Thanks for reading Robert. I look forward to hearing from you.
—Mark
August 31, 2008 at 9:23 am
Thanks for the indepth response on both of your posts(referring to my offered evidence, and the article of evidence you provided as well)…and thank you for taking the time to view the Darwin series in it’s full. That says a lot about you, that you even took the time to watch them. A lesser creationist might have just blown them off once they saw that Dawkins was narrating it, or even involved(it’s happened before). It is after all a rather long series to watch, but having a life long fascination with evolution I found it to be very enjoyable.
Please give me at least a week and I will have my response to both of your post(perhaps a bit longer, because I might do some serious reading in order to fully understand and respond accurately to your claim). I will also have a second piece of evidence to share with you as well. I have no problem debating indepth on these subjects(I think that’s very important), but I would also like to continue pushing forward with the presentation of new evidence as well, because I feel that there is so much to be covered.
Take care Mark and thanks again for being so open minded, I will try my very best to do the same in respect to yours.
-Rob