matthew says that jesus tells his disciples to "honor your father and mother" (matt 19:19), but luke thinks that jesus requires his followers to hate their parents, "whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother...cannot be my disciple.
" (luke 14.26) .
couldn't god find a way for one to be a disciple of jesus without having to hate one's parents?
I've never been a JW or a Christian and have never been affiliated with anything even remotely like a religion or spiritual organization. I write about errancy because I think mindless beliefs are a threat to humankind's existence.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
matthew says that jesus tells his disciples to "honor your father and mother" (matt 19:19), but luke thinks that jesus requires his followers to hate their parents, "whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother...cannot be my disciple.
" (luke 14.26) .
couldn't god find a way for one to be a disciple of jesus without having to hate one's parents?
Matthew says that Jesus tells his disciples to "Honor your father and mother" (Matt 19:19), but Luke thinks that Jesus requires his followers to hate their parents, "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother...cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14.26)
Couldn't God find a way for one to be a disciple of Jesus without having to hate one's parents? Certainly, he could. Thus, Luke must have been mistaken about what Jesus said, and the Bible is once again in error.
When a disciple begs for permission to bury his father, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father," Jesus told him to let him rot: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." (Matthew 8:21-22)
Jesus was in such a hurry that he wouldn't let his disciples at least make sure his father wasn't eaten by dogs? How likely is this? Jesus must have known that the end wasn't coming for another two thousand years, so why couldn't he have given his disciple a little time off to "honor" his father?
Now, really...who can imagine that Jesus really said this? Isn't it more likely--by far--that Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said? If so, then the Bible is once again in error. If you can't trust it here, perhaps it can't be trusted anywhere.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
the best evidence that the bible teaches that the earth is flat is found in the following passages.
the first is in matthew: .
"[t]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them".
Scorpion,
It's not enough merely to state that you don't accept someone's argument; you're expected to explain why the argument is not valid. Then you will have earned the right to ask for a better argument.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
the best evidence that the bible teaches that the earth is flat is found in the following passages.
the first is in matthew: .
"[t]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them".
If one believes the Bible, one must believe that the words the writers penned were straight from the lips of an all-knowing God, and contain truths to be learned: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching” (2 Timothy 3:16)
Thus, the authors of the books of Matthew and Daniel wrote God-breathed words which convey images of a flat earth. Either this “god” didn’t know that the Earth was a sphere, or else the writer of 2 Timothy was wrong. If the former, then the god of the Bible isn’t really all-knowing; if the latter, then the Bible is in error.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
the best evidence that the bible teaches that the earth is flat is found in the following passages.
the first is in matthew: .
"[t]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them".
The best evidence that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat is found in the following passages. The first is in Matthew:
"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
(Matthew 4:1-12)
Certainly, if the earth were flat, standing atop "an exceedingly high mountain" would allow Jesus to see the whole earth, but there is no mountain tall enough to allow him to see the other side of a spherical earth. At most, one hemisphere would be seen, but not the other, unless the Bible is teaching us that Jesus had Superman-like "X-ray vision" which enabled him to see through the earth to kingdoms on the other side.
The other passage is in Daniel:
"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." (Daniel 4:10-11)
The "whole" earth? No matter how tall the tree was, it would not have been visible from the other side of the earth. Only a writer who thought the earth was flat, or one who was merely repeating a silly folk tale, would have written such a thing.
If these writers had been inspired by a god to write these words, that god would not have let them suggest that the "whole earth" could be seen at once if one had a tall enough vantage point.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
josiah, king of judah (640-609 b.c.
), was installed as king at the age of eight.
josiah attempted to restore the kingdom of david and was opposed by pharaoh necho of egypt in a battle at megiddo.
Josiah, King of Judah (640-609 B.C.), was installed as king at the age of eight. Josiah attempted to restore the kingdom of David and was opposed by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt in a battle at Megiddo. The Kings author reports that Josiah was killed there, at Megiddo, then carried dead to Jerusalem, where he was buried. On the other hand, the Chronicles author believed that Josiah was wounded but not killed at Megiddo, and was carried alive to Jerusalem, where he died.
Clearly, both of these authors cannot be right: Josiah cannot have been killed in Megiddo, then carried alive to Jerusalem, where he died again.
Given below are the conflicting Kings and Chronicles accounts of King Josiah's death. Both accounts cannot be true, so at least one of the accounts was not inspired by God and the Bible is errant.
Josiah Was Killed at Megiddo:
29 While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo. 30 Josiah's servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. (2 Kings 23:29-30)
Josiah died in Jerusalem:
23 Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, "Take me away; I am badly wounded." 24 So they took him out of his chariot, put him in the other chariot he had and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died." 2 Chronicles 35:23-24
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
the author of mark thinks that jesus cured the leper after he cured simon peters mother-in-law, but the author of matthew says just the opposite: he thinks that jesus cured the leper before he cured the mother-in-law.
they both cannot be right, so the bible is in error.
here is the evidence:.
Yeru states, "I trust in the Interpretation and the Traditions of the Church that existed even before the bible."
Even before the Bible?
So you put your faith in men, not the Bible? If that's what you mean, then are not Catholics similar to Jehovah's Witnesses, who put their faith in men, their organization, and their interpretations?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
the author of mark thinks that jesus cured the leper after he cured simon peters mother-in-law, but the author of matthew says just the opposite: he thinks that jesus cured the leper before he cured the mother-in-law.
they both cannot be right, so the bible is in error.
here is the evidence:.
Yeru has presented what I think may be the only "sensible" reason I know of for belief in a god: It is personal experience. Yeru, like so many before him, has experienced one or more events in his life which he attributes to a god-like agent or influence. His upbringing led him to associate this agent with the god described in his parents' Bible, perhaps (if this isn't exactly true in Yeru's case, it is nevertheless true for most folks). Now, if Yeru had been born in Iran, say, to Moslem parents, he likely would have attributed his experiences to the god described in the Koran, Allah, and he would be a muslim, not a Christian, and he likely would believe in that god and that Bible as fervently--perhaps more so, given the extreme emphasis on religion in the Islamic countries--as he believes in the god of the Christian Bible.
Yeru noted that Lars' attitude helps us understand why there are "33,000 different Christian denominations." I would take that further and say that there are as many religions and gods as there are people in the world to contemplate them. But is it really "sensible" to believe in these gods?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
the author of mark thinks that jesus cured the leper after he cured simon peters mother-in-law, but the author of matthew says just the opposite: he thinks that jesus cured the leper before he cured the mother-in-law.
they both cannot be right, so the bible is in error.
here is the evidence:.
Well, well, Tdogg. You said that pretty well.
As for the leper, I don't give a damn about him, either; but to those who believe that the Bible contains the perfect word of god, the question of whether there were two lepers or one can become the most important one in the world. If there weren't two lepers, then either one of the gospel writers was told the wrong chronology by God, or else the writer wasn't inspired by God. If the former, then God is not perfect; if the latter, the Bible cannot be trusted to show the word of God. Either way, the foundation--the very basis of the fundamentalist's existence--is kicked out from under them. They will fight to the death to deny there is any inconsistency, contradiction, or error in the Bible.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
the author of mark thinks that jesus cured the leper after he cured simon peters mother-in-law, but the author of matthew says just the opposite: he thinks that jesus cured the leper before he cured the mother-in-law.
they both cannot be right, so the bible is in error.
here is the evidence:.
Because Lars believes he is a prophet and has special God-given powers to understand and explain the secrets of the Bible, he should be able to answer the following five questions:
1. Why did neither of the two writers tell us that there were two lepers cured, one before the visit to the mother-in-law, and one after the visit?
2. Does Lars think that the existence of two lepers, not just one, was the type of secret that the Bible writers would want to keep from everyone but the likes of Lars?
3. Why does Lars not think it's nearly miraculous that each of the "two" lepers said exactly the same thing to Jesus?
"Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."
"I am willing," he said.
Isn't this fact completely consistent with just one leper, rather than two who just happened to speak exactly the same? If not, why not?
4. Why doesn't Lars believe that a more reasonable explanation of the apparent discrepancy lies in the tendency of the gospel writers not to pay too much attention to chronology?
5. Why does Lars insist that there had to be two different lepers, rather than just one? Is it because that he's already committed himself publicly to the Two Leper Theory, and is unwilling to admit that there's a better explanation that doesn't impact the Bible's inerrancy whatsoever?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
