Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinist Jerry Coyne refuses to discuss origin of life in person with maverick rabbi; claims he oppresses women

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Rabbi Moshe Averick, author of The Confused, Illusory World of the Atheist , tells us the sad story of the “Orthodox Rabbi vs. Atheistic Biologist Who Won’t Put his Money Where his Mouth is: A History.” The “atheist bigot”in the story is surprise, surprise gnu atheist Jerry Coyne (“Why Evolution Is True”):

I have some very sad news to report…Dr. Jerry Coyne (Zealous Atheist – Professor of Biology at the U. of Chicago), and I (Orthodox Rabbi – Fearless Crusader for Belief in God and Spirituality)…are breaking up. I know it’s hard to believe, but our passionate, tempestuous, whirlwind affair has come to an end. In his final letter to me Jerry wrote: “I’m done with Averick, and certainly will not accept his invitation to meet and discuss whether God created the first organism.” The hottest love has the coldest end – Socrates

Regular readers will remember that Moseh Averick’s key issue is the non-science around the origin of life. His sparring with Coyne on that topic can be viewed here (“An Open Letter to Dr. Jerry Coyne, from the Maverick Rabbi”), here (“Should Darwin’s defender Jerry Coyne get silver medal for “sheer crudeness”?”), and here (“Reb Moshe Averick, skeptic of nonsense marketed as science, mixes it up again with Jerry “Why Evolution Is True” Coyne”), for example.

So, what ha-a-a-a-ppened? Why are we deprived, with no apparent just cause, of our regular dose of Maverick? Well, after a discussion of numerous occasions on which Coyne found it hard to understand why an intelligent Jewish person would disagree with him,

9. 12/22/11 – (Don’t worry we’re almost finished) I offer to bury the hatchet and hold out the peace-pipe to Dr. Coyne with: Dr. Jerry Coyne: My Culturally-Jewish, Atheistic, Biologist Bro’ at the University of Chicago: “It does not seem to me that a simple disagreement about the origin of life should be cause for me and Dr. Coyne to be at each others throats. Jerry, I am respectfully answering your challenge and would like to “come at you bro.” Let’s stop fighting over the internet and meet in person and have a mature, civil discussion about Origin of Life….The more I think about it the better it sounds. After all, we do have quite a bit in common; two nice Jewish boys in Chicago who love Hyde Park, who love to hack away at our word processors, who thoroughly enjoy an honest battle of ideas, and most important of all, we both love pastrami sandwiches!” I even sent him a “virtual gift” of kosher pastrami as a peace-offering.

But, the skinny,

In his final post where he announced the “break-up” and that he would not meet me in a debate, the nicest thing he had to say was that I was a “sexist” actively engaged in enslaving and oppressing women on every continent.

Wow! The Reb has that kind of pull? Here we figured he was lucky to just keep some Jewish families faithful – the rabbi’s perennial quest. Anyway, Rev Averick finishes with

Frankly, it is clear that Dr. Coyne was relieved that he found a good excuse not to discuss or debate the issue of Origin of Life with me in an open forum. Origin of Life is the soft, defenseless underbelly of the façade of “scientific” support for an atheistic worldview.

Well, we wish Moshe Averick a tougher opponent.

By the way, James Shapiro, currently sparring with the ID theorists, admits that origin of life is still on the fringe of science. It’s hardly a new or unreasonable idea.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
I have studied world religions, including Islam, twice in college courses as well as on my own.
That doesn't answer my question:
Barb:
I started with the assumption that if the Bible is really the word of God, then it should be given the opportunity to prove itself.
And I’m sure you diligently studied the Koran and gave it the opportunity to prove itself, since it also claims to be the word of God. Right?
Barb again:
I trust that it’s far more than what you have studied.
You'd be quite mistaken. I'm fascinated by religion and I love reading about it. My library has more than 130 titles on religion, and that's not even counting my 65+ volume ID/creationism collection.champignon
February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
I have studied world religions, including Islam, twice in college courses as well as on my own. I trust that it's far more than what you have studied.Barb
February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
I don't know about 'dilligently', but I'm working through the Quaran now. Thus far my problem is it misrepresents what Christians and jews actually believe, which makes me question it's authorship. The new testament doesn't do that for Judaism, so why the strawman for 'people of the book'? It is kinda interesting though.Sonfaro
February 2, 2012
February
02
Feb
2
02
2012
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
Barb:
I started with the assumption that if the Bible is really the word of God, then it should be given the opportunity to prove itself.
And I'm sure you diligently studied the Koran and gave it the opportunity to prove itself, since it also claims to be the word of God. Right?champignon
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
Barb, I may be a bit biased in all this, but I find that you are truly a woman of grace, strength, and wisdom in your defense of Scripture!,,, Here are a couple of songs you may enjoy.
Sara Groves - The Word - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ofE-GZ8zTU Sara Groves - Something Changed - music http://www.vimeo.com/28076423
bornagain77
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
Champignon continues: “I was raised as an evangelical Christian, so I understand how exhausting it can be to try to defend the Bible. After a while, you feel like asking God, “If You wrote this book, why didn’t You make it looklike You wrote it? Why is it so hard to defend Your word? Why do you make it so easy for critics to find obvious flaws in it?” And then you feel guilty, because you’ve been taught that it’s wrong to question God’s word.” Funny, I feel just the opposite. I’m happy to defend my faith when asked why I believe what I believe. And I don’t have any problem with doing research when I don’t fully understand what I read. “1. Absurd scientific claims, like the story of Jacob and the goats, or God placing the rainbow in the sky as a symbol of his promise not to flood the earth again? They make perfect sense: the people who wrote those stories were scientifically illiterate. They didn’t know any better.” Scientifically illiterate? Hardly. Try these scriptures as an example: For one thing, the true God revealed to them that he governs the universe by precise laws, or statutes. For example, more than 3,500 years ago, Jehovah God asked his servant Job: “Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens?” (Job 38:33) In the seventh century B.C.E., the prophet Jeremiah wrote about “the statutes of heaven and earth.”—Jeremiah 33:25. As a result, those God-fearing individuals neither bowed down to created entities, such as the sun, the moon, or the stars, nor did they have a superstitious attitude toward them. (Deuteronomy 4:15-19) Rather, they saw God’s works as objects of study that reveal his wisdom, power, and other qualities.—Psalm 8:3-9; Proverbs 3:19, 20. The ancient Hebrews also believed that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1. Also, some 3,500 years ago, God revealed to his servant Job that the earth ‘hangs on nothing,’ or is suspended in space. (Job 26:7) And finally, more than 2,500 years ago, the prophet Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle or sphere.—Isaiah 40:22. The Bible also shows the correct order in which all living things were formed (Genesis, chapter 1), which can be confirmed scientifically, and the effects of the hereditary process (Psalm 139:16). Long before people had any concept of germs and hygiene, the Bible provided the Israelites with instructions that anyone touching a dead body (or excrement) became unclean and had to wash himself and his garments.—Numbers 19:11-22; Deuteronomy 23:12-14. You call the claims made earlier absurd; why? If God created the earth and its physical laws, then surely he can control such laws which would include creating a rainbow. The story of Jacob and the goats relates to genetic inheritance. Jacob asked for the unusually colored animals born to Laban’s flocks. It is said that in that region, sheep were generally white and goats were black or dark brown; only a minority was parti-colored. So thinking he was getting a bargain, Laban readily agreed and promptly moved all his animals with unusual markings a distance away in order to avoid contact with the flocks remaining in Jacob’s care. He obviously believed that Jacob would gain little out of the agreement, certainly not the 20 percent of newborn kids and lambs that ancient shepherds typically received as wages. But Laban was wrong, for Jehovah was with Jacob.—Genesis 30:25-36. Under divine guidance, Jacob bred sturdy animals of the desired coloration. (Genesis 30:37-42) His ideas on stockbreeding were not valid. Nonetheless, “scientifically, the required results could be achieved by the successive interbreeding of . . . single-colored animals that carried recessive genes for spottedness,” explains scholar Nahum Sarna, and “such animals are detectable by . . . [their] hybrid vigor.” Unscientific? Not really. “2. A petty, jealous, vindictive God? Makes perfect sense: that’s how the Israelites actually conceived of God.” Actually, they didn’t. They viewed him as the only true God as noted in Isaiah chapter 43. Your biased opinion isn’t helping any. “3. Different laws in the Old and New Testaments? Sure — they were different societies with different conceptions of good and evil.” The law covenant, or Mosaic Law, was done away with by the death and resurrection of Christ. Surely you as a former evangelical Christian can understand this simple point. The entire Bible book of Hebrews contrasts the two, and surely you’ve read that. “4. Cruelties like commanding the amputation of women’s hands? The Israelites actually believed in a God who was like that, so the book they wrote naturally reflects their view of God. They approved of things that we think are absolutely evil, so of course we are appalled by their holy book.” Who are you to define absolute evil when you cannot comprehend absolute good? “5. Contradictions throughout the Bible? Of course! Those books were written over hundreds of years by different people. Why would you expect them to agree on everything? Their authors were only human.” There are scores of websites that describe supposed contradictions in the Bible. Most of them are the result of not understanding the context, which is what you are guilty of. Spare me. “6. Failed prophecies? Ditto.” Fulfilled prophecies? Yes. There are none so blind as those who will not see. It’s sad, really. "It all makes sense. You just have to have the courage to consider something that you’ve been taught is heretical." I did consider that. Then I continued studying and reading the Bible and realized that it wasn't heretical. So I took one more step than you did, apparently. "You have to decide that the truth is more important than orthodoxy. You have to decide that you are going to seek the real God, not a fictional one. And if you get brave enough (it took me a while), you’ll consider the possibility that there is no God at all." I do worship the true God. And trust me, Christianity is not for the cowardly. It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to those who repeatedly and continously mock you and your God--people like you, Champignon, who refuse to seek the truth even when given a map and directions. "If you assume that the Bible is the word of God and if you always interpret the evidence to fit your assumption, then if you are wrong, you will never discover your error." I started with the assumption that if the Bible is really the word of God, then it should be given the opportunity to prove itself. Then, I broke down what I wanted to study (see my post to Elizabeth above). Notice how I didn't start out thinking that the Bible was wrong and simply began looking for scriptures to justify that belief. There are countless atheists who are guilty of this. "Likewise, a Muslim who assumes that the Koran is the word of Allah and always interprets the evidence to fit that assumption will never discover his error. Far better to follow the evidence where it leads and to embrace the truth, even if it is uncomfortable at first." I did follow the evidence. You gave up looking. There's the difference.Barb
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
Timbo:“No, we haven’t established that.” Uh, actually, we have, seeing as how I have been posting the context of the verses that champignon insists are sexist and devalue women. Notice how he hasn’t yet responded to my points about the Bible books of Ruth and Esther? Or the biblical command to love one’s wife as one’s body? Why is that, I wonder? “ We have established that you don’t agree with Champ’s analysis. Your response to someone who has a different interpretation of a book to you is that they lack reading comprehension. Not very christian of you.” Spare me the ‘no true Christian’ fallacy, Timbo. He isn’t analyzing anything. He’s cherry-picking scripture that validates his atheistic worldview, and nothing more. “What is loving about requiring someone to stay married to a woman who clearly doesn’t love him? Much more loving to encourage people to face reality.” Try reading the book. Timbo. You might learn something. Hosea’s marriage was prophetic in showing how forgiving God was towards the nation of Israel, which abandoned worshipping him for other gods. Jesus indicated to his followers that adultery was the only source of dissolution of marriage in God's eyes. However, he did not encourage it. The choice to divorce a mate who'd committed adultery was the right of the innocent mate who'd been cheated on. “The passages about God’s law, crushed testicles, and tampering with the reproductive organs; I just don’t see how you could write that with a straight face.” Why not? It provided a simple explanation for why the law existed. Notice how the woman wasn’t sentenced to death. Notice also how she wasn’t to remain barren; she wasn’t forcibly sterilized. Both of those could have been alternative forms of punishment. But, then again, you apparently aren’t interested in hearing anything that contradicts your preconceived notions about the Bible. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a closed mind looks like. “ You might not be aware of this, but in most cases, grabbing someone by the testicles will not render them infertile. Maybe God could at least have let them find out if there was irreparable damage before the woman had her hand cut off?” What part of this statement that I posted earlier did you not understand: “By doing this, the woman doubtless ruined the man’s reproductive powers”? Who are you to say that the man was examined medically to see if that was the case? Champignon: “Afer this long exchange, do you still not recognize that I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God? I don’t believe that God ordered the amputation of women’s hands, that he commanded rape victims to marry their rapists, that he demanded that the Israelites commit genocide, or any of those horrible things. You believe those things about God, but I don’t.” I know you don’t believe the Bible is the word of God. I wish you would at least attempt to read it with an open mind, though. At least I attempted to understand why God had these laws written, and for what purpose. “Furthermore, I never said that the God of the Old Testament was merciless and pitiless. Cruel, yes. Merciless and pitiless, no. He showed mercy and pity at times, but far less often than you would expect from a God who Christians claim is perfect.” So, God is cruel. That is slander, which is what I posted about you earlier. Looks like I was right after all. How many times did he forgive Israel for straying and following other Gods? How many centuries passed? Did you notice in the book of Genesis that Abraham bargained with God over the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? If as few as ten righteous people could be found, the cities would have been spared. Did that ever catch your attention while you read the Bible? Or did you, like so many other atheists, simply skim through its contents looking for something, anything, to justify your hatred of God? And by what standard to you, a lowly human who doesn’t even begin to understand God’s word, presume to judge God’s perfection? That is laughable. “I suspect that you have gone through life seeing your devotion to the Bible as virtuous. I hope you can now see that when you say that God wrote the Bible, he may (if he exists at all) see that as an accusation rather than as a compliment.” Prove to me, champignon, that devotion to the Bible isn’t virtuous. Prove to me that living by the Golden Rule is somehow bad and prevents development of good relationships between people. Prove to me that living by what Paul wrote at Colossians (“clothe yourselves with love for it is a perfect bond of union”) is somehow wrong. The Bible claims divine inspiration, champignon. I’m merely restating that. You call it an accusation. I call you ignorant.Barb
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Barb,
I’m not slandering anyone, champignon, you are, by claiming God to be merciless, pitiless and cruel—all without benefit of evidence to back up these outrageous claims.
After this long exchange, do you still not recognize that I don't believe the Bible is the word of God? I don't believe that God ordered the amputation of women's hands, that he commanded rape victims to marry their rapists, that he demanded that the Israelites commit genocide, or any of those horrible things. You believe those things about God, but I don't. Furthermore, I never said that the God of the Old Testament was merciless and pitiless. Cruel, yes. Merciless and pitiless, no. He showed mercy and pity at times, but far less often than you would expect from a God who Christians claim is perfect. I suspect that you have gone through life seeing your devotion to the Bible as virtuous. I hope you can now see that when you say that God wrote the Bible, he may (if he exists at all) see that as an accusation rather than as a compliment.champignon
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
The only thing a Christian needs to defend is the resurrection event. If an argument in favor of the resurrection has more explanatory scope than the competing arguments, than quibbling over OT passages is pointless. Start with the historical method as applied to the gospels and the letters of Paul. Develop a historical nucleus and pinpoint the extraordinary claim. In this case, the resurrection event. Support extraordinary claim with evidence. In this case the Shroud of Turin. Apply scientific method to the Shroud of Turin. Find a model that best fits all the data. Extraordinary claim: Jesus was the divine interface between man and God, in which God raised Jesus from the dead. Extraordinary evidence: Shroud of Turinjunkdnaforlife
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Scott,
But I’m certain that an internet blog is one of the worst forums possible for such a discussion.
If it's good for discussing evolution, then why not the Bible? I'll bet that some of the people reading this thread have thought about things they never considered before. Thinking is good.champignon
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
"You have to decide that you are going to seek the real God, not a fictional one." ...Aren't you atheist? What real god are you talking about? -_- Also. The bible isn't just one book. It's an anthology - several books of about and relating to God. Asumming every book is the absolute word of God is silly from the get go.Sonfaro
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
Scott wrote:
God saw fit to put some things in the Bible that would challenge us. If we’re looking for an excuse to discard the whole thing, there it is.
I responded:
Allah saw fit to put some things in the Koran that would challenge us. If we’re looking for an excuse to discard the whole thing, there it is.
My point, of course, is that you can justify anything by that kind of reasoning. Far better to look objectively at the Bible (and the Koran, and the Guru Granth Sahib, and the Bhagavad Gita...) and to ask yourself: Considering the evidence, is this book more likely to be the work of man, or the work of an omnisicient, omnipotent, merciful, loving God? I was raised as an evangelical Christian, so I understand how exhausting it can be to try to defend the Bible. After a while, you feel like asking God, "If You wrote this book, why didn't You make it look like You wrote it? Why is it so hard to defend Your word? Why do you make it so easy for critics to find obvious flaws in it?" And then you feel guilty, because you've been taught that it's wrong to question God's word. But when you look at the Bible as the work of humans, everything suddenly makes sense:
1. Absurd scientific claims, like the story of Jacob and the goats, or God placing the rainbow in the sky as a symbol of his promise not to flood the earth again? They make perfect sense: the people who wrote those stories were scientifically illiterate. They didn't know any better. 2. A petty, jealous, vindictive God? Makes perfect sense: that's how the Israelites actually conceived of God. 3. Different laws in the Old and New Testaments? Sure -- they were different societies with different conceptions of good and evil. 4. Cruelties like commanding the amputation of women's hands? The Israelites actually believed in a God who was like that, so the book they wrote naturally reflects their view of God. They approved of things that we think are absolutely evil, so of course we are appalled by their holy book. 5. Contradictions throughout the Bible? Of course! Those books were written over hundreds of years by different people. Why would you expect them to agree on everything? Their authors were only human. 6. Failed prophecies? Ditto.
It all makes sense. You just have to have the courage to consider something that you've been taught is heretical. You have to decide that the truth is more important than orthodoxy. You have to decide that you are going to seek the real God, not a fictional one. And if you get brave enough (it took me a while), you'll consider the possibility that there is no God at all. If you assume that the Bible is the word of God and if you always interpret the evidence to fit your assumption, then if you are wrong, you will never discover your error. Likewise, a Muslim who assumes that the Koran is the word of Allah and always interprets the evidence to fit that assumption will never discover his error. Far better to follow the evidence where it leads and to embrace the truth, even if it is uncomfortable at first.champignon
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
I tossed a few points out for the sake of onlookers. (And for you.) I have no idea whether it does any good. But I'm certain that an internet blog is one of the worst forums possible for such a discussion. If anyone is interested in the Bible, even if they are bothered by some of what they've heard, I'm sure they'll find someone to talk to. I'll never blame you or anyone else for the discussion I get myself into. But now I'll excuse myself.ScottAndrews2
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Scott,
God saw fit to put some things in the Bible that would challenge us. If we’re looking for an excuse to discard the whole thing, there it is.
Allah saw fit to put some things in the Koran that would challenge us. If we’re looking for an excuse to discard the whole thing, there it is.champignon
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Fair enough.Timbo
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Timbo, I twice mentioned how Jesus deliberately phrased his speech in a way that would be shocking to some. Many left. What I didn't mention is that Jesus apparently didn't go chasing after them. Maybe they all had other things that were more important to them, and now they had an excuse to check out. He knew they would. That was the point. God saw fit to put some things in the Bible that would challenge us. If we're looking for an excuse to discard the whole thing, there it is. If you wish to set aside the Bible because it contains laws that seem unjust to you, and which no longer even apply, so be it. I am not on a mission to change your mind.ScottAndrews2
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
"These are things that we surely all agree on as being immoral." Now a'days we may (keyword of course is 'may'). Course we've had a bunch of guys guiding humanity to some unforseen better path to get there. Jesus for one. "No, we haven’t established that. We have established that you don’t agree with Champ’s analysis. Your response to someone who has a different interpretation of a book to you is that they lack reading comprehension. Not very christian of you." What about that isn't Christian? Especially if its true? You can love your neighbor and still think they have reading comprehension problems. "You might not be aware of this, but in most cases, grabbing someone by the testicles will not render them infertile." The mere fact that it CAN should tell you something. Snorting a little coke won't always lead to a rabid addiction. But it can. Shooting someone wont always lead to death. But it can. If Barbs take on what the bible suggests is correct, then making sure no one gets sterilized in a fight (which should be handled by the two fighting to be honest - there are laws regarding them too) is a top priority, yes? "What is loving about requiring someone to stay married to a woman who clearly doesn’t love him? Much more loving to encourage people to face reality." So everyone who's ever been unfaithful doesn't love their spouse? Not every infidelity occurs because a spouse falls out of love (she loved him enough to give him two kids). Shoot, some happen in spite of being in love. Aside from that, when she left her situation went from decent to terrible. She managed to get herself sold into slavery. Hosea loved her enough to pay off her debts and take the mother of his kids back home. Maybe I'm a romantic, but theres something about two lovers reconciling that seems almost heartwarming. "Maybe God could at least have let them find out if there was irreparable damage before the woman had her hand cut off?" With what exactly? X-rays? Surgery? Let him have sex with a woman and if she doesn't get pregnant declare him sterile? I mean we're not talking about if she's being assaulted. Theres no verse that says 'if you're getting raped - DON'T grab the dudes junk'. We're talking if she CRUSHES a man's junk during a fight she's not even a part of.Sonfaro
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Scott, it's not about God saying something we don't understand. There is nothing ambiguous about those passages. It's about taking the position that forcing a woman to marry a rapist is never moral. Cutting a woman's hand off if she squeezes a man's testicles in a fight is never moral. This is not Champ setting himself up as "most qualified to define an objective standard for morality". These are things that we surely all agree on as being immoral.Timbo
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Barb: "I think we’ve already established that you don’t understand what you read in the Bible. Cherry-picking verses without examining the context, as you did above, prove nothing but your lack of reading comprehension." No, we haven't established that. We have established that you don't agree with Champ's analysis. Your response to someone who has a different interpretation of a book to you is that they lack reading comprehension. Not very christian of you. "If God is not a god of love and mercy, then explain why Hosea was required to stay married to his wife, even though she proved unfaithful" What is loving about requiring someone to stay married to a woman who clearly doesn't love him? Much more loving to encourage people to face reality. The passages about God's law, crushed testicles, and tampering with the reproductive organs; I just don't see how you could write that with a straight face. You might not be aware of this, but in most cases, grabbing someone by the testicles will not render them infertile. Maybe God could at least have let them find out if there was irreparable damage before the woman had her hand cut off?Timbo
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Though I should add, in all honesty, that I fail to follow your logic! Your response to Champignon seems completely self-contradictory to me. But I do appreciate the response. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Champignon, You're right. Whatever I said about that sort of grabbing was pure speculation. And men back then wore skirts. But that's not the relevant point. Jesus once spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. It was figurative. No one ever did anything of the sort. But he said it metaphorically in a way that shocked many of the disciples, and they took a hike. It was entirely unnecessary. And he knew how they would react. These were not people who watched zombie movies for fun. Why say something so disturbing that could have been expressed differently? Apparently that was the whole point. Some people would decide to take offense without even seeking an explanation, even though they had good reason to trust that as a devout Jew he would never promote cannibalism or drinking blood. That's just a thought. And I'm still just speculating. But there's more than a few examples in the Bible suggesting that God operates on that sort of level. He doesn't hit us over the head or back us into a corner. He gives us enough and then leaves us to believe whatever we want. One verse even says that the Bible can discern what we think and what our motivations are. It's always a few steps ahead. Take it or leave it.ScottAndrews2
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Thanks, Barb :)Elizabeth Liddle
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Elizabeth asks, “Just out of interest, Barb, could you summarise, briefly, why you came to that conclusion (that the bible was divinely inspired)? And how it affects your interpretation of it?” I came to the conclusion after studying and reading the Bible for many years; I still do this regularly. I considered several things when it came to divine inspiration, primarily biblical prophecy, historicity, internal harmony, and practical value. champignon January 31, 2012 at 3:13 pm “If I claim divine inspiration, will you believe everything I say? Divine inspiration is something that must be demonstrated, not merely claimed.” See what I wrote to Elizabeth above. You are right in that merely making a claim does not prove inspiration; however, studying the Bible and seeing how it fits with secular history, science, and prophecies that have been fulfilled convinced me. “I don’t quote scripture to show that God doesn’t exist. I quote it to show that it could not have been written by a loving, merciful and just God.” I think we’ve already established that you don’t understand what you read in the Bible. Cherry-picking verses without examining the context, as you did above, prove nothing but your lack of reading comprehension. If God is not a god of love and mercy, then explain why Hosea was required to stay married to his wife, even though she proved unfaithful. If God is not a god of love, then explain why Christian husbands are required to love their wives as their own bodies as noted in chapter 5 of Ephesians. If God is not merciful, then why did he allow the tribes in the promised land to live on for 400 years before being conquered—in fulfillment of prophecy, mind you—by the Israelites? “The fact that the Bible “describes strong women” doesn’t excuse its rampant sexism elsewhere.” Where? All you’ve done is post scriptures without considering the context. That doesn’t prove sexism. “Because it applied to the Israelites back then. You think God was perfect back then, don’t you?” Yes, he was. Unfortunately for you, you can’t or won’t appreciate the points being made because you mind is very solidly closed. “It’s fortunate for Christianity that most Christians don’t read the entire Bible. Here’s an experiment you can try: tell some Christians (preferably evangelicals) about how the Taliban will cut off a woman’s hand if she grabs the genitals of a man who is trying to kill her husband. Listen to their outrage and indignation at this heinous evil. Then show them Deuteronomy 25:11-12 and watch their faces.” More cherry-picking? Have you not learned anything yet? Again, let’s examine the context, which you again blatantly ignore. These scriptures concern what we term today as sterilization. Remember, you’re dealing with an agricultural society that values parenthood and marriage. God is the Giver of reproductive powers to human creatures; he set the example by making laws for the protection of these powers. His law stated: “Soul will be for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (Deut. 19:21) But now suppose a woman’s husband got into a fight with another man. In order to protect her husband and keep him from being whipped or defeated, she reached out and grabbed hold of the other man’s private parts in order to put him out of action! By doing this, the woman doubtless ruined the man’s reproductive powers; here's the point, champignon: she violated God’s law that was against the crushing of a man’s testicles and made this man unfit for God’s congregation. This woman could not argue that she was using jujitsu and acting in defense of her husband and thus for her own self-protection. She had to be punished. Notice, though, that God allows her to reproduce although she has taken that right away from the man she injured. God’s law respected her and her husband’s reproductive powers, for it said: “You must then amputate her hand. Your eye must feel no sorrow.” (Deut. 25:11, 12) God’s law said this thing right after it had approved of brother-in-law marriage within a family. This law specified that the man who refused to perform brother-in-law marriage toward his dead brother’s widow should be publicly disgraced, for refusing to give his brother’s widow a child in the name of his dead brother (Deut. 25:5-10). All this gives us some idea of how God feels when a person or a nation dedicated to him tampers with the reproductive organs, preventing their normal function. It is true that the Mosaic law containing the above provisions was done away with in Christ. “And vice-versa. You are so committed to this ridiculous book, so determined to claim it as the inspired word of God, that you are willing to accuse God of commanding the amputation of women’s hands for the “crime” of defending their husbands. “Show her no pity”, the verse says.” See above for details. “You’re willing to slander your God in order to maintain your faith in a flawed, deeply immoral book. It’s bibliolatry, really.” No, it’s faith, which is clearly not a possession of all people. I’m not slandering anyone, champignon, you are, by claiming God to be merciless, pitiless and cruel—all without benefit of evidence to back up these outrageous claims.Barb
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Scott,
From my earliest memory until now, I have never heard of a woman defending her husband by grabbing hold of the attacker’s genitals.
So you're arguing that in the Bible, God issues pointless commands that have no bearing on reality? How does that help your case?
Have you, ever? I’ve seen some basic self-defense stuff on TV, and it never included anything like that.
Of course I have! It's an extremely effective technique for a woman who is trying to subdue a physically stronger man. I hope you will teach it to the women in your life. (And then stay on their good side :-)). For example:
Self Defense Technique # 4 – Groin Grab By saying "groin grab", I mean testicles grab, not penis. Use this self defense technique when you are in close range of the aggressor. You can do this while either facing him or being held from the back, and it hardly requires any particular self defense skills. Once the aggressor stands that close to you, he automatically puts himself in a vulnerable position. Most victims, however, tend to forget to use this helpful technique and not be aware of their opportunity to fight back because they panic. If the attacker is in tight-fitted jeans, don't try to use this technique. Instead, hit his groin area with your knee, fist or forearm.
And:
The Grab, Twist, and Pull: If you can remember the name of this move, you'll remember how to do it. Of course, if you're facing a woman attacker, this probably shouldn't be your go-to method. The grab, twist, and pull (or in long-form, the grab, twist, and pull testicles) technique is an effective way to incapacitate an attacker for several seconds, enough time to run away or use another defense move on him. The steps are simple: grab the testicles, twist quickly (or squeeze tightly), and pull as hard as you can.
Ouch. Sounds pretty effective to me.
Or maybe it’s some cultural thing that we can’t relate to. Maybe in some places they would deliberately go after the testicles when there was another way to defend their husband.
You're grasping at straws, Scott. And even if that were the case, why didn't God specify that the punishment was to be applied only if the woman had an equally effective alternative means of defense that she failed to employ? Instead, we have this brutal, categorical statement:
12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Grasping at another straw, Scott writes:
Here’s a thought. On at least one occasion Jesus spoke to his disciples in an apparently unnecessarily shocking manner, apparently to see who was looking for an excuse to jump ship.
Good point. Maybe God wants to see who will blindly follow a ridiculous, immoral book full of barbarism, even to the point of claiming that He wrote it, versus those who refuse to believe that He would ever write such a book. Look at the Bible objectively and ask yourself this question:
Is this the kind of book that a perfectly just, loving, omnisicient, omnipotent creator of the universe would write?
You're accusing God of writing the Bible. It's a serious accusation.champignon
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Champignon, I still want to know exactly which moral authority you are using to judge the God with. i.e. Exactly why should I take your judgement of morality to be superior to God's? Is it just because we know that you are such a nice guy who is not prone to severe self deception in such matters? And if you appeal to the 'commonly known morality' of our hearts, exactly where does this commonly known morality in our hearts come from? As Dr. Craig has clearly shown, your atheistic materialism simply cannot account for objective morality,
The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris’ moral argument – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE
just as your worldview cannot guarantee that our beliefs will conform to the truth;
Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind Philosopher Sticks Up for God Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);
Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html
Champ, you simply have no moral basis in which to claim moral superiority to God. Shoot, you don't even have a moral basis to claim moral superiority to any other animals on earth who may eat their young!!! As to the divine inspiration of scripture:
The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exists By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, and Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr. Excerpt: But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation Stoner used 48 prophecies (even though he could have used 456) and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is one in 10^157. How large is the number 10^157? 10^157 contains 157 zeros! Let us try to illustrate this number using electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They are smaller than atoms. It would take 2.5 times 10^15 of them, laid side by side, to make one inch. Even if we counted four electrons every second and counted day and night, it would still take us 19 million years just to count a line of electrons one inch long. But how many electrons would it take if we were dealing with 10^157 electrons? Imagine building a solid ball of electrons that would extend in all directions from the earth a length of 6 billion light years. The distance in miles of just one light year is 6.4 trillion miles. That would be a big ball! But not big enough to measure 10^157 electrons. In order to do that, you must take that big ball of electrons reaching the length of 6 billion light years long in all directions and multiply it by 6 x 10^28! How big is that? It’s the length of the space required to store trillions and trillions and trillions of the same gigantic balls and more. In fact, the space required to store all of these balls combined together would just start to “scratch the surface” of the number of electrons we would need to really accurately speak about 10^157. But assuming you have some idea of the number of electrons we are talking about, now imagine marking just one of those electrons in that huge number. Stir them all up. Then appoint one person to travel in a rocket for as long as he wants, anywhere he wants to go. Tell him to stop and segment a part of space, then take a high-powered microscope and find that one marked electron in that segment. What do you think his chances of being successful would be? It would be one in 10^157. Remember, this number represents the chance of only 48 prophecies coming true in one person (there are 456 total prophecies concerning Jesus). http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103PDF/ATRJ1103-3.pdf The King Jesus (A Precise Mathematical Prediction) http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/kjesenpr.htm 'Other than Christ, no other religious leader was foretold a thousand years before he arrived, nor was anything said about where he would be born, why he would come, how he would live, and when he would die. No other religious leader claimed to be God, or performed miracles, or rose from the dead. No other religious leader grounded his doctrine in historical facts. No other religious leader declared his person to be even more important than his teachings.' - StephenB - UD Blogger
Here is a particularly sobering prophecy that has been fulfilled in our time;
The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241 Bible Prophecy Fulfilled - Israel 1948 - article Excerpt: Although July 15, 537 B.C. can not be verified by outside sources as the exact day of Cyrus's proclamation, we do know that 537 B.C. was the year in which he made it. As such, we can know for certain that the Bible, in one of the most remarkable prophecies in history, accurately foresaw the year of Israel's restoration as an independent nation some two thousand five hundred years before the event occurred. http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfilled---Israel-1948&id=449317
The preceding start date, used in the prophecy calculation, is confirmed by the archaeological record:
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT Excerpt "In late years several cuneiform tablets have been discovered pertaining to the fall of Babylon which peg both Biblical and secular historic dates. The one tablet known as the "Nabunaid Chronicle" gives the date for the fall of Babylon which specialists have ascertained as being October 12-13, 539 B.C., Julian Calendar, or October 6-7, 539 B.C., according to our present Gregorian Calendar. This tablet also says that Cyrus made his triumphant entry into Babylon 16 days after its fall to his army. Thus his accession year commenced in October, 539 B.C. However, in another cuneiform tablet called "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" Cyrus’ first regnal year is mentioned and was determined to have begun March 17-18, 538 B.C., and to have concluded March 4-5, 537 B.C. It was in this first regnal year of Cyrus that he issued his decree to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made in late 538 B.C. or before March 4-5, 537 B.C. In either case this would have given sufficient time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their expedition and to make their long four-month journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by September 29-30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month, to build their altar to Jehovah as recorded at Ezra 3:1-3. Inasmuch as September 29-30, 537 B.C., officially ends the seventy years of desolation as recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so the beginning of the desolation of the land must have officially begun to be counted after September 21-22, 607 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607 B.C., which is the beginning point for the counting of the 2,520 years." http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/537vs539.htm
bornagain77
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Champignon, You miss the point while getting yourself all worked up. From my earliest memory until now, I have never heard of a woman defending her husband by grabbing hold of the attacker's genitals. Have you, ever? I've seen some basic self-defense stuff on TV, and it never included anything like that. So it's entirely possible that the law highlights the importance of the man's ability to reproduce by proscribing a penalty for something that no one would do, anyway. Or maybe it's some cultural thing that we can't relate to. Maybe in some places they would deliberately go after the testicles when there was another way to defend their husband. And apparently the woman could wreak any kind of mayhem imaginable upon his nether regions if she herself were assaulted. Here's a thought. On at least one occasion Jesus spoke to his disciples in an apparently unnecessarily shocking manner, apparently to see who was looking for an excuse to jump ship. They thought they were the ones passing judgment on his speech, when in reality he was the one examining them. That's pretty clever. And it's not isolated. You decide. Maybe that's the whole point.ScottAndrews2
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Barb,
Your question is misleading. The Bible claims divine inspiration.
If I claim divine inspiration, will you believe everything I say? Divine inspiration is something that must be demonstrated, not merely claimed.
I believe that God does exist, and while I must answer for my own problems, you also will be held to account for misquoting and misusing scripture to bolster your claims that God doesn’t exist.
I don't quote scripture to show that God doesn't exist. I quote it to show that it could not have been written by a loving, merciful and just God.
I don’t have blind allegiance, champignon, and this is why your arguments repeatedly fail. I came to the conclusion that the Bible is divinely inspired after years of reading and study. It’s also not silly.
Let me echo Elizabeth's question: How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible is the inspired word of God?
I notice that you categorically ignore the post I made regarding the books of Ruth and Esther, both of which describe strong women.
The fact that the Bible "describes strong women" doesn't excuse its rampant sexism elsewhere.
Please explain why you ignore these books and are so hung up on Deuteronomy, which does not apply to Christians today?
Because it applied to the Israelites back then. You think God was perfect back then, don't you? It's fortunate for Christianity that most Christians don't read the entire Bible. Here's an experiment you can try: tell some Christians (preferably evangelicals) about how the Taliban will cut off a woman's hand if she grabs the genitals of a man who is trying to kill her husband. Listen to their outrage and indignation at this heinous evil. Then show them Deuteronomy 25:11-12 and watch their faces.
I pity you.
And vice-versa. You are so committed to this ridiculous book, so determined to claim it as the inspired word of God, that you are willing to accuse God of commanding the amputation of women's hands for the "crime" of defending their husbands. "Show her no pity", the verse says. You're willing to slander your God in order to maintain your faith in a flawed, deeply immoral book. It's bibliolatry, really.champignon
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Just out of interest, Barb, could you summarise, briefly, why you came to that conclusion (that the bible was divinely inspired)? And how it affects your interpretation of it?Elizabeth Liddle
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Champignon, Have you ever been to a doctor and been instructed to take a pill without fully understanding its chemical composition? Perhaps you're even told that it may have undesirable side effects. You have a few choices. You can get a second opinion. Or you can choose to trust the doctor and take the pill. Or you can choose to measure the doctor's understanding against your own. Maybe you know better than he does. You might even be right. Doctors aren't infallible. But surely you can see the foolishness of paying someone one money because you believe he has expertise you need and then rejecting it because he says something you don't understand. Even though I understand what you are saying and I can see your point of view, like Barb I know enough about the Bible and enough about its source that it would not be wise for me to use your limited understanding and wisdom or mine as the ultimate standard by which to measure it. I realize that none of this makes much difference if someone thinks belief in God absurd to start with. But it hardly makes sense to believe in a God whose knowledge and wisdom are a superset of my own, and assume that whenever he says something I don't fully understand he must be wrong. Why bother listening to anyone at all, for that matter, if we only care what they say when they agree with us? I'm not addressing the whole 'atheists have no basis for morality' issue because it's silly and I don't agree with it. But your arguments imply that you regard yourself as most qualified to define an objective standard for morality. Surely you can understand why others might not recognize that authority.ScottAndrews2
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Champignon, since it is impossible to ground morality with the atheistic-materialistic framework,,,
The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral argument – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M Hitler & Darwin, pt. 2: Richard Weikart on Evolutionary Ethics - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-11-30T15_33_04-08_00 Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011 (41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed (of being 'good enough' to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code) http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/
,,, and thus since it is impossible for you to justify your 'moral opinions' against God with any coherent foundation, Exactly to what ultimate foundation of morality do you appeal so as to be able to judge whether God is evil or good in His actions and judgements?,,, Since you can supply yourself with no solid foundation for morality in your atheistic worldview, I must conclude that you have personal ulterior motives for being so extremely biased in your treatment of scripture. Perhaps you have a problem with 'religion' altogether?!? If so you are in very good company:
Jesus Vs. Religion - Mark Driscoll - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GJOvwDNEqc
bornagain77
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply