Raamatun epäjohdonmukaisuuksia ja mahdottomuuksia

Vastaa ensin tähän Raamattu-aiheiseen tietotestiin, lue sitten oikeat vastaukset selityksineen.

Erityisen hauskoja esimerkkejä:

According to Mark 16:16-18 a true Christian should be baptized, have faith, cast out demons, speak in tongues, take up serpents, be able to heal the sick, and be completely immune to any poison.


Siitä vain uskovaiset kokeilemaan - syökää syanidia tai arsenikkia kilokaupalla. Jos kieltäydytte tästä, vastustatte Jumalan sanaa...

Jesus was very specific in saying that the world would end before the disciple’s generation was over. Some try to “interpret” out of this one by saying Jesus meant the church’s generation or the Jewish race , but later he distinctly says to a group of people that some of them will still be alive when his kingdom comes again to earth. Some others try to “interpret” out of this one by saying Jesus really meant the miracle of speaking to all nations (Pentecost), but if you take the time to read just before these passages it is painfully clear he meant the whole 2nd coming thing with the fire and the brimstone and the judgment, etc. (Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:27-28, Luke 9:26-27, Luke 21:32, Matthew 24:34, John 5:25-29, James 5:8, 1John 2:18, 1Peter 4:7). It has been 1900 years and still nothing has happened but tithing collection and religious wars--Jesus was simply wrong, much like the doomsday cult leaders which are all too common today.

Miksi kukaan uskoo sellaiseen uskontoon, joka on osoittautunut täysin vääräksi jo ajat sitten?

Does God favor the righteous or innocent?

The Bible seems to state that God both does and does not favor the righteous. Consider Job, who was a righteous and prosperous man. But to test Job's faith, God sent Satan to ruin his life (Job 2:1-7). How about Exodus 9:12, 10:1,20,27, 11:10, 14:8 and so on where God continually "hardened Pharaohs heart” so He could show off in a twisted game of miracles, climaxing in the death of innocent first born gentiles. God himself admits to purposefully creating evil (Isaiah 45:7) and has endorsed many causes even religious conservatives would find offensive (e.g. slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodu 21:2-8, Eph. 6:5, and Col. 3:22). On the other hand Proverbs 12:2 says that a good man has God's favor. As for Jesus, in Matthew 7:7 he states that whatever a man asks of God he will receive (Has no one yet thought to ask for a cure for cancer?). But earlier in Matthew 5:45 Jesus seems to say that God favors neither the good nor the evil.


Eikö kukaan uskovainen ole huomannut tätä ristiriitaa?

The Bible believes the Earth is flat, mentioning its ends and corners often (Isaiah 11:12, Rev. 7:1). If you are thinking that these were merely strange figures of speech, you are shown to be incorrect by Daniel 4:10-11, where, in a God interpreted dream, a tree grows so high that the whole world can see it. In Daniel 2:35 we have a rock which grows enough to cover the whole earth (only reasonable on a flat earth). Finally, in Matthew 4:5-8 and Luke 4:5 Satan whisks Christ off to a high mountain peak from which they could see "all the kingdoms of the world". I'm sure the Aztecs would have objected to being excluded simply because of the Earth's curvature.

The Bible also thinks the sun moves around a stationary Earth, the moon has its own light, and that stars can detach from the "firmament" to fall to earth (Isaiah 13:10, Psalm 19:4-5, 1Sam 2:8, 1Chr 16:30, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Micah 6:2, Mat 214:29, Rev 8:10).


Miten kukaan voi enää nykyaikana pitää pyhänä kirjana jotain sellaista muinaisaikaista satukirjaa, jossa kerrotaan tuollaisia selvästi epätosia tarinoita kirjaimellisesti otettavaksi tarkoitettuina totuuksina?

Joskus tuhansia vuosia sitten jotkut primitiiviset ihmiset saattoivat uskoa jotain tuollaista, koska parempaa tietoa ei välttämättä ollut. Miksi vielä nykyään jotkut pakkomielteenomaisesti torjuvat kaikki ristiriidat yleisesti tunnettujen yksinkertaisten tosiasioiden ja jonkun primitiivisen satukirjan välillä?

Uskosta yleisesti:

I really don't understand how religious faith has become such a popular and acceptable notion. If I told you that I believed smoking doesn't cause cancer and my only evidence was my hope for such a thing to be true, I'd be ostracized and rightly so. But this is exactly the same pro-faith argument the Bible makes (Hebrews 11:1). By definition it's belief without proof which, in itself, is akin to possession without ownership (I think I may be paraphrasing someone here.), but I'd argue faith is more dangerous than simple theft. Once you decide to give up reason for 100% certainty, a wild and horrible world can, and has in the past, become reasonable (Genocide, terrorism, manifest destiny, witch burning, religious wars, and so on). An unquestionable and deep sense of belief is all a good person needs to commit some of the most horrible acts. But, to most ideologies, faith is necessary for their operation in the face of their inherent contradictions (By my count the Bible mentions faith 402 times). No belief should be held so strongly that it can't be let go when shown to be false, and no honest person who loves truth should call himself or herself a person of faith; to describe yourself in such a way almost seems like an insult.

Aivan.

Rationalismi on mielestäni vielä tärkeämpää kuin libertarismi. Ilman rationalismia millään ei ole mitään väliä. Sokeaa uskoa on pidettävä pahana mielisairautena.

Uskovaisuus on ihmisen rationaalisen perusluonteen vastaista käytöstä. Aikoinaan uskonnolla on saattanut olla hyödyllinen funktio sosiokulturaalisen evoluution kannalta hyödyllisten tabujen (älä tapa, älä varasta jne.) ylläpitämisessä, mutta aivan selvästi vääräksi osoittautuneet uskomukset (maa on litteä, maailma luotiin kuudessa päivässä jne.) on jokaisen järkevän ihmisen hylättävä. Ihminen ei tietenkään tiedä kaikkea, mutta tieteellinen maailmankuva on itseäänkorjaava: joka hetki on järkevää pitää totena niitä selitysmalleja, jotka vaikuttavat parhaimmin perustelluilta. Mikäli jotkut nykyiset käsitykset osoittautuvat virheelliksiksi, niitä voidaan korjata. Uskovaisten maailmankuva on täysin erilainen. Uskovaiset eivät kuuntele argumentteja, eivät arvioi erilaisten selitysmallien eriasteista todenmukaisuutta. Ratkaisevaa ei ole uskovaisten väärässäolo jonkin yksittäisen tosiasian X suhteen, vaan sokean uskon lähtökohtainen epistemologinen virheellisyys.