fredag 6 juni 2008

Debunking christianity


In this post I would like to promote another blog which I have just been reading. It is called Debunking Christianity (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/) and it seems to be high quality posts. Here is the authors (there are several different contributors) own description of their blog:

"This Blog has been created for the purpose of debunking Evangelical Christianity. We are ex-Christians, ex-ministers, and even ex-apologists for the Christian faith. We are now freethinkers, skeptics, agnostics, and atheists. With the diversity of our combined strengths we seek to debunk Christianity."

The reason I stumpled upon this blog was that I was investigating the birth date of Jesus Christ. In a lecture I listened to recently I heard that historical records indeed confirms that there was a census in Bethlelem. However, the census was not in year 0, but in 8BC, and it was only for Romans. And I thought that Jesus was born in year 0?

Apparently this is not the only problematic detail concerning the birth of Jesus, I qoute again from debunking christianity. The authors deserves alot of credit for the fact that they have extensive references to other texts, including the bible.

"Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, if Luke is taken literally, according to E. P. Sanders [The Historical Figure of Jesus (Penguin Press, 1993, pp. 84-91)]. What husband would take a nine-month pregnant woman on such a trek from Nazareth at that time when only heads of households were obligated to register for a census when the census would’ve been stretched out over a period of weeks or even months? But if he did, why did he not take better precautions for the birth? Why not take Mary to her relative Elizabeth’s home just a few miles away from Bethlehem for the birth of her baby? According to Luke’s own genealogy (3:23-38) David had lived 42 generations earlier. Why should everyone have had to register for a census in the town of one of his ancestors forty-two generations earlier? There would be millions of ancestors by that time, and the whole empire would have been uprooted. Why 42 generations and not 35, or 16? If it was just required of the lineage of King David to register for the census, what was Augustus thinking when he ordered it? He had a King, Herod. “Under no circumstances could the reason for Joseph’s journey be, as Luke says, that he was ‘of the house and lineage of David,’ because that was of no interest to the Romans in this context.” [Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things, (p.10)]. The fact is, even if there was a worldwide Roman census that included Galilee at this specific time, there is evidence that Census takers taxed people based upon the land they owned, so they traveled to where people lived."

10 kommentarer:

  1. Don't forget the counter for that website called Debunking Atheists

    SvaraRadera
  2. rasmussenanders8 juli 2008 kl. 02:33

    Thank you for the comment Dan, and showing me, and my readers, this webpage.

    SvaraRadera
  3. Ja, det är många frågetecken
    Josefs träd (den stammen i norra Israel om Mose lag är rätt).
    Egypten och tog intryck och fick lära sig en del (som andra invandrarungdomar också får).
    Rätt stort bluff som människa/Aliens.
    Kunde religion och en del vetenskap (ritade i sanden tex inför steningen av kvinnan - som Pytagoras mm)

    Jag tror det är en Aliens helt enkelt (han är inte odödlig)

    Många bluffar som har följt i detta = ulf ekman tex (jfr åkte till usa och sen hus för 6,6 milj när tidningen dagen skrev protester från medlemmarna och då stiftelsereglerna etc = står ju att om man lämnar allt och följer evangeliet). Det har ju inte denne bluff gjort (inte lärt ut rätt kanske 50% - jag dåligt insatt men absorberat tillräckligt).
    Skulle inte leva en sek till

    SvaraRadera
  4. "I do not find that on the average those who had religious beliefs were happier than those who had not."

    True, but pointless observation. Salvation has nothing to do with happiness. I posted about that exact subject already HERE.

    "According to the physicists, energy will be gradually more evenly distributed and as it becomes more evenly distributed it will become more useless."

    This is the point I was making, as in the meaning and purpose of life.

    "Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny."

    BTW that is called Free Will, a gift from God.

    I still stand by my previous response.

    SvaraRadera
  5. Predestination vs. Free Will - Is It One or the Other?

    Why not both "I believe that God directs history. However, I do not believe that He micro-manages history. In other words, I think God places people in history so that His will is accomplished. This includes putting His followers, in addition to those who oppose Him, at strategic points in history. The Bible encourages us to use our free will to choose good over evil."

    SvaraRadera
  6. Ah, so your saying that your god is not omniscient or omnipotent. How could he be? He doesn't know your actions until you do them. Why worship a being with such limitations? What other limits do you place on him?

    SvaraRadera
  7. Bart,

    "Ah, so your saying that your god is not omniscient or omnipotent."

    You have totally lost me now. How do you derive that from what I said?

    God honors the free will until he needs to nudge things to His Will

    Clear?

    SvaraRadera
  8. "You are making absolutely no sense to me."

    That much we agree upon. You've also answered my question. I really should know better...

    SvaraRadera
  9. Just because God knows something is going to happen, i.e. you'll eat corn flakes tomorrow, doesn't mean He has caused it to happen. God has intervened providentially in human affairs but foreknowledge doesn't equal causation.

    SvaraRadera