Wacky Bible Stories 4

Most people who are even remotely familiar with the Bible have heard the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but they may not be familiar with the WHOLE story.

• According to the Bible, Lot (the hero of the story, and the only person God considered good enough to save from destruction) offers his "virgin" daughters to a mob of angry men to do with as they please.

• The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would've included a 3rd city if Lot and his family would've been able to reach the mountains a little faster.

• Lot's wife was killed by God for the "sin" of looking the wrong direction.

• Lot was "date-raped" by his daughters.

As you watch the video, remember: this is supposedly the book we're supposed to use to get our morals. Is Lot really a moral character? Is God? If God had the ability to arbitrarily turn people into salt, why did he bother sending fire and brimstone? Why not simply turn everyone into salt?

God Exists.

I can't tell you how often I hear "proofs" like the one above. I exist, therefore it proves God exists... I'm afraid it's just not that easy. We know how I came to exist, I have parents - they had sex. They also came from the union of sexually active people.

However, that's not what believers are referring to when they make such a claim. They know how you and I came into existence, they don't know how life started in the first place.

Abiogenesis, life from non-life. How did it happen? Theists answer by simply saying "God did it." (Which doesn't answer the question. It is an attempt to explain WHO did it, but the answer still doesn't explain HOW it happened.) Skeptics like myself simply admit the truth - I don't know.

Why are theists so uncomfortable with "I don't know?" Why are those words so difficult for them to say -- oh, but they're not. When you start asking difficult questions about God, the theist will quickly admit their ignorance, and even claim that it's impossible to understand God.

Why the double standard?

Why is it okay to admit you don't know why God would create a system by which the only way to pay for sin was to kill something that was innocent of the crime it's being killed for... but it's not okay for scientists to admit they don't (yet) know how life came from non-life?

Eventually scientists may be able to answer the question of abiogenesis -- although "true believers" will deny it like they deny evolution -- until that time, I'm comfortable with my ignorance.

If a theist believes God created life from non-life, please provide a detailed explanation of HOW he changed dead matter into living organisms, and... if it's not to much to ask... please provide a method we can use to test your hypothesis.

Poor Apologetics 4: You Were Never Christian

Image via Wikipedia

The Theist's Argument:

One of the most common criticisms I hear, not really an argument for the existence of God, but a reason to ignore anything I have to say, is the argument that I was never a Christian.

Why They Use This Argument: (What they believe)

The reason Christians find this compelling is because they say: "If you were a Christian, then the evidence of God entering your heart would have been so undeniable that you could never become atheist. You just simply couldn't do it."

I hear that all the time. And, I'm not surprised because I actually used that argument a lot back when I was a Christian, back when I was debating against atheists and against Christians from other denominations.

I would say: "Well, obviously you were never a REAL Christian otherwise you wouldn't have a problem with this." or "You would've known the answer to that." or whatever the argument happens to be.

The Rebuttal:

But it really is a bad argument. It says a couple of things. First it says that once you become a Christian you basically lose your freewill, because once you're a Christian you no longer have the ability to change your mind. You can't just say: "I no longer believe that." or "I found new evidence for that."

And - since Christians believe that freewill is really important - I don't think using an argument that completely eradicates your freewill is really the best one to use.

The fact of the matter is, to any Christians out here watching these videos, there is nothing anyone could say to you to prove that they were at one point really a Christian (or that they are now REALLY a Christian). The reason for that is, as soon as someone stops being a Christian, you immediately claim they never were one to begin with. And if YOU stop being a Christian, people will say the same thing about you.

I actually know many people who stayed in church and pretended to be believers, for years after they stopped believing, because they knew the moment they actually came out and admitted that they didn't believe the story, people would back-date their opinions all the way back to the first day they ever met them, and would claim that they were lying, and just never really were being honest.

Fact is, it doesn't matter how well you believe what you believe now or how sure you are, if you ever do change your mind, your fellow Christians around you are going to claim you never really did believe what you currently believe.

But the worst thing about this argument is: It doesn't make a difference!

The questions I asked don't make any more sense if I never believed, or any less sense if I did. They're questions showing problems within the Christian theology and the Christian faith. Yeah, they're meant to be hard, that's why the series is called "Tough Questions for Christians." They don't get any easier just because I do or don't believe them, or I used to believe, or used to not believe them. It doesn't make a difference.

The questions stand regardless of what my religion is or ever was. That's why that is another example of a very poor apologetic.

THE PROBLEMS IN YOUR RELIGION DON'T GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK I USED TO BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS YOU DO, AND HAVE EXPERIENCED THE SAME THINGS YOU HAVE.