Wacky Bible Stories 2

This is the second in my series of funny stories taken directly from "The Good Book"

Wacky Bible Stories 1

Tough Questions for Christians #35: The "Ultimate" Sacrifice

Image by six steps  via Flickr

There was a man about 2000 years ago. He lived his life, he ended up being captured by the Romans. He was put through an assembly line of torture. He was beaten, he was whipped, and in the end he was nailed to a cross and hung there until he died.

Once he died, he descended to Hell where he suffered the ultimate punishment - complete and utter separation from God.

No, not Jesus. I'm not talking about him. He was only in Hell for about 3 days - kind of a long weekend - he went there on Friday and came back on Sunday morning. I'm talking about the guy right next to him.

The thief who didn't accept Jesus just seconds before he died.

He went through the exact same beating that Jesus did, he went through either right before or right after Jesus. The same guards whipping him with the same whip. Then being marched down the same street carrying the same sort of cross. He was nailed to the cross the exact same way Jesus was, and when he died he descended to Hell - presumably the same way Jesus did. (For those of you who believe Jesus went to Hell during his little vacation.)

While in Hell - since Hell is complete and utter separation from God - he suffered the same way Jesus did. But for some reason he goes completely ignored. His suffering was the same - actually his suffering than Jesus because he's still there.

If the story is true, he's been in Hell suffering the same emotional, physical, and spiritual torture for almost 2000 years. Jesus was there for a day and a half.

In what way was Jesus' trip to Hell and his death the "ultimate" sacrifice, when the guy right next to him went through the exact same beating and has been spending far more time in eternal torture? How is his sacrifice any less than Jesus'?

TOUGH QUESTION #35
HOW CAN JESUS' DEATH BE CONSIDERED THE "ULTIMATE" SACRIFICE WHEN OTHERS HAVE SUFFERED AS MUCH OR MORE THAN HE DID?





Other similar videos:

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.

Tough Questions for Christians # 34: Re-Enforcing False Beliefs

Image via Wikipedia

This question was submitted by Ticobassie, it's a very good question.

Imagine a Muslim couple, they have been unable to get children for a couple of years now. They’ve been praying to Allah to get it sorted and they even sacrificed an extra sheep last year. Family members and people in the mosque have also prayed to Allah but to no avail. Then, one day the woman gets pregnant and a healthy baby is born 9 months later. No doubt there will be many thankful prayers to Allah (and perhaps a few more slaughtered sheep).

To the Muslim, from their perspective, Allah did listen to the prayers, and he answered them.

Given the characteristics attributed to God, that God is in control of everything, how should a Christian view this event? Since Allah doesn't exist ,it wasn’t Allah who had a hand in it. It wasn't him who actually granted the pregnancy.

So Gods decision to finally bless the couple with a baby is keeping the poor Muslims on the wrong track by fueling their delusions, making them think Allah actually answered the prayer and granted them their desires. In doing so he amplifies their belief in the wrong religion, making it more likely they will end up in hell.

So why is it that God will allow things to happen that will re-enforce peoples faith in the false God, and make them more likely to go to Hell?

TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIANS #34
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW EVENTS TO TAKE PLACE THAT RE-ENFORCE BELIEFS IN FALSE GODS?

Tough Questions for Muslims #1: Where the Sun Sets

Image via Wikipedia

As promised, here is the first in the Tough Questions for Muslims series. I've had some mixed reviews about this... Some Christians originally claimed that the fact I was only addressing Christianity proved it was true. Now that I'm addressing Islam as well... well... that argument kind of goes out the window. Unless you're willing to admit that Islam is equally as possible as Christianity.

The Muslims who heard I was going to start this series... I've gotten two different types of reactions. Some Muslims have been excited, because they wanted to have a chance to defend their faith and prove that their religion is in fact the true religion. Others have warned me against inciting Allah's wrath, and warned that he may attack my family or cause bad things to happen because I'm... disrespecting him I guess. (Who knew that asking questions could piss off God?)

So to start, most of the Islamic apologists focus on what they consider "scientific truths" in the Koran, where as most Christian apologists focus on "prophetic truths."

The first Tough Question for Muslims is regarding the most obvious scientific error in the Koran. Before I get to that particular verse, let me paraphrase it with a story. What I want you to do is pay attention to the imagery of the story and tell me what you visualize. What image do you get in your mind from hearing the story?

Let me tell you a story about Jack Smith. Jack Smith followed a road until he reached the sitting place of the giant goats. There he found a giant goat sitting in a rocking chair, and there were people gathered all around.

The end.

Easy enough, right? Short little story. Now what do you visualize?

My guess is you picture Jack following a road then he comes to a place where there are giant goats. In that particular location, he finds one giant goat sitting in a rocking chair with people gathered around that rocking chair. Would that be a fair assumption? My guess is, yes. For most people that probably exactly what they're going to hear, or what they're going to visualize.

So why did I tell that story?

Well, Muslims will probably recognize that as a paraphrase of 18:83-86. The story of (and I'm going to say the name really bad, so I apologize), the story of Dhu'l-Qarneyn (I believe that's how you say that).

They will ask thee of Dhu'l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him.
Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road. And he followed a road
Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout...
(18:83-86)

The verses are Allah talking about Dhu'l, and he says he followed a road until he reached the setting place of the sun. And there he found the sun setting in a muddy spring, and there were people gathered all about.

Again, the visual that I get from reading those verses is that the man follows a road until he reaches the place, on the earth, where the sun physically sets... and there were people gathered all about, and he watches the sun set in this muddy spring, right there, into the earth.

Obviously, that is completely and utterly scientifically false. We know that know. There is not a location on the planet where the sun sets. Not one. The planet is several million miles away from the sun, and the sun is always going to appear to be very far off on the horizon.

When I have brought this up to Muslims before they have an apologetic response, as would be expected. They say when it says he "reached the setting-place of the sun," he didn't really reach the "setting-place of the sun," he just reached a place where he could see the sun set... which is pretty much anywhere on the planet, so he didn't reach any location at all. (Makes you wonder where he was following the road to.)

And when he "found (the sun) setting in a muddy spring," it's just that's the way it appeared from way back where he was standing looking at the sun way out on the horizon. And they also claim that when it says he "found a people thereabout," it meant there were people thereabout THAT location (where Dhu'l watched the sun setting), not the actual setting-place where the sun was setting.

So in other words, the verse means absolutely NONE of what it says. When it says he followed a road to the setting place of the sun, it means he followed a road to anywhere on the planet, no particular location. And when he found the sun setting in a muddy spring, it means he didn't find the sun setting in a muddy spring at all, and when people where gathered thereabout, it means people were gathered about him, not about the sun.

I've read the verses over and over and over again, trying to find some sort of a way you can interpret it that way, but I don't see it. This is not taken from that particular person's viewpoint (Dhu'l-Qarneyn), it's Allah speaking from a third-person perspective.

So, my question for you, Muslims, is: In light of this particular verse (or several verses) that describe the physical location where the sun sets on the planet, can you please tell me where this location is?

TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR MUSLIMS #1
WHERE IS THE MUDDY SPRING WHERE THE SUN SETS?

If you can show me the muddy spring where the sun sets, I will convert to Islam immediately.

Tough Questions for Christians #33: Christianity is an Abomination

Image via Wikipedia

The entire Christian faith rests on one, kinda strange, idea. The idea is that in order for God to justify allowing wicked people into Heaven, he needed to condemn a righteous man. Since no humans were righteous, he needed to send himself down in the form of a human so he could condemn himself in order to forgive the rest of us.

Their idea of "justice" is basically that it doesn't matter who gets punished for the crime, as long as someone gets punished for the crime. (Only an innocent person can be punished for someone else's crimes) It's kind of an interesting concept, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If our modern courts used that, we'd just grab any person off the street and sentence them for the crimes that were unsolved -- then consider them solved from that point on.

Obviously, we don't do that. Apparently our form of "justice" is a little bit different than God's.

But the whole idea behind Christian "justice" doesn't really sit well with me.

The idea is that God's plan has been his for the entire time. That was his plan from the beginning when Adam and Eve came down, and as soon as they sinned his plan was to condemn himself in the form of an innocent man in order to justify all the wicked people.

I don't know, it just doesn't sit well with me.

If you have a Bible, I want you to open it up. One of my favorite books when I was a Christian was Proverbs. There's a lot of good stuff in Proverbs. In my good ol' study Bible, I've got a lot of different things highlighted in here.

A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
Proverbs 15:1

Here is a good one for people who start typing their comments in before they're finished watching my video.

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Proverbs 18:13

In other words, listen to the question before you start giving an answer.

There is one particular verse here in Proverbs that I wanted to call some attention to. It kinda gets rid of the entire Christian concept in one line. It's Proverbs 17:15, here it is in the King James Version:

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Proverbs 17:15

In other words, a person who lets a guilty man go free, while punishing an innocent person, both cases are abominations.

But... supposedly that's God's whole plan. The only way he can justify the wicked (let sinners into Heaven), is by condemning the just (punishing Jesus). But such a plan is an abomination.

How can the Christian concept of God sentencing an innocent person to pay for the crimes of the wicked people in order to forgive the wicked people be resolved with the verse right here that says doing that exact thing is an abomination?

Tough Question for Christians # 33:
HOW CAN PUNISHING AN INNOCENT PERSON (JESUS), SO GUILTY CHRISTIANS CAN GO UNPUNISHED, BE "JUST" WHEN PROVERBS 17:15 SAYS THAT WOULD BE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD?

Just in case you think the verse was mistranslated, here is the same verse in four other English translations:

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both. (NIV)

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. (NAS)