I can’t remember how I stumbled across it, but it has really threatened my Christian faith. It’s a book unlike any other, challenging my worldview and giving me nights of tossing and turning in a cold sweat.

Pray for my scrambled soul….

The book is The Christian Mother Goose Book by Marjorie Ainsborough Decker, and it’s enough to make anyone an unbeliever. No doubt in good faith, Mrs Decker has ‘improved’ the nursery rhymes you and I know from childhood into ones she feels better communicate the Christian message. So, ‘Lavender’s Blue, Dilly Dilly’ begins:

Lavender’s blue, dilly dilly
Lavender’s green
Teach me to say, dilly, dilly
John 3:16.

I am not making this up. The Old Woman Who Lives In A Shoe has so many children “And loved them all, too”.

And as Humpty Dumpty falls off the wall, he shouts: “God can put me together again!”. You can probably compose Little Bo Peep and the lost sheep for yourself (if you have any Bible knowledge to speak of).

While I don’t resent the theology in the main, I deeply resent the artistry, and I also resent the cultural implication that everything outside the Christian ideal has to be rewritten, reshaped and ‘Christianised’ within an inch of its life.

This seems to me to speak of a cultural fear that some Christians have, where Christianity needs to run away into its own cultural corner, rather than sit alongside other worldviews just being itself and letting the watching world make what it will of it.

While I was cringing over The Christian Mother Goose, I was also reading Morris Gleitzman’s recent novel for young adults, Grace.

It, too, made me sad, for related reasons. The novel tells the story of a young girl, Grace, who is a member of a lovely family who belong to a closed Christian community.

They attend church, where the elders control who says what and when, and to disobey them is to disobey God Himself. They are forbidden to have contact with unbelievers; even to touch them is to be defiled.

Grace is in trouble for a creative school assignment in which she has rewritten parts of the Bible, casting family members in the place of Bible characters.

It’s a gorgeous idea—The Family Bible, she calls it—but the elders of the church think it is blasphemous. Trouble unfolds for the whole family, as the father is evicted from the church for liberalising his children; he is forbidden to see his family, and eventually forcibly divorced from his wife and treated as if he were dead.

The story is heavy, but it is written from the perspective of the resilient and resourceful Grace, who is convinced that this is not right, and that there has to be a better way to obey God than the one her church and its elders are suggesting is the True Path.

At the end of the book, Morris Gleitzman pays tribute to “the people who enriched my childhood with their loving and compassionate Christianity”, so presumably he has seen better expressions of faith in action (despite adding that he doesn’t “share their religious beliefs these days”).

Thank God for that. I do know closed Christian communities like the one he describes in the novel, but they are not the normal expression of Christian living (never have been, really), and they tend to go pear-shaped in a short period of time.

Regardless of how rare such closed religious communities are, Gleitzman’s novel highlights a significant problem of perception for Christianity today: it is seen to be legalistic, world-denying and psychologically cruel.

When it is practised in the manner outlined in Gleitzman’s novel, it is indeed these things. But that kind of Christian practice is an aberration, not true New Testament faith and living.

‘Separationist’ Christianity seems to me to miss the central significance of grace (and, of course, the girl’s name in the novel is no accident). The Christian idea of grace means that God can ‘live with’ the messiness of real life, the best and worst of human behaviour, and the intermingling of those who line up behind Jesus Christ, and those who don’t.

The problem with the closed church community in Gleitzman’s novel, Grace, and presumably the attitude behind a book such as The Christian Mother Goose, is not merely one of aesthetics nor even prudery.

Rather, it is born of an anxiety about the wider world, that it will crush Christian faith unless it is either avoided or reinterpreted. To my mind, both approaches are mistakes.

Christianity exists within the world, as a way of understanding life and its meaning. To some, it makes the best sense of the world we live in and of our thoughts, hopes and dreams. To others, it is a foreign way of viewing reality, and getting more foreign by the day.

Christians who hope to persuade others of the beauty, truth and goodness of the Faith will need to do so within the culture, living alongside those who think differently, who live differently, and whose actions may even bring discomfort to those who follow the way of Jesus Christ.

But that’s what grace is all about, and any true Christian knows that he or she needs grace as much as anyone else.

98 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Jiana says:

      08:46pm | 14/09/10

      i don’t know about this

      The only thing l know is the God in heaven is the Only God we can all worship on Earth

    • David says:

      01:37pm | 26/05/10

      Reading all the above nonsense leads me to believe that Karl Marx was correct in saying ‘’..... religion is the opium of the people ‘’.
      A true believer says that one accepts the idea that a personal belief in the story of religion is absolutely sacrosanct and goes on from there . All other discussions on the ‘’ wheres and whys ‘’ are just an brain exercise for the pseudo-intellectuals .

    • waynevan says:

      06:36pm | 25/05/10

      Every time something vaguely “religious” is brought up the usual suspect come out of the woodwork with their usual diatribes which have little to do with the topic at hand. What does an article about how Christians should relate to society have to do with same old arguments over the existence of God?

    • Teddie says:

      08:46pm | 25/05/10

      Because there is too much “...but they are not the normal expression of Christian living (never have been, really)” or “there has to be a better way to obey God than the one her church and its elders are suggesting is the True Path.”

      All religious variations of the no-True-Scotsman Fallacy - the not-a-true-christian-fallacy - that send peoples thinking topsy-turvy.

    • DG says:

      08:12pm | 25/05/10

      Mostly it’s about interest. I wrote a comment above on the topic you have outlined and there were no replies at all - the other threads have been running hot.

      I admit I enjoy a good religious debate as much, or possibly more than, the next man. But that’s why we are on this website, to talk about the things that interest us insofar as they appear relevant to the original topic and the other replies that have been made.

    • Michalana Mitha says:

      10:08am | 25/05/10

      My own personal view on Christianity and the fact there IS a God:
      “A person with an divine experience is NEVER at the mercy of a person with an argument.”

    • Tone says:

      01:39pm | 25/05/10

      Michalana, never at the mercy during the divine experience, or thereafter ?(unless they stop believing the experience was divine?)

    • monkeytypist says:

      11:22am | 25/05/10

      So why does God lavish all the divine experience on believers?  Couldn’t he just zap Richard Dawkins and make life easier for believers everywhere?

    • oh well says:

      11:34pm | 24/05/10

      I just wish those who hold a faith showed as much disinterest in my life and I do in theirs…but the sad fact is that they keep trying to tell me how to live my life, irrespective that the decisions I make have no impact on them.  My very existence as a happy and ethical atheist just seems to piss a lot of ‘the righteous” off?

    • Maddington Jim says:

      07:15pm | 24/05/10

      Hahahaha! Religion and human spirituality! Methinks, the Tower of Babel was never demolished. If you want proof, then look at all the entries and comments here.

    • David says:

      02:55pm | 24/05/10

      “But that kind of Christian practice is an aberration, not true New Testament faith and living.”

      Google yourself the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” because I’m pretty confident that a member of such a closed Christian community would disagree with you but then again they’re not likely to be reading this website either.

      Sure Christianity is sham my fellow atheists, critcise it, mock it but don’t for one second assume every believer is an idiot. There are reasons people maintain what is an emotional and often visceral connection to their faith in God which are not merely discounted with an intellectual argument.

      I’m an atheist and pretty managed to get myself blacklisted from the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses who frequent my home suburb because I don’t what they’re selling, I don’t need it and I can see the product as faulty. Not everyone thinks my way and not everyone has my capacities and experiences. That isn’t to say I want religion to prosper and thrive, I look forward to a world where humanity has outgrown religion, one less cause of strive in the world.

      So I’m a secularist first and atheist second. I’m for freedom of and from religion and I’m all for having discussions with the religious and for having them come to the table on important issues.

      I’m just not going to let them flop out an old book and claim any kind of authority, if they want to do that they can go found a closed community like the author described.

      http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/

    • David says:

      06:08pm | 24/05/10

      Wow… just re-read my comment, so many typos and missing words. Far too rushed I suppose.

      @Tosh

      Well I don’t see any way around engaging with the religious when you live in a society which includes the religious (although Australia comprises of less than they would have you believe). I’d rather work to improve important and real aspects of our society and have issues such as personal beliefs in a God left in the personal sphere.

      However, I do take issue when the religious seek to impose their theologically fueled views on me or others. But I take issue with anyone seeking to impose their view on others without a deductive basis for doing so (e.g. restrictions on smoking).

      I’m happy to sit down with the religious and discuss issues like euthanasia or abortion. Big, important issues which require ongoing debate and conversation in order to ensure our society is dealing with them in a manner which is representative of our society’s needs. Often I find I am in opposition to some atheists and in agreement with some people who are religious on a given issue because in reality there is not much more to the divide than belief in a God, socio-political persuasions occur on all sides of the non-existent fence (that’s a shot at the ‘agnostics’, you’re just atheists without the courage of your convictions).

      I won’t accept someone dropping a scriptural verse as an argument against or for a particular law or policy. You’re free to believe the big guy in the sky doesn’t want us showing the same mercy we show our pets to our grandparents but in a secular world you need to justify it with evidence and deductive reasoning. When it comes down to it, the space in which we all come together is the only reality we can rely on to guide us in our decision-making. You can appeal to the existence of anything unknown, unseen and unfathomable but it won’t help us here and now.

      http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/

    • tosh says:

      03:48pm | 24/05/10

      @ Dave

      “I’m for freedom of and from religion and I’m all for having discussions with the religious and for having them come to the table on important issues.”

      I appreciate your honesty their Dave.

    • Andrew says:

      02:48pm | 24/05/10

      To all those that say Religion is the opiate of the masses, I saw to you: Look at society, opiates are the opiates of the masses.

    • Lee from WA says:

      02:09pm | 24/05/10

      The irony of some of the comments to this piece shows that atheists have a fundamental anxiety about co-existing with Christianity (or any other religion for that matter).

    • Lee from WA says:

      10:32am | 25/05/10

      Greg does an article on how Christians sometimes have an anxiety about contamination by the world so they segregate themselves and the first comments (inevitably) are by atheists getting riled up again over religion, showing their anxiety over the mere presence of Christians in our society.

      Every article that might have anything to do with religion invariably brings out a horde of angry atheists talking about flying spaghetti monsters and the evils of religion. I used to debate it until I realised that this is the Internet and debating anything with anyone (atheist or not) is pointless.

    • monkeytypist says:

      04:53pm | 24/05/10

      @tosh you’re confusing me - which atheists are trying to claim that there’s no such thing as belief in God?  I certainly agree that belief in God exists.  We differ over whether it is justified.

      Then you seem to go on to say that if I talk about God I must believe in him?  So what do you say when people ask you if the Tooth Fairy exists?  Do you suddenly start believing in her when you talk about her?

    • tosh says:

      03:45pm | 24/05/10

      I do see irony in the fact that many atheists are prima facie more obsessed with God than theists.  This is especially telling given either the options seem to be:

      a) God/s does not exist
      b) God/s probably does not exist
      c) there is a ‘lack of’ or ‘non-belief’ in God/s.

      c) is certainly very commonly heard these days.  This is not classical atheism, but that aside, non-beliefs are fair enough.  I have them too, and examples include - the Easter bunny, who the best NBA player of all time or the most comfortable brand of womens’ tampons. 

      As such I don’t engage with people and discuss these topics as I have nothing to contribute.  I certainly have no reason to write on these topics, discuss them with others, make websites about them etc etc.  But if I went on the public record and openly had discussions with people who do, surely I could not continue to claim still have a non-belief. 

      Why engage anybody on any topic unless you’re trying to get your point across?

    • DG says:

      03:20pm | 24/05/10

      Firstly, why would that be ironic?

      Secondly, I don’t think that it is true. In my experience people have no problem with others believing whatever they want to believe, they do have a problem with religion being forced into schools, politics and the likes. The majority of atheists, in my experience, simply advocate for a separation of church and State. I appreciate that this observation is purely anecdotal.

      Finally, atheists, are only a group in the same way that all people who do not believe in unicorns are a group. The term atheist tell what we do not believe rather than what we do believe. Consider Scientology - that’s an atheistic religion, the same could be said of Buddhism or any other religion that does not have a “God”.

    • Jenny says:

      03:11pm | 24/05/10

      We are anxious for a reason. I am both gay and an atheist. Most people are reasonably accepting of the first, but virtually no one of faith is accepting of the second. I am basically a ‘live and let live’ kind of girl, but there is only so much evangelising, only so many times you can be told ‘it’s just a phase’ or ‘God will welcome you home’ you can take before you just want to start punching people. If you want to believe, go ahead, it makes no difference to me, but I would just like people to give me the same courtesy.

    • David says:

      03:01pm | 24/05/10

      Why is that ironic?

      Atheists don’t believe in God and would probably prefer the rest of the world didn’t either - sure would remove some of the problems in the world. So some atheists have posted here and are very critical of religion and would rather not have to deal with people’s communal fanatasy about an all-knowing and all-powerful being whom you should worship.

      I think what would be ironic is if an atheist founded a religion based on the existence of an unproven and probably nonexistent deity. Actually, I think someone did, it is known as Pastafarianism and worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      Now that is irony.

      http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/

    • James1 says:

      02:55pm | 24/05/10

      Also, that is not irony.

    • James1 says:

      02:51pm | 24/05/10

      Perhaps it is due to the way that the religious often behead or burn alive heretics.  Just a thought.

    • Ann says:

      02:01pm | 24/05/10

      There is not truth, is that true?

    • Amanda says:

      01:43pm | 24/05/10

      Great idea every body lets ban religion totally.
      Then there would be world peace, wealth and equality.
      No murders, drugs, rape, theft.
      Look at Nth Korea. every bodies happy there

    • Elphaba says:

      02:35pm | 24/05/10

      Amanda,

      North Korea is living under a socialist ideology.  It’s religion in a different frock.  They think the Dear Leader is responsible for everything good that happens.  Kim Jong Il is a man who has been elevated to the status of God, and is worshipped as such.

      I don’t believe ‘everybody’ is saying to ban religion totally.  I’m an atheist, but believe religion is still incredibly important.  If nothing else, it helps some inspired and gifted people to realise their full potential.  Similarily, it can keep some of those with dangerous thoughts and motives in check because of spiritual accountability.  That is a good thing.

      But don’t think for a second that socialist ideologies and religion are two separate things.  The details might be slightly different, but they operate under the exact same principles.  They just elevate a living man to the status of God.  They worship him unconditionally.  Their Leader punishes them speaking against him.  This is not atheism.

    • Greg says:

      01:38pm | 24/05/10

      Anyone truly secure in their own belief system would not have to seek to critique, belittle, (de-)rationalise, deconstruct or otherwise break down the belief system(s) of another. Faith means different things to different people, this is how it has always been, and how it will always will be. Trying to change or otherwise interfere with someone elses belief system only ever breeds resent, which ultimately leads to division, violence and equivalent negatives. You’ve got your faith, “they’ve” got their, in the words of Mark Knopfler, “why worry”.

    • monkeytypist says:

      11:44am | 26/05/10

      @Greg what I was trying to get across is that it’s pretty tough for someone like me not to be badgered and harassed because of my lack of belief.

      Each of my contentions could be perhaps rephrased as “all people should refrain from X”, where X is proselytisation through the organs of state, or through psychological or social pressure.  If I saw no evidence of these things from religious adherents, I would be happy and content to keep my beliefs to myself.  When someone publicises theirs, particularly with the implication that others in society should be following them, they must be prepared to face entirely reasonable questions from others.

      Living in a society that is predominantly theistic and where, despite changes and advances in science, the theistic worldview has some pretty strong institutional biases in its favour, it’s only right that we positively exhort theists to practice the “live and let live” tolerance that we aspire to, which in practice involves reminding them just how unsupported their central presuppositions are.

    • Greg says:

      01:19pm | 25/05/10

      @monkeytypist Your position sounds quite reasonable for someone who admits to having no money invested in the “religious spiritual marketplace”.  The common element behind each of your points is the fact that they are conditional on other things, something that “faith” proudly professes to exclude from its members’ charter. The only conundrum I see is that your obvious resolve to “make your own way” is being self-sabotaged by a belief system that effectively hinges on others (“if you could”, “if they…”) My position only suggests that greater fulfillment can come from not having to look over the fence to see what the neighbour is up to be satisfied within yourself.

    • monkeytypist says:

      02:53pm | 24/05/10

      Greg, I would *love* it if the scenario you outlined in your post applied.  If you could guarantee me that believers would stop interfering in the political process, for example, that they would stop trying to kill me or each other, or if they accepted that my tax money should not subsidise their churches, or if they stopped questioning my morality, my right to my godless beliefs, my integrity as a person, my sanity, etc. etc. etc. - if they did all of those things, we’d live in a wonderful world.

      If I asked you for a $50,000 loan you might want some proof that I could repay you before you handed the money over.  If a Jesus follower wants me to entrust my “immortal soul” to them, then they can present me with some evidence, or they can stop banging on about it.

    • Jay says:

      01:37pm | 24/05/10

      Dan - WTF?!?!

      “By all means, deny the existence of God.” - *AHEM* There is no denying of God - it is up to believers to prove God exists.

      As for the rest of your strawman - actually listen to what Atheists are saying before you assume their message.

      BTW - You really don’t understand the Scientic Method. Google it.

    • DG says:

      01:32pm | 24/05/10

      Despite being a non-believer (some insist on using the term atheists, however I believe it to be a meaningless title, it means something very different to a Muslim than it does to a Christian, scientologist or Jain), I particularly like the piece.

      It is good to hear believers stand up and say “We’re going about this the wrong way. There is no need for our faith to penetrate every aspect of every persons life”.

      The re-writing of fairy tales has already been done - in the 90’s, if I recall correctly, the fairy tales were rewritten in politically correct language to mock the PC movement, here Christians are mocking their own movement. It doesn’t make sense.

      That said, I am not particularly concerned about the death of Christianity - however, I do not think that any such death is either imminent or inevitable. Given that the term “Christian” and membership of that groups is one based on self reporting rather than any particular behaviour or even particular expression of faith (beyond self reporting as Christian), I think it’s safe to assume that it’s wont die off so long as children are brought up in the faith of their parents and wish to please their parents. 

      It’s relevance (that is the relevance of the religion and the faith, as opposed to Christian philosophy) in the modern world is questionable at best. Unlike the USA, we do not have a huge push to preach faith despite evidence to the contrary, we do not have the same push by people who do not understand the scientific “theory” method to displace observable reality.

      I have no problem with the teaching of religious stories as stories (rather than as a form of indoctrination, with an assertion or suggestion that the stories are true), Indeed, like many other stories of religions and mythology of the present era and those that are long gone there are morals that can be extracted and lessons learned from these stories. Equally they are sprinkled with a fair dose of fiction.

    • Dan says:

      01:11pm | 24/05/10

      Well that degenerated pretty quickly.  Why are so many atheists so driven in their evangelism?  If what they’re saying is the truth, why do they insist on sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling it loudly, over and over?  What are the atheists afraid of?
      Of course, science deals with the observable, measurable world.  Modern atheism is based on the belief that, “If I can’t see it, touch it, taste it, smell it or hear it, it aint real”.  Since science only deals with the observable and repeatable, it is not able to tell us anything about the existence or non-existence of a “spiritual realm”, unless that spiritual realm interacts with the “physical realm” in some predictable and observable way.
      Scientists know this, as do most believers.  Only the atheists attempt to use this characteristic of science to claim that non-existence is thereby proven (???).
      Here’s some news for atheists:  the idea that the non-observability of spiritual things proves their non-existence is a philosophical position, not a scientific position.  By all means, deny the existence of God.  Just don’t claim that you’re being scientific when you do, because you’re really just being philosophical.  I mean, have you even taken a second to think about that, ever?

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:17am | 25/05/10

      @ Dan

      ” the idea that the non-observability of spiritual things proves their non-existence is a philosophical position, not a scientific position.”
      But it’s just not what most atheists assert.  A lack of evidence is not good reason to believe that it must exist in some non-scientific sense.  It is good reason not to believe that it exists.

    • MatLon says:

      02:00pm | 24/05/10

      I agree in a way.

      For decades scientists did not know about ‘dark matter’, but just recently we have realised that ~75% of our universe is influenced by a force we could not measure or see.

      Don’t get me wrong, there is a big difference between the laws of physics and a paternalistic god…but it does give some perspective I think.

    • monkeytypist says:

      01:53pm | 24/05/10

      Dan, I firstly have to take issue with the idea that “non-existence is proven”.  Very few atheists make the positive claim that God’s non-existence is comprehensively proven.  Most of us simply take the attitude that for all practical purposes it is better to act as though God does not exist in the absence of any sort of objective evidence.  I have not yet met a Christian who needs a 100-page dossier before they will accept that Zeus or Quetzlcoatl do not exist; rather, as a matter of practicality they simply treat him as though they don’t in the absence of a better explanation and get on with their lives.  We just apply that approach to all supernatural phenomena rather than a select few.

      And yes, many of us (we are a diverse lot after all) do understand the difference between scientific truth and philosophical truth.  But we also see nothing inherently wrong or stupid in talking about the supernatural as though it is evaluable through scientific truth.  It is to the person who wants to claim the special examption for the supernatural to say why it shouldn’t be subjected to scientific inquiry, and the defence “it makes some people uncomfortable” wears thin very quickly.

      Finally, why are we so “driven in our evangelism”?  Because we’d prefer that people make all decisions that affect us on the basis of sound rational evidence.  Many people have that attitude about most things!

      When religious people attempt to use our taxpayer resources to fund or support particular supernatural claims, when we are regularly condemned for criticising the murderous or stupid acts of believers on the basis that their belief is somehow a protection, we think it’s reasonable to ask believers to justify their actions, particularly those that affect the whole of society, on objective reasonable grounds.  If they can’t do that, then I can certainly tell why they are getting uncomfortable!

      A scientist welcomes someone who asks “why?” whenever an assertion is made.  A believer gets tetchy and uncomfortable. That’s the thing we should be pondering, not the fact that some people are motivated to ask “why” in the first place!

    • DG says:

      01:50pm | 24/05/10

      You speak of the non-overlapping magisteria proposed by Stephen Jay Gould - in that science asks how and religion asks why (an oversimplification, but I think it grabs the main part of the position). That they are inherently dealing with different things. While I disagree with this, I do understand the basis for such an understanding, I also appreciate that it is a compromise of sorts.

      While I agree with you that science does not say “There is no evidence of God therefore there is no god”. It does however say “There is no evidence for God, there is no reason to believe that god exists”.

      One can not use science to prove the existence of God, nor can one use the absence of evidence to prove God.

      I believe that, in the absence of evidence, one should assume the null hypothesis. In the absence of evidence for the Christian God one should assume the null hypothesis - i.e that such an entity does not exist. This is by no means a rebuttable presumption, but it certainly does not suggest that the opposite is true. This application holds for all deities, faiths and other matter or thing that has not been proven (such as the Higgs Boson, the makeup of dark matter and various other things).

      If the “spiritual” can not interact with the physical world in an observable way then how can it do anything? If a molecule is moved, that movement can be observed. If no molecule can be moved how is this ‘spiritual world’ to have any effect on the reality in which we exist?

      That said, as I have mentioned previously, there is much to be said of the philosophy of religion, without the faith in that for which there is no evidence or that for which there is evidence to the contrary.

      Even if we accept the hypothesis that “God” is real, there is no better evidence for the Christian god than any other deity. Once you state the specific characteristics of the deity then it may be possible to disprove it,

      I should note that faith is different to the things outlined in the bible - to the extend that such things are falsifiable or there are glaring inconsistencies in that text, one must prefer the plausible and provable over the dis-proven and inconsistent language of the bible.

    • James1 says:

      01:48pm | 24/05/10

      Still, claiming that god is not responsible for all we see around us is far more scientific than claiming that a bearded man made everything that exists less than 10 000 years ago (or that thetans are responsible for feelings).  When juxtaposed with an actual religious position, the type of atheism you are talking about is far more scientific than when juxtaposed against this potential “spiritual realm” that you are talking about.

      In any case, very few atheists I know are evangelical.  As far as I am concerned, what do I care if you want to get up early on Sunday, or wear a hijab?  As long as you do not suicide bomb me, burn me at the stake, or protest at my gay sister’s funeral, that is your lookout, not mine.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:01pm | 24/05/10

      Religion is perfect for the stupid. Religion is perfect for those that need their decisions made for them. Relgion is perfect for those who can’t think for themselves. Religion is perfect for those too afraid to actually ‘live’ their lives.

      ANY religon that is. Wether you bang your head while facing east for Allah, bang your head agaisnt he aptly named Wailing Wall for Jehovah or kneel and kiss dirty old mens rings for Christ etc.

      Relgion relies on ignorance, poverty, stupidity, fear and naivety to prosper. All you need is to have ‘faith’. The beauty of religion is they can extort money from you, sacrifice lifes pleasures, go without objects, obey their rules, don’t associate or hate certain people etc even get you to give up your life for it all on the basis of having ‘faith’ you are going to be rewarded after you die.

      Conveniently enough no-ones ever come back to tell us what this reward is - or even if there is a reward…you just need ‘faith’ that its there.

      Religion is the cosmic ‘Just wait till your father gets home’ line your mother used to throw at you when you got a bit big for the wooden spoon. ‘Eat up all your broccoli and you can have some icecream’ is another.

      We as a secular nation should be opposing - vigourously ANY religious encroachment into our democratic and political process. These fringe cults should be stamped out that split up familes, abuse children, forbid access between family members not in the cult etc Then we should start dismantling all these tax exemptions, prime real estate spots in the CBD etc of the major ogranised religions. Bugger them , they’ve enjoyed spongeing off the people for long enough.

      We all live, once. If we are lucky we’ll get to love and be loved. We will all one day, hopefully in the very distant future, die. If you want to have faith in something - have faith in yourself first and foremost. Have faith in your family. Have faith in your friends. Usually they are the only things that have your best interests at heart. Well, a lot more than any ‘religion’ ever will.

    • Jack from Perth says:

      01:00pm | 24/05/10

      Lord, save me from your followers.

    • Sarah says:

      12:56pm | 24/05/10

      Thak-you Greg. That was wonderfully written.

    • Mr Subramanian says:

      01:40pm | 24/05/10

      Indeed. His co-founder John Dickson has also written some excellent stuff too. It has, of course, drawn out the nutters once again, but it;s a good juxtaposition, where everyone can see how Greg (the Christian) has written this article and see how some of those opposed to this have constructred theirs.

      I’ve always felt that genuine Christianity encourages questions, because it’s not afraid of the answers - or of the fact that it doesn’t have an answer, because it has Jesus Christ.

    • Tara says:

      12:55pm | 24/05/10

      I’ve been inundated by talks of religion is evil recently and I have to say I disagree. Religion isn’t evil. Nor is God just a fictional construct of control. It’s a belief system that people have because it helps them get through the realities of life.

      It’s people who distort and repress what religion means to others. It’s unfortunate that there are so many disillusion non believers but it’s even more disheartening to see believers who don’t understand the true meaning of the God they believe in.

      I agree with the article’s assertion that Christians have this innate insecurity that compells them to force their religion on others. It’s tragic to see Christians who merely parrot what they are told without any regard for it’s meaning.  I think we need to view religion as a way of filling in the blanks but I don’t agree that religion should be all there is. We need to understand what it in terms of life and experience instead of just quoting verses because it sounds good.

    • Jeff says:

      12:53pm | 24/05/10

      The Bible encourages Christians to be in the world (not seperatists) but not of the world i.e. not casting of all that is true, noble and worth preserving for the sake of progressiveness.

    • James1 says:

      03:45pm | 24/05/10

      The bible also encourages the ancient Jews to wipe the seed of various tribes from the earth.  I for one am not convinced it is a good source.

    • dancan says:

      12:35pm | 24/05/10

      Any religion when practiced to an extreme is something to be wary of.  So many in Australia are concerned with Muslim extremists, but within our own country there are Christian extremists that are just as dangerous.

      Let us not forget Danny Nalliah, a Christian evangelist pastor who linked the Victorian bush fires to god’s revenge for then recently passed abortion laws.  Or when he passed out brochures that asked parishioners to pray that God would pull down “Satan’s strongholds”, which included brothels, gambling places, bottle shops, mosques and temples (including Freemason, Buddhist and Hindu temples.  And I can’t forget when he claimed that federal Parliament was under attack by witchcraft.

      Religion can provide comfort to those who need it, it can provide strength and courage but any religion when taken to extreme is very dangerous and should be expunged.

      /rant - yes I’m very happy we’re committing so many resources to fight a bunch of backwards religious nuts half a world away who get around on donkeys and sleep in caves rather than looking at the nuts in our own country spreading poison like the above. /end rant

    • robbie Swan says:

      10:53am | 24/05/10

      Morris Gleitzman’s new book is not a cause for sadness as Greg says but rather incredible halleleujah. So many teens these days are accepting the simplistic exhortations of US style pentecostalism and the ‘Idols’ that they through up into our TV screens every night. When you can penetrate the nefarious actions of groups like the Exclusive Brethren, who have just been handed tens of millions of dollars for their schools by Kevin Rudd, you see that these closed Christian communities are not only dangerous to democracy but just plain dumb. And while Four Corners and the Spectator might articulate these sentiments to adults, teenagers are not addressed. In fact there are so many Christian teachers in the state school system these days preaching their own brand of religion on the side, that kids are being swept by more religious currents than ever before. So an intelligent and engaging book aimed at teenagers that explores this world is well overdue.
      The fact that Gleitzman’s epilogue acknowledges the positive aspects of the thing he is dismembering shows what an amazing sense of perspective he is able to bring to the book. I’d be so angry after writing a book like this that my charitable feelings to Christians would be well and truly exhausted.

    • Bren says:

      10:18am | 24/05/10

      Christianity, doesn’t promote understanding of life, it represses and distorts. It doesn’t find meaning to life, because there is no meaning to be found.

      Religion is an opiate. The way Christians talk about meaning and grace is the same of how naive drug stoners talk about pot. The meaning and purpose you feel when high on your “drug” is nothing more than a self induced delusion.

    • Craigles says:

      11:20am | 24/05/10

      I think there is meaning to life in terms of

      1. enjoying all the options available, but not at anyone’s expense
      .....  i.e. enjoy fairly and ethically
      2. contributing to development of groups (family, community, societal), &
      3. contributing to sustainability

    • Athiest says:

      11:13am | 24/05/10

      Technology is the replacement for religion. And look at how fast and wide spread the addicition has become.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:18am | 24/05/10

      That is rather disturbing - that good stories have to be ‘Christianised’.  Seems it’s taking the whole idea a bit too seriously.

      I just finished a great book called The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ by Phillip Pullman (same guy who wrote His Dark Materials, of which the movie The Golden Compass is based).

      It’s a retelling of the story of Jesus, in which Mary gave birth to two boys, one named Jesus and the other Christ.  It deals with how stories become legends and superstitions become rituals.

      My favourite chapter is when Jesus is in the garden at Gesthemene - his confession that he is now the fool who’s heart says there is no God, because he’s done nothing but pray and gotten no answer.  It’s powerful stuff, and beautifully captures the human struggle with faith.

      I’d encourage every holier-than-thou Christian to read it in the hopes it brings them back to Earth - and reminds them that Jesus is an idea that people have gone and built a belief structure on.  I’m not saying it’s wrong - but I’m not saying it’s right either.

      Leave the kids strories alone.  And I agree Bec - Christian rock is definitely a bit namby-pamby.  Gimme a bit of Metallica any day…

    • stephen says:

      09:07am | 24/05/10

      The creation of God, eons ago, was a poetic creation.
      Peoples, once, needed a fiction around which to gather stories and faith, and that faith comes(still), from the confusion of what death actually is.
      These silly ideas, thinking back from the 21st Century, has riddled our civilization with hate,(and death, which we now mock).

    • Steve the Elder says:

      08:46am | 24/05/10

      As an agnostic, dyslexic,insomniac I often lie awake at night wondering if there is a dog.

    • bec says:

      07:01am | 24/05/10

      Same goes for new Christian rock and pop. Who’d have thought that a religion that, over the centuries, brought us the finest of architecture, art and music would give us the crap made today? “Christian rock doesn’t make Jesus better, it just makes rock and roll worse.”

    • Gruff says:

      04:50pm | 24/05/10

      I think Baby Jesus cries everytime a Christian attempts ‘rock’.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:02pm | 24/05/10

      That’s brilliant!

      How embarrassing for Stephen Fry though…

    • Delphic Oracle says:

      06:43am | 24/05/10

      All religions are man made.  Therefore, how can god exist?  and as Believers are so godmatic, I can’t believe anything they say or write.  Just put the other O back into GOD and there will be enough GOOD in the world to go around.  At the moment, no religion has solved the problems of wars so where is the grace?

    • Steve says:

      12:57pm | 01/06/10

      @Steely Dan says

      “If Genesis 1 and 2 are allegorical, what does it teach us?”

      The prevailing pagan ideas were that the world was created out of the body of a defeated god after a war between gods, and that humanity was created afterward to serve the gods through sacrifice.

      Genesis 1 teaches that one god created the universe out of nothing, effortlessly and that mankind was the pinnacle and beneficiary of creation. Genesis 2 is not a competing creation story. It zooms in on the creation of mankind, and elaborates on our place in creation. It also corrects some prevailing misunderstandings about male/female relationships.

      That is what the author intended the original readers to understand from these stories. They are NOT history. To take them as history is a misunderstanding of the literary genre and cultural context.

      The idea of original sin actually comes from the next chapter read in conjunction with what Paul says about it in Romans 5. Christians have a variety of understandings of the matter, some of which are dependent on a literalistic understanding of Genesis. Needless to say, I think they are wrong.

    • Steve says:

      12:03pm | 01/06/10

      @monkeytypist

      Sorry about the delay. I don’t come here all that often.

      “... what is a strange assumption is your idea that the Redactor(s) must have noticed and cared enough about every potential contradiction to remove them completely.  Instead when there were two similar events recorded they very often just used both versions with only minor alterations. ...”

      Vellum and papyrus were somewhat more precious than office paper is today. Editors did not repeat bits of text within the same manuscript except with very good reason. They did not even leave spaces between words! Copyists sometimes excluded apparent repetitions and attempted to smooth over what they thought to be contradictions or other difficulties. Any alleged difficulties that you think you see in the final text reflect a failure to understand it.

      “...  We can hand-wave and say “version X is literal, version Y metaphorical”, but we have already started drifting away from the (I assume, very important!) idea that the Bible contains historical truth.  That wouldn’t matter so much except for the fact that the Christian idea is based on that very concept!”

      The Bible contains lots of different types of literature. As I said above, you have to work out what type you are looking at before you can start to understand it. That some parts are metaphorical does not undermine the historicity of the historical parts.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:39pm | 28/05/10

      @Steve

      That didn’t really answer my question.  All you did was describe a simplified process for interpreting text. 

      If Genesis 1 and 2 are allegorical, what does it teach us?  What purpose does explaining creation in steps (chronoligically or not) teach us?  If it’s pure poetry to describe the power of god, then the key concept of original sin (vital to the NT, which is rarely claimed to be allegorical) seems out of place.

    • the apologist says:

      10:05am | 28/05/10

      @DG:
      Well, you can look at the revelation itself – that is certainly an observable, tangible aspect of the revelatory argument. If you want to shoot down Christians, that’s where I’d start.
      Re. your comments on ‘circular arguments’, I actually think you’ve really nailed something that is fundamentally important to the Christian position. You said: “There is no independent evidence, beyond the claims of the bible, that the material contained therein is true - and, as you say, this is exactly what one would expect if the bible was the only means of revelation.”
      As you say, if the Bible is the revelation of the One true God, His word stands on it’s own authority (which is what you would expect!). This is my presupposition – the existence of God as He defines Himself in Scripture. I stand on this conviction primarily by faith in Him. Ridiculous and unreasonable you say? Perhaps more reasonable than the alternative.
      It’s not that I discount ‘independent evidence’ (as you call it – no such invention as far as I’m concerned). I interpret independent evidence based upon my presuppositions (as do all). I have found that the truth of God’s word presents an entirely coherent framework with which to understand reality in all aspects – and far from independent facts disproving my presupposition, I have found that my faith is wonderfully confirmed in every sphere of life, in every direction I turn.
      I think you will find that you interpret the ‘independent evidence’ based on your own presuppositions as well (for example God does not exist – which essentially precludes your consideration of him existing btw), and this massively affects the way that you understand the facts. I believe you are still committed to your own presuppositions a priori, and in that sense, every one argues and thinks on a circular basis. Everyone consciously or not appeals to an ultimate authority based upon ‘faith’. Mine is God (as revealed in the Bible). Yours is probably reason, if you’re anything like most people in our society. I could argue that your commitment to reason pulls itself up by the bootstraps too! (e.g. you cannot avoid using it to attempt justifying and explaining it).
      Re. your criteria – I think we’re at logger heads with your first criteria! Given the nature of the problem, I do not think that it is a legitimate approach – especially in light of my comments on what interpreting ‘evidence’ means in terms of our subjective pre-commitments affecting the way we view it. Your second one is more agreeable to me in that it looks at the veracity of the revelation itself, conducting the investigation is of course a massive undertaking.
      Re. crusades comments: agreed, horrible things have been done under the flag of Christianity. My argument would be that such actions deny the claim of Christianity. More specifically, the actions done under the flag of Christianity are actually fundamentally inconsistent with Christianity itself.
      Thanks for your comments, I know I haven’t addressed all of them (it’s hard in the process of convoluted conversations of this nature and forum). Please do feel free to push me further on any and all of my comments, and re-raise any you feel I have avoided if you wish!

    • monkeytypist says:

      09:13am | 28/05/10

      @Steve “Historians have been doing all this with ancient texts of all types for ages. It is not much different with the Bible. “

      Yes, and textual analysis, as regularly applied by historians to non-“sacred” texts, reveals that the Bible is compiled from a variety of sources created at different times.  This is why a number of stories are repeated, or very nearly repeated with some variations in detail: the two Genesis creation narratives are one example.  Another is the multiple differing versions of the Ten Commandments given at Exodus 20: 2-17, Deuteronomy 5: 6-21 and Exodus 34: 11-27.
      The assumption that there was redaction is unproblematic: what is a strange assumption is your idea that the Redactor(s) must have noticed and cared enough about every potential contradiction to remove them completely.  Instead when there were two similar events recorded they very often just used both versions with only minor alterations.  We can hand-wave and say “version X is literal, version Y metaphorical”, but we have already started drifting away from the (I assume, very important!) idea that the Bible contains historical truth.  That wouldn’t matter so much except for the fact that the Christian idea is based on that very concept!

      @apologist: the idea that Israelite religion was not originally monotheistic, or that it may have adopted ideas like angels from Zoroastrianism during the period of the Exile may offend religious Jews, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true!  A simple reading of the First Commandment, or the hymn of liberation following the crossing of the Red Sea, explicitly mentions Yahweh as one god among others.  Similar references are legion throughout the Old Testament.

      There is an abundance of archeological evidence that Israelite religion was similar in origins to the praxis of its “Canaanite” neighbors, which included the idea that the creator, God the Most High (El Elyon, among other names) gave the individual tribes their own patron gods, and the patron god of the Israelites was Yahweh.  Altars and sacred spaces dedicated to Yahweh were dotted throughout the countryside, and not just confined to one place in Jerusalem.  At a later period, probably following the Exile, Yahweh and El were conflated into one God, and elements such as Yahweh’s wife, Asherah (worshipped using poles or trees) were condemned by reformers such as Hezekiah and removed from official practice, although they persisted for quite some time.  William Dever has produced some accessible books on the subject; if you prefer to see the same story explained by a believing Christian as well as a respected scholar, see Mark S. Smith’s An Early History of God.

    • Steve says:

      10:12pm | 27/05/10

      @Steely Dan
      “So how do you determine fact from allegory?  My suspicion is that the answer to this question is usually ‘what we can get away with’.”

      First you have to work out what type of writing you are looking at. Is it law, poetry, history, a letter, a parable, or something else? Then find out what you can about the literary, historical, cultural, and theological contexts. You try to work out what the author/editor intend the original readers to think. Some of that will pertain only to their immediate contexts, but we can still benefit from understanding the general principles or reasoning being applied. Once you understood all that, it is just a matter of working how the same author would express the same ideas in today’s contexts, and there you have it.

      Historians have been doing all this with ancient texts of all types for ages. It is not much different with the Bible.

    • the apologist says:

      04:56pm | 27/05/10

      @Proud Infidel:
      According to the historical accounts of the Jewish Scriptures, the Jewish culture and religion was founded, practiced and established well before the 6th century BC (some thousands of years before in fact). To my knowledge, there is every reason to believe that the Torah itself was penned by Moses and preserved by Jewish scribes throughout the thousands of years of Jewish history.
      You also said: ‘the idea of the covenant tells us that the Israelites were not yet monotheists.’ I don’t know where you’re getting your ‘idea of the covenant’ from, but there is nothing to suggest that the Jewish religion was ever anything but monotheistic based upon the Jewish Scriptures (which are naturally the authority on what constitutes the Jewish religion!! you don’t agree on this point…) Given that the Jewish religion predates Zoroastrian belief significantly, it’s hardly fair to say that e.g. the Levitical texts plagiarised the Persian texts. I would have thought that the Zoroastrian religion was the guilty party, given that it followed chronologically.
      Unless of course you’re suggesting that the Jewish Scriptures in their entirety were basically invented and penned post Zoroastrian times (try and tell a Religious Jew that!!) – which seems to be what you’re suggesting.

    • Steely Dan says:

      06:06pm | 26/05/10

      @ Steve

      “The imperfect verb in 2:19 does not imply chronology. To suggest a contradiction in chronology is a insult to the author/editor of the book (normally said to be Moses) and shows no sensitivity to the literary genre and cultural context.”
      So how do you determine fact from allegory?  My suspicion is that the answer to this question is usually ‘what we can get away with’.

    • monkeytypist says:

      11:24am | 26/05/10

      @Atheist One of the central propositions of atheism - if there can be such a thing - is that belief in the supernatural without evidence is not especially clever or intellectually robust.

      “The FSM argument is insulting to people who have a genuine belief in other worldly beings.”

      So is the assertion that non-believers just hate God; or that we’re all going to Hell; or that we’re blind to the non-empirical “evidence” of God; or that our lives are secretly miserable because we haven’t found God.  Belief in Christianity presupposes its superiority as a moral code, otherwise why adhere to it at all?  I see no reason why we should let any of these offensive suggestions pass by when they are hurled at us, even by inference. 

      If a believer can’t honestly and sincerely answer why their belief is less ridiculous than the FSM, then I fail to see why they should in any sense be sheltered from ridicule.  Anyway, as the chief priest of the FSM has asked, doesn’t God have a sense of humour?

      “We may not agree with it, but a patronising backhand reply serves no purpose except to allow mentally challenged individuals believe they are quite clever when it is not the case.”

      Firstly, i don’t assume that anyone who talks about the FSM is especially intelligent or non-intelligent.  I’ve seen examples of both.  Secondly, the fact that believer may find an argument uncomfortable or disrespectful is no reason for a non-believer to refrain from raising it.  If you think the FSM is too juvenile, try Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot, a rephrasing of the same argument. Unless you think that Russell must have been mentally defective?

      The argument doesn’t “prove” anyone’s intellectual superiority; it raises a valid point that any self-respecting theist should have a good answer to.  I’m certainly not going to cringe before the delicate sensibilities of believers, particularly if they hold themselves out publically, in defiance of the contrary evidence, to be supporting a position of objective moral superiority.

    • Steve says:

      11:46pm | 25/05/10

      @Steely Dan
      “So what comes first, man or beast?”
      What Genesis affirms, contra Enuma Elish for example, is that mankind is the pinnacle of creation, and has been put in charge of it. There is chronology in chapter 1, but it is just a literary device. The imperfect verb in 2:19 does not imply chronology. To suggest a contradiction in chronology is a insult to the author/editor of the book (normally said to be Moses) and shows no sensitivity to the literary genre and cultural context.

    • Proud Infidel says:

      04:51pm | 25/05/10

      the apologist say@ Zoroastrianism was founded in the early part of the 6th century BC.

      Judaism has had many forms pre-dating the 6th century but for my understanding where were fundamentally polytheists at that time. But whatever its date, the idea of the covenant tells us that the Israelites were not yet monotheists.

      The alien nature of other laws to the Jews shows itself in the distinction between clean and unclean animals in Leviticus and Ezekial which was derived from the Vendidad, a Zoroastrian holy book, where alone it is explained. The purification rituals are identical in the Pentateuch and the older Vendidad. Von Gall in Brasileia tou Theou, 1926, gives a detailed catalog of Jewish laws taken from the Persians. Ezra also introduced the new festival of booths in the seventh month, which is of course the Zoroastrian holiday of Ayathrem. Finally, in about 400 B.C. the Old Testament was put in written form when Jerusalem was still under the power of the Persians.

    • DG says:

      04:08pm | 25/05/10

      “I would argue that the only way such a God can be known (certainly one as defined in the Christian Scriptures) can only be via revelation”

      I agree that’s what you would argue - it is a comfortably defensible position. There is no ground on which it can be disproven, because there is nothing that it claims that can be observed.

      But at the very least you must admit that the argument is circular: God reveals himself through the bible, he can only be revealed through the bible, therefore the revelation of god via the bible proves that there is a god from whom such a revelation can come. There is no independent evidence, beyond the claims of the bible, that the material contained therein is true - and, as you say, this is exactly what one would expect if the bible was the only means of revelation.

      It derives it’s authority from itself - pulls itself up by the bootstraps as it were.

      The first two criteria for testing the veracity of a revelation of god are:
      (1) that there is a god who can make such a revelation through a book,
      (2) that the book (from which the revelation comes) is, objectively, beyond reproach in accuracy, consistency and originality (any variation in the text means that either the previous revelation was wrong, or the current is - to the extent of inconsistency, and if there is no inconsistency then there is no need for any such change). I would include independent verification in this heading.

      If the book alone is the proof of everything contained in the book, then we have a very lo standard of proof. I very much doubt that you are willing to apply that same standard of proof to other holy texts, at least I sincerely hope not. Accordingly, we agree that the ‘proof’ must come from an independent source, and this is the problem. There is no independent source, because the bible says there is to be no independent source.

      As I mentioned previously, this is one thing that the Quran has over the Bible - it is forbidden to change even one word from the time it was “revealed” to the prophet.

      Again you mention the positive changes that have been made in the name of the bible without making reference to the horrid things that have been done in the name of the bible, such as the crusades. I am sure that it was just an oversight wink

      I can appreciate that you are convinced of the veracity of the claims in that text, It is a conclusion available to those who have faith in the text. I, simply, am not going to accept it on faith.

    • Tedd says:

      03:24pm | 25/05/10

      @ the.apologist - “the New Testament Scriptures [are] consistent with the Old Testament Jewish Scriptures” because the NT gospels were written and selected to align with and fulfil the OT prophecies.  Hence, the plethora of apoycryphal gospels, the ‘synoptic problem’, and the fact Paul’s epistles are Gnostic-like.

    • the apologist says:

      01:27pm | 25/05/10

      @James1: Well, my assessment of the Qur’an is this: it claims to build on the Jewish and Christian religions in it’s establishment – much like Christianity claims to build on the Jewish religion. With Christianity, I find the New Testament Scriptures to be consistent with the Old Testament Jewish Scriptures. The Qur’an, on the other hand, takes positions that are inconsistent with both of it’s supposed predecessors (e.g. denial of the crucifixion of Jesus). That’s good enough for me to reject it. You’ll have to clarify your transubstantiation and consubstantiation argument, no idea what you mean by it (pardon my ignorance).
      @Proud Infidel:
      No doubt the Jews and Persians came into contact. The Biblical account states as much. However, this was well after the Jewish Scriptures, culture, and nationhood had been established. The historical account of the nation states as much (much of the OT is historical narrative – as opposed to prophetical, poetical, etc).
      No direct comment to make on Zoroastrianism, my research in the area is lacking (hey, at least you’ve given me another area to investigate). However, I don’t necessarily have problems with similarities. I don’t find your comparisons to be particularly compelling evidence to suggest the Jewish scriptures were compromised at this stage.
      Re. 2 creation stories: they don’t conflict. As I read it, they are two accounts of the same thing. First one simply states that God created man and woman, second goes in to more detail.
      @DG:
      Re. competing narratives of Genesis, see comments just above to Proud Infidel.
      Re. Noah, I think you will find that it rained 40 days, and that the waters remained on the earth 150 days. That is to say: the process of rain and flooding abounding was 40 days – naturally such severe flooding would mean that the flood waters would hang around for a good time afterwards (thus ‘the waters prevailed’ not ‘it continued flooding). I think a careful study of the original language’s would reveal two different Hebrew words making the distinction.
      On your argument responding to lives changed etc. Fair point. I suppose the real point I was attempting to make is that the Bible has changed lives significantly (as in it has been significantly central to many lives being brought back from addiction and destruction, it has restored families, it has motivated men to change the world – e.g.william Wilberforce); and throughout western history, a Biblical worldview has significantly shaped and prospered many nations. When was the last time a fiction novel did that? Admittedly, other religious texts have had impact as well, but the comparison is probably something that deserves a separate discussion/investigation.
      Re. criteria: ok, so we’ve bypassed the criteria, to the question of whether there’s a God. Fair enough. But how do you prove a God via evidence who exists outside of creation? (according to the claims of revelation). The approach can’t be used, because it’s not sufficient to deal with the nature of the problem. I would argue that the only way such a God can be known (certainly one as defined in the Christian Scriptures) can only be via revelation. It must come from Him. Again, we return to the question – how do you test revelation?
      @fed up: why should I listen to your assertion? People start wars. Certainly they have done so in the name of Christ – BUT this is inconsistent with Christianity itself, therefore it’s a bit rich to blame the religion. Lay the blame where it belongs: at the feet of the messed up people who did it.

    • Athiest says:

      09:20am | 25/05/10

      @ self described “monkeytypist” the position put forward is obviously garbage. You dont get a sensible discussion when lowering yourself to the tactics of the other side. The FSM argument is insulting to people who have a genuine belief in other worldly beings. We may not agree with it, but a patronising backhand reply serves no purpose except to allow mentally challenged individuals believe they are quite clever when it is not the case.
      And DG, i didnt say that Grant believed it, just it was not contributing to the discussion to start throwing around ridiculous statements was arrogant in the extreme.

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:12am | 25/05/10

      @ Steve

      “Similarly, while the creation of humanity is mentioned twice, there is no inconsistency.”
      So what comes first, man or beast?

    • Fed up with religion says:

      08:03am | 25/05/10

      Sorry to hand you the bad news…but….All religion is FAKE!!!
      Religion STARTS WARS , we would be happier if it disappeared from our lives…....

    • Steve says:

      01:52am | 25/05/10

      @DG
      The flood actually lasted a bit more than 1 year (compare 7:11 and 8:14). The 40 and 150 day periods were parts of that year. No inconsistency there. Similarly, while the creation of humanity is mentioned twice, there is no inconsistency. Compare it with the prevailing creation myths at that time, and you’ll quickly see what is being affirmed and denied.

    • DG says:

      09:24pm | 24/05/10

      PART 2

      “How do you even go about forming a criteria for testing whether or not something is the revelation of God?”

      Now here we get to the crux of the matter, and for which you rely on an unstated presumption. Before we can ascertain whether it is the revelation of God we must ascertain that there is in fact a god who could be making the revelation.

      Because there is no evidence for the existence of god I would suggest that we must adopt the null hypothesis. That there is no God.

      More importantly, in the absence of a supported hypothesis for the existence for god we can not assume that there is a god who could make a revelation.

    • DG says:

      09:22pm | 24/05/10

      I know that you’ve missed me.

      “This does not mean that they aren’t the word of God.”
      I agree with you there, that is why I carefully avoided making that allegation. That would have been rather foolish and almost completely indefensible. Given the thousands of years since they were written means that proving the motives of the authors would be almost impossible to ascertain.

      “As for inconsistencies in the Bible, well – there are none in Genesis that I’m aware of (happy to hear your accusations of course);”

      There are one or two things that come to mind – the first is the competing creation stories, the other that springs to mind is the length of Noah’s flood. At the first instance it is referred to as being 40 days (Gen 7:17), then it becomes 150 days (Gen 7:24).

      “Try and tell that to the millions across history whose broken lives have been transformed by the gospel, and who have significantly impacted and shaped the Western culture (which you enjoy many benefits from no doubt).”

      I have two comments to this point:
      (1) That the fact that a person derives some joy from the written word does nothing to confirm the veracity of the claims therein. If I derive some revelation from a fiction novel it does not mean that the revelation is a sign from God.
      (2) It certainly does nothing to distinguish between the Bible, the Quran or even the Holy Texts of Scientology or any other text that a person has used to guide them to a personal revelation.

    • monkeytypist says:

      05:14pm | 24/05/10

      @tosh “are you saying that matter has moral obligations?” not quite, I’m saying that moral obligations are dependent on matter.  Are you saying that they’re not?

      We can only understand things like categorisation by reference to material reality (or, if you prefer, our individual simulacra of material reality).  I’ll admit I’m not well-versed in propositional logic, but I’m yet to see evidence that any “principle of thought” isn’t ultimately instantiated by a particular version of material reality.

    • Proud Infidel says:

      03:57pm | 24/05/10

      the apologist@ It’s a historic fact that the Jews and the Persians came in contact with each other. Most scholars believe that Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism in views relating to angelology, demonology, and resurrection.

      Both are similar in their cosmological ideas. The six days of Creation in Genesis finds a parallel in the six periods of Creation described in the Zoroastrian scriptures. Mankind, according to each religion, is descended from a single couple, and Mashya (man) and Mashyana (women) are the Iranian Adam and Eve. Genesis has two Creation stories; the first man/women is created together, the second we have the Rib tradition. In the Bible the Flood story is nearly identical to an Avesta winter story.

      There are mountains of evidence.

    • James1 says:

      03:43pm | 24/05/10

      the apologist, in regard to your reply to DG, one could say the same of the Qur’an.  That is, while it was written by people, it also claims to be the literal word of god.  It has also brought peace and solace to millions.  An important question for atheists is how do you choose?  And when having chosen, how did you decide between the veracity of transubstantiation and consubstantiation?  I find it absolutely puzzling myself.

    • the apologist says:

      03:21pm | 24/05/10

      @Athiest: Thanks for your comment. Glad to see that there’s at least one atheist who sees that the spag monster doesn’t even come close to comparing to the complexity of the Christian (or other positions) as a truth claim. It’s not worth answering really, and doesn’t contribute to good discussion as you say.
      @DG: Good to hear from you again, been a while! smile
      You said: “We can prove that the holy texts are “man made”.” Agreed. It is clear that they were penned by men across the 4-6000 odd years that they were penned in. This does not mean that they aren’t the word of God. The Christian Scriptures themselves claim to be completely ‘divinely inspired’ (2Tim 3 v 16-17), and other parts talk about the fact that God spoke through the mouths of prophets. Certainly the letters of Paul do not hide the fact that he wrote them.
      As for inconsistencies in the Bible, well – there are none in Genesis that I’m aware of (happy to hear your accusations of course); but there are certainly some differences between the gospel narratives. I don’t hold that this necessarily implies contradiction. Naturally when you get two different people relating one thing, they will tell it in different ways and perhaps highlight or focus on different things that were noticed by others.
      You said: “As for them being man-made what else could they be? In the absence of physical evidence of these Gods (I must assume that even the Abrahamic god (of Judaism and Christianity) is one of many given that, in Genesis, God says that the eating of the forbidden fruit “...Behold, the man is become one of us, to know good and evil” [Gen 3:22] for there to be an “us” for god to speak of”
      They could be, say, the revelation of God as they claim? As for evidence of God, you’re not going to find ‘evidence’ for him via scientific/empirical process in the way you’re thinking of. How can you test something in that way when it doesn’t exist (per se) in the material sense? He is above and outside creation. In terms of evidence, I think you have to be blind to deny his finger print all of existence, but anyway (since when has blind force ever intelligently caused anything? Let alone the complexity and information prevalent on every single atom in existence).
      As for the ‘us’ – see the doctrine of the trinity for an explanation.
      You said: “however there is certainly no “proof’ that they are anything other than man made.”
      Try and tell that to the millions across history whose broken lives have been transformed by the gospel, and who have significantly impacted and shaped the Western culture (which you enjoy many benefits from no doubt). But ultimately, if you want to make any real comment maintaining that a text claiming to be revelation is not, you’ve got to dive into the text itself. Which, admittedly, you’ve done a bit of above. Note that this is something which has convinced and converted many a brilliant mind over the years. Humans are rational beings, and they don’t truly accept things unless they perceive them to be true. I’m not sure it’s as simple as ‘proving’ this or that when it comes to testing revelation. What are the criteria anyway? How do you even go about forming a criteria for testing whether or not something is the revelation of God?

    • tosh says:

      03:09pm | 24/05/10

      Hi @monkeytypist, if you have a typing monkey can you please tell me where to get one..it’d make my essays much easier!

      You said:

      “Why does the creator of a moral code have to be immaterial? Plenty of moral codes have been put together by human beings.  In fact, we are asserting that all of them are. It’s an assumption, not a given, that moral obligations are “immaterial”.

      Are you saying matter has moral obligations?   

      “I’d be interested to see you prove how something that is allegedly non-material can exist at all.  A moral obligation, however abstracted, is a practice or pattern of interacting with the material world.  It is reliant on material reality to exist in any sense.

      What about the law of non contradiction and/or the law of excluded middle, would you claim these as material or immaterial?

    • the apologist says:

      02:52pm | 24/05/10

      @Grant: You’ve raised a different question. Mine was a request to prove that all religions are man made, not prove that there is a God. Ps. Please exercise some originality, the Spaghetti monster thing is pretty much copy and pasted every time I talk with Athiests. But for the sake of argument, show me the monster’s revelation, and then I’ll test its viability and give you an assessment on disproving him or not – how does that sound?
      @John A Neve: same as Grant re. the question. Also, you’ve asserted that religion is a con. On a lot of religions, I’d agree, nonetheless you’ve provided no justification for your assertion – and therefore it means very little (feel free to comment further of course and correct me!).
      @tosh: not sure if you were commenting along the lines of this thread, but you’re problem is that you’ve already assumed that we live in a purely materialistic world. But at least your conclusions are consistent with your assumption – that’s more than can be said for most.
      @Proud Infidel: Agreed that different religions contradict. They cannot all be correct. But you’ve made a lot of comments about what happened in history without verifying it as well. Seeing as how I would content that Christianity and the Old Covenant/Judaism are the true religion/revelation from God, I’ll stick to commenting on them. Q1: prove Judaism borrowed from Zoroatrianism. Q2: prove Christianity borrowed from paganism. I freely admit that Christianity is deeply and clearly rooted in the Jewish religion of the Old Testament, so no need to prove that assertion to me. I’d actually argue they are one and the same religion, although different (as qualified in the Holy Bible).
      @ agnostic: you’ve assumed God is an invention, care to defend the claim? I don’t think you can justify that claim. I won’t ask you to believe in what you consider fantasy (and respect your right to reject what I say, naturally), but I presume it’s ok for me to challenge what you do believe?

    • DG says:

      12:07pm | 24/05/10

      Atheist (At 11:11am | 24/05/10)

      The Flying Spaghetti Monster was always intended to mock the position of the religious zealot. It was never anything more than a creation that had the same level of “proof” as Christianity while, at the same time, it is equally irrefutable. It’s only a slight change on the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russell’s Teapot - an indication of the difficult of proving something doesn’t exist and equally, showing that the responsibility for proving an assertion (i.e asserting that something does exist) falls on the person making the assertion.

      I do not know any advocates for the FSM that actually take it seriously. The vast majority are atheists who are having a laugh at the fervour with which other people cling to a story in the absence of any evidence or, in some cases, contrary to the evidence.

    • monkeytypist says:

      11:54am | 24/05/10

      @self-described “Atheist” the argument is tired and old because theists don’t have a convincing refutation to it.  There is simply no way to objectively choose between one set of supernatural craziness and another.  That is a serious point, and if you’re going to put a specific set of supernatural craziness forward you deserve to be asked precisely how it is more justified than any other potential candidates.

    • Craigles says:

      11:38am | 24/05/10

      the notion of a “moral law giver” is just that - a notion.

    • monkeytypist says:

      11:18am | 24/05/10

      @tosh “And doesn’t this require a moral law giver?”

      Why does the creator of a moral code have to be immaterial?  Plenty of moral codes have been put together by human beings.  In fact, we are asserting that all of them are.

      “Objective or relativistic, morality entails obligations which are immaterial.  How do immaterial obligations ‘fit’ in a materialistic world?”

      It’s an assumption, not a given, that moral obligations are “immaterial”.  I’d be interested to see you prove how something that is allegedly non-material can exist at all.  A moral obligation, however abstracted, is a practice or pattern of interacting with the material world.  It is reliant on material reality to exist in any sense.

    • Atheist says:

      11:11am | 24/05/10

      Didnt take long for some genius to wheel out the tired old Spaghetti monster argument. This position is extremely arrogant and only serves to prevent sensible discussion. You are taking a position not dissimilar to what the reliogious zealots take.  “This is my opinion and i am going to belittle everyone who doesnt agree.“Beware.

    • DG says:

      10:49am | 24/05/10

      We can prove that the holy texts are “man made”. We have no evidence for the origin of their works - or for the people mentioned therein (consider the works of L Ron Hubbard, the Gospels in the new Testament, the Torah and other texts)

      Also there Is plenty of evidence that the stories in the Bible (for example only) were adapted from other, more ancient, religions. We also have plenty of evidence of consistencies in the stories within the Christian bible (Islam avoids this by prohibiting the rewriting of the Quran), one needs look no further than Genesis before the inconsistencies commence and then jumping to the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all pin conflicting pictures of the ‘events’ of Jesus life (and written at different times, long after the death of Jesus, based on the learnings of various religions scholars).

      As for them being man-made what else could they be? In the absence of physical evidence of these Gods (I must assume that even the Abrahamic god (of Judaism and Christianity) is one of many given that, in Genesis, God says that the eating of the forbidden fruit “...Behold, the man is become one of us, to know good and evil” [Gen 3:22] for there to be an “us” for god to speak of, there must have been other gods) there can be no alternative but to accept that religion (i.e the Belief in these gods) is man made.

      Of course, this last is conjecture, however there is certainly no “proof’ that they are anything other than man made.

      For further clarification one needs look no further than the relationship between the religion of a community and the religion of a child in that community. The vast majority of children in a community will hold the same religion as the majority of the existing community, regardless of what that religion is. If this were some universal truth, religion would be the same no matter where on the globe you were born, the fact that it is not - that it is so clearly dependent on the faith of your neighbours and family, suggests that the belief is “man made”.

    • Agnostic says:

      10:38am | 24/05/10

      Man has been looking for answers from the minute they realised they would die, hence the invention of God and a reason to believe they would not just turn into dust. This larger brain of ours has made us aware of our own mortality.I don’t believe in God I believe just any other animal when we die we go back to nourish the earth. But if the idea of God gives people some comfort I would never be one to deny them of that.  By the same token please don’t ask me to believe in what I consider to be a fantasy.

    • Proud Infidel says:

      10:27am | 24/05/10

      the apologist says:, easy, history is full of the DNA of old religious compacted in new religious that total contradicted each other, but where reworked to fit the fashion of their inventor at the time. This be can tracked via linguistics where the evident of the journey of ideas is from words e.g. same Latin words had origins from the Hindu. Judaism borrowed ideas from the Zoroastrianism. Christianity borrowed ideas of Judaism and from European so-called paganism, Islam from Judaism, Christianity and so-called local paganism. There is a mountain of evident for the human invention than the divine one. A lot of the good bits were borrowed from Plato and Aristotle.

    • tosh says:

      10:03am | 24/05/10

      Good huh?  So you’re suggesting there is a moral imperative to be ‘Good’ and not ‘Bad’.  So aren’t you invoking a moral code/law?  And doesn’t this require a moral law giver? 

      Objective or relativistic, morality entails obligations which are immaterial.  How do immaterial obligations ‘fit’ in a materialistic world?

    • tosh says:

      10:02am | 24/05/10

      Good huh?  So you’re suggesting there is a moral imperative to be ‘Good’ and not ‘Bad’.  So aren’t you invoking a moral code/law?  And doesn’t this require a moral law giver? 

      Objective or relativistic, morality entails obligations which are immaterial.  How do immaterial obligations ‘fit’ in a materialistic world?

    • John A Neve says:

      09:55am | 24/05/10

      Apologist,

      While I take your point, the Christain church has had two thousand plus years to prove Gods existence!! To date they have failed, not surprising for religion is a con.

      It has been said many times before and it’s true. Religion is the opiat of the masses, evei peole use it as a means of control.

    • Grant says:

      09:30am | 24/05/10

      @ apologist

      No one can unequivocally prove that a Christian, Hindu or Muslim god exists or disprove their existence either. 

      So in that vein, I would like you challenge you to disprove my god…

      The Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

      We at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have as much of a right to believe our god is a flying spaghetti monster as Greg Clarke does believe in his guy.

      And in fact I declare that it was in fact my god who created the universe, and like all the other thousands of gods that exist can turn invisible, manipulate time and pass through space and matter.

      I would like to take this opportunity to pray for his noodly appendage to bless you and that you should all take communion of his holy righteous meatballs of redemption. 

      Ramen…

    • the apologist says:

      08:05am | 24/05/10

      How do you know they’re man made? I’d like to see you try and prove that.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

Under pressure himself over his crusade against Craig Thomson, Tony Abbott has moved to present a softer…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter