The Prerequisite for Debate

TANTVM RELIGIO POTVIT SVADERE MALORVM.
So potent was religion in persuading to evil deeds.
(Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, I.101)
Christians come up with some strange arguments. Usually, they all have the same few points that they say in slightly different ways. One of the classics is to discredit the ability of atheists to read. That's right.

It is quite common for atheists in debates to point out biblical contradictions or absurdities or atrocities. (There are many more sites than these.) These types of arguments don't mean much to the moderate Christian, but to those looking for debate, usually Fundamentalists, they can be quite persuasive. When you have been told your whole life that the Bible is true and perfect and directly from God, it can be quite a shock to see something in it that is, well, wrong. As I mentioned in my introduction, it becomes quite obvious that many Christians don't actually know that much about the Bible, and ironically it is usually the most devout who have the least amount of knowledge. (Could it be, as atheists have always said, that the Bible is the best evidence against Christianity?)

(Note: Personally, I don't put much stock in specific biblical arguments, but included some larger ones in my "Biblical Nitpicking" section. The theology contained in the Bible, however, is an important focus of this site.)

Recently, however, an argument has appeared on the Christian side to bolster their point of view and discredit the atheist. The fact that the argument always appears in the exact same way leads me to the conclusion that some well-known church leader came up with it and everyone copies it. The same thing has happened in the past, including (but by no means limited to) the following: We can now add one more to the list: "The only requirement for understanding the Bible is to read it knowing 'God is'." I usually want to start pulling my hair after this arrogant proclamation, but I don't think that would be a surprise to anyone reading my site. My response is as follows: So in order to debate whether or not the Bible is true, I must first believe it is true? I think we can all see how absurd the prerequisite is.

Fundamentalists, or Christians in debates, I should say, don't want to hear that. To them, backed by that statement, any comment made by atheists about the Bible is automatically moot. It is irrelevant if the verse, context, and meaning are all quite clear; the Christian can pass it off as gibberish from someone who doesn't know. A blind man telling you what you should see, some might say. While powerful in analogy, the justification holds no water.

Christians who wish to review biblical contradictions on their own, and view them in context, are free to do so. In the end, the neutral observer must conclude that the religious adamantly accept those things that are applicable and relevant to modern society, and reject all other things. Some Fundamentalists show up at the funerals of homosexuals with "God Hates Fags" signs, but ignore other parts of the same Jewish law that call for children to be stoned for disobeying their parents and parts that strictly prohibit tattoos and piercing. (Looked at the ears of a preacher's wife, recently?)

So what is going on here? Well, the lessons you learn in Sunday Service are those moral lessons deemed relevant to today. Some years ago, a preacher might have given a sermon on how Jesus commanded us to treat our slaves. Seems odd, since I was always told that God was the absolute, unchanging, moral compass. No, the truth is, morals are the rules society places on itself. If religion follows society, as most Christian sects do, it simply changes or ignores those parts that no longer reflect society. If the society allows the religion to lead, it is stuck with outdated morals. This can be seen in the Islamic world, which most Westerners would regard as "backwards".

Now to tie it all together. As society moves further away from the morals of the Bible, for better or for worse, contradictions arise. The old dogma doesn't always fit with the new line the churches are peddling. As the churches compromise to stay modern and win more followers, they are simultaneously undercutting the divinity of the Bible and the moral authority of their god. The Bible already does a fine job of contradicting itself, but the divergence of modern dogma, even among the Fundamentalists, weakens the dam a little more. Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but that damn dam is gonna break.

Citing biblical error/absurdities/atrocities is a statement of the obvious and a statement of the facts. I feel there is something else worth mentioning in the context of the "God is" excuse. I used to be a Christian, and I left Christianity partly because I read the Bible under the precept "God is". Using the criterion from this new Christian cop-out, I did in fact reject the validity of the Bible during a time when I very much wanted it to be true. (Now, I sincerely hope it is not, for the sake of mankind.)

I welcome comments about this or any other essay on my Feedback page. However, I must insist that all people agree with me 100% before they send any letters of criticism. Otherwise, how can you possibly understand what I meant?

Back