OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Nutty

Entry 385, on 2006-08-24 at 14:12:46 (Rating 4, Religion)

I'm really getting sick of listening to nutty Christians! I'm beginning to think that even the Christians who appear reasonable on the surface are really hiding a nutty personality underneath. The two events which cause me to say this are these: first, an interview with the principal of a Christian school; and second, a podcast debate on ID vs science I listened to last night.

The reason the first subject has become prominent is that there is a bill about to be introduced into our parliament which would outlaw smacking children. Christian schools want the option of corporal punishment because they think it is supported by the Bible. I have two problems with this: first, the Bible can be used to support anything if the appropriate parts are read and other parts ignored, and second the Bible is only marginally appropriate as a guide to modern morals anyway and using it as an absolute guide is very dangerous.

Maybe we should just kill badly behaved kids. After all, the Bible says: Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB). Seems straightforward enough. Maybe Christian schools should just stone or crucify the kids instead of hitting them. And its not just for striking. If a kid curses his parents he should also die: All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Of course, if we are going to follow these laws why not apply them to everyone? This one should take care of a large section of the adult population: If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Anyone who blindly follows the Bible is an idiot. The principal sounded reasonable until he started taking that line, then he was revealed in all his zealous Christian mindless stupidity. I think we are capable of making reasonable laws ourself without taking them from an antiquated book with little relevance to most people. And if the opinions of this person are an example we shouldn't even provide this as an option for Christians - they are clearly incapable of sensible thought and need to be protected from themselves!

The debate involved a prominent follower of Intelligent Design: Dr Paul Nelson. He's not stupid and made some good points supporting ID, but his true lack of reasonable thought was revealed in the end when he admitted he knew the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but still accepted the literal truth of the Bible with its age of about 6000 years. He didn't even try to explain how these could both be true. That's also a bit nutty!

Comment 1 (242) by Chris on 2006-08-24 at 18:34:08: (view recent only)

I totally agree. It seems that Christians often decide what they want to do, then find a Bible passage to back them up. For example homosexuality. I find it interesting that the Bible puts it on the same level as eating shellfish ("abomination") - but you don't hear Christians talking about the immorality of mussels.

The other day I heard Brian Tamaki on National Radio. That guy makes me sick. He said that New Zealand is a Christian nation and the government should pass legislation declaring that "fact".

I've heard that same debate (Shermer vs Nelson). The only redeeming bit from Nelson was that he said that ID shouldn't be taught in the classroom until it has become established in scientific circles. We all know when that will happen.

Comment 2 (243) by OJB on 2006-08-24 at 19:28:32:

Oh man, Brian Tamaki. What a despicable individual he is. I demonstrate more of the positive aspects of Christianity than him, and I'm an atheist! But to be fair, you can't count him as a typical Christian (whatever that is).

There's no way NZ is a Christian nation, and there's no way the current government would have anything to do with that sort of nonsense. If (when) National gets in who knows what might happen. After all, they have already made a deal with the Exclusive Brethren!

Comment 3 (244) by OJB on 2006-08-24 at 19:33:49:

Yes, I thought it was very reasonable to suggest that it shouldn't be taught until there is scientific acceptance. Of course, that is a hard thing to judge. I'm sure some of the more "enthusiastic" supporters of ID already think there is enough. And never forget the Wedge Document!

Comment 4 (247) by A little fish called Wanda on 2006-08-25 at 20:58:24:

Mmmmm. The difficulty with teaching theories, which have yet to be verified, is that they can become accepted as 'truth' merely because it is included in the curriculum. I believe that this is what has happened with the theory of evolution. Our society has accepted it as fact, without sufficient evidence to back it up. The Intelligent design hypothesis highlights many deficiencies in the current theory of evolution that need to be addressed.

Intelligent and honest debate between people with different understandings is constructive; slagging people off because you don't like what they are saying hardly qualifies.

Comment 5 (248) by OJB on 2006-08-26 at 08:22:37:

The problem is this word "theory". In science theories are very well supported and are never really proven wrong. Sometimes they are modified to increase their accuracy - for example Newton's gravitational theory was modified by Einstein, but not replaced. So evolution is a fact as well as a theory as much as anything can ever be a fact. And there is no competing theory to evolution in science, so what else would we teach? (ID is not science so that can't be taught in a science class)

You ask for intelligent and honest debate, but ID is hardly honest and rarely intelligent. It has been connected with the creationist movement and the wedge document. It credibility is gone (if it ever had any).

Comment 6 (290) by SBFL on 2007-01-10 at 22:03:45:

Owen, I agree with much you have to say in the original post, as who you are referring to are "fundamentalist" Christians. However, as a result of your blatant hatred for Christianity in general, you refuse to make this distinction and decide to group all Christians with the people who take literal interpretations from the Bible. Very disappointing. I hope you can be more objective in the future.

Comment 7 (291) by OJB on 2007-01-11 at 12:43:50:

I don't hate Christianity, or Christians. I find fundamentalist Christianity annoying, and think the world would be better without it, but that also applies to other beliefs, and is a simple logical observation, not hatred.

The word fundamentalist is not a precise term. I would rank anyone who literally believes Genesis, the flood, etc as a fundamentalist. Anyone who reads the stories as an interesting mythology which might have a deeper meaning is not a fundamentalist in that sense.

So I don't hate anyone who believes Biblical myths, but I do find them annoying and want to point out how ridiculous their beliefs are wherever possible.

Comment 8 (501) by Opinion on 2007-03-19 at 07:07:45:

What I like about Christians is that they believe in something a higher being wrote instead of something a person thought. People are very good at lying.

Comment 9 (505) by OJB on 2007-03-19 at 08:22:15:

The problem is that the Bible was written by people, just like everything else. Pretending that it is the word of God is a great way to force people into believing what's in it without questioning it too much. You're right: people are very good at lying. The early Christian church created the Bible from selected sources so that the end result suited their purposes.

I'm suggesting we should look at many sources of moral advice and use those which work best for the modern world. Some might come from the Bible, some might come from Greek philosophy, some might come from Buddhism, etc. The cultures of the world have a lot more to contribute than what's in the Bible. Why limit ourselves?

Comment 10 (512) by Anonymous on 2007-03-19 at 12:59:40:

The Bible was written through people. God talked, people wrote or God wrote. For example, the Ten Commandments.

Comment 11 (517) by OJB on 2007-03-19 at 13:27:10:

Please do some research and find out how much material about Jesus was actually written. Then find out how the church decided which parts would become part of their dogma. Then find out how some gospels were based on others, just with a different religious spin. Then have a look at the contradictions and errors. Do you still think its the real word of God. This must be a really confused god you believe in!

Comment 12 (560) by Anonymous on 2007-03-23 at 02:53:56:

I have been reading a book discussing what scientists have and have not proven. One they have proved is the prophecies. How could a human predict the future? They can't. Scientists have already proven that God wrote the Bible through His chosen people, how else could they have done it?

God put in the Bible what He thought would matter. If He decided not to put in something, that is because it wouldn't matter once we died and saw Him in heaven.
There are four gospels all from different people and I think you know that. Yes they are the same story with a religious spin on all of them but they are from different people that lived with Jesus. They told it how they saw it, with God there, and people do see things differently and take out different lessons than others. Like in a fight, somebody might learn that fighting shouldn't happen while the other learns how to stop it before it happens.

There are no errors in the Bible. If there were, it wouldn't be from God and you out of all people should know that many scientists have already proven that.
My God is not confused.

Comment 13 (566) by OJB on 2007-03-23 at 07:52:13:

Let me guess, this book is written from a religious perspective. Books don't count for much - most are full of lies. Show me the peer-reviewed scientific papers. The prophecies are irrelevant. Can you show me where scientists have proven God wrote the Bible because that's just nonsense.

They told how they saw it? But none of them did see it. I wonder why no one wrote about Jesus while the alleged events actually happened instead of many years later when they were trying to organise a new religion. A bit suspicious, don't you think?

The Bible is full of errors. I have found dozens on the first page, as listed here.

Comment 14 (650) by Anonymous on 2007-05-14 at 15:04:11:

How do you know that the books on evolution you read are true? Let's be fair here.

Comment 15 (651) by OJB on 2007-05-14 at 16:11:35:

We can never be sure anything is 100% true. We just have to provisionally accept the best theories at the time. To establish the best theory we just have to look at the methodology used in investigating the phenomenon and see how rigorous it is. Also evaluate whether it fits in with other areas which are also considered rigorous and based on unbiased research, response to criticism, repeatability, and observations of the real world.

I work in a University so I have access to the views of many scientists. I am an amateur astronomer and understand how the Universe works fairly well. Evolution fits in with everything else I see. Creationism is just a myth which contradicts everything else I know.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.