RRodgers wrote:
Why is this whole creation vs evolution such a big deal? About 0.173% of the English bible deals with creation.. . Why not discuss some of the other 99.827% a bit? Pick something constructive that would be to the benefit of the participants.
Okay. Okay, I am going to get all up in the paragraphs.
The problem is that the Bible is a meaningful document on the basis that it is the infallible Word of God. That is; once a single part of it is wrong, there is no reason one cannot suppose that other parts of it are, in fact, wrong. Remember that people who are looking at this from the point of atheism are, in fact, looking at it from the point of logic. You can treat that as correct or incorrect by its very nature, but if you accept logically arguing the bible, you must accept that any given part of a logical argument must be logical, or else the argument itself is no longer a logical thing.
There are, in fact, multiple ways to poke at the Bible's consistency. In fact, every time I personally bring up the horrendous botchery that is the Old Testament, I am told to ignore it, as the New Testament is the only important part. The fact that I have to ignore a significant part of the book in order to understand it kind of bothers me.
On the upside, if we drop the Old Testament, we avoid the quicksand that is Leviticus, whom is good for neither parties. (Sure, he's the main source of anti-homosexuality, but he's also the main source of 'sell your daughter into slavery', and 'don't eat shellfish', and 'don't wear two different kinds of fabric in your clothing' which to my understanding MUST NOT BE TAKEN METAPHORICALLY.)
So we're left with the New Testament. If we want to poke logical holes into things here, then we point out that Jesus's death--now, this is important. This is a detail we /cannot ignore/, because it is incredibly relevant to most religious imagery about the guy.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Jesus was betrayed by Judas.
1. Pontius Pilate freed a murderer so that Jesus could be executed.
2. Jesus was put up on the cross, a nail through each hand, and one for his feet.
3. Jesus was later taken down after death, and entombed in some rock cave.
4. He rose from the dead three days later, which is why easter bunnies lay eggs.
Which statement do you question?
If you're not a complete idiot, you are questioning.. wait for it...
Wait...
OBJECTION!
Jesus could not have been crucified in that manner. Point #2 is impossible.
Why? Because that's not how you crucify people. You put the nails through their wrists. This is because the wrist is actually strong enough, if a nail is put in the space between the armbones, to suspend the human body. The hand is not. If Jesus had actually been crucified in such a manner, pretty much his hand would have ripped open, and he would have fallen over a bit, probably bled to death awkwardly on the ground.
'Jesus is badass, dude probably had holy-strength hands!'
Doesn't matter. This was not the first time someone was crucified. There's a specific way you do it. I don't think they randomly screwed up the method of execution for this guy.
Why is this important? Why, because if this was a court case, as you can tell I am making an analogy to via Phoenix Wright--such a massive blunder regarding the murder scene would be crippling to one's case.
The Bible posits a version of Jesus's death that, supernatural or no, makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. And stigmata specifically--SPECIFICALLY, involves bleeding out of your hands. So it's not like this is a minor detail. This is something awfully critical to the Christian religion.
So, if we accept that the Bible can be wrong about something as ludicrously simple as 'How was THE MESSIAH, SON OF GOD killed', why on earth would you treat it as a reliable, credible source on the rest of his life?
