Everywhere Jesus traveled He attracted the low-lifers – as some would call them. Scruffy looking alcoholics staggered towards Him. Despised tax-gatherers gravitated to Him. Homeless street people gathered around Him. Sinners of all stripes came out of the shadows to meet Him. Cheaters, stealers, beaters, violent derelicts, addicts and others abandoned by society were drawn to Him.

[snip]

Have you ever wondered what it was about our Saviour that caused sinners to be drawn to Him? People who usually made themselves scarce from mainstream society were drawn to Him like metal to a magnet.

A concise and interesting article explaining the anabaptist movement -- Christians protesting against the immorality and greed of organised religion, and desiring to return to the simplicity of the New Testament pattern for the church.

This article is not an attempt to provide evidence for the supernatural realm (which is an interesting subject in it's own right). It starts from the assumption that the supernatural exists, and attempts to show that a comparison between the two "supernatural deities" mentioned in the title will show that one of them has much stronger evidence in it's favour than the other.

Preliminary explanations

This article is the result of comments on Yar's article "Evolution or Creation or ID". It was claimed that "the flying spaghetti monster may not have the following of a large group like Christianity, but it's got exactly the [same] amount of evidence." My response (there and here) is based on the fact that evidence is not the same as proof.

Now, I understand where those who make the above claim are coming from. They start from the correct assumption that it is impossible to prove, by empirical methods, that God exists. They then simplify the question, and conclude: "If you believe in God, you should also believe in FSM. You can't prove either of them, therefore they are equally incredible." Such a conclusion, however, is wrong. It can only be accepted as true in the rigid framework of rationalistic thinking, where "incredible" means "unprovable". But we live in a world full of credible yet unprovable happenings, and we constantly (and almost unconsciously) use circumstantial evidence to believe things which are unprovable (were it not so, conspiracy theorists would not have such an easy time). By categorically refusing to consider all evidence which is not empirical (or empirically based), the rationalist simplifies the question, but potentially shuts himself off to the truth. He imagines that God was invented by man (even though he can't prove it), as was the FSM, and therefore despises both. He finds no direct evidence for God, but ignores the importance of circumstantial evidence (see Wikipedia definition of circumstantial evidence).

Talking about circumstantial evidence in Law, Wikipedia says: "A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate."

Now please note that I am not suggesting that Science should investigate God, or that any aspect of religious beliefs (including ID) should be part of a scientific curriculum in state-run schools, or that you as a rationalist must admit that the idea of God is credible. I'll repeat myself: in this article, I'm not trying to prove that God exists — I'm contending that there is much more circumstantial evidence for God than for FSM. (note: I know that FSM is a parody religion, and therefore not intended to be taken seriously even by those who invented it. But since the comparison is being made by rationalists, I'll address it.)

1. Intelligent believers

There is an enormous amount of people down through the ages who have believed in God — respectable, intelligent, reasonable people. People like Lord Kelvin, "an outstanding leader in the physical sciences of the 19th century", who "remained a devout believer in Christianity throughout his life and saw chapel as part of his daily routine" (from Wikipedia). Or the group of scientists (Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Fazale Rana, Kenneth Richard Samples, Dr. David H. Rogstad, Dr. Jeffrey Zweerink) who maintain the Reasons to Believe web-site. Or the 22 senior academics of Sydney University (including three august professors heading major faculties at the university), who signed a pledge of faith. And thousands of other examples.

"Well, that proves nothing!", the modern rationalist contends. And I agree — but it is circumstantial evidence which must be taken into account. If you want to say that belief in God is just as silly as belief in FSM, then you'll have to explain how so many intelligent, reasonable people believe and have believed in God (something that FSM lacks — even it's creators don't believe it). You can probably come up with a good explanation for the faith of these Christians (alternative interpretations are something inherent to circumstantial evidence), but you can't simply ignore it.

2. The martyrs

In a similar level, but more intense, is the enormous amount of martyrs (see Wikipedia article) who faced torture and death rather than renounce their faith in God (many died even at the hands of fellow-Christians, a testimony to human intolerance). Fox's Books of Martyrs, which you can read on-line for free, contains many impressive stories of courage and faith. What motivated all these martyrs? Were they all deranged lunatics, with no love for life?

You might not believe in God, but you must admit that these people believed in Him with all their heart. And where are the FSM martyrs?

3. The Bible

You don't believe in the Bible? Fair enough. But how do you explain the beauty and harmony of it's teaching? A beauty and harmony that even unbelievers can appreciate?

In his prologue to Controverted Questions (1892), Thomas Huxley (who coined the term "agnosticism" to explain his religious position) wrote: "It appears to me that if there is anybody more objectionable than the orthodox Bibliolater it is the heterodox Philistine, who can discover in a literature which, in some respects, has no superior, nothing but a subject for scoffing and an occasion for the display of his conceited ignorance of the debt he owes to former generations." Also: "I may add yet another claim of the Bible to the respect and the attention of a democratic age. Throughout the history of the western world, the Scriptures, Jewish and Christian, have been the great instigators of revolt against the worst forms of clerical and political despotism." And again: "So far as such equality, liberty, and fraternity are included under the democratic principles which assume the same names, the Bible is the most democratic book in the world. As such it began, through the heretical sects, to undermine the clerico-political despotism of the middle ages, almost as soon as it was formed, in the eleventh century ; Pope and King had as much as they could do to put down the Albigenses and the Waldenses in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries ; the Lollards and the Hussites gave them still more trouble in the fourteenth and fifteenth ; from the sixteenth century onward, the Protestant sects have favoured political freedom in proportion to the degree in which they have refused to acknowledge any ultimate authority save that of the Bible." Of course he admits that he does not believe in the supernatural element of the Bible ("But the enormous influence which has thus been exerted by the Jewish and Christian Scriptures has had no necessary connection with cosmogonies, demonologies, and miraculous interferences"), but he adds: "I do believe that the human race is not yet, possibly may never be, in a position to dispense with it [the Bible]" (link to article — my quotations are from the last paragraphs, but the whole article is interesting).

Many have claimed that the Bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, yet it is amazing how a collection of books written by more or less 40 different authors, who lived over a time-span of approximately 1,500 years, can be internally so consistent (see Are there contradictions in the Bible?). Others have ridiculed the Bible due to the supposed historical errors it contains (the existence of the hittites, the Jewish captivity, the pool of Siloam, etc.). Yet archaeological findings have confirmed, time after time, that the biblical accounts were historically accurate (see an article in The Trumpet which deals with the three points raised above). I must add that some claims of the Bible have still not been confirmed.

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and unbeliever, wrote (in Three Essays on Religion:  Nature, the Utility of Religion, Theism): "Who among His disciples, or among their proselytes, was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character in the Gospels?  Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee; as certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort; still less the early Christian writers".

If Christianity and the God of the Bible are just human inventions, how do you explain the Bible? Can FSM present such a book?

4. Conclusion

If proof is all you're interested in, then all supernatural beliefs stand on the same footing. But if you accept evidence, then you must admit that God is more credible than FSM. Until the Church of FSM can present us with intelligent, reasonable disciples, people who are willing to die for their belief, and a Book as widely respected as the Bible (even by it's enemies), it will have to admit the obvious: there is much more evidence for God.

Now, before you hammer out your comment, read this again: circumstantial evidence will never prove to the agnostic or atheist that God exists, neither was that my intention in this article. You can evaluate all the evidence above and explain it away — fair enough. It might not be evidence that demands belief, but it is certainly evidence that demands attention. And that, FSM lacks completely.

Many discussions about Faith x Science seem to revolve around one basic point: the Theory of Evolution. But just how much do our respective positions regarding faith and science depend on this Theory? This poll might help us begin to find an answer.

Explaining the concept

As a Christian, it sometimes seems that I believe in God and in the Bible only because I'm not convinced about the Theory of Evolution, and if someone could only prove to me that Evolution is The Truth (thus contradicting the biblical teaching of man's creation and, more importantly, his moral accountability to God), I would have no option but to become an Atheist. And I often catch myself arguing in a way that betrays a naive simplicity: if I can somehow show Atheists that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, they will have no option but to believe in God.

I'm convinced, however, that both these assumptions are naive (at best). The real corner-stone, the fundamental and deciding factor in our respective world-views, is God. I believe in Him, Atheists don't, but Evolution is not to blame for either of these positions.

That is my basic assumption. By taking this poll you can give me some data to confirm or deny this assumption. I hardly need stress that you should only answer one of the two polls. I thought of putting them both in a generic question: "If your view regarding Evolution was proved irrefutably wrong, would that make you change your belief/non-belief in God?" But separating them will make voting simpler, and the results more interesting. So please vote, and comment explaining why you voted as you did.

But first, some necessary explanations.

For Atheists

This is an exercise in imagination. Imagine that some startling archaeological discovery should prove that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, and that it is absolutely impossible for man to have evolved from other species (I'm talking about absolute, irrefutable proof, hard facts that could not be explained away by the most ingenious argumentation). For this exercise, ignore the probability of such a discovery, or the technical difficulties involved - use your imagination. The Theory of Evolution is suddenly exposed as completely false - how do you think that would affect you? Would you suddenly feel the need to accept that God is the answer to the question of our origins, or would you continue to search for a completely naturalistic explanation for this question?

For Christians

This is an exercise in imagination. Imagine that some startling archaeological discovery should prove that the Theory of Evolution is correct, and that man evolved from other species (I'm talking about absolute, irrefutable proof, hard facts that could not be explained away by the most ingenious argumentation). For this exercise, ignore the probability of such a discovery, or the technical difficulties involved - use your imagination. The Theory of Evolution is suddenly shown to be absolutely correct - how do you think that would affect you? Would you be forced to renounce your faith and become an Atheist, or would you continue to believe in God (a God who worked through Evolution)?

Conclusion

What will this prove? Maybe not much :-) But it will be interesting to see how big an influence we believe that the Theory of Evolution has in determining our world-view.

And thanks in advance to all those who participate.

For more Newsvine polls, click here.

According to a Canadian survey commissioned last year by National Geographic, 32 percent who read "The Da Vinci Code" believed its theories. Scholars argue that Dan Brown tried to have it both ways,, with "the appearance of being truthful and smart without necessarily being either" (quote from article).

See what you think.

A quick look at some apparent contradictions in the Bible, in response to a comment by another Newsvine contributor.

A recent article by Miss Dev, entitled A Take on Intolerance and the Bible, presented a very valid argument, with which I agreed: you can't use the Bible to preach hatred for those who disagree with you. In the comments to that article, we took a stroll down Bypath Meadow (probably my fault), until Ansab presented me with a list of "contradictions" in the Bible. As his list was quite large, I decided to follow the advice presented in FRC: On Improving Newsvine Commentary and in Comments Stink and write an article in response, rather than responding in the comment box. And thus my first article for the Newsvine was born.

Before I tackle his list, some introductory remarks. Lists of "contradictions" in the Bible are nothing new. The list Ansab posted is an exact copy of the first part of a larger list published on the Web. There are other similar lists which can be found using any search engine. There are also, of course, Web-sites specializing in answering these lists (an example). Both types of sites are to be expected, seeing that we are dealing with a Book that has caused such passionate debate (for and against it's divine authorship) for centuries. Granted, there are many passages in the Bible which are not easily (or readily) understood, but I submit to you that, when read in context, they will all contribute to the message of the Bible.

If you are not convinced by what I write, fair enough - you are entitled to your opinion. But before presenting more "contradictions", please take a few moments to look at the contexts of the passages in question, to avoid elementary blunders.

God good to all, or just a few?

Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to all: and His tender mercies are over all His works."

Jeremiah 13:1: "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."

Taken in their individual contexts, and in the larger context of the whole Bible, these texts are not in contradiction. The first one presents God in His offer of mercy, whilst in Jeremiah He is seen executing judgment on those who reject that mercy.

That is how the Bible presents Him: as a God who will not withhold His offer of mercy from any human being, but also a God who will not withhold His judgement from any who reject that offer of mercy. "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked" (Nahum 1:3). "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness" (Romans 11:22). "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36).

War or Peace?

Exodus 15:3: "The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is His name."

Romans 15:33: "Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen."

Again, a look at the context explains the different terms used, and shows that they present two aspects of a mighty God. In Exodus 15, Moses is rejoicing in the way God saved them from their enemies, the Egyptians, and thus mentions His mighty arm shown in battle. In Romans, Paul comforts the Christians by mentioning the peace that God imparts.

Who is the father of Joseph?

Matthew 1:16: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Luke 3:23: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

Matthew presents the Lord's genealogy through Joseph, while Luke follows Mary's line. Most translations in English put the words "the son of" in italics in Luke 3:23-38, as they are not in the original text, being supplied to make sense in English. Luke literally wrote: "... being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, of Heli", etc. John Gill cites Jewish evidence to confirm that Mary was the daughter of Heli. The following quote from Adam Clarke's commentary (1832) is interesting:

"Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of SONS properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc. But Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to GOD himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED the son of Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, etc. This receives considerable support from Raphelius's method of reading the original ... As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law."

Who was at the empty tomb?

Matthew 28:1: "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."

Mark 16:1: "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."

John 20:1: "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre."

The four Gospels often overlap in their accounts. When we read of the same incident in more than one Gospel, it should not be a surprise to notice that some details differ from one to the other. It's not a question of contradiction, but simply of different details being mentioned. There were quite a few women at the empty tomb. Matthew choose to mention two of them, Mark mentions three, and John only mentions one. No contradiction.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than the Father?

John 10:30: "I and My Father are one."

John 14:28: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

If we look at the context of the whole Bible, and remember that in His incarnation the Lord Jesus left the sphere of glory in which He lived and came to dwell in humility amongst men, we can understand this apparent contradiction. While here on Earth the Lord occupied a position "a little lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2 and Psalm 8), but in His Person and character He remained God, in all His glory (John 1:14). In John 10:30 He is talking about His absolute equality with the Father; in 14:28 He is referring to the low position He occupied while down here.

Which first - beasts or man?

Genesis 1:25: "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Genesis 2:18: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Genesis chapter 1 presents a sequential narrative of the six days of Creation. Chapter 2 goes back to highlight a few happenings and mention their significance, not necessarily in chronological order. The animals were created first, then man. Genesis 2:19 simply says that God, after having formed the animals, brought them to Adam to be named (how long after is not mentioned in the text).

The number of beasts in the ark

Genesis 7:2: "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

Genesis 7:8: "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."

The first verse mentions the details: two of each, except for "clean" animals, which would be seven of each (they would be used for sacrifices). In the second passage quoted, a summary is presented. To get the complete picture, you need to read the whole passage.

How many stalls and horsemen?

I Kings 4:26: "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

II Chronicles 9:25: "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem."

Many believe that in I Kings 4:26 we have a mistake of the copier, writing arbaim (forty) instead of arbah (four). A simple "typographical error" like this one would not detract from the authority of the Bible.

Others, however, contend that "the original term may signify not only stall or stable, but a number of horses occupying the same number of stalls. Supposing that ten were put together in one part, this would make forty thousand ... the historian in Kings refers to horses, while the historian in Chronicles speaks of the stalls in which they were kept." (JFB Commentary)

Both suggestions make sense, although I personally prefer the latter.

Conclusion

So there you are. Are there difficult passages in the Bible? Certainly! Are there contradictions? I don't think so. But to close with an appropriate Bible verse: "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say" (I Corinthians 10:15).

P.S. I would like to add, belatedly, that while defending the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, I want to distance myself from some groups who want to push the Bible down everyones throat. Remember this article was born because of a post that defended the message of love and tolerance, not hatred and intolerance.