A response to a christian claiming biblical faith was rational.
This notion that faith is rational is a new invention recently promoted by apologists who increasingly find the irrational faith happily promoted for centuries untenable in a world that increasingly values rationality. This might be considered a good step in a good direction were it not so mendaciously inconsistent with what the bible says about faith. Until recently, faith was proudly considered to be an irrational commitment to some god, and the more the gulf between your faith an the evidence, the more virtuous you were. Luther called reason a “whore”, a consistent notion throughout all the history of christianity. Were the millions of christians consciously and proudly accepting Jesus based on this irrational faith actually damned to hell? Are you willing to say that, those now admitting their faith is irrational, can not be real christians?
In the bible you actually have a man coming to Jesus to request that he heal his son. When Jesus asks whether he believes, he actually responds, “Lord, I believe. Help thou my unbelief”. This is biblical faith; when in doubt about the credibility of someone, ask that someone to help you believe more. Jesus also blesses those who believe without actually seeing the evidence rather than those who request evidence.
Your claim that your faith is rational would seem much less dishonest if you were first teaching little children the foundation of rationality BEFORE you introduced them to your particular god. However, what you are doing is the opposite; you first get them to commit to “Jesus”, then build your “rationality” around that. Do you understand how absurd it then sounds when you claim your faith is based on rationality?
Finally, simply consider where prior commitments to faith or rationality take people. Those who contemplate gods prior to learning rationality often end up believing quite the opposite to someone doing the same on the other side of the world. In contrast, those who are first introduced to the basics of rationality BEFORE they are introduced to various notions of god tend to converge in their conclusions; most consider a personal god improbable, and an Einsteinian god uncertain. Simply consider the converging philosophies of all the world’s scientists who grew up in various religious contexts, yet were taught the proper need for rationality prior to assessment.
So, this silly claim that your faith is rational does not stand up historically, biblically, nor experimentally, and runs counter to your own practice of promoting your god to children before equipping them with the tools of rationality.
So any questions I might have had were because God was so intelligent and far above me that I couldn’t understand what he was saying. I only began soul-searching when my friend (now husband) began asking me questions that I couldn’t answer.
I’m far freer and happier than I was in my guilt-inducing Bible days.
Last Thursday, Judge Jehovah, the only judge in Absurdburg, delivered from the bench an edict that shocked many in the community. The edict stipulated that Euthyphro, a local philosopher, have his wife taken from him, and be given to a man named Christopher McCredulous to be raped in the park across from the courthouse in full view of the entire town.
Thus says the Lord: I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.
(2 Samuel 12:11-14)
This was in the context of King David’s sin of adultery and murder of the woman’s husband.
Note how the women involved in this situation suffer much more than the one actually deserving punishment.
McCredulous performed the rape as stipulated in the edict Sunday afternoon while Euthyphro wept, restrained by 2 police officers, and as the town looked on. When finished, McCredulous was asked by reporters whether he felt any guilt or shame after committing such an act. “Who am I to question a legal edict uttered by Judge Jehovah himself?” he responded.
Do you think you would obey a biblical command even if it went against your moral commonsense? Is taking someone else’s wife and raping her in broad daylight moral because the wife has been taking from that man and given to you to rape?
Imagine that your country is invaded or taken over by a group of religious fanatics. These fanatics enter your home, and point guns at you and your family. They give you a choice. You can either accept their god-based government, or be shot. You ask for a list of their divinely-inspired laws. Your 2 young daughters tremble with fear as you carefully read through each law. You eventually come to one that says…
Any adult male who rapes a young female that is not engaged must pay the father of the girl $51, after which he must marry the girl.
Just a few biblical incoherencies for you to ponder. And if you’d like to correct any doctrinal assumptions he employs, first send me the standard of hermeneutics you use to interpret the bible. No ad hoc plugs without submitting such a standard. The bible is not a free-for-all unless you side with postmodernists. The doctrinal assumptions in this video are very mainstream.