Home > Apologetics, Atheism, Biblical Accuracy > Guess Hitchen’s was wrong- God Is Great!

Guess Hitchen’s was wrong- God Is Great!

Great question from the list of biblical contradictions: Who is greater, Jesus the son, or God the father. While the source is kind of silly about it, it is a good question to ask. Source says:

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 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.

First off, Meritt, the writer makes an assumption that being echad, one in spirit/focus/goal means to be equal in greatness. The relationship between Jesus and his Daddy is described like a wife to a husband. In this way the man is the head of the house- authority is his. According to the bible, a biblical husband grants a wife authority, and submits his needs to her wants and in turn a wife submits her wants to the husband’s need. It’s a mutual serving and loving. Also, when the “two become one” in marriage, it is the same as, “Hear O, Israel, the Lord your God is One.” or “I and the Father are One.”  I must preface my next statement by saying I am a feminist. That being said, God the Father is greater than Jesus, the son, in the same way a husband is greater than his wife.
The question becomes does having a oneness of spirit make you as great or not as great? And What does great mean? Are there different types of greatness, and can you attach qualities that would make someone more or less great? There has to be some framework to work from or the whole statement is meaningless- it very well could be meaningless from our perspectives if we don’t understand. Sounds like some questions that can hopefully be answered from personal bible study and a longing for relationship with God. It must be genuine and honestly trying to make sense out of things instead of having a negative bias and looking for ways to prove your position right. Even satan used scripture to tell lies; just because one can use the bible to make one’s point does not mean the point is valid. This is not because of biblical contradiction, but because of manipulation and abuse. I’ll post soon in a blog about truth and argument and how in this century- and before it- we have come to confuse the two.

shalom my friends.

  1. August 23, 2011 at 2:53 PM

    Refrerring only to the Hitchens quote, check out how his subtitle Religion poisons everything continues to play out in damaging children in the name of god. This shows why religious privilege in public policy is morally reprehensible and continues, in spite of the Irish example, to cause real harm to real people while the religious apologists continues to fiddle with interpreting scripture correctly and expound on the innate morality of any disgusting behaviour by the faithfully deluded as long as theology is attached to it.

  2. Xander
    August 24, 2011 at 7:13 PM

    Your support for removing religious privilege is a 2002 article from an anti-religion website? I guess it is not anti-religion since there is no mention of Islam.

    • August 24, 2011 at 8:10 PM

      No, Xander. ‘My’ support for removing religious privilege – what a truly weird of describing ongoing systemic child abuse under the banner of religious ‘moral teaching’ – comes from all around YOU… but you seem to have no open eyes to see. (I could write reams of current abuse cases causing death based solely on the perpetrators faith-based beliefs that they were killing a child – usually their child – in the name of those beliefs. It happens under islam, as well, but I am writing about how far too many people holding public office here in the west in secular states – but especially in Missouri – continue to privilege any religious nonsense in the public domain even if it abuses children.) But as a case in point of how easily people excuse religiously motivated abuse, look at how effortlessly you describe this background article from a legitimate journalist as an ‘anti-religion website’. What utter bunk. You probably gave your judgement to label it as such no thought at all. So tell me, where exactly does this article detailing the history of Missouri’s atrocious allowance for such child abuse show bias against religion? That so much abuse has gone on by so many pious people under various religious banners is a fact, not a bias. You can believe whatever nonsense you want, but surely you understand the need to draw the line at making up your own facts. And the fact is that child abuse is tolerated in the name of privileging religion.

      No, what I was reading was this very disturbing article from Mother Jones showing that the abuse documented from the article I linked to continues unabated in Missouri – even though its history of failing to protect children out of respect for religious privilege should be held up by ANYONE who values children as a badge of shame. To quote the Mother Jones article, “It’s hard to understand it, but faith-based is just taboo for regulation,” says Matthew Franck, an editor at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who authored an investigative series on the state’s homes in the mid-2000s. “It took decades of work to get just the most minimal standards of regulation at faith-based child-care centers.” That’s the author’s background article of your so-called ‘anti-religion web site.’ That you consider this background history of systemic child abuse to be anti-religious shows just how far off the moral centre you have fallen in your zeal to label legitimate criticism of anything to do with religiously motivated action as right, just, and proper.

      But it’s not, Xander. Child abuse is reprehensible in fact. It would be very surprising if anyone would try to excuse such abuse for any reason., Yet in the name of granting religion privilege, we find the abuse ongoing and the regulatory state bodies that are supposed to be secular continuing to privilege these religious monsters is truly disgusting.

      That people like you use religion to excuse this abhorrent behaviour reveals real moral depravity fostered by religious belief. This is evidence of how religion poisons everything, or to quote Weinberg, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. You are a perfect example of someone willing to close your eyes to what’s really going on around you in the name of thinking yourself pious to support the label of ‘religion’ over and above the welfare of children.

      • August 29, 2011 at 11:26 PM

        To say that religion poisons everything is to say that without religion all is well. This is not so.
        Also, if theism is wrong on all accounts than it is just a product of man. If then, religion poisons everything and religion is false, only man made, then doesn’t man actually poison everything via religion. Which only means that there are other avenues for poisoning that man has made. If you then realize that man poisons everything, consider the scenario where religion is true, and one form of theism is correct. This is now at least a possibility, since man could poison the truth, and alter it and use it as a tool to poison other things and the world. Just a thought.

  3. August 31, 2011 at 10:01 AM

    No, to say religion poisons everything is not to say that without religion all is well because religion is not the only source for such poison. Although faith-based belief is ubiquitous, religion is only one manifestation of it. But it’s a powerful manifestation because it is organized into social institutions that causes effect. And this effect is to elevate what is believed to be true to be equivalent to what is true. This is a poisonous – as well as an insidious – effect that undermines not just what we know but, more importantly, how we can know.

    So when you suggest that there is a possibility that one form of theism is correct, you need some metric available to figure out which one. And, at the end of the day, the only metric that works turns out to be faith-based belief alone. That’s it. That’s the sum total of ‘knowledge’ gained through faith-based belief: belief in belief. But that kind of ‘knowledge’ is not knowledge. It is not based on evidence. Not efficacy. Not some testable, reliable, consistent product useful in practice. It’s just faith alone… belief in what is believed to be true. And that’s why religion as a social institution does not produce or reveal new knowledge about reality. Never has. Never will. Is incapable. The inquiry into what is true in reality has already been poisoned with the circular reasoning of granting faith-based beliefs about what is true in reality equivalency to what actually IS true in reality.

    • September 1, 2011 at 4:47 PM

      Okay Tildeb, I’ll buy that.
      Is it safe to say that if all religion is entirely false than it’s entirely human made, and therefore entirely humanity’s fault for the poison of religion?
      Also, is it possible to have religious belief, act on it, and not be poisonous? Suppose I try to make peace with those who are my enemies? I do this because it’s a quantifiably good idea, but had I not read through Matthew it never would have crossed my mind as an actual action to take. Now I do, and in doing so I am following Jesus. In that scenario have I poisoned anything?

      • September 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM

        Of course religion as a human construct is poisonous because it short-circuits honest inquiry and honest knowledge and replaces it with an assumed truth that depends on pseudo-knowledge that is dislocated from respecting reality. It starts with an assumption of what’s true, demands you hold on to this assumption with certainty, and then tries to use whatever bits of flotsam and jetsam that agrees with it while ignoring that which does not. What’s true in reality is less virtuous in this model than what is believed to be true. This is an egregious error of reasoning that will always impede the respect owed to reality as the arbiter of what’s true in fact.

        Make peace because it’s the right thing to do – informed by good reasons that withstand critical inquiry and allows you to sustain a high level of ethical responsibility and respect for your neighbours based on those reasons, which are open and available to all so that all can assume full responsibility and full autonomy. No ‘interpretation’ is needed, no ‘hidden’ desires, no assumed superiority based on affiliation with some group. That’s why reciprocity (enunciated in scripture as the golden rule) far pre-dates the bible and its lack of implementation is often the root cause of conflict when it is ignored or minimized to favour some specific group.

        As for wanting peace, there are better reasons for establishing and maintaining it than pleasing some supernatural agency. This is a poisonous approach to what can be accomplished and celebrated by humans for humans with an emphasis on doing that which betters the human condition.

      • September 2, 2011 at 11:09 PM

        You mentioned respect for neighbors. I was talking about my enemies. That is a bit revolutionary.
        You mentioned reciprocity predating the bible. I’m not arguing who said anything first- the bible does not define good ethics, nor does it define some indeterminable right and wrong. To perceive it as such is a mistake (not that you do, but place that perspective on anyone is a mistake). When Jesus said his famous ‘golden rule’ we all know of a few other wise people who said it first. There was even a famous rabbi just before Jesus who had taught it in the negative. This is not a new idea, and Jesus didn’t mean it to be. The question is about poison. Is the ‘golden rule’ and other teachings of Christ poisonous? The answer is no, my friend. You even mentioned that failing to adhere to the golden rule is the root cause of conflict. In doing so you’re admitting that Jesus had some good stuff to say, and you’re admitting the necessity of him saying it, since it’s being ignored or minimized.
        I do my best to live in peace with all humanity, and sometimes it’s really difficult. Recently I had to overcome some hatred and really really awful feelings toward an individual. It was as simple as just being friendly and saying hi when I saw her. But it took me weeks to make that effort. I did not do that to make God happy. I did it because it’s a quantifiably good thing to do. I feel better now. She feels better now. God didn’t tell us to do things because when we do them he’s happy. He tells us to do it because it’s the best thing for us, and is beneficial, especially when it’s not what we want to do. It works with making peace, and with not killing people, and with not hating my brother, and with being generous, and having a good attitude, and with strong work ethic, and with serving those in need, and loving the oppressed. Maybe it will work with some more difficult things too, like abstaining from sex before marriage, and respecting my parents in all situations, and putting the Kingdom before my appetite and other desires. Just maybe…

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: