Where there's blame, there's a claim...

I think I've figured out where injury lawyers learned their trade- Exodus 21:12 onwards...

12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;
34 The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
35 And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
36 Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

Christianity vs Islam

Recently I have to admit that I have been everso slightly swayed by the Christian argument for the usefulness (note: not existence) of a deity. I don't buy into the morality argument, and I don't buy into any of the "evidence" that has been presented, but the way Zacharias and Robertson have presented the case for a world based on atheism is a strong argument for maintaining Christianity throughout the coming years. Of course their case is based on extremes such as Hitler, Stalin and other less humanistic individuals (typically internet writers and forum trolls that give atheists a bad name), but Dawkins, Harris et al. are all guilty of using the same technique against religion.

However, this video (also embedded below) causes me concern on two levels.

Firstly, and most horrifyingly, the complete and utter inaccuracy of the video. The statistics are completely unreliable and the video has clearly been produced by something that is not a "friendofislam" as their username suggest, but someone producing venomous propaganda against Muslims. The final words of the video are most chilling - "This is a call to action."

This causes me concern. The tone and content of the video suggest that it has been produced by Christians. Given the constant references to evangelism, I would suggest that the "call to action" is not a peaceful call. The tone is quite frightening and the message could be interpreted in several ways by our more extreme Christian friends. Likewise, extremist followers of Islam could decide to respond or even get the first strike in.

Secondly, this shows the strength of feeling about how the world is heading. Although wildly inaccurate, it is true that Muslims breed at a faster rate than other religions, and that as things stand, in time Europe will become a Muslim state. Zacharias makes a particularly concerning observation when he says

Even now, Europe is demonstrating that its secular worldview... ...cannot stand the onslaught of Islam and is already in demise. In the end, America's choice will be between Islam and Jesus Christ. History will prove before long the truth of this contention.

The End of Reason, p126-127

Although I don't accept that the choice will be between Jesus Christ and Islam, I do feel that a stand needs to be made sooner rather than later. Of course this is unlikely to happen with the government's insistence in adopting every stupid bloody EU law without resistance. With Britain's stupidly polite nature we do what's asked of us without question. I don't intend to discuss the politics of the situation here, but herein lies my point- this is a political dilemma, not a religious one. Of course religion forms a part of politics, but church and state need to remain entirely independent of each other. Zacharias is right to point out the flaws in many atheists' proposed systems of morality, however the answer is not simply to place the big bandage of Christianity over what is more than a paper cut in the skin of our society. Yes, we need to make a stand and yes, we need to take assertive action - but that action needs to be decided upon in a democratic fashion. Christianity is full of holes- you cannot force people to believe. I'm willing to concede that proposed secularist methods are also full of holes, but these holes can be filled in through productive dialogue and changes in education.

Without a positive stand taken sooner rather than later, further wars are inevitable. They will likely (in Britain anyway) be fought in the name of the country, in honour of our forefathers, and the right-wing will most probably lead the charge. Americans and their more patriotic nature will certainly not welcome Islamic changes, so race-wars are likely.

This is quite a scary mess that we're in.

Exodus

When I met David Robertson a few weeks back, one of the most prominent things that he said to me was that he thinks that everyone should read the bible. I'm inclined to agree with him. I'm now at Exodus and I find it more and intriguing with every page. I have found several significant weaknesses that I have yet to come across in any atheist writings (that's not to say that they haven't been addressed, more that I've probably just not read the right books yet), so I'm going to try to address some of them here. Let's start with Exodus 2:11

In those days, after Moses was grown up, he went out to his brethren: and saw their affliction, and an Egyptian striking one of the Hebrews, his brethren. 12 And when he had looked about this way and that way, and saw no one there, he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

What? Seems a bit harsh to me. And what was God's reaction? To take Moses under his wing and use him as a messenger for his wonderous morals. Let's try Exodus 7:8

And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: 9 When Pharao shall say to you, Show signs; thou shalt say to Aaron: Take thy rod, and cast it down before Pharao, and it shall be turned into a serpent. 10 So Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharao, and did as the Lord had commanded. And Aaron took the rod before Pharao and his servants, and it was turned into a serpent. 11 And Pharao called the wise men and the magicians; and they also by Egyptian enchantments and certain secrets, did in like manner. 12 And they every one cast down their rods, and they were turned into serpents: but Aaron's rod devoured their rods. 13 And Pharao's heart was hardened, and he did not hearken to them, as the Lord had commanded.

So we are supposed to believe that these miracles actually happened, when the documented evidence of the event also states that the Pharaoh employed magicians that can do the same? I mean, this isn't just a small-scale illusion that we're talking about, this is all of the Pharaoh's magicians turning their rods into snakes. You could almost forgive the suggestion that the people could be fooled/manipulated/enchanted if the act involved one magician performing an illusion, but all of the Pharoah's magicians?

This is a huge hole in the bible, I'm surprised that I haven't come across it before.

But the big one for me is the constant referrals to the fact that God hardened the Pharoah's heart. This means that the actions of both Moses and his opponent were being controlled by God. Surely this means that life is predetermined and that actually we're just pawns in God's little game? I'm sorry, but I can't get with that. What actually happens is that lots of innocent people die in the name of their fathers/leaders and the proclaimed "message" from the story is actually null and void because no one has control over their own actions.

There is no doubt that parts of the Bible are a surprisingly good read, but as far as I have read so far, it's just a series of interesting stories with contradicting morals.