Psalm 82:1

Sometimes you come across something on Twitter where someone is trying to make a point. The graphic below is regularly posted by spittle-flecked atheists who use it to highlight the supposed gullibility of Christians.

psalm81

The problem with the above graphic is its glaring dishonesty. Either that or the creator and the many posters aren’t familiar with the grammar and form of the English language.

When you read it as it’s displayed then there really is an issue with the oneness of the Godhead. I mean, how can God who claims uniqueness take his place amongst other Gods?

However, when you take away the shouty caps you can see what the verse really looks like. Here’s some examples from various versions:

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. – KJV

God has taken His place in the divine assembly;
He judges among the gods: – HCSB

God has taken his place in the divine council;
    in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: – ESV

And so on.

There is no doubt that the Hebrew word used for ‘God’ and ‘gods’ in Psalm 82:1 is ‘elohim’. But taken in context the second use refers to what I would say is a divinely inspired council of righteous men of Israel. It fits the context of the whole of the Psalm. There is no equivalence of the subject of the occurrences of ‘elohim’. No one has ever translated or interpreted it thus.

The graphic above is dishonest, probably like its creator and the gullible sheep who repost it as gospel truth. They’re trying to score a point dishonestly by hiding the true meaning behind capital letters.

Advertisements

Delilah the Pineapple

University atheist society ordered out of freshers’ fair for displaying ‘blasphemous’ pineapple called Mohammed

So said the headline in the Daily Mail.

University of Reading
University of Reading (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Apparently the Reading University Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society (RAHS) said they wanted to celebrate free speech and promote their upcoming debate ‘Should we respect religion?’ So they popped a pineapple on their stall and labelled it ‘the Prophet Mohammed’ but they were ordered to remove the offending fruit by union staff who said their actions were causing ‘upset and distress’ to a number of Muslim students and other societies.

I think that they’ve answered their own question with a big, fat no. But I do wonder why people seem to take delight in deliberately causing offence under the banner of ‘free speech’. It’s not as if there’s a historical trend in naming pineapples Mohammed, or that all pineapples are really named ‘Delilah’ and they’re challenging gender norms, or it forms a theological mainstay of Dawkinology. I can only assume that their egos know no bounds in their insensitivity to other people and causing such offence to their Muslims neighbours gives them a thrill.

However, I do have a grudging admiration in that they have moved on from the soft target of Christ and Christians. Less of a Born to be Wild as long as I’m home for me tea and more of a Born to be Wild as long as I don’t have to walk home in the dark type of free speech warrior.

For me I think I’ll take more regard of what Paul says rather than worship at the altar of free speech with this lot at the RAHS:

Romans 12:17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have good regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

Bigots Ahoy!

I tweeted a link to a humorous and thoughtful post by George Pitcher in his Daily Telegraph blog regarding the article in the Times by Richard Dawkins. Minutes later I had a direct tweet from someone personally ridiculing my faith and calling me a ‘pervert’. Not quite sure how that all links together? Anyway, that’s the first time I’ve been abused via Twitter. A first time for everything I suppose.

How sad that we seem to have a growing fundamentalist atheism in the Western world. An atheism that cannot debate or argue without having to resort to such nastiness. An atheism that seeks to make it’s philosophy and worldview the de facto worldview, in fact the only worldview. Is their arguement that far lost that they resort to such bigotry?

Related articles by Zemanta

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]