These kind of arguments are meaningless. It's meaningless to point out myths in the Bible because we should expect to find them and there's nothing wrong with myth. Myth is not a lie, its an aspect of truth that is told metaphorically and speaks to the level of the psyche. It's using the power of the pyche to speak to a unconscious level of human need.
This was a standard literary device in the ancient world and we should expect to find it in the Bible.
No passage anywhere in the bible says "make ye a bible." it's all adapted from pre existing literature and brought together or the purpose of showing the tradition. no rule or no statement anywhere, no creed, no council ever dictates how to interpret scripture and none of it says it has to be literal history!
No JL. They aren't meaningless and I think we're getting to your blind spot here.
Children all over the US are being taught that the story of the baby Moses is a real historical event. They are taught that the Exodus really happened. They are taught that Joshua stopped the motion of the sun by holding up his hands.
This is handicapping them in their lives.
To NOT argue with people who believe such nonsense is to disrespect them as poor little proletarians who don't deserve the kind of inside knowledge and erudition that the thinking classes possess.
The truth is that the stories are both myths and both ought to be regarded as such.
Again, if you believe the bible was adapted fro preexisting literature it's your obligation to make that point when someone challenges it, or you are consigning those people to unchallenged, false beliefs.
If someone believes that they can walk across any street any time without paying attention to traffic and you care about that person, you will try to change that belief.
The belief that ancient myths are true history isn't quite as damaging as the belief above but it certainly constricts and narrows the lives of those who believe it. It also allows children who are ill to die without medical care.
If you want to leave those children to die without arguing against their worldview ... even moreso to suggest that arguing against it is meaningless I challenge you to find compassion for those children in your heart and rethink your positions.
No JL. They aren't meaningless and I think we're getting to your blind spot here.
Children all over the US are being taught that the story of the baby Moses is a real historical event. They are taught that the Exodus really happened. They are taught that Joshua stopped the motion of the sun by holding up his hands.
that may call for pedagogical reform in the Sunday school movement, its hardly a reason to reject Christianity.
This is handicapping them in their lives.
rubbish! you got over it didn't you?
To NOT argue with people who believe such nonsense is to disrespect them as poor little proletarians who don't deserve the kind of inside knowledge and erudition that the thinking classes possess.
when did I say I don't argue with them? Obviously you don't see me doing so here because there are none here to argue with. Now didn't I tell you about my site fundiwatch?
The truth is that the stories are both myths and both ought to be regarded as such.
so?
Again, if you believe the bible was adapted fro preexisting literature it's your obligation to make that point when someone challenges it, or you are consigning those people to unchallenged, false beliefs.
I don't think so. You guys are doing a pretty good job of that. You just need to get serious about what it means. It doesn't mean Christianity is not valid.
If someone believes that they can walk across any street any time without paying attention to traffic and you care about that person, you will try to change that belief.
where did that come from?
The belief that ancient myths are true history isn't quite as damaging as the belief above but it certainly constricts and narrows the lives of those who believe it. It also allows children who are ill to die without medical care.
some of it is true you have to sort through it.
If you want to leave those children to die without arguing against their worldview ... even moreso to suggest that arguing against it is meaningless I challenge you to find compassion for those children in your heart and rethink your positions.
this is a ridiculous argument. you are saying that you should go on using bad logic to try and destroy people's faith because you are right about one small point that doesn't effect the truth of the Christian tradition as a whole. but I shouldn't point that out to you?
If you mean what you say then surely you can see I'm duty bound to point out your mistakes too.
Joe, I've been reading your comments and as a liberal Christian why don't you share Dr. James McGrath's perspective as seen on his blog (on the sidebar)? He argues against both sides but takes a real liking to what we do here. When it comes to evangelical Christianity he argues with us, not against us. Why don't you?
I take it the thing that you disagree with us most about is whether or not God exists, and as evidence for this you utilize the religious experience argument. Okay. Fine. There is a real disagreement here with us. But I'm quite happy to have you on my side since we both reject evangelical Christianity. In Ed Babinski's book, Leaving the Fold he has several testimonies of former fundamentalists who are now moderate or liberal Christians. I think your story could've been included if he had known about you.
Hey Evan. I agree with John. Excellent stuff over there.
At my own blog I pointed out a couple of common rhetorical techniques they use. I notice another one again in use against you. "Check the archives for rebuttals to your claims." If you'd only take about 2 or 3 years of your life and read through all of the nonsense posted by such people as Steve and Jason you'd surely discover the error of your ways. Or maybe you should read through the books at the Library of Congress.
In one thread in the past Jason was critical of me for posting an argument that he said had been rebutted at a link he had provided me. I read the entirety of the link and informed him that I didn't see that the argument had been addressed, so I asked him to just post it for me. He refused, and basically ignored my request. The argument wasn't there.
So when you've completed the 2 or 3 year task of "consulting their archives" in fact you may not find any responses to what you had argued and when you inform them of this they'll probably just insult you and that will be that.
I'm sorry, but the gang at TLog are the most laughable bunch of Christian liars I've seen assembled. None of them would last five minutes in a debate with rules, parameters, or word limits.
Seriously, count the number of times they stall the debate by answering Evan's questions with questions (or mere insults) in order to keep the ball rolling off topic.
I noticed none of them have explained why they don't believe in Humbaba. Good thing too, you don't want to piss Humbaba off.
Joe, I've been reading your comments and as a liberal Christian why don't you share Dr. James McGrath's perspective as seen on his blog (on the sidebar)? He argues against both sides but takes a real liking to what we do here. When it comes to evangelical Christianity he argues with us, not against us. Why don't you?
I think I have said when I see things I agree with here. I don't often like what I see here. I have not been shy about expressing agreement with those with whom I agree.
I take it the thing that you disagree with us most about is whether or not God exists, and as evidence for this you utilize the religious experience argument. Okay. Fine. There is a real disagreement here with us. But I'm quite happy to have you on my side since we both reject evangelical Christianity. In Ed Babinski's book, Leaving the Fold he has several testimonies of former fundamentalists who are now moderate or liberal Christians. I think your story could've been included if he had known about you.
But I think its a huge mistake to just leave the God spot blank and not fill in the bland with some from of faith.
I'm sure there are grounds for agreement between us, maybe on other issues. For example I am never shy about saying what I think of the Bush or the hole he's gotten us. I bet we share a lot of agreement on that.
'm sorry, but the gang at TLog are the most laughable bunch of Christian liars I've seen assembled. None of them would last five minutes in a debate with rules, parameters, or word limits.
hmmmmmm, cough cough, (clearing throught). too bad none of you are willing to find out isn't it?
you know, I probably would come down on the side of thinking that the story of Moses in the bull rushes was pattenered after the sargon stroy.
But I don't see any justification for saying that those guys are "biggest liars ever" or that they are stupid or they can't argue. Their arguments are not bad. They are about as good as I would expect for the task they have set themselves.
They go about it in a logical way, if you assume their basic world view, that the text has to be true and it has to be literal. So they try to show that the elements in it are older than those in the Sargon story and that they are drifting from Egypt to Babylon. That's not stupid.
It all turns upon their assumption of Mosaic authorship. While they cant prove that, and it's not very probable, it doesn't make them the biggest idiots who ever lived.
I do not see why any of sort of fundie bashing is called for. It's rude, tis' arrogant, it's hostile it just feeds hostilities. I am turned off by it.
Scholars are supposed to be gentlemen. Now I understand frustrations. I really can. believe me.
On your website you wrote, "I'm no longer an inerrentist." This was in an argument of how to handle God's atrocities against the innocent in the Bible.
Okay, this is a fairly liberal view by your own admission. So, I want to know what standard you use to determine what is true in the Bible and what is not.
Because they apply the "everything is true no matter what standard," I think they need to be challenged. So, yes, I too commend Evan for his efforts. His debate will hopefully open their eyes to needing to look at the facts for what they are. This may not be the killer subject like God's atrocities to win them over, but its a start.
Speaking of God's atrocities, why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira? Why did he make people sick or die for taking communion wrongly? Why did Jesus lie about the power of faith and the efficacy of prayer?
God wrote that he cares for us like the little birdies in the air. Seems fitting, given that the majority of them die from sickness, stravation, and don't even make it out of nest. How many millions of children die around the world each year in spite of the cries to God for mercy?
I think John should debate you. But if he doesn't have time, I'll gladly debate you Joe. And I've got decent credentials too. Though my PhD is in Psychology, my Masters in Counseling was from Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and my bachelors is in Theology from North Central University.
Here is a decent topic Topic: God does/does not supernaturally interact with humans in the material (matter/energy) realm?
Rules: 1 Page 12 point Times New Roman Opening, same thing for a rebuttal.
However, we select a 3 person panel to judge the debate. You pick one panel member, John picks one panel member, and the swing vote is Ken Daniels. I just read his testimony and I think if you read it to you will argee that his is extremely fair minded. Having come up with the basics for the mini-debate I am open for improvements/suggestions.
On your website you wrote, "I'm no longer an inerrentist." This was in an argument of how to handle God's atrocities against the innocent in the Bible.
Okay, this is a fairly liberal view by your own admission.
No it' not. Real liberals tell me I'm neo Orthodox.
So, I want to know what standard you use to determine what is true in the Bible and what is not.
same way you would determine that in any document. We have to assume that miracles are taken on faith. Is it always important to understand the miracles as literal? Use historical analysis and literary cit to understand what is mythology and what is real history. Seek the theological point because that's the real truth content that is being communicated.
Ty part 2Because they apply the "everything is true no matter what standard," I think they need to be challenged. So, yes, I too commend Evan for his efforts. His debate will hopefully open their eyes to needing to look at the facts for what they are. This may not be the killer subject like God's atrocities to win them over, but its a start.
that's fine to challenge them on such things. not fine to express such contempt for them.
Speaking of God's atrocities, why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira?
they were trying to rip off the community.
Why did he make people sick or die for taking communion wrongly?
He didn't. that's a natural process like germs cause disease. the point of it is that the attitude in the heart is the important thing. Why can't you just appreciate that and not worry about the literalism of it?
Why did Jesus lie about the power of faith and the efficacy of prayer?
O that's not a loaded comment is it? Do you still beat your wife?
why would you think Jesus lied? Because you are interpriting something he said as literally as you can to the exclusion of all common sense.
God wrote that he cares for us like the little birdies in the air. Seems fitting, given that the majority of them die from sickness, stravation, and don't even make it out of nest.
why don't you go to college, take some literure clases and ask the teacher how to read? Come on! you are trying to interprit everything exactly as litterally as you can ans though writing is a blue print. how can anyone with a degree in psychology not understand literary devices? why in the hell doesn't this alleged "scholar" Hector Avelos teach you guys about the things are written? People talk in figures of speech, in metaphors, and hyperbolically, they are not lying they are using something called "literary devices." you can't understand everything as though it was a blue print to a house.
How many millions of children die around the world each year in spite of the cries to God for mercy?
how many of them spend eternity in bliss with God?
I think he should too. You guys draft him and let's get it on!
But if he doesn't have time, I'll gladly debate you Joe.
Great! you guys decide and let's get the show on the road
And I've got decent credentials too. Though my PhD is in Psychology, my Masters in Counseling was from Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and my bachelors is in Theology from North Central University.
don't worry about credentials. I do not think I have great credentials, they are adequate. But you don't need credentials to know things.
Here is a decent topic Topic: God does/does not supernaturally interact with humans in the material (matter/energy) realm?
To affirm that proposition one must already be able to prove the existence of God.The proposition assumes the existence of God. The proposition I'm interested in defending is this: Religion is rationally warranted to the extent that one might honestly and intellectually place confidence in the proposition: there is a God.
all of those qualifying phrases are important, I do not claim to be able to absolutely prove the existence of God. I claim I can offer enough 'evidence' (counting deductive logic as evidence) that one can see that belief is a rational choice.
Rules: 1 Page 12 point Times New Roman Opening, same thing for a rebuttal.
how do you count pages in a text box?
However, we select a 3 person panel to judge the debate. You pick one panel member, John picks one panel member, and the swing vote is Ken Daniels.
I don't know who Ken Daniels is. where is his testimony? We can't have it two atheists to one theist, or vice versa. I would not mind having three atheists if I knew they could be impartial.
I suggest either no judges and just let the reader decide, or Tiny Thinker (Dan Stump he's an anthropologist and an atheist on my boards) Fleetmouse, another atheist from my board, and a judge of John's choosing.
the thing is you easily validate that these guys I name are not biased to vote for me. I argue with them all the time. But I knew they are fair minded. you can validate their atheism by looking at them on CARM and their websites. Tiny (Dan) used to argue with creationists all the time he was in a group known as "the gang of four" in the 90s they were well known throughout the net. They exposed Ken Hovand as the liar he is. they were the first to epose him.
but if this is not acceptable I may be willing to do it your way, If I can see more about Daniels.
I just read his testimony and I think if you read it to you will argee that his is extremely fair minded. Having come up with the basics for the mini-debate I am open for improvements/suggestions.
that's fine to challenge them on such things. not fine to express such contempt for them.
I have expressed no contempt for the triabloggers and I defy you to find any evidence that I did. You on the other hand are expressing contempt for me by implying that, and the triabloggers repeatedly heaped contumely on me. So if you have a complaint take it up with them.
You're so itching for an argument and yet you never seem to criticize any position but the atheist one.
Beyond that ... if you're a panentheist you believe that anything is possible if God thinks it. But do you think there is an ego in God's mind that decides to think things or do you think God has a stream of consciousness that is beyond his control?
Me, when I think something it just pops into my head. I can decide to concentrate on a set of words or concentrate on a topic, but I can't control the exact denotative content of my thoughts, so do you believe that God can do this? If so in what way can you describe what he is experiencing as consciousness rather than a reasoned sequence of decisions?
Personally Joe I think you're troubled (I hope you don't take that as contempt). You've given up on the Bible as literally true but you don't want to disappoint your social and family network by admitting you're no longer a Christian.
Because you're not. You believe God is not all-powerful which is a heresy to pretty much every denomination I'm familiar with.
Joe said: The proposition I'm interested in defending is this: Religion is rationally warranted to the extent that one might honestly and intellectually place confidence in the proposition: there is a God.
Rationality is too weak of a word, I think. I do not deny this proposition. Why should I? I don't think you are irrational. That being said, there is nothing to debate. I've said that from the beginning.
If, however, you'd like to debate whether evangelical Christianity is true, then we could have a debate. But since you're not an evangelical you wouldn't be interested.
I have a niche. It's in debunking evangelical Christianity. Others can make other arguments if they want to, but this is my focus for various reasons I've spelled out time and again. Only when one has a narrow focus can he do a superior job at it. To expand my focus is to water down my efforts by reading other literature. Reading this other literature would take away from the time needed to read the literature that helps me debunk evangelical Christianity.
On your fucking website you wrote, "My views on this section ar fairly liberal" in refering to your views of the canonical gospels. I was merely quoting your website and you write me back about your own words the following bullshit, "No it' not. Real liberals tell me I'm neo Orthodox."
Well, fuck you and the horse you road in on. Debate is about honest intellectual discussion, not the bullshit you're tyring to pass off as debate.
"why don't you go to college, take some literure clases and ask the teacher how to read?"
how many of them spend eternity in bliss with God?
None?
why would you assume none?
What evidence do you have for a single child spending eternity in bliss?
10:43 AM, July 11, 2008
same evidence I have for belief in God in the first place.
(1) god exists.
(2) God is good
(3) that means there's reason to think God would send a blameless person to perdition. Children are blameless because they have not reached accountability.
besides I don't believe in hell so there's no hell for them to go to.
On your fucking website you wrote, "My views on this section ar fairly liberal" in refering to your views of the canonical gospels. I was merely quoting your website and you write me back about your own words the following bullshit, "No it' not. Real liberals tell me I'm neo Orthodox."
Well, fuck you and the horse you road in on. Debate is about honest intellectual discussion, not the bullshit you're tyring to pass off as debate.
my god what an imbecell you are. so fucking you can't reason about it, maybe I wrote that years and years ago and now my views on what is liberal have changed. I fail to see why that jsutifies this outburst of aner and ridiculous name calling.
if that's the level of that's the level of maturlity you have here you aer not worth debating. you hve just provden to me that your whole movment is based upon being very very stuipd. you are too stupid to understand any of this stuff just shut your ignorant mouth you don't undersand it. it's over your dummie.
John do you see what that moron said to me? Because liberalism is a relaitive term. and maybe I wrote that ten years go and now I feel my views are pretty conservative compared to the general drift of the fiedl. what difference does it make?
why should it many mother fucking difference if I say I'm liberal or conservative? that has nothing with the position itself. why do does your little side kick resort to this sort of vitrial? so extremely childish.
I will not play this stupid little game. you people are screwed. you are childish ignrant peices of shit. I wish there were a hell for to go.
btw I'm putting atheistwatch back up. This little childish pieice of shit and his outbrust of hate shows me that the world needs someone who is willing to expose your little game of mob rule. You want to be little bully boys and shout down all who disagere with you mock and ridicule all who dare to refute your stupidity, and force everyone to accept your views at the risk of being brow beatn, but we aer the vast majority and we will not alow you to do this. you are a clear and present danger to rationality and common sense.
same evidence I have for belief in God in the first place.
(1) god exists.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Obviously if there were evidence for God's existence there would be no argument. There is as much evidence for the existence of Yahweh as there is for the existence of Tezcatlipoca. Heck, at least we have an idea what Tezcatlipoca looks like. So obviously if you start with your imagination, you can prove anything.
(2) God is good
Huh? Do you mean Yahweh there? Or is this some other God?
(3) that means there's reason to think God would send a blameless person to perdition. Children are blameless because they have not reached accountability.
Well, now what about an alternative? That when children die they are dead?
How can you be sure any child is "in eternity" when you yourself are not eternal and therefore have no grounds to judge what is and what is not eternal.
Sorry Joe, outbursts of yours aside, you seem not to have thought through the implications your beliefs. Panentheism entails that all God can be is the manifestation of the universe. In the universe organisms die. Lots. So God must either want it to be so, or the demiurge that causes God to be conscious of whatever he is conscious of causes it to be so. So there's no dodge for you there.
hey we gotta get that guy off of here he's beaten the hell out of us. and you can't debate him ty he'll have you for lunch. you better start a brawl so he'll leave and wont bother us anymore.
Evan why don't you just curse at me? Apparently that's the way atheists handle disagreement:
1) god exists.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Obviously if there were evidence for God's existence there would be no argument.
that's stupid. when two sides go into court it is understand both sides have evidence. they are to argue the base based upon the evidence. he procescurtor doesn't' say "O if the accused had any evidence in his favor he wouldn't be accused so therefore they have no evidence."
for that matter why don't they just say "If he was innocent we wouldn't acusse him so he must be guilty?"
There is as much evidence for the existence of Yahweh as there is for the existence of Tezcatlipoca. Heck, at least we have an idea what Tezcatlipoca looks like. So obviously if you start with your imagination, you can prove anything.
that's not an argument. do you see the difference? that's your bigoted prejudiced otherwise known as "opinion. I have 42 arguments for God and everyone of them is real damn good will kick your ass. I have not given yet, this is not them. This is just the statement that I have them. understand?
(2) God is good
Huh? Do you mean Yahweh there? Or is this some other God?
brilliant! don't even know a purposeful attempt to confuses identity is a fallacy.
(3) that means there's reason to think God would send a blameless person to perdition. Children are blameless because they have not reached accountability.
Well, now what about an alternative? That when children die they are dead?
do you not understand that I'm discussing my beliefs not yours/ do you not get that? I don't believe so therefore I don't say it. do you understand now?
How can you be sure any child is "in eternity" when you yourself are not eternal and therefore have no grounds to judge what is and what is not eternal.
because the bible tells me so
Sorry Joe, outbursts of yours aside, you seem not to have thought through the implications your beliefs.
outburst? what outbust? you people dont' even understand the distiction between a rational argument and foolish prejudice.
Mocking is not refutation. Derision is not argument.
OMG! That was a great response back! ;) I gotta say, while I really don't enjoy the thought of you suffering, I did enjoy your response. I thought I was pissed... Man, you were (are) so angry at me you could barely type in your post (filled with grammatical errors).
I admit that I over reacted (and for that I apologize) because I was pissed at your insults of telling me I couldn't read or understand how to correctly interpret various genres of literature.
Tell you what, when I die and God sends me to hell for calling you an asshole, I'll make it up to you. You can come visit me and I'll buy you a beer while you have the last laugh.
Even if there is a God, I don't want to worship a God who kills people like Ananias and Sapphira for lying/keeping money back. I used to be liberal in my interpretation of scripture, but I have come to the point of where I don't want to believe in a God who demands perfection, or who makes a world this aweful for half of its inhabitants. More than half of the world live without electricity and the most basic medical care.
For me, by accepting that God doesn't take care of us physically, it has freed me to help care for those in need. Now, I feel more obligated to send $10 or whatever I can afford here or there to charitable causes because I realize that if God exists, he doesn't do that and he has left us in charge of doing it.
I attended church faithfully up to 2 months ago, and believed in a loving, deistic type God. I used to do exactly as you said and I "rationally interpreted" various scriptures under the genre that allowed them to be figurative, symbolic, poetic, or metaphorical when needed.
However, I have come to a point where I am no longer willing to accept that the Bible is the best revelation we have of God. To me, most of it is not even a good revelation. I believe that you could write a better revelation of God than the Bible (other than you'd send me to hell in your version).
I actually have been going through finding for myself all of the unethical things that atheists have had a hayday with for so many years that are in the Bible. There is just so much material that cannot be from God, that it makes me more atheistic in my beliefs all the time.
Wow, I missed reading many of your last posts before posting mine.
Apparently it doesn't dawn on you that when you call someone stupid that might call you an asshole?
Look up narcissitic injury if you don't know what it means. You can't treat people like crap, call them stupid, tell them they can't read, tell them they need to go back to school, and then get upset when they tell you to go to hell.
As for, "btw I'm putting atheistwatch back up." I'm not sure what this is, but maybe its a list of atheists. If so, you can put my name at the top of the list. But use my real name, its Toby Canning. I've already told everyone here my real name. When I first started posting on this site I was still a believer and afraid that my family might learn that I was having doubts about my faith. So, I deceitful began my posts under a false name. However, I had never bothered to changed my name here, though I should probably get around to that.
Well, Joe Hinman certainly seems to have hijacked this thread doesn't he?
Joe, I'm utterly confused as to what parts of the Bible you believe to be true, and what parts you don't. You appear to be confused about it yourself.
I simply must address one of Joe's apologetic efforts.
Speaking of God's atrocities, why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira? "they were trying to rip off the community."
To rip off means to 'defraud' or to 'steal from' Joe. What were Ananias and Sapphira trying to steal? If you make a $100 donation to a charity, rather than $150, are you trying to 'rip off' that charity? How ridiculous. The story about Ananias and Sapphira was written specifically to scare the bejesus out of any new convert who even thought about holding anything back, and not giving ALL that they had to the newly self-appointed Christian cult leaders. If the mafia demands that you give them $1000 for your own 'protection', are you 'ripping them off' if you only give them $800? Your argument makes about as much sense as that does.
Joe wrote: -"outburst? what outbust? you people dont' even understand the distiction between a rational argument and foolish prejudice.
Like your 'rational argument' for the murder of Ananias and Sapphira?
Evan, I think that you've done an excellent job of defending your views over at Triablogue. The guys over there seem to have no sense of humor whatsoever. I wrote a snarky little post commenting on your conversation with them, (in response to the snark and abuse they were heaping upon you), and now they've got the vapours with me! They crack me up. It would be genuinely funny if it wasn't so tragic.
When you scratch the skin of a 'loving Christian' what you often find is a hateful fanatic lurking just beneath the surface. I guess it's only natural, because they worship a violent and hateful god. On another thread over there, they are throwing a hissy fit because I quoted the humourous little ditty; "Donkeys can talk, people can fly, and a man named Jesus lives up in the sky". They truly must have all had a humour bypass operation. I wonder if that's a prerequisite if you want to be a regular contributer there? Anyway, good job at exposing the viscious underbelly of Christian fanaticism.
you know what? I have to apologize to Ty. I still think what he did was uncalled for. But I see now what set him off. I didn't see it before.
the statment about "go to school." I didn't mean that the way ti sounded. sometimes I'm really brash but I didn't mean that in that way.
I did say credentials don't matter and that was my way of saying if your arguments are good is doesn't matter if you have a degree. But then I screw it up by being a jerk this way.
well I apologize. I think you could have done that with more grace. But nevertheless. I am sorry.
Joe seriously you need to get beyond yourself here.
There's nothing mocking in my statements at all.
When you assert that God exists and you put no evidence forward to back up that assertion and expect it to stand unchallenged, you must really think you're on some blog other than this one.
Yahweh, the God of the Bible doesn't exist. I can assert as well as you can.
Luckily my assertion fits with every fact known to man.
33 comments:
These kind of arguments are meaningless. It's meaningless to point out myths in the Bible because we should expect to find them and there's nothing wrong with myth. Myth is not a lie, its an aspect of truth that is told metaphorically and speaks to the level of the psyche. It's using the power of the pyche to speak to a unconscious level of human need.
This was a standard literary device in the ancient world and we should expect to find it in the Bible.
No passage anywhere in the bible says "make ye a bible." it's all adapted from pre existing literature and brought together or the purpose of showing the tradition. no rule or no statement anywhere, no creed, no council ever dictates how to interpret scripture and none of it says it has to be literal history!
No JL. They aren't meaningless and I think we're getting to your blind spot here.
Children all over the US are being taught that the story of the baby Moses is a real historical event. They are taught that the Exodus really happened. They are taught that Joshua stopped the motion of the sun by holding up his hands.
This is handicapping them in their lives.
To NOT argue with people who believe such nonsense is to disrespect them as poor little proletarians who don't deserve the kind of inside knowledge and erudition that the thinking classes possess.
The truth is that the stories are both myths and both ought to be regarded as such.
Again, if you believe the bible was adapted fro preexisting literature it's your obligation to make that point when someone challenges it, or you are consigning those people to unchallenged, false beliefs.
If someone believes that they can walk across any street any time without paying attention to traffic and you care about that person, you will try to change that belief.
The belief that ancient myths are true history isn't quite as damaging as the belief above but it certainly constricts and narrows the lives of those who believe it. It also allows children who are ill to die without medical care.
If you want to leave those children to die without arguing against their worldview ... even moreso to suggest that arguing against it is meaningless I challenge you to find compassion for those children in your heart and rethink your positions.
No JL. They aren't meaningless and I think we're getting to your blind spot here.
Children all over the US are being taught that the story of the baby Moses is a real historical event. They are taught that the Exodus really happened. They are taught that Joshua stopped the motion of the sun by holding up his hands.
that may call for pedagogical reform in the Sunday school movement, its hardly a reason to reject Christianity.
This is handicapping them in their lives.
rubbish! you got over it didn't you?
To NOT argue with people who believe such nonsense is to disrespect them as poor little proletarians who don't deserve the kind of inside knowledge and erudition that the thinking classes possess.
when did I say I don't argue with them? Obviously you don't see me doing so here because there are none here to argue with. Now didn't I tell you about my site fundiwatch?
The truth is that the stories are both myths and both ought to be regarded as such.
so?
Again, if you believe the bible was adapted fro preexisting literature it's your obligation to make that point when someone challenges it, or you are consigning those people to unchallenged, false beliefs.
I don't think so. You guys are doing a pretty good job of that. You just need to get serious about what it means. It doesn't mean Christianity is not valid.
If someone believes that they can walk across any street any time without paying attention to traffic and you care about that person, you will try to change that belief.
where did that come from?
The belief that ancient myths are true history isn't quite as damaging as the belief above but it certainly constricts and narrows the lives of those who believe it. It also allows children who are ill to die without medical care.
some of it is true you have to sort through it.
If you want to leave those children to die without arguing against their worldview ... even moreso to suggest that arguing against it is meaningless I challenge you to find compassion for those children in your heart and rethink your positions.
this is a ridiculous argument. you are saying that you should go on using bad logic to try and destroy people's faith because you are right about one small point that doesn't effect the truth of the Christian tradition as a whole. but I shouldn't point that out to you?
If you mean what you say then surely you can see I'm duty bound to point out your mistakes too.
btw no problem I don't really care, but I'm rather be called "joe" or "Meta" (metacrock).
Joe, I've been reading your comments and as a liberal Christian why don't you share Dr. James McGrath's perspective as seen on his blog (on the sidebar)? He argues against both sides but takes a real liking to what we do here. When it comes to evangelical Christianity he argues with us, not against us. Why don't you?
I take it the thing that you disagree with us most about is whether or not God exists, and as evidence for this you utilize the religious experience argument. Okay. Fine. There is a real disagreement here with us. But I'm quite happy to have you on my side since we both reject evangelical Christianity. In Ed Babinski's book, Leaving the Fold he has several testimonies of former fundamentalists who are now moderate or liberal Christians. I think your story could've been included if he had known about you.
Cheers.
Hey Evan. I agree with John. Excellent stuff over there.
At my own blog I pointed out a couple of common rhetorical techniques they use. I notice another one again in use against you. "Check the archives for rebuttals to your claims." If you'd only take about 2 or 3 years of your life and read through all of the nonsense posted by such people as Steve and Jason you'd surely discover the error of your ways. Or maybe you should read through the books at the Library of Congress.
In one thread in the past Jason was critical of me for posting an argument that he said had been rebutted at a link he had provided me. I read the entirety of the link and informed him that I didn't see that the argument had been addressed, so I asked him to just post it for me. He refused, and basically ignored my request. The argument wasn't there.
So when you've completed the 2 or 3 year task of "consulting their archives" in fact you may not find any responses to what you had argued and when you inform them of this they'll probably just insult you and that will be that.
Dang, you guys just sent me on an hour long romp through that blog. I want that hour back!
LOL...keep up the good work. I have no patience for arguing with people about this stuff.
Good Job Evan!
He has more patience than I do with those hyenas.
I decided to go over there and "posture" anyway to show my support.
You're making us proud!
I'm sorry, but the gang at TLog are the most laughable bunch of Christian liars I've seen assembled. None of them would last five minutes in a debate with rules, parameters, or word limits.
Seriously, count the number of times they stall the debate by answering Evan's questions with questions (or mere insults) in order to keep the ball rolling off topic.
I noticed none of them have explained why they don't believe in Humbaba. Good thing too, you don't want to piss Humbaba off.
Joe, I've been reading your comments and as a liberal Christian why don't you share Dr. James McGrath's perspective as seen on his blog (on the sidebar)? He argues against both sides but takes a real liking to what we do here. When it comes to evangelical Christianity he argues with us, not against us. Why don't you?
I think I have said when I see things I agree with here. I don't often like what I see here. I have not been shy about expressing agreement with those with whom I agree.
I take it the thing that you disagree with us most about is whether or not God exists, and as evidence for this you utilize the religious experience argument. Okay. Fine. There is a real disagreement here with us. But I'm quite happy to have you on my side since we both reject evangelical Christianity. In Ed Babinski's book, Leaving the Fold he has several testimonies of former fundamentalists who are now moderate or liberal Christians. I think your story could've been included if he had known about you.
But I think its a huge mistake to just leave the God spot blank and not fill in the bland with some from of faith.
I'm sure there are grounds for agreement between us, maybe on other issues. For example I am never shy about saying what I think of the Bush or the hole he's gotten us. I bet we share a lot of agreement on that.
'm sorry, but the gang at TLog are the most laughable bunch of Christian liars I've seen assembled. None of them would last five minutes in a debate with rules, parameters, or word limits.
hmmmmmm, cough cough, (clearing throught). too bad none of you are willing to find out isn't it?
you know, I probably would come down on the side of thinking that the story of Moses in the bull rushes was pattenered after the sargon stroy.
But I don't see any justification for saying that those guys are "biggest liars ever" or that they are stupid or they can't argue. Their arguments are not bad. They are about as good as I would expect for the task they have set themselves.
They go about it in a logical way, if you assume their basic world view, that the text has to be true and it has to be literal. So they try to show that the elements in it are older than those in the Sargon story and that they are drifting from Egypt to Babylon. That's not stupid.
It all turns upon their assumption of Mosaic authorship. While they cant prove that, and it's not very probable, it doesn't make them the biggest idiots who ever lived.
I do not see why any of sort of fundie bashing is called for. It's rude, tis' arrogant, it's hostile it just feeds hostilities. I am turned off by it.
Scholars are supposed to be gentlemen. Now I understand frustrations. I really can. believe me.
Joe,
On your website you wrote, "I'm no longer an inerrentist." This was in an argument of how to handle God's atrocities against the innocent in the Bible.
Okay, this is a fairly liberal view by your own admission. So, I want to know what standard you use to determine what is true in the Bible and what is not.
Because they apply the "everything is true no matter what standard," I think they need to be challenged. So, yes, I too commend Evan for his efforts. His debate will hopefully open their eyes to needing to look at the facts for what they are. This may not be the killer subject like God's atrocities to win them over, but its a start.
Speaking of God's atrocities, why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira? Why did he make people sick or die for taking communion wrongly? Why did Jesus lie about the power of faith and the efficacy of prayer?
God wrote that he cares for us like the little birdies in the air. Seems fitting, given that the majority of them die from sickness, stravation, and don't even make it out of nest. How many millions of children die around the world each year in spite of the cries to God for mercy?
I think John should debate you. But if he doesn't have time, I'll gladly debate you Joe. And I've got decent credentials too. Though my PhD is in Psychology, my Masters in Counseling was from Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and my bachelors is in Theology from North Central University.
Here is a decent topic Topic: God does/does not supernaturally interact with humans in the material (matter/energy) realm?
Rules: 1 Page 12 point Times New Roman Opening, same thing for a rebuttal.
However, we select a 3 person panel to judge the debate. You pick one panel member, John picks one panel member, and the swing vote is Ken Daniels. I just read his testimony and I think if you read it to you will argee that his is extremely fair minded. Having come up with the basics for the mini-debate I am open for improvements/suggestions.
How about it, anyone game?
On your website you wrote, "I'm no longer an inerrentist." This was in an argument of how to handle God's atrocities against the innocent in the Bible.
Okay, this is a fairly liberal view by your own admission.
No it' not. Real liberals tell me I'm neo Orthodox.
So, I want to know what standard you use to determine what is true in the Bible and what is not.
same way you would determine that in any document. We have to assume that miracles are taken on faith. Is it always important to understand the miracles as literal? Use historical analysis and literary cit to understand what is mythology and what is real history. Seek the theological point because that's the real truth content that is being communicated.
have you read my peice on Doxa about
The nature of Biblical revelation?
Ty part 2Because they apply the "everything is true no matter what standard," I think they need to be challenged. So, yes, I too commend Evan for his efforts. His debate will hopefully open their eyes to needing to look at the facts for what they are. This may not be the killer subject like God's atrocities to win them over, but its a start.
that's fine to challenge them on such things. not fine to express such contempt for them.
Speaking of God's atrocities, why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira?
they were trying to rip off the community.
Why did he make people sick or die for taking communion wrongly?
He didn't. that's a natural process like germs cause disease. the point of it is that the attitude in the heart is the important thing. Why can't you just appreciate that and not worry about the literalism of it?
Why did Jesus lie about the power of faith and the efficacy of prayer?
O that's not a loaded comment is it? Do you still beat your wife?
why would you think Jesus lied? Because you are interpriting something he said as literally as you can to the exclusion of all common sense.
God wrote that he cares for us like the little birdies in the air. Seems fitting, given that the majority of them die from sickness, stravation, and don't even make it out of nest.
why don't you go to college, take some literure clases and ask the teacher how to read? Come on! you are trying to interprit everything exactly as litterally as you can ans though writing is a blue print. how can anyone with a degree in psychology not understand literary devices? why in the hell doesn't this alleged "scholar" Hector Avelos teach you guys about the things are written? People talk in figures of speech, in metaphors, and hyperbolically, they are not lying they are using something called "literary devices." you can't understand everything as though it was a blue print to a house.
How many millions of children die around the world each year in spite of the cries to God for mercy?
how many of them spend eternity in bliss with God?
Ty part 3 about those theodicy questions see my essay on Doxa:
Soteriological Drama
I think John should debate you.
I think he should too. You guys draft him and let's get it on!
But if he doesn't have time, I'll gladly debate you Joe.
Great! you guys decide and let's get the show on the road
And I've got decent credentials too. Though my PhD is in Psychology, my Masters in Counseling was from Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and my bachelors is in Theology from North Central University.
don't worry about credentials. I do not think I have great credentials, they are adequate. But you don't need credentials to know things.
Here is a decent topic Topic: God does/does not supernaturally interact with humans in the material (matter/energy) realm?
To affirm that proposition one must already be able to prove the existence of God.The proposition assumes the existence of God. The proposition I'm interested in defending is this: Religion is rationally warranted to the extent that one might honestly and intellectually place confidence in the proposition: there is a God.
all of those qualifying phrases are important, I do not claim to be able to absolutely prove the existence of God. I claim I can offer enough 'evidence' (counting deductive logic as evidence) that one can see that belief is a rational choice.
Rules: 1 Page 12 point Times New Roman Opening, same thing for a rebuttal.
how do you count pages in a text box?
However, we select a 3 person panel to judge the debate. You pick one panel member, John picks one panel member, and the swing vote is Ken Daniels.
I don't know who Ken Daniels is. where is his testimony? We can't have it two atheists to one theist, or vice versa. I would not mind having three atheists if I knew they could be impartial.
I suggest either no judges and just let the reader decide, or Tiny Thinker (Dan Stump he's an anthropologist and an atheist on my boards) Fleetmouse, another atheist from my board, and a judge of John's choosing.
the thing is you easily validate that these guys I name are not biased to vote for me. I argue with them all the time. But I knew they are fair minded. you can validate their atheism by looking at them on CARM and their websites. Tiny (Dan) used to argue with creationists all the time he was in a group known as "the gang of four" in the 90s they were well known throughout the net. They exposed Ken Hovand as the liar he is. they were the first to epose him.
but if this is not acceptable I may be willing to do it your way, If I can see more about Daniels.
I just read his testimony and I think if you read it to you will argee that his is extremely fair minded. Having come up with the basics for the mini-debate I am open for improvements/suggestions.
where do I see it?
How about it, anyone game?
sure.
how many of them spend eternity in bliss with God?
None?
What evidence do you have for a single child spending eternity in bliss?
Joe,
that's fine to challenge them on such things. not fine to express such contempt for them.
I have expressed no contempt for the triabloggers and I defy you to find any evidence that I did. You on the other hand are expressing contempt for me by implying that, and the triabloggers repeatedly heaped contumely on me. So if you have a complaint take it up with them.
You're so itching for an argument and yet you never seem to criticize any position but the atheist one.
Beyond that ... if you're a panentheist you believe that anything is possible if God thinks it. But do you think there is an ego in God's mind that decides to think things or do you think God has a stream of consciousness that is beyond his control?
Me, when I think something it just pops into my head. I can decide to concentrate on a set of words or concentrate on a topic, but I can't control the exact denotative content of my thoughts, so do you believe that God can do this? If so in what way can you describe what he is experiencing as consciousness rather than a reasoned sequence of decisions?
Personally Joe I think you're troubled (I hope you don't take that as contempt). You've given up on the Bible as literally true but you don't want to disappoint your social and family network by admitting you're no longer a Christian.
Because you're not. You believe God is not all-powerful which is a heresy to pretty much every denomination I'm familiar with.
Joe said: The proposition I'm interested in defending is this: Religion is rationally warranted to the extent that one might honestly and intellectually place confidence in the proposition: there is a God.
Rationality is too weak of a word, I think. I do not deny this proposition. Why should I? I don't think you are irrational. That being said, there is nothing to debate. I've said that from the beginning.
If, however, you'd like to debate whether evangelical Christianity is true, then we could have a debate. But since you're not an evangelical you wouldn't be interested.
I have a niche. It's in debunking evangelical Christianity. Others can make other arguments if they want to, but this is my focus for various reasons I've spelled out time and again. Only when one has a narrow focus can he do a superior job at it. To expand my focus is to water down my efforts by reading other literature. Reading this other literature would take away from the time needed to read the literature that helps me debunk evangelical Christianity.
That's all there is to it. I hope you understand.
Joe,
you're an asshole.
On your fucking website you wrote, "My views on this section ar fairly liberal" in refering to your views of the canonical gospels. I was merely quoting your website and you write me back about your own words the following bullshit, "No it' not. Real liberals tell me I'm neo Orthodox."
Well, fuck you and the horse you road in on. Debate is about honest intellectual discussion, not the bullshit you're tyring to pass off as debate.
"why don't you go to college, take some literure clases and ask the teacher how to read?"
Again, you're an asshole.
how many of them spend eternity in bliss with God?
None?
why would you assume none?
What evidence do you have for a single child spending eternity in bliss?
10:43 AM, July 11, 2008
same evidence I have for belief in God in the first place.
(1) god exists.
(2) God is good
(3) that means there's reason to think God would send a blameless person to perdition. Children are blameless because they have not reached accountability.
besides I don't believe in hell so there's no hell for them to go to.
oe,
you're an asshole.
On your fucking website you wrote, "My views on this section ar fairly liberal" in refering to your views of the canonical gospels. I was merely quoting your website and you write me back about your own words the following bullshit, "No it' not. Real liberals tell me I'm neo Orthodox."
Well, fuck you and the horse you road in on. Debate is about honest intellectual discussion, not the bullshit you're tyring to pass off as debate.
my god what an imbecell you are. so fucking you can't reason about it, maybe I wrote that years and years ago and now my views on what is liberal have changed. I fail to see why that jsutifies this outburst of aner and ridiculous name calling.
if that's the level of that's the level of maturlity you have here you aer not worth debating. you hve just provden to me that your whole movment is based upon being very very stuipd. you are too stupid to understand any of this stuff just shut your ignorant mouth you don't undersand it. it's over your dummie.
John do you see what that moron said to me? Because liberalism is a relaitive term. and maybe I wrote that ten years go and now I feel my views are pretty conservative compared to the general drift of the fiedl. what difference does it make?
why should it many mother fucking difference if I say I'm liberal or conservative? that has nothing with the position itself. why do does your little side kick resort to this sort of vitrial? so extremely childish.
I will not play this stupid little game. you people are screwed. you are childish ignrant peices of shit. I wish there were a hell for to go.
btw I'm putting atheistwatch back up. This little childish pieice of shit and his outbrust of hate shows me that the world needs someone who is willing to expose your little game of mob rule. You want to be little bully boys and shout down all who disagere with you mock and ridicule all who dare to refute your stupidity, and force everyone to accept your views at the risk of being brow beatn, but we aer the vast majority and we will not alow you to do this. you are a clear and present danger to rationality and common sense.
same evidence I have for belief in God in the first place.
(1) god exists.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Obviously if there were evidence for God's existence there would be no argument. There is as much evidence for the existence of Yahweh as there is for the existence of Tezcatlipoca. Heck, at least we have an idea what Tezcatlipoca looks like. So obviously if you start with your imagination, you can prove anything.
(2) God is good
Huh? Do you mean Yahweh there? Or is this some other God?
(3) that means there's reason to think God would send a blameless person to perdition. Children are blameless because they have not reached accountability.
Well, now what about an alternative? That when children die they are dead?
How can you be sure any child is "in eternity" when you yourself are not eternal and therefore have no grounds to judge what is and what is not eternal.
Sorry Joe, outbursts of yours aside, you seem not to have thought through the implications your beliefs. Panentheism entails that all God can be is the manifestation of the universe. In the universe organisms die. Lots. So God must either want it to be so, or the demiurge that causes God to be conscious of whatever he is conscious of causes it to be so. So there's no dodge for you there.
hey we gotta get that guy off of here he's beaten the hell out of us. and you can't debate him ty he'll have you for lunch. you better start a brawl so he'll leave and wont bother us anymore.
Evan why don't you just curse at me? Apparently that's the way atheists handle disagreement:
1) god exists.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Obviously if there were evidence for God's existence there would be no argument.
that's stupid. when two sides go into court it is understand both sides have evidence. they are to argue the base based upon the evidence. he procescurtor doesn't' say "O if the accused had any evidence in his favor he wouldn't be accused so therefore they have no evidence."
for that matter why don't they just say "If he was innocent we wouldn't acusse him so he must be guilty?"
There is as much evidence for the existence of Yahweh as there is for the existence of Tezcatlipoca. Heck, at least we have an idea what Tezcatlipoca looks like. So obviously if you start with your imagination, you can prove anything.
that's not an argument. do you see the difference? that's your bigoted prejudiced otherwise known as "opinion. I have 42 arguments for God and everyone of them is real damn good will kick your ass.
I have not given yet, this is not them. This is just the statement that I have them. understand?
(2) God is good
Huh? Do you mean Yahweh there? Or is this some other God?
brilliant! don't even know a purposeful attempt to confuses identity is a fallacy.
(3) that means there's reason to think God would send a blameless person to perdition. Children are blameless because they have not reached accountability.
Well, now what about an alternative? That when children die they are dead?
do you not understand that I'm discussing my beliefs not yours/ do you not get that? I don't believe so therefore I don't say it. do you understand now?
How can you be sure any child is "in eternity" when you yourself are not eternal and therefore have no grounds to judge what is and what is not eternal.
because the bible tells me so
Sorry Joe, outbursts of yours aside, you seem not to have thought through the implications your beliefs.
outburst? what outbust? you people dont' even understand the distiction between a rational argument and foolish prejudice.
Mocking is not refutation. Derision is not argument.
you are a pack of ignorant fools.
Joe,
OMG! That was a great response back! ;) I gotta say, while I really don't enjoy the thought of you suffering, I did enjoy your response. I thought I was pissed... Man, you were (are) so angry at me you could barely type in your post (filled with grammatical errors).
I admit that I over reacted (and for that I apologize) because I was pissed at your insults of telling me I couldn't read or understand how to correctly interpret various genres of literature.
Tell you what, when I die and God sends me to hell for calling you an asshole, I'll make it up to you. You can come visit me and I'll buy you a beer while you have the last laugh.
Even if there is a God, I don't want to worship a God who kills people like Ananias and Sapphira for lying/keeping money back. I used to be liberal in my interpretation of scripture, but I have come to the point of where I don't want to believe in a God who demands perfection, or who makes a world this aweful for half of its inhabitants. More than half of the world live without electricity and the most basic medical care.
For me, by accepting that God doesn't take care of us physically, it has freed me to help care for those in need. Now, I feel more obligated to send $10 or whatever I can afford here or there to charitable causes because I realize that if God exists, he doesn't do that and he has left us in charge of doing it.
I attended church faithfully up to 2 months ago, and believed in a loving, deistic type God. I used to do exactly as you said and I "rationally interpreted" various scriptures under the genre that allowed them to be figurative, symbolic, poetic, or metaphorical when needed.
However, I have come to a point where I am no longer willing to accept that the Bible is the best revelation we have of God. To me, most of it is not even a good revelation. I believe that you could write a better revelation of God than the Bible (other than you'd send me to hell in your version).
I actually have been going through finding for myself all of the unethical things that atheists have had a hayday with for so many years that are in the Bible. There is just so much material that cannot be from God, that it makes me more atheistic in my beliefs all the time.
Joe,
Wow, I missed reading many of your last posts before posting mine.
Apparently it doesn't dawn on you that when you call someone stupid that might call you an asshole?
Look up narcissitic injury if you don't know what it means. You can't treat people like crap, call them stupid, tell them they can't read, tell them they need to go back to school, and then get upset when they tell you to go to hell.
As for, "btw I'm putting atheistwatch back up." I'm not sure what this is, but maybe its a list of atheists. If so, you can put my name at the top of the list. But use my real name, its Toby Canning. I've already told everyone here my real name. When I first started posting on this site I was still a believer and afraid that my family might learn that I was having doubts about my faith. So, I deceitful began my posts under a false name. However, I had never bothered to changed my name here, though I should probably get around to that.
Well, Joe Hinman certainly seems to have hijacked this thread doesn't he?
Joe, I'm utterly confused as to what parts of the Bible you believe to be true, and what parts you don't. You appear to be confused about it yourself.
I simply must address one of Joe's apologetic efforts.
Speaking of God's atrocities, why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira?
"they were trying to rip off the community."
To rip off means to 'defraud' or to 'steal from' Joe. What were Ananias and Sapphira trying to steal? If you make a $100 donation to a charity, rather than $150, are you trying to 'rip off' that charity? How ridiculous.
The story about Ananias and Sapphira was written specifically to scare the bejesus out of any new convert who even thought about holding anything back, and not giving ALL that they had to the newly self-appointed Christian cult leaders. If the mafia demands that you give them $1000 for your own 'protection', are you 'ripping them off' if you only give them $800?
Your argument makes about as much sense as that does.
Joe wrote:
-"outburst? what outbust? you people dont' even understand the distiction between a rational argument and foolish prejudice.
Like your 'rational argument' for the murder of Ananias and Sapphira?
Evan, I think that you've done an excellent job of defending your views over at Triablogue. The guys over there seem to have no sense of humor whatsoever. I wrote a snarky little post commenting on your conversation with them, (in response to the snark and abuse they were heaping upon you), and now they've got the vapours with me! They crack me up. It would be genuinely funny if it wasn't so tragic.
When you scratch the skin of a 'loving Christian' what you often find is a hateful fanatic lurking just beneath the surface. I guess it's only natural, because they worship a violent and hateful god. On another thread over there, they are throwing a hissy fit because I quoted the humourous little ditty; "Donkeys can talk, people can fly, and a man named Jesus lives up in the sky".
They truly must have all had a humour bypass operation. I wonder if that's a prerequisite if you want to be a regular contributer there?
Anyway, good job at exposing the viscious underbelly of Christian fanaticism.
you know what? I have to apologize to Ty. I still think what he did was uncalled for. But I see now what set him off. I didn't see it before.
the statment about "go to school." I didn't mean that the way ti sounded. sometimes I'm really brash but I didn't mean that in that way.
I did say credentials don't matter and that was my way of saying if your arguments are good is doesn't matter if you have a degree. But then I screw it up by being a jerk this way.
well I apologize. I think you could have done that with more grace. But nevertheless. I am sorry.
Joe seriously you need to get beyond yourself here.
There's nothing mocking in my statements at all.
When you assert that God exists and you put no evidence forward to back up that assertion and expect it to stand unchallenged, you must really think you're on some blog other than this one.
Yahweh, the God of the Bible doesn't exist. I can assert as well as you can.
Luckily my assertion fits with every fact known to man.
Joe,
That was decent of you, thanks.
Post a Comment