tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post669159394472536099..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Land of the Free-ThinkersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74480918662276201452007-04-19T02:04:00.000-04:002007-04-19T02:04:00.000-04:00Please provide honest proof about how I am ignoran...<I>Please provide honest proof about how I am ignorant, bigoted and dishonest.</I><BR/><BR/>*points to thread*<BR/><BR/><I>I try to be as far from any of those things...</I><BR/><BR/>Try harder :)<BR/><BR/><I>I am here to spread the good news that there IS love and free life, not arguing and bickering and "intelligent thoughts."</I><BR/><BR/>Oh yes, it is very clear indeed that you are not about "intelligent thoughts".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53334887835822916342007-04-19T00:48:00.000-04:002007-04-19T00:48:00.000-04:00Please provide honest proof about how I am ignoran...Please provide honest proof about how I am ignorant, bigoted and dishonest. I try to be as far from any of those things, and I believe I wasn't the one portraying those things in the previous posts.<BR/><BR/>I am here to spread the good news that there IS love and free life, not arguing and bickering and "intelligent thoughts."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71563133787701342942007-04-18T21:48:00.000-04:002007-04-18T21:48:00.000-04:00The difference is as clear as night and day. Howe...The difference is as clear as night and day. However, the difference is not one of atheist vs. Christian. Rather, it's one of ideas informed by reality vs. baseless assertions. There are many intelligent, rational Christians. Some of my closest friends belong to that distinguished category. You, on the other hand, are ignorant, bigoted, and dishonest, and I would hate for anyone to think you represent Christians in any way.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54732822655994351402007-04-18T21:09:00.000-04:002007-04-18T21:09:00.000-04:00People reading this can surely see the difference ...People reading this can surely see the difference between an athiest and a Christian. I find no use arguing and going down to your level of name calling. The answers are right in front of your face.<BR/><BR/><BR/>BTW: Olive Muslims, Black ChristiansAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48706821422447124812007-04-18T20:43:00.000-04:002007-04-18T20:43:00.000-04:00live-n-grace,So, in other words, you have no data ...live-n-grace,<BR/><BR/>So, in other words, you have no data to support the claim that Christians are MORE persecuted than any other group in the world. Got it. Can't say I'm terribly surprised, since you haven't been able to provide support for ANY claim you've made in this thread.<BR/><BR/>There are indeed sources I would accept as authoritative on the subject of persecution. Amnesty International, for one. They, like I, acknowledge what is happening in Darfur. But I'm curious why you are trying to use it as support of Christian persecution. Because... <BR/><BR/><B>"Race - not religion - is the fundamental fault line in Sudan, though religion has certainly added fuel to the fire in the south."</B><BR/>- Makau Mutua, professor of law and director of the Human Rights Center at the State University of New York at Buffalo<BR/><BR/>Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0714/p09s02-coop.html<BR/><BR/>Christianity is the only religion with a personal relationship between God and worshipper because... you said so? Jews, Muslims, Hindus do not have personal relationships with their respective Gods despite their own testimony because... you said so? How ignorant, how absurd, how laughable.<BR/><BR/>Way to go, btw, on being wrong on the Greeks too. I have to ask: are you actually a brilliant parody troll? Because you're doing a fantastic job of making a mockery of Christians, by making false claims after false claims and showcasing the worst reasoning possible.<BR/><BR/>Oh yes, I believe that the Bible says God is great. So do the scriptures of other religions (Torah, Quoran, Hindu scriptures). But you obviously have dismissed their claims. Why should I believe yours? Again, how do you know you haven't bet your life on the wrong holy text?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24067954370010238642007-04-18T18:16:00.000-04:002007-04-18T18:16:00.000-04:00Where can I get numbers on the persectution of cer...Where can I get numbers on the persectution of certain religions. Only on each religions "own" website, and if I did this you wouldn't except it. I would just think that you are smart enough to know whats going in the world, and I still haven't heard you accept what is going on in North Africa.<BR/><BR/>And, once again, Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ. I hope you understand what a relationship is, HE IS WITH ME ALL THE TIME! He is within me. Sure Muslims and Hindus worship their God, who isn't within them, but that isn't a relationship. <BR/><BR/>Another thing that I ask for you to look up, and not trust me. The Christian God is the only God who is compassionate, like a father, loving, caring, forgiving, and comforts us.<BR/><BR/>Jeremiah 31:<BR/><BR/>The time is coming," declares the LORD,"when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel <BR/>and with the house of Judah. <BR/>32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to [d] them, [e] " declares the LORD. 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. <BR/> "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.I will be their God, and they will be my people.<BR/><BR/>Jeremiah 32<BR/><BR/> I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul.<BR/><BR/><BR/>No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me,from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." <BR/><BR/><BR/>How great and amazing this is! There is no other God who loves like this and has such compassion to send his own son to die for us!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23348000081110637182007-04-17T22:08:00.000-04:002007-04-17T22:08:00.000-04:00live-n-grace,YOU surely have no clue on ANY religi...live-n-grace,<BR/><BR/><I>YOU surely have no clue on ANY religion because Muslims and Jews don't have a personal relationships, unlike Christianity.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Jews believe that there is a single God who not only created the universe, but with whom every Jew can have an individual and personal relationship.</B><BR/><BR/>Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/beliefs/beliefs_1.shtml<BR/><BR/><B>What deed is better than giving gold and silver? According to our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), it is dhikr, which means remembrance of Allah. Dhikr is a form of worship that in importance comes only after the ritual Prayer (salah) and reading Qur'an.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>Isn't it wonderful that as we fulfill our responsibility to gain knowledge of Allah's Physical Creation during our years in school that we can at the same time perform dhikr so that we increase our ability to benefit from that knowledge and become ever closer in our personal relationship with Allah?</B><BR/><BR/>Source: http://www.islamic-world.net/dhikr.php<BR/><BR/>There is also my observation of personal relationships between worshipper and God in Hinduism, which you seem unable or unwilling to address. So much for Christianity being the ONLY religion where the worshipper has a personal relationship with God. Try reading more than just Christian websites.<BR/><BR/><I>I guess you forgot about the Ancient Greeks who built statues and made sacrifices to it only in times of need.</I><BR/><BR/><B>The Greeks participated in a number of rituals, rites, ceremonies and sacrifices in order to impress and placate the Gods. <BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>The Greeks attempted to please the Gods, fearing that they could upset them with insolence and impiety.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>The function of these sacrifices aside from pleasing the Gods was to unite the people in a common and regular pattern and to intergrade them into the city.</B><BR/><BR/>Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/28111/newpage2.htm<BR/><BR/>Who's clueless about religions?<BR/><BR/><I>And, I would like to ask, did you read my post, about Northern Africa. Are you even going to deny whats going on in Darfur?</I><BR/><BR/>Did you read my posts?<BR/><BR/>Your claim: Christians are the MOST persecuted people in the world.<BR/><BR/>My challenge: Provide NUMBERS (on ALL persecuted groups in the world) to show that Christians are MORE persecuted than EVERY OTHER GROUP in the world.<BR/><BR/>I can't break it down any simpler for you.<BR/><BR/>If having your falsehoods corrected blows your patience, too bad. You should either educate yourself so you spout fewer falsehoods, or cultivate more patience. Your choice.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83801717498162464592007-04-17T21:13:00.000-04:002007-04-17T21:13:00.000-04:00Trying not to get rilled up but you really got som...Trying not to get rilled up but you really got some major blinders on. YOU surely have no clue on ANY religion because Muslims and Jews don't have a personal relationships, unlike Christianity. That is one of the few differences between Christianity and Judaism is our relationship with Jesus Christ. I guess you forgot about the Ancient Greeks who built statues and made sacrifices to it only in times of need.<BR/><BR/>And, I would like to ask, did you read my post, about Northern Africa. Are you even going to deny whats going on in Darfur?<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but you just really blew my patience, with your personal attacks and obvious falsities, there is no way else. It seems almost worthless to try and argue with you.<BR/><BR/>I am sorry for everyone else who had to read your post and my post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72335106494934205912007-04-17T20:12:00.000-04:002007-04-17T20:12:00.000-04:00live-n-grace,Another failure to support the "biase...live-n-grace,<BR/><BR/>Another failure to support the "biased media" claim. Another refusal to admit that you were wrong. This is getting truly pathetic.<BR/><BR/><I>I understand people not agreeing with Christianity but to say that Christianity is not the largest persecuted group in the world is completely absurd and ignorant.</I><BR/><BR/>No, what is absurd is you repeatedly trying to make that claim while failing to come up with any statistical support. You have no numbers about persecution faced by other ethnic and religious groups around the world. Without such numbers, you can't make comparisons between persecution of Christians vs. other groups, meaning there's no support for your claim. What is ignorant is you not understanding this, even though I've made this point repeatedly in this thread. So it seems that it is you who is absurd and ignorant.<BR/><BR/><I>Christianity is the only religion that you actually have a RELATIONSHIP with God, with Jesus, not some far figure that dictates, or some statue that you only come to in times of need.</I><BR/><BR/>Jews don't have personal relationships with God? <BR/><BR/>Muslims don't have personal relationships with Allah? <BR/><BR/>Many Hindu's create shrines in their homes dedicated to their chosen form(s) of God. They venerate God by offering items like food, water, or flowers, and performing other actions like burning incense at home shrines. This is not a personal relationship with God?<BR/><BR/>Exactly which religions say that God is just a statue that you come to in times of need?<BR/><BR/>And you still didn't answer my question: how do you know you haven't placed your faith in the wrong religion?<BR/><BR/>Why don't *you* do some research into religions of the world? Your knowledge of non-Christian religions seems woefully lacking. Please, educate yourself.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63150458320791304792007-04-17T17:02:00.000-04:002007-04-17T17:02:00.000-04:00This will also be my last post for quite awhile. ...This will also be my last post for quite awhile. I understand people not agreeing with Christianity but to say that Christianity is not the largest persecuted group in the world is completely absurd and ignorant. A missionary my family knows, in Sri Lanka, said that over 4o churches were attacked and another 140 were forced to close. In the ENTIRETY of north Africa, Muslims are killing Christians, and by far worse measures than anything in the United States.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it takes faith to believe in what can't be seen. But I personally see a huge difference between Christianity and other religions. Christianity is the only religion that you actually have a RELATIONSHIP with God, with Jesus, not some far figure that dictates, or some statue that you only come to in times of need. I ask you to do research yourself, and find the amazing differences between Christianity and other religions. In my eyes, it really isn't a religion, but rather a relationship.<BR/><BR/>I am a man of faith,<BR/>A man who believes in what he can’t see.<BR/>I am like a tree planted by streams of water,<BR/>My leaves never wither and I produce fruit in all seasons.<BR/>I take the path of life, though it is narrow,<BR/>Not the path of destruction though it is wide.<BR/>I live a life of purpose, <BR/>Every breath is a gift, everyday is a joy,<BR/>Love is my best revenge.<BR/>My life is set on The Rock, firm and strong<BR/>Not on the sand, weak and shallow.<BR/>I am in the world, but not of the world,<BR/>This is not my home.<BR/>I am a free man, my chains have been broken,<BR/>From sin I am set free.<BR/>Through all this it is not I who am strong,<BR/>It is not in myself that I found salvation.<BR/>It is not in any deed of my doing<BR/>Or good life I’ve lived. <BR/>No, it is by His grace that I am saved.<BR/>For it is no longer I who live<BR/>But Jesus Christ in me!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Amen! This is the truth of Christianity, not people who "are better than others", not some God who can be pulled out of your pocket in times of need, and not a God who only knows your sins. NO! It is love and forgiveness and grace.<BR/><BR/>If you are ever in need of true peace, not worldly peace, then come to Jesus and live!<BR/>Amen!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50411719449269662162007-04-17T00:21:00.000-04:002007-04-17T00:21:00.000-04:00Kyle,An idea that's come up a couple times in your...Kyle,<BR/><BR/>An idea that's come up a couple times in your comments is that atheism inevitably leads to moral relativism, because there can be no system of morality without an external grounding authority, such as God. In other words, atheists have looser/worse morals, because we think anything goes, right? A popular idea, to be sure, but not one borne out by evidence.<BR/><BR/>Moral Relativism and the Catholic Church:<BR/><BR/>http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=398<BR/><BR/>Christians experience higher divorce rates than Atheists, Conservative Christians experience higher divorce rates than other Christians, and the Bible Belt has higher divorce rates than other areas of the US:<BR/><BR/>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm<BR/><BR/>"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies":<BR/><BR/>http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html<BR/><BR/>Another study, which suggests strong belief in both God and the Devil, such as espoused by Evangelicals, is correlated with high homicide rates:<BR/><BR/>http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html<BR/><BR/>Contrary to popular belief, the US is one of the <B>least</B> generous nations when it comes to giving aid to developing countries, trailing many more secular countries:<BR/><BR/>http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html#Aid<BR/><BR/>Just for fun, the last link also gives many comparisons that shows the US trailing more secular nations in many areas, like life expectancy, adults at high literacy level, and eco-friendliness.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76027571409948046622007-04-16T23:11:00.000-04:002007-04-16T23:11:00.000-04:00Mr. Benton, Thanks for your good wishes, my lady a...Mr. Benton, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your good wishes, my lady and I did have a nice weekend :)<BR/><BR/>live-n-grace,<BR/><BR/><I>First off I said that Christians and fat people are the only OPEN targets in America, in that I'm talking about the media.</I><BR/><BR/>Nice try. So it's back to the "biased media" claim that you made in the beginning of this thread. Well, in the second post in the thread, I raised the counter-point that this "biased media" allows Christian terrorists to get away with assault, arson, and murder, so if there's any bias, it's not in the direction you claim. You never did address this. If you want to claim that the US media is biased against Christians, please explain how Christian extremists are literally getting away with murder.<BR/><BR/>I would also like to get some closure on the other unsupported claims you try to make in this thread. Such as <B>"Christianity is BY FAR the largest persecuted group and religion in the entire WORLD."</B>. I challenged you to provide evidence, and the only thing you gave was one article with unsubstantiated numbers, by an author with a history of writing articles containing falsehoods. If you're no longer sticking by that claim, I totally understand, in light of the lack of support for it. But have the courtesy to admit you were wrong, rather than just slinking away from the claims and hoping that no one notices.<BR/><BR/>In subsequent posts, it seems like you're saying that certain parts of the Bible can only be understood if one has faith. But the same can be said by followers of any other religion. Maybe their holy text doesn't make sense to you because you don't have the proper faith. How does one decide which holy text to have faith in? Are you sure you have faith in the right text?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31296283224649954982007-04-16T21:01:00.000-04:002007-04-16T21:01:00.000-04:00Looks like you won't get rid of me that easy. The...Looks like you won't get rid of me that easy. The Gonzalez hearings have been postponed until Thursday.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6177727230631810332007-04-16T20:43:00.000-04:002007-04-16T20:43:00.000-04:00And yet again to liv-n-grace. And again a good re...And yet again to liv-n-grace. And again a good reply. But of course I have my disagreements.<BR/><BR/>First, on Psalm 34 -- if it refers to a 'righteous man' and the only one who can be called that, why does it say 'and his ears are attentive to <B><I>their</I></B> cry.' The psalm is speaking of righteous men, believers, followers of the law, not making a specific comment about Jesus or it would not have used the plural. Read the entire Psalm and see what it actually says.<BR/><BR/>But in fact, the reference is not to the Psalm, but to Exodus 11:46. Jesus was seen as the ultimate Passover Sacrifice (the 'Paschal Lamb') by early Christians, the replacement for the traditional sacrifice, and thus the reference.<BR/><BR/>You say that 'the list you made of what you found untruthful about the bible are all from faith' but it isn't. The Resurrection and the Virgin Birth are. (Interesting, the Proto-Gospel of James describes a midwife who supposedly examined Mary and confirmed the virginity.)<BR/><BR/>But the Trial of Jesus is not, nor is the March of the Dead -- Matthew claims that many people in Jerusalem saw them, nor is the extent of the Davidic kingdom, the Noachian Flood, whether the Jews were, in fact, 'slaves in Egypt.' Each of these, were it to be true would have left evidence that could be discovered. Instead, in every case the evidence is that they did not happen.<BR/><BR/>(I also repeat that the Resurrection is at least implausible even if you ignore the miraculous aspect because there would have been ways in which Jesus could have demonstrated it to unbiased observers, by walking into the Sanhedrin, or into Pilate's Palace. Doing it the way he is supposed to is either utterly stupid, or totally callous, condemning many to unbelief -- and as you would have it damnation -- when he could have acted in such a way that so many more would have been convinced, when the conversion of Rome could have been speeded up by over 250 years.<BR/><BR/>(And again, I still insist that either the Incarnation could have waited until after printing was invented, or God could have inspired its invention, so we wouldn't have so many variant manuscripts, so we wouldn't have lost the many other Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypses that early Christians used, so we wouldn't still be arguing if the 'story of the woman taken in adultery' ("let whoever is without sin cast the first stone') was in fact a part of the Gospel or, as most scholars now insist was a much later addition.<BR/><BR/>As for REVELATIONS, I can only wish that you'd find a copy of Enslin's CHRISTIAN BEGINNINGS or other books that deal with the whole subject of Apocalyptic Literature -- it's Chapter 37 in Enslin. (the pb edition divided the book into two parts, CHRISTIAN BEGINNINGS and THE LITERATURE OF THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT. It's in the second part.) Again, you can find it, and Ehrman's LOST SCRIPTURES and LOST CHRISTIANITIES on Questia.com. You might be surprised to see what scholars have to say about the whole type of writing (including DANIEL).<BR/><BR/>I may not be posting much over the next couple of days, btw. I want to get the ethics post worked on, and also want to see the Gonzales hearings, so my time might be shorter than usual. But I know me, and probably won't be able to resist some comments.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85650903687352258012007-04-16T20:07:00.000-04:002007-04-16T20:07:00.000-04:00Kyle: Some interesting points, and some I have to ...Kyle: Some interesting points, and some I have to challenge.<BR/>First, if the idea of God was to favor 'monogamous marriages' why is polygamy fully accepted in the Bible -- though only for men. Read carefully Leviticus 18 (I discussed this before) and you will see that the distinctions made only make sense in a polygamous society. Verse 7 prohibits sexual relations with your mother (interesting that these regulations were only written for men) and verse 8 makes a separate prohibition with having sex with 'your father's wife.' Verse 9 prohibits sex with your sister, but feels it necessary to mention 'either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter,' again a distinction meaningless except in a polygamous society -- and no, this was not a 'special exemption for the Patriarchs,' these regulations are for Israel as a whole.<BR/>I have also argued that the mention of a special requirement for an overseer that he be 'the husband of but one wife' in both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 implies that this is NOT a regulation for Christians as a whole, or why mention it. The other requirements are not redundancies but all imply that an 'overseer' (or deacon, or bishop) must be better than the average Christian.<BR/>And for a secular corroboration, read the opening to Josephus' Autobiography, where again the description of his brother implies polygamy.<BR/><BR/>I would, by the way, equally condemn 'sexual immorality' but would not mean by it what you do. For me sexual immorality occurs in the way each partner treats each other, and not in who does what to whom. Deceit, force, disrespect, acting irresponsibly or refusing to take responsibility for ones action, these are the essence of sexual immorality as of any immorality. I do not see homosexuality, or, for that matter, fornication as immorality. (Yes, I WILL get those posts on ethics up.)<BR/>Again, the essence of immorality has nothing to do with God or Jesus, but with the other partner, who is the one who needs to have forgiveness asked.<BR/><BR/>But again, if you feel the way you do, by all means act according to it. That is your right -- in your eyes your duty -- as long as you do not attempt to enforce such beliefs on others -- as you do not by your statement.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21309023764268501612007-04-16T18:14:00.000-04:002007-04-16T18:14:00.000-04:00Thanks for your great post too Prup!First off, I b...Thanks for your great post too Prup!<BR/><BR/>First off, I believe that those 4 books were inspired by God and especially revelation, in that God gave a revealing of the future to God. But I never knew that Luther said that, but that is his opinion.<BR/><BR/>Next, I noticed that the list you made of what you found untruthful about the bible are all from faith. If you don't have faith in Christ, and thus the bible, then I understand why those things won't be true to you.<BR/><BR/>In fact the bible said the universe "rolls out like a scroll" and not until recently did men begin to find this phenomenon.<BR/><BR/>"Not a bone of his shall be broken" I believe is in Psalm 34, says A Righteous man, and Jesus is the only one that can be called that, not a lamb.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the bible wasn't written for people to look back and say wow, or for you, what, but rather for how to live now, and what to espect in the future. However much of the old testament is to look back and say wow, but more so to learn of God and other peoples mistakes and triumphs.<BR/><BR/>And I realize now that the Alexander question was a terrible one, he was a much different person than Jesus. He came to conquer while Jesus came humbly and as a servent. I should expect more historical evidence from Alexander (coins and papers) rather than Jesus. I'm sorry for that question.<BR/><BR/>It would have been better to have chosen a servant who did great deeds humbly, in a small area, but then I don't know of any, as most people probably don't.<BR/><BR/>I realize that you don't deny that Jesus lived, like most historians, but rather his acts. This is only by faith to have believed in what he did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13547305150393851462007-04-16T11:14:00.000-04:002007-04-16T11:14:00.000-04:00And now for Kyle. In the first place, I don't bel...And now for Kyle. In the first place, I don't believe I ever suggested YOU should be tolerant, in your private life. You have every right to your beliefs, and to act on them -- within limits, thus you do NOT have a right to act on intolerance by assaulting a member of the group you are intolerant of.<BR/>You also have every right to convince others -- in the 'public forum' -- of the rightness of an intolerant position. (I have a problem with certain areas which I do not consider 'public forums' an argument I have had repeatedly on Ed Brayton's blog. I do not believe that a teacher has a right to teach intolerance, for example, nor do I believe -- using the case of the Westbrook people -- that funerals are 'the public forum.' And -- only because of the continued existence of gay bashing <I>in the literal sense</I> -- I can understand schools acting against students who display bigoted statements on their t-shirts, though this is a tricky one that I would decide on the specifics of the general case.)<BR/><BR/>The question becomes whether a government, acting under our Constitution can, as you put it, 'impose tolerance on me.' And it is very relevant that this discussion occurs the day after Jackie Robinson Day was celebrated throughout baseball.<BR/>I am old enough to remember when segregation was the law in many states, when 'anti-miscegenation' laws existed in others, when hotels could be allowed to refuse to rent a room to me and a female companion if she happened to be black. (I even had a friend, liberal on all other aspects of civil rights, with whom I was to be sharing a room at a SF convention. I asked him if I could bring along a girl friend. "No problem." She's black. "Sorry, I can't deal with that.")<BR/>I also know that segregation was supported by the majority of Christian ministers in the South as 'the word of God' backed up by biblical quotations. (It was also opposed by many ministers, priests, rabbis and believers from the North who risked their lives going south to fight against it.)<BR/>So I'l turn the question back at you, and respond to your response. Did the Goverbnment have the right to pass civil rights laws, to outlaw miscegenation, to outlaw segregation, even though the proponents of such were acting according to both their own consciences and to how they interpreted their religious duty?<BR/><BR/>As for your question "If atheism is true, where do the universal laws of morality come from?" I will (pending my own long-promised articles which I will begin to get out this week) first turn the question back at you. "If our moral sense is a 'gift from a god' and he provides 'universal laws of morality' is this not proof that the Bible is NOT 'the Word of God' since it does not include a comprehensive, consistent, nuanced, or acceptable code of morality in either the Old or New Testament?"<BR/>In fact, one of the examples that our ethical sense is an evolving factor is the consistent abandonment of ideas which had Biblical sanction -- animal sacrifice, communal holding of property, Levirate marriage, slavery, even absolute monarchy, all of which are plainly supported in the Bible.<BR/>Of course this has been accompanied by the continual attempt by believers to 'reinterpret' the words of scripture so as to bring its ideas into coordination with the currently accepted moral standards. (This was the true accomplishment of the Pharisees -- despite the way they were slandered in the NT -- the writers of the Talmud, and later of many Christian writers on ethics and moral philosophy.)<BR/>It might be useful for you to look into writers at various ages and to see how, with as much sincerity and cleverness as do today's believers, they argued for positions that we would now consider abhorrent.<BR/><BR/>I will get to the next portion of your letter later, but the cats are insistently reminding me that they are hungry, and I can't feed them until I do my twice weekly changing and washing of the cat boxes. Sorry, but see you later.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86152140966024784122007-04-16T02:38:00.000-04:002007-04-16T02:38:00.000-04:00Liv-n-grace: (btw, its late, Kyle, so I may not g...Liv-n-grace: (btw, its late, Kyle, so I may not get around to you until morning)<BR/><BR/>I want to say that this may be one of the best posts I've seen from you. You ask a number of good questions -- many of which I HAVE answered, some repeatedly. I'll answer them again, only this time, please notice that I have answered them.<BR/><BR/>First, Luther and the Bible. What I SAID was that there were four books of the New Testament which Luther did not consider 'canonical' which he did not consider authoritative or the 'Word of God.' These are HEBREWS, JAMES, JUDE and REVELATIONS. Now my authority for this was Wikipedia, which is usually pretty reliable on Academic subjects, but I realized that I should have investigated more, so I sent an e-mail to a friend of mine who is a believing evangelical Christian who is also getting his doctorate in Theology from the University of Tubingen -- and whose blog was recently ranked #2 on a list of 'best blogs about Biblical Studies -- asking him if he could confirm this. (Since Tubingen is in Germany he can get good references, which I will post as soon as he gets back to me. And, of course, if this isn't true, I'll post that as well.)<BR/><BR/>What do I find untruthful in the Bible? A very partial list:<BR/>The Creation Story<BR/>The Noachian Flood<BR/>The Covenant with Abraham<BR/>The whole story of the Jews' flight from Egypt (they were never there)<BR/>The story of Sodom and Gomorrah<BR/>The magnitude of David and Solomon's kingdom (which was, if it existed, rather small)<BR/>The visit of the Magi<BR/>The Virgin Birth<BR/>The Resurrection<BR/>The March of the Dead that Matthew recounts<BR/>The Trial of Jesus (all of the versions contradict each other, and none of them are even conceivably true given what we know about the Sanhedrin, Jewish life, and Jewish Legal Procedure).<BR/>I could include many other things, all the purported miracles, anything listed that occurred pre-David, the vision of John (which was a very common literary format, not a real vision)<BR/><BR/>If the Bible HAD predicted that a man named Prup would turn against God, I would be very impressed -- since I expect I'm the only Prup. For that matter, if the Bible had, specifically, predicted or stated one unambigous scientific truth that was not known when it was written -- the world is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, that their existed a new continent to the West that had not been seen by anyone but those who moved there or many others (I'm not asking for formulas of Quantum Mechanics, just something this simple) -- I would have to rethink my doubts.<BR/><BR/><B>BUT IT DOESN'T</B><BR/><BR/>The Prophecy of Daniel was, like REVELATION a form of literature that was common at the time, making a political statement disguised in certain standard visionary forms. There are others in the Bible, and more that 'didn't make the cut.'<BR/><BR/>The fact is that Christians wrote the Bible to attempt to fit the story of Jesus into the Prophecies -- and other statements from the Old Testament. "Not a bone of his shall be broken' refers in fact to one of the rules for the lamb that was used for the Passover. Christians re-interpreted this so as to make the figure of Jesus the new Passover Sacrifice. <BR/><BR/>You say that the Bible was written for the present, please tell me what you mean by 'the present' and whether you consider the Christians of every past era who both said the same for THEIR present, and who also argued that the 'signs of the end-time' were visible in their era were mistaken? (And if they were -- and if you insist, I've seen a list of past predictions of the end that I'll dig up and refer you to) why are you not as wrong as they were?<BR/><BR/>Your question on Alexander is a beautiful one, because it makes my point perfectly -- and please note that, unlike many atheists, I do not deny that Jesus lived. It is by no means certain, but it is probable that he did.<BR/>But for Alexander we have contemporary accounts from a vast number of INDEPENDENT sources, archaeological evidence, evidence of coins, evidence of inscriptions on buildings, historical accounts from many different sources who were able to interview witnesses, etc.,etc.<BR/>For Jesus we have no reliable historical references to him -- the one or two that mention him are demonstrably fradulent later additions to manuscripts -- except for the 18 Gospels (the four in the Bible and the 14 -- at least -- that didn't meet the acceptance of the Council of Nicea) that are not contemporary, not eyewitness testimony, contradict each other, and are hardly unbiased independent outside sources. We have some mention of a group called "Christian" but this no more demonstrates the existence of Christ than the -- more numerous and less dubious -- references to the Essenes proves that their Prophet, the 'Teacher of Righteousness,' and his enemy 'the Wicked Priest' were real people. (They are generally considered not to be.)<BR/><BR/>Sorry Kyle, as predicted, I'll have to wait until tomorrow to answer you.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68749578005076046192007-04-16T01:49:00.000-04:002007-04-16T01:49:00.000-04:00Prup,I would like to hear the moral basis for your...Prup,<BR/>I would like to hear the moral basis for your judgment that *I* should be tolerant? (Again, I am seeking to get you to flesh out your belief, not to argue for intolerance directly though I think it is appropriate in some circumstances.) When someone says that I should be tolerant and not force my morals on others, that is imposing the moral of tolerance on me. So imposing morals on others apparently is not a problem. Why are my morals not OK to impose while it is OK to impose tolerance on me? Do you see what I'm saying? I think people are making up the rules as they go along but don't have a basis for the tolerance they expect me to follow. If atheism is true, where do the universal laws of morality come from? If tolerance is nothing more than the preference of some people then I can see no reason why I am obligated to follow it other than social pressures. There is no binding Enforcer who will punish me for my disobedience to obey the Law of Tolerance. I might lose some friends but I won't be in danger of judgment.<BR/><BR/>You asked me to explain why homosexuality is immoral if I believe it. Firstly, my views come from the Bible. I do not have a personal preference as to whether it should or should not be moral. Before I was a Christian I did not have any moral objections to it. Now that I believe that God wrote the Bible, I conclude that homosexuality is contra God's design and based on that it is immoral. God's design was monogomous, lifelong, male-female marriages. Any deviation from this created order is an offense to God who has the right as Creator to define what human sexuality is meant for. In our sinful fallen world, people are sexually immoral in a number of ways. All these things are hurtful to the soul and/or body and result in seperation from God. Anyone who repents can be forgiven since the Gospel message is one of redemption for those who repent. Since I believe immorality is hurtful to those who practice it, I wish to tell them so and encourage them to find forgiveness from Jesus. <BR/><BR/>For the record, I do not believe that the Bible teaches for governments to prohibit homosexuality (excluding the Jewish Theocratic State which no longer exists). I am grieved when I hear that homosexuals are persecuted and mistreated. It is a crime against them and God will judge those who harm and abuse homosexuals verbally or physically. God is impartial in his judgment. I do not consider telling people what God says about homosexuality to be abuse of homosexuals, though it is understandably hard to hear or accept.<BR/><BR/>Smarmily yours :),<BR/>KyleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30637036061205105812007-04-15T17:36:00.000-04:002007-04-15T17:36:00.000-04:00The only reason we believe murder to be immoral is...The only reason we believe murder to be immoral is that it wrong, period. So goes for other things, as we have the knowledge of good and evil. <BR/><BR/>Can you enlighten me where Martin Luther said that the bible was not God's word and also excluding revelation? <BR/><BR/>It is your choice to believe it to be true or untrue, but I don't know what you find untruthful in the bible.<BR/><BR/>I guess even if the bible predicted you that a man by the name of Prup would turn on God, that you wouldn't believe it. You would say that luck happens, or that your actual name isn't Prup, so then it isn't true. Or you could also pull of the excuse that it was written after the fact, just like you did with the prophecys of Daniel which the Jews HAD, and also the prophecys of not only Jesus coming but dying on the cross, being lifted up on a cross, having none of his bones broken, the list can go on and on. It dosn't matter what was written, cause then you'll say well it doesn't really fit, someone could have changed it, or was Jesus really here? I realize that no matter what I say or show, you'll come up with some if or but.<BR/><BR/>The key to the bible is that it is not some historical book, but was written for the present.<BR/><BR/>Challange: I don't believe in Alexander the Great, prove to me he was alive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38330845584762769472007-04-15T14:09:00.000-04:002007-04-15T14:09:00.000-04:00Liv-n-grace:You asked me a few posts back if I'd r...Liv-n-grace:<BR/>You asked me a few posts back if I'd read what you posted. I'll ask you if you've read anything I have posted. No, I do not believe the Bible is "God's Word" anymore than you believe that the Qur'an is "God's Word" -- even though a billion Muslims are as convinced about it as you are about the Bible. (I don't just deny the Bible, I deny that God exists. Remember, I'm an atheist.)<BR/><BR/>But I have to ask you 'which Bible,' and again, why you accept the choice of the Council of Nicea as to which books should be included and which excluded.<BR/><BR/>In particular, you quoted Hebrew to me. Are you aware that both Martin Luther and John Calvin did not consider it cononical, did not consider it "God's Word"? Why should I acceot your statement that it is over the word of the two greatest founders of Protestant Christianity. (They also excluded Revelation, btw.)<BR/>This is why I have repeatedly challenged you to show, reasonably and logically how my actions would have been immoral. I demonstrated some arguments that murder was immoral, without using the Bible or any 'argument from God." Can you do the same. Because, for the tenth time, quoting the Bible as an authority to me is as meaningless as a Zoroastrian quoting the Avesta to you.<BR/>And remember, I WAS a believer -- though not of your type. And I did not leave Christianity because it was 'uncomfortable,' I left it because it was UNTRUE!Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76592371962629639272007-04-15T12:00:00.000-04:002007-04-15T12:00:00.000-04:00If you deny the bible, then you deny God's word, i...If you deny the bible, then you deny God's word, it's alive and it's a double-edge sword that cuts to the soul. I just think you're afraid of the truths in the bible, and can never answer a passage from the bible except for: "I can't take it."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54141441833230014362007-04-15T02:08:00.000-04:002007-04-15T02:08:00.000-04:00Liv-n-grace:Yes, the answer is 'right in there,' i...Liv-n-grace:<BR/>Yes, the answer is 'right in there,' if you accept the Bible as either the 'Word of God' or even if you accept it as just a reliable moral guide. I do neither. Remember, i deny the existence of a God as certainly as you deny that Ahura Mazda is a god. I certainly deny that this particular selection out of the many texts that were created by early Christianity represents anything but the Athanasian side of the many disputes that sprung up in those times. (Yes, guys, watch out, Questia includes Ehrman's LOST SCRIPTURES and LOST CHRISTIANITIES. Knowing me, something tells me that I'll be using both.)<BR/><BR/>Again, I challenge you to explain how my conduct I mentioned last night would be considered immoral WITHOUT using the Bible.<BR/><BR/>As to what i wrote, I simply gave examples, as I had in my initial posts, of other claimed 'commandments from god' that you would not accept because you do not accept the author of those books as being God. (Well, almost, I'm still waiting for your comment on the piece on private property -- even as an aside.)<BR/><BR/>And Benny, a belated Happy Birthday, and I am sure you and your girlfriend are celebrating in ways I would approve of, if liv-n-grace wouldn't. Look forward to your contributions when you get back.)Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43114202039055773152007-04-14T19:16:00.000-04:002007-04-14T19:16:00.000-04:00Mr. Benton,My hat's off to you for your recent pos...Mr. Benton,<BR/><BR/>My hat's off to you for your recent posts. I have some words of my own for Kyle and our resident homilist (whom I notice finally got the courage to pick a pseudonym), but I'm out of town this weekend celebrating my birthday with my girlfriend, and cannot devote the proper amount of time to this project. Keep fighting the good fight, and I'll see everyone Monday :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41952350019244182942007-04-14T16:13:00.000-04:002007-04-14T16:13:00.000-04:00Did you read what I posted, or did you just scan t...Did you read what I posted, or did you just scan through it and ignore the whole of it. The answer is right there and I don't know what you wrote, because it had anything to do with it.<BR/><BR/>I guess you are mistaken between the old testament and the new testament.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com