Reason Rally: Do You Know The Bible?

Does having read the Bible mean you know the Bible? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

One step I’ve taken for dialogue with people of other faiths like Muslims or Mormons is to have read their religious works. Thus, I have read the Koran and I have read the BOM, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Book of Abraham. However, that does not mean that I will claim to know these books well, certainly not as well as the adherents of those who treat those books as divine revelation.

In other areas, one can read the plays of Shakespeare, such as Romeo and Juliet, and have a basic understanding of what is going on, but to get a substantial understanding, one really needs to study the culture of Shakespeare and the style of writing he used and the meaning of the words back then.

Richard Dawkins recently made a big deal about how many Christians don’t know their Bibles because they did not know the name of the first gospel in the NT. I agree that that is problematic, but let us suppose someone does know the name of the first gospel in the NT? So what? That does not prove that they know the gospel. That proves they can memorize.

N.T. Wright has issued a challenge in a lecture to encourage people to memorize the book of Ephesians verse by verse. Let us suppose that someone did do that. It does not matter if they are an atheist or a Christian. At the end of the process, even if they can quote the whole book verbatim, does that mean that they know the book?

Again, not really. They can know the words of the book, but that is not the same as knowing the content and what those words all mean. Scholars can spend their lives studying just one book of the Bible and still have much about that book that they do not know.

This, of course, does not mean that a simple message cannot be grasped by reading the book. One can read the book and understand that there is no longer a divide between Jew and Gentile and that our lives ought to be lived knowing that Christ has torn apart this wall of division.

To grasp the simple message is not the same as to grasp the deep message. I could tell you about the Brothers Karamazov since I have read the book, but that does not mean that I could tell you as much as a professor of Russian Literature could tell you about the book.

What many atheists have done is what I’ve done with the BOM and other works. They have read the works and assumed that because they’ve read them, that they thus have an understanding of them. In a sense, you do have an understanding of them, but it is not really a substantial understanding of them. Indeed, many Christians, far too many, lack a substantial understanding of their Bibles.

To really understand the Bible, one needs to study many areas. Just what are these and why do they matter?

First, studying the languages would be very helpful. We do have numerous references on Greek and Hebrew that can help the layman who has not learned them yet (And I freely confess I need to still find a good teacher of these languages for myself), but the most helpful way is to be able to read them yourself.

With knowing the languages, you have to know not only the word, but what the word meant to the author. For instance, we are often told that for the NT, faith meant to believe in something without evidence. The Greek word for faith is “pistis.” Is that what it means? What someone can do, and many have done this for us as well, is to do a word study of the word not just in the New Testament, but in other works. Did Aristotle use it? Did Seneca? Did Plato? Did the Jews at Qumran? Did the Septuagint? How else can we find this word being used?

If we come with our own definitions of what the word means, we are not only misrepresenting the author and making them say what they never meant to say, but we are in fact missing the true message that the author of the work in question wishes to convey.

Second, you need a study of history. In reading the gospels, we read about Pharisees and Sadducees. They do not show up anywhere in the Old Testament. Who were these groups? Did they just come out of nowhere? What was going on in Israel at the time? What was the relation to Rome? Did the Jews coming out of exile have anything to say about what was going on?

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. What did this mean? Were there other Messianic claimants? How did the idea of the Messiah fit into the history of the Jews? When Jesus made the claim to them, what would they think about him in relation to the presence of Rome at the time?

When Paul is writing his epistles, what is going on? When he says “Jesus is Lord” is he just having an old-fashioned revival service where we just shout “Praise the Lord!” or is he in fact making a direct challenge where he is saying “Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not!”?

Third, you need to know about the landscape at the time. Paul wrote to Philippi, a Roman colony at the time. Does it make a difference when he writes and tells them that their citizenship is in Heaven, especially in light of the fact that all of them would have been citizens of Rome?

Fourth, you need to know about the surrounding culture? What was the big deal about honor in the world of Jesus and the New Testament? When the Old Testament talks about slavery, how did that work in the culture back then? Does it matter that there was not a grocery store just down the street for every one?

What about the Old Testament Law with this? Why would God give a darn about tattoos? Are we supposed to put up railings around our roof? If we say we believe in “Do not murder” but do not believe in “Do not wear mixed fabrics” are we just being arbitrary?

Fifth, you need to study hermeneutics. What is the way the text is to be interpreted? When Jesus tells us that we are to hate our father and mother, is this to be taken literally or not? When the proverbs are read, are these ironclad or just generalities? When Jesus tells about the calamities of Matthew 24, are these to be read literally or not? How are we to understand what the text means?

Sixth, with that text, you need to understand textual criticism. How did we get the Bible that we have today? What role did oral tradition play in it? How was the Old Testament passed down to us? How is it that the New Testament has been passed down to us? Can we really trust that the text was copied accurately?

Seventh, you need to understand post-NT history. What was going on at Nicea? Who were the Early Church Fathers? Has the Reformation shaped our understanding of the culture? Are we reading the Trinity into the Bible or out of the Bible? (For the record, we read it out)

Eighth, you need to study theology. What is the doctrine of God in Christian thinking? Does the Trinity really teach that God is one person and three persons, or is it something really quite different? What does it mean when we say God is omnipotent? If we say God is impassible, what does it mean and does it really make a difference?

Ninth, you must be well-read in what real scholars are saying. Of course, Christians can feel free to read devotional literature. We should be discerning in what we read. There is no doubt good application to much of what the Bible says, but we want to make sure that application is faithful to the text. Devotional material needs to be rooted in scholarly understanding.

When we read a text that is puzzling, we not only wrestle with it ourselves, but we also see what other great minds said about it. Perhaps a Calvinist could be helped by reading what an Arminian like Wesley said about a text. Perhaps a Preterist could be helped by reading what a Dispensationalist like Darby said about the text. We need to be open to reading other thinkers who came before us and interacted with the text. We Christians should not be so arrogant, as I believe Spurgeon said, to believe that we are the only ones the Holy Spirit has ever shared truth with.

The man of the book will be a man of many books. The Bible has a message that is simple in some ways. However, it is also a complex book and one does not fully understand it just by reading on one’s own or getting even a basic understanding in the text through Sunday School or other such means.

Please note also that at this point, I am not even telling anyone to agree with the Bible. You can understand the Bible and still think it is wrong. I would disagree, but it can improve our discussion if we find out that those we dialogue with have really understood the text.

With the Reason Rally coming up, what I expect is simply argument from outrage with new atheists taking passages they do not understand and arguing about them. As it stands, I already in a place I dialogue at have seen arguments concerning Elisha and the two bears, a woefully misunderstood story. Note that saying there is something in the Bible you do not like is not the same as saying it is false. I do not like being told I am a sinner and that my way is not always the best way, but it is there in the Bible and I learn to accept it.

Hopefully, a number of atheists will be willing to do their homework and go get some books by evangelical scholars on studying the text. Atheists have long wanted Christians to study evolution before criticizing it. I agree. I would not be qualified to criticize evolution even if I had read the entirety of the Origin of Species. That would be just a start. I’d need to hunker down and really study the subject matter in much the same way.

Will atheists do the same? I’m skeptical, but we can hope.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Advertisements

Tags:

73 Responses to “Reason Rally: Do You Know The Bible?”

  1. J. P. Holding Says:

    *channeling fundy atheist*

    If God really loved is He wouldn’t have made it so hard. Doesn’t he know my favorite TV show is on?

  2. Simplexion Says:

    My sky daddy’s handbook is very hard to understand. There is a magical super special happy way to read it correctly. If you don’t read it this way you can’t criticise it because these are my rules.

  3. Mikel Says:

    I think a quote from Thomas Paine is appropriate here:

    “It has happened that all the answers which I have seen to the former part of the Age of Reason have been written by priests; and these pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and pretend to understand the Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that Thomas Paine understands it not.” –Thomas Paine, from The Age of Reason

    The main atheistic point about the Bible is that it is written by humans, reflects all the values and bigotries of the time when it was written, and contains not a single ounce of true divine inspiration that came from outside of the brains of humans. It is just another piece of ancient literature, and holds no authoritative weight whatsoever. Claims of the authority of the Bible have been used to justify things like slavery and oppose things like women’s equal rights, and that is only a small subset of the harm the Bible has inspired. The talk of how horrible and barbaric certain Bible stories are only serves to highlight the point that it is a human book, not divine.

  4. apologianick Says:

    Well Mikel, how about presenting a passage or two that clearly demonstrates what you claim and have us discuss them rather than make assertions and not give any examples?

  5. apologianick Says:

    JPH. I think March’s screwballs will have to be expanded to make room for everything the SImpleton has said.

  6. Simplexion Says:

    Yes, Mikel. You must now present him passages from the Bible that he has already read thoroughly and should be able to provide without even picking it up.
    Although, he might have trouble recalling all the bad bits, because he only takes in the parts that support his religion.

  7. apologianick Says:

    Sorry Simpleton. I know all the “bad bits” also. Which ones do you want?

    Do you want to talk about Lot and his daughters?

    Do you want to talk about homosexuality?

    Do you want to talk about the conquest of Canaan?

    Do you want to talk about Elisha and the 42 bears?

    Do you want to talk about how happy is he who takes your infants and dashes them against the stones?

    Do you want to talk about Hell in the NT?

    Do you want to talk about stoning a child for being disobedient?

    Or stoning a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath?

    Or slavery?

    Unlike you Simpleton, I actually read what people write who disagree with me and I’ve gone through the atheist material that’s refrain after refrain of argument from outrage.

    For people who value rationality so much, you sure use argument from emotion a lot.

  8. Simplexion Says:

    What is atheist material? Again… I will say this. A rock can be an atheist.
    Do you mean sceptical material?

    Oh, and look. You just listed all of the bits of the Bible that you were asking Mikel to present to you. Wasn’t that easy? All it took was a few seconds of thought on your part.

    Where was my argument from emotion? I think it was more an argument from humour.

    • J. P. Holding Says:

      A rock can be an atheist? That explains a lot about why you’re one — and about the content of your head.

      You have no idea how stupid you look with your comments. No doubt a leftover (again) from how stupid you used to look when you randomly quoted Biblical texts.

      Yeah, we have a “magical super special happy way” to read the Bible. It’s called SCHOLARSHIP.

      • Simplexion Says:

        What? Scholarship? No way! Are you serious? Who would have thought that you study the Bible? You study it… and then you think about it.
        Yep, wow… that is so hard to do. Do I need to go to a church and have a child-touchy priest help me with that or can I just do it at home? Do I need to go to a University to do it or can I just do it at home?
        What’s that? You can call the reading of Mr. Men book scholarship? No…. way…. man.
        Thanks for sharing your immense intelligence with us JP. You are teh greetest. Quick! Make a website outlining all your “facts” and arguments against common “atheist” claims. Then you can get all your looney buddies here to post links to it to support their arguments for their personal delusion. You might also get a well studied person on the subject rebut all your arguments and make you look like a fool. Then you can disregard and insult their intelligence and just seem like a massive douche and then everyone with be happy.

  9. apologianick Says:

    Your argument from emotion is God does something you don’t like that’s “bad” and therefore Christianity is false.

    Premise: There are things I don’t like.
    Premise: God does those things in the Bible.
    Conclusion: Jesus did not rise from the dead.

    The conclusion does not follow. The best this argument could give is that the Bible is not Inerrant.

    Also Simpleton, a rock cannot be an atheist. Atheism is not a non-belief but a positive claim. Why? Consider that if God exists, then theism, the claim that God exists, is true. However, there can still be atheists if atheism is simply lacking a belief. If that was the case, then theism and atheism would both be true, but one thing and its contradictory cannot be true. Therefore, one definition is false.

    Atheism is a claim about reality and not about psychology.

  10. Simplexion Says:

    That wasn’t my argument, genius. That was Mikel’s argument.

    I know you are wrong about lots of things in life, considering you are a Christian, but if there are higher levels of wrong, you are up near the top. You respond, “Sie leiden unter den Dunning-Kruger effekt.”
    Anywho, a rock can be an atheist. An atheist is nothing more than anything that doesn’t believe in a deity. There are no other requirements. That is it. The end.
    If a God does exist and there was good evidence that they did and someone still denied God’s existence. Then they would be the deluded ones. The problem is there is 0 evidence that a god of any kind exists and believing in a God from that understanding is completely irrational.
    This is unimportant though when talking about what an atheist is. An infant born into this world from it’s mother’s vagina is an atheist. It doesn’t know what a god is. It doesn’t really know much at all yet.
    I think the word you are after is anti-theist. An anti-theist is a person who makes the decision to be against theism. Although this is more being against the evils caused by theism and not hating or denying a god because you don’t like what is written in the Bible.
    Anti-theism would probably also be a suitable name for people who disbelieved in gods in the face of strong evidence there was a god.

  11. J. P. Holding Says:

    @Simpleton:

    >>What? Scholarship? No way! Are you serious? Who would have thought that you study the Bible? You study it… and then you think about it.

    That’s right. Don’t act like it’s news — people who aren’t ignorant (like you) know this.

    >>>>Yep, wow… that is so hard to do. Do I need to go to a church and have a child-touchy priest help me with that or can I just do it at home? Do I need to go to a University to do it or can I just do it at home?

    Well, moron, you can go to school if you want to — imagine that, an education, for YOU! — or you can just order books and read them at home. You CAN read, right? At least 6th grade level?

    >>>What’s that? You can call the reading of Mr. Men book scholarship? No…. way…. man.

    Yes…way….moron. Drop the fundamentalism, it’s making you look stupider every time you post.

    >>> Quick! Make a website outlining all your “facts” and arguments against common “atheist” claims. Then you can get all your looney

    While you’re at it, see if you can get some training in the composition of riposte. Quite frankly, you’re barely as competent as a dung beetle at it. And the dung beetle smells better and washes more often.

  12. Mikel Says:

    LOL What sort of hornets nest did I dare step into here? Yes, for the examples I was being asked for, I think apologianick’s list will do just fine. Though I was thinking about how commands that women be silent have been used against women, and how commands like “slaves obey your master” have been used to support slavery. How women have been burned because of a command to “not suffer a witch to live.” And the multiple examples of parents withholding medical treatment to their children because of the promises in the bible about the effectiveness of prayer and healing.

    But given all the poo slinging going on in these comments, I think I’ll just bow out of this discussion.

    • Simplexion Says:

      Yeah, I tried to be polite but the constant insults and ad hominems made it too difficult to stay polite. Hence, current posting status.

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        Yeah sure. All that rap about sky daddies and delusions was your way of being “polite”. Cuz you’re so much smarter than all of us and you’re only trying to break us out of our deluzions out of the goodness of your heart.

    • J. P. Holding Says:

      Dear Moron,

      >>>Though I was thinking about how commands that women be silent have been used against women

      Sorry you’re so stupid, but in 1 Cor 14, Paul is quoting back a view of the Corinthians, which he then refutes. 1 Tim 2 is addressed to a cult group that considered women to be superior, and Paul’s specific word used is saying he does not allow anyone to teach that women dominate men, as the cult wanted.

      >>>and how commands like “slaves obey your master” have been used to support slavery.

      Very stupidly too. If you read the works of pro- and anti-slavery works in the 19th century and before, you find that the pro-slavery people abuse the text, make excuses for why they ignore whatever parts they want (such as not treating slaves harshly), and even lie outright (using the curse of Canaan to argue for slavery of Africans, when in reality the Canaanites went extinct long ago and are not related to Africans). On the other hand, anti-slavery works use the text responsibly, call down the pro-slavers for their mistakes, and recognize that OT “slavery” was actually indentured servitude. But of course, you’d be more that satisfied with the summary statements of an idiot like Paine rather than thinking for yourself.

      >>>How women have been burned because of a command to “not suffer a witch to live.”

      Um, and what? Thomas Hobbes, a hardcore Skeptic, said that witches should be burned too. Your point? Witchcraft has been considered a crime by many societies.

      >>> And the multiple examples of parents withholding medical treatment to their children because of the promises in the bible about the effectiveness of prayer and healing.

      Um, sorry, that’s something only cults do, and wackos in the Word Faith movement. How’d you like to be held responsible for Bill Maher’s denial that germs cause diseases?

      >>>But given all the poo slinging going on in these comments, I think I’ll just bow out of this discussion.

      Good idea. You’re in over your head anyway.

      • Simplexion Says:

        I can does a JP, “Derp, excuses and apologies derp… Don’t understand that evolution is a fact. Derp. Use single examples of non-believers doing bad things lots of Christians did. Derp.”

      • Mikel Says:

        People accuse atheists of being rude. But if you were the only Christian I knew (just like a lot of people know only one open atheist) I would swear Christians were worse.

      • Mikel Says:

        By the way, everything you said in your response is wrong, especially about slavery. Did you know there were different laws for men and women slaves, and hebrew and foreign slaves? That a male hebrew slave could go free after so many years, but if he married a female slave she could not leave with him? That a non-Hebrew slave could be beaten by his master and it was considered find if he got up again after 2 or 3 days? Hardly a minor indentured servitude (which could actually be pretty harsh itself).

        Finding an occasional atheist who is also wrong at the same time on a moral matter is irrelevant. There is still a Bible passage being used as justification.

        And can you prove your assertions about 1 Tim and 1 Corinthians, or are these just excuses you read from an apologist with no evidence to back them up? At any rate, even if you historical assessment is absolutely correct, it does not stopped conservative churches from using these passages to shut up and cover up their women members.

        These Word of Faith wackos are only taking what Jesus and Paul said literally. If they are wrong, it means what Jesus and Paul said about prayer could not really be taken quite at face value.

        As for Bill Maher’s views, I couldn’t care less.

  13. thebiblereader Says:

    I agree there should be of an emphasis on reading and studying the bible than just memorizing scripture. I have always but terrible, on memorizing scripture, but I do feel like I have a solid understanding of most scripture than the average christian.

    In fact I was speaking to one of the teens at the church about memorizing scripture, just last week. And she was having a hard time memorizing a scripture, and I told it her its more important to understand the scripture than to simply just memorize it.

  14. J. P. Holding Says:

    >>>J. P. Holding… master of derp. Derpinating people more intelligent than him with insults and poor arguments. Derp power!

    Simpleton, master of brushing off what is atmospherically above his poor little head. 😀 Let’s see you refute even one point in that article on Paine, little man.

  15. Derek Says:

    Mikel, if you decide to remain on this thread, you should first note that Simplexion was not polite when he first arrives at this blog. In his second post in the historical Jesus thread he had this to say about Christian belief:

    “it is complete nonsense to accept that he did ANY of those supernatural feats.”

    He may believe that miracles are impossible. That’s one thing. I think atheism has many logical and moral problems, but I don’t hurl childish insults like he does unless provoked. All he had to do was say: 

    “I don’t think miracles are possible. That’s my problem with much of the historical Jesus tradition.”

    That’s how rational, adult people dialogue. Read through his comments there. Read through his blog where he has a post entitled: Fuck off Christians! Here is what he says:

    “Yes, I am happy for people to believe what they want. I’m not stopping them from doing that. I will however ridicule them for their ignorant beliefs. I also don’t like their moronic beliefs interfering with my life and my friends lives, as they so often do.”

    This is the mind of a child who cannot deal with the fact that other people in the world do not share his opinions. In fact, this is the mind of a person who could be downright dangerous if he had just a small amount of real power/authority (praise God he does not). So he takes his frustration and applies it (in broad strokes) to “Christians.”

     He even says in his blog post responding to the historical Jesus thread that he has a “big problem” with a credentialed scholar just because he embraces a religion he disagrees with! He is nothing but a bigot. 

    On Nick’s blog, and with JP, you get what you give.

    As with your comments/concerns, I understand many of them. But you must acknowledge that scholars of all beliefs who have come to the Bible have noted possible answers to each of these objections. Many of them can be resolved by simply understanding a little bit about the social-historical contexts of ancient Palestine, Greece, and Rome.

    • Simplexion Says:

      Hey, miracle believing nutcase. That was after I had been persoanlly insulted by a few people. I insult your beliefs. Your crazy beliefs.
      God caused humans to sin, then he raped a girl so she could give birth to himself. Then he had himself killed to remove sin from people.
      Deluded much?

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        Wow, stupid explanations of original sin, the incarnation, AND the Trinity all at the same time! 😀

        Stupid Damage: 1000 points!

        Ignorant much? Yup.

      • Simplexion Says:

        How do you explain original sin, the incarnation and the trinity in a non-stupid way? It sounds stupid no matter how you spin it.

        God created Man, then he created a companion for man known as woman. He also created a snake. This snake could talk and he convinced them to eat of a tree that God created and told them not to eat from. Eating from this tree even though God told them not too (and didn’t explain why not) meant that they had sinned and had forever condemned all Homo sapiens to be sinners.
        He then decided to fix this by impregnating a girl, without her permission (rape), with himself. She then gave birth to himself and he did lots of magic until he was sacrificed to remove the condemnation of Homo sapiens sins.
        The end. Was that more like how it happened or still too synopsisy? Oh what, it still sounds stupid? Cool.

    • Mikel Says:

      Yea, I’m afraid I have to side with Simplexion on this one….even from only reading Derek’s argument above. I mean, really, is being fine with other people believing what they want, but not wanting to be interfered with really a sign of a childish mind? I think not.

  16. J. P. Holding Says:

    Mikel the Moron:

    >>>By the way, everything you said in your response is wrong, especially about slavery.

    No it isn’t.

    >>> Did you know there were different laws for men and women slaves, and hebrew and foreign slaves? That a male hebrew slave could go free after so many years, but if he married a female slave she could not leave with him?

    Duh…yeah…that doesn’t change the fact that it was indentured servitude, not chattel slavery. Are you that dumb that you think that makes a difference? Do some reading:

    http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

    >>>That a non-Hebrew slave could be beaten by his master and it was considered find if he got up again after 2 or 3 days? Hardly a minor indentured servitude

    *YAWN* Yes it is. Corporal punishment was frequent in the ancient world. Even for students in school. Free men were subject to the same punishments at the same level. Harshness was needed at the time, because it was a harsh world to live in. Society was always on the verge of collapsing into chaos. Keep the whining; you live in a world with a 7-11 on every corner, an air conditioner, TV, lots of leisure time.

    >>>Finding an occasional atheist who is also wrong at the same time on a moral matter is irrelevant.

    It’s very relevant and very common as well.

    >>>There is still a Bible passage being used as justification.

    Isn’t that nice. So if someone picks up one of Mark Twain’s books where some kid gets beaten, and beats a kid because of it, you’ll blame Twain? How ineptly childish.

    >>>And can you prove your assertions about 1 Tim and 1 Corinthians, or are these just excuses you read from an apologist with no evidence to back them up?

    I use this stuff called “scholarship”. It’s over your head, but seeif you can read and learn anyway:

    http://www.christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

    It involves stuff like, you know, rhetorical criticism, textual criticism, linguistics, social science data, etc. As opposed to Paine, who just popped open his Scotch bottle and started writing.

    >>> it does not stopped conservative churches from using these passages to shut up and cover up their women members.

    How childish of you to think that’s an actual problem with the Bible.

    >>>These Word of Faith wackos are only taking what Jesus and Paul said literally.

    No, they’re taking it outside its relevant contexts. In other words, they’re dumb like Paine.

    >>>As for Bill Maher’s views, I couldn’t care less.

    Doesn’t matter what you think. Since you’re on his side I’ll blame you for it anyway.

  17. J. P. Holding Says:

    Oh yes, Mikel the Moose:

    >>>Did you know there were different laws for men and women slaves, and hebrew and foreign slaves?

    Here’s a clue…

    You can keep your condescending “did you know” crap. You won’t surprise anyone here with some Biblical material they were not aware of. No one here is going to gasp and roll over when you quote Malachi 2:3, or 2 Kings 2:23-5, or something out of the Song of Solomon. We’ve been there, done that, and we know what those texts mean, why they were written the way they were, and what silly complaints you will bring up about them.

    You can also keep your amateur ravings derived from Tom “Pass the Scotch” Paine. The people here read scholarly books and journals written by credentialed, peer-reviewed scholars; they also consider teachers like Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, etc to be numbskulls only slightly less ignorant than you are. They also think teachers like Charles Stanley are pre-K pablum. Don’t waste our time with monumental idiots like Paine, Ingersoll, Barker, etc.

    The simple fact is that the likes of you and Simpleton are every bit as uneducated as Westboro Baptist fundamentalists. Like them, you’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker a collection of prefabricated canards that suit your purposes, and have investigated no further.

    We find people like you, at best, useful amusements when it comes to “discussion”. Which you promised to bow out of, but didn’t. Two- faced much? 😀

  18. Mikel Says:

    I’ll just repeat my assertion in my first comment, as it really is the atheist’s point about the Bible: It is human written, full of human folly and some wisdom, and a lot of bad morality mixed with a few good statements, It is a human book, just like any other literature written in human history, and holds no authority whatsoever. This is no different whether you hold to your interpretation, that of the Word of Faith cult, Westboro Baptist or anyone elses.

    You can accuse me of ignorance all you want. But you’ve never addressed the basic point of why any of us should care one bit about what the Bible says in the first place. I am only concerned that laws and precepts based on the Bible are not forced onto my life or that of others who view the book as just so much folklore.

    • J. P. Holding Says:

      @Mikel the Moron:

      >>>You can accuse me of ignorance all you want.

      Sure can. You make it easy.

      >>>But you’ve never addressed the basic point of why any of us should care one bit about what the Bible says in the first place.

      You’ve never asked in this thread of replies. But it doesn’t matter. I don’t care if you don’t care.

      >>>I am only concerned that laws and precepts based on the Bible are not forced onto my life or that of others who view the book as just so much folklore.

      Sure why not. Instead have them “forced” onto you for some other reason. In a republic — if you’re in the US or another — no one “forces” any laws on anyone. Laws are made by duly elected representatives elected by the people to do their will. If you don’t like a law, move to have it changed. It doesn’t matter if that law was inspired by the Bible, by secular morals, or by some legislator thinking aliens told him to support it. The process of making and rescinding them is the same. So shut up, quit your whining, and stop trying to deny others their rights to participate in the republic’s management.

      >>>I’m so used to having thoughtful and polite discussion with Christians who visit my blog that the totally different atmosphere on this blog was a bit fascinating to me. Though I am now getting a bit tired of it. So sorry for the total two-faced move.

      Yeah sure. Thoughtful discussion begins with Tom Paine all right. That’s sorta like how thoughtful discussion on creation vs evolution begins by bringing up Kent Hovind. Duh hah. 😀

      For a far more educated view of passages like that one in Exodus, try William Webb’s Corporal Punishment in the Bible. IOW a real scholar, not some gutter trash by someone like Paine whose best scholarly source was the bottom of his whiskey bottle.

  19. Mikel Says:

    I was going to bow out, but I also found amusement in our discussion. I’m so used to having thoughtful and polite discussion with Christians who visit my blog that the totally different atmosphere on this blog was a bit fascinating to me. Though I am now getting a bit tired of it. So sorry for the total two-faced move.

    Stay classy. Or whatever.

  20. Cerebrum123 Says:

    @ Mikel
    How about laws against murder ,and theft for example? Do these need to be “forced” on you ,and you would be against it because it’s in the Bible? In the U.S.A. many of our laws that no one would even give a second thought to stem from the Bible. If you live in the U.S.A. perhaps it would do you some good to learn some American History ,and how the Bible influenced the Founding Fathers. I would suggest a good look at George Washington ,and maybe why he said “It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible.”

    • Simplexion Says:

      I agree with laws for anything that affects other people. They are good laws. You kill someone, they no longer get to exist. You steal from someone, they lose property.
      However, I most definitely disagree with laws that are for anything that affects only the person breaking them. These laws should not be forced onto people e.g. laws against drug use.
      You could say that many of the laws in the USA stem from the Bible. The problem with that is people weren’t running around raping and killing each other indiscriminately prior to the Bible, otherwise you and I wouldn’t be here.
      Morality precedes religion.

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        >>>These laws should not be forced onto people e.g. laws against drug use.

        Yeah, OK, stupid. Drug use doesn’t affect other people. 😀 Riiight. It doesn’t affect your productivity at work, thereby robbing your employer of what you owe them for the wages you’re paid. It doesn’t make you less competent as a driver, thereby endangering lives. It doesn’t turn you into a shiftless dole-sucking bum who eats up public resources needed for the homeless, the disabled, and the needy. Etc.

        Is this the kind of reasoning you get when you take drugs?

      • Simplexion Says:

        Ahh… more massive failing at thought from you.
        I never said there weren’t circumstances where under the influence of drugs you aren’t affecting other people. Driving while on drugs is putting other people in danger, laws against this are good.
        Meanwhile, sitting at home playing video games while under the influence of drugs…
        Equating all drug users to junkies is good fun, isn’t it! Also, if drugs were legalised, they would be taxed. In the same way alcohol and nicotine currently is.
        Why don’t you go drink some of your Christ’s blood and shut the fuck up?

  21. J. P. Holding Says:

    @Simpleton:

    >>>How do you explain original sin, the incarnation and the trinity in a non-stupid way?

    Like you care. 😀

    >>>It sounds stupid no matter how you spin it.

    No, you’re just stupid and stuck in kindergarten versions of every Christian doctrine.

    Here:

    http://www.tektonics.org/lp/orginsin.html

    Start by wrapping your cement head around THAT. Then this:

    http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html

    As stupid as you are, you were describing the modalist heresy as the mainstream view. Moron. Derp!

    >>> This snake could talk

    Um, stupid? Theodore Roosevelt was called a “bull moose”. Satan was called a “snake”.

    Does the concept ring a bell? 😀

    >>> and he convinced them to eat of a tree that God created and told them not to eat from.

    Yeah gee. No one ever doesn’t do what they’re told. Fer sure. Derp.

    >>> Eating from this tree even though God told them not too (and didn’t explain why not)

    So what? Like a “why” makes a difference? Do the laws in your country append “whys” to their listings — down there in Derpland?

    >>>meant that they had sinned and had forever condemned all Homo sapiens to be sinners.

    Wrong. Kindergarten view.

    >>>He then decided to fix this by impregnating a girl, without her permission (rape),

    Pffft…LOLWUT? 😀

    Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word…

    Sounds like “permission” right there. What are you reading, the Derp Standard Version? BTW stupid — it fits no legal definition of “rape” known even without that.

    >>> and he did lots of magic

    And the problem with this is what, aside from that you’re uncritically accepting Hume at face value?

    >>> until he was sacrificed to remove the condemnation of Homo sapiens sins.

    And the problem with this is? It’s all framed within the commonplace concepts of patronage and brokerage. You’re too stupid to know this?

    >> Oh what, it still sounds stupid?

    Yes, you still do. Inevitably. 😀

    • Simplexion Says:

      Oh yay! More reading of moronic Christian apologetics.
      “Simpleton, you are just reading it wrong. This is the true interpretation. It makes it much less silly.”
      On the rape thing; even if she did give your god permission to impregnate her, it is still adultery. Also… it is nuts to believe any of these things, even if “snake” is just a nickname for Satan.
      I am loving the crazy up in here!

      • Cerebrum123 Says:

        You wonder WHY they are calling YOU Simpleton with this post? Adultery involves a MARRIED person having sex with someone they are NOT married to. So no adultery in the scenario with Mary. There was also no sex involved so you can’t claim fornication either. Are all your arguments this bad ,or are you actually using the drugs you are defending?
        Also drug use DOES affect other people ,the family of the user comes to mind (emotional pain). Even with cigarettes the smoke is harmful to anyone close enough to breathe it. Why do you think they are making it illegal to smoke in public buildings in many places?

      • Simplexion Says:

        Pfft… engaged is close enough to married.
        No fornication, eh. So how did she fall pregnant? Oh, that’s right. You lot all believe bat shit crazy things.
        Yeah, because all drug users are addicts and cause emotional pain for their family. How is Christ’s blood tasting? Drink too much recently?
        Cigarette smoke can be harmful to other people, very minimally in a well ventilated space. I think it is more that people that don’t smoke don’t want to endure cigarette smoke while out trying to enjoy themselves. If you want to go down that path of cigarette smoke, we can start talking about why there is no law against having wood fires in buildings.
        Your ability to think critically is negligible. Others here have a better grasp of it but they seem to remove that ability when it comes to their religion. JP is a bit insane, so he has an excuse for neglecting thought when it comes to Christianity. You just fail altogether.

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        @Simpleton:

        “Simpleton, you are just reading it wrong. This is the true interpretation. It makes it much less silly.”

        Glad you finally had the sense to admit your incompetence, moron.

        >>>On the rape thing; even if she did give your god permission to impregnate her, it is still adultery.

        Like the man said, stupid — no sex involved. It was an act of divine ex nihilo creative fiat — Luke’s language echoes the creation account of Genesis. But as stupid as you are, you’re only response will be, “Duh ah, derp, miracle. Can’t happen law of nature crazy stupid derp bah.”

        >>>Also… it is nuts to believe any of these things,

        You’re good at saying so but seem to have serious problems with the “WHY” part. Maybe if you smoke some banana peels it’ll help.

      • Simplexion Says:

        Why? Let’s see… you believe that a female fell pregnant because the thing that created everything felt it was necessary to resolve a stupid non-existent problem. She fell pregnant with no sperm.
        The reason this is crazy is because it is a claim made by someone who wasn’t at said event and was written 2000 years ago when our knowledge was very very very much more minimal than it is now.
        We know a lot more now and we know that religion is stupid. One day we will get over this mental disease known as religion. In doing so removing one of the unnecessary reasons for segregation in society.
        Then we can move on to removing other nonsense in this world, like alternative medicine, belief in ghosts, psychics and all that other crazy shit. We will then be able to progress and be peaceful.
        However, for now, we will continue to argue about this pointless shit. You will try to find reasons to make your preexisting belief seem plausible to you rather than looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion. It is never rational to hold a concrete belief about something and then look for evidence. Are you going to change your mind if you are shown without a doubt that no-one has or will ever be able to turn water to wine using nothing?
        Am I going to change my mind if they can prove that someone 2000 years ago could have done that? Yes, I will, If the evidence is there and it is observable. The difference between me and you is I am willing to change my mind as I am presented with new evidence, you aren’t.
        I didn’t have the belief that there is definitely no god and then try to find evidence for it. I had the belief that there may be a god because my parents told me there was and took me to church. I then looked at all the evidence and that belief dwindled into nothingness.
        If you find the answer first and then look for evidence to prove that answer, where the answer can never change, you are not thinking critically. This is why you all fail at thinking critically.

  22. J. P. Holding Says:

    @Simpleton:

    >>Ahh… more massive failing at thought from you.

    Ahh — more massive backwards tricycle pedalling after being caught in your own words from you.

    >>>I never said there weren’t circumstances where under the influence of drugs you aren’t affecting other people.

    Um, dumbbell, you said:

    “I most definitely disagree with laws that are for anything that affects only the person breaking them. These laws should not be forced onto people e.g. laws against drug use.”

    You didn’t make any exceptions whatsoever for any kind of “circumstances”. Moreover, moron:

    >>>Driving while on drugs is putting other people in danger, laws against this are good.

    You’re pretty stupid about the effects of drugs, aren’t you? Even if you are not “ON” drugs while driving, drugs (variably according to which one it is, how often you use it, etc) result in permanent and/or residual impairment of motor skills, reflexes, etc. And then with many drugs, like heroin, they’re either so addictive that you’re NEVER “off” them, or the aftereffects are so bad you’re never any good for anything. Yeah, stupid — you’re “off” heroin, and meanwhile you’re throwing up 20 times a day during the withdrawal period. Great way to make yourself a productive citizen. Moron.

    But as stupid as you are, all you think about is what’s happening “NOW”. 😀

    >>>Meanwhile, sitting at home playing video games while under the influence of drugs…

    Righto. A dole sucking twit who spends his whole life playing video games. Because he’s too impaired by past drug use to hold down a job, drive a car without running over old ladies, etc.

    >>>Equating all drug users to junkies is good fun, isn’t it! Also, if drugs were legalised, they would be taxed. In the same way alcohol and nicotine currently is.

    And it wouldn’t make things any better, because all that tax money would be going to fund junkies like you who sit at home on the dole and/or eat up our healthcare dollars. Brilliant solution, moron.

    The torment will continue as long as you remain STUPID! 😀

    • Simplexion Says:

      Instead of using your weak insults I am going to use many words that are abrasive to you. Shall we?

      “Um, dumbbell, you said:”

      Hey, motherfucking retard… I said “anything that affects only the person breaking them.” ONLY, do you need clarification. Are you that fucking simple you can’t understand the fact I said that prior to mentioning drug use? Use drugs… DRIVING WHILE ON DRUGS AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE, you fucktard. “Drug use” means just that… using drugs. Not using drugs and then go driving. Keep up with the pissweak insults, you fucking cockjaw.

      “You’re pretty stupid about the effects of drugs, aren’t you? Even if you are not “ON” drugs while driving, drugs (variably according to which one it is, how often you use it, etc) result in permanent and/or residual impairment of motor skills, reflexes, etc.”

      Well done, spastic, you just made a fucking god-awful shitty argument. Even if there are residual effects of drugs they would be minimal. Make sure you don’t go driving while you are in any way tired, had pain medication of any kind. Never drive while dehydrated. Come the fuck on, are you seriously this fucking mentally deprived? Get fucking real, I’ll eat you up if you keep with these fucking inane arguments.
      Your extreme view of drug users as being bums is hilarious. I bet you’ve walked past a motherfucker in a suit that has used heroin and not thought for a second he was a heroin user. Use some rationale and don’t have set views in your mind, like you do with your sky daddy, and maybe you would be able to analyse something critically.

      “Righto. A dole sucking twit who spends his whole life playing video games. Because he’s too impaired by past drug use to hold down a job, drive a car without running over old ladies, etc.”

      Here is this set view of the behaviour of all drug users that you have. Clear it from your head. It is completely illogical, you brain-dead ass-clown. Meanwhile, you wouldn’t attach this moronic set belief to alcohol. Too busy sipping Christ’s blood, ain’t ya?

      “And it wouldn’t make things any better, because all that tax money would be going to fund junkies like you who sit at home on the dole and/or eat up our healthcare dollars. Brilliant solution, moron.”

      …and there we have it, you are now calling me the dole bludger (so far from the truth) because I have admitted to consuming cannabis. Your preconceived beliefs are excessive and show why you hold your illogical beliefs.
      You are a weak-minded little fool and I am laughing at your attempts at insulting my intelligence while you make absolutely terrible arguments using preconceived beliefs. Eat a dick, bitch.

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        @Simpleminded Junkie:

        >>>Instead of using your weak insults I am going to use many words that are abrasive to you. Shall we?

        If you want. Good luck finding any that actually bother me, peabrain. 😀 None of those did.

        >>> I said “anything that affects only the person breaking them.”

        And I said, junkie boy, there’s NO SUCH THING as something affecting only one person when it comes to drugs. Are you that retarded and simple minded and self-centered that you think it won’t affect anyone as long as you stay home? No, ignoramus. That turns you into a lazy dole-sucking layabout who consumes public funds and contributes ZERO.

        >>>. Even if there are residual effects of drugs they would be minimal.

        Um, like I said, your knowledge in this area sucks eggs. I’ve done work that has given me direct knowledge of such things. There’s no “minimal” when it comes to this, you’re just too stupid and short-sighted to care about long term effects, because all you care about is getting high, junkie boy. 😀

        If a drug does something like increase your risk of cancer, you won’t think about it or care (like you) when you’re 25 or 30. But when you’re 55, in bed with cancer, you’re sucking on public resources to support your medical needs, because you were such a junkie at age 25 that you only had lousy jobs and never made any money, or else spent it all on drugs.

        >>> in a suit that has used heroin and not thought for a second he was a heroin user.

        Wrong, fathead. That’s hardly an atypical profile. And that sorry user is no better than you are. The suit he bought would typically have been bough before he got into drugs. Typically that guy is deep in debt, doing crap work at his job (which brings down his whole company’s performance), and isn’t home with his family because he’s out looking for a high or a purchase, which in turn makes his wife and kids more lonely and resentful as he also spends money they could have used for household needs.

        Spare yourself grief — I’ve been researching this issue — legal and medical aspects — for years, and you’re just a rock musician who cares more about his next toke than the facts. 😀

        >>>Here is this set view of the behaviour of all drug users that you have. Clear it from your head.

        Not at all. If you’re not a dole-sucking bum now, you eventually will be. It’s only a matter of time — you’ll either do it in your 20s or your 50s. Eventually the resources run out — or else you die too early. There’s no getting out of that unless you start thinking of someone other than yourself and stop the addiction.

        Yeah, you’re a great role model for others fer sure. 😀 All your reasoning comes out of a toke.

      • Simplexion Says:

        Haha, gold! You have been researching it for years. Pity your research is pointless because you have preconceived beliefs about drug users.
        I won’t bother arguing this with you any more, as you make some of the worst arguments I have ever seen on this subject. Also, it’s not the subject being talked about here.

  23. J. P. Holding Says:

    @Simpleton:

    >>>Your ability to think critically is negligible.

    Your knowledge of health and social effects of smoking, drugs, etc. is kindergartenish. Your excuse is very popular with the prison population, too.

    >>>we can start talking about why there is no law against having wood fires in buildings.

    Hey stupid…wood fires in buildings are normally started in these things called “fireplaces” which have this thing called a “chimney” which was designed to draw the smoke up and out of the building. Now if smokers would put a chimney over their heads so that all that smoke ran out of the building, we’d be just fine. Yeah, there’s an idea, you moron — open a restaurant where certain tables have chimney tubes running down from the ceiling that smokers are required to stick their heads into while smoking. Maybe you can try it out by sticking your head into one while you smoke dope — assuming you can extract your head from the dark and stinky place you have it now! 😀

    • Simplexion Says:

      “Hey stupid…wood fires in buildings are normally started in these things called “fireplaces” which have this thing called a “chimney” which was designed to draw the smoke up and out of the building.”

      HAHAHA Fuck, the stupidity is killing me. The preconceived notions are brilliant. Your constant lack of critical thought it brilliant.
      Here fuckface, read this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17127644
      Now go bang your head against a wall, you fucking numb-skull. Whose head is up their own ass now?

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        Um, dumbbell — that doesn’t say a word about anything I said. If anything it would explain exactly WHY chimneys are needed to direct smoke out of places where people live and work.

        Evidently you’re such a moron that you just plugged “wood smoke health effects” into Google and figured you’d be able to just throw up the first thing you found that had a few words small enough for you to understand.

        And if you’d looked further, rather than just gaggling through Google, you’d know that the concern with fireplaces is that the chimney be high enough to keep neighbors from being exposed to the smoke outdoors — not that people inside are inhaling too much of it:

        http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml

        “There is much we can do to protect the public’s health from wood smoke exposures. Fireplace and wood stove chimneys should be regulated so that they are high enough to protect neighbors from exposures.”

        http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/hazards-of-wood-smoke

        “However, that woodsy “link to the land” is also linked to potentially serious health risks. Vented outdoors, the smoke can pose a bigger threat to people in the community than to those sitting fireside.”

        So, moron, none of this means we need a law against indoor wood fires — it means we need higher chimneys, or (depending on the community, weather etc) other steps to make sure the smoke is better dispesred OUTDOORS.

        Why bang my head against a wall? It’s entertaining enough watching you do brain damage to yourself 😀

  24. J. P. Holding Says:

    @Junkie Boy Simpleton:

    >>>Why? Let’s see… you believe that a female fell pregnant because the thing that created everything felt it was necessary to resolve a stupid non-existent problem. She fell pregnant with no sperm.

    As usual, you’re excel at description but not explanation, What was the “problem” and why does it not exist? Why is sperm needed for a God that can manipulate matter on a molecular level? Try to come up with some actual answers to this, and not by just burping and derping as usual.

    >>>>The reason this is crazy is because it is a claim made by someone who wasn’t at said event and was written 2000 years ago when our knowledge was very very very much more minimal than it is now.

    Um, stupid — most of history is recorded by people were “weren’t there”. Tacitus was not there for 99% of what he reports. Like all historians, he relies on eyewitness accounts from those who WERE there. So likewise modern Civil War historians all use eyewitness accounts.

    What “knowledge” has to do with it is hard to imagine. People knew how babies were made even back then, moron. I know you grew up believing you were found under a cabbage leaf and all, but not everyone is a stupid as you are.

    >>>We know a lot more now and we know that religion is stupid. One day we will get over this mental disease known as religion.

    It’d be far better to work on getting rid of the disease called Stupid. You have a long term infection of it.

    >>>Are you going to change your mind if you are shown without a doubt that no-one has or will ever be able to turn water to wine using nothing?

    What do youmean “nothing,” moron? It would be a simple matter of applying power to manupulate matter on a molecular level. Are you that stupid? Really?

    >>>The difference between me and you is I am willing to change my mind as I am presented with new evidence,

    No you’re not. You;re just raising the bar of evidence arbitrarily high to suit your purposes.

    >>>it. I had the belief that there may be a god because my parents told me there was and took me to church. I then looked at all the evidence and that belief dwindled into nothingness.

    So you started uncritical and ended up stupid. Thanks for the semron, but we’re not interested. All that rap about “evidence” and “thinking critically” out of you is just a retarded mantra you use to ward off the ghosts of intellectual capacity.

    • Simplexion Says:

      God can manipulate matter at the molecular level, eh… answering crazy with more crazy is fun!

      Oh look 99% of historical events were recorded by someone not present at them. The difference is, no one is claiming that the son of the thing that created and controls everything was part of those events.

      “What do youmean “nothing,” moron? It would be a simple matter of applying power to manupulate matter on a molecular level. Are you that stupid? Really?”

      BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      “No you’re not. You;re just raising the bar of evidence arbitrarily high to suit your purposes.”

      Nope, I accept many things based on the evidence even if I haven’t observed it myself. If the explanation sounds reasonable I will generally accept it. Like I accept that our current scientific understanding of the Big Bang is fact because of the explanations I have read and for it.
      Often explanations for things that seem quite unbelievable, especially when it comes to quantum physics, are very simple and elegant. If you have ever watched Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about it, you will understand what I mean.

      Not accepting a story that a man 2000 years ago performed miracles and was raised from the dead is fairly easy to do. Considering no-one ever has been able to prove they can perform miracles or anything of the sort, it makes it super easy to ignore claims of the sort from people who were much less knowledgeable than humans are now.
      In no accepting these, it is also easy to call them crazy because it is crazy to believe such nonsense. I would have to lower the bar of evidence to a level when I might as well be brain-dead to accept the stupidity of any religion.

      • Cerebrum123 Says:

        Why wouldn’t God the CREATOR of matter ,be able to manipulate on any level He wants? Also from what I understand the “Big Bang Theory” is now starting to be questioned for it’s many problems(Believe it or not but the distance of the stars is just as much a problem for the Big Bang as it is for a young earth.Look up something called “quantized redshifts” ,maybe it will show you that the Big Bang is far from fact.). So maybe you are simply placing faith in the wrong “god” (science). Also you have shown that you have well below par understanding of the topic being discussed ,so you accusing others of nonsense is well… nonsense.

      • Simplexion Says:

        Reality is a problem for a young earth, it is completely moronic. Yes, there is a many problems with lots of theories like there is with the Big Bang, but adding something like redshift quantisation is fairly pointless because it doesn’t have much backing as it’s existence is not established. If it is found that the Big Bang is completely wrong I will accept that and look at the new theory that fits better and see what the physicists have to say about it.
        I have no faith in science. I have faith that what the scientists are saying is science is truly the facts. By putting my faith in scientists I am relying on humans to be honest. That is the problem. There is no problem with science as it is just a pursuit for facts.

      • J. P. Holding Says:

        @Simpelton:

        >>>Haha, gold! You have been researching it for years. Pity your research is pointless because you have preconceived beliefs about drug users.

        Yeah sure Simpleton. I pegged you so close you can’t get out of it is what the real deal is.

        >>>subject. Also, it’s not the subject being talked about here.

        Too bad. I have something else to say about idiots like you who are junkies. Thanks to you and your ilk, drug cartels have the money they need to spread terror; families risk getting killed in national parks if they stumble across someone’s illegal dope patch, and poppy growers can spread international terrorism. Idiots like you lack self-control, and you’re ultimately to blame for there being a market for drugs.

        >>>God can manipulate matter at the molecular level, eh… answering crazy with more crazy is fun!

        And as usual, you’re good at nothing at all except posturing, and not explaining the “why” of it.

        “Germs cause disease, eh…answering crazy with more crazy is fun!”

        Maybe if your brain weren’t soaked in dope you’d come up with a real argument for a change.

        >>>Oh look 99% of historical events were recorded by someone not present at them. The difference is, no one is claiming that the son of the thing that created and controls everything was part of those events.

        Wow, Simpleton can do non sequiturs…duh hah… 😀

        >>>BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

        Take another puff. Then try again.

        >>>Nope, I accept many things based on the evidence even if I haven’t observed it myself. If the explanation sounds reasonable I will generally accept it.

        Eg, you arbitrarily raise the bar of evidence, just like I said.

        >>>Not accepting a story that a man 2000 years ago performed miracles and was raised from the dead is fairly easy to do.

        Yes, especially if you decide to arbitrarily make up rules and smoke dope. News flash: Hume is dead. His arguments are rotten and have been discarded. His arguments were stupid when he first gave them, and he was roasted alive with the tropical prince analogy: For the tropical prince, rejecting the existence of ice was fairly easy to do too — he just stayed stupid, closed-minded, and self-centered…like you! 😀

        >>>because it is crazy to believe such nonsense. I would have to lower the bar of evidence to a level when I might as well be brain-dead to accept the stupidity of any religion.

        Yeah sure chump. Your epistemology is arbitrary and influenced by drug addiction.

      • Simplexion Says:

        Winning.

  25. Cerebrum123 Says:

    One of the problems being is that science is done by fallible people who aren’t always honest. This is a twofold problem (dishonest humans ,and ones that make many mistakes even when honest) with you placing as much faith in it as you do. Also another problem for the Big Bang is the uniform temperature of the universe. Even the timescale in use can’t account for the universe having a uniform background temperature. Also I wouldn’t say that reality is a problem for a young earth ,more like false interpretations of reality by fallible scientists who are trying to push a paradigm. Case in point ,I know someone who used to do work with radiometric dating ,and he saw that whenever they got a date that was different than what they wanted to see they would simply throw out the results (regardless of how good the sample material was). This is completely dishonest way to be doing science.
    Also it appears that quantized redshifts are far more than you seem to believe. They are also devastating to the Big Bang theory.
    Also you are willing to look to authorities on science to explain that which can be observed ,why not look to the authorities on things that can’t (Biblical scholars would be a good place to look for information on whether the Bible is accurate). By denying the possibility of miracles ,you are placing yourself in a box. I have personally experienced miracles(I am NOT talking about stuff like seeing the image of Jesus on some random object ,but healing of a disease immediately after prayer. My mom also worked at a hospital where a baby was declared dead ,and after prayer by the family was alive) ,and other things that are simply not open to scientific testing.
    I think you also need to know more about what Christians believe before you criticize ,since you have shown that you have very little understanding of what is actually believed.
    People weren’t stupid during ancient times either ,in fact some of the more advanced civilizations have done things that we can’t figure out how they did them (the pyramids of Giza for example). Or are you one of those people that believe that aliens built them for the Egyptians?
    Also non-religious people have shown themselves to be far more dangerous than those who are (Stalin ,Mao ,etc). Plus I have seen plenty of atheists ,and people who claim to be skeptical of religion believing in plenty of nonsense. So it seems that many of the religious people out there are far less dangerous than those who aren’t (maybe it has to do with things like accepting a standard of morals ,and that we are accountable to God for our actions).
    Also I have read plenty on the Resurrection of Jesus ,and the explanations for it ,and I have found it to be a fact.

    • Simplexion Says:

      You are a completely deluded nutcase. You have found the resurrection of Jesus as fact but use dismal arguments against the big bang…
      You believe in miracles because of anecdotal evidence and unexpected outcomes. Why don’t amputees regrow limbs after praying? Is it

    • Simplexion Says:

      Tree rings disprove a young earth, you psycho.
      And there are plenty of explanations about how the pyramids were made that are reasonable. For me to believe aliens built them would exclude me from being a sceptic.
      I won’t even answer the moronic atheists can be bad to. Guess what? I don’t need the fear of eternal damnation to be a good person. I do it because I enjoy life and don’t want other people to not enjoy it.

      • Cerebrum123 Says:

        Who said anything about believing in eternal damnation being a requirement to do moral things? Also there is no fear of this as a Christian.
        Calling me a psycho simply because I don’t trust a scientists conclusions that are known to be full of errors and frauds is your method of debate? I’d also like an example of how tree rings disprove a young earth. Especially since last I checked the oldest living tree is no more than 4,723 years old if you check tree rings. Since trees that would have died before Noah’s flood lived in a very different environment when it comes to a YEC belief ,then we wouldn’t know how many rings they had per year ,even if you had a fossilized one it could still have many more years of growth compared to current growth rates.
        I was asking if you thought that the Egyptians were too stupid to do this themselves. You seem to think is that ancient people were somehow idiots. This is far from the truth. The pyramids are just an example of what they could do. Also a person can be skeptical of one claim and not another.
        I don’t simply believe in miracles due to anecdotal evidence ,I did say that I had PERSONAL experience with miracles. Just because I didn’t give you the exact details doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I was actually healed of a disease that has no cure ,albeit temporarily ,but that is beside the point. Perhaps you should read my posts a little more carefully.
        First my arguments against the Big Bang are nonexistent ,then they are dismal. Which is it? Those things that I brought up are enough to shake the very foundation of the theory ,and so far the evidence has been confirming their existence.
        Also I was kind of joking about your post where you said that you had examined the claims and explanations of the Big Bang ,and found it to be fact. Apparently that one went right over your head.
        As for amputees not regenerating limbs after praying ,you probably should realize that God isn’t a genie who grants wishes. Some people are miraculously cured ,and others aren’t. I DID have a miraculous healing ,and it was immediately after praying. I am 100% positive that if I hadn’t been cured when I was ,I would be dead right now and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
        I also never said that all atheists are bad people ,but simply they have a worse track record than those who are religious ,and that this likely comes from the ideas like that everything is pointless ,and that there is no such thing as absolute morals.
        I have been trying to remain civil (I may have used a little sarcasm to try and make a point ,but I have refrained from name calling which you were so upset about before)while talking to you since you claimed that you wanted to talk honestly about these issues ,but you have shown that you don’t care about intelligent discussion ,but only about attacking Christians. Maybe instead of acting like a jerk towards someone who was trying to give you what you asked for ,civil discourse, you should prove that the name Simpleton that the others have called you doesn’t apply.

  26. Simplexion Says:

    I at no stage have called the people who wrote the bible stupid. I said they had extremely minimal knowledge about the universe in comparison to now. We still have a minimal knowledge, but it is much much better than 2000 years ago.
    You’re too deluded to have any kind of rational discussion with. If you are willing to accept that the world wide flood was a real thing and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. You are excessively deluded.

    WHAT? Non-believers have a worse track record? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH… oh damn, you are such a lost cause it isn’t funny.

    I am unable to have intelligent discussion with someone who believes in miracles because you were “miraculously” healed all of a sudden after prayer.
    “Why wouldn’t God the CREATOR of matter ,be able to manipulate on any level He wants?” but “you probably should realize that God isn’t a genie who grants wishes.”
    Why are all those Christians in Africa born with AIDS not cured of AIDS when they pray to your god?

    • Cerebrum123 Says:

      In the last 100 years atheists have killed more people than in all other wars COMBINED. So I would say that’s a far worse track record than those who do have a religion.
      Again God doesn’t just fix all our problems for us just because we pray ,that’s not how it works. Usually people that do expect things like that are disappointed at their first sign of trouble and blame God for it ,even though it’s not something he ever claimed to do.
      You implied that people in Biblical times were stupid when you claim that their beliefs were “complete nonsense” and other such things. Also claiming that their knowledge was minimal isn’t helping your case. You are also saying that people who are Christian believe completely stupid things ,and would have to be stupid to believe them ,so you are basically saying that people in Biblical times were you know…stupid.
      I have heard that many “skeptics” would believe in God and in miracles if they would only be able to experience one themselves ,so why is it wrong to believe a miracle if you have actually been through one yourself?

      • Simplexion Says:

        What? In the last 100 years? Where the hell are you getting these figures? Are you just pulling things out your ass now? You need to stop believing people tell you on their word and actually do a bit of research. I think you might be embarrassing some of the other Christians on this page with your nonsense.

        Here we go… another person who likes to put words in my mouth. I never said you are stupid for believing in nonsense. Believing in the religion of your parents doesn’t mean you are stupid.
        I also said that our CURRENT understanding of the universe is still very minimal, does that mean I am calling all current Homo sapiens stupid?

        …because calling something a miracle received through prayer is usually nonsense. Although things occur that we may not understand, it does not mean it is a miracle. Often people claim these miracles while under the care of doctors and then praise God. This is a failure. At times a doctor might not be able to explain what happened but it is most likely part of their care. Also, the brain is an incredible thing, have you heard of the placebo effect? That’s just an example of the power of the brain.

  27. Simplexion Says:

    “Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.”

    • Cerebrum123 Says:

      I’m done wasting my time replying to you. You said that you wanted an honest discussion. Either you don’t know what that means ,or you lied. I won’t make that judgement on which it is. So bye.

  28. J. P. Holding Says:

    @Simpeton: That’s spelled “whining”.

  29. causing harm Says:

    causing harm…

    […]Reason Rally: Do You Know The Bible? « Deeper Waters[…]…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: