I second that

Monday 16th November 2009 | 10:39 AM

"God truly is a vindictive, capricious, jealous alpha-male bully with raging homophobic racist tendencies with a blood lust of anyone that is not Hebrew"

KL Andrews

Monday 16th November 2009 | 10:42 AM

One wonders if Jake isn't a CJ fanboi! Props for this though...when is part 2?

bolor

Monday 16th November 2009 | 10:50 AM

Amazing how a tragedy can make some scramble to the Bible while others go the opposite direction. The bali bombings should have been enough to make any sane person know there isn't any god - but just idiots who kill in the name of him.

KL Andrews

Monday 16th November 2009 | 10:51 AM

sorry i know it's on thursday now :)

ps web admin I didn't know who one of the people was on the who is this question.

Mikey

Monday 16th November 2009 | 10:53 AM

Nice work Jake - thanks for taking the lead on this BTW. Looking forward to the next part.

Franki

Monday 16th November 2009 | 11:20 AM

I expected this to be along the lines of "religion is teh gays!" but it wasn't too bad. Thanks CJ.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Monday 16th November 2009 | 11:23 AM

...in response to this comment by KL Andrews. KL, a fan I am, though not entirely sure what the destinction between fan and fanboi is...

Next part is out on Thursday this week.

Samo

Monday 16th November 2009 | 11:30 AM

...in response to this comment by Franki. It's what I expected - a guy on his moral high horse looking down on religion. Move along...nothing to see here...

Tyler V.

Monday 16th November 2009 | 05:15 PM

First, your history is wrong. Literalist interpretation (the method of fundamentalism) did not spawn Baptists, Evangelicals, or Creationists. Wow, if you cant even get basic chronology correct, what else will you miss? We’ll see.
Well to start, if his book is the “ultimate case” then I think we theists really have nothing to worry about since his “ultimate case” is easily refuted by people with even a cursory knowledge about the Bible, history, logic, philosophy or science.
Nothing about what he does could rightly be called “meticulously scrutini[zing]” since he simply combs over it to find statements that he can purposefully misconstrue, read out of context (both historically and textually), and ignores 2000 years of research and scholarship from both sides of the isle. (The shock for him will come when his book is panned by atheists who are scholars in the field and, at the very least, have a shred of intellectual and scholarly integrity.) Often the “contradictions” and “misconceptions” that he elucidates are little more than hasty generalizations or out and out misrepresentations of what the text actually says. A prime example is his insistence that God is evil because in Judges a concubine is raped by the Benjaminites. The problem is that the entire book of Judges is written as a CONDEMNATION of Israel for their sin. Courtenay cannot even identify a historical narrative (what the Bible describes) from a moral imperative (what the Bible prescribes). This is one of MANY examples where it is not the religious that overlook something, by Courtenay.
You also assert that few “fundamentalist/evangelical/creationist Christins” have a mind for science. Yet then you go on to assert that it is then pointless to use “methodological logic” to try and debate with them. Do you honestly mistake science and philosophy? You also make a hasty generalization that is some (or in your words “many”) do not have a mind for science, then NONE must have a mind for science (or “methodological logic”). That would be like saying that some women do not have a mind for science so none do. Or that some atheists do not have a mind for science (for surely not all do) so none do. Let us imagine that it were the case that “few” Christians hand a mind for science or logic (something that is epidemic in all of a America, not just the religious sector), would that mean that the Bible is itself incorrect? I’m not sure what the intelligence level of adherents actually have to do with the truth/falsity of a text or a worldview? Basically, it is a behind the back ad hominem argument meant to sound accurate but actually quite pointless.
Quick thought… Courtenay admits to be a guy “pretending to be a guy writing about a bad guy named God.” Now, is he pretending to be the guy, or pretending to write, or pretending to be able to write something of merit about God? It cannot be the first because then he would be a make believe author and no book would be written. He cannot be pretending to write or he would not be actually writing, and then again, no book would be written. Since we have a book written, it is best to assume he meant the third, in which case he admits that he has no clue what he writing about. Which, in a private conversation that I had with him he admitted that this book was not written for scholars since scholars would entirely disagree with him, but rather is written for every day people who don’t know any better. I suspect that is because they would accept what he writes without any hesitation because it is funny and entertaining and completely miss the fact that it is entirely hateful and fallacious.
Courtenay makes a big deal that people haven’t read the Bible. Now, there is no poll taken, but my guess would be that fewer people have read The Origin of Species than have the Bible, but that many people believe in the evolution and would call themselves Darwinians. What does that get you? Nothing. Again it is a red herring. The amount of readership among adherents plays no roll in the truth/falsity of a text. The fact that he calls this “a great f*cking LOGICAL dilemma” betrays two things. First, he has no clue what he talking about because the same thing would stand for Darwinism. Second, he himself does not have a mind for logic because even if his assertions are true, it is not a LOGICAL dilemma even if it may be a sad turn of events, or a even hypocritical of Christians to say they believe but haven’t read. But there is nothing in the premises that entail some kind of logical dilemma or a breach of any law of logic. Is this the type of “argumentation” that you approve of on this blog?
He then tries to build a case that God is not loving because people have read the Bible. Putting more holes in a bottomless bucket wont make it hold water. Just because some people have not read the Bible cover to cover, does not entail that they “worship and ideal or a concept of God.” Now is it possible that they may be duped? Of course. If anyone knows anything about philosophy we can all be duped that we are not just butterflies dreaming that the world exists. But that’s not an argument. He then goes on to cite the people who more than likely HAVE read the Bible, our parents (the previous generations) our teachers, and church leaders but he ascribes to them the same Bible illiteracy as the mass public? That would be like saying that no scientist has read Darwin because most non-professional scientists haven’t.
He then goes on to spew his “hardly a single sentence anywhere in the Old Testament….” nonsense. As can be shown on nearly every count where he deals with the text, he abuses the context (both historical and textual) commits eisegesis (reading his own 21st century atheism back into the text) and assumes the conclusion of nearly all of his assertions to be true before they are proven. Its not only bad scholarship, which he doesn’t claim thank goodness but should have at least a modicum of if he is going to write a book on the most prolific piece of literature ever written, but its also just bad reading. He just doesn’t read it. My guess is that he would be more than capable of reading and understanding context in other books, but when it comes to the Bible he has an axe to grind and he grinds it on every passage regardless of what the text actually says.
A good example is even in his answer concerning Cain and Abel. Was God playing favorites? No. The fact is that Cain could have brought an acceptable offering from the fields (as seen later in fine flour being acceptable in place of an animal), but that he didn’t. Abel bought the FIRST BORN of the flock while Cain just brought whatever he found left over. This was, if you do even more than a cursory glance, a sin offering. They were not just saying “hey God, thanks for being cool.” They were to give of their lively-hood to atone for their sin. Abel took it seriously, Cain did not. Now, agree with that or not, the problem is that Courtenay NEVER deals with what the text ACTUALLY says or the context because he simply has not done any research beyond reading other vitriolic rants, something ironic considering one of his major beefs with Christians as that we ignore facts that disagree with us.
But surely Courtenay would do better on the New Testament? Nope, not even in the slightest. The fact that he claims that the biography is fabricated and embarrassingly put together shows that he is not only out of line with Christian scholars, but even Secular Biblical scholars! In fact, the view point that he eschews (that Jesus never even existed) is so rare that you could count on one hand the number of scholars who agree with him out of the thousands involved with the SBL, Jesus Seminar, or any other New Testament Studies fellowship (Christian or non). The sheer ignorance it takes to call Jesus and “unremarkable dead man” just seems so beyond the pale. If the life and teachings of Jesus has impacted the vast majority of human life, culture, politics, law, ethics, education, family, etc. more than anyone else in the history of the world, to make the claim that Courtenay does seems to be the one beyond ignorance. Believe in Jesus as the Son of God or not, but to make a statement like that is just false to anyone with a shred of historical or ethical understanding.
You then ask about Courtenay’s “research.” Courtenay didn’t do any research (hence why he knows that his book will be a wash with scholars). Research requires diligent study of all the information, opposing views, scholars, the history of the discussion, and the study of all relevant areas of study that might come to bear on the topic (in this case with the Bible that would include things like Biblical/Higher Criticism, Literary analysis of original languages, manuscript transmission study, canonical studies, hermeneutics, philosophy, history, theology, etc.). Courtenay has obviously done none, if only being the Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Erhman lapdog.
He then makes the existential argument that we believe in God because of our need to feel like there is purpose, meaning, and life after death to appease our fears. This may be true for some but not most. Many of us, like myself, had no fear of death as an atheist to drive us to belief. We rather we convinced by the force of evidence, argument, and consistency/coherency of the Bible.
This argument amounts to the parallel of the Christian version that atheists are only atheists to escape the fear of judgment. While it may be entirely true, it is not actually a viable argument.
Besides, imagine my fear of death keeps me from jumping off the edge of a building. Does that means that if I just got over my fear of death that I would not die if I jumped off of a building? It seems absurd to try to use our reasons for coming to a belief to invalidate the belief itself.
He then goes on to blame the Israelites for inventing God due to “lack of air-conditioning” and a kind of god-envy of the surrounding nations. This is easily dismissed since convincing an entire people group (which would have to have taken place within one generation from the exodus of Egypt) would have to suddenly start believing in a new God without any reason to do so. In fact, we see the surrounding nations have gods that are quite amenable to our desires. Crop gods, and sex gods, and fertility gods, and gods of money, and power, etc. What do we see God do the first time the Israelites take over a land? Tell them they don’t get to keep a single dime. And they are now on a tight diet. And they don’t get to be just like their neighbors. If I were going to invent a deity for myself, it would be MUCH more like Baal or Ashtoreth than like Yahweh. Why would I want a God like a consuming fire over my sins, than one who says I can just have sex with a temple prostitute to be all good?
I also find it funny when atheists like Courtenay try to use those foolish beliefs that religious people had way back when, like it proves something? What about scientists who believed thay could turn lead into gold? Or, that the earth was moving because we could see the oceans sloshing about. Or what about the facts that in the early 1900’s a list of 100 things that scientists knew with 100% assurance was published and we don’t believe single one of them now? Does that prove the scientific endeavor wrong? Nope. It means some people went wrong somewhere but it has nothing to do with the worldview itself. (Ironically his own example about Pasteur overlooks that before Pasteur it was the SCIENTISTS who were wrong. Did Pasteur correct the pastors? Nope. The doctors.)
His analogy about the shovel also fails. I’m not looking to the Bible to tell me about positrons, quasars, supernovas, quarks, string theory, or anything like that. So no, when it comes to astronomy and the workings of planetary rotations, I’ll go to the astronomer. When it comes to liver disease and kidney transplants, I’ll go to the physician. But when it comes to timeless things like truth, reason, morality, God, etc. the time when someone writes has very little to do with the accuracy of what they write. Should we abandon atheism because they had progenitors 2000 years ago also? Now, I know some people read Genesis 1 like a science text book. They have their own problems. I’m not gonna help you win that argument (though I think you can.) But there is nothing illogical about positing a first cause.
As for previous stories being a tool to falsify the Bible. First it shows you have no concepts of polemics. Second, let me give you an example. Did you know that there was once a book written about a new super ocean liner called the Titus, and that on its maiden voyage it hit an iceburg and sank, and that most people died because it was not equipped with enough life boats? Does this sound familiar? It should! It is the story of the Titanic! Or is it…? Would you surprise you to know that the story of Titus was written DECADES before the actual events? Does that mean that everything written about the historical event of the Titanic are actually plagiarizing the story about the Titus? No of course not. Before you can prove plagiarism you need more than similarities. You need to provide proof. Something that has been universally refuted to those who keep up with scholarship.
As for his examples of his “favourites” there are so many problems with each one and this is becoming quite long that I will only pick one (as much as it pains me to let his other transparent errors slide). Well do an obvious one that shows that Courtenay actually hasn’t read the Bible himself, but just cherry picks concepts and runs with them.
Did David really dance naked “waving his pecker around as if it was a jump rope.” The story being cited here is from 2 Samuel 6:20 where David’s wife says, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!" So wait… did David dance naked!? Well if you read this verse in isolation in order to mislead people and grind your axe, it would sure seem so. But wait… what’s this!? It’s a little thing called CONTEXT. Am I asking you to look back 5 chapters to an obscure reference to solve it? No. Try 4 verses. 2 Samuel 6:14, which actually is the verse that describes the dancing, says, “David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might.” David was fully clothed! Why did Micah fret? Because David, the king, had taken of his royal garments and crown in public and went out dressed as a commoner.
Now, does Courtenay’s rash “synopsis” of the passage do anything to prove the Bible false even if it were correct? No not really. Besides being awkward for David it would really have no impact on the truth of the Bible or if God is hateful or not. So why point out this one? Because if Courtenay cannot even get something this simple right (and this is REALLY simple… just remember what was written 2 lines up) then how much can we trust him when it comes to complex issues of justice, religious practice, text criticism, historicity, covenantal structures, law/gospel distinctions, thematic tension/resolution, types/shadows/fulfillment, theology, logic etc. If he can’t even get basic narrative right, he will miss interpretation EVERY time.
His final statements, while tragic (truly, no one should have to suffer witnessing anything like that) are simply appeals to emotion to buy an illogical argument. To say that all religion is wrong because some religion is wrong, or that all Biblical religion is wrong because fundamentalist Islam is built off of the OT (which is actually a common misconception but quite incorrect) is like me saying that all evolutionists are evil because some evolutionists were involved in Nazi Germany’s experimentation on prisoners, or on the wicked eugenics programs of America, Brittan, and Germany. Or that all atheists are evil because of the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Cruschev, and Castro. The fact is that ANY belief can be used and abused by ideologues. To compare radicalist Islamic terrorists to even everyday muslims, let alone evangelicals, is not only sociologically fallacious, but just flat out logically fallacious as well.
Well, I hope I have put more than one rock in your shoe. I look forward to the other half of this interview.

Angelina

Monday 16th November 2009 | 06:05 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. I think you could have made that comment longer.

Nuts

Monday 16th November 2009 | 06:06 PM

There is a good reason most have not read the bible - BORING! Much like Tyler's thesis response. Get off your soap box.

Copy Paste

Monday 16th November 2009 | 07:12 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. ...doesn't win you any brownie points. Try thinking for yourself Tyler.

chongy

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 04:42 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. You humorless twat Tyler. Thank the devil I am going to Hell if heaven is full of the likes of you.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 08:25 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. Tyler, WOW! Thanks for stopping by.

Clearly God means a great deal to you, but I have a question for you, just one; if god is omnipotent, why does it not stand up for its self? Why does it not answer questions asked of it? Why does it need clowns like you to do it's 'dirty work'?

The answer is simple. If there there truely are such things as gods, they clearly do not give a toss what humanity does or thinks!

You, my dear Tyler, are not defending god, you are defending an ideal set out in the bible. Worse than defending an ideal though, you're defending a totally vindictive, jellous, violent, aggressive and morally inept decrepid being!

If you were defending someone like Superman who has a whole bunch of cool powers but occasionally makes some collateral damage, I'd understand, but you're defending history's greatest literary arch villan!

Seriously, if god's were as depicted in the bible, there is no bloody way I'd follow them... Give me Zeus or Odin any day!

That said, Tyler, why spend so much time defending something you've never met, you've never conversed with, you've never gazed upon and you never will - or at least while you have the functioning synapses required for adequate brain function?

Tyler V

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 12:07 PM

Wow, thank you all for proving my point precisely. Atheism claims that theists are illogical, ignore evidence, are closed minded, live by blind faith, etc. But not one single response dealt honestly with the arguments laid out. They all "toed the party line" as it were. You all can make ad hominem responses all day and it wont make single difference to the truth or falsity of the theistic worldview. The inability to self reflect of every response to my post is almost shocking if it werent so typical and thus expected. You see, when Courtenay deals out a shot across the bow (however weak the musket blast was) I responded to his arguments and his illogical, ahistorical, invalid assessments. What did you all attempt to do? Duck. Dodge. Avoid. Ignore. It is like the old preacher who writes in the margin of his sermon notes "POUND THE PULPIT" next to a point that he really has no support for. When you dont have good arguments or valid responses, shout louder.

And who said I was defending God? I'd sooner defend a Lion. I'm not DEFENDING God, I'm objecting to Courtenay's unsubstantiated, fallacious book and to atheism as a whole. Should I conclude that you stand up for atheism because it cant speak for itself... oh thats right, atheism is the rejection of theism and is thus a non-belief. So tell me, why do you defend a non-belief? I dont write books about the non-existence of unicorns or Santa Claus. "Santa Is Not Great," or "The Unicorn Delusion." If I have a non-belief, I just dont believe it. But atheists have hitched a non-belief to a worldview. Quite strange actually.

Now, are you all really so blinded by that non-belief worldview (hitched to naturalism) that you cant see that Courtenay has no business writing his book? Is anyone going to actually man up and actually interact with the arguments? Or is everyone going to sit back in a hermetically sealed worldview were youre not allowed to self reflect unless it is preapproved a priori by your worldview?

(And Chongy, it has nothing to do with Courtenay ability to be witty or cheeky. It has everything to do with the fact that is trying to pass fraud as fact.)

CJ

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 01:13 PM

Oh Tyler. My dearly beloved internet stalker. I will keep this brief because you are really not much more than an 'oxygen thief', BUT here is an example whereby your worship of the unseen has you all tripped out on Bible interpretation:

This is what I said in the RustyLime interview on Cain & Abel:

"And woe to you if your animal sacrifice fails to meet his expectations, as exemplified by poor old Cain who was discriminated against by God because he, as a crop farmer, had only carrots to offer as offerings compared to Abel’s much sought after cattle. For my money, God’s preference for meat over potatoes only further supports the claim that he loves the taste of blood."

This is what you replied in your vitriolic assassination attempt on me:

"but when it comes to the Bible he has an axe to grind and he grinds it on every passage regardless of what the text actually says.
A good example is even in his answer concerning Cain and Abel. Was God playing favorites? No. The fact is that Cain could have brought an acceptable offering from the fields (as seen later in fine flour being acceptable in place of an animal), but that he didn’t. Abel bought the FIRST BORN of the flock while Cain just brought whatever he found left over. This was, if you do even more than a cursory glance, a sin offering. They were not just saying “hey God, thanks for being cool.” They were to give of their lively-hood to atone for their sin. Abel took it seriously, Cain did not."

Now for the actual passage from the Bible, and I will let others determine just how far off the mark I am:

"Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the first born of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor." (Genesis 4:3-5)

Wow seems I was way out!

How you got what you wrote from the above passage is beyond my comprehension?? You are simply seeing what is not written. You are really hoping for God to finally put out an addendum aren't you, to clear up all the mess on the first draft?

WHAT BIBLE ARE YOU READING BUDDY? Are you reading the Jerry Falwell limited edition version of the Holy Book. Tell us that part again about homosexuals being responsible for 9/11? Brilliant.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 01:17 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Hi Tyler, I'm not sure how new to blogging you are, but what you might want to do if you'd like people to answer or address specific questions or rebukes that you have, is to keep them concise.

To answer your last question here, i.e. why do atheists target the bible/god/religion; now, I can't speak for any other atheist in the world besides myself, but as one who was raised in a fundamentalist christian household, I do it for the children out there.

For many years, I was taught that the stories of the bible were real, that they were not to be questioned and that satan was everywhere - from the cartoons the other kids got to watch, to inside the Mosque and Synagogue down the road. This, my dear Tyler, is utter horseshit. It is brainwashing and should be recognised as the absolute child abuse that it is.

The bible holds no truths or insights that can not be obtained from any work of literary fiction available in the childrens picturebook section of any book store, today.

If the bible is so mighty, if god is so mighty, let them stand on their own two legs and fight their own battles.

You say that if you didn't believe you would simply not believe, not attack those who do; are you saying that you are morraly superior because of your religion? Here you are attacking an authors perspective of a book that describes an abhorrent megalomaniac.

It's not nice to stereotype, but all Christians are hypocrits.

the being

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 01:19 PM

The sample chapter is actually pretty good. Don't know if I'd buy the book just yet though. Maybe put it on the Christmas list.

Vanessa

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 10:11 PM

Tyler, your persistence is kind of strange.

Papa

Wednesday 18th November 2009 | 03:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. Your first comment was completely wrong. Ever heard of Solo Scriptura? One of the main ideals behind Lutheranism which then later spawned, Protestants, Baptists, Calvinists, etc.

Papa

Wednesday 18th November 2009 | 03:17 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. I tried to read your whole comment but it was painful. Just skimmed through it, but the reason why Cain's offering was "denied" was most likely due to Yahweh cursing the earth a few verses earlier.

Robert

Wednesday 18th November 2009 | 02:07 PM

I have not read all on this page yet, and am printing it now. I want to say that I am a bedraggled refugee from the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church and at the age of 30 I became Atheist. That was because my knowledge of Science proved to me there was/is no "god" and no creation.
Recently as part of my research into the foundation of Judeo/Christianity I bought a copy of the NIV Study Bible to read parts of the Old Testament Roman Catholics and not encouraged to read. I got as far as Kings II and was to fed up with it I tore up that bible.
The Bible is the worst book of fiction ever written as should be classified Horror/Fiction- not suitable for under 18.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 18th November 2009 | 03:59 PM

...in response to this comment by Robert. Well said mate. Part two of this interview comes out tomorrow morning... stay tuned!

Joe Marco

Wednesday 18th November 2009 | 05:12 PM

Jesus Cristos! what was up with that comment! damn....that's like filibustering one into to submission. I no longer have any idea as to what the interview was about and have been re-born by default.

V2

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 09:00 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler, pleaser step cautiously around the garden bed of atheism
Shinning any light on its failures and followers can really upset them, they are a frail little lot.

Oh and on that "nobody reads the bible " bit. Have you atheists read it, do you understand it, and what is your main issue with it
A lot of people profess Christianity, that doesnt make them Christian

One question I want a response to
If God is to blame for an individuals decisions, does that mean that God exists, or is there no god and we can do whatever we want. Why cant I kill people in Bali
This is confusing
This is definitely a God doesnt exist site, yet, he suddenly does
Nice moral high ground gentlemen...who made you God over me
You are all no better than those you accuse

dogbite

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 09:50 AM

CJ look forward to reading the book. Tyler your a fucking douche. If you can't say something in less than 3 sentences on a Blog it aint worth saying. Go piss into wind you homo.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 10:12 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. Hi V2, all creepyness aside... and lets face it, your response was pretty creepy, you'll find that most atheists aren't that frail at all. We don't have a great lot of beliefs that are based on convoluted ramblings of ancient tribesmen, you know, the same beliefs that hold no basis in quantifiable or evidence based reasoning - but that doesn't make belief in those things illogical, afterall, it is human to fear and human to immagine, so why not put the two together!

To answer your question; no. You have clearly misinterpreted a simple blog post. CJ's book analyses the bible. In the bible, there is a god character that features pretty heavily and as such, CJ has taken what was said in that bible book and scrutinised it's characters.

Why can't you kill people in Bali? Well, the answer is you can; but why would you want to? They are human, just like you; they have thoughts and feeling, emotions and twitter accounts, just like you do; they have the same right to life that you do.

Morality, V2, is a community based institution. It is the community (or government, if you will) that decides what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable. The bible its self had a hand in this over a millenia ago, obviously though, this has been superceeded by hundreds of years of democratic judicial systems.

Lastly, and for the record, this site isn't a 'god doesn't exist' site. Many of the contributors and members are god lovers; I'm not, and a couple of others aren't - either way, we're pretty balanced here. Thanks for your input.

Tyler V

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 01:14 PM

To keep in concise.

Courtenay, you prove my point yet again. Lets return to Cain and Abel. Thanks for posting it for everyone. You say I see things that arent there? Not true. I just understand that like any good author, when the Bible says something explicit, it is for a reason. Cain brought fruit from the land. Was it the first fruits? the best? did he have no access to animals just because he was a farmer? We dont know. It just points out that he brought AN offering. What about Abel? What did he bring. Well he brought the FAT PORTIONS of the FIRSTBORN of his FLOCK. Now why do you think the text was so vague as to what Cain brought, and so specific as to what Abel brought? Because it is drawing a contrast between the QUALITY and PURPOSE of the offerings that each brought, not just giving a grocery list. This is why you CONSTANTLY misinterpret the Bible: because you are more concerned with your own axe, than actually doing your homework and performing good exegetical work. Sorry, your book is basically one big example of 21st century eisegesis and German Textual Criticism (something long abandoned by nearly every Biblical Scholar, Christian or not.)

Now Jake. You make the claim that morality is a communal based institution. So let me ask you this. Is God wicked in the Old Testament? Surely if morality is a social contract, you and Courtenay are actually WAY out of bounds to apply your 21st century social contract to 15th century BC activities? If morality is a social contract, who in the society picks the contract? In America the Christians think abortion is murder and the secular liberals dont. Who's contract? Is it subjective down to subculture? If its subjective down to subculture, then who's subculture? Maybe Dahmer had his social contract and his victims simply had another? Who are you to judge another person's social contract?

Or imagine society changed. Lets say suddenly all the women in the world decided to never have sex with men (sorry Vanessa). Well according to your worldview the major premise of neo-darwinian theory is the survival of the fittest, and so the only way for men to reproduce to pass on their genes is to rape the women. Now, is rape suddenly a moral action because it is best for the survival of the community? You see, as a theist I can say morality is rooted in the nature of God and thus rape is ALWAYS immoral. You want to base it on entirely subjective and relative social contracts.

The ironic thing is that in your attempt to critique God you must use universal, absolute moral standards, but your own worldview does not allow universal, absolute moral standards. You must either abandon your critique of God for being wicked as a false application of a different social contract, or you must abandon your naturalistic worldview (you atheism) and accept God to maintain your use of universal, absolute moral standards.

(I hope you fare better than Courtenay. He has been hopelessly lost on how to respond to this objection.) Good luck!

Tyler V

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 01:16 PM

Dogbite, you only prove my point. Has atheism reduced to ad hominems and character assassinations? I long for the days when atheism was atleast intellectually honest. At least Hume and Russell gave us a challenge.

Tank Top

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 01:29 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler you seem so smart that you seem stupid!

How was Cain able to match Abel's offering of the FAT PORTIONS of his cattle, with fat portions of a CARROT?

Sorry 1-0 CJ

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 01:51 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Thanks for keeping it short this time Tyler.

To answer your first question, do I think that the god of the old testament is wicked; well, out of consideration for the fact that I would usually only use the word 'wicked' to describe a backstabbing bitch of a best friend, no I wouldn't. In fact, god, i.e. the protagonist described in that great fantasy novel, the Bible, can not be accurately described by even the most emotive words - abhorrent, malevolent, evil, etc.

As you say though, it would be 'way out of bounds' to judge a book from the 15th century BC based on 21st century AD social morality... if of course the book was like Homer's Iliad or other mythical epics... but it's not. It is treated literally and interpreted literally as the word of god. So, with that said, blow it out your bung hole, preacher!

Now, to you other question about this so called 'social contract' you're describing - I don't remember signing anything but laws are created by a democratically elected government. These change and develop as the social conscience grows and develops (or evolves, if you will). Political ladder climers pick these issues as being important and use them in their platform to get them elected so that they can fight for their cause (or sell out - whatever).

If your god is moral, then my penis dwarfs the Empire State Building in both height and girth (girth is the important one). Furthermore, if the morality described in the bible is the kind that you subscribe to, then I seriously question whether you are actually writing to us from prison - having murdered several infidels.

Lastly, I shudder to think how deeply into your psyche you had to dive in order to pull out that hypothetical, but rape of anyone or anything is as abhorrent an act regardless of the situation. You creep me out dude, seriously.

V2

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 04:56 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Preachy little hombre arnt you Jake

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 05:57 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. When I get the chance, Veronica2.

Susan Means

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 10:46 PM

...in response to this comment by I second that. Can't wait to read the book. I've been waiting for something like this for a very long time. I'll be pre-ordering pronto!

Papa

Friday 20th November 2009 | 04:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "Sorry, your book is basically one big example of 21st century eisegesis and German Textual Criticism (something long abandoned by nearly every Biblical Scholar, Christian or not.) "

Hahahahahahahahaha. I am sorry, after I picked myself up off the floor I decided to make a response.

You have no idea what your talking about (period). How many universities have you attended? I am guessing none.

The historical critical method is THE method for understanding and reading ancient Judeo or Christian texts. It is the most widely used method in academia. Call any university known for their biblical departments and ask what method is used to read the bible. They will probably be confused because its kind of like stepping inside of a grocery store and asking if they sell food here.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th November 2009 | 06:48 AM

...in response to this comment by Susan Means. Hi Susan, the book is available now at amazon.com, use the link at the top of the page, or here:

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 07:46 AM

1st Jake. It doesnt matter how the Bible is READ. My question was about culture. If the Bible is a product of 15 century BC culture, what right, according to your basis for morality, do you have to project 21st century moral convictions on to it? In fact, that the Bible claims to be true history while the Iliad does not, actually proves my case MORE. See, it purports to be ACTUAL history from an ACTUAL culture involving ACTUAL people. You are more in bounds in judging the fictional characters of the Iliad with your 21st century moral code than you are the historical characters of the Bible (this is not an argument for the historicity of the Bible but I am allowing your rational to stand that because the Bible claims to be history it is more open to critique than less). So by your own admission you are judging another culture under a possibly different social contract that yours. Again, according to your basis for morality, this would be entirely unacceptable.

2nd, i never said anything about democratically elected beliefs. I said socially constructed contracts, which you attempted to base it on. hence my rape example, which you left untouched and simply avoided by just saying rape is wrong. But thats precisely my question! See, I can say that rape is ALWAYS 100% universally and absolutely wrong without exception because morality is based on the eternal, immutable nature of God. My question is what is YOUR basis? You said it was social contract and I gave an instance where social contract cannot account for why rape would be wrong. Hypotheticals are a common philosophical means of argumentation. If you have no response it is because your basis cannot account for your own use of universal, absolute, immutable moral laws.

3rd. I can see now why you rave over Courtenay's book now. you are just as wide-eyed anti-theistic as he is. You both make entirely rash and unfounded generalizations, one line statements regarding the Bible (which are actually unfounded, irrational, and entirely based on a priori assumptions, not informed evaluations of the texts), and the hollow character assassinations.

Finally to you Papa. i never said that historical critical method is not valid, I said that the German Higher Critical method and all the theological assumptions that came with it (something recycled by Courtenay and his idol Erhman) have been panned. Bultman, Schweitzer, and the like have all been disowned even in current German Critical circles.

CJ

Friday 20th November 2009 | 08:37 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler, you and your misguided sense from where morality stems from! We can't have morality without God? How utterly absurd, and contemptuous of our species you really are.

To suggest that unless the Bible is the accepted word of God, or without a God there can be no universal standard of morality is just insane. Really check yourself in for a frontal lobotomy if you believe this.

Admittedly we do not have a conclusive scientific understanding of morality, but it would appear self evident that raping, stealing, and murdering our neighbors is not in our tribe's best interests.

If your loony claim had any merit we would see secular societies behaving worst to one another than pious states. (Read the 2005 Human Development Report) The nations rated highest in terms of social dysfunction metrics are secular nations. The US ranks in at #27 out of a list of 50 developed nations. The bottom ten are all religious states.

Finally, answer the Christopher Hitchens question on morality. I've asked you this before and you were unable to. But have another crack at it champ:

1. Name an absolute moral action or statement that a person of faith can make that a non-believer would be prohibited or unable to make/do?

2. Name a wicked or immoral action or statement that only a person of faith could make or say?

Good luck with that Fan of Falwell!

CJ

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 09:12 AM

Ha, you do realize that you simply help my point dont you?

1st, you ever gonna evolve past character assassinations and ad hominem arguments and actually deal with the issues?

2nd I never said atheists cant be good. I said there is no basis for morality apart from God. Big difference.

3rd your refutation is "morality just is!" ha it is "self-evident." I agree. Morality is self-evident. My question is why is morality self-evident? Is it merely self-interest? So if you are all alone on an island, does morality cease to exist? In the scenario given above where our "tribe's" survival is impossible without rape, is rape still morally wrong even if it is in our "tribe's best interest" (i.e. its survival). I agree that is a disgusting prospect because I believe morality is external to culture. if it is a derivative of culture, what the basis for calling that scenario wrong?

4th you read that report as if religion is THE deciding factor. The cause of social dysfunction is actually a derivative of (shocking I know) society. This has to do with economics, class struggle, health care, education, industry, politics and politicians, history, location, etc. Your extrapolations regarding the polls are just as bad as they are about the Bible.

5th for those watching let me point out what Courtenay's response will be to my answer. "Thats ridiculous!" and i'll tell you why. The answer to question #1 is: a moral action that a theist can do that an atheist cant is Love God. Now, Courtenay will say that it is absurd because in order for that to be a moral action one must first believe in God. Well yes.... that is precisely the point of the question was it not? Something that a theist can do that an ATHEIST CAN NOT do? Well the principle difference between Atheism and Theism is belief in God. So the answer must entail that belief in God is required for it to be possible for the theist by impossible for the atheist. So Courtenay sets up a question that is impossible to answer within HIS OWN worldview in order to ridicule it. But the point of the question is to give a moral action that is IMPOSSIBLE within his worldview! So the answer is valid.

At this point Courtenay will then try and belittle that loving God is just not good enough of a moral action. In his mind he was seeking a moral CATEGORY, not a single moral action. But I need not give a whole category. Simply a moral action. Ironically, if i would have said something like "love your wife" the complaint would be "we can do that too," not "I meant moral category not a narrow action." Had i supplied an invalid answer, he would be entirely content with me giving a moral action.

So Courtenay, a moral action that a theist can perform that an atheist cannot PRECISELY because of his disbelief in God, is loving God.

6th. I never claimed that Christians couldnt sin in every way an atheist could. So your second question doesnt get you anywhere.

Now Courtenay, I have a question or you. You title your blog "Rationalist". Tell me, you use the laws of logic. The immaterial, universal, absolute, immutable laws of logic. In a finite, temporal, changing, chaotic universe, what is the basis for laws of logic and their referent to a uniform creation? Are laws of logic social conventions as well?

CJ

Friday 20th November 2009 | 09:25 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. If your answer is that the only absolute moral action or statement I am unable to make or do, as a non-believer, is "Love God". Then the defense rests your honour. The plaintiff is clearly of unsound mind, and his testimony must be disregarded.

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 09:33 AM

I rest my case. I answered the question (an moral action that an atheist cannot perform) and Courtenay says that I am unsound in mind because it is not a moral action that an atheist can perform. Ha.

Tell me Courtenay, is it unsound because it is not a moral action or because it is impossible to do without believing in God? (Rock ---- you ---- hard place).

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 09:41 AM

Again for those watching from the sidelines, this is where he will either become aggressive and vitriolic with character assassinations and rash illogical generalizations, or will stop talking in an attempt to silence opposition. (Both of which he has done multiple times during our various dialogues.)

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:14 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler V, I've decided that because of your juvenile love for the intangible, I'm going to call you Bilbo, who, if you've ever read the epic of Gilgamesh, is the loveable little character who is two parts god and one part man in the same way you're two parts deluded and one part coherrant.

So, Bilbo, to answer your insinuations, the reason I sidestepped your question about rape is that you posed a hypothetical which was so hypothetical it turned into a fantasy - what would happen if women refused to have sex with men, would rape be justified - well, the simple answer is; based on the inherrant socal morality of today, and that it is today, considered illegal to rape, no. My personal belief is that rape is abhorrent and anyone found guilty of it deserves sergical castration!

That said, in some parts of africa, rape, while never acceptible, is something that happens regularly and will mostly go unpunished - hence the horrible surge of aids and other communicable diseases.

Also, Bilbo, you alude to some divine misconcation that god=morality and without god, one can not be moral. Well, the etymology of Moral comes from the old friench word L. moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," and was firs coined in around 1340 Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate the Greek 'ethikos '. Now, if we're going to go into ethics, we'll actually be crucifying (if you'll excuse the pun) your argument as again, ethics are socally accepted or culturally cultivated 'rules'.

That said, I'm an Atheist of the highest order - I've even been circumcised... oh, wait... so Bilbo, are you saying that I'm not moral?

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:26 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Bilbo/Tyler V, I have a question for you - why do you asume that god=morality and without god, one can not be moral?

I have no gods, I certainly don't get on my knees for Jesus, and yet I am charitable, am affectionate towards my mother and wipe my sweat of gym equiptment after I use it... surely that makes me moral?

For a religious fruitcake such as yourself - and don't get me wrong here, the reason I love christmas so much is not because of the presents, but because of the fruitcake... I love it - all the proof you need that your assertions are correct are contained in the bible, a book which you believe to be true. I like to call this effect the "Stupidity Paradox" but it is also commonly known as "Pa, go get the shotgun".

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:34 AM

So you have gone from ad hominem to ACTUAL name calling. Strange. But at least I'm "loveable."

You are still side stepping the question. I didn't ask how you evaluate the action in this culture, I asked if rape would be morally acceptable in THAT culture since you claim that morality is the social contract of the culture. It is YOUR premise that morality is a social contract and so I gave a scenario when a social contract would lead to mass rape being justified. If you dont like the conclusions of you position then change it or prove my logical extension is invalid.

Thanks for the etymology of "moral" even though it is entirely beside the point. I have never alluded that God = morality (especially if by that you think that I mean atheists cant be moral. Atheists can be moral but only because they borrow the basis from the theist without knowing it. They are inconsistent with their own worldview. This is the basis transcendental argument.) That would be a category mistake like saying food = cake. I have said that God is the only possible basis for universal, absolute, immutable eternal moral codes which we all apply every day, even if we deny they exist (just punch a relativist in the face or give them an F on a well written paper and see how long it takes for them to invoke a universal standard of justice.) In your response you did nothing to prove that morality is based on "culturally cultivated rules." Your argument would be like me saying that the etymology of "theology" is the study of God and therefore God exists. I didnt know linguistics could be a basis for arguments dealing with ontology?

Plus I never said that ethics are not cultural. Ethics, to a degree, are the right application of morality to various circumstances: bio-ethics, business ethics, professional ethics, social ethics, etc.

You still have not been able to base your use of absolute, universal morals within a cultural setting. I gave an example where culture could change with the circumstances. I never said this culture was real, but if this culture existed you would be forced to accept that rape within that context would be justified. You see, for a theist, rape is INHERENTLY wrong because morals based on a universal, absolute, immutable base (God). You base yours on a finite, subjective, ever-changing entity (culture) thus you have no ground for morality or moral judgment.

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:42 AM

Again, I never said an atheist cannot be moral. You can be moral but your own worldview cannot account for its own use of absolute morality. I never said BELIEF in God = Morality, I said God is the BASIS for morality. Big difference. It is one of the reasons I believe atheism to be false. Only God can account for universal, absolute, immutable, eternal laws of logic and moral standards. A finite, chaotic, impersonal, changing, random universe simply cannot account for them.

So why can atheists be moral and love their neighbors and tell the truth, etc? Because God created the universe and thus there is objective morality. And the atheists are a part of that universe and thus can perceive those objective morals. (hence Courtenay's "they just are" but his, and your, complete inability to base them in anything equally objective.) You claim to be rational but are willing to say that we can get absolutes from provisionals, universals from finites, immutables from mutables, and uniformity from chaos, all by random chance and blind luck. You can reorder the english alphabet all you want, but you will never get a Japanese poem unless an outside, intelligent cause inserts Japanese characters and uses purpose.

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:44 AM

And no, I didnt use that illustration to talk about Intelligent Design (though I think it holds for that too) but laws of logic and objective moral standards.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:51 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Bilbo, to answer your question, I don't live in that society, so I can't very well make a judgment on it. Go to a refugee camp in south africa, uganda or the ghettos of frigging Salt Lake City in Utah and ask a 15 year old boy whether it is ok to rape a woman that refuses sex, then ask the same question of Richard Dawkins, or CJ, or another atheist and I'll bet you 3 brandy infused fruitcakes that their opinions differ.

The reason that I gave you the etymology of the word moral was to show you that it is a concept derrived 100% the f*ck seperate from the bible, your god and your god stick. Take time digesting that, it may sting a little.

That said, your logical base is not based on logic. Every form of justification you require is in a book based purely in fantasy. Belief and fact are two different things. The fact is that there is no reason to suggest that any god throughout history was more real than the others. In fact the gods of Egypt, Sumeria and Mesopotamia were as numerous as they were specific, they were also astrological, had sides of love and nurturing and evil malevolence and they predate monotheistic religion by a few thousand years. Again, take some time digesting that.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th November 2009 | 11:19 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. My dear Bilbo, that you believe in inteligent design doesn't surprise me, you're american, the americans made the Corvette... made/intelligently designed/whatever... so it makes perfect sense that you would believe your own notion of your own superiority.

In fact, gods were also intelligently designed. The same people that brought you the stone axe, the bone shovel and the wearing of animal skins brought you the first gods.

Now, back to morality; morality isn't univiersal it is social! Actually, it is class based. The morals (or 'proper behavior of a person in society') of someone in the slums is different to the morals (or 'proper behavior of a person in society') of someone living in a mansion.

If you think differently, then your John Everyman (or Joe The Plumber) immage just disolved into dog faeces in front of you.

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 03:06 PM

You still have completely avoided actually answering the question. You said that morality is based on social contract and what is best for the society. I gave you an example of a society in which rape was the only possible way to extend the species. By YOUR own standard, rape would be acceptable THERE. im not asking you to evaluate here. Im not even asking you to come to a moral decision on whether it is right or wrong. I am asking you to say if that decision would be justified in that context because it is socially derived and best for the survival of the species.

You complete inability to answer the question shows that you realize the land mine you have stepped on and rather than changing your position, you simply dismiss the problem. Its alright. I cant blame you. Its hard when you realize that a person who you label as "irrational" pulls the carpet out from under you.

You still also misrepresent my position. I never said morality is based on the Bible. You can argue against that all day if you want. But its a straw man as that is not the position being argued for. Especially since morality existed before the Bible was written. So that stick may sting someone, but its not me. sorry.

I'm also not sure a logical base can not be logical...? Strange statement. From which you launch into a diatribe concerning the various kinds of deities worshiped throughout antiquity. Which, sorry to tell you, doesnt actually get you anywhere. I would be like me pointing out that there have been many theories of gravity and most have been wrong and so all must be wrong. Or there have been many claims of neo-darwinians that have been as specific as they are varied and a lot of have been wrong so therefore all must be wrong. Sorry, the illogical nature of your argument is almost mind-boggling irrational.

And then you change your basis of morality from social contract to class-contract. This actually is WORSE than before. Besides that fact that what you are referring to is actually more along the lines of etiquette and not morality, you actually make your basis for morality even more flimsy. So lying is morally acceptable for a thief if they are lower class but not if they are upper class. What happens if someone makes money and changes classes? Must their morals change (not DO they, but MUST they). If a poor man steals from a rich man, what right does the rich man have to impose his upper-class moral code on the poor man, or is it purely "might makes right"? If I came over tomorrow broke into your house, beat you up, and stole all your possessions, I dont think you would say "oh, your morals are based on a different culture/class. haha, you americans are so jaunty." You would shout for justice and betray your gut level conviction that morality is indeed universal.

If you still want to maintain that morals are not universal, then you must abandon your ability to pass moral judgments on anyone, especially on people of other cultures and from different times. Thus, no calling God sadistic, wicked, violent, unjust, unfair, not worthy, etc. You simply cannot apply any moral language to him at all. Neither can you even make sense of the statement that Mother Theresa is more moral than Hitler. You simply are not justified in applying your subjective moral code to their contexts.

Cactus

Friday 20th November 2009 | 05:57 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Name calling Jake?
Why not call him and his family stupid and get it over and done with
We know you want to, we know you will..eventually, when frustration takes over. When your silly argument cant be sustained any longer
Like a good dictator, working the crowd. Name calling, simply; I am superior and you are inferior
The bullied try's bullying. Its not school ground, you just look stupid
Be a man, not a child, I call you Jake not Jerk.........Its courtesy

Jake Farr-Wharton

Saturday 21st November 2009 | 07:21 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Hi Bilbo, to answer your question which isn't as much a land mine as you suggest; ultimately, a society such as that must have done something pretty bad in order to piss of the entire female population of earth.

Obviously, considering that this is hypothetical, I am allowed to throw in a few hypotheticals of myself... so considering that well into the future, the process of cloning and genetic manipulation will be both a controlled and a readily used process, the remaining men on earth would simply clone children, if that was their prerogative.

One of my good friends is the child of a rape victim and while she was one of the lucky ones whose mother dealt with the trauma and did not let the rape effect their relationship, there are plenty of children of rape victims (i.e. those either unable to go through with, or not allowed to have abortions) who treated this kids like shit because of it. Imagine the life that an entire generation of children would have, let alone the shared trauma that all those raped women would have to deal with.

Surely, by empathetically acknowledging this, the women of earth would want to make sticky with us again?

Last Bilbo, I absolutely maintain that morals are not universal. Again, go and visit a third world country for a month and live in the slums, their morals are different to those of ours in the first world. Whilst there is still the basic moral imperative that killing another human is wrong, such thought can be subverted or partially internally justified if such a murder means that your child lives or can eat. Comprende`?

Furthermore, and I'll only write this because if you're even slightly astute you will recognise that I just put a tangible value on human life, I absolutely deny that this is because we share a creator. I don't have any vestige that there is any form of life after death, no body should, when someone dies, their physical presence is gone, their personality, their thoughts, hopes and dreams are gone, their memories and accumulated knowledge and wisdom is gone. That is the value of a human life.

Tyler V

Saturday 21st November 2009 | 08:15 AM

Still dodging. Im not talking about alternatives, I'm talking about YOUR proposed base for morals. I'm beginning to think that while you say I'm an irrationalist, you are unable to make concept differentiations.

Great, you admit morals arent universal. Then you cannot agree with Courtenay that the God of the Bible is evil, wicked, sadistic, or malevolent because those are all moral terms which find their meaning within the social context that they are used and thus we have no right to pour our 21st century meaning into other times or contexts. So you must stand against Courtenay with me, but for completely different reasons.

You also must give up any ability to place praise or blame as hopelessly subjective. Sorry Billy, no more pat on the back for telling the truth that you broke your neighbor's window. Sorry Jews, Hitler wasnt morally wicked, he was acting out of his subjective morality and hey, might makes right.

Sorry Jake, but pointing to differences doesnt disprove universals either. Your basic syllogism is:

1. There are differences in cultural expressions of morality.
2. Therefore there is no universal moral standard.

I'm baffled to see how you get from 1 to 2. Is it not possible that some or all of them are aberrant on one or more points? I'm not sure how the differences necessitate that there is not a moral standard (especially considering that when we are wronged, even the relativist will appeal to universals!)

Your final paragraph is also nonsensical. You admit that you did put a value on human life, and say it is not because of a creator, but then the rest of the paragraph is about the non-persistence of the self after death, to which you say "That is the value of human life." So the value of human life is that we dont persist after death? I really dont think that is what you MEANT but that is what you typed.

My question either way, is where does the inherent value of human life reside? And what is the basis for the value of human life in a materialistic, neo-darwinian world? Do we not see the logical outcome of this in programs like eugenics where the "unfit" were experimented on and given forced sterilization in order to keep them from "infecting" the fit human race? Where is the value on human life there?

Jake Farr-Wharton

Saturday 21st November 2009 | 08:29 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Bilbo, mom is going to be so mad with you!

As I stated earlier, I don't believe that any situation justifies rape, but again, as I said earlier, I don't live in this future hypothetical of yours.

Bilbo, your example about the Jews isn't exactly politically correct, but your observation is correct. The fact that so many in the nazi party supported hitler, that they allowed him to do the unspeakable against the Jews is testament to my assertion. Morals are not universal, they, as I demonstrated quite clearly by posting the definition and etymology, show 2 things, 1stly that the tin foil rapped around your cranium is too tight, and 2ndly, that they are communally based, i.e. the society decides what is moral or not.

Get it? How about now? Now? I didn't think so. Have one of your servants whip you up some pot brownies, that'll expand your mind just enough to fit this in for you.

Where does the inherent value of life reside? Well Bilbo, that is a deeply philosophical question and I don't have arts degree to back this up, but my thoughts on the matter is that society places value on a human life.

All of those little individual facets that I listed in my last post, the hopes & memories etc, can be appreciated by all humans because we all have them, we evolved to develop deep and complex neural synapses that were capable of holding not only a concentric and individual consciousness, but also memories following a wibly wobbly time line.

Thank god we've evolved this far, right Bilbo?

Tyler V

Saturday 21st November 2009 | 08:41 AM

Great, so you dont think that any situation merits rape. Neither do I. but what is your basis? Culture is subjective and may change on this issue. Will rape still be wrong in that context because RAPE is wrong or because culture says so... even though culture no longer says so? You BASIS is subjective even though you want to hold it objectively. Sorry, you dont get both.

FYI, etymology NEVER proves a case. ha. It just shows the root of the word. lol. wow.

And wait... did you just admit that within Nazi Germany it was MORAL to exterminate Jews because the social contract?! Are you really more willing to say that the extermination of 6 MILLION Jews leads to moral relativism rather than just accepting that it was a moral violation!?

Oh so the value of human life is also culturally derived? Now, I agree that culture can EXPRESS what it THINKS to be the value of human life or morality, etc. What I reject is that they are the final authority or the basis for universal morals. According to your basis, not only were the Nazi's MORAL for exterminating 6 MILLION Jews, but early America was also MORAL in its devaluation of the value of African humans as less than human. After all, that was culturally derived. Does that not prove, according to you, that we should not see the American slave trade as a tragedy but as just an event in history that we must remain morally neutral on because they were moral within their own context?

See, I think even most of your atheist readers arent willing to follow you where you have gone.

Dave VB

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 08:38 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler V, or Bilbo as you have now been dubbed,

You are holding onto your hypothetical world where women decide not to have sex to support a distortion of morals that justifies rape like a smoking gun.

Take a good long look at the fossil record and you will see that our species extends back beyond the conception of god/gods. So where did our notion of god and morals develop. Well it wasn’t from our malevolent bearded friend in the sky, that’s for sure. They evolved over thousands of years. Maybe once, a long time ago, the female specimens were not so willing to breed with the males. In that time and place, evolutionary speaking, rape would have been justified for the continuation of the species. In the animal kingdom, this is a common occurrence.

Is rape justifiable in our more civil and westernized culture of today? Simply No. But we may never know what will happen, since hopefully we will never be faced by such a dilemma. But I am pretty sure that instincts and evolution will prevent woman from making such ‘Choices’.

This may be a big ask of one so faithful, but please remove god from the picture for a moment. We evolved before the notion of god and we had structured tribes and primitive societies before Monotheism was ever conceptualized. So therefore we must look at the evolutionary history of your so called “Universal Morals”. Have a read of one of my recent articles on sinning and morality and it will suggest many a logical argument for the evolutionary roots of morals and other superstitious tendencies.

https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=3762

As hominids migrated and created independent civilizations that were isolated from one another, just like the divergence of species, separate moral codes evolved. In the Middle East for example, it is still morally acceptable to undergo an “Honour Killing”. Does this adhere to your strict universal moral code? I doubt it. The “Universal Moral Codes” you deduce come from god, more likely evolved before the divergence of races, or evolved after the civilizations grew to such an extent that increased migration and dialogue converged to create a basic fundamental code of morals.

Do not be fooled by the grand delusion of god’s power. We were here before god, and will hopefully be here long after the foolish notion of god ceases. But I doubt that. Look beyond your blindfold of faith and inject the evidence that is mounting that precludes the notion of monotheism, and then I will consider your debate as intellectually founded.

Until then, I will consider you motivated by faith and faith alone.

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 09:27 AM

Dave,

First, the hypothetical is intended to show the logical consequences of a culturally based moral system. If morality is culturally based, no matter how much it may help society, it can never be absolutely binding on any person because there is actually NO real morality. Culture can only create an illusion of morality. But if there is no objective law giver, then there is no real law. We may use rules to keep society in line, but it is actually meaningless to call rape, murder, theft, deceit “wrong.”

I find it funny that you then look to the fossil record to make an appeal as to when morality started. Tell me, where was the “moral” fossil found? I think if you thought through that statement before you typed it, it may have come out clearer but you didn’t, and that is what we were left with: you trying to prove humanity predated morality based on fossils.

You then appeal to the animal kingdom to show that rape is “permissible” there but completely miss that what separates us from animals is our ability to be moral and see rape, no matter the reason and objectively wrong. But if it is rooted in evolution, tell me, why should I obey it? Evolution cannot provide a basis for objective morality.

You then say that you are “pretty sure that instincts and evolution will prevent woman from making such ‘choices.’ (i.e. denying men sex). Tell me, since you lambasted me for operating based on faith, what is the evidence of that statement. Do you KNOW that to be true or are you simply putting faith in evolution?

You next paragraph is a absurd as they get. “remove God from the picture for a moment.” Ha, in other words, “give up your argument for the sake of mine.” That would be like me saying, “believe in God for a moment, and since God exists then the Bible must be true and you are wrong. Q.E.D.” Even if, for the sake of argument, I grant your premises, your conclusion still does not follow. As shown above, evolution cannot provide a base for ACTUAL morals only the illusions of morals. It would be like trying to obey the speed limit when there was no government that ever set them. Sure there may be “rules of the road” that make life easier, but since there is no government and thus no one would be citizens, it follows that no one would be obliged to follow them. So it may be “good” for society for me to follow the “rules” but what is the basis for us wanting the “good” of society since that itself is a moral evaluation by which I would not be obliged to follow.

And yes I read your article. It was basically an excuse for hedonism that ends with pronouncement that we do not choose to sin because they are involuntary. Well, my response is, I would love to see you respond of your girlfriend cheated and then tried to get out of it by saying “but honey, I didn’t ACTUALLY do anything wrong since it was an involuntary action based on my evolutionary need to reproduce.” Something tells me you would still call her a foul name and leave because you hold objective morality in practice no matter how much you try and deny them in theory. This is clearly seen since you expect that even if she may have the URGE that she not act upon it. Choice. This alone debunks your whole article let alone you SWEEPING and vague assumptions and generalizations about the moral causal power of evolution.

Ironically you then say that “we SHOULD have a code of social morals to ensure that we promote a cohesive and constructive society. These SHOULD take in to consideration human nature coupled by community expectation and impact on other people.” I capitalized your moral pronouncements to bring them out. Tell me. WHY should we do those things? Are they just evolved and thus illusions that we have no obligation to obey (your basis) or culturally based and thus subjective to one culture but not to others (Courtenay and Jake’s basis) or are we obliged to obey them (My basis, even thought I may not agree with the results of those particular statements.) You in fact borrow from MY worldview in order to base your own system. Get off my lawn.

You then ask about honour killing. I’m not sure what that argument is meant to get you. Why would that influence God being a basis for morality? See, I have a category that cultures can be WRONG in where they arrive at in their cultural expressions of morality. Culture is NOT the measure of morality. So yes honour killing DOES fit in, precisely because I can look at it and say it is wrong.

You then chide me for a “blindfold of faith.” I don’t think that I have one, but lets assume you are right. Tell me, why is it “wrong” for me to have one? Is it objectively wrong? Or is it just culturally wrong? Or is it based on evolution and thus only have the illusion of being wrong?
Finally, you can consider my basis any which way you please. The problem is that you are stuck on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma. Either morality is real, and thus must have a law giver (God or culture; the former providing a basis for absolute morality, the latter subjective relative morality) or it is evolved and is thus an illusion of morality that is actually a moral fiction.

You appealed to the animal kingdom, now I will do the same. It is common for a baboon to come into the lair of another baboon, stupefy him with blows, then kidnap its mate and carry her shrieking into the night to forcibly have sex with her. Now, you say or morals are similar to theirs. Ignoring the fact that animals are not objectively moral while we are, imagine that I came over to your house and did the same thing. Would you shrug it off as an involuntary brain function based on my evolutionary desire to reproduce? No, you would either come for revenge because you had been objectively WRONGED or called the police because a law had been broken that the government (law maker) had put into place.

You say I am motivated by faith, tell me, did I ever appeal to faith? (something I have also never done in ANY of my posts here, which makes it appear that you are either blindly arguing your position regardless of the actual arguments before you or that you simply do not care to understand the opposing side in order to bunker yourself in. Which is it?)

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 09:30 AM

Plus, any moral system that ends in you saying that rape, genocide, Nazi Germany, and American Slavery are moral MUST be wrong. You may disagree. I think I have argued for that above, but even if I have to fall back on faith, sorry. I just cant accept, and I think that MOST people cant, even atheists, that any moral system that permits those things has gone awry somewhere.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 09:59 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Bilbo;

"the hypothetical is intended to show the logical consequences of a culturally based moral system"

That is what morality is! Morality is culturally based, it is not derrived from some mystical f*cking overlord, it exsisted before f*cking monotheism. The Sumerians and ancient Egyptians had morality, they had laws and they had polytheism. They also predate your invented god, and your notions of god derrived morality by a couple of thousand years.

You do realise that the reason that the biblical god is so schizofrenic is that he had to encompas so many sides, so many facets that were previously attributed to seperate gods. One for war, one for compassion, one for action, one for passivism, one for sex, one for fertility, one for immagination and inspiration, one for the sea, one for the stars, one for the night and one for the day.

Either way, if you ask an orthodox Jew, i.e. the inventors of your god, you are likely to be told that their view is that their god has very little influence on humanity, mainly because he has a f*cking universe to govern.

Why are christians so f*cking blind? The earth isn't made for you or because of you! The universe is the only infinity that humanity will ever get to experience, and we don't even inhabit .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and so on and so on 1% of it.

There at over 400 billion stars in the milky way galaxy alone mate, if the universe was made for us by a god, then I'm looking forward to the opportunity to kick that f*cker in the face for wasting so much matter!

I have a question for you Bilbo, does creation have a purpose?

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 10:41 AM

Exactly, the hypothetical is intended to show the logical consequences of a culturally based moral system: i.e. that rape, genocide, Nazis and slavery are moral in their own contexts. A culturally based moral system is NO moral system at all because morality would be subjective to every person and there would be no obligation and thus no moral "ought"ness. If your girlfriend was raped, all you could tell her in truth was "well in your mind that is wrong, but that guy was actually acting out of his own moral code and so he was perfectly entitled to violate you. so dont cry..." (although even your sympathy for your sister would not be moral but subjective to you, so if someone stood by and laughed at her, they would be within THEIR moral right to do so. Sorry man, cultural morality leads to no morality at all.

For you to say “that is what morality is” is begging the question since that is precisely what is to be proven. You also still assume that I think morality cropped up somewhere with the advent of monotheism, or the writing of the Bible. I have told you before, and I’ll tell you again, MORALITY IS BASED ON THE ETERNAL NATURE OF GOD and thus whenever you try to argue with anything different, you aren’t arguing with me. I don’t care the sumarians or the Egyptians had morality because they don’t predate God’s existence.

You then also beg the question regarding why God’s nature is the way he is. You already assume that he is an invention of culture and then argue from that assumption to that conclusion. Sorry. That’s illogical.

Your diatribe after is ironically more faith based than most of what I hear from my fellow Christians and so vitriolic as to almost be non-sensical. “The universe is big, thus God doesn’t exist.” Ha, how does THAT logic work? ha

I also deny your question, because no answer will be valid in your worldview. It would be like me asking you, tell me, does creation bring glory to God?

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 11:01 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Rape, slavery, and what the nazis did was never moral in any f*cking context, Bilbo, the reason it was allowed to happed what some dickwad with a loud voice and heavy political backing convinced those in power that by allowing it, the world would be a better place.

In the case of Hitler, you had plenty of SS deserters that didn't wwant to go through with the torture or genocide, and there were thousands of guns from fallen soldiers that were never fired (suggesting that they would rather be killed than have to kill).

Morality isn't universal mate, and it is certainly not attributed to a god or gods. The very fact that morality predated monotheism proves this.

Furthermore, your logic is circular. You are saying that morals come from your god... well, where did your god get his logic? another god?

If you read what I wrote about the universe, I was simply saying that it is not centric to humanity. This planet was not created to suit the conditions of humanity, life slowly evolved to suit the changing conditions of this planet, as it will continue to do.

Lastly, you wan't me to answer your question, answer mine.

Secular Peace and Love Bilbo, right in you a-hole.

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 11:31 AM

Do you not see the problem with saying "Rape, slavery, and what the nazis did was never moral in any f*cking context," and then starting the next paragraph with "Morality isn't universal." Well which is it? Are those morally wrong in every context (universal) or are morals not universal? This is exactly the dilemma I am pointing out. You cannot base our absolute morals (which YOU use) on culture (which you TRY to do). The culture cannot base the morals. So you must either give up universals (which you cannot do because you will ALWAYS appeal to universals in the cases of rape, genocide, or if you feel you have been wronged) or the cultural base. You dont get to have both as even you yourself have now shown.

As for circular reasoning. Circular reasoning when it comes to absolute authority is necessary. I would never say that about any other thing, but absolute authority for reason must itself be self-referential. So even your claim that reason is the authority is self-referential. Why is reason the authority, because it is reasonable to say so. Any claim to an absolute authority will by necessity be circular, but not viciously so. (For more on this you can read Bahnsen, Frame, Van Til, Oliphint, etc.)

Plus God does not subscribe to an exterior source of logic (see the conversation with Courtenay about "divine command theory").

Ha, and I didnt expect you to answer my question. My question would be absurd in your worldview because it expects you to believe something in my worldview to be able to answer it.

And finally, you say this world is not centric to humanity. Well it seems that it is centric to life. Even Sagan noted that our universe seems to be finely tuned to life and that if even a single variable were tweeked a millionth of a percent, no life could exist anywhere in the universe.

I think the anthropic principle is still up for grabs in the mind of most scientists. But besides that... Im not sure why you brought this up. I never mentioned anything regarding it. Are you just throwing out any old argument in order to change the previous topic that you were unable to answer?

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 11:32 AM

p.s. Bilbo reminds me more of the Hobbit than the Enish.

Dave VB

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 01:21 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. TV,

Given your extreme example regarding the hypothetical situation you have provided for the culturally based moral system, any such argument can be taken to extremes to justify your calls. Alack of belief in a divine power is in no way impregnable to such corrupt and warped viewpoints. But I think you just hit the nail on the head with your sound bite, “there is actually NO morality”, at least not in a solid non-dynamic state. I disagree that it is meaningless to call rape, murder, theft or deceit wrong, meaning is subjective. In some societies, such acts may not be judged as wrong by the letter of the law, but our instincts have evolved to consider these things ethically wrong to promote social cohesion amongst our tribes.

I did not refer to the “Fossil Record” to appeal as to when morality started. If you read the whole sentence it says:

“Take a good long look at the fossil record and you will see that our species extends back beyond the conception of god/gods.”

I was discrediting your link of morals to a god that supposedly created man. It is only logical to presume such morals began to develop when our minds began to expand, which is why I followed up with...

“So when did our notion of god and morals develop(?)”

I thought through that statement long before I typed. But given to your tendency to interpret literature to suit your own mindset and preconceived beliefs, I am not surprised you took this out of context.

I have never said that rape is permissible; I was trying to demonstrate that a crime is only a crime from an established point of view. From my established point of view, rape is a crime, but from another’s it may not.

To truly understand the human beast, we must look to the animal kingdom for a wealth of inspiration. They are not so dissimilar from us, most just lack the mental capacity we wield. Anatomically they are very similar, and to observe and learn from their existence, allows us to hypothesize on how we became what we are today. To discredit the animal kingdom from this equation would be to deny the last 4.5 billion years of history from the equation of where our moral’s developed. Oh wait, that’s what you are doing.

Evolution cannot provide a basis for objective morality, but it offers an avenue of understanding, dissecting and ultimately improving our moral codes to better serve humanity. To rely on evolution alone can lead to very dangerous paths, like eugenics. Why should you obey it you ask? Think empathy and you will find your answer.

To quote myself again “pretty sure that instincts and evolution will prevent woman from making such ‘choices.’” You ask is this based on faith. Maybe it is. But my faith is based on historical evidence, not teachings from a society you say yourself would be way out of bounds to apply our 21st century social contract on 15th century BC activities. So why is it not so out of bounds to apply 15th century activities to 21st century social contracts? So yes I am putting an educated faith in evolution. Since if the female specimen did abstain from sex and god’s moral codes against rape triumphed over instinct, then the species would die out and another will rise to replace it. Evolution will prevail.

I never did say “give up your argument for the sake of mine” now did I? Is this just your habit of interpreting text in your own special way shining through again? I was subtly pointing out that to make your argument plausible, we would need to deny the existence of man before god created him. If I was to disregard the mountain of evidence that discredit’s creationism, then I would obviously conclude that god created morality, just like you have. But what I was pointing out is that if you remove god from the equation, then the evidence concludes that morals evolved from societies or their equivalents’ of the times. God cannot be credibly used as evidence. It would be like calling Santa Claus to the stand as an alibi. Evolution can explain the origin of morals while god can offer the illusion of morals. I think you might have had it the wrong way round. The “Good” of society is decided by the majority of society, laws are rarely objective and rarely need to be. What is the point of having a law against something that is socially acceptable by the majority??? You are obliged to follow it because the majority say you should. Survival of the fittest my friend and that is reality.

To your response of reading my article, thank you. I will not delve into my beliefs on monogamy, since this is not really the topic we are discussing. But yes, maybe I am hedonistic, but aren’t we all. It just takes a holy book to denounce the pleasurable as sinful, when in fact it’s pleasurable for a reason. To not make sweeping generalizations in a blog would mean it became a research article, not a blog. Please take note of the difference. I was simply offering an explanation other than, “God created morals and Lucifer causes us to sin” there is a logical explanation to everything. You just have to be willing to seek it.

I did not borrow anything from your world view, otherwise I would probably be dancing in your grand delusion. For humanity to flourish and for us to all enjoy our short time on this beautiful planet the cosmos provided, we need laws and moral ethics to promote cohesion. With cohesion comes peace and happiness. To disregard any moral standpoint would be to allow this world to become individualistic and descend into anarchy. Why should we do these things? So we grow, progress and carry on our species. Our obligation to obey is the repercussions of the law that is decided by the majority. These laws are put in place so that we all have an equal opportunity to achieve our desires, however hedonistic they may be. But we are stuck thinking in a westernized world. Think about the caste system of India or Pakistan, morally it is acceptable. So yes I am sharing CJ’s and Jakes viewpoint that morals are subjective to culture. You cannot expect every culture to share the same morals, because they simply don’t. Our obligation to obey is to the society we currently belong to. To not obey will wind you up in court, or in some countries, crucified.

To answer your last question...did you ever appeal to faith? Well, you explain a universal set of morals by giving the god created them excuse. In my opinion, that is appealing to faith. There is no physical evidence to support the existence of god, therefore I give more weight to the evolutionary debate. No I am not arguing my position regardless of the points in front of me, If you read carefully and stop interpreting my word’s to justify your claims, you will find I address each of the arguments from my, scientifically based, point of view.

I respect your point of view, but will continue to discredit it with evidence where possible. Thank you.

V2

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 02:15 PM

Bilbo?
Seriously Jake, is that your best argument.
You are grasping at straws and calling people names, Jake you seem to think name calling is moral, belittling people is excusable when you cant defeat the argument.
Name calling
Intelligent conversation?

TV: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right… and who is dead.

Jake: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

TV: You’ve made your decision then?

Jake: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

TV: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Jake: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?

TV: Australia.

Jake: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

TV: You’re just stalling now.

J: You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you? You’ve beaten my giant, which means you’re exceptionally strong, so you could’ve put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you’ve also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 02:32 PM

1. My point in commenting on your “fossil record” comment, was that it begs the question. It assumes that humanity created God and then arrives at the conclusion. It has nothing to do with taking anything out of context. It is simply an invalid argument.

2.You said that “from my establish point of view, rape is a crime, but from another’s it may not” actually proves my point. Morality becomes hopelessly subjective because it is nothing more than an illusion. There is no moral law giver (not even culture) and thus there can be no REALY moral necessity. It is actually meaningless to even say that for you rape is WRONG, because that would imply a moral “ought” but you are not obliged to anything/anyone and thus you have no “ought.”

3. I do deny your premise that we can look to animals for examples of moral development simply because anatomically we are similar. An airplane is “anatomically” more like a submarine than like a car for example, but I would not want to take an airplane on a deep sea expedition. I simply reject your comparison. If we are like animals, then we again have no real morals, only the illusion of morality for the sake of the community. An example I gave to Jake I think suffices. It is not uncommon for a baboon to stalk into another baboon’s lair, stupefy him with blows, then drag his mate back to his lair to forcibly rape her. Now, according to your view, the only difference is that we are more civilized than that. The problem is that there is no objective moral difference between us, and thus if I tried that same maneuver with you, would you simply say I was acting out of instinct, and am not to be blamed for my evolutionary attributable attitude? In your own words, from your point of view it was wrong, but maybe from mine it was not.

4. Then you say that evolution cannot provide a basis for objective morality but then claim that it can improve our morality. So it cant provide a basis for morality (interesting for you to admit since you say that I am wrong for saying that exact same thing) but it can improve morality…? You don’t see the glaring irrationality of that? You admit that evolution “alone” can lead to very dangerous paths. I agree. Like eugenics. Exactly. So why should we obey? You say empathy. So we should be moral because it is moral (empathy is a moral) to do so? Quite a tautology on your hands there. Plus you base it on what would be a moral fiction in your own worldview. Evolution cannot provide a basis for morality, even you admit it, but you SNEAK it objective morality… we OUGHT to have empathy. Why? If evolution is the governing reality, and there is no real moral law giver, WHY should I have empathy? Why shouldn’t I be like Stalin and exert my power to the best of my ability? Dog eat Dog! Why shouldn’t I perform eugenics to clear out the unfit from our species? See, you try to sneak in “ought” through the back door. Again… get off my lawn.

5. I also think that you do not understand my position. I don’t claim that the 15th century BC is under a different social contract that we are. I said that, pointing out to Courtenay and Jake, that if they want to base morality on culture, then THEY are out of bounds by applying on culture to another in their assessment of God. They want to base morality on social contract but then critique God, which, if their theory is correct, is out of bounds for them to do since they cannot rightly apply one social contract to another. (I get the feeling that you are confusing my position with theirs.)

6. You say that your “faith” is based on historical evidence. Really, what historical evidence is that? You also make the faulty assumption that a Christian faith is not an educated faith. I simply disagree. Faith, unlike how atheists think we hold it, actually has very little to do with blind faith. There are many of us who came to faith after studying textual criticism, history, science, philosophy, etc. Your final statement, a king of evolutionary prophesy, seems to be no more founded than the blind faith you scorn.

7. Ha, you didn’t say explicitly “give your argument for the sake of mine,” but that was in essence what you were saying. Right, you were asking me to assume that man existed before God… that is exactly the opposite of my position. So yes, you ARE asking me to give up my argument. Ha. So if I take God out of the picture, the only other possible explanation is that morality came about with God… yes. I agree. If God didn’t exist, then God wouldn’t be the basis for morality. I still deny the premise. Ha, you really don’t see the absurdity of the argument?

8. You then switch your argument from evolutionary basis to a cultural one. The “good” of the society is decided by the majority of the society. This is cultural relativism. You then are in the same dilemma as Courtenay and Jake. You are unable to base you own moral system and morals become a fiction because they are subjective. Imagine you are correct. Morality is based on majority consensus but am I obliged to majority consensus if I am strong enough to overcome it (survival of the fittest)? Why SHOULD I obey the culture? You again are trying to sneak in objective moral obligation into a situation that does not merit it. How can one culture oblige its citizens if it is only a consensus of the majority of PERSONAL moral convictions? Again, there is no real morality, only the strongest exerting the will over the weaker masses. But if Dahmer can overpower his victims, why shouldn’t he? If Jones can kill thousands with poison kool-aid, why shouldn’t he? If Bush can run American into the ground, why shouldn’t he? You see, there is NO basis for your moral “ought” in this system.

9. And no, we aren’t all hedonists. And no, I don’t deny what is pleasurable. I think sex is a wonderful thing that God made and made it to be enjoyed. I don’t think sex is a sin. I believe that certain KINDS are and thus, I am not a hedonist. And your blog was a blog, not a research article since NONE of what you said was actually cited. A research article cites its sources, yours did not. So it was a blog, no matter how informed it was. Plus you did not deal with anything I said regarding it. Would you tell your girlfriend that she didn’t do anything wrong by cheating on you because she had no choice because she was instinctually acting out her evolutionary roots? And do you actually think Christians think sin is “because the devil made me do it?”

10. You are borrowing from worldview in that you are trying to sneak in moral absolutes through the backdoor. You cannot escape moral absolutes and you continually appeal to them. But your own worldview, even by your own admission, cannot account for them… but you use them… thus, you borrow from my worldview. Like it or not, you do. This is because we all KNOW that morality is absolute and there are universal “ought/ought not” actions because we all live in the universe that God created with those universal “ought/ought not” action. You again appeal to us promoting “cohesion” as an example of human flourishing. But that is sneaking in a moral good in the back door. Why should we care about cohesion?! Peace? Happiness of others? What is wrong with slipping into anarchy? Maybe we wont slip into anarchy. Why shouldn’t we only slide a little way where we go back to eugenics and having slaves to make life easier so we don’t have to work? Why shouldn’t we do that if it is the survival of the fittest? Why shouldn’t America and other strong nations just take over weaker ones and enslave them? You say we do these things to grow and progress… why should we care to grow and progress? So we have “equal opportunity to achieve out desires.” You keep sneaking them in!

11. You are missing the same category that they are. You point to all the diverging moral codes and exclaim, “see! No universals!” Well we should point out that if you were to actually compare all the moral systems of the world you would find a large amount of uniformity or basic moral principles, with the difference being in their extent and their expression (no unjust killing with what makes something unjust being different; we should take care of the people we are responsible to take care of, with the difference being WHO that is; etc.) But you also are missing the basic option that it is possible for them to be in ERROR. We recognize that we can stray even from our OWN moral compass, why can culture not do it on a more grand scale?

12. You say, “Our obligation to obey is to the society we currently belong to. To not obey will wind you up in court, or in some countries, crucified.” So we are we ACTUALLY obliged to obey? Or do we obey out of fear of repercussions? In the first case you have to provide a basis for REAL obligation (something you can do by cultural relativism) and in the second there is no REAL obligation and so we are not actually obliged to obey.

13. Interesting that you call attributing morality to God an excuse since it seems obvious that you are unable to ground them in anything else but rather reject them and then still sneak them in the back doow.

14. You then say that there is no physical evidence for God. Tell me, are things only true if they have physical evidence? Or are there other kinds of evidence/arguments that can prove something to be true?

15. I also respect that you tend to not be as vitriolic and insulting as some other people on here… not to mention names *cough cough*. Would love to take you out for a beer and hear more.

Mikey

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 03:57 PM

FYI....

The bible: 593,493 words
This comment thread: 19,203 words

At this rate, I estimate we will have passed the bible in about 2 weeks :-)

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 04:48 PM

Oh, and my argument about the society where rape becomes mandatory is not extreme, it is an example of reductio ad absurdum. any form of relativism (personal, cultural, or evolutionary) basically reduces to 6 absurd conclusions.

1. A person is always correct in their ethical judgments. The only way to be wrong is to make a mistake about your own feelings about your own feelings. Since this is almost entirely impossible to do, nearly every ethical judgment would be true.

2. All moral actions are good and bad at the same time and in the same way.Joe says "abortion is wrong," Gene says "abortion is permissible" and they are both correct. It is more correct for them to say "I dislike abortion," or "I like abortion." (Ironically those who eschew moral relativism will often hold it on things like sexual practices but deny it in practice when they have been wronged themselves or on issues that they care about, like global warming or human rights.)

3. No two people ever ACTUALLY disagree over moral issues. This follows from the distinction made in #2. Since what they MEAN is "I like/dislike X" they are actually talking preference. We do not say it is an objective disagreement when one person likes chocolate ice cream and another likes strawberry. They simply state preferences.

4. No two people ever mean the same thing when they make the same ethical pronouncement. Imagine two white house advisers who both say "Telling the truth is wrong." What they actually mean is "I personally believe telling the truth is wrong" and thus they are describing separate subjective states.

5. It turns apparently significant moral judgments into either vacuous tautologies or blatant contradictions. Consider the person who says, "I like to get drunk all the time, but I know that it is wrong." In moral relativism, since ethics is a personal conviction, they actually end up contradicting themselves by meaning "I like to get drunk, but I dont like to get drunk." Or take the case where someone says "I like doing what is right." Since what is right is a personal preference, they are actually stating a tautology, "I like to do what I like to do."

6. There can be, what you called, progress. If there is no moral standard, then each new moral "development" actually is not a step in a "right direction" (since there is no objective terminus we are trying to reach) but rather just a step in a new direction. Thus when you say we are "more civilized" you are actually contradicting your own basis for morality. We cannot be getting more civilized because what is "civilized" is not an objective point by which we are measuring ourselves. All we can say is that we made new moral paradigm. Thus when America finally banned slavery, it did not become MORE moral, it simply changed morals (since the last one couldnt even be called "wrong" since it was the social contract until a new one was made by a new majority).

7. Finally, all choices would be equally good. And if all choices are equally good then all choices are arbitrary and we have no reason to choose one over the other. Any answer you give will demand you to slip in an absolute moral standard (empathy, justice, human flourishing, the good of the society, the survival of our seed, etc.) but that begs the question of why those are objective moral goods.

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 04:48 PM

sorry, #6 should start, "There CAN'T be..." ha. typo.

CJ

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 05:12 PM

I like how Tyler always dodges the tough questions. The questions that strike at the fault line of the 'clever' theists who MUST remain ever obedient to script. To veer off script is to cause the entire basis of the theist argument for not only the existence of God, but that morality is impossible without the Divine Command Theory. (DCT)

Case in point Tyler refuses to answer this question:

Q1. Name an absolute universal moral action or statement that an atheist is unable to make or do?

And will not answer the second question:

Q2: Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?

The second question shuts down the entire premise of the Divine Command Theory, and was done so by Plato 500 years before Christ's arrival in Nazareth. (Oops there was no Nazareth in 1 AD. My error)

He is unable to answer it because of Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma:

(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.

(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.

(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.
Therefore:

(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.

(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him.

(6) There are reasons both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him.
Therefore:

(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
Therefore:

(8) Divine command theory is false.

Praise Plato

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 05:31 PM

Um I DID answer the question of a moral action that an atheist is unable to make or do. LOVE GOD. You don’t like the answer because it entail belief in God but that is EXACTLY what the question asks for… something IMPOSSIBLE for an atheist to do.

I also answered your second question. The answer is NEITHER. It is a false dichotomy. They are not good by nature of being commanded by God nor does God command them based on some external standard of good. They are good based on the eternal/immutable nature of God from which he commands.

Ha, now you are just bold faced lying! Ha, just scroll up and you will see that I answered both of these AT LENGTH.

The second question is invalid so as much as you would like to proudly declare it victor, it is just an invalid question because it sets up a false dichotomy. Like me saying “you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution,” when in actuality you could have entirely nothing to do with either.

I also find it funny that you continue on with the Divine Command Theory completely ignoring the LENGTHY critique from above to show why the DCT is actually an invalid argument. You premise 1, since it is a false dichotomy, is false and thus the rest of the argument is false which means your conclusion does not follow. Although I should say that since your conclusion is that the DCT is false, I should just let it go since even I think the DCT is false! Ha. Again arguing strawmen. I do not argue the DCT so you can debate with it all you want, but I disagree with it also, do go nuts.

Now, you ever going to deal with my ACTUAL arguments, or gonna keep hiding behind false and invalid strawmen?

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 05:36 PM

Courtenay, it is clear that you are getting SUPER desperate and have no real answers when you have to stoop to just bold face lying by saying that I didnt answer your questions when it is clear to anyone who just scrolls up that I gave extensive answers to your questions. Sorry, but from my experience, people with good arguments and evidence simply do not conduct themselves in such a manner. I think most people reading this, even if they dont agree with my position, can tell pretty quick that you are now just lashing out from a place of complete ignorance.

CJ

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 07:38 PM

Yeah "loving God" is the only moral action or statement that an atheist is excluded from making or doing. With that you've retreated to the corner to play silly buggers now!

Want me to list all the wicked actions or statements exclusive only to the theist or believer community? Well folks, you've probably already thought of a couple, and we'd be here all day if we begun to shopping list them.

Interesting that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, through to your hero Jay Richards have been intellectually honest enough to say they are unable to answer that question, BUT you, (smarter than Plato) resort to being a child. And I'm desperate?

As far as being desperate, it is not for me to become desperate. The burden of proof is on you my virgin birth friend. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or better yet, what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Who is the more desperate? The man who proclaims, at least implies, himself greater than Plato or the man who merely pushed forward Plato's refute of the Divine Command Theory?

I've seen hookers in the backstreets of Chicago still $20 short of their next crack whack less desperate than a man trying to maintain the miraculous, metaphysical improbabilities, and supernatural claims of a 2-4000 year old book in the face of the the library of evidence we now have in regards to natural selection, adaptive mutation, cosmology, and overall understanding of the universe.

You see it's one thing to maintain this new age intellectual theist persona that you thrust forth, with your clever use of scientific, and philosophic nuance BUT at the end of the day not only do you believe in a deity, but you then take that giant leap forward into the ether of arrogant certitude in believing that 'the' deity is the Hebrew one, amongst all other gods the majority of we have already discounted, and not only that - as if that isn't far enough along the line of illogic, you are also certain this Hebrew God had a son, and that this son did the things that the four gospels can't agree on the things he did. Whilst also believing that St Paul spoke to the ghost of Jesus to help him write his sadomasochistic ramblings. But I'm desperate?

Ladies and Gentleman - do not allow yourselves to be duped by such philosophical contortionists - because the fact that he believes in virgin births, resurrections, and the claims for the many other examples whereby the suspension of nature are described within his doctrine - means his beliefs having nothing to do with logic, rationality, or science.

If it looks like a duck.....

Tyler V

Wednesday 25th November 2009 | 01:29 AM

Courtenay,

Ha, so you admit that loving God is a moral action that an atheist cannot do? Now tell me, why is that an absurd answer? Is it because it is impossible to do without belief in God (which is EXACTLY what you asked me to provide)?

Ha, and I can list a lot of wicked actions that only an atheist can do as well. I did so on the facebook thread. I like how you recycle the same tired arguments to new audiences because you want to try and make yourself look good to people who don’t know any better.

My hero Jay Richards? I don’t even know who that is. Ha. Plus theists like Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, all the way through to Plantinga have ALL provided answers to Euthyphro. So thanks for providing a theist who I have never heard of, but I’ll stick with the company of the likes of the guys I do. How does that make me desperate?

How is the burden of proof on me? This is not my post or my interview. I was not the one MAKING the positive assertions. You and Jake were so no, sorry, the burden of proof is on YOU. And you can say the catchy cliché “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” but as I have shown you before, that is actually NOT true. Extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence just like any other truth claim. Sorry, but you then make it WORSE for yourself by stating “what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” Tell me, is that asserted with any empirical proof? No! So that statement itself should be dismissed without proof!

Plato believed in something like God, in forms and matter, and all sorts of stuff that I KNOW you don’t believe in. Should I accuse you of being desperate because you think you are GREATER than Plato because you think he is wrong? Ha, your arguments just get weirder and weirder. So you think I am claiming to be greater than Plato because I, along with dozens of MAJOR theologians and philosophers after him, disagree with him? Ha. Strange. (And to be technically, it would actually be Socrates who posed the questions to Euthyphro.)

Ha then you criticize me for my “cleaver use of scientific and philosophical nuance.” Ha, should I not use science and philosophy to base by case? I’m sorry, is logic getting in the way of your anti-theism? Then you critique me for my “arrogant certitude” in believing that the Hebrew deity is the true God (something you call illogical which in fact, regardless of if it is true or not, is not ILLOGICAL because no law of logic is violated). But you don’t realize that you argue with JUST as much certainty that ALL religions are wrong!

Then in normal Courtenay fashion, you don’t even make logical claims anymore, you just spew unhistorical, unvalidated, and actually quite incorrect assertions thinking that your wit will get you off the hook. Sorry, reason doesn’t work that way. How do you call yourself a rationalist?

Ha, finally you tell people to be wrong because I believe in miracles (begging the question). That is, you assume that miracles are wrong, and then argue to that conclusion to disprove me. Ha. In an a priori fashion you ASSUME miracles cannot happen. Tell me, what law of logic is violated by the suspension of natural laws? Or what natural law is broken by a SUSPENSION of natural law? Ha, whether or not God exists, miracles are not a violation of any law of logic, or rule of science. Science deals with the regular working of the natural laws and cannot prove or disprove the suspension of those laws. Hence the rule within the Scientific method, “AL LTHINGS BEING EQUAL,” that is, unless something interferes! Ha.

Nice special pleading though. lol

Tyler V

Wednesday 25th November 2009 | 01:45 AM

BTW, I'll be gone for the next 5 days for Thanksgiving and visiting family. I'll respond when I get back.

CJ

Wednesday 25th November 2009 | 10:06 AM

The Euthyphro dilemma is Plato's! His question was inspired Socrates.

How do I call myself a rationalist? Simply I activate the part of the brain that separates us from the other primates - REASON!

To base my beliefs only on empirical evidence makes me rational. To dismiss improbabilities without evidence makes me rational. To dismiss faith as hostile to critical thinking makes me rational. To study the historical facts of an event and dismiss hearsay makes me rational.

Whereas you believing that it is absurd for Mohammed to take a night flight to Jerusalem BUT it is totally plausible for a man to be born to a virgin; dead people rising from the dead (btw there is a difference between resuscitation and resurrection); a man can survive 3 days inside of whale; a talking snake can sell an apple; a man can walk on water - places you in the basket of irrationality my clever theist friend.

Oh but your rationality has enabled you to reasonably disregard the talking snake Adam & Eve story (Original Sin) as an event of pure mythology, you say.

Then explain this:

The New Testament tells us that God morphed himself into human form to atone for the original sin. But if the story of Adam is a myth, then why would God kill himself to atone for the sin of a fictitious person and a fictitious event?

Right there is the irrationality of Christianity. Utterly and completely non-sensical. But you can make sense of this, which means you can make sense of any kind of absurd or illogical premise given your ability to leap over the canyon of reason.

Finally, yes by your definition of rational, then I must be irrational. Thor save me.

Amen

gus

Wednesday 25th November 2009 | 05:56 PM

I think it is interesting that tyler is willing to defend his god, yet can't acknowledge the followers of any other religion. Linked or not to the Hebrew deity.

Please tyler, can you explain why your illogically chosen faith is more valid than any of the other faiths?

And more importantly, can you explain in a way that I can understand. Unfortunately, from my perspective, you are practising leaps of logic that Mr Werlemann is attempting to punt through the goalposts in his book.

Settle down Chongy!

Chonggy

Thursday 26th November 2009 | 04:08 PM

I'm settled now Gus thanks to your calming influence.

"Please tyler, can you explain why your illogically chosen faith is more valid than any of the other faiths?"

This is an easy one Gus- he was born in a christian society, probably in a christian family. If circumstances were different he'd be defending the Quran with equal conviction.
The rules are simple- first you believe and then you form arguments around the 'logic' of that belief.

But I want to add to Gus's question Tyler, if you are still about.
You argue that God must be real because there are laws of logic that are immutable, etc..
OK, I don't understand why they can't be independent of God (You've probably explained it but I don't read all of your threads; who has the time?), but lets take it as given that God is real because logic is real. Then please fill in the leap of logic that ends with 'therefore the bible is true'.

Tyler V

Sunday 29th November 2009 | 01:05 PM

Courtenay - The Euthyphro dilemma is recorded by Plato but is a conversation that Socrates had with Euthyphro. But that’s really not important.

Now, you say your ability to reason is what separates you from other primates. Sorry, other primates reason as well. So what does separate you from other primates? Why do we have things like “inalienable human rights” that the other primates do not have? What is your basis for them?

You say you base your beliefs on empirical evidence. Tell me, what empirical evidence do you have for the universal negation of God’s existence? What empirical evidence do you have that miracles CANNOT occur in our universe (especially considering a miracle is NOT a violation of the laws but a suspension of them)? Tell me, what empirical evidence do you have to believe your own criteria that we can only know things to be true through empirical evidence? The problem is that you imagine yourself to be an enlightenment thinker but completely ignore the following couple hundred of years response to the massive problems of empiricism.
Since you take ALL of the above of faith, then are you “hostile to critical thinking” as well? Or do you use special pleading to excuse your own worldview from its own skepticism?

I think it is absurd for Mohammed to take a midnight flight to Jerusalem for VERY different reasons than you do. You reject it based on you’re a priori presupposition that requires miracles to be impossible, I reject as an a posteriori unfactual event. Those are two VERY different means of rejection.

You mock virgin birth, resurrection, survival in a whale, man walking on water, etc. Tell me, IF an omnipotent God exists are those impossible? If they are not impossible then they are not illogical. Lets even assume you as an atheist are correct and that Jesus never resurrected from the dead. It is illogical for me to believe that he did if I believe God exists? No. Would it be incorrect? Yes. But there are lots of things that are incorrect but not illogical. For you to call theists irrational or illogical is simply erroneous. To be a theists and believe in miracles breaks no law of logic nor commits any formal or informal fallacy.

You then base you argument on an unattested “if” statement. “if the story of Adam is a myth, then why would God kill himself to atone for the sin of a fictitious person and a fictitious event? Right there is the irrationality of Christianity.” Sorry, once again you show that YOU are the irrational one. You assume your conclusion in the protasis of your first premise. Sorry, I reject your first premise as false and therefore you argument does not follow, and thus Christianity is not irrational. And tell me, what is the basis for universal, absolute, immutable, eternal, laws of logic? Are those based on social contract as well? Or is that “just the way it is”?

Plus you forget that an opponent of any worldview can frame it in such a way that renders it nonsensical. “If God exists then anyone who denies him has lost their friggin’ mind. Atheists deny God. Therefore atheists have lost their friggin minds and are totally non-sensical!” sorry, just because you can create a strawman of another worldview doesn’t win the argument. Its very easy to knock down the opposing worldview of your own making while never subjecting your own worldview to the same standard.

Now Gus, you argue in the same manner as Courtenay, you often assume your conclusion in your premise of question: “tyler, can you explain why your illogically chosen faith…” I could frame a question like this: “Gus, could you tell me why your illogical rejection of God is more valid than say the foolishness of agnosticism?” Theists can point to the differences between Anti-theism, Atheism that says we know God doesn’t exists, atheism that says they reject God because he has yet to be proven, Agnosticism that says that we can never know if God exists or not because of his nature, and Agnosticism that says we can never know that God exists or not because of our nature.

You also ask me to explain it in a way that you can understand. Sure, from my studies in science, philosophy, history, text criticism, and hermeneutics I have come to believe that Christian theism is the best explanation of the events of history, the metaphysical reality of God and the universe, our necessary epistemological reason and laws of logic, and the only possible basis for morality, justice, peace, uniformity, and hope.

Science – necessity of a 1st cause and an omnipotent, logical, personal, designing Being in order to account for the attributes of the universe sauce as causal relations, uniformity of the laws of nature over existing time and space, and the abundance of clear design.

Philosophy – the necessary existence of God to provide a basis for universal, absolute, immutable, uniform laws of logic.

History – the wonder that is the Bible written over multiple millennia by over 40 authors that is unparalleled by any work in its reliability, attestation, consistency, historical accuracy, and life changing power. (Read Bauckham’s masterful work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). Also, the certainty of the resurrection of Christ from the dead. (The argument is LONG and EXTENSIVE so I wont argue it here but you can see N.T. Wright’s magnum opus The Resurrection of the Son of God.)

As for “leaps of logic” Courtenay likes to blindly assert that I am being illogical and irrational but has NEVER provided a single example of a logical fallacy. I’m not saying im perfect and never commit them, but Im saying that he really is not equipped to evaluate it in either case.

Plus his book, if you have read previous posts is so absurdly illogical, ahistorical, unscientific and so blindly biased that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that you all actually think that he is a good source. He has even admitted that this book is not meant for critics but for the lay person who has no clue what he is talking about. Anyone with even preliminary knowledge of the methods for historical research, Biblical history, manuscript evidence, text criticism, theology, philosophy, hermeneutics, etc. can easily see the glaring errors in his book.

Lastly, Chonggy. First, I was born in an atheistic home and came to believe in Jesus after years of study. So don’t presume.

Second, yes I was born in the west. But tell me, does that invalidate my belief? Are our belief forming faculties such a product of our environment that that cannot be trusted? If that is the case, Darwinism, naturalism, and atheism are themselves beliefs arrived at through our belief forming faculties. Tell me, are they to be discounted because they are product of belief forming faculties shaped by western culture? Tisk Tisk. No special pleading. You must be willing to subject your own worldview to your own criteria.

If I were born in a different culture would I believe in the Koran with equal conviction? What about the hundreds of millions of Christians in China and Africa? What about the millions of Christians (and the number is on the rise) in traditionally Islamic countries? Are they products of culture? You see, to posit that our belief forming faculties are product of culture ALL belief forming faculties of ALL people must be a product of culture. Not just the ones you want to be.
And yes I have explained MULTIPLE times why immutable, universal, absolute, immaterial, eternal, uniform laws of logic cannot be independent of God. Tell me, from your worldview, how can a material, chaotic, chance, impersonal, UNTHINKING, universe create uniform, universal, absolute laws of logic (laws of personality and thought)? I seems to me a greater leap to go from chaos and unthinking to uniformity of laws of thought, than it is to say that they are a product of a uniform, logical being. The naturalistic worldview simply cannot account for them. Is that “just the way it is”? (which is not an answer but actually begs the question “why is that just the way it is”). Did they evolve? (if they evolved then they are not an exterior law within the universe but are evolved as human thought evolved which renders them subjective and most likely cultural; AND you must be able to describe how an unthinking chaotic universe can derive uniform laws of thought). Are they social conventions? (then they are REALLY hopelessly subjective and it is impossible for one person to impose logic on another person because each person would have their own logical preferences.)

chonggy

Wednesday 2nd December 2009 | 04:55 AM

Firstly I didn’t say different culture I said different circumstances. The millions of Chinese and Africans Christians are indoctrinated by Christians the same as you. My wife is Christian even though she was raised in a predominantly muslim country, not because it makes any more sense but that was how she was brainwashed brought up by her family.
So did you study several other religions in depth before deciding Christianity is the truth? How well do you know the islam or hindu religion? Millions of people are just as convinced as you that their religion is the truth. How do you explain that? Are these people deluded and you’re not? How could you explain to devout muslim that you don’t believe in the Koran (or any other religion books)? I’ll bet they’ll tell you that the Koran is an amazing book, full of facts and amazing accuracies. What do you think of them? They have got it wrong, right? They are deluded, not you…. tales of Jesus Christ is factual stuff, but not that horseshit about Mohammed or Ganesha; you’d have to be loopy to believe in that crap. Look, you all have the one thing in common- the need to believe.

How do you know the laws of logic cannot exist as they are without God? You make out like it is an obvious fact. All you really mean is you can’t understand how the “immutable, universal, absolute, immaterial, eternal, uniform laws of logic” can be independent of God. It doesn’t mean they can’t be, it just means it is beyond your understanding and like all practicing theists, instead of the phrase “I don’t know” you insert the word “God”.

It is common with you lot: How did the Universe begin “ I don’t know, it must be God” Further inquiry not needed; neat.

Admittedly my knowledge of the bible is superficial. So answer for me (and I am asking earnestly here) how the whole Jesus Christ story makes sense. For instance; God makes a law “the wages of sin is death” something like that. Someone has to die for the original sin. So in order to accomplish this and save humanity he sends himself as his son to die for mankind. What have I missed because this makes no sense to me. Why can’t an omnipotent God simply revoke the law? Or kill Adam and Eve and make new ones straight off. Why this whole charade? Why place the apple tree where eve could get to it in the first place? Does the bible give you any answers? Or does it just give you the stories and you are left wondering why? I am asking because you obviously know the bible well and I’ve never really heard these thing explained.

Tyler

Wednesday 2nd December 2009 | 09:35 AM

“Indoctrination” is a pejorative term people like to use when they want to dismiss the beliefs of another group. Technically indoctrination is much more like brain washing than instruction. I know of now Christian churches that brain wash. Did you ever think that people actually believe and find plausible evidence and existential validation in the teachings of the Bible and are just blindly following something obscure?

And yes, I studied various other religions and philosophical systems, but that is really besides the point. It would be like me asking you if you studied all of the scientific systems and theories that have come and gone over the centuries before you decided on naturalistic neo-darwinianism. And actually it cuts both ways. Not only to affirm but to deny. Atheism is a worldview and so have you studied all the other worldviews to know that they are false before you concluded on atheism?

You argument also has the force of “well people disagree, therefore you are all wrong… except us atheists. We’re the only right ones.” The same critique you use against me can be used against you. It also shows your utter ignorance about Christianity but also about Islam and Hinduism, etc. to think that they all make similar claims. Your example of the Muslim saying that the Koran also is full of amazing accuracies is actually incorrect. The Koran is a book of ethics, politics, society, law, etc. It does not make historical claims and makes no predictive prophecies. So no, no Muslim would argue that it is full of amazing accuracies. It just doesn’t apply.

You also miss that a theist rejects another theistic system for VERY different reasons than an atheist does. An atheist ASSUMES that supernatural, miracles, etc. CANNOT occur before any evidence or argument is made. It is like if you were arrested for a crime that you did not commit. There is AMPLE evidence that you didn’t do it, and only some circumstantial evidence that you did. But the judge, before the trial even begins, says that the only evidence that can be brought is the kind that can prove that you did it. It has nothing to do with the merits of either kind of evidence. It is because he assumes your guilt and only allows in what agrees with him. You do the same.

Laws of logic cannot exist without God. Tell me, what is the possible basis for universal, absolute, immutable, eternal, uniform laws of logic (which are laws of THOUGHT) in an UNTHINKIING, chaotic, uncausal, finite, changing, universe? I’m asking, epistemologically speaking, what is the possible basis for laws of logic? You say that they can be grounded outside of God so tell me, what is their basis? I’m not saying, “I don’t know,” I’m saying that epistemologically speaking, God is the only possible basis for laws of logic.

I also don’t say I don’t know how the universe began and thus say “God.” I say, well the universe began. Can something cause itself? No. Can nothing cause something else? No. Then there must be something that caused the universe. Well the creation of the universe caused time and space and so time and space didn’t exist before the universe did so the cause must be eternal and infinite/omnipresent. The universe is both nearly infinitely large and infinitely complex and so whatever created it must be infinitely powerful. And the universe is uniform, logical, and contains laws of logic, morality, persons, and so the creator must be immutable, logical, moral, and personal. And the list goes on. They are not just shrugs of the shoulders.

God does not arbitrarily make laws, they are based on his nature/essence. Why does the breaking of the law require death? Because God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin. Why doesn’t he just revoke the law? Because God is not only forgiving, but he is also just. Why doesn’t a judge now just revoke the law because people break it? Because there has to be justice. We recognize that in society, but why cant we recognize it with God? So there must be justice. The payment for sin must be death and it must be paid. And we all sin so we all deserve death. So is God wicked? No, he decided that rather than US paying the price and taking the death penalty, that He would take it for us, so that he could be “both just, and the one who justifies” as Paul says.

I could go on, but the problem that you will have is that you presuppose that all this is false before you even look into it. You ask me to explain it to you, but I could explain it to you better than anyone in the world, and you still wouldn’t believe it and would try to find any reason to reject it because your worldview presupposes that God doesn’t exist, miracles cant happen, and that human autonomy is the way to go. You will always reject it because you WANT to reject it because you don’t want to have to answer to God, the judge.

We all deserve death. We all broke God's law. But God loved us too much to leave us like that. His justice demanded punishment for sin, but his love demanded mercy. But we couldnt do it on our own. A drowning man cannot save himself. A dead man cannot recessitate himself. So we could not justify ourselves. It took God acting in grace (giving us what we dont deserve) and taking the punishment upon himself, for our penalty to be paid and for our relationship to the judge as a citizen in good standing again to be achieved.

anonymouse

Wednesday 2nd December 2009 | 12:58 PM

Jake u justify ur own hate toward christians period, congrats. Ur always attacking christians in every way u can anc chnace u get. Get a life dear!!

Chonggy

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 03:46 AM

OK you're right
"I could go on, but the problem that you will have is that you presuppose that all this is false before you even look into it. " No point going on, I totally reject this, I think you are a religious loony. I was going to try and slog it out but I can't stomach this sort of crap

"But God loved us too much to leave us like that. His justice demanded punishment for sin, but his love demanded mercy." What justice? A sin that get passed on for generations -God is a dick-period.

"you WANT to reject it because you don’t want to have to answer to God," I reject because it is utterly ridiculous and you'd have to a fruitloop to believe it.

"Because God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin." He let it go on for generations before he sent JC. Besides didn't like a 100 million people die before JC got to give it a go. Why couldn't all those deaths have payed the due.

"The payment for sin must be death and it must be paid." WHY???? And why wait so fucking long. God is a dick.

"And we all sin so we all deserve death. So is God wicked?" No he is a dick

"No, he decided that rather than US paying the price and taking the death penalty, that He would take it for us, so that he could be “both just, and the one who justifies” as Paul says." Paul is also a dick!

What about all the people he drowned in the flood- why didn't that make him happy?

Quite honestly Tyler I think you have to be a little insane to think any of this makes sense.

Tyler V

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 03:57 AM

Of course you do. Because you, as a part of your worldview, deny even the possibility of a holy and just God who acts in history and will be a judge for us all. your presuppositions deny it out of hand before any evidence, reason, or argument can be made. You deny it before you even hear it. Why doesnt it make sense? Because youre an atheist.

Tell me, what exactly is ILLOGICAL about it. Not what you just find troubling or dont think it happened that way, etc. But what is logically impossible about it?

chonggy

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 04:01 AM

Apologies Tyler. I asked for an explanation, you gave me one and then I sledged you for it. My bad. No more comments from me. I am a dick (which makes me a bit like God) Praise me.

Tyler V

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 04:05 AM

I dont mind giving you answers. But your argued by saying it was "nonsense" without actually saying HOW it was nonsense. My question for you is HOW is it nonsense. What is the logical impossibility to say that God is holy and just and therefore is in his rights to judge the wicked? I'm asking you to be more precise in your "sledging," not to stop. If youre gonna debate me, you wont get away with just making rash generalizations and unfounded comments like that. So i'm just asking you to be precise. But if you dont think you can do that and that is why you are backing down, then that is another thing.

chonggy

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 04:20 AM

I lied - I'm commenting again.

"your presuppositions deny it out of hand before any evidence, reason, or argument can be made." What evidence? And what has reason got to do with it? Eve picks an apple and the sin carries on until Gods son dies, how is that reasonable? Why put the tree there if it was such a bad thing to pick? Why put the snake there? I realise I am being simplistic here, but does the bible explain any of this?

Your arguments follow logic when based on the premise that God is real and he is the god of the bible- so what? you have no evidence that God is real or ( if he is real) that he is that idiot written about in the bible.

Tyler V

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 04:15 PM

Evidence that God is real: The necessity of His existence for the universe to exist, for the uniformity of laws of nature, the only basis for laws of logic, and of absolute morality.

What does reason have to do with it? Well your critique of my position is that it is irrational and nonsensical. Those are terms that mean that I have broken some law of logic. So I was asking for the precise way that I was being illogical.

Eve doesnt just pick an apple. Adam and Eve break a law and are thus, law breakers. As the head of our race they plunge humanity into sin by which we are ALL law breakers. Breaking a law demands punishment. To say otherwise is to deny justice. God is, in his essence, wholly just and thus God demands payment for sin. God is also, in his essence, holy, and thus any unholiness cannot remain in his presence forever. It must be dealt with. Thus the sinner must be put out of God's presence for eternity. But God loves us and will not let that happen. But his justice demands payment. So how can the problem be solved. Well either we pay the penalty, or else God pays the penalty for us. This is precisely what he does in Jesus Christ. (As for why the Son had to become incarnate and die on a cross, see Anslem's Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man, found at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.html). I know it is old but it is one of the best works on the issue. The most astute line in all of it is when Anselm's friend Boso asks him basically what you ask me, Why did Jesus have to become a man and die? To which Anselm answers that Boso does not understand because he "has not yet considered how great your sin is."

You are not being simplistic but you are being impatient. You want immediate, clean, clear, pat answers. The problem is that the Bible, while a work of immense value, is also a book of immense wisdom and knows that questions about sin and suffering and the will of God are vast, and deep, and messy. The answers never come in simple syllogisms. They come in grand themes like fall and redemption, already and not yet, law and gospel. Read passages like God's response to Job toward the end of the book or Paul's response in Romans 9 to those who seek to quantify God's prerogative in election. Or look at the end of the 4 gospels. Basically the Old Testament sets the stage and raises a TON of questions and builds up a lot of tension. What is the answer? The cross. The ugly, brutal, bloody cross. A great hymn calls it a beautiful, scandalous night. It was at the same time immensely beautiful and immensely scandalous. Thats the answer to your questions.

But your evaluation on the being, character, and actions of God in the Bible are skewed by your own presupposition that He cannot exist, and that if He did he would be a god in the way that you would WANT a god to be (which is really a god of your own making.) So will my answers ever satisfy? No, because they do not fit the mold of your preconceived notion of what a proper answer SHOULD be (namely one that agrees with you). One way I know that God is not man made? Because he basically contradicts us as every turn we take. Dont listen to the health and wealth preachers. God doesnt want us happy, and healthy, and wealthy; He wants us holy first and foremost. We dont give to get and we dont do good to get praise. God tells us we arent the commanders of our own destinies, the best thing we can do is sacrificially love, to give to the poor even out of our own poverty, the turn the other cheek, to not seek vengence, to let God be the judge and not us. To deny ourselves and take up our cross daily. That is NOT the kind of God we would make up for ourselves.

Tyler V

Saturday 5th December 2009 | 03:29 PM

oh, and by the way, for someone who admitted that their knowledge of the Bible is superficial (a form of intellectual honesty that I find refreshing rather than Courtenay who is in the same boat trying to pass himself off as someone is even remotely familiar with it) you sure are dogmatic in your rejection of it. Just find those two things a bit at odd... "I dont know much about it... but I'm gonna reject it more fervently than most people who do."

Jake Farr-Wharton

Saturday 5th December 2009 | 08:04 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Play nice Biblo, or I'm releasing the hounds!

Seriously, no one's actual understanding of the bible is anything more than superficial.

Do you live in 2000BC? No, then don't claim to understand the old testament.

Do you live in 300AD, i.e. 300 odd years after Yeshua died? No! So get off your soap box and pee on the hedges from a normal height... you're scaring the ants!

Tyler V

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 06:07 AM

Ha, ok, go to any university campus and walk into the philosophy department and tell them that they dont have anything but a superficial understanding of Plato because they dont live when he lived. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.

And why would I need to live in 300 AD?

In fact with study, and research, we can have much more of a superficial understanding of anything. Is this really the kind of argumentation that you have resorted to? Im really beginning to think that if you and Courtenay and Papa are the future of atheism, we Christians really dont have anything to worry about. ha

V2

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 07:39 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Wow Jake! Talk about religious dogmatism
I accept your fundamentalism, complete adherence to all "you choose" your Nazi like dictatorship
But
You...You presume to judge others on Christianity
How CJ of you
How Dawkins of you
How retarded of you
You know what Christ said? I know you dont; rhetorical
Jesus stated in the Bible what his followers were expected to do, not you
Christianity is made up of individuals, but I figure your brain couldnt comprehend with that

Jake Farr-Wharton

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 01:19 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. Jesus didn't pen a single letter of the bible V2, in fact, the first words purported to have been said by Jesus to have made it into a biblical testament were written many, many years after he had died.

Don't presume to know what Jesus had said, and don't presume to know that I don't know what is written in the bible.

Also, given the fact that I've not committed genocide in my lifetime, can I ask how you came to the conclusion that 'my dictatorship' is like the nazi one? I wasn't even aware that I was ruling anyone.

Unlike you ass-hat, I'm accountable to every other man, woman, child, animal, insect and plant on this planet, you're only held accountable to some mystical sky fairy that you think exists because Pastor Ted told you to believe. Pitty Pastor Ted was high on anal sex and methanphetamine and not the Holy Spirit at the time!

Peace out Luddite!

Tyler V

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 01:56 PM

Great, if we dont know what Jesus said, then we REALLY dont know what Socrates said, Alexander the great said, Homer said, Plato said, etc. good luck passing that off in any university without getting laughed off the campus.

Oh and I love that you try and pass yourself off as a sophisticate and then try and say that we Christians universally care what Ted Haggard said. ha, what an ignorant statement.

Oh, an you say we are accountable to "every other man, woman, child, animal, insect and plant on this planet." Tell me, are we in a social contract with all those people? What OUGHT i be accountable to them? Why OUGHT I hold them accountable? Can an animal, insect, or plant hold me morally accountable? What happened to relative morality based on culture and social contracts? Nice try trying to posit universal, absolute morality. But it wont fly cause you have NO basis for it.

Tyler V

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 02:04 PM

Oh, and by the way, when people ACTUALLY have logical arguments, evidence, and the believe in their convictions, they dont have to resort to name calling, ad hominems, bullying, and many of the other tactics that you anti-theists take. The fact that you and Courtenay are so overtly vitriolic and intolerably narrow minded just reveals that you DONT have logical arguments or evidence on your side and you know it. Its like the cat who puffs up their back and tail in order to look bigger. Or the kid who bullies other kids because he is insecure on the inside.

Well it looks like Courtenay has tucked his tail an run away because he cant answer a single one of my questions, Papa is just shouting "nu-uh" louder and longer and lying about being educated, and you are reverting to name calling. Looks like my work here is just about done. Anytime it degenerates to that, you know its now just the pride and egos of the other side that is keeping them going.

V2

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 02:35 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Time for a Bex and a good lie down Jake. Doc V's orders
Ok Christ never penned any of the bible. Good boy, I have an apple for you. Lets just suggest a misunderstanding between us, dont have to beat your chest and do the big Silverback act
Crikey
Listen stoopid.
Stop judging Christians for what they believe. I as a new earth creationist have no issue with old earth creationists, or evolution believing Christians. So my little dictator, my little hollier than thou fundy, let our God judge us, not you.
Your standards are not ours
Christ said......."All those who accept "me" are mine"
Not "all those who accept 6 day creation, or evolution" or whatever you want
You need a necklace with a toilet paper roll on it so you can wipe your chin, Boy.

Tyler V

Friday 11th December 2009 | 03:35 AM

and Jake, if you dismiss Jesus because his biographies were written a couple decades later, then you have to not believe in ANYTHING from antiquity since the NT books are written closer to the events that they portray by HUNDREDS of years over EVERY other ancient source about anything or anyone. People who argue like you do just have NO clue how scholars evaluate historical documents.

Trent Greguhn

Friday 11th December 2009 | 03:43 AM

Holy hell, you're all discussing in two seperate articles? This is madness.

Tyler V

Friday 11th December 2009 | 10:35 AM

Ha yeah, I'm all over the place. It actually keeps me from working on my own blog. ha

Tyler V

Saturday 12th December 2009 | 03:32 AM

I'M COMMENT 100!!!

Joe Marco

Saturday 12th December 2009 | 07:18 AM

I'm 101. what the hell is going here?!

Tyler

Monday 21st December 2009 | 07:08 AM

Courtenay,

Why do you not allow me to post on your blog anymore? Tired of being shown how hopelessly biased and factually wrong you are? Ironic that a website called "rationalists" actively suppresses the opposing voice in order to shelter itself from criticism.

Though what should I expect. When someone is as blindly skewed by an illegitimate faith, why wouldnt they seek to suppress the opposition. Just ironic that you wrote a book bashing fundamentalism when all you do is reciprocate the fundamentalist mindset.

Gina Squitieri(about J Calvin)

Tuesday 22nd December 2009 | 01:07 PM

Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_calvin

"The turning point in Calvin's fortunes occurred when Michael Servetus, a fugitive from ecclesiastical authorities, appeared in Geneva on 13 August 1553. Servetus was a Spaniard who boldly criticised Christian dogma. In particular, he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. In July 1530 he disputed with Johannes Oecolampadius in Basel and was eventually expelled. He went to Strasbourg where he published a pamphlet against the Trinity. Bucer publicly refuted it and asked Servetus to leave. After returning to Basel, Servetus published Dialogorum de Trinitate libri duo (Two Books of Dialogues on the Trinity) which caused a sensation among Reformers and Catholics alike. The Inquisition in Spain ordered his arrest.

Calvin and Servetus were first brought into contact in 1546 through a common acquaintance, Jean Frellon of Lyon. They exchanged letters debating doctrine until Calvin lost patience and refused to respond; by this time Servetus had written around thirty letters to Calvin. Calvin was particularly outraged when Servetus sent him a copy of the Institutes of the Christian Religion heavily annotated with arguments pointing to errors in the book. When Servetus mentioned that he would come to Geneva if Calvin agreed, Calvin wrote a letter to Farel on 13 February 1547 noting that if Servetus were to come, he would not assure him safe conduct: "for if he came, as far as my authority goes, I would not let him leave alive."

[AWWWW, WHAT A GENTLE MAN.]

In 1553 when the inquisitor-general of France learned that Servetus was hiding in Vienne under an assumed name, he contacted Cardinal François de Tournon, the secretary of the archbishop of Lyon, to take up the matter. Servetus was arrested and taken in for questioning. His letters to Calvin were presented as evidence of heresy, but he denied having written them. He managed to escape from prison, and the Catholic authorities sentenced him in absentia to death by slow burning.

[HOW-- um..NICE!]

On his way to Italy, Servetus stopped in Geneva for unknown reasons and attended one of Calvin's sermons in St Pierre. Calvin had him arrested, and Calvin's secretary Nicholas de la Fontaine composed a list of accusations that was submitted before the court. The prosecutor was Philibert Berthelier, a member of a libertine family and son of a famous Geneva patriot, and the sessions were led by Pierre Tissot, Perrin's brother-in-law. The libertines allowed the trial to drag on in an attempt to harass Calvin. The difficulty in using Servetus as a weapon against Calvin was that the heretical reputation of Servetus was widespread and most of the cities in Europe were observing and awaiting the outcome of the trial. This posed a dilemma for the libertines, so on 21 August the council decided to write to other Swiss churches for their opinions, thus mitigating their own responsibility for the final decision. While waiting for the responses, the council also asked Servetus if he preferred to be judged in Vienne or in Geneva. He begged to stay in Geneva. On 20 October the replies from Zürich, Basel, Bern, and Schaffhausen were read and the council condemned Servetus as a heretic. The following day he was sentenced to burning at the stake, the same sentence as in Vienne. Calvin and other ministers asked that he be beheaded instead of burnt. This plea was refused and on 27 October, Servetus was burnt alive—atop a pyre of his own books—at the Plateau of Champel at the edge of Geneva.

[THAT JOHN CALVIN. WHAT'S NOT TO ADORE? Tyler, you said you are a Calvanist. Did you mean as in Giovanni Calvino?]

Tyler V

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 06:11 AM

This is where wikipedia shows that it is not a scholarly source. Much of what you have just cited is simply poor historical research into the actual proceedings of the Servetus event. For better research listen to the lecutre given by Dr. Frank A. James III found at http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/rts-public.1379833356.01379833359 (you will need itunes to listen to it).

Or you can listen to it here:

Part 1: http://www.cvcrt.org/audio/TheCalvinINeverKnew01.mp3
Part 2: http://www.cvcrt.org/audio/TheCalvinINeverKnew02.mp3
Part 3: http://www.cvcrt.org/audio/TheCalvinINeverKnew03.mp3
Part 4: http://www.cvcrt.org/audio/TheCalvinINeverKnew04.mp3

But what are some examples where Wikipedia is grossly inadequate?

Example 1: Calvin didnt have Servetus arrested.

Example 2: Calvin stopped writing Servetus because he himself was being driven out of Geneva.

Example 3: Calvin actually traveled all the way to Spain to visit Servetus and try to plead with him to repent of his heretical view even though Calvin was told that if he stepped foot in Catholic Spain he would be executed on the spot.

Example 4: Calvin warned Servetus not to come to Geneva to protect him.

Example 5: Wikipedia (or your picking and choosing of the passages) grossly simplifies the religious and political atmosphere of 16th century Europe. It also completely misses the difference between the Protestants and the Catholics and their UNWILLINGNESS to work together at that time in history.

Example 6. Calvin pastorally visited Servetus almost every day that he was on trial to get him to repent and save his life.

Example 7: Notice that once Servetus was condemned to death, Calvin sought him to be beheaded (quick and relatively painless) to spare him from being burned alive (slow and agonizing).

So yes, I do respect Calvin. But when I say that I am a Calvinist, I do not even mean to say that I follow Calvin, but rather the system of theology that he and those after him organized (it is actually more proper to call it Pauline, or even Augustinianism but it was not codified as a system under Paul or Augustine, but rather under Calvin and his students in response to the Arminians).

But here you go again distracting from the real issues. You say you are Reformed, I'm asking you for ONE Reformer who agreed with you on either the Trinity (or lack thereof), the universal salvation of mankind, or your semi-pelagianism where sin is just sickness that we need help with since we cant do it on our own.

Tyler V

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 06:40 AM

Listen to the words of Jesus explaining EXPLICITLY his parable of the weeds in Matthew 13:

36Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."

37He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The WEEDS are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the END OF THE AGE, and the harvesters are angels.

40"As the weeds are pulled up and BURNED IN THE FIRE, SO IT WILL BE AT THE END OF THE AGE. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will WEED OUT OF his kingdom everything THAT CAUSES sin AND ALL WHO DO evil. 42They will throw them into the FIREY FURNACE, WHERE THERE WILL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Jesus himself says that when he returns, the unrighteous will be condemned, and the righteous commended.

Do you not see the mounting Scripture verses against you? From the Mouth of Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, even Jude? See, you build your entire theology on your philosophical convictions about what a loving God MUST be like and reading that INTO Scripture, rather than submitting to Scripture and letting God tell you what a loving God is like. Do you see the difference? I can either come to the Bible and say a loving God must be like this and impose that on Scripture. Or I can ask "What is a loving God like?" and see that how the Bible describes God and his action IS what a loving God is like. And since the Bible says "God is love" AND that God will be the judge who separate the wheat from the chaff, the righteous from the unrighteous, and that those who profess faith in this life will go onto to everlasting life, while those who reject him will go onto everlasting punishment, then I must say THAT is what a loving God is like, and thus love is not at odds with holiness, righteousness, justice, and wrath.

To read it the other way around, to say "God must be like this to pass MY definition of what love is" is to actually be wholly autonomous and implicitly reject the authority of Scripture and to tout the authority of our own reason. You are making yourself judge over what God can and cant do morally (from your own morally fallen position) rather than allowing God to tell us exactly what a loving God is like.

Papa

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 07:43 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler V picks and chooses what he wants to respond too. Completely ignoring some's posts and when a thread becomes full of his evangelical propaganda, he comes to another thread to continue his campaign. Not enough posts on your own blog Tyler?

Tyler V

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 08:26 AM

Papa, what am I picking and choosing? Ha, I have been on this thread since it started and the other thread (part 2) closed down. It has nothing to do with me picking anything. Nice ad hominem argument though. Very "rational" of you.

Gina Squitieri

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 10:58 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. I never said I was "reformed." Show me. Where did I say "I am 'reformed.'" I didn't. Please don't keep making things up.

Listen, I'll say it again. If reformed means that I believe that Jesus Christ will ultimately FAIL at the only task He was commissioned by the Father to do (that is, SAVE the WHOLE WORLD), then, no, I am definitely NOT reformed. Do you think you can understand that, or do you need me to repeat that again for the fourth time?

Gina Squitieri

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 11:37 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

This is a PARABLE and parables are not literal. We've went through that already.

Now YOU listen. You say that Jesus intends to eternally damn all those who do not worship Him, and must because that's what you THINK His word is saying. And, you're perfectly okay with that kind of torture and torment. But the very things you THINK He aught to condemn certain people for are trillions and trillions of times less severe, and those crimes were finite, whereas Jesus' condemnation is eternal - you say.

Are you familiar with the words that Jesus spoke to the Pharisees (hypocrites) wherein He said "You blind guides! You strain (filter) out a gnat (something small), but gulp down a camel (something HUGE).

Are you, Tyler, also guilty of gulping down the insane, demonic doctrine of eternal torment - a torment that NEVER end or lessons in intensity (even though Jesus said some would be beaten with few strips -- can you explain that one?). It is plainly written in the OT that penalties would be no greater than the offense/crime committed: Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. In certain instances the penalty appeared much more severe that the crime- like death by stoning, but only IF b-o-t-h the man AND the woman were caught in the act of adultery, and at that the "crime" had to be witnessed by not only one person, but by TWO or THREE (which is why Jesus is seen forgiving the woman the pharisees brought to him whom they claimed was caught in the very "ACT." Where was the man? Why didn't the Pharisees bring along the man? How did the Pharisees know that this woman had committed adultery? Where were they and how did they know she was committing adultery? And how is that they knew enough what penalty was prescribed by the law and yet somehow forget or neglect to bring the man with whom she was bedding?

Gee, ever wonder if it was because the man she was bedding was every last one of those "righteous" Pharisees? Maybe they were angry with her because she wouldn't give it up any more? Who knows! They obviously wanted to trap Jesus with it but they screwed up because the law required that BOTH the man AND the woman be stoned.

I believe Jesus knew without a doubt who the "man" was. Perhaps, just PERHAPS they were all none other than a bunch of her jilted lovers? Hell hath NO FURY like a rejected, "finely clad righteous 'man.' What do you think? Ah! But instead of publicly humiliating the pharisees and condemning them, all Jesus did was stoop down and start writing on the ground with His finger. What did He write? It's anyone's guess. But isn't it interesting that they all (the pharisees -"keepers of the law" - awwwww, weren't day tweet?) went away CONSCIENCE-stricken from the o-l-d-e-s-t to the last? Don't you find that fascinating and worth delving into a little deeper, Tyler. And, yes, I am aware that that verse is not in every manuscript, but it's in some for a reason, and so you'll excuse me if I find that interesting--very, very interesting. I'm positive I've been guilty of filtering out gnats and gulping down camels. In fact, I've also been guilty of gulping down the HUGE, HUGE, HUGE MONSTROUS doctrine of demons of Eternal torment, myself. But the difference between me and you, is, I've turned from that evil and vile doctrine -- it does nothing to glorify God and certainly does nothing for humanity.

Well?

Gina Squitieri

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 12:30 PM

Is "Everlasting" Scriptural?

http://bible-truths.com/aeonion.htm

Excerpt #1:

"Would God redeem us for just a few ages? (Then what?)

"aionian" here must mean "eternal" to make sense because Christ entered, (sacrificed Himself), once for all and for all time! Why would His sacrifice be for anything less than for eternity - all time? Is He not God?

Comment: Let me try this one more time. God created the eons of time, therefore, He is "the eonian God." God is working out His plan of salvation for the entire human race within the confines of these "eonian times." The Scriptures know nothing of "eternity." They didn’t even have a word for the concept. Redemption is only one of many things that God will accomplish in the eons. There are no promises, no prophecies, no anything, mentioned in Scripture that goes beyond the conclusion of the eons. After the eons are over, then what? What will we do? IT DOESN’T SAY. We know of only two things that are taught in reference to anything beyond the eons [1] we will all have IMMORTALITY [we will never die]. The word itself has nothing to do with "time," but rather ‘death-less-ness, and [2] God will be ALL IN ALL. That’s it! Beyond these, we must trust God in faith regarding what eternity holds for us.

Now for one of the most important truths of all regarding this word "aionios." When God says that He is "the EONIAN God," He is stating a FACT. That Jesus procured "EONIAN redemption" for us, is a statement of FACT. Neither "eonian God" nor "eonian redemption" are statements of LIMITATION. And to suggest that they are statements of limitation is to pervert the Scriptures—they neither say nor insinuate any such thing.

This principle of stating a FACT, which is not a statement of LIMITATION is found throughout the Scriptures. God is for example: "The God OF Abraham, OF Isaac, and OF Jacob"(Ex. 3:6). This is a statement of FACT. It is not a statement of LIMITATION. This statement of fact does not limit God from also being the God of Moses, David, Peter and Paul.

If the statement said that God is the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ONLY," then it would be a statement of limitation, but we don’t find any such words of limitation in the verses in question. It doesn’t say that God is the "eonian God, ONLY," or that Jesus procured "eonian redemption ONLY" for us. Does it? Well, DOES IT? Why then do you deceitfully suggest that that is what IT MUST AND HAS TO MEAN?

And so this verse doesn’t say that Jesus procured for us eonian ONLY redemption, nor does it mean such a thing. But it does say that Jesus procured "EONIAN redemption for us," that that is a statement of fact, and that fact is Scripturally true. God’s elect will receiving "redemption" during the remaining eons of time. Nowhere does it say that at the end of the eons we will then LOSE our redemption. These are but unscriptural carnal arguments used to discredit God’s word and promote the pagan doctrine of eternal torture."

Excerpt #2:

The word "eternal" comes from the Latin "aeternum" which in the first century meant virtually the same as the word "seculum," and in fact, Jerome sometimes rendered "aion" aeternus, and in other places he renders "aion" as seculum. They were considered virtually synonyms. Here is the how Latin dictionaries define, seculum—"a generation, an age, the world, the times, the SPIRIT OF THE TIMES, and a period of a hundred years." (Caps mine).

Trajan, Roman emperor from 98 to 117 AD spoke of seculum as the time he lived in. Tertullian, born about 160 AD refers to "a mighty shock impending over the entire world, and the conclusion of the seculum itself." Lactantius, born about 260 AD speaks of the "learned ones of this seculum." Eusebius, early Church historian, born about 265 AD gives the account of a martyrs’ trail in which Speratus, the martyrs’ leader, replied, "The empire of this seculum [world] I do not recognize."

We read this from the work, Whence Eternity by Scholar and Expert in the Greek language, Alexander Thomson, "Long ago in Rome, periodic games were held, which were called ‘secular’ games. Herodian, the historian, writing in Greek about the end of the second or beginning of the third century, call these ‘eonian’ games. In no sense were the games eternal. Eonian did not mean eternal any more than a seculum meant eternity" (Page 12).

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 02:44 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Papa, it is the Christian prerogative to pick and choose...

I was doing some research work today and was going over the vision that Paul had where God apparently told him that eating all of the stuff that was outlawed in the Old Testament was fine... it even hints that Paul was delirious with hunger...

Papa

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 03:05 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Yup, very very true. You and I both understand it because we reasoned exactly like him at one point, (at least I did!). He deliberately ignored my last substantive post in the previous thread. Picks and chooses what he would like to respond too in posts. Such is christianity...

Gina Squitieri

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 03:26 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. It was Peter who saw the vision, not Paul. And it was not even hinted at that Peter was hungry. It outright made it certain Peter was hungry.

Acts 10

9The next day as they were still on their way and were approaching the town, PETER [not Paul] went up to the roof of the house to pray, about the sixth hour (noon).

10But he became VERY hungry, and WANTED something to eat; and while the meal was being prepared a trance came over him,

11And he saw the sky opened and something like a great sheet lowered by the four corners, descending to the earth.

12It contained all kinds of quadrupeds and wild beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the air.

13And there came a voice to him, saying, Rise up, Peter, kill and eat.

14But Peter said, No, by no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unhallowed or [ceremonially] unclean.

15And the voice came to him again a second time, What God has cleansed and pronounced clean, do not you defile and profane by regarding and calling common and unhallowed or unclean.


Peter believed that the Gentiles (anyone who wasn't a Jew) were unhallowed or unclean, which is in direct correlation to the way Peter viewed the Canaanite woman came begging Jesus to heal her daughter. Remember what Peter and his buddies said to Jesus? "Send her away, for she is crying out after us." Peter thought anyone who wasn't a Jew was essentially no better than those things he was forbidden (under the OLD law) to not eat, and in this instance he doesn't want to even go near them.

But in the "vision" which is a v-i-s-i-o-n and not real, God is telling Peter that he was going to bring the Gospel to the Gentile nations because:

Acts 10:15 "...What God has cleansed and pronounced clean, do not you defile and profane by regarding (thinking of it as) and calling common and unhallowed or unclean."



Tyler, does it look like Peter was even closed to being "saved" at this point in his ministry? I think not.

Tyler V

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 04:39 PM

Gina,

you said on Monday 14th December 2009 | 12:08 AM that if being “reformed” meant believing like me, then you are not reformed. (logical inference from that line of reasoning is that you consider that I am mis-defining reformed theology and you get it right.)

I also DON’T believe that Christ will ultimately fail either. The problem that you have is that you assume that Jesus was commissioned by the Father to save the whole world. This was not Jesus’ commission. Jesus’ mission was the seek and save the lost sheep of Israel and to provide salvation to the elect. Again, the church has historically (and nearly universally) agreed with me. Again, to defend your position you must stand at odds with Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, Jude, and BILLIONS of Christians throughout the centuries. You have that much hubris?

Next, you then say that the passage I cited from Jesus’ own mouth was a Parable, when in fact, it is NOT a parable. The passage I cited was AFTER Jesus had told the parable and his disciples come to him to explain the parable and then he tells them what the parable meant. So while the parable is not literal, what it represents (what Jesus explained it to mean) IS. Thus when Jesus says in explanation, “"The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The WEEDS are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the END OF THE AGE, and the harvesters are angels. 40"As the weeds are pulled up and BURNED IN THE FIRE, SO IT WILL BE AT THE END OF THE AGE. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will WEED OUT OF his kingdom everything THAT CAUSES sin AND ALL WHO DO evil. 42They will throw them into the FIREY FURNACE, WHERE THERE WILL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.” He is being entirely literal.

And I NEVER said that I think Jesus will eternally damn people BECAUSE that’s why I think his word says. I said I believe it because that IS what his word says. In fact, Jesus talks about hell more than any other person in the entire Bible combined! It’s one of the reasons that Courtenay doesn’t like him so much!

Now, am I straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel? Ha. Not at all. Actually you are. You strain out the doctrine of hell but swallow that God is then not holy, righteous, judge, or that he is right in his revelation that he will in fact separate the righteous from the unrighteous and cast the latter out of his presence forever. You ask how I read the fewer stripes passage? The same way every generation of Christians has. That there will be varied levels of suffering in hell. Thos who knew that Jesus was who he claimed to be and yet rejected him (anti-theists, anti-Christ, Satan, demons, ex-clergy, apostates, etc.) will suffer far more than those who knew very little and thus will suffer littler (people on desert islands, people in banned countries who were kept by government from hearing of Jesus, etc.)

You then make the false claim that because in the OT all crimes were to be punished with equity, that ALL crimes commited in finite space must receive finite punishment. You make the mistake between quality and span. A finite crime can deserve an eternal punishment. Notice that adultery received the capital punishment. Does that seem like an eye for an eye? See, the problem is that the punishment for the crime is determined by the nature of the OFFENDED party. Why and eye for an eye? Because taking of a HUMAN eye deserves a finite punishment. It is a sin against God and man, but it is not a purposeful rebellion against God per se (see 10 commandments). So the finite crime receives a finite punishment. Yet crimes that violated the 10 commandments were in direct contradiction with the moral law of God and thus the nature of the offended party determines the punishment – eternal. So you objection makes several basic category mistakes.

As for the woman caught in adultery being brought to Jesus, it is not in any of the earliest manuscripts and thus I simply reject it as Canon. You say you know its not in “every manuscript” well the problem is that it doesn’t start showing up until some of the later manuscripts, that is, nothing before (I think the 5th century) has that story. So its not like its up for debate, like the manuscripts could go either way. Every scholar knows that it shouldn’t be in the Bible but some how it keeps staying in because people just like the story. But it really doesn’t belong. So I reject it as authoritative on any issue and doubt if that event even occurred. So you entire diatribe based on that text is simply invalid.


Again, your article on the lack of words meaning “eternity” in the Bible is simply absurd. Several reasons:

1. You say that we will live for everlasting; immortality – we will never die. If we NEVER die, does that not mean ETERNAL life, i.e. life that goes on for eternity?

2. When the Bible says things like “everlasting to everlasting” (or eternity of eternities) it is a Hebrew idiom meaning a countless of countlessness, i.e. eternity. It was a common manner of speech.

3. You then say that me calling “eonian God” or “eonian redemption” somehow limits them makes no sense… I am saying that are eternal… i.e. without time limits… so your objection here just makes no sense. If God is eternal, how is that limiting him, and how is that not also stating a FACT. Cant I state the FACT that God is eternal (a non-limiting term)?

4. You then start to muddle concepts. That God is the saving God of the elect (limited in scope) is a different doctrine than either the doctrine of God being Sovereign God of ALL creation, or that God is eternal. Those are three different relationships to the created order. We can see something of this distinction when we consider that all people are “children of God” by nature of being created, but that John in John 1:12 says that “12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” thus showing that there are different senses to the word “children.” All are his children in one sense, but there are others, those who will actually inherit the kingdom, who are hi children because they believed (thus inferring that those who do not receive him, and who do not believe in his name, are not given the right to BECOME children of God.)

5. You again make a LARGE category mistake when you say that Jesus cannot make EONIAN redemption for us ONLY. Here you confuse time with scope. Eternal deals with the time-span that the redemption will be maintained (forever) while “for us only” deals with who that eternal redemption is applied to. They are simply two different concepts that you are trying to force to contradict. But they don’t. They are talking about two different things.

6. Thus to say that “Jesus procured for us eonian ONLY redemption” makes no sense because the “eonian” modifies “redemption” while, in your construction “only” modifies “eonian” and it seems illogical to say something is “only eternal.” A simple grammar change would better suit what the Bible actually states is the case: “Jesus procured only for us, eternal redemption.” Thus there is no inherent contradiction.

Lastly, your treatment (though I know you copied this from someone) of aion and seculum is simply bad lexical study. It assumes that a word can only have one meaning and one meaning only. Especially considering that the Greek language had a fraction of the vocabulary as English, and that we see that nearly every word had multiple meanings, sometimes meaning very different things. English words like Abstract (with 14 different meanings http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstract) or Set with 464 definition in the Oxford dictionary, RUN with 396, GO – 368, TAKE – 343, STAND – 334, GET – 289, TURN – 288, PUT – 268, FALL – 264, STRIKE – 250, and so on. The problem with your kind of argumentation (“we get our English word for the Latin, not the Greek) reveals absolutely nothing about the actual lexography of the Greek! This is simply not how real exegesis is done.

Now, on to Jake.

The ironic thing is that you accuse Paul (and Christians) of picking and choosing, yet your statement shows that you pick and choose what Christian theology to address and what to ignore. Was Paul suddenly picking Kosher laws that he liked and others he didn’t? No, in his conversion to Christianity, he was now to understand that God’s people was no longer geo-politcal Israel with their civil/ceremonial laws of the Mosaic covenant (see Hebrews on the coming of a New Covenant surpassing the Old Covenant) and thus kosher laws, ceremonial laws of geo-politcal Israel and its temple, were fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ, the last sacrifice. This is basic Covenant theology and yet you CHOOSE to pretend that it doesn’t exist when in fact, the books of Acts and Hebrews are largely written to address this very issue!

Oh, and I think that you mean Peter, not Paul. Peter had the vision while hungry in Acts 10, not Paul. Some “research” you must have been doing...

Finally to you Papa.

You accuse me of picking and choosing because I didn’t address the topic from another thread in this thread? Ha. Sorry, but that’s just stupid. They are different threads! Lol. The only reason I am talking with Gina about the same issue here is because SHE brought it up here. But again… I didn’t pick and choose, they are different threads!

I mean really…. Is that what your objections have degenerated to? That I didn’t carry over the argument from one thread to another and there for I am deceptive and shirk the issues. Ha. Wow. “Such is Christianity…” what an absurd argument. That would be like me saying atheism is invalid because Courtenay suppresses me on his website because he doesn’t like actually having to defend his positions. But I wouldn’t make that argument because I know the foolishness of one man doesn’t impinge of the truth/falsity or tactics of the entire worldview. Plus, again… not brining up a topic from one thread in another is not picking and choosing. Ha.

Besides, your last post was on Saturday 19th December 2009 | 03:09 AM about the KJV (again weird since I am not a KJV advocate… strawman?) to which I responded at Saturday 19th December 2009 | 06:04 AM which is the very next post. So I’m not even sure what I should have carried over had I even been weird enough to continue one thread on another.

Tyler

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 04:47 PM

And yes Gina, Peter was saved since the day of the resurrection. Are you actually suggesting that Peter, as far as Acts 10 wasnt saved?

You know, Gina, as *fun* as this has been casting pearls before you, I think I am going to just go back to debating theism/atheism. That is what this thread was intended for. So when I dont respond to any more of your posts on these intercanonical issues, dont try and accuse me of dodging or anything like that. It is just clear that you are only interested in monologue and since you deny fundamentals of the Christian faith I dont even consider you a sister in Christ and thus this will get us no where. When you are so tied to what you say God must be like to be loving, over what God says that he is like himself, and say things like Peter isnt even saved, and deny the Trinity, etc. its clear that no amount of Scripture or reason could budge you. The fact that you cant ever even come close to adequately stating my position shows that you simply dont listen but rather assume my position and argue against that. So i'm gonna cut it here. I would appreciate it if you would just let it go and not keep trying to pick this fight.

Gina Squitieri

Thursday 24th December 2009 | 12:26 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler. No, Peter was not saved; he was SEALED for redemption. Big difference. HUGE.

#
# Ephesians 4:30
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God by Whom you were SEALED for the day of redemption (of final deliverance through Christ from evil and the consequences of sin).

http://bible-truths.com/hagee1.htm

"One doesn't have to believe in a fabled Hell of eternal torture to realize that there is plenty to be saved from! How about saved from sin and evil? What about being saved from ourselves? What about being saved from weakness, stupidity, ignorance, foolishness and vanity? What about being saved from corruption, immorality, mortality and death? (What about being saved from any more of Pastor Hagee's sermons on Hell?) You don't think these are things to be saved from?"

haha -- I love this part: "What about being saved from any more of Pastor Hagee's sermons on Hell?"

Don't you think that's apropos here, Tyler? I sure do.

I'll address the rest of your post later. I must be about my other beeswax.

Tah-tah dahling~

Tyler V

Thursday 24th December 2009 | 03:13 AM

The "sealing" in Eph. 4 is a restatement of the blessings of a believer in Eph. 1. Notice that they are all in the past tense and occurred "when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation" in 1:13. The Holy Spirit is a seal (guarantee - like a down payment) securing the FULL benefits of our salvation. we are saved now, but we will have the FULL benefits (eternal life, resurrection, sinlessness, etc.) "when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ." Again, your complete lack of sound hermeneutics has tainted your view on even great truths like the seal of the Holy Spirit as a guarantee giving ASSURANCE of our salvation. Where you use it to deny our salvation!

I'll pray for you. At nearly every turn you end up saying the exact opposite of what Scripture actually teaches but claim that it is what Scripture teaches. At least Courtenay and Jake and them get Scripture wrong because they dont believe it. You get it wrong and say that you do believe it! Thats the scary part.

Gina Squitieri

Thursday 24th December 2009 | 03:11 PM

1 Timothy 4

1BUT THE [Holy] Spirit distinctly and expressly declares that in latter times some will turn away from the faith, giving attention to deluding and seducing spirits and ***doctrines that demons teach,**** 2Through the hypocrisy and pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared (cauterized), " (i.e., BURNED)]


1 Timothy 6

3 But if anyone teaches otherwise and does not assent to the *sound* and *wholesome* messages of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and the teaching which is in agreement with godliness (piety toward God),

[COMMENT: It is not "wholesome"and it is not "sound" to believe and teach that Jesus Christ the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD will ultimately FAIL because God was so stupid that He made a rock so heavy (man's fabled freewill) even He cannot move it. I have no choice but to be withdrawing myself from you now, Tyler. All in all, this has not been fun, and I really mean that.]

Tyler V

Friday 25th December 2009 | 02:45 AM

Here again you show that you have no qualms about distorting Scripture. Lets see what Paul REALLY meant by “doctrines that demons teach.” Does it take some special insight or deep theological understanding? No, Paul tells us in the VERY NEXT VERSE! What is the heretical teaching that he is referring to?

“3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.”

Here he is combating his major opponents the Judaizers who said that Christians were still bound to the kosher food laws and customs of the Pharisees for salvation rather than that it is by grace alone that people are saved. Do you not see that you CLEARLY have pulled that verse out of context like you almost always do?

As for your commentary on 1 Timothy 6. you say that “It is not "wholesome" and it is not "sound" to believe and teach that Jesus Christ the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD will ultimately FAIL because God was so stupid that He made a rock so heavy (man's fabled freewill) even He cannot move it”. Well your comment is incorrect in both of its assumptions.

1. That I believe God made man free in such a way that God cannot move him. As I said before, as a Calvinist, I believe in Irresistible Grace – That God’s saving grace cannot be resisted by those on whom he applies it.

2. And that Paul is even talking about eternal issues anyway. In fact, most of the entire chapter is on the difference between eternal riches and earthly riches and the fact that we cant take money with us. It seems obvious that Paul is talking about a specific “message” of Jesus regarding how one should live with regards to finances.


You again have a bad habit of stating an objection, to which I respond, but rather than interacting with the objection you just pretend no response was made and move on. Again, you base your entire system on your precommitment to what God MUST be like if he is loving, rather than bowing a knee to what God says he is like since he is loving. If God says that “God is love” and that “he loves the world” but also that some of the world will be spending an eternity apart from him, then I accept His description of himself rather than trying to make God fit into my mold for him. Plus there are dozens of verses that are directly and explicitly contradictory to you system, while there are maybe a handful of verses that are challenges to the orthodox view that are often ambiguous and easily answered. Your heretical semi-pelagianism and insistence on the misconception about what God MUST be like leads you to deny several fundamentals of the orthodox faith. You strain at the gnat and swallow the camel.

Again, this conversation goes no where because you speak in monologues and do not interact with a single verse that is given to you.

Again:

John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES in him shall not perish but have ETERNAL LIFE.” (what about those who DON’T believe?)

Daniel 12:1-2
1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Jeremiah 23:40:
40 And I will bring upon you EVERLASTING reproach and PERPETUAL shame, WHICH SHALL NOT BE FORGIVEN.'"

Psalm 78:66:
66And he put his adversaries to rout;
he put them to EVERLASTING shame.

Isaiah 33:14:
14The sinners in Zion are afraid;
trembling has seized the godless:
"Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire?
Who among us can dwell with EVERLASTING burnings?"

Jeremiah 25:9d:
I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an EVERLASTING desolation.

Romans 10:9-11:
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Matthew 25:41: 41
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the ETERNAL fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:46:
46And these will go away into ETERNAL punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Mark 3:29: 29
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit NEVER HAS FORGIVENESS, but is guilty of an ETERNAL sin"

2 Thessalonians 1:9
They will be punished with EVERLASTING destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

Revelation 19:20:
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night FOR EVER and EVER.

Revelation 20:14-15
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And WHOSOEVER WAS NOT found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Romans 9:22-24
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the OBJECTS OF WRATH—PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? 23WHAT IF HE DID THIS to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Hebrews 1:1-2:
1Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and ETERNAL judgment.

Jude 1:6-7:
6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in ETERNAL chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of ETERNAL fire.

Matthew 13:36-43 (the EXPLANATION of the parable is not a parable):
36Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field." 37He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The WEEDS are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the END OF THE AGE, and the harvesters are angels. 40"As the weeds are pulled up and BURNED IN THE FIRE, SO IT WILL BE AT THE END OF THE AGE. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will WEED OUT OF his kingdom everything THAT CAUSES sin AND ALL WHO DO evil. 42They will throw them into the FIREY FURNACE, WHERE THERE WILL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.


So let me get this right Gina. Me, Jesus, Paul, Peter, the Author to the Hebrews, Jeremiah, Daniel, Jude, John, Mark, Isaiah, the early church, the medieval church, the reformers, BILLIONS of Christians before us, and even the critics of Christianity who all say that Bible CLEARLY teaches the reality of hell are all wrong? Do you really have that much ego? You have already, by your own admission, said that you were a heretic by denying the Trinity, denying life everlasting, rejecting the Gospel, accepting semi-pelagianism, and by calling the explicit teachings of Jesus Christ “damnable”.

Tyler V

Tuesday 29th December 2009 | 02:35 PM

Courtenay Werleman has made a very bold move... this will go down in the history books... In the name of "free -thinking" and "rationalism" and in opposition to the danger of religious intolerance and bigotry, he has banned me from posting on his site!

Was it because I was ill-mannered, harsh, disruptive? You all know me here. Even if you dont agree, I have never been the kind of person to be so off kilter to merit banning. So why did he do it? Because he was tired of actually having to stand up for his bogus claims like "Matthew capitalized the second kurios".

Read more about it on my blog. logical-theism.blogspot.com

And sometimes you are called upon to write your congressman... well here today... to all you atheists with intellectual honesty and integrity, as I have found MOST of you to be even at our most heated disagreements, write your logical raving anti-theist and tell him to lift the ban! Tell him, "thats not my atheism!" Show him that do suppress the opposing voice stands against all principles of free-thought, rationalism, and even flat out human dignity!

V2

Tuesday 29th December 2009 | 11:03 PM

Cmon Tyler
Now you are just bieng silly
Mr CJ wont lift his ban, poor Mr CJ cant justify his book never mind his ignorance.
Lifting his ban would only prove that he was wrong, and we all know that wont happen.
Funny how most big name atheists wont debate Christians anymore
Talking Dawkins has gone all shy
Now CJ, the great white hope has gone yellow too. Seriously though CJ was a try hard and he just couldnt back it up.
Another loss for atheism, seriously not a big one
Walk away with a smile on your face Tyler. Its obvious CJ is a loser

Trent Greguhn

Wednesday 30th December 2009 | 05:48 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. I can think of a few reasons why CJ banned you Tyler. Either a) he's tired of debating this topic with you as it will always be a agree to disagree subject or b) he feels that the debate has ran its course and there's no need to beat a dead horse anymore.

Either way he should not ban you. Were it me, I would just let you comment to your heart's content and with realizing that I'm not obligated to respond to your comments.

Also, were it me, like the other thread posted here on Rusty Lime, I would just end the comments as this conversation certainly has run its course.

CJ Werleman

Wednesday 30th December 2009 | 09:17 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

I banned you from my site for the following reasons:

1. You bombard my blog at least five (5) times per day. I do not have the time to respond to your complete and utter BS i.e. your false claims that Matthew (or any other of the gospels) were Jewish disciples and/or eye witness of Jesus; that Jesus was not an apocalyptic Jew (your proclamation that Jesus' prophecy was to do only with the destruction of the Temple is FUCKING ABSURD!! And even a skim read over the gospels and/or Paul's letters reveals this so; that Jesus was not a Gentile hating Jew like all others before him in the OT; etc etc etc.

You just don't seem to get it! Jesus was a Jew. Jewish parents. Jewish culture. Endorsed Jewish law to the N'th degree. Further, he had no intentions of staring a new religion. You have no concept of the birth of Christianity. No understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the later writers who penned the faith. You read the Bible as if it truly did descend from Heaven atop a fluffy cloud written by God. What is the point of arguing with such a radical fundamentalist? You're the American Taliban brother.

Responding to your faith twisted fallacies is like trying to win an argument against Fred Phelps on the issue of homosexuality.

2. You are a stalker. You have harangued people on my blog, and on my Facebook including my wife. And now you are writing posts all over the place whining that I am ignoring you?? Your obsession with me is kinda weird dude. For $50 I will send a life size blow up of myself. Email me for details.

Anyway my job is done here - I have brought you and V2 close together. Two intellectual giants finding each other in a sea of theistic passion is a beautiful thing.

Peace
CJ

Tyler V

Wednesday 30th December 2009 | 11:00 AM

Trent, Courtenay's comment is proof positive that it was not because the conversation had run its course. Especially considering that each post was a new conversation.

Courtenay,

1. I have not posted that many times. There have been maybe 5-10 posts TOTAL. So again you try and mislead by distorting facts.

2. To summarize your argument, "I dont have time to debate you on the very issue that is up for debate." Notice how you ASSUME your position is TRUE and then when someone challenges you to provide a basis, evidence, even simple logic, you call them a name, divert, and bash them for having the gall to disagree with you.

3. Interesting that you call me the "American Taliban Brother" when I am the one seeking honest, PUBLIC debate while you are the one trying to suppress and bully the opposing view point in order to isolate yourself from inquiry... Little hypocritical.

4. You then again define my position as false by definition even though you have not been able to once validate a single one of your objections (eg. Matthew capitalized the second kurios).

5. By "harangued" if you mean that I disagreed with you in a polite and logical manner and then did the same with anyone who then responded to me, then yes you are right. Although, again your hypocrisy is almost shocking when you tell me that I harangued people when it is you who stoop to name calling, ad hominems, character assassinations, and now suppression.

And if you write a book (even though you are completely uneducated and frequently show that you are beyond your intellectual depth) that attacks an entire worldview you are absolutely naive if you assume that you will not get major kick back.

I am glad that people on this post can now see your true colors. You are just grinding your axe and unwilling to participate in public and free dialogue (which is made particularly despicable since you are trying to tout free thought and bashing theism for its "intolerance.") I think most people can now see that you are just blindly biased and unable to defend your own position and suppress the people who actually call you the base your assertions. Man i miss the days when atheist used to actually have integrity. You could learn from Trent and Papa who, even though we disagree, at least have integrity.

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 12:51 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

Are you really that arrogant to believe that you are the only person I am debating with??

My book has delighted atheists (judging by reviews), alarmed apologists, and rallied the faithful.....thus debate is all around me. I just don't have the time to respond to your relentless posts on my blog.

I have been debating with you for the past 3-4 months on Facebook, my blog, and on this site......Forgive me for not wanting to keep you first and foremost in my life.

Peace
CJ

Tyler V

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 02:33 AM

"delighted atheists..."

Again, so misleading. It has delighted your fellow vitriolic, undereducated, and blind adherents to philosophical naturalism, who already agreed with your degree of antitheism to begin with. No one with even a cursory understanding of the Bible, its historical/literary/theological context would ever think that your book is anything but an flagrant diatribe based on skewed facts, distorted "reasoning", and eisegesis. (Although wasnt this your intention, since you admitted that you didnt write this for scholars who would know better, but the average lay person who has never read the Bible, let alone studied it, who wouldnt know any better. So basically... your preying on the feeble and you know it.)

"I just dont have time to respond to your relentless posts on my blog."

Well I have been to your blog. And no... there is almost NO ONE else debating with you on it. In fact, I took a brief look through some of the other links... and I couldnt find one single person challenging you at all.


You also assume that I take this personally, like it is some slight against me. I am not "hurt" or something. I'm actually GLAD you banned be because it has revealed the ideologue that you are. People with good evidence/arguments dont simply ban/suppress the opposition. That is the act of a totalitarian hell bent on attaining unquestioning allegiance. So all you have done is reveal to everyone here your hypocrisy - that you tout "free-thought" and reason, and rationalistic principles, and yet you are actually a wolf in sheep's clothing. You dont want free and public debate and you are incapable of actually defending your convictions. So since you cant actually defend you position you try to bully your opinion to be true. But sorry, I dont know if know one told you. But might DOESN'T make right.

Trent Greguhn

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 04:26 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. " fellow vitriolic, undereducated, and blind adherents"

For as judgemental as you are about generalizations and mis-information you'd think you'd be able to spot your own bias. Which leads me to my next comment.

Have you ever thought that you might be wrong Tyler? What you believe, and what you're fighting for might be wrong? I'm just curious.

You keep saying we're blind and uneducated, but you still don't understand what moral plurality is or have been able to use it correctly. Maybe it's beyond the scope of Christian understanding though.

You were the one that attacked CJ's beliefs because he wants to have a threesome with his wife. That's what they call an ad hominem Tyler. You fail to recognize your own hypocrocies is what I've observed. I'm sure you'd agree with Deepak Chopra on his perils of skepticism article.

Christians have always been for open interpretation to the holy texts unless that interpretation goes against what they believe.

I'm here as an observer pointing out what I've seen. You two have discussed this topic to a great extent and when CJ does explain himself you dismiss it always and start using ad hominems yourself.

Tyler, look up and read "Why People Believe Weird Things" and you should be able to reflect to a greated extent afterwards.

Tyler V

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 06:37 AM

Trent, I'm not here referring to the truth of falsity of worldview. I'm here talking about Courtenay and his book which is so illogical and uneducated that it is frightening that people actually think he knows what he is talking about. It would be like if I tried to write a book on quantum mechanics even though I have never done any research on it and then asked those who objected with science if they ever considered that they might be wrong because they are so adamant that I myself am wrong.

see, I'm not saying that ALL atheists are uneducated or illogical (notice I even complimented you and Papa), I am talking about Courtenay in particular, and to those who are just looking for him to scratch where they itch.

And I dont read much Chopra so I cant say that I agree or disagree. Or even that I agree with the conclusion but not the process (something I would hope that most educated atheists would say of Courtenay).

Usually when Courtenay "explains" himself, he actually doesnt explain anything but merely makes more bald assertions, muddled with sarcastic remarks, and topped with a heaping amount of bullying. Notice that when I disagree with him I often ask him questions to answer if he believes that he is correct. The only time I have ever dismissed him out of hand is when he makes arguments like "Matthew capitalized the second kurios" showing that he has absolutely NO clue what he is talking about since we know that Matthew would have most likely written in ALL caps and that the capitalization occurs in the English, not the original. See, Courtenay would know better if he even did a shred of research. But he hasnt, so he still makes those kinds of arguments.

What I have to admit is most striking, is rather than being logical and rational yourselves (which you normally are) you and Papa are more willing to defend Courtenay's drivel rather than just say you agree with his atheism, but recognize that he is completely beyond his education in his argumentation and his book. I have no problem saying that while I agree with the worldview of many Christians, I heavily disagree with their methods and sometimes their conclusions (like those who picket "God hates fags" kind of Christians). I can call them a dark spot in my worldview, like the crazy uncle you hide away when company comes over. But you guys seem so concerned about circling the wagons, that you are unable to critically evaluate those in your own worldview. (Well, Papa has said that he isnt an atheist but has yet to actually say what he believes so for now i'll leave him in the atheist camp until shown otherwise. But Papa, I dont mean to insult you. Seriously, correct me where I am wrong on this. I would like to adequately understand your position).


p.s. posted a new blog on the euthyphro dilemma on my blog.

logical-theism.blogspot.com

Tyler V

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 06:56 AM

p.p.s. Trent, Courtenay admitted himself that his book was for the undereducated. He didnt write for the scholars who would know better than to give his book even a shred of respect, but for the uneducated who simply dont know any better. Its by HIS admission, not just my opinion. See, even though you know he and i have been debating for months, you seem to forget that a lot of these comments then stretch back over months of conversations that you have not read.

Trent Greguhn

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 08:38 AM

Firstly, I'm not defending CJ as it were. I haven't read his book and don't know much about his personal beliefs.

I'm not "rounding the wagons" as it were, I'm askin' you to slow down and think that there may be other reasons to his lack of debate and or willingness to do so.

I'm a humanist and a skeptic and yes Tyler, there are Atheists out there who have it all wrong as far as I'm concerned. But again, I would like for you to address my question.

Have you ever thought your beliefs might be mis-represented or altogether wrong? It's a serious and informing question.

Yes, CJ can come off as bullying but that's his style, you go more of the passive aggresive route, your bullying hides in your diction. His is out in the open.

I can plainly see by the book cover and the diction that it is a satire not to be taken seriously academically. What we agree on here is that religion should not be taken so seriously as it breeds fundamentalism if that is the case.

All that aside, I'm just curious to know whether you ever thought yourself to be wrong in your beliefs.

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 08:40 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

Trent just nailed it on the head, "Have you (Tyler) ever thought that you might be wrong Tyler? What you believe, and what you're fighting for might be wrong?"

I am tired of debating with you because your beliefs have completely clouded the reality of what we know about history and the Bible. It is a fruitless exercise in throwing forth even a straight forward fact then having you close your eyes and shout "IS NOT!!"

Herewith are some examples of Biblical facts as stated in my book and held by the overwhelming majority of scholars and theologians:

1. There are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus. (But you disagree)

2. None of the Gospels or Paul were eye-witnesses to Jesus life. (But you disagree)

3. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew that promised his return before the death of his contemporaries 36 times, between him and Paul. (But you disagree)

4. Jesus was born a Jew to Jewish parents that observed Jewish holidays and laws. He worshipped the Jewish God, and fully endorsed the Jewish law, every iota of it, and thus disliked or mistrust non-Jews, similarly as did the Old Testament prophets. (But you disagree)

5. Whilst most read the Gospels account of the empty-tomb/resurrection whereby Matthew says an angel greeted them, BUT Mark says it was a young man, BUT Luke says very clearly that it was two men, BUT John says nobody was there - and see the obvious discrepancies and irreconcilable differences, you think they are supporting.

You rave on about historicity and context and blah blah blah but you show no understanding of who and how the Bible was written. NONE! So let me save you the tens of thousands of dollars you are spending at Jerry Fallwell's Trinity college: (see next post)

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 08:47 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. Tyler,

This is how we got the New Testament:

2,000 years ago there were no Kinkos, mass media, or book publishers. If someone wrote a book there'd only be one copy. That is until someone else thought the book was worth a read and they'd, in turn, make their own copy. Let me illustrate.

Let's say that in 100 AD I wrote a book titled How to Make Love like Tiger Woods. My neighbor sees my book resting on the coffee table and decides that he too would like to get on the Tiger program and asks if he can have a copy. I oblige, but the question becomes - how do we make a copy with no printers in Rome 1,900 years ago? The only way is for him to make a hand written copy of my book, the original. Thus for the next two months my neighbor spends his evenings writing his copy of my book.

BUT do you think his copy will be identical to mine? Well most probably not. He may not think the chapter titled 'Don't Give Your Home Phone Number to Randoms' to be relevant to his situation, thus he omits that. He may not also be comfortable with my liberal use of the word 'fuck', as I am known to use fuck as a comma. Thus he omits all the 'fucks'. And a few other changes here and a few changes there, and maybe the addition of one or two of his own chapters.

So now we have two copies of How to Make Love Like Tiger, but while being similar the two are far from being identical.

We move on. Let's say my neighbor's boss wants to improve his success rate away from home like Tiger. He now makes a copy of my neighbor's copy which is a copy of the original. With his own omissions here, and his own additions there. Now we have three copies all unalike or unique in their own way. And it goes on and goes on and goes on.

We know that the Gospels were not eye-witnesses to Jesus life. The Gospels wrote their respective biographies of Jesus based on stories they had heard from others. People converted to this new religion based on hearing tales of a guy named Jesus that was said to have preformed miracles, walking on water, rising from the dead etc. People were all like, "No shit? There was a Jew that fed 5000 people with two sardines and a loaf of bread? Really? Wow that's cool. Count me in. I am a Christian now."

The original anonymous author of Mark, for example, then writes a book about Jesus based on these things he had heard. BUT not only was Mark not an eye-witness to these stories BUT we also don't have Mark's original version. We don't even have the first copy of Mark's original. In fact NONE of the books of the New Testament are the original copies. They're not even copies of copies of copies of copies (x100??).

The Bible is just a human book but you see no human errors, no flaws, no contradictions, and no irreconcilable discrepancies because you think the book descended magically from Heaven.

How can I debate a guy like you? Why continue to waste my breath on a lost cause?

CJ

3.16

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 09:28 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. CJ Have you considered if you are wrong
Christians die to Christ
Athiest die to the ground
If I am wrong I lose nothing, if you are wrong; everything
You are wrong
Education is the key to knowledge
Christs love and my prayers CJ

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 09:52 AM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. Yeah, what a great argument, believe in Christ just in case the Christians might be right... oh hang on:

"'These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' (Matthew 15:3-9).

I submit that a so called merciful god would see one who simply could not bring themself to feign belief far more riteous than one who believed just in case the Christians thought they were right!

3.16

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 10:20 AM

No argument Jake. I have none.
Christ is man, the Holy Spirit tho, will move inside a heart that is open. Open your heart to Christ, and the Spirit of God will turn lip service in to love. A hardened heart is a choice.
Jesus is love.
Do you preach that I should believe in you, and atheism. Is your faith that strong.

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 10:28 AM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. 3:16,

Have you considered if you are wrong and the Muslims are right?

You've seen what Mohammed's faithful do to infidels in a set of orange tracksuits? That's what will be waiting for you for perpetuity if they're right.

Not only do you need to be sure there is a god but that that god actually is sympathetic to the religion of Christianity.

If you suggest believing or not believing is a 50/50 proposition you are sorely wrong. You need to throw into the calculation of probability every single religion and god that man has created since the dawn of time - millions. Thus if in the massively improbable (read impossible) mathematical odds that there is A god then your chance of salvation improves only to 1/100,000,000 which is not much greater than mine my odds when you think about it.

Get off your knees and live your life standing on your own two feet. It's time to let go off your imaginary friend.

Peace
CJ

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 10:32 AM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. What bullshit statement, 3.16... if you have an open heart, you die!

Keep digging

Tyler V

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 10:44 AM

Trent,

Yes, there was a time when I considered my worldview to be wrong. It was when I was an atheist. Asking me if I have ever thought my worldview to be wrong is a meaningless statement. If I thought it was wrong, I would cease to hold it. It would be like asking Courtenay if he believes that evolution is wrong while still holding to it. I think you believe that you are asking a statement meant to drive the point of humility home, but the question is meaningless. Only a pluralist can ask if a person thinks that they are wrong at the same time that they believe it. Now, do I say that I am 100% certain? No. I say that I am 100% convinced. There is a large difference between the two.

Courtenay,

Trent didn’t nail anything on the head. You say that my convictions have clouded what we know about history and the Bible. 1st, the same can be said for you. 2nd, it is you who have, time and time again, be shown that you don’t have the first clue about Biblical history, context, theology, literature or even reason. Now, as for your points, the problem is, and this is ironic that you argue this way since you claim to be a rationalist, but you claim to be true the very conclusion that you are arguing for. Its called BEGGING THE QUESTION. In fact, it is one of the very things that you bemoan when Christians do it! How many times have you berated Christians who said “because the Bible says so.” Or how fast would you respond if on my blog I simply said “it’s a FACT that the Gospels are eye-witness history and whoever says otherwise is just stupid and wrong by definition” and then kept all people who disagreed with me from posting? You would have a post up on your blog within 5 minutes talking about the “irrational, intolerant, stupid fundamentalist” whose blog you just read. And yet its EXACTLY what you do. Do you not see your own irrationalism here?

We can see this on every one of your points.

1. There are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus.

Well in fact we have Matthew and John who were both disciples of Jesus, and we have Mark which who was most likely the scribe for Peter, and we have Luke who actually tells us that he isn’t the eyewitness but that he gathered the testimony of eye witnesses. The fact that you say this point as if it is a fact is begging the question, since it is precisely one of the points that is up for debate! That would be like me asking for any eyewitness testimony about Abraham Lincoln except for the ones that people accept as eyewitnesses… those don’t count. Its just ludicrous. You also seem to forget that even if they weren’t eyewitnesses, this still doesn’t pose a problem, since we have no eyewitness accounts about Alexander the Great, Homer, Socrates, etc. but go and try your argument on any university for them and see how fast you get laughed off campus. You try and use a double standard but that’s just not how historiography operates.

2. None of the Gospels or Paul were eye-witnesses to Jesus life.

See above. And it should be noted that even liberal scholarship places Paul’s writings from mid 40’s to early 60’s, in which case his conversion occurred in the mid 30’s to early 40’s. Which means that he would have been an active Pharisee in Jerusalem during the Ministry of Jesus and thus he would be an eye-witness.

3. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew that promised his return before the death of his contemporaries 36 times, between him and Paul.

Again, you contradict your earlier point. You must either hold this point or abandon your liberal dating. You want to place the NT authors OVER a generation AFTER Jesus died, thus they would KNOW that Jesus did not come back within the generation. So why would they, if they were fabricating a Jesus and weren’t eyewitnesses, fabricate a lie that they would have KNOWN didn’t come to pass?! So either you get to keep your late date for the books and lose your argument, or keep your late date but realize that what is up for debate is NOT what “this generation” meant, but rather what was expected to happen within that generation, namely the judgment of God upon the holy city… a reality that we DO see happened within a generation and is supported by Reformed and Preteristic theology.

4. Jesus was born a Jew to Jewish parents that observed Jewish holidays and laws. He worshipped the Jewish God, and fully endorsed the Jewish law, every iota of it, and thus disliked or mistrust non-Jews, similarly as did the Old Testament prophets.

Again you beg the very question that is to be proven. Yes Jesus was a Jew, observed Jewish holidays and laws, and worshipped YHWH the Jewish God. But this is the same one who commanded his disciples to go throughout all the nations, told the Jews that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to the gentiles, etc. So you again show that you are unable to read verses in context or to read the ENTIRE corpus of texts on any given issue.

5. Whilst most read the Gospels account of the empty-tomb/resurrection whereby Matthew says an angel greeted them, BUT Mark says it was a young man, BUT Luke says very clearly that it was two men, BUT John says nobody was there - and see the obvious discrepancies and irreconcilable differences, you think they are supporting.

Again begging the question of what is to be proven. The word for Angel/Messenger was the same in Greek, and Angels were almost universally seen as men until they revealed their true nature. The differences of presentation also have to do with who the audience is. Jews don’t need to subtitles to be explained while gentiles did. If I told you that I went to the store today, and then my wife told her friend that both her and I went to the store, would either of us be lying? Either of us? Or if we both went to the store but nether of us felt it vital to the story of what we did that day if someone asked how our day was? The problem here is that you simply do not allow for the basic, every day usage of language and literature. Were there two angels? Yeah. Was Mark wrong to say that they looked like a man? Nope. Was Luke wrong to say there was two? Nope. Was Mark wrong to tell us only about the one who spoke? Nope. Was John wrong in just not including it in his narrative because he was focusing on something else? Nope. So you basically show that no only do you barely even understand the basic plot line, but you also clearly don’t understand historical/theological/literary contexts nor do you understand just basic functions and the realms of meaning of language! Next time your wife asks you about your day, are you going to account for every second, every person, every movement, every word, etc? No, that would take forever and would be utterly pointless. You skip to big events, telescope conversations, omit people who may have been present but not important to the story, etc. That’s just how we humans communicate!


So again, all you prove by this is showing that in your attempt to avoid being challenged on your beliefs, you will, in the name of rationalism, stoop to irrationalism and in the name of free-thought, stoop to censorship and suppression.


And thanks for reposting that drivel about the tiger woods book. All it shows again is that you have NO clue how manuscripting worked. In fact, not only do you clearly not know a single thing about manuscripting, but you also, if you are right, just eliminated Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Tacitus, and pretty much EVERYTHING EVER written before the advent of the printing press. Ha, you just have no clue how historiography functions.


Tell me, do you believe Plato existed and wrote what scholars say he wrote? Tell me why?



Oh and just for kicks and giggles… tell us… where did you go to school? And what was your degree in? Oh and what scholars did you read from the other side of spectrum on issues regarding manuscripts, NT history, etc. if any?



Papa, I’m actually with you for once. Ha. I never liked Pascal’s Wager as a logical argument (although we should be fair and realize that Pascal wasn’t using it as a PROOF for God, but more of a comfort to those struggling with doubts that they made the wisest decision, so we should keep that in mind when evaluating it). But yeah, I think asking people to pretend to believe is just asking people to be hypocritical.

Trent Greguhn

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 11:19 AM

3.16. Way to go with Pascal's Wager. How materialistic and shallow of you. The people who have commented to this have already dealth with how irrational this wager is.

Tyler,

How did you go from atheist to Christian? And again, reading comprehension. I didn't imply or state that you didn't believe what you believe now, I asked if you are or ever were open to the idea of being wrong. Two different things.

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 11:25 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

You keep repeating absolute baloney regarding the gospels. Your ignorance is frightening. Nah scratch that, terrifying!

Goddamit, if Matthew is an eye-witness, as you absurdly claim, then why on earth would he have written in the third person??? Everything Matthew writes is about what "they" did or "they said". NEVER once does he say what "we" were doing!!!

Not only do we not know who the identity of any of the gospels but more significantly none of them claim to be so!!! (Yes I am overusing the exclamation mark but your stupidity frustrates me to tears)

Simple question: Who were Jesus' disciples?

Fisherman, a stand-over man (tax collector), and a few peasants all from the rural region of Galilee. This all but guarantees that these lower-class socio-economic group were illiterate. As literacy under the Roman Empire in those times is said to be less than 10% - and thus reading/writing skills were confined to the ruling elite only.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the gospels that suggests that Jesus' followers could read, let alone write. As a matter of fact in Acts 4:13 it says that both Peter and John were "unlettered" meaning illiterate.

But here's where your faith and ignorance of history gets you tangled up. Not only are you claiming that Jesus' peasant class followers able to read and write Aramaic but they were linguistically skilled enough to write their books in the foreign language of Greek!!!

Then you jump into the idiot's pool with your assertion that Paul met or was an eye-witness to Jesus' life. Then answer this: Why does Paul never make the claim that he met or saw Jesus, excluding meeting his ghost on the Damascus Interstate?

Further, why does Paul write nothing, or certainly very little, of Jesus life? Paul says plenty about his death and resurrection and his promise to return before 100 AD, but says hardly more than a few lines in regards to what Jesus said or did while he was alive.

Can you see my frustration in dealing with an ignorant fundie like yourself?

Anyway, 4 months of this back and forth - and I'm done. I'm hating myself for even replying because we keep going back over old ground.

I'm done with ya.

CJ

3.16

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 11:53 AM

Bless You Trent
Of course it is Pascal's wager, and yes it is relevant in context.
CJ commented -What if Tyler was wrong. All I said was, what if CJ was wrong
Bitter nasty hate filled people?
Slaves, slaves to anger

Jake, an open heart is a spiritual term. Yes I agree with you, in real life you would most probably die
I dont mean a literal open heart. You can be a little silly at times

CJ, when you realise you are not in control, even you will bow down to the King.
Your life of excess will soon be over and humbly on your knees you will find my King.
Your book teaches division, enmity between man
You poison the very ground you walk on
Christs message was simple-Love
What do you teach CJ. What do you want to say
God doesnt exist, obviously, but after that. What is your messasge?

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 12:22 PM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. 3:16,

Well the purpose/message of my book is not to promote hate or division whatsoever. In fact the opposite. The message is that the only way mankind can work towards human solidarity is to forgo ancient beliefs that only serve to promote in-out thinking.

Central to that achieving that objective is to accurately characterize the personality of the Hebrew God, and Jesus to a lesser extent, as portrayed in the Bible. The Hebrew God of the Bible is truly a capricious, vindictive, misogynistic, genocidal ethnic cleanser with a love of murdering babies and placing those that dare tangle with the Hebrews into slavery. A god that is jealous and proud of it. A god that is merciless, unloving, and spiteful of anyone that is now a Jew.

Then comes along Jesus. You say "Jesus is love". These are the sound-bites we hear in Church. But it is far from the historical Jesus. The historical Jesus was an ill-tempered, petulant brat with overly racist tendencies, like all Jews of the time, and further was not very nice to his dear old Mum. His teachings were irresponsible, nonsensical, and misleading - and he let his small band of followers to a life of misery by encouraging them to forgo their future earthly concerns such as thrift, investment, and health because the end of times would occur before they would experience death themselves.

Sure he said "do unto others" but so did Socrates 600 years prior. Buddha also said love your enemy 500 years earlier but neither Socrates or Buddha promised eternal damnation to those that didn't believe or follow them. There's the lunacy and moral corruption of Jesus.

If you desperately want a religion of peace and love then follow Janism. Which is where MLK and Ghandi got their inspiration from.

Peace
CJ

3.16

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 01:37 PM

A tit for tat isnt going to benefit either of us CJ, so a reply seems a little futile
Christ message was simple. Love and forgiveness.
I have noticed your disagreement with a brother in Tyler.
Unfortunately, even for me it might be a little over theological. Christ preached love
I wont defend my Jesus. The bible says I dont have to,
Tho, what you write is wrong. You dont know the Bible
Christ preached love and forgiveness at personal cost

Read Jakes articles and then say in all honesty, that you dont breed hate
Your teachings are a fallacy, as are your beliefs CJ
Mankind cant live together. Will never live together, and your wishful thinking or dreams wont change a thing
Religion is a pawn in the hands of greedy men, to wrest power and money from others
If no religion existed, science sport or skin color would be used. Oh wait, it is used.
You blame Christianity for the bad things man does
I could blame you for Jakes article, but that would be silly
You could blame Christianity for bad Christians, but that would be silly
I love homosexuals,(not literally Jake) Haha as Christs demands from his followers

Buddha Socrates. They never fulfilled prophecy. They never died for others. Millions dont follow their teachings.

""If you desperately want a religion of peace and love then follow Janism. Which is where MLK and Ghandi got their inspiration from. ""

Your issue isnt with religion is it CJ, its with Christianity
You hate us as a group

and hence my message remains the same
Brothers and sisters in Christ in who I am of the lowest
Love these people and forgive them and indeed most of all pray that they will see the truth

Friendo

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 01:55 PM

"WE HAVE CHRIST
Time for Christianity to rise and shut up the atheist.
The militant atheist has become the unbelieving Muslim.
Jake's doctrine of hate is a slide down in to Nazism.
Unite fight, but only with love and Christ’s forgiveness and peace.
WE HAVE CHRIST
Christianity teaches love forgiveness and self-sacrifice.
You exude hate and self-righteousness.
I personally don’t believe in the rapture, nor disbelieve in it.
Christ taught Love and Forgiveness to everybody.
Jake preaches hate.
The Church will soon be oppressed again.
We are all sinners and death is our reward.
Judaism is the root of Christianity. Christ was the completion.
As to Muslims, yes I know of their God."

Source=3:16

dig, dig, dig...
pant, pant, pant...
rest, rest, rest...
dig, dig, dig...

Tyler V

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 02:06 PM

3:16. very good points. Not how I would argue but I like your tact.

Although I find it odd that Courtenay says he doesnt promote hate when the title of his book has the moral imperative to hate in the title. The title itself calls us to hate. And then all courtenay does for the most part is slander religious people and even go so far as to call for laws that would make parents raising their children in church a criminal offense... but yeah... he's all about the tolerance. ha

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 02:50 PM

The title 'God Hates You. Hate Him Back' in effect asks you to hate a mythical being, the Hebrew God of the Bible, not a human being, or a group of human beings.

If more of us had of hated Hitler when Nazism was on the rise from the early-mid 30s then maybe Chamberlain and co would have had the balls to act thus preventing the holocaust.

It's ok to hate agents of evil and immorality. It's ok to hate those that endorse Jihad, slavery, or suppression of gender equality.

Great social change rarely comes via being polite.

Why do I hate God? (If he were true)

Because he doesn't act when he sees suffering when he is capable of doing so by definition of being omnipotent. Consider the following example:

If a specialist Doctor is capable of performing a life saving procedure on a child at no cost to himself or to anyone else but refuses to because he has a game of golf scheduled then what would we think of such a person? A monster right? Then why can't theist's apply the same to their God?

BTW: Yes those that indoctrinate children with theological beliefs that encompass divineness and eternal punishment should be criminally charged for child abuse.

3.16

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 03:04 PM

So CJ
You like a petulant child, you desire God to intervene?
If God does exist?
When should he intervene?
When shouldnt he?
Set out your guidelines
Tell me the circumstance God should intervene in our lives and when he should stand back and allow us to live our lives

and my punishment for indoctrinating my children
What should that be?

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 11:54 PM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. 3:16,

I pointed out the reasonS (plural) for hating the Hebrew God i.e. capricious vindictive bully that loves a good ole fashioned ethnic cleansing etc etc. In the following post I should've said that my reason for finding no reason to love him is that, if he were real, he can sit back with arms folded and watch 3 million Jewish children be tossed into an oven for example.

Point being I see no reason to love even the myth of God, unlike Superman. If Jesus sacrificed himself to end all sin and all evil then I would salute and honor his memory. But nothing changed after his sacrifice! Evil and sin continued. A needless waste of a life.

In effect we can say that Jesus lived in dirty, dusty, and hot Palestine without air-conditioning and had himself sacrificed so that he could travel to Paradise. Not much of a sacrifice is it?

Oh but you say that Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for Adam's sin? Hahaha you think Adam was a real dude? I just pooped laughing.

CJ

Tyler V

Friday 1st January 2010 | 12:21 AM

Again, Courtenay, is God objectively evil? What is the basis for that moral evaluation when you say morality is a social contract and he belongs to a different social contract than you? (something you have been unable to answer)

And again.... what did you study in school? And what scholars did you read who disagree with you? (asked this now for the 10th time so i'm assuming the answer is "none")

CJ Werleman

Friday 1st January 2010 | 02:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Is God objectively evil? Umm YES!

From my blog: Is God a Moral Monster?

We all know the following argument backwards and forwards: That the presence of evil is logically inconsistent with an all-loving, all-good, and all-powerful God yadda yadda yadda. But here is a simple analogy to consider this argument further…

Let’s imagine that a newborn child is born with only 25% lung capacity, as in the example of my deceased nephew, making death virtually inevitable. But let’s say by chance a specialist doctor with unique skills has the know-how to perform a simple operation that does not cost anybody anything. HOWEVER, the doctor refuses to show up for the life saving procedure because he just doesn’t want to cancel his tee time at his local golf course, and the child dies.

What do we now make of this doctor? Does this not make him a moral monster?

If the doctor can save the child with no cost to anyone, but the doctor elects to let the child die in exchange for a game of golf, the doctor cannot be a moral person to say the very least.

Why can’t we apply the same standards to God?

If God is all-good, all-loving, and all-powerful then why does God not step in to save the child’s life? If He, like the golf loving doctor, chooses not to save the child’s life, when clearly he has the ability to do so and at no cost to anyone, because he can’t be bothered – then again I ask does this not make God a moral monster?



P.S: My bio is in my book. I was educated at a very good pre-school and arguably the best elementary school on the Central Coast, NSW Australia. What scholars do I read? I watch only YouTube. It's fricken awesome man.

CJ Werleman

Friday 1st January 2010 | 02:15 AM

Tyler,

As much as I loathe and despise you and your ilk (for your theology)- I do wish you a prosperous 2010.

Until next year.

CJ

P.S: My battle with you is over. We have covered everything. It's time to go slay some new dragons, for both of us. Farewell.

3.16

Friday 1st January 2010 | 10:02 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. HI CJ and God Bless you this year and anyone reading this post

I am reluctant to push you for an answer.
You have every right to believe that God is either Evil, or doesnt exist. Both beliefs though are wrong, though I have no intention of trying to change your opinion

You previously inferred if God did exist he should intervene in our lives, so I asked when should he and when shouldnt he intervene. That remains an unanswered question

Also you suggested a punishment for Christians who raise their Children as Christians.
Hard for me to fathom somebody such as yourself, who incidentally wrote such a hate inspiring book, assuming responsibility for my children, or handing it over to the State
The punishment though you suggested, was what? Any thoughts

Truly CJ, as a Christian living in the last days I expect this. In fact I expect death(I consider it a blessing), both for me and my family, at the hands of people just like you, like Jake
I dont understand the motivation, outside of satan of course. I was wondering if you could shed a little light on your motivation.

Anyway still two questions; if they remain unanswered I wont press you
My love and prayers to you and yours, as a servant of Christ

3.16

Friday 1st January 2010 | 10:05 AM

...in response to this comment by Friendo.
dig, dig, dig...
pant, pant, pant...
rest, rest, rest...
dig, dig, dig...

I am sorry Friendo
I dont understand your little joke at my expense
Appreciate if you let me in on it

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 1st January 2010 | 10:53 AM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. 3.16, I find it extremely interesting that you asked for CJ's motivation at the same time as calling it a hate inspired book. Hate inspired infers that it is inspired by hate. Have you read the bible? The old testament is several long and horrifically boring stories about the Hebrew hate for other cultures, the New Testament is a long and horrifically boring diatribe about the ethereal Jesus' (speaking through Saul or post Damascus Paul) hate for women and all non Christians and then Jesus' testimony as written by four separate authors several generations after Jesus' death telling of how Jesus hated all non-Jews and at the same time hating the Jews that did not love him.

Hate inspired book is right, hate is best served biblical~

God bless you also 3.16, don't forget to cup the balls.

3.16

Friday 1st January 2010 | 11:56 AM

Often caught repeating myself around here suprisingly

Jake, it may come across as a complete shock to you, but the Bible, is two books and based on two authoritys
The Law Old testament. Jewish
Grace New testament. Christian
I could go on, but I am sure you have a Jericho type wall up as a defence. It would be pointless on my part.
Maybe indeed I am naive? This hate you describe is something I have yet to see in Gods book
I would be interested from you to point out this hate you see from the pages of the Bible.
Christs sermon on the mount, turn the other cheek and healings, preaching love and forgiveness. Maybe we are reading two different books, or maybe even literal scales cloud your eyes and mind.
I am not sure, but considering your atheist 2010 article ?
I can see hate certainly controls many lives around here.
Slaves to hate, slaves to this world
My prayers and love in Christ Jesus
My balls, dont need cupping

Tyler V

Friday 1st January 2010 | 01:24 PM

Courtenay,

Your Doctor analogy is simply false. A doctor is a human being with finite knowledge. It is not their job to determine providential meaning and purpose. Their job is solely to heal to the best of their ability. God is not a doctor. He is the creator of the universe with sovereignty and omniscience. Thus if God creates the infant from your illustration, unlike the doctor whose sole responsibility is health and well being, God may have sufficient reason because he is omniscient and has sole authority to do so. (Hence where we get the saying "to play God" where we arent not permitted to do what God IS permitted to do.)

And I think that you believe you dodged the bullet on both my questions by giving that false illustration and then giving a cheeky remark about your education (lack there of) and then throwing your hands up.

Again, IF God is evil, what is your basis for saying so? I know that you base morality on something like a social contract but since God is far removed from your social contract, who are you to say that he is evil in HIS social contract since you arent a part of it? You assume a universal moral system but are unable to base it in your own worldview. And you accuse Christians of being irrational...

Also, you either really did only go to preschool and elementary and only researched on youtube and are saying that sarcastically in order to mask the truth, or you are trying to just give a cheeky comment to avoid having to REALLY answer the question (which I suspect is the case). Again, if you really have good support, why be afraid to mention it? People with good arguments dont shroud their positions like you do, or ban people who disagree with them on their blogs... you plan on being a Stalin one day?

Oh, and I like how you dont say that you endorse hate but then you say "As much as I loathe and despise you and your ilk". But yeah... you're all about the peace and love. Its a little hypocritical for you to object to Christians who want to ban gay marriage (which I am not of that camp by the way) but yet you want to criminalize the Christian parents' rights to raise their children in the church... hypocrisy so think you can cut it with a knife!

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 1st January 2010 | 02:20 PM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. I don't have a defensive wall up at all 3.16, much the contrary, I do what I do in the name of free thought and inspired debate. As I mentioned in the other post we met at, my motto is to always be open minded, but not to the degree where my brain falls out!

Also, having a Jericho-esk wall is not really all that applicable to an atheist, mainly because it would suggest that god could knock such a wall down... well god and a whole bunch of freshly circumcised soldiers with trumpets... oh, and the Arc!

You were there when Jesus gave the sermon on the mount? Wow dude, those Christian time machines must be awesome. How can you seriously put your belief behind the new testament when you consider that none of the books were written BY Jesus and all of them were written well after his time. The New Testament isn't a testament it's a fabricated story.

How can you believe in this bullshit story and be atheistic towards the Joseph Smith's account? Both were fabricated!

Tyler V

Friday 1st January 2010 | 03:07 PM

Jake said,

"...none of the books were written BY Jesus and all of them were written well after his time."

You just disqualified pretty much ALL history prior to the printing press or anything that isnt autobiographical. ha. There goes Homer, Alexander the great, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Tacitus, Pliny, most of the Caesars, etc.

You sure you wanna keep that ludicrous standard for historical reliability that no historian would ever accept?

Oh, and the fact that many historians consider the Bible historically reliable (even if they disagree with its metaphysical/spiritual interpretation of the events; see Sir William Ramsey and many others), while NO historian considers the book of Mormon accurate on events that are even relatively current (within American history). Again, the false dilemma that you raise is that one must either accept or reject all religious books for the same reasons. That simply is not true in the same way that it would be false to say that one must accept all the writings of atheists or reject all the works for the same reasons. So if one atheist is wrong on history, logic, philosophy, etc. (e.g. Courtenay Werleman) does that make ALL atheists wrong? The book of Mormon, the Quran, and many others are not accurate on basic history (what cities were were, who was king when, etc.) a problem that the Bible does not have.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 1st January 2010 | 03:43 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler, last time I checked, not a single person alive today prays to Alexander The Great or Aristotle. I am not so naive to think that all of human history should be negated due to authenticity errors, however I do most certainly assert that no one should live their life based on any one text, much less believe what is contained within it.

Today, we are blessed with so much beautiful information that we can research every claim that is made. Humanity has judged the bible, and found it wanting!

3.16

Friday 1st January 2010 | 06:21 PM

Sadly Jake, only your arrogance defends your position.

Tyler V is correct, though fails to mention history is recorded and influenced by the victors. Christ died and his subjects killed ruthlessly. Christ was a Victor in death , the religion and government of the day still could not stop his peaceful movement from influencing the world. No slave revolts no armies no government was overturned. Only peoples hearts changed

Jake to you........ No history exists in your mind that doesnt support your opinion, thats sad
You were there when life evolved from the mud? Wow dude, those atheist time machines must be awesome.
and again only your arrogance demands that I should live according to your religion, your beliefs. As should my children. Atheism?
Your religion Jake is far more susceptible to corruption than mine.

Free will is a gift from God, and you would take that by force. Thats not a question, you would advocate taking my children from me and my wife, you would take my life.
That is not what a sane person would say, never mind do.
Thats the work of satan

The Bible is wanting? Wanting in what Jake?
Empty rhetoric and hate, is all I here from you

No person prays to Alexander, Aristotle or JFK because they were not God
Christ is
As my questions go unanswered

God bless my prayers are for you all

Tyler V

Friday 1st January 2010 | 07:18 PM

Jake, it doesnt matter whether people BELIEVE what Jesus said or not for the purpose of this discussion. You were bashing the reliability of the text as too late and not autobiographical. I was pointing out that your standards are ridiculous and that no historian uses them the substantiate texts. I was pointing out that your statements like "How can you seriously put your belief behind the new testament when you consider that none of the books were written BY Jesus and all of them were written well after his time. The New Testament isn't a testament it's a fabricated story." Your conclusion only follows when you apply your absurd standard, but then the conclusion also follows that the stories of Alexander the Great, Plato, Socrates, Homer, Josephus, Caesars, and pretty much anyone before the printing press are also all "fabricated" stories. You bite off more than you can chew because you abuse historiography to suit your purposes.

And actually "humanity" HAS judged the Bible and the VAST majority have not found it wanting but found it quite refreshing, revitalizing, hope-instilling, inspiring, etc. Even those who dont believe everything, look to it for wisdom, insight, hope, and yes, even accurate history (any archeologist knows that if you want to do any work in the Levant, the Bible is THE best guide you could have to places, dates, events and people.) So again, you are just flat out wrong when you HUMANITY finds the Bible wanting... actually the only people who find it wanting are the atheists and anti-theists who are a fraction of a percent of the history of human population, even today.

And i'll ask you the same question I ask Courtenay. What scholars have you read from the OTHER side?

CJ Werleman

Sunday 3rd January 2010 | 09:06 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

"Your Doctor analogy is simply false. A doctor is a human being with finite knowledge. It is not their job to determine providential meaning and purpose. Their job is solely to heal to the best of their ability. God is not a doctor. He is the creator of the universe with sovereignty and omniscience. Thus if God creates the infant from your illustration, unlike the doctor whose sole responsibility is health and well being, God may have sufficient reason because he is omniscient and has sole authority to do so. (Hence where we get the saying "to play God" where we arent not permitted to do what God IS permitted to do.) "

The predictable theist's defense! Basically you now face a choice, either God is all-powerful or all-loving BUT he cannot be both.

Your response admits that God is not good by our moral standards. This is hardly welcome news for anyone that wants a model to guide his or her life.

V2

Sunday 3rd January 2010 | 11:08 AM

##
HI CJ and God Bless you this year and anyone reading this post

I am reluctant to push you for an answer.
You have every right to believe that God is either Evil, or doesnt exist. Both beliefs though are wrong, though I have no intention of trying to change your opinion

You previously inferred if God did exist he should intervene in our lives, so I asked when should he and when shouldnt he intervene. That remains an unanswered question

Also you suggested a punishment for Christians who raise their Children as Christians.
Hard for me to fathom somebody such as yourself, who incidentally wrote such a hate inspiring book, assuming responsibility for my children, or handing it over to the State
The punishment though you suggested, was what? Any thoughts

Truly CJ, as a Christian living in the last days I expect this. In fact I expect death(I consider it a blessing), both for me and my family, at the hands of people just like you, like Jake
I dont understand the motivation, outside of satan of course. I was wondering if you could shed a little light on your motivation.

Anyway still two questions; if they remain unanswered I wont press you
My love and prayers to you and yours, as a servant of Christ
##

Interesting post 3.16
Hope you were not expecting an answer from anybody around here

They love to question, but high tail it out like a bunch of Italian soldiers when put under the light
You wont receive an answer from those two.
Dictators never have an answer

Sufficient to say that like the children of Aboriginal Australians.They want your children as well.
Nothing new under the sun

Jake Farr-Wharton

Sunday 3rd January 2010 | 04:22 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. I'm sorry, V2, what did you just say about Australia's Indigenous?

It is so like the skin head that you must be to speak of things which you have no idea about.

3.16, indoctrination of children is an abhorrent practice and ultimately, without it I dare say that religion would have long ago faded into obscurity. If accepting god is a choice, then let it be just that, when your child is old enough to understand the leap they are taking, when they have seen all of the facts and can look at it objectively and decide if religion is their cup of tea.

Trent Greguhn

Sunday 3rd January 2010 | 04:55 PM

3.16--

Pascal's wager is never relevant in any context, it is completely superficial and cowardly. Pascal's wager is laughable and should never be used in defense of anything. Please explain in what context it could be relevant.

Tyler--

about 17% of the population is atheists/agnostic's. Either don't believe or don't care enough to believe or not. That's 1.1 billion people. When we talk of percentages it de-humanizes the people who are part of that statistic.

"Your conclusion only follows when you apply your absurd standard, but then the conclusion also follows that the stories of Alexander the Great, Plato, Socrates, Homer, Josephus, Caesars, and pretty much anyone before the printing press are also all "fabricated" stories. You bite off more than you can chew because you abuse historiography to suit your purposes."

Explain this. Let's say Jesus didn't write any of those books. Are you saying that Plato or Socrates didn't write any of their books? They didn't come after their time, their writings were during their time. I guess I don't understand your argument, please elaborate.

How is 3.16's tact favorable? It seems a bit mis-informed.

And Tyler, how did you go from atheist to christian? I'm still interested to find out how that transformation happened.

V2,

Didn't you dodge and complete ignore all my questions and answers?

Tyler V

Monday 4th January 2010 | 01:11 AM

Courtenay,

Nice try but you again create a false dichotomy in order to try and back me into the corner. Wont work. The answer to your question is that God is all powerful and all loving but he is also ALL KNOWING as well as SOVEREIGN, something that the doctor is not. The logical problem of evil does prove false a KIND of god (one that could not have sufficient reason to allow suffering) but it does not disprove the God of the Bible. You ASSUME that love requires God to see no purpose in suffering. Yet suffering, as we know from experience, is sometimes quite vital in the development of a positive human condition. Do you as a parent shield your child from EVERY kind of suffering? Do you make them do homework? Learn by mistake? Do you force them to get a painful shot to inoculate them from a worse disease? If we (who are finite and fallible) do this and are still loving on a SMALL scale, why would the God of the universe not be able to do this on an ultimate level? No doubt to which you will object that a shot is not the same as cancer or "unnecessary pain". But here the problem is that you still deny the Omniscience of God and the Sovereignty of God in his ability to have sufficient reason. Thus you are rejecting a god who is LESS than the God presented in the Bible.

And I dont think any consistent theist WOULD say that God is moral by OUR moral standards. That would be absurd. We are moral by HIS moral standards. See, you assume autonomy and then argue backwards from there. Theists reject autonomy and argue from dependence.

Trent,

The "17%" includes people who are "no affiliation" (which is actually like 13-14% of that 14-17% depending on the study you look at) who believe in God or spirituality, etc. but reject organized religion (not necessarily God). The next largest group are agnostics who say that we simply dont know, and then secularists, and then lastly is atheists at about .6%. That ends up to about 42 million people (being generous). That is a tiny fraction of the human population.

My argument about Plato and Socrates is multifaceted. 1st, yes, Socrates didnt write any books. His student Plato wrote them down. So Socrates, Alexander the great, and research is even coming out that Homer may have used a scribe, do not pass Jake's autobiographical test. The other is that Jake argued that we dont have any text from the original time. This is the case FOR EVERY ancient text. The Bible is actually closer than ALL the others by hundreds, and in most cases 1000 years or more in the closeness of the first extant manuscript to the originals.

My point was not to substantiate the Bible. My point was that Jake's standard for evaluation was simply ignorant of all historiography and would lead to the demise of ALL ancient texts.

3:16 tact is favorable because of his demeanor.

And I went from a Atheist to a Christian for 2 reasons, one passive, one active. Passive is the theological answer. God saved me. I dont expect you to understand it, but if you ever come to know the Lord, you will.

The other is that I researched. I read books from both sides of the isle on the Bible, its reliability, its accuracy, on theology, on history, on apologetics, on philosophy, on science, etc. And found that a God was the best explanation for the origin of the universe, morality, logic, personal relationship, etc. I also found that the Bible, when read in a manner that did not read it with the sole purpose of finding fault, but that read it in its historical/literary/theological context, was actually brilliantly consistent and meaningful. Ultimately I found that atheism had to actually rely on MORE faith and irrationality than Christianity did.

If you want details you can ask.

CJ Werleman

Monday 4th January 2010 | 04:26 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

I love backing you into a corner. Why stop now?

You claim that God is all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing AND then you presume to know God by presuming he permits suffering because it's good for us. Hahaha!

Here's the crux homeboy:

1. If there were an all-good, all-loving, all-powerful God who could act in time, then we would have strong evidence for his existence.

2. We do not have strong evidence for the existence of God.

3. Therefore, there is no all-good, all-loving, all-powerful God who can act in time.

Furthermore, there is no benefit in God hiding from us. We would lose so little by him showing up for supper. Think of what we would gain by him revealing himself: Most evil people would be scared away from their dastardly deeds as we can imagine that many would be scared at the prospect of eternal punishment. This would be wonderful news for future victims of rape, torture, and murder wouldn't you think?

Your analogical use of a child forced to do his homework as an example of suffering is cute & quaint. But how about using Elisabeth Fritzi as a better example? The Austrian woman held captive in her father's basement for 24 years whilst he anally raped her every day (24 x 365), beat her and her children (products of incestuous rape); and forced her two eldest children to play with the dead body of their youngest sibling. Each day she prayed to God for intervention but he sat back with arms folded with complete indifference. This is the kind of suffering I am talking about. What benefit to hers or the human condition is that suffering?

You then laugh at the absurdity that God can be held to our own moral standards?? Thus you believe that God is not subject to our moral standards because He created us, so we owe Him everything. But does that give God the right to abuse or neglect us anymore than it gives humans the right to abuse and neglect their children? Slogan: Might does not make right!!

Hallelujah.

CJ

Trent Greguhn

Monday 4th January 2010 | 04:46 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

But you've missed the point. What does it matter if atheists/humanists/secularists/agnostics are a small fraction of the population? Again, let's put that into the context of Scandanavia where most of the population (80%) falls into the agnostic/atheistic view point. Does the greater percentage of that population not matter?

"3:16 tact is favorable because of his demeanor."

What demeanor is that? You could say his demeanor is favorable because of his tact and it means the same thing. Please be more specific.

How did God save you? If this event happened to you then you should be able to explain it to an extent.

What science did you read? Do you believe in an all perfect, all knowing, all powerful, omnibenevolent God? If so, how do you reasonably deal with the problem of evil? Why is God the best explanation for the origin of the universe?

Have you read about psychology? Neuroscience?

Why is it inane to believe that morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their ideology?

Have you read about evolutionary morality not just in humans, but in other animals as well? That all social animals have changed to restrain selfishness to make group living worthwhile?

As it is, I've read both sides of the argument and to me Hume's Maxim seems appropriate. There is no necessity that God exist for humans to be good people.

Also you've claimed to believe in a literal hell and if I'm not mistaken in the rapture. There is no evidence or reason to believe in either of these beliefs, so how can you defend them on a philosophical level? On a moral level?

And if you have read the other side that I've presented to you, how do you figure all of that in to your beliefs?

Trent Greguhn

Monday 4th January 2010 | 05:14 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. It's no use CJ, I've explained the problem of evil in detail and for some reason they just let it go on the premise that we're assuming what God would do. That's not true and let me explain to you again Tyler before you use the same defense.

It is not necessary to know God's intention because we know God's definition. And by definition an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God not only could make a world with no suffering, he'd want to. And that world with no suffering would be the most perfect world, because he could make it the most perfect world, because he is all powerful. It just doesn't follow logically to believe in a omnieverything God. It does not follow logically. No one has solved the problem of evil.

To me the problem of evil is a huge question that religion can and will never be able to answer.

CJ Werleman

Monday 4th January 2010 | 05:48 AM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Trent,

Amen brother.

Cheers
CJ

Tyler V

Monday 4th January 2010 | 10:02 AM

Courtenay,

I said TRY to back me into a corner… again showing your lack of reading comprehension.

I also don’t presume that I have some secret knowledge of God. I simply said that if God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, and yet suffering exists, it is due to the nature of God that there must be sufficient reason for it. Do I claim to know the reason? No. But the only way the argument works is if you can say God DOESN’T have sufficient reason for it. But the only way you could know that would be if you were capable of omniscience, but then you would be God. Again, the logical argument of suffering is actually pretty weak. It’s the existential problem of evil that is the bane of the apologists existence.

As to your attempted syllogism:

Why would we have strong evidence? What kind of NATURAL evidence would you expect for a SUPERNATURAL being? I would suspect that you are actually right… we would have strong evidence… we would have a logical world, a world with objective morality, a world of creativity and diversity, a world capable of compassion and love, a LIVING world as opposed to a non-living world, and I would expect that God would communicate, give laws, and perform miracles… oh wait… we have all those things! See, you want to say that we would expect to have evidence of God but only in a philosophical-naturalistic kind of way (a logical impossibility) and thus since you don’t see it then “God cant exist!” All you prove is that YOU are inconsistent with the world since you cant even ground your own use of logic, reason, morality, and existence.

Is there absolutely no benefit in God hiding from us? How do you know that universal negation?

Now what would we, a fallen people guilty before his throne, gain if God showed up at midnight tonight? Well without Christ we would receive an eternal life time of condemnation as criminals against the law of God. See, you want God to show up because you think he would be a miserly old grandpa or a genie in a bottle there just to do our bidding. But God is holy. God is just. I dont want to stand before God unless I am clothed in righteousness and already declared innocent. A visit from the sheriff is only pleasant if you arent guilty. Most evil people, if God showed up, would be consumed not just “scared straight.” He’s not the bigger dog on the cell-block. He’s the Creator of the universe!

You say “many would be scared at the prospect of eternal punishment”. Well, are you scared of the prospect of eternal punishment? The problem is that once youre standing condemned before the judge, the “prospect of eternal punishment” is the ONLY option. And YES! That IS wonderful news “news for future victims of rape, torture, and murder”! That’s the point! When we suffer, we know that there WILL be a final reckoning! All things will be made right! All accounts will be settled and no crime will go unpunished, either by the one who committed it or by the Son of God.

As for Ms. Fritzi, do I know WHY? No. But I know that I am not God. I don’t have omniscience. Do you? And tell me, lets say God doesn’t exist. You are Ms. Fritzi’s psychiatrist and she asks you, an atheist, why and to give her meaning, hope and a reason to continue living… what do YOU say? See, the problem of suffering is challenging for the theist, but it is impossible for the atheist. “Well it happened because you father was the stronger of the two of you and thus exercised his dominance, but hey, we caught him and one day you’ll die and turn into dust and all of this will ultimately have no meaning or purpose. Your just one cosmic accident that collided into another cosmic accident just a little bit harder than the rest. Good luck with that.”

I also never said that God is not moral, I said that God is not held to OUR moral standard. We don’t make up a standard and say “now God you obey me.” In other words, “Hey God, get off my throne!” And nothing GIVES God any kind of right, God is the creator of the universe and the absolute sovereign… he simply has rights by nature of being God. Although you slant the issue by calling it abuse and neglect (again assuming the very point to be proven… again… arent you a rationalist… arent you supposed to know begging the question when you see it?)

Interesting that as an atheist who has argued for a evolutionary/pragmatic view of morality that you would say, Might does not make right!! Well “Survival of the fittest” according to you. In fact, it seems that you are BOUND to say “might makes right” and only a theist can say otherwise.

Hallelujah indeed.



Trent,

I gotta admit, I always laugh when you guys start looking to places like Scandinavia to substantiate your points… Well fine. Use Scandinavia’s TOTAL population of bout 24 million people (less than the population of California alone). The problem is that what was being argued for was a kind of “truth by consensus”. My point was that if we are going to talk about consensus, the victory clearly goes to the theists. That was all my point was.

3:16’s demeanor is more pleasant than Courtenay and Jake was my point. He does not resort, from what I have seen (though I haven’t read all his posts) to name calling, belittling, and ad hominems. Again, don’t make a mountain out of a molehill.

As to how God saved me, I refrain from defending it in places like this because it will never make sense in your worldview. But if I must. God, from before he made the world, those from humanity who would be saved. Because of my sin, and my guilt before God, I was unable to make myself innocent. I was a sinner deserving of death. But God saved me. Imagine the story of Lazarus as an example. What did Lazarus do to have Jesus raise him from the dead? Nothing. He was dead. It took the act of Christ to raise him from the dead. Same goes for all who put their faith in Jesus.

I read Darwin, Dawkins, Sagan, Kenyon, Wilder-Smith, Popper, Gould, Maynard Smith, Zimmer, McGrath, Behe, Meyer, Johnson, Berlinski, Thaxton, and others.

I do believe in “an all perfect, all knowing, all powerful, omnibenevolent God”. I believe the logical problem of evil is actually quite simple for two reasons. First is that in order for us to even recognize something as “evil” we must first have an objective notion of “the good” (i.e. objective morality). This is simply something not in the range of feasibility for the philosophical naturalist. So the problem actually becomes quite incoherent when it tries to argue away God by using a moral system that only God can substantiate. Second is that, as I have stated above, if the logical argument disproves a god, it is not the God of the Bible for the reasons I have already stated. I simply disproves a god would could have no sufficient reason for suffering (thus the insistence on “unnecessary suffering” which already stacks the deck by assuming that some suffering simply has no reason for it). Now as for the existential problem of evil, it is difficult to comfort someone or deal with evil in the world on a personal level. But it doesn’t disprove God. In fact, it seems that God is the only compassionate response. It says that there is evil and that God did something about it (the cross) and will finally do away with it in the future (the consummation). What do atheists have? “Well youre a chunk of matter and life’s gonna end soon anyway… so… sucks to be you.” If the existential problem of evil is hard on a theist, it is near impossible on the atheist.

I have read a little bit about psychology and Neuroscience. Not enough to comment though.

You then ask, “Why is it inane to believe that morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their ideology?” As I have stated before, this reduced morality to social grooming (socialization) and is not REAL morality (something with “oughtness”) and thus cannot compel me to be good. It ultimately leads to a tautology: Good is what is good for the culture. But why should I seek what is good for the Culture? Because it is moral. Thus, it is meaningless and morality is no longer binding on any person. (Your example of the animals is actual precisely my point. It proves socialization, not real moral obligation). Even Dawkins, Dennett, and Singer all admit that evolutionists have not been able to ground real morality… but they are hopeful that they will be able to one day is what they say.

Hume also thought that we could not actually say that the billiard ball was causally acted upon by the cue ball and that we can know nothing for sure. Not even that the ground would stay under our feet as we walk. And you wanna trust his moral maxim?


I do believe in a literal hell, but you are mistaken on the Rapture. I’m reformed (and Biblical, ha) and no Christian believed in the Rapture until Darby invented it in the 19th century.) But I believe in hell as an a posteriori belief. I believe it because I believe other things to be true. Why do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? What evidence do you have for it? Well you don’t have any because it is a future event. But you have good evidence that it rose in the past and that the earth orbits it, etc. You believe it on faith. I do the same with the doctrine of hell and the return of Christ. Because I believe God exists, that he revealed himself in Jesus, and that the Bible is accurate, then I believe other things as a result. We all have hundreds of beliefs of this order. And I cant prove hell on a moral level. That would be like me trying to prove you exist with a moral argument. Ethics cant base ontology.

And reading the other side does not mean I accept the other side as valid (I’m not a pluralist). But it has changed some of my views, made me study more, think harder and more critically of my own position and arguments, etc.

And I know you don’t like it when we object this way, but you DO assume to know what God would and wouldn’t do. You say, “God not only could make a world with no suffering, he'd want to.” Really? He would WANT to? How do you know he would want to? Did he tell you what he would want to do? Or are you assuming that if God were like you, he would want to. You also assume “that world with no suffering would be the most perfect world.” Really? Are you omniscient? Do you KNOW that the best possible world (perfect is an invalid title for it) would contain no suffering? Is it not possible that an ALL KNOWING being would know more about it than you?

Again, no one has to solve the problem of evil. It is self refuting since it assumes a moral standard to deny the only basis for that moral standard.

Plus we should point out, that throughout the history of philosophy the only argument against God that has been maintained through out the centuries is the problem of evil. All other arguments have been answered and gone into disuse by skeptics. But there are dozens of theistic arguments for God that have been around for centuries, some nearly 2000 years.



P.S. Courtenay is STILL suppressing me on his blog. He has really sheltered himself there from any objecting voice. The history of that tactic in human history is bleak and trod frequently by despots...

Trent Greguhn

Monday 4th January 2010 | 10:39 AM

Tyler,

As far as God saving you I don't believe in sin and therefore can no longer discuss that topic with you.

The logical problem of evil isn't simple and you fail to grasp it's notions. I don't assume anything about God Tyler, it's there in the definition. You simply refuse to know what the problem of evil actually is. Yes, an omnibenevolent God would want a world without suffering BY DEFINITION. An omniscient and omnipotent God could, by definition Tyler, make a world without suffering and again, would want to by definition.

"“Well youre a chunk of matter and life’s gonna end soon anyway… so… sucks to be you.” If the existential problem of evil is hard on a theist, it is near impossible on the atheist."

The problem of evil is non-existent for an atheist Tyler. We accept that not only does evil exist, but it's an inevitability based on statistics. As such humanists work hard against and at the same time try to understand evil. And no human besides existential philosphers think the way you have described. You just think religion or Christianity has monopolized meaning in life when it hasn't.

"As I have stated before, this reduced morality to social grooming (socialization) and is not REAL morality (something with “oughtness”) and thus cannot compel me to be good. It ultimately leads to a tautology"

This is your perception and your opinion, but it's anything but reality as you suggest. There's no reason for "oughtness" but that's only because you haven't read about evolutionary morality. Also, good is good isn't a tautology in the sense of evolutionary morality or societal morality, because it is objective to it's core, something I've been writing about recently so I won't go through it all here. But, God is good is the real tautology, because one must define good for themsevles, and thus define God.

"Hume also thought that we could not actually say that the billiard ball was causally acted upon by the cue ball and that we can know nothing for sure. Not even that the ground would stay under our feet as we walk. And you wanna trust his moral maxim? "

This is ad hominem. "Bob is an alcoholic and believes in God, you can't trust him can you?" What you've said doesn't effect the rationality of his maxim does it Tyler? Unless you do like to use ad hominem in this context.

"Why do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? "

This is an old and out-dated argument. There's plenty of evidence stating that the sun will rise tomorrow and the next day and the next day. Seeing as how the sun doesn't necessarily "rise" as much as it is our perception of it rising. But what you've described there is no evidence for.

"And reading the other side does not mean I accept the other side as valid (I’m not a pluralist)."

You've almost got it, but not quite.

"Plus we should point out, that throughout the history of philosophy the only argument against God that has been maintained through out the centuries is the problem of evil."

Wrong. The philosphical arguments go back and forth and back and forth, much like this one. The problem of evil is the only one that Judeo-Christians can't explain. Others have for's and against's back and forth, but not the problem of evil. I have books and books on it.

V2

Monday 4th January 2010 | 05:25 PM

Commas Jake, Commas
Its next to the M on your keyboard (Uni education?)
It will help everyone who reads your tripe

Jake I am not a skin head, (comma) just going bald

Jake Farr-Wharton

Monday 4th January 2010 | 06:31 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. Many thanks for the schooling, V2. One day I will get around to teaching you about sentence structure, full stops and why physical evidence is not just for 'science types'.

V2

Monday 4th January 2010 | 08:40 PM

Yes, Hmmm!
Well, I wont hold my breath.

3.16 questions bit tricky?

Tyler V

Tuesday 5th January 2010 | 04:11 AM

Trent,

You don’t believe in God, sin, divine grace, the Holy Spirit, etc. Which is why I told you right when you asked that whatever I said would not make any sense within your worldview. I warned you from the get go.

You are mistaken on what Omnibenevolence is I think and what it applies to. Omnibenevolence refers to a quality of GOD, not of his will. Now, the two cooperate, but you confuse the two categories. God is omnibenevolent and thus the nature of God is all loving. But you seem to think that within that there is a MANDATE that in order for God to be all loving, that he MUST want to make a world without suffering. You ASSUME this to be true. Are you both omnibenevolent AND omniscient to know that this is how those two attributes would mesh? It seems entirely logical to say that an omnibenevolent God would still know that the BEST possible world would contain suffering. The problem is that you are also assuming that BEST is synonymous with “pain-less”. Again, you are attempting to make it true by definition when the definition is actually not that obligatory. Your problem is that you are defining the terms in such a way to MAKE them true by definition. But that is simply not what those words entail.

It also seems to make sense, since we are NOT perfect, holy, righteous, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent to look at one who IS to see how those attributes comingle and what that being would WANT, rather than saying what they WOULD be like from our state of imperfection. To do so seems neither safe nor right.

Then on to your problem of evil for the atheist (or rather, according to you, lack thereof). I was referring to the EXISTENTIAL (experiential) problem of evil and how impossible it is on atheism, NOT on the logical problem of evil. So the problem is not existent for you because you say evil exists but that it is inevitable…? Well I hate to inform you, but you have not done away with the problem for yourself. The question is not if evil exists or is inevitable (for Christians claim both of those as well since we aren’t Hindus) but when someone is experiencing immense suffering, what does the atheist say to comfort the victim? You try to side step this by saying that Christians has not monopolized the meaning of life… well great. Then tell me. Pretend that I am a rape victim, or a holocaust survivor. Tell me, how you answer me when I ask you, as every victim will at some point ask, WHY? (And remember, we are dealing with the existential problem of evil. This is what Courtenay tries to levy against the Christian when he points to atrocities. See, evil does not LOGICALLY disprove God, but if someone cannot understand WHY God would allow it, then they may reject him based on emotions, not reason. You might tell your father who abused you “you’re dead to me.” His evils against you don’t make him not exist, but you can deny he has a role in your life. This is what Courtenay is attempting to do. But he then makes the unfounded leap from God having no role to God not existing.) But tell… me… as an atheist, what would you tell me, the victim, if I asked you WHY?

So let me get your tautology argument straight. When we are talking about “good is good” it is not a tautology because it favors your view, but “God is good” is a tautology because we are talking about God? Ha, that’s one of the most blind cases of special pleading I have ever seen.

To address that absurd paragraph line by line.

Is it my opinion that the only way to achieve moral obligation is if morality is real? Tell me, do I have obligation to keep the laws of the fictional land of Narnia? I’m sorry, but only real morality can mandate obligation.

And I have read quite a bit on evolutionary morality. Have you? If you had, you would know that the current trend is to FIND a basis for real morality within evolution. See, they admit that they have been UNABLE to do so as of yet. So am I wrong to say, at this point, no atheist has been able to provide an evolutionary answer that can base real morality if they say so themselves? Again, not at all. I am actually just agreeing with where the field is right now. Ha.
You say, “good is good isn't a tautology in the sense of evolutionary morality or societal morality, because it is objective to it's core.” So good is good isn’t a tautology because it is objectively true that good is good? I’m sorry, but do you know how many logical fallacies you made in that statement? For now I’ll give you a pass because maybe you typed it fast and didn’t realize how it came out (I have done that several times so I understand). So how about you give that a second shot to be coherent.

You then say that “God is good is the real tautology, because one must define good for themsevles, and thus define God.” Again, according to the theist, we DON’T define good for ourselves. To do so would be to usurp the mandate of God. Thus, no tautology.

And my evaluation of Hume was NOT an ad hominem. No where did I appeal to the person, character, or lifestyle of Hume. I pointed to the REST of his theory that you had neatly left out. My point is that Hume’s entire philosophical theory is self refuting because it is skeptical to the extreme, and thus even of itself. If that is the best rebuttal to the dilemma that Hume created for himself, then you really need to think a little bit harder about it.

As for the sun argument. I didn’t ask why the sun will rise tomorrow if it rises tomorrow. I said, how do you KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow. The evidence is that the sun has risen in the past and how the earth orbits the sun while rotating on its axis giving the appearance of rising. Great. But why do you BELIEVE that the sun WILL rise tomorrow? You believe it as an a posteriori belief based on your justified beliefs on other things but you don’t have EVIDENCE that the sun WILL rise tomorrow. It is a predictive conclusion, not a verified event. You seek to refute my belief in hell as unfounded but do not realize that I hold it because I believe other justified beliefs in the same way that we all hold a nearly countless number of other a posteriori beliefs about every day life. (For a longer treatment on justified belief, read Plantinga’s Warranted Belief)

You again make the normal fallacy, which I have pointed out before, that the only way we can know things is by evidence. But that statement itself cant stand up to the standard it sets. What evidence do you have that the only way we can know things is by evidence? Did you do a lab test? No You hold THAT statement based on no evidence itself and thus it is reflexively defeating.

As for the veracity of the logical arguments you prove my point. I did not say that all the logical arguments for God have been universally accepted. I said that they have been extant now for, in some cases, nearly 2000 years or more. They have not been soundly refuted and proven to be illogical. Yet with atheism, there is only ONE argument that has stood the test of time and that is the problem of evil (even though I think that many people, ever since the advent of presuppositionalism) have begun to realize that it assumes the very thing that it attempts to deny, hence the sudden surge in atheistic attempts to ground morality without God. They realize that if they cannot do that, then the problem of evil will soon vanish leaving them with nothing.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 5th January 2010 | 06:10 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. 3.16 didn't ask me any questions that I hadn't already answered.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 5th January 2010 | 06:19 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler V, old pal, I feel the need to ask you a very important and pressing question; are you God?

If you are not God, then how the hell can you profess to know so much about His presence and will?

The bible is neither constructive or descriptive in it's stories about God, so how on earth can you know so much about its nature, it's actions and it's will?

Logic dictates that you are one of two, either;

- an avid philosopher who does not believe in the traditional Christian faith and should thus be referred to as agnostic as you cherry pick the bits of the bible you believe to be applicable and then pick the rest from philosophy text, noetic 'science', christian and creation 'science' in an attempt to create a bridge between the irreconsilable gaps in the lack of evidence for a creator and your indoctrinated belief system.
-or-
- you are god and are simply describing yourself.

Don't bother with a long and descriptive thesis of a reply, because if you can't pique my interest in a few words, your response will be lost on me.

Tyler V

Tuesday 5th January 2010 | 07:52 AM

Jake,

Ironically, I’m the one NOT claiming to know about his presence and will. I am the one who is saying that Trent should not say what an omniscient, omnibenevolent being MUST desire by definition. I am saying that it is entirely possible that a being of that kind may have sufficient reason for suffering in the best possible world.

You then say that “The bible is neither constructive or descriptive in it's stories about God,”. You will have to explain this seems to be the purpose of language… to construct and describe. And since the Bible is a written document… it uses language… and thus does both of what you say it does not do.

As for what logic dictates, you create a false dichotomy. I am neither. I am a Christian who believes whole heartedly in the inerrancy of the Scriptures but who rejects your attempt to provide only flat readings (for the same reason I reject the hermeneutical interpretive grid of the fundamentalists). See, you assume that because I do not hold to the levitical law, that I “cherry pick the bits of the Bible that [I] believe to be applicable”. The problem is that if you understood basic Covenant theology, you would be entirely unable to say this claim.

Do you still hold to Magna Carta? Of course not, because it was a historical law set in place in a historical setting that was then made obsolete by later developments and laws. Read Hebrews. The point of Hebrews is that the Old Covenant with geo-political Israel has passed away and the New Covenant with Spiritual (“True”) Israel (also called the Israel within Israel, the elect, the body of Christ, the Church, etc.) has replaced it. The Old Covenant was put into place to lead Israel before the coming of the Messiah. Once Messiah had come, he fulfilled all the law and expectations and ushered in a new covenant. (This also relates to the three-fold nature of the law: civil, ceremonial, and moral where the former two were for the nation of Israel alone, while the latter one was Gods moral law for all humanity.) Since I am not a citizen of geo-political Israel or the Old Covenant, I am not obliged to keep those laws. This is BASIC theology. In fact, this was the entire point of the Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15 and in Paul’s chastisement of Peter in Galatians 2. DO gentiles need to become Jews to become Christians? The answer was a resounding NO.

So there is no cherry picking involved. But nice try.


Ha, and if I cant pique your interest in a few words my response will be lost huh? That’s a sad indictment on you and you limited attention span and need for immediate gratification. In other words, you wont believe it unless it is simplistic, inarticulate, unfounded, and poorly argued.

3.16

Tuesday 5th January 2010 | 09:17 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Hi V2 and thanks for taking up my case
but
as a Christian I dont feel the need to push for answers
Indeed Brother, the lack of an answer is a testament to me

Hi again Jake
I think this was the point V2 was trying to make
Clearly these questions were not asked to you and the mistake easily made considering the amount of posts


...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. HI CJ and God Bless you this year and anyone reading this post

I am reluctant to push you for an answer.
You have every right to believe that God is either Evil, or doesnt exist. Both beliefs though are wrong, though I have no intention of trying to change your opinion

You previously inferred if God did exist he should intervene in our lives, so I asked when should he and when shouldnt he intervene. That remains an unanswered question

Also you suggested a punishment for Christians who raise their Children as Christians.
Hard for me to fathom somebody such as yourself, who incidentally wrote such a hate inspiring book, assuming responsibility for my children, or handing it over to the State
The punishment though you suggested, was what? Any thoughts

Truly CJ, as a Christian living in the last days I expect this. In fact I expect death(I consider it a blessing), both for me and my family, at the hands of people just like you, like Jake
I dont understand the motivation, outside of satan of course. I was wondering if you could shed a little light on your motivation.

Anyway still two questions; if they remain unanswered I wont press you
My love and prayers to you and yours, as a servant of Christ

An answer would be interesting at any rate

Trent Greguhn

Wednesday 6th January 2010 | 07:11 AM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. "You have every right to believe that God is either Evil, or doesnt exist. Both beliefs though are wrong"

See, this is why religion is such a problem for me personally. There is no sense of fallibility, there's an ultimate truth, an ultimate moral system and way to live by, and from what we've observed as a species this just isn't the case.

Having said that, why are both beliefs wrong 3.16? How are they wrong? Where's your proof. You didn't say "I think you're wrong" which is entirely different, and I know you didn't say that because you mean what you said. That you factually think his beliefs are wrong. But if you're going to make a declaration of that accord you need to back it up with evidence.

Also, when should God intervene? How about 'once in a while'. But He never does. He never intervenes to save the innocent that have no reason to be killed or come down with a terminal disease. You think he'd try just once. And no, confirmation biases and self-fulfilling prophecies don't count.

Likewise, how do you know we are in the end days? How long have the end days been happening?

Tyler,

if you've solved the problem of evil then please write a paper and have it published.

But you know as well as I that your explanation doesn't and wouldn't fly. It is by our very understanding that we can know God, and in this respect our understanding says what a omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving god would do. You haven't solved the problem at all.

Realize I'm not telling you what to think Tyler so much as how to think. Your logic on the problem of evil is inconsistant with human understanding, but I think you know this.

I'd also like to note that science doesn't try to disprove God, because God is supernatural. Therefore, belief in God can exist with an understanding of science. Having said that, creationism can't co-exist with science because creationism is anti-science. So whenever evolution is brought up I would think you should have no problem with this concept. The how to your why maybe?

I have a great feeling that 3.16 is a fundamentalist Christian believing in the rapture and maybe creationism 3.16? If not forgive my assumption.

Let's think about it this way. Let's assume what you Tyler, and you 3.16. believe is correct, and that there is an objectionable infallible right and wrong to the universe. Do you say that different cultures with different belief systems and different morals are wrong because you know the correct way to act and behave? I can never accept a belief system like that. What makes your beliefs more correct than anyone elses especially when your beliefs can't be proven in that sense?

Morals can't be measured in nature, morals are a result of the human mind and are therefore relative, whether you like it or not. It's psychologically accepted as fact. And in that respect, wouldn't it be better to understand those with different positions than ours?

As a human observing the moral axiom of other humans, it is reasonable to conclude that I have my own morals and perception of right and wrong, and so do others, but just because I believe my morals to be right does not mean that they are right, or I am right, it is just my perception and it seems unreasonable not to accept this fact. Unless of course you have a reasonable opposition to that argument.

I as a human have also not observed evidence for God or the rapture, or hell even, so reasonably I have no reason to believe in those things.

And before you use the reason of "ought" Tyler, let me suggest this. What did humans do for thousands of years before Jesus and knowing the Judeo-Christian God? Was it all chaos and killing and raping and unethical people running rampant? No. In fact, there were codes of honor throughout the world. This is observable. So it seems reasonable for me to say that we'll still be fine without a Judeo-Christian God or Jesus if humans were doing fine before Jesus was "born".

To go against what's been observed in our lifetime seems unreasonable, but I can accept it. Only if that belief doesn't infringe on the rights of others. You can believe in a God, that's fine. But to say that we're wrong or that our thinking is flawed is in itself flawed. We base our life on our own observations, and you yours, except that some of your belief has to rely on faith which cannot be observed whereas I am happy living my life based on just what I've observed and relatively no faith besides that the human race is altogether good and that we will discover answers to our questions in time.

Tyler V

Wednesday 6th January 2010 | 02:39 PM

Trent,

You object that religion has no “sense of infallibility” to it. So the only things we can know are things we cant really know? Apply that to itself, do you have a sense of fallibility that you need a sense of fallibility? Do you have a sense of fallibility that 2+2= 4? Or that the earth is round? See, the “sense of fallibility” is a feigned attempt at humility. Humility is a good character trait, but not a good aspect of worldview. We simply would never get out of bed if we had to have a sense of fallibility to what we believe on a day to day basis.

You say that we know there should be this sense, basis on what we have observed from the species. Here the problem is that you assume what we DO is what is TRUE. Lets say God exists and that as such, all humans are bound to moral law P. But let us also imagine that no human since Adam had ever obeyed P. Every culture, every society, and every person has actually only ever done not-P. Does the mere fact that no person has ever done P make P a non-existent moral absolute? No, it simply means that humanity has been guilty of not keeping the moral law with regard to P. Imagine we were to look at kindergarten math scores. Should we assume that because no kindergartener shows comprehension of algebra that algebra may be true for us and not for them? Or merely that they just do not understand it even though it does exist? In essence, with regards to morality, it is orthodoxy (right belief) not orthoproxy (right action) that is the basis for moral evaluation. If morality is determined by practice, what would a prison moral code look like? A cannibal culture? Nazi Germany? American Slavery? You can see the obvious problems of that methodology.

You also say God never intervenes? Do you KNOW that universal negative? What evidence do you have for it? Do you automatically rule out miracles, sovereignty, grace, mercy, the incarnation/crucifixion/resurrection of Christ, etc. as automatically false, thus begging the question? You point to the person who dies by terminal disease. What about those who don’t? What about near death experiences? What about near death experiences that we may not even realize how close to death we were? The list could be endless for possible interventions. Now, just because we barely miss getting crushed by a semi-truck should we de facto assume God? Well as a theist who believes in sovereignty I can say yes. But even if we don’t, my point is that you cannot de facto say no either.

And “end of days” has very different connotations depending on your interpretation of Scriptures. For some it means the tribulation, others means a time of distress and others (which is me and, from my understanding, the whole reformed tradition) it simply is an undetermined period of time that is the final age between the 1st advent of Christ and the 2nd. It is the last epoch or “dispensation” (not in the dispensationalist sense) of God’s working in history before the consummation of the world. It has been happening since the resurrection of Jesus.

And I didn’t solve the problem. Many theists have been pointing this out for centuries. It is one of the implications of Kant’s Transcendental Argument (something he elucidates in his book “The One Possible Basis for the Demonstration of the Existence of God.” Other philosophers and theologians who have pointed this out are Van Til, Shaeffer, Bahnsen, Frame, and many others. If I remember correctly (though I will admit I’m going off memory and not 100% certain) but it was actually this problem with the argument that was one of the final kickers for Anthony Flew’s conversion to theism (well, he may be a deist actually). So yes, the explanation does fly. Quite well actually. And again, you ASSUME knowledge of God (a being you don’t believe in in the first place) and what he MUST do. This just seems, no offense, but arrogant on the highest order. It seems that an omnibenevolent God may very well allow for suffering if, because he is also omniscient, he knows that it has sufficient purpose. There is no logical contradiction, thus your major dilemma in refuting my rebuttal to your objection. Notice you cannot point to a logical contradiction (since the opposite of omnibenevolence is not “pain free world” but is actually malevolence and so a logical contradiction is simply not possible) but rather just say “nuh-uh.” You say that my “logic on the problem of evil is inconsistent.” Tell me. HOW is it inconsistent? What law of logic have I broken?

You then, refreshingly enough admit that belief in God can exist alongside science. But then you say that creationism cannot because creationism is antiscience. Tell me, are ALL forms of creationism antiscience? So can God exist, but did he just wait for the universe to spontaneously generate, not causing it at all, before he can start NOT intervening in history (according to you)? I have a feeling you are lumping various creationist formulations into one category.

And I don’t have a problem when some forms of evolution are brought up. Again, you seem to be trying to sneak in the neo-darwinian synthesis in through the back door of the broad category “evolution”.

And thanks for telling me that 3:16 if a fundamentalist who believes in the rapture? I’m not sure what the point of that comment was since I am neither…

Plus I think that you are confusing my argument for theism with my arguments for Christianity in specific. Until you are of a theistic worldview, a conversation between theist will be like Charlie Brown’s parents to you. You ask me to prove Christian theism over other theistic beliefs but the problem is that you are asking me to build you a skyscraper when you already want to tear down the foundations.

Again, are morals a result of the human mind? Tell me, am I obliged to obey the moral code developed in your mind? (interesting that you then called the “relative” since you previously said you were a pluralist… which is it?) Lets say in your mind stealing is wrong, in my mind its permissible. We are both right. You thus have no justification to object when I mug you, beside “stop it! I don’t like that!” You then ask, “wouldn't it be better to understand those with different positions than ours” making the common confusion of understanding someone with accepting it. I understand when my child writes 2 + 2 = 7. But do I pat them on the head and say, “very good. That is true for you.” Or if my child breaks something and then lies to me about it even though they have never been in trouble for lying before and don’t know better yet. Should I say, “its ok. That’s just my moral code youre breaking, but you have your own too. So if you think what you did was ok, then it is.”

You have as a human have not observed evidence for God (although you have but you preclude it from possibility, like a detective who finds a dead body and says “we must find out how he died, but it CANT be murder. So find a NATURAL cause since youre not allowed to infer intelligence involved.”) But you as a human has not observed evidence for an uncountable number of beliefs that you hold. To say evidence is the only means for knowing something is to again set up a ludicrous standard. And again, what evidence do you have that evidence is required for valid belief. See, even THAT statement cannot stand up to its own standard.

You then ask, “What did humans do for thousands of years before Jesus and knowing the Judeo-Christian God?” I am beginning to think that you either do not try to understand my position (something which you just chided 3:16 for) or you really just don’t get it. I have NEVER said that morality is based on the Bible or on the teachings of Jesus. Morality is based on the immutable nature of God and is instilled in each of us by means of the imago dei. So all you do by pointing out that people have been observing moral codes (which may vary in application but are virtually universal in categories) is to point to the fact that there is an objective moral code that all people have recognized.

Finally you chide us for saying that we think you, an atheist, are wrong. But then, and I am surprised you don’t notice this contradiction. You say that we are wrong. So we cant say people we disagree with are wrong, but you can say we are wrong?

You also say that you base your life on observation. If I were so inclined, we could go through a list of beliefs that are FUNDAMENTAL to your worldview that you believe on an a priori basis and thus are properly basic and rely on no evidence of reasoning. We ALL have a worldview and ALL worldviews are built on presupposition and logical precommitments (faith based beliefs). This is just basic worldview theory (which you said you have studied yet you shockingly don’t know this).


p.s. Why do you only argue about "dont say others are wrong" and "you should have a sense of fallibility" to us Christians but you dont take the same tenor with Papa, Yourself, Jake, or even Courtenay who STILL censors me on his blog to shield himself? Its a clear case of special pleading.

CJ Werleman

Thursday 7th January 2010 | 01:30 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Trent,

You may find this interesting...

Dear Tyler,

I'd be interested in knowing the answers to the following questions regarding that fundamentalist school Moody that you attend:

1. Are ALL teachers and ALL students still required to sign a statement declaring that the Bible contains no mistakes and is the inerrant word of God. I believe the wording is "verbal, plenary inspiration"??

2. Are students still required to sign off on an ethical code that prohibits: drinking, smoking, dancing, poker, blackjack, and watching non-christian movies?

Just curious.

CJ

Tyler V

Thursday 7th January 2010 | 03:18 PM

CJ,

Seeing as how it has nothing to do with the conversation, I'm not sure that your questions have any relevance. You can simply ask, do I believe that the Bible in inerrant and without error (since you are engaged in debate with me and not with Moody) and as if I abstain from all those practices.

Although I have to admit as well that this is clearly a not so thinly veiled attempt to gather material for an ad hominem argument for you to slander or to presuppose the falsity of the position prior to admitting the argument (i.e. "Tyler is wrong on all of this because he believes in inerrancy," or "whoever refrains for drinking, smoking, dancing, etc. is a prude and antiquated and thus are invalid on all else because of their stupid worldview.") In the first case you have made an ad hominem and in the second case you have assumed my position false in order to prove my position false and thus begged the question.

I could ask you the exact opposite questions to support the opposite conclusion (if I wanted to commit the same two fallacies.)

1. Do you deny inerrancy? ("Well then he clearly is too stupid to be trusted.")

2. Do you engage in smoking, drinking, dancing, etc.? ("Well since people who do that are heathens, so Courtenay must be a heathen and we can belittle him").

Now, I wouldnt make those claims because they are invalid objections and have no bearing on the issues we are debating. (I also should point out that I am fine with ALL those activities as long as none are in excess.)


And Courtenay, if you have no time to respond to me on your blog (the excuse you give for why you have suppressed me from posting on your blog, even though you arent compelled to respond just because I post) how is it that you seem to have the time to respond to me here? Methinks it has to do with you not wanting your ego bruised on the blog by being openly challenged and shown that you often use fallacious arguments like Matthew capitalizing the second kurios or that in your attempt to invalidate the gospels, you completely over look the dating of the Pauline epistles.

But hey, its your Gulag. oops! I mean its your blog. not Gulag. Blog.

CJ Werleman

Thursday 7th January 2010 | 06:22 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Soooooo you did sign a declaration pertaining the Bible contains no errancy or mistakes?

Trent asked you a straight forward question: "Have you ever considered you may be wrong?"

I think it quite telling that you signed such a document upon ENTERING a school of theology. It is very relevant and very telling, despite your attempts to swat the question away.

Moody Bible Institute: Where the Bible is our middle name!!!

Amen

CJ

Tyler V

Thursday 7th January 2010 | 11:23 PM

Again, doesnt prove what you think it does since it is based on a presupposition of falsity prior to the discussion by you.

Rationalists.wordpress.com - "where only people who already agree with me can post"

CJ Werleman

Friday 8th January 2010 | 03:05 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

Ok buddy. Your relentless petitioning has succeeded. I will allow you to post on my blog again BUT under the following T&C's:

1. You are permitted one (1) post per day. (Excluding counter replies to any of my replies to you)

2. Max word length - 250 words.

3. You post here on RustyLime the following statement: "Jesus is my homeboy and I am CJ's bitch."

Welcome back.

CJ

Trent Greguhn

Friday 8th January 2010 | 04:17 AM

Actually Tyler, it would say a lot if you had signed such a declartion pertaining to the bible.

You're right in saying that it is an ad hominem, but you're wrong in supposing that this ad hominem isn't viable.

It's like a criminal being on the witness stand saying his buddy in crime didn't do it. The jury would be right in thinking, "He's a criminal too, it'd be foolish to trust him." This is an ad hominem, but it is also a wise assumption.

The same can be said here. Theology and philosophy deal with the fact that you can, and most likely are, wrong in your worldview. The point of it is to expand it and let other worldviews in.

Having said that, this doesn't necessarily make your arguments wrong. I'd say at best they'd be mis-informed, because The Bible certainly is suspect to errancy and fallibility, as are all worldviews and holy books. If this is true it also says volumes on your inability or refusal to understand relativism and/or pluralism.

Tyler V

Friday 8th January 2010 | 10:43 AM

Ha, Courtenay, so you have moved from suppressing to censoring? Ha, so from Communist Russia to Eastern Block Soviet states? Ha, wow... progress. And you're even more delusional than Dawkins if you think i'll say #3. How about you just ACTUALLY be a free-thinker and not only support public and free dialogue, but actually endorse it?

Trent,

How can I be wrong to assume an ad hominem is not viable? Its an ad hominem... you know... a logical fallacy... and as such are NEVER viable. ha. That would be like saying the Law of Non-contradiction may be viable sometimes, or an argument from silence. That just makes no sense to say a logical fallacy is viable.

And the jury thinks the criminal might not be trust worthy because, if he is also on the witness stand, his past history is only known to the jury if he was originally part of the investigation and thus his testimony may be to their own benefit. PLUS, if the jury thinks he is wrong because he is a criminal himself who made no deal and gains nothing by testifying, then they are GUILTY of making an ad hominem assumption.

Notice you illustration also assumes they very thing being argued for - those who believe in inspiration are "criminal" (illogical) which is begging the question. In the criminal case the person was convicted by a court and is a prior factual act. In regards to theism, the validity of the Bible and the truth of the theistic worldview is PRECISELY what we are debating. Thus the questions not only commit ad hominem fallacies, but also commit begging the question. So they are invalid on both counts. (notice i'm not saying they are wrong because Atheism is wrong, but because the logical structure of the questions/related statements commit formal fallacies.)


You then say, "
The same can be said here. Theology and philosophy deal with the fact that you can, and most likely are, wrong in your worldview. The point of it is to expand it and let other worldviews in." Is that "you" a general "you" referring to all worldviews? Or specifically to me and my worldview?

In either case the statement seems patently wrong. Theology and philosophy are not to explore what is incorrect, but what is correct. They seek truth, and in doing so may need to prune away, either in part or wholesale, worldviews, beliefs, arguments, and premises. The point is NOT to expand a worldview so that it encompasses another worldview (because then it would be a NEW worldview, not an expanded version of the original), but to discover the most precisely true worldview, and the most precisely true belief system within that worldview. It seeks TRUTH, (Theology - study of God, i.e. what can be known to be true about God and related issues; philosophy - love of wisdom, NOT love of inclusivism/pluralism) not inclusivity.

You then say I have a refusal to understand relativism/pluralism. I understand them. I just dont agree with them. Unless you are making the Nietzsche argument, "the moment you find yourself disagreeing with me, is the moment you ceased to understand my position." Do you really believe that because I disagree that I dont understand? Could I not make the same argument against you?

It is also a strange argument for relativism/pluralism where either difference of beliefs are all equally true, or all equally valid.

Trent Greguhn

Friday 8th January 2010 | 10:54 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. You ignore the point entirely, again.

An ad hominem means "argument toward the person" and is not a logical fallacy, despite there being fallacious instances of the argument. Try reading "Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach."

You don't understand relativism or pluralism because every statement you've made towards that end has been mis-informed or plain wrong.

You've dodged the question at hand. I'd really like to know if what CJ says is true.

Tyler V

Friday 8th January 2010 | 01:12 PM

Well when we are engaging in logical debate about things like worldview, logic, reason, proof, premises, etc. formal logic is what we should be concerned with. Informal logic traffics in the ambiguity of everyday language and actually usually involved many enthemic or inferred premises. I know of no philosopher, logician, theologian, etc. who would use informal logic to prove a premise, argument or worldview on a logical level, though they may use informal logic on a rhetorical level.

Again, I will answer that I do believe in inerrancy but I will not answer Courtenay's question because I have no desire to walk eyes wide open into a ad hominem set up. Why would I do that? Thats not good debating or even common sense.

Yuo seem like a reasonable person. I'm not sure why you are still throwing in your lot with Courtenay's tactics. I noticed you never answered MY question about why you are quick to disagree when I "dont have a sense of fallibility" and yet Courtenay (and many new athiests) are often more dogmatic, closed minded, and hostile than I am? Double standard?

Trent Greguhn

Friday 8th January 2010 | 03:25 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Informal logic deals with fallacies of which you thought an ad hominem was, when it was not. A good philosopher needs a healthy dose of both formal, and informal logic. And what we were talking about Tyler was not a worldview, it was the definition of ad hominem and the use of it, and as I said, it is not a fallacy and is viable in this instance.

You believe in inerrancy? Inerrancy concerning what? The Bible? If you believe in the inerrancy of the bible then you're greatly mistaken. It was written by man and therefore is not perfect and has error. So from a historian, theologian, and philosopher's perspective you are bias. I mean, you go to a theology school that's a bible institute? Sounds like you're only researching one side. Wonder what they say about Buddhism there.

I'm not necessarily "throwing in my lot" with Courtenay's tactics so much as I am recognizing a valid argument when I see one. I don't deride or demean because that is not my style of argument. However as I said, it is valid to know someone's background when researching the validity of their arguments. I wouldn't listen to a creationist for a second if they started talking about their "science". It pertains here too. Talking to someone about the bible when they believe it to be without error seems ill-informed.

Tyler V

Friday 8th January 2010 | 05:03 PM

actually considering that informal logic isnt even recognized as a valid form of logic my many philosophers, and many who do think it is valid think it should actually be categorized under psychology than philosophy. So no, a good philosopher does NOT need a healthy dose of informal logic. I was actually just being charitable in even allowing it is as valid rhetorical argumentation, even though it is not valid logical argumentation. And we are still talking about worldview since the goal to which Courtenay's questions were directed was in order to invalidate my claims based on my worldview.

And yes inerrancy about the Bible. Though you syllogism does not follow because it precludes from consideration the possibilities of illumination, inspiration, and preservation. If God created the universe, surely he can keep the human authors on track.

Technically, from a histocial, theological, philosophical point of view, we are ALL hopelessly biased. The question is not if we are biased, but if our bias is rational or not. I have no problem admitting my bias since I accept the presuppositional nature of worldviews. It is actually ironic that you chide me for not having the sense of fallibility, but then you argue as if atheists are objective with regards to the Bible, while Christians are too biased to be trusted. In that case, Dawkins cant be trusted about Darwinism, Hitchens about Antitheism, Einstein about physics, etc. So those who believe something to be absolute true, by your standard, are too biased to write critically, insightfully, and adequately about that subject.

You say Courtenay's argument is valid. But its not. Again, informal logic is NOT the kind of logic used in logical proofs. It is used in things like character evaluation, rhetoric, social interactions, etc. and is not governed by laws of logic, but is actually so vague because it deals with perception and inference, not premise, formal laws of logic, and syllogisms.

I really dont understand how strangely hypocritical you are. So you dont demean or chide, youre a pluralist, you think that no one should believe something without a sense of fallibility, and yet you are confident in saying "I wouldn't listen to a creationist for a second if they started talking about their "science"," not realizing that you just broke ALL the rules you set forth. Not only that, but you also assume the correctness of your own position and presuppose the falsity of the other and thus beg the question, AND you lump ALL forms of creationism into one category to dismiss it, making MASSIVE category mistakes. Included in creationism is Deism where God just wound up the universe and let it go, so you have God as creator in the first instance (hence creationism) but everything else came about by natural, darwinian means. You are so blinded by your own bias, that you dont realize that you are guilty of everything you accuse me of.

Case in point: you said, "Talking to someone about the bible when they believe it to be without error seems ill-informed." This is only the case if you have proven the Bible to be fallible beyond the shadow of a doubt. This is PRECISELY the original topic of this blog and is thus the premise under consideration. Thus to assume it false in your argument in order to get to that conclusion is to beg the question. Especially since throughout these two threads, no offense, but the atheists have been unable to prove their case.

They argue that Christians are irrational, but cannot provide a basis for laws of logic in a uncausal, chaotic, closed system. And then in practice show that they are darwinian fundamentalists of the same order as southern baptist fundamentalists, mormon fundamentalists, and, in the case of Courtenay engaging in active censorship, totalitarian states.

They argue that God is wicked but cannot provide a basis for their moral judgment that is consistent with their worldview (as relativists/pluralists God's actions, no matter what we may label them, are either equally moral, or equally valid and thus no critique can be made)

They argue that evolution disproves God. But cannot provide a single argument that shows God does NOT exist. (They actually follow Dawkins in his primary argument in the God delusion: It is possible that evolution caused the world we live in, therefore evolution caused the world we live in. This is an invalid argument that makes an unjustified move from possible to actual.)

They argue that the Bible contradicts itself but actually only prove that when the Bible is taken out of context, and disabused of normal idioms, symbolism, cliches, genre, and all the other linguistic devices that come with language, and is given an entirely flat uninformed reading, that it contradicts with itself. It would be like if I asked you how a concert you went to was. And you said "it was packed! the whole city came out!" But then I look at the numbers and saw that way less than the whole city came to it, and thus assumed you contradicted yourself. This is a flat reading that does not allow for normal linguistic flourishes.

They argue things like "Christians dont follow all the laws of the OT and therefore they dont even believe it" showing their total lack of study or understanding of Theology, specifically, Biblical and Covenantal theology.

And in some cases, like Courtenay, he wont even think about the arguments before he puts them up. He will just shotgun them and hope something sticks. We can see this from his arguments about Matthew capitalizing the second kurios, that the Shepherds and the Magi couldnt both be there at the same time, that the genealogies contradict, that 'alma' never means 'virgin,' etc. All these arguments show is that Courtenay, and many atheists on this site (I was hoping you were more reasonable but I'm beginning to second guess my initial impression) is that he has only read those who agree with him and has never actually read the scholars who disagree with him. He thus dismisses the other positions without really understanding them, by presupposing their falsehood from the beginning, and often on the basis of very poor information. "The first person to plead his case seems just, until the second comes and examines him." Courtenay and the others bunker themselves in to avoid examination.

He claims to have written a book that is a good treatment on the Bible but he cannot name one scholar that he read who disagree with him. He cant name one scientist that he read who disagrees with him. One philosopher, on theologian, one historian, one grammarian, etc.

And on and on.

CJ Werleman

Friday 8th January 2010 | 09:09 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

You write, "And yes inerrancy about the Bible. Though you syllogism does not follow because it precludes from consideration the possibilities of illumination, inspiration, and preservation. If God created the universe, surely he can keep the human authors on track."

Having signed a statement (you) that the Bible is the inerrant word of God PRIOR to commencing your studies of the Bible in a formal setting - it is no surprise that you make the above absurdly ludicrous statement. However, those of us that are adult enough to reserve our judgements until AFTER we have examined the evidence, historical or otherwise, are able to identify the glaring errors, contradictions, and irreconcilable discrepancies as easily as one would spot a Shim in a Bangkok nightclub. We don't even need to get into a Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek translation contest as we can simply use the death of Jesus as case in point:

Q: What day was Jesus executed?

A: Well according to John he was killed the day before the Passover McHappy Meal was eaten whereas Mark says it was the day after he consumed his last fillet-o-fish.

Q: What time of day was Jesus crucified?

A: Mark says he was killed at 9am versus John says at noon.

Q: Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way to the crucifixion grounds by himself?

A: According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke it was Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross for Jesus. BUT John says he carried it the entire way himself.

Q: Did the curtain in the Temple rip before or after Jesus died?

A: Luke says before he died whereas Matthew and Mark say it was after.

If God was able to 'keep the authors on track' as you say - then why wasn't he able to ensure that his inspired writers maintained at least a shred of consistency in corroborating their respective stories? But due to signing your entrance contract with Moody you don't see these contradictions do you Son of Falwell?

CJ

P.S: You have been ripped a new butt hole by Trent, and you know it don't you? Don't beat yourself up though. When Jesus touches me on the wiener and I convert - I will not pick an argument with him either. He's all over you like Bubba on a new cell mate. My advice? It only hurts more if you struggle. Sshh go quietly homeboy.

Tyler V

Saturday 9th January 2010 | 12:52 AM

Courtenay,

First of all, we never actually SIGN a doctrinal. Moody has a doctrinal statement and it is understood that you ascribe to basic evangelical theology if you are attending an evangelical Bible college. It is actually our Systematic Theology profs who, if in our course work they see that we actually deny an orthodox doctrine or hold a heretical one, will call a meeting with us. If we really do deny one, or if we are heretical and were not simply misinformed by actually hold that conviction. They will recommend that we either withdraw our student status or go speak to the dean for further action. Why? because Moody is a Christian institution who graduates Christians to work in Christian ministry or education. Just common sense, why would a Bible college accept anybody of any belief into their college? Its not a junior college or a state school. Its a BIBLE college...

As for your questions, I'll actually answer all 5 from your website, not just the 4 you posted here since I am still being censored from your cite.

Q1. Lets see. John 1:31 says, “31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath.” And Mark 19:42 says, “42It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath)…” So…. Your argument just shows that you actually haven’t read the very passages that you are trying to critique… John says he died on the day of preparation, and Mark says he died on the day of preparation. Matthew 27:62, when referring to the next day, he calls the next day the day “after preparation” which would put the crucifixion on the day of preparation, and Luke 23:54 says, “It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.” So basically, you’re full of it.
Q2. The Jews and the Romans used different standards for reckoning the hours of the day, although both systems split the day into two periods of 12 hours. A new day for the Romans began at midnight (as it does for us today), whereas a new day for the Jews began in the evening at what we would call 6 p.m. Various clues within the fourth gospel indicate that John was using the Roman system (Geisler and Howe, 1992, p. 376). This makes sense given that John was writing outside of Palestine to a Hellenistic audience. That Mark used a Jewish system makes sense in light of the strong tradition that his gospel account follows sermons delivered by the apostle Peter (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39). As always, we have to take into account the context, as well as cultural differences between the Jewish and Gentile worlds. Given this distinction, the problem disappears. John has Pilate handing Jesus over for crucifixion at 6 a.m., and Mark has Jesus on the cross three hours later at 9 a.m. (i.e., “the third hour”). In fact, John begins his whole account of Jesus’ audience with Pilate by noting that it was “early morning” (18:28). This reference follows immediately after Peter and the rooster crowing incident. Roosters, of course, can crow at any time, but are most famous for signaling the beginning of a new day.
Q3. They are all correct. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all talking about the process to get from the Praetorium to Calvary. John 19:17says, "They took Jesus therefore, and HE WENT OUT, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha." John is simply not concerned with what occurs between the door and the cross. He simply says that when Jesus left heading to the place called the Place of the Skull, he was, at that moment, carrying his cross. Again, very easy to resolve by just looking at normal usage of every day language.
Q4. Do Matthew and Mark say after? Lets see, Mark 15:37-38 says, “And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. 38And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. ” If I tell you, “I ate cookies and milk” which did I eat first? The conjunction “and” is not always time referential (in fact it usually isn’t). So mark doesn’t say after. What about Matthew? Well if you read the NIV you might get the idea of “then” but the NASB renders the Greek more accurately (gk. is actually, καὶ ἰδοὺ: καὶ means “and”, ἰδοὺ, is the 2nd Aorist imperative of ὁράω and is thus the command “behold”). Thus Matthew 27:50-51a read, “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51AND BEHOLD, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom…” Matthew then also doesn’t make a time reference. What does Luke 23:45b-46a say: “the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46AND Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said…” Again, does AND refer to time? So ALL three gospels simply make reference to the two events occurring at approximately the same time. Again, even the most basic level of research would reveal this. (Something you do not do.)


Q5. Actually, John DOES say that there were two, “and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying” but he is talking about a later appearance to Mary Mag. So your beef is really only between Matthew, Mark and Luke. But here is the thing. The critical word that’s absent from the text is the word “only.” If one writer says there were two angels at the tomb and the other one comes along and says there was only one, there you have a bona fide contradiction between the two. If one says there were two angels at the tomb and the other says we came and saw an angel, obviously if there are two angels, there has to be one angel— there’s no contradiction. There is a discrepancy; that is, they don’t say exactly the same thing. The question is, Can the two accounts be harmonized—are they logically compatible with one another? No, there is no contradiction, even if there is a discrepancy.


As for Trent ripping me a new one, only a blind ideologue would say that by Trent citing informal logic to prove something, did anything of the sort. You know what another example of informal logic is? A slippery slope argument (also a fallacy in formal logic). Would I ever use a slippery slope argument to PROVE something in a book, article, or something like that? No, absolutely not because it doesnt PROVE things. Would I use it in a Court room to show that if this person is released, terrible things MAY happen? Of course I would. But I cant use it to PROVE that terrible things NECESSARILY will happen. I could use the argument that whenever atheism is instituted by the government, oppression will follow, to say that atheism MAY lead to oppression, but I cannot use that argument to say that it NECESSARILY will. To do that, I must show, with formal logic, something that necessitates that conclusion from within atheism itself.

And by the way, if all you have of these foolish questions, it just shows that in some cases, you simply have never even read the passages you are objecting to, and in others, that you did absolutely NO research to even find out if the objection was good or not.

CJ Werleman

Saturday 9th January 2010 | 06:18 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

1. Matthew, Mark, and Luke make it clear that Jesus ate the actual Passover meal (Matthew 26:2, 17-19; Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16; Luke 22:1, 7-8, 13, 15) with his disciples on Thursday night. But John's Gospel indicates equally clear that he believed that Jesus was crucified right before the Jews would partake of Passover (John 13:28; 19:14). Again what Bible are you reading??

2. Boy do you encircle your arguments with a lot of smoke cover. In response I will just get down to the nit and gritty. You write that, "This reference follows immediately after Peter and the rooster crowing incident. Roosters, of course, can crow at any time, but are most famous for signaling the beginning of a new day."

You love talking about cocks don't you? Well I will indulge your fantasy for a moment in regards to the crowing cocks. How many times does the cock crow?

“I tell you the truth, this very night, before the cock crows, you will
disown me three times.” (Matthew 26:34 NIV)

This is a glaring contradiction to Mark’s account:

“Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” (Mark 14:30 NIV)

3. John says Jesus carried his cross the ENTIRE WAY all by himself. The synoptic gospels say Simon of Cyrene. It's just that straight forward.

4. Luke says clearly the Temple curtain tore BEFORE Jesus' death:

"And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke 23:45-46)

In contradiction to Matthew and Luke who say AFTER Jesus' death:

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent." (Matthew 27:50-51)

"And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom." (Mark 15:37-38)

5. Your response only strengthens my argument. Nothing more to add here.

Again I ask the question: What special 'magic' version of the Bible do the issue new students at Moody, because me want a copy. That version sounds super duper fun.

CJ

Trent Greguhn

Saturday 9th January 2010 | 06:34 AM

Tyler,

You were the one using informal logic. Ad hominem is informal logic. Not formal. Therefore I was only correcting you on your use of informal logic. Not only that, you're completely disregarding the entire point. And to say that formal logic is somehow more important or better than informal logic tells a story of your inability to know when both or either is used and how.

Tyler V

Saturday 9th January 2010 | 12:26 PM

Courtenay,

1. Again, you just show that you have done no research or you would know that the Passover meal was actually the FINAL meal of the Feast of Unleavened break (a week long festival in Israel) and that what was being eaten the night before he was crucified was the meal of preparation, hence all the references to the Day of preparation. Your objections only show your utter ignorance of the historical and cultural context of the passages that you are attempting to dispute.

2. On this, you didn’t even address any of the responses that I gave and rather diverted to the rooster crowing. Well, even there you show that you are actually NOT logical. If Peter denied Jesus before the rooster crowed, then surely he denied him before the rooster crowed twice. If I went to the store before 9am, then surely I went before 10am too. Again, discrepancies are not contradictions. Don’t you claim to be a “rationalist”?

3. Really, you say John says that he carried his cross “the ENTIRE WAY”? Really? Well lets look AGAIN at what John 19:17 says: "They took Jesus therefore, and HE WENT OUT, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha." If I say, “I left my house, drinking a pepsi, to the store.” Does that mean that I drank my Pepsi the entire way to the store? No, the participle modifies HOW I left, not what I did on the duration of the trip. So how did I walk out my door? Drinking a Pepsi. Did I drink the Pepsi the entire way? I could have, but maybe I got stuck in traffic and finished my Pepsi halfway there. So Jesus went out. How did he go out? Bearing his cross. Does John make any mention of how long he carried it on his trip to Golgotha? No. Again, you show that you give the text such a flat reading and do not understand basic grammatical structures and base your objections of really poor logic.

4. So according to you, “AND” means “THEN”? So If I say I went to the store to buy “chips and dip” that I paid for the chips, got back in line then paid for the dip? Again, you show that you simply do not understand the basic grammatical function of conjunctions. “And” is not a temporal modifier, but connects to nouns. In fact, since ALL the accounts use “and”, not “then”, it is clear that all of them were connecting the events and probably meant that they occurred at approximately the same time. What is obvious is that “and” does NOT mean “then” and the fact that you try to make them mean “then” shows more about you: you are either so desperate to find a contradiction that you don’t even allow for normal grammar, or you have no reading comprehension. I’ll let you decide which.

5. Ha, and how does me showing that there is NO contradiction help you say that there IS a contradiction? Ha.

Ha, and I guess if you call reading texts in context and according to normal functions of grammar is “magic” then no wonder you don’t agree with the Bible. Because you are illogical and practically illiterate.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject, where did YOU go to school and what did you study?


Trent,

I didn’t use informal logic. Ad hominem is NOT only informal logic. It can be, but in formal logic, ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Thus me pointing out the ad hominem commited by Courtenay was a use of formal logic to show a fallacy. (especially since I have major qualms about informal logic in the first place.) In the same way if Courtenay or you were trying to prove an argument by a slippery slope. I would point out that a slippery slope cannot prove something because proof requires formal logic, and in formal logic a slippery slope is a logical fallacy even though a slippery slope is accepted in informal logic. (one of the reasons WHY I have my qualms about informal logic. Any “logic” that allows for such blatant fallacies seems absurd from the on set.)

Ha, and then you try and accuse me, again, of not understanding something, simply because I disagree with it. In fact, many philosophers disagree with informal logic like I do. Why? Because it is not helpful in proofs (deduction) but is more properly a category of rhetorical arguments (induction) or psychology (persuasion). So do they all not understand it either?

Again, if you are really resorting to informal logic to back up your case, I know that you are really running out of things to say to defend your position.

CJ Werleman

Saturday 9th January 2010 | 02:39 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

1. Jesus on a stick you don't even understand the way in which ancient Jews told the time! Were you sick on day one of Radicalism 101? Let me break it down for you dimwit. In Judaism the new day commences at nightfall. And thus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we have Jesus instructing his disciples to prepare for the passover meal which meant slaughtering the lamb. On the Day of Preparation, as you correctly state. BUT the meal was eaten (Last Supper) in the EVENING, thus the beginning of the next day - Passover Day. Oh boy.......

2. Nice try on the grocery store analogy for the cock crowing narrative. BUT unfortunately your argument is fallacious once more. Here is YOUR problem - Mark's narrative has the cock crowing twice!!! Not only does he have Jesus saying that Peter will deny him before the cock crows twice, but the story continues with the cock actually crowing twice. Oops!!

"And the SECOND time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him." (Mark 14:72)

3. Your argument would have value IF Matthew, Mark, or Luke made at least one reference that Jesus actually carried his cross. They don't! They write that he was whipped, mocked, de-robed, crown of thorns, and then Simon of Cyrene was brought in to carry his cross. Oops!

4. The gospels narratives is my previous post are self evident. Nothing to add here.

5. As per above.

CJ

Tyler V

Saturday 9th January 2010 | 04:19 PM

Tyler,

1. Jesus on a stick you don't even understand the way in which ancient Jews told the time! Were you sick on day one of Radicalism 101? Let me break it down for you dimwit. In Judaism the new day commences at nightfall. And thus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we have Jesus instructing his disciples to prepare for the passover meal which meant slaughtering the lamb. On the Day of Preparation, as you correctly state. BUT the meal was eaten (Last Supper) in the EVENING, thus the beginning of the next day - Passover Day. Oh boy.......

Courtenay,

1. Ha. Wow. Dimwit huh? Lets see who fits that title. Yes, youre right, Jewish days ran from sundown to sundown. But let us look AGAIN at what each Gospel says the day was. Do any of them say it was Passover? NO! They ALL say it was the day of preparation.
John 1:31 says, “31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath.”
And Mark 19:42 says, “42It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath)…” Matthew 27:62, when referring to the next day after the crucifixion, he calls the next day the day “after preparation” which would put the crucifixion on the day of preparation.
Luke 23:54 says, “It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.”

So what do ALL the gospel writers say? That it was the day of preparation. What were they eating at the last supper? Was it the Passover meal? No, it was the feast of unleavened bread. Could they have even eaten a Passover meal? Actually no. The same night that they had the meal would have been the night that the Passover lambs were being slaughtered at the temple. The lambs would have been slaughtered Thursday after sundown (The BEGINNING of the DAY OF PREPARATION) so that Friday morning people could prepare the Passover meal to eat on Friday night after sundown (Passover.) So Friday morning would be the day of preparation. Hence why ALL the writers say the same thing… that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation. Again, there is simply no contradictions. They all say that it occurred on the DAY OF PREPARATION and thus the meal that they were eating would simply not have been the Passover meal. The same day that the lambs were being killed is the same day that Jesus was being killed.

Again, you try and call me a dimwit, but all you do is show that you just have no clue what the ceremonies and historical/cultural contexts were.


2. Ha, well still looks like my grocery store story works. If I tell my wife I will go to the store by Noon, and I actually go before 9am. Did I not go to the store because my wife looks at her watch a noon? Ha, Great, Mark’s story tells that the rooster crowed twice… Peter had already denied him before the rooster crowed at all (Matthew) and thus he obviously denied him before the rooster crowed twice (Mark). The only way these two accounts would contradict is if Matthew said it would be before the rooster crowed, and if Mark showed Peter denying him AFTER the rooster crowed. But that’s not what they say. Mark says before the rooster crows twice, Matthew says before the rooster crows at all (which is fulfilled before the rooster crows twice.) Again, don’t you call your self a rationalist?

3. Well lets see. When do they say that Simon started carrying the cross.

Matthew says, “AS THEY WERE GOING OUT, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.”
Mark says, “And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. THEN THEY LED HIM OUT TO CRUCIFY HIM. 21A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.”
And Luke says, “AS THEY LED HIM AWAY, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.”

So when the synoptics say that Simon was forced to carry his cross? Sometime as they were leading Jesus out to the cross. Was the right at the beginning? In the middle? Near the end? We don’t know. Could have been almost immediately, could have been almost at the end. All we know is that it was while they lead him away.

Again, you show shockingly little understanding of just what is allowed in basic grammar.


4. Yes, they are self-evident. ‘AND’ means AND so they are therefore in complete harmony with each other since they all conjoin the ripping of the curtain to the death of Jesus with ‘AND’. I could say “Today I went to class and to the store” or “Today I went to the store and to class.” Neither sentence gives any indication of the order in which they were done, only that both were something that I did today. “I bought chips and dip” means that I bought both but doesn’t mean I bought chips THEN dip later on. The only way your objection works is if you make the AND in all of the accounts mean THEN (something simply not permitted in basic grammar where we would have to say “and then” not just “and”.)

5. As per above? Above you stated the objection on your blog. I showed how you were wrong. You said that by me showing that you were wrong I showed you were right, to which I showed you was a meaningless statement, and now you say “as per above.” So, as per above, you are still wrong on Q5.


And I like how you still dodge. Where did you go to college? And what did you study? While we’re at it, can you name one Bible scholar you have read who disagrees with you on these issues or do you uncritically buy all the arguments against the Bible as if none of them are utterly ridiculous (Like Matthew capitalizing the second kurios)?


See, you pretend to have censored my on your blog because you "are too busy" to answer me. But yet you have a ton of time here. It is presumably because you are tired of being asked questions you cant answer, being showed that you are entirely unqualified to have written on the Bible, and that you are at such a major loss when it comes to things like history, theology, hermeneutics, logic, grammar, etc. So rather than actually critically evaluating your view, admitting that you made fallacious arguments because you never have actually done ANY research (eg. second kurios) and possibly bruising your ego, you suppressed all opposition to shield yourself from the dangers of criticism and refutation. You are thus guilty of almost all of your objections about the social ramifications of Christianity. Its called hypocrisy.

Trent Greguhn

Saturday 9th January 2010 | 05:03 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

You are so ignorant that it's really starting to rub me wrong. Show me one place that says ad hominem is not only formal logic, but that it's also a logical fallacy in formal logic. So when it's used in formal logic it's a logical fallacy, but when it's used in informal logic it's just attacking the person?

This view on logic is so under-educated it hurts to read. How can you seriously say you're a theology scholar saying something like this? You're not. Flat out. Let me explain.

An ad hominem is a fallacy only if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue the argument. However, as I said, with a discussion on the bible, a person who has signed a paper saying they believe in the inerrancy of the bible is completely biased and anything but objective. And as such it tilts your argument one way over another which is completely obvious.

Don't even try saying that formal logic is better than informal logic in an argument or that you didn't use informal logic. Ad hominem is informal logic, period. It is not formal logic as you state and there's no way you have studied logic if you think this is the case. But I'm sure that's what they teach you at your bible institute.

Tyler V

Saturday 9th January 2010 | 05:51 PM

Trent,

You call me ignorant. How am ignorant? You ask for a place where ad hominem is a forma logical fallacy?

Here are a few:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (ad hominem is TOP of the list of formal fallacies)
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_abusive.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_circumstantial.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_poisoningwell.htm
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php#adhom
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#hominem
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Ad%20Hominem
http://www.philosophy.eku.edu/Williams/HON102Web/falsec-web.htm#11

Should I keep going?

When it is used in formal logic it is a fallacy. Formal logic is not concerned with judgment calls and tries to eliminate as much rhetorical ambiguity as possible. This is not the case with informal logic. Does the case that the witness has a criminal record NECESSARILY PROVE that he is lying? No. but as a juror you may take it into consideration. But if you were trying to PROVE that he was lying you would not appeal to his record, you would have to verify/falsify his statements on the merits of his statements, not on his history. Formal logic is how we prove arguments, informal logic is how we make day to day decisions (“should I let this person in my house if he looks like a thug?” would be solved by informal logic but informal logic would not prove him a thug or not, formal logic would.) If you don’t understand this basic distinction between formal and informal logic, why in the world are you accusing ME of being ignorant!?

In formal logic, an ad hominem is whenever something about the person is being attacked rather that the argument itself. So, in formal logic, if what the argument is about is whether or not the Bible is true or inerrant, it is an ad hominem fallacy to say that it is not because those who believe it are biased. The argument about whether or not the Bible is inerrant, must be proven true or false based on the merits of the arguments, NOT on who is more biased in the debate. So I can be as biased as I want in formal logic, and that is not a determining factor in if my position is correct or now. Now, my bias may be the cause of why I personally hold the beliefs I have, but it has nothing to do with how true or false those beliefs themselves are. People believe all kinds of right beliefs for wrong reasons. Did you know Galileo believed the earth rotated around the sun because when he looked at the ocean, he could see the water sloshing about? No, do we say that his conclusion is wrong because how he arrived at it was wrong? No. We may say his reasons were wrong, but the truth of his conclusion is not based on WHY he personally believed it. It is based on the veracity of the conclusion.

So what does that mean for us? Well, when you say that “a person who has signed a paper saying they believe in the inerrancy of the bible is completely biased and anything but objective” you are actually committing the ad hominem fallacy. Why? Because rather than dealing with the argument itself, you try to invalidate it by referring to something about me (in this case my personal convictions about the issue) even though nothing about me makes the argument true or false.

Actually I studied Philosophy at Sonoma State (a CSU) LONG before I went to Moody. Although I am not too threatened when you just showed how limited your understanding is by saying that “ad hominem is informal logic, period. It is not formal logic as you state” when I have given a handful of references to show you otherwise.

CJ Werleman

Saturday 9th January 2010 | 06:20 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

We will keep going around in circles won't we? Certainly while you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. If you truly believe that the Bible contains not a single error then you will continue to play the shell game of deniability ad infinitum.

It's remarkable, to me, that you can view the Bible as infallible. I can only assume you have no concept of manuscript transmission or oral tradition. It really appears that you believe the New Testament was handed down from Heaven the day Jesus died. If you are aware of how it is that we got the New Testament then I'd be interested in how you reconcile the following:

We don't have any of the originals of the NT, or even any direct access to what the originals said. Further, we have 57,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT. The variances between the 57,000 copies totals more than 400,000. That's 400,000 places where 57,000 versions have different readings for respective passages of the NT. How can you rationalize this fact away, and not admit that there are contradictions, inconsistencies, historical errors, and geographical mistakes?

Closing your eyes and shouting, "Does not" hardly seems an answer.

In regards to your other questions - I have answered the educational question. I have no formal license to comment on the Bible, but I'm not aware of any public or private body that I am required to submit an application to do so. If you don't believe I am well read or well versed on the Bible or its historicity then that's your call. For others they can make their own mind based on my posts here, my blog, or my book.

I have granted you permission to post on my blog. I'm just waiting for you to post, "I am CJ's bitch". In all seriousness that was a joke btw. You can post on my blog but only if you agree to the regularity and word limits. Further, the reason I prefer to debate you on neutral ground, like here, is that I can duck in and duck out at my own leisure to respond whereas on my blog - you blitzkrieg it. (You lobbed 4 arguments in a single day last time around) And if I don't reply to one of your numerous pieces of faith distorted pieces of rubbish then you claim victory.

CJ

Trent Greguhn

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 03:15 AM

Tyler,

You're wrong. Simple as that. The fact that you don't even consider that you're wrong speaks volumes.

Please read the book I suggested.

The Bible is not inerrant.

Papa

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 05:27 AM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. I gave up a long time ago...

Trent Greguhn

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 06:16 AM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Seriously, what's the point. If someone is going to think to debate the basis of logic only to side-step the real issue then it's a battle in futility.

Tyler, you're not objective. You have a bias and an ulterior motive, you've signed a piece of paper saying you believe in The Bible's inerrancy and you even say yourself that you cannot say or think anything heretical or you'll have to speak to the dean about your continued enrollment. How is that a balanced education? You can't think for yourself or you risk expulsion from your school.

If you ask me, you'd be better off being expelled. That doesn't sound like a fair or equal environment to learn in at all, and it's completely disregarding other holy books and religions on the premise that Christianity and the Bible are right and everything else is wrong. You deserve better, you deserve to know all angles to all beliefs, not just the one you grew up in.

V2

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 07:18 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. CJ You have proven nothing against the Bible, that same Bible you clearly seem to think is full of holes
You rant and rage against Tyler, demand your opinion and dismiss anything that contradicts your flawed logic
The only thing keeping you afloat is like minded fools

Now how about answering 3.16 questions
#3.16....
You previously inferred if God did exist he should intervene in our lives, so I asked when should he and when shouldnt he intervene. That remains an unanswered question

Also you suggested a punishment for Christians who raise their Children as Christians.
Hard for me to fathom somebody such as yourself, who incidentally wrote such a hate inspiring book, assuming responsibility for my children, or handing it over to the State
The punishment though you suggested, was what? Any thoughts#

V2

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 07:25 AM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. And you are objective Trent?
Who do you think you are kidding?

This website and you posting on it suggests that you are a pupil of Jake, and all the other followers of atheism
Wake up, how can you not realise CJ has written a book about a subject he doesnt understand, never mind justify
Sadly CJ has nothing but baseless statements at best, at worst. Blatant lies

CJ cant and wont answer 3.16 questions because his argument is flawed. Its all based on his own selfishness

Trent Greguhn

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 10:40 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. "And you are objective Trent?
Who do you think you are kidding?"

The fact of the matter is that no human is completely objective. However, am I, someone who subscribes to no faith but has studied theology at a university equally to all belief systems, more objective than someone who is going to a Bible Institute and signed a waiver saying he believes in the inerrancy of the bible and cannot express any heretical thoughts of feelings or ideas or risk expulsion? Yes, I believe I am.

Side note, Tyler, you talk about free speech but you're obviously allowed free speech or you risk punishment. At any university they practice the opposite, they wan you to express your opinion, whatever it is. I still think you'd be much better off somewhere else.

"This website and you posting on it suggests that you are a pupil of Jake, and all the other followers of atheism"

By the same logic that means you're a "pupil of Jake" as well. But I know better than to make an assumption like that. Also, I studied and researched theology and came to my worldview well before I'd ever heard of Jake. Yes, Jake is a prominent poster on Rusty Lime and has a very strong stance on his atheism, but no two atheists are alike, or humanists, or Buddhists, or Christians.

"Wake up, how can you not realise CJ has written a book about a subject he doesnt understand, never mind justify
Sadly CJ has nothing but baseless statements at best, at worst. Blatant lies"

V2, all you do is come here, post things that don't follow and have nothing to back them up. CJ has read and interpreted the bible the way he perceives it to be. What's wrong with that? That's what everyone does when they read the bible, why do you think there's not just one Christan denomination, but thousands of them? All reading the Bible differently. And again, if the bible is from God and without error one would think it'd be able to deliver one coherent message.

"CJ cant and wont answer 3.16 questions because his argument is flawed. Its all based on his own selfishness "

I answered 3.16's questions. Did you read it? If not, let me explain again. God should at least intervene one time. One time. But he doesn't. And again, confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecies don't count.

The bible is full of holes and self-contradictions. I'm not trying to attack it, it's just that way. What can I tell ya?

Trent Greguhn

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 10:42 AM

*Correction*

Side note, Tyler, you talk about free speech but you're obviously not allowed free speech or you risk punishment.

CJ Werleman

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 11:03 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. V2,

There is not a reputable theologian in the world who actually believes that the Bible is inerrant. In case you don't know what inerrant means, allow me to rap it down for ya: If the Bible contains just a single contradiction, geographical error, historical fallacy then it's not inerrant.

Now while Tyler may wax lyrical with his fallacious twists, turns, and philosophical smoke screens - all the while making a beautiful language, English, seem as charming as the German accent on a Bavarian whore - we are not just arguing about the five (5) errors of the Bible that have been on the table during this debate. There are more than 400,000 in the 57,000 different versions/COPIES of the Greek New Testament. That's more errors than there are words in the NT!!!

In case you didn't read my last post we do not have ANY of the originals of the New Testament, thus we have no idea what the originals actually said. We don't even have the copies of the copies. Furthermore, many of the NT Books aren't even written by the people that they are attributed to. Scholars know for certain, for example, that Paul did not write Hebrews, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy. Therefore we don't know who did??

Further, in what is a huge striking blow to the authenticity and authoritative legitimacy of the Bible is the fact that dozens of verses and passages were added to the Gospels and the Epistles centuries later. Booyah!!

Finally, are you aware that the assertion that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is uniquely American amongst the world of Christendom? The founding fathers of the Church never saw it that way. Just you, Tyler, Moody, Falwell, Robertson, and co.........and those crazy Jesus freaks the Brits kicked out of the Old Country 300 hundred years ago.

You still think it is inerrant?

CJ

P.S: To answer your question: "When should God intervene?"......My response: Just once would be nice. Well one time since the advent of world press, and cable TV. He had no problem intervening when he was helping Joshua give the Jebusites or the people of Jericho a good ole fashioned ethic cleanse but nothing now, and nothing since prior to the commencement of the Common Era.

V2

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 11:26 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. Wow what an awful lot of words
Try reading these letters below slowly CJ
Post up some evidence. If what you say is a fact, and the Bible is full of contradictions and bad history, it should be very easy to do

CJ, I take the Bible (KJV) as the literal truth. If you can disprove anything written in it, conclusively, I will become an atheist, instantly


Gods intervention in our lives
Just once, only once, and for who, you?
Thats a cop out, not an answer

Miss something else gents

#3.16# Also you suggested a punishment for Christians who raise their Children as Christians.
Hard for me to fathom somebody such as yourself, who incidentally wrote such a hate inspiring book, assuming responsibility for my children, or handing it over to the State
The punishment though you suggested, was what? Any thoughts#

CJ Read this slowly, cos I think you may have learning disabilities
INNERANT

Papa

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 12:10 PM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. "The Bible's inerrancy and you even say yourself that you cannot say or think anything heretical or you'll have to speak to the dean about your continued enrollment."

And yet he criticized me for protecting my professor's identity...

CJ Werleman

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 12:35 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. V2,

Well if you mean what you say then you are about to become an atheist. Welcome! Soon we can hug, but send photos first so that I can determine whether or not you are worthy of front-hug.

You write that you take the KJV Bible as the literal truth. Oh boy this is going to be easy.

Easy question first: Do you know when the KJV was written?

I will assume you don't, as that appears the obvious conclusion based on your previous comments, but the KJV was written only 400 years ago in 1611. One and half centuries after the Gospels and the Epistles were penned by their multiple unknown authors.

Second question: Despite what George Bush said in a Gubernatorial debate, you are aware that the original manuscripts of the Bible were not written in English? No, I though so. Well they weren't, just trust me on this.

The New Testament manuscripts were written in Greek but the very first published edition of the Greek New Testament was not produced until 1522. Some crazy Dutch dude by the name of Erasmus took seven years to compile Edito Princeps (First published edition).....Wow, Tyler is right - using Latin terms does make you feel smarter.

It is from Erasmus writings that the writers/translators of the King James Version used to pen that you think is the inerrant word of God.

Now here's where it gets snaky. Where did Erasmus get his copies of the Gospel and Epistle manuscripts? Did they fall from heaven? Of course they didn't silly you. Erasmus got on the back of pony and galloped to Basel, that's in Switzerland but don't ask me what a Switzer is. Anyway, when Erasmus got to the Swiss city did he find a treasure trove of original manuscripts? No of course not silly. What he got there was just a bunch of medieval versions. As matter of fact, he copied from a 12th Century copy of the Gospels. 12th century!!

Do you have any idea how many copies of copies, and how many sets of scribes' hands the translations got polluted by before the dude who wrote his copy in the 12th century? The mind boggles.

Further, the version of the gospels that Erasmus used contained the respective stories of the woman taken in adultery (Cast the first stone) in John, and the last twelve verses of Mark - these are passages that were never originally included in the Gospels. i.e. stories that were added on down the line by anonymous writers with their own motives.

If you still think the KJV is the literal truth of God - then man o man that's one giant leap of ignorance.

In regards to giving you examples of historical errors, contradictions, geographical mistakes, irreconcilable differences - well I just told you, earlier, that we do not have any of the original manuscripts. Not even the first copies of the originals. 400,000 variances in 57,000 copies.

How can you continue to believe in the Bible's inerrancy when we don't have the original writings??

Finally, rather than me work through the thousands of variances - why don't you just Google the following: Contradictions within the Bible. There are thousands of websites containing posts by theologians citing the errors.

CJ

CJ Werleman

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 12:58 PM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. Couple of concentration typos in that post i.e. 1611 is not one and half centuries after the Gospels, obviously. It's one and half millennia. My bad.

Papa

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 01:32 PM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. " that we do not have any of the original manuscripts."

Good Lord all mighty in heaven I have been waitin' for someone else to preach those great words of wisdom.

V2

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 02:00 PM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. I was going down the Tyler V road of a long post but why

##in regards to giving you examples of historical errors, contradictions, geographical mistakes, irreconcilable differences - well I just told you, earlier, that we do not have any of the original manuscripts. Not even the first copies of the originals. 400,000 variances in 57,000 copies. ##

Thats just another way of saying you have no evidence

As trivial as you suggesting your "concentration typos" rendered your post incomprehendible
Thats sillyCJ

CJ Werleman

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 02:53 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Papa,

Yes it blows my fricken mind that any reasonable, rational, logical human being with more than a teaspoon of practical common sense could ever boldly make the assertion that the Bible is the inerrant word of God when we don't have the original manuscripts of what that word was.

The only reason I can come up with is that the believers are at least sub-consciously aware that should they acknowledge that there is even just a single error within the Holy Book then they would have to similarly acknowledge that it is then a human book, and not a divinely given book. After all it's hard to imagine that a God can create everything in our universe then only to make a literary error.

What we have seen throughout this debate is the desperation in which the faithful clutch onto these ancient beliefs. The fear of letting go to the edge of the swimming pool. The fear of being out there all alone.

Cheers
CJ

Tyler V

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 03:10 PM

Responding is like trying to shoot a shotgun blast with a shotgun blast. There are SO many different issues on the table. But i'll just address a couple.

1. Trent, objectivity has to do with how we receive/why we believe certain things. it has NOTHING to do with whether we are correct in our arguments or not. You are equally biased by your worldview as anyone else by theirs. Bias does not determine if an argument is true, only if someone can/will accept another person's argument as true.

2. You asked me to show you citations of ad hominem defined as a formal fallacy. I did. And yet you still said I'm wrong... and I'm the unobjective one?

3. Courtenay, you make it seem like your dodging of the issues is because you are too objective to continue. The problem is that you find yourself cornered having to defend ridiculous arguments like "and = then" and "Matthew capitalized the second kurios" and when you can no longer defend such stupid arguments, you throw up a smoke screen and move on. I dont know what is worse, your total inability to just admit that your argument was a bad one (its not like you have to accept theism just because some/most of your arguments suck) or that Trent, Jake, Papa, will jump at the drop of a hat if they think I am even possibly wrong but wont make a peep when you are ABSOLUTELY wrong.

4. And you show that you either dont understand manuscripts (which is my guess since even you said you havent studied) or you choose to distort facts to try and prove your case. There are around 25,000 manuscript and around 80,000 lectionaries and sermons. Among the manuscripts there are about 2000 variants. Of those variants, about 98% of them are issues of spelling and word order. The remainder of variants are almost entirely obvious where the error is. Imagine a game of telephone where there are 100 groups that all start with the same 5 page paper to copy. Except unlike regular telephone, they dont whisper it in eachother's ears, but they write it down and the next person copies it. Before they pass their copy on, they check it to the original. Lets say there are 100 people in each of the 100 groups. At the end of the game the final slips are compared. There is a grand total of 1000 errors. 990 of them are spelling or word order (since in Greek word order is not as static as in English this almost never makes a difference to meaning). That leaves 10 significant errors. But that is 10 errors on 100 copies of 5 pages. What are the chances that EVERY manuscript will make the SAME error such that we are unable to find what the original was? Zilch. When 99 manuscripts say something, and 1 manuscript says other wise (thats a variant) it is fairly clear what the original said. This is the benefit of text criticism.

5. You and Papa also show (again) your complete a-historical method. Tell me, do we have an ORIGINAL manuscript of Homer? Plato? Aristotle? Aristophanies? Ptolemy? Tacitus? NO! to which you will respond "yeah but no one claims they are inerrant!" Well we are not talking about whether they are TRUE, we are talking about if we can deduce what the original autographs said. The Bible can be totally false, and it would still be the best attested ancient document by leaps and bounds! We not only dont have any originals of these other documents, but the earliest manuscripts that we do have are about 1000 years removed! The Bible's earliest manuscripts start at about +30. Thats like a news flash in the ancient world!

6. And finally, just to show that you again are entirely uncritical of your assessment of these really bogus arguments. In your section on the anonymity of the NT letters you stated that "many of the NT Books aren't even written by the people that they are attributed to. Scholars know for certain, for example, that Paul did not write Hebrews..." Ha, Hebrews is not attributed to Paul! haha. Again, all you show is that you are so biased and will use anything, no matter how wrong, to make yourself feel safe in your little bubble.

7. I have no problem telling V2 (no offense V2) that his KJV only position is completely historically, theologically, and textually invalid. See, I have no problem pointing out when a fellow Christian's argument is fallacious, but you anti-theists, even though you guys try to have the air of humility and blah blah, have NEVER been able to say "Courtenay, thats just stupid." I mean when Courtenay gets a free pass on saying Matthew is wrong because he capitalized the second kurios, or that and = then, or that saying that Shepherds came and then Magi came over a year later is actually a contradiction... I mean come on! Arent you guys supposed to be rational?


And Courtenay, the problem is not that you did not go to school to study the issues (although it does help us to understand that you are outside of your range) but the problem is that you are so biased, such an axe-grinding ideologue, that you are entirely unwilling to read a single scholar who disagrees with you (and there are many!) Why? Because you say the only reputable scholars are the ones who agree with you. Why are they reputable. Because they agree with you. Its called begging the question.

You havent read a single scholar who disagrees with you. THATS why I point out how poorly educated (even in the informal sense) on issues surrounding science, philosophy, history, theology, the Bible, and even linguistics and grammar.

Here are two lectures by Gary Habermas. If you wanna show you are open minded? Listen to them. Its easy. Its called research. Part of it involves understanding the arguments of those who disagree with you! Try it!

http://veritas.org/media/talks/592
http://veritas.org/media/talks/615

CJ Werleman

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 05:52 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

Ha we are both wrong actually on number of manuscripts. I made a typo then kept running with it. My bad. The number is not 57,000 Greek manuscripts as I stated incorrectly. The number is 5,700. Sorry I added a zero. My apologies all. Anyway, what's your apology Tyler? (You claim "25,000")

Where you get the figure of only "2,000 variations" in manuscript errors is beyond me.

I get my number of 400,000 variations between the 5,700 manuscripts from, presumedly, one of your idols - Dr. Bruce Metger. (Well in all honesty he believes that the number is up to 400,000 but some scholars think it is even higher. The reason we don't know the exact number is because no one has been able to yet count them all.)

For the benefit of others reading this, Dr. Metzger was a Minister of the Presbyterian Church from 1939 right through until his passing in 2007. (Tyler still maintains I don't read points of view from the 'other' side. He's a strange weird little man.) Further, Dr. Metzger was themeritus Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at the Princeton Theological Seminary, that's your school Tyler, was a Bible translator and New Testament textual critic. His Text of the New Testament: its transmission, CORRUPTION and restoration (1964) has been the standard primer for students for over 40 years.

Ok back to you now Tyler. You keep leveling shots at me for my lack of formal theological credentials, but it appears it is you that knows far less about manuscript transmission than I. This should concern you. Trouble you. Wake you from your sleep. Because your little ditty regarding errors in copying is so absurd that it begets the question: Who are you really? I seriously doubt the credentials you repeatedly and so proudly demonstrate to be true.

You write, "Of those variants, about 98% of them are issues of spelling and word order. The remainder of variants are almost entirely obvious where the error is. Imagine a game of telephone where there are 100 groups that all start with the same 5 page paper to copy. Except unlike regular telephone, they dont whisper it in eachother's ears, but they write it down and the next person copies it. Before they pass their copy on, they check it to the ORIGINAL."

Scribes checked the copies against the original? Really? Wow! How the fuck so? How on earth was that possible? The manuscripts we have are copies of copies of copies of copies. And oh my fucking Lord - you really believe that errors (read changes) were purely spelling?? Hahahaha

Herewith the changes we know of between the variants:

1. Accidental changes

-Spelling
-Slips of the pen
-Interpretating spaces between words
- Eye-skips
-Similarily sounding words. Problematic with copies done by dictation

2. INTENTIONAL changes

-Scribes changed the text because they believed the copy they were copying from contained factual errors.
-Scribes changed the text because they believed the copy they were copying from contained interpretative errors
-Scribes, on occasions, changed their text for theological reasons.
-Scribes, on occasions, changed their text to emphasize their favorite doctrines.
-Scribes, on occasions, changed their text for liturgical reasons.

You have to bear in mind that scribes in the early Christian centuries were mostly/all amateurs and prone to make mistakes. Professional scribes didn't hit the scene until the 4th century.

In regards to your 6th point I admit error. I wrote that, "The book of Hebrews, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy" were attributed to Paul. I mistakenly included Hebrews when quite clearly that's not the case. Not sure why I made that error. I apologize.

CJ

CJ Werleman

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 08:24 PM

The Statement of Inerrancy on the Moody Bible Institute website:

We believe that the Bible is God’s word. The doctrinal statement of Moody Bible Institute affirms, “The Bible, including both the Old and New Testaments, is a divine revelation, the original autographs of which were verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit.”1

Revelation is God’s self-disclosure. It is God making Himself known to men.2 God has revealed himself in a limited way in creation.3 But the Bible is a form of special revelation. The Bible is “special” revelation in the sense that it goes beyond what may be known about God through nature.4 It is divine in origin, since in the Bible God makes known things which otherwise could never be known.

The Bible is unique because it is God’s revelation recorded in human language.5 According to II Timothy 3:16–17 the words of Scripture are “God breathed” or inspired. This implies that God is the source or origin of what is recorded in Scripture. God, through the Holy Spirit, used human authors to write what He revealed in the Bible. They were not mere copyists or transcribers. The Holy Spirit guided and controlled the writers of Scripture, who used their own vocabularies and styles but wrote only what the Holy Spirit intended.6 This is true only of the original manuscripts, not the copies or translations. Although the original manuscripts have been lost to us, God has preserved the biblical text to a remarkable degree.

The Bible is verbally inspired. This means that the words of the Bible, not just the ideas, were inspired. What is more, this is true of not just some, but all the words of the Bible. As a result, the Bible is free from error in what it says. Moody Bible Institute believes strongly in the factual, verbal, historical inerrancy of the Bible. That is, the Bible, in its original documents, is free from error in what is says about geography, history and science as well as in what it says about God. Its authority extends to all matters about which the Bible speaks.7 It is the supreme source of our knowledge of God and of the salvation provided through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.8 It is our indispensable resource for daily living.9

Even though the Bible is God’s revelation, it must still be interpreted. Interpretation has to do with our reception and understanding of that which God revealed and recorded.10 Revelation is a divine act. Interpretation is a human responsibility. Divine inspiration guarantees the truthfulness of God’s word but not the accuracy of our interpretation. The Bible is infallible in all it affirms to be true and therefore absolutely reliable. We, however, may be fallible in our interpretation of the Bible.

(I will let you all think about that for a moment. Enjoy!)

Rodney

Sunday 10th January 2010 | 08:30 PM

I absolutely know I am going to regret getting back into this. But I am just that bored and procrastinating from doing some real work.

You're both talking about "changes" or "corruptions" in the Bible. The Torah - the 5 Books of Moses - is known to be historically dated to at least 2,700+ years old, whether or not your believe it's origin to be divine (that's the oldest one (or pieces of one have been) found: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3062895,00.html).

Throughout 2,000+ years of Jewish communities being dispersed, persecuted, etc and having their leaders & scholars exterminated, you would think that this book would be pretty corrupted, right? After all, the communities were separated, adopted different customs, had periods without solid education, etc, etc.

So the book should be very varied from community to community, yes? Wrong. The Torah contains 304,805 letters of which a grand total of 9 (nine) letters are in dispute and all disputed characters are from Yemeni communities, who ceased completely adhering to mandated and strict copy-checking processes. That's 0.00295% error and all of these errors represent spelling errors which do not significantly change meaning. Other communities, covering eastern Europe, Spain, the Islamic world, etc, have a grand total of 0 (zero) characters in dispute. After 2,000 years of separation, with no telephones, Internet, faxes, etc.

You can of course compare this to the NT, in which the Gospel of Luke alone has over 30,000 different readings when compared to the oldest Greek manuscripts.

Anyway, I am not trying to claim that the above proves anything other than that it's definitely possible to maintain a book's integrity over time, *if you want to*. Personally, I would have assumed that if you were copying a text that you genuinely believed to be the literal Word of God, then you'd probably take a little care not to get half the words wrong? Which, I suppose if you want to see it that way, does add weight to CJ's assertion that some of the errors are probably intentional.

Tyler V

Monday 11th January 2010 | 01:00 AM

Courtenay,

My bad. I was working off memory and I remembered the numbers incorrectly. The 25,000 was the total manuscripts including Syriatic, Coptic, Latin, etc. That’s my bad.

Its also my bad when I said that in the game of telephone that they checked the original. What I MEANT was that they check the original one that they were copying. So if you handed me one to copy, before I sent mine to the next person, I would recheck it against yours.

See, I can admit when I make a mistake. Can you? Did Matthew really capitalize the second kurios? Does and = then?

But moving on. Here is a great article on this very issue by Daniel Wallace: http://bible.org/article/number-textual-variants-evangelical-miscalculation

Oh, and you knowing the number of variants and who that number is credited to does not mean that you read the scholar. You clearly don’t since Metzger goes on to show why that number is actually not a reason to reject the Bible since that how that number is calculated is by counting each variant. That is, if a spelling error is made in 1 Timothy 3:4 for example, and that spelling error is transmitted 300 times. Then that spelling error is counted 300 times. (Hence the difference from my 200,000 and his 400,000 since I work the with number that does not count each instance of the same variant).

The ironic thing is, which you seem to miss, is that when we look at a variant… we KNOW it’s a variant… how else do you think that we count it?! Why do we know it’s a variant? Because we know it differs from the majority of other manuscripts.

In regards to the books that Paul wrote. Listen to the Habermas lecture. He proves the early dating of the resurrection even by the critical canon (those books that even the most critical scholars accept as Pauline). http://veritas.org/media/talks/615

Notice on the Moody doctrinal statement the phrase, “The Bible, including both the Old and New Testaments, is a divine revelation, THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS of which were verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit.” And again, “THIS IS TRUE ONLY OF THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, NOT THE COPIES OR TRANSLATIONS. Although the original manuscripts have been lost to us, God has preserved the biblical text to a remarkable degree.” I don’t know if you realize this, but unless a Christian is a KJV only advocate, which most arent, most of us do not believe that our ENGLISH translations or even the manuscripts that they draw from are inspired or inerrant. We believe the original autographs were both inspired and inerrant. Thus our English translations are only inerrant so far as they are accurate to the originals (something reconstructed by text criticism with a fair bit of certainty).

And Courtenay, it is easy for you to quote things like the number of variants attributed to Metzger without having read him (especially since that information will be used by Erhman and the like). My point is that you have clearly never READ and RESEARCHED anyone who disagrees with you. Your arguments are often so flat, uncritical, and so patently incorrect that a simple check on sources that disagree with you would show that they are not the home runs that you think they are. A good example is your Passover dinner argument. When ALL FOUR of the gospels say that the day Jesus died was the day of preparation, then you assuming that some of them were actually talking about the Passover meal and not one of the other meals that occurred during the Feast of Unleavened bread is just so inaccurate is absurd that you would actually think that your argument is even addressing the text. It would be like me saying that Dawkins is wrong because he said that 3+4=22. I would say he was wrong based on something he didn’t even say. Many of your rejections of the Bible show that you just copied and pasted them and didn’t even bother to look at the passages in question.

And Rodney,

That’s a really good point. We see the same thing in the DSS Isaiah scroll. Before the DSS discovery our earliest Isaiah scroll was from (if my memory is correct) right around 900 AD. Well the DSS Isaiah scroll was from pre-100BC meaning that it pushed it back over 1000 years. And what did we find in those scrolls? That over 1000 years of transmission there was only 1% difference comprised almost exclusively of spelling errors and the like. So youre right. It doesn’t prove them to be inerrant since that is a question regarding the originals, but it does help us in our understanding of manuscript transmission accuracy.

Trent Greguhn

Monday 11th January 2010 | 03:57 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Sorry Tyler, that comment got lost in the flood of comments. I apologize for not reading it earlier.

But nice try, and I do appreciate you actually looking up ad hominem. Except, you forgot to link the article that actually matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

and here it says what?

"The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument."

Yes Tyler, I'm aware that an ad hominem CAN be a fallacy. But it is not a fallacy 100% of the time as I've stated over and over. And none of your links backed up what you said about it being formal logic. Care to explain that? It is informal logic, and to be honest, who cares? I don't care one way or another because both informal logic and formal logic has its place, but you seem to think that informal logic is somehow a waste of time.

Also, ad hominem is usually used by someone doing an ad hominem, and it's usually someone like you who uses it to think it somehow substantiates their argument while at the same time dismissing the other's argument. You think by pulling out ad hominem that you somehow ascend to heaven on a won debate that can't be refuted anymore.

What I'm trying to say is that ad hominem is a cop out. Your argument doesn't need to state if someone is using an ad hominem to prove your point; unless of course CJ were to say, "You're Christian, you don't know anything" then yes, you can call him out on it. But you signing a waiver that states what CJ quoted is a valid ad hominem argument, if you can really call that an ad hominem argument. I can, and am, arguing that it isn't.

And do not think you can define objectiviety in the philosphical sense. You can't, there is no common distincition for it. However, in the journalistic sense, it means fairness and nonpartisanship which is fair to assert of a student or of commenting on this site as it falls under conveying an opinion through media. And in that respect, I believe myself to be more objective than a person signing a paper stating they believe in the inerrancy of the bible.

---

Thanks for stopping by Rodney.

You're right of course, but what's great is when you're reading the OT you find so many contradictions within the story telling. God would be considered a flip flopper in the American political hempisphere reading the OT.

My point goes like this, even though there are instances of language contradiction that CJ brings up, but there's also instances of intent contradiction. Though as you've noticed, my knowledge on the NT is nto as versed as Papa's, CJ's, or Tyler's, I have studied the OT to a great extent and have written papers on the contradictions.

I've haven't read the NT as much as the OT but the OT seems a much more enjoyable read to me. As enjoyable read as the bible can get anyway.

CJ Werleman

Monday 11th January 2010 | 06:08 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Rodney,

Always good to have another jump into the fray.

You are correct in regards to the Old Testament but there are very good reasons for this:

1. There are far, far fewer original manuscripts with the OT compared to the NT.

2. The standard editions of the OT, written in Hebrew for Hebrews, depend on the readings/translation of just one (1) manuscript, produced shortly prior to the Year 1000 AD. Whereas the NT, the standard editions are based on thousands of manuscripts that date all the way back to the second century.

3. Scholars believe the reason, for above, is that when Jewish scribes in the Middle Ages made their copies, they destroyed the copy they were copying from. Whereas Christian scribes didn't. Ultimately the more manuscripts you have floating about the more errors one will find.

4. There are hundreds of contradictions in the OT. You need only compare the Book of Chronicles against the earlier books to see this. Furthermore, in editions such as the New Revised Edition of the OT, there are many passages where we don't know what the original text was. Best illustrated by 1 & 2 Samuel - which includes footnotes to back this up. Furthermore, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that our previous earlier copy was filled with an abundance of textual problems. Some of which you correctly cited.

Tyler,

I should have addressed this a long time ago in response to your incessant beating of your drum vis a vis, "You don't read anyone's work that disagrees with you", well that is a straight out fallacious assertion, and that is not even logically coherent.

What proportion of theologians or Biblical scholars do you believe share my atheistic worldview? It would be miniscule wouldn't it? In my experience very few journalists or commentators that are not interested in football actually write or comment about football. Capiche?

In regards to admitting error? Trust me - I make loads of errors. On the sporting field, in parenting, in business, and in study. But I always give myself an uppercut, analyze where I went wrong, and try not to repeat it. Thus the reason I haven't repeated Matthew's capitalization of the second kurios. ;)

CJ

Trent Greguhn

Monday 11th January 2010 | 07:06 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. Yeah, I was going to say, Tyler sure was beating a dead horse with that capatalizing the second kurios thing. It was in every post directed at you-- most uncouth. I'm glad he doesn't have a reason to bring it up anymore.

"I should have addressed this a long time ago in response to your incessant beating of your drum vis a vis, "You don't read anyone's work that disagrees with you", well that is a straight out fallacious assertion, and that is not even logically coherent. "

What's even better about this is that Tyler can't learn anything at Moody that disagrees with his/their stance on the bible or risk heresy. What kind of education is that?

V2

Monday 11th January 2010 | 07:39 AM

##7. I have no problem telling V2 (no offense V2) that his KJV only position is completely historically, theologically, and textually invalid. See, I have no problem pointing out when a fellow Christian's argument is fallacious, but you anti-theists, even though you guys try to have the air of humility and blah blah, have NEVER been able to say "Courtenay, thats just stupid." I mean when Courtenay gets a free pass on saying Matthew is wrong because he capitalized the second kurios, or that and = then, or that saying that Shepherds came and then Magi came over a year later is actually a contradiction... I mean come on! Arent you guys supposed to be rational?

##
So Tyler what is the most accurate English version of the Bible

CJ Werleman

Monday 11th January 2010 | 08:33 AM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Trent,

The twisted irony is oh so beautiful. Truly stunning.

Don't you, also, love V2 asking Tyler which version of the Bible is the most accurate after she had earlier claimed that the KJV is the literal inerrant word of God?

It's oh so lovely to watch. Religion - I love it! I can't imagine why people, in the most, don't want to discuss it. It is the age old question and reveals so much about the other humans we cross paths with in our brief lives.

Peace
CJ

Trent Greguhn

Monday 11th January 2010 | 09:06 AM

Tyler,

"but you anti-theists, even though you guys try to have the air of humility and blah blah, have NEVER been able to say "Courtenay, thats just stupid."

To be fair, you're right. If I saw a logical inconsistancy in CJ's argument I would definitely call him out on it. Just like I wrote Richard Dawkins an email crying foul when he endorsed Bill Maher being awarded the Richard Dawkins award. I think the idea of a Richard Dawkins award is just silly. (Yes, I know the Richard Dawkins Award is given by a group unaffiliated with Richard Dawkins).

But when you, CJ, and Papa talk about the history of mistakes and language errors in the NT then I cannot adequetly throw my hat into the ring as I haven't studied that topic near as much as the three of you have. Therefore I don't think it my place to comment on those topics. Unless it were the OT of course, which I'm well studied and versed in.

----
V2, the Bible you're looking for is 'The Comparitive Study Bible" which you can buy here--



And this is in all seirousness too, if you wish to know the bible you should get that one. It has four popular Bible translations all in one and sets them side-by-side so you can compare them yourself. That's probably the best one you can get on the market.

----

CJ,

Yes, I agree. See, I think Tyler would do well in a university of some sorts. He has a real penchant for learning, but I think they're distorting a few things at Moody. But I don't think he has the right to say we haven't read the other side when he can't even learn the other side at his bible institute.

Yeah, well, a lot of Christians are like V2. Won't listen to a word an "un-believer" says, but the second another Christian tells them what's up they listen right away. Just goes to show people don't really study their beliefs.

I too love discussing religion, but mainly the social and psychological implications it has on a community or individual, something that hasn't been scratched here in this thread-- which is probably for the best, ha.

Might I suggest, CJ, reading Why People Believe Weird Things? by Michael Shermer? It's really brilliant. The last chapter in later editions is specifically about why SMART people believe weird things. I think it'd explain Tyler's route of argumentation and shine a light on it for you.

V2

Monday 11th January 2010 | 12:01 PM

CJ, I take the Bible (KJV) as the literal truth. If you can disprove anything written in it, conclusively, I will become an atheist, instantly

Hey CJ, thats what I wrote, innerant? Did you say I said innerant. Is that a lie, spelling error, concentration typo?

I am sure errors in the translation occurred, but you assume INNERANT.
What a goose

Trent, I have access to an interlinear Bible, thanks anyway
The comparative study bible? Yeah you know what you are talking about dont you. Dont waste my time

Trent Greguhn

Monday 11th January 2010 | 12:34 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. You are so hopeless V2. Tyler, please tell him why the KJV shouldn't be used.

CJ Werleman

Monday 11th January 2010 | 05:19 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. V2,

Here are some FACTUAL errors of the Bible. Not translative, not interpretative, but FACTUAL. This is just a sample for you..........So welcome to atheism my dear. Or are you not going to keep your promise?

If we go down the path of flat out contradictions - such as the illustration below - then we are talking hundreds:

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" WHEREAS 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

But let's stick with just the FACTUAL errors to ensure your conversion to non-belief:

Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four.

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." Hare do not chew the cud.

Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof."

Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related

Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

Genesis 3:14: "So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust..." Snakes don't eat dust

Isaiah 11:12: "he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth." Could have picked any number of passages that shows that 1st century man believed the earth was flat but this will do.

Let's hug it out.

CJ

V2

Monday 11th January 2010 | 05:57 PM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. Yawn or should it be *sigh*
I am not wasting my time CJ
Nothing I say will change your opinion

here you go

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm



Just for you Trent
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
I know its pointless though

CJ Werleman

Monday 11th January 2010 | 08:16 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. V2,

You promised you would become an atheist if I could show you just one error in the Bible. I showed you a half dozen. Ball is now in your court.........

Surely you, as a Christian, wouldn't lie to me?? Surely for the love of God you wouldn't.

CJ

aries

Monday 11th January 2010 | 08:48 PM

I'm not sure which article it was now... but I remember someone using the example of santa and unicorns...

Now, because I know santa and unicorns do not exist, does that mean I and therefore Rustylime because I am a contributor, are anti santa or anti unicorns? No, it does not, it simply means that using logic, science and my own intellect I can come to the conclusion that the bible is a collection of nonsensical mythical claptrap with no relevance or bearing on my life whatsoever, and that santa and unicorns likewise do not exist.

So, why is it that the likes of v2, cactus and our old friend gina just to name a few think that because we don't share their beliefs and chose to voice it that Rustylime is an atheist or anti religion based website?

We are not. We are a collection of intelligent, free thinking souls and it just happens that some of us have made our own choices about what is credible, believable and real to us.

Before you go on the attack, please know that I indeed do believe in God, just not the one in your bibles's's's's...

God bless... :)))

V2

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 08:41 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/contralinks.html#hhkwKvXqTVEa

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hway.html

You know CJ I could search and answer all your questions, but it wont make a jot of difference

Two links that explain what you believe as contradictions, are in fact misunderstandings on your part


I would prefer death than to become like you
Your whole book CJ, is a hate rant. Why would I want to be like you

Aries I call this a hate filled anti christian site because it is
I dare teach my children creation and you want my children handed over to the state or others,
and WHY
Because my children may get teased (Is that it?)
Come on dont play the innocent

Trent Greguhn

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 09:04 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. Creationism is anti-science V2, none of it is true.

V2

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 09:33 AM

As is evolution
Its NOT
Repeatable Testable or Observable
Evolution is Earths greatest New Age Religion
Evolution is truly anti science
Evolution is anti-science Trent, none of it is true.


Jan 22, 2009 — The “tree of life” is the central icon of Darwinism. Charles Darwin’s only illustration in the Origin of Species was a drawing of organisms descending from a common ancestor in a branching tree pattern. It has been reproduced, expanded, embellished and decorated into a primal symbol of what science believes about biology. Why, then, are The Telegraph and New Scientist cutting it down? “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life” is the title of the latter, and the former says, “Charles Darwin’s tree of life is ‘wrong and misleading’, claim scientists.”

Trent Greguhn

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 11:34 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. Actually, we observed evolution in bacteria.

Not to mention all the fossil records we have, not that you creationists believe in that.

Tyler V

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 12:49 PM

Courtenay,

Nice attempt at humility. While you may not repeat the same bogus argument in the SAME place again, you will repeat it here, on your blog, on facebook, etc. trying to get away with passing the argument off as valid somewhere else. So don’t pretend like you are willing to be corrected.


And your silly “contradictions’ are why I say you don’t read anyone who disagrees with you. If you even simply cracked open any commentary, you would be able to see that your “contradictions” are not in the text, but in your flat, uninformed reading of them.


Did Michal have children? Michal’s sister, Merab, married Adriel the Meholathite (1 Samuel 18:19), and it was Adriel’s children that, according to 2 Samuel 21:8, belonged to Michal and were “brought up” by Michal. The Hebrew word translated “brought up” could mean that Michal actually gave birth to the children, but it also could mean that Michal acted as a midwife when the children were born, or that she reared the children. It is altogether possible that Merab died, and Michal, having the resources to provide for a family, and being childless herself, “adopted” Merab’s children (Coffman, 1992, p. 297). In that case, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that the children, for all practical purposes, belonged to Michal, and that Michal “brought them up.”


Did the Bible mess up on Pi? Well first, the Hebrew word for “round” often means what we mean by round. When we say “round” do we always mean that it has to be a precise circle? Or just circular? Again you try to make imprecise language walk on all four legs. Another answer is that you have a problem with the rounding because you work from diameter to the circumference. But if you work with a circumference of 30 and work backwards should be 9.548. So rounding gives us 10. For more on the Math of this passage you can look at http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/pi.htm


Do fowl go on all four? First, the term is not “fowl”. This was the idiomatic translation in 1611 for the KJV, but now it is better translated for our idiom as “swarming things” or “winged insects.” This then raises another objection though that insects have more than 4 legs. To which the response is still rather easy. The Hebrew idiom, "on fours" means it does not walk upright. Thus a dog with a leg cut off still goes "on fours." The Hebrews apparently did not have the word parallel. Come to think of it, even in English or Chinese, how would you briefly explain to someone how four-, six-, and many-legged animals all walk in common without using the word parallel? Even if you do not accept this answer and want to be hyper-literal about this, arithmetic says that any insect that has six legs has four legs, since six is greater than four. Thus any animal that walks on six legs is walking on at least four legs.

Does a rabbit chew its cud? The Hebrew word used here for “chew the cud” is actually the word for “chewing again.” François Bourlière (The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, page 41) says: “The habit of ‘refection,’ or passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in the rabbits and hares. The solution is that these animals were categorized with other animals who appeared to chew cud because they move their jaws in the same manner as the other animals listed. It is known that rabbits practice what is called "refection," in which indigestible vegetable matter contains certain bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. This process enables the rabbit to better digest it. This process is very similar to rumination, and it gives the impression of chewing the cud. So, the Hebrew phrase "chewing the cud" should not be taken in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and refection in the modern sense. God communicates understandably: God’s purpose was to communicate to the Israelites practical rules to follow in words and concepts they could understand, and the Israelites classified the coney and rabbit as those that "raise up what has been swallowed." God was using their own terms: God used their own language, terms, and descriptions to communicate with them. Any Hebrew living before modern times would understand animals that "chew the cud" to include rabbits and coneys. To apply a different and modern classification system to Moses’ writing anachronistically is forcing a modern meaning on ancient words.

Was Jonah in a whale of a fish? Well again you go to the KJV (which is a bad translation even by most Christians’ standards) to CREATE this contradiction. Jonah says “great fish” and Matthew, in the greek says κῆτος, which means sea monster, whale, or great fish. Again your problem is not with the original text, but with a non-inerrant English translation. And what’s more, you prove my case that you don’t ever read anyone who disagrees with you.


Is the mustard seed the smallest seed? Well in the world? No. Known to the Israelites? Yes. Again, you read this anachronistically. The mustard see was the smallest seed known in the Israeli world at that time.

Is the mustard plant a bush or tree? You again read this anachronistically. You have to remember that the ancient world did not have the taxonomy of modern Dendrology or Botony. Why was mustard considered a tree? Because it grew to 6-8ft and birds nested in it. Thus mustard, not just to Jesus, was considered a tree.


Is the world flat? This one is almost so absurd that its almost not worth responding to. But I will. If I go to a sold out concert and I say, “Man, all the city came out to this concert!” Do I mean that literally every single person in the city came out, down to the last person? No, I mean it hyperbolically. When the Bible says “all” it uses it the same way we do. It can literally mean all, down to the last person. It can mean all kinds (all the nations = often means all nations will be represented), or it can, like in English, mean it hyperbolically to just mean a lot. The problem here again is that you are unwilling to allow language to function linguistically. You make the verse more literal than most fundamentalists do.


Do snakes eat dust? If I say to you, “eat my dust!” Do I mean that you must take my dust and place it on a plate and spoon feed it to yourself? No. snakes don’t eat dust, but it seems reasonable that a snake, while slithering on the ground will parabolically “eat dust.” Again, you out literalize the fundamentalists.


Does the earth have four corners? Well we still use the saying “four corners of the earth.” It seems that the ancients meant it in the same way that we do: from all 4 directions, north, south, east, and west. In fact nn the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth." Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth.


Trent,

You again lump all creationists into one lump category. That’s a no no.

Tyler V

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 12:52 PM

How about you make a promise to actually do a little research before you post these silly objections. There are actually some difficult passages for Christians to deal with. Trust me, you are objecting based on the most silly, petty, and uninformed objections. I'm not gonna help you by telling you the real difficult passages, but come on. You are actually discrediting your position by arguing at such a shallow level. Right now youre the equivalent of the fundamentalist who argues against evolution by foolishly trying to reject carbon dating by bad "science". They just show that they are uneducated. You are doing the same.

aries

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 12:56 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. Hmmmm... I don't remember saying anything about your children???

You know, true faith is in your heart and not your head my friend. It does not need to be defended with ego/anger/vitriol/ fear/name calling etc

Rusty is not anti religion despite what you may think in your confused and angry state of mind. Take a look around, read some other people's articles. Anyone is free to contribute without prejudice. Only vehemently nasty or inappropriate comments or articles are omitted or not allowed. THERE IS NO AGENDA.

Personally I believe science and god are one in the same thing argued from opposing viewpoints. I see many places where science answers the questions god can't and vice versa, however as is human nature the two 'opposing' sides would rather fight about it than see what is really so.

Religious people tend to believe that god has ultimate control, that nothing happens without god's knowing or permission, yet they argue against such forces as science and evil which, if you believe your own spiel, god also created and allows. These things only exist because god allows them to, so why argue, why protesteth so much?

Everything is as it is meant to be...

V2

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 02:47 PM

This is a question for Tyler
Not Trent
Tyler, if the King James Version is not up to scratch.
What English version is? Indeed are their any

Aries, Stop preaching at me. I aint a follower of yours
True faith is in the head, the Bible is a scientific book. Find scientific fault in it
Both Jake and CJ have suggested my children be removed because I am teaching them creation. Guilt by association, guilt by silence
Angry, try pity Aries
Name calling? Go on, what calling somebody a a liar. Nasty arnt I
Vitriol, seems a two way street Aries. In fact I dont have any issues with peoples choices, just prepared to stand up for mine. No doubt you would prefer me meek and mild so others could crush me
Vitriol, hell baby I can step up a couple of gears, you know that
Fear, ha ha. Who, Fear You?
We are completely opposite Aries. You want to chose your own God, you want to control him. Why, because you live in fear. Fear that you will be held accountable one day for your actions
You fear because of sin, call it evil or rotten, wrong, selfishness, greed ,nasty- call it what you want to call it, but you know you deserve to be held accountable for it.
I have no fear. Short walk for me

Not anti religion Aries................Go read Christians should keep kosher. Read the article at the top of the page. You are kidding yourself if you think this is not an attack on people
Yes THERE IS AN AGENDA
Aries, I wouldnt post here if Christianity wasnt attacked.
Believe what ever you want to believe. I wont attack you, I will defend myself and my choices.
I will also defend the word of God and other Christians
I wont defend God

Trent, really, Evolution in Bacteria #WOW#
A bacteria finally turned in to a; Duck? Car? Tree? Mold?........... What?
Or did it turn in to a bacteria
Suprise me?
adaptation is not evolution Trent

Tyler, you amaze me with your patience yet again
You must have taught children at some stage, it does show

aries

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 02:58 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

thanks for that...

Papa

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 03:02 PM

...in response to this comment by aries. "You know, true faith is in your heart and not your head my friend. It does not need to be defended with ego/anger/vitriol/ fear/name calling etc "

Well said....

CJ Werleman

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 03:12 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Oh Tyler,

You wiley little wascal you. I save the cheap points for those like V2. (I still believe she is a friend of mine taking the piss, because no one can possibly be that willfully ignorant. Whoever it is has got me good though. Ha funny!) But I keep the powder dry for you my dear little 'the Bible is the inerrant word of God' fundamentalist.

Ok smart guy reconcile these contradictions. Some easy ones then we will progress:

1. Movement of the sun? Specifically how did the sun move thru the sky?

"Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goes down, in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the desert over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh? (Deut 11:30)

"Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." (Psalm 19:4-6)

The sun goes into it's house!!! It's tabernacle. i.e. THE SUN IS NOT SHINING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EARTH. Oops fucking oops!

"the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." (Joshua 10:12)

You see Biblo (it's catchy), the ancient Hebrews thought the sun and the moon were the size of a basketball as perceived by the human eye. Their error is an easy one to explain. THEY BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT. The authors were unaware that the earth was a sphere and the earth revolved around the sun. This is hardly surprising. As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon Egyptian cosmology.

There are hundreds of passages that claim refer to a flat immovable earth:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

The only scholars that disagree with this obvious fact are Bible inerrantists i.e. YOU!

The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book. Still not satisfied?

The essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth ... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to "the earth's farthest bounds," but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world (cosmos) in their glory." Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat.

The reader of the Bible has one of two choices: Either the sun revolves around the earth or it doesn't. It can't be both.

Wow this point took longer than I thought. So I will leave it at point 1 for now, and await your anticipated retarded reply.

CJ

Tyler V

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 03:13 PM

V2. KJV is a translation of the TR (textus receptus) and has many translation, manuscript and colloquial problems. Since inspiration is a doctrine regarding the original autographs, it is incorrect to apply it to any later translation. Thus the KJV or any other version should not be considered inerrant. It is only inerrant in so much as it adequately represents the originals. Even if the KJV was translated from adequate manuscripts, it would still be out of date in its vocabulary. Think of the term "gentleman." In the KJV gentleman does not mean a polite man but a land owner. We already, in the 21st century, have the difficulty of having to understand Hebrew and Greek idioms, and we should not make it more difficult by adding in 17th century idioms that translate those idioms.

Trent was actually right. The best translations seem to the the comparative works that have serveral translations side by side. It is also really helpful to have a greek/hebrew Bible with lexicon handy to help on vocab issue. If I were forced to choose one translation, well two... I would have to say the NASB or the ESV seem to be the most literal (that is word-for-word) translations and seem to most adequately translate the idioms and vocab into modern english.

Hope that helps. And yes, I've taught Junior/Senior High school for about 10 years now.

CJ Werleman

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 03:20 PM

Tyler,

Looks like you've made a fan out of V2. Awesome dude!

Remember, the law of adultery, as defined by the ancient Hebrews, applies only to a married women. You're in the clear little man. So go for it ya big stud.

CJ

Tyler V

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 04:08 PM

Courtenay… do you not understand basic language anywhere? Or is that a privilege you reserve just for the Bible?

1a. Does the sun go down? We still say the sun “goes down” and “rises.” Why, because from our vantage point on the earth’s surface, it looks like its going down. The language is not meant to be scientific, but merely descriptive of what we observe. We do the same thing even in the 21st century.

1b. Does the earth go into a house? Well, seeing as how this is written in Psalms (POETRY) and the same psalm talks about evenings pouring forth speech, and is comparing the sun to a bridegroom, you really think that this verse is trying to say something scientific about what the sun really does?

And on and on. Actually, ALL of the verses you cite are answered in the same two ways. They are either descriptive passages of what we observe (contrary to the popular song, we don’t feel the earth move under our feet, and the sky is not tumbling down) OR they are written in OBVIOUS poetry and should not be taken as strict scientific statements about the nature of the planet or the sun/moon or anything of that nature.


We can see both in Daniel. First it is describing what can be seen. If you stand on the top of some high mountain or building, we still say things like “its like we can see to the ends of the earth”. When I lived in Chicago we used to go to the top of the Sears tower. And from the top of that building, it really does look like at the horizon line, that the world just stops. Does the fact that I describe it that way (“horizon” literally means the divide between heaven and earth) mean that I am making some statement about the true nature of the world? No.

In addition, Daniel is an apocalyptic prophecy and thus littered with symbolism (especially considering the passage cited is from a VISION!) and thus, like psalms, should not be tried to stand on all fours (linguistically). Again you cite Matthew 4:8 which I already responded to that it may not necessarily mean that Jesus actually saw every single kingdom on the entire planet.

But you are right. The reader of the Bible DOES have two choices. Either read the Bible woodenly without taking any language, context, genre into account and see it as flat earth, or read it like we would read any other piece of literature and understand that it uses symbolism, grammatical flourishes, and idioms and see that it is not making scientific statements about the cosmological nature of our world. But is rather making theological statements about God, his sovereignty, and out finitude. So you’re right, we do have those two choices. I’ll choose the latter thank you.

Tyler V

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 04:10 PM

And the law of adultery applied to men and women who were married. Again, you show no reading comprehension.

Papa

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 04:34 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "Thus the KJV or any other version should not be considered inerrant. "

Exactly. The KJV or the Revised KJV is anything at best a horrible translation of the greek and hebrew texts. As well as all translations and the originals, but I guess thats where you and I differ....

Just thought I would point out that he/she made at least one accurate statement...

Papa

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 05:03 PM

Yes Papa, the KJV is not inerrant. And yes, no translations are inerrant either. But yes, we do differ on the originals.

V2

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 06:53 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. So Tyler, the KJV is the best we have in translations to English?

I never called the KJV inerrant, thats a blatant lie told by others. I am well aware of its issues, hence the need for an interlinear source

and yes I am a fan of Tylers. He speaks well to you children, whilst I may hold you in contempt.
Yes, I am not a good Christian


True faith is in your heart and in your head
Biblical science remains exact
Dragons is the Biblical word for dinosaurs

CJ Werleman

Tuesday 12th January 2010 | 06:55 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

It is breathtaking how remarkably ignorant you are of Biblical historicity.

You write, "And the law of adultery applied to men and women who were married."

The Hebrews understood "Thou shalt not commit adultery" very differently than the Christian Church tradition. It only applied to men if they had intercourse with someone else's wife. But it was allowable for a married man to have intercourse with a single woman. Adultery was the sin of "trespassing" on a man's property. A woman, in God's eyes, was property. Chattle. An asset. Until marriage women were the property of their fathers. After marriage they became the property of their husband.

In other cases if a man wanted a woman, he knocked on her father's tent, offered the marriage price, and took a wife. The girl had little say in the matter. If he liked the girl he might return with more money to marry some of her sisters. Women were considered property. Adultery was a violation of the husbands' property rights, not morality, and polygyny was the standard.

Remember Solomon? 700 Wives + 300 Concubines. In OT times concubinage was an official status. God rebuked Solomon not for polygyny and the concubines, but for the fact that many of his wives were non-Hebrew and these foreign wives brought idols in for worship from their pagan cultures, which was contrary to God's teaching. David committed adultery, only because Bathsheba was married. She was not one of his own women. The other 7 wives and 17 concubines that David was sleeping with were given to him by God as a blessing.

What do I have to do for you to wake the fuck up? You are astonishing creature. So blinded by faith that you are unable to even accept or acknowledge even the most fundamentally accepted facts. You won't even acknowledge a single argument to the contrary of what you have been taught. Arguments that were long ago accepted as fact by mainstream scholars or theologians. But I guess if you've signed a document that the Bible contains no errors, then no matter what I throw up you will have some clever word play to shoot it back down. You're like a used car salesman selling faulty automobiles. You have a faulty or flawed product but you have rehearsed the counter-objections so much so that they have become your mantra.

You inerrantists are a tiny minority. A declining minority at that. The nature of your fundamentalism is unique to America, and you're standing alone at the Alamo. The farewell is near, and like all farewells it shouldn't be protracted.

Goodbye
CJ

Trent Greguhn

Wednesday 13th January 2010 | 12:53 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. Hey look V2, Tyler said I was right. So, going to take my advice and pick up one of those bibles?

Also,

"CJ, I take the Bible (KJV) as the literal truth. If you can disprove anything written in it, conclusively, I will become an atheist, instantly "

Lookie there V2, you take the KJV as the literal truth. But wait!

"I never called the KJV inerrant, thats a blatant lie told by others. I am well aware of its issues, hence the need for an interlinear source "

Man... what do they call you in the political hemisphere? A flip-flopper I think.

Tyler V

Wednesday 13th January 2010 | 01:40 PM

Courtenay,

If I say to you, "Joey got in a fight in school today" am I approving or disapproving of the actions? Is that statement an indicative or an imperative? See, the problem that you have is that you ignore the imperatives (or remove them from their context) and interpret the indicatives as imperatives. Solomon had a ton of wives and concubines. This is a violation of the Deuterotanical law that kings were to have one wife. So the imperative says that kings are to have one ONE wife. When the Bible chronicles how many wives that Solomon had it was recording an indicative. It was not approving or disapproving of what it was stating. It was just stating the history.

Now, if we are to conclude whether the scripture approves or disapproves of Solomon and his wives, we can more easily understand it as a criticism. Why? Because unlike every other ancient book, where history is written by the victors and they thus portray their "heros" as spotless, we see sins, failures, and the need of grace, mercy, and repentance in nearly every person in the Biblical record. Why? Because the entire point of the book is to show us that we, as a species, are all sinful! No one is righteous, no not one. We ALL need saving grace from God. From Adam, Abraham, Job, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Caleb, Sampson, Saul, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, Matthew, Peter, and Paul, the scripture paints a uniform picture of a fallen humanity. So when Solomon is recorded as having multiple wives it is actually 2 fold criticism. First, he has gained a ton of wealth (since the number of wives at that time in history was a reference to wealth) by illegitimate dealings with other nations and with over-taxing his people, and that he has abandoned his proper ordination as king over God's people and had become like the other kings, and had explicitly broken the command of God to only marry one wife.

See, when you read it you assume that the Bible is CONDONING Solomon's actions, when in fact, it is telling us precisely why he has sinned and why, starting with him, the kingdom would begin to divide and break down. Why is Solomon the last king over a unified Israel? Because he sinned and started the ball of division in motion.

But the point is, you read indicatives as imperatives and thus again show your lack of ability to understand basic functions of language. These "contradictions" are only contradictions on your completely fallacious and flat readings of the text.

And notice that you say I am the one blinded by faith, but you are the one who will regurgitate any argument, uncritically and without actually checking its validity, if it even appears that it might help you out. You dont see me making every absurd objection to atheism that may filter through the blog-o-sphere just because I need more fodder to throw out. I critically evaluate my arguments and objections and beliefs before I try and post them. You on the other hand have no such filter. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.



And yeah, V2, I actually am with Trent on this. Comparative Bibles are really helpful for study, even though they are pretty burdensome. They are probably a little big to carry around but you really should have one in your library and use it alot. The bad thing is that they dont have a good comparative Bible with the most accurate translations yet. It would be nice to have a NASB, ESV, NET, NIV Bible. Since they dont have that, I recommend biblegateway.com where you can easily switch between versions for the same verse, passage, or chapter. But I also found that my studies in Greek and Hebrew helped immensely. If you arent able to study the original languages, there are still some really good resources that can help. Mounce's Expository Dictionary, The ESV has a GREAT reverse interlinear Bible that parses all the words for you, and the New Internationional Dictionary of NT Theology came out with an abridged version a couple years back which is also really helpful (its 1 volume for like $26 rather than 5 vol. for $140.) The KJV is a pretty read and good for devotional reading in the psalms and stuff. But for study and exposition, I think the the ESV, NASB and even the new NET Bibles are the best and rely on the latest manuscript evidence.


But Trent, just to be fair to V2. There is actually a difference between something being literal truth and being inerrant. Many things are true but are not inerrant. So while I may not be on board with calling the KJV en masse "literal truth", V2 is not actually directly contradicting himself when he says both those statements. Just to be technical.

V2

Wednesday 13th January 2010 | 05:49 PM

Flip Flop? Isnt that slang for masturbation?

Listen Trent
I dont really care what you think or how you interpret my posts
My point is that the KJV is as close to perfect as language translations can get
Yes their may be errors, Though in context of the message, they are not issues
If you want to read more in to that then I suggest nothing
I dont have to.

Watch and wait.
Soon as the 7 year peace treaty with Israel is signed off, it all starts
Bang Bang

V2

Wednesday 13th January 2010 | 06:21 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler
Please dont misunderstand my question
Its not about studying the Bible, its about casually reading the Bible
My point was, as a reading Bible, its better than anything else out there on its own
I did the interlinear thing before computers and for mine its good enough

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 13th January 2010 | 06:49 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. Well by your logic then, I did the right thing by deprogramming myself from Christianity to find myself an atheist.

After all, I was a devout Christian for many years until I did what we were taught not to do, I read the bible! No sane and rational person who has read the bible can continue with their faith, ones delusion must literally trump their own logical associations between what constitutes good and evil in order to continue with their belief.

Peace V2.

V2

Wednesday 13th January 2010 | 07:46 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Devout Catholic Jake

The difference is black and white, only, you still cant see it.
Probably never have the intelligence to see it either

Peace? Dont you want to take my creation educated kids from me? Peace?
Peace is a token word Jake. Dont be a hypocrite. Though some may get suckerd in, I see what you are, too clearly.
Peace?
You would happily see me dead

As 3.16 would say, God bless you Jake. I take no offence

Tyler V

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 03:15 AM

Jake, I still think it is funny that you try to show who is rationalist by begging the question. Its just comical.

And when you were a "devout Christian" what kind of church did you go to?

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 07:30 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. Faith is belief in spite of evidence, belief in spite of reason, so claiming that intelligence has anything to do with faith or belief or indeed the religious doctrines they permiate from, is utterly fallicious!

Also, I would not 'happily see you dead', I would happily see you leave the decission of your children's own religious or irreligious development up to them when they are old enough to decide for themselves after properly researching it.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 07:38 AM

I attended numerous congregations over my 20 some years of devout Christian belief.

I do find it interesting though that you presume to question my past attachment to Christianity. Does the fact that I am no longer a Christian and am indeed now an anti-theist make my experience any less valid when compared to yours?

As a Christian I had access to the same delusional belief patterns as you do, the same access to the convoluted philosophy and disjointed logic. I had the same access as you do to the claims of heresay encounters and spiritual experiences that strengthen ones belief, shit, I even had a few myself.

The real question you should be asking is how or why a devout Christian became atheist/anti-theist.

V2

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 09:07 AM

Crap Jake
You have made it very clearly on many occasions that my children should be removed from me because I teach them creation. ala Dawkins. Your defense for this . They could get teased?
What a joke
What a fascist

Christian Jake? I dont "think" you ever were. Maybe did the Christian thing, but never a Christian.
As Christian as a soldier on a crusade to Israel, or a priest in the Spanish inquisition or an early explorer in South America. Like a Mormon Christian to the heathen Indians maybe.
Christianity measured by your standards Jake is contemptible
Even Satan believes in God. Believing in God doesnt make anybody a Christian


No Jake calling yourself a Christian is not what makes a Christian, attending a church or 100 churches over 20 years means nothing

You have never read the Bible in your life, that much is obvious

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 09:25 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. Yeah, I expected such a response from you, Sir Wankalot! "You're not a real Christian unless you did it this way".

You should try Zen Budhism, mate, if you don't get their Zen, then not only are you 'not doing it properly', but you're less than human until you do!

So you discount my previous attachment to Christianity based on your own assumptions, how very Christian of you. May I suggest that you join Rev. Jerry Fallwel in hell!

Lastly, about your kiddies, yes, religious indoctrination should be a criminal offence. It IS brainwashing. It IS teaching your children to believe in something in complete contradition of natural laws. Instead of showing faith, you enforce it.

Marvin the Martian

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 09:41 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. Finally we see your true colours. It takes a Christian to suggest that anyone that doesn't beleive EXACTLY what they believe is not a 'true' Christian.

Who are you to judge how devoted Jake was? Who are you to suggest that he wasn't a 'true believer'? You preach that you are a Christian, but failed to learn from any of the lessons. True Christians should be blind to colour, race, creed etc. and should tollerate other people for their own ideas and ideals.

As I have stated before, it takes a true Chrisitan like V2 to promote the worst that Christianity specifiacally and religion in general has to offer. If you truely believed in your faith you would 'turn the other cheek' instead you follow an 'eye for an eye'. Thus you have your explanation why the Muslims hate you so much.

I say thank god i'm an atheist.

Tyler V

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 09:49 AM

Jake,

You make faith irrational by definition. The problem is that you it is only false by definition according to YOUR definition. I have pointed this out to you multiple times but I’ll do it again. You say, “Faith is belief in spite of evidence, belief in spite of reason”. So tell me, what evidence do you have that evidence is the only basis for knowledge? And, what is the basis for you use of laws of logic?

Tell me, if/when you have children, will you not teach them anything that you believe in order to keep yourself from forcing any kind of belief on them? What if they grow up and would have wanted to be a Christian, but you forced them to be an atheist as a child? What if they would have wanted to be X but you raised them to be not-X. See, the problem with this method is two fold. First, it is entirely unconstitutional to try and outlaw what people can raise their children to believe (also ironic since you claim to be “free-thinkers” and yet are willing to legislate what people can or cannot do). And second, it presupposes the falseness of religion, which is the very issue under debate, thus begging the question.

I didn’t ask how many congregations you attended, I asked what KIND of congregations you attended? Big? Small? Catholic? Protestant? Reformed? Mainline? Fundamentalist? Liberal? Etc. And back off the defense stance there tiger. I wasn’t making any judgments by asking the question.

Although when you say things like “I had access to the same delusional belief patterns as you do, the same access to the convoluted philosophy and disjointed logic” and yet you are unable to ground your current “rationalism” and use of logic within your atheistic worldview, I find that a little amusing.

And you could ask yourself the same question. Why would a devout atheist like Anthony Flew become a theist? Did he de-evolve or go from being preeminently rational to being wholly irrational? (I like to be upfront and let you know that I am setting you up. Either you say no and lose your ability to continue to criticize Christians as irrational, or you say yes and lose your ability to object when Christians say that when one person leaves your own worldview that they were either wrong the whole time, never understood it, show they really weren’t that devout, etc.)


You then say, "instead of showing faith, you enforce it." So should I also not TEACH my kids to be moral but rather show moral behavior and hope they just catch on so as to avoid forcing them to become moral people?

V2

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 09:51 AM

Oh dont we get aggressive Jakesta
Have trouble with others opinions. Cant take what you dish out.
I dont know Jerry Fallwell, and considering you dont believe in hell? or do you? I havnt a clue what you are talking about

Brainwashing my kids. Get your hands off my kids you dirty perv, something wrong with people who want others kids
What is it Jake. Why do you want my kids. What are you. You are no better than those who stole Aboriginal children from their parents. You want to indoctrinate my children
You want to take others right away from them, steal freedom
People like you have censored the internet. You dont believe in freedom
Like a Communist Nazi or Muslim. What an evil little man you are

I dont want your kids. I wont even stop you indoctrinating your kids with evolution.
Your silly religion, your faith in nothing. Big Bang. Thats religion

But Jake you are dead right. YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN unless you do it "this" way
"this way" is the way the Bible says it has to be done. Dont kid yourself, their are no other ways outside of the Bible and the Holy Spirit for teaching Christianity, and living Christianity.
You done Christianity your way, You were never a Christian and until your brain ticks over that to be a Christian you have to change, you will never "get" it
You are done Jake and your comments and anger prove it

Aries, hello Aries
You out there somewhere
Want to start bitching at me, maybe have a crack at Jake as well
Nuh, you wouldnt upset Jake would you Aries
Its against the Anti Christian code around here
Its about hating Christians and attacks. Its about .....

Love and God Bless you Jake 3.16

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 10:44 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler, as we've discussed before, morality is not inherrant, it is imposed obligation from society on the individual. If you don't teach your child morality, that is up to you, they will learn them quickly enough if they wish to fit into society, but teaching them moral values with a basis that God gave them and not following them will lead to eternity in hell is indoctrination.

I attended several different types of congregations whilst I was a Christian. I attended catholic primary school, attended both baptist and evangelical baptist churches, went to a non-denominational Christian high-school, attended anglican, and uniting church churches. Many other. I had plenty of 'real' and 'meaningful' experiences which were ultimately fed by a mixture of suggestion based euphoria and blind stupidity. Nonetheless, I'm better for the experience.

I have two children, and I refuse to impose any religious or anti-religious beliefs or teachings on them. Instead, we encourage discussion and question and show them how to research an answer for themselves. Having been indoctrinated into a religion myself, I am not in the habit of imposing and enforcing the same on my children, and an anti-theist opinion is no different.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 10:53 AM

V2, I'm very curious as to how you made the leap from my clear disdain for religious indoctrination to wanting your children. Did you take you medication today, mate?

Yes, I agree, the big bang is religion if you believe it absolutely and refuse all other explanation, I don't. That said, where religion shows it's irrelivance in post age of enlightenment society is it's assertion that natural events require a supernatural cause or creator.

Again, you prove the point; faith is believe in spite of reason and evidence.

aries

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 03:25 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. V2, I have never in my life witnessed a less christian entity at work. Your anger, your fear, your rhetoric is simply mindless, bordering on insane.

The very fact that you think Jake would see you dead because he disagrees with you proves your unbalanced state of mind. At least Tyler has the sense to provide an intelligent counter to Jake's beliefs and opinions without lowering himself to name calling and personal attacks... so while we are all at it.. YOU ARE A F***ING FUNDAMENTALIST WHACKJOB!!!

You definitely put the MENTAL in fundaMENTAList you utter loon.

Take a pill, get a massage, chill the F**K out and provide something tangible, something intelligent, something that doesn't make level headed rational people want to hate you, because that is all you are doing here... You are giving christians, not to mention christ, a VERY bad name. Jesus would hang his head in shame if he could (and he can) see the way you are behaving.

V2

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 04:42 PM

I expected no less from you aries
not a jot

Jake has made it clear he wants my children and you ignore him........
No agenda?
I will shout it out aloud

You and him should wear a swastika

Satanism runs deep on this site.
Servants

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 06:12 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. Satanism? Swastikas?

Oh, yes, of course, it's that whole Jesus and Uncle Bush diatribe of, "you're either with me or against me".

You're a classy gent, V2.

aries

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 06:57 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. What I really want to do is paste in another whole page of 'hahahahaha's' V2, your insane ramblings know no bounds, it is hilarious to say the least.

In spite of me saying that I do believe in god and jesus, you still think I should wear a swastika? you still think I am a servant of LUCIFER??? (*insert second page of hahahaha's here*)

Riddle me this you intellectual retard... if this is such an anti christian hate filled and satan worshiping website, then why do YOU spend so much time here spreading your judgement, your hate and your anger?

Does it feel like home for you? Does it feel familiar? Is it a bit hot in here?

God represents love, while satan represents fear. Of all the people on this site with the exception of cactus, (another whackjob fundaMENTAList) I have never seen anyone operating from a place of fear more so than you.

Maybe you just need a hug? Oh hang on, homosexuality is a sin isn't it?

Douchebag!!!

V2

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 07:22 PM

Aries- Get the tissues
I am here cos I enjoy it
I enjoy you and Jake and even liddle ol Micky
I enjoy causing you pain, I enjoy your tired rhetoric and I enjoy the angst i cause

So sweetys. Gird up your loins and suffer in your jocks

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

FUNdamentalist
Its all about how you write it

Yes Jake you re a little dictator bent on stealing children
The best bit is you admit it in front of the world
Well go on Jake
What should happen to my kids, what would you do. Come on Jake. Say it. Tell us Jake
Its in your heart, put it in to words
What would you do with my children after removing them from me
Whats your plan?

Ka-ching

aries

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 07:29 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. Wow!!! deluded much???

I can just see Jake crying in his cornflakes, a broken shell of a man at the mercy of your genius and wit...

About all you do is make us laugh at your stupidity and ignorance... at best.

It seems religion is not the only false reality you hold on to... and I doubt even the chuch has the good sense to let you through the front doors.

So, about that hug?

V2

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 08:08 PM

If you are the guy in the singlet aries, I think I will pass on that hug...........No offense

Crying in his cornflakes, hoping so
Mind you aries, your response martins Trents and Jakes That is what puts a smile on my face, thats what keeps me coming again and again and again.
Thats the air I breathe. Others may ignore me, but yous, yous are a captured audience. Yous dance to my tune.
Your hate drives me, keeps me coming back. Your insults are a pleasure, your name calling. I enjoy it
I like a fight, a challenge. To stick my finger in your open wound (metaphorically)
I like people to see what you are really like

You call me a ranter, living in fear
Read the title of this article
"God hates you, hate him back "
Yeah I am mental, maybe around you and yours I do feel so comfortable
What does that say about you

I am rubber you are glue
hypocrite

aries

Thursday 14th January 2010 | 08:11 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. keep diggin buddy, keeeeeeeep diggin...

Tyler V

Friday 15th January 2010 | 12:26 AM

V2.... aries.... no offense, but both of you are being equally judgmentally and insulting. If you both believe in God and Jesus (as you both say you do) then I really think that you should seek peace, and not drive a wedge further between you. "A house divided cannot stand." In the long run, you are on the same "team" (if team is even proper to use of the body of Christ).

Trent Greguhn

Friday 15th January 2010 | 04:10 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. You're right and wrong Tyler. They're only both on the same team insomuch as they believe in Christ and God.

What's abundently clear and V2 has said as much is that V2 thrives and wants to cause hate and angst. Let's throw out theism completely here and agree that CJ, while you might disagree with him, is a sarcastic humourous well meaning guy. Though many of us disagree theistically and on worldview, none of us here are out to cause hate in the way V2 intends.

Having said that, ignore the guy. Anyone who causes disagreements just to cause suffering is not worth time from anyone.

Now that that's over with.

Let's suppose God does exist. If God exists, then the introduction of a supernatural being able to interfere and cause miracles and make anything happen would utterly destroy science, as science is the production of theories made from observations. And you can only make observations if what is being observed is consistant. But consistancy wouldn't exist with a supernatural being interfering with our daily lives in his omni-everything presence.

The introduction of a supernatural being is chaos and uncertainty and we could not make observations of the universe with such a being interfering. Since we've been able to observe in the manner we have with a relavtiv consistancy and accuracy, it would at least seem reasonable to say that such a being is not interfering in our day to day lives. See where I'm goin' with this?

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 15th January 2010 | 06:48 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. Hi V2, Jesus on a stick, you're crazy!

Regardless of how much you try pawn your children off on me, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to decline, I already have two fantastically intelligent and wonderful kids. I realise that all you want is for them to go to a good home, a better home, one with open love and understanding where they're encouraged rather than discouraged to think, but I'm sorry mate, I just don't have the space.

That said, as a parent, I'm more than happy to give out some free advice: DON'T INDOCTRINATE YOUR CHILDREN.

There we go, that shouldn't be to hard. Next time you pick up the great story of how Adam and Eve were rough-housing the the garden of eden with dinosaurs, remember: DON'T INDOCTRINATE YOUR CHILDREN!

Peace V2.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 15th January 2010 | 06:59 AM

Hi Trent,

While I really enjoy your where your argument is leading and respect your viewpoint, I'm not sure that a logical argument can ever resonate with one such as Tyler who also uses logic to prove his point.

His notion or understanding of his God is far in excess of what is contained in any ancient hole ridden or holy book, as it is based on the assumption that God is bigger than what is contained in el biblio. This is an incorrect assumption which is clearly demonstrated in the personal and vile nature of the God of the Old Testament and the vehemnce of both Jesus and the apostle Paul such is the nature of a/the God.

My point is that while you can argue on the phylosophical nature of God, you're actually not debating God anymore but debating complete and utter conjecture, and such arguments are generally circular (as we have clearly discovered over the last 280 comments).

Peace Buddy!

jake

Trent Greguhn

Friday 15th January 2010 | 07:54 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. I agree with you completely.

That's actually what I've been trying to point out in a sort of round-about way. And since all philosphical waxing of God always ends up circular, then why waste time with such a thing? That's exactly the conclusion I came to while studying theology in college.

And that's what I've been tryin' to say Tyler. There you go.

aries

Friday 15th January 2010 | 08:36 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

if you have read any of my other articles, you would know that I am nothing like our good friend V2. You would also know that while I believe that as humans I believe we possess a soul and that spiritually and energetically we are all linked to all that is, was and ever shall be and it is this connection that I see as 'God' for lack of a better word.

I prod V2 solely with the intention of allowing him enough rope to hang him or herself as he/she clearly has done already. Jesus would weep for such a frightened soul... as do I... when I'm not laughing my ass off that is.

As far as Jesus is concerned, I have no doubt that a guy called Jesus was indeed alive a couple o thousand years ago and dared speak of such things, and had he known what a bunch of egotistical, greedy, power hungry dipshits we were he would have kept his mouth shut.

Jesus was no more or no less the son of god than me, you, v2, jake, mikey or anyone else walking this planet today, the only difference is that he was just infinitely aware of his connection to spirit and the universe and spoke openly about it.

I have never, nor will I ever read the bible. My parents believed religion was a personal choice and never influenced me either way. My god loving year 5 teacher tried drilling the lord's prayer and daily bible readings down my innocent throat, and even at age 10 I knew it was all a bunch of superstitious, pointless, mumbo jumbo claptrap and quickly asked my parents to write my school(s) a letter excusing me from any further religious studies.

Hugs all round...

Marvin the Martian

Friday 15th January 2010 | 10:25 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. Thanks... After all that arguing, I needed a hug.

CJ Werleman

Friday 15th January 2010 | 11:14 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. V2,

Regarding what I believe is a moral crime, that being the religious indoctrination of children with the principle of eternal reward-punishment at the heart of its dogma, I'd like you to answer a simple question:

Is it immoral to preach a false religion to a child i.e. Islam?

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this.

Regards
CJ

Tyler V

Friday 15th January 2010 | 01:24 PM

Jake,

Show me how my argument is viciously circular?

And again, you say God is evil. What is the basis for your moral evaluation (since you have never been able to provide one.)

And Courtenay, should all immoral things be illegal?

V2

Friday 15th January 2010 | 04:29 PM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. CJ you and Jake have made it clear that my children should be removed from me
So tell me, under this totalitarian rule, what happens to them?
Who looks after them who
Simple question that I have been asking for ages
Embarrassed of your answer

aries, I laugh at you
You think to highly of yourself, much to highly of yourself
Prod me? petrified of me. I bet you are all messaging each other calling for my banishment from this board.
Fear you? WELL HEAR I AM. Whatcha going to do about it
Hug you? Just dont wear that gay white singlet. I have no fear of you, not a drop

Muslim Children CJ? Yes it is immoral to preach lies
Mormons buddhist Catholics evolutionists and even islam or homosexuality are all false doctrines, in so much as what the New Testament describes as false doctrine
Irrelevant................ mankind has a free will that was given to him by God (shut up Jake) to use as he wishes. Its not my business. Not for me to Judge
If it starts to effect me and my family adversely, then I may have to consider my options. Apart from that. Its not my buisness, other than to warn them their soul may be at risk.
THATS IT

CJ, I have already won
I am a Christian and that burns you, doesnt it
I have won

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 15th January 2010 | 05:02 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. Hi buddy, firstly, you only get banned from RL if you violate our policy after being warned.

2ndly, I find it very interesting that my objection to the religious indoctrination of your children suddenly morphed into 'me' wanting to remove your children from you. How did you make that connection? It certainly wasn't implied, and I've done my best to clarify every time you've altered what I've said, what is your motive?

aries

Friday 15th January 2010 | 06:03 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Jake, we are dealing with an insane person.

Insanity is this person's motive, not logic or reasoning. The multitude of basic spelling errors tells us that V2 is not your most intelligent of cats.

The constant abuse and anger tells us that his or her heart is full of fear and this is why christianity is the wall of choice to hide behind.

There is no room for god in a heart so full of hate and fear and anger... none!

I have not seen one point or opinion that opposes V2's beliefs intelligently debated or countered, just the same old inane and insane ramblings post after post after post...

If you ignore it, it will go away.

I would say V2 will hang themselves given enough rope, but that horse has clearly already bolted and I'm sure it won't take long at this rate for a ban to be imposed... you know, just like we spoke about in all those messages to each other!

Living in such delusional paranoia must be a curse...

V2

Friday 15th January 2010 | 08:01 PM

Oh aries you scare me
Please remove that picture of you from your posts, as I am having nightmares.
I think its turning me Gay
Scary Ariez

Now Jake

"2ndly, I find it very interesting that my objection to the religious indoctrination of your children suddenly morphed into 'me' wanting to remove your children from you"

are you suggesting that I am making this accusation, of you wanting my children removed from me because I teach them creation, up. Or, 2ndly you never stated anything like that or thirdly/....I like this one the most personally
anybody who would say- what I accuse you of saying is a freaking Nazi- like fruit loop, bent on starting a totalitarian state for self gratification
Are you a totalitarian like Nazi Jake. Do you like self gratification Jake
has your brain fallen in to the sink again and landed in the hot water and Palmolive DWL
Come on Jake..read your own comments in this therad


Read this thread Jake, read your own ramblings again Jake.
3.16 asked the question of you first, he also asked it to CJ who made the same comment
Sidestepping or goosestepping Jake?


I keep seeing a man wearing a white singlet ,walking up and down my street. I think he has a gun or knife
I am living in fear, I am going to have to turn out my lights and shut the curtains.

OOps it was just the Milko. Silly me

Trent Greguhn

Saturday 16th January 2010 | 12:23 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. I take solace knowing that in the event of some post-apocalyptic world, and assuming V2 survived it, he would be the first one tossed out of any survivor group.

After all, the unstable ones are the first to snap.

Tyler V

Saturday 16th January 2010 | 12:56 AM

Wow, this digressed rather rapidly.

Trent Greguhn

Saturday 16th January 2010 | 03:19 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. That's because we can't take anything V2 says seriously.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Saturday 16th January 2010 | 07:22 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. Hi Buddy!

I looked up and down this post and the others that I've posted replies to you on and the only time that there is any mention of children being removed from their religious parents came from you. Repeatedly.

Does this mean that you made up me wanting children taken away from religious parents?

Yes, yes it does.