Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions October 20, 2018

Bible contradictions

You’ve probably seen lists of Bible contradictions. Here are my favorites. Play along at home and see which of these are your list, too.

My focus here is just on contradictions in the Bible. These are mostly clashes between two sets of verses in the Bible, but some are the Bible clashing with reality. (I’ve written about the Bible clashing with science here.)

There are lots of contradictions that I find fairly trivial. For example, that Ahaziah was 22 (or 42) years old when he became king (2 Kings 8:26 vs. 2 Chronicles 22:2). Or that Solomon had made a basin that was ten cubits in diameter and thirty in circumference (1 Kings 7:23). The contradictions on this list are much more fundamental attacks on the Christian message.

1. Christians sin, just like everyone else (or do they?)

Everyone knows that no human except Jesus lived a sinless life. The Bible says:

Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

This is standard Christian dogma, but things get confusing when you read the opening verse of Job, which says of Job, “This man was blameless and upright.” Even as his life was going to hell because of Satan and God’s little experiment, Job was vindicated in his belief that he had nothing to apologize for.

We see another example in Noah, who was also “blameless” (Genesis 6:9).

But the sinless net goes a lot wider than that, because (plot twist!) ordinary Christians don’t sin.

No one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him (1 John 5:18; see also 1 John 3:6, 3:9).

So which is it—are all people sinners, or are Christians the exception?

Addendum: But why worry about sin? Every one of us is already saved.

Paul draws a parallel between the man who got us into this mess (Adam, who ate the forbidden fruit and gave mankind Original Sin) and the one who got us out (Jesus, whose perfect sacrifice saved us all).

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (Romans 5:19).

We didn’t opt in to get the sin of Adam, and we needn’t opt in to get the salvation of Jesus. No belief is necessary. Paul assures us we’re good.

2. The women spread the word of the empty tomb (or did they?)

Women discovered the empty tomb of Jesus and returned to tell the others.

The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples (Matthew 28:8).

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others (Luke 24:9).

Or did they? Mark has a different ending.

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mark 16:8)

And that’s how the original version of the gospel of Mark ended.

3. All Christians are united in what they believe about Jesus (right?)

[Jesus said,] I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one. . . . I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. (John 17:20–23)

I appeal to you . . . that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

That’s a nice thought, but has any prayer failed more spectacularly? Christianity is more than just Roman Catholics and Baptists and Methodists and maybe a few more—there are now 45,000 denominations, and Christianity is fragmenting at a rate of two new denominations per day. (h/t commenter Greg G.)

4. No one can see God (or can they?)

No one has ever seen God (1 John 4:12).

No man has seen or can see [God] (1 Timothy 6:16).

But Adam and Eve saw God. So did Abraham and Moses:

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day (Genesis 18:1).

The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).

5. God’s rules keep changing

God made an “everlasting covenant” with Abraham, but then he tore that one up and made another one with Moses.

The New Testament continues the confusion. It can’t decide whether to look backwards and honor existing law or to tear it up yet again, because it says both. First, Jesus commits to existing law:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17–18)

But then the book of Hebrews weaves a legal case that argues that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek, which ought to take priority over the existing priesthood in the line of Aaron. Here it quotes an Old Testament declaration of God to justify a new covenant.

The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. (see Hebrews 8:6–13)

Jesus is a dramatic change to Judaism, and there must be some logic to justify Christians changing their worship day, dropping the sacrifices, worshiping a new guy in addition to Yahweh, and so on. That rationalizes away one problem, but the overall problem—the various substories don’t fit together in the overall plot—remains. (More: “The Bible Story Reboots. Have You Noticed?”)

Continued in part 2.

I always refer to the Bible as the world’s oldest,
longest-running, most widespread,
and least deservedly respected Rorschach Test.
You can look at it and see whatever you want.
And everybody does.
— Richard S. Russell

.

Image via Adrian Scottow, CC license
.

"Which doesn't mean she is mistaken, nor that the arguments she, and others have made, ..."

Science and Christianity: A Dangerous Mixture
"GG1: In light of Cynthia's comment, I will address "God is a person" as a ..."

Science and Christianity: A Dangerous Mixture
"As I say, any god thingy that is claimed to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent can ..."

Science and Christianity: A Dangerous Mixture
"I disagree and believe you are mistaken. We have already discussed these issues in detail. ..."

Science and Christianity: A Dangerous Mixture

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • You can see a variety of #1 in action on an almost daily basis – many Christian apologists was lyrical about how God’s saving grace enables Christians to be more moral than everyone else… just to fall back on the whole “human fallen status” trope as soon as some member of the club gets caught red handed – which happens just as often as it does with non-Christian folks.

    Which by the way is much more humiliating for God himself than it is for Christians, since their behaviour basically tells the World that his grace isn’t that effective, after all.

  • Cozmo the Magician

    to TRULY explore this topic there is a fun and interactive website. I wonder how many xtian’s heads have gone all xlpody when they see it (; Nah, who am I kidding, they WON’T see it, or just discount it as a work of satan.

    http://bibviz.com/

  • Jim Jones

    BibViz Project – Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

    http://bibviz.com/

  • According to historians Mark was also the first Gospel. So the ending was likely to explain why people hadn’t heard that before, contra what apologists tell us.

    • Greg G.

      Exactly. Apologists say the fact that it was women is supposed to show that the story is true because nobody would say it was women if it wasn’t true because it would throw doubt on the story. But if the point was to explain why nobody heard it, then blame the women.

      • Mhm, it works both ways. Also, if so many Jews saw these miracles, how come so few converted? Christianity took off with pagans in other lands. Of course, they can claim that most Jews were just “stiff-necked”, but come on. As for the women, their being present makes perfect sense for Jewish readers at the time, or those familiar with the culture, as preparing the dead was done by women. Interesting to note-in no Gospel story does any person witness Jesus rise from the dead. They only see him alive afterward. Lazarus’s rising is witnessed, plus some other people, but not Jesus. Maybe they though it was too special for unclean human eyes?

        • I’d rather ask why there’re no historical records of that happening.

        • Lark62

          And 500 zombies rose from the dead and roamed Jerusalem and no one noticed. As deity’s, Yahweh is pretty pathetic.

        • Greg G.

          The zombies “visited” people in Jerusalem. The people didn’t report it because they didn’t have any brains left.

          I think you have reconciled the 500 from 1 Corinthians 15 and where they are mentioned in the gospels.

        • Lark62

          Good catch!

        • Right, large crowds saw this yet no one wrote of it for decades.

        • I think it’s worse with those phenomena that supposedly marked Jesus’ death. Chinese astronomers, nor other cultures, did not register something like that despite happening in all the Earth (which creates problems in those places at night).

          It would not be a problem if some Fundies made fools of themselves claiming that it’s far more believable that the Big Bang theory.

        • At least the people on the day side would have noticed this, and if there was no eclipse it would indeed be inexplicable. They set themselves up for a fall here by claiming such an obviously non-existent miracle. Yet most people don’t seem to care. That deeply disturbs me.

        • Saw the Wiki and scholars coincide it was an invention, since said events were said to mark the death of important people.

          Scholars, not Fundies, who think that was real and equal knowledge with the Serpent (read: Satan, even if in Judaism such identification does not exist)

        • No one seems to try defending it much I’ve seen, probably since it clearly didn’t happen.

          Yes, attack the infidel rather than answer the argument made.

        • Pofarmer

          The star and the eclipse are both consistend with claims made of other rulers.

        • Greg G.

          But the darkness was supposed to have happened at the time of the passover which is during the full moon. A solar eclipse can only happen at the time of a new moon.

          Josephus (Jewish Wars 6.5.3) says there were lots of signs before the war that befuddled everyone. A star resembling a sword over the city, a comet that lasted a year, a great light that illuminated the altar and holy house at night for a half hour during passover, a heifer gave birth to a lamb at the same festival, one of the heavy temple doors swung open by itself, some saw chariots and soldiers in the clouds, and some sort of quake in the inner court of the temple.

          Some seemed to think those were signs the Messiah was coming while others thought it meant they would be overrun by invaders.

        • Stories like this seem to be common. In fact there are many from ancient Rome too, along with India, China etc. Doubtless all cultures have them. Yet the Christians seem uninterested in them, and claim that their religion is proven with miracles. How funny, isn’t it?

        • That reminds me of the theme in several gospels of Jesus being unrecognizable. Mary didn’t recognize him (thought he was the gardener), and the guys on the road to Emmaus walked with him for hours without recognizing him.

          What’s that all about?

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          Wasn’t that one of the elements pulled into the story from Greek literature? The hero in disguise?

          If this was based on something literal, then my guess would be that it was just some dude pretending to be Jesus, saying he had risen from the dead in an attempt to get some free food and maybe some tail from Jesus’ female followers.

        • Greg G.

          Odysseus pretended to be a beggar when he returned home. When his nanny was washing his feet she recognized his scar. Her name, Eurycleia, means “good fame” as opposed to Odysseus’ real mother whose name meant “anti-fame” (“Antecleia” or something like that). (I barely have time to type this so the names may not be precisely correct.) In Mark, when the woman anoints him with expensive nard, he states that she will be famous. Both women recognized the guy for who he was.

        • sandy

          You might not be looking at your best if you’ve been dead for 3 days?

        • Nothing that a little spackle and makeup couldn’t fix. And deodorant.

        • RichardSRussell

          Duct tape for the stuff that’s supposed to stick together, WD-40 for the rest.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Which was the women’s job, but they just didn’t get there early enough.

        • ildi

          Words to live by!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Still…ya’d like ta think yer Ma…and best buddies, would still be able to recognise ya.

          The counter to not looking one’s best after three days [actually only one and a half], is that a zombie Jesus was dandering about the Levant like something from the Walking Dead and no one seemed to notice.

          Can’t have it both ways.

        • I don’t know, maybe that he was very ordinary-looking? Which Mary was it though? His mother at least should recognize him.

        • Greg G.

          Mary Magdalene in John 20:14-15.

        • Ah, okay.

        • Ignorant Amos

          In the Gospel of Peter is there a Resurrection narrative that details Jaysus coming out of the tomb…but very few take that woo-woo seriously…even Christians can’t swallow such fuckwittery. Though John Dominic Crossan takes it seriously, just not the way Christians want.

        • The one with the talking cross, right? Funny the places where they draw the line.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s not just quite as daft when read from John Dominic Crossan’s perspective.

          The Cross Gospel, as JDC calls it, is not to be read literally.

          Central to Crossan’s methodology is the dating of texts. This is laid out more or less fully in The Historical Jesus in one of the appendices. He dates part of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas to the 50s CE, as well as the first layer of the hypothetical Q Document (in this he is heavily dependent on the work of John Kloppenborg). He also assigns a portion of the Gospel of Peter, which he calls the “Cross Gospel”, to a date preceding the synoptic gospels, the reasoning of which is laid out more fully in The Cross that Spoke: The Origin of the Passion Narratives. He believes the “Cross Gospel” was the forerunner to the passion narratives in the canonical gospels. He does not date the synoptics until the mid to late 70s CE, starting with the Gospel of Mark and ending with Luke in the 90s. As for the Gospel of John, he believes part was constructed at the beginning, and another part closer to the middle, of the 2nd century CE. Following Rudolf Bultmann, he believes there is an earlier “Signs Source” for John as well. His dating methods and conclusions are quite controversial, particularly regarding the dating of Thomas and the “Cross Gospel”. Again, the very early dating of these non-canonical sources is not accepted by the vast majority of biblical scholars.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

          Demonstrating that NT scholars really are all over the place.

          More here…

          http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jesus/johndominiccrossan.html

        • Well yes, if you don’t take all this literally it solves many problems.

      • ephemerol

        Mansplaining the Jesus myth since c.70AD…

  • ephemerol

    Christianity is what you get when you cross Mesopotamian paganism (Judaism) with classical Hellenistic “mystery” religion, and that fusion gives rise to my favorite contradiction.

    But what, you might ask, is the “mystery” in a mystery cult? In short, the “mystery” is the recipe, or roadmap, for how to get to heaven. In antiquity it was a “mystery” because it was a secret, and you had to be an initiate before you could learn what they were. Because christianity is a fusion of more than one religion, it contains the contradiction of having more than one “mystery.” One roadmap comes from Judaism, and it says that the way to get to heaven is through the works of the law, while the other comes from the Jesus cult, and it says the way to get to heaven is by obtaining the grace through faith in the cult figure. And the more you read the NT to try to sort out what it says about how to get to heaven, the more confused you’ll get. On the one hand it’s a “gift” that is “free” (but it comes with a hefty price tag), on the other, “faith” is all you need, but without works, it isn’t all you need after all, an on the third hand, it’s reserved only for those who “overcome.” Worse yet, many of these pivotal words are left largely undefined. The last word is that there is no last word: it’s still a mystery because if you try to take into account everything the NT says about how to get to heaven, rather than just taking one passage to the exclusion of those that contradict it, all you get is a confused, contradictory mess.

    Google maps will frequently give you more than one way to reach your destination, but both of those routes will be on just one map. The bible gives you two maps and the route suggested each will not work if you attempt to plot it on the other map, because the maps themselves don’t agree. Rather than being a fatal flaw, I think the contradictory nature of the christian bible in its most essential nature is actually the secret of christianity’s success: it keeps you chasing your tail so long to try to figure out what it is that it’s trying to tell you to do, that by the time you catch on to the fact that you’re being conned with an unwinnable game, you’ve either forgotten what the point of the game was and what it was you were looking for that you thought christianity would help you find, or else you’re already dead.

    • grasshopper

      One of the mysteries of life is why it is considered that Life Is A Mystery, and a Big Question, along with Why Are We Here? These sorts of attitudes beg their own questions. I would like to see some criteria that defines a Big Question other than just being amazed at your own existence .

      By the way, ephemerol, I like your google maps analogy very much 🙂

      • Great insight, thanks.

      • ephemerol

        My other analogy for this is a compass that has two needles which never agree.

    • Another benefit of the contradictions (surprising to me) is that the Bible says just about anything. That means that (by changing your selection criteria) it can be made to suit different situations and different believers. Loving or violent, that’s in there; mythical or science-y, that’s in there; demanding or quick to forgive, that’s in there.

      What sinks the entire project is the contradiction, but if the Christian doesn’t let that rise so that they can consider it, it’s not a problem.

      • Fundies are experts at overriding said problems, and of course they will cherry-pick whatever they want, choosing what best serves their interests. At the same time that consider texts to be inerrant and without faults.

      • ephemerol

        Yes, and as Michael, grasshopper, and Alec have also more-or-less pointed out as well, since the plurality of the bible text’s opinions (James 1:8 comes to mind: double-minded and unstable in all it’s ways) have made it malleable enough to be adopted within the context of many different cultures in many different lands over the last 2,000 years, as the sects that arise from that multiply, that serves as the basis for no end of crusades and inquisitions. The less sense it makes, the broader it’s appeal is and the more fodder there is for all the suckers to distract themselves with. Then you throw in on top the whole “carrot and stick” routine (heaven and hell), and it’s a fait accompli. Bible-god is arguably one of the most prolific authors of confusion that has ever (not really) existed (1 Corinthians 14:33).

    • It also provides lots of different ways for people to interpret things, and thus creates many sects.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        So religions multiply by having sects?

        • Maybe, if you consider them to be different religions at that point.

  • grasshopper

    … Solomon had made a basin that was ten cubits in diameter and thirty in circumference (1 Kings 7:23)

    I carry a tape-measure with me when I purchase crockery, and I reject any plate, saucer or cup which doesn’t measure up to “Solomon’s ratio”.
    I don’t have a lot of crockery.

    • You need to see with the eye of faith, Grasshopper.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Said Master Po to Caine….

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      “…what a *crock*…”

      😉

  • Matt Brooker (Syncretocrat)

    An interesting side to this question is how different categories of contradiction are more or less significant to atheists and believers (particularly Biblical literalists, unsurprisingly). Dan Barker tells a story of arguing Biblical contradictions with a fundamentalist in a debate, and every one of Barker’s points that struck at doctrine (as in the examples you list above) were easily deflected by sophistry, and while the defenses may have sounded ridiculously contrived to the non-believer, they went down just fine with the literalists in the audience. What really struck home was that very example you cited of the measurements of Solomon’s basin in 1 Kings 7:23, because there was no way to reconcile two clearly stated different figures. Now obviously, everybody’s different, and not every literalists will be troubled by the same things, but it goes to show there may be value in having a couple of those “trivial” examples to hand when arguing contradictions.

  • Scooter

    There may be some copyist errors that you correctly refer to as trivial such as the age of Ahaziah. Was he 22 or 42? This is easy to figure out from another Biblical text found in 2 Kings 8:17. Ahaziah’s father was 32 when he became king. His father died when he was 40 so obviously Ahaziah could not have been 42 when his father died, The scribes although meticulous made the odd error when copying, but these errors in spelling of proper names or numbers were in fact trivial, and do not change Christian beliefs.

    • Zeropoint

      Well, that’s a problem because 1) many claim that the Bible is inerrant, and yet, it has errors, and 2) if it has admitted errors in things like that, who’s to say it doesn’t have bigger, more important errors?

    • Greg G.

      Riggt, there are errors in the Bible. There are lots of things that cannot be cross checked so you have reason to doubt everything.

      • Despite that some will claim that is BS and there’ve been no errors copying it -I remember the proof they used were manuscripts of the early centuries-. But Fundies are Fundies.

        • Greg G.

          But, but, but we have Scooter’s authority telling us “but these errors in spelling of proper names or numbers were in fact trivial”.

          I pointed out in another reply in this article’s comment section that Mark 1:41 has Jesus react with compassion in most manuscripts but with anger in the older manuscripts. That cannot be trivial. They need a bigger broom and a bigger rug to sweep it under.

    • Ficino

      So God is not the Lord of mathematics? Yahweh lets mathematical errors exist in his holy text, which is to be the standard for all human knowledge and right action?

      Another quality control failure to add to the list.

    • Max Doubt

      “The scribes although meticulous made the odd error when copying…”

      So okay, there are errors in the Christian bible. Is there any objective way to differentiate between the allegedly correct statements and the incorrect?

    • But you are saying that the Bible was wrong.

      That doesn’t trouble me. That’s why I’ve focused on errors that attack more fundamental principles.

      • ildi

        It’s all moot: https://www.christianpost.com/news/most-evangelicals-believe-god-accepts-worship-of-all-religions-study-shows-227980/

        In the survey in which a representative sample of 3,000 Americans were interviewed, evangelicals were asked about their views on a series of theological statements including: “God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.”

        Some 51 percent of respondents were shown to agree with the statement, while 42 percent disagreed.

        Among other troubling theology embraced by evangelicals according to the survey, is that a majority of evangelicals believe that most people are basically good by nature and that Jesus was the first and greatest being created by God the Father — some 78 percent of evangelicals agree with this.

    • If there’re errors, the Bible cannot be inerrant as fundagelicals say. Just like when there’re two different creation tales mixed in Genesis and evidence of later tamperings, as the woman who was going to be stoned, thought to have later been added.

  • Jennny

    I live in a celtic country with strong oral traditions and it’s made me think how unreliable oral tradition is, chinese whispers are a real thing. And ask 3 people who’ve witnessed the same accident and you can get 3 very different versions. Apparently in places where oral tradition has always existed, checks are included, like a lot of repetition or rhyming, but I really can’t believe stories aren’t changed in the telling from one village to the next. And here, there are at least 2 traditions about ancient celtic monuments that are not that at all, they were invented to attract tourists when the railway first came through in the 1860s. (And some well-meaning intelligent locals still believe them to be authentic – I know cos I’ve asked them, heritage means so much to them.)

    • Christians want to pretend that no one shared the Jesus story without first memorizing the entire gospel story and passing a rigorous test.

      The Homeric epics were deliberately changed as told to better suit the audience.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      *Rashomon*

      • Ignorant Amos

        A had to Google that one…nice.

        • Greg G.

          I had to Wikipedia it. It had Toshiro Mifune in it. I knew him from Midway. That movie had a slew of stars: Charlton Heston, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, even Tom Selleck sans mustache.

          My favorite part is:

          Captain Garth: How much can you decipher?
          Commander Rochefort: Fifteen percent.
          Captain Garth: Really decipher?
          Commander Rochefort: Ten percent.
          Captain Garth: Ten percent? That’s one word in ten, Joe! You’re *guessing*!
          Commander Rochefort: [slightly hurt] We like to call it “analysis.”

          Captain Garth = Henry Fonda
          Commander Rochefort = Hal Holbrook

    • ildi

      Reminds me of this: Not long after R&H wrote the song, Theodore Bikel was leaving the theatre when he found a fan and fellow immigrant waiting at the stage door for his autograph: “I love that ‘Edelweiss’,” said the theatregoer. “Of course, I have known it a long time, but only in German.”
      https://www.steynonline.com/6683/edelweiss

      • Jennny

        That’s funny. Here, welsh language eisteddfodau, choral festivals are a big thing. DD interviewed parents bringing their children – part of her college course, and asked how old these festivals were and was surprised most thought they pretty much went back to the dawn of time, but in fact they were invented by a guy in the 19th century who claimed to have discovered old manuscripts about them. Actually he had forged these documents. DD also asked about the ancient poetry the children’s groups recited and again parents said these were traditionally celtic and very old. She pointed out that for that year’s competition, groups had to recite a poem about a local guy who played soccer for Manchester United!

        • ildi

          I thought Manchester United went back to the dawn of time…

  • Did pagans wanting to become Christians have to become Jews first.
    The answer over 2000 years ago was a resounding no.
    So the references to Jewish Cultural laws and arguments that Christians are bound to them are completely irrelevant.
    But people who want to argue will argue regardless.

    • Pope Hilarius II

      so, christians don’t follow the 10 commandments? Interesting

      • Greg G.

        Trinitarians break two of them. They have more than one god and lie about it with 3 = 1.

      • Moral law and cultural law aren’t one and the same.

        • Pope Hilarius II

          so, do they follow the 10 or not?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Is that like how fundagelicals insist there are both ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution, in defiance of the scientists who say there’s no such difference except in time duration?

      • Yeah, but how can you hate fags without the Old Testament? See things from the standpoint of Westboro Baptist church.

    • The answer over 2000 years ago was a resounding no.

      I don’t think that means what you think it means.

      It was a no from Paul. From the James contingent, the story was different. The fundamental christian disagreements we see today look like those that go all the way back to the beginning.

  • Ficino

    how about also:
    1. Paul in I Cor 15 says that the risen Jesus appeared “first” to Cephas. But in John, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.
    2. who bought the Field of Blood – Judas or the priests?

    • Greg G.

      Why was it called the Field of Blood? Was it because it was bought with blood money, per Matthew, or because Judas’ guts spilled out all over it, per Acts? Or was it called the Valley of Slaughter, per Jeremiah 19:5-6 because people were killed there? Or was it a potter’s field and ironically called the “Field of Blood” because it was red clay?

      • Ficino

        Yes, praise God!

        lol

    • Greg G.

      In Mark 1:40, a leper politely begged Jesus to heal him. Did Jesus react with compassion, per most manuscripts, or with anger, per the older manuscripts?

  • Ficino

    Two biblical assertions contradicted by records closer to the date, cited from memory (I’m too lazy to track down the references):
    1. The Tel Dan Stele says that the king of the Arameans killed both Jehoram and Ahaziah in battle, contradicting II Kings on the death of Jehoram. There is dispute about some parts of the reconstruction of the stele, but it doesn’t make the OT look accurate.
    2. Assyrian records show that Hezekiah got the Assyrians to call off their siege of Jerusalem by paying hefty tribute to Sennacherib, incl his daughters, and swore to renew his vassalship. It wasn’t that the angel of the lord slew the entire Assyrian army.

  • Ficino

    Of course, biblical contradictions don’t matter when you’ve got … wait for it … ACT – POTENCY!!

    Sorry, folks.

  • NeoBlaise

    The article should be re-titled to: Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions or Just 1 More Damned Fool?

  • Markus R

    “What I Don’t Understand in the Bible” would be a better title. There are no truths concerning God’s messsage to mankind that are contradicted in the Bible. But if you don’t believe in God, why should you be so concerned about disproving the Bible?

    • Max Doubt

      “There are no truths concerning God’s messsage to mankind that are contradicted in the Bible.”

      So there are errors in the Christian bible. Is there any objective way to differentiate between the allegedly correct statements and the incorrect? Or do we just take some Christian’s word for it? And when Christians disagree, what then? I’m sure you’d agree Christians have an awfully big mess to clean up there, and pretty obviously none of them have the wherewithal to do it. Will you take on the job?

      • Markus R

        Great question. It involves going to the enormous collection of ancient texts in existence. Unlike other classics, such as Greek and Roman texts of antiquity, we have not only a hundred times as many, we have fragments that can be traced to the first and second centuries. Think of it this way—we’ve got a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle with 105 pieces. This gives the ability to use textual criticism and determine errors and the original message. In doing so we find that 99% consist of errors of spelling and copy and other errors that do not alter the meaning in the original languages. The others are the existence of verses in a minority of manuscripts that do not appear in the majority and the oldest copies.

        • No, no fragments from the first century. There are likely fragments from the second century (counting “about 200 CE” as second century), but now our “impressively old” manuscripts are just a handful, not hundreds.

          I explore one facet of biblical reliability in this post:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/04/a-simple-thought-experiment-defeats-claim-that-bible-is-accurate/

        • Greg G.

          The others are the existence of verses in a minority of manuscripts that do not appear in the majority and the oldest copies.

          Mark 1:41 says Jesus reacted to a leper begging him to be healed. Most manuscripts said he reacted with compassion but the older manuscripts say he acted with anger.

          Scholars, as a rule, go with the harder reading, figuring that a scribe is more likely to accentuate the positive than the negative. But there is no way to know for sure.

          There are no fragments that can be traced to the first century. There was a claim about a first century manuscript but that turned into a great big embarrassment after several years.

          One of the oldest of fragments has some missing text cannot say what other manuscripts say. There must be at least one word missing. Which word? Does it say what they think it says? Few, if any, New Testament books can be reconstructed from second century fragments.

          But even if you can get back to a single manuscript, you won’t know how many copy generations away from the original it is. It has been shown that there are more changes between the manuscripts before canonization than after. That means there is no reason to think the earliest copies were reliable either.

          Stop trying to exaggerate the reliability of the New Testament. What we have shows that it is fiction based on the fictional literature of the day. The early epistles don’t even talk about a first century Jesus. They rely on the Old Testament for their information about Jesus.

        • Scholars, as a rule, go with the harder reading, figuring that a scribe is more likely to accentuate the positive than the negative. But there is no way to know for sure.

          Peter denied Jesus 3 times. Why would they put that in if it weren’t true, since it makes a patriarch look bad. That’s a tough question to answer until you consider that people who didn’t like Peter (the Pauline faction) might well have put that in.

          As you point out, the Criterion of Embarrassment can be a tricky tool to use.

        • Max Doubt

          “Great question. It involves going to the enormous collection of ancient texts in existence. Unlike other classics, such as Greek and Roman texts of antiquity, we have not only a hundred times as many,…”

          Sounds like you’re pulling a number out of your ass. Care to explain how you came up with “a hundred times as many”?

          “… we have fragments that can be traced to the first and second centuries. Think of it this way—we’ve got a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle with 105 pieces.”

          Then the puzzle is fucked up, eh?

          “This gives the ability to use textual criticism and determine errors and the original message.”

          Interestingly, nobody seems to have done that yet. Or can you give us the title of the book where that distillation is described?

          “In doing so we find that 99% consist of errors of spelling and copy and other errors that do not alter the meaning in the original languages.”

          So it’s 99%, is it? I’m sure you’ll be able to explain how you got that number. Or admit you just pulled it out of your ass. Or demonstrate your abject dishonesty by ignoring that issue.

          “The others are the existence of verses in a minority of manuscripts that do not appear in the majority and the oldest copies.”

          It looks a lot like nobody knows where we can find the results of that analysis. Or maybe nobody has done that analysis. Or you know what it really looks like? You’re just making shit up again.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          “So it’s 99%, is it? I’m sure you’ll be able to explain how you got that number.”

          It’s probably a number he heard from his pastor. And since his pastor is a true Man of God™, he’s never wrong.

        • Max Doubt

          “It’s probably a number he heard from his pastor. And since his pastor is a true Man of God™, he’s never wrong.”

          I suppose life is easier for people who just believe what their authority figures tell them. I’ll admit to an occasional twinge of envy.

        • Sophotroph

          Oh, now you’ve done it. You’ve shown him wrong with no way for him to weasel out of it.

          Now he’ll just ignore this part of the thread like it never happened and argue further up/down.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          One sentence fragments aren’t very useful.

          And if state religion didn’t have more copies of its writings around I’d be flabbergasted.

          You’re NOT helping your case with such idiocies.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …we have fragments that can be traced to the first and second centuries.

          There are no first century fragments of the NT in existence…so you are lying…ignorant…stupid….or all three.

        • Pofarmer

          Are there even any fragments from the second?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not with any confidence.

    • Lark62

      There are no truths concerning God’s messsage to mankind that are contradicted in the Bible.

      FTFY

    • That’s an interesting claim, but you need evidence. Make an argument for us.

      But if you don’t believe in God, why should you be so concerned about disproving the Bible?

      I’m just sharing information that may be interesting to Christians. Isn’t that a good thing? Shouldn’t all Christians be aware of these issues?

      If Christianity were just a hobby like knitting or a belief no more destructive than “cats are the best pets,” then I’d find something else to do. But Christianity is used as a club within American society. That’s the problem.

    • Maybe because believers are attempting to force down on non-believers their ideas. Just to begin with.

    • Joe

      There are no truths concerning God’s messsage to mankind that are contradicted in the Bible.

      That seems to be a very definitive statement considering the only way we know of one particular god’s “message to mankind” is via the bible. If indeed the bible is a message to mankind and not just a collection of texts from an already established religion.

      • Markus R

        I’m referring to internal consistency—there are no errors in the tranmissiin if the Bible that affect the truths contained therein.

        • Joe

          If there is very little internal inconsistency in the Iliad, does that make any of it true, or false for that matter?

          EDITED: Spelling

        • Markus R

          Not at all. The topic is contradictions in the Bible.

        • Joe

          Which tells us very little of anything.

        • Greg G.

          Matthew, Mark, and Luke say the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus happened on Friday. John says it was all on Thursday. That is an internal inconsistency about the most important event in Christianity.

        • Markus R

          A difference in days, not in the fact that it occurred.

        • Greg G.

          If the gospels can’t get it straight which day it was, how can you trust them to get it right?

          Mark teaches what “Bar” means when he says what “Bartimaeus” means. He has Jesus open the Gethsemane prayer with “Abba, Father” to teach that “Abba” means “Father”, so when Barabbas is introduced, the reader should understand that there are two people called “Son of the Father”. Then one is killed for sins and the other is released into the wilderness, the way one goat is killed for the sins of the people while the other is released into the wilderness in Leviticus 16:5-22. But the problem is that the ritual is for Yom Kippur, Atonement Day, which is about five months after Passover.

          John’s theology is more about Jesus being the Passover Lamb so he changes the death to Thursday, which is Preparation Day, when the Passover lambs are killed.

          So there is a lot wrong here. There are two different theologies.

          Then there is the Mocking of Jesus that follows the bit about Barabbas. Compare it to Philo’s Flaccus Book VI which is the Mocking of Carabbas. The spelling in Greek for Barabbas and Carabbas is the same after the first letter of each. The youths accost Carabbas, taking him to the gymnasium, dress him in a door mat for a cloak, make a crown of papyrus leaf, give him a scepter made of papyrus, then act like he is a king. They call out “Maris” which is what they call the “kings of the Syrians” as if he was Agrippa. Mark used all of that, making “kings of the Syrians” into “King of the Jews”.

          John even borrowed that part. So do Matthew and Luke.

          Mark invented the story from other literature but John alters it a little for theological reasons.

          So, yes, the day of the week is a small point compared to the whole story being completely contrived from other literature.

          Edited a fat finger and a tense adjustment.

        • Markus R

          It’s not your analysis of the Bible that keeps you from believing. It’s the God presented in the Bible who is holy and who will judge your sins. You aren’t lacking evidence.

        • rogero

          Typical ‘christian’. You run out of arguments and resort to infantile threats of imaginary retribution. Oooooh…scary !

        • “My big brother will fix you! Then you’ll be sorry!”

        • Greg G.

          My next-door neighbor’s kid can beat up your next-door neighbor’s kid.

        • Otto

          If the religion you follow relies on threats to spread its message it is a shitty religion.

        • Markus R

          Which proves my point—it’s the God of the Bible that people reject.

        • Greg G.

          It’s the god thingy that cannot be distinguished from any other imaginary god thingy that people reject for that reason.

        • Markus R

          Keep fighting, Greg. Why so much energy in trying to disprove something you don’t believe in? Do you spend your time arguing against the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

        • Sophotroph

          If the proponents of the Tooth Fairy were attempting to build a theocracy where various religious/ethnic/other minorities were to be considered second class citizens, we’d fight them too.

          Thankfully, we’re winning.

        • ildi

          I don’t know what country you’re in, but in the U.S. the Kavanaugh confirmation brings that into question…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Even in the US we’re wining…just not as efficiently as elsewhere…which is a great pity.

        • Greg G.

          Do you spend your time arguing against the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

          When they are adults and still believe stuff like that, I do. Are you saying you do not try to convince adults who believe that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are real that they are wrong? Or do your arguments against SC and TF strike too close to your religious beliefs?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Why so much energy in trying to disprove something you don’t believe in?”

          Because you assholes enslaved to the meme are trying to force the rest of us GOOD PEOPLE to live according to the stupid superstitions of your rules.

        • Markus R

          What makes a “good” person, Hairy?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Compassion and an understanding and acceptance of consent.

          YOUR KIND have neither, and glory in it.

        • Tommy

          It’s a good thing who lump in your believes with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. 😉

        • ildi

          Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are not abusive wankers like your god who likes blood sacrifices and makes up shitty rules about sex and ownership of other people.

          [edit fixed clause]

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          “Do you spend your time arguing against the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?”

          No, because we don’t have assholes coming to the comment sections of blogs we read telling us that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are totally for real things that we must worship or be burned forever.

        • Greg G.

          Fairyists are not known for pogroms against those who don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Never underestimate the violence associated with what was fairy belief in the past. or how Christianity commandeered such beliefs to it’s own ends.

          https://www.transceltic.com/irish/changelings-fairies-deities-and-saints-integration-of-irish-christianity-and-fairy-tale-belief

          Fairies were once gods and goddesses prior to the invasion of Christianity. Each sept…or clan…had their favourites, and were believed to help in battle.

          The oldest body of myths stemming from the Heroic Age is found only from the early medieval period of Ireland. As Christianity began to take over, the gods and goddesses were slowly eliminated as such from the culture. What has survived includes material dealing with the Tuatha Dé Danann and the Fomorians, which forms the basis for the text Cath Maige Tuired “The Battle of Mag Tuireadh”, as well as portions of the history-focused Lebor Gabála Érenn (“The Book of Invasions”). The Tuatha Dé represent the functions of human society such as kingship, crafts and war, while the Fomorians represent chaos and wild nature.

          It interferes everywhere, doesn’t it?

          The Tuath Dé eventually became the Aos Sí or “fairies” of later folklore.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatha_D%C3%A9_Danann

          The aos sí (pronounced [eːsˠ ˈʃiː]; older form aes sídhe [eːsˠ ˈʃiːə]) is the Irish term for a supernatural race in Irish mythology and Scottish mythology (where it is usually spelled Sìth, but pronounced the same), comparable to the fairies or elves.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aos_S%C3%AD

          All very convoluted am sure, but ya get the picture.

        • Because Christians are blundering through American society damaging things. Can this possibly be new to you?

        • Markus R

          Hmmm. I gave up voting in national elections 20 years ago. How am I messing up things for you, Bob?

        • That’s nice. And that’s no concern of mine, since I’m talking about Christians. Your not voting doesn’t solve the problem.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Dumb fucker.

          Because Christians, and by extension the imaginary crap the believe, means no harm? Wise ta fuck up.

          Why not learn something before coming out with silly shite.

          WHY ARE YOU ATHEISTS SO ANGRY?

          Why are atheists angry? Is it because they’re selfish, joyless, lacking in meaning, and alienated from God? Or is it because they have legitimate reasons to be angry–and are ready to do something about it? Armed with passionate outrage, absurdist humor, and calm intelligence, popular blogger Greta Christina makes a powerful case for outspoken atheist activism, and explains the empathy and justice that drive it. This accessible, personal, down-to-earth book speaks not only to atheists, but also to believers who want to understand the so-called new atheism. Why Are You Atheists So Angry? drops a bombshell on the destructive force of religious faith–and gives a voice to millions of angry atheists.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML1qkQE

        • Markus R

          Ignorant Amos, you seem to suggest that atheists don’t believe imaginary stuff. Yet I have not heard of any atheistic foundation if truth that is certain, i.e., might not be imaginary. You might be imaginary, Amos. How do you know you aren’t?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ignorant Amos, you seem to suggest that atheists don’t believe imaginary stuff.

          And you seem to be constructing a strawman. I know full well that there are atheist that belief all manner of woo-woo…I’ve engaged a number of them on various forums. They are not great in number, but yes, they exist. But that is irrelevant. What they don’t believe in is gods. So whatever fuckwittery they believe that I don’t hold to, has no bearing on their atheism. So pah!

          Yet I have not heard of any atheistic foundation if truth that is certain, i.e., might not be imaginary.

          And I doubt you will, because you are too stupid, even after all this time, to realise that atheism deals with one thing, and one thing only.

          Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

          https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

          There is only one thing all atheists have in common, can ya guess what it is yet? Anything else two atheists agree or disagree about, it has bugger all to do with what they believe about the existence of gods.

          You might be imaginary, Amos. How do you know you aren’t?

          Ah, solipsism. I might be imaginary. I don’t need to know that I am not imaginary. For the purposes of me, I’m real enough for my purpose.

          Or solipsism might just be a loada philosophical bullshit navel gazing.

          https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node43.html

          Since I’m interacting with you here…am going with solipsism is bullshit…but that is all irrelevant and your attempt at obfuscation in order to avoid the meat of my reply.

          Please try harder.

        • Markus R

          Gone as far as I can with you, Amos. You dint even know if you are real.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh I know I’m real enough…it is you that can’t tell the difference between what is real and what is imaginary in the world we understand…natural.

          But you just run on along there sonny, since the comment you are failing to address was to show the ignorance of your own position. That is, your silly beliefs are a lot more detrimental to societies than belief in fairies, or Santa Claus, yet equal on evidence for the existence of all three. Hence the reason some atheists have decided to open their gobs to online arseholes and let them know the absurdity of their particular flavour of nonsense and why.

        • Otto

          No, I first rejected it because there were too many problems to believe it is true, after all that I realized Christianity is a predatory religion. It is poison and a cancer on humanity. God is just a character in your play and has no more power than what you give him in your imagination.

        • Markus R

          Ah, so you are a noble warrior against Christianity for the good of your neighbor and mankind? I’m impressed.

        • Otto

          Hey, if my neighbor is selling poison in the guise of candy I would be wrong not to point it out.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Ah, so you are a noble warrior against Christianity for the good of your neighbor and mankind? I’m impressed.”

          Projection, thy name is ‘Markus R’.

          We just want YOUR KIND to leave us GOOD people the fuck *alone*.

        • I do not like paladins. They’re too snooty and prefer druids (as in real, celtic, druids and not those shape-shifting tree-huggers)

          What I just want is YOU (and I’m including here fanatics of other religions) leaving ALONE those who are not interested in your beliefs and to stop both threatening non-believers and attempting to use any power and/or influence to force them into everyone, liking them or not.

        • sandy

          Of course we reject the God of the bible. How do you reconcile all the monstrous and immoral things he does as I pointed out above and I could have gone on. How do you deal with this violence from your God who is suppose to be all loving?

        • Markus R

          You must be reading s different Bible then I have. God is not “all loving.” Love is one of his attributes, as are holiness and justice and wrath. The same God who suffered and died for sinners as Jesus Christ will also send those who do not repent and believe to everlasting punishment.

        • Otto

          Yeah your Mad Blood God of the desert will torture people for not thinking the right thoughts…we know…that is the poison.

        • Markus R

          Nobody will go to hell for not believing. They will justly go to hell for violating the moral laws of God.

        • Otto

          You have just contradicted yourself.

          The same God who suffered and died for sinners as Jesus Christ will also send those who do not repent and believe to everlasting punishment.

          According to you and your religion everyone violates the moral laws of God…only those that think the right thoughts will be exempt…so yeah not believing is the only difference.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Nobody will go to hell for not believing. They will justly go to hell for violating the moral laws of God.”

          Book/chapter/verse on that nonsense, then…

        • Tommy

          Nobody will go to hell for not believing.

          Correct again. Nobody will go to hell for not believing because hell doesn’t and never existed.

        • Read your Bible.

          “We maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Romans 3:28).

        • Markus R

          A wonderful truth in light of the fact that we have all sinned and fallen short. All are judged—we will either face God in our own righteousness or the righteousness of Christ. If we do not repent and trust in Christ then we will face a holy judge who will punish us for our sins, as justice demands.

          Bob, we are all in a crashing aircraft. Christ is the parachute God freely offers. You have but to accept it and put it on.

        • Fascinating. But since it’s theology, it’s bullshit until proven otherwise.

          For someone with such a high opinion of his own thoughts, you’ve got a lot to learn about what makes an effective argument.

        • Anri

          Bob, we are all in a crashing aircraft. Christ is the parachute God freely offers. You have but to accept it and put it on.

          To correct your analogy, the pilot’s deliberately flying the plane into the ground, and you have to get down on your knees and worship him to get a parachute. And kill the guy next to you if he’s gay.

          Nice guy, your pilot.

        • Markus R

          There’s the rub—it’s not whether God is real, it’s the thought that Ann is not God that strikes a blow to the heart, for if Ann is not God, she might have to face her sins and give them up.

          “He would blush if anyone saw his sin, but he doesn’t blush for the sin itself…….You are afraid if a mere man is present; aren’t you afraid, then, at the presence of God, Father and Son? But alas, you don’t want to believe, in case you would have to obey” Ambrose

        • Ouch! The “you atheists are actually believers” argument!

          You’re like a Knight Who Says “Ni!” Please stop your devastating argument.

        • Greg G.

          Bring me a shrubbery!

        • sandy

          Your God drowned the entire world, women, children, babies and animals who were innocent of any crime all because he fucked up with his own creation as written in your bible. He regretted his mistake and vowed to never do it again but failed to realize humans would always be, by nature, what he got all pissed about and wanted to drown. Some omniscient God, not. Jesus never died BTW isn’t he up in heaven? Why this threat of everlasting punishment? Why not just live a good life without all this believing bullshit? Explain how this Jesus character had to go through a crucifixion to save me, because a fictional Adam ate from the tree of knowledge because a talking snake told him to do so?

        • Tommy

          God is not “all loving.”

          You’re right again. God is not “all loving”. Non-existent beings can’t “love” at all.

        • Markus R

          What is love, Tommy? If you are the end result of random mutations and evolution then love is nothing more than chemical reactions on your brain.

        • And the Universe (maybe, there’re several other theories) either the result of a quantum fluctuation appearing in empty space or just one among many others born from cosmic inflation.

          That does not change what is love, nor what it means.

        • Tommy

          So what?

        • Greg G.

          nothing more than chemical reactions on your brain

          See what you are when the chemicals stop reacting.

        • Susan

          If you are the end result of random mutations and evolution then love is nothing more than chemical reactions on your brain.

        • ildi
        • You know the process that produces love … so therefore love doesn’t exist?

          (Is that your final answer?)

        • MR

          justice (jŭsˈtĭs)
          n. The quality of being just; fairness.
          n. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
          n. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

          Sending someone to everlasting punishment is neither fair nor equitable. Do you have a beloved friend or family member who is an atheist? Would you send them to everlasting punishment?

        • Keith

          Also, how much fun will heaven be knowing that all your atheist and Mormon friends are suffering for all eternity with no chance of redemption while you are basking in glory. Does it make you feel more special? More chosen? Or are you going to put in a good word for us while in heaven and come out with another redemption plan (3rd or 4th) since the drowning and burning animals and crucifixion didn’t pan out for the all knowing and all loving God.

        • MR

          God’s dirty little secret. While the party is happening in the mansion upstairs, the torture chamber is on down below and the archangel Michael is selling tickets so you, too, can watch your ex-loved ones be skinned alive, over and over and over again…! Just tell ‘im Jesus sent ya.

          Now that’s a party!

          Divine justice, gotta love it.

          One of the key things that demonstrated for me the absurdity of all this is that we all, Christian and non-Christian alike, express horror at what the Nazis did to the Jews, and yet that will pale in comparison to what God is going to do them.

          Common sense and empathy go right out the window, don’t they?

        • Markus R

          By whose standard, the standards of man or God? If Hitler would appear before you fur judgement, what would be a fair sentence? We have sinned against the highest authority in the cosmos.

          Even our own system of justice recognizes the severity of crimes against authority. Let’s look at an example…

          Two brothers get into an argument and one punches the other. What is an appropriate punishment?

          Ok, now one of those brothers punches his mother? Different punishment? You bet.

          Ok, now the brother goees out and punches a cop. Different punishment? You bet.

          Punches the judge? How about punches the President? Yup. Increased punishment.

          Ok. Punches the eternal, holy and good God that gave him life and sustains his every breath. There is literally and justly hell to pay.

          In the end it’s not up to us to judge God. He judges us.

        • Greg G.

          Hitler was a Christian. What punishment he deserves (IMO) and what punishment he would get under Christian theology are not within shouting distance of each other.

          Anne Frank was not a Christian. Her punishment under Christian theology is eternal damnation.

          As a judge, God sucks.

        • MR

          You claimed that one of God’s attributes is justice. Everlasting punishment for finite sins is neither fair nor equitable. So, if it’s “some other standard,” whatever that is supposed to mean, then you’re not talking about justice.

          Do you have a beloved friend or family member who is an atheist? Would you send them to everlasting punishment? Why or why not?

        • Sample1

          Even our own system of justice recognizes the severity of crimes against authority.

          Category error.

          Judges in democracies receive their power and authority through the people. Spirits, lunar deities and even minor war gods like Yahweh are typically not dependent on anything for their authority.

          Then again, I don’t know what you mean by “our system of justice.” Perhaps you are a subject in monarchical Saudi Arabia. In that case, it’s closer to god-like authority but still only an analogy and analogies don’t represent comparisons perfectly. So yeah, still in error.

          Mike

        • the standards of man or God?

          God? The same god who invented hell?

          This must be a trick question.

          Punches the eternal, holy and good God that gave him life and sustains his every breath. There is literally and justly hell to pay.

          Punches Superman: who would care?

          God is infinitely thin-skinned if he is infinitely offended by a non-injury.

        • Markus wouldn’t send them to hell, but his god would. I’m not sure how Markus lives with the fact that his god’s morals are so obviously worse than his own.

          Someone else mentioned Stockholm syndrome. Maybe that’s the explanation.

        • I hear you. Any god that would punish finite crimes with everlasting torment is a heartless bastard.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Would you accept such a personality as your ‘god’ as a good neighbor?

          If not, why does your ‘god’ get a pass?

        • sandy

          Markus R, are we talking about the same God who created evil, drowned everything on earth but one family, incinerated cities, killed the first born of everything in Egypt, wants to be called Jealous, loves the smell of burning flesh, needs you to cut the end of your dick off, hates mixed fabrics and shell fish, condones slavery and rape and….hates gays,….that God of the bible who is holy?

        • Greg G.

          When somebody wants to sell you something, do you buy no questions asked? I think it is best to investigate things first. You should take a critical look at the stuff you are pushing. Look closely at what the early epistles say about Jesus and you will find they say nothing that isn’t in the Old Testament. They don’t have any first century information.

          Paul seems to have thought Jesus lived between David’s time and Isaiah’s time. He thinks his knowledge is not inferior to the super-apostles’ knowledge so he knew they didn’t know a first century Jesus either.

          Paul loved to talk about Jesus, though. He uses “Jesus” and/or “Christ” about 300 times in less than 1500 verses but he just never talked about a preacher/teacher from Galilee. Below is everything he tells us.

          Paul about Jesus and His Sources

          Past
          Descended from David > Romans 1:3, Romans 15:12* > 2 Samuel 7:12, Isaiah 11:10*
          Declared Son of God > Romans 1:4 > Psalm 2:7
          Made of woman, > Galatians 4:4 > Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 49:1, Isaiah 49:5
          Made under the law > Galatians 4:4, Galatians 3:10-12* > Deuteronomy 27:26*, Habakkuk 2:4*, Leviticus 18:5*
          Was rich, became poor > 2 Corinthians 8:9 > Zechariah 9:9
          Was meek and gentle > 2 Corinthians 10:1 > Isaiah 53:7
          Did not please himself > Romans 15:3* > Psalm 69:9*
          Became a servant of the circumcised > Romans 15:8 > Isaiah 53:11
          For the Gentiles > Romans 15:9-12* > Psalm 18:49*, 2 Samuel 22:50*, Deuteronomy 32:43*, Psalm 117:1*, Isaiah 11:10*
          Became Wisdom of God > 1 Corinthians 1:30 > Isaiah 11:2

          Was betrayed > 1 Corinthians 11:23 > Psalm 41:9
          Took loaf of bread and wine > 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 > Psalm 41:9, Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 53:12 (“wine” = “blood of grapes” allusions in Genesis 49:11, Deuteronomy 32:14, Isaiah 49:26, Zechariah 9:15)

          Was crucified > 1 Corinthians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 3:13* > Deuteronomy 21:23*
          Died for sins > 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 2:20 > Isaiah 53:5, Isaiah 53:12
          Was buried > 1 Corinthians 15:4 > Isaiah 53:9
          Was raised > Romans 1:4, Romans 8:34, 1 Corinthians 15:4, 2 Corinthians 4:14, 2 Corinthians 13:4 > Hosea 6:2, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 41:10

          Present
          Sits next to God > Romans 8:34 > Psalm 110:1, Psalm 110:5
          Intercedes > Romans 8:34 > Isaiah 53:12

          Future
          Will come > 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54*, Philippians 3:20-21 > Isaiah 26:19-21, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:13; Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 25:8*

          (* indicates that New Testament passage contains a direct quote from the Septuagint.)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE!!

          (that is all….)

        • Tommy

          Nope.

        • epicurus

          Mormons will tell you the same thing when you raise problems with the BOM. And Muslims with the Koran.

        • Yeah? Share this evidence with us (and make it Christianity-specific, not something vague that could apply to any god).

        • Pofarmer
        • Greg G.

          I don’t think Justin Martyr was correct about the barbecue. I think that is just an analogous feature noticed a century later. I think the idea of crucifixion is from Paul in Galatians 3:6-14. I think the Jerusalem Christians denied that Jesus was crucified.

          1 Corinthians 1:23
          23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

          Galatians 6:12
          12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised — only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

          Throughout Galatians, Paul railed against the circumcision faction, which he identifies James as a leader of and Cephas kowtowing to.

        • Pofarmer

          I was more thinking along the lines that The Visualizations of the crucified lamb would have been well known to those writing The New Testament. Who knows what sorts of symbolism or ceremonies surrounded the act of hanging the lambs. It was after all a religious ceremony and sacrifice.

        • Greg G.

          I think idea of crucifixion was established by Paul and Mark. The crucifixion isn’t discussed much in the other epistles. It is more of a big deal in the gospels which came later.

        • So you put errors into the “no biggie” file so you can preserve your conclusion. I don’t think that’s an objective search for the truth.

        • Markus R

          Of course if you had any knowledge of ancient literature you would be astounded by the reliability of what exists. But that’s not the problem—you would reject the God of Bible no matter how reliable the Bible is. Am I correct?

        • Greg G.

          There are more inconsistencies in the New Testament manuscripts that we have than there are words in the New Testament.

        • Markus R

          I like Bible studies but I restrict them to only with fellow believers. Your problem with the Bible is not the inconsistancies.

        • rogero

          Your problem with bible studies therefore is confirmation bias.

        • Markus R

          Not at all. I have yet to find an atheist who has any basis upon which to make truth claims.

        • Otto

          That is because your apologetic argument is lazy.

        • Markus R

          Lazy? Maybe. I just don’t waste my time giving evidences that out a man in the position of the judge of God. The Bible makes it clear that you know if God’s existence. Indeed it’s why you strive so vigorously to disprove him, rather than repent of your sins against God.

        • Otto

          You judge God every day….and you are lazy doing so.

          >>>”The Bible makes it clear that you know if God’s existence.”

          Haha…don’t believe everything you read. Most people learned that by the time they are 10 years old. Not you though…nope.

        • Max Doubt

          “The Bible makes it clear that you know if God’s existence.”

          That’s some pretty damning evidence that your bible is not a reliable source of correct information.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          *Demonstrate* your ‘god’ before you demand any respect for it.

          Right now, it’s fiction for lack of evidence.

        • Greg G.

          The Bible makes it clear that you know if God’s existence.

          The Bible makes claims but it doesn’t provide evidence that would make the claims clear.

          The claim 2 + 2 = 5 clearly says that the sum of two and two is five but it doesn’t make that clear.

        • Markus R

          Who says 2+2 can’t equal 5?

        • Greg G.

          Who says 2+2 can’t equal 5?

          Of course it can. It just requires equivocation of the meanings of the symbols. It is true for larger values of 2 or a smaller value of 5.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Reality and experiment.

          Try them sometime…

        • But you do have a basis on which to make truth claims? Tell us more.

        • ildi

          Reminded me of this video I saw at Friendly Atheist:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgOMiyjitjA

        • Greg G.

          No, I have no problem with the inconsistencies. I find it amazing that we have still have most of the writings the NT authors used to create their fictions and fantasies.

          I think Mark is a fantastic writer. He melds Old Testament and Apocrypha into the popular and classic Greek literature.

          The Feeding of the Five Thousand mixes Elisha’s Feeding of the Hundred from 2 Kings 4:42-44 with Telemauchus’ travels in The Odyssey. When Telemauchus began to search for his father, he visited some kings who might give insight where to look. He travel on foot to one where there was a feast and he sailed to the other, and so does Jesus. One of the feast had nine ranks of 500 so Mark rounded up for one meal and down for the other.

          Mark writes in chiastic construction which creates “sandwiches”. When Jesus is on trial, Peter is outside. When Jesus is being slapped around and ordered to “Prophesy!” Peter is fulfilling his earlier prophecy.

          The Gospel of Mark is really fascinating when you read it as fiction and to recognize the literature of the day. Believing it is like believing the Three Bears.

        • Markus R

          Same problem the scribes and Pharisees has with Jesus’ parables. Not all are meant to understand.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So your ‘god’, if it exists outside of a viral meme, is an asshole who’s trying to send people to ‘hell’ for not being gullible?

        • Markus R

          Nobody gives to hell for not believing. They go to hell for breaking God’s moral laws. The 10 Commandments. How do you stack up? Ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything? Ever used God’s name in vain? Ever looked at a woman with lust? And those are just 4 of the 10.

          God has written these laws upon the human conscience. You know in your heart they are wrong. You don’t need the Bible to know that.

        • Otto

          >>>”Nobody gives to hell for not believing.”

          You are lying and you deserve hell for lying…except your believe the right thoughts so you will be ok.

        • Markus R

          Otto, one day you will stand in front of Jesus Christ. You will be judged according to your righteousness or his righteousness. If you choose to stand in your own righteousness, please know that every thought and action in your life is known to him. Every lie. Every thing you ever stole. Every time you had sex outside of marriage or even looked at a woman in lust, and every time you used God’s name in vain, etc. It is for those sins that you will be sent into eternal and everlasting punishment.

          That’s not my message—it’s the word of God. And that same word tells us that all who repent and trust in Christ will be forgiven and receive eternal life. Please consider this.

        • Otto

          Your religion is a joke, I take it no more seriously than Scientology. You are part of a cult and you spread poison and lies.

          I also find it interesting that after I show that you contradicted yourself and your religion you completely ignored it. Go sell your snake oil somewhere else Mr. Con Man.

        • Or maybe you will stand in front of Zeus, Inanna, Shiva, Allah, Mystra, Yahweh (Judaism version, not Christian one), Ereshkigal, Cthulhu, or any of the many other deities, fictional or not, who are known all over the world and you’ll be judged using their laws, not those you thought to be correct. Or it turns out you’re right, Jesus is there, but are sent to Hell instead despite all your efforts to behave according to his laws.

          Remember that you’re quite unlikely to get a claims sheet in the afterlife if things turn out to be VERY different to what you thought. Please consider that.

        • Max Doubt

          “Every lie. Every thing you ever stole. Every time you had sex outside of marriage or even looked at a woman in lust, and every time you used God’s name in vain, etc. It is for those sins that you will be sent into eternal and everlasting punishment.”

          You have a wild and hateful imagination. If you ever find yourself actually believing all that nonsense affects other people and their real lives, please get some mental health help. That’d make you one seriously dangerous motherfucker.

        • MR

          Don’t worry, Otto, none of that remotely warrants eternal damnation. A just God wouldn’t do such a thing.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re really good at the argument by assertion and attestation but really weak at supporting your arguments with evidence. Why don’t you try to convince us with facts and logic instead of trying to bullshit us.

        • one day you will stand in front of Jesus Christ.

          Yeah? Prove it.

        • Markus R

          Not for me to prove. All I can do I hope that you will consider it.

        • And you wonder why your arguments fail? It’s because you make a ludicrous claim and then expect that we’ll be convinced. What’s supposed to convince us? Just by magic?

          Ain’t working.

        • Susan

          Not for me to prove.

          Then, why are you here?

          You are talking to an awful lot of ex-christians who have heard this nonsense and eventually realized there is no reason whatsoever to believe it.

          You are either too indoctrinated to think or such an unwilling thinker that indoctrination is the most comfortable thing that could ever have happened to you..

          Whichever the case, you’re just an obnoxious troll.

          You assert things relentlessly and can’t support them.

          That should be a problem for you but it isn’t.

          It is a problem for everyone else.

          No one cares.

          Either support what you claim, or leave.

        • Markus R

          Troll? I oringinally resounded precisely in topic (contradictions in the Bible). I’ve been peppered with questions that I have answered.

          As for support, I have answered consistently from my worldview and the Bible (remember it is the topic). In responss I’be been insulted and my beliefs have been ridiculed repeatedly.

          You don’t want support for my assertions, Susan, anymore than anyone else does. You posture yourself as the judge of truth as do others here, but not one has offered a foundation for truth in their worldview other than their subjective opinion.

        • Susan

          You don’t want support for my assertions, Susan, anymore than anyone else does.

          Pretend all you like. It’s reasonable when someone makes a claim that they are willing and able to support it.

          You just make empty claims. If you can support them, do so.

          If you can’t, stop wasting everyone’s time.

        • epeeist

          Otto, one day you will stand in front of Jesus Christ. You will be judged according to your righteousness or his righteousness.

          And as I keep saying, it always comes down to the ad baculum.

        • Markus R

          Indeed, when negative or adverse outcomes are the explicit result of a decision, not mentioning them is insincere and absurd.

        • epeeist

          Indeed, when negative or adverse outcomes are the explicit result of a decision

          Whenever we get a Christian who isn’t doing too well here they almost inevitably resort to Gricean implicature, “Nice place life you got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it.” In other words, the not-so-subtle threat.

        • Markus R

          Were you walking towards a dangerous cliff unaware, would you not wish somebody to yell, “Stop!”

          Is that a threat? Or is a loving warning?

        • Greg G.

          What the shout is depends on whether the cliff is real or a figment of the imagination of the person shouting.

          We have read the same book you have and realize it is mostly fiction. We are trying to make you turn around so you can return to reality.

        • Markus R

          Greg, what is reality? How do you know that you are real?

        • MR

          Then that just makes God even more unlikely.

        • Greg G.
        • epeeist

          Is that a threat?

          No, just a bad analogy.

          A more accurate notice would say, “Step this way and I will burn you in hell forever”.

        • I forgot to add I’m not interested at all in the kind of “eternal life” you have to offer me. Do you think I’ve not readen the Bible and what would imply following the literalist view?

          Forget it. Either you’re basically brainwashed to worship God forever and ever, EVER -long after the times given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Future_of_the_Earth,_the_Solar_System_and_the_universe had passed- and are tortured for all eternity.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Not all are meant to understand.”

          If one can’t understand, one CAN’T believe.

          If one can’t believe, one will go to ‘hell’, per your just-so-story.

          Your ‘god’ apparently doesn’t want everyone to understand, per your statement.

          Per the story, your ‘god’ created everything and all the rules.

          QED Per the story, your ‘god’ sends people to ‘hell’.

        • ildi

          I guess you missed John 3:16:
          For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him (emphasis mine) shall not perish but have eternal life.

        • Bro, do you even read the Bible?

          Moses smashed the tablets and went to get another set. Read Exodus 34 for the actual Ten Commandments.

        • Markus R

          That is correct. And Moses read from those new tablets in Deuteronomy 5. The 10 Commandments. How are you stacking up by those, Bob. I fail miserably and I need a savior.

        • Did you change the subject deliberately, hoping I wouldn’t notice, or was that just word salad that did so inadvertently?

          Read Exodus 34. The chapter even calls it the “Ten Commandments.”

          Let’s get the correct commandments listed before we evaluate how much of an asshole you are. Don’t worry–we’ll have time for that.

        • Yeah, in Gnosticism. You don’t think that, in the blending of all these ideas, we’ve got some residual Gnosticism in Christianity?

        • The biblical inconsistencies alone sink the Christian claims for me. Am I missing something?

        • Nope.

          But tell me more about this enormous gap in my knowledge of ancient literature. You’re saying that the written record we have of the NT is unprecedented? Yeah, I know. Unimportant–it still sucks.

          But since you’re so knowledgeable, let’s see if you can tell us why.

        • Markus R

          Easy—it tells you (1) there is a God, (2) he’s perfectly good and will not tolerate evil, (3) man is evil and wicked and will give an account for his sins. That’s the bad news. But it doesn’t stop there, thankfully.

        • Greg G.

          (2) he’s perfectly good

          At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/10/top-20-most-damning-bible-contradictions/#comment-4156446386 , you said:

          God is not “all loving.” Love is one of his attributes

          If your god thingy is perfectly good and love is one of his attributes, then love must be good. To be “perfectly good”, the god thingy would have to be perfectly loving. If the god thingy fails at loving, then it is not perfectly good.

        • Markus R

          Just the opposite. A perfectly good God does not let evil go unpunished. But you know that.

        • Greg G.

          There is nothing more evil than torturing someone for long periods of time, except for doing it to billions of people. Therefore, your concept of God is evil which cannot be described as perfectly good.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re still assuming the consequent.

          DEMONSTRATE it.

        • ildi

          Since your perfectly good God created evil, he’s actually a bit of a shitheel, and not all that perfect – I prefer the Greek pantheon, at least they aren’t into gaslighting.

        • Sample1

          I don’t believe in any gods but I do believe in people. So here we are.

          I am trying to think of a scenario where I would condone creating a place where my spaniel would yelp, catch fire, and tremble forever the next time he jumps into the front seat of my car. Maybe a permanent noxious odor like ammonia to torment his olfactory sense while you’re at it.

          Can you help me? It sounds like you might.

          Mike
          Edit done.

        • Markus R

          God doesn’t punish innocent creatures. We have violated his very character and nature. And that is a very serious act.

        • Greg G.

          According to the story, God made us. Should the potter punish the pot for how it is made?

        • Markus R

          Does the potter not have the right to make some pots for noble purposes and others for ignoble?

        • Greg G.

          A potter can do what he wants with a pot but it is irrational for the potter to blame the pot and to punish it for how it is made. Your rhetorical question does not address the question I asked.

        • Then don’t blame the imperfect pots for being imperfect!

          Why is this hard?

        • MR

          Nicely put, Greg.

          This is one of the things that makes absolutely no sense. None of us asked to be created. God supposedly is omniscient, which means that he created us knowing that he was creating the vast majority of mankind for eternal torment. He dragged people into eternal existence, judges them for a blink of an eye moment in time only to condemn them to eternal torment. Ri-ight.

          Markus throws around attributes of God like love, justice, perfectly good and yet these things are the exact opposite. What kind of upside down world is it where fairness = excess, equity = inequality, where justice = injustice? Eternal torment for finite “sins” is in no way fair and equitable, no matter how you slice it.

          The story simply makes no sense. The emperor has no clothes. I mean, at least come up with something believable, right?

        • Michael Neville

          Apparently we “violated his very character and nature” by merely existing Considering we were made in the image of God that is pretty damning, but not of us. Your god is a sadistic, vindictive asshole if he even thinks about punishing us for eternity.

        • Markus R

          It doesn’t matter what the criminal thinks about the judge. It only matters that the judge is real and has absolute authority. God is real and he has spoken.

        • Greg G.

          It doesn’t matter what the criminal thinks about the judge.

          Aren’t you trying to defend Christianity? That is the only thing that matters, isn’t it? It is all about how gullible the defendant is about the judge.

        • Markus R

          God doesn’t need any one to defend him. My hope is that I might cause one reader to see the light. Hell is hot and eternity is long. I have no desire for you to spend eternity there, Greg.

        • Greg G.

          God doesn’t need any one to defend him.

          Only someone to imagine him. I didn’t say anything about you defending that.

          Aren’t you trying to defend Christianity? You tried use an analogy that just doesn’t work with a religion that is supposed to rely on faith and gullibility.

          Hell is hot and eternity is long.

          You are half right there, eternity is long. Hell is imaginary but it makes a find cuss word.

        • mfm420

          circular logic, idle threats, pascual’s wager, and gawdidit!!!

          wow, the 4 horsemen of stupid fundie ranting, congrats

        • firebubbles310

          The why is their punishments for blasphemy? If he doesn’t need anyone to defend him, why doesn’t he tell his followers to punish someone who says something against him. Kind of thin skinned.

        • I have no desire for you to spend eternity there, Greg.

          You’re like Dorothy with her ruby slippers–you’ve had the solution in your control all along. In this case, just stop believing nonsense, and hell (which you admit is barbaric because you say you don’t want Greg to go there!) will vanish.

          Wouldn’t it be nice of real problems in the world (lack of water or food, for example) could be dismissed so easily?

        • ildi
        • Ignorant Amos

          My hope is that I might cause one reader to see the light.

          What part of the concept that most of us here once believed in all that woo-woo crap you are preaching, until we didn’t. We all realised that the light you preach was very dim indeed, in comparison. It is you that needs to see the light…we’ve all been in that dark hole you are currently in at the moment…none of us are in any hurry back, so if your purpose here is bullshit proselytizing, give it up already, you just don’t know enough to have any effect.

        • Markus R

          Ignorant, could you be wrong about that? You said you indeed believed but now you don’t, which implies that you were wrong before? How do you know you aren’t wrong now? What is your source of absolute truth?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ignorant, could you be wrong about that?

          Of course. And I look forward to the day that one of you lot comes along and can demonstrate I’m wrong, with a convincing argument complete with support. Could you be wrong?

          You said you indeed believed but now you don’t, which implies that you were wrong before?

          Oh I was definitely wrong before, but that’s because I was ignorant on the subject matter and had been indoctrinated as a child with a pile of lies. Of course I was also wrong about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus for the same reason. Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? If not, why not?

          How do you know you aren’t wrong now?

          Simple. Evidence…and the lack thereof.

          How do you know you’re not wrong now? There are a lot more god’s than your pet version…even within Christianity. How do you know you are not wrong? What method do you use to verify yuou are not wrong?

          What is your source of absolute truth?

          First define what you mean by “absolute truth”? Then tell me what your source of this thing you define as “absolute truth”?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “…which implies that you were wrong before?”

          Yep…and he’s able to accept that he was wrong at some point.

          THAT is what *learning* is all about.

          You and YOUR KIND refuse to learn and change with the evidence…which means you’re more likely wrong than a person who can accept evidence and reassess in light of it.

        • By the same token El, Asherah, Baal, and other deities of the Semitic pantheon, who can be recognized in the Bible, are real too.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that your imaginary god is real? I should warn you that I’ve be discussing the existence of gods (remember there’s more gods than the sadistic bully you prefer) for over 50 years. I’m familiar with the usual arguments for gods and why they fail.

        • Markus R

          I don’t need to prove the obvious. It is impossible to even reason without God.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t need to prove the obvious.

          He asked for evidence not proof. It’s not obvious without evidence.

          It is impossible to even reason without God.

          Prove it without going circular.

        • Michael Neville

          How does an imaginary, fictitious, non-existent critter have anything to do with reality? You have to show your mythical, make-believe, hypothetical god exists before you can claim any attributes for it. You making fanciful, un-evidenced claims about your god doesn’t mean shit. Show me that your god exists.

          EDIT: I didn’t ask you to “prove” anything, I asked you for evidence.

        • Yeah? Prove it.

          No, that ridiculous claim is not obvious.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s an assertion and assuming the consequent.

          Do better.

        • MR

          Judges don’t have absolute authority. They are expected to rule justly, fairly, equitably. Condemning someone who punches the president in the nose to torture for the rest of their life would not be considered just, fair or equitable. A ruler might have absolute authority, but one who would do such things is not considered good, loving or just. They are considered a tyrant. Infinite punishment for finite sins is not the action of a good, loving and just God; it is the action of a tyrant. The story makes no sense. The pieces of the story have to make sense if you want people to believe it.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          When the ‘judge’ is ALSO the ‘creator’…then the only blame to be cast is ON the ‘judge/creator’, not on what was produced.

          According to YOUR KIND’s story, anyway.

        • Max Doubt

          “God is real and he has spoken.”

          Your god is absolutely powerless outside your own imagination. Out here in the real world, in any comparison between your god and me – other than doing that impersonation of something that doesn’t exist at all – I reign supreme!

        • MR

          I mean, if a mere human can “violate” anything regarding God, that makes him look awfully weak and silly. Is God so sensitive? So petty? The story doesn’t make any sense. He’s gotta give me something more believable than that!

        • Michael Neville

          The Christian god is an insecure narcissist. According to the propaganda he needs to be continually told how great he is and otherwise have his ego stroked or else he pouts and goes into smiting mode.

        • ildi

          Sounds like 45… no wonder evangelicals love him so!

        • Jay Has

          But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

          Matthew 5:28

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Non sequitur.

          Do you actually have a point with that comment?

        • Jay Has

          The sarcasm must not have been evident. I was poking fun at the Bible’s thought-crime agenda.

        • Greg G.

          I got it. I should patent my sarcasm meter.

        • Michael Neville

          Am I supposed to be impressed with accusations of thought crimes? Try again, this time using logic and evidence instead of anti-humanist propaganda.

        • Jay Has

          The sarcasm must not have been evident. I was poking fun at the Bible’s thoughtcrime agenda.

        • Michael Neville

          No, the sarcasm was not evident. Just a plain Biblical quote without other commentary is a common response Christians use when faced with evidence that their god is an asshole.

        • Jay Has

          I figured my other comments were a dead give away on where I stood.

        • Sample1

          Blood sacrifice is an obsolete technology. I’ve no use for God or gods so of course I don’t believe any divine character or nature has been violated. Remember phone books and VCRs? Obsolete too! where I’m from.

          You make a distinction between punishing and harming. I know this because natural catastrophes (the ones that insurance policies call acts of god) harm countless creatures. But I don’t want to talk about that with you.

          You’ve essentially answered my suspicions. Hurting my spaniel forever, hearing him cry and panic, for jumping into the front seat isn’t something you’d do.

          Thanks responding. I’m satisfied.

          Mike

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Explain away feline leukemia, then.

        • Max Doubt

          “We have violated his very character and nature.”

          I haven’t. I don’t sin. I’m a far better person than that.

        • Keith

          Why can’t God just forgive us? Like us humans do all the time. Why the sacrifice needed? Why the blood shed? And oh what a sacrifice if you get to come back to life in less than 48 hours. Markus, if you wrong me I will just forgive you, I won’t give you my son to beat up and torture to make things right.

        • Markus R

          That’s a fair question, Keith. Why don’t all human judges forgive every accused person that comes before them? Just forgive them all? Would that be justice?

        • Greg G.

          People have limited resources and limited life spans but they can get over issues and forgive a lot better than your god thingy in many cases.

        • Markus R

          So what would you do with Hitler? Forgive him?

        • Greg G.

          Hitler is dead. Hitler was a Christian when he lived. What would Jesus do?

          The God of the Bible story drowned the world? Hitler’s atrocities are comparatively minor. Would you forgive him?

          The God of the Bible could heal every case of bone cancer in babies but doesn’t. Would you forgive him?

        • Making him and others like Stalin pay for the countless deaths and suffering from the POV of each victim and preventing them of going insane. Once ended, if they beg pardon pardoning them in return.

          An eternity of torment is excessive even for that.

        • Susan

          what would you do with Hitler? Forgive him?

          What would you do with Anne Frank? Burn her for eternity?

          You’re threatening us and Anne Frank with the same fate as Hitler

          And you call that justice.

          (Also… you asked what to do with Hitler. Here’s what I would have done if I had the power. I would have stopped him. Punishing him after the fact does nothing for the victims. Stopping him would have.)

          =====

          Edit 3 minutes later:

          I wouldn’t torture Hitler for eternity.

          Torturing beings for eternity is infinitely more evil than anything Hitler was capable of.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Executing Hitler for his atrocities against humanity would’ve been eternal punishment enough without that recurring bullshit in imaginary Hell that fuckwit holy rollers get a boner for when thinking about it.

        • Any atheist would invent a hell far more just than what your asshole of a god created. That atheists are more moral and just than your god should make you rethink this dude you’re worshiping.

          You know, you can just stop, right? It’s not like you’re in prison. Ex-Christians are happier now that they don’t have to keep apologizing for their god.

        • Markus R

          I don’t have to apologize fir God, Bob. I was an atheist once. Been there and got the T-Shirt. I don’t put much stock in happiness. It comes and goes with circumstances. Since you have read the Bible you surely realize that Christ doesn’t promise temporal happiness. Indeed, Christians can expect to suffer in this life. What God does promise is peace with God and eternal life.

        • I don’t have to apologize fir God, Bob.

          Then you’ve missed job #1 and don’t even realize it. The OT makes clear that God is an asshole. You must clear away that obstacle first.

          I was an atheist once.

          Not like me.

          Since you have read the Bible you surely realize that Christ doesn’t promise temporal happiness. Indeed, Christians can expect to suffer in this life.

          Talking to you is like shooting fish in a barrel. Don’t you realize that your Bible says just about everything?

          “No harm overtakes the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble” (Proverbs 12:21).

          “If you make the Most High your dwelling—even the LORD, who is my refuge—then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.” (Psalm 91:5–10)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If you’re not apologizing for the asshole bully this ‘god’ you natter on is, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN BOOK, then you’ve got bigger problems than a lack of evidence to convince others.

        • Markus R

          Hairy, you seem to have no problem making s moral judgement about God. Where do you get moral truth from?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I get my morality from societies that have *survived* and adapted, evolving to better match the environment.

          Societies with bad ethics die, and societies with medium-bad ethics evolve to enable greater percentages of their members to reach each person’s highest potential for performance and happiness. Any less is abhorrent to any person with compassion & an understanding of informed and enthusiastic consent.

          No supernatural twaddle-waffle necessary, nor desirable.

        • I get mine from my moral programming. Thanks, evolution.

          How about you?

        • Otto

          No, Justice would be telling the perpetrator that the judge’s son was tortured and killed in his place, and then if the perpetrator believed that story the Judge would give him a mansion and all the money he could spend to live out his days. /s

        • Markus R

          Jesus Christ willingly gave himself as a sacrifice. He is God, just as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. In the cross of Christ we see how serious are sines are to a holy God, his love and mercy, and his justice. Amazing.

        • Otto

          So rather than addressing the point I was obviously making you just spit out your religious creed like a doll with a pull string. Amazing.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          Chatty Cathylic?

        • Greg G.

          Jesus could have just as easily given himself as a sacrifice without requiring belief in him. What a failure! Why would a god thingy put requirements on forgiveness that only gullible people would accept?

        • Let’s see: God creates a couple as perfect as naive and puts them in a garden that has in the middle of it a tree whose only protection is Him telling them not to eat, even by logic in an eternity they’d sooner or later eat from it.

          He also lets the Serpent infiltrate into the Garden and the punishment for eating the damned fruit falls into Adam and Eve when God has a lot of responsability for the mess.

          Fast forward. God has to sacrifice his son to fix a mess caused by Him and that could have been resolved by other means. And this without considering omni*** and the issues brought by the Trinity.

        • Markus R

          Not a bad summary of some of the details, Alec. But it’s off as to the theme. God does all this to glorify himself through the redemption of a fallen creation.

          Yup, in the end we are lowly creatures of rebellion who deserve to be squashed like bugs, but God displays his goodness by suffering himself for those that he chose in the very beginning to save.

          He’s God. We are fragile, fallen creatures that live 80 years or so. The average human in history has had a miserable existence. And if that aren’t bad enough we delight in harming or using each other.

          He’s God. The bad news is that he is good. Very good. So good that he will not tolerate evil.

          We know of God. All of us. Even if we deny it his laws are written into our conscience. We knowingly break those laws. So we are responsible.

          Our prominent sin is to reject the God that is and create one in our own image. We are so arrogant as to think that a mortal being has a right to determine right from wrong (remember that tree we weren’t supposed to eat from?).

        • ildi

          God does all this to glorify himself through the redemption of a fallen creation.

          What an egotistic creep

        • Greg G.

          God does all this to glorify himself through the redemption of a fallen creation.

          If God is so powerful, why can’t he forgive without doing all that?

          Is he trying to impress some goddess who doesn’t know he exists?

        • firebubbles310

          Might be trying to get his wife back. Lol

        • Pofarmer

          His theology is so appealing.

        • Joe

          We are so arrogant as to think that a mortal being has a right to determine right from wrong

          Who better to make that decision?

          He’s God. The bad news is that he is good. Very good. So good that he will not tolerate evil.

          Not tolerate? He seems to tolerate it pretty well, even if he dislikes it.

        • “God is good,” you tell us, even though the OT is full of barbarism that Hitler could only dream of.

          You’re so far in that you can’t see how you’re apologizing for your abuser. It’s battered-wife syndrome.

        • Pofarmer

          If God is so powerful, we wouldn’t be fallen. He could have just created is in perfect heaven.

        • Markus R

          Why would that be so? It’s not reasonable to think that the mind of the eternal and almighty God is the same as ours.

        • Greg G.

          If you are going to use words like “good” to describe your god, then it would have to fit the definition of our word “good”. A being that is very powerful yet blames its creation for the outcome can be described by “dickhead”.

          But “good” is an obsequious lie.

        • Markus R

          Greg, from what source of truth do you derive a definition of “good”? Are you your own moral authority?

        • Greg G.

          I told you more than once that I cannot solve the solipsism problem and neither can you. I can only react to the reality that is presented to me and work out what hurts and what feels good in that perceived reality. Things I and the people presented to me in this reality don’t like are bad. Things we like are good. Those are descriptive words in the language I know that is used in this perceived reality.

          Any concept of an entity that will torture any sentient being for eternity cannot be described as “good”. That is pathologically sadistic. A person who helps old ladies cross the street but tortures children to death in his basement for fun is not a good person despite outward appearances.

        • Markus R

          So your understanding of reality is limited to your senses. Yet senses are not reliable.

          You seem to have no difficulty assessing what is good and evil. But based upon what source of truth? In your worldview we are just a cosmic accident.

          So if I understand what you are saying, your feelings determine your morality? What if I feel differently? Who is right and who is wrong?

        • Greg G.

          So your understanding of reality is limited to your senses. Yet senses are not reliable.

          My senses and others senses which can apparently be enhanced by technology. Senses honed by evolution would be reliable enough. If they were totally unreliable, they would not have been beneficial and would be selected against as a waste of energy.

          So if I understand what you are saying, your feelings determine your morality?

          My feelings and my intellect from what I have learned determine my morality.

          What if I feel differently? Who is right and who is wrong?

          I am right according to my morality and you are right according to your morality. If it is something that we both feel is worth fighting over, we would have to fight. If not, we respect one another and move on. There is no absolute or objective morality.

          If there was an objective morality, you could just show how you got the knowledge. If you say you got it by pretending you know what an imaginary thingy says is objective morality, you will be laughed at.

          Picking things out of your imagination about things you cannot perceive by your senses is far less reliable than understanding things through your senses.

        • MR

          If our senses are such a poor predictor of reality I propose a test. We’ll put a blindfold and earmuffs on you. We stand at the edge of a busy highway and on the count of three we each do our best to cross the road. I can use my powers of observation and can walk down to the corner and hit crosswalk button which may or may not be imaginary and wait for the possibly imaginary lights to change and stop the potentially imaginary cars before I head across. And you can use your prayers and trust in a potentially real God to guide you safely to the other side. Ready? 3…, 2…, 1….

        • Jay Has

          Do not put the Lord, God to the test…..lol

        • MR

          And we all know why, don’t we. 😀

        • Jay Has

          Yes, it is quite painfully obvious!

        • MR

          That’s the way real life works, isn’t it? We talk about God guiding our lives and protecting us and what not (speaking as an ex-Christian), but we live our lives as if he doesn’t. We take the necessary precautions, we hedge our bets, we go to the doctor when we’re sick…, oh, we might ask for prayers at church, too, but for results we go to the doctor. We’re quick to call any windfall a gift from God, or maybe a miracle! even when the same thing happens to non-Christian people all the time. We carefully craft an illusion of God the surrounds us and comforts us, but when it comes right down to it, we know.

        • Jay Has

          I totally hear ya, but oh, there are some crazy ones who don’t give their kids vaccines or starve them, or try exorcisms. THOSE are the ones I truly worry about!

        • ildi

          Continuing with the WfO theme…
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivRKfwmgrHY

        • MR

          So if I understand what you are saying, your feelings determine your morality? What if I feel differently? Who is right and who is wrong?

          That’s pretty much how the world works last I checked. People often disagree on what is right or wrong. Even self-proclaimed Christians all claiming the same source have differing opinions on right and wrong. We decide who is wrong or right through things like social influence, debate, rules and laws. Not everyone always agrees. That’s the way the world has always been.

        • Greg G.

          We decide who is wrong or right through things like social influence, debate, rules and laws. Not everyone always agrees. That’s the way the world has always been.

          And fight, too… sometimes.

        • Asking questions so no one sees that the glaring question remains yours to answer? Yeah, you totally pulled off that rhetorical trick.

          I’m kidding, of course. Your undefended claim of objective morality is sitting there like a stinky turd. You going to take care of it?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Yet senses are not reliable.”

          Upon what do you base this statement?
          – Your ‘bible’, which you claim to be inerrant?
          – Science, which, in determining that sense data may be unreliable, also notes that there is NO evidence of this ‘god’ you assert, to date? (Note: scientific observations also indicate it’s vanishingly unlikely that this ‘god’ of yours exists, statistically)

          You’re not allowed to just pick the one that’s convenient.

        • Keith

          Markus and Greg, If God can’t correct himself (e.g. Exodus 21 where it’s ok to own a human), then that means either there is no good god or no god at all. Don’t forget Jesus endorses owning slaves when he says “Slaves obey your Masters” instead he could have said “Masters free all your slaves, immediately” If he did so, there wouldn’t have been our Civil War.

        • Markus R

          -You appear to lack an understanding of the economies and social structure of the ancient world

          – there were many forms of slavery and serventhood included in the ancient biblical words for slave/Servant

          -The Bible never permits man stealing as occurred in the chattel slavery of the US. Man stealing was punishable by death.

        • Greg G.

          You do not understand biblical slavery.

          The Bible makes a clear distinction between slave bought with money, indentured servants, and hired hands.

          Genesis 17:12-13 (NRSV)
          12 Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. 13 Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

          Exodus 12:44-45 (NRSV)
          44 but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised; 45 no bound or hired servant may eat of it.

          Israelite indentured servants were not to be treated harshly but those bought with money could be.

          Leviticus 25:44-46
          44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

          But an indentured servant could be tricked into becoming a permanent slave using family values.

          Exodus 21:2-6
          2 When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,” 6 then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

          Slaves could be beaten. There are provisions against knocking a tooth or an eye out so it wasn’t smart to beat them in the head. But if you beat them to death and they suffer for a day before dying, and the next day began at sunset, it was just the master’s loss.

          Exodus 21:20-21
          20 When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

          A Roman pagan writer who thinks of slaves as friends who should be treated well.

          “‘They are slaves,’ people declare. NO, rather they are men.
          ‘Slaves! NO, comrades.
          ‘Slaves! NO, they are unpretentious friends.
          ‘Slaves! NO, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike. That is why I smile at those who think it degrading for a man to dine with his slave.

          But why should they think it degrading? It is only purse-proud etiquette… All night long they must stand about hungry and dumb… They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies… This is the kernel of my advice: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters.

          ‘He is a slave.’ His soul, however, may be that of a free man.”
              — Seneca the Younger (4 BC – 65 AD), Epistulae Morales, 47.

          Jesus doesn’t think slaves should even be thanked for their service.

          7 “Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’? 8 Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink’? 9 Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’” –Jesus, Luke 17:7-10

        • Otto

          The Bible permits owning people as property…nuff said.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ffs…not this lying fuckwittery…AGAIN.

          The bible has YawehJesus ordering the enslavement of people…including virgins as sex slaves, raped.

        • Aren’t you and your childish comments adorable? No, American slavery and biblical slavery were pretty much identical.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/04/yes-biblical-slavery-was-the-same-as-american-slavery-2/

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          from RationalWiki’s article on slavery in the bible:

          Hebrews were not allowed to abduct fellow Hebrews and sell them.

          Exodus 21:16 (NASB): 16He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

          Given that the Hebrews were instructed in Leviticus 25:44 to obtain their slaves from the people around them, it is evident that this injunction to not abduct people referred to Hebrews and not non-Hebrews. Obtaining and selling non-Hebrews was evidently not a problem. Deuteronomy 24:7 specifies that only the abduction of Hebrews to enslave them is a crime.

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible#Non-Hebrew_slaves

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Markus R, it’s like jazz.

          “If you have to *ask*, you’ll NEVER understand…”

        • Jay Has

          You can’t on one hand say that God’s “mind” is different from ours and incomprehensible, then on the other hand assign attributes to him (such as goodness) and pretend you can even begin to describe “his” omniscience. It’s oxymoronic.

        • Markus R

          Jay, thank you for making my point to Pofarmer.

        • Jay Has

          Ha, I rather made Pofarmer’s point to you, for it is religions who attempt to conceptualize “God” which theoretically would be impossible, if such a being or concept exists in the first place. It’s one thing to attempt to “prove” God (which can’t be done), it’s quite another, much broader leap to then proclaim that “he” revealed himself to a few peasants in ancient Israel, some 200,000 years into the existence of the species as we know it. And with that revelation, became stories and writings, ultimately culminating into a flawed contradictory-filled book, claiming authority over the masses and promising the defectors an eternity of flame-filled existence? Sorry, but some of us completed 2nd grade and on the way learned that the fraudulent, gift-giving St. Nicholas was really just Mom and Dad.

        • Pofarmer

          If something is eternal and almighty, it could create whatever it wanted. There’s simply no reason to create this Earth to test us when he just could have created us perfect in Heaven from the start. The whole thing is stupid.

        • Markus R

          You assuming God is limited to man’s reasoning. Man is fallen and sinful. The last thing we want is to be held acciuntabke for our sins. God is holy and perfect in all his ways. As such, he glorified himself. God has chosen to glorify himself by the redemption of fallen man.

          It’s not about us. It’s about God. Yeah, that smarts a bit. Go outside tonight and gaze at the billions of stars and consider what is man. Yet we dare to stand and shake our fist in God’s face and judge him by our flawed standards.

        • Pofarmer

          Oh fuckin’ get over yourself already. You’re the one who is “limiting” God. Your god is supposed to be all powerful, and all perfect, and all loving. So, why would that god need to be glorified? He’s perfect remember? So, saying that he needs to be glorified simply implies he’s not perfect after all. It’s all just a contradictory mess. Yes, I go out and stare at the stars quite regularly. It’s amazing. My human brain can barely comprehend it all. We’re a speck, on a small blue dot in a Universe that may or may not be infinite but who’s immensity is nearly impossible for us to comprehend. So what? Get a grip.

        • Markus R

          Hang in there, Pofarmer for you are getting warmer. The Bible says that God spoke this universe into existence. Think of that for a moment—God is a being that powerful and amazing. Indeed, reality consists only of God and his creation.

          Before creation existed, only God existed. Outside of time. It’s hard to even wrap our minds around that. He is fully and completely satisfied in himself. He needs nothing else, including our worship.

          For a moment, consider beauty—absolute and perfect beauty. Or any other transcendental quality such as goodness or virtue. Such things are praiseworthy. That is, they are in and if themselves worthy of praise. God is that.

          Now here is what should truly blow our minds—Hid was pleased to create man in his own likeness—having a portion of his qualities. That makes mankind if incredible worth and we should rightly praise him.

        • Susan

          The Bible says that God spoke this universe into existence.

          We know what it says. It’s a story written by humans. It’s not real.

          Stop proselytizing. If you can’t support your claims, go away.

        • Ignorant Amos

          More bullshit lies.

        • So you’re throwing in the towel on making actual argument? Looks like you’ve moved on to evidence-free sermonizing.

          It’s all mental masturbation without evidence, Chester.

        • And you’re so clueless that cannot fathom that what you say (no time means he can’t perceive time flowing. Fail) means that it, not to mention an entity able to create something as arcane and ununderstarable as quantum mechanics plus whatever is hiding behind them (quantum gravity theories) plus an Universe as big as this one, maybe even infinite, would be an entity far beyond our understanding and that would certainly not behave as the typical deity or three thousand years ago, nor would take its sight on an insignificant people of cattle herders inhabiting a small part of an small planet… blah, blah. Of course his book instead of being a work that would transmit our insignificance and at least scraps of that knowledge has all the signs of being an human creation of a time when very little was known of the Universe, with all that entails.

          As with so many religious people with seemingly little or not scientific knowledge, you cannot grasp the real significance of all the atributes you give to him.

          You really need to try much harder.

        • Greg G.

          For a moment, consider beauty—absolute and perfect beauty.

          Where is absolute beauty? I can admire a sunset for its beauty. Knowing how the refractions, reflections, and shadows work makes it all the more interesting. But if I was going to credit an omnipotent being with it, I would be disappointed by the grandest sunset. Is that the best omnipotence can manage? Just think what God could do if he had enough money that he didn’t need beggars behind pulpits.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Been done already…what’s your point?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jli3ruqWYlc

        • Greg G.

          You assuming God is limited to man’s reasoning.

          No, he isn’t. He is assuming that God is at least as good as man’s reasoning.

          Man is fallen and sinful.

          That would be the creator’s fault.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOU are making assertions without bothering to ground them in evidence.

          Why should I believe anything you present?

        • Ignorant Amos

          And you are assuming God…not just any God, but a specific God…one that you are trying to support with nonsense no one here thinks is rational. You are preaching a loada unsupported ballix. Give it up already, we are laughing at you at this point.

        • More theology–I love it!

          It’s all very convincing. I’m ready to sign up.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Per YOUR story, your ‘god’ did just that: created ‘perfect’ beings in ‘heaven’…and some STILL rebelled.

          And if we rebel, being made in ‘god’s image, per you, doesn’t that make your ‘god’ a rebel?

        • Not a bad summary of some of the details, Alec. But it’s off as to the
          theme. God does all this to glorify himself through the redemption of a
          fallen creation instead of asking himself what’s wrong and having attempted to fix it, since like all those Bronze Age gods is one who just wants worship

          Yup, in the end we are lowly creatures of rebellion who deserve to be
          squashed like bugs, but God displays his goodness by suffering himself
          for those that he chose in the very beginning to save instead of looking for better ways to resolve the mess he created in the first time

          He’s God an entity who if was able to create something as arcane as quantum mechanics and what lies beyond, not to mention an Universe that could even be infinite, would be something far beyond our comprehension and would not waste time with insignificant entities like us, much less as a Bronze Age deity. We are fragile, fallen creatures that live 80 years or so. The
          average human in history has had a miserable existence until scientific advancements has improved it. And if that
          aren’t bad enough we delight in harming or using each other.

          He’s God. The bad news is that he is good a sadistic Bronze Age deity. Very good sadistic Bronze Age deity. So good sadistic that he will not tolerate evil and will punish His creations for all eternity and destroy the world ignoring what he said at first instead of fixing what He caused.

          We know of God. All of us Why billions of people in the past millennia, even before the world was created according to YECs, have then lived and died worshipping countless other deities and/or following different philosophies is anyone’s guess then. Even if we deny it his laws are written into
          our conscience. We knowingly break those laws. So we are responsible But God being the sociopath who is cannot improve His PR, nor fix the way He works.

          Our prominent sin is to reject the God that is and create one in our own
          image like the Judeo-Christian God, who we think that is. We are so arrogant as to think that a mortal being has a right
          to determine right from wrong (remember that tree we weren’t supposed to
          eat from?), also to think Bronze Age thinking can be applied to modern societies in the name of a deity whose existence is quite questionable.

          FTFY. Maybe if you stopped parroting the same BS and empty threats again and again and thought why some of us became skeptic you’d understand better.

          Or better, ask Him to bring an update, better, book and not that compendium of Bronze Age leyends and historied badly plagiarized from Judaism, where the original sin does not exist, and that does not make sense from your view

        • Ernest Crunkleton

          ” Even if we deny it his laws are written into our conscience.”

          Can you demonstrate this?

          Seems like you are projecting your beliefs onto everyone else.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re still assuming the consequent.

          Without evidence this ‘god’ of yours exists as anything other than a harmful meme, you’re taking a story as true without proper skepticism.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’re lying.

        • Pofarmer

          Oh his god he’s stupid. At this point he’s just martyrbating

        • Joe

          No, he’s a person in a story. We don’t know how much, if any of it, is true.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “That one thing that happened one time…”

          NOT!

          Uncool story, brah….

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          Yup. God is certainly serious about sines.

          https://media.giphy.com/media/fzRG2T0jDujcI/giphy.gif

        • With a sacrifice that pathetic, the sins he was covering can’t have been all that bad.

          The guy dies and pops back to life in a day and a half? Big deal. You can have either a miracle (resurrection) or a sacrifice (being dead). Christian hilariously think that they can have both.

          Nope. You’ve gotta pick.

          (EDITED – typo)

        • Markus R

          Bob, you don’t want salvation because you believe you are a good person. Yet your conscience tells you otherwise. For that reason you have to suppress the truth (Romans 1).

          Well I’ve given you the truth. Have a good night.

        • I wonder–are you really so stupid that you think that “Cuz my religion sez so, that’s why!” is an argument or just so gullible that you think that your delusion would work for someone else?

          I don’t believe things for emotional reasons. You’ve got to actually give me an argument. Quoting a holy book that I think is bullshit is not an argument.

        • Markus R

          Bob, if I could prove to your satisfaction that the God of the Bible existed, would you worship him?

          No, I don’t think you would. You’ve wasted no pejorative in attacking The God of the Bible. You hate him because you love your sin. It’s not about evidence.

        • Yup, it’s about evidence. If you proved to my satisfaction that God exists, I’d believe, and I’d be following the evidence.

          Why would I worship that shithead? You’ve read the OT, haven’t you? If you did all that, you’d be immoral. God is no different.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Based on the character of your supposed ‘god’, as described in your book, NO, I wouldn’t worship any such bully.

          I’d devote my everything to defeating it, as it’s terrible and destructive.

        • What salvation? I’m tired of asking for evidence, because I know all you have is dogma.

        • Jay Has

          Bob, you’ve been given “Truth” what need do you have for evidence? 😉 /sarc

        • I’ll also pray Mielikki, Goddess of the forest, for you then.

        • Michael Neville

          If someone thinks they’re a good person then they think they’re a good person because their conscience tells them they’re a good person. You’re not very good at logic.

        • Markus R

          Maybe we can turn to Ambrose for help:
          “He would blush if anyone saw his sin, but he doesn’t blush for the sin itself…….You are afraid if a mere man is present; aren’t you afraid, then, at the presence of God, Father and Son? But alas, you don’t want to believe, in case you would have to obey”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Who is this ‘Ambrose’, and why should I trust his credibility?

        • Michael Neville

          Maybe you should turn to Ambrose Bierce for help:

          Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge of things without parallel. —The Devil’s Dictionary (1913)

          But alas, you don’t want to believe, in case you would have to obey

          Ambrose (I assume you’re talking about Aurelius Ambrosius (c. 340 – 397), Bishop of Milan and one of the original “Doctors of the Church”) was making a classic Christian mistake. He assumed, on no evidence, that people want or don’t want to believe. Atheists don’t believe in gods (remember there’s more than the sadistic thug you like) because of wants and desires but rather because of evidence. Because of the complete and utter lack of evidence for the existence of any gods, we don’t believe in them. Obeying or disobeying a figment of the imagination has nothing to do with why we don’t believe.

        • Greg G.

          But alas, you don’t want to believe

          I want to believe in Santa Claus but I can’t because of the lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary.

          I do not want to believe that I will die but I still believe it because of evidence and reason.

          The strength of my belief in things is pretty much parallel to the strength of the evidence presented to me, not my desire to believe or disbelieve.

        • MR

          For those of you who are struggling with your faith, take note of this tactic. You know what you are going through and how difficult your struggle is. You know that this is a lie. This is the kind of tactic they will resort to in order to keep you in the fold. They’d rather accuse you of not wanting to believe instead of admitting that they have no evidence to back up their beliefs.

          Sure, it’s easy to demonize the atheist, but you know that your struggle is real. All of us have known people who have struggled with losing their faith and we know that what they went through is real. Can you see what religion does to your brain? Is this how God works? Blame you for your doubt? Would he pull this kind of vile victim shaming?

          Take note, take note. This is what religion does to people.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Well, people *are* mostly good, or society wouldn’t work.

          My conscience pricks me when I do something wrong, and also commends me when I go the extra mile for somebody….that’s called CBT (Cognitive Behavior Therapy)

        • Pofarmer

          How stupid is this? Here’s a hint. It’s really stupid. You think God created himself to make himself a sacrifice to himself for the sins he created. C’mon man, it’s utter nonsense

        • Keith

          I would easily to the same thing for less, like say saving World hunger or preventing all childhood cancer. Especially if I knew it would just be a bad weekend and a bunch of pain to go thru. Especially knowing that I get to live in my fathers kingdom with the keys at hand. No biggie. Your god and jesus aren’t amazing at all.

        • Why don’t all human judges give punishment proportionate to the crime??

          Oh, wait a minute–they do. I guess that makes God look like an asshole. Sorry.

        • Keith

          Hey Markus, That’s not the issue is it? The judges you refer to weren’t offended or wronged personally. God is different, he demands obedience and is jealous and offended if he doesn’t get it, right? So, as GOD judging he sentences all to eternal damnation for ANY sin. That’s a terrible earthly judge, humans judges are much better. If I only commit one sin, like lying, but I am perfect otherwise, then I get the same eternal sentence as a mass murderer or adulterer or thief. How is that justice? I’m sure there have been many humans with only one sin like lying but otherwise blameless. Again if you sleep with my wife, I can just forgive you and that’s it. I’m not giving you my son to abuse or beat up and crucify to make up for your sin against me. btw, I was a former Christian, and yes, I really believed for 37 years. In fact was a virgin at marriage because I was so committed to Jesus, etc. I went to Promise Keepers, I was an elder at church. I’ve read the bible many times, but then one day I started asking questions like you are. You have doubts too, otherwise you wouldn’t be trolling an atheist site.

        • Why can’t God just forgive us?

          He does!

          I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more (Jer. 31:33–4).

          I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more (Isaiah 43:25).

        • Michael Neville

          But according to the propaganda, your god is merciful. Therefore evil does go unpunished. Besides supposedly Jesus spent an unpleasant afternoon hanging around the cross so we wouldn’t get punished.

        • Greg G.

          Christian theology is a Get of Hell Free card for any evil. Christian evil goes unpunished. Did you not know that?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It makes *assertions*.

          I’m still waiting on EVIDENCE.

          Show it or stop wasting our time.

        • Wait–I thought it was me who was ignorant. I’m rethinking that hypothesis.

        • Markus R

          The only thing I hope you will rethink is your eternal destiny, Bob. Hell is a horrible place.

        • Cute! You think that there’s only one afterlife possibility.

          What if we’re both on the wrong side of Buddhism and wind up in their hell? Or Islam? Or others? Pascal’s Wager cuts both ways, I’m afraid.

        • Markus R

          Pascal’s wager is a foolish way to deal with something like heaven or hell. It denies that truth can be known. If a person thinks “I could be wrong” then he can know nothing at all. Upon what basis do you judge truth, Bob?

        • Greg G.

          There is nothing wrong with admitting uncertainty. You can’t solve the solipsism problem either. Being certain of something with no good evidence is evidence of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

          The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
          —Bertrand Russell

          ETA another letter to “blocquote”.

        • Markus R

          Greg, how to you determine if evidence is correct?

        • Michael Neville

          I don’t know about Greg but I think something is correct based on logic and past experience. For instance it only took me once to learn that flame is quite hot and will cause pain. Knowing that, I worked out that other quite hot things will cause pain.

        • Greg G.

          I haven’t got around the problem of solipsism so anything I see could be a part of the Matrix or just an input to a brain in a vat that I think is me. But is “correct” the right word? It is a matter of whether my interpretation of the evidence is correct, which is probably what you meant. Some tests I use are to determine if it is objective, do others see it as I do. If the evidence is described by others, are they reliable, what might they have to lose by not being truthful. If there are no others involved, is it a physical thing or just a mental thing, am I getting a complete sensory input, are my senses impaired? I started out without knowing anything about evidence but I learned to work out things about temperature, pressure, sounds, vision, smells, tastes. I have learned how things interact from empirical observation enhanced by the study of others who describe how things interact and why.

          Now the question is “How do you determine whether things you can only imagine are real?”

        • Michael Neville

          If a person thinks “I could be wrong” then he can know nothing at all.

          Admitting “I could be wrong” is honest. Claiming that you couldn’t be wrong is not only intellectually dishonest but it’s arrogant, vain and supercilious. I know I could be wrong, I know I’ve often been wrong, and I have nothing but contempt for anyone with the hubris to claim they couldn’t be wrong.

        • Markus R

          Nobody knows all things but God. That is. He is the only trustworthy basis if absolute truth. What is your own basis for absolute truth?

        • Michael Neville

          You’re missing a very important step in your argument. First you have to show that your god exists before you can assign attributes to it.

          The only people arrogant enough to claim absolute truth exists are the religious and a few politicians. I have no basis for absolute truth because I’m not pretentious enough to think it exists. I’m certainly not egotistical enough to think I have absolute truth.

        • Markus R

          Are you absolutely sure that there are no absolutes, Michael?

        • Greg G.

          He answered your question in the last sentence.

        • Michael Neville

          Reread my post, that’ll answer your silly (and yes, I mean SILLY) question.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Markus R, have you NOTHING better than irrelevant attempts to derail?

        • Markus R

          I’m being quite relevant. If one does not acknowledge the existence of absolute truth, he has no truth at all and it is useless to discuss anything further with him. Wouldn’t you agree?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “If one does not acknowledge the existence of absolute truth”

          I don’t believe in anything that hasn’t been demonstrated, or at least is a statistically probable analogue of something that’s been demonstrated.

          With that in mind, demonstrate this ‘absolute truth’ you’re so fervent about.

        • Otto

          OK, for arguments sake I will acknowledge the existence of absolute truth. Now show how the truth you are asserting concerning God, specifically the Christian God, has anything to do with absolute truth. Show. Your. Work.

        • The man who has no defense for his claim of objective moral truth is now arguing absolute truth? Are you going to defend that, or do we just have to trust you that it exists?

        • Greg G.

          Nobody knows all things but God. That is. He is the only trustworthy basis if absolute truth.

          You don’t have access to that. All you have is what you imagine it to be. If you do, then tell me the six numbers that will be drawn in the MegaMillions lottery on October 23, 2018. If the combination gets all six numbers and that you provide them with sufficient time for me to purchase the ticket, I will donate a million dollars divided by however many winning tickets there are to the charity of your choice, If not, you owe me two dollars. I would be impressed if you could give me one combination that I played for the October 16, 2018 drawing.

          What is your own basis for absolute truth?

          I think that I think, therefore I am. It doesn’t mean I am a corporeal being. I could be a subroutine in the Matrix or a dream of Vishnu. Everything else is probabilistic. You can’t get around that either. If you think you can get around it, you don’t understand the problem.

        • Max Doubt

          “Nobody knows all things but God.”

          Yet here I am, a mere mortal, and in any contest outside your imagination I’d easily kick your god’s ass. Shall we start with a simple trivia competition, or can you maybe get your god to show up for a boxing match?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/018d9075880fa729e0a61595800a6b259c3a2af784920b918da65f10a38caecc.png

        • Greg G.

          I would like to see a charcoal lighting contest between you and Marcus’ god thingy. Marcus must do what Elijah did against the priests of Baal and you get to use the benefits of science. The winner gets a steak cooked to order and the loser must eat Steak Tartare.

        • ildi

          That sounds like a win-win!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          *Infected* steak tartare.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nonsense, without evidence.

          Provide some.

          I DON’T BELIEVE YOU.

        • There’s absolute truth? Absolute moral truth?

          That’s fascinating. Demonstrate this.

        • Uh, yeah. I’m honest enough to admit that I could be wrong. How about you? Does that not apply?

          I agree that Pascal’s Wager is foolish, that’s why I’m surprised you alluded to it (with the stick of “Hell is a horrible place”). What you should wonder about is why your loving god invented it. Doesn’t that sound a little too Bronze Age to be from a god who’s actually good?

          I look at evidence and do my imperfect best to find the truth. Why? Is there any other way?

        • Otto

          >>>”Is there any other way?”

          Sure, be a presuppositionalist like Markus and just declare that your views are inherently correct with no need to justify them further. It is a lot less work and mess that way.

        • I think I prefer the old-fashioned way, with evidence.

        • Otto

          But that’s not the path of least resistance.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          &ltInsert Smith-Barney advertisement joke here&gt

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re taking a purposely obtuse and extreme view of the position.

          Also known as ‘strawmanning’.

          Realize that that’s a logical fallacy.

        • Tommy

          Hell is a horrible place.

          How was it? Give us a link to your review on Yelp.

        • Greg G.

          We have been told that the soul is what has free will and that free will requires the possibility of sin, then there must be free will in heaven and the possibility of sin. We have been told that angels have been cast out of heaven because of sin, so that is confirmed.

          If humans are evil and sin everyday, then getting to heaven will be a short-term experience. If hell is on a first-come, first-served basis then the first ones there will be able to find the slightly cooler places while Christians who start in heaven will end up in hell to claim the hotter regions.

          Just a minor variation in temperature will result in significantly more suffering over trillion year periods.

        • ildi
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s impolite to sadistically lick your chops while threatening people who you want to force to grovel before you.

          Hadn’t you heard?

        • Sample1

          That there are cultists by the zillions who explicitly condone torture in their waking minds (making war crimes look like playground bullying) is disturbing. But perhaps even more disturbing/perplexing/peculiar is how society largely ignores that theological psychopathy.

          Hard to imagine such thoughts don’t affect the soul, and by soul I mean the poetic natural soul, not some medieval disembodied substance.

          Now that I think about it, a memory surfaced. A Jewish woman I once knew told me her Baptist grandfather, whom she adored, was told by yet another cultist (can’t remember what sect) that her grandfather was going to Hell. It was her way to politely inform me, a practicing Catholic then, not to bring up religion with her. To think of all the time and energy wasted on these phantoms. It may or may not affect cultist minds, that hell-lust, but it does affect others.

          Is there a name for a sometimes-well-meaning-sometimes-not-so-well-meaning jackass?

          Mike

        • As you say. I’ll pray Eldath, Goddess of peace, springs, and waterfalls for you.

          Still thinking those threats can work and do not make God someone worthy of being hated?

        • Michael Neville

          Threats are not a good way to get someone to change their mind. Try evidence instead.

        • Greg G.

          I think he has shown all the visible evidence he has. The rest is in the damaged portion of his brain.

        • Joe

          How do you know?

        • ildi

          Shitty God can’t be perfect if he sucks so bad at his creations-Stockholm syndrome much?

        • Ernest Crunkleton

          “he’s perfectly good and will not tolerate evil,”

          Except for the part where he kills Job’s family on a dare, or killing the earth off via flood, or allowing David to remain king after he murdered a man to sleep with his wife.

          hmm….

        • eric

          (2) he’s perfectly good and will not tolerate evil, (3) man is evil

          Lol do you even see the contradiction? God doesn’t tolerate evil. Man is evil. God tolerates man. One of those statements must not be true.

        • Markus R

          Hi, Eric. God created man good but gave him the ability to obey or not obey him, with the warning that disobedience would result in spiritual death. Man chose, freely, to disobey, becoming evil. This is why we suffer now in a fallen world. Physical illness, physical death and all the suffering we experience are the consequence. And we will be judged when we die. The story is not over. I’m old so it won’t be long before I meet God face to face, but anyone of us could die tomorrow. But we can’t avoid the day that we must face him. God will write the last chapter.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So your supposed ‘god’ is a fuckup that blames its tools and creations, rather than maturely taking responsibility for its mistakes.

          Gotcha.

        • Greg G.

          Sure, according to the story, man chose completely freely, not even encumbered with the knowledge of good and evil so he couldn’t know that not obeying was wrong.

          That story is a fairy tale.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’re lying again.

        • Or maybe you’ll find Ereshkigal (she must be really angry after so many centuries with nobody worshipping her), Hades/Pluto, Kelemvor, or any of the many other deities of death and the afterlife -basing an eternity on what is written on a book could be VERY dangerous-. Or God simply throws you to Hell with no possibilities of defending your case -I doubt you’ll be able to get a claims sheet in the afterlife-.

          Be careful what you wish for. You may get it but not in the way you wanted.

        • Grimlock

          Man chose, freely, to disobey, becoming evil.

          I don’t remember making such a choice. Does that mean that someone made that choice for me? If so, I fail to see why I should bear any moral responsibility for that choice.

        • Markus R

          Shall the creature tell his Creator what is fair? Will God be limited to Western thoughts of individuality? God says that when Adam rebelled, we rebelled. And we prove it to be true when we show our complete inability to keep his moral laws.

          The potter is free to create his pots as he desires.

        • Grimlock

          Yeah… No. It’s blatantly obvious that this idea of inherited moral responsibility is abhorrent.

        • Markus R

          I’m a Christian and I don’t like it either, by nature. The truth is that we have no choice over many things. We have no choice as to when or where we are born, our sex or the color of our skin, whether we are born to good parents or bad, and whether we are born into wealth or poverty.

        • Susan

          I’m a Christian and I don’t like it either.

          What don’t you like about it?

        • Markus R

          While I accept the truths of the Bible, and have been born again by the Spirit if God, I still live in a fallen body with a fallen mind. I still am prone to hate God and my neighbor. Honestly, knowing how holy God is and how sinful I am is uncomfortable. I would, in my human nature, prefer that God just fix everything and eliminate sin and suffering. But I know that he is God and his will is different than mine. I know that my mind and heart prefer idols and not the true God.

        • Susan

          I still live in a fallen body with a fallen mind

          I’m not sure there’s any point in continuing a conversation here. You are not allowed to ask questions. Any doubt you feel is automatically blamed on a sinful nature, which to this ex-christian, is an imaginary concept.

          You are unable to support your claims. You just regurgitate horrifying cult thinking.

          Your natural sense of moral and intellectual thinking are bound and gagged by that little clause.

          If you feel even an inkling that this belief system is morally inadequate (possibly horrendous) or that it doesn’t make sense, it is attributed to your sinful nature.

          That is genuine cult thinking. There are many christians who don’t go that far.

          It’s stuff people wrote in a book. Stories that people tell. One morphing god among countless morphing gods invented by humans.

          You won’t even consider that because you think the devil and my nature are why I would say that.

          It’s tragic that you believe these things. And impossible to converse about your basis for those beliefs. All you want to do is preach.

          You are talking to many ex-christians here. We don’t need the preaching. We know the story. It’s not convincing and it’s horrendous.

          If all you’re going to do is repeat the story, make the same claims without supporting them, then you should probably just stop.

          Why do you believe what you believe?

        • Markus R

          Susan, I am not bereft of a mind. My faith is not blind but is accompanied by intellectual assent. While I believe that there it is evidence that exhorts and encourages me, I do not believe it is why I have faith because the Bible makes it clear that my faith is a gift of God.

          Because I believe that the Bible is foundational truth, my worldview has been shaped by it. I once thought that evidence was sufficient for conversion and it shaped my apologetics. As my understanding of scripture has grown, I have come to understand the true source of my faith as God.

          God is not physical but spiritual. He is transcendent. That is, his truths transcend the material world.

          You ask why I believe. As a former atheist I can attest that it was not the discovery of evidence that caused my conversion. If you are seeking a “why” as an experiential account I can certainly share that with you but it is merely my subjective account.

          I can tell you, for example, that I became disatisfied with my prior conclusions about God derived by my studies in science. I could tell you that I became increasingly convicted of transcendental truths such as goodness, virtue, justice, integrity and beauty. But these were merely my subjective and personal experience that accompanied my salvation. I could tell you that I became aware that the material world could no longer offer me any sound basis for truth.

          Experientially there was a time in which I was able to read the Bible with a new understanding that had formerly not been there. I now understand by the revelation of scripture that I was being reborn by the Holy Spirit.

          I am convinced by those same scriptures that i could no more facilitate my own conversion than I could change the courses of the planets in the solar system. I was dead, spiritually, but God gave me life.

          I’m more than glad to discuss the depths of the Bible, scientific and archeological evidences with fellow Christians but I have found it if no use with unbelievers. Until they repent and trust in Christ, my presentation will simply be rejected. Further I will have done wrong to my Lord by making a mortal his judge.

          Since you have left your former beliefs, what is your current source of truth?

        • epeeist

          Since you have left your former beliefs, what is your current source of truth?

          This was done long ago by Aristotle, though it has gone updates since then:

          To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.

          If you want a pithier version, a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts.

        • Markus R

          “…a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts.”

          Ok, so reality corresponds to facts. So truth is that which corresponds to reality. I can live with that definition.

          How do you know what is real?

        • epeeist

          How do you know what is real?

          It didn’t take you long to go nuclear did it?

          The problem is that if I do not know what is really then, ceteris paribus, neither do you. In which case your claims to knowledge about, for example “biblical foundation truth” are no better than my claim about, say, Big Bang cosmology.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Excellent link…thanks.

        • epeeist

          It is one of the essay’s in his book, Believing Bullshit. A definite recommend.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Got it….£7.42 on Kindle…cheers.

        • Markus R

          Could you be wrong as to the facts? That is, are you certain of your conclusions as to truth?

        • Greg G.

          There is the problem of solipsism. Any one of us could be the brain in a vat or a dream of Vishnu. We can only interact with the reality presented to us. But you go way past that into wishful thinking.

          How do you know that you are not in the Matrix and the Bible and everything you see as correspondence is just part of the program?

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          “Once, Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering about, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn’t know that he was Zhuang Zhou.

          Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn’t know if he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that he was Zhuang Zhou. Between Zhuang Zhou and the butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things.” (wikipedia)

          “Morpheus: Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?” (youtube: /watch?v=r_O3k-RpV2c)

          morpheus is not only the name of a character in the matrix films but also also the name of the greek god of dreams.

        • Greg G.

          Excellent illustration.

        • Michael Neville

          As you’ve been told before, there is no such thing as absolute truth. We, and we includes you, accept ideas as true based on evidence and logic. Sometimes we discover the evidence or the logic are faulty, so we adjust our truth to accommodate the new evidence or logic. We can only approach truth, never achieve it. If you knew anything of epistemology you’d know this.

        • epeeist

          Could you be wrong as to the facts?

          Why personalise this? Being right or wrong about the facts of the matter doesn’t just apply to me, it applies to each every one of us.

          That is, are you certain of your conclusions as to truth?

          As I have implied before, certainty isn’t something we have access to. So, could we be mistaken about matters of fact? Of course we could, look at the things that were considered to be fact, for example the miasma theory of diseases. However, it comes down to justification and evidential backing. One has to ask how much backing there was for this and other facts that are now regarded as wrong (Aristotle’s geocentricism as another example).

          Take something more modern, the fact that biosphere was formed through common descent with modification. Could this be wrong, of course it could. However given the massive amount of evidential backing from many different lines of inquiry then this is unlikely to be overturned.

        • Are you comments deliberately ironic?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Afflicted a tell ya…

        • Otto

          >>>”I still live in a fallen body with a fallen mind.”

          Then there is no reason to trust you.

        • Sample1

          I seldom leave the other forum so don’t feel like you have to respond as you’ve got plenty on your plate with others here. Just wanted to make a quick observation.

          The truth is that we have no choice over many things. We have no choice as to when or where we are born, our sex, or the color of our skin, whether we are born to good parents or bad, and whether we are born into wealth or poverty.

          Agreed. But if you notice, all of the above scenarios have natural explanations. And if someone doesn’t have a particular explanation for whatever reason, we can reasonably say that a natural one exists. It’s also true nobody picks the religious culture they are born into. It’s why we see religions largely based on geography.

          There is zero need to appeal to the supernatural for meaning unlike inherited so-called sin. As such, your reply is a category error. Just so you know, in case you don’t, this means you have to go back to the drawing board and come up with something different.

          Mike
          Edit done.

        • Grimlock

          I agree that there are many things about our circumstances that are the result of external factors.

          I’ll follow up on other stuff in another comment. Want to try to avoid having our discussion diverge into too many different discussions.

        • Grimlock

          Actually, here’s a simpler response: Can you think of a single case where we would consider it to be fair that moral responsibility was inherited in the same way as the alleged original sin?

        • Markus R

          The underlying question is, “Does God have the right to create us as he desires?” I understand your implied objection and my human self agrees that to us it seems unfair. Is it “fair” that I was born with no choice over the circumstances of my birth? We have to recognize that we are mere creatures and God is God.

        • Otto

          That is a cop out answer to the question. Under your belief either God made us to make moral decisions and judgments or he didn’t. Morally we know it is wrong to punish someone for the behavior of someone else.
          So you can argue that…
          1) It is actually morally acceptable to punish someone for the crimes of someone else…good luck with that one
          2) Or that God can act under a different set of morality … but then that would make morality subjective…and we can’t have that can we.

        • Does God follow moral rules? Can you state these rules and be certain that God won’t ever violate them? I’d like to know what rules they are, because they don’t seem to be the ones that guide humans.

        • Joe

          Shall the creature tell his Creator what is fair?

          Why not?

          God says that when Adam rebelled, we rebelled.

          Then he was wrong there. Demonstrably so.

          And we prove it to be true when we show our complete inability to keep his moral laws.

          Some of us, anyway. For some laws.

        • Markus R

          How shall we judge God as wrong? What source of moral truth shall we turn to to make this judgement? Since he is God, he is the source of all truth. And we have evidence by the laws he has written upon our conscience. We inherently know that the Ten Commandments are true—we know that murder, theft, lies, and sexual immorality are wrong, for example.

          We know on our hearts these things yet our fallen nature means that we are prone to hate God and hate our neighbor. When we strive to prove that God does not exist or we try to rationalize our sins we give evidence of our fallen nature. We strive to create a God we prefer rather than admit we are rebels who deserve to be judged and punished.

          But God is not only just. He is also merciful and good…so good that he provided a way to be redeemed. Nobody will be saved against their own will. Nobody will receive forgiveness and eternal life against their will. Nobody will be in hell who would rather repent and trust in God.

        • Joe

          How shall we judge God as wrong? What source of moral truth shall we turn to to make this judgement? Since he is God, he is the source of all truth

          Let’s use god’s own laws then. What could be better.

          We inherently know that the Ten Commandments are true—we know that murder, theft, lies, and sexual immorality are wrong, for example.

          We knew that before they were written.

          But God is not only just. He is also merciful and good.

          No worries then. See you in heaven. I’m buying the beer.

        • Ignorant Amos

          But God is not only just. He is also merciful and good.

          Except in the yarn when he’s not, which means that according to the bullshite nonsense…

          No worries then. See you in heaven. I’m buying the beer.

          Ya have, ya won’t, and ya can’t.

        • Susan

          How shall we judge God as wrong?

          How do you judge God just, merciful and good?

          Either you can judge it or not.

        • Markus R

          You make a fair point, Susan. We know he is who he is by the truth he has revealed. He tells us. And the cross of Jesus Christ displays it.

        • Susan

          We know he is by the truth he has revealed.

          Do you have anything less circular?

          All I see are human claims that don’t add up.

          You saying “It’s true because it’s true because it’s true.” is what any cult member will say.

          What is different about your claims and the claims of other cults?

        • Markus R

          Circular reasoning is, to an extent, unavoidable. This is true in your worldview, as well. What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth?

        • Susan

          Circular reasoning is, to an extent, unavoidable.

          It’s all you have. A exists because A exists and not believing A exists can only be the work of a diabolical agent (predicted by A) working against A. .

          What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth?

          I never claimed to have a source for those. Because I never claimed those. Don’t start on the “then there is no grounding for anything whatsoever” nonsense. It’s nonsense.

          If you claim to have absolute truth, you can’t use the claim to support itself. Also, you can’t pretend that without absolute truth, no one can make any sort of claim.

          Or you wouldn’t drive through a green light ever. Or order food at a restaurant. Or buy food at a supermarket. Or forage for food, if you don’t trust those sources.

          You keep claiming those and then use circular reasoning for those claims.

          I’ll ask again

          What is the difference between your claims and the claims of other cults?

          This is a very important question.

        • Markus R

          It would make no sense to discuss things further with someone who does not even believe in absolute truth. Just an exercise of speculation. But I’ve enjoyed the interaction, Susan. Have a good night!

        • Susan

          It would make no sense to discuss things further with someone who does not even believe in absolute truth.

          You could could convince me if you could define it and support it. What are you insisting that I believe in?

          But I’ve enjoyed the interaction.

          It wasn’t an interaction. It was an excuse for you to repeat a lot of apparently imaginary stuff that we’ve all heard a thousand times before, without taking any responsibility for your claims.

          Have a good night too.

        • Ignorant Amos

          This is you dishonestly body swerving the hard questions…par for the course with you lot.

        • You can show that objective moral truth exists? Show us.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • MR

          I was thinking about the silly absolute truth thing the other day. I’m standing here on ground that is spinning approximately 800 miles per hour around the earth’s axis, while orbiting the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, which is spinning around a galaxy at I don’t know what speed, which is being flung across a universe that is expanding as we speak…, and yet I have no problem navigating my little world. I don’t need an absolute point of reference to live my life.

        • Susan

          I don’t need an absolute point of reference to live my life.

          No one does. Not only does no one need one, no one can show they have one.

          We can have more and less precise references when we calibrate our decisions. But no one relies on absolute truth. It just feels good for them to say it. It makes them feel they have it and we don’t.

          We have Markus claiming it exists, providing no understanding of what it would look like if it did. Or even if it’s a meaningful phrase.

          And if you don’t play along, Markus will say he can’t talk to you.

          Because you don’t accept a claim he takes no responsibility to support.

          I’m pretty burned out at this point. I’m about ready to give up.

          —–

          Edit: 18 minutes later. Grammer and spelin’.

        • MR

          It just feels good for them to say it. It makes them feel they have it and we don’t.

          This. Except they know they don’t, hence the squirrels.

        • epeeist

          What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth?

          Let us suppose I came up with a statement that was capable of being tested, it doesn’t particularly matter what it was.

          Let us suppose that every time it was tested then it was veridical, that every consequence of the statement turned out to be veridical too. Let us suppose that the testing went on for thousands of years and no exceptions were found. Would this make it “absolutely true”?

        • Markus R

          So, basically you are assuming that it will can never change? How do you know that for certain?

        • epeeist

          Nice try Sonny Jim, but that isn’t how it works.

          Answer the question I raised first.

        • Markus R

          How does your world work? You believe that you can find absolute truth in past observations? No, I don’t agree. Hume spoke very eloquently to the problem of induction.

        • epeeist

          How does your world work?

          Are you actually incapable of answering a question that is put to you?

          Hume spoke very eloquently to the problem of induction.

          Indeed he did, so much so that Kant was driven to claiming that space was Euclidean and Newton’s dynamics were the absolute truth about the way the universe worked in order to avoid Hume’s conclusion. Of course we now know that Kant was wrong.

          In fact the only thing we can say is that propositions that are analytic a priori true are purely semantic, for example that “all bachelors are unmarried men”.

          It looks therefore as though even if we came across an “absolute truth” we would not know that we had done so. That all our knowledge is both contingent and corrigible.

        • Markus R

          Are you incapable of being civil?

          Thus, without God as transcendent truth, you are clearly incapable of having absolute truth. Which makes our discussion pointless. If you have no claims to absolute truth, I think I’ve discussed things as far as I can. Good day, Sir.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Are you incapable of being civil?

          You think your passive/aggressive bullshit is being civil? Wise up, will ya.

          The penny is finally dropping.

          Conversation with you has been pointless from the get go…you just are not interested in two way conversation. You are one of those cunts that wants to talk at people, but you have nothing of substance to say that we haven’t heard thousands of times.

          Since you are driveling on like a broken record, the sooner ya get around to realising that you are nothing but a waste of time and do one. There is nothing more to say.

        • epeeist

          Are you incapable of being civil?

          Yours is the incivility, you have constantly avoided answering questions that have been put to you, answered question with question or been unduly evasive.

          Thus, without God as transcendent truth, you are clearly incapable of having absolute truth.

          You beg the question not once but twice in the same sentence, assuming that “transcendent truth” and your god actually exist. Until you can provide some justification for their existence I see no reason why I should accept either.

          I think I’ve discussed things as far as I can.

          I take it from this that you can offer no rebuttal to the points that I have made.

        • Markus R

          I don’t have any desire to pursue discussion with someone who has no source of absolute knowledge. It’s pointless. But I’ll leave you with the last word.

        • epeeist

          I don’t have any desire to pursue discussion with someone who has no source of absolute knowledge.

          Then you are going to lead a very lonely life.

          You came here and made assertion after assertion about your god and its supposed properties, the existence of absolute truth and objective morality and so on. However what then happened is that you were asked to justify these assertions, something I guess that your fellow religionists have never asked you to do. It has become apparent that you simply do not have the background knowledge or capabilities to actually do.

          Hence the refusal to continue with conversations not just with me but with several others on the site.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t have any desire to pursue discussion with someone who has no source of absolute knowledge.

          You don’t have one either. No ody does. You should become a monk and take a vow of silence.

        • I don’t have any desire to pursue discussion with someone who has no source of absolute knowledge. It’s pointless.

          By that logic, why should we talk to you?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Because it is the humane thing to do when dealing with the afflicted?

        • There you go again, being the big-hearted atheist.

          Take it easy! You’re going to give us a reputation.

        • Greg G.

          You believe that you can find absolute truth in past observations?

          No. I don’t even pretend to have absolute truth. I don’t believe that you have absolute truth either.

        • Grimlock

          What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth?

          What is yours?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Navel gazing?

        • Markus R

          God. He has revealed himself in nature and in the Bible.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope. You can’t demonstrate your premise is anything more than your imagination.

        • Greg G.

          What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth?

          I do not make such a claim. My senses may or may not be reliable but they appear to be reliable enough to allow me to navigate the world that seems to be around me. I know what tends to be successful and what hurts. Taking leave of my senses and believing on faith can hurt unless what you have faith in is completely meaningless.

        • Markus R

          Without absolute truth we can only engage in speculations. As you point out, our senses, at best, appear to be reliable. We cannot know they are reliable. Indeed we can’t have any absolute certainty but only degrees of certainty based on presumption. It’s great Fur an evening of chat over a bottle of red wine, but not helpful in acquiring certainty.

          Yet all men know of God, even if they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. His laws are written across our consciences.

        • Greg G.

          Without absolute truth we can only engage in speculations.

          No, we can have degrees of certainty according to the strength of the evidence.

          When you think you have absolute certainty because of what you read in the writings of people who didn’t know where the sun went at night, you are basing your certainty on uninformed guesswork.

        • Otto

          >>>”Without absolute truth we can only engage in speculations.”

          It is not enough to declare that there is an absolute truth, you have to demonstrate that your claim is in fact absolutely true.

          Like with this statement….

          >>>”His laws are written across our consciences.”

          It is not enough to declare that…you are missing a whole step.

        • Markus R

          God states it to be so. What is your source for absolute truth?

        • Otto

          God has stated nothing…everything you claim God said was written by a human.

        • Markus R

          Indeed humans wrote the Bible, Otto.

          But what is YOUR source of truth?

        • Otto

          It doesn’t matter Marcus…YOUR source for truth comes from other humans…not from God.

        • Markus R

          Is God not capable of using humans to write down his words?

          There is no absolute truth without God. Without God you and I are nothing more than time and chance acting upon matter. All abstracts become meaningless.

        • Otto

          People throughout history have claimed to have spoken on behalf of God…the writers of the Bible are no different.

          Is God not capable of using humans to write down his words?

          God has no power to communicate without humans…and humans contradict each other. Your truth comes from humans.

        • Markus R

          Otto, how much do you know that was not conveyed to you by other humans?

        • Otto

          Exactly…but I am not the one claiming other humans were in fact speaking for God…your truth is no different than any other human’s.

        • Markus R

          So be it, Otto. Good day.

        • Otto

          It’s a harsh truth Markus…I am glad you now acknowledge it.

        • epeeist

          Looks into crystal ball, “I can see a visit to Croydon for Markus R. A visit that will be upon him all too soon.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          No crystal ball is needed for that prophetic statement to be made.

        • MR

          Good job at making the point, Otto, thank you.

        • Otto

          It is an obvious point I missed for a long time, personally that was a big chunk to drop .

        • Greg G.

          What is the absolute truth about whether Jesus at the passover meal before he was crucified or whether the passover was after he was dead and buried?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Which is why no gods are necessary for absolute truth ya idiot.

          You just shafted your own position. Brilliant.

          https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your truth comes from humans.

          And it is way far from being even nearly absolute.

        • It’s turtles humans all the way down.

        • Greg G.

          His absolute truth is based on the writings of people who didn’t know where the sun went at night.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And who believed the human species began with a single man and woman in a magic garden created along with the whole universe in 6 days….absolute truth, my arse….absolute ignorance more like it.

        • Greg G.

          Nobody pretends to have absolute truth. You pretend that you have it. If you knew you had it, you could prove it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          First the clown needs to define what he means by the term. That’s the problem with holy rolling mindwankers, they never define their terms. Handy when the goalposts need shifting later on.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Wise ta fuck up. Know nothing tosser…ffs learn something while yer here….

          The Relativity of Wrong

          https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

          Yet all men know of God, even if they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.

          Ballix, ya know nothing imbecile.

          The Pirahã people of South America have no concept of a supreme being or god. And most people on the planet probably haven’t even heard of, or believe in, your version of the fuckwittery ya Coco.

        • Greg G.

          We know he is who he is by the truth he has revealed.

          How can you believe someone who has unlimited power to fool you?

        • Markus R

          :-D. I like your cynicism!

          Thankfully we are not able to choose God but he chooses us. His Spirit gives life to the spiritually dead and it blows where it will. But if you have been blessed to hear the Gospel he will turn none away that respond, turn from their ways and trust in him.

        • Greg G.

          Doesn’t an argument with that small of a radius make you dizzy?

        • Ignorant Amos
        • MR

          Let’s not forget that we’re not judging God, we’re judging whether the story makes sense. It doesn’t.

        • Susan

          Let’s not forget that we’re not judging God, we’re judging whether the story makes sense

          I know. But according to Markus, the story is true because it’s true and we’re not allowed to judge “God”.

          If we gently nudge against that, it’s because of our sinful nature. It’s impenetrable. Where do we go from here?

          It’s like saying, “I don’t believe that zombies exist because there is no support for that claim”.

          And the person I say it to genuinely believes that the only reason I would say it is if I were a zombie or being deceived by zombies.

          It doesn’t.

          I agree.

          But to someone who believes in a zombie takeover, only a zombie would say that.

        • Greg G.

          A person who believe in zombies is proof of zombies. Who would believe such a thing unless their brain had been eaten?

        • Greg G.

          How shall we judge God as wrong?

          Why didn’t God just put Jesus in the Garden of Eden instead of Adam? Jesus wouldn’t need a helpmate. He could be fed by the animals and angels and debate the serpent into submission with trite aphorisms.

          How can you not judge an omnipotent potter negatively when he blames the pot for how he made it and is willing to punish it forever? If your god thingy has a head, he ain’t right in it.

        • Markus R

          We can second guess and judge God all day long. But it’s silly—pots judging the potter. We are talking about the eternal and omnipotent Creator. We can’t control our own lives and world but we are to judge God?

        • Greg G.

          It is pots judging the potter for judging the pots. The latter part is the silly part. But the silliest part is believing there is anybody being judged.

        • Markus R

          I cannot make you see what you refuse to see, Greg, but I thank you for the conversation. You seem sincere. Good night

        • Ignorant Amos

          You seem sincere.

          He is, something you are demonstrably not.

        • MR

          extra ^ for ‘trite aphorisms’ observation

        • Grimlock

          We inherently know that the Ten Commandments are true—we know that murder, theft, lies, and sexual immorality are wrong, for example.

          Is this assertion something that can be falsified for you?

        • Ignorant Amos

          …and sexual immorality are wrong,…

          Bwaaaaahahahaha….has Markus even read his Holy Book do ya think?

        • Markus R

          No, it’s not.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We inherently know that the Code of Hammurabi is true….your god followers stole those commandments.

          See how easy this shite is to claim?

          Give us something, anything, constructive.

        • Greg G.

          But God is not only just. He is also merciful and good…

          When God is just, he is not merciful. When God is merciful, he is not just. So “just” and “merciful” are inappropriate adjectives. The concepts conflict like a married bachelor. If neither just nor merciful, he is arbitrary, so “good” doesn’t apply, either.

          Claims like yours show your god thingy is imaginary.

        • Michael Neville

          How shall we judge God as wrong? What source of moral truth shall we turn to to make this judgement?

          According to your propaganda your god is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He kills people just because he can. He orders genocide and sexual slavery. He condones rape and chattel slavery. If that’s a source of “moral truth” than that truth is decided immoral.

          Since he is God, he is the source of all truth.

          How can a figment of the imagination be a source for anything? You have to provide evidence that your god exists before you can claim attributes for it.

          We inherently know that the Ten Commandments are true

          I don’t inherently know about keeping one particular day of the week “holy”. Plus I’ve known a fair number of parents who are worthy of disdain and disrespect from everyone (some years ago I had to stop a man from beating his young child with a shovel, tell me that guy was worthy of respect). Coveting others’ belongings is the basis for capitalism. You really haven’t thought the Ten Commandments through.

          The rest of your screed is pure sermon and not worth fisking.

        • Markus R

          You’ve gone in a tirade about God’s morality but failed to state your own source of moral truth. Without God there is no basis for absolute morals, e.g., good and evil, or right and wrong.

        • Greg G.

          You don’t need absolutes to determine more vs. less, slower vs. faster, better vs worse. People knew horses were faster than people without knowing the speed of light.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Isn’t it a sad indictment of humanity that there are people in the western world that are actually this stupid in the 21st century.

          Idiocracy is potentially a real threat.

        • epeeist

          The thing that gets me is the desperation for absolutes, in terms of truth, knowledge or morality. There seems to be almost a sense of terror with some people that such things may not exist or that we do not have access to them.

        • Michael Neville

          My source of moral truth is my own subjective opinion. I think killing people on a whim is immoral, your god does it repeatedly. Therefore, according to my opinion, your god is immoral.

          There is no such think as “absolute morals”, all morality is completely subjective. Besides, as I’ve told you before, it’s impossible for an imaginary, make-believe, non-existent critter like your god to be a source of anything. If you pretend your god is a source of morality, you’ve got to do something that you’ve been repeatedly told to do, show evidence that your god exists. So get started on the evidence, god boy.

        • Markus R

          Well, there it is—subjective morality. You don’t posses knowledge, only opinions. No reason to continue.

        • Otto

          You mean like the opinions you hold based on what people wrote 2000-4000 years ago.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And whose opinion only fuckwits actually take seriously.

          I mean, how many of the 613 absolute YahwehJesus truths opinions, do anyone really give a shite about in this day and age?

        • Greg G.

          He has justified knowledge. You have unjustified absolute truth. That even sounds dangerous.

        • epeeist

          Well, there it is—subjective morality.

          I disagree with Michael Neville in that I think that we our morality is inter-subjectively agreed. It doesn’t make it objective, but there again I have never come across anyone who can justify the claim that objective morality exists. One would need to ask those whose expertise is meta-ethics whether such a justification is possible.

          I would go further, I don’t think those who do claim that “objective morality” exists actually know what they mean by the phrase. I have constantly asked those who make the claim to give an example and justification and never had a response. So, give us an example of something that is objectively moral, tell us why it is objectively moral and how you know that it is.

        • Markus R

          You don’t even have a claim to absolute truth. Why would I bother? Speculation can be entertaining but it serves no purpose besides stimulating neuronal activity. Thanks, but no thanks.

        • epeeist

          And once again we see that you are unable to justify the claims that you make.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that “absolute morality” exists? Remember that if you’re going to pretend your imaginary god is the source of “absolute morality” then you have to show its existence first.

        • Markus R

          So, you are asking fir proof. Proof presupposes truth, knowledge and logic. So what is truth in your worldview? Let’s agree on some definitions, first.

        • epeeist

          So what is truth in your worldview?

          We have already done this, see this post from the other day.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Reset Button hit before going off to Croydon….a wee bit different.

        • Michael Neville

          Note that Markus is still completely lacking in the evidence department, even after repeated requests and demands for evidence to support his claims about his god. Could it be that Markus not only doesn’t have any evidence but knows he doesn’t have any?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The emperor is indeed stark naked in all his splendor.

        • Otto

          He is a presuppostionalist so he doesn’t need any.

        • Greg G.

          He is a presuppostionalist because he doesn’t have any.

        • Greg G.

          The potter who blames his pots for how they turn out is crazy.

        • Markus R

          Mistakes? Not at all. God creates some for honor and some for dishonor.

        • Greg G.

          I didn’t say “mistakes”. I said “crazy”. You have taken it to another level. Creating a sentient being for dishonor and eternal punishment on purpose is sadistic.

        • Markus R

          Does it matter that God is not who we want him to be? It only matters if he is God.

          Greg, I’ve hit some bad news and some worse news— the bad news is that God exists. The worse news is that he is very, very good and we are evil. He’s furious.

        • Greg G.

          Are you going to bring evidence or more empty assertions?

          If there is a god thingy, it is completely indifferent and indistinguishable from an indifferent universe with no god thingy.

        • He’s furious … because we’re imperfect, just as he made us?

          Dude needs therapy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yip…his God made a number of boo-boo’s….seem’s to me there is a problem with the story plot-line for a being that is supposed to be perfection…but then that’s just me being picky a guess.

        • Greg G.

          Demanding that absoloot troof be internally consistent is down right pedantic.

        • Grimlock

          Okay, let’s take a bit of a meta view of our exchange so far.

          What I think we’ve achieved so far is to agree that we find it unfair that moral responsibility is inherited.

          However, I’d like to mention an idea that I like, which is about how to facilitate conversation across differences of opinion. And it’s quite simple. You make arguments based on where you think you can find common ground.

          That’s why I focused on an idea that I find unfair, namely inherited moral responsibility. That’s an assessment pretty much anyone can make, and we can – and did – find some agreement there.

          Consider your response. How do you think it goes over with someone who does not believe in your Bible? Does it perhaps rest on some assumptions that a non-believer probably would not accept?

        • Markus R

          Thank you for the helpful comment. You summed up things very well. You make a salient point—what I’m claiming does not go over well with those who do not accept God’s Word. And you could, from your perspective, say that I’m assuming things that you do not. Indeed I’m making the claim that this universe and life cannot be understood without God and his revealed truth. Indeed, it is impossible to have any knowledge of truth without God.

          I say this because God has said it and I believe that all men have knowledge of God. Those in denial are suppressing the truth to avoid dealing with the fact that he is holy and just, and they love their sins.

          From a biblical worldview, no other position is tenable—God states that all wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ. And for this reason it is impossible to have knowledge without him. He is truth.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Another non-answer and pile of vacuous drivel.

        • Greg G.

          He thinks he is on Jeopardy! and must respond in the form a question.

        • MR

          It’s the tactic of cults. Victim blaming. Victim shaming. It’s disgusting.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I spent last night watching a charity night on Channel 4….Stand Up to Cancer.

          It was a heart rending night of entertainment to raise money for cancer research. That’s to fund SCIENCE investigation into combating cancer.

          It was interspersed with testimonials of cancer victims, many young children who died the most suffering of ends. Needless to say, two bottles of wine and not a dry eye in the house went to effing and jeffing god fuckwits…but I had enough refrain to stay off CE and venting.

          Hamish’s story had me bubbling particularly bad….

          https://www.standuptocancer.org.uk/

        • Grimlock

          Thank you for your thorough answer. Let me just note that what I say next is not intended to mean that you’re an immoral person.

          Our discussion is over. I see no point in continuing a discussion with you, because – as you note here and in other comments – you’re not open to assessing the validity of your own religious beliefs. They’re your starting position, and they’re not open to falsification for you.

          If one part isn’t open to considering the possibility of being wrong, a discussion is futile. As I’m not currently in the mood for a quixotic quest, that’s it for now.

          If I’m mistaken, and you are indeed open to assessing the plausibility of your religious beliefs, please let me know.

        • Markus R

          I’ve enjoyed the conversation, Grimlock. Perhaps we have exhausted it. Yes, i stand by God as absolute truth because there is no other source that can be demonstrated.

          Without God, what we think of as reality is no more than time and chance acting on matter. You and I are then merely a bag of chemical reactions. I’m a bottle of Coke and you are a bottle of Sprite. Shake us up and we simple spew different forms of effervescence—I’m Christian fizz and you are Atheist fizz. Our thoughts and feelings, indeed all abstracts, are an illusion.

          So, without God, all of this conversation has no values but I’ve enjoyed your thoughts and kindness.

        • i stand by God as absolute truth because there is no other source that can be demonstrated.

          And you haven’t shown that God is a source of anything, including absolute truth.

          Pro tip: just declaring it to be so is amusing but not at all convincing. Is that where you want to go?

        • Joe

          God created man good but gave him the ability to obey or not obey him, with the warning that disobedience would result in spiritual death.

          So what’s the problem? Why is religion so concerned with earthly issues?

          This is why we suffer now in a fallen world. Physical illness, physical death and all the suffering we experience are the consequence.

          That seems a very odd thing to believe, contrary to science.

          And we will be judged when we die

          So we get judged twice? We suffer on earth will sickness, disease and death, only go get resurrected and do the whole thing all over again? Only this time it’s permanent? Why tack a few brief years of existence in front of an eternity? That’s like lighting a candle outside, on a sunny day, to see more clearly.

        • Markus R

          You have summed it up fairly well, Joe. We can see that this human existence is not pleasant. Most humans in the history of mankind have had a fairly miserable existence. We suffer all the things you listed and we are prine to further our own misery through hatred and war, envy and greed. But it is a rare man that blames himself and not something or someone else.

          We will all die, despite our fantasy that our intellect and technology will somehow create immortality and utopia.

          I like the way you picture the futility of life on this earth—a few years tacked in front of eternity. You are closer to the kingdom of God than you think.

        • Joe

          Except it seems really futile.

          A lot of concepts of the afterlife display a poor grasp of how long eternity really is, and don’t attempt to address the problems therein.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You really are this drunk on the Kool-Aid…what a hopeless case.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Ok, he’ll tolerate evil, if that evil sucks to him in the proper way. And doesn’t question the assertion that God is perfectly good.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Lying again.

        • Joe

          Of course if you had any knowledge of ancient literature you would be astounded by the reliability of what exists.

          Of course, which is why we take almost all historical claims with a pinch of salt, and try and verify them wherever possible. If something is impossible to verify, we accept it on probability alone as “the best we have”.

        • MR

          Makes God look fallible.

        • epeeist

          A difference in days,

          Means that (at least) one of the accounts does not correspond to the facts and hence must be false.

          As it is of course the accounts are contraries rather than contradictories, so both could be false.

    • Otto

      >>>”There are no truths concerning God’s messsage to mankind that are contradicted in the Bible.”

      And Christians constantly argue with each other about what exactly? If your statement were true we wouldn’t see 40,000+ Christian denominations.

    • Greg G.

      In Point #3 of the article, it is pointed out that John 17:19-23 has Jesus pray that all those who believe in him would agree in unity and that the unity would be so impressive that the rest of the world would believe because of it. Instead we see over 45,000 different denominations, not unity, and it is nothing that impresses the rest of the world. That makes Jesus the greatest prayer failure of all time. Even if Christians agree on the words of the NT, they disagree on the meaning.

      • kingdietrich

        Didn’t Jesus also say he would return to earth in his follower’s own lifetime? Just two examples of why it’s all a bunch of made up hooey.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, some who were standing there would not taste death, whatever that means.

          Paul also spoke of those being dead being raised first when the Messiah came but only in the third person while speaking in the first person of those who would be alive at that time. He also included the people he was writing to.

    • Ficino

      So you concede that there are contradictions in the Bible. Good to know.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Here’s a reference for you, Laughing Boy.

      http://bibviz.com/

      Get back to me when you *believe* you’ve explained it all away.

      • Markus R

        I’m finished explaining it all way. What now? Why all this effort to disprove the Bible when you know that God exists?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nonsense.

          You’re trying to throw sand in the bull’s eyes to avoid both horns of your dilemma.

          NOT my problem.

  • Guzzman

    What about the virgin birth fiasco? According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim, however, completely destroys the core Christian claim that Jesus was a legitimate heir to David’s throne and king of the Jews. The virgin birth claim undermines this fundamental church teaching because tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father, never the mother. This principle is clearly stated in Numbers 1:18.

    According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah must be.

    And if Jesus was born of a virgin (Joseph was not the biological father), then why the fabricated biblical genealogies attempting to trace Jesus back to King David’s bloodline through Joseph? The virgin birth doctrine rules out Jesus being the messiah, because the messiah had to come from the bloodline of King David.

    • Note also that Isaiah 7, the OT foundation for the virgin birth prophecy, is very clearly not a claim of virgin (that is, miraculous) birth.

      • Guzzman

        Good point – Matthew’s misuse of Isaiah to prophecy a “virgin” birth was based on a mistranslation. In the original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 the word almah meant a young woman of childbearing age who had not yet given birth and who might or might not be a virgin, however the Greek translation, the Septuagint, used by Matthew rendered almah as parthenos, a word which means virgin.

        • Greg G.

          That is the only place in Isaiah that “almah” is used but the Hebrew word for virgin, “bĕthuwlah”, is used five times.

          Proverbs 30:18-20 uses “almah” in reference to an adultress.

        • Not even that. Suppose Isaiah actually had said “virgin.” So what? The story says, “See that virgin over there? She’ll bear a child.” That’s hardly a big deal–she’ll have sex, then she’ll be pregnant, then she’ll deliver. Happens all the time. She’s a virgin at that time, but nothing says that she wouldn’t need to have sex to make a baby.

    • sandy

      Well done. Checkmate.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Competing narratives 😉

    • Brother TC

      Matthew traces Jesus’ royal line to David through His legal father, Joseph.

      • Jesus was not in the blood line of David.

        If Matthew has Joseph’s line, what’s the story with Luke?

        • Brother TC

          “what’s the story with Luke?”

          Luke follows Mary’s line.

        • Wrong again. Y’know, you really should read your own holy book.

          “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, …” (Luke 3:23).

        • Brother TC

          Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was Mary’s biological father. Luke is tracing a matrilineal line.

        • Despite Luke not saying that.

          Wow–who knew that interpreting the Bible was so confusing?

          Y’know what I think I’ll do? Since you’re so confident, I’ll just adopt whatever views you have. Much easier. Thanks, Brother TC.

        • Pofarmer

          Interpreting the bible is easy when you just make up any old shit.

        • Greg G.

          Luke and Matthew both trace the same line from Abraham to David. At what point does Luke switch to women and why do Jesus’ grandmothers have such butch names?

          Matthew makes a big deal of having three sets of 14 generations. In Hebrew Gematria, that is, numerology, David is spelled DVD. The associated numbers with the letters are:

                D + V + D = 4 + 6 + 4 = 14

          But the last set has only 13 names unless you count the Exile as a generation. But Matthew skipped four generations in the second set. He skipped over Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:24; 2 Chronicles 22:1), Joash (2 Kings 11:2; 2 Chronicles 22:11), and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1; 2 Chronicles 25:1) who should be between Jehoram (the king to whom Elijah wrote a prophetic letter about his guts falling out) and Uzziah. He also left out Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:6; 2 Chronicles 36:8) who was between Josiah and Jeconiah. So the fascination about the number 14 is meaningless. The question becomes, did Matthew screw this up himself or was it the Holy Ghost who lost track?

          It gets worse. If Joseph was not the legitimate father, then David’s seed didn’t come from him. Even if Mary was descended from David, David’s seed (the Greek word used is “σπέρμα (sperma)” cannot come from her because the seed is in the sperm and she didn’t produce that. Either way, Jesus is not the legitimate heir to the throne of David, so he is not the Messiah. Unless David knocked up God and she bore the Holy Ghost who came on Mary. Then you would have to edit the Bible genders throughout if God is the Heavenly Mother.

        • Brother TC

          Did you ever believe in Jesus Christ?

        • Greg G.

          Yes. As a child, I went to Sunday School religiously. I heard hundreds of Bible stories but they never put it all together where I got a sense of what it was all about. When I realized my parents weren’t making me go, I stopped going and mildly doubted the existence of God.

          After high school, a friend invited me to a fundamentalist church so I went. I got saved and was studious for about two years. They did a good job of showing that other types of Christians could not be correct.

          I was amazed by creationist books who quoted scientists. I wanted to do that so I read some books on evolution looking for such quotes. I found one that I had read in a creationist book but, in context, it obviously wasn’t saying what it appeared to be saying out of context. (About 20 years later, I read the word “quotemine” and knew exactly what it meant.)

          I wanted to be able to prove there was a God, so I bought a book on basic logic. What I found was problems establishing basic premises and saw logical errors in the arguments of creationists.

          I came across Isaiah 45:7 where it says God created evil. I asked a few leaders about it and got really bad answers, like “it means ‘catastrophe'” but I thought creating a catastrophe is an evil thing to do.

          One of my favorite preachers was giving a sermon where he talked about what scientists say, but I had read the books and knew they didn’t say that at all. A few minutes later, he was telling about heaven, but I knew that he could not know what heaven was like but he could know what scientists said if he opened a book, yet he spoke with the same gravitas on each subject.

          We had meetings and one of the activities of the group was to tell what God had done for them in the last week. One guy said he had lost his keys and found them after praying. Another guy said he prayed for a good parking spot and got one. These are actually cliches now, so my experience was not unique. Another said he needed money and he prayed over it and his parents sent him a check. I happened to know his birthday was that week.

          So I started having doubts. I wanted to believe. so I decided to go back to the church where I was saved. The sermon was about why people take the Lord’s name in vain. I couldn’t wait to hear the sermon. He had a great build up to it. Finally, he was going to explain it. He sternly said, “There is Poweeeerrrrrr… in the naaaammmmmme.. of the LOOOOORRRRRRRDDDD!!

          I thought, “Bullshit… Oh, there’s the same power in that word, too!” So my faith ended. I escaped the faith trap.

          So, back to the topic of the genealogies.

        • Brother TC

          Thanks for sharing.

          I’m done talking to you endlessly about genealogies. Why? Because I don’t really read the Bible and I just take the first thing that works and then run away. Now that we agree on this, let’s move on.

          Do you think faith in Jesus Christ is based on your judgment and decision to keep it?

        • Greg G.

          Do you think faith in Jesus Christ is based on your judgment and decision to keep it?

          I made no decision about whether to keep it or leave it. Every foundation my belief was based on crumbled as I learned more about the religion. I wanted to believe but it became unbelievable. It was not unlike losing belief in Santa Claus. I wanted to believe but the more I learned, the more unbelievable was Santa Claus.

          Now, do you concede that the arrest to burial sequence in the Gospel of John was before the passover?

        • Brother TC

          “Every foundation my belief was based on crumbled as I learned more about the religion.”

          What was the foundation of your belief?

          “Now, do you concede that the arrest to burial sequence in the Gospel of John was before the passover?”

          No, but I agree that I’m a fool in your eyes who just doesn’t get it. Now drop it.

        • Greg G.

          No, but I agree that I’m a fool in your eyes who just doesn’t get it. Now drop it.

          Read from John 13:1 to John 18:12 and then identify where the passover might have been held. Jesus was obviously arrested before the passover. You made a claim that does not stand up to the text. Admit you were wrong and all the apologetics that try to reconcile John with the Synoptics on this point are wrong.

          Have you not checked this out because you fear that I am right? Did you check it out and found that the point cannot be defended but you are not honest enough to admit it?

        • Brother TC

          “Admit you were wrong”

          Look, friend. You seem to be compensating for something lacking in your belief system. I’m trying to make peace, and all you want to do is shove my face in the dirt. I’m convinced that discussions about Bible contradictions with unbelievers is a true perpetual motion machine, and I have no desire to play in its gears.

          “you fear that I am right?”

          “you are not honest enough to admit it?”

          Please stop trying to attack me. It really tears down meaningful dialog.

          What was your foundation for belief?

        • Greg G.

          Fine. If I can’t goad you into responding to that, I will take it that you are not ready yet.

          What was your foundation for belief?

          That is “foundations” (plural). It was over 40 years ago so I doubt if I can still account for all of them. Primarily, the Bible, the Inner Witness, and the Fellowship. Also such things as answered prayer, miracle claims, and such. Fellowship would break down into three types:

          1. Mentors, preachers, and other leaders.
          2. Peers
          3. Newcomers, which showed it was a growing movement.

          The Bible, of course, was just the interpretation of the Bible. I happened to meet up with a group when I arrived at my permanent station in the military with the same interpretation as the church where I was saved. That ineterpretation also showed that any other interpretation was wrong.

          Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

          That verse shocked me. It went against all I had been told. The excuses given by leaders and peers told me they had no reasonable answer either. The claims of answered prayers began to sound like small coincidences because they obviously were, while the big prayers went unanswered and forgotten.

        • Brother TC

          I made your “foundations” singular to give you a hint about what I mean. You named a lot of reasons, but you didn’t mention the crucial one (!). What does the Bible say is the foundation? Matthew 7:24- 27, 1 Corinthians 3:11.

          That verse in Isaiah is good for declaring the sovereignty and unity of God: He does it all.

          I could spend a lot of time on this subject (and I have done so), but I’ll try to be very brief. I like to explain the verse this way: God creates evil like you create darkness when you turn off the lights.

          It sounds like you had poor teachers with flabby doctrine based more on pleasing men than God. Very common in the church today.

        • Greg G.

          I made your “foundations” singular to give you a hint about what I mean. You named a lot of reasons, but you didn’t mention the crucial one (!). What does the Bible say is the foundation? , Matthew 7:24- 27, 1 Corinthians 3:11.

          I used to love singing that song based on Matthew 7:24- 27 in Vacation Bible School when I was six.

          The Bible is a puppet. You can make it say almost anything. Here are verses on fellowship with others: Psalm 55:14; Acts 2:42; 1 John 1:7. Here is one on leadership: Hebrews 13:7.

          God creates evil like you create darkness when you turn off the lights.

          I make ice by removing heat from water. Does that mean my neighbor is evil for putting snow and ice on my driveway in January?

          It sounds like you had poor teachers with flabby doctrine based more on pleasing men than God. Very common in the church today.

          They said exactly the same thing about other Christian beliefs, too. That might be why there are over 45,000 denominations of Christianity. That makes Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-23 the greatest prayer failure of all time, which happens to be about 5 verses before the story Jesus was arrested before the passover.

        • Brother TC

          “You can make it say almost anything.”

          I gave you verses about the foundation of faith. You didn’t — and no, you can’t make your verses say something about the foundation of faith, as if the Bible were a puppet — unless you’re into lying.

          Yes, fellowship and leadership are foundational to the faith, being important, but the Bible doesn’t describe them as the foundation of faith, of believing the gospel.

          “I make ice by removing heat from water. Does that mean my neighbor is evil for putting snow and ice on my driveway in January?”

          No. I gave you an analogy. I’m not saying you create evil by turning off lights in your home, either.

          No wonder you claim that nobody can know what the Bible really says.

        • Greg G.

          I gave you verses about the foundation of faith. You didn’t — and no, you can’t make your verses say something about the foundation of faith, as if the Bible were a puppet — unless you’re into lying.

          Yes, fellowship and leadership are foundational to the faith, being important, but the Bible doesn’t describe them as the foundation of faith, of believing the gospel.

          No. I gave you an analogy. I’m not saying you create evil by turning off lights in your home, either.

          You are not saying anything new to me. They were saying that forty-some years ago. Even the lights out analogy.

          Do you still hear the “evolution will be overturned in ten to fifteen years” canard? A Christian told me that nearly 25 years ago and I told him I had heard it nearly 20 years before that. 15 years later I reminded him about it but he wouldn’t look me in the eye when he denied every saying that. But the old canard goes back to the 1820s when they were saying that gradualism in geology would be overturned in 10 or 15 years.

          No wonder you claim that nobody can know what the Bible really says.

          Did I say that? Of course you can know what the Bible says just by reading it. There are over 45,000 different denominations who interpret what is says differently. Most people who claim to believe the Bible don’t even know what it says, according to various surveys. In a nation that is supposed to be 80% Christian, half of some high school seniors thought Sodom and Gomorrah were married. Maybe you should work on educating Christians.

        • Brother TC

          “Even the lights out analogy.”

          Aw, man. I thought I made that up. Seriously.

          Never heard the “evolution will be overturned” thing.

        • Greg G.

          Do you think somebody can know what the Bible really says, and thus get their doctrine spot on?

          No, it is crazy to think a rational doctrine can come from the Bible without realizing the Bible is mostly fiction. When you realize that fiction is fiction, you might find the underlying beliefs that the writers are getting at.

        • richardrichard2013

          there is john 14 where jc says ask whatever you want. Apologists faced with the problem of john 17 will say that “it is questionable that jc promise goes beyond his disciples.so they will say that promise does not apply to anyone after lol

        • Greg G.

          The prayer begins in John 17:1 with Jesus lifting his eyes toward heaven and begins with, “Father…” so I don’t think that excuse would work. I know they try to use that for the Great Commission, but this is definitely supposed to be a prayer.

      • Guzzman

        Joseph was not Jesus’s biological father, and Joseph adopting Jesus did not qualify Jesus to be from the bloodline of David. What you say contradicts other parts of the Bible which state the Messiah had to come from the “seed of David” and “the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh.”

        The apostle Paul wrote that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3). Here the word “seed” is literally from the Greek “sperma.” This same Greek word is translated in other verses as “descendant(s)” or “offspring.” The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus, Jesus would still NOT qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin – seed from the line of David was required.

        Mary’s lineage is immaterial. Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man’s sperm (the female egg was not discovered until 1827). The woman’s womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children.

        This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are NO female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the “seed of David” through Mary. As I stated earlier, the virgin birth claim utterly shatters the Jewish Messiah claim. Can’t have both.

        • Brother TC

          “Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man’s sperm (the female egg was not discovered until 1827). The woman’s womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted.”

          “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15).

        • Guzzman

          Your interpretation of Genesis 3:15 KJV does not reflect a proper translation of the Hebrew text and does not change the fact that women did not count in reckoning bloodlines. Old Testament scholars agree with the translation of the Common English Bible and with the translation of the Tanak:

          Genesis 3:15 (CEB): “I will put contempt between you and the woman, between your offspring and hers. They will strike your head, but you will strike at their heels.”

          The Hebrew word for “seed” in Genesis 3:15 should be understood in the sense of “descendants” or “offspring.” The idea that a woman’s womb contained “seed” would be a totally bizarre concept to the authors of Genesis.

        • Brother TC

          “The idea that a woman’s womb contained ‘seed’ would be a totally bizarre concept to the authors of Genesis.”

          Do you see how your godless presuppositions lead you to your conclusions?

          You presume that the Bible is not the word of God, so you interpret it from that perspective. Your presupposition, and not the evidence itself, determines your conclusions.

          And I’m fine with that. God has made you free to interpret it as you desire.

        • The supernatural hypothesis is always the conclusion of last resort in anyone who’s following the evidence.

          Anyone have evidence that the Bible’s claims are actually history? Anyone? Anyone?

        • Brother TC

          The reality of the supernatural is the explicit meaning of scripture, so it’s neither a hypothesis nor a conclusion. It’s the very first fact of interpretation, and whether you believe them or not, the Bible is indeed comprised of historical documents.

          However, you’ve got a bigger problem. Believing based on historical evidence is always provisional. Such an approach will never establish true faith, so it’s a non-starter. In this way, you’ve only built yourself a device for denial.

        • I’ve been given absolutely no good reason to believe the Bible’s supernatural claims. I need evidence, and you are determined to not provide any. I can’t imagine who you are relevant to, but you’re not telling me anything provocative.

          Believing based on historical evidence is always provisional.

          Correct. We’re in the same boat.

          Such an approach will never establish true faith

          Of course it can. You can believe whatever you want for whatever “reasons” you choose to. Your faith is weak, Brother.

        • Brother TC

          “I’ve been given absolutely no good reason to believe the Bible’s supernatural claims.”

          I know that. God will give you the reason, and the only good reason, if He so chooses. And it will have nothing to do with you deciding to believe based on evidence.

          True faith can never fail because it’s not predicated on your own judgment. If you decide to believe, then you can decide to disbelieve later. Plenty of those examples of people who never had true faith in the first place.

          I didn’t decide to take a leap of faith. God transformed me.

        • God will give you the reason, and the only good reason, if He so chooses.

          Wow–what a bastard. God knows that only my believing the right things will keep me from hell. Not only did he make me so that I’m bound to sin, he won’t even give me what he knows I need to avoid hell. Jesus Christ–you worship this guy?!

          it will have nothing to do with you deciding to believe based on evidence.

          So he gave me a brain that demands evidence, he showed that evidence is the way to understand reality, and yet that’s the wrong way to go?

          That was wrong of me to call God a bastard. He’s a fucking shithead. Thanks for clarifying the problem so succinctly.

          True faith can never fail because it’s not predicated on your own judgment.

          Of course it is! Your very fallible brain tells you that faith is justified. Where else does that come from but your own head?

          A childlike attitude is endearing to some extent. In an adult, it wears thing quickly.

        • Brother TC

          “Wow–what a bastard.”

          God has promised you justice, not mercy.

          I don’t mean to sound like I’m parenting you here, but apparently you need to hear it: You’re responsible for your thoughts, choices and actions. Blaming other people, biology, circumstances or even God will not fly.

          “He’s a fucking shithead.”

          Are you one of those atheists who admits to hating God, or do you deny that possibility? (If you deny it, no need to explain yourself — I know how it goes: How can you hate what doesn’t exist, right?)

          “Where else does that come from but your own head?”

          From God, of course. Faith is a gift from God (Eph 2:8). I know you don’t believe this, but you asked.

          “In an adult, it wears thing quickly.”

          I’m just looking for rational discourse here, and a consistent explanation of your worldview.

          On what basis do you demand evidence? Do you have evidence showing you that evidence is required?

        • God has promised you justice, not mercy.

          Wrong again. Eternal torment isn’t justice.

          (Do you ever stop to marvel at what your religion makes you say? What it makes you justify?)

          You’re responsible for your thoughts, choices and actions.

          Yup.

          Blaming other people, biology, circumstances or even God will not fly.

          I don’t believe in God. I’m not blaming him. I’m simply exploring the ideas you suggest and concluding that they’re ridiculous.

          “He’s a fucking shithead.”
          Are you one of those atheists who admits to hating God, or do you deny that possibility?

          Addressed above. I don’t believe in God. I’m critiquing the properties of this claimed being.

          I know how it goes: How can you hate what doesn’t exist, right?

          Bingo.

          “Where else does that come from but your own head?”
          From God, of course.

          Or from Satan. Or from Allah. Or from any of thousands of other gods humans have made up or from any of the myriad gods we haven’t yet invented but might exist. Or from your own imaginings, wishful thinking, desires, and on and on.

          Faith is a gift from God (Eph 2:8).

          Sure, if you presuppose your religion. No thoughtful seeker of the truth does that.

          I’m just looking for rational discourse here

          No, you’re not. You come here as a presuppositionalist? Nope—that’s not rational.

          Or are you only saying that you hope that we will be rational?

          On what basis do you demand evidence? Do you have evidence showing you that evidence is required?

          I’ve already answered this feeble attempt at concocting a self-refuting argument. Instead of running away from arguments, why not embrace them to see if maybe you’re wrong?

        • Brother TC

          “Eternal torment isn’t justice.”

          Eternal conscious torment is an unbiblical Roman Catholic invention. Unrepentant sinners will get the exact punishment they deserve — nothing more — and then they will perish.

          “I’ve already answered this feeble attempt at concocting a self-refuting argument.”

          Please repeat your answer here.

        • Eternal conscious torment is an unbiblical Roman Catholic invention.

          What?? Those damn Catholics again?

          Unrepentant sinners will get the exact punishment they deserve — nothing more — and then they will perish.

          Show me that in the Bible.

          “I’ve already answered this feeble attempt at concocting a self-refuting argument.”
          Please repeat your answer here.

          No thanks. It’s irrelevant to our conversation, just homework you want to assign me to keep me from exposing your nonsense.

        • Brother TC

          “Show me that in the Bible.”

          Glad you asked.

          “Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons” (Col 3:24-25).

          “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28).

          “Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work” (Psa 62:12).

          “The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet” (Nah 1:3).

          “For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished” (Jer 30:11).

          “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities” (2Pe 2:9-10).

          As for your accusation that I’m just trying to assign you homework, I really don’t understand. It shouldn’t come as homework to simply paste in the answer you already provided to my “feeble attempt at concocting a self-refuting argument.”

          You’re a blogger. I’m sure you can provide at least one sentence in response to my simple query. For your reference, here it is:

          On what basis do you demand evidence? Do you have evidence showing you that evidence is required?

        • “Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons” (Col 3:24-25).

          Really? The KJV?

          I like the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Or “Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.”

          As for your accusation that I’m just trying to assign you homework, I really don’t understand. It shouldn’t come as homework to simply paste in the answer you already provided to my “feeble attempt at concocting a self-refuting argument.”

          It’s busy work. It’s off topic.

        • MR

          It’s as if God isn’t a god of knowledge and reason and evidence and facts, but rather one of hiddeness and deception. The story makes no sense. We’d never buy this story in real life. We never appeal to the Holy Spirit in courtrooms, we look for evidence. We might say a prayer when we’re sick, but it’s medicine that we know works and prayer is little more than an effort to hedge our bets. That these are nothing but excuses is self-evident.

        • God becomes a trickster, like Loki, Kokopelli, the coyote, and so on.

        • Guzzman

          “Godless presuppositions”? Seriously? I drew upon Hebrew Bible scholarship. Did you forget that the Old Testament (referred to as the Tanakh in Judaism ) was written by Jews? One of the reasons that Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah was that the Messiah had to come from the bloodline of David. Matthew, in his opening genealogy, presents Jesus as descending from the Davidic line through Joseph, even though Matthew negates his entire genealogy by making clear that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, thus completely cutting Joseph out of the procreative picture. Like I said, even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus, that did not qualify Jesus to be from the bloodline of David

        • Brother TC

          The primary godless presupposition is the assumption that God doesn’t exist unless you get proof of the contrary. This is your presupposition, yes?

          Jews who deny the messiahship of Jesus have a reason to deny the protevangelium of Genesis 3:15. Same reason they interpret Isaiah 53 to refer to Israel (which is a really poor fit) rather than Jesus.

          They come to the text with their own presuppositions too. We all do.

  • RichardSRussell

    My own favorite is that they couldn’t even get out of the very 1st chapter of the very 1st book in the New Testament without this giant, blatant, in-your-face contradiction, a mere 2 verses apart from each other:

    (23) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, God with us….
    (25) And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

    This passage gets read from every pulpit in America around Xmas time every year, and all the sheep in the congregation just sit there and nod approvingly.

    • It’s what passes for humor within Christianity, I suppose.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      It makes perfect sense. The child’s name was Jesus. but his name was called Emmanuel.

      “You are sad,” the Knight said in an anxious tone: “Let me sing you a song to comfort you.”
      “Is it very long?” Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.
      “It’s long,” said the Knight, “but it’s very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it – either it brings the tears to their eyes, or else -”
      “Or else what?” said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.
      “Or else it doesn’t, you know. The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes.’”
      “Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?” Alice said, trying to feel interested.
      “No, you don’t understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That’s what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man.’”
      “Then I ought to have said ‘That’s what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.
      “No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The song is called ‘Ways And Means’: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!”
      “Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
      “I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On A Gate’: and the tune’s my own invention.”

      • Michael Neville

        ‘ll tell thee everything I can;
        There’s little to relate.
        I saw an aged, aged man,
        A-sitting on a gate.
        “Who are you, aged man?” I said.
        “And how is it you live?”
        And his answer trickled through my head
        Like water through a sieve.

        • ildi

          Read it too fast, thought it said “A-shitting on a gate” and I was impressed.

    • Phil

      And I guess they never mention the initial rape of Mary that kicked the whole thing off.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Allegedly…or so the yarn goes.

  • rogero

    “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mark 16:8)”

    So if these vital witnesses told no-one what happened, how did ‘Mark’ know enough to write his detailed account (some 30 years later) ?

    • Greg G.

      He made up the story using the literature of the day, the Septuagint, some of Paul’s writings, Josephus’ Jewish Wars, and perhaps, Vespasian propaganda. The women not telling were to account for the reader not hearing it before.

      • So the women not telling accounts for everyone not hearing it … except for the author of Mark. It’s kinda hard to imagine threading that needle.

        • Greg G.

          I think he was able to tickle one woman with a feather until she finally told him.

        • rogero

          No, he used a thistle, not a feather.
          He was one of those Thistleonians. ‘Thessalonians’ is a misprint.

        • Greg G.

          I think you are right, but was it 1 Thistleonian or 2 Thistleonians?

        • rogero

          I think 1. Using one thistle to tickle is just a bit of fun. Using the whole plant, that’s perversion.

        • rubellapox2

          Hahahaha……

        • Michael Neville

          So it was a test-tickle.

    • Joe

      He watched the CCTV footage.

  • Tommy

    Easy. The Bible was written by the Author(s) of Confusion.

  • Kevin K

    The 10-year (at minimum) discrepancy between the birth accounts of “Jesus” is a pretty big one.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Hey, the Jeez was trying to get a job in Hollywood…you know they *always* go for the younger actors….

      (maybe that’s why the fundies are so pissed off at Hollywood, for scorning their boy?)

      😉

  • Ficino

    From Markus R I do not see an argument set forth and developed. I do not see marshalling of evidence. The most I’ve seen beyond bare assertions is a claim about ancient fragments that looks like something from Josh MacDowell.

    I call, troll.

    • Sample1

      Dammit. I just got here. /s

      Mike

  • ralphmeyer

    They should call that frequently misbegotten library the ‘Holey Bible” because of all the holes, errors, and internal contradictions not to mention contradictions with provable evidence-based reality in it. Anyone who reads it needs to do it with a pound of salt at hand and a good load of disbelief!

    • Alle_1

      Re: “Holey Bible”. There already IS one, “Holey Bible Old Testament”. Havent read “New Testament”–not sure it got written but it is mentioned on the last page. Written by J B McPherson, published by Splendor Publishing, Danville KY 1991. Hard to find but worth the search. Library of Congress Catalog Card #91-62427.

    • kingdietrich

      Holey Buybull

  • Silverwolf13

    My favorite Biblical contradiction is the Nativity story, which should actually be the Nativity stories. There are two, one in Matthew and the other in Luke. They agree that Mary and Joseph had a baby in Bethlehem, but there the agreement ends.

    In Luke, Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth and traveled down to Bethlehem for the census. They stayed in a stable, had the baby, presented him at the temple when he was 12 days old, and returned to Nazareth. No Magi, no killing of innocents, and no flight into Egypt.

    In Matthew, Mary and Joseph lived in Joseph’s house in Bethlehem, where they had the baby. They were then visited by the three Magi, fled to Egypt to avoid Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, and later moved to Nazareth. No census, no stable, and no presentation in the temple.

    Note that the Magi never went to a stable and the crèche scenes are all Biblically inaccurate.

    • kingdietrich

      The biggest contradiction (in the real world) is that no record or evidence exists for this supposed very important, high-profile census, despite the Romans being meticulous record keepers who did manage to keep records of other more routine censuses. Nothing, nada.

      • Greg G.

        Actually, Josephus discusses one in Antiquities of the Jews 17.13.5 and Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.1 when Herod the Great’s son, Archelaus, was being relieved of his role. Luke borrows a lot from Antiquities of the Jews. It was more of a tax census so nobody would have to pick some arbitrary distant relative’s home to be counted. But if one owned some property in another city, it might be wise to go there and claim it, lest it be confiscated. But more likely, people were traveling to avoid being counted which would reduce the tax burden where they lived or just to not be counted because of the plagues God sent when David took a census in 2 Samuel 24 (which said the Angel of the Lord made him do it) and 1 Chronicles 21 (which says Satan made him do it).

        • Brianna LaPoint

          I read about Josephus, the language used in his account was christianized. Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian.

        • Greg G.

          It is not that his account is Christianized, it is that Eusebius interpolated Christianese in two places. There is the whole passage of Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3, called the Testimonium Flavianum and another bit about somebody named James being killed (I do not rule out that it was the James who Paul mentioned a few places) but added that his brother was “the one who was called Christ”. I think Paul was being sarcastic when he called James “the Lord’s brother”.

  • Phil

    I like the way Jesus prays to god… himself. Either they are not one god or he suffers from multi-personality disorder. Imagine being a god and not knowing what part of you is doing. Dementia or not omnipotent.

    ” I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, ” What god is he praying to? The FSM? The god that created god?

    • kingdietrich

      Imaging being also your father who is also god. What does that make Jesus, God Jr? But he’s also the father–and the son. So confusing. How did anyone ever buy into this nonsense?

      • Greg G.

        It’s a mystery.

        • ildi

          inside an enigma.

        • Greg G.

          Wrapped in a paradox.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        If God is Jesus’s father, and Jesus is also God. Then Jesus is God’s father. Jesus is his own grandpa

        • Jay Has

          Yes, major problems arise when trying to “change the story” and evolve it into something else. We see if everyday life when a lie must continue to be stretched to fit into all the unforeseen issues that arise.

    • Jesus said, “Father, remove this cup from me” (Luke 22:42). Why would he say that?? He is part of the Trinity that decided it.

      • Joe

        My father would tell me to remove my own bloody cup.

        • islandbrewer

          “And put it in the dishwasher! Stop leaving it around!”

  • Jay Has

    I must give it to Markus…..he must genuinely believe this stuff. His concern for the eternal fate of Internet strangers is impressive, no matter how irrational the concept is. The only caveat is, however, that if a person REALLY thought there was even a .00000000003435% chance of eternal suffering and punishment and could fully comprehend what that meant, they would either spend there entire life petrified unable to function or on their knees in a church; food and water are secondary!

    • Ignorant Amos

      Don’t be fooled. This is less about what happens to a bunch of lost atheist souls on the internet, than it is about Markus.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      But which church? How do you guess which omnicidal monster is the right one?

      • Jay Has

        You got me! But anything to avoid eternal punishment.

  • Brianna LaPoint

    The bible has made more criminally insane people than any other religion/

  • Jim Dailey

    For those of you interested in a scholarly refutation of Bob’s poor reading of the Bible, go see Dave Armstrong on Patheos Catholic.
    As far as I can tell, Bob is 0 for 5 in his “damning” claims, leaving me to advise him to possibly re-title his series “15 of the most…”

    Of course, if all his arguments are this lame, then he will have to do more title-editing I suppose.

    The thing that Dave points out is that these “contradictions” listed by Bob have been around for a loooong time, and dismantled so effectively that serious atheists have abandoned them.

    So, if you want to see “damning” going on, bring some of these old re-treads up with a serious scholar, and he will treat you like a “damned fool”.

    • Greg G.

      Was Jesus arrested, tried, sentenced, crucified, and buried before or after the passover meal? The Synoptics say after, John says before. What say you?

      • Jay Has

        Apparently Jesus was crucified twice? Maybe he came back to life and they killed him again?

        • Greg G.

          Never execute someone before a barbecue lest they come back from the dead.

        • You know how with Lays potato chips, you can’t eat just one? It’s like that.

        • Jay Has

          I guess if it’s that good, why stop with just one?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve eaten Lays…and Lays are boggin’…Tayto cheese & onion are the best potato crisps in the world.

          I had a box shipped to me 8,000 miles away from home back in 1982.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayto_(Northern_Ireland)

        • Susan

          Lays are boggin’

          Is that good?

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Greg G.
        • Ignorant Amos

          Revealed in a 2015 survey as being the number one Irish foodstuff that expats miss the most after moving abroad, Tayto crisps are a national institution. But many don’t realise they also have global significance, having been the world’s first ever seasoned potato chip. Here is a look at how the humble cheese and onion crisp became a national treasure and one of the top five biggest-selling brands in Ireland.

          https://theculturetrip.com/europe/ireland/articles/a-brief-history-of-tayto-irelands-beloved-crisp-brand/

          A national institution I’m talking about here…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNSIV_nDeMo

        • Sample1

          Chips are my favorite salty junk food. Cheese and onion flavored ones sound delicious. I’m always envious of other country’s snacks, especially Japan’s. Whenever I go next door to Canada I look for ketchup flavored chips which are surprisingly good.

          But while Lays are good, when I really can’t decide what chips to buy I always go for Ruffles (plain or cheddar/sour cream). They never disappoint!

          Mike

        • Susan

          Whenever I go next door to Canada I look for ketchup flavored chips which are surprisingly good.

          If you can get your hands on them, try Miss Vickie’s Sea Salt and Malt Vinegar.

          Try them one at a time. The first two or three might make you wonder why I suggested them.

          About four or five, you’ll probably be hooked

          If you’re not, we can still be friends.

          They’re evil.

        • Greg G.

          I have had those. They are pretty good. Too many vinegar flavored chips taste like artificial vinegar.

        • Susan

          Too many vinegar flavored flavoured chips (corrected for Canadian chip talk) taste like artificial vinegar.

          These ones do not. It takes the British to dowse perfectly fried fresh potatoes and oil and salt with malt vinegar.

          And an evil woman we shall call Miss Vickie to perfect it.

          I don’t buy them. They are that evil.

          They are pretty good.

          Pretty good?

          Heretic.

        • Greg G.

          With all of the flavored chips, on the off chance the vending machine at work has potato-chip flavored potato chips, I’ll get that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah, we have had Heinz Ketchup flavour here.

          Walkers do all sorts of extravagant flavours. From Marmite to Brussels Sprout. Including tomato sauce flavour. Pulled Pork to Steak Fajita, etc.

          The latest fad flavoured crisps on the market are Christmas Tree flavor by Iceland.

          I see Lays do ketchup flavoured crisps too.

        • Sample1

          Xmas tree flavor?

          Fir goodness sake…

          Mike

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fir goodness sake…

          Ha….a seen what ya did there fir feck sake…

          Yip…I shit you not.

          https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/shopping-deals/iceland-selling-christmas-tree-flavoured-13355906

    • Otto

      The only thing Dave has dismantled is his own credibility. He is a liar and a coward and you are his errand boy.

      • Greg G.

        It looks like Dave had four comments from three different people three days ago. Only one comment since then.

        • Otto

          I am not convinced ‘Matt’ isn’t Dave. Dave will not respond to any comment I make…same with Matt, and their views and derision are pretty much identical. I am thinking it is about 50/50.

        • Greg G.

          Matt has been around for four years with 1300 posts but only one follower. Even the Russians don’t like him.

        • Otto

          He responded to me know…and he is arguing that something immaterial can have substance…he is literally arguing for an oxymoron.

          I no longer think he is Dave…but he might as well be.

        • MR

          Oh, is Dave’s sock still finishing for hits? Cute.

        • Dave and a few sycophants have created a Catholic echo chamber. Sounds like heaven.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Well, it’s heaven for the REST of us… 😉

    • Joe

      And if you want somebody making things up a scholarly refutation of Dave Armstrong’s poor reading of the Bible, see a blog from a different sect of Christianity, who interpret the bible differently. God knows there are plenty of them.

    • Greg G.

      I read it. I see him quoting an apologist about Mark 16. He appeals to the added verses and that 16:7 says the angel commanded them. But the last sentence of the Gospel of Mark says, “They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid.” THE END You can’t pretend that it says anything else. When the other gospels say they told, it is a contradiction.

      Dave is in Fantasy Land.

      • Joe

        When Jim says:

        …these “contradictions” listed by Bob have been around for a loooong time, and dismantled so effectively that serious atheists have abandoned them

        What he means is: Atheists have gotten tired of pointing out the most glaringly obvious contradictions, only to be told “no they aren’t'” by Christians. It’s one reason I don’t really like biblical contradiction discussions. The Christians response boils down to “nun-uh”.

        • Greg G.

          One of Dave’s refutations involved bolding an “if” in the next verse and a “but” in the one after that.

        • Susan

          One of Dave’s refutations involved bolding an “if” in the next verse and a “but” in the one after that.

          But.. but… look how scholarly he is.

        • Greg G.

          I notice that Jim Dailey has more posts to Bob’s blog than to Dave’s the past three days.

        • Well, you know what they say: Christians really are all atheists; they’re just too proud to admit they’ve been wrong all this time.

          I’m sure Jim’s a closet atheist. Show him the secret handshake next time you see him.

    • Dave had his chance, so I guess it’s up to you. Show us how these contradictions fail, big mouth.

    • Susan

      For those of you interested in a scholarly refutation of Bob’s poor reading of the Bible

      No, thank you.

      I can explain it again for you, but it never matters. You just pop in randomly (and have for years) to do your carnival barking. You seem to have zero interest in any discussion.

      1) Dave is not a scholar.
      2) No one is interested.
      3) Dave has developed a terrible reputation over the years for behaving badly in his discussions (i.e. he bans people willy nilly, he cherry picks their genuine attempts at discussion, edits his own comments after their responses and he bans them without justification, after which, he claims they were banned for being hostile (anti-theist and anti-catholic if they’re atheists, anti-catholic if they’re non-catholic christians, probably anti-Dave if they’re catholics who don’t agree with Dave. I made the third one up but it wouldn’t surprise me.)

      He calls the results “papers”.

      4) His apologetics are not special. It’s all the same old crap.

      5) He banned Bob and here you are at Bob’s blog carnival barking (again). That’s genuinely shitty behaviour. Persistent shitty behaviour.

      If you think Dave has made a great point, discuss it here.

      If you can’t, then why should anyone care whether you think his point is great? You’ve never been able to (or interested in) having a full discussion.

      So….

      No. Thank you.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Bang on the nose…oh how I dream of being a modicum that articulate.

        • Susan

          a modicum that articulate.

          If it weren’t for you, I wouldn’t have discovered the phrase “shower of gobshites”.

          One of the most beautiful phrases in the English (?) language IMO.

      • islandbrewer

        Yeah, the Courtier’s reply is horrible enough, but when it’s nothing but links to his own rambling unresponsive … uh … “arguments”, it reaches a new low.

    • Phil

      I must be a serious atheist. I seriously don’t believe and gods exist.

    • Rudy R

      And as far as I can tell, you have produced nothing to support your unfounded claims that “Bob is 0 for 5 in his “damning” claims”, Bob has been “dismantled so effectively that serious atheists have abandoned them” and that he would be treated like a “damned fool” by scholars.
      And no, I’m not going to Dave Armstrong’s blog…either produce evidence for your claim here or go home.

    • Jay Has

      So are you claiming that there are zero contradictions in the book?

    • Ignorant Amos

      A wonder would ya fuck away off with this cock sucking of Armstrong bullshit.

      Make an argument here if ya can. Dismantle one that Bob presents here if ya can…or go take yer heed fer a keek.

      Or better still, it’s about time Bob banhammered yer cretinous arsehole.

    • Doubting Thomas

      Oh yeah!!?? Well if you go read my blog over at http://www.youreatwit.com you’ll see that I effectively demolished Dave’s demolishing of Bob. Take that!!

    • Grimlock

      Jim. You do realize that your behavior on this blog boils down to drive-by commenting? You rarely, if ever, follow up on your initial remarks.

      Given this, why should anyone take any of your claims seriously?

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      You worthless putrid sockpuppeting sack of feces, stop wasting our pixels and bandwidth here!

      Slither back under your slimy rock, Davie-poo….we don’t need YOUR KIND here.

  • Keith

    There are no contradictions contained within Holy Scripture, only apparent contradictions. Those who think there can be such a thing as private interpretation of Scripture (there is no private interpretation–see 2Peter 1:20) have made up their minds about the subject, but a good Bible scholar can explain them (the apparent contradictions). Only the Catholic Church (to whom the Bible belongs) can properly interpret Holy Scripture. (Non-Catholics have no Bible)

    • Greg G.

      Only the Catholic Church (to whom the Bible belongs) can properly interpret Holy Scripture.

      Great! I am very happy you stopped by, Keith. Maybe you can help clear up this apparent contradiction that BobS covers in the continuation of this series.

      Mark 14:12-16, Matthew 26:17-19, and Luke 22:7-12 tell us that it was the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread and the disciples prepared the Passover. (Matthew dropped the part about the Passover sacrifice but Mark and Luke got this wrong as the Passover is eaten at the very beginning of the first day of the Unleavened Bread.) Mark 14:17, Matthew 26:20, and Luke 22:14 tell us that the evening and the hour came for the Passover, and that Jesus joined the disciples at the table. Matthew 26:21 and Matthew 26:26 says that they were eating.

      In each of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus took Peter, James, and John up to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. Then Jesus was arrested. Therefore, Jesus ate the Passover meal before he was arrested, tried, sentenced, crucified, dead, and buried.

      In John 13:1, they have a meal but was it the Passover? John 13:29 tells us they had not begun to prepare for the Passover. In John 18:1-12, Jesus and his disciples crossed the brook Kidron to a garden where Jesus was arrested.

      In John 18:28 when Jesus was taken to Pilate’s place, the Jews did not want to enter because it would defile them and they would not be able to eat the Passover. John 19:14 says it was mid-day of the day of Preparation for the Passover.

      Therefore, according to John, Jesus was dead and buried before the Passover meal and could not have eaten it.

      It cannot be that the Passover meal was the night before and the Jews were delaying eating it. Passover leftovers are forbidden. Nothing can remain until morning.

      Exodus 12:8, 10 (NRSV)
      8 They shall eat the lamb that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

      10 You shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn.

      Please straighten us out about this apparent contradiction.

    • Joe

      Only the Catholic Church (to whom the Bible belongs) can properly interpret Holy Scripture

      Have you mentioned this to an evangelical protestant recently? What was their response?

    • Ignorant Amos

      see 2Peter…

      But 2 Peter is a forgery…aka lie…so who cares what a lie says?

      Only the Catholic Church (to whom the Bible belongs)…

      Really? When did the Catholic Church take ownership of it? Who says?

      (Non-Catholics have no Bible)

      Ya fuckin’ Idiot… Get in the fuckin’ sack!

    • Otto

      >>>”Only the Catholic Church (to whom the Bible belongs)”

      You mean the Bible that the whole first half of which belongs to another religion? And the second half of which was written before the Catholic Church existed?

      • Greg G.

        The Old Testament is over 77% of the Bible. The Catholics include the Apocrypha, so its even more by their own count.

    • And the blizzard of “apparent” contradictions doesn’t give you pause?

      I’m sure that “good Bible scholars” can tap dance some sort of rationalization, but that’s their job. They’re biased. The test you want to conduct is to give a list of contradictions to an unbiased third party and get their evaluation.

      Only the Catholic Church (to whom the Bible belongs) can properly interpret Holy Scripture.

      It took them 21 ecumenical councils to figure out what their own holy book was saying. I think God needs to get his message straight since appears so ambiguous.

  • Brother TC

    When we encounter conundrums in our observation of the universe, we don’t assume that the natural world is a deception. Because we’re predisposed to trust our perception and reason, we hold the presupposition that reality exists and, if we ever have trouble understanding it, that’s due to our own limited understanding and fallibility. In such cases, we put great effort into harmonizing our theories with our observations — that is to say, we constantly study the world and seek proper interpretation of it.

    Indeed, science is full of paradoxes, dilemmas and mysteries. Take just one example: the cosmic fudge factor of dark energy/matter. Everyone knows that this is a big fat placeholder for entities, forces and phenomena that we just don’t understand right now. The existence of dark energy/matter really makes no sense, but we need to posit it in order for our formulas to work out right.

    Now, would you find it silly if someone listed dark energy/matter in a list of theories that damn science as clashing with reality, or even damning our sense of reality as a delusion? I hope you would find that to be a silly move.

    If you put 20 people in 20 identical rooms with 20 identical Bibles to read, they’ll come out with 20 interpretations that all differ in some ways. What’s the varying factor in that scenario? The readers, the rooms or the Bibles? Everyone admits that all humans are fallible and limited in their understanding, even Christians. This is why we Christians pray and study the Bible privately and in fellowship with other Christians. We employ sound hermeneutics, and seek guidance of the Holy Spirit who indwells all believers, to exegete the true meaning scripture. Is our interpretation of God’s word ever perfect? No. Even Christians are a work in progress, an ongoing process we call sanctification.

    Finding error in the Bible depends on your presuppositions regarding God. Do you believe scripture is the breathed-out word of God? If so, you can quite easily resolve any and all so-called contradictions and even achieve a fuller, deeper understanding of scripture by doing so.

    • Greg G.

      If you put 20 people in 20 identical rooms with 20 identical Bibles to read, they’ll come out with 20 interpretations that all differ in some ways. What’s the varying factor in that scenario? The readers, the rooms or the Bibles?

      It’s the Bibles. It is a collection of writings with many different conflicting ideas. Many of the writings have been edited for theological reasons.

      Did Jesus eat the passover before he was crucified or was he crucified before he could eat the passover? The Synoptics explicitly say that he did eat the passover meal. The Gospel of John says he was dead and buried before the passover meal. BobS has that as one of the contradictions in the continuation of the series and I cite the verses in http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/10/top-20-most-damning-bible-contradictions/#comment-4162623378 in this comment section.

      • Brother TC

        Passover week is a festival with meals each day. Jesus ate the paschal supper on the 15th of Nisan (our Thursday evening, but Jewish Friday because the Jewish day begins at sunset), and He was crucified on the same calendar day (our Friday, and also Jewish Friday) — the day before the Sabbath. When the synoptic authors talk about Jesus eating the Passover meal, they’re talking about the paschal supper (15th), and when John refers to the Passover meal in relation to the crucifixion, he’s talking about the Sabbath Preparation Day and its meal (a meal that occurs on the Sabbath, obviously — the 16th — the calendar day after Jesus was crucified — our Friday evening, but Jewish Saturday).

        • Greg G.

          When the synoptic authors talk about Jesus eating the Passover meal, they’re talking about the paschal supper (15th), and when John refers to the Passover meal in relation to the crucifixion, he’s talking about the Sabbath Preparation Day and its meal (a meal that occurs on the Sabbath, obviously — the 16th — the calendar day after Jesus was crucified — our Friday evening, but Jewish Saturday).

          I think John was trying to say the Passover was on the sabbath but that is a direct contradiction to what the Synoptics tell us.

          Leviticus 23:5 (NRSV)
          5 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, there shall be a passover offering to the Lord,

          Exodus 12:5-6 (NRSV)
          5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a year-old male; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month; then the whole assembled congregation of Israel shall slaughter it at twilight.

          Exodus 12:16 (NRSV)
          16 On the first day you shall hold a solemn assembly, and on the seventh day a solemn assembly; no work shall be done on those days; only what everyone must eat, that alone may be prepared by you.

          Exodus 12:18 (NRSV)
          18 In the first month, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day, you shall eat unleavened bread.

          Mark 14:12-16, Matthew 26:17-19, and Luke 22:7-12 tells when the Passover was. Mark and Luke said that the passover lamb was sacrificed on the first day of unleavened bread but Leviticus 23:5 and Exodus 12:5-6 say the passover is sacrificed before the evening while Exodus 12:18 says the first day of unleavened bread begins in the evening. They all got the first day of unleavened bread wrong.

          The meal following that is the Passover meal and Jesus ate it with his disciples. No other meal that week is THE Passover meal.

          They ate the Passover on Thursday night which was Friday, in Jewish time. Jesus was arrested, tried, sentenced, crucified, died, and was buried on Friday in the Synoptics.

          John 19:14 (NRSV)14 Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He [Pilate] said to the Jews, “Here is your King!”

          The Greek in John 19:14 for “Preparation for the Passover” is “παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα (pascha)” in the mGNT and the Textus Receptus. It is definitely the Preparation for the Passover.

          Jesus had already been tried and it was still the day of Preparation for the Passover. Jesus was crucified three verses later. Jesus was buried before the evening when the Passover meal would begin.

          Exodus 12:8, 10 (NRSV)
          8 They shall eat the lamb that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

          10 You shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn.

          There is one Passover meal and no leftovers.

          Is there anything you would like to retract?

        • Brother TC

          “Is there anything you would like to retract?”

          No, but thanks for the offer. Nothing you wrote refutes what I wrote.

          Exodus 12:8 is about the paschal supper in particular, while the Passover festival lasts a week with meals each day.

          Your assumption that the Jews got their own laws wrong is just silly, and your assertion that the gospel accounts of Jesus living a perfect, sinless life indicate otherwise is even sillier.

        • Greg G.

          Read John 19:14 again. It was the day of Preparation of the Passover. The Greek word that is translated as “Passover” is “πάσχα”. The same word is used in Matthew 26:2; Matthew 26:17; Matthew 26:18; Matthew 26:19; Mark 14:1; Mark 14:12; Mark 14:14; Mark 14:16; Luke 2:41; Luke 22:1; Luke 22:7; Luke 22:8; Luke 22:11; Luke 22:13; Luke 22:15; John 2:13; John 2:23; John 6:4; John 11:55; John 12:1; John 13:1; John 18:28; John 18:39; John 19:14; Acts 12:4; 1 Corinthians 5:7; and Hebrews 11:28. The NIV, the NASB, and the KJV translate “πάσχα” as “Passover” every single time and the NRSV translates it as “Passover” all but once, the exception being 1 Corinthians 5:7 where it is translated as “paschal”.

          John 13:1 says it was before the feast of the Passover, that is, the beginning of Passover week. There was a meal mentioned in John 13:2 so it was not the Passover. In John 13:29-30, Jesus sent Judas out to buy what they needed for the feast. Then Jesus starts talking and there is continuous conversation until John 18:1 when Jesus crossed the brook Kidron to the garden. Judas Iscariot brought the soldiers there in John 18:2. Jesus was arrested before the Passover feast.

          Now would you like to retract?

          Your assumption that the Jews got their own laws wrong is just silly, and your assertion that the gospel accounts of Jesus living a perfect, sinless life indicate otherwise is even sillier.

          I did not make that assumption. I think Mark got the first day of unleavened bread and preparation day wrong and that Matthew and Luke copied him. If we give them the benefit of the doubt, they were simply not using sunset as the division between days. It does not change the argument.

          [Edited out some misplaced text less than a minute after posting.]

        • Brother TC

          I understand that you’re determined to find contradiction, and that’s fine. I can’t stop you.

        • Greg G.

          I just showed you that the Synoptics say Jesus ate the Passover. I also showed you that John says Jesus was arrested before the beginning of the Passover, then tried, convicted, sentenced, crucified, died, and buried before he had a chance to eat it. It is very clear in John whether you look at the time before the arrest or afterward.

          Are you going to retract your claim or close your eyes, cover your ears, and sing, “La la la la”?

        • Brother TC

          I stand by my first explanation above, which you have failed to challenge.

        • Greg G.

          Read from John 13:1, where it says it is before the feast of the passover to where Jesus is seized in John 18:12. Tell me where in that time did the passover meal happen. John 18:1 says that Jesus crossed the brook when he finished speaking. It was a continuous conversation. The soldiers show up in John 18:2.

        • james warren

          But Greg offers historical scholarships to undergird his point.
          You yourself, however, seem to use a standard of proof called “Because I Said So.”

          The Bible does not tell a single consistent story. Historians find such a conclusion biblically illiterate and naive.

          Believers refuse to acknowledge the many places where Jews, Catholics and Protestants disagree on the meaning of the various passages in the text.

          When trying to present the story of Noah and the Ark, for example, do we say that Noah took two of every animal on the earth as it says in Genesis 6? Or do we say that he took 14 of every clean animal and two of every unclean animal as Genesis 7 reports?

          Which Jesus do we believe? The Jesus who tells his followers that “no sign will be given” or the one who tells his followers that “a sign will be given?”

          Do we follow the Jesus who said he came to forgive humankind’s sins by dying on the cross? And if so, where does he say that?
          Or do we follow the God of Jesus that proclaims “Go and learn what this means: [God] desires mercy and NOT sacrifice.”

        • Brother TC

          “Believers refuse to acknowledge the many places where Jews, Catholics and Protestants disagree on the meaning of the various passages in the text.”

          Not this one.

        • Greg G.

          You haven’t read John closely enough. Show me in John where Jesus had the passover meal before he was arrested. It has to be somewhere between John 13:1 which says it was before the feast of the passover and John 18:12 when Jesus was arrested. That should save you some time.

        • Brother TC

          See my first comment in this thread.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Copy & paste is your friend.

          You sound like you’re trying to tapdance on ice skates, and failing miserably at both.

        • james warren

          TC, your post reminds me of a Christian bumpersticker that was popular during the 1970s:

          THE BIBLE SAYS IT.
          I BELIEVE IT.
          THAT SETTLES IT.

        • james warren

          But John clearly says Jesus died on the Day of Preparation.
          This was when the paschal lambs were slaughtered before the next day’s Passover holiday.

          Remember, it is JOHN who depicts Jesus as the sinless Lamb of God.

          Even though Jesus was said to have taught “ALL” in parables, John’s account has no parables whatsoever. And the word “repent” will not be found anywhere. And no concern for the destitute and the marginalized. And no Last Suppers. And a three-year ministry instead of the one-year ministry that Mark, Matthew and Luke tell us.

          No parables or memorable short sayings. John’s Jesus talks like a mystical philosopher whose language is 180 degrees different from the Synoptic gospels. Jesus talks in long, dense theological monologues all about himself and the importance of believing in him.

        • Greg G.

          Exactly! John changed the day of the crucifixion for theological reasons.

          In the Synoptics, Jesus spoke in parables where the meaning was hidden. In John, Jesus spoke in deliberately confusing ways, like using a pun when speaking with Nicodemus in chapter 3. The pun is that being “born from above” and “being born again” sound alike in Greek and Nicodemus got the wrong meaning. That was supposed to have happened in Jerusalem so it would be unusual for the conversation to have been in Greek.

    • Ignorant Amos

      One word….“APOLOGETICS”

      • Brother TC

        Good word. I like that word.

        “Always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1Pe 3:15b).

        The Greek word there for “defense” is ἀπολογία — apologia.

        Incidentally, when atheists argue for their position of unbelief, they’re also practicing apologetics.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Apologetics are only needed when you don’t have evidence but refuse to make your beliefs and actions comport to reality.

    • Michael Neville

      We employ sound hermeneutics, and seek guidance of the Holy Spirit who indwells all believers, to exegete the true meaning scripture.

      In other words you guess what the Bible says and whoever yells loudest has their “interpretation” forced on the others.

      • Brother TC

        False.

        • Michael Neville

          What a incisive rebuttal. I’m crushed!

          Seriously, you need to improve your debate skills. Tell me why it’s false, be specific and rigorous, or don’t expect me to take you seriously in any way.

        • Brother TC

          What I wrote doesn’t describe guessing, and I don’t yell to get my interpretation forced on others. You’re just wrong.

        • Michael Neville

          You mean you actually think “guidance of the Holy Spirit” means anything more than going with your gut feelings, aka guessing? That’s the problem with your “exegete the true meaning”, it’s purely subjective and based on nothing but your subjective opinion. If you want to postulate the “Holy Spirit” does anything, you have to show this “Holy Spirit” exists somewhere besides your imagination. That means you need evidence, something you admit you don’t have.

        • Brother TC

          I claim to have knowledge of the truth through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and God’s word. I know you don’t believe that, but that’s why you’re called an unbeliever.

          I’m not claiming to have “subjective opinion,” which is a redundant term. I don’t know your worldview, but based on your statements I assume you don’t claim to have any knowledge of the truth (the absolute, objective, universal, immutable truth), so you believe everyone else must be in the dark along with you.

          “That means you need evidence, something you admit you don’t have.”

          I need no such thing in order to confess my beliefs, and I assert that you already have the evidence. All evidence can be denied if you desire to deny it, so I don’t even attempt to give you more.

        • Michael Neville

          “Subjective opinion” is repetitiously redundant. So what?

          “Absolute , objective, universal, immutable truth” is impossible. There’s no way you or anyone else could know something is an absolute truth. If you make that claim then you’ll have to give rigorous evidence to support it. Otherwise Hitchen’s Razor applies:

          What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          If I had “evidence” to support your claims then I’d admit it. Since I don’t have that evidence and, in fact, deny that such evidence is feasible or conceivable, then I’d prefer that you not make false claims about me.

        • Brother TC

          “There’s no way you or anyone else could know something is an absolute truth.”

          Do you think that’s absolutely true?

        • Michael Neville

          I could be wrong about everything. The only thing I claim to know absolutely is that a personality I call “me” exists in such a way that I’m aware of it. Other than that, I’m not arrogant enough to say I know things “absolutely”. And if you think for a second that you’re the first person to raise that gotcha question to us then you’re wrong. You’re not even the first to do it in the past seven days.

        • Brother TC

          Okay.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Bingo!!!

      • MR

        And anyone can claim that they have the proper hermeneutics and that the Holy Spirit dwells in them and not the other guy. They claim contradictory things, but can’t demonstrate how or why they are right or even that the Holy Spirit even exists. Everything is hidden behind a curtain. Cults operate like this. It’s dangerous thinking. It preys on the gullible.

    • Otto

      >>>”If you put 20 people in 20 identical rooms with 20 identical Bibles to read, they’ll come out with 20 interpretations that all differ in some ways.”

      Which is about what we would expect considering the Bible was written by an unknown amount of authors and then it is being interpreted by other people. Don’t you think that if it was divinely inspired by a perfect being that it would be able to be understood with more consistency? The issue isn’t the fallibility of humans, the issue is the infallibility of the supposed perfect God.

      • Brother TC

        “The issue isn’t the fallibility of humans.”

        That’s the whole issue, in a nutshell.

        • Otto

          So basically your are arguing that an all powerful God either is incapable of doing better or just really doesn’t care to for whatever reason.

        • Brother TC

          No, I’m not arguing that.

        • Otto

          Well those are the only options that make sense given the circumstances.

        • Brother TC

          Consider the biblical option: God made people capable of choosing to rebel and fall from grace, thereby leading them into self-destructive patterns, and then gave His only Son as a means to redeem people who will repent and return to His good grace, all for His glory.

        • Otto

          Wait…I am a parent and have/had children that I knew would not be perfect…should I blame them for not being perfect?

          Additionally according to the biblical option the that fact certain people rebelled happened a long time before I was born. What responsibility is it of mine or yours that we were born into an imperfect world?

          And then how does me thinking a certain thought (Jesus is God and does for my sins) justify me getting out of any supposed responsibility for it?

          The whole ‘biblical option’ is a complete mess.

        • Brother TC

          “I am a parent and have/had children that I knew would not be perfect.”

          Think about that. Really think about that. Do you think you’re wicked for having children that you knew would not be perfect, who would suffer injury and disease, and who would ultimately die?

          I’m not talking about “original sin,” which is an unbiblical Roman Catholic invention. I’m talking about your sin nature, which you inherited from your parents like you inherited DNA. You are not born with sin, but you’re born with a sin nature. It’s only a matter of time — and not much time — before you sin, and at that point, you’re guilty.

          We’re all given a conscience, by the grace of God. We all know right from wrong, and that’s why we have no excuse for all the sinning we do (Rom 2:14-15). Despite your objections, you’re responsible for your choices, your sinful thoughts and your sinful deeds.

          “how does me thinking a certain thought… justify me getting out of any supposed responsibility for it?”

          Faith in Jesus Christ is not a mere thought. As for justification, sin and substitutionary atonement are the subject of the entirety of the Bible, from Genesis to maps.

          Indeed, mankind and the world are in a deep mess.

        • Otto

          >>>”Think about that. Really think about that. Do you think you’re wicked for having children that you knew would not be perfect, who would suffer injury and disease, and who would ultimately die?”

          No I would be wicked if I expected them to be perfect and if they weren’t I then required a blood sacrifice of an innocent person to make up for their failure…and even then if they didn’t believe what I had done they would still fall short. That would be wicked.

          It really does matter if you call it ‘original sin’ or ‘the fall of man’, the end result is the same. Billions of people being born into an imperfect world they did not ask for and had no hand in its creation, and then blaming them for not being perfect.

          >>>”I’m talking about your sin nature, which you inherited from your parents like you inherited DNA.”

          And BTW…how in the hell is THAT different from Catholic original sin in practice…? Seriously, have YOU actually put any thought into this, because it sure doesn’t look like it.

          >>>”You are not born with sin, but you’re born with a sin nature.”

          So I am fundamentally predisposed to sinning…and that is MY fault?

          >>>”We all know right from wrong”

          No, that is a pithy statement that is not only meaningless and unsubstantiated, but it is demonstrably incorrect.

          >>>”Faith in Jesus Christ is not a mere thought.”

          Sure it is…in fact it is nothing but thoughts.

          >>>”As for justification, sin and substitutionary atonement are the subject of the entirety of the Bible, from Genesis to maps.”

          Substitionary atonement is not moral, and that in and of itself shows what a mess Christianity is.

        • Brother TC

          “So I am fundamentally predisposed to sinning…and that is MY fault?”

          Yes.

        • Otto

          That does not make any sense. That situation was put in place before I existed so I could not possibly be at fault.

        • Brother TC

          Do you think you’re at fault for anything whatsoever? If so, why? According to the naturalist, materialistic worldview, everything was put in place before you existed.

        • Otto

          I was refuting the claim that you think I was responsible for the sinful nature I was born with…and now you are changing the subject.

          Would you like to try again?

        • Brother TC

          You’re prevaricating.

          “Would you like to try again?”

          Yes, and thanks for the opportunity:

          Do you think you’re at fault for anything whatsoever? If so, why? According to the naturalist, materialistic worldview, everything was put in place before you existed.

        • Otto

          >>>”You’re prevaricating.”

          You’re projecting.

          You are switching the subject from being at fault for having a sinful nature to being at fault for anything. Do you always sidestep difficult questions?

        • Brother TC

          Do try to answer my question.

        • Otto

          Umm…now you first. I asked the question…you gave a poor answer which I pointed out didn’t make any sense…and now you are switching the subject, basically you are throwing out a red herring to evade addressing the issue.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’m at fault for what I willfully do wrong.

          I’m to be commended for what I do right.

          And how is that question anything but a poor attempt at a derail, anyway?

        • Brother TC

          Do you think your good deeds can make up for your bad ones?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          No bad deed can ever be undone entirely. Even an unkind word can cut deep.

          So I try to avoid them.

          I *will* try to make amends for my wrongdoing, after admitting my fault.

          And most of the time, like most people, I do constructive things, and occasionally even ‘altruistic’ things.

          Why do you seem to be trying to condemn me for wrongdoing, rather than your ‘god’ who can do all that and worse but NEVER apologizes?

          When your supposed ‘god’ does the same, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion about the topic.

        • Ah, it’s all fitting into place now. Thanks.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “So I am fundamentally predisposed to sinning…and that is MY fault?”

          Yes.

          Wrong in one…per your story, your ‘god’ created each and every one of us.

          And it’s immoral and weak to blame a ‘creation’ for the failure of the ‘creator’.

        • Brother TC

          “And it’s immoral and weak to blame a ‘creation’ for the failure of the ‘creator’.”

          Where did you come up with that rule?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Oh, come now…

          You’ve already forgotten the discussion of *fairness* elsewhere in this thread?

          Animals recognize fairness, no supernatural nonsense necessary.

          And if you’re going to snidely snipe about comparing humans to other animals on that topic, let’s discuss physical strength, speed and acceleration, ability to sense magnetic fields, breathing underwater, flight, and a bunch of OTHER attributes where humans are outstripped by other animals.

          You can’t claim something special for humans unless you can ground it in evidence…so show me the evidence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Vicarious Redemption is what Hitchens called it…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iYh0u5w87M

        • Think about that. Really think about that.

          Why? Is this hard?

          Do you think you’re wicked for having children that you knew would not be perfect, who would suffer injury and disease, and who would ultimately die?

          Not me.

          Now let’s look at the God situation. You and I came out of the box sinful and deserving of hell, according to the Christian view. That’s immoral nonsense when seen from a human standpoint.

          You might say that the human standpoint is pointless when we have God’s, but the buck stops here. We fallible humans must decide if the Christian claims are sensible before we accept them. Long story short: they’re nonsense.

          I’m tal king about your sin nature, which you inherited from your parents like you inherited DNA.

          Theology. I don’t accept it.

          You are not born with sin, but you’re born with a sin nature. It’s only a matter of time — and not much time — before you sin, and at that point, you’re guilty.

          Right—humans have no choice but to sin. And then God condemns them for it.

          Messed up, right?

          We’re all given a conscience, by the grace of God evolution.

          FTFY

          We all know right from wrong, and that’s why we have no excuse for all the sinning we do (Rom 2:14-15).

          Probably best not to quote Bible verses to atheists and think that they have any weight.

        • Brother TC

          “You and I came out of the box sinful and deserving of hell, according to the Christian view.”

          That’s RCC doctrine, and not biblical.

        • If you’re not RCC, then you’re the upstart, like Mormonism. But let’s set that aside for now.

          So what is your view? I’m not deserving of hell?

        • Brother TC

          My beliefs are strictly based on the Bible, so not an upstart.

          You’re deserving of hell if you’ve ever sinned. Babies out of the womb have not sinned — but they will assuredly sin in short order, given their sin nature.

        • My beliefs are strictly based on the Bible, so not an upstart.

          And when someone else tells me that he’s a Christian too and that your views are wrong, which of you do I pick?

          You’re deserving of hell if you’ve ever sinned.

          Nope. Human morality doesn’t say that. (Are you new to our planet?)

          Babies out of the womb have not sinned — but they will assuredly sin in short order, given their sin nature.

          And whose fault is their sin nature?

          “Man is created sick and commanded to be well.” – St. Christopher

        • Brother TC

          “And when someone else tells me that he’s a Christian too and that your views are wrong, which of you do I pick?”

          It’s really up to your own discernment.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “And when someone else tells me that he’s a Christian too and that your views are wrong, which of you do I pick?”

          It’s really up to your own discernment.

          So, at the SAME TIME you’re claiming ‘objective’ morality, you’re refusing to define objective criteria for identifying it?

          Sounds mighty shady to me…not to mention pathetically juvenile and weak.

        • Brother TC

          Thanks for your kind words.

          When I claim that morality is objective, I’m merely stating my beliefs. I’m not seeking to prove it to you right now.

          At the same time, when people claim that morality is relative, I see no point in even considering their moral judgments as applicable to anything outside of their own minds.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “When I claim that morality is objective, I’m merely stating my beliefs. I’m not seeking to prove it to you right now.”

          Then stop wasting our time.

          “At the same time, when people claim that morality is relative, I see no point in even considering their moral judgments as applicable to anything outside of their own minds.”

          Then you’re ignoring the evidence.

          I infer, from the survival of humanity and various civilizations, that morals are the survival instincts of a society.

          Societies with defective morals die, sometimes alone, sometimes after ravaging other societies.

        • When I claim that morality is objective, I’m merely stating my beliefs. I’m not seeking to prove it to you right now.

          Then state that up front. You mock others for their moral interpretation but then say, “Oh, but don’t challenge me on my beliefs. It’s not like I’m trying to make a moral claim or anything”?

          Hypocrite.

          At the same time, when people claim that morality is relative, I see no point in even considering their moral judgments as applicable to anything outside of their own minds.

          Sweet! Anyone who disagrees with your moral interpretation is wrong by your declaration, and you have no obligation to defend your moral interpretation.

          You can’t justify objective morality, you never could, and I think you doubt that you can. Maybe you should dial back the obnoxious confidence that you’re right.

        • Wow. Yes, each person picks his own interpretation. I’m surprised that we agree.

          Since this interpretation is subjective, where does that leave you when you want to make absolute declarations? Or are you admitting that your Christian claims are just your own very fallible interpretation, not inherently better than that of the guy down the street?

        • Brother TC

          As a believer in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit indwells me and guides me to the truth. I’ve been supernaturally born again.

          I know you don’t believe that, but you asked.

        • the Holy Spirit indwells me and guides me to the truth

          And the guy down the street, who comes to a different interpretation of the Bible says the same thing. And we’re back to the question: when you and he make declarations about the Bible or God’s wishes, which one do I believe? You each have an unbelievable, magical answer, but forget that; the other guy makes the same claim about special revelation given to you by the HS.

        • Brother TC

          “When you and he make declarations about the Bible or God’s wishes, which one do I believe?”

          Discernment is all up to you, friend.

        • And your evaluation of the Bible is just your own imperfect, subjective interpretation. Just like I said.

          Next time, lead with this; don’t make us beat it out of you.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Stop assuming the consequent and start offering evidence, you fatuous preening ignoramus.

        • james warren

          “…Indeed, mankind and the world are in a deep mess.”
          So why doesn’t this Christian nation [as well as self-described Christians] follow Jesus instead of worshiping Christ on a pedestal?

          “Love your enemies.”
          “Pray to the Father in secret.”
          “God makes his sun stop shine on the evil and the good and sends the rain to fall on the righteous and the unrighteous.”
          “Why do you call ME good? Only God is good.”
          “Do not judge.”
          “Give to all who beg from you.”
          “Friend, who made me a judge over you?”
          “Go and learn what this means: [God] desires mercy, NOT sacrifice.”

          The Lord’s Prayer points to the fact that Jesus saw forgiveness as reciprocal: we forgive others to the same extent we forgive ourselves.

          There are two major traditions that run though the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation.
          The older tradition says that God looks for repentance and a contrite heart.
          The newer tradition [from the Aaronite priestly cult] posits that God is a jealous God of retributive justice who demands a bloody sacrifice for assuaging human sin.

          The substitutionary atonement theology was not worked out until some 900 years after the crucifixion by Christian theologian Anselm of Canterbury.

          There are no images or sculptures depicting Jesus hanging on a cross until well into the 5th century. Early Christian texts valued Jesus’ sayings. They mentioned nothing about a Passion theology, a crucifixion or a resurrection.

        • Brother TC

          “So why doesn’t this Christian nation [as well as self-described Christians] follow Jesus instead of worshiping Christ on a pedestal?”

          Hypocrisy, human fallibility — sin.

          “The substitutionary atonement theology was not worked out until some 900 years after the crucifixion by Christian theologian Anselm of Canterbury.”

          That’s silly. From Isaiah 53 to Romans 3 and 6, to 1 Peter 2 and 3, the Bible makes it clear.

          “There are no images or sculptures depicting Jesus hanging on a cross until well into the 5th century.”

          Yeah, that’s an RCC thing. They like graphically celebrating the crucifixion.

        • A Bronze Age god is so royally pissed that only a perfect sacrifice will assuage his justifiable rage. Of course he can’t just forgive, like the rest of us do.

          Your religion sounds cool. Where do I sign?

        • Greg G.

          God made people capable of choosing to rebel

          “Rebel” implies knowing opposition but, according to Genesis, they didn’t know the difference between good and evil, so they couldn’t know that disobeying was evil, nor obeying was good. Adam and Eve were incapable of making an informed choice in the matter.

        • Brother TC

          God made it clear that disobeying Him would result in spiritual death (Gen 2:17). They chose instead to listen to the serpent, who told them that disobeying God would work in their best interest (v. 3:5). Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that everyone has been blessed with the knowledge of right and wrong — a moral sense and a conscience — which informs, accuses and excuses them of their actions, so nobody has an excuse (Rom 2:14-15).

        • Greg G.

          God made it clear that disobeying Him would result in spiritual death (Gen 2:17).

          But they did not have knowledge of Good and Evil. Lacking that knowledge, they couldn’t know whether obeying or disobeying was evil.

          Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that everyone has been blessed with the knowledge of right and wrong — a moral sense and a conscience — which informs, accuses and excuses them of their actions, so nobody has an excuse (Rom 2:14-15).

          But that would have come from the eating of the fruit.

          Hebrews 5:14 (NRSV)14 But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

          Why should we practice distinguishing between good and evil? That is why God didn’t want Adam and Eve to live forever.

          Genesis 3:22-24 (NRSV)22 Then the Lord God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.

        • Brother TC

          Adam and Eve had perfect knowledge of God’s will from the beginning, but they denied it in favor of seeking their own way. The name of the tree is a metonym referring to power — see Goethe’s Faust for more exposition of this idea. They certainly knew what God told them, and promised them.

          Not allowing Adam and Eve to live forever after they fell from grace was an act of mercy, seeing as how they were fallen in sin. Much vampire fiction is based around this curse of eternal life in misery and bloodlust.

        • Greg G.

          Adam and Eve had perfect knowledge of God’s will from the beginning

          Again without knowledge of good and evil. They didn’t know whether following God’s will was good or evil. They were completely uninformed that following what God said was good.

          see Goethe’s Faust

          Does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply to the entire Bible? Isn’t that just Goethe’s opinion? Or is Goethe God’s spokesman? Why didn’t it get explained sufficiently in the Bible?

        • Brother TC

          Men can exposit scripture, and you can benefit from it.

          As for your other point, I’d rather not repeat myself. Just read my previous comments.

        • Greg G.

          You still haven’t explained how someone can know the difference between good and evil before they knew the difference between good and evil.

          But the Genesis account is absurd. Knowledge is stored in the brain as memory. Memory works by the connections between neurons. There are drugs that can block protein formation that connect neurons and memories do not form. But consuming a fruit and digesting it will not put the connections in the brain and it will not encode the neuron connections in the DNA to be passed on to other generations.

          It is a fictional story.

        • Brother TC

          “before they knew the difference between good and evil”

          Like I said, the name of the tree is a metonym, and it doesn’t mean that Adam and Eve lacked the ability to understand the consequences of disobeying God when He made His law very clear. Adam and Eve had knowledge of God’s will, and they chose to disobey it.

          As for your reductionist, materialistic digression, I’m not interested in hearing about your faith.

        • So Adam and Eve already knew everything, and then they ate the Fruit, after which they knew everything.

          Something doesn’t sound right.

        • Brother TC

          “So Adam and Eve already knew everything”

          False proposition. I only said they knew what God had instructed, and the consequences of transgressing those instructions.

        • Greg G.

          I quoted Genesis 3:22 which quotes God saying, “the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil”. That implies that they did not know the difference between good and evil before.

          But God could have blocked the formation of the dendrites for the knowledge and they could have gone on their way as if nothing had happened. He could have made it impossible for those memories to form just like he made it impossible to tickle ourselves effectively. Some people can learn higher math and some can’t. Macaques cannot. People could have that much ability for good and evil. Then God wouldn’t need to throw a tantrum.

        • Brother TC

          I don’t find your conjecture to be compelling.

        • Greg G.

          Is your god thingy omnipotent? Is your god thingy omnibenevolent? Is your god thingy incapable of doing what benzodiazepines can do?

        • They were never immortal, if that’s what you were saying. That’s what the Tree of Life was for.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Two consequents you’re assuming there:
          – Any ‘god’ or ‘gods’
          – Any ‘spirit’ independent of chem-electrical patterns in matter.

          Which invalidates your entire assertion, as assuming the consequent is a violation of the rules of logic.

        • Otto

          Oh and I forgot to add that it still does not make any sense for a perfect being to rely on imperfect beings to communicate such an important message, and then blame the receivers of that imperfect transmission of the message for thinking the whole thing looks to be just humans imperfectly claiming to speak for an imaginary God.

        • Brother TC

          “blame the receivers of that imperfect transmission”

          God has promised you justice, which you deserve. God never promised you mercy, which you don’t deserve.

          As for the imperfect transmission, that’s my fault and not God’s — and God wants it this way.

          “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1Co 1:21b).

          It tends to keep us humble.

        • Otto

          >>>”God has promised you justice, which you deserve. God never promised you mercy, which you don’t deserve.”

          God has done neither, only people like you that claim to speak for God, including the authors and editors of the Bible, have made such proclamations.

          >>>”As for the imperfect transmission, that’s my fault and not God’s — and God wants it this way.

          Hmmm… I said as much above when I said “that an all powerful God either is incapable of doing better or just really doesn’t care to for whatever reason.” And you responded by saying that was not what you are arguing…and yet now that is exactly what you are arguing by your own admission.

        • Brother TC

          “God either is incapable of doing better or just really doesn’t care to for whatever reason… now that is exactly what you are arguing by your own admission.”

          Not sure you’re giving me a fair shake. The fact that God is pleased to save sinners through the preaching of fools like me is not an admission that God doesn’t care or is somehow incapable. Not sure how you’re drawing that conclusion, but it’s unsound.

        • Otto

          I didn’t say God didn’t care…I said God didn’t care to do better…and you agreed by saying “God wants it this way”.

        • Brother TC

          Let’s press in on your judgment that God could “do better.”

          Do you believe in absolute, universal, objective standards of right and wrong?

        • Otto

          >>>”Do you believe in absolute, universal, objective standards of right and wrong?”

          In your view is it always wrong to kill an innocent child?

        • Brother TC

          Do try to answer my question.

        • Otto

          OK…No I do not believe in “absolute, universal, objective standards of right and wrong”.

          Now will you answer my question?

        • Brother TC

          Your answer leaves you without the ability to judge God as wrong in any absolute, universal or objective sense. It really boils down to your personal opinion, which isn’t very compelling. That’s a problem for you, although I don’t expect you to acknowledge this gaping error in your worldview.

          To answer your question, it’s wrong for any person to kill an innocent child — and that would include the murderous acts of abortionists.

        • Greg G.

          Your answer leaves your without the ability to judge God as wrong in any absolute, universal or objective sense. It really boils down to your personal opinion, which isn’t very compelling.

          We can judge things by relative degrees. We know that we can outrace a box turtle without seeing the topspeed of a cheetah or a pronghorn antelope. We know we like to see a baby smile more than we like to see them cry.

        • Brother TC

          So you’re attempting to judge God “by relative degrees?”

          “We know we like to see a baby smile more than we like to see them cry.”

          Understood, and agreed, but that’s just a declaration of your feelings. Is that really how you’re going to form your foundation for morality?

        • Greg G.

          My morality is based on empathy and reason about what others would want and I hope that is returned to me. I don’t expect to be right every time.

          I think that is far more rational than basing morality on what is imagined that an imaginary non-human entity would want, even if a bunch of people who didn’t know where the sun went at night thought they could imagine such things.

        • Brother TC

          I’m the guy who says we were all born with an intuitive sense of right and wrong — a conscience, an objective moral sense — and it’s not based on inculcation or social conditioning. The Bible says the same thing (Rom 2:14-15).

          You, on the other hand, hold to moral relativism, which is less than compelling (to put it mildly).

          The empathy and reason you so cherish comes from God. I know you don’t believe that — but I’m waiting for your better explanation.

        • Greg G.

          The empathy comes from the evolution of social creatures that care for their young. We see it in animals. There are many videos of animals taking care of the young of a different species, even predators caring for a prey animal, apparently because the instinct to care for young is triggered. I had a dog that would catch and kill bird in low flight. Once she heard a chirp and pounced. In mid-flight, her facial expression changed and she curled up around a featherless baby bird.

          They even have a sense of fairness. Monkeys were taught to retrieve a stone for a piece of cucumber. When they saw another monkey do the same task and get a grape, a cucumber was no longer good enough and they would throw it at the person. The researchers were able to determine their preferences, which happened to be very close to the cost of the fruit or vegetable at the grocery store.

          A similar experiment was done on dogs where they would do a trick for nothing until they saw another dog get a treat for it. But they didn’t consider the quality of the treat.

          Paul was just mistaken about where the instincts come from. Many creatures care for their young. Social creatures seem to have extended those instincts to their neighbors in some mammals and some birds.

        • Brother TC

          So you think your moral sense is comparable to that of dogs? This is interesting.

        • Greg G.

          The sense of fairness is better developed in monkeys than in dogs. Our taste preferences appear to be no better than monkeys even though our sense of smell is quite diminished.

          We seem to think babies are cute the same way other mammals do.

        • Brother TC

          So you think your moral sense is comparable to that of monkeys? This is interesting.

        • Greg G.

          I didn’t say that at all. Don’t you just wish I had said that?

          Cite a verse in John that shows when the actual passover feast occurred during Jesus’ last trip to Jerusalem.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          &ltEliza mode&gt You seem to be using an accusatory tone.

          Is there some reason you feel sensitive about answering the question?

        • Uh … you do realize that you’re a primate, just like monkeys, right? You might want to dial back your indignation at the comparison.

          We see the fundamentals of morality in monkeys in this simple experiment:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

        • Brother TC

          My dog proves to me that she’s jealous every day. That’s hardly evidence for moral evolution and relativism. Please.

        • The burden of proof rests on your broad shoulders. Either (1) define objective morality, (2) give us evidence for it, and (3) show that ordinary humans can reliably access it, or be a man and publicly withdraw your claim.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          – Morals exist, and can be demonstrated, classified and graded as more / less compassionate
          – NO ‘god(s)’ have been demonstrated with enough specificity to overcome the Null Hypothesis

          So, tell me again WHY we should waste our time on your febrile nonsense?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Retarded reading ability is nothing to be proud of, yet you go out of your way to demonstrate it at every opportunity…astonishing.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Fairness is recognized by MANY animals…which shouldn’t be surprising, as humans are biologically animals.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your reading for comprehension ability really needs some work to improve.

        • You, on the other hand, hold to moral relativism, which is less than compelling (to put it mildly).

          “Compelling”? What do you mean by that? It sounds like you’re saying, “Objective morality just sounds so much nicer, that I’d prefer that to be true.”

        • Brother TC

          Despite what it sounds like, I really find the opinions of men to be worth less than nothing when it comes to the subject of God.

        • Otto

          All you have is the opinions of men, the Bible and everything in it comes from men…so you have now painted yourself in a corner of not trusting the Bible…unless you intend to make a special pleading.

        • Brother TC

          I know you don’t believe this, but I was an atheist for 43 years. I was born again while cynically reading the Bible to collect material for a novel I was writing. The Holy Spirit indwelled me and guided me to the truth of God’s word, which I simply could not see before. Now I see the evidence of God in everything that is made.

          This is not special pleading. This is just my testimony, and like I said, I don’t expect you to believe it.

          I come here only to destroy your godless worldview, and to subtly convey the gospel truth (subtly because I’m aware of the usage terms here). I’m not here to convert you, because such a thing is impossible. My Lord doesn’t call me to convert people. I share the truth only so that you’ll have something to turn to if or when you discover the error of your ways. Only Jesus saves, and God does this work according to His own free will outside of anything I can do.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Well, if you can make baseless assertions, so can I.

          I hereby dub thee an insincere, weak-willed Liar for Jebus™

        • Ignorant Amos

          But, but, but…that’s not a baseless assertion.

        • I know you don’t believe this, but I was an atheist for 43 years.

          What’s hard to believe? Atheists become Christians and vice versa.

          This is a tangent, but I reject the symmetry. I reject the Christian’s claim that “I used to be an atheist just like you.” I realize you aren’t making this claim. Here’s my response:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/10/i-used-to-be-an-atheist-just-like-you-2/

          I come here only to destroy your godless worldview, and to subtly convey the gospel truth (subtly because I’m aware of the usage terms here).

          I have no problem with your being here. I welcome civil Christians. The problem usually comes when the Christian either becomes obnoxious or makes empty theological claims without giving a reasonable argument to back it up.

          I’m not here to convert you, because such a thing is impossible. My Lord doesn’t call me to convert people. I share the truth only so that you’ll have something to turn to if or when you discover the error of your ways.

          It’s amusing to see you proselytize as if your religion is the actual religion, and the thousands of others are all just nonsense. (They are just nonsense, but let’s not imagine yours is fundamentally different.)

          As for sharing the truth, what do you think you’re telling us that we don’t already know? Atheists who hang around apologetics blogs are usually far, far more knowledgeable about Christianity than the average Christian.

          Only Jesus saves, and God does this work according to His own free will outside of anything I can do.

          Then you should stop doing it? Or have I just fallen into your cunning trap?

        • Otto

          >>>”This is not special pleading.”

          Yes it is.

          And I was a Christian for 40+ years…so nah

          >>>”I come here only to destroy your godless worldview”

          And you have failed spectacularly, the Christian worldview is internally inconsistent and you have demonstrated that splendidly.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re still assuming the consequent.

          This ‘god’ meme you’re suffering from is warping your psyche.

        • Despite what it sounds like, I really find the opinions of men to be worth less than nothing when it comes to the subject of God.

          Despite your evidence of God coming from nothing but men.

          That’s why I like conversing with you! Because you don’t take yourself too seriously, and you can lay bullshit like that out as if it’s actually thoughtful!

          Best wishes, Brother.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just some men apparently.

        • Pofarmer

          What a maroon.

        • Otto

          >>>”I’m the guy who says…”

          ‘Saying’ is not demonstrating, it is just asserting.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Explain sociopaths…who can be identified practically as babies, LONG before they can be ‘socially corrupted’.

        • Brother TC

          I’ve read a half-dozen books on psychopathy and sociopathy (for a project), and I know that they cannot be identified “practically as babies.” They can be identified as children, who surely sin, but not as babies. The Bible describes a certain class of hypocrites and liars as people who have their “conscience seared with a hot iron” (1Ti 4:2). People will indeed harden their hearts to commit wicked acts that they know are wrong.

          At any rate, the exception proves the existence of the rule — to wit, that we naturally know right from wrong.

        • we naturally know right from wrong.

          We consult our moral programming (thanks, evolution), and it tells us what’s right and wrong. We have shared instincts (torture bad, helping someone who’s slipped on the ice good) because we’re the same species.

          The natural explanation needs far less handwaving.

        • Pofarmer

          Dude, if you can actually support some kind of objective morality then bring it. If not. Politely shut the fuck up. Thank you.

        • Recommend something better (tip: if it’s not evidence based, it’s not better).

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Per your story, your ‘god’ is a petulant asshole.

          But you haven’t convinced me it even exists.

          So start there.

        • Brother TC

          At the moment, I’m not trying to convince you of anything other than the error of your godless worldview.

        • ?? What have you done to make that argument??

          Jeez–give us some frikkin’ evidence. Give us an argument. Give us more than empty proselytizing.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.

          It’s easy, really.

          You obviously don’t really care, either, or you’d provide the evidence for YOUR ‘god’, and (supposedly) MY ‘soul’.

          Remember, by YOUR KIND’S storybook, if you fail and my supposed ‘soul’ goes to ‘hell’, it’ll all be on your head.

          I don’t actually believe that you’re a sincere believer…I believe you’re a fatuous apologetics shitposter.

        • Brother TC

          “By YOUR KIND’S storybook, if you fail and my supposed ‘soul’ goes to ‘hell’, it’ll all be on your head.”

          False.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Hmmm…interesting that you deny ‘The Great Commission’.

        • Brother TC

          The commission is to preach the gospel to all the world — it’s not a “convert or else” command.

          Not sure where you got that idea, but it’s all in your head.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Liar.

          Your ‘gospel’ IS “convert or else”.

          Or what’s the whole ‘hell’ thing about?

        • Brother TC

          You put the “or else” clause on my head. You said it’s up to me to convert you, and if I fail, it’ll be on my head. That’s ridiculous.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Your ‘bible’ claims that all men have knowledge of your ‘god’, so none have any excuse for not believing.

          Keep an eye on ‘excuse’, because it comes up later.

          Who needs an ‘excuse’ if that one is doing something meet, right, and salutary?

          An ‘excuse’ is what one needs when one *fails*, to escape punishment.

          This ‘hell’ is the punishment for not believing, and all signs point to a demand for belief even in the face of reason and repeated failed experimentation on the topic.

          So the “or else” is an inescapable consequent of your fairy tale.

        • Brother TC

          Dude. You said, “if you fail and my supposed ‘soul’ goes to ‘hell’, it’ll all be on your head.”

          That just ain’t so.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Eskimo: ‘If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?’
          Priest: ‘No, not if you did not know.’
          Eskimo: ‘Then why did you tell me?'”

          Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/annie_dillard_131195

        • Brother TC

          Everyone knows. Romans 1:18-22.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So the priest lied?

          It’s mighty *convenient* to have a verse that allows you to claim to mindread in the name of your poisonous ‘god’ meme.

        • Do you really not understand the kind of evidence we’re looking for here?

        • Brother TC

          I’m not here to give you evidence, friend. I know the evidence is abundant, even manifest within you, but you suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-22). I’m not here to give you yet more evidence to suppress. I don’t put you in the position of judge against God — that would be foolishness.

        • Evidence is abundant, and yet you can’t be bothered to provide it.

          How much easier can we make it? Here you’ve got a bunch of atheists, begging you to provide evidence. You’ve claimed that even though the holy spirit doesn’t need or want your work, he somehow still needs/wants it, so you’re obliged to give it. And yet you’re playing hard to get.

          You got nothing. Admit it. (Or is that against the rules in Liars for Jesus?)

          I don’t put you in the position of judge against God

          The buck stops here. I’m in the position of judging the truth of Christian claims for me. (Who else would do that?) So far, you’ve done nothing. Maybe you should just leave. You’re useless.

        • Brother TC

          I’m sorry, Bob, if I’m not serving you well. I’m trying my best.

          Just so you know, I’m not an evidentialist — I’m a presuppositionalist. I’m not trying to give you evidence.

          My apologetic usually involves exposing the error of the godless worldview and then sharing the gospel, but I’m kind of restrained from doing the latter due to the usage terms on this site. I’ve been kicked off a lot of pages for even mentioning Bible verses, which is quite funny for a site about discussing beliefs.

          I know you think I’m failing, and I wouldn’t expect you to think otherwise. That’s cool. I’m not trying to convert you. I’m just sharing what I know to be the truth, so that you’ll have something to turn to if God chooses to save you. I’m just plowing the rocky ground, so to speak.

        • You should’ve laid your cards on the table the first time someone demanded that you stop making empty theological claims and give actual reasons why we should accept your viewpoint.

          My apologetic usually involves exposing the error of the godless worldview and then sharing the gospel, but I’m kind of restrained from doing the latter due to the usage terms on this site.

          Usage terms of Patheos? Or of this blog?

          And by “exposing the error,” do you mean actual errors or simply argue that the Christian worldview, if true, would be nicer?

        • Michael Neville

          Just so you know, I’m not an evidentialist — I’m a presuppositionalist. I’m not trying to give you evidence.

          At this point we know we can ignore you. Presuppositionalism, also known as begging the question, is the logical fallacy called petitio principii or assuming the consequent. We want evidence, not just a blanket “this is what I think, take it or leave it.” We’ll leave it because it involves using a premise to support itself. If the premise is questionable, which the existence of gods certainly is, then the argument is bad.

        • Brother TC

          “At this point we know we can ignore you.”

          Please tell that to HairyEyed.

        • Michael Neville

          HairyEyed is an adult capable of making decisions without guidance.

          If you read the responses given to you in this thread then you’ll know that what we want is evidence, not an airy “God exists because I say so”. Even archapologist William Lane Craig rejects presuppositionalism. He wrote:

          …presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism….It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, ‘God exists. Therefore, God exists.’ Nor is this said from the standpoint of unbelief. A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything…”

          Steven B. Cowan,Five Views on Apologetics

          If even Lane Craig, who is not the most honest debater, rejects presuppostionalism, then it’s a very shoddy argument indeed.

          I won’t be replying to you further, not because of anything you’ve written but because Discus has gone all wonky on me.

        • Brother TC

          Yes, WLC advocates one of “Five Views on Apologetics.” I don’t favor WLC’s theistic evidentiary approach, but I don’t see a point in arguing this subject with unbelievers. It would be like you arguing with me about positive versus negative atheism — pointless, because I reject both.

        • Michael Neville

          Too bad for WLC that he doesn’t have any theistic evidence. He claims he does but, as I noted above, he’s not the most honest debater. His main “evidence” is:

          The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. –W.L. Craig Dealing with Doubt

          That sounds similar to your argument about Biblical exegesis. It also sounds like WLC is listening to the voices in his head.

        • Brother TC

          I don’t really care what it sounds like to you. WLC is clearly explaining the nature of regeneration and faith in Jesus Christ, and he’s not attempting to argue anything there.

        • Michael Neville

          WLC is bragging that the voice in his head tells him things. What’s the difference between the “Holy Spirit” and schizophrenia?

        • Brother TC

          Bragging?

        • Greg G.

          WLC and Plantinga talk about “sensus divinitatis”. They claim theirs works but non-Christians have faulty ones.

        • Brother TC

          Do you make any claims that your worldview works, and others don’t?

        • Greg G.

          I think it is absurd to form your worldview around your presuppositions. I think you start with a methodology and adjust your worldview and methodology according to the results.

          For example, Europe thought followed Christianity almost exclusively until the Crusades started bringing back documents with ancient Greek knowledge from 15 centuries earlier. There is great contrast between the writings prior to the 11 century vs the writings after that, besides just adding quotes from Plato and Archimedes.

          But they were still trying to work things out with God included in everything for a few more centuries. Newton published Philosophae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687 without a God factor in his equations. Technology and knowledge from science is still exploding exploding since the 18th century.

          Presuppositions about God was a brake for a long time.

          The scientific method is the best methodology we have for acquiring and evaluating information. But as soon as a better method is developed, I am switching to that one.

        • Brother TC

          “I think it is absurd to form your worldview around your presuppositions.”

          That’s a presupposition.

          “I think you start with a methodology and adjust your worldview and methodology according to the results.”

          That’s a presupposition.

          “Newton published Philosophae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687 without a God factor in his equations.”

          I would never suggest that scientific equations should include a “God factor.”

          “Presuppositions about God was a brake for a long time.”

          And your presuppositions led you to this conclusion — and the understanding that you’re right and they were wrong.

          “The scientific method is the best methodology we have for acquiring and evaluating information.”

          Not when it comes to evaluating abstract transcendent entities such as the laws of logic, rationality, morality and God.

          The scientific method is the best methodology we have for exploring our natural universe. Using it for any other purpose is an abuse of science, and what we call scientism.

          “But as soon as a better method is developed, I am switching to that one.”

          You’re talking about the development of a science that’s better than science. It’s a silly proposition, but I understand that you need to emphasize that you don’t trust anything entirely — as if you go through your daily life using the scientific method — which you don’t.

        • Greg G.

          That’s a presupposition.

          Nope. We all presupposed how the world works when we were children. Some of us learned from those experiences.

          I would never suggest that scientific equations should include a “God factor.”

          Of course you wouldn’t now because it is obviously absurd to do so. But you still stick a god factor into everything else in your life.

          And your presuppositions led you to this conclusion — and the understanding that you’re right and they were wrong.

          No, it is the observation of history. When the roman Empire collapsed, Christianity kept the religion and forgot ancient Greece. When they got some of the knowledge from ancient Greece, it was a leap forward for them but they still tried to understand things in terms of god thingies. When they stopped doing that, science and technology took off exponentially. Humans have gone from wind-driven sailing ships to nuclear-powered submarines. We have gone from dreams of flying with feathers stuck in wax to landing on the moon and putting mobile space-labs on Mars.

          Not when it comes to evaluating abstract transcendent entities such as the laws of logic, rationality, morality and God.

          Science works with reality, though.

          You’re talking about the development of a science that’s better than science. It’s a silly proposition, but I understand that you need to emphasize that you don’t trust anything entirely — as if you go through your daily life using the scientific method — which you don’t.

          Whoosh.

          I am saying that I am sticking to the best methodology available, not because I am wedded to it, but because it is the best methodology available. I would switch to a better one if it came along.

        • Brother TC

          A better methodology for doing science would still be science.

          Believing in Jesus Christ doesn’t constrain anyone from doing science, and it never has.

        • Greg G.

          They did that. It was when they stopped putting God and Jesus into there explanations that the explanations worked. That is the point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’re talking about the development of a science that’s better than science.

          The religious mind-rot really has fucked up your ability to read with much skill in comprehension. He said the best method we have for acquiring and the evaluation of information is the method grounded in science. Until the human species comes up with a method that can do all the things that the scientific method does and more, then that’s where we are. It’s the best we’ve got. Science has the 100% track record to date…supernatural entities strike out every single time and are a big fat zero.

          It’s a silly proposition, but I understand that you need to emphasize that you don’t trust anything entirely

          Everything in science is provisional. When a better hypothesis comes along and explains everything the old hypothesis explains, stuff it doesn’t, we adopt the new hypothesis…provisionally. That’s not to say there are certain things we can hold as true with a high degree that science has already explained. God-did-it is an idiots placeholder for what science has yet to explain. Rational people prefer “We don’t know yet”.

          — as if you go through your daily life using the scientific method — which you don’t.

          Yeah,…we actually do, most of it subconsciously to be fair, but everything we do, we process scientifically. Some folk are just very poor at it of course. What we don’t do ourselves, we rely on the results of someone else who has already done the heavy lifting. You couldn’t get through your daily life without it.

        • Brother TC

          “HairyEyed is an adult”

          I figured otherwise. Thanks for clarifying.

        • Greg G.

          Just so you know, I’m not an evidentialist — I’m a presuppositionalist. I’m not trying to give you evidence.

          I know you think I’m failing,

          From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/10/top-20-most-damning-bible-contradictions/#comment-4165892129 :

          Do you believe scripture is the breathed-out word of God? If so, you can quite easily resolve any and all so-called contradictions and even achieve a fuller, deeper understanding of scripture by doing so.

          You have failed. You can easily pretend to resolve “so-called contradictions” but the lame apologetic about the harmony of the Synoptics and the Gospel of John about whether Jesus ate the Passover meal before he was arrested and crucified is wrong, which is evidence that your presuppositions are wrong.

        • Brother TC

          Something else from that post of mine:

          “Finding error in the Bible depends on your presuppositions regarding God.”

          This works both ways.

        • Pofarmer

          Great a Sye Ten Bruggencate aficionado. That’s a special kind of asshole.

        • You already told us that the HS does the work, and your feeble efforts don’t matter. So don’t pretend that you have a God-given commission.

          More on why the Great Commission doesn’t apply to you:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/02/the-great-commission-and-how-it-doesnt-apply-to-you-jesus/

        • Brother TC

          “You already told us that the HS does the work, and your feeble efforts don’t matter.”

          No, I didn’t tell you that. I’m called to share the gospel, and Jesus does the saving. My feeble efforts do indeed matter — “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1Co 1:21).

          I’m a fool at your service, friend.

        • So your efforts both count for nothing (because the HS will save whom he will save) and are also important.

          I think this contradictory Bible is becoming a problem.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And pathetically failing miserably at that task…give it up, you’re no good at it.

        • Brother TC

          If I were no good at it, you wouldn’t hound me as you do.

        • Pofarmer

          Abortionists aren’t killing children, dumbass

        • I’m barging into the conversation, answering just for myself. Apologies.

          Your answer leaves your without the ability to judge God as wrong in any absolute, universal or objective sense.

          Correct.

          It really boils down to your personal opinion, which isn’t very compelling.

          You got something better? When you answer, be sure that it’s not theology or opinion but evidence based.

          That’s a problem for you, although I don’t expect you to acknowledge this gaping error in your worldview.

          You’re the one who’s claiming to be able to access objective morality. That’s a fascinating claim—give us evidence.

          To answer your question, it’s wrong for any person to kill an innocent child — and that would include the murderous acts of abortionists.

          They don’t kill children.

        • Otto

          >>>”Your answer leaves your without the ability to judge God as wrong in any absolute, universal or objective sense.”

          Well since I don’t believe moral absolutes exist, all that is doing is stating the obvious…but your statement is equally just your opinion so it really doesn’t solve anything. Making such a statement does nothing to establish the claim that absolute, universal or objective morals do exist.

          >>>” it’s wrong for any person to kill an innocent child”

          What about if God commands you to kill an innocent child? Is it OK than?

        • Brother TC

          God commands me to love even my enemies, you know.

        • Otto

          Are you intentionally avoiding the question because you know regardless of your answer that it will conflict with your claim of universal, objective standards?

          Would you care to answer the question of “What about if God commands you to kill an innocent child? Is it OK than?”….?

          Keep in mind your non-answer will be equally as telling.

        • Brother TC

          “What about if God commands you to kill an innocent child? Is it OK than?”

          Since I search the scriptures for what is true, I know that God will never command me to kill an innocent child.

          And before you argue about it, No — I’m not Abraham, and I’m not an ancient Israelite. I’m a Christian, living under the New Covenant in Jesus Christ.

        • Otto

          My question was more about whether God commanding such an action would change its morality.

          Would you like to actually address that instead of focusing on whether God would ask such a thing of you personally? Because it looks like again you are deflecting.

        • Brother TC

          I’m not deflecting, friend. I’m trying to answer your questions to your satisfaction.

          I rely on scripture to know God’s will, and I check everything against it. For me, there’s no need for conjecture in these matters, because I know from scripture that God would never command me to commit such an action.

          When it comes to God, I don’t lean on philosophy because I believe in God’s word. Given my beliefs, it would be foolish of me to rely on my own opinion over the word of God.

        • Otto

          So is that a yes or a no in regards to the morality of God commanding a child to be killed?

        • Brother TC

          God can do anything He likes. If you dispute that, then you dispute the very definition of God.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So, then by YOUR KIND’s standard, either

          – Your ‘god’ can do immoral things, or
          – Anything your ‘god’ does is moral, at which point this whole ‘objective morality’ schtick goes RIGHT out the window.

        • Brother TC

          “Your ‘god’ can do immoral things”

          Immoral according to an objective standard, or according to your relative standard?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND are the ones *simultaneously* claiming some ‘objective morality’, while refusing to define the criteria for it.

          That’s just logically inconsistent.

          Fix that, then we’ll talk.

        • Why ask about someone else’s claim to objective morality when you have publicly admitted that your own claim is indefensible?

        • Brother TC

          I’m only asking for a consistent standard, friend.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So you’re throwing the insincere ‘friend’ card, are you?

          Well, Bless Your Heart (in the FULL Southern sense of the phrase…)

        • Brother TC

          I’m sincere here. I love you, and I want the best for you.

        • Done. One wonders why all the whining about non-objective morality.

          And since your stance on objective morality has apparently changed radically, it might be good to start with a fresh statement of your moral position.

        • Otto

          But the Bible shows it is not itself a consistent standard, nor the God it describes.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Hoist by his own petard.

        • Otto

          Than your morality is relative…oops

        • Can God do anything immoral?

          I thought not. Tell me, then, what are the moral rules that God follows, because they seem quite different from ours.

        • Brother TC

          For one thing, vengeance belongs to God — not us (Rom 12:19). For another, God can form His creations for the purpose of destruction or mercy, according to His will (Rom 9:19-25).

        • Sweet! I wish I were God! Just to be able to kill people just for laughs. I’m envious.

          Ah, well. I’m sure there’s a lot of bureaucratic nonsense filling up the day, so it’s not all fun and games.

          But back to the point: this isn’t a list of moral rules that God must follow. Or are you saying that God can do whatever the hell he wants and “morality” is something he doesn’t bother with?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Sounds mighty morally *relativistic* to ME…unless you’re advocating ‘Divine Command Theory’, which AGAIN posits that whatever your ‘god’ does is moral, throwing objectivity right out the window AGAIN.

        • Brother TC

          I assert that the objective moral standard of God is written on all our hearts (Rom 2:14-15). We all know right from wrong, and we have no excuse.

          I’m not God. You’re not God. We’re held to a different standard than God, since we’re mere creatures. I’m surprised that I need to explain this.

        • What you need to explain is whatever the hell set of moral rules you think God follows, because (based on human rules) he’s a capricious, savage, heartless bastard in the OT.

          You know God has a different standard? Great–you’re just the guy I’ve been looking for! Tell us what this stardard is.

        • Brother TC

          If you’re going with moral relativism, then all you’ve got is capricious judgment. And if you’re going to go with a materialistic evolutionary view of morality, all you’ve got is heartless indifference.

          The standard of God is written on your heart. I know you deny this. We call that self-deception.

        • No, the self-deception is you doggedly sticking to the idea of objective morality, put on our hearts by God, despite no evidence. You can’t explain it to us, you can’t defend it, you can’t even defend it to yourself.

          Defend your position or shut up about it. It’s clear you have nothing.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If YOU are asserting ‘objective’ morals, you bear the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of such.

          Until such time, any comments like the snide whining of your comment will ring *especially* hollow.

          Oh, and you’re STILL assuming the consequent and trying to *define* your ‘god’ into existence.

          That doesn’t fly around here. Provide evidence or accept the derision we’ll so cheerfully provide.

        • Brother TC

          “If YOU are asserting ‘objective’ morals, you bear the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of such.”

          To have a discussion about our respective beliefs, we need not prove anything. Incidentally, you don’t have the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of relativistic morality, either, but I accept the fact that you believe in it.

          I accept your derision, too. It doesn’t bother me, but I also don’t find it very rational or compelling.

        • Otto

          >>>”We’re held to a different standard than God”

          The point is the standard is different…and therefore not objective.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          FUCK your assertion.

          DEMONSTRATE IT or recant.

          It’s that simple.

        • Brother TC

          You cannot demonstrate to a blind person that the colors blue and yellow combine to make green. I don’t think you’d recant assertions about color phenomena on the basis that they cannot be demonstrated to blind people.

        • Otto

          Consider your very definition of God disputed.

        • Brother TC

          It ain’t my definition. It’s biblical.

          I know you dispute the Bible. I’m just correcting your terms.

        • Otto

          Oh I know TC…you are confident YOUR definition is Biblical and all the other Christian opinions that don’t agree with you are not Biblical.

          So yeah…it is your definition.

        • Your interpretation on God’s word is just your subjective opinion. The guy next door might be just as devout and pious but have come to a different conclusion. Who’s right?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I rely on scripture to know God’s will, and I check everything against it. For me, there’s no need for conjecture in these matters, because I know from scripture that God would never command me to commit such an action.

          Ya mean your own cherry-picked interpretation of scripture.

          And different folk at different times and places have interpreted the same ambiguity in scripture differently and used it to justify all sorts of nasty shite. What method do you use to confirm the veracity of your version? Why are others interpretation wrong?

        • Brother TC

          The preponderance of bad interpretations doesn’t impugn the true and intended meaning, which can be known. If an interpretation contradicts the clear teachings of the whole of scripture — and it’s clear — then that interpretation is wrong and must be rejected.

          Besides, I have the Holy Spirit providing guidance, as does any true believer in Jesus Christ. I know you don’t believe that, but that’s why you’re called an unbeliever.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The preponderance of bad interpretations doesn’t impugn the true and intended meaning, which can be known.

          Who decides what is a bad interpretation? Why? Who decides what is the true and intended meaning? When? Where? Why?

          If an interpretation contradicts the clear teachings of the whole of scripture — and it’s clear — then that interpretation is wrong and must be rejected.

          The problem ya have is who gets to decide? This is why there are 45,000+ different flavours of the Christian Cult.

          Besides, I have the Holy Spirit providing guidance, as does any true believer in Jesus Christ.

          Bingo! Who is the “true” believer in Jesus? Who decides? You do know you are making that well known fallacious fallacy.

          That’s what they all claim. And at all times, from those Christians that thought Jesus was a phantom…merely a very wise man, a half man half god, fully god. Whether there was one god, two gods, 3 in 1 god, 365 gods. From the Westbro Baptists to the Quakers and all manner of nonsense in between. All claim to have the true guidance. They can’t all be right. But you are okay, cause you are right, right?

          I know you don’t believe that, but that’s why you’re called an unbeliever.

          Oh I believe you believe it. But I’ve absolutely no reason to believe it. In the same way you don’t believe the truth claims of those other “true Christians”…and the “true god believers” of all the other religions you don’t believe are true. When you realise the reason why your nonsense is no more convincing to me, than their nonsense isn’t convincing to you. Then the penny will drop and you’ll realise why you have nothing we haven’t already heard…ad nauseam.

        • Brother TC

          I don’t claim to have a perfect interpretation of scripture. I claim to know the truth in Jesus Christ.

          “I’ve absolutely no reason to believe it.”

          I know that. I used to feel the same way.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Brother TC

          I don’t claim to have a perfect interpretation of all of scripture. I claim to know the truth in Jesus Christ and the gospel.

          I know from scripture that Jesus will never command me to go out and kill innocent children. The notion is preposterous.

        • The preponderance of bad interpretations doesn’t impugn the true and intended meaning, which can be known.

          How? Give us the algorithm for finding this true and intended meaning. Also explain why so many Christians aren’t using it.

        • Greg G.

          What if God ordered you to beat an innocent slave? Jesus is OK with that as long as it isn’t as severe a beating that a guilty slave deserves.

        • Brother TC

          I’m not an ancient Israelite. I’m a Christian.

          Also, you’re wrong — Jesus is not OK with what you described. Shame on you.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Either your ‘bible’ applies, or it doesn’t, all or nothing.

          Or did you forget the Jeez said he did not come to replace the law, but to fulfill it?

          Also recall that there’s that pesky “until all has come to pass”, which phrase INCLUDES THE SECOND COMING…

          Did I miss it?

        • Brother TC

          Yes, you missed it. You don’t appreciate what “fulfill” means.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Enlighten me.

          Be specific, and show your work.

          And then explain why the sophistry you WILL be using (I PROPHECY!!) isn’t applicable to any *other* sect of xtianity, or of any other religion.

        • Greg G.

          Luke 12:47-48
          47 That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.

          A Roman pagan writer who thinks of slaves as friends who should be treated well.

          “‘They are slaves,’ people declare. NO, rather they are men.
          ‘Slaves! NO, comrades.
          ‘Slaves! NO, they are unpretentious friends.
          ‘Slaves! NO, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike. That is why I smile at those who think it degrading for a man to dine with his slave.

          But why should they think it degrading? It is only purse-proud etiquette… All night long they must stand about hungry and dumb… They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies… This is the kernel of my advice: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters.

          ‘He is a slave.’ His soul, however, may be that of a free man.”
              — Seneca the Younger (4 BC – 65 AD), Epistulae Morales, 47.

          Jesus doesn’t think slaves should even be thanked for their service.

          7 “Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’? 8 Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink’? 9 Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’” –Jesus, Luke 17:7-10

          Why were pagans so far ahead of Jesus on slavery?

        • Brother TC

          Way to miss the point. Like I said, you conflate the ancient system of slavery with the transatlantic slave trade and declare it unjust on that basis. I really can’t stop you from continuing in that habit, though.

          Jesus used parables to illustrate certain truths. If He were speaking today, He may as well use parables about employees following the will of their managers.

          Besides all that, I have a feeling you don’t even subscribe to a universal code of morality. You think it’s all culturally relative. So you ought to understand that it was just the cultural norm at the time to hold slaves.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          All I’m seeing is *evasion* of the black-letter OT text *regulating* (NOT forbidding) slavery, combined with a feeble attempt at a counterattack / derail.

        • Lev. 25:44-46. Slavery for life. Praise the Lord.

          Do us a favor and read your own holy book.

        • Brother TC

          Last time I checked, I wasn’t an ancient Israelite.

        • ?? Irrelevant. I don’t care when the time period is (and the Bible never says that the institution of slavery is bad). God set out rules for slavery; therefore, he supported an immoral institution; therefore, he’s immoral. You’re the one who believes in objective morality, remember? How do you dance away from this? If slavery is wrong now, it was wrong back then. Or do we have it wrong today, and slavery is OK?

        • Brother TC

          Slavery in the OT is more akin to convicts picking up garbage along the highway today than the racist transatlantic slave trade based on exploitation.

          But beyond that, you’ve got a serious problem with your worldview. You don’t even have an objective standard by which to judge the morality of God. You’re just lost.

        • You’ve officially become tedious.

          You want to talk about slavery? Go read the blog post that I pointed you to. It’s in 2 parts and is a thorough discussion, full of Bible quotes. Like I said: God’s special version of slavery was the same as what we had here in America. Praise the Lord.

          You don’t even have an objective standard by which to judge the morality of God.

          Neither do you. Drop the arrogance.

        • Brother TC

          “Drop the arrogance.”

          ?

        • That’s weird. You must not have seen my entire comment since you didn’t respond to it. Let me repeat it for you here.

          You’ve officially become tedious.

          You want to talk about slavery? Go read the blog post that I pointed you to. It’s in 2 parts and is a thorough discussion, full of Bible quotes. Like I said: God’s special version of slavery was the same as what we had here in America. Praise the Lord.

          You don’t even have an objective standard by which to judge the morality of God.

          Neither do you. Drop the arrogance.

        • Brother TC

          “Drop the arrogance.”

          ?

        • Well played, sir! Although you’d be a lot more above-board if you’d simply say that you have no rebuttal to my claim that biblical slavery was the same as American slavery. And that you would avoid future claims to the contrary.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Already explained.

          You’re demanding we accede to your evidence-free assertion rather than accept the sensory input of our bodies.

        • Brother TC

          I’m making no demands.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Already explained.

          You’re demanding we accede to your evidence-free assertion rather than accept the sensory input of our bodies.

        • Brother TC

          I’m making no demands.

        • Rudy R

          Slavery in the OT is more akin to convicts picking up garbage along the highway today

          If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. Exodus 21:20-21

        • Greg G.

          Slavery in the OT is more akin to convicts picking up garbage along the highway today than the racist transatlantic slave trade based on exploitation.

          You have been reading Bible apologetics on slavery rather than the verses. Transatlantic slavery is Bible slavery. It came from Christians reading the Bible. It checks all the boxes. They even had indentured servants.

          Study Leviticus 25:44-46 for starters.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Liar.

          Look at what YOUR KIND advanced as apologetics for New World negro chattel slavery:

          http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

          https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/slavery-apologists

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fitzhugh

          You’re (feebly and pathetically) accusing US of not having an ‘objective standard by which to judge the morality of ‘god”, WHILE STILL REFUSING TO PROVIDE A RIGOROUS DEFINITION FOR THIS ‘objective’ MORALITY YOU CLAIM TO POSSESS!

          Get with the program, Laughing Boy!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Look everybody….the rules are subjective and relative.

        • Greg G.

          Way to miss the point. Like I said, you conflate the ancient system of slavery with the transatlantic slave trade and declare it unjust on that basis. I really can’t stop you from continuing in that habit, though.

          Actually, slavery in the colonies was based on the Bible example.

          Jesus used parables to illustrate certain truths. If He were speaking today, He may as well use parables about employees following the will of their managers.

          This parable is endorsing the beating of slaves by using it to justify God’s punishment.

          Besides all that, I have a feeling you don’t even subscribe to a universal code of morality. You think it’s all culturally relative. So you ought to understand that it was just the cultural norm at the time to hold slaves.

          Of course it was. But Jesus is supposed to have brought a new way of thinking. Instead of going after mere eyeballing an attractive person, he could have told them that anyone who owns slaves so be cast into the sea with a millstone around his neck. They had indentured servants and hired hands, too. They should have been able to make that work.

        • Brother TC

          Greg G., Jesus 2.0.

        • Greg G.

          Sure, Jesus 1.0 was Epistle Jesus. Paul loved to talk about Jesus. In the authentic epistles, he used “Jesus”, “Christ” or either combination about 300 times in about 1500 verses. But he never said anything about a preacher from Galilee. Everything Paul ever said about Jesus appears to come from the Old Testament.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          How pathetic is your meme that you’re forced to attempt a sarcastic attack on an interlocutor because you’re backed into a corner and your vile meme offers you no way out.

        • Rudy R

          So you ought to understand that it was just the cultural norm at the time to hold slaves.

          So slavery is just a cultural norm and not a moral issue?

        • Greg G.

          Isn’t the biblical cost of a slave thirty pieces of silver? A dime is a piece of silver. For $300, I could have a hundred believers obeying:

          Colossians 3:22 (NIV)
          Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND have been using xtianity apologetics to excuse slavery for centuries now.

          Southern apologetics for slavery using xtianity, resources:

          http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

          https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/slavery-apologists

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fitzhugh

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So the OT doesn’t apply any more?

          Then no more 10 ‘commandments’, no more Flood, no more flight from Egypt, and no more Adam & (St)Eve…

        • Brother TC

          The OT points to Jesus, and in that sense, it applies.

          It shouldn’t need explaining, but the commands given to the ancient Israelites do not apply to other people groups.

          God’s moral law applies to everyone, while the ceremonial, civil and dietary laws given to the Israelites were to separate them as a holy people and teach us about sin. Now that faith in Jesus has come, we are no longer in need of that schoolmaster.

          This is basic covenant theology, and not arbitrary. Much of the New Testament is dedicated to this subject, especially Galatians.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So you’re a typical (which is to say *cafeteria*, picking and choosing the bits you want) christian.

          Good to know.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We just don’t buy it….ya know like the way you don’t buy all that other religious fuckwittery?

          Do a need to explain it yer cretinous arse?

        • Whoa–hold on. I can still hate the gays, can’t I?

          Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          /s (damn Poe’s Law anyway…)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course….Gay bashing is fine and dandy according to the not-so-good-book….but, but, but,…shrimp cocktail….or polyester clothing….or tattoo’s…..or piercings…..straight ta feckin’ Hell ya deviant cunts the lot of youse for those Shenanigans…not allowed says the the big bejaysus fellow according to the big dopey book of instructions…pish, stuff, and nonsense.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Ten Commandments is another loada misplaced tosh.

          But what about the so-called “Ten Commandments,” the words recorded in Exodus 20, the words that the Creator Himself wrote on the two stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai (Ex. 31:18), which Moses smashed upon seeing the idolatry of the golden calf (Ex. 32:19)? In the Torah, these words are never referred to as the Ten Commandments. In the Torah, they are called Aseret ha-D’varim (Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13 and Deut. 10:4). In rabbinical texts, they are referred to as Aseret ha-Dibrot. The words d’varim and dibrot come from the Hebrew root Dalet-Beit-Reish, meaning word, speak or thing; thus, the phrase is accurately translated as the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements, the Ten Declarations, the Ten Words or even the Ten Things, but not as the Ten Commandments, which would be Aseret ha-Mitzvot.

          The Ten Things are category headings.

          The Aseret ha-Dibrot are not understood as individual mitzvot; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others. For example, the mitzvah not to work on Shabbat rather obviously falls within the category of remembering the Sabbath day and keeping it holy. The mitzvah to fast on Yom Kippur fits into that category somewhat less obviously: all holidays are in some sense a Sabbath, and the category encompasses any mitzvah related to sacred time. The mitzvah not to stand aside while a person’s life is in danger fits somewhat obviously into the category against murder. It is not particularly obvious, however, that the mitzvah not to embarrass a person fits within the category against murder: it causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood.

          The first Christians were Torah observant Jews and as such…

          According to Jewish tradition, G-d gave the Jewish people 613 mitzvot (commandments). All 613 of those mitzvot are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important, because human beings, with our limited understanding of the universe, have no way of knowing which mitzvot are more important in the eyes of the Creator. Pirkei Avot, a book of the Mishnah, teaches “Be as meticulous in performing a ‘minor’ mitzvah as you are with a ‘major’ one, because you don’t know what kind of reward you’ll get for various mitzvot.” It also says, “Run after the most ‘minor’ mitzvah as you would after the most ‘important’ and flee from transgression, because doing one mitzvah draws you into doing another, and doing one transgression draws you into doing another, and because the reward for a mitzvah is a mitzvah and the punishment for a transgression is a transgression.” In other words, every mitzvah is important, because even the most seemingly trivial mitzvot draw you into a pattern of leading your life in accordance with the Creator’s wishes, rather than in accordance with your own.

          http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

          So what we have are dishonest Christians cherry-picking to suit themselves.

          As for the actual rules, some absolute bullshit crap in there…God given, my arse.

          A lot of interest in the act of incest…grave details outlined. The Jews must’ve been a confused lot.

          Then there’s the geyz…

          103. Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22) (CCN116).

          One would think that pretty clear, but nope…

          84. Not to commit sodomy with one’s father (Lev. 18:7) (CCN111).

          94. Not to commit sodomy with one’s father’s brother (Lev. 18:14) (CCN114).

          http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

        • Interesting! It’s not surprising that a Jewish perspective brings up a different perspective.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course…and after all, it’s their story…they own it. The later Christians just nicked it and cherry-pick.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah, therein lies another contradiction…

          Many claim that the new covenant is better than the old covenant; but where in the Bible DOES it say that one covenant is better than the other? Does God make some things good and others not so good… or isn’t everything he makes perfect? Those making that claim are adding to the scripture and—as such, will receive his plagues.

          https://www.cristoverdad.com/gods-law-never-changes/

          …but picking and choosing to suit is okay….these cretins make it up as they go along.

        • Think of the passes you give God. He does insane, unhinged stuff in the OT that if you did it would get you charged with all sorts of crimes. But you step in to say that times were different or we can’t judge God or who knows what (as if he’s really sensitive and needs you to speak for him).

          But now you’re sure that he’s going to conform to human morality and will never demand that you kill an innocent child?? See how your religion has painted you into a corner.

        • Brother TC

          Despite your hubristic complaints, God has done absolutely no “insane, unhinged stuff.”

        • You know what I’m going to enumerate, so why make me go through the trouble? Just list for me the genocide, support for slavery, and child sacrifice and then respond to it.

          Let’s move this conversation along.

        • Brother TC

          The word “genocide” was coined to describe the atrocities committed by atheistic regimes in the 20th century.

          Your understanding of slavery is obviously wrapped up in notions of the transatlantic slave trade rather than the economics and justice system of the ancient world.

          God abhors child sacrifice, which He made clear over and over (Lev 18:21). Isaac was not sacrificed, you know.

          You’re making a lot of universal moral declarations for someone who holds that morality is not universal.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You sound like one of those theocrat-wannabe fundagelicals screeching that ‘separation of church and state’ isn’t in the Constitution *verbatim*.

          You want YOUR KIND to be the only ones who can draw inferences from a text.

          Nope, not happening.

        • Brother TC

          I want you to be free, friend. I’m not trying to impose anything on you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Head….shite….take for a walk….ya fuckwit.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I *am* free…of the viral meme with which you and so many other xtians are infected.

          It was implanted in so many of us as children, and others (possibly in your case, per your statement above) in a moment of great anguish, physical or emotional, when rationality either isn’t formed yet or went out the window for a time.

          Some of us survive it, and are thus inoculated against its ravages in the future, for a statistically high percentage of us.

          I’m just trying to understand why you would believe such self-contradictory, arrogant, barbaric nonsense.

        • Brother TC

          I was an atheist for 43 years. Raised by atheists, and inculcated in secular American public schools.

          For God’s reasons alone, He saved me one day and showed me the truth. I certainly didn’t deserve it.

        • inculcated in secular American public schools.

          Is this a non sequitur? Or does it connect somehow with your atheist upbringing? Last time I checked, atheism wasn’t taught in schools.

        • Brother TC

          “Last time I checked, atheism wasn’t taught in schools.”

          Yikes.

        • Which means what?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          In poor TC’s febrile mind, *not* actively proselytizing for HIS KIND’s religion is secular inculcation.

          He sees no middle ground of merely ignoring religion as irrelevant to education.

          He’s looking for a fight, so you’re either FOR him or AGAINST him, no neutrality allowed.

          Sad to say…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Last time I checked, atheism wasn’t taught in schools.

          That’s the sort of thing that gives the arsewipes lies for Jesus away.

        • Uh huh. Ask ex-Christians about the burdens of guilt, doubt, and anguish that they’re happy to have left behind.

        • Brother TC

          That’s sad. Jesus said, “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt 11:30).

          The Roman Catholic Church is responsible for a lot of suffering, although Christian hypocrites also populate churches everywhere. Jesus warned us of that.

        • No, not really a light burden: “Do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.” (1 Peter 4:12–13)

          Say, this dueling Bible quote thing is fun! But you do realize that it emphasizes the fact that you can read out of the Bible just about anything you want, right? For the longevity of the religion, I see the value, but this is no declaration from the mind of the omnibenevolent creator of the universe.

        • Brother TC

          My existence in this world as a Christian is much harder than it was an atheist, but I count it all joy. I started typing that before, but I don’t want to sound like a complainer.

          Faith in Jesus Christ has never been a burden, but the world and sin have indeed been a terrible burden.

        • I just rebutted your Bible quote with another Bible quote. So the Bible is contradictory, and I win.

          I started typing that before, but I don’t want to sound like a complainer.

          Complainer? Why would you be a complainer when Christ’s burden is light?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “My existence in this world as a Christian is much harder than it was an atheist, but I count it all joy. I started typing that before, but I didn’t want to sound like a complainer”

          You just contradicted yourself within the same post.

          What you’re claiming, apparently without realizing it, is that you’ve taken to hitting yourself in the face, you glory in it, but still are unhappy that both your fist and your face hurt.

          Why can’t you see your rhetoric for what it actually is: a cry for help screaming out from your subconscious?

        • Brother TC

          From what I can tell, it’s your proverbial fist hitting me in the face, not mine.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Read your post again.

          “*I* have a harder life after choosing xtianity over atheism (a claim I dispute, and call you a liar to your face), but it’s a *joy* to me”

          Parse that sentiment, condensed from your post.

        • Brother TC

          I’m not going to parse your mischaracterization of my post. That would be silly.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          …and Captain Kirk said, “What does a ‘god’ need with a STARship?”…

          Your point?

          HERE we see the difference between the authoritarian mindset and the freethinking mindset.

          The first is comforted by order and structure, and cares little to nothing for justice or consent.

          The second USES order and structure to ENFORCE justice and respect for consent.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Also ask cradle atheists about how they’re mystified that ANYBODY could swallow the nonsense meme that religions, including xtianity, are peddling…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nonsense and a lie.

          You’d roofie me into belief AGAINST MY EXPLICIT REFUSAL OF CONSENT in a hot heartbeat if you could, and you know it.

          It’s pretty blatantly evident, FWIW.

        • screeching that ‘separation of church and state’ isn’t in the Constitution *verbatim*.

          In stark contrast to “Trinity,” which is totally in the New Testament.

          (If you squint hard.)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          LOL

        • Ignorant Amos

          Psalm 137:9 ….fuck off!

        • Brother TC

          Context, friend. It’s about “eye for an eye” justice being served — the Babylonians had indeed dashed the Jewish children upon rocks — which Jesus further develops in Matthew 5:38-40:

          “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.”

          What you take out of context as if it’s a command from God is just the imprecatory song of an oppressed people.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          More cafeteria xtianity.

          YOUR KIND don’t get to pick and choose…unless, of course, you can provide an *objective* set of metrics to buttress your assertion.

        • Huh? I thought it was supposed to be “turn the other cheek.”

          Wow–this Bible seem to have the union of all possible positions on all possible issues. It’s like a quantum mechanical Bible.

        • Brother TC

          Old and new. Old and new. One came before the other. It works along a timeline. Theologians call it “progressive revelation.”

        • And those theologians have their heads up their collective asses. Progressive revelation makes no sense when you’ve got the same unchanging god in the time of Abraham and in the time of Jesus. If that were actually the case, you’d expect consistency. “Progressive revelation” is just more lyin’ for Jesus. I’ll admit that they make about as good a case for it as possible, but the simplest explanation is “there is no God.” Then all the feeble handwaving is unnecessary.

          Try it. Much easier.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Theologians call it “progressive revelation.”

          And those of us in the reality-based community call it what it IS, a *retcon*.

        • The word “genocide” was coined to describe the atrocities committed by atheistic regimes in the 20th century.

          That’s nice. How thoughtful of you to try to divert the conversation with an etymology.

          Let’s see if that describes what God commanded: “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” (1 Sam. 15:3)

          Bingo!

          Your understanding of slavery is obviously wrapped up in notions of the transatlantic slave trade rather than the economics and justice system of the ancient world.

          Read a little more than Paul Copan and Wm. Lane Craig. Biblical slavery had indentured servitude + slavery for life, just like in the Americas.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/04/yes-biblical-slavery-was-the-same-as-american-slavery-2/

          God abhors child sacrifice, which He made clear over and over (Lev 18:21). Isaac was not sacrificed, you know.

          Oh, you’re just adorable! How can I stay annoyed at you when you throw out childish responses like this?

          Hermeneutical tip: Just because the Bible says X in one place doesn’t mean it won’t say something radically contradictory somewhere else.

          “So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah” (Ezekiel 20:25–6).

          You’re making a lot of universal moral declarations for someone who holds that morality is not universal.

          1. When I make a moral declaration, “according to Bob” is obviously implied. That’s my platform; that’s my authority. It ain’t much, but (despite promises) my buddy Brother TC has yet to give me anything stronger, so I’m stuck with it.

          2. The topic was objective morality. I use Wm. Lane Craig’s definition, “moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not.” Strongly felt moral opinions often are rather universal, since we’re the same species.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Brother TC….one L1A1 cunt does he resemble…yes….still…who am I to judge?

        • I’m impressed with his output. And he writes clearly. He’s polite enough.

          But of course he’s going to get hung up where everyone does, the make-an-argument part.

          Aside: imagine an outside observer looking inside the heads of the people on the two sides of conversations like this one. I would think that they’d find in the Christians doubt and anxiety. That doesn’t mean that the atheists would be peaceful–they’d be experiencing frustration and maybe anger. I think that would point to the party on the right side of the issue.

          I have the occasional puzzle in trying to explain something clearly, but I have a serenity that comes from backing the right horse. Though the Christian is bursting with confidence, they must often experience anxiety and doubt for not backing the right horse.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The word “genocide” was coined to describe the atrocities committed by atheistic regimes in the 20th century.

          Absolute ballix…and a lie ta boot.

          1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) in his work “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, literally “killing a tribe,” from Greek genos “race, kind” (from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups) + -cide “a killing.” The proper formation would be *genticide.

          https://www.etymonline.com/word/genocide

          The Axis was largely religious. The Germans were Christians, atheism wasn’t tolerated by the Nazi’s.

          The Italian’s were Christian’s.

          The Japaneses followed a deified emperor and him being the head of the Shinto religion they adhered to.

          All of which is irrelevant to the acts within the pages of the buybull. Laving your pedantic semantics aside…

          Over half the occurrences of the verb and noun for the root ḥ-r-m are concerned with the destruction of nations in war, but other terms associated with what Old Testament scholar Eric Siebert describes as “divine violence” may or may not include war. Siebert says divine violence is “violence God is said to have perpetrated, caused, or sanctioned.” Specifically, this includes (1) violence God commits without using human agents (e.g., sending down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah); (2) violence God commissions, typically unbeknownst to those being commissioned (e.g., using Babylon to punish Judah for their sins); and (3) violence God commands directly (e.g., ordering Israelites to wipe out Canaanites).” For example, concerning those who worship idols, Deuteronomy 7:16 uses akal (“consume”) when saying “You must destroy (consume) all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you…”. Deuteronomy 7:24, on the other hand, uses abad when saying “you shall make their name perish from under heaven…” while Deuteronomy 20:10-18 says “…you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy (ha-harem taharimem) them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you…”. “Amos 1:3–2:3 uses akal to indict Israel’s neighbors for various acts of cruelty during war (e.g., the Ammonites “ripped open pregnant women in Gilead in order to enlarge their territory”; 1:13) and uses those war crimes of surrounding peoples to draw a parallel with Israel’s mistreatment of the poor, thus elevating economic injustice to the level of war crimes.” (2:6–8):44

          “A rose by any other name, smells just as sweet”

        • Brother TC

          “The Germans were Christians, atheism wasn’t tolerated by the Nazi’s.”

          Positive Christianity is false Christianity.

          Before you say No True Scotsman fallacy, I’ll say No False Christian fallacy.

          Eugenics stemmed from unbelieving Darwinistic doctrine, not Christianity.

          An honest reading of scripture will easily show you that God was giving very specific instructions to the ancient Israelites, a particular people God used to set apart as a holy nation and carry out His commands against the surrounding nations who were committed to immorality and idolatry.

          If you think God was saying it’s okay for anyone to go out and kill, then you’re trying to deceive yourself. If you want self-deception, you’ll get self-deception. I really can’t stop you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Positive Christianity is false Christianity.

          Another topic you appear to be ignorant about.

          Very few Germans followed Positive Christianity, not even many of the Nazi’s were followers of it. But that doesn’t even matter. You can claim they were false Christians from your perspective, am sure there is a lot more that claim your flavour of the Christian Cult that is seen as false by plenty of others in competing Christian Cults, but what you can’t do is claim they are atheists. By doing so, you are doubling down on your initial lying.

          Before you say No True Scotsman fallacy, I’ll say No False Christian fallacy.

          They amount to the same thing ya clown. You have no way of knowing who is a false Christian. Most Christians probably think you are a false Christian and with good reason and scripture behind them.

          Eugenics stemmed from unbelieving Darwinistic doctrine, not Christianity.

          You’re an idiot. Christians carried it out. That Darwin was an agnostic had nothing to do with it. Hitler’s policy mirrors one famous Protestant going by the name of Martin Luther.

          It is impossible to assume that Luther did not have any influence on Hitler and his views, for it cannot be mere coincidence that Hitler’s anti-Jewish sentiment of the 1930s and 1940s mirrors that of Luther’s anti-Semitism of the 1500s. This paper will explore the connection between Luther and Hitler; it will attempt to illustrate the similarities between their German nationalism and anti-Semitism, and explain how Luther laid the foundation for Hitler’s holocaust.

          https://scholarship.rollins.edu/mls/20/

          Eugenics was developed before the Nazi’s came to power in Germany and guess where?

          Eugenics was practiced in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany, which were largely inspired by the previous American work. Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.

          During the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population; it is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements, as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe, rather than scientific genetics.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

          The person responsible for the idea of positive eugenics was inspired by the publishing of The Origin of Species by Sir Francis Galton, Darwin’s half cousin. But it was in spite of some of Darwin’s ideas, not because of them.

          Sir Francis Galton first coined the term “eugenics” in 1883. Put simply, eugenics means “well-born.” Initially Galton focused on positive eugenics, encouraging healthy, capable people of above-average intelligence to bear more children, with the idea of building an “improved” human race. Some followers of Galton combined his emphasis on ancestral traits with Gregor Mendel’s research on patterns of inheritance, in an attempt to explain the generational transmission of genetic traits in human beings.

          American’s took eugenics to a different level.

          Negative eugenics stemmed first from the USA and picked up in Germany.

          Negative eugenics, as developed in the United States and Germany, played on fears of “race degeneration.” At a time when the working-class poor were reproducing at a greater rate than successful middle- and upper-class members of society, these ideas garnered considerable interest. One of the most famous proponents in the United States was President Theodore Roosevelt, who warned that the failure of couples of Anglo-Saxon heritage to produce large families would lead to “race suicide.”

          An honest reading of scripture will easily show you that God was giving very specific instructions to the ancient Israelites, a particular people God used to set apart as a holy nation and carry out His commands against the surrounding nations who were committed to immorality and idolatry.

          An honest reading by whom? The biased reader? Certainly not those others.

          So much for the “love thy enemy” bullshit then.

          If you think God was saying it’s okay for anyone to go out and kill, then you’re trying to deceive yourself. If you want self-deception, you’ll get self-deception. I really can’t stop you.

          I don’t think God was saying anything. I think God is imaginary, in the same way you think all other wee “g” gods of every other religion ever, was/is imaginary. Those followers of those other gods, well, such fools, eh?

          I think the book is made up nonsense depicting a people who has God on their side when they were good, and God shafting them when they were bad. Excuses, excuses. It’s made up nonsense.

          You are away on one here. You are just plain wrong and have no way out without admitting it, so you do what liars do and double-down.

          There is genocide in the buybull. Excuse it whatever way you can satisfy your conscience. But your God orders the wholesale slaughter of whole nations that upset him, and by today’s standards, in the rational world, all decent folk don’t hold to such stuff.

        • Brother TC

          “You have no way of knowing who is a false Christian.”

          Jesus gives me the way of knowing in Matthew 7.

          “I think God is imaginary.”

          Of course you do.

          “I think the book is made up nonsense.”

          Yes, I’m familiar with the unbeliever’s perspective on the Bible.

          “You’re an idiot.”

          Okay.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Jesus gives me the way of knowing in Matthew 7.

          How’s that plank sitting?

          Anyway….Nah…he doesn’t. You only think that, because you’re an idiot.

          The author of Matthew, whoever that may have been, gives you what he plagiarized from elsewhere…or made up and placed in the mouth of a storybook character.

        • Brother TC

          “How’s that plank sitting?”

          If you think I’m judging hypocritically, let me know, and tell me how you came to this conclusion.

          “You only think that, because you’re an idiot.”

          I’m cool with you thinking that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If you think I’m judging hypocritically, let me know, and tell me how you came to this conclusion.

          You are the one claiming special knowledge about what way scripture is to be interpreted and who is and is not a “True Christian”…not me. How do you know those things if you have a beam in your eye as your hero declares? What other conclusion can I draw? You think your knowledge on these issues is special, and those who believe other stuff and that yours is not special, think they’ve got the special lowdown. Are they the ones struggling with their eye beam?

          You are being judgmental all over this thread…from those Catholics being so wrong and so on, but never for a moment could it be you that has the wrong Christianity too.

          It’s your quote. Own it.

        • Brother TC

          “You are the one claiming special knowledge about what way scripture is to be interpreted and who is and is not a ‘True Christian’.”

          I claim to be taking Jesus Christ at His word, and that is all.

          “You think your knowledge on these issues is special.”

          False.

          “those who believe other stuff and that yours is not special”

          If it contradicts the clear teaching of scripture, it’s false. Despite your claims, scripture is indeed very clear about the gospel. When people get off track, it’s because they’re explicitly denying what scripture says.

          “You are being judgmental all over this thread.”

          Jesus says to judge righteous judgment (Jhn 7:24).

          “Catholics being so wrong and so on”

          I believe many Catholics are saved by faith, but that’s despite the unbiblical teachings of the RCC.

          “but never for a moment could it be you that has the wrong Christianity too.”

          My Christianity is defined by the Bible, and my interpretation of it grows and deepens all the time. I’m fully open to adjusting my doctrine based on scripture and sound exegesis. I’ve done it many times.

        • Greg G.

          Eugenics stemmed from unbelieving Darwinistic doctrine, not Christianity.

          That makes no sense. There is no Darwinistic doctrine. The “unbelieving Darwinistic doctrine” tends to be from very ignorant Christians.

          Darwin’s idea is natural selection. If the Germans believed Darwin’s idea, they would have done nothing and let nature take its course. Eugenics is the opposite of natural selection.

          Have you retracted your claim that “If so, you can quite easily resolve any and all so-called contradictions and even achieve a fuller, deeper understanding of scripture by doing so”? You were unable to resolve the contradiction of whether Jesus ate the passover meal, as the Synoptics clearly say he did and John clearly says he did not.

        • Brother TC

          I’ve resolved the contradiction, but you haven’t. There’s a difference. You reject my interpretation because you don’t like it, and that’s cool. Your presuppositions about the Bible won’t change unless or until you are born again.

        • Greg G.

          No, your resolution was a lie about the passover being some other meal. You didn’t even address the whole thing. It goes all the way back to John 13:1.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Per YOUR KIND’s book:
          – Genocided ALL life except for the contents of an ark
          – Amalekites and Midianites
          – Merely *regulated* slavery while *forbidding* ingesting pork and/or shellfish

          I could go on…

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Brother TC

          The Old Covenant sucked (Heb 8:6). Thank God for the New Covenant in Jesus Christ.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Cafeteria xtianity again.

          ALL is fulfilled…and you know the black letter text includes ‘the second coming’.

        • You mean the everlasting covenant?

        • Brother TC

          An everlasting covenant fulfilled in Jesus Christ — NOW established upon better promises!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bwaaaaaaahahahaha….

        • Ask for a dictionary from Santa. First task: look up “everlasting.”

          Or are you just one of the many Liars for Jesus®?

        • Brother TC

          “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt 5:17).

          The Old Covenant continues, but it’s fulfilled based on New and better promises in Jesus Christ.

        • The Bible story reboots over and over, precisely what a story from an omniscient Creator would not do.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/04/the-bible-story-reboots-have-you-noticed/

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’ve seen the NT described as ‘fanfic’ or a *retcon*, too…

          So there’s all SORTS of ways it fails while trying to be self-consistent.

        • Makes sense. But only their fanfic is legitimate. Islam, Mormonism, and the others that have spun off from Christianity–they’re just made-up bullshit.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re obviously using some variant definition of *fulfilled*

          Here’s a treatise on the topic from somebody on Team Jebus™: https://samuelwhitefield.com/1595/to-fulfill-all-that-is-written

          Explain why it’s wrong, because it says that all has NOT been fulfilled, yet.

        • Brother TC

          I’m one of those 70 AD guys. I’m a full preterist. Definitely a minority view, and I happily study, discuss and debate the issue with other Bible-believing Christians. Thankfully, views on eschatology do not affect one’s salvation in Jesus Christ.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Or are you just one of the many Liars for Jesus®?

          And making shite up as they go along.

          “NOW established upon better promises!”

          So much for omniscient, omnipotent, perfection then…what a loada ballix.

          ETA: Did I mention unchanging?

        • Ignorant Amos

          it’s 3:05 here…..clocks go back one hour but am bottles of Cabernet whatever fucked already, so a bettetter….stop tat this juncture…

        • Pofarmer

          I’m on the tullamoredew myself.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A was catching up on “The Man in the High Castle”, but it takes sobriety in order to follow the plot…so I did the stupid thing and opened up the laptop. I need to learn to keep clear of it, but can’t help myself.

        • Pofarmer

          So you’re saying anti-apologetics takes less brain power than watching TV? I can buy that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You think frying two guys to death for the crime of burning unauthorized incense is a rational and comparable punishment for the crime?

          You are as insane and unhinged as the character whose arsehole ya lick, from that dopey bronze age book of myths and legends.

        • Brother TC

          “You think frying two guys to death for the crime of burning unauthorized incense is a rational and comparable punishment for the crime?”

          Yes. God is teaching us something about holiness and the penalty for disobedience. The same penalty still applies, too — all unregenerate sinners will be fried and perish. That’s called justice, and I know you reject that notion. Fugitives hate justice.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That tells me everything I need to know about you as a human being…and believe me, it’s not much. I have more moral fibre in my pinky finger than you’ve just demonstrated you have.

        • Pofarmer

          You do realize that folks like TC here would burn you if they could. Give God a little Head Start

        • Brother TC

          When you say “moral fibre,” are you talking about your “intersubjective morality?”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Cretin….Moral Fibre…The inner strength to do what one believes to be right; often an ability to make difficult decisions.

          No objectivity involved anywhere. No stupid book required. No imaginary beings necessary.

          You don’t have any moral fibre, because your morality comes from outside…somewhere…ya don’t explain where, how, or why, and demonstrate in any way…you just say it does, because you’ve been brainwashed to think it does.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So you know the mind of YahwehJesus?…interesting.

          You search the scriptures for what is true…then cherry-pick.

          Living under the new covenant is a cop out. God has no qualms about the killing of children, innocent or otherwise, for the most mediocre of reasons…as Winston Churchill’s son Randolph put it when blagged into reading the book, “God, isn’t God a shit”…

          Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. A naif blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception. Winston Churchill’s son Randolph somehow contrived to remain ignorant of scripture until Evelyn Waugh and a brother officer, in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn’t read the entire Bible in a fortnight: ‘Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud “I say I bet you didn’t know this came in the Bible . . . ” or merely slapping his side & chortling “God, isn’t God a shit!”‘ Thomas Jefferson — better read — was of a similar opinion: ‘The Christian God is a being of terrific character – cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.’

          God already ordered the killing of children, when he wasn’t doing it himself, it is a done deed already…the history, if ya believe such a nonsense book as history, as was written…no retcon allowed.

          David’s seven day baby was offed…

          http://www.bricktestament.com/king_david/god_kills_a_baby/2s12_01p07p09.html

          Jephthah’s sacrificial daughter…

          http://www.bricktestament.com/judges/jephthah_kills_his_virgin_daughter/jg11_34.html

          Aaron’s two son’s smoted with fire for burning the wrong incense…

          http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/god_kills_aarons_sons/lv10_01a.html

          Job’s children…

          http://www.bricktestament.com/king_david/god_kills_a_baby/2s12_01p07p09.html

          Jeroboam’s son…

          http://www.bricktestament.com/king_solomon/god_plots_massacre_kills_child/1k14_01.html

          …there are loads of examples…and my favourite…

          And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

          Let the mental gymnastics commence…I’ve read most of the pathetic apologetics concocted to defend these incidents, none are very convincing.

          Objective morality, my arse.

        • Brother TC

          I stopped reading at “Living under the new covenant is a cop out.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Would you care to answer the question of “What about if God commands you to kill an innocent child? Is it OK than?”….?

          Which apparently he does do on a regular basis…but it does seem to hold up as a defence in court…the same courts that hold the silly book in such high esteem…funny that.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Explain Abraham and Isaac….

          don’t believe we’ll let you dodge answering the question.

        • Brother TC

          It was typological of the sacrifice of Jesus.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So is it a lie , or does your ‘bible’ contain allegories?

          In the second case, WHO is qualified to decide which is which, and what are the decision criteria?

          Be complete and show your work.

        • Brother TC

          No, not allegory — the account of Abraham and Isaac is history, and it’s typological of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

          You’re free to interpret it differently.

        • Greg G.

          Have you ever noticed that the name used for God changes when the ram shows up and Isaac is saved? Have you ever noticed that Abraham comes down the mountain without Isaac and rides away.

          It’s like there are two competing stories between opposite tribes. It helps explain why there are two stories of Abraham telling a king that Sarah was his sister and the king has to pay him off to make him go away. It also explains why Isaac does the same trick with a king with the same name as one of the kings that Abraham grifted and each king also had a general by the same name.

        • Brother TC

          I don’t subscribe to your conjecture.

        • Pofarmer

          dang it.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          According to the story in Gen 22, Abraham AND ISAAC went *up* the mountain, but only ABRAHAM came down.

          Scribal error? Fusion of two Abraham / Isaac stories (this is the current scholarly near-consensus)? Total nonsense that you’re trying to wave away?

        • Brother TC

          I don’t subscribe to your unbelieving conjecture.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Non sequitur.

          So you’re pulling an Adam Savage (except that HE states it in jest):

          “I reject your reality and substitute my own…”

          Funny that it took you so long to admit that you’ll ignore consensus reality when it hurts your meme belief.

        • Just to add on to Greg G.’s comment with more data: the Isaac sacrifice story in Gen. 22 has “God” (Elohim) 6 times interleaved with “Lord” (Jehovah/Yahweh) 5 times.

          It’s almost like two stories were interleaved here …

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Look up ‘retcon’, you disingenuous hack.

        • Ignorant Amos

          How’s that working out in the world of Christianity?

          Psssst…I live in Ireland ya cretin.

        • Brother TC

          People suck. Don’t judge Jesus or the gospel on that basis, since they testify along with you that people suck.

        • Ignorant Amos

          People suck.

          Hmmmm…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘Enemies’, now, is it?

          Yep, typical Liar for Jebus™ threats coming out when all else fails.

          Per your book, your ‘god’ also commands you to GENOCIDE your enemies, when it’s convenient.

          Per your book, your ‘god’ also approves of forcing an abortifacient on a pregnant woman if her husband believes she’s been unfaithful (Ordeal of the Bitter Waters, look it up)

          Look, just admit your book is self-contradictory and inconsistent..it’ll make your life EVER so much easier, honest, and fulfilling.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Tell that to the biblical out-groups.

          We all know how that eventually manifests itself…historically speaking…and by example in your silly book of “objective” morality instructions.

          Wise up.

        • Brother TC

          Even you know that you’re talking about “out-groups.”

          The Bible very clearly warns about the presence of hypocrites, false teachers and false believers.

          I know you don’t care about what the Bible really teaches, but what the Bible really teaches defines the “in-group.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Even you know that you’re talking about “out-groups.”

          Well, duh…yes…enemies usually are part of the out-groups.

          The enemies, aka out-groups, were shown a special kinda of love only the insane would consider just and would wish for.

          The Bible very clearly warns about the presence of hypocrites, false teachers and false believers.

          Indeed, and according to your statement, God commands you all to love them, but that’s not what we see in the pages of your holy texts…over and over again. That’s not what we witness between Christians historically, or with Christians and others, or what they claim God commanded.

          I know you don’t care about what the Bible really teaches, but what the Bible really teaches defines the “in-group.”

          I’m not the one who is cherry-picking parts of an ancient book about a war god that was written over two millennia ago and trying to make it fit the world I see around me.

          Who is the in-group that you think you are part of? The “True Christian” with the only correct interpretation of an ambiguous book?

          And you wonder why your burbling isn’t being taken seriously.

          At least the cunts in the Westbro Baptists and that oxygen thieving piece of human excrement Pat Robinson are trying to be honest to the scripture…not you though.

        • Brother TC

          “Indeed, and according to your statement, God commands you all to love them, but that’s not what we see in the pages of your holy texts.”

          Since you brought up the Bible, I’ll quote it. Please don’t get upset — this will only take a few moments of your time:

          “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt 5:43-44).

          What do you think Jesus means by “Ye have heard that it hath been said?” He’s talking about the Old Covenant civil law given to the Israelites, which you like to point out as immoral. Jesus Christ has fulfilled that law and given us a New Covenant with better promises. I know you don’t believe that, but this is what the Bible clearly says.

          No, I don’t claim to have a perfect interpretation of all of scripture. I claim that the gospel is clearly stated, though, and anyone can understand it — even you, if you wanted to.

          Besides your deliberate misreading of scripture, there are two bigger problems with your criticism.

          First, you don’t even think morality is an objective standard, do you? I think you should know that your relative judgment of God’s character really doesn’t amount to much.

          Second, you demonstrate a hate for other human beings. Since I understand that morality is objective, and God calls us to love even our enemies, I can judge your behavior as wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Since you brought up the Bible, I’ll quote it. Please don’t get upset — this will only take a few moments of your time:

          Why do you think I’d get upset. Would you get upset if I was to quote different scripture from your book, scripture from some other religions holy book, or quotes from The Diaries of Dr Watson on Sherlock Holmes?

          “What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence. The question is what can you make people believe you have done.”

          What do you think Jesus means by “Ye have heard that it hath been said?”

          Ya mean what do I think Matthew means Jesus means?

          He’s talking about the Old Covenant civil law given to the Israelites, which you like to point out as immoral.

          That’s what you think he’s talking about. Why? And I don’t care or believe you.

          Are you saying that part of the Law given by omniscient God was indeed immoral? So he had to come back as an avatar called Jesus to redefine what he didn’t do first time?

          18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. ~Leviticus

          Jesus Christ has fulfilled that law and given us a New Covenant with better promises. I know you don’t believe that, but this is what the Bible clearly says.

          The Bible clearly says nothing, that’s the problem. What you think about what it says is largely meaningless around here. Someone will come along after you with a different parcel of pish thinking, just like there have been loads before. So pah!

          No, I don’t claim to have a perfect interpretation of all of scripture. I claim that the gospel is clearly stated, though, and anyone can understand it — even you, if you wanted to.

          But only for you special Christians…right? With your special understanding that is in conflict with those other silly Christians who get it, just differently. And those who reject your flavour of the cult, and the cult entirely, for something else or nothing at all. Wise up.

          Besides your deliberate misreading of scripture, there are two bigger problems with your criticism.

          Because everyone who doesn’t read it like you, is deliberately misreading it, right?

          First, you don’t even think morality is an objective standard, do you?

          Nope. I see no reason to think so, while the alternative of intersubjective morality is everywhere I look. You have done absolutely zip point shit to demonstrate it is otherwise. Largely because you can’t, and that’s because you’re an idiot.

          I think you should know that your relative judgment of God’s character really doesn’t amount to much.

          I could give zero fucks about your mindwankery thinking. What can you demonstrate with evidence?

          Second, you demonstrate a hate for other human beings.

          Oh I readily admit to hating other human beings…a lot of them I don’t even know. So what?

          A few weeks ago a man here was charged with the rape and grievous bodily harm of a two week old baby. Fuck your faux lovey dovey bullshit. I hate that person and am ashamed to be a member of the same species.

          https://news.sky.com/story/man-charged-with-alleged-rape-of-two-week-old-baby-in-northern-ireland-11518489

          I’m all about an eye for an eye justice for that animal.

          Since I understand that morality is objective, and God calls us to love even our enemies, I can judge your behavior as wrong.

          Aye…ya think…what would it take? The two week old baby to be your own?

          You are a liar. I know it, you know it, and everyone reading this knows it. Your religion is rife with liars like you who preach love your enemies, but really don’t believe the bullshit, and practice even less.

          But since YahwehJesus practiced one morality in one part of your book, but contradicted it in another part…your objective morality claim is idiotic fuckwittery of the highest order. If a moral changes relative to the time, place, and people, it can’t be objective by definition.

          lex talionis

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye#Christianity

          Thanks for playing.

        • Brother TC

          “Why do you think I’d get upset.”

          Many atheists get upset when I quote the Bible to them.

          “That’s what you think he’s talking about. Why? And I don’t care or believe you.”

          Not sure you even know what you’re saying there.

          “Are you saying that part of the Law given by omniscient God was indeed immoral?”

          No.

          “So he had to come back as an avatar called Jesus to redefine what he didn’t do first time?”

          The word is “fulfill,” not “redefine.”

          “What you think about what it says is largely meaningless around here.”

          I know that, but you had stated, “that’s not what we see in the pages of your holy texts.”

          Now, I know you don’t see what’s clearly in the pages of scripture. Really, I quote scripture for the benefit of others, others whose hearts may not be hardened like yours.

          “Because everyone who doesn’t read it like you, is deliberately misreading it, right?”

          The problem is not that you’re interpreting it differently — you’re disputing what it clearly says because you come to the text not believing that it’s the word of God in the first place.

          “A few weeks ago a man here was charged with the rape and grievous bodily harm of a two week old baby. Fuck your faux lovey dovey bullshit. I hate that person and am ashamed to be a member of the same species.”

          But you’re just expressing your “intersubjective morality.” Why should I care about that?

          “You are a liar.”

          Again, why is lying objectively wrong? Your assertion of “intersubjective morality” means you’re just stating your preference. Because that’s the case, I have no reason to care about your moral declarations any more than I’d care about your opinion on diet sodas.

          “But since YahwehJesus practiced one morality in one part of your book, but contradicted it in another part.”

          False.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Many atheists get upset when I quote the Bible to them.

          The lies are coming thick and fast now. Why would they get upset at you quoting your nonsense unless they thought it had some basis? I’m goona go out on a limb here and claim it is something else that upsets them, but you are too stupid to realise what it is though.

          Not sure you even know what you’re saying there.

          What I’m saying is that that is your interpretation of what you think he’s saying. Why do you interpret it that way? And once you answer the why you interpret it that way, you’ll realise that I don’t care or believe your interpretation…it’s just your opinion.

          No.

          So when YahwehJesus condones an eye-for-an-eye in OT, but YahwehJesus condemns it in the Sermon on the Mount in the NT…both are objective moral certitudes? You know how silly you are beginning to look, right?

          The word is “fulfill,” not “redefine.”

          I know that’s the nonsense you believe, but the words are actually a redefinition of an older god-given concept that changes the meaning of the rule.

          Now, I know you don’t see what’s clearly in the pages of scripture.

          What part of the “neither do you to other True Christians” is it that you are failing to grasp.

          Really, I quote scripture for the benefit of others, others whose hearts may not be hardened like yours.

          Then you really are at the wrong place for your proselytizing that you lied about doing.

          The problem is not that you’re interpreting it differently — you’re disputing what it clearly says because you come to the text not believing that it’s the word of God in the first place.

          There’s that reading for lack of comprehension issue again. Go back and read what I wrote…S-L-O-W-L-Y this time.

          There are loads of folk out there that come to the text from a believing it is the word of God, but if their interpretation differs from yours, you just claim that they must be doing it wrong or are not Trur Christians. This site is littered with atheists who were Christians of various flavours that believed it was the word of God, interpreted it differently, then realised it is a lot of bullshit.

          But you’re just expressing your “intersubjective morality.” Why should I care about that?

          When you learn what intersubjective morality means, then you’ll know why you are being stupid. You either care, or you don’t, he certainly didn’t, nor do like minded people out there. I was responding to your observation that I hate people and was giving you of an example of the type of person that makes the grade.

          Again, why is lying objectively wrong?

          I didn’t say it was objectively wrong. That’s you lot, even though you all continually lie regardless…why is that? Is it because there are occassions when lying is okay…even a good thing…making it morally relative.

          Your assertion of “intersubjective morality” means you’re just stating your preference.

          Nope, that would be my subjective morality. Intersubjective morality is when enough people agree on it to do something about it like make laws and such.

          Because that’s the case, I have no reason to care about your moral declarations any more than I’d care about your opinion on diet sodas.

          That’s correct. Until enough people think my subjective morality becomes intersubjective morality and we make laws that force you to care about it…or face the fucking consequences. That’s how it has always worked. That’s why it is relative…even with the buybull.

          False

          It’s not false because it is demonstrable ffs. I’ve already done it.

        • Brother TC

          “So when YahwehJesus condones an eye-for-an-eye in OT, but YahwehJesus condemns it in the Sermon on the Mount in the NT…both are objective moral certitudes?”

          Eye-for-an-eye is justice, and this justice is rendered in civil matters as well as in God’s ultimate court on judgment day. Jesus calls His followers not to take justice into their own hands, however, not even allowing themselves to hate their enemies (which amounts to committing murder in the heart: Matt 5:21-26) — because vengeance is God’s, not ours (Rom 12:19).

          “Intersubjective morality is when enough people agree on it to do something about it like make laws and such.”

          Interesting. You must think adultery is morally acceptable because lots of people do it, and there are no laws against it.

        • Greg G.

          Deuteronomy 19:21 (NIV)21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

          Is it objectively moral to show no pity as God commanded in Deuteronomy or is it objectively moral to show pity as Jesus suggested in Matthew?

        • Brother TC

          Both are moral, and both are about following God’s commands.

          Was I not clear about civil laws for Israel and the law of liberty in Jesus Christ? It’s not as if the justice taught in Deuteronomy no longer applies. If you have not been saved, you can count on “no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

          You want mercy instead of justice? It’s available, and it’s easy. Ask me how!

        • Greg G.

          What is your position on Craig’s Divine Command Theory. He says if God commands it, it is moral and not doing it is immoral. Therefore, if God orders you to kill your own child, it is immmoral to not do so.

        • Brother TC

          God wouldn’t command me to kill my child, and formulating theories based on counterfactual hypotheticals about God can only lead to error.

          Here are some facts: God can do nothing immoral. God also cannot lie. God cannot go against His own nature.

          And if you think morals are relative, then I don’t really care if you think God is immoral according to your personal standard.

        • Greg G.

          God told Abraham to sacrifice his beloved child. How can you say he wouldn’t? How far do you take it? Would you trust God to stop you like he did in the story? Would you kill your child while he or she is sleeping so they wouldn’t be traumatized?

        • Brother TC

          I’m not Abraham, and I have a covenant in Jesus Christ.

        • epeeist

          I’m not Abraham, and I have a covenant in Jesus Christ.

          But the god of the Abraham and Jesus Christ are both part of the triune godhead.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …Jesus Christ are both part of the triune godhead.

          If ya buy that part of the whole parcel of nonsense…TC get’s his doctrine from scripture though…but sure it’s not actually in those scriptures…unless he squints hard…or believes the lies that were interpolated in the Johannine Comma.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

          Because lying for YahwehJesus is an actual thing.

        • Greg G.

          Where does it say in your covenant that God won’t tell you to kill your kids? Is that covenant signed and notarized? God of the Bible has been known to unilaterally cancel covenants and issue new ones. Humans are offered the choice to opt in or suffer the consequences.

          Edit a minute later: changed “change” to “choice” as I has intended to use that.

        • Pofarmer

          Hell, God ORDERS you to kill your kids in certain situations. Of your daughter commits adultery? Of she’s raped and doesn’t protest loudly enough. I wonder what you should do if she refuses to be sold into slavery?

          Asshats.

        • Sample1

          Welcome aboard Brother TC. Glad more Christians are engaging atheists and free thinkers online.

          Some of our values and morals may rub off on you.

          Mike

        • Ignorant Amos

          Eye-for-an-eye is justice, and this justice is rendered in civil matters as well as in God’s ultimate court on judgment day.

          You are obfuscating.

          In the OT YahwehJesus ordains a law of retaliation. Reciprocal justice. Usually via the court system. But still. And to whom.

          In the NT YahwehJesus ordains the turning of the other cheek. no law of retaliation.

          The problem is one of relativism. Read this paper…

          https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/pdf/Justin%20Ilboudo_Research%20Paper.pdf

          Jesus calls His followers not to take justice into their own hands, however, not even allowing themselves to hate their enemies (which amounts to committing murder in the heart: Matt 5:21-26) — because vengeance is God’s, not ours (Rom 12:19).

          There’s that thing you do again. What does that mean? Who is YahwehJesus talking to?

          “You shall not hate any of your kindred in your heart. Reprove your neighbor openly so that you do not incur sin because of that person.

          Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your own people. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.” ~ Leviticus 19:17-18

          But then we read…

          “Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.” ~ Leviticus 24:17

          “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.” ~ Exodus 21:12

          Pretty sure the penalty for killing is death…unless you are “special”, then it is a baby’s death. What about adultery, collecting sticks on a Sabbath, back chatting ones parents, lying, stealing?

          Interesting. You must think adultery is morally acceptable because lots of people do it, and there are no laws against it.

          It doesn’t matter what I think. Lots of people are doing/have done it, including the POTUS who was voted in by Christians, so obviously they don’t think it being much of a problem. There is no laws against it in many counties, so obviously not considered much of a crime. What I don’t think is morally acceptable is putting people to death for getting caught committing it. That’s me being subjective. You find that acceptable, as do other religious fuckwits around the world. Lucky for me you and your silly god and his rule book, don’t have the same clout they do. See…subjective morality and moral relativism.

        • Otto

          >>>”Many atheists get upset when I quote the Bible to them because I am quoting it as if it has some ultimate authority on the matter and atheists don’t agree with me that it does have authority at all over the topics that are being discussed. I then pretend that atheists are solely miffed at the quotes disingenuously so I can feel persecuted

          FTFY…(italicized portion)

        • Brother TC

          I don’t pretend that atheists are solely miffed at the quotes. I said they get upset when I quote the Bible to them.

          And thanks for providing your particular reason for getting upset. Ignorant Amos was wondering why atheists get upset when I quote the Bible to them.

        • Otto

          You quote the Bible as if you are an authority on the subject…same as any preacher.

        • Brother TC

          I don’t claim to be anything other than a believer, and I’m open to other interpretations if they’re backed by sound exegesis. I adjust my interpretation of scripture all the time as I learn. I don’t know everything, and I’m not perfect.

          What I will not accept is the blind assertion that nobody can know what scripture really says. That’s just somebody preaching their relativistic philosophy rather than common sense.

        • Otto

          ‘Sound exegesis’ is just your opinion, as it is for other believers, there is not an objective basis for it. It is just an interpretation and is not better or worse that anyone else’s. It IS relative, the fact that you think yours isn’t is just hubris.

        • Brother TC

          Sound exegesis isn’t mine to determine, just as sound scientific methodology isn’t mine to determine. And I don’t claim that my interpretation is perfect.

        • Otto

          You are spinning in circles.

        • Brother TC

          I’m making a straightforward and consistent point.

        • Otto

          Not even close.

        • Brother TC

          Can you provide at least one detail about your objection? Pretty please?

        • Otto

          You just make statements without details all the time.

        • Brother TC

          If someone asks for more detail, I’ll certainly try to oblige.

        • Otto

          No you don’t…you have commented enough to demonstrate otherwise.

        • Brother TC

          Care to substantiate that?

        • Otto

          Just go back and look at your replies…they are a void of detail.

        • Brother TC

          Sound exegesis isn’t mine to determine, just as sound scientific methodology isn’t mine to determine. And I don’t claim that my interpretation is perfect.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And thanks for providing your particular reason for getting upset. Ignorant Amos was wondering why atheists get upset when I quote the Bible to them.

          https://i1.wp.com/mymindfulmoment.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/The-Power-of-words-e1471708419377.png?fit=1010%2C839

          I wasn’t wondering why some atheists were getting upset. I was asking you to consider what the reason is? It isn’t the quotes or their contents per se…because they are meaningless drivel the origins of which we know are plagiarized from elsewhere. There is no certainty Jesus even existed, let alone what he has had placed in the characters mouth.

          The reason is not the quote themselves, it’s the frustration that you keep doing it in the thinking we should give a fuck about them and they’re content is in any way profound around here. they are not an argument.

          I already explained that, but given your ineptitude for reading and understanding, you don’t understand.

          Here…let me help you out…

          Why do you think I’d get upset. Would you get upset if I was to quote different scripture from your book, scripture from some other religions holy book, or quotes from The Diaries of Dr Watson on Sherlock Holmes?

          “What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence. The question is what can you make people believe you have done.”

          Does that Conan Doyle quote upset you? Did the quote from “The Good Delusion” upset you?

          At the very worst, the underlying threat inferred by a Bible verse quoted, might be upsetting to some given their interpretation, but that ain’t the case with you, because you love everyone. So that couldn’t be it. So not the quote, the misinterpretation.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s interesting that TC applies such WIDELY variant standards of evidence.

          From US, he demands the rigor of a ‘proof’, something that practically doesn’t exist outside of mathematics.

          For HIS KIND, plausibility barely diverging from the fantastic is enough to convince *him* and he demands we offer HIS KIND that same boon.

        • Otto

          He assumes his conclusion, claims he was an atheist for 40+ years and changed his mind due to the overwhelming evidence, and then never provides anything resembling evidence. TC the clown.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Useful excuse, bro.

          DEMONSTRATE that this ‘objective truth’ exists before trying to use it as an escape clause.

        • Brother TC

          If you’d like to embrace relative truth and relative morality, that’s your problem. I’ll just ignore you, then, and dismiss it as merely your personal opinion.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And you can fuck right away off…simples isn’t it ya idiot? As easy as….

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “If you’d like to embrace relative truth and relative morality, that’s your problem. I’ll just ignore you, then, and dismiss it as merely your personal opinion.”

          You don’t get to escape that easily.

          I’m merely holding to the Null Hypothesis and withholding belief until EVIDENCE has been provided.

          So show me, or recant and abjure your foolish idea.

        • Brother TC

          Where did you get your demand for EVIDENCE?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s a piss-poor attempt to impeach the question.

          To answer it anyway, statistically, *evidence* is how we mostly manage to survive each day, by evaluating the sensory information directly, or from machines we’ve constructed to shift phenomena into a discernible range (light, sound, touch, smell, taste, etc). These senses are a result of being descended from ancestors whose sensorium allowed them to survive long enough to breed.

          And if you’re going to try to impeach that, I’m going to demand that you linger in a room that could be bathed in x-rays for a couple hours, or perhaps gamma radiation, and trust in your ‘god’ to protect you (of course, it could just be normal visible light, too)

          Or, as another example, blindfold yourself and walk around on a ledge next to a 100-story drop, with enough holes in the platform that, without sight, you’re statistically CERTAIN to drop to your death.

          If you won’t take any of these challenges, that invoke NOTHING supernatural, I’m going to assume that you also use EVIDENCE in your daily life and are, as mentioned above, trying to impeach the question by throwing sand in the bull’s eyes.

        • Brother TC

          I’m not trying to impeach your demand for evidence, friend.

          I’m trying to get you to explain it from the perspective of your worldview.

          Is your demand for evidence based on evidence? In that case, it’s circular reasoning.

          Is your demand for evidence based on something other than evidence? Then it’s not based on evidence, as you demand.

        • You’re getting pathetic now. Can you focus on the issue? If you can’t answer the question, man up and say so.

          We’ve found that following evidence leads to more reliable hypotheses than relying on faith or wishful thinking or similar approaches. That’s why we ask for evidence. This isn’t hard, despite your best efforts.

        • Brother TC

          “We’ve found that following evidence leads to more reliable hypotheses than relying on faith or wishful thinking or similar approaches.”

          Faith in God doesn’t mean you need to abandon the scientific method. Indeed, the scientific method was created by believers.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Indeed, the scientific method was created by believers.”

          In a time when xtians were burning atheists, not to mention *heretics*, at the stake, pretending to be a believer (I say *pretending* because a genuine believer wouldn’t feel the itch to understand the world, especially as the ‘bible’ insulates itself by demeaning knowledge and wisdom) was probably a survival characteristic.

          When xtianity has the power of flame and sword, you don’t get any points for claiming that any rational person who wants to survive and thrive will appear to be an xtian.

        • Where’s the drive to do science when you know the answer is “God did it”?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          🙁

        • Christianity has taught us precisely nothing about the natural world. So what’s that–something like Science 25 bazillion; Christianity zero?

          I’ll stick with the discipline that delivers, thanks.

        • Brother TC

          Science and faith aren’t in a battle, despite your claims.

        • Yeah, I know. Faith isn’t good for anything. Science delivers.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong.

          Faith attacks science on a regular basis, whenever science comes up with a conclusion that is incompatible with (worthless) faith.

          Science doesn’t even disdain faith, it merely goes about its own ways without allowing faith to obstruct.

        • Brother TC

          Science doesn’t disdain faith — that’s true — but you do, as evidenced by your “worthless” claim.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I do proudly disdain *aggressive* faith.

          If a person wants to be stupid in a way that harms themselves and can’t be dissuaded, eventually I’ll throw in the towel.

          When said idiot(s) try to force *secular* society to live by the uniquely irrational portions of their meme, it’s worthy of disdain, resistance, and destruction if possible.

        • Greg G.

          In the US, there are states which have Christians running for the school boards just so they can eliminate evolution from high schools.

        • Brother TC

          That’s sad. I didn’t say evangelicals and unbelievers aren’t in a battle! I’m not a so-called evangelical, though.

        • Greg G.

          That is faith battling science. Faith doesn’t have to battle science, but it does.

        • Brother TC

          No, it’s not faith battling science. It’s mostly hypocritical Christians battling scientistic unbelievers. There’s a big difference.

        • Greg G.

          It is Christians whose faith tells them the universe is 6000 years old battling science, not scientistic unbelievers. They are battling Old Earth creationists and Christians who accept evolution, too.

        • Brother TC

          I fall into one of those Christian camps, and I’m not battling the others. We disagree, and that’s cool, because we’re all saved. I like debating my brothers and sisters in Christ about such issues.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You worthless lying hack, you’re trying RIGHT HERE to attack science!

          It’s a *method*, of requiring evidence and repeatability, among other things.

          You’ve REGULARLY demeaned the very *idea* that you should be required to provide evidence for your assertions, while attempting to shame/provoke somebody among us into making a positive statement that you can strawman and misconstrue to try to tu quoque us en masse.

          So, just more Lying for Jebus™…I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

        • Brother TC

          “You’re trying RIGHT HERE to attack science!”

          I like science. God has blessed us with an ordered universe and the ability to perceive and understand it.

          My views on science are in line with those of Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Descartes, Bacon. You’re probably tempted to dismiss those guys as superstitious ignoramuses who couldn’t benefit from your more enlightened understanding of science, and that’s fine.

          Science is the wrong instrument for understanding God, though. Science deals with the natural universe, not transcendent abstract entities. For the latter subject, we have theology and philosophy — not science.

          Unfortunately, we have a lot of philosophy today masquerading as science, and we call that “scientism.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The fundy xtians aren’t so much hypocritical as power-mad.

          And I’ll want *evidence* (this is getting to be a pattern, now isn’t it?) of so-called ‘scientism’.

          Define it, and demonstrate it, or admit it’s just a pathetic attempt at insulting the reasonable demand for evidence for your proposition.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’m not trying to impeach your demand for evidence, friend.

          I’m trying to get you to explain it from the perspective of your worldview.

          Is your demand for evidence based on evidence? In that case, it’s circular reasoning.

          Is your demand for evidence based on something other than evidence? Then it’s not based on evidence, as you demand.

          Liar.

          You deny it and then proceed to attempt it.

          You’re trying to provide a false dilemma here in service to that unworthy, dishonest, and oh-so-Liar for Jebus™ apologetics that’s all you have to offer.

          My demand for evidence is based on the survival imperative, without which organisms from protozoa up don’t last long enough to pass on their genes. Evidence is only resistable / ignorable at the peril of the biological vessel supporting the mind.

          In short, if you’re an organism, you’re receiving sense data all the time, and if you’re not in a coma, the mind that is an emerging property of the chem-electric patterns in your head can only classify the sense data according to interest / survival value.

        • Brother TC

          “My demand for evidence is based on the survival imperative, without which organisms from protozoa up don’t last long enough to pass on their genes.”

          Wait. Huh? Are you saying that protozoa demand evidence to survive?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          More pettifogging textual sticklerism.

          Protozoa that don’t respond appropriately to their environment (going *toward* nourishment, going *away* from destructive stimuli) don’t survive long enough to reproduce.

          You’re fixated on *demand*, when it’s merely a matter of survival.

          Are you claiming that protozoa *don’t* respond to positive / negative stimuli?

          If so, provide counterevidence to the great mass of scientific evidence that they DO react to stimuli (one example here: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/277909 )

        • Brother TC

          Are you really asking for positive stimuli to respond to God, as so much protozoan soup?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nasty-ass, pathetic attempt at a dismissive derail there, bucko.

          I’d accept ANY fucking *objective* stimuli.

          YOUR KIND have yet, after a couple millennia, to provide any.

          Go to work.

        • Brother TC

          What evidence would you accept that would make you a believer in God tonight?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not my problem.

          YOUR KIND are making the positive claim that there is a ‘god’ or ‘gods’.

          Evidence as convincing as that for a tree, for wind, for gravity, for love, for light…any of those would be a promising start.

          However, it has to *specifically* point to your assertion, and not be equally applicable to position(s) contradictory to your ‘god’ meme.

          Go to it.

          In fact, a thought: IF your supposed ‘god’ is anything other than a viral meme, why not pray to IT to deliver you complete, thorough, irrefutable evidence?

          And if it can’t provide it, why should I believe? In fact, why should YOU believe?

        • I wrote a long series of posts on this. In short, to believe in God, our world would need to not have a lot of things that argue against God.

          Here are 25 of those things:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/02/25-reasons-dont-live-world-god/

        • Susan

          What evidence would you accept that would make you a believer in God tonight?

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

        • Otto

          He has a lot to say about the claim part…not so much on the support part.

        • Susan

          He has a lot to say about the claim part… not so much on the support part.

          And here we go again.

        • Brother TC

          My question stands alone. If you have some evidence in mind that would make you a believer in God tonight, just let me know.

        • Susan

          My question stands alone.

          No, it doesn’t. You are claim something called “God” exists. You haven’t defined it, nor have you provided a model nor evidence for it.

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

          This is a perfectly standard and reasonable question.

        • Brother TC

          I’m talking about the one true living triune God of the Old and New Testaments, friend. I don’t claim anything but faith in Jesus Christ.

          Do you know of any evidence that would make you a believer in God tonight?

          Bear in mind that I don’t think you can adequately answer this question. It’s really directed to those people who keep demanding to see evidence.

        • Susan

          I’m talking about the one true living triune God of the Old and New Testaments, friend

          That’s pretty vague. Can you be more specific? What characteristics does it have?

          Are you claiming it exists?

          On what basis?

          Also, don’t call me friend. We have barely met one another and you don’t mean it sincerely.

        • Brother TC

          I sincerely love you as a magnificent image-bearer of God. I don’t need to meet you to love you, as if you need to prove your worth to me somehow.

          I was very specific about the God I’m talking about, and He’s a He.

          I claim God exists, and I don’t expect you to believe it. That’s why you’re called an unbeliever.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Hypocritical saccharine sanctimony, and so unashamedly so!

          You don’t see that kind of blatant insincerity every day, nor such blitheringly idiotic talking points concentrated in a small post!

          TC’s ‘unbeliever’ == Objective Reality’s ‘sane’.

        • Triune? Here’s a thought experiment: you travel back in time and ask Paul and then Jesus to explain the Trinity to you. What would they say? (Use the Bible to back up your claims.)

          Do you know of any evidence that would make you a believer in God tonight?

          How is this argument supposed to go? Someone says, “I dunno–maybe ‘Jesus’ spelled out in stars?” And then what happens?

          And how about you? What would make you deconvert?

        • Brother TC

          I didn’t say “Trinity.” When I say triune, I’m referring to the godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Paul talked about these three aspects of God continuously.

          “How is this argument supposed to go?”

          It starts with you trying to answer, or admitting that you cannot answer, or just equivocating until I get tired and leave.

          Having true faith, my faith cannot fail. My faith is not based on a judgment I’ve made based on the evidence, although the evidence has been shown to me to confirm my faith.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “I didn’t say “Trinity.” When I say triune, I’m referring to the godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Paul talked about these three aspects of God continuously.”

          As earlier, book/chapter/verse.

          C’mon, you can do it! (pray pardon my obvious insincerity…)

          In short, you believe because you want to believe, and you won’t let any objective reality besmirch your rabid fealty to the meme.

        • Brother TC

          “As earlier, book/chapter/verse.”

          This should get you started: 2Co 3:17, Gal 4:4–7, Rom 8:11.

        • I imagine that you could find lots of triples that Paul talked about. If he got emotional talking about bacon, lettuce, and tomato, would you call that support for a triune, indivisible BLT?

          Paul gave no evidence that he had a trinitarian view of God.

          It starts with you trying to answer, or admitting that you cannot answer, or just equivocating until I get tired and leave.

          Isn’t that ironic? You’re the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.

          Having true faith, my faith cannot fail. My faith is not based on a judgment I’ve made based on the evidence, although the evidence has been shown to me to confirm my faith.

          And yet you don’t have any evidence that would convince us. I marvel then that you think that it’s enough to convince you.

          This “Yeah, but I have faith!!” argument is what any nut in any cult or religion would say. You have a lot of company, but none that I’d brag about.

        • Rudy R

          I don’t know what evidence would prove a god, because the current evidence for every god model does not tip the scales from not probable to probable. But I’m sure an omniscient god would know exactly what evidence I and all other atheists require to be believers.

        • Greg G.

          But I’m sure an omniscient god would know exactly what evidence I and all other atheists require to be believers.

          And an omnipotent one would be able to provide and an omnibenevolent one would provide it if it was important.

          The fact that a believer asks the question shows they need to stop believing.

        • Michael Neville

          Which specific god are you talking about? Pat Robertson’s god is different from Pope Francis’ god and both differ from John Shelby Spong’s god. Yet all three men call themselves Christians and all are ordained professional godbotherers.

          This diversity of Christian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion between Christians and non-believers, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of Christianity may not apply to other types. Non-believers may feel that they have rebutted some Christian point, but some other flavor Christian may feel that their “one true Christianity” doesn’t have that flaw. These sorts of arguments can go on forever because both sides think they are winning. Thus, if you want to try to reduce the crosstalk, you’re going to have to specify what specific flavor of Christianity or which particular point of Christianity you are arguing for.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “I’m talking about the one true living triune God of the Old and New Testaments, friend. I don’t claim anything but faith in Jesus Christ.”

          How pathetic is it that you can’t even type TWO SENTENCES without contradicting yourself?

          IF you believe in this ‘one living triune ‘god” (paradox right there), then you also CAN’T claim faith in ONLY the Jeez…you have to ALSO have this faith in yahwehdaddy and yahwehspook.

          And answering the ‘question’ (which you’re obviously raising as a forlorn attempt at a *challenge*) is purely at our volition, as it’s also a naked, transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof.

          Remember, your supposed ‘god’ SHOULD ALREADY KNOW what it would take to convince any one of us, or all of us en masse.

        • Pofarmer

          What a dumbass. This is the best Yahweh Jesus could send?

        • Otto

          Well it was either him or a JW, Jesus was in a bind.

        • Pofarmer

          I wonder if he has any idea how pathetic he is?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          A *cromulent* question, even!!!!

          😉

        • Greg G.

          I don’t know. Maybe it would help if you could show when the passover feast was eaten in the Gospel of John between John 13:1 which says it was before the passover began and John 18:12 when Jesus was arrested.

          Your earlier apologetic is refuted by the Gospel of John which explicitly says Jesus was being tried on the Preparation Day for the Passover. The paschal lamb is the passover lamb.

        • Brother TC

          I didn’t ask what would maybe help.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Par usual, you’re taking an extreme position and trying to shift the burden of proof.

          IF your ‘god’ were to exist, and it is as you claim, IT WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAKE A BELIEVER OF ME.

          So either it
          – doesn’t exist (high statistical probability),
          – exists but doesn’t care (possible),
          – exists, cares, but thinks you’re too much of a fuckwit to be given THE EXACT EVIDENCE to bring a ‘soul’ to it (rather likely IMHO, but statistically not really…),
          – or you’re just a poseur (also highly statistically likely)

          (recall that ‘OR’, in logic speak, is what we’d call AND/OR in colloquial conversation)

        • james warren

          Long before Hollywood and video games, those parents in Deuteronomy [whose children were “gluttons and drunkards”] could think of no other remedy but to slaughter their own children.

          America didn’t invent teen angst or parental powerlessness.
          Nor did we invent substance abuse: gluttony and drunkenness were the charges against Deuteronomy’s children.

          In fact, the Bible — the book that many conservatives want taught in school as the word of God — is rife with children running amok and killing each other, sons warring against their fathers, brothers raping sisters, boys squandering inheritances, siblings throwing each other down wells, and scantily clad girls dancing wildly and then calling for the severed heads of prophets (at Mommy’s instigation — talk about family dysfunction!).

          The Bible also has its share of irrational parents: Noah’s son entered his father’s tent and by accident saw him naked, and for this Noah cursed his entire line of descendants. (Fathers often don’t like to be seen for who they really are.)

          Children are fair game in the Bible, especially if they belong to your enemy. As Psalm 137 has it, “O daughter of Babylon, . . . happy shall be he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”

          I continue to be amazed that Christians, Moslems, and Jews still regard this praise of atrocity as “holy writ.”

          The ultimate biblical act of faith is considered to be Abraham’s willingness to murder his child Isaac — although today “God told me to do it” is not accepted as a legal defense, even by most fundamentalists. My somewhat obvious point is that nowhere in the Bible does it say these people watched too much television.

          Michael Ventura was o

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are really too stupid to understand when infanticide was an advantageous and good thing? What an imbecile.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fuckwit!

        • Speaking for myself, I’ll say: of course not. Despite pleading to dozens of Christian apologists, I’ve never seen evidence for objective morality. Please provide some (and tell us what “objective morality” means to you).

        • Brother TC

          If you want to give up on objective morality, that’s your problem. I find no reason to even take notice of your relative understanding of morality, which amounts to your opinion.

        • Otto

          We have no reason to think your morality is not relative.

        • But any minute now Brother TC is going to slap some serious evidence for objective morality on the table that’ll knock us on our collective asses. I’m sure of it.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Bob, it’s *wicked* to fib, you know

          😉

        • yes, my optimism did rather cross the line.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “If you want to give up on objective morality”

          Nope. I want you to DEMONSTRATE it or give up trying to use it as a paper-tiger ‘weapon’ in this argument.

        • Sure, we can play that game. Your opinion is that objective morality exists and that humans can reliably access it.

          That’s ridiculous, and apparently you can’t defend your remarkable position. Noted. Just keep this problem in mind when you have future discussions about morality. “Objective morality exists, y’know, just cuz” doesn’t carry much weight around thoughtful people.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do you believe in absolute, universal, objective standards of right and wrong?

          Nope….next?

        • james warren

          The Book of Ecclesiastes [“the Preacher”] tells us the same fate comes to all, to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to those who sacrifice and those who do not sacrifice.

          “…As are the good, so are the sinners…. the same fate comes to everyone” (9:1-3). And even in this life, before death, rewards and punishments are not meted out according to merit, but everything is dependent on chance:

          “Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful; but time and chance happen to them all. For no one can anticipate the time of disaster. Like fish taken in a cruel net, and like birds caught in a snare, so mortals are snared at a time of calamity, when it suddenly falls upon them.”

          “The Father makes his sun to shine on the evil AND the good and sends the rain to fall on both the righteous and the unrighteous.”
          –Matthew 5:45

          If you believe that to receive grace means that you first must satisfy some sort of requirements, then you are certainly not talking about grace.

        • Greg G.

          Hello, james! Long time, no see…

        • Brother TC

          You didn’t read the last two verses in Ecclesiastes.

          “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecc 12:13-14).

          Or these words of Jesus:

          “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jhn 14:6).

        • Otto

          “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me my way or the highway”

          I am not impressed, first God gives us free will, and then he smites anyone who uses it in a way he doesn’t like…so very Christian.

        • Brother TC

          You deserve justice, not mercy.

        • Otto

          If I actually had free will and your God was actually real I would have chosen never to be born. So it is one or the other, it can’t be both.

        • Brother TC

          You don’t believe you have free will?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘Free will’ is WORTHLESS without *informed consent*.

          To HAVE *informed consent*, your ‘god’ needs to allow a mind to decide whether it even wants to join the game.

          That’s not what’s happening, as minds don’t develop significantly until AFTER a human organism is born, by which point the mentality is trapped in a game it might not have decided to play.

        • Brother TC

          I’m asking if you believe in free will. Do you believe in free will?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It exists.

          As mentioned above, without informed consent, it’s also useless, and a cruel trick to blame the victim.

        • Brother TC

          God doesn’t condemn you of sin until you sin, you know.

          In a materialistic universe, how do you account for free will? It would seem to me that everything would be mechanistically determined from the beginning of time, according to such a worldview. Dawkins thinks so, anyway — he denies free will. How do you explain free will?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “God doesn’t condemn you of sin until you sin, you know.”

          Book/chapter/verse on that, then.

          NOW you’re claiming the Universe is mechanistically determined, which would mean you deny quantum physics…and THAT would mean denying the very science that allowed the computer you’re using to be designed and built.

          You don’t get to force your strawman misconceptions on me to try to get me to dance to your tune.

          You’ve been trying to set up a BUNCH of false dichotomies…gee, I wonder *why*?

        • Brother TC

          I really can’t talk to you about your worldview unless you reveal your worldview to me.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Non sequitur.

          I specifically asked for book/chapter/verse for your assertion that “‘god’ doesn’t condemn you until you sin” (paraphrased, your phrasing was incoherent).

          You failed to reply.

          You also failed to support your contention that a ‘mechanistic’ Universe (which you fail to demonstrate) would leave no room for free will.

          You’ve made assertions. Either provide evidence or recant.

          You don’t get to throw ‘worldview’ in my face.

          Either you have evidence to support your assertions, or you don’t.

          Go to it.

        • Brother TC

          The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). It is by sin that death came into the world in the first place (Rom 5:12). An attribute of God is righteousness, justice.

          Anyway, I’d like to take a peek at your worldview for a moment. Do you believe in a materialistic universe?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Ahhh, ‘sin’ entering the world…

          So this ‘yahwehgod’ is still blaming, per your story, the ‘creatED’ for the flaws built into it by the ‘yahwehgod’ ‘creatOR’. (in the ‘yahwehgod’ ‘creatOR’s own image, per the story, in fact..)

          That’s an irresponsible stance.

          Your *reward* for providing evidence will be a discussion of my ‘worldview’, as you phrase it.

          Until you’ve met your responsibilities, it would be remiss of me to reward your bad behavior, evasion, and lies.

        • Brother TC

          I’m cool with you keeping your worldview a secret, if that’s what you want to do.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Again, my worldview isn’t the topic of discussion.

          YOU are asserting *objective morality*.

          Until you demonstrate it, I have no use for you, nor interest in conversing with you.

          (BTW, that silly implied challenge is infantile and unworthy of any respect. Do your job, and then we can discuss the results.)

        • Pofarmer

          You never heard of original sin? We’re all condemned.

          Dumbass.

        • Brother TC

          Original sin is an unbiblical Roman Catholic invention.

        • Pofarmer

          Down below you said we had a “Sin nature.”

          Dumbass.

        • Brother TC

          These are distinct and mutually exclusive doctrines.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “These are distinct and mutually exclusive doctrines.”

          Wrong.

          In your story, your supposed ‘god’ created us IN ITS OWN IMAGE…then blames US for acting how it would act itself in light of that assertion.

          That’s like blaming a light bulb for radiating when it’s in use.

          You either get ‘free will’ or you get your ‘god’ creating us in its own image, warts and all, in which case as the creatED, we’re not responsible for *how* we were programmed.

        • Otto

          He just frames it a little differently and calls it something else…for all practical purposes it is the same but he gets hung up on it.

        • Otto

          No I said it can’t be both…I am pretty sure you can figure out which one I have most definitely ruled out.

        • Brother TC

          Nope. I want your definitive answer. Of course, you can equivocate if you’re scared.

        • Otto

          The God you believe in resides only in your imagination…is that definitive enough?

          >>>”if you’re scared.”

          What…are you 12? Grow up.

        • Brother TC

          Speaking of growing up, could you answer my question?

        • Well, aren’t you the mature example? The guy who backed away from his objective morality claim and who says he’s here to show us the One True Way even though he’s provided no evidence.

          Show us how it’s done. You’re the one who follows the example of Jesus–What Evidence Would Jesus Give?

        • Brother TC

          Why do you have the idea that I’ve backed away from my objective morality claim? That’s just weird.

          Jesus gave lots of evidence, and then told doubting Thomas, “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (Jhn 20:29).

          Jesus doesn’t save people because they make certain demands. That’s pride, and God wants to crush your pride.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          re ‘objective’ morality: you CONSISTENTLY fail to provide objective *standards* by which to assess this ‘objective morality’, resorting CONSTANTLY to hand-waving and ‘self-evidence’ of your proposition.

          re Doubting Thomas, “…well isn’t that CONVEEEEENIENT…”

          re Jebus demands…you might want to check your ‘bible’…start with the verses at this link:

          https://www.esv.org/Matthew+18:19;Matthew+21:22;Mark+11:24;John+14:13;John+15:7;John+15:16;John+16:23%E2%80%9324;James+1:5%E2%80%936;James+1:17;1+John+3:22;1+John+5:14%E2%80%9315/

        • Brother TC

          I believe in objective morality, friend. That doesn’t mean I have a burden to prove it to you.

          I also don’t need to prove that morality is objective to point out the weakness of making moral judgments from a position of moral relativism. My response to a moral relativist’s moral judgments is, “So what?”

        • Otto

          But you already admitted killing children is not objectively wrong.

        • Brother TC

          “But you already admitted killing children is not objectively wrong.”

          False.

        • Otto

          You created a condition where it would be OK…so not false.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong.

          If it’s OBJECTIVE morality, you can irrefutably demonstrate it to any rational mind.

          You’re merely CLAIMING it, then skating out of your responsibility.

          Bless Your Heart…

        • Brother TC

          The truth isn’t predicated on irrefutable demonstration to you. Not sure where you got that idea.

        • Otto

          Well it sure isn’t predicated on an assertion

        • Brother TC

          Agreed.

        • Otto

          It seems assertions are all you got. Hey you are free to believe what you will…but if that is all you have you are wasting you time here.

        • Brother TC

          Nah, that’s not all I’ve got. I’d really like to talk about the error of your godless worldview, and we can come at that from a number of directions. Do you consider yourself to be a materialist?

        • Otto

          TC that is all you have got….

          And one thing you need to understand you could dismantle my worldview and it wouldn’t make a hill of beans difference…that gets you no closer to showing that your Christian is true. I didn’t reject Christianity because I thought the materialism was true…you have it backwards.

        • Brother TC

          Can you answer my question?

        • Pofarmer

          Dude. You’re being a complete dick.

        • Otto

          It is irrelevant…I could explain my position in detail but it wouldn’t matter as to the discussion.

          But as to how you are using the term…no I am not a materialist, and it wouldn’t matter one iota if I was.

        • Brother TC

          Okay. Never mind, then.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’m a METHODOLOGICAL naturalist.

          (Rough translation: it’s pragmatic, and it works, and can be demonstrated)

          Next question?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nasty-ass strawman you erected there..do you buy them in bulk?

          I typed, VERBATIM, “you can irrefutably demonstrate it to any rational mind.”

          The irrefutable demonstration doesn’t have to be to ME in particular.

          It merely has to be to a hypothetical objective observer who’s embracing the Null Hypothesis.

          And why are you continuing to try (not so) subtle psychological digs?

          Is it try to put me off-balance, so I won’t press you to meet your burden of proof?

        • Brother TC

          I was an objective observer who embraced the Null Hypothesis (a term that you’re misapplying), a so-called rational mind. After 43 years of unbelief, God opened my eyes to see all the evidence, which was always right in front of me.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I call you a blatant liar, right to your face.

          IF you had such ‘evidence’, AND you had been a disbelieving atheist, you’d BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT.

          What you’re admitting to (inadvertently, I’m sure) is that once you *already* believed, you saw all kinds of ‘evidence’. It’s right in your post, “‘god’ opened my eyes to see…”.

          I believe based on evidence, not on some supposed subjective ‘revelation’ that can’t be demonstrated.

        • Pofarmer

          If you want me to beleive it you need to prove it.

          Dumbass.

        • Brother TC

          I’m not trying to make you believe it. I’m just explaining my beliefs.

        • Pofarmer

          No, you’re not. You’re prosyletizing. It’s clear you don’t even understand your beleifs.

        • Brother TC

          What do you think I misunderstand?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “What do you think I misunderstand?”

          For starters, you don’t understand that a hypothetical observer, who is neutral on belief or disbelief in your assertions, who actually read your ‘bible’ to determine the truth value of your claims, would reject your assertions, as your ‘bible’ IS filled with self-contradictions that advocates for it need to plaster over with apologetics rather than demonstrations and evidence.

        • epeeist

          You’re prosyletizing.

          Too long a word, “preaching” would be more apposite.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “I’m not trying to make you believe it. I’m just explaining my beliefs.”

          Liar.

          You’ve been trying to attack our ‘worldview(s)’, not-so-subtly insulting the assertion that this Universe is all we know (right now, anyway), in the forlorn hope that once rationality is banished, your foolish dichotomous thinking leads you to believe your harmful meme will be the only alternative left standing.

          And *explanations* describe a NEW concept IN TERMS OF MATTERS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD. Thus, you are NOT explaining, you’re merely arrogantly *asserting* a position and demanding we take your word for it sans evidence.

          Doesn’t violating the ‘commandment’ against false witness bother you, even a little?

        • Why do you have the idea that I’ve backed away from my objective morality claim?

          Because you refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.

          Jesus gave lots of evidence, and then told doubting Thomas, “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (Jhn 20:29).

          No one cares about any evidence except the evidence you’re not providing here. Now, do you have any or are you a no-show yet again?

          Why bring up Doubting Thomas? Believing in stuff despite not having good evidence is precisely not what I’m talking about. I couldn’t care less if it was good enough for Jesus; it’s not good enough for me or any thoughtful skeptic.

        • Brother TC

          “No one cares about any evidence except the evidence you’re not providing here.”

          ?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re attempting to use ‘bible’ stories AS evidence, without first demonstrating that they’re historically valid.

          That’s the assertions you’re trying to PASS OFF as evidence.

          What WE want is no more and no less that what your story claims ‘doubting Thomas’ got, or any of the ‘disciples’ would have gotten WATCHING the Jeez supposedly perform miracles before their very eyes.

        • Otto

          I answered you question twice…very clearly. A remedial reading comprehension class might be in order.

        • Brother TC

          I’m sorry, friend. I get kind of confused talking to so many people at once!

        • Greg G.

          I admire your energy and tenacity.

        • Pofarmer

          If only you could admire his intelligence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yer easy pleased.

        • Greg G.

          I couldn’t keep up reading all of the replies. Everytime I stopped to think… hmmm, maybe that is how he was replying so fast.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “It is very hard to get a man to realize something when his income requires that he NOT realize it.”

          — Some 20th century newsman, can’t remember who

          😉

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I want your definitive answer.

          I don’t know.

          Next?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Per YOUR KIND, maybe.

          You still have to make your case.

          You keep throwing out those bullshit assertions, then dodging when asked for evidence by claiming the proselytizing equivalent of JAQ-ing off in public.

        • Brother TC

          I think you’ll agree that justice and mercy exist, and they ain’t relative. You do know what these concepts mean.

          Please dispute this, if you care to do so.

        • More objective claims? You got your face rubbed in the mud pretty bad last time. You sure you want to ride this train?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “I think you’ll agree that justice and mercy exist”

          THIS part I agree with…because there’s E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.

          I don’t know for sure whether they’re relative or not, although I strongly lean towards relative justice and mercy.

          If you want *objective* justice & mercy, get to demonstrating them, with evidence…NO hand-waving about how it’s ‘self-evident’, as you tried to foist on the commentariat with that comment.

        • Brother TC

          Do you believe everything is relative to you unless proven otherwise?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          My beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion.

          YOU have asserted something *objec