tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post400496060439086469..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The Bible Debunks ItselfUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54423779970214977342008-04-08T12:30:00.000-04:002008-04-08T12:30:00.000-04:00The Genesis One Creation Account. This passage is ...The Genesis One Creation Account. This passage is contrary to modern science in so many ways. Notice the earth existed before the universe of stars. Notice also that the earth rises out of the primeval chaotic waters, and that the “firmament” (a hard dome like structure), arose out of those same waters. <BR/>===============<BR/><BR/>I would disagree with your exegesis on this passage. The subject/focus of Genesis 1:1 is the universe where it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The subject of verse 2 is the earth, where it says, "Now the earth was formless and void (meaning lifeless)..."<BR/><BR/>So IMO, the heavens (Including all the stars, the earth, and other heavenly bodies, were created in verse one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90157380039518703732008-03-11T20:25:00.000-04:002008-03-11T20:25:00.000-04:00There is also no known or even theorized means whi...<I>There is also no known or even theorized means which explains differing numbers of chromasomes (sic) in various species.</I><BR/><BR/>Known to you or known to science?<BR/><BR/>Here's a <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw&feature=related" REL="nofollow">video</A> which details the fusion of human chromosome #2 in human beings and explains why human beings have a different number of chromosomes than other primates.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40417082415468461112008-03-11T20:06:00.000-04:002008-03-11T20:06:00.000-04:00MMM: I find it oppressive that someone might indic...MMM: <I>I find it oppressive that someone might indict me as an offender of this law if I should decide to kill an attacking cougar out of self defense. </I><BR/><BR/>If sexual preference is strongly influenced by genetics, which statistics seem indicate, I'm sure homosexuals find Christianity just as oppressive as it too would indict them as offenders for following the instincts they were born with.<BR/><BR/>MMM: <I>A law or moral code is insufficient in completely conveying the love of God for mankind - a moral code can become corrupted by self righteousness and a legal code is not gracious - it cannot discern.</I><BR/><BR/>Anything can be corrupted by self-righteousness. Laws cannot cover every possible situation. However, some texts written at or even before the same time frame are clearly more comprehensive than others. This significantly reduces the chance for misinterpretation. <BR/><BR/>In this case, a single verse conveyed what the entire Bible could not. Do not enslave, torture, oppress or kill. <BR/><BR/>We've seen plenty of this sort of behavior in the name of the Christian God. Is this a representation of the love of God for mankind? <BR/><BR/>MMM: <I>The Old Testament people were promised a Savior - I am wondering how the Jains fared with their legal code??</I><BR/><BR/>And, in the New Testament, Peter promised the return of this savior in their lifetime. How's that working out for you?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5059619708290587822008-03-11T10:13:00.000-04:002008-03-11T10:13:00.000-04:00Enigma, if anybody ever needed proof of the truth ...Enigma, if anybody ever needed proof of the truth of my original assertion, you just proved it in spades. You fail on every level to suggest any single fact that changed your mind about anything. I couldn't have hoped for a more convincing elucidation of your true position than your last post.<BR/><BR/>You are dishonest and a discredit to whatever ethical system you claim to follow.<BR/><BR/>Good luck with that and wherever it gets you.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79479632020353475872008-03-11T08:22:00.000-04:002008-03-11T08:22:00.000-04:00Evan,You're right. Any 3rd grader could explain e...Evan,<BR/><BR/>You're right. Any 3rd grader could explain evolution to me, but I left 3rd grade behind a long time ago.<BR/><BR/>You do make my point brilliantly though. I said that an intelligent conversation on science could not be conducted on a blog and you've proved it. In your evolutionist drival you fail to give one solid reference.<BR/><BR/>I must admit though that I had you wrong. I thought that you were an atheist. I see now that you do beleive in god. You just believe yourself to be him. How else could you know more about me than I know about myself? When I make a point it needs to be proven in writing or it is drival. When you make a point it is to be received a divine revelation. How else would you know everything that Richard Dawkins has ever said? When faced with the facts in a debate he has two options: Deny the facts and lose all crediblility; or admit the facts and try to mitigate them. He wisely choses the later. But you in your omniscience say that he never said them so maybe I was halucinating.<BR/><BR/>I give up.<BR/><BR/>I learned a long time ago that arguing with god is a fools errand.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I loved your movie.<BR/><BR/>Have a nice eternity.enigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02474735444978150733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76150342307843306422008-03-11T01:55:00.000-04:002008-03-11T01:55:00.000-04:00Your comments about Blue Laws is incorrect. Sunday...Your comments about Blue Laws is incorrect. Sunday is neither the Sabbath nor the Seventh Day of the week. <BR/><BR/>The purpose of Blue Laws was to keep people sober enough on Sunday to attend church without falling down. <BR/><BR/>It has only been since prohibition that everyone in America wasn't legally drunk most of the time...<BR/><BR/>Do the research...DSJulianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826803597936170726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8350975998938790172008-03-10T21:02:00.000-04:002008-03-10T21:02:00.000-04:00Enigma,Again. You never believed it in the first p...Enigma,<BR/><BR/>Again. You never believed it in the first place and you are proving it by mouthing a bunch of Creationist drivel that can be explained with 3rd grade level understanding.<BR/><BR/>You prove again that you are disingenuous.<BR/><BR/>Let's go through this:<BR/><BR/><I>Since you apparently cannot get started on your own I will give a a starting place.</I><BR/><BR/>What did you first believe and what changed your mind? You don't say, and that proves you are not telling the truth.<BR/><BR/><I>The operation of the cell at a molecular level does not allow for evolutionary mutations.</I><BR/><BR/>Except of course it does. The vast majority of mutations are neutral. The most cursory knowledge of biology agrees with this. Of mutations that are NOT neutral again the vast majority are lethal. Lethal mutations will not pass along to further generations. Again, basic knowledge of biology allows anyone to understand this.<BR/><BR/>To say that cells can't mutate is to argue that no antibiotic resistance has developed, and that cancer doesn't exist. It's not something you ever believed. It's creationist claptrap you are parroting.<BR/><BR/>Next statement:<BR/><BR/><I>All observed mutations reduce the amount of information contained in genetic code which could not lead to higher forms of life.</I><BR/><BR/>Ridiculous. There are no "higher forms of life". There are forms of life. That's it. Your statement again proves you put ideology first. There are plenty of observed mutations that create new information. They are called duplications. Look up Hox Genes. If you have a basic understanding of biology you will know that they have been duplicated multiple times in vertebrates. You will then see how vertebrates use the duplicate genes to do additional things. This <BR/>ADDS information.<BR/><BR/>HIV has evolved entire new proteins during YOUR lifetime proving your statement to be false. <BR/><BR/>The fact is you never believed anything other than you believe now, since you can't characterize your prior beliefs and what changed your mind. <BR/><BR/><I>There is also no known or even theorized means which explains differing numbers of chromasomes (sic) in various species.</I><BR/><BR/>ROFL.<BR/><BR/>Translocations. Chromosome fusions. Well known, well documented, beyond doubt to anyone with a cursory knowledge of biology or the ability to use Wikipedia. Again, you never believed anything else or you would show what changed your mind.<BR/><BR/><I>"It just happened" is not science.</I><BR/><BR/>Correct. It's not. "God did it" is a variant of "It just happened" and is therefore not science.<BR/><BR/><I>There is also the problem for atheist of the origin of the first life(sic). Even Richard Dawkins admits that life could not have spontaneously occured on earth.</I><BR/><BR/>He admits no such thing. Cite that for me. Of course, since you have never read Dawkins and never thought anything other than what you think now, you won't be able to.<BR/><BR/><I>The probability for even the simplest conceivable life coming into existance is zero.</I><BR/><BR/>No it isn't. Again, basic knowledge of statistics would show to you that the probability of just about anything CANNOT be zero. There's not a zero probability that you could walk through a solid wall. <BR/><BR/>Let me explain how we currently theorize life began ON earth. This is of course something you think happened because God did it. I will remind you that "It just happened" is not science.<BR/><BR/>First hypothesis is that life began at hydrothermal vents and was made of simple molecules such as nucleotides that were catalyzed by clay minerals on the edges of the hydrothermal vents. There is good evidence for this, including the fact that heat shock proteins are the most ubiquitous proteins and are present in all forms of life in a highly conserved fashion. This data requires no faith.<BR/><BR/>Second hypothesis is that simple macromolecules began to form from clay catalysis, and that a few of these were able to replicate *AND* catalyze, and that the most stable one was RNA, which was able to catalyze reactions and reproduce itself. RNA still catalyzes reactions today, and is still able to reproduce itself today, thus this hypothesis requires no faith.<BR/><BR/>The third stage is that RNA began to replicate in protected spaces and to develop better and better mechanisms of preservation and catalysis, including the development of the ribosome (A fusion of protein and RNA), and the development of DNA as a more stable storage mechanism. I don't believe it takes much faith to believe that happened, you might.<BR/><BR/>Once you have DNA and RNA making protein with ribosomes in a protected space, you have a cell. Once that cell develops a lipid layer and becomes free living, you need no further hypotheses for evolution to take place. Not one bit of faith is required to believe that current research can find answers to the above questions.<BR/><BR/>But of course, you never believed that evolution was true in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Go back down and read my first post on this blog Enigma.<BR/><BR/>Show me where I'm wrong.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I won't hold my breath.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26930201720211316702008-03-10T16:53:00.000-04:002008-03-10T16:53:00.000-04:00Evan,I may be an engineer and not a linguist, but ...Evan,<BR/><BR/>I may be an engineer and not a linguist, but I do know that when you say someone is lying, you are calling them a liar. What's more, you have no good reason to think that. A blog is completely unsuitable for this type of in-depth debate. Evolution or any science is much too complex to discuss in such a short forum.<BR/><BR/>Since you apparently cannot get started on your own I will give a a starting place. The operation of the cell at a molecular level does not allow for evolutionary mutations. All observed mutations reduce the amount of information contained in genetic code which could not lead to higher forms of life. There is also no known or even theorized means which explains differing numbers of chromasomes in various species. "It just happened" is not science. There is also the problem for atheist of the origin of the first life. Even Richard Dawkins admits that life could not have spontaneously occured on earth. The probability for even the simplest conceivable life coming into existance is zero. <BR/><BR/>I could go on for days, but I don't see the point. I am quite certain that you do not want to know. You are happy in your atheism and believing me to be a liar or a fool makes it easier for you. Believe that if you will, but you may keep it to yourself.<BR/><BR/>Now maybe we can get back to the subject: "The Bible Debunks Itself"<BR/><BR/>If you want to discuss evolution there are many other forums available for that. Or maybe you could read "The Origin of Species" and see what Darwin said about disproving evolution. It has been done.enigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02474735444978150733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66906145657180027642008-03-10T15:50:00.001-04:002008-03-10T15:50:00.001-04:00MMM -- the Jains are still around.Find one and ask...MMM -- the Jains are still around.<BR/><BR/>Find one and ask her.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11999410664505202232008-03-10T15:50:00.000-04:002008-03-10T15:50:00.000-04:00Enigma,Once again -- you evince not a shred of evi...Enigma,<BR/><BR/>Once again -- you evince not a shred of evidence that what you claim to be true is true.<BR/><BR/>I did not say you 'were a liar' I said I believed you were lying. <BR/><BR/>I still do.<BR/><BR/>You never believed that evolution was true in any verifiable sense or you would point to at least one fact that changed your mind.<BR/><BR/>You of course haven't, and won't.<BR/><BR/>That settles the question for me about whether you are or are not telling the truth.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50166748474131775482008-03-10T12:20:00.000-04:002008-03-10T12:20:00.000-04:00Scott stated that the Jains came up with this comm...Scott stated that the Jains came up with this command: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being."<BR/><BR/>I find it oppressive that someone might indict me as an offender of this law if I should decide to kill an attacking cougar out of self defense. A law or moral code is insufficient in completely conveying the love of God for mankind - a moral code can become corrupted by self righteousness and a legal code is not gracious - it cannot discern. The Old Testament people were promised a Savior - I am wondering how the Jains fared with their legal code??Manifesting Mini Me (MMM)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08250513504254425163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25477871885527773972008-03-10T12:00:00.000-04:002008-03-10T12:00:00.000-04:00Evan,You misunderstand. I'm not trying to convinc...Evan,<BR/><BR/>You misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am merely warning you that what you think you know may not be true. If you look at my last post again, you will see that I don't ask tou to believe me, but to look for yourself. I cannot convince you of anything you are not willing to believe.<BR/><BR/>This also wanders way off the subject of this blog, which is "the Bible debunks itself".<BR/><BR/>I don't normally take kindly to being called a liar, but I understand your perspective having been there. I am not here to debate evolution. Look for yourself if you're willing to change your mind.<BR/><BR/>By the way I'm a little surprised that you were allowed to call me a liar on a blog that clames to disallow disrespectful comments.enigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02474735444978150733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25859731220709798562008-03-10T11:40:00.000-04:002008-03-10T11:40:00.000-04:00Enigma,You proved my concerns to be true.I believe...Enigma,<BR/><BR/>You proved my concerns to be true.<BR/><BR/>I believe you are lying.<BR/><BR/>I call you out.<BR/><BR/>What fact of evolution did you once believe that you no longer find evidence for?Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77821242009887156072008-03-10T10:12:00.000-04:002008-03-10T10:12:00.000-04:00Evan,You wanted to know what in science I tried to...Evan,<BR/><BR/>You wanted to know what in science I tried to proof that turned me to God and eventually Christianity. <BR/><BR/>First let me say that I love science. I can't get enough of real science. Unfortunatly, good science is in short supply in popular culture these days.<BR/><BR/>The "science" that started my trip to faith in God was Darwinian evolution. After years of looking for evidence, I found virtually none. Oh yes, I found lots of ideas, masses of fancy grahics and almost total conscensus, but I found no hard evidence and precious little circumstantial evidence. Remember, I started out believing that evolution was real.<BR/><BR/>What I did find was excellent evidence that showed that Darwinian evolutions was not even possible. Curiously enough, even most evolution preaching scientists (real scientists, not teachers) will admit that it can't happen, but they refuse to accept the obvious alternative. <BR/><BR/>Then came the Big Bang. There is actually some real evidence for that, but it too ignores some serious problems.<BR/><BR/>Once you accept that scientists are as willing to lie to you to prove what they believe as any Christian (yes I know not all Christians are honest)then you can start to look for yourself and come to your own conclusions. The hard part is to remove your own biases and preconceptions to allow yourself to see the truth.<BR/><BR/>It's easy to see that blindly listening to anyone can easily lead to error and I don't ask anyone to believe that I am right without proof. I would also warn anyone to be careful. There are many on both sides of the arguement that can wrap falsehood in a pretty package, and it takes careful examination to determine what is true and what isn't. Most people accept what they like and reject what they don't. This makes a person feel good about themselves, but it contributes nothing to true knowledge.<BR/><BR/>I believe that being truely right is hard work, but well worth the effort.enigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02474735444978150733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55319710385901445852008-03-10T02:12:00.000-04:002008-03-10T02:12:00.000-04:00On a tangential topic -- this is why I find it str...<I>On a tangential topic -- this is why I find it strange when people hold that Christianity is immoral because of certain immoral practices and stories in the Old Testament. </I><BR/><BR/>What I find strange is when Christians claim their God invented morality in the Old Testament. <BR/><BR/>The following was written by the Jains in around the 9th century BCE: <BR/><BR/><I><B>Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.</B></I><BR/><BR/>Imagine if the Old Testament contained such clear and strong moral direction. Would we have had slavery? What about The Inquisition and The Crusades?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47816633600945696672008-03-10T00:17:00.000-04:002008-03-10T00:17:00.000-04:00bleak. where is the place for good hope?I think al...<I>bleak. where is the place for good hope?</I><BR/><BR/>I think all people of good will are reason for hope, regardless of their beliefs.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69696416007961312802008-03-09T22:19:00.000-04:002008-03-09T22:19:00.000-04:00I stand corrected... perhaps i ment gee i WISH.......I stand corrected... perhaps i ment gee i WISH....<BR/><BR/>maybe i was thinking more people where getting their thinking liberated.<BR/><BR/>SO basically the majority of humans being christians are not interested in scientific facts and strong theories. Is what you're saying.<BR/><BR/>thats a shame, really. Then the reality of the matter is not many even care about the being good stuff. And never challenge the trueness of what they are beliving.<BR/><BR/>.....<BR/><BR/>bleak. where is the place for good hope?Insanezenmistresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18188433016350019722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31979729912565372672008-03-09T19:52:00.000-04:002008-03-09T19:52:00.000-04:00Jessy I just have to disagree with your conclusion...Jessy I just have to disagree with your conclusion, at least if you are talking about the United States.<BR/><BR/>42% of Americans do not believe humans evolved from other creatures.<BR/><BR/>Let your mind sift that out for a bit.<BR/><BR/>Of the other 48%, a MAJORITY believe that God directed evolution. Only 18% of Americans believed man evolved solely through natural selection.<BR/><BR/>Yet the science we have available to us shows only evidence for man evolving by natural selection and it fully disproves the idea that man did not evolve from other creatures. In another survey 47% of AMERICANS (not Christians) believed the statement "God created man in his current form less than 10,000 years ago.<BR/><BR/>Thus, a majority of Christians in the US prefer the Bible story to proven facts discovered scientifically.<BR/><BR/>That should throw some cold water on how you think about what people imagine when they read the Bible.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10954859524497921812008-03-09T19:03:00.000-04:002008-03-09T19:03:00.000-04:00I agree, Evan that science is what oyu say it is. ...I agree, Evan that science is what oyu say it is. I enjoy science it is the art of human learning.<BR/><BR/>I just am also geared toward philosphical "science" or psychological science....and what we call a spiritaul science. Their are some methods for interpreting the bible, christianity, and brings out spiritaul value in some people. I know a person who can weave a beautiful picture of the symbology and meaning of things jesus did that related to the overall of the Old Testament.<BR/><BR/>He has a "gift". Is he aware of all your arguments? Perhaps, he is by no means a stupid man. Is it faith that keeps him in love with his interpretation an dmeanign of scripture? <BR/><BR/>No it is just a mental frame work for all his higest ideals. So Philosphy is a science of thinking and discovery of knowledge. It has a scientfitic method also.....that method is HOW we arrive at truth yes. Any truth.<BR/><BR/>What ever truth we are able to see.<BR/><BR/>The bible debunks itself yes...but msot people arent realing That bible.<BR/><BR/>Jessy.Insanezenmistresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18188433016350019722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18094922633708719232008-03-09T14:25:00.000-04:002008-03-09T14:25:00.000-04:00And how can one lose "faith" in science. Well, tak...<I>And how can one lose "faith" in science. Well, take cosmology for example, and physics, these are only right in so far as our math is correct. And much of our science (technology) come out of math that is only valid as far as the big bang singularity.</I><BR/><BR/>I suppose if someone has absolute faith in science like someone has absolute faith in Christianity then that might happen. But science proceeds by steps forward, steps backward, error discovery, and consolidation of knowledge multiply tested.<BR/><BR/>Of course science can be wrong. That's what gets careers made in science, showing that what was previously believed was wrong. You don't have "faith" in science, you believe, on the basis of good evidence, that it is the best way to know about our universe.<BR/><BR/>If some other way of knowing starts getting things done that make dramatic differences in people's lives, it will get the same level of attention as science. <BR/><BR/>But for someone to have "faith" in science is merely to be transposing the psychological mechanisms that one has for religion on to science, and that is not how science works.<BR/><BR/>The finest works in science have error in them, and the job of modern scientists is to find those errors and expose them.<BR/><BR/>This is why so many Christians are uncomfortable with science. Science is not a series of truths, or a big truth, but a method of arriving at truth. And when you use that method, Christianity doesn't really stand up (except in its most nebulous and unfulfilling forms).Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15126131805328871402008-03-09T08:11:00.000-04:002008-03-09T08:11:00.000-04:00Evan""""If my arguments make sense, it is the argu...Evan<BR/><BR/>""""If my arguments make sense, it is the argument's character, not mine that is resonating. <BR/><BR/>If the Bible says something that is true, it is the truth that is resonating in someone's mind, not the Bible.<BR/><BR/>""""""<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>This is good, and along the lines of my own thinking. Truth is as truth does and there is not one single source of truth.<BR/><BR/>Now how screwed up is this, i have points of agreement with both the chrisitan and the atheist side of the coin.<BR/><BR/>But if i may try and shed light on what could be the science that might have caused enigma to "find god" <BR/><BR/>I would call such a science yoga. Or Zen, sciences of knowledge/gnosis. (though in zen there is no need to deify god or ourselves.)<BR/><BR/>And how can one lose "faith" in science. Well, take cosmology for example, and physics, these are only right in so far as our math is correct. And much of our science (technology) come out of math that is only valid as far as the big bang singularity. <BR/><BR/>Most of what we know is theory and changing as more is learned. Naturally if more is learned then what came before was incomplete.<BR/><BR/>I think a spiritaul knowledge is simular. If one way to veiw it renders it false then another way to veiw it may bring to light something deeper and more practical.<BR/><BR/>The Bible works for people. Not all theses people are tripped up by the equasitions you present.<BR/><BR/>Does the bible work for me? Only as a kindergarten manaul of spiritaulity. But the more i understand my yoga the more things biblical take on greater implication. (luckilly without becomming a stupified religious faith, such that i agree with your debunkingness of)<BR/><BR/><BR/>thanx for skimming<BR/><BR/>JessyInsanezenmistresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18188433016350019722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63404725067856228572008-03-08T23:45:00.000-05:002008-03-08T23:45:00.000-05:00Ironically, I am the opposite of you. I was a comm...<I>Ironically, I am the opposite of you. I was a committed atheist who found that everything that I believed was wrong. I spent several years working to proof the science that I "knew".</I><BR/><BR/>Enigma, I'm curious what in science that you tried to proof caused you to start believing in God.<BR/><BR/>Let me know what that is.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88576085747973366332008-03-08T18:20:00.000-05:002008-03-08T18:20:00.000-05:00John,I just labored through this entire article, a...John,<BR/>I just labored through this entire article, and I thank you for strengthening my faith. I started reading to find out if I have beleived a lie, but there was nothing here to demonstrate that was the case. <BR/><BR/>First, the beginning premise was flawed. There is no reason to believe that God intended, or should have intended, that the Bible could not be misunderstood. Most of your observations are really fabrications. You are completely biased without a shred of objectivity. I also find it interesting that you judge God by your morals. If as you say, there is no god then there are no objective morals to judge him by. If this is the best you can do to "debunk" the Bible, then I quess the Bible is safe.<BR/><BR/>Ironically, I am the opposite of you. I was a committed atheist who found that everything that I believed was wrong. I spent several years working to proof the science that I "knew". After all that time I actually proved that most of the so-called science that I believed was not true, and I became a theist although not yet a Christian. More study eventually led me to Christianity as the only true revelation of God.<BR/><BR/>I don't know what turned you away, but what you've written on this site has actually reassured me. If it takes this kind of logical fallacy and willful misinterpretation to disbelieve, I am safe.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again John.enigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02474735444978150733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39410424771591463272008-03-06T22:44:00.000-05:002008-03-06T22:44:00.000-05:00Jim,I guess you agree with me that the Bible is a ...Jim,<BR/><BR/>I guess you agree with me that the Bible is a book like any other and for that I should be grateful.<BR/><BR/>Indeed I am only partly unique in that there is nothing about me that cannot be found in someone or something else.<BR/><BR/>This is precisely why I do not put myself forward as an exemplar that is perfect, all knowing, all good, and all seeing.<BR/><BR/>If my arguments make sense, it is the argument's character, not mine that is resonating. <BR/><BR/>If the Bible says something that is true, it is the truth that is resonating in someone's mind, not the Bible.<BR/><BR/>I also strongly disagree with your assertion that all morality is Christian. This is precisely the sort of xenophobia that led to the genocide of the Native Americans.<BR/><BR/>All morality is human; Christians, Jews, and Muslims have no more of it than Hindus, Taoists, followers of Asatru, Ancient Pagans or anyone else.<BR/><BR/>Also the conflation of the Western tradition with Christianity does violence to the facts. The facts are that the Western tradition of Democritus, Aristotle, Lucretius, Cicero, Averroes, Voltaire, Spinoza and Einstein are definitively NON-Christian and yet they are decidedly western such that Christianity regards all of them as worthy of incorporation or opposition.<BR/><BR/>There is no sustained Christian critique of Lao Tze on the other hand.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9795658648226866622008-03-06T21:22:00.000-05:002008-03-06T21:22:00.000-05:00evan writes: Specifically, is there anything in t...evan writes: <I>Specifically, is there anything in the Bible that should be regarded as uniquely privileged information that could not also be found in other great writing?</I><BR/><BR/>A couple of points. As far as the West goes, Western literature developed in the context of the Christian tradition. So much of that literature comes out of the tradition, resonates with it, is a reaction to it, or is a rebellion against it.<BR/><BR/>So yes, you could easily find many of the same viewpoints in the Bible in other literature, but that's because the literary relationship between Christianity, Judaism, and that same literature.<BR/><BR/>Another point -- while various elements of Christianity could be garnered from literature that is not specifically Christian, the Christian tradition is a unique expression of those elements -- a tradition with its own history of ideas, development, and "dramatis personae," if you will.<BR/><BR/>Here's another way of looking at the issue. Is there anything unique to you, Evan, that could not be found in other people. Well, no disrespect intended, but probably not. Nonetheless, you yourself are unique; you are the only "Evan," and there's no way we could "recreate" Evan through compiling the characteristics of other people. To borrow from Shakespeare's Sonnet 84, "which can say more, than this rich praise, that you alone, are you." Likewise Christianity is unique and thus cannot be considered irrelevant because parts of it might be found in other writings. <BR/><BR/>On a tangential topic -- this is why I find it strange when people hold that Christianity is immoral because of certain immoral practices and stories in the Old Testament. The reason that they find these things immoral is precisely because of the influence of the Christian moral tradition. The Christian moral tradition began with the Old Testament, but developed far beyond it and eventually became "domesticated" by the Enlightenment and by secular, philosophical moral thinking.<BR/><BR/>Some here might find this offensive, but there is a limited sense in which we in the West are are all Christians. We all exist in the context of a moral tradition that was highly influenced by Christianity, even as many of us no longer accept the foundational Christian doctrines.Jim Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14854720105702925980noreply@blogger.com