tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post2223393668586285229..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Update on a Proposed Co-Written Book with a Christian ScholarUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33945653396021185362010-11-07T14:26:15.012-05:002010-11-07T14:26:15.012-05:00On your first comment;
Have you recently undergon...On your first comment;<br /><br />Have you recently undergone a lobotomy? They're referring to the origins of YHWH as a deity, not what the sexist, superstitious goat herders wrote about him *after* his worship had been revised and altered for centuries. Did you even read the post? Crap!<br /><br />On your second comment;<br /><br />Human sacrifice was acceptable ti YHWH several centuries *before* the Hebrews wrote the Talmud, and before the Hebrews excluded all the extra gods from their mythology; duh. Have you recently suffered a head injury?<br /><br />On your third comment;<br /><br />*sigh* Ever hear of something called biological ethics? The directives programmed into our genes that preserve our species from extinction? I mean, where to even start?B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30079526537128644962010-11-07T02:06:25.138-05:002010-11-07T02:06:25.138-05:00"If there is no God then everything is permit..."If there is no God then everything is permitted."<br /><br />Axiomatic at the point of "no eternal consequences." You could get away with everything you did after the sun burns out. All morality is easily traced to circular assumptions and circular reasoning. There would be NO moral absolutes..only opinion.<br /><br />You can try to impose conventions and might makes right but the reality is that "they would be no more morally right than you" because everything with respect to morality would be relative.<br /><br />Easy to identify. Question everything. Does God set the moral standard in His Own universe which He Alone created?Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86994273745569965972010-11-07T02:00:47.572-05:002010-11-07T02:00:47.572-05:00"God doesn’t need us."
A statement we c..."God doesn’t need us."<br /><br />A statement we can agree on.<br /><br />"If there is no God then life has no meaning." <br /><br />or no "eternal purpose"<br /><br />If there was no God, then there would be no life...no information..no order of existence. It's actually ridiculous to consider what life would be like with no Creator because you would have to substantiate that such a thing were even possible.<br /><br />A universe with no meaning because there is no eternal purpose - and therefore meaning itself will someday perish - is easy to identify. Such temporary existence will approach nothingness for all of eternity - BUT it is NOT that way.<br /><br />God has a purpose for this temporary creation.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24343555344615445892010-11-07T01:52:40.212-05:002010-11-07T01:52:40.212-05:00"The biblical god commanded the genocide of w..."The biblical god commanded the genocide of whole people groups."<br /><br />Can the English word "genocide" really apply to the Infinite Creator and Sustainer of all life?<br /><br />Doesn't God know everyone's lifespan and claim responsibility for ALL natural evil/calamity?<br /><br />Yes, God did indeed command the slaughter of entire groups of Israel's enemies.. even their babies (who would grow up to be enemies of Israel and put Israel in danger).<br /><br />This is no different, however, than the slaughter of people within Israel (who would corrupt what God was doing with Israel as a nation and teaching them to be God's people and what that entailed).<br /><br />Does it make that much difference if it is "by the sword" or being drowned in a flood, or being burned like Sodom?<br /><br />God will protect Israel's future as well as chasten them so that they will logically fear Him. (why fear? - they were NOT under grace as we are today. It was logical for them to fear a Holy Creator and pray for His forgiveness).<br /><br />Question everythingBreckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2047726581293056652010-11-07T01:43:31.225-05:002010-11-07T01:43:31.225-05:00"The biblical god required human sacrifices f..."The biblical god required human sacrifices for his pleasure."<br /><br />a record of a sacrifice does NOT mean it was condoned by God.<br /><br /><br />The only Sacrifice that was acceptable for the sins of the world was the Son of Man (Jesus Christ of Nazareth). sacrificing a sinner unto a holy God is non-sequitur. Not even the blood of goats or sheep/lambs will save you.<br />It is utterly ridiculous to claim that God would have "pleasure" at the sacrifice of a sinner.<br /><br />Question everything.<br /><br />Basic questions: Why don't orthodox Jews believe in human sacrifice unto the God of Abraham?<br />or that God "required human sacrifices for his pleasure?" in the O.T?<br /><br />Why do they see human sacrifices in the O.T. as mistakes on the part of men? Q.E.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26651653841342689352010-11-07T01:36:03.879-05:002010-11-07T01:36:03.879-05:00"The biblical god ruled over a pantheon of go..."The biblical god ruled over a pantheon of gods and had a wife, Asherah." <br /><br />Orthodox Judaism. Philo. Talmud. Torah. The whole Tanakh. Apocryphal writings.<br /><br />The evidence is over-whelmingly clear that the God of Abraham was an Infinite Creator with NO wife (since He was not male, but merely revealed in the masculine for relational purposes - UNLESS you are a Mormon).<br /><br />This would be like saying "the biblical god was a golden calf" because a group of ancient Hebrews (who were mislead)worshiped a golden calf. This Asherah nonsense is too easy to refute. There are better questions which will lead to deep truth rather than polytheistic or henotheistic strawmen.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88453549914639845232010-11-05T20:28:45.696-04:002010-11-05T20:28:45.696-04:00I'm not touching those odds with a vinegar-soa...I'm not touching those odds with a vinegar-soaked-sponge-tipped lance...GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3003516787038159612010-11-05T14:32:22.538-04:002010-11-05T14:32:22.538-04:00Sweet. And 3-1 says that he'll defend the barb...Sweet. And 3-1 says that he'll defend the barbaric O.T. laws by resorting to the "it was a completely different time & culture", or "slavery was widespread at the time" fallacies. The best O.T. law to hammer him with would either Exodus 21;7, where fathers are allowed to sell their daughters as sex-slaves, of Deuteronomy 25;11-12, where if a wife tries to save her husband from an attacker by grabbing the nuts of the attacker, the Hebrews were required to cut off her hand and show her "no pity".<br />Who wants to lay odds that he'll defend the mass murder in the O.T. by saying "the Hebrews always sent a messenger to warn them/the women and children *usually* fled before the siege started/the Hebrew couldn't afford to leave enemies behind them", or the classic "they were evil and disobeyed God!".<br />I'm betting 2-1 on the former argument.B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79419422218033708972010-11-05T01:16:13.475-04:002010-11-05T01:16:13.475-04:00@B.R.
I would take your odds at 5 to 1. I would a...@B.R.<br /><br />I would take your odds at 5 to 1. I would also say 7 to 1 that he resorts to the resurrection some how.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27371745796069938532010-11-04T16:16:52.348-04:002010-11-04T16:16:52.348-04:00The offer still stands. 5 to 1 says that when(if) ...The offer still stands. 5 to 1 says that when(if) the Christian scholar gets backed into a corner, he'' resort to the "Infinite Creator" fallacy. Does anyone agree?B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38080326482836378772010-11-04T14:58:13.494-04:002010-11-04T14:58:13.494-04:00Those are propositions, not questions, but that...Those are propositions, not questions, but that's what you want given the debate format.<br /><br /><b>If there is no God then life has no meaning.</b><br /><br />This proposition should be restated, because it is unclear. What is the meaning of "meaning" here? Life has no <i>purpose</i>? Life has no <i>value</i>? What?<br /><br />I suppose it's fair to assume that, by "life," your Christian colleague means "human life," but I suggest that be clarified as well.<br /><br /><b>If there is no God then everything is permitted.</b><br /><br />Again, this is unclear. Surely your colleague did not wish to assert that everything is <i>actually</i> permitted! He would probably be swiftly disabused of such a peculiar notion if he were to start going around robbing banks. Did he mean to assert that "If there is no God, then everything <i>ought</i> to be permitted? I suspect not. What, then, does he mean by such this proposition? That if there is no God it is permissible to wear clothing of mixed fibers, or gather sticks on the Sabbath?Northlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769117142960558423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39474274988752266232010-11-04T14:47:16.897-04:002010-11-04T14:47:16.897-04:00Like a lot of the atheist commentators, I'm no...Like a lot of the atheist commentators, I'm not impressed with the Christian's questions, but I'm also really underwhelmed by the questions Loftus put forward.<br /><br />All three questions are nitpicks about OT/NT continuity which Christianity has answered to its own satisfaction long ago. Can't we do better? Let's talk about why Christianity isn't compelling or convincing enough to bother patching up these inconsistencies. <br />I posted a longer critique and some alternate questions at <a href="http://www.unequally-yoked.com/2010/11/why-do-atheists-ask-boring-questions.html" rel="nofollow">my blog</a>.Leahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16496144988509668275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7886802305017582162010-11-04T14:16:40.264-04:002010-11-04T14:16:40.264-04:00"Loose" our liberty? What? Anyway, I sti..."Loose" our liberty? What? Anyway, I still say 5 to 1. Any takers?B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72422593096738916872010-11-04T14:15:07.061-04:002010-11-04T14:15:07.061-04:00Uh... so I take it that you're not interested ...Uh... so I take it that you're not interested in placing odds?B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41506078375407017552010-11-04T13:51:43.711-04:002010-11-04T13:51:43.711-04:00The biggest opposition to faith of any kind, is NO...The biggest opposition to faith of any kind, is NOT faith per se, but the manipulation of faith by political maneuvors (utopia, universalism, unitarian,uniformity,). <br />This is when Karl Marx's religion is the opiate of the people become a truism and bottom line, we will loose our liberty if we allow scientific materialism to define the frame for "life" in general!!!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59589072955811426272010-11-04T13:20:22.460-04:002010-11-04T13:20:22.460-04:00By the way, who wants to place odds that he brings...By the way, who wants to place odds that he brings up the old "how can you disprove an infinite Creator?" question? I say 5-1. Any one else?B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2321466024408857332010-11-04T13:12:32.768-04:002010-11-04T13:12:32.768-04:00Same here. I'm just suggesting that maybe it&#...Same here. I'm just suggesting that maybe it's a little early to assume that this is going to be the nature and tone of his side of the book. Perhaps he's a little more intelligent than we're giving him credit for; the book has barely been started.B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41305502840506219502010-11-04T12:49:30.221-04:002010-11-04T12:49:30.221-04:00B.R.
Fundamentalist religious people are prejudice...B.R.<br />Fundamentalist religious people are prejudiced against knowledge because whatever can be known other than their 'holy scripture' is suspect, because it undermines "faith claims" about God. <br /><br />Some seek to defend God, by raionalization, which is theological apologetics. And whatever theology is rationalized become the definition of "God". And the Church authorities defend such doctrine by ostericizing or ex-communicating those that don't adhere or "believe".<br /><br />Then there are those that defend faith on "faith", as God cannot be defined. These are pluralists and they attempt to gain unity through commonality of human needs.<br /><br />There has also been attempts to ground religious faith in the real world by re-defining the "logos", as was useful to the Church to defend Christ, as the subject of faith. These are pietic/behaviorial types.<br /><br />Then, there are others that seek to investigate the real world of history and understand the religious tradition from the political/sociological/psychological "defense" of "real world politics" and defense of "world government".<br /><br />But, all of these attempts to frame faith fall short to me.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20061324243631230082010-11-04T12:21:23.200-04:002010-11-04T12:21:23.200-04:00Just thought I'd throw this out here; what if ...Just thought I'd throw this out here; what if this theist is only asking these questions so that the book will deal with them? It's hard to believe that a supposedly intelligent Christian would regurgitate these tired old ideas(without God, life is meaningless/anything is permissible) but maybe he's just putting them to rest. I mean, how many times have we all heard Christians make these claims? A hundred times? A thousand? Probably more than that.<br />Who knows? Maybe-just maybe-theists are finally smartening up.<br />Doubtful, of course, but maybe...B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27033048651230910972010-11-04T10:14:23.346-04:002010-11-04T10:14:23.346-04:00The last one isn't even in contention. It'...The last one isn't even in contention. It's like saying work is not substitute for heroin:<br />1) The more religion you're steeped in, the harder it is to do science<br />2) While it's possible to do both, the balance of power must eventually shift<br />3) People used to hardcore religion are rarely satisfied by things like unitarianismFordihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12551520726995507010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34856408840948623362010-11-04T08:26:06.907-04:002010-11-04T08:26:06.907-04:00And I define "holy" as
'a religious...And I define "holy" as<br /><br />'a religious adjective applied to questionable concepts, beings, etc., designed to place them beyond question'.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83893400834905936692010-11-04T08:23:37.979-04:002010-11-04T08:23:37.979-04:00A little off-topic, but here it goes:
@ Angie,
a...A little off-topic, but here it goes:<br /><br />@ Angie,<br /><br />about 23 years ago when I was in college, I was approached by some skinheads to join their "group", presumably because of the way I dressed back then (camo pants, jungle boots and black t-shirts). If I had been in a fragile state of mind, I could have been suckered into their gang easily, but I told the guy,<br /><br />"I don't need your group to feel like I'm important."<br /><br />and I walked away.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87650350583718290382010-11-04T08:18:11.071-04:002010-11-04T08:18:11.071-04:00John, et al,
The most damaging belief is to think ...John, et al,<br />The most damaging belief is to think that "God doesn't want you happy, he wants you 'holy"!!! That means that suffering is considered "God's training ground". Believe me, when I say that those that adhere to this thinking will go to no ends to do as they please and get what they want at YOUR COSTS! They are certain that what they believe is TRUE for all people at all times that they don't see what they do to others!<br /><br />"Holiness" by definition means that one is "set apart", which means that the 'real world' is dismissed for the spiritual one! Jobs, information, disciplines are all in question is this regard, because they are "of/in the world"!!! It is baffling that I ever believed in such thinking. But, I suppose I just wanted so bad to "belong" and to be 'loved".<br /><br />Cole, consider those around you and ask yourself if they truely care about you. And what is the difference of that care versus some other group that you could "belong' to!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29652777888617728742010-11-04T06:28:30.586-04:002010-11-04T06:28:30.586-04:00Cole, I've decided to ban you. This is not the...Cole, I've decided to ban you. This is not the place to talk about you're problems, and having heard from you for about five years now you have problems. Stay away now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90442856952168877942010-11-04T06:20:18.887-04:002010-11-04T06:20:18.887-04:00The "of whole groups of people is redundant. ...The "of whole groups of people is redundant. You need only write "demanded many genocides."<br /><br />Otherwise it's like writing "the patricide of fathers."Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16392691495758146510noreply@blogger.com