The Recycle Bin [Archive I]

-DM-

July 19, 2001, 09:00 PM

Christian:

Some questions follow:
1.) Where is the requested information, i.e., the name of the author and/or article to which you are responding together with the URL?
2.) What are we supposed to do with your "I-believe-this-because-I-am-indoctrinated-with-Christian-dogma faith-statement"? Simply say, "Christian said it, so it must be true--never mind that he/she provides no argument, no evidence--we better just take his/her word for it and shut down this web site ASAP"?

[Note: You can e-mail me with your answers and I'll post them for you--or better yet, become a registered user and discuss your beliefs in one of our discussion forums.]

-----------

Of course, we get the same sort of so-called feedback from faithful believers whose faith-statements reflect indoctrination with other flavors of religious dogma. In fact, it wasn't so long ago that we received this:

From a Muslim
The Koran was revealed from ALLAH this is why so many scientific facts are contained in it's text.

Christians who worship Jesus as God (which is the vast majority of Christians) will be sent to Hell. The question is why are all these people sent to Hell?

"Those who reject faith and deny our signs will be companions of Hell-fire." (Al-maidah:surah 5,verse 10)

"They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of ALLAH, and (they take as their Lord) christ, the son of mary; yet they were commanded to worship but one god: there is no god but one god: there is no god but he. Praise and glory to Him: (far is he) from having the partners they associate(with him). (At-Touba:surah 9,verse 31)

They will go to hell for making false statements about ALLAH and disobeying the creator. Disbelief, associating partners, sons, gods...etc. with ALLAH is why most men\women will go to HELL.

As the Koran states; "Those who reject our signs,we shall soon cast into the fire; as often as their skins are roasted through, we shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for ALLAH is exalted in power, wise." (al-nisaa surah 4,verse 56)

PLEASE READ THE Koran AND BY ALLAH'S WILL BECOME ONE OF THE GUIDED.

Please visit the following for more "truth" www.it-is-truth.com (http://www.it-is-truth.com)

Of course we tend to believe that the Koran, the Bible, and other such "holy books" are nothing other than the words of man put into the mouths of nonexistent "Gods," and it is not as if we have no reasons, no evidence, no argument for those beliefs.

Regarding "Old Testament massianic [sic] prophesies" and their alleged fulfillment in Jesus, there are several articles on the Secular Web which provide evidence and argument to the contrary. Some of these are:
[i]Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled by Farrell Till (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html).
The Argument from the Bible (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html) by Theodore M. Drange.
The Fabulous Prophecies Of The Messiah (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html) by Jim Lippard

Regarding the alleged irrefutability of the so-called resurrection of Jesus, we also have several articles that provide evidence and argument to the contrary. Some of these are:
Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html) by Jeffery Jay Lowder.
The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/) by Jeffery Jay Lowder.
Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/) by Richard Carrier.
The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/) by Peter Kirby
Why Didn't They Know? (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/4/4know91.html) by Farrell Till
The Resurrection Maze (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/2/2maze92.html) by Farrell Till

Oh, before we wind this up, JN 8.24 should perhaps be taken in context with JN 5.31: "If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not true."

--Don--

humminbird

November 11, 2003, 12:05 PM

I must alert to you that the Bible says that without the Holy Spirit, without the revelation, the unbeliever will never understand the Bible, the unbeliever cannot understand the Bible. You are not given the understanding and you wont be given the understanding without the Holy Spirit, and the only way to the Holy Spirit is through Christ Jesus, believing that He died on the cross for a reason, for you, and giving Him your all; with this you then recieve the Holy Spirit, whom God sends to us. The Holy Spirit works like a translator of sorts to help us understand the Bible so that we are not simply reading just words. Thats why scientists cannot figure it out, they do not have the Holy Spirit, the Word is not for everyone, there will always be one who the Devil is able to use and control and try to tear apart the Bible. I pray for you my friend in the name of Christ Jesus that one day you will understand and will recieve the understanding and revelation throught the Holy Spirit.

-DM-

November 11, 2003, 01:08 PM

We don't normally post personal, religious belief-statements such as yours inasmuch as they represent nothing more than just that: belief statements based on personal religious beliefs. (They carry no more weight in the case of a Christian such as yourself than they do, for example, in the case of a Muslim who submits his belief statements.) I am making an exception in this case, however, in order to be able to respond so as to point a few of the problems with your stated beliefs.

1) If unbelievers could not possibly understand the Bible absent the Holy Spirit, then unbelievers could not possibly understand--or be expected to believe--what the Bible says about not being able to understand. In other words, an unbeliever would first have to take the Bible on faith and believe in order to allegedly understand what the Bible says about not understanding. This is a Catch-22 situation if there ever was one.

2) I was once a born-again, Bible-believing, evangelical Christian myself. During that time, I was personally discipled by my pastor. One of the most disturbing aspects of that experience was that, although he and I earnestly prayed for the guidance of the "Holy Spirit" at the start of each session, we sometimes came to completely different and mutually exclusive interpretations of a given Bible passage. I saw this same problem several times with sincere and devout believers differing over interpretation of specific Bible passages. This problem can be seen on an even wider scale by the fact that there are 20,000+ different Christian denominations with their minor and/or major doctrinal differences. Thus the so-called "Holy Spirit" is not a reliable guide to Bible understanding even when one is a believer.

3) The Bible is demonstrably false in at least some of what it says. This casts doubt on anything else it says, including what it says about the Holy Spirit and unbelievers not understanding the Bible.

4) I say that a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, loving "God" would have done a better job of it than to thwart his own alleged purposes by making it impossible for nonbelievers to understand what the Bible says BEFORE taking it on faith. I say that a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, loving "God"would have done a better job of it than to allow sincere and devout believers to come to different and mutually exclusive understandings of what is alleged to be "The Word of God."

-DM-

P.S. Moving this to ~Elsewhere~

BuddaImNot

February 24, 2005, 09:36 PM

I'm just curious why evolutionists and atheists always seem to attack Christianity, but no one ever goes after any other religion like Taoists, Buddists, Muslims etc. Why is that? Is it because none of the other religions are a "threat" to the religion of science/evolution? Some other religions are even monotheistic and teach creation, but no one seems to go after them. Is it because none of the other religions teach that they are responsible to a Holy God for their actions? I don't know, it just seems kind of unfair. If you are going to attack one religion, why not all of them?

-DM-

February 24, 2005, 11:48 PM

I'm just curious why evolutionists and atheists always seem to attack Christianity, but no one ever goes after any other religion like Taoists, Buddists, Muslims etc. Why is that?"That" isn't. Please see the "Questions about our Content" section of our FAQ (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.shtml)

If you are going to attack one religion, why not all of them?Quite obviously, we do. See the Theism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/index.shtml) page in the Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/), where Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism are also represented. We cannot publish what no one writes, however, thus not all religions are going to be represented.

-DM-

Pencilneck

March 31, 2005, 08:59 PM

I am a Christian and have personally seen many individual's lives and behaviors (including my own) changed after they accepted Jesus Christ; and moreover changed in such drastic ways and with such immediacy as to defy logical explanation. I have seen two doctors scratch their heads at the "miracle" of a healed cancer and a rejuvinated heart. Yes, I believe those changes have occurred via divine intervention and healing. I know, you're thinking to respond now, "that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the resurrection actually occurred." Well, that's a convenient hiding place for you and if that's comfortable, I suppose I can grant you that rebuttal. I read your essays because I like to learn and love a good intellectual romp; however, I grew quite tired and bored with your ostentatious and bloated rhetoric and find your forum rules hypocritical since you've defined unacceptable posts as, "Preaching, proselytizing, and unsupported religious belief statements." So here's a sentence that will surely disallow my post but is worth saying anyway. Get a life... a more fulfilling life through Jesus Christ; if not, well, good luck to you and your sad quest for a meaningless existence and the justification thereof. My hope is that you'll choose life instead.

-DM-

March 31, 2005, 10:34 PM

I am a Christian and have personally seen many individual's lives and behaviors (including my own) changed after they accepted Jesus Christ;Me too. And I have seen the same sort of thing on the part of Mormons, JWs, Muslims, those who have undergone behavior nodification training, etc., etc.

changed in such drastic ways and with such immediacy as to defy logical explanation.The fact that you or others might not be aware of a logical explanation does not mean that someone else wouldn't, or that there isn't a logical explanation.

I have seen two doctors scratch their heads at the "miracle" of a healed cancer and a rejuvinated heart.I have seen the same in the case of a Christian Scientist and in another case where there was no known religious conviction.

Yes, I believe those changes have occurred via divine intervention and healing.Muslims, for example, may believe the same, although they don't believe in Jesus as divine or as a "savior." So-called spontaneous cures are not limited to those who accept Jesus.

I know, you're thinking to respond now, "that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the resurrection actually occurred."Actually, that hadn't yet occurred to me, but now that you mention it, that is a good point.

Well, that's a convenient hiding place for you and if that's comfortable, I suppose I can grant you that rebuttal. I read your essays because I like to learn and love a good intellectual romp; however, I grew quite tired and bored with your ostentatious and bloated rhetoric and find your forum rules hypocritical since you've defined unacceptable posts as, "Preaching, proselytizing, and unsupported religious belief statements."Is it too much to ask that people supply some supporting evidence and/or argument for their religious belief statements? (I don't think so, and even you did, at least up to this point.)

So here's a sentence that will surely disallow my post but is worth saying anyway.Mind-reading, like so-called biblical prophecy, is often erroneous.

Get a lifeIn my experience, those who have said "get a life" are quite often those most in need of heeding their own advice.

a more fulfilling life through Jesus Christ;For many of us, this suggestion is now moot inasmuch as we have "been there, done that" and then moved on after looking into "the other side of the story."

if not, well, good luck to you and your sad quest for a meaningless existence and the justification thereof.Anyone who thinks that existence without Jesus is meaningless is in the same boat as the Muslim who thinks that existence is meaningless without Allah, Mohammed, and the Qur'an.

My hope is that you'll choose life instead.The life which involves the acceptance of a so-called revealed religion is not an enviable existence, in my opinion.

-DM-

found

November 23, 2005, 04:12 PM

I am really confused how 'free-thought' can mean everything but religion? It is common knowledge among naturalists that Darwinism is a religion of its own and that its invention was to offer an option for those oppossed to, well, basically Christianity. Isn't that the drawing card? - that is what I like about it - that it is a philosophy that gives me hope without having to be another bible thumper. However, if it is really 'free' thought then shoudlnt' all sides be shown? Why is there such an aggressivly anti-religion, anti-Christian bend to the site? Why can't it be pure? Surely there are as many bad naturalists out there as there are bad Christians. Surely we aren't right about everything and they are wrong about everything. Surely we aren't so post-modern as to redefine the word 'free'. How sad that just like evolution, and medievil Christianity, we are apparently just trying to defend our irrational beliefs by excluding any other irrational beliefs. I will refrain from being a part of this community until it learns to embrace all thought as free. For if thought is not free, but only liberal, democratic, athiestic, thought is free - then it really isnt free. Its a cult.

-DM-

November 23, 2005, 05:33 PM

"found":

I suggest that you should read the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10). Why? Because--so far as I can tell--your comments are not really related to any article published either in the Secular Web Kiosk (http://www.secweb.org/kiosk.asp) or Secular Web Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml), nor to a discussion already under way here in the Feedback forum. But I'll attempt to respond to some of your comments.

I am really confused how 'free-thought' can mean everything but religion?Perhaps you should check a dictionary for "freethinker." Here's a definition from Merriam Webster Online: "one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma."

There aren't many dictionaries which actually define the term "freethought" (I prefer the closed compound to differentiate it from the meaning of "free" "thought"--meaning unbridled thought). "Freethought" equates with "freethinking," and you will find some dictionaries with definitions of the latter. Here's one from Dictionary.com: "unwilling to accept authority or dogma (especially in religion)."

Does that help to alleviate your confusion?

It is common knowledge among naturalists that Darwinism is a religion of its own and that its invention was to offer an option for those oppossed to, well, basically Christianity.Really! Please provide some names of naturalists who make that assertion.

Isn't that the drawing card?More importantly, I think, is the realization that so-called "Darwinism" (if you mean a general theory of evolution) is more scientific and better fits what we know about nature than does supernaturalism.

However, if it is really 'free' thought then shoudlnt' all sides be shown?Hmmnn. Have you noticed that we publish rebuttals in our Library?

Why is there such an aggressivly anti-religion, anti-Christian bend to the site?You could answer that question for yourself by reading the FAQ (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.html). (Note that there is also a link to the FAQ from the Home Page (http://www.infidels.org)

Why can't it be pure?Why can't what be pure?

Surely there are as many bad naturalists out there as there are bad Christians.Depends on what you mean by "bad" and whether you have any evidence for your assertion.

Surely we aren't right about everything and they are wrong about everything.The degree to which either side seems right or wrong probably depends to a great extent on whether one believes in the existence of the supernatural or not.

Surely we aren't so post-modern as to redefine the word 'free'."Freethought," "freethinking," and "freethinker" do not always mean the same thing as "free thought," free thinking," and "free thinker."

How sad that just like evolution, and medievil Christianity, we are apparently just trying to defend our irrational beliefs by excluding any other irrational beliefs.I think that you underestimate what it is that we are trying to do, especially given that the mission of the Internet Infidels organization, per se, is to defend and promote a naturalistic worldview, one that involves rationality not irrationality. We are not responsible, of course, for what some who consider themselves infidels (not Internet Infidels, per se) do or say.

I will refrain from being a part of this communityWhat community? If you are talking about Internet Infidels, then you haven't done a good job of looking around. If you are talking about the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum, then you posted your comments in the wrong place given that the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10) specifically points out that this is the Secular Web Feedback Forum, that this specific forum is NOT concerned with the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum.

...Its a cult.The word "cult" does not accurately describe the organization Internet Infidels, Inc.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

used to be a skeptic

December 13, 2005, 03:33 PM

Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell is a great book.

This website here has many errors and unproven claims. I am saddened by it.

Historical evidence does support the Bible's claims of Christ and events surrounding his life.
i.e. How come no one ever claimed to find his body? (Cause there was no body)
Also see "The Exodus revealed" DVD by Questar1.com.
Christian and secular scholars now pretty much agree on Moses and the Exodus of the Israelite people. Fascinating stuff.

God reigns and Christ is the only "prophet" to claim to be God and impact billions of people.

-DM-

December 13, 2005, 04:38 PM

Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell is a great book.You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but others are also entitled to theirs.

This website here has many errors and unproven claims.It isn't enough just to assert that such is the case. If you want to convince others that your assertion is correct, you need to provide specifics.

Historical evidence does support the Bible's claims of Christ and events surrounding his life.Again, you need to provide your evidence if you are going to convince others. It isn't enough just to assert that such is the case. Keep in mind that the articles published here tend to support the claims of the author with evidence and/or argument.

How come no one ever claimed to find his body? (Cause there was no body)You would have to be omniscient to know with certainty both that no one ever claimed to find the body of Jesus and that there was no body. A more plausible explanation for "no body" might be, for example, that its location was unknown.

Christian and secular scholars now pretty much agree on Moses and the Exodus of the Israelite people.There may or may not have been an Exodus, but one thing is sure: if there was an Exodus, it didn't likely happen in the way that the Bible says that it did; there are simply too many problems with the biblical story. Some examples of problems with the biblical story:

EX 12:30 The Lord kills all the firstborn of Egypt and there is not a house where there is not at least one dead. (This means that there was not a house in Egypt that did not include at least one firstborn--a most unusual situation.)
EX 12:37, NU 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000.
Although there were historians active at the alleged time of the Exodus, there is no historical record, for example, of the great plagues that allegedly befell the Egyptians.
DT 1:1 Moses speaks to "all" of Israel, perhaps 2,000,000 people (see EX 12:37 above).
DT 2:14 All of the "men of war"--some 600,000--who left Egypt in the Exodus were dead just thirty-eight years later. (See EX 12:37 above.)
EX 12:37, NU 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as more than 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of about 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt, yet in 1KI 20:15 all the Israelites, including children, number only 7000 at a later time.

---

Here's an excerpt of possible interest:

"Israeli Archaeologist Questions Biblical Accuracy, Tradition"
The Seattle Times
November 29, 1999

According to Zeer Herzog, there was no Exodus (the departure of the Jewish people from Egypt) led by Moses.

Colleagues and critics accepted some of Herzog's evidence and questioned some of it but worried that by targeting the accuracy of the Bible, the research undermines the national myths that are the basis of Jewish claims to the land of Israel.

Archaeological findings do not support and in many cases directly contradict biblical stories describing the birth of the Jewish people--Herzog wrote in the Haaretz daily.

He reviewed evidence now commonly accepted by most archaeologists showing that there was no exodus from Egypt at the time the Bible claims Jews left Egypt en masse and that Jericho fell in stages over an extended period--not in a simple raid led by Joshua.

Herzog's article addressed archaeologists discoveries from the last few decades when archaeologists and Israel broke away from seeking physical evidence for biblical events.

"The findings have not entered the public consciousness," said archaeologists Moshe Kochavi of the Tel Aviv University, "because Israelis are not ready to abandon the national myths."

Moshe Kochavi said books publishing these findings have met with particularly vehement opposition from the 30 percent of Israeli Jews who define themselves as in some way religious, many of whom believe the Bible is the word of God.

---

God reigns and Christ is the only "prophet" to claim to be God and impact billions of people.Whether Jesus actually claimed to be "God" is a matter of opinion. Certainly in Mark, the earliest of the Gospels, he did not. By the time that we get to John, the last of the Gospels, we see that John essentially claims that Jesus did.

For those readers who might be interested:

On whether Jesus claimed to be God or not, see: Who do each of the four gospel authors think Jesus was? [according to what they actually say] (http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/mmlj.html)

On Josh McDowell, see: Christian Apologetics and Apologists (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html#mcdowell) in the Secular Web Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/).

-Don-

P.S. Although he didn't claim to be God, Mohammed has also had an impact on billions of people.

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

guest

January 1, 2006, 06:30 PM

There are no modern day prophets. Luke 16:16 Jesus himself says the prophets were until John. Since that time the Kingdom of God is preached.

-DM-

January 2, 2006, 01:35 AM

There are no modern day prophets. Luke 16:16 Jesus himself says the prophets were until John. Since that time the Kingdom of God is preached.Your comment is feedback to what, exactly?

In any case...

If the law and the prophets were in force only until the time of John (The Baptist), then:
1) Jesus himself could not rightly be considered a prophet (since he came after John), this in spite of the fact that he is typically thought of as a prophet, that he referred to himself as a prophet (LK 13.33), his alleged miracles and discernment were rightly understood as prophetic (JN 4.19), and that he taught with his own alleged prophetic authority (MK 1.22 and LK 4.24).
2) This would render moot what Paul taught about the gift of prophecy (1CO 12.10 & 13.2).
3) It would also render moot what Jesus and the disciples allegedly taught about how to distinguish between true prophets and false prophets (MT 7.15-23, MT 24.11, 21.24, MK 13.22, LK 6.26, 2PE 1.10. 1.19-2.1, 1JN 4.1, etc.).

-Don-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

guest

February 4, 2006, 03:47 PM

Every single one you say is a contradition is either taken out of context or read from a tampered bible. Cause my amplified reads no contradiction.

God good to all, or just a few?

Psalms speaks of all his creation is given a chance, his mercy is spread to all. Not all recieve it.

Jeremiah speaks of those who did not recieve his mercy, they denied it and thus since God is Holy and just, does so accordingly.

War or Peace?

In Exodus it speaks of War that God told his children to do. To create peace.

In Romans, its the God of peace that passes all understanding. Peace of the soul. God still makes war, and he is just to do so. There has been a war for souls since beginning of Adam.

Who is the father of Joseph?

This is were you are just grasping at straws. Did it ever occur to you that Heli was Josephs mother.

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

Three different accounts and none contradict. Matthew said mary magdeline and the other mary, Mark knows exactly who that mary was and john never said that the other mary was not there, it could be he only knew mary magdeline.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

Jesus was the name given to him as a man. He is both God and Man. Jesus is less then the Father because he was a man, but as Christ he is equal. Hence why he is called Jesus Christ. 100% man and 100% God.

The number of beasts in the ark

They went in by two on each account and sevens is how many pairs of two. You should brush up on original bible and hebrew/greek.

Is it folly to be wise or not?

Scripture speaks of two different wisdoms, that of God and that of man. God's wisdom is good while those who think they are wise by mans standards are fools.

I can't go into all these right now but you know the words but do not understand their meaning. It is wise to seek the Lord's wisedom about the scriptures and not your own.(man's wisdom) Email me at [deleted] anytime.

-DM-

February 4, 2006, 04:32 PM

Every single one you say is a contradition is either taken out of context or read from a tampered bible. Cause my amplified reads no contradiction.Who is the "you" to whom you refer? (Please see the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10). Title of article and name of author required.)

God good to all, or just a few?

Psalms speaks of all his creation is given a chance, his mercy is spread to all. Not all recieve it.

Jeremiah speaks of those who did not recieve his mercy, they denied it and thus since God is Holy and just, does so accordingly.There are many biblical examples which could be used to demonstrate that the Bible is inconsistent when it comes to whether "God" is good to all or is not good to all. For one such example, note that EZ 20:25 says that "God" intentionally gave out bad laws. 2TH 2:11-12 says that God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them). These are inconsistent with the idea expressed in other verses that "God" is good to all, or even good.

War or Peace?

In Exodus it speaks of War that God told his children to do. To create peace.

In Romans, its the God of peace that passes all understanding. Peace of the soul. God still makes war, and he is just to do so. There has been a war for souls since beginning of Adam.So, in Exodus the best way that "God" can figure out to create peace is to have "his children" create war? That, in my opinion, wouldn't be consistent with the concept of a perfect, omnipotent, and benevolent god.

Who is the father of Joseph?

This is were you are just grasping at straws. Did it ever occur to you that Heli was Josephs mother.The idea that the two inconsistent genealogies of Jesus (which are given in Luke and Matthew) represent different ways of tracing his ancestry back to David, Matthew through the paternal lineage and Luke through the maternal lineage, is a rather amateurish apologetic in attempt to alleviate this obvious problem, especially since it is easy to see that they agree on some few of the ancestors. As Theodore Drange (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html) (amongst others) points out: "Jesus was claimed to be a (bodily or blood) descendant of David (Ro 1:3), but it is unclear how that could be. According to both Matthew and Luke, Mary's husband Joseph was a descendant of David (though they disagree about the exact genealogy, as discussed below). However, both Matthew and Luke deny that Joseph was Jesus's father, so their genealogies of Joseph (Mt 1:2-16, Lu 3:23-38) should not be regarded as genealogies of Jesus. Matthew erred when he called it that (Mt 1:1)."

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

Three different accounts and none contradict. Matthew said mary magdeline and the other mary, Mark knows exactly who that mary was and john never said that the other mary was not there, it could be he only knew mary magdeline.I think that you need to look a little more carefully at the biblical accounts. There is almost no agreement on important details of the Empty Tomb accounts and the accounts of the subsequent events. For starters, you might see Easter Quiz (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=282).

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

Jesus was the name given to him as a man. He is both God and Man. Jesus is less then the Father because he was a man, but as Christ he is equal. Hence why he is called Jesus Christ. 100% man and 100% God.The given name is not pertinent to the question of whether Jesus was, or was not, equal to "God." The Bible offers inconsistent views on this, a question with which even Christian theologians have struggled over the years. Either it was true that Jesus and the Father are one, or it is true that the Father is greater. In any case, you can see a progression of beliefs about the alleged divinity of Jesus from Mark (the earliest Gospel), to John, where Jesus has clearly become divine.

The number of beasts in the ark

They went in by two on each account and sevens is how many pairs of two. You should brush up on original bible and hebrew/greek.You definitely need to look into this a bit more thoroughly.

---

GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.
GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark.

---

And one need not know Greek or Hebrew to understand. After all, the Bible has been translated for us by experts (usually Christians and/or Jews as well) in the languages involved. If we cannot trust them in their translations, then we cannot trust anything much that we hear about the Bible (such as in Bible studies and sermons) in other than Greek and/or Hebrew.

Is it folly to be wise or not?

Scripture speaks of two different wisdoms, that of God and that of man. God's wisdom is good while those who think they are wise by mans standards are fools.

---

PR 3:13, 4:7, 19:8, JA 1:5 Happy is the man who finds wisdom. Get wisdom.
LK 2:40, 52 Jesus was filled with wisdom and found favor with God.
1CO 1:19-25, 3:18-20 Wisdom is foolishness.

---

If "God" had been a bit more careful in his alleged perfection, he could have, should have, and would have qualified these statements to make it abundantly clear that there were no inconsistency.

I can't go into all these right now but you know the words but do not understand their meaning.Your understanding seems to be based on Christian dogma. Study other than Christian dogma and you may well come to a different conclusion, as I did after reading literally hundreds of books on the subject.

It is wise to seek the Lord's wisedom about the scriptures and not your own.(man's wisdom)All wisdom is our own wisdom even if we speak of it as the Lord's wisdom. The fact that the Bible may claim that it contains the wisdom of the Lord doesn't make it so.

-Don-

P.S. Your e-mail address was deleted. If you start a discussion here, you need to continue it here.

Zamboni4

February 15, 2006, 09:10 PM

In your "list" of Biblical "contradictions" you posted two verses about how you didn't know who the father of Joseph was and all..

and if you would do some ACTUAL research, you would see, that Jacob, was Joseph's father by BIRTH, and that Heli was his father by MARRIAGE, so they both are his father, just in different ways... So that can not be included as a contradiction....

-DM-

February 15, 2006, 11:20 PM

In your "list" of Biblical "contradictions" ...Whose list of Biblical "contradictions"? (Please read or reread the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10) and note that the title of the article and the name of the author are required so that we can provide meaningful feedback given that there are thousands of articles published here.)

if you would do some ACTUAL research, you would see, that Jacob, was Joseph's father by BIRTH, and that Heli was his father by MARRIAGE, so they both are his father, just in different ways... So that can not be included as a contradiction....If you would do some real research, you would find that your so-called "explanation" is only one of several different and mutually exclusive apologetic "explanations" which attempt to harmonize the two different and apparently mutually exclusive genealogies of Jesus given by "Matthew" and "Luke."

As HolmanIllustrated Bible Dictionary puts it (emphasis mine):
---
HELI Hebrew personal name meaning "high." The son of Matthat and father of Joseph, Jesus earthly father (Luke 3:23-24). His relationship to Jesus is variously explained by Bible students in light of Matt. 1:16, which makes Joseph's father be Jacob. He has been seen as the father of Joseph, a more remote ancestor of Joseph, or an ancestor of Mary. Either Jacob and Heli are variant names of the same person, ... or Luke preserved the geneology of Mary rather than Joseph. A totally satisfactory answer to the question has not been found.
---

Another "explanation" that has been offered is that Matthew records kin connections by blood whereas Luke records kin connections by law. As Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/) points out:
---
The genealogies are ... a problem, but one can maintain that Matthew records kin connections by blood ("begat" allows no other interpretation) whereas Luke records kin connections by law, and those can differ (Luke's vague "of" can mean by birth *or* by name only, so women who remarried could cause multiple genealogies for the same person). However, Paul's "born from the seed of David" certainly appears to contradict both genealogies (Rom. 1:3, 2 Tim. 2:8; also John 7:42, which one can say then contradicts Luke and Matthew), which entails Joseph's seed (and hence David's seed) never even touched Jesus. Jesus only came from Mary, and on the plain Greek neither genealogy traces the bloodline of Mary. Luke 3:23 says Jesus was "as was thought" the son of Joseph (so one must either deny the virgin birth or accept that Joseph's blood is not in Jesus and therefore Jesus is not "of the seed" of David) while Matthew 1:16 says "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom [the relative pronoun is in the feminine case, so this can only mean "of Mary"] was born Jesus, who is called Christ." The words are the same: Jacob "begot" Joseph is the active voice, "from whom was born" is the passive voice.
---

Going back a bit further in these alleged genealogies, note that Matthew claims that Jesus ancestry can be traced back to David through David's son Solomon, whereas Luke does so through David's son Nathan. And that is only one of several other points of disagreement between these alleged genealogies which, to a skeptic, have the earmarks of fiction.

One thing seems certain to me: it looks as if a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have seen to it that this problem of the apparently divergent genealogies--a problem that perplexes even devout Christian scholars--would not be the case.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

Demonhunter315

March 8, 2006, 11:02 AM

Hey I am no theological genius but I would like to point out in the article about moses and the ten commandments not being the basis for most modern law you are comparing the ten commandment with the bill of rights not with actual laws. The bill of rights is a set of rights not laws. Look in the law books and you will find a huge majority of our LAWS are based on the ten commandments. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Hum those sound like laws that I have heard. You are right that they are not in our bill of rights but they are all over our law books. You are also right that some of them are religiously based and you do not have to follow them BUT you can not deny that these laws are based on the Bible and are the basis for our country. I do believe though, unlike a lot of Christians that you have the right to not obey them, but you do not have the right to take away my right to believe them. Smiles all around

-DM-

March 8, 2006, 12:26 PM

... I would like to point out in the article about moses and the ten commandments ...What article about Moses and the Ten Commandments? What is the title of the article? What is the name of the author?

... not being the basis for most modern law you are comparing the ten commandment with the bill of rights not with actual laws.Who is the "you" that you have in mind?

Look in the law books and you will find a huge majority of our LAWS are based on the ten commandments."A huge majority" of our laws may be related to a few of the so-called Ten Commandments, but there are only a few of the so-called Ten Commandments themselves that are related to any of our laws.

Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness.That's about it. Three or four of the ten are reflected in law. And note that there is more than one version of the so-called Ten Commandments. There are three in the Bible itself, and the version which is specifically identified in the Bible as The Ten Commandments is not the version that Christians identify as The Ten Commandments. This version includes precepts such as "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." Ever heard that one?

---

Exodus 34:10-28, The second set of "Ten Commandments," the only set that is specifically labeled in the Bible text itself as the "Ten Commandments" (see v. 28):

1) Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

2) Thou shalt worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god:

3) Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

4) The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

5) Every first birth of the womb is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

6) Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

7) And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the years end. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before Lord Yahweh, the god of Israel.

8) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning.

9) The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of Yahweh thy god.

10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mothers milk.

---

And even if we stick with what Christians typically identify as The Ten Commandments, the fact is that there are three variations: Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant.

I do believe though, unlike a lot of Christians that you have the right to not obey them, but you do not have the right to take away my right to believe them.Nor can anyone take away anyone's "right" to believe that the Rain God, Bob, brings rain.

-DM-

speakerdude

April 19, 2006, 10:46 AM

I am going to put the Bible out of business. --Robert Ingersoll

I have never heard the name Robert Ingersoll and along with the name Voltaire, both continue to fade, remembered only on websites of old forgotten thought.

"A fool who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more"

-DM-

April 19, 2006, 12:26 PM

I am going to put the Bible out of business. --Robert IngersollPer the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10), The Secular Web Feedback Forum is meant for feedback concerning Secular Web content. Inasmuch as you did not supply the title of the article to which your comments pertain, and inasmuch as I could not find that alleged Ingersoll quote in a search of the Ingersoll documents (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/) in the Secular Web Historical Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/), I'm assuming that your source was not The Secular Web, therefore your comments do not comprise legitimate Secular Web feedback.

I have never heard the name Robert Ingersoll ...Obviously, you have.

and along with the name Voltaire, both continue to fade, remembered only on websites of old forgotten thought.Interestingly, the alleged Ingersoll quote exists on the Internet, according to the results of my search, on Christian websites which make the claim that Ingersoll said this--but nowhere else that I could find. (That is not to say, however, that Ingersoll did not say this or that there isn't a reliable source which provides a citation to this quote. If anyone finds such a source, please let me know.)

Assuming for the sake of discussion that Ingersoll did say this, then I think it would be safe to say that he underestimated the willingness of people to believe the irrational and the intensity with which they hold on to their religious beliefs. Assuming that Ingersoll did say this, then it would also probably be safe to say that he overestimated his own abilities with regard to putting the Bible out of business.

With regard to overestimating one's abilities, I am reminded of what Jesus allegedly said about his imminent return: MT 16:28, MK 9:1, LK 9:27 Jesus says that some of his listeners will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. This was allegedly said almost 2000 years ago.

"A fool who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more"This seems quite apropros for many of the drive-by "shooters" who post one or two simplistic comments and then are not heard from again.

-DM-

Unregistered1

September 14, 2006, 11:09 PM

The statement regarding the day was intentional. Time, for an eternal being, doesn't operate on the same level as it does for those of us who have little time to live. If time is not a limiting factor, then what is a day? I believe than in heavenly time that a day can be compared to a milennium here. Therefore, Adam did die the day he ate the fruit.

Some might think I'm reaching, but I think that those responsible for this web site are also reaching.

-DM-

September 15, 2006, 12:02 AM

The statement regarding the day was intentional.Aren't all statements made by a rational person intentional?

Time, for an eternal being, doesn't operate on the same level as it does for those of us who have little time to live.You would need to be omniscient in order to be certain of the truth of your assertion.

I believe than in heavenly time that a day can be compared to a milennium here. Therefore, Adam did die the day he ate the fruit."Day" (Hebrew yom in Genesis)

1.) Although the meaning of the word [yom] is rather imprecise, it means more than just a period of time. It also means "day" exactly as we know it as well as "daily," "daylight," etc.

2.) In any case, the Bible is very clear about the meaning of "day" in this context. GE 1:4-5 makes the meaning quite clear by specifically delineating the rising and setting of the sun (separating day and night, light from darkness) as the meaning of "day."

The only way around the implication that "day" was then the same as what we know it to be is to argue that the orbit of the earth around the sun was different in those times so that sunrise and sunset were, for example, 1000 years apart--or design another equally creative ad hoc argument of the kind for which biblical apologists such as Ross are so well-known. The trouble with this particular "explanation" is that this then makes the so-called creation into one, not of days, but one of millenniums. There is then a problem with regard to the Sabbath day; we don't live long enough to work six millenniums and then declare the seventh millennium a "day" of rest. And Adam would have had to live 339450 millenniums (930 years x 365 days/millenniums), in which case he still would not have died in the first "day" or millennium.

-DM-

zelaya

October 12, 2006, 04:01 PM

i am very ashamed of you to say that the sabbath was only abserverd at a certain time in earths history. aviously your not a Bible student for if you were you would see that the first sabbath was made in the garden of eaden and during the oppresssion and enslaved ment the hebrew people could serve god on sabbath vand thus there had to be a restoration of the sabbath. the sabbth still is valid to day for in acts it says that there still remains a sabbath for man and the ten commandments still stand and there are not the ten suggestions our the ten good idead but the ten commandments not 9 withsome split and taken out like the catholic church. if nthere was to be a change of sabbath or non at all then don't you think that jesus would say so like how he tells us of his return.

-DM-

October 19, 2006, 09:51 AM

i am very ashamed of you ...Who is the "you" that you have in mind? What is the title of the article that you have in mind?

to say that the sabbath was only abserverd at a certain time in earths history.It is correct that the Sabbath was only observed at a certain time in history, and even then only by some peoples (it certainly was never universally observed).

aviously your not a Bible student for if you were you would see that the first sabbath was made in the garden of eaden and during the oppresssion and enslaved ment the hebrew people could serve god on sabbath vand thus there had to be a restoration of the sabbath. The first mention in the Bible of the necessity to keep the Sabbath is found in EX 16:23.

the sabbth still is valid to day for in acts it says that there still remains a sabbath for man and the ten commandments still stand and there are not the ten suggestions our the ten good idead but the ten commandments not 9 withsome split and taken out like the catholic church.There are currently three recognized versions of the so-called Ten Commandments: The Jewish version, the Protestant version, and the Catholic version. There are also three versions of the so-called Ten Commandments in the Bible itself, but none of the currently recognized versions (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic) is equivalent to the one (and only) version which the Bible itself actually labels as The Ten Commandments.

The Biblical version which is specifically labeled as The Ten Commandments is found in EX 34.12-28, and this version is quite unlike any of the currently recognized versions. We find, for example, these commandments:
Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
Every first birth of the womb is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the years end. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before Lord Yahweh, the god of Israel.
Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning.
The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of Yahweh thy god.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mothers milk.

if nthere was to be a change of sabbath or non at all then don't you think that jesus would say so like how he tells us of his return.Much of what Jesus is alleged to have said is very likely what the Gospel authors put into his mouth, so to speak. And much of what he actually said is not likely recorded at all. Further, his return is long overdue, as has been pointed out by many authors, including Ed Babinski in his Secular Web Kiosk article, The Lowdown on God's Showdown (http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=86).

-DM-

Steve Weiss

January 4, 2007, 01:29 AM

The term god is an empty term with no referent in reality, and all religious books are works of fiction and appeal to the gullible and simple-minded. Anyone over the age of 18 that still believes in a god or gods is doing so merely because it is a habit shared by the majority, not because he has any idea of what he is talking about. People cling to a god like children do to their parents, however, parents are real while god is not.

-DM-

January 4, 2007, 02:38 AM

Steve Weiss:

The first part of your first sentence ("god is an empty term with no referent in reality") gets you off to a pretty good start. After that, you engage in the same sort of "what-I-believe-equates-with-the-truth" assertions, some of them quite insulting, that I see on an almost daily basis from Christians (and sometimes other believers). Such posts either get deleted or end up here in the "Recycle Bin." Nontheists who submit the same kinds of comments are treated in the same way.

To say that "all religious books ... appeal to the gullible and simple-minded" is going much too far--even for a devout atheist. There are plenty of people, believers of one kind or another, people who are likely more intelligent than either you or me, people who are anything but "simple-minded," who nevertheless find "religious books" appealing and of value. Further, you would have to be omniscient to know with certainty that "anyone over the age of 18 that still believes in a god or gods is doing so merely because it is a habit shared by the majority, not because he has any idea of what he is talking about." I know you are not omniscient, and based on people I know, I know you are wrong.

-DM-

orsibeth

January 15, 2007, 10:33 PM

Radical Muslims die--and take others with them--for what they believe to be true but for what you believe to be a lie.

The apostles, (writers of the gospels) were alive during Christs ministry. So if they really didn't see the resurrection, (they would know for a fact it was a lie) and I don't believe they would die for an actual known lie. The radical muslim is not a good comparison as they are die for something that they did not witness first hand. They, (muslims) die and take other's with them because the Koran tells them to do this.

P.S. "Christ" is a title, not a name. When you refer to Jesus, you give him a title essentially making him to be the promised Messiah of the Jews. Jews do not believe that Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah. Neither do I.

Some Jew's believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Just as some Gentiles believe and some don't. Jesus is my Lord and Savior, my Messiah. You are right, He is not your Messiah as you are perishing.:frown:

-DM-

January 15, 2007, 11:44 PM

The apostles, (writers of the gospels) were alive during Christs ministry.That the apostles were the writers of the Gospels and/or that they were alive during Jesus' ministry represent religious beliefs, not, by any means, certain fact. Biblical scholars see it differently than you do. Not you--not anyone--knows with certainty who wrote the Gospels. The Gospels are pseudepigraphal; the identity of the actual authors is unknown--by anyone--and the fact that they now carry the names of apostles has little to do with the identity of the actual authors. This is a fact which is known even to Christian scholars.

Following are just a few quotes (of literally hundreds of similar quotes which could be provided). The first two pertain to the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and provide just a glimpse into the problem of identifying the author of that Gospel. The third quote pertains to all four of the Gospels.

---

Page 1NT, The New Oxford Annotated Bible
This Gospel [Matthew] is anonymous. The unknown Christian teacher who prepared it during the last third of the first century may have used as one of the sources a collection of Jesus' sayings that the apostle Matthew, according to second-century writers, is said to have drawn up. In time a title containing Matthew's name, and signifying apostolic authority, came to identify the whole.

Page 84, The Nature and Origin of the New Testament, J. Merle Rife, Ph.D.
Certainly the book [Matthew] as we know it was not written by anyone who had associated with Jesus. Such an author would not have had to depend on second- and thirdhand information furnished by such an author as Mark, who was not one of the close friends. The earliest attempt to solve the problem of authorship is found in one of the surviving fragments of Papias, the earliest known writer on such questions. Eusebius, Church History 3.39.16, preserves the Papias passage as follows: "So then, Matthew composed his oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each one translated them as he was able." That is the best evidence we have of Matthean authorship, but it can hardly apply to our present Gospel, which is a revised edition of Greek work. ... It is all part of strained attempts to show apostolic authorship, or at least apostolic background, for certain books in a day when flourishing heresies led the orthodox to discredit whatever could not muster some show of apostolicity. In Stromateis 7.17 Clement of Alexandria says the teaching of the apostles ended under Nero. This emperor died in 68.

And so it goes with the other three Gospels ...

Page 180, Jesus: An Historian's review of the Gospels, by Michael Grant, Ph.D. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684818671/InternetInfidelsA/)
Disconcertingly, we do not know who any of the authors of the four Gospels were. The traditions that they were written by Jesus' apostles Matthew and John, and Paul's companions Mark (John Mark) and Luke, are in each case subject to grave and virtually insuperable doubts. In using the names of these men to denote the Gospels it would be more accurate to enclose them in quotation marks, for these works, like very many compositions of the ancient world, appear to have been composed by other, later men who affixed the names of distinguished forerunners to their writings. Security motives may have played a part; it was perhaps convenient not to affix one's name to the eulogy of a cult that had so many enemies. Others see the Gospels as a pious falsification to gain a hearing which the authors' own names would not have secured. But there have also been vigorous attempts to point out that, according to the views prevailing in the ancient world, this customary pseudonymity did not imply fraud at all; it might merely be due to a humble desire not to push oneself forward on such a sacred theme.

And as if that were not enough to make it apparent that the identity of the authors of the Gospels is an unknown, Howard Teeple, Ph.D., in his book The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John identifies four distinct authors in that Gospel.

---

Thus your entire argument is based on shaky premises, just as is the foundation of Christianity.

Jesus is my Lord and Savior, my Messiah. You are right, He is not your Messiah as you are perishing.That I am perishing is nothing other than a religious belief. So far as I am concerned, you are mistaken. You probably base your belief on the Bible. So do I. I base my belief on the fact that the Bible provides what I consider to be irreconcilable inconsistencies in the story surrounding the empty tomb and the subsequent details, inconsistencies which give the story what I see as the earmarks of fiction.

-DM-

P.S. #1: Yes, some few Jew's, such as Jews for Jesus, believe that Jesus was/is the Messiah. They are essentially Christians.

P.S.#2: You need to learn the quote feature of this bulletin board software. You quote me, but make it look as if you said what I said.

Rick

January 23, 2007, 11:13 PM

If we honestly take into account our everyday activities, many of them are pure acts of faith. I would give you examples but that would rob you of your opportunity to exercise your own insight. Yes, I do consider myself a man of GOD. However, it seems fairly appearant to all of us that religion is a primary tool of the devil. All that I'm saying is that faith is simple. If you want to know GOD it takes faith, that's it. The Bible is the Bible, it's not GOD. GOD wants you to know HIM, not a book. Why waste precious life trying to debunk a book. So many people profess a life that is to be lived to its fullest. Well, if knowing your MAKER can't make life more fulfilling, then what can? You have to get to know a person before you can understand and trust what they say. So, put the BIBLE on the back burner for now and get back to basics. Oh, did I say GOD is a person? I guess I did. And I didn't forget the "n" in religio.
[e-mail address deleted; start a conversation here, finish it here. -DM-]

-DM-

January 24, 2007, 01:28 AM

If we honestly take into account our everyday activities, many of them are pure acts of faith.The validity of your assertion depends to a large extent on how you are using the word "faith":

The Bible, HE 11.1-3: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The Catholic Encyclopedia: FAITH MAY BE CONSIDERED BOTH OBJECTIVELY AND SUBJECTIVELY Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church (see FAITH, RULE OF) presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths. ... Faith is what we have to believe.
Common definitions: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; the proposition that something is true, even if there is no evidence to support it.If you are using it in any of the above senses, then the fact is that faith is likely much more a part of a believer's everyday activities than it is of a nonbeliever's everyday activities.

I would give you examples but that would rob you of your opportunity to exercise your own insight.What you rob us of is insight into the basis of your unfounded assertion.

... it seems fairly appearant to all of us that religion is a primary tool of the devil.Your opinion is at variance with that of tens of thousands of Christian denominations. Of course, like you apparently do, each of them believes that they have a handle on the "real truth."

All that I'm saying is that faith is simple.In my opinion, faith is more simplistic than it is simple. After a great deal of study, I came to the conclusion that Christian theology is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. I would find it extremely difficult to rekindle my Christian faith. To do so would require me to completely subvert my intellect.

If you want to know GOD it takes faith, that's it. The Bible is the Bible, it's not GOD. GOD wants you to know HIM, not a book.Assuming that you are talking about the Christian "God," you are talking about the "God" of the Bible. In that case, you would not know what "God" allegedly wants were it not for what the Bible teaches about what "God" allegedly wants--unless, of course, you carry on direct conversations with "God" himself. Do you?

Why waste precious life trying to debunk a book.The Bible has been advertised, promoted, and promulgated as "The Word of God," a "God" who is allegedly perfect and omnipotent. It seems obvious to me and many others that such could not possibly be the case. We consider it important, therefore, to tell "the other side of the story," and that includes biblical criticism. After all, there is hardly a tenet of Christianity that is not based on and/or reflected in the Bible.

-DM-

ThisIsHowWeRoll

February 25, 2007, 12:57 PM

This is a bunch of BS.

If you are a christian you would understand it.

When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of good and evil they were going to die come the day. they brought death. and they died in faith by doubting God. Adam then lived much longer, having kids and populating the earth. He then banished them to save them from having to live in there sin forever. Which would suck. Who would want to live forever?

no one knows how God works. There was light before the sun. It says no where that man was created before plants and animals. Man was the perfect finish to Gods creation.

There are many flaws in this website that is supposed to be finding flaws.
Anyone that is stupid enough to believe it. Go ahead. N when your in hell you will know that it was the truth and you were just to foolish and adolesent to believe it.

Thanks

-DM-

February 25, 2007, 04:01 PM

This is a bunch of BS.What is the "this" that you have in mind?

If you are a christian you would understand it.What is the "it" that you have in mind?

When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of good and evil they were going to die come the day. they brought death. and they died in faith by doubting God.It's an entertaining story, perhaps, but even with some cursory analysis and consideration one should realize that "Adam" and "Eve" would have had no reason whatever, prior to eating of the fruit of the so-called Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, to believe "God" over the serpent; neither would they have had any way of knowing prior to eating of the fruit that to disobey "God" would be a "sin." And just as "God" allegedly did later with the so-called Tree of Eternal Life (GE 3:24), "God" could have put a guard around the so-called Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to keep "Adam" and "Eve" from eating of it.

Adam then lived much longer, having kids and populating the earth. He then banished them to save them from having to live in there sin forever. Which would suck. Who would want to live forever?Escaping death, living eternally with "God," is one of the big selling points of Christianity. Christians, most of them anyway, claim to want to live forever in heaven. Few of them, however, seem to be in any hurry to get to heaven.

no one knows how God works.The Bible alleges to tell us quite a bit about how "God" allegedly works. You seem to claim to know something about how "God" works. In fact, if you didn't know anything about how "God" works, you wouldn't be able to say with any certainty that "no one knows how God works." It looks, therefore, as if your statement is oxymoronic given what you claim to know.

There was light before the sun.If no one knows how "God" works, then how can you be sure of that? "God" could be tricking us with what he allegedly revealed to the authors of the Genesis creation stories, plural (yes, there are two of them conflated into one).

It says no where that man was created before plants and animals.GE 1:24-27 indicates that animals were created before man, whereas GE 2:7 taken together with GE 2:19 indicates that man was created before animals.

GE 1:11-12 taken together with GE 1:26-27 indicates that trees were created before man was created, whereas GE 2:4-9 indicates that man was created before trees were created.

These "inconsistencies" come about because there are two different creation stories, from two different authors, authors who can be clearly identified throughout Genesis because of identifiable use of vocabulary (and other characteristics).

Man was the perfect finish to Gods creation.According to whom? You? God? According to the Bible "God," man is evil.

There are many flaws in this website that is supposed to be finding flaws.That is possible, I suppose, but if so you need to point them out, and provide the evidence, rather than just assert that such is the case., just as I provided the evidence of your flawed statement that "It says no where that man was created before plants and animals."

Anyone that is stupid enough to believe it. Go ahead. N when your in hell you will know that it was the truth and you were just to foolish and adolesent to believe it.It seems not to occur to believers such as you that "God"--if there were such a being--might despise false teachings and false beliefs, foolish and adolescent beliefs, based on any of the so-called revealed religions (which includes Christianity, amongst others), each of which claims to be the "one true religion."

-DM-

Frank

February 25, 2007, 04:36 PM

(1) (Note: Some biblicists contend that biblical chronology fixes the date of creation at 4004 B.C. thereby making the earth about six thousand years old. Some present-day creationists stubbornly adhere to a young earth timetable in spite of overwhelming evidence that the earth is actually billions of years old.)

(2)GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years.)

1) Now really, overwhelming evidence, billions of years? What records, other than scientific, are there that the earth is that old? Carbon dating has proven to be un-reliable. To use un-reliable means to come to a conclusion is hardly overwhelming, or scientific. It would be no different than saying that God exists because the bible says so. Human records may go back 10,000 years, but why not farther. Why did it take billions of years to learn how to write things down?

2) Just as the worshippers of science believe (with astonishing lack of evidence) that the earth is "billions of years old", or in other terms, have faith, Christians also have faith. They believe that God "is" light. Therefore, the sun is for our light, but God has no need for it. (See Revelation 22:5)
And if God created the laws of physics, He therefore is outside of them and can "put" the light there if He wishes. (Faith)

-DM-

February 25, 2007, 06:03 PM

Hello "Frank":

It would seem, according to your IP address, that you are also "ThisIsHowWeRoll" (who posted "This is Bull Crap," two posts above). In the future, please use only one username.

It would also seem that you had not yet read the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10), or that you choose to ignore the instructions given about the necessity of including the title of the article and the name of the author to which your feedback applies. If you haven't yet read the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10), please do so, and please heed those instructions before you submit feedback again, otherwise your feedback will not be posted. Thanks.

1) Now really, overwhelming evidence, billions of years? What records, other than scientific, are there that the earth is that old? Carbon dating has proven to be un-reliable. To use un-reliable means to come to a conclusion is hardly overwhelming, or scientific."Scientific: of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science."

Carbon dating, whether accurate to your satisfaction or not, certainly is scientific according to the common meaning of the word "scientific." In fact, carbon dating is something of a straw man brought up by creationists, young-earth advocates, and so-called intelligent-design advocates, inasmuch as carbon dating is only used to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 50,000 to 60,000 years. In any case, carbon dating is not, by any means, the only scientific tool for determining the approximate age of the earth.

"The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence." (See The TalkOrigins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) for the details.) For example, in addition to scientific radiometric dating techniques, the earth's geological strata provides us with evidence of the age of the earth. (See, for example, Age of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth) at Wikipedia.

It would be no different than saying that God exists because the bible says so.There is no similarity whatever between a scientific tool used by scientists and what a so-called holy book such as the Bible, which includes two inconsistent accounts of creation, tells us. One thing is certain, however: the biblical creation story is mythology.

Human records may go back 10,000 years, but why not farther.In the evolution of man, record-keeping occurred at a relatively late date. This should not be the case were man created from nothing by "God."

Why did it take billions of years to learn how to write things down?It didn't. Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa only about 200,000 years ago, which is rather late in the history of the earth.

2) Just as the worshippers of science believe (with astonishing lack of evidence) that the earth is "billions of years old", or in other terms, have faith, Christians also have faith.The scientific evidence for the age of the earth tends to be quite convincing to those who are scientifically inclined, whereas Christian faith, as described by Paul, is the opposite of evidence and is not something that one should embrace if one is interested in such mundane matters as the age of the earth:

HE 11.1-3: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

They believe that God "is" light.This sounds like sun-worship.

Therefore, the sun is for our light, but God has no need for it. (See Revelation 22:5)Quoting the Bible proves nothing other than that you believe it.

And if God created the laws of physics, He therefore is outside of them and can "put" the light there if He wishes. (Faith)I accept that you believe this on faith, however the fact of the matter is that your conclusion ("He therefor is outside of them") does not necessarily follow from your premise ("if God created the laws of physics"). In such a hypothetical situation, it could be, for example, that once "God" had created the laws of physics, "He" too would be bound by them.

-DM-

Mystery777

May 10, 2007, 05:30 PM

Where will you be when you die?
If Christians are so wrong will then I guess we don't have anything to worry about when we die, now do we, but if we are right, Well think about it! Where will you be when you die?

Of course a Moderator has to approve it, because if it has any kind of Christian content, you are to afraid to approve something that is true anyways.

-DM-

May 10, 2007, 08:41 PM

Where will you be when you die?
If Christians are so wrong will then I guess we don't have anything to worry about when we die, now do weIf Muslims are right, you have plenty to worry about when you die.

but if we are right, Well think about it! Where will you be when you die?If we are right, and there is every reason to think that we are, you will be in the same "place" Muslims are, the same "place" that we are, and the same "place" that everyone else is when they die.

Of course what you are offering here is essentially a simplistic version of the simplistic "argument" known as "Pascal's Wager." For more, see the Pascal's Wager thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=205).

Of course a Moderator has to approve it, because if it has any kind of Christian content, you are to afraid to approve something that is true anyways.Even a cursory look around would prove that we obviously allow Christian content. What we don't allow (other than here in the Recycle Bin) are comments that have nothing to do with a specific article published either in the Kiosk or the Library, or responses to threads already underway here in the Feedback Forum. See the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10) (which you should have read before submitting your comments) for further information about why this particular forum is moderated.

-DM-

Jimmyjoe

June 6, 2007, 11:58 AM

As far as I have read most people are correct in highlighting some of the problems with this website. I feel the overwhelming problem is the reactionary nature of the content here. It is very clear that this website is organised to appear secular and above all neutral on the issues. However that postion is undermined by some very dodgy statements. As people have pointed out, using the words infidel and unbeliever mean that you are opposing another view point, and that necissarily means that you are defining yourself by that view point. More precisely, an nonbeliever cannot exist sui generes. She or he must be defined by that in which they do not believe. So quit muddying the issue, just accept it and make corrections.
Secondly, think more carefully about what goes into the bible absurdities page. For example this is obviously flawed reasoning:

GE 3:14-16 God curses the serpent, Eve, and Adam for what they have done. (Note: This is inconsistent with God's omniscience; God should have known full well, ahead of time, what the outcome would be. Since God created the three as well as the Tree of Knowledge, he is ultimately responsible for the Fall.)

a) The bible is vague on the nature of god so why are you saying he is in fact omniscient? you are agreeing with your preacher.
b) When you, claiming to be an unbeliever make a statement which basically reads "god should have know better" you are commiting heresy to your own cause. this whole paragraph smacks of disillusionment, which again undermines your neutrality.

I think that its is absolutely crucial that the agnostic community fight back against this invasive medevil voodoo religion. Modern Chrsitians are possibly the scummiest people ever to curse our fair planet. Today christianity is used as a front for greed and asshole-ism (how about a new word?) It must be beaten back into submission. But while the bible is flawed, i know and can prove that modern christians barely even believe in it. They cut and paste as much as they like and excert their fucked up ideas through institutionalised group think. So while it is very useful to demonstrate flaws in the bible, it is hardly enough since most christians are sheep who only think they know the bible anyway.

-DM-

June 6, 2007, 03:29 PM

Jimmyjoe:

Note that your comments, which were originally submitted to the "Our Mission (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206389)" thread, include comments about God, the Bible, and my "Bible Absurdities (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html)," thus I moved your post here because it just doesn't fit well in the "Our Mission" thread.

As far as I have read most people are correct in highlighting some of the problems with this website.It is impossible, of course, for us to know what those alleged problems are unless you specify what you have in mind.

I feel the overwhelming problem is the reactionary nature of the content here.In order for your comment to have much meaning to us, you would need to explain why it is that the allegedly reactionary nature of the site is a problem.

It is very clear that this website is organised to appear secular...If by "this website" you mean The Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org/), it is definitely secular (not spiritual, not "holy") in nature.

...and above all neutral on the issues.You are mistaken. There is no effort to appear neutral on all issues. In fact, our front page (http://www.infidels.org/) mission statement makes it clear that we are anything but neutral on the main "issue" for which this site was created: "The Secular Web ... a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet ... naturalism "is the hypothesis that the physical universe is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it. So naturalism entails the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic God."

However that postion is undermined by some very dodgy statements.Unless you specify what "dodgy statements" you have in mind, and why those statements are "dodgy," your comment has no significance.

As people have pointed out, using the words infidel and unbeliever mean that you are opposing another view point, and that necissarily means that you are defining yourself by that view point.Generally speaking, we define ourselves not only as infidels and unbelievers (persons who do not acknowledge "God"), but also as metaphysical naturalists, freethinkers, and secular humanists.

More precisely, an nonbeliever cannot exist sui generes. She or he must be defined by that in which they do not believe.I think you would do well to read the About Us (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/) page and Defining Our Mission (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/mission.html), by Richard Carrier.

So quit muddying the issue, just accept it and make corrections.Again, you need to specify what "issue" you have in mind and what "corrections" you have in mind.

Secondly, think more carefully about what goes into the bible absurdities page. For example this is obviously flawed reasoning:

GE 3:14-16 God curses the serpent, Eve, and Adam for what they have done. (Note: This is inconsistent with God's omniscience; God should have known full well, ahead of time, what the outcome would be. Since God created the three as well as the Tree of Knowledge, he is ultimately responsible for the Fall.)

a) The bible is vague on the nature of god so why are you saying he is in fact omniscient? you are agreeing with your preacher.
b) When you, claiming to be an unbeliever make a statement which basically reads "god should have know better" you are commiting heresy to your own cause. this whole paragraph smacks of disillusionment, which again undermines your neutrality.There is no neutrality intended. The intent is to point out fallacies in either or both the Bible and Christian doctrine. My Bible criticisms are based on what believers and the Bible claim. There is no other way on which Bible criticisms can be based. Further, I disagree that the Bible is especially "vague on the nature of god." "God's" alleged omniscience is a basic tenet of Christian doctrine which is well supported in the Bible. There is plenty of biblical support for the alleged omniscience of "God."

As All About the Bible puts it: OMNISCIENCE: A theological term that refers to God's ... power to know all things. God is the Lord who knows our thoughts from afar. He is acquainted with all our ways, knowing our words even before they are on our tongues (Ps. 139:1-6, 13-16). He needs to consult no one for knowledge or understanding (Is. 40:13-14). He is the all-knowing Lord who prophesies the events of the future, including the death and resurrection of His Son (Isaiah 53) and the return of Christ at the end of this age when death will be finally overcome (Rom. 8:18-39; 1 Cor 15:51-57).

More:

God is also omniscient. This means that He is consciously perceptive of all knowable things. He is never deceived or lacking in knowledge about anything.
- http://jcsm.org/LBTS/Philosophy/AbsoluteRelativeAttributesofGod.htm

God is omniscient or possesses the most perfect knowledge of all things, follows from His infinite perfection. In the first place He knows and comprehends Himself fully and adequately, and in the next place He knows all created objects and comprehends their finite and contingent mode of being. Hence He knows them individually or singularly in their finite multiplicity, knows everything possible as well as actual; knows what is bad as well as what is good. Everything, in a word, which to our finite minds signifies perfection and completeness of knowledge may be predicated of Divine omniscience, and it is further to be observed that it is on Himself alone that God depends for His knowledge. To make Him in any way dependent on creatures for knowledge of created objects would destroy His infinite perfection and supremacy. Hence it is in His eternal, unchangeable, comprehensive knowledge of Himself or of His own infinite being that God knows creatures and their acts, whether there is question of what is actual or merely possible.
- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm (emphasis mine)

---

Here are some Bible verses that support "God's" alleged omniscience:
1KI 8.39: God knows the hearts of all children of men.
EX 2.25: God saw the people of Israel and knew their condition.
EX 3.7: God knows their sufferings.
EX 32.7: God saw that the people had corrupted themselves.
DT 31.16-18 God prophesies the future.
1SA 16.7: God looks on the heart.
1KI 8.39: God knows the hearts.
1KI 9.3: God has heard prayer.
1KI 14.5-ff: God foretells the death of Abijah.
1KI 14.9: God knows of the evil that Jeroboam has done.
1KI 16.1-2: God is aware of Baasha's sin.
1KI 17.22: God harkens to the voice of Elijah.
2KI 14.26: God saw the affliction of Israel.
2KI 20.5: God has heard the prayers, seen the tears.
1CH 28.9: God searches all hearts, and understands every plan and thought.
MT 6.8: God knows what you need before you ask.
MT 10.30: Even the hairs on your head are numbered.
LK 12.7: (Ditto MT 10.30)

Modern Chrsitians are possibly the scummiest people ever to curse our fair planet.You paint with too broad a brush. Yes, Christianity is invasive. So is Islam. But There are plenty of good Christians and plenty of good Muslims. There are also plenty of scummy Christians and Muslims as well. The same can be said of the followers of almost any religion--as well as the followers of no religion. Still, we would agree that the world would be a better place without the distraction of religious belief, so that humans could realize that they need to solve human problems without expecting "help" from a supernatural source.

... while the bible is flawed, i know and can prove that modern christians barely even believe in it.I'd be interested in your alleged proof. As a knowledgeable ex-Christian I know that there is almost no Christian doctrine that is not either based on, or reflected in, the Bible. I also know that there are plenty of "modern Christians" who do "believe in it." After all, belief in the God of the Bible and in the Jesus of the Bible are part and parcel of Christian belief.

... while it is very useful to demonstrate flaws in the bible, it is hardly enough since most christians are sheep who only think they know the bible anyway.It may not be enough, but it is nevertheless a step in the right direction given that millions of dollars and millions of man-hours have been spent promoting the Bible as the word of a perfect and omnipotent god (who, in my opinion, could have, should have, and would have done a better job of "His Word" had "He" anything to do with it).

-DM-

AntiCrusader

June 25, 2007, 08:36 PM

"Muslims who seek to cast the Qur'an as being compatible with modern science, point out that the Qur'an also says that a day for Allah and the angels is similar to 50,000 years (Qur'an 70:4). In citing this verse, Muslims try to say the Earth was completed in 300,000 ( 6 x 50,000 ) years. While it is a nice try, the reality is this still does not agree with modern science, which states that it took several billion years for the Earth to reach this stage. Billions of years passed before there were trees, or forests, or animals."

Above quote of yours Mr. Denis, The Holy Quran doesn't says that the däy for Allah and the angels is similar to 50,000 years, but it says that "The day of Judgment will be of 50,000 years" Don't mislead. As for the miracles there are plenty in the Holy Quran. Secondly are you a priest a holy cleric etc, on what grounds can you say that you understand The Holy Quran?? I want to know who is talking about the Holy Quran.

-DM-

June 25, 2007, 10:46 PM

Above quote of yours Mr. Denis...Denis Giron (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giron/) has three articles published in the Secular Web Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/). Per the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10), you need to supply the title of the article and the name of the author so that we can possibly provide a meaningful response.

The Holy Quran doesn't says that the day for Allah and the angels is similar to 50,000 years, but it says that "The day of Judgment will be of 50,000 years" Don't mislead.There is more to it than that. Numerous websites mention the same problem that Denis Giron mentions, and numerous other websites try to explain it away, not unlike what Christian apologists do with regard to Bible problems. Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 human years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)? --- According to Sura 56:7 there will be THREE distinct groups of people at the Last Judgement, but 90:18-19, 99:6-8, etc. mention only TWO groups. --- There are conflicting views on who takes the souls at death: THE Angel of Death [32:11], THE angels (plural) [47:27] but also "It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death." [39:42] Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings [35:1]; but Gabriel had 600 wings. [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455] - http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Contra/

As for the miracles there are plenty in the Holy Quran.There are claimed miracles in the Qur'an just as there are in the Bible. In neither case do the miracle claims prove anything other than that the authors made such claims.

Secondly are you a priest a holy cleric etc, on what grounds can you say that you understand The Holy Quran?? I want to know who is talking about the Holy Quran.Are you? Like you, I want to know who is talking.

-DM-

P.S. In any case, there is ample evidence that anyone who makes the claim that whatever his particular holy book says is "absolutely correct" is absolutely misguided.

Unregistered2

November 20, 2007, 01:10 PM

ok whoever you are who is writing all this stuff on the website, i have serious issues with the description you gave of how stephen died. it is true that he died a martyr, but he was not thrown off of a cliff. what happened is recorded in acts 6:8--acts 8:1. here is a summary, stephen was seized by members of the "synagogue of the freedmen" and brought before the sanhedrin (jewish court), the high priest in the court asked stephen if the charges of blasphemy were true, stephen gave them a long reasonable argument to prove that Jesus was and is the Christ. at this, the court became very angry, took stephen out and stoned him to death,which means that they took large stones and threw them at him until he was dead. also, the death of stephen for his testimony of God was not a major reason for saul of tarsus's conversion. saul (later known as paul) was traveling on the damascus road after stephen's death to persecute Christians, when Jesus spoke to him from heaven, and saul was blinded. he went into damascus and three days later was healed by God's power, the story is in acts 9. this was a long response, but the issue needed to be cleared up, i think people would pay more attention to you if you got your facts straight

.

-DM-

November 20, 2007, 02:23 PM

ok whoever you are who is writing all this stuff on the website...What "stuff"? Note: Title of article and name of author are required by the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10).

i have serious issues with the description you gave of how stephen died. it is true that he died a martyr, but he was not thrown off of a cliff. what happened is recorded in acts 6:8--acts 8:1.Acts 6:8 presents what allegedly happened to Stephen. We cannot be certain that what is presented is a record of what happened inasmuch as there are many inconsistencies in the stories presented in the Bible, in general, as well as inconsistencies in the alleged "records" of the Christian martyrs. (For starters, see How Did the Apostles Die? (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4front97.html))

saul (later known as paul) was traveling on the damascus road after stephen's death to persecute Christians, when Jesus spoke to him from heaven, and saul was blinded. he went into damascus and three days later was healed by God's power, the story is in acts 9.The story of Paul's alleged conversion is a good example of a story that involves inconsistencies in the Bible itself. Following are a few of the biblical inconsistencies in the alleged biblical "record" involving Paul:AC 9:7 Those present at Paul's conversion heard a voice but saw no one.
AC 22:9 They saw a light but did not hear a voice.

AC 9:7 Those present at Paul's conversion stood.
AC 26:14 They fell to the ground.

AC 9:19-28 Shortly after his conversion, Paul went to Damascus, then Jerusalem where he was introduced to the Apostles by Barnabas, and there spent some time with them (going in and out among them).
GA 1:15-20 He made the trip three years later, then saw only Peter and James.

AC 9:23 The governor attempted to seize Paul.
2CO 11:32 It was the Jews who tried to seize Paul.

-DM-

P.S. More biblical inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html).

Unregistered 123

November 29, 2007, 05:29 PM

Oldest trick in the book Satan, make man doubt God's word.

Genesis 3:1
[ The Fall of Man ] Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

Next oldest is to make God a liar.

Genesis 3:2-5
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

You are like Satan tricking people into believing that God is a liar and His Word is not true. You are the arrogant one.

-DM-

November 29, 2007, 06:35 PM

Oldest trick in the book Satan, make man doubt God's word.There is another trick that is equally as old, or perhaps even older: make people believe that a book written by men is somehow the word of "God" when it is not.

Genesis 3:1
[ The Fall of Man ] Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"The Bible god is allegedly perfect, omnipotent and omniscient. "He" would have known ahead of time the outcome of this (mythical) situation. "He" could have prevented it, but did not. The reason that is usually offered that "he" did not prevent this outcome is that "he" wanted to allow so-called free will. Nevertheless, according to this mythical story, "he" had no difficulty whatever in subsequently preventing "Adam" and "Eve" from eating of the "Tree of Eternal Life"--thus interfering with their so-called free will even though "he" allegedly wanted them, and us, to have free will.

Further, were the god of the Bible truly perfect and omnipotent, "he" would have been incapable of creating anything imperfect. The ability to "sin" on the part of "his" so-called creation indicates imperfection in that creation.

In other words, there are some major problems with the biblical stories of the Creation and Fall.

Next oldest is to make God a liar.The Bible itself makes either "him" or itself a liar: 1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets.
JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word.
2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them).
EZ 20:25 God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws. (This means that God-given laws or commandments are sometimes suspect.)

You are like Satan tricking people into believing that God is a liar and His Word is not true.The point of providing examples of biblical inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html) and such is to indicate that the Bible as a whole cannot likely be the "word" of a perfect and omnipotent god, else it wouldn't be so obviously problematic. It seems obvious to me that a perfect and omnipotent god could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it than the Bible.

You are the arrogant one.I don't know who it is that you have in mind, but making such an accusation doesn't seem to me to be very "Christian."

-DM-

P.S. Something to keep in mind if you believe in "Satan": "Satan" could have inspired portions of the Bible.

Ben

December 8, 2007, 02:04 PM

It should be apparent to most who have read the series of responses and rebuttals submitted by "renassault" that positing a rational argument for the absurdity of the bible or, for that matter, the belief in a supernatural god to any true believer is an exercize in futility.

Theological "thinking" is the antithesis of rational thought. If you have lived your life learning to "think" theologically, you have been taught to "think" in a way that is inconsistent with rational thought. You have been taught to "rationalize" away any inconsistency in biblical teachings with hypothetical, unsupported alternate explanations, references to contradictory "proof" elsewhere in the bible and circular references to earlier unsupported assertions. Any rational argument that you posit to a true believer will only be met with these irrational, self-affirming constructs but they will never be met by an articulate, rational rebuttal.

True believers have been taught, through a life-time of brain washing, to use a different paradigm for interpreting the world around them that is entirely inconsistent with rationalism. They have lost the capacity for rational thought and rational discourse.

Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It will only frustrate you and confuse the pig.

-DM-

December 8, 2007, 02:47 PM

Hello Ben,

I tend to agree with you, as would likely be true of most nontheists. The trouble is, however, that your feedback consists of unsupported opinions, and it involves the denigration of a whole group of individuals, namely believers, (or more specifically, what you term as "True Believers")--which contravenes the "rules" as stated in the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10)--thus your feedback was moved here.

-DM-

Skip Sievert

December 12, 2007, 02:19 AM

Political system invented god.

God is all the silly things that are moralistic and opinion based.

Democracy is a concept that is very godly in the sense that it is based on nonsense and Price System values of Babylon.

The original person that conjured up the image of god would be very surprised at how gullible the human race is.

-DM-

December 12, 2007, 10:17 AM

Skip,

Many of us here would tend to agree with you. One minor problem, however, is that you have stated your beliefs without providing any supporting evidence and/or argument.

Christians and other theists come here to the Secular Web Feedback Forum and often do exactly the same thing. Their posts either end up here in The Recycle Bin--or get deleted.

I want to be as even-handed as possible when it comes to the application of the guidelines laid out in the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10), thus your post was moved here.

-DM-

bmk

December 21, 2007, 12:32 PM

[the assertion that athesim or evolution, is non-religeous,is not correct.The definition of religeon, is derived from the latin word: religare=to be bound,or to bind yourself to something,whether it is a philosophical belief system,or a scientific belief system,that is regardless.so by definition all of you on this site,are religeous belivers.now,the scientific probability of life existing elsewhere in this,or other universes,would be fact if evolution was true.take the questionarre at the bottom of this letter,i formulated to disern the true motivations of someone claiming to be an atheist.a whole lot of atheists claim that they do not believe in an intelligent designer because of intellectual reasons,but i can see through the smoke and mirrors.look,in this sex obsessed culture,i know a lot of men that do not want there to be a golike being,because of the FEAR!,of the possability of being held accountable, or being punished by a godlike being. that is a powerful motivation to many to embrace anti-theism.
i noticed in your talk about anthony flew,you went to great lengths and wasted your time trying to show that he was not quite really a deist,or he still believed in evolution,this is stupid. ther are a multiplicity of reasons for you all being atheists but,i know that emotion is the overriding factor.i know some are atheists because they endured a lot of pain in suffering in thier lives and that was the causal agent that drove them to atheism,or struggle with sex addiction problems and want there to be no god because, they view this god as a sort of cosmic killjoy, an interfereing agent that imposes straightjacket morality,which they find unpleasent.and of course the intellectual doubts, but,by very definition the word anti means against and i know that no scientific data will ever move the emotionally driven atheist.they have an emotional reason that no formal logic will ever overthrow. take this questionare i formulated so that i might disern your true motives. 1.if evolution is true, then the scientific and mathmatical probability is exceedingly high that other intelligent life exists in this universe? TRUE OR
false?. 2.if evolution is true and intelligent life exists in the universe,then there is a high scientific and mathmatical probability that this life is more intelligent than us? TRUE OR FALSE?
3.if evolution is true and life exists that is even more intelligent than us,then would you agree that a godlike being could have evolved from matter? TRUE OR FALSE?
4.do you agree or disagree with this statement-any sufficiently advanced intelligent technology would be indistinguisable from what we would think is magic? TRUE OR FALSE?
5.if an intelligent race came to earth and told us they were are our creators and imposed a moral code, so that we might not destroy ourselves and told us we would be punished if we did so what would you think?
6. if you were casterated (men) and could no longer enjoy or have sex, what would you do?
i will look forward to your reply, bmk.

-DM-

December 21, 2007, 03:33 PM

[the assertion that athesim or evolution, is non-religeous,is not correct.The definition of religeon, is derived from the latin word: religare=to be bound,or to bind yourself to something,whether it is a philosophical belief system,or a scientific belief system,that is regardless.so by definition all of you on this site,are religeous belivers.You are wrong on both counts. Neither atheism nor evolution represent religions.

You provide only one definition of religion, the one that suits the argument that you hope to make, ignoring even the most common definition. Let's be more inclusive.

Religion:1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.Some atheists and evolutionists may be zealous or conscientious about their belief system, but even that doesn't make atheism a religion. As a matter of fact, atheism is essentially the opposite of religion inasmuch as it means either of the following:Disbelief in the existence of deity, or,
the doctrine that there is no deity.Further, atheists typically value science, rationality, and empiricism--all of which tend to be self-correcting as new knowledge is obtained. Religious belief systems are self-perpetuating: they tend to perpetrate and perpetuate the same old erroneous beliefs until forced to give them up. As Oscar Wilde put it: "Science is the record of dead religions."

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion. A scientific theory is quite different than a generic theory. Evolution has been verified. Whether or not evolution accounts for our origins is another matter. In any case, as I previously mentioned, science tends to be self-correcting whereas religious belief systems are not. And finally, one need not believe in evolution to be an atheist; one can be agnostic about evolution and yet be an atheist when it comes to the gods of organized religion or gods in general. One thing certain, however: the biblical creation story is myth, not history.

With regard to your questions, they are either too hypothetical to be answered intelligently or cannot be answered "true or false" based on what knowledge we have at present.

-DM-

renassault

February 2, 2008, 11:53 AM