Video: Atheists continue to win friends, influence people
posted at 6:44 pm on December 2, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Via Breitbart, after 200+ comments in Headlines, I figured you’d want to see the sign for yourselves. As pure an example of spite in this vein as I’ve encountered since the atheist “holiday tree.” This is why people have contempt for me. (Well, no, it’s not.)
Exit question: Can we join hands and agree that this, at least, is legally suspect? Probably not, right?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
For most ancient writers (Aristotle, Demosthenes, etc.) we have a handful of old copies, with the oldest copy 1200-1400 years after the original. If scholars have mnore than one copy, they’re genereally happy, since they can compare copies to suss out what changes were made by the scribes in the copying process, and so figure out the original text.
For Tacitus, we have about 20 copies, with the oldest only 1,000 years after the original. No one doubts that we can reconstruct an accurate text of what Tacitus wrote.
For Homer, it’e even better. We have over 600 copies, and the oldest is only 500 years after the original was written. No serious scholar doubts that we have a complete and accurate text of Homer.
The New Testament is not even in the same ballpark. We have 12,000 copies of the NT documents, and the oldest fragments are within mere decades of the originals. We even have a complete bound copy of the NT that dates from the 300’s – the Sinai Codex. It’s online: http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM
But, that’s different. It’s a religious book, it has to meet a higher standard than historical records!
sarc/
Seriously, thanks for putting this info out there.
cs89 on December 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM
I’ve never had a biologist explain to me how the gradual development of life on earth, by any process at all, somehow contradicts the biblical account of creation. Do you really want to try?
Before you begin, though, you might consider how a biologist might feel if a theologian, with no training in biology whatsoever, lectured him about how the Bible shows modern biology to be useless as a source of usable information. I’m sure you know how that feels, because I suppose ignorant Creationists lecture you in this manner all the time.
Since you know how that feels, imagine how an educated theologian feels about a biologist telling him that his chosen field of study is worthless as a source of relevant truth.
Why is it, do you suppose, that “brights” (as Dawkins so charmingly refers to bigoted ignoramuses such as himself) think theology is unlike any other discipline, and can be engaged in by amateurs without the first attempt at understanding the writings of recognized subject experts?
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM
You are now saying “point to” it was fact before.
So you are saying there is no proof of evolution, just that some things point to it?
So your answer is…No there is no proof of evolution, it is still a theory, but many things point to it.
That sounds similar to some of the arguments for God…
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Oh, very interesting! I’ll have to look that up.
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 10:36 AM
What a boob.
I suggest you begin a study of Philosophy, a subject about which you’re woefully ignorant. The proof I supplied came from Aristotle. You’ve heard of him, no? Greek. Ancient. Highly regarded. You should read a little about him sometime.
Grow up, son.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 10:36 AM
If there is no God, you might as well just sit in your room and masturbate all day long.
What’s the difference? In your philosophical view, everything is all about YOU and whatever makes YOU feel good.
If you can steal, kill and rape and get away with it you might as well do it.
Survival of the fittest remember?
You atheists are scary people.
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 10:38 AM
“Easter” is used in the old King James version of scripture. The newer versions, like New King James and NASB, etc use the more correct Passover. The 1611 King James translators chose “Easter” because much of Europe was still practicing paganism. The festival of Oester and Passover occur at approximately the same time. Therefore, the 1611 translators used Easter so the people would understand.
For the same reason the 1611 King James translators used the word “whale” in Jonah when the Hebrew is “dag” or fish. They took the biggest thing they could think of that swims and used the name of that creature. When Jesus talked about Jonah and the fish, he used the Greek word “ketos” translated as “whale” but in the Greek actually means “sea monster. Again, the KJV translators used the word “whale” for clarification. Btw – the newer KJV’s dont have whale but fish and neither do they have “easter” but “passover.” Also remember, the 1611 KJ translators did not have access to the older and more accurate Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that translators have access to today.
abcurtis on December 3, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Thanks, right2. Very cool.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 10:40 AM
You’re really taking this literalism thing too far. Look at the facts, think on it. Merry Christmas.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 10:42 AM
So many of the “attacking” religions, like the Mormons, say that the bible is corrupted. What they are never taught is that there are the original manuscripts, and little has changed. Most of the changes are syntax, or grammatical. The introduction of the computer has cleared up many of these “errors”. The language was so complex (since is was so tied to a culture that doesn’t exist).
I sometimes laugh at the problem of linguists 1,000 years from now trying to understand our language.
“That’s cool”
“Wass up”
Let alone trying to understand the sarcasm…”Yeah, that’s just great”.
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 10:43 AM
right2bright – evolution is a losing battle. It was either Augustine or Aquinas who said, “If the plain evidence of your eyes and simple reason contradicts your interpretatin of Scripture, then rethink your interpretation of Scripture.” (paraphrase)
Only the most-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 contradicts the scientific evidence for evolution (though personally I’m still not sold on phylum-to-phylum change). For example, it seems more and more clear that some branch of ancient dinosaurs were the ancestors of modern birds, which actually matches the Biblical timeline where birds appear before mammals. :-D
I recommend to you Don Stoner’s excellent book, “A New Look at an Old Earth.” His thesis: God does not lie, either in His Work or in His Word. However, some good theologians are bad scientists – and vice versa!
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 10:44 AM
First, I’m not concerned about the feelings of an evolutionary biologist/scientist. My concern is truth. But, if you insist on feelings, how would that “scientist” feel if confronted with common sense? Can a lizard really turn into a bird if given enough time? If that’s true, why do we still have lizards? Why cant a lizard give birth to a partial bird?
Of course, my other concern is a biologist/scientist with no training in theology trying to explain how something came from nothing.
abcurtis on December 3, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Funny how you run when faced with your own statements.
So is evolution a fact or theory?
And if a fact, show me the link….
Now you can ponder whether you are now putting your “faith” in something that is not proven…
Happy Solstice…
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I’m sorry, philwynk – i misread your posting. I’m not trying to lecture you, I just want to make a point.
abcurtis on December 3, 2008 at 10:46 AM
They should have used a more positive message for the plaque. “Keep church and state separate” is always a nice reminder, but the “enslaving minds” bit was over the top. “Be good for goodness’ sake” is a nice thought. Hopefully they use it next year.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I’d prefer to see a transitional fossil :). I think we have about as much chance as seeing a link as we do a transitional fossil.
abcurtis on December 3, 2008 at 10:48 AM
abcurtis – by 1611, very few Europeans were still practicing Paganism. It’s more likely that “Easter” had been co-opted centuries before, and was simply the common term. At that time, Christians were pretty anti-Semitic, so tying the Resurrection to a Jewish holiday would not have been done.
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 10:48 AM
LOL – no thanks, but thanks for the laugh.
So why is there even a debate, then? It’s been proven.
As a side note, Ayn Rand, an avowed atheist, cited Aristotle as perhaps her primary philosophical influence. Nietziche, “Mr. God is Dead” himself, also was heavily influenced by Aristotle. Aristotle is also considered a titan of logic, not of faith in the supernatural.
Read up.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 10:51 AM
And a valid and pertinent point it was. Well said, abc.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Yes, and most people confuse evolution and adaptation.
I have read Stoner’s work.
I like what Luther said…let the scientist do science and the theologians do theology (paraphrase).
Let me recommend Phyllis Tickles book “The Great Emergence”, not on evolution per se, but on the evolution of the church.
Fascinating reading.
*
I have no problem with the theory of evolution, what I have is a problem with people accepting it as fact along with all the other misconceptions…it was originally had some social basis for the “survival of the fittest”, Marxism taint.
It was not originally as scientific, as it was to prove what eventually became the Nazi war cry.*
Off to work now, good day.
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 10:53 AM
It’s a theory, supported by the facts. I’m afraid I don’t have a link for the last 150 years of biological research. However, if you’d like to educate yourself, I can recommend an excellent resource.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Actually, I think there are one or two fossils that might — might — be considered transitional. Maybe 5 or 10, even.
However, given the fact of the millions of fossils that have been found, and the clear pattern of species stasis in those fossils, I’m still trying to understand the biologists’ insistence on a pattern of gradualism that runs precisely counter to the record in the fossils.
I don’t have any particular theological objection to evolutionary biology; in fact, I’d be a little surprised if, after all the problems had been solved, the true explanation of how life developed on earth did not involve some sort of gradual process with no obvious points of divine intervention.
However, I dismiss as bunk the absurd claims of certainty by biologists that they’ve got a sound explanation for how all the variety of the biosphere evolved, when their best explanations for the fossil record simply give us reasons why we should ignore the millions of data points and focus instead on 5 or 10 anomalies. That doesn’t look like a settled science to me, it looks like a ham-fisted assertion by a science in its infancy.
Just as I’m expecting that the eventual solving of biology will show a gradual process, I’m expecting that random mutation and natural selection will actually have explained a tiny portion of the change. To claim that it explains the whole shebang is a distortion of fairy tale proportions.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 11:02 AM
God is not just.
At least not in the sense of human justice.
Is turning the other cheek just?
Is giving the man who robs you the possessions he forgot to take just?
Not at all.
Justice would be beating the man who hit you and throwing the robber in prison.
God is merciful.
That is not a true statement.
In a way God is a purifying fire.
Every knee shall bow before Him.
For those who hate Him and reject Him, it is agony to bow before Him.
For those who long for Him and look for Him, it is Heaven they have been waiting for.
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Celebrating the winter solstice does make a lot of sense; the return of the sun is a pretty import annual phenomenon. However, as the freedom from religion guy pointed out, though with a different end in mind, solstice celebrations have always been religious. Pagans were theists, polytheists, not atheists. Invoking them does little to advance the atheist faith.
Jens on December 3, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Oh crap, not this bunch of tools again.
LimeyGeek on December 3, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Funny, that’s just what I felt when I saw your name.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 11:14 AM
SaintOlaf,
God is just and merciful. That is one of the three central paradoxes of Christian teaching. (The other two are, Jesus was fully human and also fully God, and God is omniscient and omnipotent, yet we humans have free will and are accountable for our choices.)
God’s justice requires that sin be punished. God’s mercy led him to provide a substitute – Himself, in the person of Jesus. abcurtis put it quite well on a previous page. God’s justice and mercy meet at the cross.
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Comments like these are scary. People like you believe that if someone doesn’t believe in God (or in some cases subscribe to a specific rule set) they are somehow self-centered, self-absorbed and have no cares whatsoever about fellow humans. What you fail to see is that so many athiests and those who question whether your God (or any) exist do so because they are not buying into an edited version of history perpetuated on an ignorant society thousands of years ago by a handful of people with a great PR machine.
Think of it this way — except for absolute die-hard Cowboys fans, the Dallas Cowboys have been considered “America’s Team” for well over 30 years. Had the other successful team of the decade, the Pittsburgh Steelers drafted “Captain America,” Roger Staubach and he played for them and some PR genius in Pittsburgh gave them the label, “America’s Team,” we would all believe that the Pittsburgh Steelers are America’s Team because it has been reenforced for 30 years.
grdred944 on December 3, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I can’t compete with wit like that.
LimeyGeek on December 3, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Sorry buddy unselfish love does NOT jibe with survival of the fittest.
The only thing that governs your morality, behaviour and relations with other humans is this: “can I get away with this in today’s society?
Take away society and you anti-theists will be out there robbing,raping and killing off your rival sperm donors.
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 11:40 AM
By the President of the United States of America [Geo. Washington], a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor–and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be–That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions–to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
~~~
What a dope, right?
Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Nor should you try.
Had they actually done that or something else that wasn’t so openly malicious, there’s be no issue here.
This is my favorite season of the year, and most of it has nothing to do with the birth of Christ, to be perfectly honest. I’m a Christian and take my faith seriously, but Christmas is largely commercialized.
I just love the trees, the lights (one of my favorite parts, actually) and all the wrapped presents, and even the idea of giving to everyone something special for each. It’s like it’s everyone’s birthday. We should all be sowing love and unity at this time, not division.
I know that sounds sappy, but I really love this time. It’s our nation’s biggest and longest celebration, as it usually lasts most of the month.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I am SO completely enjoying your input in this thread/discussion Philwynk. Your reasoned and logical replies to Good LT have been masterfull in their construction.
Bravo!
44Magnum on December 3, 2008 at 11:47 AM
It’s not part of the DSS, it’s a section of St. John. If this is what I was thinking of, it’s not as old as I thought.
Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM
No you need the morals of Christian institution and that Man was created in God’s image to do that, at least so far as the benefits of the western world is concerned.
Speakup on December 3, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I am waiting for these atheists to set up one of these debunking placards outside a mosque anywhere in the United States…just one…with a TV camera crew standing by for the appreciative Moslems to react. Christianity is fair game. Islam apparently is not. Both are monotheistic religions, both share a good portion of the Old Testament, shared Prophets and the like. If atheists wished to actually take a stand, a stand with consequences, instead of going after soft targets…well…go for it.
So…when we going to see such a display inside/outside the Islamic Center of Washington, DC?
coldwarrior on December 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM
skydaddy on December 3, 2008
Off topic…just curious, what is the origin of your moniker?
SKYFOX on December 3, 2008 at 12:00 PM
44Magnum on December 3, 2008 at 11:47 AM
That’s funny.
I find his personal insults directed at me juvenile and representative of the lack of substance and evidecne he actualy used to support his argument, his assertion that Aristotle proved the existence of God laughable and patently false, his claim that HE proved the existence of God as equally hilarious and false, his faux-psychoanalysis of me as some kind of cretin with “arrested emotional development” “playground bully” inaccurate and desperate, and the suggestion that I’m “playing a game” when asking him to provide everyone here who isn’t a devout Christian with evidence proving definitively and objectively that his belief in superstition is well-founded.
In short, his “proof” leaves me and other objective observers wanting. Notice where the namecalling, personal insults and other general nastiness are coming from. It ain’t the atheists.
Carry on!
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 11:46 AM
It’s the most wonderful 3 months of year, for sure.
There’s not much defensible about the plaque, as much as I want there to be. The best I can say is that it’s one little plaque in a very big country. And it’s not just atheists politicizing Christmas. Somebody went through an awful lot of trouble to put a manger in the capitol building.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Now now Lt, your hypersensitivity is showing. Philwynk wasn’t “calling” you names. He was classifying your lack of disciplined responses by using imagery. I’m sorry if you failed to comprehend that, but Phil’s responses have all been without malice. You on the other hand still haven’t answered his questions he put to you.
May I ask why?
44Magnum on December 3, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I also notice that no one has taken up a position against my initial response to AP’s exit question very early in this thread.
44Magnum on December 3, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Please elaborate with certainty.
Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I wouldn’t say a lot of trouble. They generally only have four or five parts. The baby, which is usually the baby glued into the manger, so they’re one part, Mary, often Joseph, and sometimes the stable behind them, and/or shepherds, wise men and angels (some can get very elaborate and even include farm animals).
It’s because there is such an overt Christian (and Jewish I might add) setting there, that I find any atheist addition to be relevant at all.
And there’s nothing wrong with having them all there in my view. I think we should celebrate in every way we celebrate rather than excluding anything. And if that means atheists will insult everyone else, so be it. I just think it’s unnecessary for them to do so and would rather they join in the happiness of this season in their own way instead.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 12:47 PM
What’s baby Jesus doing at city hall? This whole thing is like the Gulf of Tonkin for the War on Christmas. My heart’s not really into defending the Olympia Atheist Association and Bridge Club (or whoever), so I’m just going to leave it at that.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Why just focus on Jesus? The menorah is there as well.
Honestly, I don’t see why not. We shouldn’t be picking out any one belief, but that doesn’t we can’t pick them all. I really don’t understand the problem with inclusion.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I do not believe Christians are any better than anyone else. As a whole, Christians are honest about our spiritual condition and recognize our need for a savior.
See yourself in there? I do. People go to hell for who they are, not because they don’t “accept our beliefs”
jman on December 3, 2008 at 1:55 PM
True the atheists that spend their time trying to convince you that “god” does exist are much more profitable.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 2:01 PM
For the believer in God the eternal consequences to the unbeliever are far greater to the unbeliever then vice versa.
Not believing in anything bears no eternal consequences if there really is nothing is there. Conversely, if the Christian God is real, then so is his message.
jman on December 3, 2008 at 2:13 PM
@skyfox: I’m a certificated airplane nut, private pilot and alleged homebuilder, and I’ve got several kids, hence skydaddy. The double-entendre reference to Our Heavenly Father was unintentional, but not unwelome. :-)
jman – that’s Pascal’s Wager you quoted.
If God is not real, but you live as though He is, You gain nothing.
If God is not real, and you live as though He is not real, You lose nothing.
If God is real, and you live as though He is, You gain everything.
If God is real, but you live as though He is not real, You lose everything.
Or as a buddy of mine put it years ago, “Sure they’re crazy. But what if they’re right?” :-)
See, folks, the issue is NOT that “we think you’re gonna burn in Hell for not believing what we believe.” It’s that WE ALL are in the same Hell-bound handbasket. The only difference between us is that we know where the exit sign is, and we’re trying to tell the rest of you.
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 2:51 PM
.First of all, being insolent, arrogant and boastul do not warrant DEATH. Neither does envy, gossip, or hating God. Murder? Sure, but Hammurabi and others had that one figured out long before it was written in Romans.
Second, you left out the first part of that Romans verse, which likens homosexuality to behaviors “deserving of death:”
Nice, huh?
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Why does an unbeliever deserve death and eternal torment? How is that “moral?”
Sounds like a threat rather than a blessing. Compulsory love, as it were.
You’re given the choice of BELIEVE OR ELSE. That’s a threat, not a choice.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 3:00 PM
That’s not possible. One cannot be dead and receive ETERNAL torment.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM
it’s not that they “deserve death” because of their actions..
it’s that christ is LIFE and without Him there is no life, only death.
It is the sin and pride that separates one from Him.
Jesus Christ
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Good Lt, Esthier…
ALL OF US are deserving of eternal separation from God. “Like sheep, we ALL have gone astray, each to hsi own path.” NONE of us deserve to be in God’s presence, because NONE of us is perfectly holy.
It’s not that God is mean or vengeful, it’s just that He is holy. We unholy, rebellious sinners – that’s ALL of us – can no more be in God’s presence than an ice cube can get anywhere close to the sun. God’s very nature obliterates unholiness, and that means us.
But since God is also perfectly merciful, he provided a way out – Jesus. As he hung on the cross, “He who knew no sin became sin for our sake” – Jesus took on himself the separation from God that we could not endure. The perfectly obedient Son who “was with God in the beginning,” who called the Creator of the Universe “Abba” (which is like “Papa” or “Daddy”), saw His Father turn away in disgust. Jesus then cried out in a quotation from Ps 22 (a powerful preview of the Suffering Servant): “My God, why have you forsaken me?”
And then he said, “It is finished,” and died. At that moment, the debt that we owed was marked “paid in full.”
“He was pierced for our transgressions, On him was laid the iniquity of us all; by his wounds we are healed.”
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Honestly, the way I see it is this:
Humans gravitate towards sin as a part of their nature and because of this, they don’t want to be in God’s presence, as doing so and sinning become uncomfortable.
So, on Earth we have a choice. We can either continue living without God, or we can decide to live with God.
Those who decide to live without God, are granted that wish and are sent to the only place where God is not. The pain felt in hell is simply what people feel when they are completely separated from God. It’s not punishment. It just is.
The pleasure in heaven is likewise derived entirely from God.
It is a choice, and it’s the only real choice people have ever been given.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Sin is not so much a “stain on the soul” but an urgent mistake that needs to be corrected.
Literal definition of sin = missed the mark
One cannot fully align with the Divine Uncreated Energies of God if one is pursuing selfishnesss, pride and other sins.
Sin is the misuse of one’s energies.
It leads to death.
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 3:34 PM
No, they do not warrant death, they cause it – spiritual death.
jman on December 3, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I agree. The prophets who were given glimpses of Eternity simply used the language available to them to describe the indescribable. Gehenna, literally the Hinnom Valley, which was Jerusalm city dump. Not a nice place to be.
Remember Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man? “Can’t you send me back to warn my brother?” the rich man in Hell said to Lazarus, in Heaven. Lazarus replied, “If he doesn’t believe Moses and the prophets, he won’t believe even if a man comes back from the grave.”
How sadly true that is, even today.
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 3:44 PM
What is your point? I left this out because they are no worse then the rest of us. We are all in the same boat.
jman on December 3, 2008 at 3:47 PM
<blockquote>
Sounds like a threat rather than a blessing. Compulsory love, as it were.
You’re given the choice of BELIEVE OR ELSE. That’s a threat, not a choice.
We were ALL headed for death. It is more accurate to say BELIEVE and LIVE.
IF you are drowning and someone throws you a lifesaver and shouts, “take it or you will die!” – surely you would not reply with “are you threatening me?’”
jman on December 3, 2008 at 4:04 PM
That assumes that the drowning person believes in water. ;-p
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 4:08 PM
And the thing is, no matter how sincerely they believe the water does not exist they will still drown!
jman on December 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I responded to your post LT. It hasn’t gone through yet though. Let’s see if it does.
apacalyps on December 3, 2008 at 5:26 PM
No. I’m not agitated that atheists don’t accept my system of beliefs. They can believe whatever they want. Believe whatever you want! Just don’t infringe on my rights. Don’t lie to get your way. Atheists refuse to accept America’s Christian heritage. They are an embarrassment to the Founders of this great nation. Atheist slogan: “Atheism and Christianity don’t mix, so Christianity has to go.” Yeah, that is pathetic. Yeah, they are taking away Christian rights. Yeah, that is destroying what Christians built. Yeah, that is ruining the nation.
apacalyps on December 3, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Truth is, atheists are at war with God and with Christianity and it’s time Christians starting defending themselves for a change instead of allowing these people to walk all over them. Christians started nodding off in 1859. It’s time to wake up, folks!
apacalyps on December 3, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Yeah, that’s the fragment right2bright pointed out for me. It’s around 130 AD, and it’s definitely New Testament. It’s plenty old enough; as right2 pointed out, for a written document like that composed in Palestine to make it to a library in Egypt by 130 AD suggests that it must have been written at the latest by around 90 AD, which shoots down all the really late dates for John’s gospel.
Some Christian apologists I know seem to think that a set of Greek-character fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls may be fragments from Mark’s gospel, which would put a written copy of one of the gospels in the mid-50s. Now, that would be a major coup, indeed. Problem is, all the fragments in the set fit neatly onto a single page of a scroll from 2nd Esdras, so they’re probably not from Mark’s gospel after all. Darn.
The late dates are bunk, anyhow. The main reason critics like to put the gospels so late is that the fall of Jerusalem is predicted by Jesus in the Synoptics. I understand the impulse to say “That means they had to have been written after the fall of Jerusalem,” but that presupposes there’s no such thing as prophecy. That’s a perfectly reasonable assumption if you’re reading Suetonius or Pliny the Younger, but to assume that about Jesus of Nazareth is circular; after all, part of what we’re trying to determine by scholarship is whether he really was a prophet, or not.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Truth is, atheists are at war with
God and with Christianity…Prejudice.Speakup on December 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Contrary to your presumption that Easter must be the wrong translation, please read the context of the passage. Israel of the time was occupied by the Romans who celebrated Easter, even though the Jews celebrated Passover. They typically occur fairly close together.
It’s not immediately apparent from the context whether Herod was waiting until after Easter or after the passover. In fact, he could very well have been waiting for both to pass. The presumption that Easter must be a bad translation is questionable.
As for the whole dispute about “whale” and “fish,” you’re presuming a semantic precision that the ancient world did not share. In the ancient world, a whale was considered a fish. And why not? Both swim, both live in the ocean, both are superficially the same.
The distinction between whale and fish because the whale is actually a mammal would not have existed prior to the development of modern biology. It’s a mistake to think the earlier usage was wrong simply because the modern usage has changed.
BTW, “older” manuscripts are not necessarily “more accurate” manuscripts. There are no original manuscripts left. The oldest ones available are still copies of even older ones. Just because one manuscript is older than another manuscript does not necessarily mean it is a better copy. It may well be that the older manuscript is different because those who were making new manuscripts didn’t consider it to be an accurate copy.
theregoestheneighborhood on December 4, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3