Piers Morgan: Hey, let’s amend the Bible

posted at 9:01 am on December 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

And not just the Bible, but Piers Morgan wants to amend the Constitution, too. It’s a darn good thing that the CNN host needed work badly enough to emigrate to a place that he finds so disagreeable.  What did we ever do without him?

I have no issue with the concept of amending the Constitution — and neither did the founders, who accepted that it might prove flawed for later use.  That’s why they included the mechanisms for amending the foundational document of American law within it, mechanisms that have been used 17 times since the original passage of the Constitution.  We have even had one amendment repeal another (the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th).  If Morgan wants to press for an amendment repealing the Second Amendment in whole or in part, he just needs to convince two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass it, and then get three-quarters of the states to ratify it. Have fun storming the castle!

His insistence on amending the Bible amuses more than it shocks, because it’s impossible to take Morgan seriously.  He’s needling Rick Warren, nothing more, and attempting to provoke him into a heated exchange. Warren is simply smarter than Morgan, and takes a pass.

If Morgan was serious, then it’s still less offensive than humorous, but the joke is on Morgan.  If you believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God, then you know that it’s absurd to suggest that it be “amended” based on the latest human fashion, which is what Warren explains.  God is, after all, unchangeable — or He wouldn’t be God at all. It would be equally absurd to think that anyone would base their faith on the amended product, a Gospel According To Piers, if you will, unless people decided that Piers is either God Himself or a new prophet, in which case he’d probably have a better gig.

And if you don’t think that the Bible is the unerring word of God … why would you care what’s in it at all?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 8 9 10 11

901

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 11:29 PM

You guys are taking this awfully personally. I didn’t stop believing in god because “he didn’t answer my prayers”. I stopped believing in god because the belief is irrational. I was given my religion by my parents. I dismissed it when I reached an age to know better. Attack me all you want but it doesn’t get you any closer to proving there is any validity to your belief in fairy tales. If it makes you feel more secure about why you choose to believe in nonsense perhaps it serves a purpose.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Even if you could establish that bacteria become new species due to antibiotic resistance, you have absolutely no way to establish a transition between single celled organisms and multi-celled organisms, which is a gigantic hole in evolutionary theory and an epic fail in explaining how life “evolved” on earth.

JannyMae on December 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Exactly. One of the many gaping holes in Darwinian evolution is that single-celled organisms have no incentive to ‘stick together’ (literally) and then specialize in certain tasks. Or even work as a single cohesive entity, for that matter.

I have yet to see or hear ANYONE even so much as address why or how two single-celled bacterium would do this.

MelonCollie on December 27, 2012 at 11:34 PM

This is why I love about Hinduism. You find your own Hinduism, as most people find their own Christianity. Hinduism is upfront about it.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM

You love that Hindus value their subjective experiences more than they do concerning themselves with objective reality, and consider such a mindset to be deserving of respect?

Let me tell you, it’s not surprising that you aren’t a Christian – Christians who operate in the manner you are praising Hindus for would consider themselves to be immature Christians, if they were to be intellectually honesty about Christianity’s actual teachings.

Anti-Control on December 27, 2012 at 11:49 PM

And if you don’t think that the Bible Koran is the unerring word of God … why would you care what’s in it at all?

Now can you see it?

Dan_Yul on December 27, 2012 at 11:50 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 11:33 PM

I became a Christian the summer after the Kent State riots. I’d been a Christian less than two months before I encountered a Marxist on campus slamming my beliefs. Also at that time our sophomore year humanities opened up with studying the Bible from the perspective of scoffers. I wrote a paper disagreeing with the professor—he gave me an A.

In one education course we were assigned writing ‘self-reflective’ essays, and I spent time in every single one explaining my Christian beliefs–the whats and the whys. I think I made an A in that course. I had no guarantee as to what my grades would be because I disagreed with my instructors. For another education course a few years later, our text was Roles Women Play: Readings in Women’s Liberation. As you might guess I disagreed with almost everything the instructor taught, but we enjoyed discussion. She told me I was one of the few people in class who was actually thinking. College in the 60s and 70s was not a walk in the park–it was a tough proving ground for Christians.

I’m telling you this so that you will know that some of us have had our faith tried and tested in many ways. Those years were only the beginning for me.

You’re welcome to read what I wrote on Apologetics—my reasons for my Christian beliefs, and how I became a Christian while I was in college at My Witness. This past August I wrote Jesus Christ and the Word of God. It’s my specific apologetic for the Bible—my reasons for believing it is the one and only Word of God.

INC on December 27, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Pic of the Day: Count Me In!

M2RB: AC/DC live at Circus Krone, Munich, 2003

(with a extra two-fer of Angus from River Plate, Buenos Aires: Highway to Hell and For Those About To Rock)

Resist We Much on December 28, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Bacteria doesn’t become a new species when it develops antibiotic resistance, and antibiotic resistance is not the result of a a mutation. It’s the result of a gene that was already present in the bacteria, and it’s also nothing new.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110831155334.htm

JannyMae on December 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM

JannyMae, I read the article and I do not think it is saying what you think it is saying. In order to develop any resistance to antibiotics, the bacterial gene must mutate and change the DNA sequence that makes up the gene. The article you cite says that antibiotic resistance is not just a product of lab research, but also occurs in nature. The evidence for this was taken from bacterial DNA extracted from 30,000 year old permafrost. It does not say that mutations do not occur.

I don’t know anything about speciation within bacteria, so I am not touching that.

HeIsSailing on December 28, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Even if you could establish that bacteria become new species due to antibiotic resistance, you have absolutely no way to establish a transition between single celled organisms and multi-celled organisms, which is a gigantic hole in evolutionary theory and an epic fail in explaining how life “evolved” on earth.

JannyMae on December 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Exactly. One of the many gaping holes in Darwinian evolution is that single-celled organisms have no incentive to ‘stick together’ (literally) and then specialize in certain tasks. Or even work as a single cohesive entity, for that matter.

I have yet to see or hear ANYONE even so much as address why or how two single-celled bacterium would do this.

MelonCollie on December 27, 2012 at 11:34 PM

I do not understand. Why would they have to?

HeIsSailing on December 28, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Well I was going to comment on the video clip, but I see the discussion has drifted.. anyway, what does he mean by ‘ammend’? By who’s authority? Is he just teasing Rick Warren or is he serious?

HeIsSailing on December 27, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Ed M. said,

His insistence on amending the Bible amuses more than it shocks, because it’s impossible to take Morgan seriously. He’s needling Rick Warren, nothing more, and attempting to provoke him into a heated exchange. Warren is simply smarter than Morgan, and takes a pass.

I disagree with Ed’s take.

I thought Piers was being was being serious – even though I disagreed with his opinion, he presented it in a way I found to be non-needling and non-offensive. Piers’ view of the Bible, like that of the Constitution, seems to be that it’s document that only reflects the morality and the level knowledge of the times when it was written, which is why he believes it can and should be amended now.

Anti-Control on December 28, 2012 at 12:38 AM

I thought Piers was being was being serious – even though I disagreed with his opinion, he presented it in a way I found to be non-needling and non-offensive. Piers’ view of the Bible, like that of the Constitution, seems to be that it’s document that only reflects the morality and the level knowledge of the times when it was written, which is why he believes it can and should be amended now.

Anti-Control on December 28, 2012 at 12:38 AM

That is the impression I got. I do not think he was needling either, just having a bit of fun. Just an impression I get though. I have never seen Piers (never even heard of him actually – I do now own a TV ) and know absolutely nothing about him.

HeIsSailing on December 28, 2012 at 12:44 AM

do NOT own a TV. Sorry.

HeIsSailing on December 28, 2012 at 12:44 AM

do NOT own a TV. Sorry.

HeIsSailing on December 28, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Smart man!

tom daschle concerned on December 28, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Why should anyone care about the opinion of a Narcissistic idiot who thinks he’s smarter than all of our founding fathers and even God???

Piers Morgan’s infinite lack of Hubris only solidifies his position as one of the most shallow and unnecessary humans ever born.

landlines on December 28, 2012 at 1:38 AM

You guys are taking this awfully personally. I didn’t stop believing in god because “he didn’t answer my prayers”. I stopped believing in god because the belief is irrational. I was given my religion by my parents. I dismissed it when I reached an age to know better. Attack me all you want but it doesn’t get you any closer to proving there is any validity to your belief in fairy tales. If it makes you feel more secure about why you choose to believe in nonsense perhaps it serves a purpose.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 11:33 PM

I am a Christian who doesn’t feel like attacking you much, not beyond saying that you are a person who’s self-centered, full of yourself and your opinions, and who struggles with differentiating between these opinions and facts.

Just a few hours before I came to this thread tonight, a Christian friend of mine IMed me with some anti-religious commentary which had come from a conversation she had just had with someone who sounds almost identical to you. What I see you and her friend having in common is an immature need which leads you to expect/demand that religious people prove their spiritual experiences to you, as though their veracity is dependent on you.

What I said to her about her friend applies to you as well: I can’t take these people, who have emotionally-based axes to grind regarding religion and are in denial about their own pomposity, seriously, as I have no good reason to. I told her I am just as interested in trying to prove to them that my religious faith has a basis in objective reality as I am in trying to prove to closeminded leftists that they have an inferior understanding of good economics compared to people on the Right – why should those who are thoughtfully religious waste their time on these unserious malcontents?

Anti-Control on December 28, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Two Media fruitcakes.

We better start standing up for God…and no, Rick…it is NOT Allah you ignorant fraud.

deedtrader on December 28, 2012 at 2:02 AM

davidk says about Hinduism:

It is a hodgepodge of polytheism, pantheism, and self-theism.

They view life as cyclical which precludes a beginning.

It is fraught with eastern mysticism, which is goes against the philosophical understanding to which my line thinking leads.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

thuja says:

You are mostly wrong about Hinduism, but it’s worse than just being wrong. Besides being wrong, it is condescending to contrast Hinduism as mysticism with Christianity as leading to philosophy.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM

yet, thuja also says:

This is why I love about Hinduism. You find your own Hinduism, as most people find their own Christianity. Hinduism is upfront about it.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM

to this:

Hinduism is not a single religion. It has immense variation. There are polytheistic versions, pantheistic versions, atheistic versions, and combinations of the above. The diversity in Hinduism makes Judaism, Christianity and Islam look like sects of the same religion.

HeIsSailing on December 27, 2012 at 9:41 PM

So, thuja, how is davidk “mostly wrong” about Hinduism for describing it as “hodgepodge”, a point about which you agree with HeIsSailing, and “fraught with eastern mysticism”?

I say, you are confused, thuja.

Anti-Control on December 28, 2012 at 2:05 AM

What would Piers know about the Bible? I guarantee that he, like 99% of the others who criticize it, have never read it.

tommyboy on December 28, 2012 at 4:23 AM

You guys are taking this awfully personally. I didn’t stop believing in god because “he didn’t answer my prayers”. I stopped believing in god because the belief is irrational. I was given my religion by my parents. I dismissed it when I reached an age to know better. Attack me all you want but it doesn’t get you any closer to proving there is any validity to your belief in fairy tales. If it makes you feel more secure about why you choose to believe in nonsense perhaps it serves a purpose.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 11:33 PM

What you, in your ignorant pomposity, fail to understand, is that Christianity is a personal relationship with Christ.

Yeah, we take it personally. You didn’t…and, that’s why you are still running away from God.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 6:47 AM

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?”

tommyboy on December 28, 2012 at 6:56 AM

To the original point about amending the bible. Amending a fictional work like the bible is impossible since its unknown authors are not around to give their consent. And even if they were they’d have to worry about the plagiarism suits from the authors of the pre-existing myths whose origins are mostly Egyptian and Babylonian that predate the Pentateuch by many centuries.

Annar on December 28, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Annar on December 28, 2012 at 7:51 AM

It’s always good to hear the opinion of others.

hawkdriver on December 28, 2012 at 7:57 AM

It’s always good to hear the opinion of others.

hawkdriver on December 28, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Yet frequently unpleasant.

Axe on December 28, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Annar on December 28, 2012 at 7:51 AM

78% of Americans would disagree with you, concerning your claim of “fiction”.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Is this stupid thread hijacked still going? I thought the HA folks were smarter than that. Oh Well. Anything to get hits. Ed. Why don’t you just establish a religious discussion (if you can call this a discussion) of the week, so the rest of us can discuss the politics, science, and social happenings without being attacked by the religious nuts. Or better than that, invite the Anchoress in to referee a thread.

Oh well, you got another post out of me.

Old Country Boy on December 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM

What you, in your ignorant pomposity, fail to understand, is that Christianity is a personal relationship with Christ.

Yeah, we take it personally. You didn’t…and, that’s why you are still running away from God.

There is no “personal relationship”. As a former practitioner, all there is a bunch of talking to yourself and thinking that the things that happen in your life is a result of divine intervention. Good or bad. It’s a completely one-sided relationship. That’s why Christians need constant affirmation. I stopped talking to myself and my life hasn’t gotten any worse as a result. If anything my Sundays have also been freed up to enjoy the important things in life like football and beer.

If I really believed in your ghost god, it would be completely “futile” for me to “run away” from him. There’s nothing to run away from because he doesn’t exist. Perhaps one day, you’ll figure this out too. It’s hard though when you’ve been brainwashed since childhood to believe the guy will punish you for challenging whether he actually exists or not. Most of you don’t stand a chance. Continue to be the good “sheep” that you are. But don’t go accusing me of being something I’m not.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 9:01 AM

78% of Americans would disagree with you, concerning your claim of “fiction”.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Why even care what those pontificating scoffers say? They are interchangable with their rhetoric and completely unconcerned that they treat their unproven/unprovable opinions as gospel while condescendingly criticizing others’ beliefs i.e. they are foolish, arrogant, uncreative, and uninteresting.

Anti-Control on December 28, 2012 at 9:10 AM

There is no “personal relationship”.
mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Says you.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Evolution, if it ever did exist is dead.

If evolution was so great.. then why does it have to take a freaking million years for something to evolve? Why can’t it take a year, a month or even a day? Why?

If evolution was so freaking great, then why don’t we have armor for skin? Man has only killed each other since the beginning of time.. but here we are.. these fragile creatures who still aren’t even protected from the cold, let alone stones, arrows or bullets? Why is that? Oh I know.. we expect too much from evolution, I guess.

Tell me.. why didn’t evolution even evolve us so we no longer need food? People have only been starving since the beginning of time.. why hasn’t evolution solved that problem yet? Why? There I go again.. expecting evolution to care about people starving. But yet.. that’s what I’m told. We’re all evolving into these super perfect beings… we just need more freaking time for it all to work itself out. Sure we do. We’ll all have killed each other before evolution gets around to fixing the problem. Evolution is dead. It doesn’t work! It doesn’t exist! It isn’t real!

Put two house plants on a window in your home. Let evolution water and care for the one and you water and care for the other one. We’ll see which one is still alive after a year. If that doesn’t prove evolution is dead I don’t know what does.

JellyToast on December 28, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Anti-Control on December 28, 2012 at 9:10 AM

His pompous ignorance2 succeded in getting on my nerves.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 9:14 AM

78% of Americans would disagree with you, concerning your claim of “fiction”.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Argumentum ad populum ad nauseam!

Foxhound on December 28, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Argumentum ad populum ad nauseam!

Foxhound on December 28, 2012 at 9:26 AM

cranium en rectum.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 9:27 AM

How about he and Michael Moore both got to the local eatery and just get served a huge bowl of lard or better yet THIS

johnnyU on December 28, 2012 at 9:32 AM

His pompous ignorance2 succeded in getting on my nerves.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 9:14 AM

I respect you for being honest about it.

They’re just so repetitive, boring, and useless. Look at mazer9′s post @9:01 for an example of this – it’s like listening to the unintentional comedian Harry Reid projectively complain about Boehner being an unproductive dictator. To whom, other than themselves, do such self-serving posts even appeal? One thing we know – people like mazer9 have never thought to ask themselves that question! :)

Anti-Control on December 28, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Says you.

And schizophrenics have “personal relationships” with the voices in their head too.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

And schizophrenics have “personal relationships” with the voices in their head too.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

No they don’t.

Schizophrenics seem to have consciousnesses that are “defocused” such that memories and fictions created by their imaginations are all present in their perceptions at the same time. It’s poorly understood (probably because the umbrella is still too broad), but it isn’t dissociative identity disorder. And people suffering from dissociative identity disorder don’t have “personal relationships” with voices in their heads either.

During prayer, even taken as a dialog, God is not a voice in anyone’s head to begin with.

Belief in God isn’t psychological dysfunction, whether God exists or not.

Axe on December 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Who wouldn’t want to believe we live on in a fairy tale land after we are dead?…Atheism makes no such promises…” — mazer9

Atheism promises that there is nothing after death — certainly no punishment for one’s sins. None of us has seen what, if anything, awaits us; however, Jesus’ resurrection from the tomb, followed by the astounding transformation of His disciples (from confused cowards into fearless proclaimers of the Gospel) is proof enough that there is something after death.

Because I trust Jesus, I believe all that He said about it (and everything else).

You mentioned suffering an eternity of torment — if you die without being redeemed through faith (obedient trust) in Jesus, without grateful acceptance of the debt that He paid on your behalf, you will go into eternity as an unredeemed sinner. That means that your soul will continue to sin throughout eternity, and you will have to be punished for eternity.

No doubt that seems like nonsense to you. It did to me, too, during my atheistic phase. I am so grateful to Jesus that He kept offering His forgiveness to me. I pray that you’ll accept it someday as well.

KyMouse on December 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM

There is no “personal relationship”. As a former practitioner, all there is a bunch of talking to yourself and thinking that the things that happen in your life is a result of divine intervention.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 9:01 AM

.
If you believe “there’s no personal relationship” with God, then any prior attempts by yourself at practicing Christianity were destined to fail from the start. It leaves me wondering about your parents, and the local church they attended.

It starts with a very personal relationship, with the living God. If God is nothing more to you than some “invisible, theoretical cosmic force out there somewhere”, then any attempts on your part at practicing Christianity were “dead rituals”, and nothing more.

listens2glenn on December 28, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Is this stupid thread hijacked still going? I thought the HA folks were smarter than that. Oh Well. Anything to get hits. Ed. Why don’t you just establish a religious discussion (if you can call this a discussion) of the week, so the rest of us can discuss the politics, science, and social happenings without being attacked by the religious nuts. Or better than that, invite the Anchoress in to referee a thread.

Oh well, you got another post out of me.

Old Country Boy on December 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Wow.. You do realize that this thread is about the Bible, right? And that it would have stopped 100s of comments ago, had ANTI-THEISTS not come on here and disparaged the beliefs of religious people.

The thread would have went like this: Piers Morgan is an idiot/Yeah he is.

melle1228 on December 28, 2012 at 11:27 AM

You mentioned suffering an eternity of torment — if you die without being redeemed through faith (obedient trust) in Jesus, without grateful acceptance of the debt that He paid on your behalf, you will go into eternity as an unredeemed sinner. That means that your soul will continue to sin throughout eternity, and you will have to be punished for eternity.

No doubt that seems like nonsense to you. It did to me, too, during my atheistic phase. I am so grateful to Jesus that He kept offering His forgiveness to me. I pray that you’ll accept it someday as well.

KyMouse on December 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Indeed it does seem like a lot of nonsense, doesn’t it?

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Mazer9, you are demonstrating something that I almost always spot among athesits who claim to have been Christians at one time:

You seem not only to disagree with Christian beliefs, but also not to understand what they are. For example, if you really had been a Christian, you would understand what is implied by the metaphor of “sheep”: that each of us wanders through life, following our noses and getting into trouble because we are unaware of, and are helpless to defend ourselves against, the satanic wolf that is always on the prowl. You would understand that we need a Shepherd to protect us, and will even give His life for our sake.

If you really had been a Christian at one time, but now don’t believe in God, you would be sad that there is no Shepherd — you wouldn’t speak scornfully of being called a sheep.

That derisive way of thinking always betrays the true nature of atheists. If you really believed there is no God, I think you would be sad, because you have to believe that life is ultimately pointless, and ends either with violence or illness.

Instead, you are smug and scornful.

That says to me that your rejection of God is about rebellion — and of course, that is exactly what the Bible says.

KyMouse on December 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Indeed it does seem like a lot of nonsense, doesn’t it?

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM

NO, IT DOESN’T.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM

NO, IT DOESN’T.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM

In fact it does.

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM

KyMouse on December 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Leaving your argument as such alone, I just want to ditto your thought about the happiness of being sheep. :)

It touches another idea, too. The idea that all this religiosity is somehow an effort to get to a fairy land after death. I’m all for a great existence later, but I really can’t imagine choosing to navigate this place, here and now, without God. I’ve never had to, and thinking it over now, I wouldn’t want to. It would be like putting my eyes out.

NO, IT DOESN’T.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM

In fact it does.

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM

It doesn’t to KJ.

Axe on December 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Indeed it does seem like a lot of nonsense, doesn’t it? — DarkCurrent, 11:31 a.m.

Thank you for reinforcing my earlier point — as 1 Corinthians 1:18 says,

“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing; but to us who are saved, it is the power of God.”

Of course you don’t understand! You can’t, unless and until the Holy Spirit enables you to. The only way for that to happen is by gratefully accepting Jesus’ payment for your sins, and making Him Lord of your life.

I used to think it was foolishness too, until He convinced me, through His love.

KyMouse on December 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

In fact it does.

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM

That’s your opinion.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

It doesn’t to KJ.

Axe on December 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Point taken. I count KJ as a friend, though we differ in our views on cosmology.

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

That’s your opinion.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

True enough.

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I think we may be getting to the pearls stage in this conversation.

Rose on December 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

You seem not only to disagree with Christian beliefs, but also not to understand what they are. For example, if you really had been a Christian, you would understand what is implied by the metaphor of “sheep”: that each of us wanders through life, following our noses and getting into trouble because we are unaware of, and are helpless to defend ourselves against, the satanic wolf that is always on the prowl. You would understand that we need a Shepherd to protect us, and will even give His life for our sake.

If you really had been a Christian at one time, but now don’t believe in God, you would be sad that there is no Shepherd — you wouldn’t speak scornfully of being called a sheep.

That derisive way of thinking always betrays the true nature of atheists. If you really believed there is no God, I think you would be sad, because you have to believe that life is ultimately pointless, and ends either with violence or illness.

Instead, you are smug and scornful.

That says to me that your rejection of God is about rebellion — and of course, that is exactly what the Bible says.

Believe me, I understand the metaphor. The bible is chock full of them. Much like most literary works. I’m sure you can appreciate the irony of the word “sheep” as well? It is fitting seeing as how sheep blindly lead. They aren’t the brightest animals in existence.

As far as my “sadness” is concerned, it has nothing to do with rather God exists or not. I’d rather accept the cold harsh reality of life and death than to believe in something just because it makes me feel good. Who wouldn’t want to believe that worshiping an invisible god would give you an opportunity at a better life after your life on Earth ends? It’s obviously a more pleasant thought than the actual reality of life and death.

I’m a very analytical person who just could no longer accept the bible as truth as I got older and became less afraid to question it’s teachings. I’m not the only one. You do realize actual ministers have done the same? Do you doubt there sincerity or would you prefer to continue using the No True Scotsman fallacy to minimize our experience as former Christians who took the blindfold off?

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM

You do realize that your belief system is shared by only 8% of this country’s population, don’t you?

Your assumptions are not as widespread as you wish everyone to believe they are.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I think we may be getting to the pearls stage in this conversation.

Rose on December 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Speaking of pearls Rose

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 12:16 PM

You do realize that your belief system is shared by only 8% of this country’s population, don’t you?

Your assumptions are not as widespread as you wish everyone to believe they are.

Just goes to show that there are a lot of sheep out there afraid of death. Not surprising at all.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Just goes to show that there are a lot of sheep out there afraid of death. Not surprising at all.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:19 PM

False assumption. I have nothing to fear. How about you?

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 12:23 PM

False assumption. I have nothing to fear. How about you?

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Neither one of us have nothing to fear. Death is what it is.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Dark Current

I stand by my statement. Christianity does not bow to culture. True Christianity stands by the New Testament. If someone claims to be a Christian but rejects the New Testament, then they need to reevaluate what they believe. My comment related to those Christians specifically.

Rose on December 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Neither one of us have nothing to fear. Death is what it is.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:27 PM

And, that’s why you’ve spent all this thread, tryng to deny the existence of God and attacking Christianity and Christians? Because, you are unconcerned as to Whom we pray to, and you’re unconcerned about facing your own mortality?

Uh huh. My wife…Morgan Farchild. Yeah…that’s the ticket!

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 12:33 PM

And, that’s why you’ve spent all this thread, tryng to deny the existence of God and attacking Christianity and Christians? Because, you are unconcerned as to Whom we pray to, and you’re unconcerned about facing your own mortality?

The burden isn’t on me to prove that god (or anything for that matter doesn’t exist). On the contrary, as a believer in invisible spirits, the burden rest squarely on you to prove you’re not just a weirdo. All you have is the “personal relationship” in your head and your “faith”. You have just as much “evidence” for your god as does any other religion. At the end of the day, most of us are atheist. I just happen not to believe in one more god than you do.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

At the end of the day, most of us are atheist.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Ummm. No. Math is difficult for you, isn’t it?

Per the info from Gallup, which I posted early in this thread, 92% of americans believe in God. 8% does not equal “most”.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I stand by my statement. Christianity does not bow to culture. True Christianity stands by the New Testament. If someone claims to be a Christian but rejects the New Testament, then they need to reevaluate what they believe. My comment related to those Christians specifically.

Rose on December 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM

What you said was, and I quote, “people who reject Christianity do not believe in sin. They believe their actions should be entirely acceptable.

So you believe Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Taoists, Shintoists, agnostics and atheists, etc., all actually think all their actions should be entirely acceptable?

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM

At the end of the day, most of us are atheist.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Ummm. No. Math is difficult for you, isn’t it?

Per the info from Gallup, which I posted early in this thread, 92% of americans believe in God. 8% does not equal “most”.

Do you believe in Allah? Do you believe in Shiva? Neither do I.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:59 PM

At the end of the day, most of us are atheist.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Ummm. No. Math is difficult for you, isn’t it?

Per the info from Gallup, which I posted early in this thread, 92% of americans believe in God. 8% does not equal “most”.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 12:44 PM

No, you are missing the point mazer is making kingsjester.

When I walk into the ESL classroom that I teach, I am finding myself in the presence of people – mostly immigrants – who in aggregate, worship at least a half dozen different deities. There’s not a single person in the classroom that believes all of those half dozen deities exists. My students pick and choose which deity is “true” and which is false, simply based off of their culture and what their parents taught them.

Thus each person, in some respect, is an ‘atheist’ because she/he rejects at least one or more gods worshiped by another student in the classroom. I take the view that as absurd as a man with four arms is, or as impossible it is that tree spirits exist, the idea that there is a person that resurrected himself from the dead is even more laughable.

ZachV on December 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:59 PM

My faith does not make me an atheist.That is faulty logic. Moonwalk some more, Michael.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Dark Current.

You have taken my comment completely out of context. The subject of that thread was Christians losing favor in today’s culture. Christians were being encouraged to soften their stance on cultural issues such as abortion and gay marriage. My point was that as Christians we accept the New Testament as the foundation for our faith. People who reject Christianity do not see abortion and gay marriage as sins, so softening our stance does nothing to promote what we believe. I was speaking specifically about the cultural issues currently before the country and those people who are against the Christian message. I said nothing about different belief systems. Sin to Christians is committing an act we are told in our doctrine not to commit. The culture does not see these behaviors as sin. Other faiths may see behaviors as inappropriate but I don’t know how many of them have specific lists of what is sin. I wasn’t referring to any other religious belief.

Rose on December 28, 2012 at 1:08 PM

From Merriam-Webster.com:

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

— athe·is·tic or athe·is·ti·cal adjective

— athe·is·ti·cal·ly adverb

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I think we may be getting to the pearls stage in this conversation.

Rose on December 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

You’re wrong – that stage was passed awhile back! :) This is a good thought to keep in mind when debating: if the people you are disagreeing with are confrontational rather than conversational, they aren’t worth the bother.

Who’d argue with that as a standard, except for idiots who are starving for attention? Look around in the thread here – whom I’m referring to are not difficult to spot!

Anti-Control on December 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM

My faith does not make me an atheist.That is faulty logic. Moonwalk some more, Michael.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM

It obviously went completely over your head: my point is that you can easily dismiss any other religion but your own, yet you are so puzzled as to how I can reject them all. I only have to reject one more than you do.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 1:16 PM

My faith does not make me an atheist.That is faulty logic. Moonwalk some more, Michael.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM
It obviously went completely over your head: my point is that you can easily dismiss any other religion but your own, yet you are so puzzled as to how I can reject them all. I only have to reject one more than you do.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 1:16 PM

I should have said “reject Christianity”. Think about how easy it is for you to dismiss the other religions as silly and you’ll understand how easy it is for me to reject yours on the same basis.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 1:19 PM

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 1:16 PM

NO. The meaning of the word “atheist” either went completely over your head or you were trying to adjust that meaning to suit your needs, and justify your belief system.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Do you believe in Allah? Do you believe in Shiva? Neither do I.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:59 PM

You won’t even see the Lord Shiva’s mighty vajra coming down.

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

People who reject Christianity do not see abortion and gay marriage as sins, so softening our stance does nothing to promote what we believe.

I’m a Buddhist and reject Christianity. Abortion I consider murder. We probably strongly agree on this. Gay marriage I couldn’t care less about. We probably disagree on this.

I wasn’t referring to any other religious belief.

Rose on December 28, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Understood now. Thank you for the thoughtful response :)

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Dark Current

I’m sorry my first comment wasn’t more clear.

Rose on December 28, 2012 at 1:55 PM

NO. The meaning of the word “atheist” either went completely over your head or you were trying to adjust that meaning to suit your needs, and justify your belief system.

OK, perhaps “Atheism” is not the right word. My entire point was you reject religions other than your own as nonsense, whereas I reject them all (including yours) as such.

However, atheism in and of itself isn’t much of a “belief system”. Just like not believing in unicorns isn’t much of one. I bet you also subscribe to that “non-belief”? Doesn’t really say much about what you actually believe does it?

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM

In an interview with CNN, Richard Dawkins told Paula Zahn, that Christians,(as opposed to atheists) “just have a different belief system”.

Your turn.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM

You guys are taking this awfully personally. I didn’t stop believing in god because “he didn’t answer my prayers”.

That’s not what you said, but perhaps you were just being a drama queen. You people have a habit of doing that.

Attack me all you want but it doesn’t get you any closer to proving there is any validity to your belief in fairy tales.

Thus far, you have been the one attacking others – denigrating their beliefs and deriding them for believing something you cannot fathom. Now, you want to start whining about being “attacked” – and try to play the victim. You’re not a victim – other than of your own hubris. What you are is an intolerant little prig who needs to accept that not everyone is going to agree with you, not everyone has the same vaunted (and wrong) opinion of your supposed intelligence and not everyonefeels a need to protect your pathetic feelings.

And, no. No one is taking your views “personally”. Your views are your own – no matter how wrong or infantile. You are quite welcome to them. The condition of your eternal soul is a matter that is strictly between you and God. You’ll have to work that out yourself.
What people do, however, take personally are your constant attacks. And you should be aware that – should you have the stones to attack some Christians to their face – you stand a good chance of getting slapped down. Literally. (It’s a foregone conclusion that you wouldn’t have the guts to denigrate any muslims in person.)

Solaratov on December 28, 2012 at 2:44 PM

You guys are taking this awfully personally. I didn’t stop believing in god because “he didn’t answer my prayers”.
That’s not what you said, but perhaps you were just being a drama queen. You people have a habit of doing that.

Attack me all you want but it doesn’t get you any closer to proving there is any validity to your belief in fairy tales.
Thus far, you have been the one attacking others – denigrating their beliefs and deriding them for believing something you cannot fathom. Now, you want to start whining about being “attacked” – and try to play the victim. You’re not a victim – other than of your own hubris. What you are is an intolerant little prig who needs to accept that not everyone is going to agree with you, not everyone has the same vaunted (and wrong) opinion of your supposed intelligence and not everyonefeels a need to protect your pathetic feelings.

And, no. No one is taking your views “personally”. Your views are your own – no matter how wrong or infantile. You are quite welcome to them. The condition of your eternal soul is a matter that is strictly between you and God. You’ll have to work that out yourself.
What people do, however, take personally are your constant attacks. And you should be aware that – should you have the stones to attack some Christians to their face – you stand a good chance of getting slapped down. Literally. (It’s a foregone conclusion that you wouldn’t have the guts to denigrate any muslims in person.)

Solaratov on December 28, 2012 at 2:44 PM

What I wanted to articulate is that when someone tells a Christian they no longer believe in God, they immediately assume that the person either is mad at God for “not answering their prayers” or that the person is “rebelling” against him. They can’t simply accept that the evidence for the Christian God is lacking and that some people who value reason and critical thinking can’t just going living the charade.

You’re right, I’m no “victim”. I’m not “mad” at your god either; you can’t be mad at something you don’t even think exists.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

They can’t simply accept that the evidence for the Christian God is lacking and that some people who value reason and critical thinking can’t just going living the charade.

You’re right, I’m no “victim”. I’m not “mad” at your god either; you can’t be mad at something you don’t even think exists.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Rather, it’s you that can’t accept that He does exist.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Since when does the Absolute Word of God need a defense?

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Rather, it’s you that can’t accept that He does exist.

And so do all the other gods let their adherents tell it…Who to believe!?

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM

There isn’t enough bamboo in the universe to bash you into samsara or nirvana or Amithaba’s arms or whatever the gibberish of the day is.

tom daschle concerned on December 28, 2012 at 3:11 PM

There isn’t enough bamboo in the universe to bash you into samsara or nirvana or Amithaba’s arms or whatever the gibberish of the day is.

tom daschle concerned on December 28, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Heh

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM

What I wanted to articulate is that when someone tells a Christian they no longer believe in God, they (the Christian) immediately assume that the person either is mad at God for “not answering their prayers” or that the person is “rebelling” against him.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

.
Touche, you got me … I believe the existence of God to be so flagarantly, blatantly “self-evident” that it defies denial.

That leaves rebellion (anger at God for not answering prayer, is a non-issue).

listens2glenn on December 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Not so, Grasshopper.

You are making a truth claim. One must be able to offer evidence for his/her claim.

The “default” position is agnosticism. But that should only last until compelling evidence is produced.

I not only have not heard compelling evidence for the non-existence of God/gods, I have not even heard an attempt.

I would love to hear one.

A materialist presupposition is not compelling.

davidk on December 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM

And so do all the other gods let their adherents tell it…Who to believe!?

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM

The one that is correct.

davidk on December 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Rather, it’s you that can’t accept that He does exist.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM

.
And so do all the other gods let their adherents tell it…Who to believe!?

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM

.
The one who’s alive.

The one who is ABSOLUTE:

Light

Life

Love

listens2glenn on December 28, 2012 at 3:48 PM

That leaves rebellion (anger at God for not answering prayer, is a non-issue).

listens2glenn on December 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

All the people who have abandoned their faith that I have encountered are people who have been injured/hurt by someone in their church(es).

Some were hurt by mean people; some by misunderstanding.

They blame God for the actions of others.

davidk on December 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

And so do all the other gods let their adherents tell it…Who to believe!?

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM

.
I should have added “the one who wants a personal relationship with you.”

It would be good if He were willing to have a personal relationship with you, but He’s beyond that.

He wants it bad enough to send Jesus to the cross to regain for mankind the relationship with God, that the “first Adam” lost.

listens2glenn on December 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

listens2glenn on December 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

.
All the people who have abandoned their faith that I have encountered are people who have been injured/hurt by someone in their church(es).

Some were hurt by mean people; some by misunderstanding.

They blame God for the actions of others.

davidk on December 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

.
You’re right.

I probably should have thought of that, but you definitely have more first-hand experience dealing with that, than I.

listens2glenn on December 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

All the people who have abandoned their faith that I have encountered are people who have been injured/hurt by someone in their church(es).

Some were hurt by mean people; some by misunderstanding.

They blame God for the actions of others.

I don’t. I blame a lack of evidence. “Faith” doesn’t cut the mustard.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

The one who’s alive.

The one who is ABSOLUTE:

Light

Life

Love

I go back to:
2 Kings 2:23-24
King James Version (KJV)
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

That ain’t my idea of “love”. “Deranged” maybe.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

You’re stuck on the bears, aren’t you? Did Smokey Bear frighten you as a child?

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

You’re stuck on the bears, aren’t you? Did Smokey Bear frighten you as a child?

God sends 42 “she-bears” to kill some kids for calling a guy “bald head” and you just gloss over it?! The massacre in Connecticut would pale in comparison. Of course it would only if the biblical story was true, but it seems as if you also take it with the same grain of salt that I do. Just another silly biblical story that even a confessed believer can overlook due to the sheer absurdity of it.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

You’re stuck on the bears, aren’t you? Did Smokey Bear frighten you as a child?

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

May Guan Yin, She Who Hears the World, Padmapāni , the Holder of the Lotus, bless you my friend.

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

And may the Devil notice that you’re gone, 6 days after you’re dead.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM

And may the Devil notice that you’re gone, 6 days after you’re dead.

kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I’m counting on you to keep him distracted!

DarkCurrent on December 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

The one who’s alive.

The one who is ABSOLUTE:

Light

Life

Love

listens2glenn on December 28, 2012 at 3:48 PM

hard hearts and a closed Spirit
are blind to it and keep the door closed.
No light
love

bazil9 on December 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Piers’ view of the Bible, like that of the Constitution, seems to be that it’s document that only reflects the morality and the level knowledge of the times when it was written, which is why he believes it can and should be amended now.

Anti-Control on December 28, 2012 at 12:38 AM

That’s where you need to know your audience. It makes sense, with that belief, it can’t possibly make sense to people who believe that the Bible is the literal truth–or even to people who modify that to the degree that the Bible may not be literal truth in every matter, but picking and choosing what to alter ourselves makes any reverence to it unworkable in the end. The endgame would likely be a amended old document.

So it’s not that sensible to appeal to people of a different worldview something that only makes sense in an attenuated worldview.

The Bible doesn’t really bind people to any greater extent than those people who believe it. Meanwhile, the Constitution does–it’s precisely the reason for it, it restricts the actions that people with federal power can take.

The Bible many times says “This is what the Lord says.” If it’s simply a contemporary worldview stated as such, you’ve already gone a distance toward ignoring what it actually says.

No, Piers’ suggestion is very much more insidious, to the extent that it has any effect whatsoever. Why don’t we change what the Bible says, so that people who are compelled by obedience to it must conform to our set of values: Let’s DUPE people.

Let’s keep in mind, or be as bad as Piers, that there is a theory that says that Religion is no more than an attempt to manipulate people. It also suggests that it is bad to do this. Thus a sacred text manipulated from a modern perspective is hardly a better result from all perspectives. However, there are a number of people who feel that it is not simple manipulation, but anything from the absolute truth to an evolving/unfolding understanding in symbols and ritual. Thus accepting the modern manipulating of symbols and text, would actually be a primary act of manipulation, and arguably apart from the standard congress of religious thought.

In other words there are worldviews that say that “Hey, all religion is manipulation, so manipulation toward a modern worldview is really no worse” but it refuses to consider a dialog with the main participants in religion–who often do not feel simply manipulated, so introducing a “further” manipulation only has reality in the opposing worldview.

Representing majoritarian concerns is often a matter of not simply substituting or imposing one worldview on another, but recognizing, distinguishing and navigating worldviews. So we can excuse Piers for saying something that is common to his worldview, but we cannot excuse how this translates into other worldviews. We could excuse more of it by understanding that Piers comes from a naturally chauvinistic (oddly French “Calvinistic”), but I doubt that this is the general understanding.

Axeman on December 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM

God sends 42 “she-bears” to kill some kids for calling a guy “bald head” and you just gloss over it?! The massacre in Connecticut would pale in comparison. Of course it would only if the biblical story was true, but it seems as if you also take it with the same grain of salt that I do. Just another silly biblical story that even a confessed believer can overlook due to the sheer absurdity of it.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Earlier in this thread someone linked to a website that answered your objection.

davidk on December 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11