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  We have even had one amendment repeal another (the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th).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 4 5 6 7 8 11

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Seriously–what is WRONG with you that you condemn individual Christians for feeding the hungry and clothing the naked for centuries, without asking a penny in return?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 3:39 PM

So, you’re smarter than 78% of America’s population, and over 2 billion people worldwide?

Wow.

You think it’s a coincidence that “sheep” is used throughout the bible to describe it’s adherents?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:40 PM

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.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM

The misuse of the power God has given one does not reflect on God Himself.

Or it means that God had such a high regard for the bald-headed prophet that He endorsed the prophets ministry by destroying one of His chosen mouthpieces.

Either way, you are standing in a place of judgement. Based on your comments, you have no foundation for judging anyone.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Seriously–what is WRONG with you that you condemn individual Christians for feeding the hungry and clothing the naked for centuries, without asking a penny in return?

How many people were slaughtered in the name of Christianity in that same time?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Stupid beliefs deserve to be ridiculed. You can call my disbelief in invisible supernatural “spirits” stupid, but you can’t give any rational reason as to why.

That’s the difference.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM

So, you enjoy hurting people for no reason other than that they believe something that you don’t.

That sounds like a pretty liberal/leftist attitude to me.

Are you sure you aren’t a liberal?

‘Cause you sure are an idiot.

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 3:41 PM

You think it’s a coincidence that “sheep” is used throughout the bible to describe it’s adherents?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:40 PM

No.

I guess you are just way smarter than the followers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Josep(But better a sheep than a goat.)

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 3:42 PM

You think it’s a coincidence that “sheep” is used throughout the bible to describe it’s adherents?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Christ spoke in terms that his audience would understand. The responsibility of the shepherd to love and care for his flock, was something that his audience, readily understood.

Evidently, you don’t.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM

The misuse of the power God has given one does not reflect on God Himself.

Or it means that God had such a high regard for the bald-headed prophet that He endorsed the prophets ministry by destroying one of His chosen mouthpieces.

Either way, you are standing in a place of judgement. Based on your comments, you have no foundation for judging anyone.

God gives people the power to call “she-bears” to maul 42 kids in his name and you worship this guy?

What does that say about you exactly?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM

How many people were slaughtered in the name of Christianity in that same time?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:41 PM

That is old nonsense, a cheap fallacious escape.

I asked why YOU have such an issue about it.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Christ spoke in terms that his audience would understand. The responsibility of the shepherd to love and care for his flock, was something that his audience, readily understood.

Evidently, you don’t.

Oh, I understand. It is fitting terminology on his part.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Pro 26
4 When arguing with fools, don’t answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are. 5 When arguing with fools, be sure to answer their foolish arguments, or they will become wise in their own estimation. 6 Trusting a fool to convey a message is as foolish as cutting off one’s feet or drinking poison! 7 In the mouth of a fool, a proverb becomes as limp as a paralyzed leg. 8 Honoring a fool is as foolish as tying a stone to a slingshot. 9 A proverb in a fool’s mouth is as dangerous as a thornbush brandished by a drunkard. 10 An employer who hires a fool or a bystander is like an archer who shoots recklessly. 11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly. 12 There is more hope for fools than for people who think they are wise. 13

tom daschle concerned on December 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Watch reagan’s goldwater speech, and count how many times he brings up abortions and gay marriage and “traditional families”

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Might that be because Roe v Wade wouldn’t occur for almost another decade, and “gay marriage” wouldn’t be a fight for another three decades? You can read lots of Reagan speeches, though, where he speaks out in favor of traditional families and traditional mores. In fact, Reagan was a “socon” by your definition – the difference is that the fight over those social issues (brought on by the socially “progressive”) had not yet become the battlefield it now is.

Traditional morality is founded upon the idea of Natural Law. If you reject that idea, then there is no real basis for most law. You want to base it on “reason”? Take a look around just this thread, and tell me how well that will work out? When most people invoke “reason” as their moral source they really just mean “what I think I should be allowed to do and what I think others should be kept from doing (because I wouldn’t do that in the first place).” If you think a society can be totally founded upon reason, and be democratic in any sense of the word, please go found it and prove me wrong. Because I think it will not only fail, but fail spectacularly. It is the nature of man.

Several sources at our country’s founding pointed out that it would not long survive if the people stopped being a moral people – with a common source for that morality. And, that is being proved true today. Even econocons are really talking about morality when they speak about their property rights, and the consequences of big government. I would dispute the one commenter’s division into neo-cons, socons, and fiscons: those styling themselves as “fiscons” (as separate from the other two) are often merely anti-socons.

GWB on December 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

That is old nonsense, a cheap fallacious escape.

I asked why YOU have such an issue about it.

Yeah, it’s “nonsense”. Just ignore the bad and exalt the good. Explains Christianity to a tee.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:46 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Are you guys working in shifts? Is there some sort of “8% Hotline”?

LOL.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I believe in personal responsibility: if I don’t work, I don’t eat. I don’t believe in an invisible god that provides for me or “blesses” me. I also believe that when I die I’m gone. Consequently, I value life and personal liberty.

It ain’t that hard.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Well it’s a good thing Paul wasn’t around with his computer to respond with this post:

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:10

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM

It is amazing that what morals atheist do have are based an a Judeo-Christian ethic.

If an Absolute Standard does not exist, then each to his own, and any claim to morality is foundationless.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Exodus 34:1
Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Wrong. All 34:1 says it that God told Moses to make another set just like the first one’s that he broke after receiving them the first time. It absolutely does not list your accepted version of the 10 commandments. It’s exodus 34:28 where what is actually written on this stone tablets is laid out, and it’s the ONLY time anything is refered to as “The Ten Commandments”.

It’s also exactly what was on the first broken set, given the scripture in 34:1 that you quoted. But, yep, sure enough, the actual listed ten commandments and the clearly written out verbatim quoting from the stone tablets lay out 10 entirely different rules than what you accept them to be.

Again, what you accept as the ten commandments is actually no such thing, was never refered to as that, and is NOT the same laws written on the actual stone tablets.

Again, feel free to look it up and try again.

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I would dispute the one commenter’s division into neo-cons, socons, and fiscons: those styling themselves as “fiscons” (as separate from the other two) are often merely anti-socons.

GWB on December 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

+1000

I would also add that EVERYONE is a SOCIAL VOTER. Socons do not have the monopoly on voting their social beliefs. Even ficons are social voters; the only change is on where their social beliefs fall.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Mazer9,

Would you consider yourself a materialist? Philosophically speaking, of course.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Yeah, it’s “nonsense”. Just ignore the bad and exalt the good. Explains Christianity to a tee.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Your superiority complex is boring. If you don’t believe, what kind of obsession do you have with those that do. If morals and beliefs our relative; what makes YOURS so much better? Even science is proved wrong throughout the ages when other scientific discoveries discount them.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 3:50 PM

God gives people the power to call “she-bears” to maul 42 kids in his name and you worship this guy?

What does that say about you exactly?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM

It means I don’t know the ways of God. I guess you know better than God.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Are you guys working in shifts? Is there some sort of “8% Hotline”?

LOL.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

yep!
666-SATAN ! give it a call!

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 3:50 PM

That assclown doesn’t follow either one. So he can STFU.

RSbrewer on December 27, 2012 at 3:50 PM

So, you’re saying that atheism is a cult.

I’m saying you would love for it to be so we atheist would look just as much like suckers as you do.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Hardly.

You see, I don’t really care what you believe. Your beliefs are your own and none of my business.

I’m perfectly content for you to be an atheist; and to leave you in peace with your beliefs – no matter how wrong or ridiculous.

You, however, feel a need to actively try to destroy other people’s beliefs simply because they disagree with your own. You are not content to just live and let live. You seek to force others into your belief system – much as muslims do. That sounds more like some sort of big government-loving liberal than any kind of Conservative that I’ve ever heard of.

Not to mention that it fairly reeks of the most base sort of hypocrisy – which liberals practice.

Everything that you’ve written practically screams from the page, “I AM A LIBERAL!!”

…and, an idiot, of course.

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 3:51 PM

yep!
666-SATAN ! give it a call!

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 3:50 PM

No school today, huh?

And, this was the same poster asking for sympathy when he lost power during Hurricane Sandy.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Mazer, do you believe that nothing can exist?

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Yeah, it’s “nonsense”. Just ignore the bad and exalt the good. Explains Christianity to a tee.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:46 PM

You’re the one who has the issue, always arguing.

Christians want more people into God’s Family. You don;t undersatnd that, want it or even grasp it.

Atheists want a personal win. But when another comes to the Lord, God wins. Not us; we neither gain nor desire accolades. Liberals and many atheists always seek a personal ‘win’.

You simply don’t understand us at all–you refuse–you have no idea about which we are about.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 3:53 PM

No school today, huh?

And, this was the same poster asking for sympathy when he lost power during Hurricane Sandy.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Of course he did. Nathor is a “victim.” He thinks he can act like a jackwagon and disparage everyone’s beliefs, and then call on your Christian charity to sympathize with him when he loses power.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Poor mazer9s dictionary doesn’t mention that weird means strange or peculiar. Lol.

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Exactly.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM

You think it’s a coincidence that “sheep” is used throughout the bible to describe it’s adherents?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:40 PM

LOL@U

You really are that stupid, aren’t you? It’s not just an act.

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I’ve not read all of your posts, so you may have addressed this already.

How do you know that what is recorded in the Scriptures is not what was on the tablets? What is on the tablets?

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM

That is old nonsense, a cheap fallacious escape.

I asked why YOU have such an issue about it.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM

.
Yeah, it’s “nonsense”. Just ignore the bad and exalt the good. Explains Christianity to a tee.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:46 PM

.
The well documented misbehavior of Christians over the ceturies is not the reason why you’re being as defiant about acknowledging the existence of God, as you are.

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Isn’t nathor a paulian? That would explain his behaviour.

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Again, what you accept as the ten commandments is actually no such thing, was never refered to as that, and is NOT the same laws written on the actual stone tablets.

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Not sure what your point is. I did not see your reply to my previous comment to you.

Shy Guy on December 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Yep.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Since you keep rejecting us and dismissing us out of hand, why do you keep demanding of us?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM

+1000

I would also add that EVERYONE is a SOCIAL VOTER. Socons do not have the monopoly on voting their social beliefs. Even ficons are social voters; the only change is on where their social beliefs fall.

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Uh, if I voted on social issues, I would have voted for Gary Johnson or Barack Obama.

It is an utterly secondary issue to me, and I find it particularly annoying when “small government!!” types then proceed to grow big government and use federal law and tax code as morality police.

I believe in more liberty in pretty much every instance, but I understand I have to pick and chose my battles, and economic liberty is the most important to me.

Ending drug prohibition, being morality police (DOMA, DADT), the encroaching police state, the PATRIOT act, etc etc, are all secondary issues, but I don’t see how the same people clammering for small government (when they might get bought off by a small tax rate reduction)can turn around and vote for big government when it comes to issues they care about and think the government should DO MORE about

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Would you consider yourself a materialist? Philosophically speaking, of course.

That seems more reasonable to me than Christianity. Although I consider myself as more of a humanist.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM

ceturies = centuries.

( oy . . . . . )

listens2glenn on December 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Again, feel free to look it up and try again.

Genuine on December 27, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Again you take things out of context without referring to what has gone on.

Doing that makes you dishonest – a liar –

and an idiot.

Feel free to try again, princess.

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Would you consider yourself a materialist? Philosophically speaking, of course.

That seems more reasonable to me than Christianity. Although I consider myself as more of a humanist.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM

So you would say nothing can exist beyond the material world?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM

The well documented misbehavior of Christians over the ceturies is not the reason why you’re being as defiant about acknowledging the existence of God, as you are.

Believe me: If I thought there was a chance in hell there was a god I’d be in the priesthood right now.

I’d have no interest whatsoever in suffering an “eternity” in torment for a relatively few short days of defiance on earth.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM

So you would say nothing can exist beyond the material world?

I would say that it is so highly unlikely as not to base my entire worldview on it.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM

So that’s why this thread got so big. mazer9 insisted on presenting his empty arguments here, ad infinitum. Heh.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Believe me: If I thought there was a chance in hell there was a god I’d be in the priesthood right now.

I’d have no interest whatsoever in suffering an “eternity” in torment for a relatively few short days of defiance on earth.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM

~quietly~

All things can be forgiven, if you ask.

No combat, I promise. Just an idea.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 4:07 PM

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM

He’s trying to play word games, david. His goal is to confuse and obfuscate, not to actually argue or inform.

GWB on December 27, 2012 at 4:07 PM

but I don’t see how the same people clammering for small government (when they might get bought off by a small tax rate reduction)can turn around and vote for big government when it comes to issues they care about and think the government should DO MORE about

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Who does that? Marriage by definition is big government, so is the military. DADT were military restrictions with some pretty practical reasons. DOMA is in response to the leftist use of the judiciary and invalidating state votes. Most socons would be quite happy with their local government and local voters deciding these issues. Most of us know that what we want in Tennessee is not what Massachusetts want. That being said whenever a socon gets involved in federal government– it has been to ANSWER liberals taking away their local decisions. So in your world, socons should just shut up and watch their votes being nullified and their communities being forced to change by outside sources. Socons wouldn’t be value or social voters if yall left us alone and let us vote for what we want in our communities. And please no BS linking today’s issues with segregation etc. That example is getting as tiresome as linking things to Nazism..

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Nothing cannot exist. For nothing to exist it cannot have attributes. Saying “Nothing exists” is the same as saying “Nothing has existence.”

We use the word “nothing” colloquially to describe a situation where the ordinary obtains.

So, nothing does not exist.

Therefore something exists.

The most we can say at this point is that “that something that must exist” has existence, must exist, and must have always existed.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I would say that it is so highly unlikely as not to base my entire worldview on it.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM

But you come across about your own uncertainty as to be positive about yourself.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

22044, lol.

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

What’s with this Mazer guy? I’ve got no problem with non-believers, why should they have a problem with me? Why is he so insulting and full of hatred to those that choose to believe in something?

UpTheCreek on December 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Believe me: If I thought there was a chance in hell there was a god I’d be in the priesthood right now.

I’d have no interest whatsoever in suffering an “eternity” in torment for a relatively few short days of defiance on earth.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM

If I didn’t believe in God – surely I’d like to make a god that fits my image.
Like you’ve done here.
Boring.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

All things can be forgiven, if you ask.

No combat, I promise. Just an idea.

I was a Christian before I wasn’t. Been there. Done that.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

So you would say nothing can exist beyond the material world?

I would say that it is so highly unlikely as not to base my entire worldview on it.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Have you ever supposed how that first piece of matter to exist ever came to be?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

If I didn’t believe in God – surely I’d like to make a god that fits my image.
Like you’ve done here.
Boring.

I prefer this image:

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.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I was a Christian before I wasn’t. Been there. Done that.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

And, now, you are trying to defend your futile attempt to walk away from God.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I was a Christian before I wasn’t. Been there. Done that.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

When it comes to God, who missed the mark?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

You want to be a bear that kills 42 people?

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

How many times are you going to repeat the scripture about the Prophet Elisha and the 2 bears?

Prove that it did not happen.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Have you ever supposed how that first piece of matter to exist ever came to be?

Yes. But positing an invisible god doesn’t satisfy as a reasonable answer. If anything it raises even more explicable questions.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

unexplicable…

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Oh, mazer WAS a christian. Ok, lets move on.

tommy71 on December 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I prefer this image:

2 Kings 2:23-24

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Of course you do.

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

unexplicable…

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

That’s “inexplicable”.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Prove that it did not happen.

I really wish it did: it would only further prove how crazy Christians and their god is.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Prove that it did not happen. Cite your sources.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

It is interesting that when Moses asked God who he should say sent him the the Israekite slaves in Egypt, God answered, “Tell them, ‘I AM that I AM’ has sent you.”

Sounds like He is claiming to be “that something which must exist.”

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

That’s “inexplicable”.

I stand corrected.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I stand corrected.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

One day.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

You want to be a bear that kills 42 people children?

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Sounds like a school shooter in the making.

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

unexplicable…

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I promise no combat against you. Can we talk, please? I’m a believer. Can we talk in peace?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

You’re funny. You never post anywhere else on HA but now you think you’re a hot shot laying ad hominem attacks on Christians.

No worries, you will meet the Lord someday, whose existence you deny. What will you say to Him?

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Sounds like a school shooter in the making.

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Oy!

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM

One day.

Yeah, one day when I’m dead and gone and no one is there to witness it one way or the other. Well played Christians, well played.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM

You’re funny. You never post anywhere else on HA but now you think you’re a hot shot laying ad hominem attacks on Christians.

No worries, you will meet the Lord someday, whose existence you deny. What will you say to Him?

I tend to post more on the religious and weed legalization posts because otherwise it’s a big circle jerk. What’s the fun in that?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Have you ever supposed how that first piece of matter to exist ever came to be?

Yes. But positing an invisible god doesn’t satisfy as a reasonable answer. If anything it raises even more explicable questions.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

If not something beyond the natural or physical world then what would the possibilities look like?

I have only two.

1. It created itself.
2. It came from nothingness.

What am I missing?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Yeah, one day when I’m dead and gone and no one is there to witness it one way or the other. Well played Christians, well played.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Whatever it might be worth, no one wants you to die. You’re being cynical, here. Can we talk?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

What’s with this Mazer guy? I’ve got no problem with non-believers, why should they have a problem with me? Why is he so insulting and full of hatred to those that choose to believe in something?

UpTheCreek on December 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Conversion syndrome, it’s when an intolerant fundie becomes an intolerant village atheist and is still just as willfully ignorant as before, with an extra added pinch of hypocrisy in the mix…

Reading an ancient text like yesterday’s newspaper might also have something to do with it.

http://christianthinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

ebrown2 on December 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Socons wouldn’t be value or social voters if yall left us alone and let us vote for what we want in our communities. And please no BS linking today’s issues with segregation etc. That example is getting as tiresome as linking things to Nazism..

melle1228 on December 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Today’s issues are not related to segregation. I don’t doubt the movies or the the honest convictions and beliefs people have. DOMA was clearly unconstitutional and was a disgusting affront to the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution.

yes, judicial activism is a huge problem. And no, we probably don’t disagree on any substantial “social” issues, I’m just sick of arguing about abortion while the fiscal ship is sinking.

I’m also sick of the impulse to run to DC with every problem in our country. Abortion was legal in certain states, illegal in others, before rowe v wade (a great exmaple of judicial activism), which is exactly where it should stay.

That being said, I see just as big of a problem with the federal government mandating drug prohibition, defining marriage (a religious sacrement turned state institution turned federal problem), etc., as I do with the federal government mandating the drinking age at 21, mandating comprehensive healthcare, mandating employers cover the birth control pill with insurance, etc.,

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

The Bible is never to be amended, but new understandings may come to light.

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Whatever it might be worth, no one wants you to die. You’re being cynical, here. Can we talk?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Conversion syndrome, it’s when an intolerant fundie becomes an intolerant village atheist and is still just as willfully ignorant as before, with an extra added pinch of hypocrisy in the mix…

Reading an ancient text like yesterday’s newspaper might also have something to do with it.

http://christianthinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

ebrown2 on December 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

How about everyone just lays off the atheist bashing for a while. Everything there is to say on the issue has been said in the last 6 pages, and the attacks are just getting nasty and personal.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Whatever it might be worth, no one wants you to die. You’re being cynical, here. Can we talk?

I’m not being cynical. That’s Christianity in a nutshell: nothing is evident until after you are already dead. We all witness death. It’s the only constant. You might not want me to die, but it’s inevitable. Outside of Jesus’s “return” there isn’t much to talk about.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Since other things exist other than “that something which must exist,” then “that something which must exist” is the cause of all other things which exist.

“That something which must exist” must be

all-powerful

personable (has personality)

all-knowing

all-loving

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Conversion syndrome, it’s when an intolerant fundie becomes an intolerant village atheist and is still just as willfully ignorant as before, with an extra added pinch of hypocrisy in the mix…

Reading an ancient text like yesterday’s newspaper might also have something to do with it.

http://christianthinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

ebrown2 on December 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

That’s a helpful link, thanks.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I’m one of those non-believers that just doesn’t get the point of antagonizing believers. (And I’m friends with believers who don’t see the point of antagonizing non-believers…pals!)
But isn’t it slightly disingenuous to wholly dismiss Morgan’s point here?
So much of the bible, as it is written, is understandably and sensibly dismissed by many of the faithful. You know, the slaves and disobedient daughters stuff.
I accept that for most who turn to the bible – they are fully capable of finding the essence of the moral lessons, despite the silly bits. They know what is actually was written was written a long long time ago. And by mortals.
Like the Constitution.

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Since other things exist other than “that something which must exist,” then “that something which must exist” is the cause of all other things which exist.

“That something which must exist” must be

all-powerful

personable (has personality)

all-knowing

all-loving

?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Of all the world’s literature only one book describe such a being.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

How about everyone just lays off the atheist bashing for a while. Everything there is to say on the issue has been said in the last 6 pages, and the attacks are just getting nasty and personal.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

After you attacked Christians’ beliefs for 6 pages.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

How about everyone just lays off the atheist bashing for a while. Everything there is to say on the issue has been said in the last 6 pages, and the attacks are just getting nasty and personal.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Shrug, there’s a world of difference between THE MIRACLE OF THEISM by J.L. Mackie and the pathetic garbage spewed by the Dawkins-wannabes of the world. Even atheists like Ayn Rand despised the personality type I’m discussing.

ebrown2 on December 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Cause and effect. That which is in the effect must be in the cause.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:28 PM

You claim you used to be a Christian, but you never heard or studied those attributes of God?

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I’m not being cynical. That’s Christianity in a nutshell: nothing is evident until after you are already dead. We all witness death. It’s the only constant. You might not want me to die, but it’s inevitable. Outside of Jesus’s “return” there isn’t much to talk about.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

But what about you right now? You’re none too happy and, as a Christian reading what a ‘former Christian’ is writing, living is just as important.

Or, so I believe.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

After you attacked Christians’ beliefs for 6 pages.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Sigh. Why is my disagreeing with your religious belief something you take so personally? I never attacked anyone personally, and I never attacked the idea of religion or god. I simply refuted some of the more ridiculous statements some people said, and laid out my argument.

You feel attacked because I disagree with you and don’t believe in your god. It’s not my intention to attack you or your beliefs. I’m just trying to state my position, which seems to offend you simply because I disagree with you. If I’m misreading that, please correct me.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

It means I don’t know the ways of God. I guess you know better than God.

You can’t make any sense of the guys methods, you just know he should be worshiped?

Sounds reasonable.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

That’s a helpful link, thanks.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Yep, Miller’s site is pretty good, overall.

“‘Little children’ is an unfortunate translation. The Hebrew expression neurim qetannim is best rendered ‘young lads’ or ‘young men.’ From numerous examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament, we know that these were boys from twelve to thirty years old. One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15…these are young men ages between twelve and thirty.” [HSOBX]

http://christianthinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

ebrown2 on December 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Of all the world’s literature only one book describe such a being.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Yes, the Holy Upanishads are amazing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Why is it, when you attack our Faith it’s “nothing personal”, but, when we respond in kind, it’s “personal”?

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM

ebrown2 on December 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

That is what I learned, as well.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

How about everyone just lays off the atheist and Christian bashing for a while. Everything there is to say on the issue has been said in the last 6 pages, and the attacks are just getting nasty and personal.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

FIFY. But I agree.

GWB on December 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8 11