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  We have even had one amendment repeal another (the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th).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 5 6 7 8 9 11

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

I cannot believe that any serious Christian would find “silly bits” in the Bible. It’s a serious book meant to be taken as such. And although we understand that mortals did the actual writing of the manuscripts/texts we also believe those words were divinely inspired. Therefore, I disagree with the notion that it could be disingenuous to wholly dismiss Morgan’s point.

For those who have concluded the Bible to be the Truth an exercise might be illustrated as this:

“If you are in contradiction with the Bible one has to conclude that you are wrong; not the Bible.”

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 4:38 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.

Who are you to judge my happiness? You don’t think it’s possible to be happy without professing a belief in invisible spirits?

I know a lot of miserable Christians waiting for their latest prayer or good deed to payoff.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:38 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

Yep, it always helps to track down the actual context of what one reads.

ebrown2 on December 27, 2012 at 4:39 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

Good question. If you were not trying to personally attack me, then I apologize for reading too much in to your previous comments. That said, “attack” is a loaded term.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

That said, “attack” is a loaded term.
Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I would classify it as a descriptive term.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I’m going by only what you have written. I’m not trying to be offensive here.

Deferring to you, I know a lot of miserable Christians, too. I don’t get that, though.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I would classify it as a descriptive term.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Okay, descriptive it is. I don’t consider everyone telling me I cant possibly be a moral person because I don’t believe in god as an attack though… If you believe the bible, I guess you have to believe that all non-believing heathens are destined for hell and eternal damnation or whatnot, which is a perfectly acceptable argument.

((To whoever called me intolerant — see how tolerant I am?!) :):)

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM

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

He’s a victim, don’tcha know?

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM

He’s a victim, don’tcha know?

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Was that personal, or a good, meaningful, addition to the debate?

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I was a Christian before I wasn’t. Been there. Done that. — mazer9

“Other seeds fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil…” — Jesus, in Matthew 13:5

“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God..” — I Corinthians 1:18

KyMouse on December 27, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Was that personal, or a good, meaningful, addition to the debate?

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

A natural reaction to you wishing to cuddle up, after pontificating away on Christians’ beliefs for 6 pages.

Methinks, thou dost protest too much.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

“Other seeds fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil…” — Jesus, in Matthew 13:5

“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God..” — I Corinthians 1:18

Most kids born to religious parents get indoctrinated. I was fortunately able to break the spell. Most don’t stand a chance.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Interesting that he didn’t have the cojones to suggest amending the koran….
Why don’t we give that a try?
Maybe if we “corrected” the koran, the muslims would no longer be such arrogant, blood-thirsty, pains in the @ss.

dentarthurdent on December 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I cannot believe that any serious Christian would find “silly bits” in the Bible. It’s a serious book meant to be taken as such. And although we understand that mortals did the actual writing of the manuscripts/texts we also believe those words were divinely inspired. Therefore, I disagree with the notion that it could be disingenuous to wholly dismiss Morgan’s point.

For those who have concluded the Bible to be the Truth an exercise might be illustrated as this:

“If you are in contradiction with the Bible one has to conclude that you are wrong; not the Bible.”

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Do your consider Deuteronomy to be the word of God, and abide by all it’s teachings and instruction?
Of course you don’t.
That’s all I’m saying.
(If by ‘silly bits’ I offend, I apologize.)

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I know a lot of miserable Christians waiting for their latest prayer or good deed to payoff.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Which is why they’re miserable. They’re doin’ it wrong.

You don’t know “a lot of miserable Christians,” you know a lot of miserable people who don’t understand Christianity. There is a world of difference. (swidt?)

29Victor on December 27, 2012 at 4:53 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

At that point in my argument, I’m not to the point I am describing any god or God. Just a being that must exist, has always existed, is the cause of all else that exists, and has those attributes.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/Stet/butthurtreport.jpg

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Interesting that he didn’t have the cojones to suggest amending the koran….
Why don’t we give that a try?
Maybe if we “corrected” the koran, the muslims would no longer be such arrogant, blood-thirsty, pains in the @ss.

He probably wouldn’t have had the cojones to say that about the Christian bible a couple hundred years ago.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Yes, the Holy Upanishads are amazing!

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

thuja on December 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM

They do not describe such a being.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

You argue all the time with us. But you do not understand us, or even want to.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Most kids born to religious parents get indoctrinated. I was fortunately able to break the spell. Most don’t stand a chance.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Not fully however.

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

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Really? Eventually everyone becomes an adult and has to work out questions about faith, whether they grow up in it or not.

G.K. Chesterton said ““The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried”.

Seems applicable.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Which is why they’re miserable. They’re doin’ it wrong.

You don’t know “a lot of miserable Christians,” you know a lot of miserable people who don’t understand Christianity. There is a world of difference. (swidt?)

The No True Scotsmen fallacy:

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

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

A natural reaction to you wishing to cuddle up, after pontificating away on Christians’ beliefs for 6 pages.

Methinks, thou dost protest too much.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Oh, okay, just checking. So I deserved that. No, I’m trying to be extra tolerant since I’m naturally an intolerant person, apparently, since I don’t believe in your god and your bible.

But if I’m going to get attacked for pontificating anyways… how anyone could be believe that events describe in the bible literally happened as described is beyond me.

So I’m trying to be tolerent of people, most of whom are very nice people, who believe in things that are frankly silly and juvenile. We as a society try to act like we’re so far advanced beyond those heathen muslims and their silly superstitions, but clearly we are not.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

At that point in my argument, I’m not to the point I am describing any god or God. Just a being that must exist, has always existed, is the cause of all else that exists, and has those attributes.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I see, sorry for jumping ahead! It looks like mazer9 has not really examined that argument. I assumed that he had.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

So I’m trying to be tolerent of people, most of whom are very nice people, who believe in things that are frankly silly and juvenile. We as a society try to act like we’re so far advanced beyond those heathen muslims and their silly superstitions, but clearly we are not.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Nice backhand.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I know I’m late to the party, but seriously? Can anyone really be that stupid and myopic?

John the Libertarian on December 27, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Really? Eventually everyone becomes an adult and has to work out questions about faith, whether they grow up in it or not.

G.K. Chesterton said ““The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried”.

Seems applicable.

I tried it and found it insulting to my intelligence.

Try again.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/Stet/butthurtreport.jpg

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 4:54 PM

lol

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

I tried it and found it insulting to my intelligence.

Try again.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Perhaps, you have too high an opinion of your intelligence.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Do your consider Deuteronomy to be the word of God, and abide by all it’s teachings and instruction?
Of course you don’t.
That’s all I’m saying.
(If by ‘silly bits’ I offend, I apologize.)

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

No offense taken. Apology accepted even though unnecessary.

I believe Deuteronomy is no exception in the Bible’s divine inspiration.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

He probably wouldn’t have had the cojones to say that about the Christian bible a couple hundred years ago.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

…on his television show.

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I know I’m late to the party, but seriously? Can anyone really be that stupid and myopic?

John the Libertarian on December 27, 2012 at 4:59 PM

naaa, its just a clever way for piers to increase his ratings! well done piers!

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I tried it and found it insulting to my intelligence.

Try again.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Try what again?
If you rejected the faith you grew up in as soon as you could, you have that freedom – but you are not qualified to dictate truth to others.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

You argue all the time with us. But you do not understand us, or even want to.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Well that’s a way out of an argument.
You’re not ‘understood’.
And who is your ‘us’ here?

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

who believe in things that are frankly silly and juvenile

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Oh, I know. Atheists are so silly and juvenile in their beliefs and their fourth-grader attacks on people of faith. Why must we tolerate them, again?

Please. Use the other side of your brain once in awhile. You come off as boorish.

John the Libertarian on December 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I see, sorry for jumping ahead! It looks like mazer9 has not really examined that argument. I assumed that he had.

Presupposing a god isn’t the same as proving the existence of one. If we need a supernatural explanation, then why doesn’t god deserve an even more fantastical one?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Oh, I know. Atheists are so silly and juvenile in their beliefs and their fourth-grader attacks on people of faith. Why must we tolerate them, again?
John the Libertarian on December 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

because without us, there would be a lot more westboro nuts and religious nuts in general running around…

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:04 PM

If you’re interested…examine the proposals laid out by davidk. That’s a good beginning.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Try what again?
If you rejected the faith you grew up in as soon as you could, you have that freedom – but you are not qualified to dictate truth to others.

Why would you assume I rejected it “as soon as I could”? Who wouldn’t want to believe we live on in fairy tale land even after we are dead? Wishful thinking doesn’t make it so. Atheism makes no such promises. It doesn’t insult my intelligence either.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Okay, descriptive it is. I don’t consider everyone telling me I cant possibly be a moral person because I don’t believe in god as an attack though… If you believe the bible, I guess you have to believe that all non-believing heathens are destined for hell and eternal damnation or whatnot, which is a perfectly acceptable argument.

((To whoever called me intolerant — see how tolerant I am?!) :):)

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The question becomes, in what/whom is your morality grounded?

If no Absolute Standard exists, then all actions,including murdering 20 children with a gun, or millions with a surgical knife, are no more or no less moral than petting a kitten or eating a sandwich.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Why would you assume I rejected it “as soon as I could”? Who wouldn’t want to believe we live on in fairy tale land even after we are dead? Wishful thinking doesn’t make it so. Atheism makes no such promises. It doesn’t insult my intelligence either.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

It takes faith to be an atheist too. You aware of that? It only appears to not insult your intelligence because it doesn’t appear to challenge it.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

because without us, there would be a lot more westboro nuts and religious nuts in general running around…

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

So you are saying that the Westboro monsters are just atheists with religion? I would agree.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Well that’s a way out of an argument.
You’re not ‘understood’.
And who is your ‘us’ here?

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Oh, stuff yourself! You’re not kidding anyone around here.

Unlike you libs who forever whine, simper, and claim you’re the victims, you are the one who refuses to really talk to us. I’m no Ha virgin here–I’ve been reading your insults here for a year. Me, and a host of many others.

The ‘us’ is we Conservatives who have been reading your screeds for a long time, putting up with your self-presumed pomposity and arrogance. You argue everything we might discuss; YOU make fights when there not be any.

While you might think it isn’t you, it really is. And, for added kicks, there are archives of the horrid things you have posted.

Not us, verbaluce. Just you, of you, by you, and from you.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

No offense taken. Apology accepted even though unnecessary.

I believe Deuteronomy is no exception in the Bible’s divine inspiration.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Thanks.
So to clarify, you would follow Deuteronomy 22 to the letter?
The punishments for various ‘offenses’.
(I’m sure you don’t, of course.)
Or do you see it’s moral lesson/application in present times to be justly and divinely different? Is there an interpretation to be made that you see I’m missing – and is it therefore not to be taken literally?

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Deuteronomy was the word of God pertaining to the Israelites. As Christians, we only have to follow the dictates of the New Testament. But that gets into the subject of the New Covenant which you don’t wish to understand.

Rose on December 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Presupposing a god isn’t the same as proving the existence of one. If we need a supernatural explanation, then why doesn’t god deserve an even more fantastical one?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:04 PM

In case you missed my post on our ongoing discussion I’m still interested in your thoughts on this:

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

Thanks in advance.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Jesus came to earth so that we would conform to be like Him, not so that He would conform to be like us.

I love how people ignore that philosophy in order to justify their behavior.

desertliving on December 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I’ve been as strident as you sometimes, sure.
Many are able to take what they dish out. Some…not so much.
But I’ve had many a substantive and worthy back & forth here.
Let’s just agree that’s unlikely to occur with you – and stop writing to me.

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I tried it and found it insulting to my intelligence.

Try again.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I am amazed at that statement. I find Christianity and the things of God immensely satisfying intellectually.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Oh, I know. Atheists are so silly and juvenile in their beliefs and their fourth-grader attacks on people of faith. Why must we tolerate them, again?

Please. Use the other side of your brain once in awhile. You come off as boorish.

John the Libertarian on December 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Some people just don’t grasp that calling other people silly and juvenile might be taken as an intentional assault on that individuals intelligence or capacity for rational logical thought. It’s why they get butthurt when they receive insults and ridicule directed back at them. They have difficulties understanding that they have insulted anyone so cannot make the logical connection between cause and affect as to why they are being insulted and ridiculed.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 5:16 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

3. It always existed in one form or another? I’m not quite getting where you’re going with this.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I am amazed at that statement. I find Christianity and the things of God immensely satisfying intellectually

There is absolutely nothing intellectual about faith. It requires no intellect or knowledge, only blind acceptance. One can have faith in any number of things. There is nothing virtuous about it.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Jesus came to earth so that we would conform to be like Him, not so that He would conform to be like us.

I love how people ignore that philosophy in order to justify their behavior.

desertliving on December 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM

And I love how the Father recognizes that since we are but made of dirt, we cannot on our best days measure up to Christ’s example, and that though God’s mercy and love He has offered us a way to Him through the life, death, and resurrection of His Son.

And after we bow our knee to the Son and accept free His offer of salvation, the Father imputes His righteousness to us and reckons us as righteous as Jesus.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:22 PM

And I love how the Father recognizes that since we are but made of dirt, we cannot on our best days measure up to Christ’s example, and that though God’s mercy and love He has offered us a way to Him through the life, death, and resurrection of His Son.

And after we bow our knee to the Son and accept free His offer of salvation, the Father imputes His righteousness to us and reckons us as righteous as Jesus.

An “all-powerful” god has to “sacrifice” his own son to “save” humans from him?

Doesn’t sound all that powerful to me. Sadistic is more like it.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

3. It always existed in one form or another? I’m not quite getting where you’re going with this.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

That would involve infinite regress, which is absurd. (“Absurd” is a term used in philosophy and not a judgement toward you.)

If there is no beginning you can’t get to today.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

That would involve infinite regress, which is absurd. (“Absurd” is a term used in philosophy and not a judgement toward you.)

If there is no beginning you can’t get to today.

It’s also absurd to think that less complex organism such as humans require a supernatural explanation whereas an even more complex supernatural being requires none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I’ve been as strident as you sometimes, sure.
Many are able to take what they dish out. Some…not so much.
But I’ve had many a substantive and worthy back & forth here.
Let’s just agree that’s unlikely to occur with you – and stop writing to me.

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM

If you didn’t write first, we wouldn’t be having this…’exchange’.

YOU have attacked all the time, and it’s known and documented of YOU.

I admit I’m a b*stard when it comes to liblets like you, and I launch back against them/you. Except liblets like you want me to stop when you and your kind never relent. You and your kind refused to come together with us here when we grieved over Sandy Hook! No–instead, liberals attacked us looking for a cheap political win when me and my colleagues had everything in mind except politics.

If you want to be a liberal among Conservatives, making comments like many have copied, then you pay their price. And your own, by your own words.

If that’s a problem for you, you know where is the door.

Pffft!

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Thanks.
So to clarify, you would follow Deuteronomy 22 to the letter?
The punishments for various ‘offenses’.
(I’m sure you don’t, of course.)
Or do you see it’s moral lesson/application in present times to be justly and divinely different? Is there an interpretation to be made that you see I’m missing – and is it therefore not to be taken literally?

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I don’t find it inconsistent that punishments are allowed to change over time. It’s also meant to be taken literally in its context. Moses was recalling the history of the Israelites and warning them not to make anymore mistakes in Deuteronomy.

And on the subject of punishments, I’m reminded of the often misinterpretation of the “eye for an eye” scripture. It only means let the punishment fit the crime and nothing more. Nothing less. The fact that people get that wrong (even so in the past with judgement) is not the fault of Moses or God.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM

If there is no beginning you can’t get to today.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

ROTFLMAO… In physics we call that causality. Nothing violates causality, affect never ever proceeds cause. Yet, strangely enough, the creation of the Universe violated all the known laws of physics by not having a cause.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 5:29 PM

An “all-powerful” god has to “sacrifice” his own son to “save” humans from him?

Doesn’t sound all that powerful to me. Sadistic is more like it.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

His ways are not our ways. A penalty had to be paid. Jesus paid it for us.

The penalty for mass murder should be the perp’s life. The penalty of our sins requires punishment. Jesus paid the penalty for all the world’s sins. And He did it willingly.

If I had to pay a traffic ticket and someone gave me the money to pay I would be grateful for it.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

It’s also absurd to think that less complex organism such as humans require a supernatural explanation whereas an even more complex supernatural being requires none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I have already addressed that issue earlier in this thread.

There is “the something which must exist” because nothing cannot exist.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:33 PM

His ways are not our ways. A penalty had to be paid. Jesus paid it for us.

The penalty for mass murder should be the perp’s life. The penalty of our sins requires punishment. Jesus paid the penalty for all the world’s sins. And He did it willingly.

If I had to pay a traffic ticket and someone gave me the money to pay I would be grateful for it

.

A penalty “had” to be paid? Sound like God’s a slave to his own will. That doesn’t sound like “power” to me.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:33 PM

If I had to pay a traffic ticket and someone gave me the money to pay I would be grateful for it.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Unless you insisted that the party demanding payment had no right to demand you pay, then you would be angry at being forced to pay and would in all likelihood attack the individuals creditability to fine you, and attack anyone who agreed with that parties ability to fine you.

This is where those Anti-Theists are, angrily shaking their fists at God screaming “You’re not the boss of me”.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM

There is “the something which must exist” because nothing cannot exist.

Oh really? Because you said there is “the something which must exist” without any evidence of it actually existing it must be so?

Got it.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM

3. It always existed in one form or another? I’m not quite getting where you’re going with this.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

But that violates scientific, specifically physical and natural, law. Aristotle defined cause as this: that which is necessary for the coming into existence of a thing. We know that everything in nature that exists or has existed has a cause under this definition. How could that first piece of matter be in violation and thus why?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM

A penalty “had” to be paid? Sound like God’s a slave to his own will. That doesn’t sound like “power” to me.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:33 PM

How can sinful Man dare present himself before a Holy God, of Man himself?

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM

An “all-powerful” god has to “sacrifice” his own son to “save” humans from him?

Doesn’t sound all that powerful to me. Sadistic is more like it.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Because justice is of equal importance to love.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Really? Eventually everyone becomes an adult and has to work out questions about faith, whether they grow up in it or not.

G.K. Chesterton said ““The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried”.

Seems applicable.

I tried it and found it insulting to my intelligence.

Try again.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Maybe that’s just another way of saying you found it difficult.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM

mazer9, added.

Bmore on December 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM

But that violates scientific, specifically physical and natural, law. Aristotle defined cause as this: that which is necessary for the coming into existence of a thing. We know that everything in nature that exists or has existed has a cause under this definition. How could that first piece of matter be in violation and thus why?

Where then is this evidence for the invisible god you presuppose as the reason for our existence? If his existence is so “matter of fact” why then is faith tantamount to the Christian religion?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Yet, strangely enough, the creation of the Universe violated all the known laws of physics by not having a cause.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Since you believe that the Big Bang is the explanation of the existence of the universe and that it violated all the known laws of the Universe, maybe it is time to rethink the Big Bang Theory.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Maybe that’s just another way of saying you found it difficult.

Perhaps that’s just another way of you attempting to psychoanalyze someone being able to sip the stale kool aid, then having the sense enough to spit it out.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM

3. It always existed in one form or another? I’m not quite getting where you’re going with this.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

“Always…?”

That’s a pretty long time.

Any idea what there was before that?

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Life arising from an iron rich mud puddle is an insult to intelligence.

tom daschle concerned on December 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Since you believe that the Big Bang is the explanation of the existence of the universe and that it violated all the known laws of the Universe, maybe it is time to rethink the Big Bang Theory.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I think sarcasm was intended there…apologies if I’m mistaken!

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Where then is this evidence for the invisible god you presuppose as the reason for our existence? If his existence is so “matter of fact” why then is faith tantamount to the Christian religion?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM

You misunderstand the nature of faith. You have faith that the chair you sit upon won’t collapse because you have warrant to believe that.

I believe the God of the Bible exists because I have warrant to believe that.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:47 PM

“Always…?”

That’s a pretty long time.

Any idea what there was before that?

An idea is an idea. Answering a question with another question doesn’t get us any closer to the truth.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Since you believe that the Big Bang is the explanation of the existence of the universe and that it violated all the known laws of the Universe, maybe it is time to rethink the Big Bang Theory.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Why is Genesis 1:3 not the cause of the Big Bang? There is no reason to believe the two are mutually exclusive.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Oh, now (randomly) you bring up Sandy Hook and suggest some sort of ownership
over that issue.
Now you can stuff it, you self-righteous blowhard.

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Since you believe that the Big Bang is the explanation of the existence of the universe and that it violated all the known laws of the Universe, maybe it is time to rethink the Big Bang Theory.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I think sarcasm was intended there…apologies if I’m mistaken!

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I tried not to be. If I wanted to be sarcastic, I would have added: “If you can control your emotions and not laugh your ass off at everything I say.”

Heh.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Where then is this evidence for the invisible god you presuppose as the reason for our existence? If his existence is so “matter of fact” why then is faith tantamount to the Christian religion?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Admittedly, I cannot offer you empirical evidence. I am merely trying to appeal to your faculty of reason and to remain scientifically consistent (not in violation of any laws).

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 5:50 PM

You misunderstand the nature of faith. You have faith that the chair you sit upon won’t collapse because you have warrant to believe that.

I believe the God of the Bible exists because I have warrant to believe that.

It doesn’t require much faith to expect that a chair will hold one up. Perhaps if the majority of chairs I sat in collapsed under my weight, I’d think differently about it. I have the evidence of constant experimentation to back me up.

I have no constant experimentation of an afterlife to backup a belief in a Christian god.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I tried not to be. If I wanted to be sarcastic, I would have added: “If you can control your emotions and not laugh your ass off at everything I say.”

Heh.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:49 PM

At the risk of digging a hole, I think SWalker was being sarcastic… :)

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Perhaps that’s just another way of you attempting to psychoanalyze someone being able to sip the stale kool aid, then having the sense enough to spit it out.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM

We drink from different wells. http://bible.cc/john/4-14.htm

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Admittedly, I cannot offer you empirical evidence. I am merely trying to appeal to your faculty of reason and to remain scientifically consistent (not in violation of any laws).

Given the fact that there is actual evidence of the natural world and none of the supernatural one, I find that explanation (however absurd) as being the more reasonable one.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Now you can stuff it, you self-righteous blowhard.

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Class, this is what is known as “irony”.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Mazer9, are you not aware that you’ve made statements of faith throughout this whole thread?

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

“It isn’t the parts of the Bible I don’t understand that bother me. It’s the parts I do.” Mark Twain. Such a puny intellect compared to Piers.

bluesdoc70 on December 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Why is Genesis 1:3 not the cause of the Big Bang? There is no reason to believe the two are mutually exclusive.

Why haven’t I ever heard a talking serpent?

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Mazer9, are you not aware that you’ve made statements of faith throughout this whole thread?

Please enlighten me.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

“Heaven for climate, and hell for society” – Mark Twain

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Please enlighten me.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Being an atheist is a statement of faith. Nobody has run all the tests to prove there is no God. It is impossible.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 5:57 PM

It doesn’t require much faith to expect that a chair will hold one up. Perhaps if the majority of chairs I sat in collapsed under my weight, I’d think differently about it. I have the evidence of constant experimentation to back me up.

I have no constant experimentation of an afterlife to backup a belief in a Christian god.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:50 PM

You’ve put the cart before the horse. I didn’t believe in an afterlife before I believed in God.

And you are still hanging onto logical positivism which is a self-defeating philosophy.

If you are really interested in why I believe, go back to my previous posts. Otherwise we are just exchanging pleasantries in a game of oneupmanship.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:57 PM

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:49 PM

At the risk of digging a hole, I think SWalker was being sarcastic… :)

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Shhhhh, I almost have him in the boat… ;p

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Depends on who you want to socialize with.

bluesdoc70 on December 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM

An idea is an idea. Answering a question with another question doesn’t get us any closer to the truth.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:47 PM

You aren’t looking for “truth”. You never have been.

You’re simply wallowing in the attention that you – a low troll – are getting from people.
And you’re using this time and space to insult the beliefs of better people than you and insult their intelligence.

Yes. Religion most definitely is an insult to your intelligence…because it presupposes that you have any.

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on December 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Shhhhh, I almost have him in the boat… ;p

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Hahahah! :)

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I tried not to be. If I wanted to be sarcastic, I would have added: “If you can control your emotions and not laugh your ass off at everything I say.”

Heh.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 5:49 PM

At the risk of digging a hole, I think SWalker was being sarcastic… :)

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Yes. And I would have been, too.

I consider SWalker a friend and a Christian brother. What he is doing through his blog is invaluable to our cause.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Given the fact that there is actual evidence of the natural world and none of the supernatural one, I find that explanation (however absurd) as being the more reasonable one.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

In your estimation, there is more reason to conclude the explanation that violates logic and scientific law than that which remains consistent with both is the more plausible one?

I then find it interesting that you invoked Occam’s Razor on this thread. Yet would it not take more assumptions to believe, for some undetermined reason (which would also require faith), that only the natural world exists and the first piece of matter was able to violate scientific law? Besides being the first, what about this matter would make it so special?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9 11