Yeah, that’s not the best way to win support.

SoulGlo on December 1, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Why can’t they just give it a break for 25 days?

ctmom on December 1, 2008 at 10:16 PM

“Our members want equal time,” Barker said. “Not to muscle, not to coerce, but just to have a place at the table.”

Then why do it at Christmas when there literally hundreds of days in a year to have “equal time”? Equal time doesn’t mean at the same time.

The only reason they do this is so they demonstrate their intolerance of Christian belief. In the name of tolerance of course.

Guardian on December 1, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Taking their cues from the gay community, I see.
/Not railing against gays or atheists, just pointing out that their methods for gaining support aren’t exactly ideal.

malan89 on December 1, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Ali Hirsi Ayaan, for instance.

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Naming one person is not very impressive.

Wake me up when there is a major atheist protest/display around Ramadan.

Religious_Zealot on December 1, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Pretty insecure bunch.

BL@KBIRD on December 1, 2008 at 10:33 PM

They come off like that kid who has to be the center of attention SO much that they demand presents even when they attend someone else’s birthday party.

Religious_Zealot on December 1, 2008 at 10:36 PM

Every time I hear of these atheistic cretins wanting “equal time” it reminds me of the saying “if you live your life as there were no God, for your sake you better be right.”

I would rather live my life as there were a God and be wrong, than to live as though there were no God and find out otherwise on my Judgment Day.

Scott on December 1, 2008 at 10:42 PM

Translation:

“ME! ME ME ME! LOOK AT ME!”

fossten on December 1, 2008 at 10:46 PM

An atheist group has unveiled an anti-religion placard in the state Capitol, joining a Christian Nativity scene and “holiday tree” on display during December.

… the placard reads, in part, “There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

In addition to their myriad other failures, atheists are also, apparently, incapable of understanding irony. I pity the fools.

Jaibones on December 1, 2008 at 10:51 PM

They just want everyone else to be as miserable as them.

Ever notice that goths and emos tend to be athiest.

Athiests are basically the bread and butter of shrinks everywhere.

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 1, 2008 at 10:58 PM

I often think that atheist’s greatest problem with Christianity has little to do with Christ. I think it boils down to a real similarity with a lot of liberals; self loathing. They see Christians living full, happy lives, and then the look at their miserable existences and there is a lot of envy.

Scott on December 1, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Back on topic, the placard is obviously a bad PR move, but it’s still absolutely true.

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 10:39 PM

I’m not sure how an athiest can use the term absolutely true. Please define absolute truth.

common sensineer on December 1, 2008 at 11:00 PM

I’m not sure how an athiest can use the term absolutely true. Please define absolute truth.

It absolutely grates my mind when I hear an atheist say “I”m spiritual”. Okay, so you don’t believe there is a god and yet you are “spiritual” (coming from “spirit”). Last time I checked, spirits weren’t discussed in science class.

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 1, 2008 at 11:03 PM

There is only our natural world.

Prove it.
Can’t? OK,

The Religion of Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Fixed it for ya.

jgapinoy on December 1, 2008 at 11:09 PM

Please note the location. Olympia WA. Think Evergreen State College. This is bigger than mere Atheism. As a Godless Heathen I find this pathetic.

ronsfi on December 1, 2008 at 11:10 PM

Atheists should also avoid the words, “very,” and “purely.” In fact, stay away from adverbs altogether.

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 11:08 PM

That’s it?? That’s all you got??

Talon on December 1, 2008 at 11:15 PM

Atheists should have to work on Christmas. After all, I have to work on Hanukkah.

Geronimo on December 1, 2008 at 11:17 PM

Atheism is a lack of religion like darkness is a lack of light. People who add a belief system around it detract from the simple message: there is no need for religion, as the world would be the same with it or without, except for wasted effort.

shirgall on December 1, 2008 at 11:21 PM

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM

You are setting yourself against a caricature of Christianity. The timeless truths of Christianity have been incorporated into many different cultures over the centuries. I think your beef lies in what the Bible calls sinful behavior.

common sensineer on December 1, 2008 at 11:25 PM

I can’t speak for all atheists (to their great relief), but my biggest problem with Christianity is that it excludes any scientific understanding of human nature.

Which is news to the many thousands of Christian psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists, counselors, anthropologists, scientists….

jgapinoy on December 1, 2008 at 11:27 PM

I would dispute every one of those claims (especially the charity bit), but let’s not fight.
RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Religious Americans are not only much more likely to give money and volunteer their time to religious and secular institutions, they are also more likely to provide aid to family members, return incorrect change, help a homeless person, and donate blood. In fact, despite expecting to find just the opposite, Brooks concluded: “I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people.”

Consider some examples. Religious citizens who make $49,000 gave away about 3.5 times as much money as secular citizens with the same income. They also volunteered twice as often, are 57 percent more likely to help homeless persons, and two-thirds more likely to give blood at their workplace. Meanwhile, those who insist that “beliefs don’t matter as long as you’re a good person” are not as good as those who do think beliefs matter. The former group gave and volunteered at much lower rates.

Guardian on December 1, 2008 at 11:35 PM

but my biggest problem with Christianity is that it excludes any scientific understanding of human nature

It sounds like your REAL problem is that you don’t really UNDERSTAND Christianity since you keep railing against some pretty ignorant stereotypes.

Religious_Zealot on December 1, 2008 at 11:45 PM

I can’t speak for all atheists (to their great relief), but my biggest problem with Christianity is that it excludes any scientific understanding of human nature. What we believed 2,000 years ago about social norms, ethics, philosophy, etc… that’s it. Don’t bother trying to find a deeper understanding, don’t even question if the 2,000 year-old understanding might be flawed. What we knew then is all we need to know, now and forever. It goes against my nature.

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM

So you’re saying that Christians deny that the world is round?

We deny modern medicine or the laws of physics?

We deny FREE WILL?

You are free to believe or disbelieve what ever you choose. Christians are NOT forcing ANYTHING on you. Why are you atheists so upset by something you deny exists?

When was the last time a Christian protested the fact that you DO NOT have a nativity display in your front yard?

When was the last time that a Christian got in your face because you were NOT carrying a Bible?

When was the last time that a high school student was sent home from school for NOT expressing a faith in Christ?

When was the last time an atheist in these United States faced ANY repercussion for not being a Christian?

A nativity scene upsets you people? A person praying before they eat is a threat? A kid carrying a Bible in school must be expelled?

Sounds like you have fallen into the trap that you ascribe to Christians. You never bothered to check your “facts”. You are stuck in your “faith” and you never question it.

Good luck with that.

Talon on December 1, 2008 at 11:47 PM

Athiests are basically the bread and butter of shrinks everywhere.

Exactly, I would say just about every psychiatry patient in America is either a liberal or an outright atheist. There are no “therapists” in flyover country to speak of. They are called shrinks, or worse, and they treat the mentally ill in hospitals not half the general population. But every second New Yorker/L.A. liberal has a Billy Crystal-type “therapist” with whom they are as comfortable as a sock in a slipper. Reminds me of Curb Your Enthusiasm’s Richard Lewis, who is always referencing his therapist in every episode. “Ah, Larry, I’m sorry I can’t come. I have to see my therapist at 4.”

Psychologically, those people are a mess. Politically, they are delusional. Financially, they are in over-extended in debt. Emotionally, they are conflicted. Spiritually, they are empty. Sexually, . . . well, it continues to go downhill for liberal atheists.

At what point should they be disqualified from voting? Mental patients don’t vote.

keep the change on December 1, 2008 at 11:51 PM

You’re basically telling everybody in the behavioral sciences, “don’t bother.”

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 11:38 PM

I believe you are confusing behavioral science with social science.

Also your assertion that “The concept of a fallen world. Christianity asserts that suffering is inevitable, necessary, and just” is Pre-Christian and comes from the Old Testament. There’s a cool story in there about this dude named Noah. You should check it out sometime.

So I guess your argument therefore means that your problem lies fundamentally with the Jewish folks.

Guardian on December 1, 2008 at 11:53 PM

The message and the messengers from Luke chapter 2:

10And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

13And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And now the message from a collection of atheist losers:

“There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Hmmm. Now which message do you think is more hopeful and appealing and which will inspire the most people, collie?

My collie says:

**sustained hysterical laughter**

Yup, the atheists have achieved something that I never could have — they have rendered my collie mute.

CyberCipher on December 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM

“There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Awww, how precious. Did you think that up all on your own?

Fallen Sparrow on December 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM

I don’t think it’s conclusive. Would you agree that more Christians than atheists donate to keep Oral Roberts from being “called home?” That gets counted as charity, the same as money sent to faith healers or spent on building stadium churches. It’s like Christians are getting credited for naivety.

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Would you agree that more atheists sent money to Obama to get him elected to the most powerful office in the world?

What’s your problem with stadium churches? Why don’t you, an atheist, tell the Christian community what is the acceptable size for a church? If Christians agree to that design limit, will you profess your faith in Christ as your savior?

Where do you get the “suffering is inevitable” stuff? Again, you are stuck in a position that you have never questioned for accuracy.

Christianity is not about suffering. It is about redemption.

Christianity is not about “world domination”, it is about speaking of the Gospel. And that’s it. I tell you…you choose.. end of story.

I will say this. DO NOT try this crap on the muslims. You will find that they are a bit less open to criticism.

Talon on December 2, 2008 at 12:05 AM

Maybe if you actually went out and got to know some Christians and not just read about the dumb ones that make the news…

…maybe then you might actually have serious and valid points.

But as long as you continue to rail against ignorant stereotypes…

…you will continue to come off as ignorant yourself.

Religious_Zealot on December 1, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Literally all of my friends and family are Christians. I do not personally know a single atheist. FWIW, god-to-honest truth. They’re great people, I love them all dearly. When it comes to the Big Questions, though, every answer begins and ends with the bible. It’s not that it’s a bad way to live. It works well enough; really well, in fact. But I know we could do better if people considered the bible just part of the truth.

That’s pretty much it, for me. Have a good night.

RightOFLeft on December 2, 2008 at 12:10 AM

And atheism isn’t considered a religion because..?

katy on December 2, 2008 at 12:24 AM

I can’t speak for all atheists (to their great relief), but my biggest problem with Christianity is that it excludes any scientific understanding of human nature.

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Funny. Rarely is someone so completely wrong. Will you claim later that it was satire?

You need to read more.

Jaibones on December 2, 2008 at 12:25 AM

If God exists, but He doesn’t believe in atheists, do they exist?

Christien on December 2, 2008 at 12:52 AM

CyberCipher on December 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM

I take it that you are joking? Those quotes are from a story, written by humans, which has no basis in fact.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 2:42 AM

And atheism isn’t considered a religion because..?

katy on December 2, 2008 at 12:24 AM

A true Atheist is one who is a realist. A realist knows that a God cannot exist, and, as such, denies any involvement of such a creature in the natural order of the Universe.

A religion, on the other hand, creates a mantra based upon a faith – that is, a lack of actual knowledge. Those of the Christian faith, for example, treat the characters in their Bible as though they were real, without a shred of evidence to support their claim.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 2:54 AM

CherokeeJack on December 2, 2008 at 3:33 AM

Exactly. OldEnglish, what empirical evidence do you have that no deity of any sort could possibly exist?

Damian G. on December 2, 2008 at 4:01 AM

It’s not really about christianity versus judaism, versus atheism.
It’s about feeling left out. Poor atheists. They just wanna be a part of something.

Tim Zank on December 2, 2008 at 6:27 AM

This simply shows, yet again, that atheism is NOT some stand-alone belief system…

…it is a reaction to and rejection OF religion (most especially Christianity – for some reason atheists seem a little less ‘vocal’ in denying Islam).

Religious_Zealot on December 1, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Hey! Someone got this right, for once! Atheism is not a belief system; it is a disbelief non-system. We think about every religion the way Christians think about, say, Shintoism. That is to say, we don’t think about religion, unless we see someone doing something stupid on account of their religion, like flying airplanes into skyscrapers or abstaining from sex before marriage.

In this case, it was not Christianity itself that was being rejected by the “Atheist sign”; it was Christians’ blatant attempt to violate everyone’s First Amendment right that was being rejected. It’s lucky for us atheists that the Constitution was framed by secularists.

hicsuget on December 2, 2008 at 6:47 AM

I don’t think it’s conclusive. Would you agree that more Christians than atheists donate to keep Oral Roberts from being “called home?” That gets counted as charity, the same as money sent to faith healers or spent on building stadium churches. It’s like Christians are getting credited for naivety.

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 11:46 PM

This shows how truly naive atheists are. They actually think the faithful only give to the other faithful.
For a group who prides themselves on being objective…when it comes to religion they are more subjective then the people they attack.
The faithful have built the churches, the higher education system, they feed the poor, the counsel and heal the abused, on cold and stormy nights they open their doors to house the “unhoused”.
When 9/11 came, the faithful where the ones who sent the counselors, when disaster hits around the world, the faithful arrive with food, medicine, and supplies.
Never have I seen this group mentioned for any charitable work…they put their money towards defeating a purpose, not creating one…all the while they feed at the trough of life, created and built by the faithful.
Like has been shown so often, when someone is given something of value, without asking for a commitment back, the beggar never appreciates it.
Atheists are the beggars of life, taking but never giving.

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 7:09 AM

It’s like Christians are getting credited for naivety.

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Sounds like someone is getting cranky. There go the claims to be a happy person.

MarkTheGreat on December 2, 2008 at 7:11 AM

Those of the Christian faith, for example, treat the characters in their Bible as though they were real, without a shred of evidence to support their claim.

Meanwhile, atheists treat the “such-and-such is millions of years old” as unquestionable truth even though there is not a shred of evidence that the dating methods used are accurate for even dating things a hundred years let alone thousands and millions.

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 2, 2008 at 7:18 AM

CherokeeJack on December 2, 2008 at 3:33 AM

Mommypundit on December 2, 2008 at 6:11 AM

CherokeeJack, To go into the Hawking analogy of this universe being a “wave of probability” is beyond the scope of this forum, but, consider this: If there is a God, he could not have been created and, therefore is eternal. This being the case, He could not have created the Universe – at any point in time – because that would require a beginning. Therefore, we cannot exist, but we do. As Hawking said – we probably exist. Now, this God, if He existed, and created us, would have had no purpose to His existence until He created us, yet He had to have existed for all eternity before He created us. There is no logic in this, and I am swayed only by logic.
Mummypundit, there is a difference between persons and characters. The persons wrote books, the characters were written in books. There is no evidence to support the existence of any of the Biblical characters, beyond references to certain Kings, etc, which were used as an analogy for the purpose of the story.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 7:19 AM

Meanwhile, atheists treat the “such-and-such is millions of years old” as unquestionable truth even though there is not a shred of evidence that the dating methods used are accurate for even dating things a hundred years let alone thousands and millions.

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 2, 2008 at 7:18 AM

Please don’t help us. You are doing more to give ammunition to the atheists.

One, there are many dating methods. The ones for things hundreds of years old, are different for the things millions of years old.

And anyone who knows what they are talking about was already aware that you couldn’t use carbon 14 dating for anything that grew up in the last 100 years and anything that grew in water.

MarkTheGreat on December 2, 2008 at 7:23 AM

When did atheists become a “group”? Did I miss the meeting? Jim708 on December 2, 2008 at 6:38 AM

Apparently you did miss it.
A Google search on “atheists group” returns 2,320,000 hits many on the first page about meet-ups.

jmarcure on December 2, 2008 at 7:24 AM

One, there are many dating methods. The ones for things hundreds of years old, are different for the things millions of years old.

Try reading what I said again more closely. I’m referring ONLY to the dating methods they use to date things “millions of years old”. I’m pointing out that they have no proof that it actually works.

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 2, 2008 at 7:26 AM

Try reading what I said again more closely. I’m referring ONLY to the dating methods they use to date things “millions of years old”. I’m pointing out that they have no proof that it actually works.

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 2, 2008 at 7:26 AM

So you are claiming that decay rates vary over time? Based on what evidence? Are you claiming that the laws of physics are muteable and change randomly? If so, based on what evidence.

MarkTheGreat on December 2, 2008 at 7:30 AM

The Gospels and the letters of Paul were written within the lifetime of people who would have been witnesses to the events being written about.

If the events and people had been “made up”, don’t you think a few of the eye witnesses would have come forward to denounce the fraud? It would have been in their interest to do so.

MarkTheGreat on December 2, 2008 at 7:32 AM

There is no evidence to support the existence of any of the Biblical characters, beyond references to certain Kings, etc, which were used as an analogy for the purpose of the story.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 7:19 AM

Heh. Your Nut-O-Meter just red-lined.

Jaibones on December 2, 2008 at 7:33 AM

Atheist scientism for dummies:

“If you adopt our restricted definition of reality as that which has mass and quantity, and if you adopt the rules we invented for what constitutes reliable history, then you can easily prove there is no God.”

Something circular there…

Don’t fall for it. They’re not smart, they’re bitter.

jeff_from_mpls on December 2, 2008 at 7:37 AM

MarkTheGreat on December 2, 2008 at 7:32 AM

I believe the Old testament Scrolls were written well after the “events” were to supposed to have occurred, except for those which were deemed to be prophesies – for a future, undetermined time.

The New testament books were written well after the supposed time of Christ.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 7:45 AM

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 7:38 AM

You are thinking that the bible is the only source of information.
You do know that there are more references, from different writings about Jesus, then Caesar?
I don’t understand your “Darius” statement, it sounds like something you Googled from a anti-christian site that was trying to poke a hole in the bible?
Darius is a common Persian name, do you mean Darius the Great?
And what do you mean by “actual records”.
Things weren’t type written or recorded on DVD’s.
Please explain, or links.
I think, with your explanation, we will understand where you get your ideas from.

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 7:51 AM

Freedom From Religion Foundation, eh?

Atheism itself is benign and individual. Atheists organizing for political purposes are as odious as any other grievance peddling pests.

RushBaby on December 2, 2008 at 7:55 AM

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 7:51 AM

Darius of the Book of Daniel. I used that as an example of uncertainty. Darius has, to date, not been positively identified.

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 7:52 AM

I think the best I can do here is to point you to the experts – those whose job it is to to preserve and publish the Bible. It would seem that they all agree that none of the books were written at the time of Christ, but varying times after. revelations, for example, was thought to have been written in the third century AD. My point was, that there were no contemporaries to argue against the writings.

Even Paul wrote of Christ as in the past.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Again, an opportunity for non-believers to take shots at those of us that do believe on this blog! If you are an unbeliever, it is not surprising that you would…well…not believe in what we do! Duh! However, please respect our right to practice our faith and leave it at that! When you have the stones to go trash Islam on one of their websites, we will sit up and take notice! Or, go protest at one of their religious services? No takers? Didn’t think so… Christians are easy for you cowards. We don’t kill people for their views!

sabbott on December 2, 2008 at 8:11 AM

JellyToast on December 2, 2008 at 8:00 AM

Satan is man-made, and he does, indeed, exist.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 8:12 AM

Even Paul wrote of Christ as in the past.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Well, Paul saw Christ crucified, so I guess he would have talked about him in the past.
That was a strange argument.
I detailed the writings, from experts, seeing as the Gospels were written by men that lived with Christ, wouldn’t that suggest, even to a non-believer, that they wrote them before they died?
As far as Darius, you pick one very common name, where they could not positively identify the exact person, from thousands of years ago, and that makes you wonder about the validity of a book?
Scholars for centuries have tried to “break down the bible”, and have found no significant evidence that it is not true and factual.
Do you honestly think that if there was sound evidence that the bible was false ti would not be blasted by your organizations?
The accuracy of the bible is testament to how important it was.
So now you have the facts that the NT was all written within 100 years, and much of it written within 75 years, and most by men that lived with Christ.
So I hope these facts have helped you…but I have a feeling these facts just get in your way, and you will deny them.
Want links?

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 8:19 AM

There is no evidence to support the existence of any of the Biblical characters, beyond references to certain Kings, etc, which were used as an analogy for the purpose of the story.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 7:19 AM

Actually, historical evidence is much to the contrary of your statement.

In Biblical Archaeology circles there is often discussed a ‘line’ that exists in the Biblical narrative.

After the ‘line’ there is plenty of historical evidence that supports the Biblical narrative.

Before the ‘line’ there hasn’t (as yet) been found evidence to support the Biblical narrative (but no evidence has been found to refute the narrative).

Right now that ‘line’ is somewhere right around David and Solomon.

There is SOME evidence to support David and Solomon, but not enough to make all scholars completely happy.

After that, though, there is plenty evidence (including evidence for King Darius).

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 8:22 AM

It would seem that they all agree that none of the books were written at the time of Christ, but varying times after. revelations, for example, was thought to have been written in the third century AD.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Now that you have the research, care to amend your post?
Revelations in the third century, tell me how a book can be written by a man dead for 300 years.

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 8:23 AM

BTW – most scholars put the Book of Enoch as being written much, much later than the Book of Revelation (i.e. Revelation came first, Enoch copied it).

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 8:26 AM

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 8:20 AM

I have asked you, I will ask you again…link what you are stating.
Tell us the link that you are getting your information.

by the assumption that the Apostles actually existed.

So now you are reverting to the argument that historically none of these people even existed?
The writings of Paul extend across the known world. He left writings in so many major geo areas, that no one with any knowledge of history, would ever state he did not exist.
Anyone, except the most extreme anti-Christian bias historian.
Please, give us the link of the ones who are now stating that the Apostles did not exist…I am really curious as to the foundation of this strange (an new) theory that the Apostles may not have existed.

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 8:30 AM

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 8:19 AM

In the narrative, someone by the name of Paul said he saw Christ crucified. That does not mean it’s true.

I only used Darius because it is an easy one, and to go through the Bible would take a lifetime. As for the lack of empirical evidence, that is precisely why the argument can still rage. Time has allowed the waters to become cloudy.

BTW, I belong to no organization. I detest such things.

Also note that the Gospels are believed to have their roots (earlier writings and oral tradition) back even farther than when they were written.

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 8:17 AM

That statement alone should give you pause for reflection.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 8:34 AM

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 8:30 AM

Regarding Paul’s writings to several locations, there is no evidence that they were any more than part of the story. You insist on quoting the Bible text to support your claims, but there is no evidence that the Bible is anything more than a story, with well researched locations included.

As for links, they would be pointless, since they use the same supposed timeline that has been the mantra for so long that it has become widely accepted. If the foundation is suspect, then the whole building is, also.

On the timeline of the writings, I don’t wish to nit-pick, but even a few years, in that period, would be sufficient for a story to go unquestioned, especially since they were written in a sparsely populated area. Ignorance would take care of much of the possible objection to a story that must have sounded great to those who heard it. (Witness Obama).

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 8:54 AM

Also note that the Gospels are believed to have their roots (earlier writings and oral tradition) back even farther than when they were written.

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 8:17 AM

That statement alone should give you pause for reflection.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 8:34 AM

You don’t know much about historical writing do you?
If you were going to write about say WWII would you start with the actual bombing, or would you define the “roots” of what begot the war?
By your argument, you can only write historically at the exact time of the event, and you can’t use any previous known data, what a strange way of thinking.
Normally you write after you have accumulated the data you are going to write about, called research, so you have some background information, usually more then what you are writing.
Your attack on something so obvious shows you are very desperate in winning an argument.
I am still waiting for your links…

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 8:58 AM

You insist on quoting the Bible text to support your claims, but there is no evidence that the Bible is anything more than a story, with well researched locations included.

Whether or not Jesus was the messiah is certainly open to interpretation and can not be logically or historically “proven” one way or the other.

However, it is beyond doubt that a man named Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago and that he taught and preached and gathered a faithful following (apostles/disciples).

It is also beyond doubt that immediately after his death His disciples spread the word of His teachings and claimed that He was the Son of God and also that He rose from the dead.

The historical tracing of the spread of this message is not myth or fable or even story – but verifiable fact.

As for links, they would be pointless, since they use the same supposed timeline that has been the mantra for so long that it has become widely accepted. If the foundation is suspect, then the whole building is, also.

This assertion of yours is demonstrably, verifiable wrong.
The scholarship (secular and religious) is very stable and widely accepted.

I recommend the book An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown for a wonderful and detailed discussion of the scholarship and debate about the dating and authorship of the New Testament books.

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 9:03 AM

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 8:54 AM

Well, if thousands of scholars, writing thousands of papers on the accuracies of the Bible does not convince you…I can just say that you have to continue using your gut feelings to understand these things.
If you think the bible is just a bunch of stories, then that is a shield no one but you will be able to see through.
But just, in the future, use facts to back up your statements, and give us links (however embarrassing those links are) when we question your statements (your Darius argument was shown to be false and you never acknowledged being corrected). Otherwise we are just talking to someone who “believes” in his own blind faith…the faithful just happen to have thousands of years, and thousands of scholars to back their beliefs up…and we are willing to share them with you….please return the favor.

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 9:07 AM

No, the New testament is around nineteen hundred years old, and from 325 AD to the Reformation, was taken as gospel, except for those who were considered as heretics, and even then it dealt with details.

Ah! Now it comes to light!

You’re taking your history from sources like The DaVinci Code that posits that nothing was set in stone until the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) and THEN a bunch of people got together and ‘voted’ on what the Bible should be.

At this point I will discontinue our conversation since you have shown to be not very serious about your ‘research’ and ’scholarship.’

You need to read the Raymond Brown book I cited earlier along with:
The Gospel Code by Ben Witherington (probably the best, most researched and scholarly ‘debunking’ of the ‘history’ used by the DaVinci Code (which is also the ‘history’ that noted atheists Hitchens and Dawkins subscribe to)).

Can We Trust the Gospels? by Mark D. Roberts – a peek into the world of textual criticism that shows how reliable the Gospels are to their origins

Lord Jesus Christ by Larry Hurtado – proves that the early church – the one created immediately after Christ’s death – already had a high Christology (Jesus was the messiah, the Son of God and rose from the dead). Those that point to the Council of Nicaea erroneously posit that before the Council no one thought that Jesus was divine.

There are many others, but these will get you started. One really shouldn’t spout off about things without really knowing the scholarship behind them.

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 9:19 AM

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 9:07 AM

I didn’t respond to the Darius reply because, once again, the evidence for that particular Darius is not there, but is considered to be part of a timeline which is to be found in the Bible. Since the Bible is considered sacrosanct, there would be no point in further discussing him. There are many other instances of doubtful characters, but time and space is not available for further mention.

As for links, I do not follow the reasoning of others, I do my own research, and reach my own conclusions. Links would merely point to views held by others, but I do not speak for them.

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 9:03 AM

I appreciate your effort to educate me, but your statement that beyond doubt Jesus walked the earth is not sustainable. You obviously believe that he did, and that is sufficient for you. As for me, to quote the New testament: show me the marks, and I will believe.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 9:24 AM

Funny, how “rationalists” like atheists categorically deny the existence of a Being they cannot see or measure, or that may even be hiding from them.

I always like to ask atheists if they have looked for God in every possible place He might be. They always change the subject.

Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 9:27 AM

show me the marks, and I will believe.
OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 9:24 AM

“Blessed are those who have not seen, and believed,” -Jesus.

Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 9:19 AM

Da Vinci Code??? That was nothing more than a silly novel! Pleas don’t insult me by tainting me with such nonsense.

The Catholic Church, which was the church at the time, was formalized in its mantra in 325 AD. The Orthodox Church grew, mainly, from objections to that mantra. From that point on, any dissension was met with brutal measures to stifle said dissent. This continued until the Reformation.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 9:35 AM

This continued until the Reformation.
OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 9:35 AM

Exactly, and the Reformation was characterized by study of the Scriptures, particularly in the original languages. This actually started in the Roman Catholic Church and gave rise to the Reformation.

So biblical literacy changed Christendom, eventually moving it away from the remnants of pagan barbarism. Look at the fruit produced by Christendom when it is faithful to Scripture, and that produced by atheistic, anti-biblical civilizations like the Warsaw Pact nations and Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, Castro’s Cuba, and so on. Nothing is more destructive than atheism, and nothing is better for man culturally than biblical fidelity.

It ain’t even close.

Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 9:40 AM

And I would ask you why? there is no point.
OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 9:37 AM

It is not rational to deny the existence of God when A) so many attest to His presence in their lives, and more importantly B) you haven’t looked for Him everywhere He might be. You can’t categorically say that He is not hiding Himself from you.

Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 9:42 AM

The Catholic Church, which was the church at the time, was formalized in its mantra in 325 AD

No, it’s doctrine and dogma were ALREADY well known and well established. It simply got the “seal of approval” from Constantine.

And while there were certainly roots in the 11th century schism found in the Nicean Creed (most particularly the debate over homoousios), it took many other things (language differences, power of the pope) that eventually caused the schism.

And as far as the Catholic church meeting dissension with ‘brutal measures’, that certainly didn’t stop with the Reformation. In fact, the Reformation ENFLAMED such things.

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Sorry, I don’t read any other views on this subject, I form my own.

As for the existence of Jesus, it doesn’t matter how many “scholars” say he existed unless they can provide proof. Opinion is not good enough to make an absolute statement for the consumption of others.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Sorry, I don’t read any other views on this subject, I form my own.

OK folks – that’s the end of this discussion.

The man doesn’t look for reason or facts or evidence…

…he ‘forms’ his own.

Thanks for playing OE!

Keep trying to tell us how more ‘knowledgeable’ and ‘reasonable’ atheists are.

Please keep doing that – I love a good laugh!

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Keep trying to tell us how more ‘knowledgeable’ and ‘reasonable’ atheists are.
Please keep doing that – I love a good laugh!
Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Some rules of evidence. I hope he’s not a judge!

/prolly is

Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Something written by God should/would have no need for apologetics.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 9:51 AM

That’s assuming that He has no enemies.

Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Atheism is a superstition then, seeing as the hardest hearts and most enslaved minds are those of atheists to their dogma of Freedom From Religion.

BKennedy on December 2, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Something written by God could not/ should not/ would not be corruptible.
Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Your premise is silly. You don’t believe that God exists or wrote anything, because if He did exist and had written anything, you know just what it would be like.

Pretty amazing line of “reasoning.”

Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Later that afternoon, they went, uninvited, to Rebecca Smith’s fifth birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese and displayed another placard: “Today is not my birthday. Given the state of the world, I may not live to see my next birthday. Therefore Becky isn’t allowed to have these presents.”

These freaks don’t represent normal atheists. Seriously.

Tanya on December 1, 2008 at 10:27 PM

Awesome. And you’re completely right.

Unfortunately though, it does seem that the group’s message does represent a few atheists here.

I would dispute every one of those claims (especially the charity bit), but let’s not fight. I’m happy that you’re satisfied with the answers that you have. Not everybody is like you. They deserve a voice, too.

RightOFLeft on December 1, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Certainly. Everyone deserves a voice. Only, some groups find it necessary to use their voice to insult a large group of people. You’ve agreed with their message and thus their insult, and now you want to call off any fights prompted by that and every other insult you through out here?

You’d only say that seriously if you either a) think Christians are too stupid to notice we were sucker punched or b) actually understand how real our faith is to us and understand how it allows us to return respect for insult.

Brilliant.

(most especially Christianity – for some reason atheists seem a little less ‘vocal’ in denying Islam).

Religious_Zealot on December 1, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Only in this country. He’s right that many atheists have been extremely vocal critics of Islam. One year a group did a sign with the Twin Towers saying, “Imagine, no religion.”

If God exists, but He doesn’t believe in atheists, do they exist?

Christien on December 2, 2008 at 12:52 AM

If God exists, His thoughts wouldn’t be beliefs; they’d be the truth. Otherwise, God isn’t really God.

Personally though, I don’t believe in atheists. I believe in doubt of God. I just don’t believe in the belief that God doesn’t exist.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 10:00 AM

A God would be/should be a perfect being and thus could write/inspire nothing short of perfection.

Anything that requires man to apologize for its imperfectness could not be written/inspired by a perfect being.

The fact that apologetics exist is evidence for imperfection.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:02 AM

You have the originals? No you have copies of copies that seem to match some copies.

Jeremiah Dilemma. Perfect copies… no maybe not.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Something written by God would not be open to various interpretations or mistaken conclusions.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:13 AM

Something written by God would not be open to various interpretations or mistaken conclusions.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:13 AM

Why not?

Human imperfection causes all kinds and types of “interpretations” and “mistaken conclusions.”

Why are those imperfections somehow counted against the truth?

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 10:15 AM

This simply shows, yet again, that atheism is NOT some stand-alone belief system…

…it is a reaction to and rejection OF religion (most especially Christianity – for some reason atheists seem a little less ‘vocal’ in denying Islam).

Religious_Zealot on December 1, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Yes it is a rejection of religion, because it is hard to advocate nothing. It is easier to reject nonsense and state nothing would be better in its place. What you replace religion with is entirely up to your depth of reflection, reflection, the first thing that dies or is perverted when one believes in old wives tales. Complex questions need not be asked because the invisible man will figure everything out for you. Also the reason many are more vocal about Christianity is because they live in areas where Christianity is the majority, Islam refers to Christianity and Judaism, so anything built upon a ridiculous foundation is discounted as well. If I was under the rule of a tyrant I would probably save most of my criticism for that tyrant, not some tyrant halfway around the world.

Numbers are no substitute knowledge.

LevStrauss on December 2, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:13 AM
OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 10:10 AM

So there is no God, but if there were, He would be just as you imagine and no different. Right.

Please take our little test:

1. I have looked everywhere for God before pronouncing that He does not exist.

True___

False___

2. I am certian that God is not hiding from me.

True___

False___

It’s just two questions. Humor us. Go on.

Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM

If God’s perfect word is not perfect because it has written by man and can be/has been corrupted by men how can man know which part is perfect and which part has been corrupted.

Have faith? …. ok but am I having faith in what man has written or what God has written? How can I know since what I am presented with to know can be corrupted by men?

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM

If God’s perfect word is not perfect because it has written by man and can be/has been corrupted by men how can man know which part is perfect and which part has been corrupted.

Who said it was “corrupted”?

That’s a pretty strong word.

Theologically speaking – there are no discrepancies or errors (or corruptions) in the Bible.

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM

This is not the ‘fault’ of the perfect, but of the imperfect

I would expect that the perfect would be written in such a way that even the imperfect would have no cause to disagree.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM

I have to side with you here. Semantics only muddies the waters. Numerous translations and hand-written copies are bound to have introduced minor variations in the text.

The real question remains: was it divinely inspired?

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 10:39 AM

OldEnglish, are you serious with this line of argument? That if written records that meet your criteria do not exist, the people did not exist?

My great great grandmother was from Tennessee, however, there are no official records of her–no birth certificate, marriage license, Social Security records, property records, will or estate documents, or even a death certificate. Somehow, she passed under the radar. She is recorded in the family Bible (although we don’t even know the year she was born), and there are many stories about her that have passed through our family history, but she doesn’t meet your criteria for existence. I’ll be sure to tell my mother.

DrMagnolias on December 2, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Theologically speaking – there are no discrepancies or errors (or corruptions) in the Bible.

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Don’t think that is what he meant by corruption. More like the apostles playing telephone with God. Not theologically speaking you could look at the crucifiction, where two accounts didn’t feel the need to mention that tons of bodies supposedly rose from the dead instead of just Christ. You cannot contradict by omission, but to miss an event that significant is interesting. Not to mention the fact that if any of this stuff was believed by just one man instead of many he would be thought to be a fool or a drug addict, but if beliefs are inherited by many they must be right, except for racism, sexism, faulty scientific theory, and anything else except supernatural phenomonom that denies reality propped up by easy psychological tricks that are used by nonreligious hustlers as well.

LevStrauss on December 2, 2008 at 10:42 AM

How can I know since what I am presented with to know can be corrupted by men?

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM

The thing is, Christians don’t just worship a book. We worship a God who resides with us as the Holy Spirit. It is through the Holy Spirit that we’re able to understand God.

I know it sounds foolish, and the Bible agrees that it does, but that’s what Christianity teaches and that’s why it doesn’t make sense to you, as you do not have the Holy Spirit.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Why that’s quite a judgement to make? Does the Holy Spirit give you, an imperfect being, the ability to declare within who he resides and who he does not?

Some would call that arrogance and pride, some would call that fighting for the cause. I guess it all depends on your interpretation.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Some interpret that you can lose salvation, some interpret once saved always saved. How could something so critical be left open to interpretation?

The whole thing is left up to interpretation, not just that one part. Some people don’t believe any of the Bible is any more than a bunch of good stories, and so what.

Will you be held accountable for misinterpreting the perfect message because you are imperfect?

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:48 AM

That’s pretty idiotic, don’t you think? God made us imperfect, then punishes us for being so.

Again, that’s where the Holy Spirit comes in. Were we perfect, we wouldn’t need it, or Jesus or even God. That’s a constant theme in the Bible, one that’s very difficult to miss even for those with a below 70 IQ.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM

From that point on, any dissension was met with brutal measures to stifle said dissent. This continued until the Reformation.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 9:35 AM

Please, you have to read more history, and be more accurate.
You had Gregory I, no brutal measure there, then about 500 years later you had the Great Schism, no brutal measures there, then about 500 years later you had the Reformation, no great brutal measures there (Luther lived to be 90 or so?). The only brutality was schools for the masses were created by the church to school the masses (you’re welcome OldEnglish), and now many believe we are in another “reformation” ore as Phyllis Tickle writes “The Great Emergence”, a book I highly recommend. It would suit the fancy of most atheists, since it talks little about faith.
You are confusing reformations and academics with war…you are getting your dates, places, events, all mixed up and put into the same stew.

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 10:56 AM

Again, that’s where the Holy Spirit comes in. Were we perfect, we wouldn’t need it,

Are you saying then that all those professed believers that interpret differently than you do NOT have the Holy Spirit in them because everyone with the Holy Spirit should be interpreting the Bible the same as you because you KNOW you have the spirit in you?

That certainly would be one way to know. If everyone who had the indwelling spirit could all agree on the interpretations. But alas that does not hold true either.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM

What judgment? I’m telling you Christian theology.

No you are telling me your intrepetation of Christian theology.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Johannine comma, Jeremiah Dilemma, Sargon of Akkad…..

additions, plagiarisms, errors….. not perfect

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:36 AM

-sigh-

You REALLY need to study more textual criticism.

Johanine comma – no major theological addition. The concept of the Trinity is found in many other places

Jeremiah dilemma – no major theological differences in the different versions

Sargon – so? Seriously, so what?

Look, no one who knows what they’re talking about denies that there have been small discrepancies over the millenia.

However, as any textual critic will tell you – none of these differences amount to anything theologically speaking.

Let me quote from Lee Strobel’s book “The Case for the Real Jesus” and an interview between Strobel and Dr. Dan Wallace – an expert on NT text criticism:

“The most remarkable thing to me is the tedium of looking at manuscript after manuscript after manuscript that just don’t change,” he answered. “Yes, there are differences, but they’re so minor. When I teach textual criticism every year, my students spend about a third of their workload transcribing manuscripts – and invariably they marvel at how little the manuscripts deviate.
“Now, I don’t want to give a false impression that they don’t deviate at all. But the vast majority of differences involve a spelling error or a moveable nu. You don’t see a line out of the blue where a scribe said, ‘Oh, I’m gonna make some kind of bizarre statement here.’ So the bottom line to me is how steady the copies of the manuscripts have been over the centuries.”
“Do you believe that God has accurately preserved enough for us to know him and his truth?”

“Absolutely. Do we have all the essentials? Yes. Do we have all the particulars? No. But that’s the task of a textual critic: to try to get back to the original. I’ll spend the rest of my life looking at manuscripts – transcribing them, photographing them, and publishing them. We still won’t recover the original wording in every single place. But I hope by the end of my life we’ll be a little bit closer – and that’s a worthy goal.”

Renowned scholar Ben Witherington puts it this way:

The truth is, that there are precious few textual variants that would make any significant difference to our theological or ethical beliefs based in the Bible, and even in the few cases where they are of some consequence, there are other texts in the Bible which are not textually dubious that give us those same theological or ethical views. He also makes very clear, that we can be well assured that for over 90% of the text of the NT we have a pretty high degree of certainty as to what it originally said, and as for the other 10%, no significant doctrines, beliefs, practices are at issue or risk one way or another by not knowing what this or that verse originally said.

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Are you saying then that all those professed believers that interpret differently than you do NOT have the Holy Spirit in them because everyone with the Holy Spirit should be interpreting the Bible the same as you because you KNOW you have the spirit in you?

No. We don’t lose our free will at any point.

No you are telling me your interpretation of Christian theology.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM

No, not mine. At the very least I’m giving you an accepted Christian theology.

Either way, it still has nothing to do with judgment.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:06 AM

However, as any textual critic will tell you – none of these differences amount to anything theologically speaking.

To you they are nothing.

To me they are the elephant in the room. You find apologetics sufficient. I find them insufficient.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 11:10 AM

To me they are the elephant in the room. You find apologetics sufficient. I find them insufficient.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 11:10 AM

If you continue to focus on people, rather than on God, you will always find something lacking.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Some interpret that you can lose salvation, some interpret once saved always saved. How could something so critical be left open to interpretation?

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 10:48 AM

We have someone posting that does not believe, even after a preponderance of information, that the apostles may not have even existed. I know of no reputable historical scholar that believes that.
So to ask how something cold be mis-interpreted,is a naive question.
Even when faced with the harshest of facts, I have seen people still believe what they must.
There is more written evidence along with eye witness evidence, that Jesus lived then the Caesar lived.
Yet, they will turn their back on hard evidence, like in 1929 a tile of Erastus, Paul’s companion on missions was unearthed in Macedonia.
So few people wrote, and so few were educated to write…and then what they wrote on was so fragile, yet still evidence (like the tile) supports his travels. And the fact that the churches grew after his visits, show the impact.
But what atheists want is the pen they wrote with, or video, and some high resolution pictures…and if they were given to them, they would want the cameras they were shot with, and if that were given to them they would want the receipt of the camera to show it was bought, and if that was given to them they would want proof that the store existed and if….what, you don’t have proof a store existed that sold them the camera? It can’t be true…

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM

The lady in question left physical evidence of her existence. The Bible is its own proof, which is no proof. The fact that it influenced so many people does not give it authority in fact.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Not so. You are picking disparate events out of many centuries. At the local level, the parish, particularly if adjoined to a monastery, the peasants were under the thumb of the Church. Even the church bell was applied to summon the people to services, and woe betide anyone who did not attend. As to what you may consider to be brutality, how much of this would have been recorded? Major events would, as would events involving notables, but repression was a daily part of life for most people under the Church. Apparently, it was for their own good.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Your original argument was this

The Orthodox Church grew, mainly, from objections to that mantra. From that point on, any dissension was met with brutal measures to stifle said dissent. This continued until the Reformation.
OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 9:35 AM

I showed you the three most significant changes in the church in the past 2,000 years, and they did not contain what you stated.
But you changed the argument, if you meant that society (both church and gov)lorded over peasants and the lower class, then you are correct, no news there.
It was the Reformation that was credited (too much so) to Luther, that begin the education and the rising of a middle class. So it was the church that created the middle class, through education. It was the church that allowed the people to finally begin to break the bonds of slavery to the church leaders…done without a war, but through a reformation.

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM

To you they are nothing.

And also to scholars and both religious and secular textual critics.

You can call it the “elephant in the room” all you want – the scholarship begs to differ.

Your argument only makes any sense at all (and even then, it’s a minimum amount of ’sense’) if one is arguing FOR inerrency (every word in the Bible is God crafted and historically, factually and literally correct).

Let me quote again from that Lee Strobel interview:

“Now, finish this sentence,” I said. “When Christians say the Bible is inerrant, they mean – ”

“They mean a number of things. For some, it’s almost a magic wand approach, where the Bible is treated like a modern scientific and historical textbook that’s letter perfect. Some Christians would say, for example, that the words of Jesus are in red letters because that’s exactly what he said.

“Well, if you compare the same incident in different Gospels, you’ll notice some differences in wording. That’s fine as long as we’re not thinking in terms of quotations being nailed exactly, like a tape recorder. They didn’t even have quotation marks in Greek. In ancient historiography, they were concerned with correctly getting the gist of what was said. The other view of inerrancy, on the other end of the spectrum, is to say the Bible is true in what it touches. So we can’t treat it like a scientific book or a twenty-first century historical document.”
“How do you define infallibility?” I asked.

“My definition of infallibility is the Bible is true in what it teaches. My definition of inerrancy is that the Bible is true in what it touches. So infallibility is a more foundational doctrine, which says the Bible is true with reference to faith and practice. Inerrancy is built on that doctrine and it says that the Bible is also true when it comes to dealing with historical issues, but we still have to look at in light of first-century historical practices.

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Again you are not a perfect being. You may intend one thing and ten different people will interpret it differently.

My expectation is that a perfect being would inspire a word so perfect that those same ten different people would all interpret the same way…. that in and of itself would be evidence of their indwelling Holy Spirit but that is not reality. Many people who claim to have the Holy Spirit continue to misinterpret and disagree.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 11:29 AM

The lady in question left physical evidence of her existence. The Bible is its own proof, which is no proof. The fact that it influenced so many people does not give it authority in fact.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 11:16 AM

But awhile ago you were trying to state that the apostles may not have been real, or that Darius was not real…but when face with facts, you now believe what.
Do you believe that King Darius was real?
Do you believe that the apostles were real?
If not, then no facts will deter you from your non-belief…so who is more blinded by faith?
The one who is given books, and information that has been historically proven to be accurate, therefore has some basis of truth and reliability?
Or is the more blinded the one that when presented with facts (like King Darius is a historical person, or that every major scholar for hundreds of years knows the existence of the apostles), ignores the facts, never restates his error…but continues to argue?
I think the answer is obvious…

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Many people who claim to have the Holy Spirit continue to misinterpret and disagree.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Because again, we have free will. If your mind is controlled, you have no free will. It’s really that simple.

You’re stuck on this idea what a perfect being will give us powers of inspiration we didn’t before have, but that’s not based on any theology or reasoning other than your say so.

Just because God is perfect, it doesn’t mean we have perfect reasoning abilities.

In fact, if God exists, we’re very likely to not understand him. After all, how many of us understand Stephen Hawkins?

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Because again, we have free will. If your mind is controlled, you have no free will. It’s really that simple.

You’re stuck on this idea what a perfect being will give us powers of inspiration we didn’t before have, but that’s not based on any theology or reasoning other than your say so.

Just because God is perfect, it doesn’t mean we have perfect reasoning abilities.

In fact, if God exists, we’re very likely to not understand him. After all, how many of us understand Stephen Hawkins?

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Free will and the first commandment do not mix. You don’t have free will if you are not permitted to ponder one of the biggest questions ever.

The first commandment might have been the most effective political power move ever.

LevStrauss on December 2, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Plenty of scholars disagree with the journalist Strobel.

Strobel was reporting someone else’s scholarship.

Tell me about all the scholars who have a problem with Dan Wallace (the person he was interviewing)?

Or Mark Roberts or Ben Witherington or Gordon Fee or Raymond Brown?

A majority of people believed the scholars that said the Earth was flat.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM

And a majority of scholars believe in evolution and gravity.

But I guess since some scholars were wrong at one time that means ALL scholars are ALWAYS wrong.

/sarc & eyeroll

Religious_Zealot on December 2, 2008 at 11:45 AM

He does not sprinkle pixie dust on us to make us understand

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 11:44 AM

If God did that, we wouldn’t have free will. We wouldn’t be able to think and wonder if God really does exist. That power would be taken from us, leaving us with no other options than to serve God as a robot.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:47 AM

A majority of people believed the scholars that said the Earth was flat.

Socmodfiscon on December 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Because the “scholars” were religious, and religion had not co-existed with science.
Most sailors knew the earth was round, few believed the earth to be flat.
It was flat to the priests because it fit into their heaven (above) and hell (below).
Once again, because of the church, the flat earth (Copernicus and his book) was soon put to rest. Some of the church resisted, but it was the church that also supported science.

right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 11:56 AM

DrMagnolias on December 2, 2008 at 11:12 AM

First, my apologies for the late reply. I lost my net connection for several hours – judgement or something.

I would not argue your post, not one iota. However, you did state the problem in all of this – oral records. Word of mouth is no proof, at least, not to me.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM

Asked whether he was bothered by the atheist display next to his Nativity scene, Wesselius said, “I think the Nativity scene will speak for itself.”

But he added, “I appreciate freedom of speech and freedom of access. That’s why they’re in there, and hey – you know, that’s great.”

Dude’s got a thick skin. Good for him.

RightOFLeft on December 2, 2008 at 9:19 PM

I would not argue your post, not one iota. However, you did state the problem in all of this – oral records. Word of mouth is no proof, at least, not to me.

OldEnglish on December 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM

And you’ve just hit on the crucial issue that I have with most atheists – or if not most, then the most vocal (like the ones involved in the article at point).

I’ll make my point using the example of DrMagnolias great-grandmother again. If your point is that oral records are not convincing enough for you and therefore you choose not to believe in anything you hear regarding DrMagnolias’ great-grandmother… fine, great, wonderful. That’s your right and I have no issue with it.

However, the line that many atheists cross, and where I have a problem with them, is when they say the oral records of DrMagnolias’ great-grandmother are not convincing, therefore she did not exist and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot. And that is the way a great many atheists come across… arrogance taken to a ridiculous extreme.

Texas Nick USN on December 4, 2008 at 5:14 AM