[W:1396] Questions that atheists are afraid to answer

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's also clear that everything begins with the Sumerian pantheon of 12 deities -- 11 males and one females.

Culture diffuses, this diffused west through the Mari, Nuzi, Mitanni into Canaan and we can see it in the Ugarit pantheon:

[Bull]-El, Ba'al, El Elyon, El Berith, El Shaddai, Yam, Mot, Asherah (Yahweh's consort) Yahweh, Dagon, Kothar, and Lothan.

Note that Mot in CBH means death and Mot was the god of death and Yam was a sea god and so in CBH we have "yam suf" better known as the Sea of Reeds. That's just more evidence the Exodus never happened.

You can see the cultural shift from polytheism to henotheism to monolatry and the shift to monolatry occurs in some cultures a century or two or three before the Hebrews decided to jump on the band-wagon.

While the Hebrew texts claim Yahweh and El Shaddai are one in the same, it is quite obvious from the Ugarit/Hebrew pantheon that is not true as they are two different distinguishable deities. Most likely, Yahweh parallels El Shaddai's younger brother Adad (aka Hadad and variations in other languages).

Well again, I can't say much at a general level, but how did you establish that the Sumerian text is not somehow a distorted rendering of even earlier word of mouth Hebrew stories? All knowledge of God was word of mouth it seems until Moses, so potentially for thousands of year God was spoken of, recalled in stories and so on.

I did not paraphrase anything. I merely provided an on-the-fly example to illustrate a point.

I believe he did, but he was neither a god nor the son of any god and he faked his death and fled after a failed coup attempt to overthrow the Pharisees.

How do you know that?

They are contradictory. They can't even agree on the day Jesus was crucified.

That's not true, pretty much all "contradictions" can be reconciled if one is prepared to consider alternative possibilities.

All the statements are suspect. Had you studied the texts, you'd know that Jesus never once mentions Yahweh. He does use the word "Father" but that doesn't equate to Yahweh.

But what of it? Christ revealed the Father, a hitherto alien concept. Christ did not mention Yahweh because he was Yahweh, you think Yahweh is the same entity as the Father, but that's not true.

Also, on the Day of Atonement, everyone's sins are cleansed. It so states in the Hebrew texts. That begs the question why it was necessary to have someone allegedly die a brutal death when for more than 1,000 years one guy slaughtered an animal, hacked up the carcass and waved the bits around to free people of sin once a year.

Not understanding something does not constitute a refutation of that thing.

Saying "this does not make sense to me therefore it's false" isn't sound reasoning.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Deities are the product of humans with a scientific understanding of the world around them equivalent to a 2-year old.

So that sweeping generalization would apply to Prof. John Lennox then, absurd, your position is absurd.

Later, those non-existent deities were then used to justify why one man, or one clan or tribe should rule over everyone else.

Much later, the Catholic Poops used them to justify anything and everything they wanted to do, like burn witches and issue Writs de Haeretico Comburendo to burn a "heretic" to death for having a slightly different interpretation of textual passage or for rejecting a pope's silly nonsense.

Take the "soul."

No one knew of the existence of biological cells, which would not be discovered until 2,000 years later in the year 1607.

The Greeks certainly knew what a brain was, but they had no idea it consisted of Billions of biological cells or that those cells were highly specialized and it was the interactions with chemical enzymes that gave rise to consciousness.

Lacking that knowledge, the only conclusion they could draw was that some unseen force or spirit inhabited a person's body to make them be.

The difference between "believers" and those ancient Greeks is that if those ancient Greeks were alive today and could see how the brain really works, they would have the courage to admit they were wrong and flat out reject the existence of a soul.

But, believers still cling to the claims made by ancient Greeks based on sheer ignorance.

Well that's an opinion, we all have them, the question is what conclusions can we draw from evidence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

?? I'm a Christian, so I guess, a theist. And I dont make that 'mistake.' I dont demand evidence/proof. I can offer reasons, yes, and faith. That is the exact opposite of what SH is doing. Also, I dont demand anyone else provide evidence of a 'lack of God'.

IMO SH has failed in his "belief" in God in a major way. But not all people who believe in God need proof...many do believe on faith.
It's not a problem for me or those who believe on faith, as God demands.

Your position is quite absurd, you claim you believe by "faith" and nothing more but that is patently false and in fact at odds with scripture.

The only way you can be aware of the role and importance of faith is to study the scriptures, what motivates one to study and believe that scripture is true before they've developed faith?

There was a time when you did not have faith, that may have been ten years ago or it may have been when you were six, whatever there was a time, so until you had faith on what basis did you study and trust scripture in the first place?

You'd need to have faith in scripture in order to read that faith is important.

This is the problem I have with Christians who use this self congratulatory "I'm so much better than you because I rely on faith alone" argument, it is false, we rely on God not faith, any faith you do have was given to you by God, it is not you being a good Christian, you did not decide, choose to develop faith, everything you have is a gift, even faith.

This "I'm a better Christian than you because I rely only on faith" is the very same mindset that Christ confronted in the NT with the Pharisees, placing themselves above God, taking credit, elevating themselves above others, you are no different.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How many times, historically, have people attributed something to "God" or a set of gods, something that they didn't know, and been right about it?
How many times, historically, have people attributed something to "God" or a set of gods, something that they didn't know, and been wrong about it?

Seriously? how can we even tell if someone was right or wrong about attributing something to God?

I just explained that science only lets us move the gap, it never removes a gap, and because there is always a gap there's always scope for God.

If I said "The moon orbits because of God" then you say "Ahh, that's no true, we now know that the moon orbits because of gravity" then I can also say "Yes, but gravity is there because of God, so by extension the moon orbits because of God".

The glib "science explains" argument is unsound, oh so typical of today's scientism drenched attitudes.

"I don't know" doesn't give rise to "It must be that...". The only thing ignorance gives rise to is the fact that we don't know something.

We always don't know something - but why is that? do you know?

 

[soylentgreen]

?? I'm a Christian, so I guess, a theist. And I dont make that 'mistake.' I dont demand evidence/proof. I can offer reasons, yes, and faith. That is the exact opposite of what SH is doing. Also, I dont demand anyone else provide evidence of a 'lack of God'.

IMO SH has failed in his "belief" in God in a major way. But not all people who believe in God need proof...many do believe on faith.
It's not a problem for me or those who believe on faith, as God demands.

IMO karl marx hit the nail on the head when he described belief as an opiate. When used wisely it is a relief from the pains of the world. When used badly as sherlock is doing it is an addictive drug that does more harm than good.

 

[soylentgreen]

Seriously? how can we even tell if someone was right or wrong about attributing something to God?

And then said:

The only way you can be aware of the role and importance of faith is to study the scriptures,

How can we tell if sherlock is right or wrong?

 

[devildavid]

Actually what's obvious is that this is illogical, paradoxical and you seem to have not noticed, this bodes ill for your overall case.

You cannot defined "explained" as something that's explained Visbek, in addition what does "supernatural" mean and why is it not to be considered?



As I said we can explain the effects gravitation has, making predictions and observations about those but as for what it is we have no explanation, why it exists we don't have a clue. All we have today is the Einstein field equations that relate a field (a metric field) to mass/momentum, why that relationship exists, it's "cause" is a total mystery.





Yet not knowing the last detail is a huge problem for the atheist, it is often there biggest objection to God because they will all shout "Ahh, but where did God come from then?" how do you reconcile that objection with what you just said? seems hypocritical to say the least.



Ridiculous, how are you able to say that every "gap" can be explained without recourse to God? you have absolutely no basis or argument that can logically support that.

Furthermore it is false to argue "we keep closing the gaps" when all you are actually doing is moving the gaps, the gaps are always present and always will be, science does not "close" gaps it just moves them, consider this remark a critically important lesson about science which you keep claiming you understand so much better than I do.



Well what is your objection to stopping the asking? surely if something is 100% explained there'll be nothing that unanswered, nothing to ask!

Your whole argument is about explaining and closing gaps and so on, yet right here in that last remark you are claiming that we need to continue asking questions, this is just so contradictory its a joke.

All you're saying here now is what I already said NOTHING IS EVER EXPLAINED when you insist on material explanations for everything, again you've gotten your knickers in a twist, I'm surprised you can't see this, you're certainly intelligent enough to understand this I'm sure.

I'm stopping my response to this post, here, there are just too many errors in your post that I feel we need to get some headway on these points before we can proceed in any useful way.

Things are explained by material explanations. Otherwise, you would be unable to post here. Reality contradicts your claim.

 

[devildavid]

Well again, I can't say much at a general level, but how did you establish that the Sumerian text is not somehow a distorted rendering of even earlier word of mouth Hebrew stories? All knowledge of God was word of mouth it seems until Moses, so potentially for thousands of year God was spoken of, recalled in stories and so on.



How do you know that?



That's not true, pretty much all "contradictions" can be reconciled if one is prepared to consider alternative possibilities.



But what of it? Christ revealed the Father, a hitherto alien concept. Christ did not mention Yahweh because he was Yahweh, you think Yahweh is the same entity as the Father, but that's not true.



Not understanding something does not constitute a refutation of that thing.

Saying "this does not make sense to me therefore it's false" isn't sound reasoning.

Did you know that there was plenty of human history before the Hebrews even existed?

 

[Drowning Man]

Seriously? how can we even tell if someone was right or wrong about attributing something to God?

I just explained that science only lets us move the gap, it never removes a gap, and because there is always a gap there's always scope for God.

My point is that most every time, as you say, science moves the gap, that was previously a gap that someone claimed "God" or a set of gods, filled...

So theists are continually shifting what "God" or a set of gods is responsible for. And continually wrong.

In all of their conjecture, when have they ever been right about what they claim "God" or a set of gods, fills the gap for? Where have we ever found their claims to be valid, rather than just unproved?

We always don't know something - but why is that? do you know?

Because we don't and most likely can't know everything? What's your point?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Well again, I can't say much at a general level, but how did you establish that the Sumerian text is not somehow a distorted rendering of even earlier word of mouth Hebrew stories? All knowledge of God was word of mouth it seems until Moses, so potentially for thousands of year God was spoken of, recalled in stories and so on.

...

But what of it? Christ revealed the Father, a hitherto alien concept. Christ did not mention Yahweh because he was Yahweh, you think Yahweh is the same entity as the Father, but that's not true.

Okay, and so why does anything traced back to this era deserve any more credit than what any random bumf*** preacher might say about God, God’s thoughts, God’s nature, etc.? If a pastor or preacher in some little American town says “God spoke to me the other day and told me _____,” why is that any less credible than whatever ancient text? Who are you or I to say the bumf*** pastor‘s improvisation shouldn’t supersede the entire Old Testament? Maybe it should! Maybe if we discarded the OT and replaced it with what a pastor in Biloxi, MS said this morning, the world would be a better place and more people would convert or open their hearts to Christianity. Who knows. Why not try it (i.e., why not revamp the Bible, replacing useless parts with what modern religious leaders think and say)?

The same way a random bumf*** pastor could have improvised something this very morning about God allegedly speaking to him or inspiring him, someone could have done the same thing 3,000 years ago and, if it were somehow recorded or passed down, it’d be sacred scripture. Why can’t we add the bumf*** pastor‘s words and ideas to the sacred scripture? What is it about the age of it that makes it so sacred? Why could it only be the religious leaders of 2+ millennia ago that could have been so “inspired“ by God as to be able to utter “God’s words,” whereas people claiming to do so today, cannot, and will never deserve the same credibility?

There is no objective process for this. You can’t even define the God it is we’re supposed to be talking about/considering here.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

My point is that most every time, as you say, science moves the gap, that was previously a gap that someone claimed "God" or a set of gods, filled...

So theists are continually shifting what "God" or a set of gods is responsible for. And continually wrong.

Well I don't think this is true at all, firstly even an apparently explained things could be attributed to God, as I mentioned gravity "explains" the moon's observed behavior but if God is the explanation for gravity existing then by extension God is the ultimate explanation for the moon surely?

Tell me, if someone falls from a building because their balcony rail breaks is the broken balcony the explanation for their death or gravity or something else?

In all of their conjecture, when have they ever been right about what they claim "God" or a set of gods, fills the gap for? Where have we ever found their claims to be valid, rather than just unproved?

You certainly cannot tell if such people were right or not because as I just explained if God caused the universe to exist then whatever happens in that universe must be attributed to God, so there is actually no evidence for your claim.

Your claim seems to be that if devise some mechanistic explanation for something, then God can no longer be a possible explanation for that thing, but that's a false argument.

Because we don't and most likely can't know everything? What's your point?

That nothing is actually ever explained, if every explanation always comes with it's own new set of questions then by definition we haven't explained anything at all.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Okay, and so why does anything traced back to this era deserve any more credit than what any random bumf*** preacher might say about God, God’s thoughts, God’s nature, etc.?

Why not? just because you've a personal gripe with modern day "preachers" tells us absolutely nothing about whether some text from two thousand years ago is true or false.

If a pastor or preacher in some little American town says “God spoke to me the other day and told me _____,” why is that any less credible than whatever ancient text?

That's a judgement call, we each must make judgements all the time, however the texts from two thousand years ago claim to be in-person witnesses to miracles, multiple independent witnesses attest to this and claim it is true.

How do you handle that? if you had been present and saw the events described in John or Mark etc, actually saw them with your own eyes, water becoming wine and so on, what could you do if you wanted others to know about these incredible events?

You know, it's clear, all one could do is write it down or find someone who could write down what you saw.

So the NT is in fact exactly what we'd expect to have if the events were true - it might not categorically prove that its all true, but it is what we'd expect to find IF it were true, written records, independently written (as is evidence by the various differences between them).

Who are you or I to say the bumf*** pastor‘s improvisation shouldn’t supersede the entire Old Testament? Maybe it should! Maybe if we discarded the OT and replaced it with what a pastor in Biloxi, MS said this morning, the world would be a better place and more people would convert or open their hearts to Christianity. Who knows. Why not try it (i.e., why not revamp the Bible, replacing useless parts with what modern religious leaders think and say)?

The same way a random bumf*** pastor could have improvised something this very morning about God allegedly speaking to him or inspiring him, someone could have done the same thing 3,000 years ago and, if it were somehow recorded or passed down, it’d be sacred scripture. Why can’t we add the bumf*** pastor‘s words and ideas to the sacred scripture? What is it about the age of it that makes it so sacred? Why could it only be the religious leaders of 2+ millennia ago that could have been so “inspired“ by God as to be able to utter “God’s words,” whereas people claiming to do so today, cannot, and will never deserve the same credibility?

There is no objective process for this. You can’t even define the God it is we’re supposed to be talking about/considering here.

I don't consider the behavior of some pastors today to have any bearing whatsoever on whether the NT is a truthful record of history.

 

[Lursa]

Your position is quite absurd, you claim you believe by "faith" and nothing more but that is patently false and in fact at odds with scripture.

Prove it. Please, prove I'm lying. My faith is informed by many things...but proof was not a requirement.

The only way you can be aware of the role and importance of faith is to study the scriptures,

Yes

what motivates one to study and believe that scripture is true before they've developed faith?

Children are brought up with it, like manners and tradition and discipline and rules.

There was a time when you did not have faith, that may have been ten years ago or it may have been when you were six, whatever there was a time, so until you had faith on what basis did you study and trust scripture in the first place?

My parents were Sunday School teachers and I grew up in a Protestant church. I grew up taking it for granted, and then later, questioned and explored.

So, chalk up another mistake for you.

You'd need to have faith in scripture in order to read that faith is important.

I do believe them, to a point. I maintain perspective on the realities under which they were written by fallible men of the times. I believe in them to the point where they convey as a whole, God's Word of compassion, forgiveness, brotherly love, and peace.

This is the problem I have with Christians who use this self congratulatory "I'm so much better than you because I rely on faith alone" argument, it is false, we rely on God not faith, any faith you do have was given to you by God, it is not you being a good Christian, you did not decide, choose to develop faith, everything you have is a gift, even faith.

You wont admit to which god, much less being a Christian...or are you doing so now?

And sure, I'm good with 'faith' was given to me by God. That works for me. I am thankful. What was your point here?

This "I'm a better Christian than you because I rely only on faith" is the very same mindset that Christ confronted in the NT with the Pharisees, placing themselves above God, taking credit, elevating themselves above others, you are no different.

I didnt say I was a better Christian than you. You refused to commit to being one (even tho you use Christian scriptures.) I said that your faith was weak because you NEED proof.

And you lie about having that proof or evidence, since you wont provide it. And you use it as a club to try and punish and disrespect non-believers, which is the OPPOSITE of what God demands of us, which is to share His Word and lead them to Him...not drive them away with false pride ego and insults. Not by "withholding" the proof you claim you have That's even more sinful.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Prove it. Please, prove I'm lying. My faith is informed by many things...but proof was not a requirement.

Yes

Children are brought up with it, like manners and tradition and discipline and rules.

My parents were Sunday School teachers and I grew up in a Protestant church. I grew up taking it for granted, and then later, questioned and explored.

So, chalk up another mistake for you.

I do believe them, to a point. I maintain perspective on the realities under which they were written by fallible men of the times. I believe in them to the point where they convey as a whole, God's Word of compassion, forgiveness, brotherly love, and peace.

You wont admit to which god, much less being a Christian...or are you doing so now?

And sure, I'm good with 'faith' was given to me by God. That works for me. I am thankful. What was your point here?


I didnt say I was a better Christian than you. You refused to commit to being one (even tho you use Christian scriptures.) I said that your faith was weak because you NEED proof.

And you lie about having that proof or evidence, since you wont provide it. And you use it as a club to try and punish and disrespect non-believers, which is the OPPOSITE of what God demands of us, which is to share His Word and lead them to Him...not drive them away with false pride ego and insults. Not by "withholding" the proof you claim you have That's even more sinful.

Call me a liar if that's suits you, judge me a liar if that's what your "faith" encourages you to do, but I care not, besides a woman should not even be preaching to a man, but I guess facts don't matter - do they...



In plain modern English Lursa, Zip It!

 

[Lursa]

Call me a liar if that's suits you, judge me a liar if that's what your "faith" encourages you to do, but I care not, besides a woman should not even be preaching to a man, but I guess facts don't matter - do they...

View attachment 67325340

In plain modern English Lursa, Zip It!

Sherlock Holmes just got butthurt because a woman called him out and proved him wrong! His last resort is to try and insult women! And once again he fails.

How sad for you, to be undermined by a woman! Doesnt say much for the man then, does it, if that's what you believe?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock Holmes just got butthurt because a woman called him out and proved him wrong! His last resort is to try and insult women! And once again he fails.

How sad for you, to be undermined by a woman! Doesnt say much for the man then, does it, if that's what you believe?

So the word of God insults you? best remove the plank from your own eye before trying to point out the splinter in mine.

By the way - these are not my words:

 

[Lursa]

So the word of God insults you? best remove the plank from your own eye before trying to point out the splinter in mine.

By the way - these are not my words:

View attachment 67325346

You've been blinded by your humiliation...if you'd read my post 563 better, you'd know why you are wrong...AGAIN

​

​

​

Sherlock Holmes just got butthurt because a woman called him out and proved him wrong! His last resort is to try and insult women! And once again he fails. ​

​

How sad for you, to be undermined by a woman! Doesnt say much for the man then, does it, if that's what you believe?​

​

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You've been blinded by your humiliation...if you'd read my post 563 better, you'd know why you are wrong...AGAIN

​

​

​

Sherlock Holmes just got butthurt because a woman called him out and proved him wrong! His last resort is to try and insult women! And once again he fails. ​

​

How sad for you, to be undermined by a woman! Doesnt say much for the man then, does it, if that's what you believe?​

​

Read it and weep.

 

[Lursa]

View attachment 67325348

Read it and weep.

You've been blinded by your humiliation...if you'd read my post 563 better, you'd know why you are wrong...AGAIN

"I do believe the scriptures, to a point. I maintain perspective on the realities under which they were written by fallible men of the times. I believe in them to the point where they convey as a whole, God's Word of compassion, forgiveness, brotherly love, and peace."

​

​

Sherlock Holmes just got butthurt because a woman called him out and proved him wrong! His last resort is to try and insult women! And once again he fails. ​

​

How sad for you, to be undermined by a woman! Doesnt say much for the man then, does it, if that's what you believe?​

​

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You've been blinded by your humiliation...if you'd read my post 563 better, you'd know why you are wrong...AGAIN

"I do believe the scriptures, to a point. I maintain perspective on the realities under which they were written by fallible men of the times. I believe in them to the point where they convey as a whole, God's Word of compassion, forgiveness, brotherly love, and peace."

​

​

Sherlock Holmes just got butthurt because a woman called him out and proved him wrong! His last resort is to try and insult women! And once again he fails. ​

​

How sad for you, to be undermined by a woman! Doesnt say much for the man then, does it, if that's what you believe?​

​

You believe exactly what you want to believe, you're even accusing me of misogyny yet all I did was cite scripture, you're filled with hatred, accuse, accuse accuse.

 

[Lursa]

You believe exactly what you want to believe, you're even accusing me of misogyny yet all I did was cite scripture, you're filled with hatred, accuse, accuse accuse.

LMAO you tried using scripture to tell a woman who proved you wrong that 'it wasnt my place' *because* I'm a woman! Er, seems my accusation is 100% accurate, even if the scripture isnt

You've been blinded by your humiliation...if you'd read my post 563 better, you'd know why you are wrong...AGAIN ​

​

"I do believe the scriptures, to a point. I maintain perspective on the realities under which they were written by fallible men of the times. I believe in them to the point where they convey as a whole, God's Word of compassion, forgiveness, brotherly love, and peace."​

​

​

​

​

Sherlock Holmes just got butthurt because a woman called him out and proved him wrong! His last resort is to try and insult women! And once again he fails. ​

​

How sad for you, to be undermined by a woman! Doesnt say much for the man then, does it, if that's what you believe?​

.

 

[Drowning Man]

Well I don't think this is true at all, firstly even an apparently explained things could be attributed to God, as I mentioned gravity "explains" the moon's observed behavior but if God is the explanation for gravity existing then by extension God is the ultimate explanation for the moon surely?

I don't consider your religion singular, so I could pull examples from things like the African goddess of fertility, various lightning and thunder gods, etc... But I'm sure you'll reject those because they aren't of the religion that you believe in.

So, let's consider the story of Galileo....where a scientist was punished by the church for having the audacity of pointing out that the church was wrong based on scientific observation.

You certainly cannot tell if such people were right or not because as I just explained if God caused the universe to exist then whatever happens in that universe must be attributed to God, so there is actually no evidence for your claim.

No...what you're doing is moving the goal posts. Yes, there will probably always be some uncertainty, at some level...but that doesn't mean that the specific claims of believers were right. The center of the universe is NOT the earth...and the fact that there may be some scientific question that cannot be answered ultimately, doesn't make the claim that the earth is the center of the universe, any more correct.

Your claim seems to be that if devise some mechanistic explanation for something, then God can no longer be a possible explanation for that thing, but that's a false argument.

That's exactly what I'm claiming. If something was believed based on "God" or a set of gods, and then is proved not to be based on "God" or a set of gods, then it's clear that the belief that "God" or the set of gods caused that thing, is false. And no amount of moving the goal posts, changes that fact.

That nothing is actually ever explained, if every explanation always comes with it's own new set of questions then by definition we haven't explained anything at all.

Then your "God" doesn't explain anything. Right?

 

[devildavid]

Seriously? how can we even tell if someone was right or wrong about attributing something to God?
I just explained that science only lets us move the gap, it never removes a gap, and because there is always a gap there's always scope for God.
If I said "The moon orbits because of God" then you say "Ahh, that's no true, we now know that the moon orbits because of gravity" then I can also say "Yes, but gravity is there because of God, so by extension the moon orbits because of God".
The glib "science explains" argument is unsound, oh so typical of today's scientism drenched attitudes.
We always don't know something - but why is that? do you know?

No, science does not move gaps. It fills them in with rational, scientific explanations. You present your straw man view of science. All you do is create straw men of science, atheism, and atheists. That is when you aren't begging the question.

 

[soylentgreen]

Prove it. Please, prove I'm lying. My faith is informed by many things...but proof was not a requirement.

Yes

Children are brought up with it, like manners and tradition and discipline and rules.

My parents were Sunday School teachers and I grew up in a Protestant church. I grew up taking it for granted, and then later, questioned and explored.

So, chalk up another mistake for you.

I do believe them, to a point. I maintain perspective on the realities under which they were written by fallible men of the times. I believe in them to the point where they convey as a whole, God's Word of compassion, forgiveness, brotherly love, and peace.

You wont admit to which god, much less being a Christian...or are you doing so now?

And sure, I'm good with 'faith' was given to me by God. That works for me. I am thankful. What was your point here?


I didnt say I was a better Christian than you. You refused to commit to being one (even tho you use Christian scriptures.) I said that your faith was weak because you NEED proof.

And you lie about having that proof or evidence, since you wont provide it. And you use it as a club to try and punish and disrespect non-believers, which is the OPPOSITE of what God demands of us, which is to share His Word and lead them to Him...not drive them away with false pride ego and insults. Not by "withholding" the proof you claim you have That's even more sinful.

He is wrong about this. There are millions of people who are illiterate and have never read any book let alone scripture, yet their belief is based only on their faith.

The bibles are nothing more than badly written books by homophobic, misogynistic slave owners to any who have no faith or belief in a god. They only become acceptable if a person already has a belief in a god. Like all theists sherlock begins from a hidden premise that there must be a god in his reading of scripture if he finds them at all credible.

And in his case we can emphasise the misogynist part of that.

 

[Lursa]

He is wrong about this. There are millions of people who are illiterate and have never read any book let alone scripture, yet their belief is based only on their faith.

I know. What do they think 'church services' are for? LOL

The bibles are nothing more than badly written books by homophobic, misogynistic slave owners to any who have no faith or belief in a god. They only become acceptable if a person already has a belief in a god. Like all theosts sherlock begins from a hidden premise that there must be a god in his reading of scripture if he finds them at all credible.

There are some good stories in there on how to treat your fellow man that withstand the test of time. And yeah, some that are poor reflections of time and agenda. The overlying Message on how to treat your fellow man is what I have faith in: God's Word of compassion, forgiveness, brotherly love, and peace.

Anything else in there that doesnt follow that, that 'breaks' that Word...is BS misinterpretation, intentional or otherwise. So obviously there's nothing wrong with being gay or having sex outside marriage.