16 comments

Comment from: Neil [Visitor]
Neil"50 years from now, will you look back and see how foolish our culture was? Will you not see how abortion is worse than all of the previous errors?"

My prayer is that it would happen in 50 years or less. I think people will look back and say, "You permitted the crushing and dismembered of the weakest and most defenseless human beings of all, and you called it a woman's right to choose?!"

Societies do not just progress towards improved morality. They take steps backwards all the time.
07/26/08 @ 09:57
Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]
Johnny OI'd like to add something to your list.

The most devisive thing ever invented by humankind.

The human race's first ignorant attempt at answering things it didn't and couldn't possibly understand, which over time has been shown to be false.

It taught a morality that included some of the above and a lot worse besides.

My wish is that in the future the human race can look back and say "Did they really believe those things? Did they ignore mountains of scientific evidence in favour of a book written by people who thought the desert they roamed was inhabited by demons?"
07/26/08 @ 14:40
Comment from: Dan [Member] Email
Danyou're right johnny. i forgot to include darwinism.
07/26/08 @ 15:15
Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]
Johnny OLOL
07/26/08 @ 15:27
Comment from: Edgar [Member] Email
EdgarNeil,

if what you say is true,

"You permitted the crushing and dismembered of the weakest and most defenseless human beings of all, and you called it a woman's right to choose?!"

then women will get a lot of bad rep because they are some of the ones leading the "its my body" movement.

First the apple, and then this... not looking good.
07/26/08 @ 20:34
Comment from: Neil [Visitor]
Neil"then women will get a lot of bad rep because they are some of the ones leading the "its my body" movement."

Statistically speaking, the group most in favor of abortion on demand is . . . [drumroll] . . . this is really going to be a shocker . . . young single men! Go figure.

Yes, many women lead the movement, and more women oppose it. Go visit a crisis pregnancy center and you'll meet a bunch of the latter.

And countless women suffer mightily from this movement, believing the lie that it will make their problem go away when in truth their problems are just beginning. Nothing like a lifetime of guilt over killing your child. Mercifully, there is hope, forgiveness and healing in Jesus. I've seen it over and over.

"Did they really believe those things? Did they ignore mountains of scientific evidence in favour of a book written by people who thought the desert they roamed was inhabited by demons?" "

Really? Has science disproved that people are sinners in need of a Savior? Has it disproved that you will live for eternity with God in Heaven or in without him in Hell?

I did notice that, while not meant as a science textbook, the Bible taught that the universe came into existence at a point in time. It did so when the human race, in its ignorance, "couldn't possibly understand" such a concept. The Bible was over 3,500 years ahead of its time on the beginning of the universe. Again, go figure.

". . . which over time has been shown to be false.

It taught a morality that included some of the above and a lot worse besides."

Now you are just making things up. I love it when atheists try to explain something about the Bible.
07/27/08 @ 15:27
Comment from: Edgar [Member] Email
EdgarNeil, Thanks for the clarification. I guess the media photos of the bare bellies with their "It's my body" slogan are too popular these days.
07/27/08 @ 21:34
Comment from: Neil [Visitor]
NeilNo problem, I realize you were kidding and where you stand on this. Just thought I'd interject some factoids.
07/28/08 @ 03:56
Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]
Johnny O
Really? Has science disproved that people are sinners in need of a Savior? Has it disproved that you will live for eternity with God in Heaven or in without him in Hell?
No. It hasn't disproved unicorns, (mentioned several times in the Bible), or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or UFO's coming into England to make crop circles, or Montana to steal the lips from cattle. What's your point? If it can't be disproved you should believe it? I tend to go the other way and require lots of verifiable evidence from several sources before I can believe in something that has such an affect on my life.

the Bible taught that the universe came into existence at a point in time
Well it either did or it didn't, so they took a 50/50 guess and got it right, hardly impressive.

The Bible was over 3,500 years ahead of its time on the beginning of the universe
And yet it can't get the calculation for Pi right, which Egyptian and Babylonians were very close to at around the same time.

If it had a double helix in it, with a side note saying, "Look, don't worry about this for now, it will all become clear in a few thousand years". God's Laws of Motion, instead of Newton's, or even a brief explanation of heliocentrism, so we didn't think we were the centre of the universe then I'd be impressed. But there's nothing in there that couldn't be (and wasn't) written by an ordinary person of that age.

Now you are just making things up.
Working on the Sabbath - Stoned. Blasphemy - Stoned. Worshipping other Gods - Stoned. Disobeying your parents - Stoned. A woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night - Stone. If a woman is raped and doesn't scream loudly enough she should be... you guessed it... stoned.

And it offers all kinds of advice on how to keep a slave, about the only thing you can't do to a slave is beat them so hard that they die straight away. If they die in a few days then that's ok. Jefferson Davis was very clear about whose side God was on in your own Civil War.

Even St. Augustine, who is mentioned in another thread, says, "...slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance."

I don't think I'm making anything up Neil. If you need anything in the Bible explaining, just let me know
07/28/08 @ 05:39
Comment from: Neil [Visitor]
NeilNo. It hasn't disproved unicorns, (mentioned several times in the Bible), or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or "UFO's coming into England to make crop circles, or Montana to steal the lips from cattle. What's your point? If it can't be disproved you should believe it? I tend to go the other way and require lots of verifiable evidence from several sources before I can believe in something that has such an affect on my life."

We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, archeological support and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, etc. If atheists don’t find that compelling, then so be it. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible. When they trot out the unicorn argument I just treat that as the Atheist Concession Speech. I’m confident that true seekers will realize which side is more credible.

I'm quite familiar with the Bible, and how dishonest and/or ignorant skeptics don't or won't read it in context. For interested readers, here's a bit on slavery in the Bible. The stoning things related to the Israelite theocracy only and not to pagans or Christians.

"But there's nothing in there that couldn't be (and wasn't) written by an ordinary person of that age."

Not true. How about the countless number of stars mentioned in Genesis? How about the Big Bang?

The Pi thing is nothing new (plenty of explanations on that), and thanks for conceding the Big Bang thing.
07/28/08 @ 06:20
Comment from: Neil [Visitor]
Neil""the Bible taught that the universe came into existence at a point in time"

"Well it either did or it didn't, so
they took a 50/50 guess and got it right, hardly impressive.""

Thanks for revealing how charitably you read the text. I always like when people tip their hands ;-).
07/28/08 @ 06:24
Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]
Johnny O
Cosmological (first cause)
You have no evidence that God was the first cause, only supposition that there was one. No one has any evidence to support their arguement on this one.

teleological (design)
What design? The natural laws of the universe? Or are you going to say that all laws need a law giver? That's solipsism.

morality
I think this thread shows that morlaity is and always will be subjective and very dependant on the society of the moment.

logic

This one does stump me. I wonder if we define 'logic' differently?

the physical resurrection of Jesus
Only Christians believe that this happened. You can't take the gospel accounts to be evidence, they can't agree on what happened themselves and the three day ressurection is used in other religious contexts apart from Christianity. Besides, Jesus went to live in India and became a Buddhist monk ;-)

archeological support
I'd say there is as much archeological support for saying the Bible is wrong and exagerated real events. The non-existant walls of Jericho spring to mind.

fulfilled prophecies of the Bible
Genuinely intrigued by this one. I have heard people say this, but haven't looked into them myself could you tell me some please? Thanks.

Just been on the slavery link and have to say it is amusing at how much wishful thinking is put into some of the explanations. "When we think about how God feels about slavery, let's do our best to remember the cultural context of the ancient world". I'm sorry but the word of God should mean as much now as it did then, it should have no relevance to cultural context. Otherwise you'd be changing your mind about all manner of things... Oh wait ;-)

Not true. How about the countless number of stars mentioned in Genesis? How about the Big Bang?
Genesis teaches that the Earth was created first and then the Sun, Moon and the Stars were created three days later. This is completely backwards. The Earth, along with the other planets in the solar system are left over debris from the Sun's creation. And most of the other stars in the universe are much older than our own.

The Pi thing is nothing new
The infallible word of God and he can't do maths? He designed the universe and everyting in it, but he doesn't know the ratio of the circumference of a circle in relation to its diameter? What explanations are there for this, other than it was written by humans?
07/28/08 @ 08:38
Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]
Johnny O
Thanks for revealing how charitably you read the text. I always like when people tip their hands ;-)
I figure I have to at least give you a fighting chance... lol
07/28/08 @ 08:39
Comment from: Neil [Visitor]
NeilNo time to debunk them all. Busy day. Interested readers can click the apologetics links on my blog or here. I gave a list of categories, not the proofs themselves.

"You can't take the gospel accounts to be evidence, they can't agree on what happened themselves"

Simply not true. Plenty of resources to address those easy ones. One angel vs. two, etc. Even if they disagreed they could still be evidence, but they don't disagree.

"and the three day ressurection is used in other religious contexts apart from Christianity."

That isn't even a serious argument. Just because someone else has the name of Johnny O doesn't meant that you don't exist. The copycat argument is one of the lamest atheist dogmas going. Seriously, I know it took on a second life with the Internet but do a little research first before using that one. http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/copycats/

07/28/08 @ 16:30
Comment from: John [Visitor]
JohnA good and powerful argument. I pray it won't take 50 years to come to our senses.
07/29/08 @ 17:20
Comment from: Havok [Visitor]
Havok
Neil: I gave a list of categories, not the proofs themselves.

They're not proofs (refering to the cosmological, teleological etc arguments). They're logical arguments with unjustified or controversial premises. That you accept the premises doesn't make it a proof, and doesn't mean that my not accepting them is denial of the conclusions.

Neil: Simply not true. Plenty of resources to address those easy ones. One angel vs. two, etc. Even if they disagreed they could still be evidence, but they don't disagree.

So your Jesus was both born in ~4BCE (Matthew) and also in ~6CE (Luke)? Seems logical to me :-)

Neil: That isn't even a serious argument. Just because someone else has the name of Johnny O doesn't meant that you don't exist. The copycat argument is one of the lamest atheist dogmas going.

It's called Syncretism. An example would be what we call the gospel of John melding the Jewish religious beliefs (those of the early christ cults) with the Greek concept of Logos. There's also plenty of allusions to Homer's work in Mark, as well as some inclusion of Orphic traditions in the account of the empty tomb in Mark.
08/08/08 @ 06:09

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)