Jovial Reaper

As I essentially said, to each his own. I just prefer something a tad more objective than the Skeptic�s Annotated Bible. �Scripture that proves God hates children� is not an objective statement; �Scripture that suggests God is not as loving as the Christian would have you believe�, or something to that effect, is more so. If one wants to raise logical and/or ethical objections to something, I expect (perhaps unreasonably) for them to do it in a more serious and respectful manner. The offered (SAB) website does not, in my opinion, raise legitimate concern so much as it shamelessly mocks the believer and something they hold dear, i.e., the Bible. That�s all I�m saying.

Although I only gave it a cursory glance (relative to the amount of information provided), I found McKinsey�s �Biblical Errancy� page more formal and professional-sounding.

If I were researching the Bible, I would take that site (BE), as well as, something like, e.g., http://carm.org/ into consideration (merely as a beginning to said research).

Careful investigation, of anything, requires examining both sides of the issue, not just the one you want/hope to be right . . .

For what it�s worth,

--JR

Jovial Reaper

I�m (more than) slightly surprised to have gotten in the �last word� (having found this topic back on page 3 with no reply to my, obviously, insane statements). Surely, someone must want to challenge my crazy ramblings here . . .

Well, hey, here�s another chance for you to do so as I �kick� this thread back up to the top . . .

--JR

JR�s Tip of the Day: First Aid is a waste of time! Learn something useful, like how to play badminton, instead!

Lanakila

I didn't quote the skeptics annotated Bible nor claim to be objective. But God does hate some children and the scriptures that show this shocked me. This page alone is good to get a fundy to read those scriptures: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/short.html

Its easy for them to say if you point out the verses one by one that they are out of context. (I did that for a long time) But the list is pretty thorough.

braces_for_impact

In my personal experience, almost anything that you say can and will be hand waved away with some mental gymnastics and standard apologetics.

No matter how long the conversation, no matter how detailed and thoughtful the dialogue, it will eventually come down to faith.

When faced with someone that wishes to know why I do not believe, especially a loved one or someone in person I do not wish to insult, I like to keep it simple...

I do not believe (as some others do) that faith is a virtue. To me, honesty is the highest of virtues. It is my honest opinion that faith is not a good tool for verifying truth. Therefore, to be honest with myself, and to maintain my own intellectual intergrity, I cannot use faith as a method of acceptance. The only way I may do that is via solid evidence. Therefore, until I receive that solid evidence, or someone demonstrates that faith is a superior tool to reason in discovering truth, I remain an unbeliever. If a god exists, certainly he would know if I was merely paying him lip service. In my eyes, an honest search for truth is better than a lie for selfish reasons.

I find that people are reluctant to call you a liar when all you wish is to be honest with yourself.

Starboy

I know this is off topic but it did bring a question to mind. Why is it so rare to find people that do believe in all the gods of all the religions or at least the gods of several religions? I think that historically people were at one time more inclusive. Has monotheism turned everyone into religious bigots?

Starboy