Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Joe Bloe · 03-20-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Believers are united in truth.

That's what they all say, even as they disagree with one another.

Quote:

If you do not believe the truth, then you are not capable of understanding it.

Then why are you here? Please go away.

Julian · 03-20-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Christians are united in truth. There is no disunity in sound doctrine.

Hence the multitude of denominations...

Quote:

I am already here... Are you prepared to listen?

What are the odds you are going to post anything worthwhile? So far, you're batting zero...

Quote:

Believers are united in truth. If you do not believe the truth, then you are not capable of understanding it.

Yeah, yeah, I'll see it when I believe it. Swing and another miss.

At least you are providing some comedy relief.

Julian

mirage · 03-20-2006, 11:03 AM

Only we can see that we have been chosen to see The Truth (tm) because we have been chosen to see The Truth (tm).

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Joe Bloe · 03-20-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirage

Only we can see that we have been chosen to see The Truth (tm) because we have been chosen to see The Truth (tm).

And others disagree with us. Therefore, we are right and they are wrong because, obviously, if they were right they would agree with us.

patchy · 03-20-2006, 11:14 AM

Wow.

David's train wreck over in E/C (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=156969) makes a lot more sense now that he drops the charade of being interested in empirical evidence, and just openly shows his true, spittle flyin', bible thumpin' colors.

How lamentably often it is, that we're treated to such extremes of ignorance and yet cockiness all in the same dose.

David, your imaginary friend in the clouds would be very disappointed in you if he were real--so, in one sense, you're lucky.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-20-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

LOL!

How can a non-believer understand the Bible better than a believer?

"Believers" (i.e. fundamentalists, this doesn't really apply to "liberals") are those who DON'T understand the scriptures.

There is a sort of "natural selection" among those who read the scriptures (and study the history, science etc that contradicts them). The smart ones deconvert (from fundamentalism, at least): thus, only the dim and/or fanatical ones remain. There is not (indeed, cannot be) a sane, well-informed fundamentalist.

Quote:

Have you not read the scriptures?

Yes, I have. They are bunk. Why do you repeat this catchphrase? And why do you still imagine that we have NOT read the scriptures?

Quote:

Wake up, sir.

Look above you! Read what has already been written! For example, consider the following gems...

"God does not exist. So it's easy to place ourselves in a "higher" position. We can also judge the people who invented him."

"I am smarter than God, and smarter than the people who invented him."

The harvest is ripe! The message needs to go forth!

And what sort of "message" needs to go forth?

More mindless repetiton of Biblical falsehoods?

What do you imagine the effect would be?

Lazarus Long · 03-20-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

The Skeptics' Annotated Bible is not a great resource. As of this date, it still has this annotation for Leviticus 14:

Quoted: "God's treatment for leprosy:"

That's a pretty bad error in the SAB.

I'm not sure when you last checked that page, but it does not say "treatment" any longer, it says

Quote:

This shall be the law of the leper."
God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one....(etc)

I don't know when that was revised, but it has been.

Anyone who has criticism of the SAB or any of its' annotations is welcome to contact the author, Steve Wells, on the site. He is very open to criticism and will revise annotations if they can be obviously debunked or corrected (without the use of mind-twisting apologetics.) He also goes so far as to have a page linking to several Christian Responses to SAB Contradictions. The SAB is a "living" resource, it is open to revisions and corrections....just as the bible was

LL

LoneWolf · 03-20-2006, 12:50 PM

"Have you read the scriptures? Have you read the scriptures? Have you read the scriptures? Have you read the scriptures?"

YES!

Most of the atheists here are familiar with the scriptures. Some of the atheists here, like myself, have read the ENTIRE Bible from front to back. In fact, doing that is what deconverted many of us.

And there are even atheists here who have been to semininary...and yet they eventually deconverted. "Have you read the scriptures?" is not an argument. It is like saying "Have you read the Koran?" In the end who cares? If you are going to quote the Bible to atheists then you first need to establish the innerancy of the Bible. Once you have done that then feel free to support your argument with the Bible. And if you can establish the innerancy of the Bible then you will be the first person to have ever done so and you will be responsible for "saving" billions of people. Sounds like a good hobby

Jack the Bodiless · 03-20-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

(2 Timothy 3:14-17)

Just to show that I have "read the scriptures", here is what I wrote regarding this very passage only last month:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

And why use 2 Timothy 3:16 as "the foundational understanding"? Here's a summary of the pitfalls of doing that:

1. It is obviously circular to argue that "the Bible is true because the Bible says so" (or any variation thereof).

2. "Scripture" refers to what was already accepted as "Holy writ" when 2 Timothy was written: the Old Testament, not the New (and, hence, not 2 Timothy either).

3. The translation is disputed: while many Bibles say that "all scripture is inspired of God", this can also be interpreted as "all scripture that is inspired of God" (literally, "God-breathed"), implying that some scripture is NOT inspired of God.

4. Paul himself is a somewhat dubious source for "Holy writ": a man who never met Jesus (except "in a vision") and doesn't generally attribute his religious teachings to Jesus (he cites the Old Testament and "personal revelation"), but nevertheless invented a lot of Christian theology wholesale. Many Christians reject "Paulianity", and many people (including Christians) believe that he suffered from a mental disorder.

5. 2 Timothy is considered by scholars (on the basis of textual analysis) to be pseudigraphical: one of several "Pauline" epistles not actually written by Paul, but attributed to him to imbue them with authority.

...So, allegedly the Bible is inerrant because an anonymous author possibly says so, in an ambiguous document falsely attributed to a madman who never knew Jesus.

Thesouphead · 03-20-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scifinerdgrl

Worked for me! Well, I'm skeptical by nature, but I did try to be a good Christian, and I figured if I read more of the Bible that would help. It just made things worse. I still remember my horror at discovering that the end of the Sodom and Gomorrah story includes drunkenness, rape, and incest in the supposedly "good" family that was spared. The "fundies" I know today who are only too happy to bring up that story almost universally have not read it all the way to the end.

Where would find the S&G story in he King James version of the Bible? Genesis?

View Poll Results: Should the Bible be used to deconvert Christians?
Yes, I believe it works.	83	82.18%
No, it won't help.	9	8.91%
Not sure.	9	8.91%
Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2006, 11:03 AM	#123
mirage Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: UK Posts: 8,524	Only we can see that we have been chosen to see The Truth (tm) because we have been chosen to see The Truth (tm). You couldn't make this stuff up.

03-20-2006, 11:14 AM	#125
patchy Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: America Posts: 1,377	Wow. David's train wreck over in E/C (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=156969) makes a lot more sense now that he drops the charade of being interested in empirical evidence, and just openly shows his true, spittle flyin', bible thumpin' colors. How lamentably often it is, that we're treated to such extremes of ignorance and yet cockiness all in the same dose. David, your imaginary friend in the clouds would be very disappointed in you if he were real--so, in one sense, you're lucky.

03-20-2006, 12:50 PM	#128
LoneWolf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Phnom Penh, Cambodia Posts: 1,788	"Have you read the scriptures? Have you read the scriptures? Have you read the scriptures? Have you read the scriptures?" YES! Most of the atheists here are familiar with the scriptures. Some of the atheists here, like myself, have read the ENTIRE Bible from front to back. In fact, doing that is what deconverted many of us. And there are even atheists here who have been to semininary...and yet they eventually deconverted. "Have you read the scriptures?" is not an argument. It is like saying "Have you read the Koran?" In the end who cares? If you are going to quote the Bible to atheists then you first need to establish the innerancy of the Bible. Once you have done that then feel free to support your argument with the Bible. And if you can establish the innerancy of the Bible then you will be the first person to have ever done so and you will be responsible for "saving" billions of people. Sounds like a good hobby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.