Some verses relating to Church of Christ lecture

[Preston Rogers]

I tried to find the verse Jason was discussing at the "seminar" about babies/children impaled on swords- no luck.  But I did find a very horrific one about their bodies being smashed to death (Isaiah 13:15).  Perhaps the most preposterous of all the verses was II Kings 2:23-24 where God (thru Elisha) sends two bears to devour 42 little children.  Why, you ask?  Because the children mocked the prophet Elisha for his baldness (see below)!  No shit!

 

Here's a couple of good websites:

 

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/killchildren.html

 

www.evilbible.com

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_15699_9-most-badass-bible-verses.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Human...@aol.com]

I didn't hear the lecture and don't know if this is what you are looking for but for what it's worth:

 

Judges 21:10

So the congregation sent twelve thousand fighting men with the instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children.

 

1 Samuel 22:19

And he struck Nob the city of the priests with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and infants: also oxen, donkeys and sheep he struck with the edge of the sword.

 

2 Kings 8:12

......their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword, and their little ones you will dash into pieces and their women with child you will rip up.

 

Jeremiah 18:21 (New Living Translation)

So let their children starve! Let the sword pour out their blood! Let their wives become widows without any children! Let their old men die in a plague, and let their young men be killed in battle!

Let  screaming be heard from their homes as warriors come suddenly upon them.

 

Biblical bedtime stories for the nice little christian boys and girls. This is the stuff that our lord and savior feels is important for us all to know.

 

J.

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - a brief report on the seminar last night. About a dozen of
us attended - the church was about half full I suppose. The lecture
was over an hour of twisted, massaged misinformation designed
specifically to fool, and appeal to a fairly ignorant congregation.
The lecturer was extremely professional - he obviously makes a good
career of this and he is intellectually superior to Benny Hinn but
morally inferior to a slug parasite. Homework is required to defeat
him, but without knowing every detail of his topic in advance that is
hard to do. Last night he showed around 20 slides - most of his
sources were unfamiliar, so we were unable to discount them. We did,
however, trip him up on two. Thanks to Jason's link to a blog, two of
his slides referring events supposedly supporting his case against
atheists collapsed when we were able to show that he had only given
half the story and the actual result was in favor of atheism. He
almost apologized for that.
The best part of the event was our access to the congregation during
the Q. & A. which was adequate, and afterwards when many came to
introduce themselves. I think most of us put a favorable face on
atheism which is as much as we could expect, and took a little wind
out of his sails.
I urge you all to come for tonight's speech detailing man's adventures
with dinosaurs!

> _http://freethought.mbdojo.com/killchildren.html_
> (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/killchildren.html)
>
> _www.evilbible.com_(http://www.evilbible.com/)
>
> _http://www.cracked.com/article_15699_9-most-badass-bible-verses.html_
> (http://www.cracked.com/article_15699_9-most-badass-bible-verses.html)
>
>  ()
>
>  badass4.jpg
> 118KViewDownload

[Jason]

Preston,

That was Liz who made the statement about the babies/children impaled
on the sword. I, however, read Luke 19:27 though "But those mine
enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither,
and slay them before me". Clogtowner read Luke 14:26: "If any man
come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple." Ironically, the speaker agreed with
Clogtower's verse claiming that it exemplify true allegiance to God
(Jesus).

Jason

On Aug 15, 4:26 am, "Preston Rogers" <rprestonrog...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>  badass4.jpg
> 84KViewDownload

[ornamentalmind]

When it comes to dealing with 'the good book', don't forget this great
resource!

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

> > 118KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jason]

I thought that it was weird that Brad claimed that he was not a liar
and did not purposely mislead the congregation about those two court
cases that Steve pointed out and then accused Michael of personal
attacks. In the mean time, Brad stated that the atheists in the room
were "fools," "corrupt" and not capable of doing good. However, Brad
used a Biblical verse and therefore spoke through an imaginary God,
which I assume, made those attacks righteous. This is what he said
about us in our presence and in front of the congregation: "The fool
says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do
abominable deeds, there is none who does good." (Psalm 14:1)

Jason


On Aug 15, 4:26 am, "Preston Rogers" <rprestonrog...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>  badass4.jpg
> 84KViewDownload

[Jason]

I also thought that it was interesting that most the congregation
wanted the atheists to return for the next lecture. Even after I said
that I might not make it, a few people told me to wake up early to get
my work done so I could attend on Saturday. A few people (all Church
of Christ) also said that they liked the dialogue that took place and
wanted to hear more dialogue.

[Liz Purkrabek]

Some in the congregation and even the speaker seemed to think that the god
of the old testament was perfectly justified in ordering the deaths of the
peoples in the lands given by god to Moses and his people because "if
someone was breaking into your house to hurt your children, you would kill
them in self defense" and that would be okay.

So, since immoral atheists are a threat to their children (as evidenced by
the attack of secular education in public schools last night) god would be
justified in ordering an army to smite us all on swords -- men, women, and
children alike.

This, of course, coming after the speaker initially denied that god ordered
such things in the bible. That is a liar right there.

[-BC-]

It was absolutely amazing to hear the speaker (and some in the
congregation) saying that homosexuality is a sin equivalent to
committing rape. What a disgusting and hateful worldview they hold.
They should hang their heads in shame for such intolerance of others.
(but that's what their god expects of them...)

As for Harrub's remaining talks this weekend, don't question him about
something unless you are _intimately_ familiar with the subject
material. He's a slick speaker and can make you appear as a fool in
front of everyone there if you don't have every detail ready at his
request. And, as importantly, remain calm and composed whilst calling
him out for his bullshit. As seen in his preview of it, there will
surely be lots of bullshit & lies in his evolution talk.

BTW, calling someone a "liar" is _not_ an ad hominem attack if you're
calling them that based on the argument they've presented. If, whilst
presenting their case, they've lied to you and misrepresented the
facts, then what else are they but a liar?

-BC-

[ornamentalmind]

As is obvious to most who think, coherency is often absent in things
theological. So..... Perhaps, using the same tactic for a change would
be OK? :D

[Mariano G]

EvilBible.com is dead as it has been considered, dissected and
declared fallacious on very many levels.

Two examples of this fact are as follows:

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape
evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most
relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about
rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten
in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it
would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important
text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of
getting in the way of a good fallacious assertions.

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice
evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible
does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Eevilbible.com, for
some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that
human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile
Pagans who were not worshipping the God of the Bible but various false
gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when
they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans
in worshipping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist
atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but
only condemns the Jews.

Many more examples of evilbible.com ubiquitous fallacies are available
in the following post:

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/08/atheism-essays-particular-to_21.html

[Jason]

Mariano G,

Perhaps you are correct. In the first attack on Evilbible.com, the
author claims that the evilbible.com "neglects to mention the most

relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about

rape." Can you tell us what specific passage in the Bible outlaws
rape? I am unaware of any such passage in the Holy Bible. However, I
may be forgetting this passsage(s). Give us a passage that specific
mentions outlawing rape or negative views on rape especially the rape
of non-Christian women.

Jason

> http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/08/atheism-essays-particular-t...

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - yes Mariano. Please give us a LOT of verses (excuse the
pun.)

[Preston Rogers]

At worst, evilbible.com cherry picks verses that support the idea that the
god of the Bible is immoral and cruel at times. It is interesting how
preachers will cherry pick verses that support their sermons, but routinely
leave out verses that are problematic. The fact that the Bible is filled
with contradictions and errors certifies its ambiguity. On one hand, god
commands his people not to kill and, on the other, he commands them to
slaughter innocents. Of course, if the slaughtered belong to a warring,
non-Jewish tribe, then it is perfectly fine- it is what god wants.

Justifying this god's actions because he is the "true" god and not a false
pagan one is fallacious reasoning. Saying one's god is real and true is no
different than others (ie pagans) claiming the same thing. Please
demonstrate how the Judeo-Christian god is the true god and how all others
are false.

PR
(I'll be glad to provide you with erroneous, contradictory verses from the
Bible)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mariano G" <rdd...@gmail.com>
To: "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum"
<memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Some verses relating to Church of Christ lecture

[Mariano G]

FYI: I had provided the URL so as to provide all of the evidence that
you are asking for and much, much more.
This way I was not merely making assertions but backing up my
statements.
I specifically responded to every statement on evilbible.com’s page
about rape.

The Old Testament law is that rape is a capital punishment crime
(Deuteronomy 22:25-27).
Now, why would evilbible.com neglect to mention this? I do not know.
But it is interesting that this text would have discredited their
premise.

PS: pardon my delay, for some reason I am not getting notifications of
replies.

[Mariano G]

Same response as above.

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - I await your response to my request for a LOT(sic) of
verses where the bible does not sanction rape.
I accept your verse in Deuteronomy where rape in the country is a
capital offense, but what about rape in the city? (previous verse.)
What about Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where rape can be bought for silver?
What about Numbers 31: 15-18 - Moses was very naughty wasn't he?

There's a LOT of stuff in the bible (hint.)

[Orson Zedd]

Mariano:

Let's say that there is one verse where rape is outlawed. What say
you when other verses permit rape? How do you reconcile this
discrepancy?

OZ

[Mariano G]

Great questions and comments all around, I must say.

Preston Rogers,
So we agree: evilbible.com is discredited.
I am inferring that since you offer a tu quoque as to preachers being
discredited for cherry pick verses, the same applies to evilbible.com
(and you are ignoring expository preaching which is book by book,
chapter by chapter, verse by verse, word by word - but I will grant it
to you).

Clogtowner,
You want a LOT of verses where the bible does not sanction rape? OK:
begin at Genesis 1:1 and go until Revelation 22:21

As to the other Deuteronomy 22 verses; you are reading into the text.
I dissected all of them at this post:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/atheism-bible-rape-and-evilbiblecom.html

Orson Zedd,
What verses permit rape?
And when you go to evilbible.com (or similar) and simply cut and paste
what they say (without looking up the context, checking the etymology,
etc.) I will inform you that I have responded to all of them here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/atheism-bible-rape-evilbiblecom-and-dan.html

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - thanks for responding, but you missed my point 3 times. LOT
is meant to refer to Lot and his daughters!!! What say you?

On Sep 25, 8:06 am, Mariano G <rdd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great questions and comments all around, I must say.
>
> Preston Rogers,
> So we agree: evilbible.com is discredited.
> I am inferring that since you offer a tu quoque as to preachers being
> discredited for cherry pick verses, the same applies to evilbible.com
> (and you are ignoring expository preaching which is book by book,
> chapter by chapter, verse by verse, word by word - but I will grant it
> to you).
>
> Clogtowner,
> You want a LOT of verses where the bible does not sanction rape? OK:
> begin at Genesis 1:1 and go until Revelation 22:21
>
> As to the other Deuteronomy 22 verses; you are reading into the text.

> I dissected all of them at this post:http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/atheism-bible-rape-and-evil...

>
> Orson Zedd,
> What verses permit rape?
> And when you go to evilbible.com (or similar) and simply cut and paste
> what they say (without looking up the context, checking the etymology,

> etc.) I will inform you that I have responded to all of them here:http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/atheism-bible-rape-evilbibl...

[Mariano G]

Actually, I did not miss anything but readily discerned your
implication.

I was just waiting for someone to actually consider the evidence which
I am beggin you to consider and no one is bothering.

This is why people keep asking questions to which I have already
responded to in the information to which I am making you privy.

So let us do this since you are eagar to mention Lot: what about Lot
and his daughters? How does this relate to the issue? What happended
between Lot and his daughters? What was made of it? What are we to
make of it? What are you implying? Etc.

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - I'm implying that, according to the bible, Lot was quite
content to permit his daughters to be raped or whatever by a mob. What
is your take on this?
While we are at it, how did I take the Numbers reference out of
context? It seems perfectly clear to me that, if we can accept the
bible as accurate, Moses gave the virgin female prisoners to his army.
I don't think he intended that they should be educated in the finer
points of Israeli cuisine!

[Liz Purkrabek]

Amen.

-----Original Message-----
From: memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Clogtowner
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 4:06 PM
To: Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum
Subject: Re: Some verses relating to Church of Christ lecture

[Jason]

Mariano,

I want to hear what you are going to say about Genesis 19: 1-11. Lot
gladly offered his two virgin daughters in place of the angels to the
angry mob to "do to them as you please". Most fathers would have
protected their daughters or just simply asked for help from the
angels. Fortunately, the angels intervened with the father's offer of
raping his two daughters and blinded the mob so they couldn't find the
door and enter the house.

This father (Lot) was the only noble man in Sodom worth saving? If a
noble man offers his two daughters to angry mob to be raped and
possibly killed, I can't imagine what an ignoble man of the bible is
like. women are often seen as property in the bible. Remember that
women did not have the right to vote in the United States until the
1920's. The bible was used to justify women NOT having the right to
vote. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought long and
hard against many Holy men to change that attitude towards women.

Jason

[Mariano G]

While I still wait for someone to engage the evidence which I
presented I will be glad to respond, although I do not need to since
Jason already has.

We may have hit upon a non sequitur which defines “righteous” as
“perfect” or something like that. Lot acted like a disgusting and
neglectful swine—to say the least.
As Jason rightly notes, it is precisely at this point that angels take
charge of the situation which, quite clearly, Lot was mishandling—to
say the least. Do not confuse something that is recorded in the Bible
with something which the Bible prescribes. It is that clear to see
that his actions were condemnable.

That being said: upon what premise do you condemn Lot?

As for Numbers 31 here are the facts of the matter:
Regulations pertaining to war were that the Israelites were to make an
offer of peace.
Assuming that a peaceful pact is rejected and war ensued—once it is
over, they were to remain outside the camp seven days in order to
ensures the health of soldier and war captives—basically a quarantine.
The regulations pertaining to the virgins are as follows; the men were
to:
Provide them with housing.
Allow them one month to mourn.
Then they may get married.
And if they later divorce, the women were to go free and not be
mistreated.
Cleansing after a war, the provision of a home, time to mourn,
marriage and, if need be, freedom and protection from mistreatment.

Since I am not interested in even more red herrings I will merely
state that “The bible was used…” claim pertains to various things just
like any and every excuse humans use for whatever they want. The
question is whether the usage was viable, justifiable, logical, etc.

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - yes Lot was definitely to be condemned. I'm glad you think
so. Why was he then shown mercy by his God? Was his attempt to allow
his daughters to be raped a lesser crime than the crimes of others in
that city? What about his lies to the crowd when he said that his
daughters were both virgins, yet both were married? Lot was truly a
nasty person as his God allowed him to spawn two new races via incest.
Why didn't the angels intervene? In this story, the bible glorifies a
criminal. I'm afraid it is not the kind of behavior I support.
Please direct me to the merciful treatment of the captured virgins in
Numbers 31.

[Mariano G]

Clogtowner,
I am still waiting for someone to engage the evidence which I
presented.
I am also still waiting for someone to answer upon what premise they
condemn Lot: in other words, why is this not the kind of behavior you
support.

I am glad that you agree with the Bible in condemning Lot.

I do not know why Lot was shown mercy, or why it was a “lesser crime.”
But I do find it telling that 2nd Peter 2:7-9 states that God,
“delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of
the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his
righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless
deeds)—then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of
temptations…”
Note that “righteous” does not mean perfect or unfailing; it appears
that Lot was influenced by the culture to the point where millennia
later we are still reading about his failures and how angels stopped
him from acting in such a malicious manner.

If he lied it only compounds his faults. Yet, the text states that Lot
had “two daughters who have not known a man” (v. 8) that indeed, he
had “sons-in-law, who had married his daughters” (v. 14) but that he
was told to “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are
here” (v. 15). Perhaps, he had more than two: two are referenced as
being virgins and two who were married. The two “who are here” were
the virgins and that they were the ones who were there implied that he
had other daughters who were not there at the time.

I also do not know why God allowed Lot to spawn two new races via
incest nor why the angels did not intervene. Just as “righteous” does
not mean perfect/unfailing the fact that I am Jewish does not mean
that I am all knowing. In fact, I also do not know how this story
glorifies a criminal since the only way you know about the story is
that the Bible records it and tells you that he had to be stopped by
angels.

As to the merciful treatment of the captured virgins in Numbers 31,

Regulations pertaining to war were that the Israelites were to make an
offer of peace.
Assuming that a peaceful pact is rejected and war ensued—once it is
over, they were to remain outside the camp seven days in order to
ensures the health of soldier and war captives—basically a quarantine.
The regulations pertaining to the virgins are as follows; the men were
to:
Provide them with housing.
Allow them one month to mourn.
Then they may get married.
And if they later divorce, the women were to go free and not be
mistreated.
Cleansing after a war, the provision of a home, time to mourn,
marriage and, if need be, freedom and protection from mistreatment.

Shalom!

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all, and peace to you too! I thank you for your answers - you
have obviously studied the bible in depth and I find it refreshing to
read the two "I do not knows" in your answer. If the Bible that you
use is the inerrant word of your God, upon which you base your life
and faith, wouldn't you expect it to be a little clearer?
I think we have to admit that the Bible is a bunch of books written
anonymously, with who knows what motivation, reproduced by hearsay,
copied by the ignorant and translated badly. I think that statement
accounts for your "don't knows." If you read the Koran, it claims the
old testament prophets were believers in Allah. That's a different
interpretation from yours, but equally invalid in my eyes. Why would
you base your life on a book without authors, and filled with
miraculous unsupported stories? What about the books that were left
out of the Bible with apostolic authority. Is a talking cross going
just a little too far? Are fornicators suspended by their genitals
over eternal flames not worthy of the Bible? There are many stories in
history - why have you chosen these few from the many, to rule your
life and the lives of those that you preach to?
Have you tried to live without an imaginary God? It is refreshing and
teaches self-reliance and respect for humanity.

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - PS I forgot to point out that you still have not revealed
the source for the treatment of virgins in Numbers 31. Forgive me!

[Mariano G]

I am still waiting for someone to engage the evidence which I
presented.

I am also still waiting for someone to answer upon what premise they

condemn Lot, rape or anything at all.

Logically, if I do not know certain answers to Bible related questions
it does not necessarily follow that the Bible is not clear. It may be
that 1) it is simply my ignorance and someone else may say, “You
missed that, it is there, look here” or 2) it is not a question of
clarity but simply that focus is not being placed upon the particular
issue about which we would like more info.

I am afraid that you are heeding various common, and some uncommon,
misconceptions.

Most of the Bible’s books are not written anonymously.

Their motivations are generally readily discernable if not directly
spelled out.

If they reproduced hearsay then so does all of history.

To claim that “they were copied by the ignorant” means that you know
who copied them and have determined that they were ignorant (according
to your standard of ignorance).
We Jews developed a very detailed system by which to make copies. As a
mere example, since Hebrew letters also represent numbers when a page
was copied the letters were added up various ways and if the number
was off from the original the copy was discarded. Moreover, as of the
early 1900s the oldest copies we had of the Old Testament dated to
800-1,000 AD—we could compare how the text has been copied through one
millennia. Then with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls we went back
to circa the time of Jesus—now we could compare how the text has been
copied through two millennia.
The accuracy is stunning. Sure, there are differences in place names,
differences in spelling, a missing word of verse here and there but
even these help get us back to the original as by comparing
manuscripts we can determine where there errors and omissions are.
This is just as what my police officer friend told me he does when
arriving at a crime scene: he separated the eyewitnesses and
interviews them separately as it is the differences in their stories
that help him get to the facts of the matter.

There are good translations and bad translations. There are formal and
dynamic translations. There are translations of translations and
direct translations. There are enough translations done in various
forms that they each help elucidate the text in their own way and work
well together.

Your statement about the Koran is your interpretation :o) The Koran is
not presenting an “interpretation” in that regard but a polemic. The
Koran actually affirms the accuracy of the Bible.

As I noted, the Bible is not “a book without authors.”

I have no reason to discount miracles in general (and neither do you).

As for the <i>books that were left out of the Bible with apostolic
authority</i>: I understand that your point of view is, or so I
assume, that Christianity cannot determine its own canon and so
whatever they considered canon must be the faulty stuff and whatever
they rejected must be the reliable. However, they too developed
standards.

I am not aware of genital related suspensions or eternal “flames” (as
we generally understand flames). “Flames” are symbolic language since
eternal separation from God is referred to as being in flames but also
in darkness—flames produce light and hell is never envisioned as a
place of torture.

I was raised in a 100% secular household by an atheist and an
agnostic. It took about three decades for me to break free from that
and have been mistreated because I dared to disagree (but I have a
very strong sense of filial piety and thus, will say no more about
that aspect of my personal family life). Thus, the only time that I
believed in an “imaginary” God was between leaving secularism behind
and attempting to see if there was a God. I considered and lived out
various worldview, philosophies, religious practices and came to find
that the Bible represented the truth of the human condition and
provided redemption. Compared to the ultimate atheistic answers to
anything and everything—humanity’s most important and deepest questions
—which are “It just is,” “It just happened,” “It just happens to have
happened that way,” “We are here and that’s all,” etc. the Bible is
much more satisfactory in various ways.

I do not believe in something just because I find it “refreshing.” I
also do not need to reject God in order to be self-reliant or respect
humanity. Belief in God augmented my self-reliance as I know that I am
actually responsible for my actions and respect humanity as I know we
were created.

Upon what premise do you promulgate “self-reliance” and “respect for
humanity”? Why are these standards?

Actually, please forgive me I seem to have misunderstood your question
about Numbers 31. Overall, it is simply fallacious to read that they
were to spare the virgins and infer rape and or sex slavery; one must
certainly force such a concept into the text—where it does not belong.
I know that it is considered oh, so quaint now a days but way back
then virginity meant something and when seeking a bride one expected a
virgin. Details may be found in texts such as Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

aDios.

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - thanks for coming back.
Your Numbers 31 answer using Deuteronomy doesn't wash - there is no
mention of captured virgins and the very next verse mentions a man
having two wives??

"I am also still waiting for someone to answer upon what premise they
> condemn Lot, rape"

I condemn the story of Lot and rape on the basis of evolutionary
morals. My morals are not derived from some imaginary being and thus
at its whim, my morals are based on the learned need to further the
interests of civilization and society in general. I do not condone
anti social behavior, be it violent or otherwise and if I God tells me
to behave violently it is not one that I can believe in.

If the bible doesn't answer your lifestyle questions it is not clear -
period.

"Most of the Bible’s books are not written anonymously."

OK if they are not anonymous - who wrote the Gospels?

"If they reproduced hearsay then so does all of history"

My statement refers to the fact that the new testament was written
decades after the alleged events and must be hearsay as there were no
contemporary writings.

“they were copied by the ignorant” means that they were mostly copied
by people who were ignorant of science or education and in many cases
totally illiterate. As no copy machines were available copies of
copies of copies was standard procedure and I'm sure you know what
that means. It is also a fact that slaves who were totally illiterate
were used to copy symbols etc. - accurate? My source for this info is
the Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman.
I'm not talking about the odd missing word, I'm talking about totally
different stories such as the death of Judas. Did he hang himself or
did he fall over head first and have all his innards fall out. Was
there any silver involved or not. This is obviously a hearsay story
reported by different authors. There are many others in the bible.

The Koran is indeed a polemic. It is a passionate argument - just as
passionate as the bible followers, that it is factual. Many would say
that the Koran being younger and more factual than the bible is more
accurate - the inerrant word of Allah. It does not agree with the
bible. Are you suggesting that one of Noah's sons refused to enter the
Ark and climbed to a mountain top only to perish? That is what the
Koran teaches.

I do have reason to discount miracles and I do mean reason. Reason
teaches that only the laws of physics govern the events on this
planet. If you claim something other than a natural physical event,
the onus is upon you to prove it. I will accept your supernatural
powers as proof. Otherwise, my reason gives me the right to discount
miracles.

You are not aware of genital suspensions over eternal flames? This is
because you have not read the Apocalypse of Peter which Roman
Christians in the 4th century decided not to allow in the New
Testament - Peter's walk through heaven and hell did not mesh too well
with current thinking, so it was omitted with dozens of other
"Apostolic Books" such as the Gospel of Peter which is the only book
to describe the resurrection and the Gospels of Thomas and Mary etc.
etc. These books didn't mesh with the Roman Church at that time so
they were omitted. I consider them just as valid as the books that
were included. I invite you to read them. My statement stands. Man
(4th Century Church of Rome) chose which books he would like to use
for worship. There was no God involved. Man created the religion and
man uses it.

I am sorry to learn that you were mistreated by atheists. In my
experience that is a very rare event. I don't claim atheists are not
human with weaknesses, but I do claim that they are generally more
moral and socially aware than the religious. We certainly have one
less source of conflict to fight over. Self reliance is the basis of
our (lack of) creed, because we realize that there is no supernatural
shoulder to lean on and our actions have consequences today and not in
some fictitious afterlife. We can ask no one (other than our victim)
for forgiveness and knowing that we only have one life, we seek to
enjoy it with those who share it.

I hope you will continue to address these issues, perhaps we can both
learn something to our benefit.

[Mariano G]

Please pardon my delay as it is often difficult to keep up with my
cyber duties—can you believe that it is Nov. already?!?!

Since our discussion is growing in scope it is very difficult to
remain succinct although we should attempt to shrink our focus lest
our replies become volumes :o)

The Deuteronomy text deals with war captives and particularly of the
female variety thus, it does not need to distinguish between the
virginal and the non. However, even if we throw it out; the only way
to read rape into the Numbers text is to artificially insert it and
force the text to state what it does not state. We would have to
invent the idea and then claim that it is implied even though we are
not even drawing an inference from the text but creating an artificial
scenario with the self-servingly convenient effect of allowing us to
besmirch the Bible.

Indeed, the very next verse mentions a man having two wives (although
I am not certain that “having” means). From the beginning, the model
for marriage is one woman and one man for life. Yet, since people will
choose to do as they please their violation of the original intention
for marriage must still be taken into consideration. You will note
that the text state what is to come about “If” a man has two wives.
Law states that it is illegal to drive drunk and also what to do “if”
someone drives drunk.

I appreciate your elucidation of evolutionary morality. Please note
that, according to that view, you cannot condemn past actions as the
ones which you call immoral today could have been moral back in the
day. Thus, you could say something like, “According to the dictates of
modern evolutionary morality what Lot did was immoral but he was not
actually immoral according to the evolutionary morality of his day.”
In fact, if they thought that it was moral for a man to have two wives
then who are we moderners to say anything about it?

You will pardon me for this example as I realize that it is highly
emotive but it may make a point: I wonder if Hitler could have stated,
“my morals are based on the learned need to further the interests of
civilization and society in general. The Jews have polluted Aryan
blood and corrupted Germany. In order to further the interests of
civilization and society in general I propose the final solution.”
Some societies practice cannibalism and this is wonderful, for them,
as it brings the community together and provides much needed sustenance
—who are we first worlders to condemn them?
Sam Harris argues that rape played a beneficial role in our evolution.
Perhaps, in places with low population levels or after natural
disasters rape could make a moral comeback.
Perhaps, it is moral to get rid of those which we deem as generically
defective.
Since extremist religionists are deleterious to the interests of
civilization and society in general we could morally wipe them out.
Actually, since Sam Harris blames moderate religionists for the
excesses of the extremists perhaps we could wipe the moderated out
also; he does argue that “Some propositions are so dangerous that it
may even be ethical to kill people for believing them” (<i>The End of
Faith</i>, pp. 52–53).

Now, you will note that while you propose evolutionary morality as
your premise there is an underlying premise which is “my morals are

based on the learned need to further the interests of civilization and

society in general.” But why? Why is this a premise for morals? Why
should I accept that? Why further the interests of civilization and
society in general? Also, I completely agree in that my morals are
also not derived from some imaginary being, at its whim.

The issue of anonymity depends on whether we are asking if the book
states, “Hi folks, this is Shlomo McYehudi comin′ at ya′ from
Jerusalem!” or whether we can infer and or historically reconstruct
who wrote them.
Matthew: from history; it was Matthew aka Levi the former tax
collector and later apostle.
Mark: from history; it was John Mark who had accompanied Paul and
Barnabas and who acted as Peter’s amanuensis.
Luke: identifies himself as author; a doctor, interviewer of
eyewitnesses and fellow traveler with Paul.
John: identifies himself as author; an apostle.

Who copied them? Who are these generic “they” who were ignorant,
uneducated and totally illiterate? Even though Ehrman’s book contains
thousands of errors I am glad that you appeal to him as a source since
he will be the first to tell you that the “copies of copies of copies”
contain minor copyist errors and actually assist in getting back to
the original text and do not change any essential Christian doctrine.
Apparently, Judas hung himself and later his body fell. That different
people emphasize different details does not amount to fictionalizing.

I have never even heard that anyone, not even the most militant
Muslim, would even imagine claiming that the Koran is younger than the
Bible. In any case, it seems to me that Muhammad, who was a merchant,
heard various biblical references, traditions, Jewish folklore, etc.
and ended up slicing together a story.

It is indeed, true that “the laws of physics govern the events on this
planet”—I do not know about the “only” part :o). It is for this reason
that our attention is called to a miracle when we note that a law of
physics has been broken or bent.

I am not certain that I understand; I am to discount Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John which are dated to decades after Jesus but I am to
accredit the 4th century Apocalypse of Peter and also fault the Roman
Church for not canonizing it? So you consider the New Testament (all
written before 70 AD) just as valid as something written in the 4th
century. I suppose that the lesson is that whatever Christians decided
was Christian was wrong and whatever they left out was right (or just
as wrong but they were wrong to determine their own cannon).

According to certain definitions indeed, “Man created the religion and
man uses it” and abuses it, I might add. I could not agree more and
there is no one, not even the most militant atheist, who condemns
religion more than God and the Bible.

I certainly do not care to generalize about atheists but various
studies conclude that they are not more moral and socially aware. I
generally also do not care to get into a “my lifespan can beat up your
lifespan” sort of debate—yes, tongue all the way in my cheek with that
one :o)—but if I had to respond I would state that it is a false
dichotomy to juxtapose 1) “our actions have consequences today” with
2) our actions have consequence “in some fictitious afterlife.”
I would argue that since there is an afterlife, my “actions have
consequences today” and also in the afterlife. If my actions merely
had a consequence today I may not be too concerned since, as Dan
Barker puts is, “There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing
cares and nobody cares...what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it
won’t [matter]. The Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone.
No one’s gonna care.” Yet, since my actions will have eternal
consequences I am to be all the more careful about what I do in the
here and now.

I have wronged very many people; some whom I have surely forgotten,
some whom I could never hope to find, some who may refuse to forgive
me, some who have died, etc. Thus, if “we can ask no one (other than
our victim) for forgiveness” then we remain unforgiven. Also, I am not
sure why seeking and getting forgiveness should be any sort of
standard.

Lastly, it is a non sequitur to state that “knowing that we only have
one life, we seek to enjoy it with those who share it” since I could
just as easily state, “knowing that we only have one life, we seek to
take advantage of others, do whatever we want whenever we want and as
much as we want since then we die, humanity will die, the solar system
will die, the galaxy will die, the universe will die and we’re all
gonna be gone and no one’s gonna care.”
The only thing separating “enjoy it with those who share it” and “take
advantage of others, do whatever…” is an utterly arbitrary
determination by one or more bio-organism’s on a pale blue dot in the
universe’s backwaters.

Shalom!

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - nevertheless, thanks for returning.

I agree with you about this becoming voluminous - we disagree on so
much! I'll confine my comments therefore to 2 areas, as I see no point
in discussing the various verses in the bible as they are ambiguous
and subjectively interpreted by the differing denominations. My 2
areas will be the validity i.e. formation of the bible and our morals,
as these seem to be the main areas of contention in your post.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of evolution. Your hypothesis that
our morals have changed via evolution since Lot's time is invalid.
Evolution works along geological time. Natural selection, which is the
agent of evolution works over millions (and billions) of years and
hundreds of thousands of generations - not just a couple of thousands
of years. My point is that our brains have evolved morals via the
mammalian line of our ancestors over hundreds of millions of years. If
we look at our cousins, the great apes today, we see altruism in all
its forms demonstrated. I could give you volumes of examples of
altruism in the animal kingdom which have evolved into the morals that
we are proud of today. Your example of the Roman Catholic Hitler is
also invalid as he employed artificial selection to further his wicked
ends. Just as dog breeders over centuries have employed artificial
selection to arrive at the breeds they require, Hitler would have
achieved the same end, given enough time (future Hitler generations.)
Artificial selection is faster than natural selection and has a
purpose other than the purpose of natural selection, which is to
reproduce successfully.

My evolved morals tell me that religion is a disease which has caused
more strife and misery on this planet than just about any other. Look
at the wars of history. Look at the wars of today. What is the root
cause generally? Without religion we have one less conflict for
humanity to fight over and that in itself is sufficient to warrant the
educational battle against religion. If you check the figures, you
will find that, percentage wise, there are less atheists in prisons
than Christians.

To get to the bible, there are no religious scholars that I know of
(including Bart Ehrman) who believe that the names associated with the
Gospels reflect the authors that you refer to. Here are some facts:
the first Gospel Mark was written around 75 CE. How do we know?
Because it reflects the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem which
occurred during the Roman attack from 66 to 70 CE. The second and
third synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Acts too) are clearly
later as they refer to Mark - around 85 CE. The last Gospel John is
dated by most scholars around 90 CE. The only writings in the New
Testament before 70 CE are the letters of the homosexual Paul dating
around 55 CE who was trying to create the new religion from the
stories he heard at the time. If you believe that there are no
pseudonymous authors in the bible then presumably you accept that the
letter of Barnabus dated 130 CE was written by Paul's assistant
Barnabus? If you accept that Peter, Thomas and Mary wrote Gospels, why
weren't they admitted to the New Testament?
Why wouldn't you admit that the Koran is younger than the bible - it
was written by hearsay from the alleged revelations to Muhammad after
his death in the 7th century. The Old Testament was selected from the
many books of the Apocrypha, again by man, and added to the New
Testament which took over 300 years to formulate by man. The first
recorded incident of the 27 books of today's NT being seen was in the
year 367 CE by the Bishop of Alexandria. Before that time Christianity
was composed of approximately one third Docetists, one third Gnostics
and the rest split between Ebionites and Roman Christians. After 300
years of fighting, the wealth of the Roman Christians won the battle
and established what is now the orthodox. This had nothing to do with
any Gods. It was purely a choosing of certain books that reflected the
view of the Roman Church and the Apostolic Fathers, and the exclusion
of all other current literature and Christian doctrine as heresy -
which is the case today.

In short, both the OT and the NT were chosen by men of influence to
reflect their views. These men have always used that religion to
further their own ends at the expense of the ignorant.

I agree with you about the pale dot in the Universe's backwaters. Why
would an all powerful God construct the unimaginably large universe to
confer one kind of "special" life in his image on that dot? Did he
break his own commandment to make no graven images?

[Clogtowner]

PS I forgot to mention that the Gospels of Peter, Thomas etc. are not
4th century. They have the same date (roughly) as the other Gospels,
as they were quoted by Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna) amongst others, and
he was writing in the early and mid 2nd century. Furthermore, he was
proto orthodox!!

> ...
>
> read more »

[Mariano G]

Thanks for checking back and your continued engagement.

I am afraid that I do not understand; you first state that I “have a
misunderstanding of evolution” because I claimed that “our morals have
changed via evolution since Lot's time.” Yet, you go on to make my
point in stating that “Evolution works along geological time…our
brains have evolved morals…[in] the great apes today, we see altruism
[as well as violence]…which have evolved into the morals that we are
proud of today.”
Indeed, that was my point. And even if Lot was utterly and absolutely
immoral there is no moral agent in the universe and so the evildoer
gets to enjoy themselves and then simply gets away with it. Noting the
flea picking and fecal excreta flinging of apes does not amount to an
ethical imperative or injunction.

“Look at the wars of history.”
I will: the “Encyclopedia of Wars” (New York: Facts on File, 2005) was
compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted
research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars.
The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From
over 10,000 years of war 123, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to
have been religious wars.

“Look at the wars of today. What is the root cause generally?”
Territory, power, resources, politics, etc. Sometimes these are fought
for in the disguise of religion and some are due to zealous religious
extremism; 6.98% in 10,000 years.

“Without religion we have one less conflict for humanity to fight over

and that in itself is sufficient to warrant the educational battle

against religion.”
Of course, we could have one less conflict if we eliminated any of the
things over which people fight—let us get rid of borders, for example.
What about freedom; think of the terribly horrible things that have
been done in the name of freedom—let us be rid of it. Now, let me
backtrack; if your aim is to besmirch “religion” I am right there with
you, the Bible is with you and God is with you.

“If you check the figures, you will find that, percentage wise, there
are less atheists in prisons than Christians.”
Since there are more Christians there surely are more in prison. I
assume that we are accounting for that however, that we are also
accounting for the fact that a Christian is not merely someone who
claims to be a Christian or who was “raised a Christian” and that we
are not counting the very many who become Christians while in prison.

I must admit that I am not even close to being a numbers guy but I
have read the following in this regard:
“In the year 2000, there were 38,531 Christians of twenty-one
different varieties imprisoned [in England and Wales] for their
crimes, compared to only 122 atheists and sixty-two
agnostics….However, there also happened to be another 20,639
prisoners, 31.6 percent of the total prison population, who possessed
‘no religion’…At only two-tenths of a percent of the prison
population, High Church atheists are, as previously suggested,
extremely law-abiding. But when one compares the 31.6 percent of
imprisoned no-religionists to the 15.1 percent of Britons who checked
‘none’ or wrote in Jedi Knight, agnostic, atheist, or heathen in the
2001 national survey, it becomes clear that their Low Church
counterparts are nearly four times more likely to be convicted and
jailed for committing a crime than a Christian…3.84 times more likely,
to be precise. Census, April 2001, Office for National Statistics.
While Christians account for 39.1 percent of the English and Welsh
prison population, they make up 71.8 percent of the total population.”
Studies consistently show that atheists are less charitable, less
sociable, etc. than the average population.

Where does Mark reflect the destruction of the temple? (I fear that
“reflects” may be a very loose term). Besides I thought that “various
verses in the bible…are ambiguous and subjectively interpreted by the
differing denominations” so how do these scholars know, how do you
know and what do you do with those scholars who disagree?
Overall, I must say that I am not a big fan of doing things such as
imagining rape into a text in which it very clearly is not,
promulgating such idea on the WORLD WIDE web, and then responding to
objections by waving them off via appeals to arbitrariness and
interpretation (standards by which you could not claim rape in the
text).

I am not sure what the need is in referring to Paul as a homosexual
except that you may have some nugget that you wish to disclose upon my
asking about it.

We are ultimately back to the supposition, a sort of absolute
agnosticism, whereby the Christians of that time were the last people
who could be trusted to affirm the cannon and discern that which
accorded to the historical fact and that which did not and that which
accorded to the theology which came about due to the historical event
and the theology which did not.

To make a long review short: the 170-200 AD Muratorian Fragment
mentions 21 of the current 27 New Testament books and implies 2
others. It also notes that Marcion forged or otherwise manipulated
certain texts, such as Paul’s letter, and he would have only done so
if theses where already in existence, known, authoritative and
circulated. It also notes more recent writing that are not acceptable
as scripture.

And this does not account for the fact that Jesus quotes from/alludes
to 24 Old Testament books and there are circa 260 quotes from and 370
allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament. For example, the
Book of Revelation is 404 verses long, 278 of those verses are
allusions to the Old Testament. The “Old Testament apocrypha” books
are not references in the New Testament (with the, arguable, exception
of one sentence).

Also, if this was all about “the Roman Christians” who “won the battle
and established what is now the orthodox” then you should set the
canonization date to the 1,548 AD Roman Catholic Council of Trent at
which they officially added certain apocryphal texts.

As for the Koran: even if I grant your argument, you state that it was
written in the 7th century AD while the Bible was put together by 367
AD. Thus, this is why I do not admit that the Koran is younger than
the bible.

Next, you speak as a theologian, as all atheists inevitably do, in
formulating arguments to the likes of “If God was then God would X and
God would not Y and since we do not see X and we do see Y then God is
not.” But why should I base my theology upon the authority of yours?
In any regard, why would God create life on a tiny little planet in a
very large universe? I do not know but why not? How much bigger would
the Earth have to be to be acceptable? Or how much smaller the
universe, to be to be acceptable to your theology?

We live on the just right kind of planet, at the just right distance
from the just right kind of Sun, with the just right axis and the just
right orbit, with the just right Moon at the just right distance and
the just right orbit, with the just right neighboring planets in their
just right orbits, just right distances and just right axes, at the
just right location in the galaxy, in the just right galaxy, with the
just right ratio of electrons to protons, the just right ratio of
electromagnetic force, the just right expansion rate, the just right
mass of the universe, the just right cosmological constant, thus, in
the just right universe (these are merely a few examples). Maybe that
is why.

In fact, the pale blue dot argument was exactly, virtually word for
word, what was stated by one protein molecule, in one DNA strand, in
one cell at the tip of my little toe about the rest of my body.

I am not sure how God could break a commandment that he enjoined upon
human beings. I have rules that I have bequeathed upon my children but
which I do not follow. Moreover, there is no Biblical commandment “to
make no graven images”—this is a common misconception.

Thanks again and shalom!

[Jason]

Mariano,

I agree with you that most wars are fought over "territory, power,
resources, politics, etc." often under the guise of religion (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, etc) or even a secular ideology (racism,
communism, Nazism, social class-ism, etc.). The secular ideologies,
for whatever reason, die out more quickly than the ideologies based on
the unobservable or mystical realm--or so it seems.

Jason

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - thanks for sticking with it.
I have just returned from an exhausting trip and I'm pushed for time
so I will respond to your arguments piecemeal as time permits.
My point about evolution is that since Lot's alleged era - a few
thousand years - evolution could not have changed the human brain in
regard to altruism or anything else noticeably, as natural selection
requires much longer time spans. Altruism has evolved since man's
first common ancestor with apes. In the ape branch, it has evolved as
can be demonstrated by observation, but clearly, in man it has evolved
much more with the increase in brain size etc. Check out "Lucy" and
early upright hominids whose brain sizes were only a third of our
magnificent specimens. Lot, if he existed, was little different from
us.
I agree with you that those who behave antisocially get away with it.
As there is no God to punish them, unless society catches them, they
are home and dry. However, morals having evolved as they have, society
will punish the wrongdoers wherever possible.
More to follow.....

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - OK I have a little time now to answer your second point
about religious wars. I do not accept the criteria used to determine a
religious war that you quote. Here is a link that is closer to my
thinking on this topic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3513709.stm
It is not always easy to determine how much influence religion played
in a war. I believe that it is a factor in most wars as I have stated.
If a king rules by divine right, as is the case with kings, and he
chooses to start a war as most did, then religion is a cause. Even
George Bush started a war in Iraq for religious reasons when he stated
that "God told him to." Briefly, I have just returned from UK. If we
accept what the media tell us, the religious war in Ireland is over
after 300 years. Not so! I (and Jason) met women who have "Ulster"
tattooed on their arms and will never give up. They are representative
of many, and the violence based on religious differences will erupt
again. I saw the hatred and I have experienced it before!
I do agree, however, about removing causes of conflict such as
eradication of borders. Unfortunately, society has not yet evolved to
such a possibility. I foresee a world of one color, one language and
no borders, but not in our lifetimes I'm afraid. Eliminating religion
by education is merely the first step.
I'll continue later.........

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - another few minutes:
Why would you choose to quote figures from England and Wales? -
Christian countries!
Here are some figures on US prison populations.
Why is it that 79.4% of the US population is christian yet 82% of the
prison population is christian ...?
... while 15% of the US population is atheist yet barely over 0.2% of
the prison population is atheist? How can the christians claim to have
the moral edge over atheists?
Source: answers.yahoo.com

Atheists have no God to fight for - or against. We have no books
advocating armed struggles or "coming with a sword." Violence is
abhorrent to us hence the low atheist prison population. We have no
Christian soldiers, and when pushed, we tend to promote humanist
tendencies of tolerance and respect. Personally, I have no respect for
religion of itself. I have enough respect for the religious to try to
show them the error of their ways.

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - a little more time.
My source for Mark's knowledge of the destruction of the temple is
Bart Ehrman. I consider him to be just about he best biblical scholar.
One of his sources for dating Mark is:
"Mark 15:38 talks about the curtain of the Temple, Roman Gentiles
would have known that the Temple had a curtain, as it was taken to
Rome after Jerusalem was sacked (Book 7, Chapter 5 in 'Wars of the
Jews' by Josephus)."
C&P
Next comes the issue of when the Gospels were written. Mainstream
scholars tend to place them from 70 to 100 A.D., approximately.
Blomberg counters this conclusion by arguing that Acts was written
before Paul's death because it does not mention the event. This would
entail an even earlier date for Mark, because Luke relied on Mark.
This argument loses its force, however, once one notes that the author
seems to have been pitching Christianity to Gentiles. If this was his
purpose, it makes much sense to end Acts with Paul declaring his
mission is now to the Gentiles, and little sense to end with the
unfortunate fact of Paul's death at Gentile hands. Blomberg's
allegation that later dating is based on the assumption that Jesus
could not have predicted the Temple's fall hardly squares with most of
the Biblical scholarship I've read. Brown, who is quite critical of
naturalistic bias, accepts the standard dating of Mark around 70 A.D.
and the later dating of the other Gospels based on the developed state
of the tradition. Bart Ehrman, while somewhat more skeptical than
Brown, disavows the idea that the Temple prophecies were later
additions: "Most scholars, though, consider this an extreme view....
[I]n one respect, at least, the earliest form of these sayings appears
to pass the criterion of dissimilarity, since Jesus' claim in Mark
that not one stone would be left upon another did not, in fact, come
true

I think most biblical scholars agree that Mark was written 70 - 75 CE
If you know differently please advise.

My reason for referring to Paul as a homosexual is the fact that this
justifies his invention of the Christian religion. His writings are
filled with references to his sexual problems and being a smart Jew,
he knew the penalty designated in the Old Testament for gays, hence
his grasp at the straw of a new religion where Jesus loves everyone
whatever their "sins." I thought you would be aware of this - most
clearly shown in Romans 7
I thank Bishop John Shelby Spong for drawing this to my attention.
More tomorrow - I hope.

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - OK on to your next point now about the formation of the
cannon. Most of my information in this regard comes from Walter Bauer
who wrote his classic 1934 book on the topic. This is still used as
the basis for study of same in many Universities today.
Much investigation by him of writings at the time reveal that there
were 4 major influences on the formation of Christianity during the
first 3 centuries CE. The first was the Ebionites who considered Jesus
to be a man, not born of a virgin, but adopted by God when he was
baptized at age 30 (adoptionists) and a great leader. The second was
the Marcionites who believed in two Gods - one of the OT and a nicer
one of the NT and that Jesus was totally spiritual and not human. The
third was the Gnostics who had many Gods - some only 30 and some 365
who believed in the hidden knowledge. The fourth was the Proto
Orthodox, invented by Paul who was considered a heretic by the other 3
groups, but whose cause, with the support of the wealth in Rome and
Macedonia etc., gained the upper hand.
The finer points of this 300 year struggle are irrelevant. What is
relevant is that the final winner of the race (Proto Orthodox) got to
choose which books to worship i.e. which books were the word of God
and which were not, from many choices. How can you possibly assert
that the bible is the inerrant word of God when it was put together by
relatively ignorant masses 3 centuries after the alleged events? Many
Ebionites, Marcionites and Gnostics today assert that they are the
true Christians. What makes them wrong and your branch right? I submit
that Paul is the culprit along with Constantine who did it for the
money.
On your point about the Koran. If you have a friend who was born 30
years ago and you were born 50 years ago I submit that your friend is
younger than you. Likewise the Koran!
As for the "exactly the right distance" etc. point. Yes, we agree!!
As the lifeforms that exist on this planet are as we see them, they
have evolved purely because of the location and conditions on this
planet. Had we been in a different location, the lifeforms would
surely be different and I'm sure that it is only a matter of time
before we encounter them.
Victor Stenger - in his book "God the failed Hypothesis" points out
that it is possible to change the present "constants" by a factor of
10 without seriously changing humanity as we know it. The secret is to
change just one constant and not the whole lot at the same time.
Nevertheless, we have lifeforms such as extremophiles which can exist
in boiling water at the tip of undersea volcanoes - perhaps you would
admit that they may be found on other planets in other solar systems
in other galaxies in other......?
That's enough for now - I await your next volume with bated breath.

> ...
>
> read more »