A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-06-2014, 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: 18-06-2014 08:07 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
The following will be a response to Buddy Christ's critique of the Bible.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
GENESIS


First off, I'm skipping the whole "how were plants created before light/photosynthesis, how was light created before the sun, contradictions of which was created first" word games. Those take up too much time and words and pie.

Buddy Christ briefly mentions plants being created before light/photosynthesis, light being created before the sun and alluded that these somehow indicated contradictions. Instead of addressing a strawman, I will allow him to formulate an argument for me to interact with that demonstrates that the Genesis account indeed tells us that plants were created before light and that light was created before the sun and that this constitutes a contradiction.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

-The moon is not a light, it is a reflection of the sun's light.

The moon is a luminary, and thus is a light bearing celestial body. A luminary can be defined as a natural light-giving body, especially the sun or moon. - Courtesy of Google primary search result

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  This is the first of many examples that suggest that God's omnipotence seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written. Strange.

I think Buddy means "God's omniscience", not omnipotence.

Secondly, since Buddy was wrong about the moon not being a light, then his argument that God's omnipotence/omniscience seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written which itself was based on his erroneous understanding of the term "מָאוֹר" is, as it stands, groundless.




(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

-Our? Just how many gods are there?

The answer to his question is in the very verse he quoted.

"And God said...."

It does not say: "And the Gods or gods said...."

There is one God.

"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! - Deuteronomy 6:4


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  2:2 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

-even though they say that God only "rested" to set an example of how would should rest on the 7th day, couldn't the Bible just say "rest on Sunday" ??(question mark)?

First of all, Saturday was the 7th day of the Hebrew week, not Sunday.

Secondly, the word "בַּיּ֣וֹם" translated as "day" in English, can have several meanings in Hebrew. Buddy's comment seems to me to assume that the word signifies a period of 24 hours. However, the context does not necessarily require this and in fact there are arguments against this interpretation.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  It clearly says God rested, which means that this all-powerful being was worn out from all those valleys and hills and Wyoming and platypuses.

The word "וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙" which is translated in English as "rested" has a rich and multifaceted nature. It can mean to cease, to cause to desist, to rest, to cause to fail and several other meanings.

Buddy's interpretation assumes that it means to to stop doing work or an activity and to spend time relaxing after you have been active or doing work which causes one to need rest. However, he has given us no reason to think this definiens is the one warranted by the text as opposed to the other possible definientia.



(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
The Garden and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil


-Sooooo... God takes these 2 newly formed, ignorant to life humans, puts them in a garden with a tree bearing food, nonchalantly goes "don't eat from it" ... then leaves... to go make Venus, I guess. And you know the rest.

So... WHY did he put them near the tree? WHY did he have that which he didn't want humans to attain be edible and tempting? WHY did he leave? WHY did he allow Satan the Snake to be in the garden, knowing full well that he would tempt them? Why did God design these 2 humans to be susceptible to temptation?

Then God comes strolling by (3:8 "walking in the garden in the cool of the day") at the PRECISE moment after they eat the fruit and goes "whoa whoa, what's going on here?" (I'm paraphrasing, of course)

It's like having a 2 year old child and going "Now son, I'm going to leave these delicious chocolate chip cookies sitting right here within reach of you. I'm going to the store to buy some Funyuns. Don't eat them. Bye!" When any caring parent would remove temptation, knowing that the child doesn't know any better.

So it's quite obvious to me that God WANTED man to F up royally. God created man with the sole purpose of imposing "original sin" upon him, so that he may feel guilty and grovel and ask forgiveness for something that wasn't his fault for all eternity.

That child who ate the cookies is now 40 and the parent is still bringing it up daily. "I don't care if you saved an orphanage from burning down today... remember when I told you not to eat those cookies and you did?"

Buddy is arguing here that if God were caring He would have made a world where Adam and Eve would never be tempted or if they were, that He would always remove the temptation from them before they could act on it. He then uses this as his reason for saying that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin.

Buddy has given us no reason(s) to think that if God were caring, He would have made a world void of the possibility of man being able to exercise his volitional capacities in a manner that was contrary to the revealed will of the One who endowed him with said volitional capacities. The burden is on him to support this assertion.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Cain slays Abel and is "cast out" arbitrarily from one remote location of this empty world to another random remote location. Then he worries that "every one that findeth me shall slay me."

-This is a strange worry since he is 1 of 3 people in existence. Then he sleeps with his wife to start the incestual chain of humanity... but where did his wife come from?

Here Buddy states that "the world" is "empty" but gives no reason for thinking it so.

He also states that there are only 3 people in existence. Once again, he gives no reason for thinking this is so. In fact, he contradicts himself when he says that there are only 3 people in existence. Now Adam and Eve make 2, Cain would make 3. But if Cain sleeps with his wife then there are at least 4 people in existence, not 3. His wife was obviously a woman who was a descendant of Adam and Eve.

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days"

-I'm assuming these are literal giants and not "intellectual giants" or some modern term.

I will wait for him to address this.


This concludes my work on this response for now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 08:08 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
[Image: b4da02615e37c33a51ae181b7651772a98c46c7a...e284c0.jpg]

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
18-06-2014, 08:50 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
My brief thoughts in bold.

(18-06-2014 08:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The following will be a response to Buddy Christ's critique of the Bible.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
GENESIS


First off, I'm skipping the whole "how were plants created before light/photosynthesis, how was light created before the sun, contradictions of which was created first" word games. Those take up too much time and words and pie.

Buddy Christ briefly mentions plants being created before light/photosynthesis, light being created before the sun and alluded that these somehow indicated contradictions. Instead of addressing a strawman, I will allow him to formulate an argument for me to interact with that demonstrates that the Genesis account indeed tells us that plants were created before light and that light was created before the sun and that this constitutes a contradiction.

Light couldn't exist very long if there isn't a light source.

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

-The moon is not a light, it is a reflection of the sun's light.

The moon is a luminary, and thus is a light bearing celestial body. A luminary can be defined as a natural light-giving body, especially the sun or moon. - Courtesy of Google primary search result

The bible says light, not luminary.

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  This is the first of many examples that suggest that God's omnipotence seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written. Strange.

I think Buddy means "God's omniscience", not omnipotence.

If something isn't omniscient, then it's not omnipotent either, as it has a weakness in knowledge.

Secondly, since Buddy was wrong about the moon not being a light, then his argument that God's omnipotence/omniscience seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written which itself was based on his erroneous understanding of the term "מָאוֹר" is, as it stands, groundless.

Doesn't change that the bible is still wrong.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

-Our? Just how many gods are there?

The answer to his question is in the very verse he quoted.

"And God said...."

It does not say: "And the Gods or gods said...."

There is one God.

Because when you talk about something owned by a group when you are also that group, you need everyone in said group to say the exact same thing at the same time when talking about a specific object.

"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! - Deuteronomy 6:4

I liked Aphrodite better.

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  2:2 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

-even though they say that God only "rested" to set an example of how would should rest on the 7th day, couldn't the Bible just say "rest on Sunday" ??(question mark)?

First of all, Saturday was the 7th day of the Hebrew week, not Sunday.

Secondly, the word "בַּיּ֣וֹם" translated as "day" in English, can have several meanings in Hebrew. Buddy's comment seems to me to assume that the word signifies a period of 24 hours. However, the context does not necessarily require this and in fact there are arguments against this interpretation.

Yay for the mistranslation cop-out.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  It clearly says God rested, which means that this all-powerful being was worn out from all those valleys and hills and Wyoming and platypuses.

The word "וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙" which is translated in English as "rested" has a rich and multifaceted nature. It can mean to cease, to cause to desist, to rest, to cause to fail and several other meanings.

Buddy's interpretation assumes that it means to to stop doing work or an activity and to spend time relaxing after you have been active or doing work which causes one to need rest. However, he has given us no reason to think this definiens is the one warranted by the text as opposed to the other possible definientia.



(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
The Garden and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil


-Sooooo... God takes these 2 newly formed, ignorant to life humans, puts them in a garden with a tree bearing food, nonchalantly goes "don't eat from it" ... then leaves... to go make Venus, I guess. And you know the rest.

So... WHY did he put them near the tree? WHY did he have that which he didn't want humans to attain be edible and tempting? WHY did he leave? WHY did he allow Satan the Snake to be in the garden, knowing full well that he would tempt them? Why did God design these 2 humans to be susceptible to temptation?

Then God comes strolling by (3:8 "walking in the garden in the cool of the day") at the PRECISE moment after they eat the fruit and goes "whoa whoa, what's going on here?" (I'm paraphrasing, of course)

It's like having a 2 year old child and going "Now son, I'm going to leave these delicious chocolate chip cookies sitting right here within reach of you. I'm going to the store to buy some Funyuns. Don't eat them. Bye!" When any caring parent would remove temptation, knowing that the child doesn't know any better.

So it's quite obvious to me that God WANTED man to F up royally. God created man with the sole purpose of imposing "original sin" upon him, so that he may feel guilty and grovel and ask forgiveness for something that wasn't his fault for all eternity.

That child who ate the cookies is now 40 and the parent is still bringing it up daily. "I don't care if you saved an orphanage from burning down today... remember when I told you not to eat those cookies and you did?"

Buddy is arguing here that if God were caring He would have made a world where Adam and Eve would never be tempted or if they were, that He would always remove the temptation from them before they could act on it. He then uses this as his reason for saying that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin.

Buddy has given us no reason(s) to think that if God were caring, He would have made a world void of the possibility of man being able to exercise his volitional capacities in a manner that was contrary to the revealed will of the One who endowed him with said volitional capacities. The burden is on him to support this assertion.

It's not like the bible gives a reason to think otherwise. At best, God is an irresponsible parent.

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Cain slays Abel and is "cast out" arbitrarily from one remote location of this empty world to another random remote location. Then he worries that "every one that findeth me shall slay me."

-This is a strange worry since he is 1 of 3 people in existence. Then he sleeps with his wife to start the incestual chain of humanity... but where did his wife come from?

Here Buddy states that "the world" is "empty" but gives no reason for thinking it so.

He also states that there are only 3 people in existence. Once again, he gives no reason for thinking this is so. In fact, he contradicts himself when he says that there are only 3 people in existence. Now Adam and Eve make 2, Cain would make 3. But if Cain sleeps with his wife then there are at least 4 people in existence, not 3. His wife was obviously a woman who was a descendant of Adam and Eve.

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days"

-I'm assuming these are literal giants and not "intellectual giants" or some modern term.

I will wait for him to address this.

Seid ihr das Essen? Nein, wir sind der Jäger!

This concludes my work on this response for now.

“You see… sometimes life gives you lemons. And when that happens… you need to find some spell that makes lemons explode, because lemons are terrible. I only ate them once and I can say with certainty they are the worst fruit. If life gave me lemons, I would view it as nothing short of a declaration of war."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DemonicLemon's post
18-06-2014, 08:52 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Jeremy Walker the queen of bullshit.Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leo's post
18-06-2014, 08:55 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Another lesson in how to spin, twist, ignore and repeat. I feel for ya Jeremy and do hope you seek help soon.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Timber1025's post
18-06-2014, 09:24 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(18-06-2014 08:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The following will be a response to Buddy Christ's critique of the Bible.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
GENESIS


First off, I'm skipping the whole "how were plants created before light/photosynthesis, how was light created before the sun, contradictions of which was created first" word games. Those take up too much time and words and pie.

Buddy Christ briefly mentions plants being created before light/photosynthesis, light being created before the sun and alluded that these somehow indicated contradictions. Instead of addressing a strawman, I will allow him to formulate an argument for me to interact with that demonstrates that the Genesis account indeed tells us that plants were created before light and that light was created before the sun and that this constitutes a contradiction.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

-The moon is not a light, it is a reflection of the sun's light.

The moon is a luminary, and thus is a light bearing celestial body. A luminary can be defined as a natural light-giving body, especially the sun or moon. - Courtesy of Google primary search result

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  This is the first of many examples that suggest that God's omnipotence seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written. Strange.

I think Buddy means "God's omniscience", not omnipotence.

Secondly, since Buddy was wrong about the moon not being a light, then his argument that God's omnipotence/omniscience seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written which itself was based on his erroneous understanding of the term "מָאוֹר" is, as it stands, groundless.




(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

-Our? Just how many gods are there?

The answer to his question is in the very verse he quoted.

"And God said...."

It does not say: "And the Gods or gods said...."

There is one God.

"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! - Deuteronomy 6:4


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  2:2 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

-even though they say that God only "rested" to set an example of how would should rest on the 7th day, couldn't the Bible just say "rest on Sunday" ??(question mark)?

First of all, Saturday was the 7th day of the Hebrew week, not Sunday.

Secondly, the word "בַּיּ֣וֹם" translated as "day" in English, can have several meanings in Hebrew. Buddy's comment seems to me to assume that the word signifies a period of 24 hours. However, the context does not necessarily require this and in fact there are arguments against this interpretation.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  It clearly says God rested, which means that this all-powerful being was worn out from all those valleys and hills and Wyoming and platypuses.

The word "וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙" which is translated in English as "rested" has a rich and multifaceted nature. It can mean to cease, to cause to desist, to rest, to cause to fail and several other meanings.

Buddy's interpretation assumes that it means to to stop doing work or an activity and to spend time relaxing after you have been active or doing work which causes one to need rest. However, he has given us no reason to think this definiens is the one warranted by the text as opposed to the other possible definientia.



(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
The Garden and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil


-Sooooo... God takes these 2 newly formed, ignorant to life humans, puts them in a garden with a tree bearing food, nonchalantly goes "don't eat from it" ... then leaves... to go make Venus, I guess. And you know the rest.

So... WHY did he put them near the tree? WHY did he have that which he didn't want humans to attain be edible and tempting? WHY did he leave? WHY did he allow Satan the Snake to be in the garden, knowing full well that he would tempt them? Why did God design these 2 humans to be susceptible to temptation?

Then God comes strolling by (3:8 "walking in the garden in the cool of the day") at the PRECISE moment after they eat the fruit and goes "whoa whoa, what's going on here?" (I'm paraphrasing, of course)

It's like having a 2 year old child and going "Now son, I'm going to leave these delicious chocolate chip cookies sitting right here within reach of you. I'm going to the store to buy some Funyuns. Don't eat them. Bye!" When any caring parent would remove temptation, knowing that the child doesn't know any better.

So it's quite obvious to me that God WANTED man to F up royally. God created man with the sole purpose of imposing "original sin" upon him, so that he may feel guilty and grovel and ask forgiveness for something that wasn't his fault for all eternity.

That child who ate the cookies is now 40 and the parent is still bringing it up daily. "I don't care if you saved an orphanage from burning down today... remember when I told you not to eat those cookies and you did?"

Buddy is arguing here that if God were caring He would have made a world where Adam and Eve would never be tempted or if they were, that He would always remove the temptation from them before they could act on it. He then uses this as his reason for saying that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin.

Buddy has given us no reason(s) to think that if God were caring, He would have made a world void of the possibility of man being able to exercise his volitional capacities in a manner that was contrary to the revealed will of the One who endowed him with said volitional capacities. The burden is on him to support this assertion.


(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Cain slays Abel and is "cast out" arbitrarily from one remote location of this empty world to another random remote location. Then he worries that "every one that findeth me shall slay me."

-This is a strange worry since he is 1 of 3 people in existence. Then he sleeps with his wife to start the incestual chain of humanity... but where did his wife come from?

Here Buddy states that "the world" is "empty" but gives no reason for thinking it so.

He also states that there are only 3 people in existence. Once again, he gives no reason for thinking this is so. In fact, he contradicts himself when he says that there are only 3 people in existence. Now Adam and Eve make 2, Cain would make 3. But if Cain sleeps with his wife then there are at least 4 people in existence, not 3. His wife was obviously a woman who was a descendant of Adam and Eve.

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days"

-I'm assuming these are literal giants and not "intellectual giants" or some modern term.

I will wait for him to address this.


This concludes my work on this response for now.

"Work" ? Laughat
I think this Wanker dude is a poe, out to make fundies look even more like idiots than they really are.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-06-2014, 12:11 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
I know this is "a Christian's critique of an atheist's critique of the bible", but I was hoping this could take on more of a Q&A structure. I asked this question in another thread, and I burning with curiosity. I have very seldom heard a christian address passages in the bible, and I have never heard them address it intelligently, so I am very interested to hear what you have to say about these passages. For the record, I am totally willing to except genesis as a metaphor. It is not where most of my problems lie.

(15-06-2014 08:34 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 05:43 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  And you would be wrong if that was your interpretation of why those literary forms were listed.

Those literary forms were listed to show you that the Bible is not one book that is read either literally or figuratively.

It is a collection of sixty six different literary works. Within each work, there are further variations in genre, writing style, form, etc. etc.

Now if you have a specific scripture in mind that you would like me to engage, then simply provide it WITH the context and I can tell you whether it is to be taken literally or not.

Deuteronomy 22:29 Wrote:…28"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

How is this to be interpreted?

Quote:When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Is this literal?

Deuteronomy 2:34 Wrote:And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

What is the figurative language in this passage?

Quote:“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Quote:“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

Quote:“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

Quote:“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

Quote: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

Quote: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Up until this point you have refused to address scripture, or danced around the topic. Seeing as how I have been trying to find a satisfying answer to these questions for years, I am eagerly awaiting your response.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
19-06-2014, 12:26 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
[Image: dPzC1o6.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-06-2014, 07:09 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Jeremy, the fact that even a mild parody of the Bible gets such serious attention from you shows the depth of your fears Wink Relax my brother. If the Bible really is as good as you say it is then it'll stand on it's own merits, will it not? If God really intends for someone to get the message then surely it doesn't need an interpreter - namely you.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
19-06-2014, 07:24 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(18-06-2014 08:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The following will be a response to Buddy Christ's critique of the Bible.

Meh, tl;dr... most likely derivative.

-
I read Buddy Christ's book a long time ago - a good and insightful read - I recommend it. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: