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
20-06-2014, 10:15 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(20-06-2014 01:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 07:29 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Sounds kind of self serving and selfish there Jeremy. It is all about your ego and nothing else.

To you it would sound that way. And yes I am edified by what I do, but I do not do it for that reason.

Jermy's idea of "edification":

[Image: 055027weirdkidfap.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2014, 10:20 PM (This post was last modified: 20-06-2014 10:25 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(20-06-2014 01:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am free. I am free to choose to serve Christ.

You are free to wallow in delusion, yes.

Sooooooooooooooo, all this talk of being a slave at the same time as being free is just you indulging in your penchant for pathological lying. No surprise here.


Quote:You are not free to choose to serve Him. Whoever commits sin is a slave to sin.

And what mythical "sins" are you claiming that he is committing. Doesn't your fairy tale book babble something to the effect of "Judge Not Lest You Be Judged Yourself, You Fucking Moron"?

And BTW, your lying, your dishonesty and your deceitfulness -- which everyone here will attest to -- is a "sin" as well. Pot. Fucking Kettle.






(20-06-2014 04:08 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(20-06-2014 02:06 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This is purely antagonistic. No reasonable person with an at all comprehensible definition of "sin" can truly believe that.

Gawd My Big Imaginary Friend defines what sin is.

Fixed that for ya.

And, your Big Imaginary Friend being imaginary, so is your "sin" bullshit.


(20-06-2014 04:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  God says those who commit sin are slaves to sin.

I am a slave to sin whenever I commit sin and I do this whenever I fail to live up to God's Holy standard which is nothing less than perfection.

I am inclined to trust God for He has proven Himself trustworthy.

Hardly, since your mythical gawd-thing hasn't done a fucking thing to show itself, ever.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2014, 10:28 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(20-06-2014 05:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(20-06-2014 04:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Back pedaling and false humility. Noticing a pattern here.

Those that commit sin are slaves to sin whether they believe it or not.

Whether they agree with it or not. Whether they like the idea or not. Whether they believe God exists or not. Whether they believe in sin or not.

God has said that those who commit sin are slaves to it. Those who look at porn and lust after women and or men are slaves to it. Those who use harmful drugs like crack cocaine and alcohol in excess are slaves to it. Those who slander and lie about people are slaves to doing so. Those who live in unbelief are slaves to unbelief. Those who are selfish are slaves to themselves. Those who commit homosexual acts and fornication and adultery are slaves to all of those things. You may not like the idea. You may love doing any one of those things, all of them or none of them, but God has said that those who commit sin are slaves to sin. Period.

You can close your eyes, plug your ears, and cover your mouth. You can deny God exists all you want. Your not wanting it to be true does not make it false. Men who commit sin are slaves to sin. They cannot help themselves. They cannot help but be evil.

Read a newspaper. Turn on the TV.

Oh, look at the stupid fucking Presuppositionalist spouting stupid fucking presuppositionalist bullshit.

<yawn>



(20-06-2014 05:05 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(20-06-2014 05:00 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Jermy, have you suffered a head injury?

Really trying to understand what you are doing here. You aren't going to convert anyone and your posts are redundant....and boring.

Can't you find a Christian site to troll?

I am here talking to atheists about atheism.

Ignore me if you desire to. Just click on my name and click add to ignore list.

You don't know fuck about atheism. And you refuse to learn. We aren't talking. You are running your mouth and proving yourself a fool.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2014, 10:52 PM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(20-06-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  One contradiction lies in the impossibility of light without the sun, or other stars. There are no other light sources in space and the thermonuclear fusion that causes them to shine is contingent on their existence. We must have stars and light together, or neither.

This is false for several reasons.

1. The initial expansion of the space-time manifold released all the matter that would comprise the universe. The matter rushing apart consisted of such elementary particles such as negatively charged electrons, positively charged positrons, neutrinos and photons which are produced when an electron's higher orbital falls back to its normal orbit thus releasing a packet of energy from its fall from high energy to normal energy. This is how light is produced and all of this was taking place way before the formation of stars.

2. Steven Weinberg who has a Nobel laureate in physics describes this when he says: "At about one-hundredth of a second, the earliest time about which we can speak with any confidence, the temperature of the universe was about a hundred thousands million (10^11) degrees Centigrade. This is much hotter than in the center of even the hottest star...One type of particle that was present in large numbers is the electron, the negatively charged particle that flows through wires in electric currents and makes up the outer parts of all atoms and molecules in the present universe. Another type of particle that was abundant at early times is the positron, a positively charged particle with precisely the same mass as the electron. In the present universe positrons are found only in high-energy laboratories, in some kinds of radioactivity, and in violent astronomical phenomena like cosmic rays and supernovas, but in the early universe the number of positrons was almost exactly equal to the number of electrons. In addition to electrons and positrons, there were roughly similar numbers of various kinds of neutrinos, ghostly particles with no mass or electric charge whatever. Finally, the universe was filled with light. This does not have to be treated separately from the particles - the quantum theory tells us that light consists of particles of zero mass and zero electrical charge known as photons. (Each time an atom in the filament of a light bulb changes from a state of higher energy to one of lower energy, one photon is emitted. There are so many photons coming out of a light bulb that they seem to blend together in a continuous stream of light, but a photoelectric cell can count individual photons, one by one.) Every photon carries a definite amount of energy and momentum depending on the wavelength of the light. To describe the light that filled the early universe, we can say that the number and the average energy of the photons was about the same as for electrons or positrons or neutrinos...The proportions were roughly one proton and one neutron for every thousand million electrons or positrons or neutrinos or photons. This number - a thousand million photons per nuclear particle - is the crucial quantity that had to be taken from observation in order to work out the standard model of the universe. The discovery of the cosmic radiation background discussed in Chapter 3 was in effect a measurement of this number. - Steven Weinberg; The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe; (Basic Books,1988); p 5

3. Speaking of the evidence for this immense light and energy present during the early expansion, Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow states: "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16)

So from the above, we see that you are not only mistaken but that Genesis gives us a spot on account of the very early universe that scientists have only recently come to authenticate through empirical observation.

And just think, some ignorant goat-herder knew all of this thousands of years ago.

I wonder how he knew that? BlinkYes

Now you are beginning to see why I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  The moon is not a light source and is never referred to in a way that implies it. Mirrors reflect lights, but no one refers to them as lights themselves. Buddy was exactly right and you are very much wrong.

The moon is a luminary i.e. a celestial body that casts light upon the earth. That is how the word מָאוֹר is used in the Hebrew scriptures in this context. It casts light on the earth which makes it a "light". The scripture never states that the moon is a celestial body that produces light via thermonuclear fusion. If it had said that, you would have a point.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  The writers of the bible were ignorant of stars, what they actually are, and how they emit light. The best explanation at the time in which they wrote down their myths was that their creator god must have created them to shine as seen from Earth. They were likewise ignorant of the moon's status as a mere reflector of the sun's light. When the moon shone, they were bathed in a pale light. What person wouldn't assume the moon is a light source if merely observing it with their own eyes? Both errors are consistent with the time period in which the bible was written and they both support Buddy's point that the scriptures are limited in scope.

Genesis never states that the moon is a source of light in itself. You are guilty of eisegesis, or reading into the text something that is not there. Your argument depends on this. Genesis never states that the moon is a separate source of light or a source of light in itself. It simply says it is a "light". It is a light in that it reflects the light of the Sun which is a star that produces light via thermonuclear fusion. Thus the moon is a luminary or "light". When you walk outside at night and the moon is visible, the moon reflects the light of the sun on your face when you look up at it. Thus the scripture refers to it as "the lesser light" because the light it casts upon objects is less intense and bright than the light of the sun due to it being a reflection.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Obvious and understandable mistakes in a supposedly infallible book are easily and painlessly explained unless you have a vested interest in insisting on their divine truth. It is only when you make the assumption that everything within its pages is absolutely true that the contradictions are so important. They are the most obvious and simple means of pointing out what an untenable hypothesis that is.

Nothing you have said thus far shows the Genesis account is not spot on and accurate in what it records.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  You clumsily and dishonestly sidestepped the obvious and unavoidable point Buddy made. You have proved to everyone here that you are intelligent enough not to have missed the entire point by accident. Shame on you.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

According to scripture, god had assistance in creating human beings from a being him/herself already in the image of god and at least capable of such creation. It is by no means a stretch to call such a being a "god". That being the case, there can't have been only one god.

I guess you are unaware that the doctrine of the trinity is not the doctrine that there are three Gods, but God in three persons? Facepalm

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Anyone who happens to have lived long enough to experience this innate contradiction could easily support Buddy's points. We possess free will, or the ability to make decisions (ironically we have no choice but to have it Wink). Our nature, supposedly granted to us by god, is not always in harmony with said god's commandments. We are "created sick yet commanded to be whole". We possess the ability to ignore god's laws, but according to the gospel, not so forever. Our "free will" becomes a joke the moment you throw in the punishments of hell as a consequence for disobedience.

Adam and Eve were not created sick and commanded to be whole so this is a strawman.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  None of this speculation makes any difference because it is based on a mythological tale invented as an explanation for the existence of the world.

Prove it.

(19-06-2014 11:01 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Dr. Francis Collins, a well known believing Christian and also a very successful physician and geneticist and the head of the famous Human Genome Project, when asked how many human beings would be required to breed our current level of diversity, responded "It would take at least 10,000". He explains this in his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. The Genesis story is just that, a story, and allegory of, as he puts it, of an "a spiritual and moral nature".

You mean "an allegory".

This is also a fallacious appeal to authority. For while I will grant that Francis Collins is what we would both agree, a leading geneticist, and authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority, in this particular case is not a reliable argument for establishing facts.

It is clear that Francis Collins assumes certain things that are unproven when utilizing molecular timescales to arrive at the number of 10,000.

Molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom points out:

"Evolutionary scientists have shown in mathematical simulations that to achieve the genetic diversity of modern humans the starting initial population would need to be greater than two people. Most estimates put the number around 10,000. However, as discussed previously, these studies are based on assumptions about the past. For evolutionary scientists, this includes assumed evolutionary relationships, assumed mutation rates, and assumed generation times (the time between parents and off-spring does not vary). They are arbitrarily assuming evolutionary processes to try to prove evolutionary processes, which is a fallacy. If the assumptions are wrong, then the mathematical simulations will not give an accurate initial population size necessary to generate today’s human genetic variation." -Georgia Purdom, “Were Adam and Eve Real People,” chapter 20 of How We Know the Bible is True volume 2, Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2012.

In fact, far from being in dispute with the Bible, modern genetic discoveries actually support biblical history! This consistency is seen in the fact that the human genome—for all its diversity—actually has far less diversity than would be expected if humanity were really as old as evolutionists claim.

Dr. Purdom explains:

"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).

The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent." - Georgia Purdom, “Were Adam and Eve Real People,” chapter 20 of How We Know the Bible is True volume 2, Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2012.

Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine). They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.” - Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, “Genetic Variation, Classification and 
‘Race’,” Nature Genetics 36 (2004):S28–S33.


In light of the above it seems that your responses fail to demonstrate that the Bible is inaccurate in what it records.

Oh, look, a Gish-Gallop of incoherent copypasta. <yawn>

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 05:09 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(20-06-2014 04:08 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  God defines what sin is.

You mean, those who claim to speak for God...

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
21-06-2014, 06:09 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 05:09 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-06-2014 04:08 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  God defines what sin is.

You mean, those who claim to speak for God...

No.

God defines what sin is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 06:37 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 06:09 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 05:09 AM)morondog Wrote:  You mean, those who claim to speak for God...

No.

God defines what sin is.

How do you know...

a) that it is a god defining sin?
b) which god is defining sin?
c) what is being defined as a sin?
d) that you are not being deceived by another god?

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 06:42 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(20-06-2014 05:05 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am here talking to atheists about atheism.

No, you're not. You are here preaching.
You do not understand what atheism is as you don't have the courage to stand on your own. Time to grow up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 06:47 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 06:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-06-2014 05:05 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am here talking to atheists about atheism.

No, you're not. You are here preaching.
You do not understand what atheism is as you don't have the courage to stand on your own. Time to grow up.

Even if this were true, it does not show my statement to be false for preaching is a form of talking or communicating, which is what I said I was here doing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 06:53 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Because man put together the various books of the bible choosing through their own free will which books to include or omit, which parts to edit and of course errors in copying, is it not possible that there are sins that your god knows about but we don't know about ?

If your god communicates through men who can use free will to change that communication, then your level of gullibility must be very high.

As god personally told me last night when I was dreaming. "Gullibility is a sin"

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: