The Bible is the Claim NOT the Evidence.

This paragraph:

The retired pastor acknowledged that in order to resolve those conflicts, he revises and/or dismisses the words of Jesus. (Hence his acknowledgement that in doing so, he "essentially [makes] the New Testament/Bible his 'Lord' rather than Jesus." )

and my response

This is defending the tactic by putting on it the face of anti-idolatry.

"If I don't, on the fly, decide which words I want my Jesus to say, then I would be commiting bibleolatry - making the New Testament my Lord"

This is clever.

I may have misunderstood. Ignore my comment.

Originally posted by sonship

Pride gets in the way of truth.

Watch me move pride right out of the way then.

I confess that Jesus is my Lord.
I confess that my God is the man Jesus of Nazareth.

The proud find it impossible to make such a confession.

It's not pride for me. It's doubt. Doubt cemented by years of spiritual exploration. Doubt cut in stone by a universe filled with wonder and humanity's inhumanity to man.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
It's not pride for me. It's doubt. Doubt cemented by years of spiritual exploration. Doubt cut in stone by a universe filled with wonder and humanity's inhumanity to man.

It's not pride for me. It's doubt. Doubt cemented by years of spiritual exploration. Doubt cut in stone by a universe filled with wonder and humanity's inhumanity to man.

Interesting phrase - "doubt cut in stone."

So because the universe is filled with wonder - #1 and because you see man's inhumanity to man - #2, you have decided Atheism must be the truth ?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Leviticus 24:16

Now the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and this Israelite woman’s son and a man of Israel fought each other in the camp. And the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed; and so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) Then they put him in custody, that the mind of the Lord might be shown to them.

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

“Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.

(Leviticus 24:10-15 NKJV)


“Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”

(Mark 3:28-29 NKJV)

Originally posted by sonship

It's not pride for me. It's doubt. Doubt cemented by years of spiritual exploration. Doubt cut in stone by a universe filled with wonder and humanity's inhumanity to man.

Interesting phrase - "doubt cut in stone."

So because the universe is filled with wonder - #1 and because you see man's inhumanity to man - #2, you have decided Atheism must be the truth ?

Don't trivialize my beliefs lest you want yours subject to the same treatment. Who said anything about atheism being the truth?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Don't trivialize my beliefs lest you want yours subject to the same treatment. Who said anything about atheism being the truth?

Well, looks like we have an agreement that atheism is a false religion. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, looks like we have an agreement that atheism is a false religion. 😏

one. Atheist is not a religion of any kind.

And two. Hecate has not agreed that atheism is false.

He looks (and I could be wrong about this and await his confirmation) to be taking the eminently
sensible position that things need to be supported by evidence before being believed in and thus
he does not claim as true that gods exist or no gods exist as he hasn't been able to determine
either claim to his satisfaction.

He appears to be searching for the answers, searching for the truth.

As such he isn't claiming that atheism IS true, or that theism IS true.

So what things appear like to you is evidently deeply flawed.

Originally posted by googlefudge
one. Atheist is not a religion of any kind.

And two. Hecate has not agreed that atheism is false.

He looks (and I could be wrong about this and await his confirmation) to be taking the eminently
sensible position that things need to be supported by evidence before being believed in and thus
he does not claim as true that gods exist or no gods e ...[text shortened]... true, or that theism IS true.

So what things appear like to you is evidently deeply flawed.

So you are saying he is ignorant of the truth, then. Okay, good enough. 😏

Originally posted by googlefudge
one. Atheist is not a religion of any kind.

And two. Hecate has not agreed that atheism is false.

He looks (and I could be wrong about this and await his confirmation) to be taking the eminently
sensible position that things need to be supported by evidence before being believed in and thus
he does not claim as true that gods exist or no gods e ...[text shortened]... true, or that theism IS true.

So what things appear like to you is evidently deeply flawed.

Well said Googlefudger.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you are saying he is ignorant of the truth, then. Okay, good enough. 😏

You are quite possibly the WORST advocate for Christianity I have ever come across. Abusive. Pig headed. Condescending. Smug. Self righteous. Unflinching in your own beliefs.

You need to reflect on how you conduct yourself as a representative of Christianity.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Don't trivialize my beliefs lest you want yours subject to the same treatment. Who said anything about atheism being the truth?

Where did I trivialize your beliefs ?

I simply said that you used an interesting phrase, one which I never heard before.

And the time has long long since passed when you regarded my Christian belief as anything except an object for ridicule. So please spare me the "You trivialized first" innocency.

Ie. Hey, everybody. Which sin do you do best ?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
It's not pride for me. It's doubt. Doubt cemented by years of spiritual exploration. Doubt cut in stone by a universe filled with wonder and humanity's inhumanity to man.

Humanity's inhumanity to man has nothing to do with God.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
You are quite possibly the WORST advocate for Christianity I have ever come across. Abusive. Pig headed. Condescending. Smug. Self righteous. Unflinching in your own beliefs.

You need to reflect on how you conduct yourself as a representative of Christianity.

Hey! I'm unflinching in my own beliefs... what's so bad about that?*














* I know I'm right too! Hah!

One of the greatest features of science is that it works as an algorithmic process of belief revision. No scientific belief being held can be said to be absolutely true, no matter how convincing it is. This is how science compensates for the small amount of faith it requires. All scientific beliefs are wrapped in a protective condition: A scientific belief can only be true if the basic assumptions of science are true, and absolute certainty cannot be obtained due to the problems inherited from subjectivity. All scientific statements have a built in emergency exit! Beliefs are able to change in light of new evidence or ideas.

I'll assume for the moment that this is true.

Religion in this regard, is a polar opposite. Beliefs are dictated and taken on faith. Belief revision is not encouraged.

How did the five daughters of Zelophahad (Numbers 27) convince Moses to amend the Law given by God at Mt. Sinai ? This was a admendation to Judaism of the Old Testament.

God originally intended that the whole nation of Israel would be a kingdom of priests. Because of a large scale failure He changed His mind and selected only the tribe of Levi to bare the priesthood. This could be regarded as a change to religious belief.

God originally had the nation of Israel relate directly to Yahwah as their king. In the time of the prophet Samuel that nation demanded to have a divinely appointed king over them like the surrounding nations. So King Saul became the first anointed king.

This could be regarded as a change in OT Judiasm.

The entire transition from the first covenant to the new covenant under Christ could be regarded as a radical change in religious tradition. Thus you have the Christian church develop out of the seeds of Judiasm. That's a progression.

When the Christian church became apostate in belief one monk Martin Luther nailed his 90 thesis to the door of the edifice of Roman Catholicism launching the Protestant Reformation.

That has been regarded as a huge change in religious tradition.

The "Brethren" in the 19th Century decided to discard with the clerical system and clergy / laity. Henceforth they returned to the New Testament model of only calling each others "Brothers" - ie. the Plymouth Brethren.

This could be regarded as a major change in religious tradition.

The Quakers under the leadership of George Fox likewise decided to discard the heirarchical system and refer to each other only as "Friends." This could be regarded as a major change in a religious tradition.

Indeed, religion has difficulty changing its dogma when pressured.

I am sure you agree that "difficulty" does not mean impossibility.

Take for example, Christianity’s recent struggles to keep up with the rapidly changing times.

While change for change's sake may not be a positive thing, I thing you could regard the existence of each new denomination as a change of some kind with previous congregating tradition.

People of faith historically are shown to sometimes subject to changes.

The finding of the church in Jerusalem underwent some kind of change when the 12 apostles decided to appoint deacons to help handle practical needs of the congregation.

The church in Jerusalem also underwent changes when the persecutions forced them to scatter into other cities and lands.

The churches had to adopt to Gentiles coming into the Christian faith when all the original disciples of Jesus had been Jewish.

The passing away of the original apostles signaled some need to evolve.

The changing nature of relationship with the world - first intense persecution followed by general welcome and being made the "state religion" under Constatine involved tremendous adjustments (for better of for worse) in religious tradition.

The Reformation embodied change or at least change in recovery back to basics from widespread gradual departure.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you are saying he is ignorant of the truth, then. Okay, good enough. 😏

Its a wise man that knows what he doesnt know.