Atheism (3)

[Dave Ellis]

strawman, and redherring, and poisoning the well. Should I go on with your fallacies you make when you insult....abusive ad hominem!

No, it's none of those things..... I made a completely accurate statement.

The very idea that you're holding the works of Plato and the Bible on equal historical footing shows you have absolutely no idea why or how we determine if something is reliable.

We have explained to you why Plato's works are still valid, and yet you're still the one saying they should be thrown out..... because the Bible doesn't meet the same standards?

Your arguments are based on ignorance of the subject matter. Pointing that out to you, along with pointing out how ridiculous the points you are trying to make are is not a logical fallacy of any kind.

You may find it offensive, and if you do, I'm sorry for that. However, when you're making a completely inane, baseless argument.... the only way to refute it is to call it inane and baseless.


P.S. It's also not out of line to suggest you read up on logical fallacies either... because you appear to have trouble identifying them.

Strawman: Would have required me to falsely state what you believe, then attack it..... I didn't do that anywhere.

Red Herring: Is attempting to purposefully distract from the issue. Pointing out you are displaying no knowledge of the subject matter, based on your own statements is not doing that.

Poisoning the Well: Is an attempt to ridicule or discredit an opponent in a debate by insulting or mocking that person's beliefs to an audience at a public debate or similar setting, before that person has a chance to state their case. Since we have been discussing this for a couple days..... it's literally impossible to poison the well.

Ad Hominem: Is an irrelevant attack on the person to try to discredit their argument. You would be right here, if it wasn't for the fact I'm just simply pointing out what you are making abundantly clear through your arguments. Likewise, saying you are ignorant when it comes to logical fallacies is also not an Ad Hominem.... because you have made it abundantly clear with your false accusations that you do not properly know how to identify what is a fallacy, and what is not. Likewise, you have demonstrated you have no idea what goes into considering a piece of work historical or not. Pointing out both of these is a statement of fact.... not an Ad Hominem.

 

[createdtoworship]

We have explained to you why Plato's works are still valid, and yet you're still the one saying they should be thrown out..... because the Bible doesn't meet the same standards?

Your arguments are based on ignorance of the subject matter.

"We" you mean "you". Don't try to play the bandwagon here. Secondly, I have asked you time and time again for you method of determining the historicity of an ancient document. And all you can say is "if it is historical it's good, if not then it's thown out. basically you are saying that the date matters until the date is bad, then what matters (in plato's case) is the historicity of the material. Which was the original question, how do you KNOW it's historicity.

 

[Dave Ellis]

"We" you mean "you". Don't try to play the bandwagon here. Secondly, I have asked you time and time again for you method of determining the historicity of an ancient document. And all you can say is "if it is historical it's good, if not then it's thown out. basically you are saying that the date matters until the date is bad, then what matters (in plato's case) is the historicity of the material. Which was the original question, how do you KNOW it's historicity.

I have told you numerous times that things are considered historical when we have evidence by way of mutually supporting documents, or other physical evidence of some kind.

The rest of your post I have also previously addressed. Just because you choose not to listen to my answers, does not mean I am not giving them to you.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have told you numerous times that things are considered historical when we have evidence by way of mutually supporting documents, or other physical evidence of some kind.

The rest of your post I have also previously addressed. Just because you choose not to listen to my answers, does not mean I am not giving them to you.

how do you know the items in plato for example have this "mutual supporting documentation"?

one or two event maybe but not all of it. This would disqualify all ancient history as not historical. secondly, by this method if we were to find an ancient text far outdating any text we have currently, it would be disqualified until we had at least two others to compare it to. Do you really want this view of yours?

 

[Gracchus]

how do you know the items in plato for example have this "mutual supporting documentation"?

Plato is not history. Plato is philosophy. It stands or falls on its own merits, even if it were written last week by Ted Haggarty.

Perhaps Plato made some fatastic claims, but I think not. To the extent that the New Testament puts forth a philosophical position, it, also, stands on its own merits. If it makes historical claims that contradict the evidence from all other sources (e.g. the census of Augustus) or makes claims contrary to reason (e.g. water walking, raising the dead, etc) reasonable persons would require some independent verification.

 

[createdtoworship]

Plato is not history. Plato is philosophy. It stands or falls on its own merits, even if it were written last week by Ted Haggarty.

Perhaps Plato made some fatastic claims, but I think not. To the extent that the New Testament puts forth a philosophical position, it, also, stands on its own merits. If it makes historical claims that contradict the evidence from all other sources (e.g. the census of Augustus) or makes claims contrary to reason (e.g. water walking, raising the dead, etc) reasonable persons would require some independent verification.

okay then how about, Thucydides, or pliny the younger, or herodus? those are all 700 -1300 years after the initial writings. How does one know the historicity of these writings? One or two events does not comply with a historical work!

 

[createdtoworship]

If it makes historical claims that contradict the evidence from all other sources (e.g. the census of Augustus) or makes claims contrary to reason (e.g. water walking, raising the dead, etc) reasonable persons would require some independent verification.

LUKE 2:1—Did Luke make a mistake when he mentioned a worldwide census under Caesar Augustus?

PROBLEM: Luke refers to a worldwide census under Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, according to the annals of ancient history, no such census took place.

SOLUTION: Until recently, it has been widely held by critics that Luke made an error in his assertion about a registration under Caesar Augustus, and that the census actually took place in a.d. 6 or 7, (that is mentioned by Luke in Gamaliel’s speech recorded in Acts 5:37). The lack of any extra-biblical support has led some to claim this is an error. However, recent scholarship has reversed this trend, and it is now widely admitted that there was in fact an earlier registration as Luke records. This has been asserted on the basis of several factors.
First of all, since the people of a subjugated land were compelled to take an oath of allegiance to the emperor, it was not unusual for the emperor to require an imperial census as an expression of this allegiance and as a means of enlisting men for military service, or, as was probably true in this case, in preparation to levy taxes. Because of the strained relations between Herod and Augustus in the later years of Herod’s reign, as the Jewish historian Josephus reports, it is understandable that Augustus would begin to treat Herod’s domain as a subject land, and consequently would impose such a census to maintain control of Herod and the people.
Second, periodic registrations of this sort took place on a regular basis every 14 years. According to the very papers that recorded the censuses, (see W.M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? 1898), there was in fact a census taken in about 8 or 7 b.c. Because of this regular pattern of census taking, any such action would naturally be regarded as a result of the general policy of Augustus, even though a local census may have been instigated by a local governor. Therefore, Luke recognizes the census as stemming from the decree of Augustus.
Third, a census was a massive project which probably took several years to complete. Such a census for the purpose of taxation was begun in Gaul between 10–9 b.c. that took a period of 40 years to complete. It is quite likely that the decree to begin the census, in about 8 or 7 b.c., may not have actually begun in Palestine until some time later. Problems of organization and preparation may have delayed the actual census until 5 b.c. or even later.
Fourth, it was not an unusual requirement that people return to the place of their origin, or to the place where they owned property. A decree of C. Vibius Mazimus in a.d. 104 required all those who were away from their home towns to return there for the purpose of the census. For the Jews, such travel would not have been unusual at all since they were quite used to the annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There is simply no reason to suspect Luke’s statement regarding the census at the time of Jesus’ birth. Luke’s account fits the regular pattern of census taking, and its date would not be an unreasonable one. Also, this may have been simply a local census that was taken as a result of the general policy of Augustus. Luke simply provides us with a reliable historical record of an event not otherwise recorded. Since Dr. Luke has proven himself to be a reliable historian in other matters (see Sir William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, 1896), there is no reason to doubt him here (see also comments on Luke 2:2).


LUKE 2:2—Why does Luke say the census was during Quirinius’ governorship since Quirinius was not governor until a.d. 6?

PROBLEM: Luke states that the census decreed by Augustus was the first one taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until after the death of Herod in about a.d. 6. Is this an error in Luke’s historical record?

SOLUTION: Luke has not made an error. There are reasonable solutions to this difficulty.
First, Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 b.c. to about 4 b.c. Varus was not a trustworthy leader, a fact that was disastrously demonstrated in a.d. 9 when he lost three legions of soldiers in the Teutoburger forest in Germany. To the contrary, Quirinius was a notable military leader who was responsible for squelching the rebellion of the Homonadensians in Asia Minor. When it came time to begin the census, in about 8 or 7 b.c., Augustus entrusted Quirinius with the delicate problem in the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superseding the authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of special authority in this matter.
It has also been proposed that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 b.c., and later beginning about a.d. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has been interpreted to refer to Quirinius as having served as governor of Syria on two occasions.
It is possible that Luke 2:2 reads, “This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria.” In this case, the Greek word translated “first” (prōtos) is translated as a comparative, “before.” Because of the awkward construction of the sentence, this is not an unlikely reading.
Regardless of which solution is accepted, it is not necessary to conclude that Luke has made an error in recording the historical events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Luke has proven himself to be a reliable historian even in the details. Sir William Ramsey has shown that in making reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands he made no mistakes!

from
Geisler, Norman L. ; Howe, Thomas A.: When Critics Ask : A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1992, S. 383

 

[Buy Bologna]

LUKE 2:1—Did Luke make a mistake when he mentioned a worldwide census under Caesar Augustus?

PROBLEM: Luke refers to a worldwide census under Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, according to the annals of ancient history, no such census took place.

SOLUTION: Until recently, it has been widely held by critics that Luke made an error in his assertion about a registration under Caesar Augustus, and that the census actually took place in a.d. 6 or 7, (that is mentioned by Luke in Gamaliel’s speech recorded in Acts 5:37). The lack of any extra-biblical support has led some to claim this is an error. However, recent scholarship has reversed this trend, and it is now widely admitted that there was in fact an earlier registration as Luke records. This has been asserted on the basis of several factors.
First of all, since the people of a subjugated land were compelled to take an oath of allegiance to the emperor, it was not unusual for the emperor to require an imperial census as an expression of this allegiance and as a means of enlisting men for military service, or, as was probably true in this case, in preparation to levy taxes. Because of the strained relations between Herod and Augustus in the later years of Herod’s reign, as the Jewish historian Josephus reports, it is understandable that Augustus would begin to treat Herod’s domain as a subject land, and consequently would impose such a census to maintain control of Herod and the people.
Second, periodic registrations of this sort took place on a regular basis every 14 years. According to the very papers that recorded the censuses, (see W.M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? 1898), there was in fact a census taken in about 8 or 7 b.c. Because of this regular pattern of census taking, any such action would naturally be regarded as a result of the general policy of Augustus, even though a local census may have been instigated by a local governor. Therefore, Luke recognizes the census as stemming from the decree of Augustus.
Third, a census was a massive project which probably took several years to complete. Such a census for the purpose of taxation was begun in Gaul between 10–9 b.c. that took a period of 40 years to complete. It is quite likely that the decree to begin the census, in about 8 or 7 b.c., may not have actually begun in Palestine until some time later. Problems of organization and preparation may have delayed the actual census until 5 b.c. or even later.
Fourth, it was not an unusual requirement that people return to the place of their origin, or to the place where they owned property. A decree of C. Vibius Mazimus in a.d. 104 required all those who were away from their home towns to return there for the purpose of the census. For the Jews, such travel would not have been unusual at all since they were quite used to the annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There is simply no reason to suspect Luke’s statement regarding the census at the time of Jesus’ birth. Luke’s account fits the regular pattern of census taking, and its date would not be an unreasonable one. Also, this may have been simply a local census that was taken as a result of the general policy of Augustus. Luke simply provides us with a reliable historical record of an event not otherwise recorded. Since Dr. Luke has proven himself to be a reliable historian in other matters (see Sir William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, 1896), there is no reason to doubt him here (see also comments on Luke 2:2).


LUKE 2:2—Why does Luke say the census was during Quirinius’ governorship since Quirinius was not governor until a.d. 6?

PROBLEM: Luke states that the census decreed by Augustus was the first one taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until after the death of Herod in about a.d. 6. Is this an error in Luke’s historical record?

SOLUTION: Luke has not made an error. There are reasonable solutions to this difficulty.
First, Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 b.c. to about 4 b.c. Varus was not a trustworthy leader, a fact that was disastrously demonstrated in a.d. 9 when he lost three legions of soldiers in the Teutoburger forest in Germany. To the contrary, Quirinius was a notable military leader who was responsible for squelching the rebellion of the Homonadensians in Asia Minor. When it came time to begin the census, in about 8 or 7 b.c., Augustus entrusted Quirinius with the delicate problem in the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superseding the authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of special authority in this matter.
It has also been proposed that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 b.c., and later beginning about a.d. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has been interpreted to refer to Quirinius as having served as governor of Syria on two occasions.
It is possible that Luke 2:2 reads, “This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria.” In this case, the Greek word translated “first” (prōtos) is translated as a comparative, “before.” Because of the awkward construction of the sentence, this is not an unlikely reading.
Regardless of which solution is accepted, it is not necessary to conclude that Luke has made an error in recording the historical events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Luke has proven himself to be a reliable historian even in the details. Sir William Ramsey has shown that in making reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands he made no mistakes!

from
Geisler, Norman L. ; Howe, Thomas A.: When Critics Ask : A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1992, S. 383

WOW! What a wall of text!

It never ceases to amaze the lengths people will do to stretch the bible so it can make sense.

 

[createdtoworship]

WOW! What a wall of text!

It never ceases to amaze the lengths people will do to stretch the bible so it can make sense.

every thing that is simple, takes a lot of explaining to make it simple. For example tell someone how to exactly make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich in 10 words or less, you can't do it!

 

[Buy Bologna]

every thing that is simple, takes a lot of explaining to make it simple. For example tell someone how to exactly make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich in 10 words or less, you can't do it!

Do you think there is a possibility of your explanation being wrong?



I'm just gonna go with with the simple version and say that the bible is full of fallacies/contras.... and this Luke 2:1 is just another.(That contras Matt 2:1)

Kind of like how the gospels can't even agree on how many blind men were setting along the road side as Jesus approached. (matt 20:30) 2 blind men. (mark 10:46) A blind man, the bible was even so specific as to give us a name. (Luke 18:35) A blind man.

I can give more if you'd like.

I created a thread a while ago on this. But it was closed. But if you could give me an explanation on these contradictions. http://www.christianforums.com/t7622061/#post59482046

That would be great.

Short version if you could.

 

[dlamberth]

every thing that is simple, takes a lot of explaining to make it simple. For example tell someone how to exactly make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich in 10 words or less, you can't do it!

Love, Compassion and Service to others doesn't take a lot of explaining. I have never understood how or why Christianity makes it so hard or complicated.

.

 

[dlamberth]

To the extent that the New Testament puts forth a philosophical position, it, also, stands on its own merits.

Exactly, because the Bible is not a history book. It's a book about man's relationship with God.

.

 

[Gracchus]

every thing that is simple, takes a lot of explaining to make it simple. For example tell someone how to exactly make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich in 10 words or less, you can't do it!

Spread peanut butter and jelly on bread. (Seven words) Of course you can elaborate, and you may have to for some people. But in seven words you have all the information you need.

 

[createdtoworship]

Spread peanut butter and jelly on bread. (Seven words) Of course you can elaborate, and you may have to for some people. But in seven words you have all the information you need.

you forgot to open the jars up!
you forgot to take the bread out of the bag!
you forgot to get butter knife out of the droor!
you forgot to tell how much peanut butter and jelly (use the whole jar or what?)

etc etc,


here is a complete version of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich:

"The top of the jar has a red lid that you screw

to the right about five times or so or until the lid comes unfastened, lift it

off of the top of the jar. It can be set it aside because it wont be needed

until you are ready to put it away! Next, put the peanut butter jar down on the

flat surface and pick up either piece of bread. One may use either side of the

bread. (If it is an end Piece, or you don't know what an end piece is, then go

to the last Page of this essay.) Now you pick up the butter knife that should

already have been o0n the flat surface that you chose. If it is not, then go to

wherever you can find silverware and get one. And believe me it is not easy to

find. One may also use a plastic knife if a metal one could not be found. Now

with the sharp end of the knife stick it in the jar of peanut butter and lift

out the amount wanted for the sandwich. After this has been done, set it on the

piece of bread in your hand and smooth it out until it fits your expectations.

Now just put the piece of bread from your hand to the table.



One does not need to have jelly on their sandwich if they prefer not to have the

added sugar. But one may want to use it if they are not very fond of the actual

taste of it. Again, you can buy jelly at any local market. After you have bought

the jelly, take it back to where your bread and peanut butter is and set it down

on the table or the flat surface where it lays. As with the peanut butter one

will see that one end is capped with a red lid. Put the red end up off of the

table and set the bottom of the jar face down. With your right or left hand,

take the lid and turn it to the right of you until it is unattached to the jar.

Take the lid and set it aside because it will not need it until you need to

screw it back on. Now take the butter knife that you used for the peanut butter

in your right or left hand. Pick up a piece of bread from the table where it is

laying, but do not take the piece that already has peanut butter. (If one has

already picked it up lay it down peanut butter side up!) If you have the right

bread, hold it in your hand flat, and with the knife in the other hand, stick it

the sharp side down into the jar of jelly and pick some up with the knife. Put

the jelly on the piece of bread in your hand. Try not to drop any on the table

for it can get very sticky. Now carefully smooth it out until it covers the

bread or you feel that there is enough on your bread. Now set the knife down on

the table or in the sink for one will not need it again. With the jellied bread

in your hand, jelly side down; put it on the face up peanut butter. And there

you have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. "

from:

http://www.123helpme.com/assets/15597.html

 

[createdtoworship]

Love, Compassion and Service to others doesn't take a lot of explaining. I have never understood how or why Christianity makes it so hard or complicated.

.

love a simple concept can be very difficult to explain to a child. Try teaching a child to not be selfish in 10 words or less.

 

[quatona]

you forgot to open the jars up!
you forgot to take the bread out of the bag!
you forgot to get butter knife out of the droor!
you forgot to tell how much peanut butter and jelly (use the whole jar or what?)

etc etc,


here is a complete version of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich:

"The top of the jar has a red lid that you screw

to the right about five times or so or until the lid comes unfastened, lift it

off of the top of the jar. It can be set it aside because it wont be needed

until you are ready to put it away! Next, put the peanut butter jar down on the

flat surface and pick up either piece of bread. One may use either side of the

bread. (If it is an end Piece, or you don't know what an end piece is, then go

to the last Page of this essay.) Now you pick up the butter knife that should

already have been o0n the flat surface that you chose. If it is not, then go to

wherever you can find silverware and get one. And believe me it is not easy to

find. One may also use a plastic knife if a metal one could not be found. Now

with the sharp end of the knife stick it in the jar of peanut butter and lift

out the amount wanted for the sandwich. After this has been done, set it on the

piece of bread in your hand and smooth it out until it fits your expectations.

Now just put the piece of bread from your hand to the table.



One does not need to have jelly on their sandwich if they prefer not to have the

added sugar. But one may want to use it if they are not very fond of the actual

taste of it. Again, you can buy jelly at any local market. After you have bought

the jelly, take it back to where your bread and peanut butter is and set it down

on the table or the flat surface where it lays. As with the peanut butter one

will see that one end is capped with a red lid. Put the red end up off of the

table and set the bottom of the jar face down. With your right or left hand,

take the lid and turn it to the right of you until it is unattached to the jar.

Take the lid and set it aside because it will not need it until you need to

screw it back on. Now take the butter knife that you used for the peanut butter

in your right or left hand. Pick up a piece of bread from the table where it is

laying, but do not take the piece that already has peanut butter. (If one has

already picked it up lay it down peanut butter side up!) If you have the right

bread, hold it in your hand flat, and with the knife in the other hand, stick it

the sharp side down into the jar of jelly and pick some up with the knife. Put

the jelly on the piece of bread in your hand. Try not to drop any on the table

for it can get very sticky. Now carefully smooth it out until it covers the

bread or you feel that there is enough on your bread. Now set the knife down on

the table or in the sink for one will not need it again. With the jellied bread

in your hand, jelly side down; put it on the face up peanut butter. And there

you have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. "

from:

Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich Expository Place Descriptive Essays

Not to mention how much more complicated it gets when there´s no evidence for the existence of peanut butter, bread and jelly.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Not to mention how much more complicated it gets when there´s no evidence for the existence of peanut butter, bread and jelly.

Every man has it written on his heart that peanut butter exists.

 

[Gracchus]

Spread peanut butter and jelly on bread. (Seven words) Of course you can elaborate, and you may have to for some people. But in seven words you have all the information you need.

you forgot to open the jars up!
you forgot to take the bread out of the bag!
you forgot to get butter knife out of the droor!
you forgot to tell how much peanut butter and jelly (use the whole jar or what?)

etc etc,


here is a complete version of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich:

"The top of the jar has a red lid that you screw

to the right about five times or so or until the lid comes unfastened, lift it

off of the top of the jar. It can be set it aside because it wont be needed

until you are ready to put it away! Next, put the peanut butter jar down on the

flat surface and pick up either piece of bread. One may use either side of the

bread. (If it is an end Piece, or you don't know what an end piece is, then go

to the last Page of this essay.) Now you pick up the butter knife that should

already have been o0n the flat surface that you chose. If it is not, then go to

wherever you can find silverware and get one. And believe me it is not easy to

find. One may also use a plastic knife if a metal one could not be found. Now

with the sharp end of the knife stick it in the jar of peanut butter and lift

out the amount wanted for the sandwich. After this has been done, set it on the

piece of bread in your hand and smooth it out until it fits your expectations.

Now just put the piece of bread from your hand to the table.



One does not need to have jelly on their sandwich if they prefer not to have the

added sugar. But one may want to use it if they are not very fond of the actual

taste of it. Again, you can buy jelly at any local market. After you have bought

the jelly, take it back to where your bread and peanut butter is and set it down

on the table or the flat surface where it lays. As with the peanut butter one

will see that one end is capped with a red lid. Put the red end up off of the

table and set the bottom of the jar face down. With your right or left hand,

take the lid and turn it to the right of you until it is unattached to the jar.

Take the lid and set it aside because it will not need it until you need to

screw it back on. Now take the butter knife that you used for the peanut butter

in your right or left hand. Pick up a piece of bread from the table where it is

laying, but do not take the piece that already has peanut butter. (If one has

already picked it up lay it down peanut butter side up!) If you have the right

bread, hold it in your hand flat, and with the knife in the other hand, stick it

the sharp side down into the jar of jelly and pick some up with the knife. Put

the jelly on the piece of bread in your hand. Try not to drop any on the table

for it can get very sticky. Now carefully smooth it out until it covers the

bread or you feel that there is enough on your bread. Now set the knife down on

the table or in the sink for one will not need it again. With the jellied bread

in your hand, jelly side down; put it on the face up peanut butter. And there

you have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. "

from:

Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich Expository Place Descriptive Essays

As i mentioned: You may have to elaborate, especially for the intellectually challenged. And of course you may add a lot of extraneous and possibly erroneous detail. Religious people do that a lot!

To simple instructions on treating your fellow humans decently, they add dogmas, doctrines, rituals, and (Most importantly!) collection plates. and it is quite common that the "Treat others decently" is forgotten, and all that is left is dogmas, doctrines, rituals, and (Most importantly!) collection plates.

I think the reason this happens is that they have damaged their minds trying to reconcile their incredible dogmas and contradictory doctrines with the real world, and how they themselves really behave. That's why the "bible belt" has the highest divorce rate, and why religious people are so over-represented in prisons.

 

[Going Merry]

I am quite sweaty from burpees.
Just thought I'd let the atheist thread know.
* disappears*

 

[createdtoworship]

As i mentioned: You may have to elaborate, especially for the intellectually challenged. And of course you may add a lot of extraneous and possibly erroneous detail. Religious people do that a lot!

To simple instructions on treating your fellow humans decently, they add dogmas, doctrines, rituals, and (Most importantly!) collection plates. and it is quite common that the "Treat others decently" is forgotten, and all that is left is dogmas, doctrines, rituals, and (Most importantly!) collection plates.

I think the reason this happens is that they have damaged their minds trying to reconcile their incredible dogmas and contradictory doctrines with the real world, and how they themselves really behave. That's why the "bible belt" has the highest divorce rate, and why religious people are so over-represented in prisons.

systematic theology is one of the most accurate representations of the Bible, but it is the most lengthy for sure. Years to study it. I do however agree with your assessment of modern day christianity. A lack of repentance has given believers a false sense of security into thinking they can literally do anything and still at the same time be saved by grace. But this is not a problem with the Bible it is a problem with the preaching methods.