Kent Hovind Arrested

[joshua 1 9]

You hire people to tell you what to believe in?

I hire someone named Edward Jones to invest my money for me. I like to keep ahead of inflation. The standard rate of return on investments right now is 3%.

 

[bhsmte]

I hire someone named Edward Jones to invest my money for me. I like to keep ahead of inflation. The standard rate of return on investments right now is 3%.

I get it, you took it literally, when I used the term; money.

How silly of me, I should have made my intent clearer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So let's see what 518 + 531 equal.

Correct my math here.

Since you said this:

... you're saying that all an atheist has to do to have a better understanding of the Bible is agree that It has "hundreds of self contradictions"?

They don't need to know what they are, or the context, or anything else ... all they have to do is agree that It contradicts Itself?

No, the Bible does not just have hundreds of self contradictions. Those are only some of the many flaws in the Bible. By the way, knowing the context of the contradictions does not always help your side. The Bible is also full of bad science, as you know far too well, it also has bad morals and failed prophesies to boot.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, the Bible does not just have hundreds of self contradictions. Those are only some of the many flaws in the Bible. By the way, knowing the context of the contradictions does not always help your side. The Bible is also full of bad science, as you know far too well, it also has bad morals and failed prophesies to boot.

There is no "bad science" in the Bible only bad interpretations. Skeptic dot com loves to confuse and lead people into error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

FWIW, I agree that many of the contradictions that atheists claim are rather easily explained in context. I hate those lists of "400 biblical contradictions," which contain stupid wording semantics, while disregarding the context. However, there are a significant amount of contradictions in which could not be satisfied, imo, even when I desperately wanted them to be. Many of them having to do with the crucifixion/resurrection stories.

Some of them are rather petty, but some are as you pointed out rather significant. The problem is that if one is a literalist one has to try to refute them all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no "bad science" in the Bible only bad interpretations. Skeptic dot com loves to confuse and lead people into error.

Of course there is bad science. Tell me, what was the human population of the Earth right after Noah's flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is also full of bad science, as you know far too well, it also has bad morals and failed prophesies to boot.

Please don't tell me about bad morals in the Bible, when unbelievers are willing to pluto such high standards as "child in the womb" to "fetus."

Do you think for one minute it would matter to you guys if the entire Bible had no [what you guys interpret as] bad morals in It at all?

I seriously doubt it.

Very seriously doubt it.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no "bad science" in the Bible only bad interpretations.

Would it really matter?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please don't tell me about bad morals in the Bible, when unbelievers are willing to pluto such high standards as "child in the womb" to "fetus."

Do you think for one minute it would matter to you guys if the entire Bible had no [what you guys interpret as] bad morals in It at all?

I seriously doubt it.

Very seriously doubt it.

What makes you think that the Bible is against abortion? If you read it without prejudice it is clear that a fetus was not considered to be a human being. And yes, the bad morals in the Bible are what drive many people away from Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

What makes you think that the Bible is against abortion? If you read it without prejudice it is clear that a fetus was not considered to be a human being. And yes, the bad morals in the Bible are what drive many people away from Christianity.

Are these your examples of atheists who know the Bible better than Christians?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are these your examples of atheists who know the Bible better than Christians?

I suppose it would count. To try to use the Bible against the concept of abortion you need to take verses out of context and try to apply what was said about an individual to everyone, where I can give specific examples of innocent pregnant women that were killed, of abortions induced by priests, by accidental abortions that only result in a fine for the guilty party. Perhaps you can surprise me with something that is not taken out of context, but I doubt it.

 

[AV1611VET]

To try to use the Bible against the concept of abortion you need to take verses out of context and try to apply what was said about an individual to everyone,

Sure.

Let's forget about all the verses that [we] pro-lifers use against the concept of abortion and apply what was said about an individual to everyone.

John the Baptist was a "babe in the womb."

Is that good enough to say abortion is murder?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure.

Let's forget about all the verses that [we] pro-lifers use against the concept of abortion and apply what was said about an individual to everyone.

John the Baptist was a "babe in the womb."

Is that good enough to say abortion is murder?

No, I see that logic is still a tool that you do not know how to use. If you are going to claim that "abortion is murder" then the burden of proof is upon you. There are vegans that claim "meat is murder" and the burden of proof is upon them. I just had a meal of braised beef shank. You can see that I was not convinced.

You need to show that a fetus is a human being according to the Bible, since you seem to be claiming that your antiabortion stance comes from your religious beliefs. The Bible does not seem to support you in that matter.

 

[AV1611VET]

You need to show that a fetus is a human being according to the Bible,

No, I don't.

As I said before, please don't tell me about bad morals in the Bible, when unbelievers are willing to pluto such high standards as "child in the womb" to "fetus."

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I don't.

As I said before, please don't tell me about bad morals in the Bible, when unbelievers are willing to pluto such high standards as "child in the womb" to "fetus."

If you want to make that claim you do. You are making up your morals and they seem to have nothing to do with either the Bible or reality.

By the way, your abusing the word "Pluto" is a tacit admission that you are wrong at any rate. Perhaps you might want to think about the terms that you use.

 

[PsychoSarah]

People do not always understand the warning. I had a dream recently that I should have put more effort into understanding because if I had I could have saved myself around $2,000. Just who was it that got stabbed and died?

How do you know you're not just reading into the dream? And what's the point of giving a warning a person won't understand?

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, I don't.

As I said before, please don't tell me about bad morals in the Bible, when unbelievers are willing to pluto such high standards as "child in the womb" to "fetus."

1. nonbelievers aren't the ones that made abortion legalized. We're too small a minority in most countries to have that kind of influence in laws. Whether you like it or not, theists legalized abortion in the countries in which it is legal.
2. you act as if the matter of abortion is a religious issue. It isn't. Not only are there more pro-choice theists than there are pro-choice atheists, but even hardcore antitheists are split on the issue. Christopher Hitchens, one of the most well-known antitheists, was pro-life. That religion ever became associated with the matter perplexes me.
3. The bible legitimately does not grant value to a human life until they are a year of age, condones abortion in the case of adultery, and YHWH kills babies (both born and unborn) a lot in the text. I don't mind that you are pro-life, but know that a religious basis for it is neither necessary, nor particularly sensible.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, your abusing the word "Pluto" is a tacit admission that you are wrong at any rate.

No, I'm not.

From the urban dictionary:

{ pluto

Verb. to pluto someone or something is to downgrade, demote or remove altogether from a prestigious group or list, Like what was done to the planet of the same name. }

To downgrade a child to a fetus is to pluto someone.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. nonbelievers aren't the ones that made abortion legalized.

I don't care who did it.

I'm arguing the point that "child" has been plutoed to "fetus" with someone who is expressing contempt at "bad morals."

The mirror should hurt in this case.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't care who did it.

I'm arguing the point that "child" has been plutoed to "fetus" with someone who is expressing contempt at "bad morals."

The mirror should hurt in this case.

Calling them unborn or fetus or child is irrelevant. Do you think calling a heart a cardiac muscle changes what it is? Do you look down on people so much that you think calling an unborn child a fetus is so dehumanizing that it would actually sway a person on the abortion issue? Heck, I view life as starting at conception and I am still pro-choice because at this point, outright banning abortion would create more pain and suffering than having it as an option. I don't see value in forcing people barely scraping by to either pay for a professional to help them in the birthing process, or increase risk of complications for both mother and child by opting out of that medical bill.

More people died because abortions were illegal and they had to get them in unsanitary conditions by people that weren't medical professionals than die from abortions being legal. It doesn't matter how you feel about the practice; if you are truly pro-life, aim to solve the problems that drive people to get abortions, because that is the route that will save the most people.

Do you think pro-choice people like abortions? Do you think we want them to become more common? No, we just recognize that it's the lesser of the two evils for it to be legal than for it to be illegal at this point.