Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's the point.
Accepting the Bible lock stock and barrel which includes the mistreatment of women is highly offensive yet has been justified in this thread.
I'm sorry to hear this and hope you have received adequate support.I will stay clear of that, too personal, too much
an issue for me.
When it is missing altogether from one very well respected and thought to be mostly complete early version of the Bible it should more than pique one's interest. When it is totally missing from another even older version, but again very well respected, it is time to start thinking awfully hard about that particular passage. I have a feeling that it is missing from even more than those two.This is the advantage of only using an antiquated, pre-modern translation -- you don't have to acknowledge such things.
I don't think that any atheist worships any other atheist. We know that they are all too human. Dawkins is admired more for his work in biology than anything else. He is merely vocal about his atheistic beliefs and how his understanding of biology showed that a God was not necessary for life, though many other atheists came to atheism through different routes. Hitchens is admired for his quick wit and ability to skewer others in debates. Harris for his clam reasoning. But none of them write an "inerrant word of atheism". We are still learning and one has to be willing to admit that there are areas in which we are wrong today. That is how one learns and corrects one's past bad behavior.
You'll notice that I included the term 'cannot be true for mere mortals'. So if you want to suggest that a length of wood turning into a snake is a divine miracle then go ahead. If someone else wants to suggest that it's a just story meant to illustrate God's power then either is acceptable.
How does it illustrate God’s power if it isn’t true? What power has been illustrated if it didn’t really happen. The only way it illustrates God’s power is if it actually took place.
How is eternal suffering justice? I do not think that you understand the concept when you write something like that. We do not kill a toddler for putting cat food into his or her mouth. What harm was done that requires such an extreme punishment? Who was harmed?
Surprised somehow? Like atheists are notJust to be clear, I didn't intend to imply that any atheists "worship" any other atheists. But I've been tracking atheism and its proponents for years and I there's been some problem among some atheists of being too gung-ho over certain individuals. Some of theme still are.
I'm glad to hear that you guys, however, are cut from a different cloth and willing to learn rather than stoop to polemics and skeptical carpet b*mb!ng.
That's the point.
Accepting the Bible lock stock and barrel which includes the mistreatment of women is highly offensive yet has been justified in this thread.
Surprised somehow? Like atheists are not
strreoyype stick- men represented by some few
noisy people whoever they may be?
There's a distinct air about your tracking observations.
If it took place, it only illustrated God's power to those who actually saw it manifested with attending miracles taking place. But the writings don't "demonstrate" this for us today. This is the point, for instance, of Lessing's Ditch. Kierkegaard saw the relevance of this point from Lessing as well ...
What's more amazing to you? that Noah was alive at the age of 500, or that he fathered a son at 500?
And as far as "Shemp" is concerned, can you give me an example of what you're talking about?
That's the point.
Accepting the Bible lock stock and barrel which includes the mistreatment of women is highly offensive yet has been justified in this thread.
Well the same goes for Christ’s resurrection since that was the very example used in Lessing’s argument. That’s why I said previously that it should only apply from an atheist point of view. The conclusion was that it could be believed that Jesus and the apostles said that He came back from the dead but it can’t be believed that He actually did come back from the dead because it is an unreasonable conclusion. Correct me if I’m wrong here.
That’s a typical atheist approach to the Bible.
As if that makes the slightest bit of difference. I guess tying her to a post or pinning her to the ground makes it all much more acceptable. Maybe you'd have an objection if the rocks were too large or had sharp edges. We wouldn't want you to pull a muscle or cut yourself.
What source did you use to come to this reading of Lessing?
You may need to explain more fully what you mean by an "atheist approach" to the Bible? Why should anyone just assume the Bible is transcendent in nature and somehow superlative simply because there's some church people somewhere who "say" it is? What's the proof?
This one
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?