Great Thinkers

» PhiloProf - Lalalala not listening...

In response to Lalalala not listening... posted by TheJesusFreak:

Dear TJF,

I enjoyed your cartoon. Once I had a t-shirt similar to it. I have listened to what was said to me. I spent most of my life listening to the propaganda spouted by the church. I was the son of a Minister and travelled all over passing out food and medicine and of course spreading the "word". It was not until I opened my eyes and saw that the truth must be testable.
I suggest that you read the Bible for yourself and then think about it in depth, then read the Koran, Talmud and the Book of the dead. Then look at the legends that predate the Bible and you will see that the Bible is hardly more than a collection of stories that were assembled to garner support from other pagan religions.
Ever think about why Christmas is when it is? Well it happens that it 'replaced' the pagan holiday of Winter Soltice, and Easter happens to do the same, very convenient I would say.
I do not deny you your right to worship, how ever I ask that you do not infringe on my right to open my mind and eyes and let go of childish superstitions. Please do not assume that because I believe differently than you that I am closed minded.
Cheers,
PhiloProf

-- posted by PhiloProf

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» PhiloProf - Ken Ham

In response to Ken Ham posted by Banewolf:

I wonder if any one Mr. Ham knows "Was THERE?"

-- posted by PhiloProf

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - So in other words....?

Christians who believe in the Bible don't think. That is basically your point here, correct?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Also....

For someone who decries Bible-believing Christians for NOT "thinking," you should recognize the fallacy in your reasoning that if Matthew's account of Herod slaughtering babies is wrong then therefore the historicity of Genesis is also called into question.

For one thing, the Bible is a collection of books. Sixty-six books in all. Granted, a Bible-believing Christian logically has to embrace all sixty-six. But, a skeptic like you can't just prove ONE of the sixty-six books wrong - and then assert the the other sixty-five are wrong as well. That doesn't work. You have to evaluate each as a stand-alone.

Second, just because Herod's chroniclers didn't record the slaughter of the babies does NOT mean it didn't happen. You have a historical document - the book of Matthew - that says he did. Now, you need to apply fair, objective historical analysis to the book of Matthew to see if it's reliable. You also need to ask if such an act is consistent with who Herod was. Unless you're willing to engage in those exercises, don't wave your hand and dismiss the story as untrue and condemn those who believe it as a bunch of stupid non-thinkers.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» PhiloProf - Also....

In response to Also.... posted by BrianTubbs:

Mr. Tubbs,

I do not dismiss anyone as a non-thinker but challenge people to look beyond their own ethnocentric viewpoint.

But If the Bible is, as you say, a historical document it is a poor one. Let me go on record that I do think that the Bible has something to teach us, as do all the major religions.
Do you consider what Lot's daughters did to their father after the destruction of Sodom a historical account? How about that the discrepancies contained within the Bible? For example:
Matthew 10:29-31 and Luke 12:6-7
Gen. 6:19-20 and Gen 7:2-3
Gen. 8:3 and Gen 8:6
John 13:38, 18:26-27 and Matt. 26:34, 73-75
or the number of times the 'Cock Crowed' Luke 22:34, 59-62 and Mark 14:30, 66-68, 70-72
If I apply a fair and reliable analysis, as you ask, then I can deduce that if one account from a 'historical' document is not confirmed by another chapter from the same document then I need to look at the document with some wariness. Also if the accounts of the slaying of the first born really occurred do you not think that more than one book in the New Testament would mention it? As it stands only Matthew mentions it. Furthermore if such a horrendous atrocity actually occurred, as the scripture claims, EVERYONE in the vicinity at the time would have been affected by it or aware of it, but history records no such crime against humanity.
The records King Herod kept were accurate and yes I can agree that it is possible that it was stricken from the record. But I ask you if no other historical document mentions it then is it not possible that, maybe, just maybe it did not actually occur but is a legend, just as other religions have had similar 'first born killed' stories?
It is just something to think about.

Cheers,
PhiloProf

-- posted by PhiloProf

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Bible as History

In response to Also.... posted by PhiloProf:

Well...I certainly can't, in a discussion post like this, get into textual criticism or address all the Bible contradictions. A few points, though....

1) Discrepancies do NOT render a historical source as invalid. They MAY cast doubt on the claims of inerrancy made by many Christians, but they do NOT necessarily undermine the Bible as an ancient literary or historical document.

2) Discrepancies and contradictions do NOT nullify the reality of an historical event or person. We have conflicting accounts about the Battle of Gettysburg. Does that mean the battle didn't happen? My point is that a lot of accurate, relevant historical information can be learned from the Bible in spite of these discrepancies and contradictions.

3) Most of the contradictions and discrepancies cited by critics are MINOR. They represent no contradiction in moral or spiritual content. Usually the differences consist of numbers or times of the day or how many times the rooster crowed. Stuff like that. Your first example about the cost of the sparrows is a perfect illustration. You're going to judge the entire credibility of the Bible as a historical document on stuff like that? Come on.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Ken Ham

Since your article dealt with Mr. Ham, we should probably keep our focus on the historicity of Genesis. There'll be plenty of time for us to debate the other stuff. And I do look forward to that. In the meantime, I might start posting comments on Bible contradictions in my blog over in my section. Thanks for the inspiration. :-)

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Sherlock85 - A literal creationist Christian

In response to Also.... posted by BrianTubbs:
Hi, everybody! I feel a little out of place here, but I read Mr. Shehan's article "Ken Ham is NO Great Thinker" and wrote a reply which I am publishing as a article. Please read it and consider another viewpoint. Best wishes!

http://greatthinkers.suite101.com/articl...

-- posted by Sherlock85

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» fritleyfrisp - Lalalala not listening...

In response to Lalalala not listening... posted by PhiloProf:
That's a shame that you used to pass out food to the hungry when you were a Christian. Now that you are not, what do you do to help humanity?

-- posted by fritleyfrisp

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» fritleyfrisp - Ken Ham

In response to Ken Ham posted by PhiloProf:
Of course we know who was there, we're trying to present the Bible to you as a book that tells us the history of the universe. I wonder if you read the Bible and then checked the creationist model without presupposing it is wrong, whether your views on science may change.

:-)

-- posted by fritleyfrisp

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds