.: posted 2/28/2008 ::: by DocMike :::   

 Anonymous wrote:

I chanced upon this website, and it was most dissapointing. The "Test Your Bible Knowledge" page was quite ridiculous. Let me explain, in order to understand the Bible, the firt thing you need to understand is the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the old Covenant, or old contract. The old contract had different rules because of the sin debt. Rules related to that sin debt no longer apply. When you understand this, it will reveal why much of what is presented on this website is foolishness. Beyone that, an honest, comprehensive, and more thorough study of Bible subjects will reveal why just about everything I've read on this website is false, and misleading. - GML, GA USA

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 DocMike wrote:

Anonymous, I don't understand how you christians can just excuse all of the horrible things your god did in the old testament, just by saying that was the old covenant...

If Hitler would have sacrificed his son, would you have then worshiped him as a kind and loving dictator?

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

After the fall, man was seperated from God. God was trying to bridge the gap. God could not co-exist with us to the extent that was required because of our fall so he gave instructins to the priests so they could commune with God, and teach the poople. Long story short, He was trying to teach us right from wrong, and bring us back. Along the way, there were times when he decided to kill some weeds to protect the flowers. Take for example when he told the Children of Isreal to destroy the Amorites. He did not want the Amorites to influence those that were seeking him since it woould endanger what was most important, their salvation. I have a son, and if someone threatened his life, I would probably want to remove the threat as well.

I'm hoping that helps. Just about everything God has done is for provision and protection.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Spirula wrote:

Anonymouse,

I chanced upon this website, and it was most dissapointing.

How often do we encounter that opening line which is then followed by a little sermonette from someone who can't seem to grasp that whole Ex-Christian part of the blog name?

Let me explain

Yes, please do, but only after you have ironed it out with the other 30,000+ denominations of Christianity which you don't belong to. Then you can come here to Ex-Christian and explain the universally agreed upon interpretation of the Bible. Because, frankly, you guys can't seem to get your stories straight.

Gerald,

I'm hoping that helps.

Arguing that god plays favorites, including having his "elect" people commit genocide as they steal lands inhabited by others? Actually, it helps prove the author's point. Thanks for stopping by.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 eejay wrote:

Anonymous (first post). You have no idea what you're talking about. Most of us on this site HAVE studied the bible, and through study came to this conclusion. No matter how you look at it, the bible just makes no sense at all. I was brainwashed most of my childhood, and tried so hard to find jesus. You've found him, because you've convinced yourself he exists, just as a child convinces himself there is a boogeyman, a santa claus, etc. The more I studied the bible the more I wanted to puke. I am just glad I am free of all that hogwash and superstition. Of course, I am disappointed that so much of my life was wasting trying to believe in something that wasn't there. If you honestly have the ability to look at things with an open mind and allow reason to happen, it is likely you'd come to the same conclusion as many of us. Just take the blinders off, and then look at the bible.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

There is only one interpretation of the Bible and that is His interpretatin. There are many, Christians churches, and denominations that agree on the basics. Sure, there other groups, and offshoots that may have loose interpretatins of the Bible, but what can anyone do about that? That has no bearing on the Bible's authenticity.

"Arguing that god plays favorites, including having his "elect" people commit genocide as they steal lands inhabited by others? Actually, it helps prove the author's point. Thanks for stopping by."

It sound like you reject any type of authority of morality. I suppose if "bad guys" came to your house to rob, steal, and murder, that would be ok? If the police were to stop them, that would be wrong? I believe God is the creator and the Judge.

Spirula: What is your issue with that concept?

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

Eejay:

If I had a dollar for every person that "said" they've studied the Bible...

Ortherwise, peoples's objections to the Bible since 1990. So far, I've been able to satisfy most of their questions. No one has all the answers. In a single lifetime, it would be impossible to answere every question. Having an unanswered question does not refute the authenticity of the Bible does it? You can make a strong argument that the odds of the Bible being anything other than the Word of God would be so huge, many would refer to it as a virtual impossibility. I am prepared to categorically support that statement.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 eejay wrote:

I wouldn't use an unanswered question alone as reason to refute the bible. It is a series of contradictory events. Things that just don't make sense, and scince also disproves much of it. There are things that just can't happen. On the other hand you have no evidence to support what the bibles states, other than your own belief. It seems if you had any knowledge of some of the early pagan beliefs you would see that ther god's had similarities to jesus, long before jesus supposedly existed. Coincidence...? I think not.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 No god/No fear wrote:

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Let me explain, in order to understand the Bible, the firt thing you need to understand is the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the old Covenant, or old contract. The old contract had different rules because of the sin debt. Rules related to that sin debt no longer apply. When you understand this, it will reveal why much of what is presented on this website is foolishness.

Bunk. We all 'got' it when we were brainwashed because that's one of the core teachings of the christian cult. This website is EX-cristian.net, remember? I love how christians say this like it's some kind of mind blowing revelation that we never heard of before.

Think about this: Either your god used to be a murderous, jealous, petty tyrant--according to his own scriptures--or he is and always will be that repulsive figure. Given that we were also taught that the nature of god is unchanging, maybe you should go back and actually read about your god's murderous adventures and sick pranks (the story of Job comes to mind) and see if you can really respect him anymore.

Sophia

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 ou812 wrote:

Okay Gerald, PROVE THAT THERE IS A GOD AND THAT THE BIBLE IS HIS WORD.REMEMBER IT'S YOUR WORD AGAINST SOMEONE ELSES, AND WHO'S TO SAY YOU KNOW THE REAL,FACTUAL TRUTH.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 No god/No fear wrote:

Anonymous Gerald said...

After the fall, man was seperated from God. God was trying to bridge the gap. God could not co-exist with us to the extent that was required because of our fall so he gave instructins to the priests so they could commune with God, and teach the poople. Long story short, He was trying to teach us right from wrong, and bring us back. Along the way, there were times when he decided to kill some weeds to protect the flowers.

Is god or is he not omnipotent AND omniscient? If he was, he wouldn't need a 'plan' to save anyone. He'd have made everyone perfect and we'd all be happy to sing his praises all throughout eternity. And don't give us the 'free will' trap door to let your god off the hook by making us responsible for suffering. You do realize that animals are tormented with many of the same physical ailments and even emotions that humans have--elephants, for example, will grieve for their dead. What kind of jerk would inflict this kind of pain on innocent creatures that are, supposedly, inferior and merely 'backdrop and scenery' for humans to exploit and rule over?

Sophia

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Spirula wrote:

Spirula: What is your issue with that concept?

Which part? The strawman you erected concerning my views on morality, or the hypocrisy of your god commanding his people NOT to do things to each other whilst simultaneously commanding them TO DO those very things to others?

You can make a strong argument that the odds of the Bible being anything other than the Word of God would be so huge, many would refer to it as a virtual impossibility.

That is no argument at all. That is a logical fallacy, proof by assertion. No evidence. Nada.
By the way Gerald, every thing you claim about your holy book has been claimed by billions of other believers. It's just their book is the Q'uran.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 casper wrote:

Gerald, you stated:

"I believe God is the creator and the Judge."

Ok, let's use a modern day example. Let's say the head of your church gave you a loaded gun and told you and your buddies to go kill everyone in the neighbouring town because they allowed a strip joint be built... Heaven forbid that a place of sin be located anywhere near your family, it might ruin their chances of getting into heaven.

If you're ok with what the children of Israel did then you should be ok with the more modern example... Or are you a hypocrite?

scary....

Derrick.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

This post has been removed by the author.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Dear Anony'/Gerald,

Memo: An "unanswered question" is not the same as an internal, or philosophical contradiction. Fact: Many of the concepts in "Holy Bible" are riddled with the latter.

To illustrate the difference between the two, here's a question:

Who, or what, is responsible for the singularity(i.e..the first cause)? Answer: No one knows with absolute certainty, because no one was there.

Okay, the above is a legit' "unanswered question". And of course, just because no one knows for sure, doesn't necessarily make the biblical hypothesis incorrect.

Now, on the other hand, here is a philosophical contradiction in the form of a hypothetical "answer" to that question: A Supreme, atemporal, disembodied entity at one time decided to create time, and the universe. And thus, it did just that.

Contradiction: To contemplate; to "decide", are temporal acts. Thus, to exist infinitely, and/or, exist atemporally, is a conceptual impossiblity for any "personal" being, or "consciousness".

Anony'/Gerald...I have a son, and if someone threatened his life, I would probably want to remove the threat as well.

Yes, yes, of course!...common sense, right? Yup. However, not the same "sense" that biblegod would apply. No, in it's case, the "will" of the evildoer...e.g.."the threat", should not be tampered with, thus, the "will" of the evildoer trumps the safety of your child. Yet, we are to believe that biblegod is "omnibenevolent". Contradiction # 2.

That's just a few for now. Solve those, and I'll shoot you a few more = )

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Sin debt? What crock! It is always too entertaining to listen to this crap. So the OT has different rules because of the sin debt. Who told you that?

I just can not get over this....sin debt. Different rules. What? Every time I hear that Jesus died for us so we could get into heaven I just nearly die laughing. I did not believe that the first time I heard it, and I still think it is sad and funny at the same time that people think this is a valid concept.
Sin debt....what next?
Marty

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

Okay, one issue at a time... If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, then his judgement would be righteous if he said it was. It'll take a few posts, but we'll get back to qualifying that statement later.

For starters, and I'll try to summarize, lets's consider the Messianic prophecies, which are the prophecies concerning the life of Jesus. Numbering over 300, these prophecies are specific in detail. A mathematician calculated the odds of this occurring by coincidence: The odds of someone fulfilling just 8 prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. The odds of someone fulfilling 46 prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 147th power. One has to consider the fact that God told mankind all about Jesus hundreds of years before He came into the world so we would know who He was. Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks (Chicago: Moddy Press, 1963)

The Bible is 100% accurate in its predictive prophecy in general. This means every prediction recorded in the Bible happened exactly as predicted. Of course there are unfulfilled prophecies, but these refere to end time events.

No historical writing has ever contradicted the Bible. The Bible is regarded as 100% historically accurate. Nelson Gleuck, a non Christian archaeologist stated, "No archaeological discovery has ever contraverted a biblical reference." William F. Allbright stated that archaeology has confirmed the historicity of the O.T.

The Bible was written over a 1,500 year period, using three different languages, by forty different authors, from a variety of educational and cultural backgrounds. For example, Joshua was a military general. Daniel the Prophet was a Prime Minister. Amos was a shepherd. Luke was a physician. Paul was a Rabbi. Peter and John were fishermen. Nehemiah was a court servant. The books were written on three different continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe. Yet, the Bible forms a cohesive whole, and the authors are in complete agreement. The wondrous unity of the Bible is consistent from beginning to end suggesting a single author. The Literary Test that is applied to works of antiquity rate the Bible as the most accurate book of antiquity.

You can drill down into many of these statements, and you should. Then it's easy to see how the odds of this book being anything other than extraterrestrial start to add up, exponentially. The odds get so huge, I don't believe anyone has ever attempted to calculate those odds. I refere to it a as virtual impossibility. There is more of course, someone mentioned science disproving the Bible...lol...forgive me but the Bible is not unscientific. There is much science in the Bible. In fact, most of what we know had it's origins in the Bible. But, one subject, and one bit at a time.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

"Sin debt? What crock! It is always too entertaining to listen to this crap. So the OT has different rules because of the sin debt. Who told you that?

First one has to determine if the Bible is true. If so, the Bible explains this sin debt?

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death...

I won't go into detail yet, one thing at a time. I'm only trying to show the Lord has shown us we can consider the Bible because He took great care in crafting it in a way that shows he authored it.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Gerald said "...lets's consider the Messianic prophecies..."

Yes, let's do this.

Gerald: "Numbering over 300, these prophecies are specific in detail."

Have you read each of these "prophecies" in their original context? How many of them are actually prophecies (in the original context)? How many of the actual prophecies are messianic? How many of them were written before the purported events? How many fulfilments are corroborated in extrabiblical sources?

Gerald: "A mathematician calculated the odds of this occurring by coincidence: The odds of someone fulfilling just 8 prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power."

This is total nonsense. Show me the specific calculations, and I will show you why it is pseudo-mathematics. In a nutshell, all such calculations that I've ever seen presuppose that the prophecies are legitimate, that they were fulfilled, and that their probabilities are independent and can be estimated. All of this is bogus. What is the probability of any given prophecy having been imagined and fulfilled though a process of midrash? This is *never* accounted for in any such calculation. Nor are the possible interpretations that would lead to failed prophecies accounted for. Again, this makes the entire calculation bogus.

But, let's see some specifics, and we can go through them in minute detail.

Gerald: "The odds of someone fulfilling 46 prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 147th power."

Let's see the calculations. I guarantee it's sophomoric nonsense.

Gerald: "One has to consider the fact that God told mankind all about Jesus hundreds of years before He came into the world..."

Instead of "considering" this as "fact", let's instead ask whether this is a fact. What evidence do you have for this? It would appear that you are starting from the naive notion that the Gospel accounts are historical. If so, on what do you base that?

You cite Peter Stoner, who makes all of the errors I've outlined above (and quite a few I did not get into). Is this what you are basing your argument on? Have you read anything critical of this type of "reasoning"? I suspect not.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Anony'/Gerald: Okay, one issue at a time... If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, then his judgement would be righteous if he said it was

Um, you're kidding right? "Troy"?..is that you?

Okay, but seriously, here we go...

Anony'/Gerald asserts, "if God is omnipotent, and omniscient", then the judgment of this "God" is correct, righteous, and absolutely authoritive.[paraphrased in a nutshell]

Okay, aside from that assertion being totally circular, that's like me saying, "if circles are square and round, then.."[insert desired conclusion] In other words, it's a blatant philosophical contradiction from the get-go, which leaves the conclusion, suspect.

Once again, if biblegod - or any entity, for that matter - were "omniscient", then said entity would know, in advance, which choices it would make for a set of ALL future events/situations/dilemmas, etc. 'Follow? Okay, and thus, said entity would be powerless(impotent) to alter, change, or interfere with, those choices---for if that is not the case, said entity never knew what it would choose to begin with. 'Get it?

So, if you are a Christian who adheres to Christian doctrine, then you must pick one, or the other; "omniscience", or "omnipotence", for they are mutually incompatible.

Anony'/Gerald bleats...The Bible is 100% accurate in its predictive prophecy in general.

Okay, while I think that is categorically false, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: So, you worship a "robot" who knows the future, but is powerless to change it. Good luck with that.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 eejay wrote:

If you were open minded enough to study some of the other beliefs, like paganism, then you would see that many of these stories existed in similarity long before the bible was written. It seems the bible just changed some of the names to fit the times. I have looked at many of the world religions and it is ironic that each thinks it is the true and only way. Why would a god even allow so many people to be misled if he really wanted to save them? If he is what you say he is, he could easily make a believer out of any of us. And you know, if I had a dollar for every time some x-tian spewed BS to me that they can't prove, I would be very rich indeed.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Spirula wrote:

There is much science in the Bible.

Would that be those talking snakes and donkeys? Maybe your refering to riding chariots of fire into heaven? Or is it holding up a striped staff to copulating goats so they have striped kids? Or are you refering to the classification of bats as birds? Floating axe heads? Walking on water? Raising the dead? Commanding the sun to stand still?

Yup. The bible sure is full of science.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Anony'/Gerald...There is much science in the Bible. In fact, most of what we know had it's origins in the Bible. But, one subject, and one bit at a time.

*snickers to self*

Okay, fair enough, one bit at a time. Genesis: *Please explain the "science" in "Creation".

*Note: I implore you to NOT try to discredit the Theory of Evolution in an attempt to somehow make "Creation" the default "scientific" theory. Please, tell me you understand that. We are talking the science in "Creation"... or "I.D.", if you prefer. Thanks.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

The Old Testament is the old Covenant, or old contract. The old contract had different rules because of the sin debt. Rules related to that sin debt no longer apply.

If the old rules no longer apply, why are churches so strict about that tithe rule from the old testament?

MM~

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Gerald,

I've written about and debated the so-called prophecies many time at this site (and elsewhere). One particularly relevant post can be found here; please look at my second entry dated September 18, 2007--the one that begins "HD: 'There have been hundreds of books...'". There I more fully spell out the errors made by those who use the argument from improbability to support the assertion that Jesus was divine.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 cipher wrote:

For starters, and I'll try to summarize, lets's consider the Messianic prophecies, which are the prophecies concerning the life of Jesus. Numbering over 300, these prophecies are specific in detail. A mathematician calculated the odds of this occurring by coincidence: The odds of someone fulfilling just 8 prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. The odds of someone fulfilling 46 prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 147th power. One has to consider the fact that God told mankind all about Jesus hundreds of years before He came into the world so we would know who He was. Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks (Chicago: Moddy Press, 1963)

Naturally, a "mathematician" affiliated with the Moody organization would come up with this nonsense.

Speaking as a Jew, let me tell you that we deny categorically that the "prophecies" you reference are about Jesus. I could refer you to sites with counterarguments, but I know you'd simply dismiss them, which leads me to my next point - it's more than a little offensive that you people have spent the past two millenia telling us that we've misunderstood and misinterpreted texts that we wrote in the first place. It's completely inappropriate.

Also, it's presumptuous of you to assume that the people who comment here aren't already aware of all of these rationalizations, and that you're going to be the one to set them straight. I've only been coming here for a few months, and, almost without exception, every Christian who comes here comes with this attitude. They've already told you that they've studied the Bible. You don't like that answer, so you simply dismiss it, and continue to spout scripture.

You aren't trying to convince them. You're trying to convince yourself.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 No god/No fear wrote:

Gerald wrote:

Okay, one issue at a time... If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, then his judgement would be righteous if he said it was.

This is circular logic. Just because an entity has unlimited knowledge and power, it doesn't make them 'righteous'. In fact, I'd say the bible does a pretty good job of showing god to be a petty tyrant.

By the way, nowhere in the bible does it actually say god is omnipotent or omniscient. Those were traits assigned to 'him' much later down the road as believers had to make up more and more fantastic conclusions to try to keep their religion relevant specifically because the bible consistently contradicted itself, science, and logic.

Speaking of prophesies...why would a book inspired by a omniscient, omnipotent god trace his sons' lineage through the MALE side when one was never sure back in ancient times who exactly the father was? And why would these lineages not even match each other in the gospels? Common sense would say that in order to fulfill the prophesy that the lineage would be determined through the matriarchal line, as was the custom, because then it would be something that could be verified through witnesses exactly who the mother was.

There are no real prophesies in the bible that have ever been verified--no mention of the invention of the airplane or World War 2 or anything that is even remotely scientific that would prove there is a god such as a quick crash course in germs and sanitation. But you can find a bunch of useless crap about leprosy or dietary restrictions no one even adheres to anymore--go figure.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

Boomslang...

Your first statement will be answered as we go, as for the second:

Yes, yes, of course!...common sense, right? Yup. However, not the same "sense" that biblegod would apply. No, in it's case, the "will" of the evildoer...e.g.."the threat", should not be tampered with, thus, the "will" of the evildoer trumps the safety of your child. Yet, we are to believe that biblegod is "omnibenevolent". Contradiction # 2.

There is no contradiction here. God is all loving, but in Deut 19 he layed out the blessing and curses. Basically, if you follow his laws, you'll receive blessing and protection. If you don't you're subject to the opposite. He may still love the murderer, but that murderer will pay for his crime. "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse...(Genesis 12:2-3) Just as Christians are commanded to love everyone, even your enemies, this does not mean we should forego judgement, or punish those that commit crimes.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

In case anybody is interested, here is an on-line version of the book "Science Speaks", by Peter Stoner, which Gerald apparently puts so much stock in. I think it's a real hoot; I love the pretense of examining the evidence objectively, while blithely assuming that the Bible is god-breathed. The author also states that he has not taken a single scriptural passage out of context, yet he cites numerous OT passages as messianic when they manifestly are not when taken in context. Enjoy.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

"If the old rules no longer apply, why are churches so strict about that tithe rule from the old testament?"

You will find the concept of tithing in both the OT and the NT. The easiest way to understand what applies from OT to NT. Since the wages of sin were paid by Jesus. That issue, or debt, no and all related to that do not apply. Stoning people, sacrificing animals, etc. which had to be done to preserve or actually atone for sins are no longer necessary. The other rules still apply. You could ignore the old contract, and just read the new one, and you would fulfill all the laws of the OT that still applied. It's really not that complicated. But most importantly, it's not morality that gets you into heaven according to the Bible.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

Eejay said:

"It seems if you had any knowledge of some of the early pagan beliefs you would see that ther god's had similarities to jesus, long before jesus supposedly existed. Coincidence...? I think not."

My friend, the Bible says Jesus is God. He created the universe and there was nothing before Him.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

As for science in the Bible, I'll just post a couple links so you get the idea. It's truly fascinating stuff, and over time, we'll be able to understans even more.

http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Believers/science.htm

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

Sophia said:

"Is god or is he not omnipotent AND omniscient? If he was, he wouldn't need a 'plan' to save anyone. He'd have made everyone perfect and we'd all be happy to sing his praises all throughout eternity. And don't give us the 'free will' trap door to let your god off the hook by making us responsible for suffering. You do realize that animals are tormented with many of the same physical ailments and even emotions that humans have--elephants, for example, will grieve for their dead. What kind of jerk would inflict this kind of pain on innocent creatures that are, supposedly, inferior and merely 'backdrop and scenery' for humans to exploit and rule over?"

My short answer is, have you forgotten the story? He did create us perfect. There was no sickness or pain like we have today, and the world was a different place. But guess what? We decided we wanted the knowledge of good and evil. We wanted this. Why do I say "we"? Because do you think you or I would have eventually done any different? But the good news is, we can have it perfect once again. That what the whole Bible is about! The Gospel means the Good News. Right now, this is not how he wanted us to live, but how we wanted to live. As for me, I'm choose to have it perfect after I die, but the Bible has shown me how to have it pretty good here for now.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

To Jim Arvo:

I posted the reference for the statistical odds I referenced. And this is only one part. There is much, much more. In about a week, I'll post a mp3 if you like, showing how with computers we can analyze patterns in the Bible that make a VERY strong argument that it was humanly impossible to author the Bible in very simple terms. Stay tuned...

I've answered so many questions, but if we're going to get anywhere, it's best to stick to one subject at a time. When I post again, I'll look to answer questions regarding the prophecies, and why I believe He gave us more than enough reasons to see His Word is supernatural.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

Spirula said:

"That is no argument at all. That is a logical fallacy, proof by assertion. No evidence. Nada.
By the way Gerald, every thing you claim about your holy book has been claimed by billions of other believers. It's just their book is the Q'uran."

Huge difference here. I don't wanna stay here, but the Koran is not historically accurate, nor 100% accurate in it's predictive prophecy among other issues. Either the Gospel is true, or it's not. If it is, He says he has given us proof. A way to know the difference. But for now, I will tell you that it is well known that Islam's view of history is fantasy. It is a completely different ideology created by man with man's fingerprints. But, I'd rather focus first on the Bible.

Here's a good analogy for you. Grab a dollar, (or whatever paper currency you have). Look at it. Is is a real US dollar bill? How do you know? You know because you are familiar with it. If you had never seen an authentic, US Dollar, I could place 5, 10, or 50 counterfeits in front of you, and you wouldn't know the difference. The thing is, once you KNOW the real mccoy, then, and only then, can you detect the counterfeits.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

Cipher said:

"You aren't trying to convince them. You're trying to convince yourself."

I'm not trying to convice myself friend. I have experienced Jesus in ways I never thought I would. I've faced a demon (yes, a witness was there, great story), I've seen miracles firsthand, heard the voice of Our Father, and yes, I am a spirit filled, tongue speaking charasmatic if you haven't guessed, lol. I was a regular dude, just looking for the next party, or girl to chase before the Lord decided to rock my world back in 1990. Believe me peeps...WOW...I had no idea. Life iw way different now.

Gotta run for now, I'll look to post more later but man, this is hard....too many subjects....but peeps. Don't give up on the Gospel, please. Just ask Him to reveal his Word to you. For those of you that haven't seriously read, just read the Gospel of John. It's not that long...it's a great place to start. Don't ever rely on rumors when it comes to the Gospel.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 redtail wrote:

LOL! You have got to be kidding me with that website Gerald! Um, you need to look up the defination of science my man! Hahahaha good for a laugh though....oh goodness...
Great article by the way Doc Mike!

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 redtail wrote:

Oops, definition...sorry. And I'm such a spelling peever....lol

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 ou812 wrote:

Sorry to be the one to break this to you Gerald, but there is no life after death. That is why we need to live life to its fullest here and now. That is all we have.Love deeply,live honestly,take responsibility for your actions,be mindful of others. You shall know the real truth and it will set you free.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 eejay wrote:

I don't know wher Gerald is getting his information, because it is a historical fact that paganism existed before x-tianity. Whatever!? He is obviously not ready to open his eyes. And yes, this discussion is getting to be a hoot.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

There are lots of stories of people claiming to have paranormal experiences.

Click here to read a few testimonials.

Now, in your opinion, are these people lying, mistaken, exaggerating, or just hallucinating? Further, are their personal interpretations of their personal experiences correct or incorrect, in your opinion, and why do you think so?

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Aspentroll wrote:

Come on people, your beating a dead horse. You can argue until you're blue in the face
with Gerald and all his brain dead friends. These people are brainwashed and can't see the forest for the trees.
What they write here is only useful for a hearty laugh.

Maybe some day they will suddenly do an about face and see the errors in their beliefs. But frankly, I don't see it happening too soon for this guy. He's got a cross burnt into his ass.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Gerald, you are suffering from suppressive/repressive histrionic personality disorder. In other words, you are delusional. I would recommend therapy, but your prognosis is poor. Perhaps you have been subjected to intense brain washing?

godsfavoritecolor

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Gerald...Your first statement will be answered as we go...

Hmmm, well, okay, if you say so...but mind you, you've posted not one; not two; not three; not four...but SEVEN posts since this one, and thus far, you haven't scratched the surface in terms of resolving the "omniscience"/"omnipotence" dilemma. Waiting on that.

Gerald continues...as for the second[contradiction]: There is no contradiction here. God is all loving, but in Deut 19 he layed out the blessing and curses. Basically, if you follow his laws, you'll receive blessing and protection. If you don't you're subject to the opposite. He may still love the murderer, but that murderer will pay for his crime. "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse...(Genesis 12:2-3) Just as Christians are commanded to love everyone, even your enemies, this does not mean we should forego judgement, or punish those [who] commit crimes.

We shouldn't punish those who commit crimes? That's interesting. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that with seven more posts?

Until I hear back, you've solved NOTHING by the scripture you quote. Ultimately, either the will of man, or the will of "God", is stronger, and thus, only one of them takes precedence. Which is it, Gerald? You can't have it both ways.

In the analogy that you introduced, and the one I elaborated on, we agree to remove ANY potential threat if it is foreseen that another human being's LIFE is in harm's way. Are you still with me so far? Okay, can we further agree that biblegod can "foresee" every potential "evil" deed in advance, via it's alleged "omniscience"?

Assuming "yes" to both, again, the Christian will invariably argue that their biblegod cannot, and should not, interfere with man's "free will". If this is true, then there are serious implications, and as I mentioned, one of those implications is that if biblegod will sit idly by as a three year-old child gets sodomized nightly by his or her stepfather..i.e..an "evildoer", then clearly, man's "free will" to commit unspeakable "evil" acts takes precedence over the innocent life of it's 3 year-old victim. Do you get that? Do you also get that whether biblegod "loves" the "evildoer" or not, is NOT the issue? Unless I'm missing something, your biblegod is a sadistic, barbaric, egotistical bastard, certainly not worthy of my worship.

Of course, all of this assumes that said deity exists, as you, like all Christians, try to define your god in terms of what it "CAN'T" do, or flat-out, refuses to do. In other words, your biblegod behaves precisely as if it didn't exist. Coincidence?

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Stephen C wrote:

Gerald,
Try saying all the stuff you've been posting here to your reflection in a mirror. I imagine you'll experience disbelief, incredulity and embarassment at such desperate, inane rubbish. You might even have to look away. (Like when people do the "tongues" foolishness.) Get over yourself, and please, please stop wasting everyones time with vivid demonstrations of how little you know about anything important. So silly.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 stronger now wrote:

100% accurate bible?

See here.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 eejay wrote:

Yeah, speaking in tongues really strikes me as the culmination of insanity. I swear if I ever see someone do that again, I will bust out laughing in front of them. Can't hold it in no more!

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

You will find the concept of tithing in both the OT and the NT. The easiest way to understand what applies from OT to NT. Since the wages of sin were paid by Jesus. That issue, or debt, no and all related to that do not apply. Stoning people, sacrificing animals, etc. which had to be done to preserve or actually atone for sins are no longer necessary. The other rules still apply.

So you eat kosher, right?

I see so the laws that conveniently put money in the church coffers are relevant but those nasty old stoning laws are irrelevant because they are icky and nobody likes them. *rolls eyes*

MM~

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Gerald said "I posted the reference for the statistical odds I referenced. And this is only one part."

Right. The other part is all the assumptions about the meaning of the scripture (e.g. interpreting out-of-context fragments as messianic prophecies) and the "fulfillment" of said "prophecies", which is usually just taken for granted with no corroboration and no alternative hypotheses considered (such as midrashic interpolation). Even if the odds were reasonable, the assumptions are completely absurd as they basically beg the question.

Gerald: "In about a week, I'll post a mp3 if you like, showing how with computers we can analyze patterns in the Bible that make a VERY strong argument that it was humanly impossible to author the Bible in very simple terms."

Let me guess... you're going to tell us about skip codes applied to the Hebrew Bible, or that the number seven occurs at many levels (e.g. number of words, paragraphs, etc. are all congruent to 0 mod 7). Am I close? If so, don't forget to give references to the details so they can be verified.

I'm curious. When you come across such claims, how carefully do you check them out? Do you check to see if others have verified the findings, or whether anybody claims to have debunked them? Are you ever curious about the details, or about counterarguments?

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Oh brother, Gerald is a tongue talkin', demon seeing, I was chaaaaanged charismatic christian. I know that type well. They don't understand the concept of scientific proof or logical thinking. Scientific proof is "the preacher was yelling out the names of God and I got goosebumps, it was the presence of the holy spirit" or "I fasted and prayed in tongues for a whole day and saw a vision" (hallucination). Logical thinking means "if I keep restating my belief eventually people will fall down and worship god" or "my religion is true because all other religions are false because my pastor said so". It's like talking to a bot.

MM~

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Stephen C wrote:

Hi eejay,
Re: "speaking in tongues", wouldn't a bucket of water, or a good, sound slap be more beneficial?
Laughter makes them feel martyred, huffy, persecuted, without "dignity", and, strangely, negatively fulfilled. And that becomes their crazy justification for doing you harm. They love it! It just compounds their savage determination to be seen as special and superior. Oh! The irresponsible juvenile conceit!

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Gerald said "Here's a good analogy for you. Grab a dollar,... Is is a real US dollar bill? How do you know? You know because you are familiar with it. If you had never seen an authentic, US Dollar, I could place 5, 10, or 50 counterfeits in front of you, and you wouldn't know the difference. The thing is, once you KNOW the real mccoy, then, and only then, can you detect the counterfeits."

Interesting analogy, Gerald. Do you mind if I sharpen it a bit so that it's a bit more apt? Let's say that you are handed a dollar bill for the first time, and you are told that it is authentic. Then somebody else hands you a different-looking dollar bill and says that it is authentic, and the other is counterfeit. Then a third person hands you a third bill. Then a fourth, and a fifth, and a sixth, all handing you different-looking bills, all claiming they are the real thing. Tell me, Gerald, how do you go about determining which, if any, are the real thing?

You see, in your analogy above, you assumed you already knew which one was real. But that's the whole point, isn't it?

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 eejay wrote:

Hi Steven C. You're absolutely right that laughing at them doesn't help. It's just what comes out naturally. Personally, I find it embarassing to even be seen in the same room as them when they're acting so ridiculously. Slapping them might get you a lawsuit, though it may knock a little sense into them.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 buffettphan wrote:

Gerald said: "...But most importantly, it's not morality that gets you into heaven according to the Bible."

Oh my dog...obviously you xtians believe that one. Just look at all the child molesters, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, thieves, liars, crooks, and other assorted criminals you admire....buybull heroes and present-day ones. (Not that there's a heaven to get into!)

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 cipher wrote:

Crap, not the Bible codes again! Every so often someone revives it.

If Gerald comes back and I'm not around, someone can direct him to this: http://www.wopr.com/biblecodes/TheCase.htm
It's a paper that argues against the validity of the Bible codes, written by Dr. Barry Simon, a Math and Physics professor at Cal Tech who also happens to be an Orthodox Jew.

He'll dismiss the arguments, of course, but it's good to have something to throw back up to him. I hate it when Christians try to pull the Bible codes out as some sort of trump card. It's spurious to begin with, and the Christians never really understood it in any case. There was a moron by the name of Grant Jeffries who tried a few years ago to use them to prove that Jesus was the messiah, but his "work" was dismissed by every responsible mathematician who came into contact with it. Eventually, even other Christians distanced themselves from him.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

Eejay said:

"I don't know wher Gerald is getting his information, because it is a historical fact that paganism existed before x-tianity. Whatever!? He is obviously not ready to open his eyes. And yes, this discussion is getting to be a hoot."

Christianity, as you refer to it, is the fulfillment of Judiasm. Let me explain, The old contract, or old testament was from Adam up until Jesus. Jesus initiated the new covenant. Christianity is simply the second contract. The first contract was what we now refer to as Judiasm. But as a whole, the two covenants go back to Adam. Christianity did not have it's beginnings with Jesus, but it went into affect. Jesus is the creator of the universe, he is the Word, he is also the Father according to the Bible. Before him, there was nothing. To say there was some sort of religion before Christianity is not accurate, because Christianity simply refers to the later covenant of the two.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

Cipher:

Bible codes? That has nothing to do with the Gospel. I'm not sure what to make of the equidistant letter searching and all that, but it is interesting. That stuff is just for kicks. However, there are patterns in the Bible however that are quite astonishing, not to be confused with the hype of predicting the future and all that from Bible codes. The patterns I may have referred to are much better, and more astonishing I guarantee! More on that later.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Gerald wrote:

To Cipher:

"it's more than a little offensive that you people have spent the past two millenia telling us that we've misunderstood and misinterpreted texts that we wrote in the first place'

Dude, honestly, no offense, but this sounds like why the Saducees and Pharisees missed it. Pride. God said he came into the world first for the Jew who rejected Him. There are many Jews that agree Jesus fulfilled each and every one of the prophecies. Either he did or he didn't. Someone my friend is quite wrong. Some of these were also out of Jesus' control, like where he would be born, born of a virgin, sold for 30 silver, etc. Those that subscribe to Judiasm regard Isaiah as a Prophet that spoke from God.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

The Lord Himself told us he HIMSELF would give you a sign....what more does he have to do my friend?

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 sconnor wrote:

gerald said,
have you forgotten the story? He did create us perfect. There was no sickness or pain like we have today, and the world was a different place. But guess what? We decided we wanted the knowledge of good and evil. We wanted this. Why do I say "we"? Because do you think you or I would have eventually done any different?

You don't know the story; you, only know the made-up doctrine.
I suggest you take a closer look at the text of Genesis 2-3.

1. There you will find no mention of sin, let alone original sin or the first sin.
2. The serpent is never referred to as satan.
3. Satan plays no part in the garden, nor in Genesis, nor in the Pentateuch.
4. There is however a snake that god created, albeit it a talking snake, that was created as a "sneaky" snake. Depending on your translation the snake could be, sneaky or devious, but the actual Hebrew word, "aruwm", means "mentally acute", "shrewd", or "sharp-witted" -- not deceptive.
5. Nowhere in Genesis does it say the snake tempted anyone.
6. In fact, in the details of the story, the snake is not deceptive he is acutely perceptive.
7. With this perception, he tells it like it is -- the truth.
8. He tells Eve, she will not die the day she eats of the fruit and that she will gain a moral knowledge. Low and behold she didn't die and now she knows right from wrong -- What a wise and truthful, talking, snake.
9. God lied and said, the day you eat of the tree of knowledge you will surely die. The snake said no you won't.
10. Nowhere does God tell Adam and Eve, what will happen to them, nor that by disobeying him, evil would take a foothold on our planet, causing humanity to suffer in cruel and inhumane ways, which he imposed, after they partook of the fruit.
11. God does not tell them it was unacceptable -- he does not tell them why they can not eat from the tree of knowledge, he just tells them not to, but then lies and says they will surely die the day they eat of it.
12. I know what you are thinking, so I'll head you off at the pass. To save God's reputation of not being a deceiver, you will surely say, What God really meant, was they would lose their immortality. Nowhere, in the context of the story, is it ever implied, that God bestowed immortality on Adam and Eve nor that immortality would be their destiny. For you to imply such a thing, you would be embellishing the context of the story and assigning layers of interpretation. So, God, after attempting to keep his children from gaining knowledge of good and evil, now wants to keep immortality for himself and whoever he is referring to, with, "us", as the last step of protecting his divinity from Adam and Eve, and humanity.
13. Whatever you call it, "punishment" or "discipline" the consequences were neither compassionate, loving, fair, nor anything resembling constructive instruction. In fact God's action were more akin to an abusive, raging, father, who went nuts, punishing everything around him, including the snake and all snakes after that; he bestowed hatred between Adam and Eve and all their decedents, He multiplied the pain of birth, thus securing the plight for all women, and then, in a fit of misogyny and sexism, he further cursed Eve that although, "I make you hate your husband and childbirth will be excruciating, you will lust for him and he will rule over you." And then, God, with all divine obtuseness, curses the ground so that Adam and all males would suffer with endless hard labor, just to eat.
14. When delving into the story -- you claim you know -- even further one can understand that Adam and Eve were innocents in the story and because they had not eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge they would not have known of good and evil; right from wrong. They didn't posses a moral conscience at the moment they disobeyed God and to imply they sinned and because of their choice, they allowed evil to take a foothold on our planet, causing all human-kind to suffer, is stretching and manipulating the authors original intent of the story. Again, nowhere is "sin" mentioned in the story and to extrapolate what these two ancient, innocent, people -- who without the knowledge of good and evil -- could possibly understand, that what they were doing by disobeying god, was wrong, could actually be considered a sin. It's like an innocent child, little Johnny, who, while looking at the dazzling Christmas package and with the insistence of his "cunning", older brother, can't restrain himself and opens it, even after his mom told him not to open it, after she had left the room. Now the mom comes back and curses little Johnny and declares, he will encounter pain, every time he breathes and at school he will sweat and toil and schoolwork will be extremely difficult, for the rest of his life and not only that, lil' Johnny, just unleashed evil and from now on all his relatives will suffer for what he did, they will suffer in unimaginable ways, children will be burned to death, children will suffer for years with incurable diseases, His relatives will suffer horrible disasters and will be maimed, There will be blindness and deafness, brain tumors and leukemia, rape, murder and mayhem.
What a just and merciful all-loving God; only on closer inspection your God is a jealous megalomaniac, who unjustly punishes a naive couple, because they made an uneducated, unknowing, child-like choice, allowing evil into this world, thereby, cursing the rest of God's earthly children to suffer horribly. And what is even more astonishing, you condone, these egregious actions and love him for it.

You seemed to have made assumptions based on recollection and declarations that do not come from the context of the story of Adam and Eve.

And then gerald said,
Right now, this is not how he wanted us to live, but how we wanted to live.

Really, if god wanted something, then shouldn't he have gotten what he wanted? In that one sentence you relagated your god to NOT being all-powerful and all-loving and you established he is an apathetic, negligent, no-good, piece of shit, diety, who sits by idly, while his earthly children suffer in unimaginable, sadistic, cruel and horribly egregious ways, every minute of every day, and DOES NOTHING! I only have contempt for a god like that. FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR GOD, YOU DELUSIONAL MOTHERFUCKER.
--S.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Astreja wrote:

Gerald,

All you've got is a book.

A very old book of dubious heritage, some of it swiped from older Mesopotamian, Canaanite and Ugaritic myths, and some of it assembled by a committee three hundred years after the events it allegedly describes.

You may have had some sort of "spiritual" experience, but you may never get to know what really happened because you painted the experience in terms of a pre-existing religious bias.

Again, this is an ex-Christian website.

And I, personally, find the god of the Bible so disgusting and abhorrent that I wouldn't worship it even if it did exist.

"To say there was some sort of religion before Christianity is not accurate..."

Congratulations, Gerald... That is one of the most egregiously stupid things I've heard in quite some time. Seriously. Christianity is a relative latecomer on the religion scene. The roots of My own family's religion date back at least 500 years before the beginning of the Christian era. (Don't even get Me started on the Rig-Veda or the Epic of Gilgamesh. Don't even go there.)

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Stephen C wrote:

Oh, for sanitys sake, Gerald!
Surely you can see that you’re presenting as one of the smuggest babblers ever! And you sound about as reliable as a travelling flim-flam man - selling lame horses, or the Brooklyn Bridge - for the hundredth time!
And as for your faux affection - "Someone my friend is quite wrong.", and, "...what more does he have to do my friend?"!!! Talk about smirky, presumptuous, know-ally and condescending. This is all about you, and how decent you think you are. You're listening to yourself, and loving it. And you're not even on an appropriate site!
Aesop, and my cat, have more to teach about unaffected truth, morals, ethics, manners, wisdom and grace than the hideously confounding collection of divisive one-upmanship contained in the bible. Or the silly, insistent fools who carry on and on and on about it . You’re buzzing like a mosquito in the night. Go away.

posted: February 28, 2008 EST  

 Michelle wrote:

Hi Gerald,

I'm going to let you in on something:

We. All. Have. Read. The. Bible. Before. Including. The. Gospel. John.

Some of us are ex-pastors and ex-ministers as well as EX-CHRISTIANS.

Many of us have either spoken in tongues or witnesses it in person. You can only hear someone babble "Shambala, roshambo" so many times before it gets boring.

We've been there, done that, seen it, heard it, blah blah blah. We moved on with our lives. Maybe you will too one day. One can only hope.

posted: February 29, 2008 EST  

 Hells Bells wrote:

I guess this will be pointless, but...

Gerald, "my friend", my guess is that some time around 1990 you had some kind of experience that you then decided to attribute to a god you had previously heard about but not, up to that point, taken seriously. That experience may have been personal, or it may have been a response to a preacher, or something else. But did you take the time to assess what that experience really was? And did you take the time to question the evidence for the god you attributed that experience to.

Once you attributed that first experience to the christian god, other similar ones also got attributed the same way. Basically you took a leap of faith. What was that faith based upon?

It's the pattern that I also had in 1977. I attributed a spiritual experience and a search for meaning to the god that I had been brought up with. I never questioned the existence of that god, nor the basis of the teachings about that god. That didn't happen for 27 years. And when I did start to investigate my beliefs, the whole thing collapsed - they didn't stand investigation at all. The logic to sustain them was circular.

By its very nature, faith is not based on rationality - it is a leap into the unknown. If you accept that, then you should accept that anybody who takes a leap of faith is doing so on a similarly irrational basis. What you, Gerald, are doing is basically saying that your leap of faith is more valid than other peoples', simply because your faith teaches you that anyone who hasn't made a similar leap is doomed. How arrogant.

posted: February 29, 2008 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

You know that all the Christians on here who deign down to our level a