Rika: So... you're saying the bible is errant then?
RA: I didn't say that. I said those tings had been answered.
SG: The SAB picks cherries as well as you do
RA: I wasn't cherry picking, I was simply giving a couple of examples out of lots listed there.
As I said books are written that address these things (see responses to Coffee). I also noted general categories of errors into which the very questions/objections themselves fit so as to render them meaningless.
You're problem, SG, if I can offer a personal opinion that might in th end be worth zero, is that you haven't cared enough about the answers/responses to these question/objections -- you only really care about the questions/objections themselves, just on their own. Why? Because they give you a reason to either reject or dislike Christianity (or both, I'm not sure). Their very existence as questions/objections are good enough for you -- whether they can be rationally answered or not. Just IMHO.
SG: I've seen the refutations, they are unconvincing. I am no first year Bible student.
RA: Really? Which books? I find it hard for any rational person to say that they find any response unconvincing when it relies, for example, on the differences between two Greek words used in context, or the differences between straight ancient Hebrew narrative and Hebrew figures of speech. Likewise, I'd find it hard to see how it would not be thought of as acceptable for an explanation to include Israel history, social-cultural standards, the complexities of ancient Hebrew Law as opposed to the New Covenant expectations built into a nation's messianic expectations.....etc. etc. etc.
I would much rather a person not make up silly objections or ignore reasonable responses under the guise of being intellectual or being a skeptic, but instead, just be honest enough to simply say, "I hate the thought of a personal God, or of being accountable to anyone -- and the whole Christian mindset is highly offensive to me. And on top of that, every Christian I've ever met has been an idiot and their a bunch of self-righteous kooks, so I don't care what they say or how they answer anything, I'm never going to be one of them, or believe in their God."
Now, I'm sure someone will want to just copy what I've written and repost it. But, please, don't -- it's so predictable.
SG: Coffee, the religious apologists have many long winded explanations for how black is really white in the Bible
RA: Actually, no one is saying black is white. Absurd.
If anything, it's the skeptics who are more than willing to call say white is black, or more often than not, neutral is black. Everything is black. Purple, green, red, yellow -- all black. Any color, if it has the dreaded capital "G" on it, then it has to be black. It's not mixing colors when their are colors their to be explained. It is, however, blind to call everything black because you don't like the colors.
SG: These claims however, do not hold up to scrutiny at all.
RA: Uhm, yeah. Okay. Whatever you say, SG. To be honest, when it gets to this point, there's really not much to say since you appear willing to throw language, history, context, theology, and philosophy out the door. Excellent. I wish you all the best.
Coffee: Present evidence that those contradictions have been refuted.
RA: Let's do some math, shall we? And I shall offer numbers based on my experience as an author of books dealing with such issues.
There are 1,419 questions/objections in the link provided. Looking at them, it would probably take anywhere from 2-6 paragraphs to answer each. That's anywhere from 200-400 words. So, let's take 200 words as a rock bottom number x 1,419 = 283,800 words.
If James Randi, or you, would like to pay me to write a 283,000 book (which , tbh, would actually have to be more like a 5-volume set of 200+page books), then I'd be MOST happy to indulge you. Anyone who has contacts, please feel free to look for a publisher for me. If you email me, I'll give you my agent contact.
Otherwise, I can recommend some books that deal with many of these issues, and they can be purchased from amazon. (No, I didn't write them, so it's not spam):
This is the tip of the iceberg. Other answers to most, if not all of the questions/responses (or those remaining), can be found in basic books on Christian doctrine, theology, history, soteriology, Systematic Theology, etc.). For example, I was going to answer the very first thing that popped up - Was Abraham justified by faith or works?
But this is answered even in the links provided (much to the website's credit). The Romans chapter and the James chapter are talking about two different faiths (true/living vs. false/dead) and the differences between those kinds of "faith" (one has works that others can see vs. one doesn't have any works because it's fake), and the manner in which justification occurs via TRUE faith (justified before God by faith alone vs. justified before men by works [i.e., because only men cannot see into a person's heart, they must observe good works). You simply need to read James and Romans in context (which is always a good thing).
This is so old, old, old, and terrifically basic and mundane from a theological perspective that, once more, I can't believe it's even still used. And so the list goes on and on and on.
Coffee: You alluded to a "list of books" then failed to provide the list.
RA: I am not one to force on anyone information they don't want. Books have been listed above. Thank you for asking.
Coffee: It's sad that you make claims that you either- can not or will not - back up with evidence.
RA: You left out other options, thus qualifying you for the classic either-or fallacy. The truth is that I can back it with evidence. The truth is I will back it with evidence (see above listed books). So, the third option you didn't offer was that I was making a statement, and that at the time it had yet (to my mind) been requested that I back anything with evidence. I was making casual thoughts and observation -- not seeking to win an argument.
Coffee: Provide evidence that Oprah left christianity because she thought god was jealous of her. A direct quote would be good. Someone saying that she said it is nothing but hearsay and will not cut it.
RA: My pleasure:
From a Christian perspective, the idea that God (if there is a God) would be “jealous” of anything/anyone is absurd. The verses wherein God is called “jealous” (Ex. 34:14; Num. 25:11; Joshua 24:19; Nahum 2:1; Zech. 1:14) simply reflect the Hebraic expression of God’s intense desire for his followers to not share their devotion to him with any other so-called god: “You shall have no other gods before me (Ex. 20:5). Jesus echoed this idea in Matthew 22:37-38, where he said the first and greatest commandment is to love God with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength.
For some reason as yet unexplained, Oprah didn’t question either the pastor, or anyone else, in hopes of gaining an accurate understanding of the message she’d heard. It would have taken mere seconds to correct her mistaken impression. Again, what we see here is an agenda. A desire to find some reason to go in a certain direction, a self-justification, IMHO.
I hope this was satisfactory.
R.A.
PS I tried to post amazon links to the books, but I am not yet allowed to post links on the board because I haven't posted enough yet.
RA: I didn't say that. I said those tings had been answered.
SG: The SAB picks cherries as well as you do
RA: I wasn't cherry picking, I was simply giving a couple of examples out of lots listed there.
As I said books are written that address these things (see responses to Coffee). I also noted general categories of errors into which the very questions/objections themselves fit so as to render them meaningless.
You're problem, SG, if I can offer a personal opinion that might in th end be worth zero, is that you haven't cared enough about the answers/responses to these question/objections -- you only really care about the questions/objections themselves, just on their own. Why? Because they give you a reason to either reject or dislike Christianity (or both, I'm not sure). Their very existence as questions/objections are good enough for you -- whether they can be rationally answered or not. Just IMHO.
SG: I've seen the refutations, they are unconvincing. I am no first year Bible student.
RA: Really? Which books? I find it hard for any rational person to say that they find any response unconvincing when it relies, for example, on the differences between two Greek words used in context, or the differences between straight ancient Hebrew narrative and Hebrew figures of speech. Likewise, I'd find it hard to see how it would not be thought of as acceptable for an explanation to include Israel history, social-cultural standards, the complexities of ancient Hebrew Law as opposed to the New Covenant expectations built into a nation's messianic expectations.....etc. etc. etc.
I would much rather a person not make up silly objections or ignore reasonable responses under the guise of being intellectual or being a skeptic, but instead, just be honest enough to simply say, "I hate the thought of a personal God, or of being accountable to anyone -- and the whole Christian mindset is highly offensive to me. And on top of that, every Christian I've ever met has been an idiot and their a bunch of self-righteous kooks, so I don't care what they say or how they answer anything, I'm never going to be one of them, or believe in their God."
Now, I'm sure someone will want to just copy what I've written and repost it. But, please, don't -- it's so predictable.
SG: Coffee, the religious apologists have many long winded explanations for how black is really white in the Bible
RA: Actually, no one is saying black is white. Absurd.
If anything, it's the skeptics who are more than willing to call say white is black, or more often than not, neutral is black. Everything is black. Purple, green, red, yellow -- all black. Any color, if it has the dreaded capital "G" on it, then it has to be black. It's not mixing colors when their are colors their to be explained. It is, however, blind to call everything black because you don't like the colors.
SG: These claims however, do not hold up to scrutiny at all.
RA: Uhm, yeah. Okay. Whatever you say, SG. To be honest, when it gets to this point, there's really not much to say since you appear willing to throw language, history, context, theology, and philosophy out the door. Excellent. I wish you all the best.
Coffee: Present evidence that those contradictions have been refuted.
RA: Let's do some math, shall we? And I shall offer numbers based on my experience as an author of books dealing with such issues.
There are 1,419 questions/objections in the link provided. Looking at them, it would probably take anywhere from 2-6 paragraphs to answer each. That's anywhere from 200-400 words. So, let's take 200 words as a rock bottom number x 1,419 = 283,800 words.
If James Randi, or you, would like to pay me to write a 283,000 book (which , tbh, would actually have to be more like a 5-volume set of 200+page books), then I'd be MOST happy to indulge you. Anyone who has contacts, please feel free to look for a publisher for me. If you email me, I'll give you my agent contact.
Otherwise, I can recommend some books that deal with many of these issues, and they can be purchased from amazon. (No, I didn't write them, so it's not spam):
When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences
When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties
Big Book of Bible Difficulties, The: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation
New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Hard Sayings of the Bible
When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties
Big Book of Bible Difficulties, The: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation
New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Hard Sayings of the Bible
This is the tip of the iceberg. Other answers to most, if not all of the questions/responses (or those remaining), can be found in basic books on Christian doctrine, theology, history, soteriology, Systematic Theology, etc.). For example, I was going to answer the very first thing that popped up - Was Abraham justified by faith or works?
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.
vs.
James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.
vs.
James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
But this is answered even in the links provided (much to the website's credit). The Romans chapter and the James chapter are talking about two different faiths (true/living vs. false/dead) and the differences between those kinds of "faith" (one has works that others can see vs. one doesn't have any works because it's fake), and the manner in which justification occurs via TRUE faith (justified before God by faith alone vs. justified before men by works [i.e., because only men cannot see into a person's heart, they must observe good works). You simply need to read James and Romans in context (which is always a good thing).
This is so old, old, old, and terrifically basic and mundane from a theological perspective that, once more, I can't believe it's even still used. And so the list goes on and on and on.
Coffee: You alluded to a "list of books" then failed to provide the list.
RA: I am not one to force on anyone information they don't want. Books have been listed above. Thank you for asking.
Coffee: It's sad that you make claims that you either- can not or will not - back up with evidence.
RA: You left out other options, thus qualifying you for the classic either-or fallacy. The truth is that I can back it with evidence. The truth is I will back it with evidence (see above listed books). So, the third option you didn't offer was that I was making a statement, and that at the time it had yet (to my mind) been requested that I back anything with evidence. I was making casual thoughts and observation -- not seeking to win an argument.
Coffee: Provide evidence that Oprah left christianity because she thought god was jealous of her. A direct quote would be good. Someone saying that she said it is nothing but hearsay and will not cut it.
RA: My pleasure:
"I happened to be sitting in church. . . . And this great minister was preaching about how great God was and how omniscient and omnipresent, and God is everything. And then he said, and the Lord thy God is a jealous God. . . . And something struck me. . . . God is jealous of me? And something about that didn’t feel right in my spirit because I believe that God is love and that God is in all things. And so that’s when the search for something more than doctrine started to stir within me"
(Oprah Winfrey, A New Earth Online Class, transcript, Mar. 3, 2008, p. 12).
(Oprah Winfrey, A New Earth Online Class, transcript, Mar. 3, 2008, p. 12).
From a Christian perspective, the idea that God (if there is a God) would be “jealous” of anything/anyone is absurd. The verses wherein God is called “jealous” (Ex. 34:14; Num. 25:11; Joshua 24:19; Nahum 2:1; Zech. 1:14) simply reflect the Hebraic expression of God’s intense desire for his followers to not share their devotion to him with any other so-called god: “You shall have no other gods before me (Ex. 20:5). Jesus echoed this idea in Matthew 22:37-38, where he said the first and greatest commandment is to love God with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength.
For some reason as yet unexplained, Oprah didn’t question either the pastor, or anyone else, in hopes of gaining an accurate understanding of the message she’d heard. It would have taken mere seconds to correct her mistaken impression. Again, what we see here is an agenda. A desire to find some reason to go in a certain direction, a self-justification, IMHO.
I hope this was satisfactory.
R.A.
PS I tried to post amazon links to the books, but I am not yet allowed to post links on the board because I haven't posted enough yet.
Last edited:
).
