tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115478803645248003..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: An answer for everythingRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1155001600091246632006-08-07T21:46:00.000-04:002006-08-07T21:46:00.000-04:00Todd,Even if you're not an atheist, where did you ...Todd,<BR/><BR/>Even if you're not an atheist, where did you even *attempt* to deal with what I wrote?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for mentioning that my theology is foul: (1) this is what the Bible says you'll say of it. (2) Why would self-centered, basically good humans make something up that is so foul? Leave it to man to make up a religion and you'll get a lot of tip toeing through the tulips and sunshine being blown up our skirts.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154944393082057262006-08-07T05:53:00.000-04:002006-08-07T05:53:00.000-04:00Todd, what interests me is that you have gone from...Todd, what interests me is that you have gone from sneering 'the Bible's unreliable' to shouting 'so's your old man!' And all because Christians will not meekly fit themselves into your box.<BR/><BR/>As to Calvin, I direct you to David Gay's excellent 'The Battle for the Church,' where Calvin is rightly criticised for his idenification of the Church and the civil power.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Calvin had Servetus burned. Yes, that was contrary to Christ's teachings, but in a world where the Church was presumed to include all, it couldn't have been avoided. Now, my Hugenot forebears were expelled from France on such a principle. Do you think I agree with it? No, I am a Nonconformist by conviction, believing that the Church is a voluntary association of visible saints.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154904808901507762006-08-06T18:53:00.000-04:002006-08-06T18:53:00.000-04:00Where did I say I was an atheist? Unlike you, I'm ...Where did I say I was an atheist? Unlike you, I'm at least OPEN to the possibility that there MIGHT be (or MAY have been) a Being that poofed everything into existence. Evidence suggests, however, that He might have left for an extended vacation since then. <BR/><BR/>Do I have an "axe to grind"? Maybe. You wrap all of your theology in this flowery prose to hide the fact that it's foul. <BR/><BR/>What evidence do I have (Steve)? Well, for starters, these ideas were powerful to allow John Calvin to stand and watch while Servetus screamed in agony as he burned to death for having the wrong ideas about God ... it was not a slow death, since it was reported that the winds carried the flames somewhat away from his body. He ended up roasting for hours. These "great saints" like Chrysostom preached no less than seven sermons on the entire Jewish race with terms one would hesitate to use against an animal. <BR/>The early American settlers set people on fire and drowned them for being suspected "witches". <BR/><BR/>"In 1208 the Inquisition was established. Seven years afterward, the fourth council of the Lateran enjoined all kings and rulers to swear an oath that they would exterminate heretics from their dominions. The sword of the church was unsheathed, and the world was at the mercy of ignorant and infuriated priests, whose eyes feasted upon the agonies they inflicted. Acting, as they believed, or pretended to believe, under the command of God; stimulated by the hope of infinite reward in another world -- hating heretics with every drop of their bestial blood; savage beyond description; merciless beyond conception, -- these infamous priests, in a kind of frenzied joy, leaped upon the helpless victims of their rage. They crushed their bones in iron boots; tore their quivering flesh with iron hooks and pincers; cut off their lips and eyelids; pulled out their nails, and into the bleeding quick thrust needles; tore out their tongues; extinguished their eyes; stretched them upon racks; flayed them alive; crucified them with their heads downward; exposed them to wild beasts; burned them at the stake; mocked their cries and groans; robbed their children, and then prayed God to finish the holy work in hell" - (Ingersoll)<BR/><BR/>Are all Christians like this? Of course not. If you're telling me that believing in Jesus makes men "good", I'd humbly suggest you and I have very different definitions of "good". <BR/><BR/>- ToddAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154893269511880412006-08-06T15:41:00.000-04:002006-08-06T15:41:00.000-04:00Todd says:"Calvinists are especially guilty of thi...Todd says:<BR/><BR/>"Calvinists are especially guilty of this: their little TULIP system has the <B>Creator fitting into a nice, tiny little box.</B> Passages that don't prop up this system are completely disregarded, and all words lose their meaning: "all" doesn't mean "all", "whole world" means "whole world of the 'elect'".<BR/><BR/>Paul says: <BR/><BR/>Wow, Todd thinks that Calvinists put an immaterial being inside of a little cardboard box, a real one. How can a being not extended in space be "inside" a "tiny box?"<BR/><BR/>Oh, he must be disregarding the "meaning" of "tiny" and "box" again. It's okay for atheists to do it because they're just real smart, but Christians can't, cause they're dumb.<BR/><BR/>Oh yeah, Dan Rather is an atheist and on 9-11 he said, "The whole world watched as terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center." How come he gets to say whole world but not mean it but the biblical authors don't? Oh yeah, it's because Todd hates God and has an axe to grind. It's because Todd's not neutral. it's because Todd and atheism are intelelctually inferior that they need ever edge they can get. it's because Todd is inconsistent. It's because Todd doesn't bother to take the extra 10 secondas and think through his arguments. It because, well, it's because Todd.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154867674514722432006-08-06T08:34:00.000-04:002006-08-06T08:34:00.000-04:00Once again, Todd "says" that Scripture is incompre...Once again, Todd "says" that Scripture is incomprehensible and frequently makes no sense, but he fails to "show" that Scripture is incomprehensible and makes no sense.<BR/><BR/>He "talks" about intellectual honest, but he fails to "demonstrate" intellectual honesty.<BR/><BR/>He "says" we force the Bible pieces to fit, but he fails to "show" that we force the Bible pieces to fit.<BR/><BR/>He "says" we render certain words in Scripture meaningless, but he fails to "show" that we render certain words in Scripture meaningless.<BR/><BR/>Once more, he's just blowing smoke.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154866995734279042006-08-06T08:23:00.000-04:002006-08-06T08:23:00.000-04:00Craig asks: "could the deck be any more stacked ag...Craig asks: "could the deck be any more stacked against Christianity than this?"<BR/><BR/>Well, why not just admit that Scripture frequently does NOT make sense and that it often is incomprehensible? How about some intellectual honesty? You're entitled to force the Biblical pieces to fit if that makes you feel better, but to insist that others make it fit in that same way seems a little arrogant, doesn't it?<BR/><BR/>Calvinists are especially guilty of this: their little TULIP system has the Creator fitting into a nice, tiny little box. Passages that don't prop up this system are completely disregarded, and all words lose their meaning: "all" doesn't mean "all", "whole world" means "whole world of the 'elect'".<BR/>So you have to ADD words or change the meaning of words to get it to fit the beliefs you ALREADY HOLD.<BR/><BR/>- ToddAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154844256929160272006-08-06T02:04:00.000-04:002006-08-06T02:04:00.000-04:00Todd,What are you supposed to do? Are you suppose...Todd,<BR/><BR/>What are you supposed to do? Are you supposed to take passages out of context and ignore the history? That's the thing about atheists. You've got crackpots like Loftus who accuse Christians of not reading the Bible correctly by denying that God has a physical body. Then you've got the others like Todd chiding Christians for trying TO read the Bible correctly. I mean, could the deck be any more stacked against Christianity than this? Gimme a break...Craig Sowderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624212251233585028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154826633192808742006-08-05T21:10:00.000-04:002006-08-05T21:10:00.000-04:00Todd "says" they obviously make no sense, but he f...Todd "says" they obviously make no sense, but he fails to "show" that they make no sense.<BR/><BR/>Todd "says" we bend their meaning, but he fails to "show" that we bend their meaning.<BR/><BR/>So Todd is just blowing smoke.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154821917204582182006-08-05T19:51:00.000-04:002006-08-05T19:51:00.000-04:00Of course, when dealing with passages that obvious...Of course, when dealing with passages that obviously make no sense, we must put them "in context", "understand the history" behind them and generally bend the meaning of words do make them fit.<BR/><BR/>Of course, when "liberal" denominations do the same with those 2-3 passages on homosexuality or on Paul's admonition that women keep their yaps shut, they're "deceived by Satan".<BR/><BR/>ROFL! You guys are funny.<BR/><BR/><BR/>- ToddAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154807722085105292006-08-05T15:55:00.000-04:002006-08-05T15:55:00.000-04:00Certainly, this chap might have benefitted from re...Certainly, this chap might have benefitted from reading a few commentaries as well as a more recent translation of the Bible. Yes, if you look for inconsistencies, you will find them, as this chap has, cutting sentences into bits and being willfully dense. But if you read a book you disagree with, or listen to a politician you disagree with, you will be looking for difficulties and not looking for answers to them. Scholars do not have that luxury, or should not allow themselves that luxury.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154790347743574752006-08-05T11:05:00.000-04:002006-08-05T11:05:00.000-04:00Critics object to the fact that Christians offer a...Critics object to the fact that Christians offer an answer for all of the arguments against the Bible, yet those same critics will offer less plausible answers for every argument <I>for</I> the Bible. They claim to have so much difficulty with something like Abraham's marriage to a relative or using a term like "tempt" in different ways in different contexts, yet these same people will repeatedly propose widespread memory loss, widespread apathy, or widespread hallucinations in order to dismiss evidence for a Biblical miracle. Their skepticism is a one-way street. They complain about the difficulties involved in accepting a high view of the Bible, yet they accept worse difficulties in order to maintain a low view.<BR/><BR/>Another problem in these discussions is that so many of the people who post on these subjects in online forums are ignorant of parallel cases in non-Biblical literature. Not only are they largely ignorant of the Bible, but they're also largely ignorant of ancient literature outside of the Bible (as well as parallel cases that could be cited from modern sources). Things like copyist errors and using the same term in different ways in different contexts are <I>common</I> in both ancient and modern literature, far more common than the sort of widespread hallucinations and memory losses that critics propose in order to maintain <I>their</I> theories.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com