“God is imaginary”? Really?! Part 43: Think about a Christian housewife

So far, as we’ve gone through this series of responses to Marshall Brain’s website “God is imaginary”, we’re seeing that he really likes to attack straw men, so much so that it is truly embarrassing that anyone would produce so many. But, when one has an axe to grind, straw men are easy targets because they don’t fight back. Proof 44 is really no different, except in where Marshall aims his ire, this time asking his readers to “think about a Christian housewife”.

Take one moment to think about a typical Christian and her “answered prayers.” For example, there is a Christian housewife in Pasadena who firmly believes that God answered her prayer this morning to remove the mustard stain from her favorite blouse. She prayed to God to help remove the stain, and after she washed it the stain was gone. Praise Jesus!
Yes, let’s think for a moment. Maybe that prayer to “remove the mustard stain from her favorite blouse”, was so that she could wear it to a job interview and make a good impression on a perspective boss after her husband either left her, was laid off, or has died. There are at least a hundred different scenarios that one could run through their mind as to why she would need that stain to come out, but guess what, they don’t really prove anything because they are simply any number of possible options. That one “answered prayer” that Marshall scoffs at, could be the start of a entire line of further answers. But Marshall continues,
There are tens of millions of true believers in the United States who know that God is personally helping them each day with their trivial prayers. They believe that they have a personal relationship with God, that God hears their prayers each day, and that God has time to reach down and remove the mustard molecules one by one. They believe it with all of their hearts.
I believe that God does personally attend to every aspect of my life that I submit to him. Sometimes the stains come out, sometimes they don’t, but we all have a greater problem than a mustard stain on our shirts and blouses. We have a problem with sin stains, stains that have corrupted the fabric of our lives and make us unpresentable and utterly offensive to a holy God. But God has seen to that problem by sending his Son to provide a means of cleansing the more important problem, but marshall seems to think that there is another one,
It makes you wonder: If God has the time and the will to answer these trivial prayers, manipulating the mustard molecules in response to a housewife’s prayer, then why is God ignoring the big, important prayers? For example, why isn’t he answering the prayers of the billions of people on this planet who are living in stark, abject poverty? It is when you think about this simple question that you realize how imaginary God is and how delusional and completely self-centered Christians can be.
As I pointed out earlier, maybe the removal of the mustard stain that he reviles, could be the first step onto a path out of poverty, but Marshall fails to define what “stark, abject poverty” is and the reasons why a person could be living in such a state. People living in poverty doesn’t lead to the conclusion that  God is “imaginary” or that Christians are “self-centered”, it simply proves that poverty, whatever that is, exists.
I have lived in an impoverished state with no lights and no running water and barely a roof over my head, something Marshall has probably never had to do. What living in such a state taught, after achieving an improved state in life, was to appreciate and care for what I had gained because I could fall into a worse state. But, Marshall digs his hole a little deeper,
One obvious question that any rational person would ask is this: If an all-powerful god is answering the housewife’s prayer, why does she need to wash the shirt? Why not hang the stained, wrinkled shirt in the closet and pray for God to clean and press it there? An all-powerful God could just as easily remove the stain in the closet as he can in the washing machine.
True, that appears to be logical, from Marshall’s perspective, but it’s not just the the washing machine that does the work, but the detergent and stain remover that she uses, but that is still no guarantee that the stain will come out. Marshall’s own myopia, something that he also accuses Jesus of, prevents him from seeing the entire picture. He chooses to focus on one part, failing to ask the right questions. 
As I’ve discussed here and here about the issue of prayer, Marshall has shrunk God down to some kind of cosmic butler who focuses on one thing rather than working out the whole council of his will. If Marshall was really as concerned about poverty as he pretends to be, he would not be focusing on some hypothetical housewife from Pasadena, but the reality of the problem and potential solutions. This “proof” is nothing but a mask, a red herring and a straw man that doesn’t deal with the real issues, meaning that he can’t. Marshall seems to believe that people in poverty cannot be just as self-centered as some hypothetical woman. A person could be in poverty because they have put themselves at the center, believing that people should serve them, but that though would never cross his mind because that is a possibility that Christians have open to them because we believe that “self” is an idol that we have set up against the knowledge of God, but his bigotry would not allow such a consideration. That point alone say that “self” is the greatest problem, not poverty.

29 thoughts on ““God is imaginary”? Really?! Part 43: Think about a Christian housewife

  1. So, have you went out to participate on the forums at God is Dead and Why Won’t God heal amputees? with these gems? They would enjoy seeing you claim strawmen whilst creating your own. We all know that there are plenty of Christians that pray for utterly silly things, just like a mustard stain, and having no other reason than that.

    “I believe that God does personally attend to every aspect of my life that I submit to him. Sometimes the stains come out, sometimes they don’t, but we all have a greater problem than a mustard stain on our shirts and blouses.”
    Which demonstrates that your life is no different than mine. sometimes I have good things happen and sometimes I don’t, and I don’t need to claim a god did anything. I don’t need a cosmic butler that the bible *and* Christians claim their god is, except when it doesn’t do anything useful, like preventing a multi car pile up, giving food to a hungry child, preventing a murderer from killing. Hey, this god says that just the thought is sin enough, so why let the shooter kill anyone as long as they simply thought about it? The deed is done, is it not?

    • Well, one who is maliciously joyful, when we go into what causes those “multicar pileups”, its usually human error, either in behavior or judgment, something that already causes a number of problems anyway. And as far as “feeding a hungry child”, that’s why he made us, to take care of one another, as well as preventing murder, but that assumes that he hasn’t prevented countless numbers of them already by restraining the angry impulses of sinful men, including yourself. I mean, how many times, if you really think about it, have you wanted to kill someone just because they annoy you? Probably more than you can count, and if you weren’t a coward, afraid of the consequences of your actions, you probably would have.

      That fear, is a gift of God in his common grace, but in your ingratitude you rebel against him by mockery.

      • Who is maliciously joyful? If you are trying to call me that, you are lying and it seems for no more reason than to try to pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow evil. But if you want to show how I am “maliciously joyful”, please do. IF you cannot, then again, you are a liar and are bearing false witness against me. That’s quite a sin to perform just to be pointlessly nasty. You do a lovely job in demonstrating that you may not believe in your religion any more than I since you sin without caring.

        Again, we have many instances in the bible where there was human activity that was negated by god to have a miracle occur, battles, escapes, etc. Why does your god do nothing now in similar instances?

        As for your god intending humans to take care of each other, your bible also disagrees with you. It says to depend on your god for everything, the whole speech about the lilies of the field says this.

        It does say that one should take care of others in one place, where JC says that those who do not take care of others are the goats. In every other place, it says depend on your god to take care of them, to the point of saying that the poor will be around always and that it is more worthwhile to pour perfume on JC than help the poor. I give to help hungry people because I have empathy. If I was omnipotent, I would feel the hungry and not depend on anyone else. Why should I when I can alleviate suffering with a thought? It seems that I am better and more thoughtful than your god, and that’s not hard at all.

        Your god is supposedly omnipotent, so your argument that your god maybe, sometime, off stage left where no one can see, has stopped others from murdering is ridiculous. If this god can do it once (and you can’t even show evidence of *that* at all), it can do it for every single time. So we are left with, it can’t, proving the bible is nonsense when it claims omnipotence, it won’t, again proving the bible is nonsense when it claims god is love or good, or it doesn’t exist.

        I don’t kill people because I have empathy, I don’ t need a god for that, and indeed, plenty of other gods demand that one not murder, so I have no way to know if its your god or Ptah, or Ameratsu. Can you provide evidence that it’s your god and none else?

        I don’t kill for silly little things and I am law-abiding because I don’t like to hurt or inconvenience other people. It’s so fun to see you call me a coward for not murdering people. That’s just perfect coming from a Christian. It’s even funnier to watch you then try to claim that “fear” of punishment is a gift from god and also try to call me a coward.

        If I’m a coward for not killing people over stupid things, then what does that make your god which supposedly does per the bible? What does that make you?

        I am quite happy to say that I don’t think death is a just punishment for things like not believing in this god, for working on the sabbath, for loving someone who is the same sex as you are, for committing adultery, for trying to keep a magical box upright, for being the son of some adulterous twit, etc. All show your god to be such a limited thing, petty and jealous, and rather stupid in those events with poor Uzzah and David’s son.

      • Considering that is what your screen name means in German, (Kannst du nicht Deutch verstehen?), I was just playing with it, so no reason to get upset or defensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

        Who says that he doesn’t? I am very careful in choosing terms when judging events. In fact, we can look into recent news stories and ask questions about what is what. “Coincidence” is probably one of the most misunderstood and abused words in the English language, often meant to express something as being “by chance” or “random”, because it means that multiple incidents are running together (etymologically), but fails to ask anything about the drivers of those incidents, as to primary and secondary causes. So we have examine the evidence, such as from this article, which contains elements from an Israeli source: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=24811

        Considering that Matthew 6:28-30 is part of a larger argument, one point being that “one cannot serve two masters”, which is part of a whole discourse on prayer and seeking God and his will above our short-term, short-sighted, self-centered will that leads to worry, not only about this life but the next, worry (from the German “wurgen”, which means “to choke”) that makes this life miserable to live.

        I have to ask which suffering is the most difficult to alleviate? Physical suffering is easily remedied, but internal suffering, pains of conscience, pains of remorse, pains of emotions, the real pains that are the most difficult to alleviate, the ones that it takes something powerful, something that has the authority to deal with at that level. Hunger is cured by food, thirst by drink, loneliness by company, cold by warmth; but spiritual hunger, spiritual thirst, spiritual loneliness, spiritual coldness, that takes something invasive. Because you don’t understand first principles you get all of the others messed up as well.

        But you don’t know why you are a “law abiding citizen” or why your “empathy” has kept you from killing anyone. You just suppose it is because it is the way you are, not because God is holding you in check, protecting you from yourself. You forget that your feelings can change, that they can get out of hand, that they can make you their subject rather than them being your subject. But that’s part of the cowardice that inhabits man, his fear of admitting what it is about himself that he can and can’t control. Cowardice that leads to ingratitude, and ingratitude that leads to selfishness.

        I’m glad that you don’t think that death is “a just punishment for things like not believing in this god”, because death is a result of sin. Aside from your blatant category errors, as to why death was the judicial punishment for those particular events, as well as your abuse of language (“love” when you mean “romantic/sexual relationship”, I love my sons, my father, my uncles, my friends, but I reserve my sexual affections for my wife, call this a failure of the English language) is actually demonstrative of that cowardice I was speaking of, intellectual cowardice to go in and actually take time to understand what is being described, defined, and proscribed, as well as the legitimate reasons for it, else you might be convicted of your own sin and see how desperately you need Christ and the forgiveness that is offered through faith in him.

      • Jake, I do love when someone like you tries to claim I was joyful at the thought of a multi-car pile up and is called on their lie has to claim that they were only playing with it. Such a typical excuse of a bully, when he gets showed he doesn’t believe in his religion any more than I do.

        It’s great to see you also trying to redefine words so they agree with your nonsense. No, coincidence does mean by chance or random:” the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection; also : any of these occurrences” (Merriam-webster) There is no misunderstanding of it or misuse of it. There is nothing in the definition that says anything about any “Drivers” since it is implicit in the definition that there are none.

        That article is hilarious. It’s lovely to see an entirely unsubstantiated claim of one idiot claiming that a god is moving their missiles off course, and another entirely unsubstantiated claim of a Israeli commander saying that god moved the missile. No names, no times, nothing to substantiate such nonsense. Golly, I may just have to go out and believe in Bat-Boy or chupacabras.

        Again, evidence for your claims that your god does the same miracles as claimed in the bible. Evidence, not baseless stories that don’t even have a date when they occurred or witnesses.

        It’s great to see you try to excuse your god, as so many Christians have tried before. If it is as the bible claims, omninpotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then there is no reason that this god can’t alleviate both physical and emotional suffering. Indeed, if physical suffering is so “easily remedied”, why doesn’t your god do that? If it is omnipotent, then it can alleviate everything, and not depend on Christians to make excuses on why it can’t do anything at all, not even the “easy” stuff.
        But if you want to admit that your god isn’t omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, be my guest.

        Again, great to see you try to make up nonsense. I do indeed know why I am law abiding and empathetic to my fellow man. Physics and chemistry, no god needed. You want to claim that somehow your god is “holding me in check” but you also want to claim that it’s my fault for not believing in this god. So, which is it, Jake? Does this god control me or not? I do love this god that can somehow control me, but when it comes down to controlling someone who is going to do real harm, like shooting kids at a school, this god’s control is nowhere to be found. As soon as you can show your god doing something beneficial, I’ll be grateful. Otherwise, there is nothing to be grateful or ungrateful for. I am more than happy to help others myself with real actions and real resources, because that means that something real will get done. A child will eat, a woman will get medical care, a man will have the freedom to love whom he will.

        The stories of the lilies of the field and the command to depend on this god for everything is quite a bit more than just verses Matthew 6:28-30. It says that one should depend entirely on this god for everything. We also have that being claimed in the story of the rich young man who asks how to get to heaven, throughout the beatitudes that the lilies verses come from, 1 Peter 5, Proverbs 3, etc.

        Oh, I do love to hear about “category errors” from Christians. Especially when they are trying to excuse their god and have no idea what they are talking about. Tell me about these category errors, Jake. Where have I made them and how?

        Funny how you think it’s great for me not to think that death isn’t a just punishment for a lot of stupid things your god thinks it is. I’m glad to see you say your god is wrong. Death is a punishment by your god for sin. Sin doesn’t cause death on its own. Your god kills intentionally, if you believe in such nonsense like your bible. This god decreed what “sin” was and then said that he can kill because of it. We get that all through Revelation.

        It’s also great to see someone insist that they and only they know what love is. Sorry, dear, but two people of the same sex can love each other as much as I love my husband or you love your wife. Again, the English language doesn’t fail at all, you just want to twist it for your own selfish ends. It is quite deceitful to try to do that, but typical.

        Tell me these “legitimate” reasons for murder, Jake. I get to see every TrueChristian insisting that they and only they are the ones who “actually take time to understand what is being described, defined, and proscribed” and then get to watch how you all disagree on what your god supposedly “actually” means. Each of you uses the same stuff and comes up with different claims of “truth”. Now, I would like to offer to set up a contest to see which of you are the right ones. We have that altar test from Elijah where this god shows who it supports and we also have Jesus’ promise that his true followers will be able to do miracles just like him and even better, as evidence of how god favors them.

        Again, no one needs your god, Jake. I am a decent human person entirely without it. I don’t fear life or your god at all. I don’t need to be promised a magical afterlife to make me a good person. I don’t need to pretend some magical being agrees with me and all of my little human desires and hates. I don’t need to murder people if they don’t agree with me. Again, all in all, I’m a far better being than your god will ever be.

      • And I love it when people misrepresent what is plain language, thus revealing their inherent bias and have to resort to ad hominem to make themselves appear better.

        Anyone who has passed elementary level reading comprehension can clearly see that I was not “redefining” the word but plainly stating how people often reinterpret words to suit their needs, evidenced by what you did. I was clear that the word is ABUSED in such manner, and careful reading of my phrasing and parsing of the terms by using the parenthetical of “etymology” to expose its true meaning. So, I don’t understand where your difficulty or objection is pointing. (Maybe its just, I guess, pointless?)

        The claim of “unsubstantiation” would only hold if one could present simply an anecdotal statement. If one SIMPLY follows the links in the story, they lead to the original stories, in Hebrew of course, so you have to translate the page from July 2014, but I guess that was just too difficult for you. But let’s think for a second, suppose that you were on the ground, seconds form being hit by an incoming missile, that had every reason to hit you, and for no apparent reason, the missile suddenly made a hard right turn into an open field and explode where no one could be injured. You might think it was blind chance, a stroke of luck, the 1 out of 100 shot, the problem is the evidence just doesn’t point in that direction. That is where your many category errors begin.

        You confuse evidence with experimental repeatability, leading to further errors. Much of what we know and understand as truth has no repeatable means of testing it. World War 2 cannot be proven experimentally, however we have scientific evidence that it occurred. The 1st Apollo moon landing cannot be experimentally proven, yet we have evidence that it occurred. It is a false understanding of how we learn what is true. Evidence, etymologically, refers to what can be perceived with the eyes. You look at the 100th that missed thinking that the 99 previous didn’t deserve it, whereas I understand that all 100 “deserved” it, and the only consistent and reasonable explanation for the reason why that particular missile changed course is that God intervened, going, “Hello, still here. This mess could all stop if you just look to me, depend on me.”

        The Christian assertion and understanding, is that all of the misery that exists in life is because of our sin. Everything we touch is corrupted by us and is corrupted because of us. Suffering is merely a symptom of the greater disease, and the disease is terminal. But fortunately there is a cure, but only those who truly want it can receive it. I suffer from degenerative arthritis, it’s painful and will eventually result in the surgical replacement of most of my major joints, something else that is painful, if I live that long. My bones are grinding themselves into powder, and sometimes I hurt so bad that I cannot think straight. But then I think about a man who was, for all intents and purposes, declared “innocent”, but stayed silent to take the place of one who was rightly condemned as a thief and a murderer. All that he ever did in his life was help people, encourage people, call people to be better than what they could do or think or serve, but he made an audacious claim, he was God, and whoever trusted him and followed him would have a greater life, and to prove that he was who he said he was, he told people how he would die and that after he died he would come back to life. My pain means nothing, it’s just a speed-bump in this life, because one day it will be gone, because that Man’s promise was to make all things new. And if we’re honest, and really look around and think, really think, we can honestly see that misery, suffering, we bring a lot of it on ourselves, choosing to stay in it, choosing to continue it, rather than finding the way out of it.

        You assume that because of “physics and chemistry” you are “empathetic”, but you can do a lot of harm to your fellow man with those same things, so how is it that the same things that you can use to harm someone, thus breaking the law and violating the empathy you hold, that’s somewhat self contradictory. Also, why is it that your “chemistry” holds you in check when it is constantly changing, through frame-shift changes in enzymes and variability in cellular pH. Further, if what science says is true, that your entire cellular composition changes every seven years, why is it that you maintain memories from 14 or even 21 years earlier, things you often haven’t though of for years. Probably because you are more than mere chemistry. But when you think about it, further, physics and chemistry don’t really do anything, they merely give us the terms to explain what is going on, so that’s another category error. ADP or NADPH only power the cells of the body, they don’t cause me to love or hate, or desire to obey or break the law, or drive my empathy for my fellow man.

        Again, understanding the categories is important, because you confuse God’s sovereignty, his overarching authority, with “God controlling” you. You choose those things which accord with your nature, and therefore you are responsible for the choices that you make, and will be held accountable for them. The very fact that you refuse to recognize that it is the very God who made you, who restrains even your worst impulses, and show him gratitude for the fact that you could be much worse, is the very evidence of your rebellion against him, and the very fact that you would use the very resources that he has provided for you to do those things, even to incite someone into further rebellion against their Creator shows how calloused and corrupted you really are and explains why you can miss clear statements that contradict what you are asserting in the very passages you mention.

        One more time for the slow of comprehending: death is the result of sin, death is not punishment for sin. If you drive off of a 500-foot cliff, the result will be your death. If you murder someone in Texas,and are convicted, the punishment is the forfeiture of, first, your freedom then your life, which results in your death. This is where those “categories” are important. Go back to Genesis 3, the RESULT of man’s sin was that his mortal life would eventually end in his death, the PUNISHMENT was his exclusion from God’s personal presence and banishment from his home, and that every aspect of his life would increase in difficulty.

        I am not the only one who knows what “love” is. I know that the term is so abused that it is utterly MEANINGLESS because it has been used to excuse those who engage in romantic interludes with members of the same sex, a demonstrably medically, psychologically, and sociologically dangerous act. Further, the logic that was used to justify that behavior, is now being used to justify the behavior of those who “love” and sexually desire children. So, if I were you, I’d be very careful about where one throws the term “selfish”, another one of those abused words, and ad hominem attacks.

        If God should appear to me and command me to set up such a “test” you’ll be the first to know. Of course, such tests usually result in the execution of the faithless and their cohorts, so I don’t think you really want that, because you wouldn’t get to see me gloat, but I couldn’t do that, it just simply isn’t “Christian”.

        Compared to what? You say that you are a “decent” person. Do you hate anyone, I mean wouldn’t spit on them if they burst into flames? According to Jesus, if you hate someone, wishing they were dead, even if just for a second, before God, you’re just as guilty as if you’d shot them dead, which would make you, that’s right: a murderer. Ever told a lie, even one of those little “white lies”? More than likely you’ve got a habit of it, and what does that make you? Go,on, say it. That’s right, it makes you a liar. I would bet that you’ve even taken something that didn’t really belong to you. What do we call people who do that? Yep, thieves. I bet you like to look at some online porn too, maybe ogle that sweet little thing at the bank, or the Starbucks, the one that you think would be great in the sack, and maybe you’ve even imagined it. Now, what would happen if someone could see those images, especially if you’re already in a relationship with someone else and it was them who saw it? Jesus said that was adultery, even though you actually didn’t do anything physical. Just those four points right there, in some nations, could get you executed (ever wonder why our natural inclination is to believe that such acts should incur such punishment?), but you play them off, deceiving yourself, and others along the way, digging the hole that you will be buried in. But that God, the one you think you are “better than”, sent His Son to take that punishment for you, to give you a new life, a new way of living, a new way of thinking, if only you will repent and place your trust in Him.

      • No one is misrepresenting “plain language” here but you, Jake. You have decided that you can redefine words to suit you, taking “plain language” and changing it for your own benefit. And please do show me where I used an ad hominem argument if you are going to accuse me of that.

        Again, there is no substantiation for the story of the missile miracle. No names, no date, no time, nothing. The original Hebrew pages did not have this either. We have contradictory claims of rockets or missiles. Yep, we do have the date that the unsubstantiated report was uploaded to the net, July 29, 2014, and that’s all we have. We also have you making false claims about what the “original stories” have when they don’t. The article is in Hebrew, and when translated, it says nothing different than the English pages. Google Translate is very helpful in finding the truth.

        There is no reason to think that the story is true at all. There is nothing substantiating this supposed miracle at all. If these events did occur, yep, I might consider that there was something odd going on. But they never happened. There is no evidence, only one story that has again, no date, no names, no location, and no witnesses.

        I do not mistake evidence for experimental repeatability, which can indeed be evidence. You seem to be creating a strawman to attack rather than my argument. Evidence are facts that can be used to support a conclusion, for instance that a missile magically changed course. There is none for your miracle story.

        WWII can be shown to have happened by lots and lots of evidence. We have witnesses, physical evidence, plenty of communications, etc. We have nothing for your miracle story, no evidence at all. It is a known fact that the rockets used to attack Israel are poorly made, and can do all sorts of things that are unexpected. There is as much chance of a screwed up gyro or a bad engine to explain a missile missing (and again, we have no evidence that this occurred at all), than to say that a god intervened. Your god has as good batting record as pure coincidence. You simply have a very bad case of confirmation bias, where you want to attribute things to your god if something good happens, but refuse to acknowledge how many times this god fails if one is keeping score on how many people die thanks to this god’s not quite so omnipotence. Your version of your god is quite a piece of work, allowing people to be killed because its feelings are hurt.

        As for depending on this god, why need something like the Iron Dome? Surely this god would be even more accurate in taking down missiles, right? Why do so many Christians carry guns when the bible says trust in god and nothing else? There is nowhere in the bible that says that your god helps those who help themselves. It says the exact opposite, to trust in this god for everything because this god cares for you more than the birds and the flowers. Why is it that true believers have no better lives than someone like me despite your claim that your god would just “stop” all of the mess as long as they depended on it? Lots of people have died expecting this god to help them, unfortunately lots of them children whose ignorant parents murdered them from neglect.

        You are quite correct, the Christian claim is that all misery in the world is because of sin. Per your bible, this god decreed what sin was; intentionally allowed his enemy into the garden to corrupt A&E (or was too ignorant to know it was there); was surprised that these people who had no idea what good and evil meant trusted something in the garden that this god said he made the entirety of; cast them out for doing what this omniscient god knew they would do; decided the best way to get people back was a flood; that failed too, as soon as Noah got a snootful; tried again with laws that were supposed to work; that failed too; then after some unknown time, finally decided that what it really meant to do was demand that part of itself be tortured to death to appease itself for the rules it put into place.

        There is no evidence that everything we touch is corrupted. Indeed, us humans have continued to make this world a better place. Less pointless death from disease, less slavery, etc. Despite the ignorance your bible preaches.

        You seem to have a rather odd version of the story of Jesus in the bible. He didn’t take anyone’s place willingly, certainly not Barabbas. Indeed, if you read your bible, JC isn’t really for this whole thing, with the scene in Gethsemane. Of course, the gospel of John doesn’t even mention this scene so there’s no reason to think it occurred any more than your supposed missile miracle. JC threatened people, follow or else. And plenty of people in the ancient world were decent humane people and didn’t need this supposed messiah.

        If you hurt so, why haven’t you been healed as the bible claims will happen? JC said that true believers can heal. James said that the elders of the church can heal with prayer and oil. Why are you still stricken with arthritis? This is a big problem for Christians. Their bible makes promises and we see none of them come true. When asked why healing isn’t done, I only get excuses. You say your pain means nothing, but I will make a guess that if you were healed of it, then it certainly would be something.

        If one is to believe the Jesus myth, it does say that this god will make things new. This god also said that it would be back within the lifetimes of the people who supposedly saw it a couple of thousand years ago. Considering that, and that no evidence for this god or the essential events of the bible exists, there is no reason to think that some magical being will “make things new”. Again, you try to make believe that the only honest and wise people there are simply must agree with you. That is not true. What we can see is that humans bring misery on ourselves and we help each other out of misery. No god needed.

        Yep, I can be empathetic and I can also hurt my fellow man. Again, no god or devil needed. It’s not self contradictory at all, it’s the way humans are and I try be the best human I can be. It also seems that you don’t know much about human biochemistry. Yep, its functioning and functioning causes change. However that change is always in certain parameters. It’s when they are out of those parameters that bad things can happen. My husband is bipolar and I am intimately familiar with how chemistry alters humans. That bit about your entire body changing every seven years is just as false as the nonsense about using only 10% of your brain. Scientists don’t say it at all. So your claims again are false. Physics and chemistry most certainly do lots of things. But if you don’t think so, I do hope you will cease using them and their fruits so you won’t be a hypocrite. Again, you claim a category error but can’t even explain what that term means. It certainly doesn’t mean that physics and chemistry “merely give us terms to explain what is going on”.

        I know that your god isn’t controlling me. However, your bible says it is repeatedly. All of the claims of his sovereignty and his authority are backed up by claims of how he controls everything. Read Exodus, Job, the gospels, it’s all there. It also says that I do not have a choice in what I do, that your god has made vessels to be damned or saved at his whim. Romans 9 is quite clear about that and is supported by the numerous verses about how believers are pre-chosen, etc. I was a Presbyterian and I know how Calvinists are just as sure as you are that they have all of the right answers. And none of you can provide evidence of this.

        Again, Jake, no evidence at all that your god made anything, especially me. Just as much evidence that Tezcatlipoca did it, or any one of a thousand other creator gods claimed by humans. Every theist wants to claim that their and only their favorite god is the creator and is the only one that one can see in the universe. Your god restrains nothing. If it did, why doesn’t it when someone is going to kill someone? You seem to want things both ways, to claim that humans choose things and are responsible for what they choose, and then you want to pretend your god restrains, e.g controls, people. Which is it?

        Being grateful to a god that has no evidence for its existence is rather silly. No, I couldn’t and wouldn’t be much worse with or without this god. Your god provides nothing. People provide themselves things, and we can see this in this world where belief in gods makes no difference in how much resources one has to use. Lots of very faithful people in the poorest parts of the world so no correlation there at all. There is no reason to believe in a being that is as described in your bible. We have a whiny deity that is no different than the other iron/bronze age gods. He is petty, jealous, and rather stupid. He is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent but can’t even figure out when he himself will fail. This god supposedly will murder everyone who disagrees with it, allow itself/its son to reign over the believers for an eon and then, for no reason, intentionally allow its archenemy out of its prison to corrupt these believers so it can have one more big ol’ battle.
        You claim again that death isn’t punishment for sin. Sorry, Jake, but your bible and plenty of your fellow Christians say it is. We always have Christians insisting that their god will wreak death and destruction on us if we don’t obey. Pretty much every time some ignorant Christian nonsense is ignored in law, we hear this. Heard it back in the 80s when the AIDS epidemic was going on strong. One earns e.g. gets wages, of death if one sins. We are murdered by God for sin, not by sin in Revelation.

        Love is quite meaningful. It is only people like you who only want the term love for themselves and those who agree with them, who claim is somehow meaningless now that someone else can love someone they want. It’s also great to see you intentionally lying about homosexual people. I’ve been with my husband for 25 years. I’m not so pathetic to think that someone else’s love will harm mine. You are a liar when you try to equate homosexuality and pedophilia. Again, where are these ad hominem attacks I am supposedly using. I do suggest you look up what that means before trying this again. I have no problem in calling you selfish when you insist that love is only what you want it to be.

        Nice excuse to avoid the altar test! Funny how your god is nothing more than you. I am not afraid at all about any executions of myself or others because I know that this whole bit of nonsense is just a myth. I really do want this. I’d be happy to meet you anywhere for the contest. I’d also meet you anywhere if you can show me that you are a true Christian and can do what Jesus supposedly said.

        I’m a decent person compared to a lot of things, your god for one. No, there is no one I would allow to burn to death. I am not like your god. There are a lot of people I don’t like, but that is because I find them harmful. I probably did lie as a child, however, I do my best to never lie now. I find lies abhorrent, only good if told to save a life. I do not have a “habit” of lying as you falsely claim. I do love you trying to claim that I am a liar with no evidence. How nice to see you again bear false witness against me for no reason. I do not believe in your silly religion so I do not believe that just thinking about something bad makes one just as guilty as doing it. That is the idiocy of “thought crimes”.

        You would lose your bet that I have stolen anything. Why is it that you must pretend that I am such a bad person? It is absolutely hilarious that you keep trying so hard to accuse me of all sorts of things, and fail so miserably at it. It seems that it is just wishful thinking by a Christian who cannot believe that anyone can be good without his god. Alas for you, there are billions of people who don’t believe as you do and get along just fine. Again, no belief in your god or its claim that the thought is the same as the act, so your ever-so scary threats aren’t terribly effective. I know that such things could get one killed in other countries and in your bible. It shows how primitive and ignorant it is.

        I certainly wouldn’t repent or accept any nonsense from a god that evidently has you as a spokesperson. If it can’t get better help than someone who makes up lies about others, it’s not much of a god.

      • “No one is misrepresenting “plain language” here but you, Jake. …”
        —You really want to stick with that when I can clearly demonstrate that you did. You are more dishonest than you believe you are.

        “Again, there is no substantiation for the story of the missile miracle. …”
        —That’s the earliest date for the story, and it got passed around on a dozen of blog and there are no stories, nothing on snopes.com, that debunks it. Hmmm, wonder why? Either there is nothing to debunk or discount, it’s true, or no one wants to touch it because it is simply too explosive. But if you don’t want to believe that, you can check out Craig Keener’s book on miralces, which is heavily sourced and documented, or Eric Metaxes new book, Miracles, which is also sourced and documented. The key points of a “miracle” is that it is rare and unexplainable by any other means.

        “I do not mistake evidence for experimental repeatability, …”
        —Whew, I’m glad, because a lot of people make that amateur mistake.

        “As for depending on this god, why need something like the Iron Dome? …”
        —Jesus told his disciples that if they didn’t have a sword, they needed to buy one (Luke 22:36), why, because there were evil men who might try to take their lives. This goes to the bassackwards view of God that you’ve got: man is His servant, and man has responsibilities to his Maker. God provides the work, we provide the labor, and reap the benefits of it.

        “You are quite correct, the Christian claim is that all misery in the world is because of sin. …”
        —You want to accuse me of building a “straw man”, but then you light one up like this, in the same comment section. Ballsy. Um, 1, the Garden was open, 2, the man and the woman had clear instructions, 3, they decided to listen and disobey. Doesn’t matter what God knows, matters what God did, make a way for man to return, not as a servant, but as a son. I notice how you completely gloss over the fact that man had descended into a murderous, bloodthirsty beast, which is what led to the flood judgment, and Noah’s indiscretion isn’t really relevant, but his son’s is, that was wrong of him to sexually abuse his dad, and the laws weren’t supposed to do anything but reveal how broken man is and how desperately he needs a savior, one who came, of his own free will, even though He was God, and was with God, to come into the misery of this existence and give himself, to take the place of one who was rightfully condemned, to suffer everything that man would have suffered, because he was rightfully condemned, and more.

        “There is no evidence that everything we touch is corrupted….”
        —I bet you drink purified water, out of a bottle. That, right there, is your evidence. The fact that there are fewer and fewer sources of clean water that we do not have to treat or filter or abandon every year is pretty good evidence in my book. Really? Less slavery?One human trafficking website claims that those operations made an estimated $38 BILLION last year, and its a growing market as groups like ISIS and Boko Haram increase their presence on the world stage. Human bondage in the US ALONE made an estimated $400 million last year. Less “pointless” death from disease? Hmmm, wonder why? Oh yeah, the scientific revolution that was opened by Christians who believed that a created and ordered world could be studied and harnessed.

        “You seem to have a rather odd version of the story of Jesus in the bible. He didn’t take anyone’s place willingly, certainly not Barabbas. …”
        — Boy, how shortsighted. All he had to do was one thing: “Ha! Gotcha! Just kidding!” But he didn’t. He was either silent, or spoke affirmatively to the questions. He was in total control of the situation, even in his death. And, no, they weren’t “threats”. They were simply facts. If you’re driving down a road and someone flags you down and tells you that the bridge is out ahead and you need to turn around and head back in the opposite direction, you can either believe what they say and turn around or keep going, hoping that you’ll be able to see the bridge and correct, just in case. The threat is the damage that driving off a damaged bridge can do, the warning is what should be heeded.

        “If you hurt so, why haven’t you been healed as the bible claims will happen? “
        —Having actually read the Bible, in multiple translations, I can confidently say that it makes no such promises. What it does promise is new strength for each day. Jesus granted his disciples (later apostles) “authority” to heal, and God can still give people that gift and does, but not all, and not for all time. And James says that it will “save” (James 5:15), nothing about healing. I agree that there is a “problem”: people don’t read the bible, they read INTO it.

        “If one is to believe the Jesus myth, it does say that this god will make things new. This god also said that it would be back within the lifetimes of the people who supposedly saw it a couple of thousand years ago. “
        —Uh, no he didn’t. That’s another one of those instances where people are READING INTO the text something it doesn’t actually say.
        And its more like, “let me step on you, so I don’t get my feet muddy.”

        “Yep, I can be empathetic and I can also hurt my fellow man….”
        —Yeah, know all about bi-polar disorder, my son has it. But the general consensus is that, on average the body renews itself every 7-10 years with a few exceptions that are either extremely slow (heart), extremely fast (pancreas), or not at all (brain), I just sat through a college biology class with a brand new book, and the claims really haven’t changed in 20 years since I last took it, with a few exceptions in regards to cellular processes and mitochondrial machinery. Again, physics and chemistry can do NOTHING, they are merely principles that have been collected through interaction with the physical and chemical world, and people use those principles for either help or harm: two categories,the principles and those who make and use said principles, get them straight. The law of gravity doesn’t pull a thrown ball to the ground, but provides the principles and mathematics to describe that motion. The pH scale doesn’t make chemicals either acids or bases but provides the means to describe the state of a chemical’s reactivity.

        “I know that your god isn’t controlling me. However, your bible says it is repeatedly. “
        —Not “controlling”, God RESTRAINS the evil of men. If you had truly been a Presbyterian, and as familiar with Calvinism as you claim, you would know that difference. Yes, God chooses those whom he will save, rich and poor, slave and free, male and female, God saves each and every one of them them same way. And you absolutely have a choice, you just have no desire. You love your sin. You love your rebellion. You have no desire for anything else.

        “Again, Jake, no evidence at all that your god made anything, especially me. Just as much evidence that Tezcatlipoca did it, or any one of a thousand other creator gods claimed by humans.”
        —I can tell that you haven’t spent any time logically thinking that point through. 1.Tezcatlipoca is part of a pantheon of lesser gods created by other gods. 2. To be a god, there are certain features required: self-existence, transcendence, and supremecy in being. 3. Tezcatlipoca does not meet those criteria. 4. Therefore, Tezcatlipoca is not a god.
        I could go through any number of religions that break down in similar ways and expose each of them through logical argumentation as “not gods”. What is interesting though, the God of the bible meets every philosophical qualification of diety. It’s a hands down argument winner: there is a God and it is the God revealed in Scripture. But you ask the wrong question, like a typical obfuscater, “why didn’t God restrain him”, when the right question is “why did God restrain me?” I look at David Berkowitz and look at how many people he killed, before he could get arrested and convicted to wind up in prison where he got saved. I do not pretend to understand God’s means that he chooses to deal with his creatures, creatures who are actively in rebellion against him. God owes no one anything, if you had read Job, you would understand that. We should respond in the times of mercy, for there is a time coming when that mercy will be withdrawn and every life will be called to account.
        And what evidence would you accept? “Made by God”, stamped on your heel? Because it’s not just “you” that he made, but the world in which you live and move and have your being, where the materials exist that allow you to provide for yourself food, shelter, and clothing. The fact that these are not equally spread among the people of the world isn’t a fault of God, but merely a fact of the lifestyles that people have to engage in in the places where they have come to live in this world, making the most of the resources available, using the very faculties that God has bestowed upon them to live productive lives, yet living in a lie of a god made in their image with all of their weaknesses and proclivities, a straw god, like the one you described.

        “You claim that death isn’t a punishment for sin….”
        —I can’t help it if fellow believers have misunderstood what Scripture is plain about. Hebrews 9:27 is clear, “it is appointed unto man to die once, and then comes judgement.” Punishment logically comes after judgment, not before. One gets arrested before they are tried, the arrest itself is not punishment for the crime. The payoff for sin is death. Think about people like Alyssa Funke, the young “starlet” who killed herself when she was exposed in her filmed fornication, the ridicule she received drove her to her death. Her sin, her violation of her own person in search for fame and fortune, hoping for some measure of acceptance, resulted in her taking her own life. Her life was a train wreck waiting to happen. It’s no different than when someone gets AIDS as a result of their lack of sexual self-control. Do some people get it from accidental exposure? Yes, victims caught in the wake of the explosion of someone else’s impropriety. Like a parent that will allow a child to touch a hot stove to prove that fire burns, God lets us reap what we sow. You’re attempting to imply that it is unfair for God to allow their to be repercussions for actions, when he’s the one who clearly says, “walk this way to safety”, “do this, and live”. I think you really need to stop and think about just who the “stupid” one really is.

        “Love is quite meaningful….”
        —Yes, it is, when it is used in the ways that it is defined to operate in. “Love” is not some blanket term. Man is a purpose built machine, and when he goes outside of his purposes, pushing the boundaries, there are repercussions. Man’s romantic love is made to be channeled into woman, she is who was made for him, to be the sole expression of that love. It is to flow into woman, endearing her to him, uniting them, and in due time that love produces another human being, to be raised to do the same. That is a biological impossibility for same-sex relationships, thus violating one element of their purpose, and is an active expression of hate toward that part that they were made for, and fuels hate toward anything that dares to remind them of that purpose, even your relationship with your husband, or mine with my wife. Further, if children are introduced into the relationship, which is an admission of their unnaturalness that they have to go outside of the relationship to secure offspring, there is often nothing, in the case of adoption, to secure the child to the parents, and the child ceases to be a person and effectively becomes property. Child custody issues in same-sex break-ups seem to be treated like “who gets the silverware.” So, it isn’t being “pathetic” or “feeling threatened” its about living in the logical reality of the issue, and its not “what I want it to be” it’s about how God has defined it.

        “Nice excuse to avoid the altar test!…”
        —I didn’t “avoid” anything, I simply stated the facts of the matter: God is under no obligation to prove himself in such a way, ever again, as well as pointing out the historical facts that usually surround such demonstrations of power, namely the deaths of those who level the accusations against him. It is easy to dismiss something as “myth” when you haven’t seen it happen, intellectually dishonest as well. And the reason that he is under no obligation is that he has fully and finally revealed himself, through his Son, Jesus Christ.

        “I’m a decent person compared to a lot of things, your god for one….”
        —Well, the fact that you admitted that you lied as a child and do not have a “habit”—which means that you do lie, just not habitually—is evidence to support the claim that you ARE a liar, you bear witness against yourself, all I had to do is make you look in the mirror. There is an interesting thing about those “thought crimes” you are straw-manning (again), if you think about something enough, more than likely you will convince yourself to do it, good or evil. And notice, that I didn’t say that you wouldn’t actually allow someone to burn to death, but it is the fact that you hate them so much, it wouldn’t matter if they did, and in fact, it would give you a sense of satisfaction if they did. Hate is a poison, it cuts off reason, it cuts off compassion, and it can cut off life, which is why I don’t have to pretend that you are a “bad” person; I see you as I once was and I feel sorry for you, and am offering you a hand. I would never assert that you cannot behave, be respectful, be loving, but you have nothing to ground the reasons for “being” those things or any reason to say that those things are “good”. You have to steal (more evidence of your thieving ways) from my Christian worldview, a worldview built on the reality of God’s existence and provision, to say whether anything is truly “good” or truly “bad”. Apart from a Christian worldview, there is no way to say that if your husband beat you, that it was “good” or “bad”, you might could argue that you didn’t like it and say that your relationship would be better if he stopped, and you would appreciate it if he’d stop, but what obligation would he have to stop or even listen to you? You could say, “Well the law says ‘don’t beat your wife’”, and he could pack you up and move you to a country where there is no such law, and then where would you be? The same logic I can use on those who “get along just fine”, so that’s not really an argument, but confirmation of your own primitive, immature understanding of the revelation made in Scripture.

        I wouldn’t want you to repent until you can grasp the basic concepts of who you truly are and what you truly deserve in light of your identity. My hope and my prayer for you is that the God whose image you bear, would make himself so painfully obvious and evident that you will cry out in the terror of his presence, in this life, for his mercy. I pray that he will pursue you, and wrestle with you, that you will know no rest, no relief, no comfort. That your food will be tasteless and your drink bitter, your bed a place of torment, and there be no place for you to find peace, no satisfaction. And all these things be so until you bow the knee to your king and God, the Lord Jesus Christ, making him Lord of your life, he who came to stand in your place and take the punishment that you deserved. That may seem like something harsh, but I don’t play when it comes to life and death matters. You hate God so much that you have to use false argumentation and attack straw-gods to support your position, and its just sad. I just hope that God hasn’t cut you off like you’ve cut him off.

      • I’m waiting for you to “clearly demonstrate what I did. Any time now. As it stands, it seems that you can’t.

        Oooh, a story that got passed around blogs. Golly, color me soooo impressed. The reason why that no one has debunked it is because it’s a story that has no evidence for it and is only on blogs. Most people already know that it’s nonsense. It’s like saying that no one has debunked the easter bunny on blogs or on snopes, and thus that means that the Easter Bunny exists. I’ve read many books on miracles. I know that Keener’s book is not heavily sourced and documented. Metaxes’ book is the same. Lots of claims, no evidence except people claiming miracles when other explanations work out just as well, and don’t have the added problem of making people wonder why this god isn’t doing these miracles for people who need them much more. A miracle is indeed defined as a rare event unexplainable by other means. However, these miracles are supposedly in the physical world and if one is to believe the miracles in the bible, would leave evidence. Unsurprisingly, miracles don’t do that anymore, it’s just claims of healing of illnesses that never existed in the first place, pure luck saving someone’s live and not anothers, etc. When I watch some news report that has some person claiming that their god saved them, I always wonder what this person would say if asked directly “So, Mary, if your god saved you, why did he kill Christ Smith down the street?” What is your excuse for your god’s inaction?”
        It’s always fun to watch you back off your false claims. Nope, I don’t mistake evidence to be only repeatable events. So one of your false accusations fails again. How not surprising.

        Yep, JC did tell his disciples to buy a sword. I was expecting you to mention that. However, your imaginary savior also says to never ever resist anyone, even if they were evil (Matthew 5), so why need a sword? He said to trust completely in this god. Your bible contradicts itself often. What is interesting is that the other gospels never say anything about getting swords, except when JC rebukes an apostle for having one and drawing it (Matthew 26 and John 18, and Mark 14 just has the sword attach and JC rebuking those who came for him with swords). Quite odd, isn’t it? A man who tells people to get swords in one version of the story and then reviles them in another. One might think that the gospels were just made up nonsense. It’s also interesting that you mention the supposed missile miracle. That’s the God that hasn’t sent his messiah yet, the god that says you are completely wrong and worshipping a false Christ.

        So, again, your version of your god and Christ aren’t very similar to what’s in the bible. You’ve made it up to fit yourself. You cherry pick the bible and make up what you want.

        Jake, you said that the Christian claim is that all misery is because of sin. I didn’t make that up, and thus it is not a strawman. The garden, depending on which version of the creation story you read, is either the entire world or a little patch somewhere that had rivers. So, we have no idea if your garden was open or not. In either case, everything in this garden was supposedly made by your god, correct? Everything in the world was good since this god found it so (Genesis 1). Then this god puts the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in this garden. Why? It makes no sense, to put something in danger, especially if you know for a fact that it will cause a problem. You are correct, this god did give A&E instructions to not do something, but they had no idea what punishment was, nor death. This god says that when you eat it, you will die. That is a lie, because they eat it and do not die. The snake in this is the only thing that is telling the truth. This god is also so stupid that it offers animals to Adam as helpmeets, and it takes a while for this god to realize that he might want to make a woman (though he made man and woman at the same time in the other creation story). The snake chats with Eve and tells her the truth. Then Eve, knowing the truth now and good and evil, and not being dead, decides to share this fruit with Adam. He accepts. So we know have a god that agrees with A&E that being naked is somehow evil, and didn’t tell them this in the first place when he left them naked. They hide from God, a pretty neat trick with an omniscient and omnipotent being, and then they are chased from the Garden, which had to have two angels to guard it, which would have been a good idea before the snake got in and started talking and and walking around. Or it’s Satan, and again, your god either didn’t know it was there or intentionally let it in. Which version do you like best?

        There is nothing that shows that your magic flood occurred or that man had changed into some “bloodthirsty beast”. Even your bible doesn’t say this. What it says is that a man could build ship that would never work without being bothered by these “bloodthirsty beasts” for hundreds of years. It’s hiliarious to watch you claim that Noah’s indiscreation isn’t really relevant. Yep, the chosen of God gets drunk as soon as he can, curses a man for another man’s action and this is the best that this god could come up with. Sure, that’s not relevant at all, a god that can’t get good help. Yep, we got either sexual molesters, or a son cuckholding his father.

        You are making things up when you try to claim that the laws were only to show how bad humans were. That’s not what your bible or your god says. How interesting that you have decided that you can ignore what it ways and make things up. I do recommend you read the book you claim is the truth and see what it really says. It’s also great when your own words make one wonder, why this god didn’t just sent Jesus without bothering with the laws. Sure would have saved a lot of time and damned souls. Because per your religion the Jews are wrong, and I know that they don’t feel that way.
        I drink water that has gone through treatment processes that humans have come up with. Even water that has never been touched by man is can still be dangerous from totally natural sources. Yep, less slavery. We track down and stop human trafficking. Now, compare this to your lovely bible that says that young virgins are nothing more than objects to be taken as treasure and enslaved to never be released. Your bible never says slaves should strive to be freed, but says that slaves should stay with their masters no matter how awful. Your bible says that human trafficking is fine and the people enslaved should never be freed. Yep, religious groups like Boko Haram and ISIS do enslave people. They are following their holy book and their holy book is pretty much exactly like yours.

        No, Christians did not start the scientific revolution. Questioning the Christian god and the claims of its followers did. For thousands of years, people believed in gods and demons and magic. Then humans realized that these things didn’t actually exist and started questioning claims like people get sick because they “deserve” it, or that they had demons, or that they hadn’t given their god enough sacrifices and resources. The Black Death spread thanks to Christians who sought supernatural cures and spread the disease. The failure of this god spurred questions on why it failed so miserably. Christian leaders constantly attacked questioning this god, from Tertullian to Augustine and more. If science was purely Christian, why didn’t it start so much sooner than it did? Because science wasn’t started by Christians. Christians had centuries to do things when they had a fair amount of control and they did nothing. When anesthesia was invented, Christians claimed that it was ungodly because they believed the nonsense in Genesis that said humans were meant to feel pain and to deny pain was to deny their god. We still have Christians now who murder their children from neglect because they don’t accept science and believe their god will heal. It doesn’t and people die awful deaths because of your belief in nonsense. Again your claims are shown to be false.

        There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed at all. Again, there is no evidence that he took anyone’s place willingly, not if one beleivs in your bible is accurate about Gesthemane. Sincen there is no evidence for your Jesus, or your god, or heaven or hell, they are threats. There are no facts to say that someone who doesn’t do a certain thing will suffer any more than anyone else. Christians like you try to claim a bridge is out, but can’t even show a bridge exists much less that their alternate route is the only right one. All you have are threats of violence if I don’t do as you say.

        Well, if you’ve read the bible, then you know the following are in it and that your claim that they aren’t is a lie. How fun.

        “15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

        “16 By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see.”

        ““Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.”

        “29 Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus”

        “16 Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed.”

        “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.] 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.”

        “13 Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.”

        As one can see, the bible promises healing of the sick and injured. It is not promising some vague “strength”. It is astonishing that you would lie about something so easy to find out. As it stands, your god has given no one the ability to heal ever, or those that have been given it haven’t done a thing with the power. It’s great to see you doing exactly as you claim others do, you make up things to add to your bible, you are reading “INTO” it. Gasp. Let me guess, you’ll now claim that I have read the “wrong” versions of the bible. Funny how all of you folks claim that each and every translation is guided by your god.

        So when you god says “34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” He was really saying ““let me step on you, so I don’t get my feet muddy.” It’s so nice to see you telling me what you read into the verse. Tsk.

        You are lying again when you claim that there is some “general consensus” that supports your claim that the body renews itself every so many years. Again, evidence or you are just trying to appeal to an authority that doesn’t exist. Physics and chemistry, two words defined by the processes they encompass, do lots of things. But if you want to claim they can’t, I do ask that you don’t eat, don’t use fuel to heat your house, don’t take modern medicines, etc. Because if you do, you are saying that you are wrong. No one said that scales determine the ph of something. Its chemistry certainly does.

        Controlling means restraining: restrain:to limit, restrict, or keep under control. Honestly, Jake, there are dictionaries on the internet. I can look at them and know you are trying to change definitions again. I am quite familiar with Calvinism and Presbyterianism and know that again you are trying to tell something false. Nice to see that you can quote the same verses I do to show that your god does choose who it will save and that there is no choice involved. There is nothing in the bible that says you have a choice, and plenty that says you don’t. Care to compare chapters and verses again? I’ve been looking for evidence for this god for years, prayed when I was losing my faith, etc. You are simply lying about me again. Oh well, if hell’s real, it’ll be full the rafters with Christians like you.

        It seems you can’t tell that I have spent lots of time thinking things through, considering your answer. Again, there’s no evidence at all that your god made anything, or any gods made anything. Your definition of god is just one more time you are redefining a word to make it work for you and only you. So, sorry, Tez is a god, just like yours. Or shall I mention the Goddess, the supreme being in existence and transcendence? The Great Spirit of many Native American faiths? Allah? Vishvakarman? Aten? Rangi and Papa? You also have the sequence of events about your god and philosophy wrong. Your god was defined long before the vague “ground of being” concept that philosophy has. The god idea came first and then the claims of what a god “must” be came after, and this god was squished into those ideas. How do I know? Because this god has attributes that do not fit at all with such a god concept as philosophers have invented. This philosophical definition cannot be shown to exist any more than your bible god can be.

        I do not ask the wrong question. It is the right question, and only someone who can’t answer will call it a wrong question. I can ask why did your god not restrain someone who harmed others with no problem. It is only a problem with someone who can’t explain why his god is either impotent or doesn’t care to stop sin when it could? I would not ask “Why did god restrain me?” because I don’t believe in it at all.

        I don’t have to make up nonsense like that one simply can’t understand why this god is such an evil bastard to allow someone to murder many and then supposed get “saved”. Sorry, your sycophantic willful ignorance to allow any evil done as long as your god does it fails. I wonder, if someone killed someone else or said someone had to be killed and said “don’t be concerned, I have my reasons” would you accept from anyone?

        Voltaire’s quote “Truly, whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust. “ is made for those who will say that anything their god does is okay. It’s no wonder that this also makes people who say “But I was only following orders.”

        I read job and saw a god that allowed a man’s family to be murdered for a bet. I read a man who questioned this god and read the god bluster and threaten. Then I read where this god admitted it was wrong, but was unable to give Job his family back, but had to offer him a new family and more money, like a Mafia don.

        Hmmm, what evidence would I accept? Well this god would know because he’s omnipotent and omniscient, you know. There is no more evidence that your god made anything than any other god. However, we do have lots of evidence that your god doesn’t exist at all. Nor does any. This world can and is quite lethal to humans, so your attempt to claim that the earth is a perfect habitat for humans fails. Plenty of places on this earth where there aren’t the materials to provide food, shelter, etc. it’s great to see you try to excuse your god again. Poor god, can’t do anything to make things equal, it’s all the puny ol’ humans fault. And nope, no straw god, unless you want to call the bible god a straw god. I’m good with that.

        Yep, as usual I get to see you insist that everyone but you is wrong about the scriptures. Of course, you can’t prove it. Nice verse from Hebrews but Revelation says that’s wrong. You know, that “second death” thing in Revelations 21? It’s great to see that your god is too inept to help people who were just collateral damage from his nonsense too. Golly, how “good” and “fair”. As for your god being clear, that’s amusing since even chistians can’t agree on what this god really means. You all insist that your version is right but again, can’t show it at all.

        And what kind of vermin parent allows a kid to touch a hot stove just to prove a point? Gah, I am so glad I am not your kid. But it does show how similar your god is to an abusive parent or spouse.

        Ah, so Jake knows all and knows what his god really meant about love. It is your baseless opinion only, just like your baseless claim that man is some “purpose built machine”. Hmmm, sure sounds like no choice here again. I do love(!) how you have decided that love is really only “procreation”. How sad. It’s also sad that you seem to hate infertile couples and adopted children as much as you hate homosexuals, calling them hateful and unnatural, just objects and not people. Thanks for being so clear. I’m not a breeding automaton for your god. There’s a lot of homosexuals who are Christians. So cute to see you insist that they hate something they don’t. More lies.

        You claim that your god is under no obligation to show itself. Then why did it do so constantly before? That’s what JC claimed the miracles were for, to know who this god was. Why is it that now this god hides behind the skirts of apologists? I’m still not afraid of your threats or your gods. If you are so sure it will happen, then join me. It would be evidence of your god and would get more followers. But you aren’t sure at all, it seems. Since there is no evidence of JC, and a rather large number of people don’t belive in it, your god’s revelation failed quite badly. Your god uses the same excuses any charlatan uses.

        Ah, so since I lied as a child, I’m not a decent person. I guess you aren’t either, and since you keep lying, aren’t getting any better. Nice try to twist my words. I am not a liar now, which again shows your claims that I do lie (present tense) to be more lies. Congratulations.

        Again, you have yet to show how I am using a straw man argument. Just randomly saying “strawman” doesn’t make it true. I guess you are trying to throw shit at a wall and hoping some of it sticks. There is nothing to support your claim that thinking about something makes you do it. That’s the same failed claim that Chrsitians used to try to use to ban video games.

        You insiststed that there must be someone that I hated enough to allow to burn to death. Walking back your nonsense again, I see. You still make false claims about me, and now want to call me a “bad person”. Sigh. I certainly don’t need the hand of someone who makes false claims and lies. I haven’t stolen anything from whatever “Christian worldview” you claim to have. You have no evidence of any reality of your god and you certainly have no lock on being decent, good and humane. People were that long before people in the eastern Med made up their god and they are still. Your claims are the usual selfish greedy ones that someone desperately makes because they can’t understand people can be happy and good without their god. Your bible is full of horrible laws. So, not going to follow that either.

        I have plenty to ground the reasons for being a decent human, my desire to not harm anyone because I don’t want to be harmed myself. I don’t need a magical carrot or stick to want to see someone laugh rather than cry. Maybe you were like me once. Shame you stopped. And dear, you have claimed that I cannot behave, be respectful, be loving. One more lie.

        I know who I truly am quite well. I am a biological being on a small planet in a middling galaxy in a very large universe. I deserve to live as well as I am able, and to help others do the same thing. I don’t need some genocidal god to say that “those people don’t deserve x”. Again, much better than that.

        Again, every theist claims that their god is “painfully obvious” and each theist is sure that the others are wrong. No reason to think you right. And more threats again, always good to show that Christian Love and that you are a complete dick. Sigh. I’ve asked this god myself for it to show itself. No answer yet,so I don’t think your prayers will work either. Now, I can keep you up to date on how your prayers are going. What excuse will you offer when they never work? Is it that you aren’t praying right? Your god doesn’t like you? Your god loves me as I am, an honest atheist? That your god simply doesn’t exist?

      • Really? You sound so much like my wife, when I am perfectly clear, so I’ll say it again because it bears repeating, AGAIN:

        “Anyone who has passed elementary level reading comprehension can clearly see that I was not “redefining” the word but plainly stating how people often reinterpret words to suit their needs, evidenced by what you did. I was clear that the word is ABUSED in such manner, and careful reading of my phrasing and parsing of the terms by using the parenthetical of “etymology” to expose its true meaning….”

        Now, I realize that an apology is in order, but I will never get it because that would involve humility, something you clearly do not have.

        I have found, that when something is getting passed around on blogs, as far and as fast as that story went, snopes.com is pretty quick to pick it up and either dismantle or confirm it, but they didn’t even touch it, and I have to wonder why they neither CONFIRMED nor DENIED it, but the fact that it appeared on a Jewish blog, from Israel, and the fact that there were notable headlines from regional newspapers about Hamas gunners who were complaining that in spite of accurate targeting information and skill, they simply could not hit their intended targets. I have to look at the story as legitimate, until I see evidence to the contrary.

        Then you go and make another one of those category errors I have been complaining about by bringing the Easter bunny, a modern marketing tool developed from one particular Christian tradition, German Lutheranism, into the conversation and try to equate it to something else. It’s, simply, a false argument.

        “So, Mary, if your god saved you, why did he kill Christ Smith down the street?” Because you fail to make the distinction between primary and secondary causes, yet another category error, (you’ve got a bad habit of that) and the fact that it is complex question, makes a lot of hidden assumptions (it’s the same as asking “have you stopped beating your wife?”), there is no way to answer the question without unpacking the presuppositions and dealing with the errors in logic first:
        God’s primary creative action does not make him responsible for the secondary action of his creatures.
        God has made clear his plans and intentions for his creatures in the revelation he has made available to them.
        God allows the consequences of the actions or inactions of his creatures to come to fruition.
        God is not under obligation to save anyone.
        Therefore, God cannot “kill” anyone.
        Therefore, whatever actions God does or does not take to act in opposition to his creatures’ in this world are freely his to make.
        Therefore, your question is fallacious.

        So, with that said, my “false accusations” demonstrated AGAIN as being both FACTUAL and true.

        Another instance of FAILING TO READ THE TEXT IN ITS CONTEXT. Matthew 5:38-39 is a specific context involving INSULT, not physical violence, or else his own rebuke of the guard who struck him at his trial, in John 18:22-23, would be pointless and, in fact, contradictory. And the fact that all 4 gospels mention that Peter did attempt to fight at Jesus’ arrest, with a sword, and that resulted in an injury, means that they took the command given in Luke seriously. Jesus stops them (professional fisherman) because they are fighting trained soldiers (it would be like me picking a fight with my nephew who is a professional MMA fighter) and the proper authorities: it was the Temple police, the organization involved with enforcing the law of Judea. Just because 3 of them do not mention the command, but all four reference the result gives it credit. So, what we have is simply a failure of reasoning on your part as to what the word “contradiction” means, (etymologically it means “opposite words”).

        Yes, he said to trust God, but for what? Whatever you think it is, it’s not.

        That’s funny. “God hasn’t sent his messiah yet”. Yes, he did, 2000 years ago, in the person of Jesus Christ. The fact that he hasn’t returned, yet, really isn’t an issue. Eve thought her son Cain was “the messiah”, those expectations were blown away when he murdered his brother. We don’t know how long between then and his appearance there was (4000 years according to those who hold to YEC, but since I don’t, I’m not going to even attempt a guess), so why should anyone try to put a time on his return, like a lot of people (Hagee, Lindsey, Van Impe, etc.) do, but the master of the house could return at any moment, so the servants make themselves busy so that none may be found slacking, proclaiming, “NOW is the day of salvation, NOW is the time to repent.” So, that’s not “cherry-picking”, that’s clear, proper biblical interpretation. “Cherry-picking” is what YOU are doing by picking apart the texts and holding them in opposition to one another. It’s a fallacious argument, I’ve demonstrated it, AGAIN.

        “Two creation stories”? No, there is one: God made the world and everything in it, in it’s proper time and place as described in Genesis 1:1-2:3 then, in following with typical Hebrew thinking process, the story backs up and focuses on a specific point to detail, that being the creation of man, his status as superintendent of creation, and then detailing his rejection of that role through his rebellion, which is Genesis 2:4-3:23. Everything is declared “good”, but you equivocate on what that word means in that context: the Hebrew word translated as “good” is not the same as the moral term of “good”. “Good” is the Genesis 1 context is “satisfactory, beneficial, agreeable”, it is NOT used in the moral sense UNTIL the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is set up. Fallacious thinking leads to the setting up of straw man arguments, which is why, “it makes no sense.” Further, it is NOT “A snake”, it is “THE one hissing accusation”, which is a better translation of the Hebrew word “nachash” (it is best to translate Hebrew in its context and not just a particular word), which is a subtle contextual echo to Job, which is probably the actual oldest and therefore FIRST book of the bible. What Adam and Eve may or may not have understood is irrelevant, they were given a simple warning, “do not eat,” with a consequent, “you will die.”

        Now, there is nothing “magic” about a flood. “Bloodthirsty” was a little hyperbole on my part, and the Jewish Mishnah describes that at that time men acted like beasts, but Genesis 6:11 is clear, “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence.” And between Genesis 4 and Genesis 6, we don’t know how much time has passed, but we do know that 100 years passed between the time that God gave Noah the command and the time that it was fulfilled. But what is interesting is that you judge Noah as being wrong for getting drunk in celebration after working hard and making a new life, but not his son who abused him while he was in that condition, and left him naked, (“saw his nakedness” is a sexual innuendo in Hebrew), something of a double-standard on your part. But then your entire position so far has been made up of fallacious argumentation so why should that surprise me now?

        Paul makes the argument in his Epistle to the Galatians IS that the law was meant to demonstrate 2 points: 1) man’s corruption, and 2) God’s standards and justice, and the last time I checked, that book is in the Bible, so again, false argumentation AND a false accusation on YOUR PART. You might want to pick it up and read it.

        Are you saying that a man shouldn’t treasure the woman he has taken as a wife? And please, do not attempt to compare what Boko Haram and ISIS are doing to what was allowed under Israelite law, it is a false argument and clearly, clearly demonstrably so. My bible commands death to those who take people for the purpose of selling them as slaves (Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7). That is the reason why I read it, so that I know what it says and represent it correctly.

        Really? My history books clearly taught that it was men of the church, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Bacon, who started the scientific revolution. They never questioned the assertions of Scripture, but questioned the assertions made by the philosophers of the day. Newton, in his Principe Mathmatica, made the point that what he was writing was to bring greater understanding to the wonders of the world made by God. In fact, every major scientific discovery or principle of the past 400 years was put forward by men, and a few women, who were firm believers in the truth of Scripture. They were the only ones who had a worldview capable of making and sustaining the claims, philosophically. If you watched less Cosmos and read more actual history books or their works, you might know this. Your attitude is, again, the result of a category error in understanding the nature of explanation as well as a profound philosophical bias.

        And no matter how many times I have demonstrated to the contrary, you keep making straw men. No Christian, being biblically literate and thoughtful, that I know of would argue that someone got sick because “they deserve” it. The only way that one could make such an argument would be that you knew that someone had, let’s say a cold, and you spent all day with them, and a few days later you came down with a cold. Being that modern science has demonstrated that viral infections, like colds, are highly contagious and you spent a great deal of time in close proximity to someone who had a cold, therefore, you “deserve” to have a cold because of your chosen activity, with “deserve” being in the logical outcome explanation. Likewise, the proverb, “if you lay down with dogs, you will get fleas”, means that if you hang around with a crowd of rabble-rousers, you “deserve” whatever consequence their behavior brings about. Again, you show your ignorance of history, because it was not until the Roman Church, through its position in the state, began enforcing the Levitical cleanliness code that the “Black Death” was curbed and eventually erradicated, and people began to ask “why” it was that worked and not “posies in the pocket” that we discovered microorganisms and bacteria and viruses. It was people opening the Scripture, seeing a truth or a principle explained at one level, then digging deeper into other levels to find out why it was so.

        Bart Ehrman, the happy agnostic, would laugh you out of his classroom at NC-Chapel Hill, to say that “there is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed at all.”
        In fact, at a recent Center For Inquiry conference, he such a statement by one person “stupid” for making such a statement. Jesus Christ is the best and earliest attested person in history. There is more, earlier, and better evidence for his existence than for any other person in antiquity. There are three, first-person testimonies that he did, one historian said that he did, he was prophesied in the Old Testament to do so, the very fact that he didn’t resist his arrest, something you’ve already pointed out, testifies to it, entire homilies of the early church fathers attest to it: there’s an abundance of evidence to the fact, you just refuse to accept it. The demonstration of the fact that the “bridge is out” is the fact that you protest so much against it.

        It would help if you had actually posted the books as well as the verses, faster anyway,

        Mark 16 is referring SPECIFICALLY to the apostles, NOT to the average believer. The Passages from ACTS is descriptive, not prescriptive, Luke is DESCRIBING the events historically NOT prescribing a formula. The passage from Matthew is, again, DESCRIPTIVE. 1 Corinthians, states that the gifts of the Spirit are given AS NEEDED, one of which is the gift of “iamatōn”, “a means of producing medicine for healing”. The passage form James is a mistranslation, the Greek is LITERALLY “saved” not “well”, James is referring to a spiritual state, which is why there is “confession of sin” and the symbolic anointing of the Spirit by application of oil, James is writing to Jews who would have understood the symbolism. Every one of those is right, except for the mistranslation in James and the unclear translation in 1 Corinthians, and true in their context and have application to this day. The only “healing” ever “promised” in Scripture is the healing of man’s relationship to God through repentance of sin and belief in the finished work of Christ. And you must have me confused with those King-James-Onlyists, of which I am not.

        Uh, no. He was prophesying of the destruction of Jerusalem which would come almost 40 years later, in AD70, with the absolute destruction that he promised. And I’ve told you NOT to read into verses.

        I can’t help it if you don’t accept what is being taught in the biology classes of accredited research universities and published in biology textbooks, you need to take it up with the writers of them and not with me. This is one of the most recent textbooks out there, http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Robert-Brooker/dp/007353224X/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421381254&sr=1-5&keywords=biology+textbook , and it clearly states that, on average, the human body regenerates its cells every 7-10 years. In chemistry, the “percentage of Hydrogen”, or pH SCALE determines the acidity of chemicals. Physics and chemistry DO NOTHING BUT DESCRIBE THE WORLD AND ITS INTERACTIONS AROUND US. The sooner that you get around that category error the easier your life will be.

        Um, what evidence do you have to support your assertion that, “The god idea came first and then the claims of what a god “must” be came after…”, besides your assertion? Romans 1 is clear, what can be known about God is made known in nature, namely his eternal nature and power. When I was studying world religions, I noticed that there were some interesting contradictions in the concepts of all of those gods that you mentioned, namely that they had characteristics of men and animals. They all, including your buddy “Tez”, and his parents, began after the universe or make the claim that the universe itself is eternal and that the gods are a product of the universe. The fact that the universe in infinite is something that modern cosmology and astrophysics has demonstrated is false. There are only 2 religions that posit not only a finite universe, but a God who preexisted it and created the universe and everything in it: Christianity and Islam. Islam has so many contradictions that it cannot be true. That leaves only one, Christianity. Philosophers have looked at the world around them and made arguments about the universe and its constituent parts, cosmological, teleological, and moral, among others.

        The cosmological argument:
        Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
        The universe began to exist.
        Therefore, the universe has a cause.
        Since the universe is composed of space, time, and matter, logically, the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, as well as incredibly powerful, intelligent, and personal.
        These concepts are consistent with the biblical presentation of God.
        Therefore, God exists.

        The teleological argument:
        There are features in nature that give appearance of design.
        A design requires a designer.
        Therefore, the features in nature are designed.
        These designs are intricate and interlinked, would require foresight to be successful, and do not appear gradually in nature.
        Such foresight would require the feature of omniscience, which is a characteristic of God.
        Therefore, God exists.

        The moral argument:
        To claim that something is “morally evil” is to appeal to an objective standard of something that is “morally good”.
        If God does not exist, then there is no objective standard to appeal to as being “morally good”.
        There are things which are described as being “morally good” and “morally evil” in an objective sense.
        Therefore, God exists.

        When you were “losing your faith”, did you consider these things? Did you look into the reliability of the New Testament documents? The historicity of Jesus? Probably not, because what you were looking for was a reason to excuse choices that you wanted to make, or had already made; choices that would have labeled you as a hypocrite, or worse.

        Wow, do you grow your own straw, or do you buy it in bulk? If you’re going to quote Voltaire, at least give the ENTIRE quote:
        “Whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust. If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.”
        Funny how a little context changes things. Voltaire, speaking about that which has been clearly revealed in Scripture, and is clear to the conscience, and how man allows that to be twisted to suit the cause of a time rather than the cause of all time. Voltaire wasn’t a religious man, but he was a sensible one.

        When I read Job, I see a man who realized what he had, and even though he was sad about it being taken away, even when he was howling in agony, even when his own wife begged him, “to curse God and die”, he asked the most stunning question that everyone seems to miss, “If I was willing to accept good from God, shall I also not accept that which is evil? God gives everything and he can take it away, blessed forever is His name.” And everyone thinks it was about some “bet”, then they obviously miss the point: that God was trying to get through to Job’s pretentious friends who stubbornly accused him of doing wrong because they were jealous of him, of course you have to read the ENTIRE book to get to that point.

        “Poor god, can’t do anything to make things equal…” He made things equal, making man in his image, as male and female. Two halves of humanity, equal in qualities of reason, emotion, relation, and moral capacity, yet distinct in purpose. This is another one of those equivocations, one of those logical fallacies you cling to. While God made men equal, he DID NOT make them the same. He gives everyone the same earth, the same sky, the same faculties, all of which are made to cry out to him, but man in his rebellion goes, “It’s not fair!” And everywhere you go in this world that there’s people, guess what you find: food, water, shelter, even in the harshest of environments. From the arctic circle to the deepest deserts, wherever man is, he is using his faculties to tame the world he has been given to govern, still trying to fulfill ONE of the commands he was given. It’s becoming clear that you have not thought this through.

        The first death that separates one from this life, that’s also in Revelation 21, and brings one to judgment where the “second death” that separates one from God and puts him where he was not meant to go: into the place that was made to punish the angels who rebelled along with Satan. No one ever ceases to exist, they can’t, but they can stop living in a meaningful and productive sense. Again, death is not the punishment, the “lake of fire” is the punishment.

        My parents did. I was a stubborn child. So I resent your accusation of “vermin”.

        Um, wrong. One can violate their purpose, like using a wrench to drive a nail instead of a hammer is a violation of the purpose of the wrench. And if you are meaning that there a a lot of same-sex-attracted people, that’s how they like to refer to themselves, who are believers, then yes. No one can be a practicing homosexual and claim to be a Christian, because Jesus, in Matthew 19, gives his followers only 2 choices in their sexual expression: 1) lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage, or 2) celibacy. That’s it, a short list.

        Yes, God is under no obligation to reveal himself now that he has made full revelation of who He is in Christ Jesus, who has charged those whom he calls to be his representatives and to present a defense for what they believe. He revealed himself earlier, as needed, to keep the ship on course until the day of his appearing. Jesus’ brothers said the same thing to him, and he did what I’m going to do now, shrug you off.

        Really, I think if you scroll back through this response, you’ll see where I have demonstrated that you are very good at false arguments, like the fact that you assume that you are a decent person, because I ask again: COMPARED TO WHOM ARE YOU DECENT AND WHAT STANDARD ARE YOU USING TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT AND WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT? You’ve already admitted that you have lied in the past; so, using the scientific principle of uniformitarianism, I have to assume that you are lying about the fact that you are a decent person now. Further, the fact that I have demonstrated that you have consistently misrepresented positions and used fallacious argumentation further throws doubt on your claim. In other words, you are digging your own grave, and I’m about ready to fill it back in, figuratively speaking.

        A straw man is when you misrepresent a position in order to dismiss it out of hand. You pejoratively label what God has clearly defined as equal to and, in some cases, worse than a physical act as a “thought crime” in order to dismiss it without actually demonstrating why an intention is not equal to an action. You just assert it as such without making a case as to why the fact is so. Clear enough?

        There is a distinct difference between “making a claim” and demonstrating why a position is true. In all that’s been said, you have yet to even attempt to demonstrate why your position is even remotely true. You’ve made plenty of false accusations though, demonstrated an ability to create some creative fallacious arguments, divorce statements from context, make huge generalizations, and make rambling assertions, so much so that I have devoted almost an entire day to interpreting this mess of a missive that has gone completely off the trail of what it was originally about. So before you even attempt to reply to this, I want you to think about WHAT you believe, WHY you think that it is true, and HOW it can be consistently lived, more than that, you can’t steal from my worldview to do it. Here’s a tip: if it takes more than 200 words, it’s wrong.

      • It’s so cute to see you making the same false claims. Sorry, haven’t stolen anything from your worldview. You may keep that nasty piece of work.

        So, we have nearly 4000 words from someone who wants to claim that if an answer is long, it’s wrong.  Ah, the hypocrisy. It’s always great to see you so desperately trying to make rules in the game so you might have some small chance of winning. You see, Jake, no one has to follow your made-up rules.
        Jake, no matter how many times you claim you weren’t redefining, it still doesn’t make it true. You have repeatedly claimed that words are “abused” and have tried to redefine what they should “really” mean despite being shown what they actually do mean. You have tried to claim that love is only what Jake says it is so you can greedily keep it for youself and your version of your religion. And as always, you fail amazingly. So, no Jake, you do not deserve and will not get an apology.

        Again, there is still nothing to show that your magical missile story is true. Oooh, snopes hasn’t done a story disproving the tooth fairy, so that means it’s true! Yep, great logic there, Jake. And golly, there’s a story on a Muslim blog that Allah is great and Mohammed is his prophet. Why, that must be true too! Shucks, now why are we both still not Muslims? If you are so gullible to believe anything on a blog without considering it false, well, there’s your problem. Again, we know that the crappy weapons that the idiots in the middle east use are known to be bad at hitting targets. No god required.

        Hmmm, still nothing from you about what category errors actually are. Again, Jake, there is no more evidence for your god than there is for the easter bunny, or any creator god that other religions, used, defined just like your poor god. I do like you throwing that phrase around as if you know what you are doing. It’s always great to see Christians try to pretend their god is in some magically “different” category, when it is not, the same when you try to try to tell me that there are things like “primary causes” and “secondary causes”. So, Jake, tell me what those are, so we can see just how I supposedly make these category errors. These claims of yours are quite like the usual Christian claim of “context” or “complexity”. You have no idea what that actually means, but golly if it doesn’t sound important to you since you’ve seen other people use it.

        Thank you for hitting yet one more mark for the usual Christian, depowering your god so you can excuse it. Amazing how your god is suddenly not responsible for what it makes. Which is hilarious when one does consider all of the claims of how this god “saves” people by miracles by controlling and being responsible for what it makes. Again, miracles make the claims you’ve just made about your god false, so we have the question: which claim by Jake shall we believe? If there are miracles, this god doesn’t allow the consequences of the actions or inactions of his creatures to come to fruition. This god says that it would save everyone, the whole “shepherd and sheep” thing, but now Jake says it won’t. If this god saves some people and not others, there is no reason why and this god is just some random idiot that has no direction to its actions. This god kills people left and right in its supposed holy book. Glad to see you say that the holy book is wrong. This god kills Uzzah. This god kills just about everyone and everything in the flood. This god will kill everyone that doesn’t worship it in the future if the ergot-induced delusion of Revelation is true. So, yes, Jake, God can kill anyone.

        Again, miracles from this god of yours show that your claim are false. But we can go with not believing that miracles occur, and that would be fine too. Still no factual or true statements from you at all.

        Oh, there we go! The claim of context that so many Christians love. Matthew 5 is not just about insults. It’s great when Christians intentionally lie. Let’s look at the verses: “38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”

        First, there is nothing in the context about insults only. Not one verse, but Jake, if you want to cite which chapeter and verse says this, please go right ahread. Now, the eye for eye, tooth for tooth is right from the OT. It’s how your god said to fight and punish those who harm you, Exodus 21, Leviticus 24, Deuteronomy 19 . Now, JC is saying that this is wrong, and that one should not resist those enemies, no matter how they might harm you e.g. insult you *and* persecute you like they did the prophets, which they did insult and did murder.

        Again, your claims of context are wrong. The context of these verses is that the verses of the OT that said fight and punish those that harm you are now considered wrong by Jesus, that one should never fight or punish those that harm you. The verse in Matthew of JC’s rebuke has JC asking why he was struck, this does not say that JC tried to strike him back. We have JC saying that no violence was to be done to others in his name, when the sword was used to harm a servant. There is nothing about why JC stops them other than his pacifistic ideals. You have entirely made up that JC was afraid for his friends fighting soldiers, because we know that if it is necessary this god can have non-fighters win against soldiers. Again, we know that there are contradictions in what JC is claimed to have believed with the whole “go buy a sword” thing. Great to see you again try to redefine contradiction. Again, doesn’t matter what the word came from but what it means now. Your god contradicts itself in what it says to do.

        I love how you now just whine that whatever I think something in the bible means, that it simply doesn’t mean that no matter what, no matter what the evidence that shows your wrong. Great technique there, Jake. Alas, for you, it does say what to trust this god for: everything.

        It’s nice to see you also trying misrepresent my words. The Jews do not believe that their god, and therefore, your god sent any messiah yet. They have good reasons to not believe your religion’s nonsense since there is no evidence that JC even existed. And Eve thought Cain was the messiah? I suppose that could be the case, though she could have just as well thought that her son would have killed a snake. In either case, we have had claims of messiah and all of them are failures. As are all of the claims of some god returning in the future. It’s the old story, Christian is sure that everyone else is wrong, but tries to tell me that he’s the only one who is right and who has “clear proper biblical interpretation”. You see, Jake, that Hagee, Lindsey, and you all say the same things and all fail.

        There are two creation stories, because they don’t match. Biggest problem is that one says that man and women are created together and one says that rib myth. Again, you are making up things from whole cloth since “good” is translated to mean the same thing, good work and good morals. Same with the snake, and no it is not “the one hissing in accusation”. How do I know, that the snake’s story is one of those lovely “just-so” stories on why snakes slither and don’t have legs. The context says that I am right and you are wrong. Also, no evidence that Job is the oldest book in the bible. I’m more than happy to say it is the “oldest and therefore FIRST book of the bible” because that does a great job in showing that your bible’s claim of a creation story as the oldest book is false. Good to see you say that parts of your bible are “irrelevant” as long as you can’t respond to how they fail and how your claims about them fail. Amazing how many times that happens with you, Jake.

        Again, we see Jake back down from his nonsense. Again, we see that your claims aren’t supported with fact when you tried to claim that people were “bloodthirsty” to excuse your god’s flood nonsense, a flood that never happened. . Again, how does this work with allowing Noah to build a boat if everyone around him was violent and “bloodthirsty”? If the “earth was filled with violence” thaht would make it rather hard for a couple of guys to get enough wood to build something that had to contain thousands and thousands of animals. I judge people for getting drunk and then cursing one human being for the acts of another, assuming that this nonsense was true. Again, nothing says that Noah got drunk in “celebration”; they celebrated with a offering. One more think that Jake makes up. I think what Canaan did was rather bizaare, and I never said it was okay, nice lie to say I did. However, is it okay to curse someone for the actions of another, Jake? It’s a simple question. Did Noah do a good thing or a bad thing when he cursed Ham for something his father did?

        Paul may make two points, but the rest of the bible disagrees with Paul. Jesus disagrees with Paul, because Jesus says that one should keep the entire law. Again, no surprise to see disagreements and contradictions. Shall we believe Jesus or Paul? Shall we go with the guy that says that the law is still in effect, and that one should follow it until the earth and heaven passes away, and the god that said to follow these laws or die, or the guy who said JC is wrong and who knows nothing about what JC actually taught?

        Your supposed savior said that one should not treasure anything of this earth. Nothing at all. Indeed, it has that being unmarried is the preferred way to go. Your OT laws are the exact same as the laws that ISIS and Boko Haram are following. It is not a false argumenet at all, though I am sure you would wish no one to point this out. Your bible commands death for being homosexual and the evil bastards with ISIS are killing homosexuals. Your bible command death for not following the Sabbath, and surprise! ISIS and Boko Haram are doing the same thing. Your bible commands to kill women who aren’t “pure” and ISIS and BH are doing the same thing! Your bible does say that one kill kidnappers and Deut 24 repeats that, which makes both appear only about fellow Israelites. Why don’t we look at the other verses in that chapter of Exodus. You can sell your daughter into slavery, and she can’t be let free like men. A man must remain a slave if he doesn’t want his wife and children sold and taken from him. Slaves can be beaten with no problem and you can even kill them with just a punishment not death. Now, let’s consider slaves of other types. Hey, you can buy and keep children of other people: Leviticus 25. God calls for everyone to be slaughtered of a people but the girls who had sex, says to give them as slaves to the soldiers and takes his share as payment to the temple. (numbers 31) Then we have the good ol’ NT, where JC and Paul say that slaves should never try to be free. They should obey and remain slaves no matter what, Ephesians 6, 1 Timothy 6, and the best one: 1 Peter 2:18. Your religion commands death to only people who take its “chosen” as slaves and gives the big thumb up to slaves otherwise. And this is the reason that I read the bible. To show when Christians are intentionally saying something completely false. Lies by omission are still lies.

        You seem to not know what Copernicus, Galileo, Newton etc actually believed. They were considered heretics so they are not your so desperately needed “men of the Church”. They constantly questioned the assertion of your bible. They came up with how to interpret it in all sorts of ways that differed what the Church at that time, and what you believe now. Your claim that “every major scientific discovery or principle” in the last 400 years were put forward by people who believed as you do is entirely wrong. Einstein did not believe in your god at all. He at most believed in a vague deistic being. But that doesn’t stop Christians from lying about him again and again. Niels Bohr was an atheist but golly if he didn’t come up with much about atomic theory. Crick and Watson, the fellows who researched DNA, atheists. Paul Dirac, quantum mechanics, not a theist. Alfred Nobel, yep, the guy who started the Nobel Prize, not a believer. It doesn’t stop you from lying about Newton who came up with a way to determin the “end days”, Galileo and Copernicus who said that the religion was wrong when it claimed that the earth was at the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it and could stop for a day. Bacon showed that one didn’t need to believe in miracles but could experiment. Your religion depends on lie after lie. It’s sad. Nice to see that your claims that I don’t read history books is also a lie.

        Ah, here we go again, with Jake the TrueChristian, trying to claim that no one but him and those who agree with him are Christians “being biblically literate and thoughtful”. You try to ignore the history of your religion, which people did indeed say that people got sick because they deserved it, that their god was “angry” with them. We get that nonsense constantly from people who are Christians who have said that AIDS was “deserved”, that it is “God’s punishment”. So, your attempt to deny what your fellow Christians say is demonstrably wrong. You may not want to count these people as Christians, but they are as Christians as you. It’s fun to watch you try to again twist words so you can pretend that deserve doesn’t mean what it does in context with the claims of Christians.

        The Roman Catholic Church did not enforce any “Levitical” cleanliness code and thus this didn’t curb the black death. However, if you have evidence of this, please show it. People did start to ask why their god’s promises of healing and safety didn’t work and did start asking questions and finding that there was no truth in the bible but there was truth in experimentation. That’s what brought about the questioning of the superstition that the church kept spreading. Again, if the church was so great and so true, why were there hundreds of years that nothing was done?

        You seem to not have read Ehrman’s books either. Ehrman says that it is historically possible that there was a itinerant rabbi called Yeshua ben Yusuf in the eastern Med. What Ehrman doesn’t say is that there is evidence for a man/god that did miracles, and rose from the dead. So which is the one you worship, Jake? If you worship the man who was a teacher and who died and never rose, I’m good with that. Are you?
        Jesus Christ is not the best and earliest attested person in history. Not even a little. There are not three first person testimonies. There are the stories in your bible, which disagree repeatedly. There is nothing to show that they are first person at all. There is no evidence that this person existed or fulfilled the prophecies in the OT, and we have quite a few Jews who say you are utterly wrong. There was no arrest so there is nothing that says he resisted it or didn’t.

        There is no evidence of a risen god, or the dead walking the streets, or an earthquake or the sky darkening on the same day. NO historians said that JC did anything. I am guessing that you are referring to Josephus and that part is a known forgery. Christians are so desperate for “evidence” that they claim that the mention of Christians is evidence for Christ. Which would mean that the mention of any believer of any god is evidence for this god. Is it, Jake? I can make just as good of an argument that Spiderman exists because there are books about him too, and golly New York City exists. Again, your claim that the bridge is out can be ignored because there was never a bridge there in the first place.

        For someone who is so sure he knows the bible, such complaints. Again, Mark 16 is not only about the apostles. See that word “whoever”? That’s what says you are mistaken when you say the words are only about the apostles. Yep, there are historical claims, so why no healing now, Jake? If the gifts of the spirit are given, why not now? Why no Christians at all can do what is promised ever? I do love when people claim “mistranslation”. So, did God get it wrong when the translators supposedly prayed to him for help? Again, your supposed savior healed people physically repeatedly, so in context, there is no reason at all to believe your excuse that healing was only “spiritual”.

        All in all, it’s great to see Christians disagree and tell me that only their version and interpretation is the true one. I also enjoy when you read in to verses and tell me what they must mean and then scold me for doing the same thing. Tsk.

        Again, biologists are not saying that the entire body is replaced every 7to 10 years. You gave a link to a biology book and claimed it “clearly states” this. Where, Jake? Not even a “look inside” possibility here, so where are you claiming the quote? Parts of the body do replace themselves, at vastly differing rates, but we know that many, if not most neurons do not. If these claims of complete replacement were true, then people would never die of cancer or have degenerative diseases. Like yours.

        My life is doing quite well, so I have no reason to accept your nonsense. Again, with the category errors, as id that is a magical chant.

        The idea of your god came first, as a regular old bronze/iron age god, with the usual failures of such a god. It was only relatively recently that apologists needed to try to make this god to be something more vague since their very personal god with feet and petty jealousies was failing when people wondered about how it could exist. My evidence, the bible, the writings of the church fathers, and the rise of philosophers who have decided that this god is a “ground of being” and other lovely meaningless words.

        Most if not every theist, has claimed that “If you just look around, you’ll see evidence of my god.” They all use the claim and none of them can show that a god made anything, much less only their god. So, again, we have plenty of gods like your god and still nothing showing that your version is any more right than anyone else’s. The gods that I mentioned didn’t all have aspects of man and animals, and most importantly, your god does too. Yep, this god is jealous, ignorant, has a body, chats with humans and impregnates them, etc. Again, your reading about world religions, and your reading of my post, selectively ignores those gods that are creators of the universe and are not products of it. Nice willful ignorance there. Alas, that never makes information go away. As for modern astrophiscs and cosmology having supposedly demonstrated that the universe is infinite is false, that’s not true either. We simply don’t know right now. It could go on with an infinite number of big bangs. And oh my, you think that there are only two religions that posit a finite universe, but a god that was present at its creation and created everything in it? No, that’s not true either. Some versions of Wicca, Zoroasterianism, do this. Jake, Islam has as many contradictions in it as your religion does. Now, a Muslim will do just like you do and insist that the contradictions aren’t contradictions just like you do. And of course, none of you still has any evidence your god exists.

        Philosophers have also made many arguments about the universe. Plenty say your religion is nonsense. Again, no evidence that they are right either. All lovely thought problems but as bereft of reality as your religion.

        Cosmological argument fails because we have no idea if things need causes or not. Physics seems to indicate no. Still can apply to any god, not only yours since we have established your god isn’t the only one with the attributes you’ve claimed.

        Teleological argument fails because it 1. Can apply to any god. 2. We know that order can arise without something acting on something else. It also assumes that the pieces of a mousetrap can’t be used for anything else and assumes that the world is perfect which we know is not the case. Your omnipotent omniscient being makes really bad designed even just looking at humans. Now, you’ll probably claim that the screwups in human design are from “sin” but that would indicate your god’s designs can be screwed up and that screw up passed along to people who aren’t “guilty”. That invalidates any claim that your god is just at all.

        Moral argument also fails. Again, no way to show that its your go. And we can have an objective moral standard without a god. There is no thing necessary to have a god at all. The concept of a objective good can exist without god and one can demonstrate that your god, by its bible, is not objectively good because it contradicts itself in what it will condone and not.

        Yep, considered all of these things and knew that they were bad arguments that only someone who was ignorant would believe. The new testament documents are not reliable. They contradict each other, and they contradict reality since some of the claims in them never happened. They may occasionally consistent, but again, consistence between stories would make Scientology just as true as you claim your Christianity is. Again, Jesus Christ son of God is not itinerant rabbi who died and stayed dead. So your claims against me are wrong again, since I did indeed look into all of that which you claim I haven’t. You have been found to be lying again.

        Again, you seem to think that since Voltaire mentioned god, he agrees with you. He doesn’t, as anyone would know if they had read Voltaire’s works. The problem with your attempt to claim Voltaire agreeing with you is that he does not agree with you on what is “obvious” about this god. This shows that neither you or Voltaire have any claim to any thing being “clearly revealed” in scripture. You each believe the other is absurd.

        Job was about “some bet”. It’s funny how people think that because that’s exactly what it says. They are not missing the point, they are reading what your book says word for word. There is nothing in this about this god’s intent being “getting through to his pretentious friends”. That is again made up wholesale by you to excuse your god’s actions and inaction. Your version is interesting because again it shows your god allowing people to be killed for no reason. You even make it worse. Yep, allow your archenemy to kill a man’s family to teach someone else a lesson. Why how could anyone think that was evil. Why even the best organized crime people kill people to “teach” others a lesson. I have read the entire book. It ends with this god admitting it was wrong, and trying to excuse its actions by giving Job a new family and more wealth, just like a guilty man would pay wereguild. If god was proud of what it did, then why attempt to correct the evil it did?

        Again, equal means the same. This god has not given everyone the same earth, the same faculties etc. One just needs to look around to see that, assuming that this god exists. The actual answer is that this god doesn’t exist and doesn’t parcel out anything. People don’t have the same faculties, unless you want to say a blind man can see as well as I can. Do you? And no, these faculties are not to just cry out to your particular god. Other religions don’t agree and again you have no evidence to support your claims.

        No, there are not people everywhere. Not in the sea, not on the mountains above a certain level. No one lives in the deepest deserts. You again haven’t thought your claims through at all. Not all of the same “earth” some have much better environments than others. I’d certainly prefer to live in temperate areas rather than the Atacama desert. Yep, it has been quite a long time for humans to change their world. And funny how your church never contributed to that at all. No sudden revelation about irrigation, fertilizer, genetic manipulation, al things that we could have been doing long long ago, if we hadn’t have to figure it out ourselves.

        Again, death is the punishment. If you’ll recall, people were driven out of Eden as a punishment and that was that we would now die, unable to eat of the tree of life.

        Always nice to see you declare who and who can’t be a Christian. More of the same Christian insisting that his version alone is the only “true” one. You of course ignore the other words that JC says about who can really be a true chrisitans because it would make your life not nearly as comfy as it is.

        Again, your god hasn’t made a full revelation if people don’t believe in him and with good reason. Your claims make your god a liar when it says that it would do anything to retrieve the lost sheep, and what Jesus supposedly did with Thomas. “Shrug you off” isn’t what the bible says at all. But nice of you to add it.

        It’s always interesting when a Christian like you has to insist that if I just looked back at what you wrote, I’d have to agree. Nope, not at all, what wishful thinking. I am a decent person compared to you and your god. I help people. I do not command genocide. I do not lie about other people. Pretty easy measurements right there. I’m qualified because I am intelligent and empathic. I am certainly better than some violent petty imaginary deity. Why yes, I lied as a child. And now that’s all you have to attack me with. That since I lied as a child, I must be some horrible person. Congrats, Jake. It’s hilarious to see you misuse uniformitarianism to try to back up your lies. No, dear, there is nothing that says that if I lied as a child, I would like as an adult about being a decent person. Not even uniformitarianism. Because things change. Welcome to reality.

        You have proved nothing that you have claimed about me. Making an accusation is not proof. Still waiting for evidence where I used a strawman. I have not misrepresented anything. You may not have liked how I have represented it but that does not mean it was in error. You god said hat intention was equal to action. I pointed that out, I did not say that it was correct. And not citing examples is again not a strawman. Wow. But let me demonstrate: Your god says intent is equal to action. I asked then why it did nothing to someone who intended to kill innocents and allow the crime to be committed in reality. If intent and actions should be punished equally, then why allow the action to happen? And why a thought crime less awful than a physical one? People are harmed. In a thought crime, no one is harmed. Clear enough?

        You are right, there is a difference between making a claim and being able to demonstrate that a claim is true. You have made the claim and not shown that your claims are true, e.g. you have presented no evidence. I have shown evidence, and simply gainsaying me will not make it vanish. You make claims that I have made fallacious statements and false accusations. I have asked you to show me which these are and you have not. It seems you have no evidence of your claims again.

        And again, great to see a post of almost 4000 words when you end whining that no answer is valid if its over 200. Good one, Jake. I have already thought about what I know is true, why I know its true and how to live with it. Still don’t agree with your lies. I guess that means they aren’t true at all, if your worldview depends on that.

        And your parents are vermin if they intentionally allowed you to touch a hot stove no matter how stubborn you were. I have no problem standing firmly behind that statement. It does explain why you offer so many excuses for your god if you have to offer excuses for abusive parents. The arguments for both are often the same.

      • 5,127. That’s how many words were in your reply. There were 4,057 in the one before that. And you want to complain about my little 3,935 words. I so miss the days of comment boxes that were limited so that you had to make your point in the fewest words possible. But any way…

        Don’t make assertions that you simply can’t back up with evidence: when you make a claim of “false accusation”, you better be able to demonstrate WHY it’s false. And if you don’t want my worldview, fine; just remember that apart from it you cannot call anything morally good or morally evil because you have no ground on which to attach to make the claim, it’s just your opinion, and they’re like armpits: everyone’s got a couple and they stink.

        It’s my comment thread, so, yes, I get to make the rules, if you don’t like it, stop replying. Remember, you picked this fight.

        And as you can see by the fact that I presented the quote, in context:
        “Coincidence” is probably one of the most misunderstood and abused words in the English language, often meant to express something as being “by chance” or “random”, because it means that multiple incidents are running together (etymologically), but fails to ask anything about the drivers of those incidents, as to primary and secondary causes. “

        This is what you said:
        No, coincidence does mean by chance or random:” the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection; also : any of these occurrences” (Merriam-webster) There is no misunderstanding of it or misuse of it.

        So, what EXACTLY is the difference between the “dictionary meaning” and what I said, huh? All that you did was AGREE with me, but because of your desire to be contradictory, you couldn’t even bring yourself to simply agree with me, in principle.

        Then you’ve got to go and make more category errors: confusing historical facts (Mohammed IS the prophet of Islam) with a news story. But I noticed that you STILL have yet to produce any evidence to disprove the claim, just a lot of HAND-WAVING. But I guess when facts and evidence aren’t on your side, logical fallacies are all that you have to fall back on. It’s easy to drop back into ad hominem argumentation, another logical fallacy, when you don’t have any argument or evidence of your own.

        Yes, category errors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake), something that you clearly excel at making, something that would get you laughed out of every intro to logic class in every university. First, what do you mean by “evidence”? You’ve previously said, and I quote, “I do not mistake evidence for experimental repeatability, which can indeed be evidence.” But, you keep falling back into that trap: “show me evidence”, implying something experimentally repeatable, I show you evidence, “I won’t accept that evidence”. I have demonstrated the historic roots of the Easter bunny, just like we can demonstrate the historic roots of Santa Claus, which has roots in history but has grown in legendary scale, but as someone much smarter that I once said, “I’ve known a lot of people who’ve come to believe in God in old age, but I’ve never known anyone who came to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny late in life.” You ONTOLOGICALLY confuse that which is obviously mythical (the Easter bunny) with that which is philosophically possible (God). The greatest evidence for God is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is a definite and historic event.

        Not responsible for what it makes? Let’s see: God made man, made him morally upright, placed him in a position to prove his love and appreciation to his Maker, in which he was given responsibility for everything under his care, and rejected it. So, I’m confused about just who is responsible? This is another one of those CATEGORY ERRORS: God, who is sovereign, delegates; to those to whom he delegates, he gives responsibility; to those whom he gives responsibility he holds to accountability. So, I wasn’t “depowering” anyone, but explaining the flow of power from its source to its recipient. The way that God superintends his creation, through inducing fear or increasing boldness, is well within his rights, but when people go beyond the boundaries he has established, he holds them accountable. This is the balance of wills: we are declared “free” in Genesis 2, but with that freedom comes responsibility, but we are also dead in our sins, and dead men don’t really have a right to complain about anything that is done to them. And, again, having actually read the text, I find NO WHERE, where there is even a remote promise to “save everyone”. The greatest miracle is that ANYONE is saved, AT ALL.

        “Claim of context”? There is no “claim” there is a FACT of context, in fact you are having to use it as you read this statement. But I am glad that you brought up Deuteronomy 19, because its actually deals with two relevant points: 1) the forbidding of PERSONAL retribution, what Jesus was reinforcing against the teaching of the Pharisees who had been permitting it (“You have heard…”<==Begs the question, "what had been ‘heard’, what had the people been taught up to this point?") and 2) the fact that the same text defines WHO is authorized to issue such punishment, namely the judges. Paul echoes this teaching, really he hashes it out in more detail, in Romans 12:17-13:7. And I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE for you to show me those verses where it says to "fight and punish those that harm you”, because I can’t find them anywhere.

        You have this thing with saying “contradiction” but not what is being contradicted. The fact that Luke tells us why they had swords is contradictory to what exactly? Not to what is said in Matthew 5 because that is about PERSONAL RETRIBUTION, so what? If we read the context of Luke 22, when Jesus recalls sending them out on their first missionary journey where he told them NOT to take a sword so that they would not be seen as hostile, like the Zealots who went around stirring up dissension against the Romans (historical CONTEXT), when speaking about the kingdom in their proclamations, but as peaceful. So if you mean that he is “contradicting" what he told them then, then you are correct, in a sense, because he is preparing them for something else. But then that wouldn’t necessarily be a contradiction, but a retraction with an issuing of new orders.

        But again, in Matthew 6, you’re separating the passage from its larger context, which is the Lord’s prayer, and its focus: God’s kingdom. But what’s interesting is that Jesus is using a term that refers to wild birds, birds that have to work to survive from one day to the next, and the temporary aspect of wild flowers that are gathered up to build a fire as well as the contrast of the person who is focused on doing what is right in God’s sight as opposed to the one’s who aren’t and what their general concerns are, which is stuff that has no lasting value, then he transitions up to the greater glory. God knows what we need and has provided the means to achieve those things physically and spiritually, temporally and eternally. So, yes we should "trust God for everything”, but not in the pejorative and lazy sense that you are implying.

        Jesus said to “not store up treasures on earth”, or “do not focus on accumulating treasures” (how the NET translates the verb “thēsaurizete”), not, "that one should not treasure anything of this earth”, which is a complete MISREPRESENTATION of Jesus’ words.

        You’re right, Jesus did not hit back, he didn’t have to, for two reasons: 1) he was legally in the in the right by questioning the authority of his examiners, 2)the Temple officer was in the wrong because Jesus was making an offhand point that Annas was NOT the high priest and had no authority to judge him according to Jewish law. Again that “context”-thing.

        Now, God “could” have done anything, even given them “victory”, but that wasn’t what he wanted or what had to be done. So, your objection just went…well…poof! But that’s what happens when you hypothesize about history rather than just accepting the facts as they’re stated.

        Uh, Mark 16. Since vs.9-20 are a late 2nd century emendation to the text, that they are not original nor do they appear in the best manuscripts of Mark, there is reason to simply ignore them in whole or in part. Vs.9-16 seem to echo Luke, and even use his phraseology, and appear earlier but still aren’t original. Vs.17-20 are an enigma and seem to draw on Acts description of the apostles, in specific instances, therefore are not considered to be NORMATIVE, but instances of special circumstance, and even believed by some commentators to be metaphorical. And I can’t help what other Christians believe about specific texts, usually though they have faulty argumentation that is based on bad information, much of it like your information and argumentation come to think of it. And every “promise” that has been made to believers has been kept, the gifts of the Spirit still come. The problem is that people think that they are spectacular and powerful, when sometime they’re subtle, seemingly unremarkable, but how does one explain why a missionary can master a language they’ve never even heard of in a matter of weeks or months apart from the gift of tongues, or how a missionary doctor can do his work in areas with not even basic sanitation and minimal equipment apart from the gifts of healing; every gift manifests in various ways and in various degrees, as needed. But people act like if they don’t get something like they expect then its not true, which is simply a fallacious argument.

        Jews, at that time, did and even some today do, but it depends on what the term “Jew" means: are you referring to those who are participants in JUDAISM, which can include people who are not Jews, or are you referring to those who are Jews by ETHNICITY? If you are referring to the former, which is a bastardization of its form that is presented in the Tanahk, then yes, its quite true, but then we have to analyze their claims for consistency, and how they favor the Mishhah and the Talmud over the Torah, the Nebi’im and the Ketu’vim, but if you mean the latter, then you have to explain why any ethnicity OUTSIDE of it believes in Christ, after all it began within that culture. So I'm not sure if you've committed a fallacy of equivocation or of genetics, or made such a broad generalization that the argument itself isn't valid.

        Oh, maliciously joyful one, why do you have to engage in fallacious arguments? The anthropomorphic fallacy alone is enough to dismiss your hasty generalization about “bronze/iron age gods”, because anyone who has actually studied world religions (hand raised) and philosophy of religion (hand raised) and has spent time studying the actual arguments (my arm is getting tired), would realize that there is such a distinct and significant difference between biblical claims, which are based in history, and the claims of any other religion, which are based in sophistry and myth, the difference is so remarkable its undeniable, but it requires an unbiased mind, one that hasn’t formed its opinions based on fallacious arguments, and ignorant, demonstrably false assertions, like, “[the] gods that I mentioned didn’t all have aspects of man and animals…”, when every one, aside from the God of Scripture, is represented by the image of man or the image of animal, or the combination of the two. Just check out Jeremiah 10.

        Yes, philosophers have made many arguments about the nature of the universe, the problem is which ones have the evidence to support their arguments? An argument is only as good as the evidence brought in to support its premises and justify its conclusions. To attempt to dismiss the teleological argument by saying that it “could apply to any god”, is simply an assertion without any evidence to back up the claim. Then you have to go and deny CAUSATION, which is the first principle of scientific inquiry; in other words you’ve just tossed the foundational presumption of science out the window. You wouldn’t be here without a cause: namely your mommy and daddy making a little chemistry. Things just don’t “POP” into existence, they LOGICALLY have a cause.

        “We know that order can can arise without something acting on something else”, really? Like what? The fact that the parts of a mousetrap can be retasked for other purposes LOGICALLY implies that there is an intelligence that can determine a need for a new task to be performed and to have the ability and foresight to retask them without intermediation, in other words the ability to get it right on the first try. It’s simply a bad analogy on your part in that you’ve only increased the problem for yourself because you haven’t even accounted for the existence of the mousetrap to begin with, nor the reason for its need to be modified. Its the teeny-weeeny logical errors that are simply killing your thought process, which is further evidence of your willful suppression of the knowledge of God as not only your Creator, but as the source and the sustainer of sheer logical function. Further, you confuse “bad design” with the LIMITS of structural design. There are trade-offs in any given design that has to be made because of things like PHYSICAL LAWS.

        God isn’t necessary for something to be objectively good or evil? Well then, what can you ground it in? Objective standards cannot be grounded in temporal objects, because to say that they are “objective” means that the standard is UNCHANGING regardless of time and location, which are TEMPORAL aspects of reality. If you try to imply something is “objectively good” apart from an eternal and therefore uncaused and unchanging standard, such as God, you slip into circular reasoning, another LOGICAL FALLACY.

        Again, WHAT contradictions exist within the New Testament documents? A contradiction is, logically, “A” is stated in location “X", and “not A” is stated in location “Y”, in the same time and in the same sense. What is often touted, as a “contradiction” is simply a DIFFERENCE in human perspective. I have read two VERY different biographies of my favorite actor, one written by a professional biographer and one written by his daughter. I could, very SUPERFICIALLY, say that they were CONTRADICTORY and conclude that actor did not exist because of two very different accounts, but that would be ILLOGICAL because the biographer was covering what was publicly available from friends and associates while the daughter was writing about her interactions with her father throughout her life. And if we were going to examine the claims of Scientology against the claims of Christianity, we would have to look at the evidence offered to support the claims, especially since L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, was an author of SCIENCE FICTION. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology

        Yes, the gospels present Jesus as an “itinerant rabbi”, and identify him as Yeshua bin Miriam (Mark 6), which would have been the Aramaic form of his name (interesting that he is identified by his mother rather than his adopted father in that instance) but they also present him as making claims about himself that no “mere” rabbi would have ever made: that he was God. In fact that is what he was killed for, which s something that we have the historical documentation, from the Jews prove, documents that confirm information presented in the gospels, which is EXTERNAL confirmation from hostile sources.
        And I need to make a correction, it wasn't CFI that Ehrman was addressing it was the FFRF:

        “Two creation stories”? No, there is one. People who claim that there are “two” have not studied Jewish thought and how they present arguments often presenting overlapping arguments from varying perspectives. And the “snake”-argument is, at best, a cherry-picking fallacy because 1) it fails to take into account the full meaning of a word, that it reflects complex ideas as opposed to a word-for-word equivalence, 2) there is no scholarship to support the assertion on a contextual basis. Same goes for the “rib”-argument.

        “Irrelevant”? What are you on about? You must have me confused with someone else. I can’t find where I said that ANYTHING is irrelavant. I might have said something was “not relevant” to the discussion, or something was “no longer relevant” in that it is fulfilled, but NO WHERE did I ever, ever imply something was IRRELEVANT. That is either a misunderstanding, OR a DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION, so which is it?

        "a flood that never happened”, was not a statement that I made or even implied. You are treading into an in-house debate among Christians about the EXTENT of the flood. You know, if you’d actually read Genesis 6, especially v.4, you’d see how ignorant this statement,"This god kills just about everyone and everything in the flood,” really is. It’s actually a rather foolish statement that the context simply has no bearing on. The fact that all men are sinners, rebels, the fact that God saves anyone, isn’t an indication of, “just some random idiot that has no direction to its actions”, but rather an act of grace and mercy, which is something that NO ONE deserves. God saves because he WANTS to, and he saves to glory of his grace, and those he doesn’t are to the glory of his justice, which is what all actually deserve. What I see is indeed hypocrisy, something you were right to point out, but in the wrong direction: when God plays God in the Bible, there’s something wrong with that, but when YOU play god out here, there’s nothing wrong with that. Logically, there cannot be two all-powerful beings in the room, they would cancel each other out; there’s only enough room for ONE, and you ain’t it. But then you go and make, yet another, category error: you say “kill”, but by context, you seem to mean “murder”. So yes, God CAN kill, in a sense. In fact Scripture tells us he can destroy a person in hell; however, God cannot murder because, as Creator, God reserves the right to give life and to take it back, and as his creatures we are subject to his will to, but then we have to define what is meant by the word "kill", since no one actually dies–their existence never ceases–this reverts back to definitions of categories of states of existence, those of TEMPORAL and ETERNAL, MORTAL and IMMORTAL. It is the categories that are killing your arguments. And Uzzah died because of the careless handling of the Ark of the Covenant; if they had transported it correctly, on poles vs an ox cart, he wouldn’t have died.

        I would argue that people today are “bloodthirsty” based on our push for full-term abortion (also known as infanticide), assisted suicide, and even euthanasia. People love death as long as someone else is doing it. Our desire to do violence comes from a rampant bloodlust, the same bloodlust that fueled the people of Noah’s day. The argument that is undeniable is that there was something phenomenal and noteworthy that scarred humanity, and the fact that there are two-dozen flood stories from various cultures in the Mesopotamian region is a solid indicator that something occurred, which was probably the flooding of the Persian basin 10-15,000 years ago into what is now the Persian Gulf. And why else would Noah get drunk if he wasn’t celebrating?

        Jesus and Paul disagree? Really, where did Jesus say, "that one should keep the entire law”? More specifically, which “law” was he referring to? The Jews had THREE laws: ceremonial, civil, and moral. The moral law informed both the civil and the ceremonial. Again, this is where we need some context. Paul seems to agree with Jesus, that those who want to be saved by the law should completely obey the law, but they can’t. Jesus says that he “came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17)” Paul says that those who are in Christ are no longer bound by the Law that reveals sin, but are bound by the law of faith in Christ’s fulfillment (Romans 3), so THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION.

        "Your claims make your god a liar when it says that it would do anything to retrieve the lost sheep, and what Jesus supposedly did with Thomas.” What Bible are you reading? You just made no sense WHATSOEVER with that statement, which is an EXCELLENT example of those STRAW MEN that you love to build. You confuse yourself with jumbled statements that completely misrepresent the position that your are attacking to give yourself a reason to disbelieve. Further, you make a NON SEQUITUR: because people DON’T believe, therefore God hasn’t made full revelation. When the logical formation is: God has made full revelation in Jesus Christ and because people love their sin, therefore they do no believe (John 1:1-13).

        To this point, I’ve written nearly 3500 words, and at every point I’ve exposed your flawed and fallacious logic and refuted most of your most egregious of assertions, making clear demonstration of them because I do not like to multiply words. I’m not going to worry about dealing with every point because it gives me a headache trying to follow the bouncing ball of your logic, or lack thereof, because I don’t have to. At no point have you ACTUALLY presented a solid case for your position, but have persistently engaged in really bad argumentation, much on tertiary matters that really aren’t relevant to the question asked in this post. So, in keeping this under 4000 words, I will close with this statement: “equal” DOES NOT mean “same”, unless you are using it as a quantifier, i.e. 5+5 and 7+3 are the same in that they both add up to 10, but more that likely YOU are not using them in that sense, therefore you are engaging in yet another fallacy of equivocation. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/same

      • No Jake, I am not complaining about your word count. I am making fun of you because you whined about how long posts were. And now we get even more thousands of words. I do love a hypocrite. BTW, there’s 4645 words here.

        It’s great fun to watch you try to make even more false claims about me. I have shown why they are false, and it’s even more fun to watch you try to ignore that in order to lie some more. I can call something morally good or evil as much as I’d like since morals do not depend on any gods. Morals can be objective or subjective. You may want to read up on that rather than make more false claims from ignorance.

        I shall reply as long as you direct comments to me. You may shut down you comments any time you like, Jake. I am always amused when Christians try to claim that I am somehow controlling their actions.

        More attempts at redefining words? How thoughtful. Thanks for posting my reply that shows your claim that coincidence is misused to be false. Let’s see, what is different between the dictionary meaning and what you said? Oh all of it, though the last sentence is the best part. You try to add to a definition to twist it into something you want it to mean. Again, coincidence does not include the nonsense you have tried to add about the “drivers” of those incidents, causes, etc. . ““Coincidence” is probably one of the most misunderstood and abused words in the English language, often meant to express something as being “by chance” or “random”, because it means that multiple incidents are running together (etymologically), but fails to ask anything about the drivers of those incidents, as to primary and secondary causes. “ You wish to claim that there are drivers behind the incidents and you want to attribute primary and second causes so you can claim that the events aren’t just coincidence., where the actual definition says clearly that the events have no connection but only *seem* to.

        Mohammed is the claimed prophet of Islam. Mohammed didn’t ride to Jerusalem on a magic pony and take dictation from an angel. There is no more truth to the story of that than your baseless missile miracle. Nice to see you try again to lie about what I have said. You have made the ridiculous claims of magic, now you have to support them. We have no evidence for miracles of any kind. Evidence is that which supports the claim of an event or the existence of something. Evidence can be repeatable, or it can be unique, however, it exists and it not a story that has nothing to support it. That would be a claim which then needs evidence to support it. So, again, you have not shown me evidence. You have shown me stories that require evidence to validate them.

        I always enjoy when someone like you tells me without evidence that I would be laughed out of some class, when I see the errors you make on your comments. That’s a baseles appeal to authority and since I have taken logic classes and no one has laughed at me, I fear your claims are again untrue.

        I can show you the historical roots of the stories about your god. It is a myth just like the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and all of the other gods and supernatural beings that humans have invented. So, there are indeed the same category, they are not ontologically different, and your god is no more philosophically possible than they are. I can declare that there must be a perfect easter bunny that exists, just like your logic argument claims for your god. However, there is no reason why this has to exist at all, other than claiming that perfect also means must exist. You wish to claim your god isn’t a mythical supernatural figure but again have presented no evidence that it exists. We have no evidence for any miracles done by it or any of the essential events in the bible. What we have are stories, without evidence.

        So, you think that since people come to believe in a god later in life, that means that god exists. Wow. So, this means that anyone who converts to any god is evidence that this god exists. Nice.

        Again, there is no evidence for Jesus Christ, the son of God. It is not a definite or historic event. None of the story can be shown to have happened. Life in roman occupied Palestine went along as usual with no one noting any bizaare census, a slaughter of “innocents”, a nativity “star”, nor any of the miracles JC was supposed to have been wandering around doing, nor the events of the cruxifiction and resurrection, nor all of the miracles JC was supposedly doing after which the author of the gospel say were so numerous one couldn’t write them all down.

        The story is God made man. No evidence for this. The story is that god made man morally upright and again, no evidence for it. You assume your god exists for no more reason than you were told it was real by people you had some reason to trust. God is not sovereign, it doesn’t exist. However, if it did exist, let me ask you, how does a omnipotent omniscient being screw up so badly? Your bible says that your god made certain people to be saved and certain people to be damned. This contradicts the laurel and hardy events of a god who gets pissed and floods the world, and then offers a covenant; then forgets his people in Egypt, gets Moses to ask for a three day holiday, mind controls the pharaoh and the Egyptian people, murders a lot of people, then finally allows Pharoah to let his people go. Of course this nonsense didn’t’ happen since no one noticed at all, not even Egypt’s enemies and life went on as usual. Then we have this god offer laws to control its people, which it should have known would fail. Rather than sending JC right down, if one believes such nonsense, this god screwed around just like a character who isn’t omnipotent and omniscient would. Again, you have depowered your god to excuse its incompetence. It is no surprise that you are the sycophant who says that anything your god does is okay. We are not dead from sins, that is again just more story, like any other religious story about why bad things happen to good people.

        You can’t find where your god said it will save everyone? Hmmm, your fellow Christian can. You can se that right here: https://www.godfire.net/paris/hellnotforever.html Now, who shall I believe, you or someone else who is just as good a Christian as you. Again, there is nothing to show your religion to be anymore than made by humans. Now, your bible does say that those who aren’t aware of the religion aren’t held to it, so it seems a lot of people would be saved, if it were true.

        Again, you have just a claim of context. Deuteronomy 19 says nothing about forbidding personal retribution. It says that one should not take personal retribution only if the person harmed by accident. In all other cases, one is to take personal retribution, killing those who work on the Sabbath, killing those who are adulterous, killing rebellious children, etc. It does not say that only judges are responsible for carrying out punishment, that only comes in Deuteronomy but is never mentioned in the supposedly earlier books. I have already shown you the verses that say fight and punish those who harm you. Everytime that God encourages his people to kill another tribe, Midians, Amakelites, etc (Numbers 31, Judges 6, ; all through Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, because again, it does not limit action to only judges. Let’s look at what the verses say “ 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Exodus 21:24 (as you will note, “you” means the Israelites to whom god is speaking, not some subset.
        17 “‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life.19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner:20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.’”Lev. 24:20

        You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.Deut. 19:21
        You may wish to read your bible, rather than ignoring the bits that are inconvenient.

        Again, there is no “larger context” that says that one should not depend on this god for everything. It says quite directly that one should. A lot of Christians think that “God helps those who help themselves” is in the bible and it is not; the exact opposite is. JC does refer to birds and flowers, and says that this god gives them everything they need, and to think of how much better this god will take care of its special people. I could agree with you, except for that last bit where it says that this god takes care of everything, food, clothes, etc. It does not say that this god gives the means to achieve these things, it gives them directly, like the flowers and the birds.
        There is nothing perjorative that I have said, I have quoted the bible exactly as supposedly your god wants it written, unless you’d like to claim that the interpreters are wrong in their claims of having god help them. “27 “Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 28 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith!29 And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. 30 For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31 But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.”

        Jesus does say not to treasure anything on this earth. You are to leave your family, to not even tarry long enough to bury a family member. One is to have nothing to bind one to this world. And in the context of JC’s apocalyptic message, this isn’t a problem, he was supposed to bring heaven to earth with in a lifetime. But that’s rather inconvenient now, isn’t it? The apostles gave up everything and followed him, just like JC tells the rich young man. ““We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
        28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.”

        The verb thēsaurizete is translated as to put away, “store up”; lay aside in every link I can find, mostly Christian ones. What link did you find that said the verb mean “do not focus”? It seems that you might not think I would check and have tried to misrepresent your bible and thus your supposed savior’s words. And again, there are no facts stated, only stories.

        Ah, nice to see that you admit that things are added to the bible. I know that that chunk of Mark is considered added much later, which makes any claim that your bible is somehow inviolate divine truth nonsense. These verses aren’t considered “special circumstance”, or metaphor, they are considered added to make the gospel match the resurrection story match better with the others, otherwise known as retconning a story. It’s always great to see you insist that your version and only your version is the “right” one with no evidence at all, the usual magic decoder ring Christian who wants to claim that he has better information but has the same as they do. There is no evidence of a missionaries being able to learn languages any better than anyone else, nor of any Christian being able to work better than anyone else without property medical equipment. Those are all nonsense made up by you. People die all of the time in camps where missionaries are, from disease, injury and starvation. Missionaries themselves die. Funny how their magic powers never manifest there, or in VA hospitals or children’s hospitals. It is not a fallacious argument to point out that you and other Christians don’t get what you were promised. It is pointing out that your religion is no different from any other religion that you don’t believe in.

        Oh my, now we get to see you try to redefine what “Jew” means and declare that those Jews you don’t agree with aren’t really Jews at all and are worshipping all wrong. Tsk, again with more lies about me being maliciously joyful. Nice to see that you don’t believe in your bible at all, with all of this nonsense. I guess you have decided that those parts that say don’t lie must not apply to you since you don’t want them too. Oh and there’s a reason you have no idea if I’ve commited a fallacy or not. I haven’t.

        Again, nice ot see you haven’t read your bible or you ignore the parts you don’t like. I have studied world religion and philosophy of religions and the “actual arguments” and know your claims are simply wrong. It is hard to lie to someone who has studied the same stuff as you supposedly have, but who demonstrates such ignorance about those exact subjects. I know that your bible presents your god just like the gods of that age that you don’t believe in.

        There are not “distinct and significant” differences between biblical claims and the claims of other religions. There is no evidence for any of the essential events in the bible, which is exactly the same as the other religions. The other religions claim a very human but very powerful entity as their god, just like Christianity, with its very human god that is jealous, impregating women, killing humans for petty reasons, appearing as natural phenomena, appearing as human, chatting and talking with humans, etc. Again, any world religion course will point out the similarities of religions, as will any philosophy of religion course. Joseph Campbell did a great job in doing so in his courses and books. The gods that you so hard to try to ignore that are transcendent are exactly like your god. And dear, your god is constantly represented by the image of man. He has feet, he has a backside, he sits and talks with Moses “face to face”. He likes the scent of burning flesh, and incense. And we see your god all of the time in art as depicted as a human. Perhaps in all of those things you’ve studied, a bit of art history would be in order.

        So, evidence for your philosophical arguments about your god? Yep, still none I see. The teleological argument can be applied to any god. What evidence do I have, its claims and that it’s been used for other gods than yours in history. Christianity wasn’t the first religion to think of it. No, causation isn’t the “first principle of scientific inquiry” whatever that is. Nice how you ‘ve made that up to sound so important so I haven’t thrown out anything. Alas, reality has shown you wrong already in that things apparently do “pop” into existence. I guess you should study some science too so you might know what scientists do now, and not a thousand years ago. Willful ignorance will always trip you up, Jake. Particles can appear spontaneously in a vacuum. You can write words in caps all you want, that doesn’t make them any more true.

        No, the fact that parts from a mousetrap can be retasked does not imply a intelligence is needed to retask them. One might assume that if the parts were an efficient replacement for some part an intelligence could be responsible for determining use, but they aren’t, they are often bad fits, often working badly but still sufficiently but not efficiently. Which would mean your god is incompetent in how it makes things. Is it? Can your supposedly perfect god screw up? Why is it that humans aren’t very well adapted for bipedal walking? Why would the esophagus be right next to the windpipe so humans can and often do die from choking? Your god is apparently an idiot which has no ability and foresight to figure such simple things out. So, sorry, my analogy is a great one and I have not increased any problem for myself at all. It’s great to see you insist that your god has limits. If this god created the physical laws, why is it limited to what we have? Isn’t it omnipotent?

        Nope, your god isn’t necessary for something to be objectively good or evil. Why do those ideas have to be “grounded in” anything? They simply may be, they might be from another god, or there may be no such thing as objective good and evil. That is yet one more a priori assumption you must depend on. As for unchanging standards, we know that your god doesn’t have those either, not if one believes the bible. It changes its mind constantly on what is acceptable and what is not. So we have an unconstant god who you wish to claim makes objective good and evil. Again, no need for an “uncaused” standard either. I do appreciate the claim that I am using circular reasoning, when you have done a textbook case by trying to claim that god is an unchanging standard because it said it was.

        More questions, eh? You want to know about the contradictions in the NT. I’m sorry that you’ve evidently never read it. Why yes, you’ve defined a contradiction very well, Jake. “A contradiction is, logically, “A” is stated in location “X”, and “not A” is stated in location “Y”, in the same time and in the same sense.” And we have that repeatedly in your NT. It is not a “difference” in human perspective, it is the claim that one entirely different thing happened at a certain time and place as opposed to another that you so helpfully defined. For example, if I said that my husband is sitting on the loveseat across from me at 8:12 PM this evening, this would mean that a claim that Marilyn Monroe is sitting there would be contradictory. Then we would need further evidence to figure out which story was true. Again, the story is not the evidence, it is the claim. In your NT, it says that the men cruxified with JC did two different things: they all mocked him or one of them spoke to JC and asked to be saved. Which is it? There are two different versions of what the apostles did after JC was crucified: they were terrified for their lives and hid or they went to town and celebrated in the temple. Which is it? Who entered the tomb first, because there can be only one “first”? Did Joseph and Mary go to Egypt or not (a problem for prophecies)? Where did JC first appear to the apostles after his supposed resurrection? The genealogies for Joseph are mentioned evidently to support claims of prophecy, but Joseph is not JC’s father at all, if one believes the bible: do we keep the prophecy or do we ignore the virgin birth? There are many more, you can google them by “contradictions bible”.

        Yep, ol’ Ron wrote science fiction. And again, you have no more evidence that your Jesus Christ son of god existed than Ron had that the space emperor Xenu tied people to volcanoes and then blew up hydrogen bombs. No more evidence that souls exist than there is that thetans do. We have no historical documentation from the Jews at all that supposedly confirms the gospel stories. I am guessing you are trying to use the mentions in the Talmud, that say that the Jews hanged a man who’s name was Yeshua, aka Joshua a common name for a Jewish man. It does not say that the Romans cruxified a man. It says that this Jesus had five disciples, not twelve. The Talmud also says that this Jesus’ mom was unfaithful to her husband and that this Jesus was close to the government. Do you want to claim that’s true too? The rest of the references are about followers of this JC, which again is references to worshippers not the worshiped. If you consider this evidence, then every god that has ever had worshippers is just as supported as your god.

        No, there are two creation stories since again they contradict each other, with order of creation and how humans were created. There are plenty of people who have indeed studied Jewish thought and say that there are two stories. Again, the full meaning of a word is not what it means in context, that limits it. There is no reason to assume that there is any complex idea behind it, and in the context of the creation story, it is a snake, and it is a just so story about snakes and why they have no legs.
        There is plenty of scholarship that says that this is a snake and in the second story Eve is made from a rib; all of that scholarship that says that the translation of the bible is accurate. Or do you wish to say that’s not true either?

        You did say that part of your bible was “irrelevant”: “What Adam and Eve may or may not have understood is irrelevant, they were given a simple warning, “do not eat,” with a consequent, “you will die.” Quite easy to find with a control+F. You want to pick and choose what to add and what to ignore. Oh and nachash means “serpent”. Where you get your supposed alternate definitions, I have no idea. So your temper tantrum with the cap lock is rather silly.

        I think its quite amusing when Christians have “in house” debates about their “truths”. Again, the noah flood never happened. Christians can’t agree when it was, where it was or if it was because some good Christians say that it is a metaphor and not real at all. Per your bible, this god does kill just about everything and everyone in this flood.

        Christians are also fun to watch when they claim that everyone deserves to die and be tortured eternally, and then some other Christians say that this is wrong. I am glad to see that you agree that your god saves people on a whim aka “because he wants to”, for an entirely selfish reason (though who knows who he has to show off to with “glory” and there is no free will. I am curious, how am I playing god? It certainly seems that with one imaginary boogeyman, and one middle age woman who can actually help people and do things, I know which I would bet on. Such empty threats.

        Assuming that the bible myths are true, your god is a killer and a murderer. Just because one gives life doesn’t mean that taking it isn’t killing someone with malice aforethought. Being omniscient can be a bit of a bummer. This god intended to murder the first-born to show off. And hmm, you say that your god can and does kill people in hell and then you say no one actually dies. Again, you try to lie about what your bible says. Uzzah died because your god willed it. 1 Samuel 6. It supposedly spent months with the enemy, hauled around on a cart and didn’t kill them in droves.

        So, who is pushing for “full term abortion”? Seems likeyour god is the only one for that considering how many children it has killed. Assisted suicide is the choice of the person as is euthanasia. Again, there is no evidence for your claims as usual. We have fewer and fewer and wars, we have less slavery, we have less child labor, we have consistently gotten better. I can happily deny your argument that something “scarred” humanity because you have no evidence for it and I have plenty of evidence that humans are getting better and without needing your god at all.

        There are flood stories around the world. So, tell me again when your flood happened, Jake? It’s great to see you trying to trot out myths from other religions when you don’t believe in them as evidence for yours. Funny how the Egyptians don’t have a bad flood myth, when you’d think they’d have noticed. In their culture, floods are good, and they don’t cover the world. Your bible doesn’t say something flooded the Persian basin, 15,000 years ago, it says that the whole world was flooded 4000 or so years ago. Was your bible lying or exaggerating? What else could it be lying or exaggerating? The crucifiction? The resurrection? Now, we could find evidence if there was a sudden flooding of the Persian basin in the time period you said. We don’t. We have what might be a gradual rise of water in the area, but again, nothing like what the bible says.

        You really don’t know your bible much, do you? Jesus said that indeed everyone should keep his father’s laws. He didn’t split hairs as you are trying to do. Matthew 5, Matthew 7,
        And theres’s the prophecy in Isaiah 42, often trotted out as “evidence” for JC, that says that that this coming messiah will make this god’s law great and glorious. Paul disagrees with Jesus in that he says one doesn’t have to follow the laws, when JC says you do. Paul says that the day is at hand and JC says not to trust anyone who says this. JC says that the merciful will get mercy, Paul says that what humans do is meaningless and it all depends on this god’s whim. JC says that following him and gaining eternal life has a cost (leaving all you have), Paul says it is a free gift. JC says to call no man your father, Paul says to call him father. Claiming I make no sense but not showing it is meaningless.

        Again, you haven’t done what you’ve claimed. It’s nice to pat yourself on the back for nothing. And another attempt to declare things irrelevant because you don’t like them.

      • 5700 words , that’s how long this reply is supposed to be. I’ve refuted every point, exposed where you lied about my statements, misrepresented my statements, exposed your logical flaws and fallacious arguments. And I’ve been thinking about posting it for a more than a week. But I’m not going to worry about it, I’m just going to quote Jesus on this: “You’re wrong.”

        I could answer your foolishness at every point, and I still might, but right now, it’s not worth it, so I will not be answering you, here, unless you push me. So, follow my blog, heck, read through the whole thing. I think you’ll find my arguments are pretty solid and consistent. Just keep in mind that I’ve got you lying, on record. Fare thee well.

      • Ah, the common claim by a Christian that “honest for true” they could refute me and tell me the secrets of the universe. But they never do. All you do is make baseless claims and make excuses on why they can’t do what they claim.
        Your blog is nothing but the same. I do follow it and have yet to find any more evidence for your god in it than your comments. I do not find your arguments solid at all. They are the usual claims that you are right and everyone else is wrong and you have no more evidence of this than any other Christian does. Your arguments are indeed consistent with the usual baseless claims made by so many other Christians.

        And please do show me where you supposedly have me “lying on record”.

        I’m waiting.

      • Also always good to see someone claim that they know what Jesus says. You’d think that Jesus could come tell me himself that I was wrong. But he always has to depend on humans to tell me things and how odd it is that JC always agrees with each and every Christian who says that he talks to them. Why, another Christian just told me that God himself told her that other Christians were wrong and that she’s the one who knows the secrets to the universe. now, how can we figure out if it’s she or you who are lying?

      • “19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.”

        So, since Paul predicted that this god of yours would return when he was alive, what shall we think of his false prophecy? And what of Paul in 2 Thessalonians when he says your god intentionally lies to people? Does God lie?

        “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. ”

        Since none of the prophecies claimed by Christians have any evidence of being true, it seems that all prophets are false? Your bible says that false prophets should be killed. Do you agree?

        It also says in 1 John that “19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.”

        So, how does that work when people like you make claims of miracles? Does the “evil one” have control over the whole world or not? Shall I believe your bible or your nonsense?

      • oh please tell me how it was a non-sequitur.

        “20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

        21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.”

        So, how many times have you called for the deaths of Christians who have done this, Jake?

      • This is not telling me how it was a non-sequitur. Repeating yourself and adding more baseless claims is not an explanation.

        Again, “So, how many times have you called for the deaths of Christians who have done this (made false prophecies), Jake?”

      • Ah, the classic Christian response when they cannot support their claims and hope someone else will do their work for them. As it stands, there is no reason to believe your claims, Jake.

      • The response of someone who doesn’t know how to recognize their own logical fallacies, so they keep repeating them over and over again regardless of how many times they are corrected or have them pointed out.

      • I am very familiar with logical fallacies. So, since I cannot find any in my posts, this must mean there are none, per your own argument. Thanks!

        You have not pointed anything out yet, Jake, nor have you corrected anything. Still waiting.

      • Just remember, you asked for it.

        “So how many times have you called for the deaths of Christians who have done this?”

        The false premise comes from inserting the term “Christian” into the verse from Deuteronomy. Therefore leading to the non-sequitur conclusion that the prescriptive aspect somehow applies to Christians, rather than the proscriptive aspect of how to identify a a false prophet. Scripture teaches that “such are worthy of death (Romans 1:32)” in order to call for their repentance, thus placing the opportunity to repent above the a-contextual, eisegetical, miscategorization of the theocratic civil laws above the principle expounded in the text.

        So many fallacies in one sentence, it’s embarrassing.

      • Oh, so when Christians demand to have the words of God from the OT put into courthouses and public buildings, they are wrong to want to do so because those words don’t apply to them anymore?

        The verse in Deut do not mention Christians or Jews, it says “prophet” and these Christians who say thing are going to come to pass are prophecizing. Now, in that Jesus Christ said that all of his father’s laws are to be followed, that those who teach them and follow them are the best in heaven, why are you saying that the laws don’t apply to you or your fellow Christians? The law has how to identify a false prophet, and what to do with this prophet. Shall I believe Jesus or Paul?

        For Paul it would have been a problem in trying to kill someone as the bible commands because the Romans were not following that law and Paul would have been no more than a murderer to them. It’s convenient, and contextual that Paul has changed a command into just a suggestion.

        And more vague accusations of fallacies but not one instance where you can point one out or tell me what the fallacy is. Hmmm.

      • 1. Yet another category error (you really like making those, don’t you). The 10 commandments comprise the category known as “proscriptive”, that which delineates what should or should not be done, Jesus was clear in his teaching (Matthew 5:17-20) that the proscriptive laws are still in effect, even though he comes to fulfill them, God’s standard never changes and serves to convict the world of sin (Galatians 3:19; Romans 4:15), why do you think that people want them out of the public sight? Because people hate being reminded of their sin and rebellion.

        2. Deuteronomy is the covenant document of the theocratic nation of Israel (Jews) and is quoted by the New Testament writers more than any other OT document indicating its proscriptive importance to believers in Christ, so you objection is just willful ignorance. Jesus pointed to the law, summarizing it as love for God and love for neighbor, (i.e. obedience to God and mercy to one’s neighbor, best illustrated in John 7:54-8:11), which recognizes the proscriptive points of the the law that are for all time over the prescriptive portions of the law that were for the national, civil authority of the nation of Israel, a nation which no longer exists. Paul emphasizes the proscriptive categories (like Jesus) because of the recognition of the different categories of laws (civil, ceremonial, and moral) and how they operate (descriptive, proscriptive, prescriptive). Failing to recognize the categories and their proper extent leads to numerous problems, like the category error that you are engaged in.

        For Saul the Pharisee, it would have not been a problem, in fact that is his testimony, consenting to the deaths of numerous believers in accordance with Jewish law (just more willful ignorance right there), but for Paul the Apostle, who understood what Jesus taught, he understood how the law applied to believers both Jew and Gentile.

        Not “vague”, clearly identified and demonstrated, and yet you keep committing them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s