Atheism and Fundamentalism

[liamconnor]

I frequently find that the attacks against Christianity here by atheists and agnostics are not leveled against my Christianity; they are leveled against fundamentalists.


If the doctrine of Inerrancy, young earth, etc. were dropped, what would be left for atheists here to attack?

(Of course, one could say, "The resurrection of Jesus". But this would be dangerous as they could no longer point to discrepancies of the texts--that argument only works against inerrantists; not historians. Perhaps they could point to the problem of miracles at all; but that brings them into the field of metaphysics: are they ready for that?)

[Mithrae]

But instead you've claimed that historians would simply assume that the text is an accurate record of Jesus' words verbatim (and not only that, but that Divine Insight's interpretation of those words is utterly unquestionable):
"as a historian you need to recognize that these stories have Jesus supporting extreme literal fundamentalism right down to every jot and tittle of the Old Testament. . . .
So even as a non-religious historian you are stuck with having to defend a Jesus who is himself a hardcore scriptural fundamentalist."

But what kind of a historian are we talking about here? Have you asked yourself that?

If you ask a historian worth their salt they will tell you that these writings are most likely rumors, myths, superstitions, or outright purposeful fiction (possibly even with religious motives behind them). Even these sensible historians would need to recognize that these stories have their "Character Jesus" defending every jot and tittle of the Old Testament law. That doesn't mean that Jesus needs to be anything more than a fictional character (or exaggerated rumors about some actual person)

That is not an option you allowed in your post #6, but it's good to see that you're starting to acknowledge some of the basics. I'm not going to bother with your whole gish gallop, but let's see if you'll recognize another fairly basic concept:
> What would 'the law' have meant in the phrase 'the law and the prophets'?
> And what would 'the law' likely have meant on its own (and particularly in the context of Matthew 5:19-20ff)?

I'll even give you a hint; despite your adamant assertions, neither of those answers is synonymous with the 'Old Testament.' Of course, you have already insisted of your interpretation that "You can't escape this," "you have no choice but to recognize" it, "There's no getting around it" and so on. So it may take a big leap of intellectual integrity to acknowledge how incorrect you were even as a mere opinion... even before attributing your opinions to historians and accusing them of unprofessional ulterior motives if they disagreed with you.

And if the historian does not accept the words as absolutely correct and your interpretation of them as utterly unquestionable, you've got an answer for that too:
"the moment you make that proclamation you're done. All you are doing is trying to get out of having to confess that these Gospel rumors are indeed riddled with extreme problems, and cannot possibly be true in their claims."

Why would it matter?

If you are a historian who recognizes that these stories are necessarily fictional, you're still stuck with having to recognize what the fictional stories say about their fictional characters.

It's just like with any work of fiction. It doesn't matter whether you believe the Lord of the Rings is real or fictional that's not going to change what the characters are actually said to have done.

Moreover, if you are a historian who actually believes these stories are divinely inspired stories (AS THE AUTHORS CLAIM) then you have no choice but to accept that every word they say must be the "Gospel Truth".

So there's really no excuse to come at this half-heartedly pretending to be a historian who believes "Some of it" but not "All of it".

You outright declared that any "non-religious historian" who doesn't accept those passages as verbatim truth (and your interpretation of them) "is trying to get out of having to confess that these Gospel rumors are indeed riddled with extreme problems." If you don't understand why that matters, I can't help you.

You are also continuing to insist that historians should adopt a black and white, all or nothing approach I see.

[Divine Insight]

That is not an option you allowed in your post #6, but it's good to see that you're starting to acknowledge some of the basics. I'm not going to bother with your whole gish gallop, but let's see if you can bring yourself to recognize another exceedingly basic concept:
> What would 'the law' have meant in the phrase 'the law and the prophets'?
> And what would 'the law' likely have meant on its own?

There is no interpretation required. It's just a couple verses and they are pretty straight-forward:

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus was a Jew, so he certainly wasn't talking about the laws of the Romans here. He was talking about Jewish law that is written in the Torah. (or what Christians today call the "Old Testament". And yes you can restrict this to the first 5 books of the Old Testament if you like, that's fine. So we have Jesus standing behind ever jot and tittle of the first 5 books of the Old Testament law.

And you do know what jots and tittles are referring to right? This is no different from saying "Every Letter of the Law" as it is written. And this makes sense in Judaism because this is what the Old Testament itself claims.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

This was important in early Judaism that not one jot or tittle shall be added to or removed from the law.

So this certainly fits right in with the Jewish fundamentalism of this religion. We should expect Jesus to be a fundamentalist in this context.

~~~~~

In fact, as an aside, many scholars have suggested that Matthew may very well have put these words into the mouth of Jesus. The reason for believing this is two-fold.

First, Matthew was attempting to sell Jesus to Jewish fundamentalists. So he needed to make Jesus appear to support Jewish fundamentalism. So he may very well have made this up just to convince the fundamentalist Jews of that era that Jesus did not come to change the laws and violate Deuteronomy 4:2

Secondly, Matthew is the only Gospel where we see this. So it may very well have been invented by Matthew. However, a Christian shouldn't be thinking that Matthew would make stuff up about Jesus!!! That wouldn't give Matthew much credibility.

But a historian can see where Matthew might easily make up stuff that would be convenient for his purposes.

~~~~~

In any case, any attempt to argue that these verses could be interpreted in any way that could suggest that Jesus wasn't supporting every jot and tittle of the Jewish law which was the Torah (including Deuteronomy). In fact, the Jewish law would have been built on at least, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

So to try to argue for alternative interpretations would be pretty futile. If you don't like a fundamentalist Jesus you're best bet it to accept that Matthew was probably fibbing a bit here to impress fundamentalist Jews.

But then you still have John 10:34 where Jesus proclaims that the scripture cannot be broken in a totally different context entirely.

So now you need to come up with a second excuse for why that's probably wrong too if you don't like the idea of a fundamentalist Jesus.

I'm not even sure why you need to reject a fundamentalist Jesus other than accepting one would kind of force you to accept every jot and tittle of the scriptures.

Apparently that's what you're aiming to avoid.

You want to make out like this is all my idea. Blame it all on me. Jesus couldn't have supported every jot and tittle of the Old Testament,.... surely!

I'm just pointing out that according to Matthew and John he did.

In Matthew 5 he supports every jot and tittle of the Old Testament Law.

And in John 10 he proclaims that scripture cannot be broken.

Why are you so anxious to argue against these things and try to blame it all on little old me?

I'm just telling you what the scriptures have Jesus saying. That's all.

I didn't tell them to write this stuff.

And if you want to be the "Big Bad Historian", then you need to go by what's actually written in the text, not what you "wish" had been written.

Historians have to go with the material they actually find. Not what they wish they could have found.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

So, let's see...

Your claim in post #6 of "Jesus supporting extreme literal fundamentalism right down to every jot and tittle of the Old Testament" - about which you insisted "You can't escape this," "you have no choice but to recognize" it, "There's no getting around it" - was incorrect. You've tried to avoid actually admitting that, but it seems clear that you do realize you were wrong.

Your claim in post #6 that "even as a non-religious historian you are stuck with having to defend a Jesus who is..." was likewise obviously incorrect. In fact, some professional historians think Jesus didn't exist at all, but even the majority who recognize the existence of an individual on whom the gospels were based don't have to "defend" any actions or beliefs of his.

Your claim in post #6 that historians who don't accept the verbatim truth and your interpretation of those passages are "trying to get out of having to confess that these Gospel rumors are indeed riddled with extreme problems" is not only obviously incorrect, but extremely insulting.

And your claim in post #20 that "there's really no excuse to come at this half-heartedly pretending to be a historian who believes "Some of it" but not "All of it"" is, amazingly, possibly even weirder and even more extreme than any of those!

So it seems unambiguously clear that my original assessment was correct: One need only look so far as DI's own sadly inadequate understanding of historiography in post #6 for an example of what an otherwise fine intellect has missed by viewing early Christianity as something to be attacked rather than learned from. You didn't make these really quite terrible mistakes because you're unintelligent or uninformed, or at least I don't think so, but probably because you're more interested in trying to bludgeon whatever it is that you imagine Christianity to be than in bothering with mere 'facts' and 'accuracy.'



Rikuoamero, I'll be interested in hearing your response to the rest of my comments when you're available. For example:

• Rikuo wrote: Mithrae, I'm with DI on this one. What is "My Christianity"? If "My Christianity" is allowed to stand on its own as its own religion, this means that each and every person can quite literally make it up as they go along.
  
  Mithrae wrote: Allowed? What are you, or anyone, doing to stop people from making it up as they go along? That's what we all do; we live and learn and think, and we talk to other people to hear their opinions, but ultimately we (most of us at least) make up our own minds what makes the most sense to us, subject to constant revision as we learn new things. Why on earth do you think that Christians should not do that?

[Divine Insight]

Rikuoamero, I'll be interested in hearing your response to the rest of my comments when you're available. For example:

• Rikuo wrote: Mithrae, I'm with DI on this one. What is "My Christianity"? If "My Christianity" is allowed to stand on its own as its own religion, this means that each and every person can quite literally make it up as they go along.
  
  Mithrae wrote: Allowed? What are you, or anyone, doing to stop people from making it up as they go along? That's what we all do; we live and learn and think, and we talk to other people to hear their opinions, but ultimately we (most of us at least) make up our own minds what makes the most sense to us, subject to constant revision as we learn new things. Why on earth do you think that Christians should not do that?

I can agree with you on this Mithrae. Every Christian makes up their own make-believe Christ. I have no doubt about that.

I've never argued against that.

My position has always been (and I've repeated this so many times I'm getting tried of typing it): The Biblical canon cannot be true as it is written.

Do Christians make up their own make-believe Christ? Sure. But where did I ever say they don't.

I debate the Biblical Canon. I wouldn't even bother debating someone's made-up Christ. What would be the point to that?

In this thread, atheists are being accused of arguing mainly against fundamentalism. Well duh? That's what the Biblical Canon claims: I've given you three concrete examples straight from the Horse's mouth (i.e. from the Biblical Canon)

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And

John 10:
[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
[35] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

I'm sure that more support for this type of thing can be found as well. In fact, I know of a few more verses but I can't recall exactly where they were. I do know there is a verse in Revelation that is almost identical to Deuteronomy 4:2. It's basically the same verse twisted into a threat that if anyone didn't pay attention to Deuteronomy 4:2 they'll pay for it now.

In fact, I may as well post that verse too while we're on the topic:

Revelation 22:
[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

There you go. Even Revelation proclaims that if you are not a jot and tittle fundamentalist you'll be sorry in the end.

This is not "my" idea. It's a Biblical demand.

You're not supposed to be making up your own Christianity. You're supposed to be following every jot and tittle of the Biblical Canon.

I'm just telling you what the Bible is saying. I'm not saying there is any truth to this dogma. As I said before, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

If you want to make up your own personal Christianity be my guest. But Revelation promises that if you do that it won't go unnoticed on Judgement Day.

It's just what the Biblical Canon has to say about the matter.

Again, it has nothing at all to do with me. I didn't write the Biblical Canon. So don't be trying to put this on me. I've supplied the verses from the Biblical Canon that verify that this is what is said in the canon.

The Canon portrays Jesus as a jot and tittle fundamentalist who believes that the scripture cannot be broken. And from Deuteronomy to Revelation the Scripture proclaims that Jesus is right to be a jot and tittle fundamentalist.

Seems to me to be an open and shut case.

I haven't heard any rebuttal from you save for personal attacks made toward me that don't even apply.

If you can show me where Jesus says that it's not important to believe the scriptures, or that the scriptures cannot be trusted to be truthful, I'm totally open to looking at that evidence.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

Allowed? What are you, or anyone, doing to stop people from making it up as they go along?

Allowed, as in allowed in debate. Imagine if I accept a head to head challenge against a Christian theist, and the question is something along the lines of "Is Christianity true?"

I would prepare for that debate by reading and studying the Bible, and noting how inconsistent it is, its contradictions and quite honestly batty insanity.

My opponent? He can just say "My Christianity" and make it up as he goes along, without having to ground his "My Christianity" on the text of the Bible. In fact, this even allows him the option of not having to use the Bible at all. He can pull a tam, and say he hears Christ himself and that this Christ that speaks to him told him to avoid the Bible altogether.
Whereas I use the only evidence that is available to both of us (the Bible), my hypothetical opponent can (again) literally make it up and this is unfalsifiable.

That's pretty much supporting what I quoted from Cnorman, that it is safe and fun to have an argument when you know - or think you know - 99% of the things the other fellow will say or believes beforehand.

Because we're silly enough to think more often than not, that what Christians believe actually has something to do with the text of their holy scriptures.
I've talked to self-proclaimed Christians who've said to me that any mentions of God in the Old Testament are actually aliens. Extra-terrestrials.

In fairness plenty of religious folk do something similar in their perceptions of 'atheists,' making assumptions about what they must believe about the origins of life or the universe for example.

The difference between what you said just before this, and this about assumptions made about atheists, is that atheists have no doctrine or dogmas dictating what it is we believe.
If someone says "I'm a Christian", I can make an educated guess as to what it is they believe and ground my guess by pointing to the Bible.
An atheist? Other than a lack of a belief in a god or gods...what does that atheist believe? If you're a Christian who makes assumptions about atheists, what do you ground that guess on?

Hitchens' Razor would presumably suggest that you have a burden of proof to demonstrate why Christians should be presumed, pigeonholed or selectively ignored into only the narrow band of quasi-fundamentalist views that you are comfortable having an argument against.

It's not anything to do with my comfort.
It's the only one that make any kind of sense.
So let's take that hypothetical Christian who believes their Father God would never order humans to kill. Already, right off the bat, that Christian is violating rules of evidence (following evidence where it leads). If the Bible is to be treated as some kind of an authority as to God's character, then that Christian has no justification for literally ignoring half of it.
Since that Christian is not legitimately dealing with evidence properly, then I have no burden either to do the same. Since that Christian is outright ignoring what it is they claim as evidence, I can just ignore it too with Hitchen's Razor.
At that point, the Christian is left with nothing to offer in the debate, no evidence at all, and they lose by default.

And are you honestly suggesting that a Christian who believes Moses wrote all five books of the Pentateuch after inflicting plagues on Egypt and leading two million Israelites for forty years in the desert has a better claim to evidentiary views than a Christian who believes those stories are legends developed over time and perhaps based on a kernel of historical truth?

It's more consistent. You may be familiar with a retort from us atheists
"If you think that Moses or Noah are just legends developed over time, what disqualifies Jesus from also being a legend?"

Think about the mental consistency of a Christian who sees nothing wrong with the idea of a God-man conjuring up fishes and loaves, and bringing people back from the dead...but a boat builder living for 500 years and having his boat survive a global flood storm? Or a prophet raised by the Egyptians warning of some nasty plagues and leading his birth people on a trek for a few decades...oh now that's going to far! It's not plausible, that couldn't have happened as written, it must have been a legend.

The more nuanced and thoughtful opinions are almost always based on more careful reasoning and evidence than the simple dogmatisms.

If the Christian who accepts tales about Jesus but not tales about Moses, Noah et all applied consistent reasoning, then yes.
However, that is not what happens.

What makes me particularly interested in this phenomenon is how wildly counter-productive it's likely to be as a general rule (unless of course the intention is merely to 'win' a debate),

Checks name of website
You came here expecting something else?

Attacking folks' most cherished core beliefs with a sledgehammer hardly ever persuades them to change their minds, and more often than not simply makes them feel that they need to circle the wagons, buckle down and believe even harder.

I agree.

By contrast looking for reasonable ways to think about the bible, Christianity and its ongoing role in society might be advancing ideas that some more traditional believers could take on board once they're not coming from an enemy determined to beat them down.

In case you're wondering, I don't do what I and DI do here on the site, in real life.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 17 by Mithrae]

Many Christians have believed that Jesus was not God incarnate. Many Christians have rejected the notion that his death was a sacrifice of propitiation to a vengeful God. Many Christians have rejected the notion that 'salvation' is a choice to be made. Many Christians have rejected the notion of hell as a place of eternal torment. Any attempts to include these in some kind of hard and fast definition are likewise driven by agenda rather than common usage.

Here is how I see it, when it comes to debate.
Imagine one of those Christians as you describe them challenge me to a debate. We show up and they say they're a Christian, and they base their beliefs on this book that they're carrying, which has the title of Holy Bible. They put the Bible down on the table we're sitting at.
"Okay", says I. "Tell me two things you believe, as a Christian".
"I believe Jesus Christ to be the resurrected Son of God, who died for our sins. I also believe God the Father to be loving, and he most certainly would not send people to hell to suffer eternal torment".

Now, right there, they have just violated the rules of evidence. The Bible, what they have previously indicated to me is their main piece of evidence in this debate, does teach about a hell of eternal torment.
At that point, the Christian is being unfair. He is ignoring his own evidence and making stuff up about his God. His opening remarks here indicate to me his attitude as to what he thinks he can say in this debate i.e. that he needn't ground them on anything that I myself can access (see the numerous times I and others have been told by tam that she does indeed hear Christ, and yet there is never any actual evidence proferred to support it, not even an attempt at challenges we give to her that she ought to be able to pass if what she says is true).
At that point, I am going to do the only fair thing I can do. I am going to pick up the Bible, and take it off the table, quite literally. I am going to set it aside. It is now no longer a part of this debate.
Surely you can imagine the situation now. Two people, sitting at a table, one of them having just professed a belief in a resurrected man God...who now has nothing to show for it. Nothing to point to, nothing to support it.
Hitchen's Razor comes into play and I win by default. I say "My debate opponent has no evidence to support his claims".
All because the Christian thought he could play fast and loose with his own quote unquote evidence.

[Divine Insight]

In case you're wondering, I don't do what I and DI do here on the site, in real life.

Same here. I almost never talk about religion in person with anyone.

This is a debate forum specifically for debating this religion. So I don't understand why people come onto a debate forum and then act like people are "attacking" their religion when all they are doing is offering reasons why they have concluded that the religion has no credibility, or can't be true, or the God is too nasty, or whatever. These aren't meant to be insults. They are just honest conclusions that people have come to.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

Allowed? What are you, or anyone, doing to stop people from making it up as they go along?

Allowed, as in allowed in debate. Imagine if I accept a head to head challenge against a Christian theist, and the question is something along the lines of "Is Christianity true?"

I would prepare for that debate by reading and studying the Bible, and noting how inconsistent it is, its contradictions and quite honestly batty insanity.

This would suggest that it's important to be careful when framing your head-to-head debate questions. It doesn't seem to have any clear relevance to the rest of the site.

In fairness plenty of religious folk do something similar in their perceptions of 'atheists,' making assumptions about what they must believe about the origins of life or the universe for example.

The difference between what you said just before this, and this about assumptions made about atheists, is that atheists have no doctrine or dogmas dictating what it is we believe.
If someone says "I'm a Christian", I can make an educated guess as to what it is they believe and ground my guess by pointing to the Bible.
An atheist? Other than a lack of a belief in a god or gods...what does that atheist believe? If you're a Christian who makes assumptions about atheists, what do you ground that guess on?

Some religious folk assume that atheism does involve certain 'dogmas.' They are not justified in doing so. And you are not justified in your assumption that Christians have particular doctrines and dogmas dictating what they believe either. That's the point. Probably the majority of Christians throughout history didn't own a bible, and couldn't have read it even if they did. So what kind of a basis for assumption is that?

A Christian is simply someone who identifies as Christian on the basis of either A) membership or association with the religious and/or cultural traditions of Christianity, or B) considering themselves a follower of Christ. And while we can both agree that there'll be some fraction of a percent of weird and wonderful individuals that we will privately categorize as not really 'Christian,' those are by definition the tiny exception rather than the rule. Christians who don't believe every word of the bible obviously do not fit in that category - they're something like a quarter of all Christians in the United States, for example, and probably an even greater percentage of European Christians.

Hitchens' Razor would presumably suggest that you have a burden of proof to demonstrate why Christians should be presumed, pigeonholed or selectively ignored into only the narrow band of quasi-fundamentalist views that you are comfortable having an argument against.

It's not anything to do with my comfort.
It's the only one that make any kind of sense.
So let's take that hypothetical Christian who believes their Father God would never order humans to kill. Already, right off the bat, that Christian is violating rules of evidence (following evidence where it leads). If the Bible is to be treated as some kind of an authority as to God's character, then that Christian has no justification for literally ignoring half of it.

This is incorrect, I'm afraid. The reasoning of that person (presumably) would be that God is love, and ordering humans to kill is not loving behaviour. The evidence that God is love - scriptural and otherwise - is presumably, in their minds, overwhelmingly superior to the evidence that God ever ordered people to kill, so the latter is rejected as unreliable. That is following the evidence; the alternative would be bending over backwards trying to first accommodate the older and more dubious stories of the Pentateuch etc, and then deny that 'evidence' of God's unloving character.

Your seeming assumption that Christians should be compelled to accept the biblical anthology as an all or nothing unity is wildly unjustified!

And are you honestly suggesting that a Christian who believes Moses wrote all five books of the Pentateuch after inflicting plagues on Egypt and leading two million Israelites for forty years in the desert has a better claim to evidentiary views than a Christian who believes those stories are legends developed over time and perhaps based on a kernel of historical truth?

It's more consistent. You may be familiar with a retort from us atheists
"If you think that Moses or Noah are just legends developed over time, what disqualifies Jesus from also being a legend?"

Think about the mental consistency of a Christian who sees nothing wrong with the idea of a God-man conjuring up fishes and loaves, and bringing people back from the dead...but a boat builder living for 500 years and having his boat survive a global flood storm? Or a prophet raised by the Egyptians warning of some nasty plagues and leading his birth people on a trek for a few decades...oh now that's going to far! It's not plausible, that couldn't have happened as written, it must have been a legend.

The evidence for these events isn't even remotely in the same league; four gospels from within a century of Jesus' birth, vs. the questionable provenance of the Pentateuch stories from literally thousands of years after the alleged flood and potentially almost as long after the 'exodus.' Furthermore there are excellent reasons based on contemporary geological and archaeological sciences to conclude that there was no global flood, nor two million Israelites wandering the Sinai Peninsula for forty years then invading Canaan, while there exists no such evidence to conclude that Jesus never walked on water or raised the dead. I have to inform you that if you think these are the same or even remotely comparable, it is you who is not handling the concept of evidence properly

What makes me particularly interested in this phenomenon is how wildly counter-productive it's likely to be as a general rule (unless of course the intention is merely to 'win' a debate),

Checks name of website
You came here expecting something else?

I live in hope. I for one have had numerous excellent and productive discussions over the years with various folk - perhaps because I often try to look for challenging topics and discussions and avoid the simpler, easy to 'win' arguments. Let's face it, it's almost never going to be an acknowledged win anyway, so what's the point?



As an interesting counterpoint to this phenomenon of assuming that anyone who is a Christian must adhere to a certain range of beliefs, for some people there also seems to a parallel tendency of assuming that anyone who doesn't adhere to particular actions here (ie, attacking Christianity) must be a Christian. For example because I advocate for a more reasonable and nuanced approach to the western world's biggest religion - rather than blindly hammering away in the hopes it'll somehow disappear - I myself have been thus accused by one of our most distinguished nontheist members

[Mithrae]

In case you're wondering, I don't do what I and DI do here on the site, in real life.

Same here. I almost never talk about religion in person with anyone.

This is a debate forum specifically for debating this religion. So I don't understand why people come onto a debate forum and then act like people are "attacking" their religion when all they are doing is offering reasons why they have concluded that the religion has no credibility, or can't be true, or the God is too nasty, or whatever.

See that there? In blue? Can you tell me what you did wrong there, particularly in light of this specific thread's opening post?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Just to review,

D.I. does not exhibit the understanding that what's in the Bible can be studied with great profit outside of any religious scope. What is disappointing is how rudimentary this perspective is, and yet how difficult it is for hypercritics here to grasp.

Moderator Warning


Please address the content of posts. Do not address the writers of them, or discuss other forum members personally--especially in a negative manner.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.