Thursday, February 19, 2009

The Perfect Word of God

Amazingly, the view that the Bible is somehow inerrant, or the perfect word of God, still has widespread subscription. Anyone who’s made an effort to read it with any sort of objectivity finds the claim laughable. Yet it persists. Almost invariably, objections to the infallibility claim that point to conflicting passages, omissions, contradictions, errors, or God’s sociopathic behavior are met with blanket appeals to “context.” If only we can understand the context, it is said, then we can understand why it was actually morally just for God to command genocide, or for God to sanction the forcible abduction and rape of virgin girls by the Israelites, or the New Testament restrictions on the actions of women. What follows is a series of textual gymnastics designed to make the horrible or the contradictory less so.

For those who would still insist on the infallibility or perfection of the Bible, consider a simple, and glaring deception in the very titles of the books. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have been presented and widely understood as the words of the four disciples of the same names. But it is now widely acknowledged, by even the most conservative scholars, that those four books were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Little to nothing is known about their authors except that they were not eye witnesses, they were not the apostles, and they were writing down stories that were retellings of retellings of retellings. They were given those names to foster the illusion of legitimacy and authenticity and the deception was propagated for centuries.

In a flimsy attempt to explain away this lie with “context” the believer may argue that Matthew wasn’t written by Matthew, but nevertheless, that gospel still tells the story of the apostle Matthew as it was later relayed to the author. But in fact, Matthew was cribbed for the most part, from the Gospel of Mark, so this attempt to explain away the glaring error in the perfect, error free text collapses too.

Far from being some sort of divinely guarded perfect record, the Bible is full of serious mistakes and deceptions. Not even the titles of the books can be trusted. It couldn't pass the rules concerning accuracy and plagiarism for a Freshman Composition class.

57 comments:

I Believe that I can't Believe said...

This Christian does not believe the biblical text to be inerrant.

There are flaws and contradictions.

To be expected.

It was written by men. I do believe they were inspired by God, but they were still human.

I do believe that the overarching message of the bible is true.

The bible shows us our need of a Savior and it shows us the savior we need...in Christ Jesus.

God uses imperfect tools for accomplish His perfect will.

The bread and wine of communion, the water of baptism, the imperfect words in the bible, and Jesus Himself...who was fully man.

There are no human rational explanations for this. It's taken on faith. The faith that God gives us throught the hearing of the gospel (Christ died for your sins and forgives you) and in the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion.

No strong arm tactics here.

One either believes it...or not.

The universe does not revolve the belief or unbelief of any particular person.

I would not be a believer if God hadn't made me one. No one can believe this of their own volition.

Anonymous said...

Whats wrong with the bible?

Anonymous said...

Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/23/ST2008062300818.html

wow 92 percent I guess the only irrational people around here is the insane atheist blogger...it takes more than name calling to refute all these peoples belief MR. atheist

I Believe that I can't Believe said...

Nothing is wrong with the Bible.

Every jot and tittle is not perfect, errorless, direct from Heaven wrapped up with a bow on it.

It's fully a product of God AND man.

God uses imperfect man to do what He wills.

Carbon Based said...

The all powerful creator of the universe and everything in it uses an imperfect tool (humans) to create an imperfect book (the bible) that if misunderstood by the reader results in punishment for all eternity?

And you want me to believe this tripe?

I Believe that I can't Believe said...

Carbon Based,

And you want me to believe this tripe?

I don't give a rat's ass if you believe it or not.

Teleprompter said...

Anonymous,

That's an argument ad populum fallacy. Whether there is a "higher power" or not isn't dependent upon the number of people who believe it.

Sure, we can all "believe" in something, but that doesn't make it true. Sometimes it's just wishful thinking. Seriously, just look at politics. That's more than enough evidence to show that people will believe anything, in large numbers.

Carbon Based said...

"I don't give a rat's ass if you believe it or not."

Well how very christian of you.

I Believe that I can't Believe said...

Carbon Based,

As a Christian, I can tell you to go fuck yourself if I wanted to.

Christianity isn't about my behavior or goodness (maybe somebody's fed you that line of horse manure but it's patently false).

Back to the original point.

If you read my original comment on this post, you would realize that I REALLY DO NOT CARE if you believe or not.

Ciao, Carbon

Teleprompter said...

"If you read my original comment on this post, you would realize that I REALLY DO NOT CARE if you believe or not."

Just like "god", huh?

Sure, I could not send you to eternal punishment for merely believing in the *wrong* religion such as Islam or Hinduism, but that wouldn't be...

it wouldn't be...

you know, what do you think heaven would be like if we let in all good people?

I Believe that I can't Believe said...

Teleprompter,

What God wants to do with you or I is His business.

Who knows, the time may come when you and I are "up there" sitting around sharing a beer.

Who knows? I don't...that's for sure.

Anybody that says that they do know, for sure, is a bit arrogant.

Jon said...

I successfully converted two of my friends to Atheism some time ago. I wasn't trying to be a missionary, but they couldn't ignore the logic.

However, I think basic psychology has something to do with belief states. So, many (but not all) so called conversion processes have something to do with that.

Charisma is a factor in all of our lives, especially combined with good arguments and non-emotional reasoning.

Why should I believe the Bible over the Koran? Or the Odyssey?

On a side note, the universe did not come from nothing - that doesn't make sense - a singularity is a mathematical failure of correspondence to physical reality. At best it (a singularity) shows an unknown position of physicality.

Then what is the "physical"?

Well God definitely plays no part.

The Bible tells me less good information for knowledge then the vast majority of other books. Why? It should be simple to point out the inconsistencies of the Bible in comparison to even moderately good scientific and literature based books of the 18th century, which are much richer even though crude my later standards - which show why I should give the Bible a passing glance of ridiculous iron age reasoning in comparison.

Anonymous said...

"And you want me to believe this tripe?"

choose wisely..

Anonymous said...

uh tele its no fallacy dude you need to go and understand more carefully what was posted...like the fact that this atheist blogger is hell bent on labeling people who disagree with him "irrational" or "credulous".

there was no argument made saying X is correct because populus Y says so....

Anonymous said...

yo there mr. jon why would you use the scientific method to disprove the bible? isnt the bible a religious text...

your friends couldnt deny the logic so they converted atheism? how about all those logicans? they all atheist? any of them a believer and still logical? oh wait wasnt godel a believer? how about einstien and other scientists?

it gets pretty old hearing atheist resort to the "believers are irrational" mantra...isnt that ad hominem???

Anonymous said...

"Far from being some sort of divinely guarded perfect record, the Bible is full of serious mistakes and deceptions. Not even the titles of the books can be trusted. It couldn't pass the rules concerning accuracy and plagiarism for a Freshman Composition class"

funny its taught on college campuses across the nation. I bet your bottom tier college has courses on that freshman level book...

Bryan Goodrich said...

Good point Matt. I think the facts surrounding the Bible are coming to the surface as common knowledge (thank you History channel! lol), but I have never thought about linking the inherent deception behind the titles to the deception throughout the content.

For some examples of the hilarious outakes of the Bible, a fellow Xangan blogger gives you

A Walkthrough

Jon said...

To Anon:

Godel may have been good at one kind of logic and terrible at another. Picasso may have been good at certain forms of art and terrible at other forms.

Therefore, I am being specific and not miss-generalizing various forms of abilities.

Einstein was great at most physics, but was wrong at certain specifics.

It goes for all of us, eh?

So therefore, no ad-hominem.

Carbon Based said...

"If you read my original comment on this post, you would realize that I REALLY DO NOT CARE if you believe or not."

If you really don't care what I or anyone else believes why are you here? Your self-contradicting. (I guess that's what you get for believing in the contradicting nonsense that is the christian cult)

If you truly did not care you wouldn't be here trying to explain your wacky believe system to a bunch of atheists and skeptics, you'd be some where else being more productive.

Teleprompter said...

Anonymous:

The Bhagavad-Gita is also taught in colleges, but you don't believe that, do you?

Einstein didn't believe in a personal god...double check your information; not that it matters, though. It's just anecdotal evidence anyway. Lots of brilliant people believed in Christianity...but that doesn't verify it. Newton was a Biblical literalist...but does that verify
Biblical literalism?

And yes, you did commit a fallacy: you said 92 percent of people believed in a higher power, therefore the author of this post must be "insane".

I Believe that I can't Believe said...

Carbon Based,

Good question!

I'll tell you why I'm here.

1) to dispell false notions of what it means to be a believer.

2) it's my job, as a believer, to speak of the One who has died for the sins of the world and forgives each and every one of us...that whoever HEARS IT (really hears it) might have faith and believe.

It's not my job to convert anyone. I couldn't do it if I wanted to.

When I say that I really don't care what you believe in, or don't believe in...I mean it. I don't care.

There was a time when I did. But I think I am growing in my faith of Jesus and I am leaving all the hard stuff to Him.

Anonymous said...

so jon you still were saying that believers are non logical...so was godel and einstein being illogical in their beliefs of a higher power?

Anonymous said...

sorry tele but you have misunderstood what ad populum fallacy is...there was no arg saying X is right becasue populus Y thinks so try wikipedia or somethin plz and stop being a impotent college student crying fallacies where none appear...

what the heck is your point about hinduism being taught as well? i feel like you have trouble reading peoples post correctly...

Anonymous said...

If einstien believed in a non personal god verses a personal god, how does this negate the position that einstien isnt still illogical? C'mon atheist lets see you defend your tenuous beliefs for once without name calling...

Carbon Based said...

"1) to dispell(sic) false notions of what it means to be a believer."

"I don't give a rat's ass if you believe it or not."

"If you read my original comment on this post, you would realize that I REALLY DO NOT CARE if you believe or not."

"2) it's my job, as a believer, to speak of the One who has died for the sins of the world and forgives each and every one of us...that whoever HEARS IT (really hears it) might have faith and believe."

Dude are your really that thick? Do you not see the irrationality of your statements/thinking. What is keeping you head from exploding from the massive cognitive dissonance?

So which is it you care what I and other people believe or you don't?

I Believe that I can't Believe said...

Carbon Based,

I'm starting to think that you are "thick".

That you don't believe in God is not my problem (it's yours). I do not care if you don't belivee because I cannot do anything about it. Are you with me?

But your misconceptions about what Christianity IS...I can do something about...like correct you.

Is that so hard to understand?

M. Tully said...

Not that Einstein's personal beliefs have anything to do with the existence (or lack there of) of a deity, can we at least let him speak for himself?

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950

“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954

M. Tully said...

"C'mon atheist lets see you defend your tenuous beliefs for once without name calling..."

OK Anon, I'll take that challenge. Let's hypothetically say for a moment that Einstein was a deeply devoted Christian (contrary to a vast body of evidence). Could he hold that empirically untenable belief and still be a brilliant physicist?

Yes, it is called compartmentalization. That is where an individual uses one set standards to judge the validity of most claims they are faced with everyday but, when certain topics are addressed they change the criteria of acceptance. It is quite common among the human species. In fact I'd venture to say it is universal.

And as long as the belief to which they give the free pass to isn't overly harmful, they can live quite successful and rational lives.

Newton for instance was quite a fan alchemy. Had he applied the same standards of evidence to alchemy he did to physics, he would have abandoned it. But other than wasting some time and money his irrational belief in alchemy did not harm him enough for his overall behavior to be judged irrational. He was just irrational in this one particular instance.

M. Tully said...

Anon,

My comment above applies equally to 92% of Americans you cite in your previous post. And to that I would like to add some other things that millions of Americans believe:

Roughly 50% believe that humans were created in their current form less than 10,000 ya.

One in five Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth.

Roughly 50% believe in ESP.

About 25% believe in Astrology.

More than 30% believe in clairvoyance.

So, do I believe millions and millions of people can hold irrational beliefs without being considered irrational overall? You bet I do. But that doesn't change the fact that I believe they are being irrational with respect to certain things that they believe.

M. Tully said...

My personal favorite example of compartmentalization.

Historian and theologian Mark Roberts is asked , "if he believes the story in Saint Matthew's Gospel about the graves opening in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion, and the occupants walking the streets. Doesn't it rather cheapen the idea of resurrection? He replies that as a Christian he does believe it, though as a historian he has his doubts."

Head in the Sand said...

I winder what percentage of the world's population believe that life came from 'no life'.

Or that 'it just happened'?

Eric Sotnak said...

Head in the Sand wrote:
"I winder what percentage of the world's population believe that life came from 'no life'. Or that 'it just happened'?"

Suppose instead the question were: "I wonder what percentage of the world's population believe that snowflakes came from 'no snowflakes'. Or that 'it just happened'?"

Why do you expect such a different answer to the first of these questions than the second? Is it simply a matter of the DEGREE of complexity? Is it something else?

Bryan Goodrich said...

Anon,

You keep bringing up Godel as if he's the epitome of rational thought and discourse. The guy was insane. I mean literally. He starved himself to death after his wife passed away and was no longer around to tell him that no one was poisoning his food. He hated hospitals and continued to deteriorate till his death after hospitalization.

He was also a Platonic realist and believed mathematical entities had an actually real existence. Should we also agree this ontological claim is true simply because Godel believed it? That'd be moronic and the worst kind of inference.

Guess what? I can also make a logical black box that will make true whatever you want to believe. It only depends on propositional logic (though I can make a first-order set theoretical or first-order predicate version). It goes like this

{A,¬A}╞ ■

What does that say? It means the set of propositions A and not A prove wtf-ever you want. Replace the black box by "God is real" or "The moon is made of cheese" and it comes as true because every proof has an associated implication of the form

╞ {A,¬A} → ■

Which anyone with a basic understanding of logic should know that an implication is true whenever its antecedent is false. The antecedent is a contradiction and therefore always false. Therefore, whatever you want to fill the black box with is always true. This is a move used in many mathematical proofs (e.g., the empty set proves many cases of a theorem vacuously).

So is that what you want to grasp at? Empty logical claims simply because they're logical? Simply because some system of logic will have models that satisfy notions of God? This is a worse move, I would say, than the naturalistic fallacy in ethics. You basically take something abstract and apply it to reality to make ontological claims with complete disregard for qualifying that move. You ignore the giant chasm that stands between the abstract and the ontological like someone ignoring the fact that statements about what is are not immediately isomorphic (if at all) to valuational or normative statements. How the hell do you just say "logic says X, therefore reality says it too." Logic can be used to prove whatever you want. Get real.

But is that how you want God to exist? Vacuously through some empty notion of logic? You have to realize, logic is syntactical and denotative. We supply the connotations, the semantics and meaning. That black box model I presented will prove anything in propositional logic, albeit, vacuously. But it does so without even having anything to fill the variables yet. We have no idea what the box or the A state. We match it to things that are ontological and model them after the relations of reality. Yet, you haven't qualified how that move is done at all. In fact, you think it sounds true without even stating anything in reality! Even if we can make a logical deductive inference about God in some system of logic, even if we can find a model to satisfy that statement, it will never have to say anything about reality or the natural world.

Like abstract Platonic entities, God might exist as such a thing, but it certainly wouldn't have anything to do with reality, no more than the supposedly existing object 2. If God exists, I will assert, then so does infinity, the infinite set of numbers as individual objects in the world, and so do all the functions that would solve the statement f(x)=5. Unfortunately, they're probably hanging out in a bar somewhere that all those elves and unicorns are, too, because I can just never find those damn guys.

M. Tully said...

Well Head in the Sand,

I don’t know for sure. In fact I don’t even know if such a study has ever been done. But I would imagine it is about the same percentage as those who have read and understood articles like this one (subscription required). A few excerpts:

"Now is a good time to be doing this research, because the prospects for success are greater than they have ever been," says John Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. He and others are addressing each of the steps involved in the transition to life: where the raw materials came from, how complex organic molecules such as RNA formed, and how the first cells arose. In doing so, they are inching their way toward making life from scratch.

Over the past few years, they have documented almost an entire route from prebiotic molecules to RNA and are preparing to publish even more details of their success. Discovering these new reactions makes Sutherland suspect it wouldn't have been that hard for RNA to emerge directly from an organic soup. "We've got the molecules in our sights," he says.

Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California, have shown how [spontaneous self-replication] might have been possible. They designed a pair of RNA molecules that join together and assemble loose nucleotides to match their partner. Once the replication is complete, old and new RNA molecules separate and join with new partners to form new RNA. In 30 hours, Lincoln and Joyce found, a population of RNA molecules could grow 100 million times bigger.

Now [Jack] Szostak is running experiments to bring his protocells closer to life. He is developing new forms of RNA that may be able to replicate longer molecules faster. For him, the true test of his experiments will be whether his protocells not only grow and reproduce, but evolve.

"To me, the origin of life and the origin of Darwinian evolution are essentially the same thing," says Szostak. And if Darwin was alive today, he might well be willing to write a lot more about how life began.

Baconsbud said...

I must be confused or more then likely it is my limited education. As I understand it the christian god is perfect. I have never understood how something can be perfect if its main creation is imperfect. The way I understand perfect, anything done by someone or something that is perfect should be perfect. If it isn't then the creator isn't perfect.
With this in mind then either man and the bible is a perfect creation or the christian god isn't what people believe it to be.
Please explain this to me since I have read enough of the bible to know it isn't perfect as we define perfect.

Head in the Sand said...

M. Tulley,

"To me, the origin of life and the origin of Darwinian evolution are essentially the same thing," says Szostak.

I believe it takes way more 'faith' to believe that life evolved out of nothing.

akakiwibear said...

Amazingly, the view that the Bible is somehow inerrant, or the perfect word of God, still has widespread subscription. Anyone who’s made an effort to read it with any sort of objectivity finds the claim laughable. ... laughable and amazing … yes indeed.

Perhaps even more surprising when the worlds’ largest Church does not hold that view – don’t the literalists ask why not?

I guess there is a place for those who are attracted by absolutes. Unfortunately, from my theist perspective, once the limitations of absolutes of the literalistic interpretation are recognised what often follows is atheism. When they realise that God is not in their literalistic interpretation they seem to accept there is no God rather than that God is not the literalistic God but different.

I suppose that it is small wonder that people of that mind set would rather label all religion as wrong than have to plot a course of understanding through theology.

Sala kahle - peace

akakiwibear said...

Baconsbud, perhaps I can help, yopu say I have never understood how something can be perfect if its main creation is imperfect.

Firstly on a superficial level there is a circular irrationality about your argument.

You and I might judge creation to be imperfect. Since we are imperfect (by your definition as products of the imperfect creation) so why would value our opinion over that of the perfect (by your definition) creator.

But more importantly, a lack of perfection gives rise to many benefits, and it could be argued that perfection in a physical world is either an illusion or undesirable – in fact is itself an imperfection … consider

… we need to be inventive to adapt to what you consider the imperfections of this world; in a perfect world we would not need to be creative (e.g harness energy to keep us warm). So to achieve perfection (a perfect world) you need to destroy perfection by denying us the opportunity/ability to be creative.

… so is a creative human being more aligned to perfection than a dumb one ... or

Sala kahle - peace

M. Tully said...

Head in the Sand,

None of the scientists in that article say anything to imply that "that life evolved out of nothing." What they are saying is that it's chemistry. Just normal chemistry. And although it is difficult to recreate the exact conditions from 3.5 billion years ago, it never the less requires no magic. Life came from normal molecules going through normal chemical reactions.

And they are getting very close to creating the environment for those reactions to occur in the laboratory.

Jon said...

Yes, Godel's belief does not follow from his specialty.

Anonymous said...

Tully,

there are fake quotes going around the net about einstein. I believe you found them. Here is the wiki article that addresses the mans belief...

As a Jewish scientist he had to flee from Nazi Germany, but it should be noted that he did not believe in traditional notions of a personal god, but rather perceived God to be a "superpersonal" entity, in ways that he declared to be inspired by Baruch Spinoza's and Arthur Schopenhauer's ideas. He also asserted that the Jewish scriptures, Jesus, Gautama Buddha and other religious figures were important guides for the ethical advancement of humanity

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

Anonymous said...

Wow byran you went on a tangent that had nothing to do with what I posted...simply that godel was a believer - thats it!

Anonymous said...

Tully,

"My comment above applies equally to 92% of Americans you cite in your previous post. And to that I would like to add some other things that millions of Americans believe:"

My point was to show that there is some serious blanket statements made here about believers just being irrational, which is a poor analysis.

Bryan Goodrich said...

Anon

If my post was a tangent, then there was absolutely nothing substantiating your appeal to Godel's belief. But that would be inconsistent with the fact you appealed to Godel's specialty as a logician and brilliant rational mind when it came to mathematics. I dispelled that relation and left you with nothing. Now you try to say you weren't grasping at anything. In any case, you have nothing to support your fallacious appeal. But my argument was far from tangential.

Baconsbud said...

akakiwibear said... But more importantly, a lack of perfection gives rise to many benefits, and it could be argued that perfection in a physical world is either an illusion or undesirable – in fact is itself an imperfection … consider

Is it really a benefit to be imperfect? Of course I will admit there is no such thing as complete perfection. If there was then there would be no needs or wants. Everything we would need would be there for us and nothing we did would affect anyone or anything in an imperfect way. Why would I need a means of staying warm when I am perfect.
My point with the perfect thing is there is no such thing and when people try to define some being as perfect they are mistaken. While we sometimes do things in a perfect way. Nothing can be absolutely perfect.
The only real problem I have with how christians define their friend in the sky, is they apply words but change the meaning when shown it is incorrect.
Take the words of I Believe that I can't Believe, God uses imperfect tools for accomplish His perfect will. If god has perfect will then why does he need tools? I just see people using the word perfect to try and claim that we are inferior to something that has to be there but is afraid to show itself.
The bible is nothing more to me then a record of the fears and desires of people. People want there to be something out there that is directing their lives and it has to be perfect for it to do that.

M. Tully said...

Anon,

"Tully,

there are fake quotes going around the net about einstein. I believe you found them."

No doubt there are, but the ones I cite are not two of them.

Citation: Einstein Archive 59-215 and 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216 - 218.

Deepak said...

I Believe that I can't Believe, said:
it's my job, as a believer, to speak of the One who has died for the sins of the world and forgives each and every one of us...that whoever HEARS IT (really hears it) might have faith and believe.


Did you see him die for the sins?
... And what the **** do you mean by 'forgives each and everyone of us'
There are millions of suffering people in this world in form of beggars, lepors, disabled children etc etc whom "you BELIEVERS" call as sinners, are they forgiven?
Or do you mean to say, "hey, no dude, I mean the child rapists, gangsters, smugglers, cheats and terrorists, these people only deserve to be forgiven"

Don't you even have the common sense to know what sounds real?
Is it the fantasy stories abt God or the practical world around you?

Deepak said...

Its so obvious that believers are more comfortable believing in just words of imagination. They really enjoy reading it more and more NO MATTER WHAT, and really DONT CARE to know if it could be true or false. I really don't see any difference between a child reading some fairy tale book and a believer reading a spiritual book. (HONESTLY!!!)

First of all I think the prime reason to all this is the fear to think against a man-made term 'God'.
How STUPID is it to think if I doubt on God I will not get the ticket to heaven? So that means no matter how good you are, you will be sent to hell just for ONE REASON, NOT BELIEVING IN GOD???
And on the other hand do all the f**k you want, go around raping children, and praise the name of God so you get a rewarded with a 'flying ferrari' all the way to heaven?
Does that sound god-like? Come on tell me?

I really feel pitty for such believers who clearly lack even a trace of common sense.

Deepak said...

I have tried so much to explain things to my parents who are in deep sleep dreaming about things in religious books. They don't want to WAKE UP no matter how much I try. I gave up my hope of trying to explain a 'simple' thing that only needs common sense to understand. The problem with most believers is that they ignore to 'think' even for a moment. Their mind is already smoked up with fantasy stories from relegious fairy tale books. They call this 'faith' (LOL...)
I now feel its better to let these ignorant people continue with it as long as they don't cause harm to others. I am happy atleast to see there are some believers who are educated enough that they don't try to take AK47 and hunt down innocents, thinking this is a shortcut to God's residence(heaven)

Deepak said...

I read this somewhere in this atheism blog. Let me try to put it in my own words:

If the evil in the world is intended by God, then God can not be good. If the evil can violate God's intentions, then God is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. If only God can create, then he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that God, and not the Devil created the universe?

To me these are "GOLDEN LINES"..
Words of meaning, words that make sense, words of truth......
I love to read them again and again.
How about you believers? Not interested? Ok go sleep with your spiritual books and "NEVER WAKE UP"

Deepak said...

I feel like spitting on you believers' face when you say: "The lepers and disabled children on streets are sinners."
It shows that you believers are cowards to the core!! Are you not ashamed to point fingers at these poor people who can not hit back at you, instead of pointing fingers at the REAL SINNERS commiting sins in front of your eyes raping kids and killing innocent people?
Now what, you think they will suffer in next birth?? Holy crap !!!!
So you believe in wild imagination?

Deepak said...

Is there any sensible believer out there with the heart to answer my question?



(Matt McCormick, thanks a lot for your blog posts... I am really sorry I dont have enough words to thank you. You are one great humanbeing that can think STRAIGHT and clear)

逆円助 said...

さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆円助交際』を提供します。逆円交際を未経験の方でも気軽に遊べる大人のマッチングシステムです。年齢上限・容姿・経験一切問いません。男性の方は無料で登録して頂けます。貴方も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか

精神年齢 said...

みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあの子も実は精神年齢オバサンということも…合コンや話のネタに一度チャレンジしてみよう

メル友募集 said...

最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.0720@docomo.ne.jp 連絡待ってるよ☆

家出 said...

最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセージが多数書き込みされています。彼女たちはお金がないので掲示板で知り合った男性の家にでもすぐに泊まりに行くようです。あなたも書き込みに返事を返してみませんか

Anonymous said...

Wow... Will you look at all the hostility? It makes me sad.

Basically, the way I see it, there are two types of christians. "Cart pushers" and "Cart Riders".

The first type helps push the cart. He actually cares enough about Christianity and God that it affects his life, and he is a real Christian.
Secondly, there is the ones looking for a free ride away from hell, and I'm not sure that these people really get it.

Basically, you can't just be in it for the reward.