Dear Kathy,
Since you graciously agreed (in our recent conversation) to let me present you with some examples of the Bible’s problems, I decided to do it in this way so it would have its own comment thread. As I’ve said, when I was a Christian, one strike against the Bible was not enough to shake my faith — maybe it only seemed problematic, maybe there was an explanation we hadn’t uncovered yet, maybe the historical accounts were wrong, etc. But as the problems began to mount up, I reached a point where I could no longer deny the fact that the Bible had actual errors.
A couple of suggestions before we begin. Try to be as open-minded about this as possible. As you go through these examples, ask yourself if God would allow such problems to exist in a message that he wanted all people to accept and believe? According to the Bible, whenever God sent someone a message, whether it was Pharaoh or Gideon or Nebuchadnezzar or Paul, they had no question whom it was from. They didn’t always follow it, as we see with people like Pharaoh and Solomon, but they didn’t question the source of the message or what it stated. So why would God operate differently today? Why would he want us to be so confused about his message that we’re able to question whether or not it’s really from him?
Another thing to keep in mind is that even if you come to the conclusion that the Bible has actual problems, that doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. There are a number of Christians who don’t believe in inerrancy. And even if you lose faith in the Christian god, that still doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. A number of people, including several of our founding fathers, were deists. I have a lot of sympathy for that view and plan to do a post on it soon.
Some of the items listed here will have links that provide additional information, especially when the issue is too detailed to list here. I hope that you’ll check out those links, since some of them are quite significant points. And regardless of how this article strikes you, I hope it will help serve as a great springboard to launch you into your own research.
Some of the Problems
Creation
The creation accounts in Genesis do not match what we’ve learned through science. This isn’t shocking news, but it bears looking into. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory had nothing to do with my deconversion, but I’ve learned more about both since leaving Christianity. It’s shocking how much misinformation I had been operating under. Not to say that all Christians are that way — that was simply my experience. But the evidence for both evolution and the Big Bang are far more substantial than I had ever realized. Two good resources for learning more about these issues are the following (though I’d also recommend checking out the recent Cosmos series, as well as some of the PBS NOVA specials):
Another problem with the creation accounts is that Genesis 1 says that plants and trees were made on the 3rd day, while man was made on the 6th. But Genesis 2:5-9 says that man was created before there were any plants or trees in the land. Also, the 1st chapter says that man was created after all the animals, but the 2nd chapter implies that it was the other way around. It seems strange that such discrepancies would exist only a chapter apart, but there are a number of textual clues that suggest the first 5 books of the Bible were assembled over a long period of time from various writings written by a number of different people. Many scholars believe that Genesis 1 and 2 represent two separate versions of the creation story that were both included because the compilers didn’t know which was more accurate. Whatever the reason, there’s no question that the differences exist and are hard to explain.
10 Plagues
During the 10 plagues, God afflicts all of Egypt’s livestock with a disease (Ex 9:1-7), and it specifies that it would affect the “horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks.” We’re told that all of Egypt’s livestock died. But the later plague of boils was said to affect both man and beast (verse 10 of chapter 9). Maybe it meant non-livestock animals. But Ex 11:5 says that the death of the firstborn would also affect Egypt’s cattle, and in Exodus 14, Pharaoh pursues the Israelites with horses.
Hares Chew the Cud
Leviticus 11:6 tells us that hares chew the cud. They do not. Animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. When they eat plant matter, it goes to their first stomach to soften, and then it’s regurgitated to their mouth. They spend time re-chewing it, and then it is swallowed and fully digested. Ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, etc.) are recognizable because their chewing of the cud is very obvious. Hares (rabbits) don’t chew the cud; however, their mouths do move frequently, so it’s possible to see why some people may have assumed that they do chew the cud. Of course, God would know they didn’t, and this is why the passage is problematic. You can read more about this here.
Arphaxad
In the genealogy given in Genesis 11:10-12, we see that Noah fathered Shem and Shem fathered Arphaxad. At the age of 35, Arphaxad fathered Shelah. This information is confirmed in 1 Chron 1:18. But Luke 3:35-36 tells us that Arphaxad’s son was Cainan, and he was the father of Shelah.
Where does Luke get this information? It disagrees with the Old Testament, so who should we believe? Some have suggested that Genesis and 1 Chronicles simply left out Cainan for some reason. But why would they do that? To further complicate it, how could Cainan have fit in there? Genesis tells us that Arphaxad was 35 when he fathered Shelah. Does it really seem likely that Arphaxad became a grandfather by 35, especially when you consider the extreme old ages that people lived to at that time?
Another explanation is that some copyist messed up when copying Luke and Cainan is just a mistake. But this is not much better. First of all, the error would have needed to occur early for it to be in all our copies of Luke. Secondly, are we really comfortable saying that we have the inspired word of our creator, but it got messed up by some guy who wasn’t paying close attention? To me, that doesn’t lend a lot of credence to the idea of inspiration or inerrancy.
Instead, the most likely explanation is that Luke made a mistake. This, of course, would indicate that he was not inspired.
Problems in the Book of Daniel
In Daniel 5, the writer refers to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar 7 different times. Yet we know from multiple contemporary sources that Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus, who was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. The same chapter says that Darius the Mede took over Babylon, but this person does not seem to have ever existed. Daniel says that he was the son of Ahaseurus, and in mentioning this, the author of Daniel indicates that he was thinking of a later ruler — the persian emperor Darius the Great, whose son was Ahaseurus. This post in particular goes into the problems surrounding the 5th chapter, but if you’d like to learn about the problems in the rest of the book, you can access each article in the series here.
Jairus’s Daughter
In Mark 5:23, Jairus finds Jesus and says that his daughter is at the point of death. While they’re on their way to the house, some of his servants find them on the way and say that she has died and there’s no point in troubling Jesus further.
However, in Matthew 9:18, Jairus already knows that his daughter has died, but tells Jesus that if he’ll lay his hands on her, she’ll live. This may seem like a minor difference, but honestly, there’s only one scenario that could be true. Either the girl was already dead, or she wasn’t. And if Jairus already knew she was dead, then there was no point in his servants coming to tell him that (so of course, they don’t appear in Matthew’s account).
The Centurion
This is similar to the previous issue. Matthew and Luke both record a centurion who asks Jesus to heal his sick servant. Matthew 8:5-13 says that the centurion himself comes before Jesus to ask for help. Luke 7:1-10 says that the Jewish elders went on his behalf, and then he sent servants to follow up. In Luke, Jesus never speaks to, or even sees, the centurion at all.
Hight Priest
In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus talks about the occasion from the Old Testament when David ate the showbread, which Jesus said was in the days of Abiathar the high priest. However, in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, it appears that Ahimelech was the high priest. Some have tried to answer this problem by saying that Abiathar was alive during that particular episode, so Jesus’ statement is still true. But that’s obviously not the intent of the passage. After all, we would correct anyone who said that the tragedy of 9/11 occurred during the days of President Barack Obama. He may have been alive at the time, but that event did not happen while he was President.
430 Years
Galatians 3:16-17 says this:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
Here, Paul says that the law came 430 years after the promises were made to Abraham. But in Exodus 12:40-41, we see:
Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt.
If the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, then there could not have been 430 years between Abraham’s promises and the law. God made the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, and as we read on through Genesis, we see that Abraham had no children at this time. Later, he had a son named Isaac. When Isaac was 60 years old, he had Jacob (Gen 25:24-26), and Jacob had 12 sons that produced the 12 tribes of Israel. Already, we can see that some time has passed since Abraham received the promise. Once Jacob’s sons were all grown with families of their own, they finally settled in Egypt. Jacob was 130 years old at this time (Gen 47:9), and this marks the beginning of that 430 year period that the Israelites spent in Egypt.
That means that the time between the promise to Abraham and the giving of the law was actually over 600 years. So why did Paul say 430 years? I think it’s obvious that this was a simple mistake. He remembered the 430 year figure because that’s how much time the Israelites spent in Egypt, and so he simply misspoke. It’s not a big deal… except that he’s supposed to be inspired by God.
Jesus’ Birth
There are a number of issues surrounding Jesus’ birth. First, Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts contradict one another on virtually all the details, which you can read about here. Secondly, Matthew seems to invent an episode where Herod kills all the children in Bethlehem who are 2 and under, causing Mary, Joseph, and Jesus to flee to Egypt (instead of just returning home to Nazareth, because only Luke says that they started in Nazareth). Matthew does this in order to “fulfill” some Old Testament passages that actually have nothing to do with Jesus or killing babies. You can read about Matthew’s misuse of the Old Testament here — it’s quite blatant.
The Virgin Birth is one of the most famous aspects of Jesus’ story, and it was supposedly done in fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah. But it turns out that Isaiah was prophesying no such thing — he was talking about an event that was happening in his own time, and Matthew (once again) just appropriated the “prophecy” for his own devices. You can read all the details here.
Another problem concerning Jesus’ birth narratives is that Matthew and Luke both offer genealogies for Jesus, but they are completely different from one another. Worse, they don’t match the genealogies listed in the Old Testament, either. And Matthew claims that there was a pattern in the number of generations between Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian captivity, and between the Babylonian captivity and Christ. But to get this neat division, he is forced to leave out some names. In other words, that pattern didn’t happen. You can read more about that here.
The Triumphal Entry
While not as blatant as most of these other issues, when Matthew recounts Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he once again borrows from the Old Testament, but seems to make a mistake in his implementation. See here for more info.
Judas’ Death
Judas is well known for being the disciple that betrayed Jesus, but what’s not as well known is there are two different accounts of his death, and it’s very hard to reconcile them. According to Matthew, Judas threw his money down at the chief priests’ feet and went out and hanged himself. We’re not told where he did this. The priests then take the money, and instead of putting it back in the treasury (since it’s blood money), they buy a field to use for burying strangers. Because they bought the field with this money, it’s called the “Field of Blood.”
According to Acts, Judas bought a field with his money (we’re not told that he was remorseful), and he somehow fell down, bursting open in the middle and bleeding to death. The field was called “Field of Blood” after that because of the manner in which Judas died.
To make things more complicated, Matthew (of course) says that this happened in accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecy, but there’s nothing in Jeremiah that matches up. The closest reference comes from Zechariah, not Jeremiah.
These issues really complicate the notion of divine inspiration, and you can read more about them here.
The Crucifixion
There are several big problems with the way the gospels record the events of Jesus’ death, including the fact that different times of day are given for it, and even different days altogether. You can read more about this here.
The Resurrection
There are also a number of problems concerning the resurrection, some minor, some major. They’re too involved to get into here, but you can read all about them here and here.
The Problem of Hell
The notion of Hell is fraught with problems. It might even surprise you to learn that the Bible’s teachings on the afterlife change dramatically between the Old and New Testaments. I go into detail about Hell’s problems here, here, and here.
The Problem of Evil
Another huge problem for Christianity is the problem of evil, which I talk about here. This post also addresses the “problem of Heaven.”
The Bible’s Morality
While a number of people believe that the Christian god is the source of all morality, the Bible is actually filled with some monstrous acts that are either commanded by God, done with his consent, or carried out by him directly. I talk about some specific examples here, and I address some of the common responses to them here.
Conclusion
Kathy, there are a number of other examples that could be given, including the prophecy of Tyre that we’ve been discussing. But to me, these are some of the most significant and clear-cut problems. We could try to manufacture explanations for every one of these — some might be more believable than others. But why should we have to? If a perfect God inspired this book, why should it contain so many discrepancies? And honestly, some of these issues can’t be explained. They’re just wrong. The problems go well beyond internal contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. There are problems of authorship, problems with the doctrines, and problems with the way the texts were written, transcribed, and compiled.
I’m sure you’ve spent your time as a Christian trying to reach those who are lost. You’ve always believed that Christianity is truth, and it’s the one thing that everyone needs. But could it be that Christianity is just as false as every other religion in the world? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t you want to leave it behind? When one is dedicated to finding truth, they have to be prepared to follow it wherever it leads. It’s not always easy or popular. It’s not even a guarantee that you’re right. All it means is that you follow the evidence where it leads to the best of your ability. If you find out that you’re wrong about something, you adjust course when the evidence dictates. If God exists, and if he’s righteous, what more could he ask for than that? I’ll close with my favorite quote:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
— Marcus Aurelius
Finding Truth 
“Behold Kathy’s debating style:
“Control through censorship/ and censorship through control….. why no liberal should hold a government position.. and why our country is presently being dismantled and “fundamentally TRANSFORMED’.“”
You make this claim about me WHILE nearly ALL the atheists here are almost begging for this thread to be stopped.. aka censored.
LikeLike
@arch
What do you expect exactly when the evidence PROVES I am right. My debate “style” is because you all force me to confront you due to lack of honesty and objectivity. Without these things.. there can’t be any progress in finding truth. Again, why do I have to keep explaining these fundamental basic concepts?? You force me to ask.. it truth REALLY the goal here???
LikeLike
Thanks Mike. I’ll take your astonishingly strange refusal to offer something as simple as a date to mean: “All I have is three Evangelical Christians [Kitchen from Liverpool University, Hoffmeier, from the Evangelical Divinity College, and Bryant Wood, the Young Earth Creationist from the inerrantist Associates for Biblical Research] to back me up… and I’m too embarrassed to mention them now.”
LikeLike
Does anyone recall exactly what it was that little Mikie had to say about the validity of Wikipedia?
LikeLike
“Maybe John should just pull up one or two of his interviews.
That should shut Mike up.”
Does it have some data? If not no such hope of it doing that (I’ll just ask where’s the primary data) and please make sure for my reading pleasure that it has something on the reliability of egyptian chronology.
“Oh, and yes, Mike, being an evangelical christian does disqualify Kitchen or anyone else from impartiality.”
You get no vote. Sorry. IF you beg yes then I hereby proclaim that being an atheist/ god hating agnositc disqualifies anyone from being impartial. See how that works?
“so what on earth makes a literalist like you think there is some different Egyptian chronology that will get you or any other Christian out of this bloody cul de sac you are all in? ”
Majority theist status in the world you mean? We are quite happy with our ummm….cul de sac.
Meanwhile Egyptian chronology kinda still has the same issue it dd before your last post.
LikeLike
I’m just now catching up on comments — still not finished yet — but I withdraw my request. For those of you who were holding back (kc and nan) feel free to jump back in.
Thanks though. And I may just give up any pretext of trying to moderate this thing. We’ll see…
LikeLike
“Does anyone recall exactly what it was that little Mikie had to say about the validity of Wikipedia?”
I do I said it wasn’t very good for a lot of things. however Nate etc continued to use it so now you must live with the consequences of your decisions.
LikeLike
Censored, in its simplest form, means “banned.” I don’t think Nate or anyone else here is asking for the conversation to be censored/banned. In fact, I now see Nate’s latest comment where he says he’s going to go ahead and let it proceed.
LikeLike
“Thanks Mike. I’ll take your astonishingly strange refusal to offer something as simple as a date to mean: ”
John Life is too short for me to be concerned about how you take things in your mind. We just “met” so thats even more the case. I’d rather see the raw data that disputes what I said about egyptian chronology having issues but in frequent posts all I see is hand waving.
LikeLike
First of all, you may have noted that I’m not one of those. Secondly, my comment related to your style, not the content.
LikeLike
“the evidence PROVES I am right.” – you’ve presented none.
LikeLike
Synonyms for “objective”: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
Based on this, I suppose we could say that no one on this site is truly “objective.”
But back to what I wrote to Kathy … “When you limit your research only to that which “supports the truth of the Bible,” you are NOT looking at it from an objective, neutral position.”
Considering the synonyms above, I stand by my comment.
Further, you wrote: Claiming that conservative / Christians don’t believe in helping the less fortunate shows an extreme lack of objectivity. I did NOT make this claim. Here is what I wrote: “Liberals” also believe in helping the less fortunate (something the BIBLE teaches). IMO, believers tend to focus primarily on the issues you mentioned and fail to see that many of the core beliefs of liberals are much more bible-focused than conservatives care to admit.”
LikeLike
I hereby proclaim that being an atheist/ god hating agnostic disqualifies anyone from being impartial.
lol..what a halfwit. No atheist hates gods…how dumb-ass would that be: to hate something you don’t believe in. Don’t be ridiculous.
Of course christian evangelism disqualifies a person like Kitchen from impartiality. He metaphorically digs with a spade in one hand and a bible in the other. Just as Albright did, whose methodology in some aspects of his work are considered what not to do in archaeology.
He could not harmonize the biblical tale when confronted with scientific data and was forced to recognize the fact.
Kenyon blew away all previous claims spouted by the religious crowd over Jerusalem and Finkelstein, Devers and Herzog, to name three, have done the same regarding the Exodus.
What has changed regarding Egyptian chronology? Not much as far as can be seen.
How far off could they be? A 1000 years. 2000 thousand?
But so what? There is no evidence, period.
As Ron mentioned, if there’s evidence from 800,000 years ago of a few sedentary cave dwellers then as sure as camels shit in the desert something would have turned up in the Sinai over the past 100 years. If there was any evidence of a movement of around 2 million people, it would have been found, and this excludes the period of settlement during the 40 years sojourn.
All parties to the Bible and the god Yahweh ( and of course the character, Jesus of Nazareth) have a vested interest in establishing the truth.
Sadly, it has turned out that what they hoped for was not there.
Coming to terms with this must have been difficult for many.
Some, like you, and your fellow believers still refuse to acknowledge what the majority of those directly involved have already given the nod to. It is a fiction.
So, Mike, unless you are prepared to demonstrate your integrity with these chronological claims instead of yelling ‘primary evidence’ like a spoiled child, then we will just have to accept the ”opinion” of every major archaeologist in the world and declare the biblical tale fiction.
And if you are not prepared to show and tell, then you are simply pissing in the wind and you can gloat all you want. The real world will simply pass you by and you can sit there and pray to your god.
And best of luck to you.
LikeLike
Ruth said:
Yes! I completely agree. Not quite sure how to get things back on the rails at this point…
LikeLike
@Nate
The ‘debate’ has largely turned on the axis of the Exodus and Mike, is, as per his style, refuting everything served up.
Yet, frequent requests for him to show his evidence that challenges the overwhelming consensus have simply met with boorish or glib replies and the usual theological two step.
He certainly has no respect for you, Nate, and it seems that he and Kathy are merely using this post as an excuse to obfuscate and espouse worn out apologetics that contribute nothing.
The idea behind the post was well intentioned but we tend to forget that the indoctrinated christian has no real interest in being enlightened on an atheist blog! 🙂
You,Nan, Ruth and Ken of all folk would have been similar in your Christian Heyday, I’m sure.
Well, maybe not as much as a prat as dear Mike, but perhaps equally as stubborn?
LikeLike
Ark said:
You,Nan, Ruth and Ken of all folk would have been similar in your Christian Heyday, I’m sure.
I did try to convince Ed Buckner, former president of American Atheists, that it would have been better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the sea than to teach his son to be an atheist, too.
For the life of me I couldn’t understand why hell didn’t scare him.
LikeLike
“lol..what a halfwit. No atheist hates gods…how dumb-ass would that be: to hate something you don’t believe in. Don’t be ridiculous.”
Ah………… you thought I thought you were rational. You are right it is irrational but given all your spit, foam and spittle theres actually no doubt about your hate.
“Kenyon blew away all previous claims spouted by the religious crowd over Jerusalem and Finkelstein, Devers and Herzog, to name three, have done the same”
Yawn….another proclamation without data and primary evidence.
“What has changed regarding Egyptian chronology? Not much as far as can be seen.
How far off could they be? A 1000 years. 2000 thousand?
“But so what? There is no evidence, period”
🙂 you think no matter what the date it doesn’t matter? would that be like the barf that there are no issues with Egyptian chronologies?
“So, Mike, unless you are prepared to demonstrate your integrity with these chronological claims instead of yelling ‘primary evidence’ like a spoiled child, then we will just have to accept the ”opinion” of every major archaeologist in the world and declare the biblical tale fiction.”
Which being interpreted means
” Mike what can I tell you . I don’t have the data I just make arguments based on skeptic authorities weeding out any who aren’t. Whadda you want from me I read talk origins as my source for goodness sale”
Ok Ark ….I Got ya.
LikeLike
Nan said:
“Further, you wrote: Claiming that conservative / Christians don’t believe in helping the less fortunate shows an extreme lack of objectivity. I did NOT make this claim. Here is what I wrote: “Liberals” also believe in helping the less fortunate (something the BIBLE teaches). IMO, believers tend to focus primarily on the issues you mentioned and fail to see that many of the core beliefs of liberals are much more bible-focused than conservatives care to admit.”
If your statement was not an implied claim that helping the less fortunate was an exclusively liberal characteristic.. then your comment doesn’t make sense.
““Liberals” also believe in helping the less fortunate (something the BIBLE teaches).”
If “also” means liberals, ALONG with conservatives, believe in helping.. it does NOT fit the context of the exchange.. especially when you include “(something the BIBLE teaches)”.. and note “BIBLE” is capitalized.
Nope, sorry, but I call foul. See.. this is what causes me to have such a negative combative attitude towards liberals.
Here’s my comment.. and your response to it below..
Me: Nan, all liberal beliefs that conservatives don’t agree with are the beliefs I refer to. Abortion, gay marriage are 2 major examples.. another is support of political policies that strip away freedoms.
You: “Liberals” also believe in helping the less fortunate (something the BIBLE teaches). IMO, believers tend to focus primarily on the issues you mentioned and fail to see that many of the core beliefs of liberals are much more bible-focused than conservatives care to admit.”
LikeLike
Ark
Kitchen has never even led a dig. He’s not an actual archaeologist, rather an Egyptologist who re-interprets texts. Hoffmeier has led one dig (financed by his evangelical Divinity College) at Tell el-Borg (the Gate of the Ramesside Fort) where he discovered an Egyptian military road. Bryant Wood can be ignored completely for being the lunatic Young Earth Creationist he is. He’s also never led a dig, but by the power of Woo did re-date the fall of Jericho to 1400 BCE… 300 years after it was actually abandoned. Of course, all these evangelicals simply ignore the uncontested Settlement maps, the arrival date of the Philistines on the Levant, all the Stations which didn’t exist at the time, and the really awkward nugget of Canaan being under Egyptian military rule when Joshua was apparently on the rampage… a geopolitical reality confirmed in the Amarna letters. They also ignore the fact that 2.5 million people would have been over half of the total Egyptian population.
LikeLike
@M ike.
I don’t have to supply the data, you half-baked little jesus sunbeam 🙂 crispyun.
The archaeologists have been doing it for decades you berk! yes, even Kitchen and Allbright…for what it’s worth, and if you are interested in source data then simply compare the evidence.
If you are so convinced of Kitchen’s street cred,or any other archaeologist or Egyptologist who has evidence of different chronology then let’s see what you got?
If it piddles on our campfire, then so be it.
Up to now you are merely sounding like a stuck record….you remember those, surely?
Or perhaps you are so naive that you think most of us have not at least investigated Kitchen’s evidence even before dear Mike Anthony popped up in blog-land
Lol…you are too funny.
Oh, and thanks to Science, Mike, you have Google.
But if you think this is just too advanced – or unreliable- then toddle off to your local library or Barnes and Nobel and get a few books.
LikeLike
Nan said:
“Synonyms for “objective”: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
Based on this, I suppose we could say that no one on this site is truly “objective.”
Oh boy.. Nan, here is ONE of the definitions of “objective”..
ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
I believe THIS is the def. we are all referring to.
Nothing about being non partisan, disinterested, dispassionate etc.
Your comment suggests that people who have different beliefs can’t debate with objectivity..
and that’s just not the case.. all you have to do is be honest and fair.
LikeLike
Yes, and that’s a shit-load of quail, too! 😉
LikeLike
You got me shaking my head Nan… at least your fellow liberals are more discrete.
LikeLike
My dear, boy, that I refer to the man-made god you genuflect to as a meglomaniacal, genocidal headcase does not mean I hate it.
It is imaginary. A figment. How does anyone hate something that is not real? Are you nuts?
I don’t even hate things that are real….well, maybe Manchester United. Now and then.
Hate is a wasted emotion often the reserve of fulminating pulpit types who while busy damning little kiddies to hell one moment are bonking the dumb blonde assistant when the collection plate is being sent around.
That I consider you a complete and utter ill informed, indoctrinated apologetic pillock does not mean I hate you either. Stop being paranoid.
Go and take a chill pill and play with your Rosary…but remember,too much makes you go blind and Jesus is watching, okay?
Afterwards, go swot up on proper Egyptology and stuff.
Amen, right?
LikeLike
“I don’t have to supply the data, you half-baked little jesus sunbeam 🙂 crispyun.
The archaeologists have been doing it for decades you berk”
Which being interpreted means
“uh-huh you right Mike. I don’t have the data or any grasp of the actual evidence…but…but…but..but..”
LikeLike