you dont have to imagine your wife. you see her. you can touch her. you have conversations and real experiences.
while you may not know how your relationship would turn out and while it takes a certain faith to put that much faith in people, it is still not quite the same faith required to follow a person that you cant see, that cant talk to you, or hug you or spend time with you.
jesus is a person who more closely resembles an imaginary friend than he does your wife.
I think one could have a closer relationship with Anne Frank – she wrote her won book, afterall.
“Thanks Nate for the opportunity. I think I will be taking a break shortly. 🙂 There will doubtless be some comment on what I have written here, but I don’t plan on reading it. If there is a mea culpa please let me know, but otherwise I don’t really need to read or say any more.”
Obnoxious statement.
“Let me throw my bombs, and then I’m going to close my eyes and plug my ears. Let me know if the other side surrenders.”
The polite thing to say would be, “Ok. Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree. Nice chatting with everyone.”
Reasonable summation …. except.
The atheist – that’s me, has more or less the same perspective of god-belief and the texts as his fellow atheist.
The view of the theist – that’s unklee and his fellow theists – is so diverse as to be polarized in a considerable – but not overwhelming – number, but nonetheless – crucial aspects.
Here we have unklee stating :
Yes I do believe the Bible is divinely inspired, and I think I believe that in the way most christians I know believe it, ….
and yet being non-committal over Moses and the Pentateuch and blatantly dismissive of the Old Testament by suggesting The Law doesn’t apply to Christians.
The Sect you belonged to, Nate would have metaphorically burned unklee at the stake.
The originators of his religion would have taken a more literal view regarding burning, as we know only too well.
So why must the non-believer, that’s me, – be expected to trust unklee’s ‘expert” scholars when a large slice of Christianity considers them/ their ideas heretical as well?
Why does unklee feel fully justified based on scientific evidence to quietly ridicule Creationism, its proponents and followers as utterly ridiculous,and, dare I say, likely immoral to teach to children, yet the likes of John and I are lambasted in unklee’s oh-so-sycophantic style for calling out an absolute ignorant tit like Kenneth Kitchen over his nonsensical Exodus claims?
Why must the likes of Gary, William,Mak etc be obliged to consider any </em. veracity to the bloody stupid, convoluted gymnastics of the empty tomb and resurrection as put forward by unklee and his experts (sic) when he has the temerity to reference someone like Kitchen when he doesn't even believe the damn biblical version of the Exodus story himself!
Based on his own brand of the Christian-cult, unklee is the personification of hypocrite.
He has admitted he has little interest in – or knowledge of – the Old Testament yet he flaunts this ignorance as if it were a Badge of Merit, while still accepting the prophetic nature where it suits his narrowly focused faith-based belief: virgin birth for one.
Unklee's attempt to surround himself with a mantle of respectability is more disgusting than the rank Creationists, for they at least they are fully-committed to the stupid bible.
Unklee's version is of Christianity lack any genuine integrity and his approach leaves a lot to be desired, if not downright unethical.
I don’t think we have to see “non-truths” in there – after all, what is a non-truth in the genre of myth, or fictionalised history or parable?
I agree as it relates to myth or parable, but not to fictionalized history. If you are giving an account of what happened and include things that did not actually happen – that, to me, is a non-truth.
But “never met her” and “some old newspaper clippings” may be a little unfair.
Actually I thought using the word newspaper was being generous 🙂
And the difference in detail doesn’t make any difference to the point I was making, that we don’t in real life make all our decisions based only on evidence and no “faith”, trust or risk, which is what you seemed to be saying.
I do see your point. I just don’t think it’s a good comparison. As william pointed out, “you dont have to imagine your wife. you see her. you can touch her. you have conversations and real experiences.”
Breaking News of UnkleE and likeminded Christians! The OVERWHELMING majority of medical experts have concluded that:
1. Virgins do not give birth to babies!
2. People who believe that virgins can give birth to babies without the assistance (in one form or another) of a human male are either delusional or ignorant.
Bottom line: It’s an ignorant, ancient tall tale, folks. It deserves zero respect. It belongs in the same category of nonsense as baby-delivering storks. How UnkleE and the like can snicker at “ignorant” Creationists but confidently, (and arrogantly) tout as historical fact that a Jewish virgin was impregnated by a ghost is beyond my comprehension.
“I don’t believe he enters into these conversations just to win an argument.” – I can’t share your opinion, I think that is exactly what he’s about, and why he stacks the deck against his opponent by setting the ground rules. I’ve seen William Lane Craig do the same thing.
The discussion he had with a chap called Bernard on his blog over Nazareth is a perfect example of how he tried to stack that particular deck.
Yet Bernard had the measure of him all the way, and was careful to note anytime a ‘card’ was pulled from the bottom of the deck.
In the end, the hackneyed ”I have made the case so I don’t think it is worth discussing any further” line was introduced and that was that.
However, as you Americans like to say, this was a clear case of having his ass handed to him.
He obviously doesn’t see it, which is why the posts are still up.
Gary, i like the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7. I like it because I think it shows that Isaiah never meant “literal virgin” at all.
as you pointed out, having a baby never means “virgin,” so why did isaiah use the hebrew term for “young woman” when he could have used the term for “virgin,” but didnt?
some will say that in that time “young woman” also meant “virgin” and that may be true, except when a young woman was pregnant… never at any other time would anyone believe that pregnant woman, young or otherwise, was a virgin. never.
so not only would isaiah have used the stricter word for “virgin” he likely would have expounded on it further as well to make sure that point was understood. Instead, we have Isaiajh giving a sign to a king, so that king would know his enemies would be vanquished in a relatively short time span. Isaiah spoke this “prophesy 700 years before christ… that does nothing to reasure the king 700 years before.
And Isaiah said the sign was that a “young woman” would have a son, and before the boy was able to do this or that, the king’s foes would be dealt with. Lo and behold, in the very next chapter, and young woman has a son, and before did that or this, the king’s foes were dealt with.
it’s pretty obvious.
and some die hard fundamentalist christians will say that it was two-fold prophecy – one for isaiah’s king and one about christ… but there;s nothing in isaiah to suggest that. maybe it’s still being fulfilled again and again, perpetually fpr all time – virgins and young women giving birth everywhere. Who can deny such a miracle?
Just for shits and giggles, and to get to know everyone a little bit better, where is everybody at (without needing to be too specific such as giving an address and telephone number 🙂 )?
Given the ambiguity of the answers Gary is getting to “Where do you reside?”, it’s clear getting a straight answer from atheists is indeed difficult after all 🙂
Essentially, adding the word “at” is improper grammar. You don’t need it, i.e., where is everybody is correct as is.
And that is your English lesson for the day. 😀
Now the “real” answer — I live in So. Oregon which, unfortunately, is much more conservative than No. Oregon (Portland and surrounding areas). Had I known this when I moved here over 10 years ago (from the Bay Area of California, which you may know since you’re from CA, is quite liberal), I probably would have chosen somewhere else.
“it’s clear getting a straight answer from atheists is indeed difficult after all.”
Lol Josh. Should I end up floating face down in the Gulf of Mexico because the fundies here discovered that I was an atheist — I know who I’m gonna haunt first. 😛
Gary – Ark is a Brit in South Africa, John Zande is an Australian in Brazil – but don’t tell Interpol. I’m an American north and just a little east of Hell.
Finding Truth 
you dont have to imagine your wife. you see her. you can touch her. you have conversations and real experiences.
while you may not know how your relationship would turn out and while it takes a certain faith to put that much faith in people, it is still not quite the same faith required to follow a person that you cant see, that cant talk to you, or hug you or spend time with you.
jesus is a person who more closely resembles an imaginary friend than he does your wife.
I think one could have a closer relationship with Anne Frank – she wrote her won book, afterall.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Thanks Nate for the opportunity. I think I will be taking a break shortly. 🙂 There will doubtless be some comment on what I have written here, but I don’t plan on reading it. If there is a mea culpa please let me know, but otherwise I don’t really need to read or say any more.”
Obnoxious statement.
“Let me throw my bombs, and then I’m going to close my eyes and plug my ears. Let me know if the other side surrenders.”
The polite thing to say would be, “Ok. Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree. Nice chatting with everyone.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Reasonable summation …. except.
The atheist – that’s me, has more or less the same perspective of god-belief and the texts as his fellow atheist.
The view of the theist – that’s unklee and his fellow theists – is so diverse as to be polarized in a considerable – but not overwhelming – number, but nonetheless – crucial aspects.
Here we have unklee stating :
and yet being non-committal over Moses and the Pentateuch and blatantly dismissive of the Old Testament by suggesting The Law doesn’t apply to Christians.
The Sect you belonged to, Nate would have metaphorically burned unklee at the stake.
The originators of his religion would have taken a more literal view regarding burning, as we know only too well.
So why must the non-believer, that’s me, – be expected to trust unklee’s ‘expert” scholars when a large slice of Christianity considers them/ their ideas heretical as well?
Why does unklee feel fully justified based on scientific evidence to quietly ridicule Creationism, its proponents and followers as utterly ridiculous,and, dare I say, likely immoral to teach to children, yet the likes of John and I are lambasted in unklee’s oh-so-sycophantic style for calling out an absolute ignorant tit like Kenneth Kitchen over his nonsensical Exodus claims?
Why must the likes of Gary, William,Mak etc be obliged to consider any </em. veracity to the bloody stupid, convoluted gymnastics of the empty tomb and resurrection as put forward by unklee and his experts (sic) when he has the temerity to reference someone like Kitchen when he doesn't even believe the damn biblical version of the Exodus story himself!
Based on his own brand of the Christian-cult, unklee is the personification of hypocrite.
He has admitted he has little interest in – or knowledge of – the Old Testament yet he flaunts this ignorance as if it were a Badge of Merit, while still accepting the prophetic nature where it suits his narrowly focused faith-based belief: virgin birth for one.
Unklee's attempt to surround himself with a mantle of respectability is more disgusting than the rank Creationists, for they at least they are fully-committed to the stupid bible.
Unklee's version is of Christianity lack any genuine integrity and his approach leaves a lot to be desired, if not downright unethical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi UnkleE,
I agree as it relates to myth or parable, but not to fictionalized history. If you are giving an account of what happened and include things that did not actually happen – that, to me, is a non-truth.
Actually I thought using the word newspaper was being generous 🙂
I do see your point. I just don’t think it’s a good comparison. As william pointed out, “you dont have to imagine your wife. you see her. you can touch her. you have conversations and real experiences.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Yet I made that choice, and 48 years later (in a few weeks!) we are still very happy.” – 48 years of you. Talk about hell on earth —
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I think this says it all ! It’s all about winning baby !!! 🙂” – The man’s a legend in his own mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Breaking News of UnkleE and likeminded Christians! The OVERWHELMING majority of medical experts have concluded that:
1. Virgins do not give birth to babies!
2. People who believe that virgins can give birth to babies without the assistance (in one form or another) of a human male are either delusional or ignorant.
Bottom line: It’s an ignorant, ancient tall tale, folks. It deserves zero respect. It belongs in the same category of nonsense as baby-delivering storks. How UnkleE and the like can snicker at “ignorant” Creationists but confidently, (and arrogantly) tout as historical fact that a Jewish virgin was impregnated by a ghost is beyond my comprehension.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Damn my eyes!
Breaking News FOR UnkleE…
LikeLiked by 1 person
And the man who said he was gone, is back!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I don’t believe he enters into these conversations just to win an argument.” – I can’t share your opinion, I think that is exactly what he’s about, and why he stacks the deck against his opponent by setting the ground rules. I’ve seen William Lane Craig do the same thing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Arch.
The discussion he had with a chap called Bernard on his blog over Nazareth is a perfect example of how he tried to stack that particular deck.
Yet Bernard had the measure of him all the way, and was careful to note anytime a ‘card’ was pulled from the bottom of the deck.
In the end, the hackneyed ”I have made the case so I don’t think it is worth discussing any further” line was introduced and that was that.
However, as you Americans like to say, this was a clear case of having his ass handed to him.
He obviously doesn’t see it, which is why the posts are still up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, i like the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7. I like it because I think it shows that Isaiah never meant “literal virgin” at all.
as you pointed out, having a baby never means “virgin,” so why did isaiah use the hebrew term for “young woman” when he could have used the term for “virgin,” but didnt?
some will say that in that time “young woman” also meant “virgin” and that may be true, except when a young woman was pregnant… never at any other time would anyone believe that pregnant woman, young or otherwise, was a virgin. never.
so not only would isaiah have used the stricter word for “virgin” he likely would have expounded on it further as well to make sure that point was understood. Instead, we have Isaiajh giving a sign to a king, so that king would know his enemies would be vanquished in a relatively short time span. Isaiah spoke this “prophesy 700 years before christ… that does nothing to reasure the king 700 years before.
And Isaiah said the sign was that a “young woman” would have a son, and before the boy was able to do this or that, the king’s foes would be dealt with. Lo and behold, in the very next chapter, and young woman has a son, and before did that or this, the king’s foes were dealt with.
it’s pretty obvious.
and some die hard fundamentalist christians will say that it was two-fold prophecy – one for isaiah’s king and one about christ… but there;s nothing in isaiah to suggest that. maybe it’s still being fulfilled again and again, perpetually fpr all time – virgins and young women giving birth everywhere. Who can deny such a miracle?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“as you Americans like to say”
Just for shits and giggles, and to get to know everyone a little bit better, where is everybody at (without needing to be too specific such as giving an address and telephone number 🙂 )?
I’m in California.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Land of Obama …..yes it could be Hawaii or Kenya but I’m in Illinois. LOL 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Illinois, where you don’t have to be a felon to be governor but you will be afterwards ! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
As my (departed) mom used to say … I’m between the “a” and the “t”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I currently live in the most religious state in the U.S. *does happy dance*
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t get the a-t thing, Nan, but maybe that was your intention.
LikeLike
I’m in Madison, Wisconsin
Given the ambiguity of the answers Gary is getting to “Where do you reside?”, it’s clear getting a straight answer from atheists is indeed difficult after all 🙂
LikeLike
Glad you asked. 😉
Essentially, adding the word “at” is improper grammar. You don’t need it, i.e., where is everybody is correct as is.
And that is your English lesson for the day. 😀
Now the “real” answer — I live in So. Oregon which, unfortunately, is much more conservative than No. Oregon (Portland and surrounding areas). Had I known this when I moved here over 10 years ago (from the Bay Area of California, which you may know since you’re from CA, is quite liberal), I probably would have chosen somewhere else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“He obviously doesn’t see it, which is why the posts are still up.” – Like I said, legend in his own mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Damn! Those tricky HTML codes keep playing tricks on me!
LikeLike
“it’s clear getting a straight answer from atheists is indeed difficult after all.”
Lol Josh. Should I end up floating face down in the Gulf of Mexico because the fundies here discovered that I was an atheist — I know who I’m gonna haunt first. 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary – Ark is a Brit in South Africa, John Zande is an Australian in Brazil – but don’t tell Interpol. I’m an American north and just a little east of Hell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am in Johannesburg.
LikeLiked by 1 person