Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Moving the goalposts, prayer as a weapon, ignoring questions and the usual theist nonsense

Well, I finally have some time to write a blog post. Between work, and painting, and simply being disgusted with the world, I put this off.

I did do a couple of craft shows with my alcohol ink paintings and I sold one thing on Etsy. Made back my entrance fee and then some, so I’m happy about that. I decided to start trying to sell my art since it was starting to overrun the house.

Now, back to my favorite topic, Christians behaving badly.

Here in PA, we had a particularly virulent TrueChristian™ make a scene when Rep. Borowicz tried her best to convince her god that it wasn’t her fault that the PA voters elected a woman who happens to be Muslim to the state legislature.   She gave the opening prayer at the legislature and was a wonderfully bigoted twit, ignoring her bible when it says don’t pray on street corners. She claims she prays like this “all of the time”. Sure, dear, I have no problem that you are a jackass whenever you do much of anything.

I have also been kibitzing on various blogs where a theist, usually a Christian, is making false and/or baseless claims about atheists or the universe in general. When the theist responds to a post, it’s amazing how quickly they end up attacking their fellow Christians, when I point out how much they don’t agree. For a religion of supposedly “billions”, they show quite definitely that Christianity isn’t one religion but many very small ones. I had one fellow “Triggerman” insist that Baptists aren’t Christians by definition “A Christian can be a Baptist, just like a Christian can be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian or a Catholic or even a Pentecostal or a non-denom. However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian.”, that Catholics aren’t Christians at all and that Christians who don’t agree with his version are “Free to think whatever they want and impose all of the FALSE standards they want to.” Tsk. I asked poor TM how does his god choose who to damn and who to allow to believe in this god if not randomly. It’s always fun to watch them insist that they do know but when it comes to saying how, there’s not an answer to be had except an attempt to redefine the word “random”.

A friend has a new website up with the more vile words of a Christian I’ve also crossed swords with, John Branyan. You can find it here. It is holding Christians accountable for their claims and beliefs.

I also found Caroline again, a Christian who has occasionally shown up (just search “caroline” in the search box in the upper right to see all of the instances) on this blog, making her usual false claims about morality and how great her morality is. She is a great example of someone using about ever poor apologist bit of nonsense in her arguments. There are no comments allows on her blog if you don’t agree with her (though she has let me post in the past), but I did happen to find her on facebook. Again, it ended up with her not answering some very basic questions: “why is objective morality “better” than subjective morality” and “why is stealing from someone wrong?”. My comments still there if you are interested (you’ll see posts from Jane R., that’s me). I find it very funny that she calls herself “friendlier theist” there. This comes from a theist who said this to me “Enjoy your Godless life…while you can.” She claimed to be arguing just for “theism” and not Christianity.

This attempt to move goalposts isn’t a new thing at all. It’s nothing new that Christians claim that those other Christians aren’t really Christians at all. There is not one new bit of evidence to support the existence of any of the billions of versions of the Christian god nor for any other god. It’s the same old arguments. The most recent one might be the argument from complexity, and that’s only because we could start to see that complexity. The rest, the early church fathers would recognize.

With Easter coming up, a lunar and fertility holiday that moves all around thanks to other religion’s beliefs, we see again that it’s been 2000+ years and still nothing has changed. No miracles, no baptized believers in JC as savior doing miracles as promised, no elders of the church doing miracles, no JC descending from the clouds in his end times return. Just lots of failed stories and baseless claims. And no god serving as back up to a lot of incompetent apologists. People ask, why do I bother? Well, I don’t like liars and I don’t like people who think it’s their right to harm people in trying to take away their ability to make an informed decision.

Advertisements

360 thoughts on “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Moving the goalposts, prayer as a weapon, ignoring questions and the usual theist nonsense

      1. ah, always great fun when the false accuser tries this tactic. You want to throw shit at a wall and hope that some of it sticks. Poor TM, can’t support his accusations and demonstrates that a self-professed Christian ignores his bible when convenient. You are a very good argument against assuming that Christianity should be equated with good, TM.

      2. It ALL sticks.
        Let’s start with your (mis)representation of Rep. Borowicz, who was invited to bring the invocation for the session. First, the “Bible” doesn’t say to not pray on street corners, far from it, since Jesus was condemning a type of prayer that was self-righteous, like you are.

        Then, there’s your (mis)representation of me: I never said that “Baptists aren’t Christian by definition”. I said that Baptists aren’t definitional of Christianity. THOSE AREN’T THE SAME THING. But, your blatantly biased mindset can’t wrap around a simple distinction.

        And Easter/Passover has nothing to do with fertility: that’s a straight up, demonstrable L-I-E lie.

      3. oh my. Good to see that you’re willing to lie about your bible too. “5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” Matthew 6.

      4. and here you go with what you claimed about Baptists “I never said that a Baptist and a Christian are the same things.
        A Christian can be a Baptist, just like a Christian can be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian or a Catholic or even a Pentecostal or a non-denom. However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian.”

        And Easter is named for the goddess Eostre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ēostre It is based on the Jewish Passover lunar calendar, and Christians have no idea what actual date JC was supposed cruxified on, There are guesses but Christians don’t agree. There have been conflicts over when JC’s supposed sising since early Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_controversy Much like “Christmas” Christians tried to usurp pagan holidays to get converts.

      1. Anyone who would affirm the classical creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene, Athanasian, etc) or the doctrines those creeds represent, because they essentials of the gospel.

      2. Mormons reject the Bible, the creeds, and any historical understanding of Christianity, and admit—at least historically, and more recently—that they aren’t “Christian” in any sense of the word.
        “Evangelical”? That’s a Christian term. I would identify as “evangelical” so I don’t understand the question.

      3. Evangelicals have a very different reading of classical Christianity than say, the Catholics – who fabricated most of the early Christian texts and traditions. The modern Evangelical movement is as disconnected from historical Christianity as Mormonism, isn’t it?

      4. Well, the Roman Catholic Church didn’t exist until the 12th century, and had become infected with what we call “anachronism”. And there’s no doubt that they Pontificate has used forged documents in an attempt to consolidate political power in the past. Interestingly, it was Roman Catholics who discovered this and complained about it. It didn’t become an issue until the Reformation, which was actually an attempt by Roman Catholics to reform the church, which is why Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and some of the classical reformed European churches have a lot of resemblance to the Catholic Church in their practices.
        Evangelicals get their distinctive from the Puritan tradition that, while Reformed in its theology, was moved by classical humanism to image more of what was seen in scripture as far as order and practice.
        That’s the broad strokes.

      5. See, this is a good example of what I meant. The idea the Catholic Church is a 12th century institution isn’t really based in fact but on the propaganda of a competing religiopolitical group. There’s no historical dispute that the Roman Church, as an ideological and legal force is born with Emperor Constantine.

        The idea Protestantism is born of any genuine ideological dispute is a complete myth. What we’re really talking about are power struggles that range from the personal to the larger administrative scales. The Pilgrim story is a perfect example. They didn’t leave “the shores of England” in search of religiou freedom in America. In fact they went first to Holland. Found religious freedom there, but hated the idea their children were learning the language and culture of another country. They didn’t want assimilation, they wanted to be purist sectarians.

        As for modern Evangelicals – well, that’s quite a jump. Let’s say Zeus invented red wine. Then over a thousand years later Zeus gets tired of the red wine and invents white wine. Then he waits a few hundred years more and decides to put everything he’s done before aside and decide the One True Beverage is a wine cooler? That’s Evangelicalism. In essence your the Evangelical theory has to be that your god rejects all of his creation. All of his religion except a small sectarian group put together in America in modern times? Really?

      6. I find the Evangelical theory one of the most fascinating of the religious spectrum. The idea their God went through the trouble of creating Christianity 2 thousand years ago and changed his mind about the whole thing – how many times along the way? Catholics out. Orthodox out. Church of England out. How many groups did he have to decide “were doing it wrong” before finally settling on a small faction of not very well educated people as his “chosen ones”?
        Something about that story just doesn’t add up 😀

      7. And of course the tendency is to get more bizarre at each turn. The chosen people must… never let the women cut their hair, not have zippers, speak in tongues, not read Darwin, eat a cracker at church every weekend, watch a preacher play with a snake (and that’s not even a metaphor for child abusing priests!) and so on and so forth.

      8. Did I say 12th? I meant 11th…anyway…
        One thing that I have learned in 30+ years is that division rarely arises over principle concerns, it arises over tertiary concerns being confused with primary concerns.
        Further, Constantine had nothing to do with it other than making a smart political move: legalizing the practice of a religion that was spreading in spite of vicious persecution to curry support. It was almost 80 years before there was any legal power behind it.

        Now, you’re jumping contexts, because I wasn’t talking about the Pilgrims, I was talking about the Puritan movement within Anglicanism, these are different things.

      9. it’s great to see TM say that differences like how to worship god and how one is saved is a “tertiary” concern. The Puritan movement in Anglicanism is part and parcel of the Pilgrims actions. But nice try to try to claim otherwise. Alas, we aren’t as ignorant as you desperately need us to be.

      10. Oh, in fact you are, so ignorant that you still have to put words in my mouth that I didn’t say, nor are born out by any meaningful reading of the history.

      11. Hmmm, you said this TM “One thing that I have learned in 30+ years is that division rarely arises over principle concerns, it arises over tertiary concerns being confused with primary concerns.” So I didn’t put words on your mouth at all. You also claimed that this was the case when we were discussing on your blog, when I pointed out that these supposed “tertiary” concerns were how one is saved, what this god wants, etc. Funny how those things are major doctrinal differences.

      12. Let’s take the East-West schism in the 11th century:
        Big question: should we use leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist?
        WHO CARES?

      13. They did, dear. And they did because of the bible and what it says. It’s a shame that you have to declare that since you don’t care, that no one should. How pathetically arrogant.

      14. hmmm, says the fellow who can’t show a single instance of his accusations despite being repeatedly asked. All he had was “the whole post” which is simply a false statement yet again.

      15. aw, and TM still is lying since he cannot support his accusations. Funny that. It is great to see you willfully still bearing false witness. I’m glad you have no more use for your bible than I do.

      16. Sorry, I hit send accidentally. I meant: Do you not understand the history of the development of Christianity within the Roman Empire? It was the Empire that set the rules, traditions and doctrines. Beginning with Constantine but heavily influenced by each Emperor and administration that followed.
        I presume you also understand the Pilgrims were a faction of the Puritan movement of the Church of England, right?

      17. Yeah…no. The Roman Empire, like most governmental authorities responds to what it perceives as the dominant culture—usually what lives in the immediately vicinity of the seat of power. Since Christians had flocked to Rome (the seat of government in the West) it perceived Christianity as the dominant religion, and like every society in history from the earliest times up until essentially the modern era, placed the dominant religious culture as the standard of citizenship in the state. Before Rome was Christian, it was pagan, and when it became Christian, it did so in name only, simply changing the signage to “under new management”.
        History is a lot more complex than people make it out to be because there’s multiple ways to approach the same subject and we feel compelled to have to pick a view that is often in conflict with reality.

      18. History is indeed more complicated than many think. And then we have TM making up nonsense that isn’t history to support his false claims about his religion and others.

      19. LOL. No, dear, you made the claims about the RCC etc. You get to prove those claims. Please do show that it didn’t exist until the 11 or 12th centuries. Please do show that your version is the one true version, mr, “I never said I was a Christian”.

      20. Fascinating. So you don’t understand the union of church and state in the Roman Empire? Or how state law and canon law essentially became one thing?
        Do you understand how Roman law was the basis for much of early Christian law? How about the birth and influence of Justinian’s Corpus Juris?

      21. That deserves a huge LOL 😁
        So the forced celebration of Holy Week (no one being allowed to work during the period) in the Theodosian code is what exactly? Buddhist regulation?

      22. That’s a political decision, not a religious one.
        You might try to argue, “Well, it’s made on religious grounds.”
        So, all political decisions—good and bad—are ultimately made on religious grounds.
        So, you’re complaining about people being forbidden to NOT work by force of law?

      23. When you have a theocratic regime, the political and the religious are one and the same. Church figures had hugely important roles not just in government, but also educating royals and aristocrats who were the ruling class. Holy Week is one of many hundreds of examples I can give you of enforced Christian law.

      24. The point is Christianity wasn’t separate from politics, as you implied. Rome was a Christian theocracy that severely punished anyone who opposed he religion. And this theocracy, championed by Bishops, Popes, Kings and Emperors is what morphed into the Catholic Church.

        If you want to actually learn about history, I’m happy to recommend real books. Religious pamphlets and podcasts are all just selling propaganda that anchors whatever sect they’re trying to prop up.

      25. The point is what you said about Christian history has no basis in historical fact.
        1. Christianity and politics were one and the same.
        2. Early Christian traditions, practices and yes, LAWS, were fabricated by people who were essentially early Catholics.Not early Protestants. Certainly nothing related to Evangelicals.
        3. If your theory is that Catholicism is born in the 11th century so it’s invalid. What follows logically is that every sect born after that point is equally invalid.

      26. 1. So was paganism.
        2. So was paganism.
        3. Catholicism WAS born in the 11th century with the East-West Schism, this is a historical fact.
        4. There was 350 years of Christian history BEFORE Theodosius I.

      27. 1. So is your argument that Christianity was born of Paganism?
        2. Do you not understand what a theocracy is and what that means? And how that’s how Catholicism is formed even if a “modern” church structure only comes later?
        3. What we’re talking about is a process that begins with popular mythology which spreads and becomes “religion”. That in turn becomes government. We can draw a direct line from Callistus to Constantine to Theodosius to Urban – to modern Popes. Passing through Damasus and Justinian.
        4. Your sect is an offshoot of an offshoot. Completely disconnected in geography and ideology to the original. How likely is it that your god created many Christian sects just so he could make your very small one the “correct” version?

      28. 1. No. ROME was.
        2. As a theonomist, I absolutely understand it. That’s why I understand that all governments are theocratic in nature.
        3. Just because you can draw a line, doesn’t mean that there’s a relationship.
        4. I guarantee that I have more in common with Tertullian, Polykarp, and Ignatius than with Theodosius.

      29. LOL
        You’re hilarious. I can draw a line, but there’s no relationship? Is that how lines work? I’d make a joke about quantum physics but I don’t think you’re the right sudience 🙂
        Rome WAS Christianity. The Bishops of Rome were the ones who fabricated all of the traditions and myths your sect worships today. Everything from marriage customs to (some) ideas on abortion come from those early Catholics.

      30. Interesting notion. So do you think the revolution happened as a sort of spontaneous combustion – or was it the result of a succession of events which were all interlinked?

      31. So essentially, everything the owner of this blog said about you pans out. You just don’t like it when you can’t hide behind equivocation.
        You do believe your sect is the *one* special sect. So much so that you think your version of religion should even be the law.
        This is the point when you can apologise and tell her she didn’t actually misrepresent you.

      32. Poor TM, he has to claim strawmen everywhere, but when asked to show where the strawmen are, he refuses to show them. Now, why would this be? Ah yes, because there aren’t any. TM refuses to post one link to a comment, refuses to explain how the strawman works, and anything at all that would support his accusations. TM, please do show how JZ twisted what you said. Again, if you refuse, there is no reason to believe your claims about strawmen. You have no evidence and this is nothing new for you for other claims you have made. Your MO is nothing more than baseless accusations and evasion. It’s a little boring, but I’m more than happy to have you as a great example of a Christian commenter on my blog since your actions give me plenty of evidence of how some Christians act.

      33. Well, it seems that TM has now found two Christian website, answers in genesis and seekfind, that have tried so very heard to make up a logical fallacy of their own to attack people who show that they are wrong with: “the logical fallacy of the question begging epithet”. Alas for them, you can’t just make up what you want to falsely call “logic”. It’s so cute to see them all showing that they have no respect for their bible at all, ignoring its repeated commands not to lie, not even if they think it is “for” their god (Romans 3)

      34. and TM has gone on for hours with being unable to show evidence to support his accusations. It’s quite unusual that a Christian chooses to lie so much, when his holy book says never to lie, not even for this god (Romans 3).

      35. “You do believe your sect is the *one* special sect. So much so that you think your version of religion should even be the law.”

        This is what is known as “jumping to a conclusion”.

        This is a LOGICAL FALLACY. It is irrational and not based upon any reasonable reading of my statements.

        It is also a STRAW MAN. I DARE you to read through the nearly 500 blog posts that I have written over the past 6 years and find a single one where I 1) make such a claim outright or 2) infer such a thing from a plain reading of the text.

        But you won’t, because you don’t care about truth, and you can’t, because it’s not there.

      36. I’m afraid you don’t seem to understand what logic is.
        The very fact of making a distinction between who is a “real” Christian (of course you must be!) and who isn’t means from any angle you’ve elevated your sect above others. That’s not jumping to a conclusion, but arriving at the only possible conclusion.
        You can’t say, at the same time, that your sect determines the rules but other sects are equal. Get it?

      37. and TM, if you want to claim a strawman, please do show where ANYONE has misrepresented you and argued against that misrepresentation. That will require you to quote people. Then we can compare what you said with how it was presented.

        But you’ll refuse again since your accusations are baseless.

      38. So, we have TM insisting that I somehow “know” something that he has made up, and he is unable to demonstrate as being true. and unfortunately for him, I’m not sad at all. Again, TM makes accusations that he cannot support. TM, please show instances of these strawmen you accuse me of. If you cannot, then there is no reason to believe your accusations. All we see from you is that you seem to be able to type numbers, but evidence of what those numbers supposedly represent is lacking.

      39. Oh, you are quite a sad person, because you refuse to interact directly, purposing to engage in narrative commentary rather than actual argumentation, aside from the straw men. It’s also a sign of narcissistic personality disorder: you think that you are too good to interact directly with me, and it’s attention seeking behavior. It’s juvenile, which is why it’s sad.

      40. oh my. 🙂 funny how your entire accusation is again false. I’ve directly interacted with you constantly, TM and, shucks, I’m doing so right now. Yep, I do indulge in narrative commentary but I have repeatedly interacted with you directly and anyone can see that right here in the comments and on your own blogpost. What a shame that you again choose to lie. But do keep making baseless accusations and not being able to ever support them.

      41. Prove it. Any time that you refer to me in the third person, you’re not speaking to me. And this thread is BRIMMING with those instances. It’s insulting and childish.

      42. Alas, poor TM, he doesn’t read the comments One of my comments *to* you “TM, please show instances of these strawmen you accuse me of. If you cannot, then there is no reason to believe your accusations. All we see from you is that you seem to be able to type numbers, but evidence of what those numbers supposedly represent is lacking.” And you, dear TM, made this false claim “h, you are quite a sad person, because you refuse to interact directly, purposing to engage in narrative commentary rather than actual argumentation, aside from the straw men.” I suppose your god is disappointed in your lies, if it exists at all.

      43. aw, still no evidence and now more baseless claims. What a good Christian you are, TM! I’m also guessing that you think it’s “shocking” for you to say masturbate. 🙂

      44. This is the exact same problem that Jane has: failing to distinguish between what is definitional and what is being defined. Basic logical error.

      45. So, TM, tell us what “definitional” and how it is different from what is being defined. Now, I’m about 90% sure you can’t, thus won’t. It’s nonsense you’ve made up to excuse your silliness.

      46. I can recommend some excellent books on logic for you. Everything you say demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the mathematical side of it. You seem to not even grasp the basic consequential implications.

      47. Yes. And like all tables it is dependent upon the assumption that the data that is entered into it is accurate.
        In other words, if you don’t understand the argument, you are likely to enter incorrect data into it resulting in a false conclusion.

      48. Excellent. Then let’s play a game. If person from religion X(Y) says that he can determine who may or may not be qualified as a member of religion X, what can we infer about his beliefs?

      49. Yep. That is if you’re making X definitional and (Y) what is being defined. If that’s the case then there can be X(A, B, C, D,…). All are related to X as what defines the subset. Then, if you zoom in closer to the subset, you would have (Y^1, Y^2, Y^3…) and to tighten in closer, you would have (Y^1a, Y^1b, Y^1c…). Each additional variable being a specific identifier for the subset.

      50. 🙂 Interesting take and amusing choice of wording. In fact, A for effort – but now answer the question.
        When an individual from religion X(Y) says that he can determine who may or may not be “qualified” as a member of religion X, what can we infer about his beliefs? Let me help. Does he have authority to set a standard? Is the authority implied in his membership of X(Y)? Does that imply a hierarchy of knowledge or status surrounding X? One which excludes non-members of X(Y) specifically? How many ancillary conclusions can we come to from that initial statement? What would a person have to believe before they could make that initial statement?

      51. I think that you’re asking the wrong question. The question is, what is the standard that is being appealed to?
        If this person is appealing to a standard, what is it? Can it be examined?
        Let’s just bring this a little closer to the ground. Let’s say that you wanted to start a club, for collecting whizzle-poppers. You interest in these whizzle-poppers focuses on a specific era in which they were manufactured because that is when they were most popular. So, you start doing all kinds of research on these things so that you can communicate meaningfully on the subject of these whizzle-poppers from this era: color, size, shape, perhaps they were made in different factories and that makes certain ones even more desirable. You become so knowledgeable about them that you can communicate with other people who have the same interest and perhaps have more information, some may even have incorrect information. All of this assumes that there’s a standard by which one can say anything authoritatively about whizzle-poppers. So, the question is are any statements made about whizzle-poppers true simply because they know about them or because there’s an objective reference point to which to refer about whizzle-poppers?

      52. Sorry to have left yo hanging, I’ve got tons of work at the moment.
        In the formatting of the questions, I think there’s a fundamental difference. When you ask an open ended question, you reduce bias and come up with an answer that’s based on all the available evidence. If you reduce the parameters to , let’s call it, within 4 visible walls – you get an answer that easily manipulated. Like for example: “Do vaccines work?” as a general question with a general sample, versus “do vaccines work” in a small village where there was some sort of contamination.
        Your wizzle-popper example is interesting, but you have t add a few layers to it. What weight does grading wizzle poppers have on the person grading them? Meaning, are they a neutral judge or an interested party? What consequences to their world view would judging them have if the results of the judgement went any other way? And I could go down an even more complex list of things we should ask. If you wanted to ensure a completely unbiased judgement of who can be qualified as a member of X (whatever that X might be) what conditions and standards would you set to ensure a fair result?

      53. Total neutrality is difficult to achieve – but degrees of neutrality are required to arrive at conclusions based on evidence. That’s how medicine is developed, for example. So when you set concepts aside, as you’re trying to do with neutrality, that’s probably because you don’t like where the evidence leads.

      54. Does it not bother you that your ideology requires double talk to prop it up? I can demonstrate with evidence the temperature at which were (correction by vel: water) boils. All without needing to change the subject of question the definition of the word water.

      55. wow, poor TM has to now claim that we don’t know at what temp that water boils to defend his religion. This is just perfect. TM, you are really an amazing example of Dunning Kruger effect.

        as for it being obvious that we know when water will boil, TM, you again are trying to deny evidence that exists in your attempt to try to invalidate evidence that show your version of your religion to be false. It’s great to see your attempts to deny things you depend on every day. It’s really a shame that you are such a hypocrite but that is what people are used to from Christians like you. Your attempts to deny the laws of physics, which allow thermometers and barometers to work is very silly. When people see that Christians like you are utterly incompetent in their intentional attempts to spread false information aka lies, they have no reason to believe you.

        Let’s see, a Christian, TM, tries to claim we can’t determine what temperature water boils (or tries to claim he has no idea if we can do this), and then tries to claim he knows what some magical being(that he can’t show exists) wants people to do, then it’s a bit ridiculous.

      56. You’re assuming that there’s a standard to call anyone a Christian. The fact that Christians disagree is proof that there’s a standard, for if there was none there would be no reason to disagree. 🤗

      57. LOL. Oh my. for someone who claims he has read Bennett’s book, your argument is so terribly wrong. Your nonsense is similar on Pascal’s wager, which assumes, with no evidence, that the theist has the right answer. There is nothing to show that there is a right answer, so your argument fails. That no Christian can agree is evidence that each of their versions is different than the next, not that there is some “standard”. Each Christian claims that their version is the “standard”. A million “standards” shows that your claim is nonsense. Again.

        You might also want to see what Bennett says about presuppositionalists: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/bg/Bo/LogicalFallacies/NY6XCqXp/Arguing-with-a-Presuppostionalist

      58. Then you should be able to prove it. Where and to what tradition have I appealed? I’m not denying that I fit into a particular tradition, but where have I appealed to it as a standard?

      59. Tm, you’ve claimed that your version of Christianity, your tradition of Christianity is the only right one. You have repeatedly indicated that you believe that everyone else is wrong. You think your version of Christianity is the “standard” that others are to be judged against when you claim that they aren’t real Christians.

      60. The fact that Christians disagree is proof that there’s a standard…

        Yes, 42,000 absolutely correct ‘standards’ to be perfectly accurate.

      61. I’m going to guess that number is the highly overinflated, number of denominations that used questionable standards to define what a “denomination” is or even what a “Christian” is. 🙄

      62. Correct, but it doesn’t matter if it’s 42,000, 2, or 800,000. Your comment remains just as absurd. But it did make me laugh, which is something positive.

      63. and again TM, your analogy fails since we all know what a car is, and Christians can’t decide what a Christian is, all insisting that those who don’t agree with them aren’t, but having no evidence to support their claim. Now, since the bible says we should be able to know who is a Christian and who isn’t, e.g. fruits and all, why does that promise fail? For example, why can’t Christian elders heal people?

      64. “Christians can’t decide what a Christian is”
        The gospel defines what a “Christian” is.
        Further, since you know what a “car” is, it also follows that you know what a “car” isn’t. Chevrolet isn’t definitional of a “car”, neither is Ford, Dodge, Mazda, Toyota, etc. But something being a Chevrolet, Ford, etc doesn’t make it a “car” since a “car” has clear definable elements.
        The simple fact is that the analogy holds in the face of your claim. This is why your objection FAILS, on its face.

      65. Yep, thanks for quoting me that Christians can’t decide what a Christian is. As I said in another reply, each Christian claims that the “gospel defines what a Christian is” and every Christian has a different interpretation of that gospel, claiming that their version is what the holy spook told them and only them.

        More failed analogies. but I expect that. A Chevrolet Camaro is a car. You can’t define Carmaro without saying “car”. Just like you can’t define Baptist without saying Christian.

      66. “every Christian has a different interpretation of that gospel”
        30+ years, 3 different denominations, dozens of interactions with other Christians: everyone seems to agree with what it is. You know who doesn’t agree?
        LDS, which is why THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.
        So, you seem to be confused about what Christians are talking about.

        “Just like you can’t define Baptist without saying Christian.”
        Never said that you couldn’t, so ANOTHER straw man. I just said, that being a Baptist doesn’t make one a Christian, and being a Christian doesn’t make one a Baptist. What is so hard to understand about the fact that there are two different categories operating there that are RELATED but not SYNONYMOUS?
        Oh, that’s right: that STRAW MAN that you keep beating.

      67. “Never said that you couldn’t, so ANOTHER straw man. I just said, that being a Baptist doesn’t make one a Christian, and being a Christian doesn’t make one a Baptist. What is so hard to understand about the fact that there are two different categories operating there that are RELATED but not SYNONYMOUS?”

        hmmm, again, we have your own words “I never said that a Baptist and a Christian are the same things. A Christian can be a Baptist, just like a Christian can be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian or a Catholic or even a Pentecostal or a non-denom. However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian.”

        Baptist: “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant (a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth
        broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only”

      68. “Baptist: “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant…”
        “broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination…”

        This is where you inability to reason logically gets put on display:
        THIS DOESN’T CONTRADICT ANYTHING THAT I HAVE SAID.
        It AFFIRMS my claim.

      69. Again, you are wrong.

        Never said that you couldn’t, so ANOTHER straw man. I just said, that being a Baptist doesn’t make one a Christian, and being a Christian doesn’t make one a Baptist. What is so hard to understand about the fact that there are two different categories operating there that are RELATED but not SYNONYMOUS?”
        hmmm, again, we have your own words “I never said that a Baptist and a Christian are the same things. A Christian can be a Baptist, just like a Christian can be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian or a Catholic or even a Pentecostal or a non-denom. However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian.”
        Baptist: “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant (a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth
        broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only”

      70. TM: ““I never said that a Baptist and a Christian are the same things. A Christian can be a Baptist, just like a Christian can be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian or a Catholic or even a Pentecostal or a non-denom. However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian.”

        and now

        ““Baptist: “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant…”
        “broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination…”
        This is where you inability to reason logically gets put on display:
        THIS DOESN’T CONTRADICT ANYTHING THAT I HAVE SAID.
        It AFFIRMS my claim.”

        Oh my.

      71. ” “I never said that a Baptist and a Christian are the same things. A Christian can be a Baptist, just like a Christian can be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian or a Catholic or even a Pentecostal or a non-denom. However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian.”

        “”Never said that you couldn’t, so ANOTHER straw man. I just said, that being a Baptist doesn’t make one a Christian,and being a Christian doesn’t make one a Baptist. What is so hard to understand about the fact that there are two different categories operating there that are RELATED but not SYNONYMOUS?””

        “Baptist isn’t separate from Christian.”
        Never claimed that it was, which is why THIS is a STRAW MAN.”

        Again, a baptist is a christian by definition. Baptist: “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant (a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth
        broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only”

      72. “Again, a baptist is a christian by definition.”
        No. This just proves that you do not understand how definitions work, probably because it looks like you omitted an open parenthesis. Let me illustrate:
        “broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by …”

        Notice the closed parenthesis [)] at the end of the phrase “…not of a Catholic or Eastern church…”
        Good grammar would conclude that the opening parenthesis [(] would be placed before the word “not”.
        So, that means that the relevant portion would read,
        “broadly : a Christian (not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination…”
        Now, in English sentence construction, the use of the parentheses, “…. used to enclose incidental or extra information, such as a passing comment, a minor example or addition, or a brief explanation.”
        https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/grammar/dashes-parentheses-and-quotation-marks/uses-of-parentheses

        That means that section can be eliminated, which would make the definition read,
        “broadly : a Christian denomination…”

        Which means that you have been beating a straw man over a typo made on your part.

      73. It’s great to see yet one more Christian try to claim a definition is wrong, when it shows that they are wrong. It’s even funnier that you can’t even cut and past right.

        What you used as a cut and paste is the definition of Protestant, and I added that to the definition of Baptist to make sure that everyone knew the definition of Protestant that also says that Protestants are Christian because I knew you’d try to pull some nonsense.

        The merriam webster website has this as the definition of Protestant: ” a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth
        broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant

        This is the definition of Baptist from the same website: “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baptist

        *I* put the parentheses in, to insert the definition of Protestant which is wonderfully grammatically correct aka “used to enclose incidental or extra information, such as a passing comment, a minor example or addition, or a brief explanation”. No typo on my part and all, and more lies from TM about strawmen.

        You are such a great failure, TM. I guess your god doesn’t have your back to keep you from making an utter fool of yourself. Now, why would that be?

        This is what I wrote: “Again, a baptist is a christian by definition. Baptist: “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant (a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only””

        and this is TM’s attempt to lie by attempting to misquote me: “Again, a baptist is a christian by definition.”
        No. This just proves that you do not understand how definitions work, probably because it looks like you omitted an open parenthesis. Let me illustrate:
        “broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by …” “

      74. I have dear. But please do keep on with your silliness. I very much appreciate being given so much evidence to support my position that Christians like you are great evidence that Christianity is created in the images of the believer.

      75. The problem seems to be that you are confusing categories.
        A contradiction is to say that (A) and not(A) are the same thing.

        I’m saying that there’s (A) and not(A); and there’s also (B).

        So I can say that there is an (A) that can be a (B); but also that (B) can be not(A). I’m NOT saying that (A)=(B)=not(A), THAT would be a contradiction.
        Where (B)’s identity is derived from (A), but (B) is not (A): (A) is (A), and (A) is necessary to define (B), but (B) is not necessary to define (A) because (A) is the predicate for (B) as an expression of (A), but (B) is not definitional of (A) because (A) exists distinctly from (B). Therefore (A) is necessary to define (B), and (A) can be defined apart from (B), but (B) is not necessary to define (A).

      76. Oh the good ol’ categories nonsense that Christians often try .

        We have you saying “However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian” The definition of Baptist says “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant (a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only”. A Baptist is a Christian, and now you claim a Christian isn’t a Christian. A contradiction is to say that (A) and not(A) are the same thing. In your case, it is (A) and (A) is not the same thing when they are. I agree, contradiction isn’t the term. I’ll go with a false statement.

        Baptists are Christians. They always are. To claim that they are not means you are trying to define Baptist without the term Christian, and that would invalidate the definition. You are making up new definitions to fit your attempt to claim that no one but you and those who agree with you are Christian.

        And we can see just how silly your argument is when the words are added.

        A contradiction is to say that (Christian A) and not(not christianA) are the same thing.

        I’m saying that there’s (Christian A) and not(not Christian A); and there’s also (BaptistB) which in reality equals (ChristianA).

        So I can say that there is an (christainA) that can be a (Baptist B (Christian A); but also that (Baptist B(Christian A)) can be not(ChristianA). I’m NOT saying that (christianA)=(baptistB)=not(nonchristianA), THAT would be a contradiction.
        Where ( Baptist B(Christian A);)’s identity is derived from (christaintyA), but (Baptist B (Christian A);) is not (ChristianA): (Christian A) is (ChristianA), and (Christian A) is necessary to define (Baptist B (Christian A);), but (Baptist B(Christian A);) is not necessary to define (ChristianA) because (ChristianA) is the predicate for (Baptist B(Christian A);) as an expression of (ChristianA), but (baptistB(Christian A);) is not definitional of (chrsitianA) because (christianA) exists distinctly from (baptistB(Christian A);). Therefore (ChristainA) is necessary to define (Baptist B(Christian A);), and (christianA) can be defined apart from (baptistB), but (baptistB(Christian A);) is not necessary to define (christianA).

      77. TM, your grasp of logic is hilarious. Please do remember that you can make as many syllogisms as you want but if you can’t show the initial premises as true, your “logic” will always fail. Christians like you seem to always forget that, or at least hope that other people do.

      78. You mean, the evidence that proves that you set up straw men, and can’t present any argument to refute anything that I have said? That evidence.

      79. and tsk, still no evidence for your lies. It is interesting to have such a good example of a Christian who ignores what his god supposedly said about lying. Oh well, no surprise that a Christian hasn’t read his bible.

        A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.

        No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.

        “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

        For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.

        5 But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their condemnation is deserved!

      80. hmmm, funny how I did. But you can lie about that too. You have tried to claim that Baptists aren’t Christians, which is a hilarious lie in that they are by definition. You have yet to define the term Baptist as I have asked you to, if you are so sure that it isn’t defined as Christian.

        Claiming Baptists aren’t Christians is a lie.

      81. Which means that you’re the one that’s lying.
        But then you don’t care about truth, just like you don’t care about beating up straw men, which is a lie in itself.

      82. “Tm, you’ve claimed that your version of Christianity, your tradition of Christianity is the only right one. You have repeatedly indicated that you believe that everyone else is wrong. You think your version of Christianity is the “standard” that others are to be judged against when you claim that they aren’t real Christians.”

        Yeah, no. Again another DISHONEST representation (STRAW MAN) of my statements. I have never, and will never, make such a claim, and to prove that I have means that you would have to scour nearly 500 posts that are currently on my blog to prove me wrong. And I seriously doubt that you have the intellectual temerity to even attempt such a feat. You’ll just call me “dishonest”–which is further slander and evidence that you don’t care about honest interaction, only chumming.

      83. This is what TM has claimed ““However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian” and “0+ years, 3 different denominations, dozens of interactions with other Christians: everyone seems to agree with what it is. You know who doesn’t agree? LDS, which is why THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.” The LDS dares not to agree with you, TM, and you declare them not Christian. Nice appeal to authority there too.

        TM, again, all we have is one Christian insisting that his version is the only right one and everyone else’s is wrong and has no evidence for his claims, just like those Christians he decries. You have claimed that the LDS and JW aren’t Christians.

        https://clubschadenfreude.com/2019/04/08/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-moving-the-goalposts-prayer-as-a-weapon-ignoring-questions-and-the-usual-theist-nonsense/#comment-13411

      84. why yes, those. Now, you’ve claimed them surely you can present links to how wonderfully you showed I was wrong, and how you so cleverly showed these supposed strawmen.

        I’m waiting, TrueChristian.

      85. Doesn’t matter how they see me: only how they see you as the now documented liar that you are.
        I never said that Baptists weren’t Christians.

      86. This is what TM has claimed ““However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian”

        And this is the post he ignored:

        It’s great to see yet one more Christian try to claim a definition is wrong, when it shows that they are wrong. It’s even funnier that you can’t even cut and past right.
        What you used as a cut and paste is the definition of Protestant, and I added that to the definition of Baptist to make sure that everyone knew the definition of Protestant that also says that Protestants are Christian because I knew you’d try to pull some nonsense.
        The merriam webster website has this as the definition of Protestant: ” a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth
        broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant
        This is the definition of Baptist from the same website: “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baptist
        *I* put the parentheses in, to insert the definition of Protestant which is wonderfully grammatically correct aka “used to enclose incidental or extra information, such as a passing comment, a minor example or addition, or a brief explanation”. No typo on my part and all, and more lies from TM about strawmen.
        You are such a great failure, TM. I guess your god doesn’t have your back to keep you from making an utter fool of yourself. Now, why would that be?
        This is what I wrote: “Again, a baptist is a christian by definition. Baptist: “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant (a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only””

        and this is TM’s attempt to lie by attempting to misquote me: “Again, a baptist is a christian by definition.”
        No. This just proves that you do not understand how definitions work, probably because it looks like you omitted an open parenthesis. Let me illustrate:
        “broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by …” “

        Poor thing. It’s tedious but I do like seeing Christians intentionally lie.

      87. AND STILL with the straw men.
        This isn’t about “Protestantism”, you twit.

        ““Again, a baptist is a christian by definition.””
        No, a Baptist is NOT a “christian by definition”, its is a Christian DENOMINATION by definition. But then there are Baptist denominations that DENY historically documented Christian doctrines, which –BY DEFINITION–puts them OUTSIDE of what is DEFINITIONALLY Christian.
        You are simply dishonest AND irrational.

      88. This is what TM has claimed ““However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian”

        TM, again, all we have is one Christian insisting that his version is the only right one and everyone else’s is wrong and has no evidence for his claims, just like those Christians he decries.

        https://clubschadenfreude.com/2019/04/08/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-moving-the-goalposts-prayer-as-a-weapon-ignoring-questions-and-the-usual-theist-nonsense/#comment-13411

      89. so, dear TM, define “denomination” and define “Christian” we know that you define the latter as “not agreeing with me” by your repeated claims that Catholics, LDS, etc aren’t Christians. I am indeed quite happy to say that Christianity is a poor little religion, not nearly as large as the “billions” that Christians often want to falsely claim since most of those Christians would be declared “not Christian” by the claimant.

        we have Christians having no problem with the number of 33,830 demoninations: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/topics/d/denominations/ We also know that even you, TM, seems to have been of one group and now considers himself “reformed” another splinter.

        http://philvaz.com/apologetics/a120.htm
        The definition of denomination used by the fellow who came up with that number above is “an organized Christian Church or tradition or religious group or community of believers or aggregate of worship centers or congregations, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions.”” Sounds like a pretty good one e.g. if you say you are separate, you are counted as separate.

        it’s kinda funny to see how the Catholics are upset about too many Protestant denominations: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations Oour team isnt’ as big as their team. 🙂

        here’s quite a list of Christian sects/denominations, all wasting resources in their need to be the one “true” Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

      90. Again with the straw man?
        I never said that Catholics aren’t Christian. I SPECIFICALLY said “not ALL that are Catholic are Christian.” I can make that distinction between Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Calvary Chapel, Dutch Reformed, etc.
        I will remind you— because you seem to have a problem with both long-term and short-term memory—that I demonstrated, using the LDS source that YOU provided, that the CJCLDS is NOT CHRISTIAN in any meaningful sense of the term.

        You know, if you would ACTUALLY read the links that you post, you would NEVER do it again 🙄
        https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/september7/8ta090.html

      91. always fun to watch a non Catholic insist that he knows which catholics are TrueChristians and who aren’t. Same with a Christian insisting that he and only he knows who are the TrueChristians and who are not. So, dear TM, what makes some Catholics TrueChristians and what makes some Catholics not?

        You demonstrated nothing, TM. The only meaningful way that anyone isn’t a Christian in your view is that they dare disagree with you and that injures your need to feel special. Funny how I did read that link and you are just thrashing around trying to lie about anyone who shows you wrong. How pitiable.

        And we’re back to you making idiotic claims again based on this initial idiotic claim ““I never said that a Baptist and a Christian are the same things.
        A Christian can be a Baptist, just like a Christian can be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian or a Catholic or even a Pentecostal or a non-denom. However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian.” Again, the definition of Baptist is that they are a sect of Christianity and therefore are Christian. The same thing holds for Catholics who again are Christian by definition. TM, all you have is the baseless insistence that you and only you are right. I’m not impressed and I suspect no one else is either.

      92. God’s work in salvation.

        “The only meaningful way that anyone isn’t a Christian in your view is that they dare disagree with you…”
        Straw man. It’s got nothing to do with me.

        “… the definition of Baptist is that they are a sect of Christianity and therefore are Christian.”
        Non sequitur. The gospel defines what it means to be Christian. Baptists define what it means to be Baptist. The fact that Baptist is a “sect” of Christianity doesn’t mean that Baptists are definitional of Christianity. Also, Being a Baptist doesn’t make one a Christian, anymore than chocolate flavor defines what ice cream is.

      93. there is no evidence of your god nor of “salvation”. and again, each Christian has a different version of what salvation entails, and what one has to do to get it e.g. moral actions.

        If you are claiming that you known who is saved and who isn’t, e.g. which Catholics are “really” Christian and which aren’t, that’s pretty damn funny. Please do tell us how you “know”.

        You now show us that you have no idea what a non sequitur is either. It seems like you’ve found a site on debating and now are randomly picking words in hope of making sense. A non sequitur is “a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said; an inference (see inference sense 2) that does not follow from the premises ”

        TM, and yep, that’s you, dear, makes a claim that “the gospel defines what it means to be a Christian”. Each Christian claims this and they disagree on the answer. That ol’ Holy Spook that they claim gives them the right answer gives each a different one, per their claims. You, TM, try to claim that your interpretation is right, with no more evidence than the others.

        Baptists don’t have to be “definitional” of Christianity to be defined as Christians. Same with Catholics, whatever your version is called, Methodists, LDS, etc. Baptists are a certain kind of Christian, as are Catholics, etc.

        It’s always great to see you fail *again* with analogies. Chocolate flavor isn’t ice cream. Chocolate ice cream is chocolate ice cream. Baptist isn’t separate from Christian. I’ve asked you repeatedly to define Baptist and it’s not surprising at all that you refuse since you can’t without using the word Christian.

      94. “there is no evidence of your god”
        Except for all the evidence that you actively suppress in your unbelief.

        “nor of “salvation”
        Except in the fact of the historical, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

        “each Christian has a different version of what salvation entails”
        Every one I talk to says the same thing: faith in Christ, so you’re simply wrong there.

        “moral actions”
        Funny. “For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.””
        Romans 4:3

        “You now show us that you have no idea what a non sequitur is either.”
        You clearly don’t know either, since you made the argument.

        “Each Christian claims this and they disagree on the answer.”
        If they disagree with Scripture, then there’s a problem.

        “try to claim that your interpretation is right, with no more evidence than the others.”

        “Baptists don’t have to be “definitional” of Christianity to be defined as Christians. Same with Catholics, whatever your version is called,”
        So, now you’re agreeing with me? I’m really confused.

        “Methodists, LDS, etc. Baptists are a certain kind of Christian, as are Catholics,”
        One of these things is not like the others.

        “Baptist isn’t separate from Christian.”
        Never claimed that it was, which is why THIS is a STRAW MAN.

      95. So, TM, what is “all the evidence” for your god. I’m waiting. And there is no evidence of your Jesus Christ, nor of its resurrection. No one noticed a day where the dead walked around Jerusalem, there was a major earthquake and the sky darkened. All we have is a claim from the bible, and four (5 if you include Acts) disagree on what happened. You really should read your bible, TM.

        Then you go on to claim the fallacy of personal ignorance, that since you talked to some Christians, they all agree with you. Tsk. Christians do not agree that “faith in Christ” is what salvation entails. But if you want to claim that, TM, then Mormons are Christians, something you claimed that they are not. You again try to pretend that Christians differ vastly on what they think the morals that their god wants are. Nice verse from Romans 4; it has nothing to do with the differences between Christians. It does show that the bible is one messed up bunches of books, and that the writers of it couldn’t agree on what it took to get saved.

        Oh my, it’s great to see you unable to support your claim of a non sequitur, just like you can’t show that strawmen were used. Yep, just ol’ TM, throwing shit at a wall and hoping it sticks.

        Each Christian claims that they do agree with scripture. Just like you, TM. And claims no one else does, just like you, TM. And then we get a instragram link. Hmm, a picture of every Christian when they claim that they and only they “really” follow the bible. Yep, “reformed” Christians are just like every other sect that came before them, sure that they had the one true Christianity.
        And nope, not agreeing with you. Just calling your bluff on your word salad. A shame that you desperately need me to agree with you.

        “Baptist isn’t separate from Christian.”
        Never claimed that it was, which is why THIS is a STRAW MAN.
        And yes you have claimed that being a Baptist didn’t mean someone was a Christian aka being a Baptist is separate from being a Christian. Here’s what you said “I never said that a Baptist and a Christian are the same things. A Christian can be a Baptist, just like a Christian can be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian or a Catholic or even a Pentecostal or a non-denom. However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian.” https://triggermanblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/04/does-christianity-encourage-blind-faith/#comment-2159

        tm quote

        How inconvenient for you that we have a recorded print medium, TM.

      96. again, you have shown hat you have not a clue what a strawman argument is.

        Few things are as fun to watch is a Christian citing Bart Ehrman as evidence for Jesus Christ. Ehrman says that there was no Jesus Christ son of God, only an itinerant rabbi who didn’t do miracles and who was simply killed. Hmmm, TM, do you worship a human rabbi who did nothing special?

        Again, TM, we have a claim that there were the dead walking around Jerusalem. This claim was made many years after the supposed event. We have no eyewitness testimony in the bible. We have whomever the author of Matthew was saying this ” 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”

        Then in Mark we have no mention of this event at all. Now why would the author of Mark not mention the dead rising?

        In Luke we also have not one mention of this rather amazing event.

        In John we have no mention of this and an entirely different entourage with JC.

        Yes, dear, if two different evens are claimed to have happened and only one them can, then there is a disagreement. It’s so fun to watch you try to play word games in your dishonesty.

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disagreement

        Synonyms
        contestation, controversy, debate, difference, difficulty, disputation, dispute, dissension (also dissention), dissensus, firestorm, nonconcurrence

      97. “why would the author of Mark not mention the dead rising?”
        Why does he have to?

        “In Luke we also have not one mention of this rather amazing event.”
        So what?

        “In John we have no mention of this…”
        Again, so what?

        Three sources don’t mention it. Okay, so what. I’ve got two different biographies of John Wayne. Neither of them mention one of my favorite movies, “McLinitock!” does that mean that John Wayne didn’t make a movie by that name? Of course not.

        “if two different evens are claimed to have happened and only one them can”
        Assuming what needs to be proven.

        So, now you’re claiming that Jesus did exist.

      98. “why does he have to?” Hmmm, why does he have to mention any miracle?

        And nice fail at an analogy again, TM. We aren’t talking about a book written by mortals about mortals. We are talking about your magical holy book that is supposedly from your god and says that miracles are why we should believe.

        and great to see you have no idea that if one event happens that precludes another event happening in its place. If I drink a glass of water at 12:43:10 on July 4, 2019, then I can’t drink a glass of beer on t 12:43:10 on July 4, 2019.” If there is two angels at the tomb, there can’t be one angel there at the same time.

        Nope, not claiming Jesus existed at all. But nice try in lying again.

      99. “We aren’t talking about a book written by mortals about mortals.”
        So, we’re talking about the Quran or the Book of Mormon then? Because those don’t claim to be written by mortals.

        “If there is two angels at the tomb, there can’t be one angel there at the same time.”
        Wow. You really SUCK at logic. If there’s two there, there’s OBVIOUSLY one there. Because one and one make TWO. 🙄

      100. It’s great to see TM, taht’s you dear, try to now deny his bible is supposedly written/inspired by his god. And it’s great to see you fail entirely at logic since if there is only one angel there, as your bible claims, there can’t be two of them. You might want to actually read your bible, TM, rather than consistently failing to know what it says.

      101. oh my. But no surprise here that you have no problem in outright lies and ignoring what you said. You seem to share the problem Donald Trump does, thinking that if you say something, that people will blindly believe it. Alas, with him and with you, a recording medium is not your friend.

        You said ““Baptist isn’t separate from Christian.”
        Never claimed that it was, which is why THIS is a STRAW MAN.”

        You said:”Never said that you couldn’t, so ANOTHER straw man. I just said, that being a Baptist doesn’t make one a Christian, and being a Christian doesn’t make one a Baptist. What is so hard to understand about the fact that there are two different categories operating there that are RELATED but not SYNONYMOUS?”
        hmmm, again, we have your own words “I never said that a Baptist and a Christian are the same things. A Christian can be a Baptist, just like a Christian can be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian or a Catholic or even a Pentecostal or a non-denom. However, just being a Baptist, etc, doesn’t make anyone a Christian.”
        Baptist: “capitalized : a member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant (a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth
        broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church) denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only”

      102. it’s particularly funny to see TM state he knows logic, and is “partial” to this: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies But has consistently committed logical fallacies like appeal to popularity, appeal to tradition, etc. He also, despite claiming to know all about logic and fallacies, cannot show one instance of a strawman argument being used against him. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman_Fallacy

      103. Appealing to tradition is only fallacious if the argument is “Well that’s the way we’ve always done it”.
        I haven’t appealed to popularity: I’m Reformed—it’s not very popular.
        And yes, I have pointed out EVERY SINGLE STRAW MAN.

      104. LOL. That’s exactly what an appeal to tradition is, an argument that is “well, that’s the way we’ve always done it”, aka “Christianity has always been….”

        And funny how there is not one link to these supposed strawmen or how they are strawmen. Again, TM, you have no idea what that term actually means. And an appeal to popularity is when you try to say that most/all Christians do something and that makes it true. Your ignorance certainly demonstrates that there is little reason to think you have any knowledge about logical fallacies.

      105. A straw man is a straw man because it presents a caricature or misrepresentation of an actual position or argument. The thread is FULL of them.

      106. and poor TM can’t show a single instance of how he has supposedly been misrepresented and what he “really” meant. No matter how many times you make a baseless claim, TM, it won’t come true until you can support it.

      107. It’s grand to see TM try to lie his way out of this one. This is TM, who has said repeatedly that other Christians aren’t right, that they are wrong in their interpretation of the bible, wrong in what think their god wants, wrong in how they achieve salvation. His own words show that no one has to jump to a conclusion at all; one just has to read what TM has claimed about his religion. The fact that his religion tries to convert others is also evidence that they and he believe that their version of Christianity is the only right version.

        As many Christians do, poor TM tries the “if I didn’t say it word for word, you are wrong.” to get out of responsibility for what he claims. Unfortunately for him, discussions don’t work like that. as TM has claimed, context matters. And the context of his claims is that everyone else but him and his religion is wrong. Yep, we can see that even TM knows he has said his religion is superior with his wiggle words of “”I never made sucha claim outright” and he tries the “you didn’t read what I said right.” even though it was a very plain, e.g. literal reading of the text with no assumptions made. So, again, false accusations of strawman, and of logical fallacies. With his constant errors with those, there is no reason to think TM has any idea what logic is at all.

      108. But in this case, despite your attempts to lie, events *are* linked. Again, it’s amazing the lengths and lies some Christians will go to invent their own history and own religion.

        It’s also great to see you claim “revelation” and we all know that Christians don’t get the same revelation and none of you can show that your “revelation” is any more true than the next. If you can show that your version is true, please do so.

      109. Also you’re equivocating on the term “catholic”. Catholicism before the 11th century doesn’t mean the same thing as Catholicism after it. It also doesn’t mean the same thing before the Theodosian decree as it does after it.

      110. The term doesn’t change the substance. But let me check on your theory again. Your sect, born in America in the 20th century. Where? The midwest? You’re linked to “original” Christianity, unlike Catholics? How about Episcopalians?

      111. Well, good to see you admit that. It’s also just as good to see you ignore context when convenient for yourself. But at least we know that you are intentionally ignoring something you claim is true.

      112. yep, Christians, like TM and every other Christian, like to fantasize that their version is the only “catholic” one. They of course have no evidence to support that.

      113. 2. That’s what you believe but again, no evidence for this at all. And it’s always good when a Christian claims this since this makes their god responsible for some really heinous people and governments since it is responsible for those people and gov’t being put in place. Your god participated and required evil, if it exists. Romans 13 is such a lovely example of just how contradictory the bible is when it comes to the claims of Christians.

        And yep, you are likely more like some Christians and less like others. Christians can’t agree on much of anything. So much for “revelation”. it’s all your own opinions creating gods in your images.

      114. oh my. TM certainly tries to be as deceitful as possible. Telling people that they can’t work because of a religion is a religious decision. And no, dear, not all political decisions are made on religious grounds. Happily, many countries have very secular politics that don’t rely on religion at all.

      115. Support your claim, TM. You fail since there are many secular governments and political structures. Sweden does not make political decisions on religious grounds. I can agree that some decisions are, but not all. You got greedy with your need to have some use for your god and your religion.

      116. no, they aren’t. Poor TM, so desperate to have some reason for his religion, he has to claim it is everywhere. That is some desperation for external validation you have there, TM.

      117. Yes, I know about the fact that the pilgrims were a faction within the Puritan movement, in fact I think I made that distinction. It is only important as such.

      118. No, you made this claim “Now, you’re jumping contexts, because I wasn’t talking about the Pilgrims, I was talking about the Puritan movement within Anglicanism, these are different things. ” you were trying to play pretend that they are different. They are not.

      119. And you made a claim about it that YOU have to prove.
        You didn’t ask a question, you made a defamatory statement, and now you’re crawfishing because you know it’s false.

      120. LOL. Nope, no defamatory statement at all, just the truth. Again, you tried to claim that pilgrims and puritans weren’t connected, and that you were “only” talking about one and not the other, which is impossible.

        It’s also great to see you hope that no one noticed that you were wrong about praying on street corners, and you ae entirely wrong about Easter.

      121. “No, you made this claim “Now, you’re jumping contexts, because I wasn’t talking about the Pilgrims, I was talking about the Puritan movement within Anglicanism, these are different things. ” you were trying to play pretend that they are different. They are not.”

        You accused me of trying to “play pretend” then YOU made a claim that you have to prove.
        Defamation AND a claim that you bear the burden for proving.

      122. I’m not wrong, because you haven’t provided anything that proves the claim. Everything that you have presented has been fully refuted.

      123. and we get to see no more than a link to what TM tries to claim is just so great, but can’t actually describe. The usual throwing shit on a wall technique, hoping that someone will accept something someone else says. It’s interesting to see just how other Christians think of James White, yet one more apologist who attacks other Christians and wants to claim his version is true. https://churchwatchcentral.com/2018/06/24/should-james-white-be-disregarded-as-a-valid-voice-of-apologetics/

        https://forums.catholic.com/t/answers-to-james-white/322858/5

        Now, TM, if you present what White says, then I might care, but I’m not wasting time looking for a needle in a haystack. Present his arguments and we can examine them together. If you cannot, you indicate you have no idea what they actually are.

      124. No, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you follow failures like Brown. and his lies about homosexuality and his attempt to spread his lies overseas, among other things like hilariously lying that he didn’t know what the website Stormfront was when he quoted it about converting Jews to Christianity. Christians like you and him sure do love to lie. You just aren’t very good at it.

        Funny how you present opinion as the facts all of the time, TM, just like Brown and White. And you are repeatedly caught in your lies. Tsk.

        Of course, you still can’t actually present what White’s points are. No surprise there either.

      125. If they’re “lies”, then you should be able to prove it.
        See, Brown has actually defended his claims in public and scholarly debate. You, you’re just a comment section debater who loves to make wild assertions then fail to back them up.

      126. Brown has debated people. He has failed at defending his false claims, since we know that conversion therapy is nonsense. He has claimed that homosexuality is caused by childhood trauma and that is also a lie. We also have him claiming to have been Jewish and then converting, accepting JC as his messiah. He’s failed amazingly well since well, there are still Jewish people. IT’s also so funny when Brown says that Trump is a Christian, and anyone saying he is not is “hypocritical”. I guess Brown has forgotten that one is not to follow someone who lies, someone who cheats people, someone who is an adulterer, etc. But shucks, Brown has no more problems than you have to ignore the bible when convenient. Again, TM, you and Brown and White, etc are great examples of how Christians invent their god and religion in their own image and then insist that their version is the only right one. Please do show all of us that you are the one TrueChristian(tm) and that your version is only the right one. Your bible has a lot of ways to find out if you are. Christians should be able to heal with the application of oils. they should be known to follow the laws of the bible. Now, where could I find a Christian like that?

        oh and nice appeal to authority in trying to claim that Brown is so great. Darn, and you are just a comment section debater too. Oh horrors 🙂

      127. Now, you’re treading into my territory.
        First, “conversion therapy” is not nonsense because ALL psychological therapies are aimed “converting” mindsets and behaviors from one thing to another.
        Second, he, and no one with a scintilla of scientific knowledge on the question, has ever claimed that childhood trauma “causes” homosexuality; there is, however, considerable correlative data between childhood sexual abuse and homosexuality. For example, professional troll Milo Yiannopolis has stated that he was sexually abused and has correlated that to his own homosexuality. This is backed up by numerous scientific studies that note, “Epidemiological studies find a positive association between physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence in childhood and same-sex sexuality in adulthood,…”
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535560/
        Third, “Jewish” is BOTH an ETHNICITY and a RELIGION. So, you can be an ethnic Jew AND a Christian. He never admitted to be anything other than nominally Jewish in his religion prior to his conversion, so that’s NOT an argument against his Jewishness OR his work with Jews.
        Fourth, Brown has been openly critical of the president and published a book warning Christians about late last year. Further he readily admits that he has no knowledge of Trump’s beliefs and is operating off second-hand information
        https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2019/04/buttigieg-calls-trump-a-hypocritical-christian/

        Now, I’m just tired of typing, but this is enough to demonstrate both your utter ignorance of facts and how quick you are to misrepresent things that are literally a google search away.

      128. and more lies from our TrueChristian. Wow, good to know you’ll completely ignore what Brown has said directly “Still, it cannot be denied that a disproportionately high number of gay men were abused as boys, and that certainly contributed to their sexual and emotional development.” And those who agrees with say “if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition.”” Nicolosi and this from Brown “Again, using your definition, in the majority of cases, certainly. However, we must not downplay the many successful stories of change through counseling and, more importantly, the possibility of change through the gospel. Cannot Almighty God change a homosexual into a heterosexual if it so pleases Him? Has the church really devoted itself to seeking God to help men and women who struggle with same-sex attractions?” Funny how prayer doesn’t work at all It’s wonderful to you to lie when Brown himself says otherwise. I also loves Brown’s showing how his god fials when he makes this claim and his god fails in it “I accept that our Father knows best, that His ways are ways of life, and that if He does not enable someone to enter into a heterosexual relationship then He will give grace to that person to be celibate, just as He gives grace to a believer suffering decades of imprisonment and torture, just as He gives grace to a drug addict to get free from addictions, and just as He gives grace to many heterosexuals to live in lifelong, non-chosen celibacy.” https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/50477-dr-michael-brown-has-40-answers-and-2-questions-for-gay-christian-matthew-vines I have to love these questions that Brown asks to be just perfect for a TRueChristain :
        1. Can you give me a single, unambiguous biblical example of a God-blessed homosexual relationship?
        2. Do you agree that every reference to homosexual practice in the Bible is decidedly negative?

        Hmmm plenty of Christians have them with #1 and #2 does show that the OT certainly has a thing against homosexuals, as does Paul. But funny how yet again a Christian picks and choses from the bible. 1. Can a Christain show me that it’s okay for them to use a computer in the bible? and 2. Do you agree that every reference to following this god’s laws indicates you have to follow all of them? (it does) Then why don’t you?

        And it’s great to see a Christian say that no one can judge someone else and golly, he just doesn’t really know what Trump is like, despite his actions. Oh my. Such pious nonsense given to excuse their support of an anti-Christ. it’s quite funny on how Brown judges Buttgieg but not Trump.

        And before you post a link, you might want to read the paper it links too: “Our results suggest that the causal relationships driving the association between sexual orientation and abuse and maltreatment may be bidirectional, may differ by type of maltreatment, and may differ by sex. Better understanding of this potentially complex causal structure is critical to developing targeted strategies to reduce sexual orientation disparities in maltreatment. Our findings indicated that sexual abuse may increase the likelihood of the three dimensions of same-sex sexuality for both sexes, and that non-sexual maltreatment may affect sexual orientation identity and women’s same-sex sexual partnering. While point estimates suggest that much of the association between maltreatment and sexual orientation may be due to the effects of maltreatment on sexual orientation, rather than the reverse, confidence intervals were wide. Results were, therefore, also consistent with approximately half the association between sexual abuse and minority sexual orientation being due to nascent sexual orientation leading to increased risk of maltreatment, and all or nearly all of the association between non-sexual maltreatment and sexual orientation being due to sexual orientation leading to maltreatment. Whether maltreatment influences sexuality or sexuality influences maltreatment, or both, public health interventions to increase tolerance and reduce assault and harassment of sexual orientation minorities are needed.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535560/

      129. Tip: if you’re going to accuse someone of “lying” don’t provide quotes or sources that AFFIRM what they’re saying. The point of is to PROVE that a falsehood has been uttered, NOT support their claims.

        1. Stupid question.
        2. Even stupider question. The Apostle Paul wrote an entire essay on the question. Perhaps you’ve heard of it, it’s called the Epistle to the Galatians. 🙄

        What gives Brown the right to criticize Buttgeig? The fact that Buttgeig claims to be a Christian.

        Also, your EXTENDED quotation didn’t rebut or refute ANYTHING that I said, nor anything that Brown or Nicolosi has said. It does show that you don’t understand how scientific papers are written in a hostile and politically charged environment.

      130. oh, so TM wants to claim that hmmm, only Christians can criticize Christians. So, Buttgeig is a christain even though he doesn’t agree with you. Glad to see you admit that, TM. And always good to see a failure like TM avoid answering questionsn by saying “stupid question”. It’s that convenient! Poor TM more excuses on why his god fails.

        Thanks,TM, for showing how Paul negates what your supposed savior said. Always good to know that a Christian realizes this too.

      131. that’s quite a pile of nonsense, TM. You have invented a history just like the LDS has. Each Christian trying to claim that their version is the one true Christianity, and none of you has any more evidence than the other. And no, Puritanism has nothing to do with humanism, classical or otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism They were a sect that again, wanted to pretend that only they had the “right” answers. Your lies certainly do a great job in showing that Christians aren’t anything special.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans it’s always amazing that Christians like you will try to intentionally spread false information in your desperation to invent the claim that only you have the one true Christianity. It shows that you rely on willful ignorance, lies and fear to support your religion.

      132. Yeah…no.
        One of the footnotes is to an LDS text that calls second century Christianity “apostate”, and does this on the so-called “loss of apostolic authority”. The fact of the matter is that those very Christians they call “apostate” affirmed apostolic authority and said that it was found IN THE TEXTS WRITTEN BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES.
        Secondly, Mormons are clearly and demonstrably ignorant of the Godhead concept which was an entirely JEWISH concept, as documented in the monograph TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN, which details concepts that had developed over hundreds of years, but were completely abandoned by Jews in order to differentiate themselves from Christians at the beginning of the 2nd century. In other words, Christians have continued to believe things that Jews had already believed for hundreds of years.
        Third, there is no such thing as “post New Testament Christianity”. Christianity only exists because of the new covenant founded in Christ (Hebrews 8).
        Lastly: Mormons have a fundamentally different concept of God than Christians. God is not eternal and neither is Christ, in contradiction to the Scriptures, Christ is the physical son of God derived through a physical union with Mary (that trope comes from Greek myth). Jesus is also the blood brother of Satan, which in biblical theology is a JOB TITLE, not a person.
        So, Mormons, by their own admission believe things that no Christian in the first century, much less up to the 19th century believed. Therefore, they can call themselves “Christian” till they’re blue in the face, by definition they aren’t.

      133. So, which LDS text are you talking about, TM? And it’s great to see most, if not all Christian sects, insisting that all but them don’t have “apostolic authority” aka a nice way to say “we gots the one true version”. The apostles wrote nothing, TM. None of the bible was written by the supposed apostles or Jesus or your magical god. Those claims are the usual myths that ignorance Christians repeat. The “two powers in heaven” is simply more Christian and Jewish and Gnostic nonsense and fussing over who are the heretics. Again, more theist arguing on who has the “right” version, and none of them having any more evidence that their version is the “right” one.

        It’s always fun to watch Christians try to quote the bible as their proof that only their version is the right one when the Christians they disagree with do the exact same thing. And each Christian is sure that “by definition” those other Christians aren’t Christian.

      134. If I gave you 100 one hundred dollar bills, and I told you that 99 of them were counterfeit, would you throw out all 100 or would you try to find the genuine legal tender?

      135. TM, you really are awful at analogies. In this case, each of the 100 bills are making the claim that they are the real one. And none of them have any evidence they are. There is no reason to think any theist claim is true. You all make the same claims, and you all fail.

      136. That’s why they’re called “counterfeit”.
        It’s a shame that someone who thinks that they’re so intelligent demonstrates that they cannot reason logically.

      137. wow. So, we have you initially claiming this “If I gave you 100 one hundred dollar bills, and I told you that 99 of them were counterfeit, would you throw out all 100 or would you try to find the genuine legal tender?”

        I responded “TM, you really are awful at analogies. In this case, each of the 100 bills are making the claim that they are the real one. And none of them have any evidence they are. There is no reason to think any theist claim is true. You all make the same claims, and you all fail. ”

        In your analogy, you assume that one version of your religion is the only true one, yours. You claim that the others are counterfeit, but you have no more evidence that yours is the correct one than they do. Your analogy fails in that you can’t show that there is one genuine bill in the stack.

      138. See this is what I’m talking about: you don’t even understand the point of the analogy because you falsely assume that you’re right, that you hold in your hand a $100 bill that isn’t counterfeit.

        YOUR OWN worldview is in that stack of bills.

      139. of course, in TM’s own words, it isn’t quite that simple. We get claims like this from TM “I disagree with a lot of Christians, hell, I disagree with Matt over at CARM. Disagreement on fine points doesn’t invalidate the broader points.
        I’m really gonna shock you with this one because I would agree with the Catachism of the Roman Catholic Church in that Christ’s Church is the means of salvation. I just don’t think that a church that didn’t exist until the 11th century is that church.
        As far as Islam goes, it claims that the Bible is true, and the Bible claims that Islam is false, so that means that if you believe Islam’s claims then you have to reject it. ”

        “DS? JW? Those aren’t Christian, in fact they deny key facts that Catholics, Protestants, and the Orthodox fundamentally agree on. So, you’re simply ignorant of facts. Quite simply, what I would disagree with a Catholic or an Orthodox on is often not necessarily primary but secondary. urther, I never claim anything other than Christ, who he is, and what he has done, everything else is gravy.
        Further, I don’t make claims based on pastiche texts that don’t appear until the 5th century. ”

        “You keep confusing what DEFINITIONALLY makes someone a Protestant or a Catholic or an Orthodox with what is definitional of Christianity: these are NOT THE SAME THINGS. ” This is the best one I think.

        “My definition is the same one that the apostles used.” which TM claim is “The one that expands over 66 books ”

        this is how TM knows who the TrueChristians(tm) are “And I know them the same way that I know who my siblings are: because we have the same father.”

        “There’s a difference between trying to convert Catholics to Christianity and trying to get them to be Baptists.”

        “Some Lutheran churches operate with the belief that the elements of the Eucharist are literal. You can believe whatever you want about them, that’s not important; what is important is what you believe about the Eucharist itself and Catholics believe things about it that simply aren’t supported by the facts. But this, again, goes back to the NECESSARY distinction between what a Christian is—established by the coherent and consistent exegesis of Scripture—and what a particular denomination has exalted, not as being definitional of them, but as being definitional of Christianity, when the two terms cannot be used synonymously. ”

        and finally of course, when shown that he has made certain claims “I never said that I have the right answer.” and “Further, I never claimed to be a Christian.”

        “To be a Christian, there’s certain things that you have to believe. If you don’t believe those things then you cannot be called “Christian”. So, if there’s a thing that can properly be called a “Christian” that means that there are things that AREN’T “Christian”. That’s NOT a “lie”, that’s simple logic. You seem to be throwing a net so broadly that YOU would wind up caught in it.
        People can claim what they want to claim, what matters is the standard. ”

    1. Trigger, I’m curious as to why you think there are so many non-Christian Christians? Where’s the confusion coming from, and given what you believe is at stake, do you think it moral (right) for your god to do nothing to clear up the mess?

      1. well, for conservatives, they make the same claims when they try to claim that some group or other aren’t “patriotic”. Like Christians like yourself, TM, they try to claim that their version is the only True one. They of course fail, like you do.

      2. God knows it, and he allows it.
        Deuteronomy 13
        1If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,
        2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’
        3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

      3. He allows it? So, otherwise good people who just so happened to be raised in the wrong Christian faith will burn for eternity… and you think that’s moral?

        Interesting.

      4. Curious. So you can’t answer a simple question as to whether your god’s actions (a supposedly ‘good’ entity) are moral or immoral.

      5. Yes, I heard you the first time.

        So you believe it is morally right for your god to knowing observe people who *believe* they are worshiping correctly, but unbeknownst to them are mistaken, do absolutely nothing, and upon their death judge them and send them to an eternal torment.

        Interesting worldview you have there.

      6. It is a moral question because your god is judge and executioner.

        *Knowing* what he’s going to do to these people (people who believe in him, but are, apparently, believing wrongly), is it moral for him not to act to clear up the confusion which, of course, is not fault of their own?

      7. And just for some clarity: Morality is a score of a behaviour. Morality can also be the score of the complete absence of any behaviour at all; inaction. By your claims here, your god sits idly by, watching as well-meaning people—theists—practice a belief they *think* is correct, but is, apparently, wrong. Your god knows this, it is completely and absolute aware, yet it does nothing. It does nothing while also knowing it, and it alone, will cast these same people into eternal torment upon their death for no reason other than their mistaken (allegedly mistaken) manner of worship.

        As there is—according to you—a conscious behaviour taking place, we can score this behaviour (in this instance, inaction) as being moral or immoral. Indeed, given the proposed punishment, you really can’t find a more ‘moral’ question.

        So, you insist this behaviour is, in fact, taking place, yet despite repeated requests to score it, you’ve danced and weaved and evaded actually facing up to it. But don’t worry, evasion is the thoroughly predictable behaviour of apologists such as yourself.

      8. OK, so you don’t believe in some maximally ‘good’, morally perfect god. You don’t hold to this idea of a benevolent creator. That’s actually quite refreshing. I can see now why you don’t call other Christians “Christians.”

      9. Actually, YOU seem to be the one engaging in attention seeking. Probably a middle child or only child of a single parent, because you have to insert yourself into a conversation that doesn’t concern you in order to gain attention. It actually demonstrates that you have no real position. It’s sad. I honestly feel bad for you that you’re have such a low view of yourself and your own position that you have to misrepresent and what people say and falsely accuse people of doing the very things that you do in order to have anything to say.

      10. Every Christain claims “revelation” and every Christian claims a different revelation. That’s the problem with lies told by all sects, none of them has any more proof that their “revelation” is any more valid than any other “revelation”.

      11. It’s always interesting when a Christian quotes the Old Testament laws. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+13&version=NIV

        of course, Christians like TM, always ignore the inconvenient bits ” That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.” Why TM hasn’t gone off to try to murder Pat Robertson and all of the other failed prophets here in the US is a mystery 🙂

        Now, if this god intentionally allows people to be duped why would this be? This god appears to be working with Satan, the great deceiver, just like it supposedly will do per Revelation, intentionally releasing it to deceive the faithful Christians who have been living under Christ’s rule for an aeon. This god is certainly a pathetic jerk. One might as well worship Ares.

      12. See: another straw man.
        Not quoting something because it’s not relevant to the argument being made is NOT the same thing as IGNORING IT.

        And simply as a fact of history: people DID try to kill Joseph Smith, because he was a con man, and he was eventually murdered by a lynch mob because of his political actions to forward his religion.

      13. In your case, it is ignoring it, in that you want to support your nonsense by citing the OT and its ignorance, but you know if you do what your god commands, it won’t work out well for you. And many religious people are killed by other religious people. all over who has the “right” version.

        Now, TM, why don’t you demand the death of the false prophets we have in the US who are claim that they are evangelical Christian and who all fail in their claims of what their god is going to do?

        Or are you ignoring that part of the bible?

      14. oh my. Poor TM thinks that having come to the conclusion that there are no gods is a “religion”. I alway slike this attempt by theists to try to equate their religion with someone’s lack of belief in it. It is quite a classic “well you are no better than us” excuse that fails and shows that the theist doesn’t have much respect for their religion either.

      15. You’ve got an entire blog about YOUR RELIGION, and using it to try to critique other religions. You’re just obtuse and unreflective on your own positions.

      16. TM, please do keep trying to claim that the conclusion that there are no gods is a “religion”. It’s very funny to see. I do enjoy that you have nothing but whining that “you’re no better than us”, in regards to Christianity. It’s also great to see that you’ve must have found a dictionary. how “impressive”.

      17. I know what it means, dear, I wanted to have you define it so you can be responsible for your claims. “Sociology (Sociology is the scientific study of society, patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and culture of everyday life) of religion is the study of the beliefs, practices and organizational forms of religion using the tools and methods of the discipline of sociology. This objective investigation may include the use of both quantitative methods (surveys, polls, demographic and census analysis) and qualitative approaches such as participant observation, interviewing, and analysis of archival, historical and documentary materials.”

        So how does this work with your claims? Atheism is not a religion: (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. So, what we have is TM trying to ignore the definition of religion, and then trying to claim atheism is a religion. Then he tries to cite the sociology of religion to try to claim that atheism (the conclusion that there are no gods) is a religion, when the sociology of religion defines religion as the above. There is an alternate definition of religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith, but that is not how the sociology of religion defines religion in its context. He also forgets that he is an atheist too, towards every god but the one he invented.

        TM is quite a failure.

  1. As for Miracles, you live in the wrong hood. There is profit Owuor with his miracles this part of the globe and pastor Alpha in South Africa who resurrects the dead.
    I know Caroline. A good sport, that one.
    Catholics are the true Christians. The rest are going to hell

    1. Heh, these TrueChristians certainly think each other are going to hell. The place will be full up and no room for an honest atheist. Sometimes, I think the best answer is this god is just seeing how far these idiots will go in betraying and attacking each other in their desperate need to be this god’s extraspecial friends. It’s the malevolent god of Zande’s 🙂

      as for Caroline being a “good sport” she certainly has no problem in making false claims if it suits her.

  2. There is no doubt that different Christians view different things as being important. I am happy to focus on the parts that we agree on but there are substantial differences. Both atheists and Christians (whatever that means) tend to generalize the other side.

    About half of those who identify as christian also identify as Catholic, but a large percent of the debate between atheists and Christians on the web seem to be between atheists and evangelicals.

    1. It’s because the evangelicals are so easy to catch in their lies. I’ve had quite a few Catholics here, who are just as bad as TM. Silenceofmind is one.

      That Christians disagree on major doctrinal claims, including how one is saved, what this god wants, etc, is a great tell that there is no magic god and each Christian makes their religion and their god in their own image, supporting their personal hatreds and desires.

      It is not “generalization” at all, it’s a fact that Christians don’t agree and they cherry pick what they like from a religion made over repeatedly over thousands of years.

      I took a look at your blog, Joe. It’s rather amazing that you want to claim this “Empathy Mitigates our Good Deeds by Making them Self Centered” this is pretty funny considering that Christians do good deeds to avoid hell, the most self-centered idea ever.

      1. Hello
        I am not sure that disagreement about what Christianity demands means Christianity is false. Our beliefs about something does not effect objective reality.

        As far as your point about avoiding Hell I think that is a good one. But I think I make it clear in the blog that acting in our own self interest is not necessarily wrong. But it is true that to the extent we are acting in our own interest we shouldn’t claim our actions are selfless. And acting selflessly is I believe properly understood as a moral good.

      2. Well, Joe, show me what objective reality support your claims of the truth and knowing what this god wants and how oen is to be saved.

        I, as an atheist is not claiming that our actions are selfless. It seems that you, as a theist, are trying to claim that those who do actions because of your religion are doing it for selfless reasons. You also seem to be indicating that somehow this is “better”, in a moral way which there is no evidence to support.

        As for morality coming from religion, let me ask you this: do you regard the genocide commited by your god okay? Now would you regard the same action done by a human okay?

      3. All of these are good questions and do not lend themselves to short answers.
        I think the records of Jesus miracles support his claims of knowing the truth on these matters of morals just as other historical records support events from history.

        Atheists have all sort of different moral beliefs so it is impossible to really say what anyone would believe as an atheist. I just say that traditionally people view selfless acts that help others as morally better than actions that help oneself and also happen to help someone else. Do you not agree with that?

        I do not think God committed genocide. But yes there is a difference between a creator destroying his own creation and someone else destroying what he did not create. So if you paint a picture and then decide to destroy it that is morally different than if you paint a picture and I decide to destroy it. Do you agree?

      4. The only mention of JC’s miracles in history are the claims in the bible and repetitions from historians reporting what Christians believed. That is the claim, not evidence that these ever happened. If we are going with your claims then the miracles attributed to Ascleipius are as valid as JC’s miracles. Do you agree?

        So, we are left with you trying to claim that since you think that JC existed, then this entity knows morality. There is nothing to support this.

        Atheists do indeed have all sorts of philosophies and moralities. In that even Christians aren’t performing selfless acts, and JC himself was not doing anything selfless, all you have is a baseless assumption and an appeal to popularity and tradition. From what you wrote, I don’t see that you are “just saying” what you now claim you are. You are making a claim that Christianity is love (an unsupported claim), and that somehow this definition of love is responsible for “selfless” acts, as if no one else can come up with the idea. It seems that, like many Christians, you don’t think that anyone but Christians can “will the good of another”. You want to somehow denigrate any actions by people other than Christians because you want to claim it isn’t pure enough. I agree that people once thought certain things, not that those certain things are true.

        I am unsurprised that you would deny that your god, in commanding the annihilation of a people (the definition of genocide), was committing genocide. Your claim that it is okay for this god to do this, annihilate a people for the sole reason that it is the creator, is nothing more than a morality of might equals right. If you say it is okay for your god to do one thing, but not for a human to do the same, you have subjective morality, based on what something is, not the objective rightness or wrongness of it. There is nothing wrong with a subjective morality, happily that’s how morality gets better, but the Christian attempt to claim that only they have good morals is simply a false claim and since Christians don’t agree on morality, there is no reason to believe it since you can’t convince each other. I certainly don’t agree that a creator has some right to destroy what it created, especially if that thing is alive. Do you believe in free will or not, Joe? If you do, is it still okay for your god to murder whatever it wants? If you don’t, then we are all just playthings.

      5. Historical evidence is by and large recordings. I think you and I went round and round on this before.

        I don’t know what other miracle claims you are refering to. But I suggest you use typical historical criteria and see how they compare to the claims of Jesus miracles.

        JC claimed to know morality and seemed to have supernatural powers that would at least support his claim to know more than we do. If he doesn’t know who would? Do you think it is important live a moral life?

        I think that Christianity is centered on Love is well supported in scripture and church teaching. I never said non-Christians could not Love. If non-Christians want to base their morality on love that is great.

        So I gave an example of painting that explained the reasoning why a creator has a right to destroy his creation that others do not have. You ignored that and say I am claiming might makes right. No. Even if I have the might to destroy your painting it is still wrong. Your might or lack of might does not change your right to destroy your own painting. It is your right. Again do you agree you have the right to destroy your own painting but I do not?

        Yes I believe in free will. And no murder implies unjustified intentional taking of a human life. I don’t think God murders. God loves us I do not think we are merely his playthings. But he is our creator and we should understand that our relation with him is not the same as our relationship with other created things.

      6. Joe, historical evidence is indeed often by recordings. Now, that being said, are you okay with Tacitus saying that Vespasian did miracles just like Jesus and accepting those miracles as real? If not, then you understand why I would never believe the bible which is also just a claim.
        Now, what do you want to claim is “typical historical criteria”? I want to be sure what you are describing before I address that.

        Yes, JC claimed to know morality, and other gods claim to know morality. There are claims of supernatural powers for deities, though there is no evidence only claims. And who do I think knows about morality? Humans. we don’t need any magical being to tell us about morality. Again, Joe, Christians differ on what they claim is the morality that their god has given us. And I do think it is important to lead a moral life. Morals have changed over time and I’m glad I live in a time where they aren’t too harmful to most people. I’m happy to have a subjective morality, one that can change and get better; one that doesn’t say it’s okay for a god to destroy humans.

        Christianity isn’t based on love, though I’m not sure what you mean by “Love”. it seems quite different. Love can be nicely described as wanting the best for others; and Christianity is not that since it has a god that manipulates people and harms them to show off.

        I did not ignore your example of a painting. If your bible is correct, humanity is this god’s “painting”, correct? If this god is the creator then it is the “might” in the “might” equals right. Let’s take a look at Romans 9. “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
        22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” Your argument is Paul’s, is it not? That which has power can destroy what it wants. But let’s say that the argument you are making is “creator equals right”. It doesn’t sound any better. I do not agree that I have a right to destroy a creation of my own, especially if it is alive and has its own will. Do you think it is morally right for a creator to destroy something that has its own will?

        You of course also want to absolve your god of murdering humans. It does so repeatedly, taking away any free will that human has, and you now claim that this murder is just and fair, for the sole reason it is the creator. How horrible. You claim we have a “different relationship” with this god than with other created things. Certainly sounds like might equals right to me. It’s interesting that you ask me if I have the right to destroy a painting. Would that hold if I destroyed a child I created? Now, you’ll claim of course not, that’s your god’s purview since your god created me and thus it created the child. The same argument could be applied to that painting. And it’s just as silly.

      7. As far as tacitus claims of miracles I certainly do not say there is no evidence of a miracle. I would see the writing as evidence. But whether I am ultimately convinced will depend on many factors including the way I think how and when miracles might occur. Moreover, it is simply not a pressing issue to me whether a miracle occurred there or not. Its just not a big deal either way to me. Now in the case of Christ’s miracles that would change things quite a bit. Those miracles suggest he was from God and he had many ways he thought I should live my life. Vespasian – not so much.

        How do humans “know” morality? It seems to me morality is not known through the 5 senses and therefor is not directly the proper subject of science. Do you agree with that?

        It is obvious you have the right to destroy your own painting – your own creation. Others do not have that right. You are now saying the fact that we have a will changes this. I am not so sure either way. You just assert that. It is an interesting question. But it certainly seems to me that we can imagine creating robots with a sort of will that need to be destroyed because they are doing more harm than good. I do not claim to have all the answers to every moral question but I do think a creator destroying his own creation is morally different than someone who is not the creator destroying someone else’s creation. If you don’t have an argument to change my mind then perhaps we can just agree to disagree.

        AS for your last claim that saying creators have more rights over their creations than others being horrible – well I will leave you to your melodramatics.

        No I do not think you are the creator of your children. I am not the creator of my children. They are who they are and I did not really choose anything about them. Of course I try to be a good influence but that is different from saying I created them. I think most parents understand this. Before they are born we want to find out what they look like. We want to know if they are a boy or a girl. We want to know what sort of personalities they will have. We did not create any of this we just want to find out what God created.

      8. “But whether I am ultimately convinced will depend on many factors including the way I think how and when miracles might occur. Moreover, it is simply not a pressing issue to me whether a miracle occurred there or not.” I agree that it requires other factors to decide if claims of miracles (for a written account is not evidence, but the claim) should be taken seriously. You assume that only your god does miracles, and that assumption would make you inclined to discount any other claims, claims that are the same as your claims that your god has done miracles in that they have no evidence to support them. It is also not surprising that you have decided that the occurrence of miracles isn’t “pressing” since you now find that your claims aren’t that unique and can’t be supported. This is despite your god saying that miracles are one of the ways it proves itself. This seems quite hypocritical. There is no more reason to believe in JC’s miracles than there is to believe in Vespasian’s. I know you won’t agree, but that doesn’t mean this statement isn’t true and will remain true. You can ignore it all you want.

        In your attempts to claim that I can’t know morality though the “5 senses”, that’s a poor attempt to claim “different magesteria”. Happily, we have intellect, a product of our physiology and chemistry, though wehich we can know many many things, that we can’t see, taste, touch, etc. It’s hilarious that you are trying such a poor argument. What it seems that you are arguing is dualism, that somehow there is some magical “soul” that we “know” things through. Can you show this “soul” exists? And no one cares how something “seems” to you, all you are doing is trying to make an argument from personal ignorance. Morality can be the subject of science, since we know that the brain can malfunction and ideas of morality don’t work right. We can also look at morality through philosophy and anthropology and sociology. We can also look at them through theology and see that theists don’t agree on what morality their gods (an unproven idea) want, belying their claims of an objective morality. So, no, I don’t agree with you at all.

        What you claim is “obvious” is nothing more than an opinion, Joe. Please don’t try lie to me so poorly. No, it is not “obvious” I have the right to destroy a creation nor is it “obvious that your god has the “right” either. You need it to be to excuse your god and to excuse your God can do anything he wants without moral question morality. And yep, I’m saying that destroying a creation that has a will, which is what you excuse your god for doing, is not acceptable to me. I have a better morality than you in this case that someone should not be another’s plaything. It’s interesting this idea of yours, and I do notice the caveat that you want to now claim that your god can murder humans if they aren’t “functioning correctly” e.g. “But it certainly seems to me that we can imagine creating robots with a sort of will that need to be destroyed because they are doing more harm than good.” So, Joe, are you for the death penalty? It seems like you are. And it’s such bullshit that you now claim that you “don’t claim to have the answer to every moral question”. That’s what you claim when your god is source of morality and funny how that god agrees with you, invented in your own image. I know you won’t change your mind because you can’t. You can’t admit that your god is vile since you have wrapped up your self-worth in the idea that you have the only right answer and you know secrets of the universe. You need a use for your unnecessary god and that is claiming that it is morality itself.

        I am gratified to see that someone like you finds it “melodramatic” to find that a creator of humans intentionally murdering them horrible. That goes a long way in showing that religion makes people amoral, only concerned with pleasing something powerful.

        And I know you don’t think parents are the creators of their children. But I’m guessing you think that it is horrible if a parent murders a child and have no problem if your god does. You, by the act of sex, created your children by determining that your sperm would join your wife’s egg, Your created, brought into existence by your actions, a child. You, like many Christians, try to ignore the definitions of words. Choice about something does not mean you didn’t create it, and you did have a choice to create them, the biggest choice of all. Your actions influenced them by your choice. So, if God creates children, then why does god murder so many of them in the womb, for that is the ramification of your silly claim.

      9. You:
        “You assume that only your god does miracles, and that assumption would make you inclined to discount any other claims, claims that are the same as your claims that your god has done miracles in that they have no evidence to support them. It is also not surprising that you have decided that the occurrence of miracles isn’t “pressing” since you now find that your claims aren’t that unique and can’t be supported. This is despite your god saying that miracles are one of the ways it proves itself. This seems quite hypocritical. There is no more reason to believe in JC’s miracles than there is to believe in Vespasian’s. I know you won’t agree, but that doesn’t mean this statement isn’t true and will remain true. You can ignore it all you want.”

        Me:
        I don’t just assume other Gods are not performing miracles. The Christian God has revealed himself as being one. If there is more than one God then there is no Christian God. But I did not just assume this is the case. I do think other entities can do supernatural acts – at least I do not rule that out.

        I just did a post on this many gods issue why don’t we use the historical criteria and compare the Historicity of JCs miracles with those of Vespian and decide which would be more likely a miracle worker?

        Yes miracles would be evidence of God. Do you disagree? If not miracles then what would be evidence of God? Are you completely closed off to the possibility that anything could even be evidence of God? If so why keep saying there is not enough evidence when really you would never count anything as evidence anyway because atheism is so deeply engrained in your core beliefs?
        You:
        “In your attempts to claim that I can’t know morality though the “5 senses”, that’s a poor attempt to claim “different magesteria”. Happily, we have intellect, a product of our physiology and chemistry, though wehich we can know many many things, that we can’t see, taste, touch, etc.”

        Me:
        To the extent we know things about the world that come from something other than our five senses then we know things outside of science. I agree we do but that is sort of the point of our debate. It seems perhaps you now agree.

        You
        “It’s hilarious that you are trying such a poor argument. What it seems that you are arguing is dualism, that somehow there is some magical “soul” that we “know” things through. “
        Me:
        LOL no I was not thinking of dualism at all nor did I mention it or a soul.

        You:
        “Can you show this “soul” exists? And no one cares how something “seems” to you, all you are doing is trying to make an argument from personal ignorance. Morality can be the subject of science, since we know that the brain can malfunction and ideas of morality don’t work right. We can also look at morality through philosophy and anthropology and sociology. We can also look at them through theology and see that theists don’t agree on what morality their gods (an unproven idea) want, belying their claims of an objective morality. So, no, I don’t agree with you at all.”

        Me:
        None of that has anything to do with what I was saying. I was saying we can see light but we don’t see the immorality. We also don’t have a scanner for immorality. It is not something we can detect in a scientific way. Science can be helpful in informing our morality but it can not directly determine what is moral or not. I mentioned the is out problem. You are not addressing it at all.

        You:
        “What you claim is “obvious” is nothing more than an opinion, Joe. Please don’t try lie to me so poorly. No, it is not “obvious” I have the right to destroy a creation”
        Do you think you have no right to destroy your own painting?
        Do you think your have the right to destroy my painting?
        Assuming you answer yes to the first and no to the second (although perhaps you have been so coy all this time that you haven’t even given a straight answer to that) what is the difference if not the fact that you created the first and I created the second?

        You:
        “nor is it “obvious that your god has the “right” either. You need it to be to excuse your god and to excuse your God can do anything he wants without moral question morality. And yep, I’m saying that destroying a creation that has a will, which is what you excuse your god for doing, is not acceptable to me.”

        Me:
        It seems we have a legitimate dispute. I point out that generally we can destroy our own creations without moral issue. You seem to be claiming that if the creation has a will that makes it a sort of special case. I agree I am not proving it doesn’t but I also am not so sure it does. I gave an example to support the view that perhaps it shouldn’t matter and you ignored it and just keep reasserting your view.
        Also you still seem to unreasonably continue to hold that at least normally people have the right to destroy their own creation.

        You:
        “I have a better morality than you in this case that someone should not be another’s plaything.”
        Me:
        Clearly you are not even dealing with my views.

        You:
        “It’s interesting this idea of yours, and I do notice the caveat that you want to now claim that your god can murder humans if they aren’t “functioning correctly” e.g.”

        Me:
        Murder is a loaded term.
        You:
        “But it certainly seems to me that we can imagine creating robots with a sort of will that need to be destroyed because they are doing more harm than good.” So, Joe, are you for the death penalty? It seems like you are.”
        Me:
        No I am against it.

        You:
        “And it’s such bullshit that you now claim that you “don’t claim to have the answer to every moral question”. That’s what you claim when your god is source of morality”
        Me:
        Saying “I have the answer to every moral question” is not the same as saying “God is the source of morality.”
        You:
        “and funny how that god agrees with you, invented in your own image. I know you won’t change your mind because you can’t. You can’t admit that your god is vile since you have wrapped up your self-worth in the idea that you have the only right answer and you know secrets of the universe. You need a use for your unnecessary god and that is claiming that it is morality itself.”

        Me:
        Bulverism.

        I have reasons that I believe in God and I spelled them out in my blog if you want to address those reasons go ahead.

        You:
        “I am gratified to see that someone like you finds it “melodramatic” to find that a creator of humans intentionally murdering them horrible. That goes a long way in showing that religion makes people amoral, only concerned with pleasing something powerful. And I know you don’t think parents are the creators of their children. But I’m guessing you think that it is horrible if a parent murders a child and have no problem if your god does.”
        Me:
        We are all going to die. God created us to live for a short time. Should we all be angry at him for that? Should we say if you create us it is horrible for you to do so unless we live forever? And not only that if you create us it is horrible unless you create us to live forever in perfect joy?

        You:
        “You, by the act of sex, created your children by determining that your sperm would join your wife’s egg, Your created, brought into existence by your actions, a child. You, like many Christians, try to ignore the definitions of words. Choice about something does not mean you didn’t create it, and you did have a choice to create them, the biggest choice of all. Your actions influenced them by your choice. So, if God creates children, then why does god murder so many of them in the womb, for that is the ramification of your silly claim.”
        Me:
        I agree we play a role in the creation of a new person but it is a tiny role. And having a role is not the same as saying we did the creating. It’s like saying well I gave you the canvas for that painting so now I have the right to destroy the painting.

        Again murder is a loaded term. Murder is the unjust intentional killing of a human being. I don’t think God “murders” anyone. As to why God allows so many children to die I am not claiming to know that. I can only speculate but I don’t claim that it would be anything more than that and certainly not knowledge.

      10. Joe,

        You believe that your god revealed itself as being “one” (a god, I presume), that is presuppositional. We have no evidence of this at all. What you have are stories you claim are true, just like any other religion, including those you don’t believe are true. You don’t believe them for the same reason I don’t believe you: claims that have no evidence to support them. We have claims from most if not all religions that their gods do miracles, and again, they have the same evidence as you: none. You also seem to be trying to claim that perhaps “other beings” can do miracles and can perhaps be accountable for the other miracles claimed by other religions. Most Christians would claim that these beings are demons, because of the assumption that anything that is not of your version of god is evil. We also have no evidence of that either.

        Yep, I would be quite pleased to first know what you consider ‘historical criteria’ and then to discuss what we have supporting Jesus Christ’s miracles and Vespasian’s miracles.

        Miracles would be evidence of the supernatural and for your god if it exists if you can show that it was your god that did them. As you have indicated, it could be something else. How would you determine the source of miracles, Joe? And no, as much as you seem to want to accuse me of being “completely closed off to the possibility of something being evidence” of your god, I am not. I will look at such claims intently and see what they say. I’ve never said that there is not “enough evidence” so please don’t try to create a strawman for you to attack, that I would “accept nothing”. I’ve said I’ve not seen any evidence and that all theist claims are essentially the same, they try to make a claim the evidence, saying that their stories are evidence when they cannot be claim and evidence at the same time. You ask what I would consider evidence. How about a burning bush that talks? How about a Christian healing a terminal brain cancer patient by touch as the bible promises? My personal bar for this is pretty low, I’m not asking for scripture being written across the sky in flaming letters. This god if it is what Christians claim, would know exactly what I need as evidence. I prayed to this god when I was losing my faith. I got nothing. One would think that I, a lost sheep, would rate as much as Thomas did. There is, as you said, the possibility of another entity being responsible but I’ll give your god a pass on that.

        We know things about the world that we can perceive with our senses and interpret with our intellect. We do know things outside of biology, physics, etc, but that doesn’t say that any of the supernatural claims you make are true. If these supernatural events happen, they will leave evidence if they can interact with the physical world. I don’t agree with you that I can’t know morality since I can’t feel, see, hear, taste or smell it. I can know it because of the lovely physical brain that generates an intellect. No magic needed. I also don’t believe for a moment that you weren’t arguing for dualism and a soul. What else could we know morality by, as claimed by a Christian and based in the context we are writing in? If this is true, then what were you thinking about when you made the claim that we can’t know morality through physical means? How else can we know it?

        We can determine immorality, e.g. the differing of morals from what we might consider our standard, with no problem. Actions speak louder than words. We don’t need a scanner, and observing behavior is quite scientific. You want to claim that somehow you know what is moral or not based on your interpretation of your religion. In that Christians disagree on what their god wants as morality, that claim is baseless. As for the is-ought problem, we have yet to see any evidence of a source for your claim of “is”.

        Again, you try to make claims about my right to destroy. You claimed that it was obvious, and I’m waiting for a reason why it is obvious, or true at all. As I have repeatedly said, I do not think that I have the right to destroy whatever I make, especially if it is a being with free will or at least a semblance of that, because it exists and I think existing is better than not and that is a wonderfully subjective moral idea on my part. I don’t think I have the right to destroy someone else’s painting too, especially if it is a being with free will or at least a semblance of that (same answer as above). You don’t seem to like my answer, and I’m guessing it is because it shows I’m more moral than your god is argued to be, to destroy whatever it wants just because it is God. It’s interesting that you now try to accuse me of lying in your need to not accept my answer.

        As I indicated above, I don’t think that a creation having a will is a special case. I think it is more important in that case, but inanimate object shouldn’t be able to be destroyed just because someone is their creator. Again, Joe, you need an excuse for your god being a murderous being by assigning it the “right” to do something. I didn’t ignore your claim; I didn’t agree with it. I don’t have to agree with you. I don’t agree it shouldn’t matter. That’s your moral decision. It’s not surprising that now you have to try to claim that I am “unreasonable” since I dare disagree with you. That is not the case. However, if you wish, you can explain why it is more “reasonable” to say that people should be able to destroy what they create.

        It’s very easy for you to falsely claim that I am not addressing your views when I am. That’s a shame. I will ask you directly, do you think it is more moral to not consider a human being a plaything? You have argued that your god may do with humans whatever it wants. If that is not correct, please indicate what you do believe.

        Murder is descriptive. Here is what the definition of murder is: “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought”. Now, I know you are trying to claim that your god is the ultimate lawgiver, and it is up to it if something is unlawful. However, that again makes your morality based on nothing more than might equals right. If an action can be considered wrong if a human does it and perfectly fine if your god does it, there is no objective morality, only that which is subjective and dependent on what something is. We have a god, that intentionally creates humans with the express purpose of harming them by its picking and choosing who can accept it, and then killing them, malice (desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another ) aforethought. It is interesting that you didn’t’ have a problem the “functioning correctly” part.
        It is interesting that you are against the death penalty when you seem to have no problem with your god having a death penalty. I am guessing it is again because you think your god has the right to do whatever it wants?

        In that every Christian claim to know what God wants for morality, and differs, it is indeed the same as saying you have the answer to every moral question. None of you can show that what you declare as divine morality is what this god wants.

        Now, you wish to accuse me of “bulverism”. It seems like Bulverism means “to assume your opponent is wrong and explain his error”. So, Joe, how am I wrong? I have shown how you are wrong in your claims, and why you are wrong in your claims. You make your mistakes because of what you believe. So your attempt to accuse me of “bulverism” doesn’t work. It’s not hard to know why a Christian does something having been a Christian and having known quite a few. But you are welcome to explain to me if and why I am wrong in my assigning cause and effect between your inability to change your mind and your religion.

        I have looked at your blog and why you believe in your god and won’t change your mind. I am happy to stand by what I’ve said. You want to believe that your god is the right one, is the source of love and morals and that you are right in your choice of god. You grew up in the culture and assume that your god can only be the right one. Your new post has this “1) It is theoretically rational to believe (ie. There is evidence that the belief is true.); 2) It is pragmatically rational to believe (that is, weighing the consequences of being wrong or right on this issue favors belief); and 3) It is logically consistent to believe.” Which can be applied to any religion as “good reasons”. That you believe in yours but not others with the same “good reasons” shows that my summation isn’t off.

        Wow, Joe, your excuse for your god’s horrible actions is apparently no more than “we are going to die”. Why yes we are, so why does this excuse horrible actions by a creator when it murders people long before they would have died naturally? And nice attempt at a complete strawman in that I never said that it is horrible to create people unless we live forever or in “perfect joy”. No, Joe, I’m talking about murder here, the intentional killing by your god, creating humans for the sole purpose of harming them.

        So, now we play a “role” in creation. Sigh. If we have a “role” in creating, then nothing would be created without us. Now, since you claim you do believe in free will, how does that work with your claim that your god now taking credit for what we do? As for your analogy, I suspect you don’t realize how badly it plays for your claims. “It’s like saying well I gave you the canvas for that painting so now I have the right to destroy the painting.” If having a role is not the same as saying we did the creating, and that only having a role is only contributing a canvas, then the creator doesn’t have the right to destroy the painting.

        You want to claim that this god has the right to control people and to destroy whatever it wants. You already know why your god destroys so many children: because it can and wants to. You don’t have to speculate at all. It’s your god’s right per you and you can’t question it.

      11. Joe, my husband has a question. Is it okay that your god tells its worshippers to murder, or if that offends your sensibilities, kill people just because it wants them killed? You say that the creator can murder but when it tells others to do a horrible act, is that moral? We have your god commanding humans to do genocide and murder babies by dashing them on rocks. Where is the objective morality here?

      12. I do not say the creator can murder. Murder is a loaded term. It is the unjustified killing. What I said is a creator can destroy its creation. If the creator is justified in destroying its creation even if it means the death of a person that is not murder.

        Now you seem to say well if someone creates a conscious being then the creator no longer has that right to destroy it. But you haven’t offered why that should change. You also haven’t answered the question I asked. If someone makes a conscience thing do they need to ensure that thing is immortal so it never dies? Because if not then it seems even making conscience things means knowingly making things you know will be destroyed.

        But on to the question. I do not think God does command us to kill others without justification. I do not think the passages out of the old testament dealing with that are to be read literally.

        And I would say it does seem to me that even if God can destroy his creation I am not so convinced we can destroy his creation even if he gives us permission. I would agree that you can give me permission to destroy your painting then it would not be immoral for me to destroy it. Christians have a logical “out” here that I can not completely discount.

        However I have misgivings with God giving us permission to kill another in circumstances that would not be justified but for his command.

        My church teaches that that such actions are objectively against nature/reality. (seemingly unlike the way destroying a painting is) I do not think God would command us to do what is evil. (and my Catholic Church teaches this as well – although I am mindful that it is not always easy to say what “the church” teaches)

        When I read the bible I do so based on the guidelines of the church which chose the books that would be part of the bible. My church teaches that God could not command us to do evil. It also teaches that intentionally killing innocent people is evil. Therefore God wouldn’t command that. Therefore reading the old testament in a way that suggests God does that is not a permissible reading. Therefore to the extent a passage would imply that happens if it is read literally then you should not read it literally.

        Do some Catholics with more of a teaching role in the church than I have disagree with me? Yes some likely do, and I am therefore not suggesting that I am telling you what Catholic teaching is. But I can only speak for my own views and those are my own views on the topic. You can accuse of me dancing or whatnot but in my defense I have explained how I would have a clear logical out if I wanted one but yet tend to reject it. My goal is not to dance or play games. I see no reason to do that rather I am just sharing my views and calling it like I see it as best I can.

      13. Murder is a descriptive term. You wish to justify your god’s killing of people because it simply wants to and claim it is “justified” because of what this god is. I find this unjust and unfair, to kill someone because this god simply wants it to show off to humans as Romans 9 says. If it, a supposedly omnipotent being, prevents me from accepting it and then kills me and damns me to eternal torture, because I can’t accept it, then this is malicious. It also again shows that there is no objective right or wrong, only might equals right, that this god can do anything it wants to because its is god, not because there is an objective concept of good and evil.

        Yep, you asked if something makes a conscious thing, should they make it immortal. That was a wonderful attempt to dodge my question. A natural death is what happens when we simply wear out. But we have this god killing people, not letting them die after their 3 score years and ten (Psalm 90). It seems you want to ignore that there is a difference between killing and dying. Is this so, Joe? Killing requires direct action, letting someone die after a time doesn’t.

        Of course you don’t think that your god commands people to kill others without justification. The justification it gives is that it wants it done. Nothing else. As always, a Christian decides on his own on what should be read literally and what should not, all without any more support than the next Christian who invents a whole other set of what is literal and what is not. It’s easy for you to say, Joe, that you want to pretend that your god isn’t really having whole peoples annihilated. Why that must be a misinterpretation! It’s inconvenient for you to have such a god, so you invent a new one, insisting that the part of the bible you don’t like mustn’t be taken literally. Of course, the parts you do like, about the raising of the dead, etc well, those have to be true no matter how ridiculous they are.

        There is no logical “out”. There is nothing in your bible that says that humans “can’t destroy” this god’s creation if it gives permission for killing. It has no problem with this at all repeatedly, and even requires war booty taken after genocide is done. It benefits from genocide just like any other bronze/iron age god. As usual, joe, you try to ignore what your bible actually says, inventing your own version. Indeed, Joshua et al get special praise for what they do, obeying without question to kill on command.

        The Catholic Church changes its tune when convenient. It’s now inconvenient to now claim that anything is okay because their god said so. So, now they have to invent a objective morality that’s different from the supposed objective morality they claimed from their god before. If it is evil to commit genocide now, then it should have always been evil to commit genocide. But your church didn’t always believe that and your bible never believed that. What your bible says is that anyone who doesn’t obey this god is “evil”, not that they are bad or inhumane, they just don’t obey. And your god can’t have that. So, in Revelation, we get the slam bang finish where Jesus kills all non-Christians, because they are “evil”.

        Now, if you won’t accept that human can kill someone for disobedience, you can’t accept that your god can, if the idea is objectively immoral. But if you have a “god can do what it wants” moral basis, then it’s no problem for you. It’s great to see you invent a god that “can’t do something” when it does, and then claim that one has to read the OT in a way that agrees with your presupposition of what this god can’t do since you don’t like it doing it.

        That’s quite 1984-like, Joe. The body in power doesn’t like something, so it’ll try to rewrite what was written before because it’s unflattering. Down the memory hole with anything that shows your god to be exactly what the Jews and early Christians thought it was to make it conform to modern morality. The heck with Jewish national myths if they are inconvenient.

        You are telling us what a Catholic believes and showing that Christians again make their religion and god in their own image dependent on their personal desires, hates, and what makes them comfortable/uncomfortable.

      14. CS
        “Murder is a descriptive term.”
        Joe
        No the term murder implies unlawful or unjustified killing. Not just any killing. So it is not just descriptive it is also legal or value laden.

        CS:

        “You wish to justify your god’s killing of people”
        Joe:

        You do not think God killed anyone and neither do I. You seem unable to stay coherent in your own views let alone my views.

        CS:
        “because it simply wants to and claim it is “justified” because of what this god is. I find this unjust and unfair, to kill someone because this god simply wants it to show off to humans as Romans 9 says. If it, a supposedly omnipotent being, prevents me from accepting it and then kills me and damns me to eternal torture, because I can’t accept it, then this is malicious. It also again shows that there is no objective right or wrong, only might equals right, that this god can do anything it wants to because its is god, not because there is an objective concept of good and evil.”

        Joe:
        Obviously that is not my view and anyone with a brain who reads this discussion will see that.

        CS:

        Yep, you asked if something makes a conscious thing, should they make it immortal. That was a wonderful attempt to dodge my question. A natural death is what happens when we simply wear out. But we have this god killing people, not letting them die after their 3 score years and ten (Psalm 90). It seems you want to ignore that there is a difference between killing and dying. Is this so, Joe? Killing requires direct action, letting someone die after a time doesn’t.
        CS:
        Joe

        Yes killing is not identical to dying I agree. Creating someone who will die also requires direct action. And it also leads to their death in the sense if you never created them they would never die. So I am asking you if you think God was immoral for even creating us knowing we will die. It seems you say no that is ok.

        CS:
        Of course you don’t think that your god commands people to kill others without justification. The justification it gives is that it wants it done. Nothing else.
        Joe:
        There are certainly stories like Abraham and Isaac that provoke many different ideas and thoughts on this topic. But again I think the literal reading is the least informed.

        CS:
        As always, a Christian decides on his own on what should be read literally and what should not, all without any more support than the next Christian who invents a whole other set of what is literal and what is not.
        Joe
        How is this different than any other writing where we no longer can know what the authors intent is?

        CS:
        It’s easy for you to say, Joe, that you want to pretend that your god isn’t really having whole peoples annihilated. Why that must be a misinterpretation! It’s inconvenient for you to have such a god, so you invent a new one, insisting that the part of the bible you don’t like mustn’t be taken literally. Of course, the parts you do like, about the raising of the dead, etc well, those have to be true no matter how ridiculous they are.

        Joe:
        No I look at the intent of the authors. In some cases it is clear they want us to read them literally. In many old testament books that is far from clear. You are talking about old testament books.

        CS:
        There is no logical “out”. There is nothing in your bible that says that humans “can’t destroy” this god’s creation if it gives permission for killing.
        Joe:
        Clearly you do not understand the argument.

        CS:
        It has no problem with this at all repeatedly, and even requires war booty taken after genocide is done. It benefits from genocide just like any other bronze/iron age god. As usual, joe, you try to ignore what your bible actually says, inventing your own version. Indeed, Joshua et al get special praise for what they do, obeying without question to kill on command.
        The Catholic Church changes its tune when convenient. It’s now inconvenient to now claim that anything is okay because their god said so. So, now they have to invent a objective morality that’s different from the supposed objective morality they claimed from their god before.
        Joe:
        You are likely just making up Catholic history because I do not think you have read those of the early church.

        CS

        If it is evil to commit genocide now, then it should have always been evil to commit genocide. But your church didn’t always believe that and your bible never believed that. What your bible says is that anyone who doesn’t obey this god is “evil”, not that they are bad or inhumane, they just don’t obey. And your god can’t have that. So, in Revelation, we get the slam bang finish where Jesus kills all non-Christians, because they are “evil”.

        Joe:
        Again what a bizarre view that demonstrates you do not understand anything Christ taught. I really don’t think you can read scripture with an open mind.

        CS:
        Now, if you won’t accept that human can kill someone for disobedience, you can’t accept that your god can, if the idea is objectively immoral. But if you have a “god can do what it wants” moral basis, then it’s no problem for you. It’s great to see you invent a god that “can’t do something” when it does, and then claim that one has to read the OT in a way that agrees with your presupposition of what this god can’t do since you don’t like it doing it.

        Joe:
        Again nothing I said would lead a reasonable person to interpret my moral views the way you do. I actually just wrote a blog against divine command.

        CS:
        That’s quite 1984-like, Joe. The body in power doesn’t like something, so it’ll try to rewrite what was written before because it’s unflattering. Down the memory hole with anything that shows your god to be exactly what the Jews and early Christians thought it was to make it conform to modern morality. The heck with Jewish national myths if they are inconvenient.
        You are telling us what a Catholic believes and showing that Christians again make their religion and god in their own image dependent on their personal desires, hates, and what makes them comfortable/uncomfortable.

        Joe:
        I think Christians read the bible according to traditions and all the texts. You can’t read Deuteronomy and ignore Christ in Johns gospel. That is what you want us to do but that is not the way Christians do it. You seem upset that we take a holistic view and don’t just narrowly focus on the tiny fragments you want.

      15. Joe,
        Your excuse for your god not murdering people is that it is the law giver so it can break its own laws, its the one with the might, and as long as it wants to kill people that’s alright with you because of what it is, not because it is objectively immoral to kill people. You claim that you are not for the death penalty. It seems you are as long as this god is the killer. My husband also made a observation that your painting analogy is interesting that as long as you give me the painting you no longer have the right to destroy it. Your god supposedly gave us life and now you want to say it’s okay for it to take it back and destroy it. Hmmm.

        I just have to keep this posterity “You do not think God killed anyone and neither do I. You seem unable to stay coherent in your own views let alone my views.” Now you are trying to attack my points by attempting to claim that since I don’t believe in your god, I can’t judge its actions. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. I can also find the actions of the Grand Moff Tarkin reprehensible for murdering billions on Alderaan. What is most fascinating here is that we have you, Joe, denying that your bible reports that your god killed many many people. This seems to be an attempt to ignore the parts of the bible you don’t like and find inconvenient. This god kills people in the OT and in the NT. I’ll have to retract what I said, you don’t want to justify your god’s killing, you want to pretend that your bible doesn’t mention it. Alas for you, I have read the bible and many non-Christians and Christians have and know better than to believe your claims.

        At this point, I don’t care what your stance is since you change it when convenient. You have said it was okay for your god to kill, and that murder was the wrong term to use. You have claimed that it is justified in killing because it is god. You can see your own words below where I’ve quoted you.

        In regards to your question if I think it is immoral that god created us only for us to die, I do *if* that nonsense in Genesis is true. I’m assuming you *do* believe it. We have a god, omnipotent and omniscient, who gave beings life, and knew that they would fail to do what it wanted them to do and still created them anyway, blaming them and punishing them for its incompetence. If you recall, the story has that there wasn’t going to be any death, but this god either intentionally allowed the “snake” into the garden or was too stupid to know it was there. It allowed this being to interact with A&E who are utterly ignorant, having no idea what good and evil are since this god deigned not to create them with this knowledge. Then when these humans did what this god knew they would do, it takes a tantrum, and blames them for what *it* did. A lot of Christians want to treat this god as “father”. Well, this is one abusive and incompetent father. You’ve tried to excuse your god from killing again, and at least this time you admit that killing and dying aren’t the same. And if we accept the nonsense in Genesis, this god is intentionally killing again, for no more reason than it wants to because it’s upset that humans did what it made them to do.

        You now claim this “There are certainly stories like Abraham and Isaac that provoke many different ideas and thoughts on this topic. But again I think the literal reading is the least informed.” By this, it seems that you think that the incident with Abraham is just a “story”, and you seem to be taking a swipe at Christians who don’t agree with you and consider this a real event. This again shows that Christians don’t agree on much of anything, and you all pick and choose what to take as literal, what as metaphor and what to ignore altogether with no more coherence than the next. It’s inconvenient to have a god that demands a father murder a child, so you must try to claim “it means something else!, There must be another “good reason”!”. What we have is a god that evidently thinks it has to test someone by forcing them into a horrific act, a being that is supposed omniscient and already knows the answer so it never has to test anyone.

        “How is this different than any other writing where we no longer can know what the authors intent is?” So you are denying your god inspired/wrote this collection of books? This “bible” is claimed to be the truth by your church, Joe, and Christians claim to know exactly what the “intent” is. That you compare it to any ol’ book written by a human is very interesting. And if this is true, then how can we know that the author meant for the cruxifiction story to be read literally? It could be entirely metaphor, just like all of the parts you want to claim are metaphor; no actual salvation, no actual resurrection.

        We also have you saying this “How is this different than any other writing where we no longer can know what the authors intent is?” and then you turn around and claim this “No I look at the intent of the authors.” Christians each have different claims on what parts they are sure that the authors wanted to read literally and what are to be read as metaphor and what are to be ignored altogether. Your claims of “clearness” are nothing more than opinions based on your need to ignore what you don’t like in the bible. It’s also again always fun to see a Christian desperately wishing that the OT didn’t exist when Jesus Christ supposedly knew all about the OT and had no problem with it being literal, per your bible.

        And no surprise that you want to claim I don’t understand something, when I point out there’s no “out” for humans doing your god’s killing for it.

        I know the RCCs history well enough to know that they change their tune when convenient. Claims about having the only truth, and now well maybe others have some of it; claims of war and killing innocents because they aren’t “really” innocent being just great, and then walking that back, etc. It’s most curious that you say that I’m “likely” making things up. You don’t know, Joe? It seems that attempts at making false claims based on your own ignorance is a bit silly.

        I have read the bible as a believer and as not; straight through so I knew the context of what was claimed earlier in it. I know what it says, Joe. And I know that Jesus Christ was not the fuzzy wuzzy good guy that some Christians try to claims. This is a character who says he brings a sword, that people should follow him at the expense of their families, that anyone who doesn’t worship him should be killed (read Luke 19 and the parable of the minas), and in Revelation, we have him killing all non-christians. Let’s see what this character says “32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn“‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.” And we have this in revelation “Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” 7 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midheaven, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders—flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.”” Right after this , we have this god intentionally allowing satan free to corrupt Christians that are left, after living an eon under JC’s rule. Neither your god or your jesus are anything to be proud of. And yes, I know you’ll insist that I’m not interpreting it “correctly”. You have yet to show your version is the right one. You claim I can’t read scripture with an open mind. I can. What I see is that you must read scripture with the presupposition that your god exists, and that it must be as you want it, ignoring the parts that don’t agree with the god you’ve invented for yourself.

        We return to you claiming that the only way people are reasonable is if they agree with you. You have claimed this about your god and its right to kill people: “I do not think God committed genocide. But yes there is a difference between a creator destroying his own creation and someone else destroying what he did not create. So if you paint a picture and then decide to destroy it that is morally different than if you paint a picture and I decide to destroy it.” And you said this “I don’t think God murders. God loves us I do not think we are merely his playthings. But he is our creator and we should understand that our relation with him is not the same as our relationship with other created things.” And you said this “It is obvious you have the right to destroy your own painting – your own creation. Others do not have that right. You are now saying the fact that we have a will changes this. I am not so sure either way. You just assert that. It is an interesting question. But it certainly seems to me that we can imagine creating robots with a sort of will that need to be destroyed because they are doing more harm than good. I do not claim to have all the answers to every moral question but I do think a creator destroying his own creation is morally different than someone who is not the creator destroying someone else’s creation. If you don’t have an argument to change my mind then perhaps we can just agree to disagree.” “ And this is what your bible says “21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+9&version=NRSV It’s pretty easy to see what your moral view is about the right of your god to destroy its creations, be they objects or humans.

        Yep, Christians read their bible according to traditions, texts, their own presuppositions, hates, desires, etc. They all interpret it to their own image. You want to claim that your god didn’t commit genocide, but it’s there in the bible, after Deuteronomy. You want to claim that somehow JC supersedes everything before it supposed showed up, but you want to forget that the character is an observant Jew who says that *all* of his father’s laws are still to be followed. You want to play pretend that your god is “love” but you try to claim that the parts that show that your god isn’t “love” aren’t to be taken literally because for you, they *must* mean something else since you can’t bear to believe you are worshipping something as vile as the god presented in the bible.

        You don’t take a “holistic view” at all, Joe. You’ve not yet figured out that making a claim doesn’t work if the evidence doesn’t support it. A holistic view would mean you accepted all of the parts, and you didn’t try to make excuses for why some parts just aren’t true because they don’t fit into your version. Holistic: relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts. When you say “well that’ part isn’t true” and “that part is metaphor” (and can’t explain what it is a metaphor for), then you are the one who is breaking down the bible into the fragments you want. I’ve read it all, soup to nuts, and I know what it says in context. I don’t have to invent reasons why parts are not acceptable as they are presented, when trying to keep the bits I like.

        Joe and I have been having an interesting discussion on his claims about evidence and history here: https://trueandreasonable.co/2019/04/10/answering-the-many-gods-problem/#comment-34278

  3. I think the comments have fairly well solidified my assumption that there are as many gods as there are believers.

    If you dare to do disagree with the one and only true x-ian(!) You aren’t just wrong, but you are going to be burning in hell!

    Bigots can range from run of the mill, to ^^^^^^

    Oh, and did I see the ole trope that atheism is a religion trotted out? Pathetic.

Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical. And also realize, any blog owner can see the IP address and email address of a commenter.)

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.