Wiki is bad. Christians don't believe the OT anymore...

100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Wiki is bad. Christians don't believe the OT anymore...

I made a claim today that Christians are those who believe both OT and NT referencing to the Wikipedia article.  What a surprise it was for me that Wiki has been edited and now Christians don't believe in the OT anymore!!!! but only in canonical gospels and the NT.  

 

My question is :  WTF?  don't they believe Genesis/X Commandments anymore?!

 

whispering: are they going to lose their moral compass and start murdering and raping left and right?

 

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

whispering: are they going to lose their moral compass and start murdering and raping left and right?

Technically, if they lose their compass they will murder and rape in a random pattern, not just left and right.  However, if you would plot their rapes and murders with (X,Y) coordinates, compassless Christians would develop a fractal pattern closely resembling a crucifix.

Legend:

Rapes = white

Murders = black

Murders while raping = purple

 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2372
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
?

                 True christians never seemed to have much interest in the whole bible as it is.   If they took the whole damn thing as serious as their favorite 4 or 5 passages then they would become like us;  SANE!

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:I

100percentAtheist wrote:

I made a claim today that Christians are those who believe both OT and NT referencing to the Wikipedia article.  What a surprise it was for me that Wiki has been edited and now Christians don't believe in the OT anymore!!!! but only in canonical gospels and the NT.  

 

My question is :  WTF?  don't they believe Genesis/X Commandments anymore?!

 

whispering: are they going to lose their moral compass and start murdering and raping left and right?

 

 

The idea in much of Christianity is that the Old Testament (Covenant) was superseded by the New Covenant (Testament). Paul in Galatians and Romans argues quite adamantly that Christians are made free from the law. In 2 Corinthians he states that christians do not have an old covenant in stone or ink but one written in the Spirit.  In Galatians he argues that if Christians were going to follow Jewish law then rather than be circumcised they should castrate themselves.  He then says that those who go back to the law have "fallen from grace" and been severed from Christ ( a view contrary to Calvin).  Christians do not obey the Sabbath (Friday night til Saturday night). They worship on Sunday except for Seven Day Adventists they say the Sabbath IS Saturday and worship on Saturday.  Such Christians view the OT as a history of God but not commands to be followed such as being kosher,. stoning non-virgins etc.;


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Simply put, preachers have a

Simply put, preachers have a hard time translating the OT and making it sound sane. They really have to thrash it up. The NT is a bit easier for them to make shit up to add to it. The majority of christians don't actually read the bible, they listen to someone else's "interpretation"...the preacher.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

don't they believe Genesis/X Commandments anymore?

I do.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

don't they believe Genesis/X Commandments anymore?

I do.

 

Oh! An alive theist!!!!  

 

So how to you dismiss Deuteronomy 13:6-11 if you accept X Commandments?

 

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker

TGBaker wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

I made a claim today that Christians are those who believe both OT and NT referencing to the Wikipedia article.  What a surprise it was for me that Wiki has been edited and now Christians don't believe in the OT anymore!!!! but only in canonical gospels and the NT.  

 

My question is :  WTF?  don't they believe Genesis/X Commandments anymore?!

 

whispering: are they going to lose their moral compass and start murdering and raping left and right?

 

 

The idea in much of Christianity is that the Old Testament (Covenant) was superseded by the New Covenant (Testament). Paul in Galatians and Romans argues quite adamantly that Christians are made free from the law. In 2 Corinthians he states that christians do not have an old covenant in stone or ink but one written in the Spirit.  In Galatians he argues that if Christians were going to follow Jewish law then rather than be circumcised they should castrate themselves.  He then says that those who go back to the law have "fallen from grace" and been severed from Christ ( a view contrary to Calvin).  Christians do not obey the Sabbath (Friday night til Saturday night). They worship on Sunday except for Seven Day Adventists they say the Sabbath IS Saturday and worship on Saturday.  Such Christians view the OT as a history of God but not commands to be followed such as being kosher,. stoning non-virgins etc.;

 

 

Thank you very much.  Great input.

Now I see it makes no sense to argue with a Christian about the Bible.  He/she will always find an excuse to accept only those parts which support his/her argument and dismiss others based on a specific set of beliefs of his/her specific Christian tribe.

In other words, the Bible is crap, better talk about real issues.   


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:Now

100percentAtheist wrote:

Now I see it makes no sense to argue with a Christian about the Bible.  He/she will always find an excuse to accept only those parts which support his/her argument and dismiss others based on a specific set of beliefs of his/her specific Christian tribe.

In other words, the Bible is crap, better talk about real issues.   

Then why do atheists spend so much time talking about it with Christians then?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:So

100percentAtheist wrote:

So how to you dismiss Deuteronomy 13:6-11 if you accept X Commandments?

John 8:7

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu

Ktulu wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

whispering: are they going to lose their moral compass and start murdering and raping left and right?

Technically, if they lose their compass they will murder and rape in a random pattern, not just left and right.  However, if you would plot their rapes and murders with (X,Y) coordinates, compassless Christians would develop a fractal pattern closely resembling a crucifix.

Legend:

Rapes = white

Murders = black

Murders while raping = purple

 

 

That was tooo funny! Thanks for the laugh.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Now I see it makes no sense to argue with a Christian about the Bible.  He/she will always find an excuse to accept only those parts which support his/her argument and dismiss others based on a specific set of beliefs of his/her specific Christian tribe.

In other words, the Bible is crap, better talk about real issues.   

Then why do atheists spend so much time talking about it with Christians then?

 

I would suggest this is because no one else wants to talk with Christians.  Maybe?

Smiling


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Then why do

Wowzers1 wrote:

Then why do atheists spend so much time talking about it with Christians then?

Because we are compassionate beings who are sincerely concerned about the well being and mental disabilities of those who are afraid to face the harsh realities of life and death in the Universe?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

So how to you dismiss Deuteronomy 13:6-11 if you accept X Commandments?

John 8:7

 

Well, you know, this makes sense to me. 

 

All right, let me disclose the roots of my OP.  Debating the "divisive nature of Christianity" I am attempting to claim that it is divisive because naturally the Bible says to kill those who don't believe Christian God.  So this in my view serves as a precursor for divisive trends in family relationships of persons of different denominations and/or beliefs. 

 

The counter-argument (from X-tians) was that they do not recognize the authority of the OT and so Christianity does not have a divisive force on societies.  But WHY is the OT or some parts of it in the Bible so people can read it as a word of God.  And then don't tell me this will not affect their thinking.  It surely will and it does.

 

I feel stupid (and probably I am) ... no no more Christian forums for a while.  

 

Go get some drink...

 

G'night

 

 

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Wowzers1

Sandycane wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

Then why do atheists spend so much time talking about it with Christians then?

Because we are compassionate beings who are sincerely concerned about the well being and mental disabilities of those who are afraid to face the harsh realities of life and death in the Universe?

 

- I would not classify myself as a very compassionate being

- I think I have a bit of mental disability and 

- I certainly afraid to face the realities of death...

... which makes me wonder if I am an Atheist.  


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:- I

100percentAtheist wrote:

- I would not classify myself as a very compassionate being

- I think I have a bit of mental disability and 

- I certainly afraid to face the realities of death...

... which makes me wonder if I am an Atheist.  

Uh oh, you've caught something from a christian! Quick! Someone bring in a batch of kitties to BBQ!

I wasn't 100% serious in my previous reply - I mostly debate with christians when I feel like venting.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Well, you know, this makes sense to me. 

All right, let me disclose the roots of my OP.  Debating the "divisive nature of Christianity" I am attempting to claim that it is divisive because naturally the Bible says to kill those who don't believe Christian God.  So this in my view serves as a precursor for divisive trends in family relationships of persons of different denominations and/or beliefs. 

The counter-argument (from X-tians) was that they do not recognize the authority of the OT and so Christianity does not have a divisive force on societies.  But WHY is the OT or some parts of it in the Bible so people can read it as a word of God.  And then don't tell me this will not affect their thinking.  It surely will and it does.

Christians do recognize the authority of the OT. If the law in the OT was followed to the n'th degree, there would no one left. On the other hand, the NT and the OT says that one should desire mercy, not sacrifice. And this demonstrated in both the OT and the NT.  The reason Paul says that the law was given was to show the need for Jesus. If anything, this is unifying rather than divisive. I think you are trying to make it something it is not...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Wowzers1

Sandycane wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

Then why do atheists spend so much time talking about it with Christians then?

Because we are compassionate beings who are sincerely concerned about the well being and mental disabilities of those who are afraid to face the harsh realities of life and death in the Universe?

Mental disabilities? Fear of harsh realities of life? Death in the Universe?

I think you assume to much.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Well, you know, this makes sense to me. 

All right, let me disclose the roots of my OP.  Debating the "divisive nature of Christianity" I am attempting to claim that it is divisive because naturally the Bible says to kill those who don't believe Christian God.  So this in my view serves as a precursor for divisive trends in family relationships of persons of different denominations and/or beliefs. 

The counter-argument (from X-tians) was that they do not recognize the authority of the OT and so Christianity does not have a divisive force on societies.  But WHY is the OT or some parts of it in the Bible so people can read it as a word of God.  And then don't tell me this will not affect their thinking.  It surely will and it does.

Christians do recognize the authority of the OT. If the law in the OT was followed to the n'th degree, there would no one left. On the other hand, the NT and the OT says that one should desire mercy, not sacrifice. And this demonstrated in both the OT and the NT.  The reason Paul says that the law was given was to show the need for Jesus. If anything, this is unifying rather than divisive. I think you are trying to make it something it is not...

Certainly this is your particular brand of Christianity. Dispensationalists. See the Old Covenant replaced by the new. Seven Day Adventists fallow the laws still but as modified by things like Acts. It really depends on what denomination you are as to what you think about the OT.  What denomination are you?


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Certainly this

TGBaker wrote:

Certainly this is your particular brand of Christianity. Dispensationalists. See the Old Covenant replaced by the new. Seven Day Adventists fallow the laws still but as modified by things like Acts. It really depends on what denomination you are as to what you think about the OT.  What denomination are you?

I probably most closely resemble Baptist beliefs...

I'm neither a covenantalist or a dispensationalist though. I don't think that either convenant theology, dispensational theology, or SDA's would disagree with what I said though.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Certainly this is your particular brand of Christianity. Dispensationalists. See the Old Covenant replaced by the new. Seven Day Adventists fallow the laws still but as modified by things like Acts. It really depends on what denomination you are as to what you think about the OT.  What denomination are you?

I probably most closely resemble Baptist beliefs...

I'm neither a covenantalist or a dispensationalist though. I don't think that either convenant theology, dispensational theology, or SDA's would disagree with what I said though.

I understand. But you know there is a range of different Christianities that run from antinomian to very legalistic and OT oriented.  There is a wide spectrum of Baptist sub-denominations from Seven Day Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Southern and American Baptists to independent  Baptists. They all split and disagree on various doctrines.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

I made a claim today that Christians are those who believe both OT and NT referencing to the Wikipedia article.  What a surprise it was for me that Wiki has been edited and now Christians don't believe in the OT anymore!!!! but only in canonical gospels and the NT.  

 

My question is :  WTF?  don't they believe Genesis/X Commandments anymore?!

 

whispering: are they going to lose their moral compass and start murdering and raping left and right?

 

 

The idea in much of Christianity is that the Old Testament (Covenant) was superseded by the New Covenant (Testament). Paul in Galatians and Romans argues quite adamantly that Christians are made free from the law. In 2 Corinthians he states that christians do not have an old covenant in stone or ink but one written in the Spirit.  In Galatians he argues that if Christians were going to follow Jewish law then rather than be circumcised they should castrate themselves.  He then says that those who go back to the law have "fallen from grace" and been severed from Christ ( a view contrary to Calvin).  Christians do not obey the Sabbath (Friday night til Saturday night). They worship on Sunday except for Seven Day Adventists they say the Sabbath IS Saturday and worship on Saturday.  Such Christians view the OT as a history of God but not commands to be followed such as being kosher,. stoning non-virgins etc.;

 

 

Thank you very much.  Great input.

Now I see it makes no sense to argue with a Christian about the Bible.  He/she will always find an excuse to accept only those parts which support his/her argument and dismiss others based on a specific set of beliefs of his/her specific Christian tribe.

There are 38000 different Christian denominations. Obviously they all don't believe the same things in the bible are 'true', or to be taken as literal 'truths'.

If you were to run a pivot table, they'd all probably only agree on Jesus, going to Church on Sunday, and that "Thou shall not steal" as being the only commandment be taken somewhat seriously...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF

redneF wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

I made a claim today that Christians are those who believe both OT and NT referencing to the Wikipedia article.  What a surprise it was for me that Wiki has been edited and now Christians don't believe in the OT anymore!!!! but only in canonical gospels and the NT.  

 

My question is :  WTF?  don't they believe Genesis/X Commandments anymore?!

 

whispering: are they going to lose their moral compass and start murdering and raping left and right?

 

 

The idea in much of Christianity is that the Old Testament (Covenant) was superseded by the New Covenant (Testament). Paul in Galatians and Romans argues quite adamantly that Christians are made free from the law. In 2 Corinthians he states that christians do not have an old covenant in stone or ink but one written in the Spirit.  In Galatians he argues that if Christians were going to follow Jewish law then rather than be circumcised they should castrate themselves.  He then says that those who go back to the law have "fallen from grace" and been severed from Christ ( a view contrary to Calvin).  Christians do not obey the Sabbath (Friday night til Saturday night). They worship on Sunday except for Seven Day Adventists they say the Sabbath IS Saturday and worship on Saturday.  Such Christians view the OT as a history of God but not commands to be followed such as being kosher,. stoning non-virgins etc.;

 

 

Thank you very much.  Great input.

Now I see it makes no sense to argue with a Christian about the Bible.  He/she will always find an excuse to accept only those parts which support his/her argument and dismiss others based on a specific set of beliefs of his/her specific Christian tribe.

There are 38000 different Christian denominations. Obviously they all don't believe the same things in the bible are 'true', or to be taken as literal 'truths'.

If you were to run a pivot table, they'd all probably only agree on Jesus, going to Church on Sunday, and that "Thou shall not steal" as being the only commandment be taken somewhat seriously...

Sometimes they even present different Jesus's or at least their descriptions of him are not compatible.  It all pick and choose by how they were raised. Its tradition and culture that determines the beliefs not reason for sure.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
If I was enslaved to a

If I was enslaved to a religion I would choose Manichaeism just to be annoying.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:If I was enslaved

luca wrote:
If I was enslaved to a religion I would choose Manichaeism just to be annoying.
That's kool. I am not saying you're enslaved. It is the response to the kerygma that one chooses the role of servant or slave.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I understand.

TGBaker wrote:

I understand. But you know there is a range of different Christianities that run from antinomian to very legalistic and OT oriented.  There is a wide spectrum of Baptist sub-denominations from Seven Day Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Southern and American Baptists to independent  Baptists. They all split and disagree on various doctrines.

There are a number of issues that I think are heterodox, but not necessarily unorthodox. I'm not going to label any particular group as heretical or non-Christian because they don't agree with me.

I'm probably more of a centrist, as I'm certainly not antinomian, but more liberal Christians would probably see me as legalistic.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:There are

redneF wrote:

There are 38000 different Christian denominations. Obviously they all don't believe the same things in the bible are 'true', or to be taken as literal 'truths'.

If you were to run a pivot table, they'd all probably only agree on Jesus, going to Church on Sunday, and that "Thou shall not steal" as being the only commandment be taken somewhat seriously...

Yes there are a lot of Christian denominations.

So....?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I understand. But you know there is a range of different Christianities that run from antinomian to very legalistic and OT oriented.  There is a wide spectrum of Baptist sub-denominations from Seven Day Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Southern and American Baptists to independent  Baptists. They all split and disagree on various doctrines.

There are a number of issues that I think are heterodox, but not necessarily unorthodox. I'm not going to label any particular group as heretical or non-Christian because they don't agree with me.

I'm probably more of a centrist, as I'm certainly not antinomian, but more liberal Christians would probably see me as legalistic.

But you would agree that at least some of those differences have to with fundamental aspects of faith and questions about the very attributes of God? many  denominations would say that you are not Christian on something as simple as musical instruments in church or the precise definition of baptism.  So it does create a situation from an outside perspective where a Christian will have the rational ability to dismiss another religion as rubbish or another denominational belief as sinful and therefore not Christian. If you were to step outside of your belief system and evaluated as you do another religion or denomination would it really stand your own tests for authentic or valid?  If I were trying to listen just to the various Christianities how would I see anything that would seem to be evidence that I should heed? I am not being disrespectful.  I see this is a valid secondary argument about the implausibility of Christianity ( and which one ) being true.  I see the choices typically made culturally and emotionally rather than trough reason and evidence.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm of the impression that:

I'm of the impression that the response is: "Oh shit! We don't have 9/10s of the verse ammunition against Christians we originally thought we had!"

Quote:
whispering: are they going to lose their moral compass and start murdering and raping left and right?

What exactly about the OT stops them from doing this?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

don't they believe Genesis/X Commandments anymore?

I do.

 

Oh! An alive theist!!!!  

 

So how to you dismiss Deuteronomy 13:6-11 if you accept X Commandments?

 

 

Which proves (somewhat) my earlier post...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:But you would

TGBaker wrote:

But you would agree that at least some of those differences have to with fundamental aspects of faith and questions about the very attributes of God? many  denominations would say that you are not Christian on something as simple as musical instruments in church or the precise definition of baptism.  So it does create a situation from an outside perspective where a Christian will have the rational ability to dismiss another religion as rubbish or another denominational belief as sinful and therefore not Christian. If you were to step outside of your belief system and evaluated as you do another religion or denomination would it really stand your own tests for authentic or valid?  If I were trying to listen just to the various Christianities how would I see anything that would seem to be evidence that I should heed? I am not being disrespectful.  I see this is a valid secondary argument about the implausibility of Christianity ( and which one ) being true.  I see the choices typically made culturally and emotionally rather than trough reason and evidence. 

I generally approach this in a Pascalian sense. And I'm willing to go where the evidence leads. And I'm not creedal either.  For these reasons, I think I'm trying to approach religion through reason and evidence. I think it would stand up to my own tests.

I very well may be seen by some as unorthodox or heterodox because of my beliefs.

If anything, the plethora of denominations shows that some issues are more dubious that others. For this reason, I hold some things more tenuously then other things. For instance, I hold tightly to the resurrection of Jesus, but less tightly on issues pertaining to the mode of baptism one receives. If it does mitigate the plausibility of Christianity, I do not think it is a defeater.

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

But you would agree that at least some of those differences have to with fundamental aspects of faith and questions about the very attributes of God? many  denominations would say that you are not Christian on something as simple as musical instruments in church or the precise definition of baptism.  So it does create a situation from an outside perspective where a Christian will have the rational ability to dismiss another religion as rubbish or another denominational belief as sinful and therefore not Christian. If you were to step outside of your belief system and evaluated as you do another religion or denomination would it really stand your own tests for authentic or valid?  If I were trying to listen just to the various Christianities how would I see anything that would seem to be evidence that I should heed? I am not being disrespectful.  I see this is a valid secondary argument about the implausibility of Christianity ( and which one ) being true.  I see the choices typically made culturally and emotionally rather than trough reason and evidence. 

I generally approach this in a Pascalian sense. And I'm willing to go where the evidence leads. And I'm not creedal either.  For these reasons, I think I'm trying to approach religion through reason and evidence. I think it would stand up to my own tests.

I very well may be seen by some as unorthodox or heterodox because of my beliefs.

If anything, the plethora of denominations shows that some issues are more dubious that others. For this reason, I hold some things more tenuously then other things. For instance, I hold tightly to the resurrection of Jesus, but less tightly on issues pertaining to the mode of baptism one receives. If it does mitigate the plausibility of Christianity, I do not think it is a defeater.

 

 

Yea I've been there done that. Pascal does not do it for me. For one reason I fact a possibly quick mortality and so fact and then truth are primary for me. I tended to have followed John Loftus's Outside Test of Faith (OTF). Though we are from the same denomination my approach preceded his formulations of the approach. Perhaps it is because of our theological backgrounds. Obvious even what one considers as fundamental differs from faith to faith ( Christianity to Christianity.).  The study of the Synoptic Gospels and evolution were the bed of my skepticism. The resurrection while plausible hardly reaches to me a high level of plausiblility. Interestingly for many in my denomination baptism was a determinate of salvation. Sprinkling meant for the conservatives that you were going to hell. Even some thought since the Baptist did not baptize for the remission of sin that that baptism was invalid and so leads to hell.  Some forgo the history the virgin birth such as Pannenberg and perhaps ( Craig privately given some statement in debates).  Others state that this is a test for orthodoxy and/or salvation. My last papers I wrote about the resurrection caused a professor to want to study with me a couple evenings a week. We later decided that even assuming  the resurrection of Jesus if there is no god what is the significance.  We both switched to philosophy at Georgia State.

Step outside of your faith and answer what would the resurrection of Jesus mean if there is not god.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3266
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
usually what christians

usually what christians accept and discard from the hebrew bible is based on the (unbiblical) idea of "moral law" and "ceremonial law."  "moral law" is usually defined (conveniently) as the ten commandments, though the penalties prescribed for those who break the moral law are, ironically, considered ceremonial law.

the reason i point out that this idea is unbiblical is that the vast majority of protestants accept it, while claiming to reject all extrabiblical tradition.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

So how to you dismiss Deuteronomy 13:6-11 if you accept X Commandments?

John 8:7

 

You did know that John 8:7 was added to the bible in the tenth century, right?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
You did know that John 8:7 was added to the bible in the tenth century, right?

Damn you and your irritating facts...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Yea I've been

TGBaker wrote:

Yea I've been there done that. Pascal does not do it for me. For one reason I fact a possibly quick mortality and so fact and then truth are primary for me.

IMHO, Pascal was probably one of the more skeptical and honest men I've ever read.

When I say Pascalian, I'm not a pragmatist in the strictest sense. I'm looking for the "best bet", which takes into account evidence and pragmatic arguments. But this has two factors: incredulity and hope. Pascal said that rational belief in God based on what can be ascertained through knowledge is dubious at best (the quote in my sig is one expression of that), and why he defaults to the other. While Pascal's Wager has problems, I do not think his mode of thinking is all that bad, and in light of uncertainty, one should look for one's best bet. My desire is to have high incredulity and high hopes. At the end of the day, I think Christianity is my "best bet" on pragmatic and evidential grounds.

TGBaker wrote:

I tended to have followed John Loftus's Outside Test of Faith (OTF). Though we are from the same denomination my approach preceded his formulations of the approach. Perhaps it is because of our theological backgrounds. Obvious even what one considers as fundamental differs from faith to faith ( Christianity to Christianity.). 

The OTF is largely based on a genetic fallacy. What would you say to atheists born into atheism? And is that a reason to be skeptical of atheistic positions?

TGBaker wrote:

The study of the Synoptic Gospels and evolution were the bed of my skepticism. The resurrection while plausible hardly reaches to me a high level of plausiblility.

I was probably a more classic fundamental Christian (Premelenial Dispensationalist, KJV/TR, YEC type) when I became a Christian and was well versed in all the classic arguments for the existence of God and YEC position. I then studied Hebrew and Greek started rethinking hermeneutics. YEC/Premil/KJV issues became fleeting to me, as it seemed more about trying to defend a particular hermeneutic and branch of systematic theology. At the end of the day, I reject this and also had an existential crisis concerning belief too, because I was empty handed. I was embracing evolution as science, had no problem affirming contemporary cosmology, and other things that flew in the face of my more fundamental start. The one think that I think kept me from completely abandoning Christianity was the resurrection of Jesus. As I studied it more in depth, I found that the evidence was rather compelling.

TGBaker wrote:

Interestingly for many in my denomination baptism was a determinate of salvation. Sprinkling meant for the conservatives that you were going to hell. Even some thought since the Baptist did not baptize for the remission of sin that that baptism was invalid and so leads to hell.  Some forgo the history the virgin birth such as Pannenberg and perhaps ( Craig privately given some statement in debates).  Others state that this is a test for orthodoxy and/or salvation. My last papers I wrote about the resurrection caused a professor to want to study with me a couple evenings a week. We later decided that even assuming  the resurrection of Jesus if there is no god what is the significance.  We both switched to philosophy at Georgia State.

I don't place as much importance on the virgin birth as others do. Many see it as necessary because of the doctrine of original sin... because Jesus did not have an earthly father, he did not have original sin. I have a more eastern orthodox view of of how sin is transmitted. Jesus being born of a virgin according to the scriptures was to fulfill prophecy, and that's pretty much were I leave it. But in light of the resurrection, affirming a virgin birth seem rather trivial. I'm tenuous on doctrinal implications of the issue though. As a test of orthodoxy, I've never been chastised for it or kicked out of a church for believing the way I do about the virgin birth. And the mode of baptism as measure of orthodoxy depends on the orthodoxy we're talking about: baptist orthodoxy or more general evangelical orthodoxy. And less so concerning salvation.

TGBaker wrote:

Step outside of your faith and answer what would the resurrection of Jesus mean if there is not god.

It'd mean that the resurrection is a fluke such that it never happened, and Christianity is for naught.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

You did know that John 8:7 was added to the bible in the tenth century, right?

That's a little late, I think... but the earliest manuscripts don't contain it. I know this. But what does that have to do with anything?

I could quote "judge not" if you want me to to avoid the textual issues....

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:usually what

iwbiek wrote:

usually what christians accept and discard from the hebrew bible is based on the (unbiblical) idea of "moral law" and "ceremonial law."  "moral law" is usually defined (conveniently) as the ten commandments, though the penalties prescribed for those who break the moral law are, ironically, considered ceremonial law.

the reason i point out that this idea is unbiblical is that the vast majority of protestants accept it, while claiming to reject all extrabiblical tradition.

"Moral law" and "ceremonial law" are phrases to talk about particular abstractions from the Bible, just like "rapture" and "trinity" which are not in the Bible either but talk about things in the Bible. Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews all talk about how Jesus is the priest and sacrifice and that the temple is not a physical building... If you take these and remove priests, temples, and sacrifices, what's left? What one might call the "moral" law. The issue of sacrifice is even mitigated in the OT as God's concern is not with the sacrifice as much as he is with the condition of one's heart when they make the sacrifice.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Yea I've been there done that. Pascal does not do it for me. For one reason I fact a possibly quick mortality and so fact and then truth are primary for me.

IMHO, Pascal was probably one of the more skeptical and honest men I've ever read.

When I say Pascalian, I'm not a pragmatist in the strictest sense. I'm looking for the "best bet", which takes into account evidence and pragmatic arguments. But this has two factors: incredulity and hope. Pascal said that rational belief in God based on what can be ascertained through knowledge is dubious at best (the quote in my sig is one expression of that), and why he defaults to the other. While Pascal's Wager has problems, I do not think his mode of thinking is all that bad, and in light of uncertainty, one should look for one's best bet. My desire is to have high incredulity and high hopes. At the end of the day, I think Christianity is my "best bet" on pragmatic and evidential grounds.

TGBaker wrote:

I tended to have followed John Loftus's Outside Test of Faith (OTF). Though we are from the same denomination my approach preceded his formulations of the approach. Perhaps it is because of our theological backgrounds. Obvious even what one considers as fundamental differs from faith to faith ( Christianity to Christianity.). 

The OTF is largely based on a genetic fallacy. What would you say to atheists born into atheism? And is that a reason to be skeptical of atheistic positions?

TGBaker wrote:

The study of the Synoptic Gospels and evolution were the bed of my skepticism. The resurrection while plausible hardly reaches to me a high level of plausiblility.

I was probably a more classic fundamental Christian (Premelenial Dispensationalist, KJV/TR, YEC type) when I became a Christian and was well versed in all the classic arguments for the existence of God and YEC position. I then studied Hebrew and Greek started rethinking hermeneutics. YEC/Premil/KJV issues became fleeting to me, as it seemed more about trying to defend a particular hermeneutic and branch of systematic theology. At the end of the day, I reject this and also had an existential crisis concerning belief too, because I was empty handed. I was embracing evolution as science, had no problem affirming contemporary cosmology, and other things that flew in the face of my more fundamental start. The one think that I think kept me from completely abandoning Christianity was the resurrection of Jesus. As I studied it more in depth, I found that the evidence was rather compelling.

TGBaker wrote:

Interestingly for many in my denomination baptism was a determinate of salvation. Sprinkling meant for the conservatives that you were going to hell. Even some thought since the Baptist did not baptize for the remission of sin that that baptism was invalid and so leads to hell.  Some forgo the history the virgin birth such as Pannenberg and perhaps ( Craig privately given some statement in debates).  Others state that this is a test for orthodoxy and/or salvation. My last papers I wrote about the resurrection caused a professor to want to study with me a couple evenings a week. We later decided that even assuming  the resurrection of Jesus if there is no god what is the significance.  We both switched to philosophy at Georgia State.

I don't place as much importance on the virgin birth as others do. Many see it as necessary because of the doctrine of original sin... because Jesus did not have an earthly father, he did not have original sin. I have a more eastern orthodox view of of how sin is transmitted. Jesus being born of a virgin according to the scriptures was to fulfill prophecy, and that's pretty much were I leave it. But in light of the resurrection, affirming a virgin birth seem rather trivial. I'm tenuous on doctrinal implications of the issue though. As a test of orthodoxy, I've never been chastised for it or kicked out of a church for believing the way I do about the virgin birth. And the mode of baptism as measure of orthodoxy depends on the orthodoxy we're talking about: baptist orthodoxy or more general evangelical orthodoxy. And less so concerning salvation.

TGBaker wrote:

Step outside of your faith and answer what would the resurrection of Jesus mean if there is not god.

It'd mean that the resurrection is a fluke such that it never happened, and Christianity is for naught.

 

I was mostly responding to Pascal's Wager.  Which belief do you gamble on? As to OTF. I do not think that is a genetic fallacy. Atheism is NOT a BELIEF.  If a gather stamps I have a hobby called stamp collecting.  If I don't I do not have a hobby of not collecting stamps. I think there are to different modes from which one starts. One is faith and the other is skepticism. Skepticism handles evidence a lot better.

The resurrection and the Pannenberg circle's (1980's) analysis was what I found compelling. But when I did self analysis it seemed that i was still clinging on a basis of hope and that created a bias or favorable conclusion with the resurrection research.  I do not see the Virgin Birth as important as fundamental. I do see it as a correlate of development that makes suspect the quality of the resurrection account in Mark and therefore subsequently. I understand the hymnal studies in Paul but the same applies. That such a fantastic claim as the virgin birth can obtain so can within the same period an application of resurrection myth. Looking at the resurrection without a god  and concluding it a fluke also was a factor in deciding even if there is a god it could therefore be a fluke and Christianity for naught!!!! It goes to plausibility I think.  That is why I switched to philosophy and physics for the cosmological and metaphysical research. ( Just a personal story but to explain where this side of the dialogue is coming). I enjoy the converstion and it is informative. That is the importance of discussion over debate.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Yea I've been there done that. Pascal does not do it for me. For one reason I fact a possibly quick mortality and so fact and then truth are primary for me.

IMHO, Pascal was probably one of the more skeptical and honest men I've ever read.

When I say Pascalian, I'm not a pragmatist in the strictest sense. I'm looking for the "best bet", which takes into account evidence and pragmatic arguments. But this has two factors: incredulity and hope. Pascal said that rational belief in God based on what can be ascertained through knowledge is dubious at best (the quote in my sig is one expression of that), and why he defaults to the other. While Pascal's Wager has problems, I do not think his mode of thinking is all that bad, and in light of uncertainty, one should look for one's best bet. My desire is to have high incredulity and high hopes. At the end of the day, I think Christianity is my "best bet" on pragmatic and evidential grounds.

TGBaker wrote:

I tended to have followed John Loftus's Outside Test of Faith (OTF). Though we are from the same denomination my approach preceded his formulations of the approach. Perhaps it is because of our theological backgrounds. Obvious even what one considers as fundamental differs from faith to faith ( Christianity to Christianity.). 

The OTF is largely based on a genetic fallacy. What would you say to atheists born into atheism? And is that a reason to be skeptical of atheistic positions?

TGBaker wrote:

The study of the Synoptic Gospels and evolution were the bed of my skepticism. The resurrection while plausible hardly reaches to me a high level of plausiblility.

I was probably a more classic fundamental Christian (Premelenial Dispensationalist, KJV/TR, YEC type) when I became a Christian and was well versed in all the classic arguments for the existence of God and YEC position. I then studied Hebrew and Greek started rethinking hermeneutics. YEC/Premil/KJV issues became fleeting to me, as it seemed more about trying to defend a particular hermeneutic and branch of systematic theology. At the end of the day, I reject this and also had an existential crisis concerning belief too, because I was empty handed. I was embracing evolution as science, had no problem affirming contemporary cosmology, and other things that flew in the face of my more fundamental start. The one think that I think kept me from completely abandoning Christianity was the resurrection of Jesus. As I studied it more in depth, I found that the evidence was rather compelling.

TGBaker wrote:

Interestingly for many in my denomination baptism was a determinate of salvation. Sprinkling meant for the conservatives that you were going to hell. Even some thought since the Baptist did not baptize for the remission of sin that that baptism was invalid and so leads to hell.  Some forgo the history the virgin birth such as Pannenberg and perhaps ( Craig privately given some statement in debates).  Others state that this is a test for orthodoxy and/or salvation. My last papers I wrote about the resurrection caused a professor to want to study with me a couple evenings a week. We later decided that even assuming  the resurrection of Jesus if there is no god what is the significance.  We both switched to philosophy at Georgia State.

I don't place as much importance on the virgin birth as others do. Many see it as necessary because of the doctrine of original sin... because Jesus did not have an earthly father, he did not have original sin. I have a more eastern orthodox view of of how sin is transmitted. Jesus being born of a virgin according to the scriptures was to fulfill prophecy, and that's pretty much were I leave it. But in light of the resurrection, affirming a virgin birth seem rather trivial. I'm tenuous on doctrinal implications of the issue though. As a test of orthodoxy, I've never been chastised for it or kicked out of a church for believing the way I do about the virgin birth. And the mode of baptism as measure of orthodoxy depends on the orthodoxy we're talking about: baptist orthodoxy or more general evangelical orthodoxy. And less so concerning salvation.

TGBaker wrote:

Step outside of your faith and answer what would the resurrection of Jesus mean if there is not god.

It'd mean that the resurrection is a fluke such that it never happened, and Christianity is for naught.

 

I was mostly responding to Pascal's Wager.  Which belief do you gamble on? As to OTF. I do not think that is a genetic fallacy. Atheism is NOT a BELIEF.  If a gather stamps I have a hobby called stamp collecting.  If I don't I do not have a hobby of not collecting stamps. I think there are to different modes from which one starts. One is faith and the other is skepticism. Skepticism handles evidence a lot better.

The resurrection and the Pannenberg circle's (1980's) analysis was what I found compelling. But when I did self analysis it seemed that i was still clinging on a basis of hope and that created a bias or favorable conclusion with the resurrection research.  I do not see the Virgin Birth as important as fundamental. I do see it as a correlate of development that makes suspect the quality of the resurrection account in Mark and therefore subsequently. I understand the hymnal studies in Paul but the same applies. That such a fantastic claim as the virgin birth can obtain so can within the same period an application of resurrection myth. Looking at the resurrection without a god  and concluding it a fluke also was a factor in deciding even if there is a god it could therefore be a fluke and Christianity for naught!!!! It goes to plausibility I think.  The intent was to suggest that the resurrection was true but there was no god. What would be the meaning and import? That is why I switched to philosophy and physics for the cosmological and metaphysical research. ( Just a personal story but to explain where this side of the dialogue is coming). I enjoy the converstion and it is informative. That is the importance of discussion over debate.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Wowzers1 wrote:   Answers

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

You did know that John 8:7 was added to the bible in the tenth century, right?

 

That's a little late, I think... but the earliest manuscripts don't contain it. I know this. But what does that have to do with anything?

 

Well, the date comes from a public lecture by Bart Ehrman. If I can remember the title, perhaps I can get a link from youtube, if it is all that important.

 

Really though, we don't know for a fact who dropped that text in, just that the tenth century is when it first shows up. I suppose that whichever scribe made that copy might not be the author though. He may have had an earlier and now lost copy as his source.

 

As far as the merit of the passage, you are the one who posted it as a apologetic defense. However, it can trivially be argued that the passage does not even belong in the bible at all but rather was added because it makes a good story.

 

Wowzers1 wrote:
I could quote "judge not" if you want me to to avoid the textual issues....

 

Don't bother. We all know that those two words appear together often enough that absent a specific passage (such as Matthew 7:1), the textual issues can be hand waved by simply saying “that is not the occurrence I had in mind”.

 

In any case, it sounds like you are doing a bit of cherry picking there. What about John 7:24? 1st Corinthians 2:15? 1st Corinthinans 6:1-4?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

You did know that John 8:7 was added to the bible in the tenth century, right?

 

That's a little late, I think... but the earliest manuscripts don't contain it. I know this. But what does that have to do with anything?

 

Well, the date comes from a public lecture by Bart Ehrman. If I can remember the title, perhaps I can get a link from youtube, if it is all that important.

 

Really though, we don't know for a fact who dropped that text in, just that the tenth century is when it first shows up. I suppose that whichever scribe made that copy might not be the author though. He may have had an earlier and now lost copy as his source.

 

As far as the merit of the passage, you are the one who posted it as a apologetic defense. However, it can trivially be argued that the passage does not even belong in the bible at all but rather was added because it makes a good story.

 

Wowzers1 wrote:
I could quote "judge not" if you want me to to avoid the textual issues....

 

Don't bother. We all know that those two words appear together often enough that absent a specific passage (such as Matthew 7:1), the textual issues can be hand waved by simply saying “that is not the occurrence I had in mind”.

 

In any case, it sounds like you are doing a bit of cherry picking there. What about John 7:24? 1st Corinthians 2:15? 1st Corinthinans 6:1-4?

The passage of the pericope de Adultera does not appear in the earliest manuscripts of John. It was at one time attached to a section in Luke. It was one of those self contain stories when collected was so late and therefore hard to place in a completed manuscript.

Textual evidence:

    Exclude pericope. Papyri 66 (c. 200) and 75 (early 3rd century); Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (4th century), also apparently Alexandrinus and Ephraemi (5th), Codices Washingtonianus and Borgianus also from the 5th century, Regius from the 8th, Athous Lavrensis (c. 800), Petropolitanus Purpureus, Macedoniensis, Sangallensis and Koridethi from the 9th century and Monacensis from the 10th; Uncials 0141 and 0211; Minuscules 3, 12, 15, 21, 22, 32, 33, 36, 39, 44, 49, 63, 72, 87, 96, 97, 106, 108, 124, 131, 134, 139, 151, 157, 169, 209, 213, 228, 297, 388, 391, 401, 416, 445, 488, 496, 499, 501, 523, 537, 542, 554, 565, 578, 584, 703, 719, 723, 730, 731, 736, 741, 742, 768, 770, 772, 773, 776, 777, 780, 799, 800, 817, 827, 828, 843, 896, 989, 1077, 1100, 1178, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1333, 2193 and 2768; the majority of lectionaries; some Old Latin, the majority of the Syriac, the Sahidic dialect of the Coptic, the Gothic, some Armenian, and the Georgian translations; Diatessaron (2nd century); apparently Clement of Alexandria (died 215), other Church Fathers namely Tertullian (died 220), Origen (died 254), Cyprian (died 258), Nonnus (died 431), Cyril of Alexandria (died 444) and Cosmas (died 550).


    Shorter pericope exclude. Minuscule 759 contains John 7:53-8:2 but exclude 8:3-11.


    Shorter pericope include (8:3-11). ℓ 4, ℓ 67, ℓ 69, ℓ 70, ℓ 71, ℓ 75, ℓ 81, ℓ 89, ℓ 90, ℓ 98, ℓ 101, ℓ 107, ℓ 125, ℓ 126, ℓ 139, ℓ 146, ℓ 185, ℓ 211, ℓ 217, ℓ 229, ℓ 267, ℓ 280, ℓ 282, ℓ 287, ℓ 376, ℓ 381, ℓ 386, ℓ 390, ℓ 396, ℓ 398, ℓ 402, ℓ 405, ℓ 409, ℓ 417, ℓ 422, ℓ 430, ℓ 431, ℓ 435 (8:2-11), ℓ 462, ℓ 464, ℓ 465, ℓ 520 (8:2-11).


    Include pericope. Codex Bezae (5th century), Codex Basilensis, 9th century Codices {Boreelianus}, Seidelianus I, Seidelianus II, Cyprius, Campianus, Nanianus, also Tischendorfianus IV from the 10th, Codex Petropolitanus; Minuscule 28, 318, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174; the Byzantine majority text; ℓ 79, ℓ 100 (John 8:1-11), ℓ 118, ℓ 130 (8:1-11), ℓ 221, ℓ 274, ℓ 281, ℓ 411, ℓ 421, ℓ 429 (8:1-11), ℓ 442 (8:1-11), ℓ 445 (8:1-11), ℓ 459; the majority of the Old Latin, the Vulgate (Codex Fuldensis), some Syriac, the Bohairic dialect of the Coptic, some Armenian, and the Ethopian translations; Didascalia (3rd century), Didymus the Blind (4th century), Ambrosiaster (4th century), Ambrose (died 397), John Chrysostom (died 407), Jerome (died 420), Augustine (died 430).


    Question pericope. Marked with asterisks (*) or obeli (&divideEye-wink. Codex Vaticanus 354 (S) and the Minuscules 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 35, 83, 95 (questionable scholion), 109, 125, 141, 148, 156, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 178, 179, 200, 202, 285, 338, 348, 363, 367, 376, 386, 407, 443, 478, 479, 510, 532, 547, 553, 645, 655, 656, 661, 662, 685, 757, 758, 763, 769, 781, 797, 801, 824, 825, 829, 844, 845, 867, 873, 897, 922, 1073, 1077, 1092 (later hand), 1099, 1187, 1189, 1443 and 1445 include entire pericope from 7:53; the menologion of Lectionary 185 includes 8:1ff; Codex Basilensis (E) includes 8:2ff; Codex Tischendorfianus III (&LambdaEye-wink and Petropolitanus (П) also the menologia of Lectionaries ℓ 86, ℓ 211, ℓ 1579 and ℓ 1761 include 8:3ff. Minuscule 807 is a manuscript with a Catena, but only in John 7:53-8:11 without catena. It is a characteristic of late Byzantine manuscripts conforming to the sub-type Family Kr, that this pericope is marked with obeli; although Maurice Robinson argues that these marks are intended to remind lectors that these verses are to be omitted from the Gospel lection for Pentecost, not to question the authenticity of the passage.


    Shorter pericope questioned (8:3-11). Marked with asterisks (*) or obeli (&divideEye-wink. 707


    Relocate pericope. Family 1, minuscules 20, 37, 135, 207, 301, 347, and nearly all Armenian translations place the pericope after John 21:25; Family 13 place it after Luke 24:53; a corrector to Minuscule 1333 added 8:3–11 after Luke 24:53; and Minuscule 225 includes the pericope after John 7:36. Minuscule 129, 135, 259, 470, 564, 831, 1076, 1078, and 1356 place John 8:3-11 after John 21:25. 788 and Minuscule 826 placed pericope after Luke 21:38


    Added by a later hand. Codex Ebnerianus, 284, 431, 461, 470, 578, 2174.



The pericope was never read as a part of the lesson for Pentecost (John 7:37-8:12), but was reserved for the festivals of such saints as Theodora September 18, or Pelagia October 8.[18]

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I was mostly

TGBaker wrote:
I was mostly responding to Pascal's Wager.  Which belief do you gamble on?

All of them... That is I am claiming that everything that I believe is dubious, and requires some sort of "bet" to affirm it. That is affirming it in light of uncertainty. The Wager itself is pragmatic, and Pascal himself was using it as a secondary mode for belief. For me, it's primary, as I think it is and one's who make inferences from evidence and primary on pragmatic grounds too.

TGBaker wrote:
As to OTF. I do not think that is a genetic fallacy.

Why is that?

TGBaker wrote:
Atheism is NOT a BELIEF.  If a gather stamps I have a hobby called stamp collecting.  If I don't I do not have a hobby of not collecting stamps. I think there are to different modes from which one starts. One is faith and the other is skepticism. Skepticism handles evidence a lot better.

Where did I call atheism a belief? I don't believe I did, but it is a position concerning God. What bothers me is when atheists say that everyone is born an atheist and things to this like. While, by definition, that may be true, it would also imply that all rocks, trees, all inanimate objects, and other things incapable of believing in a god are atheists as well. I don't think you're going to find anyone on this forum who is the sort of person who has never heard about a god and thus has never rejected the god.

TGBaker wrote:

The resurrection and the Pannenberg circle's (1980's) analysis was what I found compelling. But when I did self analysis it seemed that i was still clinging on a basis of hope and that created a bias or favorable conclusion with the resurrection research.  I do not see the Virgin Birth as important as fundamental. I do see it as a correlate of development that makes suspect the quality of the resurrection account in Mark and therefore subsequently. I understand the hymnal studies in Paul but the same applies. That such a fantastic claim as the virgin birth can obtain so can within the same period an application of resurrection myth. Looking at the resurrection without a god  and concluding it a fluke also was a factor in deciding even if there is a god it could therefore be a fluke and Christianity for naught!!!! It goes to plausibility I think.  The intent was to suggest that the resurrection was true but there was no god. What would be the meaning and import? That is why I switched to philosophy and physics for the cosmological and metaphysical research. ( Just a personal story but to explain where this side of the dialogue is coming). I enjoy the converstion and it is informative. That is the importance of discussion over debate.

I enjoy the conversation with people who are willing to converse. Debate isn't bad either, but I think it is best when it is debate as discussion rather than name flame wars... those are counter productive and uninformative...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
As far as the merit of the passage, you are the one who posted it as a apologetic defense. However, it can trivially be argued that the passage does not even belong in the bible at all but rather was added because it makes a good story.

Whatever the case for the text is, I don't think it is inconsistent with the Bible's teachings. I have no problem including it as scripture, but others may disagree with me on this. 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Don't bother. We all know that those two words appear together often enough that absent a specific passage (such as Matthew 7:1), the textual issues can be hand waved by simply saying “that is not the occurrence I had in mind”.

 

In any case, it sounds like you are doing a bit of cherry picking there. What about John 7:24? 1st Corinthians 2:15? 1st Corinthinans 6:1-4?

Matthew 7:1 Judging in accordance to another's sin, and quote suiting for the John 8 passage.

1 Cor 6 is talking about civil lawsuits.

John 7:24 and 1 Cor 2:15 are talking about judging what is true.

These are all categorically different from talking about sin...

I think you'd be the one cherry picking if you were to apply these to judging another according to sin.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I was mostly responding to Pascal's Wager.  Which belief do you gamble on?

All of them... That is I am claiming that everything that I believe is dubious, and requires some sort of "bet" to affirm it. That is affirming it in light of uncertainty. The Wager itself is pragmatic, and Pascal himself was using it as a secondary mode for belief. For me, it's primary, as I think it is and one's who make inferences from evidence and primary on pragmatic grounds too.

TGBaker wrote:
As to OTF. I do not think that is a genetic fallacy.

Why is that?

TGBaker wrote:
Atheism is NOT a BELIEF.  If a gather stamps I have a hobby called stamp collecting.  If I don't I do not have a hobby of not collecting stamps. I think there are to different modes from which one starts. One is faith and the other is skepticism. Skepticism handles evidence a lot better.

Where did I call atheism a belief? I don't believe I did, but it is a position concerning God. What bothers me is when atheists say that everyone is born an atheist and things to this like. While, by definition, that may be true, it would also imply that all rocks, trees, all inanimate objects, and other things incapable of believing in a god are atheists as well. I don't think you're going to find anyone on this forum who is the sort of person who has never heard about a god and thus has never rejected the god.

TGBaker wrote:

The resurrection and the Pannenberg circle's (1980's) analysis was what I found compelling. But when I did self analysis it seemed that i was still clinging on a basis of hope and that created a bias or favorable conclusion with the resurrection research.  I do not see the Virgin Birth as important as fundamental. I do see it as a correlate of development that makes suspect the quality of the resurrection account in Mark and therefore subsequently. I understand the hymnal studies in Paul but the same applies. That such a fantastic claim as the virgin birth can obtain so can within the same period an application of resurrection myth. Looking at the resurrection without a god  and concluding it a fluke also was a factor in deciding even if there is a god it could therefore be a fluke and Christianity for naught!!!! It goes to plausibility I think.  The intent was to suggest that the resurrection was true but there was no god. What would be the meaning and import? That is why I switched to philosophy and physics for the cosmological and metaphysical research. ( Just a personal story but to explain where this side of the dialogue is coming). I enjoy the converstion and it is informative. That is the importance of discussion over debate.

I enjoy the conversation with people who are willing to converse. Debate isn't bad either, but I think it is best when it is debate as discussion rather than name flame wars... those are counter productive and uninformative...

There is a distinction in a belief system and simply a posture of skepticism whether it is applied to the belief system or another.  The comparision is usually made between faith and skepticism. The OTF asks one to suspend the belief grounds of the premise, argument and conclusion of faith  and work within a skeptical format of analysis aligning that faith with those of others.  Then applying th same standards to each example of faith including ones own. You can apply OTF to various forms of atheism.  But if one were to apply the OTF to atheism where would the outside be ...Faith? Agnosticism is a proper starting point. ... a beginning of not knowing and determining. Atheisim is simply the negative conclusion  rather than the positive conclusion: acceptance of a faith. SO it is inherent in it. Atheism however is not a faith ( trust in anything). That was my point with the idea of  a hobby.

The testing of faith from the outside, treating your faith as you would another in weighing its evidence and truth claims is a suspension of belief not skepticism.  its opposite would be an insiders test of faith I would think. An atheist would have to believe all of the considered religions  ( and how that a willful act?).  Atheism is a lack of faith or a rejection of a particular faith's validity.

As to genetic fallacy how is the OTF stating any particular faith is false because of its origination? I think the genetic fallacy accusation is not valid anyway. Christians use the origins and history to defeat the validity the Mormon movement.  It is a question of looking at other faiths as one does his own ( in order to transcend the cultural grounding ) and vice versa. Apply the arguments for the validity of scripture to the Koran. Looking at the level of criticism applied to other faiths apply it to ones own. Loftus uses the example of a paranoid who has a quite convincing tale of the CIA tapping his phones and following him. He is on LSD. We have good evidence that LSD causes false beliefs we have good reason to believe his beliefs are false even without having shown his beliefs false in in other manner.  The genetic fallacy argument goes to a skeptical look at its generalizations but not the validity of looking at origination as the possible evidence of validity or falsifiability.  To negate Pannenberg's work because he was a Hitler Youth at a very early age is genetic fallacy.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:There is a

TGBaker wrote:
There is a distinction in a belief system and simply a posture of skepticism whether it is applied to the belief system or another.  The comparision is usually made between faith and skepticism. The OTF asks one to suspend the belief grounds of the premise, argument and conclusion of faith  and work within a skeptical format of analysis aligning that faith with those of others.  Then applying th same standards to each example of faith including ones own. You can apply OTF to various forms of atheism.  But if one were to apply the OTF to atheism where would the outside be ...Faith? Agnosticism is a proper starting point. ... a beginning of not knowing and determining. Atheisim is simply the negative conclusion  rather than the positive conclusion: acceptance of a faith. SO it is inherent in it. Atheism however is not a faith ( trust in anything). That was my point with the idea of  a hobby.

The testing of faith from the outside, treating your faith as you would another in weighing its evidence and truth claims is a suspension of belief not skepticism.  its opposite would be an insiders test of faith I would think. An atheist would have to believe all of the considered religions  ( and how that a willful act?).  Atheism is a lack of faith or a rejection of a particular faith's validity.

I think agnosticism is the ideal starting point. I might agree with the OTF on that matter. But like all positions, one has to maintain if one wants to be truly skeptical: that is not be a lazy agnostic and never consider other positions. Applying an outsider's test to atheism is simple: evaluate the reason's why one one rejects faith.

Similar to the assertion that "atheism is a belief" made by theists is how often many atheists paint faith as believing something with no good reason to believe it. I don't see faith as the antithesis of skepticism, rather credulity as the antithesis of skepticism. My Pascalian assertion may be what you are getting at. When I say I wager on everything, I'm talking about a cumulative case approach that takes into account possible belief and non-belief positions and compares them on pragmatic and evidential grounds and then opts for the one that is one's "best bet".

TGBaker wrote:
As to genetic fallacy how is the OTF stating any particular faith is false because of its origination? I think the genetic fallacy accusation is not valid anyway. Christians use the origins and history to defeat the validity the Mormon movement.  It is a question of looking at other faiths as one does his own ( in order to transcend the cultural grounding ) and vice versa. Apply the arguments for the validity of scripture to the Koran. Looking at the level of criticism applied to other faiths apply it to ones own. Loftus uses the example of a paranoid who has a quite convincing tale of the CIA tapping his phones and following him. He is on LSD. We have good evidence that LSD causes false beliefs we have good reason to believe his beliefs are false even without having shown his beliefs false in in other manner.  The genetic fallacy argument goes to a skeptical look at its generalizations but not the validity of looking at origination as the possible evidence of validity or falsifiability.  To negate Pannenberg's work because he was a Hitler Youth at a very early age is genetic fallacy.

The John Hick quote that suggests people believe the religion they were born into. I'm not denying the correlation, rather the conclusion. I don't think the reason one believes something is not necessarily because one was born into a particular ideology and why I think it is based on a genetic fallacy. And The reason I don't think atheism is immune to the OTF is because of places like China where atheism is taught from a very young age in many places.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
tgbaker wrote:Atheism is NOT

tgbaker wrote:
Atheism is NOT a BELIEF.

Not that it's particularly relevant to anything focused on in this thread, but apparently there's a few dictionaries that disagree with you.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:tgbaker

Kapkao wrote:

tgbaker wrote:
Atheism is NOT a BELIEF.

Not that it's particularly relevant to anything focused on in this thread, but apparently there's a few dictionaries that disagree with you.

I know but it is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
There is a distinction in a belief system and simply a posture of skepticism whether it is applied to the belief system or another.  The comparision is usually made between faith and skepticism. The OTF asks one to suspend the belief grounds of the premise, argument and conclusion of faith  and work within a skeptical format of analysis aligning that faith with those of others.  Then applying th same standards to each example of faith including ones own. You can apply OTF to various forms of atheism.  But if one were to apply the OTF to atheism where would the outside be ...Faith? Agnosticism is a proper starting point. ... a beginning of not knowing and determining. Atheisim is simply the negative conclusion  rather than the positive conclusion: acceptance of a faith. SO it is inherent in it. Atheism however is not a faith ( trust in anything). That was my point with the idea of  a hobby.

The testing of faith from the outside, treating your faith as you would another in weighing its evidence and truth claims is a suspension of belief not skepticism.  its opposite would be an insiders test of faith I would think. An atheist would have to believe all of the considered religions  ( and how that a willful act?).  Atheism is a lack of faith or a rejection of a particular faith's validity.

I think agnosticism is the ideal starting point. I might agree with the OTF on that matter. But like all positions, one has to maintain if one wants to be truly skeptical: that is not be a lazy agnostic and never consider other positions. Applying an outsider's test to atheism is simple: evaluate the reason's why one one rejects faith.

Similar to the assertion that "atheism is a belief" made by theists is how often many atheists paint faith as believing something with no good reason to believe it. I don't see faith as the antithesis of skepticism, rather credulity as the antithesis of skepticism. My Pascalian assertion may be what you are getting at. When I say I wager on everything, I'm talking about a cumulative case approach that takes into account possible belief and non-belief positions and compares them on pragmatic and evidential grounds and then opts for the one that is one's "best bet".

TGBaker wrote:
As to genetic fallacy how is the OTF stating any particular faith is false because of its origination? I think the genetic fallacy accusation is not valid anyway. Christians use the origins and history to defeat the validity the Mormon movement.  It is a question of looking at other faiths as one does his own ( in order to transcend the cultural grounding ) and vice versa. Apply the arguments for the validity of scripture to the Koran. Looking at the level of criticism applied to other faiths apply it to ones own. Loftus uses the example of a paranoid who has a quite convincing tale of the CIA tapping his phones and following him. He is on LSD. We have good evidence that LSD causes false beliefs we have good reason to believe his beliefs are false even without having shown his beliefs false in in other manner.  The genetic fallacy argument goes to a skeptical look at its generalizations but not the validity of looking at origination as the possible evidence of validity or falsifiability.  To negate Pannenberg's work because he was a Hitler Youth at a very early age is genetic fallacy.

The John Hick quote that suggests people believe the religion they were born into. I'm not denying the correlation, rather the conclusion. I don't think the reason one believes something is not necessarily because one was born into a particular ideology and why I think it is based on a genetic fallacy. And The reason I don't think atheism is immune to the OTF is because of places like China where atheism is taught from a very young age in many places.

 

I certainly would not disagree with an OTF from an agnostic ground. . It makesI think atheists and theists alike paint faith as believing something with no good reason. I think for example the ontological arguments of Plantinga plavce the discussion in a rational context though failing to prove the premise itself to the conclusion.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:]I certainly

TGBaker wrote:
]I certainly would not disagree with an OTF from an agnostic ground. . It makesI think atheists and theists alike paint faith as believing something with no good reason. I think for example the ontological arguments of Plantinga plavce the discussion in a rational context though failing to prove the premise itself to the conclusion.

I think Plantinga cheats in his OA... and as a rule, I think OA's are bad arguments anyways.

Whether atheists and theists define faith as such, I do not necessarily think that it belief without reason. It is unfortunate that people do this though... Sad

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: Where did I

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

Where did I call atheism a belief? I don't believe I did, but it is a position concerning God. What bothers me is when atheists say that everyone is born an atheist and things to this like. While, by definition, that may be true, it would also imply that all rocks, trees, all inanimate objects, and other things incapable of believing in a god are atheists as well. I don't think you're going to find anyone on this forum who is the sort of person who has never heard about a god and thus has never rejected the god.

 

Evidence from perspective and you yourself can only have the one perspective "concerning God". For those who choose to "believe" it is rejection of a god not just the concept, for us it is the notion or idea of a god not the "god himself" because we don't even get past the idea.

Not on this forum but there have been people who have not rejected a god let alone the idea of one.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin