1/20/10

Science Club of Long Island

This post has been moved to this link.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , ,

46 comments:

  1. secularist10January 20, 2010 at 8:46 AM

    Mariano,
    You certainly wrote a lot about the material on Evil Bible. However, this does not mean that what you wrote is correct, which is what you seem to be assuming. Much of your argument on rape in the Bible, for example, seems to come down to "it doesn't say rape EXPLICITLY." Neither does it say the word "sex" explicitly almost anywhere in the Bible (if anywhere), but I don't think all those people "knowing" each other refers to meeting casual acquaintances.

    I think it's too bad that you seem to do that which you accuse the atheists/ humanists of doing: extrapolating to the entire group from the irrational or emotional behavior of a few.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ChrisJanuary 20, 2010 at 8:59 AM

    Wow, talk about digging their own graves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ChrisJanuary 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

    @secularist10

    Actually Hebrew, being a very idiomatic language, has several words used in various ways that we would normally overlap in English. The 'lie with' in Leviticus 20:12-13 is not the same as the 'know' in Genesis 4:1, nor are either of those the same as the 'defiled' in Genesis 34:5 which is the word that would more properly be used if any author wanted to portray an act of rape as Jacob obviously saw it and can be further observed in Ez 18.

    ReplyDelete
  4. secularist10January 20, 2010 at 11:48 AM

    Chris:
    Fair enough. I'm certainly no Biblical scholar. But the point remains regarding Mariano's need for an explicit command to rape, as opposed to a wink and a nod among "the boys" in the context of the raw passion and primal savagery of ancient war.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ChrisJanuary 20, 2010 at 12:22 PM

    @secularist10

    I can understand drawing an inference from our 21st century glasses but that's not what's going on in the context of the Biblical and ANE culture.

    EvilBible.com/rape makes the claim: "Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?"

    That is pure conjecture and this type of conclusion demonstrates the ignorance of the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. WhatevermanJanuary 20, 2010 at 12:48 PM

    Pure conjecture is used to extrapolate scripture to contemporary situations, Chris.

    I'm not saying that EvilBible is right or that Mariano is wrong - but conjecture routinely employed. Why does conjecture, in your opinion, invalidate negative interpretations of scripture?

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJanuary 20, 2010 at 1:42 PM

    Although I tend to agree with many of Mariano's points (and others who I feel are superior apologists, no offense Mariano) when it comes to tearing asunder many of the neo-atheistic arguments against the Bible; that is not the point here, so why does that seem the subject of the discussion posts? The point of this article by Mariano is to display the discourteous, emotionally-driven, blubbering response that he received from an organization that supposedly holds reason, scientific method and most importantly, the search for knowledge above all else. The point is that the responses by the SCLI show them to be exactly what the claim not to be, which is a collection (or perhaps just the on guy) of raving atheists, This is typical of the kind of the kind of baseless plea from incredulity you see from neo-atheists and if anyone can look at the letters written to Mariano by the SCLI and the word "rational" comes to mind, then we all better hope (and pray) that this sort of "rationality" doesn't infect the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ChrisJanuary 20, 2010 at 1:43 PM

    @WEM

    Very true and unfortunately many professing believers take quite a bit of liberty with what pastors will call 'application' or , taking Scripture and applying it to contemporary situations.

    As I've stated a few times on the SMRT board if you are going to rightly interpret Scripture, it must be understood to the best of our abilities in its appropriate context, culture, time and place in history, etc. That actually takes work. Then and only then can you bring it to the 21st century and provide appropriate application for it.

    So conjecture at that point may or may not need to be made, but if it does, it at least has the foundational homework to stand on.

    But as I mentioned in my previous comment, looking at Scripture through 21st century glasses might bring about the leap that EvilBible takes regarding Judges 21 (though it's a major leap!) its pure conjecture, or better stated, just plain eisegesis with no foundation to stand on. Big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  9. WhatevermanJanuary 20, 2010 at 2:25 PM

    IRT Anonymous:

    Topics like this (ie. those which draw upon the authority of scripture) invariably include disagreements about scriptural interpretation. To be sure, Mariano made a good argument for showing that the EvilBible author(s) doesn't value logic and rationality as much as the website would have us believe. In fact, I probably wouldn't have commented on this thread as I think it speaks for itself.

    However, seeing as there were links Mariano's previous assessment of rape being described in the Bible, disagreements on scriptural interpretation are not only "fair game" but in-fact appropriate to the discussion.

    ___

    IRT Chris:

    Thanks Chris, I better understand where you were coming from. I agree with you in regards to context and interpretation. I guess I also concede that the EB website doesn't appear to be searching for the truth; in this sense, pure conjecture may not necessarily be the best method for interpretation.

    With that said, believers are often seen (on the internet, at least) to interpret scripture literally without concern for context. You may be right about EB's methodology being questionable (these are my words, not yours), but if believers use the same method, how is it possible to discern valid interpretations from invalid?

    I might be less reticent if I perceived Christian self-criticism to be more active; the folks who feel context is important, chastising those who do not, for instance. Instead, believers largely appear silent when one of their number loudly proclaims "The Bible says {X}!". This makes me wonder just how much credibility I should give any methodology, when I perceive Christians themselves being unable to come to a consensus about it themselves.

    My apologies, I hadn't meant to turn this into a screed. I guess I generally agree with you that context is important, and that EB seems to not care much about it. Where that leaves us (you and I, and Mariano and his critics/supporters), I'm not sure...

    ReplyDelete
  10. secularist10January 20, 2010 at 2:38 PM

    Chris:

    You mentioned interpretation of the Bible, understanding context, doing lots of work, etc.

    So I am curious: if one is to do this work correctly, what percentage would you say the Biblical text alone constitutes, and what percentage does the extra-Biblical interpretation constitute? That is, how much weight does each enjoy as a percentage of the total project?

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousJanuary 20, 2010 at 6:00 PM

    All niggers must die.

    ReplyDelete
  12. KenJanuary 20, 2010 at 6:03 PM

    secularist10,
    Thank you for your comments.

    When evilbile.com proports to inform us as to the contents of the Bible regarding rape and then neglects to mention that the law stipulates that when a true and actual rape takes place the rapist is put to death--I have to do nothing to discredite them as they have done a fine job of it themselves.

    Such manipulative propaganda is to be condemned and not defended.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  13. secularist10January 20, 2010 at 7:53 PM

    Mariano,
    It is my pleasure. You misunderstand me: I'm not interested in defending a 3rd party website; I'm interested in the central issue that rape is condoned in certain situations where non-Hebrew women are concerned. (The main idea of Evil Bible is thus correct, although they may do an ineffective job at explaining it.) I'm happy to provide citations upon request.

    a La idea sin evidencia,
    secularist10

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousJanuary 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM

    Gee, for people claiming to be rational, atheists sure tend to be emotional.

    I wonder how old the president of this club is? Sounds likes he's 13. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  15. ChrisJanuary 21, 2010 at 12:03 PM

    @WEM

    You'll find a lot of hard scrutiny in the Christian community, but I'd imagine what you see depends on the circles you are involved in.

    Can you give me an example of what you're referring to?


    @secularist10

    That depends on what is being studied and how much extra-Biblical data we have on that topic/passage as well as what you need to be satisfied that you have an appropriate handle on it. None of this would be any different in how you study and interpret any other ancient literature.

    And this isn't to disparage the layman, by any means, but rather to differentiate between those who study with any sense of sincerety vs. those who go running their mouth about things they really don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  16. secularist10January 21, 2010 at 2:14 PM

    Chris:
    "None of this would be any different in how you
    study and interpret any other ancient literature."

    That's interesting, because the Bible is a very special and unusual piece of literature. One wonders why the methodology used for a non-holy primary source (a simple inventory of farm animals, for example) should be the same as for the most holy text that contains the Almighty's message to humankind.

    It seems we are more similar than different. We both think it foolish to do a straight, literal reading of the Bible. One wonders: upon what are the extra-Biblical standards of knowledge based? Perhaps one's secular reason? And if so, what need is there for the Bible at all, except as another contribution to the human heritage of moral philosophy?

    ReplyDelete
  17. ChrisJanuary 21, 2010 at 7:30 PM

    @secularist10

    "One wonders why the methodology used for a non-holy primary source (a simple inventory of farm animals, for example) should be the same as for the most holy text that contains the Almighty's message to humankind."

    Why should you expect anything different? Its written down to be read and understood by those who seek to... 1 Cor 1:18-31 comes to mind.

    "It seems we are more similar than different. We both think it foolish to do a straight, literal reading of the Bible."

    Where did you get the idea that I thought such a thing foolish? How else do you suggest to read the Bible? Unless of course you seek to read what you want into the text. My comment above should tell you how I feel about that.

    "One wonders: upon what are the extra-Biblical standards of knowledge based?"

    Who's talking about extra-Biblical 'standards of knowledge?' I use the term extra-Biblical simply to describe any sources that exist outside of the Bible itself discussing Biblical topics.

    "Perhaps one's secular reason? And if so, what need is there for the Bible at all, except as another contribution to the human heritage of moral philosophy?"

    The Bible claims to be authored by God which puts it into a different category. In which case, if its false, why even give it that? But if its true, then its far more than just another contributor.

    ReplyDelete
  18. secularist10January 21, 2010 at 8:47 PM

    Chris:
    "Why should you expect anything different?" Because of the profoundly different nature of the thing. I would not expect the same explicative methodology to apply to a children's story by Dr. Sueuss as to a college textbook on financial accounting, although both are books.

    You said yourself: "The Bible claims to be authored by God which puts it into a different category." One cannot claim that it is in a different category on the one hand, but then claim it is in the same category as all other texts on the other.

    "Where did you get the idea that I thought such a thing foolish?" Here: "None of this would be any different in how you study and interpret any other ancient literature."

    One does not study any other ancient literature literally (that is, on its own, without reference to any other knowledge). If that were the case, then he who reads the Bible literally must read all other ancient texts literally, which means he must read stories about Zeus, the Vedas, Zoroastrian myths, etc literally.

    "Who's talking about extra-Biblical 'standards of knowledge?' I use the term extra-Biblical simply to describe any sources that exist outside of the Bible itself discussing Biblical topics."

    Ok, then I have a question: what is the basis for using those extra-Biblical sources?

    ReplyDelete
  19. ChrisJanuary 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM

    @secularist10

    One cannot claim that it is in a different category on the one hand, but then claim it is in the same category as all other texts on the other.

    One does not study any other ancient literature literally (that is, on its own, without reference to any other knowledge). If that were the case, then he who reads the Bible literally must read all other ancient texts literally, which means he must read stories about Zeus, the Vedas, Zoroastrian myths, etc literally.

    We're talking about how someone understands what they read. What you do with it in the end is another matter. Categorizing types of writing would seem to be prerequisite to determining their role in human history, such as the contribution of The Cat In The Hat to the human heritage of moral philosophy.

    I've never heard the word 'literally' defined as 'on its own, without reference to any other knowledge.' Instead, I understand it as a matter of how you interpret what is being conveyed, i.e. is something literal (actual, or matter of fact) or figurative?

    And whether you believe what you are reading or studying is irrelevant to having a proper understanding of the material.

    what is the basis for using those extra-Biblical sources?

    Have you ever done a research paper? If so, what was the basis of using the sources you cited?

    ReplyDelete
  20. secularist10January 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM

    Chris:
    "Have you ever done a research paper? If so, what was the basis of using the sources you cited?"

    The basis for my using sources is my secular reason: I have determined, through straightforward reasoning, that using certain external sources can help me to better understand the subject, and to write about it. And so ultimately my secular reason is the underlying tool that gives me knowledge and answers to questions. Is that true for you?

    I confess I'm not really clear on what you're saying in your first paragraph after the quote. Not sure how it relates to the topic.

    You said:
    "I've never heard the word 'literally' defined as 'on its own, without reference to any other knowledge.' Instead, I understand it as a matter of how you interpret what is being conveyed, i.e. is something literal (actual, or matter of fact) or figurative?"

    But how would you interpret it as figurative without some prior knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  21. ChrisJanuary 22, 2010 at 2:46 PM

    @secularist10

    What's your point?

    ReplyDelete
  22. secularist10January 22, 2010 at 2:58 PM

    Chris:

    The point is, to quote myself:

    "We both think it foolish to do a straight, literal reading of the Bible. One wonders: upon what are the extra-Biblical standards of knowledge based? Perhaps one's secular reason? And if so, what need is there for the Bible at all, except as another contribution to the human heritage of moral philosophy?"

    Note that this would rank the Bible with treatises on morality written by Enlightenment philosophers, the Ancient Greeks, other "holy" texts, etc, but the Bible is just another contribution to that heritage, not the be-all and end-all of human moral standards, not the final source.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oleg DeiJanuary 26, 2010 at 7:17 PM

    Listen up subhumanoids. Reading Mariano's comments shows us only one thing--that he is nothing but a Jesus freak and a worshipper of the supernatural. The Bible is full of hideous statements and it's about time that people knew about this. Stupid comments by people like Mariano will not make the evil in the Bible disappear. More people have died in the name of religion and sweeping this under the rug will not excuse the deaths of countless of humans. What Mariano casually left out is a challenge to him by SCLI to go prove that God exists. Apparently he was too much of a coward to accept our challenge.

    SCLI

    ReplyDelete
  24. JoyJanuary 26, 2010 at 7:44 PM

    Ladies and gents:
    What Mariano assumes is that the existence of God is a fact, yet he offers no evidence to substantiate his comments. The fact that Christ is a fraud is a well known fact by all scholars. In the Bible there are specific promises by Christ to return in the lifetime of his apostles. Clearly, his failure to do so indicates that Christianity is nothing but a hoax, the Bible is not the word of God, and Christ is not the son of God. Furthermore, Science has proven that there was never a worldwide flood, the Earth was not created in six days, the Earth did not evolve before the Sun, etc... So it is not atheism that is dead, it is Christianity that is dead. The fact that Mariano does not mention any of this shows that he is a believer in fairy tales. Hey, Mariano, Casper is waiting for you.

    Joy

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dr. Steven Weidenbaum Science AdvisorJanuary 26, 2010 at 8:11 PM

    The problem with people like Mariano is that they are brainwashed by Christianity into insanity. Their belief system is based on the supernatural without any evidence, yet they place this on a higher level then scientific fact.
    These people need clinical help and should not be blabbering on the internet about their psychosis.
    It is pointless to debate them, they are psychologically and intellectually disabled. My medical advice in cases like this is to get counseling. However in this country every Christian looney gets the same chance to voice his opinion as the rest of us.
    Dr.Weidenbaum

    ReplyDelete
  26. David K.January 27, 2010 at 7:06 AM

    What Mariano is trying to do is to put the blame on several websites and ignoring the fact that the Bible does contain passages and verses that could be called evil. Dark Bible and the Skeptics Bible do a great job of ezplaining this.
    Visit their sites and check the King James Version. People Mariano have been lying to us about the Bible for two thousand years. It is about time these idiots shut up, They are LIARS!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Professor D. Robert Horowitz, PhDJanuary 27, 2010 at 9:44 PM

    I am a professor of theology in a University located in Middle America and maybe I can help resolve this issue. There seems to lot of emotion being released on both sides, perhaps we can look at the facts! The issue on hand appear to be whether there are passages in the Bible that could be interpreted to mean "evil". Evil can be defined as violent, immoral, warlike and its end products could be death, rape, murder and general suffering just to name a few. Having taught the Bible in a University for 19 years and written several books on the subject I do have a good understanding of the Bible. While I do not condone or promote the harsh approach of SCLI but having dealt with fundamentalists in the past, it is not easy to keep one's temper in check. I must confess I expelled at least a dozen individuals from my classes. The problem is these people come in with an attitude that they think they know everything while in reality they know nothing!
    Now I do not know while SCLI presented the Bible in its worst construct, perhaps it was to prove that its origins were not divine. There are many passages in the Bible that are beautiful and breath taking. Having said that, let us now get to the issues. Is the Bible divine in it construct? Hardly, it is scientifically incorrect, fallible with numerous contradictions.
    But one must also understand it was authored by many individuals, most scholars now think perhaps at least one hundred. Different authors present different opinions on various subject matters. Let us also remeber the Bible was important in the evolution of western culture and historic documents such as the Magna Carter and our own Constitution however it is not without fault. The Bible does have a dark side as well. There are horrible verses in the Old Testament about rape, murder, incest, gangbangs etc. that would horrify students of a Bible class. The New Testament contains angry verses by Christ against the Jews calling them vipers, evil and followers of Satan. Hitler used these verses to rally the Germans to commit atrocities against the Jews. To deny this is to deny the Holocaust. So in summary just like us humans, the Bible has a good side as well as a bad side.
    Now Marianno tries to sugar coat this and pretend that these verse do not exist. Either he is lying or he is completely ignorant of the Bible. I have read his nonsense on other websites and thank goodness the other bloggers were quick to discredit and leave him in shambles. His pathetic efforts to pass himself off as a Biblical Scholar and state that atheism is dead is also completely wrong and without merit. I could also add that since Christ never fulfilled his promise to return for his second coming in the lifetime of his apostles it is Christianity that is really dead! Most Biblical Scolars accept this!So if Mariano wants to assume his arrogant posture of atheism being dead, in reality if you check the Biblical facts, it is Christianity that is really dead.
    Hope this clears things up. I suggest that folks get a couple of good books on the subject and see that all I have said is true. Remember one ignoramus could easily confuse the issue if you are not familiar with the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ChrisJanuary 28, 2010 at 6:49 AM

    Well at least the childish rants above reminded me of this conversation.

    @secularist10

    It seems you are presupposing our ability to reason is simply a matter of natural processes. I argue our ability to reason is given to us by God.

    Either way, your argument seems to take a leap and I'm just not sure how you are arriving at your final conclusion.

    "Note that this would rank the Bible with treatises on morality written by Enlightenment philosophers, the Ancient Greeks, other "holy" texts, etc, but the Bible is just another contribution to that heritage, not the be-all and end-all of human moral standards, not the final source."

    This really demonstrates a poor handling of the Bible in that its contents are much more than treatises on morality or a contribution to the moral development of human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  29. secularist10January 28, 2010 at 4:46 PM

    Chris:
    "This really demonstrates a poor handling of the Bible..."

    The intelligence-insulting from the theists on this blog is annoying.

    "Either way, your argument seems to take a leap and I'm just not sure how you are arriving at your final conclusion."

    Ok, let me clarify: (1) one reads the Bible, (2) one interprets it, (3) how does one interpret it? (4) by using their reason, (5) therefore it is reason that is giving the answers, at the end of the day, not the thing that is being read, (6) therefore the thing being read is basically irrelevant as far as answers are concerned, (7) therefore the Bible, unto itself, is basically irrelevant vis-a-vis moral answers

    You would say "our reason comes to us from God." And I respond: how do you know that god exists?

    ReplyDelete
  30. SCLIJanuary 28, 2010 at 6:04 PM

    The response above is clearly an example of a Christian retard babbling about his love for the supernatural. Nowhere does this subhumanoid offer any evidence for his fictional god nor does he provide examples of how his god injected the ability to reason. Finally why would his god provide no evidence for his own existance while simultaneously making it obvious that we evolved through a natural process of evolution by Natural Selection. Let's all keep in mind how Christians have failed over and over again to bring the Bible back to public schools. Their latest project of intelligent design has been debunked, discredited and proved to be religion in disguise. It is not allowed in Public Schools.
    If the punk above has evidence for a God then we challenge him to prove it. Mariano never accepted it nor did any of those Christians.
    I think that the best solution for the world is to gather all the Fundamental Christians and Muslims and put them on a deserted island and let these barbarians kill each other off like they did in the crusades. The world would be a better place without this trash!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Professor D. Robert Horowitz, PhDJanuary 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM

    Very rough, however accurate in its content. These Christians fail to realize or admit how much violence was done in the name of their religion. From the Crusades to the Inquisitions to Hitler and finally to that nut case George Bush. It is convenient for them to ignore the facts, while ranting about their Bible which has been scientifically disproven and whose many passages are barbaric at best. But I guess when you accept the violence of the Bible and call it holy, then its so easy to forget about the violent history that accompanied it. I had students like this on numerous occasions--they usually last a few sessions before I throw them out. By the way, SCLI, I reviewed your website in detail and I'd like to remark that you did an excellent job in debunking the Bible as being divine in origin. Your articles on science were exemplary. Every one of these pygmy intellectuals should visit the site at www.sciencecluboflongisland.com

    ReplyDelete
  32. SCLIJanuary 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM

    Our reply above was to Chris!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. David K.January 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM

    Hey SCLI, loved your website, especially about the Evil Bible.
    I loved two articles in particular:
    (1) Einstein calling the Bible childish.
    (2) Hitler being a proud Catholic or a Christian.
    How do these retards reconcile that the worst man on Earth was a Jesus Freak and a proud Christian!
    "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life" ('My New Order', Adolf Hitler, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933) Hey isn't this similar to what that asshole Chris said earlier?
    My point is simple--any time you have a twisted philosophy whether it is based on religious fundatmentalism the results can be disastrous. Perhaps what this world needs now are strong doses of enlightment based on science education and a good common sense of morality.

    ReplyDelete
  34. ChrisJanuary 29, 2010 at 7:51 AM

    Mariano really lured the trolls with this one.

    @secularist10

    "The intelligence-insulting from the theists on this blog is annoying."

    I didn't say you were stupid - that would be insulting your intelligence. If I said something like 'proponents of evolution just want to make it look like we evolved from monkeys' you'd know I have a poor handling of what evolution actually claims, no?

    "Ok, let me clarify: (1) one reads the Bible, (2) one interprets it, (3) how does one interpret it? (4) by using their reason, (5) therefore it is reason that is giving the answers, at the end of the day, not the thing that is being read, (6) therefore the thing being read is basically irrelevant as far as answers are concerned, (7) therefore the Bible, unto itself, is basically irrelevant vis-a-vis moral answers"

    Ok I follow. On 6 though, if you are learning something, you are going to use reason in order to sort the instruction being given, however the instruction must still be used.

    On 7 regarding morality, the Bible only states the standard of God and then makes the claim that we already know this, so you are correct on the one hand. The problem is that the Bible also claims we are incapable of meeting this standard, for example, you don't have to teach a child to be bad, it comes naturally. The Bible is about reconciling man to God, not about living a good moral life.

    "You would say "our reason comes to us from God." And I respond: how do you know that god exists?"

    Ah, reason! Look around, everything we see in this universe must either be eternal or it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had to have a cause. Now I'm sure you've probably been through the origins debate many times...

    ReplyDelete
  35. secularist10January 29, 2010 at 11:41 AM

    Chris:
    "Now I'm sure you've probably been through the origins debate many times..."

    Indeed I have. I actually didn't want to get into the existence of God here, I should not have posed that question. Sorry about that. But here's a very interesting presentation on the origin of the universe--no gods needed:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

    "On 6 though, if you are learning something, you are going to use reason in order to sort the instruction being given, however the instruction must still be used."

    This assumes there is a prior reason for choosing that text. On what basis should one choose to read and interpret one text but not another text for moral answers? Or indeed, for any purpose?

    “The Bible is about reconciling man to God, not about living a good moral life.”

    Is it possible to be reconciled to God without living a good moral life?

    ReplyDelete
  36. ChrisJanuary 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM

    "Indeed I have. I actually didn't want to get into the existence of God here, I should not have posed that question. Sorry about that. But here's a very interesting presentation on the origin of the universe--no gods needed: "

    Np. I enjoy discussing the Bible. The origins debate is fun as well but I'm more of an audience than an active participant. I'll check out the link.

    "On what basis should one choose to read and interpret one text but not another text for moral answers? Or indeed, for any purpose?"

    Well I'd imagine its a matter of opinion or experience. On the one hand someone could be a seeker and go through all sorts of material before arriving at the one that seemed to offer the most sense. On the other hand someone can simply walk by a street preacher, stop to hear his message and naturally go to the source he obtained the message from either by conviction or curiosity.

    "Is it possible to be reconciled to God without living a good moral life?"

    According to the Bible there is only one way to be reconciled to God. That is to repent and put your trust in the completed work of Jesus the Messiah for your salvation. To repent simply means to recognize that you're not the good moral person you think you are (that's a rhetorical 'you', btw) and turn from your sin. That's the hardest part. Christ's completed work is that he paid the fine that I deserve.

    So the answer to your question is yes, in fact, its a prerequisite.

    ReplyDelete
  37. secularist10January 29, 2010 at 2:47 PM

    Chris:
    "Well I'd imagine its a matter of opinion or experience."

    I rest my case, my friend. Ultimately it is a matter of faith, not reason, that one trusts a holy book or religious doctrine. There is no logical or reasonable necessity to prefer one religious worldview to another, neither for a moral framework nor for a general explanatory framework. The neutral party would therefore not be swayed.

    "So the answer to your question is yes, in fact, its a prerequisite."

    Right, and as such, the Bible serves in part to provide moral answers. And so the argument remains that the Bible, unto itself, is irrelevant vis-a-vis moral answers. Again, this is because what we are really using to figure out moral answers is our reason, independent of any individual source, Biblical or non-Biblical.

    You asserted earlier that God is the source of our reason. That may very well be, but the source of the reason is not the point. The point is that we do not need the Bible to answer moral questions.

    As I said earlier, I sense we are more similar than different. You are simply willing to accept a little less evidence than me.

    ReplyDelete
  38. SCLIJanuary 30, 2010 at 8:54 AM

    Chris:

    You truly are an ignoramus if there ever was one!
    Humans never evolved from monkeys, on the other hand,perhaps you and Mariano are evolving into chimps now!

    ReplyDelete
  39. David KJanuary 30, 2010 at 10:44 AM

    There is no bigger fool on the world wide web then this brainless Christian twit, who is also Mariano's part time bitch named Chris. No one's remarks can be dumber than this 10 year old snat nosed punk.
    Retard remark number 1 - No proponent has ever stated that we humans have ever evolved from monkeys. Maybe you and Nariano did.
    Humans and chimps both share a common evolutionary ancestor some 8 million years ago but both took seperate evolutionary journeys.
    This is like two seperate branches on the evolutionary tree of life.
    Retard comment number two - Jesus the Messiah for your salvation.
    Since Chris claims that the Bible is the word of God then the following must be true. Remember you can't eat your cake and have it too.
    If the Bible is the word of God then everything in it must be true. Since Christ was supposed to return in the life time of his apostles as stated in the Bible then this clearly must be the will of the Lord. Since Christ failed to return as he promised as stated by the Bible or the word of God then Christ must be a fraud and Christianity the biggest hoax in human history.
    The vast majority of Biblical scholars now share this view. By Biblical Scolars I do not mean Christian Retard Fundamentalists. Now a word of advice Chris before you go spreading your verbal Diarrhea that you shoot out of your posterior try doing something you never did - think and research first!

    ReplyDelete
  40. DANNYJanuary 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM

    Hey this looks like fun, I'd like to join in. What is the Christian Hillbilly's definition of a virgin? I am only asking because they always talk about Family Values.
    The answer is a twelve year old boy or girl it really doesn't matter) who could outrun her/his Father and older brothers....HA HA!
    Here is another one, I have a million of them.
    A bishop visits a local church and sees two altar boys sitting on large blocks of ice. Confused he approaches a third altar boy and asks "what the Hell is going on here?" The third altar boy replies " Oh the priest wants a couple of cold ones after mass." HA, HA BUT TRUE!!!!1

    ReplyDelete
  41. TAYLORJanuary 30, 2010 at 11:18 AM

    Hey this is GROSS!!!!
    Chris: are your really doing Mariano??
    Are you guys really fags??
    You know what the Bible says about fags!!!
    Kill Homosexuals
    "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
    Are you too now going to kill each other?

    ReplyDelete
  42. PROFESSOR D. ROBERT HOROWITZJanuary 30, 2010 at 11:35 AM

    Hello again, this is really childish and stupid.
    I have to ask Chris a serious question!
    If the Bible is really about moral values then I am sure you will have no problem following these simple instructions from the Moral Bible
    Eating your children when you are hungry!
    "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman
    said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son
    tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the
    next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son...." (II Kings 6:28-29). Are you and Mariano now going to follow these moral lessions from the Holy Bible and eat your children. Well that is only possible if you have any. How about this one?

    (See also Malachi 2:2-3 where God says "I will
    corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces..."). I would plea with your God not to do this, think about all the bacteria.

    How about this one?
    Wherefore my bowels shall sound like a harp for Moab, and mine inward parts
    for Kirharesh. (Isaiah 16:11)
    Hmmm God likes to hear people fart?

    The evil of Pissing
    "therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jerobo'am, and will cut off from Jerobo'am him that pisseth against the wall..." (I Kings 14:10, I Kings 16:8-11, I Kings 21:21, and II Kings 9:8-10).
    You and Mariano must stop pissing as God says!

    Eating Shit and Drinking Piss
    "But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (II
    Kings 18:27)
    Chris I agree with you the Bible is full of lessons on morality that we could all learn from!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Professor D. Robert Horowitz PhDJanuary 30, 2010 at 11:54 AM

    Hi again Chris I would like to pursue this Moral Angle in the Bible.
    The sixth of the ten commandments reads, “Thou shall not kill.”
    How in the world do you reconcile this?

    Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
    Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest
    who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be
    purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
    Kill Witches

    You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

    Kill Homosexuals
    "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to
    death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus
    20:13 NAB)
    Kill Fortunetellers
    A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to
    death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.
    (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

    Death for Hitting Dad
    Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

    Death for Cursing Parents
    1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of
    darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

    2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty
    of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

    Death for Adultery
    If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the
    woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

    Death for Fornication
    A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and
    thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

    Death to Followers of Other Religions
    Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
    Are you going to kill Jews now?

    Kill Nonbelievers
    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with
    all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of
    Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

    ReplyDelete
  44. CUDDLESJanuary 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM

    Hi Boys, my name is Cuddles and I run the Gay Christian Network. I want to condemn you Brutes for being mean to my Bible friends - Mariano and Chris. They are so sweet.
    Here are some of my favorite Bible passages.
    They get my loins in a twist!

    "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."
    What did Ham do? Did he just look at his naked father or was there something more to it than that? Ham committed homosexual rape on his drunken father, and that this was why Ham's descendants were eternally punished with slavery. 9:24


    The two angels that visit Lot wash their feet, eat, and are sexually irresistible to Sodomites. 19:1-5

    Now Chris and Mariano don't play hard to get, send me a coded message so that we can all meet and discuss the Bible. You know it doesn't have to end there!

    ReplyDelete
  45. David KJanuary 30, 2010 at 3:13 PM

    Yuk, I knew it, this website is a hangout for Christian Fags!
    Professor where the hell are you?
    These perverts are led by some sicko called Cuddles who is sending coded messages to his butt buddies so that they could all meet in an All Star Fag Festival and get off on their cheap thrills.
    I am out of here!

    ReplyDelete
  46. OLEG DEIJanuary 30, 2010 at 11:24 PM

    Mariano:
    You are nothing but a religious con artist straight from the Dark ages. Atheism is not dead it is Christianity that is dead. I will prove it!
    The Bible is filled with horrible verses and examples of lack of morality these can be found at my website. WWW.SCIENCECLUBOFLONGISLAND.COM
    Why are you lying to all these people? You are not discrediting the Evil Bible website, any fool could look these verses up and see that they are all there! Are you delusional? You claim you discredit all these sites, it is you who are discredited! You do not understand Science, you are clueless when it comes to History and you are a certified liar when it comes to the Bible!
    Why should anyone listen to you? Atheism is not dead, it is Christianity that is dead! The Bible has been thrown out of Public Schools, never to show its ugly face.
    Evolution is taught in Public Schools as the origin of man and life. Intelligent Design has been debunked, disgraced and discredited. And you have the balls to say that Atheism is dead! It is Christianity that is dead. It is about time the people knew that Christ never fulfilled his promise to return in the lifetime of his apostles as he promised. That makes Christ the asshole a fraud, Christianity the biggest hoax in humanity and you a certified fool!

    Let us all look at these beautiful verses in the Bible:

    Eat Human Feces!
    "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
    cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the
    children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will
    drive them." (Ezekiel 4:12-13).

    Eating Shit and Drinking Piss
    "But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (II Kings 18:27) You must now follow your God's orders and eat shit and drink piss! Enjoy!

    Eating your children when you are hungry! "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son...." (II Kings 6:28-29).
    When are you going to start eating your children?

    Expose Her Breasts!
    "Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy
    skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the
    kingdoms thy shame. And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make the vile, and will set thee as gazingstock." (Nahum 3:5-6). Is your wife going to act like a slut and expose her breasts?

    Farting
    Wherefore my bowels shall sound like a harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh. (Isaiah 16:11) Are you going to fart to please your lord?

    Since you want to be a tough guy and pick on the Atheists let us show you how tough we can be. The Science Club of Long Island Inc. Publicly challenges you to prove the existance of God!
    At stake one million dollars. Let us see how tough you really are?!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)