Sunday, February 24, 2013
Rationalist Griggsy: Empirical Griggsy: Naturalist Griggsy: Skeptic Griggsy: The genesis of revered ignorance!
Yes, theist evolutionists use that revered ignorance!
How might we get others to use reason and empiricism instead of following that egregious anthology?
An Examination of Augustine’s Commentaries on Genesis One and Their Implications on a Modern Theological Controversy - Answers in Genesis
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Errantists brainwash themselves as much as inerrantists do! He claims that faith is the enveloping of our whole beings with hope, whilst Alister Earl McGrath claims that faith enters the case after believers find the evidence. Either way, believers are using blind faith! They thus commit themselves, too much to their beliefs.
Faith is thus the we just believe of credulity, that begged question. As the naturalist Sydney Hook notes, science is acquired knowledge, whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge. Reason removes mountains of ignorance, whilst faith exists on the arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance, which underlie their other arguments.
The two anthologies rest on the argument from incredulity as theists find it incredible that we can have morality without God as its ground and from ignorance in finding that any scriptures ground God, even though encrusted with falsehoods and egregious commands.
Allah is a monster. No revealed God is moral!
And the deist God is one as the problem of Heaven finds Him thus.
And what is your take on this matter?
Yes, WLC is a fool! He imagines that his own certitude that he claims is holy spirit -based is valid, it matter little what the evidence says! So much for religious experience, ones own mind at work to instantiate God!
What is your take?
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Mythicists make bull by insisting on more than a little comparison of Yeshua with other god-men and miracle mongers and Christians make bull in finding him unique.
Yes, parallels do exist but not enough to suggest that Christians made him up from other god- men and miracle mongers. And they all are unique, so that finding him unique does not make him the Savior.
I take it that he existed but legends grew up around him. The discrepancies in the Testament attest to that. Is one or the other the real event or did it even happen? The two Nativity stories do conflict, but neither happened. History disconfirms events in them.
Christians special plead about his being the Savior in that they find his way of salvation fruitful and that of others wrong. His reflects misanthropy. We need no Atonement, but can expiate for our wrongdoings. His Atonement reflects barbarism and is no better than Aztecs murdering their young in blood sacrifices!
Yeshua's miracles reflect the same superstitious milieu that other religions engage in.
Religions come short of the glory of humankind!
Monday, February 11, 2013
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Why would any moral and rational person desire to follow that callous cult leader? Why would she desire for him to bring a sword instead of peace, break up families, love him more than others and practice an apocalyptic ethic of silly and - dangerous advice?
How could see without contradiction follow he who says he is God and denies he is when he says none are good but God?
Previous essays here delve into his moral character and that of the Tanakh and the Testament themselves.
Should you dissent, please let my other viewers and me know why so as to talk to each other and not past each other. Should you agree in part or in whole, add your reasons.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Christians declaim that why, Yeshua is unique, but all god-men and miracle monger are unique!
They declaim that why, ti's hope that pervades the Bible when we note the moral evils of its ethic or find excuses for Yahweh's evil commands.
Jews are the chosen people but that's different from putting others down. And for most Jews, it is but the narratives say otherwise!
Cheist=insanity is different because it offers salvation from wrong-doing, whilst other offer lesser things. Why, that's special pleading.
Christian fideists claim that their use of faith is different from that of the terrorists, because by their fruit, you shall know them, and theirs is good. That is special pleading, as Christians have murdered in the name of their superstition. Oh, here they plead that those weren't real Christians or else they misused the texts. But in context, the anthology does condone religious murder!
What other totally different excuses do you note?
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
The Deluge came from the mind of a psychopath!
Why, most of the book would have to reinterpreted ! What would then Yeshua's love of preaching about Hell mean? He is only pointing to the seriousness of sinning and that why, Hell could be just annihilation! That is trivial as why not let the bad stay dead? And what that evil book calls the bad is often the good, and if affirms faith, disparaging reason with that idiot Pauls' prattle about the wisdom of the world and the truth of his religion.
So, now, I fathom how Frs. Leo Booth and John Shelby Spong can find good metaphors for the evil passages!
I'd rather that people read such better classics as Aesop's Fables.
How would they reinterpret the contradictions within and without?
So ,they would agree with haughty John Haught that the value of that anthology lies in its message of hope, and so, that reinterpretation would affirm that hope,
I thin Erranists- non-literalists- prattle as well as inerrantists! Bot
avoid comeing to terms with the reality that that anthology carries no word of God in any form!h
They just assume that it does after noting the bad messages in order to keep their faith! Faith doth that to people!
Faith is certitude that envelopes the whole being, keeping one from further queries as it is, unlike science, is in the end not tentative, Yes, errantists do maintain tentativeness about some matters , but most cannot give up central dogmas of Christ= insanity or Moses' Folly [ no Moses!]. I suppose some Muslims would interpret that evil Qur'an likewise!
What is your interpretation of that reinterpretation?
Monday, February 4, 2013
Whether supernatural or not, extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence – a naturalistic parallel to the Gospels | A Tippling Philosopher
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
The writer is like WLC credulous in believing the uncorroborated words of uncorroborated writers. Other contradictions exist amongst those four books.We have no evidence at all to trust any of their accounts, and the supposed eye-witnesses would so fi differ as the contradictions reveal. Other essays here show all that or will show that.
That writer and others should seek out serious accounts of why they err in being credulous!
Friday, February 1, 2013
Notice how the writer disposes of Craig's biblical argument for the Resurrection! I have in previous essays here myself commented about how the Bible misleads. He is so credulous that he accepts the uncorroborated writers as truth-tellers the uncorroborated tales! That suffice to show why no one has to take him seriously as truth-telling about that anthology.
He so defends the divine command theory that he deems it right for Yahweh to command genocide! He prefers the simple, egregious subjectiveism of misogynistic, mean-minded misanthropes to moral demands!
Morality would be independent of and binging on God! Even he does not call for stoning wilfrul children! And as pictured , his other arguments disgrace philosophy and - theology!
Please Google his full name to see what he says and what others say about him. Like that other writer, I don't engage in ad hominem to try to keep others from reading his writings or hearing him but just love to call him names for the deviant he is in philosophy!