Timmy Talk

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Okay, but I'm trying to understand the intention (leave alone the logic) of:
1. I kissed a girl
2. I liked it
3. (Therefore??) I went to Hell.

So, Billy Graham kisses his "girl". If he liked it, he goes to hell, of course.

Or, 1. I kissed a real girl recently--my niece. 2. I liked it, since she had just graduated with honors, and seemed so happy. She liked it...I liked it. But yet--
3. I went to Hell?

Or,
1. I kissed a girl in the woods in Maryland--I was about 6 years old. I think I liked it, but not so sure, because within a week, I didn't really like that girl very much. Besides, she kissed me first, and I just went along. Nevertheless, I think it was my first memory of an erection, so I now conclude that "I liked it."
3. I went to Hell.

I appreciate church marquees that can address such deeper issues rather than the usual pop culture.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Okay, but I'm trying to understand the intention (leave alone the logic) of:
1. I kissed a girl
2. I liked it
3. (Therefore??) I went to Hell.

So, Billy Graham kisses his "girl". If he liked it, he goes to hell, of course.

Or, 1. I kissed a real girl recently--my niece. 2. I liked it, since she had just graduated with honors, and seemed so happy. She liked it...I liked it. But yet--
3. I went to Hell?

Or,
1. I kissed a girl in the woods in Maryland--I was about 6 years old. I think I liked it, but not so sure, because within a week, I didn't really like that girl very much. Besides, she kissed me first, and I just went along. Nevertheless, I think it was my first memory of an erection, so I now conclude that "I liked it."
3. I went to Hell.

I appreciate church marquees that can address such deeper issues rather than the usual pop culture.

Me thinks y'all are over analyzing it too much.

Obviously is is partially referencing Katey Perry's song "I kissed a girl".

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Me thinks y'all are over analyzing it too much.

Obviously is is partially referencing Katey Perry's song "I kissed a girl".

Yep. I was trying to show how one absurdity can deserve another. Timmy Talk is a place to get a little loose. (We like your relevant photo postings.)

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Aquila

See... THIS is the kind of heartlessness I'm talking about. Anyone with half a cent's worth of spiritual understanding knows that the leading reason for men and women abandoning faith in God is hurts and/or abuse, rather it be real or perceived...

Aquila, thanks for caring. In my case, to the best of my knowledge, I suffered relatively little "spiritual abuse" at the hands of anyone. I have always had enough self respect to be able to remove myself from abusive situations. I did remove myself from one apostolic church after the pastor began to teach a bit too personally--such as how "his saints" ought to try to space their pregnancies in a specific way that would supposedly please Jesus. (IOW, he used pastoral authority to regulate use of contraceptives.) But that pastor, (to his credit, I suppose) had no expressed misgivings about my leaving, even to go to a different JN organization. He considered me a faithful member/saint, as far as I could tell.

But rather, my atheism, my qualm is due to the Bible itself--IT is the essential abuser--and I simply reasoned myself away from believing that the bible is the inerrant, infallible, divinely inspired True Word of God. Rather, the bible bears all the fingerprints of having been written by merely religious men, and collected, in very fallible manner, into canon by another group of religious men. I enjoy reading the bible more today than ever--because it's practically comedic once one understands the impossibility of it describing anything close to a omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient god, who supposedly delivered unto mankind his Own Inerrant, Infallible, Holy Word.

So, how many lies are required in order to justify rejection? According to James 2:10, I am legally judged as a liar upon telling a lie. But in order to be fair and consider my own error-prone humanness, I'll give the bible the benefit of the doubt concerning several or even many apparent lies and contradictions--because I do get some things wrong. However, the volume and severity of what I get wrong, at least when it's measurable, has eventually proven to be nowhere near the quantity and quality of the things the bible is wrong about. Therefore, the benefit (of the doubt) was exhausted after giving this (now) silly God the prime 30 years of my life. And I spent another 10 years of consideration (of my own fallibility) before wanting to say any of this. Today, the bible's lies (or rather "human mistakes," to the currently believing Christians) have accumulated into such a deep pile that only a deluded state of logic-denial could continually disregard, which is exactly what believers are called upon by their faith to do, as well as to call upon each other to do.

That reminds me of another lie (in this case told by Jesus himself.) "He whom the Son sets free is free indeed." Well, okay, the servants of Jesus are free to keep on believing REGARDLESS how much contradictory evidence may exist. I however, am free to use my mind to evaluate evidence for the sole purpose of WHAT to believe, and to use whatever evidence points to the highest probability of being true. I am allowed to side with the method of thinking that actually accomplishes small demonstrable truths in this life --the kind of reasoning that eventually put man on the moon and to safely return. The believer, however, is only "free" to side with that which will supposedly be proven to him or her only in the next life--after death. You are not allowed to think too critically, (upon pain of your soul's demise and other misfortune) rather you are only allowed to BELIEVE--starting with the assumption that the Bible is True Because the Bible says the Bible is True. Nice freedom, ya got there. After that, the bible believer is free to thank god that he/she is a slave to Christ. The Christian is free to continue to use whatever emotions and rhetorical thinking necessary to keep on believing. As for me, "Freer at last, freer at last, thank my Homo Heidelbergensis-descended brain, I am a little bit freer at last."

So here's three categories where reading the Bible and reading about the Bible made me an atheist. There are dozens examples under each heading, but I'll try to limit examples to that which just barely makes the point. Remember, your God is supposed to be all-powerful and always powerful, all-knowing and always knowing, all-good and always good. AND, from this god stems the supposedly Inerrant, Infallible, Inspired Word of God.

I. Bible is not internally self-consistent. One year I decided to cross-reference the NT scriptures that referred to OT verses, and instead of merely noting where in the OT scriptures were quoted, I turned there and read them, considering the context. Some of the Old Testament verses had very little (apparent) relation to what the NT was trying to claim about the OT verse. However, for a long time I subsumed those questions under the concept of "Holy inspiration." Surely, the Holy Ghost INSPIRED the NT writers to interpret the OT in a maybe surprising, creative, only seemingly out-of-context manner. Of course, that's how a believer is supposed to think!
But check out Mat 7:29. Matthew clearly claims he is quoting a prophesy by Jeremiah---the "thirty pieces of silver" story. However, nothing like the "thirty pieces of silver" story exists anywhere in Jeremiah--or else go try to find it, please, and report back. But a closer (and to believers, a plausible) match can be found in Zechariah. However, Zechariah does not equal Jeremiah, and an omniscient Holy Spirit is supposed to know this. An omnipotent God should also be able to do something about it very quickly, even proactively, especially to fix a mess-up in behalf of His Inerrant Holy Word. Of course, since god cannot fail, Christians are now required to believe that only man failed here--mere clerical errors. Okay, so now God allows men to corrupt some select parts of His Holy, Infallible, Inerrant Word? Nice demonstration of omnipotence there, when it should really count. An omnipotent (but non-omniscient) modern 10th grade high school student could write a more self-consistent bible than that which the Bumbling God actually did supposedly write, protect, and deliver to mankind. You wish to stake your life upon such divine hackery?

II. How we got the Bible. The canon of scripture was ratified and adjusted through the ages, by essentially early Catholics, both through committees and from edicts circulated by bishops and popes. Sometimes they merely ratified existing church practice, but sometimes other agendas influenced the story. (It's a long, complex story, requiring books about it.) The canon show begins circa 367 AD, and arrives at effective unanimity in mid 5th century, (or rather, unanimity to early catholic leaders, those who were running the show at that point.) Anyhow, the committees, bishops, and popes were fallible, error-prone men, showing little evidence of being anything but humans, subject to the same politics, enmities, and chicanery that characterize many human committees and religious leaders today. But here's a sample of the kind of spiritual reasoning that bible scholars will confirm had great influence toward deciding and confirming canon. Written by the influential church father, Irenaeus (c.130-202 AD) "It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four-quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh…" Dig that kind of spiritual insight? Consider how your short life may be now based upon it. But that is just one blip in the overall story of canonicity. Many of these men are whom many Protestant Christians would not even classify as saved--yet these church fathers' decisions are supposedly trustworthy, having been guided by an omnipotent, omniscient infallible Holy Spirit, One wiling and able to accurately protect and deliver his Holy Word, guiding the whole process to PERFECTION, you are supposed to believe. But wait, God had a change of plan in the mid 1800s AD and decided, "Nah, I guess there are too many books in the Bible, so let's just trim it down from 80 "books" to 66 books.

From the website "Greatsite.org" a source to buy antique bibles and/or facsimiles.
<<Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.>>

Again, my imaginary modern 10th grader (at least one possessing omnipotence, but maybe not so much omniscience) could have done a better job. Seems Yahweh is actually a lousy secretary/supervisor. Is this rather a God who is not caring enough to prevent the hijacking of His Own Most Important Document--His primary interface with the rest of mankind? Of course, Christians are now forced to claim, "No, wait, we believe only the ORIGINAL sacred writings are inspired." How convenient, considering no "original documents" are known to exist anywhere! [PS, Have you ever noticed how the educated arguers about this or that bible topic will sometimes toggle their argument over to claim what "the original" this or that word in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic implies? But please never forget, they really mean the "earliest surviving manuscripts" because NO...zero..nada...zilch...nix-nein-Frankenstein original manuscripts are known to exist anywhere (except maybe in heaven if you believe a certain verse in Revelation that may claim such.]

(Item III, next post)

[MarcBee]

(see previous Timmy Talk post, please)

III. The promises of God in the bible do not really "come true" in the observable world--but only within an imaginary world of faith. Yet Jesus promised some things would happen in the observable world. (Mark 11:24 for example.) The supposedly miraculous things I experienced as a born again believer proved to be (eventually) indistinguishable from the same phenomena experienced by many people believing utterly wrong doctrines, worshipping other gods, or even no gods at all. The Acts 2:38 experience is definitely scriptural, but nothing special nor miraculous. Christian (in my case, Pentecostal) conversion is a sudden switch of world view. Upon a change of world view, people are naturally motivated to change into conformity with their new outlook. My "ceasing from sin" was nothing miraculous--I did so because I was extremely motivated to do so, and it was now easier anyhow, since my mind was changed to want to please the god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Paul. Upon conversion, believers then imagine an intense personal relationship with Jesus, and put faith in the concept of a wonderful loving god--additionally influenced by cues found in the bible as well as cues from the five-fold ministry and other believers. But if measured rigorously, nothing miraculous has happened--it's all in general naturally explained--especially when people start off very broken and at the end of their ropes--the very condition Christians hope to find exhibited by repentant candidates in any case. So, one example of the above (indistinguishable from nature) is the effect of PRAYER. Prayer does not work at a rate any greater than the same result due to our own effort, or natural phenomena, or chance, or (very commonly) the product of all three of those working together. The results of prayer as promised in His Holy Inerrant Word only "happen" as supposed and interpreted to be happening within and among the collective of believers--who all have a vested interest in perpetuating faith regardless what actually does happen.

Here's some sub-examples of the above....I offer these 7 things God does not do, (in no particular order or importance) but which God (as your caring father) implies or writes you ought to pray for anyhow.

1. God will not keep thieves from stealing your stuff. If you can afford a heavy steel safe, that's a better investment than giving the same amount of money to the needy. Consider yourself the needy, as soon as possible.

2. God does not lead you to the love of your life. Nor does God send you any friends. If it's a problem, then learn to become more loveable.

3. God doesn't heal sickness or disease at a rate any greater than that which diseases may also remiss by themselves (considered apart from the results of good medical care.) Believers who think they can pray away sickness, disease, or headaches ought to compare a supposed faith-based success rate with the remission rates of those who have no faith. The two improvement rates (religious faith-invoked vs. non-religious, excluding medical solutions) will prove to be indistinguishable from each other. The only thing prayer changes is the attitude of the one praying, or the one hearing the prayer, probably as a result of simply calming down or looking inward. (Placebo effect is a different issue, and I'm all for whatever works, when it comes to better health and reduced pain.)

4. God will not send you money. Of course, some people are motivated to provide resources for others because they believe such works please God. Some adopt kindness due to superstitions such as karma. Others are charitable just to help make the world a better place. But gainful work, or value exchanged for other forms of value is the most reliable method for survival and comfort. For a few, luck has proven to be more reliable--that is, the luck of having been born into a wealthy family!

5. If a god intervenes to "bless" people with better or favorable circumstances on earth, the blessing rate toward Christians is no better nor worse than the blessing rate toward Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, or Bunnies. But keep praying for god to bless you and yours.

6. God does not "make" you happy, regardless of your devotion level or personal sacrifice. Our physical, mental, and social circumstances are the result of our environment, the luck of the DNA lottery, and--the primary effect we can accomplish--in the choices we make or reject.

7. God does not talk to you, in spite of the church world claiming you have a father-child relationship, one privileged with open communication. But if He, She, or It does talk to you, you should write it all down, and share, like Moses and Paul did. Prediction--your god will sound much like the way you already believe and think, but overlaid with a few creative, compelling variations. (And that's how religion evolves into something definitely effective, yet ultimately false.)

[MarcBee]

Oops, I meant Matthew 27:9, not 7:29.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Of course, that's how a believer is supposed to think!
But check out Mat 7:29. Matthew clearly claims he is quoting a prophesy by Jeremiah---the "thirty pieces of silver" story.

The verse reads : For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

?????

Never mind, just saw the correction.

Thanks for sharing, MarcBee.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

I. But check out Mat 7:29. Matthew clearly claims he is quoting a prophesy by Jeremiah---the "thirty pieces of silver" story. However, nothing like the "thirty pieces of silver" story exists anywhere in Jeremiah--or else go try to find it, please, and report back. But a closer (and to believers, a plausible) match can be found in Zechariah. However, Zechariah does not equal Jeremiah, and an omniscient Holy Spirit is supposed to know this. You wish to stake your life upon such divine hackery?

I read your whole long post and the only thing I found worthy of a reply is the above passage.
This has a very easy answer, in the ancient times sometimes a scroll contained the writings of many prophets, and the scroll was simply referred by the name of the main prophet in the scroll.
I am sure you are not omniscient but a good scholar of ancient Jewish biblical practices would know that. I am amazed that you wish to stake your eternal life upon such a silly ignorance of ancient practices.

Really you need to come up with better arguments, you are just throwing mountains of bitter and angry words, but little of substance.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I read your whole long post and the only thing I found worthy of a reply is the above passage.
This has a very easy answer,

Of course it would have "an easy answer" to true believers, but that doesn't mean it's correct or even compelling. Many biblical condundrums are "easy" to dismiss by those who have a vested interest in maintaining their beliefs-- such as that the bible cannot contain any such mistakes. I however, am free to apply the principle of parsimony, as well as other (humanistic) principles of interpretation, and to side with wherever the most probable, likely conclusion leads. (Best of all, I am allowed to change my mind about everything! Are you?)

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

in the ancient times sometimes a scroll contained the writings of many prophets, and the scroll was simply referred by the name of the main prophet in the scroll.

I've heard that before. How convenient. But nowhere else in Matthew does a similar inaccurate labeling of the intended prophet occur. In Mat 2:17, for example, the writer means "Jeremiah", and SAYS "Jeremiah." In Mat.3:3, the author means "Isaiah" and he SAYS, "Isaiah." But if your faith hangs upon unwillingness to admit that MISTAKES exist in the bible, fine with me. You are free indeed to defend the Divine Inerrancy, Divine Infallibility, and Divine Inspiration of your Holy Book. Are there any other examples in NT where "Zechariah" is called "Jeremiah" or similar use of one proper name to really mean a different proper name? An omniscient Holy Spirit could have instead said, "as saith the prophet," and that would take care of everything. But if you wish to adopt explanations that fix all mistakes, I do understand that tendency.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I am sure you are not omniscient

Oh really? Thanks for confirming that truth.

but a good scholar of ancient Jewish biblical practices would know that.

Please name a few of these scholars of "ancient Jewish biblical practices" who are not Christians having a personally vested stake in what happened in the New Testament. (Jewish scholars, fine!) I will research their work, if not also contact them concerning this claim that Christian apologists make about this issue (and a few other claims while I have their attention.)

I am amazed that you wish to stake your eternal life upon such a silly ignorance of ancient practices.

Maybe you missed the part where I claimed there are dozens of examples in each category, but that I would mention only representative samples. Maybe you missed the part where I mentioned 30 years as a True believer, and 10 years after that of considering my own fallibility before wanting to speak such.

Really you need to come up with better arguments, you are just throwing mountains of bitter and angry words, but little of substance.

The way I am made, if I were bitter and angry, I would not wish to rub shoulders with Christians in this manner. Rather, it's satisfying to simply share truth the same way I used to be motivated to "share truth" as a Christian. Back then, a few fellow apostolics might have even patted me on the back when I would report (for example) that I enjoyed going into a big Catholic church at night to cram Act 2:38 gospel tracts in between the fingers of the statuary of Mary and Jesus, or whatever statues I could find. THAT was considered "being on fire for God!" But now that I have concluded no compelling reasons to believe the bible is True, and neither the reality of any of the gods, I am now, according to you,

just throwing mountains of bitter and angry words

But thanks for the psychoanalysis.

My arguments at this time may be poor, but they are much better than the arguments I used to try as a believer, arguments (mostly claims, rather) based on an invisible, imagined spirit world--essentially indistinguishable from magical thinking, buttressed by the indefensible circular supposition that the bible is true because the bible says it is true.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Here's some sub-examples of the above....I offer these 7 things God does not do, (in no particular order or importance) but which God (as your caring father) implies or writes you ought to pray for anyhow.

1. God will not keep thieves from stealing your stuff. If you can afford a heavy steel safe, that's a better investment than giving the same amount of money to the needy. Consider yourself the needy, as soon as possible.

God is not a security guard, that is not his job.
Lay not for yourself treasure in earth where thieves break through and steal.

2. God does not lead you to the love of your life. Nor does God send you any friends. If it's a problem, then learn to become more loveable.

God is not matchmaker either, he only gives you guidance so that you can have a more fulfilling marital and social life.


3. God doesn't heal sickness or disease at a rate any greater than that which diseases may also remiss by themselves (considered apart from the results of good medical care.) Believers who think they can pray away sickness, disease, or headaches ought to compare a supposed faith-based success rate with the remission rates of those who have no faith. The two improvement rates (religious faith-invoked vs. non-religious, excluding medical solutions) will prove to be indistinguishable from each other. The only thing prayer changes is the attitude of the one praying, or the one hearing the prayer, probably as a result of simply calming down or looking inward. (Placebo effect is a different issue, and I'm all for whatever works, when it comes to better health and reduced pain.)

God heals according to his will, yet we all must die of something. I have been sick for years, that has not shaken my faith for one second, if God does not heal me, that is OK, maybe it is my time to go

4. God will not send you money. Of course, some people are motivated to provide resources for others because they believe such works please God. Some adopt kindness due to superstitions such as karma. Others are charitable just to help make the world a better place. But gainful work, or value exchanged for other forms of value is the most reliable method for survival and comfort. For a few, luck has proven to be more reliable--that is, the luck of having been born into a wealthy family!

God is not the welfare office, you want money, you work for it. God does not need to provide for you what you can provide for yourself.

5. If a god intervenes to "bless" people with better or favorable circumstances on earth, the blessing rate toward Christians is no better nor worse than the blessing rate toward Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, or Bunnies. But keep praying for god to bless you and yours.

God rains upon the just and the unjust, because he loves us all

6. God does not "make" you happy, regardless of your devotion level or personal sacrifice. Our physical, mental, and social circumstances are the result of our environment, the luck of the DNA lottery, and--the primary effect we can accomplish--in the choices we make or reject.

The joy of the Lord is my strength, yes I have down days, but the Lord renews me and brings the joy of the spirit.

7. God does not talk to you, in spite of the church world claiming you have a father-child relationship, one privileged with open communication. But if He, She, or It does talk to you, you should write it all down, and share, like Moses and Paul did. Prediction--your god will sound much like the way you already believe and think, but overlaid with a few creative, compelling variations. (And that's how religion evolves into something definitely effective, yet ultimately false.)

God talks to me all the time for he is my father, I hear him in my heart, I have a personal relationship with him.

any more?? or is that all?