Why I Can’t Agree With the Bible: 1 Kings: Part 2


Now let’s try this again. Remember: this is my reading the Bible as a layperson, not as a scholar. I am reading it as a lay-Christian would, but without the assumption that it is correct. I am asking the questions that come to me. This is basically a visual of why I can’t accept the Bible as accurate. If you believe the Bible to be true, this is not an attack on you. And this is not an attack on the God you believe in. I do not believe in your God, so I do not believe that I can attack it. This is about the Bible and the Bible alone. Please keep this in mind while reading this post. I do not want to read about how I’m reading the Bible wrong. I do not want to read about all the other books that I need to read in order to understand the Bible. If the Bible can’t stand on it’s own, what good is it? I do not want to read about how I just want to sin, or I’m rebelling against God, or any similar nonsense. Take my post at face value, because that’s how I mean it, and respond accordingly.

Where I left off last time, Jeroboam was setting up two golden calves for the people to worship. This is said to be a sin. Since it was a sin in the past, this makes sense. Though I still don’t understand why God is so threatened by golden calves. Were they representatives of another god in competition with Yahweh? Were they gods themselves (did they have powers)? Or were they simply gold statues? If they were just statues, what threat were they to God?

The Bible says that Jeroboam’s hand shrivels up when he tells people to seize a man of God. What is the significants of this? Is it important? How do we know the man is a man of God? What does it mean to be a man of God? Who is he?

Later on, an older prophet tells the man of God that an angel told him to bring the man of God back and feed him. This is a lie. Why would a prophet lie to another prophet? Why did God go to the lying prophet and not the honest one? Why did God punish the man when he was tricked? Where is the justice in that? Why didn’t the old prophet get punished?

Jeroboam keeps sinning according to the Bible. Why does God allow the sinning to continue? What sins were committed? So far we’ve only heard about idolatry. Is that all that has occurred? Or are there other unmentioned sins?

God says that Jeroboam is the most evil man to have ever lived. He says he will cut off Jeroboam’s family. How is Jeroboam the most evil man to have lived? What did he do that is so much worse than what others have done? Why does God punish his family and not Jeroboam himself? Where is the justice here?

God says that he will give Israel up. When is this supposed to happen? If the problem is the king, why punish Israel? Why not just replace the king?

Jeroboam was king for 22 years.

Under Johaboam, the Israelites did everything detestable that the earlier people had done. What are these things that were done? We’ve never been told what these detestable things are, other than worshiping other gods of course.

Rehoboam and Jeroboam were constantly at war.

David is praised again. What was so great about David? Why is he held up as such a great king when he was so problematic?

Asa did what was right in the lord. He got rid of all the idols and was committed to God. Why didn’t God give Israel to him? Is it better to have bad kings to keep his word than it is to ensure good kings? Aren’t Asa and his descendants more worthy?

Nadat ruled Israel. He did evil. Why is he allowed to do evil? Why isn’t he stopped? And what is this evil?

The Bible then goes through a list of kings who rule for a few years each. What’s the point of talking about all these kings who don’t live very long? How are they important? If they aren’t important, why not just ignore them? What sins do they commit other than idolatry?

Omri ruled for 12 years, and he did more evil that earlier kings. Why is he allowed to do evil? And what is this evil? How can anybody accept that somebody did evil if we’re never told what this evil is? Ahab sinned worse, he worshiped Baal, and he ruled for 22 years. Why did he get to rule for so long if he did so much wrong? What about worshiping Baal makes his actions worse than his predecessors? What is the point in mentioning these two kings? How were they significant?

The prophet Elijah is brought into the story now. He ordered a poor woman to make bread for him. He promised that God wouldn’t let the flour and oil dry up during the drought that he has caused. She made him the bread. What’s the point of this story? Is it about generosity? Or is it merely an example of the miracles God is said to do? Later on, Elijah brought the woman’s son back from the dead, this proves to the woman that he is truthful. This is the first time someone is brought back from the dead. Why did God bring the boy back? Was it to win loyalty? Was it a mere show of power? Did he just do it because Elijah asked?

Ahab then met Elijah. Elijah demanded that Ahab bring the people of Israel to him. Elijah tells them to follow God. He proposes a challenge: Elijah vs. the Baal prophets, whoever’s god answers by lighting a fire…wins? Elijah wins. This story is kind of funny. Elijah demands proof that Baal was worthy of worship, or powerful, or something. He mocks the Baal priests as they fail to light a fire. Then he provides evidence of his God’s power by completing the challenge successfully himself. He’s practicing skepticism here. If this had actually happened, this would be great evidence to suggest Yahweh exists. Unfortunately, it can’t be verified outside of the Bible that this actually happened. However, if a Christian could reproduce this, this would be a great way to convince atheists’ of the supernatural. Of course, if I saw this,I’d immediately assume trickery until it was shown that trickery was not in play. Elijah the had the prophets of Baal killed. God finally sent rain. Where is the justice in that? Why did the people deserve to be punished with starvation? Why did Baal’s prophet’s deserve to be slaughtered?

Elijah hid in the wilderness after being threatened by the king. An angel came to him to feed him. How is it known that an angel came to him? Could it have been a man? What is the significance of Elijah’s running away? He then traveled to Horeb to speak to God. Elijah thinks he is the only one loyal to God left. Is this true? How could it be? God tells Elijah that he’s about to pass by. God comes in the form of a whisper. After a strong wind, an earthquake, and a fire comes. What’s the significance of this? What is it meant to show? Is this just a display of power? Or does it have a purpose? If it has a purpose, what is it? If not, why do this?

God said that he will punish Ahab’s son for what Ahab did because Ahab humbled himself. Where is the justice when God punishes innocent children for the sins of their parents? Even if the person deserves punishment, shouldn’t they be punished for their own actions and not for the actions of others?

Asa and his descendants seem to have been forgotten, only Jeroboam’s descendants are mentioned in the later parts of 1 Kings. Why is this?

Aram, Ahab’s son, is killed in battle. Dogs lick up his blood when his men clean his chariot, which is as God commanded. What is the significance of this? What is it meant to achieve?

Asa’s descendants are remembered. Jehoshaphat is Asa’s son, he’s mentioned briefly. What’s the point of mentioning him?

I have now completed 1 Kings. I’ll likely only be able to post these once a week until I finish.

Advertisements

35 responses to “Why I Can’t Agree With the Bible: 1 Kings: Part 2

  • H.M. Davis

    You have a lot of questions! I did, too, the first time I read the Bible, but I did read it for different reasons. I was an atheist at the time and wanted to know if any world religions had any truth behind them at all. I read here and there, and I did finally pick up a Bible with a challenge on my lips: “God, if you’re real, you will have to make me believe.”

    I won’t get into it here. I see from your questions that you have some extremely valid questions, have missed some points here or there, and also that you probably aren’t really all that interested in believing in any god at all. I would be delighted to answer any honest questions that are within the range of my exceedingly limited wisdom. While by no means an expert, I have read the book several times now, though not all of my own questions have been answered… but that’s another story

    But I will say I am not greatly inclined to answer in a public forum, for I see a lot of silliness going on here. Angry accusations, name-calling, and even a declaration that Hitler was a Christian! I’ve heard that one, too, but no. Sorry. I’ve read quite a bit about the man. He did, however, claim to be one when it furthered his agenda. He also claimed to be a proponent of peace…

    Anyway, hope you find your answers.:-)

    Like

    • hessianwithteeth

      Does it really matter what Hitler was? He did terrible things. There are people in every group who do terrible things. I don’t know why so many people want to play the “well Hitler can’t possibly have been in our group” game. Historically speaking, we have no reason to believe that Hitler wasn’t a Christian and every reason to believe that he was. But it’s a completely irrelevant matter. Whether Hitler was a Christian or an atheist says nothing about the moral or truth value of those groups.

      Like

      • Tim

        Hitler may have claimed Christianity… that is way different than being a Christian. A true Christian changes their entire life and goals to align with God’s instructions in the Bible… which if I remember was to to love ALL people. No, Hitler was not a Christian. You cannot be a Christian while actively killing people.

        Like

        • hessianwithteeth

          So the Spanish Inquisition? Those weren’t Christians? The crusades? Those weren’t Christians? Nobody who fought in either of the World Wars was a Christian? Nobody who went to Iraq or Afghanistan was a Christian? This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Killing people doesn’t automatically remove ones Christian card. It’s a belief system, not a series of actions. And people are very good at holding beliefs that go counter to their actions. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. We have no reason to believe that he ever gave that up. Yes, he added some strange beliefs to his Catholicism, but he never renounced his Catholicism. He also made many references to God, both in his speeches and in his writing.
          Again, does it really matter what he was? He’s dead. And his actions can’t exactly be said to reflect the others who happen to find themselves sharing his religious beliefs. They reflect more strongly on those who share his political and racial beliefs.

          Like

    • Arkenaten

      @HM Davis

      …and even a declaration that Hitler was a Christian!

      By all the relevant standards Hitler was most certainly a Christian, and there is ample evidence to demonstrate this.
      He may have been insanity personified, ( and was, as far as most normal people would consider insanity) but he was also a Christian.
      Oh, yes indeedy!
      Just as are the numerous people who claim to have been to spoken to by ‘God’ who then toddled off and slaughtered their children – or in Joshua and Moses’s case, whole nations.
      Even George Bush claimed your God spoke through him, and look how he turned out!
      Would you want someone like him back in office? Seriously?

      I did finally pick up a Bible with a challenge on my lips: “God, if you’re real, you will have to make me believe.”

      The question that immediately springs to mind is why?

      But why oh why would you even voice such a piece of nonsense to the ether if you were truly an atheist?
      What was missing from your life that you felt a dire need to have a supernatural element – a monster like Yahweh – fill that void?

      Without deriding any negative personal experiences you may have had before this ‘conversion’ there is ample neurological evidence to scientifically demonstrate why people turn to god-belief.
      As an intellectual exercise perhaps you should consider why you did not become Jewish. Or embark on a mission to read the Qu’ran and become Muslim; or even Hindu or Buddhist?

      Or why not a raving fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist, like our friend, Tim?

      Now he believes that once upon a time we all lived with dinosaurs!
      That the Earth is only 6000 years old and Noah was a real person and he and his incestuous family were directly responsible for the re-population of the entire planet!

      I reckon that is pretty damn close to insane, don’t you?
      And he teaches this stuff to his kids, for your gods’ sake!
      And he claims to be a Christian right down to his cotton socks, bless him, and who am I to argue that he isn’t?
      Would you tell him he isn’t a proper Christian?

      Like

  • lisalabelle2014

    I’ll tell you why I like this post. You’re an atheist, I get that, and I respect you because honestly, you’re probably spending more time reading the Bible than most Christians I know. When they say connecting and developing a relationship with God is a life long process, we’re given a certain understanding, it is our responsibility to find out the truth for ourselves. That means asking a lot of questions, but it’s up to us to seek the answers. This was a great post, I’m going to check out the rest.

    Like

  • Tim

    Here are a few answers:

    >If they were just statues, what threat were they to God?

    “Threatening” is probably the wrong word or understanding of the word. Anything that takes God’s place angers him because he created mankind to worship him and they continue to choose otherwise.

    >Why does God allow the sinning to continue?

    Well, that’s basic free will. This answers many more of your “why was he allowed to do evil” questions. We are ALL allowed to do evil every single day.

    >Why does God punish his family and not Jeroboam himself? Where is the justice here?

    “Justice” according to whose definition?

    >What’s the point of talking about all these kings who don’t live very long?

    Because the Bible is a history book, not a story book.

    >I’d immediately assume trickery until it was shown that trickery was not in play.

    This is why it is not done today. Check Exodus – the plagues, still they didn’t believe. Check Jesus’s miracles – still they crucified him. It’s not about signs and wonders.

    >Where is the justice when God punishes innocent children for the sins of their parents?

    The Bible teaches that NO ONE is innocent, this includes children.

    Like

    • hessianwithteeth

      If God wanted people around simply so that we would worship him, why give us the ability to refuse? Doesn’t that seem a bit silly to you? I don’t know about you, but I don’t think such pettiness deserves to be worshiped.
      God has removed people’s freewill before: he made it impossible for pharaoh to allow the Israelites to go. Why is he so arbitrary about when freewill can and can’t be removed? Why does he remove freewill to prevent good things from happening and maintain it to allow bad things to continue? Does this not seem at all problematic to you?
      As far as history books go, the Bible isn’t very good. It’s focus is too broad to be of much use. It wastes time on inconsequential events, which a history book would not do, and it fails to identify it’s sources. No, the Bible is not a history book. It’s a genealogy and mythology in one. And we have no proof that the genealogy isn’t a mythical one.
      So what? because not everyone will be immediately convinced God is off the hook for showing us he exists? That makes no sense.
      The Bible says that we are guilty of a sin we did not commit. Would you punish your daughter because your son stole a chocolate bar? Why would anybody think they deserve to be punished for something they didn’t do?

      Like

    • Arkenaten

      @Tim

      The Bible teaches that NO ONE is innocent, this includes children.

      Hmm …yes, it does. And what sort of bonehead idiot would believe and follow tripe like this?

      Like

      • Tim

        I dunno – my kids all came out kicking, screaming, lieing, and cheating… I didn’t have to teach them how to do any of that. Seems to line up well with the Bible when it says that we are sinful from birth.

        Like

        • Arkenaten

          Ah, well, the term ”sinful”, is a theological term; that quite disgusting practice that you Christians like to stigmatize people with.

          It is especially repugnant to do so to children, who have not yet developed the critical thinking skills to utterly reject such vulgar tripe and when coupled with the doctrine of Hell should, to be perfectly frank, be classified as child abuse

          The bible, and in particular the Pentateuch where this crap is supposedly derived, is fiction, as any decent biblical scholar will tell you, if you had the nouse to inquire.
          Of course, being as you are indoctrinated with this nonsense you will automatically reject such claims.

          If you ever get the chance to seriously study such educational systems as ACE and maybe witness the type of damage these children experience maybe you might feel a little shame, or at least a little humility?

          One can hope that if and when your children are able to recognise the sh*t they have been fed that they have the maturity to forgive you.

          Like

          • Tim

            Uh… why would I need to study that? I grew up with it, and my four kids are growing up with it right now… and seem pretty well off psychologically. And I would assume I can accurately assess that since I have a masters in counseling.

            What is the problem in growing up understanding that you are subject to someone else’s authority? Isn’t that reality wherever you go?

            Like

          • Arkenaten

            Being subject to authority is part and parcel of life.
            Being subject to man-made deities is what gave people like the Crusaders the ”authority” to slaughter innocent people.
            Similar excuses have been used by more modern authorities. The Presidents’ Bush come to mind.

            I don’t really care what degree you hold, as in this instance it is negated by your Fundamentalist religious views.
            That you are indoctrinated seems apparent as you are unable to exercise critical thought when it comes to your ‘faith’ and in context, your apparent acceptance of original sin and rejection that the Pentateuch as fiction.

            Like

          • Tim

            Where you lost it was “to slaughter innocent people”. No one is innocent. Name one innocent person. One person who has never done anything wrong whatsoever.

            Like

          • Arkenaten

            Aaah, and what gives the right for someone else to enact wholesale slaughter?

            Unfortunately you will reject every single rational argument as you are an indoctrinated religious person.
            Thus, even a newborn you consider tainted with ”sin” simply because it says so in a book.
            A book that you lack the intellectual capacity – or will – to study correctly.

            Hitler achieved similar levels of indoctrination which is why he was able to convince ordinary people that the Jews were deserving of extermination.
            You are a troubled individual, sir.Truly.

            Like

          • Tim

            I’ve seen my own newborns who are rebellious to authority. It is not right to rebel against authority, doesn’t matter what age you are. It has to be birth, if not – who would have the ability to determine what age it is wrong to rebel? It’s either all wrong or not wrong.

            I’m guessing you are of the camp that it’s not wrong. Cause I’m not sure how you could make a determination that something was “right” or “wrong”. Which is interesting … since you think I’m wrong.

            Funny that you mention Hitler because what he actually used was evolution to indoctrinate people. And he was right. If evolution is true, then we should exterminate lower races. Heck, that’s even what Darwin titled his book: the advancement of favored races. Why do you see a problem with this?

            Like

          • Arkenaten

            It is not right to rebel against authority,

            So Nelson Mandela should not have rebelled against apartheid?
            Martin Luther King should have simply accepted legislated racism in your country?
            You had a Civil War over such issues for the gods’ sake!
            Please, don’t be a complete ass.

            Cause I’m not sure how you could make a determination that something was “right” or “wrong”. Which is interesting … since you think I’m wrong.

            I am guessing as a Young Earth Creationist you would not have the ability or even the inclination to read scientific data relating to morality and evolution?
            Hmm?

            Hitler was actually a Christian, but you knew that already, of course.
            And the Darwin ”charge” is irrelevant.

            BTW, as a biblical literalist, do you have any evidence for the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus or Moses?
            I would be very interested in your take.

            Like

          • Tim

            Seem strange that you would infer that raising children in a Godly home is dangerous to them psychologically, yet really offer no better alternative.

            What does atheism do? Takes away the good news. Yes, we recognize the bad news – that we are sinners. But we don’t stop there. We bring the hope. Your position doesn’t get rid of the bad in the world, just offers no hope. Which to you sounds more psychologically problematic?

            I prefer this for evidence of the exodus:
            http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php

            I also read a LOT of scientific journal articles. I blogged about several I liked recently:
            http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/the-science-of-creationism/

            Like

          • hessianwithteeth

            The Exodus likely never happened (and the author of that article is fitting their own concussions onto the weak evidence) and the bible is full of talking animals, why would I take some persons interpretation of a heavily translated non-historical document from several thousand years ago as evidence for anything? Maybe we should be looking at the Upanishads instead they have about as much in common speaking in terms of evidence and history. There is no good evidence for the exodus, and it did not include even a sizable fraction as many people as it claimed otherwise there would be some clear history about the event given they went of marauding about afterward. Just because there was a confusion and a famine some time around 2000 BC does not mean there was a mass Jewish exodus.

            I don’t think you have a clear understanding about concept of what good scientific evidence actually is. You seem to be cherry picking data, and being unrepresentative of the data over all, I suggest you read some meta studies.
            Particularly when science has overall has disprove time in and time again that any testable claims made by the bible about the natural history of the earth. Now I’m a biologist so I can lecture about biology if you want, but you need to be very careful what you read and consider “good” science, and how you draw conclusions. In that blog post from a few of studies which are not directly looking at your argument you’ve concluded that there might be something to a young earth creation model. Except we dealing in minuta where dealing with scientific discoveries which might cause the existing time line to shift some, but it isn’t like anything you linked to was definitive or actually leads to a young earth. It just means we still having thing to learn which is a be “well duh” from a science stand point. Science doesn’t create object truth it produce port abilities and varying levels of certainty.

            http://thebunsenburner.com/news/standard-model-of-how-universe-works-may-be-flawed-say-scientists/
            One isn’t a journal article, the finding hasn’t be replicated so isn’t yet confirmed. Besides the standard model is already know to be flawed, all models are flawed. Newtonian physics were excellent for hundreds of years and still are, but it is still flawed. Just because something is flawed doesn’t mean it’s completely wrong about everything.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/
            Not a journal article and not based of a journal article, all speculation. Also iy doesn’t have to lead to any sort of young earth model is might just cause the earth’s time line to be adjusted a couple million years (it might not even adjust the 4.54 billion number)

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5526/2453.short
            How does this have anything to do with the geologic time scale? Also are you a member to this paper since you can’t read the real research unless you are. (or work/study at a university)

            http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GC004003.shtml#content
            Well for one this looks a bit shady, but again it’s talking only in hundreds of millions of years. even if this random little bit of info is true we are still talking about an earth over 4 billion years old. But is so full of abbreviations and lingo that I can’t read it well. (That is isn’t my field, but even I can tell it doesn’t support the views posed by young earth creationists.

            The following links *might* help you a bit in the future. Should you actually choose to read real more legitimate journals, and remember peer review is not 100% flawless. Not every article is research, and not all research is accurate. Oh and meta studies, when done well, are awesome (and generally the best) sources of good hard data.
            http://www.edanzediting.com/blog/identifying_non_reputable_journals#.VAoHhGOwSSo
            http://doaj.org/

            I suggest you read my posts about statistical if you’d like a primer into understand what in science actually counts as convincing or even usable.
            https://hessianwithteeth.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/tackling-the-gmo-problem-part-3-statistical-significance/
            https://hessianwithteeth.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/tackling-gmos-part-4-g-e-seralini-case-why-it-is-both-pivotal-and-pointless/

            As for us not offering anything to our children because we don’t teach them that horrid rape/incest/murder/disaster myths from several thousand years ago are true, some how we are only teaching them about the bad?

            No we will try our best to offer our children the truth as best we know it, to teach them there are not simple answer and that as far as we can tell, this life if your first and only, and that you should make the most of it. We will teach them that people are normally good, but will often do bad things, generally not our of malice but out of ignorance and shortsightedness. We will give our children the difficult truths the ones that we all deal with eventually, but we will be there to help them through those reality for as long as possible. We will help teach our children how to love and empathize, to think and to feel, to go beyond our views and arrive at there own. And I’ll be telling them that they sure didn’t seem bothered by not existing for billions of years, I suspect they won’t mind not existing after they die, and the thousands other little tidbits of wisdom I’ve picked up over the years.

            Withteeth

            Like

          • Arkenaten

            Please do not sidestep the question, Tim and address the issue of rebelling against authority.
            first, and then I will be more than happy to engage on the topic of this comment.

            1. Was Nelson Mandela wrong to resit authority under the South African Apartheid regime?
            Yes or No.
            Please explain your reason/s.

            2. Was Martin Luther King right or wrong for resisting authority during the Civil Rights movement in the USA
            Yes or No? Please give reasons.
            Thank you.

            Like

          • Arkenaten

            I reject your Exodus link out of hand simply because you have included a god in the link. This is not evidence. But theology.
            I was asking solely for scientific verifiable evidence.
            If you have any please feel free to share.
            Thanks.

            Like

          • Tim

            This is your critical error… believing that details about historical events can be verified scientifically.

            Like

          • Arkenaten

            It is not critical error.
            And, I don’t know answer is perfectly acceptable.
            In the case for the Exodus there is no evidence whatsoever.
            And what we DO know does not tie up with the biblical account.
            Allbright found this out, and even Kitchen has not said outright it actually happened.
            Furthermore, one would be advised to seek clarification from those whose predecessors who wrote the Torah,the Jews, not the bastardized version the Christians eventually produced.
            The Exodus and Moses are taught as fiction in Israel.
            This debate has been effectively closed for around 25 years.

            It did not happen and you cannot produce a single piece of verifiable evidence to show that it did.
            And of course, this does not even include mention of the ridiculous supernatural nonsense.
            Whereas, the existing archaeological evidence in Egypt and Palestine ( Canaan) clearly contradicts the biblical claims.

            Do you have anything else? Anything scientific?

            Like

          • Tim

            Do you have anything scientific that proves that Abraham Lincoln was really a president of the United States?

            Like

          • Arkenaten

            Aaah..semantics.

            Do you have anything scientific to prove Yahweh is the creator of the universe?

            Like

          • Tim

            Why would I continue talking with you. You seem to have dodged everything I’ve offered with a handwave. You said Hitler had nothing to do with evolution (handwave). You didn’t address the Lincoln comparison (handwave). I haven’t responded to everyone of your accusations and/or questions because you don’t understand the basics of the argument. We cannot argue scientifically about events from the unseen/unrepeatable past. We can give certain reasonings (like the exodus article). But theres no way that can prove it. I don’t claim it can. We need to separate out science from history or this conversation will go nowhere.

            Like

          • Arkenaten

            You have no ”basis for argument” as you base your world view upon prepositional apologetics.
            If you wish to ( genuinely) discuss then please, demonstrate the veracity of your god claim first
            Not least that your god, the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth is also the creator god you genuflect to.

            Of course we can argue scientifically. But you are unwilling to do so/ cannot because you are Creationist and you demonstrated your utter lack of Bona Fides in your discussions with every person who tries to engage you on your anti-evolution posts.
            Even fellow Christian, Claire, had you tied up in knots and all you responded with was a silly comment about footprints running away from eh encroaching flood. My goodness!

            By the way, are you going to address the rebel against authority questions re Mandela and King or at least apologize?

            Like

          • Arkenaten

            @Tim

            ….which if I remember was to to love ALL people. No, Hitler was not a Christian. You cannot be a Christian while actively killing people.

            Your god, Yahweh, liquidated the entire human race except for one incestuous family.
            He also ordered Moses and Joshua to annihilate the Canaanite population, among other atrocities.
            That does not seem like love to me or any normal person.

            A quick reminder, Tim.
            You still have not addressed the issue regarding whether it was right for Mandela or King to resist authority.
            It would be appreciated if you would have the integrity and offer an answer, please.

            Like

          • hessianwithteeth

            Here’s a start smart ass.https://www.google.ca/search?q=pictures+of+abraham+lincoln&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=hd3&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=oDYKVIbFOsHeoASKi4GQDA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1344&bih=766

            Also, you don’t generally scientifically prove historical figures you historically prove them, by looking in the existent records not only for their own writings but about other people’s writing about them. You prove some one exists, but cross referencing the data that suggest they exists.

            Abraham Lincon has no shortage other people talking about him, he was very real. The Exodus has the bible… and almost nothing else before the middle ages.

            Human history isn’t a hard science, but natural history is. Though you can get a lot better details from human history, unfortunately before ~6000 ago people didn’t leave written record behind so we don’t have human historical records to go by. Though we do know from the hard sciences a whole lot about what humans and the world was like.

            These bullshit idea that some how if you when there you can’t know anything about what happened. Seriously go watch a crime drama or something.

            And equating history and science how fallacious and misleading an argument. You need to actually understand how the scientific method works before you talk about it. And you should probably stop getting your sources from pastors and creation “science.”

            You do realize there are science educators out there, who teach science. I suggest to finding one of a secular institution.

            Like

          • Tim

            All those pictures are forgeries. Ever heard of photoshop? What else you got?

            I’m making a point. It doesn’t matter what evidence I presented, when it comes to historical matters you can always find a different explanation.

            Therefore this issue will never be decided scientifically…. so going down that route is a waste of time.

            Do you not see how I can turn almost everything you say back on you from the other perspective? Perhaps you should just look outside of your confined view. LOL. That really doesn’t help the topic very much does it?

            Unless you are willing to discuss your presuppositions about the world, any discussion of science/evidence, etc. will be a big run around and eventually we’ll get down to the heart of the matter: presupps.

            I can’t prove my presupps. You can’t prove yours. Eventually it comes down to faith (on both ends). Both sides of the argument use reason and science to confirm certain aspects of their positions – but neither can ever be proven.

            Like

          • hessianwithteeth

            For anything you can find different answers. I can always say the invisible pink unicorn did it. What your position is is a philosophical skeptic, that is you can know nothing. Except you then go on to say you can know it cause God, but that’s a bald face assumption and can lead you any direct you choose.

            I can prove some my persups wrong you can’t.

            Mine are basically as follows.

            There exists a reality we are part of. (this is a basic claim you need to have any sort of meaningful truth)

            There are natural causes for things that happen in the reality around us.

            Evidence from the natural reality can be used to learn about those causes (in useful predictive manners).

            There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.

            And here is a proper account of what Natural is to which I agree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5vIimhgk&list=UUrnYMlsoyNeXuYNNh6xkv3Q

            We can devise through experimentation if our reality is consistent or if we can even derive useful prediction from experimentation and evidence. We can so for far my persups are not wrong, but they might one day be shown incomplete.

            Just because you can’t prove of disprove something does not make them equal. Besides here’s Gary again because he much more knowledgeable about of subject then me and more eloquent. This video explain well why naturalism is better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXzWt5LWXtA

            I shall now go write a post.

            Like

  • johnspenn

    HWT, my latest round of answers to your questions has been posted this morning. You seem to want people to try and answer these questions you have asked, but I for one have made an honest and sincere attempt to tackle those questions you have deemed most important, yet you have had very little to say about the answers given.

    What is your purpose in asking these questions if you’re not interested in the answers?

    Like

Tell us what you think

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: