Please note that the author of the quote being used has had a straight up response from me… deleted after moderation, of course. I53:5 is a special snowflake. That deletion tells you how much importance I53:5 places on ‘dialogue’ about the point I raised: zero. He wants to pontificate and have an echo chamber audience. So be it.
I pointed out that the quote tells us what de-converted Christians have said. From that, our stalwart I53:5 then formulates the silly question In order to believe a statement like that, wouldn’t a person necessarily have to also believe that:… a gives us two possibilities. Both are wrong. I explained why, but apparently that doesn’t suit I53:5’s delicate sensibilities when it comes to his own lack of reading comprehension.
If one reads the bible like any text, one will realize the vast number of inconsistencies, omissions, and second hand reporting that runs throughout but especially by the Gospels writers who obviously have copied vast swaths from others and then embellished. When trying to extract a moral code out of this mishmash, one quickly realizes that there is no coherent moral standard other than one incompatible with today’s necessary values for liberal democracies.. values like legal equality and autonomy and rights… both legal and human. When we read that Jesus supposedly upheld the OT law in its entirety then one cannot comport this described god with the one commonly believed in today, you know, the benevolent one with superpowers. If one then investigates the quality of the selected works that make up the bible, one then realizes that for a divinely inspired work, it sure indicates a remarkable lack in every category. And when we add in all the other books rejected by the priests who decided which would be in and which would not, we find only more ridiculous (and often rather violent) additions like fighting and slaying real dragons.
If one first assumes the bible is a divine work that we somehow have to decipher ‘correctly’ to get at its deep wisdom and somewhat opaque truths, then we get the industry know as apologetics where ‘up’ has to mean another kind of ‘down’ and ‘white’ another kind of divine style of ‘black’. And these contortions can only be maintained by the most ardent of believers who cannot have their faith shaken by anything so trivial and mundane as reason and evidence.
Yes, the quote being used, “The biggest percentage of de-converted religious believers who I have met have told me that…” is mine without proper attribution, I may add (probably because I didn’t use the correct ‘whom’ rather than ‘who’. My bad.).
“No. Try reading that point again only this time with better comprehension.
Let me help you…”
I have interacted with you before and it went nowhere. I have seen your work in the comments of many of the Christian blogs I follow and it’s always the same condescending “I’m smarter than you nonsense.”
Think of me however you want, call me what you want, I don’t care.
Well tildeb. What you have stated is factually incorrect. You said this
If one reads the bible like any text, one will realize the vast number of inconsistencies, omissions, and second hand reporting that runs throughout but especially by the Gospels writers who obviously have copied vast swaths from others and then embellished.
That is not true, as many people do read The Bible as they would arrive at any other text and arrive at the conclusion that it is the divinely inspired Word of God. You allow what is in your heart, namely rebellion and selfishness, prevent you from seeing the truth.
A factual statement would be that some people read it the way you do, that those with hardened hearts will see Scripture as false. You statement is not true, and folks such as James and I prove that.
You have completely failed to see the real meaning of this post, and yet you manage to put together a pleonasm of a response with no relevance to anything whatsoever that was in this post.
Why can’t you be reasonable tildeb? I am more than willing to have a reasonable conversation, and suspect it might even be interesting. But your continual reliance on insults and condescension really gets in the way of adult conversation. Have you ever considered that it is your conduct which gets you moderated?
I tend not to moderate, so much as get bored with the same assault of a million words and just stop talking.
So, want to try again? I’m human, you are human. Let’s act like it.
This is a tactic you are using, Wally. You do it all the time. I point out something factual – like biblical inconsistencies – and you repackage it as if this is a belief I hold. Then you usually inform me that my ‘belief’ may be wrong and that your ‘belief’ – such as there are NO inconsistencies in the bible when read just the right way – is as warranted. This is the first time you’ve tried to suggest that my commentary is inhuman, but hey… there’s a first time for everything.
You also seem to presume that I don’t really know the bible. I’ve told you before that I studied biblical scholarship and had to compare and contrast various versions with specific areas of concentration (mine is Job) so I am quite aware that what the average Christian reads is a translation of a copy of a copy of a translated version… with many inconsistencies, and even outright changes including rewrites, additions, omissions, and really horrible translation errors. What you’re reading is difficult to compare to the original because, as you well know, we don’t have any originals! But what we do have is a vast amount of biblical scholarship – not theology – that not only finds consensus that the first five books are complete fiction regarding their historical value but that the Gospels themselves really only have Mark to go by. Most Christians have no clue what I’m talking about because they come at the text as if it were divine. Biblical scholars don’t. And I read many biblical scholars. But my point is that those who enter seminaries certainly find out in a hurry that what we call the bible is highly problematic in cohesion… as do those who read it as a text in a scholarly way. This is all part of how we read texts and how we comprehend them. I read a Shakespeare differently than I do a Steven King novel and this is all part of what reading comprehension means. Those who read the bible as if it were the word of your god do themselves a disservice and have fatally wounded their ability to comprehend what they are reading. The same would be true if someone were to come at a Steven King novel as if it were an historical text.
As for the sly comment from I53:5, he ignores me by posting a portion of a comment I made. That’s a very strange way to ignore someone because that’s simply not true, is it? What he ignores is my criticism of his commentary about it. Snowflakes need such protection. He’s an intellectual coward for refusing to engage with my criticism but posting my words for his own misguided take on them revealing exactly what I was talking about: poor reading comprehension.
Tildeb, I fear it is you who lacks reading comprehension. I never said, or even hinted that you our your commentary is inhuman. So, it’s either limited comprehension or intentional misdirection.
What I said was, we can both act like humans here, and deal with some respect and consideration. That is an invitation to humanity and discussion. Take it or leave it.
Continuing to tell me I would understand if only I weren’t so stupid is not what I mean either. Your choice.
I can relate to this for sure, because when I started reading, actually reading it did scare me and I thought, well maybe this is not all that good for me and I just started to really let myself go and believe, so it did take some guidance from a man that I appreciate very much and even as of today I can call him up at any time of the day if I have any troubles or questions. I try not to be a pain in the a..s for him, but this man is truly a man of God and a beautiful person. But yes, I can definately relate to what you said about the de-convert after starting to read the bible.
Well, you again hit something big there Charly. That’s our basic human problem is wanting to go it on our own. Kinda what god those two in the Garden, and us, in such a bind. That was my problem too, fancied myself as the original tough man.
Truth in Palmyra 
June 12, 2015 at 17:24
Thanks for sharing this Wally 🙂
LikeLike
June 12, 2015 at 17:26
Most welcome James. I had saved it when you wrote it and meant to then…lost track of myself. And today saw some comments that made me remember it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 12, 2015 at 17:28
Well thanks. All according to God’s timing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 12, 2015 at 19:26
Please note that the author of the quote being used has had a straight up response from me… deleted after moderation, of course. I53:5 is a special snowflake. That deletion tells you how much importance I53:5 places on ‘dialogue’ about the point I raised: zero. He wants to pontificate and have an echo chamber audience. So be it.
I pointed out that the quote tells us what de-converted Christians have said. From that, our stalwart I53:5 then formulates the silly question In order to believe a statement like that, wouldn’t a person necessarily have to also believe that:… a gives us two possibilities. Both are wrong. I explained why, but apparently that doesn’t suit I53:5’s delicate sensibilities when it comes to his own lack of reading comprehension.
If one reads the bible like any text, one will realize the vast number of inconsistencies, omissions, and second hand reporting that runs throughout but especially by the Gospels writers who obviously have copied vast swaths from others and then embellished. When trying to extract a moral code out of this mishmash, one quickly realizes that there is no coherent moral standard other than one incompatible with today’s necessary values for liberal democracies.. values like legal equality and autonomy and rights… both legal and human. When we read that Jesus supposedly upheld the OT law in its entirety then one cannot comport this described god with the one commonly believed in today, you know, the benevolent one with superpowers. If one then investigates the quality of the selected works that make up the bible, one then realizes that for a divinely inspired work, it sure indicates a remarkable lack in every category. And when we add in all the other books rejected by the priests who decided which would be in and which would not, we find only more ridiculous (and often rather violent) additions like fighting and slaying real dragons.
If one first assumes the bible is a divine work that we somehow have to decipher ‘correctly’ to get at its deep wisdom and somewhat opaque truths, then we get the industry know as apologetics where ‘up’ has to mean another kind of ‘down’ and ‘white’ another kind of divine style of ‘black’. And these contortions can only be maintained by the most ardent of believers who cannot have their faith shaken by anything so trivial and mundane as reason and evidence.
LikeLike
June 12, 2015 at 19:32
Yes, the quote being used, “The biggest percentage of de-converted religious believers who I have met have told me that…” is mine without proper attribution, I may add (probably because I didn’t use the correct ‘whom’ rather than ‘who’. My bad.).
LikeLike
June 13, 2015 at 06:14
tildeb,
Your response to me, and it wasn’t deleted, was:
“No. Try reading that point again only this time with better comprehension.
Let me help you…”
I have interacted with you before and it went nowhere. I have seen your work in the comments of many of the Christian blogs I follow and it’s always the same condescending “I’m smarter than you nonsense.”
Think of me however you want, call me what you want, I don’t care.
You are simply not worth the time.
James
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 12, 2015 at 19:43
Well tildeb. What you have stated is factually incorrect. You said this
If one reads the bible like any text, one will realize the vast number of inconsistencies, omissions, and second hand reporting that runs throughout but especially by the Gospels writers who obviously have copied vast swaths from others and then embellished.
That is not true, as many people do read The Bible as they would arrive at any other text and arrive at the conclusion that it is the divinely inspired Word of God. You allow what is in your heart, namely rebellion and selfishness, prevent you from seeing the truth.
A factual statement would be that some people read it the way you do, that those with hardened hearts will see Scripture as false. You statement is not true, and folks such as James and I prove that.
You have completely failed to see the real meaning of this post, and yet you manage to put together a pleonasm of a response with no relevance to anything whatsoever that was in this post.
Why can’t you be reasonable tildeb? I am more than willing to have a reasonable conversation, and suspect it might even be interesting. But your continual reliance on insults and condescension really gets in the way of adult conversation. Have you ever considered that it is your conduct which gets you moderated?
I tend not to moderate, so much as get bored with the same assault of a million words and just stop talking.
So, want to try again? I’m human, you are human. Let’s act like it.
LikeLike
June 12, 2015 at 20:06
If you were as smart as he is you’d get it Wally, thats all he’s saying. That’s why I ignore him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 12, 2015 at 22:00
This is a tactic you are using, Wally. You do it all the time. I point out something factual – like biblical inconsistencies – and you repackage it as if this is a belief I hold. Then you usually inform me that my ‘belief’ may be wrong and that your ‘belief’ – such as there are NO inconsistencies in the bible when read just the right way – is as warranted. This is the first time you’ve tried to suggest that my commentary is inhuman, but hey… there’s a first time for everything.
You also seem to presume that I don’t really know the bible. I’ve told you before that I studied biblical scholarship and had to compare and contrast various versions with specific areas of concentration (mine is Job) so I am quite aware that what the average Christian reads is a translation of a copy of a copy of a translated version… with many inconsistencies, and even outright changes including rewrites, additions, omissions, and really horrible translation errors. What you’re reading is difficult to compare to the original because, as you well know, we don’t have any originals! But what we do have is a vast amount of biblical scholarship – not theology – that not only finds consensus that the first five books are complete fiction regarding their historical value but that the Gospels themselves really only have Mark to go by. Most Christians have no clue what I’m talking about because they come at the text as if it were divine. Biblical scholars don’t. And I read many biblical scholars. But my point is that those who enter seminaries certainly find out in a hurry that what we call the bible is highly problematic in cohesion… as do those who read it as a text in a scholarly way. This is all part of how we read texts and how we comprehend them. I read a Shakespeare differently than I do a Steven King novel and this is all part of what reading comprehension means. Those who read the bible as if it were the word of your god do themselves a disservice and have fatally wounded their ability to comprehend what they are reading. The same would be true if someone were to come at a Steven King novel as if it were an historical text.
As for the sly comment from I53:5, he ignores me by posting a portion of a comment I made. That’s a very strange way to ignore someone because that’s simply not true, is it? What he ignores is my criticism of his commentary about it. Snowflakes need such protection. He’s an intellectual coward for refusing to engage with my criticism but posting my words for his own misguided take on them revealing exactly what I was talking about: poor reading comprehension.
LikeLike
June 13, 2015 at 07:05
Tildeb, I fear it is you who lacks reading comprehension. I never said, or even hinted that you our your commentary is inhuman. So, it’s either limited comprehension or intentional misdirection.
What I said was, we can both act like humans here, and deal with some respect and consideration. That is an invitation to humanity and discussion. Take it or leave it.
Continuing to tell me I would understand if only I weren’t so stupid is not what I mean either. Your choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 13, 2015 at 06:28
I can relate to this for sure, because when I started reading, actually reading it did scare me and I thought, well maybe this is not all that good for me and I just started to really let myself go and believe, so it did take some guidance from a man that I appreciate very much and even as of today I can call him up at any time of the day if I have any troubles or questions. I try not to be a pain in the a..s for him, but this man is truly a man of God and a beautiful person. But yes, I can definately relate to what you said about the de-convert after starting to read the bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 13, 2015 at 06:58
Its good you have someone you can call Charly, we all need that don’t we?
LikeLike
June 13, 2015 at 07:08
Eventually I realised I do need others and that I´m not that tough, so yes we all do need someone. Took me sometime to admit it though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 13, 2015 at 07:30
Well, you again hit something big there Charly. That’s our basic human problem is wanting to go it on our own. Kinda what god those two in the Garden, and us, in such a bind. That was my problem too, fancied myself as the original tough man.
LikeLiked by 1 person