I can fully understand being offended or upset by the way Bible-believers act at times. We humans manage to (insert appropriate "F" word here) up everything we get involved with, so it's no surprize that Bible-believers engage in azzclown behavior. Most humans exhibit azzclown behavior from time-to-time to vaying degrees.

However, what I don't get is this. On the Campfire, substantial personal experience is a requirement before one's opinion an anything hunting and shooting will be accepted. For example, the TSX haters are not convinced the TSX is a great bullet when I explain I have killed three deer and a hog with TSXs and the bullets performed perfectly. I'm told--and rightly so--to come back after I have shot a 100 animals. THEN my experience might be enough for me to have a credible opinion.

Given that, why do the Bible haters, most of who have hardly even read the Bible, much less studied it; believe they are qualified to offer a credible opinion on the truth/accuracy/historicity of the Bible?

There are thousands of PhD level dissertations on every aspect of the Bible, many having been around for over a thousand years. Some of these dissertations are by the most brilliant people in all of history.........like Augustine, who's IQ has been estimated to be higher than Einstein's. The Bible haters obviously don't look at these works either.

How can I know this? Because many of the accusations the Bible haters make have been around for hundreds of years and were refuted long ago. Just a simple reading of a couple of scholarly books on the topic would show this. Crud, an open-minded internet search would also show this, but maybe that's the problem. The Bible-haters have already made up their mind, and no amount of evidence or logic will make them rethink their opinions. There's not much difference between them and the extreme Bible fundamentalists the haters love to get in pissing matches with.

So how about applying the same critera to critiquing the Bible as the Campfire applies to hunting and shooting? Unless you have read significant portions of the Bible and studied them in depth, and you have studied a couple of the thousands of PhD level works on the Bible; be honest and admit you are VERY inexperienced and lack significant knowledge about the Bible.

That would be the honest and open-mided thing to do............

And no, I am NOT an expert on the Bible. But I have been reading and studying the Bible for 42 years and I have read several works of the experts. I am simply a serious student of the Bible.

There are others here on the Campfire with experience that exceeds mine, and understandbly, they are often loathe to particiate in the discussions the Bible haters like to start. Why? Because the type accusations made reflect such an uniformed view that it just takes too long to present all the info needed to get the Bible hater up to speed so he/she can credibly debate his/her opposing viewpoint. In other words, it's just not worth it. This post is my ONE attempt to try and upgrade the level of debate on Biblical topics here on the Campfire to make such debates "worth it."

If you want a place to start, try "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Geisler and Nix. Another excelelnt resource is "The New Evidence That Demands a verdit" by Josh McDowell. "Evidence" is a summary of the experts research with footnotes to many other works worthy of studying.

Don't be so insecure.

Much appreciate the effort, Blaine ...

I don't hate the Bible. I don't anything or anyone. I learned a long time ago that hate does more harm to the hater than that which is hated.

I think the Bible is a good collection of myths and some of those myths have some good points. What I don't believe in is that the Bible, the work of man, is the literal "Word of God" or that God reveals himself in the Bible more than any where else. In other words, I don't believe in revealed religion. I also don't believe that Jesus was or is divine. In other words, God.

I believe in natural religion, natural theology, the theology and relgion of the Deist.

This is my opinion and my opinion only. I'll let the other non-Christian believers speak for themselves.

It has never been the message, just the messenger.

Blaine,

I don't actually class myself as a "bible hater" but just see the whole notion of a god as flawed..I mentioned this line of thought in another thread but I will repeat it..

For instance, most of the more vocal christians on this forum are very anti abortion, but according to the book of Genesis, God sent a flood to drown 99.99% of humans.

So while you guys are worried about killing unborn babies, you support a god that carried out genocide..

Again according to the bible, not only did he kill all those hundreds of thousands of people, (many of them would have been young children, babies and pregnant women) but he drowned them over a course of 40 days which is a particularly cruel death..I mean why be so cruel? Being God, he could have simply caused them to cease to exist; still genocide, but with no pain and the same over all result..

Now according to the bible, this is not the only time God carries out genocide and killings on a mass scale. In another instance, he purposely targets the Egypian first born which will again include babies and children...

So if you believe the bible, and you believe in god, why to do you worship a god that does such terrible things? When a man carries out genocide we brand him a monster ie Stalin, Hilter, and Pol Pot, so why would you want to worship a god that carries out genocide it?

Regards,

Peter

I will second that motion Scott! You hit it right on the head.

Blaine,

It's not about the bible-haters , it's about the bible-thumpers who want to impose their interpretation of the bible on me--usually through an unholy alliance with government.

Regardless, I think the bible is a very worthwhile book for all people.........


Casey

Scott said it far better and more succinctly that I. I third his motion ans sentiment.

Very true.

And if you want proof that God doesn't exist, don't forget about the Babel fish...

Human beings belong to God. He created us, and we are His to do with as He wishes. It is by His grace that we live at all. When the moment comes that He decides that our life shall end, it is His decision. But it is not for us (humans) to make that decision for each other.

Penny

Good post Blaine. I'm in the Campfire's "inexperienced" category along with you, for sure, being just a regular and all.

I find it interesting here that all of the Bible lovers start posting now. Who knew!?

Can't ya' just feel the love?

why would you even bring that up?? A good many individuals could care less about the bible,the talmud(??),or Jane Eyre. You read your gibberish and I'll read mine.

I think the christian bible is a decent work of literature. not so good as the Vedas but still pretty decent for a group of desert dwelling goat herders.

Penny,

I find it amazing that you condone genocide because its by your god...

But God committing genocide does explain the mentality and actions of the likes of Stalin, Idi Amin ect because the bible does say that god created man in his own image....

Sorry, I simply lack the faith to believe God exists at least in the form as told in the bible...And if he does exist in that form, there is no way I would worship and exalt a genocidal murderer, sorry,

Regards,

Peter

Well said.

And if I understand you guys right, it's rejection, not hatred � like rejecting good money because someone has slipped you some counterfeit now or then.

How can anyone who's been brought-up to believe in Santa Claus, the stork, the sandman, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy believe that God is real after learning that the others are just empty myths that only kids who trust their elders believe in?

Or alter boys that had to talk into the microphone, my ex-girlfriend that was raped by the deacon of the church at 14 (he was also her step-father), or us adults that have been continually screwed over by so called 'Christians'?

Why should they believe that God is real after being screwed, literally and figuratively, by their 'Christian' elders and peers?

Worth repeating, Dear Lord save me from your followers.

The human ability to form an opinion from nothing, then find so many ways to "logically" justify it and to confirm it, is limitless.

Not so sure getting raped by church members is nothing. Nor do I think it helps the cause.

Can't think of a single person ever raped by the Easter Bunny.

and more importantly, from OURSELVES!

I have control of that, not so much of his followers.

I s'pose that I'll never cease to be impressed by so many people who're wiser, sweeter, and in general smarter and fairer than God, Whom they don't understand or cut any slack.

Never said I had a problem with God, only a problem with his followers.

God didn't rape all those kids, but His followers did. God didn't screw me over, but some of His followers did. God didn't rape His step-daughter, but His follower did.

Hence, it's not the message but the messenger.

If we are truly God's hand puppet, as Penny would suggest, and if He has seen fit for kids to be raped then He can kiss my lily white ass and you are more than welcome to spend an eternity with Him.

But I don't believe He did, nor do I believe He killed all those in the bible. Guessing this makes me a 'hater' but everything isn't'this' or 'that'.

Can't think of a single person (or a married one, for that matter) whom God raped. Or one who raped on orders from God.

Can't see condemning pizza because ass holes make it or love it. To each his own "logic," I guess.

Thinking you need to read my next post. Seems reading comprehension is lost on some.

What part of 'It has never been the message, but the messenger' can I clear up for you?

And thus our problems.

Should have been 'isn't' but I think you follow. Apparently my typing skills can suck at moments.

Doesn't seem, to me, that you have ever known or known of, a true follower of Christ. I know you are wise enough to know the difference so where's the grind?

Right on Penny. We only live in the moment while our Lord lives in all times. We judge all things by what we think today while even 100 years ago people thought differently. We have no idea of how God thinks or what God thinks or Why God does anything including putting up with us.

The Message not the Messager. With all due respect if you think that way by your standards, if one black man is bad then all are, if one White man is a member of the KKK then all are, if one man/woman treats you bad then all are bad. Why trust anyone? Why believe anything? Plus the real fact that by saying what you say you are demanding that because one believes in God that one is God, sorry but it don't work that way. What is even worse is that you judge all by a few. Christians are nothing more, or less, than the rest of the population. We are not God nor do we claim to be yet we do believe in Him and most truly try to live a good life.

I'm not trying to get you to believe what I believe but it would be nice/human if you would judge me as you judge other humans rather than judge me as God which I most certainly am not.

I wouldn't say that is true either.

When someone says 'I'm a Christian' I cringe and unfortunately 99 out of 100 times there is reason.

I think I understand the difference betwixt a 'Christian' and a Christian, but most I've met fit the 'Christian' definition.

I appreciate that many are New Testament types and happy to turn the other cheek. I'm more of an Old Testament guy and believe in an eye for an eye.

Steelhead, I'm a follower, so in your eyes I'm bad? I'm not trying to bait you I really would like to know. You see I'm ok with what ever you feel you believe and I promise I'll not judge you at all even if/when we become friends. I'm not in the judgement business as I'll got a big load in my own little red wagon that is enough to keep me quite busy thank you.

See, there we go with the either 'this' or 'that'. It isn't a all or not and never has been with me. I don't run through life with blinders and I take folks individually.



Again, more all this way or that. I still take them for what they are or aren't. I only stated that of all the folks that have screwed me over and all the folks that I know that have been molested have been by so called 'Christians'. I figured out a long time ago that if I touch the wrong side of an iron I get burned, but that doesn't mean I don't use an iron, just that I'm careful when I do. I realize I haven't eaten every piece of liver in the world but I know I don't like it but I'm willing to try the next piece if someone says this is the best.


Again, folks think if you believe that we are talking apes that by default we don't believe in God. Again, it's another case of 'this' or 'that'. I believe we came from apes as I believe in God.

That line of thinking has almost always caused me problems with 'Christians' and they have told me I'm going to hell. Provincial outlooks don't wash with me, but carry on.

Ok, I can understand that. I'm a combination of the two, I can turn the other cheek until/unless it turns phyical; on a personal level..

And I should have waited for your answer cause you now have me in your "this or that" box. Sorry

Again, 'this' or 'that'. Being a follower no sooner makes one good as it does make them bad.

I take folks for what they are, and being a follower or not doesn't matter to me.

If you can't understand experience and life lessons than God Bless you.

If you've been screwed over by 50 folks in you life and 49 have been so called 'Christians' wouldn't you be just the slightest be skeptical when the next one came along? It's always been the ones that start of with 'Christ' as an opening line. I no sooner start a conversation with someone I've just met about screwing a hot 21 year old than I would about Christ.

When someone comes at me with 'Christ' at the beginning, or 'Life Insurance' or.......they are one thing, a salesman and I have no time for that.

Got it! Hope you saw my edit.

"When someone comes at me with 'Christ' at the beginning, or 'Life Insurance' or.......they are one thing, a salesman and I have no time for that."

Now that bucket there usually does hold water.

Here's another example.

JO is quick to regurgitate info, just as Blaine is to throw out scripture. JO lumps those that bang on him as 'Stick' worshipers. Why, because as Blaine, he is too narrsasitic to understand that it might be HIM. They can't see that they could possibly be wrong in their thoughts and proclaim certain things as the best.

Well life is my teacher and Blaine smacked me many years ago, when he went by AFP, on CATC. Prime example of the messenger and not the message. After my sister was murdered by my brother I was asking some questions. Since my sister didn't fit the 'Bible' definition and therefore Blaine's of a 'Christian' my sister was going to be in hell.

Well Blaine can forever kiss my ass.

Not sure why some see it as an attack on them. Just because I call one guy a dumb SOB, don't mean all guys are dumb SOB's, does it?

I doubt that you or anyone whom you know has been betrayed, screwed, or otherwise abused by "Christians" more or worse than I have (for over seventy-eight years, even by family members who were prominent "Christians," since before I was old enough to walk or talk), so your "reasoning" doesn't impress me as all that logical.

I'm sure I'd be clinging if I was near death, so your reasoning doesn't impress me either.

I am truly sorry for your loss and for anyone to judge your sister in ANY way is wrong, I understand and agree.

Nah, if he can manage to stomach me, and I am a Jesus lover/believer.....he'd not judge ya<grin>.

He isn't anti-Jesus.....as much as he is sometimes anti-the followers of a prescribed path.

He is my brother/friend and has never been anything but supportive of my beliefs.

Just sayin'....

Can't say I'm much different there.

In business, I can't say I give preference to Christians, unless I am fully prepared to give away, whatever it is that I have and they want or I am prepared to pay for something to be done over for the benefit of helping someone that I truly believe needs it. And, yes, I have and can be fooled. And, for the most part, I don't loan money. I'll give it away. However, I don't expect to get it back. Therefore I don't give/loan anything I can't afford to lose.

If I have to hire a contractor, I check references...Christian, Jew or whatever.

I've seen some horrible things done by Christians to other Christian, including rape and worse, but to the best of my ability, I don't waste time blaming God for anything that was done by those people or for any wrong done.

I have no time for that.

But he does have a 'potty' mouth<grin>....

Thanks Jane and I know having me as a friend has caused you grief from another Campfire 'Christian'

I wasn't near death when I began "clinging" in my thirties.

Try again. Changing feet may help.

But it's a cute mouth.......

For the record I consider Ken as a 'Christian' just so their isn't any confusion.

Whilst driving from FL to AK I called him and said I would stop in if I could. Of course as does happen on 4,000 mile drives it didn't happen and I sent him a PM saying so.

Well that hung over my head forever. He had Boss Hoss, another pillar of the community attacking me at every turn saying I was a liar because I didn't stop in and see Ken. Well, I'm glad I didn't since it's obvious to me what type of person he his by utilizing that and trying the 'guilt' thing all the time.

I recall him posting about his kids not talking with him for years and always begging for folks to visit. I only hope when my time comes I handle it with far more grace. Thinking I will.

Steelhead,

I just finished reading this thread to Sue, my wife. When I paused, she said, "That's enough." I told her that was all there is.

From all that I read, I agree with you, Steelhead.

And by the way, I turned the other cheek even physically....twice. Both times I was way stronger and had more experience fighting, from te old days, than my aggressor. With the first guy, it changed his life. The second guy, I got away. He wasn't going to stop. In neither case, did I rail against the guy.

I'll add but one post on this thread and that is because I count Steelhead as a friend even though we are often at odds on various threads.

No matter were your sister is I can guarantee you her desire would be that you go to Heaven when you die.

Tomorrow is not guaranteed to anyone, heck the very next breath we breath could be the last for any of us, that is why Christians try to share the good news. I am dead set in my beliefs and will often express them and it's not to win arguments it's to hopefully help someone see the truth as I know it and believe it. If that's wrong then I'll be wrong.

Mike

I'll attempt to not always be right Mike...........grin

Thanks, I have nothing but respect for you, so long as you don't show more pics of Reagan's glands being squeezed.

I can't resist, I didn't actually show the glands being squeezed only mentioned it had happened, we've since told the groomers to quit and only have the Vet do it as needed.

Thanks for your words as well.

Mike

� Thanks! I'm glad to have that cleared-up at last. I didn't see that PM (They don't scream out when the computer's off) � all that I was aware of was (a) a 'phone call to tell me that you were in New Mexico and would get here very late, (b) waiting up all night to greet you, and (c) a call or PM from Flagstaff the next day, telling me that you'd passed me by.

� I never sicced anybody onto you, and as a result of that fiasco with Boss Hoss, I'm no longer so candid in what I confide in private conversations. What I confided to him was disappointment that I'd missed you and hadn't been warned that you'd had to change your plans, not condemnation or accusation. I've certainly never accused you of being a liar.

Ah, another feud over religion. I do not get involved, but read all post.

Nah, it's a fued over people, and how they sport their perspective 'religion'.

Never ending arguments/sentiment.....somethings never change.

Group hug anyone?


Nail

Micheal would love to hug you.

Scott,

First, your internet persona is that of an irreverent smart azz, and I despise irreverant smart azzes. That is what my problem is with you.

However, I sincerly apologize for hitting you so hard all those years ago. I am not a sensitive guy, and oftentimes I present things in a very harsh manner. I have no excuse for that kind of behavior.

I do recall having the discussion but don't remember many specifics. Regardless, my position has always been that who gets into heaven is God's decision, not mine or any other human's. I am sorry that concept did not come across as it should have. Please forgive me.

peter,

Your argument is awfully close to; "I don't like what God has done, therefore I choose to believe He doesn't exist."

I submit that liking what God may or may not have done is irrelevant as to the question of His existence. A born-again Christian believes in God because he/she knows God personally. Because the born-again knows God personally, he/she believes the Bible.....not the other way around.

However, all of the above is irrelevant to the point of my original post which is:

Why do people who have little or no experience in studying the Bible think they can have a credible opinion about the Bible?

Does anyone care to try and answer this?

Peter,
I've been reading from your original post. I don't know the answer but, maybe it's because they believe the Bible is a reflection of they way Christians live. Or is it the other way around. Truth has never been popular. Ever since Adam, man's sin is that he, like Satan, wants to be God. That is, he wants to be in charge and refuses God's authority to tell him how to live. Most of the intense dislike of Christians I note on this post may well be justified as we have often been poor examples of what a Christian is supposed to be. It semms tolerance is for everyone ,,,except the ones with whom we disagree. I don't personally know steelhead, but he obviosly has had much pain in his life brought on by self proclaimed Christians. Claiming a name doesn't make one that which he claims. You can judge a tree by it's fruits. Bible. Don't forget, Christians are still human, and as such are still capable of all the same sins as the lost. OOoops, there's the reason. Sin in ours lives. Sin we must face and confess. What do you say we start with pride. Steelhead, let me appologize for the hurt that we as Christians have brought you and others. Look instead to Christ...He cared enough to die for you.

Great (original) post Blaine.

Augustine
Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

Fantastic stuff.

People these days have no clue, (they used to) as the far reaching effect of Augustine on Western Civ. He is without a doubt one of the single most influential men of all time.

Many RC still revere him and all the reformers built on him, Luther and Calvin especially.

It is Augustine's "Just-War" theory that Grotious built upon and it affects us all even till today.


In light of all the fulfilled prophecies found in that holy book,the bible, it amazes me how folks can dismiss it with the wave of a hand and a sarcastic "Bill-Maher" attitude.

How did Daniel know the Messiah would come after 400 some odd years but before the destruction of the temple????

Steelhead,

After reading many of your posts here and on other threads of a Christian flavor I am curious as to how you control all that anger and bitterness. If you could harness the energy we could tell the Arabs to kiss off. I will not argue or debate with you as it seems your mind is made up and no one will convince you differently and that is your right. Years ago I had a discussion with a fellow believer about why many Christians act no differently than anyone else. His response was that we are all human and flawed, but that we are forgiven because we have recognized our need for it and went to the only One who could provide it. Someday I hope that you will recognize it also.
Just the opinion of another one of the "flawed".


Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

the creator GOD isnt enough for people. the need the ever present always watching god who controls the weather and international relations and if granny gets a front parking space at the walmart.
the ever present god gives people a place to put the heat when things go wrong.
Its much easier to say "it was gods will that little 4 year old timmy fell in the river and drown" or when things go horribly wrong they can use the alter ego of god, the Lex Luther of christianity ...
da debil.
OH the great satan, the dark power that evil serpent who first tempted man.
yes yes yes.
the devil made that woman put her 4 month old baby in the microwave on the popcorn setting.
yes the devils the one who created the idea of abortion.
It must be nice to have a shelf or two to put all your worries and not have to accept failure or human frailty.
but when you start placing blame you also cant take credit.
so every good and noble thing isnt human either. its "divinley inspired".
Yes god in his infinite wisdom has nothing better to do in the entire universe, billions of light years accross, all the galaxies, all the star clusters all the medium sized little planets... the god of all that came down and made sure little jennny remembered how to spell superfluous on her spelling test.
"OH thank god, he listened to my prayers".
I think that psychologist call that a conversion style coping mechanism.

Back to the original post

I love the Bible. The more I read it the more I love it. I DO NOT understand everything I read every time, and after reading it through "from cover to cover" many times, I find it to be an old friend. God has answered many questions in life for me from its pages. I have learned MUCH about human nature and human frailities [often mostly mine] from its pages.

I can say this with confidence -- I STILL SCREW UP! There's that human nature coming to the front again. I STILL GET ANGRY. Not as often as I used to, but I can get ticked big time. Again, Human nature and weakness.

A Christian is not God good in the flesh, and from day to day. Real Christians DO commit rape and theft and murder. That doesn't make it right. It's still WRONG! --- BUT --- not everyone that calls themselves a Christian is a Christian.

Scott,

What I have learned about you, if anyone can believe anything about anyone that they "know" over the internet is that you hit life at a dead run. You're abrupt, for sure. I don't see that as a fault. But I see a side of you that has been coming to the front over the last couple years that gives me cause to grin. Not sure we're on opposite sides of anything any more, though at one time, I suspected we were, and even if we aren't on the same sides on anything, I think I could like you in real time, and enjoy time with you. Not that I'd expect the same sentiment from you.

King David said, "There is but a step between me and death." He said that when he was a young man in the prime of his life, prior to God putting him on the throne of Israel, even though he had been anointed king. I guess, though I don't dwell on the thought, I figure that I could die at any moment too, and maybe should have a few times.

Sorry if you have been "done over" by so-called Christians. No excuse to offer for them other than they're still humans, too.

Just sayin' . . .

Blaine,

Your statement appears to assume those who criticize Christians and/or the bible have never read the bible, or never have studied the bible--some probably haven't, but many who have read the bible are critical.

So, if some of those people who criticize Christians have read and studied the bible, now what?



Casey

In my flawed opinion if someone does not change when they accept Christ, they are liars. God says those who practice sin are of the devil. Does not sound like He has accepted them yet. All this talk of being forgiven not perfect is an excuse not to obey Jesus Christ. He says, "You are my friends IF you do what I say."

It's okay, Peter. I'm not trying to convince you. Everyone has to work out his own relationship with God... I can't talk you into or out of one... it's between you and Him.

Penny

bingo !

That would be quite the standard... one that I am positive 99% of the christians on this site would not meet themselves. :p

If one asserts, as many on this site do, that the bible is to be taken literally then it naturally opens the door to a criticism of the text on literal grounds does it not?

To my mind, a lot of the 'science is a conspiracy/young earth' babble I see is a flipside of the muslim doctoral programs on inheritance. See the Qu'ran sets itself out to be literal and factual as well. One of the many areas that this poses problems is in the area of inheritance, which is spelled out in painful detail. The problem being that if one adds up all the fractions of the total estate that this uncle and that nephew and this wife get you have the uncomfortable situation where it exceeds the number 1.

In the moslem world doctorates have been pursued, careers established, and lives spent in earnest trying to make what is not a nice, round, whole number 1 in fact come out to equal 1.

For the record I am not an atheist, far from it. I talk to God occasionally and try to live my life in a forthright manner. And although I think the bible is useful I also think that if taken literally it is a morass from which there is no escape. You can't even get through two chapters within sinking into the swampland of irreconcilable stories of the creation if you take each word literally.

And I think honesty would insist that one admit this fact. But instead we have, again, doctoral programs completed, careers established, and lives spent in earnest trying to make that which is not equal to 1 in fact come out to equal 1. OTOH I consider this to be ones own personal business and don't go out of my way to argue it. Although I am interested in what others believe I have grown past the point of needing verification or support from others for that which I ascribe.

I think many christians would be well served to adopt this attitude.

Will

Not all.

Some of it's "Please, Amigo, don't condemn me for my flaws, which of course I regret, have sorrowfully confessed to Jesus, and He � true to His promise � has forgiven me for them. But I do not claim to be perfect � because I'm certainly, demonstrably not, as sincerely as I wish that I were. Please bear with me. I'm trying."

Realizing that I'm not perfect makes me try even harder to obey Him.

As a young lad, I was deeply impressed by two terse sayings that were, IIRC, attributed to Socrates and/or Plato:
Know thyself
and
The unexamined life is not worth living.

They both made such an impact on me that it's always been hard for me to understand why so many people nourish their obsession to be right by insisting that whatever their way is, it's right. I'm of the other breed � insisting that whatever I find to be right has to be my way. This continues to be a struggle with daily changes of mind as I discover more ways that I've been wrong.

A former friend of mine � a psychologist, no less � startled me by confiding, out of the blue, that he resisted looking hard at himself, since he wouldn't like what he saw and would have to change. I guess that's a more common attitude than I would've expected, if I'd thought about it. I welcome any proof that I've been wrong about this or that, whether it be a "little" matter or bigger. Such proof gives me the grand opportunity to renounce the error and to adopt the right.

It's not often easy to do � but the ensuing peace makes the pain and effort more than worth while. And after a while, a bit easier.

More along the lines that the message that someone may believe in is fine, but the messenger's attitude spoils the whole deal.

It ain't God, or Christ, or the Bible I find offensive. It's the attitude of many christians. If they'd stay quiet and let the "message" work on it's own, it'd have a FAR greater chance.

Since we're throwing out old stories.............

I joined the Campfire doing research on a rifle that I just missed buying (damn, I KNEW I should have just dropped coin.....).

Anyway, I stayed, and during the staying my now ex-wife and I began our split. To say it was rough, would have been an understatement. The rougher it got, the more I was here, just to escape, mostly. Well, there was about a week that I just didn't log on (find out later that some folks got worried).

I get a phone call, and a message on my machine from Scott ("Hey man, this is Scott..... Steelhead from 24Hourcampfire........"), just checking in to see that I was okay, letting me know that if I ever needed to talk that I could call. I was floored. Not only did I not know him, I was fairly certain I hadn't given him a number. He tracked me down because he was worried, and from the follow-up call I made, I've counted him as a friend. I've met the man, shared a meal with him, and look forward to doing so again. Him, I could and would trust with my wife and daughter, and I am grateful to have such a friend.

Contrast that with the chastisement I received from many of the Board's "christians" because my ex and I were divorcing; that I could not "forgive, and honor vows". Some stuff, is just a bridge too far.

Now, there are a few here that are Christians, and that I hold in very high esteem, but it's the attitude, not the belief that raises my ire and my rejection of them.

Believe what you want, just keep it out of my face.

Only among honestly receptive seekers � never among the determinedly unreceptive � especially not among those who're Hell-bent on discrediting it.

Will;

Very well said.

And you KNOW me to be which group, if either?

I have no idea and don't worry about the matter. That's your business, not mine.

The Muslims believe the Koran is the true Bible , the Christians believe the King James is the true Bible . One side believe in God and the other in Allah , so if one is right then all the others go to heaven and the rest to hell. What about the American Indian who died and didn't believe in the Christian religion , where did they go when they died? What about the Buddhist where do they go when they die , heaven or hell? Just makes you wonder who is right and who is wrong.

Just clarifying.

One of my pet peeves is the impossibility of saying anything simply factual (like "Birds fly" or "The sun comes-up in the East") without being challenged with usually bellicose and suspicious questions like "What's your point?" and "What are you trying to insinuate about me?"

VA,
That is good to hear that Scott was so encouraging towards you when you were going through tough times.

BTW, I am a Christian and I do think that sometimes we as Christians, are are own worst enemies.
Too bad, but it seems to be the way things are.

Vanimrod,

We Christians, (yeah, I'm one) are told to go out and evangelize. If we're not doing it, we are not following Christ. So, as much as you dislike it, that poor Christian that's trying to force his beliefs on you is only doing what his religion demands of him. He's following Christ's words to the apostles and also the directions of St. Paul to the early church.

There's a lot of us that try do it and are probably more uncomfortable talking to non or lukewarm Christians than they are having us talk. The simple solution is that we don't talk about it and others don't have to listen. But that is not what Christ asks for.

Your quote is extremely important for all the would-be evangelists out there.... and lot of Christian's don't get it.

"Now, there are a few here that are Christians, and that I hold in very high esteem, but it's the attitude, not the belief that raises my ire and my rejection of them."

Talking to people about Christ only does much good if you have credibility with those people. The only way you can establish credibility with people is to get to know them and let them get to know you. Presumably through this "getting to know each other" your being a Christian will become apparent to them - if it's not - the whole issue becomes a moot point. Assuming beliefs come up in some conversations, you will have some basis on which to invite them to your church - a sort of "come see what it's like" invitation.

St. Paul writes several times about living your life as an example of Godly living, and a big part of that is humility.

Casey,

The kind of questions usually asked put to rest the question of whether or not they have studied the Bible in depth.

When I finally see comments that reflect a significant depth of study, I'll let you know.

I apply the same standard to them. A born-again Christian is able to offer their experience with God from the moment of their salvation. However, unless they have spent significant time seriously studying the Bible, they ought not to offer opinions as if they THE horse's mouth.

If this sounds harsh, relize that in a real Seminary, no one cares what a student's opinion is until he/she is well versed in the opinions of the Bible scholars that have preceded him/her.

Is is very interesting to me how many INSIST on whining about the bad behavior of some people, and using those behaviors as a reason to be anti-Biblical. I guess that is just human nature. Is there any hope that people can ever move beyond the emotional?

Not every denomination, and not exactly.

Good try, though.

Right..........

And, right there is the attitude.

If you haven't started to think like me/us, then you haven't studied the Bible deeply enough. I.e., if you don't profess to be a christian, you couldn't have studied the Bible enough for your criticism to be valid.

Funny, I wonder how well that'd work in reverse if you had to live up the same standard with respect to the T'orah, the Koran, the Vedas, or any other religious text?

Realize that this ain't seminary, and it's not the horse's mouth that's the end folks are criticizing.

Yep, and some just continue to prove your point true.

I know there are Christian denominations which do not have "evangelical" in there names, but do these denominations not evangelize? Which denominations- Catholics? This is not a challenge to you statement. More curiosity. My basic understanding of the new testament, which is the basis of the Christian church is that we are to evangelize and it was encouraged in each of the 3 churches I have belonged to.

Amish. Mennonite. Quaker. Just to name three.

Lived near all three for years, and a lot of the three. Never once had one "evangelize".

You've belonged to three churches, and likely all the same (or basically the same) denomination, I'd wager.

I don't.

There are too many instances of the simple inability to translate the original texts accurately, and there are too many intentional mistranslations.
And as an inevitable result, too many misunderstandings and erroneous doctrines based on them.

A simple example:
The original texts use one set of words for the second person singular and a very dissimilar set of words for the second person plural. English uses one set for both � you, your, etc.
A "small matter?"
Not when "Your [plural] body [singular � your group] is the temple [singular] of the Holy Spirit" is taken (and taught) to mean that your carcasses are temples.

Another:
The original texts use a verb tense (the preterit, IIRC) that has no equivalent or parallel in English. So it's beyond the reach of simple translation to render into English the original "Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be having already been bound in Heaven."
The inadequate KJV rendering � "Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven" � is usually misunderstood (and mistaught) to mean that whatsoever we bind (forbid) on earth is then bound (forbidden) in Heaven.

1. So let's see if I understand this right, if anybody comes up with an opinion, other than the orthodox opinion on the Bible, than they haven't studied the Bible in depth enough. Another argument against Christianity, free thinking not allowed.

2. I can't help but chuckle with your typical comment on seminary/college. No student should ever think outside the box because, heaven forbid, teachers would have to think outside the box. We can't have that.

3. After reading every opinion on this thread I guess the only way to not be a "Bible Hater" is to embrace the orthodox opinion on the Bible. I guess by that standard I am a "Bible Hater".

Okay - I've got to agree with you on those three denominations. However, if I understand, those denominations survive on isolation from the rest of the world, which is not what Christ and St. Paul have asked us to do. Some of the Christian churches have practices which are not bible based. This is one. An even bigger one is the Catholic church's "supremacy of the pope".

The churches I've belonged to are Lutheran and two different denominations of Anglican (Episcopalian to you Americans). I'm also pretty familiar with Catholicism and Pentecostal.

I'll stand by my statement slightly modified statement "almost all" Christians are told to evangelize.

Those are not religions, they are Christian denominations.

Your church, or denomination, tells you evangelize (in fact, you just said so), not necessarily the belief.

And, why would the church tell you to evangelize? Why, to increase the size of the flock, and thus the $$$$$$ take, to put it bluntly.

Only some of 'em.

He said two things �
"Go and teach"
and
"Wait until you get the power."

Too many, too often, go out and try to evangelize on the strength of their own enthusiasm, limited knowledge, and limited wisdom. And there's the rub � unfortunately but also understandably. Adding to the sadness of it is the fact that so few seem willing to tolerate 'em.

[quote=VAnimrod And, why would the church tell you to evangelize? Why, to increase the size of the flock, and thus the $$$$$$ take, to put it bluntly.[/quote]

DITTOS +1,000!!!!!!

So, let me see, here . . . . I hate the people who read Paradise Lost, so I hate Paradise Lost, because some of the people who read Paradise Lost have treated me differently than I think the people who read Paradise Lost should treat people?

Quite a stretch, but if that's what puts the water under your boat, have at it. BTW, hope your boat has no leaks.

As usual, the logic is off.

Try: Paradise Lost is a fine work, and I like it fine. However, many who have read Paradise Lost act like jackasses and have treated me and others like crap. Therefore, I genuinely and generally dislike followers/readers of Paradise Lost, though the book itself remains great.

Brother Keith, that's precisely how shallow and illogical that "thinking" is.

Doc Howell and I are on the same track!



Act 1:8
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Mat 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

To put a finer point on it:

The Bible is fine, and I find it worthy.
Faith in the Bible, or other beliefs, can be a worthy thing as well.
However, many of faith who adhere to the Bible can be obnoxious in their evangelical actions, and Christians by far can be and have been the worst IMHO.
Further, a "holier than thou" and "not perfect; just saved" attitude of Christians has led many of them to be, generally and genuinely, jackasses to me and others.
I have no qualms with the Bible, only genuinely and generally Christians, and not due to their faith, only their actions and attitudes.

Clear it up any?

No, "brother Keith's" logic was off.

And, as usual, the backslappers rush to congratulate his flawed logic, missing the point (again) entirely.

I've corrected my previous post to reflect denominations, not religions. That was an error on my part.

My denomination, as do most denomiations, tell us to go and spread the word of Christ. If that wasn't the point of Christianity, is there any point to it at all? That's what Christianity is.

As far as the increased $$$$, this is not supposed to be used to anyone's personal benefit, nor for building shrines to the denomination. I'm sure you can find hundreds of examples of financial abuse in Christian churches, but that is not the basis of Christianity.

St. Paul tells those he sends out to pay their own way (Paul was tent maker), so they are not seen by others as a burden on those who support them (aka leeches). The church has evolved such that leadership positions are paid roles and in some, very well paid roles, which I think has brought very negative publicity to the church and in some cases very poor leaders (people more interested in $$$$ than Christ; people more interested in a new Lexus than a new mission in Africa).

Related to your comment about $$$. One place the Anglican church has been spending a lot of money is in Africa. From a $$$ point of view, this is money down the drain. There is no expectation of every getting anything back, but we continue to send missionaries there to spread the word of Christ. It's not about $$$ it's about spreading the word.

Funny, I thought the point of Christianity was a personal relationship with God, through Christ, for salvation.

To the point of the $$$, no, it's not $$ down the drain, since the church is using it to increase it's influence internationally, and it's building churches, etc. Oh, and they use it as a driver for even great than usual donations. No, it's always about the $$$$$$.

Isn't it passing strange that so many who profess to detest these threads about Christianity flock to post so much on 'em?

Isn't it strange that such a comment is always thrown out here, when the backslappers find that someone caught them in flawed logic (again)?

And, when directed to the thread by someone else, since they thought I might be interested (and it didn't take a brain surgeon to figure out who Blaine wanted to respond in the first place), that someone will respond?

What is strange is that christians will constantly ignore the fact that folks aren't generally finding fault with the Bible or with faith, but with the actions and attitudes of christians.

Let the Spinnin' Wheels Turn

In other words, avoid the point. As usual.

When people start quoting scriptures they usually do more damage to their cause than they help.

It doesn't matter whether it's Bible or Rock Songs. Hatred is hatred.

I guess I should have pasted a link to "Round, Round We Go."

Again, you miss the point, or avoid it.

The scripture isn't being hated here. The attitude of christians is the problem.

Oh, and it is ironic that christians here are now talking about being hated, after their diatribes and vitriol against anything not within their denominational dogma that got CATC unplugged. What's a bunch of anti-semitic, anti-Catholic hate speech, so long as you can run to the "not perfect; just saved" defense, right?

I am neither anti-semetic or anti-catholic. I have friends in both camps.

Like you, I couldn't care less what you think.

And I am not missing your point . . . . it's just that it's pointless.

No, you're proving it.

Thanks.

You're welcome. Glad a Bible believing Christian could be of some help to you.

I recently had the opportunity to share a few Ken Howell coinings with a very perceptive and appreciative young Christian. One was "diagnostic irritant" � a term that refers to the fact that what irritates you about Christianity diagnoses your spiritual need � whether you be a "Christian" or an objector to all things Christian.

wheewww!


hopin this don't get ugly and am hopin my two cents is intended as water and not as gasoline.


there is a difference in walkin it vs. talkin it

I don't mean to slight anyone by ommission nor embarras anyone by my example if I do either please try and forgive me.


But reading this thread a glarin example comes to mind


Mickey Coleman (sorry Mick, but you just came to mind is all)

I see MC as evangelizing by how he walks, sure his talk backs his walk but that's just how I see it.


Mickey ain't selling, he's bought in. If you want to know where you can get yours I imagine if you asked Mickey he'd tell you.


it's the slower way to get what you're after, but more effective from my perspective.

Pete,
If I may I would like to answer this. God is God & life is His to give or take. In Genesis He caused the flood because the people of earth had become exceedingly wicked. If we look at flip side of the coin, He has given everyone life. How many billions has that been since Adam & Eve?

Excellent point!! And so very true.

Couldn't have any more wicked then , than it is today

I don't think you'll find Christ or St. Paul talk too much about a personal relationship with Christ. And even if they did, how's that going to happen without people spreading the word of Christ.

As far as it being about money, it shouldn't be, but it probably is more often than not. Again, that's what people have done to Christianity, not what Christianity is. I could make the same argument that Islam is all about killing Christians and it would be equally silly.

Ain't had St. Paul, or Christ, evangelize to me, either. Will get back to you when that happens.

I'm sure at some point in your life your read some of Christ's words or Paul's letters. Those words are directed to all of us.

Anyway, my point was not to try to convert you, but to try to shed some light from the other side on why Christians feel the need evangelize every time you speak with them.

I've read considerable amounts, in and of numerous faiths.

I'm trying to shed some light on why many (myself included) find it obnoxious and offensive when a christian feels that they must evangelize to someone whether that person wants to hear it (esp. from the christian) or not.

May I try to clarify something here?

I'm not an evangelist.

My role in the Body of Christ is that of a teacher, to edify anyone who wants to be edified re the Body of Christ � "the Way," His early adherents called it before they were first called "Christians" (probably pejoratively!). Thus I reach out to anyone who seems to be honestly seeking to know what's really true about any aspect of Christianity. It's neither my role nor my intent to persuade anybody against his will. ("He who's persuaded against his will remains unpersuaded still.") The decision for you to consider, to discuss, to accept, or to reject is of course yours.

But I have to give edification my utmost effort as long as I think that I detect an honest desire to know what's so.

As I've so often told my students, "I can not teach you. I can only help you learn."

If you reject my efforts, not so fine, but let's not be antagonists. When I say in all good heart, "Vaya con Dios," please take it as "All the best to you 'n' yourn, now 'n'ever" (because that's how I mean it).

Each man is an Island unto him or herself. There are two arguments in life that you cannot and will not win..Politics and religion, so most of us should stop burning up time...I know this,from reading many of the posts above....some of us better hope there is no God...IMHO

Yep, and here comes the ubiquitous scare tactic............ when losing, just make sure to tell the other party that "they'll burn in hell", basically for disagreeing with you.

That one is just a classic.

In one of the posts above, someone says that the words of the Bible are for all of us.

I won't quarrel with that, but I must point-out that the Old Testament was written for people who professed allegiance to God before He sent Jesus to 'em, and the New Testament was written to groups of people who were already disciples of Jesus. (Take a look for yourself.)

The epistles in particular were written to groups of disciples who'd fallen victim to deception or into error and needed the help of a Spirit-sent expert who knew how to help 'em get straight.

I trust that the significance of the distinction is obvious.

If I tell you that such-and-such bridge is too weak to support your car and you ignore the warning, do you wind-up in the water because you "disagree" with me, or because the bridge collapses under your car?

From the point of view of Christianity, sure they'll burn in hell. Pointing it out to them doesn't really change anything - it only gives them a dimmer view of Christians - which makes things more difficult for the next Christian that trys to help them.

If someone doesn't want to be preached to don't. Let them know you're there if they want to talk about Christ.

The info I'm being given is that it takes 40 encounters with people sharing their Christian experiences to make someone decide to take a serious look at welcoming Christ into their life. The first 39 people think they did nothing and the last person thinks they did everything. If one of the first 39 uses the "burn in hell" threat, the 40th person doesn't have a chance.

The existence of God has been argued for and against for ages. There are still complex problems lying in front of todays great thinkers - there are some questions that still nobody knows the answer to, and no one will know the answer to in this life. If you don't believe then agree to disagree - there's no argument.

...

Christianity is a religion based on Faith in the unseen - you either believe it or not. There is no grey area. You can try your hardest to corner or disprove God with human reason - but human rules don't apply to Him! Laws of physics, time, etc...out the window.

Some "followers" can make a bad name for our Creator, but that doesn't change who He is. Just because one or many "so-and-so"s did this or that, doesn't change the fact that God is an awesome God.

You believe or you don't - it's your choice.

The choices we make today determine who we become in the future.

I am proud that we live in a country, bought and paid for by the blood, sweat, and tears of good men, in which we can freely and openly debate our own beliefs...or any subject for that matter.

HTB

A bridge weakness can be proven. Heaven and Hell, and whether your road or another takes you to one, or the other, cannot.

Case in point. Attended a service for my father-in-law yesterday, he passed away about 3 weeks ago. Father-in-law stated before he died that he didn�t want to have a religious service. The evangelical daughter and son-in-law decide that there will be a couple of hymns to start things off, first one something to do with walking with Jesus and the second one Amazing Grace, like who doesn�t like Amazing Grace. While perhaps not adhering 100% to the father-in-laws wishes, no harm done, and the Christians get to feel better about themselves.

I thought as did the rest of the family that the hymns were it, nothing more, but never underestimate the arrogance, insensitivity, self-proclaimed holiness and obnoxiousness of an evangelical Christian. Once he got that portable microphone in his hand, the brother-in-law started in on preaching about Jesus not being a ghost because we could feel him or some such bloody nonsense. I asked my wife if she wanted me to shut him up, given the event and all the old people there she suggested we just bear it.

Well the evangelical Christian brother-in-law ruined what had been up to that time a very nice ceremony. There will be acrimony in the family for some time to come over the imposition of this religious rant on the family and guests all who knew the father-in-law as a good, kind, generous non-religious individual who deserved better treatment from his daughter and son-in-law.

I realize that these brainless, moronic evangelical Christians can�t help themselves, because it is incumbent upon them to enlighten the rest of us, but they are still the biggest [bleep] in the universe as far as I am concerned.

How dare you hold that against them? They're "not perfect; just forgiven", and besides, they're right................. just wait, you'll see............

I know a man that raises horses. For years he allowed people to hunt. Two different times he had a "hunter" shoot one of his horses! To this day the man has no problem with "hunting" or "hunters" it just will not happen on his land no more.

I understand why many people don't like Christians. I deal with some that I'd rather not often. Thing is WE ain't all the same. I share my faith when the Lord lays it on my heart to. In result every person I can think of that I've shared with was very kind toward me and thanked me for my time. Not all prayed to recieve Christ, but was still very pleasant. People trying to force God on me didn't ever work either. I came to a place in my life when I wanted Him, and not just to make something better either. He has blessed me with a wife that believes the same and we are very happy with our relationship with Him and each other. It works for us.........

Christianity is available to everyone, but not for everyone....

im gonna do like constantine and wait till the last min so i can live the fun life. then right at the end i'll get saved and baptized. heck i might even blow myself up, just for good measure.
gotta cover those bases.

I only share my personal beliefs and faith when asked, I sure wish others would do the same.

BTW - I do not consider myself a Christian.

For the most part I don't see how these kind of threads help. Both sides get to have their say but it's falling on deaf ears. Both sides have done made up their minds.

I will say that wile the hundred page 708/308 was/is back and forth back and forth, I did learn something....

I learned that the Montana is the better gun for a WSM and the 700 is the better gun for a short action .473 case.

Maybe through all this back and forth someone can take something out of this thread and help them a little bit like the 308 thread did for me......

I wasn't addressing that � it's a separate matter altogether.

I was just pointing-out that zealous opposition to an unacceptable conclusion had led to a mad gallop off the cliff of simple cause and effect � that it isn't disagreement with the warner that causes the effect but the accuracy of the warning.

IOW, if a person refuses a warning and as a result goes to Hell, it isn't his refusal to "agree with the warner" that destines him to eternity without fellowship with God but the accuracy of the warner's warning. If he's destined � for whatever reason � to go there, he'll go there even if he never gets that warning from that warner, not because he's disagreed with that warner.

Oh, well � it's obvious that no one here holds a patent or a monopoly on refusing to acknowledge a point.

Have a good day, Amigo!

You still don't get it. The conclusions are not what is the issue, it's the methodology most guys like you use to come to those conclusions. That is inadequate research, lack of study, and assuming way too much. A method you would quickly call foul on if applied to an area where you have expertise.

Also, I do not pretend, nor have I ever, to critique the Torah, Koran, Vedas, Odessy, or whatever. I am not a student of those, therefore I have no credibility in discussing them.

As an aside,
Blaine, I think your recommendation of Evidence that Demands a Verdict is a very good one.
It was one of the books that when I was a skeptic, turned me towards Christianity.

And, you still don't get it, that it ain't the message (Bible, Koran, T'orah, whatever); it's the messenger(s).

Another way of looking at the "flood" issue is whether you have the same view of "natural catastrophes" if you assume there is no God. In other words, let's say we do not believe in God, then we are left with some form of belief in "Mother Nature." Since "Mother Nature" causes all forms of natural disasters which indiscriminately take lives we should not in any way respect nature, therefore we can proliferate the destruction of nature because nature does the same things to us...or ignore nature's laws, or contaminate nature...etc...

Choosing to not believe in God does not in any way change the reality of our existence--life, death, suffering, sorrow, disasters etc. You can go through the hard times bitter against God or with His help. Ultimately He set up the natural laws of life. He gave man, not only the ability to choose, but also the ability to choose for their succeeding generations. The subjects of a king will reap the results of his good or poor choices. We may or may not agree with God's laws or acts, but He is still sovereign. By what moral standard will we judge His acts?

In ancient times warfare was fought for the express purpose of winning i.e. the complete annihilation of the enemy. An Egyptian or Assyrian soldier would think the rules of the Geneva convention ludicrous--as no one fought battles on those terms in ancient times. God's actions in the ancient times were in measure with the sin of those times--the punishment was commensureate with the crimes of the ancient civilizations. It is clear that God asked His people in the ancient times to live by a higher standard than the surrounding nations. The Israelites were not to sacrifice their children in worship like the pagan worshippers. They were not to engage in bestiality like the pagans. There were stricter laws to honor the marriage commitment. Children were not to be aborted. Yet their enemeies were to be slain completely at times, because in those ancient times it was a matter of survival to "kill or be killed." This life-style was necessary for survival due to the level of degradation of the surrounding nations. God specifically told the Israelites through prophets how often they were to engage in such warfare. In contrast the surrounding pagan nations were continually looking to expand their borders, where in Israel God set specific border boundaries for the nation.

Once Israel occupied their land, they were not instructed by God to conquer the world with the same type of warfare used by the Assyrians, Baylonians, Greeks, or Romans. Whatever charge you would bring against God's acts or laws regarding His people, would doubly condemn all other ancient civilizations. I'm amazed that more people cannot understand the culture of those times, rather than judging through 21st century mores.

God made it clear that He would form a New Covenant based upon better laws through the life and death of His Son. This is why there is a distinctly higher moral code of conduct in the New Testament versus the Old Testament. The New Testament teachings brought significant moral improvement to the world, when compared with the morals of the Old Testament world. The moral dilemmas of the OT in modern times is really a problem for the Jew rather than the Christian, because they still operate under the OT law.

The teachings of Christ as contained in the New Covenant are now the basis by which we judge the conduct of humanity. Even modern day agnostics would not make moral judgments based on ancient standards of morality! A simple reading of the Bible makes the distinction between the covenants very clear. It makes Blaine's point in that people try to make carte blanche judgments and without an elementary understanding in place. Our Founders clearly saw that the morality of our nation was to be primarily based on the NT precepts of the sanctity of human life. No other world religion provided the moral basis for the freedom of religion. Christianity provided the moral freedom that the agnostic, atheist, and deist could reject God without being burnt at the stake. The Middle Ages are a picture of professing Church not willing to let go of the OT morality of a state religion. It was the Word of God being taught over time that transformed the world into accepting freedom of religion. All other ancient civilizations adopted a "state religion" and then chose what other religions they would or would not tolerate or persecute.

It was the triumph of true Christianity, in the spirit of Christ, which brought freedom of religion to these shores. Yet this freedom of religion will only work within Christian moral boundaries, as our Founders rightly noted. A good government of the people can only exist where the people are good. If you give freedom for the moral corruption of God's laws, eventually the laws which once protected freedom, will be removed, and the people will lead themselves into the bondage of anarchy. If God is removed from our moral thinking, we will lose the concept that all men are "created" equal and we will return to the "survival of the fittest." A distinction must be made between freedom of voluntary faith (religion) and moral standards which the basis of a good moral society (such as laws against murder, theft, lying, unrestrained greed,) . Those moral imperatives were given in the Ten Commandments in OT times, but were given a higher standard of application in the NT. In the OT these laws applied within their own society primarily and did not apply to their enemies. In the NT the Ten Commandments are to work in the framework of loving God and our fellowman on a universal basis.

help who?
help what?
what are you talking about.
the only ones i see who need help are the ones living in a perpetual fairyland.
and they think i need help in beliveing the fairytale.
so whats gonna change. they are happy to live with a sense that someone is out there bigger than them and on thier side because they bow down and say that they belive.
I am happy to know that i live an honest life without the mumbo-jumbo david blain trap door magic show of water walking and fish multiplications.
Im am absolutly sure...
100% certain that there are grown adults in this world who are employed parents, homeowners. people who have responsibility for massive parts of our world who actually belive it in thier hearts that one man and one woman lived in a garden and a snake tempted the woman into eating an apple and we are all now sinners.
I have no doubt whatsoever that some place there a guy who is in charge of a nuke plant or a train or a FAA control room who thinks that the billions of animals who live on this earth at one time all lived within walking distance of noahs house.
So i dont hate the bible or them.
i feel sorry for them just as i would any 7 year old who catches mommy putting a barbie doll under the christmas tree. or any 5 year old who wakes up while daddy is slipping a quarter under thier pillow in the middle of the night.
its sad to think that educated grown adults w/ the potential power of knowledge avail to them actually think that there was a golden box that people carried around and it shot out lightning killing ONLY the people who didnt belive in one specific god of the goat herders.
sell that chit to a 4 year old...
we are all bought up here.

And, you still don't get it, that it ain't the message (Bible, Koran, T'orah, whatever); it's the messenger(s). [/quote]

And you still don't get it even more as I acknowldeged that in my very first post. The whole point of this thread was to discuss who can credibly critique the Bible using Campfire standards for experience.

Penguin,



It may come as a surprise to realize most beleve the same thing about themselves.

Blaine,

Inbred ignorance and bigotry flourish in lots of guises.

I do not hate the Bible.

I hate those with no qualifications at all except their excited blind beliefs who try to ram their view of it, un-bidden, down my throat at every public crossroad. They are dangerous jerks w/o distinguishing differences from Mullahs elsewhere who want censorship to lower societal norms to their mud-culture level so that they can feel comfortable living in it.

Totalitarian religions are the end of civilization and they are coming on strong in 'modern' America only because our
"liberals", now in control, are themselves players in this extremist cycle. Switch things around in future elections and, under the 'true believers', we'd only be at the mercy of the 'Chrsitian' Bible thumping mob.

1B

1B;

Forget it. Such rationale is outside of thought for the backslappers. Either you're with 'm, or you're against 'm, and if you're not with 'm, then you hate the Bible.

Why is it that the Founders saw no conflict between religious liberty and Christian morality?

The Founders weren't enthusiastic Christians. They were Deitists. If there is any mention of Christ in the founding documents, I'd like to see such mentions.

They apparently saw enough to make �Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion� the first 10 words of the first amendment of the constitution.

Does that mention Christ, Christianity, christians, or any other religion or belief specifically?

Didn't think so................

From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth!



Religion

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson[10][11] (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin[12]. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists.[13]

Blaine, just saw this. I agree and would just like to say the Christian faith is eminently rational and God along with some of his characteristics can be realized or "gotten to" just by logic, as Aristotle showed, though he could not completely, in his Aristotelian, deductive logic long before Christ walked here or the Gospels were written. I'm just taking this tact for those who start out with the false premise that the Bible is myth and approaching its truths from another direction.

Copernicus, Pascal, Galileo, Leonardo De Vinci, Kierkegaard, Dostsoyevsky, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis are just a few of intelligent apologists for the Christian faith who saw that.

I believe most of the unbelievers are often guilty of this very common error, something we all can fall into at times: circular logic by starting out with a presupposed, false premise because of a cultural bias against anything supernatural. Very briefly,

PREMISE: 1) The Bible and everything in it is myth
Therefore 2), there is no accountability for me
So 3), the Bible and everything it says is myth.

There are many questions a searching, thinking person could ask that if followed rationally, logically, with some help would would get one on the road to ultimate reality and truth, the transcendent, sovereign God of the scriptures. The Scriptures are needed though for the specific revelation of Jesus Christ.

I might remind any readers of Pascal's (genius scientist, mathematician) wager:

"Either God is or He is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question completely. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong....You must wager. There is no choice, you are already committed. Which will you choose then? Let us see: since a choice must be made, let us see which offers you the least interest." (Pensees)

The point is there are two choices, the acceptance or the rejection of the Christian God. If one chooses to believe in God (and the Bible) and He exists he stands to gain everything on an infinite scale, eternal existence in the presence of God; if He does not exist the believer loses nothing. In fact, with his extinction, he knows not that he lost the wager.

The unbeliever also has two outcomes: if God does not exist he neither loses or gains anything. However, if God exists, he loses everything on an infinite scale - hell's eternal exclusion from the life of God. Which choice offers the least expense?

Seems like there's back slappers in both of the trenches here.

Do tell ...

Because their is no conflict. The only potential conflict the FF saw was a partnership between religion and state--which is expressly prohibited in the Constitution.



Casey

Yeah.

And I don't understand how someone can " ram the bible down anothers throat." Gotta be tough to do that.

Not a very intelligent statement kinda like "bible thumpers." Just plain stupid, I think.

Oops, I was trying to make a point on your side of the argument. I guess it didn�t get across that way.

VAnimrod,

Did you forget "or the free execise thereof"? Or did you even know it was in there?

I agree 100% and that is the whole point of my post. People, whose only qualification they have is their visceral hate of Christians, feeling they are qualified to critique the Bible when they have no clue what they are talking about.

Study it in depth, THEN critique it............

Feeble attempts at a false dichotomy won't help you here. The point of this thread is exceedingly simple. If you want to critique the Bible, then study it in depth, use logic, and quit whining about what you don't like about Christians.

Hmmmm, some people on here should take an in depth study of the word "hate" before they try critiquing the word "hate". You shouldn't use a word if you have no idea of how the word is used.

BTW: Blaine, I've noticed that if people come up with an opinion on the Bible different than yours than they haven't studied the Bible in depth enough. What Federal office do you run that deals with offical Bible critique and in depth study? I was unaware there was a Bible czar in control of Bible critique and in depth study.

No, it's not!

Had they so made mention, it would have invalidated itself. Not a good start.

Haven't you guys anything better to do?

You keep throwing out that idea and it is sensless. All you have to do is study in depth, then comment.

You are one of the worst offenders because you frequently dredge up old accusations were refuted years ago--in some cases hundreds of year ago--and try to pass it off as some new unanswered criticism.

So either you haven't done the research, or else you are being dishonest.

Further, I already posted what level of Bible student I am.

Here is an illustration from hunting that shows the level of absurdity we often see on the Campfire in critiques of the Bible.

I personally bagged ONE little bull elk seven years ago. Based on that experience--applying Campfire standards for Biblical experience, I can credibly comment on elk hunting and should be taken seriously when I say:

- Because the bull kept moving after I him through the lungs with a 250 grain, 338 bore Nosler Partition from a 338 RUM; all 338 bores must be inadequate for elk.

- I found the elk as tail-end-charlie of a group of cows that were traveling hard, so bull elk must always be around cows.

However, any truly experienced elk hunter would dismiss those comments as the rantings of an arrogant novice, and the experienced elk hunter would have full support of the Campfire.

So why is it when I dismiss many of these Bible criticisms as the rantings of arrogant novices, and other posters experienced in Bible study agree; actual experience is no longer respected just because some Christian's behavior offended someone sometime.

The double-standard here is enormous...............

My guess as to why some would dismiss you is that to believe what you are saying would in many cases require faith. While to dismiss you requires only that the individual simply has a different belief system than you do. The Bible means nothing to those who don't believe, it's just a book. Trying to convivnce them otherwise is pointless. The analogy in regards to elk hunting infers that one individual has factual basis or true experience and the other very little to none. Those with different belief systems don't neccessarily feel that the Bible itself is anything more than a fairy tale. If one doesn't believe, then nothing you have to say about the Bible means any more to them than your opinion of the latest Harry Potter book.

That would be because you sound pompous and arrogant when you �dismiss� those who disagree with you. Comparing elk (which have been proven to exist using logic and scientific method) with Jesus is what is absurd here.
I find it hard to believe that there are so many denominations if all you need is a little logic to arrive at the true meaning of the Bible. It�s a good thing you don�t need faith or anything. That could make it you know, complicated and all.

What I am talking about what the Bible says, how it was written and preserved, methods of interpretation, supporting archaeolgy, textual criticism, the history and culture of the era, etc. Those are all academic pursuits having little, if anything, to do with faith.

They have to do with the level of experience in studying, so the elk hunting analogy is accurate.

One can logically study everything in Bible and still not step into the area of faith. Faith only comes in if you choose to personally accept what the Bible teaches as being God's way of Salvation.

You miss the point completely. The point is, for the millionth time, in order to credibly critique the Bible you need to study it in depth. If you try to critique the Bible without studying it in depth you will be talking out of your azz. What is so damn hard to understand about that?

2 Peter 2
1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
____________________________

Pretty amazing... Christ, Paul, Peter predicted an apostasy in the Church and that cynical railers would bad mouth the faith because of false Christians. This thread is in some sense a fulfillment of that prophetic insight about the last days.

John Locke stood amazed at the supernatural aspect of fulfilled biblical prophecy. He felt it was credible evidence that Christ was in fact the Jewish Messiah. He wrote; "The Reasonableness of Christianity" but the Communists who infiltrated all of our colleges insist he was a mere deist.

The Jews have Jerusalem. Biblical prophecies continue to be fulfilled. That book is supernatural and its credibility is to be found in the transendent doctrine, life and deeds of Christ.

Blaine still holds no water and apparently can't grasp the message/messenger part.

Don't dislike him because he's a Christian, but because he's a friggin idiot.

Akin to an Asian guy thinking I don't like him because he's Asian, when the reason is because he's an azzhole.

who made you the judge of what i can critique?
i'll wipe my ass w/ luke if i so decide.
what makes you think that your little comic book is any different than the koran?
in fact in terms of literature the vedas and the koran have the bible beat.
its slow, and unpoetic and doesnt flow in continuity like many other bibles.
why dont you use logic.
if you did you would laugh at the holy bible.
logic.
is it logical that god made a mistake that he had to return to earth as a human to fix by being murdered?
logic, my arse.

the bible of christianity is written by men. priest and thier like. men who twisted and tortured words to justify thier actions and thier desires.
every preacher i hear understands the bible fully but each one understands if different. the same is true here. each one of you thinks he understands it but you all belive different things. the only thing you agree upon is that i dont understand it at all.

Don't you?

And, BTW - they were a helluva lot smarter than that, and likely a helluva lot more tolerant than most christians, esp. today. They said, what they meant.

Did you forget that such also says that I am to choose not to exercise, or have it exercised at or to me, or did you know that such was the case?

The message/messenger thing is surely as foreign to you as ballistics, though I'm certain your ideology that allows for the earth to only be a couple thousand years old, and super-high see-thru rings to magically flatten trajectories, will find some way for you to figure this one out, too.

Can't accept it. To do so would trump the religious victim card being played.

I don't care what you think, I still think the 270 is a wimpy girly man cartridge and the 30-06 trumps all.

Bill Clinton turned the Oval Office into the "Head" Office.

Ron Paul is a done deal -- BEFORE the election.

You are saying with sincerity that you yourself believe the great good glad tidings of the Christian Gospel but hate all Christians? Or at least just the ones you have met or have ever heard of? LOL

Just trying to understand honestly where you are really coming from.

There are plenty of good true honest Christians all over the world though. Richard Wurmbrand comes to mind, along with the Salvation Army, Charles Mendies of Nepal and so forth and so on. Sgt York, George Washington, Stonewall Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, my grandma and my aunt Pat to name just a few...

Not jumping in Steelies corner, but I don't recall him saying he hated all Christians, Dixie. I think he said he was wary of them, and shyed away from them because of the times he's been screwed by the ones who professed to be Christians.

I don't think he hates me. Heck, he doesn't know me well enough to hate me. If he got to know me better, I'd likely give him reason enough.

The good ones are certainly overshadowed in daily life by the ones that are a royal PITA.

Otherwise, yeah, you pegged it fairly well.

'Bout time someone did.

find me two that agree on whats factual and what figurative in the holy bible...
then i'll listen to them.
its not a history book or a science book.
its a work of literature and a poor one by comparison to the other written at the same time or earlier.
you want to read something?
pick up the Bhagavad Gita. or the rig vedas
read this and tell me its not amazing...



"Fair be my sunset, fair my morn and evening and day with.
lucky chase and happy omens;
With blessing and success, immortal Agni, go to the mortal and.
return rejoicing."

thats 9th century BC right there.

the holy bible? its a comic book.

You seem alright to me,Keith.
Even if you are Canadian...

Sure do. I'm done with these biggest idiots contests. I never could compete with highly accomplished and over-achieving professionals anyway. I didn't read this one and won't click on any in the future. A tactic some might try.

Well Blaine, I guess from now on you should be known officially, as Czar Blaine, Head of the Office of Bible Critique and In Depth Study.

I try real hard not to put people down but you sound pompous and the south end of a horse.

I think I'm out of here on this one.

PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE BETTER THAN I DO





I dont know what it is... but it has something to do with holding out your hands.

If I do not return to the pulpit this weekend, millions of people will go to hell.
Jimmy Swaggart

Why should I apologize because God throws in crystal chandeliers, mahogany floors, and the best construction in the world? Jim Bakker

I'm a sample of Jesus. I'm a super being.
Benny Hinn

All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.
Rev. John Hagee

Individual Christians are the only ones really---and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.

Pat Robertson

Ringworm, Blaine spoke to just this kind of post at the beginning - that people who are faulty, Christian or not, blow it big time from time to time. And I imagine a quote or two along with a picture of yourself could in the wrong, constructed context make you look very much like something you are not.

By the way I'm not just a backslapper here.

I just had a writer tell me (and he included two other writers) that he would not post here, or minimally, because when there is a difference of opinion, there is ranting, name-calling, and derision instead of a measured question and answering to determine why a guy sees things the way he does. I couldn't argue with him though I invited him to give it a go again.

The point is base your belief or disbelief - on whatever subject - on rational arguments or honest questioning rather than the "friggin idiot" response (I know you, Ringworm, didn't use that term).

John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

John Quincy Adams

Sixth President of the United States

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

Samuel Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

(Source: William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.)

Fisher Ames

Framer of the First Amendment

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Oliver Ellsworth

Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court

[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions�institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion.

(Source: Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut)

Benjamin Franklin

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

(Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. )

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

* For more details on this quote, click here.

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

Richard Henry Lee

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.

(Source: Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, James Curtis Ballagh, editor (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914), Vol. II, p. 411. In a letter to Colonel Mortin Pickett on March 5, 1786.)

James McHenry

Signer of the Constitution

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)

Jedediah Morse

Patriot and "Father of American Geography"

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.

(Source: Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1799), p. 9.)

William Penn

Founder of Pennsylvania

[I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.

(Source: Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.

(Source: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Commonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).)

Benjamin Rush

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.)

Joseph Story

Supreme Court Justice

Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion�the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues�these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them.

(Source: Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), p. 260, �442.)

George Washington

"Father of Our Country"

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. XXIX, p. 410. In a letter to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788.)

* For the full text of Geo. Washington's Farewell Address, click here.

Daniel Webster

Early American Jurist and Senator

[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. XIII, p. 492. From "The Dignity and Importance of History," February 23, 1852.)

Noah Webster

Founding Educator

The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.

(Source: Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53, 56.)

James Wilson

Signer of the Constitution

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)

Robert Winthrop

Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.

(Source: Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.")


The Founders never intended to make the Constitution a specifically "Christian" document. But they did intend to base the fundamental principles of government on the morality of the scriptures. This is evident in their quotes. Even Thomas Jefferson, the most ardent Deist of the few that were truly Deists, recognizes the superiority of Christ's moral teachings over others. The Jefferson Bible removes the miraculous events, but keeps the moral teachings. If a person is sincere in understanding the true intent of the Constitution, they will need to seriously study the Bible in order to understand its moral foundation.

Its interesting how people such as Ringworm despise the very Book which gave them their liberties. He is a perfect example of skepticism that is based on ignorance and blind unbelief.

I do agree with the posters who have made the point that we all need to strive for objectivity when weighing the evidence, and we need to be willing to study indepth before drawing conclusions.

It becomes obvious in religious discussions who has done their homework, who is sincerely seeking truth, who is simply parroting other people's arguments that have been answered years ago, who believes that there is truth that can be known, who is determined to reject truth, and who is determined to prove that we know nothing for sure--except that we know nothing for sure (an oxymoron).

Good post ..... maybe, for a refresher, you should send it to the Whitehouse while you're at it.

Blaine,

You are beyond hearing, much less understanding. So, this address to you, is really for the rest of us.

Bible study is like Koran study. You will never get anything more out of it than it has in it and since it is not perfect, indeed flawed, the garbage in and out rule obtains.

Living in a Bible defined world -- even perfected by countless hours of 'debates' among those similarly disposed -- focused solely on it as a reference point qualifies anyone at best as a narrow-guage savant with strong idiot predilictions. At worst...I pass because the pathological possiblities are too broad.

You have every right to be whatever you want -- until you try to dominate your surroundings with the 'wisdom' you derive from licking that self-licking ice cream cone. Then, you become pitiful.

Oh, you can make a buck at it God knows -- that is done all the time. But shaking down old ladies is one thing. Preaching at campfires with men who have some experience of the world is another.


1B

Is your own mind flawless? or could this perhaps be a flawed statement?

billhilly,



You are showing your ignorance of legal historical evidence.

The great reformers, Savonarola, Wyclife, Huss, Luther, Wesley, all fought tooth and toenail against the Benny Hinns and Jim Bakers of their day. I am glad you reject with contempt and mockery these well known simoniacs, as well all honest men should.

"a narrow-guage savant with strong idiot predilictions"

In this you speak of Patrick Henry and Stonewall Jackson, George Washington and a host of other noble men of Virginia?

Hey...

You guys need to own your cynical anti-Christian culture; it found FULL manifestation among the Communists and all their mass murder and among the French revolutionaries. Have you thought of moving to France or Cuba?

And I want to go on full public record that Blaine J Painter is a good and decent and honorable man who deserves a manly man's respect of gentleman's courtesy. Having worn the uniform for 20 years and having flown slow moving C-130's in war zones in two wars, I find the baseless ad-hominem attacks despicable. And any half thoughtful person knows that in a debate of ideas as soon as one person goes ad-hominem it just reveals that they are out of intelligent ammo.

___________________________________

From some website somewhere:

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

My bad. Elk and Jesus have lots in common.
I just checked the �legal historical evidence� and you are right. It is a sin against God to assert that anyone could possibly sound pompous or arrogant for �dismissing� alternate viewpoints. What was I thinking?

How old did you say the earth was again?

I've come to a conclusion......

We need to bring back the religion forum here on the Campfire--anybody got SYSOPS phone number?......

Mixing the politics page with the religous page is like, well, mixing religion with politics........



Casey

All this blowhard emotionalsim is fine, but the bottom line is unless you study the Bible in depth before you critique it, you are talking out of your azz.

I grew up a Southern Baptist in the First Baptist Church of Ada Oklahoma. I went to Sunday school and Bible study, sang in the youth choir, and even won a Schofield reference Bible for memorizing my verses but according to your criteria, none of the people I went to church with (possibly excluding the pastor) are qualified to make or form any opinions of the Bible. I hope the pastor was right in what he told us. I�d hate to burn in hell for not being as smart as you.

"simoniacs."

indeed ...

There is no qualification requirement to form an opinion.

However, unless a person has studied the Bible in depth, they have no credibility when they try to critique it.

What is so outrageous about that? It is the standard we apply to everything else here on the Campfire.

Nothing is outrageous about it. It does cut both ways though. If folks who critique it without your approved level of competency have no credibility, then folks who try to live by but lack the required level of understanding are what?

Dixie,

I appreciate the support, but I do need to set the record straight.

1. C-130s aren't as slow as many people think.
2. I served three times in war zones during war, but I didn't fly missions in those war zones. I was always called over to plan, coordinate, and schedule.
3. I was on active duty for 23 years and 11 months.

Also, these guys never did have any ammo, and I am not offended by anything that has been said. My point is well made. I know that, and they know that.

It is the Campfire's approved level of competency for offering a credible opinion.

This thread has never had anything to do with faith or salvation. This thread is about credibly critiquing the Bible.

I could make the same argument for critiquing Shaksphere or Homer. unless you study the work in question in depth, you can't credibly critique it.

If CATC was brought back, then most likely the Bible haters would stay out of it. If not, it would be at their own peril. The problem with CATC is that many of us here have an incredible ability to become contentious pricks. Most likely CATC would again become the most contentious forum on the Camfire, illustrating the worst in human being's ability to be ugly to each other. I bailed out of CATC when it was here before, and obviously I am not afraid of conflict nor unwilling to become and contentious prick. It was just "that bad."

Just as with this thread, people expected what others posted to be perfect in tone and civility, but held themselves to no such standard. Any logical, rational, or edifying thoughts were quickly lost as peole argued over who was the least worst in how they treated others.

On the plus side, it might make the Optics Forum seem like a pleasant source for good information...........

Oh please. The only ones playing the victim card is those who are whining about how Christians have treated them; and using that as an excuse to critique the Bible without studying it.

I'm a Christian and I KNOW that if there are two ways to say something, I'm bound to use the worst one and only later see what I'd done. Therefore I have two daily goals, one of which I'm now violating:
Don't pass up a chance to keep my mouth shut, and
Don't be a jerk.
Not too strangely, they are closely intertwined.

A wiser man than I once said,"that the church isn't a sanctuary for saints, it's a hospital for the hurting". I find that is more true every year.

A fun question for some to ask is which King James Bible. The most commonly encountered are the 1611 and the 1769 versions. Christians are to gently present the Message. It is up to our Lord to prepare the ground. For any who've been offended by my brothers in Christ, I ask your pardon.

Peace to all and make your own choices.

Interesting thread.

This has developed into a complex thread. I enjoyed the post by Thunderstick on page 11...very nice quotes/references.

Ringworm - question - What do you seek to prove with the "... Bible is a comic book..." nanny boo boo routine...?

None of the name-calling / denounciation of religion(s) posts are of any help to anyone. Ad hominem tactics simply don't belong in any civilized conversation or debate, IMHO. Unfortunately, this type of arguing/attacking etc. has taken place on every forum I've ever visited.

HTB

but the 7-08 offers ballistic advantages over the 3-08......oops sorry wrong thread

Hmmmm.......... fresh meat.