Let's analyze "Defeaters: The Problem of Science" - a sermon by Joe Coffey

[stahrwe]

Stahrwe said: " So, what is the Bible? It is a gift, or more precisely the representation of a gift. It provides us with a connection between the physical world of flesh we live in and the spiritual world.

It is a letter from God to man written in code.

If you have the code the Bible becomes a source of pleasure and contentment."

O.K. I will admit to being very ignorant of the Bible compared to the two main debaters on this topic just now, however this sentence above of Starhwe's . . . IT IS A LETTER FROM GOD TO MAN WRITTEN IN CODE' leads me to believe that no one could understand the code unless it agreed with the interpretation of the person who was presenting the message or teachings. Here that would be Starhwe.

THere are two ways to answer that question. The Bible translator would say perhaps that they will not know unless they hear and they will not hear unless people go, and that certainly is true and perhaps I can clarify my meaning yet again and say that in order to understand it one needs a translator but that translator is always avaiable.

However I, in my blessed ignorance, reading or hearing Biblical text always thought it was a bunch of gobbledy gook, if not that, very questionable moral content. . . Lot's wife being turned into stone cause she turned around? His daughters seducing him with drink? Jesus smiting the bush? The virgin birth? Cain going into the land of Nod to find a wife? David sending Bathsheba's husband into battle so he could have her?

Your comment about gobbledy gook proves my point. Many say that but when they believe they often have a hunger for the Bible and read it through.

Lot's wife was turned to salt not stone. It is an important distinction. The word used is malach whose first definition is to dissipate. Were we to read and discuss Genesis I think we could have a grand time discussing Lot's wife; her regrets at leaving the life she had in Sodom. Perhaps she had mixed emotions, she knew she was becoming dissipated but felt possessed by the grit of the city. We've been through the Nod question. I don't see the issue with the bush. Lot's daughters seducing him is a piece of the puzzle which is the solution as is David, who should have been in the field with his men instead of oggling Bethsheba who was conveniently bathing in plain sight and the virgin birth. You've thrown all of these issues/complaints/objections against the all with maybe another thousand you harbor and what do you do? You look at that wall every once in a while, shake your head and say, "yeah, the Bible sucks. I don't understand it" and on your way you go. Would you rather understand it? Maybe you wouldn't.

I think the evangelists and maybe all Christians are fighting a losing battle. More and more people are becoming better and better informed (thanks in great part to this media we are all sharing) Look at all the churches that are closing. Look at your friends and neighbors who no longer even make a pretense of attending church. Out of my 20 + nieces and nephews, all of whom were baptized and confirmed about 3 or 4 attend church.

Actually, I have pointed out before that we expect that. What you say you see was predicted in the Bible

2 Thessalonians 2
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

[lady of shallot]

Starhwe said to me: "yeah, the Bible sucks. I don't understand it" and on your way you go. Would you rather understand it? Maybe you wouldn't.

I would never say the above sentence. To me the expression "sucks" is extremely crude and shows very limited verbal expression on the part of the speaker.

Of course I would not like to "understand" the Bible (whatever that means) because then I would just be another brainwashed adherent of not only a flawed belief system but one that could be inherently harmful and dangerous to those who ascribe to it and to those who do not. Our histories teach us this and we certainly have a current day example in the Koran and fundamentalist Muslims.

[stahrwe]

Thank you very much for the above post Tat. I was also very curious and very impressed with your Biblical knowledge and also the time you take to write such long and explanatory posts, when, I assume from your age you must also be employed.

"It's a dishonest trick to come here telling atheists that they can become Christians without accepting the content of the bible. And it only serves to damage the credibility of the person making such an assertion."



Is this your assumption of what Stahrwe was (is) doing? I was frankly wondering at the depth of involvement in this thread on both your part and on Stahrwe's. I was beginning to think that he was really uncertain in his faith. Now I understand more about your path and also why you use Joseph Campbell's photo as your avatar. Have you read his biography, (which my husband just got me)?

Do you think Stahrwe and Dawn (?) truly think they could covert an atheist to belief?

Is your family o.k. with the divergence of your path from theirs?

Out of curiousity, what made you think I was uncertain in my faith?

As for atheists becoming Christians:
G.K. Chesterton
Anthony Flew

Flew was a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death, the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God. However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, and later wrote the book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Lew Wallace, author of Ben Hur
Josh McDowell

According to McDowell, he was as an agnostic at college when he decided to prepare a paper that would examine the historical evidence of the Christian faith in order to disprove it. However, he converted to Christianity, after, as he says, he found evidence for it, not against it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell

C.S. Lewis, (wrote the Chronicles of Narnia among others)

Would you like some more names?

[stahrwe]

Starhwe said to me: "yeah, the Bible sucks. I don't understand it" and on your way you go. Would you rather understand it? Maybe you wouldn't.

I would never say the above sentence. To me the expression "sucks" is extremely crude and shows very limited verbal expression on the part of the speaker.

Of course I would not like to "understand" the Bible (whatever that means) because then I would just be another brainwashed adherent of not only a flawed belief system but one that could be inherently harmful and dangerous to those who ascribe to it and to those who do not. Our histories teach us this and we certainly have a current day example in the Koran and fundamentalist Muslims.

Below is the relevant definition for 'suck' in the context used in my post. The prior definitions are all inoffensive as are the remaining 10, with the exception of #19 which I suppose is the one which offends you though I would plead that you are in error as numbers 18 through 21 are 'verb phrases' and therefore include a word in addition to the word suck which alters its meaning.

11. Slang . to be repellent or disgusting: Poverty sucks.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sucks

If you prefer not to understand the Bible that I suggest that it is unfair to cite passages your object to as your reasons for doing so. As I point out in my signature line, ignorance is no excuse, in this case for indicting the Bible. Should you participate in even a superficial study of the Bible and still hold the objections then you have a reason for keeping them on your wall.

The Muslim card is a tired one, I consider it smoke screen as it is really not a reason not the read the Bible especially as you have a wall devoted to the Bible's faults.

[lady of shallot]

Good lord, now you can not even allow me the dislike of a certain word! Even with your amended definition I would still never say the Bible was repellent or disgusting. Good heaven do you have to argue about everything?

"especially as you have a wall devoted to the Bible's faults."

What the hell does the above sentence mean? I do understand the Bible. I do and have had a "superficial" understanding of it. I reject it as truth. I accept it as a group of stories and parables and lessons and lectures and such that many people believe. The language of it is sometimes movingly beautiful and interesting. I could never accept it in the way you do as my wiring is just different.

I don't know all the people you have mentioned and I do not intend to devote the time you evidently have a plentitude of to look them all up and argue with you about whether or not they truly were atheists. I seriously doubt so in the case of C.S. Lewis.

I considered that you might be uncertain as you are so dogged in your battering of your viewpoint on this thread. One would have to consider that it is yourself you are trying so hard to convince. You surely can not believe someone like you would draw anyone to the veracity of your beliefs.

[stahrwe]

Good lord, now you can not even allow me the dislike of a certain word! Even with your amended definition I would still never say the Bible was repellent or disgusting. Good heaven do you have to argue about everything?

You may dislike words all day long. However what you said was:

I would never say the above sentence. To me the expression "sucks" is extremely crude and shows very limited verbal expression on the part of the speaker.

That changed it from a neutral comment.

"especially as you have a wall devoted to the Bible's faults."

What the hell does the above sentence mean? I do understand the Bible. I do and have had a "superficial" understanding of it. I reject it as truth. I accept it as a group of stories and parables and lessons and lectures and such that many people believe. The language of it is sometimes movingly beautiful and interesting. I could never accept it in the way you do as my wiring is just different.

What it means is that I have seen the same complaints over and over and over. Its like the Atheist's Hall of Shame for the Bible. Each one is figuratively pasted on a wall with a caption saying, 'another reason to hate the Bible'. Now, some of these are just records of things people did. They aren't condoned by the Bible but they aren't glossed over either. Some are things which are truly troubling but instead of engaging the issue it just gets a polish and a satisfied pat as you pass on through the hall confident that God's a jerk.

I don't know all the people you have mentioned and I do not intend to devote the time you evidently have a plentitude of to look them all up and argue with you about whether or not they truly were atheists. I seriously doubt so in the case of C.S. Lewis.

Ask your Catholic friends and relatives about G. K. Chesteron. He's practically a saint. He even has his own half hour show on ETWN. Probably one of the greatest intellects and wits of the late 19th and early part of the 20th century.

As for Lewis, don't doubt, check it out for yourself. Google him and read his bio.
Then read the Screwtape Letters.

I considered that you might be uncertain as you are so dogged in your battering of your viewpoint on this thread. One would have to consider that it is yourself you are trying so hard to convince. You surely can not believe someone like you would draw anyone to the veracity of your beliefs.

Perhaps is seems that way but you should remember that at any given time there may be six or more atheists posting response to me. Since I am usually the only Christian replying it seems that I dominate the discussion but in reality it just strikes a balance.

Lew Wallace was on a train with Robert Ingersoll the famous Atheist and they had quite a discussion about rationalism. Wallace felt that he didn't know as much as Ingersoll did so he set a year aside to read the Bible to discount Christianity, the result was Ben Hur, A Story of the Christ.

[Interbane]

Lew Wallace was on a train with Robert Ingersoll the famous Atheist and they had quite a discussion about rationalism. Wallace felt that he didn't know as much as Ingersoll did so he set a year aside to read the Bible to discount Christianity, the result was Ben Hur, A Story of the Christ.

Interestingly enough, you give an example of one item on the Evangelist Wall of Shame. It serves well to embody part of the disconnect. The story doesn't logically support your position. Yet you repeat it as if you have a point. It would 'seem' to support your position to someone who wasn't educated in logic. But such instances of bad reasoning are all too common, and in almost every case happen on the side of the Evangelist.

[stahrwe]

Lew Wallace was on a train with Robert Ingersoll the famous Atheist and they had quite a discussion about rationalism. Wallace felt that he didn't know as much as Ingersoll did so he set a year aside to read the Bible to discount Christianity, the result was Ben Hur, A Story of the Christ.

Interestingly enough, you give an example of one item on the Evangelist Wall of Shame. It serves well to embody part of the disconnect. The story doesn't logically support your position. Yet you repeat it as if you have a point. It would 'seem' to support your position to someone who wasn't educated in logic. But such instances of bad reasoning are all too common, and in almost every case happen on the side of the Evangelist.

I am becoming concerned for you.
First, you should demonstrate some imagination by coming up with your own, original visualizations.

Second, I was not repeating the Wallace story I was expanding on it because the Lady claimed not to be familiar with that name among others.

Third, in the slim chance that my post was not clear let me make sure that you understand that the Wallace/Ingersoll meeting had them sharing thoughts on the same side of the issue, that being against Christianity. However, based on that discussion Wallace realized that Ingersoll knew much more about the Bible than he did so he decided to correct that by reading the Bible and noting all of its flaws.