Some problems with calling the Bible God’s Word

March 28, 2009 at 3:46 pm 45 comments

When I was at Bible school beginning my study to be an apologist, I spent countless hours studying and rethinking my perspective on the Bible as God’s Word. What follows are some of the problems I ran into that I could not reconcile to a level of satisfaction in my mind:

1) Saying God’s Word is inerrant or infallible seems pointless because interpretation is subject to error. What is the point of a god who makes an inerrant or infallible book and then gives the Holy Spirit to help interpret it if believers themselves still do not know what most of it actually means or if people are always updating or changing their interpretation? The very fact that in two thousand years no one can still figure out how to inerrantly or infallibly interpret any portion of the Bible is excellent evidence that it would be pointless for God to make the work itself inerrant or infallible in any way. Although I can think of very good reasons men would invent the idea of infallibility or inerrancy…

2) God’s Word is insufficient because other tools must be used or invented to interpret it. Think commentaries, archaeology, Greek and Hebrew language studies, etc. If one cannot properly understand what God said unless they study these things, then God’s Word is insufficient. Enough said.

3) God’s Word is incomplete because a portion of New Testament theology comes from books that are not included in the canon. Think Jude and the Book of Enoch or the Assumption of Moses. That’s right, Jude directly quotes the Book of Enoch. If the Book of Enoch is not inspired, why does Jude quote it as if it were? If it is inspired, why is it not in the canon? That’s just one example.

4) God’s Word is unclear because believers can still not agree on the proper interpretations. Enough said.

5) God’s Word is out of date (not timeless) because interpretation is dependent on recent (last couple hundred years) archaeological, historical, and language discoveries. Let’s say Bob the Archaeologist discovers a cool thing about a Greek word because of tablet he digs up. Let’s also say this discovery sheds light on the interpretation of a Bible passage. Does this mean that nobody had the right interpretation in the last thousand or more years until that discovery was made? If so, does this not mean God’s Word is no longer up to date? Why do people keep making new translations (like The Message) if God’s Word is timeless? What about all the countless proper interpretations discovered in the last two hundred years? Why is God only now revealing the proper interpretation (because of human discoveries) and He let everyone else in history just live without it? If they did not need the proper interpretation, why the hell do we?

6) God’s Word is inconsistent because the methods used to interpret it change over time. It is pretty obvious that the New Testament believers had far lower standards of interpretation than we do today. If they interpret that way, why can’t we? If we can’t interpret that way, why do we let them get away with it? Because they were inspired? How can it be inspired if they broke interpretive rules? If they did follow the rules, why do we not follow those same rules today?

7) God’s Word is relative and not absolute because interpretation depends on the reader. People interpret the Bible through the things they already know. This means every interpretation of the Bible is relative to the individual doing the interpreting. If every interpretation is relative to the individual, what is the point of saying God is communicating a single message? If his message depends on the reader, then every interpretation is valid.

Cross posted from my blog.

- Josh

P.S. So I was just editing this post and noticed something interesting. I just noticed that almost every point I am making is itself the result of a series of important questions. I wish Christians would fearlessly ask more questions and give fewer dogmatic assertions. If people of all faiths were humble and courageous enough to do this, the world would be a better place.

Entry filed under: Josh. Tags: , , .

How Religion Ruins Relationships No two Christians worship the same God.

45 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Erudite Redneck  |  March 28, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    I disagree with everything except points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and your P.S.

  • 2. Joshua  |  March 28, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    Damn, should I rewrite it? lol

  • 3. Eve's Apple  |  March 28, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Josh, you summed it up nicely the problems with calling the Bible (or any book) God’s Word. As far as your last point, on interpretation, that is why the Catholic church insists that it, not the individual believer, has the right to decide what the Bible means. This is what divides Catholics and Protestants.

    Actually, you might argue that the very existence of Protestantism means that Jesus is not God as Christians say he claimed to be. After all, he promised to send the Holy Spirit to teach the disciples all things. Now one thing that all Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons agree upon is that somewhere along the line the church fell into apostasy and began teaching false doctrines. Please take note that these were not minor doctrines, but major, having to do with the heart and soul of the faith, and that this situation went uncorrected for CENTURIES. I have yet to run into anyone who can tell me how this jibes with Jesus’ promise to be with the church forever. As it stands, anyone can pick up a Bible and start a church and call it the true church. How can this be?

    It certainly isn’t Scriptural. The New Testament only recognizes one church as valid, and that was the one headed by the Jerusalem Council. Even Paul, maverick as he was, submitted to the Jerusalem Council. When he talks about false teachers and false doctrines, he is clearly referring to people who were not connected with James and the Twelve. There is not one instance in the New Testament of a church being recognized as legitimate that had nothing to do with the Council. Furthermore, there is nothing anywhere in the New Testament that says, hey, guys, if you don’t like the existing church, you can go off and start your own. So Protestantism and its derivatives are clearly in violation of Scripture.

    I am not trying to start a true church/false church debate. On the contrary. I am saying that if you make the Bible your sole norm of faith then you run into a very serious problem. How do you reconcile these two issues? And what is the logical conclusion? Because on one hand, if the Catholic church erred as seriously as its critics claim (and history does seem to support that), and on the other hand, if the result of the idea that believers have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves gave rise to thousands of competing and contradictory denominations, then where is Jesus’ promise in all this? How can he be guiding the church when the church is a) wrong and b) hopelessly split and unable to agree among itself?

    That is my problem with calling the Bible the Word of God . . .

  • 4. Erudite Redneck  |  March 28, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    Re, “there is nothing anywhere in the New Testament that
    says, hey, guys, if you don’t like the existing church, you can go off and start your own.”

    Could be, partly if not mostly, because any Christian writings that didn’t fit well with the writings now known as the New Testament were rejected at the firming up of the canon.

    I wish someone would tell me why the Church is supposed to be in agreement on anything except the acceptance of the Lordship of Christ. The Church, as I understand it, is comprised of people to whom Jesus is Lord, not any one or more organizations. And those people have rarely agreed on anything but “Jesus is Lord.”

  • 5. GaryC  |  March 28, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    The Church, as I understand it, is comprised of people to whom Jesus is Lord, not any one or more organizations. And those people have rarely agreed on anything but “Jesus is Lord.”

    And on what “Jesus is Lord” means, they may not have agreed either. There’s an interesting discussion of the interpretation of the meaning of “Jesus is Lord” in Wikipedia. It contains the following fascinating tidbit:

    “The statement ‘Jesus is Lord’ has been interpreted to assert that Christians should be involved in political process of their times. During the first century the phrase Jesus is Lord was intended by early Christians as a political contrast to the popular greeting amongst Roman citizens —- Caesar is Lord. This statement meant that Jesus himself and the early Christians were seen as a political threat. In the Roman world Caesar had come to view himself as Lord and was not open to being challenged. The statement that ‘Jesus is Lord’ in its context was a statement that was viewed as political subversion, a direct challenge to the prevailing establishment and therefore meant that politics and religion were inextricably linked.”

    Unfortunately, the article is lacking in references.

    If Christians are those who agree that Jesus is Lord, then I suppose it would be fair to say that Jews are those who agree that the Lord is Lord. Given these definitions, was Jesus a Christian, or a Jew? My guess is that he was a Jew.

  • 6. Erudite Redneck  |  March 28, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    Yes, it is my understanding that “Jesus is Lord” came with an implied “not Caesar.” The implication for today being that no human person or institution merits the devotion a follower of Jesus should reserve for Jesus.

    But I don’t understand your last paragraph. I’m almost certain that Jesus’s earliest followers considered him, not Caesar, as “Lord,” but not “God” per se. Some, maybe many, maybe even most, did, but not all. And maybe not even most.

  • 7. Erudite Redneck  |  March 28, 2009 at 10:46 pm

    I meant: and maybe not even many.

  • 8. GaryC  |  March 29, 2009 at 7:42 am

    But I don’t understand your last paragraph. I’m almost certain that Jesus’s earliest followers considered him, not Caesar, as “Lord,” but not “God” per se. Some, maybe many, maybe even most, did, but not all. And maybe not even most.

    My last paragraph was not addressed to the question of how Jesus’ earliest followers considered him, but how he considered himself. I thought that the gist of my comment was pretty clear: If Jesus believed that “Jesus is Lord,” then he was a “Christian,” given the definition of that term that you had implied. If, however, he believed that “the Lord is Lord” — and that he, Jesus, was not — then he was a Jew.

    If you force me to place a bet, I’d put my money on “Jew.” Of course, much depends on what meaning is assigned to the statement, “Jesus is Lord.” If in some sense it means, “not God per se” — or better yet, “not God at all” — then perhaps, just perhaps, Jesus might have agreed that “Jesus is Lord.” However, in such a case the word “Lord” is clearly being used in a very different sense than it is used in many English translations of the Old Testment, in which “Lord” means “YHWH.”

  • 9. Ericka  |  March 29, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    I have one comment on “what is the point of a god who makes an inerrant or infallible book and then gives the Holy Spirit to help interpret it if believers themselves still do not know what most of it actually means”

    Of course, the Holy Spirit and God are believed to be one in the same. It could be argued that, to use a metaphor, God published the book and then went on the book tour to clear it up, a la J. K. Rowling.

  • 10. Quester  |  March 29, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    That could be argued, Ericka, if the “book tour” in uestion actually cleared everything (or anything) up.

  • 11. Ericka  |  March 29, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    It has been, Quester, for some people. Point #7, “If his message depends on the reader, then every interpretation is valid,” seems to argue that this is unacceptable; however many people, including certain “sects” within the Catholic Church, have concluded that reading and interpreting the Bible is an intensely personal thing, and see it as God speaking to them through interpretation.

  • 12. Erudite Redneck  |  March 29, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    GaryC:

    Jesus of Nazareth, or thereabouts, was a Jew. No doubt. Not a Christian, which is sort of comical to think about. I doubt that Jesus considered himself “Lord” as in God, but he may have seen himself as Messiah, but who can say? As I’ve said, what Jesus is said to have said about God is more important to me than what people have said, and say, about Jesus.

  • 13. gettherealskinnyoneve  |  March 30, 2009 at 2:45 am

    It seems that in your time of study and reading the bible you first lack in relationship with the Lord. The Holy Spirit leads and teaches and everything that has been done, that is being done and that will be done by God is according to His Thoughts and His Ways alone. Who are we to say that nothing has come of a Christian life simply because every detail in word was not yet fully developed? All we need first and foremost is Christ. American slaves certainly did without ALL of what you mentioned above save the leading of the Holy Spirit and by His Spirit they made it through. Many of our faith levels don’t even begin to compare with what they were able to achieve by way of His Power and Spirit.

    I doubt you would shun advancements in medical science as well, so why not embrace that which makes the availability of word far more practical? However, I can tell you as someone who loves word, in the absence of all of my translations (although I highly favor the King James), concordances and the like, I would simpy depend still more upon the Spirt to bring the increase. He has afterall, been at this a long time.

    I do understand that you question the continuity of a faith in which so many believer’s develop their own personal understandings, yet if truly led by the Holy Spirit their faith will be led and guided in deeper understanding and higher truths. You have to first trust God. He has been keeping His Word and His people for a very long time, lost books of the Bible or not.

    Peace and love.

  • 14. Matt  |  March 30, 2009 at 8:51 am

    @gettheskinnyoneve

    so you start out with a variant on the No True Scotsman, and then admit that you like a particular interpretation of the Bible. Did you even read what the post was about?
    Also, the slaves got by on the holy spirit, but where did they learn about the holy spirit? And even if they believed, there’s so much in the bible that they missed out on that it’s still possible they didn’t follow the rules.

  • 15. ArchangelChuck  |  March 30, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Where is FSTDT when you need it?!

  • 16. Not a Church Goer anymore  |  March 30, 2009 at 10:02 am

    gettherealskinnyoneve,

    Research you’re bibles, and the translation i.e. hebrew and greek, I’m not going to try to deconvert you, everyone need their thing or lack their of to believe in. The King James version is one of the worst out of all the translations for one. And try to do a non-biased research into the history of christianity, Africa (Eygypt) and early Mesopotamia, you’ll get a differnt picture on the slaves and thier belief in the holy ghost. Back up what you say with tangibale facts…its easiest to throw a generic dogmatic phrase out there, but on this site facts speak louder than “the Devil made me do it” explanations.

  • 17. LeoPardus  |  March 30, 2009 at 10:43 am

    gettherealskinnyoneve:

    There is a BIG, RED EXCLAMATION POINT on the right side of the screen, near the top. Right by it are the words, “Attention Christian Readers”. What does it take to get your attention? Now that I might have it, go read the posts.

  • 18. LeoPardus  |  March 30, 2009 at 10:52 am

    Not a Church Goer anymore:

    Bad writing in post 16. You don’t usually do that. My guess….. you’ve been out there living without the holy spirit; getting drunk, doing drugs, picking up STDs, and generally being evil. It’s gotten to your brain and you’re losing your humanity and the ability to act like anything other than an animal. Damn! The theists were right. We’d better all reconvert to save our minds, to say nothing of our souls. :D

  • 19. Luke  |  March 30, 2009 at 11:49 am

    two things, seemingly unrelated: first from your blog: i wouldn’t say the bible is out of date though. are the assumptions, science, cosmology and all that out of date? sure! but if you look at the psycho-social aspect of it, humans are largely doing the same things over and over again.

    second: i’m taking a survey of my church to see what they think of the bible.. because it’s interesting that the ‘holy book’ is also one of the biggest problems in the faith. go figure.

    here are the survey answers where do you all fit? what answer to you think my congregation largely put (target range is 18-40)?:

    The Bible is an ancient book of history, legends and cultural stories recorded by man. It has little value today except as classic literature.

    The Bible is a valuable book because it was written by wise and good people. I do not believe it is really God’s word but it can teach us many moral precepts.

    The Bible is the record of many different people’s response to God and because of this, people and churches today must interpret the Bible’s basic moral and religious teachings for themselves.

    The Bible is the inspired Word of God and its basic moral and religious teachings are clear and true, even if it reflects some human error.

    The Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally.

  • 20. Not a Church Goer anymore  |  March 30, 2009 at 11:52 am

    LeoPardus,

    Lol; Amen, That’s what the church brethen would say…by the way for the fundies on this sight, look at the history of the word Amen, it’s actually an Egyptian Diety. So the next time you see your Pastor ask him or her, why an egyptian Diety’s name used at the end of Prayer. Knowledge is Power!!!

  • 21. Erudite Redneck  |  March 30, 2009 at 11:54 am

    Luke, put me down here more or less:

    “The Bible is the record of many different people’s response to God and because of this, people and churches today must interpret the Bible’s basic moral and religious teachings for themselves.”

  • 22. Ericka  |  March 30, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Luke, I would have to fall somewhere between “The Bible is a valuable book because it was written by wise and good people. I do not believe it is really God’s word but it can teach us many moral precepts” and “The Bible is the record of many different people’s response to God and because of this, people and churches today must interpret the Bible’s basic moral and religious teachings for themselves.”

    The Bible, like anything, can be an extremely valuable tool. No more than any self-help book, but valuable nonetheless.

  • 23. Not a Church Goer anymore  |  March 30, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    I 98% aggree with Erudite’s response, the other 2% is story telling to explain natural phenomenon’s and events, “if you can’t explain it, it must be an act of God” The funny thing is that all the christian religions, i.e baptist, cathalic, methadist, epicastal, pentecostal,etc, all agree that the bible is the inspired word of God and that the Holy Spirit is one spirit and teaches all christians; yet the doctrins of each of those christian denominations on salvation and evidence of salvation are and other biblical text are interpreted differently, practiced differently, and worshiped differently from one another, yet the knowlege is given from the same spirit…Why can’t Fundies see this inconsistancy?? this stuff causes Wars…!

  • 24. LeoPardus  |  March 30, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    Guess I’d mostly go for the first response (The Bible is an ancient book of history, legends and cultural stories recorded by man. It has little value today except as classic literature.) though I’d allow that it has some decent precepts in it, if you can strain them out from the crud.

  • 25. Quester  |  March 30, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Luke, I’d agree with LP, The Bible is an ancient book of history, legends and cultural stories recorded by man. It has little value today except as classic literature. Though I think it has a fair amount of value as classic literature, and emphasize that classic literature is of great value.

    I’m guessing, from things that you have said, that the majority of your church agrees with ER, The Bible is the record of many different people’s response to God and because of this, people and churches today must interpret the Bible’s basic moral and religious teachings for themselves.

  • 26. Luke  |  March 30, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    Quester- you called it.

    however, i can see the classic literature view that you and LeoP. hold faster than i can see the literal word of God view that my own fellow christians hold.

  • 27. Elias Pound  |  March 30, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    I remember being a sophomore at my fundie christian high school, and taking the required “Bible II” which included material on the canon and the development of the Bible.

    I was very uneasy about the whole canon idea (NT, anyway). It seemed rather arbitrary. No matter what I read, none of the explanations for how it was determined seemed to be very solid. It was disturbing as I started to see bible study as a sort of huge jigsaw puzzle, first in the way they taught eschatology, which seemed very complicated, with a lot of scripture-hopping, and then, too regarding, more “basic” doctrines. I wonder why God would give us a book that had to be pieced together in order for us to know what what right to believe.

    We used this textbook called _The Great Doctrines of the Bible_. The teacher was the president of the school and he was very staunch, and kind of an imposing personality. The sort of “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” hardliner type.

    Anyway, I recall this one class when he was lecturing on the canon, and I asked him if it was possible to be a Christian and not believe in the B-i-b-l-e or accept the canonicity of certain books. He was flustered, and said that over time “true” believers had come to a consensus that the books in the Bible were all inspired, and the “right” ones that belonged there. Kind of a BS/party line answer. Then, referring to the ultimate acceptance of the correct books into the canon, he confidently stated, “The cream always rises to the top.”

    A friend later joked “Yeah, so do the dead fish.” Silly, but it made me think.

    I’m sorry but the “rising cream” analogy came across as a lame explanation for how we obtained God’s Holy Word in its totality. Who decided, if it didn’t fall out of the sky? Who, and why? This was a big blow to my already unwinding faith, as I realized that the only basis for the “firm foundation” was the decisions of a bunch of men who voted about what books to keep and what ones to leave out. Even then, the ones that were left didn’t jibe completely, and there was a lot of conjecture to try and explain away the inconsistencies.

    I started to notice the enormous disagreements between groups of believers, or between bible teachers who were all fundamentalists, and realized that even with the HS supposedly guiding them into truth, they could barely agree about some major things. Translations and bible versions debates just heaped on more and more confusion and conflict. These were the guys who were supposed to be the leaders, the teachers, of correct doctrine.

    This led me to investigate dozens of different denominations or “bible-believing” groups, in an attempt to find one that seemed solid or consistent with the scriptures, but eventually I realized that no such church or group exists. Teachings are a mixture of bible, personalities, traditions and opinion. The Bible, I came to learn, was just another tradition of men. It was a tough lesson to learn.

    I really liked this post and will keep it handy so that I can share it with others. If I could only share it with some of my relatives, who would never dare question anything they were taught. But I can’t afford to bring down their ire or risk their disdain. I get enough of that already, and I know I am preaching to a choir about what THAT is like.

    Thanks, Josh!

    jg

  • 28. Anonymous  |  April 2, 2009 at 2:31 am

    I didn’t read all of the comments, and so I don’t know if anyone brought this up. The problem I see with how Christians use the term ‘Word’ is that it’s based in ignorance of Christianity’s past.

    The term ‘Word’ comes from term Logos and has nothing to do with literalistic inerrancy. Logos is a pre-Christian concept that was probably introduced into Christianity through Philo or else through pre-Christian Gnosticism. If Christians understood the meaning of Logos, It would probably change their way of interpreting the Bible.

  • 29. Erudite Redneck  |  April 2, 2009 at 6:50 am

    Yep. And it might change the way they interpret the author of John’s (and others’ early) interpretations of the Jesus event (as the eggheads like to call it.) It did for me, eventually, to an extent.

  • 30. Joshua  |  April 2, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    “Yep. And it might change the way they interpret the author of John’s (and others’ early) interpretations of the Jesus event (as the eggheads like to call it.) It did for me, eventually, to an extent.

    See points 1,4,5,6, and 7.

  • 31. Erudite Redneck  |  April 2, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    Ah, but you think it’s hopeless to try to get any meaning, relevant for today, out of the Bible. I don’t. That’s where we differ. A fair amount has been written about the evolution of hermeneutics the past few centuries, the best of which probably isn’t taught in conservative-fundamentalist-evangelical “Bible-believing” seminaries. … I mean, every one of your points can be said about the U.S. Constitution. But we still rely on it. Even with SCOTUS as a tribunal to divine (pardon) meaning, nothing is ever utlimately settled.

  • 32. Joshua  |  April 2, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    Well, if all one is trying to do is “get something” out of the Bible, then great. I don’t have a problem with that, except that one needs to realize that what they get out of the Bible very well may not be true either because the source is faulty or the interpretation is.

  • 33. Erudite Redneck  |  April 2, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    “Absolute truth” is unattainable in any case “this side of Jordan”! Faulty Paul suggested as much, faultily — “dark glass” and all. Getting close is possible, I think. And I think this is close: There is God. Here I am. WTH? And the answer to that, I trust, is that since I, not being God, can’t get to God on my own, that God, unless God is an utter tyrant, has made it possible for me to get there. And as a Christian, I accept the testimony of the Christian ages that that’s Jesus of Nazareth, whether in trying to mimic him, or in relying on him as the ultimate sacrifice making possible atonement in the Jewish sense, or as an expression of the Logos, the way of the universe, in the Greek sense.

  • 34. Yurka  |  April 2, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    #27 Elias Pound, it’s a shame you had such an isolated upbringing, but why didn’t you try harder to search for answers? You should visit aomin.org. James White has recently done a debate where he trounced agnostic textual critic Bart Ehrman, who sounds like he’s responsible for many of the doubts you have.

    White is not only a specialist in Greek, textual criticism but in early Church history as well – basically you *can* rely on the canonization process. The earliest manuscripts were too widely distributed for any cloak-and-dagger changes to have taken place (as Ehrman hints at but would admit there is not any evidence for). The criteria for the canon wasn’t ‘cream rising to the top’ either. The books had to be a) written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle, b) in widespread use, c) in conformity to the earliest doctrines taught by Jesus and the apostles. Don’t let your eschatology obsessed teacher ruin it for you. Don’t give up so easily! Look into things a little for yourself. As White (an amillennialist) says, “People who spend all their time obsessing over eschatology tend to get a little … weird.”

  • 35. Joshua  |  April 2, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    Yurka, please read points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 above.

    Don’t comment on other people’s comments on my posts unless you are willing to address the subject matter in the post itself.

    This note was not about canonization. I don’t give a fuck about canonization if points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are not first shown to be in error.

    Which I damn well know you can’t do.

  • 36. Erudite Redneck  |  April 2, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    WTH?

    “Don’t comment on other people’s comments on my posts unless you are willing to address the subject matter in the post itself.”

    Really? Pretty strident there.

    Mother, may I address Yurka?

    Sheesh.

  • 37. Joshua  |  April 2, 2009 at 11:38 pm

    Yurka has a history on this site, lets just leave it there.

  • 38. The Apostate  |  April 3, 2009 at 12:09 am

    I don’t know why I bother, but…

    Yurka,

    You should visit aomin.org. James White has recently done a debate where he trounced agnostic textual critic Bart Ehrman, who sounds like he’s responsible for many of the doubts you have.

    Since it impossible to find a free recording on the internet of this debate (White does offer it for sale), I downloaded the transcript and was bored of the same old hash fairly quickly. Maybe I missed some good stuff. Thinking I might of, I checked the reviews. Who won? Well just like every other Christian versus non-Christian debate, all the Christians say the Christian won and all of the non-Christians say the non-Christian one (with one or two exceptions on each side). Either way, “trouncing” just makes you sound somewhat dishonest – perhaps compensating for something.

  • 39. Joshua  |  April 3, 2009 at 1:21 am

    BTW everyone, my previous comment is particularly directed at Yurka and is meant in no way whatsoever as my attitude toward Christians – or any group – in general. Yurka has a tendency to completely ignore the posts on this site and instead to target people who post in response to the posts… which is a form of trolling.

  • 40. Quester  |  April 3, 2009 at 1:27 am

    Yurka has a tendency to completely ignore the posts on this site and instead to target people who post in response to the posts… which is a form of trolling.

    Is it? Dang. I do that all the time. I’ve heard of the concept “staying on topic” but I can’t say I put much effort into it.

  • 41. The Apostate  |  April 3, 2009 at 2:28 am

    ^– I must be a major troll then.

  • 42. LeoPardus  |  April 3, 2009 at 10:28 am

    Sorry TA and Quester, but y’all don’t earn the title of Trollus majoris. At best you might make Gnomeus minoris.
    If you want the big title, you’re going to have to spend time sitting at the feet of Guru Yurka and learn to emulate his ways. Even then you’d both have trouble since you both appear to have healthy minds and sturdy enough egos.

  • 43. Joshua  |  April 3, 2009 at 11:20 am

    Perhaps I should add that Yurka tends to target people who don’t know any better…

    And LeoPardus, excellent comment. I approve, despite the fact its targeted at other people on my post and completely ignoring the topic at hand… ;)

    I’ve just lost all patience with Yurka… sorry everyone. Back to your regular scheduled program.
    :D

  • [...] Some problems with calling the Bible God’s Word [...]

  • 45. joshua  |  May 5, 2009 at 11:17 am

    wat is this about

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,032,163 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers