Monthly Archive for July, 2009Page 2 of 9

Get in the frakin’ sack – for July 28, 2009

Published

on July 29, 2009

Right now I would take homeopaths and I'd put them in a big sack with psychics, astrologers and priests. And I'd close the top of the sack with string, and I'd hit them all with sticks...And when someone asks the big questions - I don't know what happens after a I die, or what happens when my loved ones die, or how do I stop myself from dying - the big questions and they give you a nice bullshit answer and you say 'Well, do you have any evidence for that? and they say "There's more to life than evidence". Get in the fucking sack.

-Dara O'Brian

In one of his stand up routines, Irish comedian Dara O'Brian uttered the statement above - a brilliant expression for the distaste one has for the popularity of the irrational and the moronic that swims through our culture. In that spirit, I've decided to add a new monthly feature to the Atheist Handbook - Get in the Frakin' Sack. It's not complicated, really. I will just select someone or something that should be worth of being put in O'Brian 's sack and pulped with sticks.

A quick look at the headlines a given week will result in a fine list of sack worthy people out there, but in keeping with the routine in which O'Brian talks about the sack, I decided this month the sack ought to be filled with the news media.

I make this choice for two reasons - first, I work in the news media and if I am going to suggest anyone be put in the sack, I suppose I should go first. And second, the media has been stepping on some many rakes lately that when someone asks what I do for a living I usually choose a profession more popular with the general public. You know, like lawyers, or dentists or mob assassins.

It would take an entire blog to discuss the moronic choices made daily in my profession, but this month has a particular one that just shows how damn dumb the entire news media can be. I present you with exhibit A: bird shit on a car.

Now, you might be saying "Bird crap. Big deal. Who give a crap, if you don't mind the pun." To which I would agree complete. Sadly, far far too many of my professional colleagues think dried avian feces is totally news worthy? Why? Beacuse several totally insane people think that this particular bit of bird crap is a supernatural sign from god. Specifically, they think the shit looks like the Virgin Mary and is therefore a miracle. If I even need to crack a wise ass joke at this point to drive the point home, I think I'll cry.

The coverage of this was, to my endless chagrin, utterly credulous. That people think bird crap represents divine intervention wasn't question at all, particularly on television, with the news hosts afterwards shrugging, giggling and saying "well anything is possible."

Anything is possible? Like I could, I dunno, reach my hands through the screen and strangle the news anchor who says such things? The correct response is to say these people are very probably insane. Or better yet, if someone calls your newsroom saying the bird shit on their car looks like god, you can offer them a phone number to the local mental ward.

Of course, bird droppings are not the only place the divine has made itself known of late. In Ireland, believers think Mary appears in the wood grains in a tree stump. I kind you not. Some of the locals want the stump encased in glass!! And as always, the news media reports it with the same seriousness as it would a terrorist attack or the results of an election. It's as if because this involved religion, journalist lose the ability to ask critical questions. Look, I am not asking for the Watergate investigation here - just the use of one or two brain cells to determine that bird shit is just bird shit. I'm actually surprised the folks over at the Discovery Institute haven't jumped on these stories as evidence of a cosmic designer.

I suppose this all raises another point. If you really believed in an all powerful ruler of the entire universe, wouldn't you expect a little more from him than tree stumps and bird crap? I mean, read the Bible - when god wanted his presence know he did it in style - drowning the entire world, creating burning bushes that talk, parting the seas, or conjuring bears to eat a bunch of mouthy kids. Never mind the time he showed up IN PERSON to mock the hapless Job. The point is, god didn't screw around back in the day. He was an angry, in your face kinda guy.

Today? Well if god exists either he's so far past his prime now he can't see it through the rearview window behind him, or the standards of what impresses people have seriously declined. No more talking burning bushes, or turning poor old ladies into pillars of salt. No, god is down to appearing in cheese toast, bird crap and in the side of a Tim Horton's. I mean, what happened? Wouldn't a believer want a few fire works instead of a stain on their car?

In any case, for all those reporters and editors who covered the "appearance" of god in bird crap and tree stumps — get in the frakin' sack.

King James Onlyism Interview (Introduction, part 1)

Published

CD-Host

on July 28, 2009

I have been a discussion with Will Kinney on King James Onlyism. Will runs a site, Brandplucked. I wasn't sure where this interview would end up going. It turned out there were 3 major areas of discussion:

1) The nature and definition of the bible

2) particular properties of the KJV

3) Why the vulgate doesn't meat the criteria for a complete inerrant bible and a historical timeline.

For those looking for more on this topic:

Will's site (BrankPlucked)
KJVO Debate
Bible Believers
AV Defense 1611 (new location)
AV 1611
KJVonly Research
David Cloud
The Attack, comic from the 1980s presenting a popular version of the KJVonly case
KJV defended
Why we don't teach Greek (from Grace Baptist College)

And with that I'll let Will Kinney open with a long introduction. Everything below this line is his (original http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoInerrant.html). Note everywhere he has a scriptural reference the mouse over will point to the NET, this is a blog wide setting I can't change for this series.

_____

"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"

Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.

This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.

As one liberal theologian pointed out in his review of Harold Lindsell’s, The Battle for the Bible, the only real difference between the conservative and liberal positions on the Bible is that the conservatives say the Bible USED TO BE inspired and inerrant, whereas the liberal says it NEVER WAS inspired or inerrant. BOTH positions agree that the Bible IS NOT NOW inspired or inerrant.

As brother Daryl Coats so aptly says: "If the Bible was inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one in the entire history of the world has ever had an inspired Bible. The original autographs of Job and the books of Moses had disappeared more than a thousand years before the first book of the New Testament was written, so no one has ever owned a complete Bible made up of the “divine originals.” Nor, has anyone ever owned a complete New Testament made up of “inspired originals”, because the originals were distributed among more than a dozen individuals and local churches."

God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3

The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."

"...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

What Christians really believe

A book by George A. Marsden, "Reforming Fundamentalism" quotes a survey of student belief at one of the largest Evangelical seminaries in the US. The poll indicated that 85% of the students "do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture."

This book also lists the results of a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy. They were asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters:

95% of Episcopalians,

87% of Methodists,

82% of Presbyterians,

77% of American Lutherans, and

67% of American Baptists said "No."

The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."

"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP."

No Absolute Truth

The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

Sam Kobia, Secretary, World Council of Churches, ENI 1-23-04:"Having a variety of translations available encourages the Bible to be read in a plural and ecumenical way. HAVING A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS AVAILABLE IS A PRECIOUS TOOL IN THE STRUGLE AGAINST RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM." (Caps are mine)

A popular New Age religious site that endorses all religions of the world is called Religious Tolerance. Org. http://www.religioustolerance.org

This site has some interesting comments regarding the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. They ask: Does inerrancy really matter?

"From one standpoint, this doctrine is of great importance, because it determines, at a very fundamental level, how Christians approach Scripture."

"To most conservative theologians Biblical inerrancy and inspiration are fundamental doctrines. Unless the entire Bible is considered to be the authoritative word of God, then the whole foundation of their religious belief crumbles. If the Bible contains some errors, then conservative Christians feel that they would have no firm basis on which to base their doctrines, beliefs, morality and practices. The books of the Bible must be either inerrant, or be devoid of authority."

They continue: "To most liberal theologians, the Bible is not inerrant. They believe that its books were obviously written and edited by human authors: with limited scientific knowledge, who promoted their own specific belief systems, who attributed statements to God that are immoral by today's standards, who freely incorporated material from neighboring Pagan cultures, who freely disagreed with other Biblical authors." (Religious Tolerance.org)

What I personally found of great interest is the following comment in the same article. The people at Religious Tolerance noted: "Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians CONSIDER A PARTICULAR ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE INERRANT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE AMONG LAY MEMBERS IN THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION. But most conservatives believe that inerrancy only applies to the original, autograph copies of the various books of the Bible. None of the latter have survived to the present day. We only have access to a variety of manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies...An unknown number of errors are induced due to Accidental copying errors by ancient scribes or intentional changes and insertions into the text, made in order to match developing theology." (Religious Tolerance.org)

Most Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any other version are now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure words of God, define Inerrancy in the following manner: “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences.” (P. D. Feinberg, s.v. “inerrancy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Inerrancy & the autographa.)

The usual tap dance performed by those who deny any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God is typified by the following quote: "Inerrancy applies to the autographa, not to copies or translations of Scripture. This qualification is made because we realize that errors have crept into the text during the transmission process. It is not an appeal to a “Bible which no one has ever seen or can see.” Such a charge fails to take into account the nature of textual criticism and the very high degree of certainty we possess concerning the original text of Scripture."

Well, this may sound very pious and good, but the undeniable fact is that this Christian scholar is talking about "a Bible no one has seen or can see".

As for this gentleman's "nature of textual criticism" is concerned, this so called "science" is a giant fraud and a pathetic joke played on the unsuspecting saints who might think these men actually know what they are doing. I have posted a series on the "science of textual criticism" that reveals the true nature of this hocus-pocus methodology of determining what God really said. You can see all parts of this study, starting with: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

Here are some facts taken directly from the Holy Bible. You do not need to be a scholar or seminary student to get a grasp of what the Bible says about itself. You either believe God or you don't.

The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

Psalm 19:7: "The law of the LORD is PERFECT, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is SURE, making wise the simple." The "law and testimony of the LORD" = His words.

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalm 40:7-8

"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19

I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

Therefore any bible version like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, NET, Holman Standard etc. that rejects these Hebrew texts automatically disqualifies itself from being the true words of the living God.

See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.

The indebtedness of the King James Bible translators to their predecessors is recognized most clearly in the Preface to the reader where they state in no uncertain terms: "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."

See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.

See article on The Only Begotten Son

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html

#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.

See my article that shows what these two false witnesses actually say:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html

If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see. Here is the link: http://rockymoore.com/ChristianLife/archive/2006/04/12/694.aspx

For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". See:

http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/historicposition.html

In and by His grace alone,

Will Kinney

"There is NO Inerrant Bible"

Get in the fuckin’ sack

Published

Grant LaFleche

on July 27, 2009

Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you...Right now I would take homeopaths and I'd put them in a big sack with psychics, astrologers and priests. And I'd close the top of the sack with string, and I'd hit them all with sticks...And when someone asks the big questions - I don't know what happens after a I die, or what happens when my loved ones die, or how do I stop myself from dying - the big questions and they give you a nice bullshit answer and you say 'Well, do you have any evidence for that? and they say "There's more to life than evidence". Get in the fucking sack.

-Dara O'Brian

A reply to Luke Muehlhauser’s “Living without a moral code”

Published

faithlessgod

on July 27, 2009

Luke Muehlhauser of Commonsense Atheism has written a surprising but commendably honest post Living without a moral code. He starts by saying:

I am in a rather odd position. I think that moral imperatives are real and knowable, but as it happens I know almost none of them. So, I don’t know how to live a moral life. I am morally bound but morally blind. I’m driving my life forward at 100mph but I don’t know which direction to turn it.

I find this surprising since he has, like me, discovered an interesting approach to morality, namely Alonzo Fyfe's (the atheistethicist) Desire Utilitarianism. Now, I do not like the title of this approach, since it leads to many misunderstandings due to reading it as some form of act or rule utilitarianism, which fails to address the claims it does make. So I prefer, for what it is worth, to call this approach Desirism now. Regardless, Luke has become a fellow advocate of this approach. Still, as a sceptic, I have long been dubious of promoting one moral approach over others and see how such advocates come across in blogs and debates. Nonetheless, since I do think this is the best approach I have seen to date and am always looking for better, I have taken the risk of openly endorsing it, at whatever cost my advocacy appears to others.

Part of its appeal its minimalism and simplicity, far simpler than many of the alternatives I have considered. However it has to be more than that, simplicity and minimalism alone being insufficient, it has to be usable in a realistic fashion better than its competitors and I have and will continue to argue that it is - until or when I am shown something better. I have also noted that others - critics of many different colours and stripes - assume a complexity at least matching their own approaches and it seems easier to communicate desirism to those unversed in moral philosophy, not because they are unable to come up with standard objections but because, in my view they are uninfected with previous moral philosophical baggage. Indeed I have found those to be far better able to identify and challenge its real weaknesses than any versed in moral philosophy who seem to dwell on misunderstandings based on their own approaches and straw men criticisms.

This last paragraph might be relevant in supplying some light on Luke's issues in his post as he says:

I spend most my time on moral theory. Why? Because if I have the wrong theory, then all of my conclusions in applied ethics are unfounded. So I need to make sure I have the right theory before I can answer questions in applied ethics.

I would not have it otherwise. In spite of the points I just made, it is still better to debate someone, whether they are a proponent or critic of desirism if they both properly understand it and are familiar with literature of moral philosophy. Of course I do not ask this of people in general, since I have always argued that if one needs to understand moral philosophy to be moral we are all in a lot of trouble. Anyway Luke goes on to expand on his troubles here with:

Unfortunately, this theory does not let me answer moral questions by closing my eyes and asking my “conscience.” Nor does it have any easy answers to any moral questions.

This is partly correct. I dispute his second sentence here but will dwell on his first in this post. Intuitions (a better term than conscience but is what is implied above) have been shown to unreliable in other domains and without demanding special dispensation in this area - for which I have never seen a valid justification - there is no rational-empirical basis to regard things differently here. Indeed this is a criticism of any theory that requires or relies upon intuitions and is an argument in favour of any theory, not just desirism, that correctly denies a special place to such intuitions or conscience as a basis of what is morally blameworthy or praiseworthy. Now Luke proceeds with what is a most surprising point, for someone who claims to know and endorse Desire Utilitarianism.

Instead, desire utilitarianism says that moral imperatives can only be known by way of calculations involving billions of (mostly) unknown variables: desires, strengths of desires, relations between desires and states of affairs, and relations between desires and other desires.

Here I have to strongly disagree in a number of ways but will focus on only one here. This highlights why I prefer not to call this desire utilitarianism, indeed this looks like a 101 error in understanding this approach and I wonder if Luke is being deliberately misleading in making this claim, but the rest of his post indicates nothing but that he is being honest in his dilemma. For sure this is an issue with any 1st order utility such as happiness/misery, satisfaction/frustration and so on, but desirism recognises the futility and errors in assume value monism. It espouses value pluralism which makes far more empirical sense. It is more of a 2nd order utility (if that is the right term now), allowing for value pluralism by focusing on reducing , let us call it, "friction" between agents who are pursing their, often incommensurate, own value. So there is no such calculus nor the challenges of resolving it.

Now, I don’t mean to overstate this. I’ve got some good guesses about what is moral and not moral, based on the theory of morality that seems most true to me. But they’re really just guesses.

But I can’t just stop living. I have to make decisions every day. Thousands of them. I can’t calculate the morality of each one – or really, hardly any of them. Not yet, anyway. So what do I do?

What I am doing is a hybrid of (1) my best guesses as to what is moral according to desire utilitarianism, and (2) just ‘going with the flow’ on the many issues for which I cannot even guess at their moral implications.

Well I (now) think Hare got this quite right with his two-tier utilitarianism (indeed it could apply to any moral approach) with his the Archangels and the Proles. Recognising the intuitions cannot serve as the basis for a moral code does not mean they must all be thrown out. We can happily operate at the lower common sense intuitive "Prole" level as a guide to our behaviour and conduct, noting that any and all of our intuitions (or heuristics, decision procedures, rules etc.) are open to review, revision, replacement and rejection - this being performed at the second-tier critical "Archangel" level - as andwhen required by the circumstances with time and data permitting, of course. At this second tier or level I want to chose the best available model to perform the review with resultant revision, replacement or rejection and that theory, to date is desirism. (This leaves out how this is to be cultivated at the first order Prole level but I do not think Luke and I disagree on that - the use of social forces to encourage and discourage relevant intuitions etc).

Luke finishes with:

It’s a pretty weird place to be, honestly. But that’s what happens when it matters to you if your beliefs are true. You suddenly don’t know a lot of stuff you might have once thought you knew.

Again I commend his honest position here, it is better to accept uncomfortable truth than a comforting fiction. Still the issue that Luke raised over a "calculus" of desirism is an important one. Having presented a somewhat negative response here I will follow through with a more positive reply in my next post (whenever that is I am still busy).

The ever brilliant Jesus and Mo

Published

nickopotamus

on July 27, 2009

I’m in far too foul a mood to write anything insightful or even anything other than an incoherent rant about how much I hate the world, so instead, I link to the always amazing Jesus and Mo comic’s commentary on the new Irish blasphemy law (otherwise known as “welcome back to the Middle Ages, guys”).

Jesus and Mo (click for original comic)

Posted in Religion Tagged: atheism, blasphemy, irish, jesusandmo, webcomics

Dante’s Heretics

Published

S.A.

on July 26, 2009

heretic_burning In Dante’s Inferno, the Sixth Circle lies within Lower Hell, the region encompassed by the walls of Dis, that demarcation between sins of Incontinence and sins of Violence. His primary denizens here are The Heretics. They receive considerable attention in his text, with four separate Cantos (8 through 11) dedicated to them. More lines are devoted to them than any other group in The Inferno, so they are obviously rather important.

I was interested to learn that the term heresy itself comes from the Greek word for “a choosing.” It would, of course, become synonymous with choosing anything other than orthodox Church doctrine. During Dante’s era, the desire that every member of a community believe exactly as they were told was so strong, and the fear that a heretic would corrupt others was so overwhelming, that it was considered paramount to cut the offending body out of the picture as effectively as possible. Heretics were given a chance to recant their beliefs. Those that did not kowtow to such pressures were typically taken to the stake. The official pronouncement of Pope Innocent III (what an ill-fitting name) was: “Anyone who attempted to construe a personal view of god which conflicted with the church dogma must be burned without pity.”

The hysterical concern with heresy was kicked off in the twelfth century, in reaction to the Cathars, or Albigensians, a sect that considered the world to be a creation of an evil being. They believed in reincarnation. Yet, they were also Christians that spurned material wealth and considered Jesus to be the son of God. But since they openly despised the Catholic Church and labeled it as a tool of Satan, it isn’t surprising that they incurred its wrath (though this hardly excuses the horrific executions that the Church sponsored and called for, and then had secular authorities carry out).

The Cathar persecutions reached their heights decades before Dante’s birth. During his lifetime, a popular target of Catholic persecution was the Beguines, a loosely organized order of devout Christian women. These women held no particularly unorthodox beliefs, lived lives of voluntary simplicity, served the needy, accepted the Church and its authority, and attempted to provide translations of devotional documents that the laity could understand. Marguerite Porete, a Beguine who scandalously wrote (in French, and not in Latin) that it was possible for the soul to find union with God in this life and therefore not need to explicitly cultivate virtue, was rewarded with a trip to the stake in 1310.

And its nice to see that after the excruciating end that these people were given on earth, Dante’s God provides them with the bonus of eternal suffering in a like manner: in The Inferno, heretics are encased in burning tombs with red-hot walls.

All because of God’s “perfect” Love, Intellect, and Justice. And all for a minor difference in the interpretation of dogmas that cannot be tested against reality.

Atheist or agnostic? Both.

Published

Jack

on July 26, 2009

Image via Wikipedia

“Atheism” and “agnosticism” are both poorly understood terms. Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. Theism and atheism relate to belief.

Agnosticism, as defined by its creator, Thomas Henry Huxley, is similar to skepticism. It’s a means of examining reality that says, “show me”. Show me the evidence that leads to a certain conclusion, show me the process of getting from point A to point Z that supports the contention that point Z is true. Knowledge should be based on truth and truth claims should be examined skeptically/agnostically to judge their merit.

Atheism is a rejection of the beliefs of those who claim that there are or have been gods. We do not accept the explanations and substantiations offered by believers in support of their beliefs.

I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is the tool I use to examine truth claims and atheism is the conclusion I’ve reached in the matter of belief in gods.

The Accidental Agnostic (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
Atheist Revolution (rwandanatheist.blogspot.com)
Believing In Belief (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

Print Friendly

I Didn’t Mow The Bee

Published

Baconeater

on July 26, 2009

I have a big backyard. It is fricken huge actually. Back when I lived in Toronto I had a semi-detached house, the lot was something like 17' by 80.' The backyard was so shady, we (me and my wife) decided to replace the grass with stone. We landscaped the front, which was pretty much a grass hill, with tiered terraces. No mowing, after we did that.

So we move to the Niagara region 8 years ago. For half of what my house in Toronto cost, I wound up buying a house on a 120' by 120' lot. Lots of trees on the perimeter, and lots and lots of grass that needs cutting. One good thing is the land is completely flat.

My wife does all the gardening. This used to include doing the lawn mowing. But as the years have gone by, I've actually started feeling sorry for her when she mows the lawn.

It got to the point that I couldn't watch her mow the lawn anymore. So I decided to shut the drapes.

This still didn't work, and those evolved innate feelings of guilt and empathy started to take over, so I wound up sharing the moving duties with her over the last few years.

I'm now up to doing pretty much two thirds of it now.

And I don't feel shamed having to do it either. In fact, in the Niagara region, apparently men do most of the lawn mowing. Believe it or not.

So now that I established that I do in fact mow the lawn, I need to add one more thing. In Ontario we have a brand new idiotic law that doesn't allow us to use pesticides and herbicides on our lawns anymore.

The Creeping Charlie's are loving the new rule. So while most of my property is grass, there are many (mostly shaded) areas full of weeds. And you just can't keep up with them. My wife hates weeds, but even she knows it is futile to fight them. I hope it doesn't get this way with Islam in the West:)

Doncha love the analogy?

OK, so a couple of days ago, I'm mowing over a patch of weeds, and there is a bumble bee hanging around one that flowered, just an inch off the ground. My mower is around six inches away from this self absorbed bee. Surely the motor and the vibrations will get the bee to take a hike. But no. So I move the mower two inches from the bee, and still no. Should I just keep on mowing? Absolutely not. Even though, this bee is obviously not evolved in a way to deal with the dangers of lawn mowers and is probably suffering from Rachel Corrie disease as well, I still couldn't do it.

You see, I have a problem killing animals in general. Spiders, ants, moles, you name it. I just know that it is there only crack at life. I'm very confident there isn't a human heaven, let alone a bee heaven.

I know I'm a walking contradiction when it comes to my eating habits. I try not to think about it, and the cognitive dissonance of eating meat has made me rationalize that it is OK to eat food that was bred to be food. I didn't feel guilty at all while enjoying the chicken parmigiana I had last night. I don't feel guilty eating bacon or cheeseburgers or steaks.

When I see a live pig though, I have a sense of guilt. But they taste so damn good. And besides, if Darwin didn't want us to eat meat, he wouldn't have given us with teeth:)

Another thing is that I'm hearing that we have had a bee shortage in North America, and apparently bees have a lot of responsibility when it comes to a lot of the food we grow and eat. Maybe I saved the earth by not mowing the bee, but probably not.

But then again, if this bee's genes are passed along, it is no wonder there are fewer of them. They have to know that they need to get the hell out of the way of lawn mowers. Did I help stupid bees by not offing this one? No, this one wasn't a breeding bee. Should I go after his mother, the Queen, so that she can't produce such stupid bees anymore?

This leads into another thing. I do make exceptions to my "I can't kill any animal" rule. That one has to do with stinking cockroaches. When I lived in an old apartment in Toronto in my single days, there were cockroaches. They deserved to die. Why? Because they carry disease that could be harmful to me. With flies, I usually give them a chance to leave the house, by opening the door, and if it doesn't leave and my wife swats one, I feel no remorse.

What about humans? Could I kill a human? If someone is a physical danger to me, yes. If someone murdered a loved one, I could see myself revenging it, though it isn't likely, I would desire that person to be dead.

For humanity? I wonder how many people would answer this question truthfully: If you could go back in time and kill Adolph Hitler in the 1920's, would you, if it means that you would not be born today (and if you have kids, your kids wouldn't be born today)?

When you think of all the suffering Hitler caused, the answer should be yes. But I selfishly admit that I wouldn't, unless my life was almost over. I value and appreciate this one crack at life I have. And I've also rationalize not killing Hitler in sort of the same way I rationalized the Hiroshima bombing: Had the US not dropped the bomb, killing many innocent people in doing so, it would have been inevitable that the bomb would have been dropped shortly thereafter by Russia or the US or both. The main reason the Cold War didn't lead to Nuclear annihilation is because both sides knew the real consequences thanks to what happened to Japan. The human suffering would have been even greater.

Had Hitler not shown us once and for all that the idea of mass geographical conquest will never work again, some other leader in Europe probably would have done something similar by now. Again, with WMD technology much lower back when WW2 started, humans may be extinct by now if conquest was coupled with nuclear capabilities.

As for the Jews and the Holocaust, it is a tough one not offing Hitler when it comes to all the suffering he created. But Jews have been scapegoats for 2000 years, and another leader in anti-semitic Europe may have popped up and did something similar. Now at least Israel exists, and Jews have a place to go if anti-semitism rears its ugly head anywhere on this planet, anytime. And Israel was fast tracked because of the Holocaust, because of Hitler's game plan.

However, if I was in my 80's and could go back in time, I would definitely take an axe and chop him into pieces.

Also, when it comes to humanity, I'm no fan of Islam. It is completely at odds with Western civilization and freedom. Do I believe that anyone who supported the Fall of Capitalism & Rise of Islam conference in Chicago recently deserves to die? Tough one. Would it be better for humanity if these people didn't exist? 100% for sure. Could I kill any of them? No. But if I had a gun to my head and had to decide who should die, the pig that my next rack of ribs came from or one of these hypocritical morons who hate the West but come and live here anyway, I would definitely say, kill the ass waver.

New Shirt

Published

Rev. J. Reed Braden

on July 26, 2009

I made a new shirt.

If you buy any of my shirts before Thursday 30 July 23:59 US Pacific Time, you get 15% off! Woo!

Posted in General

Some Values

Published

Tommykey

on July 26, 2009

By way of Pandagon, I have learned that Rush Limbaugh has been invited to be one of the speakers at the 2009 Values Voters Summit, one of those get-togethers of right-wing cultural conservatives to complain about how liberals, feminists and atheists are undermining the country's moral foundation.

Personally, I find it rather interesting that such a gathering would seek to include a thrice divorced Viagra® fuelled tourist to the Dominican Republic to pontificate on matters of traditional family values. Of course, what matters to these people is not Rush's morals, or lack thereof, but of his ability to promote their ideological agenda. After all, everyone has values. But it is these right wing conservatives who seek to make matters of morality their personal monopoly.

Drops of Water In A Water Jar – Part 2 – How About Drops of Water In A Water Barrel?

Published

Tommykey

on July 26, 2009

A couple of of months ago, I purchased a rain water collection barrel made by Fiskars. However, because I lacked a special kind of drill bit needed for drilling a one inch hole in the side of the barrel, and I never seemed to find the time to get to the store to by it, it was only today that I finally got it set up.

While Long Island has thus far had more than its fair share of rain this summer, there have been a few years here and there where we have had lack of rainfall. So, the rain barrel will certainly come in handy for situations like that. However, my primary intention is to use it as my first source for water when I water my vegetable garden, which by the way, is coming along nicely. I hope to be able to start harvesting the lettuce, carrots and broccoli in August.

In order for the rain barrel to be useful though, I need it to start raining so that enough water accumulates inside to rise above the level of the spout. If the weather forecast is anything to go by, the storm we are supposed to get tonight should help make this a reality.

The only downside is that I had to place the barrel so that it stands several feet away from the house rather than standing alongside the wall. The barrel is connected to a gutter at the northeast corner in the back of the house, which, from an aesthetic standpoint, is not exactly ideal. Nevertheless, if all goes well, it should help to reduce somewhat our household's water use.

Thunderf00t vs Comfort

Published

nullifidian

on July 25, 2009

A few weeks ago, after the news that Richard Dawkins (rightly, IMO) decided not to accept an offer to “debate” Ray “Tampon Case/Banana Man” Comfort, YouTube user Thunderf00t made a video offering to have a conversation with Comfort.

Comfort apparently accepted, and Thunderf00t and Comfort met up to discuss things.

The results can be seen on YouTube.

I’ve not seen the videos yet, so can’t offer any opinion on them. However, knowing Comfort’s style of ~~FAIL~~ argumentation and quality of “evidence”, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Thunderf00t kick Comforts arse. Intellectually speaking.

Possibly related posts:

Know scientology, know it’s a con The “church” of scientology is launching a new media blitz,...
Ray Comfort’s new web site (as I read it) Ray Comfort (the imbecile behind the ‘atheist’s nightmare’/banana argument (you...
A True Christianâ„¢ new media explosion What do you mean they’re not True Christiansâ„¢? They really...

Constantine’s Sword, An Excellent Documentary

Published

Anna Lemma

on July 25, 2009

Constantine's Sword has now been uploaded to YouTube. This documentary is well documented and very moving. I recommend it highly. I will be ordering this documentary myself. Constantine's Sword documents James Carroll's hard look at his Christian faith. He grew up seeing only the good that religion can bring people. But he needed to see the dark side of evangelism, antisemitism, and the forced conversions of Christianity's past in order to see his religion as it is rather than how he would like it to be.

Here is part one of nine, the other sections are linked and show after each section is played.

In Case You Forgot…

Published

Rev. J. Reed Braden

on July 25, 2009

Birther Kryptonite

He was born here.

Posted in General

KJVonly interview starting

Published

CD-Host

on July 25, 2009

I'll be starting a new interview series with a KJVonlyist presenting the case from a historical and liberal to neo-evangelical position. This will be one of my formal interviews (i.e. he gets to edit the final to make sure it reflects his views).

If you would like me to ask any questions or make sure any topics get discussed please feel free to comment here.

Open letter to MSNBC

Published

Rev. J. Reed Braden

on July 25, 2009

Dear MSNBC,

Why is there nothing on TV tonight that doesn’t make me want to set a crate of adorable kittens on fire?

I’m watching Fox News at the moment. Specifically, the re-run of 24 July’s The O’Reilly Factor, hosted tonight by Mike Huckabee, with guest Glen Beck, surely here to tell us about how the scary black guy in the White House wants to kill us all with healthcare.

I just want you and your programming directors to know that whenever they play that stupid fucking overplayed Michael Jackson Neverland interview tripe, I will be watching Fox Noise… because the ignorant, hypocritical, racist tripe I’m watching now is less torturous than seeing a facially mutilated paedophile buy millions of dollars worth of pottery on TV for the 5,000th time since his death from self-medication. I watch MSNBC for news and political commentary. The news of Jackson’s untimely but highly predictable death was news weeks ago. It isn’t news anymore. Please stop this.

I missed all but the end of Olbermann tonight. I want to see the repeat of Olbermann, not this garbage over and over again. Whatever happened to, “A Fuller Spectrum of News,” and, “The Place for Politics,” MSNBC? Michael Jackson is neither news or politics, and I’m sick of it.

You have failed me.

- J. Reed Braden

Posted in General

Job News: FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!

Published

Rev. J. Reed Braden

on July 25, 2009

Cross-posted on Tumblr:

Good news: I start my job at a BBQ restaurant tomorrow morning.

Bad news: I put my life on hold for two months waiting for the restaurant to open so I could start bussing and training on serving/waiting. Today, after not having been called in a week, I showed up to pick up my W-4 tax form thingy and… oops… the manager, who was just fired, hadn’t been keeping up with my file and I wasn’t told about yesterday’s meeting, and all of the positions in the front of the house are already filled, so I was not actually, you know… given a job.

It’s at this point in the story that I would like to mention that I was the first person to submit an application this April and I was the first interview in May, when I was told that I would be hired to bus and train on waiting/serving.

So the owner, who interviewed and promised to hire me two months ago, was “kind” enough to offer me a position washing dishes for minimum wage.

And… meltdown.

Posted in Local Stuff