 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/judith_hayes/happy_heretic/1998/easter.html
In Judith Hayes article found at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/judith_hayes/happy_heretic/1998/easter.html Judith writes, "But finally my eyes drifted to the bottom of the last page of this inane 'interview.' And prominently displayed there was a large, bold-lettered, black and red-double book ad. Aha! Mystery solved. Inane interview explained. This article, with the misleading title Are There Really Angels? had nothing at all to do with angels. Or spirituality for that matter. It was all superficial, shallow fluff. Lotz was peddling her new book about the Bible's book of Genesis, and Dr. Laura was hawking her book on the Ten Commandments. Magazine benefits from celebrities, celebrities sell books."
If you look at the bottom of the article there is a link to buy one of Judith's books. I doubt she knew that was going to be there when she wrote it, but some would say she is guilty of what she was complaining about.
Phillip Labry <Phillip.Labry@cwi.cablew.com>
vienna, va USA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 11:38:13 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
It is true that the Internet Infidels were nice enough to put that book link after my article. But that's beside the point. I did not imply that Dr. Laura and Anne Lotz had no right to peddle their books. That's why people write them. So other people will read them.
My complaints were that, first, I was very unhappy to see a large-circulation, heretofore secular woman's magazine, Ladies' Home Journal, feature an article titled, "Are There Really Angels?" Second, the article never addressed that earthshaking question. At the very end, after 1,700 or so words of a rambling, spiritual smorgasbord, a mere 100 words were devoted to angels. Lotz said they clearly existed, but then compared them to "pet rocks." Dr. Laura's answer: "It's the tooth fairy."
This so-called "angel" interview was all over the place, with no focus, no continuity, and certainly no angels. The two women contradicted each other repeatedly and no one called them on it. It was thoroughly disingenuous. (I sincerely doubt that Phillip Labry read the interview.) The tabloids do it all the time of course, with eye-catching titles like, "Read About Oprah's Newest Heartbreak!" And then you learn on page 27 that her spa has an algae problem. I didn't expect these bait-and-switch tactics from such a respected magazine. A straightforward interview about the authors' respective books would have been the honest approach, and I wouldn't have even bothered to read it. But then probably no one else would have either, would they?
By contrast, this very same April 1998 issue of LHJ featured mystery writer Jane Haddam, who has written 22 mystery novels. And guess what she talked about? Why, writing mystery novels! What a concept! Honesty! I read the article, enjoyed it, and did not feel as if I had been led down a garden path.
And there is the difference. I also write about what I say I'm going to write about. I write about secular humanism and I criticize religion. There are no surprises and no deception. My book is part and parcel of that same package. I did not wangle an interview with LHJ titled, for example, "Firm Your Thighs While Sitting at Your Computer," then spend the entire interview discussing the relative merits of Windows 95 and Windows 98, and finish up with a book ad about the evils of religion.
But you know, come to think of it, maybe I should give it a try . . . .
Judith Hayes
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/
I've been reading some of the response to the Wall Street Journal editorial on the Campus Freethought Alliance. Please, no whining: "We're a poor little minority group being bullied by the bigoted WSJ." This is the same crap the Xtian's try to pull. The WSJ can have any opinion they want, don't like it don't buy it. The better response: "We're right, you're wrong and here's why". Whining about minority status gets you nowhere fast. Xtians who can't support their beliefs (and how can they!) resort to this position. Being confidant you're on the right track is good for the head and attracts those sitting on the fence (or wall).
Mark Rutter <MHRutter@aol.com>
Raleigh, NC USA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 10:16:17 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/library/historical/
I just like to thank You A LOT for Your work setting up the Russell pages in the internet!
Peter Dimmroth <postmaster@alaris.inka.de>
Karlsruhe, D Germany - Tuesday, May 05, 1998 at 23:59:53 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.html
Thank you for all the fine articles, both historical and current. I don't have that much college education (so far) and put a high value on the historical facts I have learned. Such as the real reason for the Catholic-Protestant problem in Ireland. I guess my Irish ancestors were not amused at the Cromwell slaughter.
Again, keep up the good work-even us old ladies can learn a lot here with a sane exchange of rational ideas. As a former fundamentalist I'm proud to say, because of what I have learned in my studies, "Hate doesn't live here anymore" and "The Destroying Monster in the Sky" is dead!
Roberta Kirberger <LRabian@aol.com>
Blanchard, OK USA - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 12:09:50 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html
good article , there was a few things there that i hadnt realised. It's seems to me that we are all hippocrites and indeed capable of mistakes even god (when god repents of the evil which he thought to do to the people of ninevar), cant repent of something if its not a mistake can you?
however god does call one man perfect ( at least one) and that was job. job seems to be capable of mistakes as we all are so perfection in gods eyes must be something else than a religious obediance to rules. Children need rules but when you become an adult you see though the rules to the intent of the rules
and try to follow that intent. Man likes to bring things down to a set of rules so that he can either twist the rules or show by them that he is better than his fellow man. I think we must see the evil in ourselves and have pity on ourselves then we can show pity and understanding to others instead of judgement.
p.s. i saw your set of rules and i had a good laugh!!! ha ha ha good one. I bet everybody falls for it. !....? (ever visited planet earth , maybee you should)
peter <startrek@diesel.net.au>
bendigo, vic aust - Thursday, April 30, 1998 at 22:09:14 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/gish-zindler/gish-zindler.html
I would first like to say that this is my first time to this website and I have been enlightened a great deal on the thoughts and ideas of atheistic thought. I am a believer in Jesus Christ and the Bible. I would only like to add a few of my thoughts to the ongoing debate here on the site.
I read part of a debate with Duane Gish and Frank Zinkler ( I am unsure of the spelling). I found it very interesting and they both brought up some well thought out points. I do not claim to know a lot of theory on the subject. I have only heard a few lectures. One thing that Gish brought out was the idea that from time/chance/matter we get love/beauty/morals. That in itself throws a kink in the idea that we all just appeared here by some freak of nature. If I took the pieces of my watch and threw them into the air it is very unlikely that they would become a watch after even billions of years of lying there together. Yet evolutionists want to assume (for that is what they do, they cannot prove evolution) that I, with all my thoughts and feelings and emotions and reasoning ability, with all my neurons and cells and DNA that is specific to me and to no other, that I am just a product of nature's course. When I sing a song or write a story or figure out a trig problem I am just acting on what essentially begna with hydrogen atoms bumping into each other billions of years ago. When I was in France last summer at the Lourve and I stared at those massive, amazing works of art, when I stood inside of Notre Dame my first instinct was not "Wow, I wonder if this just appeared here over thousands of years by the workings of nature." No, I knew that someone had designed and built or painted those things. Evolution may explain a lot scientifically. And I suppose if I were looking at it from just a scientific, logical perspective I could see it that way. But I just can't. No matter what they say...they can't explain that.
Katherine E. Smith <gsi14750@gsaix2.cc.gasou.edu>
Statesboro, GA USA - Thursday, April 30, 1998 at 15:10:47 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
I strongly disagree with your claim that evolution is an assumption and that evolution cannot be proven. You are simply making assertions without argument. Moreover, there is good reason to believe that your assertions are false, and I refer interested readers to the Talk.origins web site at http://www.talkorigins.org for more information. Your analogy between the evolution of living organisms and the evolution of a mechanical watch begs the question. Everybody agrees that watches cannot evolve. (How could they? They don't even reproduce!) However, the evolutionary claim is that living organisms have evolved, and you watch analogy is really quite irrelevant to that hypothesis.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
You have an excellent site here. It is a wonderful source for nontheist and theist alike (according to my theist friends). I do have a suggestion though, would it be possible to have downloadable zip files of at least some of the articles, essays and such on here? I have very little time that I can be online and it would be a very helpfull tool if I could download a bunch of files all at once instead of individualy? Please let me know if this is something that may be possible!
Thanx alot for providing such a good site for nontheist, there needs to be more!!
Josh Michaud <wankomishu@aol.com>
Lincoln, NE USA - Thursday, April 30, 1998 at 09:43:40 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
The main problem with doing this is that it's hard for us to predict which groups of files people will want to download together. In addition, in many cases the HTML needs to be different when the page is to be used for local browsing.
A better solution is for you to get an offline browsing package for your computer. I have one called Web Buddy, from DataViz. [See http://www.internetworld.com/print/1996/05/20/news/pcbrowse.html for a review and link to download site. -Ed.] I can tell it to download a web page, and all the pages linked directly from it; it goes away, pulls down the HTML, and re-writes it so that it's suitable for offline reading. Or I can pick the pages I want one at a time and tell it to download them.
There are a bunch of packages like Web Buddy for the Mac; some shareware, some commercial. There are plenty for Windows too, and if you run LINUX take a look at GNU's wget program.
We've also discussed the idea of making an Internet Infidels CD available. If you (or anyone else reading this page) would be interested in such a thing, perhaps you could let us know. (An indication of how much you'd be willing to pay would be useful too :-)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/march.html
Off the bat, let me just say, this is not in response to any specific article. It is only the gnawing question in my mind that I must ask after reading all of these dialogues: What kind of hope or reason to live does an atheist have? Not meant to be offensive. I am just curious. I type from the other side of the fence.
Jeremy Patterson <jeremiah12@Juno.com>
Lynchburg, VA USA - Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at 14:13:03 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Your question is not at all offensive Jeremy. As a matter of fact, it is one that has been raised quite often. In his Confession, Tolstoy tells us that he reached the point in his life when nothing seemed to matter. "Why should I live?" he wrote, "Is there any meaning in my life that will not be destroyed by my inevitably approaching death?" The theist answers this question by seeking meaning in God, that is, they reconcile their finite existence by way of the infinite which, they hope, will deliver them from their own existential dilemma of finitude. This is one approach to living; however, we atheists consider that approach to be cheating because it denies the relevance of this life by emphasizing an "afterlife." Put simply, what is the point of death if one believes that no one really dies but goes on forever? Theism robs death of its purpose. To atheists, since the concept of God is meaningless, they must squarely face the fact that everyone will one day die. To know that one will die makes the living of life all the more precious. If life is precious then one ought to make it meaningful. Even if He exists, God cannot make your life meaningful for you; it is you who must make your life meaningful. I make my life meaningful by never taking it for granted and engaging in activities that add value to my existence and to our world. In my case this involves helping others, understanding, listening, learning, building, donating to charity, preserving the environment, creating something, baking bread, and spending time with loved ones. It means drinking good wine, appreciating music, taking long walks to no particular place, attending the theater, riding a bicycle, working with wood, cooking, and gazing at the stars at night. Love this life Jeremy. You may only get to go around once.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/
I have seen your site a few times now and finally have taken the time to respond to what I see. While I must confess my Faith in Christ Jesus, though I still find many of your arguments fascinating.You have helped me immeasurably in the task of sharpening the weapons of reason and intellect. God bless you. I wonder though, why the shallow attacks on the faithful? Why feel you the need to belittle the followers of Christ, show me an atheist who has impacted the world like Francis,or Augustine, Or Aquinas.Can you? You seem to rely on a steady diet of Hegel and Darwin, but you deny the reason of Socrates and Plato (Foolish deists to you no doubt). You attempt to dicredit Lewis but ignore those who could respond to your attacks (like Kreeft). Come out from behind your veneer of anonimty, reply to me in person
lets talk shop, what've you got to lose.
adam patrick taylor <adampt@rocketmail.com>
carthage, mo USA - Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at 10:47:22 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Actually, you are mistaken that we have neglected Kreeft and other Christian apologists. We have responded to Kreeft, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and Ravi Zacharias, to name just a few. Please check our Christian apologetics and apologists page.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Great site! I have a question for you guys: if God is omniscient and omnipotent, can He create a boulder so heavy that He can't lift it?
Darrin Rasberry <Lonelyhearted1@hotmail.com>
wichita Falls, Tx USA - Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at 01:25:29 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Conventional wisdom in philosophy holds that God's omnipotence involves the ability to do any logically possible thing. God cannot make a round square or a married bachelor. However, the reason God cannot do these things is because they are logically impossible and not because He is somehow limited in his omnipotence. Thus, the reason God cannot make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it is because such an action is logically impossible.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
Informative site overall but... LE 11:20-21 There are winged creatures (birds or insects) that go around on all fours. (Note: There are no birds that go around on four legs, and all insects have six legs.) Some bats do walk around on all fours. Vampire bats in south america fly to a prey site and then walk around their victim consuming blood from various puncture wounds.
Robert Schmidt <triassic@golden.net>
- Sunday, April 26, 1998 at 20:18:37 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.html
Having read your FAQ section, I respectfully suggest that you are overlooking a tremendous creative possibility. There is a valid critique of all religions that are based on purported knowledge of ultimate causes and the ultimate origins of things. Why, then, are atheists, but not open-minded Jews, Christians, and other theists explicitly part of your Humanism? Atheism is as unfounded as any of these, and its main departure from them is not that it is more rational, but that it is empty: instead of inventing a specific story about the parts of reality we know not of, it posits --- often without intended to do it --- that what we know is the whole story. This, I believe, is a primary source of what I see as meanness in many of your responses to people's sincere questions.
So I respectfully suggest that you look more carefully at the symbolic aspects of various religions. This does not require you to discard your critiques, but only to recognize that the intellectual dimension of religion is only part of the story. For most people it is not the largest part. You might find that you will do better, be more at ease with people, be more creative, and more useful to your cause by looking to this other element, instead of focusing almost exclusively on the "literal meanings" of the religions. (Is this not an oxymoron anyway? Surely it is the fundamentalist approach, which is why many people see your group as more nearly aligned with the fundamentalists than with anyone else.)
Maybe then you will no longer feel the need to set yourselves apart from most of society by calling yourselves "infidels." Who knows, maybe you will even be happier!
I wish you the best in your endeavors, and hope they will lead to a more vital and creative unity among all people in this life.
Paul LaClair <pdlaclair@aol.com>
Kearny, NJ USA - Saturday, April 25, 1998 at 09:08:55 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/april.html
Hello! I would like to tell you how refreshing it is to find a site devoted to such healthy skepticism. I never wanted believers to tell me that there was a god; I just wanted it to come down from its "heaven" and tell me itself. Of course, that never happened and thankfully, I'm no longer the "christian" my mother always hoped I would be. I would think that a god would especially want non-believers like me to know of its
existence and further, to be able to prove it. All we have now are believers (belligerently) telling us so. Anyway, great job on your site and I will visit often. I like the idea of a bold circle as an emblem for atheists/freethinkers (us). How about you?
James Roberson <jhrjr@earthlink.net>
San Diego, CA USA - Friday, April 24, 1998 at 21:58:38 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Good Site. There will be others that had the same thought but these are the things I have to say about The beginning of life and the creation of God. Any God that is. All religions believe there has to be a creator to build the world, but my question is always. Who created the creator? Because you need your creator, isn't it? Unga walked apon the world in the beginning of mankind and he didn't understand a thing of it. The sun who rised in the morning and sat in the evening. Fire, lightning, the seasons. He didn't understand. And because he didn't understand he invented spirits. The beings you couldn't see but set the fire to a log, controlled the seasons and so on. In the time of centuries those spirits became Small Gods ( very good book by Terry Pratcett by the way ) and those Small Gods became the Bigger Gods of ancient Greek and Roman times. And then they became God himself and because mankind believed in Him He was. And nobody dared to oppos them ( inquisition? ). And with them I mean the Church and the other leaders of other religions. Because this kind of power is very absolut. With a dictatorship you controle the lives of people but with a theocratie you controle there way of thinking also. And for centuries Europe had a theocratie and the people of this time are still indoctrinated by the church. They didn't learn to think for them self. And the meaning of live? The only reason is to sustain live. And that is not Humanlive but live in general. Don't think I'm suicidal, I love my live and I think I'm living it well.
Ronald P. Wubbena <wubbena@xs4all.nl>
Kampen, Holland - Friday, April 24, 1998 at 18:02:29 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Hi! I wanted to let you know I found your site/links interesting and somewhat refreshing. In particular, I was impressed with text dealing with mental illness. I used to believe that mental illness was a type of demon possession; I'm now convinced that, in my case at least, it is a chemical imbalance in the brain which is treatable with prescription drugs. As a mentally ill Christian, I found it difficult to accept the doctor's diagnosis, but I know the medicine works. I believe God watches over me and I'm grateful for rational, clear-thinking people. Thanks for your honest outlook.
Connie Fennell <cfennell@cgocable.net>
Hamilton, ON Canada - Thursday, April 23, 1998 at 22:11:04 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
I'm very glad to hear that the medication is helping you. I'm taking anti-depressants myself, and mental illness runs in my family, so I have some idea of what you might be going through. I won't attack your belief that God watches over you. Stay well!
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
I just finished reading the section on intolerance of religious differences in the military. My husband (atheist) attended basic training for the Navy recently and had an overall good experience. He wasn't forced to do or say anything he didn't believe in. At graduation, though, he was forced to stand through a military chaplain's 20 minute speech and religious singing. I thought that the graduation was no place for religion. If we wanted to see that, we would go to church. Another example of failed Church-State separation.
Kate <keb85436@pegasus.cc.ucf/edu>
USA - Thursday, April 23, 1998 at 09:25:27 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the_fool/late.html
Re: the Hal Lindsey book review. You know, I get more than a little tired of Non-Christians referring to Christians as unintellectual. I am a Christian, I have a working brain in my head, and I do not automatically accept what anyone--Christian or Non-Christian--tells me. Furthermore, I attended University, and I earned a degree. How easy it is for one group of people to resort to name calling when disagreeing with another group. I have no doubt that from time to time that you receive e-mails from self-professed Christians who then proceed to insult you. I do not condone that nor will I excuse it.
Atheists, agnostics, and other Non-Christians do not have a monopoly concerning critical thought or intelligence. So please, refrain from implying or stating out right that all Christians are brainless, stupid, unintellectual people.
Mary Jane Doe USA - Wednesday, April 22, 1998 at 22:09:13 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
The author never asserted that all Christians were "unintellectual." To be sure, the author criticized Hal Lindsey, but that's a far cry from claiming that all Christians are unintellectual.
With that said, I join you in rejecting the belief that "all Christians are brainless, stupid, unintellectual people." Your point is well-taken. Although I believe Christianity is false, I have no problem accepting the idea that Christians are rational. In my opinion, far too many people -- Christians and nonChristians alike -- confuse the difference between truth and rationality. I think that if more people understand the difference, people would not be so quick to make statements about the rationality of the people they disagree with.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4front97.html
I was surfing the net and ran across your web page which I found intriguing. I must agree with you that it is utterly impossible to be certain of what happened to the apostles and of how they died. There are many contradictory traditions about what happened. In a way, the traditions are almost like the story of Robin Hood--we are relatively certain that someone at some point in history stole from the rich and possibly gave to the poor, but that is all we can be even relatively certain of. Your article was right on in that regard. I must also admit that sometimes it is a little hard to believe what is said by people who call themselves Christians and do not live what they say they believe. I cannot ask you to believe those people who live in
that way. And I cannot ask you to accept what is less than certain (the deaths of the apostles as martyrs) as proof of an event (the resurrection of Jesus) that occured two thousand years ago. There is no empirical evidence for it. There are no video tapes of the event, there were no historians on the scene to document it, and there are stories from other quarters (especially those of the Jewish priests of the day) who will say that Jesus' body was, in fact, stolen by his disciples. However, all of this is just tradition. There is no way to verify any of it (though if you are interested in giving it a try you might read the book Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell). I can and will ask you, however, to allow for the possibilty that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead. The question of whether or not the apostle's died as martyrs is irrelevant. That is something modern people have come up with as a way to prove what cannot be empirically proven. The only thing that is relevant is the effect that a living Jesus has on people's lives today.
I do not live by a set of rules, regulations, and creeds dictated to me by the Christian religion. I have a relationship with Jesus now. That is what causes me to live my life in the way I do. That is what causes me
to treat people the way I treat people. I have experienced his love in my love and it is what makes my life worth living. No I cannot prove any of this to you. But consider if you will the movie "Contact." Jodie Foster travelled through space to make contact with an alien she knew nothing about, spent 18 hours with this alien, and when she returned the only evidence she had that anything had happened was 18 hours worth of static on her recorder. She could not prove that what she said happened actually did occur. All she could say based on the static was that SOMETHING happened. Everyone else had to take her word for it until they were willing to take the journey themselves. If nothing else, all that would happen to them would be falling in a module to be caught in a net below. I ask you to take my word for it. If you are open-minded, be willing to give Jesus a chance. Don't give Christianity a chance. Give Jesus a chance. Ask him to reveal himself to you. If nothing happens, you have proven your point. But give him the chance. If
he doesn't respond, you've lost nothing, and you can go on with your life just like before. But, please, don't toss Jesus out the window because you don't know how his disciples died.
Christopher Paul St.Clair II <cpsainti@hsutx.edu>
Abilene, tx USA - Wednesday, April 22, 1998 at 11:10:31 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
For a rebuttal of McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/. I find it odd, though, that you would recommend this book and simultaneously hold that Christianity "cannot be empirically proven".
I must disagree with your opinion that the effects of "a living Jesus" can be seen in people's lives. If some Christians are more moral than the average person, so are some Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and deists and atheists. Gandhi, for example, was not a Christian. Neither were Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Jefferson. If some Christians exhibit unusual joyfulness, that can easily be explained by their belief that they have a personal relationship with God. An actual relationship is not required.
I've already given Jesus a chance, and no, my former Christianity was not the kind of formal, empty religion that you warn us against. It seemed to me at the time to be a very personal relationship with Jesus. See http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/biog.html and http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/ex-tian/stories.html.
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/vulgar.html
In your Biblical Obscenities page, you missed the biggest one of all! In Hosea 4:10 the NSRV has: They shall eat, but not be satisfied; they shall play the whore, but not multiply; because they have forsaken the LORD to devote themselves to whoredom.
"they shall play the whore, but not multilply" in Hebrew is "vayiznu vloh yifrotzu" which literally translated means "they will fuck, but won't come (burst forth)". How can you guys miss that one!
The Hebrew root verb word "zanah", usually translated "play the whore" and "zenut" usually translated "whoredom" of course refers to religious ritual prostitution (both heterosexual and homosexual). A plausible argument can be made that this is the Hebrew word for "fuck" sharing the same root as "zayin" which can mean penis or weapon, rather than the euphemism "knew" (along with the use of the word "flesh" to mean penis). The Hebrew word for "cunt" (leaving euphemisms aside) appears in the Bible as well - "pot" in Isaiah 3:17 (translated in the NSRV as "secret parts").
How about Ezekiel 16:15 "spreading your legs (opened thy feet) for every passer-by"?
BTW What the hell are "loins"? I don't know anyone who has "loins". I don't think that there is one priest or minister out there who can't describe where their "loins" are! Levi is described in Hebrews 7:10 as "yet in the loins of his father". Genesis 35:11 "kings shall come out of thy loins". The word for "loins" of course refers to the "balls" or scrotum, or maybe the entire male genitalia, just like the English "ballocks"! Now if you translated those passages using the terms "cock" "balls" "cunt" and "fuck", which is undoubtedly how they were understood in ancient Hebrew, the Bible would come out looking much different than it does in present translations.
Ted Kandell <ted@cyber-wizard.com>
San Francisco, CA USA - Wednesday, April 22, 1998 at 10:28:18 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/
I would hate to be you, knowing the bible and disclaiming it. Your information is not accurate and you think you know it all. Satan has lead you astray. You ought to ask God to have mercy on you and repent! I plead with you to do so.
Spencer Luke <johnpc1@hotmail.com>
Alphine, CA USA - Tuesday, April 21, 1998 at 13:43:40 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/2/
I have to agree with many points being made about the Bible not being an inerrant book, (Even though I wish that Mr. Till didn't take the opposite extreme and claim that there simply is no God at all) - It's hard for me to believe that, but at the same time it's extremely depressing for me to believe that so much of the World is lost and going to Hell.
Following is a problem that I have yet to reconcile.
3. Was Matthew one of the disciples in the boat when the storm was calmed by Jesus?
In the Gospel of Mark, Levi (aka Matthew) is called in Chapter two (Verses 13-20), then in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appoints Matthew as one of the twelve disciples. Jesus comes home after having appointed the twelve (Mark 3:20). Then the scribes from Jerusalem came and He asked them some questions (Mark 3:22-30). And His mother and his brothers arrived and were standing outside and sent word to Him. (Mark 3:31). After this He began to teach again by the sea, (Mark 4:1). After looking at the chronology of these verses it is easy to picture Matthew being one of the disciples that would have been there to hear Christ's parables. Mark 4:10 says that when Christ was alone that his followers along with the twelve began asking Him about the parables. Later on that day when evening had come (after the parables of the sower, the lamp, the growing seed, and the mustard seed) He gave directions to His disciples that they go over to the other side (Mark 4:35). When they were on the way over to the other side is when the storm was calmed, and it would seem likely that Matthew was still with Him and was one of the disciples in the boat when the storm was calmed. After the storm is calmed they get to the other side and demons are sent into swine (Mark 5:1-20). Then after Jesus crosses back over again to the other side a great multitude gathered about Him by the seashore (Mark 5:21). The next thing that Mark mentions is that Jairus came to Jesus and fell at His feet saying that his daughter was at the point of death (i.e. she was dying) - (Mark 5:22-23).
The problem comes in however when Matthew 8:18 thru 9:19 is read carefully.
In Matthew 8:23-27 the storm is calmed, then they arrive at the opposite side and the demons are sent into the swine (Matthew 8:28-34). Then he got back into a boat and came back to His own city (Matthew 9:1), and Behold!, the first thing that happens is that they were bringing to Him the paralytic lying on the bed. (This is not really any discrepancy, since Mark just omitted it), but after passing on from there He saw a man named Matthew sitting in the tax office and He said to him, "Follow me." (Matthew 9:9). Then Jesus eats at Matthew's house with the tax-gathers and sinners and John's disciples come and ask why the disciples of Jesus do not fast (Matthew 9:14). While He was still giving the answer to this question by using the analogy of the new wine, Jairus came and bowed before Him saying that his daughter had just died. (But obviously he must have trusted that Chirst would be able to raise her from the dead that she would live).
According to Matthew then, he writes (though not in the first person), that he started following Christ after Jesus had come back in a boat from the other side where the pigs rushed into the water. He was called as Jesus passed on from healing the paralytic (Matthew 9:9) and Jesus was eating (or had just eaten) dinner at Matthews house when Jairus arrived (Matthew 9:18).
According to Mark though, it sure seems that Matthew had already been called and would have been with the other disciples to hear the parables in Mark chapter 4 and in the boat with the other disciples when the storm was calmed.
How can this be reconciled??
You may also notice the discrepancy in what Jairus said to Jesus in Matthew versus what He said in Mark. Was she dead or wasn't she?
Bruce Weston <BruceWston@Aol.com>
Kalamazoo, MI USA - Tuesday, April 21, 1998 at 02:38:17 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/email.html
Very informative - are there any such groups here in Germany? Keep up the good work!
Dieter H. Kniese <dieter.kniese@t-online.de>
Weilburg, Hesse Germany - Monday, April 20, 1998 at 15:25:04 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/heart_of_the_bible.html
One day we will find out if the Bible is true and if it is divinely inspired or not. For that day I wait patiently.........
Jim Calkins <jcalkins@cetlink.net>
Rock Hill , SC USA - Friday, April 17, 1998 at 07:54:09 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' response:
How do you know you've picked the right god? You could die and find out that Osiris is very, very angry at you. The argument you put across is known as Pascal's Wager. There's a list of reasons why the wager doesn't work at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal.
Internet Infidels' response #2:
Actually, if there is no afterlife, then the day you speak of will never come. With all due respect, you are begging the question by assuming that there will be an afterlife.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
I am writing to thank your organization for your profound concern. About a month ago I posted feedback on your site. The day in which it was made public, a gentleman from your organization contacted me in regards to my questions. One impressive point I noticed was the lack of malignancy which is displayed so thoroughly throughout Christianity. I am truly refreshed to see that at least one group has the intellectual temerity and compassion to reach out to those who are looking for answers and, likewise, are not satisfied with emotional pascification that the religious contingent tends to offer. Thank you once again, its quite ironic that the message of love (the centrality of Christianity) has been so obscured by doctrine and intellectual evasion, that no one from my former church had the compassion to truly seek me out. I suppose the shepherd who seeks the lost sheep is merely an "ethereal" concept rather than an actuality.
Frank Palmisano III <FRANKP7@prodigy.net>
Baltimore, MD USA - Thursday, April 16, 1998 at 17:16:58 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/
I would like to ask some questions to the numerous Theists that browse the Internet Infidels pages:
(1) Every cult (at least the Monotheist cults we're more familiar with in the Western World) is based on certain rituals and rules (the Ten Commandments, specific prayers, what to eat or what not to eat -- and when, etc.) that one must follow to please God; doesn't it mean that you consider you know what God wants, how God thinks -- that YOU'VE FIGURED GOD OUT?!? (Ok, you may say God "revealed Himself to you -- but how can you be so sure you got the right message?...") For me that looks like a lot of PRIDE coming from someone declaring him/herself nothing more than a humble creature of the Almighty and Infinitely Wise God!!! And, according to you, isn't pride a SIN?...
(2) Talking about sins... Am I right when I say that, for you, a sin is an offence to God? When you declare yourself as sinners, aren't you in fact stating that you have the CAPABILITY of OFFENDING a Supreme Entity? Isn't that pride, too? Aren't you OVERESTIMATING yourselves?
(3) When you write to the Secular Web all those hocus pocus curses ("You'll burn in Hell!"), or when you say that in your daily life, aren't you, once again, being proud for supposing that you KNOW IN ADVANCE how your God will decide at the end of times? (I'm not saying that God exists, or that there will be such a things as a Judgement Day -- I'm just working under your assumptions...) Plus: if God is infinitely good, how can he condemn one of his sons/daughters to eternal suffering?
(4) Many of you say that believing in God is not an act of reason, but one of FAITH; if that's so, who is to blame if I don't believe? Surely the blame can't be upon me, for I'm just responsible for my actions and my decisions. Plus, you often say that believers are those "touched by God's grace" -- if I wasn't touched by that divine grace (and, thus, I don't believe), wasn't God UNFAIR to me? Can I be blamed for GOD'S OMISSIONS AND INJUSTICES? Furthermore, when you say I can always "open my heart to God's truth and love" or "decide to live apart from His light" -- doesn't this decision imply that to believe or not to believe is, in fact, an act of reason? ... But -- isn't God beyond reason?
Fernando Gouveia <fgouveia@marao.utad.pt>
Vila Real, Portugal - Thursday, April 16, 1998 at 08:43:13 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/new.html
Philip Dorell's piece on the Many Worlds Theory seems unsatisfactory to me for a number of reasons. Pragmatically, it does not fit with the way I experience the world. I have no sense of multiple selves splitting off from me to follow alternate paths as I make decisions from moment to moment. Dorell offers no convincing evidence to explain why I have only the experiences of the decisions made along the particular path I am on, while in some other plane "I" have only "my" experiences of "my" decisions. Philosophically, it posits a practically infinite number of disconnected, supernatural (with reference to our natural world) "worlds" of which we can have no knowledge in order to explain why our world is the way it is. In this, it differs little from most religions, though they usually posit only a single such "world," the "inhabitant(s)" of which can interact with our world. In the absence of convincing, replicable experimental results in this world, agnostics ought to reject Many Worlds and similar explanations of reality as we know it.
Douglas A. Gray <dagray@stthomas.edu>
USA - Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 20:32:20 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/web.scan/1998/scan04.html
I don't think you should tone down your content to get links on CD-ROMs. There is a loud buzz about you in the freethinking community, and many find out about you through word of mouth. Your other assertions seem disconnected. The Edelman "Atroturf" (phony grassroots) campaign for MS is an example of a PR strategy that sometimes works. This time, it flopped dramatically. Supposedly, MS was aware of this possible downside; in any case, they will take the lumps. In the Coke-Pepsi incident in Georgia, Coke wisely stayed out of the controversy. It was the school leadership that suspended the kids, then reversed themselves after the media jumped on the story. The larger issue is that if we are not willing to adequately fund public schools with tax dollars, they will feel more budgetary pressure to accept corporate ties. That Coke, AT&T and other corporations ruthlessly follow their bottom-line interests -- whether that means staying politically neutral or not -- should come as no surprise. Neither should the fact that many businesses are busily building tollbooths on the Infobahn while many of its users amuse themselves by sending each other pictures of their butts.
Douglas A. Gray <dagray@stthomas.edu>
USA - Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 20:22:34 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/november.html
Just wondering if there are any secular scientists who are conducting any research into the belief of God---If God could be proved to exist, would this not be worthy of a Pulitzer and also go on to become the greatest discovery of all time? Isn't science a search for unknown knowledge? A search to make that knowledge known. Where would science begin? I don't know, but I do know that there is a beginning to all things, so there must be a beginning to a search such as this. I respect your right to dis-believe anything, and I also respect the right of others to believe anything, what I do not respect is the right to deny without first searching. If one does not look, all one will find is nothing. And now speaking of nothing, another question. If there is complete nothing, what is there? This isn't a riddle, it's a question I believe can have no answer. Or can it?
Count Stan Jankaitis <gabrial@prolog.net>
PA USA - Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 18:50:47 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/
What has happened to the Skeptical Review? Every time i check, the latest update is for Sept/Oct 1997. Nothing more recent. Really loved to read the SR, hope it is just delayed and not lost.
Alastair MacDonald <admac@interlynx.net>
Carlisle, ON CANADA - Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 17:10:40 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Sometimes we don't always get new issues posted right away. But please check again, they will be there eventually. Sorry for any inconvenience this causes you.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/
I have enjoyed your site very much and have a query that I hope you can help me with. The Roman Soldiers that where on guard outside in the tomb Matthew 28:13. If they accepted the gold for saying that they where a sleep on duty wouldn't they have been stoned to death by their fellow guards I believe that was the punishment for being asleep on duty. The captain would have taped there shoulder with his baton thingy and there fellow soldiers would have then stoned them to death? Now if I was a Roman Soldier and a pagan at that I don't think I would be concered about a new god on the block and I woun't accept gold I coun't spend? My wife thinks that my be it the Temple gaurds on duty instead?
R. O. Raspa <alethea@multiline.com.au>
Perth, WA Australia - Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 08:19:57 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
You guys need to get a grip on life, is this best you can find to with your time. You like to wrap yourselfs with the American flag and scream separation of church and state ( which the first admendment does not say anything about), this so-called wall is there to protect the free worship not freedom from worship or religion.
Stanley Howard <stanley.g.howard@boeing.com>
Decatur, Al USA - Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 06:08:36 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/
I would like to know if you are aware of the U.S. Bill on Religion sponsored by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.). Apparently this foster of religious delusionary psychosis in Virginia is seeking to have a Czar of Religion in the White House. Are there any cohesive addresses of these anti-American "put the church in state" types from our atheistic community of which you are aware?
Roger Martinez <goodhands@earthlink.net>
Pasadena, CA USA - Tuesday, April 14, 1998 at 22:48:47 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/mormonism/mormon.html
I have read your info you got off the net about mormons. Are you anti's or have you been exed or what. What is the reason you would print the info you have? I wish you would have done a better job at researching the information and the supposed documates that are so damning to the image of the church. (NOT) The info is very weak in substance, and you could not make a case of it in court of law. Perhaps truth does not matter to you on this site. If you really want to know what the truth is, I would be happy to explain it to you. You have my address.
Leigh Cowley <cowley@sisna.com>
Benson, ut USA - Monday, April 13, 1998 at 12:02:13 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/humor/church_fun.html
In reference to "50 Fun Things For Non-Christians To Do In Church" it's interesting that many people put Christians down even though we have the same right to Freedom of Speech that everyone else does.
James E. West <jedwest@hotmail.com>
Sulphur Springs, TX USA - Saturday, April 11, 1998 at 18:24:37 (MDT)
Internet Infidels' Response:
I'm personally opposed to the piece, "50 Fun Things for Non-Christians To Do in Church," but I will say one thing in its defense. It was satire: it was not meant to be taken seriously. No one is suggesting that Christians should not have the same freedom of speech as everyone else.
Sincerely,
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/todd_pence/scout.html
One very important point regarding the banning of homosexuals in the Boy Scouts of America issue, that seems to have escaped attention, is that funding for that organization comes from, in great part, the United Way, which derives from contributions from ALL aspects of society. Most large corporations encourage, and sometimes coerce, their employees to give a portion of their paycheck to the United Way Campaign. Yes, there are choices of which organization to direct their contribution, but how many people really know the philosochpy of every group? In essense, the public is forced to donate to organizations which are counter to their basic belief systems, and to which they may be discriminated.
Carol Cobb <carol_cobb@yahoo.com>
Clayton, DE USA - Saturday, April 11, 1998 at 08:46:21 (MDT)
Great article on religious nature of American patriotism. I have always recognized the tensions and complexities endemic to my dual nature -- Catholic and ardent partriot. You've added tremendous clarity to it all. Thanx.
Dan McRoberts <mcroberd@forscom.army.mil>
Atlanta, GA USA - Friday, April 10, 1998 at 13:32:35 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html
I'm not a supporter of creationism. I don't believe in the bible. I see evolution as being reality unlike the bible which is full of fantasy. I have one question right now that is racking my mind. Although I already look at the bible as being stories and experiences written by man (without the influence of God), I can't figure out why back in that day there were numerous men who wrote the same things in the bible and never even knew or communicated with each other.
Aaron Quam <jyvy@juno.com>
Spokane, WA USA - Friday, April 10, 1998 at 12:01:59 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/humor/church_fun.html
Too funny!!!! Thanks for a great article.
Lacey <Laceyd5@aol.com>
San Antonio, Tx USA - Friday, April 10, 1998 at 10:08:57 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/bias/judiciary/addict/
I am an atheist; I do not believe that there exists any sort of divine being that takes a personal interest in our lives. I am also a recovering addict who attends Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and I believe that it is because of this organization that I am alive today. I am therefore concerned that your website apparently has the attitude that a 12-step recovery fellowship is something that a freethinking person should or would avoid. I sincerely take exception to the implication that 12-step programs are only appropriate for theists.
At 12-step meetings, I hear a lot about God, and a lot about the spiritual beliefs of other members. That is fine with me. I do not feel the need for anyone else to share my own theological/ontological beliefs. If someone can overcome their addiction to drugs or alcohol through a deep and true belief in an invisible, omnipotent, 13-foot tall rabbit, more power to them. Personally, I interpret the 12-step concept of the "higher power" to be my best self, or my better nature. There is absolutely no supernatural or deistic element in my spiritual beliefs, which are also, as far as I know, compatible with the 12-step program I practice.
In short, while I would not wish to force anyone to attend a 12-step meeting who did not sincerely wish to, I believe that it has the potential to do great good for a person with addictions, and that a person need not sacrifice being skeptical, freethinking, or atheistic to recover. Such has been my experience. For atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers who have problems with addictions, I would reccomend _The 12 Steps for Skeptics_, by Dr. Phillip Z., published by Hazeldean Press. It describes an educated, agnostic, skeptical person's recovery in a 12-step program.
Raymond Prach <raymond.p@martica.org>
Calgary, AB Canada - Friday, April 10, 1998 at 00:13:15 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
In regards to the interesting article - vacuum, I would like to pose the following thought. Is it possible that the "dark matter" in the universe is nothing more than a cumulative effect of many vacuum fluctuations? Could these p/ap pairs have a tiny amount of mass, which would in turn generate a small gravity effect...shortly before they recombine?
Bruce Abel <vibrant@ozemail.com.au>
Cairns, Queensland Australia - Thursday, April 09, 1998 at 07:47:10 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
At first glance, this is an impressive list of inconsistencies, simply because of its size. But, upon examining two of them at random (admittedly not a statistically valid sample, but I think the point remains), it seems less so.
This one is exceptionally poor. These are totally different references talking about totally different things.
Examining the context here shows that the burden refers to different things in the different verses. A list of real inconsistencies, even if shorter, would be much more interesting than this long list of silly ones.
Erik Haugen <haugen@cs.stanford.edu>
Palo Alto, CA USA - Wednesday, April 08, 1998 at 05:13:49 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
How can the freethinkers "form opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief", if they argue their views like Clarence Darrow? Even if you could prove, that Mother Goose doesn't exist, how would that prove, that God doesn't exist? If atheists would be "commited to rationality" and would form their opinions about religion without prejudicies, they would admit, that they can't prove that God doesn't exist more than religious people can prove, that he does exist. So the only group who would fill the definition above, are the agnostics. I believe in God, or it would be more propriate to say that I hope that God exist. I don't say that it would be rational, but I don't try justify my way of thinking with bible, creed, or messiah either (I'm a unitarian universalist, so I don't have a creed, I believe that Jesus was just a good person and bible is an interesting book, which includes wisdom and stimulus, but also untolerant views and opinions, which have caused lot of unnecessary paine and distress.) Anyway, I think that atheists are in a way more religious than me, cause they believe that there is only one objective truth, which could be proved, and beside, they aren't much more tolerant than the religious fundamentalists to people thinking differently than they do. So how can you say, that atheism isn't a religion? I agree that humanism isn't, because there exists both religious and secular humanists, so the question is there God or isn't there is not the point to define who is a humanist.
Patrick Uotinen <patu@netlife.fi>
Helsinki, Finland - Tuesday, April 07, 1998 at 17:08:53 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jerry_borchandt/skeptic.html
I appreciated your articile in response to More Than A Carpenter. However, it seems to me that to some extent the issues here could be verbal. What if we simply state that every event is "natural" but that some "natural" events occur less often then others -- like the big bang. Since some of these "natural" events occur only once they can be known only by their effects - such as the resurrection of Christ leading within a few years to the formation of Christianity - see Dr. Lapide's book on The Jewish View of the Resurrection. How do we know the big bang took place - see the universe. How do we know the resurrection took place -- see the rise of the major religion in the West - Christianity.
Also, while wanting to keep all events rational and "natural" we must not become so conservative that we do not open our minds to the possibility that there are "natural" events and objects that will appear very "super natural" to us. It is said that any truely alien technology would seem like a miricle to us the same way if any of us went to 1000 BC with a laptop computer our technology would seem like a miricle to those folks. But such technology would be "natural" although it would completely be beyond our scientific understanding. Therefore, to simply state that the resurrection did not occur dogmatically would appear to be a statement that goes beyond the existing evidence and is contradicted by some of the potential impact of such a resurrection.
Norman Wise <normwise@earthlink.net>
Fort Lauderdale, FL USA - Tuesday, April 07, 1998 at 05:06:21 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/ffrf/
Thanks for the free issues of Freethought Today. I enjoy them very much. I will try to subscribe in the near future.
Bill Godin <wildbill@intnet.net>
land o lakes, fl USA - Monday, April 06, 1998 at 21:01:34 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap9-3.html
I find your section on Josh McDowell's book, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, very funny. When you say that "I know of no atheist who has ever claimed that any of the Old Testament books were written after the Jesus lived" you are pretty much implying, in my opinion, that there is no one that would question when the Old Testament was written. Well, I really hate to break the news, but I was speaking to someone a week ago, and this was one of his main problems with the Bible. I think it is quite silly that you object that Josh McDowell "sets up a straw man to make his argument look more impressive", when indeed, this is exactly what you have done! I really am surprised at your enormous speculations on so many of the issues in the book. I find this in many of the atheists I come across.
Paul <p_perkins@hotmail.com>
OR USA - Monday, April 06, 1998 at 20:17:42 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/ring/freethought/
Here's my challenge: answer this: Why is the only morality that which doesn't hurt another person? Who made this up? If there is no God, why is this a rule? If there is truly no God, then you are "free" to do as you please. The truth is that you deify Man by stating that one should not hurt another person, so you actually do worship a god. Thus since you accept the concept of God, you are not atheists.
Rick Drehmer <rdrehmer@usgs.gov>
Reston, VA USA - Monday, April 06, 1998 at 09:15:58 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/activist/current/bias/
Only Jesus made it possible to know truth, be free, and thus think freely: "If your are my disciples, you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Since you are not His disciples, you cannot set yourself up as the owners of the definition of "free thinking". If you can respond to me without hatred, please do. The above is not hatred, but simply the truth, regardless of whether it hurts you to hear it.
Rick Drehmer <rdrehmer@usgs.gov>
Reston, VA USA - Monday, April 06, 1998 at 08:57:35 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap9.html
If I read it correctly, "Beyond Born Again" seems to argue (albeit peripherally) that the goal of demythologizing scripture is to make it inteligible to modern people. If this were important or necessary, we would expect to see modern people responding negatively to the incomprehensible evangelical hermeneutic vis-a-vis the contemporized liberal hermeneutic. I think it would be difficult to demonstrate that this is indeed happening. Scripture seems to be perfectly inteligible to modern people without demythologization in its simplest portions, and in its more difficult passages liberal hermeneutics hardly make it more comprehensible. I am not appealing to pragmatism, but merely observing that liberal interpretation may be addressing a need that isn't present or at least is grossly overstated.
Bart Barber <bart@ashley-lighting.com>
Lake City, AR USA - Sunday, April 05, 1998 at 14:45:53 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/september.html
What does it take to be a skeptic? Is your skepticsm selective or consistent? In other words do you apply your skepticsm on all subjects or only those you do not want to believe. Ex. spontaneous generation of life is pure mythology are you skeptical about it or do you blindly accept it as fact?
Guy Eosso <Duncan96@aol.com>
Bridgewater, N.J. USA - Saturday, April 04, 1998 at 17:42:40 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
I try to be consistent in my skepticism; if you find anything to the contrary, please point it out. As for abiogenesis, I do accept it as the best explanation, because "God did it" only creates greater mysteries without really explaining anything. (Who is God? How did he do it? Why did he do it by creating a single cell and then letting it evolve over 3+ billion years instead of just creating the world that he wanted to start with? Where did God come from, anyway?) Besides, abiogenesis is not as improbable as you seem to think. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html.
Rich Daniel
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap9-3.html
RE: Josh McDowell's "straw man" in anticipating an argument against his claim that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament messianic prophecies...I think your answer to his objection misses the point. McDowell is stating that some might discount the value of Jesus fulfilling O.T. prophecies because the claims that he fulfilled them (they were of course written before he was born) are found in the New Testament writings...which were written after his ministry. This objection is a valid argument, and McDowell's bringing it to the front is not a straw man at all. He may have an argument against it, but it stands firm and should be challenged.
Phil Davisson <DavsArm@aol.com>
Aurora, IL USA - Friday, April 03, 1998 at 19:32:25 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/feedback.html
Thanks for making this site available on the web. I grew up in a christian home and when I was in high school I read Evidence That Demands A Verdict and Mere Christianity and the like to 'shore' up my faith. Recently I have been reading more and trying to take a more critical/honest approach to apologetics. Between your site and "A Jury in need of dismissial" I have been sorting through some of the issues. Overall the tone is much more cordial then some other atheist sites making it much more agreeable, allowing me to focus on the facts and arguments instead of the confrontation. For me the jury is not yet in, I am still a believer but also still searching. Anyway, you probably get alot of e-mail feedback like this, but I appreciate the effort/work you guys have put into the site. Thanks again.
Jeff Pratt <jpratt@entire.com>
Rochester, NY USA - Friday, April 03, 1998 at 07:20:47 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ibn_al-rawandi/review.html
Ibn Warraq is shown to be intellectually bankrupt and engaged in pseudo-scholarship. Indeed, the coup de grace for Warraq is his condemnation by Dr. Ann Elizabeth Mayer at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania who is cited by Warraq. I called her and we had a very interesting conversation. Though she had not read Warraq's book others had told her of it. People such as Warraq, she said, are completely intellectually bankrupt. They only have "an ax to grind". She scathingly described at length her contempt and disdain for writers and anti-Muslim "hate-mongers" such as Warraq, and stated she wished such people wouldn't even read her complex, balanced and scholarly works. She thinks that people such as Warraq eventually self-destruct, but that will not keep other hate-mongers from seizing upon his book to perpetuate anti-Muslim bigotry."
Jeremiah McAuliffe <alimhaq@city-net.com>
Pittsburgh, PA USA - Thursday, April 02, 1998 at 08:27:20 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
I do believe that the question of whether a God or multiple gods exist is a rather futile one. The reality of such a being as can be considered a higher power can be compared to the reality of certain elements of the natural world, either to be proved as law or tossed aside as fantasy. Untill a way to reliably test the hypothesis' asserting or refuting the existance of such a being is found, any questioning is mearly speculation. Furthermore, if it is ever proven that a higher power does exist, I would refrain at all costs from any acts of piety or fielty to such a being, as such acts would be no different than primitive aborigenies praying to the sun with the hope that it will hear them and respond by providing them with a bumper crop at harvest time. Mabye God does exist, but I really don't think that our petty snivelings would cause him, she, or it to take much notice. When everyones eyes are on the heavens, who's going to mind the shop down hear on earth?
James Michael Schley
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
