Jesusness
Christian Ignorance, Part IISo Leah from New Zealand didn't like my first response to the philosophical complaint she made on my Contact Me form. I'll let her elaborate: What a strange reply...it's not about ignoring the OT, it's about using it IN CONTEXT WITH THE NEW! Which -as you stated in your reply - you have not done. So thanks but no thanks for the offer of your book. I'm not into reading biased one-sided, pie eyed things that skew the Bible to make their own point. Cheers! Yes, I even offered her a free book and she turned me down! I'll just add her to the ever-growing list of women who have rejected me. Anyway, let's talk about context. The New Testament relies on the Old as a foundation. On this, we agree. But how does the Old Testament rely on the New for its context? Are we really suggesting that when Moses wrote the OT, he (and Yahweh, presumably) knew that no-one would be able to read and understand it until 1,300 years later when the NT was started? Read more... Add new comment
Christian IgnoranceI received an email today, through my site's Contact Me form (which I recommend to you all!) complaining that my book, Being Gay is Disgusting, ignores the New Testament: Just wondering why you choose to completely ignore the New Testement which is what Christians today live by and have ever since Jesus came with his teachings of forgiveness, which override the Old Testement as anyone with a teeny tiny grasp of the Bible should know. The Old Testement teaches an eye for an eye, the New to turn the other cheek. Completely opposite! It's not hard to understand! I guess ignoring half the Bible to skew it allows you to get your 'point' across. Have a great day and good on you for writing a book and getting it published. :-)" - Leah, New Zealand I get this a lot, and in fact, it's the reason I wrote the book. Amongst Christianity today is a demonstrable ignorance of their own Bible. Let me explain:
The Atheist Test
There are so many tests to determine one's religiosity, but I've found that they're quite biased. So I decided to create my own, balanced test to see if you're a Saved lamb of the Almighty or a godless, damned heathen. The test was created in consultation with certified scienticians with PhD's in Truthology from Christian Tech. They're all just yes-or-no questions, and you can take as long as you want. There are no wrong answers! Trust meYou've probably heard of Richard Dawkins. He's all about evolution, and his position is that religious folks are all experiencing some kind of God Delusion. Of course, Being Gay is Disgusting has nothing to do with the "Evolution vs Creation" argument, but this video shows Dawkins making an apt and rather humorous point about accepting some things because someone told you so. Biblical InerrancyLet's get one thing absolutely clear: The Bible is totally the shit. And even though every sub-sect of every brand of religion disagrees on the exact meaning of Inerrancy, I defy you to find one bit that's not 100% historically accurate. This video contains alleged contradictions that don't actually exist. Such is the pure Truth that these contradictions do not exist, that I urge you not to check for yourself. There's no point, because the contradictions are not present in the places where the author states that they are. It makes no sense to me, nor to anyone who has common sense, which is to say, anyone who agrees with me, why one would go out of one's way to piss God off like this. Firstly, it's just mean. If the Bible is anything to go by, Yahweh gets really upset when people don't follow Him, or don't like Him. It's All True!In this video, Don Carson of The Gospel Coalition eloquently explains the inerrancy of the Bible, and even his own special meaning of 'inerrancy,' which seems to be that everything in the Bible is true, except for the stuff that didn't really happen, because that stuff conveys something true. And this inerrancy doesn't necessarily apply to today's translations, but rather to the original scripture that no longer exists. It totally sucks that the video isn't long enough for him to give us examples which parts are "parabolic" truths and which are literal truths. But he doesn't leave us completely in the dark: All you have to do is "throw in appropriate reflection," and that should clear it all up for you. |
