I think I'm going to print out like 300 copies of this and put it on the windshields of cars that have the Jesus fish on the back

Expect YOU to believe it? No, I don't. I just believe it, myself. (and, yes, I know Dan Barker isn't the one posting it here, but I'll respond as if to Dan)

No, since I've seen no reason to believe that any of the above are accurate.

I don't.

I don't ask you to believe any of that. In fact, I don't believe any of that, myself. I take most of early Genesis to be parable, not history.

A lot of that is taken out of context, but I, like most people, do believe in God and believe that miracles can happen. That's not to say that I accept each and every claim of miracle as true. That would be like saying that since some books are non-fiction, all books must be non-fiction. One must learn to discern. I'm a skeptic when it comes to claims of supernatural events, but I am open-minded enough to consider the possibility of some events being true if I find the evidence convincing. I happen to find the Gospel accounts convincing on most matters.

No, it just means that I believe that supernatural events are possible. If you are an atheist, then you don't believe that supernatural events are possible, and then it's completely logical that you consider any and all claims of miraculous events to "violate natural law, contradict science, and fail to correspond with reality or logic". But for those of us who do believe in God and thus believe that supernatural events are possible, we aren't as closed-minded about such accounts.

That Christianity is a "lie" is an opinion you have that is based on your belief that God does not exist. You have every right to believe that God does not exist, and I'm not setting out right now to change your mind, just to point out that I, like most people on Earth, believe in some sort of God and thus accept the possibility of supernatural events.

I don't believe that the God of the Bible is any of the above.

No, he ordered death for anyone trying to exterminate the Israelites. Since God created and thus has dominion over life (at least according to the Bible), He, and only He, has the right to end it.

The fourth generation...of what? (hint: read the ENTIRE passage)

That's not an order, just saying what was going to happen.

That it's about 'vanity' is simply your opinion.

Opinion, again.

Opinion, again. Yeah, I know, you can point to certain passages where God appears to favor men over women. Well, guess what? I can point to passages where God appears to favor women over men.

No, hell is a state of shame, not a place of physical torture.

The word used for evil there, "ra", does, at times in the Old Testament, refer to wickedness, but other times it refers to troubles and sorrows. ?So which does it mean here? ?Since the verse uses "light" and "darkness" as contrasts, and then used "peace" and "evil", it's unlikely that "evil" refers to "wickedness", since "wickedness" is not the opposite of "peace". ?"Troubles and sorrows" is a better contrast for "peace", so is almost certainly what is being described here. ?So then it's just a question of whether the troubles and sorrows are deserved or not. ?Certainly, bringing troubles and sorrows upon people who are behaving themselves, for no good reason, is wrong. ?But since nowhere else in the Bible do we see God doing this, it's clearly referring to troubles and sorrows being put upon people who are acting outside of God's will.

Yes, God isn't as "P.C." as people might like today. While He didn't let them enter the sanctuary, He did let them partake of the blessing, so it's not much of a discrimination, really.

No, he ordered female children to be spared and raised by the Israelites.

Metaphorically.

It's amazing that non-believers so often read the word "devour" into that passage when it's not there. The bears "tore" them, not devoured them. Non-believers just want to make it sound like they were killed, when nothing suggests they were. And while a simple reading of the passage does suggest "children" and "teased", the original context suggests that they were adults who were threatening the prophet. The Hebrew word translated as "children" is "naar", which can and does refer to people up to fifty years of age (Exodus 33:11; Joshua 24:29, among other passages). And their telling him to "go up" means that they are telling him to die. If a crowd of people followed you around telling you to die, you'd probably consider that something more than mere teasing.

"will", not "should". That's a prophecy, not an order.

No, just as it's not "nice" when a judge sentences a criminal to a lengthy jail term.

I'd like to live in Heaven with Him.

"nonconformists"? Yeah, that's a nice term for the people Jesus was talking about. Nothing to do with evil or sin or hatred, just "nonconformity".

Most of that is opinions that most would disagree with.

You do know what hyperbole is, right?

He denounced unjustified anger, not all anger.

Only when used unjustly.

Yes, Jesus did not come to bring peace on Earth. Anyone who says He did is wrong.

So you're a fighter for the rights of fig trees?

Where are you reading a mandate in that?

You can't steal what ultimately belongs to you

Again, you know what hyperbole is, right?

Go for it.

Context is immensely important, which is why non-believers so frequently remove passages from context when presenting them. Reading and understanding the passages in context, there's no contradiction here.

This wasn't a lecture on plant life, but using things people were generally familiar with to make a point.

No, the genealogy given in Luke is that of Mary, not Joseph.

Sure, and someone watching a judge sentencing a criminal to a lengthy jail term, while remaining ignorant of the crime that was committed, would view the judge as intolerant and cruel, as well.

You really believe that? You don't think people trying to take each other's land and/or property have killed far more? And how about people trying to STOP religion, people like Pol Pot, Lenin and Mao Tse Tung? The numbers they've killed in the last century alone far exceeds the number killed by Christians for being non-Christians.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify the religous persecution that has occurred in the name of Christianity. I find it as abhorrant as you do. But I can clearly see that Jesus opposed religious persecution, so those who did it were acting outside of Jesus' will, no matter what they thought.

So does mankind as a whole. It's not a case of "Christians being Christians", it's a case of "people being people". Even the non-religious frequently persecute, kill, and oppress.

So you think that if there was no religion, the world would be a peaceful place? That people would have absolutely nothing to fight about? People who desire to kill and oppress will find ANY excuse to do so, be it religion or something else.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion.

Sure. I just wish you had a better understanding of the context.

Have fun, then.

David

 The genealogy of Jesus in Luke is through Joseph: Luke 3:23 says, "Now Jesus himself was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli," so while some of Dan's quotes may be taken slightly out of context (though often it is only a question of how the verse should be translated), your rebuttal is simply incorrect. Also, I thought your view on how the handicapped weren't really discriminated against because they were still allowed to partake of the blessing but were not allowed to enter the sanctuary sounds a little too much like those who supported segregation by claiming that "separate but equal" is not discriminatory. One thing you are right about is that you are entitled to your own opinion, and mine is that I will take the view that people aren't as worthless and deserving of torture as you seem to think we are.

Well this robot guy's a complete fuckwit but at least I got to read Dan Barker's essay again. His deconversion is better than From Witchcraft to Christ. And that's saying something.

                              You can bet your library card it is Dennis (da nee')   "Mabus"  Markuza.......................

Yes, much less coffee for that youngster.