I Challenged The Pastor Of My Church Today...

[Storm]

So, the pastor of my church has a blog and also presents himself as a person who knows a lot about the bible and christianity (don't they all?) In this particular case, he is a pretty smart guy, so I will give him that. Anyway, he always does what he calls Q Sunday where anyone can ask him a question about anything biblical or christianity related. I will say that he is generally very honest and is willing to say when he doesn't know or isn't sure. So, I think he means well. All this month, he has started the questions early leading up to this Sunday's Q Sunday.

 

Anyway, he posted the following blog on the veracity of the bible here.  It rubbed me very wrong. So, I decided that it was time to confront his assertions and, truthfully, I thought what he wrote was pretty weak. Anyway, I wrote a lengthy response (I am Anonymous that posted on January 28th at 1:36 pm. I addressed many things in generalities, but I am fairly confident in what I presented as being truthful. I was curious if anyone had any critique against his original blog topic or my challenge and/or his response.

 

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts or comments you might have.

 

Thanks

[mymistake]

 

 

First of all I have worked with some of the greatest experts on the Flying Spaghetti Monster in existance.  So that gives me the AUTHORITY to assure you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.

 

While I do not say every claim about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is verified by archeology rather no finding of archeology has ever contradicted a claim about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

In countless cases (countless I tell ya!) claims about the Flying Spaghetti Monster were verified as true!

 

To claim that the Pastafarian Manifesto is only a religious book rather than a historical one is to imagine that religious truth (patent pending) is present even within lies.

 

Perhaps you don't believe everything in the Pastafarian Manifesto but sadly that calls into question everything that the Real True Pastafarians believe.

 

 

[Wertbag]

It is the age old problem with internet debates, neither of you will convince the other so your points aren't considered just dismissed outright. After you have the same result for the tenth time you really do feel like you are beating your head against a wall, which is why I don't bother any more.

I would say it is better to deeply attack one area rather than lightly touching on all of them. Brief mentions can be waved off but the more detailed you are the harder to refute it becomes.

Of course if it was hard to refute he simply would have blocked it.

[Guest Furball]

all his answers are the pre-subscribed apologetic nonsense that everyone knows already, he isn't saying anything that all of us haven't heard or been indoctrinated with before. I answered his nonsense below

 

 

Q #25:  Why put any trust that the Bible is anything more than made up stories?

There are a number of reasons, beyond the internal affirmations of scripture,

-again the belief that because the bible says it's true therefor it's true logic nonsense

 

that Christians  trust the stories of the Bible as historically accurate.

-their delusional, they trust the story that jesus walked on water? - that animals can talk? - that there was light and darkness for three days in genesis but the the sun, moon , and stars were not made till the fourth day? - that samsons hair gave him superhuman strength? - that the sun revolves around the earth? - etc. etc. etc. nonsense
 

 

Archaeological correspondence.  
Time and time again, the Bible is proven right by the discoveries of archaeologists.  

-sorry try again liar How Archaeology Disproves Biblical History

 

 

The cities, peoples, names, cultural customs of the Bible are found to be accurate time and time again.  

-no they aren't - this is a blanket statement with no evidence to verify it other than a random josephus remark- just because the book "twilight" has it's locations correct doesn't prove vampires exist - poor argument 

 

In fact, there has never been an archaeological discovery controverting any claim of fact in the Bible.  These accuracies bring increasing evidence that the Bible was written in a way that is meant to be taken as literal history.

-no do your homework - see above link 

Theological and philosophical correspondence.   
The Bible was written by about 40 different people over 1600 years in three languages and on three continents.  It concerns itself with an emerging worldview that touches on morality and spirituality and yet it agrees with itself.  

-holy f*cking shit! - this ass clown has never done even a light search on the internal contradictions of the bible

 

If you approached three different random people from a small town in America about the nature of God or the afterlife or sexuality, you would hear at least three different answers.  The self-agreement of the Bible adds weight to its credibility.

-see above quote and here is a link to disprove this asshole once again    244 Reasons to Reject Christianity | Evidence Versus Myth

 

Jesus Christ trusted the Bible.  
If Jesus is risen from the dead, a fact he predicted numerous times before his crucifixion, we should hold to his vision of the Bible.  Jesus embraces the Old Testament as we have it and put trust in the very words of the Bible as inspired.  If he is the Son of God and has proved such through his resurrection from the dead, than Christians think this is a reason to believe the Bible.

- again with the "because the bible says it's true therefor it's true" crap - what proof do you have of his resurrection outside the biblical account?

Scrupulously copied texts indicate that we have what was written at first from original authors.No other book in antiquity or in time has been subject to the same amount of examination, criticism and investigation as the Bible.  We know from hundreds of copies that what has been translated is the same as far back as we can go.  

-you just debunked your own answer when you used the word copies

 

No works of Plato or Aristotle or Homer come close to the number of ancient copies of scripture that we have.  

-this is the apologetic nonsense that because we have more copies of other copies therefor it's true crap again, you can have all the copies you want....so what jackass, you don't have the originals so your argument is null and void 

So, think again!  Belief in the Bible is not merely a worship of a book, but is rooted in reasons that internally consistent.

-the bible says it's true therefor it's true nonsense again -uhg

 

No other book has been translated into as many other languages, and no other sacred book is as widely read in as many languages and cultural contexts as the Bible.

-again this doesn't prove anything - is harry potter true because it is widely read??

 

 It's still changing lives and shaping the future--pick it up today!

-this is true, it's taking your average joe and turning him/her into judgmental hypocrite assholes who look down on every human being as undeserving of life and happiness - if it is shaping the future, we as humans are about to suffer horrible loss - i will not pick it up today as it is a book based on a death cult

[♦ ficino ♦]

Good stuff, Storm.

 

A while ago, directionless put this up about Yahweh in the OT and how it wasn't a period of monotheism:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65428-clues-on-early-judaism/?p=1005753

 

The Tel Dan inscription, however, is thought to provide some support for Jerusalem's being called the House of David or the like:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

 

It does give a different account of the war betw the Amorites and the Hebrews from that in the OT, though.  Since it's earlier, it should be more trustworthy.

 

The archaeology does not support the Exodus/Joshua story of the conquest of Canaan at all.  That story is put in the wrong century, there never was a mass Hebrew conquest of Canaan, and at the time when Moses was supposedly leading them out of Egypt, all of Canaan was under Egyptian control with garrisons in many places.  NOT the place they were supposed to be going to and conquering, according to the story.

[Sheerbliss]

I will say that he is generally very honest and is willing to say when he doesn't know or isn't sure. So, I think he means well.

 

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts or comments you might have.

 

Thanks

I disagree. If he's that sharp, he has to know he's writing a lot of BS. The Bible is internally consistent? No it isn't--not by a long way, either philosophically or with regard to purported facts. A good novel is, but that doesn't make it true. The Bible is historically accurate with respect to archaeology? No--and note that he doesn't mention that the creation story is a myth, the story of the flood is a myth, the story of a man being swallowed by a whale and living to tell about it is a myth, a virgin giving birth is a myth, and people rising from the dead is a myth. As for the Bible being copied numerous times, who cares? Repeating something doesn't make it so. "Bible scholars" claiming something doesn't make it so, either.

 

Your guy's a bunko artist.

[Storm]

 

 

First of all I have worked with some of the greatest experts on the Flying Spaghetti Monster in existance.  So that gives me the AUTHORITY to assure you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.

 

While I do not say every claim about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is verified by archeology rather no finding of archeology has ever contradicted a claim about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

In countless cases (countless I tell ya!) claims about the Flying Spaghetti Monster were verified as true!

 

To claim that the Pastafarian Manifesto is only a religious book rather than a historical one is to imagine that religious truth (patent pending) is present even within lies.

 

Perhaps you don't believe everything in the Pastafarian Manifesto but sadly that calls into question everything that the Real True Pastafarians believe.

 

 

I've been touched by his noodly appendage!

[Storm]

It is the age old problem with internet debates, neither of you will convince the other so your points aren't considered just dismissed outright. After you have the same result for the tenth time you really do feel like you are beating your head against a wall, which is why I don't bother any more.

I would say it is better to deeply attack one area rather than lightly touching on all of them. Brief mentions can be waved off but the more detailed you are the harder to refute it becomes.

Of course if it was hard to refute he simply would have blocked it.

You're probably right. I did this more for me than for him. Just wanted to take a bold step in confronting people closer to me in what I know and believe and how they will take me. I think I got my answer. 

[Storm]

all his answers are the pre-subscribed apologetic nonsense that everyone knows already, he isn't saying anything that all of us haven't heard or been indoctrinated with before. I answered his nonsense below

 

 

Q #25:  Why put any trust that the Bible is anything more than made up stories?

There are a number of reasons, beyond the internal affirmations of scripture,

-again the belief that because the bible says it's true therefor it's true logic nonsense

 

that Christians  trust the stories of the Bible as historically accurate.

-their delusional, they trust the story that jesus walked on water? - that animals can talk? - that there was light and darkness for three days in genesis but the the sun, moon , and stars were not made till the fourth day? - that samsons hair gave him superhuman strength? - that the sun revolves around the earth? - etc. etc. etc. nonsense

 

 

Archaeological correspondence.  

Time and time again, the Bible is proven right by the discoveries of archaeologists.  

-sorry try again liar How Archaeology Disproves Biblical History

 

 

The cities, peoples, names, cultural customs of the Bible are found to be accurate time and time again.  

-no they aren't - this is a blanket statement with no evidence to verify it other than a random josephus remark- just because the book "twilight" has it's locations correct doesn't prove vampires exist - poor argument 

 

In fact, there has never been an archaeological discovery controverting any claim of fact in the Bible.  These accuracies bring increasing evidence that the Bible was written in a way that is meant to be taken as literal history.

-no do your homework - see above link 

 

Theological and philosophical correspondence.   

The Bible was written by about 40 different people over 1600 years in three languages and on three continents.  It concerns itself with an emerging worldview that touches on morality and spirituality and yet it agrees with itself.  

-holy f*cking shit! - this ass clown has never done even a light search on the internal contradictions of the bible

 

If you approached three different random people from a small town in America about the nature of God or the afterlife or sexuality, you would hear at least three different answers.  The self-agreement of the Bible adds weight to its credibility.

-see above quote and here is a link to disprove this asshole once again    244 Reasons to Reject Christianity | Evidence Versus Myth

 

Jesus Christ trusted the Bible.  

If Jesus is risen from the dead, a fact he predicted numerous times before his crucifixion, we should hold to his vision of the Bible.  Jesus embraces the Old Testament as we have it and put trust in the very words of the Bible as inspired.  If he is the Son of God and has proved such through his resurrection from the dead, than Christians think this is a reason to believe the Bible.

- again with the "because the bible says it's true therefor it's true" crap - what proof do you have of his resurrection outside the biblical account?

 

Scrupulously copied texts indicate that we have what was written at first from original authors.No other book in antiquity or in time has been subject to the same amount of examination, criticism and investigation as the Bible.  We know from hundreds of copies that what has been translated is the same as far back as we can go.  

-you just debunked your own answer when you used the word copies

 

No works of Plato or Aristotle or Homer come close to the number of ancient copies of scripture that we have.  

-this is the apologetic nonsense that because we have more copies of other copies therefor it's true crap again, you can have all the copies you want....so what jackass, you don't have the originals so your argument is null and void 

 

So, think again!  Belief in the Bible is not merely a worship of a book, but is rooted in reasons that internally consistent.

-the bible says it's true therefor it's true nonsense again -uhg

 

No other book has been translated into as many other languages, and no other sacred book is as widely read in as many languages and cultural contexts as the Bible.

-again this doesn't prove anything - is harry potter true because it is widely read??

 

 It's still changing lives and shaping the future--pick it up today!

-this is true, it's taking your average joe and turning him/her into judgmental hypocrite assholes who look down on every human being as undeserving of life and happiness - if it is shaping the future, we as humans are about to suffer horrible loss - i will not pick it up today as it is a book based on a death cult

Thanks for taking the time to answer CeilingCat. I know you are correct in your answers. Thanks for the link on Finklestein and Silverman. I forgot about them. Like I told Wert, I think I did this more for myself than for him. I know what I believe and I know that there is a solid foundation for what I believe. Sometimes I have trouble getting it out the way I want. This was a practice exercise. Thanks again for the links. They really are a great help. 

[Storm]

Good stuff, Storm.

 

A while ago, directionless put this up about Yahweh in the OT and how it wasn't a period of monotheism:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65428-clues-on-early-judaism/?p=1005753

 

The Tel Dan inscription, however, is thought to provide some support for Jerusalem's being called the House of David or the like:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

 

It does give a different account of the war betw the Amorites and the Hebrews from that in the OT, though.  Since it's earlier, it should be more trustworthy.

 

The archaeology does not support the Exodus/Joshua story of the conquest of Canaan at all.  That story is put in the wrong century, there never was a mass Hebrew conquest of Canaan, and at the time when Moses was supposedly leading them out of Egypt, all of Canaan was under Egyptian control with garrisons in many places.  NOT the place they were supposed to be going to and conquering, according to the story.

Thanks for the info F. I read a brief post somewhere online a while ago on the Tel Dan inscription, I didn't really dive into it all that much, but I knew that there might be something to it. I tried to leave some wriggle room on that one. But I think its a valid point to bring up that if David was who the bible makes him out to be, there would likely be more info on him than what is currently available. I think mainly of the whole "Saul has killed his thousands, but David his ten thousands" references in the OT. If he was a great conqueror like they make him out to be, i would expect to see more than just one fragment of a stone. 

[Storm]

 

I will say that he is generally very honest and is willing to say when he doesn't know or isn't sure. So, I think he means well.

 

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts or comments you might have.

 

Thanks

I disagree. If he's that sharp, he has to know he's writing a lot of BS. The Bible is internally consistent? No it isn't--not by a long way, either philosophically or with regard to purported facts. A good novel is, but that doesn't make it true. The Bible is historically accurate with respect to archaeology? No--and note that he doesn't mention that the creation story is a myth, the story of the flood is a myth, the story of a man being swallowed by a whale and living to tell about it is a myth, a virgin giving birth is a myth, and people rising from the dead is a myth. As for the Bible being copied numerous times, who cares? Repeating something doesn't make it so. "Bible scholars" claiming something doesn't make it so, either.

 

Your guy's a bunko artist.

 

I agree that he is not telling the truth. But, as with many christians, I think he really buys into what he believes and so, in his mind, he isnt deliberately being deceptive. He is certainly narrow minded for sure. Like the others said, he isnt likely to be swayed away from his current views. Certainly not by me anyway. I did this for me primarily. I got the answer that I thought I would get. I was just maybe hoping for something different. IDK. No harm no foul. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Storm, here's a good review of a recent book on the Tel Dan inscription:

 

http://www.jhsonline.org/cocoon/JHS/r263.html

 

It appears as though this inscription disproves the Bible on at least three points:

 

1. "house of David" in the inscription refers only to the then-existing city of Jerusalem.  There may have been a real guy, David, but there could not have been a large Davidic/Solomonic monarchy, from Egypt to the Euphrates, as is described in the OT.

2. The wrong king is said to be killed in I Kings 22:1-40. 

3. The wrong king is described in I Kings 20:23-43

[Sheerbliss]

 

 

I will say that he is generally very honest and is willing to say when he doesn't know or isn't sure. So, I think he means well.

 

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts or comments you might have.

 

Thanks

I disagree. If he's that sharp, he has to know he's writing a lot of BS. The Bible is internally consistent? No it isn't--not by a long way, either philosophically or with regard to purported facts. A good novel is, but that doesn't make it true. The Bible is historically accurate with respect to archaeology? No--and note that he doesn't mention that the creation story is a myth, the story of the flood is a myth, the story of a man being swallowed by a whale and living to tell about it is a myth, a virgin giving birth is a myth, and people rising from the dead is a myth. As for the Bible being copied numerous times, who cares? Repeating something doesn't make it so. "Bible scholars" claiming something doesn't make it so, either.

 

Your guy's a bunko artist.

 

I agree that he is not telling the truth. But, as with many christians, I think he really buys into what he believes and so, in his mind, he isnt deliberately being deceptive. He is certainly narrow minded for sure. Like the others said, he isnt likely to be swayed away from his current views. Certainly not by me anyway. I did this for me primarily. I got the answer that I thought I would get. I was just maybe hoping for something different. IDK. No harm no foul. 

 

Parroting the party line is understandable for laymen. So is ignorance of the foundations and details of a field of study and serious criticisms of it. But when someone is in a position of authority, or a professional, it isn't. In this day and age in particular when Google searches of scientific papers and books and a copy of your own bible show every argument he made to be full of holes, there's no excuse for a so-called expert to be asserting such a load of horse shit. 

[Storm]

Hi Storm, here's a good review of a recent book on the Tel Dan inscription:

 

http://www.jhsonline.org/cocoon/JHS/r263.html

 

It appears as though this inscription disproves the Bible on at least three points:

 

1. "house of David" in the inscription refers only to the then-existing city of Jerusalem.  There may have been a real guy, David, but there could not have been a large Davidic/Solomonic monarchy, from Egypt to the Euphrates, as is described in the OT.

2. The wrong king is said to be killed in I Kings 22:1-40. 

3. The wrong king is described in I Kings 20:23-43

Interesting article. Thanks for the reference. I appreciate that you shared this with me. It certainly helps in solidifying the foundation of what I have come to believe.

[Storm]

 

 

 

I will say that he is generally very honest and is willing to say when he doesn't know or isn't sure. So, I think he means well.

 

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts or comments you might have.

 

Thanks

I disagree. If he's that sharp, he has to know he's writing a lot of BS. The Bible is internally consistent? No it isn't--not by a long way, either philosophically or with regard to purported facts. A good novel is, but that doesn't make it true. The Bible is historically accurate with respect to archaeology? No--and note that he doesn't mention that the creation story is a myth, the story of the flood is a myth, the story of a man being swallowed by a whale and living to tell about it is a myth, a virgin giving birth is a myth, and people rising from the dead is a myth. As for the Bible being copied numerous times, who cares? Repeating something doesn't make it so. "Bible scholars" claiming something doesn't make it so, either.

 

Your guy's a bunko artist.

 

I agree that he is not telling the truth. But, as with many christians, I think he really buys into what he believes and so, in his mind, he isnt deliberately being deceptive. He is certainly narrow minded for sure. Like the others said, he isnt likely to be swayed away from his current views. Certainly not by me anyway. I did this for me primarily. I got the answer that I thought I would get. I was just maybe hoping for something different. IDK. No harm no foul. 

 

Parroting the party line is understandable for laymen. So is ignorance of the foundations and details of a field of study and serious criticisms of it. But when someone is in a position of authority, or a professional, it isn't. In this day and age in particular when Google searches of scientific papers and books and a copy of your own bible show every argument he made to be full of holes, there's no excuse for a so-called expert to be asserting such a load of horse shit. 

 

I completely agree. He is essentially doing what most theologians do, which is write off everything as based on faulty information and presuppositions. He is generally forthcoming when I have seen him confront questions in the past. But in this case, I am starting to see through the façade and I am seeing the truth of what he believes. He is simply using motivated reasoning and he simply searches and seeks out information that already confirms what he believes, not actually searching for the breadth of the truth. I doubt he has ever really studied the counterclaims and why they exist. I also see that every time he posts, at the end, he makes an appeal to emotion to the person he is responding to. That kind of irks me too. But it is what it is. I got the answers I was looking for, but hoping not to get. .

[♦ ficino ♦]

His "time and time" phrase, and some others, sound as though he's pulling a lot from apologetic websites.

 

There is also the excavation that turned up evidence that the camel was domesticated 1000 yrs later than Genesis makes it appear.  I guess fundies can spin that in various ways.

[Storm]

His "time and time" phrase, and some others, sound as though he's pulling a lot from apologetic websites.

 

There is also the excavation that turned up evidence that the camel was domesticated 1000 yrs later than Genesis makes it appear.  I guess fundies can spin that in various ways.

He has a Masters in Theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, so he has some training. He argues that he has "studied with some of the best biblical scholars who don't agree with the conclusions you've come to here". I am not sure who he is referring to. I have never heard of any of the faculty at TEDS, and I looked at their accomplishments and I don't see anything that I consider qualifying them as best biblical scholars. I know from his answers that he hasn't spent any time researching any other point of view that would be contrary to his own. At this point in his life, he has invested too much into his profession and his faith to turn back now. And his constant appeals to emotion pretty much seal his fate in my book. He has little of substance to refute anything I presented and he was so quick to just dismiss it as misguided and uninformed. That pretty much says it all.

[RipVanWinkle]

Jesus believed in the bible? That means Jesus would not believe in the NT, had it been in existence when Jesus lived, since it is so inconsistent with the OT. When the NT was finally put together, it reinterpreted/misinterpreted the OT. That means the OT Jesus supposedly approved is different than the interpretation of the OT in the NT which was never presented to Jesus for his approval. Indeed, the theme of the OT was entirely changed by the NT. Rip

[Guest Furball]

Jesus believed in the bible? That means Jesus would not believe in the NT, had it been in existence when Jesus lived, since it is so inconsistent with the OT. When the NT was finally put together, it reinterpreted/misinterpreted the OT. That means the OT Jesus supposedly approved is different than the interpretation of the OT in the NT which was never presented to Jesus for his approval. Indeed, the theme of the OT was entirely changed by the NT. Rip

I never saw it like that. great catch rip

[LongWayAround]

Kudos to you Storm for confronting the pastor.  I am in a similar situation to you in that I attend church with my wife. There have been times that the preacher has said things in the sermon that made my blood boil.  One example is when he declared that there are no transitional fossils and that is why they have to draw pictures rather than show photographs.  I had wild thoughts of confronting the lie on the church facebook page or sending an anonymous letter but was concerned about two things:  First, I don't want to create any waves that will cause problems for my wife by association and second I suspect that it would be wholly unsatisfying because the pastor would find some way to deny or dismiss any evidence that I could present.  

 

Your exercise certainly proved the second point.  I admire that the pastor responded to your comments even if his answers are bullshit.

 

Again, kudos for the effort.  I look forward to the day I no longer feel I have to subject myself to this ridiculousness.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I see that your pastor condescendingly touted that people more educated than you disagree with you. Well, woohoo! People more educated than your pastor disagree with him.

[Storm]

Jesus believed in the bible? That means Jesus would not believe in the NT, had it been in existence when Jesus lived, since it is so inconsistent with the OT. When the NT was finally put together, it reinterpreted/misinterpreted the OT. That means the OT Jesus supposedly approved is different than the interpretation of the OT in the NT which was never presented to Jesus for his approval. Indeed, the theme of the OT was entirely changed by the NT. Rip

Yeah, good point Rip. I felt this needed to be addressed. Jesus believed in the Hebrew Bible, not the Christian Bible that the pastor seems to be insinuating. I pointed this out and he really didn't address this. Pick and choose sure makes it easier to refute stuff. No surprise there for sure.

[Storm]

Kudos to you Storm for confronting the pastor.  I am in a similar situation to you in that I attend church with my wife. There have been times that the preacher has said things in the sermon that made my blood boil.  One example is when he declared that there are no transitional fossils and that is why they have to draw pictures rather than show photographs.  I had wild thoughts of confronting the lie on the church facebook page or sending an anonymous letter but was concerned about two things:  First, I don't want to create any waves that will cause problems for my wife by association and second I suspect that it would be wholly unsatisfying because the pastor would find some way to deny or dismiss any evidence that I could present.  

 

Your exercise certainly proved the second point.  I admire that the pastor responded to your comments even if his answers are bullshit.

 

Again, kudos for the effort.  I look forward to the day I no longer feel I have to subject myself to this ridiculousness.

I couldn't stand on the sidelines any longer. While he still doesn't know its me, I am sure he wants to know. I am very much in the same line of thinking with you in regards to protecting my wife. She doesn't need to be dragged into this, and she will be by association if I make my views public. I have no interest in that.

 

Ultimately, I learned a lot about the pastor and who I thought he was isn't a reality. He is a nice guy, but he clearly is just another run of the mill Christian, despite his education.

Thanks for the kudos.

[Storm]

I see that your pastor condescendingly touted that people more educated than you disagree with you. Well, woohoo! People more educated than your pastor disagree with him.

Yeah, I picked that up. He added the qualifier of himself in that statement too, just to "soften the blow" so to speak.

 

He made it painfully obvious that he is motivated to only study what he thinks is right, not the truth. Then he spouts his "findings" as the truth. Just like most Christians. I am very disappointed. I am not sure exactly why, maybe I was holding out hope that he might be rational. I guess now I know.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

I see that your pastor condescendingly touted that people more educated than you disagree with you. Well, woohoo! People more educated than your pastor disagree with him.

Yeah, I picked that up. He added the qualifier of himself in that statement too, just to "soften the blow" so to speak.

 

 

Yeah, but he was saying that the more educated agree with him. In reality, the group with the highest percentage of people who disagree with him are the highest educated people in the world (in our culture, anyway; obviously people in other religious cultures would largely disagree with him regardless of education level). And there I'm talking about real education, not a degree in superstition like most of the "educated" people your pastor is likely alluding to.

 

 

He made it painfully obvious that he is motivated to only study what he thinks is right, not the truth. Then he spouts his "findings" as the truth. Just like most Christians. I am very disappointed. I am not sure exactly why, maybe I was holding out hope that he might be rational. I guess now I know.

 

 

It's to be expected. Assuming that he's a full-time minister, it would be way too costly for him to even consider the possibility that he could be wrong. He simply can't be wrong. His sustenance depends on it. Thus, the likelihood of him approaching any of this stuff with an open mind is very close to zero.