I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to
Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had
fun reading it.

Well, I would encourage you to try to understand it. Every conversation I've ever had with an atheist about the bible either brings up the same five things from the old testament or their doubts about who wrote the bible..and that's it. I've never actually spoken to an atheist, and I've spoken to many atheists, who even understood the basics. I think that if you're going to criticize something, you should at least try to understand it at a basic level..maybe that's just me. Although, the lack of understanding matches what the bible says, that the truth is spiritually discerned. Without the Holy Spirit, the atheist is going to find it fairly impossible to comprehend.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the
intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't
change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it
is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's
not the way the world works.

What you, and many others try to imply, is that what is the bible is simplistic, and for people without any intellectual standards. The truth is that what is in the bible is complex, and it takes a real intellect (supplanted with godly wisdom) to be able to understand it. The intellectual scholarship is vast because the bible is inexaustible. It functions as a cogent whole, and address all the deep questions that human beings have. It is not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to
you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed,
what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you
read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read
X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

God had revealed to me through signs that He is a triune God, and that He has a Messiah, someone whose job it is to save the world. So when I finally read the bible, those signs are what initially confirmed it to be true. I didn't have any foregone conclusions about the bible before I read it. I had no actual idea what Christianity was all about.

What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before,
what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally?
Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of
heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the
void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange
cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up
as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

Before I became a Christian I was a theist, and before I was a theist I was an agnostic. When I became a theist my bad behavior didn't change. I was like Enoch, in that I believed that none of the religions were true, or that all of them just had pieces of who God is. I believed in a God that loved you the way you are and didn't particularly enforce any kind of behavior upon you, as long as your heart was in the right place. I would think that God, knowing me intimately, and knowing my good intentions, was very understanding if I did something which was out of line. Of course God is very patient with all of us, but the point is that I had plenty of faith in God at the time, and spent my time thinking about Him and pursuing the truth. The difference is that once I accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, everything changed.

It was only when I became a Christian that my behavior changed, and much of that practically overnight. When you're born again, you are spiritually cleansed and start out with a blank slate. You become like new. I had addictions, depression, anger, pain, sadness, and other issues that left me in short order. Some of those things I never thought I would give up, some of them I never wanted to give up, but I immediately lost the desire for them. It was a change of heart; God gave me a new one. It was supernatural because as I said, I didn't do any work. People spend their entire lives in therapy or counseling and spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to get rid of just some of these problems, and often don't see any results. I lost almost all of my baggage in just a few short months.

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

It predicts all kinds of human behaviors by describing the mechanisms which motivate them to act. It shows the fundemental dichotomy of the heart of man. As an example:

James 3:3-10

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

and

Matthew 12:34

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

and

Matthew 15:19-20

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

If everyone followed the morality that Jesus taught us, this planet would be as close to a utopia it could possibly get. He taught us to love one another, to forgive as a rule, to do good to even those who hate you, to help everyone in need, and to follow the moral law. Your idea of Gods morality being atrocious is plainly false. The passages that you feel are atrocious have an explanation, its just whether you want to hear them or not. As far as natural selection goes, all it cares about is passing on its genes. That is the only criteria for success. This doesn't explain noble behavior in the least, such as sacrificing your life for someone else. That's a bad way to pass on your genes.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/


6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

It's positive evidence in the bibles favor when it is verified by archaelogical evidence. There are many things in the bible that historians denied were true in the bible, like the hittite civilization, until archaelogy proved the bible correct.

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.

These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

This guy discovered and mapped the ocean currents, and he did so being inspired by psalm 8, which is the one that mentions the "paths of the seas"

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

Abraham didn't learn from trial and error. They were doing circumcisions on the 8th day from the beginning.

You must think something is eternal, unless you believe something came from nothing. So your problem isn't really with eternal things, just an eternal person.

Here is a list of them

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

It's really impossible quite impossible to describe since it effects every level of your being at the same time, but experientially you could say it's like going from 110 to 220v. It's like you lived all your life being covered in filth and suddenly you're washed off and sparkling clean. It's like being remade into something brand new.

>> ^gwiz665

There exists legit criticism of RoPaul's positions. This video isn't it.

His Earness attended a Blame Whitey/Hate America (or Hate Whitey/Blame America) "church" for 20 years, was married in it and gave it 20K. Media ignored it.

Filth clinton had a confirmed record of sexual harassment. Media ignored it.

Oh yeah, the UN sucks. Move it to the Arctic.

I actually thought the same thing. Cenk was totally like Bill O'Reilly but in this case Cenk is speaking truth something O'Reilly has a delusions of. Let's hope Cenk doesn't get carried away with it. Being reasonable / logical does not need to consist of aggressive veneer.

I understand where Schiff is coming from. He is absolutely delusional, upper-class filth. Off with their heads!

>> ^artician:

I wish he would have let Schiff explain more. Even if he was wrong, I certainly couldn't tell because Cenk just kept bowling over him with his insistence to make his point.
Cenk very much took a page from the O'Reilly interview handbook this time.

His only sin was being a Black conservative. If it's really about pu$$y, compared to Filth clinton, the man is a saint.

That said, until conservatives wake up and realize the media-gandists (minus talk radio) work for taxorats, they'll continue to be crucified by splinters.

Lol fail.
>> ^gorgonheap:

Pornography is ultimately deconstructive to healthy relationships. Just about any marriage councilor will confirm this. It degrades those involved with it. Some may disagree with it that but everyone should remember the sick feeling that accompanys the first few time one sees pornography. That's , in my opinion, a God given instinct to turn away from the filth.
Yes porn is attractive, especially to the male psyche. But it's incredibly damaging to ones relationships and how they view members of the opposite sex.

*ban this gassy filth

Aw - the Frankfurter is sad because of a lack of substance? Well - maybe he'd have been happier if the reporter had dove into the following topics of substance...

1. Frank's role in the housing and banking collapse (IE his role with AIG in pushing the repeal of Glass-Steagall)...
2. The coverup of fixing parking tickets for the prostitution ring that was run out of his house...
3. Frank's involvement in a banking scandal in Boston with OneUnited...
4. Frank's abuse of office in forcing Fannie Mae to hire his lover, Herb Moses.
5. Falsification of documents where he claimed a $30,000 'gift' from hedge fund manager Donald Sussman was only $1,500...

Just a few 'substantive' issues that may this total sack of crap would have preferred to discuss. Barney Frank is one of the primary reasons for the recession. It is always impossible to pin such a big thing down to just one person, but if you could name one person that was to blame for the economic collapse it would be Barney Frank. This piece of human filth should be dragged out of Congress today, banned from all public service for life, should have every penny he owns confiscated, and then he should be tarred & feathered, pilloried, and tossed in a dank prison cell for the rest of his miserable, misbegotten life.

And that would be letting him off easy.

wtf is that pool of filth the dog's standing in? Gross!

@jmzero

Thanks for the question.

It's still too soon to tell anything, but of those you mentioned:

Perry - still has a shot, but probably won't get it together in time. Tied with Romney for title of 'King of Mediocrity' but not as good as Cain.

Bachmann - no chance niche candidate

Romney - a stiff and foolish to boot (re: disaster nicknamed Romneycare). Uninspiring but with great hair. Will spend slightly less than Obama but at this point, who cares, we're underwater. Would be tepid improvement over Obama, if only because businesses could breathe a sign relief from endless communist assaults.

Cain - not an insider, doesn't need the money, knows there's a Constitution to be obeyed (even if in theory), has real world business experience. All the shit thrown at him by the left for 'lack of experience' was mysteriously absent when the voting "Present" senator Kenyawaiian was running. All the shit thrown at him by the left over a few meritless sexual harassment complaints mysteriously absent when Filth "suck this or lose your job" Clinton was running. Would be MASSIVE improvement over Obama, if only because businesses could breathe a sign relief from endless communist assaults, plus conservative minorities make the left apoplectic.

As an alternative to all of these, I would make a damned fine Emperor. Have a pleasant evening!


>> ^jmzero:

The only flaw in Cain is he doesn't seem to know the reach of this corrupt regime's media shills.

@quantumushroom
Is Cain your favorite among the current Republican candidates? If not, who? (And possibly why, if you're up for it)?
For myself, I'm not a real fan of Cain (and I think he'd have problems in a full campaign) - but I'd definitely pick him over, say, Bachmann or Perry. If I were voting in the Republican race (which I will not be - I'm Canadian), I'd probably go for Romney. I don't agree with him on everything (I'm less of a social conservative) and he's a little bit prone to triangulation rather than true leadership, but the political waters are so thoroughly poisoned right now that I think perhaps a lukewarm, compromise President might be the best option (among either party). He's not perfect, but he's who I'd pick if you asked me right now.
Anyways, you represent a viewpoint that isn't terribly well represented on VS and I think there's lots of people that would be interesting in hearing where you stand (which you may have written elsewhere, but which I and possibly many others haven't seen because we may not be reading in those other places).

>> ^A10anis:

Clean and orderly. Few people and fewer cars, being allowed to get on with their business. No parking restrictions and no filth (metaphor) on the streets. I was born in this era, i miss it. Take a look at the same streets today, wtf happened to us?


It would seem we got "civilised" bud. Oh to have been around in those times.

Clean and orderly. Few people and fewer cars, being allowed to get on with their business. No parking restrictions and no filth (metaphor) on the streets. I was born in this era, i miss it. Take a look at the same streets today, wtf happened to us?

Because she's a Democrat. That's the only reason you're okay with it. But it's ridonculous for him to say that after being accused of sexual harassment multiple times. Talk about lack of political awareness.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Cain calling out a cretinous woman who reeks of self-annointed royalty is fine by me.
"Suck this or lose your job" Filth Clinton, not so much.

Cain calling out a cretinous woman who reeks of self-annointed royalty is fine by me.

"Suck this or lose your job" Filth Clinton, not so much.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Whether or not the Fat Cats wanted the Gollum of Gotham gone, the fact is he and his weenie jeopardized his position on their own. A victimless crime it may have been, but this ninnyhammer was perfectly content putting men and women in jail for the same act.
Liberals suffer the same cognitive dissonance with Filth Clinton. Filth C. globetrots collecting millions for speeches on behalf of "human dignity" when he himself (literally) stripped women working for him in government jobs of theirs. This belief that the left somehow defends the weak against the strong is pure palaver.


Noo doubt clinton and spitzer are not saints. But irretrievebly damaging your nation by removing key people during the crisis because of where they put their 'weenies' is beyond retarded for most countries.
if you think telling off these boys is worth throwing away your economy you're lucky to be in the only country that wouldn't consider you insane.
China appreciates it though so at least someone's doing well..

Whether or not the Fat Cats wanted the Gollum of Gotham gone, the fact is he and his weenie jeopardized his position on their own. A victimless crime it may have been, but this ninnyhammer was perfectly content putting men and women in jail for the same act.

Liberals suffer the same cognitive dissonance with Filth Clinton. Filth C. globetrots collecting millions for speeches on behalf of "human dignity" when he himself (literally) stripped women working for him in government jobs of theirs. This belief that the left somehow defends the weak against the strong is pure palaver.