Comments on: Why Do Christians -LOVE- Something That Would Drown Their Families?

By: Jonathan Baker

Jonathan Baker — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 23:53:29 +0000

Are you being serious? My wife often says to our children to their delight: “You are so delicious I could eat you!” Why do you think that this doesn’t terrify them? And yet when she says: “I love you” to them they don’t doubt it for a second.

It is context. There is a whole science about the interpretation of texts (called exegesis) and applies to any text, not just a religious one. It is a favourite atheist game to pull a text out of context (and that includes historical context) for amusement, which is fine with me – they do indeed sound funny when looked at this way. However, some seem to think that they are actually making a real point when they do it. I thought you preferred science to wild guesses…

By: More Aggressive Atheist Ad Campaigns at The Atheist Blog

More Aggressive Atheist Ad Campaigns at The Atheist Blog — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:31:54 +0000

[...] quote on the T-Shirt is taken from the post where I asked how Christians could possibly love something that would drown their families, and the aim of the T-Shirt is to cause a reaction. People will see the front of the T-Shirt and [...]

By: The Atheist

The Atheist — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:19:42 +0000

Jonathan, I ask you what’s more reasonable, to believe in the immaculate conception, an invisible imperceptible being who created everything and a man who can perform miracles, but not believe that families should be drowned, and hands cut off because they sinned – or – to not believe any of it?

I’m genuinely interested in why you accept some parts of the Bible are hyperbole, fables, stories not to be believed and teachings not to be obeyed, whereas other equally fantastical parts are to be taken, pardon the phrase, as “gospel”? This is something I cannot get over, and I’m yet to hear any Christian clearly explain why they chose to believe certain parts of their holy book, but not other parts? And remember that not too many years ago, those fundamentalists were just normal practising Christians, it is our society that has changed and, it would seem, Christian’s interpretation of the Bible has changed with it.

Seriously, I’m genuinely intrigued.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:16:07 +0000

How do you know that your interpretation is the right one?

We need to read the bible in context. Who wrote it and to whom are they writing to? Read scripture in light of scripture.

By: Jonathan Baker

Jonathan Baker — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:22:15 +0000

Come on, Atheist, just be reasonable. Surely you have read enough of the Gospel to realise that Christ often uses hyperbole. (Like “if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off”) – in fact when fundamentalists through history have done just that, the whole Christian world has condemned it. You don’t have to be a genius to understand this. It’s not just that “X” has interpreted it to suit themself, but the quite plain message that it is a tragedy to be led away from the truth of the Gospel message.

Which leads me to a point I find rather more interesting: your assertion that there is no God is “the truth”. I would love you to give me your reasons for believing this so utterly. If you sound credible, I’m willing to be ‘converted’.

By: The Atheist

The Atheist — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:27:54 +0000

I think you’ve raised a very important point, X, albeit inadvertently. See, that passage of the bible has been interpreted completely differently. How do you know that your interpretation is the right one? The simple fact is, you don’t. And that’s true for the entire bible, and all other “holy books”. Language is ambiguous, especially when it’s been translated between dialects.

I also think you’ve missed the point of my argument. If I was your father, brother, son, Jesus would rather me drown than teach those around me the truth, that there is no God. Doesn’t that worry you? This great being you believe in wants to drown people who dare to point out alternative beliefs? Do you have any idea what the implications of that are? If it were enforced, there would be no freedom of thought, no freedom of expression and no freedom of speech. You would HAVE TO believe and what the law told you. Hmm, sounds like Iran, doesn’t it?

By: X

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:30:10 +0000

I am so sorry 4 all off you that know the word off God. (If you only were ignorant to it.)
And still you do not accept him. And futher more comndemn yourselfs… But you still have time to regret…
I know you are laughing right now but look in your heart. You know the truth. And you still have time.
And he still loves you.

By: X

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:25 +0000

It does not say I would like him to die… It says that it would be better for you than to cause anyone to stumbe because you are, simply put: Condemning your self.
It is an advise. He is not condemning you but you are yourself.