Christians. Could you be wrong?

[JesusHChrist]

I like the term heathen nest. Maybe my next album title.

[Cyberman]

The phrase was planted in my head by teh Google devil and the wicked images he was tempting me with at the time. So many heathen nests.

[Mister Agenda]

There seems to be a disconnect between 'I am valued' and 'I deserve to suffer in hell if I don't worship God'. I worshiping God the only value you have, and without it you're not only worthless, but deserve eternal torture?

I don't really see a disconnection, I deserve to suffer in Hell for my sins but because we are valued we are offered forgiveness

WE are valued for something someone else offers us? That implies that we have no intrinsic worth to God.

---

Do you know that the four gospels were written by people that were part of Jesus' close disciples. It is an eyewitness account.

Do you know that the names on the Gospel books aren't the names of the authors? The authors are anonymous, or at least unknown.

---

Do you know that the four gospels were written by people that were part of Jesus' close disciples. It is an eyewitness account.

Why do Christians continue to repeat this malarkey?

Their pastors have a vested interest in keeping them in the dark. Some sects reject biblical scholarship entirely on the grounds that it's a danger to faith, and the Bible is flawless because it's the word of God (no matter how many flaws you can find).

[C4RM5]

I don't really see a disconnection, I deserve to suffer in Hell for my sins but because we are valued we are offered forgiveness

WE are valued for something someone else offers us? That implies that we have no intrinsic worth to God.

---

Do you know that the four gospels were written by people that were part of Jesus' close disciples. It is an eyewitness account.

Do you know that the names on the Gospel books aren't the names of the authors? The authors are anonymous, or at least unknown.

---

Why do Christians continue to repeat this malarkey?

Their pastors have a vested interest in keeping them in the dark. Some sects reject biblical scholarship entirely on the grounds that it's a danger to faith, and the Bible is flawless because it's the word of God (no matter how many flaws you can find).

So the Bible isn't an eyewitness acount of the Bible yet scienctist are still willing to believe in a big bang that no one was around to observe.

[Cyberman]

Their pastors have a vested interest in keeping them in the dark. Some sects reject biblical scholarship entirely on the grounds that it's a danger to faith, and the Bible is flawless because it's the word of God (no matter how many flaws you can find).

They're not flaws - they're tests of faith.

[FatAndFaithless]

WE are valued for something someone else offers us? That implies that we have no intrinsic worth to God.

---

Do you know that the names on the Gospel books aren't the names of the authors? The authors are anonymous, or at least unknown.

---

Their pastors have a vested interest in keeping them in the dark. Some sects reject biblical scholarship entirely on the grounds that it's a danger to faith, and the Bible is flawless because it's the word of God (no matter how many flaws you can find).

So the Bible isn't an eyewitness acount of the Bible yet scienctist are still willing to believe in a big bang that no one was around to observe.

Don't you fucking dare, Ken Ham/Ray Comfort/Sye Ten/Matt Slick.

[Cyberman]

So the Bible isn't an eyewitness acount of the Bible yet scienctist are still willing to believe in a big bang that no one was around to observe.

Textbook non-sequitur.

[vorlon13]

WE are valued for something someone else offers us? That implies that we have no intrinsic worth to God.

---

Do you know that the names on the Gospel books aren't the names of the authors? The authors are anonymous, or at least unknown.

---

Their pastors have a vested interest in keeping them in the dark. Some sects reject biblical scholarship entirely on the grounds that it's a danger to faith, and the Bible is flawless because it's the word of God (no matter how many flaws you can find).

So the Bible isn't an eyewitness acount of the Bible yet scienctist are still willing to believe in a big bang that no one was around to observe.

Being in the middle of a universe with everything we can see (beyond our galaxy with but a handful of exceptions) moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance is a helluva clue.

Amazingly, Einstein with only theoretical basis, realized a static universe would not work, then Humason and Hubble discovered the universe was expanding.

[Mister Agenda]

So the Bible isn't an eyewitness acount of the Bible yet scienctist are still willing to believe in a big bang that no one was around to observe.

What scientists have for the 'Big Bang' is way better than eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unrealiable. They have physical evidence.

If eyewitness testimony contradicts physical evidence at a trial, do you know which one usually 'wins'? If an eyewitness says they saw the defendant speeding away in a particular car, and a mechanic testifies that the car couldn't possibly have been operational at the time; does the eyewitness evidence override the mechanic's testimony, or is it more reasonable to conclude that the witness was mistaken or lying?

[Cyberman]

Carm is trying to staple the validity of the gospels onto the coat tails of things with real evidence, in the hope that nobody will spot the join.

Not to mention being apologist number 798,664 to misconstrue the term "observation" in the scientific sense.