33 Comments


  1. Oh, look, yet another example of the inability of history to corroborate the Bible… Color me stunned.

    Reply
    1. Polycarp

      That’s one way to look at it. Another way, is that it would be silly for to have to ‘prove’ the bible. Of course, I reckon you would need proof – if you were a biblical literalist….

      Reply

  2. Joel, I acknowledge my biblical literalism. Or rather, I acknowledge the biblical literalism of those whose pronouncements of faith most directly infringe on my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The faith of most people is none of my concern; when faith becomes a weapon against me, then I take issue. People literally believe there was a ship of gopher wood on which one alcoholic incestuous non-zoologist Noah loaded animal Adams & Eves for every extant species while the precious love of Jeezis murdered every living thing on his “good” creation. There are enough holes in the story to literally sink an ark-sized ship, but people still believe in the literal iteration of a tale more fantastic than Adventure Comics #1.

    Reply
    1. Polycarp

      Um, Robert, Lot was incestous, not Noah. Further, he didn’t load Adam and Eve up into the Ark.

      Reply

  3. @Polycarp

    I was making an oblique reference to the Curse of Canaan.

    Also, I was using “Adam & Eve” metaphorically to describe the male & female animals of each species brought on the ark to perpetuate the species.

    Reply
    1. Polycarp

      Faith doesn’t need historical proof, does it? I mean, does that historical proof rely upon your interpretation of the bible? Do you need a literal interpretation for the bible, and thus your faith, to be real and valid?

      Reply

  4. I don’t need faith to believe that Superman is real, and that he was sent by his father as a baby to earth to eventually sacrifice himself so that the world might live. All I need to do is read the sacred scriptures of Siegel & Shuster, et al and, if I’m lucky, visit the holy sites in Metropolis, Ill. Also, I can meet with other adherents to the faith each and every Wednesday when new words describing the compassion and selflessness of my Super Savior are made available in community-based establishments throughout the world. Faith is belief without proof, and anyone who doesn’t believe in Superman will spend a hellish eternity in the Phantom Zone.

    Reply
    1. Polycarp

      I’ve been to Metropolis, Illinois. It ain’t much.

      Faith is not believe without proof whatsoever.

      Reply

  5. @Polycarp

    Sure it is. Faith is belief without proof + whatever self-delusions are necessary to sustain said faith. It’s a vicious cycle of believing things that make no sense, have no real-world corroboration, and defy the expectation of reason that believers apply to every other aspect of their lives.

    Reply
    1. Polycarp

      Robert, Can you support your understanding of faith verse how faith was defined in the ancient world? Further, what evidences do you need and who do you think those are the standard evidences for others?

      Reply

  6. Polycarp :
    Robert, Can you support your understanding of faith verse how faith was defined in the ancient world? Further, what evidences do you need and who do you think those are the standard evidences for others?

    I’m less concerned with how faith was defined in the ancient world and more concerned with how it’s defined today by people who viciously use their religion as a bludgeon and hide behind their faith like cowards. To be clear, I’m not at all saying that you do this; you know the usual suspects that have borne out the above description…

    It’s reasonable to say that the standard of evidence is greater than modern Christianity can bear. Faith fails to accurately describe the absence of basic logic inherent in belief in a loosely-connected self-contradictory assortment of stories based primarily in oral histories and originally written largely in a dead language and then subjected to numerous controversial revisions, redactions and translations and THEN sifted through capricious mutually-exclusive doctrinal idiosyncrasies of hundreds of disparate sects, all of which claim their respective version is the one true path to heaven.

    Like I’ve said before, Christians will base their eternities on a book with shady provenance but then turn around and require you to show two forms of ID before accepting a check at the Christian book store. That dichotomy is both striking and hilarious.

    Reply
    1. Polycarp

      Yeah, but it does make it that much more interesting.

      I am concerning with how faith is used now versus how was lived then, Robert, and I believe that that has lead to a major disconnect in the avenues which we take in expressing our faith. If we can move past the fact that faith is a mere intellectual assent to how it was lived way back yonder, I think that you might see a different Christianity emerge.

      Reply

  7. I fear that you’re tilting at windmills while the not-new, but certainly newly nuanced Teabagger Christianity takes hold.

    Reply
    1. Polycarp

      I fear that you may be correct, Robert.

      Reply

  8. Polycarp :
    I fear that you may be correct, Robert.

    Just get this tattooed on your forearm now so you can reference it whenever we have a discussion. 😀 LOL!! But yeah, I’m pretty much right all the time. 😀 LOL!

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!