Where is Jesus?

It’s almost a mockery of literature listening to Christians talk about their supposed “good book.”  Now, I’m quite familiar that the majority of Christians have never read it, so I can excuse them for at least not understanding it. But there ARE some Christians that have. And they still manage not to understand it.  If understanding the bible were a class, they would fail.

I’d like to point out one example of this complete misunderstanding of what the bible actually has to say about something.  I’d like to talk about heaven, and if it’s above us,  why haven’t we found it?

No, no, Christians will say, your taking it out of context. I’ve been accused of having a cartoon view on god and heaven. It’s not literally a place above the clouds, and god isn’t literally a guy in a white beard sitting on a throne there. Sheesh, my understanding must be so kindergarten-ish!

Only, I’m right!  Heaven is not only explained as the literal place above the earth in Genesis, it’s existence as a literal place above the earth is woven into the entire story line!  If you’ve never actually read the bible, you wouldn’t have picked up on this.  But a clear reading of the bible demonstrates they didn’t realize how things worked a mere hundred feet above their heads.  If you tell me that you’re interpreting something one way, but the other way is reinforced multiple times and woven into the story line throughout the book, then it isn’t a matter of subjective discussion about a verse.  It’s about literary comprehension, and you’re wrong.

The tower of Babel is a really stupid story if heaven weren’t a literal place above the earth.  These guys tried to build a tower to heaven.  That means they thought it was a literal place.  And they were apparently right, because god didn’t want them in competition with him, so he wrecked the tower and made everyone speak a different language.  Yes, this is literally where stupid fundamentalists think different languages came from.

Why do so many bible characters go on mountains to talk to god?  To be closer to him.  This only makes sense if heaven is a literal place above the earth.

If heaven isn’t a literal place, where is Jesus? This isn’t ghost Jesus, by the way, this is flesh and blood Jesus, specifically noted in both Mark and Luke, that was carried up into heaven.

Mark 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

Luke 24:39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

Luke 24:51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

Matthew and John don’t speak at all about the incident. But we hear again from Acts:

Acts 1:3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.

Acts 1:9 After he said this, he was taken upbefore their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

There is no way this story makes any damned sense if heaven isn’t a literal place above the earth.  But let’s pretend for a minute that the bible is right.  Since we’ve explored space, heaven the physical location must be much further out.  What does that mean, then?

Since Jesus was reportedly both a physical human, and alive when he was taken up, our modern understanding of altitude helps us picture Jesus’ rise to heaven.  At only a couple of thousand feet, he would have begun getting chilly.  His breath would have grown more rapid from lack of oxygen.  A few more thousand feet, and he would have felt the difference of air pressure from what his body had regulated to, and his forehead would have begun to pound.  A few more thousand feet and his eyes would have begun to bulge. He would feel cooler and cooler, and most certainly would be shivering while still conscious and struggling for air.  His increasing discomfort breathing, shivering, and pain as his body bloated from the lack of air pressure would continue for another 15,000 or so feet.  Finally, around 25,000-30,000 feet, he would finally get a reprieve from the cold, strangling, bloated tension on his body as he passes out from asphyxiation.  His still live body would continue the painful process of pressure equalization, as his eyes finally bulged and and anus prolapsed.  Finally, nearing the edge of space, his oxygen-starved brain would shut down, his body would freeze, and he would die, a prolapsed, eye bulging, frightened, frozen Jew.

If heaven isn’t a physical place, then god was an asshole to those at Babel for no reason, and Jesus never went anywhere and the bible is wrong.

If the bible is right, heaven is a physical place and Jesus is actually a frozen dead bloated human in outer space, orbiting somewhere.

Your choice.

The Spartan Atheist.

Advertisements

70 thoughts on “Where is Jesus?

  1. The Tower of Babel does have some theological sense to it if you think about it in different terms. Being a temple oriented people, in the LDS version the tower was a temple and using their knowhow they had figured out a way to circumvent the process to get to heaven. The effectiveness of their tactic showed they were actually about to accomplish what they had set out to do since god was concerned enough to stop it. It just goes to show, whatever you choose to believe you can find a way or explanation to justify your belief.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yeah, sounds like another example of figurative. One of the things that helped me get over religion was simply asking if part or all the entire Jesus story was figurative. Once I asked, the answer was obvious.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You figure? It is pretty obvious isn’t it? But, they defend it as nauseum the faith that took nothing to earn, and nothing to maintain and act like they’re gutshot if you question it.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. “If heaven isn’t a physical place, then god was an asshole to those at Babel for no reason, and Jesus never went anywhere and the bible is wrong.
    If the bible is right, heaven is a physical place and Jesus is actually a frozen dead bloated human in outer space, orbiting somewhere.”

    I can see why people have accused you of cartoon theology.

    The tower of Babel is a story about the power of faith. God says, “If I don’t stop him, there is nothing man cannot achieve.” Mankind has all the tools to “build a tower to heaven”. Confusing languages only slowed us down. It didn’t stop us. Instead of stacking bricks, now we build rocket ships and telescopes. We smash atoms and conduct experiments in Quantum physics. Our science is driven by faith. We believe it is possible to “know” things.

    That said, how are you absolutely certain that heaven isn’t a physical place? How do you know Jesus didn’t teleport to a fantastic planet on the edge of the universe?

    You’re wasting your time asking questions about heaven. If you want Christians to shut up and go away, there’s only one bit of evidence you need to refute. The New Testament references it. Paul himself said Christianity is doomed if this one thing is a lie.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for being a real live demonstration of what I’m talking about, JB.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Our science is driven by faith. We believe it is possible to “know” things.

      Actually, no “faith” is required. We have confidence in science because it makes testable predictions. We “smash atoms and conduct experiments in Quantum physics”, for example, in order to test the predictions that quantum theory makes. If the results don’t fit the theory, we abandon or modify the theory. Once the predictions of a theory have been verified over and over by multiple experiments and observations, we can have confidence in it. Religion rarely makes testable predictions, and when it does, they almost always turn out to be wrong.

      Also, machines designed on the basis of what we’ve learned from science actually work. Airplanes actually fly, antibiotics actually kill bacteria, etc. That wouldn’t be possible if the discoveries of science were not objectively true.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. If you prefer the word “confidence” to “faith”, by all means, say confidence.

        “Religion rarely makes testable predictions, and when it does, they almost always turn out to be wrong.”
        Can you give an example of a testable prediction made my religion? If not, how can you know “they almost always turn out to be wrong”?

        “That wouldn’t be possible if the discoveries of science were not objectively true.”
        I don’t think anyone is arguing that science doesn’t discover truth. At least, I’m not making that argument.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. John, I’ll help infidel here. Don’t use the word “confidence” please. We’re talking about standards of evidence. Confidence levels are mathematically calculable. Faith is useless as a measure of confidence.

        Predictions- stars falling from the sky, thats impossible. Jesus returning within the lifetime of his peers, clearly a failed prediction. Tyre still stands. Egypt still habited and thriving, and they still speak Egyptian. Nile still runs. Israel never extended to the size promosed to Abraham. Israel is not at peace with neighbors, never was. House of David died out.

        And those are some of the more specific propheseys. I won’t count the super-vague ones that supposedly get fulfilled every 50 years or so.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. “Faith is useless as a measure of confidence.”
        Agreed. If you’re going to make confidence a matter of mathematics, there is no reason to employ faith.

        The difficulty arises when you realize there is no mathematical formula that proves “science”. What word should we use to describe our acceptance of the scientific method as a given?

        Liked by 1 person

      4. There is absolutely a mathematical formula for science! They make predictions that something will result in a very, very specific data point plus or minus a very specific confidence. If the results don’t hit that target, the proposition is wrong.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. “There is absolutely a mathematical formula for science!”
        Please write this mathematical formula for science. Show your work.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Lol! You’re so naive it kills me. The math depends on what you’re measuring. Biology and astrophysics are different.
        But even if I were to pick one, I don’t think my phone has those characters.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. I am not naive.
        The point I am making is that science is accepted as a given. This isn’t controversial. This is something that you should be able to agree with immediately.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. I don’t agree AT ALL. Science is accepted because it works! Airplanes actually fly, and they produce the mathematically expected lift. Genetic modification produces expected results to a mathematically generated model. If these things didn’t work, we wouldn’t accept the science. Emerging science is not accepted until it is demonstrated.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. I agree with you.
        Airplanes fly…today.
        And we believe airplanes will fly tomorrow. But there are no guarantees. We have to accept aerodynamics as given in order to make planes fly. We have to assume “science works” when we’re doing science.
        Again, this isn’t controversial. I don’t know why you’re objecting to it.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. I’m objecting strongly to your assertion that science is “accepted as a given.” The opposite is true. New science is rejected until it is demonstrated.
        Your statement, again, is so naive as to make me question if you understand anything at all about how our world works.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. “New science is rejected until it is demonstrated.”
        On what basis is new science rejected?
        On the basis of accepted science.
        Do you see the circularity yet? At some point in history all science was “new science”. The ASSUMPTION is that “science works”. We ASSUME that the universe behaves in predictable, testable patterns. We ASSUME that airplanes will fly because we ASSUME the laws of physics will hold true.

        AGAIN: This isn’t controversial. Actual scientists understand that it is assumed that science works. It cannot be proven. Your “strong objection” demonstrates your own naivety.

        Liked by 1 person

      12. You’re so wrong it hurts. Nobody assumed nature was predictable and testable until they were able to make measurements, predict outcomes, and then test the outcomes to a high degree of accuracy. The only assumption made was by religious folks that assumed god was doing stuff, and the universe was unknowable. Newton didn’t assume gravity was constant, he demonstrated it. Einstein didn’t assume relativity was correct, he theorized it and scientists confirmed his predictions. We now have a very, very, very, very high degree of confidence that airplanes will fly tomorrow. That confidence comes from repeated testing, and confirmed millions of times every day. This is not assumption.
        Yes, my ignorant friend, your statement flies in the face of everything science stands for. Please, for the love of your God, go take a class or something.

        Liked by 1 person

      13. The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging.
        Agree?

        Liked by 1 person

      14. The only assumption made is that this entire world is not a simulation, and I’m only a brain in a vat. That’s called solipsism. If you would have read further In the web page you triumphantly posted, you would realize that the “assumptions” are actually tested hypothesis based on repeated testing. It’s called an assumption because it’s so well evidenced that the testers don’t feel the need to re-hash the same experiments all over again. But they became assumptions because they were initially tested and demonstrated true.
        This is completely different from what you are calling an assumption, which is an assertion based on nothing.
        So no, I don’t agree with your premise. Other than assuming non-solipsism, all our scientific knowledge is built upon testing and confirming until it is so universally understood that we no longer have to test for it.

        Liked by 1 person

      15. “So no, I don’t agree with your premise. ”
        Cool. It wasn’t my premise. That came from the berkley.edu website I posted. Maybe you ought to get in touch with the university and offer to re-write the information on their website.

        Liked by 1 person

      16. Once again, John, I read the website, clearly more than you did.
        When you write a scientific paper, you don’t get to just make wild ass assertions. If you are going to test something that is built upon lots of other previous assertions, you have to list them. They call this your assumptions. But they are not just guesses, like you use the word.
        Just like a “theory” in science doesn’t mean “my first guess”, their use of the word “assumption” doesn’t mean “I’m skipping doing the hard work”. Instead, it means that you have very clearly labeled the conclusions already reached that are necessary to do your experiment. For example, they may use the “assumption” that bacteria can not grow in a sterile environment. This saves time, because we all know bacteria can’t grow in a sterile environment. So they get to intellectually and honestly state that as an “assumption” and move on. But it doesn’t mean that they made that up, because that assumption was once upon a time a premise that had to be demonstrated. It’s now so well known as a fact that it isn’t necessary to repeat the experiment. That is a scientific assumption.

        You are talking about making shit up. This is not the same. And I won’t let you get away with calling it an assumption because the second I do, you will immediately use the bullshit use of the word, instead of the scientific use of the word. This is called the fallacy of ambiguity. And since you have yet to even demonstrate a single premise, I won’t let you assume any premise as already settled.

        Please, please take that class. You would learn so much.

        Liked by 2 people

      17. “And I won’t let you get away with calling it an assumption because the second I do, you will immediately use the bullshit use of the word, instead of the scientific use of the word.”

        LOL!
        Nobody is “making shit up”. I pasted a direct quote from a secular website.
        You don’t get to decide what words I “get away with” using. If you want to keep insisting that there are no assumptions in science, go right ahead.

        I asked how old you to help me understand why you talk like you do. If you’re under the age of 20, I can excuse your condescension. Kids think they know everything. Hopefully, in a few years, somebody will tell you how grown-up people talk to each other with basic respect even when they disagree.

        Liked by 1 person

      18. John, when I clearly know so much more than you do about a subject, and you clearly know almost nothing about a subject, I may sound condescending. Your absolute refusal to understand basic evidentiary standards means we can’t even think about moving into the more complicated stuff. You are failing my class.

        Liked by 1 person

      19. So what are you, like 17 years old?

        Liked by 1 person

      20. Four. And I still know more about evidence than you do. Please, go investigate this yourself with real scientists or lawyers. I’m just telling you the way it is. The way you want it to be just isn’t there.

        Liked by 2 people

      21. You know more about insolence than I do.
        Is this the first time you’ve ever been mistaken about something?

        I have investigated with real scientists. I didn’t make this up myself. Real scientists know that science makes certain assumptions. It’s necessary. It’s reasonable. It doesn’t undermine the scientific method or truth in any way.

        Just Google “assumptions of science”. You’ll see there are lots of smart, science people who have no problem admitting that science requires some basic assumptions.

        Liked by 1 person

      22. I’ve explained this. Those aren’t wild ass guesses. That’s what you want them to be, but they aren’t.

        Yes, I’m being insolent. If I wss a mindless sheep, I might still be a Christian.

        Liked by 1 person

      23. I didn’t ever say the assumptions were “wild ass guesses”.
        You’re erecting a straw man.

        Like

      24. Lol! You don’t even understand the basics of evidence, so no, I have little confidence in your ability to use words right or make a logical argument. But fuck it, go for it.

        Like

      25. Science makes some basic assumptions.
        Did you forget what we were talking about?

        Like

      26. Yes, because I’m now 2 years old. So make a case for heaven is a real place.

        Liked by 1 person

      27. First, you have to admit that science makes assumptions.

        Liked by 1 person

      28. Okay, JB. I will admit that science makes testable assumptions.

        Liked by 1 person

      29. LOL!
        Are you holding your breath and stamping your feet too? I’m starting to believe you are 2-years old.

        Try again.
        Science makes some basic assumptions.

        Liked by 1 person

      30. LOL!
        You’re a slave to your personal dogmas. I would find that terribly restrictive. I prefer freedom of thought to oppressive bias.

        Liked by 1 person

      31. They’re restrictive so charlatans can’t make shit up and pretend it’s science.

        Liked by 1 person

      32. Right. A completely closed mind is a GOOD thing.
        No thanks. When I discover I’m wrong, I change my mind. That’s called learning.

        Liked by 1 person

      33. Or gullibility. But probably gullibility.

        Rules of evidence aren’t restrictive to prevent learning, they’re restrictive to ensure the results are reliable.

        You’re trying everything in your power to reduce rules of evidence to a useless proposition, and I won’t let you do it. With your rules of evidence, we burned “witches” at the stake. We have LEARNED that it was faulty rules of evidence that allowed this mistake. Therefore, I will not accept your ad-hoc definitions.

        If you can’t demonstrate that heaven is a real physical place with evidence, then your conclusions are useless, and probably wrong.

        Liked by 1 person

      34. You’re wasting your time asking about heaven. I’ve already told you that but you’re locked into a singular pattern of thinking and can’t process new ideas.

        Liked by 1 person

      35. The question about heaven is stupid. You’re asking about the wrong thing.

        Liked by 1 person

      36. Lol! No.
        You’re the evidence expert. Figure it out. The New Testament gives you the explanation on virtually every page. Paul himself tells you flat-out how to ruin Christianity.
        Do some research and maybe you’ll write an article that actually does damage to the faith.

        Liked by 1 person

      37. *FACEPALM* John, you’re like a 37 year old virgin holding out for the “right one” like your pussy is so special. CHRISTIANITY damages Christianity. It is literally the prospect that god killed himself to save us from himself. That alone kills the faith.
        I’m not sure which “right one” you’re holding out on, and I don’t care, because they all are stupid. In the long list of stupid crap that demonstrates how ridiculous Christianity is, I may get to the “right one” that you think is the linchpin, but I’m not playing a game of hide-and-seek with you.

        Liked by 1 person

      38. Great! As long as you stay lazy, there’s no chance you’ll raise a meaningful argument against the faith.
        Keep writing!

        Liked by 1 person

      39. Thanks, John. Your “super secret” argument is probably already on my list. Just like all the rest, no different from the rest.

        Liked by 1 person

      40. I didn’t say anything about “super secret”. I said it should be obvious to anyone with a kindergarten-level understanding of Christianity. The entire faith rests on this one thing. The fact that you have “a list” proves that you don’t have a clue about what’s important.

        Liked by 1 person

      41. Ooooooh, JB hasn’t revealed the “super secret” argument yet! *gets popcorn*

        Liked by 1 person

      42. LOL.
        AGAIN: It’s nothing “secret”. If you weren’t so lazy, you’d figure it out.
        Enjoy your popcorn.

        Liked by 1 person

      43. Sweet! The tension is building! What does JB consider “the argument!”

        Liked by 1 person

      44. JB said it should be obvious to anyone with a kindergarten-level understanding of Christianity. Pretty well sums things up, don’t you think?

        Liked by 2 people

      45. Yep. He accused me of a kindergarten level understanding with my description of Jesus floating through the sky, but at least I have modern science to back up my description.

        Liked by 1 person

      46. I assume you are referring to disproving the resurrection? I think that’s somewhere in first Corinthians. It’s been awhile since I read it.

        To be fair, you’ve made some positive counterarguments in this conversation, I think TSA gets a little careless in some of the things he says as his emotions get the better of him. For instance I agree that there is no equation to science, and it does not depend on the scientific discipline. There are equations that you use in science, but science itself is not an equation. What science is, is a logical process. Math is also logic. This is commonality between the two. Math is a symbolic representation of logic and we can symbolically represent logical arguments, which science is a set of logical arguments. So I agree with you there that there is no equation to science.

        But if we are going to use logic, then we can’t simply pretend like Christianity is disproved by only disproving one thing. Why? Because Paul is just a follower of Christ and what he decides is the crux of the matter is simply an appeal to authority which is a fallacious argument. Moreover, the really important point here is that there is no proof of a resurrection. Now once again you would say “but the bible says”, and there in lies the problem. The new testament, voted on by a council of men as to what books would even make it into the canon, is not proof that there was a resurrection. Given that the people who assembled the Bible clearly had an agenda.

        How might we prove anything in a historical context then? I mean can I prove that Julius Caesar was assassinated? Well what are the historical sources that say he was? Are they independent accounts? Are they people who both liked and disliked Caesar? In the end I may not even be able to prove such a thing. How many other independent sources from the Bible are witness to this rise from the dead? Now the big difference here between Caesar and Jesus is that, people get murdered all the time. Raising someone from the dead is rather a rare occurrence. Now you might say, people have come back to life after being pronounced dead. Of course in all this cases it was presumed that we understood when death occurs. That definition shifts with time. Hell there was a time when a gash on the leg probably meant you were going to die, without any sufficient way to fight infection. Thus you might pronounce someone dead, before they actually died. But I digress. The point is that we can disprove something that happened 2000 years ago, whose only source is the book that supports the religion, and is full of inconsistencies in the account of the resurrection. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/

        Like any good apologist I am sure you have an explanation for these inconsistencies which are full of conjecture, but if this were eye witness accounts in a court of law, there would be no conviction given the different accounts. And it certainly doesn’t paint a picture of certainty in any academic way.

        But again to suggest that this is the only way to disprove Christianity is a ridiculous position to take. There are all sorts of logical problems with religion in general, and Christianity has heap plenty of them. TSA has listed numerous ones, and just because you want to pretend like only one matters, doesn’t make you right and TSA wrong. The entirety of Christianity rests on numerous untestable premises, and this is why people like you can be so frustrating is because you can often counter the atheist by resting your arguments on these premises. And there are so many of them that when one is attacked you rely on the others. So even you yourself, don’t rest the entirety of your Christianity on what Paul said. For instance what if I could prove that Paul was a delusional maniac and experienced no revelation? What I could prove that nobody who wrote the Gospels actually witnessed the resurrection themselves? Wouldn’t that make first Corinthians meaningless? If your answer is “no” you are being dishonest intellectually. Something you claim you are not. So you may say “Ah…but can you prove Paul was delusional? Can you prove nobody who wrote the Gospels witnessed the resurrection?” Once again we have the same problem we had with Caesar. To what degree can we prove any historical even, given that nobody is alive today to interview, and no evidence exists of this resurrection other than some words written down in one book put together by a bunch of people who decided what books make it into the bible and which ones don’t.

        In the end adequately prove your miracle? No atheist needs to disprove it to void Christianity. Thus far Christianity has never been validated. The fact that people believe in it is not validation. It’s only an appeal to popularity, and that as you know is a fallacious argument.

        Liked by 2 people

      47. “To be fair, you’ve made some positive counterarguments in this conversation, I think TSA gets a little careless in some of the things he says as his emotions get the better of him. ”
        Thanks for saying this.

        To be fair, I have no evidence that will convince anyone that any aspect of Christianity is true.

        “No atheist needs to disprove it to void Christianity.”
        No atheist needs to disprove anything. A simple “I don’t believe” is sufficient. But that isn’t how Spartan writes.

        Spartan shows up on Mel’s blog to lecture “the Christians” on how grossly we misunderstand evidence. He condescendingly invites us to educate ourselves by reading his article which is littered with gems like, “[A] way evidence can be unreliable is if it isn’t specific enough to point toward a particular conclusion.”

        That perfectly sums up the Spartan’s point of view. Evidence that doesn’t point to his particular conclusion is unreliable.

        I concede that I have nothing compelling to offer in reply.

        Liked by 2 people

      48. In general I find an attitude of belittlement as a way of convincing somebody that one’s argument has merit is ineffective and annoying. Both sides of the debate on religion are guilty of it. No question.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. “Finally, nearing the edge of space, his oxygen-starved brain would shut down, his body would freeze, and he would die, a prolapsed, eye bulging, frightened, frozen Jew.” LOL!!! This could make a good ice cream name. Get closer to Jesus by eating “Frozen Jew Ice Cream.” It’s completely kosher, and can be purchased at your local 7/11. It comes in matzo ball soup flavor, too!

    Liked by 3 people

  4. The fundamentalists, at least, leave themselves open to getting pwned in this fashion since they insist the Bible must be taken literally. If the Bible says Heaven is a physical place just above the (flat) Earth, they’re stuck with it.

    But a clear reading of the bible demonstrates they didn’t realize how things worked a mere hundred feet above their heads.

    Well, how could they have? The ancient Hebrews were ignorant primitives who had no way of investigating anything further away than they could physically get to, and they hadn’t developed science or mathematics to the point of learning anything useful from the motions of the visible stars and planets (unlike the Babylonians, which is why the latter would never have done anything as stupid as actually trying to build a tower all the way up to the sky). This is the problem with deciding some particular book is the repository of absolute truth — your understanding of the universe (and of morality) will be frozen at whatever level of development the authors had reached in their time, holding you back as the rest of the world progresses.

    Not only would Jesus have had a very unpleasant trip, but your scenario doesn’t bode well for all those people who are supposed to be snatched up bodily to Heaven during the Rapture. Brrr!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Lol! I forgot about the rapture. I’m getting cold just thinking about it.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Nice post spartan. I would love to see how christians who say god resides outside space-time responds to this

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks Johnathan. And somehow I managed to forget that Elisha was ALSO taken physically up into heaven. On fire horses! LOL!

      Liked by 1 person

  6. It’s hard to imagine a more pitiful stance than this. “I’ve got a killer argument that resolves the whole question, but I’m not going to say what it is. You have to figure out for yourself what I’m talking about. And anything you say that doesn’t address this point, which I refuse to specify, doesn’t count.”

    That’s after willfully misunderstanding what you’re saying and fudging terminology to avoid clarity.

    I’ve often seen religious people do this in arguments. They insist there’s some crucial point you don’t understand, but refuse to explain what it is.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yeah, it was really the weirdest conversation I’ve ever had online with someone. I felt like I was going crazy! Thanks for commenting and bringing the earth back in focus! LOL!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. It has been a while since I’ve read Genesis, but damn those are some good points there. Why would God want to stop people building a tower to reach him? seems a bit dickish to me. Also, if Jesus were a real person, he seemed to believe that he was coming back during peoples lifetime (Matthew 16:27-28). Of course some Christians will tell me it means something else entirely.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah, the book literally says one thing in black and white, and they will argue that it says something else. Quite weird.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not weird. Just typical excuse-making so everything still “rings true” and believers can continue to “believe.”

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close