A Critique of the Bible Wheel Book – by the Author! Part 1

Bible Wheel BookWhy would I want to critique my own book? The answer is quite simple. As explained in my last post, Why I quit Christianity, I have recently completed the huge transition from being a “born-again Bible-believing Christian” to being an agnostic without any specific religious beliefs. The process took about 18 months. It began in earnest when my wife Rose and I began our “fireside chats” in December 2009 with the question “Why should we care what other people think?”. Little did we know where that innocent little question would lead. We made the transition together though our individual paths were somewhat different. For me, there were two primary insights that “broke the spell” of Christianity. First, I came to see that the Bible is filled with errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God, and that the attempts by Christian apologists to explain them away and/or cover them up and makes them look like fools of the first order. Second, I came to see that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers, and that this directly contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture and the whole point of the religion which posits a parent-like Father God who watches over us, protects us from harm, and answers our prayers. For Rose, her primary insight was that the Bible is saturated with a strong male bias which has caused immeasurable and unjust suffering of woman at the hands of men throughout the ages and therefore  invalidates any possibility that the Bible could be the “Word of God” in the traditional Christian sense.

The full title of my book is The Bible Wheel: A Revelation of the Divine Unity of Holy Scripture (available on Amazon). I completed the book on December 22, 2005 after more than a decade of serious research, which included learning to read both Hebrew and Greek. The book has 412 pages and over 250,000 words. It gives a complete review of the origin and significance of the Bible Wheel including a thorough analysis of how each of the Bible’s sixty-six books relate to the overall pattern. The result was, in the opinion of its author (which has yet to change), the strongest evidence of a superintending intelligence governing the design of the Bible ever discovered. I spent many years presenting my research on a wide variety of Christian, Catholic, Jewish, and skeptical forums and no one, not even the most virulent opponent, was ever been able to find any fundamental flaw or systematic error in my arguments. I received endless abuse and mindless moronic mockery as is common on internet forums, but no serious critique. But now everything has changed. I reject Christianity and no longer believe in the “guy-in-the-sky” style God who is an “agent” who goes about “doing things” as if he were playing a bit part in the cosmic drama, so I have no explanation for how the Bible Wheel came to be or what it means. But neither do I have any refutation of it or the implications it carries. So I find myself in a most intriguing position – I am the author of the best evidence for the Bible ever seen in the history of the world, but I reject the various Christianities based upon it and don’t even believe in most of the versions of God presented in its pages. So what’s a man to do? Simple – I will become my own critic and will do the job everyone else failed to do. I will subject my book to the same brutally honest critique that freed my mind from the chains of Christianity. Let us begin.

Critique of Chapter 1 of the Bible Wheel Book:

The first chapter of the Bible Wheel book is called The Genesis of the Bible Wheel. It begins with high praise for the Bible:

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old. – Matthew 13:52

These words from the Lord Jesus Christ, spoken at the end of a series of seven parables concerning the Kingdom of Heaven recorded in Matthew 13, allude to the everlasting vitality of the ancient treasures of Wisdom and Truth hidden and revealed in the Holy Bible. No matter its antiquity, its message remains ever fresh and new, relevant and profound. At once, it is the simplest, the deepest, the oldest, and the newest book ever written. It is the Book of God.

The Bible Wheel unveils another aspect of Scripture that is old and new, simple and profound. It is as old as the Bible itself, for indeed, it is the Bible itself. It is new only because no one had ever noticed that such a unified view of the whole Bible lay implicit in its structure. This new view of the Old Book is as simple as a Circle and as elementary as the ABCs, yet also as complex, deep, and all encompassing as the whole body of Scripture that it faithfully represents. The primary thing to understand about the Bible Wheel is the simplicity of its origin. It emerges when we do nothing but take the list of the sixty-six books and roll it up like a scroll on a spindle Wheel of twenty-two Spokes, corresponding to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew Alphabet. That is all there is to it. Everything else in this study follows from that single and surprisingly simple act.

This brings up an obvious critique – the book overflows with effusive praise of God and the Bible. Though probably distracting to many readers, such praise came naturally from the state of mind induced by my discovery. It represents only my opinion and is not relevant to the question of the validity of my arguments so I will overlook it for the most part. Also, I frequently wrote as if “God” were directly responsible for everything in the Bible. That too was an opinion that is irrelevant to this critique. The only important issue is the validity of the facts I used to establish my argument, which in the present case is the fact that the Bible Wheel is the result of the “single and surprisingly simple act” of “rolling up” the list of the sixty-six books “like a scroll.” I illustrated this idea with this graphic:

Rolling up the Bible

The chapter continues with simple explanations of the Hebrew alphabet and related facts.  The result is the Bible Wheel:

The Bible Wheel

Though I have not found any errors of fact in the first chapter, there is much that I would change in the style and in the opinions I expressed. For example, after explaining how the order and meaning of the twenty-two Hebrew letters was established in the Alphabetic Verses such as Psalm 119 – which many Biblical scholars saw as a “little Bible” and as the “Christian’s golden ABC of the praise, love, power, and use of the word of God” –  I cast away all restraint and wrote this:

These comments show that the glory of Psalm 119, like that of the Bible itself, surpasses the limits of human language. Even when we speak only with superlatives, our praise falls short of the “inexhaustible fullness” of this supreme Psalm of God’s Word.

Yet there is more – so much more! – in this “little Bible” than anyone ever anticipated. It is here in Psalm 119, and kindred Alphabetic Verses, that God eternally established the order and meaning of the twenty-two Hebrew letters and so laid an unshakable foundation for the large-scale structure of His Word within its own text. The Bible is self-reflective; it contains an image of itself within itself in the Alphabetic Verses. Moreover, God embedded within this foundation an abundant storehouse of Alphabetic KeyWords that prophetically anticipate the thematic pattern of the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation. This is the Work of God. This is the revelation of the Bible Wheel.

So what would I write now that I am not a Christian? I don’t really know. The whole book emerged from a conflagration of a mystical enthusiasm fired by demonstrable facts that seemed to be lit with the light of heaven. It really isn’t possible to rewrite it without starting from scratch. All I can do in this review is to focus on the actual factual statements and let the enthusiasm remain as a witness to what this kind of knowledge can do to a soul. So here are the facts expressed in those paragraphs:

Many Biblical commentators saw a supreme value in Psalm 119, and said that the Hebrew alphabet was a “divine alphabet” filled with wisdom. The order and meaning of the Hebrew alphabet is established in the Alphabetic Verses like Psalm 119. Therefore, the pattern of the alphabet which defines the Bible Wheel is established within the text of Scripture itself. The meaning of the letters is derived from the Alphabetic KeyWords used in the Alphabetic Verses, and these anticipate the thematic pattern of the whole Bible.

Conclusion:

I can find no errors of fact in Chapter 1, so it passes my critical review. I would be very thankful to any reader who might find something I have overlooked. Just leave a comment below.

This entry was posted in Bible Wheel Book and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

11 Comments

  1. Posted August 21, 2011 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    Hi Richard,
    I looked at your Bible Wheel long ago, and found it quite ‘smart’, but I had a problem to understand how it could have been designed.
    The 39 Hebrew Books are a creation of Jerome, when the scriptural Canon was not yet established.
    These 39 Hebrew books led me to another possibility, and another problem as it has no relation either to Christianity, either to Hebrew tradition.
    But now most Bibles, even Hebrew ones, use this division coupled with traditional Tanakh of
    5 Books of Tora
    21 Books of Prophets
    13 Books of Writings
    Isn’t it amazing that Hebrew letters 5-21-13, read Ha-Shem, The Name, i.e. YHWH?
    And turning it over Moshe, Moses ?

    By the way I read your previous posts, and all I can say is that Jung can help a lot to understand the dark side of anything that looks at first just good, or Anyone…

  2. Posted August 22, 2011 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Hi Remi,

    I’m glad you commented!

    You are correct that the modern Hebrew tradition represented by the Tanakh follows a different order and categorical arrangement of the books. But that is not the only Hebrew tradition. The Septuagint was created by Jews before Christ, and they listed the books using a different categorical system and in a different order than the modern Tanakh. This is the pattern that Christians have always followed. There had never been a printed Christian Bible that followed the order of the modern Tanakh until late in the last century. So I would be breaking with the universal tradition of Christianity if I invented a Bible Wheel based on a pattern that has never actually existed. One of the reasons the Bible Wheel is so significant is that it does not require any such “manipulation” – it “spontaneously blossoms when we simply roll up the list of sixty-six books like a scroll on a spindle Wheel of twenty-two Spokes” as explained in Chapter 1 of the Bible Wheel book.

    Furthermore, the patten of the Tanakh is demonstrably inferior to that of the Christian Old Testament as explained here.

    As for your assertion that the “39 books” were a “creation of Jerome” – that is false. The entire list of 39 books was given around the year 350 CE by Cyril of Jerusalem around the year 350 CE (link).

    I acknowledge that your way of counting the books does indeed lead to a “nice” connection with the word “Hashem.” But it is just a single fact, and it is based on a mixture of the Christian and Jewish ways of counting. You followed the Jewish order, but used the Christian method of dividing and counting the books. And you are wrong when you say that “most Bibles” follow that pattern. So it seems like a rather forced and inconsistent approach, and since it only leads to a single “coincidence” it doesn’t seem a sufficient basis for preferring that pattern over the Christian pattern which has been established for nearly two millennia.

    Finally, it is very important to note that none of these issues are relevant to the study of the Bible Wheel per se because the Bible Wheel is defined by the Protestant Canon. I never assume that the arrangement is “correct” – I merely study what it is. And what do we see when we study that pattern? Many amazing things. The possible existence of other patterns in other traditions is an open question, but it does not impact the patterns seen in the Bible Wheel in any way at all.

    Great chatting! Please write with any followups.

    All the best,

    Richard

    PS: As for Jung, why do you think he only helps to understand the dark side? He wrote extensively of Christ, God, goodness, wholeness, and lots of very “numinous” things. Have you ever read his writings?

  3. Posted August 22, 2011 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Hi Remi,

    I just realized that I didn’t answer one point you made. You said you “had a problem to understand how it could have been designed.” Well, join the club! I have the same trouble. Even if Jerome designed it, that wouldn’t explain how came to have all the “raw materials” needed to make all the patterns fit. He didn’t have freedom to just make things up. He had to work with things that had been long established in ancient times even before Christ. So there is no “naturalistic” explanation for the Bible Wheel as far as I can tell. Other than supernatural intervention, the best explanation seems to be something on the order of a spontaneous “mandala” produced like a “dream image” in the collective mind of humanity.

  4. Posted August 24, 2011 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Jung is a continent I’m trying to explore.
    It’s not simple as the world is not simple and full of apparent contradictions, yet there might be some ways to get over these contradictions, towards Oneness.
    Although it’s not easy for me to express deep thoughts in English, I tried to translate some of my French blog about Jung.
    I’ll try to post soon on the forum an example of the problems I met in my biblical search, about 25 years ago.

  5. Posted August 24, 2011 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Hi Remi,

    Yes, there Jung’s thoughts are broad and deep. But I have found them very insightful and worth studying. Your post on your blog is very interesting. Here’s the link for those who don’t know they can click on your name:

    http://quaternity4.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html

  6. AndyP
    Posted February 12, 2015 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    Dear Mr McGough,

    I’ve only recently stumbled on your website, and have been fascinated to read some of your articles and the robust discussions in the comments.

    However, I’m confused about a point that you repeatedly make, and wonder if I can ask you to explain what you mean.

    From my reading of your articles debunking your Bible Wheel book, it seems that the conclusion you have come to is that there is no “divine” patterns in the Bible, and that therefore there is no God as portrayed in the Bible.

    I can understand that, but I am confused when you then go on to talk about God not being trustworthy, as if you are saying that God does indeed exist, but that He cannot be trusted.

    So it seems like on the one hand, you are saying God does not exist, but on the other hand, you are saying He does exist but is untrustworthy.

    My understanding is pretty limited on these kinds of things, so please excuse my ignorance, but it seems like, if it’s the second option you mean, that God exists but is not trustworthy, then this is something similar to a Gnostic approach, or Dualist approach, in which the God of the Old Testament is seen as the Evil God, and we are trapped in an evil creation.

    But if it’s the first option, that God simply doesn’t exist, then that would mean that he doesn’t have any qualities at all. So it seems meaningless in a sense, as I would see it, to say that he does not have the quality of trustworthiness, just as it would be meaningless to discuss whether he has red hair, or throws a mean fastball.

    I’m sure I have simply misunderstood what you are saying, so I hope you won’t mind me asking if you can help me to understand your position. Thank you.

    Nice site by the way.

  7. Posted February 12, 2015 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    From my reading of your articles debunking your Bible Wheel book, it seems that the conclusion you have come to is that there is no “divine” patterns in the Bible, and that therefore there is no God as portrayed in the Bible.

    Hey there AndyP,

    I concluded that Yahweh (the God of the Bible) does not exist because of the irrationality and immorality attributed to him in the Bible. It had nothing to do with the Bible Wheel, as should be clear since remained convinced it was valid for a full three years after quitting Christianity. It was a “deep mystery” to me how the Bible Wheel could remain valid when the Bible itself was obviously not true. The fact that it took three years for me to debunk it shows how difficult it is to free oneself from delusions.

    But if it’s the first option, that God simply doesn’t exist, then that would mean that he doesn’t have any qualities at all. So it seems meaningless in a sense, as I would see it, to say that he does not have the quality of trustworthiness, just as it would be meaningless to discuss whether he has red hair, or throws a mean fastball.

    I’m sure I have simply misunderstood what you are saying, so I hope you won’t mind me asking if you can help me to understand your position. Thank you.

    One of the primary truths concerning nonexistent beings is that they cannot be trusted to do anything. 😉

    I am saying that God is an imaginary being that does not exist, and that it is folly to trust in an imaginary being that does not exist.

    When talking about properties of a hypothetical being, we speak as if the hypothetical being existed. Such language carries no implication of actual existence. For example, suppose adults everywhere believed there was a Tooth Fairy that could be trusted to leave money under their pillows and they invented an elaborate mythology about gremlins that stole the money so their faith in the Tooth Fairy remained strong despite the lack of evidence of either money or gremlins. In such a situation, I would tell them that the Tooth Fairy is not actually trustworthy, and then explain the reason – the Tooth Fairy does not exist.

    I hope that clears things up,

    Richard

  8. AndyP
    Posted February 13, 2015 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    Thanks for your response.

    “When talking about properties of a hypothetical being, we speak as if the hypothetical being existed.”

    But we are not talking about a hypothetical being, that is, a being that might or might not exist. We are talking about a being who, it is said, does not exist.

    If a being does not exist, I cannot truthfully attribute some positive quality to it. I cannot say that the Tooth Fairy has red hair. That is an untrue statement.

    I can however truthfully assert that a non-existent being does NOT possess a certain quality.

    If I say, for example, that the tooth fairy does not have red hair, that is perfectly true. There is no red hair which belongs to any Tooth Fairy, precisely because the Tooth Fairy does not exist. It doesn’t exist, therefore it does not have red hair. That’s true.

    Things are a little more complex however when we talk about the quality of untrustworthiness. To assert that a being is untrustworthy is really to make two linked assertions: first that the being has made a promise, and then that the being has failed to fulfil the promise. In this case, we have made a positive assertion and a negative assertion. But we cannot make a positive assertion about a being that does not exist.

    If a being does not exist, then it cannot make any promises. Consequently, it cannot break any such promise. Therefore to say the Tooth Fairy is untrustworthy is to implicitly make an assertion that the Tooth Fairy made a promise, which is a false assertion. The Tooth Fairy made no promise, because it doesn’t exist.

    Hence, I would not tell the person that, firstly, the Tooth Fairy is untrustworthy, and second, that the reason for this is that he does not exist. I would simply say that the Tooth Fairy does not exist.

    However, there is an untrustworthy agent in this scenario: the person who is untrustworthy is the parent who made the claim to the child that this alleged being, the Tooth Fairy, will leave money under their pillow in exchange for a tooth.

    And I believe that indeed, all parents who tell their children that the Tooth Fairy, or Father Christmas, will enter into a contract with the child to swap money for teeth, or presents for good behaviour, are exhibiting untrustworthy behaviour. The parents are the ones making promises which are not fulfilled in the way they claim, namely by intervention of such imaginary beings. But to claim that the beings themselves, who do not exist, are being untrustworthy is to assert that the beings made the promises. They never did. They don’t exist. Therefore they cannot be said to be untrustworthy.

    In my view, one ought to simply tell children, at every opportunity, that the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas do not exist, rather than asserting that such non-existent beings have made certain promises or undertakings which they are not fulfilling, and then explaining that the reason for this breach of promise is because the Tooth Fairy, of Father Christmas do not exist. To do this is to deflect the untrustworthiness away from those real beings, the parents, who are making the false promises. It is the parents who are untrustworthy, not the imaginary being.

    So now, let’s go back to God. If God does not exist, then He did not make any promises, and therefore there is no question of any promises being broken. Thus it is false to assert that God is untrustworthy. All that can be said is that God does not exist, not that he has made promises that he has failed to honour.

    This might seem like a subtle difference, but I would suggest it is important. Just like in the Tooth Fairy analogy, if we want to toss around accusations of untrustworthiness, then these need to sheeted home to the beings who made the promises. In the case of the Tooth Fairy, it is the parents. In the case of God, the promises you are referring to are the ones you find in the Bible. But if God does not exist, then he did not write the Bible, and therefore it is not true to say that God made the promises, and broke them. All that can be said is that whoever wrote the Bible made certain assertions of promises, and that, if indeed such promises were broken, then it is the people who wrote the Bible that are the ones who are untrustworthy.

    In my view, therefore your assertions of untrustworthiness ought to be made about the writers of the Bible, if you believe that it contains promises that were not honoured, rather than of God, if you assert that He did not exist. Otherwise, you are asserting that a being who does not exist made certain promises, which is simply not possible.

  9. Posted February 13, 2015 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    But we are not talking about a hypothetical being, that is, a being that might or might not exist. We are talking about a being who, it is said, does not exist.

    The existence of God is a hypothesis that has not been proven true, so God is a hypothetical being. There’s been a lot of talk about the “God hypothesis” for many centuries. For example, there is an old apocryphal account of Napoleon asking Laplace where God fits into his science, and he supposedly answered “I have no need of that hypothesis.” And in more recent times, there is Victor Stenger’s book called “God: The Failed Hypothesis.”

    If a being does not exist, I cannot truthfully attribute some positive quality to it. I cannot say that the Tooth Fairy has red hair. That is an untrue statement.

    I can however truthfully assert that a non-existent being does NOT possess a certain quality.

    Exactly my point! To be “untrustworthy” means “lacking in trustworthiness” which most definitely is not a “positive quality.” It is the absence of the positive quality of trustworthiness. The assertion that “God cannot be trusted” does not imply God exists. On the contrary, it coheres perfectly with the idea that God does not exist, since there is nothing less trustworthy than a non-existent being.

    If I say, for example, that the tooth fairy does not have red hair, that is perfectly true. There is no red hair which belongs to any Tooth Fairy, precisely because the Tooth Fairy does not exist. It doesn’t exist, therefore it does not have red hair. That’s true.

    I disagree. If fairies are defined as having wings, then you can truthfully say that the Tooth Fairy has wings. It does not imply that fairies are real. It’s like saying that Hamlet’s father was murdered. That is a true statement about a fictional character. And this is particularly relevant to the conversation because the only thing anyone actually knows for sure about God of the Bible is that he is a literary character in a book filled with fiction, superstitions, and falsehoods.

    So now, let’s go back to God. If God does not exist, then He did not make any promises, and therefore there is no question of any promises being broken. Thus it is false to assert that God is untrustworthy. All that can be said is that God does not exist, not that he has made promises that he has failed to honour.

    I disagree. The God I am speaking of exists in the imaginations of believers, and they believe he is trustworthy. When I say he does not possess the property of being trustworthy I am speaking truth. I then explain that his untrustworthiness is a good reason to believe he does not exist.

    I agree that these potential confusions could be avoided by wording things differently and I will take your insights into consideration when writing on this topic in the future.

    Thanks,

    Richard

  10. Posted February 14, 2015 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    I would not agree that “the tooth fairy has wings” is a true statement, on its own.

    If you would, then you would presumably be ok with telling that to a child, and leaving it at that.

    That’s why I would not “leave it at that.” You are taking very small fragments of text out of context and noting that the results are ambiguous. That’s exactly what we would expect. It is the nature of language.

    To present such statements as true is to trust that there is no ambiguity on the part of speaker or listener that we are talking about fictional beings.

    But there is ambiguity about the existence of God described in the Bible. That’s the whole point. Huge numbers of people believe that God is real and can be trusted. When I tell them that their God cannot be trusted, I am speaking truth whether or not he really exists. A believer must accept that truth before they will have a reason to look for the explanation. i.e. God does not exist.

    In the case of a child who believes in the Tooth Fairy, such a statement would be incorrect, in my view, without additional simultaneous clarification that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. In which case, why bother asserting that it has wings?

    If children adamantly believe the Tooth Fairy is real, merely telling them that it is not will not free them from the delusion. So we talk about the properties the Tooth Fairy is supposed to possess and what it is believed to do. Then we conduct tests to see if such a being can be detected according to what it is supposed to do, namely, leave money under your pillow. The children have accepted the rationalization that the Tooth Fairy faithfully leaves money under their pillows but it was stolen by gremlins. So we set up a careful test with video cameras and prove to the child that neither a Tooth Fairy nor a gremlin came into the room, and the child comes to understand that the best explanation for the lack of money under his pillow is that the Tooth Fairy did not do what was expected, and indeed, probably does not exist at all.

    This is how science responds to any hypothetical being or phenomenon such as an electron, gravity wave, phlogiston, the soul, a god, etc., etc., etc. They don’t clog their discussions with constant reminders that the beings in question are hypothetical and so could not posses the properties if they don’t actually exist. Such things are understood by everyone in the conversation. It is obvious from the context.

    If it’s fictional, then it only has wings if you want it to. I conceive of a fictional Tooth Fairy without wings. This doesn’t make “the tooth fairy has no wings” a true statement. If that was the case, then one could truthfully assert that the tooth fairy has wings, and the tooth fairy does not have wings.

    That’s a perfect example of how you are creating ambiguity by taking things out of context. In my comment, I specifically stated that “If fairies are defined as having wings, then you can truthfully say that the Tooth Fairy has wings.” My statement is true. It is silly to dispute it by negating the presupposition it rests upon. I could do the same thing to you by omitting the condition “If that was the case” and then claiming that you blatantly contradicted yourself when you said “the tooth fairy has wings, and the tooth fairy does not have wings.” Context is everything in language.

    In the case of Hamlet, there is no ambiguity. Hamlet is a fictional character. Within the fictional play in which the character appears, the author of the play has attributed various characteristics to him. So “Hamlet’s father was murdered” is true within the play, according to the author of the play. It does not permit us to entertain the notion that Hamlet might exist in the real world.

    There is no reason Hamlet could not have been a historical figure who really existed. Likewise, there is no reason that the God of the Bible could not be a complete fiction with no existence in reality.

    God is a hypothetical being. There is no simple test to prove or disprove his existence. But given that he does not possess the defining property of trustworthiness and that he is a character in a book filled with fictions, superstitions, myths, errors, inventions, fantasies, talking snakes and magic, it seems the most likely conclusion is that he does not exist.

    Back to God: asserting that God is untrustworthy, on the implicit assumption that God does not exist, is no different from saying God is trustworthy

    You’ve got it exactly backwards. The non-existence of God is not a presupposition. On the contrary, it is the conclusion that follows from the fact that the God of the Bible (whether he exists or not) does not possess the property of trustworthiness which contradicts the description of him given in the Bible. Therefore, that God does not exist because if he did exist he would have the property of trustworthiness.

    I find a similar situation in discussions of evolution. When evolutionists are arguing with creationists, there is a often a tendency to say things like, the designer of the eyeball was incompetent. The evolutionist defends such statement as being true because, in their view, the designer does not exist. But there is an implied insult in such a statement, and it is really designed to piss off the creationist. It’s unnecessary, and unworthy, regardless of how you might believe the eyeball came into existent. far better to simply say that, if you believe it, there are problems with the construction of the eye, without going the extra step and insulting Christians.

    I disagree. When an evolutionists says “The designer of the eye was incompetent” it’s just shorthand for the stilted and unnecessary “If there were a designer of the eye, he would have had to have been incompetent because there are obvious flaws in the design, therefore it is not rational to believe there was a designer of the eye.” If there is any confusion it is because the creationist is not thinking clearly. We see the same kind of error when creationists assert that atheists are “mad at God” and so actually believe he exists.

    I don’t think it is helpful nor wise to bring up charges of emotional abuse. The mere existence of atheists is all that is needed to piss of many Christians, and when they had the requisite power they would burn us alive just like the Islamic State. They can’t do that anymore so they’ve chosen to murder our character by presenting us as angry, evil, immoral and irrational.

    If you are convinced the being “God” does not exist, then there is really no point in inventing imaginary attributes for this being, and then asserting that the being does or does not possess such attributes.

    I did not invent any imaginary attributes. I am asserting that Christians are delusional if they believe there is a God who is trustworthy. I find it fascinating that you have not challenged me on this point.

    Far clearer, and far more accurate to assert that, in your view, the being does not exist, and leave it at that. This then leaves you entirely free of any possibility of an accusation that you are making such statements just to get under the skin of people who do believe that God exists.

    That wouldn’t make any sense at all. I do not simply presume that God does not exist. The non-existence of God is the conclusion of an argument that begins by stating the rather obvious fact that God is not trustworthy. Once that fact is understood and acknowledged, we acn ask why he is not trustworthy. The best answer is that he does not exist.

    And yes, I am trying to “get under the skin” of believers. Their mind is covered with a thick callous of rationalizations for their delusions. It’s not easy to get under a skin as thick as that. They are so deluded that they say “God is trustworthy” when he actually cannot be trusted to do anything for anyone in any situation. There is no deeper delusion than to say God is trustworthy. This truth will set them free from the bondage of their religious delusions.

    I am pleased to hear that you will give consideration in future to greater clarity in language on this point.

    I really appreciate the conversation. I’ve learned a lot, especially about how to make my points more clearly. Thanks!

  11. David
    Posted May 9, 2016 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    Hi Richard and better looking other half !!!

    [ First, I came to see that the Bible is filled with errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God, and that the attempts by Christian apologists to explain them away and/or cover them up and makes them look like fools of the first order. ]

    I’ll say this for your INSIGHT … I don’t think I’ve ever found a book that I’ve read completely (ie. as my Morrison and Boyd – Organic Chemistry) and moral abominations attributed to my Professor, any less
    strange than those of the Bible. I’m not saying that some proofs of reaction came pretty close, some titrations nearly to the drop.( I’ve forgotten now if a drop is .05 of a ML?).
    But guess what I did find … I loved my Professor, because he was completely out-of-his-mind !
    Why? Because he believed that because he had invented and made for Sargent Lundy(?) a Gas
    Chromatigraph(sp?) Machine … So not only did we have to use it, we had to understand it using his terminology, correct spelling, chemical Bonding and breakdown characteristics, etc…
    And since He was the Creator and Professor and Grade Giver(god/judge) there was no leniency,
    grade curve, or make ups allowed … ” He was Supreme “.
    In comes me! Working Night and Day to build new brain channels for ALL this important information, for which I will add, an “A” in M&B Organics was required “Absolute…” if you wanted to study Medicine.

    The picture I and everyone else had “WAS” an “A” come Hell or high water OR you get Hell only, because His pressed white Lab coat couldn’t stand the wrinkle !!!

    Well guess what happened! First Semester an “A”, but we lost half the class !!!
    Second Semester, I WALKED THROUGH THE VALLEY OF DEATH … and caught Bronchitis.

    Ahhhh !!! BIG SMILE on His face told me I was not going to enter the pearly gates of Medical School.
    Nope, Doctors Note with Medicine Bottle (in hand) was not going to save me(period)!
    He would allow me to drop the class, but I had to accept a “C”.

    Sooo I thought about my Mentor Dr. Fischer, Dean of the College who was using His Book from his doctorate on me and teaching me “How to Help Students Learn, How to Study”.

    Since Dr. Fischer had Officially taken over control of me, I was NO LONGER ALONE …
    Well … Dr. Fischer called Dr. Belcher and asked him to come to his office for a meeting.
    Dr. Fischer listened to Dr. Belcher had to say concerning what Dr. Belcher’s policy is!

    Anyway, the Readers Digest version is Dr. Belcher (with a smile) said that he would write up
    a makeup test and I could have “one” day to study. Sooo sick as I was I studied, right up to the
    test.

    At the test Dr. Belcher L@@KED me in the eyes and with a BIG SMILE, said Gooood Luck!

    Well, I got a “B” for my semester grade and an overall “B+” for the two semester average!
    This is just one reason why I THANK GOD that He sent His Son to be my Savior because I KNOW
    THAT WITHOUT HIM I HAVE’NT GOT A CHANCE OF GETTING THIS LIFE RIGHT !!!

    Now if this Cherry Picking, it’s CHERRY PICKING AT IT’S BEST !!! Why?

    Because the final decision was ALWAYS in HIS HANDS !!! OH, and I’ve got my Doctor of Naturopathic
    Medicine(NOW RETIRED) and I have used what I did learn from M&B Organic Chemistry ALONG WITH Jesus Christ’s help to solve a Brain Cancer issue for a person living here.
    He is now in remission and STABLE !!!
    ALL PRAISE TO GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SPIRIT AND GOD THE SON !!!
    AMEN and AMEN

    David
    A son in Christ Jesus
    I’VE LEFT YOU SOME NOTES UNDER OUR FIRST CONTACT AREA
    HAVE A GRRREAT EVENING Y: ): )U TWO !!!

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*