Posts by JosephAlward

63

Does Knowledge of Evil Condemn Us?

by JosephAlward in

jw
friends

ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.

[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.

and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.

JosephAlward

Gweedo wrote,

Dont know if it all makes sense or not

It makes perfect sense to me, Gweedo. The Bible was never intended by its authors to be taken literally, and the only reason some Christians hold to inerrancy at all costs is that they know that once they admit to themselves there is even one error in the Bible, they will forever wonder whether there are errors elsewhere, and then perhaps the messages of salvation are false, and maybe there was no resurrection. Once they lose that, they lose almost everything, for losing the belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is a kind of death for them; some Christians believe it would be an literal death. No wonder they fight so hard to maintain their delusions; it's either do that, or die.

From the very beginnings of Christianity, folks seemed to understand very well that the Bible's stories were not to be taken seriously.

Origen, who is generally considered the greatest theologian and biblical scholar of the early Eastern church, was so much a true believer that, according to the historian, Eusebius, he took the command in Matthew 19:12 to mean that he should castrate himself, and he did! Nevertheless, he had still had sense enough to know that the Genesis creation story was nonsense, unlike many of the true believers in this forum. Writing around 230 CE, he said, "What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second, and third days, in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun? " (Quoted in Mysteries of Adoni, p. 176)

Lamentably, we have folks today who insist on taking literally the Bible's stories, even the one about the Lord ordering infants and suckling babes to be killed ("Thus saith the LORD...slay both man and woman, infant and suckling"--1 Samuel 15:1-3). These are the Christians who do the most damage to Christianity; if there is a god, then he surely is very unhappy with those who take seriously the horrendous stories about him. These Christians, however, think that it is the unbelieving skeptic like Gweedo who disappoint God.

One of the reasons the all-believing Bible reader insists on believing everything in the Bible is expressed well by Saint Augustine:

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) was one of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church. He well understood that Christianity was like a house of cards; if the church dared to admit to even a single error in the Bible, who could say there wasn't an error on every page? The resurrection story might then be false and everyone's hopes are in vain. This is what he said:

The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true." --St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

13

Gospel Story Plagiarized from Scripture

by JosephAlward in

in this post i present evidence that marks story about jesus' feeding of loaves and fishes to the five thousand followers on the shore of the sea of galilee is a fictional story constructed from various passages in the old testament... .

i will place over them one shepherd, my servant david, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd.

(ezekiel 34:23).

JosephAlward

RWC,

You dismiss the shepherd parallel as a coincidence, but you have nothing to say about the other ones. Do you think it is a coincidence that Jesus servants complain about feeding many on so little food, just as did Elisha's servant, and a coincidence that Jesus then orders the the men be fed anyway, just as Elisha did, and by a seeming miracle the many men are fed on so little food, just as in the case of Elisha, and that there is food left over, just as in the case of Elisha, and that Jesus had the men lie down on green pastures by the still water, just as in the 23rd Psalm? All of these parallels, in addition to the one about the shepherding of the lost sheep, are found in the single short story about the fish and loaves, and you think that this is just a coincidence?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

63

Does Knowledge of Evil Condemn Us?

by JosephAlward in

jw
friends

ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.

[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.

and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.

JosephAlward

Achristian has argued that the reason God made man corruptible is that he wanted to create people with whom he could have loving relationship with--a "true love" coming from people whose love is neither forced nor programmed. But, AChristian has also argued that corruptible men know evil and may contemplate doing evil at any time.

Thus, at any time the thoughts, speech, and emotions, and feelings of the corruptible man might become contaminated with thoughts of doing evil; thus, the "true love" that AChristian imagines is coming from the corruptible man God created may in fact be tainted by thoughts of doing evil. This is the reason why AChristian's argument makes no sense. Not only does he not explain what "true love" is, beyond saying he thinks it is that love which comes unforced from a corruptible man, he also fails to take into account the inherently corrupted nature of the love God gets from corruptible man.

The love that would come from an uncorruptible man would never be tainted with thoughts of doing evil, or evil emotions, and thus would never be suspect. This love could be without limit, whereas the "true love"--whatever that is--that AChristian is talking about would necessarily be corrupt, and limited.

If God is "all about love," as you say AChristian, then why would God want from man a love which is inherently corrupt, suspect, and limited, when he could have perfect love, a love that is not corrupt, not limited, from uncorruptible man? It doesn't make sense does it?

AChristian provides his answer:

I say God made us free so that our love for Him and for others could be true love, being neither forced nor programmed. You say such love from free people who are capable of disobeying God is imperfect love, because you say it is tainted by the evil all free people sometimes do. On the other hand, if God made us all "incorruptible," incapable of disobeying Him, you would surely say that the "love" we then showed for God and others was not real love at all, since we had no choice in showing it.
So Joseph, because you are capable of doing evil, does that mean that the love you have for your wife, your kids and for others is not real love?
In the future, I will try to remember not to waste my time talking to people who argue against anything said by anyone calling themselves "Christian."

This is nonresponsive, AChristian. You haven't explained why you think God prefers from man a love which is inherently corrupt, suspect, and limited, when he could have perfect love, a love that is not corrupt, not limited, from uncorruptible man. Saying that God gets "true love"--whatever that is--from corruptible man, is not enough of an argument. You need to explain what your "true love" has--beyond being unforced--that outweighs its inherently corrupt, suspect, and limited nature, and why what's left is better than the perfect love, the uncorrupt, pure, limitless love that could come from the uncorruptible man. If you cannot do this, then why should we accept your interpretations?

Now, as for your question about my love for my family: It seems to be a red herring, that is, a question designed to throw the readers off the scent. We're not talking about whether corruptible men can show "true love." Instead, we are talking about God having a choice of between receiving perfect love--uncorrupted, pure love--from uncorruptible men, or receiving what you call "true love," (now you're calling it "real love") from men, a love which is necessarily corrupted. You don't explain well why God would choose the latter; all you say is that "true love" is better, even though it's corrupted, suspect, and limited. But, where is your argument in support of this conjecture? All you really offer new in the way of rebuttal is this one question, which you think will settle it:

So Joseph, because you are capable of doing evil, does that mean that the love you have for your wife, your kids and for others is not real love?

I don't know what you think "real love" is, but I really do love my family, even though, according to you, my thoughts at any moment might swing to the dark side. Selfish thoughts may often arise as I express my love, and this cannot help but taint in some way my love, and make it less than it could be, but I still feel "true love" for my family. Do you understand what I mean?

In the same way, the love corruptible men show to God may still be a "true love," but it nevertheless must have a corrupt component, however much man may wish not to have it. Would it not be better if man naturally and automatically loved God perfectly, without having his thoughts of love contaminated by occasional dark thoughts? God could make this happen by making man uncorruptible, couldn't he?

You argue that this would be bad, because then the love would be "forced," but so what if it's forced? What's wrong with being forced to do what is one's extreme best interest? God forces us to breathe without our wanting to, and our heart to beat without our necessarily wanting it to; it's an involuntary behavior which is in our best interest. If there really is a god who could have made us uncorruptible, thus forcing us to love him perfectly, he likely would have done so, don't you think?

63

Does Knowledge of Evil Condemn Us?

by JosephAlward in

jw
friends

ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.

[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.

and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.

JosephAlward

Achristian argued that knowledge of evil leads to the contemplation of doing evil, and that is what makes man less worthy than God, who is incorruptible, and thus incapable of even contemplating doing evil. Because we fall short of God, we are undeserving of eternal life, he claims.

Achristian further argues that the reason God made man corruptible is that

He wanted to create people whom He could have a loving relationship with. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, in order to have loving relationships with us, God had to create us as free people. Free to choose to love God and His ways or to not love God and His ways. In other words, free to do both right and wrong, free to do both good and evil.

This doesn't make sense. The love of God Achristian is describing is necessarily a corrupted one, for it comes from the hearts and minds of corruptible men who contemplate evil. From uncorruptible men, however, the love would be pure--uncontaminated by thoughts of doing evil.

AChristian argues that God wants the love from man to be a "true love," a love which comes naturally from men who can choose between good and evil, a love which is not programmed, as it would be if the man were perfect and would by his very nature love God. This is why God makes man corruptible, AChristian thinks.

This doesn't make sense. The unprogrammed, natural love from corruptible man would nevertheless be unavoidably contaminated by his evil thoughts, and thus be corrupted, limited, and suspect. Is not corruption by its very nature evil, according to Achristian? If so, then the corrupted love God receives is unavoidable tainted with evil. Why in the world, then, would God prefer love tainted with evil from corruptible man over love absent of any hint of evil, from uncorruptible men?

Saying that the limited and imperfect love is nevertheless natural doesn't explain it, Achristian; that which is good is not always that which is natural, and, besides that, limited corrupted love can never be better than the limitless and uncorrupted love that would come from uncorruptible man.

AChristian, if you believe that the Bible teaches that corrupted love from corruptible men is better to God than the pure love that would come from uncorruptible men, will you please show us the verses? If they don't exist, then why should we accept your view?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

63

Does Knowledge of Evil Condemn Us?

by JosephAlward in

jw
friends

ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.

[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.

and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.

JosephAlward

Joseph, I hope that helps.

My focus was quite narrow, and was not directed to the meaning of evil, and knowledge of it, or its implications. I was challenging the logic of your claim that knowledge of evil is inherently unrighteous. You didn't use those words, but that is the thrust of your statement, which I'll reproduce below:

[When] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil. And, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than God. Why is that? Because the Bible tells us that "In God there is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5)

Thus, you seem to be claiming that the instant Adam and Eve gained a knowledge of evil, they became less righteous than God. Your words make it clear that you think that darkness entered Adam and Eve at the moment they knew evil, but knowing evil cannot be a criteria for this, for if it were, then one would have to conclude that there is darkness in God, too, for he surely knows evil.

Since the writer of 1 John 1:5 says that there is no darkness in God, we must conclude that either he was wrong, or else your interpretation is flawed. Which is it? Does one become less righteous when one knows evil, or not? Can God know evil and be righteous, but if man knows it he's not righteous? If so, why? Where in the Bible does it say this?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

13

Gospel Story Plagiarized from Scripture

by JosephAlward in

in this post i present evidence that marks story about jesus' feeding of loaves and fishes to the five thousand followers on the shore of the sea of galilee is a fictional story constructed from various passages in the old testament... .

i will place over them one shepherd, my servant david, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd.

(ezekiel 34:23).

JosephAlward

In this post I present evidence that Mark’s story about Jesus' feeding of loaves and fishes to the five thousand followers on the shore of the Sea of Galilee is a fictional story constructed from various passages in the Old Testament..

The Lord’s people are sheep and the Lord is their shepherd beside the water, and he makes them lie down on the green grass.

I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. (Ezekiel 34:23)
May the LORD…appoint a man…so the LORD's people will not be like sheep without a shepherd. (Numbers 27:16-17)
The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters (Psalm 23:1-2)

Mark wants his readers to see Jesus can give spiritual guidance to lost men as well as the Lord, so he creates a scene in which Jesus meets men who are like sheep without a shepherd, and then Mark has Jesus make them lie down on green grass beside the waters, just as the Lord is said to have done:

When Jesus landed (on the shore of the Sea of Galilee) and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd... Jesus directed them to have all the people sit (literally, recline; Greek: anaklino) down in groups on the green grass (Mark 6:34, 39)

A man of God asks his servant, who complains of there being too little food, to feed a great many men, but the feeding is miraculously achieved, with food left over.

In the first example from Scripture below, the man of God is Elisha; in the second, it’s Moses. Later, I’ll show that Mark has Jesus do the exact same thing, evidently to convince his readers that Jesus is the messiah Scripture prophesied. First, here are the Elisha and Moses stories:

A man came from Baal Shalishah, bringing the man of God twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain, along with some heads of new grain.
"Give it to the people to eat," Elisha said.
"How can I set this before a hundred men?" his servant asked.
But Elisha answered, "Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the LORD says: `They will eat and have some left over.'" Then he set it before them, and they ate and had some left over. (2 Kings 4:43-44)
[Moses asks the Lord,] "Where can I get meat for all these people?", and the Lord responded by covering the land three feet deep in quail. (Numbers 11:13-21)

With Jesus the shepherd tending his people the sheep, who are lying down on green grass by the still water, Mark next has Jesus’ disciples complain about the lack of food for the men--just as the servant did to Elisha, and Moses to the Lord, but Jesus miraculously produces food for the men, with food left over, just as Elisha and the Lord did:

[Jesus said, Give] them something to eat."
They said to him, "That would take eight months of a man's wages! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?"
"How many loaves do you have?" he asked. "Go and see."
When they found out, they said, "Five--and two fish."
Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He also divided the two fish among them all, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand. (Mark 6:37-44)

This is just one of many examples of gospel stories that were manufactured by the gospel writers. Interested readers will find a fuller exposition of this parallel at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Loaves_and_Fishes.htm; other examples of parallels are found at links on my web page.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

10

Honoring Parents

by JosephAlward in

this is my response to a true believer who emailed me about my claims that the gospel stories were plagiarized from scriptural antecedents, and about my claim that jesus showed disrepect for parents--if you can believe the bible:.

do you have proof -- not your insights -- for your claim that the bible is nothing but a mimmic of ancient myth?.

evidence is all i have.

JosephAlward

Kenneson wrote,

Matthew in chapter 9:9 and 10:3 is an apostle and is believed to be responsible for the book after his name. He would have been an eyewitness.
The writers had good sources and good teachers. Why would they not have understood Jesus' teachings as it was handed down to them, albeit if not all of them received it directly from His mouth?

I have to question this, Kenneson. You say that the apostle Matthew "is believed" to have been the writer, but where is the evidence of this? The author of Matthew never gives the slightest hint that he is the apostle. Instead, there is strong evidence to the contrary. Read what the author of the Book of Matthew has to say about "himself":

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. (Matthew 9:9)

Does this sound like something the apostle Matthew would write about himself? Speaking of himself in the royal third person? Jesus never spoke of himself this way, so we hardly should imagine that Matthew would be so presumptuous as to do so.

You also say that the "writers had good sources and good teachers," but how do you know this? You cannot assume that their teacher was Jesus, since that is the very point in contention. Who were their sources and teachers, and how do you know?

Now, as for Matthew, there is extremely strong evidence that he manufactured his stories about Jesus. He took what he thought were foreshadowing stories in Scripture and adapted them to fit Jesus. Why? To make it seem that his "Jesus" was the messiah prophesied in Scripture. However, he made many laughably bad mistakes in interpretation. I won't go into all of them here; you can consult my web page for those stories. I'll just mention one here, again.

One example of Matthew's bumbling is found in his story of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Matthew bases this fictional story on a misunderstood story in Scripture. In that story, the prophet speaks of a king riding a donkey--a colt (a young male donkey), the foal of a donkey:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9 NASB)

Obviously, Zechariah didn’t mean that the king was riding a donkey and a colt; he was merely telling us that the donkey was a colt foal (young son) of a donkey.

Unfortunately for Matthew, he thinks the prophet meant that there were two animals: a donkey, and a colt, instead of just a donkey that was a young colt. Thus, Matthew invents a story in which Jesus sends his disciples to fetch an ass and a colt, so that Jesus might ride on them into Jerusalem. The other gospel writers weren't so foolish. Here is the evidence.

Matthew: Jesus Sent for an Ass and a Colt

And …then sent Jesus two disciples, Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me… All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. (Matthew 21:1-5)

Mark, Luke, and John, understood Zechariah; according to them, Jesus sent his disciples after only one animal. Mark and Luke call the animal a "colt," and John calls it an "ass," and all three versions are compatible with the "prophesy" in Zechariah, wherein the animal is described as a donkey that is a colt.

None of them have Jesus send his disciples to fetch two animals, as was the case in Matthew's story. Here are the stories by Mark, Luke, and John:

Mark: Jesus Sent for a Colt

And …he sendeth forth two of his disciples, And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him…And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. (Mark 11:1-7)

Luke: Jesus Sent for a Colt

Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. …35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon. (Luke 19:30-35)

John: Jesus Sent for an Ass

And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. (John 12: 14-15)

The conclusion is inescapable: Matthew thought Zechariah was referring to two animals, so he invented a story in which Jesus sends his disciples to fetch two animals, but it is obvious that Zechariah was referring to just one animal. Thus, Matthew was mistaken, and his error is compounded by the fact that the fictional story he created was based on this error.

(Much of information in this post was lifted verbatim from the article at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Triumphal_Entry.htm)

So we see that not only is zero evidence that the "apostle" Matthew the writer of the gospel, there is good evidence that he was not the writer. Furthermore, we see evidence that the author of the Book of Matthew, whoever he was, invented stories about Jesus.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

63

Does Knowledge of Evil Condemn Us?

by JosephAlward in

jw
friends

ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.

[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.

and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.

JosephAlward

Ordinarily I would post this topic in the "Bible Research" forum, but I found the following on the "Friends" forum, in the "Tree of What" thread, so I will leave it here.

AChristian explains,

[When] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil. And, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than God. Why is that? Because the Bible tells us that "In God there is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5)

This makes no sense. If knowledge of evil makes one less than perfect, then God would not be perfect by this rule, because he certainly knows evil, does he not? Thus, either AChristian is wrong, or the author of 1 John 1:5 is, or both of them are.

Which is it, AChristian?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

10

Honoring Parents

by JosephAlward in

this is my response to a true believer who emailed me about my claims that the gospel stories were plagiarized from scriptural antecedents, and about my claim that jesus showed disrepect for parents--if you can believe the bible:.

do you have proof -- not your insights -- for your claim that the bible is nothing but a mimmic of ancient myth?.

evidence is all i have.

JosephAlward

Kenneson writes,

I figure that Matthew & Luke both understood what Jesus was saying.

How do you know that either of them were with Jesus at the time he said these things? Might they both just have been reporting what Jesus was traditionally believed to have said? Consider the example of Jesus' private prayer at Gethsemane:

He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch." Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. "Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." (Mark 14:33-36)

How could Mark have known what Jesus said to God? Jesus was alone. The disciples closest to him were Peter, James, and John, and they were left behind to keep watch while Jesus prayed; Mark was nowhere to be seen.

It is evident, therefore, that Mark's account of Jesus' prayer was not eyewitness testimony, so it must have been based on what someone told him. So, if one of Mark's stories was a hand-me-down, why couldn't the same be true for all of them, and likewise for Matthew and Luke?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

10

Honoring Parents

by JosephAlward in

this is my response to a true believer who emailed me about my claims that the gospel stories were plagiarized from scriptural antecedents, and about my claim that jesus showed disrepect for parents--if you can believe the bible:.

do you have proof -- not your insights -- for your claim that the bible is nothing but a mimmic of ancient myth?.

evidence is all i have.

JosephAlward

Peaceful says,

Interpretation of scripture to disprove scripture is slippery ground.

Peaceful if you will explain what you mean by "interpretation of scripture to disprove scripture," and how it specifically applies to my remarks to Kenneson, I will try to respond.

Note added later: Peaceful, I imagine you are saying that it's easy to show Bible error if one is free to interpret the Bible any way one wishes, and of course I agree with this. If one had the freedom to do this without constraint, then one could show every verse in the Bible is contradictory, inconsistent, or in error. This is the "slippery slope" you may have had in mind. And it would slope both ways, too; a true believer would be free to interpret the Bible any way that is necessary to "prove" that the Bible is not in error.

However, if the interpretations are viewed as reasonable and based on logic, and not on faith or speculation, then conclusions based on these interpretations are more likely to be seen as plausible by objective observers than are conclusions based on faith or pure speculation.

If one can make the case that one is interpreting the Bible objectively--with one's mind, not with the heart--then I think there is little danger in drawing conclusions based on those interpretations.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html