Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Cosmos: If anyone cares at this late date – Why Bruno was executed in 1600

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Jay Richards, at Evolution News & Views:

Bruno’s execution, troubling as it was, had virtually nothing to do with his Copernican views. He was condemned and burned in 1600, but it was not because he speculated that the Earth rotated around the sun along with the other planets. He was condemned because he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and transubstantiation, claimed that all would be saved, and taught that there was an infinite swarm of eternal worlds of which ours was only one. The latter idea he got from the ancient (materialist) philosopher Lucretius. Is it any surprise, then, that, as a defrocked Dominican friar denying essential tenets of Catholic doctrine and drawing strength from the closest thing to an atheist in the Roman world, he might have gotten in trouble with the Inquisition? Yet a documentary series about science and our knowledge of the universe fritters away valuable airtime on this Dominican mystic and heretic, while scarcely mentioning Copernicus, the Polish guy who actually wrote the book proposing a sun-centered universe.

The reason is obvious once you see that Cosmos is not just good ole science education, but rather a glossy multi-million-dollar piece of agitprop for scientific materialism. As such, the biography of Copernicus, whatever its scientific significance, provides precious little fodder of the desired kind. Copernicus died peacefully in his bed just as his book, On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, was hitting the bookstores (such as there were in 1543). And his most famous disciple, Galileo, despite being censured by the Holy See, died peacefully as well. So it falls to Bruno, who had no scientific achievements, to stand in as a martyr for science. I’d venture that virtually no one other than scholars of Christian history would even know the name of Giordano Bruno but for the propaganda machine of scientific materialism, which needed a martyr for its metanarrative.

Maybe, but the disappointing ratings show that the Cosmos remake is not a good advertisement for scientific materialism. The problem is, most people who would buy the idea don’t really want all the baggage, like Bruno, Gaia, and global warming. And the people who want the baggage are indifferent converts to scientific materialism: Darwin today Gaia tomorrow, panpsychism the day after.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
StephenA, Your descriptions reminds me of Proverbs 30:20 (CJB):
This is how an unfaithful wife behaves: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, “I did nothing wrong.”
Some things never change. -QQuerius
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
Jerad:
So, since there are and always have been disagreements between people of faith about moral behaviour how do you decide who, if anyone, is right? Considering again that in the past ‘good’ Christians have gotten it badly wrong.
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." Mark 10:18
I can find mathematical mistakes and they are unambiguous and clear and objective. Anyone else competent could do the same. The laws of mathematics are agreed upon by just about everyone on this planet with knowledge. Is that true for your absolute morals?
Again with the 'your absolute morals'. Absolute morals, by definition, do not belong to me. I think you are overstating your case with regard to mathematics. I once had someone adamantly saying that you could make 2 + 1 = 4. (Seriously. It was surreal.) And unlike morality, mathematics rarely gets in the way of our selfish desires. Really, what it comes down to is that all human beings are tempted to do things that are (absolutely) immoral. And having given into temptation, we then lie to ourselves so that we may pretend that we haven't actually done wrong. People will say "I am a good person.", but if you then ask "So you have never done anything wrong?" they get uncomfortable. So yes, everybody does agree about morality, but we don't want to admit it. Least of all to ourselves.StephenA
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
Jerad@139, You seem to be stuck on the wrong issue. Moral standards do not, never have, and cannot justify us before God. Attempting to do so is called legalism, and legalism kills. See Querius@135. -QQuerius
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Jerad:
IF there are absolute morals then what are they? And why do some people who profess to believe in the same god act so differently? And kill each other?
It's pathetic, really, to see Jerad acting as judge of what is and is not moral. Pathetic.Mung
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
Perhaps I’m reading into your comments a bit much, but it seems to me that you have some confusion about what morality is. If there are absolute morals they apply to all humans at all times. They are imposed on humanity from above, and as such, are external to us.
IF there are absolute morals then what are they? And why do some people who profess to believe in the same god act so differently? And kill each other? Were the Christians who killed Bruno for heresy punished for their actions?
Thus to ask about ‘your absolute moral compass’ is like asking about ‘your version of maths’. If I disagree with my fellow Christians (or anyone else for that matter) about the morality of something it means that one of us (or both of us) has gotten our ‘sums’ wrong. And even if we both happen to be wrong the correct answer will still exist.
So, since there are and always have been disagreements between people of faith about moral behaviour how do you decide who, if anyone, is right? Considering again that in the past 'good' Christians have gotten it badly wrong. That's me saying that slaughtering Waldensians and Abbigensians was wrong, you may disagree. If there is so much disagreement then the absolute moral standards must be hard to discern. I can find mathematical mistakes and they are unambiguous and clear and objective. Anyone else competent could do the same. The laws of mathematics are agreed upon by just about everyone on this planet with knowledge. Is that true for your absolute morals?Jerad
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
Well said, StephenA. -QQuerius
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Jerad
How do I know that your absolute moral compass won’t change direction in the future?
Perhaps I'm reading into your comments a bit much, but it seems to me that you have some confusion about what morality is. If there are absolute morals they apply to all humans at all times. They are imposed on humanity from above, and as such, are external to us. Thus to ask about 'your absolute moral compass' is like asking about 'your version of maths'. If I disagree with my fellow Christians (or anyone else for that matter) about the morality of something it means that one of us (or both of us) has gotten our 'sums' wrong. And even if we both happen to be wrong the correct answer will still exist.StephenA
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
Jerad@132 asks,
Where does the moral compass point? Does it always point the same way?
The short, somewhat misleading answer is no. I just ate a thin slice of salami. By your moral standards, was this right or was this wrong? Let me paint you a picture---please accept it for the moment. In the garden of Eden, there are two trees. One is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By eating its fruit, one gains the knowledge to make strict moral judgments, something reserved only for God. Over time, its fruit will also kill you. The other tree is called the tree of life. It represents communion with God. By eating its fruit, one experiences mercy, joy, and peace. Its fruit will give you eternal life. So when someone asks me about right and wrong, you can now understand my perspective that they are eating fruit from the wrong tree! My moral compass? Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father (God) except through me." Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Of course there is. Governments currently do crudely what God will one day do perfectly. This world system with all its greed, lusts, jealousies, lies, fraud, ambitions, arrogance, intolerance, quarrels, injustice, violence, and suffering is headed for judgment and destruction. It's not my job to try to fix it. My job is to try to snatch *you* out of the flames and get you to the other tree. :-) -QQuerius
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
Hey, Q. I'm gonna have to disagree ... in part. Paul said that governments act as God's servant precisely when they impose certain behavior patterns; ie, when they act to restrain evil and reward good. Indeed, they are given "the sword" (in that culture, capital punishment) to stop evil. But this implies that evil and good are defined and enforced. Of course, just prior to this Paul says that Christians are not to take personal vengeance for wrongs done to them. Rather, it is God who takes care of that. (And I would argue that the government is one of the means that God uses.) Murder is wrong. Child abuse is wrong. Gladiator contests to the death were wrong. Slavery is wrong. Jim Crow laws are wrong. Infanticide is wrong. In standing against these things, Christians are acting as salt and light in a dark, pagan (today neo-pagan) culture.anthropic
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
anthropic@125 pointed out
Early Christians would have disagreed about marrying the dog, Q.
You raise an important point. The early Christians adopted Biblical behavioral standards, but they had NO mission (or authority) to impose them on anyone outside their community of believers. These standards were to be a natural result of their faith, and not a new form of legalism. It was recognized and accepted that some Christians set for themselves different standards for personal reasons that included celibacy, vegetarianism, abstention from alcohol, and so on. Rabbi Shaul (aka the Apostle Paul), recognized no difference "in Christ" between male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free. He also encouraged a slaveholding believer, Philemon, to set free his slave. However, the whole point wasn't to force change on society. -QQuerius
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
To know truth you must first encounter Truth.
And if people who both claim to be Christians espouse different 'truths' then who is right? Who wins? Bruno 'lost'. Was he wrong or just unlucky? Were his persecutors 'right'? Where does the moral compass point? Does it always point the same way?Jerad
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
Jerad, To know truth you must first encounter Truth. Best wishes in your quest.Mung
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 127: Beautifully stated my brother. [And no mention of the shape of the cross or of worshipping a crucifix!]Mung
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
That there are Christians confused over the fashionable attempt to twist marriage against Creation order (often on the myth that “my genes made me do it”) only implies that there are confused by the spirit of our age and the failure of too many leaders of the church in our time to follow their sound Christian education mandate, per Eph 4:9 – 24.
That's fine, I know many Christians agree with you. But some don't So . . . given that some in your general camp claim to tap into an absolute and objective moral code . . . how do I judge who is right? When you disagree with others who claim to follow the same sacred texts? I'm trying to get past a particular issue or event. I'm trying to figure out how to discern amongst you Christians who is right when you've been disagreeing with each other for 2000 years. And some of you have died at the hands of others of you. Bruno for example. And a lot of what were judged to be heretics but who said they were good Christians. Like the Cathars. They had a view different from Rome and lots of them were killed by other Christians because of the disagreement. Was that moral? Was that justified? And, even if you're right, does that give you the right to kill those with whom you disagree? When Christians disagree who decides who is 'right'? AND, if 200 years from now the Catholic church has allowed married priests (as they once did), women priests (are the Anglicans wrong?) and even homosexual priests then does that mean you were wrong?Jerad
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Jerad: That there are Christians confused over the fashionable attempt to twist marriage against Creation order (often on the myth that "my genes made me do it") only implies that there are confused by the spirit of our age and the failure of too many leaders of the church in our time to follow their sound Christian education mandate, per Eph 4:9 - 24. For just one instance (note the already linked) let us note:
1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Couldn't be plainer or more direct. [Cf. here also.] Of course, in the very same epistle c 55 AD, the apostle pointed out that the fleshly, unspiritual mind does not understand, resists and often dismisses spiritual truth. KFkairosfocus
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Ab: A Christian . . . properly . . . is a: a penitent sinner and disciple of Christ b: who is persevering in the path of the right [often, "the way"], c: based on personal encounter with God through the risen, once crucified Christ leading to d: said repentance [metanoia] and to trust in God based on the warranted truth in the gospel, leading also e: towards transformation of life reflective of growing love, truth, spiritual empowerment and purity of thought, word and deed. In short, genuine spiritual life shows itself in various ways, and if the growth-signs are absent, then one is entitled to challenge claims. Just as, if a potted plant is dried up and unresponsive to water, light etc, it is dead. And, with all due respect, after 2000 years and millions of cases in point, this should be a commonplace. The Apostle John notes, relevantly:
1 Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
If someone is struggling to grow and to be properly sensitive and responsive to the truth and the right is one thing, that someone shows no serious signs of spiritual life is another entirely. KFkairosfocus
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
People can and will argue whatever they desire. Do you think a man and a 12 year old boy should be able to marry if they truly love each other? Do you think a woman should be able to “abort” an unwanted infant up to 2 years in age? One of my professors thought so.
Sigh. If people who are reading the same holy scriptures cannot agree on what they say then why should the rest of us agree with you that they contain a root or seed of what is claimed to be the absolute moral good? Bruno was killed by good Christians. The Waldensian and Albigensian crusades were perpetrated by good Christians. I'm not playing a numbers game, I'm merely saying that people who read the same texts as do pious Christians today have perpetrated some pretty hideous things. Did fellow believers call them on those acts? AND, most importantly, since you know doubt disagree with the horrors of the European crusades and the killing of Bruno then who's to say you've got it right and they had it wrong? If, 200 years from now, there are gay and women priests, will we say that some of you had it wrong? How do I know that your absolute moral compass won't change direction in the future?Jerad
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
Early Christians would have disagreed about marrying the dog, Q. In fact, it was the growing influence of Christianity that put an end to gladatorial death matches for entertainment, widespread infanticide, and child marriage in Rome. The Church eventually turned against slavery as well, and it was largely banished from most of Europe by the 10th century. So far as we know, this was the first time anywhere in human history that a moral objection was made against slavery. Slavery was reintroduced in the New World, of course. But even there it was eventually destroyed by an abolitionist movement headed up by Christians -- just as the Civil Rights Movement was in the 1960s and the Right to Life movement today. Judge not that you be not judged was meant to warn us against hypocrisy; if we cheat on our taxes we have no right to criticize others who do so. It was never meant that we have no standards, nor that those standards are strictly private.anthropic
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Jerad,
Bruno was tried and executed because he disagreed with the predominant view of the Trinity. Where’s the ultimate and supreme morality in that? Is killing dissenters evil?
In the New Testament accounts of the early Christian church, the people who taught things contrary to "sound doctrine" were at worst kicked out of the church. A few of them got sick or died. On the other hand, governments routinely incarcerate, torture, starve, and kill their citizens. From my reading of the history of Christianity, the source of most of such persecutions and executions had to do with domineering personalities and political power, and absolutely nothing to do with following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Christians disagree about whether same-sex marriage should be allowed.
Be allowed by whom? By God? By the State? By some ecclesiastical authority who wears a funny hat?
Who is right? Everybody is reading the same text and yet there is no agreement.
People can and will argue whatever they desire. Do you think a man and a 12 year old boy should be able to marry if they truly love each other? Do you think a woman should be able to "abort" an unwanted infant up to 2 years in age? One of my professors thought so. As a Christian, I have no mission to force anyone to live as I do. If you want to marry your dog, go for it. Also, as a Christian, I'm now motivated by an enthusiastic desire to live a life that's pleasing to God. My motivations don't include getting drunk, lying, thieving, sexual immorality of any kind, coveting material goods---all this no longer holds any attraction to me. People should do what they want, but know that there are consequences. And if they get sick of their lives, know that there's an alternative. -QQuerius
June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
Bruno was tried and executed because he disagreed with the predominant view of the Trinity. Where’s the ultimate and supreme morality in that? Is killing dissenters evil? Which interpretation of the faith was correct: Bruno or his tormentors? Who judges? If you say they’re both wrong then how do you (or I) know you are right? Christians disagree about whether same-sex marriage should be allowed. Who is right? Everybody is reading the same text and yet there is no agreement. Why should I believe you?Jerad
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
Acartia_bogart@116 wondered,
But judgements are made all the time.
Yes, that's true. And Jesus said that in the same way we judge others, we will also be judged.
All I have read here is what disqualifies a person as a Christian, not what qualifies a person as one. A Christian wouldn’t kill; a Christian wouldn’t steal; a Christian wouldn’t lie; etc. etc. etc. if this is really true then a Christian must be the rarest animal on earth.
Yes, so rare in fact, that someone like that doesn't exist. Period. Everyone has done one or more of the things you mentioned and more. An authentic Christian is in fact a person just like you (!), but who is willing to admit that they are selfish, self-willed, caused a lot of pain to others, and deserves to die. The Bible says that the good news is that Jesus came to rescue people like you and me, and that Jesus paid the price for us. It says that Jesus is the predicted Messiah, the only son of God. Many Indian Christians describe him as the only avatar of God.
Everything including the persecution of Jews, separating native children from their parents, slavery, the burning of witches, executions for blasphemy and adultery and homosexuality, and numerous wars have been justified (or at least condoned) through religious beliefs. We are told that these were based on misinterpretations of god’s teaching. I am willing to concede that this is the case.
It is indeed the case! The people who hated Jesus the most were self-righteous "religious" people. Jesus was pretty rude to them. Furthermore - The Greeks turned Christianity into a philosophy; - The Romans turned it into a system; - The Europeans into a culture; - And the Americans into a business. According to the Bible, all you need to do is - Confess to God that you're a moral failure (yes, that's what I am too!); - That you want God's mercy and complete forgiveness through the sacrifice of Jesus, trusting that God's promise is true; - And that you extend an invitation to God's Holy Spirit to work in your life. I'm confident that it will have a profound effect in your life as it has in mine and many other people I know.
But if we have had 2000 years of these types of misinterpretations, why do you think that your current interpretation is correct?
This is an excellent question! When I started college, I knew that I wanted only authentic Christianity, if it existed. Earlier, I'd studied different religions, which seemed to me primarily cultural institutions. I started reading the Bible seriously to see what Jesus really said. Through it and life experiences, I found peace, joy, wisdom, encouragement, and a completely changed life. However, I wouldn't expect you or want you to take my word for it. You should ask God directly. I'm confident that you will experience a personal answer! -QQuerius
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Q, thanks for reminding me of that Bible. Having the numbering of the NT Greek numerically coded to the LXX Greek is nice.Mung
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
@Querius: " According to the Bible, even Christians aren’t supposed to make those judgements." But judgements are made all the time. All I have read here is what disqualifies a person as a Christian, not what qualifies a person as one. A Christian wouldn't kill; a Christian wouldn't steal; a Christian wouldn't lie; etc. etc. etc. if this is really true then a Christian must be the rarest animal on earth. Everything including the persecution of Jews, separating native children from their parents, slavery, the burning of witches, executions for blasphemy and adultery and homosexuality, and numerous wars have been justified (or at least condoned) through religious beliefs. We are told that these were based on misinterpretations of god's teaching. I am willing to concede that this is the case. But if we have had 2000 years of these types of misinterpretations, why do you think that your current interpretation is correct?Acartia_bogart
June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Barb, Pardon me if I've already mentioned this. Recently, I purchased a recently published Septuagint. It's called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, an interlinear, word-for-word translation from the Greek. Even the Greek word order is preserved, and the Strong's number for each word is included, so you can look up the range of meanings for each word. I would recommend it to you. Comparing this text to several Bible translations, one can clearly see choices made by the English translators of the various versions. You probably know this, but for the sake of other readers, the Septuagint is an authorized translation of the Tanakh (the Old Testament) from Hebrew manuscripts by about 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria, about 200-300 years before Christ. Scholars have compared the Greek text of the Septuagint to the Hebrew text of the Dead Sea scrolls, and they have found a high degree of agreement between them. Most of the differences between the quotations in the B'rit Chadashah (the New Testament) of the Tanakh were introduced by the Masoretic text, written several hundred years after the Messiah. The Masoretic text was the basis for both the contemporary Jewish and Christian translations. In the Septuagint, you won't find an answer to the controversy over whether Yeshua was executed on a stake with zero, one, or two crosspieces, a minor point in my opinion, but you will be able to make informed decisions about other interpretations. Kind regards, -QQuerius
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
bogart, Since you apparently don't understand what makes a person a Christian, you're not in any position to make a judgement regarding any individual according to your own values. According to the Bible, even Christians aren't supposed to make those judgements. Some Christians choose to abstain from alcohol, others abstain from meat, others abstain from sex, still others abstain from violent force. These are all personal decisions. Alone, they do not determine whether a person is a Christian. Personally, I have no problem with any of these choices, and I respect the people who hold to them. However, if my family or I were threatened with serious injury or death, I would not hesitate to use whatever force necessary to stop the perpetrators regardless of their species. -QQuerius
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Acartia writes, So, I ask again, was Truman a Christian? If your answer is anything other than “no” I am afraid that all of your other arguments lose what little credibility they may have had. I would answer "no" simply because of the reasons posted above. Claiming to be something is borne out by actions, not words. I can claim to be a supermodel, but that doesn't make it true.Barb
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Now that I am on a hypothetical roll: Were there Christian allied soldiers during WW II? Keep in mind that the average soldier didn't know anything about the holocaust until the war was almost over. They killed other humans simply because they were told to by their government. That seems to violate one of the commandments, but I will concede that the bible manages to condone killing for numerous reasons and maybe following orders is one of those reasons. But, was Harry Truman a Christian? By all accounts he was a "god fearing" man. Yet, he killed thousands of innocent men women and children when he dropped the bomb on Japan. He can't use the "I was following orders" defender because he was the one giving them. And after he knew what the bomb could do, he dropped another one. And, to the day he died, he never once questioned his decision or repented of it. So, I ask again, was Truman a Christian? If your answer is anything other than "no" I am afraid that all of your other arguments lose what little credibility they may have had.Acartia_bogart
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Barb and K, I love listening to the nonsense you are spewing about Christians being incapable of committing atrocities. I am not saying that Christians are more likely to do so, or the nonsense that Dawkins spews about religion being responsible for most wars. I was reacting to the equally nonsense statement that most mass murders are caused by atheists. Ok, another hypothetical,, because I know how much you love them. If a Christian kills several people and then repents, does he get his Christian card back? If I understand Christianity correctly, the answer is yes. So, was he a Christian when he committed the acts? S according to your logic, the answer is no. Now, isn't that convenient?Acartia_bogart
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Acartia continues,
I am not missing the point. Again, you have just made my point. It is a completely circular argument. A person could live a completely christian life for thirty years. Never steal, never lie, do everything that Jesus wanted people to do. Then one day, he goes out and kills a dozen people for no obvious reason. So, 30 seconds of non christian behaviour out of 985,500,000 and he is no longer a christian?
What you are describing is probably the single worst analogy I’ve ever read. And as you know, actions speak louder than words. And if that person was doing everything Jesus wanted people to do, then it’s not likely that he or she would suddenly snap and murder a dozen people. Your strawman fallacy is ludicrous.Barb
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
D: Welcome. KFkairosfocus
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply