Sam Harris On Literal Interpretations Of Religious Books
Great point, too, about how nothing in the religious guidebooks (the Bible, the Quran) could have been written by an omniscient being who could see into the future -- foresee electricity, for example:
Of course, the argument could be made that the gods were holding out on us, "I'm telling you, they're not ready for electricity and DNA! Let's just stick with stoning and animal sacrifices, stuff they can relate to!"
the Strawboss at July 14, 2011 4:42 AM
Most atheists know the bible quite well. If more Christians read it, there would be less Christians. I just did a post on 1 Samuel and that is a book of crazy.
Andrew Hall at July 14, 2011 5:08 AM
SOME atheists know the bible quite well.
Fixed it for you. You're welcome. My experience has been, shall we say? different.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 14, 2011 6:43 AM
Better yet
More athiests relative to the size of their group in society know the bible better then most cristinas do relative to their size in society
Now, Andrew, IRA Darth, you are both right
lujlp at July 14, 2011 7:32 AM
I'd argue that atheists like Sam Harris know the Bible better than most Christians, but the average run of the mile atheist does not.
I would also like to point out that, to say the least, Mr. Harris is flat out wrong about the only example that he gives about Christians taking the Bible literally: It is not just in the modern era that Christians have rejected the idea that non-virgin brides should be stoned.
The New Testament itself says that those type of Mosaic laws were nailed to the cross (Col 2:11-14) and done away with (you might notice that the vast majority of Christians eat pork, for example), so unless you are arguing that the "Modern era" began in the first few centuries C.E., that is just flat out wrong to claim that it is modernity that brought an end to the practice.
Brn at July 14, 2011 8:08 AM
Sorry, that should be run of the mill, not mile.
Brn at July 14, 2011 8:20 AM
"Most atheists know the bible quite well. If more Christians read it, there would be less Christians. I just did a post on 1 Samuel and that is a book of crazy."
A Christian who is a Christian because of what Scripture says is a Pharisee and not a Christian.
Harris does some serious strawmanning when it ccomes to religion - all his arguments are strawmen and this is just one more example.
And when it comes to Christianity, then he is really without a clue. I'm sure he is just reporting what he sees, selection bias and all. Like I said, clueless.
Jim at July 14, 2011 9:34 AM
Jim, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
It's always amusing to see an alleged strawman argument be answered by an even more shallow strawman argument.
Joe at July 14, 2011 9:52 AM
Joe,
How exactly is Mr. Harris's example about Christians not a straw man? The whole point of the video is to prove that atheists do not interpret scripture more literally than most believers.
Yet the only example that he gives regarding Christians is one that, at best, only a microscopic fraction of Christians throughout the last 2000 years have believed, and in no way represents the mainstream of Christian belief, any more than the beliefs of Mao represent the beliefs of atheists.
I'm not saying that he deliberately set out to set up a straw man, but the most charitable reading is that he is guilty of insufficiently remember the point that he was trying to make.
Brn at July 14, 2011 10:09 AM
And Brn proves my poin in less than 45 minutes.
Why is it christinas never stop to wonder why Paul contradicts Jebus? After all as a christian depending on where you fall on the issue of trinity(and it amazing how many christins dont even understand there is a debate on that subject)
Jebus is either the son of god and the numero duo of the universe or Jebus is god and is numero uno.
Jebus said none of the old law would pass away until the end of the earth. Ergo if Paul in his letters to the Colossians contradicted the word of god, well what does that suggest to you dear christians? That god within 40yrs of his death said "nevermind, I'm sure the glaring incongruity wont even be noticed"?
Jebus said none of the law of Moses would ever be irrelevant or unenforced.
If its good enought or jebus, why isnt it good enough for you?
lujlp at July 14, 2011 10:12 AM
brn, you ended up just proving my point. Instead of taking on the substance of Mr. Harris's arguments, you claim his arguments are strawmen and dismiss them. This utter hypocrisy.
Mr. Harris picked an extreme example to make a point, but there are hundreds of such. Christians do cherry pick the bible. How many don't sleep in the same bed as their wife when she's on her period? (Oh, well Jesus did away with the law; well, why then do you appeal to the ten commandments?) Shall we fast forward to Paul's teaching?
(For the record, I am agnostic, not atheist. I'll also add that if you have genuine faith in your beliefs, what do you care what Mr. Harris says?)
joe at July 14, 2011 11:13 AM
lujlp,
Those are all good points that we can debate if you want. However, I'm uncertain as to how any of that disproves the thesis that atheists interpret the Bible MORE literally than Christians. Remember, that is what Mr. Harris claimed he was refuting.
You are arguing the opposite: That Christians take the Bible and interpret it in non-literal ways to reconcile what seem (to you and many others) to be contradictions. Again, fine, but not what Mr. Harris claimed he was refuting.
Brn at July 14, 2011 11:13 AM
Joe,
I am taking the substance of Mr. Harris's arguments: His argument, again, is that atheists do not interpret the Bible more literal than believers. And the only evidence presented (I'm not at this point arguing that there isn't evidence he could have used - I'm only using what he chose to present himself) is invalid and never has been, so far as I know. If you or he can present evidence that any sizable group of Christians has argued that non-virgin brides should be stoned, then please present it. Otherwise, yes, this is a straw man argument, and everyone should dismiss it.
The problem isn't that he picked an extreme example. That would have been fine. He picked an erroneous example. I'm sure that Christians, like every other human, are guilty of cherry picking. And if there are hundreds of other examples, then cherry pick one of those, but at least pick one that is on point.
Brn at July 14, 2011 11:22 AM
Judaism has always had a layer of human interpretation - called the "Oral Law" - that bridges between the Torah and changing reality.
The Torah is written in very broad terms (and in language not that different from the documents we have from other cultures of the time). It obviously needs interpretation to be applied to real life.
I've posted before about how the Torah initiates processes - restricting slavery and concubinage - that are then completed by Rabbinic decree as humanity progresses.
Ignoring this process - and claiming that all good sprung unbidden out of post-Enlightenment agnosticism - is dishonest. But that doesn't stop Harris, the Goddess, or other sophomoric atheists from doing it.
I hesitate to defend Christian fundamentalists because I don't agree with their sometimes simplistic views - but the abolitionist movement and other social progress that Harris chalks up to the "enlightened" secular world were actually the work of people whom Harris would sneeringly call "fundamentalist bible-pounders".
Again: none of the atheists ever explain how to get to - or sustain - a free, equal democracy without starting with Judeo-Christian ideas.
Ben David at July 14, 2011 12:18 PM
@Ben David, "Again: none of the atheists ever explain how to get to -or sustain -a free, equal democracy without starting with Judeo-Christian ideas."
Ayn Rand did.
Michael P (@PizSez) at July 14, 2011 12:48 PM
It is just as likely that atheists suffer lives with minds as enfeebled as those who rely upon the literalization of religion to compensate for the limited ability of their perceptual skills to capture the ontic wholeness of life.
The difference being that atheists are freed from the practices of dogma and thus able to exercise fuller pursuit of practical knowledge.
To be clear, it is just as likely that defenders of atheism do not confront the Open Theism of some modern evangelicals because it is overflowed by panentheism. They are not alone. Many do not grasp the existentially revelatory wholeness of all that is and can be knowable because their limitations can not posit fuller rationalizations as genuinely inherent embodiments of God whether they are expressed as conscious experience, through prayers, decisions, actions, outcomes, etc. (Community Planning).
points of interest: lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
lrb.co.uk/v33/n11/galen-strawson/religion-is-a-sin
andy adkins at July 14, 2011 1:11 PM
Sure we did, you just ran away from the last thread where I asked you to defend your ancestors attempted genocide at the behest of your god after answering your challange
lujlp at July 14, 2011 1:13 PM
Also
"Things dont exist simply because you believe in them"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Oz47cNHToM
"Thus sayeth the Almighty Creature in the Sky!!!"
lujlp at July 14, 2011 1:22 PM
luj pulls a fast one:
I didn't run away, I kept repeating my request and NONE of you answered - preferring to throw sand and retreat as you are doing now.
The last thread fell off the blog's first page without ANY of the "freethinkers" describing how they get to universal human worth, rights, and democracy without recourse to Judeo-Christian ideas.
None of them explained why a Platonic oligarchy - or Hitlerian or Stalinist socialism - contradict objective reality, which shows clearly that people are not equal in their abilities.
Ben David at July 15, 2011 6:32 AM
Dr. Harris left the most glaring example of the Bible's confinement to 1st century knowledge laying on the table: there are any manner of God-imposed dietary restrictions in the Old Testament.
Not one of which mentions strictly separating human waste from drinking water, or boiling that water before giving it to children. The result? Hecatombs from the disregard of bacteria.
Understandable if the authors were humans blinkered by their own ignorance.
Much tougher to understand some even moderately sentient supreme being making that same mistake.
---
Here's how. Societies evolve through competition, analogously to natural history.
Much of the world has been geographically antagonistic to societal evolution. Climate in Africa (or equatorial anywhere), and a long enduring monolithic polity in China are some examples.
However, Europe experienced the fragmentation following the fall of the Roman Empire and huge population loss from the Black Death. It benefits from a climate that is moderate, yet with challenging winters (which require ingenuity to overcome, and act as Nature's insecticide). Furthermore, the English Channel acted as a natural barrier preventing the creation of a monolithic polity that stifled societal evolution in China.
The consequence was an area uniquely prone to societal fermentation. It is more than coincidence that painting, music, writing, technology etc changed so much, so quickly, in Europe while remaining either static, or non-existent, everywhere else. (Also, it is difficult to exaggerate impact of an alphabetic language, compared to a pictographic one. The Chinese invented printing, but their language made its widespread adoption impossible. Imagine European history without Gutenberg.)
Along with those things, some ideas about economic and political organization were bound to work better than others. The reason the notions of universal human worth, dignity and so on are so powerful is not because Judeo-Christianity was particularly friendly to them (the best that can be said is that J-C is less inimical than Islam or Hinduism), but because the societies that most closely approximate them succeed more than those that do not.
The universal freedoms extolled in the Declaration of Independence and sustained in the Constitution are axiomatic assertions whose truth is evident in the consequences.
And whose absence from every religious text is glaring.
At the risk of repeating myself, to the practically endless extent all are epic, objective, failures, they contradict objective reality.
Hey Skipper at July 15, 2011 12:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/14/sam_harris_on_l.html#comment-2357123">comment from Hey SkipperGreat point about the boiling of water.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2011 12:36 PM
The same way the world got to them before Judeo-Christian ideas were formed or communicated to the outside world.
Almost every civilization has punished murder (acknowledging there was some worth to human life) - not always in accordance with our beliefs, but according to some code.
The Greeks and the Romans believed they had rights as citizens. Although they didn't extend those rights universally and kept slaves.
Athens (ancient Greeks) gave us democracy on a large scale (look up the etymology of the word "democracy").
Conan the Grammarian at July 15, 2011 2:28 PM
"... without ANY of the "freethinkers" describing how they get to universal human worth, rights, and democracy without recourse to Judeo-Christian ideas."
Why is that on us to describe? That's quite a hypothesis, that human worth, rights, and democracy have roots in Judeo-Christian ideas. In fact, it's a bit of a wild shout. Where does such a notion come from? With what facts do you back up such a ground-breaking assertion?
whistleDick at July 15, 2011 4:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/14/sam_harris_on_l.html#comment-2357560">comment from whistleDickPeople without Judaism or Christianity in their world (those like the Hadza and other remaining hunter-gatherer tribes) have morality. Why? Because it's hard-wired into human beings. Religion is a business that preys on fears and irrationality and people's desire to belong to groups. There is no evidence a god exists or ever existed. The Bible is filled with contradictions and primitivity and the Quran is even worse.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2011 5:00 PM
I forgot to add the obvious conclusion with respect to clean water and disease: it was beyond God, but within the grasp of 19th Century man.
Hey Skipper at July 15, 2011 6:09 PM
Hey skipper,
The clean water example is an interesting point, but, once again, hardly proof that it is believers who are the ones who are overly literal in their interpretation of scripture.
Brn at July 16, 2011 4:05 AM
Brn, I think you missed the point of Harris post. He wasnt saying that belivers were the ones taking all the scriptures literally, he was saying that belivers were accusing atheists of purpously taking verses literally in a strawman attempt to invalidate their beliefs.
His point of bring up the scripture about stoning a woman to death was to point out there is no figurative way to interperate murdering a non virgin on her wedding night.
Was he wrong? Do you have a figurative interperatation on how to stone a woman to death?
His main point was that the reason for the improvment of religion and the procilivty for people today to dismiss the more disgusting and ridiculas practices endorsed by the scriptures is beacuse of improvments brought to us by fellow men; not from god, religion, or scripture
lujlp at July 16, 2011 7:25 AM
brn:
You got me there. Despite having watched the clip, my comment managed to be OT.
Hey Skipper at July 16, 2011 8:31 AM
lujlp,
I don't think that I did miss the point. Mr. Harris is, at least according to the title card of the video ("Do atheists take a literalist approach to scripture?") and his own words at the beginning of it ("This is a common criticism ... that the atheist is guilty of a literalist reading of scripture..."). I should also note that if I did miss the point, then apparently our hostess missed what his point was as well, since the title of the post we are commenting on is "Sam Harris On Literal Interpretations Of Religious Books".
Again, the only example about Christianity that he produces is one that the Christian scriptures themselves reject. So even if you insist on an literal reading of said scriptures, the example is wrong even on that level.
Moreover, Mr. Harris further claims that it is only the influence of the modern era that caused this rejection of the literal implementation of things like stoning non-virgin brides. Unless I missed it, I don't think that anyone defines the modern era as beginning with the publication of the New Testament.
There is a more subtle reading of the Mosaic law than Mr. Harris is giving and how it relates to the New Testament (if you want to read a thoughtful and accessible discussion of just these sorts of issues, check out "Who is Afraid of the Old Testament God?" by Alden Thompson - or you can just go on believing that this is the first time any Christian as ever heard that these questions exist or thought about what Old and New Testament say about God's character), and it is one that is shared by the vast majority of believers, so I'm unclear as to how he is refuting the claim that it is atheists who are being overly literal.
Again, I think that it is actually Mr. Harris who forgot what his point was in the middle of the video. I happens to all of us.
brn at July 17, 2011 5:15 AM
lujlp,
I posted a longer response, but the spam filter ate it. In summary, let me say that if you are interested in a more subtle understanding than a literalist interpretation for this scripture, it exists *in the New Testament*, which is hardly the result of the influence of the modern age.
brn at July 17, 2011 5:26 AM
And again brn you prove my point about christians having less understanding of their own religion.
Also you glossed over entirely my question as to whether there is a figurative way to murder a non virgin on her wedding night. I'd appreciate an answer by the way. Whether or not you reject such an order, an order given by god fyi, today is immaterial to the argument of literal/figurate interpritaion.
Also Jesus himself said the law of moses would remain in effect until the end of the world. So I ask you, has the world ended?
The reason much of the law of Moses is abrogated in chritian theology is because of Paul, the murderer formerly known as Saul.
Incedentally nearly half of the letters attributed to him, even many bible 'scholars' agree werent written until some time after his death.
Which would mean they are forgeries and lies, which would mean they are false, which would mean their abrogation of the laws of moses are unfounded and 'immoral'
So, to recap
1. is there a figurative way for a crownd to stone a woman to death? yes or no
2. did jesus say the law of moses remained in effect? look at Matthew 5:17-19 & Luke 16:17 yes or no
3. Is the earth still here? yes or no
lujlp at July 17, 2011 11:27 AM
Skipper steps into a common circular argument:
Nope - the agnostic/deist framers of the Constitution themselves refer to a Creator as the source for these "universal" freedoms.
They are only "axiomatic" and obvious to those raised within Judeo-Christian value systems.
So when Conan tries with:
That's simply not true: the world outside the Judeo-Christian West didn't get to these ideas, they were not obvious - Conan admits as much: Greek democracy was an oligarchy that accepted slavery as a perfectly acceptable social organization.
Greek society also included infanticide and child rape - so they never did get to an "axiomatic" understanding of universal human worth.
... and when Goddess tries the same tack with:
Well yes - but not the morality that leads to free, equable democracy. I'm sure the Hutus, Tutsis, and wife-burning Hindus also have "morality" of some sort.
Amazing how hatred of religion makes otherwise intelligent libertarians spout multi-culti relativistic garbage....
The Judeo-Christian West didn't develop in this way by accident (and it certainly wasn't the only region of the world marked by tribalism and fragmentation - which is one of the lousiest arguments I've ever heard, Skipper...)
The West developed these notions as a direct result of Jewish concepts of monotheism, the human soul, free will, and individual responsibility.
No other culture - large, small, stable, unstable, united, fragmented - has come to these supposedly "axiomatic" and "universal" rights.
"Freethinkers" who throw over these concepts cannot recreate a secular justification for free, equable societies. By any objective measure, humans are NOT equal in their measurable abilities and the Greeks - and later pagans like Hitler and Stalin - were correct to enslave the masses.
Ben David at July 17, 2011 2:15 PM
Skipper:
Because the Bible is not a science book, and never claimed to be.
You know, Ayn Rand must be a phony - because her books don't tell you how to repair TVs...
Ben David at July 17, 2011 2:19 PM
Greek democracy was an oligarchy that accepted slavery as a perfectly acceptable social organization
Perhaps you missed the day in class when the trans atlantic slave trade which lasted until the 1800's?
And I know yo just about everyone missed it because they refuse to teach that the opposition to the abolisionist movement villified anti slavery people as athiests and devil worshipers.
So you wanna try again?
Also jews werent monothiestic. Hate to break it to you.
If they were monotheistsic god wouldnt have had to tell them not to worship other gods, and here is the sticky point, before him.
So long as you put him first you are free to worship any other gods you want. And that is from the mouth of god himself
Every stop to consider why the 10 commandments bothers to differentiate between worshiping idols and worship other gods?
lujlp at July 17, 2011 4:57 PM
Also didnt the jewish people give up their loose no central government allmost comunist in nature gvernment for monarchy?
Doesnt sound all that democratic to me.
lujlp at July 17, 2011 11:13 PM
lujlp,
I'm just curious, what exactly did I say that proves that I have less understanding of my religion than you do. I must say, this would be especially interesting to hear, since I'm quite certain you have no idea what branch of Christianity I belong to. Or is your understanding of the nuances of all the thousands of Christian denominations so comprehensive? I'm just curious, since you claim to have this awesomely comprehensive knowledge, which denomination do you think that I belong to?
To be honest, I'm not really interested in debating theology with you. Mostly, because you don't seem a like a person of good will. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or stupid. You seem to believe that no believer has ever considered the problem of reconciling the Old and New Testaments or what exactly inspiration means. I wonder if you believe that you invented the problem of theodicy? At this point, I wouldn't put it past you.
I brought up what I see as a mistake that Mr. Harris made, no doubt caused because when speaking extemporaneously it is easy to forget your original point. You have ignored my argument and instead attacked me and my "beliefs" (though again, have no idea what those are) and insist on bringing up irrelevancies. It is almost like you believe that Sam Harris is a pope and thus infallible, and to be honest, I'm not interested in having a discussion with a fanatic.
brn at July 18, 2011 3:54 AM
brn, the thousands of christian faiths aall have a few unifying threads. And as far as religion is concered, no I am not a person of good will. Religion is responsible for more death, destruction, and loss of human advancment then any other government or secular ideology.
And irrelevancies? Are you kidding me? I didnt even bother with the moral implications of god ording you to murder non virgins getting married, all I asked was if you could conjer up some half assed rationalization of a figurtive interpritation.
As for what you said which proves you have less understanding of your own religion
"The New Testament itself says that those type of Mosaic laws were nailed to the cross
And yet in the scriptures, according to Jesus himself the law of moses is in effect until the world ends
"There is a more subtle reading of the Mosaic law than Mr. Harris is giving and how it relates to the New Testament
And again accordng to Jesus the laws of MOses are not subject to personal interpritation
These two statments alone show your lack of understanding. Jesus accoring to all christian faiths is either god, or the son of god. Either way, he out ranks Paul, and certainy out ranks the liar who claimed to be Paul in order to push their own agendas.
Sinc you seem to be incapable of finding a figurative interpritation of gods orders to kill, or of makeing a decison on whether or not the world has ended I'll leave you with just one question.
Who is more important, Jesus, Paul, or the lairs who passed themselves off as Paul?
lujlp at July 18, 2011 5:39 AM
lujlp,
I care not whether you have good will toward my or any other religion. Let me see if I can explain what I mean:
When I disagreed with Mr. Harris, I granted the most charitable interpretation of the mistake that I believe that he made, that, while speaking off the cuff, he got distracted and forgot his original point.
You, in disagreeing with me, have chosen to state that I'm ignorant and incapable of understanding exactly what it is that I believe, and that you know more about what I believe than I do, again, without having any idea of what it is that I believe.
Do you see the difference? This is why I'm uninterested in having a theological discussion with you.
brn at July 18, 2011 7:18 AM
brn, harris made his original point and then moved on to others, just baecuase Amys post title reads one way doesnt mean Harris' entire post was about that.
His point was beilvers accuse no belivers of reading the bible too literally. Harris said that is an unfair attack as there often is NO OTHER way to read the bible, case in point stoneing non virgins to death on their wedding night - there is no way to figurativly read that.
And just because modern day belivers choose to ignore many of gods laws of that type does not mean they never happend. Ignored or not, thoe passages can only be taken literaly.
Harris' point wasnt that belivers take such passages literally, but that the engae in mental gymnasticsto avoid them.
My point that most christians know less of their own religions history and evolution was completely seperatew from Harris' point.
As for the rason you refuse to answer 3 or 4 simple yes/no questions, it isnt because of my attitude. Its because answering them will disturb the foundation on which your faith is built.
Its not my fautlt you seem ignorant of the words spoken by your savior.
lujlp at July 18, 2011 9:41 AM
lujlp,
You know, if you had just replied to my original comment with the first four paragraphs from your last comment, this could have been an interesting discussion.
Thank you for demonstrating, again, that you aren't interested in a discussion. I originally thought you just wanted to have an argument, but now I see that you are looking for converts.
To be honest, you seem like those Christians who believe that it is their personal responsibility to convert all non-believers single-handedly.
brn at July 18, 2011 10:29 AM
brn here is an exerpt from your orginal comment
I would also like to point out that. . . Mr. Harris is flat out wrong about the only example that he gives about Christians taking the Bible literally . . The New Testament itself says that those type of Mosaic laws were nailed to the cross (Col 2:11-14) and done away with
That was your orginal comment. And I answered both arguments within it, namly Haris wasnt saying that belivers take the scriptures literally, but that belivers accussed athiests of doing so erronously. And his chosen example was a scripture that could never be taken figurativly.
Your second argument was that mosaic law was no longer in force - and I answered that with scriptures which claim to be te words of Jesus which belie that claim as well.
So, brn, it seems I did respond to your original comment. I did so a number of times.
And I am not looking for converts - I was looking to see if you could bother to answer a couple of simple yes or no questions.
I wasnt even lokking fo exposition either you could have posted nothin more than "n,y,y,y" and we could have had a conversation.
But at least your honest enough to admit you have no interest in debate, a pity you arent honest enough to admit why
lujlp at July 18, 2011 3:48 PM
lujlp,
Nice try. However,
"This is why I'm uninterested in having a theological discussion *with you*."
does not equal
"But at least your honest enough to admit you have no interest in debate".
Thank you once again for demonstrating just why I'm not interesting in continuing this discussion for you. No matter what I say, you will twist my words around. As I said, you are not a person of good will.
I give you the last word so you can claim that I ran away. I wish you happiness and long life.
brn at July 18, 2011 4:35 PM
luj keeps striking out:
Nope - the abolitionists were what is now called "religious fundamentalists." Slavery was abolished by Judeo-Christian believers opposing more "pragmatic" secular folks.
Nice try - must be nice for you lefties to make it up as you go along.
I won't even bother with the nonsense about Judaism not being monotheistic...
Ben David at July 18, 2011 4:40 PM
Never said abolistionst were atheists(although a good number of them were)
I said that the opposition to abolitionalist labeled them as such - please try a read better.
I dont know if english is your first launguage, but you seem to have a good grap of it based on how you write. You just need to bone up on your comprehention.
And jews werent monothiestic, ever hear of Asherah? Ever wonder who god was talking to after adam and eve were banished and he said the have become like "US"?
And the ten commandments dont outlaw worship other gods, just that he was numero uno
lujlp at July 18, 2011 5:32 PM
And brn, I'm not twisting your words. I said religious people seem to know less about their religion then the beleivers.
I answered everyone of your arguments and you were the one who refused to reciprcate. Dont pretend its becuase I am twisting your words.
You want to complain about my assigning an unfair motivation to your refusal to answer a couple of yes/no questions, at least that would be reasonable.
But to claim I am 'twisting' your words is just ridiculas
lujlp at July 18, 2011 5:37 PM
Leave a comment