Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Should Christians be one issue voters regarding abortion?

Posted by truthtalklive on July 16, 2008

On todays show we have a guest host by the name of Steve Noble with Called 2 Action. For more information on Mr. Noble please visit his site at www.called2action.org. As always thanks for listening. To listen to a podcast of this show or any show please visit www.wtru.com.

For more information on our topic today please visit http://www.jfaweb.org



43 Responses to “Should Christians be one issue voters regarding abortion?”


    I was not able to call in yesterday when Stu was talking about the boy bragging about having sex at 14 yrs. My questions was why weren’t these parents condeming dating altogether. Why would a 14 and 13 year old have dating as an extra curricular activity. The parents need to stand as parents and stop this unbibical dating mess otherwise abstience will be totally Greek to a generation of children.

  2. Hi Jean – Can you post your comment concerning the show you’re referencing here:



  3. Boris said

    The Christian stance against choice about abortion has little to do with protecting the unborn. It’s really about a male dominated religion keeping power out of the hands of women. Notice the anti-choice people are always pro-war and pro death penalty, even for crimes other than murder. For example, the Reconstructionists headed by fascists Gary North and Gary DeMar wish to impose the death penalty in America for things like homosexuality, fornication, child or wife disobedience and the promoting of religions other than Christianity. Like most Christians these people have little respect for their fellow humans, even the unborn, and way too much for their non-existent sky fairy.

  4. Brad said

    Boris, you couldn’t be more wrong. It has everything to do with protecting the unborn, and has nothing to do with a “male dominated religion keeping power out of the hands of women.”

    I’m not anti-choice. The woman made a choice when she had sex, and where there’s sex, there’s the possibility of pregnancy. She’s welcome to her choice, but she must live with that choice.

    I’m not pro-war. I wish we weren’t in one, and wish they didn’t have to occur. Unfortunately, that just isn’t reality. I’m not one who will advocate like crazy for it, but if we’re in it, let’s get the job done – I will say that.

    I am pro death penalty, even for crimes other than murder. Absolutely. Like I said about choice – people choose to make them, and that’s their choice, but you have to live with that choice, which naturally includes any consequences that come with that choice, good or bad. You choose to murder, then you also choose the consequences of that. You choose to commit any crime that is legally eligible for the death penalty, then you choose those consequences as a possibility.

    Boris, you as well are welcome to your choices. Every choice has its consequence, whether in this life, or in eternity. I hope you realize that.

  5. F. L. A. said

    It’s been some time since I’ve heard the Christian deity referred to as a “sky fairy”.

  6. bookert said

    As we near the November elections we’ll begin to hear more and more of this. When a guy like Noble refers to the majority party as “the democrat party”, you have a pretty good idea of where he’s coming from. I’m not sure how ttl is getting away with this. Moderator, what is your tax status? Are you tax exempt?

    You know what I’m praying for? A safe, easy alternative to abortion. Something in the water supply that renders all women infertile at birth. At maturity a woman may choose to undergo a series of pricey treatments to prepare her system for pregnancy, but only by intention. Maybe then the republican party – responsible for thousands of infant deaths in Iraq – will finally wither away and die.

  7. Boris said

    Brad, what people like you want to do is force female taxpayers to undergo a nine month pregnancy they do not want to endure and give birth to a baby they never want to see. If men had to carry and deliver babies you would be very pro-abortion and you know it too. No one would tell YOU what you can and can’t do with YOUR body. Your claim to care for the unborn is likely very true but your desire to control women and crime the way you see fit in society
    supersedes this as your own words prove.

    I’ve been watching a good deterrent to young irresponsible people having children. It’s on broadcast TV and it’s called “The Baby Borrowers.” Young people have to try to spend a few days with other people’s children while the parents observe (and laugh at) them on a house full of cameras.

  8. Brad said

    Boris, amazing how you know me, yet you’ve never met me. I always love it when people open their reply by saying “what people like YOU want to do”, when they don’t even know me!

    what people like you want to do is force female taxpayers to undergo a nine month pregnancy they do not want to endure and give birth to a baby they never want to see.

    No, what I’m saying is that if a woman does not want to undergo a nine month pregnancy, and does not want to endure and give birth, or be a mother, then she truly needs to think about that SERIOUSLY when she has sex. I don’t believe that possibility is taken seriously enough. It’s a casual afterthought. If a woman doesn’t want to have kids, that’s fine, don’t have them at all by never conceiving them. But if you conceive them, and they are then a living being inside of you, I don’t believe they then have the right to say “well, I never wanted it in the first place, so I’ll just get rid of it.” That’s a lack of responsibility, in my opinion, that should have been addressed prior to conception. I believe to advocate different is to say it’s OK to be reckless with your behavior, and fix it later, and I don’t buy it. I don’t expect to convince you of anything, Boris – you approach life from an entirely different viewpoint than I do, based on your religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Just giving you my viewpoint.

    If men had to carry and deliver babies you would be very pro-abortion and you know it too.

    Again, it’s amazing what you know about me, without ever having met me. Of course, you generalize this to all men as well, which is further amazing! Assuming the scenario you state (which is in and of itself ridiculous, but we’ll proceed for the sake of argument), why would that mean I, or all men, would all of a sudden be in favor of abortion? That statement would only be valid if you assume all people are grossly irresponsible, and unwilling to think and plan carefully in advance. My wife and I have 4 kids, b/c we chose to have 4 kids. We’ve been pregnant 5 times (had 1 miscarriage). We didn’t get pregnant 10 times, and only choose to keep 4 of them. That would be irresponsible. We took the appropriate measures to make sure that we only had what we intended on. If I were the one going through carrying the baby (again, ridiculous, but I’ll indulge), the situation wouldn’t be any different. We’d still plan. Your argument leaves no room for responsibility, and assumes that anything goes. Again, a lot of this is a difference in basic viewpoints about life in general, Boris.

    No one would tell YOU what you can and can’t do with YOUR body.

    They wouldn’t have to – I’m responsible on my own. And before you try to make the argument that some people aren’t responsible enough, therefore we need abortion to be legal, that argument would serve to make people LESS responsible, b/c they know there’s a “fix” to avoiding the consequences they don’t want. The wrong way to go. But again, Boris, we have a different religious viewpoint.

    Your claim to care for the unborn is likely very true but your desire to control women and crime the way you see fit in society supersedes this as your own words prove.

    That’s ridiculous, Boris. First, I have no desire to control women or crime in any way in society. That’s not the goal. Pro-abortion advocates always love to get the issue off of the fact that children are being killed, and onto what they feel is a privacy invasion or a control issue. That’s not the real issue – the real issue, for those like me who do “care for the unborn”, is to protect the rights of the unborn and the sanctity of life. We have cheapened it as a society so much, that to many it’s no longer even about the lost life, but about our own rights.

    There’s a lot your own words prove, Boris, but it doesn’t matter what I think about them. Again, remember that at some point, everyone will bear the natural consequences of their actions, before an Almighty God. Are you ready for that?

  9. Boris said

    I don’t think there is a God and consequences happen right here on Earth. Women should not let themselves get pregnant if they don’t want kids. Sometimes they want one and then they find out the father is a schmuck and think better of it. Of course they should get married if they want kids but that isn’t necessary. Things happen and women have rights in this country that you don’t approve of, so they can do something about it. That is never going to change so you might as well focus on something else.

  10. Brad said

    I don’t think there is a God and consequences happen right here on Earth.

    Proving my point that we do approach things from a drastically different point of view, Boris. And for the record, I didn’t say all consequences happen “right here on Earth.” If you look back at post #8, you’ll see I said that “at some point, everyone will bear the natural consequences of their actions, before an Almighty God.” You say there isn’t one, and live accordingly. If you live like that, you better hope you’re right about it… I know there IS a God, and live differently, b/c I’m free from the eternal penalty of sin. It’s really a marvelous feeling to have, Boris.

    Women should not let themselves get pregnant if they don’t want kids.

    Well, we do agree on that.

    Sometimes they want one and then they find out the father is a schmuck and think better of it.

    Back to consequences of earlier choices. Before you start having kids, you need to make sure that you’re with the right mate. Another thing we take so cheaply today is marriage, and the eternal bond it is meant to be. Just take a look at the divorce rate – 50%. And I’ll be the first to admit, those who profess to be Christians are no better, b/c their divorce rate isn’t any less. Either way, it illustrates just how quickly we act without thinking, b/c of the easy fixes we perceive that can take away the consequences. It’s still illustrative of a general lack of planning and responsibility.

    Of course they should get married if they want kids but that isn’t necessary.

    It’s not physically necessary, but depending on how you view the Bible, I would say that it is something God wants to be done. Again, I don’t expect you to have that viewpoint, approaching it from a different mindset.

    Things happen and women have rights in this country that you don’t approve of, so they can do something about it. That is never going to change so you might as well focus on something else.

    You’re right – currently it’s legal. I hope someday it’s not. To say it’s “never going to change” is to make a statement that I don’t think you can currently make, unless you can see forever in the future. It may change, it may not. Obviously, I hope it does, and there are others who hope it doesn’t. And I’m not necessarily “focused” on this as my only issue, it’s just one that I feel strongly about, Boris.

    Again, though I know you don’t believe in God, I do, and many others do. If He does exist, Boris, and there are consequences to your life, are you ready?

  11. Boris said

    If there is a God it isn’t the Christian God. In my personal life I never give the idea of God even a first thought. The whole idea is preposterous.

  12. Brad said


    You make a lot of claims, yet in the several times I’ve asked you, you don’t give any basis for them, you only offer what you’ve heard others say, or quotes from different people.

    A true atheist (which you say you are) should be able to say “there is not a god.” Period. They should leave no room for the possibility that there is one, as you do above. If you leave that possibility open, then you’re really agnostic, as opposed to atheist. Which are you, Boris?

    Still waiting on answers to the questions… maybe you just can’t give them. If that’s the case, that’s fine.

  13. F. L. A. said

    Hello again Boris[huge sharp-toothed grin]!
    Boris, instead of making critical comments about theology, why not instead ask critical questions about theology? There are many here who would be[I’m guessing of course]more than happy to try and answer any deep, probing[abet most likely hypothetical] questions that you may have to ask. Some of those here may even find a way to give you answers that you find satisfying.Unless you often visit theological-based websites, you are now in a place that may provide you with wonderful opportunity to explore Christian theology and the minds that favor it in all it’s many forms. Be patient and take advantage of this, if you wish, and perhaps you may learn something interesting[or at least have a good chuckle every once in awhile].
    Critical questions instead of critical comments.
    What do you think?

  14. Alex said

    This topic sounds like propaganda to make anti-choice people vote republican…

  15. Anonymous said

    Atheist (a) no, (theist), God belief. An atheist is a peron who has no God belief. I don’t have to prove there is no god nor do have to prove that I don’t believe there is a god to you or anyone else. The burden of proof is on the prson WITH the beliefs, not the one who has no beliefs.
    The definition of a person who says that there is no God is an anti-theist. If you like I will call myself an anti-theist and state that there is no God, although this is a negative which I cannot prove. You cannot prove there is a God yet you falsely state that you KNOW there is. I CAN prove that the idea of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim God is a failed hypothesis, but I can’t really do it on this blog. Physicist Victor Stenger does a very thorough job of proving that these Gods could not possibly exist because the claims of their followers have all been proved to be false. The name of his book is “God the Failed Hypothesis, How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.” Anyone who read this book and still retains their God belief can easily be classified as insane.

  16. John said

    “Anyone who read this book and still retains their God belief can easily be classified as insane.”

    Welcome to the PLANET EARTH.

  17. ADB said

    Boris #11,

    “Methink thou dost protest too much,” from Shakespear applies here. You say that you’ve never given god a serious thought. Your overall attitude betrays something different. A person who truly has never given a god a serious thought would not spend so much time and vitriole arguing with those of us who do believe. You seem to have thought about gods/god/God a great deal and have had a experience that has poisoned you to the notion. I’m not going to try to change your mind on this, a few sentences in cyberspace cannot do that; but perhaps you could say that I’m gently challenging your intellectual honesty.

    Best Wishes,
    A curmudgeonly pastor

  18. Boris said

    What is the name of your church? What I am protesting is God belief and the way it makes believers behave. I’m protesting the cultural prejudice and divisiveness it causes. I’m protesting the fact that 75 per cent of children are home-schooled so they can be bludgeoned into artificial conformity and archaic beliefs by inept and fanatical parents who themselves are scientific idiots. I could go on but why bother. Have I made my point?

  19. ADB said

    I think you have made my point, that you have actually thought a lot about this to feel so strongly about it. By the way, most Christians send their kids to public schools. In fact I have found that most Christians actually have the ability to function in society- some are actually adept enough to go grocery shopping, go to banks, the doctor, and hold jobs inspite of their fanaticism and ineptitude- quite a remarkable feat I think.

  20. Boris said

    Most people who call themselves Christians do send their kids to public schools and function otherwise normally also. Most of these people could not be considered to be born-again Christians and are not considered to be true Christians by fundamentalist or born-again Christians. Most of them have never read any or at most just a tiny part of the Bible and in almost no ways do they take the Bible literally or even seriously. Nor do most of them attend church regularly.

    Religion doesn’t have much of an effect one way or the other on the behavior of people who are not fundamentalists. What I am pointing out is that the more religious a person is the more likely they will behave irrationally.

  21. ADB said

    Your answer here betrays a lack of understanding about what a Christian is perhaps. You begin painting all Christians with this brush, then say it applies to “fundamentalists,” and that the non-fundamentalists aren’t Christian anyway. You might be interested to know that you and some Christian fundamentalists would agree after all, ironic isn’t it.

    A Christian is one who has placed his/her faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They come in all shapes and sizes. Some are fundamentalists with whom I differ greatly. Some are very lberal with whom I differ greatly. I should add that no one who really claims to understand the Bible says that all of it is to be taken literally. Some is literal, some is symbolic. You as an atheist understand that you read poetry in a different manner than you read a history or science text.

    Best Wishes

  22. F. L. A. said

    ADB has wisdom, Boris[and Alex?].
    Take heed.

  23. Boris said

    Are you really a pastor or is that just a moniker? I didn’t mention what or who I consider to be Christians. I was just stating what some Christians say about other Christians. For instance many Christians claim that sects like the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and others are not Christians while those sects certainly claim the contrary. Many fundamentalist Protestants boldly claim that Catholics aren’t actually Christians and then have the nerve to claim that there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world! Of course 1.4 billion of them are Catholics and if we don’t count them there are over twice as many Muslims in the world (1.5 billion) than there are true Christians.

    I say anybody that wants to say they are a Christian is one. I even have a books or two by an author who claims to be Christian and does not even believe that Jesus actually existed – Tom Harpur. The Mormons and Witnesses and the snake handlers and faith healers are all Christians as far as I’m concerned.

  24. ADB said

    As I’ve said, Boris you display a great interest in things Christian for someone who displays such animus toward the faith. Yes, indeed I am a minister of the Gospel, and take this calling very seriously. As far as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. there are ongoing debates within the broader Christian community about whether they are to be recognized as fellow believers. I have my opinions on these matters, but they are immaterial to the broader discussion. Should it be that surprising that a group of people who identify themselves in part by their beliefs about Jesus of Nazareth would debate about other groups with different sets of beliefs about the same individual?

    Best Wishes

    FLA- Thanks for you kind word.

  25. F. L. A. said

    No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.
    You are welcome ADB.

    So many Gods, so many creeds, so many paths that wind and wind,
    while just the art of being kind is all the sad world needs.

  26. Boris said

    Proof that Christians are grossly misinterpreting the Gospels as historical biographies instead of religious proclamations based on ancient myths comes from the fact that they can’t agree on exactly how they should be interpreted. Then we have the New Testament writers themselves whose scholarship was extremely poor and who grossly misinterpreted the Old Testament scriptures they referred to in their effort to pound the figure of Jesus into the role of a coming messiah.

    All this would not matter if we didn’t have a group of Christians who are trying to turn our free country into a theocracy. The fact that Christians cannot agree on who is even a Christian illustrates the problems with this kind of thinking.

  27. Alex said

    So, if God gives salvation as a free gift to everyone, why do you have to believe in him. If he is real, then shouldn’t his free gift apply to everyone? Why does it matter to God?

  28. Alex said

    I’m like, legitimately trying to understand Christianity… there are just lots of contradictions and doctrines that don’t make any sense at all…

  29. Boris said

    The fact that Christianity has doctrines at all should be enough to keep any reasonable person from getting involved with it. Doctrines are made to INDOCTRINATE. Watch these Christians argue over which one of them is more indoctrinated than the other and therefore will be saved and the other won’t. All you have to know about Christianity is that is a very silly religion.

  30. ADB said

    The Gospels themselves are not meant to be understood as true biographies. They were written to show that Jesus is God, and because they were written to different sorts of people at different times, their portraits vary. They included events, or excluded them to suit their theological purpose. They also placed them in different chronological order for the same reason. In a modern biography or history this wouldn’t be practiced normally, but a modern biography isn’t the only valid way of writing. I should also point out that the gospel writers themselves weren’t “scholars” in the modern sense of the word. The “scholars” of Jesus’ day (Pharisees and scribes) tended to be his harshest critics and he criticized them very harshly. His followers frequently were from the lower rungs of society. The Gospels are religious portraits, but not based upon ancient myths because at the time they were written the main character was certainly not ancient. Jesus was executed around 30 A.D. and the Gospels were written within 30-60 years after that event, so at the time they were written there were still significant numbers of people who would have remembered him. Regarding doctrine, all religious belief systems have doctrines of one sort or another. I am not too familiar with the belief systems of FLA and John, but I would suppose that there are agreed upon doctrines within it. A doctrine is simply an agreed upon set of ideas or principles. For that matter “doctrines” are found all over the secular world- doctrine be used in a political, military, historical, economic or scientific sense as well.

    Thanks for your question and I will try to answer it as well as I can. God, as I believe, does indeed offer salvation to everyone. We need to understand what salvation is though. It is salvation from something and for something. It is from the guilt and eternal consequences of sin and for the purpose of eternal and abundant life. The only precondition for salvation truly is faith in Jesus Christ. This faith then will lead to repentance and changed heart and character. As we Christians look at people, we are all born in sin and born predisposed to sin. Did you ever know a two year old that had to be taught to be selfish? Does an eight year old have to be taught to say the dog ate his homework? If people are naturally sinful, and if God as we believe is holy and just, then it is an affront to God’s own righteousness for us sinners to just waltz into His presence. We believe that Jesus’ death atones for our sins. Sometimes the language of his death ransoming us is used, other times he is said to take our place on the cross, but however described his death atones for our sins so that those whose faith is in him can indeed be saved. The forgiveness God offers to us, the very idea that Jesus did this, is all out of God’s grace. I’ve tried to put this as simply as I can without totallly giving short shrift to important theological concepts. If you want to read something that sort of gives an introduction to what we Christians believe you could not do better than to read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. You are free to believe or not to believe what he says, but that will give you a good look at how we look at things.

    Best Wishes

  31. John said

    Yes ADB I have “agreed upon doctrines” within my particular denomination. I have twenty-eight “commandments” to follow.
    Ferox, not so many.

  32. F. L. A. said

    I was once a completely evil thing, as best as I can remember[I did not truly THINK about anything at this period of my existence.I was of a more simple form and purpose, and thinking was unnecessary. Now though I’m kind of like a….neutral cosmic “wild card” as far as the topic of theology goes.

  33. Boris said

    I don’t think the Gospels were written about an actual historical figure let alone that this figure was supposed to be God. God wouldn’t pray to himself for one thing or cry out to himself for another. The Gospels cannot be considered historical because they have no elements of historical writing and all the common elements of fiction for that or any day really.

  34. F. L. A. said

    But Boris, what of the historical names of certain people, places, customs, etc.,etc.?
    Surely this is worth something, if anything only to support the existence of such people, places, customs, etc.,etc.?
    Surely you are not implying that everything and everyone within the Christian Bible is fictional?
    Mind you, I am not supporting the view that everything and everyone within this book is completely factual, only that some of it is/may be, and that this should be taken into consideration when one judges and studies the Christian Bible, Torah, or the Koran.

  35. Boris said

    None of the major figures described in the Bible actually existed or we would be able to find their names in some kind of historical inscription. People like Herod, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Hezekiah are actual historical people but in the Bible they are simply grist for the Bible’s story mill. Nebuchadnezzar never had a Jewish adviser named Daniel, Herod never ordered a slaughter of infants and as far as we know Cyrus never even heard of the god Yahweh or the land of Judah.

    If David and Solomon were such great and well known kings, why aren’t there any mentions of them in any documents from any other nations or kings? Surely other rulers would have dealt with these two famous kings. Had they actually existed we would certainly be able to prove it.

  36. ADB said

    How much have you actually studied the NT outside of reading websites? NT scholarship tells us that the gospels were actually a new literary form- having some of the elements of biography and of history, but not actually being either one, sometimes the German term “heilgeshichte” is used in the scholarly circle, but even this does not quite adequately describe the gospels. To say that they have all the hallmarks of ancient fiction is to seriously undermine your credibility. It is obvious from even the most cursory reading of the Gospels that they presume the Jesus of Nazareth was “christos” or “messiah” and that he was the Son of God. Because these documents in part reflect their community of origin it is therefore clear that Christians of the mid and late 1st century did indeed believe these statements about Jesus to be true in a historical sense. You as an atheist may not believe a single word of the Gospels, but you cannot use your own disbelief to say that those of Jesus day did not believe these things about him. To use an analogy, I as a Christian do not believe that Muhammed was a prophet of god/God. I cannot use that as a springboard to say that the writers of the Koran were intentionally writing fiction, or that they did not believe what they were writing.

    The Bible, as Dr. Brown has pointed out in another thread, does indeed contain history as verifiable in extra-biblical sources in many though not all instances. The Bible, though, was not written to be a straightforward history in the modern sense. Whether or not you choose to believe that it is in any way a holy book or scripture is entirely another matter.

    Best Wishes

  37. Danny said

    (Revelation 22:11) . . .He that is doing unrighteousness, let him do unrighteousness still; and let the filthy one be made filthy still; but let the righteous one do righteousness still, and let the holy one be made holy still.

    If people want to have abortions a law is not going to stop them. It might make it a little more difficult and dangerous, but it will stop them.

    Quit trying to make people live a christian lifestyle with laws. A person must WANT to live a christian life.

    Laws that make drugs illegal has not prevented anyone from abusing or selling drugs.

    Laws against murder has not prevented anyone from committing murder.

    You could make laws against committing adultery and fornication but would it stop anyone from committing those things? NO.

    Teaching people bible principles changes them. Laws do not.

    Im neither for or against a law against abortion. I know that either way millions of babys will be aborted every year. A law will not make any difference.

  38. Boris said

    I studied Classical Greek in college and I’ve read the NT books many times in Greek and English. Firs of all the Gospels are not “documents” their stories. This is the kind of distortion of language Christians use to try to give some sense of reality to their insane fantasies. The Gospels, like the rest of the Bible contain word for word dialog between two or more people in a story setting. No history has ever been written like that. This is the hallmark of fiction and if you weren’t so blinded by what you think you must believe about these absurd fairy tales you could easily see this too.

  39. ADB said

    Boris, I fear that you are the one who is blinded. For someone who has apparently read so much, you are strikingly ignorant of actual scholarship regarding the NT. The issues you raise here are not even within the realm of modern scholarship. There really is no debate in scholarly circles about whether Jesus existed, that the gospels are historical records of some sort. There is great debate and discussion over how much we can know about him; about how much of what is purported of Jesus took place; how much Jesus is supposed to have said he actually said. Not even the very skeptical Jesus Seminar of the last 20 years takes the position you do.

    Best Wishes

  40. Boris said

    First of all the number of scholars who do not and have not believed in a historical Jesus is much greater than you claim. Second I must disregard what any Christian scholar who believes in magi and magical beings writes because they are basing their views on pure superstition and nonsense. It doesn’t take a scholar to to know that when we read dialog between two or more people in a story setting, we are reading fiction. If any of the stories in the Gospels were not in the Bible but appeared somewhere else, you would not believe them. The fact that Christian “scholars” (I have to laugh at that concept) will blindly accept anything as long as it is in the Bible makes anything they write pure nonsense and should be disregarded by everyone.

  41. ADB said

    What is your criteria for determining if a person is “historical?” What sort of historical, archaeological, manuscript evidence suffices for establishing that a person existed in the eyes of history?

  42. Boris said

    ADB, When we have word for word dialog between two or more people in a story setting we are reading fiction. That is one of the basic stylistic differences between fiction and non-fiction. You would not believe any of the stories in the Bible if you read them anywhere else because you would recognize all the trademark elements of fiction in them. You have let your preconceived notions that other people put in your head about the Bible cloud your thinking. No history was ever written in the style of the Bible.

    The fact is that none of the major events or figures in the Bible can be identified in any kind of other literature, fiction or not, from any other peoples we know had dealings with Palestine.

  43. ADB said

    Boris, I am afraid you are so off the reservation, and sadly so blinded by your hate of Christianity that you cannot even recognize what is recognized even by “secular” history. The above post unfortunately shows that you have never actually read ancient history- look at Plato’s “Last Days of Socrates”, Quentin Curtius Rufus’ “The Campaigns of Alexander,” Thucydides’ “The Pelopponesian War,” just to name a few and you will repeatedly long quotations from individuals and dialogs between them in writing that I think even you will acknowledge is not fictional as we define fiction. (It should be noted that the gospels, properly understood are not history as we know it even though there are historical figures and events mentioned.) Unfortunately, at this point it is impossible to even carry on a meaningful dialog because you seem unable (despite your apparent or claimed education) to get beyond grand sweeping pronouncements that would be ludicrous even for the non-religious historian.

    It was fun while it lasted, and I wish you the best and it is my hope that you can grow beyond your animosity. Living with it simply does no good to yourself or anyone else.

    The curmudgeonly pastor 🙂

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: