Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Ray's Latest Dishonesty

Just got back from the Swamp, where I was unfortunate enough to read this latest gem from Ray:

"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Genesis 6:6).

CONTRADICTION: "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent" (Numbers 3:19).

EXPLANATION: God is without sin, so any references to Him and repentance merely mean "a change of mind."

Ray supplements this with a graphic that reads thusly:

REPENT:

= to feel remorse for failures
= to feel sorry for sins
= to change your mind
= to alter your mind when conditions change

Which one of these fits God best?

One again, Ray proves that his intellectual dishonesty truly knows no bounds.


First off, the Bible passage from Genesis clearly points to the "remorse" definition of "repent", as should be obvious by the word "grieved".

Courtesy of thesaurus.com (excessive emphasis mine):

Remorse synonyms:
anguish, attrition, compassion, compunction, contriteness, contrition, grief, guilt, pangs of conscience, penance, penitence, penitency, pity, regret, remorsefulness, repentance, rue, ruefulness, self-reproach, shame, sorrow

Grief synonyms:
affliction, agony, anguish, bemoaning, bereavement, bewailing, care, dejection, deploring, depression, desolation, despair, despondency, discomfort, disquiet, distress, dole, dolor, gloom, grievance, harassment, heartache, heartbreak, infelicity, lamentation, lamenting, malaise, melancholy, misery, mortification, mournfulness, mourning, pain, purgatory, regret, remorse, repining, rue, sadness, sorrow, torture, trial, tribulation, trouble, unhappiness, vexation, woe, worry, wretchedness

Two, the Bible passage from Numbers doesn't say anything about the meaning of the word "repent", so how exactly does Ray make the case for maintaining that the word "repent" means one thing in Genesis, and another in Numbers?

Both of these intellectually bankrupt "arguments" are just two more iterations of the same old tired "context" nonsense that Ray and his fellow Fundies try to pass off as a valid argument again and again. It's getting tiresome.

UPDATE: the second Bible passage referenced in Ray's post is not Numbers 3:19...it is Numbers 23:19. Any predictions on how Ray will address this latest error? Check back here for further updates.

14 comments:

  1. Hmm. checking an English dictionary and not a Hebrew. I would suggest Strong's Lexicon online.
    And yes god did have remorse

    ReplyDelete
  2. fundamentalist christians - their fanatical belief in Jesus is only surpassed by their complete disregard for anything he is supposed to have said.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What's Ray's post really says is that the Bible means what it says until it's inconvenient for it to do so, then it means what I think it says, or what some apologist said it says.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Have you become a Fundie, NM? Your insight is spot on....

    ReplyDelete
  5. MrFreeThinker sez:

    Hmm. checking an English dictionary and not a Hebrew. I would suggest Strong's Lexicon online.

    I would suggest that if you actually have something to say, you do your own homework, but this time, I'll let it slide:

    Strong's #5162: nâcham (pronounced naw-kham')

    a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):--comfort (self), ease (one's self), repent(-er,-ing, self).


    According to the source, the word nâcham is used 108 times in the Bible, including in both Genesis 6:6 and Numbers 23:19 (yes, it's actually Numbers 23:19, not Numbers 3:19. Don't hold you breath waiting for Ray to acknowledge his error).

    So, MFT, I did as you so snarkily suggested, but all I see here is even more damaging to Ray's "explanation" than my original analysis. I suppose I should be thanking you.

    And yes god did have remorse

    OK, now I know I should be thanking you. Thank you.

    (BTW, shouldn't "God" be capatalized? Don't worry...this is the Raytractors, so we'll let it slide. c^_^ɔ )

    ReplyDelete
  6. I no longer care that Ray "means well". He's an ass...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stew,

    "fundamentalist christians - their fanatical belief in Jesus is only surpassed by their complete disregard for anything he is supposed to have said."

    That needs putting on the back of a t-shirt.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Tripmaster.
    I was agreeing with you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. exPatMatt, I wish I could take credit for it. I saw it on The Daily Mash and it was referring to the Irish

    ReplyDelete
  10. Two days late (sorry guys) and I'm wondering:

    "Changing your mind" is something that can only be done by someone who experiences the passage of time.

    It would seem that it is therefore impossible for anyone who exists outside of or independently of time to change his/her/its mind, or even to possess a mind since thought is a process which occurs in time.

    Sigh. But it's no use pointing that out to the likes of Ray or MFT.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here's something to ponder Weemaryanne.
    Can an atemporal being choose to act temporally?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ok and wma God doesn't change his mind. As Tripmaster pointed out -one of the primary meanings of nacham is "to be sorry"
    You can be sorry something happened even if you knew it was going to happen beforehand.

    ReplyDelete
  13. MFT, an "atemporal being" is a contradiction in terms.

    BE-ING is EXISTENCE IN TIME.

    I think your stupidity may acqually qualify as a sin.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Weemaryanne wrote MFT, an "atemporal being" is a contradiction in terms

    This may be true, but it also may be due to a limitation in the English language. How exactly should we refer to an entity who lives extemporaneously?

    Being and Entity seem (to me) to be remarkably similar in this context.

    Still, I agree that something which exists outside of time while being able to manipulate objects constrained by that dimension is a useless concept to consider.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.