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.

Genesis Contradictions - Chapter II

Well, it looks like our good buddy Ray has taken me up on my suggestion that he turn the "Genesis Contradictions" subject into a regular feature. His latest post addresses the contradiction that God apparently creates light before He creates a sun to generate said light.

Ray glibly dismisses the contradiction thusly:

EXPLANATION : God is light (1 John 1:5, Revelation 22:5). He eternally existed, before He created the Sun to give light to the earth.

Well, Ray, that interpretation may resolve the above contradiction, but in so doing, it introduces a whole mess of new ones. Let's look a little more closely at the passages in question:

Genesis 1:2-4

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Now, if "God is light", why exactly would darkness be over the surface of the deep? If "God is light", and God has eternally existed, then it logically follows that light has eternally existed, and therefore, darkness could not be over the surface of the deep.

Also, why exactly would God need to speak light into being, if God is light?

Also, why would God have to see the light before concluding that it was good, if God Himself is light?

This is what happens when you try to make the case that an ancient primitive world creation myth is factually accurate, Ray. It's like trying to dig a hole in the sand at the water's edge...the harder and faster you dig, the more water pours in.

Mock the Afflicted

Ladies and Gentlemen, roll up, roll up...

Welcome to the show that never disapoints - Ray's Idiot Zoo! A veritable cornucopia of tame morons and imbeciles brought to a single place for your edification and delight.

And who do we have in this week's cage..? Why, it's the McHue, a creature that is able to force its enemies to face/palm themselevs to death.

Point and laugh, people. Point and laugh...

Jinx McHue said...

Lots of pretty silly answers from the resident atheists, but this one takes the cake:

"A chicken-like creature laid the egg of a chicken. The chicken egg came first."

So when Ray asks things like, "Show me a dog giving birth to a cat," he's actually being 100% accurate according to evolutionary thinking. "Chicken-like" creatures can "give birth" to chickens, so "cat-like" creatures (dogs have the same general shape as cats) can give birth to cats.