[JM]

Originally Posted by Someday

I listened to part one and stopped there, I will listen to the rest later. So far....Barker was either a very bad preacher or he is purposely distorting things for his argument. Examples??
Jesus borrowed the golden rule. Of course He did, He was rephrasing the Torah from 1300 BC, Leviticus 19:18- "Thou shalt Love thy neighbor as thyself." Not Confucius or Buddha as so many like to suggest. Is God not supposed to speak from the Torah? Ever? Lol
He mentions Jesus telling His followers that He came not to bring peace on earth but a sword. Did he not read Revelations where that sword is shown to be issuing from His mouth like a tongue? In other words, the enemy within is slain by the Word of God, not a literal sword. Never mind, he was a fundy and probably looked for a Rapture and the rebuilding of a new Temple in Jerusalem so that people can sacrifice animals like they erroneously thought God wanted in the Old Testament. Then of course, they would wait for the abomination of desolation to enter it and usher in the greatest of all wars. He probably forgot that the temple is within. No wonder he is an Atheist!
He takes parables and distorts the meaning in order to say that Jesus was big on slavery. Is that what he thought the parables were about when he was a Christian? Wow. This guy was really a preacher? No way. If so, then he is lying about something.......

I noticed the emotional appeal to children lying in a hospital. Nice fallacy to go along with the above. Again, his understanding is shallow at best.
He tries to set himself up as a weak atheist by stating he has a simple lack of belief in God. No, it's a decision he made, not a simple lack of belief. The podium in front of him is lacking a belief in God. The strong atheist has every bit of burden of proof as the theist. Atheist cliches are not proof, otherwise there would have been a Nobel prize awarded to someone for this a long time ago.
It seems to me he traded militant fundamentalism for militant atheism, nothing more. Go figure.

OK, I'll stop, I didn't even listen to the "for" argument yet. I'm not being fair. But there is so much he says in that one little opening that screams to be picked on.

At least this one isn't poisoned by scrolling tidbits across the screen by a person that can't spell. That made for a big improvement over the last one I listened to.


Blessings

Both sides must be heard to see the ludicrousy or logic of the debate not just one side someday