The Answers Book

[AmeliaM]

Despite my better judgment (I would still be considered *very* 'fundie' by y'all) I wanted to share with you a book that does the rounds in IFB circles. It's been put online and I thought you might find is interesting to look at since it covers everything from the sin of rock music to soul winning from a strict IFB point of view and straight to the point answers. The links are PDF pages but small in size, just FYI. Hope it explains some topics for those with questions about 'fundie' lifestyle. :)

http://answers.libertybaptistchurch.org.au/answers/contents.html

[debrand]

Thanks for posting this. I'll look at it later. The Christian Living section interest me.

[gustava]

Oh sweet jesus....to the prayer closet i go.

[SamuraiKatz]

Thanks for the link. I tried my best to read this treatise. Epic fail! I just couldn't make my questioning personality sit down and be quiet.

[WanderingStar]

From the section titled Choosing a Boyfriend or Girlfriend or Spouse:

"If you fight and argue a lot before you are married, you are sure to fight and argue a lot more after you are married. So marry someone that you don't fight and argue with."

While I can see the wonderfully blunt logic behind this statement, and indeed I can see how saying something like that may sway people away from potentially abusive partner, I wonder if they mean that you should never disagree with your partner? People are going to disagree, there's never any two people that agree on absolutely everything.

Also, the section on how to cure boredom made me mentally facepalm quite a few times.

[Swamptribe]

The wholes 'soul winning' bit is hilarious. It's just so absolutely mindlessly simplistic one doesn't know if one should laugh, or shake their head in sadness.

[keen23]

Oh goody, they include copies of their STOP Tract. Now I know what to print out and hand to the Jehovah's Witnesses and/or Mormons who regularly stalk my neighborhood.

These soul-winning people really are the original MLM aren't they?

[flojo]

Over 1000 pages. Ouch.

[crassy]

The Bible is the Word of God for these reasons:

i) Its Unity.

ii) Scientific accuracy.

iii) Archaeology

iv) Fulfilled prophecies.

v) Jesus Christ called it the Word of God (John 10:35; Mark 7:13; Luke 8:11 “seed

is the..â€).

vi) It has infinitely superior teachings over any other book.

-The Bible has in it nothing but truth, while all other books have truth mixed with error, like jewels mixed with mud

-The Bible contains all truth. Every proven moral truth is found in the Bible. - The Bible contains more truth than all other books put together.

Oh JFC. I really hate circular logic.

This makes me cry because people actually believe this bullshit. I also like that their 'proof of Jesus' actually doesn't have any proof at all other than what it says in the bible. Well then! Harry Potter is true because it says so right there in the book! The whole archaeology thing really frosts my cupcakes as well. Yes, there is evidence that some of the stories happened (Hezekiah/Sennacherib for example), but if you look at other contemporary accounts, they are by no means accurate. I can't even with the rest of it because my head will explode.

I am going to read this whole damn thing. I should inform a friend that if they don't hear from me they need to call an ambulance due to me bashing my head against a wall.

Until modern times "experts" believed ideas such as the earth sat on four elephants, who stood on a giant turtle, who swam in the ocean.

No. There is a world-tortoise myth, as well as Locke's and Russell's mention of an elephant on a tortoise. The only place where there are four elephants on a tortoise 'swimming' is in Discworld novels and I'm pretty sure nobody actually believes the Great A'Tuin is real.

15. Sanitation. "Thou shalt have a place outside the camp.... when you will ease yourself, you shall dig (with a paddle) and shall turn back and cover that which cometh from thee.†Deuteronomy 23:12,13. Up until 1800 AD, human excrement was dumped onto the unpaved, filthy streets. Powerful stenches gripped villages and cities. Flies bred in the filth, spreading intestinal diseases that killed millions of people. Such deaths by diseases like typhoid, cholera and dysentery could have been avoided if they had obeyed the Bible.

No. In URBAN areas this happened because people couldn't get out of the city. Things were much different in rural areas. Not only that but there were people who's job it was to collect human/animal waste. Where exactly is this writer wanting poverty stricken city dwellers to go to crap?

13. Diseases Caused by Pigs. "And the swine...is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat and their carcass shall ye not touch". Leviticus 11:7,8. Forbidding to eat pigs was because of:

• lack of refrigeration, and

• roasting pork over an open flame does not destroy the parasites. Parasites are obtained by handling fresh pork. Some diseases are caused by eating pork that is not properly cooked. For example, Trichinosis larvae attach to the intestine when eaten. They then bore through the intestine into the blood stream, and the larvae are carried to all parts of the body. They develop and grow in a person's striated muscle. Pork Tapeworm may feed off the intestine and grow to 12 foot long. It may be fatal in 10- 20 years. God, by forbidding people to eat or touch pork, shows His care for us.

This is my favourite one! Earlier the person who authored this put reliance on archaeologists. He should know that most, if not all, archaeologists dismiss the idea that pigs were forbidden due to diseases. Many sites in Canaan have been found with pig bones. The strongest held theory is that abstaining from pigs was done for social reasons to set the ancient Israelites apart from the Canaanites/Philistines etc. Not only that, but did these diseases magically disappear? Why, then, was it allowed in the NT only shortly after Jesus died, but not before. As far as I know, all of these diseases still exist.

27. Can a Whale swallow Jonah "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." Jonah 1:17. Many people use this as their reason for doubting the Bible's truthfulness. How can a fish swallow a man? Several cases in modern times have been reported of a whale swallowing a man who survived. One is reported by Francis Fox in "Sixty-three years of Engineering" p.298-300 and confirmed by two scientists, one being M. DeParville, the scientific editor of "Journal Des Debats" in Paris. In February 1891, the whaling ship, "Star of the East" was near the Falkland Islands, where they sighted a large sperm whale. Two boats were sent out after the whale. One boat harpooned the whale, but the whale upset the other boat, drowning one man and the other sailor James Bartley, disappearing without a trace. After the whale was killed and cut open two days later, James Bartley was found unconscious and doubled up inside the whale. He had lost his senses through fright and not through lack of air. His skin was bleached white from stomach acid. He fully recovered. If a man can survive two days in a whale in 1891, surely Jonah could have survived three days in a great fish in 862 BC.

Oh yay! I haven't seen this story trotted out in a while. I guess, though, if you believe the bible to be true and accurate, you will have no issues believing this account to be accurate. Third-hand information, 2 academic papers debunking it as well as the wife of the captiain debunking the story.

Ok, I am done for now. This is going to break my brain.

ETA: I just got to the 'Proof of God' section. This thing reads like a list of logical fallacies. Argument from design (two of them even!), argument from popularity, argument from antiquity, argument from antiquity, begging the question...

[Sola]

Oh my! Where do I start? OK at the beginning I guess. Proof of Christ and the Bible - erm, hate to break it to you but there is no proof there at all. First off, the OT predictions - Jesus didn't fulfil them, not at all. In fact he pretty much failed at the first hurdle. Second, the supernatural things. Now how do we know he did supernatural things? It says so in the Bible of course! So they are using the Bible to prove the Bible. Circular logic at its best.

Oh dear.

[crassy]

Oh my! Where do I start? OK at the beginning I guess. Proof of Christ and the Bible - erm, hate to break it to you but there is no proof there at all. First off, the OT predictions - Jesus didn't fulfil them, not at all. In fact he pretty much failed at the first hurdle. Second, the supernatural things. Now how do we know he did supernatural things? It says so in the Bible of course! So they are using the Bible to prove the Bible. Circular logic at its best.

Oh dear.

Oh good! I am not the only one reading the whole thing. I gave up after about 8 sections because I have a 5000 word paper due on Friday...but I will read that whole damn thing and snark the fuck out of it.

Funny enough, I am writing a paper on archaeological evidence for the bible.

[julie paradox]

Ok: its unity, scientific accuracy, archaeology and fulfilled prophecies?

To Make A Hollow Laughing.

...and these people read this and thought "yeah, that'll sway the debate!"? There is No Hope for them.

5 and 6 are circular arguments (5 could legitimately be used on a Christian who doesn't take it all literally, but won't actually work).

[julie paradox]

Oh My.

Elaboration on Proof In Prophecy includes this gem:

Israel would become a byword among all nations. "Thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations where the Lord shall lead thee." Deuteronomy 28:37.

People refer to someone who holds his money tightly as a Jew.

I really don't think that was the kind of byword intended in Deuteronomy.

[julie paradox]

Oh, and Columbus proved the earth was circular by sailing right round it.

Trufax.

[julie paradox]

Bad social effects of evolution (well look, if we're going to talk about Bad Social Effects having any bearing on whether something is true...)

g) Abortion. Evolutionists say, “Don't worry, the foetus is only in the fish stage.â€

Has anyone ever said this?

[julie paradox]

From the section on Heaven:

Too many people and Christians are so earthly-minded that they are of no heavenly good.

In its original form (before the adjectives were transposed) this was a pithy reminder of our responsibilities to creation. As it stands here it simply makes no sense. (According to the Bible, nobody is good enough for heaven.)

[AudreyE]

I'm pretty sure the book "Misquoting Jesus" said that, if you compare all the versions of the New Testament we have available, there are more internal inconsistencies and factual errors than the NT has words. I'm too tired to look this up at the mo, but imagine some number that would make your mind 'xplode, and that's how many.

[AudreyE]

I love that they start their "scientific" look at evolution with an "aim" they are trying to prove. Science fail even before all the misguided attempts to talk about science begin.

Some of the arguments are so dumb it hurts. Large stars would have run out of hydrogen, if they were so old? Except that stars are born all the time. But they used the word "hydrogen," so I guess they know what they're talking about.

My husband - an actual scientist - is laughing his ass off right now reading the arguments.

[Guest Anonymous]

Some of this stuff is mind boggling to say the least, and I haven't even scratched the surface yet!

[Austin]

This makes me cry because people actually believe this bullshit. I also like that their 'proof of Jesus' actually doesn't have any proof at all other than what it says in the bible. Well then! Harry Potter is true because it says so right there in the book! The whole archaeology thing really frosts my cupcakes as well. Yes, there is evidence that some of the stories happened (Hezekiah/Sennacherib for example), but if you look at other contemporary accounts, they are by no means accurate. I can't even with the rest of it because my head will explode.

Don't feel bad. Baby Jesus is crying, too.

[dawbs]

Bad social effects of evolution (well look, if we're going to talk about Bad Social Effects having any bearing on whether something is true...)

g) Abortion. Evolutionists say, “Don't worry, the foetus is only in the fish stage.â€

Has anyone ever said this?

nope, because recapitulation is quite thoroughly debunked.

Actually, recapitulation was the basis for a LOT of racism and I think I've only heard it said in any seriousness by fundies in the last 15 years.

[crassy]

Bad social effects of evolution (well look, if we're going to talk about Bad Social Effects having any bearing on whether something is true...)

g) Abortion. Evolutionists say, “Don't worry, the foetus is only in the fish stage.â€

Has anyone ever said this?

Yes but no. Before I go into it, I have to say that I hate the term 'evolutionist' with a passion.

I am trying to remember who said it, but it has been used in liberal philosophical views to prove a point about the morality of abortion. I also think that these morons have conflated two ideas to come up with this bullshit. A foetus in the early stage has been compared to a tadpole given the tail, size, and other features that make it look similar.

[thoughtful]

Oh My.

Elaboration on Proof In Prophecy includes this gem:

Israel would become a byword among all nations. "Thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations where the Lord shall lead thee." Deuteronomy 28:37.

People refer to someone who holds his money tightly as a Jew.

I really don't think that was the kind of byword intended in Deuteronomy.

Oh My is right.

Just the excerpts posted here are fabulous support of Poe's Law.

[JesusFightClub]

Bad social effects of evolution (well look, if we're going to talk about Bad Social Effects having any bearing on whether something is true...)

g) Abortion. Evolutionists say, “Don't worry, the foetus is only in the fish stage.â€

Has anyone ever said this?

Me, for teh lulz ;) Because, like you, I have only ever heard this from fundies as "Crazy Things Evolutionists Say".

Honestly, they believe "evolutionists" believe a foetus is a fish at one point? When does it become a shrew like creature, as Dawkins described and as clever FJists explained to me? Can it become a tiger cub or a shark?

Also, why "evolutionists" are counselling women on abortion is something of a mystery to me. An evolutionist is someone who studies evolutionary biology. If I wasn't sure about having an abortion, I would speak to my mum, my best mates, the partner involved and counselling services, not some random biologist who is probably very busy and frankly has no reason to care or locus for why she should care.

[AnnoDomini]

I have to say that I hate the term 'evolutionist' with a passion.

Interesting. It never occurred to me to question the term, any more than it occurred to me to question the term 'creationist'. Neither term bothers me personally.

Do you mind sharing what about it bothers you?