Another voice joins debate on Bible

Report Abuse
 

Hrm. It seems this debate I started has gotten far away from the original point. Guess there's no point in me participating anymore, especially since Mike Clements couldn't ... Read More 

Hrm. It seems this debate I started has gotten far away from the original point. Guess there's no point in me participating anymore, especially since Mike Clements couldn't keep the letter exchange mono-e-mono.

 

Report Abuse
 

Happy Holidays

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike

I don't understand what you mean by different logical systems? Here is an article on logic in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

I finally got a chance ... Read More 

Mike

I don't understand what you mean by different logical systems? Here is an article on logic in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

I finally got a chance to read it. Maybe you should read it more closely. It speaks of different logical systems. It even describes their properties. I think the property where we are getting stuck is completeness. Philosophically, to me, completeness is not attainable. As you said, we can not know all truth?

To put an end to this, (I think you and I could go on till we both pass on, and my wife won't let me do that) I have truly enjoyed this discussion. I have not had to think this hard in a long time. I guess I am saying, thank you, and hope you have a happy holiday season.

 

Report Abuse
 

No, I can see the forest just fine. I think there is just a lack of understanding of what I am saying on your part. Logic is a tool to aid in our understanding of things ... Read More 

No, I can see the forest just fine. I think there is just a lack of understanding of what I am saying on your part. Logic is a tool to aid in our understanding of things based on our basic assumptions about those things.

 

Report Abuse
 

Bubba,

"You said: I guess you felt that you needed that revenge after my little joke in the other thread, in which by the way, I never said your father lied. I just ... Read More 

Bubba,

"You said: I guess you felt that you needed that revenge after my little joke in the other thread, in which by the way, I never said your father lied. I just said, that logically, you should not have believed him. That does NOT logically mean he was lying."

I was not upset by what you said. You found a flaw in my logic. I was being sloppy in my writing and thinking. I was trying to clarify why I thought that my father was a different sort of authority figure. Certainly, there are authority figures that I do trust. It was sloppy of me to make such a broad sweeping statement about not trusting authority figures. As I get older, however, I find that the group I trust gets smaller and smaller, exponentially.

 

Report Abuse
 

I never said that you could prove the KJV true. Where did you get this? I simply said from my studies, that I believe it to be true. That's my axiom. That's my starting ... Read More 

I never said that you could prove the KJV true. Where did you get this? I simply said from my studies, that I believe it to be true. That's my axiom. That's my starting point. You can't prove axioms. Have you ever taken a basic math logic class?? But, once you have chosen your axioms, you can develop a system logically (using the rules of logic) based on those axioms. Have you paid any attention to what you were reading in any of my posts?

 

Report Abuse
 

Bubba,

You say,

There is a number system (called a group) where 1+1=0. :)

I think you are missing the forest for the trees:-(

 

Report Abuse
 

I never said that religion is true or false. There is such a thing as truth, and someone may hold that correctly as opinion. In philosophy, that is called true opinion. ... Read More 

I never said that religion is true or false. There is such a thing as truth, and someone may hold that correctly as opinion. In philosophy, that is called true opinion. It cannot be proved, however, with logic. Not to get too philosophical but there are three sets of knowledge: The known, the not yet known, and the unknowable. The meaning of the universe probably falls into the set of things that are unknowable by us - mere humans. God may have struck you with inspiration. You may hold a true opinion, but you can never prove that your opinion is true. We are not capable of knowing everything or proving everything - however much we may want to think that we can. My friend, I think that you are traveling in the realm of the unknowable. I hope that you are correct in your opinion. I have no doubt that your philosophy is beautiful and deep. I also believe that those who are deeply spiritual have a richer life. I am happy that you have that wealth, but the proof of the truth of your KJV of the bible does not intersect with the current science of logic.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike, I've just been watching this thread and haven't cared to say anything until now. From everything I've read on this thread, it's obvious (at least to me) that Bubba ... Read More 

Mike, I've just been watching this thread and haven't cared to say anything until now. From everything I've read on this thread, it's obvious (at least to me) that Bubba hasn't been intent on convincing others to believe as he does. You, on the other hand, appear to be very intent on convincing people to believe as you do. It's also my opinion that you are in over your head.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike

I am sorry that you believe that others are insulted by my beliefs. Your speech shows that you are very full of yourself, and that is extremely insulting to some. ... Read More 

Mike

I am sorry that you believe that others are insulted by my beliefs. Your speech shows that you are very full of yourself, and that is extremely insulting to some. I too believe my father never lied to me - not ever. Thank you for insulting everything my father (and my God) has ever taught me. I guess you felt that you needed that revenge after my little joke in the other thread, in which by the way, I never said your father lied. I just said, that logically, you should not have believed him. That does NOT logically mean he was lying. I do recognize that others do not hold my beliefs, any semi-intelligent person would have gathered that from reading all of my posts. I don't expect anyone to hold my beliefs. Besides, if they believe my beliefs are false, what do they have to worry about. Now, that is SIMPLE logic. You see, your axiom is to assume that no religion is true or false. That is why you keep that I can't prove my faith. Well, logically, you are correct, but then we are starting with a different set of axioms.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike

Most mathematical systems are based on assumptions, called axiom, which are in some sense assumed to be true statements, and then other statements in that system ... Read More 

Mike

Most mathematical systems are based on assumptions, called axiom, which are in some sense assumed to be true statements, and then other statements in that system are proven from the axioms using logic. Therefore, each set of independent axioms place you in a new logical system (which is governed by the basic laws of logic). Notice I said that the axioms are assumed to be true. If you don't assume them to be true, then there is no reason for you to agree with my logical system.

You may say to me "What about the constructivist point of view". They tend to not like the axiomatic view, but even they start with the basic axioms of set theory, which assume that there are really objects to put into a set. What if I disagree that we (or anything else) is really here, then I fall outside of every logical system.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike

There is a number system (called a group) where 1+1=0. :)

 

Report Abuse
 

I don't understand what you mean by different logical systems? Here is an article on logic in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Can you point out what you ... Read More 

I don't understand what you mean by different logical systems? Here is an article on logic in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Can you point out what you mean by a different kind of logic? I assume that you don't mean 1+1=3.

My point was that if someone has a religious experience and thereafter has faith, no application of logic is required to sustain that faith. It is a belief held irrespective of logic. It may be a true belief or a false belief, but it is a belief. It is not on a par with the statement 1+1=2. I don't say that I believe that 1+1=2. I say 1+1=2. 1+1=2 can actually be proven using standard mathematical logic. I do say, however, that I believe in God or that I do not believe in God. It is a matter of faith. I cannot perform replicable experiments to prove God's existence. The great mathematician Euler had a proof of God: the story is as follows: Once at the court of Catherine the Great Euler met a French philosopher named Denis Diderot. Diderot was a convinced athiest, and was trying to convince the Russians into athism also. Catherine was very annoyed by this and she asked for Euler's help. Euler thought about it and when he began a theological discussion with Diderot, Euler said: " (a+b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists" Diderot was said to know almost nothing about algebra, and therefore returned to Paris.

Leonard Euler called this a proof, but I think that was merely a recognition of the wonder of existence and completely tongue-in-cheek. I am not saying that your belief in God is wrong or right. I am not belittling you for your belief in God. What I am asking you to do is recognize that others do not hold your belief - and, moreover, that they should not be expected to hold your belief. It is also, extremely insulting to others when you say that your source for truth is the only correct source. And then you are unable through any recognized means to prove your statement. You cannot prove your statement because it exists in a belief system outside of logic. Thinking that there is a special kind of logic for metaphysics is wrong. Whatever it is, it is not logic. A quick course on epistemology might prove helpful here.

Her is an url for hundreds of "proofs" of God's existence:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Here are some examples - substitute Zeus for God in each argument:


TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I), a.k.a. DESIGN ARGUMENT
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike

By the way. My God did not come to damn the whole world, but to save the world. When Jesus died on the cross, he did so for all people. Those who choose to reject ... Read More 

Mike

By the way. My God did not come to damn the whole world, but to save the world. When Jesus died on the cross, he did so for all people. Those who choose to reject this salvation are the damned according to His judgement, not mine. You speak to me as if I made up the rules. I did not, the God that I believe in did. If you don't believe in Him, you are free to agree or disagree with Him, call him mythological, say His book is corrupted, or pretty do what ever you want, because you CHOOSE to while I CHOOSE to believe and follow Him. My God said that my beliefs would be foolishness to those that don't believe. It was foolishness to those that did not believe 2000 years ago as well. So there is really nothing new to your arguments.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike

Yes, everyone on the planet believes that his/her particular brand of religion is the correct one. You are incorrect about the fact that logic is not required. ... Read More 

Mike

Yes, everyone on the planet believes that his/her particular brand of religion is the correct one. You are incorrect about the fact that logic is not required. You see, there are different logical systems, so to speak. One who believes the Koran, is completely convinced based on his logical system, while in your logical system, he seems to be totally irrational. So evidently, you have a very basic misunderstanding of what logic really is. You see, my God is not the god of the Koran, or any other religion. You might say, "But there is only one god." Wrong, take a good look around you, there are many. I believe my God is the Creator God, and is The God of all, including these other gods. You ask, "Why wouldn't heaven intervene". My God will allow those who choose not to believe, to believe a lie. So evidently, your god (if you have one) is not my God. My logic (given to me by my God) tells me that there is not great wisdom that has been compiled throughout the ages, only the wisdom given by Him in His Word. I do agree with your logical system, in the sense that there is a lot of junk out there. The truth is not hidden in the book. It has been translated into every language. My God did a perfect job of not hiding it. My God promised in His book that He would preserve it, not a book, chapter, or sentence, but the whole thing. I am sure that comment does not fit into your logical system, so don't comment on that one.

I have to go eat some turkey now. Happy Thanksgiving, no matter to whom you give thanks.

 

Report Abuse
 

JPC,

You said: "I believe that God preserved his word in only one version, The King James Bible."

Every religious person on the planet believes that his particular ... Read More 

JPC,

You said: "I believe that God preserved his word in only one version, The King James Bible."

Every religious person on the planet believes that his particular brand of religion is the correct one. Because religion is faith based, logic is not really required for membership; therefore, the idea that God would bless one part of creation and damn another doesn't seem to come into question. Why would God allow a devoutly religious person who studies the Koran, for example, with great zeal and religiosity, to waste his time with the wrong version? Why wouldn't heaven intervene and point out the truth? Logic suggests that there is great wisdom that has been compiled throughout the millenia in the various long-standing religious cultures. Logic also suggests that there is a lot of junk there too. If you believe that God has hidden his truth in one book only, why don't you believe that he has hidden truth amongst lies within that book? Why think that he stopped at a book, why not a chapter? Which chapter is the only truth - the only preservation of God's word. Maybe it is a sentence? Which sentence is the only preserved truth?

 

Report Abuse
 

JPC

No offense taken. The KJV 1611 is in modern english, just printed in gothic type without standardized spelling. Our KJV today is the same as the KJV 1611 minus the ... Read More 

JPC

No offense taken. The KJV 1611 is in modern english, just printed in gothic type without standardized spelling. Our KJV today is the same as the KJV 1611 minus the gothic type, with standardized spelling, and minus sum of the typsetting errors that were so common in the past with the tedious printing methods. I have studied middle and old english, which would be very hard to read and understand (if not impossible) for most people. To make my statement completely understanable to you, I would have to say that, based on my research on the topic, I have come to the conclusion that the KJV is the only reliable modern english translation. My questions to you would be, if you recognize the KJV is a "good" translation, why would it matter to you that I think it is the best based on my studies. Believe me, I have not heard any new arguments from either side of the debate that would convince me otherwise.

As for my comments to Mike. My intent is always to try to bring someone to Christ, not a church or religion, and certainly not to collect money.

Again, I took no offense from your post. I, in turn, hope that you took no offense from mine. Sometimes, in making a point, I am too aggressive with my speech. That is one of my thorns. I was just supprised at the long post from what I thought was a simple comment.

 

Report Abuse
 

Bubba, please forgive me if offended you. I was simply responding to your statement about the KJV of the bible.

"I believe that God preserved his word in only one ... Read More 

Bubba, please forgive me if offended you. I was simply responding to your statement about the KJV of the bible.

"I believe that God preserved his word in only one version, The King James Bible."

Perhaps if you explained exactly what you meant so I could better understand your statement, because I have met people who do believe that the KJV is the only legitimate english translation, which I believe is a false statement. The scholars that we have today are just as capable as the 50+ scholars that translated the KJV in 1611.

Bubba, I think it is great that your daughter can read old english and I would think that most of us could, but why do we need to when there are good reliable translations available in modern english.

Bubba, I hope you don't think I am personally attacking you, because that is not my purpose. I responded the way I did, only because, too many people take a statement like that at face value and really don't investigate any further.

Mike, if you want to know if a person is true or false find out what their motive is for doing what they do. There is a world of difference between a Creflo Dollar(tele evangalists) and a Hudson Taylor(missionary to China 19c).

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny,

You are right. I am stupid. I am occasionally ignorant as well. I have heard of a Spine-plated lizard. It is extinct now, probably did not fly, and who knows ... Read More 

Danny,

You are right. I am stupid. I am occasionally ignorant as well. I have heard of a Spine-plated lizard. It is extinct now, probably did not fly, and who knows if it could breath fire. I believe it is called a stegosaurus. The pterodactyls could fly, but had not plates on their backs. I don't know if they breathed fire either. Although, one would have to think that it could be possible. Many animals are capable of very interesting chemical reactions. If a firefly can light its rear end up,…

Its been fun, Danny, but I have actual work to do now. I have a stack of vector calculus tests a mile high to grade before Monday. (I really don't mean a mile high.)

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike

Thank you for your kind words, but I would have to say that I am not true, for God said

... let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou ... Read More 

Mike

Thank you for your kind words, but I would have to say that I am not true, for God said

... let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

I am just passing along the good word of my God. I hope you come to know him some day as I have; and, even though you don't realize it, God has used you to help me to come to know Him a little better.

 

Report Abuse
 

Bubba

Either you're being sarcastic, or you're just too stupid to figure out that I meant mythological dragons.

Besides the fact that simply because those over-grown ... Read More 

Bubba

Either you're being sarcastic, or you're just too stupid to figure out that I meant mythological dragons.

Besides the fact that simply because those over-grown monitor lizards carry the name "dragon" that doesn't make them actual DRAGONS in the common mythological sense. Same with that frill-necked lizard, the bearded dragon.

So, I'll rephrase the question so that you can understand more clearly, sir.

Do you believe in Fire-Breathing, Spine-plated, flying, winged, giant dragons, unicorns, satyrs, cockatrices, and the other plethora of the mythological zoo that are mentioned in the bible?

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny

I do believe in dragons. The one that lives on the islands of Komodo, Rinca, Flores, Gili Montang, and Gili DAsami, in central Indonesia.
LOL

 

Report Abuse
 

JPC

I forgot to respond to the last paragraph of your post. I should have been more specific. I was speaking of modern English translations. Of course God preserved ... Read More 

JPC

I forgot to respond to the last paragraph of your post. I should have been more specific. I was speaking of modern English translations. Of course God preserved his word in other languages. God died for the whole world, not just English speaking people. Unforutnately, I don't speak any of other languages. I would actually like to learn someday.

 

Report Abuse
 

FYI: All might be interested in a book by Bart Erhman, "Misquoting Jesus". Pretty good read..

 

Report Abuse
 

JPC

One more thing. I have a six year old daughter that can read our copy of the 1st ed of the 1611.

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny

I don't know if you have any children or not, but sometimes you do things to them for their own good. This is what God (Jesus) was doing at the Tower of Babel. ... Read More 

Danny

I don't know if you have any children or not, but sometimes you do things to them for their own good. This is what God (Jesus) was doing at the Tower of Babel. He was not afraid of his creation. For someone who does not believe in God, you sure pretend to understand Him very well. I am not saying you have to agree. As a matter of fact, I don't care if you do or not. But your mind is closed so tight that you won't even try to see how the other point of view could possibly make sense to someone else.

 

Report Abuse
 

JPC
I would say you were correct that it was not the first. This was not intended to be a debate about bible versions. I was just trying to make a point to Danny and ... Read More 

JPC
I would say you were correct that it was not the first. This was not intended to be a debate about bible versions. I was just trying to make a point to Danny and Mike. I have studied the different versions and the history of each a great deal. So you are not telling me anything I don't already know. So if you were writing the post just for me, you wasted your time.

 

Report Abuse
 

Bubba,

I don't know if the KJV is true, but you are:-) From what I do know and believe about Christ's teachings, you follow well.

 

Report Abuse
 

Bubba, What would say if I told you that the KJV of the bible was not the first english translation. The first translation into english was done by John Wycliff in 1380,(this ... Read More 

Bubba, What would say if I told you that the KJV of the bible was not the first english translation. The first translation into english was done by John Wycliff in 1380,(this was not a printed work, but was hand written only). The first printed work in english was William Tyndale's translation of the New Testament in 1525/6. After Tyndale was burned at the stake for this, his co-worker Myles Coverdale completed the translation of the Old Testament in 1535. Then Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Cantebury, hired Coverdale at the bequest of King Henry VIII to publish "The Great Bible" in 1539. In 1560 the Geneva Bible was printed and was the first bible to add verse numberings. It also was the first English Bible to be taken to America. When the KJV first came out, the Geneva Bible remained more popluar for decades.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification when multiple meanings were possible.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They relied heavily on Tyndale's New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even used the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known as "The King James Bible" came off the printing press.

A typographical error in Ruth 3:15 rendered the pronoun "He" instead of the correct "She" in that verse. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles.

It took many years for it to overtake the Geneva Bible in popularity with the people, but eventually the King James Version became the Bible of the English people. It became the most printed book in the history of the world. In fact, for around 250 years, until the appearance of the Revised Version of 1881, the King James Version reigned without a rival.

Bubba, the KJV that we have today is not the orignal KJV. I have printed an example of the orignal english used in the 1611 KJV bible.

1st Ed. King James (1611): "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

As you can see it would not be and easy translation to read in todays english speaking world. There are many good english translations today, because we have more ancient manuscripts available. More than when the KJV was first translated. I also would like to know what you think about all of the different translations that have been done in other languages(over 1200). Are they not the inspired word of GOD too. We cannot put GOD in a box and say this is the only way HE can speak to us. Yes, there are bad translations in use today, such as,the New World Translation by the Jehovah Witness, but with a little hard word anyone can find the errors in these translations.

 

Report Abuse
 

The King James Version is pretty edited too. He heavily edited Genesis. However he did maintain a lot of the original text, including the repeated mention of mythological ... Read More 

The King James Version is pretty edited too. He heavily edited Genesis. However he did maintain a lot of the original text, including the repeated mention of mythological creatures that we know don't exist.

What we need to start doing is recognizing that the bible is no more than a work of greatly influential fiction.

By the way, I finally have a response to SK, who if I recall correctly, asked why so many people in the early church would suffer and die for a lie.

The answer is the same reason people get sucked into the Church of Scientology. In fact, the CoS is a perfect example of how ALL religions are started, what their true purpose is, and what their ultimate goal is.

So, honestly Bubba; Can you tell me that you believe Cockatrices, Dragons, Fairies, Satyrs, and other such legendary beasts actually existed? Do you think bats are birds?

There are still a lot of problems in the bible that can't be talked around. Well, contradictions rather. It quite often demonstrates that god is NOT omnipotent or all-knowing. In fact, if he was all knowing, then there would really be no point in faith, because it would already be pre-determined who chose what, essentially, since he'd already know who was going to from the beginning. Which really speaks volumes for how cruel your deity of choice truly is, predetermining everything and everyone's choices and fate, giving us the cruel illusion of free will.

Then there's the fact the he fears his own creations, as demonstrated by the Tower of Babel story. Even the banishment of Adam and Eve was more for his fear of them becoming gods than the fact that they disobeyed him. After all, knowledge and immortality (which they would have had if they had been able to eat from the Tree of Life, which is an absurd concept to begin with and is an altered version of the Tree in Norse Mythology that held the three realms together) would make one a god of sorts. It's there in the print.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike
One more thing. A true Christian would not have killed you for saying these things. Christ told Peter to put away his sword. I have a feeling that the same so called ... Read More 

Mike
One more thing. A true Christian would not have killed you for saying these things. Christ told Peter to put away his sword. I have a feeling that the same so called Christian men that would have killed you for what you said, would have killed me for my previous post.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike, you are correct in that they did some revising and editing (of their version). I believe that God preserved his word in only one version, The King James Bible. I ... Read More 

Mike, you are correct in that they did some revising and editing (of their version). I believe that God preserved his word in only one version, The King James Bible. I am not trying to convince you that the KJV is God's word. It is your choice to believe or not. I am only saying that you are correct that the men who created the inquisition also perverted the bible. I am sorry that your impression of Christianity has been shaped by those that are not really Christian. Many people claim to be Christian and are not. Many religions claim to be Christian and are not. This is not God's fault. Men choose to do this.

 

Report Abuse
 

BTW, If you believe the history books, it was not so long ago that I would have been murdered by the church for holding this point of view.

 

Report Abuse
 

JPC, You make some good points. There has been, and will be a lot of revisionist history published. There have been and will be many archeological "findings" ... Read More 

JPC, You make some good points. There has been, and will be a lot of revisionist history published. There have been and will be many archeological "findings" that have turned out to be frauds. All my life, I have learned from "experts" only to find other opposing views by "experts" with similarly impressive credentials.

Perhaps even more telling is the fact that, as a person in the modern world, I have learned firsthand in editing Wikipedia articles that revision is a constant intellectual force. Seemingly, no truth can stand against the constant blows of editor's pens. In the end, all ideas bend to the will of the strongest, most persistent, and stubborn. In the case of Peter's Church, it has also been a case of the most ruthless, as opponents to the church's views have been tortured and murdered. I prefer to see God around me in all creation, not some book. And although man's hand attempts to manipulate creation too, in the end, man is only another aspect of God's work.

 

Report Abuse
 

It should be noted that Galileo was never in a dungeon or tortured; during the Inquisition process he stayed mostly at the house of the Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican and ... Read More 

It should be noted that Galileo was never in a dungeon or tortured; during the Inquisition process he stayed mostly at the house of the Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican and for a short time in a comfortable apartment in the Inquisition building. (For a note on actions taken by Galileo’s defenders and by the church in the centuries since the trial, see BTW: Galileo’s condemnation.) After the process he spent six months at the palace of Ascanio Piccolomini (c. 1590–1671), the archbishop of Siena and a friend and patron, and then moved into a villa near Arcetri, in the hills above Florence. He spent the rest of his life there. Galileo’s daughter Sister Maria Celeste, who was in a nearby nunnery, was a great comfort to her father until her untimely death in 1634.

Mike, at the time Galileo was on trial, there was only about 10 sciencists who believed in the "Copernican Theory", which was a hilocentric view of the earth ( the earth circled the sun). Most of the world at that time held to Ptolemy's geocentric view of the earth,(the sun circled the earth) and Ptolemy did not get his theory from the bible or any christian. It wasn't until Sir Issac Newton in the late 17th century that the hilocentric view became widely accepted by most astronomers.
Newton was a devout Christian. He hoped that his entire work in physics would inspire men to believe in God. He stated that:
"When I wrote my treastise about our System I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose."[4]

 

Report Abuse
 

The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. ... Read More 

The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. This book has become something of a running joke among historians of science and it is dutifully mentioned as a prime example of misinformation in the preface of most modern works on science and religion. The flat Earth is discussed in chapter 2 and one can almost sense White's confusion that hardly any of the sources support his hypothesis that Christians widely believed in it. He finds himself grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore, Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the matter in doubt. Although an analysis of what White actually says suggests he was aware that the flat Earth was largely a myth, he certainly gives an impression of ignorant Christians suppressing rational knowledge of its real shape.

Luckily for White there were then, as there are now, a few fringe writers who could be counted upon to support any point of view no matter how wild. Cosmas Indicopleustes was one such man. He was a merchant traveller who retired to become a monk in the Egyptian desert where he wrote a treatise on Christian Topology that included his flat Earth cosmology. It was widely ignored at the time and Christian scholars like John Philoponus derided it as the work of an uneducated fool. So it was and it was soon forgotten. Because it was written in Greek, it was unavailable and unknown in the Latin West where, contrary to White's insinuations, it had no influence at all. First published with a Latin translation only in 1776, the book has since gained far wider recognition that it ever had in its day.

Lactantius was another church father who did seem sure the earth was flat but no one paid much attention to him either. Other early Christians may well have simply been using common language that we still use today. Saying "to the ends of the earth", "the four corners of the world" or "the sun sank into the sea" does not make you a flat Earther and we should treat ancient people with the same generosity. What can be stated categorically was that a flat Earth was at no time ever an element of Christian doctrine and that no one was ever persecuted or pressurised into believing it. This is interesting because the Bible itself implies the Earth is flat (for example at Daniel 4:11 or 4:8 in Catholic Bibles) and most of its writers (certainly those of the Old Testament) probably thought so. Clearly, belief in the complete scientific accuracy of the scriptures against known facts was not upheld by the early or medieval church who were happy to accept a figurative interpretation. You can read a full analysis of the different writers who have mentioned the shape of the earth in the e-book The Flat Earth by 'Ethical Atheist'.

Anti-clerical history of science writers have promulgated the myth so that even today, in his book The Discoverers, Daniel Boorstin manages to produce a totally misleading account (although he eventually gets Columbus right). His bias shows badly when he castigates Christians for thinking the world was flat when they did not and then praises the erudition of Chinese geographers who actually did believe it. The myth is so prevalent that the blurb on the back cover of the UK version of Umberto Eco's Serendipities, the editor repeats the myth even though within the book itself, Eco devotes a good deal of attention to debunking it!

The doyen of historians of Medieval Science, Edward Grant, covers the issue in his new book, God and Reason in the Middle Ages where he finds all educated people in the Middle Ages were well aware the Earth was a sphere. Perhaps today we can at last dispense with this patronising belief about the Christian Middle Ages.


Mike, the information is out there. Whether choose to believe it or not is another matter.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike, nobody knows what Yeshua looked like.

Answer: The Bible never gives any physical description of Christ. The closest thing we get to a description is in Isaiah 53:2b, ... Read More 

Mike, nobody knows what Yeshua looked like.

Answer: The Bible never gives any physical description of Christ. The closest thing we get to a description is in Isaiah 53:2b, “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.” All this tells us is that Jesus’ appearance was just like any other man's – He was ordinary-looking. Isaiah was here prophesying that the coming suffering Servant would arise in lowly conditions and wear none of the usual emblems of royalty, making His true identity visible only to the discerning eye of faith.

Isaiah further describes the appearance of Christ as He would appear as He was being scourged prior to His crucifixion. “His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness” (Isaiah 52:14). These words describe the inhuman cruelty He suffered to the point that He no longer looked like a human being (Matthew 26:67; 27:30; John 19:3). His appearance was so awful that people looked at Him in astonishment.

Most of the images we have of Jesus today are probably not accurate. Jesus was a Jew, so He likely had dark skin, dark eyes, and dark hair. This is a far cry from the blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned Jesus in many modern pictures. One thing is clear: if it were important for us to know what He really did look like, Matthew, Peter and John, who spent three years with Him, would certainly be able to give us an accurate description, as would His own brothers, James and Jude. Yet, these New Testament writers offer no details about His physical attributes.

 

Report Abuse
 

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.

In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that ... Read More 

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.

In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).

The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.

The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.
A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.

Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.

The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.

These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.

There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).

Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.

The Variants in the New Testament Manuscripts Are Minimal
In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants."

This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind.

But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear.

Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.
To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever.

Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.

For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.

Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.
Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

Mike, this is just a little bit of information on the bible. If you are sincere about wanting to know the truth you will have to do more research.The resourses are out there, you just need to apply yourself.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike...Dude, you rock.

I gotta hand it to you, I couldn't have articulated that point any better than that had I even remembered to touch upon it. ... Read More 

Mike...Dude, you rock.

I gotta hand it to you, I couldn't have articulated that point any better than that had I even remembered to touch upon it.

By the way, the widely known visage of jesus is stolen from a portrait of a 15th century Italian Prince. Oh, those wacky christians and their wildly blatant plagiarisms.

 

Report Abuse
 

I guess my main problem with the bible is that it has been under the control of men who created the inquisition and other horrors. I think that they probably did a bit of ... Read More 

I guess my main problem with the bible is that it has been under the control of men who created the inquisition and other horrors. I think that they probably did a bit of editing. After all, if they had no compunction whatsoever about killing millions of people, they probably didn't have any compunction about doing a bit of editing and revising here and there either. Then there is that european guy in all the paintings who is supposed to be Jesus. Somehow that messes with my credulity. I mean, if he looked anything like the people native to that region, it would go a long way to assuaging my doubts.

Then there was all that stuff about Gallileo Gallilea. I mean, the church put him under house arrest for like 20 years because he thought the earth circled the sun and not the other way around. Those are the same bunch of guys responsible for keeping the sacred truth. I've read that the Codex Sinaiticus, dating from the 3rd or 4th century A.D. is the oldest copy of the bible. We can't even date it to closer than 100 years, but we know that it is accurate? That doesn't make too much sense to me. Now, you may have a personal connection to Jesus, and he may have told you that you should believe that everything in the bible is 100 percent accurate. And I can get behind you there. I recognize that in this infinite and eternal universe, anything that is possible will occur. So, if a personal connection to a deity is possible, somewhere in time you will have it. But if you are just going by the word of some random preacher, my advice to you is, watch your wallet.

 

Report Abuse
 

Dusty, that is one of the biggest lies ever.

I'm more peaceful than the vast majority of the christians I've met. Stick that in your turkey and roast it.

 

Report Abuse
 

NO GOD----NO PEACE
KNOW GOD.....KNOW PEACE.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart,and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, ... Read More 

NO GOD----NO PEACE
KNOW GOD.....KNOW PEACE.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart,and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths...Proverbs 3:5-6

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

 

Report Abuse
 

Actually, Becky, I value equality and liberty quite a lot. You find neither in the modern United States. This system failed a long, long time ago, and we're all living in ... Read More 

Actually, Becky, I value equality and liberty quite a lot. You find neither in the modern United States. This system failed a long, long time ago, and we're all living in a government created illusion.

Even more to the point, the founding fathers themselves were disappointed in how things turned out a mere ten years after the inception of the government system they created.

You assume that My idea of a perfect system, or rather, my support of The Venus Project, means that I advocate communism. However, communist countries have a monetary system, not a resource based one. Communism comes down to how much the common man can produce. In the Venus system everything that can possibly undergo full robotic automation does, and distribution of resources is completely equal. Resources and housing would be given to everyone in spite of age, gender, race, creed, or orientation. Surely this is far more equal than the current system we live in or any other that has existed.

Religions condemn too many people. It can never support a system of true equality.

By the way, I don't like China. Just one idea they've come up with. And of course abortions would be used when birth control failed.

Also, The criteria for becoming a parent would be consistent and solid. If you prove to have abusive or neglecting tendencies, below average intelligence, or the maturity of a preteen then you're not getting a birth permit. Seems fair. Even better, a ban on having kids until all the kids in orphanages or adoption agencies all find good homes. That's a lot more humane than allowing all of them to spend their entire lives neglected in a horrible system.


Who says pride is altogether a bad thing? Everything in moderation. Jealousy over goods and resources wouldn't exist because everything would be evenly distributed. Jealousy over looks and such could be abolished through education, just like religion can be.

God doesn't exist, and has never decided anything. Everything that has ever affected the course of mankind has been the result of mankind's choices.

The founding fathers had some good ideas, and a lot of them could transfer over. With some changes in the text of course. For example, instead of "Created equal with certain inalienable rights" (Which is a joke, cuz if that was true There would have never been a need for any of the civil rights movements this county has gone through, or the current civil rights issue of gay marriage, which is opposed by who? Religious institutions.) Should be changed to "Born equal with certain inalienable rights."

Honestly, I see absolutely no redeeming qualities in neither religion, nor any of the current systems, both economic and political, that exist today.

What I don't understand is why people are letting the government bail out corporations instead of helping the common citizens of this country.

Watch Zeitgeist: Addendum. It gives a detailed explanation of the monetary and banking systems. It will definitely change your mind about the system.

By the way, Mike Clements...I think that you should know that Lily has a little problem...that will definitely keep her out of your beautiful little "heaven" (It really astounds me that in the modern age people think they'll go to the sky when they die, when we know there's nothing above the clouds, aside from ever-thinning atmosphere.). She likes to read and watch gay japanese porn graphic novels and anime, also known as Yaoi Hentai. Surely, since the bible condemns homosexuality in numerous places, this makes her a pretty bad christian.

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny, on what do you base your beliefs? Pride and jealousy are not learned, but innate. Consider this: If all material things could somehow be evenly distributed among ... Read More 

Danny, on what do you base your beliefs? Pride and jealousy are not learned, but innate. Consider this: If all material things could somehow be evenly distributed among the people, pride and jealousy would still be present. How?
If one person is perceived as more attractive than another, there will be pride and jealousy; just as it would be if some people were more popular because of what kind of personality they had. How would you solve that? Think that one all the way through before you answer.

Who would judge the readiness of a person for parenthood? Readiness standards for parenthood vary widely among people. People that you would think unfit, would likely qualify for many others. Intelligence, maturity, abuse, neglect, etc are all relative. One mature adult's discipline is another's abuse.

What would you do to the offspring of people who's birth control failed? Undoubtedly, abort them as they've done in China whom you seem to admire so much. And how would you propose to enforce such strict population control if not for a large and powerful government? If it becomes the people's responsibilty to legislate and enforce, they would become a government unto themselves; which is what we're supposed to have now. Our federal government isn't supposed to have as much power as it does. Through the vices of human nature, people have used politics to acquire more power. This has happened often throughout history. The founding fathers were VERY well educated about the past and used their knowledge to set up the ideal government. Their government was based on the premise that God created all people equal and gave them rights. In your system, there is no equality, but fit and unfit people. You are no different than the people described in "Survival of the Fittest" in the editorial section of this paper.

Just as communist leaders, you would place man in God's place to decide who is worthy of life and who isn't, who deserves material goods and what quantity, and what the moral standards of society should be. Judging by your posts, I doubt you would have advantage in your own system. You would be another common person needing to be controlled by the all knowing and all powerful government.

Karl Marx's experiment hasn't turned out to be as good as some people thought it would, but maybe you should go live in a Communist nation and see for yourself. This nation was established for people who love liberty. You obviously abhor liberty.
This system isn't perfect, but if you're looking for perfection on this side of Heaven, you will always be disappointed. You need to read up on your history and stop spreading ideas that are based on ignorance as fact. If you can't take the freedom, get out of America!

Last, don't confuse God with religion. While religion is often centered around a deity, it doesn't have to be. Webster's collegiate dictionary defines religion as: a cause, principal, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. You have a religion all your own in which you are your own god albeit a natural (instead of supernatural) one. Yet another man creates a religion? Bet you wouldn't think it was yourself, right?

If you put your faith in the innate goodness of human nature, you will be disappointed. Even highly intelligent, mature people do evil things with the best intentions.

 

Report Abuse
 

JPC, The difference between the mass murders of Stalin and Trotsky and the acts committed by the church are just that: Trotsky and Stalin were independent of any religious ... Read More 

JPC, The difference between the mass murders of Stalin and Trotsky and the acts committed by the church are just that: Trotsky and Stalin were independent of any religious institution and were looking out more for themselves and their fledgling political systems, where as the Crusades and other such actions were more about spreading an established religious institution and destroying any enemies it had in the name of god.

The number of deaths caused by Christianity alone far outweigh those murdered by Trotsky and Stalin put together.

By the way, the jews in the camps starved due to cut off supply routes and other such lacks of supplies. It wasn't the result of an act of genocide. By the way, saying the holocaust didn't happen is not the same as saying they weren't put into camps. We did the same thing with the Japanese, throwing them into internment camps. You don't hear them whining much if at all compared to the jews, who tend to whine about how victimized their people are, even if the person complaining wasn't a part of any "suffering" generation.

I personally don't take much stock in Eugenics. In fact, once again, throughout our country's history the natives were slaughtered for being "filthy heathens."

While you and SK haven't committed any atrocities personally, there are plenty of people in this country that would commit such atrocities in the name of christianity if the church leaders called for it, without so much a flinching thought.

I'll say it again, the documentary Jesus Camp is proof alone that religion breeds nothing but hive-minded ignorance when applied fundamentally. It's the same as the Islamic indoctrination in the middle east as well as its spread through Europe.

 

Report Abuse
 

Sk,

Isn't it obvious that scientific progress would be one of the continuing forefront goals of the Venus Project? That takes care of that issue. ... Read More 

Sk,

Isn't it obvious that scientific progress would be one of the continuing forefront goals of the Venus Project? That takes care of that issue.
The Inquisition was more about controlling the people than actual belief in a religious doctrine. The royal family saw that Catholicism was a strong, powerful religion, and decided to use that as a force to unite the people. What I'm doing is nothing at all like the Inquisition, because the means of achieving the end is completely different and non-violent.

All of those traits you mentioned like Pride and Jealousy are primarily learned traits. What would there be to be jealous of if everything was evenly distributed?

As for politics, all that would be needed is a skeletal government with extremely limited power, which would exclude even the power to write up new laws. That would be the responsibility of the people.

I'll give you that a completely non-violent society would be truly impossible. However, it would be completely possible to abolish full-scale wars, leaving small skirmishes between a few individuals.

As far as how I would control the population, I have a few things in mind. Firstly, a limit on the amount of children people can have. One or two, max.
Secondly, requirements that would need to be met in order to be able to have offspring, such as Maturity, Intelligence, and tests for things such as tendency to be an abusive or neglecting parent. Use of contraceptives would be Mandatory.

I don't honestly see how removing religion would make for a hive-minded society. Quite the contrary, as nobody would have thoughts influenced by religious doctrine (Which makes for a hive mind more than anything else).

Most of the flaws you list are problems that plague the current system anyways. They would be mostyly eliminated in the Venus Project System.

 

Report Abuse
 

The concept of a world of peace and harmony, without wars and strife, without poverty or elite, without social stratification, and without the many “necessary evils” like ... Read More 

The concept of a world of peace and harmony, without wars and strife, without poverty or elite, without social stratification, and without the many “necessary evils” like bureaucracies (yes, even religious bureaucracies), corporations, and militaries would be something I would certainly like to see. This is the goal of the Zeitgeist movement (Venus Project). I’m not a pessimist; just a realist that thinks there are major flaws with the concept. Your stance on the issues discussed in this blog is precisely why the Venus Project is doomed to fail. I will point out some the of hypocrisy of your statements not as a personal attack but a chance for you to take a much-needed introspective look if you wish to be an effective proponent of the Venus Project.
The Venus Project assumes that if we eliminated the scarcity of the things we need to survive by using technology to evenly distribute the world’s resources instead of a monetary system, then all the competition, greed, and corruption would go away and we’d all settle into a peaceful, global civilization without crime, corruption, nations, etc. The concept ignores how the human characteristics of pride, vanity, perception of others, judgmental of others, which would disrupt the social harmony. Some people would take the opportunity to exploit such a society just to have the power. Implementation amid existing conflicting issues could cause segments of populations to stray from the fundamentals that are intended to make the Venus Project work. Society would naturally react to such disruptions for the legitimate purpose of restoring the harmony. They would have to institute a system of rules (doctrine), enforcement, and education for the greater good of all. The Venus Project recognizes these aberrations and the need to control them but is silent on how exactly it would be done.
Compare this now to Christianity. Early Christians lived in communal groups, sharing resources, not driven by money, power and greed. This system worked as long as people followed the teachings of Christ. Early on problems occurred during implementation of as some segments of society did not fully embrace the concept and either mixed in their pagan ways and otherwise perverted the original message. Religious organizations formed in an effort to control these aberrations and restore harmony through interpretation (doctrine), enforcement and education (yes, exactly the same thing you are doing). The intent was not evil, but considered necessary for the good of all.
The Inquisition for example was an attempt to correct perceived aberrations. As history shows us, the zeal to do the right thing sometimes clouds judgment and some individuals were clearly out-of-line. As you say, history repeats itself and the same thing will happen with the Venus Project. Some people will surely get out of line in their zeal to preserve the fundamentals that promote peace and harmony. They’ll believe their actions, sometimes no matter how egregious, are justified. (Just like abortion center bombers which I abhor and would take every action to prevent it, even if it meant standing in front to protect it-although I would probably wear an anti-abortion t-shirt).
You identify religion and politics as dividing factors. For something like the Venus Project, everything could potentially be a dividing factor. If I were pursuing my own scientific research in this utopia that by its nature began to consume vast quantities of resources, how would society react? There would be instant division between those who believe my research is necessary and those who believe I’m taking an unfair share. Who would be right? Who decides? (uh oh…sounds like the need for a governmental body thus politics). Who determines what is considered progress? Wouldn’t those who lost out in the decision feel discriminated against? Peace and harmony is starting to erode. You rail against religion as blocking what you see as “progress.” So you want to eliminate it. Isn’t that discrimination? How could you possibly educate and entire people to believe exactly what you believe so that there would be no division? Talk about a hive-minded society!
Now you’ve taken it a step further to give us an idea of what this Venus Project world would look like. You would eliminate freedom of speech by eliminating religious broadcasts. You wouldn’t be able to eliminate religion completely (although you would like to) but you’d be able to suppress it so that it has no influence (discrimination in other words). With religion out of the way, you can now work on eliminating other problems. Over-population is an interesting one. How would you propose to do this? Whatever is decided, even in a non-religious society, would be very divisive.
It’s really not as simple as you think. But if you want to continue to pursue this idea by “educating” people out of religion you may do so. I don’t think Jacque Fresco would be impressed with your methods.

 

Report Abuse
 

“Any living being possesses an enormous amount of 'intelligence,' very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this 'intelligence' ... Read More 

“Any living being possesses an enormous amount of 'intelligence,' very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this 'intelligence' is called 'information,' but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of any other organelle in each cell. This 'intelligence' is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it.”

Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation, (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 2.

 

Report Abuse
 

"Eugenics, the belief that certain “genetic” traits are good and others bad, is associated in the public mind mostly with the extreme eugenics policies of Adolf Hitler, ... Read More 

"Eugenics, the belief that certain “genetic” traits are good and others bad, is associated in the public mind mostly with the extreme eugenics policies of Adolf Hitler, which ultimately led to the Holocaust. The study of eugenics did not begin with Hitler or his German scientists, but rather was first promoted by Sir Francis Galton, in England. Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, who expanded on Darwin’s theories and applied them to the human population. In an article entitled "Hereditary Character and Talent" (published in two parts in MacMillan's Magazine, vol. 11, November 1864 and April 1865, pp. 157-166, 318-327), Galton expressed his frustration that no one was breeding a better human: “If a twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create! We might introduce prophets and high priests of civilization into the world, as surely as we can propagate idiots by mating cretins. Men and women of the present day are, to those we might hope to bring into existence, what the pariah dogs of the streets of an Eastern town are to our own highly-bred varieties.” Galton in the same article described Africans and Native Americans in derogatory terms making it clear which racial group he thought was superior. Francis Galton, the founder of the Eugenics Society, spoke hopefully about persuading people with desirable genes to marry and have large families. Galton's successor at the helm of the Eugenics Society was Major Leonard Darwin (1850-1943), a son of Charles Darwin. Leonard Darwin, who ran the Eugenics Society until 1928, made the transition from positive to negative eugenics, and promoted plans for lowering the birthrate of the unfit."

Danny, whether Darwin intended his work to be the impetus for evil or not,does not change the fact that it was. Hilter, was also influenced by another atheist,Friedrich Nietzsche.
"The sick are the great danger of man, not the evil, not the 'beasts of prey.' They who are from the outset botched, oppressed, broken those are they, the weakest are they, who most undermine the life beneath the feet of man, who instill the most dangerous venom and skepticism into our trust in life, in man, in ourselves…Here teem the worms of revenge and vindictiveness; here the air reeks of things secret and unmentionable; here is ever spun the net of the most malignant conspiracy – the conspiracy of the sufferers against the sound and the victorious; here is the sight of the victorious hated."
Now again, Friedrich probably didn't mean for someone like Hitler to take his work and use it to commit mass murder, as a matter of fact it was Freidrich's sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche that
censored and edited her brother's work to further her own anti-semetic interest and to reconcile Nietzsche's work with Richard Wagner's. But, F N is not completely innocent,
" Although Santaniello clarifies that the meaning of Nietzsche's concepts were distorted by the Nazis, he argues that it was the violent language that described the slave revolt, and the Jews, that instigated the Nazis perversion of Nietzsche's literature (Santaniello, 31).

Now, Danny, according to you I should categorically condem Nietzsche and Darwin and all who follow their teachings, based on what a monster like Hilter and others have done with that same teaching.

And as far as the Holocaust not actually happening, I would like for you to tell all those Jews, many who are still alive today and have numbers tattoed on their bodies that it didn't happen. Danny the last time I checked, starving someone to death is the same as shooting them.

Also, I have, like SK, never commited a heinous crime or assaulted anyone, even when they had a different worldview from my own. And yes if I had information that someone was planning to bomb an abortion clinic, I would do everything possible to see that it did not happen.

 

Report Abuse
 

SK,

Usage does have some influence on the meaning of a word. The character of Ms. Carmody in the movie "The Mist" Is a prime example of a hardcore fundamentalist ... Read More 

SK,

Usage does have some influence on the meaning of a word. The character of Ms. Carmody in the movie "The Mist" Is a prime example of a hardcore fundamentalist christian. I have met many people like that. In that same fashion, Stalin, Trotsky, and Kim Jon Il are Political Fundamentalists, in that they would rather get rid of any threat to their political system through mass murder or other atrocious means, because in their minds that system is the only right one.

My "Sweeping Generalizations" are based on the christians I've met. They're also based on things I've seen in documentaries such as "Jesus Camp." Stereotypes tend to reinforce themselves, really.

I'm actually quite pleased with your response because now we're at a point where I can very easily explain my reasons for attacking religion and disproving the various holy canons each one has.

1. You say that you can claim the same thing about committing crime or acts of violence as a christian as I can about being Atheist.
You claim that you would also denounce any sect that promotes violence.
Tell me, Sk, would you be willing to stand outside of an Abortion clinic to ensure that it was not bombed by a christian extremist?
2. Certainly, there are plenty of people who at the moment, being part of a religion, christianity in the case of this debate, non-violent and such.

However, since history repeats itself, I'm quite certain if a holy war began the vast majority of christians would be out there mass-murdering their religious opponents.

And since history repeats itself, and Religion is a dividing factor (Despite Winston's insistence on John 3:16 being christianity in a nutshell, it's obvious that since there are so many sects this is not the case, It would be much easier to prevent such occurances by removing religion altogether.

It's a numbers game. You people can vote, and you let your religious views influence your vote. This does, quite often, hinder progress, both in the areas of medical science and civil rights.

An example here is the recent elections, which resulted in gay marriage bans in California, Florida, and one other state...can't think of the name off hand. The majority of the campaign funding for the support of propositions that resulted in these bans, came from religious institutions.

It's an issue of discrimination, that is perpetuated by the church, just like inter-racial marriages or Women's Suffrage.

And just like those two issues, the Church is the biggest opposition to such an idea.

And just like those two things, allowing gay marriage isn't going to ruin the country, or society, or anything.

Instead of letting religion influence such decisions, people should let the thought of how they'd feel being discriminated against the same way be the determining factor.

3. You say the atrocious acts are the acts of men, and aren't advocated by religion. Here's the problem. It's a three part problem.
1- Mankind Created religion and its gods
2- Men Preach, Advocate, and Spread religion.
Religious leaders are all human.
3- All members of religion are human.

So when you think about it, being that religion and the atrocious acts are both the result of the actions of humans, it's obvious that It's all human error, and that religion, having always been deep down a fear-based system of control, is merely the tool that spurred on such acts.

Religion is constantly and easily corrupted. Just like politics. And it's for the same reason.

As I've already acknowledged, it's impossible to completely remove religion. But it is entirely possible to reduce the number of people following a religion to such an unsubstantial amount that it will be completely unknown that it's being followed anymore. That idea fits in with the " You can't tell anyone what to believe" concept of the Venus Project, which is a project that I would love to see at least starting to be effectively accomplished within my lifetime.

Speaking of not telling people what to believe in, another reason I want to debunk religion is to slow and/or stop it's spread. There are some easy ways to do this, really.

Stop religious broadcasts of all kinds. People who aren't christian or even religious at all can be converted fairly easily in times of emotional trauma/weakness just by hearing some preacher's speech on the radio or while channel surfing on the TV. And for a good majority of religious people, including the person who this debate was intended to turn away from religion, it is merely an emotional crutch.

As I've stated numerous times, one of the major problems I have with Monotheistic faiths is that all of their Canons say to "Go forth and Spread the word." Well, Enough of that. And while you may say that what I'm doing is exactly the same, I have to tell you, it's not. I'm just trying to stem the tide of such ideals.

It's simple. If you remove religion, you remove a whole slew of issues that divide us all. With those issues out of the way, we can focus on solving the other real, immediate problems that plague society. Like Politics, the Money system, Over-Population, and Food Shortage/Poverty.

Removing religion and party politics, will allow for a better understanding and unification of the people of the world, as well as make it easier for something like The Venus Project to actually work.

By the way, SK. the only reason I brought up extraterrestrials is because of your statement about the place of Humans in the animal kingdom and all of our developmental achievements being the reason you take stock in the existence of god and the creation story. By the way, you never did answer the question I posed, even if it was a mere Hypothetical.

What would happen to your belief in god if an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence made contact with us?

Oh, and to Disgusted...I'm not even CLOSE to being a hippy, and I don't consider myself Liberal, Conservative, or Otherwise. Both sides have some good ideas, but the majority is bullcrap.

I can't stand the concept of Political correctness, but I also can't stand the idea of keeping the rich rich while the poor get poorer, or the idea of being pro-life (You should call it what it is..Anti-choice), or the idea of military expansion. Etc.

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny, I agree with your assertion that being atheist does not make one able (or more likely) to commit atrocities. I think JPC is simply presenting evidence to counter ... Read More 

Danny, I agree with your assertion that being atheist does not make one able (or more likely) to commit atrocities. I think JPC is simply presenting evidence to counter the many atrocities that you have blamed on religion. You state, “I'm an Atheist…I have never committed a crime, nor have I ever assaulted anyone, or commit any heinous acts of violence. This alone disproves that claim of yours.” I can say exactly the same thing as a Christian, so that disproves any claim of yours that being Christian has anything to do with crimes or atrocities committed by Christians.
JPC, Winston, myself and others have been trying to show you that your sweeping generalities (or stereotypes) cannot be applied as fact to indict an entire classification of people. You continue to blast all religion as evil by citing examples of atrocities committed by people that have connections to religion (whether or not they themselves are actually truly religious). The counter argument is of course to show even one example of an atheist who has done the same thing to DISPROVE both notions. So the existence of some evil atheists does not mean all atheist are evil. The existence of some evil theists does not mean all theists are evil. Your inability to see that logic is probably what frustrates those Christians that you have debated. Every single example you have provided such as the crusades, inquisition, witch trials, and all others is due to the actions of men. Religious doctrine did not instruct people to go to war or commit atrocities.
You also say “The actions of Trotsky and Stalin had nothing to do with being Atheist, and everything to do with political fundamentalism.” I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. Webster’s defines fundamentalism as: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles. Political fundamentalism I assume means strict and literal adherence to a set of laws or rules (the Constitution perhaps?). I fail to see how this makes one commit crimes unless those rules or laws direct one to do it. Atrocities of Stalin, Hitler, Inquisitors, wars (including the Crusades) had to do with individuals or states seeking increase power and influence. Some used religion to gain popular support (to convince an ignorant or apathetic population that what they were doing was right).
If you find current religious doctrine that instructs and promotes members to commit crimes or atrocities, I will join you in condemning that sect. I will not condemn ALL religions (go back to paragraph to for the reason why). I know of no mainstream Christian religion that promotes any kind of violence. Even the much vilified Inquisition was not the result of doctrine that directed such atrocities. You can read online a very frank (warts and all) discussion on the topic in the Catholic Encylopedia. While you are there, look up Mosiac Legislation before you write any rebuttal citing the Old Testament.
In fact, the practice of New Testament Christian would achieve the same goal with regard to social harmony as the Venus Project of the Zeitgeist movement which states:
“The concepts presented by The Venus Project are in no way inconsistent with most of the religious teachings of the world. Perhaps the major difference is that we would like actually to transform these lofty ideals into a working reality for the nations of our planet.”
The Venus Project is the plan to achieve a system “which will continuously grow in a positive way, where negative social consequences, such as social stratification, war, biases, elitism and criminal activity will be constantly reduced and, idealistically, eventually become nonexistent within the spectrum of human behavior itself.” This is indeed a very lofty goal that admittedly no religion has accomplished on a large scale. Unfortunately, the whole concept is flawed because it oversimplifies human nature, especially the Scarcity concept.
Regarding religion, the movement also says, “It isn't the right of any person to tell another what to believe, for no human has a full understanding of anything.” That is something you should keep in mind if you respond, Danny.

 

Report Abuse
 

JPC,

The actions of Trotsky and Stalin had nothing to do with being Atheist, and everything to do with political fundamentalism.

You claim that accepting Evolution ... Read More 

JPC,

The actions of Trotsky and Stalin had nothing to do with being Atheist, and everything to do with political fundamentalism.

You claim that accepting Evolution and being Atheist makes one able to commit horrid atrocities and insanely violent crimes. What makes you think this? Survival of the Fittest has nothing to do with mass murders or the actions of political fundamentalists. If one is a dictator and wants to quell any possible rebellion, one would kill half his citizens if that was what it would take to prevent an uprising through fear. I'm an Atheist, and knowing the facts about Evolution, know that it's the truth of our origins. I have never committed a crime, nor have I ever assaulted anyone, or commit any heinous acts of violence. This alone disproves that claim of yours.

I'll tell you what I have done though. I HAVE had to defend myself against Christians who couldn't beat me in a debate or answer the questions I posed and became frustrated and violent when their conversion attempts failed. And even in those cases, I didn't do anything drastic, just what I needed to do to be able to walk away.

Most murderers in this country were at least raised christian, and I think that says something. Christianity really doesn't have any accountability for ones actions due to the "Repent and all shall be forgiven" clause. People who commit crimes are almost always subscribe to one religion or another, and most commonly christianity in the U.S.

You'll be hard pressed to find any Atheist criminals in the United States today, and even throughout history, much less any murderers or mass murderers.

Survival of the fittest isn't open for interpretation, and suggesting that it is an idea that was responsible for the actions of Hitler, Stalin, and Trotsky is pure lunacy. Survival of the fittest means that specie that cannot adapt to a changing environment are inevitably going to become extinct, because that specie will no longer be fit for the environment.

Humans have overcome this because as a specie we have learned to adapt the environment to us.

In fact, I covered this already in an earlier response to SK. I'll copy and paste that here:


They're (SKs list Didn't include Trotsky, but it did include Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Jong Il amongst others) not really Atheists, and they committed the same sorts of atrocities as religions for the same underlying reason: Fundamentalism. Politics is the second worst thing mankind has come up with, because not a single system works. At least not by itself. Actually Stalin is the only Atheist regime ruler you've named there, really.

As for medical advancements, not so much my friend. Most pre-medical science medicinal and medical advances came from non-christian, non-monastic groups. Although I suppose you lumped all organized religions in as one, pagan religion quite as organized as modern monastic faiths.

Up until maybe 90 years ago hospitals were unsanitary barbaric places with high death rates. Christians sure didn't make the revised versions of hospitals with better sanitation. Hell, the christian church was responsible for the explosion of some of the worst epidemics in history INCLUDING the Black Plague.

How, you might be thinking? Well, The plague was spread by rats and the fleas they carried. The rats had a huge population because garbage was strewn about the streets to rot away on its own, as trash removal is fairly recent (circa 1930's). The church regarded cats to be witches familiars and instruments of the devil and blamed them for the plague. They held mass cat burnings. Due to their lack of scientific advancement (Of which the church has always been the biggest opponent, hence the claim that the church is responsible for significant medical advances is a crock.) they didn't know that cats are genetically unable to contract, carry, or transmit the plague. Cats are also natural predators of rats and other rodents, so the lack of cats caused the population to explode, hence the disease spread farther even more rapidly.

Also, as for the death rate, I hope you're talking cumulatively. The Crusades still caused more deaths, and given the church's involvement in the spread of the plague, I'd still say organized religion has done worse no matter HOW you cut it, especially Monotheistic, Abrahamic faiths.

IF it wasn't for the church, there'd have been no dark ages. When Emperor Constantine made Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire, the empire split in two. This was the beginning of the end of one of most advanced and widespread empires the world has ever known, and the shining light of civilization at the time. When The empire fell, the dark ages began.

Marcus Aurelius was never as bad of a warmonger as the church, and anyone who's persecuted Christians did so for plenty of reasons. It was a threat to the established religions with which governments kept people in line (Which is all religion is for, to make people mental slaves and have them behave a certain way.), as well as the fact that there was so much propaganda against anyone who wasn't a hebrew.

I fail to see what the church had to do with the Industrial Revolution. That was the result of engineering/science, not the church. Abolition of slavery being the churches idea, or the result of religion, is a crock. Abolishment of slavery in most countries was done for political gain more than anything else. Especially for Abraham Lincoln, who, himself owned slaves.

As far as charities go, Charity organizations are all underhanded and corrupt. They pocket most of the donation money and church-based charities are the biggest offenders in that regard.

It's a moot point. The church has always done whatever it could to block medical science, especially today. Embryonic Stem Cells could have cured hundreds if not thousands of diseases and ailments by now but of course the church had to screw that up with its flawed and outdated system of "morals." Morals are a religious construct and a lot of times are pretty unethical.

In regards to the fact that I quoted Marcus Aurelius, the truth and wisdom of a quote such as that oftentimes transcends the actions of those who say them, especially when they're as dead on as that.

Religion still hasn't done much to benefit mankind. Especially when you consider how severely corrupt the church is and has almost always been, and how fast its branching organizations become and stay corrupt until they are no longer under the influence or control of the church.


Fundamentalism of any kind is a threat to the future and peace of mankind, as history has shown. History, as they say, repeats itself. But that's only because mankind allows it through repeating the same cycles of religious and political fundamentalism.

Politics is as big a problem as religion, but since Religion developed first, it must be eliminated first. No deity is real, nor ever has been.

You can indeed judge a philosophy by it's abuses when that philosophy is a religion with a constant and long track record of such abuses. Even if you combine the acts of Trotsky, Stalin, and Hitler (There's plenty of scientific proof that the holocaust never happened, and that all those jews merely starved to death hence the emaciated state of all the corpses.)the number of casualties still doesn't equal that of the Christian Church.

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny, I thought you only dealt in science based on what can be tested and observed. Now you are talking ETs which there is absolutely NO evidence of. You are an absolute ... Read More 

Danny, I thought you only dealt in science based on what can be tested and observed. Now you are talking ETs which there is absolutely NO evidence of. You are an absolute hypocrite. If you want to talk probability based on the numbers of celestial objects out there, then you also need to talk of the probability of life starting up by complete accident. If you want to talk probabilities, then preponderance of the evidence would say that it is probable that Jesus Christ did in fact exist.

You also need to brush up on your science. The Law of Matter/Mass Conservation only applies to closed systems so that whole statement about matter always existing and always will is completely false. You would be more correct to say energy instead of matter. But then, what is that energy?

Finally, I know you were addressing Winston but you have no right to be upset about insults they way you have been flinging them around against Christians. I think most of us have been quite tolerant of your views and insulting comments, so you should do the same. Better yet, you should refrain from the insults as well.

 

Report Abuse
 

Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky (1879-1940), left, was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918-20, he used the force of the ... Read More 

Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky (1879-1940), left, was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918-20, he used the force of the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided was an enemy of the Soviet State.

He confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. Makhno.

He inflicted torture and violence against Christians, mercilessly trashed churches, and led the Society of the Godless to get rid of religion.

Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. He said: “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” He said that Darwin's ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin's ideas.

Like Hitler, Trotsky was a tyrant who saw Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific justification for dismissing God's moral laws. He clearly saw that the two ideas, God and evolution, were totally incompatible. His atrocities were consistent with this belief, for when you do away with the idea of the God who created you and who has given instructions for the right way to live, there is no reason to avoid despicably violent crimes. Even if this means murdering everyone who disagrees with you.

Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), was studying at Tiflis Theological Seminary when he started to read the works of Charles Darwin. One of his friends later said in a book that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist. The theological seminary expelled Stalin at the age of 19 because of his revolutionary connections.

Stalin is regarded as the worst mass-murderer the world has ever seen. With God out of his way after embracing Darwin's evolutionary ideas, Stalin had no restrictions of conscience or morals. He set up a terrorist police State, persecuted and murdered innocent communists, and instituted trials in which most surviving Bolshevik leaders were found guilty of treachery and were executed. He encouraged “Stalinist adoration,” which included naming cities after him (such as Stalingrad, Staliniri, and Stalinogorsk), and advocated homage given to him in virtually all public speeches and in print. He murdered Leon Trotsky.

Darwin's “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped Stalin's approach to society. Oppression, atheism, self-glorification, and the blood of his many innocent victims flowed from Stalin's rejection of his Creator after reading and believing Darwin's evolutionary theories.

And the most tragic aspect of all this? That while Stalin, Trotsky, and Hitler were turning their backs on their Creator, they were building their murderous, racist philosophies on a lie.

Hitler may have not been an atheist, but he was no christian; and just because you may wear another man's clothes, or steal his identity does not mean you represent him or that he is guilty of any crime you commit. You should not judge a philosophy by it's abuses.

 

Report Abuse
 

SK, I have one thing to say to you in regards to where things came from:

Matter can neither be created, nor destroyed. That's basic science.

So, that manes that every ... Read More 

SK, I have one thing to say to you in regards to where things came from:

Matter can neither be created, nor destroyed. That's basic science.

So, that manes that every basic particle has always existed and always will, as base particles.

I have a question for you, SK. Do you mean to tell me that in the vast universe we live in, that Terra Firma is the only planet with "intelligent" life?

Probability states that there are millions of other planets at least that have advanced, intelligent civilizations on them.

So, therefore, that little bit about Human development and place in the animal kingdom on this planet being the logic that leads you to believe in god, then it's pretty flawed. I mean, Say we were to make contact with an extraterrestrial species in your lifetime? What could you base your belief in god in, since that species would clearly be more advanced than ours?

The only things I say "I don't Wanna hear X" about are things I've already addressed. That has nothing to do with zealousness, and everything to do with not wanting to cover something more than once in this debate.

 

Report Abuse
 

Winston, you really don't get it. I said don't bring up Stalin because I already countered that argument in the comments a few letters back.

Don't insult me by referring ... Read More 

Winston, you really don't get it. I said don't bring up Stalin because I already countered that argument in the comments a few letters back.

Don't insult me by referring to me as "Danny the god" ever again. I don't care how sarcastic or satirical you're being.

This is a debate, and if you're not here to debate then you don't really belong in the thread.

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny,
You sound like a snot-nosed liberal hippy. You suck at debates. Take a class, and comment later.

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny has to keep the debate in a box that stays within his comfort zone. This is typical of many zealots, theist or atheist. They are so radical in their belief that they ... Read More 

Danny has to keep the debate in a box that stays within his comfort zone. This is typical of many zealots, theist or atheist. They are so radical in their belief that they lose all objectivity and can't afford a foray into the unknown. Loss of objectivity causes the following:
- Only considers facts that support their position
- Disregards arguments to the contrary (ie, "I don't want to hear X")
- Displays a tendency to contort or take statements out of context if doing so appears to strengthen their case
- Makes glaring generalities (ie, ALL Christians do X or Y)

Based on the statements he's made here, Danny has committed every one of these errors in his research. As such, anything Danny claims should be viewed with extreme skepticism and assumed to be false. Same goes for any other radical.

Danny says he has taken his review of the bible, science, and history to arrive at the conclusion that there is no God. That's fine. That's his opinion. But nothing he has provided, nor any human being has ever provided, is conclusive proof that God does not exist. Some atheists that I have read acknowledge this, even Richard Dawkins (much to the dismay of radicals).

For me it all boils down to this: Where did everything come from? Nothing I've read from scientific or even atheist sources can address this question. Every evolutionary theory chain of events starts from somewhere other that the beginning but never offers an explanation of how it began. In fact many have taken Danny's tact of "And don't give me the argument: where did the molecules come from, or the atoms, or the particles that make up the atoms, etc." The Big Bang Theory with it's infinitely small but super massive particle has been pushed aside in favor of some super hot ball of radiation. Either way, how did that initial stuff get there? That question, along with the vast superiority of humans in the animal kindom, and events in world history lead me to believe there is a God. Because they cannot scientifically prove otherwise, Danny and other radical atheists should allow me to have my belief and to have it offered as a possibile explanation for the origin of the universe. Funny, they use the same tactics (lobbies, lawsuits, propaganda, etc) to squelch Creationism or ID that Danny blasts Christians for.

So, Danny, using your own words "since all scientific evidence is obtained through observation and testing," give me the scientific evidence that something started from nothing, all by itself, and began the chain of events you call evolution. Prove that first before you tell me I can't say that a supreme being set it motion.

 

Report Abuse
 

I am glad to know that the worst atheists are not as bad as Christian – I would just love to debate that; but they again, it is just another one of Danny’s delusion interludes ... Read More 

I am glad to know that the worst atheists are not as bad as Christian – I would just love to debate that; but they again, it is just another one of Danny’s delusion interludes in to his God status. You can’t win with Danny the God; he is right and everyone else is wrong. Don’t bring up Stalin because it might crack that pipe Danny is living in.

Danny, in order to have a debate you have to present facts. Something you have inability to demonstrate. So, I refuse to have a debate of wits with an unarmed person. Therefore, I, normally, do not comment as you present idiotic ideas not worth comment. However, the lies you state must be addressed and that is not debate that is keeping you honest. You have yet to counter anything that I have presented.

Your insistence to be “THE MIGHTY WIZARD” who knows all and controls what the debate is or who can comment on this blog further demonstrates your inability to live in the real world. God didn’t give you omnipotent knowledge. I hope you share your blog with your friends. If they are good friends, they will let you know how bizarre and illogical your thoughts are. I have been in many circles with very intelligent people and so far the ranting and ravings you have presented are just that and would never be worthy of intellectual debate. Instead your arguments play much better with the hateful people in the world that claim they are the truth and light but have no promise of anything other then hatred to things they don’t understand. You’re delusional view of the world is a cult mindset worse than Christianity.

Here is another thought for you to show how crazy it is to state emphatically without reservation someone did not exist. Did King Arthur exist? Supposedly, he existed 600 years after Jesus. Yet, scholars debate whether he existed or not. So, your lunatic insistent that some people who think they are so smart but on the fringe are 100% correct represents your desire for your belief system to be true. Yes, your belief system. If you can’t prove King Arthur existed, how do you provide Jesus did not exist? I personally can understand why people believe in Jesus or that King Arthur existed. In my case, I think they both did exist. The difference is Jesus is my King and arisen from the dead. Just to let you know I feel sorry for you. You have a life with no purpose and no hope other than destroy Christianity. It isn’t going to happen. It hasn't happened in 2000 years and your feeble minded attempt is God’s way of making Christians stronger.

 

Report Abuse
 

IF what you said was true, Dusty, then there would not be any religious fundamentalism. Unfortunately there is, and the only way to move towards uniting the species as a ... Read More 

IF what you said was true, Dusty, then there would not be any religious fundamentalism. Unfortunately there is, and the only way to move towards uniting the species as a whole, is to remove all religions from society as much as possible, and reducing the number of people following such religions as Christianity or Islam to the same amount of those still worshiping ancient Egyptian gods.

I believe this can be accomplished through comparison of the bible to other ancient mythologies, where it becomes obvious that the bible is nothing more than stolen mythology. The list of deities with stories involving the key points of the jesus story that came long before anything in the bible is too long for me to list.

The only other things that truly divide mankind is part politics and political fundamentalism, and money. We have the technology and resources to live in a resource based economy. I suggest you watch Zeitgeist Addendum for more on that issue.

 

Report Abuse
 

We are explorers and the most compelling frontier of our time is human consciouss. Our quest is the integration of science and spirituality, a vision that reminds us of our ... Read More 

We are explorers and the most compelling frontier of our time is human consciouss. Our quest is the integration of science and spirituality, a vision that reminds us of our connectedness to the inner self, to each other and to God. (Mark 4:21) Take care of yourself Danny. I have to go to Ireland for a few days. I still wish you the best...

 

Report Abuse
 

No, I have not, nor would i serve in the military. It is a corrupt organization serving an even more corrupted one. If there was an actual military threat invading our shores, ... Read More 

No, I have not, nor would i serve in the military. It is a corrupt organization serving an even more corrupted one. If there was an actual military threat invading our shores, that may be different, but that will never happen.

Winston, this is a debate. If you do not wish to debate, then please, stay out of it.

While There are over-zealous people in all religions, even the most militant of Atheists would not resort to the horridly atrocious acts of violence that christians and other fundamentalists of other faiths have and still do commit.

I don't want to hear about Stalin either, as I've already addressed the issue.

 

Report Abuse
 

You or no one else can prove or disprove Jesus existed without a doubt from literature. Again, he was not a ruler or rich man who left any coins or buildings behind for ... Read More 

You or no one else can prove or disprove Jesus existed without a doubt from literature. Again, he was not a ruler or rich man who left any coins or buildings behind for us to see. There are theologians who could debate you on the existence of Jesus. Again, I am not sure why the founders of Christianity who be willing to be tortured and killed with nothing to gain. It just doesn’t make sense. What other religion asked for so much from the individual? Christianity is a religion of peace and love and self-sacrifice. Your point to prove Jesus did not exist fulfills your hypocritical point of view. I heard a minster say, he was talking to someone and the guy said he didn’t go to church because of all the hypocrites in church. Then, the minister invited him to church because there is always room for one more. I am just a man with many faults. Jesus asks you to believe in him and work to overcome your weaknesses. I am not trying to convince you to believe in Jesus. In fact, I won’t be carrying a lighted stick like in Frankenstein to burn you out. I will let God judge you. Personally, I can handle”not converting” you flashing before me on judgment day. I just want to make sure you burn in hell without some of my fellow Wilson County residents.
Therefore, my responses are based around addressing some of the statements that are blatantly false or misrepresent the facts. Just because I don’t spend the time to address each of your questionable arguments does not mean I remotely agree with you. Your latest and funniest statement is “The shroud of Turin was proven to be a hoax on Myth Busters.” Do you now the qualification of the Myth Busters? They are stunt men. While the show is entertaining, there is very little engineering or science discovery that would stand up in mainstream academia. Recap: I am an engineer and scienticist.

As for your statement, “I would, as would all other Atheists, convert immediately if there was solid proof that he existed.” If you believed he existed, you could then accept the concept of the Trinity. Because I know what it means, but you would have an even harder time proving it. So, what is the point of Faith and Grace? Not that I am big fan of the Old Testament for me to quote as to me it is the story of the coming of Jesus and a history book of the Jewish people. There are nuggets in the Old Testament like Isaiah 55: 8-9 which I quoted in an earlier post about God does not think like us. So, equating human nature to God doesn’t man much sense. The bible tries to explain God’s nature in human terms and that is not always easy.

While I agree there are overzealous people in Christianity, I would submit they exist in every religion and every atheist group. I believe human nature repeats itself throughout the human race. So, some people have a propensity for anger and are argumentative, etc. The nature of humans reinforces my belief in a God. For me, the way to overcome these weaknesses is through Jesus. For others, they have their religion which you don’t think should exist. People of all faiths or no faith and backgrounds do bad things. It is called being human. To try to imply that religion or one's faith is the cause implies human can be perfect if they chose to be. I would submit, perfection is impossible but faith is the best way to move closer to perfection. The variables that we all have to go through in our daily lives are the greatest proof that there is a need for a God. Whether it is deciding who to be with, deciding to stay with that person, what to do with unwanted pregnancy, what to do when your friend/relative does something that insults you…. I have had many plans in my life and the life I lead now is not the life I envisioned. Everyday I wake; I make choices that I never thought I would have to be involved in. No one can predict their future. There are personal relation issues, health issues, money issues that sometimes are good and other times are bad. God has been undeservingly good to me and my family. I have four sons who have or will complete a bachelor’s degree (1 – 82nd Airborne, 1- Texas A&M standout, 1-Sam Houston State and 1 – West Point). They will all do there four years in the military because America is the greatest place in the world to live. I have three daughters (2 – HS and 1 Middle School). I have a good job and a loving family. I pray that God would look over me and continue to bless me because raising these many kids and supervising many people, I know how cruel and unpredictable the world can be. Jesus is Lord. I pray the peace of the Lord would be with all who read this. One of my favorite quotes in the New Testament is 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12: “Make it your goal to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, just as we instructed you before. Then people who are not Christians will respect the way you live, and you will not need to depend on others.”
There is nothing Danny you can say or do that will change my belief in Jesus. I am not here to debate you. You and I have already decided, but I will continue to address any of your falsehoods.

 

Report Abuse
 

You never answered the question; Did you serve in the military for this country? Would you fight to defend your country? Also, disagreeing with others philosophies does not ... Read More 

You never answered the question; Did you serve in the military for this country? Would you fight to defend your country? Also, disagreeing with others philosophies does not constitute hate.Intentionally provocative language doesn't mean that you hate someone just because you disagree. You do however have knowledge but not sound doctrine. I think there is a place in Austin that can help you with your problem. (Algunos dicen que el dolores mental.) Some say that pain is in the mind.It's not too late.....Buena suerte.

someone.

 

Report Abuse
 

Vietnam had nothing to do with defending America. Neither does Iraq. America has not been under a genuine threat since world war 2.

And if I could afford to go to Italy, ... Read More 

Vietnam had nothing to do with defending America. Neither does Iraq. America has not been under a genuine threat since world war 2.

And if I could afford to go to Italy, I would. I would march right into Vatican City and tell them off for their ignorance. If they lynch me, it proves that christians can't handle the real truth being put in front of them in a personal scenario without resorting to violence. Not to mention the fact that I'd take plenty of them down with me in self defense.

Winston,

Proving that Jesus didn't exist is crucial to disproving christianity. If he did not exist, then there was no resurrection, and without that, your faith is truly meaningless. There's no proof that he did exist. The shroud of Turin was proven to be a hoax on Myth Busters. That was the closest thing to solid proof you had.

I would, as would all other Atheists, convert immediately if there was solid proof that he existed, or if the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail could be found and authenticated. Which will never happen because those never existed either.

The disciples are really just as questionable as Jesus, because plenty of pre-dating mythologies include a savior with disciples. People write under aliases today, and it's more than likely that the authors of the bible did the same thing to give credibility to the story. I'm sure it was easier for one to change one's name then than it is now.

I don't insist that ALL christians believe that every word in the bible is to be taken literally. The problem is that the Fundamentalists do, and the rest that don't either think that some of it is literal and the rest is open for interpretation, or that it is all open for interpretation.

I insist that for it to matter at all, it must either be the literal word of god, or a meaningless vague work of fiction. It's actually a work of fiction either way, and even if it's not, the contradictions and behavior of your god within the canon prove that he's childish, cruel, and completely fallible, and therefore not worth worshiping even if he does exist.

You're missing something, Winston. You may not be in to burning witches or torturing Atheists, but there are tons of fundamentalists who are, and the Fundies tend to be more active in trying to accomplish things than those like yourself. Even the less extreme fundamentalists are the ones who run the church, and would love to run things and set us back at least two hundred years.

I may not know you personally, Winston, but I'd be willing to bet that you're just as hypocritical in your thoughts and actions as the bible is in its instructions for being a good person during your daily life.

 

Report Abuse
 

I thought Sk had very interesting points and I had no reason to join in. As for Dr Price, he claims to have graduated from a liberal private NJ college with at least one ... Read More 

I thought Sk had very interesting points and I had no reason to join in. As for Dr Price, he claims to have graduated from a liberal private NJ college with at least one doctorate in Theology. He teaches at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary which believes in God. Dr Price says he is an atheist and an Episcopalian (See his myspace profile). Talk about a confused man. My main points have been about the existence of God and addressing any outrageous statements. Both the founders of this country and Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary are Deists. As for debating each and every bible verse does not prove or disprove the existence of God; let alone Jesus existed. For me, I don’t really care about what books are in which denomination. Guess what? Catholics don’t have the same books as Protestants or especially the Latter Day Saints. All versions and denomination have John 3:16.

As for Dr. Price whose degrees our classified as Art and not Science degrees is not exactly an Oracle of Delphi on the scientific determination on the existence of Jesus. So, reading and interpreting in your or Dr Price’s best interest doesn’t make it true. Besides there are 300 million people in the US, so I am sure I can find someone whose theory I agree with or at least in your case, steal those arguments which fit your vision of the world. What else would you like to discuss about Dr Price?

Also, you keep insisting that all Christians believe that every word in the bible is to be taken literal. If so, why did Jesus teach in parables? As for actions in societies 2000 years ago and comparing to them societies today does not make much sense. Remember I am a critical thinker not ideologue.

As for the existence of Jesus, do you think it is possible for someone who was not a rich man or politically connected would be hard to prove there existence? What kind of records did we have 2000 years ago. In today’s society, we have so much information, the overload could make interpretation of existence hard.

So, what the people who say Jesus did not exist is; some guys made up gang called disciples who made a Jesus story. According to the bible, these disciplines were persecuted. Alternatively, you believe the spread of a blasphemy religion was allowed to spread without strife. There were several major religions in the region and all these followers picked this religion which talks about self-sacrifice. Of course, they had to be in self-sacrifice because many were murdered. If the story is correct, Paul and the others lived a life of denial and poverty. So, these disciples gave up money and power to preach a false God. Come on! Why is it so important to prove that Jesus did not exist? The devil needs to take your soul. Jesus did exist and there is no scientific proof that he didn’t exist. Is this a familiar argument that nothing existed? Many important people lived 2000 years and we have no historical record or scientific proof. Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. So, where is the need for understanding every word in the bible?

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny, I invite you to come to Italy and tell these Italians there is no God. Or that Jesus didn't exist. You can thank God that you are living in the United States of America ... Read More 

Danny, I invite you to come to Italy and tell these Italians there is no God. Or that Jesus didn't exist. You can thank God that you are living in the United States of America and can voice your own opinion without fear of being linched. Were you ever in any kind Military service for the United States? Were you ever in combat? World War 2,? Korea ? or Vietnam? Did you know that 58,479 brothers and sisters made the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam alone so you can still have
freedom to express your know-it all's and blow your own horn that Jesus never exist????
Mark 11;25-26
Dusty Duty.
Chaplain USN (Retired)

 

Report Abuse
 

Actually, you do have to discuss why there are books that where left out of the bible, particularly the book of Enoch.

And I do get to set the debate rules, at least ... Read More 

Actually, you do have to discuss why there are books that where left out of the bible, particularly the book of Enoch.

And I do get to set the debate rules, at least in part, as this whole debate was set between myself and one other person before it even hit this newspaper. That opponent was Mike Clements, who can't even keep his end of things. In fact, instead of responding to me himself, he had one of his church members respond for him. An act of cowardice if you ask me.

I still haven't seen anyone say anything about Dr. Price. Bring it, Winston and SK.

 

Report Abuse
 

Boom nothing. You give yourself way too much credit. Did you even read what I posted from the Book of the Dead? It's obvious to the most casual observer that they are not ... Read More 

Boom nothing. You give yourself way too much credit. Did you even read what I posted from the Book of the Dead? It's obvious to the most casual observer that they are not the same. The 10 Commandments say nothing about taking milk from a child, quenching fire, driving cows from herbage, damming water.

And you do tell half-truths. But hey, it's not your fault because you are only repeating your heros. They've only told YOU half the truth. Danny...do your homework. Yes Mithrism existed before Christ, in Persia. BUT the doctrine that has some similarities to Christianity developed in Rome AFTERWARDS, late in the second century. LOGIC.

You just provided direct proof of your propensity to echo falsehoods and half-truths when you quoted Justin Martyr. Sorry to make you look foolish again but if you had checked yourself, you would have seen that your atheist source not only misquoted Martyr, but he took the comments out of context. Martyr was writing to the Roman emperor in defense of the faith. Here is his actual words:
"Look at What You Give Credence to
We say the Word, the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union. We say that He, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, rose again and ascended into heaven. We are propounding nothing different from what you believe regarding those that you esteem to be sons of Jupiter. You know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter." If you read the entire text of Martyr's letter you would see that he is trying to gain the emperor's acceptance of Christianity by drawing parallels to their faith. Not a comparison I would make, but then I didn't live in those times.

Do I even have to discuss why some books are in the bible and others are not? It's really not too hard for an educated person to see. Try this...imagine yourself in that time at the beginning of Christianity. Many people were writing their accounts. Some perhaps out of ignorance of some facts, others perhaps to deceive. You could have been one of these guys writing what you heard and passing it along. Paul mentioned in his letters that some teachings were going astray. What was accepted was what the early Christian leaders deemed accurate (or divinely inspired as some believe). What was not included was not. Simple.

I honestly have to laugh at some of the stuff you write. You make all these easily refuted assertions then counter with "I don't want to hear" this or that. Who says you get to set the debate rules? And spare us your smugness, it is really undeserved and makes you look even sillier. But I guess humility would not be a trait advocated by the atheist movement.

 

Report Abuse
 

Oh, and here's a fun little quote for you to all meditate over.

"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and ... Read More 

Oh, and here's a fun little quote for you to all meditate over.

"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter."-Justin Martyr, Church Father

Justin Martyr lived between 100-165 AD. It would seem early church leaders themselves admitted to the plagiarism in the canon.

I like the fact that you haven't addressed the fact that the books that went into the canon were voted on by a council and that there were three books left out. Ball's in your court, again, SK.

The funniest thing to me about this entire thing is that "Christian Apologetics" are constantly part of such debates. If christianity was indeed the one, true divine faith system, then why the need for apologies and apologetics?

Yet another thing for all of you to think about. There's no divine influence to any religion, just the limited creativity of ancient man.

 

Report Abuse
 

You didn't really debunk much of anything, SK.

The similarities there in the book of the dead and the ten commandments are almost indentical, not few. The ten commandments ... Read More 

You didn't really debunk much of anything, SK.

The similarities there in the book of the dead and the ten commandments are almost indentical, not few. The ten commandments are merely a condensed version altered to "Thou shalt not" instead of "I have not."

By the way, Mithra, prior to having a cult of his own, was a deity in Zoroastrianism, which again, actually does pre-date christianity.

I don't echo false-hoods or half-truths. Claiming that is a a regurgitation of the constant denial of christians so that they can cling to their faiths.

It's blatantly obvious that the bible DOES in fact contradict itself at ever turn. It is it's own source for this lunacy.

I don't want to hear about differing interpretations of the bible either. Given that the intent of christians is for so much of it to be taken literally, it must either all be regarded as literal truth, or it's all just a vague text. It contradicts itself repeatedly. There's absolutely no way around this whatsoever.

I haven't allowed myself to be misguided by anyone. I came to my own conclusions, but Richard Dawkins and Dr. Robert Price (Who used to be a baptist minister) and the like have reinforced these conclusions.

By the way, Richard Dawkins is considered to be one of the top intellectuals in modern society.

Clinging to petty faiths in ancient myths is useless in the modern age of technological advancement and scientific enlightenment.

Given what we know about the heavens, and the fact that there are no magical palaces in the clouds, where exactly did jesus ascend to? I don't want to hear some bull about how heaven isn't a physical place. It says in the text that jesus physically ascended. So where did he ascend to, since there's absolutely nowhere for him to have ascended to?

Boom. Instant hole blasted in your system of belief with SIMPLE LOGIC and EDUCATION.

 

Report Abuse
 

No Danny. The problem is that you continue to echo the falsehoods and half-truths being generated by the atheist propaganda machine. Honestly, I don't care that you've ... Read More 

No Danny. The problem is that you continue to echo the falsehoods and half-truths being generated by the atheist propaganda machine. Honestly, I don't care that you've allowed yourself to be misguided by Richard Dawkins and others with the his atheist agenda. For the sake of others following this debate, I shall post what Ch 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead actually says. This book probably does predate the 10 Commandments by about 3 centuries. However, the few similarities between the two would surely be included in most religious moral code: respect to God and forbidding of murder, adultery, and stealing. Only the closed mind of someone looking for excuses could ever believe the 10 Commandments was simply "rewording" of the Egyptian text. I've already debunked his other "plagiarism" lies regarding Mithra doctrine which developed AFTER Christianity so Danny has very little to stand on by claiming the Bible is plagiarized. Here is what the Egyptian Book of the Dead says, judge for yourself:

Hail to thee, great God, Lord of the Two Truths. I have come unto thee, my Lord, that thou mayest bring me to see thy beauty. I know thee, I know thy name, I know the names of the 42 Gods who are with thee in this broad hall of the Two Truths . . . Behold, I am come unto thee. I have brought thee truth; I have done away with sin for thee. I have not sinned against anyone. I have not mistreated people. I have not done evil instead of righteousness . . .
I have not reviled the God.
I have not laid violent hands on an orphan.
I have not done what the God abominates . . .
I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.
I have not caused anyone's suffering . . .
I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.
I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm; I have not encroached upon the fields.
I have not added to the balance weights; I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance.
I have not taken milk from a child's mouth; I have not driven small cattle from their herbage...
I have not stopped (the flow of) water in its seasons; I have not built a dam against flowing water.
I have not quenched a fire in its time . . .
I have not kept cattle away from the God's property.
I have not blocked the God at his processions.

 

Report Abuse
 

The whole problem is, that not only does the bible contradict itself at almost every single turn, but the points that christians cling to are absolutely meaningless due to ... Read More 

The whole problem is, that not only does the bible contradict itself at almost every single turn, but the points that christians cling to are absolutely meaningless due to endless plagiarism.

The Ten Commandments are merely re-worded lines from a spell in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

John 3:16 is completely irrelevant since Jesus never even existed. Dr. Robert M. Price said it best in the documentary "The God That Wasn't There."

"...Yeah, this dying and rising god who went through the whole thing; This one, Appoloneous of Tianna, no, that's just silly. But Jesus? Six of one half, a dozen of the other. I don't think it would be better if there was no jesus, it's a matter of indifference. And there might have been, but to me the burden of proof lies on the person who says that there was, because it's just special pleading again. You want special treatment for your favorite savior."

In all honesty, it's not that hard to figure out that he never existed when one weighs all the myths that came into existence both long before the bible ever came close to existing, as well as those written before the supposed birth of jesus and during his supposed life. God doesn't exist either. A bible verse stating that god is perfect or all knowing and omnipotent is absolutely meaningless given the countless examples of god's countless errors,and steady decline of use or ability to use powers to the same magnitude as that in genesis. The most flawed belief is that god is all knowing. IF he was, what would be the point of all the dogmas and everything else, if he already knows what's going to happen? He'd know who was all going to choose to worship him and who wasn't. There are plenty of things he didn't see coming. Including the rebellion of Lucifer. Had he seen that coming he could have stopped it. Again, if he knew everything that was going to happen before it ever did, then free will is a pointless quality, isn't it? I've heard the argument that humans are somehow different than other members of the animal kingdom, and the only justification for it is that we must have souls. However, free will isn't a human trait. Almost every other species that exists with the exceptions of hive/colony insects have free will. They roam around, doing whatever they please, making whatever decision they have to during whatever situation might arise.

The bible states how to be a good husband and parent? I think not. Deuteronomy and Leviticus are full of verses saying to dash infants on the rocks, beat your wife, beat your children, and stone rebellious children to death. It also states in a few places that illegitimate are damned to hell from birth, along with 19 generations of their offspring without any hope of salvation no matter what.

No matter how you cut it, the bad outweighs the good in the bible, and it's never done one thing to make mankind better or more peaceful.

By the way, the desire for money and power are NOT in human nature. They're learned qualities. In fact, there's nothing remotely natural about money. It is, like religion and all the gods therein, a creation of man, to control society.

By the way, I never said Bush went into Iraq for religious reason. I stated merely the fact that he did, in all truth, invoke god in many of his speeches calling for approval for a war on terror. Which in and of itself is ludicrous, as it's impossible to ever defeat an IDEA.

The entire situation in Iraq is and always has been about money and oil, but not for the benefit of this country and it's citizens, but for the benefit of the Federal Reserve bank, along with its sister banks, and the owners of private corporations such as Haliburton.

Going into Darfur would be a horrible idea. What we need to do is pull our troops out of every country they're in, bring them home, and stay out of the business of other countries. The government should focus on fixing our problems before it worries about anyone else.

These problems include: Inflation, Poverty, Unemployment, Illegal Immigration, Excessive Religious Influence on Politics, and the excessive amounts of private organizations involved with the government, including the IRS and Federal Reserve Bank.

No religious institution should have tax exempt status.

 

Report Abuse
 

There are numerous of questions about life that we can't answer. And yet there are still some
"know-it-alls"among us.These people have a need to answer every ... Read More 

There are numerous of questions about life that we can't answer. And yet there are still some
"know-it-alls"among us.These people have a need to answer every question asked of them and rattle off platitudes in an authoritative tone trying to sound knowledgeable, and we know very well that haven't got a clue what they are talking about.
While evolutionist who clam emphatically that man decended from apes in spite of the fact that a missing link between man and monkeys has never been found. Its much easier to believe that man, nature, and the universe all happened by chance because if we believe in a Divine Creator, than we are responsible to Him for our life and manner of living.
Then for we would-be theologians who like to think we have a corner on the truth, some argue that Chriswt will come before the Great Tribulation. Others believe He will come in the middle of it. They are the pre-tribs, the mid-tribs and the post tribs.
Personally ,I'm on the side of the
humorist who said,"I'm a pan-trib.
That is, I'll wait and see how it all pans out."
Unfortunately, too often we major on the non-essentials instead of mqajoring on the essentials that we know. When it comes to Christ's return, the major issue is not so much the when of Christ's but that we are ready for it because God alone knows the day,and the hour of that day.
Then there are questions about life that we simply cannot fully answer. We offer up platitudes. We make guesses. Sometimes even educated guesses, but we really don't know. Foe example, we don't understand why good people suffer. We don't understand why bad people prosper. We can't understand why some people from a certain kind of situation become criminals, while other people growing up under the same kind of circumstances become sterling citizens. And why does God allow missionaries to be kidnappede and killed?
However, there is one thing in life that we can know that we know that we know-and that is the answer to life's most important issue-our eternal well-being. God's Word, the Bible. It assures us that all who put their trust in Jesus as there personal Savior can know...without a shadow of a doubt that we have the gift of eternal life. As God said thriugh the Aposstle John:"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God{Jesus}so that you may know...that You have eternal life.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike, One other thing, how can Jesus say love your neighbor and love your enemies but hate your family? Jesus is a God of love not hate. So, even debating or bringing up ... Read More 

Mike, One other thing, how can Jesus say love your neighbor and love your enemies but hate your family? Jesus is a God of love not hate. So, even debating or bringing up Mr Williams ideas made no sense. Obviously, the guy has lost the whole point of the love God had for us by sending his only Son. So, anything Mr Williams says has no validity, as he has proved incapable of logical thought. Even the scriptures he quotes doesn't support his dillusions let alone the general Love God has for us.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mike, talk about missing the boat. I read the article by Jay Williams Again, when people interpret the bible; it is their interpretation which not everyone agrees. So, that ... Read More 

Mike, talk about missing the boat. I read the article by Jay Williams Again, when people interpret the bible; it is their interpretation which not everyone agrees. So, that is why I stick to John 3:16. I will address some of Mr. Williams who states “I cannot claim complete objectivity--- for humans such is impossible--- but I will try to describe what seems obvious to me.” So, he at least realizes it is but one thought. He is picking and choosing to fit his dream. His concepts do not follow most basic Christian philosophy and I am not biblical scholar but here is a crack at this illogical thinking individuals topics.

1. Poverty: “First of all, Jesus demands complete, voluntary poverty… and live like the birds of the air and the flowers of the field.” I have to disagree. The focus of this section of Matthew is not to focus on money as God will provide. Don’t worry; God will provide. It doesn’t say live in the fields in poverty. Don’t focus on storing up treasures on the earth but do Jesus’ work. If you serve money and focus on being rich, you will find it difficult to belief in Jesus. This could be said of any deadly sin. How does one know when someone believes in Jesus and how do you define poverty? How does this poverty work with 2 Thessalonians 3; On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. “If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

2. Hate Family: “Second, Jesus requires his followers to renounce all family ties, indeed, even to hate father and mother and wife and brother and sister.” Matthew 19:29; “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.” So, was Jesus talking about his disciplines since Peter asked the question? Mr. Williams’s interruption is ludicrous and I don’t have the time to cite many other references about being a good husband, wife, parent etc. Mark 3:31-35 35; “Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." Jesus was making a point and did not hate his brother or mother. What a lunatic to say the bible says this.

3. Third, Jesus demands a life of absolute non-violence. I definitely don’t get that from the scripture presented.

4. Fourth, Jesus demands complete emotional control. Matthew 5:48; “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Is this no more than a request to follow the Ten Commandments? What emotions would one feel about John 11:35; Jesus wept. Philippians 4:8; I am sure there are some emotions there, too.

Obviously, the scriptures must be taken in context and also the historical perspective in the Old Testament can share a light on God’s thoughts. I may be wrong on my thoughts on this scripture but I believe my thoughts are more consistent with most Christian doctrine. So, if someone wants to live in poverty (hopefully, they give up the internet) as long as they are working and not causing any fights and loving people which is an emotion to me, then I am OK with that. But who cares what I am OK with; I am not the judge. Besides I always fall back on John 3:16; everything else is fruit on the tree of life.

 

Report Abuse
 

There is so much wisdom in the bible. It is a shame that it is mixed in with fairy stories. Surely, God would not give wisdom to some men and not others. What God has given ... Read More 

There is so much wisdom in the bible. It is a shame that it is mixed in with fairy stories. Surely, God would not give wisdom to some men and not others. What God has given has been given equally. That must be true. Men have perverted that balance ourselves. Men tell lies. That is one truth we have been given. Over time, truth is covered by lies and lies are revealed by truth. That is wisdom too. When I see images of a European jesus, I know that the church has revised history. That is enough for me to believe that holy scripture has been "edited." Tell one easily decernable lie, and everything else comes into doubt too. The teachings of Jesus seem true to me too. I understand that there are not many in the bible - that all of jesus teachings all together make-up a few hours worth of his lessons. The rest is what others say. Look at this excerpt from an article by Jay Williams - Walcott D. Bartlett Professor of Religious Studies, Hamilton College : http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Jay_Church_Essay_Church_1.shtml


First of all, Jesus demands complete, voluntary poverty. Not only does he tell us that it is blessed to be poor, but he also commands his hearers to give away all their property. We are not to "lay up treasures on earth where moth and rust consume and thieves break in and steal" (Matt. 6:19). Even after we have divested ourselves of our goods, he tells us to give away even our clothing if someone should ask it of us (Matt. 5:40). To enter the kingdom of God one must be free from, must renounce, all earthly goods. That is the reason why it will be more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (Matt. 19:23-24).

While the Second Helvetic Confession (Ch. XXIX) tells us that there is nothing wrong with being rich as long as the rich are "godly," Jesus himself radically disagrees. "You cannot serve both God and mammon" (Matt.6:24) implies for Jesus absolute renunciation of mammon. His followers are told to live like the birds of the air and the flowers of the field. They are required not to plan ahead or worry about where their next meal will come from. God, says Jesus, will provide (Matt. 6:25-33).

Second, Jesus requires his followers to renounce all family ties, indeed, even to hate father and mother and wife and brother and sister. This actually follows logically from the first renunciation, for if one has no money, one cannot easily engage in family life without letting others (e.g., mom and dad) pay the bills---which is hardly renunciation at all. Jesus recognizes that some people are already married and ought not to break that relationship with divorce, but it would appear that following Jesus "distances" one from one's spouse. One is reminded of Gandhi's vows of brahmacharya, i.e., sexual renunciation within marriage. Peter certainly was married, for we hear of his mother-in-law, but we hear nothing of his wife throughout the Gospels.

Jesus says that some are born eunuchs, some have it thrust upon them, and some make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:12). That is, Jesus is not even opposed to self-castration for the sake of the kingdom. All this suggests that Jesus does not teach much that is positive about family values. He says he comes with a sword to divide, not unite families (Matt. 10: 34-36). In fact, he would not even speak to his own mother or his blood brothers when they came to see him, regarding only those who do the will of God as his "family"(Mark 3:31-35).

Third, Jesus demands a life of absolute non-violence. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn the other one. If someone makes you carry his load, carry it a second mile (Matt.5: 38-41). You are to love all enemies and to do good to all who "despitefully use you." Jesus knows that wars will continue to be waged, but he stands opposed to all forms of violence. Even anger toward your brother he considers very, very dangerous (Matt. 5:21-22). His followers should render no person evil for evil but should respond to evil with good. Retaliation is anathema; forgiveness is absolute. Although the Second Helvetic Confession (XXX) encourages Christians to fight in defense of the state and offers no support for conscientious objection, it is difficult to imagine that Jesus would agree.

Fourth, Jesus demands complete emotional control. Anger is as damning as murder, lust in the heart, as adultery. One must avoid judging others and must forgive all apparent wrongs 70 x 7 times. "Be ye perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). Complete trust is to be placed in Jesus and through Jesus in God alone. Although Luther and Calvin, standing the Augustinian tradition, argue that because of sinful human nature such control and perfection are impossible, Jesus offers no such "escape hatch." Jesus assumes throughout that what he requires is not only possible to achieve but essential for entering the kingdom of God. Unlike many theologians, he is not adverse to speaking of punishments and rewards, and commends working to enter the kingdom. Like the jewel merchant, the follower must give up everything else to obtain the pearl of great price (Matt. 13:45-46).

Fifth, although Jesus sometimes attends public religious ceremonies, such involvement regularly results in conflict. When he speaks in the synagogue in Nazareth, he is thrown out and nearly killed (Luke 4:16-30). His visits to the Temple lead to his overturning of the tables of the money changers and to conflict with the "authorities." In fact, Jesus seems to have little use for "organized religion." He tells his listeners not to pray in public but to go into their closet and close the door when they wish to communicate with God (Matt. 6:6). When he prays, he usually goes, not to the Temple or synagogue, but away into the hills. Fasting, he says, should also be done secretly and without outward show so that no one else is aware of what you are doing. Alms are to be given so that even your own left hand does not know what your right hand does. His relation with God is personal and private and that attitude hardly supports corporate religion in any usual sense of the word.

Indeed, his essential quarrel is invariably with the religious leaders, the priests, scribes, and Pharisees whom he describes as a brood of vipers (Matt. 23:33) and whitewashed tombs (Matt.23:27). As a consequence, he gives the Pharisees, in particular, a bad name. In fact, however, what he intends to do is to give religious functionaries a bad name. He tells his followers not to use terms like "Rabbi" and "Father" (Matt. 23:8-12) (or I suppose by extension "minister" or "pastor" or "the Rev.") because disciples are to be humble and not claim for themselves a status they do not really have. (Should any minister think of himself as reverend, i.e., revered?) He also predicts the destruction of the Temple, the center for worship for all Jews, without particular grief or sadness. His tears are for the sins of the people, not for the loss of a cultic center. In brief, it would appear that Jesus calls upon his followers to renounce public worship, public exercises of piety, hierarchical orders, the Temple--- that is, religion in any usual, corporate sense.

 

Report Abuse
 

When it comes to your views on Judaism, Christians are caught between a rock and hard place. Is Christ the only way to heaven? Or is God's covenant with the Jews enough to ... Read More 

When it comes to your views on Judaism, Christians are caught between a rock and hard place. Is Christ the only way to heaven? Or is God's covenant with the Jews enough to ensure members of this ancient tribe a place in God's kingdom? Increasingly, Christians are saying, "It is enough."
The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) adopted new language concerning the Jews, promptede in part by the horrors of World War 11, And the Protestant World Council of Churches meeting in 1948,likewise offended by Adolf Hitler's Third Reich, denounced anti-Semitism as "sin against God and man" and,in 1968 published a statement calling for "rethinking the place of Jews in the history of salvation." Missionary witness(proselytizing) was replaced with ecumenical engagement (interfaith dialogue) through the World Council, like the Vatican, retained the idea that ultimate salvation is achieved only through Christ. Perhaps at the Second Comming, Protestants held, Jews would see the light and become one in the body of Christendom.
Progress,right? If Christ, whose earthly sojourn fulfilled God's covenant, is the true way to heaven, then how can Judaism remain a relevant and legitiment faith? And if Judaism does remain a relevant faith in the eyes of God, what does that say about the central Christian doctrine of salvation? I would say it's time to accept Christianity despite all the suffering it caused during the course of two millenna. Christians have made a historic step toward reconciliation. At least to some degree. And since salvation is open to all, it must be made concretely available to all, even to those who do not have the to come to know or accept the Gospil.
But the way of salvation always passes through Christ. For Jew's, it is the Torah that represents the world of God. For the Christians, no man can come to the father except through His son, Jesus Christ. Without revelation, there can no religions and the voice of God will be heard by different people at different times in different ways and one hearing need not cancel out the others.Salvation through Jesus Christ is not optional, it is the only way.
Interfaith dialogue is a valuable way to engender mutual respect.
If we view our religious community
as having the "only" single truth, then of course, you cannot welcome the others points of view.
Interfaith dialogue is the way to engender mutual respect.
Oh, yes, thank you for viewing my poetry.I will continue to try harder.

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny, please be consistent. "Buddhism has NEVER been a ruling power in and of itself has NEVER been a ruling power in and of itself." So, if Buddhism has NEVER ... Read More 

Danny, please be consistent. "Buddhism has NEVER been a ruling power in and of itself has NEVER been a ruling power in and of itself." So, if Buddhism has NEVER been a ruling power in and of itself how; would you then define any government since the witch trials (in 1692 which is three centuries ago not two) as a Christian ruling power in itself? I guess you could consider Vatican City, and Lord knows they have created wars and oppressed people with their religion (sarcasm).

The things we do today such would not have been accepted 300 years ago or even 100 years ago. From the Magna Carta (1215) to the Declaration of the US, the world has become more amendable to the concept of Freedom and self-determination. It took over 550 years for these concepts to become a country. See US Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.."

So, looking at Christianity or any religion more than 100 years ago is ridiculous. If someone looks at centuries old history they must take into context the morals and standards of the day. Before Christ’s arrival in Rome, it was standard practice to throw unsupportable infants into the garbage. It was the atheist thing to do.

As for history repeating itself, what terrible religious atrocities are going to repeat itself? Do you really believe in the CURRENT world we live in Christianity is going to be the head of a government and enforce Christian oppression? Obama claims to be Christian so is he going to put some oppressive Christian oppression on the Atheists? Obama said he is going to continue the War on Terror, but not in Iraq. So, your diversion into a random political discussion again shows a total lack of rational thought. In other words, your argument holds no water.

Humans are humans and they do terrible things no matter if they call themselves atheist or religious. To infer that President Bush went into Iraq for religious reasons is dishonest or a complete failure of evaluating concepts/theories based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. I think the loons on the Left have a better argument that we went into Iraq for oil which equals money. So, why would an Atheist ever go to war or does only religious people go to war? President Clinton, a Christian, went into Bosnia for humanitarian reasons and we are considering going into Darfur for the same reasons.

I would suggest money and power (human nature) is why history repeats itself. I personally understand the logic for going into Iraq. As with any decision, there are pros and cons; it is called life. We might not like someone’s decision whether it is to believe in God or not; we can’t change their mind/heart unless we can present a reasonable argument. To date, nothing you have presented even remotely is logical. Humans are too complex to blame all their failings on religion and is intellectually dishonest.

Grasping at the Old Testament and trying to prove it was stolen from other cultures does not change the fact it is Jewish history where a Messiah is promised. The Jews are still waiting. Twisting the words in scripture by inferring your meaning does not change my meaning or other Christian’s beliefs. Again, it does not matter or change John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” We are saved by “GRACE.”

If you want to quote the Old Testament try this one: Isaiah 55: 8-9: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

Report Abuse
 

Dusty, Dusty, Dusty...Such a pitiful delusion you hold on to.

"Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until the 30s and "In God We Trust" ... Read More 

Dusty, Dusty, Dusty...Such a pitiful delusion you hold on to.

"Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until the 30s and "In God We Trust" wasn't present on the money until 1884, and then was only on a select few pieces of currency. These were the results of christian lobbying. They don't belong in either place. They should be removed as soon as possible. AS should all religion, from all of mankind and all of its cultures and societies.

By the way, your poetry is pretty weak. I knew people in second grade that had first grade reading comprehension who wrote poetry that is superior to yours. Once again, this is not a literature board, it is a debate. Post in it as such.

 

Report Abuse
 

Hear my prayer, O Lord my God
Listen to my humble plea,
I pray you'll send an answer
How we forgive an enemy.

This anguished heart within me
See terrors of death assail,
While ... Read More 

Hear my prayer, O Lord my God
Listen to my humble plea,
I pray you'll send an answer
How we forgive an enemy.

This anguished heart within me
See terrors of death assail,
While horrors have overwhelmed to save
Young souls...from a burning hell.

"IN GOD WE TRUST" our motto
"UNDER GOD" when allegiance said,
Then removing God out of this country
Only proves our faith is dead.


Atheist have made an issue
Violating their rights to believe?
But moving God out of this country
Gives the enemy more power to deceive.

The're trying to take God out of everything
Wanting His name off our money too
To take God out of our prayers at school
Including everything we do.

Lord, you are our strength, our only hope
This forgiving is hard to do,
Thy kingdome come, and thy will be done
While we are merely just passing through.

Chaplain Dusty Duty USN (Retired)
and "Poet." An addition to the debate and graduate Biola Univ.

 

Report Abuse
 

Well, Winston, there's the war on terror. The war in Iraq. In speeches advocating both wars, George Bush repeatedly invoked god into his speeches. There's abortion clinic ... Read More 

Well, Winston, there's the war on terror. The war in Iraq. In speeches advocating both wars, George Bush repeatedly invoked god into his speeches. There's abortion clinic bombings, and christian parents are more likely to be child abusers than any other religious faction in America.

Buddhism has NEVER been a ruling power in and of itself. Sure, there were a good deal of Chinese emperors that were Buddhist. But not once has Buddhism ever been a ruling party that had more authority than the royal family, unlike Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

You think it's absurd that people bring up the actions of the church from Centuries ago? The Salem Witch Trials are a little less than two centuries old. You're forgetting something, Mr. Critical Thinker. History repeats itself. This is actually a preventable occurrence, but to do so ancient traditions and even some more modern traditions must be abolished completely, religion being the biggest offender throughout all of history.

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny, got to beg to differ again. Your statement is "In fact, if it wasn't for the brutal actions of every religion that has ever come to power..." So, what ... Read More 

Danny, got to beg to differ again. Your statement is "In fact, if it wasn't for the brutal actions of every religion that has ever come to power..." So, what about your favorite religion Buddhism? Buddhism has been part of ruling parties in several different centuries including during the rise of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Because Buddhism is a non-violent religion it has been overrun several times but still exists. So, another statement is easily proven false.

To continuously compare what happened ten to twenty centuries ago makes no sense. Human behavior towards one another has dramatically changed. I attributed the change to YAHEW which is the center of all in three major religions. All Western Societies now allow for the freedom of religion. Nobody is forcing you or any other America to go to church or believe. Slavery which was condoned in Jesus’ time has now been outlawed in Western countries which were mainly founded on Judeo-Christian values. In Roman times, human life had little to no value, but that changed with Christian transformation.

So, what traumatic evils are the current countries of the world propagating in the name of Christianity? Why people are moaning about things that happened centuries ago is ludicrous. History is history and the same principles we judge on today are not the same standards of yesterday. Can we not focus on today?

Like for example, Dick Dawkins' "The God Delusion,” prayer does nothing double blind study. Really? So, Dick has one study evaluating God’s power. Like all other studies, there is more than one answer and the statistical evidence most be looked at closely. Here is an opposing article by the American Family Physician written by GOWRI ANANDARAJAH, M.D., and ELLEN HIGHT, M.D., M.P. “Although some disagree, most authors report that a positive relationship between religious commitment and mental and physical health was found in up to 84 percent of studies that included a measure of religious commitment as part of the study.” Not to mention, three quarters of U.S. medical schools now include courses that address spirituality and health with 50% of all schools requiring the course – American Medical News, March 10, 2008.

If you are going to present facts, let them be as least factual or state this is but one study. Dick is an ignoramus who is blinded by his hatred of Christianity and all his work must be looked at with a jaundice eye. In human interactions and relations, there are probabilities and studies that confirm and contradict human nature. As they say, statistics don’t lie, but liars use statistics. This is especially true for atheist zealots like Dick. Remember I am a critical thinker so I can call it as I see it.

OBTW, JPC great article on the birds. I knew the information but didn’t have a good source.

 

Report Abuse
 

Christianity and Science definitely don't mix. From the very beginning of the book of genesis, the conflict is unavoidable. You honestly believe that day and night were created, ... Read More 

Christianity and Science definitely don't mix. From the very beginning of the book of genesis, the conflict is unavoidable. You honestly believe that day and night were created, when the only sources of light in the universe weren't created until day 4 according to your holy text? I don't want to hear that "Well, he said let there be light first" nonsense, because that doesn't provide a physical light source.

There are plenty of other conflicts. Such as zoological conflicts (bats being birds, unicorns, satyrs, dragons, and cockatrices existing), Biological conflicts (If Adam and Eve were the only ones to begin with, then mankind wouldn't exist today at all, because incest results in undesirable defects such as retardation and infertility.) and so on and so forth. Then there's the absurdity that eating pork or shell fish sends you immediately to hell with no chance of redemption. This, of course, like every other supernatural idea in the bible, comes from the ignorance of the bronze-age tribesman that wrote it. They had no clue about proper food handling or preparation, and that goes for most cultures until post renaissance times anyways. So, what they clearly did was note that people eating pork and shellfish (Clearly not once prepared properly) died of horrible food-borne illnesses.

Science is quite corrosive to christianity. As we discover more about the universe beyond our solar system and how the universe works as a whole, we chisel away ever father at the creation stories of all mythologies, and the remote possibility of any of the traits or characteristics that make a deity as such. Your god doesn't exist.

And I don't want to hear about intelligent design. A crash lesson in human biology proves quite well that there's nothing intelligent about the layout or resilience of the human body. Our bones are relatively weak compared to the majority of the rest of the animal kingdom, we have useless organs like the Tonsils, our vertebrae are small, weak, and extremely vulnerable, as are most of our vital organs. The amount of force needed to stop a heart is extremely minimal and can be generated by a child. Our reproductive organs are extremely vulnerable as well. I can't see a single thing intelligent about the human body in regards to the idea that it was designed.

The other problem with intelligent design is the fact that the logic behind it fails. Rather than taking stock in the fact that EVERYTHING in the universe develops over time from simpler forms or components, you would rather believe that because everything we know of currently is so complex that it had to have a creator. The fallacy here, is that the fact that said hypothetical creator would have to be infinitely more complex than its creations. This means that the creator would require a creator, and no matter what, at some point something had to come from nothing, or nothing could exist. The answer to who created god is simple of course. The answer is man, not the other way around, and it is the most simplistic of all logic to come to this conclusion when one weighs the evidence of history, mythology, and science. The evolution of mankind as a species and its culture, and it's unfortunate development of religion both started from the simplest forms, which were hunter-gatherer tribes that out of necessity began farming. These primitive cultures had no way to explain natural occurrences like lighting, or tornadoes, or volcanic eruptions. When these things happened the only thing they could think of was that "The gods must be angry." When it rained the gods were blessing them. Eventually these tribes began to name these gods and create images and idols of what they looked like. As human culture progressed and became more complex, so did it's religions and the myths that went with them.

Scientology is a really good example of how all religions started, and the only things they ever have and ever will accomplish or do. It's a recent religion but it has a following almost big enough to rival the religions that originated over a thousand years ago.

To the poet...Save it for open mic night at the poetry club. This a debate, not a literature board.

 

Report Abuse
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflict ... Read More 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflict between science and religion We want to address the conflict between science and religion. Recent books have heightened the drama....how do we maintain the integrity of both systems of thought? And do these systems have to remain separate towering institutions with a feeble bridge between them, or can we hope to have an intellectually honest theology that integrates both?
Preliminary response: There isn't a conflict betwen science and religion (at least the Christian religion) and there never has been - indeed on the contrary almost all the pioneers of modern science were Christians or Jews and this is far from accidental.
There is, of course, a conflict between Atheism and religion, and one type of Athesm, having abandoned Materialism (which collapsed under its own contradictons) now adopts Physicalism and tries to use the prestige of Science to bolster this arguably self-contradictory worldview.

Danny, are you familiar with the work of John Polkinghorne?

 

Report Abuse
 

What does the hope of Jesus mean
That so excited Paul?
Was it a promise given
For the faitful, one and all?
By now the secret is revealed
It's simply Christ in you,
So ... Read More 

What does the hope of Jesus mean
That so excited Paul?
Was it a promise given
For the faitful, one and all?
By now the secret is revealed
It's simply Christ in you,
So simple yet so wonderful
And gloriously new.
The message of this concept is
That Christ now lives in me,
To do the work of Him through me
He once did abundantly.
The notion that the King Kings
The Lord of Lords would be,
Abiding in this heart of mine
Prompts me to bend my knee.
To fall down on my face before
The one who made us all,
His holiness beyound compare
He knows how short I fall.
Thats when I realized that He
Has work for me to do,
A work that He will energize
And help me to pursue.
The hope of Jesus is my song
One message to proclaim,
That Jesus Christ will live in us
To keep our hearts aflame.
We will take that flame with us
And, No matter where we go,
No matter what the cost may be
This world has got to know.....

Yup, I'm a Christian Poet
Chaplain Dusty Duty USN (Retired)

 

Report Abuse
 

I never once said it was infallible. The difference between science and religion is that while both are the results of the minds of mankind, science weighs evidence while ... Read More 

I never once said it was infallible. The difference between science and religion is that while both are the results of the minds of mankind, science weighs evidence while never once claiming to be absolutely 100% correct until enough evidence is there fore a theory to become a Law. However, for a theory to become as such in science it has to have some solid evidence to begin with, otherwise it would be a useless hypothesis.

To bob...
Those 9,999 other religions are still followed and practiced around the world. Not on the same scale as christianity, judaism, islam, hindu or other more well known religions, but they are still followed. People still worship ancient greek, egyptian, and norse gods. They've clearly managed to weather the test of time for far longer than your god, just with a much smaller sustained following. According to your logic, Anubis, Thor, and Zeus must all be real. Rather, it is more logical and to the point of reality that none of them exist, and your god is no exception to this.

 

Report Abuse
 

This is just a little more of the same article. Why do evolutionists not agree on this theory? I thought the evolutionary theory was infallible.

Feduccia and Martin reject ... Read More 

This is just a little more of the same article. Why do evolutionists not agree on this theory? I thought the evolutionary theory was infallible.

Feduccia and Martin reject the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, with good reason. But they are unwilling to abandon evolution, so instead they believe that birds evolved from reptiles called crocodilomorphs. They propose these small, crocodile-like reptiles lived in trees, and "initially leapt, then glided from perch to perch." (18)

But a gliding stage is not intermediate between a land animal and a flier. Gliders either have even longer wings than fliers (compare a glider's wingspan with an airplane's, or the wingspan of birds like the albatross which spend much time gliding), or have a wide membrane which is quite different from a wing (note the shape of a hang-glider or a flying squirrel). Flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new, generic information that a non-flying creature lacks. Another problem is:

Neither their hypothetical ancestor nor transitional forms linking it to known fossil birds have been found. And although they rightly argue that cladistic analyses [comparisons of shared characteristics] are only as good as the data upon which they are based, no cladistic study has yet suggested a non-theropod ancestor. (19)

In short, Feduccia and Martin provide devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved "ground up" from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia and Martin's "trees-down" (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right - birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all! This is consistent with the biblical account that distinct kinds of birds were created on Day 5 (Gen. 1:20-23).



Feduccia says "Feathers are a near-prefect
adaptation for flight" because they are
lightweight, strong, aerodynamically shaped,
and have an in intricate structure of barbs and
hooks. This structure makes them waterproof.
and a quick preen with the bill will cause
flattened feather to snap into fully aerodynamic
shape again.

The atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in book highly recommended by Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, glibly states: "Feathers are modified reptilian scales,"' (22) a widely held view among evolutionists. But scales are folds in skin; feathers are complex structures with barb, barbules, and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to hair.

The atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in book highly recommended by Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, glibly states: "Feathers are modified reptilian scales,"' (22) a widely held view among evolutionists. But scales are folds in skin; feathers are complex structures with barb, barbules, and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to hair.

The atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in book highly recommended by Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, glibly states: "Feathers are modified reptilian scales,"' (22) a widely held view among evolutionists. But scales are folds in skin; feathers are complex structures with barb, barbules, and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to hair.

In chapter 2 we showed that every structure or organ must be represented by information at the genetic level, written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information had to arise in the bird's DNA which was not present in that of its alleged reptile ancestor.

As usual, natural selection would not favor the hypothetical intermediate forms. Many evolutionists claim that dinosaurs developed feathers for insulation and later evolved and refiner them for flight purposes. But like all such "just-so" stories this fails to explain how the new generic information arose so it cold be selected for.

Anther problem is that selection for heat insulation is quite different from selection for flight. On birds that have lost the ability to fly, the feathers have also lost much of their structure and become hair-like. On flightless birds, mutations degenerating the aerodynamic feather structure would not be as much a handicap as they would be on a flying bird. Therefore, natural selection would not eliminate them, and might even select for such degeneration. As usual, loss of flight and feather structure are losses of information, so are irrelevant to evolution, which requires an increase of information. All that matters it that the feathers provide insulation, and hair-like structures are fine - they work for mammals. (23) That is, natural selection would work against the development of a flight feather if the feathers were needed for insulation. And hairy feathers are adequate.

Downy feathers are also good insulators and are common on flightless birds. Their fluffiness is because they lack the hooks of flight feathers. Again, natural selection would work to prevent evolution of aerodynamic feathers from heat insulators.

Finally, feather proteins (F-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (a-keratins), as well. One researcher concluded:

At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis [shape/form generation], gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different. (24)

 

Report Abuse
 

What follows is just a small excerpt from a longer article on dinosaurs to birds. It covers some of the discoveries you listed and some you didn't.

Feduccia is not convinced, ... Read More 

What follows is just a small excerpt from a longer article on dinosaurs to birds. It covers some of the discoveries you listed and some you didn't.

Feduccia is not convinced, and neither is his colleague, University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin. Martin says: "You have to put this into perspective. To the People who wrote the paper, the chicken world be a fathered dinosaur." (13) Feduccia and Martin believe that Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches. They have, birdlike teeth and lack the long tail seen in theropods. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods. (14)

There are many problems with the dinosaur-to-bird dogma. Feduccia points out:

"It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails," exactly the wrong anatomy for flight. (15)

There is also very strong evidence from the forelimb structures that dinosaurs could not have been the ancestors of birds. A team led by Feduccia studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal Science." (16) Their findings were reported as follows:

New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is "almost impossible" for the species to be closely related." (17)

Alan Feduccia is an evolutionist and not a christian. Now! Who is it that is following blindly!

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny,

And, exactly are all those other God's of the other 9,998 religions? Are you telling us that there are still people worshiping them. Our God has lasted over 2,000 ... Read More 

Danny,

And, exactly are all those other God's of the other 9,998 religions? Are you telling us that there are still people worshiping them. Our God has lasted over 2,000 years. There must be some reason. Maybe He's real!

 

Report Abuse
 

Bob,
Wow, way to go regurgitating Pascal's pathetic wager. Unfortunately, when you weigh the number of religions in the world, and the dogmatic separations that exist ... Read More 

Bob,
Wow, way to go regurgitating Pascal's pathetic wager. Unfortunately, when you weigh the number of religions in the world, and the dogmatic separations that exist within christianity alone, that "If we're right you have everything to gain" nonsense holds absolutely no water. I have more of a chance of dying in a fight protecting my family and going to Valhalla than following a set of dogmas to get into Heaven. And it's funny cuz all heaven means is "Sky." IF I want to spend time in the sky I'll buy a plane ticket.

By the way, prayer is a waste of time. This has been determined scientifically. The source for that? Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion," which lists the original source for the double-blind study that proves that prayer does NOTHING.

I suppose you'll pull out the "God's time is different than ours" or "IT's about faith, so if god acted in that study it would remove the need for faith."

Faith is weakness. Faith is foolishness. Faith is a fear tool. Faith is the biggest plague mankind has wrought upon itself. It's the easiest out of an argument that allows one to cling to their outdated and useless religions.

To JPC,
My whole point about Pascal's wager is that it is outdated and meaningless, and in fact has always been meaningless because it assumes that there's a 50/50 chance that there is or is not a single, christian god. It's flawed, overly simplified, and is one of the arguing points I hear belched out of the hive mind that consists of members of the christian faith. It doesn't take into account the 9,998 other religions that existed at the time, or the multiple gods of the majority of those religions. When you weigh those odds out with all the factors of the modern world, christianity has a 0.002% of being correct. That's something for EVERYONE to think about. Almost every single religions that exists claims that it is the one true path to salvation/enlightenment/eternal bliss in the next life. If you look at every god ever dreamed up, in every religion in existence, you would easily see that ALL gods were created in MAN'S image, not the other way around. Every god is either human or anthropomorphic. There's no arguing that point. Not a single deity exists in all of mythology that isn't at least half human.

To Nicholas,
DUH, Pakicetus is a land mammal. That's the entire point. But if you follow the evolutionary path of all the other fossils I listed (Which isn't even close to the complete transitional list in the fossil record of land mammal to aquatic mammal evolution) you'll see the progression.

If whales didn't evolve from land animals, then find me something in the creation story that explains why whales and dolphins have vestigial appendages?

The problem with the entire book of Genesis, and in fact the bible itself, is that all references to animals are clearly the mere result of the observation of the bronze age tribesmen that wrote it. It says that bats are birds. We know better. I don't want to hear that "Well, man classified the animals into different groups blah blah blah." Sure, we did, but we did so through observation of what separates different species. And those traits haven't changed at all in millions of years, since the fist mammals evolved. You put stock in a book that up until extremely recent translatsions (Everything from the New King James version to everything written after it.) says that unicorns, satyrs, cockatrices, dragons, fairies, and other such mythological creatures exist.

The bible says that a whale or giant fish swallowed a man whole. There is not nor ever has been a whale or fish that could swallow a man whole. Whales have throats that are far too small for that, and even the largest fish to ever exist alongside humans could never pull that off. There is no reference to digestive fluids in that story either, once again proving that they new nothing at all of biology, zoology, or anything of the sort, and were merely making up stories based on what they assumed, not facts.

To Winston,
Indeed, there is nothing about religion that deserves respect. In fact, if it wasn't for the brutal actions of every religion that has ever come to power, including that of the catholic church or the puritans in the early US, religion wouldn't have made it out of the dark ages. It has been traditionalized through fear, violence, and murder. There is a saying I hear often, and it disturbs me that it has become accepted as some sort of universal truth. "Never discuss religion and politics." Well, Religion and Politics, and the fundamentalism they both carry, are the biggest problems mankind has every endured and kept alive. You can never fix a problem without discussing it, and yet religion is somehow an off-limits, taboo subject. It gets undeserved, unnecessary respect. It must be abolished. Yes, politics too. Because not a single political system has ever worked. Ever. Even the one we live in is failing, and has been failing miserably however slowly for over 100 years. We're all human beings. There's no reason for us to be divided by such idiotic and childish things as religion or political party. Or even money. They're all trivial things, and when they're eliminated things will be a lot more peaceful.

 

Report Abuse
 

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this ... Read More 

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere. Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible.[1]



The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched--not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties--an effect we still feel to this day.

This is just one of many examples. Do your research Danniel, before you draw your conculusion.

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny,

I've read your retorts and those of my fellow Christians who have shared their thoughts. And this is what all our futures break down to. I think you could agree ... Read More 

Danny,

I've read your retorts and those of my fellow Christians who have shared their thoughts. And this is what all our futures break down to. I think you could agree that when we Christians die, we believe we will spend eternity in heaven with the creator whom we served by faith on this earth. We also believe that all those who choose to spend their lives trying to disprove His extistence and don't even consider Him real, will spend their eternity in hell. That's not judgmental on my part, it's just part of what God revealed to us through his prophets. Of course, you believe neither ... heaven or hell. So I must assume when, in your view, everyone dies, Christian believers and non-believers, we all just rot in the earth and go away to nowhere.

There's only one decision you have to make, and that is to accept our position by faith, or stick with yours through some thoughts contained in only tha tiny speck of intellect we call the human mind. Seems like you're intent on sticking with your position at present and we're definitely intent on retaining ours.

That leaves only one question that you have to answer for yourself, and, you're the only one who can do it. We can only give you alternate information and you can decide what to go with.

That question is "What if we're right!". If you are right, we have nothing to lose. If we are in fact right, you have everything to gain right along with us.

Decide. We'll pray for you whether you like it or not. Sorry, but it's our part of our job in this tiny speck of time we've been given in this world.

 

Report Abuse
 

Mr. Uribes,

I discovered some fascinating information behind your so-called transitional fossils. This is the first one on your list: Pakicetus

"The Bible teaches ... Read More 

Mr. Uribes,

I discovered some fascinating information behind your so-called transitional fossils. This is the first one on your list: Pakicetus

"The Bible teaches that whales and other sea creatures were created before land animals, and were to reproduce ‘after their kind’, not change into a different kind (Genesis 1:20–25). However, evolutionists believe that whales evolved from land creatures. For a long time, Darwin and his followers didn’t even have remotely plausible fossil evidence to support their ‘faith’. E.g. evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper admitted in 1962: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e. carnivores and ungulates (hoofed animals)] and the whales.'" (1)

Now let's look at the so-called "new" fossil evidence:

When evolutionists find "fossil evidence" they have, as in this case, 3 small insignificant fragments of the skull which make up about 1/5th of the size of the finished skull they "create" through their imaginations. Then they call this evidence.

Then they found more bone fragments and manufactured an elaborate theory of how this animal swam in the oceans and waddled on land.

As God would have it, prominent evolutionists unearthed more skeletal fragments and have come to a new conclusion.

"New discoveries have blown away this imaginative ‘reconstruction’. A prominent evolutionary whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues, unearthed more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.7 The commentary on this paper in the same issue8 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ (See skeleton, right.) This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an animal right at home in the sea!"
(1)http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp

 

Report Abuse
 

This is from an article written by Peter Kreeft.
To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. ... Read More 

This is from an article written by Peter Kreeft.
To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief?

Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural light".
Danniel, I have not seen the Zeitgeist Movie as of yet, but some time in the near furture I will watch it. However, I did visit the "Zeitgeist" web page and I read their "mission statement" and the one name that came to mind as I was reading it was the name of Karl Marx. I now have a question for you,have you ever bothered to pick up a commentary on the bible or maybe read a book about science not written by an athiest? Even if you are not convinced the information is true, at least it would give you a better understanding about what the enemy thinks.

 

Report Abuse
 

Danny, what does your statement, "You said you're an engineer, not a biologist" mean? You read a couple of books (or a synopsis of his ideas) from a pro-atheist ... Read More 

Danny, what does your statement, "You said you're an engineer, not a biologist" mean? You read a couple of books (or a synopsis of his ideas) from a pro-atheist zoologist, Richard Dawkins and that makes you an expert. Many of Dawkins ideas especially of “memetic theory” are questionable at best. Dick Dawkins says that there is nothing about religion that deserves any respect, and none should be shown to it which you seem to share. So, why would any critical thinker read a book of a religious bigot who lets his personal beliefs cloud his scientific judgment? Do all zoologist agree with Dick? NO!
As for Kent Hovind, until you mentioned him, I never heard of him. I am a critical thinker not ideologue like Mr. Hovind, Dick or you. As for Empirical evidence, magicians depend on empirical evidence to make their tricks work. So, the illusions magicians use appear to be fact and in your world a magic act is a factual science. When pilots fly at high G-levels, they cannot trust their equilibrium as to which way is up. They have to rely on instruments that empirically don’t feel correct.
I noticed you haven't listed any of your qualifications other than you can read or at least partially read. Your regurgitation of other’s idea is evident and weak of original thought or prose. Your arguments are filled with inaccuracies and your logic does not indicate a high degree of sophistication or intellect. As I have stated before and will continue to state, I only respond to you as the poorly written arguments have inaccuracies that could lead others who don’t do research to believe the arguments are valid. Of all the commenter’s on Wilson County News, your ideas are the most incoherent and with extreme elements of fanaticism. So, as long as you spew your hatred and blind rage towards Christians on my hometown paper, I will continue to post and challenge your vile and condescending ranting and ravings. OBTW, I have a Master's in Environmental Science in addition to my Bachelor’s in Electrical Engineering. So, I believe I have demonstrated the ability to assimilate knowledge in both the hard and soft sciences as well as provide logical debate in areas beyond my specialty. Damnant quod non intellegunt

 

Report Abuse
 

Firstly, to JPC...

Have you watched Zeitgeist, or been to the Zeitgeist site? All of the sources used are listed, and all the ones I looked into matched up. All the attempts ... Read More 

Firstly, to JPC...

Have you watched Zeitgeist, or been to the Zeitgeist site? All of the sources used are listed, and all the ones I looked into matched up. All the attempts at debunking Zeitgeist have come really really really short of anything remotely solid. It's always the same with you silly christians..."Cuz the bible says so."

The bible does not once give a detailed description of the actual universe as we know it today, and that's because they had no scientists of any kind in the hebrew culture. Even the Greeks at the time were limited in their technology, but even they figured out more about astronomy, math, and other such thing than was ever mentioned in the bible.

Bible verses, such as the ones you mentioned, are put there so that people like yourself can have something to cling to when everything else is disproven. They're meaningless safe-guards to a 2,000 year old propaganda machine.

Rebecca, I suggest you stop listening to Kent Hovind and your church leaders and check up on the fossil record. There are plenty of transitional fossils. I'll name a few for you.

Evolution of Whales/Dolphins:
Pakicetus
Ambolucetus
Kutchicetus
Artiocetus
Dorudon
Aetiocetus

Dinosaurs to Birds:
Yixianosaurus
Pedopenna
Archaeopteryx
Confusciusornis
Icthyorinis

And that's just to name a few. Do some more digging.

Winston,

Empirical evidence is used when there's no facts? I beg to differ. Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality. Hence Empirical evidence would be facts, since all scientific evidence is obtained through observation and testing. I've heard all of the arguments attempting to disprove all of the evidence gathered for Evolution so far. It's more circumstantial or fabricated than what you claim the evidence for evolution ever could be. You said you're an engineer, not a biologist. I suggest you get your information about biological research from reliable sources such as Richard Dawkins, instead of fools like Kent Hovind.

 

Report Abuse
 

Zeitgeist, The Movie

"Zeitgeist is propaganda - Productions that make staunch social or political commentaries but do not contain verifiable sources are basically ... Read More 

Zeitgeist, The Movie

"Zeitgeist is propaganda - Productions that make staunch social or political commentaries but do not contain verifiable sources are basically propaganda. I’m sorry to say it, but this is propaganda of the worst type entertaining, emotionally compelling, and ultimately manipulative. Time and time again, the film draws sweeping conclusions and points out ‘flaws’ in conventional thought with no basis in third-party authorities.

There are only a few instances when a verifiable source is connected with any of the claims made during the video and all too often, the arguments are simply categorical." Review of the online video Zeitgeist, The Movie » Drift Reality

You see Daniel, when you point your finger at someone, you must remember that there are three fingers pointing back at you.

 

Report Abuse
 

A question for you, Danny. In all of the "tons of empirical evidence" backing up evolution, why has NOT one transitional fossil been found EVER? If everything ... Read More 

A question for you, Danny. In all of the "tons of empirical evidence" backing up evolution, why has NOT one transitional fossil been found EVER? If everything happened as slowly as it is said to have happened, how is it possible not to have millions, thousands, hundreds, dozens or even ONE fossil that is part one animal and just a little bitty part of the animal is supposedly evolved into eventually? I'm gonna answer it for you.

Genesis 1
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

So, why would an "plagiarized" ancient myth feel the need to include what was obvious to them and could have been seen as redundant, "after their kind...according to their kinds...according to its kind?" They had no knowledge of the evolution theory.

It is my guess that because God is God and is not subjected to the constraints of time, He has been to today and tomorrow and knew about people like you, Danny. God put those words in for you! He put them in for anyone who would come up against the Satanic confusion of evolution.

He even added something else:

Romans 1
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

May you have ears to hear and eyes to see!

 

Report Abuse
 

Wow? Empirical evidence? Empirical evidence is used why you don't have facts of rational/reasoning prove. Evolution is an unproven theory; there is NO scientific proof ... Read More 

Wow? Empirical evidence? Empirical evidence is used why you don't have facts of rational/reasoning prove. Evolution is an unproven theory; there is NO scientific proof that makes the theory a fact/proven theory. There have been many scientists who have manipulated (lied) the data to support the theory of evolution. However, the folks who cling to the THEORY of evolution as fact are blinded by their bias and comforted because it provides an answer where the validity is irrelevant. In scientific endeavors, it sometimes takes lifetimes to provide scientific reasons as to why a phenomenon occurs/exists. So, since there are no other scientific reasons for the existence or development of man, as a scientist, I think the theory is worth teaching as long as it is stressed it is just a possibility not a fact. I do believe the closed minds of some who believe in the theory of evolution is Ape like. In my research, I have not read one study to conclusively support the theory of evolution which has not been disproven. So, for now, I will let the Evolution believers; yes, believers, because it is faith not scientific prove; have their claim to the Ape Kingdom. As for Creationism, it has no place in a scientific discussion. However, a footnote of intelligent design could be accommodated. The question would be in what class; a history or world religions class? If in Science Class, intelligent design would be put forth as alternative non-scientific theory. I have seen worse science and propaganda in text then intelligent design.

 

Report Abuse
 

AH, pascal was indeed quite ignorant, as his wager itself proves, as is does not take into account the other 9,998 religions that existed at the time he made it. ... Read More 

AH, pascal was indeed quite ignorant, as his wager itself proves, as is does not take into account the other 9,998 religions that existed at the time he made it.

Likewise, C.S. Lewis is not that brilliant of a mind either. Being Atheist is too simple? I think not. It takes more studying to come to the conclusion that there are no gods than it does to accept hearsay because it promises some ultimate truth that one wants to hear.

I would like to know what is so worn out about my sources? Zeitgeist is definitely not that old.

No matter what there are still religions that outdate christianity and all other monotheistic religions, which christianity clearly draws from in its canon. By the way, the version of the bible you quote is clearly one of the newer version which has edited out all of the mythological creatures aside from angels, demons, and giants. Pick up an Old King James version. Then, while everyone keeping up with this is at it, try and get a hold of a copy of one of the three or four books that were left out of the bible. Their absurdity is beyond anything else that is in the bible.

What I find most ignorant of the religious is that they would rather boast about believing that mankind was created out of dirt while taking offense and disgust to a sound theory backed by tons of empirical evidence that suggests that like all other things in the universe, we developed slowly from a simpler form with a common ancestor simply because they can't stomach the idea that we could be related to apes.

Please do address that comment and any other comment of plagiarism in the bible. One thing I've always found amusing in my studies is that all the mythology the bible steals from is from a fairly geocentric area. There's no similarities that I've found so far with east Asian mythologies.

All the stories that we consider myths now were all part of widely believed religions, and the bible will inevitably take its place next to "The Odyssey" and "The Epic of Gilgamesh" along with the Koran and other such tales. I say, why delay the inevitable? Instead I would prefer that such action be sped up. The laws of the universe that science has discovered rule out the existence of gods, simply by showing that the traits that make a deity as such are impossible in all reality.