Editor’s note: Johnnie Moore is the author of Dirty God (#DirtyGod). He is a professor of religion and vice president at Liberty University. Keep track of him @johnnieM .
By Johnnie Moore, Special to CNN
(CNN) - Jesus was a lot more like you than you think, and a lot less clean cut than this iconic image of him that floats around culture.
You know the image. It’s the one where Jesus is walking like he’s floating in robes of pristine white followed by birds singing some holy little ditty. He’s polished, manicured, and clearly – God.
But despite the Christian belief that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, Jesus was a rather dirty God.
He was the “earthly” son of a carpenter, and life in the first-century was both more lurid and unfinished than our collective religious memory seems to recall.
To that end, I suggested recently to several astounded colleagues of mine that Jesus actually had to go to the bathroom, perhaps even on the side of the road between Capernaum and Jerusalem.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
What tipped them over the edge was when I insinuated that Jesus, like almost every other human being living in the rural world in that time, might have even had dysentery on an occasion or two.
Someone said, “You mean that Jesus might have had severe diarrhea?”
“Yep,” I replied, “That’s exactly what I mean.”
It seems like an obvious statement if you believe that Jesus was “fully God” and “fully man” (as most evangelicals believe and call the Incarnation), but to some of us it seems in the least, inappropriate, and at the most, sacrilege, to imagine Jesus in this way. We might believe that God was also man, but we picture him with an ever-present halo over his head.
But, actually, the Jesus of the Bible was more human than most people are conditioned to think.
I call this the dirty side of Jesus. He was grittier, and a lot more like us than maybe we believe, and that’s one of the reasons why so many thousands of people followed him so quickly.
They could relate to him.
He was the teacher from a small town who knew and understood the economic insecurity that was common in the first century. Times must have been rather tough for Jesus at points in his life, for he even spoke of being homeless, having to sleep on the ground with no roof over his head.
He also knew what it was like to have his message rejected and how it felt to be misunderstood. Jesus was regarded with such little significance in his hometown that one of his critics once remarked sardonically, “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?” Jesus eventually had to move to different city (Capernaum) because his teachings so infuriated the people living in his hometown that they drove him out of Nazareth and even tried to throw him off a cliff.
'Jesus Wife' fragment gets more testing, delays article
The real Jesus had dirt underneath his fingernails and calluses on his hands. He probably smelled badly from sweating profusely in the Judean sun on his long hikes to Jerusalem, and Jesus was, without a doubt, rumored to be a hypocrite or absolutely mad for all the time he spent with prostitutes and those afflicted with leprosy.
Not exactly have a clean-cut image.
He had a rather shady reputation.
Some people thought he was a revolutionary. The religious leaders called him a heretic, and others even accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton - in no small part because of the vagabond group of disciples he had with him. No serious religious leader of his day would have ever recruited such people.
For his core 12 disciples, Jesus included a tough-as-nails, bombastic fisherman (Peter), a chief tax collector named Matthew (the most hated popular figure of the time), an eventual traitor who was stealing money out of the offering bucket (Judas), a prolific doubter (Thomas), two jocks nicknamed the “Sons of Thunder” (James and John) and Simon the Zealot, a member of a radical political party which believed in using violence to kick out the Romans.
Jesus was sarcastic, too.
He often snapped back at the Pharisees with a tone fit for late-night television, and in a terribly embarrassing moment for all those around him, Jesus even called these respected religious teachers “snakes” that were probably sons of “Satan.”
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
That’s not exactly the behavior of a sweet, self-help teacher with a halo over his head.
It’s the behavior of a frustrated man who might also be divine, but sure knows how it feels for annoying people to get under his skin.
Christians believe that Jesus chose to be born fully human, too, but why?
Lots of theologians have laid out opinions over the centuries, and in their opining they have tried once again to hijack Jesus’ humanity by defining it in philosophical terms. I believe it’s simpler than the philosophy and church councils and centuries of argument.
The brilliance of Christianity is the image of a God, named Jesus, arrived with dirty hands.
Jesus came in a time period when Greco-Roman gods were housed in gigantic temples and portrayed with superhuman powers and with superhuman physiques. Gods were believed to be far away from people on their mountains or hemmed up in their sanctuaries.
Jesus arrived in defiance of this prevailing imagery.
Jesus didn’t come flinging lightning bolts from a mountaintop, or playing politics in Rome. He came to live in a typical Middle Eastern village called Nazareth that was home to a couple hundred typical people. He didn’t decide to brandish his power, but to spend most of his time with the powerless and disenfranchised. And when he started a religious movement that reshaped history, he did it in the most profound and anticlimatic way:
He let himself be killed, and then he busted open a tomb.
In Jesus we meet a Savior who understood the desire to sleep just a few more hours, and who had to control his temper sometimes. In Jesus we find a God we can relate to because he chose to relate to us.
He was the God who became dirty so that the world’s souls might be made clean.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Johnnie Moore.
No shred of evidence??? More than a 1,000 pages of His word , and No Shred of evidence???
The most popular, and widely read book in all of humanity, and No shred of evidence???
Hundred of millions of believers, and No shred of evidence??
Let me take a poll, how many of you aggies ,and athies out there have actually read the Bible front to back??
Read the Bible front to back, and then come back and comment on this board.
Lord of the Rings has a lot of pages – does that mean every thing in it is true?
Mass delusion doesn't make something true either.
The creation myth is not true – not only is there no evidence but science proves that it is wrong. Same with Noah, Jonah, Lot, etc. etc.
Science does not disprove God or Creation. In fact, if you read the Book of Genesis, you'll see how the Western concept of science emerged from first few chapters of the Book. Of course you wouldn't know this because you don't seem very literate.
Wow, you really are one arrogant fvckwad demanding that people follow your orders. I've read the bible 4 times from cover to cover. The last time I became more and more convinced of its untenable status.
1) Argumentum ad populum doesn't hold any weight.
2) Read the bible front to back. It was actually the beginning of my deconversion.
3) Science works off self-correction, not commands by theot like the entire bible is. So no, science is not in any way based on anything in the bible.
Atheist here, read the bible front to back when I was 17, then again at 20, then finished it again at 26, then started it again at 27 but only got to Psalms before I put it down and started reading other books that claim divine origin, the bhagavad gita, books on ayurveda and even the book of mormon.
I can honestly say there is not one shred of evidence in any of the books that can be studied and verified that proves anything supernatural, divine or otherworldly. Period.
True Dick, I read The Babble enough when forced to during Sunday Indoctrination & Myth Sharing School. Please get back to us when you've read Hawking, Dawkins, Krauss, Shermer, Harris, Hitchens, etc. These gentlemen have written way more persuasive arguments against religion than The Babble has made for it.
I will add that even though there was no divine found, there were a lot of very good principles that the bible spells out for how humans should live, however these are also in many of the other books and writings, especially those of confucius and buddha. However, the fact that it has some quality principles does not outweigh the violence, the inc est and the slavery that is justified. It's like taking chocolate frosting for your cupcakes and pooping in it before you apply it. Sure 90% is yummy frosting but that 10% shlt is still too much shlt for me...
I've read the Bible... I've read the Apocryphae, the Gnostics, and the Bhudda... among others. I've studied the formation of Christianity for over a decade, the political machinations among the early sects that led to the summons to Nicea by Constantine I, I have read about the brutal (and typical) Roman suppresion of any and all who did not fall into line with the "New" religion.
What have you read?
@ True Dichotomy There's no reason to tell us what you had for supper.
please stop posting this video. I've seen it already. I liked the statements made by Dinesh and Ian, but Lawrence made misrepresented science and made too many "mommy boyish" comments about his book. The other ugly guy from the Skeptical Enquirer magazine ws just plain stupid.
There is a God and he created the universe. God is eternal and infinite in knowledge, power, wisdom...
The universe is finite, non-eternal, but expanding outward from a single point or singularity that existed at the moment of creation. It does not matter exactly when this event occurred because it happened outside of time and space. The universe has the appearance of being infinite, but once you reach the "edge" (there is really is no edge), you look back to the starting point. It's kind of like those old-fashioned video games in that when you get to the edge of the screen you pop out on the other side. Just imagine the same thing happening in three dimensions, and hence, the Universe! So, no matter what direction you go in, you come back to the starting point. This is hard for the human mind to comprehend, but I'd like to point out this is an example of a rule that has been created by God. God makes the rules and we are left to figure them out even if they defy our ability to apply common sense thinking or human logic. Common sense fails, human logic fails, science fails, but God upholds His working rules and holds the Universe in the palm of His hand. Jesus never fails.
Blah, blah, blah. . .
Lots of claims, no facts, you are mentally ill.
Science is limited. God is unlimited. Science requires hypothesis, inductive/deductive reasoning and theories. God requires faith and love.
The best argument that atheists could ever make is that our existing universe is somehow infinite in age. However, modern science and the big bang theory show that it is not infinite in age. Epic Fail for atheists and agnostics.
Even though multiple universes are possible, they only server to further reinforce the idea that an initial seed universe was created outside of time, space and matter dimension. Epic Fail for atheists and agnostics.
@ Hot Air
Is that the best response you can produce–to simply state something that is NOT true about me. Do not respond to my post unless you have to mental capacity and intelligence to go for it.
In the immortal words of Penn & Teller:
The unknown is most likely unlimited. No claim to date regarding God has been reasonably founded. Epic Fail for True Dic.
Still no qualifying responses... I'm waiting....
Considering the entirety of your posts are assertions with absolutely no evidence to back it up, qualifying anything you said would merely be giving it an amount of time it doesn't deserve.
Still nothing, my comment stands uncontested.
Are you blind or just plain dishonest?
All you have is assertions, nothing more. Present actual evidence for your "god is this and that and this and that" besides "I say it, therefore it's true".
I'm sorry, "True Dichotomy", but "God", and "His" are elements of mythology, therefore your assertions are unfounded. working rules and holds the Universe in the palm of His hand. Jesus never fails. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL".
I won!! Yeah!!!!!
Someone who puts reason and faith on the same pedestal is accusing someone else of not being intelligent?
'This is hard for the human mind to comprehend, but I'd like to point out this is an example of a rule that has been created by God."
So you go from saying you CAN'T understand it, to saying you DO understand it. You are a first class idiot.
You know, dichotomy, you cannot provide the slightest shred of evidence to support even the slightest hint of your deity, and you think everyone else has failed to make their case? Wow!
I am always surprised at how incredibly closed-minded religious people are, and how willing they are to accept the most idiotic assertions if they support their opinions. It
s the perfect filter to remove all truth from their perceptions.
Classic God of The Gaps moderated religious turtle shit.
True Dick, I find it interesting that you did not dispute making many claims with no facts. Perhaps you are not as mentally ill as I think.
meant to say great men of faith (like Abraham). Job and Esther are real people.
I'm sorry "True Dichotomy", but "Abraham", "Job" and "Esther" are elements of mythology, therefore your assertions are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL".
The Bible is not fiction. It is "God Breathed", and has instances of direct dictation from God, but is mostly God's word revealed through the prophets and great mean of faith. To state that is fiction is simply not true, and an example of how atheists conflate the truth with other known false ideas to try to prove a flimsy point.
Your bible is a fraud. Your god and his only ill-gotten son Jesus never existed.
The Bible is a work of men. Period. The decisions about which of the many stories about Jesus and his band of followers were to be included in the assembled tome were all made by men. Men are fallible. Men made the decision to declare the stories that were not selected as heretical, destroying many potentially important writings and invoking brutal Roman suppresion of any who did not fall into line (see the story of Arius as one example), all in the name of creating a single unified version of the story of Jesus that may or may not have been true.
And from this Man-created book (compiled nearly 3 Centuries after the events depicted) came this little thing called "Christianity". When you come to think on it, the reason it is considered "divine" relates as much to the editing of the texts as to the truth they may have once contained.
OH, and T-D, I've read more than just the Bible. Several thousand pages more. Including some stories that some man decided were less worthy than the ones chosen. Together, they tell a somewhat different story of those days, and who is to say that they are untrue?
You don't even know how you got here now you want to find flaws with how you were made? First understand how you got here and why you're hear, then you'll understand how and why you're designed that way.
19 You will therefore say to me: “Why does he yet find fault? For who has withstood his express will?” 20 O man, who, then, really are you to be answering back to God? Shall the thing molded say to him that molded it, “Why did you make me this way?” 21 What? Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for an honorable use, another for a dishonorable use?
Even if that quote made sense it wouldn't explain how humans came to be or why the "design" is clearly imperfect but not surprising is easily accounted for by evolution.
First you'll need to provide some EE for your complete fiction.
Science is limited. God is unlimited. Science requires hypothesis, inductive/deductive reasoning and theories. God requires faith and love.
First you'll need to supply EE for your fictional assertions. We'll wait.
Is that your best attempt at logic and reasoning?
One of the things that most Christians dont think of is the Bible as a book of promises. How many never read their Bible and find the nuggets that are in there so they can apply them to their situation. It is sad really that we bump around looking at the world thinking how am I going to do this when God has already made a way through His promises. There are so many if's and every time you see one it is usually attached to one of Gods rewards or promises. It is the start of what it takes to have God correct a situation for you. It is faith that allows us to look in the Bible and seek these promises and utter them with our mouths and ask God to perform as He did then. Are you in a situation that needs help and your looking around to see who can help you? Don't, look around, look in the Bible and see what promise God has for you and the situation and allow Him to work it out. This is the start of the walk with the Lord it will bring you closer to Him. Let me also say that Gods ways of working a situation out may not be the way you would, He is so creative and big that He sees all the possibilities and works them all to our favor and its after the dust has settled that we sit back, look back and say Thank You Lord for working that out for me. In hindsight it becomes clear how God used all things together for our good.
The Bible, is fiction; because, overall, its authors meant it as presentation, not as science, or even as history, which is a form of science with its own scientific rules of evidence. Sometimes they accepted the truth of the stories they used, but sometimes, they did not — Job and Esther describe personalities who never lived, and the authors knew it. Some of it reports historical fact, of course: there was a King David, as there was a Babylonian invasion. There was also a prophet named Isaiah, but his prophecies were included in the Bible to give us lessons of morality not of history. The same is true of Genesis through Deuteronomy, Kings, Judges and all the other books, some of whose characters really lived and some of whom didn’t. It doesn’t matter. Fiction can be chock-full of characters who really lived, with a story line of things they really did – and still be fiction.
“Fiction,” says Eagleton, “is a question of how texts behave and of how we treat them.” The question is what we are invited to do with the biblical text.
Until relatively recently (the invention of printing) The Bible was read and studied, usually out loud, for the moral lessons within it. But then came printing, along with reading as a personal pastime and fiction as what people liked best to read. Fiction was falsely viewed as private entertainment about nothing substantive, hardly the moral equivalent of history, philosophy and science, which were public truths.
The Bible now seemed fictitious because it wasn’t “true” in the way that history, philosophy and science are. Supporters of the Bible bristled at this claim because fiction was considered paltry, hardly what you would stake your life on. The Bible is history, these defenders insisted, fact not fiction.
But that judgment misses the point. Even if every bit of the Bible were literally true, it would still be fiction because of the reason it was compiled, the reason we insist on reading it, and its presentational nature as a world unto itself with its own unique lessons to impart. If you want to know such things as the point of existence, the meaning of life, and the ways humankind has gone right and wrong, you cannot do a whole lot better than start with fiction: the fiction that is the Bible.
Spoken by someone who has not been there and doesn't know. Who would you listen to someone who hasn't been there or someone who has? I like the idea of experience not words without knowledge and one more thing these here don't even know science they just speak someone else s work.
And you know this How?
Is for everybody and fact.
Science yea its fact till its not then there's new fact supported by theories yes I know how the shell game works
Bob, Yes science discovers new information and new theories are developed to account for all known facts. Contrast that with the myths in the bible which have been largely unchanged since Judaism borrowed them from neighboring tribes. Science shows that the creation myth, the Noah myth, the Jonah myth, etc. are all wrong. Yet you cling to it as if it were god's diary. You wouldn't accept medical guidance, or mechanical guidance that had no scientific basis – why accept ancient myths as facts?
You said, "theories are developed to account for all known facts."
Theories are concepts that are NOT yet verified! It's interesting to note how evolutionists keeps on changing
their views and making up new theories to explain their view points THANKS TO SCIENCE & THE BIBLE PROVING THEM WRONG!
Again! The Genesis account in the Bile cannot be disputed! It is provened fact! Humans gives birth "According to it's kind." Animals gives birth "According to its kind." Fruit trees produce fruits "According to it's kind." There is nothing that evolutionist can say or theories they can come up with to dispute that FACT! So don't hate in the Bible because it proves you wrong. I know the truth hurts sometimes, but TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!
3% of Christians and 100% of atheists are subscribed to a literal fundamental interpretation of the Bible.
Actually, about 31% of all Americans and about 40% of all Christians think the Bible is literally true:
A higher percent for Christians than non-believers (for whom the statement doesn't even make sense). The perecnt is low for Catholics.
What I will agree is that a lot of atheists refuse to recognize the Christians that doen't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and want to argue as if all Christians do. It's an easier group to target, certainly, but a lazy activity as debates go.
The bible is either the inerrant word of a god, or it is open to interpretation. If open to interpretation than any interpretation is as good or bad as another, and therefore cannot be the basis of any spiritual "Truth". If Christians had any honesty about them, they would commit to the life of a literal bible. Otherwise they're just practicing a farce of cherry-picked, appropriate for the moment, feel-good, reinterpreted, smiley-face platitudes.
The majority, I assume, are the "smiley-face platitude" type. I have family like this. Knowingly or not, they've moderated away from the violence and fundamentalism commanded within the bible. It seems completely glossed over like old socks stashed back in a drawer. Right or wrong, I feel forcing the cognitive dissonance of the literal bible versus their moderation can be helpful in breaking them free from religion. I take the old socks and shove them back into their face.
This requires the literalism of bible verses, even while I understand many Christians do not take the bible literally.
Nothing put forward by science has been an improvement over the assertions made by the ancient Hebrews many thousands of years ago.
In regard to the origin and fate of the universe.
You can't be serious!
Given that nothing else they said has been true, why believe the 'godmustadunit' theory of the origin of the universe. There is no evidence for a god this side of the Big Bang. Anything before that is uncertain, but if a god can be eternal why can't a universe?
Is your screen name a play on words? I'm wondering which use of "Canon" that you might be referring to and how you mean it is loose...?
1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
2. A secular law, rule, or code of law.
a. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
b. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
4. The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
a. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: "the durable canon of American short fiction" (William Styron).
b. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.
6. Canon The part of the Mass beginning after the Preface and Sanctus and ending just before the Lord's Prayer.
7. The calendar of saints accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
8. Music A composition or passage in which a melody is imitated by one or more voices at fixed intervals of pitch and time.
Check your god(S) at the cave enterance before entering.. No god(s) required for studying humans..
updated 1 hour 55 minutes ago
Jan. 29 2013
Scientists have unearthed and dated some of the oldest stone hand axes on Earth. The ancient tools, unearthed in Ethiopia in the last two decades, date to 1.75 million years ago.
Ancient DNA reveals humans living 40,000 years ago in Beijing area related to present-day Asians, Native Americans January 21, 2013
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-ancient-dna-reveals-humans-years.html#jCp
What methods were used to test the stones and DNA?
In a "controlled environment." Why not leave to chance?
You and all atheists prove everyday that God exist. You live a life with purpose though you claim we have no purpose, your whole life is governed by laws and regulations , your existence depends on these laws and regulations of the universe and all matter, though you claim it all happened by an uncontrolled violent chance. Everything around you shows proof of intelligent design, while atheists holds on to these empty theories.
TWSYF, What evidence of intelligent design – the human body alone has so many design flaws – spine not suitable for bipedal motion, blind spot where optic nerve passes through, laryngeal nerve that connects two places a few inches apart but goes via the chest, etc. Those are clear evidence of evolution.
I have noticed that you like to put words in other people's mouths. . .
Where did I claim I have no purpose? Rather than telling me what I think how about you providing some factual, independent, verifiable and objective evidence for your beliefs, or admit that you are mentally ill or a liar?
Are you not an Atheist? What is/are the fundamental belief(s) of Atheism? Please, enlighten me!
You stated that we have physical flaws so that proves evolution. Are you being serious?
Not to mention sin, but all of the poisons that scientists put in our foods, and release in the air has everything to do to why people are born with many of the flaws we see in humans today.
9 All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury.
12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—.
Atheist claims that everything that we see around us, our universe and our existence, was all by unintelligent "BLIND CHANCE." In other words, we're an "ACCIDENT!" that just popped out of no where. What ever comes out of an "ACCIDENT," which is unintentional, without forethought, intelligent planning or direction, has no PURPOSE!!!
HotAir, and all Atheists
Definition for the word Purpose: (noun) the reason for which something is done or "created" or for which something exist.
Atheists do not believe in "creation" or that there is a purpose for our existence.
I know the truth can hurt at times, it does not mean that it's a "lie" or the person shedding light on the truth is "mentally ill."
TWSYF. The flaws I mentioned are not the result of modern pollution. All mammals have the laryngeal nerve issue which clearly shows that it was retained as part of our evolution from fish.
I refuse to believe that this is your argument for supporting evolution! What about our Brains? We're only using a small percentage, does that mean we have evolved? Just because you don't understand "WHY"we have certain parts of our physical makeup, does not mean we evolved. There is no proof, since the time that Darwin came up with that foolish argument just because he was upset at God for losing a love one in death! That's right! Till this day, no scientist has been able to give us any proof but empty speculations and a whole lot of empty theories.
7 For mere oppression may make a wise one act crazy...
I know, many of these atheist scientists are upset that the Bible gave a simple explanation, that by "scientific observation, and experimentation," proves to be accurate. As you all can see and observed for yourself, just look in the mirror and look at your parents. Look at your pets, and look at their parents.
24 And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.
26 And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.” 27 And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.”
TWSYF, here is some evidence for evolution that is written a little more for children so you can understand:
@Truth – I don't believe you actually responded to the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Your comment regarding the brain is false; we in fact do use pretty much all of our brains. In addition to the recurrent laryngeal nerve, there are any number of other examples of poor design, my personal favorite is the defunct gene for egg yolk protein sitting in your own genome. Another good example is male nip-ples.
Other indications of evolution are too numerous to actually list in full, but a few might be the clear genetic distinction between Neanderthals and modern man; the overlapping features of hominid and pre-hominid fossil forms; the progressive order of the fossil record (that is, first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds; contradicting the Genesis order and all flood models); the phylogenetic relationships between extant and extinct species (including distributions of parasitic genetic elements like Endogenous Retroviruses); the real time observations of speciation in the lab and in the wild; the real time observations of novel functionality in the lab and wild (both genetic, Lenski's E. coli, and organsimal, the Pod Mrcaru lizards); the observation of convergent evolution defeating arguments of common component creationism (new world v. old world vultures for instance); and . . . well . . . I guess you get the picture. I could go on all day with positive evidence indicating evolution because that's what science deals in, actual evidence. What you have is the standard ICR/AIG/DI list of arguments of incredulity based in misrepresentation of the science. What you don't have is any positive empirical evidence for any form of creationism, rather, you offer personal miscomprehension of science and quotes from your preferred holy book . . .
DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN
In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.
What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”
Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”30 The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
@Truth, are you aware that the information you're presenting doesn't actually argue against evolution, only against one version of the details?
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?
Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!
The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”
The point is, the father/god of evolution was wrong! His whole theory has been chopped down by his own colleagues proving him wrong. All his other theories follow the same pattern of thinking, therefore they're all wrong!
@Truth – The "Cambrian Explosion" took place over tens of millions of years and was by no means a "poofing" into existence. A couple of reasons for the dramatic (but by no means instantaneous) appearance of various body forms during these tens of millions of years are, first, hard body parts amenable to fossilization and, two, the resulting radiation of forms resulting from novel niche availability, compet-ition and predation pressures. Interestingly, we can look to radiation events in fishes in African lakes, observable in real time (that is, decades), for examples of this process. The stasis you speak of is "Punctuated Equilibrium" and is restricted to species level changes. Still, there are clear examples of gradualism within the fossil record. Further still, the nodes of PE divergence provide plenty of time for speciation events based on real time observation of these events in modern forms. When considering divergence at higher levels of taxonomy, there is a clear pattern of progression linking earlier forms to latter forms. The progressive order of the fossil record, complete with forms bridging the major distinguishing traits of modern vertebrate classes, is a fact. The evidence here is so overwhelming that creationists are required to invoke facially-flawed mechanisms to account for this order (for example, "hydrodynamic sorting" which fails in light of similar density organisms not found in the same strata, like ostriches and ornithomimids; "ecozonation" which fails in light of similar niched organisms not found in the same strata, like dolphins and plesiosaurs; and "floating biomes" for the same reasons as the previous two creationist "models").
Regarding bats, there is a limited fossil record for comparison due to their terrestrial niche and fragile skeletons which are less amenable to fossilization. Nonetheless, the record that is available clearly shows distinct lineages of evolution and that flight originated prior to echolocation. Furthermore, phylogenetic analysis of extant bats conforms with evolutionary predictions of their relationship to other Eocene mammal lineages, indicating common ancestry. Lastly, your quote mine only suggests that Darwinian gradualism has lost favor (for example, its general displacement at the species level by PE). It does not even suggest that the basic mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are flawed, that is variation, selection and adaptation remain well-supported, supplemented by still further supporting evidence of evolution from population genetics and molecular biology.
Lastly, I note that you failed to remotely address any of the specific examples I provided.
To whoever posted the Intellience Squared Video. Thank you. I enjoyed watching the video, but I disagree with the final vote. I think Ian and Dinesh presented better arguements, and I would have voted for them. Science does not refute or disprove God. The best point made during the debate was that science does not have the ability to do this.
Considering the complete and total lack of evidence to support a theory of god, it would be scientifically irresponsible to pursue said theory. You would first have to start with a testable hypothysis.
And this precisely demonstrates why science is so limited, and all scientists could use an extra heap of humble pie.
If experts cannot really explain either the origin or the early development of our universe, should we not look elsewhere for an explanation? Indeed, you have valid reasons to consider some evidence that many have overlooked but that may give you real insight on this issue. The evidence includes the precise measurements of four fundamental forces that are responsible for all properties and changes affecting matter. At the mere mention of fundamental forces, some may hesitate, thinking, 'That's solely for physicists.' Not so. The basic facts are worth considering because they affect us.
Law and Order:
From personal experience, you likely know that all things tend toward disorder. As any homeowner has observed, when left to themselves, things tend to break down or disintegrate. Scientists refer to this tendency as "the second law of thermodynamics." We can see this law at work daily. If left alone, a new automobile or bicycle will become scrap. Abandon a building and it will become a ruin. What about the universe? The law applies there too. So you might think that the order throughout the universe should give way to complete disorder.
However, this does not seem to be happening to the universe, as Professor of Mathematics Roger Penrose discovered when he studied the state of disorderliness (or, entropy) of the observable universe. A logical way to interpret such findings is to conclude that the universe started off in an ordered state and is still highly organized. Astrophysicist Alan Lightman noted that scientists "find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition." He added that "any successful theory of cosmology should ultimately explain this entropy problem"—why the universe has not become chaotic.
In fact, our existence is contrary to this recognized law. So why is it that we are alive here on earth?
Lawrence Krauss (in Atom and A Universe Fom Nothing) presents a way more believable explanation for the formation of the universe than The Babble, or any relgious charlatan.
TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE,
Here are 5 articles and numerous links explaining the fallacies in your take on the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
So you do believe in a god – Lawrence Krauss!
"So you might think that the order throughout the universe should give way to complete disorder."
You might think that, if you were a moron who didn't look closer and see the order of decay. The fact is the universe refuses to remain constant, even what we thought was empty space isn't really empty. It takes effort to keep something from decaying, to keep it in near stasis, warding off the ever changing nature of the universe, and so far we don't know of anything that is truly eternal, not even our sun, which does beg the question, is this the reason humans invented the concept of an eternal soul? Can we not accept the constantly changing nature of the universe and want something not even the Stars above get to enjoy? It strikes me as both arrogant and childish. Like a petulant, selfish teenager refusing all reason in favor of some wild emotional conviction that we somehow get to live forever when everything else we know of in the universe does not.
It's all the same empty arguments that evolutionists has been making which has been debunked time and again.
What is interesting about atheists, is that you claime not to believe in intelligent design and purpose, but you use words like laws, order, process, logic, fundamental, purpose, and so on in your scientific explanation to support your theory of our existence. And in the same breath, you claim that there were no intelligent design, no fundamental laws, order, logic or purpose in the life with "purpose" that you all live. It all happened by chance, an uncontrolled explosion. Where is the logic in that?
You're right about the fact that human created the concept of eternal soul "after death." But that's not what the Bible Really teach. The Bible states:
4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.
Sorry CREATION LOST.
EVOLUTION IN A TEST TUBE Jan. 30 2013
3-D structure of the evolved enzyme (an RNA ligase), using 10 overlaid snapshots. In the top region, the overlays show the range of bending and folding flexibility in the amino acid chain that forms the molecule. The two gray balls are zinc ions. (University of Minnesota)
University of Minnesota researchers unveil first artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube
No one is claiming Krauss, or any other scientist, is a god. Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking, etc. develop theories and explanations and expose their theories to other scientists and the public for rigorous review, unlike religion which is no better than unproven myth and astrology. Bottom line, no god has ever been proven to exist nor has The Babble been shown to be anything more than bad fiction.
The Bible teaches that when men rebel against God they are without excuse because His glory is clearly perceived through nature. Science, used in the right way, serves to glorify God because it allows us to see both how intricate and vast our Creator is at the same time.
Ultimately, the only difference between those who reject the existence of a holy God and those who believe in Him for salvation is that one refuses to acknowledge the fact that they have sinned and dishonored their Creator while the other humbly confesses their sins and trusts in the mercy of Jesus Christ in order to be forgiven through faith. We don't want to be accountable to God because we want to be the master of our own lives. Christians are no different; that is our natural disposition. But thankfully, we have been made to see that this is foolishness.
I pray the same for those who "believe" in science so that their knowledge and understanding would be used for God's glory rather than for their own shame.
A "test tube", which is a "controlled environment", why not leave to chance?
Prove that your god exists and that your religious text is the true word of your god and then we can move on to the nature of your god and the contents of your book. Until proof is provided, believers are merely engaged in the world's oldest and biggest fantasy role playing game with heavy emphasis on fantasy.
You said, "The Bible teaches that when men rebel against God they are without excuse because His glory is clearly perceived through nature."
Of course. Your fairy tale must demonize those that don't fall for the nonsense. It makes perfect sense. If you can't convince them with reasonable arguments, ostracize them. Incite hate for them among the dimwits that you did fool. Coerce them into at least publicly acting like they believe. Anything to protect the delusion.
You said, "Science, used in the right way, serves to glorify God because it allows us to see both how intricate and vast our Creator is at the same time."
Science has removed the need for gods. At least it does for those capable of tying their own shoes.
You said, "Ultimately, the only difference between those who reject the existence of a holy God and those who believe in Him for salvation is that one refuses to acknowledge the fact that they have sinned and dishonored their Creator while the other humbly confesses their sins and trusts in the mercy of Jesus Christ in order to be forgiven through faith."
No. The difference is that some abandon their infantile beliefs in imaginary friends, while others can seem to shake their reliance on the Tooth Fairy.
You said, "We don't want to be accountable to God because we want to be the master of our own lives."
We are not accountable to imaginary creatures.
You said, "I pray the same for those who "believe" in science so that their knowledge and understanding would be used for God's glory rather than for their own shame."
If you don't "believe in science" then you should get the fuck off that computer. Better not live in that house. Don't drive that car, or wear those clothes. Without science you wouldn't even have fire.
Anyone who argues against science on an internet comment board is a fucking hypocrite.
Chance already happened it is US
Why so much anger, are you sensitive. You claim that those who don't agree with those who believe in God are demonized by us, while in the same breath you do the same. Just read your own post. THE HYPOCRISY IS AMAZING ISN'T IT?
@TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE
You said, "Why so much anger, are you sensitive."
No anger, just amazement at the boundless ignorance and arrogance.
You said, "You claim that those who don't agree with those who believe in God are demonized by us, while in the same breath you do the same."
Refuting the nonsense isn't demonizing. Showing the circular reasoning that religion relies on isn't demonizing. Pointing out that your fairy tale is just that, isn't demonizing. Pointing out the hypocrisy of of using the fruits of science to attack science isn't demonizing.
You are free to believe the nonsense you so obviously do, but if you choose to put it on display on a public forum, you should expect to get some push back.
What does it mean to demonized? Why use the term if you do not believe in "demons."
You said: "Incite hate for them among the dimwits that you did fool." Is that not demonizing/name calling? And dropping "F" bombs? That usually means a person is upset, or lack vocabulary, I know you're more intelligent then that.
And I agree with you when you said if a person cannot take push back should not post on this blog. The Bible gives sound counsel on how to handle that situation.
1 Peter 3:15
15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.
You said, "What does it mean to demonized?"
In this case it is slinging baseless accusations. Specifically accusations from a fairy tale in defense of that fairy tale (and hence a circular argument at best).
You said, "Why use the term if you do not believe in "demons.""
It is a term that I expect that believers can comprehend. It is also a pretty common term in colloquial English.
You said, "You said: "Incite hate for them among the dimwits that you did fool." Is that not demonizing/name calling?"
No. An adult fooled by by a fairy tale can rightly be called dimwitted. Given all available evidence, it is an accurate assessment of the mental capabilities.
You said, "And dropping "F" bombs? That usually means a person is upset, or lack vocabulary, I know you're more intelligent then that."
F-bombs are more versatile than you give them credit for. They are very useful to illustrate extremes.
Anyone who employs the fruits of science to rail against it is a hypocrite of enormous proportions, or succinctly, a fucking hypocrite. Such a fucking hypocrite should get 'the fuck' off his computer.
Jesus, who was about as real as Odin, Ganesh, or Spiderman, was supposedly a Rabbi. When's the last time you encountered a Rabbi who had good hygiene? Of course Jesus was dirty and smelly. Have you ever had the displeasure of sitting next to a group of Hasidim on a bus?
Actually Jesus did fulfill every prophetic utterance about the coming Messiah some were given hundreds of year before Jesus came on the scene. Without Jesus death on the cross and rising from the dead we would have never had the forgiveness of sins nor the Christian religion. So yes it really went very well for us and now Jesus has the keys to death and Hades and holds them so we as believers don't have to fear death.
bob: you have not established that "sin" exists, much less that jesus rose from the dead.
bob: i am not a believer, and i do not fear death.
I'm sorry, "Bob", but "Hades" is an element of mythology, therefore your assertion is unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL".
Why would you, absent of this supposed sacrifice, fear death?
It seems to me that Christianity teaches people that they are worthy of death, then they push the idea of salvation
I have seen the bumper sticker that says "No Jesus, No Peace....Know Jesus, Know Peace". I suppose it is a fine philosophy, if you get yours from bumper stickers.
I think it would be more accurate to say "No Jesus, No Sin"
That is a pretty anti-semitic thing to say. Regardless of whether or not you believe Jesus was God, or even existed at all, there is no reason to impune Jewish Rabbis.
I am sure people will thank you for telling them the truth about their deity.
After all, look how well it worked out for Jesus when he did that.
According to the Christian religion, everything "worked out", as planned.
God in Quran says, (holy Islamic scripture)
“They even attribute to Him sons and daughters, without any knowledge. Be He glorified. He is the Most High, far above their claims.” Quran [6:100]
“The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.” Quran [3:59]
‘They said, "You have to be Jewish or Christian, to be guided." Say, "We follow the religion of Abraham – monotheism – he never was an idol worshiper." [2:135]
“Proclaim, He is the One and only GOD. The Absolute GOD. Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten. None equals Him." [112:1]
The Messiah, son of Mary is no more than a messenger like the messengers before him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food. Note how we explain the revelations for them, and note how they still deviate! [5:75]
It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is. [19:35]
“No soul can carry the sins of another soul. If a soul that is loaded with sins implores another to bear part of its load, no other soul can carry any part of it, even if they were related. ... [35:18]
O people, here is a parable that you must ponder carefully: the idols you set up beside God can never create a fly, even if they banded together to do so. Furthermore, if the fly steals anything from them, they cannot recover it; weak is the pursuer and the pursued. [22:73]
They do not value God as He should be valued. God is the Most Powerful, the Almighty.[22:74]
If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of God. They follow only conjecture; they only guess. [Quran 6:116]
“There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in God has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. God is Hearer, Omniscient.” [2:256]
“God: there is no other god besides Him, the Living, the Eternal. Never a moment of unawareness or slumber overtakes Him. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. Who could intercede with Him, except in accordance with His will? He knows their past, and their future. No one attains any knowledge, except as He wills. His dominion encompasses the heavens and the earth, and ruling them never burdens Him. He is the Most High, the Great.” [2:255]
Thanks for taking time to read my post. Please take a moment to clear your misconception by going to whyIslam org
The Quran makes no sense...Allah refers to himself as a deceiver, as evil, he swears by creation instead of himself (as God does to Moses), it is clearly evident that Allah is Satan.
evangelical: and, the christian god is a vindictive, petty pr1ck....so what's the point?
As I interact with Christian friends, I realize that many of us lose the conviction to pray as time goes by. Also, we face difficulties in seeking God's will. This book," Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's Wil" discuss prayer and God's will in-depth, with the purpose of the book is to strengthen faith by knowledge and understanding. Whether you are a young or matured Christian, the book will be relevant to your faith and walk with God.
About the book>
Do unanswered prayers cast inner doubts on your faith? Do you seek God’s will for your plans but are not able to discern His guidance? Do you face perpetual problems of job insecurity, financial burden and health issues?
“Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's Will” looks at real-life problems that we face in prayer, as well as seeking God's will. It then present biblical truths not realized bef...ore – truths that we can see and apply in our human journey. By clarifying wrong notions about prayer and God’s will. it will change the way you see – and seek – God’s will. When faith is strengthened by knowledge and understanding, we will go on to pray and serve God with conviction. Learn more about the book at: http://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=9781620241431
There are 12 chapters in this book:
1. Inner Doubts
2. What does the Bible mean?
3. Prayer: What did Jesus Intend to tell us?
4. "Why doesn't God answer more prayers?"
5. To Pray Again
6. Does Sin impede prayer?
7. Faith in God
8. How does God call people?
9. Understanding God's Will
10 Being in God's will
11 Journey of the Bible
12 Reading the Scripture Fruitfully
understanding prayer doesn't take more books filled with lies. A sentence or 2 will do: It doesn't work. It's equivalent to wishing on a 4-leaf clover.
Shit, it takes a book with 12 chapters to help people believe in a myth? There are a lot better ways to improve your life. Like a good book on science.
Yet if Hawkings put out a book, your freaking mouths would drool, and you would soak it up. Even if you did 0 research on your own. You are all being fed, just by a different generation.
I don't like all of his opinions, but the science in every Dawkins book I've ever read checked out, and 10 years ago when I first became skeptical I checked EVERYTHING with a fine-toothed comb.
Jarhead, it's Hawking, not Hawkings. So much for your research, eh?
I like Dorkings better
Several studies going back even to 1872 has shown that the effects of intercessory prayer are statistically insignificant so as be classified as nothing more than chance. In fact, the STEP project funded by the Templeton Foundation published in 2006 found that prayer had detrimental effects on the health of people who knew they were being prayed for.
Prayer is indeed an excellent coping mechanism for countless people. Buy really, prayer only helps the person doing the praying, and nothing more.
It's funny how you are claiming that I'm confusing knowledge and belief, when in reality it is YOU confusing knowledge with proof.
When a person becomes a Christian, they do so through the saving KNOWLEDGE of Christ which get incorporated into their faith and belief system, and through Baptism and infusion of the Holy Spirit continues to cause regeneration in the life of a person until they die, and inherit eternal life.
You have continued to level insults against me, and I'm not going to dwell here any longer, but at least Bob, and Fred agree with me.
I'll leave you with this parting Scripture:
For God so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son, therefore whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but inherit everlasting life.
Me paraphrasing a few Scripture:
For Jesus did not come to the world to condemn it, but to save it. For God wishes for all to come to saving KNOWLEDGE of Christ not wishing for any to perish.
Aesop, you keep claiming you're leaving and then you come back to repost your inanity. You don't KNOW anything about your god. You speak of knowledge but have none. And you wonder why you're called an idiot. I mean, how can it be any more plain that talking to you is like dealing with a mental midget? I beg you to go read a book with some science in it, please. Your fictional bible is obviously retarding your faculties. Oh, and change your diaper. I think you messed your pants again.
What a moron. Knowledge is knowledge, not I-think-I-know-because-I-really-believe-so-with-faith-I'm-going-to-believe-I-actually-know. You christian take a good dose of faith and every word you use loses its meaning.
What did the researches have to to do to accomplish their experiment?
Don't worry about answering the questions so much, anyone who wants to understand will those who want to exploit will. It all depends on what you want its there choice and you have presented the answers well. There goal is not so see your point but exploit it. So to them there is no correct answer just one that they can use against you.
No, bob, it's just that the theistic position rests on belief without good cause and that's all and therefore it's indefensible. It's obvious.
Geez, Bob. Please learn the difference between "there" and "their" and between "its" and "it's."
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.