By Arielle Hawkins, CNN
Here's the Belief Blog’s morning rundown of the top faith-angle stories from around the United States and around the world. Click the headlines for the full stories.
From the Blog:
CNN: Giglio bows out of inauguration over sermon on gays
In the face of withering criticism over a sermon he apparently delivered on homosexuality in the 1990s, the Rev. Louie Giglio has withdrawn from giving the benediction at President Barack Obama's inauguration. Giglio informed inauguration officials Thursday morning of his decision to withdraw from the ceremony, an inauguration official told CNN.
CNN: Obama to swear-in on a stack of historic Bibles
What do the 16th president, a civil rights leader, and Michelle Obama's grandmother have in common? Their Bibles will be used in the second inauguration of President Barack Obama. The Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) made the announcement on Thursday that Obama will take the oath of office on the Robinson family Bible on Sunday and on the Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. Bibles on Monday.
CNN: Expectations high for first Hindu member of Congress
Just days after Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was sworn in as the first Hindu member of Congress, Hindu American advocacy groups made it clear that they hope Gabbard will help represent the nation’s wider Hindu community, on top of her Hawaiian constituents. Groups like the Hindu American Foundation and the Hare Krishna Society have lists of priorities they plan to present to Gabbard, making clear that expectations are high for the groundbreaking congresswoman.
CNN: Bucking previous trends, survey finds growth of the religiously unaffiliated slowing
After years of marked growth, the size of Americans who identify with no religion slowed in 2012, according to a study released Thursday. Since 2008, the percentage of Americans who identify as religious "nones" has grown from 14.6% to 17.8% in 2012, according to the Gallup survey. That number, which grew nearly one percentage point every year from 2008 to 2011, grew only 0.3% last year – from 17.5% in 2011 to 17.8% in 2012 – making it the smallest increase over the past five years. This study contrasts with headlines from previous studies on religious “nones,” including a 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that found the group was the fastest growing "religious" group in America and that one in five Americans now identify with no religion.
Tweet of the Day:
"God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts" -- a church sign huff.to/UCTLgB— HuffPost Religion (@HuffPostRelig) January 10, 2013
"God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts" -- a church sign huff.to/UCTLgB
Photos of the Day:
Mantu Das, 6, dressed as Hindu god Lord Shiva takes a nap at the Gangasagar temporary camp in Kolkata on January 10, 2013. Sadhus and Hindu pilgrims began to gather in Kolkata on their way to the annual Hindu holy festival Gangasagar Mela, where an expected hundred thousand Hindu pilgrims will gather at the Gangasagar to take a dip in the ocean at the confluence of the River Ganges and the Bay of Bengal, on the occasion of Makar Sankranti, a holy day of the Hindu calendar considered to be of great religious significance in Hindu mythology.
Twenty-year-old female tour guides dressed in traditional kimonos wash their mouths and hands at Tokyo's Meiji Shrine before attending a purification ceremony with a Shinto priest to celebrate Japan's Coming of Age Day on January 11, 2013. Since tour guides will be busy working on Japan's national holiday Coming-of-Age Day on January 14, the company had a ceremony for them ahead of time. Young people turning 20 are officially recognized as adults in Japan.
Salon: Who Obama should pick to replace Giglio
With Rev. Louie Giglio bowing out of giving the benediction at President Obama’s second inaugural after his anti-gay sermons came to light, the question turns to who should be selected in his stead. A spokesperson for the Presidential Inaugural Committee confirmed that “there will be an effort to replace him,” but declined to specify who it might be. With so little time left, we thought we’d offer some suggestions.
New York Times: Echoes of Prayer and People
After decades of photographing sacred sites around the world, Kenro Izu embarked on a personal photographic pilgrimage. He now does classic portraits of the faithful whose prayers and rituals give a special life to these holy places.
Religion News Service: Hungry Jews in America? Kosher food pantries report growing need
A 2011 survey of Jewish New Yorkers revealed that Jewish poverty has risen in the past decade and increased at a faster rate than poverty among other groups. One in five of the 1.7 million Jews in the New York area — the largest Jewish community in the nation — now live in poverty or near poverty. The study’s authors noted the proliferation of fervently Orthodox families — who, more than less observant Jews, shoulder the expense of Jewish schools and keeping kosher. For those Jews who do keep kosher — about 21 percent of the 5.3 million American Jews overall, according to the most recent National Jewish Population Survey — hard times mean particularly scant options for feeding a family, which, among the most religious Jews, tend to be large. That’s where kosher food pantries come in, to serve a clientele with very specific and relatively expensive dietary needs.
Reuters: Israeli party pulls “What, you’re not Jewish?” TV ad after Russian complaints
Complaints by Russian-speaking immigrants prompted an ultra-Orthodox party in Israel to pull a TV commercial plugging their election campaign which shows a man recoiling in horror at discovering his bride is not Jewish.
NYT: Monks in California Breathe Life Into a Monastery From Spain
The rebirth of a medieval Cistercian monastery building here on a patch of rural Northern California land was, of course, improbable. William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper tycoon, brought the dismantled Santa Maria de Óvila monastery from Spain but failed to restore it. The City of San Francisco, after some fitful starts at bringing the monastery back to life, left its stones languishing for decades in Golden Gate Park. The Great Depression, World War II and lethargy got in the way. But an aging and shrinking order of Cistercian monks have accomplished what great men and cities could not: the reconstruction of Santa Maria de Óvila’s most architecturally significant building, a 12th-century Gothic chapter house.
Reuters: Leading African Anglicans denounce Church of England’s gay bishop rule
Senior African Anglican leaders have lined up to denounce the Church of England’s decision to allow celibate gay bishops, warning it would only widen the divisions within the worldwide Anglican Communion. Archbishop Nicholas Okoh of Nigeria, effectively the largest province in the Communion, said such reforms “could very well shatter whatever hopes we had for healing and reconciliation within our beloved Communion.”
Join the conversation…
CNN: The spiritual but not religious likely to face mental health issues, drug use, study says
Can being spiritual but not religious lead to mental health issues? The answer is yes, according to a recent study. The study, published in the January edition of the British Journal of Psychiatry, says spiritual but not religious people, as opposed to people who are religious, agnostic or atheist, were more likely to develop a "mental disorder," "be dependent on drugs" and "have abnormal eating attitudes,” like bulimia and anorexia.
Here are the premises that I base my conclusion upon for the Biblical God / Jesus.
Is God Necessary?
a) Given the lack of a natural explaination to create matter, energy and time,
b) Given the lack of a natural explaination to create life,
Therefore, this implies some supernatural being (i.e. God) is necessary, but not necessariuly the Biblical God.
Which God Did It?
a) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
b) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration.
Did the Judism God Do It?
a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable answer contender.
Did the Islamic God Do It?
a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.
Did the Christian God Do It?
a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable answer contender. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the better answer.
Is Godod nescesary?
Is Justice? Is Rationality?
I would believe so, but in the first case I haven't seen it, and in the second your clearly demonstarting a lack of it.
@ l4h How old is the EARTH
New fossils bringing 'Hobbit humans' to life
New bones attributed to Ho-mo floresiensis — aka the "Hobbit Human" — along with other recent findings, are helping to reveal what members of this species looked like, how they behaved and their origins.
you tried this on the BIDEN forum someone still waiting for reply!
That's a whole lot of fail in the original post.
You have posted this on biden aritcle too, people are waiting for reply
@??????? : You have posted this on biden aritcle too, people are waiting for reply
I see not value to going to a dead forum to debate. There are two types of people on the forums. One would like a rational discussion / exchanging of ideas, while the other only wants to stroke his/her ego. I've no time to waste on the latter group. The former group will be in the active forums.
hawaiiguest : That's a whole lot of fail in the original post.
You keep believing that. Your faith will see you through to the end.
You're not here to debate either. In no post I've seen from you was anything open to debate. You merely assert you are right, and preach and prosletize.
Are you serious? So if I make up a story of creation that's full of magic men in the sky my fairytale is believable? It's pretty obvious you and Mr. Brown are going to deny anything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas. Mr. Brown even said he would attribute anything that didn't fit into his beliefs as the work of the devil.
So how can you consider yourself rational when you can so easily ignore obvious facts by using the devil as an excuse?
@lamb of dog : It's pretty obvious you and Mr. Brown are going to deny anything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas.
Care to try to explain dino soft tissue? Or are you "deny anything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas"?
@hawaiiguest : You're not here to debate either.
Of course I am! That's why I follow logical formats and answer every serious post. I've been doing this for more than 13 years now, and there isn't much that I haven't seen. However, I'm always willing to allow my faith to be challenged. You don't get stronger without challenges. It is better to be proven wrong and change to the right answer than to live a life living in error. When I started this years ago, I had my views challenged (and some proven wrong), but that only made me stronger going forward. This forced me to a more conservative view on Christianity than ever.
Well, I'm heading out for today.
Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.
I'm not a specialist in that field. So I will not just blindly accept what you write. If I have time I'll look into it. But how does that prove god exists? And how does it prove your god exists?
So who created god? If a god can just exist, why can't the universe? In which case there's no need for a god as well as no proof.
lamb of dog go to the Biden artcle and see L4H's post about prayer you will get your answer ignore l4h
One rarely sees so many non sequiturs in one place.
@LinCA : That's why religions, and the beliefs they are built on are, by definition, irrational.
Another person unable to reason. Religions are based upon a set of beliefs that held dear to one's heart. All religions are based upon SOME evidence. No religion has ALL the facts. Therefore, unless you claim to have ALL the facts, you have a religion. So, is your religious views irrational?
Whoops! Make that "ARE your religious views irrational"
That's two posts with massive amounts of fail by you.
What kind of rediculous twisted logic are you using to wildly jump to rediculous conlusions such as " No religion has ALL the facts. Therefore, unless you claim to have ALL the facts, you have a religion."
that statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you are trying to make christians look stupid, GREAT JOB!!!!
HEY EVERYBODY. God is real the dinosaur soft tissue proves it. You no longer need to wonder in the darkness of atheism. You are all welcome.
New fossils bringing 'Hobbit humans' to life
New bones attributed to Ho-mo floresiensis — aka the "Hobbit Human" — along with other recent findings, are helping to reveal what members of this species looked like, how they behaved and their origins.
Kent Proctor : that there is no Jesus and no Christianity there. ... Will you accept that and abandon religion?
This is a logic fallacy called 'Complex question'. To answer it, you would need to be God (i.e. omniscient) and therefore invalidating your premise.
Origin of Life
Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe – CNN.com
Sep 2, 2010 – God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking
Sing it sister! Wonder if I can go home to feed my cats?
@Origin of Life:
So, your religious leader says there is no god and you believe him. Well, if that satisifies your quest for knowledge – so be it.
So your religious leaders tell you there is a god and you believe it. If that satisfies your quest for truth so be it.
"Complex questions" are not inherently fallacies. You should know that. What you are really doing is evading. The question is basically "faced with undeniable evidence that atheism is right and there are no deities or supernatural occurances, would you accept that and set aside your mistaken beliefs?
It's just a hypothetical question. I answered the inverse below with a yes. If faced with truth and truth turned out to be Thor, Jesus , Allah or Pele, I would accept it and learn. Though I would not worship unless the truth supported that, and each of them were able to answer for their dubious behaviors.
I notice the atheists are brave enough to answer, but the Christians are weaselling out of answering. Interesting.
@lamb of dog
Of course not. I looked at the evidence myself and made the rational conclusion.
So not believing in your god is irrational?
Better than RCC or any other go-d(s)
Kent Proctor : "Complex questions" are not inherently fallacies.
When it is based upon pure hypothesis, it is ALWAYS a logic fallacy. No one would reject irrefutable evidence, but obtaining the evidence is impossible at this time.
Here's my question to you: Do you believe that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago in light of the dino soft tissue survival and the scientific conclusion that DNA/soft tissue could not survive for more than 10,000 years in a terperate environment?
l4h MEll is waiting for rely over on the Biden forum
@lamb of dog : So not believing in your god is irrational?
That's not my position. Not following the evidence to the obviouse conclusion is irrational.
That was the one. That comment makes perfect sense. I believe in God now. It's the only rational answer to the dinosaur soft tissue. Thank you jesus for finally showing me a sign. And thanks live4him.
Once again you evaded a simple hypothetical question. Why don't you just have the courage to say that even faced with absolute proof to the contrary, you would still believe in Christianity? We atheists didn't have a problem answering the reverse question.
I am not a paleontologist, and have no opinion on the extinction of dinosaurs. If you have criticisms of paleontology, you shoudl talk to them, but it is very safe to say you will be laughed at. And nothing about the extinction of dinosaurs has ever even remotely implied the existence of a deity. Total non seqitur.
Lie4Him. What evidence have you seen that you find so conclusive? Science shows that many of the bible stories especially the creation myth are not accurate. Science has an explanation all the way back to the Big Bang. No need for the superstitions of bronze age inhabitants of the middle east.
The fact of the matter is that I would not worship a god exen it could be proven that I had a god.
Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.”
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
You said, "Not following the evidence to the obviouse conclusion is irrational."
Of course. That's why religions, and the beliefs they are built on are, by definition, irrational.
If you have undeniable evidence to support the existence of your god, please share. Hell, if you can get it peer reviewed, get your tuxedo ready. You'll be a shoe-in for a Nobel prize.
@Kent Proctor : Once again you evaded a simple hypothetical question.
Some people cannot see the forest for the all the trees.
'I am not a paleontologist, and have no opinion on the extinction of dinosaurs.'
Interesting. You cannot defend your side, but you can attack your opponent. Some people are on the forums to grow in wisdom / spirituallity, while others just want to stroke their own ego. I thought you belonged to the former.
"You cannot defend your side, but you can attack your opponent. Some people are on the forums to grow in wisdom / spirituallity, while others just want to stroke their own ego. I thought you belonged to the former."
If I had to guess, I would say there are maybe 10 or so people actually posting on this blog but they use multiple handles to make it seem like more. True trolls who are only here for their egos.
We have the evidence it is peer reviewed and we are on here most everyday trying to share it with you. It is our personal experiences with God, we encourage you to have one yourself, then you will also have all the evidence you will ever need.
You see it is not at all funny, because we are like Paul in that we are trying to persuade people because we know God is truth and he will judge sin. We are literally trying to save your life, but not only is everything we try to share ridiculed, you won’t even try God for yourself.
I can’t literally show you my evidence, you have to get your own. I can give you some tried and true methods of obtaining it. Do you really want irrefutable evidence, or not?
Lin, keep in mind that if you do everything they say, and still don't experience god it just means you are doing it wrong, not that god doesn't exist.
The discovery of dinasour soft tissue does not change the laws of radioactive decay.
@lunchbreaker : The discovery of dinasour soft tissue does not change the laws of radioactive decay.
The laws of radioactive decay are based upon too many as.sumptions to be of real value. This is why we see seals that were alive yesterday to be dated to bing 13,000 years dead. And we see volcanic islands that formed in the 1950s to date to almost 1 million years old.
When did these things happen? If they did, it was mathematical eror on the part of the one doing the testing. The methods used for dating are accurate except for the possibility of human error. The half lives of radioactive materials are solid incontravertable fact. Where do you have evidence to the contrary?
You said, "We have the evidence it is peer reviewed and we are on here most everyday trying to share it with you. It is our personal experiences with God ...."
The only thing that could be considered evidence of is mental illness.
You said, "we encourage you to have one yourself, then you will also have all the evidence you will ever need."
To have those "personal experiences" you already have to be a believer. For me, suspension of disbelief requires evidence.
You said, "You see it is not at all funny, because we are like Paul in that we are trying to persuade people because we know God is truth and he will judge sin."
I accept that in your mind you friend is as real as anything you experience, but that doesn't mean it's real outside your mind.
If your god was real and at all concerned with my well-being after death, there should be no problem for it to make me believe. If it feels entitled to judge me and condemn me to an eternity of suffering, it is a monster.
You said, "We are literally trying to save your life, but not only is everything we try to share ridiculed, you won’t even try God for yourself."
The Easter Bunny isn't real, neither is the Tooth Fairy. There is equal evidence for your god as there is for the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.
You said, "I can’t literally show you my evidence, you have to get your own."
Then it isn't evidence!
You said, "I can give you some tried and true methods of obtaining it. Do you really want irrefutable evidence, or not?"
Been there, done that. Whether those methods "work" depends on the gullibility of the one trying them. I wasn't gullible enough.
Dreamt of dreams by a dreamer dreaming the physical into being firstly as a state of randomized forces echoing throughout the nothingness voids is a plausible beginning toward materialized existence. All universes (plural) may well have been formed in one swelling swoop thusly becoming a uniformed dimension so huge our universe could well be a part of combined universes forming say a giant seahorse living within a sea so vast; all being a part of a ginormous planet so gigantic we may never know out-rightly such a thought of plausible revelation. Only dreamers are allowed to hold onto such dreamt up dreams.
Upon the reversed scale of dreaming about dreamt dreams a dreamer might well see what we call as the atomized realms being nothing more than spatial nebulas and galaxies in miniature feasibilities. These two extreme revelations of cosmological relevancies leave us within a realm of reactive duplicitousness whereby we are living amid both realms where one realm is the atomized cosmologies and the other being the celestial cosmologies. These two realms daringly teamed up to give us; our being as becoming a physical representation into becoming as multi-duplicitous cellular cosmologies evolved thru timeliness venerations against the granules of dimensioned celestial life’s compartmentalized cellular compositions of cosmological gestured wonders.
Kaopectate might help with your uncontrollable explosive diarrhetoric problem.
LL is the belief blog pseudo intellect, just laugh at the drivel ramblings and move on.
Now let's flip the question for myweightinwords and other Christians/religious people:
You find the door behind which is truth. If you are the kind who would open it, you do, and you find . . . that there is no Jesus and no Christianity there. No religions at all. That the atheists are right, and it is all just a natural process with no deities or supernatural events, and death in nothing but an end.
Will you accept that and abandon religion?
There was a knock at the door, I opened it, it was Jesus.
There is no going back.
So when you opened that door, you mind closed.
If that statement is not correct, then there can be going back.
If that statement is correct, you will never see truth for what it is.
Robert, I am sure you read the question and understood it. Your answer is cute, but it is an evasion. Let's try again:
There is a door behind which is truth, and you know that it is truth. You open it, but it turns out that there really are no Gods or supernatural occurances, and that the atheists are right. Do you accept it?
Any other Christians or religious people?
Robert brown will happily twist reality in order to make his god real.
Actually, dog, I seem to recall that Robert actually did answer a version of this some months ago, and was the only Christian who had the courage to. I won't say what he said for fear of misrepresenting it, but I'm pretty sure it was Robert who stood up and answered.
I'd open the door out of curiosity but I cannot see the contents changing anything.
Atheists are too funny. When they don't accept an answer that doesn't parrot their belief, they accuse others of twisting and shouting aka doing the chubby checker. LOL. ROTFLOL. Chuckle, chuckle.
Brown seems to have done plenty of "research". But from his post yesterday about the creation of the world he did a lot of twisting trying to make sense of how it happened. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a priest.
So JWT, you are saying that even if you were supplied absolute proof that atheism was right, you do not think you would change your beliefs. Is that correct?
Thanks Kent. Seems like it went something like this, I would still believe in God and assume information to the contrary was a trick of the devil.
I wonder where they got their info?
"Atheists are too funny. When they don't accept an answer that doesn't parrot their belief, they accuse others of twisting and shouting aka doing the chubby checker. LOL. ROTFLOL. Chuckle, chuckle."
Ah the screen of self protection around the indoctrinated religious mind. Evidence doesn't matter, facts don't matter. Anything that contradicts the presuppositions are automatically evil and a trick. And people wonder how religion harms the mind.
What if you found out the Bible was the work of the devil?
What I am saying is that I have a certain view on life. Whether or not some god(s) could exist makes no difference to at all. Nothing in my life revolves around any possible concept of a god. I am not defined by such labels as atheist or believer, they are just possible words to describe some very miniscule part of what I happen to think about a very basic level of the topic. Being a schizoid my religious beliefs can fall well outside the concept of normal.
Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe – CNN.com
Sep 2, 2010 – God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world!"
Luke 17:21, "The kingdom of God is inside you!"
1Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building!"
@I wonder where & lionly,
I do not believe that The Bible is the words of any god. You can quote it frontward, backward and uʍop ǝpısdn from dawn to dusk – it is nothing. Have you got anything else?
Inside a Universally-Formed Multiple Cosmos of the Living Triune Cosmological Manifestation of the God-Being
We all live amid two chasms of cosmological orders. We have the inner-cosmos and the outer-cosmos. The inner-cosmos is atomically made and is the universal construct of the outer-cosmos. One could not have an outer cosmos without there being an inner cosmos. Both are synonymously of the same natures. It stands to reason the inner-cosmos was made first and the outer-cosmos came into being only after the passive finalization of the inner-cosmos was made near complete. The inner-cosmos is transcendent and fixed while the outer-cosmos is ascendant and malleable in their dualities nurturing natures.
The third cosmos is of megalithic life itself made from the inner-cosmos living upon the terrestrial planetary faces of the celestial outer-cosmos. This third cosmos is the celled cosmos or the cellular cosmologic orders duly ordained of and by and even for all megaliths of monolithic life forms to be made anywhere cellular life can grab a foothold to evolve and gain in the abundant natures toward the inner intellectual evolution of its structures ever evolving in intellectualized base pairings. Without the two main Cosmos coming into existence; all living cellular cosmologies in the celestial confines could not ever exist.
The trinity or threefold nature of chasm cosmologies is being one of the greatest and grandest gestures ever to have been formulated! To say God had nothing to do with such a feat of cosmologic inter-dependencies seems to me, an infallible congruency inconsistent for one to say or think otherwise. To say the nature of God is to keep inflating the physical elements of the outer cosmos while deflating the essence needs for the inner-cosmos leaves one to wonder about the third cosmological construct’s real nature for having been created. Why then are there cellular cosmos of living cosmologies and when did such intra-celled cosmologic life become established?
The history of multifaceted cosmological expansionism within celestial symmetries comes from the terrestrial complacencies of planetary regularities and solarized star-born objectivism wherever the abundance of inner cosmologies coalesces to form stars, planets and moons among many other fragmented structures within the spatial confines of a universe-formed Cosmos.
Life, upon the celestial shorelines of the terrestrially compliant are as megalithic monoliths of biologic ‘cellular’ cosmological constants, and were ever formed and are continually forming seemingly unto forever as well placed living megalithic conglomerations in naturalisms arcades of wondrous cavalcades marching in steps of melancholy tributes to God upon the most high cosmos of universally formidable formations on the highest of unimaginable grounds!
If, that's IF our eternal souls were around from the very beginning moments of this amassed cosmos, what are then the reasons for our being physically born and then soulfully die? Were we not soulfully aware of our bodies being conceptualized within motherly wombs? IF our conscious consciences or our eternal souls are given placements within the bodies are we not but a two-folded being left adrift and apart of and away from the realm that our soul or spirit was first made manifest? Are not our consciences more than an abstraction of psychiatric wonderments?
Who among us has the rights and wherewithal to be negatively certain of ethereal spiritual life being as a non-realness of the relativity suggestive pragmatisms in the grand dichotomies of lividness issues revolving around spiritualisms of suggested monotheistic faiths? Do Atheisms’ matters linger upon spiritual negatives and parlor about in banters of non-speculative scruples in denying others' faith issues?
I am saying that deeply within all cellular life does live very intelligent forms of beings so tiny and very small! They are the husbandry of all megalithic life form structures. Christendom calls them as being Gods yet Star Wars calls them as being 'midi-chlorians', the force of all living megalithic monoliths of cellular structured life. I would rather call them very intelligent beings of unknown to us varieties of superiorly small intra-cellular life forms that dared to evolve within all monolithic megalith-celled creations of their own evolutional doing and thru time modified their ever evolving megalithic structures to finally create us!
1. The inner cosmology of the atomized realms. Are these realms not the first realms conceived in the grand schemes of cosmology?
2. The outer cosmology of the celestial realms. Did not this realm become conceived only after the inner cosmological realm was made nearing a completion?
3. The cellular cosmology of the living realms. Did this living realm of cosmological matter come about by sheer coincidence or was there a cosmological order for the living realms of cellular cosmology to become an ever evolving realm ending upon these celestial shores as being mankind?
OTOH, sorry to hear that you insist on staying spiritually dead as a door nail.
@I wonder where,
So, we should shut up believe what you believe then... or pretend?
OTOH, I posted that I was sorry to hear that you insist on staying spiritually dead as a door nail. My statement didn't mention pretense. The truth (Jesus' teachings) sets you free.
Good morning, everyone.
Greetings, Topher. I hope you are well.
Explain the incompatible differences in the resurrection stories: the different number of women who went, the very different and incompatible things they found, the very different and incompatible things they did afterwards?
Was is one woman who went, or two, or three, or many? Was there anyone at the tomb? Guards? Earthquakes? Anything in the tomb? Did she/they tell anyone afterwards?
The stories are so different that to accept any version is to reject three gospels as untrue. Best of luck, because any attempt to say one thing happened will be denied by the other gospels. If you go vague and only discuss the very few similarities, you are admitting that the accounts are mostly lies.
Go for it.
Hope you are well also.
Happy to answer any of those as they're easily explained. But I won't fall for the "many questions" routine. Pick one of those at a time and I'll talk with you about it.
Excuse me? Falling for that trick of . . . answering questions? I can see where this is going.
Okay, let me repeat the first sentence: Explain the incompatible differences in the resurrection stories: the different number of women who went, the very different and incompatible things they found, the very different and incompatible things they did afterwards?
"Excuse me? Falling for that trick of . . . answering questions? I can see where this is going."
Yes. I've been doing this long enough to know that when an atheist asks you to answer a lot of questions, if you miss one in the explanation, they go all crazy saying, 'see how dishonest the Christians are?" So one at a time please. And since you still didn't do that, I'm just going to take the first one and go from there ...
"Explain the incompatible differences in the resurrection stories: the different number of women who went ..."
First of all, I reject your claim that they are incompatible. Now, let's look at what each book say about the women at the tomb.
Matthew says " ... Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb."
Mark says " ... Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ..."
Luke says "they"
John says "Mary Magdalene"
Just because they each do not name everyone who was there, that does not mean they are incompatible. There was at least three women at the tomb. There could have been more for all we know. Just because John only names one does not mean there weren't others. It's just what the author chose to tell. Kind of like if you read two different newspaper accounts of a sporting event. Two different reporters, two completely different stories. Even the direct quotes won't necessarily be the same. There's just no problem here with the gospels.
Kent don't waste you time with Topher, but if you enjoy conversing with people whose stupidity makes you want to bang your head into a wall then you should have him explain to you why the moon proves that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.
Okay, so you didn't want to be asked the various parts, but you answer in the various parts. And you claim it is trickery on my part. Right.
So your position is that the John said Mary went, he actually meant many went. And you say that the perfectly consistent inconsistencies are because different HUMANS are telling the story. Good. You have taken divine inspiration out of the equation, and you admit some level of contradiction in the man-made stories.
Please do continue. You are doing splendidly.
"Okay, so you didn't want to be asked the various parts, but you answer in the various parts. And you claim it is trickery on my part. Right. "
I don't think one question at a time is too much to ask. Once we discuss one, we can discuss another.
"So your position is that the John said Mary went, he actually meant many went."
No. If John only says Mary, that doesn't mean there weren't others. We know from the other gospels there were more than one.
"And you say that the perfectly consistent inconsistencies are because different HUMANS are telling the story"
"Good. You have taken divine inspiration out of the equation, and you admit some level of contradiction in the man-made stories."
No. God inspired men to write it, but they still have their own personalities and writing styles.
Here, dude, check out this video. It explains it pretty well.
Is that it? You asked for a single question, I gave it to you, and you avoided it and cherry-picked another from the ones you refused to answer? Oh come on, Christians are more honest than that, aren't they. You haven't even begun to discuss the contradictions of the resurrection.
You claim it is easily answered. Answer easily.
Whoops. Sorry about the video, guys. Don't know why it won't post. I can see it on YouTube.
"Is that it? You asked for a single question, I gave it to you, and you avoided it and cherry-picked another from the ones you refused to answer? Oh come on, Christians are more honest than that, aren't they."
And I answered the single question. Unless I missed it, then I apologize. I'm not cherry picking anything. You asked about the "inconsistancy" of the number of women at the tomb. I answered it.
"You haven't even begun to discuss the contradictions of the resurrection. "
Are we done with the other question? If so, which specificic "contradiction" of the resurrection do you want to discuss?
No videos unless you want me to post videos too, and that does nothing. We will limit our discussion to the Bible because everything else is just opinion.
I will let your answers stand and let others decide on what we have said. Do continue.
Fair enough on the videos.
What specifically do you want to talk about as far as the resurrection?
Pete and Kent, both of you need to start reading from the beginning. Don't worry, these biblical scholars did your homework for you.
Oh dear. You avoid answering actual questions by instead discussing protocol. Please stop evading and start showin more intellectual honesty. If you need other portions of the question posed, which you rejected earlier as an atheist trick, then tell me what the many women who are sometimes two women and somethines one woman found at the tomb, including whether the stone was in place, who they found and where, and the other details.
"If you need other portions of the question posed, which you rejected earlier as an atheist trick"
I haven't rejected any questions. Ask whatever you want. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do ask that you keep them specific and one at a time. I think that is fair.
" ... then tell me what the many women who are sometimes two women and somethines one woman found at the tomb, including whether the stone was in place, who they found and where, and the other details."
Matthew ... great earthquake, angel descended from heaven as stone rolls away
Mark ... stone rolled away; young man in white sitting there
Luke .. stone rolled away, two men in white apparel
John ... stone taken away; she ran and told Peter
All completely compatible. I can see how someone might think they are not, but just give it some thought. The same thing happened in all four of these, you just get different details. That's all.
And exactly who wrote these stories – this Mark, Matthew, etc.?
Hey, mama k. How are you? Haven't talked to you in awhile.
"And exactly who wrote these stories – this Mark, Matthew, etc.?"
Matthew ... a tax collector (thus hated by his fellow Jews) was an apostle and one of the 12.
Mark ...close friend of Peter and cousin to Barnabas who went with Paul on his first mission.
Luke ... a Gentile, physician and historian. Wrote both "Luke" and "Acts". Did a lot of traveling with Paul.
John ... one of the 12, also wrote "Revelation" ... the only one of the 12 not martyred
So the fact that Mary found the tomb empty and nobody there in John is perfectly compatible with her and another Mary finding the tomb closed, experiencing an earthquake, and an angel coming to roll the rock away in Matthew . . . which is perfectly compatible with the numerous women who find the rock rolled away and two men suddenly standing beside them Luke.
I really don't think you understand the concept of compatibility if that all seems perfectly compatible to you.
I will let the readers decide for themselves. Care to explain how the woman/women say nothing/tell everyone?
All four stories "find the tomb empty." They went there with different things for Jesus body. But His body wasn't there. That's what is meant by the "empty tomb."
Once again, the other things that aren't mentioned in each instance are just extra details. If you and I are standing on each side of a car, and I say the car is blue and contains one baby and you say the car is white and contains 2 babies, we can still both be right. The car can be different colors (called duel-toned) and if there's two babies, there's def. one. It's just a matter of details.
No, there is a young man inside in Mark who does not appear in any other version. You must mean empty of a body.
Only details? Really? Those "details" are lies. The truth is that the only things the stories agree on it that someone went to the tomb and claimed it was empty There is absolutely no agreement on anything else, which discredits even the claim that Mary went there at it was empty – too many lies. The wild differences in the stories clearly shows that a whole lot of false inventions and exaggerations were added by a number of people. The witnesses are NOT RELIABLE. The stories are too far apart. They agree on very little. They are tall tales, whoppers, bogus, and the evidence is right there for you.
That's all I have time for. I will let others decide what they choose. At least you got past your sophist evasions to actually address the questions.
Never try to get a religious person to admit to the contradictions and errors in the bible. It's the Big Book of Multiple Choice that says whatever that particular religious person wants.
"No, there is a young man inside in Mark who does not appear in any other version. You must mean empty of a body."
Empty of a body is exactly what I mean. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
"There is absolutely no agreement on anything else, which discredits even the claim that Mary went there at it was empty – too many lies"
Then show me which wording makes the others impossible. We use the exact same logic in everything else we read today, but you want to reject it just because we are using it on the Bible.
"The witnesses are NOT RELIABLE. The stories are too far apart. They agree on very little. They are tall tales, whoppers, bogus, and the evidence is right there for you."
The witnesses are VERY reliable. If the writers were exagerating or even flat-out lying, the other eyewitnesses would have called them on it. You're just showing your presuppositions.
Anyone that sees contradictions and errors in the bible never learned what Jesus was teaching.
244 million years ago, monsters ruled the seas where Nevada now sits
Fossil, Jesus never told us the age of the world. Therefore, what's your point except not knowing how to read his truth? As for Christians discussing this earth age being 6,000 to 14,000 years old. They are only explaining this 2nd age we live in. Again, what is your point beside not knowing what Jesus wrote and knowing that he wrote about 3 heaven and 3 earth ages.
Jesus didn't write anything. Probably because he was illiterate. The stories written about what "he said" were written decades after he was alleged to have said them. Likely none of the words attributed to him were actually spoken by him, if he existed in the first place.
Really??, Jesus wasn't illiterate just because you want to post your flawed reasoning. Jesus was busy doing what he needed to do. As for your logic, that would mean any executive that uses assistants to write for them has to be illiterate too. Since your logic is flawed, I would guess Jesus and all the executives of the world are busy doing what they do best.
99.999% of the population at the time were illiterate. Where do yoiu find any record of him learning to read or write?
"Probably because he was illiterate."
Incorrect. It was required to memorize the Torah word for word before one could enter the temple. Jesus did this by age 10.
Surely you know that rote memorization and recitation is not considered "literate".
I memorized and recited "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" when I was 2.
All this talk of bones makes my dog salivate.
The half wolf/lab mix (black) 128 pounds just ate a big one
Science does not prefer truths as if there might be more than one, but merely purses them all.
It then eliminates false truths!
If rational thought, the scientific method and observation disprove a deeply held belief I am not displeased, but in fact encouraged.
There are greater things in heaven and earth that are currently dreamt of in my philosophy, but fortunately some of us believe we evolve.
Seperation of Church and State
Courts have ruled can;t teach ID/creationism in public schools in US
Nrw science standards (stem) created by 26 states for 2013
Those are FACTS.
William Demuth et al,
Dreamt of dreams by a dreamer dreaming the physical into being firstly as a state of randomized forces echoing throughout the nothingness voids is a plausible beginning toward materialized existence. All universes (plural) may well have been formed in one swelling swoop thusly becoming a uniformed dimension so ginormous our universe could well be a part of combined universes forming say a giant seahorse living within a sea so vast all being a part of a ginormous planet so huge we may never know such a thought of plausible revelation.
Love, Let Us,
God's Oldest Dreamer
Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:3)
Heading to the gym for some training, even though it is rainy.
But as always, it will be a beautiful day without god(s).
Assuming you check this when you get back, what kind of training are you doing today? I plan on hitting the gym after work today.
Yeah, going to the gym, like you will do.
But I don't call it "working out." I call it training.
I teach spinning in addition to my own training, and I try to instill that on the riders who take my class.
You are at the gym to train you body to become stronger, leaner and fitter, NOT to "work it out."
Training has a goal, working out does not.
If there was a door and behind that door was Truth, would you choose to open the door or not?
Understanding that whatever the Truth is may not be what you believe.
Understanding that whatever the Truth is may change everything.
Understanding that whatever the Truth is you will not be able to deny it.
Open it? Or walk away?
I'd open it. The truth is what it is, whether you like it or not (that's the best part about truth). I always prefer knowing it so I know what I'm up against.
Good morning, -myweight...!
I think you probably know what my general answer would be, but... for the record, for 'me'... I'd kick the door down ! :D
Somehow, I knew that, Peace. *grins*
thanks for the post, it (truth) has been posted here a few times
This isn't about what the truth is. This is about your willingness to accept Truth, even if it is something you would never have believed without seeing it for yourself.
Open the door? Or lock it and walk away?
I opened it long ago
You believe this to be true, so if faced with this door, do you open it and walk through, with the expectation that what is on the other side is exactly what you think it is? Or do you hold to what you know to be true now and walk away?
Do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you know is Truth? What lies beyond that door may contradict what you know.
"Do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you know is Truth? What lies beyond that door may contradict what you know. "
I think that door will be opened when we find life on other planets and we realize we're not really alone. I would open the door but I already suffer from being too blunt and honest with people but then often told to work on be more tactful about it. It's funny how being brutally honest is not always acceptable way to live.
The result of the door being opened is how I view beliefs. For most things we really don't "choose" what to believe. We take in information and process it. If I am looking at an object, I can't just consciously make myself think it is not there. If I look at a mathematical equation I either get it or I don't, but If I understand it to be correct I can't will myself to think it wrong. If I find new information that proves it wrong, I find it wrong because of the new information, not because I chose to find it wrong. These examples are far more simple than religious beliefs, but I have never chosen whether I believed or didn't, I just examined what was available to me.
If there was a door and behind that door was Truth, would you choose to open the door or not? DOES OPENING IT COST ANYTHING? THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW, BUT KNOWING THEM REALLY DOESN'T IMO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSE OF THE STUDY OR PROGRAM.
Understanding that whatever the Truth is may not be what you believe.
Understanding that whatever the Truth is may change everything.
Understanding that whatever the Truth is you will not be able to deny it.
ARE THESE YOUR CONDITIONS FOR THE HYPOTHETICAL? I ASK BECAUSE THE LAST ONE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE. PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS *ABLE* TO DENY THE TRUTH. VERY OFTEN TRUE STATEMENTS ARE POSTED HERE, BUT THEY ARE CATEGORICALLY DENIED BY THOSE WHO HAVE AN AGENDA TO PROMOTE ONLY BELIEF IN THINGS THAT ARE NOT MYSTICAL, NOT SUPERNATURAL, AND ARE MEASURABLE ONLY SCIENTIFICALLY AND INTERPRETED ONLY THROUGH 21TH CENTURY WESTERN CULTURAL FILTERS.
chicky, as usual, you spout nonsense. Fly away little birdy, your nest is empty, like your head.
DOES OPENING IT COST ANYTHING? THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW, BUT KNOWING THEM REALLY DOESN'T IMO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSE OF THE STUDY OR PROGRAM.
This isn't a study or program, there is no cost but letting go of what you think you know.
ARE THESE YOUR CONDITIONS FOR THE HYPOTHETICAL? I ASK BECAUSE THE LAST ONE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE.
This is, of course, a hypothetical situation because such a door does not exist. All the Truth exists behind this door and once you walk through it, you can't uin-know it. No matter what it is. No matter whether it agrees with what you believe or not.
Your current belief may be true, it may not be. Once you go through that door you will know and must go forward in your life with that truth inside you.
Open it? Or lock it and walk away?
@ Which: I'm not putting up with insults from you or anyone else. There is no call for this. Go screw yourself. This sort of post makes me want to clear my calendar to make time for my posting here...just to annoy you.
If you would be so kind as to point out where in my original post or in any comment I have insulted anyone or said anything rude, I would appreciate it.
I hope your day is pleasant.
@ MWIW: I don't know. I'm going to have to think on this. In this hypothetical, my concern would be that the truth of EVERYTHING might A) be more than the human mind could handle at one time and b) might have unintended consequences that could be quite unpleasant
That is a part of the dilemma.
@ myweightinwords: "If you would be so kind as to point out where in my original post or in any comment I have insulted anyone or said anything rude, I would appreciate it."
The comment wasn't directed at you. Rather, the "screw you, I'm not taking your insults" comment was directed at "Which God?" who said:
"chicky, as usual, you spout nonsense. Fly away little birdy, your nest is empty, like your head."
I realized that after I posted my response. Hazard of reading too quickly, I saw the @ with a W and so many reduce my handle to Weight that I thought it was directed at me. A lesson to me today, I see.
When I post questions like these I aim at pointing out common ground and embracing civility. Unfortunately not everyone is willing to play along nicely.
How do I know it is actually truth? Most of what people say is truth is nothing more than totally unevidenced opinion. For example, if it is a Christian telling me it's truth, I will already know it isn't. Religious people tell way too many untruths and fallacies to be trusted.
Though I would look out of curiousity, but with my critical thinking intact, and I would laugh if and when the flaws start showing up. Something like watching a carnival side show.
If I could somehow know it really was truth, yes, I would open it and learn all I can.
Non believers have many excuses to stay spiritually dead. My question is why want to stay spiritually dead when you can learn his truth and live?
While this is not the place for proselytizing, perhaps you can answer my question before I answer yours?
Do you open the door? Do you lock it and walk away?
Do you prefer the comfort of what you believe? Or do you crave knowledge that challenges you?
Neither answer is wrong. Neither answer is right.
The response by "I wonder where they got their info?" proves my point about Christian fallacies and untruths. There is not the slightest shred of evidence for what he claims, and yet he is certain it is true.
For the purposes of this exercise, the premise is that what is behind that door is Truth, but you can not know what that truth is before you step through the door. That truth may be that there is no god. It may be that there are many gods. It may be that we are all a part of an elaborate dream.
What is behind that door is Truth.
It may change everything. It may change nothing. And every person has to chose for themselves.
No hidden agenda here. I just find the question, and the answers, fascinating.
Apparently "chick a dee/wonder no longer" would have us believe no Christian has ever "CATEGORICALLY DENIED" science because they "HAVE AN AGENDA TO PROMOTE".
@ wonder no longer. Please do. You'll only be talking to yourself, or to hear yourself talk. Heard jeebus yet?
lunchbreaker, Jesus unveils scriptural understanding more and more to each generation that seeks his truth. With that said, read what has been unveiled over the years http://www.biblestudysite.com/begin.htm
I'd leave it shut. For me, the only benefit to opening it would be to satisfy idle curiosity. That's not important enough to risk a Pandora's box type of unintended consequences from a deluge of information greater than that which could be safely comprehended at once.
Interesting. I'm not sure I'd consider that "idle curiosity" myself, but thank you for your answer.
@ K-switch: No, there are plenty of them who have. But they've all been in error because if you believe that God created everything then you also have to believe that He created the laws of science that govern. If you believe that God is truthful and just then you have to believe that His creation would be bound by the scientific laws that He created.
Is there a man behing the door? If so open open open!!!!
Is Truth found in man?
Sorry, I'm in an odd sort of mood today. I grew up in and around Rochester. Don't miss it though. Currently call the sunny west coast home.
Mary in Rahchacha
I'm looking out a window in downtown Roch right now, gray misting rain coming down, glad to see another north coast resident here.
I would have the urge to open it as fast as possible, but knowing my christian friends' inability to acknowledge or at this point even understand what truth is, I would first arrange a live PayPerView event with thousands of recording devices and as many people as possible to witness the opening. Not that even all that would be proof enough for a christian.
@ myweightinwords: I consider it idle curiosity because I believe that when we die we get to open that door and have all the answers to the universal questions of creation, existence, and the afterlife . So, why rush it? I can be patient.
My idle curiosity did get the better in one respect causing me to pose your question to 2 other people.
#1 said no, because if it turned out that there was nothing behind the door then all his faith would have been for nothing. He's a cradle Catholic that lapsed for 20+ years, hooked up with some friends that hooked him on reading the KJV without practicing other than his own blend of christianity, but has spent the last 3 years back as a practicing Catholic (getting catechised by moi .
#2 said yes, because he'd be busting with curiosity to know the answers to all kinds of questions that have yet to be revealed. He's a retired Catholic priest.
Don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the mosquito orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.
So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.
Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.
Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.
Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.
And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.
Jill is a cistern of self-deflective iconoclastic predeterminisim, indeed a Lambly Lion of indiscriminate yet eclectic obfuscations.
Her pillow talk is legendary
LL is many order more prolific as well as sometimes more cogent. This is a regurgitation which Jill probably keeps on file to post from time to time for her own amusement (as well as those with shorter memories)
But she makes as much sense as LL!
Hypothesis Traces First Protocells Back to Emergence of Cell Membrane Bioenergetics
Dec. 20, 2012 — A coherent pathway - which starts from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide and leads to the emergence of the strange bio-energetic properties of living cells - has been traced for the first time in a major hypothesis paper in Cell this week.
6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Science is the truth if you want to believe it or not
True Science and the Bible are in perfect harmony.
"True Science and the Bible are in perfect harmony."
The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).
It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.
Smithsonian, first you need to learn how to read the Bible to learn Jesus' truth. Here's a good site where biblical scholars did their homework to assist you in learning Jesus' wisdom. http://www.biblestudysite.com/1stage.htm
As I stated, True Science and the Bible are in harmony.
@ I wonder
The bible can't be taught in public schools in US science can..
Seperation of church and state.
New science standards created by 26 states (majority) for 2013 (stem).
Nantional Geographic Genome Project 2.0
M-y wife and I recently signed up fo rNantional Geographic Genome Project 2.0, which analyzes a sample of ones DNA. It is useful for identifying potential health risks, and tracing an.cestry. My own ancestry, through the genes, was mun.dane My wife had a remarkable ge.netic make up, which includes 3percent gen.etic material which is N-eanderthal. She is Ja-panese, with Sp-anish, French, Sl-avic, and South American na-tive (think Inca) background. But several thousand years ago (note this; it must have occurred well before 8000 years ago which creationists believe was about the time that g-od created man), a very distant ancestor of hers m-ated with a N-eanderthal. I know this is hard to believe, it is hard for me to believe, but this is true, and should cause some of you to think, as it has caused me to do. For those who wonder what this cross looks like – she is beautiful
"Smithsonian, first you need to learn how to read the Bible to learn Jesus' truth"
The Smithsonian is the largest research center in the world, try taking your poor logic to them. They have proven you wrong.
***The book comprises an extended reflective essay employing autobiographical narrative...***
THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES
The Hebrew name of this book and of its author, Qoheleth, is actually a t.itle, and it perhaps means “as.sembler” (of students, listeners) or “collector” (of wisdom sayings). The book’s more common name, Ecclesiastes, is an approximate translation into Greek of this Hebrew word. The book comprises an extended reflective essay employing autobiographical narrative, proverbs, parables, and allegories. An almost unrelenting skepticism characterizes the tone or outlook. The issues with which the author deals and the questions he raises are aimed at those who would claim any absolute values in this life, including possessions, fame, success, or pleasure. Wisdom itself is challenged, but folly is condemned.
The refrain which begins and ends the book, “Vanity of vanities” (1:1; 12:8), recurs at key points throughout. The Hebrew word, hebel (“vanity”), has the sense of “emptiness, futility, absurdity”: “I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind” (1:14; 2:11, 17, 26; etc.). Everything in human life is subject to change, to qualification, to loss: “What profit have we from all the toil which we toil at under the sun?” (1:3). The answer is in the negative: No absolute profit or gain is possible. Even if some temporary profit or gain is achieved, it will ultimately be cancelled out by death, the great leveller (2:14–15; 3:19–20). Wisdom has some advantage over foolishness, but even wisdom’s advantage is only a temporary and qualified one.
Many would locate Ecclesiastes in the third century B.C., when Judea was under the oppressive domination of Hellenistic kings from Egypt. These kings were highly efficient in their ruthless exploitation of the land and people (4:1; 5:7). The average Jew would have felt a sense of powerlessness and inability to change things for the better. For Qoheleth, God seems remote and uncommunicative, and we cannot hope to understand, much less influence, God’s activity in the world (3:11; 8:16–17).
The book’s honest and blunt appraisal of the human condition provides a healthy corrective to the occasionally excessive self-as.surance of other wisdom writers. Its radical skepticism is somewhat tempered by the resigned conclusions to rejoice in whatever gifts God may give (2:24; 3:12–13, 22; 5:17–18; 8:15; 9:7–9; 11:9).
Smithsonian, you can start from the beginning. As for your name sake, they too can start reading.
Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe – CNN.com
Sep 2, 2010 – God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking
Wonder no longer,
I have read some good commentary on Ecclesiastes and the author points out that this is Solomon trying everything under the sun, minus God. So, pleasure, fame, success, and even wisdom are “vanity and vexation of spirit.” Those things, while nice for a time do not satisfy, ultimately.
Origin of Life, the bible was always taught in public schools until the atheists insisted their religion of no god be taught. Statistics aren't in your favor how much violence has transpired since you blocked God's truth from his children.
I'm calling complete poe on I wonder where they got their info?.
Yeah Hawaii...same troll different name
I call HeavenSense (or was it HeavenSent) on I wonder.
Trace our planet's geological and biological ages
Well, that's easier than dealing with his discussion and the added benefit is you don't even have to look like you're the one running away.
wonder isn't adding anything to or having any sort of discussion. He is asserting falsities as truth. Even then, evidence is supplied to help him see his error, to which is reiterates falsities. That isn't a conversation.
@ Robert Brown: "Wonder no longer" was me. The commentary that I posted was the introduction to the Book of Ecclesiastes from the online copy of the NABRE on the USCCB website. Although this edition was an ec.umenical translation project, it does carry the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error), so I'm pretty confident that commentary is correct and that the author designation is accurate. If there was a question about it, you'd think that at least one of the scores of scholars and theologians that worked on the project for 20 years would have pointed out the inaccuracy before it was edited and printed – especially considering that not all the participants are Catholic.
"I have read some good commentary on Ecclesiastes and the author points out that this is Solomon trying everything under the sun, minus God. So, pleasure, fame, success, and even wisdom are “vanity and vexation of spirit.” Those things, while nice for a time do not satisfy, ultimately."
To which commentary are you referring? What makes you say that it is a good commentary? Who is the author? What are his/her qualifications as a linguist and theologian? Why does he/she say that this was authored by Solomon?
A while back, someone posted, in layman's terms, an fairly lengthy description of the process by which life can spontaneously emerge from the same chemical soup thought to have been on the surface of early earth. If anyone bookmarked the piece, would you please repost the URL to it?
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven' – Under God – The ...
by Elizabeth Tenety – in 624 Google+ circles – More by Elizabeth Tenety
May 16, 2011 – There is no heaven... that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” Hawking told the Guardian.
Repeating this scripture is a must.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
Repeating the "scripture" is a must....for weak minded people with no logical thoughts of their own.
Let not him that is deceived trust in vanity: for vanity shall be his recompence. (Job 15:31)
Some say the stories in the bible are unbelievable and some are proven false by science. Specifically, the ones that really bother most folks are the creation and the flood. So, you can believe some force or deity can start the ball rolling, so to speak, but our understanding doesn’t line up with a literal 7 day creation? Ok, fair enough, what if the whole creation story is a parable or allegory? Some would say well that could be ok, except, the sun was created after plants in genesis. I have noticed that as well, but if you want to just find what you consider a problem then give up and quit, why bother questioning in the first place?
Here are some things to consider on the plants appearing before the sun. First, is the obvious one “let there be light.” Next, and from there on, after each day in the story, it says,” and the evening and the morning were” and then whatever day it was. Finally, when plants first emerged it is suggested that the earth’s atmosphere was cloudy and foggy until the plants grew long enough to clear some of the CO2. So, if you look at it from an earthly perspective, while light could be perceived during the day and lesser light at night the sun moon and stars weren’t clearly visible until the atmosphere cleared.
You know God communicated with several people in the bible using dreams and visions. Suppose he gave Moses a vision or dream about creation to write down, it would be like a slide show, the first frame darkness, then light, water, land, plants, the sun, moon, stars, fish, birds, animals, people. If you were sitting on earth watching it unfold in super-fast forward it could have appeared just like that.
The key to creation if you can accept a power, force, or deity had some hand in it, is Genesis 1:1” In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” If you can then accept that what follows is a parable given to Moses by God, it would seem to me that it would be reasonable that it is a very simple story that a man who lived in ancient times could understand and accept. It follows at least to some degrees the steps of the development of life on earth, as we think they occurred. If you view chapter 1 in that context it could alleviate some of your objections to that part of the creation narrative.
We could also suppose that the entire Bible is parable or allegory.
Robert, it is amazing the twisting and turning that you will do to try to make your myth fit a reality that it simply does not fit. Seriously, give that some thought instead of doing your painful contortions.
Good morning lunchbreaker
Jesus taught using parables and there are parables and allegories in the OT, but there is also prophecy, some of which is given in parable, history, genealogies, proverbs, and a wealth of spiritual truth. So, no I don’t think you can take the whole thing as parable.
If you could accept the first chapter of genesis is a parable or allegory, or not, then let’s proceed to the Garden of Eden. Regardless of how you believe humans developed, at some point, you get to what we today understand as humans, a very distinct, intelligent, self-conscious, thoughtful, species when compared to all related species.
If you view the garden of Eden and Adam and Eve as a parable about an example pair of the first humans to obtain awareness and their interaction with this creative force and their development of an understanding of right (righteousness, thought and behavior God approves of, thought and behavior that humans esteem) and wrong (sin, behavior God hates, or the human guilt complex if you like).
In the parable we have this transition from being unaware or being just happy go lucky smart animals, to awareness, something, somehow, removed from the animal kingdom. So, regardless of how you feel that developed, it is presented in an instantaneous realization brought about by eating the fruit from the forbidden tree. The fruit and the tree represent this awareness or knowledge.
Was the sin taking and eating from the tree, developing the awareness or knowledge, that first lie they told God, or the desire to know more, which could be akin to pride?
A side note here ladies, if you look at it from this context, women developed superior intelligence first, then gave it to, or taught men.
If you go along those lines of thought you have to deal with the serpent. Could this serpent introduced into the story be the desire for knowledge? Why would it, this desire, be considered a bad thing by the creator, innocence lost?
“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
“And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”
As parents, do we not endeavor to protect the innocence of our children, and as children don’t we desire to be a grown up? It could be that the serpent is the desire or pride, a separation or a want to go in a direction contrary to the will of the creator, innocence lost.
I was a believer long before I had these thoughts. I have had personal experiences with God, so the parable idea is not for my benefit, I believe either way.
Robert Brown, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.
Robert Brown, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the mosquito orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.
In the wild yellow tomorrow, there was no need to peer endlessly at the porcupine colony. Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.
Robert, I'd ask you to present your "personal experiences" with your sky creature, but we've tried that before and you presented nothing credible. Your belief is entirely unfounded, and it sounds like you are just making excuses for that in your rambling, twisting posts.
Top o' the mornin' to yourself Mr. Brown. If you are a Christian, picking and choosing what portions of the Bible are supposed to be literal or not is purely speculation.
Agreed. If you are a Christian it is speculation. If you are a Christian, faith allows you to accept it as all literal.
If you are not a Christian and you believe what science tells us and you believe there could be a God, does viewing some of it as parable help?
True Science and the Bible are in harmony. Always were, always will be.
Robert Brown, remember Mark 4:1-25. God Bless you.
Mr. Brown, I wouls say the parable view definitely could help from a non-believers perspective. The whole idea of it being possible would keep it in the realm of discussion. Of course, the bigger problem comes in when you do expand the thought. If one part could be just an parable, perhaps other parts are, such as the most important part, the resurection. But from the witnissing party's perspective, possible is better, than impossible.
Bullshit. The bible gets science wrong repeatedly and frequently. The bible is a steaming load. See http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html, and just to get you started on your path away from the painfully wrong supersti-tion known as Christianity:
The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5
God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11
God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. 1:11
In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14
God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? 1:16
"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. 1:16
"And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." 1:17
I like Jill's response to Brown's spewing the best. Totally appropriate reply to the standard Christian nonsense and smokescreens.
Jill, paroxysms of galoshes to you. ROFL.
Thank you, Harrison.
May an elephant never pee in your galoshes.
Some times Jesus taught in parables knowing that those that studied his truth would understand what he taught and those that refused to study wouldn't have a clue. Oh, the ways of man (LOL). Same today as it was from the beginning.
Without a literal reading of Genesis their is no original sin, and that pretty much means no need for Jesus, and so the whole religion pretty much falls apart.
God communicated with several people in the bible using dreams and visions" – violation of free will. By Christian rules, he can't communicate with people. If he can, then he is a rotter for not communicating with the Hitlers and kindergarten mass-murderers of the world. God is said to be unable to intervene, and yet the Bible says he has, repeatedly, as do Christians who swear he acts in their lives. The free will concept is totally denied by god's supposed behavior in the bible and the claims of Christians. It's a pure cop-out, and of course, free will is never mentioned in the Bible.
So now that free will is thoroughly debunks, why does an omnipotent God who has no problem going in and slaughtering everyone suddenly powerless to stop a slaughter?
I disagree, try living by the ten commandments. If you do you will find your need for a savior. If you agree with what God calls sin, then you need only look at your own thoughts and conduct to know that you don’t measure up to his standard, whether you were born with original sin or not.
I agree that free will is limited. No one can answer why God allows things, maybe we will find out someday.
Some say the old testament God was just too mean and is not worthy of worship. Why would he create humans knowing they were going to rebel and then kill them wholesale? There are several examples in the bible, the most extreme is the flood.
It is not believed because we do not see evidence of a worldwide flood and if there was one, the God who did it could not be a good God worthy of worship. Not only that, but the idea that humans and animals developed to some point then were all but eliminated from the earth just does not line up with what we think we know of the history of the earth, at least as far as timing.
First, let’s look at what we do know, there are in modern times examples of huge catastrophic floods. There is evidence from ancient times of floods. Now, could Noah’s flood have been a local or regional flood? Could one family have built a boat similar to the dimensions recorded in the bible? Would a boat of this size be adequate to hold a family, their livestock, a collection of local wild animals, and all the food and water the group would need to survive for a long time? If you can accept that all this is possible, then the story, parable, or allegory also seems to be a reasonable possibility.
Would a God who would destroy a bunch of extremely mean people and preserve some good ones still be unworthy of worship? If so, then what would be the lesson or message of such a parable? It seems very simple to me, God is demonstrating his intention to create, allow people the opportunity to choose good or bad, allow the ones who have chosen evil to change their minds, and then ultimately, eliminate evil and preserve good. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Robert I don't need a savior, and find it insulting when people tell me that as I do.
Ted, the bible (Jesus' truth about life and the hereafter) does NOT get science wrong. It is man that doesn't understand Jesus' truth. You just proved it.
No offence intended Pete. If you don’t believe in God then you don’t accept what he calls sin is wrong. Hence, no need for a savior. If you ever believe in and agree with God, you may change your mind. Peace.
The flood was global, and the Genesis account says so explicitly. So much for your local theory.
The Ark was way too big to be made of wood. The Ark was impossibly small to carry all the animals that fit the description god gives to be included, a situation made worse by the necessary provisions needed to support the animals for 150 days. Six people could not possibly care for the millions of animals, and the climactic conditions would necessarily kill many of them. The animals could not get to the Ark from so many different places, nor get home. There would be a mass die off of animals once the ark landed because most of the animals feed on others, and with only two of which, the prey would be annihilated very quickly, and the predatory then would starve. Not to mention inbreeding. And then all variants of African and Asian and Arabic and White and Aborigine peoples just cannot come out of the heavily inbred six people without a LOT of very high speed evolution, not to mention getting to their various territories. And there's more, but you get the picture.
Noah's Ark is completely impossible, and your "local" theory means the Biblical account is an unreliable massive exaggeration.
So much for Noah.
I accept that some of the things that god says are wrong, are in fact wrong. However, they were wrong before the bible was written and that is why the people who wrote the bible claimed that god finds them to be wrong.
Ok Kent, try this one. Several cultures have a flood story. There was a global flood and all the flood stories are true. God chose to preserve a select few in each geographic area.
Robert, you could play the what if game all day long. The point is what the bible says happened didn't happen as the bible says, and no amount of twisting the story to fit the facts will change that.
That's a fail too, Robert. The Bible explicitly states that every other human and animal on the planet are killed. You keep trying to say that the flood narrative is right but it is a gross exaggeration, which makes it wrong.
You and Topher are doing the same thing: you claim that the Bible is absolute truth, but then claim that the problem area are because humans wrote it and got the details wrong. Which is a real credibility problem.
Although you will completely ignore and hmmm and haw, there is no geological evidence of a global flood.
Ah yes and the flood happened about 5000 years ago.....and out of 2 of each they were able breed without defects and survive the predators.......and breed more and then some of the same breeds would change and trael across the oceans liek to Australia, the islands...etc.. And then 6 people were able to reproduce without creating retards...and then some of their children suddenly became black....and others suddenly became really white.....the really white ones traveled and populated Europe....the dark ones moved down to Africa and created all the different tribes etc....some of them swam across the ocean to places like Australia and islands etc. Robert Brown your logic is an insult to intelligence.
I believe it did happen, just as the bible says, now what?
Just trying to help those who have never had their own personal experience with God, get in a position where they can. I personally take a fairly literal interpretation of what is written in the bible, but we don’t have all the nitty gritty detail.
There is evidence of near extinctions.
Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT,
What if it was a million years ago, would that make you feel better?
the "what if" game is Ad Hoc Hypothesis
Dr. Jill, what is your diagnosis of my condition?
What the hell does that have to do with anything? There is no geological support for a global flood. Period. If your best comeback is "durrr there were mass extinctions before durrr hurrrr", then you're more pathetic than I thought.
Well Robert, to me that means I should ignore everything you say because you deny observable reality.
Thats a moot point with you....Numbers does not go back a million years now does it? Side stepping basic logic I see.
Kent Proctor, freewill is mentioned in the bible. You need to know what you are looking for.
And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish [his] vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. (Leviticus 22:21)
Coincidentally, I had a conversation this afternoon with a friend who is a retired priest about just this topic. I was actually quite relieved to get confirmation that my understanding all along is correct. The genesis stories that give so many of you apoplexy are categorically NOT to be taken literally. They are compilations of oral histories taken from various peoples from different geographical areas in different times. I believe his quote was "Oral history is like gossip." He went on to say that although different peoples had different details to their versions of the creation story there is a core of similarities that is the revelation of God. The details that are inconsistent are the ones that got screwed up in the telling and retelling over however many years it took from the original revelation to a primitive intellect until the Hebrews codified and wrote it down. The creation story is there to reveal the important core, not the specific details. In other words, it is important for us to know the WHAT (that God created). It is not important for us to know HOW he did it in detail (what was the process, how long did it take, when did it happen...).
Further, we are to remember that when we read scripture we must read it as it was written. In the case of the creation story you must read it as if you were a hunter/gatherer (caveman) who did not have a concept of time (no watches, no calendars, most likely someone who didn't keep track of how old he was – think about indigenous peoples who had no contact with western civilization until the 20th century). And you must also bear in mind that you may only refer to the human technology of the time at which the revelation was made. You can't assume that Ug the caveman who had his vision quest result in a Revelation would have been told anything that would require a degree in physics or astronomy. As human intellect evolved, revelations became more complex.
Whew! So there really is a reason that it is easier to understand certain books with the assistance of some good green bud.
@ "Christianity is a form":
RE: your statement "Numbers does not go back a million years now does it?"
Actually, the old testament stories may go back much longer that a million years in their original oral forms.
Chick-a-dee, Matthew 23:9 ring truth to you?:
"NOT to be taken literally" & Actually, the old testament stories may go back much longer that a million years in their original oral forms."
Yes and that applies to the whole bible.
Stories may go back a million years?? Lol is this the new christian view adjusting to science. Here is what we do know....the OT came on the scene around 1400 to 700 B.C. The OT has very little to none historical value. There were much more advanced civilizations (thousands of years before) with very similar stories than the nomadic tribes wandering the desert. You know what that means........its call borrowed stories to create their own god.
And you are right, numbers doesnt go back a million years...so there is no basis for your possible idea and it further shows what a fraud the OT is....it is complete bs mythology. Which means christ's foundation is complete bs and he is sitting on a pile of it.
Oil Gold Water
OIL & GOLD around 200 million years after earth formed.
Were Does All Earth's Gold Come From? NOT G-od
Precious Metals the Result of Meteorite Bombardment, Rock Analysis Finds
Sep. 9, 2011 — Ultra high precision analyses of some of the oldest rock samples on Earth by researchers at the University of Bristol provides clear evidence that the planet's accessible reserves of precious metals are the result of a bombardment of meteorites more than 200 million years after Earth was formed.
Dr Willbold continued: "Our work shows that most of the precious metals on which our economies and many key industrial processes are based have been added to our planet by lucky coincidence when the Earth was hit by about 20 billion tonnes of asteroidal material."
When viewing comments on these blogs always remember the filthy mind of the self deluded so called atheist will not permit the Truth. All atheists are all liars all the time.
You are a typical, hateful Christian.
Why did Ted just confirm your comment?
" always remember the filthy mind of the self deluded so called atheist will not permit the Truth. All atheists are all liars all the time."
More lies from the xtians – 89!
Mark 4:5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
Mark 4:6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
Mark 4:7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
I am an atheist. I am going to say "truth be told" is theist. Since I am a liar 100% of the time that means "truth be told" is an atheist. Since he is an atheist, by his own logic, he just lied, and his statement is false.
I like what you did there.
What one atheist lies to another will swear to, "joey"
Thanks for adding additional proof that all atheists are liars k-switch !
truth be told, "You are a good Christian". Gosh, you were right, TBT.
tbt just got so PWNED. ROFL.
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer – New ...
Mar 31, 2006 – Prayers by strangers had NO EFFECT on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large study has found.
Pray without ceasing in 2013
Prayer changes things
Prayer takes people away from actually working on real solutions to their problems.
Prayer has been shown to have no discernible effect towards what was prayed for.
Prayer makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Just go to http://santorum.com to find out more.
Prayer prevents you from getting badly needed exercise.
Prayer makes you fat, pale, weak, and sedentary.
Prayer wears out your clothes prematurely.
Prayer contributes to global warming through excess CO2 emissions.
Prayer fucks up your knees and your neck and your back.
Prayer can cause heart attacks, especially among the elderly.
Prayer reveals how stupid you are to the world.
Prayer exposes your backside to pervert priests.
Prayer makes you think doilies are exciting.
Prayer makes you secretively flatulent and embarrassed about it.
Prayer makes your kids avoid spending time with you.
Prayer gives you knobbly knees.
Prayer dulls your senses.
Prayer makes you hoard cats.
Prayer wastes time.
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!
Please refer all negative comments concerning prayer to the post by truth be told. Thank you.
Repeating scriptures is a must in this case.
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.