home
RSS
Quarterback's next play: Going long with the Bible
Dylan Thompson celebrates during South Carolina's victory over Clemson last November.
February 1st, 2013
10:56 AM ET

Quarterback's next play: Going long with the Bible

By Stephanie Gallman, CNN

(CNN) – Ask Dylan Thompson to name his career highlights, and fans might expect to hear about one of his big moments as South Carolina's backup quarterback - like the time he led the Gamecocks to victory over rival Clemson, or when he threw the game-winning touchdown with 11 seconds left in the Outback Bowl.

But while Thompson said he's proud of his team’s accomplishments as well as his own, nothing really compares to what happened to him off the field his freshman year.

“Being saved and dedicating my life to Christ is actually the greatest thing that’s ever happened to me,” Thompson said.

His desire to spread the Gospel and share his faith propelled Thompson and his mentor, Jack Easterby, to come up with The Bible Out Loud project, an online initiative aimed at getting Christians to memorize and recite Scripture.

After the 27-17 victory over Clemson last November, Thompson felt he was receiving far too much attention. Not that it was undeserved: he threw for 310 yards and three touchdowns.

But Thompson says the number of touchdowns he scores pales in comparison to what’s really important.

“We need to get the attention back on Jesus,” he said.

The rules for The Bible Out Loud project are simple: Participants memorize one to five verses from the New International Version of the Bible and record themselves reciting it. Then they upload their video to YouTube and copy and paste the link to the project's web site.

Thompson said it's something people can do regardless of their denomination, social status or income, and it puts the focus back where he says it should be, on God’s word.

He recognizes that his status on the football field gives him a “tremendous opportunity to share” his testimony and lead others down the path to faith.

Easterby, who is the executive director of The Greatest Champion Foundation, agrees.

We are hoping to "rally the troops" using well-known athletes’ influence, said Easterby, whose organization, according to its website, uses "the platform of athletics" to "communicate the message of Christ.”

The promotional video for Bible Out Loud features several South Carolina athletes, but they're not named in an effort to keep the focus on Scripture. But diehard Gamecock fans will recognize them, and college fans will likely recognize running back Marcus Lattimore, who suffered a season-ending injury that brought everyone in Williams-Brice Stadium to their feet back in October.

Thompson said he’s even talked South Carolina head football coach Steve Spurrier into reading a verse for the project.

“He told me he was proud of me for doing it,” Thompson said.

Easterby understands there is often skepticism when it comes to religion, but he stresses the project involves no money and is pure in its intentions. He said Christians often face persecution when spreading their message, but so far backlash to the Bible Out Loud project has been minimal.

“A lot less than I had anticipated,” he laughs.

Most of the responses have been positive, and the project's goal of having an entire video Bible online by the end of the year is well on its way to being completed. Less than three weeks in, Easterby said more than 1,000 of the 31,000-plus verses have already been submitted.

There's been no shortage of variety, either, which is what Thompson said he’d hoped for. Among the videos posted online: a couple standing outside next to a lake reciting Proverbs 12:2-3; schoolchildren in uniform reciting 2 Timothy 2:15; and a boy wearing his football jersey reciting Acts 16:31.

The influx of submissions has let Easterby, who views each video before posting it to the site, be more selective.

“The Bible is meant to be read joyfully,” he said. Easterby has been in contact with submitters who aren’t speaking clearly or loudly enough on the video, asking them to resubmit.

The task of going over the videos with a watchful eye is challenging, but he said he wouldn’t want it any other way.

“It’s been unbelievable,” Easterby said. “Flat out amazing.”

- CNN Senior Producer

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Jesus • Sports

soundoff (856 Responses)
  1. chuchles

    i eradicated malaria. religion built 1 wheel

    February 1, 2013 at 7:18 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Uh oh.... I broke him.....

      Somebody quick! get the crazy glue!

      February 1, 2013 at 7:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Spackel, STAT!

      February 1, 2013 at 7:38 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      When did religion build a wheel? Or anything for that matter?

      February 1, 2013 at 7:39 pm |
    • chuchles

      water wells.

      i claimed the fact that atheists have eradicated maleria from the planet, and he claims his 1 teeny water well is more helpful because it is religious.

      February 1, 2013 at 7:48 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      I'm going to start calling people "current-collections-of-atoms-to-be-widely-dispersed-in-the-future." I want to make Chad comfortable with what I call people.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
  2. End Religion

    Where is the evidence apes and humans come from a common ancestor? All hail human chromosome #2!
    Our closest relative, the chimpanzee, has 24 pairs of chromosomes We have 23 because two fused into our #2 chromosome.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

    February 1, 2013 at 7:09 pm |
    • chuchles

      i found evidence tjat apes and humans come from a common ancestor

      February 1, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
    • Chad

      Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being Genesis 2

      what makes you think that common ancestry and Christianity are incompatible?

      February 1, 2013 at 7:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Considering what a chimp you are makes it seem more plausible, Chard.

      February 1, 2013 at 7:42 pm |
    • Billy

      probably the icky mouth to nose part, Chad.

      February 1, 2013 at 7:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's tragic when someone is so ignorant. A fetus cannot possibly survive outside the uterus before 21 weeks, Chard, you bozo. It is not viable otherwise. No fetus has ever survived before 21 weeks. EVER. Until a fetus is viable outside a woman's body, there is no reason not to allow abortion.

      Don't like it? Tough. Grow your own uterus and incubate your own fetus. You don't get to decide what happens to anyone else's, Chardo.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:00 pm |
    • Chad

      so it's ok to a kill a child when he/she is at the most defenseless point in their life?

      February 1, 2013 at 10:13 pm |
    • mama k

      what child? I thought you all were talking about fetuses?

      February 1, 2013 at 10:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You can keep on whining, Chard. It won't do a bit of good. It is legal to terminate a pregnancy. No one cares whether you approve. In fact, it's probably a plus if you don't.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:17 pm |
    • mama k

      you'd probably get a quicker return Chad lobbying to the Pope to change his ridiculous official stance on contraception. it wouldn't be easy and it may not even go against your own personal belief, but you'd probably have better luck with that than trying to change the laws regarding abortion and you might ultimately help save some lives.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:20 pm |
    • mama k

      I meant: . . . may even go against

      February 1, 2013 at 10:24 pm |
    • Chad

      very revealing that you people cant even bring yourselves to say "unborn child"..

      without realizing it, you naturally recoil from the notion of killing a child.

      horrific that this country is willing to sacrifice its children on the alter of "womens rights"

      February 1, 2013 at 10:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's not a "child." The term is "fetus" until it's born. Look it up, honey.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:27 pm |
    • mama k

      I also don't use the term fornication either for the record.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
    • End Abortion

      Abortion is horrible.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:34 pm |
    • Chad

      well, add one more item to the list of things you get wrong..

      "fetus" is stage of human development. The fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization.

      So, a developing child doesnt enter the stage of development labeled "fetus" until he/she is 11 weeks old, meaning that it is legal to murder a child only in the first 9 weeks of the fetal stage. After that and until he/she is born, it is illegal to murder him/her.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:37 pm |
    • End Abortion

      + It's not a "child." The term is "fetus" until it's born. Look it up, honey.

      We grieved a miscarriage for years.
      It was just a fetus, said the heartless wench.
      I'm still in grief.
      Love and grief don't know the difference between the loss of a child.
      born or unborn

      February 1, 2013 at 10:37 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      DON'T CALL THEM "EGGS!!!" They're unfertilized, unborn chickens!!

      Chad, you retard, words have definitions that aren't set by you and your stupid opinions. It's called a "fetus," you future corpse.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:10 pm |
    • Damocles

      @moby

      'Future corpse'. I like that.

      Sperm are now considered 'potential humans', millions of men convicted of mass murder on a daily basis.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:23 pm |
    • mama k

      The cut-off point Tom is obviously discussing Chad is 21 weeks. What an ass! Tom is not talking about anything other than the fetal stage, ass! You certainly didn't indicate in your response to her that you thought she was talking about something different. No wonder no one wants to take you seriously on this issue.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
    • fred

      mama k
      End Religion
      I have comforted many women who lost a child prior to birth. I still feel bad that initially I could not understand why someone became emotional over a still born child or other miscarriage. They called it a child and still do. They would be again be hurt by your insulting use of the word fetus.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:39 pm |
    • mama k

      Well I understand that fred, but this isn't a counseling center. People in these discussions are throwing around a lot of medical and scientific info trying to prove a point. If I had just had an abortion, I wouldn't be searching out arguments over abortion on the internet. I probably would talk to a grief counselor.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:46 pm |
    • fred

      mama k
      Well if you have limited capacity to understand life is more than organic matter subject to chemical reactions then I understand your point. This means you are unable to address the reality of the situation so robots could just as well make decisions regarding abortions. No God needed and no human touch needed for that matter.
      Can you spell sociopathic tendency and relate that to calling a child a fetus?

      February 2, 2013 at 12:06 am |
    • mama k

      No, you're off track again fred. It means I can differentiate between discussion here when details of legality and science are already being discussed from being careful around someone who may have had a recent personal related experience, such as an abortion.

      February 2, 2013 at 12:15 am |
    • fred

      mama k
      You’re just bragging because the wiring on the left side of your brain is well insulated from the wiring on the right side of your brain. Don’t get too puffed up as that would mean you’re less susceptible to becoming a believer and would make a lousy artist or song writer.

      February 2, 2013 at 12:30 am |
    • Pop Eye

      So if I tossed off a few handfuls of my unborn swimmers in Chad's face and his eyelids killed some, would he be the mass murderer or I? Make sure you close your mouth Chad, Incoming!!!!

      February 2, 2013 at 1:20 am |
    • tallulah13

      Fred, I'm a graphic designer. I am an atheist. I am very good at what I do. I work with three other atheists and an agnostic. We have all made our living as designers for a very long time. If you think graphic design doesn't take creativity, you've never tried it. Two of us are also painters (one also a musician), and one a writer. Your theory that atheists are not creative is patently false.

      However, it sounds like you associate religious belief with heightened imagination. Maybe you have subconsciously realized that your god is imaginary.

      February 2, 2013 at 1:32 am |
    • End Religion

      @tallulah: "However, it sounds like you associate religious belief with heightened imagination. Maybe you have subconsciously realized that your god is imaginary."

      BINGO!
      I painted in my teens. I wrote amateur fiction and illustrated fiction in my 20's. I played guitar and sang in rock cover bands in my 30's. Most of my friends at college who were in the arts were atheist or agnostic, with some being hippy "spiritual but not religious" types.

      February 2, 2013 at 7:17 am |
    • Science

      From Bing below.............lmfao ...............chad has a link on BING !

      Quarterback's next play: Going long with the Bible – CNN Belief ...

      religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/01/quarterbacks-next-play-going...

      Feb 01, 2013 · Since we've got Chad buybull ... Jurassic Park came out. Now that it has been found, ... You have nothing

      but a 2000 year old stone age book written ...

      All creationists...............a turtle.............but is it to old to have come from the ark ?

      Or chad crawled into his shell on the ark and finally found his way out .............you know chad ?

      The mystery of how the turtle got its shell has finally been solved by scientists studying a 260-million-year-old fossil.

      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-have-figured-out-how-the-turtle-got-its-unique-hard-shell-2013-5#ixzz2UspYoTOm

      May 31, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
  3. Live4Him

    @Susan StoHelit : the Bible makes it clear – an unborn fetus is not a baby to the Bible either.

    Here is what the Bible says on the subject.

    Exodus 21:12,22-25

    12 Anyone who hits a person and kills him must be put to death.
    22-25 “Suppose two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman, causing the baby to come out. If there is no further injury, the man who caused the accident must pay money—whatever amount the woman’s husband says and the court allows. But if there is further injury, then the punishment that must be paid is life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.

    February 1, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
    • Chad

      "Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

      "What then shall I do when God rises up? When He punishes, how shall I answer Him? Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?" (Job 31:14-15)

      "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well." (Psalm 139:13-14)

      John the Baptist will be "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb",

      February 1, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • Answer

      Yet even christians have abortions. XD

      February 1, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Dumbfvcks, if someone ELSE kills a fetus, it's unlawful. The woman carrying the fetus is never, ever mentioned as being guilty if she aborts.

      EVER.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Answer

      Could we get a round of applause for those "not really christians" that have had abortions?

      *clap clap*

      February 1, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Bob

      Since we've got Chad buybull quote dumping again, let's take a look at some of the horrors that are really in his book of nasty AKA the bible, both NT and OT:

      Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
      18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

      Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

      Leviticus 25
      44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
      45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
      46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

      Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

      Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

      And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Please, stop referencing that Christian book of nasty, AKA the bible, as a guide to, well, anything.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      February 1, 2013 at 6:29 pm |
    • Chad

      "if someone ELSE kills a fetus, it's unlawful"

      =>actually not true at all.
      the mother hires another person to murder her unborn child.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
    • Akira

      83% of women obtaining abortions are Christian.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
    • Science

      Ernie Carrasco; too From the ICR go figure what a joke. Saved emails.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, Chard, she pays for a legal abortion of her own free will. Do you always lie to prove a point?

      February 1, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
    • Thom

      since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • mama k

      oops – sorry – I farted a little

      February 1, 2013 at 6:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I guess Chard would prefer it if women were forced to perform abortions on themselves, rather than have a safe, legal medical procedure.

      Of course he would.

      Women have a right to decide what to do about their own pregnancy. They are free to end it if they wish. No one else can do so without her permission. What part of that is unclear to you?

      February 1, 2013 at 6:38 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Live4him – I know. Didn't feel like pulling up the verses – but yeah – it's quite clear – an unborn fetus is not a baby to the Bible. It's all a political ploy – and a relatively recent one – if you look through history, Christianity hasn't considered abortion a crime.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
    • Science

      Choke on the bone !

      February 1, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
    • Chad

      "Women have a right to decide what to do about their own pregnancy. They are free to end it if they wish. No one else can do so without her permission. What part of that is unclear to you?"

      =>errors in that statement:
      1. murdering your unborn child after he/she is ~20 weeks is illegal, it is only legal prior to that
      2. when the child reaches that age, US law protects the life of that unborn child, imposing requirements on the mother to care for him/her.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • Answer

      So really Chad.. what is YOUR position?

      It's obvious to everyone that you post positions that aren't YOURS.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Did you ever think that the law is that way because after 20 weeks it's reasonable to assume that the woman has known about her pregnancy for a good amount of time, and is deciding to keep it o term of her own free will? Oh wait that's right, that ruins your rhetoric, so of course you wouldn't think of that.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:47 pm |
    • My Invisible super-buddy say you have to do what I tell you

      Why would anyone use the Old Testament as a source for scientific knowledge or law? It is a total disaster at both.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:49 pm |
    • Answer

      @My Invisible super-buddy say you have to do what I tell you

      It's a matter of a fallacy bringing in comfort.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
    • My username is better than your username

      yeah...My Invisible super-buddy say you have to do what I tell you

      February 1, 2013 at 6:55 pm |
    • Chadwatch

      Chad. was of course conceived in a petri dish only one of many babies that were in the dish; he was the lucky one to be placed in a uterus, his siblings are all toast. The Chad performs mourning rituals for all his deceased bros and gals. Chad is at least 100 years behind the times, catch up, doofus.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard, really. You are too much. We've already been through this. Do you really think no one else sees through you? It is not illegal to have an abortion after 20 weeks in all states. It is not illegal to do so at all if a woman's health or life is at risk.

      Keep on lying, though. It makes you look ever so credible.

      February 1, 2013 at 7:36 pm |
    • Chad

      Abortion IS illegal after ~20 weeks, there are certain exceptions to this rule, but the LAW is that it is illegal.

      The part that atheists hate about that fact, is that it is surely senseless to allow the murder of a child at 19 weeks, but not 1 week later. That is precisely why pro-abortion people never talk about the fact that abortion IS illegal for roughly half of the child's life.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:38 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      And yet the past three times I've posted this, you've ignored it.

      "Did you ever think that the law is that way because after 20 weeks it's reasonable to assume that the woman has known about her pregnancy for a good amount of time, and is deciding to keep it o term of her own free will?"
      Does it really just ruin your rhetoric so much that you need to just pretend like the question doesn't exist?

      February 1, 2013 at 9:50 pm |
    • mama k

      And what does he mean by a half life??

      February 1, 2013 at 9:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's tragic when someone is so ignorant. A fetus cannot possibly survive outside the uterus before 21 weeks, Chard, you bozo. It is not viable otherwise. No fetus has ever survived before 21 weeks. EVER. Until a fetus is viable outside a woman's body, there is no reason not to allow abortion.

      Don't like it? Tough. Grow your own uterus and incubate your own fetus. You don't get to decide what happens to anyone else's, Chardo.

      "Half the child's life"? Idiot. It's not a child until it's born.

      It just irks the fvck out of you that you can't control what women do with their bodies, doesn't it, Chard?

      Good.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
    • Chad

      so it's ok to a kill a child when he/she is at the most defenseless point in their life (the first half of their life spent in the mothers womb).

      that's what is so senseless, a child at 19 weeks old doesnt enjoy the same rights as a child of 20 weeks? Insanity.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      A woman has the same rights to her body when she's pregnant as she does when she isn't, Chardolicious.

      Whine on.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:19 pm |
    • Chad

      so a woman can decide to murder her 39 month old healthy child for no other reason than she has decided she doesnt want it?

      no.

      weird how the very people that spend their entire time calling other people dishonest liars, are in fact the ones guilty of same.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Keep on whining, Chard. It's becoming a meme.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:24 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Tom,Tom, the Piper's Son

      To answer your question, yes, Chard always lies to "prove" his point---even when he's lying to himself to make his flimsy reasoning match his a priori beliefs.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
  4. Live4Him

    So, how DOES dinosaur soft tissue survive for millions of years?

    February 1, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • Answer

      Do you go see a dentist for a check up on your eyes?

      February 1, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Answer

      That's no explanation. Why do we find dino soft tissue if they lived 65+ million years ago?

      February 1, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
    • Answer

      "Please remember, I'm not trying to judge you, hurt you, etc. I'm simply trying to get you to think about the big picture."

      ===Think about the big picture.

      Look at the lovely words.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • Answer

      You don't want to learn science. We get it.

      If you look at the big picture of learning perhaps you'll understand that I'm not the expert in the field to be asked the question.

      Here I am today being the dentist and you're the patient who is coming in with an eye problem. Just too funny.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why do think there IS an explanation, you moron? Why is it you have to throw up your hands and say, "Gosh, I don't know how it happened, so it mustabeengod"? Why is it you jump to a conclusion that some sky fairy did something, instead of investigating further, or waiting until a sentient being does so for you?

      February 1, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
    • Answer

      ==quoting myself==

      Answer

      The usual modus operandi of the creationists crackpipes is to spew their limited understanding of scientific principles to non-expertists' in the respective fields to spread disinformation.

      If you aren't an expert you're just pulling website references to counter website references.

      But do go on- you crackpipe creationists – confuse the amateurs and try to win.

      ==end quote==

      February 1, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      I addressed this bullshit before, as have other people. Just because you like to delude yourself into thinking no ones addressed it doesn't make it more valid each time. Just like your moronic 5 points.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • Science

      Dame it I ran out of popcorn, raed on the icr web site they bought a stony iron meteorite for what? Back in the year 2011
      peace

      Carbon – 14 building blocks of life.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son : Why do think there IS an explanation, you moron?

      Because I follow the scientific principles.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @hawaiiguest : I addressed this ... before

      Yes, you protested this issue, but were unable to present any empirical evidence to support your beliefs.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The scientific principles? Do they state that if you don't know why or how something occurred, it mustabeengawd?

      Do tell.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • Answer

      "Because you follow the scientific principles?"

      LOL

      February 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You automatically assume that if an explanation has not yet been found, then one never will be found. Why would anyone with a brain do something that stupid?

      February 1, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Lie4Him

      Nice lie. Here's what actually happened. I said that in the report of the results of the study, I saw no mention that it was pliable and spongy like it would be if it were less than 10,000 years old. You said it was in there, and I asked you for a link to where it said that, then you disappeared.
      I also continually asked you why DNA extraction cannot be done on the fossil, like we can on remains up to 100,000 years old?
      You should change your name already, you already have the "lie for jesus" mentality, you might as well have your name reflect your dishonesty.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • Science

      Who was it at the ICR that added chagned the bible on creation maybe john morris. I have emails from him saved.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You automatically assume that if we do not yet know something, and may never know something, it haddabegawd. Why? There's no evidence to support such a conclusion. None.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:16 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son : You automatically assume that if an explanation has not yet been found, then one never will be found.

      The evidence shows that DNA and soft tissue do not survive for more than 10,000 years. This was the stated opinion of the experts when Jurassic Park came out. Now that it has been found, one must either conclude that something magical happened to allow it (and many others) to survive – OR use logic and conclude that dinos lived less than 10,000 years ago. Considering the dino images on pottery, stellas, temples, cave / wall paintings, etc., this is the most obvious conclusion. KISS – keep it simple stupid.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So, basically, you're saying that because something new has been discovered since Jurassic Park was filmed, gawddidit?

      Who ties your shoes for you?

      February 1, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • Answer

      Typical creationist mentality:

      "Oh something out of the normal happened to bring more evidence to counter the prevailing science established long before it – it must be god. We have proven there is a god."

      February 1, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • Science

      ICR world wide creationist BLA BLA BLA BLA. big joke!

      February 1, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @hawaiiguest : I said that in the report of the results of the study, I saw no mention that it was pliable and spongy like it would be if it were less than 10,000 years old. You said it was in there, and I asked you for a link to where it said that, then you disappeared.

      Just because I never saw your post doesn't mean I couldn't answer the issue.

      Here are some sites that I just googled:

      http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil.htm

      "Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex" . The paper goes on to describe blood vessels, bone matrix and elastic tissues, all found somewhere they shouldn't be.

      http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

      Has the image of the tissue stretching.

      I googled "elastic dino soft tissue", ignoring the Christian sites.

      BTW – I've gotta head out for now.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Science : ICR world wide creationist BLA BLA BLA BLA. big joke!

      So, when a Christian website references scientific findings, those findings become a big joke? So, your view is to shoot the messenger, rather than act on the information. Got it.

      And I'm really heading out now.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      Hilarious. You just proved yourself wrong.

      "After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. "
      The acid dissolved the harder outer layer that preserved the inside.
      Also within the link.
      "rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors."
      Notice the "remnants of soft tissues" part. Which goes directly against what you said.

      Thank you for disproving your own assertions.
      Perhaps you should take some reading comprehension classes.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Lie4Him

      "The evidence shows that DNA and soft tissue do not survive for more than 10,000 years. This was the stated opinion of the experts when Jurassic Park came out. Now that it has been found, one must either conclude that something magical happened to allow it (and many others) to survive – OR use logic and conclude that dinos lived less than 10,000 years ago. "

      Lies lies and more lies.

      1) They did not find DNA.
      2) The bypassing of remineralization is not unheard of, it was just unknown to still occur in fossils of that age.

      Stop lying, and actually know what you're talking about. I know that might be too much to ask, but at least try to educate yourself.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Lie4Him, DNA found in an ice core from Greenland was 800,000 years old. Don't forget humans have only been looking in earnest for 50 or so years and techniques have improved significantly.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Ohg and under ideal conditions, scientists would expect to extract DNA from a frozen fossil bone of up to 1,000,000 years old.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      How do we find fern leaf impressions in fossils when they're just as soft?

      If you really want to know the answers to these questions, wouldn't a scientific website, or perhaps some nice science books be better? It's really not that hard to find answers......

      ......

      ......

      if you're really looking. No faith required, no right perspective, no belief, just read the book, it gives the same answer for everyone, you can believe it or not. Lotsa TV programs, youtubes, etc. – if you screen which you choose, you can get those that are genuine science.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:43 pm |
    • Science

      @live4it
      I personally invited John Morris on my nickle to my location he refused go figure. saved emails.

      Sent pictures to them to too.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
    • Science

      Talk about coming full circle !!!

      Emails saved from the ICR world wide creationist are from 2011

      WOW

      February 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm |
    • Christians will believe any wingnuts hypothesis is pure fact if it agrees with their dogma

      Please present evidence from a major, pear reviewed, scientific journal that dinosaur soft tissue survives for millions of years

      February 1, 2013 at 10:32 pm |
    • Damocles

      It's truly amazing how many times l4h's need for 'heading out' conicides with him/her losing the argument.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:31 pm |
    • Science

      Science
      Can not teach creation/bible in pulic schools in US
      And they creationist lost in court the Dover Trial BLA BLA BLA.
      You might want to review this evolution works better

      Evolution works better Thanks Doc.
      University of Minnesota researchers unveil first artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube

      http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2013/UR_CONTENT_429344.html

      Einstein letter, set for auction, shows scientist challenging idea of God, being 'chosen'

      By Jessica Ravitz, CNN

      Decades before atheist scientist and author Richard Dawkins called God a "delusion," one world-renowned physicist – Albert Einstein – was weighing in on faith matters with his own strong words.

      “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends,” Einstein wrote in German in a 1954 letter that will be auctioned on eBay later this month. "No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

      February 2, 2013 at 7:14 am |
  5. lol??

    How do A&A's enjoy a game with rules? How did they even back the concept of fair play? Any games in scripture?

    February 1, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • niknak

      What the h_ell are you talking about loloser?

      February 1, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • ME II

      "A&A's"?

      February 1, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • mama k

      (minor leagues)

      February 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Does the bible credit gawd with "plate tectonics"? Then, no, I don't agree with the bible.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Rules are agreed upon by the community of those involved with the game.....just like morality .....which is why your make believe god had no problem with slavery or genocide.

      February 1, 2013 at 7:33 pm |
    • ROTFLM AO!!!

      A chiritian trying to lecture on the concept of fair play!!??

      February 1, 2013 at 10:51 pm |
  6. Live4Him

    @The Truth : Why does the geological record not show any global flood event in at least the last 150,000 years?

    How do you know this to be true?

    February 1, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      It's called science. It may be a new concept for you, but it works.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @hawaiiguest : It's called science. It may be a new concept for you, but it works.

      Unfortunately, science is a process not an answer. It only guides you to the truth.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
    • niknak

      How do you know it's NOT true die4him?
      The scientists have actual evidence that there was never any world wide flood.
      You have nothing but a 2000 year old stone age book written by various writers over thousands of years.

      The vast majority of the world, and not just scientists, does not believe in your book.
      Why do you?

      February 1, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      1) Science is a methodology for gathering evidence, evaluating it, recreating results, and proper peer review to come to the best explanation we can have at the time.
      2) There is absolutely no evidence that would suggest a global flood.

      So yes, all scientific inquiry and conclusion does not support a global flood event. So, will you now go back to your conspiracy theory nonsense of suppression of evidence that doesn't actually exist?

      February 1, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • Science

      Have to get more popcorn.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • niknak

      Wierd Science,
      Yes, popcorn is needed, cause when die4him gets going, it is pretty entertaining......

      February 1, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      Here's one problem (among many) with a global flood that I hadn't thought of before:
      "How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions."
      (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html)

      February 1, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @hawaiiguest : There is absolutely no evidence that would suggest a global flood.

      Why are almost all dinosaurs found in sedimentary rock? These rocks are deposits from floods. How does a large dinosaur like a brachisaurus get drowned in a flood? Why would 40+ Allosaurus individuals be drowned in the same flood? And why would dino soft tissue survive for 68 million years, when empirical evidence indicates that it cannot survive for more than 10,000 years in a temperate environment?

      February 1, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • niknak

      Sedimentary rock does NOT come from floods!
      Please read a science book before trying to comment on basic scientific principles.

      See what I was saying Science, when she gets going one never knows how many entertaining things will be put forth.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : Here's one problem (among many) with a global flood that I hadn't thought of before:

      So, you need someone to do your thinking for you. Got it.

      @Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up

      All it takes for ice (i.e. polar caps) is water and cold. We can see this happen every year as large areas in the polar regions freeze over.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • ME II

      Live4Him
      "Why are almost all dinosaurs found in sedimentary rock? These rocks are deposits from floods."
      Not all sedimentary rock is from floods, much is from river deltas and wetlands.

      "...when empirical evidence indicates that it cannot survive for more than 10,000 years in a temperate environment?"
      Citation please. (Honestly, I'd like to know what's been done on this, thanks.)

      February 1, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @niknak : Sedimentary rock does NOT come from floods!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock

      Sedimentary rocks are types of rock that are formed by the deposition of material at the Earth's surface and within bodies of water.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : Citation please. (Honestly, I'd like to know what's been done on this, thanks.)

      Lindahl, T. 1993. Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA

      February 1, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • ME II

      Live4Him
      "So, you need someone to do your thinking for you. Got it."
      Need? I will freely admit that I cannot think of everything myself.

      "All it takes for ice (i.e. polar caps) is water and cold. We can see this happen every year as large areas in the polar regions freeze over."
      Actually, it takes precipitation (over land) and cold. And, as the full quote said, there hasn't been enough for those caps to be as thick as they are.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Science

      I have a gallon bucket full this should fun.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      Thanks for to the citation!

      February 1, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • niknak

      Read your own link, it says sediment forms over MILLIONS of years.
      A flood recedes in a very short amount of time, and whatever sediment is leaves is unmeasurable.

      I bet you believe the dino fossils in Antartic rock means dino lived up there too.
      And that the marine fossils found on top of mountains like the Rockies proves your flood myth.

      A mind is a terrible thing to lose, to religion......

      February 1, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • Answer

      *Spectator mode*

      February 1, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • Science

      Oops should be fun dame thumbs

      February 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • End Religion

      All young earth bullshit debunked a decade ago and updated when new crackpot creationist guesses emerge: http://www.talkorigins.org/

      February 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • Lady Chad-derly's Lover

      Here's another one of Chad's reference websites...funny how Chad only knows how to ask the questions? Too bad I chose to be a call-boy instead of pursing a PhD in (insert chosen Biology field here).

      http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/the-deck-is-stacked-.html

      but that's okay...when I tie Chad up, he loves it when I ask the questions...and GIVE him the answers...

      By the way, just like Ted H., Jim B., and Jimmy S., Chad is so vocal on the immorality of the world while he savors the delicacies every time we're together.

      Kiss, Kiss, Chad

      February 1, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @niknak : Read your own link, it says sediment forms over MILLIONS of years.

      That link is for you, not my beliefs. Mt ST Helen deposited more than 10 sedimentary layers in just one volcanic explosion in the 80's – and this example is certainly didn't last millions of years.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Lady Chad-derly's Lover : Kiss, Kiss, Chad

      Ummm... I'm not Chad and I don't see him here on this thread, so who is this directed toward?

      February 1, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @End Religion : http://www.talkorigins.org/

      Try http://www.trueorigins.org/

      February 1, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • Lady Chad-derly's Lover

      Oh L4H,

      You are so in so many ways...

      February 1, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : Thanks for to the citation!

      No problem. As I've said before, I can usually give a reference when I'm at my home computer (which I am now). I tend to read a lot, so I may not be able to quote it always, but sometimes I have the reference in my personal library (i.e. Galileo's Daughter, The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy – that I referenced in last night's discussion) so I can get it.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • Answer

      LOL

      Mt St Helens argument by the creationist tards.

      -------------–Here

      Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism
      by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.

      *Creationist site reference*
      link: http://www.icr.org/article/mt-st-helens-catastrophism/

      ================
      Debunked by science
      ================

      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html

      Claim CH581.1:
      Rapid erosion of sediments along the north fork of Toutle River, flowing out of Spirit Lake on Mount St. Helens, carved a canyon like a miniature Grand Canyon, showing that the Grand Canyon could form suddenly.
      Source:
      Austin, Steven A. 1986. Mt. St. Helens and catastrophism. Impact 157 (July). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=261
      Response:

      The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

      The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

      The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation. Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

      The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

      The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • mama k

      *also spectator mode, but I thought L4H was Chick-a-dee that someone else actually had put a name to the other day*

      February 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      It's not hard to see that something isn't there, when you know where it would be (in this case, everywhere). Floods aren't hard to see in a geological record.

      If I hand you a plate, tell you it's covered in jelly – and you don't see any – pretty easy for you to say that it's proven, just by touching one spot on the plate with no jelly, that it is not covered with jelly. Same goes for a worldwide flood. All you have to do is look at any two spots on this planet, see that there was not a flood both places that happened at the same instant – there we go, worldwide flood disproven. We know when there were and were not floods all around the globe – and a point in time when there's a pattern of a flood happening would be oh so very trivial and remarkable and obvious.

      It's not there. Sorry.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Answer : The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

      Great justification for a world-wide flood!

      February 1, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Tell me there was a flood at some point, somewhere, unspecific – and that I cannot disprove – because wherever I don't see it – well, it could be somewhere else. But say there was a global flood all at once – that is easy to prove and disprove.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Susan StoHelit : All you have to do is look at any two spots on this planet, see that there was not a flood both places that happened at the same instant – there we go, worldwide flood disproven.

      How do you prove this? Strata layers are composed of the material from THAT region. The sediment isn't transported to the other side of the world and then deposited.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • Answer

      Delusional crackpipe .. you want that justification.

      Go and make up some more justification for it. Go right on ahead.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Susan StoHelit : But say there was a global flood all at once – that is easy to prove and disprove.

      Really? How large are floods? Deep enough to submerge a sauropod? Hundreds of miles wide? Found in every major continent? And yet, you claim it isn't world-wide.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • Answer

      The usual modus operandi of the creationists crackpipes is to spew their limited understanding of scientific principles to non-expertists' in the respective fields to spread disinformation.

      If you aren't an expert you're just pulling website references to counter website references.

      But do go on- you crackpipe creationists – confuse the amateurs and try to win.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • Science

      The icr is a joke LOL

      February 1, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • Answer

      @Science

      Yep.

      The well source for the stupid creationists to fling their bs out to their uneducated mass.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Answer : The well source for the stupid creationists to fling their bs out to their uneducated mass.

      Are you talking about talkorigins.org?

      February 1, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      Study some geology sometime. Do you think that the earth just popped into existence with all the continents where they are? The plates shift. At one point every single bit of solid ground we have was underwater. Places flood and shift all the things in the ground around sometimes. This does not show any kind of evidence for global flooding. You really know nothing about geology do you?

      February 1, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
    • Answer

      @Live4Him

      =====quote===
      @Answer : The well source for the stupid creationists to fling their bs out to their uneducated mass.

      Are you talking about talkorigins.org?

      ===end====

      Hilarious.

      Losers like yourself want to discredit the source that counters your crappy source. Go take it up with talkorigins. XD

      I simply used their source to blow yours out of the water. If you're incapable of dealing with even one person like myself you'll be at a loss trying to take on talkorigins.

      It's your beef. Go luck.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @hawaiiguest : Study some geology sometime. Do you think that the earth just popped into existence with all the continents where they are?

      So, you agree with the Bible on Plate Techtonics?

      Gen 10:25 Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, l because in his time the earth was divided

      February 1, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      So in other words, you have absolutely no answer to my points, so you need to be a sanctimonious, condescending douche to avoid it.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Posted in the wrong spot: Does the bible credit gawd with "plate tectonics"? Then, no, I don't agree with the bible.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • Akira

      Mama K: they are both the same persom, yes.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • End Religion

      The Wedge Strategy

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

      Organized creationist effort to overturn evolution and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" through the public marketing of fraudulent pseudo-science.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:44 pm |
  7. Erin

    Personally, I'm shorting the bible and Christianity. Numbers down in most markets and decline steepening, and the story doesn't hold up to examination. Doesn't deliver the goods either, and has a history of never delivering. Another Enron shell game on an even bigger scale. Wouldn't want any stock in it at all, myself.

    February 1, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
    • The Truth

      I hear ya, I sold all my shares about 8 years ago and couldn't be happier.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Erin : Personally, I'm shorting the bible and Christianity.

      This is like investing in a Ponsi scheme – it works great in the short run and in the end you lose everything.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • December

      Erin

      A church I go to just invested money in western Kenya. They built wells that are providing clean water that cut down infections and disease. And they are currently investing money into constructing a building to provide education past the 6th grade.

      What a scam, hu?

      A complete marketing disaster.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
    • Lady Chad-derly's Lover

      @ December...

      Enjoyed your exchange with Chad the other day...though I'm not a believer, I appreciate the nonsense of a Chad who is certain he is right and you are wrong if you don't believe in the precise way he does (of course, claiming that it's not his way but God's).

      Bravo on your comments.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • December

      There was some misunderstandings because somebody posted and attributed a quote that I didn't actually say.

      So Chad was reacting to that. I'm regretful for how I over-reacted to his reaction.

      But, yea, I don't like to decide who is and isn't a Christian.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @December

      so I'm just "somebody" now? Sir, you wound me deeply!

      Also, your little "look how great my church is" little post, precious but what's worth investing money in, a little itty bitty church building some wells in Kenya or an atheist organization that was able to eradicate malaria in an entire african nation......

      Yeah, I think I'll go with the latter, but you keep trying to "save" africa one well at a time.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • December

      Your quotes attributed to me are always so wrong.

      *****"look how great my church is"
      It is not my church. It is a church I go to a few times a year.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @December : I don't like to decide who is and isn't a Christian.

      Ditto. As scripture says (paraphrase) : who are we to judge another's servant?

      February 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • Chuckles

      um.... so because you only go to a church a couple of times a year it's not your church?

      Shucks, I'm so wrong all the time huh! I'm so embarrassed!

      February 1, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • irony

      >chuchles
      a "look how greater my atheist organization is" post. "an atheist organization that was able to eradicate malaria in an entire african nation......"

      February 1, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • irony

      >chuchles
      did you helpt this atheist organzation do this? or do you just like to take credit? can you post which atheist organization did eradicate maleria in an entire african nation?
      thanks.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      A well in Kenya is great. Done without requiring them to attend your church and send you their children to teach your bible – that's worth something, and definitely something I'd respect.

      It's not unique – there are many good charities out there, but we can always use one more. I still prefer secular charities, because I've seen too many religious ones have an agenda of pushing and even forcing religion (attend our church or we'll suddenly lose interest in building that well) – but if you don't have that, it's a great thing.

      My favorite remains Doctors without Borders – and Bill Gates Foundation does a great job of looking to find the improvements that do the most possible to make real change to people's lives long term.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Irony

      First, chuckles has a K

      Second, either you didn't understand my post or you don't know what "irony" is..... which is probably the most ironic thing in this thread.

      Considering I was one-upping Decembers post about "a" church (because zeus forbid I say his church).

      But nice try kiddo, there's this site, it's called dictionary.com. Get this, it actually tells you definitions of words, try looking up irony sometime eh?

      February 1, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • December

      >> Susan

      Yes I agree.

      I do volunteer with secular and religious charities.

      In my secular charity, I find atheists, Christians and people from other faiths all wanting to make the same kind of difference. Our beliefs don't really come up, we focus on our work at hand.

      Here is what the church in my town did and is doing in Africa

      http://www.jacobswellchurch.org/outreach/global-missions/

      February 1, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Irony

      Who's taking credit? Is pointing out what secular charities do now somehow taking credit or saying that I was involved? That's weird, so I guess now if I were to tell you about a great book you'd ask me if I had been involved writing it?

      I'd reccomend heading to dictionary.com, taking a gander at what Irony means, then maybe spending a bit of time on "critical thinking" and "reading comprehension", I know that's a big day for small brains like you, but I promise it pays dividends for the future... oop I mean, it pays "lots of big munies for the tomorrow time".

      February 1, 2013 at 5:45 pm |
    • irony

      >chuchles

      ironic that you take credit foro atheists groups that you dont actually belong to. none of them know who you are? do you take credit for communism and all the suffering by its inhumane treatment?
      or just the good tings?

      February 1, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @irony

      So sorry! I didn't realize you had a mental condition!

      Good for you buddy! You have great typing skills. Keep up the good work!

      February 1, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • irony

      on my phone, auto correct. dam.

      Yea, communism shuts them up everytime.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @irony

      Wait, are you telling me you aren't mentally handicapped?

      Could have fooled me. In any case, 1. Did you look up irony (Cleary not yet) 2. When did I say I was taking credit for atheist or secular groups? Can you read (honest question) 3. are you sure you aren't mentally handicapped (also an honest question) 4. Why would I take any credit for communism? That makes no sense, then again I guess your tiny brain can't understand the difference between an atheist and a communist, but let me clear this up no, muslim does not = terrorist, atheist does not = communist, latino does not = mexican etc....

      Does this help? I can only show you the door @irony, only you can choose to learn or wallow in your own ignorance

      February 1, 2013 at 6:16 pm |
    • irony

      > chuchles

      I looke dup irony

      irony: see atheism

      One of the great ironies of the contemporary atheistic movement comes from its ubiquitous use of rhetoric, branding, and emotional triggers to advocate for reason.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @irony

      ...... So you've proven to me so far that a) you can't understand there's a K in ChucKles b) you don't understand the basic functions of a dictionary c) you are most likely mentally handicapped.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • Erin

      December, that's always your same old god fraud scam: Do a little good, grab some money, grab more contributors for your church's coffers.

      Keep the good works, toss the religion and the religious strings attached please. And ask yourself why god created cancer while you're struggling with that, you deluded beotch.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:21 pm |
  8. Reality

    And moving now to the 21st century:

    The Apostles' / Agnostics’ Creed 2013 (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

    Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
    and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
    human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
    many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
    ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen
    (References used are available upon request.)

    February 1, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
  9. The Truth

    When would Adam and Eve been able to enter heaven if they had never eaten of the fruit and sinned?

    Was Adam created with a penis? If so, why? Eve was supposedly created later, so why the need for that body part?

    Why do I still have vestigial body parts? You know, like male ni.p.p.les or my coccyx?

    Why is there cave art dating back nearly 50,000 years if the planet was only created less than 10,000 years ago?

    Why do I have 2.2% neanderthal DNA in my DNA?

    Why does the geological record not show any global flood event in at least the last 150,000 years?

    Why is there a fossil record of animals living long before any biblical creation story claims to have occured?

    Why have we found fossil evidence of common ancestors that both we and the great apes share as shown by our DNA?

    Why are there still people who think the world is flat and humans never went to the moon?...

    February 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
    • sam

      I think god meant to keep those two as pets until he got tired of them. Like sea monkeys. If they hadn't eaten the apple, though, he would have kept putting more and more temptations in their path until they screwed up, and then he would have thrown the same bitch fit.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
    • The tooth

      Was Adam created with a penis? If so, why? Eve was supposedly created later, so why the need for that body part?

      + Yes. It helps him urinate.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      You do know that women also urinate?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • The Truth

      Sam, i was hoping for someone who still believed the fairy tale to answer. It's impossible for me, after reading the bible many times and studying it constantly for over 30 years, to give solid answers to those questions without using apologetic conjecture, making assumptions on behalf of God to explain the things that are either left out of the bible or left up to human interpretation. Sadly, I was okay with the answer I was given as a young man "God is a mystery" and "God is not to be tested" but when I had my own parishioners asking these questions I had a hard time giving those same answers. I would rather die an honest atheist and be wrong and tortured for eternity then to live as a bumbling Christian apologist giving half answers and half truths I don't even have complete faith in.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • The Truth

      @the tooth – so Adam required a penis that could become erect in order to pee? I'm thinking you have very little grasp on logic...

      February 1, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      the answer to all your questions is that membership in a cult warps your mind and promotes ignorance as your answer to everything - Goddidit!

      February 1, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • Russ

      @ the Truth:
      why assume God didn't already have women in mind? especially in light of things he says elsewhere (Eph.1:4).

      per your thoughts on geology & evolution, not all biblically minded Christians think a young earth is the only option:

      http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

      February 1, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • The Truth

      "why assume God didn't already have women in mind?" So God was thinking ahead when he gave Adam a penis... was he thinking behind when he gave him a coccyx? You know, the final piece of our tailbone found in humans and other tailless primates (e.g., great apes) since Nacholapithecus and is the remnant of a vestigial tail? Or ni.p.p.les? Or the other twenty or so useless body parts we share with our common ancestors but no longer need or use. Was God just throwing them in there because it was to hard to remove them from his earlier designs? When will you stop making up excuses for the glaring errors Moses made when writing his altered version of the Egyptian creation myths he learned as a young prince? We have the fossil record, albeit not complete but that may never occur, so what we have gives us a great picture of the past, and that picture does not line up with the biblical account no matter how much stretching you attempt. It just doesn't add up unless you are willing to multiply whatever equation you have so far with "X", the unknown quantum of the God factor that can cross any gap, leap any logical chasm and defeat any reasonable argument. I am just unwilling to practice such fanciful mathematics.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • niknak

      Truth,
      When you are dealing with magic, then logical questions like you pose are meaningless to a fundie.
      Just remember they have the catch all "god works in mysterious ways" card to play so that anwers all your pesky questions.

      My question to you fundies;
      If god always existed, and has not mother and father, then why does it have s_ex?
      You fundies always say it is a man, but why is that?
      If it is the only one, and there are no others, then why is it a man?
      Is he hung?
      And if so, then what does he use it for?

      February 1, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • Russ

      @ the Truth: you clearly didn't read the linked paper.

      Second: as Nietzsche said, "it is *still* a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."
      Your bigger problem is that you presume the very things you mock.
      Existence itself begs the questions you are mocking.

      February 3, 2013 at 10:00 am |
  10. myweightinwords

    Topher, you said this "Next, you say you asked Jesus into your heart, was active in the church and wanted Jesus. But then you realized you didn't believe it. Well, that's the problem right there. If you don't believe it now, you never really did. If you were saved, you'd still be. You don't lose your salvation."

    I want you to know that as someone who was born again and believed in the inerrant word of god and salvation, this is by far the most arrogant, condescending thing any Christian ever says to someone who does not believe.

    You can not judge another person's journey. You can not know what has been in their hearts, what they have believed. To do so, to say this to someone who tells you that they did believe, but no longer do, is to cast yourself in the role of the god you claim to love. Your own theology tells you so.

    In my departure from Christianity all those years ago, and in my life since then, I have discovered that this sort of argument, this condescending 'you, poor, deluded child, let me point out how wrong you are' method of proselytizing is the most ineffective there is.

    February 1, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
    • End Religion

      MWIW, congrats on your escape. Did it take you long to get over your fear of hell (assuming you did fear it)? I always find this part really interesting for some reason. I think it's because even though i was "in" a church until 13 I never really believed any part of the whole schtick. I have never had a fear of hell or thought there may be an afterlife, so my atheism was not a very traumatic awakening for me as it is for so many who do have the fear as well as the issues with family and friends (community) loss when leaving a church.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        I was terrified, ER, when I walked away and for a while after. But it was also true that I couldn't really believe in a hell so there was a period of cognitive dissonance.

        February 1, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • End Religion

      I've often wondered if I would have been as strong as someone like yourself if I had been really indoctrinated. If others out there want to share what it was like to shake off the shackles, or how you got over your fear of hell, etc, I find that really interesting and would love to hear about it.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        So much went into my leaving. I hated myself. I hated everyone around me. I was so indoctrinated to believe that we were all so irreparably broken but when I really, really dug into that idea I discovered that that was what was broken, not me.

        I clung to the faith for a long time, wanting to continue to believe because I was so afraid of what it meant to not believe. Eventually I realized I was being a hypocrite and I was hurting myself and others, so the responsible thing was to walk away.

        February 1, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • sam stone

      topher arrogant and condescending? say it ain't so

      February 1, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
    • mama k

      Yes, myweight. That kind of assumption on the part of some Christians is often only a small step or less away from them knowing, play-by-play, what is supposedly in their god's "heart" and "mind".

      February 1, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        mama,

        I have enough on my plate judging my own life and holding up my own beliefs to my experiences and knowledge. I'm a pretty open minded person and happy for everyone to have their own beliefs, but when you judge another based on your own?

        *shakes head*

        Unfortunately, I doubt he'll see it or understand my meaning.

        February 1, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      MWIW,

      Well said. Topher has to believe that blather of those that left the faith never really had faith or truly "accepted" Jesus because to admit otherwise would start the cognitive dissonance. It is the same reason he has to accept the Bible is the inerrant word of god and therefore makes terrible excuses for every contradiction in the Bible and immorality of the god described. But I completely agree with you that it is insulting.

      ER,

      I was terrified of hell. I went to Catholic school and had a real Habit wearing old school Nun describe hell and demon possession in great detail. It is also a big part of the reason I came to the conclusion the christian god was absurd and make believe. I wouldn't treat my worst enemy the way they claim their "loving, just and merciful" treats his "children". If I am more loving and merciful than that god, he cannot, by definition, exist. Teaching hell to children is a form of child abuse.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        Well said. Topher has to believe that blather of those that left the faith never really had faith or truly “accepted” Jesus because to admit otherwise would start the cognitive dissonance.

        To be fair, that cognitive dissonance is frightening, especially when you walked into the religion willingly with your eyes open.

        It is the same reason he has to accept the Bible is the inerrant word of god and therefore makes terrible excuses for every contradiction in the Bible and immorality of the god described. But I completely agree with you that it is insulting.

        Terribly insulting. And firmly spoken out against by his own book.

        February 1, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
    • End Religion

      Thanks, Cheese! Fortunately or unfortunately I can only gleam my understanding of nuns via movies such as The Blues Brothers. "We're on a mission from God!"

      February 1, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      ER,

      My 6th grade teacher looked and acted just like Sister Mary Stigmata, just fatter.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "To be fair, that cognitive dissonance is frightening"

      MWIW,

      I agree which is why I think the best description of the "relationship" with the christian god is one of abuse.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        I can totally see the comparison of leaving Christianity (not all forms, of course, but many) to leaving an abusive spouse/parent.

        February 1, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Topher : You don't lose your salvation.
      @myweightinwords : I want you to know that as someone who was born again

      Jesus told a Parable of the Seeds, which addressed this issue. The Parable of the Seeds taught that some would believe and then fall away. Therefore, it appears that myweightinwords is similar to the seed that fell into shallow soil, grew, then withered and died when the heat of trials came.

      So, When does salvation come? Some will argue that it comes when you receive Christ. Others argue that it is at the Judgment Seat and you're admitted into Heaven. If it is the former, then you can lose your salvation. If it is the latter, then you cannot lose your salvation.

      Personally, I lean toward the latter viewpoint because of passages like 1 Corinthians 15 and Jeremiah 17. If salvation comes when you first "believe", then YOU are sitting in judgment of your salvation rather than Christ. This view presumes that your heart is true, which is contrary to Jeremiah.

      1 Cor 15:2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

      Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

      February 1, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        L4H,

        Jesus told a Parable of the Seeds, which addressed this issue. The Parable of the Seeds taught that some would believe and then fall away. Therefore, it appears that myweightinwords is similar to the seed that fell into shallow soil, grew, then withered and died when the heat of trials came.

        What trials? The trials of learning and education? Trust me when I tell you that my faith didn't wither and die. The only trial was my desperate attempt to hold on to what I wanted to believe over what I was discovering was real.

        So, When does salvation come?

        More importantly, when is it needed? It is needed when you have been convinced that it is.

        A very big part of leaving Christianity was understanding that it's fundamental premise, that I was broken and unworthy, was untrue.

        February 1, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : What trials? The trials of learning and education?

      Those could be a part of it. Only YOU know to what your faith succumbed.

      @More importantly, when is it needed? It is needed when you have been convinced that it is.

      I can be in a burning house and be completely safe until it collapses. I don't need salvation until just before the collapse.

      @A very big part of leaving Christianity was understanding that it's fundamental premise, that I was broken and unworthy, was untrue.

      Are you trying to convince me that you've NEVER made a mistake? Or are you trying to convince me that your mistakes NEVER hurt anyone? I won't believe you on either of them. We all act selfishly and hurt others – you're not perfect.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        L4H,

        Those could be a part of it. Only YOU know to what your faith succumbed.

        I would contend that my faith didn't succumb. I grew up and let go of it.

        I can be in a burning house and be completely safe until it collapses. I don’t need salvation until just before the collapse.

        a) What does that have to do with anything?
        b) Wrong, you would be inhaling smoke and the toxic gases being release by burning plastics and such.

        Are you trying to convince me that you’ve NEVER made a mistake? Or are you trying to convince me that your mistakes NEVER hurt anyone?

        No, only that my mistakes are not an indication that I am broken or inherently evil. They are merely an indication that I am human.

        I won’t believe you on either of them. We all act selfishly and hurt others – you’re not perfect.

        I have never claimed perfection, L4H. There is a vast difference between "I am not inherently broken" and "I am perfect".

        When I make a mistake or act selfishly, or gods forbid, act with malice, it is finite. It is something I will have to live with. I can make amends (if possible) to anyone hurt by my words or actions, I can learn and not behave the same way again. However, the only forgiveness I need is from those I may have harmed.

        February 1, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      @endreligion- haven't had the time to read through this whole thread yet, but for ME, being indoctrinated into the Southern baptist church as a very small child gave me horrible nightmares of Satan and demons as a little girl- I still have those dreams somehow. Those southern baptist preachers really like to scare the pants off ya. So that carried into my non-denominational years and even now as a happy atheist, I sometimes have weird devil-dreams. *shrugs*. Child abuse for sure. LASTING trauma, basically when you think about it.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      Oh, and @myweightinwords, thanks for calling him out on that.

      It is so, so condescending. And flippant. And wouldn't p*ss me off so much if I didn't suffer so much for so many years, wondering why I couldn't feel what everyone else was feeling. And afraid, afraid that God had just abandoned me and I'd failed, that I had been such a bad person that he just didn't want me.

      Such a relief though, to realize the TRUTH that set me free of the awful shackles of religion.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        I can certainly understand that. Unfortunately, people like Topher and Live4Him will never understand that pain or the way their words inflict damage.

        Just as a reminder, WCA, you are not broken. You are beautiful and amazing.

        February 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • End Religion

      @CowAttack: thanks for sharing, sorry you had to suffer through that. I wonder what future generations will think when they look back at this shameful thing called religion.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Congratulations.

      I've known others like you – it's so hard when you truly believed, once – then just learned otherwise. I never believed, but my husband did, deeply, and not because of childhood indoctrination, he chose it, he once was right in there in the extreme churches. It's so hard to get over that, and then idiots who try the "you never really believed" or "you didn't try hard enough" "you weren't humble enough" – so stupid, they speak out of fear or knowing that they could be on your same path, perhaps they already are, and thus are twice as defensive, trying to hide from what they know is the real truth.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        Susan,

        It is condescending and hurtful, and I tend to call people out when they do it because they will never see for themselves what they're doing when they judge the life/heart/belief of another.

        February 1, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      Thanks you two, it's really refreshing to be able to converse with other likeminded caring nonbelievers.

      It just boggles the mind that they really can't see the hate put forth by religion, no matter how they try to cloak it in love. The hate, the guilt, the self-disgust... I genuinely do feel sorry for them most of the time (when I'm not thinking about knocking some sense into their self-indulgant little heads)

      I have really been trying to convey in my posts the emotion and anguish that was involved, that's something that I often see lacking in the typical back-and-forth between believers and nonbelievers (the nonbelievers tend to try to use logic and facts which as we all know doesn't work with the Christians). But I think it's pretty much hopeless with many of them.

      Surprised nobody has suggested I might need an exorcism yet, LOL.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        There is a lot of fear involved, as well as a fair amount of stubbornness and fingers in ears and clinging to what they believe because it has helped them in some ways.

        I try to remember that when I talk to people like Topher and L4H. I used to be them. I know how they think.

        For the record, I'm not an atheist. But I don't actually mind being considered one by folks.

        February 1, 2013 at 5:45 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      myweight – atheists don't recruit – no problem to us if you are or not ;)

      My husband is still seeking a term – agnostic atheist is what I am (and what most atheists are). There's agnostic theist, deist (this is a pretty good one – look it up), spiritualist, theist, etc. Or the good old, MYOB, my beliefs are my own.

      Some believers I can buy it's love – others you can tell – they were the high school bully (or they wished they could be) – and now they've found religion as a way to control and push people around. It's the only socially acceptable way they've found to do it, and they've no power to do so in any other arena.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : a) What does that have to do with anything?

      It's an example of what it is like here on earth – we don't notice any danger because we were raised in that danger and believe that it will always go on.

      @myweightinwords : b) Wrong, you would be inhaling smoke and the toxic gases

      COULD BE, but ARE we?

      @myweightinwords : No, only that my mistakes are not an indication that I am broken or inherently evil.

      How you choose to define it doesn't change the fact that you're selfish. If you define selfishness as "evil", then you are inherently evil. Do you like it when others hurt you through their selfishness? Do you NOT call that action "evil" or "bad"?

      @myweightinwords : When I make a mistake or act selfishly, or gods forbid, act with malice, it is finite.

      So, when a man rapes and kills a little girl, it is finite and we shouldn't worry about it?

      @myweightinwords : However, the only forgiveness I need is from those I may have harmed.

      Lets take the above example. Are you claiming that the man only hurt the little girl? Or take one of the recent shootings – Are you claiming that only those that were shot were hurt by the perpetuators actions?

      I think you want to deceive yourself. Many people are hurt through selfish actions – not just the person that it was done toward. If you look at it clearly, you will see a ripple effect from every selfish action. This ripple then triggers other selfish actions. As this continues, we being to live in a choppy world filled with ripples (usually) and tidal waves. And the justification – Well, I had a bad upbringing.

      God want to heal all this hurt and pain. And people claim that they don't need/want it.

      Please remember, I'm not trying to judge you, hurt you, etc. I'm simply trying to get you to think about the big picture. We ALL commit selfish actions and try to minimize the impact that our actions caused. We want to pretend there is nothing wrong with us.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        L4H,

        It's an example of what it is like here on earth – we don't notice any danger because we were raised in that danger and believe that it will always go on.

        It's a poor attempt at an analogy.

        How you choose to define it doesn't change the fact that you're selfish.

        Am I? By and large, no I'm not. I have moments where I put my needs and desires above others, but never at the expense of others, and I have a firm belief that taking care of oneself (i.e., fulfilling your needs) is not a selfish act, but one of service.

        If you define selfishness as "evil", then you are inherently evil.

        In and of itself, a single act of selfishness is not evil. It only becomes evil when your selfishness negatively and KNOWINGLY impacts the world around you.

        Do you like it when others hurt you through their selfishness? Do you NOT call that action "evil" or "bad"?

        No, I call it selfish. Sure, it can sting, but I can see them, see what they're going through, understand the impetus for the selfish action. I can choose to react in a giving and loving manner and help them overcome the cause as well as their selfish reaction to the cause.

        So, when a man rapes and kills a little girl, it is finite and we shouldn't worry about it?

        There you go jumping to conclusions without following a logical path and putting words in my mouth.

        Does "finite" = "don't worry about it"? It doesn't in my dictionary. It IS, however a finite act. It is an act of violence and malice. But it is finite.

        The man should be punished (and my thoughts on that punishment are many) . However, that one act alone is not enough to determine him worthy of an infinite punishment.

        This is a man who is clearly broken, but he didn't start out that way. He wasn't born broken. Something broke him.

        Lets take the above example. Are you claiming that the man only hurt the little girl?

        I was talking about me. I have never raped a little girl. I have never taken a life. I am not broken. I am worthy of love. I never said that there never are or were any broken people.

        In your scenario, the man must answer to himself, to the girls family and to the community in which he lives. Probably through jail time. Possibly with his life.

        Or take one of the recent shootings – Are you claiming that only those that were shot were hurt by the perpetuators actions?

        Where do you see me say that? You just keep jumping to conclusions based on what you think I believe instead of carrying on a rational conversation.

        I think you want to deceive yourself. Many people are hurt through selfish actions – not just the person that it was done toward.

        Did I ever say differently? I said that the only people I owe are the ones hurt by my action. Even the ones tangentially hurt.

        Let's dial it back a little, back to my actual life. A real life example. Someone I care for needed my help with a document she was working on. She asked me to look it over and I said I would. It was on a deadline, and she needed it in order to complete a proposal. She sent it to me, and I got busy working on something else and forgot. When she reminded me a half hour before she needed it back from me to incorporate it into her proposal, I dropped everything and worked on it. It was clearly not my best work, but I did the best I could in that half hour. After I sent it to her, my conscience poked me until I wrote a letter of apology, to her and to her "boss" (it's a volunteer position) with an offer to edit the entire proposal if it's returned, or any other documents to make amends.

        In the end, the proposal went through, they got their grant, but my failure could have cost them that. And if it had, just my offer for editing wouldn't have been enough to make amends. I would have had to help them find a way to replace that $3000.

        If you look at it clearly, you will see a ripple effect from every selfish action.

        Not if you stop and fix it.
        Then you see a whole different ripple affect.

        And the justification – Well, I had a bad upbringing.

        Now how do you possibly jump to this conclusion? Are you on a pogo stick?

        God want to heal all this hurt and pain. And people claim that they don't need/want it.

        I'm not in pain. I WAS, back when I was a Christian. I was in pain and I was causing pain. I was miserable.

        Today, I live a life of service. I love people. I am happy.

        Please remember, I'm not trying to judge you, hurt you, etc.

        Yes, actually, you are trying to judge me. You seem to think you can weigh my life and my experiences and what I believe against your measurement system.

        I'm simply trying to get you to think about the big picture.

        And I'm trying to help you see the small one. The very real, very visceral pain that comes from making someone believe that they are evil and broken. The broken people that teaching actually makes of beautiful and amazing and strong people. The change that comes when unconditional love helps you realize that you are not inherently dirty.

        We ALL commit selfish actions and try to minimize the impact that our actions caused. We want to pretend there is nothing wrong with us.

        That's because there isn't. We are all exactly as we are meant to be. We are human. We have faults and strengths and reserves of love that most let go untapped.

        February 1, 2013 at 8:19 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Susan StoHelit : My husband is still seeking a term – agnostic atheist

      This is an oxymoron – you cannot be both "uncertain" and "knowing God doesn't exist".

      February 1, 2013 at 5:58 pm |
    • Answer

      "Please remember, I'm not trying to judge you, hurt you, etc. I'm simply trying to get you to think about the big picture."

      ===Reference 'big picture' now equate to 'gamble' = Pascal's Wager.

      Same sh!t everyday from creationist garbage.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Lie4Him, That's not an oxymoron. An agnostic believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of god. An atheist does not believe that there is a god. So one can be both.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • End Religion

      @CowAttack: "I have really been trying to convey in my posts the emotion and anguish that was involved, that's something that I often see lacking in the typical back-and-forth between believers and nonbelievers"

      There may be a key here. I wondered something similar in a post a couple weeks ago, but of course I took it to a sarcastic extreme which is my unfortunate nature. And then I didn't take my own advice. But I do wonder if maybe less logic and more emotion may help sway religious folks since that is the world they live in. I just don't know how to begin combating emotion.

      Another part of me feels 50% of humans will follow whatever fad is popular so when non-religion reaches a groundswell then many more will "jump off the Ark" so to speak.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      Yeah, I also think that emotion might hold some sort of key. I think that when they hear our stories of how we really tried, it just doesn't sink in for the most part, and it may be the dispassionate way in which we tend to describe it. I have noticed that the only believer to actually address my story was Topher- many of the normally loud ones were strangely silent. Live4him hasn't even said a word about it.

      Funny side story- I have some dear Christian friends, anyway the wife was posting on Facebook asking for advice as to how to get her children NOT to pray for something. They are apparently praying for a baby sister and she is actually afraid god will answer their prayers, LOL. I treat those people with kid gloves because I adore them, but I gently suggested that if it did happen it was "god's will" anyway, and that maybe she and her husband could say some counterprayers- "Lord, though we know you love our children please ignore them, for they know not what is good for them". Plus, there may be 3 kids and only 2 parents, but the parents are bigger and have been prayin' longer, so it should balance out the kids' prayers.

      It was kinda precious, but again made me a little sad- she is literally afraid that God will answer the kids' prayers and "give" them a baby they don't want and can't afford.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Live4Him – like many others, you are ignorant (by the way – this word means lacking knowledge – it's not an insult, it's a condition) about the meaning of the words atheist and agnostic.

      Excuse the pedantry – but the prefix 'a' does not mean anti – it means lacking. Asymmetry – it means lacking symmetry. Not against symmetry. An important thing since both of these words use this prefix.

      Agnostic – gnostic refers to knowledge, in this usage, knowledge of the existence of god. agnostic – lacking knowledge of god. Gnostic – having knowledge of god – and that's a bit imprecise – it's really about whether you think it's possible to have this knowledge – an agnostic thinks it's not possible to have this knowledge – you might be personally sure there is a god, but you cannot know. A gnostic thinks you can know – whether they are sure there is or is not there is a god, they are sure.

      Atheist – does not mean that you know there is no god – it means you lack (that "a" again) belief in a god (theism – belief in god).

      Agnostic atheist – one who does not have a belief in a god, but does not believe they can have certain knowledge that there is no god. It is, as a point of fact (yes, this I am gnostic about) the most common position of most atheists.

      The two terms are about different things. One is about what is knowable, the other is about what you believe.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:55 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Live4Him – and I mean it about ignorant – once upon a time, that is what I figured the words meant too – it's a colloquial meaning. But it's not actually true.

      February 1, 2013 at 6:56 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      I think more than emotion, is sincerity.

      Something to let them see us as not just a caricature of the evil atheist, or the possible conversion target, but a real human being.

      I've given the human story behind my experience as an atheist, and I think that's a good thing to give.

      February 1, 2013 at 7:03 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      @Susan,

      My husband is still seeking a term – agnostic atheist is what I am (and what most atheists are). There's agnostic theist, deist (this is a pretty good one – look it up), spiritualist, theist, etc. Or the good old, MYOB, my beliefs are my own.

      My beliefs about deity/divinity/gods is something of a mix of animism, pantheism and panentheism with a leaning toward polyteistic expression. Not sure there is a label for me. LOL. I usually settle for Pagan.

      Some believers I can buy it's love – others you can tell – they were the high school bully (or they wished they could be) – and now they've found religion as a way to control and push people around. It's the only socially acceptable way they've found to do it, and they've no power to do so in any other arena.

      I think the ones that astound me the most are the ones who absolutely, genuinely have no clue that other people could possibly believe differently once they've "heard the word".

      February 1, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
  11. Bootyfunk

    the bible has unicorns, satyrs, dragons and c.ockatrice in it. also talking snakes and donkeys (like in Shrek!) the bible has a man living for 3 days in the belly of a whale (like in Pinocchio!) the bible give implicit orders to kill all g.ays, disobedient children, non-virgin brides and anyone working the weekend. god drowns babies in that book. BABIES.

    the bible is both ridiculous and disgusting.

    February 1, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Consistent Atheist

      Whats wrong with killing babies? We do that all the time today. We legislate it. Get off your high horse.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • truth be told

      Wrong on all points. It is so obvious that so called atheists are liars, bippyfinks post is proof positive that all self deluded atheists are liars. Do the world a favor, leave it asap, you won't be missed.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      god drowned every baby on earth - but i guess you don't see a difference? and he drowned unborn babies too - pregnant mothers, physically disabled, mentally challenged, the sick and infirm, etc. and you're comparing that to abortion? LOL.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      guess truth be told never read his bible.

      wrong on all accounts? look up leviticus 20:13 and tell me what you read there. i'm absolutely accurate on all points. no talking snakes or donkeys? you definitely haven't read your bible. but that's to be expected - christians cherry pick the bible, skipping all the parts that show how silly the book is or how disgusting. look up everything i pointed out and you'll find it"s all in the bible.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "truth be told", but your assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL".

      February 1, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • Consistent Atheist

      If there were a creator god it would not be unethical in the least for that god to kill whatever it created. It might be painful to its creation but the creation does not have authority to question its god. That is what it means to be god. That is a philosophical understanding of a supreme power that you seem to be replacing with a big guy in the sky model.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      "If there were a creator god it would not be unethical in the least for that god to kill whatever it created."
      why not? fathers killing the baby they created is definitely unethical - why wouldn't it be for a god?

      February 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • ME II

      @Consistent Atheist,
      "If there were a creator god it would not be unethical in the least for that god to kill whatever it created."

      Where do you get this logic?

      February 1, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • End Religion

      You mean there's no satyrs? Aw, shucks.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • Pete

      If god is perfect then anything he does can't be immoral so if he decides to kill everybody in the world it has to be moral.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
    • Consistent Atheist

      Again, you are likening a god to a temporal being. Second, ethics are about motivations. Humanity widely holds that killing is allowed, even good, in the right situation. You are presupposing murderous hatred on behalf of the hypothetical father you posit. Finally, god killing and man killing are different in some notable ways. god killing may always be viewed as a preemptive move, that is, preventing future evils (due to gods all knowing capacity with regard to future events). A resulting question might be why would an all powerful god allow bad people (everyone at different times to varying degrees) to live at all? If god had killed me he would have prevented much heartache in my small corner of the world. Would he be wrong for that? I think not.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • Consistent Atheist

      @MEII

      We create and kill all the time. We only seem to have a problem with this when those we kill have a voice, er, a political power to make our lives unpleasant.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Might does not make right. A god can be an immoral fuck, and indeed the god of the bible is.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • Consistent Atheist

      @MEII

      If someone drives by my home and sees me cutting grass in the yard they do not scream out at me. They don't even scream at me if I burn my grass with fire. Why? It has to do with the value of the grass in relation to my value as a human. The grass is insignificant (in our common view). If the is a god we are less than grass in comparison.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • The Truth

      @Consistent Theist – From the perspective of the grass you are a mass murderer. The fact that grass is not self aware that we know of does make the analogy a bit of a stretch but if you grant the grass self awareness and the ability to feel paid and express anguish then I would say cutting the grass is indeed an evil wicked thing to do. Only a sick demented being would create something, make it self aware and highly sensative to pain, then start pulling it's legs off slowly, one by one so you can revel in the screams, all while having the ability to stop the suffering any time you wanted to, but chose to keep torturing your new creations day in and day out. You worship the jigsaw killer and you don't even know it, that is sick.

      I'm much more at ease with a universe where things happen because of time and unforseen occurence, not some divinely orchestrated dungeon of torture.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
    • Consistent Atheist

      Yes, I do recall reading that god created man and woman and then started ripping their legs off. That must be in the straw man's handbook to refuting popular religion. There are varying views across many religions as to the punishment for wrongdoing. I am not familiar with a religion that represents your straw man version of god.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • ME II

      @Consistent Atheist,
      "We only seem to have a problem with [killing all the time] when those we kill have a voice, er, a political power to make our lives unpleasant."
      I disagree. We have a problem with it when it is unjustified killing of another person, or another animal is some cases.

      "It has to do with the value of the grass in relation to my value as a human. The grass is insignificant (in our common view). If the is a god we are less than grass in comparison."
      Again, I disagree.
      It is not the relative "value", that makes it "right" or "wrong", it is the level of intelligence/awareness/being that makes it "right" or "wrong". Grass has no thoughts or feelings and therefore its death or damage causes no pain/harm/loss to a being that is aware of itself. Many might disagree with that last bit about self-aware, and that might be a valid debate. My point however is that it is not the relative value of the life, but the degree of consciousness/intellegence/awareness which determines right to live that life.

      One possible line to draw is if a being is aware of its own life it has a right to it. Now we can debate the fine points of consciousness/intelligence/awareness, but my point is that if a supposed god creates a being with consciousness/intelligence/awareness it is no longer the master of that being. Similarly (although not identically), when a parent raises an aware thinking child, they lose their authority over that child.

      Otherwise, God's supposed absolute morality is just the arbitrary whim of the ultimate bully, no?

      February 1, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
    • The Truth

      "Yes, I do recall reading that god created man and woman and then started ripping their legs off. That must be in the straw man's handbook to refuting popular religion"

      No straw man here. Pulling leg's was a mild analogy for the supposed eternal fiery torture he has planned for those who do not obey him for the few measly years they lived on this planet. If you are too dense to see the comparison then there is no point debating with a fool.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • Consistent Atheist

      @MEII

      I think you raise some interesting and valid points. Certainly the ability to feel pain is something to think about. Nirvana had an eloquent thought on the ethics of killing fish along these lines...

      When we speak of "rights" we are getting into high philosophy and ethics. Supposing there is no god rights are only that which every person agrees to uphold. So in actual fact, rights are merely shared values.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • Consistent Atheist

      @truth

      Forgive me for treating your analogy like a straw man.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • ME II

      @Consistent Atheist,
      "When we speak of "rights" we are getting into high philosophy and ethics. Supposing there is no god rights are only that which every person agrees to uphold. So in actual fact, rights are merely shared values."

      To an extent, I'd agree. And, if there is a God then they are merely values shared by one?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      @consistent
      excuses for bad behavior. you are assuming that god has the right to be evil and smite anyone he wishes. you are assuming any actions by a deity are "moral" and "unquestionable." i don't make those presumptions. i disagree completely. god murdering babies is just plain evil. you can try to justify it by saying gods are allowed to perform infanticide without being held accountable. that's bullsh.it. you're using silly analogies like mowing the lawn is killing grass. come on, that's as good as bill o'reilly comparing g.ay marriage to marrying inanimate objects. just silly.

      the bible says god drowned everyone on earth but one family. that means he drowned babies. you can try to sugar coat that and say he had every right to murder children because he made them, but that excuse doesn't hold much water to anyone with an ounce of ethical values. the christian god is a baby-killer.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • The Truth

      @Bootyfunk – "the bible says god drowned everyone on earth but one family. that means he drowned babies." He kill's a lot more babies than the ones drowned in the flood if you accept most Christians views on abortion...

      "A miscarriage is a pregnancy loss that occurs before 20 weeks, well before the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. About 10 to 15 percent of "recognized" pregnancies end this way. As many as 40 percent of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage, because many losses occur before a woman realizes she is pregnant. Why do miscarriages occur?
      The causes of miscarriage are not thoroughly understood. However, most miscarriages occur when a pregnancy is not developing normally. Usually, there is nothing a woman or her provider can do to prevent it. Most miscarriages occur in the first trimester (first 13 weeks) of pregnancy. In many cases, the cause is unknown. " – marchofdimes.com

      February 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Drowning, kill all men, women, children, even babies in a town – except for the virgin girls, who you can take as your 'brides'.... there's sick stuff in there.

      And Revelations – I love the way Brick Testament illustrates it (quoting verses with every bit – they're not taking liberties, they are entirely literal) – God keeps finding more and more new and inventive ways to torture everyone on the planet, and, whaddya know, everyone turns away from him – yeah, yathink? If such a character as God did exist, and did what the Bible says he has done, and will do, who could in good conscience follow him?

      February 1, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Oh – and the Bible makes it clear – an unborn fetus is not a baby to the Bible either. Not until the first breath. Sorry – go read it again without the blinders and the preacher pretending things are in there that are not.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
  12. The Truth

    Being convinced I was born an evil sinner but with an immortal soul that could be eternally tortured for nothing more than not believing in my parents brand of invisible deity, then "Being saved and dedicating my life to Christ is actually the greatest thing that’s ever happened to me,” Thompson said.

    February 1, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • Roger that

      "Also, knowing that I would be worshiping a dictator more evil than Hitler for all of eternity made me so excited to spread the 'good news'." Thompson said.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • Consistent Atheist

      Does your life have no evidence in it that you were born "an evil sinner"? Perhaps you have never done anything wrong. Or maybe you have, but, of course, that wasn't really you. Your fundamental disposition had nothing to do with the wrong you committed. Perhaps you see yourself as a born squirrel just trying to get a nut. Maybe the pursuit of that nut is the reason for the great human evils in this world. Whatever it is, I don't think popular religion's understanding of man as born bad is off.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • The Truth

      I have never sinned. You may claim I have, but you cannot prove it. Are there things I have done I wish I could take back or do differently? Of course, but those were not sins, those were decisions in my life I could have altered by choosing a different route but didn't so I either ended up hurting myself or someone else. Now some would say "Ahah! You just admitted to hurting someone else so you must have sinned!" and you would be wrong again, for often doctors have to cut things open to heal and yet they are not accused of hurting others for the intent is to help. I have never intentionally hurt someone else, and that is the only thing I view as a sin, therefore I have never sinned.

      Don't get me wrong, I spent nearly 40 years praying for forgiveness for the unintentional suffering I may have caused those around me as I grew up and became a minister, giving advice to my parishioners on how to live a more holy life, one closer to God so that he may forgive us our sins. I see now that I was blowing a lot of hot air putting guilt on the backs of those I loved so that they would feel chained to my Christian faith just as I was. I told myself that it was to save them from themselves and their own sinful nature. The as I got deeper into the Church I got to see how the sausage was made so to speak, and I understood as if the scales had been washed from my eyes. You cannot get anything holy or righteous when you build your tower of faith upon the foundation of lies, hate and deceipt that is our modern Christian faith.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      no such thing as sin. that's a made up religious construct used to control the masses.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • Consistent Atheist

      Im sorry to hear of your time in the christian church misleading others, as you say. I guess you see yourself not responsible for that misleading since you were an unsuspecting victim yourself, a product of family and regional biases? A cog in the machinery more than an active agent?

      Re:intentionally hurting others...have you ever had an argument with your spouse? In psychology I learn that people hurt others all the time as a result of their own hurts (a simplification). Again, we are back to the cog in the machinery. I guess we thrown up our hands and blame our fathers? Popular religion blames our fathers also. Original sin anybody?

      February 1, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • The Truth

      " Popular religion blames our fathers also. Original sin anybody?" Um, no, I never blamed my father, even though he was one of the biggest religious hypocrites I know and was one of the leaders in the Church whom I got to see with all his flaws even as he attempted to give counsel to others. Did I inherit sin from him? No, unless you call the pentecostal church I was born into a sin. I can say from experience all that shaking and mumbling of "holy spirit" and speaking in tounges is just a bunch of bull shlt and more akin to a crack adict with the shakes then any divine connection.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Poor guy. It sounds like child abuse – when the parent tells a kid over and over again how crappy and stupid they are. Then the first person who gives them the least bit of compassion they will do anything for. When in reality, they aren't stupid and their savior is just a new master barely better than the old one.

      But in this case they're one and the same. The person telling him that he was worthless is the same as the one telling him that he's worthless..... but, maybe I can help you not be worthless. What manipulation!

      February 1, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
  13. Universe

    “They say , "We live only this life; we will not be resurrected. If you could only see them when they stand before their Lord! He would say, "Is this not the truth?" They would say, "Yes, by our Lord." He would say, "You have incurred the retribution by your disbelief." [6:30]

    “Losers indeed are those who disbelieve in meeting God, until the Hour comes to them suddenly, then say, "We deeply regret wasting our lives in this world." They will carry loads of their sins on their backs; what a miserable load! [6:31]

    “The life of this world is no more than illusion and vanity, while the abode of the Hereafter is far better for the righteous. Do you not understand?! [6:32]

    “Recall that your Lord said to the angels, "I am placing a representative on Earth." They said, "Will You place therein one who will spread evil therein and shed blood, while we sing Your praises, glorify You, and uphold Your absolute authority?" He said, "I know what you do not know." [2:30]

    “They do not value God as He should be valued. God is the Most Powerful, the Almighty.”[22:74]

    “If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of God. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.” [Quran 6:116]

    “They even attribute to Him sons and daughters, without any knowledge. Be He glorified. He is the Most High, far above their claims.” Quran [6:100]

    “The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.” Quran [3:59]

    It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is. [19:35]

    Thanks for taking time to read my post. Please take a moment to visit whyIslam org website.

    February 1, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • science

      WE are in a tube check out post by Doc on todays speed.

      February 1, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • Dennis

      Way more factual website about Islam than the one 'Universe' is spamming us with:

      http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

      February 1, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      sounds like more silly religious tripe.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
  14. End Religion

    Hopefully this character will soon start his own brand of Christian Madrasa so we dispense with any further scientific development altogether. What a drain on humanity.

    February 1, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
  15. Zingo

    Just more proof that football players really are morons.

    February 1, 2013 at 11:50 am |
  16. sam

    Yeah, the ones who yell the loudest have the most to hide. Wonder what his scandal will be?

    February 1, 2013 at 11:50 am |
  17. sam stone

    american football is 15 minutes of action, jam packed into a 3 hour broadcast

    February 1, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • sam stone

      that was supposed to be in response to a post below

      February 1, 2013 at 11:45 am |
    • Science

      Hey topher you are in a tube. Check out the speed for today and what Doc. posted

      Time to choke on the bone and try and swallow the snake.

      Peace

      February 1, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • Science

      Sorry sam wrong place topher should see it reposting.

      February 1, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      actually, it's only about 11 min on average. and baseball only 9 min. rugby about 28 min.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • sam stone

      fair enough, topher: answer this...

      let's assume that there are two possible choices to a question. choice A or choice B.

      god knows which you will choose

      god cannot be wrong

      given the you cannot make a choice that god does not already know about, how is there free will?

      February 1, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
  18. Topher

    Good morning, everyone! What shall we discuss today?

    February 1, 2013 at 11:28 am |
    • sam stone

      if god knows all, including those who wil not accept his son as a savior, why does he create those who will not?

      February 1, 2013 at 11:42 am |
    • Topher

      Hi, Sam

      You probably know my answer already. It's free will. No one is stopping you from choosing God's gift.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • sam stone

      or, maybe we can discuss why people take the edited, transated hearsay of iron age sheep molesters as representative of god

      February 1, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • Topher

      You can if you want, but I reject that tired excuse since it's completely unfounded.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:49 am |
    • sam stone

      if there is only one choice (the one god knows will happen), there is no free will

      "you can have it any color you want, as long as it's black" – henry ford

      February 1, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • Smelling Salts

      Hey Topher, I know! Bible, Bible, blah, blah, saved, Jesus, Bible, blah. There, the sum total of all your past and future contributions. You may go!

      February 1, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • sam stone

      reject what you wish. you are the king of unfounded claims

      February 1, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      False thinking. Just because God knows which one you will choose doesn't mean you don't have multiple choices.

      Besides you know the options and the consequences of each choice. Picking rejection is pretty foolish.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:54 am |
    • sam stone

      you can say it's unfounded all you want. doesn't make it so

      February 1, 2013 at 11:55 am |
    • Pete

      Topher, in reality there are no consequences regardless of what you choose.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:55 am |
    • Denny

      Free will is never mentioned in the Bible. Some parts show the ability to choose, while others clearly show God has already decided everything. Just another of those Biblical non-contradictions.

      But free will is not Biblical.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • sam stone

      it's not false thinking. there is only one choice, and that is the choice that "god" knows will happen

      February 1, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • sam stone

      deny it all you want. free will is inconsistent with an omniscient god

      February 1, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • Larry James

      @ Topher "Just because God knows which one you will choose doesn't mean you don't have multiple choices."

      Actually, that means that you really do not have any choices, just the illusion of one. That means free will does not exist, and God is responsible for your actions, for he decided them long before you were born.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • sam stone

      "i'm a slave. i need to be saved. my god is a pr1ck....i fear him, so you should too" – topher (paraphrased, of course)

      February 1, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
    • Topher

      Sam

      I know you just want to pick-a-little-talk-a-little with me. And that's fine. You know how much I love this subject. But since you're still breathing you still have time to make your choice. I just hope you pick the smarter of the two. Dude, I don't want you to go to Hell. Understand my reasoning for telling you about this stuff ... I'm not asking you to come to church; I'm not asking for a donation. I care where you spend eternity. That's all.

      February 1, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
    • End Religion

      "No one is stopping you from choosing God's gift."

      Gifts don't require kickback. Your god's brand of "free" will is instead defined as coercion.

      February 1, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • Topher

      End Religion

      "Gifts don't require kickback."

      Completely agree. If you have to do something to get it it's not a gift. But that's why the Gospel is such wonderful news. You can't do anything to earn what God is offering. It's free.

      February 1, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • Billy

      I still don't understand the turtle thing. You said the ark wouldn't have to go very far. So it like dropped these giant turtles off at Gibraltar and then they had to swim all the way back to the Galapagos from there? No sir. I'm not buying that.

      February 1, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • Science

      Hey topher you are in a tube. Check out the speed for today and what Doc. posted

      Time to choke on the bone and try and swallow the snake.

      Peace

      February 1, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • Topher

      Billy

      OK, don't buy it. It's not essential doctrine. The Ark was not a delivery service. What you should be concerned with is whether you receive or reject God's offer.

      February 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • End Religion

      Topher's got his tap dancing shoes on again. Watch him do that Topher Shuffle. Give'm the razzmatazz, Tophey-baby!

      February 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • sam stone

      dude.....you do know that warning (veiled threatening) people who do not believe in hell with hell is about as illogical as you can get, don't you?

      the fact that you fear this pr1ck does not mean others do

      and, deny it all you wish, but free will and an omniscient god are inconsistent

      February 1, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • sam stone

      also, gopher, neither you nor the iron age sheep moleters who wrote the bible speak for god..

      you are a pompous a$$

      February 1, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • sam stone

      ER: No kidding. Gopher could not give a straight answer to a question if his life depended on it.

      February 1, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
    • Science

      Hey TOPHER do numbers lie or sin???

      February 1, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
    • sam stone

      what a surprise, topher runs away

      February 1, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      Topher: (you probably don't recognize me, I read frequently but comment rarely)

      What do you say to people like me? Raised Southern Baptist but lost my mother at the age of 11, came to a nondenominational church as a young woman. Studied the Bible, invited Jesus into my heart, prayed with the pastor, our church groups, alone, etc? Asked him to walk with me and guide my life, to show me the way. Told him I loved him and promised to follow his word. Asked for forgiveness of my sins, admitted I was a sinner. Did this for years, while not feeling a thing inside, no Jesus, no Holy Spirit- nothing. Believe me, I did these things with every ounce of earnest desire that a lost and lonely young woman could possibly possess. If there was EVER a young lady who needed a Jesus, it was me. I wanted, needed what I saw in that church and what those other people were feeling.

      Spent many years wondering what was broken inside of me, what was wrong with me. Then I finally came to the realization that... I just don't believe it. And that I knew deep down inside that it was BS all along.

      If your god is real, he created me quite literally without the ability to "truly believe". Why would he do that? I am a good and kind person. Why would he create me knowing I was dam*ned?

      Answer: Because he isn't there.

      I eagerly await your answer, but feel it may p*ss me off.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • Topher

      No one has run away. If you can't be respectful enough to use my name, our conversation is over.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      It's like Deja Vu. Topher can't answer a single question without veiled afterlife threats in a pathetic attempt to scare people into agreeing with him.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • End Religion

      Just as you can transform "stomping your feet on the ground" into "tap dancing," Topher will illustrate how you can turn "coercion" into "gift." Pay attention kids, this sort of information is vital to any conman worth his salt.

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGc3ib49Iag&w=640&h=390]

      February 1, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • sam stone

      fair enough, topher: answer this...

      let's assume that there are two possible choices to a question. choice A or choice B.

      god knows which you will choose

      god cannot be wrong

      given the you cannot make a choice that god does not already know about, how is there free will?

      February 1, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Topher

      Hi, WhenCowsAttack. How are you?

      First, let me say that I don't intend to anger you with my answer. I'm going to tell you what I think and with as much theology as I can. But if you disagree with me ... well, it won't be the first time. :)

      I'm sorry you lost your mom, especially at such a young age. But you say you started attending a non-denominational church. To be honest, I don't know how to comment on that. Non-denoms are a bit flakey in that you never know what you are going to get from church to church. Did they teach the Bible as 100 percent true, inspired word of God? Did the pastor preach from the Bible or just give an hour-long personal experience story with maybe one line of scripture? Of course it's entirely possible your church was fantastic, and I don't mean this as an as.sault on your place of worship.

      Next, you say you asked Jesus into your heart, was active in the church and wanted Jesus. But then you realized you didn't believe it. Well, that's the problem right there. If you don't believe it now, you never really did. If you were saved, you'd still be. You don't lose your salvation.

      You say of lot of the right things, but I think I notice something missing. To be "born again" you must repent (that is not just say you are sorry, but turn away from your sins) and trust in the Savior. Lots of "Christians" fall away because they never did this.

      "Spent many years wondering what was broken inside of me, what was wrong with me."

      My guess is that what you were really feeling is that you ARE broken. You've sinned and probably were continuing in those sins. We have all sinned and fallen short of God. The Bible says there are "none who are good. No, not one." That is why we NEED a Savior.

      "Then I finally came to the realization that... I just don't believe it. And that I knew deep down inside that it was BS all along."

      So my question would be WHY don't you believe it? What is you major problem? I'd be happy to address it if I can.

      "If your god is real, he created me quite literally without the ability to "truly believe". Why would he do that? I am a good and kind person. Why would he create me knowing I was dam*ned?"

      I don't believe that at all. Everyone can believe. Does it take some faith? Absolutely. But I'd love to take you aside and give you some things to read or evidences for God. As I stated earlier, the Bible says you're not good according to God's standards. Have you ever lied? Stolen? Said, "Oh, my G-d!" Looked at someone with lust? If you said yes to any of those things, you've broken God's laws. And while you're still breathing, you have the option to not be damned. That is your choice.

      Again, I hope I didn't anger you with any of that. And I'd be happy to continue talking with you about it.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      What a dishonest person you are.

      "The Bible says there are "none who are good. No, not one.""
      This is actually a small exerpt. When you look at the rest of the verse (Psalm 14: 1), it's talking about unbelievers in your god.
      Your inclusive concern trolling, cherry picking theology isn't even supported by the book you say you think is 100% true.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      Right, you have two options and God knows which you will choose. But it's still your choice. I know which you choose now, but let's say in 5 years you change your mind and are born again. God knew you'd change your mind. But it was your choice to do so. Just because God's knows what you will choose doesn't mean it wasn't your choice. If you win a new car and the dealer gives you a choice between red and yellow and I KNOW you HATE yellow ... I know you will choose red. That doesn't mean there isn't a choice between the two colors. You just choose the one you want. My knowledge doesn't have anything to do with what you pick.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • The Truth

      Topher – Jesus is our saviour and the answr to all our problems.

      Whencowsattack – tried it but came to the conclusion your God doesn't exist.

      Topher – Well then your just not doing it right!...If you did you would be like me, knowing whats good and bad! (wait, where have I heard that before...)

      We are not doing it wrong Topher, you are. You take a simple math problem like 2 + 2 and then say "Come on guys, duh, the answer is apple... how did you not get that?"

      February 1, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • sam stone

      nonsense, topher. if there is only one possible choice in the end (the one that god knows about), there is no free will. dance around it all you want, you will still be wrong.

      February 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • Topher

      hawaiiguest

      Please stop spreading your foolishness. That phrase is used in several places in the Bible. For instance ...

      Romans 3:9-18 ... "9 What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off?[b] No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

      “None is righteous, no, not one;
      11 no one understands;
      no one seeks for God.
      12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
      no one does good,
      not even one.”
      13 “Their throat is an open grave;
      they use their tongues to deceive.”
      “The venom of asps is under their lips.”
      14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
      15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
      16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
      17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
      18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

      February 1, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      Is it possible to even understand the rules, without breaking them, or having broken them?

      To look with lust is committing adultery in your heart.
      To hate is to commit murder in your heart.

      Does listing rules make it inevitable that they be broken?

      February 1, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • The Truth

      "I don't believe that at all. Everyone can believe. Does it take some faith? Absolutely."

      Thats why Topher is on these boards, because his faith is weak and he is trying to convince himself of his own flawed beliefs. That is the continual state of "faith" without any proof. Always talking to yourself in your head saying "This is it, I just know it, it has to be true, if it isn't then I am just wasting my time in pointless busy work for absolutely no reward, so it has to be true, in fact, if I can just convince a few other people of it then it will feel even more true to me..."

      February 1, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
    • Topher

      Sam

      Ok. What do you say then about people who are at one time an atheist or agnostic but later turn to God and become a Christian? Are they not changing their mind?

      February 1, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • The Truth

      Here is a question for you Topher: When would Adam and Eve been able to enter heaven if they had never eaten of the fruit and sinned?

      February 1, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • Topher

      ME II

      " Is it possible to even understand the rules, without breaking them, or having broken them?"

      Yes. No one has to teach you that lying, stealing or murdering is wrong. God's laws are written on your heart. It's in your conscience.

      "To look with lust is committing adultery in your heart.
      To hate is to commit murder in your heart."

      Correct.

      "Does listing rules make it inevitable that they be broken?"

      I bet you've broken them already. I sure have. I've broken all 10 Commandments. ... but maybe I'm not understanding your question.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • Pete

      Topher the point is that you can either have free will or god knew what you were going to choose. You cannot claim that god is all knowing and created you knowing what choices you would make in life and in the same breath claim that humans have free will. It has to be one or the other.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • mama k

      Topher: "Please stop spreading your foolishness."

      One Christian's foolishness is another Christian's doctrine.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Ok. What do you say then about people who are at one time an atheist or agnostic but later turn to God and become a Christian? Are they not changing their mind?"

      Of course they are. So what?

      Are they not doing what god knew they were going to do?

      If god knew what they were going to do (in the end, becoming born again), and god cannot be wrong, how is there free will?

      February 1, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      And yet you seem unable to realize that that whole thing was Paul cherry picking from multiple different verses from different books and weaving them together and presenting it as if a direct quote. Jeez do you even know anything about your own bible?
      Here's a list of every cherry pick in your bible quote from 11-18

      11) Paul just saying it.
      12) Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20
      13) Psalm 5:9
      13) Psalm 140:3
      14) Psalm 10:7 (see Septuagint)
      15) Paul making things up again
      16) See 15
      17) Isaiah 59:7,8
      18) Psalm 36:1

      Actually you remind me of Paul. Spouting off whatever you think is right in the name of your god. Cherry picking old books and spinning to fit whatever you want it. An arrogant tool that thinks he has any kind of answer.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      I really don't understand your reasoning. You admit people are making a choice but that's not free will? What's the difference? You and others continue to say that just because God knows what you will choose that that isn't free will. WHY NOT?! He's not making the choice for you. You are. That's your free will. It's your choice. You might change your mind several times and God knows what you will end up choosing, but that's still your choice to make.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      The god of the bible doesn't care about free will. If it goes against what he wants, then it gets moved out of the way.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      Topher-

      I am sorry, but you are wrong. I did all of those things, and there is nothing in the Bible that you could point out to me that I have not seen, heard, read and studied in earnest before.

      Right- that is the "problem". I didn't believe. Couldn't believe. I am not going to run down all of the reasons that I feel the Bible doesn't make sense to you- it is the same things that others have said time and time again to you on this blog. You've heard it.

      And I'm not broken. I *was* broken, largely because of the church telling me that we are not good enough, that we aren't inherently good, we are sinners, etc etc etc.

      I'm not broken anymore. I am confident, happy, and at peace. I really don't want or need you to show me anything else, I have no desire to go back.

      Not sure why you don't take me at my word when I tell you I am not capable of believing. I am not capable because my logic overrides my efforts at faith. My brain interferes.

      And in case you were wondering, your answer is pretty much exactly what I expected.

      Good day :-)

      February 1, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
    • Topher

      WhenCowsAttack

      ... but I have so many questions and things I want to talk about ... but if you don't want to, fair enough.

      Have a good one.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Yes, but will it float ?

      February 1, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • sam stone

      I really don't understand your reasoningng."
      Yeah, that logic can be touch on those who exist by faith

      "You admit people are making a choice but that's not free will? What's the difference?"

      Because the outcome is known

      "God knows what you will end up choosing"

      That's the point. , there is no FINAL choice you can make that god doesn't know about. Hence no free will

      February 1, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
    • The Truth

      "That's your free will. It's your choice. You might change your mind several times and God knows what you will end up choosing, but that's still your choice to make."

      So what he is saying is that God already knows if you are going to lose, he just wants to watch you fail before he judges the outcome he already knew would happen...

      February 1, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
    • End Religion

      *click* *clickety clack* *tip tap toppity*
      Dance, Topher Monkey, dance!

      February 1, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      If the rules include thoughts, e.g. thinking about se.x, i.e. lust, is forbidden, then isn't just comprehending the rule violating the rule?

      Additionally, if coveting is wrong, then why does God covet our love and worship?

      February 1, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • sam stone

      touch = touchy

      February 1, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      Or maybe there's nothing logical in what you are saying. Again, you still have two options. Just because He knows which you will pick doesn't mean it's not your choice.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      Oh, I'm not actually leaving. Was going to go back to "observing", but if you want to ask questions, fire away! I'm right here, happy to answer.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
    • Topher

      ME II

      " If the rules include thoughts, e.g. thinking about se.x, i.e. lust, is forbidden, then isn't just comprehending the rule violating the rule?"

      No. There's a big difference in me and you discussing the Law and one of us looking at a woman and thinking in detail what we'd like to do with her.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Or maybe there's nothing logical in what you are saying. Again, you still have two options. Just because He knows which you will pick doesn't mean it's not your choice."

      Again, I do NOT have two options. If he knows what my final choice will be, and he cannot be wrong, how can there be free choice?

      February 1, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • Topher

      sam

      Perhaps we're somehow talking past each other and should just move on to a new topic. But I still don't see if you have the option of receiving what God has offered you or rejecting it, that's not a choice.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • mama k

      "There's a big difference in me and you discussing the Law and one of us looking at a woman and thinking in detail what we'd like to do with her."

      Hmm. I was going to get some popcorn, but I might need a cup of coffee for this.

      February 1, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • sam stone

      it's not a choice if your final choice is established ahead of time

      February 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Oh look. I point out exactly, verse for verse, how Topher is completely wrong, and he then ignores me. Who could have possibly seen that coming from a christian.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      Fine. Let's just say you're right (I don't agree, but for the sake of argument ...) and let's say God knows ultimately you're going to be born again. Why not start now?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • Madtown

      God knows what you will end up choosing
      ------–
      You have no way of knowing this. You thinking you can actually "know" the ways of God, does not equate to actually knowing the ways of God. No one knows those.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
    • ME II

      "No. There's a big difference in me and you discussing the Law and one of us looking at a woman and thinking in detail what we'd like to do with her."

      So it is a matter of degree, just as long as it's not "in detail"? How exactly does one think of one fiance prior to marriage? Va.guely?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • Science

      @mama k have to get more popcorn just ran out..
      Peace

      February 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      Additionally, was it not the fruit of the true of knowledge of good and evil that cause all the problems, supposedly.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
    • ME II

      Sorry, "caused" not "cause"

      February 1, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
    • Topher

      ME II

      "So it is a matter of degree, just as long as it's not "in detail"?"

      I SUPPOSE it's a matter of degree. There's nothing wrong with saying "Wow. That woman is very pretty." But you would be committing adultery if you looked at that same woman and thought "Boy, I'd like to ..."

      February 1, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
    • ME II

      sheesh, and "tree" not "true"

      (need to fire my proofreader)

      February 1, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher: Because I am not a snivelling cowardly sycophant who needs to beg for forgiveness?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Topher – "But you would be committing adultery if ..."

      So how, exactly, does one stop oneself from committing this sort of "thought crime"?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
    • Topher

      It wasn't so much the fruit as it was Adam blatantly breaking God's law and choosing to listening to Satan instead of God.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      Why is it, without fail, you ignore people who demonstrate exactly how your wrong? Why is it you're ignoring my deconstruction of your Romans quote? Why did you ignore my asking of where exactly in the bible it states how to tell the difference between priestly laws, moral laws, and laws for the time?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      hmm....
      Appreciation of beauty has a different quality than thoughts of se.x, I would think, not just a matter of degree. A flower can be pretty, can it not?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • Topher

      Really-O?

      "So how, exactly, does one stop oneself from committing this sort of "thought crime"?"

      Seems nearly impossible, doesn't it? For one you can "bounce" your eyes ... immediately look away. Make yourself think of something else. But if it happens, immediately stop and ask for forgiveness.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
    • ME II

      Topher
      "It wasn't so much the fruit as it was Adam blatantly breaking God's law and choosing to listening to Satan instead of God."

      So, it wasn't the fruit, or the knowledge therein, that was bad in itself? It was just that God said not to eat it?
      If it wasn't inherently bad, then why did God forbid eating it?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • Topher

      ME II

      " Appreciation of beauty has a different quality than thoughts of se.x, I would think, not just a matter of degree."

      I agree. That's why I said you're OK if you're just thinking someone is pretty.

      "A flower can be pretty, can it not?"

      Yes. But I doubt you're having se.xual desires for a flower.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
    • Madtown

      you would be committing adultery if you looked at that same woman and thought "Boy, I'd like to ..."
      ------–
      This is pure biology, period. And ironically for you, the way God programmed us. Why are you turning your back toward Gods intent for your humanity?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Topher –

      Once you think to "look away" you've already identified the fact that you've committed the "crime". If one is a believer, I understand the "ask for forgiveness" part, but doesn't is seem that your god has created a mugs game?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
    • mama k

      wow. people must just literally bump into each other at your church socials. well, maybe you don't even have them

      February 1, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      *sigh*

      Can someone answer my questions for me? I want to know whether Topher merely doesn't want to answer me, or if he's ignoring the questions because he has no answer to them.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • Topher

      ME II

      "So, it wasn't the fruit, or the knowledge therein, that was bad in itself? It was just that God said not to eat it?
      If it wasn't inherently bad, then why did God forbid eating it?"

      Honestly, I'm not sure why they weren't supposed to eat it. But God said 'don't do it, if you do you will die." And along comes the serpent and he says "God didn't say you would SURELY die, did He?" And they listened to the snake instead of God.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      So back to my question of "How exactly does one think of one fiance prior to marriage? Va.guely?"

      If thoughts of se.x are "wrong" then how should one be attracted to one's fiance in order to be married in the first place?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • The Truth

      So if I reject the premise that any of my ancestors ate any magical forbidden fruit, which by the way I do, what need do I have for any of the worlds religions? I have evidence that I share neanderthal DNA with everyone else on the planet but have zero evidence that those ancestors digested something they were not supposed to. If there was no original sin then religion is like a broken pencil, pointless...

      February 1, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Can someone ask my questions for me.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Topher – "But I doubt you're having se.xual desires for a flower."

      Obviously you haven't seen some of Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      It was Eve's fault, not Adam.
      Isn't that why childbirth is incredibly painful? That's Eve's punishment.
      "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." – Timothy 2:14

      "Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:19

      February 1, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
    • Topher

      Madtown

      "This is pure biology, period. And ironically for you, the way God programmed us. Why are you turning your back toward Gods intent for your humanity?"

      Results of the Fall. God's intent for us is to come together, a man and a woman, into a covenant with Him. When we do, we spiritually become "one flesh." When you pick your spouse, I should hope it's based on more than se.xual desire.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      "Honestly, I'm not sure why they weren't supposed to eat it. But God said 'don't do it, if you do you will die."

      So it is wrong because God said so? That sounds more like arbitrary morality rather than absolute morality. Although, that would explain a lot of the disconnect between the OT and NT, I suppose.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • mama k

      I will hawaii. what would you like me to ask topher?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:42 pm |
    • mama k

      although he's probably ignoring me too. lol.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @mama k

      Above he posted someting from Romans, and I did a deconstruction of it showing how Paul cherry picked old books and misrepresented them (kind of ironic really). And I've been trying to get this answered for a month from Topher now.

      "Where exactly in the bible it states how to tell the difference between priestly laws, moral laws, and laws for the time?"
      Ever since Topher made a claim that the bible says which are moral laws and which aren't I've been trying to get him to point where it does that.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      "When you pick your spouse, I should hope it's based on more than se.xual desire."
      Good point. "more than", but I would also say "not exclusive of", for the spouses sake. (see that thought right there was sinful, wasn't if I understand you. Simply wishing someone a healthy se.x life?)

      February 1, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • Topher

      ME II

      "If thoughts of se.x are "wrong" then how should one be attracted to one's fiance in order to be married in the first place?"

      Thoughts of se.x aren't necessarily wrong. It just depends on if you have the right to think them. It's only right if it's with your covenant partner. You can be attracted to your fiance. Nothing wrong with that. It's when you cross that line ...

      Perhaps this will help. Suppose we had a microchip that we could place behind your ear and record every thought you have during a week's time. At the end of that week, we sit you down with your mom and dad and your fiance and her parents and we'd all watch your mind. When it came to your thoughts on the girl, wouldn't you be embarrassed for your mom or her dad to see them? Of course you would. You conscience tells you it's wrong.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
    • mama k

      Oh – good point, hawaii. I think I remember him bringing up those types as well. And I also remember him assigning certain sins to the different types. But that's a good question. A lot of things that different kinds of Christians deem important should depend on that. OK, Topher, what's the word on that?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • Madtown

      I should hope it's based on more than se.xual desire
      ----–
      I have been married for several years. I can say with 100% certainty, that I have NEVER in my entire life at any point, gone through any sort of critical thought process to determine whether or not I found a particular woman attractive, or had any sort of s*xual desire for her. Those things are biological in nature, you know.....how we're born/created. They come from deep within, they are not a result of analytical process. You don't see a woman and think to yourself, "self....I believe I will decide to find this woman attractive. And, then I believe I also will decide to find this woman s*xually attractive." That does not happen. Those thoughts and feelings are 100% natural. Your resistance to them is the unfortunate result of your religious conditioning.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Topher –

      Quite honestly, I think my father would give me an "attaboy" after seeing my chip replay. My mother, on the other hand, would most likely blush and leave the room. Women...go figure!

      February 1, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • Topher

      Mama

      I'm not ignoring you. What's your questio?. Hurry, though, I've got to get ready for work, soon.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      "When it came to your thoughts on the girl, wouldn't you be embarrassed for your mom or her dad to see them? Of course you would. You conscience tells you it's wrong."

      The conscience seems a weak guide for morality. Are all sociopaths going to heaven? If someone has very non-judgmental parents and would not be embarrassed, does that make it not sinful? It smacks of moral relativism, does it not?

      February 1, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
    • mama k

      "Where exactly in the bible it states how to tell the difference between priestly laws, moral laws, and laws for the time?"

      February 1, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • Topher

      Really-0?

      haha. You might be right.

      February 1, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Oh look, it's the good old "I need to go to work soon" qualifier after ignoring it for a good half hour. I wonder if he'll give a standard non-answer, or just ignore it until he has to go to work, then rinse and repeat the next time.
      I got 3 to 1 odds that it'll be the non-answer.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Topher

      mama k

      "Where exactly in the bible it states how to tell the difference between priestly laws, moral laws, and laws for the time?"

      I can't give you exact verses off the top of my head, but they're kind of obvious. For instance, priestly laws involve things like sacrifices ... you know, you'd take your spotless sheep to the priest so that he'd make the sacrifice to cover your sins. Jesus Christ is now our High Priest. He was also "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World." Because of this, we no longer need any priests other than Christ and we don't sacrifice because He was our sacrifice.

      Laws for the time, such as what we can or can't eat are made clear in Acts Chapter 10 (don't recall exact verses). Peter is given the vision from God that says nothing is unclean which He made, so we can eat anything. Jesus also tells us in the Gospels that it isn't what goes into our mouths that defiles us ...

      That leaves us with the morals laws which Jesus says are still in play. He goes over the Commandments with the rich young ruler, for instance.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      He CAN'T answer the question, because he made it up.

      Or, rather, someone else made it up and he is just parroting it. I don't believe he's got an original thought in his head, so I am sure he got it from somewhere else.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      @Topher,
      "When it came to your thoughts on the girl, wouldn't you be embarrassed for your mom or her dad to see them? Of course you would. You conscience tells you it's wrong."

      Um, no, it wouldn't embarrass me. My mother and I discuss sex fairly openly and we both see it as a natural part of being human. What is there to be embarrassed by?

      February 1, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • Topher

      WhenCowsAttack

      Ouch!

      "He CAN'T answer the question, because he made it up."

      I didn't make anything up.

      "Or, rather, someone else made it up and he is just parroting it. I don't believe he's got an original thought in his head, so I am sure he got it from somewhere else."

      Why do I need an "original" thought on God when I've got His Word to know what I need to know?

      February 1, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      LOL Hilarious!
      "I can give you the verses, but I can't"
      "I will give an example of a single law that god changed his mind on, and apply it to any law I deem is a law only for the time"
      "Parables=laws in the OT that I feel are moral laws being reinforced"

      February 1, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      And then, if you take the moral law to level Jesus took it and say, look at a women with lust in your heart, you have committed adultery. So, the moral laws at that level show us that we are lawbreakers, even if we think we are pretty good little boys and girls, as far as actually committing sinful acts. Since we are lawbreakers, we are guilty and subject to God’s punishment, unless we accept our pardon through Jesus.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      There is NO distinction between moral, priestly, and "laws for the time" anywhere in the bible, period.

      Somebody, somewhere, created that "theory" to explain away the Biblical laws that people no longer want to follow. And you are parroting what you've heard from them.

      Not in the Bible, therefore not the word of God, right? You are unable to answer the question posed to you because it isn't there.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
    • End Religion

      TopherMonkey said: "Thoughts of se.x aren't necessarily wrong. It just depends on if you have the right to think them"

      This is known as a "riffle". Read carefully to see if you can find where Topher professionally executes the "slurp" move. I mean to tell you this monkey can dance! Just be careful out there because I think someone just applied some graphite spray onto the floor.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tap_dance_technique

      February 1, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • mama k

      Hmm. Well, I think the church social there would make a good movie. Shifty-eyed people bumping into walls and such. And I would imagine those that just stay completely on opposite sides of the room must obviously have already cheated with each other in some way.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Robert

      Yes it's an ingenious system isn't it? Make up laws that cannot be followed correctly, claim it's from god, then claim a sacrifice (that wasn't a sacrifice) saves you from eternal torture from this "loving" being that made the rules and the way you are in such a way as that you would need that. Scam of the fucking eon that.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • Topher

      WhenCowsAttack

      "There is NO distinction between moral, priestly, and "laws for the time" anywhere in the bible, period."

      Sure there are. I just told you why and even where they are found.

      "Not in the Bible, therefore not the word of God, right? You are unable to answer the question posed to you because it isn't there."

      I did answer the question and even told you where you can go read about it. I'm sorry you feel I have no argument since I don't have 66 books memorized, but that's your problem, not mine.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
    • Topher

      mama k

      "Hmm. Well, I think the church social there would make a good movie. Shifty-eyed people bumping into walls and such. And I would imagine those that just stay completely on opposite sides of the room must obviously have already cheated with each other in some way."

      Very possible. And do you know what that makes them? Sinners.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Even more hilarity from Topher

      "I'll make the claim, but you need to do the work to try and confirm it for me".

      And interestingly, it seems that Topher has something against me personally. He seems to answer everyone except me.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      "I can't tell you where they are but it's kind of obvious, priestly laws involve 'things like sacrifices' which"...

      is NOT an answer, nor is it telling us where the bible makes the specific distinction between three very specific kinds of laws that you have posited.

      it involves things like sacrifices and stuff, you know.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • Topher

      Alright. Gotta go. Thanks to those of you who can engage in civil discourse. I appreciate the conversation. Have a good one and God bless.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
    • Lady Chad-derly's Lover

      @ Hawaii..

      Topher's dishonesty in not answering your questions is epic.

      @ Toph...you have confirmed Hawaii's co mment that you are afraid to answer his question/co mments because he is right. And, it tells me that you are a coward...

      But then, that is the Christ-like way in the 20th and 21st century

      February 1, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      How cute. That's another thing that Topher hasn't answered me on. He has said that I only engage in uncivil discourse, yet when asked, never says exactly what is uncivil about my posts.
      Pathetic Topher, truly, truly pathetic.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      Annnd...he's out!

      Try to send ME on a wild goose chase through the bible to find something that ain't in it, LOL.

      @hawaiiguest *waves* hi there. Thinkin' being ignored might be some sort of abstract honor.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Chad and Topher tend to ignore me. Bill Deacon does it half the time, and Robert about 40%. Fred merely goes on irrelevant tangents all the time and ignores me after I continually call him on it. HEavenSent used to ignore me all the time. You know, I don't know if any of the usual theists actually answer my questions anymore. They used to, now they don't.

      February 1, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • End Religion

      And finally, The Big Finish! Thanks, Topher Monkey for another great tap dancing lesson! Maybe in our next session Tophey-Baby will add Jazz Hands to razzle-dazzle us while teaching us why God's supposed r@pe of a 13 year old to impregnate her with himself is somehow divine and/or inspiration to so many devout nutters.

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPrHXxgIqYk&w=640&h=390]

      February 1, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • Lady Chad-derly's Lover

      Isn't it funny how the Topher's and the Chad's claim that something like how laws no longer apply (showing the mutability of their unchanging God) are somehow "scriptural"...yet, they were developed as dogma in the theological seminaries by a bunch of men who are trying to make sense of nonsense...

      In Chad's conversation with December the other day, Chad declares that there is only one way to approach Christianity, and only one way Christianity approaches humans...and yet, how many theological seminaries are there across the world and across time...

      ...all trying to make sense of nonsense...

      And if the questions of Christianity were solved (even the most basic, critical questions – sorry Robert Brown – then there would be no theological seminaries, not departments of theology, and no denominational differences)...

      But I loves me some Chad (after dark)

      February 1, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Everyone,

      The labels priestly, moral, and laws of the time, are just that, labels. They are not labels from the bible, they are labels people have given the laws, so instead of just speaking in generalities if you want to pick a certain one we can get specific.
      Also, some of the law was for the children of Israel as a condition to stay in the land God gave them, laws of the time. While some of the law is determined to be not applicable to today it still gives us an idea of how God thinks about things. Example, the mixing of fibers, this is one that is criticized. God doesn’t like some things mixed, a good example for today is a believer being married or in business with a nonbeliever, not a good mix in the eyes of God.

      February 1, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Robert

      Wow that's a whole lot of spin on something like mixing fabrics. What I find hilarious is that you claim that they are just labels people made up, but it's accurate. So tell me Robert, where in the bible does it specifically state which laws are only for the time, only for the priests, and the "moral" law that still applies. Also, as an added bonus, where in the bible does it specifically state that killing people for breaking the law is no longer how it is dealt with?

      February 1, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
    • End Religion

      @BobbyB: "God doesn’t like some things mixed"

      LOL, since you seem to know the mind of your god, can you tell me what he thinks about mixing some other things:
      – mixed race marriage?
      – mixing chocolate with peanut butter?
      – marriage between a tall man and a short man?
      – a red charmeuse top with green wool leopard print miniskirt?
      – a friendship between a north-going Zax and a south-going Zax?

      February 1, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,
      Time, here are a few examples,
      Exodus 13:5
      And it shall be when…..

      Exodus 13:11
      And it shall be when….

      Leviticus 23:10
      Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When….

      Numbers 15:18
      Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When…..

      February 1, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,
      Priests,

      Leviticus 1:5
      And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

      Leviticus 1:11
      And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

      Deuteronomy 17:9
      And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:

      February 1, 2013 at 8:30 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Robert

      Your first 4 bible quotes have nothing to do with laws, merely with god telling them how he wants to be worshipped when they get to their promised land.

      As for your others, those seem like processes for priests to follow during certain rituals, and is entirely different from a LAW.

      February 1, 2013 at 8:36 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,

      For the moral law and why we don’t kill people for breaking certain laws, I would recommend you read the whole book of Romans. Here is a good example from

      Romans 3:

      19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

      20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

      21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

      22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

      23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

      24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

      25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

      26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

      27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

      28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

      29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

      30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circu.mcision by faith, and uncircu.mcision through faith.

      31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

      February 1, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,

      It is not in one verse. For example, if you start at Leviticus 23:10 and read all the way through the end of Leviticus 26, you will get all kinds of law. Or, if that is a bit much just read the rest of Leviticus 23 and some of Leviticus 26. These laws were conditional.

      February 1, 2013 at 8:57 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Robert

      What does some asshat writing that all people everywhere are worthless piles of shit have to do with anything? You keep talking about the laws being a certain way according to god, and when it comes to it, you cite verses that have nothing to do with the laws, and also recommend a book that has nothing to do with god or jesus saying anything, merely some guy afterward preaching that all humanity is inherently worthless.

      February 1, 2013 at 8:58 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Robert

      Those Leviticus verses were instructions oh exactly how to venerate the god because he deigned to take his supposed "favored people" out of slavery that he supposedly put them in in the first place.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
    • Bob

      Yeah, too funny to see Robert Brown quoting Leviticus when elsewhere he has claimed that the old testament doesn't apply now. Anyway, Robert's book of nasty AKA the bible presents some pretty horrid demands from his "loving" god, in both OT and NT.

      Simply put, Christian god would be a human rights abusing ass hole if he existed, so good thing he doesn't exist:

      Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
      18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

      Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

      Leviticus 25
      44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
      45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
      46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

      Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

      Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

      And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      February 1, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,

      That is why I said read 23, 24, 25 etc.

      Laws

      Leviticus 24

      16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

      17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

      18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

      19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

      20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:24 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,

      Paul is explaining the application of Mosaic law to Christians all throughout Romans, that is why I recommended it. He does a great job.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:28 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Robert

      Let me try this again.

      You quote Romans to say that everyone is evil, but it also says that everyone is under your gods laws and judgement because he's the god of everyone. So how does this even square with the concept of laws only for the Israelites?

      February 1, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,

      Sorry you don’t like what Paul had to say about the law. Here try a little of what Jesus said about the law. If you really want all what Jesus said about the law, read the 4 gospels, if that is too much just read the sermon on the mount, great stuff law to the nth degree. He boiled it down this way, love God and your neighbor as yourself.

      Matthew 5:38-40

      King James Version (KJV)

      38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

      39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

      40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Robert

      So you don't answer again. How about you stick to a single fucking area instead of jumping to something else to cover up the fact that you're not answering shit.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:39 pm |
    • dale

      on the 9th of AV , gregorian calendar, israel sent 10 spies out to view the promised land. they brought back a bad report and despised what they saw. This date ended up being cursed
      Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple on the 9th of AV
      600 years later rome destroyed the temple on the 9th of AV
      Jews were kicked out of england on the 9th of AV 1290
      Jews kicked out of spain ln the 9th of AV 1492
      WW1 started on the 9th of AV
      Hitlers proclomation to kill the jews was on the 9th of AV

      February 1, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • dale

      the last two years that there were 4 consecutive blo-15, blood moons in a row, were 1949 and 1967, Israel reinstated and the 6 years war, and the next is in 2014- 15 4 consecutive blood moons, one on the passover, and this year is a sabbatical year. the blood moon is associated with the return of Christ. this is the last time that will happen this century.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:53 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,

      Ok, you’re correct. We aren’t communicating effectively. I don’t use the precise labels that Topher used to describe the Mosaic law, so I probably shouldn’t have even attempted to put them in those terms. I don’t disagree with what he said, I just use different terms to describe it.

      When you asked, where specifically, on each I gave you the starting point for a few examples. If you will start with an example and read for a while you may get the picture.

      Let me try it this way and maybe if I foul it up Topher will read it tomorrow and straighten me out. He used the term “time” and while I agree that time is part of it, I think it is more than that. Those laws were conditioned on when they went into the land, they were to do this and not do that. If they obeyed they got to take, keep, and enjoy the land in peace for as long as they obeyed. If they disobeyed, God said he would punish them and if they didn’t repent he would ultimately kick them out of the land.

      The priestly laws concerned the atonement or covering of sin. They sacrificed animals to cover their sin, when Jesus was crucified he was the final sacrifice for sin, the lamb of God. If you will read from where I gave an example of the priest you will come to descriptions for some of these.

      The moral laws have to do mostly with how we treat each other. Jesus summed all of them up by saying love your neighbor as yourself.

      You can’t get those three labels by reading one verse for each, so if that is what you are after, I can’t help. But, if you are willing to read a little further for each example given, you may see what I mean. Thanks.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:57 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Dale, You can't get enough of that superstition can you?

      February 1, 2013 at 9:57 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      I need to leave, but I'll leave with this. How do you square god playing favorites with people he knew were just as bad as everyone with Pauls writings that we are all under the law. (He makes no such distinction).

      February 1, 2013 at 10:00 pm |
    • dale

      because God was revealing Himself to the world, the Jews were to remain a Priestly and Holy nation, but not to exclude others who wanted to worship God. by the time they blundered their way through history and Christ arrived, even has they had fully looke and prophesied the Lamb of God, the messiah, they hated and executed Him, which was God will anyway. but you can clearly see that God was not about a chosen people. and he opened this up to the gentiles(who are a light unto the world). this is all revealed in the meaning of the seed of Abraham, a seed of faith. and it was credited to Abraham for his faith and not his works.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:10 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,

      I don’t need to square it because God said they were not better. God didn’t pick the children of Israel because they were the most righteous. He did what he did because he made a promise to Abraham. This is important, God keeps his word.

      What Paul was saying about the law can be summed up by this, the law says we are guilty and sentenced to death, grace says we are pardoned by the sacrifice of Jesus. If you will read Romans I think you will find that is the take away.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:17 pm |
    • dale

      God resented the fact that Israel acted like HIs exclusive group. they were simply a vehicle for the model of sin, atonement, communion with God, and God's law which revealed the sin of Adam. Through adam sin and death reined , but through Christ we go from death to life eternal, and this is the glory of God's plan, that He would glorify Himself, and also glorify those who choose to honor Him with the life he gave us all.

      we are blessed to live in the era we do, after Christ. We have Gods word AND the Holy Spirit. Nothing can seperate you f

      February 1, 2013 at 10:21 pm |
    • dale

      God resented the fact that Israel acted like HIs exclusive group. they were simply a vehicle for the model of sin, atonement, communion with God, and God's law which revealed the sin of Adam. Through adam sin and death reined , but through Christ we go from death to life eternal, and this is the glory of God's plan, that He would glorify Himself, and also glorify those who choose to honor Him with the life he gave us all.

      we are blessed to live in the era we do, after Christ. We have Gods word AND the Holy Spirit. Nothing can seperate you from the love of God.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:22 pm |
    • dale

      Robert the armored saint. God bless you keep praying. Ill put you on my list and your contacts.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:29 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,

      Here are the verses to back up my last. The CEV may help if you aren't use to the KJV.

      Deuteronomy 9:4-6
      Contemporary English Version (CEV)
      4-6 After the LORD helps you wipe out these nations and conquer their land, don’t think he did it because you are such good people. You aren’t good—you are stubborn! No, the LORD is going to help you, because the nations that live there are evil, and because he wants to keep the promise he made to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

      Romans 3:19-31
      Contemporary English Version (CEV)
      19 We know that everything in the Law was written for those who are under its power. The Law says these things to stop anyone from making excuses and to let God show that the whole world is guilty. 20 God doesn’t accept people simply because they obey the Law. No, indeed! All the Law does is to point out our sin.
      God’s Way of Accepting People
      21 Now we see how God does make us acceptable to him. The Law and the Prophets[a] tell how we become acceptable, and it isn’t by obeying the Law of Moses. 22 God treats everyone alike. He accepts people only because they have faith in Jesus Christ. 23 All of us have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. 24 But God treats us much better than we deserve,[b] and because of Christ Jesus, he freely accepts us and sets us free from our sins. 25-26 God sent Christ to be our sacrifice. Christ offered his life’s blood, so that by faith in him we could come to God. And God did this to show that in the past he was right to be patient and forgive sinners. This also shows that God is right when he accepts people who have faith in Jesus.
      27 What is left for us to brag about? Not a thing! Is it because we obeyed some law? No! It is because of faith. 28 We see that people are acceptable to God because they have faith, and not because they obey the Law. 29 Does God belong only to the Jews? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, he is! 30 There is only one God, and he accepts Gentiles as well as Jews, simply because of their faith. 31 Do we destroy the Law by our faith? Not at all! We make it even more powerful.

      Romans 4
      Contemporary English Version (CEV)
      The Example of Abraham
      4 Well then, what can we say about our ancestor Abraham? 2 If he became acceptable to God because of what he did, then he would have something to brag about. But he would never be able to brag about it to God. 3 The Scriptures say, “God accepted Abraham because Abraham had faith in him.”
      4 Money paid to workers isn’t a gift. It is something they earn by working. 5 But you cannot make God accept you because of something you do. God accepts sinners only because they have faith in him.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Dale,

      Thank you and may God richly bless you as well.

      February 1, 2013 at 10:38 pm |
  19. Smelling Salts

    Oh why such great punishment? SO great?

    If I could at least remember then perhaps I would slap my own back and slash myself.

    All I can see now is shadow.

    All I want is sleep.

    The Hell, Earth. Why this place?

    Such loveliness allowed while we bask in the suffering.

    Where does such cruelty manifest?

    Who would seek worship on this shipwreck?

    February 1, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • Smelling Salts

      Hey Topher, if you want to chit chat, respond to my peom above....

      February 1, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • Topher

      Happy to when I get back from lunch. Chat with you then.

      February 1, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • Topher

      Still around?

      February 1, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
  20. PeterVN

    Too funny. See prior article on similar from Tebow, who prayed and then lost bigtime. As the great blog quote says,

    "Religion is for the ignorant, the gullible, the stupid, and the cowardly, and for those who would profit from them."

    And American football with all its pads is for wimps. Rugby Oi Oi Oi!

    February 1, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • Oliver

      Oi Oi Oi. American footballers are wimps for sure. But soccer really requires balls! Lots of them, for practice.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • Anthony

      Real footballers have balls, not pads.

      February 1, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    • Ozzy

      I don't even care for American Football, but really? In American Football, those guys hit...and they hit HARD! There's a reason why studies are being done on concussions and their long term effects on players. Don't see that being done for soccer players. Soccer players, you so much as breathe on each other close by and they crumple to the ground and pretend to cry. It's ridiculous.

      February 1, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Dennis

      Come on, "Ozzy". You've never butted heads with a rugger in a serious scrum, have you. Concussions smussions.

      I'm for soccer (real football), though. Real men don't handle balls in real football, goalies excepted. (Real women can do whatever the h they want).

      February 1, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
1 2 3 4 5
Advertisement
About this blog

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.