home
RSS
August 4th, 2014
12:06 PM ET

What's religion's role in the Mideast crisis?

CNN's Poppy Harlow interviews religious leaders from Christianity, Islam and Judaism about the role of religion in the Mideast conflict.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Foreign policy • Islam • Israel • Jerusalem • Judaism • Middle East • Muslim

soundoff (414 Responses)
  1. monica7c

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    August 17, 2014 at 11:12 am |
    • Doris

      spam

      August 17, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
  2. austin929

    who can I talk to to get an I.P address allowed back on the blog?

    August 13, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
    • LaBella

      Hey, Austin.
      Try emailing the editor, Daniel Burke.

      August 13, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
      • austin929

        How's it going? thanks buddy. ( wink)

        August 13, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
        • LaBella

          My pleasure, Austin. Hope it helps.
          Going well. Hope things are good for you, also.

          August 18, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
  3. awanderingscot

    "In the light what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as a "proof" for their beliefs. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who based their argument upon the dates. The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.

    ’This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read’."

    Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, Anthropological Journal of Canada

    August 11, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
    • ragansteve1

      Hmm, when was this written?

      August 13, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
    • observer

      awanderingscot,

      As is TYPICAL in your "research" you are quoting from an article written 33 years ago. We've made NO PROGRESS is dating techniques since then, right?

      August 13, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
      • ragansteve1

        So, how much progress have you made? And why does it matter?

        August 13, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
        • observer

          ragansteve1,

          In the 33 years since that ONE PERSON'S article, we have gained MORE CONFIDENCE in the dating methods used.

          Do you think the world is closer to MILLIONS of years old or 6,000 years old?

          August 13, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          It matters because dating techniques are one of the many scientific tools that creationists deny are accurate; that way they can pretend that creationists are really right sticking to their Bronze Age superstitions. The same scientific principle is used for the atomic clocks that make GPS accurate – I don't see creationists blaming GPS for the fact that they're lost.

          August 13, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          Observer, Well, I would guess billions is closer to millions, so . . . . But that is just one Christian's answer. In any case, the important part is Genesis 1:1. After that, it is open to debate among reputable theologians.

          August 13, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          Santa, So, THAT's how you get everywhere on time! Cool!

          August 13, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
    • jbhollen

      awanderingscot as well as most apologists can't defend any of the supernatural events (or natural ones for that matter) in their religious dogma so they find perceived gaps in verified science such as carbon dating and evolution and they worship those perceived gaps as fervently as they do their deity itself. Hundreds of years ago there was not much scientifically proven out in the natural world so religion had carte blanche to explain it all mystically. Over time most mysteries have been scientifically explained leaving less and less to be assigned to the supernatural whim of deities. It causes the faithful to panic and attack all things scientific.

      August 13, 2014 at 8:55 pm |
    • Keith

      Only fundamentalists need the bible to be the literal truth in order for their faith to be in tact. How sad that you need to deny science and technology to believe in your god.

      August 14, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
  4. 19covenant19

    Jesus Christ has already returned

    with BIBLICAL EXCELLENT MIRACLES

    for all Nations on earth now!

    http://www.19covenant19.com

    August 10, 2014 at 6:54 am |
    • Keith

      Isn't that some stupid stuff on that Web site

      August 14, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
  5. Doris

    Some friends of mine invited me to their church once to hear this man speak as a guest. His talk was very interesting. I'd love to know what his thoughts are on the current situation. Maybe the BB folks should consider asking him to write something here on this subject, at this time.

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

    August 5, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
    • Keith

      I like that guy. He tells the truth about Israel and he is a Jewish man

      August 14, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
  6. bostontola

    scot:

    "i don't believe humans are animals"
    ==>mammal (mām'əl)
    Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals whose young feed on milk that is produced by the mother's mammary glands. Check.
    Unlike other vertebrates, mammals have a diaphragm that separates the heart and lungs from the other internal organs, Check.
    Red blood cells that lack a nucleus, Check.
    Has hair or fur, Check.
    All mammals but the monotremes bear live young, check.
    There are many more distinguishing features at the detail level like the middle ear, tooth replacement, as well as molecular distinctions in metabolism, DNA, and immune system that all put humans squarely as mammals. Of course, mammals are animals.

    "Evolution is complete and utter nonsense."
    ==>Speaks for itself.

    "There are absolutely no organisms with less than 100% of the eye given to them for the purpose intended."
    ==>There are animals that live in dark places that have vestigial eyes that function well below 100%, some don't work at all like the Tetra cave fish. Some people spew pseudo-facts incessantly. They apparently have no shame because they come right back with more bald face assertions that are false. Very sad.

    August 5, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      "There are animals that live in dark places that have vestigial eyes that function well below 100%, some don't work at all like the Tetra cave fish."

      – The eye(s) that have been given to them work exactly as they were intended, no more and no less. The eyes they have don't function like an eagle's eye BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HUNTING RABBITS OR FISH. It is sad that you cannot comprehend this in your zeal to deny an intelligent creator.

      – Scripture is explicit in stating that God created animals and only after that created humans. If humans were just another animal, then scripture would have said so and would have said something to the effect that "among the animals God created a special animal." God's word is emphatic that man was created separately and in God's image. It is sad that you cannot understand this, even more sad that you cannot even give even a small thanks to your creator.

      August 5, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        "... scripture would have said so..."

        Just like scripture would have said if there were one or two women who supposedly found an empty tomb? Or the number of angels?

        Not that scripture means anything, but I find it interesting that scripture is absolutely explicit when such is needed and somewhat va.gue when details would be inconvenient.

        August 5, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
        • believerfred

          Scripture is clear as to truth when God reveals absolutes and opaque when man reveals his (mans) vision of truth. One is timeless while the other time and culture sensitive.

          August 5, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          And you're saying that because your supposed God listed humans last that that means that man is absolutely not an animal, is that it? Convenient that.

          August 5, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
        • observer

          2014 at 8:37 pm | Reply

          believerfred

          "time and culture sensitive" is a standard EXCUSE for many of the terrible things God did in the Old Testament. You should know.

          August 5, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Or are you saying that the resurrection was a "man's truth"?

          August 5, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          I am not sure why you have difficulty with this concept but i suspect it may be that you do not wish to come into His light.
          – 6 people, unrelated, observe a extraordinary event
          – some 20 years later they are requested to write down their recollection of the event, separately.
          – the accounts will always vary in detail according to the recollection of that person. some people remember details that others do not. It does not make the account factually untrue.
          – historians most often rely on not their own observations, but the observations of others.
          – when placed side by side the accounts given of the resurrection of Christ do not contradict each other at all
          – there were those who witnessed firsthand the signs and wonders of Christ and still did not believe. there is no reason to assume that people such as yourself would believe if they were to observe Christ's glory for themselves.

          August 5, 2014 at 9:37 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: (don't know why i'm even bothering to entertain a troll, but here it goes.)

          "– some 20 years later they are requested to write down their recollection of the event, separately."

          20 seconds after an event happens, 20 people will give you 20 different things that happen. so 20 years later, i highly doubt any of said "eye witnesses" would have even remembered a tenth of required data.

          now for the fun part; 20 years after jesus "supposedly" died, they wrote down their stories. so here is the question; how many years past before those stories were officially assembled into the "holy bible"? (hint it wasn't 20 years.)

          August 6, 2014 at 8:31 am |
      • Doris

        Scotty: "BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HUNTING RABBITS OR FISH"

        Goodness, no wonder they keep finding piles of dead fish in odd places like they've been blown out of the water.

        August 5, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
      • evolveddna

        Scotty.. I wonder if you met some one who said they were Jesus resurrected..would you believe them as a matter of faith or demand some proof. What if he or she said that there was to be no magic..nothing at all to tell you he, or she, was any thing other than human and they were to test your faith and demanded servitude would you do it? As you do not know your god or Jesus other then via feelings what would you do?

        August 6, 2014 at 12:06 am |
        • awanderingscot

          I know God in ways besides feelings, my soul and spirit know Him now; prior to being born-again my spirit was dead. I also know Him for the miracles He has done in my life, the transformation He has worked in me. Only one born-again will "see the kingdom of God" and I hope this will done for you as well.

          August 6, 2014 at 8:08 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          you "know" god, which is to say you have convinced yourself with no evidence whatsoever that what you imagine to be "god" exists.
          You do not actually know any such thing.
          There are too many other possibilities for anyone to be certain of anything, considering the complete and total lack of any information at all.
          Delusion is not knowledge.

          August 6, 2014 at 8:20 am |
        • awanderingscot

          this is a childish assertion of yours. you say that because it hasn't happened to you that it didn't happen. immature and illogical

          August 6, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • evolveddna

          Scott.. In other words you would not have a clue..but the good news is it will never happen.

          August 6, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
      • rogerthat2014

        "Scripture is explicit in stating that God created animals and only after that created humans."

        It's also explicit in stating that God created light before he created the sun and stars. Did God use a giant lightbulb before he created the sun? He also created vegetation before he created the sun. I guess it was a giant greenhouse lightbulb.

        August 6, 2014 at 3:17 am |
        • awanderingscot

          There are many sources of light as we know, both 'natural' and 'artificial'. There are many different spectrums of light as well we've divided into 2 categories, visible and invisible. It's not inconceivable that light was 24×7 before He created as a source the sun, moon, and stars. God is Himself the source of all light and is not limited by the dimensions we know.

          August 6, 2014 at 8:18 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          The moon is not an illuminary, and it is just as likely to be seen during the day as might. The moon is a rock, and REFLECTS light, does not produce it. Just another place the bible is wrong.

          August 6, 2014 at 8:22 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "The moon is not an illuminary," – F

          – nope, you're wrong, the moon is a reflective illuminary.

          August 6, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • LaBella

          The moon is lumative, as it relates to the celestial bodies...the sun produces light, making it illumative. The moon is a reflective lumative, as it produces no light of its own.

          August 6, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Latin luminatus, past participle of luminare to illuminate, light up, from lumin-, lumen light

          – no reference to the source of the light at all and the moon certainly lights up the night, especially when it's full. igaftr is such a conceited a$$ who thinks he knows more than what he really does.

          August 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
        • evolveddna

          Scotty...Your creator could have made us any way she wanted to .she could make a rock come to life if she really wanted..at least in your world. Why would she give us so many organs and complicate what could be a very simple process. She could have make us to see in the dark..no light needed, made us not requiring food, or water...just think no starving millions, no children dying of thirst....its almost as if we actuality evolved......

          August 6, 2014 at 11:49 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          OK, I've done this debate before and have no great interest in revisiting it. I will just say that "young earth creationists" are only one of five different creation theories that are supported by theologians of varying degrees of, shall we say, rigidity. These inconsistencies cannot be resolved in the YEC theory to the satisfaction of anyone but their membership. At least two of the other theories allow for these supposed inconsistencies without any damage to the Bible's account.

          August 13, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        "Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."

        (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

        August 11, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
    • SeaVik

      "i don't believe humans are animals"

      Um, it isn't a matter of belief. You're just wrong, by definition. I honestly wonder how someone comes to such naive views.

      August 6, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
  7. bostontola

    scot: "so ok, let me remind you then. i don't believe humans are animals"

    Are humans mammals?

    August 5, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Humans aren't animals. Humans are God's special-ed tumors that he gave free will too...

      August 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
  8. lunchbreaker

    King's Hawaiin?

    August 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Good bread for sammiches

      August 5, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Hawaii... That's a fun board game!

        August 5, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        One of the best breads. Although I am also partial to Cobblestone Mills onion rolls.

        August 5, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          lunch: i love russian pumpernickle toasted with butter. ahhhhhhh it's sooooo great.

          August 7, 2014 at 7:05 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          i could only ever do onion rolls with a good soup to dunk it into. -smacking lips- now i'm getting hungry. lmao

          August 7, 2014 at 7:06 am |
    • bostontola

      'ono

      August 5, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
  9. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    Nuke 'em all and let Odin sort them out....

    August 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Instead of a Nuke Odin could send Thor and Beta Ray Bill.

      August 5, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Is Beta Ray Bill a Houyhnhnm?
        A horse is a horse, of course of course...

        August 5, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          And a Norse is a Norse,
          And a Norse can talk to a horse of course
          But a Horse couldn't talk to a Norse of course
          unless the horse just happened to be the famous beta Ray Bill.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          BRAVO! *slow clap*

          August 5, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
  10. SeaVik

    Religion has everything to do with the crisis in the middle east. It has been shown that people raised with religion are less able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. If you can't tell what is real, you can convince yourself to believe that immoral behavior is justified. The world would be a much more peaceful and moral place without religion.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149

    August 5, 2014 at 10:52 am |
    • igaftr

      If you go to the middle east, you will find America referred to as "The Great Satan" and Isreal referreed to as "The Little Satan".

      Thinking religion does not enter into it is foolish.

      August 5, 2014 at 10:55 am |
      • Doris

        You're probably right. There goes my bright idea to send Maybe Martha Stewart to the Middle East to broker peace. She's Catholic – but the woman knows how to make a deviled egg.

        August 5, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • Doris

          oops – scratch Maybe..lol..not part of Martha's name...

          August 5, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
  11. Rynomite

    Is religion the cause of most wars? Or the wars in the middle east in particular? No.

    War is ever and always started by powerful men being at odds with other powerful men over land, resources, money, etc.

    That said, such men have always found religion to be a useful tool to recruit the simple minded to their causes.

    August 5, 2014 at 10:49 am |
    • bostontola

      Succinct and to the point, well done.

      August 5, 2014 at 11:06 am |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      while I agree to your point, this fight in the middle east over land has been going on for more than 2000 years and the land has been assigned "sacred" status by those fighting over it and thus they have turned the war over land into an ideological religious war that would still rage regardless of who controls the land. It is this supposed sacred nature of the land that keeps them fighting with no chance of relocation some of them to another piece of land because they don't want any other piece of land, they want their sacred ancestors land.

      August 5, 2014 at 11:51 am |
      • crittermomagain

        Is it the sacredness of the land that makes it desirable, or the desirability of the land that makes them emphasize its sacredness?

        August 5, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          According to the bible it has always been the desirableness of the land that made it sacred as the Hebrew God promised them a land flowing with milk and honey.

          August 5, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
    • ragansteve1

      If you leave it at that, precisely, "well said!"

      August 13, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
  12. Reality

    Religion is the major reason for the terror and horror in the Mideast. Time to get rid of archaic beliefs. Details previously presented.

    August 5, 2014 at 10:23 am |
  13. revrickm

    Interesting. In this discussion, the representatives of each religion used a lot of words but really didn't say anything. In particular, the Muslim representative mentioned that they all must look to scripture to address how conflicts should be resolved. That's all fine, but since Muslims only accept the Quran as valid scripture, does that mean the Christians and Jews must also accept the Quran as valid scripture? That's already a non-starter, so they are back exactly where they began - shooting at each other.

    August 5, 2014 at 9:26 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Muslims believe in the the "Torah" as revealed to Moses, the "Zaboor" (Psalms) as revealed David, the "Injeel" (Gospel) which was given to Jesus, and the Qur'an given to Muhammad.
      That being said, they're also taught that current versions of everything but the Koran have been altered and edited since the initial revelations and are thus unreliable.

      August 5, 2014 at 10:00 am |
    • Reality

      Once again, the peaceful solution to the religion problem of the Middle East and every other location on this Earth:

      Part I:

      From the studies of Armstrong, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, Richardson and Bayhaqi----–

      The Five Steps To Deprogram 1400 Years of Islamic Myths:

      ( –The Steps take less than two minutes to finish- simply amazing, two minutes to bring peace and rationality to over one billion lost souls- Priceless!!!)

      Are you ready?

      Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

      The First Five of the 77 Branches:

      "1. Belief in Allah"

      aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc. should be added to your self-cleansing neurons.

      "2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

      Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gi-b G-nab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "crea-tionist".

      "3. To believe in the existence of angels."

      A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/de-vils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hitt-ites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ug-ly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as f–airies and "tin–ker be-lls". Modern de-vils are classified as the de-mons of the de-mented.

      "4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

      Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

      Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the un-educated masses in line. Today we call them for-tune tellers.

      Prophecies are also invali-dated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

      "5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
      be upon him) alone."

      Mohammed spent thirty days "fasting" (the Ramadan legend) in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic vi-olence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallu-cinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

      Walk these Five Steps and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

      Unfortunately, there are not many Muslim commentators/readers on this blog so the "two-minute" cure is not getting to those who need it. If you have a Muslim friend, send him a copy and help save the world.

      Analogous steps are available at your request for deprogramming the myths of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Paganism..

      August 5, 2014 at 10:27 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        The Five Steps To Deprogram 1400 Years of Islamic Myths:

        1. Notify NORAD of fire mission
        2. Notify allies to evacuate area
        3. Alert launch crews with authenticated fire mission
        4. Provide targeting data to launch crews
        5. Strike middle east until it is a glass parking lot

        August 5, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • Reality

          A bit much as a social media storm against religion would not involve evaporating a large portion of the human race. Details previously presented.

          August 5, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          lucifer: nah, to easy.

          use a small yield satellite guided missle to take our the 6 spots they argue over.

          1. Church of the Holy Sepulchre

          2. Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock

          3. The Western Wall

          4. Mount Zion

          6. Mount of Olives

          sorry number 5 isn't contested over, it's just "the road jesus walked......to pretend to die."

          August 5, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Do you think they would stop fighting if their sites are schwacked? Or just find some other reason to continue.

          August 5, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          lucifer: i'm pretty certain they would continue, i just say blow them up for the fun of it; no reason. lmao

          August 5, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Nuke 'em all and let Odin sort them out...

          August 5, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          I don't think I would want to park there for about 10,000 years. But other than that, and it's a little extreme, OK.

          August 13, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
      • ragansteve1

        May I suggest that you try to persuade the ISIL or Boko Haram folks that they should take the five steps. If you do so in person, I guarantee that it will solve all of your earthly problems.

        August 13, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • observer

          ragansteve1

          "I guarantee that it will solve all of your earthly problems."

          Nope. Religious differences (and wars from them) will continue. There will still be people like the most radical Muslims who follow MANY of the same commands issued by God in the Bible when he set up all the rules before changing his mind.

          August 13, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          But YOUR problems will be well over, as will your life.

          August 13, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
  14. zhilla1980wasp

    for all those interested in reading a heart wrenching story that lead to deconversion; follow link below. i'm normally not a link troll, but this story truly moved me.

    http://new.exchristian.net/2014/07/my-exodus-from-christianity.html

    August 5, 2014 at 9:06 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      When someone asks: “How can a good and loving God allow evil to exist?” it reveals that the person assumes that man is “inherently good.” Because they think that man is inherently good, and generally deserving of a good life and good things, if God is good, then He can’t allow evil to exist because that would cause man to suffer – and we don’t deserve suffering.

      These questions are usually asked by someone who does not believe in God in an effort to defend themselves in their disbelief, but in bringing up questions about evil, they are admitting that there must be a standard for morality – a standard of right and wrong. Logically, if there is good and evil, then there is a moral law, then there must be a moral law giver – they are revealing that deep in their minds, they agree with Romans 1:18-32 that they DO believe in God, but they have suppressed that knowledge with their sins.

      Indeed the question must be flipped around, assuming that God alone is good, not man. Ask the question this way: “How on earth can a holy and righteous God know what I did, and thought, and said on yesterday, and not kill me in my sleep last night…”

      Until you understand the question like this, then you are going to think that there is some individual somewhere that deserves something other than the total wrath of Almighty God. So why are we still here? Why has He not consumed each and every one of us, because no one can say that they have not sinned against Him.

      The short answer is that God allows evil to exist in this world because He has a purpose for it.

      Think of it like this: Romans 3:5 says that our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God… God is not the author of evil, He did not create it, but He ordains it because had a plan for it. And God’s ultimate plan is His own glorification... In eternity past, God determined to put His attributes on display, and in order to do that, He had to create a people who would be sinners – in so doing, God’s attributes of love, mercy, forgiveness, and grace would be demonstrated through the salvation of the elect. And in the same way, God’s attributes of hate for evil, justice, and wrath would be demonstrated in those who refuse to love Him. Thereby, for all eternity, the elect will forever glorify God in His mercy, and the damned will forever glorify God in His justice.

      August 5, 2014 at 9:15 am |
      • Doris

        I think you miss the boat in a big way with regard to someone who doesn't hold a belief in the Abrahamic God, Theo. But I suspect it is intentional. What's quite obvious is that you want to put all non-believers in the same bucket regarding the intent of such a question as a prerequisite for the subsequent claims that you make.

        If a non-believer asks “How can a good and loving God allow evil to exist?”, they are probably not making any claim about the nature of man. Since they do not believe in God, they must obviously be wondering how the believer rationalizes what they claim as good and evil within their worldview with respect to the involvement or non-involvement of their God.

        Your arguments regarding a "moral law giver" merely echo your belief, but I see you argument as to the intent of such a question misleading. Therefore, I see your argument that "they are admitting that there must be a[n objective**] standard for morality" as specious.

        ** I add this here since you are attempting to define a specific type of morality. Let's be clear on what you mean – objective as in free from subjective interpretation/human influence – as in "divine".

        August 5, 2014 at 9:50 am |
        • Doris

          typo correction – first line of third paragraph: ...your argument...

          August 5, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • awanderingscot

          so you don't believe there is good and evil Doris? Is it only survival of the fittest in your materialistic world?

          August 5, 2014 at 10:14 am |
        • Doris

          I would think before a fruitful discussion can occur on morality, one should be clear on the terms they use, Scotty. So define good and evil in your worldview. Can you demonstrate a universal value of "good" or "evil" where the source is/has been free from human interpretation/influence?

          August 5, 2014 at 10:24 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "Can you demonstrate a universal value of "good" or "evil" where the source is/has been free from human interpretation/influence?"

          Of course he can't. That's like asking a jellyfish to tap dance. All concepts of good and evil come from humans and thus all morality is subjective and humans are the subjects. If it hurts us or others, makes us cry, makes us or others feel bad, then we label it "bad" or "evil". If we enjoy it and it makes us and others feel good then we label it good. It's all relative, as in, you don't really care whats happening to someone else unless it's you or your relative...

          August 5, 2014 at 11:56 am |
      • zhilla1980wasp

        theo: "The short answer is that God allows evil to exist in this world because He has a purpose for it."

        ok so you have a purpose for leaving the bleach bottle open in the floor with the hope that your child won't drink from it theo?
        "ummmm now children i'm leaving this open bottle of bleach on the floor, do not drink from it or you will make me angry;given just because i told you not to do this, i already know you will anyhow. once you do what i know you will, i'm kicking you out of the house."

        your "father's" idea of love doesn't sound very loving.

        August 5, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • awanderingscot

          God did not leave "a bottle of bleach opened on the floor". very bad analogy you've come up with.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: lmao are you really going to debate me on an analogy?

          August 5, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Well, you made a patently absurd claim so it would follow that you should provide some non-subjective proof of it.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Sin is not harmful because it is forbidden, it is forbidden because it is harmful. When you commit treason against your creator and know full well the consequences you are deserving of death. Free will was given but the exercise thereof could easily have been in harmony with God's will. They willfully disobeyed.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • Doris

          "Sin is not harmful because it is forbidden, it is forbidden because it is harmful. "

          Lol. (visualizing the hamster in its wheel)

          August 5, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • igaftr

          "When you commit treason against your creator "
          What creator? There is only a hypothesis of "creator".

          Considering the FACT that there is no evidence whatsoever of any such thing, trying to claim this "creator" has any authority uis completely pointless, until you can show this "creator" exists, and then that it actually has any authority.

          Considering no one has ever been able to accomplish it to this point, you have your work cut out for you.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:38 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Proving a creator to you is not my job. Your job will be to convince Him when you kneel before Him that you deserve to live.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • SeaVik

          "Proving a creator to you is not my job."

          Um, yes it is if you want to continue to make delusional claims about its existence. If I constantly posted claims that I rode a unicorn to work today, I would be expected to provide some evidence or if I couldn't, I would be rightly labeled delusional.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:00 am |
        • igaftr

          "Proving a creator to you is not my job. Your job will be to convince Him when you kneel before Him that you deserve to live."

          Hilarious scot....that is really funny. Unbelieveably ironic scot, but thanks for playing.

          You DEMAND evidence from evryone else, but can't put up, so shut up scot...you are just too funny, and very pathetic.

          You of course realize that you have to die in battle to enter Valhalla, right? go on, pul the other one scot.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:07 am |
        • igaftr

          seavik
          "If I constantly posted claims that I rode a unicorn to work today,"

          First I would assume you are female, and then secondly, can I pet it..please?

          August 5, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: my claim isn't any more absurd than your claim of an all knowing, all loving, all present "father" figure, that left an "bottle of bleach" (aka. tree of knowledge) in his child's play area and expected it not to be curious when a "serpent" told it you will understand the same as your "father".

          now that is absurd; even worse is modern humans still believe this BS and uss the contents to cause pain, suffering, denial of human rights, excuses for abusing women and children, the theft of lands both in the americas and the rest of the world.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:22 am |
        • SeaVik

          You can pet it if you can find it. I forgot to mention it's invisible.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          seavik: after igaftr i want a turn on your unicorn.......i brought it funyuns....man! lmfao

          August 5, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • Mance Rayder

          awanderingscot: "when you kneel before Him"

          We do not kneel.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Mance
          KNEEL BEFORE ZOD.... wait, I mean uh... GOD!

          August 5, 2014 at 11:42 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          i love this part of avengers. great example of religion vs. common sense.

          Loki: [teleporting to the front of a fleeing crowd] Kneel before me. [the crowd flees the other way; Loki teleports in that direction]

          I said…KNEEL!!! [slams the staff on the ground, releasing a thunderous shockwave that scares the crowd into submission]

          Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It is the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power. For identi ty. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.

          your disasocative disorder god is the same as loki in this movie: an evil dictator, screaming KNEEL!

          the following part is my favorite:

          Old German Man: [stands up] Not to men like you.
          Loki: [smirking] There are no men like me.
          Old German Man: There are always men like you.
          Loki: Look to your elder, people. Let him be an example!

          i have always refused to kneel; because i can't see their intentions if i am looking at their boots.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:54 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        @Theo
        In a previous discussion, you admitted to the reality of moral relativism when it comes to statutory ra/pe.
        (ie: It was moral for 12-14 year old Mary to wed a 30+ year old Joseph in Biblical times, but it isn't considered moral today).
        You never answered whether you considered Ancient Greek pederasty to be moral given that is was customary in that time and place, just as what today would be considered statutory ra/pe was customary in ancient Israel.

        August 5, 2014 at 10:06 am |
        • awanderingscot

          What evidence do you have that Mary was 12-14yrs old?

          August 5, 2014 at 10:15 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          In ancient Hebrew culture, 12-15 was the normal age for a girl to marry.
          That's what the Bat Mitvah is about.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Puberty and coming to the age of accountability were not necessarily synonymous with marriage although it was legal to be married afterwards.

          – again, what proof do you have that Mary was 12 or 13yrs old when she married Joseph?

          August 5, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • SeaVik

          awanderingscott, why do you think you get to ask for proof when you continue to claim the evolution has not occurred, but have not offerred a single piece of evidence (much less anything that could be considered remotely close to proof)?

          August 5, 2014 at 10:46 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          OK Scot – let's remove reference to Mary from the entire equation, as it is irrelevant to the point.

          In Ancient Hebrew culture, it was customary for girls as young as 13 to be married to men much older than them.
          This was considered moral and ethical for God's Chosen People.
          Today, such a relationship is considered immoral.
          This demonstrated that when it comes to statutory ra/pe, morality is relative.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • awanderingscot

          SeaVik, have you been playing chess with your dog today?

          August 5, 2014 at 10:59 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "This demonstrated that when it comes to statutory ra/pe, morality is relative"

          – Mary, a good friend of Elizabeth whom scripture describes as an older woman, in all likelihood Mary was not 12-15 yrs
          – a father is not going to give away an unwilling daughter in marriage and therefore it would not be rap-e.
          – only an evil and twisted mind would suppose a Jewish father and mother would allow a daughter to be rap-ed.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:06 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          Do you understand what "statutory ra/pe" means?
          Do you believe a 13 year old is capable of giving informed consent?

          August 5, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • SeaVik

          "SeaVik, have you been playing chess with your dog today?"

          I claimed that my dog has emotions and intelligence last week and scott seems to think this is something to use against me. In his fantasy world, animals don't experience pain or emotions. That, and the universe is run by a fairy.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:26 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "Do you understand what "statutory ra/pe" means? Do you believe a 13 year old is capable of giving informed consent?"

          – why do you foolishly insist on applying modern laws to ancient rites and customs? We live in a different day, what part of that don't you understand?

          August 5, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • awanderingscot

          SeaVik, your stupidity is overwhelming. I never once stated that animals don't experience pain or emotions.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          Thanks for reinforcing the point I'm making.
          Theo says that all morality is objective because it is the absolute, unchanging, inerrant Word of God.
          But if statutory ra/pe was moral to Ancient Hebrews but is not moral in today's culture, that means that morality is relative.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering
          "– a father is not going to give away an unwilling daughter in marriage and therefore it would not be rape."

          Still happens in many countries – just need to indoctrinate early for best compliance.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "
          – a father is not going to give away an unwilling daughter in marriage and therefore it would not be rap-e."

          Give away? no, the bible specifies he sells her. The ra.p.ist just pays 50 sheckles of silver. According to the bible, a man ra.p.ing a girl, is ok...SHE carries the stain of impurity, so the ra.p.ist pays for her and marries her.

          STILL practiced in Morocco, and results in many young women killing themselves to escape the ra.p.ist.

          Straight out of YOUR bible scot, and is current today.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:50 am |
        • SeaVik

          "SeaVik, your stupidity is overwhelming. I never once stated that animals don't experience pain or emotions."

          You might not want to call other people stupid when you go around denying evolution. Ok, so then what exactly is your point about me playing chess with my dog? You're clearly trying to imply SOMETHING. Why don't you state it clearly so that there is no misunderstanding what you actually think.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "But if statutory ra/pe was moral to Ancient Hebrews but is not moral in today's culture, that means that morality is relative"

          – it was not statutory ra-pe at that time. what part of that don't you get?
          – these are man's laws and not God's. what part of that don't you get?
          – go ahead and believe what you want to believe, it's a free country.

          August 5, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          SeaVik

          – so ok, let me remind you then. i don't believe humans are animals and you do. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

          August 5, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: awwwwww poor baby. you lost an arguement and now you're throwing a tempertantrum just like your "father" taught you too.

          good boy.

          August 5, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • joey3467

          So, the entire bible is the inspired word of god, except for the part about selling rap.e victims to the r.apist?

          August 5, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: " i don't believe humans are animals"

          even though you say that you are a smacking image of a big dumb ape.

          August 5, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "Give away? no, the bible specifies he sells her. The ra.p.ist just pays 50 sheckles of silver. According to the bible, a man ra.p.ing a girl, is ok...SHE carries the stain of impurity, so the ra.p.ist pays for her and marries her."

          – i've explained this to you before but obviously you will believe what you want to believe.
          – the customs of courtship and betrothal was mediated by the priests.
          – a very similar custom existed for young men who entered into an apprenticeship
          – both were voluntary and were similar to indentured servitude.

          August 5, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • joey3467

          Humans aren't animals? That is the first I have heard of that.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Funny , but I've nefer seen you explain anything.
          The FACT is that a man ra.p.es a young woman...he is caught...the man then pays 50 sheckles of silver ( or today's equivelent) to her father, and then marries her. The VICTIM, gets no say and the stain of impurity is on HER, not the attacker.

          Straight out of your bible, and still being practiced today.
          you can rationalize it all you want but the FACT remains, that is what is being practiced, and many young girls and women kill themselves to end the abuse.
          Just one of the many sick things brought to you by the man made bible.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          ". i don't believe humans are animals and you do. We'll just have to agree to disagree"

          No , we'll have to agree you are wrong.
          Why do you believe that? If we are not animals, what are we?
          We are animals, hominids, mammals, apes...ALL evidence proves it beyond any doubt. Just because YOU claim we are not just means you refuse to accept reality, but we already knew that.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • crittermomagain

          Arranged child marriages in ancient times were voluntary for the bride? I guess if you consider, "You have the choice to marry the man I choose for you or I will have you stoned to death for disobedience" voluntary, you have a point. Otherwise, not so much.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          Is a 13 year old capable of giving informed consent when it comes to s.ex and/or marriage?

          August 5, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          (ie: It was moral for 12-14 year old Mary to wed a 30+ year old Joseph in Biblical times, but it isn't considered moral today)
          --------------–
          In order to prove your point that morality is relative, at least in this particular case of the age of marriage, you would have to first show me in scriture where the Bible dictates the age at which people should or should not get married.

          It doesn't give one.

          Since the age of marriage is never given in the Bible, and it doesn't violate any of the 10 commandments for a pubescent woman to marry a 30 year old man, then you are referring merely to societal norms rather than morality.

          Besides all this, since Mary's age is never given in scripture, we only as.sume her age by tradition, and traditions are not always correct.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          no Zilla, i am amused by your immaturity. LOL

          August 5, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          So insofar as God is concerned, pedophilia is a non-issue because there is no explicit prohibition.
          Good to know.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          So insofar as God is concerned, pedophilia is a non-issue because there is no explicit prohibition.
          -----------------–
          You draw a conclusion based on an ignorance of the moral character and law of God, as well as an ignorance of the culture of 1st century Jewish life.

          In the culture that we live now, we almost try to prevent children from growing up. We put them in classrooms grouped with others of their own age, and as well, we put them in youth groups at church, separating them from the adults that they will one day become. By putting them far away from those who are more mature than they are, we are preventing maturity from taking root.

          In that day and age, things were different. Children were required to grow up as quickly as possible that they may help the family to survive.

          Maturity is a direct result of environment and nurture, and when a people nurture a child into maturity at a much younger age than do people today, it's not hard to see that, even if Mary was 14 years old, that wouldn't be a stretch.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          You say that morality is absolute and unchanging because it comes from God.
          Then you assert that certain things, like statutory ra/pe and/or pedophilia, aren't a matter for Godly morals, only relativistic societal ethics.
          Ergo, statutory ra/pe and/or pedophilia aren't sinful in the eyes of God, only unethical in a societal context.
          Meaning that while an earthly court can throw you in jail for such an offense, the Divine posthumous Judge won't throw you into Hell for such an action.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: do me a favor; pray to your god to stop causing parents horrible pain and suffering by giving them a still-born child.
          if we never read stories of still-birth children, then i'm certain you will win converts; until then your "sky-father" is a delusion of human creation.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • LaBella

          The Bible is full of oral tradition, and we've seen that's not so correct, either

          August 5, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          You say that morality is absolute and unchanging because it comes from God.
          --------------------
          Precisely. Because morality is defined in Exodus 20 in the 10 Commandments.

          Then you assert that certain things, like statutory ra/pe and/or pedophilia, aren't a matter for Godly morals, only relativistic societal ethics.
          ------------------–
          Define terms in context. What you are calling statutory ra/pe and pedophilia are legal terms to define sitations and acts in today's society. Few people would approve today of a marriage between a 14 year old and a 30 year old (Once again, as.suming that Mary was that age, which we honestly don't know). But we are speaking of the marriage of a young vi.rg.in in 1st century Palestine. An age of maturity today is MUCH older than that of a 1st century Jewish man or woman. You may not like this answer, but, although morality IS absolute, this is NOT a moral issue. It is one of societal norms. If this is actually a moral issue, I would that someone would show me in scripture. (I mean that honestly)

          Ergo, statutory ra/pe and/or pedophilia aren't sinful in the eyes of God, only unethical in a societal context.
          -----------------------
          No, because you are still not defining terms in context of maturity levels in a society – in context of the contingency of maturity which is almost unspeakable in this day, it was not so then.

          Meaning that while an earthly court can throw you in jail for such an offense, the Divine posthumous Judge won't throw you into Hell for such an action.
          ---------------------------–
          Once again, show me in scripture how a pubescent teen cannot marry. It is not for our society's maturity levels, hence the secular laws of the land, but where is it in the Bible?

          August 5, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Snotty.... you're doing it again... ya know, the embarrassing yourself thing....

          August 5, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • LaBella

          Wasn't Elizabeth Mary's relative?
          When Gabriel came to tell Mary of her imminent pregnancy and she asked him how such a thing could happen to a virgin, didn't he tell her of her relative's pregnancy at Elizabeth's advanced age as proof of God's might? (The baby that resulted was John the Baptist.)
          Have I read it wrong?

          August 5, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          theo: "No, because you are still not defining terms in context of maturity levels in a society"

          lmfao, ok let's see you use that as a defence in your child mole station trial. i imagine you telling the victims parents:
          "but you see she was of a maturity level beyond her years; even though she is 12."

          August 5, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          " It is not for our society's maturity levels, hence the secular laws of the land, but where is it in the Bible?"
          EXACTLY!

          Marriage between a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl isn't immoral in the eyes of God, only unethical in a relativistic, societal context.
          An earthly Judge can throw you in jail, but God won't send you to Hell.

          Now what about Ancient Greek pederasty? That was moral and ethical in its societal context. Such a relationship was supposed to teach maturity.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Basically what you're saying is that statutory ra/pe isn't a matter of absolute morality.
          IT IS RELATIVE TO THE SOCIETAL CONTEXT.

          So are you still certain that morality is objective and absolute?
          Or is it just that pedophilia isn't a moral issue?

          August 5, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          That is correct LaBella, John the Baptist was born to Elizabeth and she was in fact a relative and friend of Mary.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          zhilla1980wasp,
          Is it so hard for you to place yourself into another culture in another time? Perhaps.

          Certain things are wrong simply because they are dictated by society. Not that they are morally correct, or morall wrong, but rather "beneficial" or not.

          For instance, the Bible says "Let no unwholesome word proceed out of your mouth." OK, well, what is unwholesome? I doubt that some of our filth words would mean much to the people of 1st Century Palestine. In the same sense that the use of the word "bloody" may be filthy in England, but not here. Certain "rights" and "wrongs" are actually determined by society. They are not sinful per se, but are either beneficial, or not beneficial.

          One of those also is the age of marriage.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          theo: ok maybe i'm not directing the images the correct way.

          your bible saids i can come to your home; ra pe your virgin daughter and ONLY IF i'm caught i have to pay you money for damaged goods; then marry her.

          now seeing not being a virgin would mean her being put to death....i guess that would be the humain thing to do.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • LaBella

          Thanks, awanderingscot.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "your bible saids i can come to your home; ra pe your virgin daughter and ONLY IF i'm caught i have to pay you money for damaged goods; then marry her. "

          – only in your evil heart and mind do you see this, nowhere in scripture does it say this is what God wants or approves of.

          August 5, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • joey3467

          Sure it does Scot, you should try reading it sometime. It specifically says that r.ape victims should be forced to marry their ra.pist, and that the ra.pist should pay the family of the r.ape victim. So according to the bible if someone comes to your house and r.apes your daughter they should pay you and then you let the ra.pist marry her. Seems to be all spelled out pretty straight forwardly in the bible.

          August 5, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
      • SeaVik

        "The short answer is that God allows evil to exist in this world because He has a purpose for it."

        The much shorter, logical and obvious answer is: There is no god. Ever heard of Occam's razor? Notice how my explanation took four words and yours took a giant confusing diatribe? Hmm...wonder which one is more likely to be correct.

        August 5, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          OK, now apply Occam's Razor to "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."

          August 5, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          Apply that to spending $2,000,000,000,000 and 4,000 lives on a war started by Bush and the Republicans for false reasons.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • LaBella

          "Squirrel!"

          August 5, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          Observer, Dodge and deflect eh?

          LaBella, Are you saying we are nuts?

          August 13, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo

        "When someone asks: “How can a good and loving God allow evil to exist?” it reveals that the person assumes that man is “inherently good.”

        The assumption here actually is that God would be "inherently good". That's where everything fall apart in this discussion.

        August 5, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        Theo, your arguments fail to make logical connections right from the beginning, almost as if you can not seem to decide which path you want your argument to take. You begin with:

        When someone asks: “How can a good and loving God allow evil to exist?” it reveals that the person assumes that man is “inherently good.” Because they think that man is inherently good, and generally deserving of a good life and good things, if God is good, then He can’t allow evil to exist because that would cause man to suffer – and we don’t deserve suffering.

        Now this, as I understand it follows the question fairly logically. I know that when I first began to ask that question, as a fervent believer, this was my train of thought. I could see that the majority of mankind was good, enough to say inherently good, and that the evil that existed was aberrant. This led me to question why evil was allowed to flourish, why good people suffered, why hatred developed from hearts that were made to love.

        Then you said, These questions are usually asked by someone who does not believe in God in an effort to defend themselves in their disbelief, but in bringing up questions about evil, they are admitting that there must be a standard for morality – a standard of right and wrong. Logically, if there is good and evil, then there is a moral law, then there must be a moral law giver – they are revealing that deep in their minds, they agree with Romans 1:18-32 that they DO believe in God, but they have suppressed that knowledge with their sins.

        You jump from a fairly logical start into making a statement you can not defend and segue from that into another statement that you can not defend.

        In my experience, it has been believers who begin to question how a good and just god can allow evil to exist, and for many it leads them on a path of spiritual awakening, either deepening their belief or changing it forever. So, unless you've polled every person who has ever raised the question, you can not say, with any authority, that these questions are usually raised by someone who does not believe in God, let alone that they say it in an effort to defend their disbelief.

        Then you say they are "admitting that there must be a standard for morality" but without any further discussion about that standard, you instantly fall into stating that a moral law must equate a moral law giver. Talk about jumping to conclusions!

        I can agree that there is a standard for morality without needing an incontrovertible moral law or a giver of that law. The standard for morality is simply something decided upon by the society in which you live, whether in written laws or unwritten consensus. There need not be a god for there to be good and evil.

        August 5, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      http://www.icr.org/article/from-evolution-creation-personal-testimony/

      – an equally heartwarming personal testimony of an evolutionist who gave his life to the Lord after being called. I'm not normally a link troll but i found this testimony very compelling.

      August 5, 2014 at 9:31 am |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Evolution is not a religion. Do you have any evidence for creationism?

        August 5, 2014 at 9:50 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        So have you falsified any of the 5 laws that comprise the Theory of Evolution?
        If so, which one(s) and how did you go about it?

        August 5, 2014 at 9:55 am |
        • awanderingscot

          All of them Doc, all have been falsified due to their being a total lack of evidence. Evolution has never happened and it is not happening now. Evolution is complete and utter nonsense.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Which ones and how did you go about falsifying them?
          As previously stated, you would be the first person in over 150 years to do so.
          You've yet to even successfully identify a single one of those laws.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • Doris

          I'm on here quite a bit, Snotty, and I've not seen you falsify anything, much less explain how you went about it.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • awanderingscot

          No Doc, i never claimed to be the first one in 150yrs to falsify evolution. Millions or rational people have done so before me.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          So which of the 5 laws (that you've yet to successfully identify) have been falsified?
          By whom and how?

          August 5, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: "Millions or rational people have done so before me."
          you're right scot it a conspiracy of those evil jews to take over the world; or maybe it's the work of the devil trying to confuse man-kind.

          lmfao if you seriously believe this BS you type, please never procreate you will only harm the gene-pool.

          August 5, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • SeaVik

          Every time I see a post by awanderingscott, the line from Dumb and Dumber pops into my head..."Excuse my friend, he's a little slow." (The town is THAT way!)

          August 5, 2014 at 10:45 am |
        • evidencenot

          "Evolution is complete and utter nonsense."

          The moron has spoken!

          August 5, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
      • igaftr

        Using the ICR for information means you have already lost any argument. There is no actual data there, just a bunch of lame opinions and non-scientists.

        It is both sad and pathetic you think this carries any weight

        August 5, 2014 at 10:16 am |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Ask wandering for evidence of creationism and .... crickets.

        August 5, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • igaftr

          ask ANYONE for evidence of creationism and...crickets

          August 5, 2014 at 11:18 am |
      • MidwestKen

        Awanderingscot,
        http://ncse.com/cej/1/2/evidence-quality-creation-science-research

        An example of Dr. Parker's "evidence", in this case refuted by Dr. Awbrey of San Diego State U.

        August 5, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • awanderingscot

          this is a non-starter, no one can dispute anyone's testimony concerning their personal belief.

          August 5, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          http://www.icr.org/article/from-evolution-creation-personal-testimony/

          – this was the link to the testimony given by Dr. Parker, a former evolutionist and now a believer in God.

          August 5, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Awanderingscot,
          First, any testimony can be disputed if it is contradicted by the facts. For example, if I claim that I saw you rob a bank, then you could easily dispute my testimony with, say video of you being elswhere at the time.

          Second, I wasn't disputing his experience, just his evidence, which is incorrect.

          August 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
  15. Theo Phileo

    Zachariah 12:2-3 – “Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.

    Jerusalem is pictured as a large basin from which the nations will figuratively drink with eagerness, only to find themselves becoming intoxicated, disoriented, and thus easy prey for divine judgment at the end of Daniel's 70th week in the battle of Armageddon when nations gather to attack Jerusalem (Ezekiel 38:1-6, 14-16, Daniel 11:40-44, Revelation 9:13-16, 14:20, 16:12-16).

    Like lifting a heavy weight, Jerusalem will "seriously injure" (literally) any people that try to gain victory over it. This is due to Divine intervention (cross reference Zechariah 12:4-5).

    August 5, 2014 at 8:04 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      Some prophecies about Israel fulfilled since 1948:

      Jacob’s descendants would regain control of Israel
      Bible passage: Amos 9:14-15, written: about 750 BC

      Israel would be brought back to life
      Bible passage: Ezekiel 37:10-14, written: between 593-571 BC

      Isaiah spoke of a Israel being reborn in one day
      Bible passage: Isaiah 66:7-8, written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

      Israel would be re-established as a united nation
      Bible passage: Ezekiel 37:21-22, written: between 593-571 BC

      The second Israel would be more impressive than the first
      Bible passage: Jeremiah 16:14-15, written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC

      The people of Israel would return to “their own land”
      Bible passage: Ezekiel 34:13, written: between 593-571 BC

      God would watch over the people of Israel
      Bible passage: Jeremiah 31:10, written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC

      Israel’s army would be disproportionately powerful
      Bible passage: Leviticus 26:3, 7-8, written: perhaps around 1400 BC

      The fortunes of the people of Israel would be restored
      Bible passage: Deuteronomy 30:3-5, written: perhaps 1400 BC

      There will be another temple built in Jerusalem in the time of the tribulation that is to come. This is foretold in Daniel 9:24-27. (Sacrifices are once again inst.ituted, but you cannot have sacrifices without a temple) The temple will be again desecrated, this time by the anti-Christ when he sits in the place of God, claiming to be God.

      The FINAL temple will be built in the Millennial Kingdom; this will be the Temple of the Messiah, depicted in Ezekiel 43, and will never be desecrated.

      August 5, 2014 at 8:32 am |
      • G to the T

        And the fact that the people that established Israel were aware of these "prophecies" doesn't lessen the impact for you at all?

        August 5, 2014 at 9:16 am |
      • zhilla1980wasp

        theo: "Temple of the Messiah, depicted in Ezekiel 43, and will never be desecrated."

        yup and you know why it won't be desecrated? because it will never be built.

        currently the muslim temple sits where that old temple once sat; good luck asking the muslims to relocate their "holy site." lmfao

        August 5, 2014 at 11:30 am |
    • Bob

      Theo, while you are busily dumping bloody tales on us from your Christian book of nasty, let's take a look at some of the nasty guidances purportedly from your vicious, vengeant "god" that are in that horrid book. From both foul testaments:

      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”

      1 Timothy 2:11
      "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

      Revelation 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/

      August 5, 2014 at 9:59 am |
      • awanderingscot

        1) God will not be judged by you
        2) you will be judged by God
        3) you will not tear anyone from His grip
        4) your interpretation of scripture is from one spiritually dead and thus has no validity.

        August 5, 2014 at 11:28 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Who does the posthumous judging?
          You'll have to answer to Odin if you want to get to Valhalla.
          Or perhaps the 42 judges of the Egyptian afterlife.
          Maybe you'll meet Joseph Smith and need to offer him the secret handshakes and passwords in order to get to highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.
          Maybe St. Peter will review your sins in his book.
          Heaven, Hell, Limbo, Purgatory, Valhalla, The Celestial Kingdom, The Elysian Fields, Sheol, Tartarus, Tlaloc's Garden etc. ad nauseum.
          So many afterlives, each with their respective judges, and each one with different criteria for getting in.

          They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot:

          1) how can you judge an imaginary friend?

          2) how can an imaginary friend judge anyone else?

          3) don't have to tear people from their imaginary friends, we grow up and leave childish things behind us.

          4) scripture is scripture; regardless if you use them to deny other humans their legal rights, or think they are bronze age BS.

          August 5, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Let me correct this-"your interpretation of scripture is from one spiritually dead and thus has no validity."- for you for future reference.

          your interpretation of evolution is from one intellectually dead and thus has no validity.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      That the protagonist in the Torah sequel seems to fulfill the prophecies from the original isn't too surprising. But there are some flagrant holes in the story where the authors obviously cribbed the facts in order to fulfill prophecy.
      To wit, the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem so the authors of the NT invented a circu/mstance in which Christ's parents had to go there to be "taxed and counted".
      But taxation and census taking in the Roman Empire didn't happen that way. They had roving assessors. They didn't force all the itinerant Jews to travel to their ancestral home (1,000 years ago for Joseph!) carrying all of their worldly goods.
      It is a plot device to move the story forward.

      But just about every religion has prophecies.....
      The Koran prophesied a number of things that came t o pass.
      It foresaw fingerprints ("Their skins will bear witness against them as to what they have been doing"), industrial pollution ("Corruption has spread on land and sea because of what men’s hands have wrought" ), genetic engineering ("They will alter Allah's creation."), AIDS ("It never happens that permissiveness overwhelms a people to the extent that they display their acts of s.ex shamelessly and they are not uniquely punished by God. Among them, invariably, pestilence is made to spread and such other diseases, the like of which have never been witnessed by their forefathers." ).

      Many Muslims will tell you that the Quaran prophecies the Moon Landing.
      “The moon has split and the hour has drawn closer” (The Quran, 54:1)
      The astronauts left the moon in the lunar module containing 21 kilograms of rocks that had belonged to the moon.
      The date this prophecy came to pass was on July 21 1969. The moment the prophecy was fulfilled is confirmed by the hour of departure of the lunar module, which left the lunar surface at 17:54:1 (Universal Time) or 1:54:1 (EDT) and as you have seen above, verse [54:1] is the verse that deals with the prophecy.

      Joseph Smith has had a lot of his prophecies come true.
      In late 1832, Smith received a very specific Divine Revelation about the American Civil War which came true.
      "Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
      For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
      And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war."

      In 1831, Joseph prophesied that "Zion shall flourish upon the hills and rejoice upon the mountains, and shall be assembled together unto the place which I have appointed".
      The Mormon Saints migrated to the Rocky Mountains in 1847, several years after Joseph was killed. There they built settlements and cities along stretches of many hundreds of miles in the West, from Canada to Mexico.

      The night before Joseph Smith was killed, as a captive in Carthage Jail, he prophesied that Dan Jones, whose life was clearly at risk, would survive to serve a mission in Wales. This came to pass.

      August 5, 2014 at 11:32 am |
      • zhilla1980wasp

        BLASPHEMER! LMFAO

        August 5, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        But taxation and census taking in the Roman Empire didn't happen that way. They had roving assessors. They didn't force all the itinerant Jews to travel to their ancestral home (1,000 years ago for Joseph!) carrying all of their worldly goods.
        It is a plot device to move the story forward.
        ----------------
        At the risk of going off on a rabbit trail due to this red herring, I must interject. In Luke 2:1, we read of the census by Caesar Augustus. Here's a little history lesson. Caius Octavius, grand-nephew, adopted son, and primary heir to Julius Caesar... Before and after Julius' death in 44BC, the Roman government was constantly torn bypower struggles. Octavius ascended to undisputed supremacy in 31BC by defeating his last remaining rival, Antony, in a military battle at Actium. In 29BC, the Roman senate declared Octavius Rome's first emperor. Two years later they honored him with the ti.tle: "Augustus" ("exalted one" – a term signifying religious veneration).

        Rome's republican government was effectively abolished, and Augustus was given supreme military power. He reigned until his death at age 76 in 14AD. Under his rule, the Roman Empire dominated the Mediterranean region, ushering in a period of great prosperity and relative peace. He ordered "all the inhabited earth" to be counted. This was not merely a one-time census; the decree actually established a cycle of enrollments that were to occur every 14 years.

        Palestine had previously been excluded from the Roman census, because Jews were exempt from serving in the Roman army, and the census was designed primarily to register young men for military service, as well as account for all Roman citizens. This new, universal census was ostensibly to number each nation by family and tribe. Property and income values were not recorded in this registration. But soon the names and population statistics gathered in this census were used for the levying of poll taxes, and the Jews came to regard the census itself as a distasteful symbol of Roman oppression.

        (from the MacArthur Study Bible)

        August 5, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          That still doesn't address the salient point regarding how the itinerant Jews would not have been required to travel to their ancestral homelands (which for Joseph would have been many generations removed) in order to be "taxed and counted".
          If the census was just about counting, why is taxation mentioned in the Bible?

          August 5, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doc, you should pick up a copy of the book that I cited. It would be much easier for you to do that than for me to lay out the whole geopolitical situation at the time.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Nice deflection.
          So you're saying that it is historical fact that the Jewish people had to trace their ancestry up to and including 1000 years prior and then travel to that location in order to be taxed and counted?

          August 5, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • joey3467

          Doc, you are well aware that if the Bible says it then Theo believes it. No matter how ridiculous it may be.

          August 5, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          So you're saying that it is historical fact that the Jewish people had to trace their ancestry up to and including 1000 years prior and then travel to that location in order to be taxed and counted?
          ---------------
          The Jewish people took great pride in their geneologies (to a fault, actually). The Bible is a Jewish book, and look at the geneologies listed in it. And every Jew knew what tribe they were from.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          doc: " geopolitical situation at the time."

          lmao those words didn't even exist during that time period.

          stop dodging the question: can a rap ist purchase the victim from the father. (mind you the mother has no say so as she is property according to god as well.)

          Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV)
          28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and ra pes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          opps meant above for theo; not doc. lmao my bad.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          those words didn't even exist during that time period.
          ----------------
          No kidding. Then again, ENGLISH didn't exist at that time. At least not in any form that you would recognize.

          And as to your Deut. 22:28-29 quote, this is a restatement of Deuteronomy 22:16 – "If a man seduces a vi.rgi.n who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife."

          This is teaching the RESPONSIBILITY of the man for PREMARITAL se.x. And Oh, if only we had THIS law today! Basically, this law is saying that if you're going to have se.x, you're going to pay the father a dowry, and then you are going to get married.

          Kids today have no idea what "going all the way" means. It doesn't mean just to "have s.ex," that's stupid. It means to act like an adult, and marry the woman you love, and you live out the remainder of your lives faithfully together.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          theo: "this is a restatement of Deuteronomy."

          nope i don't trust that version; it is of the devil and will guide me to hell. lmao

          this version is from my sect. it is the correct one that will save your soul and give you life on high. LMFAO.

          "Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV)
          28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and ra pes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
          -----------------

          "Kids today have no idea what "going all the way" means. It doesn't mean just to "have s.ex," that's stupid. It means to act like an adult, and marry the woman you love, and you live out the remainder of your lives faithfully together."

          LMFAO: yeah because the "rule of thumb" had nothing of women being terrified to leave their "one true love" or the fact they would be shamed out of their community or called a harlet or gezibel.
          no that wouldn't be the reason my grandmother lived her entire life with a man that beat her senseless; just like the good old bible told him he could.
          women not having rights to vote or any rights for that matter, wouldn't have anything to do with your "good ol' days" now would it?

          August 5, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          hey theo:

          Deuteronomy 22:16 – "If a man seduces a vi.rgi.n who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife."

          "Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV)
          28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and ra pes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

          what's the difference between these? i mean seriously! they are the identical passages from the same "holy scripture" inspired by GOD HIMSELF. right, right the bible is the word of god!

          which of these is GOD'S WORD?

          the one you like? or the one someone else happens to pick up? hmmmm which one theo? choose right one sends you to he11, the other might get you into heaven.

          August 5, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          LMFAO NICE TRICK THEO:

          your version:Deuteronomy 22:16 – "If a man seduces a vi.rgi.n who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife."

          bible version:…Deuteronomy 22:15then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16"The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.…

          how come yours doesn't match god inspired version? hmmmmmmm

          August 5, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and [ra-pes] her, only the man who has done this shall die. – Deuteronomy 22:25, NIV

          – the penalty for [ra-pe], or "forcible s-ex" was death

          If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and [ra-pes] her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. – Deuteronomy 22:28

          – the penalty for cons-entual s-ex was a payment of 50 shekels of silver and a requirement to marry the girl.

          – the Hebrew word contextually was not [ra-pe] as used in the English language.
          – stop twisting scripture with your evil heart and mind.

          August 5, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          zhilla1980wasp,
          Sorry, typo (I'm sure you never made a typo before) I meant to write EXODUS 22:16... Now your point is moot.

          August 6, 2014 at 8:18 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          scot: "virgin who is not pledged to be married and [ra-pes] her"

          ummm when did ra-pe become concentual?
          lmao "evil heart and mind" well atleast i can say i have both scot; you seem to be lacking in both departments.

          twisting scripture? ummmm that comes right out of your "holy bible"......word for word. so please take it up with the publisher or the interpretor of said words.

          if you don't like what you read, then you can always choose one of the other 30,000 versions of your "inspired by god" non-fallible holy book at your local brainwahsing store. enjoy.

          August 6, 2014 at 8:52 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          theo: why the contradiction?

          exodus 22:16"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. 17"If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.…

          Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV)
          28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and ra pes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
          -----------

          exodus 22:16 deals with violating a virgin woman that isn't yours.
          Deuteronomy 22:28 deals with violating a virgin woman that isn't yours.

          exodus 22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be
          married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price,"

          Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and ra pes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver."

          hmmmm both seem to cover the samething; "bride-price" imo doesn't that mean paying the father money? lmao the bs you christians will believe.

          August 6, 2014 at 9:03 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          theo: why the contradiction?
          -----------
          There is no contradiction.

          In each case (Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29) it was consensual premarital s.ex. Although the passage in Deuteronomy is worded in a manner that tells the reader that the woman was seduced by him, it was not ra/ pe in the strict sense (as was described in verses 25-26), that is, that it was forced upon her... Because of that, the man is required to pay a dowry for and marry her.

          This is teaching responsibility for premarital s.ex, and I wish this was a law in force for today.

          August 6, 2014 at 9:50 am |
        • LaBella

          I'm glad it's not the law today. Want to know why? Because there are folks who think rape is seduction.

          August 6, 2014 at 9:56 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Because there are folks who think ra pe is seduction.
          ----------------
          Sure, but in the verses listed, both were willing participants. According to the Bible, ra pe applies only when one party is forced, and in this case, neither were.

          August 6, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • LaBella

          Theo,
          That in no way addresses what I posted.

          August 6, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
1 2
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.