home
RSS
May 14th, 2012
10:43 AM ET

Televangelist's son preaches tolerance

(CNN)–Jay Bakker, the son of fallen televangelist Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, talks about the politics of gay marriage and tolerance with CNN's Don Lemon.  Bakker is the co-pastor of his own church, Revolution Church in New York City.

Watch CNN Newsroom weekdays 9am to 3pm ET and weekends. For the latest from the CNN Newsroom click here.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: 2012 Election • Belief • Christianity • Church • Gay marriage • Same-sex marriage • TV-CNN Newsroom

soundoff (264 Responses)
  1. Reality

    ONLY FOR THE NEWCOMERS––>>>>>>>>>>

    "Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.

    To wit:

    o The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:

    “ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "

    "Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8

    See also the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”

    Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions are supposed to obey the rules of no adu-ltery or for-nication allowed.

    And because of basic biology differences said monogamous ventures should always be called same-s-ex unions not same-s-ex marriages.

    From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay se-xual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex se-xual differences. Some differences are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell.

    Yes, heteros-exuals practice many of the same "moves" but there is never a doubt who is the female and who is the male.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    May 14, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • 0-0-0

      Your posts are copy& paste over and over repeated crap. What a waste of space. You think someone is really reading them?

      May 14, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • Reality

      YES, SAID NEWCOMERS ARE.

      May 15, 2012 at 8:03 am |
  2. Alger Dave

    Gay marriage is simply unnatural. That's likely why God forbids it in the bible. And, in biblical times, it was inherently a selfish pastime. It still is largely today. Of course, much of our country and world is engaged in selfish activities, so I guess it's not a big surprise that we're moving in this direction. Current selfish stuff we're involved in: voting for the party/candidate who will do the most for me or my group ie: keep the most money in my pocket, or take the most from someone else and give it to me. Let's all grow up and be a little self sacrificing shall we.

    May 14, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      The bible is a collection of 2000 year old bullsh•t fairytales written by as$backwards bronze age goat herders. Its 2012, the bible is irrelevant.

      May 14, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Phony heavensent proves what atheists are all about ... stealing and lying to mention a few sins.

      May 15, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • sam stone

      Equal rights always bother bigots. That is why they frequently wrap themselves in a flag or a bible to get agreement from other bigots. After all, they are just cowards

      May 15, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
  3. HeavenSent

    ... all who behave unrighteously are an abomination to the Lord.

    Deuteronomy 25:16

    Amen.

    May 14, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      ...all who use religion to deny civil rights of others are as$holes.

      Bible is bullsh•t 6:66

      Always has been, always will be.

      May 14, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • danielwalldammit

      Best of luck to you then.

      May 15, 2012 at 5:36 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Phony heavensent, why should you non-believers want Jesus' truth in marriage if you hate Him so much and refuse to abide in Him? Talk about the ultimate hypocrisy!

      May 15, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • sam stone

      Your bible is only valid to those who accept it. As far as the "amen" goes, does it make you feel all pious?

      May 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • sam stone

      Also, Heaven Scent, people cannot hate beings in which they do not believe

      May 15, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
  4. A Serpent's Thought

    Adulterers and adultressers are also an abomination of God's Will! God did never want such actions to happen upon manhood and womanhood for in their Life they do live out an uneasiness here upon these earthly plains! But God in His loving the whole world did give to us His Son to die upon the cross to reconcile our ill-wills be they of sodomy or even of adultery! We are blessed with much forgiveness and mercies due Christ giving Hmself up to die an unrighteous death for our unrighteous Acts and actons! Though the world will ever continue onwardly thru its' history tree, many will do what they will yet in justifications for doing their own will, they will ever be aware of the staining of sinfulness that does forshadow them in their Life of indignation and deniabilities mentioned!

    May 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Jill

      Don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent.Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators such that there is both glue and the present tense but present no Susan. Conifers please we're forward.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • birch please

      Many words with no real meaning except emotional subjectivity. With every word this specimen chips away at what makes humans different then every other animal on the planet : reason and logic.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • birch please

      Jill = awesomeness

      May 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • ME II

      "... but present no Susan."
      Ah... words to live by.

      May 14, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • sam

      Jill for the win!

      May 14, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • youth in asia

      "Triangulate!" – Jill
      Fvck yeah, Triangulate!

      May 14, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • Jill

      Glad I could be of help. Never turn down an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.

      May 14, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • Which God?

      @ A Serpent's Thought. Press #1 for English, then press #2 for literacy. Press #3 for the psychiatric care you need. Do so in order, they are awaiting your call at the funny farm.

      May 15, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • sam stone

      Only delusional people claim to know the mind of god.

      May 15, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
  5. HeavenSent

    I ate a whole hoagie for lunch. My cats got jealous, all 75 of them.

    May 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • birch please

      Jesus would have shared some 😉

      May 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • Ken

      His would be pretty rotted away by now just like him.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      So phony heavensent, which one of my posts irked you today (LOL).

      May 14, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • birch please

      HS, every word you type brings mankind closer to a self fulfilling prophecy of the apocalypse

      May 14, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      YOU'LL HAVE TO SHOOT US BOTH! -haha, based on precedent set by television this proves I am the real heavensent.

      May 14, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Well phony heavensent, you might as well know ...

      The wages of sin is death.

      Romans 6:23

      What sin do you commit when stealing my handle?

      May 14, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      The sin of jokes that are not funny, obviously.

      May 14, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      "and the lord said unto thee, the man who can fit an entire fist in his anus is truly blessed indeed." – bible is bullsh!t 4:20

      May 14, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Phony heavensent, why not use your original handle of pervert. Suits you.

      May 15, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
  6. just sayin

    I love wearing diapers and acting like Jesus. God Bless

    May 14, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
  7. HeavenSent

    The teachings of allah are the only true word.

    May 14, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      Prove your assertion.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      It is written, no proof is needed.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      In other words, you have none. So there is really no reason to believe you or your book of immorality.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • LinCA

      All religions are bullshit.

      It's written, therefor it's true.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • ME II

      Don't you wish the Bible had a "Report Abuse" link?

      May 14, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • HeavenSent (having fun as a troll ;))

      Ah but you must have faith: like the faith of the germans that jews were as evil as they were told. Like the faith of the taliban that were told americans were evil (actually there is a great deal of evidence for that). Like the blind faith that has lead to most of the great genocides of our species.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Phony heavensent is on the war path (LOL).

      May 14, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Phony heavensent, this scripture is a must read.

      To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.

      Mark 4:11-12

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • YeahRight

      “My hating the actions of sinners who know their sinfulness ways are the crux for why I say what I say! “

      Being gay isn’t a sin as we know and understand it today. That’s why there are now gay churches and gay clergy. Duh.

      “They knowingly continue on in sinfulness and do spit in the very face of God and His godly!”

      That is really between a gay Christian and their god, you have no place making that judgment.

      “It is the whole world that will some day be judged for its' ways and not just random lots! “

      The fact that your kind continues to fuel the hatred and bigotry towards this group is why your cult is so bad for our society.

      “I have a living right to hate the gay crowds who try and sometimes do recruit others who know not the Acts of sodomies treacheries laments!”

      Obviously you don’t know the real definition of Sodomy and you also don’t understand the real truth about gays since you can’t choose to be gay so there is NO need to recruit. What a moron.

      May 14, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • clgmm74@yahoo.com

      @Yeah Really or (whatever handle you choose to use)

      One way to eliminate the hatred and bigotry towards that group is to eliminate the hate and biogotry towards ALL groups. How can that be achieved?

      a serpent's thought is baiting you to a level in which you are not required to attend.

      May 14, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      HawaiiGuest, you non-believers are incredible. You steal others handles to write your baloney, then jump right in the mix to answer the nonsense with more nonsense. LOL. Now you know why we know you are sinning jokes.

      May 15, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  8. A Serpent's Thought

    How does it feel those of you who are of the fruitedness of sodomy? Will you all make this world a planet of sodomittes? From the very young to the very old will sodomy become the world's leacherous leeches of fruited sodomy! I am grateful to God that I have no children for which the future would gnaw at and challenge them with the fruitedness vileness of sodmoy's filthiness ways! Thank you God for not giving me children for which the sodomites might have beguiled them into doing Acts of unrighteousness leading to foresaking you oh God!

    May 14, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      You seem to really enjoy using the word sodomy. A Freudian slip perhaps? I'm glad you don't have any kids as well, less religious bigots around attempting to legislate their religion while stomping on the first amendment rights of everyone else.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Birch please

      You think about g@y s33x way too much. Think someone needs to have some deep introspection.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "How does it feel those of you who are of the fruitedness of sodomy?"

      Yeah really since straights love that oral sex and all that, yet the Christians keep trying to point to the gay community. LOL!

      May 14, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      YeahRight, I suppose you know every Christian in the world? NO, is the answer. Therefore, you'd do much better if you read His truth (the Bible) on your own instead of listening to other fools lead you astray.

      Still praying for you to choose the right way of loving and following Jesus' truth.

      Amen..

      May 14, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • A Serpent's Thought

      @ YeahRight

      My hating the actions of sinners who know their sinfulness ways are the crux for why I say what I say! They knowingly continue on in sinfulness and do spit in the very face of God and His godly! It is the whole world that will some day be judged for its' ways and not just random lots! One should be thankful for not yet being righteously judged by God and in the meanwhile one needs to consider one's Acts and actions as God would so consider them! In my youth did sodomites tempt me and I stood still and would not be of them in their vileness actions and lecherous wickedries! I have a living right to hate the gay crowds who try and sometimes do recruit others who know not the Acts of sodomies treacheries laments!

      May 14, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • Which God?

      @ AS'sT. Yes, we are glad you don't propagate. You'd ruin the gene pool. We need enlightened thinkers, forward thinkers, not brain dead dogmatized fools who believe in an anthropromorphic god up there somewhere.

      May 15, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
  9. HeavenSent

    Birch, eating swine or any of the other scavengers listed in the Bible isn't a sin against Jesus, it's detrimental to your body that's why Jesus told us this truth.

    May 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • ME II

      As bad as wearing wool and linen together?

      May 14, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • Birch please

      Actually jesus said you could eat (or put into your body) whatever you want.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • Birch please

      He also said to follow the teachings of Noah... therefore it is all hypocritical nonsense for the weak minded.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Don't worry Me and Birch, the way you reject Jesus' truth, when you die, you'll be walking into Heaven buck naked ... for, no linens of righteousness have you woven.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Birch please

      Hypocrisy of theism is far from any truth.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      I'll post this again Birch, just for you...

      Satan deceives the whole world.
      Revelation 12:9

      For this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, . . .
      2 Thessalonians 2:11

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • birch please

      HS, your god is obviously weak and a hater.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Birch, God is righteous. And you?

      May 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • birch please

      I have never killed anyone, let alone 1,000s of innocents, so yes I think I win in that comparison.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @HeavenSent

      Which god? I'll assume that it's the god of the bible, and in that case I claim the moral high ground on your god any day. If that god is real he is an ass and unworthy of worship.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Birch, you're doing a good job of killing yourself. Jesus just obliges you of your wishes.

      Didn't anyone tell you it's all about God?

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      HawaiiGuest, why don't you change your handle to obnoxious. It fits your personality.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      I find the very thought of eternal punishment for a finite crime committed by a mortal creature completely immoral. Your god apparently doesn't. I will always claim the moral high ground over something like that. Obnoxious doesn't play a part in it. Would you consign your children to eternal punishment for simply not loving you? If so then you have lost all humanity, and if you won't then YOU are more moral than the god you profess.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      HawaiiGuest, I posted Revelation 12:9 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11. What more does a Christian have to say to you?

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @HeavenSent

      Your post is completely irrelevant. Thanks for showing how little you can back up your own beliefs, and also how you cannot even reconcile your own morality against that of the god you profess.

      May 14, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      HawaiiGuest, I'm not the one that is deceived by man. You're the one kissing up to man, not knowing who you truly are. None of humanity will stand next to you on judgement day when you meet Jesus. Know that truth.

      May 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @HeavenSent

      Save your veiled threats of eternal punishment for people who are gullible enough to accept that. You are still showing the complete lack of backing for your beliefs, and your arguments have degenerated into "BEWARE OOOOOOOooOOOOOO".

      May 14, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      This is for you ... all who behave unrighteously are an abomination to the Lord.

      Deuteronomy 25:16

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "This is for you ... all who behave unrighteously are an abomination to the Lord."

      Which is exactly what you've been doing on this blog. How's that log in your eye hypocrite.

      May 14, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @HeavenSent

      And there is the continuation of irrelevancy. Thank you for showing everyone how little you can actually think for yourself.

      May 14, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • ME II

      p.s.
      "Or, as most of the folks on this page show, they just simply name call endlessly with no data whatsoever."
      I don't know about most, but definitely many of them, yes, and on both sides. I agree that this is useless and annoying.

      May 15, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • ME II

      ^ misposted.

      May 15, 2012 at 11:08 am |
  10. Chad

    Serious question for atheists: what was the cause of your rejection of theism?

    May 14, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Birch please

      The realization, (my mom says I was about 10), that there are several major world religions that are mutually exclusive. Let alone the 1,000s throughout human history. Your religion is a result of your geography/family (99% of the time). There is no one true religion = they are all false. They have evolved as cultural memes as a way of our ancestors dealing with consciousness and lack of knowledge.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Colin

      Chad:

      I was brought up a Catholic, but after repeatedly seeing pretty fundamental holes in the belief and never being given a satisfactory answer, I ended up an atheist. Here are some of my issues that caused me to stop believing (you may have seen these before, I have posted them in various adumbrations).

      1. At its most fundamental level, Christianity requires a belief that an all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies 13,720,000,000 years ago (the age of the Universe) sat back and waited 10,000,000,000 years for the Earth to form, then waited another 3,720,000,000 years for human beings to gradually evolve, then, at some point gave them eternal life and sent its son to Earth to talk about sheep and goats in the Middle East.

      While here, this divine visitor exhibits no knowledge of ANYTHING outside of the Iron Age Middle East, including the other continents, 99% of the human race, and the aforementioned galaxies.

      Either that, or it all started 6,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake. Either way “oh come on” just doesn’t quite capture it.

      2. This ‘all loving’ god spends his time running the Universe and spying on the approximately 7 billion human beings on planet Earth 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He even reads their minds (or “hears their prayers”, if you see any difference) using some kind of magic telepathic powers. He also keeps his telepathic eye on them when they are not praying, so as to know if they think bad thoughts (such as coveting their neighbor) so he knows whether to reward or punish them after they die.

      3. Having withheld any evidence of his existence, this god will then punish those who doubt him with an eternity burning in hell. I don’t have to kill, I don’t have to steal, I don’t even have to litter. All I have to do is harbor an honest, reasonable and rational disbelieve in the Christian god and he will inflict a grotesque penalty on me a billion times worse than the death penalty – and he loves me.

      4. The above beliefs are based on nothing more than a collection of Bronze and Iron Age Middle Eastern mythology, much of it discredited, that was cobbled together into a book called the “Bible” by people we know virtually nothing about, before the Dark Ages.

      5. The stories of Christianity are not even original. They are borrowed directly from earlier mythology from the Middle East. Genesis and Exodus, for example, are clearly based on earlier Babylonian myths such as The Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Jesus story itself is straight from the stories about Apollonius of Tyana, Ho.rus and Dionysus (including virgin birth, the three wise men, the star in the East, birth at the Winter solstice, a baptism by another prophet, turning water into wine, crucifixion and rising from the dead).

      6. The Bible is also literally infested with contradictions, outdated morality, and open support for the most barbarous acts of cruelty – including, genocide, murder, slavery, r.ape and the complete subjugation of women. All of this is due to when and where it was written, the morality of the times and the motives of its authors and compilers. While this may be exculpatory from a literary point of view, it also screams out the fact that it is a pure product of man, bereft of any divine inspiration.

      7. A rejection of the supernatural elements of Christianity does not require a rejection of its morality. Most atheists and secular humanists share a large amount of the morality taught today by mainstream Christianity. To the extent we reject Christian morality, it is where it is outdated or mean spirited – such as in the way it seeks to curtail freedoms or oppose the rights of $exual minorities. In most other respects, our basic moral outlook is indistinguishable from that of the liberal Christian – we just don’t need the mother of all carrots and sticks hanging over our head in order to act in a manner that we consider moral.

      Falsely linking morality to a belief in the supernatural is a time-tested “three card trick” religion uses to stop its adherents from asking the hard questions. So is telling them it is “wrong to doubt.” This is probably why there is not one passage in the Bible in support of intelligence and healthy skepticism, but literally hundreds in support of blind acceptance and blatant gullibility.

      8. We have no idea of who wrote the four Gospels, how credible or trustworthy they were, what ulterior motives they had (other than to promote their religion) or what they based their views on. We know that the traditional story of it being Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is almost certainly wrong. For example, the Gospel of Matthew includes a scene in which Jesus meets Matthew, recounted entirely in the third person!! Nevertheless, we are called upon to accept the most extraordinary claims by these unknown people, who wrote between 35 to 65 years after Christ died and do not even claim to have been witnesses. It is like taking the word of an unknown Branch Davidian about what happened to David Koresh at Waco – who wrote 35 years after the fact and wasn’t there.

      9. When backed into a corner, Christianity admits it requires a “leap of faith” to believe it. However, once one accepts that pure faith is a legitimate reason to believe in something (which it most certainly is not, any more than “faith” that pixies exist is) one has to accept all other gods based on exactly the same reasoning. One cannot be a Christian based on the “leap of faith” – and then turn around and say those who believe in, for example, the Hindu gods, based on the same leap, got it wrong. In a dark room without features, any guess by a blind man at the direction of the door is as valid as the other 359 degrees.

      Geography and birthplace dictates what god(s) one believes in. Every culture that has ever existed has had its own gods and they all seem to favor that particular culture, its hopes, dreams, and prejudices. Do you think they all exist? If not, why only yours?

      Faith is not belief in a god. It is a mere hope for a god, a wish for a god, no more substantial than the hope for a good future and no more universal than the language you speak or the baseball team you support.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Birch please

      I am not an adeist. There very well could be a being greater then the multiverse. But, there is not a shred of evidence for any magic on this planet; no soul (neuroscience is explaining what consciousness is) and no hand that has guided evolution (molecular biology has shown that it is anything but intelligent), humans are only as important as we make ourselves. Every single religious text and all their "miracles" are nothing more than mythology with pinches of historical accuracy (ie jesus may have lived, the jews escaped egypt, and a region of the globe may have flooded).

      May 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • ME II

      Rejection?
      The premise lacks any evidence. Why accept it?

      May 14, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Chad

      There are many religions, and indeed there is a strong correlation between religious identification as an adult and the environment you were raised in.
      However, neither of those mean that Judeo-Christianity is false, you could have been very fortunate to have been born in a family that believed in the only religion that actually WAS true among the multitude that arent.

      Was it anything in your experience that directly influenced you to reject Christianity?

      May 14, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • youth in asia

      Colin pwnd religion. Copy paste that post. Well done sir.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • The Central Scrutinizer

      I have a brain.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Birch please

      All religions compared, the teaching of jesus are actually quote ethical. But, he himself said to follow the laws of Noah. The ethics of the old testament have no place in the 21st century. Then you can go on with the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence to support any claims of the bible and in fact many pieces of evidence that clearly contradict it.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • J.R.

      What was the cause for a Christian's rejection of all other forms theism? Probably because Christians think their beliefs are more credible. Some poeple realize you don't have to trade in one God for another, athiests just reject one more God than any monothiestic religion does. As for me, I just recquire proof, have not seen it.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • A Serpent's Thought

      @ Chad

      It is not so much "what" but rather "Who" led them away from Theism! Their Alpha peers of athaisms galore are nowadays filling the lands with vileness constructs and wickedness lifestyles ever to be running away from the liberties of God Almighty, the Creator of the Celestial Cosmos of which our universe is found being within! We are but filthy wrags to God's greatness and immensities of mercies always given to and for mankinds' willingness ways toward understanding God! To the atheists goes the tables' scraps!

      May 14, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      I was raised Christian. The pepple that started the avalanche for me was finding out whales have leg bones.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Whatever the Lord pleases He does, in heaven and in earth.

      Psalm 135:6

      He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

      Romans 9:18

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • momoya

      Quite simply, Chad, no religion has any good reasons to believe as they report.. In the case of christianity, it's bible is full of stupid logic and irreconcilable precepts.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      I. The Broad Way

      Jesus warned,

      Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

      Matthew 7:13

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • Chad

      SUMMARY OF REASONS SO FAR:
      I have attempted to condense them a bit, feel free to let me know if I, in doing so, mischaracterized your response.

      I would say that so far only Colin has actually showed that he is at least somewhat familiar with the biblical text.

      ================================================
      @Birch please: “religions are mutually exclusive, there are thousands of them, our religion is a result of your geography/family (99% of the time). They have evolved as cultural memes as a way of our ancestors dealing with consciousness and lack of knowledge. Magic is not real, there is no such thing as a ‘soul’. Theistic evolution is nonsense”

      @Colin “fundamental holes in religions: God wouldn’t have taken millions of years to create the earth, Jesus talked of nothing other than the middle east, some interpret it as starting 6,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake. God wouldn’t telepathically spy on everyone just to reward/punish. God withheld any evidence of his existence. If you don’t believe in God, he torments you for all eternity. The bible is mythology, the stories aren’t original. The Bible is full of contradictions, outdated morality, and open support for acts of cruelty. God wouldn’t do that, but if people wrote it, that is what you would expect to see. We have no idea of who wrote the four Gospels, how credible or trustworthy they were, what ulterior motives they had.”

      @ME II “The premise lacks any evidence. Why accept it?

      @The Central Scrutinizer “I have a brain.”

      @youth in asia “ditto to what colin said”

      @J.R. “I have seen no proof.”

      @lunchbreaker “The pebble that started the avalanche for me was finding out whales have leg bones.”

      @momoya “no religion has any good reasons to believe as they report.. In the case of christianity, it's bible is full of stupid logic and irreconcilable precepts.”

      May 14, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Interesting. You asked, "what was the cause of your rejection of theism?" But apparently what you really wanted was something like, "what is your best argument against Christianity" (Christianity because you mentioned Biblical knowledge as a qualifier in your summary and I as.sume you're not talking about the Jewish Bible.)
      That's a different question.

      May 14, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Chad

      ME II "Interesting. You asked, "what was the cause of your rejection of theism?" But apparently what you really wanted was something like, "what is your best argument against Christianity"
      That's a different question."

      =>I would have thought that rejection of something was based on some argument against it?
      My premise is that for the vast majority of atheists that is not the case, their rejection of Christianity is not based on an understanding of it.

      May 14, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Hopefully a quick question. Why do you feel it necessary to have an in-depth knowledge of Christianity in order to reject it? Why is it necessary to have any knowledge? I can reject, or not accept, Oomoto (selected because it is unknown to me) without having any knowledge of it, as I as.sume you do as well.
      This goes back to your Leprechaunism question, but why should I have to provide justification for my lack of belief in Leprechauns, or Oomoto, or Jesus, for that matter?

      May 14, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • ME II

      oops didn't see your most recent response...

      May 14, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • ME II

      Ok, my response stands.
      Why do you reject Oomoto?

      May 14, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "Why do you feel it necessary to have an in-depth knowledge of Christianity in order to reject it?
      @Chad ""in-depth" is subjective, I would say that a thinking person should have some reason to reject Christianity other than "I heard there are talking snakes in it, and/or I dont like how religious people act, and/or I hear that all Christians reject evolution.
      One must have some basis for saying "the bible is full of contradictions", right? Just saying it with out any understanding of it is pretty silly.

      ==================
      @ME II "I can reject, or not accept, Oomoto (selected because it is unknown to me) without having any knowledge of it, as I as.sume you do as well."
      @Chad "My basis for rejection is vastly different than yours. I reject oomoto because the God of Abraham has said that there is no other God. My rejection is based on my trust of God, and His knowledge on the matter.
      Your rejection is based on nothing whatsoever.. right?

      ==================
      @ME II "This goes back to your Leprechaunism question, but why should I have to provide justification for my lack of belief in Leprechauns, or Oomoto, or Jesus, for that matter?"
      @Chad "you don't have to if you don't want to of course. But if you're going to come on the board and say "the bible is nonsense" or whatever, that should be backed up by some knowledge of that which you propose to criticize.. Right?

      It seems crazy that so many atheists are so completely unfamiliar with the bible. That fact speaks volumes about the reasons for their rejection.

      May 14, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • momoya

      Christianity can be rejected out of hand because of its use of stupid logic.. A person need not know more about it than its general "tract" version of king/servant salvation/redemption message.

      Of course, I've found that most atheists know the bible much better than most christians, so that is evidence of their careful introspection on the matter.. People like Dan Barker and Bart Erhman show how great knowledge about the bible does NOT imply a growing belief in its stories and doctrines.

      May 14, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Ok, that helps. If I understand correctly, you are saying that you can reject other religions because the one you accept exclude others, or other possibilities. Atheists, I think, take the approach that any religion must show "just cause," or evidence ('proof' to some but that's incorrect, I think), as to why it should be accepted but until that happens it is, by default, not accepted. So, I'm not rejecting Oomoto, based on nothing. I'm not accepting it because it has no evidence that I'm aware of. If that changes I will reevaluate and reconsider. This is similar to Russel's Celestial tea pot arugment.

      Additionally, logic would say, I think, that any claim, supernatural or otherwise, must support its largest, or major claims, in order to support any lesser claims. In essesnce, for the sake of argument, if Jesus never existed and therefore was never resurrected, it makes no difference what someone claims he said about gays, or anything else. Many Atheists, I suspect, would argue that the first claim is that God exists and that it is unsupported and therefore all other lesser claims are irrelevent. This does not stop them from arguing, however, becuase it is a weakest link scenario, in that any major claim, such as the Bible being infallibly correct, should, by logic, eliminate all lesser, or dependent, claims.

      So, although I doubt this will be satisfactory to you, perhaps, what you are asking for is this,
      I see no reason to think that there exists any supernatural deity, therefore the Christian one is not likely to exist either.

      Now, as to the Bible... that would be a dependent claim.

      Got to go, now. I'll check back later though.

      Thanks

      Peace to all

      May 14, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
    • Chad

      @momoya "Christianity can be rejected out of hand because of its use of stupid logic.. A person need not know more about it than its general "tract" version of king/servant salvation/redemption message."
      @Chad "What analysis of which Christian belief specifically are you referring to? Just repeatedly call Christianity and Christians "stupid". doesnt count as an analysis.

      @momoya "People like Dan Barker and Bart Erhman show how great knowledge about the bible does NOT imply a growing belief in its stories and doctrines"
      @chad "take a listen to this, Craig just destroys Erhman position.. It's a bit hard to listen to after a while because you just start to feel embarrassed for Erhman..

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac

      May 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "Ok, that helps. If I understand correctly, you are saying that you can reject other religions because the one you accept exclude others, or other possibilities."
      @Chad: "Pretty much, It isnt that the "religion" excludes it, but that the "person" (for lack of a better term) of the God of Abraham excludes it, but close enough..

      ==========
      @ME II "Atheists, I think, take the approach that any religion must show "just cause," or evidence ('proof' to some but that's incorrect, I think), as to why it should be accepted but until that happens it is, by default, not accepted."
      @Chad "you write as if you are a person who would be familiar with the "strong vs weak" atheist position descriptions, and that what you are describing is the "weak" or "negative" position (arguably indistinguishable from agnosticism).

      All of which is fine, the position that you take is up to you. Where the nonsense enters is when atheists who know virtually nothing about the biblical narrative grab quotes off of infidels.org and post them here as proof that Christianity is false.
      Or, as most of the folks on this page show, they just simply name call endlessly with no data whatsoever.

      I have no problem with a person who says "I dont believe anyone has made the case that the Christian narrative is true", I believe them to be wrong, and I dont think they have done their homework, but I dont consider them intellectually dishonest or think that they are attempting to make a fallacious argument.

      ==========
      @ME II "So, I'm not rejecting Oomoto, based on nothing. I'm not accepting it because it has no evidence that I'm aware of. If that changes I will reevaluate and reconsider.
      @chad "what investigation have you done?

      ==========
      @ME II "if Jesus never existed and therefore was never resurrected, it makes no difference what someone claims he said about gays, or anything else."
      @Chad " completely agree, if Jesus didnt rise from the dead, Christianity is a lie.

      ==========
      @ME II "Many Atheists, I suspect, would argue that the first claim is that God exists and that it is unsupported and therefore all other lesser claims are irrelevent."
      @Chad " I agree that if God doesnt exist and that can be demonstrated, then Christianity is pretty irrelevant.
      – However, it is insufficient to start with a presumption of materialism that excludes God from the onset, like: "well, I believe in science, science excludes the supernatural, so therefor God does exist" or something to that effect. This is an extraordinarily common fallacious argument from many atheists.
      – As well, it is also invalid to claim that a failure to prove that God does exist, demonstrates that He doesnt, in other words, shifting the burden of proof to the theist.

      ==========
      @ME II "So, although I doubt this will be satisfactory to you, perhaps, what you are asking for is this,
      I see no reason to think that there exists any supernatural deity, therefore the Christian one is not likely to exist either"
      @Chad "fallacious reasoning.
      you can logically state "I dont believe in supernatural, therefor I dont believe in God", however, you can not logically make your statement. Without proof to demonstrate the validity of your lack of belief in the supernatural in general, why should your extension of that to God be believed?

      May 14, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • danielwalldammit

      I came to realize that I never did believe in God.

      May 15, 2012 at 5:37 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      At the risk of creating an oversimplyfied strawman, here's what I think you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong.
      1) Atheists need to provide an argument and basis for their position, e.g. disprove God, just as Theists do.
      2) In order to discredit the Bible, or "Christian narrative", one must first understand it.

      Although, these might seem intuitively fair, i.e. each side presents its case for its position and each side understands the other's position in order to debate it, I think intuition is misleading in this case. Whereas most formal debates have opposing side presenting their cases, most formal debates, I think, are on questions of position on a given subject, not the existence of it. Courts of law, at least in the US, on the other hand, have a plaintiff, or claimant, and a defendant. The courts are not a perfect analogy, because in our case the defendent isn't being accused of anything, however the structure is useful, in that the courts are deciding, at least in part, the existence of an action, i.e. did the defendent actually perform a certain action. In this structure burden of proof is on the claimant, or innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the one making the claim, needs to provide evidence for that claim.

      Most non-Theists (including Agnostics, but not strong Atheists), I think, hold the position of not accepting belief in the supernatural. This is not a position, but a lack of position in that they are not making the claim, "God doesn't exist". They are just saying I don't believe the Theist's claims. This may seem to you like nit-picking, but the point is that any proponent of belief in the supernatural is necessarily making a claim that the supernatural exists. This has never been shown to be the case by logic or evidence, which is why 'burden of proof' remains with the claimant, i.e. the Theist.

      As for the Bible (I don't know what you mean by "Christian narrative"), I think your requirement of "understanding" depends on what you are claiming. For example, if you claim that the Bible is literally and completely correct, then disproving the smallest portion discredits the entire claim, does it not? Hence, many non-Theists will attack simplistic aspects that, if taken literally, are demonstrably incorrect. If however you are claiming a non-literal accuracy in the Bible, say 'it's self-consistent', then finding inconsistencies in the Bible should discredit the claim, correct? Essentially, I would have to disagree with you that in order to discredit the claim one needs to fully understand the claim. I would think that one only needs to understand enough of a major component of the claim, in order to discredit it and therefore the entire claim.

      For example, the Theory of Evolution is very complex and requires a hugh amount of knowledge to fully understand it (which I don't claim to, fully). However, in order to discredit the larger claim one only needs to discredit a major component. This was expressed by someone famous, I think, as "just find a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian." This would work because a major component of evolution is common descent and finding the fossil of a mammal in the pre-cambrian would violate that descent since mammals didn't show up until much later (unless, of course, one also found a mostly complete fossil record, with the rabbit, that lead up to the rabbit.) That however doesn't require any understanding of the genetic, biogeographical, or biochemical evidence for evolution.

      So, for a shorter version, what I'm trying to say is basically, while your statements, as I paraphrased them, seem intuitively fair, they in fact are not and 1) the 'burden of proof' is on the claimant, which in this case is the Theist, and 2) it is only necessary to understand the major claims of Christianity in order to discredit it, such as, God exists, the Bible is God's word, Jesus was resurrected, etc. In addition, if your major claims are different from those generally used, "Christian narrative" for example, it is encu.mbent upon you to express those claims in the debate. This once again is an example of the burden being upon the claimant, if one makes a claim one needs to justify that claim or don't be surprise if it is dismissed.

      Peace

      May 15, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • ME II

      p.s.
      "Or, as most of the folks on this page show, they just simply name call endlessly with no data whatsoever."
      I don't know about most, but definitely many of them, yes, and on both sides. I agree that this is mostly useless and very annoying.

      May 15, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Chad

      @ME II “here's what I think you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong.
      1) Atheists need to provide an argument and basis for their position, e.g. disprove God, just as Theists do.
      2) In order to discredit the Bible, or "Christian narrative", one must first understand it.

      @Chad “sort of, I’ll modify it in this manner:
      1) Anyone making a claim needs to provide a basis for that claim. Example claims are the theist claim of “God exists” and the “strong/positive atheist” claim that “God does not exist”.
      2) “Weak/negative” atheists don’t make claims about the existence/non-existence of God, their position is identified by a lack of belief. If they instead do make claims about existence/non-existence, they are no longer a “Weak/negative” atheist, and they need to back up that claim.
      3) It is fallacious reasoning to say “since you have failed to make your case that your claim is true, your claim is false”, this applies equally to theist and atheist claims. It is equally fallacious to say “If you cant prove God doesn’t exist, then He does” and “If you cant prove God does exist, then He doesn’t”
      4) if you are a “strong/positive atheists” and are making a claim about Christianity, then you need to understand the bible to do so. It is simply silly to presume to criticize something you don’t understand.

      @ME II “”…the point is that any proponent of belief in the supernatural is necessarily making a claim that the supernatural exists”
      @Chad “yes, the theist is making a claim”
      @ME II “ This has never been shown to be the case by logic or evidence, which is why 'burden of proof' remains with the claimant, i.e. the Theist.”
      @Chad “no, the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, theists and “strong/positive” atheists both have that burden. “strong/positive atheists” don’t get to shift the burden, that’s fallacious reasoning. You seem to be arguing that until theists meet the burden of proof, “strong/positive” atheists don’t have a burden of proof, which is nonsense.

      @ME II “As for the Bible (I don't know what you mean by "Christian narrative"), I think your requirement of "understanding" depends on what you are claiming. For example, if you claim that the Bible is literally and completely correct, then disproving the smallest portion discredits the entire claim, does it not…”
      @Chad “that’s a longer answer, will return later on that”

      May 15, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      I would say that a strong or positive atheist would need to back up such a claim, yes, if one expects it to be accepted.
      The problem is that there are very few atheists actually making the claim that 'there is no god'. However, I think there are a lot of sloppy statements made by atheists and supposed atheists on this blog, and elsewhere, that can be taken/read that way. But I suspect, if questioned most would admit to a less-than-strong atheist position. Even celebrity atheists such as Dawkins are not making a claim of 'there is no god,' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/richard-dawkins-famous-atheist-god_n_1299752.html, which is nothing new, if familiar with his writing,) but usually are making a case for, ""I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low."

      You said, "It is simply silly to presume to criticize something you don’t understand."
      Agreed, to an extent. What I was saying is that one doesn't need to understand every doctrinal nuance in order to debate against a position. Admittedly, many attacking religion and Christianity make wild accusations that don't make sense, although some are for satiric effect as much as anything, but there are equally wild accusations made against the non-posistion of atheism and, to me, more importantly, against science and secular society. Neither excuses the other, but understand that both do occur and it would be an additional fallacy to generalize that all atheists are illogical or no atheist understands Christianity.

      However, to argue against a position one only needs to understand the major claims to a sufficient degree, if one can dispute those major claims. For example, if I claim John killed my brother, but it can be shown that John was in another state when my brother was killed, then the major claim that John had the opportunity to kill my brother is disproven, which in turn disproves the entire claim of John murdering my brother. In addition, this can be done regardless of whether from the position of the defense attorney, i.e. 'John did not murder' (claim), or from the postion of the jury, i.e. 'John has not been proven guilty' (non-claim).

      Similarly, regardless of the atheist's position, or lack thereof, showing inconsistencies in the Bible goes a long ways towards disputing the validity of the Bible and therefore Christianity, in many versions of Christianity.

      May 15, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Actually I'm guessing that the inconsistency aspect is really what causes you heartburn. I think many Christians get quite upset over claims of inconsistency that they don't consider inconsistencies, but that is a matter of interpretation is it not? Actually, this line is inconclusive, in my mind, either way.
      However, back to the 'burden of proof' point, if the claim is that a certain interpretation of the Bible is consistent, is it not the claimants job to show that consistency? That is a tall order, admittedly.

      May 15, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • sam stone

      well, chad, much of theism is ridiculous on it's face. secondly, theists do not do their belief systems any favors by being pomous creeps

      May 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II, your post is well reasoned, only had a chance to read it, back tonight to comment.

      May 15, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II “The problem is that there are very few atheists actually making the claim that 'there is no god'.
      @Chad “you must be new to the board 😉 “

      @ME II “You said, "It is simply silly to presume to criticize something you don’t understand."Agreed, to an extent. What I was saying is that one doesn't need to understand every doctrinal nuance in order to debate against a position. “
      @Chad “Doctrinal nuance is one thing, simply reading the text is another. The vast majority of atheists on this board have absolutely no context of the verses they quote.
      Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion and Dawkins' God) maintains that Dawkins is ignorant of Christian theology and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently. In reply, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?", pretty standard nonsense reply…

      @ME II “Similarly, regardless of the atheist's position, or lack thereof, showing inconsistencies in the Bible goes a long ways towards disputing the validity of the Bible and therefore Christianity, in many versions of Christianity”
      @Chad “well, that’s just the point isn’t it.. can you presume to identify inconsistencies if your understanding is demonstrably weak(as you put it “or lack thereof”)?

      @ME II “The 'burden of proof' is on the claimant, which in this case is the Theist”
      @Chad “what do you mean, “in this case”, are you referring to the question that started this post, or just in general when ever the subject of God comes up?”

      @ME II “it is incumbent upon you to express those claims in the debate.”
      @Chad “depends on what the statement is, if the debate is “God doesn’t exist”, then the burden is on the atheist.

      @ME II “This once again is an example of the burden being upon the claimant, if one makes a claim one needs to justify that claim or don't be surprise if it is dismissed.”
      @Chad “precisely, so don’t go saying “the bible is nonsense” or, “the bible is full of inconsistencies” or “Jesus wasn’t resurrected” unless you have data to back it up

      May 15, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      The 'burden of proof' is on the claimant, yes, and if someone takes a strong-atheist position and claims god does not exist, then they should be able to provide evidence to support that position. This is, of course, the same for claims that God exists, miracles happen, atheists will burn in hell, etc., etc. Although, I think many cases of atheists claiming, 'there is no god', are just sloppy wording and not intentional claims.

      "The vast majority of atheists on this board have absolutely no context of the verses they quote."
      Is it that they have "absolutely no context," which technically seems impossible as everything has context, or is it that you don't agree with the context that they are using? Who's context is correct? Is there an inherently correct context? How is it determined? etc....

      Additionally, is it necessary to understand even one word of the Bible in order to dismiss the idea of a supernatural creator god? I would say, no. The entire concept, or major claim, that some supernatural all-powerful being, or intelligence, created, and is involved with, our universe can be dismissed for lack of evidence (not with certainty, mind you, but with quite a bit of confidence, I would argue. This is where Dawkins gets 6.9 out of 7, I think.) What, I think, Dawkins is saying is that just as one might dismiss the entire concept of little magical people without having "to read up on leprechology," one might also dismiss a supernatural creator god without knowing the Bible.

      In other words, if I don't think there's enough evidence for God, why would I need to know the context of Mark 12:31, or any other random selection of text? So, I don't agree that there is a requirement to understand Christian Theology in order to "to engage religion and faith intelligently." As an aside, isn't it arrogant of McGrath to say Christian Theology is necessary to discuss "religion and faith"? What, Hindus don't count? Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.? I digress...

      The difficulty, I think, comes when a believer attempts to use the Bible as the evidence that non-theists say does not exist. Which is silly really. (Sorry, that kind of statement is probably what you find so disagreeably. Silly in the sense that it is futile and not altogether logical.) Without the underlying belief that the Bible is God's word and accurate, it is no more evidence than any other book, including complete fiction such as leprechology.

      Another analogy might be, does one need to understand the geocentric model, with its Ptolemaic epicycles and deferents, in order to dismiss it? I would say, no.

      “precisely, so don’t go saying 'the bible is nonsense' or, 'the bible is full of inconsistencies' or 'Jesus wasn't resurrected' unless you have data to back it up"
      I disagree, "the bible is nonsense" is an opinion, unless you want to define "sense", and "full of inconsistencies" is somewhat subjective and dependent on interpretation, but "Jesus wasn't resurrected" is hardly a claim made by atheist.
      It is a response to the implicit claim of resurrection by Christians, one of their major claims. Why else would anybody make such a claim if it weren't in the context of an implicit claim by Christians? Have you ever heard anyone claim that, "Jeffery wasn't resurrected" or Tony or Mary Beth? It is shorthand for "Your religion believes that Jesus was resurrected, but I disagree."

      I'm sure that is too long of a response already, so I'll quit there.

      Peace

      May 16, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II “Is it that they have "absolutely no context," which technically seems impossible as everything has context, or is it that you don't agree with the context that they are using? Who's context is correct? Is there an inherently correct context? How is it determined? etc....”
      @Chad “That’s pretty straightforward, as one typically only has to read the chapter the verse is in to get a context. Unfortunately the vast majority of verse quoted by atheists is just a cut and paste off of infidels.org. They have no idea the verse prior or after what they quote. By any measure, that is a complete lack of context.

      =================
      @ME II “The entire concept, or major claim, that some supernatural all-powerful being, or intelligence, created, and is involved with, our universe can be dismissed for lack of evidence”
      @Chad “hmm, what about the origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the origin of life on earth, the empty tomb, the historical accuracy of the bible? Now before you answer with “we don’t know, we don’t know, we don’t know, Jesus never was and the bible isn’t historical”, remember, all of those claims of mine can be backed up. Running and hiding behind “we don’t know” when we actually DO know a tremendous amount and it all points to an external entity, is getting weak..

      ================
      @ME II “So, I don't agree that there is a requirement to understand Christian Theology in order to "to engage religion and faith intelligently."
      @Chad “interesting position, don’t need to understand something to discuss it intelligently. Would that fly on any other subject? “I don’t need to understand history to engage in intelligent discussions on history” 😉

      ===========
      @ME II “The difficulty, I think, comes when a believer attempts to use the Bible as the evidence that non-theists say does not exist. Which is silly really. (Sorry, that kind of statement is probably what you find so disagreeably. Silly in the sense that it is futile and not altogether logical.) Without the underlying belief that the Bible is God's word and accurate, it is no more evidence than any other book, including complete fiction such as leprechology.”
      @Chad “Very interesting position! You reject the historicity of the bible as an a priori assumption!
      Sorry, no. The bible can stand on it’s own, the information in it can be researched for historical accuracy, year after year we find more and more supporting archeology for the details. Said another way, no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved inaccurate.

      the evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning...It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians." wiki

      =================
      @ME II “"a)the bible is nonsense" is an opinion, unless you want to define "sense", b) "full of inconsistencies" is somewhat subjective and dependent on interpretation, c) "Jesus wasn't resurrected" is hardly a claim made by atheist.
      @Chad “a)ok, b)no, it’s a claim c) you must be new here 😉

      May 16, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      If you are trying to make your point about context by taking my statements out-of-context, then well done:

      You said that I said,
      "...and dependent on interpretation, c) 'Jesus wasn't resurrected' is hardly a claim made by atheist." [technically this is a misquote]
      What I had actually said was,
      "...but 'Jesus wasn't resurrected' is hardly a claim made by atheist.
      It is a response to the implicit claim of resurrection by Christians, one of their major claims."

      As a response, non-theists are not obligated to show evidence that Jessus was not resurrected.

      ==========
      "...what about the origin of the universe ... the origin of life on earth..."
      What about them? You know how the universe and life on earth began? Great, let's see your evidence.

      "...the fine tuning of the universe..."
      What fine tuning? How do you know it's not just coincidence? And, what would fine tuning indicate? Again, let's see your evidence?

      "... the empty tomb..."
      What empty tomb? Or alternatively, which empty tomb, there are probably thousands, if not more? And what would it be evicence of?
      Again, evidence?

      "...the historical accuracy of the bible..."
      Are you making a claim now, that the Bible is historically accurate, completely accurate? Please, provide evidence for such a claim. I would be particularly interested in the accuracy of Genesis 1:1, Noah's flood, and perhaps the Nativity, e.g. was Jesus born before or after Herod died.

      "...we actually DO know a tremendous amount and it all points to an external enti.ty,..."
      Another claim? Please provide evidence that supports any "external enti.ty" and then evidence that supports your particular "external enti.ty", called 'God'.
      Again, evidence?

      "Now before you answer with 'we don’t know, we don’t know, we don’t know...'"
      Just because I don't claim to know the answer, does not imply that your claim is correct. You must still show your claim to be correct. Otherwise, this is a standard false dichotomy fallacy.

      =========
      "[Context in the Bible is] pretty straightforward, as one typically only has to read the chapter the verse is in to get a context."

      I'm thinking that it is not that simple. If it were, then why are there so many sects of Chriatianity. This is an oversimplification obviously, but if the context made the meaning apparent, then why would there be so many variations on the religion? Examples abound of different interpretations, slavery, hom.ose.xuality, contraception, etc. Or, are you saying that context is separate from meaning and interpretation?

      =========
      "...interesting position, don’t need to understand something to discuss it intelligently."
      Please, @Chad, I wish you would be a little more accurate about this discussion? For someone who gets so angry about Bible text being taken out of context, it apparently doesn't matter for other sources, i.e. me.

      I said, "...I don't agree that there is a requirement to understand Christian Theology in order to 'to engage religion and faith intelligently.'"
      Now unless you are claiming that Christianity is the sum total of all religion and theology, then I did not in fact say, "...don’t need to understand something to discuss it intelligently," since Christianity and theology are not identical things.

      =========
      Again, Christainity and all religions, depending on the definition, are inherently making a major claim about how the universe, and beyond the universe in some cases, works. It is incu.mbent upon those adherents to show evidence supporting that claim, if they expect that claim to be accepted as true or accurate. If, however, it is a matter of faith and one must believe in order for it to be true, then why try to use evidence at all? Why worry about context?

      May 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • clgmm74@yahoo.com

      @ME II

      Belief is not required for understanding but context is. The cultural variations of just one word show how context allows for understanding. An atman to a buddhist is different than a soul is to you or I. The definition of "soul" to you is what? Do you believe it exists? Do I need to share in your definition of "soul" to have an understanding of what it means to you? You can look at the Sikhs, Buddhist, Christian, and other religious cultures and you will still find a variance from one to another. If you look at the contextual history of Judaism, you will find major variances within the culture. Some will believe in a soul. Some will believe in an afterlife. Some will not believe in either. Some will believe in one and not the other.

      If you fail to understand the differences among individuals and their cultures, you will fail to understand the individuals themselves. Just as people fail to understand you on an individual level, they will fail to understand atheism, agnosticism, theism etc.

      Is there not a variance among individuals, cultures, & religions? Did you not provide context to help clarify what your meaning of the subject is or is intended to be? Am I required to hold a viewpoint of one person, one religion, or one culture?

      Historically context helps us to see the variances within a group or culture. Judaism alone shows that multiple groups exist within the culture and the context helps an individual who is outside the culture understand.

      Events often shape cultures and people into what they are. The people within the cultures are shaped by the reactions they have to those events. I wonder, do you realize that outside perspectives of what athiesm, agnosticism, and theism is are being formed with every post? Years from now as people look back for an understanding of how the groups were formed what will stand as an accurate portrayal? The context also helps identify the changes within a group or religion. Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, and Agnosticism will change over time. The context explains why and how it is redefined.

      May 18, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • ME II

      @clgmm74@yahoo.com,
      I'm not arguing against all "context" as it relates to understanding another's position. What I'm arguing against is the use of "you don't understand the context" as a blanket disqualification of another's argument. If there is a specific contextual misunderstanding, then point it out and explain it.

      Much of this particular "response thread," for lack of a better term, was around a concept that @Chad presented as:
      "I would have thought that rejection of something was based on some argument against it?
      My premise is that for the vast majority of atheists that is not the case, their rejection of Christianity is not based on an understanding of it." (May 14, 2012 at 6:19 pm)

      Part of my counterargument to that was, basically, perhaps they know enough to reject it. In other words, how much "context" or understanding is sufficient in order to disagree with a given concept? I would say, and did say, that, I think, the concept of the supernatural can be dismissed due to lack of evidence at the outset.

      I do agree that context is important in understanding the nuances of the Bible and Christian doctrine, however, I don't necessarily agree that one must "understand" the Bible completely in order to reference it in a debate.
      The two main reasons for this are:
      1) sufficient understanding of one aspect is not diminished by a lack of understanding of another aspect, i.e. if one could 'prove' that Jesus never existed, then understanding his supposed views on slavery is irrelevant, and,
      2) there is no objective criteria for "understanding," i.e. if I don't understand it enough to argue against the Bible, then who's to say that someone else understands it enough to argue *for* the Bible, or, for example, "why should I believe your interpretation?"

      Keeping in mind also that, I think, theists are generally the claimant in these debates, although a "strong atheist" position would also, and therefore have the 'burden of proof', which was also discussed.

      All that being said, there is give and take. I know that I am tired of having to repeatedly correct statements to the effect of, "there is no evidence for Evolution," a subject where context is also important.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • Chad

      1. If a theist claims Jesus was resurrected, the burden of proof is on them
      2. If an atheist claims Jesus was not resurrected, the burden of proof is on them
      3. Atheists make the claim that Jesus was not resurrected all the time on this board.

      =====================
      @ME II “You know how the universe and life on earth began? Great, let's see your evidence.”
      @Chad “our universe had a beginning. All matter, space and time itself was created at that point. By definition the trigger for that creation point was something outside our space/time. That “something” doesn’t have to be the God of Abraham, but the God of Abraham is the best explanation for it.
      If you’re going to try the multi-verse route, just remember that infinite regressions are a logical contradiction, so you have to posit an explanation for that first “cause”.

      =====================
      @ME II “What fine tuning? How do you know it's not just coincidence? And, what would fine tuning indicate? Again, let's see your evidence?”
      @Chad “there is little disagreement that conditions allowing stars and planets to form, and for life to exist are infinitesimally remote when considered against the back drop of all possible conditions. Obviously that points to design.

      =====================
      @ME II “What empty tomb? Or alternatively, which empty tomb, there are probably thousands, if not more? And what would it be evidence of?
      @Chad “there is nearly universal acceptance of 4 facts:
      1. Jesus lived, was crucified by Roman authorities and was buried in a tomb
      2. After three days that tomb was found empty by a group of women followers
      3. Following that, groups of people (followers, unbelievers, and enemies) reported meeting a physically resurrected Jesus.
      4. Those same people then experienced a radical change in their behaviors, from denying Jesus, to proclaiming his physical resurrection to the point that they were willing to die for the truth of that statement.

      Are you claiming that Jesus wasn’t resurrected?

      =====================
      @ME II “Are you making a claim now, that the Bible is historically accurate, completely accurate? Please, provide evidence for such a claim. I would be particularly interested in the accuracy of Genesis 1:1, Noah's flood, and perhaps the Nativity, e.g. was Jesus born before or after Herod died.”
      @Chad “It’s obviously far easier to point out that although many details have yet to be proved accurate, no detail of the bible has ever been proved inaccurate. That is a profound truth.

      Don’t know about the flood, might be local, might be global, Genesis account clearly accurate, note the sequence of animal creation corresponds to the fossil record (Fish, land animals-birds, humans)
      No one really know’s when Jesus was born, but most certainly prior to Herods death.

      =====================
      @ME II “ If it [context] were [simple, straightforward], then why are there so many sects of Chriatianity. This is an oversimplification obviously. but if the context made the meaning apparent, then why would there be so many variations on the religion"

      @Chad “yes, clearly a simplification. For example, do you know what differentiates Baptists from Congregationalists? I can tell you that it is NOT on the core central thrust of Christianity, namely that Christ died for our sins. If you are unwilling to do the investigation to see what is the nature of the differences, then obviously you are not in any position to point to that not-understood “difference” as support for an argument you are making.

      Unless of course, you are fine with the argument that says “cosmologists cant agree on the nature of the origin of the universe, so that demonstrates that it did in fact come from Taiowa as described in “The Four Creations ”

      =====================
      @ME II I said, "...I don't agree that there is a requirement to understand Christian Theology in order to 'to engage religion and faith intelligently.' Now unless you are claiming that Christianity is the sum total of all religion and theology, then I did not in fact say, "...don’t need to understand something to discuss it intelligently," since Christianity and theology are not identical things.
      @Chad “your hair splitting is a bit muddled... I dont really follow it..

      Lets just say then that unless you are familiar with a point of view, don’t try discussing it. How’s that 😉

      =====================
      @ME II “Again, Christainity and all religions, depending on the definition, are inherently making a major claim about how the universe, and beyond the universe in some cases, works. It is incu.mbent upon those adherents to show evidence supporting that claim, if they expect that claim to be accepted as true or accurate.
      @Chad “Theist claims must be supported, atheist claims must be supported.

      =====================
      @ME II “If, however, it is a matter of faith and one must believe in order for it to be true, then why try to use evidence at all? Why worry about context?”
      @Chad “I have listed many facts above, that are rarely if ever dealt with by anything more than “well, that’s all nonsense”. It is an utter myth that believing in Christ requires a faith in spite of evidence to the contrary everywhere.

      Theistic faith is “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”
      Atheistic faith is: given enough time, anything can happen.

      Atheists have so much more faith than theists 🙂

      May 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • Chad

      ME II "Part of my counterargument to that was, basically, perhaps they know enough to reject it. In other words, how much "context" or understanding is sufficient in order to disagree with a given concept? I would say, and did say, that, I think, the concept of the supernatural can be dismissed due to lack of evidence at the outset."

      That's the evidence of a materialistic presupposition, a bias that goes along the lines of (I'm not claiming you said this, but this is the general line of reasoning I see from so many):

      1. Atheist “science isn't discarding an external force, there is just is no evidence of an external force”

      2. Creationist “well, what about the origin of the universe, the fact that the universe obeys laws, the origins of life on this earth, the fact that the largest “gaps” in the fossil record correspond exactly with the organisms identified in the bible as being created by God, namely fish, birds, land animals and humans ”

      3. Atheist “We don’t know how to explain those things. The supernatural is by definition beyond nature and therefore beyond investigation by science. As utterly improbable as it is, our only answer at this point is to say it’s possible that all of those things just popped out of nothing via random combination of molecules”

      4. Creationist “Well, if you don’t have an answer for these fundamental events to begin with, and your only explanation is to posit the possibility of the utterly improbable time and time again, by what basis are you discarding the possibility of a force external to our universe?”

      5. Atheist: “Please go to step #1

      May 18, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      I see this is heading downhill. You seem to be following a procedure of making unsupported assertions, then when atheists say "no, that's not true," you attempt to place the 'burden of proof' on the secondary claim. The primary claimant needs to show that their claim is true, and lack of disproof is not proof, or "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." ~ someone famous

      Atheists are not required to show that Jesus wasn't resurrected because there is no evidence that he was, only hearsay. Your 4 so-called universally accepted facts are only hearsay and hardly universally accepted, in fact since less than half the planet is Christian, it isn't even a majority.

      Likewise your claim of Biblical accuracy is not accurate. "...no detail of the bible has ever been proved inaccurate. That is a profound truth." That is profundly wrong.
      A global flood, as described in the Bible, "And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered." (Gen 7:19) did not happen. Such a flood would have left distinct geologic evidence that is not found, amoung other issues (http://ncse.com/cej/1/1/fatal-flaws-flood-geology).

      "...the sequence of animal creation corresponds to the fossil record (Fish, land animals-birds, humans)..."
      I don't know where you got that information, but the Bible says: heaven, earth, light, ... land, land plants including flowering plants with fruit, stars, sun, moon, fish and birds, land animals and insects, man. This differs from scientific evidence that puts stars first the the sun, Earth, moon, fish, land plants (non-fruit), insects, land animals, birds, flowering plants (ie fruit), then man.
      As you can see birds came after land animals not before, as in the Bible, fruit came after birds not before fish, as in the Bible, the Earth came after stars not before, as in the Bible, etc.

      "...No one really know’s when Jesus was born, but most certainly prior to Herods death."
      I'm no Biblical scholar, but I thought Matthew put it "in the days of Herod," while Luke put it during some Roman census that came some years after Herod died. How is that possible?

      "Lets just say then that unless you are familiar with a point of view, don’t try discussing it. How’s that?"
      Well, why didn't you say so? Most atheists, I think, are "familiar" with the Christian point of view, thanks. 😉 (Don't you hate these snarky emoticons?)

      "...atheist claims must be supported. "
      Atheism, excepting some versions of "strong" atheism, makes no claims. It is a lack of belief in god(s).

      “I have listed many facts above, that are rarely if ever dealt with by anything more than 'well, that’s all nonsense'. It is an utter myth that believing in Christ requires a faith in spite of evidence to the contrary everywhere."
      That's because your facts are not facts, as I've shown. You lack evidence for your claims and you attempt to shift the 'burden of proof' to those who disagree.

      As I said at the beginning, this discussion is clearly heading downhill, and further discussion seems unlikely to change that, but feel free to continue.

      Peace to all

      May 19, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "You seem to be following a procedure of making unsupported assertions, then when atheists say "no, that's not true," you attempt to place the 'burden of proof' on the secondary claim."
      @Chad "hmm, I disagree, give me an example of where I do that.

      ========
      @ME II "Atheists are not required to show that Jesus wasn't resurrected because there is no evidence that he was, only hearsay. "
      @Chad "Lets boil this down:
      1. It's fine for an atheist to say "I dont believe the data supports the claim that Jesus was resurrected"
      2. If an atheist says "Jesus was not resurrected", the burden of proof is on them to support that statement

      You seem to be saying that it's perfectly acceptable for an atheist to make statement #2 without any supporting data whatsoever? That somehow it's fine to state that Jesus wasnt resurrected until it has been demonstrated that He was?
      If that's what you are saying, that is obviously deeply flawed reasoning.

      =============
      @ME II "Your 4 so-called universally accepted facts are only hearsay and hardly universally accepted, in fact since less than half the planet is Christian, it isn't even a majority."
      @Chad "you're way off on that, those are indeed accepted facts among believers and non believing historians. That's just reality. Non-Christian historians accept them as credible.

      ==============
      @ME II "A global flood, as described in the Bible, "And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered." (Gen 7:19) did not happen. Such a flood would have left distinct geologic evidence that is not found, amoung other issues (http://ncse.com/cej/1/1/fatal-flaws-flood-geology).
      @Chad "What is your understanding of the date of Noah's flood, when does the bible say it happened?"

      ==============
      @ME II "but the Bible says: heaven, earth, light, ... land, land plants including flowering plants with fruit, stars, sun, moon, fish and birds, land animals and insects, man.
      @Chad "you should read the bible first 😉
      Bible says that In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (all of the matter in the universe). Verse 1.
      In later verses, the sun/moon/stars became visible.
      The bible says then that vegetation, fish/birds, land animals then man.
      Pretty amazing coincidence that a bunch of illiterate goat herders got that sequence right, isnt it?

      the appearance of birds in the fossil record is disputed (before or after land animals).

      The one difference would be the fruit trees.
      ==============
      @ME II "I'm no Biblical scholar, but I thought Matthew put it "in the days of Herod," while Luke put it during some Roman census that came some years after Herod died. How is that possible?"
      @Chad "that misinformation is based on a mention by Josephus of a later census after Herods death. Obviously nothing precludes an earlier census during Herods reign that Josephus didnt record.

      ========
      @ME II "That's because your facts are not facts, as I've shown. You lack evidence for your claims and you attempt to shift the 'burden of proof' to those who disagree."
      @Chad "exactly how is supplying evidence shifting the burden?
      interesting piece of logic that..

      In summary:
      Show me precisely how I shift the burden.
      I have indeed supplied evidence for my claims, if you feel that they arent facts, you'll need to demonstrate how they arent (and, BTW, that in no way shape or form is "shifting the burden")

      May 19, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You, Chad, are a lying turd. You have continually insisted that those who challenge you to provide proof God exists to provide proof he doesn't.

      Really, you're shameless.

      May 19, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ME II-
      Unfortunately you have found yourself in the cesspool that is interaction with Chad. I've seen this many times before, so, for your benefit, I'll cut to the chase...Chad is the most disingenuous, deceitful, ignorant, dishonest person on this blog. He has no intention of engaging in an honest discussion of ideas and he can copy&paste from Wikipedia all day long. In short, he's a sack-o'-sheit. Don't waste your time. Really...don't waste your time.

      May 19, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Tom, Tom –
      "lying turd" ... "shameless"? Come on Tom, Tom...this is Chad we're talking about...you can do better.

      May 19, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,

      As I've said before there is no reason for Atheists to claim Jesus was *not* resurrected, without the prior claim by Christians that he was. In addition, if Jesus existed as a man then by all the experiential knowledge of history and biology he died and remains dead. Again, hearsay is not evidence.

      "...those are indeed accepted facts among believers and non believing historians."
      Please cite secular, or non-believing historians, that accept, as fact, that Jesus was resurrected.... Oh, you're not claiming that are you.
      So, there are historians that accept that a bunch of people might have been delusional about a guy getting resurrected? fine, no argument, here.
      1) someone got crucified and buried 2) the tomb may have been empty later 3) some people claim they saw him alive again 4) those people continued to act strange...

      ... so what?

      "What is your understanding of the date of Noah's flood, when does the bible say it happened?"
      I fail to see what the Bible's dating of Noah's flood has to do with anything. I doubt there is an actual date, if that is your point.

      "you should read the bible first ..." I fail to see your point in this section, did I get something wrong in the Bible's sequence?
      The Bible clearly has things out of order. Please, cite your evidence and/or scientific research that puts birds before land animals, flowers and fruit before all animals, or the Earth before the sun or stars.

      "that misinformation is based on a mention by Josephus of a later census after Herods death. Obviously nothing precludes an earlier census during Herods reign that Josephus didnt record."

      "In those days Caesar Augustus(A) issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.(B) 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)(C) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register." (Luke 2)

      That seems pretty specific to me, how do you know it was "misinformation" by Josephus and not Luke? If you want to interpret you way out of the contradiction, it's your Bible, go right ahead, just don't expect others to buy it, with logic like that.

      "exactly how is supplying evidence shifting the burden?"
      You haven't supplied evidence, just hearsay and conjecture.

      "Show me precisely how I shift the burden."

      "1. If a theist claims Jesus was resurrected, the burden of proof is on them"
      (shift)1.1 Theists have made the claim that Jesus was resurrected since what, ~30AD.
      "2. If an atheist claims Jesus was not resurrected,..." who cares? Lots of people *haven't* been resurrected.

      (sheesh, I feel like it's grade school, "Nah unh, I asked you first")

      May 19, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
    • ME II

      @Really-O and @Tom, Tom...

      Yeah, this is getting tedious. Thanks.

      May 19, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II “As I've said before there is no reason for Atheists to claim Jesus was *not* resurrected, without the prior claim by Christians that he was”
      @Chad “LOL, so.. you are saying that since every atheist claim that Jesus was not resurrected was a response to a previous implicit claim that he was, there is no burden of proof on the atheist”

      No, sorry.. fallacious logic, pretty text book case of “shifting the burden”
      You would have to demonstrate that the statement “Jesus was not resurrected” is not a claim/assertion. Good luck with that 😉

      =============
      @ME II “So, there are historians that accept that a bunch of people might have been delusional about a guy getting resurrected? fine, no argument, here.1) someone got crucified and buried 2) the tomb may have been empty later 3) some people claim they saw him alive again 4) those people continued to act strange...”
      @Chad “so, why did that happen? What is the explanation? Stealing the body, mass hysteria, “swoon” theory, all have been proposed and debunked.
      Recommend you listen to any of William Lane Craigs debates on the historicity of the resurrection, Crossan or Bart D. Ehrman to get a clear view of what the best from each side presents.

      =============
      @ME II “I fail to see what the Bible's dating of Noah's flood has to do with anything. I doubt there is an actual date, if that is your point.”
      @Chad “pretty important wouldn’t you say? If it happened 10 billion years ago vs 4000 years ago.? What is your understanding of when it happened?

      =============
      @ME II “The Bible clearly has things out of order. Please, cite your evidence and/or scientific research that puts birds before land animals, flowers and fruit before all animals, or the Earth before the sun or stars.
      @Chad “bible doesn’t put earth before sun or stars, see other post for that. Birds before mammals, you would have to make the case that “the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground” included reptiles which are older than birds in the fossil record.

      =============
      @ME II “"In those days Caesar Augustus(A) issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.(B) 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)(C) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register." (Luke 2)
      @Chad “noting that this census was the “first” census clearly implies others that this one is distinguished from, right? Hard to argue that logic. Now we know that there was a census in 6AD time frame ordered by him. So, it seems extremely logical that Luke is differentiating this earlier census from that.

      See the first part of this post showing how it is entirely fallacious logic to attempt to say that “all claims that Jesus wasn’t resurrected are merely responses to early claims that He was, and are therefore exempt from a burden of proof supporting that claim”

      May 20, 2012 at 12:02 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard lies. That is all.

      May 20, 2012 at 12:04 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Actually, I don't think I said "there is no burden of proof on the atheist," even in paraphrase. What I'm saying is that you seem to be attempting to obscure or deflect focus from the theist's 'burden of proof' by focusing on a secondary claim. In other words, if you had sufficient evidence for the resurrection then a claim of no resurrection could be dismissed. Since that is not the case, you are focusing on the secondary claim. You cannot, or shouldn't for reasons of logic anyway, deny that the theist has the burden of proof for the claim of the resurrection of Jesus. Correct? So, if you are claiming that Jesus was resurrected, where is that 'proof'?

      As I've said before, if anyone, including atheists, makes a claim, they should be prepared to back it up. However, whether or not atheists (not atheism, as atheism doesn't make claims) have made a claim does not relieve the theist of their 'burden of proof'.

      Additionally, I have to wonder why you are arguing about atheists making claims instead of just 'proving' your own position.
      ==================

      “so, why did that happen? What is the explanation? Stealing the body, mas[.]s hysteria, 'swoon' theory, all have been proposed and debunked."
      That's an argument from ignorance fallacy. And, explaining someone's reported behavior is immatterial, since it is hearsay, anyway.
      ==================

      “pretty important wouldn’t you say? If it happened 10 billion years ago vs 4000 years ago.? What is your understanding of when it happened?"
      Actually, it's not important, because my "understanding of when it happened" is never.
      If you have a point to make, don't be coy, just make it.
      ==================

      “bible doesn’t put earth before sun or stars, see other post for that."
      Other post? You mean this? "Bible says that In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (all of the matter in the universe). Verse 1"

      First, I don't see this in any translation of Gen 1:1. (http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm)
      Second, even if that were a direct quote, it says nothing of stars until later.
      ==================

      "Birds before mammals, you would have to make the case that “the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground” included reptiles which are older than birds in the fossil record."
      Sorry, but I thought reptiles did "move along the ground", as opposed to fish, which don't.
      Or are you trying to imply that "move along the ground" is a modifier of "livestock", to distinguish it from livestock that swam or flew, I suppose?
      That would seemed to be invalid since the next text finishes the list, "...along the ground, and the wild animals...". It is also reiterated again in the next verse: "...the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds."

      Again, show evidence for birds before land animals, not just mammals.
      ==================
      And, don't forget the flowers/fruit that showed up before any animals.
      ==================

      "noting that this census was the 'first' census clearly implies others that this one is distinguished from, right?"
      Yes, others that were later, hence "first". Quirinius was apparently made governor after King Herod died and his heir was removed. So again, Luke is specifying post-Herod, while Mathew specified "in the days of Herod." How is that possible?

      "Now we know that there was a census in 6AD time frame ordered by him. So, it seems extremely logical that Luke is differentiating this earlier census from that."
      No, that is ridiculous, because he wouldn't have a clue what "we know" now.

      Luke said "(This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)" Apparently, Quirinius wasn't governor until after Herod Archelaus was removed in 6CE, which was after King Herod died in 4BCE, ergo there *was* *no* *census*, first or otherwise, under Quirinius while Herod was king.

      Why would you as.sume, or misrepresent, that Luke meant something else?
      ==================

      "See the first part of this post showing how it is entirely fallacious logic to attempt to say that 'all claims that Jesus wasn’t resurrected are merely responses to early claims that He was, and are therefore exempt from a burden of proof supporting that claim'"
      Well, if I said that, then... wait a second.... I didn't say that, did I!
      Who exactly are you quoting? Certainly, not me!
      ==================

      May 20, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II “The theist has the burden of proof for the claim of the resurrection of Jesus. Correct?
      @CG: “Correct”
      ==============

      @ME II “So, if you are claiming that Jesus was resurrected, where is that 'proof'?
      @Chad “Jesus was crucified, he was buried in a tomb, after 3 days that tomb was found to be empty by a group of women followers, shortly thereafter many people(believers, non-believers and enemies) reported meeting a resurrected Jesus, those same people experienced a radical change in their behavior from running and hiding to proclaiming the truth of the resurrection even to the point of dying for that truth.

      That is not hearsay, as it does not meet the definition of hearsay, namely “the testimony given by a witness who relates not what is known personally but what others have stated” because the information was recorded for us by first hand witnesses (Matthew, John, Peter, James and arguable Mark).

      ==================
      My point with Noah is when this event actually happened, which bears greatly on our ability to understand geological evidence for it. Merely adding up genealogies is not an adequate mechanism to determine date due to the practice of telescoping genealogies. .

      ==================
      Regarding genesis, you need to read it first, here is a good example of how your unfamiliarity with the text and with that style of writing is really hurting your ability to understand it.
      All of the matter in the universe was created in verse 1.
      How much time elapsed from verse 1 to verse 2? Billions of years? We have no idea.
      1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
      2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

      ==================
      Regarding reptiles, I would have to say the bible puts reptiles in the same bucket as amphibians.

      ==================
      The fruit I don’t understand, I would need to do more work investigating, as of right now I wouldn’t have an answer for what seems to be on the surface out of order.

      ==================
      Regarding the census, if someone says “this is the first census” they could clearly be using that to differentiate it from a later census. I don’t think you have a leg to stand on there.. The issue is whether or not there was a census directed by Quirinius before he became governor. To which I would say yes,
      Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31), with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (the somewhat inept Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Varus was famous for the later fiasco at the Teutoburger forest in Germany (9 ad) and at his appointment as Gov.. of Syria in 7 BC was largely 'untested'. The census was due in 8-7 BC, and Augustus could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius (fresh from subduing the Pisidian highlanders) to assist in this volatile project. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor and was probably dragging his feet on taking the census–a process which always enraged the difficult Jews! This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data. Christian Think Tank

      ==================
      @ME II " I didn't say that('all claims that Jesus wasn’t resurrected are merely responses to early claims that He was, and are therefore exempt from a burden of proof supporting that claim'), did I!
      Who exactly are you quoting? Certainly, not me!
      @Chad “that’s definitely how I interpreted your statements, if you don’t believe that to be true, good! I apologize for misunderstanding and look forward to never seeing you make a statement like “Jesus never existed”, or “Jesus was never resurrected” or “the bible is full of nonsense”. After all, as you say, an “atheist makes no claims at all”, right? 😉

      May 21, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,

      You are certain of the authorship of the gospels? I think you would be the first. Is there not ongoing debates about who wrote what gospel and which part of which gospel?

      My point about a world-wide flood is that it would be unmistakable in the geologic record. I don't think there is any peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports a world-wide flood. I would be interested if you find one though, honestly.

      "I would have to say the bible puts reptiles in the same bucket as amphibians."
      First, Why? That makes no sense, as the Bible doesn't specify amphibians either.
      Second, so? Aren't amphibians still within "...all the creatures that move along the ground..." (Gen 1:25)

      "...with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria ... or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine... could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius... and was probably dragging his feet... This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data."
      Conjecture upon speculation upon guess work. "with some evidence," what evidence?

      Wiki, I think, puts him as a "legate of Galatia" around 5-3BCE, but that's only Wikipedia. Yours? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius)

      Wow, you don't even quote me correctly when apologizing for misquoting, sorry "misunderstanding", me. I did not say, "atheist makes no claims at all”.

      May 21, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II “You are certain of the authorship of the gospels? I think you would be the first. Is there not ongoing debates about who wrote what gospel and which part of which gospel?”
      @chad “yes there are, personally I’m convinced on all of them except Mark. Bear in mind as well:
      – The Gospels are anonymous documents, it isn’t like someone is claiming authorship that can be disputed.
      – Even dating in liberal Scholarly circles shows: Mark in the 70s, Matthew in the 80s, John in the 90s, well within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and companions of Jesus.
      – The environment 35-100AD was extremely hostile to this new sect, especially the Jewish authorities would have pounced on anything at all that was inconsistent with the life of Jesus that they themselves witnessed that could have to discredit this heresy.
      – The book of Mark is NOT the earliest record of the life/death/crucifixion/resurrection. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Corinthians 50AD (~15 years after Jesus resurrection)

      It is simply a loosing battle to attempt to claim that the NT writings arent authentic and accurate accounts of the events of Jesus life/death/resurrection. There has simply been to many thoroughly refuted attacks on that credibility over the past 2000 years.

      ==============
      @ME II “My point about a world-wide flood is that it would be unmistakable in the geologic record. I don't think there is any peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports a world-wide flood. I would be interested if you find one though, honestly.
      @Chad “personally I think that people associate a global flood with a young earth viewpoint, which is an unfortunate ignoring of the telescoping genealogies which is common place. Don’t forget as well, that the words used for “earth” could in fact be translated as that region (a local flood).

      ==============
      @ME II “"I would have to say the bible puts reptiles in the same bucket as amphibians."
      First, Why? That makes no sense, as the Bible doesn't specify amphibians either.
      Second, so? Aren't amphibians still within "...all the creatures that move along the ground..." (Gen 1:25)”
      @Chad “not really, a stretch, as a theistic evolutionist I take the scripture:
      Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
      Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
      Very literally, I think that is exactly what happened, and it took millions of years (as we know them, God, existing outside of time/space has no past or future, only now. Hence His name for Himself “I am”)

      ==============
      @ME II “""...with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria ... or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine... could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius... and was probably dragging his feet... This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data."
      Conjecture upon speculation upon guess work. "with some evidence," what evidence?”
      @Chad “pretty solid reasoning it seems to me, he was senior, in the area, what’s the basis for doubting it?
      Don’t forget, for years people thought they had the bible on the ropes because there was no such person as Pilate, then in 1961 along comes the “pilate stone”.

      ============
      @ ME II “Wow, you don't even quote me correctly when apologizing for misquoting, sorry "misunderstanding", me. I did not say, "atheist makes no claims at all”.
      @ ME II “Most non-Theists (including Agnostics, but not strong Atheists), I think, hold the position of not accepting belief in the supernatural. This is not a position, but a lack of position in that they are not making the claim, "God doesn't exist".”

      May 21, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Whether you are "personally" "convinced" or not, is irrelevant...

      As I said before, this becomes tedious. I will only point out that, if you don't see the obvious differences between:

      "non-Theists... are not making the claim, 'God doesn't exist'. ”
      and
      "atheist makes no claims at all”

      Then not only do you not understanding the concept of quotation, but you don't even understand the difference between singular, "the claim," and plural, "no claims at all". This goes a long way toward understanding why honest debate with you is so difficult and frustrating.

      Peace...

      May 22, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • ME II

      ^ "understanding" should be "understand" ^

      May 22, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Chad

      @ME II "You are certain of the authorship of the gospels?"
      @Chad "@chad “I am personally I’m convinced on all of them except Mark."
      @ME II "Whether you are "personally" "convinced" or not, is irrelevant...
      @Chad "well, I thought that is what you asked, but ok. What is your point then?

      ================
      @ME II "Then not only do you not understanding the concept of quotation, but you don't even understand the difference between singular, "the claim," and plural, "no claims at all". This goes a long way toward understanding why honest debate with you is so difficult and frustrating."
      @Chad "ok, fine, what claims DO atheists make?"

      May 22, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
  11. Birch please

    "There is NOTHING from without a man, that entering into him can defile him" Mark 7
    .... so you are either a jew (and can have your hateful, war mongering diety) or you are a christian and like jesus have tolerance and do no harm........ Or you can just realize that it is mythology, leave the bronze age, and live in reality.

    May 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  12. Birch please

    If you are against h0m0s3xuality because of the bible and eat pork you are truly a fool and hating bigot (jesus would be proud). If there is a god you are certainly on its bad side.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      no worries, there's no god.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      no worries there. no such thing as god.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Careful for what you ask for Birch ...

      Satan deceives the whole world.
      Revelation 12:9

      For this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, . . .
      2 Thessalonians 2:11

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • birch please

      A) your all mighty lord, who created the universe(s) with billions of galaxies has an evil nemesis that he fights with over the souls of varying shades of pink monkeys... for the past .000001% of all time.

      B) This same loving god tries to deceive you so that he can place you into a pit of fire.............

      hahahahahahahahahahaha, have fun with that.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Now see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.

      Deuteronomy 32:39

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
  13. A Serpent's Thought

    Preaching "tolerance" is not the Way of God nor even of mankind's truly godly! For such reverencies of pastoralships have become secular and speak only for the sakes of needed monetary gain to keep their own words afloat and aloft in the fields of leveraged Tv and internet space! A child who has inherited their father's ministry tends not their flocks' needfulness but rather they seek out the money of their followers whle never skipping a beat of their inherited coventry! I would rather see the sodomites get to heaven then the pastors of inherited religious propoganda lead down the road to "perdisciousness" sakes! Eat one's fill and grow fat for the crematories' finalities End!

    May 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      "I would rather see the sodomites get to heaven"

      no such thing as god, sowwy.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      Booty, absolute statements need absolute proof, to which you have none

      May 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      He who walks in his uprightness fears the Lord, but he who is perverse in his ways despises Him.

      Proverbs 14:2

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
  14. Birch please

    Please give the exact passage in S & G tale that precisely references h0mos3xuality..... Oh so you have never actually read the book you base your entire life philosophy from.....

    May 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • A Serpent's Thought

      Birch please

      1Ki 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: [and] they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

      Need a few more verses?

      1Ki 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

      1Ki 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

      2Ki 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that [were] by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      The only reference I found was

      -And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. —Gen 19:5 It can be inferred from the following verse as the group of men turned down Lot's 2 virgin daughters which Lot himself offered to them.

      However the real reason the cities were destroyed was because Lot could not find 10 "righteous" people in the city.. Gen 18.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Birch please

      Serpent, what does it feel like to be a brain washed fool? the world sodomite means you come from sodom.......no more, no less (until a few 100 years later)........ duh

      May 14, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Birch please

      Thank you lunch for an actually intelligent response. So the whole thing breaks down to the "know them". With not a single other reference to anything g@y, how can you claim this means nothing more than having a few drink and partying with WOMEN (and some premarital s33x)??? This would be very un "righteous" for a sheep herder living in the desert.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • A Serpent's Thought

      @ Birch please

      Definition of SODOMY
      anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite s.e.x; also: copulation with an animal

      Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the ho-mo-se-x-ual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11
      First Known Use: 13th century

      May 14, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • Birch please

      "First Known Use: 13th century"...... hahahahahahahaha, and according to you this is before the bible was written.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      In earlier translations instead of "know" it was more explicit, they meant to plow the men, who happened to be angels in disguise. But still not necessarily the only reason for the destruction of the city.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Of course, archeologists have not yet proven the city ever existed, those angels did thier job well.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • birch please

      Lunch, "in earlier translations" thats the whole point. The words have been translated so many times its crazy to pick absolutes out of it.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Word up on that.

      May 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Birch, just for fun, here is the original version:
      ה וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל-לוֹט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה; הוֹצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ, וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם

      May 14, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • birch please

      hahahaha, thanks lunch that helps

      May 14, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Birch, stop trying to re-write history, it's obviously not your forte.

      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

      John 1:1

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
  15. Birch please

    ......and also have fun worshipping on the wrong holy day. Sunday is for pagans.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      yay pagans!!!

      May 14, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • ME II

      Pagans:
      they do it Rite.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
  16. Dave

    My wife and I enjoy sodomy.

    *high five*

    May 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      so do me and my wife.

      *high five*

      May 14, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • youth in asia

      I enjoy my wife pounding my poop chute with a 12 inch black veiny strap on.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Dave

      Me too! I like it when she can fit her whole fist in me.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Dave

      I even have a huge piece that suctions to my headboard so I can get reemed st both ends!

      May 14, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
  17. A Serpent's Thought

    Sodomy is of wickedry and vileness! The fruits of sodomy recruit those who are weak in sensualisms regards! Do not be a recruit to the fruits of sodomy just for a few moments of pleasure in the vile acts and actions of the sodomites! Stand strong all you believers of Godliness and let not your guard down whenever a gay fruit of sodomy dares to confront you by offering you to participate in a sensual act unbecoming your soulfulness ideals! Do not become a willing victim by pairing with and becoming a fruit of sodomited Acts who actions go against God's teachings! The sorrows of becoming a sodomite leads to one wanting to hate God for being allowed to taste sodomy and its' animalisms disgusting ways! Be strong in God's declarations of being against the sodomite!

    They are wretched creatures that know not God and His Truths! They lie about their own filthiness ways by proclaiming the adulterers and adultresses of the marriages of one man and one woman are no different and they are so right! Just because these fruits of sodomy know well a married persons vileness and wretched filth is no reason to become a sodomite! You people who are yet young in agedness, I implore you to remain in virginal ways! Do not be tempted into Acts of sensualism's decadences just for a moments pleasings! Allow no one you yet of youngness to be and become an leavened learner of sensualism's fruits! You have the rest of your Life to live and to be led by sensualisms alone are disgusting and unworthy of trading one's soul for a few fleeting moments of vile bliss!

    May 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Birch please

      There is a place that your god sends people full of as much hate as you have.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      you need to get laid. badly.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Huebert

      My wife enjoys sodomy. You should try it sometime it's a lot of fun.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • A Serpent's Real Thought

      food... food... se.x..... food..... sleep.... food.... food... sleep... BITE!!!... FLEE!!!!!.... food... food.. sleep... etc.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      sounds like you could use a 72 hour psychiatric evaluation.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • A Serpent's Thought

      Wood-working creatures do come out of their coffins when they feel the firey threats amassing their woodies! Leaches are they who dwell in the hollowness of Life's enmities!

      May 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • ... Dreamer, is that you?

      ?

      May 14, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

      Proverbs 16:4

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
  18. Bootyfunk

    the christians that know the bible is wrong make excuses for it. the bible very clearly says to kill g.a.y.s. modern christians know that is evil, so they ignore it. the more time goes on, the more our ethics/values improve, the more christians ignore their rule book. just take the next step - throw it away. the bible is a terrible guide for living a good life.

    May 14, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • catholic engineer

      It might be an interesting exercise to submerge the bible for awhile. Then, you'll have to come face to face with human nature as it really is. You'll discover that humanity is capable of great good or terrible atrocity all by itself. The bible was written not because people are nice, but because they are not.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Chad

      @Catholic Engineer "The bible was written not because people are nice, but because they are not"

      =>precisely.
      When you point out to atheists that they don't really even have a fundamental understanding of that which they profess to criticize (Christian theology and the bible in general), they always just respond with "I dont have to understand Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns", which is really just a false analogy.

      The vast majority of the time atheism isnt based on understanding or investigation. It is based on a hatred of religious institutions

      May 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      i agree, people are capable of great good and great evil.

      "The bible was written not because people are nice, but because they are not."

      but here you seem to think we'd are not good, but bad. i don't agree. and i definitely don't agree that the bible helps us be better people. the bible says in no uncertain terms to kill g.a.y.s, non-virgin brides and disobedient children. the bible supports slavery. basically, the bible is a terrible guide for leading a good life. humanism offers a much better set of ethics to live by. no killing of innocents in the name of god for a start...

      May 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      "The vast majority of the time atheism isnt based on understanding or investigation. It is based on a hatred of religious inst.itutions"

      that's funny since your book tells you to hate atheists. your book says to kill us. you book says we will be tortured for all eternity by your "loving" god. and you say atheists are full of hatred? lol.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Chad

      @Bootyfunk ".. i definitely don't agree that the bible helps us be better people.."

      =>so, as expected.. you completely misunderstood his point. It is not God's (who's interaction with man is recorded in the bible) primary purpose to make bad people good.

      His purpose is to make dead people alive, salvation comes first.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "The vast majority of the time atheism isnt based on understanding or investigation. It is based on a hatred of religious insti.tutions"
      You've had atheist specifically say this, or that is how you interpret what they say?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      "=>so, as expected.. you completely misunderstood his point. It is not God's (who's interaction with man is recorded in the bible) primary purpose to make bad people good."

      as expected, you completely misunderstood my point. when did i say anything about God's intentions? i said following the bible doesn't make you a good person. which is true. aside from the fact that there is no god and the bible was written by man - so it's not really god's purpose,is it? it's man's purpose.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "You've had atheist specifically say this, or that is how you interpret what they say?"

      =>both, I can count on one finger the number of atheists that I have dialogued with on this board that had even a very basic understanding of the bible and Christian theology in general.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • ME II

      "You'll discover that humanity is capable of great good or terrible atrocity all by itself. "
      Was anyone saying otherwise? Religion just allows the justification of great atrocities, although, admittedly, that's not the only method of justification.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      "Chad

      @ME II "You've had atheist specifically say this, or that is how you interpret what they say?"

      =>both, I can count on one finger the number of atheists that I have dialogued with on this board that had even a very basic understanding of the bible and Christian theology in general."

      you're so full of cr@p. i've read the bible from cover to cover with historical, religious and skeptical study guides. you think atheists don't know anything about the bible because they disagree with you. studies show that christians know less about the bible than atheists.

      and christians say atheists will be tortured forever, but they don't hate? read some of the religious posts, pls. read the ones by A Serpent's Thoughts on this same blog page. you're posts show your own ignorance.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • momoya

      @Chad

      Once again, I cannot believe how it is possible that you are this fvcking stupid. You don't even have/use logical premises.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Chad

      God's will is reflected in the biblical narrative
      The bible was not created to make bad people good.
      The bible was created to make lost people found, it does this primarily by showing us exactly how bad (and as a result – separated from God) we are

      May 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      the bible says to kill people.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Chad

      @momoya "You don't even have/use logical premises."

      =>it just appears that way to you because you are unfamiliar with Christian theology and the biblical narrative.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      I would have to ask for evidence of this. I can't think of any atheist I've heard of that will state, "I'm athiest because I hate religious insti.tuitions" or words to that effect.

      I doubt that you've heard that since atheism, by definition (in most cases), is a lack of belief and you don't need that to hate an insti.tution. You may be confusing this with those became interested in atheism because of a bad experience, but that's different.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Chad

      @Bootyfunk "the bible says to kill people."

      Do you know why it says that?
      Do you know what the bible says is the reason for that?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Madtown

      It is not God's (who's interaction with man is recorded in the bible)
      ---------
      Yes, and the details of these interactions were written by the very men who supposedly had them!! How convenient. Are you really that gullible?

      May 14, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Madtown

      The bible was created to make lost people found
      -----
      And, what about human beings in this world(creations of God) that are born into a place where they will never hear the name Jesus, and never open the pages of the christian bible? Are they just discarded?

      May 14, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      @Bootyfunk is correct, on religious knowledge, anyway. In a Pew survey on 'U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey', "Overall, the three groups that perform best in this survey are atheists and agnostics (who get an average of 20.9 out of 32 questions right)"

      May 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • ME II

      here the link:
      http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx

      May 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,

      @momoya said: "You don't even have/use logical premises."
      @Chad said: it just appears that way to you because you are unfamiliar with Christian theology and the biblical narrative

      That's ridiculous. Logic is not dependent of Theology or biblical narratives.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @Bootyfunk "you're so full of cr@p. i've read the bible from cover to cover with historical, religious and skeptical study guides."

      =>I dont believe you..

      Without resorting to looking it up somewhere:
      a. where in the bible does it record God directing someone to kill someone else?
      b. what reason does the bible give for God issuing that command?

      May 14, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Chad

      @momoya said: "You don't even have/use logical premises."
      @Chad said: it just appears that way to you because you are unfamiliar with Christian theology and the biblical narrative
      @ME II "That's ridiculous. Logic is not dependent of Theology or biblical narratives."

      =>1) To understand the logic presented, it's first necessary to understand the position being discussed.
      =>2) What premise did I use that is illogical?

      May 14, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.

      Galatians 6:7

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Perhaps I misread your statement. All I'm saying that theology is unnecessary to the understanding of logic, which is what I thought you were saying. As to whether your particular argument is sound, or makes sense, I'd have know to which statement @momoya was referring.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • momoya

      @Chad

      Look, it's time for you to face facts.. You're a moron.. I'm sorry about that but it's true.. I have read and studied the bible for fifty years.. You have your reasons for believing as you do, and those reasons seem to have nothing at all to do with logic, but they work for YOU.. Just because some stupid idea is good enough for your biased perspective doesn't mean that it's good logic.. It's just good enough for you, and you're stupid, so arguments that seem cool to you really aren't.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "Perhaps I misread your statement. All I'm saying that theology is unnecessary to the understanding of logic, which is what I thought you were saying.
      @Chad: "ok, got it. Yes, you are correct, the statement that "theology is unnecessary to the understanding of logic" is true in the abstract.

      @ME II "As to whether your particular argument is sound, or makes sense, I'd have know to which statement @momoya was referring."
      @Chad "good question, what statement were you referring to @momoya?

      May 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • Well

      Well, interesting that a person who absolutely believes the book of bible is absolute truth and nothing else thinks he can understand the absolute polar opposite of that..
      1) There are people who only know religious pov.
      2) There are people who knew religious pov and concluded logically that it is bunk.

      Chad, you come from the first group and call the second group wrong based on logic.. Ah, I see. umm.. great reasoning, my friend!

      But your entire outlook and logical reasoning capability can be concluded by one statement you made.. "His purpose is to make dead people alive". Fairy tale time, y'all!

      May 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • hmm

      Deflection and distraction.. two intellectually dishonest debate tactics in logical debate that I see Chad using all over. It is futile to debate about anything with such a person..

      ps.. check out http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

      May 14, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • momoya

      @Chad

      Your original reply to ce, especially the end.

      May 14, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge.

      Proverbs 1:22

      Amen.

      May 14, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • Chad

      Chad "both, I can count on one finger the number of atheists that I have dialogued with on this board that had even a very basic understanding of the bible and Christian theology in general."

      you believe that is an illogical premise??
      It's very true, how in the world could it be illogical?

      May 14, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • clgmm74@yahoo.com

      @Well

      I have yet to see where your logic has been shown "as sound."

      You can choose to make the assumption that an individual whose beliefs differ from yours lives in a fairy tale world.

      You could ask for a contextual definition of alive to identify his meaning and intent. It is fairly common here to mistake another person's meaning of a word, thereby labeling them in whatever way you deem. Would that be the truth?

      A variance among details leads to unnecessary misunderstandings.

      May 14, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @hmm "Deflection and distraction.. two intellectually dishonest debate tactics in logical debate that I see Chad using all over"

      =>perhaps you could show me where I have done that?
      Serious question by the way.. I dont think I have in any way shape or form. Would be interesting to see what you considered to be that.

      May 14, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
  19. ~~~8~~~

    Another member of "emergent" church........

    Emerged from pits of hell itself!

    May 14, 2012 at 11:28 am |
  20. hamsta

    God destroyed the cities of sodom and gammorha for a reason. where do you think the word sodomy comes from? and now some phony preachers son wants me to tolerate gays? why? so God can target america with an asteroid feild? i dont think so. send the sodomites to pakistan. let them deal with rocks falling from the sky.

    May 14, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      So you worship a God who would just consider you and your fellow believers collateral damage in His war against sodomy?

      May 14, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • J.W

      There are many states and countries that do have legal gay marriage, but God has not done anything to them. Maybe he does not really mind gay marriage.

      May 14, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • just sayin

      "so God can target america with an asteroid feild? "
      .
      Do you also hear God's voice?

      May 14, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • Madtown

      Not the greatest troll effort, but thanks for trying.

      May 14, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • momoya

      So the best way to get along with a terrorist is to give him his way, I guess.. Such a loving god you worship.

      May 14, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      you just have to start off gently with a.nal s.ex. use a lot of lube and help your partner relax.

      May 14, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • Birch please

      Please give the exact passage in S & G tale that precisely references h0mos3xuality..... Oh so you have never actually read the book you base your entire life philosophy from.... BTW have fun eating your sinful bacon.

      May 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Sad to know Birch that you are willing to fry over semantics. Future children will not comprehend your slang. Does it mean that you never used it?

      May 14, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • Birch please

      HS, what is to say you do not comprehend the "slang" ie vernacular of the time from when the bible was written.... in reference to that time you are a future child. BTW semantics is one thing (ie what "an" means in the 1st amendment) but this is different from no clear reference what... so... ever. Keep living your hate filled life, thats what jesus would do.

      May 14, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      "Sad to know Birch that you are willing to fry over semantics."

      It's sad to know that Christians are still using the tired tactic of FEAR MONGERING. Seriously, its getting rather old....especially when your threats are backed by nothing but pure SPECULATION

      May 14, 2012 at 3:32 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.