 |
|
|
|
 Evangelical Christians say they are the new victims of intolerance - they're persecuted for condemning homosexuality.
May 5th, 2013
06:00 AM ET
When Christians become a 'hated minority'By John Blake, CNN (CNN) - When Peter Sprigg speaks publicly about his opposition to homosexuality, something odd often happens. During his speeches, people raise their hands to challenge his assertions that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but no Christians speak out to defend him. “But after it is over, they will come over to talk to me and whisper in my ear, ‘I agree with everything you said,’" says Sprigg, a spokesman for The Family Research Council, a powerful, conservative Christian lobbying group. We’ve heard of the “down-low” gay person who keeps his or her sexual identity secret for fear of public scorn. But Sprigg and other evangelicals say changing attitudes toward homosexuality have created a new victim: closeted Christians who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality but will not say so publicly for fear of being labeled a hateful bigot. As proof, Sprigg points to the backlash that ESPN commentator Chris Broussard sparked recently. Broussard was called a bigot and a purveyor of hate speech when he said an NBA player who had come out as gay was living in “open rebellion to God.” Broussard said the player, Jason Collins, was “living in unrepentant sin” because the Bible condemns homosexuality. “In the current culture, it takes more courage for someone like Chris Broussard to speak out than for someone like Jason Collins to come out,” says Sprigg, a former pastor. “The media will hail someone who comes out of the closet as gay, but someone who simply expresses their personal religious views about homosexual conduct is attacked.” When is disagreement hate? Bryan Litfin, a theology professor at Moody Bible Institute in Illinois, says Christians should be able to publicly say that God designed sex to take place within a marriage between a man and a woman. “That isn’t so outrageous,” Litfin says. “Nobody is expressing hate toward homosexuals by saying that. Since when is disagreement the same as hate?” But quoting the Bible doesn't inoculate anyone from becoming a bigot or hater, some scholars say. There's a point at which a Christian's opposition to homosexuality can become bigotry, and even hate speech, they say. Crossing such a line has happened many times in history. A literal reading of the Bible was used to justify all sorts of hatred: slavery, the subjugation of women and anti-Semitism, scholars and pastors say. “Truly damaging speech cannot be excused just because it expresses genuine religious belief,” says Mark D. Jordan, author of “Recruiting Young Love: How Christians Talk about Homosexuality.” “Some religious beliefs, sincerely held, are detestable. They cannot be spoken without disrupting social peace,” says Jordan, a professor at the John Danforth Center on Religion & Politics at Washington University in St. Louis. The point where religious speech becomes hate speech is difficult to define, though, scholars and activists say. The Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama is a nonprofit civil rights group that combats and monitors hate groups. Three years ago, it designated the Family Research Council, the group that Sprigg represents, as a hate group - a characterization the group stridently rejects. Mark Potok, a center spokesman, says there’s no shared definition of what constitutes hate speech. “There is no legal meaning. It’s just a phrase,” Potok says. “Hate speech is in the ear of the beholder.” 'One of the most hated minorities?' Intolerance may be difficult to define, but some evangelicals say they have become victims of intolerance because of their reverence for the Bible. The conservative media culture is filled with stories about evangelicals being labeled as “extremists” for their belief that homosexuality is a sin. Their sense of persecution goes beyond their stance on homosexuality. There are stories circulating of evangelical students being suspended for opposing homosexuality, a teacher fired for giving a Bible to a curious student, and the rise of anti-Christian bigotry. A blogger at The American Dream asked in one essay: “Are evangelical Christians rapidly becoming one of the most hated minorities in America?” The reluctance of evangelicals to speak out against homosexuality is often cited as proof they are being forced into the closet. Joe Carter, editor for The Gospel Coalition, an online evangelical magazine, wrote a blog post entitled “Debatable: Is the Christian Church a ‘Hate Group’?" He warned that young people will abandon “orthodox” Christian churches that teach that homosexuality is a sin for fear of being called haters. “Faux civility, embarrassment, prudishness and a fear of expressing an unpopular opinion has caused many Christians to refrain from explaining how homosexual conduct destroys lives,” Carter wrote. Some Christians fear that opposing homosexuality could cause them to lose their jobs and “haunt them forever,” Carter says. “It’s easier to just go along,” says Carter, who is also author of “How to Argue Like Jesus.” “You don’t want to be lumped in with the bigots. That’s a powerful word." Edward Johnson, a communication professor at Campbell University in North Carolina, says we are now living in a "postmodern" era where everything is relative and there is no universally accepted truth. It's an environment in which anyone who says "this is right" and "that is wrong" is labeled intolerant, he says. There was a time when a person could publicly say homosexuality was wrong and people could consider the statement without anger, he says. Today, people have reverted to an intellectual tribalism where they are only willing to consider the perspective of their own tribe. “They are incapable of comprehending that someone may have a view different than theirs,” Johnson says. “For them anyone who dares to question the dogma of the tribe can only be doing so out of hatred.” Sprigg, from the Family Research Council, says his condemnation of homosexual conduct does not spring from intolerance but a desire to protect gays from harmful conduct, he says. Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the council, wrote in a council pamphlet that homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are straight men. He also wrote that gay men are also afflicted with a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases and mental illness as well. Sprigg says he does not believe homosexuality is a choice and that “personal testimonies" and "clinical experience” show that some people “can and do change from gay to straight.” “Maybe we need to do a better job of showing that we are motivated by Christian love,” Sprigg says. “Love is wanting the best for someone, and acting to bring that about.” 'That's a lie' Potok, from the Southern Poverty Law Center, has little use for the love Sprigg talks about. He calls it hatred, and his voice rose in anger when he talked about the claims by Sprigg and other Christian groups that gay men are more predisposed to molest children and that homosexual behavior is inherently harmful. He says the Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t designate the Family Research Group a hate group because they view homosexuality as a sin or oppose same-sex marriage, Potok says. There are plenty of Christian groups who hold those beliefs but are not hate groups, he says. A group becomes a hate group when it attacks and maligns an entire class of people for their “immutable characteristics,” Potok says. The Family Research Council spreads known falsehoods about gays and lesbians, he says, such as the contention that gay men are predisposed to abuse children. “That’s a lie,” Potok says. “These guys are engaging in straight-up defamation of a very large group of people. There are not many things much worse than you can say in America about somebody than they are a child molester.” Potok scoffed at Spriggs’ claim that the council and other evangelical anti-gay groups are victims of intolerance. “That’s whining on the part of people who spend their days and nights attacking gay people and then some people criticize them and they don’t like it,” he says. “That’s pathetic. It reminds me of slave owners complaining that people are saying ugly things about them.” What the Bible says What about the popular evangelical claim, “We don’t hate the sinner, just the sin” – is that seen as intolerance or hate speech when it comes to homosexuality? There are those who say you can’t hate the sin and love the sinner because being gay or lesbian is defined by one’s sexual behavior; it’s who someone is. “Most people who identify as gay and lesbian would say that this is not an action I’m choosing to do; this is who I am,” says Timothy Beal, author of “The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book.” Beal, a religion professor at Case Western University in Ohio, says it should be difficult for any Christian to unequivocally declare that the Bible opposes homosexuality because the Bible doesn’t take a single position on the topic. It's an assertion that many scholars and mainline Protestant pastors would agree with. Some people cite Old Testament scriptures as condemning homosexuality, such as Leviticus 18:22 - “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” But other Christians counter by saying they are not bound by the Old Testament. There are those who also cite New Testament scriptures like Romans 1:26-27 - “… Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men. …” Beal, however, says Jesus said little about sex. And the Apostle Paul, who wrote Romans, was probably referring to male prostitution and men having sexual relations with boys, a practice in the Greco-Roman world. “Paul does not understand genetics and sexual orientation the way we understand it now as something much more than a choice,” says Beal. Some evangelicals say Christians can’t change their view of biblical truth just because times change. But some scholars reply: Sure you can. Christians do it all the time. Denying a woman’s ability to preach in church was justified by scriptures like 1 Timothy 2:11-12 - “… I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” But many churches have abandoned that teaching - and some scholars say a woman preached the first Christian sermon, when Mary Magdalene proclaimed that Jesus had risen. Slaveholders in 19th century America justified slavery through a literal reading of the Bible, quoting Titus 2:9-10 – “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything. …” And anti-Semitism was justified by the claims that Jews killed Jesus, such as Matthew 27: 25-26 - “Let his blood be on us and on our children.” Litfin, from Moody Bible Institute, acknowledged that the Bible once sanctioned slavery, but he said that practice was a “cultural expression” that changed over time. Evangelicals who oppose same-sex marriage by citing the Bible are on more solid ground, he says. “Marriage is a universal and timeless institution that God set up for maximum human flourishing. He set it up in the first book of the Bible with the story of Adam and Eve. It is consistent throughout the whole Bible. … Marriage is in a different category than those cultural things.” Public jousts over the Bible's stance on homosexuality rarely change people’s minds. What changes is when people get to know gay and lesbian people as friends and hear their story, says Beal, author of “The Rise and Fall of the Bible.” “If you open up to that other person genuinely, you basically come to a point where you have to sacrifice them to your ideology or crack open your ideology to make a hospitable place for them,” Beal says. One Christian pastor who is gay says the uproar over the ESPN commentator’s comments can actually be good, because debates help settle moral disputes. “What appears to us as antiquated and prejudicial now was once a disputed issue that required debate,” says the Rev. Richard McCarty, a minister in the United Church of Christ and a religious studies professor at Mercyhurst University in Pennsylvania. Until the debate over homosexuality is settled - if it ever is - there may be plenty of evangelical Christians who feel as if they are now being forced to stay in the closet. Carter, the evangelical blogger, says he foresees a day when any church that preaches against homosexuality will be marginalized. Just as many churches now accept divorce, they will accept sexual practices once considered sinful. “It’s getting to the point,” he says, “where churches are not going to say that any sexual activity is wrong.” soundoff (10,982 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Next »
Next entry »Imam doesn't want Tsarnaev 's body
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
It appears to me that:
– LGBT are hated by bigots
– Muslims are hated by xenophobes
– Jews are hated by Nazis
– [insert race here] are hated by racists
– Christians are hated by people who claim to be tolerant, logical, scientifically-grounded, and open-minded.
christians are not hated because they are christians. christians are disliked because they seek to deny others civil rights
Ah, Sara, you are a good troll. You make sweeping generalizations using stereotypes in a bigoted way and win the hypocrite of the day award. Congratulations.
@Sara – Imagine if you will, you are one of a group of students taking their swimming test in high school. The teacher blows the whistle and everyone jumps in the pool and starts dog paddling during the tread water portion of the test and as you are keeping yourself afloat you look around and see a large number of students wearing inflated water wings and just napping as they float through the exam. You get the teachers attention and point this out but the teacher replies "Well they have a note from their parents that says their religion prevents them from getting their hair wet, so they are allowed to wear the water wings." So you ask if you can wear the wings too and the teacher says "No, if you aren't religious then you have to tread water for 15 min".
So after bringing this up to the school board demanding they give the same rights for the test to everyone, the parents of the water winged children said "Well aren't you just a hateful child, attacking our faith and wanting our rights, why do you hate us so much? What did we ever do to you? Why do you even want to use the word marri.., er, waterwinged anyway?"
"Christians are hated by people who claim to be tolerant, logical, scientifically-grounded, and open-minded."
So tell us why you hate atheists for being tolerant, logical, scientifically-grounded, and open-minded, and provide some evidence that we really do hate you? I don't hate Christians, and you know it. And, for the love of whatever, why do you insist on pretending that people who find deities unlikely all share a common philosophy and doctrine? If I hated you, I'd sneer with contempt instead of debating as an equal. I must confess I find your attempts to prop up God by lying about what others believe somewhat contemptible.
and another couple of questions that Christians may be able to help me with:
1. how do you know which passages of the Bible need to be obeyed and which can be ignored?
2. what is the % of the Bible that must be obeyed and what % can be ignored?
I would appreciate your candor. And once again I would comment that a retreat into mysticism is the first refuge of the cornered fool. And (Heavensent) pleasetry to offer something other than a Bible verse.
I would like to know how you know which verses were meant as metaphor, and which verses were meant to be taken literally?
The part about not wearing fabric made from tow kinds of thread can be ignored, and the part about loving your fellow man is obviously something added recently by liberals, right? But the "Begats" are law.
Paul, you just pick and choose between literal and metaphor as needed to fit your own concept of christianity. That's why the bible, even though all of it is basically bullshit, can be molded into something believable by any reasonably simple person, which is what most religies are.
Learn the literary genre... read historical narrative as historical narrative (Kings, the Gospels, Acts...) read poetry as poetry (Psalms and Proverbs). There are many courses out there in hermeneutics if you are interested.
Better yet, if you don't take the story of Adam and Eve to be literal, then why would you still be a Christian?
it has to be all or nothing doesn't it? Either obey every line of the bible as God's word, or else admit that some lines can be ignored, and then the entire book is of dubious value.
So belief and trust in the Christ makes you a Christian. The question would be if the Christ and the Apostles he taught quote the first part of Genesis about 60 times, then why do you not believe and trust in his teachings and thus treat him as LORD over all creation.
Dyslexic doG,
I don’t think you are looking for “help”, but who knows.
The bible can’t be privately interpreted. In other words, you shouldn’t read a verse and decide what it means. You should read the whole chapter, the whole book, the whole bible and use the bible to interpret the bible. So, the answer to your first question is, it depends. It depends on, to whom the command was given. None of the bible should be ignored. In context of the whole body of work it gives us some idea of how God thinks about things.
Either obey every line of the bible as God's word... yes, every line is God's word. Now why can't He use different writing styles but you can? Are you greater than God?
As for obeying, if you read the bible, the point is we don't obey, hence the need for grace, for if salvation could come through the law, Christ died for nothing.
Robert: Everyone or I should say, every sect of religion that uses the Bible has their own way of interpreting it. There are christians who say the OT no longer applies and there are others who say it does.
It says whatever someone needs it to say to justify their actions.
Truth,
When you write OT, I think you mean mosaic law. There is a whole lot more in the OT than the law. I don’t believe the law given to the jews applies to Christians, but it still gives us some insight into how God thinks. Also, Mike’s reply is very good. The law is like a mirror, it shows us our need.
RB, Does it explain why your god needed an interim religion (or more if you count the various christian sects).
Mike from CT
Who is to say that Jesus didn't die for nothing? He may have been mistaken about how important he was, or he could have just been a preacher who was the root of a legend that ended up with developing this character called The Christ. We can't prove anything historically.
If you obey the Bible as God's word, then aren't you just following orders without using your moral sense? You're acting like some soldier who accepts the authority of your commanding officer, and doing everything they command you to do without question, even if your conscience tells you that it's actually wrong. That's not being moral; that's just being a good soldier/subordinate. True morality comes into play when you have to decide for yourself which things are moral, or not.
If we don't obey, and all we need is grace, then why even try to be moral, even by biblical standards? The worse person imaginable can be forgiven and justified if they finally find faith in Christ just before they die. Why be a chump and be as good as you can for decades if it doesn't help you any more?
"We can't prove anything historically."
Absolutely we can, that is why we charge people to learn history at universities. History is a valid form of knowledge.
If Christ is not risen then we are fools, but the evidence of the historical resurrection is overwhelming
"If you obey the Bible as God's word, then aren't you just following orders without using your moral sense? "
No, consider your as.sertion, if you follow the traffic laws then aren't you "following orders without using your moral sense"
Read the gospels, Jesus only once refuses to answer a question. Christian faith is not blind faith. I don't know how that rumor ever got started
"You're acting like some soldier who accepts the authority of your commanding officer"
Yes
"doing everything they command you to do without question, even if your conscience tells you that it's actually wrong."
No, it is because of the trust and authority that Jesus shows in how he lived his life, teachings, death (blessing those that opposed him instead of cur.sing them as I would) and resurrection. Jesus is trustworthy. Do you no do things for people you trust?
"If we don't obey, and all we need is grace, then why even try to be moral, even by biblical standards?"
Great question, that the readers of Paul were asking back in 60AD
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. (Romans 6:1-8)
Basically, you can not say you believe and trust in Jesus if you even have that line of thinking. It shows no love for the gift of salvation given to you. It is what is known as "cheap grace" which is no grace at all
"The worse person imaginable can be forgiven and justified if they finally find faith in Christ just before they die. "
YES PRAISE GOD.
Hope that helps
Awesome Mike. Perfect answers. Doesn't mean the next round won't have the same objections though. There are no new ones for non-believers to exploit
Mike, There is almost nothing of the bible that can be confirmed historically – a few people and places but other than that nothing; that includes the resurrection and the other miracles attributed to Jesus.
Science shows that the creation, Adam and Eve, etc are wrong. There is no evidence for the stories of Jonah, Noah, Lot, etc.
Quoting the bible to prove the bible is not actual proof – because if it were I can prove that Harry Potter is real.
"Mike, There is almost nothing of the bible that can be confirmed historically – a few people and places but other than that nothing; "
Correct, Archaeology, internal consistency, manuscript evidence and literary style are the normal four test of historicity. Which ones do you use?
"Science shows that the creation, Adam and Eve, etc are wrong"
Please cite your sources, I would like to learn more, if this is true. Although it is not normal for science to comment on historical events since they are not repeatable, the one necessity of science.
Update :for ....... Bill Deacon...........you are WRONG !!!
That red devil with the funky horns...........and his partner the fairy in the sky.........did NOT create US !
The ORIGIN story is bullsh-it...............so is the bible............... nasty !
From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml
Scientists have unearthed the first direct signs of cheesemaking, at a site in Poland that dates back 7,500 years.
Human Evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2cHumanevo.shtml
AND
Easy to do !
For all creationists and ID believers...............IT only takes minutes to figure IT out. No fairy in the sky needed !
New Device Can Extract Human DNA With Full Genetic Data in Minutes
May 6, 2013 — Take a swab of saliva from your mouth and within minutes your DNA could be ready for analysis and genome sequencing with the help of a new device.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506132100.htm
Foot note............ethics + morals = really tough on religion !
Facts work best for teaching children !
Evolution wins hands down ..........time for god(s) to get the HELL out of the way................so humanity can evolve !
Dinosaur Egg Study Supports Evolutionary Link Between Birds and Dinosaurs: How Troodon Likely Hatched Its Young
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418104324.htm
Peace
Oops do not forget about the chondrites !
" because if it were I can prove that Harry Potter is real."
No you can't because we have the historical testimony from the author stating clearly that it is not real. And nobody even tried to put JK Rowling to death. Now with the Gospel you have the people closes to Jesus stating that this man lived, and did all this stuff without sin and was with them bodily after He died. When pressured they died for what they believed in.
People don't die for a lie. Take watergate for example. That only took about 6 weeks until the lie was exposed and people starting to admit they covered up. 6 weeks.
Re: "If Christ is not risen then we are fools, but the evidence of the historical resurrection is overwhelming," where can we find this overwhelming evidence and why doesn't the Smithsonian agree?
"New Device Can Extract Human DNA With Full Genetic Data in Minutes"
But you start from a position of DNA already existing and the physics existing so you can work with them.... you want to create without a Creator, then create DNA strains from scratch not a replicate. Create new laws of physics, that is don't come up with equations that explain what already exist but CREATE a new law of physics. Decide how you want this new physics to work and enforce it. Without that what you have is not creation.
How can you look at the densely information packed in a DNA strand and not see a creator behind the creation but also see the lessly dense information in this comment section and not yell SEE NOBODY CREATED THESE POST, THEY ARE ALL CHANCE AND I CAN RECREATE EACH ONE OF THEM. To treat one as creation and the other as not would be intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.
"why doesn't the Smithsonian agree?"
Please explain, because I have visited the Smithsonian and must have missed that exhibit.
You can look at the John Rylands Library to see a fragment of history. But like all other history you would read about it to get the information
http://www.challies.com/articles/the-history-of-christianity-in-25-objects-rylands-library-papyrus-p52
@Mike
How can you look at the densely information packed in a DNA strand and not see a creator behind the creation
The same way you can look at the vastness of universe and think that it was all created by magic, and that we’re the only inhabitants. Or perhaps the same way that you can think that everything must have a creator except of course the magic man in the sky. Intellectually dishonest indeed.
Was the bible around back then ?
Human Y Chromosome Much Older Than Previously Thought
Mar. 4, 2013 — The discovery and analysis of an extremely rare African American Y chromosome pushes back the time of the most recent common ancestor for the Y chromosome lineage tree to 338,000 years ago. This time predates the age of the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305145821.htm
No god(s) needed or required to graduate from public schools in the US
Remember : Adam had to POKE himself hard with his OWN BONE to create Eve.
MikefromCT
I see you ignoring scientific evidence, and you have expressed that science is making false a$$umptions, so you reject the explainations science has provided, but then you turn right around and accept the false a$$umptions that religion provides.
You do not accept the scienctific theories and dismiss them, but readily accept the theoretical gods men created 2000 years ago...do you not see the flaw in your logic?
Why dismiss one for a non-reason, but accept the other ignoring the same non-reason?
You (anyone) can find references to the Smithsonian's statements on The Babble (and The Book of Moron) on the web. They conclude their statement on The Babble with "In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document."
Rupert
Please finish reading the post, you will see the inconsistancy in your belief. Or continue believing that this message board is a random accident.
@Richard
"I see you ignoring scientific evidence, and you have expressed that science is making false a$$umptions,"
Not at all. When have I done that. I ask that you help link me to this scientific evidence that you have.
"but readily accept the theoretical gods men created 2000 years ago...do you not see the flaw in your logic?"
The flaw in the statement it is not the "theoretical gods men created 2000 years ago" but I accept history as a valid form of knowledge. That is my reason. Why do you reject the history of the gospels?
@HAA, I will try and find that and get back to you. It will take a few days though.
@HAA, just to confirm I am looking at the doc.ument you asked it is the one with the paragraph
"On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical doc.uments as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient docu.ments in archeological work."
Maybe they should not have created the wedge !!!
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Insti-tute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Insti-tute manifesto known as the Wedge Docu-ment,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic
convictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Peace
February 10, 2013 at 11:03 am | Report abuse
@Mike from CT
Your "argument" is too childish to bother countering, but please do answer me this. If everything needs a creator, then who, or what created the god of Abraham?
Don't you know, Rupert? God is a spirit that exists outside of space and time, so god doesn't need a creator or even proof of existence.
Of course, the same could be said about pretty much anything, but this has never stopped some christians from using it as an excuse for the utter lack of evidence.
@Rupert
That is a common mistake. it is not "everything needs a creator" but "Everything that has a BEGINNING has a cause and thus have a creator". The universe has a beginning (thermodynamics) therefore the universe has a creator. God is eternal and does not have a beginning. Good question though
Hope that helps
While the Smithsonian does not condemn The Babble as crap and does say some positive things, the overall assessment is not good as a historical docu.ment.
@Mike from CT
"That is a common mistake. it is not "everything needs a creator" but "Everything that has a BEGINNING has a cause and thus have a creator". The universe has a beginning (thermodynamics) therefore the universe has a creator. God is eternal and does not have a beginning. Good question though."
_____
The typical smug religious answer. By putting him in your imaginary 'eternal' category, your god is exempt from rules.
How quaint. And how primitive.
I'm sure your god is also governed by thermodynamics seeing as there is all this hot air about him.
Sorry you see this answer as smug, that is quite the opposite of what I was trying to accomplish.
But the answer is still the answer. Now if you have points that refute that God is outside of time, I would like to hear them.
@Mike from CT
But the answer is still the answer. Now if you have points that refute that God is outside of time, I would like to hear them.
No it isn’t an answer, it’s a deflection. You have points that prove god, or anything, exists outside of time? I, along with the rest of the world, would like to hear them.
I only have the evidence of the highly reliable historical testimony of Jesus who is called the Christ.
Nobody, can prove anything. Only live their lives out based on what the evidence provides.
Example: Prove that We are living/not living
in the Matrix
a Dream
a bubble of a bigger bubble
whatever beliefs you hold are true and correct.
Can anybody point out anywhere in the bible where Jesus says sinners will go to hell?
Likewise, can anybody point me to anywhere in said tome whare he says "good people go to heaven?"
To Christians the bible is more like a Sudoku puzzle. They read this passage and that passage and say "Okay, Jesus says if you have seen him then you have seen the father also, so that means that over here where it says no one has seen the face of God then it must mean they are three parts of a triune Godhead with a face but without a face, so that means blessings for believers and torment for the faithless..."
Bruce,
Here is one example, there are many more.
Matthew 13:
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Thanks for pointing to were the bible shows that Jesus is not the moral god people claim he is Robert...
faith says to faith............minus the other BS faith typed
do your stuff h. s. ..
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/07/biden-urges-faith-leaders-to-pressure-lawmakers-on-background-checks/#comments
and as a follow up question, what sort of loving god lets 3 young Cleveland girls spend TEN YEARS subjected to terror and torment at the hands of the Christian Castro brothers? I wonder if the girls prayed to God and Jesus for help as he looked down on them lovingly from above and left them to suffer?
I wonder if God were to reveal to us, if we should fall to our knees in reverence, or oppose him for all the good he has done in this world.
Well, he can be credited for them finally being free, at least. Castro must have just prayed louder and more often than they did, so he got to keep them!
Having three concubines was ok in the old, old days, not sure why it's such a problem now.
The Bible says marriage is between a man and his wives and slave concubines. They were his concubines. See? No problem as far as the Bible goes.
Ah my spelling challanged canine friend, you know how it works.
Bad Situation – All the bad facts, such as her kidnapping and imprisonment are assigned to human beings, but the good facts (her rescue) are assigned to the chosen diety – in this case the Christian god. This methodology of retrospectively assigning good facts to the good deity and bad facts to imperfect humans, or “mother nature” also has the convenient fringe benefit of making the putative god immune to disproof.
Facts are simply assigned to the asset or liability column depending on the story one wishes to tell and the "miraculous intervention of the god takes place precisely when things improve.
The same is true with "miracles." A tornado can take out an entire town, but the fact that it misses one given house will be declared a "miracle" by its owner. A CEO might as well ignore the liability side of his balance sheet and declare it a “miracle” that his company just doubled in value.
This methodology of retrospectively assigning good facts to the good deity and bad facts to imperfect humans, “mother nature” or the evil deity also has the convenient fringe benefit of making the putative god immune to disproof. Facts are simply assigned to the asset or liability column depending on the story one wishes to tell. Evidence against its miraculous intents, such as “well, if God was intent on protecting you, why did he still allow you to spend five years as a cocaine addict?” is countered with (the ironically true) “well, that was all my doing.”
" if God were to reveal to us, if we should fall to our knees in reverence, or oppose him" If there's a god, it lets handicapped children be born. I'd pound a stake through its evil heart, then cut off its head and bury it at a crossroads.
spelling challenged?
Speaking with Christians over many years, I find that for most of them, the foundation of their belief boils down to the fact that they can't imagine this world, this universe, being here by accident. It must have been created by something.
I have to ask then, who or what created God?
And if the answer is that God has always existed, then why can't the universe have always just existed?
Before your replies I would comment that a retreat into mysticism is the first refuge of the cornered fool. Also, try to offer something other than a Bible verse.
God is magic.
Don't question, just believe.
Oh, and also ti/the. The Church coffers won't fill themelves!
The foundation of belief for Christians is that they have been born again.
Incorrect, the foundation is in the faith in writings of men and hearsay.
In other words, Robert Brown, Christianity has no real foundation whatsoever. Thanks for clarifying that. And sorry that I have to share a first name with a deluded moron like you.
Ted,
Would you believe because someone wrote it long ago, someone told you it was true, or you experienced God for yourself?
Robert,
God gives everyone a measure of faith. What did you do with yours?
RB, personal experience counts for shite to anyone other than yourself. Evidence please, or be silent.
Robert Brown, stop your typically sinister Christian tactic of begging the question and try next time to respond with actual substance.
You've been caught in your tricks, ass hole.
Robert I am no longer born again because my eyes were openned.
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands.
Psalms 102:25
Amen.
Robert,
Would you look for evidence of a shark in the desert? Why do you look for physical evidence of a spiritual being? You can find all the evidence you will ever need. However, denying the existence of whom you seek, may not be the best approach.
HeavenSent farted in the room again
There is no "measure of faith." And if something so invisible and yet vital can be so easily ignored or discarded, what's the point?
HeavenSent reminds me of a practicing witch casting spellls..thinking there is magic into quoting something.
Ted,
There are lots of former believers posting on here. Read the parable of the sower.
Robert I was just responding to your post regarding faith
And once again... not one xtian answered the original question(s)
I have to ask then, who or what created God?
And if the answer is that God has always existed, then why can't the universe have always just existed?
Typical
Cpt.
You never thought there could be a God?
Brother Maynard
And once again... not one xtian answered the original question(s)
I have to ask then, who or what created God?
And if the answer is that God has always existed, then why can't the universe have always just existed?
Typical
---–
Which came first God or the Universe? If God came first and he had to create the light...how long did he exist in the darkness? Was it colder without light or suns? What did he do to pass time in the darkness before he decided to create light?
Robert Brown...coming in here and pretending to have some mystical secret handshake with a higher being is not original or even particularly entertaining. You might as well just do what HS does, and quote random bits of the bible that have NOTHING to do with any topic at hand.
Robert Brown, again, stop your so typically sinister Christian tactic of begging the question and try next time to respond with actual substance.
You've been caught in the act, ass hole. Evidence please, or shush. No qualifiers. No excuses. Really.
"You never thought there could be a God?" I used to actually believe in Santa Claus. What a fool, right? But I always thought God was a hoax. Santa used to come to our house and leave presents, so I had proof.
"who or what created God?" Money. Huge piles of money, and obedient women. A lot of guys would do or say anything for that, including "Wow, I just saw a god and it wanted you to pay me."
@Chad
The ubiquity of instant, global communication means that, unlike 50 years ago, it is extremely difficult to keep kids insulated from the realities of moral relativism.
What changing is not religious INtolerance, but quite the opposite!
Modern people understand through direct interactions wtih people from different cultures that human beings have more similarities than differences.
That people who don't believe in the same things as they do are not inherently evil.
Sociological evolution is moving us away from religion, not becuase Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. are bad things in and of themselves, but becuase the tribalism that such sects engender is becoming less and less tenable.
For our species to survive and grow, we have to accept one another and work together.
The Internet is enabling us to overcome the curse of Babel, and that is a good thing.
For great [is] thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.
Psalms 86:13
Amen.
and yet Christian families keep home schooling their kids with their ancient fairy tales and keep them insulated from the outside world of scientific truths.
These same Christian families buy all their books from Christian Book Stores, further reinforcing their delusional view of the world.
@Heavensent: quoting a bible verse is like a fart ... it gets your attention for a moment but it has absolutely no substance.
@HeavenSent
I appreciate a good Bible verse as much as the next guy, but have you considered selecting scripture that is at least marginally relevant to the topic being discussed?
HeavenSent
.
Potential mental illness
.
Hallucinations – the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear these friends.
Delusions – the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.
Denial/Inability to learn – though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behaviour, each time expecting different results.
Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality – the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.
Paranoia – the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan".
Great retort to Unheavenly Stench, Doc.
Doc, take responsibility why you have no eyes to see or ears to hear His truth./
The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the nations that forget God.
Psalms 9:17
Amen.
@HeavenSent
It's all well and good that your faith gives your comfort, but it is also having other effects that are apparant to eveyrone but you – which is unfortunate as you are exhibiting some very un-christian characteristics.
You are not exhibiting any humility in your faith. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You condemn others from a fiery pulpit and then smugly revel in schadenfreude at the thought of those who disagree with you burning in Hell for all eternity.
If your goal is to open people's eyes to Christ's truth as you see it, then exempllfy those character traits He encouraged His followers to display. Be humble, forgiving and charitable in all your interactions and you may find that leading by example is more effective than being accusatory and judgemental.
Heavensent if there is a hell, ill rise the ranks and conquer heaven and cast your God out for his hate and disgust and ire for human kind. If your God exists he deserves nothing but our mistrust and hatred. It is HE that will have to answer to US. For as to why, open up a history book and learn the FACTS.
Doc, I think the only actual comfort she derives from her faith is in using it as some kind of blunt tool. If her faith gave her any peace she wouldn't be quoting random crap all the time so compulsively.
Plus, don't forget she 'self studies' because no church is good enough/won't allow her back.
" thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell. " Are you sure? You seem like you're in hell to me.
HS ..........is really lost in the distant space and time next to the hot place in space ?
NASA's Spitzer Puts Planets in a Petri Dish
May 6, 2013 — Our galaxy is teeming with a wild variety of planets. In addition to our solar system's eight near-and-dear planets, there are more than 800 so-called exoplanets known to circle stars beyond our sun. One of the first "species" of exoplanets to be discovered is the hot Jupiters, also known as roasters. These are gas giants like Jupiters, but they orbit closely to their stars, blistering under the heat.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506161049.htm
Oops .............that is DEEP DEEP space HS !!!
So, I think we've established that this kind of hateful "I'm right and you're wrong and you'll be tortured by my god one day, tra la la" is what's making Christians into a hated minority. Remember the article, way way back? Any sign of them stopping it? Right. I think we're done here. Sorry, Christians. I guess the ball's in your court. Try loving your fellow man, or turning the other cheek instead of snarling?
This one that lost pages ?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/09/my-take-a-word-to-christians-be-nice/?iref=allsearch
T itus 1:10
HS + BS = BS
REPEAT this.............................HS......................for a month.............24/7...................the fairy in the sky did NOT create
US !!!
Peace.
By the way HS ythe sign in picture above is WRONG !!!
science, mute point.
HS .................MOOT are you !!
HS, you realize "mute" and "moot" are not interchangable, right?
Akira, it means for the atheists to zip their lips.
Potential mental illness
.
Hallucinations – the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear these friends.
Delusions – the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.
Denial/Inability to learn – though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behaviour, each time expecting different results.
Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality – the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.
Paranoia – the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan".
HS .............no fairies = independent..............along political party lines...........?
HS...come back when you can be marginally lucid.
Who's going to listen to a bible clown? You really should put on something different. Greasepaint is so gross.
Hepcat, what it up your ass today?
"Akira, it means for the atheists to zip their lips." Come over here and make me, pansy. I'll jerk a knot in your tail.
"Who's going to listen to a bible clown? " You should see the balloon trick I do to illustrate David and the 100 Philistine foreskins. Brings down the house like Samson.
Go easy on HeavenSent, guys. As a typical religious person she is marginally literate (doesn't know that mute and moot are different words, for example) and usually quotes the bible since she is unable to make an original post with her limited writing skills. She just doesn't know any better. That's why she is so easily deluded by religion.
I was just noticing that nobody seemed to be answering his question and was just teasing him. Why? U mad?
"Hepcat, what it up your ass today?" Pretending to be an atheist has worn him out, and his mom put him down for a nap.
Now you're trolling. I might even get mad. Yeah. You have that problem with your nose staying on. I see it all the time, bro.
" I might even get mad." Good heavens, I've made a child cry. Wanna beep my nose? Aw, come on, give it a beep. We're all bozos on this bus.
I guess you don't like being teased. Fine.
Apparently he doesn't like being called a DUMB FUCK either. Go figure.
As Akira notes, when Congress passed DOMA many members repeatedly used arguments based on biblical/religious interpretations to promote the act. This would indicate violations of the first amendment in passing the law. Note, however, that in the arguments before the Supreme Court religious references were almost never used. A variety of other, more secular, justifications were used instead to argue in favor of both Prop 8 and DOMA. Even the arguments used to justify such bigotry are evolving. More info at: http://tighewright.com/bobblog/supreme-marriage/
Matthew 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Amen.
Potential mental illness
.
Hallucinations – the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear these friends.
Delusions – the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.
Denial/Inability to learn – though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behaviour, each time expecting different results.
Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality – the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.
Paranoia – the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan"
HS: sounds like your wicked BOMITS being murderous yet again.
2 Peter 2
Amen.
Non-religious: many. HeavenSent: 0.
HeavenSent, you've got Peter playing with himself and scoring on himself there. Too funny.
"2 Peter 2 " Really? Born that way? Most of us only have one peter.
Romans 1:25
Amen.
HS: expelliarmus!
"PaulB
faith
I was baptized with water, and not in it. It was a ritual, and I don't think that it had any magical effect upon me, if that's where you're going with this? If you believe in such things then circ.umcized Jews would always be Jews no matter what they convert to, which would make none of the apostles real Christians, right?"
just a little defensive, dodo. lol come on, don't make it this easy.
so, the point is, i agree, you have no idea what it means to be a christian.
i thought most of our nazi fascist god-hating theologians were christians back in the day!
ta da. sorry girls. i win! again!
You don't win. You don't get the right to say who is or isn't a true christian when you don't act like one yourself.
Nazis were Christians, faith. You've been told this many times. Those who cannot take correction are doomed to be dummies forever. You show your ignorance every day, dodo.
You're about as Christian as Hitler was, faith. You're just as overbearing and hateful, also. You do Christianity no good at all; indeed, you hurt it. Begone, troll.
There is nothing more Christian than being a Nazi. They believe they and only they are right. They believe the bible is the word of God and will kill in defense of it. They believe their faith to be the only true version of faith on the planet. They used the bible to discriminate against those they disagreed with. They believed that God would remove any of the sin they commited in the pursuit of their ideals, the ends always justified the means. "Gott mit uns!" on their belts meaning "God is with us!"
Why are you even talking to this . . . thing.
Dear Xtians....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPhaqg3h1kg
Update :
See for yourself below.................The fairy in the sky did NOT create us !
Monkey Math: Baboons Show Brain's Ability to Understand Numbers ..........E = mc2..............(U-Pb) numbers do not lie !
May 3, 2013 — Opposing thumbs, expressive faces, complex social systems: it's hard to miss the similarities between apes and humans. Now a new study with a troop of zoo baboons and lots of peanuts shows that a less obvious trait – the ability to understand numbers – also is shared by humans and their primate cousins.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130503132719.htm
OR.........take a ride on a DINO.
Fossil records are better to read than the nasty bible..................no god(s) required !
Oldest? New 'Bone-Head' Dinosaur Hints at Higher Diversity of Small Dinosaurs
May 7, 2013 — Scientists have named a new species of bone-headed dinosaur (pachycephalosaur) from Alberta, Canada. Acrotholus audeti (Ack-RHO-tho-LUS) was identified from both recently discovered and historically collected fossils. Approximately six feet long and weighing about 40 kilograms in life, the newly identified plant-eating dinosaur represents the oldest bone-headed dinosaur in North America, and possibly the world.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130507124800.htm
The Science Guy takes on creationism
CNN|Added on November 24, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/11/24/intv-nye-creationism.cnn
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/05/when-christians-become-a-hated-minority/comment-page-95/#comments
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/07/biden-urges-faith-leaders-to-pressure-lawmakers-on-background-checks/#comments
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/06/richard-dawkins-evolution-is-not-a-controversial-issue/comment-page-14/#comment-2333546
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/05/when-christians-become-a-hated-minority/#comments
And
..NO ANGELS with PITCH FORKS the old pope KICKED them in OFF the TEAM last year !
From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml
Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions
By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN
updated 10:56 AM EST, Fri November 23, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/index.html?iref=allsearch
All these years there are suppose to be angels.......................then poof go the angels according to the old pope;.......
where are the morals there ?
Hey James Madison................religion has none it looks like.............with the comments on this blog.
The Big question is ETHICS ! does religion have any ?
The Ethics of Resurrecting Extinct Species
Apr. 8, 2013 — At some point, scientists may be able to bring back extinct animals, and perhaps early humans, raising questions of ethics and environmental disruption.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130408165955.htm
OR
and it only takes minutes now..............to simple for them maybe ?
For all creationists and ID believers...............IT only takes minutes to figure IT out. No fairy in the sky needed !
New Device Can Extract Human DNA With Full Genetic Data in Minutes
May 6, 2013 — Take a swab of saliva from your mouth and within minutes your DNA could be ready for analysis and genome sequencing with the help of a new device.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506132100.htm
May 10, 2013 at 11:25 am | Report abuse | \
Evolution wins hands down time for god(s) to get the hell out of the way !!!
News Release
3-D structure of the evolved enzyme (an RNA ligase), using 10 overlaid snapshots. In the top region, the overlays show the range of bending and folding flexibility in the amino acid chain that forms the molecule. The two gray balls are zinc ions. (University of Minnesota)
University of Minnesota researchers unveil first artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube
Media Note: To request high resolution images of Dr. Seelig and/or of a 3D structure of the evolved enzyme, please contact Matt Hodson at mjhodson@umn.edu.
Contacts:Matt Hodson, University News Service, mjhodson@umn.edu, (612) 625-0552
Peggy Rinard, College of Biological Sciences, rinar001@umn.edu, (612) 624-0774
Oops
Scientists have unearthed the first direct signs of cheesemaking, at a site in Poland that dates back 7,500 years.
Human Evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2cHumanevo.shtml
The actual issue amongst the majority of Christians regarding h o m o s e x u a l i t y is NOT G a y Rights; it is using the word marriage!
(Someone noted earlier that Anti-G a y Rights Christians are in the minority, and this a r t i c l e ' s t i t l e is misleading; that is true!)
That being said, DOMA is NOT a Referendum on h o m o s e x u a l i t y It is ONLY for keeping the word marriage strictly for h e t e r o s e x u a l s!
I am a born again Christian Protestant, open minded, and I DON'T have a problem with G a y Rights and Civil Unions!
In the meantime, and in all honesty, I have been all for keeping the word marriage strictly for h e t e r o s e x u a l s!
Marriage came before the OT.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on the word "marriage".
I hope a gay couple shlts all over the hood of your car, because you're just pathetic.
You've left a key ingredient out of your explanation, Vic. Currently, in many places in the U.S., advantages and rights are afforded to straight couples over gay couples based on the specific term marriage. It is woven into civil law and you are ignoring that fact. So equality can never be achieved until a) the definition is expanded to included gay couples or b) civil law is changed to either differentiate terms, but afford rights and advantages equally, or c) afford rights equally and eliminate advantages to couples. Of course none of this addresses that some feel they should not be excluded by any U.S. law from using the term to signify their civil relationship in the way they choose. Obviously Christians are conflicted themselves on the issue. It seems states are starting to follow option a.
Fortunately the Constitution is written so that bigots llike you cannot limit the same right to themselves and deny it to others.
In about a month, DOMA and Prop 8 will die in the Supreme Court. That Equal Protections Clause just can't be gotten around, even by this incredibly lame Court.
One reason DOMA will be struck down is that it was argued in Congress using the Bible and God as the reasons why it is between a man and a woman. This is a no-no, and one reason it will be ruled unconstitutional.
It clearly violated the separation of church and state.
You seen to be hung up on a word, Vic. Words are redefined all the time. Hence, the updated versions of the dictionaries.
It will happen. Count on it.
"it is using the word marriage!"
First, it is just a word. Words themselves have no importance, the meaning behind the words are what matters. So if we called it "smarraige" but everything else was exactly the same you are saying you would be perfectly fine with that? And a majority of those opposed the gay marriage would be on board?
I'm an atheist married heterol. I fail to see any salient reason why the word "marriage" applies to opposite gender couple only.
Religion has nothing to do with marriage. I was married outside of any church. My marriage has never been, nor will it ever be sanctioned by any religion. My marriage is however sanctioned by the state and federal governments.
If you don't like g a y marriage, don't marry someone the same gender as you are.
I appreciate the above intellectual contributions regardless of a few spots!
The United Sates C o n s t i t u t i o n was founded on Natural Law which the Founders believed it is from God; therefore, I believe, marriage between a man and a woman can be argued on the basis of Natural Law!
Vic: "The United Sates C o n s t i t u t i o n was founded on Natural Law"
What?? Where does it say this?
natural law?
nature has same s-e-x couplings
marriage equality is on the horizon, no matter how much the pious want to throw hissy fits
How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution? Jesus? The Ten Commandments? ANY god at all? None.
There's a reason for that. Our FF wrote the Constitution the way they did to separate church and state in our SECULAR nation; our laws must reflect that, or they will be struck down eventually as unconstitutional.
Just like DOMA is unconstitutional, and will be found as such.
"The United Sates C o n s t i t u t i o n was founded on Natural Law which the Founders believed it is from God; therefore, I believe, marriage between a man and a woman can be argued on the basis of Natural Law!"
Vic
The Consti.tution is a completely secular docu.ment. I don't care if the founders actually believed that the basis for it came from Vishnu or Zues or the christian god.....it does not change the secular nature of it.
I don't think Natural Law can be justified or attributed with the christian god....like I said, not that it would matter.
If you think Natural Law comes from your god you would have to demonstrate that...but of course you can't even demonstrate your god exists, which means also you can't demonstrate Natural Law comes from your god, nor can you demonstrate that Natural Law is actually true. In other words what you believe is inconsequential, having a convoluted arguement for imposing your religious belief on a secular society is invalid.
Vic,
If you believe marriage rules set up by God, then you believe that marriage should be FORCED on r@pe victims, slaves, men whose brothers died leaving a widow. Right?
Vic, Marriage is a word that has been used by generations of people to describe a vast number of arrangements. It has changed and evolved over the course of our earth's life and it will continue to change and evolve.
If two opposite gendered peopled are married and two same gendered people are living the exact same life in which they live together, work, pay their bills together, socialize together, raise a family together, etc, then what they have is the exact same relationship which should be defined by the same word.
When that fact is added to the complexity of legal rights and duties conferred with a marriage license and the sheer number of laws and statutes that would have to be changed/amended in order to confer those exact same rights on a "civil union" it becomes clear that the only real solution must be marriage equality.
[
http://www.shestokas.com/guest-commentary-reflections/natural-law-and-the-legitimate-authority-of-the-united-states/
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/weiner/X0023_9110_Natural_Law.html
]
MWIW, where have you been? You've been missed. Nice to see you post again.
regarding the second link that Vic provided:
(About Forerunner)
At this web site are articles from Christian newspapers published by university students from the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Latin America and China. We also host several web sites of related Christian organizations involved in promoting Revival in the Church and the Reformation of society.
Hi Akira,
I got laid off, and these boards were a part of my morning routine getting ready for work...so I had a bit of time where it didn't occur to me. Now I'm a little bit settled in to being home so I'm poking my nose in when I have the time.
Nice to know I was missed.
I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has a 5th grade reading comprehension that Vic is expressing an opinion that is on its way out. We don't need to explain to people like Vic why his opinion is on the way out and why it's not being listened to or regarded as having any value. No matter what Vic or any of his Christian toadies think or feel or want, this matter has already been decided by a majority of public opinion and the religious bigots already know they are on the wrong side of history. Many are already jumping ship because they do not want to be tossed in with the bigots and racists who have supported discrimination for so long.
So, thanks for your opinion Vic, but it doesn't amount to a hill of nanotubes.
The site at Vic's first link, like Chad, is trying pull out references from Jefferson, the DOI, in claiming some responsibility to follow "natural" & "divine" law as part of our interpretation of the Constitution.
It appears that Vic is placing more importance on the DoI than on the Constitution. Before we can go much further in this conversation, he has to know the difference between the two, and how they impact our CIVIL laws in our SECULAR nation.
For this nation is most definitely secular.
Vic,
Posting links of religious people who you agree with on this issue does nothing to refute points I made.
MWIW: I'm sorry. I hope you get called back/find another job soon.
Vic really is that stupid.
Yes – best of luck, MWIW.
Even with the DOI, Vic seems to be ignoring this part:
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Since we live in a nation where there are many different views on what "Creator" means and what rights should be afforded on the basis of such, it makes that "consent of the governed" pretty important, right?
Sorry, Vic, but Luke is right. Your opinion has no factual foundation – it's outdated, biased, and gets more and more fragile every time it's heard.
And in any case, these decisions won't even affect YOUR life. Time to suck it up and move on, or society is going to leave you behind.
The Bible says marriage is between a man and his wives and slave concubines, but we are about to prosecute and kill a man for having three slave concubines. Can't he just wave a Bible and say it is the fount of all law? Society changes and gives up barbarities. Get used to it.
"Vic really is that stupid." I'm afraid you're right. It's more fun to argue with smart people. Morons who think atheism is a religion which worships Dawkins or Gandhi or something are so incredibly boring, and they think "Oh yeah, well then since you believe something came from nothing, explain why my IPhone battery died" is a great comeback.
no ions
Akira, you haven't a clue what our forefathers called God.
All 72 of them, HS?
My favorite was 'Big Dick Playa'.
HeavenSent,
Our forefathers obviously knew about God and so must have INTENTIONALLY left him and his religion out of the Consti-tution including the Preamble which explains why adopted it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=Kw5oJoUYTb8&NR=1
I had jello today.
Chad ...........green or red ?...............with an
Update :
See for yourself below.................The fairy in the sky did NOT create us !
Monkey Math: Baboons Show Brain's Ability to Understand Numbers ..........E = mc2..............(U-Pb) numbers do not lie !
May 3, 2013 — Opposing thumbs, expressive faces, complex social systems: it's hard to miss the similarities between apes and humans. Now a new study with a troop of zoo baboons and lots of peanuts shows that a less obvious trait – the ability to understand numbers – also is shared by humans and their primate cousins.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130503132719.htm
OR.........take a ride on a DINO.
Fossil records are better to read than the nasty bible..................no god(s) required !
Oldest? New 'Bone-Head' Dinosaur Hints at Higher Diversity of Small Dinosaurs
May 7, 2013 — Scientists have named a new species of bone-headed dinosaur (pachycephalosaur) from Alberta, Canada. Acrotholus audeti (Ack-RHO-tho-LUS) was identified from both recently discovered and historically collected fossils. Approximately six feet long and weighing about 40 kilograms in life, the newly identified plant-eating dinosaur represents the oldest bone-headed dinosaur in North America, and possibly the world.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130507124800.htm
The Science Guy takes on creationism
CNN|Added on November 24, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/11/24/intv-nye-creationism.cnn
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/05/when-christians-become-a-hated-minority/comment-page-95/#comments
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/07/biden-urges-faith-leaders-to-pressure-lawmakers-on-background-checks/#comments
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/06/richard-dawkins-evolution-is-not-a-controversial-issue/comment-page-14/#comment-2333546
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/05/when-christians-become-a-hated-minority/#comments
And
..NO ANGELS with PITCH FORKS the old pope KICKED them in OFF the TEAM last year !
From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml
Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions
By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN
updated 10:56 AM EST, Fri November 23, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/index.html?iref=allsearch
All these years there are suppose to be angels.......................then poof go the angels according to the old pope;.......
where are the morals there ?
Hey James Madison................religion has none it looks like.............with the comments on this blog.
The Big question is ETHICS ! does religion have any ?
The Ethics of Resurrecting Extinct Species
Apr. 8, 2013 — At some point, scientists may be able to bring back extinct animals, and perhaps early humans, raising questions of ethics and environmental disruption.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130408165955.htm
OR
and it only takes minutes now..............to simple for them maybe ?
For all creationists and ID believers...............IT only takes minutes to figure IT out. No fairy in the sky needed !
New Device Can Extract Human DNA With Full Genetic Data in Minutes
May 6, 2013 — Take a swab of saliva from your mouth and within minutes your DNA could be ready for analysis and genome sequencing with the help of a new device.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506132100.htm
Oops
Scientists have unearthed the first direct signs of cheesemaking, at a site in Poland that dates back 7,500 years.
Human Evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2cHumanevo.shtml
Chad
Me.. If the founding fathers believe that the god of Israel was real why would they use the term Creator?
Chad.. you are REALLY, REALLY, unplugged from the reason that this country was first populated and the nature of those people.
A typical Chad comment showing him to be the ignorant bigot he is. You find it so easy to dismiss the people that first populated the country, the Aboriginals, that the oh so Christians proceeded to slaughter and ghettoize. You may also want to look at the history of your god of Israel followers of the time whose factions were discriminating against each other to the point of violence......
@Religions "If the founding fathers believe that the god of Israel was real why would they use the term Creator?"
@Chad "you are REALLY, REALLY, unplugged from the reason that this country was first populated and the nature of those people.
@Religions "A typical Chad comment showing him to be the ignorant bigot he is. You find it so easy to dismiss the people that first populated the country, the Aboriginals, that the oh so Christians proceeded to slaughter and ghettoize. You may also want to look at the history of your god of Israel followers of the time whose factions were discriminating against each other to the point of violence......"
@Chad "your rant has nothing at all to do with you originally disagreeing with my statement that the authors of the Declaration of Independence were referring to the God of Israel when they used the term "creator"..
It was green.
Green slime good choice...................staying away from the devil's red ?
I'm not quite sure what Chad has been arguing in regards to our founders. It seems like he is trying to claim that because some were deists then the country has Christian roots and thus should defend religious discrimination? Our founders also owned slaves Chad, should we all just go pick ourselves up a local n e gro and take him home with us to do some chores? Our founders didn't let women vote either, should we take away their vote and shove them back into the kitchens?
We are a nation that has evolved socially and religiously and we will continue to refine this great nation to be truly as intended, as Lincoln said "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Chad if you have a problem with the 10 Commandments being removed from government buildings take it up with the Supreme Court. They are the ones who ruled they should be taken down, and there is not an atheist on the court so you can't really blame them.
@ME II
at issue was the difference between the manner that the theocracy in Israel (see Samuel 1) was inst ituted (established) vs the 10 commandment monuments.
Well then, by similar logic, God obviously does not want 10 commandment monuments in court houses
my response was that the manner in which the theocracy was inst ituted (established) was different than the manner in which the 10 commandment monuments were placed in court houses.
To understand the difference, one would have to read/understand Samuel 1.
hope that clears things up for you.
misposted
Chad you have a wedgie ???...............or is it chapter 6 still ?
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, [that] the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? [there is] no searching of his understanding.
Isaiah 40:28
Amen.
HS. Where exactly are "the ends of the earth"?
@Religions "Yes, I concur better to leave him[Chad] with his present delusion, would not want him to get frisky pining for his 72 virgins in another delusion!!"
=>you are thinking of Islam, I am Christian..
One has to wonder why you feel qualified to critique Christianity in any way, shape or form, when you are demonstrably utterly unfamiliar with it..
Can't understand a simple implication, eh?
The poster was saying that you should "stick with your current delusion" instead of CHANGING to islam where you might pine for 72 virgins and do something much more drastic and harmful than you would as a christian.
Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.
Oh, I thought he meant that I should womp bom a woo bomp a womp bam boom. Sorry. Bird's the word. I mean, Jesus tells us that He wrote the Book of Love.
Wait a minute, I think someone's taken over my account.
@Chad
One has to wonder why you feel qualified to critique Christianity in any way, shape or form, when you are demonstrably utterly unfamiliar with it..
8==> ~~ ~ Read twice, post once :)
What a dummy eh Chad. You're my hero. I just love your posts so very much.
But I'm not an Islam, I'm a virgin. Don't put words in my mouth.
@Chad,
"... this country was founded on the premise that the God of Israel is real."
"This country is not, nor has it ever been (even when it was 99% Christian) a theocracy"
Obviously it's not a theocracy, but why? If the God of Israel is literally "real", then many of our current freedoms make little sense. Please, show where exactly anyone says this country was founded on such a premise.
@Fake Chad,
grow up
Cpt. Obvious
I never could understand the appeal of the virgins. If you have them for eternity, then they wouldn't be virgins very long. You'd burn through all the "fresh" ones pretty quick, relatively speaking and, besides, experienced women are much more fun, in my experience. 🙂
If the real Chad.
Why would you start a new thread with that post of mine and not reply on the p 100 thread where it could be seen in context? No answer to your obvious mistake either, typical disingenuous conduct if the real Chad.
I'm not a fake Chad.
Teaching can be fun, too. 🙂 But yeah, even if you limited yourself to one more square inch of flesh per day, you'd go through them fairly quickly. I'd rather have three shape-shifters and inummerable toys.
@Religions
A. I got tired of scrolling
B. If I misread your post, I apologize
=====
@ME II
God insti.tutes theocracies, if He had wanted the US to be a theocracy, He would have inst.ituted it as such.
Israel started out as a theocracy, then demanded and got a King, which God allowed (see 1 Samuel)
" I'd rather have three shape-shifters and inummerable toys." I'd prefer eternity with my wife. I never get bored with her, and never will.
@Chad,
"God insti.tutes theocracies, if He had wanted the US to be a theocracy, He would have inst.ituted it as such."
Well then, by similar logic, God obviously does not want 10 commandment monuments in court houses. Quit fighting God's will.
If God insti/tutes theocracies, I guess that makes the Ayatollah one of His chosen people.
@ME II "Well then, by similar logic, God obviously does not want 10 commandment monuments in court houses"
=>how do you figure that?
if He had wanted the US to be [have 10 Commandment monuments], He would have inst.ituted it....
So, according to Chad, if god wanted the US to be a theocracy he would have made it that way, but when god wants specific monuments in place he counts on zealot azzholes to do it for him.
Every time you think Chad couldn't possibly prove himself any more dumb......
Chad. I take it you are declining to address my posts on p. 100, where you did not seem to know which group of people populated the country first, why not, because you were wrong and can never admit you are wrong?
@ME II "if He had wanted the US to be [have 10 Commandment monuments], He would have inst.ituted it...."
=>how did God insti tute the theocracy?
reason I am asking, is you have a different concept of "insti tute" than what the biblical notion is. You also have a different understanding of what God allows vs what He wants.
@Religions
=>please restate it here, that thread just got to long...
@Doc Vestibule "If God insti/tutes theocracies, I guess that makes the Ayatollah one of His chosen people."
=>God inst ituted the theocracy in Israel during the time of the judges.
God allows all kinds of other governments.
@Chad,
"reason I am asking, is you have a different concept of 'insti tute' than what the biblical notion is."
Entirely possible, I was using the modern version.
" You also have a different understanding of what God allows vs what He wants."
Are you saying that your God can't inst.itute (modern definition) what He wishes, or just that you know what He wants versus what He allows?
@ME II
do you understand how God inst ituted the theocracy in Israel? It sounds like you have no idea...
Not understanding that, you are unable to see a difference between that and the display of 10 commandments..
Chad posted above under the fake Chad in error, thought it was the correct thread, please read and reply.
@Chad,
"do you understand how God inst ituted the theocracy in Israel? It sounds like you have no idea..."
No, I don't know how the Bible describes it. Why is that important? Can God not do it any other way? Can He not insti.tute (modern version) things other than theocracies?
"Not understanding that, you are unable to see a difference between that and the display of 10 commandments.."
Can your God not insti.tute such things?
I suspect this is a complete red-herring. Somehow this is supposed to answer why this country is not a theocracy since you claim it was founded on "the premise that the God of Israel is real.".
Are you saying that God would not "allow" man to create its own theocracy?
@Religions I'm not a fake.
Chad
@ME II
do you understand how God inst ituted the theocracy in Israel? It sounds like you have no idea...
.
Let me guess...he did it via through men
Chad
There is a thread above this under Chad, the post from p 100 is there and is shorter if that has been your hang up.
@Chad
Israel is not a theocracy. It's a democracy founded on theistic principals, but the country is not run by holy men nor does it strictly enforce jewish religious laws on the whole country. You are still allowed to be a practicing christian, muslim, druze, etc... with no detriment, break kashrut and not observe shomer shabbas.
I think you need to familiarize yourself with what a theocracy is ....
@Chuckles,
I think @Chad is referring to ancient Israel. He referenced 1 Samuel before.
@Chuckles
I think you need to read up on Israel and how Judaism runs the show. It is a Jewish state. Just like Muslim theocracies, they allow other religions to move around and spend money there. Knesset is little more than an orthodox echo chamber.
Read up on the religious racism Israel does with all its might and energy. And don't forget to spit on non-Jews while you're at it.
@Chad "do you understand how God inst ituted the theocracy in Israel? It sounds like you have no idea..."
@ME II "No, I don't know how the Bible describes it. Why is that important?"
=>words escape me..
"why does the earth revolve around the sun?? that doesnt make any sense, it's a stupid notion."
"well, do you understand the physics? Do you understand gravity?"
"why should I have to understand that to criticize it!!!"
Fundamentally, atheists have this bizarre notion that they dont have to understand the bible to talk about it.
Well, you do.
Do a little reading and I'm happy to discuss it.
@ME II
Oops. So he is, I guess I can only pretend like because it was Friday and I was getting drunk at a science museum last night that I made that mistake, but really it was because I was too lazy to read through the whole thread.
Gospel of Chad:
(Updated list derived from history of Chad conversations.)
Atheism:
1. All atheists agree with everything Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins say, even if it is unrelated to atheism. Hawking and Dawkins disagree on free will, however, but you should ignore this conflict or any atheist who says they disagree.
2. All atheists agree with one another on everything even if it has nothing to do with atheism. See #1 for models from which you can derive all their beliefs.
3. The definition of atheist includes anything that any atheist I disagree with believes or anything I feel like tossing in there. Ignore any definitions in pesky places like dictionaries and philosophical encyclopedias.
4. If one atheist somewhere on the internet said something, then, since all atheists agree with him/her, I can use that randomly selected example as an argument to address all other atheists.
5. The definition of atheism includes not just materialism but strict deterministic materialism. Non-believers who might be Buddhists, believe in probabilistic physics, see consciousness as prior to the physical world, believe in, say, witchcraft aren’t really atheists.
6. No atheist has ever read the bible. I mean, obviously, they’d be Christians if they had, right? OK, so a few have proven to me – OK, multiple times – that they have read the bible. See #11 (just lie).
Free will:
7. All people who use the term “free will” really mean the same exact thing by that term, which matches my personal use of the term “free will” (unless backed into a corner, then I just declare all other meanings irrelevant)
8. Fatalism and determinism are the same thing. It has been pointed out to me that historically these terms have been used with different meanings, but I find it more convenient to make up my own definitions, as with atheism and free will.
In fact, I brilliantly argued “If a person is a determinist, how in the world does deterrence even come into the picture? Determinists believe in an ever marching set of deterministic outcomes based on an existing set of antecedent conditions. Those conditions march back to the origin of the universe, no way to change the past, so no way to change the future. (On April 17, 2013 at 6:20 pm)
After reading a bit more about fatalism and determinism I decided to change my tune to a claim that determinism leads to fatalism (and to pretend this was what I was saying all along). I’m sticking to reading easy pop philosophers, though, and selective websites on the topic as anything more complex makes my head hurt. I have read snippets from a couple of websites now so that ought to put me on par with people who’ve read dozens of books on the topic, understand neurobiology and have written on both the philosophical and cultural aspects of free will and people’s belief in the topic. Oh, yeah, I know what I’m talking about!
9. A determinist cannot believe that humans can change. This would, of course, mean that nothing can change. Which would mean…oh…crud…better put my head back up my ass.
10. A determinist cannot believe in punishing people for crimes. This is because…well…it doesn’t matter. Just keep repeating it.
Telling lies:
11. It is ethical to lie so long as it promotes Christian beliefs.
12. Speaking of telling lies, a really good way to do this is to rephrase what your opponent says and then keep repeating the misquote in hopes that he or she will get bored and leave your lie as the last statement. Then you win. You can do this either by rewording as a supposed paraphrase or pulling lines out of context and reordering them. God really loves this and gives you extra endurance to sit at the computer all day and keep repeating it.
13. One way to use this super endurance to your advantage is to keep posting the same questions over and over again even after they’ve been answered 50 times. Just pretend they haven’t been answered and act self-righteous about it. It’s really cool if you can ask this same thing on multiple threads and then claim it was never answered forcing people to waste time on the same thing over and over and over.
14. In particular don’t forget that whatever someone says you can respond with “What investigation have you done into…”. Especially good is to ask what investigation was done into the truth of the God of Israel. When the non-Christian comes back to ask how much research you did to prove other gods aren’t real answer “I don’t need to do any because I proved the God of Israel is real and that negates all other gods”. When asked how you proved that repeat the words “empty tomb” over and over until divine light shines on the souls of the heathens.
15. When they refuse to play your game or you don’t like the answer add some sarcasm, but use an emoticon to soften it so they’ll know your snide remarks are all in good fun.
16. Consider asking completely nonsensical questions that can’t even be understood, let alone answered. Best yet include something the person didn’t say as a premise. For example, you might ask an atheist opponent “You say you like murdering small children on Wednesdays, could you explain how this fits with your beliefs about string theory?” Then when your question is ignored accuse the person of avoidance and make up wild hypotheses as to why they are avoiding you.
17. Above all else keep asking questions while avoiding answering any yourself.
Science, math and psychology:
18. If one scientist says something that backs me, then I can assume all scientists agree with that statement.
19. If atheist scientists say something, even if it is the view of the majority of people in that science, it should be ignored. See #11.
20. Atheists are ruled by confirmation bias. I am free of it – it’s just great luck that everything I read and all the “data” around me confirm my strong religious convictions. See #19 on ignoring anything else.
21. Infinity = all finite numbers according to the Chad. Thirty or forty years of constraint is the same as eternal torment.
22. Rehabilitation and deterrence are the same thing. Yep…convincing a drug addict not to use drugs in case they are shot dead and getting them off the addiction would be the same by my wondrous Chad logic.
General truths about the CNN belief blog:
23. All non-believers are, by definition, idiots so you can use illogical arguments and they’ll just fall for it.
24. If I post a quote that has a few key words in it from our discussion I can claim it backs my point even if it actually says the exact opposite thing from what I’m claiming. Atheists, as mentioned above, are too dumb to notice. Best yet is to post a link or reference a book which actually says the opposite of what I’m saying and just assume no one will look at it.
25. There is a huge mass of fence sitters out there who are eagerly reading CNN blog comments in order to decide whether or not to believe in God.
26. I will personally save all those mentioned in # 25 because I, Chad, am super smart. I know this because I get away with all the above mentioned lies and manipulations. Sometimes people think they are pointing these things out but they really aren’t. Or the stupid atheist masses aren’t reading them anyway.
27. Phrase everything as if it’s a lecture so you look like you know what you’re talking about. See #23 about atheists being idiots and #24 about people not reading anything you post you’ll see that the silly atheists will fall for it every time. In particular they won’t look back to the earlier part of the discussion to see how I’m contradicting myself. This is very well aided by another tactic:
28. As soon as you make an ass of yourself break the conversation into a new thread. That way all the newcomers (see #25 on how they are waiting to have their souls saved) will not bother to read back and see how ignorant you are.
29. If someone points out to you that citing Wikipedia is not an adequate source for the discussion at hand you can always find a good undergraduate philosophy paper to cite instead.
30. Never question another Christian no matter how incorrect or offensive their position.
31. Just remember that you can define a term any way you want and you are always right!
@Hepcat
I reccomend you actually vist Israel first before getting all your news from Fox. There's a reason why America and the rest of the West are allied with Israel, but it's leagues more democratic than any other nation in the surrounding area, and the "spitting" on non jews doesn't happen as often as you think (probably as much or less than what happens in this country at any rate). Arab-israeli's who live within the boarders are treated as citizens and though they do not have a strong voice, they do have a voice that is getting stronger all the time.
Iran has jailed people for practicing different faiths, that is unheard of in Israel. get your facts straight.
@Religions "If the founding fathers believe that the god of Israel was real why would they use the term Creator?"
@Chad "you are REALLY, REALLY, unplugged from the reason that this country was first populated and the nature of those people.
@Religions "A typical Chad comment showing him to be the ignorant bigot he is. You find it so easy to dismiss the people that first populated the country, the Aboriginals, that the oh so Christians proceeded to slaughter and ghettoize. You may also want to look at the history of your god of Israel followers of the time whose factions were discriminating against each other to the point of violence......"
@Chad "your rant has nothing at all to do with you originally disagreeing with my statement that the authors of the Declaration of Independence were referring to the God of Israel when they used the term "creator".
@Chad,
"Fundamentally, atheists have this bizarre notion that they dont have to understand the bible to talk about it.
Well, you do."
As I said, red-herring.
We weren't talking about the Bible specifically. We were discussing why, if the US was founded on the premise that the "God of Israel is real", the US has the laws it has, such as freedom of religion.
"Why is that important?"
"=>words escape me.."
Apparently, not words, but the answer escaped you.
"Fundamentally, atheists have this bizarre notion that they dont have to understand the bible to talk about it. Well, you do."
Hmm. does knowing zip about atheism ever stop you from commenting about it? Last I heard, it was proven that the average atheist knows the Bible better than most Christians. What I think is that you are losing your religion, and these rants and sermons of yours are your way of convincing yourself. Why else would you see "atheism" as a competing religion, and fight that straw man with such determination?
@Chad
Your assumptions are getting in the way again. This nation was founded by persecuted christians from Europe, which is why they specifically wanted to make sure people in the US were not persecuted for their religious beliefs as well. Creator is a more general term that you take to be synonymous with god, but could also simply refer to my father. Creator has way more applications than the term "god" and the whole point was for the nation to be secular and free from religious persecution. Why is that so tough to understand?
Goodness, Chad – who cares about what was meant in the DOI. The key framers became more Deistic – it allowed them to more easily see how ridiculous their fundie constituency was with their infighting, so walla – 1st Amendment to save the day – better for everyone concerned. We probably would have had the same troubles as the Irish without it. Next, as they say.
Chad
Obvious you do not want to address the comment.
Me "I f the founding fathers believed that the god of Israel was real why did they use the term Creator."
Chad " you are REALLY, REALLY, unplugged from the reason that this country was first populated and the nature of those people."
A typical Chad comment showing him to be the ignorant bigot he is. You find it so easy to dismiss the people that first populated the country, the Aboriginals, that the oh so Christians proceeded to slaughter and ghettoize. You might want to look at the history of your god of Israel followers of the time whose factions were discriminating against each other to the point of violence.....
@ME II
lol
man, if I had this burning desire to criticize some religion, you better believe I would learn it upside down and sideways.
The best way to destroy and argument, is to do it based on the facts. Trying to speculate some viable argument into existence simply doesnt work..
however, I do remember quite clearly when I used to do the same thing with Christians.. Some kind of weird conviction that I was right and they were wrong despite the fact that I knew -zero- about what they believed. Looking back now I cant figure out why logically I would not have confronted myself on that topic..
Would anyone even consider challenging the veracity of any other area than Christianity without attempting to gain an understanding of it first?
@Religions,
see post above, May 10, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Providence, Creator, terms used by people who wanted to acknowledge that there was some, presumably benign, intelligent agent behind their origins (which they did not even begin to understand at the time). People who knew well enough that no male anthropomorphic authoritarian God was involved.
@Chad,
"if I had this burning desire to criticize some religion, you better believe I would learn it upside down and sideways."
You really don't understand many atheists do you. I have no "burning" desire to "criticize some religion", unless someone claims that I need to follow that religion or accept some of it's precepts without evidence.
"Would anyone even consider challenging the veracity of any other area than Christianity without attempting to gain an understanding of it first?"
First, just because I don't understand the 1 Samuel use of "insti.tute", does not mean that I don't have any understanding of the Bible. You are overgeneralizing as usual.
Second, yes I can easily criticizer concepts like a flat earth or astrology without understanding them completely.
Third, you are evading answering the question.
"Would anyone even consider challenging the veracity of any other area than Christianity without attempting to gain an understanding of it first?"
There's this guy named Chad who goes around challenging the veracity of atheism, which he knows so little about that he considers a religion, without ever learning why his comments are so mistaken. Is that the kind of thing you mean?
Chad
My rant has everything to do with you thinking that the first people that populated the country were various European Christian groups that were at each others throats at the time of the DOI and the compromise was to leave out the term god and use the term Creator. You obviously in your usual condescending manner ignore the Aboriginals that had their own cultures and belief systems, bigot that you are. The argument over religion almost prevented the union of the original 13 colonies, your god of Israel under its many factions was the problem not the solution. Read some history, try and catch up, an argument from ignorance is your style but is quite pathetic.
Chad: "man, if I had this burning desire to criticize some religion, you better believe I would learn it upside down and sideways."
And yet Chad dismisses the validity of all religions, other than Christianity (yes, Chad, that is the ultimate criticism) based on nothing more than this stupidity:
"I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."
What...a...dishonest...dimwit.
If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.
(Ben Franklin, from a letter to The London Packet, 3 June 1772)
Chad wrote:
"however, I do remember quite clearly when I used to do the same thing with Christians.. Some kind of weird conviction that I was right and they were wrong despite the fact that I knew -zero- about what they believed. Looking back now I cant figure out why logically I would not have confronted myself on that topic."
This really gets to what I was saying earlier about how Chad would be a zealot even if he left Christianity behind. He recognizes that he had no objectivity in the past and didn't realize what he didn't know, yet he is unable to recognize the fact that he hasn't changed, but just jumped from one biased extremism to another. I remember the father in that famous Iranian custody case was a famous similar example, leaping from communism to Islam with the same fervor.
It is an interesting question whether this need to be sure is an unchangeable personality trait or something that in some people might be treatable. I've always referred to such people as "believers" – folks whose entire identi.ty and way of life revolve around believing that whatever it is they are doing is right. I had a friend who was a teacher and would go on about how public schools were the answer when she taught there, private the best when she changed jobs. Each move she had to believe in with every fiber of her being, and no evidence to the contrary was valid. I see fewer of these people over the age of 45 or 50 so maybe they mellow as they get older.
People who are certain that they have the benefits of Absolute Truth see it as a duty to force-feed it to the benighted people that they are certain do not.
...more precisely, I should have indicate Chad rejects the validity of all religions other than the Abrahamic religions (although I'm quite certain he rejects much of the claims of Islam). Regardless...dishonest dimwit.
@Reall-O,
"And yet Chad dismisses the validity of all religions, other than Christianity (yes, Chad, that is the ultimate criticism) based on nothing more than this stupidity"
lol...and once again, I predict he won't get it....here it comes...
@Saraswati – "...yet he is unable to recognize the fact that he hasn't changed, but just jumped from one biased extremism to another."
Very insightful.
Chad does acknowledge that Judaism is nearly true. They just haven't accepted the new covenant of the sacrifice of the God-man.
@saraswati "yet he is unable to recognize the fact that he hasn't changed, but just jumped from one biased extremism to another"
@Chad "for your criticism to be valid you would have to demonstrate that I am now criticizing something without understanding it. That's what I was doing before (and what virtually all atheists still do.. they criticize Christianity without attempting to understand its claims).
you'll not attempt to explain how what you are saying is true, resorting at this point to ad-hominems, which demonstrates that what you are saying is false.
@Saraswati –
I wonder what investigation Chad has made into the Thai Forest Tradition that causes him to reject it? Oh, that's right, Chad doesn't need to investigate as he already has this lock-tight answer:
"I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."
@Chad,
A. Dont know enough about m-theory to comment on the math
...
May 1, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
(http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/29/new-film-examines-science-vs-religion/comment-page-7/#comment-2315000)
So I expect you not to "criticize" science at all, since you don't understand it.
Thanks
@Chad, you just posted a claim that
"atheism opposes one God and one God only, the God of Israel."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/09/rainn-wilson-has-faith-in-life-after-the-office/
You repeatedly assign beliefs to atheism that have nothing to do with it. You particularly go on about how it includes both materialism and determinism, neither of which is true and then go on to yap about determinism and free will without an adequate understanding of that topic either. But no, you can't see this and you won't for exactly the reasons stated above, and you have demonstated that over and over again. You haven't a clue what you are talking about now any more than you did 10 or 20 years ago.
@Chad "I Dont know enough about m-theory to comment on the math
@ME II "So I expect you not to "criticize" science at all, since you don't understand it."
lol
quite a leap from one specific area to the entire discipline, much of which I am very familiar with
i think your argument lacks coherence..
@Really-O,
"I wonder what investigation Chad has made into the Thai Forest Tradition that causes him to reject it?"
I've got to guess Chad either doesn't have a basic liberal arts education or got a very poor one. He clearly hasn't travelled and knows little or nothing about other languages, cultures and religions. I'm guessing his knowledge is limited to Christianity, engineering, and science tidbits collected on slow creationism (ID) websites.
@Chad,
"i think your argument lacks coherence.."
Do you really not see the analogy between what I said and what you said about the Bible and 1 Samuel?
@Saraswati –
I agree – although I outright reject Chad's claims to numerous degrees in engineering (as I recall he claims to have two master's degrees and an "undergraduate degree" – seriously, what university graduate refers to a bachelor's degree as an "undergraduate degree"?). Chad's lack of command of the language alone would almost certainly preclude earning an advanced degree.
Ah, yes, time for the Chad to drag out the ad hominem fallacy to hide behind. You are so wrong in so many ways. Just interested to know were you a bigot before you were "born again" into your god of Israel delusion or did that come as part of your epiphany? I think your head was already screwed up, as Saraswati has already pointed out, but it is best you stay where you are before becoming further radicalized in a dangerous way to the larger society. Ranting on this blog is probably good therapy for you and satisfies your deep seated low self esteem.
I find bachelor's and undergraduate pretty interchangeable as terms and I've seen master's level work (including theses) produced with far worse English that Chad's. But engineering is basically and advanced skilled trade (as are most medical fields – I'm not putting it down) and a field in which you need to know only a very small set of practical information. It's just not an area that typically attracts people with an interest in acquiring broad knowledge and growing intellectually. Usually people interested in those areas go into the sciences, social sciences or cultural fields. That said, my grandfather had a sixth grade education and acquired a broader understanding of the world than Chad, so I believe you can learn regardless of academic background if you have the right atti.tude and desire.
@Religions
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think Chad has some deep seated family issues that come from the fact that he wanted to rebel against his secular family by becoming the most christiany christian you can get. See how often he tells others they aren't christians because they don't believe in a certain part of the bible or the fact that he, and he alone, truly knows the bible whereas everyone else who comments on it "clearly hasn't read it".
All chad wants is for his family to agree with him so he thinks that if he can come on here and convince an atheist, then he'll have found the magic formula to convince his family too. Poor, unloved chad, all he wants is for his mummy to give him a hug.
@Saraswati ""atheism opposes one God and one God only, the God of Israel.""
@Chad "I'll modify that slightly and say "virtually all of atheism is directed against the the denial of the God of Israel"
which is of course true.
======
@Saraswati "You repeatedly assign beliefs to atheism that have nothing to do with it. You particularly go on about how it includes both materialism and determinism, neither of which is true and then go on to yap about determinism and free will without an adequate understanding of that topic either"
@Chad "actually, I understand materialism, determinism and free will quite well.
as well:
– atheism: disbelieves in a god
– atheism: disbelieves in a creator
– if a person doesnt believe in a creator, they believe that all that operates within our universe, is the material universe and the laws that govern it.
– in that viewpoint, there is no possible physical explanation for free will (see Mlodinow/Hawkings, note also that any randomness which may be present from quantum processes will potentially only produce random mental disturbances, not provide the ability to have individually directed thought – free will)
– these concepts are the basics of materialism/determinism and free will, and yes I am quite aware of the different definitions of free will.
– the notion that an atheist can not possibly physically justify a belief in free will is quite established.
– the notion that an atheist can not possibly physically justify a non-belief in determinism, is quite established.
so, for your criticism to be valid you would have to demonstrate that I am now criticizing something without understanding it. A task that will be particularly hard for you to accomplish, as you have indicated in the past that you do not believe in free will, and you do believe in determinism.
@ME II
I dont talk about m-theory because I dont understand the math
you shouldnt talk about God inst ituting anything, because you are unfamiliar with the biblical examples of same.
seems pretty straightforward.
@Saraswati et al.
your speculations on my background are inaccurate and actually very revealing.. Why do you always resort to ad-hominem?
oh wait.. I remember
"When you have no case, abuse the plaintiff". – Marcus Tullius Cicero
Chad
@ME II
I dont talk about m-theory because I dont understand the math
you shouldnt talk about God inst ituting anything, because you are unfamiliar with the biblical examples of same.
seems pretty straightforward.
------------–
You have zero authority to delare such things on behalf of god.
seems pretty straightforward
@Chad
You clearly are having issues on what free will is, so please elaborate. Are you talking about the physical type of free will (ie there is/isn't a soul and that soul controls the body) or theological free will (there is/isn't fate, destiny, etc...). Once you understand that difference you'll understand a) what an atheist means when he/she says there is no such thing as free will and b) theologically speaking, there is no such thing as free will for a christian who believes in an omnicient god.
Also, it looks like we struck a nerve there. Do you need mommy to give you a hug AND kiss you boo boo? Chad, the mere fact that you think your the plaintiff in this instance says a lot about you and I think this shakespearean line is apt, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"
"...when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I’m certainly going to assume that he IS a duck."
-Emil Mazey
...and in case it's not clear...Chad is the duck.
Chad, Quoting the bible to support the bible is not convincing or does that mean that Gandalf is real?
Most believers on this blog are christians and use christian beliefs and texts so that's why the atheist comments tend to counter christian arguments, not any inherent bias as you infer.
@Chad
Not to mention, you seem to think yourself the expert on the bible AND evolution AND probabilities and yet so far we've seen you ask such questions like, "where's the benefit to a mutation to make humans hallucinate a diety" belying your ignorance in evolution and saying things like "the probability of life would be 10 ^450" and then believing that this would only happen on the 10^450th try and then citing an example of an experiment putting monkeys in a room with a single computer for a month which amounted to absolutely nothing, uncovering the fact that you clearly have trouble understanding probability and experiments
There's actually some interesting research that could help explain people like Chad genetically:
"Dopaminergic genes predict individual differences in susceptibility to confirmation bias"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098533/
I'm not sure at what point you'd have to recognize this as a learning disability. In some fields it won't matter as much.
@Chuckles, I've actually wondered whether Chad, and others who like him are confused by what evolution can accomplish, have poor numeric sense. While many such people can, with work, become quite good at math, they usually have no natural sense of probability or relative magnitude. This is something easily measured and I often think kids should have it done to see where remedial help might benefit kids who sometimes seem to perform adequately in most areas of basic math.
@Saraswati –
"Behaviorally, subjects are overly influenced by prior instructions, at the expense of learning true reinforcement statistics.
So, Chad's behavior is an effect of dopaminergic neurotransmission. Sweet, sweet deterministic irony.
@saraswati
back to the ad-hominems eh? who'd have thunk it..
Hey, Chad...dance, monkey, dance.
@Really-O,
It's kind of sad, though, to think people like that may not be able to change. One question though is whether they might be able to learn to recognize the problem, and so at least diminish the negative social effects. I've seen people with Autism make great strides this way to the point they can function positively and even have friends. If people with this kind of extreme confirmation bias could be steered towards appropriate careers and then learn to recognize their own cognitive limitations they, and we, might all be a bit better off.
@Chuckles
The ability of atheistic evolution to explain religion (in the atheist view, the ability to hallucinate a deity), is very contentious topic.. why would that particular ability (introduced by gene mutation) survive natural selection? How is a delusion beneficial?
Dont be afraid to read up on in..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/can_evolution_explain_religion
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jan/14/can-science-explain-religion/?pagination=false
@Saraswati –
The probability of current research in behavioral neuroscience clearly supports nature, not nurture. Until we have effective and elegant biological interventions, I agree that "coping skills" may be our best – albeit minimally effective, in many cases – bet.
How many times does something have to be explained to you before it sinks in?
Religion is just philosophy translated into dogma. Religions follow the same rules as any "meme" or set of ideas that "chatches on" in social experience. I am perfectly satisfied with Evolution's "explanation" of how certain philosophies arise and perhaps codified into religion or other social structure. Whatever mechanism explains our propensity to worship athelets and be dogmatic about sports teams also explains our tendency to religion and dogma.
This is one of the best Chadisms: the tendency to slip in lines like this
"Dont be afraid to read up on in.."
And then go around accusing others of ad hominems. He uses backhanded insults regularly in his comments in a very passive-agressive way and then acts like it's a huge shock when others come out and honestly say what they think of him.
The ability of atheistic evolution to explain religion (in the atheist view, the ability to hallucinate a leprechaun), is very contentious topic.. why would that particular ability (introduced by gene mutation) survive natural selection? How is a delusion beneficial?
Our evolution has given us the ability to take something we don't understand, the blowing branch outside the window that makes leprechaun shadows on our wall, and imagine some fearful tiny green man in a top hat and tails. This is a defensive mechanism that has allowed some of our ancestors to survive because of their timidness and fear of their own shadows. Thus God was born.
Paul, if you are asking Chad the answer is probably "a lot". You might want to read the article I linked to above to see the kind of slow learning issue we are probably dealing with here.
Saraswati: "...And then go around accusing others of ad hominems. He uses backhanded insults regularly in his comments in a very passive-agressive way and then acts like it's a huge shock when others come out and honestly say what they think of him."
Translation – "Chad is a smug, disingenuous, dishonest douche."
I guess we bring out the best in Chad.
@Sara
I think my favorite is calling something "a very contensious topic" when it really is only contesious between other christian apologetics and doesn't really show up as even a blip on the radar of a evolutionary scientist.
I do find it funny though that there are ebbs and flows of conversation between Chad and other people. Occasionally we'll have a back and forth, I'll out logic the crap out of him on a specific topic and then he'll stop answering me, only occasionally posting an article that will "answer" a particularly barbed post I make and then stop answering until, like magic, he'll start talking with me again. It's sort of adorable. I'm assuming not only does he want a hug from his mom, but he's constantly being ignored by his sibling(s).
Cute stuff Chad, but what you posted is more garbage than content anyway.
@Chuckles "doesn't really show up as even a blip on the radar of a evolutionary scientist."
you didnt readi the articles 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/can_evolution_explain_religion
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jan/14/can-science-explain-religion/?pagination=false
@Chad,
"you shouldnt talk about God inst ituting anything, because you are unfamiliar with the biblical examples of same."
First, thanks for not banning me from the entire Bible, I guess.
Second, you brought up God "insti.uting" things, not I. My point was never about what God would or would not do, but what the founding fathers would do based on your premise.
Third, if you're going use a modern word in a Biblical usage, i.e. insti.tute, you might want to identify that.
p.s. I don't see the word "insti.tute" even used in 1 Samuel. Which version are you using? Or perhaps you should take your own advice and just not talk about it.
Chad...............Fireball of Christ............National Geographic ?
"Our evolution has given us the ability to take something we don't understand, the blowing branch outside the window that makes leprechaun shadows on our wall, and imagine some fearful tiny green man in a top hat and tails. This is a defensive mechanism that has allowed some of our ancestors to survive because of their timidness and fear of their own shadows. Thus God was born."
->that has several problems:
A. "take something we don't understand": in the deterministic view (no free will), that is a difficult statement to justify. A flower, first introduced to sun, doesnt have an "understanding" gap. Chemicals determine a response.
In the same way, in the deterministic view of the brain, the reaction is pre-determined.
B. "ancestors to survive because of their timidness and fear of their own shadows": another problematic statement, as you are implying that the delusion allays fears.
there are 4 possible scenarios
1. the threat is real, there is no response
2. the threat is real, there is a response
3. the threat is not real, there is no response
4. the threat is not real, there is a response
Your claim is that religion is the delusion of #1. Now, since the persons fears were allayed inappropriately, they were eaten by the tiger and that mutation doesnt survive in the gene pool.
This is precisely the difficulty of atheist evolution explaining religion. Atheist evolution should favor overreaction over underreaction, paranoia over false sense of security.
the original post:
@ME II
God insti.tutes theocracies, if He had wanted the US to be a theocracy, He would have inst.ituted it as such.
Israel started out as a theocracy, then demanded and got a King, which God allowed (see 1 Samuel)
read 1 Samuel to understand how God inst ituted the theocracy. You'll have to do more than just a word search...
@Chad,
So it wasn't about the word "insit.tute" then?
"=>how did God insti tute the theocracy?
reason I am asking, is you have a different concept of "insti tute" than what the biblical notion is. You also have a different understanding of what God allows vs what He wants.
May 10, 2013 at 11:23 am | Report abuse |
@Chad,
If 1 Samuel doesn't use the word, then how is reading it going to help me understand how the Bible uses it?
"Your claim is that religion is the delusion of #1. Now, since the persons fears were allayed inappropriately, they were eaten by the tiger and that mutation doesn't survive in the gene pool."
No, it's #4 you moron. The threat is not real (no God) but there has been a response (see religion for last several thousand years).
@Chad
I actually read enough, did you actually read what you posted?
For instance, the wiki article just outlines two different lines of thought, one being it was an adaptation for survival, the other being it was a by product of an adaptation. Neither of which are "contensious" in anyway (other than in christain apologetic circles) and the answers given are the same ones I myself posted a little while ago.
2. The mercatornet link was bias poop and can be tossed out.
3. The national geographic link has nothing to do with the topic, is written on behalf of a jewish scientist saying the whole bible should be read allegorically (including your precious empty tomb theory)
4. The NYTimes review is also pure speculative garbage and is in no way to be used as a source. I mean honestly, would you use an Amazon review to tell me why the nintendo wii is accepted as the best system of all time? No, because that would be stupid.
Which is why I swing around back to my point, which is what you posted is garbage and there is no contention between scientists about why man would evolve to have religion nor would it solve the question one way or the other.
But nice try chad, really, solid investigative work (please read that last bit as sarcastically as humanly possible ..... then double it)
@ME II
at issue was the difference between the manner that the theocracy in Israel (see Samuel 1) was inst ituted (established) vs the 10 commandment monuments.
Well then, by similar logic, God obviously does not want 10 commandment monuments in court houses
my response was that the manner in which the theocracy was inst ituted (established) was different than the manner in which the 10 commandment monuments were placed in court houses.
To understand the difference, one would have to read/understand Samuel 1.
hope that clears things up for you..
I'm afraid your assertions are correct, "Chuckles". The "mercatornet link" was, in fact, bias poop.
@Chuckles
contentious Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial
The fact that there exists many different attempts by atheists to explain the "evolution of religion" means that it is contentious..
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jan/14/can-science-explain-religion/?pagination=false
But Wright’s book cannot be judged only, or even primarily, by whether it presents a capable history of religion. Instead it must be judged by whether his new theory of religion succeeds. And here, as we’ll see, The Evolution of God is less satisfying.
Although Wright offers these ideas tentatively, it’s hard to see how they’re supposed to work. He has offered a materialist account of moral progress. If that account succeeds (and he thinks it does), it provides evidence neither for nor against anything transcendent. Indeed Wright’s use of the word “transcendent” seems gratuitous. Consider an analogy that has little or nothing to do with morality. Economists argue that the non-zero-sum game of trade—i.e., exchange in which both sides benefit—gives rise to a direction in history: the expansion of trade and the growth of wealth. But no one is tempted to conclude that this directionality suggests a higher purpose. The invisible hand is a metaphor, not a transcendent appendage. Conversely, if Wright’s materialist account of moral progress fails, this also provides evidence neither for nor against anything transcendent: maybe God drives moral progress or maybe a different materialist account could explain the facts
actually, very interesting stuff..
@Chad,
"the manner in which the theocracy was inst ituted (established) was different than the manner in which the 10 commandment monuments were placed in court houses."
Yes that clarifies things, thanks.
But my point was, why does that matter? Is God restricted to one manner of making things happen? As I said earlier, "Can God not do it any other way? Can He not insti.tute (modern version) things other than theocracies?" ... or in a different manner?
@Chad
You do realize there is a significant difference between a topic that causes academic debate among scientists vs. a topic that causes arguments right? Moreover, the different schools of thought don't comment on the larger discussion of whether evolution was guided or not. For instance, some scientists are trying to figure out why humans would wrinkle after being in water for an extended period of time. Some think it's the body's way of creating tread so we can grip slippery things better (like attempting to walk through a river on slippery rocks). Others think that it has to do with constricting blood vessels and the skin layers on the thicker skinned areas are expanding. Would you call this contentious? No, because it's not, there are just different theories and scientists, among themselves, debate whether one theory is more valid than the other. That's it. Calling why religion is an evolutionary trait or just a byproduct is no more contentious is what christian apologetics like yourself attempt to do to conflate a topic into something really important and try and distract from some of the bigger gaping holes.
"actually, very interesting stuff.."
–Only to the dim witted.
"why would that particular ability (introduced by gene mutation) survive natural selection? How is a delusion beneficial?"
The hypothesis, I don't think it is settled yet, is that the attribution of agency to inanimate phenomena, e.g. movement in the bushes, saved enough animals to be a survival trait, simply because the presumption of agency increased survival when correct , e.g. tiger, and did little harm we wrong, e.g. wind.
This presumption of agency carried over into thunder, stars, seasons, mortality, etc. or so the hypothesis goes I think.
However, I don't think this is necessarily traced to a genetic mutation, at least not specifically. The ability to imagine, perhaps.
@ME "But my point was, why does that matter? Is God restricted to one manner of making things happen? As I said earlier, "Can God not do it any other way? Can He not insti.tute (modern version) things other than theocracies?" ... or in a different manner?"
=>it does matter a great deal when you are attempting to shape human behavior as a result.
For instance, God established the theocracy, and He dissolved it. You'll need to read 1 Samuel to see that what we are NOT talking about, is some theocracy, the impetus for which being ascribed to God.
Now, did God establish the 10 commandments in court houses in the same manner, the removal of which would and should then be accepted as the will of God?
no.
to understand the difference, you'll need to read 1 Samuel.
@Chad,
"You'll need to read 1 Samuel to see that what we are NOT talking about, is some theocracy, the impetus for which being ascribed to God."
Are you saying that only God can create a Theocracy?
"Now, did God establish the 10 commandments in court houses in the same manner, the removal of which would and should then be accepted as the will of God?"
Again the difference is immaterial, why would God be required to establish the monuments in the same manner as supposedly He did in ancient Israel?
Regardless, as I said quite some time back this is a red-herring to the original point of why, if "... this country was founded on the premise that the God of Israel is real.", do we have the freedoms we have.
I'm not saying it would be a God-established theocracy, but why would the founding fathers protect our right to follow the wrong religions, if that premise were true?
Oh my, the long and winding road with Chad.
@ME II "Are you saying that only God can create a Theocracy?"
@Chad "Anyone can claim to create one, but God created the one in Israel. That was authentic.
@ME II "Again the difference is immaterial, why would God be required to establish the monuments in the same manner as supposedly He did in ancient Israel?"
@Chad "your original assertion was that we should in essence accept the removal as the will of God. I am arguing that is not the case.
@ME II "Obviously it's not a theocracy, but why? If the God of Israel is literally "real", then many of our current freedoms make little sense. "
@Chad "I read that statement to claim that if the God of Israel is real, we should have a theocracy, and we shouldnt have freedoms (what you call freedom, i.e. no exposure to Christianity).
To which I responded, if God wanted a theocracy, that's what we would have.
@chad,
Ah, then I was not clear enough.
"Obviously it's not a theocracy, but why?"
Simply meant:
'Of course, the US is not a theocracy, it is a Republic...'
Then:
'Why didn't the founding fathers make it a theocracy, if the/a founding premise was that G.O.I. was real?'
@ME II "'Why didn't the founding fathers make it a theocracy, if the/a founding premise was that G.O.I. was real?'"
@Chad "If God wanted a theocracy, He would have created it. The founding fathers knew that.
are you actually trying to argue that since the founding fathers didnt take it upon themselves to create a theocracy (in the absence of any direct instruction to do so from God), means that they actually didnt believe in God?
Chad, You appear to want a theocracy but also admit that your god is not capable of creating that so why would anyone take that seriously?
Confirmation Bias....."Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information."
Chad believing in a god creator does not let you jump to the conclusion that the god of Israel is what was meant, a god that does not interfere or judge the actions of mankind is what was meant. You know that but your delusion will not let you admit the truth.
@Chad,
"If God wanted a theocracy, He would have created it."
Again, this is circular logic that can be used to justify anything. Similar to 'It must have occurred because otherwise we wouldn't exist'.
"The founding fathers knew that."
You know this based on what evidence?
"are you actually trying to argue that since the founding fathers didnt take it upon themselves to create a theocracy (in the absence of any direct instruction to do so from God), means that they actually didnt believe in God?"
Not at all. I'm simply saying that the founding fathers knew that, while many believed that God/GOI was real, no one knew for certain. And, since no one knew for certain, no one, especially, the government, should tell people what to believe. How do you prevent the government from telling people what to believe? You prevent it from passing laws related to religion in any respect, including establishing a national church/religion as well as endorsing one religion over others.
"When Christians become a 'hated minority'"
I have no doubt that day will come, and more, Christianity will be a memory of a barbaric era. Our understanding of the universe is accelerating so rapidly, we will be able to definitively show that the religion are absurd. Some may still believe in god, but the current religions will not be able to stay afloat. I won't be alive to see it, but I'm so confident of this you could say I have faith in it.
Oh, I doubt it, and it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. Most Christians aren't out screaming at dead soldiers or waving hateful signs, or even here at CNN calling atheists nazis. Most of them are just living their lives and going about their business. I suspect that denominalization will break them into smaller and smaller sects, and that Catholics will no longer have a majority vote where they used to, and that laws will cease being driven by religion. Then they can go back to worshiping God and let us run our own lives.
Like I said, not in our lifetimes, but it will almost certainly happen. I distinguish religion from belief in god. The religions have asserted many false facts that will be proven wrong. Belief in god is another issue.
Do I smell an agnostic? Arguing from ignorance, Bostontola? Is your god "unknowable"? lol
Better check your olfactory system hepcat, I'm an atheist. I also recognize that at this point we can't prove there is no god. I believe there is no god. The above comment reflects another belief, that science will prove most religions are false.
Bostontola said, "...we can't prove there is no god."
.
Ah, I was right. You are a militant agnostic atheist. You refuse to investigate and discover that we have already proven there is no god thousands of different ways. You declare that we "cannot" (possibly) prove there is no god.
What an incredibly ignorant and foolish thing to say. To support willful ignorance while declaring that you know it to be impossible to find any evidence against a god's existence.
Oh, this should be good....
I doubt churches are going to fade away; it's part of our culture and I don't see it changing. Taking one day off per week to emphasize being a good, honest person is a good thing in a child's life, even if the church in question approaches God by rolling on the ground screaming "Hoogalla ballababa!" and pretending it's ancient Sumerian. I do suspect that as competing churches arise, Christians will be less convinced of their innate correctness and maybe start leaving the rest of us alone?
Bostontola said, "...The above comment reflects another belief, that science will prove most religions are false."
AHA! A believer masquerading as an atheist. I missed that little giveaway there. You are fresh caught. What do you have to say for yourself, imposter?
That's Chad isn't it? The lying liar? Or whoever likes pretending to be an atheist yet does it clumsily enough to get caught.
"You are a militant agnostic atheist. You refuse to investigate and discover that we have already proven there is no god thousands of different ways. You declare that we "cannot" (possibly) prove there is no god."
Nonsense, you'd have to physically inspect the entire universe before you could say you'd proved for certain that there's no God. He might have an office orbiting Sirius or in the Andromeda galaxy. Atheism is unprovable; agnosticism is much easier. 99% sure there is no God is good enough for me.
Hepcat,
Slinging insults and unsubstantiated assertions doesn't prove you are a stronger atheist than I am, it shows you have poor critical thinking skills, and that you are a rude boor.
lmao
A rude boor! Oh, my! Someone sounds a little pouty there. Well, snob guy, I guess I'd better leave you to your gold-plated enema bag, then. Ta ta.
agnostic denominationalism in play?
When you're ready to talk reason and logic, I guess I'll be dead by then. Oh, well.
@Bible Clown
So sad to hear that you do not understand epistemology or logic. You think universal knowledge is a prerequisite to saying there are no gods. That would be incorrect.
Hepcat,
Anyone can say there is no god, proving it is another matter. I couldn't care less what you think you know, show me one respected scientist that asserts a proof there is no god. I believe there is no god as strongly as any person can believe anything, but I have seen no proof. You claim logic and rational thought but exhibit neither.
"you do not understand epistemology or logic. You think universal knowledge is a prerequisite to saying there are no gods. That would be incorrect." Without universal knowledge, your 'proofs' are just wordplay. You can 'prove' a bumblebee can't fly, or that all mammals are men. Logic is a feeble reed, kid. A description of food isn't food. You want to prove the existence of god in the real world, you have to provide real proof. You want to 'prove' god doesn't exist in a universe of discourse, knock yourself out, but you've proved nothing.
"When you're ready to talk reason and logic, I guess I'll be dead by then. Oh, well." Why are you being such a dick?
I think Hepcat is atheist Chad.
Atheism is a default objective position on the subject of theism.
.
A baby is born without any religious beliefs in a tabula rasa state of mind (not completely blank but blank where theism is concerned) that is the level of belief in anything at all, including superbeings, is zero to a newborn baby.
.
In LOGIC, it is a starting position, a default position, to have no conclusions until data has been processed to the point where a conclusion is possible..
.
In having zero evidence for a god, the default position remains a lack of a conclusion, a lack of a belief, because no evidence has yet been presented.
.
Again, atheism is a lack of a position on the question of theism.
There is no conclusion drawn because there is no evidence upon which to base a conclusion.
There is no conclusion POSSIBLE without any data.
.
The question should never arise, but we are surrounded by crazy people, so the question does arise: Do we have a conclusion? What is our answer? We are atheist because no evidence has appeared.
We don't "believe" no evidence has appeared, we KNOW it. We KNOW there is nothing to support the idea of a god whatsoever.
There is no doctrine to atheism. There is no baseless conclusion (belief) about there being no gods because it is the insistence upon having a basis upon which to draw a conclusion that leads back to the default position.
It is not a religion. It is not a philosophical position. It is a lack of one.
If there was a god there would be evidence and it would be testable, examinable, viewable, hearable, whateverable.
There is NOTHING.
.
In fact, there is just the opposite: The COUNTERINDICATIONS that any gods exist. Religion is fraud and brainwashing.
That is a fact. It is provable. It is testable. We have evidence there is no god. It is Chad. Chad is proof there is no god. lolol
.
Hepcat may be a Christian in atheist clothing. The aim would be to make atheists appear as irrational as the religious.
@Bostontola and Bible Clown
Okay guys, now it's your turn.
..
WHAT THE LIVING GODDAMN FUCK IS IT - that YOU BASE YOUR BELIEF ON?
.
You know, the belief that a god is possible?
What do you base that on? Because you should have nothing at all to base such a position on.
You are guilty of a false equivalency in your thinking perhaps?
You lack proof of any kind that there is any sort of god at all in any way shape or form.
So WHY do you dogmatically cling to the idea that a god MUST be possible?
YOU MUST HAVE A REASON.
That reason must be supported by facts of some sort or you are being fooled by the whole issue or something.
What is your reason for believing a god to be possible? What is that tiny little thing? Go ahead and share it with the rest of us, please, because otherwise I'm going to continue being a pain in the butt.
Hepcat,
The lack of critical thinking skill in your posts continues to make me think you are a troll, but I'll bite once again anyway. As I have repeatedly said, I TOTALLY believe there is no god, I also recognize what a true proof is and have never seen a proof there is no god. Either you really don't know the difference and are hence incapable of a useful discussion on the matter, or you are a troll.
@Hepcat
Your understanding of logic is flawed. Not being able to draw a conclusion due to lack of evidence does make it absolute. To say that there is absolutely no god, would require absolute knowledge, which ironically would make you a god.
This discussion is like a breath of fresh air. What do you guys call your denomination? Contrarianism?
@Bill Deacon
In case you haven't been told yet today Bill, go fuck yourself! Don't you have a bishop that needs polishing?
Anti-Contrarianism?
Okay fellas, I'm grateful you keep responding to my poking. I wanted to argue with someone intelligent and all we have around here are the usual idiots like Chad.
😀
With that out of the way, I still have to ask. Do you argue with equal conviction of some mysterious reason as to the possible existence of a spiritual ball of doom, unseen and malignant, hiding at this moment inside, say, a jar of peanut butter?
Are you guys all seriously believing in the possibility of supernatural magic? Because that is what you keep saying.
Without a battalion of secretaries to gather all the things I could bring together as a body of evidence, I am cast upon the shores of typing arguments on the internet trying to point at enough solid facts that directly correlate to the definite impossibility of any god existing as gods are defined.
I'm not saying other beings cannot exist. I am saying super-continuum-creating super-beings that fit the criteria of a god definitely do not exist.
Conjecture, inference, etc. all based on solid science is what I've got. Lots of science. Lots of evidence. Evidence for the non-existence of a "deity" that has anything to do with this continuum. There is nothing affecting this continuum from the outside.
I suppose now you'll tell me a god could create himself from inside the thing he had not yet created or something.
There is no magic. If there was any sort of magic, anything at all, I would have some reservations, but that restaurant is closed. There are no gods and we have proof. All you have to do is take the time to look at it and think about it. Sounds like proselytizing, doesn't it? I'm just arguing here. I say we have more than enough proof to completely rule out any gods at all.
Period. I don't have to see every corner of some hyper-universe to know I have enough verifiable evidence.
I have not even touched upon all the thousands of experiments that can be done to test for the existence of any supernatural phenomena you may say is possible.
Well?
If it's possible, then prove how it is possible. And thanks, from a terrible troll. 😀
The way that is possible, the only way that is possible, is to pick up your cross and follow Christ.
BD knows this the same way he knows Sponge Bob Squarepants is gay. Experience...
...
The smell of burnt children's burning flesh still taints the walls of the Vatican, Bill.
That taint, that stain, will never come off of the Holy Roman Empire.
It was never clean. It was never pure. It is filth. It began with lies.
You know all about lies, don't you, Bill?
Nice canard but it has nothing to do with your refusal to take up your own cross
You say you want proof. You say you want an objective experiment. Jesus himself tells you He is the way. Not "there" is the way. Don't blame others if you haven't the courage to take the path or are simply too rebellious to follow the master.
Go ahead Hepcat. Why not be the first Christian you could respect? Why not set the Church right and make your life a living sacrifice for how the world should live? Why not become holy and find God for us? You'll have the company of all the saints and sinners who have gone before you to help and hinder. Then you could tell all the non-believers about it. They'll probably believe you because you, you my friend were the worst of sinners, you were a confirmed atheist. But having taken the path, having born your cross, having had a personal, real conversion and a mind opening heart altering experience, they would believe you wouldn't they. Answer:No they wouldn't and you would be left to tell them "The only way is to take up your cross and follow the master"
Yes of course Bill, we understand your desperate need for a master both an earthly one and a supernatural one, so you can have hope in your poor wretched life. Just remember Bill repentance is not the same as rehabilitation, do not back slide.
I'm here to tell you brothers and sisters, there is no proof, there will never be any proof. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. If you want to know, if you really want to know you will have to go to the mountain yourself. Nobody can go there for you. You may spend decades of abuse and ridicule and self doubt along the way. Or, you may encounter the divine, the eternal and the sublime. Paul himself said "If Christ is not resurrected we are the most pitiable of fools" and that may very well be. But for myself, I would rather make the effort, try to find Him, try to follow him and live for him, pitiful as my effort may be, on the chance, the hope and the promise that He is there. That He is mine and I am His. The Church be damned, Science be damned, Governments be damned. Everything counts for nothing except the glorious, exhausting, triumphant following of my Savior.
And JMEF, I understand that you will be a salve to no one other than yourself. I find that universe a little small for my comfort.
Hey Bill been to the fvcking mountains....................got fvcking snowed in...................we where there for hot weather
survial training...................we could not fly out either......................so go pound sand !K!!
Peace
Oops........... OK at the END
It will never come off, Bill. Never.
You are the worst sort of human filth.
You need to stop being evil, Bill.
Not because of some reward or cleansing, but because it's the right thing to do.
Not because I say so, but because it is. Stop defending evil.
Bill, "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life." yet as you say "there is no proof, there will never be any proof."
Let me tell you something troll. An innocent man scourged and crucified is what is evil. A human life aborted while struggling to be born is evil. Women held captive in basements as salves for the pleasure of men is evil. Depriving people of their just wage is evil.
Serving others out of devotion to Christ is not.
Santa, there will never be any peer reviewed, objectively verifiable, archeological, historically docuumented truth of the type you are constantly clamoring for. If you want the truth, go out and be the truth. You'll find yourself at the foot of the cross ultimately, unless you are like science and can't see past the temporal. Must be a defective processor in that one.
oops misspelled "slaves" twice now. Don't tell tom
Bill you shoukld check out what sara said about chad...................you are in his boat too...............with big holes !!!
Something about ...........slow !
Bill, you clearly have no shame whatsoever.
Only someone like you would say that serving evil filth out of devotion to your god of horror and evil is not evil.
Only someone like you would think that what you're doing has any legitimacy at all.
There is nothing that can erase the stain. Nothing.
Not even a sacrifice can erase the black stain on your Holy Roman Empire, the smell of dead children everywhere, the stain of blood on everything. Have you seen the stains in the Vatican? Of course they don't want you to think about that.
Murder most foul is what your church has done for CENTURIES! Millions of innocent people – tortured to death!
Burned alive! Children burned alive!
YOUR CHURCH DID THAT!
And yet you sit there and try to tell me that your church is pure, without stain, bride of Jesus, with GORE and FILTH DRIPPING DOWN ALL OVER THE PLACE!
The centuries of vile and disgusting evil done by your church is proof that nothing you say about your religion has any legitimacy AT ALL.
It's hard not to see the correlation between the Catholic Church and the w h ore of Babylon described in Revelation. They are drunk on the blood of the innocent and no amount of soup kitchens and food to starving children will wipe that away.
"After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. 2 With a mighty voice he shouted: “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’ She has become a dwelling for demons
and a haunt for every impure spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal. 3 For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries. 4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “‘Get out of her, my people,’ so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; 5 for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes. 6 Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Pour her a double portion from her own cup.” Rev 18:1-6
Get out of her Bill Deacon, before it is too late.
"1 In the beginning was the Word" The Word? Well haven't you heard? The Bird is the Word!
A-well-a, everybody's heard about the bird
Bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, the bird is the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, well, the bird is the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, well, the bird is the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, well, the bird is the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, don't you know about the bird
Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a
A-well-a, everybody's heard about the bird
Bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, don't you know about the bird
Well, everybody's talking about the bird
A-well-a, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a, bird
Surfin' bird
Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb, aaah
Pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa
Pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Oom-oom-oom-oom-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-oom-oom-oom
Oom-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-a-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, ooma-mow-mow
Papa-oom-oom-oom-oom-ooma-mow-mow
Oom-oom-oom-oom-ooma-mow-mow
Ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, ooma-mow-mow
Well, don't you know about the bird
Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word
A-well-a, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow...
The Bird is cruel.
Hey – "Grease is the Word". Check out the do.
Same old story retold. There was Horus from 3000 BC (Jesus is a copy of Horus), or Attis from 1500 BC (Jesus is a copy of Attis), or Mithra from 1200BC (Jesus is a copy of Mithra), or Krishna from 900BC (Jesus is a copy of Krishna), or Dionysus from 500 BC (Jesus is a copy of Dionysus) .... or any of the DOZENS of other gods predating the bronze age book character Jesus who were born of a virgin on Dec 25, traveled as a teacher, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was killed and lay dead for 3 days and was resurrected.
You Christians are not even original! What a joke!
I used to play Ultima Online with Marduk. He is real and almost omnipotent.
They shall become a hated minority once they are less than 50 percent.
Until then they will be a hated Majority
The article isn't even a out "Christians" but about the anti-gay subset of Christians. It's just incredibly poorly ti.tled. The anti-gay people are only a minority now because so many Christians have accepted gay rights.
Once they figure out the sign in picture above is WRONG ................the majortiy should be we the people maybe ?
And maybe someday.................may god help us ................will be gone from the air waves !
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
ESCAPED FROM PRE-SCHOOL AT THE ASYLUM
John 15:26-27
The Work of the Holy Spirit
26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
"There was a man sent from God whose name was John." I know a man named John, so this must all be true. Praise the Lard.
doesn't know how to think for itself...has brain damage and should be ignored
wow, austin..how inspirational
brain damage? don't you have to crawl up in a bottle somewhere?
my bad
i agree......austin's brain is so withered from booze that all (s)he can do is parrot iron age comic books
@Austin – break it down, just a little,
15 (John testified concerning him –
– for those, who aren't in the 'Know', John is most likely 'The Baptist", who proved that 'him' was god, by pouring water on 'him' -.
He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, –
– apparently the listeners, could not hear John the first time, so he spake in yelling –
‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) –
– Some one appears to have cut in line at this point, which may have been why John was yelling –
16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. –
– the first grace must have gone bad, and so replacement grace has been supplied –
17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. –
– law is not grace or truth, and grace was given before, but must have gone bad, and so truth ..also came from JC, –
18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. –
– you may have to reread, this several times, as there must be a point to it –
May 10, 2013 at 8:25 am | Report abuse | Reply
Austin
The Gospel of John almost didn't make it into the canon of the Bible because it was a favorite book of the Gnostics, deemed "heretics" by the winning variety of Christianity that was able to declare it's views orthodox. If the Gnostics, or one of the other varieties of Christianity were better organized, or as lucky as the Orthodox in having the network and power of Rome to support it, you'd be worshipping a vastly different faith right now. That's how Christianity evolved, with the most powerful and better connected "species" outdoing the others and, sometimes, even attacking them directly, forcing their decline. After they won, the they picked which books would become the Bible, and they picked only the books that agreed with their views. So, instead of the Bible guiding Christian beliefs, the winning Christianity made the Bible.
I see the 24/7 crazy posters ares still going get a life
they picked which books would become the Bible, and they picked only the books that agreed with their views
--------–
This is it, in a nutshell. God's word? Sure, but only from the viewpoint of those individuals(humans) that selected the works! 🙂
My point is that there are a lot of Christians who seem to believe that the Bible, a KJ version, was left behind by Jesus in his hotel room just before his trials. I can understand why many pastors don't teach any of this in their Bible study, but in this day and age there really is no excuse for Christians not to pick up a book from some biblical scholar laying this out. Amazing!