home
RSS
Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?
September 1st, 2013
03:26 AM ET

Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?

Opinion by Jeffrey Weiss, Special to CNN
[twitter-follow screen_name='WeissFaithWrite']

(CNN) - Pope Francis surprised Israeli and Palestinian leaders last month when he invited them to a special prayer ceremony at the Vatican this Sunday - not least because religion has often been the source, not the salve, of the region's conflicts.

Still, Pope Francis offered his "home" - the Vatican - as the perfect place to plea for some divine assistance, and Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dutifully agreed to attend.

"The Pope has placed it in this perspective: Prayer is like a force for peace,” Vatican Secretary of State Archbishop Pietro Parolin told Vatican Radio.

"We hope that there, where human efforts have so far failed, the Lord offers to all the wisdom and fortitude to carry out a real peace plan."

But Sunday's special ceremony at the Vatican raises an interesting question: When Francis, Peres and Abbas bow their heads in prayer, will they be talking to the same God?

After all, Jews, Christians and Muslims all trace their faiths back to a fellow named Abraham, whom they all claim was chosen for special treatment by the Almighty.

Not academic

The “same God” question is one theologians have hammered at for as long as there have been enough religions for the query to make sense.

The question is hardly academic, though. In fact, a number of politicians, religious leaders and scholars have expressed hope in recent years that a convincing answer on the God question might dampen the violence committed in His name.

Yale Divinity School theologian Miroslav Volf recently edited a book titled “Do We Worship the Same God? Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Dialogue.”

In the introduction, Volf explained why the title question matters:

"To ask: ‘Do we have a common God?’ is, among other things, to worry: ‘Can we live together?’ That’s why whether or not a given community worships the same god as does another community has always been a crucial cultural and political question and not just a theological one."

On the other hand, there’s CNN Belief Blog contributor and Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero.

His book on this subject is titled “God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run The World.”

Prothero writes:

“For more than a generation we have followed scholars and sages down the rabbit hole into a fantasy world where all gods are one … In fact this naive theological groupthink – call it Godthink – has made the world more dangerous by blinding us to the clash of religions that threaten us worldwide.”

In the world of politics, President George W. Bush asserted the unity side of the argument more than once in the years after the 9/11 attacks - often as a way to deflect accusations that America was at war with Islam.

Bush told Al Arabiya television, “I believe there is a universal God. I believe the God that the Muslim prays to is the same God that I pray to. After all, we all came from Abraham. I believe in that universality.”

Pope Francis invites Israeli, Palestinian leaders to Vatican peace talks

Pope John Paul II drew from the same rhetorical well several times.

“We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection,” he first said in a speech to Muslims in Morocco in 1985.

Looking for a more recent example? Consider the plight of Vatican envoy to Malaysia.

Shortly after he arrived there last year, Archbishop Joseph Marino said that is was fine by him that Christian translations of the Bible into Malay use the word “Allah” for “God.”

“Allah” is, of course, the Arabic word for God and is found in the Quran. The Christian translators explained that since most Malaysians are Muslim, it’s the word they’re most comfortable with and therefore the best choice for the translation.

But many Muslim authorities in Malaysia were furious. They say Christians are slipping in the familiar word as a way to convert Muslims. And conversion of Muslims is all but illegal in Malaysia.

There’s a lawsuit ongoing about the translations. Marino had to apologize for pushing into Malaysian politics.

Points of disagreement

So what do the “Abrahamic” religions disagree about?

Among other things: the purpose of humanity, the relationship of God and humanity, sin, forgiveness, salvation, the afterlife, Jesus, Muhammad, the calendar, and the religious importance of Abraham himself.

Plus the nature of God.

Any summary will leave out enormous nuance. Internal divisions within religions have fueled some of the worst examples of human violence. Consider the long and frequently bloody history of troubles between Catholics and Protestants or the growing death toll of Muslim-on-Muslim attacks.

But there are common elements about God widely accepted in each tradition.

Judaism

Start with Judaism, since it came first and established roots that carried into the other two.

Jewish tradition teaches that there is one and only one God, creator of everything, and He established physical and moral laws. As Judaism’s preeminent prayer says: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

This God walks and talks directly with His creations – for a while.

Eventually, He chooses one particular nomad (Abraham) to father a mighty nation that God sets up as an example to other nations.

This God likes the smell of burning meat and demands other extremely specific physical offerings as evidence of obedience and repentance. And He gives His chosen people a particular set of laws – but doesn’t mind discussion and even argument about those laws.

A famous rabbinic saying implies that every word in Judaism’s sacred texts can be understood in 70 correct (but related) ways. And human reasoning can even trump divine intention. (No kidding. It’s in the Talmud)

This God judges His people every year. Tradition says he’s willing to accept imperfection, as long as it comes with repentance.

He’s big on obedience, not so much on faith. He’s not nearly as attentive to the behaviors of non-Jews. (There’s a famous Jewish joke with the punch line “Would you mind choosing somebody else once in a while?”)

Tradition holds that there’s a World To Come after death where moral accounts will somehow be settled. But this God is vague on details.

Christianity

The most obvious differences in the Christian God are the traditional teachings about the Trinity and Jesus. God is three separate persons who are also one. How? Christianity says the Trinity is a “mystery” of faith.

According to Christian tradition, God begets a son who is somehow also Him but not Him to atone for Original Sin. He sacrifices that son though a brutal death and thus achieves humanity's salvation.

But the son, who also is God, rises from the dead. And that sacrifice redeems eternally all who accept and believe in it. Faith, not behavior, is the essential measure of salvation.

This God is willing to vastly expand what it means to be among His “chosen people.” He’s also willing to cancel many of the laws that had applied to that chosen group for this expanded membership.

Orthodox Jews say that God prohibits them from eating a cheeseburger; Christians say God has no problem with them wolfing down Big Macs.

Unlike the Jewish God, whose instructions are almost all about this world, the Christian God is focused more on eternal salvation: heaven and hell.

Finally, for this God, much of the Jewish scriptures (which are all God’s word) are actually about foreshadowing Jesus. Including Abraham.

Islam

The Muslim God is a bit more like the Jewish God.

There is no Trinity in Muslim tradition. Jesus was a prophet, but no more divine than other prophets.

God has never has had anything like physical attributes and has no gender. (Some Muslim commentators say that the noun “Allah” is masculine, but only in the way that all nouns in some languages include gender.)

Muslim tradition holds that God wants one thing from humans: Submission. The word “Islam” is defined as “submission to the will of God.”

For Muslims, all true prophets in Jewish and Christian traditions were actually Muslim because they knew to submit correctly to God. Differences between Muslim, Jewish and Christian interpretations of God are due to errors that crept into the other two faiths, Islam teaches.

The Muslim God, like the other two, initially demanded that Abraham sacrifice a son. But the Muslim God wanted Abraham’s son Ishmael, not Isaac, who Jewish tradition holds was offered as a the sacrifice.

The Muslim God also designated, from before the world began, a perfect man to be his final prophet: Muhammad. God’s perfect truths are found only in the Quran and in the sayings of Muhammad, the hadiths.

And the Muslim God, like the Christian God but unlike the Jewish God, will welcome believers to paradise and condemn many non-Muslims - exactly which ones is a matter of much discussion - to eternal torment.

Final answer

So do Christians Muslims, and Jews, really all worship the same God?

In two major volumes on the subject recently published by scholars from various faiths and traditions, including Volf’s, the most inclusive response from these scholars is basically: Yes, and it’s our God.

This is not a new way of answering the question.

In 1076, Pope Gregory VII wrote this to a Muslim leader: “We believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way…”

But like many other religious leaders on all sides of the argument, Gregory insisted that his version of the Almighty is the one whom the others are unknowingly and incompletely worshiping.

A less exclusivist set of religions might shrug off the differences. But all three claim to have the only “True Faith.”

So do all three faiths actually worship the same deity, whether they call him God or Allah or Adonai?

God only knows.

Jeffrey Weiss is an award-winning religion reporter in Dallas.The views expressed in this column belong to Weiss. A version of this story first ran in September 2013. 

CNN's Daniel Burke contributed to this article. 

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • History • Islam • Judaism • Muslim • Religious violence • Torah • Vatican

soundoff (7,438 Responses)
  1. jw

    Jesus said that He and the Father were One. In other words, Jesus is the exact representation of God, because He is God. Judaism does not believe Jesus is God, and neither does Islam. Jesus said, before Abraham existed, I AM. In fact, unless a person believes that Jesus is God, and puts their faith in Him alone for salvation, that person is lost. Jesus is the only Savior, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. In conclusion, unless one believes that Jesus is God, and puts their faith in Him, they don't believe in God. So the God of Islam and Judaism is not the same as the Christian God if they exclude Jesus as God.

    September 2, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
  2. Reality

    Peace is brought about by rational thinking. Religion is not rational. Problem solved.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    ==============================================================
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    September 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
  3. Chiemele

    For so long has man thought had disdain for his creator due to his prowess in science, and for so long has man come to a realisation that he has much more to know. Man in his knowledge believes order comes from a "big bang" disorder, and for so long has he been unable to create order in his chaos. He took bible from the schools and brought in guns a the hand of Kids. Man acknowledges the power of love, but ignores the bible that advocates loving your neighbour as yourself as neither laws, arms, power nor wealth can guarantee world peace. What man searches in the cosmos and in the earth crust lies in our hearts, love God and love your neighbour as you self. That is the true worship of God and you know it's true.

    September 2, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • Bob

      Cheimele, we actually know for certain that much of the bible is false. It is not even self-consistent. Now, regarding the guidance that is in that horrid book, it is a darn good thing that even Christians don't follow the evil guidance in their bible more closely, when it includes such violent demands as in these quotes, from both foul testaments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      September 2, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
      • Will

        No, actually the Bible is quiet true, in fact, I would go so far as to say that the whole thing is true, and it is self consistent. The first verse is given when the Israelites capture a town and God tells them to kill the people because they worship another God, this would have been common thinking for the time, additionally the reason He told them to was because the Israelites were taking over the land and God wanted to keep them pure by eliminating foreign religions and false gods. The next verse is similar, in fact someone else tried to quote it earlier today, the reason God says this is because He wants to keep His people pure and following Him. The third verse is not meant to be taken literally, it is well know that Revelations is a largely apocalyptic book an d generally should not be taken literally. If you do believe that it is to be taken literal, realize that God is once again protecting His people from false beliefs. Your point about slavery is also invalid, slavery is not inherently wrong, in fact, slavery in Israel was much more like servitude than slavery. There were rules regarding how a master could treat his slaves. The reason we believe slavery is wrong is because it is illegal and no longer considered socially acceptable.
        Your final point, that Christians should still make sacrifices is also quiet false, the whole reason Jesus came was to pay for the sins of the world. He even said that He is the fulfillment of the Law. The New Testament makes it clear, check out Hebrews 10
        Regardless you arguement that the Bible is false is totally ungrounded

        September 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
        • joe

          No, actually the Bible is quiet true, in fact, I would go so far as to say that the whole thing is true, and it is self consistent.
          ----–
          Wrong. type in biblical errors and inconsistencies in your favorite search engine. Lots and lots of problems.

          September 2, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
        • Will

          I just talk you 10 minutes ago, I have, all of the so called evidence is false. It's obvious if you read it and think about it

          September 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
        • MArk

          Hey Joe type in how do you get something from nothing. Ouch!!

          September 2, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
        • @MArk

          I did. I got "Big Bang". Ouch!

          September 2, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
        • Will

          The Big Bang, really? There is no evidence for it, all it is is science trying to explain where the world came from

          September 2, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
        • Sue

          Will, google "argument from ignorance". That is what your "argument" consists of, stupid.

          September 2, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
        • Will

          No, it's not, it's based off of my own personal study of the Bible and my own life experiences. Not to mention the historical evidence that continues to point to Jesus.
          What do you believe, if I may ask?

          September 2, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
        • Austin

          Will, is that me?

          September 2, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
        • Will

          What do you mean by "Is that me?"

          September 2, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Mark, How do you get a god from nothing?

          September 2, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
        • Will

          God has always existed, if he hadn't then He could be God.

          September 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
        • Sue

          No, Will, really, what you presented was very plainly an argument from ignorance fallacy. Do look it up. High time you learned about it.

          September 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
        • Will

          I've already told you, I have plenty of evidence to support my views, I'd even say its been way stronger than the evidence that anyone else has given

          September 2, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Will, There is very little evidence of Jesus as a person and none of Jesus as a divine being.

          September 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
        • Will

          There is in fact a ton of evidence. There are far more ancient copies of the Bible than other texst that historians accept as factual. Numerous historians include Jesus. There is a ton of evidence out there. Science even backs the Bible up. Our own government can't fully deny the existence of God, our money even says in God we trust, half of our government buildings have copies of the Ten Commandments. The evidence is simply overwhelming

          September 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
        • Bob

          Will, your statements about the Jesus "sacrifice" are a steaming pile of bullshit. Seriously, how is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          September 2, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
        • Will

          I already told you all, God even that Jesus was going to die so He sent Him as a man. He did it for the church to provide us a perfect example to follow. Jesus willingly died, in fact he even talks about this when the Jews go to arrest Him in the garden before his death. Check out Matthew 26: 47-56. As to weather God could have just made another son, you forget that Jesus was God, He was not a created being, thus God could not have created Himself

          September 2, 2013 at 3:13 pm |
        • tallulah13

          The bible is rife with inconsistencies, mistakes and forgeries. No one knows who actually wrote it, but "the word of god" was carefully edited by a group of men in the year 325, in order to include only the content that supported their particular philosophy. While certain places and people listed in the bible actually existed, none of the miraculous events described in the bible are even mentioned in contemporary, non-biblical accounts. Even the Exodus, that cornerstone of the judeo-christian tradition, is completely unsupported by the historical record. There was never a substantial population of jewish slaves in Egypt. There was no need for miracles and plagues to free slaves that did not exist.

          Belief that the bible is somehow a true recording is foolish and naive. It is nothing more than the mythology of a specific middle eastern tribe, pasted onto the fictive efforts of the adherents of a messianic cult to legitimize their own figurehead.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
        • Will

          It is true, and to my knowledge, we know wrote all but two or three books of the Bible. There is plenty of evidence for the Bible

          September 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
        • Roger that

          HeavenSent is back and likes to be called Will.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
        • Will

          What are you trying to say?

          September 2, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Will, If you think that a god can just exist – why not a universe; that cuts out the middleman and doesn't require pretzel logic to explain. As someone pointed out to you earlier – the fact the don't know the origin of the universe doesn't mean a god did it.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
        • Will

          Because the ideal that the world could make itself, flies in the face of science and in my opinion, common sense.
          And I don't believe in God because I need to explain the world. I believe in Him, because He loves me and died for me, and I just want to know Him more

          September 2, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Will, The bible and extracts from it on buildings is not proof of anything in the bible; apart from places and a few people very little of the bible has been proven correct and much of the foundation is proven incorrect. God on the currency results from paranoia in the 50's and defies separation of church and state.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
        • Will

          Why are they not prove? You can just say something is false, you have to back up your opinions with reasons
          And actually separation of church and state was designed to protect the government from taking over the church, not to keep the church out of the government

          September 2, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Your point about slavery is also invalid, slavery is not inherently wrong, in fact, slavery in Israel was much more like servitude than slavery. There were rules regarding how a master could treat his slaves. The reason we believe slavery is wrong is because it is illegal and no longer considered socially acceptable."

          This statement is enough to discredit the rest of this poster's mind-numbing ramblings. First off, this ignores the distinction between Israelite indentured servants and foreign slaves which were explicitly described as personal property of the slave owner which could be passed on to the slave owner's descendants. Second, slavery is not "wrong" merely because it is illegal or because it is "socially unacceptable"; rather, for the same reasons that r@pe and murder are inherently "wrong," slavery is inherently wrong because it causes demonstrable harm and suffering in the deprivation of a fundamental human right to basic liberty and bodily autonomy.

          There is clearly no immoral act which an apologist will not defend for fear of insufficient acquiescence to their alleged deity and the perceived threat of missing out on the alleged eternal reward. When pressed on these types of issues, apologists invariably reveal their cowardly nature; sacrificing reason and empathy. Like scared children on a playground, when they witness an act of bullying, they chose not to defend the victim, but to align themselves with the bully to avoid any potential retribution . . .

          September 2, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
        • Will

          See, you and I disagree on what makes something wrong. I believe that the Bible is the authority for truth in the world, and outside of the Bible itself, that God has give me, as a believer, a conscious to determine right and wrong. You believe that it is based off of weather a person's actions harm another person.
          Back to the original point about slavery, as I said, there were rules regarding it and God allowed it, in fact, I believe, He even told them to enslave them

          September 2, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
        • Will

          And by the way, you are right in that I will never give up. I stake my life and salvation on Jesus Christ. And I will not deny Him if all the world calls me stupid for it. I know, because I have seen Him working in my life, and I will not deny Him know

          September 2, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Will, If a god can just create itself, why can't a universe. We have evidence that the universe exists, we have no evidence that a god exists.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Will, By your logic, Merlin and Gandalf are real. They're mentioned in books.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
        • Will

          Where did I say that?

          September 2, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
        • redzoa

          @Will – "a conscious to determine right and wrong"

          So use this conscious and tell me whether you believe it is right or wrong to own another human being as personal property and why it is either right or wrong.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
        • Will

          I believe it is ok, the New Testament gives instructions on how to treat slaves appropriately, with kindness and as fellow believers, thus imply that a Christian can own slaves. I personally would never own a slave simply because today's culture says it is wrong and I can't think of a good thing a person could use a slave for today

          September 2, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
        • Joan

          And there, Will, is reason enough for us to reject your evil religion.

          September 2, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
        • Will

          What is so "evil" about my faith in Christ?

          September 2, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
        • tallulah13

          You are misinformed, Will. Your claims are unsupported by fact, which indeed technically makes them lies. I'm sorry that you don't like reality, but denying reality doesn't make your fantasy real.

          September 2, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
        • Will

          You do understand that just saying that what I said was false, doesn't actually make it false, right? So I ask you, why am I incorrect?
          By the way, I like reality very much

          September 2, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
        • Bob

          Will's evil textbook AKA the bible is pretty specific about how to get and exploit slaves:

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

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

          September 2, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
        • Will

          As I've said, and will continue to, the Bible says that slavery is ok, it's a fact. It is also true that it tells masters to treat their slaves kindly and as fellow believers

          September 2, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
        • Ian Forester

          Bob that sure isn't "kindness and humility". Good examples there.

          September 2, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
        • Will

          I've already told you, God gave them rules regarding how to treat them, particularly in the New Testament. And what point are you trying to make with this?

          September 2, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
        • redzoa

          @Will – Given your admission that you believe slavery is morally acceptable, there's really not much more to say. Thankfully, your side lost the U.S. Civil War and failed to prevent the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Somehow, I suspect your very simple-minded response would change if I claimed you as my personal property, restricted your personal freedoms, claimed any children you might have as my additional personal property, and forced you (using only that "necessary" amount of physical violence to maintain your compliance) to perform hard manual labor for 12 hours a day. Then again, as you've indicated, you don't find anything inherently wrong with this . . .

          September 2, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
        • Will

          I don't believe that the ideal of slavery is wrong, the Bible says its ok, I believe in the Bible, thus I believe that it is ok. The Bible also says that masters should treat their slaves kindly, so while I believe that slavery in and of itself is ok, I believe that it is often practiced wrongly. I believe firmly that white slavery and beating of another human being to get work is wrong
          I also would never own slaves myself simply because its illegal and I don't know what good they could be used for

          September 2, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
        • redzoa

          "I don't believe that the ideal of slavery is wrong"

          Why do you believe this?

          September 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
        • Connelly, William

          Because it is in the Bible and I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, so since the Bible says its ok and talks about how slaves need to obey their masters and masters should be kind to their slaves in Ephesians 6:5-9

          Sent from my iPad

          September 2, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
        • heehee

          Will,

          We had a pleasant exchange earlier, but I find your last comment appalling. I find it unbelievable that in a first world country in the 21st century, someone can still believe that it is ok to have slaves, so long as you do it right, and furthermore enslave the right people. Please, reconsider.

          September 2, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
        • Will

          I believe it because the Bible says that it's ok, personally I would never have slaves, but the fact remains that the Bible says keeping slaves is ok provided that you treat them desently
          I understand this is not something that is popular in the 21 st century, but the fact remains that the Bible says its ok
          Like I said, I would never own a slave, simply because I don't believe there is an good reason for someone to have them

          September 2, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
        • tallulah13

          I'll let an actual biblical scholar explain, Will. I realize that you will probably deny that Bart Ehrman, a man who has dedicated most of his life to the study of the bible and it's origins, knows more about it than you, but I know his credentials whereas you are a single name on an internet blog.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

          September 2, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
        • Will

          The article never gives any reasons for what it says, except that some scholars believe this. That's not evidence, that's just someone's opinion. I am open to listening to what you have to say, I promise, but there was no proof thee

          September 2, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
        • heehee

          Will, your reply is frightening. It illustrates the power of religion and dogma to motivate good people to do bad things.

          September 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
        • Will

          How so?

          September 2, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
        • redzoa

          With respect to that last question, I mistakenly (perhaps naively hopeful) read your response to state you believed it was wrong.

          Despite your claims otherwise, there are no express prohibitions against using physical force or violence to ensure compliance from a slave in the NT. The OT "rules" applied only to Israelite slaves, not foreign slaves (Exodus 21:2-11 v. Leviticus 22:39-46). A slave could be beaten as severely as the owner desired, short of directly killing the slave and so long as the slave's eyes and teeth were not damaged (Exodus 21:20-21; 26-27). Furthermore, there is no distinction in the Bible between the race of the slave, just nationality. I find it interesting that you singled out "white slavery" as wrong but not the slavery of non-whites. Furthermore, Ephesians 6:9 implicitly accepts that physical force and violent discipline is required to maintain the captivity of another human being. In other words, this passage reads to limit unnecessary or gratuitous violence, but not as a per se prohibition of violence against a slave (particularly in light of "he is both their Master and yours" directly and indirectly engaging in violence to punish bad behavior and exact compliance with authority).

          Nonetheless, I get it. If the Bible says its ok, then you abdicate any personal responsibility in evaluating for yourself whether an act is morally right or wrong. If you don't go along with the perceived authority, then you might be punished for not maintaining appropriate allegiance. As you asked what the point was before, I offer the first point is that you are a moral coward akin to those WWII German officers who claimed the Nuremberg Defense in defending their complicity with the Holocaust. They too claimed it was ok because they were just following orders from above. The second point is that you are a hypocrite in that you would most certainly not defend the practice of slavery if you yourself were a slave.

          The larger point, however, is that those, like yourself, who accept perceived authoritarian edicts and decline to independently develop rationales to justify the rules are more likely to be complicit in atrocities and are less likely to defend the weak and vulnerable (See "Oliner and Oliner, The Altruistic Personalty: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe").

          Clearly, there's nothing left to be said except that I hope I never have the displeasure of meeting you in person William Connelly. Once again, the best arguments against belief in the God of the Bible comes directly from the mouths of the true believers . . .

          September 2, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
        • Sejones

          It's really depressing how mind-numbingly stupid you are. The Bible is not evidence of anything. But countless others have tried to explain this to you, and you stubbornly refuse to understand. This is why more and more people can't stand Christians. This kind of thinking is delusional and dangerous. I hope someday you smarten up, and I hope you never have kids. The gene pool doesn't need anymore of your kind of stupid.

          September 2, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
        • Will

          Ok, why do you say I'm stupid?
          And why do you say that the Bible is false?
          Then we can get to the real issues and differences between us and hopefully understand one another, rather than simply insult each other

          September 2, 2013 at 7:46 pm |
        • heehee

          Will: there are several intervening posts between our exchange. I am answering your question: How so?

          I think it is self-evident that slavery is wrong. I think it's as self-evident as the fact that murder and torture are wrong. This is not up for debate. Condoning slavery is far, far more offensive than someone insulting you. That is also obvious. Your pious insistence on politeness while you express your abominable views is comical.

          The fact that for you, the statements of a single book override that obvious moral principle, is an illustration that religion and dogma can make good people do bad things. That's what I meant.

          September 2, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
        • Will

          Well, you have nothing to basis you ways off of, it's just your opinion.
          And I've already said that I would never own a slave, just the fact remains that the Bible does not say slavery is wrong, to say other wise would fly in the face of numerous verses through out the Old and New Testaments.
          And we you saying that the fact that I am polite makes me pious? Really, would you rather that I swore at you? I am polite because I respect you as a person and I believe in treating people as you want to be treated, that's all
          Now as to why I believe in the Bible, I believe in it because it was written by God and flawless. I also believe in it because despite the attempts many, no one has ever proven the Bible to be false
          And you say that, "religion and dogma can make good people do bad things," what bad thing have I done? I already told you that I personal would never own a slave

          September 2, 2013 at 9:49 pm |
        • tallulah13

          So Will, what exactly are your credentials as a biblical scholar? How many of the original scrolls did you view and how much time did you spend researching the origins of those scrolls? How many ancient languages do you speak so that you can read these scrolls in their original language and context? How many contemporary, non-biblical documents did you research to see if you could cross-reference and collaborate events claimed by the bible?

          You out of hand dismiss the opinions of people who have dedicated their entire professional lives in the study of the bible, so you must have some really amazing credentials. So please. Tell us why we should believe you over scholars who are not afraid to publish their work and list their credentials under their own names.

          September 2, 2013 at 11:27 pm |
        • Will

          God gave me a mind that works, not trying to say that other people's do not, and the Holy Spirit to guide me. In addition, I have the work of literally thousands of theologians that have work since the time of Christ to explain the Bible, as well as the work of archeologists, both Christian and nonChristian, that continue to find evidence to back up the Bible.

          September 3, 2013 at 8:07 am |
        • Johnny

          Will, the number of copies of a book has no bearing on whether anything in the book is true or not, and it is a fact that the bible has been added to over the centuries. So, all in all, I would say that most of the bible is not true in the least bit.

          September 3, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
        • Will

          Actually it does, see many of the ancient historians, that our modern historians except as factual, don't have nearly as many copies of their manuscripts as the Bible. The total number of Biblical manuscripes numbers well over a hundred. Farther more all of these copies, are almost identical and match one another. It is from these ancient copies that the modern translations of the Bible are written, in other words the modern NIV Bible has way more citations than the article above and potentually has more citations than our modern history books. There are also more ancient copies being found through out the ancient world, meaning that our Bibles are becoming even more accurate
          You might say that any inaccuracy makes the Bible false, but Christians don't hold that translators are perfect, rather we hold that the original version give to the Biblical authors (weather that be Moses, David, John, Mark, Matthew, or Paul) were inspired by God and flawless. The people that came after them were human and thus make mistakes

          September 3, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
        • Hear This

          Will,

          We have lots and lots of actual ancient Egyptian religious hieroglyphs – set in stone, and not changed a bit - which tell about their gods. Even those "gods" were better at leaving lasting evidence than yours. Yours was quite ham-handed about it.
          http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/writing.htm

          September 3, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
        • Will

          I'm not talking about the Egyptians though. I am talking about the Bible. I believe it is it is true because no one has ever proved it wrong, not even slightly. I believe because the evidence is continuing to back the Bible and as I said earlier the number of ancient copies of the Bible is inscribe, way over a hundred, and they all match, although there are sometimes variations, they agree with one another. Additionally when scholars make translations, they look over all of them and analyze them to make the modern Bible, as close as possible to the original Word that God gave the Biblical authors. Thus there is a ton of prove for the Bible
          The Bible and Christian thought has also far out lasted the Egyptian gods, who by the way, no one that I know worships anymore

          September 3, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
        • Joe

          Amazing how many fallacies Will can trot out in one thread in his vain attempts to defend his wacky superstitions. Will, the ad populum fallacy is one of your latest screwups. Check into it already.

          September 4, 2013 at 10:51 am |
        • Will

          When did I use that?

          September 4, 2013 at 10:57 am |
        • truthprevails1

          ad populum fallacy

          The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.

          The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth. Fifty million people can be wrong. In fact, millions of people have been wrong about many things: that the Earth is flat and motionless, for example, and that the stars are lights shining through holes in the sky.

          The ad populum fallacy is also referred to as the bandwagon fallacy, the appeal to the mob, the democratic fallacy, and the appeal to popularity.

          The ad populum fallacy is seductive because it appeals to our desire to belong and to conform, to our desire for security and safety. It is a common appeal in advertising and politics. A clever manipulator of the masses will try to seduce those who blithely assume that the majority is always right. Also seduced by this appeal will be the insecure, who may be made to feel guilty if they oppose the majority or feel strong by joining forces with large numbers of other uncritical thinkers.

          Examples of ad populum appeals:

          “TRY NEW, IMPROVED [fill in the blank with the name of any one of innumerable commercial products]. EVERYBODY’s USING IT!

          “Gods must exist, since every culture has some sort of belief in a higher being.”

          “The Bold and the Listless must be a great book. It’s been on the best seller list for 8 weeks.”

          “Arnold Killembetter’s movie "True Garbage" is the greatest movie of all time. No movie has made as much money as it did.”

          “The fact that the majority of our citizens support the death penalty proves that it is morally right.”

          September 4, 2013 at 11:05 am |
        • Will

          Where did I use this? Quote me

          September 4, 2013 at 11:32 am |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          "I believe it is it is true because no one has ever proved it wrong, not even slightly."

          I'm not certain what you mean by never "proved it wrong", but there are many things in the Bible that are inaccurate and/or incorrect.

          E.g. the creation week is out of order, a global flood hasn't happened since man's appearance, Joshua's "stopped sun" would have been reported by multiple civilizations and likely caused world-wide disasters, etc.

          September 4, 2013 at 11:15 am |
        • Will

          I mean exactly what I said, no one has ever proved God and or the Bible to be wrong
          How is the creation week out of order and how do you know at there hasn't been a flood?
          As to the Sun stopping, you have to remember that God is god, He made the Earth and the Sun. If He wants to make them stop, He can

          September 4, 2013 at 11:36 am |
        • joe

          I mean exactly what I said, no one has ever proved God and or the Bible to be wrong.
          -------
          Incorrect. You have the internet. Do a search for biblical errors and inconsistencies. The bible is rife with error.

          September 4, 2013 at 11:47 am |
        • Will

          Some one already told me to and I did, they were ridiculous and false

          September 4, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
        • Will

          As to the notion that the world wide notice, the Sun didn't stop for a particularly long time and doubtfully would have caused any such disaster

          September 4, 2013 at 11:38 am |
        • Ed

          Funny watching Will get more and more desperate as he tries vainly to defend his fairy tale. Just comical.

          September 4, 2013 at 11:50 am |
        • Will

          I've actually not become more desperate. I've just had to repeat myself

          September 4, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          "How is the creation week out of order..."

          The geologic record shows simple forms then fish, then land plants, then land animals (reptiles), then mammals, then birds, then flowering plants, then man.
          The Bible says all plants (including fruit and therefore flowering plants), then fish and birds, then land animals, then man
          They don't agree.

          "and how do you know at there hasn't been a flood?"

          Again the geologic record would have recorded a global event such as this within the last few million years since man appeared, but it does not.

          "As to the Sun stopping, you have to remember that God is god, He made the Earth and the Sun. If He wants to make them stop, He can"

          "...The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." (Joshua 10:13)

          A full day with a "stopped" sun would hardly go unnoticed and if the Earth stopped rotating that suddenly the effect would be catastrophic.

          September 4, 2013 at 11:51 am |
        • Will

          There is actually a lot of evidence to support creationism. Evolutionists and creationist both look at the same evidence and interpt it differently. The flood actually explains the fossile record. And what would happen if the Sun stopped rotating?

          September 4, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
        • Bob

          Will, if the bible stories of the horrors that your god has done and of the things that he threatens us with are true, then your god is an ass hole and not worth worshipping. It's that simple. Enough with your horrid fairy tales of your murderous and hateful ass hole in the sky already.

          September 4, 2013 at 11:53 am |
        • Will

          Actually He's not. He is a just and reasonable God.

          September 4, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          "There is actually a lot of evidence to support creationism."

          I am unaware of any scienctifically accepted evidence that supports creationism. So, I'd be interested in what you have.

          "Evolutionists and creationist both look at the same evidence and interpt it differently."

          Actually, often, they do not look at the same evidence. For example,

          By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid
          if it contradicts the scriptural record.

          (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)

          "The creation record is factual, historical, and persp[]icuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false."
          (http://www.icr.org/tenets/)

          "The flood actually explains the fossile record. And what would happen if the Sun stopped rotating?

          How so? It doesn't explain the order of geologic strata nor the fossils embeded in those strata. For example, there are very fine annual seasonal strata that could not have bee laid down all at once, e.g. Varves in New England, Loess plateau in China. Also, why are there no mammal fossil in the Cambrian layers? Surely, in a flood, some mammals would end up near the bottom; Dolphins and whales if nothing else.

          September 4, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
        • Will

          I find it ironic that you quote an organization that is dedicated to investigating Biblical questions, Answers In Genesis and then say that there is no evidence for creationism
          And they do look at the same evidence, science. Creationists just know that whatever they find will eventually back up the Bible

          September 4, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          "And what would happen if the Sun stopped rotating?"

          Sorry, forgot this one. I'm not sure what would happen if the sun stopped rotating but if the Earth's rotation stopped in order make the sun appear to stop in the sky, or delay "going down about a full day," then the momentum of everything not solidly attached to the earth would carry it eastward at nearly 1000 miles per hour, e.g. people, animals, many buildings, cars, all open water, etc.

          September 4, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
        • Will

          Where did you get this from, I have to ask, because it doesn't make any sense. The idea that if the earth stopped, everything would fly off of it

          September 4, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          Actually, I didn't say "fly off", gravity would prevent that.

          The Earth's circu.mference is ~25000 miles and rotates in ~24 hours, which means that at the equator everything is actually moving eastward at over 1000 miles/hour. If the Earth suddenly stopped rotating everything else would continue at that rate. Assuming, God didn't "miracle" that as well.

          But God miraculously stopped everything, you say? Then the Earthquakes would get us.
          The Earth is actually an oblate spheroid, i.e. it bulges out at the equator, due to angular momentum from the speed mentioned above. If that momentum is removed by stopping, then all that mass would shift and cause massive earthquakes. In addition to the earthquakes due tectonic plates shifting, likely causing tsunamis, the water at the equator would also shift, rushing north and south to the poles. In other words, massive flooding. Assuming, God didn't "miracle" all that as well.

          Is that your only comment; what about the rest of it?

          September 4, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
        • Will

          Frankly, I can't speak for the science, although I again ask where you found it
          But I ask you this, if an intelligent, all loving, all knowing God decided to bend the laws of science that He made, doesn't it make sense that he wouldn't destroy the people he was helping?

          September 4, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          Sorry missed the previous comment.

          Not sure why you find it ironic. I quoted AIG and ICR because they are common sources for YEC, in my experience, and the quotes I present show that such organizations disregard evidence that contradicts their scripture, hence they do not look at the same evidence that scientists do.

          "And they do look at the same evidence, science. Creationists just know that whatever they find will eventually back up the Bible."

          That's not what their own statements say.

          By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
          (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)

          September 4, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
        • Will

          It's ironic because you said that creationist have no evidence to support their claims but you mentioned organizations that find such evidence
          And again their point is that history and science will not contradict the Bible

          September 4, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will
          "Frankly, I can't speak for the science..."

          But weren't you just saying that YEC was just as valid scientifically as all other science?

          "...although I again ask where you found it"

          Sorry, found what in particular?

          "But I ask you this, if an intelligent, all loving, all knowing God decided to bend the laws of science that He made, doesn't it make sense that he wouldn't destroy the people he was helping?"

          Haven't you read Gen 7?

          September 4, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
        • Will

          I was saying that I have never read anything that talks about what would happen if the Earth stopped
          And where did you find you facts about what would happen if the Earth stopped?
          And yes, I have, chapter 7 recounts the Flood, and did it occur to you that when God flooded the world, He took the time to save the one family that believed in Him. It is meant to be a lesson, God is sovereign and He provides for those who believe in Him

          September 4, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          Actually, I quote organizations that claim to have evidence and then show, with their own words, how they essentially disregard any evidence that disagrees with their position. That is not valid science, ergo their claims of scientific support for YEC is not valid. I thought that was apparent.

          September 4, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
        • Will

          I already explained to you what they meant. History and science can not contradict God because He made both

          September 4, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
        • joe

          I already explained to you what they meant. History and science can not contradict God because He made both.
          ---------–
          Exactly. Which should prove to you that your book on God is not really God because it contradicts both science and history.

          September 4, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
        • Will

          My point is that if something is a fact, you discard anything theories that require it to be false, this is common in science. That is my assumption of what the author meant

          September 4, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Will,
          "It's ironic because you said that creationist have no evidence to support their claims but you mentioned organizations that find such evidence
          And again their point is that history and science will not contradict the Bible"

          Those organizations do not find evidence – they start from a position of bible infallibility and then try to discredit the science that shows that the bible is fallible; they produce no evidence and no experiments. Science clearly shows that the creation myths are all incorrect. The Noah story is not supported by evidence nor is it possible – not enough water and even if there were, where is it now? Plus other problems. Very little in the bible is supported by science or history.

          September 4, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
        • Will

          They have articles and studies done by scientists that back up the creationist story.
          And science does not clearly show that, no one has provided any evidence to prove that the Biblical account is false
          Again if God wanted to make the flood, then it stands to reason that he is going to make the water go away, maybe it went into the earth or frozen into the ice caps
          And a lot of it is

          September 4, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          "And where did you find you facts about what would happen if the Earth stopped?"

          No place in particular, just general physics. 1000 mi/hr momentum doesn't disappear simply because the ground you stand on stops. That's why people get thrown through windshields when their cars wreck; the car stops but they don't. I'm sure I have so details wrong, but overall it would be disastrous.

          "God is sovereign and He provides for those who believe in Him."

          So, when he stopped the earth's rotation for Joshua, he nullified the momentum of thousands if not millions of Chinese, Indians, etc. that had never heard of Him?
          And the thousands if not millions of followers of other religions in the region that had heard of Him and rejected Him?

          That seems a bit inconsistent, to me.

          "I already explained to you what they meant. History and science can not contradict God because He made both"

          I understand what you want it to mean, but in effect they are actually saying that their "evidence" will always agree with scripture, because any evidence that does not, is not considered "valid" evidence.
          This is a classic case of confirmation bias, i.e. choosing to look at only the evidence that confirms you position.

          September 4, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
        • Will

          Ok, I was just wondering, what about the things that would happen if the earth stopped like the earthquakes and stuff, where did you get that information
          And what you mean by nullified
          Frankly, I have not read the article, so I can't speak for them. I assume that is what they mean though

          September 4, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,

          p.s.
          http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/10/26/what-would-happen-if-the-earth-stood-still-for-one-full-minute/

          September 4, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
        • Will

          What authority does the author have to write this? Jw
          And like I said, I assume that if God wanted to stop the Earth, he would do it in a way that would kill ever one

          September 4, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          "They have articles and studies done by scientists that back up the creationist story."

          Sure, after they disregarded all evidence to the contrary, per their own statement.

          If a person is convicted of murder because a witness claims to have seen them do it, but DNA evidence that contradicts that witness is disregarded, is that person guilty of murder or not?

          September 4, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
        • Will

          My point is that they start off with the assumption that some things are truth because they believe them. I am not them though, I can't speak for what they say.

          September 4, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          "What authority does the author have to write this?"

          None, I was just providing a link to a more detailed analysis. If you want to disbelieve Evolution, Geology, Astronomy, etc. you may as well disbelieve Physics too.
          As you implied, any physical consequences would simply be "miracled" away anyway, correct? But, you haven't explained why such a miraculous event wasn't recorded by every other civilization that existed.

          "And like I said, I assume that if God wanted to stop the Earth, he would do it in a way that would [not] kill ever one."

          Not sure why you would assume that, given His supposed record, but that's irrelevant.
          I've provided evidence of inaccuracies in the Bible and you haven't provided any evidence to support those events.

          September 4, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
        • Will

          My point is that, the author of that article was not a physicist, additionally, the website is a .com which means that the author can basically post whatever he wants, true or not
          The ancient civilization were not crazy historians who wrote down what happened every day. No different from the fact that while we know disasters surely happened in the ancient world, we don't see a lot of ancient writers talking about them. More recently we don't know what lead the collapse for numerous Native American cultures just prior to the arrival of the Spanish. People don't write done everything
          And what do you mean supposed record?
          And nothing has been called into question, except maybe what the people at Answers in Genesis wrote

          September 4, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          "My point is that, the author of that article was not a physicist, additionally, the website is a .com which means that the author can basically post whatever he wants, true or not."

          (sigh) I was not claiming him as an authority. It's basic physics.

          "In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with the outside and is not acted on by outside forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion.[5]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum)

          "The ancient civilization were not crazy historians who wrote down what happened every day."

          A two-day long day would have been noticed by the entire planet, hardly an every day occurrence, and yet historians never seem to mention it?

          "And what do you mean supposed record?"

          If you're questioning the word "supposed", I'm simply expressing that Biblical record is not accepted as inherently accurate.
          If you're questioning what the statement meant, the God of the OT has a record of killing people, does He not? Obviously, in this case He likely would have saved Joshua et. al., just like he did Noah et. al. but everyone else? Your presumption about God taking care of everyone is unfounded.

          "And nothing has been called into question, except maybe what the people at Answers in Genesis wrote"

          If you are saying nothing in the Bible has been called into question, please refer to my posting at, 'September 4, 2013 at 11:51 am'. You latched onto a minor point about stopping the earth, but skipped the rest.

          September 4, 2013 at 7:03 pm |
        • Will

          You kind of did claim him as an authority because you cited him, but regardless, I was because I was wondering if the article mentioned the specific event or not, it was an honest question.
          And yes, you're talking about a single event that happened thousands of years ago on a single day
          And I meant the later, when I ask question, they are generally honest questions, but back to the point, you agreed with me on every, because you assumed that at least part of the story was true, but who is the everyone you were referring to? The Isrealites or everyone else?
          And I did respond, in fact, I believe that you have even responded to my response a couple of times

          September 4, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
        • Will

          I might be wrong about the last commit, but I know for a fact I responded, maybe my iPad messed up

          September 4, 2013 at 7:21 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          Your statement/questions are not clear, or at least I'm not clear on what they are referring to.

          "You kind of did claim him as an authority because you cited him, but regardless, I was because I was wondering if the article mentioned the specific event or not, it was an honest question."

          I also cited AIG and ICR, neither of which I would consider an authority on anything, also Wikipedia, which is very useful but not, by itself, authoritative. The link I provided was in response to your, 'I haven't read anything about it' comment, and was just informational.

          --
          "And yes, you're talking about a single event that happened thousands of years ago on a single day"

          What are you talking about? The "everyday" statement?
          If it happened as you claim then it was a two-day event (nearly 48 hours) and definitely not an everyday occurrence, i.e. it was very unusual, and therefore more likely to have been recorded.

          --
          "And I meant the later, when I ask question, they are generally honest questions, but back to the point, you agreed with me on every, because you assumed that at least part of the story was true..."

          What?!?! The 'later' of what? What did I agree with and/or assume?

          "...but who is the everyone you were referring to? The Isrealites or everyone else?"

          Assuming that you are referring to the "supposed record" statement, both. In response to, "God is sovereign and He provides for those who believe in Him."

          --
          "And I did respond, in fact, I believe that you have even responded to my response a couple of times"

          If you consider the unfounded assertions at, 'September 4, 2013 at 12:55 pm', to be response, then perhaps I should have been more clear. You have not addressed any of the inaccuracies that I mentioned. Just claiming that there is evidence and explanations isn't actually addressing the issue.

          September 5, 2013 at 11:14 am |
        • Will

          Then ask questions and I will explain them to you
          And yes you did, you made him the basis of your arguement.
          And my point about the sun stopping, is that it was something that happened once, thousands of years ago, and it is certainly possible that no one wrote anything down about, with of course the exception that it was recorded in the Bible
          And when I said the latter, I mean the second of the two things you thought I might be talking about
          And I was asking who you meant when you said you didn't understand why he didn't kill everyone but Joshua. When you said everyone or whatever the pronoun was, did you mean the Israelites or the people they were fighting or everyone in the story
          Then address those supposedly unfounded arguments I made, don't say that I haven't responded because you just admitted that I have

          September 5, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will
          "Yes", I did what?

          "...and it is certainly possible that no one wrote anything down about, with of course the exception that it was recorded in the Bible"

          It is just as possible that everything was created by Rangi and Papa, but it's not plausible.

          "And when I said the latter, I mean the second of the two things you thought I might be talking about
          And I was asking who you meant when you said you didn't understand why he didn't kill everyone but Joshua. When you said everyone or whatever the pronoun was, did you mean the Israelites or the people they were fighting or everyone in the story."

          I don't follow. Try some more proper nouns, or just restate the question.

          "Then address those supposedly unfounded arguments I made, don't say that I haven't responded because you just admitted that I have."

          As I just said, "...perhaps I should have been more clear. You have not addressed any of the inaccuracies that I mentioned. Just claiming that there is evidence and explanations isn't actually addressing the issue."

          September 5, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
        • Will

          @Will
          "Yes", I did what?:
          You kind of did sit him as a source but this isn't the main issue either. I orgianally asked you because I was curious if the link actually talked about the Earth stopping or if it was more general. It was pure curiousity
          -
          It is just as possible that everything was created by Rangi and Papa, but it's not plausible.

          Who are they and what do they have to do with anything?
          --
          I don't follow. Try some more proper nouns, or just restate the question.
          Ok, when you responded at September 4, 2013 at 7:03 pm, you quoted me as asking, "And what do you mean supposed record?" Which I did, and you replied with, "If you're questioning the word "supposed", I'm simply expressing that Biblical record is not accepted as inherently accurate.
          If you're questioning what the statement meant, the God of the OT has a record of killing people, does He not? Obviously, in this case He likely would have saved Joshua et. al., just like he did Noah et. al. but everyone else? Your presumption about God taking care of everyone is unfounded."
          I was talking about the second paragraph, and I was wondering who the everyone was that you were talking about. Who is the everyone referring to?
          --
          As I just said, "...perhaps I should have been more clear. You have not addressed any of the inaccuracies that I mentioned. Just claiming that there is evidence and explanations isn't actually addressing the issue."

          What supposed inaccuracy would you like me to address first, admittedly I have not yet given much of the actual evidence, as I have been really busy. So what one do you want me to explain first?

          September 5, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
        • Ted

          Will, so far you have presented absolutely zero evidence for your far-fetched stories that would stand any reasonable scrutiny. Think about that, and about the negative responses that you have been getting in your vain attempts to sell your silly fable to us.

          Got it yet?

          September 5, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
        • Will

          What do you want me to prove/explain? Gave me something, and I will explain it

          September 5, 2013 at 8:10 pm |
        • Sandy

          Why should we accept your explanation over anyone else's? Evidence for your claims or be silent plese.

          September 5, 2013 at 8:30 pm |
        • Will

          Which claim do you want me to back up. Tell me and I promise that I will explain it

          September 5, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
        • Sandy

          Why should we accept your explanation over anyone else's? Evidence for your claims or be silent please.

          September 5, 2013 at 8:31 pm |
        • Observer

          Will,

          This should be good. Explain this:

          (Mark 9:50) “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

          September 5, 2013 at 8:39 pm |
        • Will

          I have not read this passage before, it's kind of interesting. If I had to guess based on reading it, I would be tempted to guess that it is referring to the Holy Spirit. I read a little on it and a couple of authors seemed to think that it was referring to the things that Christians should do, particlulaly being gracious and forgiving to one another.

          September 5, 2013 at 8:52 pm |
        • Will

          Now that I look at it, it could also be saying, watch out and don't make other people struggle in their faith. I say this because that is what the context deals with. It would be a neat passage to study

          September 5, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
        • Observer

          Will,

          Here's a little science for you. Salt NEVER loses "saltiness". It's like saying that oxygen becomes "less oxygeny".

          September 5, 2013 at 9:02 pm |
        • Will

          Actually, that's not true, salt like all other compounds under goes changes as it is used and reacts and is combined with other chemicals and substances in mixtures.

          September 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm |
        • Thusly Said

          My recent personal fav is Genesis 47

          47 Then Saul went out from Tarsis and dwelt in the land of Sol on the coast of Eden. 48 And Saul's great tree bore fruit. And he had a son, and called the name of his son after the name of his friend—Elijah. 49 To Elijah was born Sarah who begat Enoch who begat Joseph

          It was quite a fertile time when you think of all that led to, wasn't it.

          September 5, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
        • Will

          What passage is this?
          And we're you just saying that you like it?

          September 5, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
        • Cole

          After it has changed, it isn't salt, dummy.

          September 5, 2013 at 9:12 pm |
        • Will

          The ancients weren't chemists, they couldn't look inside of atoms and say that it was salt, heck, we can't even do that today. If something is salty and then it is not salty, you would say that it is no longer salty, that's the exact same thing he says here. It's a figure of speech in that regard, that is obvious. His point isn't even about salt, he is just using it as a rhetorical device

          September 5, 2013 at 9:36 pm |
        • Observer

          Will,

          Salt is one atom of sodium and one of chlorine.

          You are talking about other elements and compounds mixed with sodium chloride. You are not talking about pure salt.

          September 5, 2013 at 9:17 pm |
        • Will

          And the people he is talking to aren't in chemistry labs, they're regular working class people, who primary use for salt is to preserve food, thus combining it with other substances. They're not measuring the strength of the salt. It's a metaphor

          September 5, 2013 at 9:40 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will
          "Who is the everyone referring to?"

          The saga of "ever[y] one" and whom God protects:

          You said at September 4, 2013 at 2:29 pm, "God is sovereign and He provides for those who believe in Him."

          I replied at September 4, 2013 at 2:52 pm, "So, when he stopped the earth's rotation for Joshua, he nullified the momentum of thousands if not millions of Chinese, Indians, etc. that had never heard of Him?
          And the thousands if not millions of followers of other religions in the region that had heard of Him and rejected Him?"

          You said at September 4, 2013 at 3:02 pm, "And like I said, I assume that if God wanted to stop the Earth, he would do it in a way that would [not] kill ever[y] one." {I assumed you meant "NOT" kill here.}

          I replied at September 4, 2013 at 3:18 pm, "Not sure why you would assume that, given His supposed record, but that's irrelevant."

          You said at September 4, 2013 at 6:28 pm, "And what do you mean supposed record?"

          I replied at September 4, 2013 at 7:03 pm, "... the God of the OT has a record of killing people, does He not? Obviously, in this case He likely would have saved Joshua et. al., just like he did Noah et. al. but everyone else? Your presumption about God taking care of everyone is unfounded."

          You said at September 4, 2013 at 7:19 pm, "who is the everyone you were referring to? The Isrealites or everyone else?"

          I replied at September 5, 2013 at 11:14 am, "Assuming that you are referring to the 'supposed record' statement, both. In response to, 'God is sovereign and He provides for those who believe in Him.'"

          September 6, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
        • Will

          Ok, now I think I understand. You're saying, if God stopped the Earth, millions of people who didn't believe in Him should have died, but clearly didn't. So you're saying why, right?

          September 6, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
        • ME II

          (reposted for readability, hopefully)
          @Will
          "Who is the everyone referring to?"

          The saga of "ever[y] one" and whom God protects:

          You said at September 4, 2013 at 2:29 pm:
          "God is sovereign and He provides for those who believe in Him."

          I replied at September 4, 2013 at 2:52 pm:
          "So, when he stopped the earth's rotation for Joshua, he nullified the momentum of thousands if not millions of Chinese, Indians, etc. that had never heard of Him?
          And the thousands if not millions of followers of other religions in the region that had heard of Him and rejected Him?"

          You said at September 4, 2013 at 3:02 pm:
          "And like I said, I assume that if God wanted to stop the Earth, he would do it in a way that would [not] kill ever[y] one." {I assumed you meant "NOT" kill here.}

          I replied at September 4, 2013 at 3:18 pm:
          "Not sure why you would assume that, given His supposed record, but that's irrelevant."

          You said at September 4, 2013 at 6:28 pm:
          "And what do you mean supposed record?"

          I replied at September 4, 2013 at 7:03 pm:
          "... the God of the OT has a record of killing people, does He not? Obviously, in this case He likely would have saved Joshua et. al., just like he did Noah et. al. but everyone else? Your presumption about God taking care of everyone is unfounded."

          You said at September 4, 2013 at 7:19 pm:
          "who is the everyone you were referring to? The Isrealites or everyone else?"

          I replied at September 5, 2013 at 11:14 am:
          "Assuming that you are referring to the 'supposed record' statement, both. In response to, 'God is sovereign and He provides for those who believe in Him.'"

          September 6, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          "So what one do you want me to explain first?"

          Try the first one I mentioned:

          "'How is the creation week out of order...'

          The geologic record shows simple forms then fish, then land plants, then land animals (reptiles), then mammals, then birds, then flowering plants, then man.
          The Bible says all plants (including fruit and therefore flowering plants), then fish and birds, then land animals, then man
          They don't agree."

          September 6, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
        • Will

          Ok, well, for starts if you are basing your argument off of the fossil layers, which you said counters the Biblical order of creation. But layers of fossils wouldn't be built up in one day. So the issue is with the seven day creation and the order as well.
          I have heard that it was caused by the flood or simply by the way the animals settled. As to which on it is, I'm not sure, maybe it's a combination of them

          September 6, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
        • Observer

          Will,

          Do you see any potential problems when the earth goes from moving a thousand miles an hour to ZERO?

          September 6, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
        • Will

          There are problems with the earth stopping and starting in the first place, it's a miracle, it's supposed to defy nature

          September 6, 2013 at 12:54 pm |
        • Observer

          Will

          "There are problems with the earth stopping and starting in the first place, it's a miracle, it's supposed to defy nature"

          It also defies the law of inertia and any common sense and intelligence. It is nonsense like this that helps to create so many atheists and agnostics. You certainly can't prove that God exists, but you offer this as an example of it. Very appropriate. Absolutely incredible.

          September 6, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
        • Will

          It's a miracle, the point isn't that it makes sense according to physics. If it did, you would just say that it happened naturally. You've sought to disapprove God so much that you've failed to see the point of the passage, that God proved a miracle to allow his people to defeat their enemies

          September 6, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
        • Douglas

          Yeah, and thank god for miraculously curing all those millions of cancer victims and innocent starving kids and earthquake victims and stopping terrorism. Oh, wait...

          September 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
        • Will

          Ok, I have a verse for you that might help, "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, so that through my being with you again your boasting in Christ Jesus will abound on account of me." Philippians 1: 21-26
          This verse illustraights the goal of the Christian life. See as a Christian, dying is the best thing that could happen, because that is when we see God and the trails and pain of life ends. However Christians have a mission on Earth to share the Gospel.
          My point is this, death is not the end for believers, it's the beginning
          For nonChristians, there is reason to be sorry. For the Bible makes it clear that they will be judged and go to Hell

          September 6, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          "So the issue is with the seven day creation and the order as well."

          Yes, it is. But that doesn't diminish the issue with the order, does it? Please, let's not go down yet another 'rabbit hole'.

          "I have heard that it was caused by the flood or simply by the way the animals settled. As to which on it is, I'm not sure, maybe it's a combination of them"

          First, what is your evidence to support this? What you "have heard" carries little weight.

          Second, as I stated before a global flood, which also has no supporting evidence, would not have layered sediments or animals in the order found. (For more on geology and fossils: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/rocks-layers.html, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_02)

          An excellent example of this is Tiktaalik, not just because of its transitional significance, but because the general location of the fossil was predicted by what time period in the past the creature would have lived, i.e. the Middle Devonian. (see more at: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html )

          September 6, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
        • Will

          Yes, it is. But that doesn’t diminish the issue with the order, does it? Please, let’s not go down yet another ‘rabbit hole’.
          – Agreed, but my point is that there are larger differences between our beliefs that impact the way we interpt what we see

          First, what is your evidence to support this? What you “have heard” carries little weight.
          – I agree, I have had school and practice and therefor not had a great deal of time to find the evidence itself. And as evidence, I give you two sources:
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/fossil-record
          http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/CREATION/12%20Fossils%20and%20Strata.html
          As you probably expected, I do list answers in gensis. I do however because among the article is well written and proves a good explanation. Primarily, that the Flood is responsible for much of the fossils we find. Additionally, the reason for the different layers is the order in which they settled. Remember that size is not the only factor is determining what sinks first. Many of the supposedly early animals were those with shells and thus were very dense an more likly to sink first.
          The second source deals more with the organisms themselves. The article is not very long. It contains a list of animals that scientist claimed were exstinct millions of years ago, but that scientists have found exact descendants or close relatives. The article points out that those species that they say are found in one layer are often found in layers above and below them.
          And what point are you trying to make with Tiktaalik exactly?

          September 6, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          “- Agreed, but my point is that there are larger differences between our beliefs that impact the way we interpt what we see”

          Just more hand-waving and red herrings. Irrelevant.

          As I already posted, AIGs information must be held suspect due to their apparent willingness to disregard evidence.
          As for Discovery News, which appears to be produced by Discovery Ministries International, I’d hardly call them an unbiased source.

          “Primarily, that the Flood is responsible for much of the fossils we find. “

          As I already stated a global flood cannot explain seasonal strata such varves and the Loess Plateau, for starters. Additionally, if similar body types, e.g. density, were the primary factor then why don’t we find any dolphins with sharks prior to the appearance of mammals, or mice with lizards, or birds with fish prior to land animals, or even fruits with plants prior to land animals as the Bible would have us believe?

          “It contains a list of animals that scientist claimed were exstinct millions of years ago, but that scientists have found exact descendants or close relatives. “

          There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says that a species must evolve at a certain rate. Many species that are very successful in their habitat, such as sharks, crocodiles, and coelacanths are similar in form to their ancestors because they still out compete or out reproduce their rivals. That is not surprising. Also, there are fossils as far back as 3.5 billion years ago, 2 or 3 billion years before the Cambrian (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html)..

          Your sources are obviously biased and your reasoning is lacking.

          September 7, 2013 at 7:18 pm |
        • Will

          You're references to my supposed hand waving and red herrings is ridiculous
          And no source is completely unbiased, but regardless, I believe you miss interpret that quote from AIG, and you'be quote sites that roughly equal mine as far as how biased they are
          And I believe that it could, although I agree that there is a great deal more that science is yet to discover, I believe that it is ultimately the best explanation for it
          And my point with the list is that evolutionists act like the layers just transition from one type of organism to another, with out the first one also being present in other layers

          September 7, 2013 at 7:38 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          “You're references to my supposed hand waving and red herrings is ridiculous”

          My comment about hand-waving was directed at your expansion to “larger differences”, rather than dealing with the issue at hand. Raising irrelevant issues is practically the definition of a red-herring argument. How exactly is that ridiculous?

          “I believe you miss interpret that quote from AIG”

          How so? If you are going to make claims at least explain why you think so and preferably present evidence.

          “you'be quote sites that roughly equal mine as far as how biased they are”

          Really? Discovery Ministries International is equal to the US Geological Survey, UC-Berkeley, and the University of Chicago? Perhaps I’m beginning to see the depths of your misunderstanding.

          “And I believe that it could, although I agree that there is a great deal more that science is yet to discover, I believe that it is ultimately the best explanation for it”

          Assuming you mean that you “believe [a global flood] could [explain the geological record]”, honestly, what you “believe” is irrelevant. If you have no rational basis for that belief, then it means very little to anyone else.

          “And my point with the list is that evolutionists act like the layers just transition from one type of organism to another, with out the first one also being present in other layers.”

          I don’t understand this. What list?
          What do you mean by “layers just transition… without the first one also being present in other layers?”

          September 8, 2013 at 11:19 am |
        • Will

          "My comment about hand-waving was directed at your expansion to “larger differences”, rather than dealing with the issue at hand. Raising irrelevant issues is practically the definition of a red-herring argument. How exactly is that ridiculous?"
          – Be ause for one, I did deal with the issue in the rest of the response

          "How so? If you are going to make claims at least explain why you think so and preferably present evidence."
          – As I have already said, I believe that they know that the evidence will point to the Bible and there for they also know that if what they find contradicts the Bible, there must be another reason

          "Really? Discovery Ministries International is equal to the US Geological Survey, UC-Berkeley, and the University of Chicago? Perhaps I’m beginning to see the depths of your misunderstanding."
          – Yes, as strange as it sounds these are secular sources and they also aim at proving their own beliefs. The government can be included in this as well, as it no longer recognizes the Bible or Christianity as true

          "Assuming you mean that you “believe [a global flood] could [explain the geological record]”, honestly, what you “believe” is irrelevant. If you have no rational basis for that belief, then it means very little to anyone else."
          – I gave you my rational basis. It makes sense to me that a global flood would effect the fossil layers. I will admit there is a lot more of the story missing, perhaps there were earthquakes in the Flood, I'm not sure, but it seems the best explanation to me

          I don’t understand this. What list?
          What do you mean by “layers just transition… without the first one also being present in other layers?”
          – The list of supposedly exstinct ancient species on the link I sent you. Evolutionists act like in one layer is all of one type of animal and in the next is a totally different one with no cross over and this is not the case

          September 8, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          “Be ause for one, I did deal with the issue in the rest of the response”

          Even if you did “deal” with it, whatever that means, that doesn't make it relevant and therefore it is still a red-herring.

          “As I have already said, I believe that they know that the evidence will point to the Bible and there for they also know that if what they find contradicts the Bible, there must be another reason”

          That is a ridiculous argument. Claiming to “know that the evidence will point to the Bible” is not a rational argument. How do they “know”? Because the Bible tells them? But how do they “know” the Bible is accurate? Because the Bible tells them?

          Either one’s argument is based on logic and evidence or it is based on faith. If It’s based on evidence,then present it. If not, then why argue the science in the first place, just be intellectually honest as say, as AIG essentially says, ‘regardless of the evidence, I will believe what the Bible says’ and be done with it.

          “Yes, as strange as it sounds these are secular sources and they also aim at proving their own beliefs. The government can be included in this as well, as it no longer recognizes the Bible or Christianity as true”

          No source is completely unbiased, however, the scientific method is the best method man has come up with to get an accurate understanding of how the universe works. The paper submission and peer review processes at most universities are set up specifically to get to an accurate understanding. In addition, the scientific method requires independent testing and verification of findings, which your links don’t. The organizations that you reference have no open process, no independent verification,, and therefore are simply confirming their preconceived notions.

          “I gave you my rational basis. It makes sense to me that a global flood would effect the fossil layers. I will admit there is a lot more of the story missing, perhaps there were earthquakes in the Flood, I'm not sure, but it seems the best explanation to me”

          And I’ve provided examples that discredit the global flood conjecture. It may seem to be the best explanation to you, but I would suggest that is only because you don’t understand geology, let alone evolution. The Earth is significantly older than the Bible, by most interpretations, implies.

          “he list of supposedly exstinct ancient species on the link I sent you. Evolutionists act like in one layer is all of one type of animal and in the next is a totally different one with no cross over and this is not the case”

          I didn't see a list, although there were some “living fossils” mentioned, yes, but.these examples don’t discredit evolution in any way. The article you mentioned seems to be claiming that these examples discredit the dating of the geologic layers, which is incorrect, because multiple radiometric datings, as well as other methods provide consistent confirmatory dates. If there is a dispute about the age of a particular layer there are multiple ways to verify it, not just by fossil content.

          September 8, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
        • Will

          "Even if you did “deal” with it, whatever that means, that doesn’t make it relevant and therefore it is still a red-herring."
          – Dealing with it means that I talked about what you said I was avoiding, and therefore I was not avoiding. So it's not a red-herring, simply because I mention that the reason we disagree is because there are larger differences between the our beliefs and then talk about the original subject.

          "That is a ridiculous argument. Claiming to “know that the evidence will point to the Bible” is not a rational argument. How do they “know”? Because the Bible tells them? But how do they “know” the Bible is accurate? Because the Bible tells them?"
          – For you it probably seems so, but in light on the numerous "flaws" people claim to have found with the Bible, only to later have scientists and historians later prove that such "flaws" were in fact not true, it seems very rational to me, that a book that has been so thoroughly scrutinized will again prove its doubters wrong.

          "Either one’s argument is based on logic and evidence or it is based on faith. If It’s based on evidence,then present it. If not, then why argue the science in the first place, just be intellectually honest as say, as AIG essentially says, ‘regardless of the evidence, I will believe what the Bible says’ and be done with it."
          – And not really, and an arguement generally is based mostly on facts, however I am arguing a belief, creationism and Christianity as a whole, which is generally based on faith with the facts backing it up.

          "No source is completely unbiased, however, the scientific method is the best method man has come up with to get an accurate understanding of how the universe works. The paper submission and peer review processes at most universities are set up specifically to get to an accurate understanding. In addition, the scientific method requires independent testing and verification of findings, which your links don’t. The organizations that you reference have no open process, no independent verification,, and therefore are simply confirming their preconceived notions."
          – And that is my point, while modern science might be largely unbiased, no one is completely biased. I do agree that the scientific method is designed to be largely unbiased, but you must take your data and ultimately make conclusions. Now while often these conclusions are later tested, often they can not be. For example if a rock is found in the desert, and a scientist test it and finds out that it is iron, he must then theorize how it got there or who made it. And eventually, he will each a point where he can only make eaducated guesses. His guesses will ultimately be based partly off of his bias. My point is that an evolutionist or a creationist for that matter will ultimately base his conclusions in part off of his or her beliefs. So while creationist and evolutionist will often agree on the what, we disagree on the how, why, and where, which are often more difficult to test definitively.

          "And I’ve provided examples that discredit the global flood conjecture. It may seem to be the best explanation to you, but I would suggest that is only because you don’t understand geology, let alone evolution. The Earth is significantly older than the Bible, by most interpretations, implies."
          – And I have provided my evidence to the contrary. I will admit that when you solely put your edivence for the fossil layers against my against them, you probably do have the better argument. I still believe that it is false, because of the abundance of evidence for creationism and the Bible as a whole. Additionally, I believe that scientists will find the explanation of why the fossil layer is either not proof of evolution or even backs up the Bible. I understand that the phrase, "why the fossil layer is either not proof of evolution," sounds very much like I just want to prove you wrong, what I mean to say this that we may find that the fossil layer supports neither evolution or creation.

          I didn’t see a list, although there were some “living fossils” mentioned, yes, but.these examples don’t discredit evolution in any way. The article you mentioned seems to be claiming that these examples discredit the dating of the geologic layers, which is incorrect, because multiple radiometric datings, as well as other methods provide consistent confirmatory dates. If there is a dispute about the age of a particular layer there are multiple ways to verify it, not just by fossil content.
          – We are referring to the same list. And I believe that they cast some doubt of the theory that the layers are perfect, as I said we find animals in the bottom layers through out the other more "advanced" layers. And the radiometeric dating has some key problems that make it difficult to consider it an authoritative method, such as how do you know how much of a substance was there when it died and whether it has always change at a steady rate. And what are the other methods?

          September 8, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          A failed red-herring is still a red-herring.

          I am arguing a belief, creationism and Christianity as a whole, which is generally based on faith with the facts backing it up.”

          Exactly, you are arguing a belief, but trying to dress it up as a rational, factual, argument.
          What you don’t seem to understand, or at least fail to acknowledge, is that there aren't any facts that exclusively point to Creationism or Christianity, while there are reams of papers on the facts supporting geology and evolution. The petroleum, mining, and construction industries depend on geology being accurate. All available evidence supports the Theory of Evolution: biochemical evidence such as Cytochrome-C, fossil evidence such as Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Archeopteryx, etc, biogeographical evidence such as marsupials, penguins, etc. and genetic evidence such as ERVs, Human Chromosome 2, etc. just to name a few.

          Peace.

          September 8, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
        • Will

          No, once again, it was not a red-herring

          And I am arguing a belief, but my belief is rational and factual.
          And there are a great deal, the reason you've not heard them is because we have only talked about the fossil record for the most part, and nothing else. I have already said that the fossil record is something that I believe creationism as a difficult time explaining at least for the moment, but one point does not make an argument. Nor is the fossil record a particularly strong point

          And you didn't respond to the rest of what I wrote

          September 8, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
        • ME II

          @Will,
          “And you didn't respond to the rest of what I wrote”

          Correct because they are not relevant:

          – Basing an argument on the hope or belief that current “flaws” will be resolved is not an argument, it is a hope or belief.

          – Talking about scientist discussing the why, or meaning, of phenomena, is not scientific. While scientists can make such statements they are opinions not science, i.e. subjective and not in the purview of science and facts.

          – You have tried to provide evidence against evolution, but have not succeeded. In addition, you have not provided positive evidence in favor your position, i.e. exclusively supports creationism. Your belief that science will eventually support the Bible is not evidence, until it actually does.

          – I don’t even know what your mean by the “layers are perfect”, but the fact that animals exist today that existed in similar form far in the past 1) does not mean that that species hasn't evolved and 2) doesn't discredit evolution one bit. As for radiometric dating, when used properly, the dates are relatively quite accurate and are consistent across multiple isotopes, such as Ar-Ar, Ur-Pb, Pb-Pb, etc. as well as with other methods such as thermoluminescence, dendrochronology, fission-track dating. (http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html,http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating3.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating)

          September 8, 2013 at 7:35 pm |
      • Ian Forester

        Bob that sure isn't "kindness and humility". Good examples.

        September 2, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
      • Zombie God

        Will

        It's a miracle, the point isn't that it makes sense according to physics.
        ---------–
        What you are really saying:

        Its a miracle, the point isnt that it makes sense according to reaility.
        GET MENTAL HELP

        September 6, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
        • Will

          Really?

          September 6, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
        • Paul

          RE: Its a miracle, the point isnt that it makes sense according to reaility.
          GET MENTAL HELP

          I've been following this post for awhile now and I am curious about your sarcastic remarks to others of faith. Why?
          Maybe your lack of faith leads you to this lashing out at others. Sounds like you may be the one who needs to lay back on the chatter couch.

          September 9, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
    • tallulah13

      If you hate science so much, I suggest you get rid of your computer, or whatever device you are posting from. Also, avoid doctors and do not take medicine. Do not drive, or use electricity - in fact, you should probably see if you can join an Amish community so that you can avoid these evil things.

      Meanwhile, the rest of us will enjoy greater health and longer lives, better hygiene and convenient travel. We will also enjoy our religious freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution, which keeps your bible out of our schools. We are a people of many beliefs (even no beliefs at all!) and your religion is no more important than that of anyone else.

      Those of us who care will continue to try to get guns out of the hands of children, but it will be a difficult fight because Tea Party evangelical christian conservatives will be fighting tooth and nail to keep guns as available as possible. We will also fight to make sure that real, honest science is taught in our school, because ignorance like yours is bad for children and for the nation as a whole. How can we succeed as a nation if our citizens can't compete scientifically with the rest of the world?

      You may wish to live in a third-world country, but I assure you, the people in third world countries wish they could live like us.

      September 2, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
      • lol?? Pithiest, YES!!

        So ya want yer neighbor's stuff, ya little socie refugee maker??!!

        September 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
      • mzh

        why would someone hate science so much? it is a blessings for the mankind and in that there is no doubt...

        September 2, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
        • Joe

          Except where it disagrees with your whacked out superstitions. It does that a lot.

          September 4, 2013 at 10:52 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Tell that to Giordano Bruno.

          September 4, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
  4. Krakalakin

    The only thing more arrogant than the notion legitimate worship has only existed for the past 2 thousand years or so is the self denial that religion's past and present violence somehow doesn't exist. The concept of submission leaves humanity open to manipulations of the lowest order, and the supernatural element leads us to believe our actions no matter how heinous are justified. Spirituality paints itself as a benign, benevolent force, when in reality it is a dangerous and divisive cultural extension whose benefits stand in stark contrast to its legacy of inhumanity. Spirituality needs to be practiced subject to civil code untainted by religious influence; it needs to be protected from itself. We've taken the first steps, but have a long, long way to go.

    September 2, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
  5. Carlos Arango

    Politicians hiding as preachers, what can be worse than that!

    September 2, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
  6. Alice

    As an Agnostic; this is by far the best article I've ever read on the Religion Blog. I came from a family of Christians, Jews, Muslims (Sufi & Sunni) and Zoroastrians and we all co-existed, celebrating and respecting our differences. My best friend was/is Hindu! Needless to say, I was not raised in America. When religion is used as a POLITICAL tool to conquer, divide, oppress and subvert a country's own people and / or neighbors, it becomes an evil weapon more powerful than any man made weaponry. Because then, people will hate and kill their own brothers/sisters for the chance to be rewarded in the afterlife; while their religious leaders (politicians) are rewarded with earthly treasures (money and power) No religious sect in the world today is unimpeachable.

    September 2, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
  7. Jaya

    i thought that intially GOD was one. but when the population started increasing and when they are dividing more n more of tribes, i think they [priests] made God and the rules to follow God for their convenient way. i think geographical conditions, eating habits, climatical conditions also played a key role in this. when any voilence occured in the name of God i always wonder what the ppl will say/do [who did that voilence] if all of sudden that GOD Himself present!!!!!!!!!! but when i think abt the universe and out side of solar system , i always if its not for some SUPER NATURAL POWER how they can be in such way, even though that they are thr coz of physics, science etc..

    September 2, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • mzh

      Jaya:

      "i think they [priests] made God and the rules to follow God for their convenient way" – one will be held accountable if that individual listens to the priest blindly... I will give you an example Hinduism with due respect to my Hindu friends in mankind...

      One of their believes is that an idol that they made by either mud or metal or any substances and decorate them nicely and they go to this piece of objects and asks as they are asking God Almighty and they know that this piece of metal has no power to even move itself or to same itself if someone attempts to break it... how would this piece of metal respond to one prayer?
      It is like when you know the truth but you are denying the truth... like when you cook for example some vegetables and you use a lid to cover it so that it will boil nicely, when you cover with the lid, you do not see it but you know that there are vegetables... same as you know that this piece of metal can't do anything but still you are asking it... so its like you are denying the truth...

      and there are more examples can be mentioned....

      So one should use their brain before they obey the priest...

      Peace...

      September 2, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
      • Kate

        mzh, enough of your insincere exhortations of "peace" already. You've been caught out on that, and here are some exceprts of how violent the Quran really demands that you be:

        It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. – 8:67

        Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. – 2:191

        Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. – Sura 2:193 and 8:39

        Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. – 2:216
        (different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

        ..... martyrs.... Enter heaven – Surah 3:140-43

        But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. – 4:89

        O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. – 5:54

        Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme – 8:39

        O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. – 8:65

        Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. – 9:2-3

        When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. – 9:5

        Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. – 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.

        mzh, please stop trying to promote your religion of terror here.

        September 2, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
  8. Carlos Arango

    When false preachers use faith as a political tool, soon you'll find blood. Muslim communities still do not allow religious freedom and that's what we won't accept. We are in the 21st century and many Muslims leaders still run an inquisition. If westeners find difficult to accept gay marriages Muslims leaders will never accept religious freedom, if allowed it will take away much of their power... after all they are politicians and not exactly priests.

    September 2, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
  9. james

    Jesus said the whole world is lying in the power of satan and that he is god of this system of things,the ruler of the world, and that he is misleading the entire inhabited earth so if you just worship the god of this world, no matter which religion, it is satan,"for a little while longer" but he also taught his father's name was to be called on to resist this creature so use his name "Jehovah" if you want results or serve "the god of this system","the ruler of this world"(see 1 John 5:19, Rev.12:9-12, John 8:44,45,14:30; !Cor.4:4; 10:20) and many others, but if you want to learn what the Bible really teaches go to jw.org or have a serious discussion with them when they come to your door. And at no charge so what have you to lose?

    September 2, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Doobs

      Jesus said.....

      You believe Jeebus said these things. You have no proof outside the bible that he said anything. Just because you believe something does not make it true.

      September 2, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • What IF

      james,

      I'm sure that your fantasy makes you feel good... there is not a shred of verified evidence that it is real, though. I have visited your JW site and have spoken with your members. Have you visited the sites of ex-JWs?

      September 2, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • james

      I have all the proof I need and more so the faith I need to know Jesus was who he said he was and yes i have talked to many ex JWs and the difference between encouragement and ignorance is so sad.

      September 2, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
  10. MikeB

    This is a very interesting argument you guys have going here and I can't help but chime in on it. I believe in one true God and have no physical proof to back it up at all. I also believe that Jesus is the son of God, my faith has its roots in Judaism after all Jesus was a Jew. All I can give you for proof has been through personal experience. If you have ever "felt" the presence of God in your life you can not deny it. And ultimately I feel that one of the biggest misconceptions about God is that He hates science. Look around you and fathom the equations that have to be in place to make our world work, God is the ultimate scientist. Wish I could create a functional civilization in a glass jar in my basement.

    September 2, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Bob

      Problem is, MikeB, your idiotic bible is contradicted by science at every turn of the page of your crazy work of fiction. And as for your Jesus fairy tale, how is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      September 2, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
      • MArk

        Hey Mr Science explains it all. Explain something from nothing.

        September 2, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
        • Darren

          Argument from Ignorance seems to be the standard fallacy that Christians fall back to. Pretty funny and ignorant lot they are.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
        • Darren

          Nice red herring insert there, Mark. Now respond to the actual post.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Mark, Explain a god from nothing.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          MArk: What you have foolishly presented in the Fallacy of Equivocation:

          A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning or argument. Some fallacies are so common that they have been given their own names. Today we will look at the fallacy of equivocation.

          According to logician Trudy Govier, "The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a key word in an argument is used in two or more senses and the premises of the argument appear to support its conclusion only because these senses are not distinguished from each other."

          In other words, the fallacy of equivocation occurs when in the course of an argument the meanings of an ambiguous word or phrase are traded unfairly to get us to accept the conclusion when in fact we shouldn’t.

          September 2, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • bostontola

      Glad it works for you Mike. What we sense, and feel is very unreliable though. We are easily fooled by magicians and many experiments demonstrate how easily illusions (visual, audio, taste, touch) can be formed.

      September 2, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • joe

      If you have ever “felt” the presence of God in your life you can not deny it.
      ---------
      It's called mental delusion. Same thing the Muslims say. When the muslims say it does it make Allah real?

      Get help for your problem and watch it disappear.

      September 2, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
      • MikeB

        Well I guess I will step out and show how crazy I really am but I look at God as being pure energy, our bodies, our minds, everything we see is driven by energy and the "feeling " I spoke of is similar to an electrical charge. I know crazy and delusional. But it does explain why God can not be in the presence of sin-negative energy- as it would deflect-spark-maybe even burn. I know crazy but its something to think about since there is no ultimate explanation as to why we even exist, even if you take science to its root there is no explanation for why anything actually exists at all, after all you can't get something from nothing so I had rather have something than nothing.

        September 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
        • Bob

          Sounds like plain old argument from ignorance there, MikeB. Something to note is that "we don't know yet" is a more honest answer than asserting that "god did it", for what you present.

          We also know for certan that the Christian god cannot possibly exist, with the commonly claimed (and contradictory) characteristics for it.

          September 2, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
  11. Time For You To Grow Up...

    There isn't one god... And there isn't even one god for every religion... Every religious person creates a god in their own image, and prays to it... So there are actually billions and billions of different gods, each one being a unique figment of someone's imagination.

    September 2, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      amen!!!

      September 2, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
  12. rockaclimba

    God seems to be the greatest factor in playing hatred, brutality and insane killings on earth. I have yet to see effect and role of GOD in making a we people, better human beings. I could not see GOD in Jerusalem and I could not see GOD in Vatican. I see Muslims are being painted as terrorists in whole world- and this all looks like a perfect plan to work with.
    Man has killed man – all n name of God...holier than thou and result is that today we are standing on edge of destruction- destruction so huge that even possibility of extinction from planet earth is looking at our faces !

    September 2, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • eric

      I've always read how intelligent atheists and others are in life, yet they still remain willfully ignorant of this FACT: The problem is MAN....and the solution is MAN. Man will use anything and everything to gain power/control/influence, etc. This is the problem. I expect such intelligent people to not throw the baby out with the bath water....I suppose those expectations are too much. I'll leave this here: Pure religion according to The Bible is looking after widows/orphans and keeping oneself unstained from the world....ah, imagine the horrors if man committed to THAT!!!

      September 2, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
      • Time For You To Grow Up...

        Eric, you need to finish your thought... The problem is that man created religion and god... If people would only realize and understand this FACT (as you like to emphasize), we would all be better off.

        September 2, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
        • eric

          I find it convenient that you didn't argue about how great the world be if MAN did stick to what The Bible says is "pure religion"....with logic like yours and others, we should get rid of governments as well...and economic systems....all of it actually. I mean, if it's been used as an excuse for bad, it shouldn't exist amirite?

          September 2, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
        • Bob

          How's your daily goat sacrifice going, Eric? Your bible explicitly demands that of you, so get back to humping that sacrificial goat or your vicious god will torture you in Hayyylll forever

          September 2, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
        • Time For You To Grow Up...

          I was only arguing that one point, but your assumptions are illogical... Getting rid of government, etc.?? Why because they're imperfect? Of course they are, but they're essential to society, actually exist and, most importantly, are changeable... People who adhere to the notions of god and religion tend to be completely inflexible and also tend to force those beliefs on others... Want to believe in talking snakes?? Fine, but don't tell me I have to believe... By doing that, you're taking away my freedoms... And they're the same freedoms you demand for yourself.

          September 2, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
        • Doobs

          @ eric

          As a woman, I will never bow to a deity whose example of a righteous person includes men who offer their young daughters to a mob for gang rape or lies and whores out his sister/wife to save themselves.

          September 2, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
        • lol?? Pithiest, YES!!

          Doobs, gubmints do it all the time, including Solomon's. Ever heard of the inbred royalty of Europe??

          September 2, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
        • lol?? Pithiest, YES!!

          Doobs, modern women kill their own children for the sake of their own little greekster philosophy education. Is r*ape worse than killin'?? If I was a modern, hip, libbed up woman I wouldn't be braggin'.

          September 2, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
      • rockaclimba

        Eric !
        Religion and faith is always debatable and here once again we are talking about Bible. Holy Bible says lot of things- in OLD TESTAMENT and in NEW one but I wont start a new subject here. I do agree that MAN is a root cause and this was what I was saying- MAN exploited concept of GOD in a way that original message is lost somewhere.
        And Message of God is not different or Bad in Holy Quran also....problem is the way it has ben projected my MAN itself is sick and self destructive.

        September 2, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
      • rockaclimba

        I dont hate believers and I dont like Atheists too. I see no difference in two polarities.
        what mankind has learnt from GOD....nothing.
        Religion gave us what ?
        Holier than thou- Ego- and bloodshed in name of God

        September 3, 2013 at 10:48 pm |
  13. bostontola

    " If most of science used the scientific method there would be no black holes or evolution as a means to species as theories."

    These crazy people are now questioning gravity. I used to joke that denying evolution was like denying gravity. Now, they are actually denying gravity. Humans have seen stars orbiting an object so small and massive that the escape velocity of the object must be greater than the speed of light. That is a black hole.

    September 2, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • What is going on? FREEDOM

      Ignore Tarver. He doesn't have no MSEE. He just pulled that junk off of an extremist, religious website.

      September 2, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Once I am done this week the religious will have even more material to make fun of "atheist science" with. Einstein's "Jew science" works very well for making fools of your fascist agenda.

        Einstein's Copenhagen Interpretation of 1935 says, "Quantum Mechanics and Relativity require a sentient being outside the universe tom make the universe real."

        September 2, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
        • bostontola

          Einstein is not an authority on god. He was wrong about quantum mechanics. He was wrong about some aspects of general relativity. "Jew science", really?

          Are you just a troll? That would explain a lot. Hats off if you are.

          September 2, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Yes, boston, JPT has been trolling this same material for months. Kinda boring, now.

          September 2, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      Of course there's no gravity. It's intelligent falling.

      September 2, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
      • bostontola

        50 years ago, this wouldn't matter, the US had no peer economic competi.tor. In the next 50 years we will. We won't be competi.tive if this kind of thinking prevails.

        September 2, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Look at the deficit. We're fudged if China ever decides to call in its debts, regardless of religious retardation. The economy will eventually implode, so it's best t just laugh it out.

          September 2, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          To.

          September 2, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
        • Vic

          Actually, the US debt to China is less than a trillion, I believe it is half of that. The US debt is mainly to US lenders!

          September 2, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      From General Relativity, "Gravity is mass bending Time"; there has been no question about where gravity comes from in science for almost a century.

      September 2, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
      • bostontola

        Nope. Gravity is the "bending" of space-time. You repeatedly demonstrate a willingness to misrepresent yourself. You don't have the ethics that Jesus would approve of.

        September 2, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
      • bostontola

        Oh, and there are lots of questions about where gravity comes from in the last century. There are still many questions about gravity and mass. You clearly don't understand the saying, "when you're in a hole, stop digging". Stick with faith, you can't disprove it.

        September 2, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
  14. Adelaide Kent

    Mr.Weiss does no favor to religious discussion by his simplistic presentation of the religious beliefs of the three Abrahamic traditions.

    It is true and unfortunate that members of all three traditions reat their neighbors in contravention to the teachings of the One we recognize as
    as Adonai, God and Allah.

    Each of these great faiths is at heart the same: love God and your neighbor. As Hilllel said, the rest is commentary.

    September 2, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      Funny, but a quick perusal of the OT doesn't seem to advocate love. It advocates genocide aplenty, but not love.

      September 2, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
      • Sam

        It advocates not just genocide of a race that was contrary to a Standard of righteousness...It advocates a Standard that upholds Standards that would poke fun of evil...Satan...and Evil people who don't want to come to grips that at the end of their journey here on earth...They will then live the demise of their choice. LOL nice way to stir the masses....by the way....The scripture of "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (meaning Jehovah himself) all will see regardless if they want to read and research any of this...so lets get the crybabies going how they aren't going to study anything, and how that all who do are wrong...Sam

        September 2, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
  15. hharri

    FORGIVE ME.

    I HAD NO IDEA I WAS THIS GOOD
    (i knew i was good, very good, in fact)

    BUT, I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS THIS GOOD!

    UNBELIEVABLE

    a tsunami of reaction

    September 2, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
    • Doobs

      koo koo

      September 2, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • Akira

      Such humility. God will be pleased.

      September 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
  16. Sam

    LOL...Just like CNN....always trying to lump everything into one. If it was just that simple then why doesn't CNN come up with all the solutions to every crisis....This is True Media manipulation when you are trying to garner a simple uproar in blog post to get your daily hits for your sponsors. Start studying the Scripture of every one you just mentioned and get back to me...Thanks Sam

    September 2, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • What is going on? FREEDOM

      All the religions are the same. Just like the Romans and the Greek gods were the same.

      September 2, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • ham

      OD KAY i will.

      all rejions isn't good for you.

      i believe in jus 1 gods and it ain't you.

      whats your number. i wiil call

      September 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm |
    • Doobs

      Why do you assume that I haven't already read them, and why would I want to get back to you?

      September 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm |
      • Sam

        Well I guess then your not the Einstein of Observation which then would exclude you from answering the question. I'll stick to previous post...When you've read the three that you mentioned in your article then get back to me...and by the way...not just reading...try studying it also...See you in a couple of years...Sam

        September 2, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • Akira

      Which Scripture? Scripture simply means it is something written down. The Koran, Talmund, and Bible all qualify.
      It's not media manipulation. It is well known that the three religions profiled here have a common denominator: Abraham. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that is up to you.
      Nobody is asking that you change your particular belief, but your contempt for other religions is noted.

      September 2, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • ALLALMERICAN

      Worship the CREATOR not the CREATIONS !!

      Abrahamic Religions must shed differences and work together for peace.

      September 2, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
      • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

        Worship nobody, have an independent mind.

        September 2, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
        • Name*saif

          u look urself, who create u?

          September 2, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
  17. hharri

    WHO KNEW?

    a tornado triggered avalanche of posting madness due to a sick, retarded, delusional, hypocritical, lying, servicer of his lord on his knees, schizophrenic, seeing things that aren't there, xtard.

    dag! I'M GOOD

    September 2, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • Doobs

      koo koo

      September 2, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • Akira

      Such hubris. God will be pleased.
      You do understand that xtard is not referring to atheists, but to Christians, yes? It's a derogatory term for Christians. Short for 'Christard.'

      Cue "The More You Know" music...

      September 2, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
  18. Thought Purification

    Churches, temples, mosques, Synagogues, they're all promoting their version of GOD aka money printing machine; it is one business owner with different divisions like GM with Buick, Cadillac, GMC and Chevrolet.

    September 2, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
  19. Redoran

    I am NOT sorry to disappoint y'all, but there is NO god!

    September 2, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • 1word

      WRONG, THERE IS A GOD AND YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO HIM. YOU CAN RUN AND HIDE ALL YOU WANT BUT ONE DAY, YOU WILL BE ON YOUR KNEES BEFORE HIM BEGGING FOR FORGIVENESS. I SUGGEST, YOU PROVE GOD WRONG BY SEEKING HIM.

      September 2, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
      • What is going on? FREEDOM

        I shall not kneel before him as I shall never kneel before the so-called devil. I will choose my own path, like you should. You cannot be children forever.

        September 2, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
      • joe

        WRONG, THERE IS A GOD AND YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO HIM. YOU CAN RUN AND HIDE ALL YOU WANT BUT ONE DAY, YOU WILL BE ON YOUR KNEES BEFORE HIM BEGGING FOR FORGIVENESS. I SUGGEST, YOU PROVE GOD WRONG BY SEEKING HIM.
        ---------
        Really? How scary! Should we start praying to this Allah character?

        September 2, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
      • fsmgroupie

        love me or burn in hell -– same old crap over and over again -- why do you so badly need a lord and master? get off your knees

        September 2, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
  20. Who is Jesus?

    If you answered that question you have the answer to the question you ask, Weiss!

    September 2, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
    • Truth is exclusive

      Exactly!

      September 2, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
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
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.