 |
|
|
|
|
October 7th, 2013
12:31 PM ET
Scalia says atheism 'favors the devil's desires'By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] (CNN) - As the Supreme Court begins its new term Monday, the devil is not on the docket - but the Evil One apparently is on the mind of Justice Antonin Scalia. New York magazine has published a fascinating new interview with Scalia in which the outspoken jurist tackled a number of topics. But none seemed to surprise Scalia's interviewer, Jennifer Senior, more than his views on Satan. The interview was conducted on September 26, the 27th anniversary of Scalia's swearing-in as a justice on the high court. He is one of a record six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court. After Scalia and Senior discussed heaven and hell (he believes in them; she doesn't), the justice said in a stage whisper, "I even believe in the devil." "You do?" Senior replied. "Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, come on, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that," Scalia said. Senior asked Scalia if he's seen evidence of Satan's work recently. "You know, it is curious," Scalia answered. "In the Gospels, the devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore. ... It’s because he’s smart." MORE FROM CNN: How to argue about religion online Senior asked if it's "frightening" to believe in the devil, which seemed to annoy Scalia. "You’re looking at me as though I’m weird," he answered. "My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the devil! Most of mankind has believed in the devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil." Scalia, whose son, Paul, is a Catholic priest in Arlington, Virginia, also said Pope Francis is "absolutely" right about the church needing to concentrate more on mercy and outreach than on fighting the culture wars. MORE FROM CNN: American Catholics agree with Pope Francis on ending culture wars "But he hasn’t backed off the view of the church on those issues," Scalia said. "He’s just saying, 'Don’t spend all our time talking about that stuff. Talk about Jesus Christ and evangelize.' I think there’s no indication whatever that he’s changing doctrinally." Finally, Scalia said he has not "softened" his views on homosexuality. "I still think it’s Catholic teaching that it’s wrong. OK? But I don’t hate the people that engage in it. In my legal opinions, all I’ve said is that I don’t think the Constitution requires the people to adopt one view or the other," Scalia said. MORE FROM CNN: Church and state, executive power on Supreme Court docket soundoff (3,730 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next »
Next entry »Senate chaplain: Shutdown is 'madness'
« Previous entryHoly Trollers: How to argue about religion online
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, explains how God disappeared as an explanation for things humans did not understand about the universe, as the "perimeter of ignorance" receded. The greatest minds dared increasingly brave to question the world around them, but sometimes cowardly copped out along the way when they faced problems -similar to the modern Intelligent Design movement that advocates a "god of the gaps"- until someone else took over and furthered scientific progress. (3/2/2013)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxiLnC7ikw8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5dwksSbD34&feature=player_embedded
Eh, I like Cats in the Cradle better.
I think "Old College Avenue" was his best.
boson
Prize
Love one's neighbors and give them the light of days yet ever holding up the most darkest of nights...
In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight.....
1. There is no God.
2. I hate him!!!!!!
Have you taken a poll? Personally, I think God is a spectacularly great idea, just wrong.
Think about that for a moment...we can't hate something, or be angry with something, that does not exist. To the contrary, we are surprised that people choose to believe something with no evidence, especially when that something tells you how you must conduct yourself for your entire life. Great claims require great proof.
1. There is no proof of the existence of any of the many gods worshipped by man.
2. The Bible/Quran god is immoral.
"2. The Bible/Quran god is immoral."
The same can be said of Bizarro Superman.
The definition of atheist is one who doesn't believe that any gods exist. That is all.
It's amazing how so many believers either lack the ability to grasp that one simple concept or are willing to risk the heaven they believe in just to lie about people they don't like.
We atheists on this board disagree with you. Because we are more intelligent than believers. We are superior creatures.
We we we we we we we we are acting like the religious people we profess to hate!
"We we we we we we we we are acting like the religious people we profess to hate!"
Not really, atheists make evidence based, logical arguments, religious people make faith based arguments, not the same.
Nope.
Atheists don't believe in God. That's it. Your we rely on evidence is we we we's point.
We we: So basically what you are trying to say is that you don't understand the concept of atheism and are willing to risk the christian hell by lying through your teeth.
It's pretty true, actually. Have you read the comments on this board? "Atheists" will deny, deny, deny. And without taking a breath call God every name they can think of. Do they also put that much rage in other things they don't believe in? Not likely.
Actually, I put a similar amount of "rage", as you put it, into I.D., Homeopathy, ghosts, anti-vacination, and similar supersti.tion / pseudo-science.
Topher,
Atheists don't display nearly the rage of hypocritical Christians fighting to deny equal rights to gays or calling doctors who perform a legal operation as murderers.
Because they are immoral.
Topher,
"Because they are immoral."
By whose standards? Do you mean the standards of the book that supports slavery, discrimination against women and the handicapped, and beating children? Do you mean the book that NEVER mentions abortion?
Observer
"By whose standards?"
God's. Are you going to argue those things are good?
"Do you mean the standards of the book that supports slavery, discrimination against women and the handicapped, and beating children? Do you mean the book that NEVER mentions abortion?"
So it never uses the word abortion, so what? Neither does it use the words "rapture" or "dinosaurs." But there's plenty of verses to show God's clear view on abortion being wrong and being murder.
Topher
"God's. Are you going to argue those things are good?"
So you are saying that slavery, discrimination against women and the handicapped and beating children is good? Yes or no?
@Topher
When does "ensoulment" occur in human beings?
Jewish theology says it begins with the first breath of air – ergo, a foetus doesn't have a soul.
If you think it begins at conception, you're simply being arrogant and assuming you know how God works.
"As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:5)
We have no standards.
And lest we forget, God has COMMANDED people to commit abortion, like in Numbers 31 (wherein He also orders Moses and his people to commit r.ape)
Observer
"So you are saying that slavery, discrimination against women and the handicapped and beating children is good? Yes or no?"
Give me the specific verses and we'll talk about them.
Topher you coward, answer the question.
Slavery:
Leviticus 25:44
Exodus 21:2, 21:7, 21:20
Ephesians 6:5
1 Timothy 6:1
Misogyny:
1 Corinthians 13:34
Ecclesiaticus 25:19 (Catholic)
1 Timothy 2:11
1 Corinthians 14:35
Isaiah 3:18
Beating \ Killing Your Children:
Proverbs 13:24
Proverbs 22:15
Proverbs 29:15
Proverbs 23:13
Proverbs 30:17
Deuteronomy 21:18
But it could be worse.
God could have you eat your children like in:
Leviticus 26:29
Deuteronomy 28:53
Jeremiah 19:9
The point that the bible "says" something is immoral is meaningless to those people who do not believe in that version of the bible. And as such such "immorality: is worthless when making law.
You must remember this about gopher
1. He is pompous in that he purports not only to KNOW that god exists, but that it is the god of the bible and HE (gopher) is god's spokesperson
2. He is a bigot in that he wants to deny others civil rights because HE thinks the are immoral. He will probably comment that it is GOD who feels that way, but it is just more gopher blah blah blah
3. He is a coward in that he is willing to let someone else take the punishment for what he feels he deserves
4. He is a coward in that he runs like a whimpering little child when someone asks him a question whose answer does not fit his belief system
5. He is a blowhard in that he bloviates empty proxy threats
that's all for now, but there will likely be more later
Lies are about the only thing I get worked up over. There are a few bandied about here. I won't count yours against you, Topher, if you honestly don't know they are lies.
" "Atheists" will deny, deny, deny. And without taking a breath call God every name they can think of." Topher, aren't you kinda the king of hatred around here? Seems to be that you often not only insult atheists, but dishonor your faith by bearing false witness against them?
Bible Clown©
"Topher, aren't you kinda the king of hatred around here?"
You might view me that way, but it's not my intention for you to think of me that way. In fact, I care very much about you or else I wouldn't be here. What could I have to gain by this? I can't invite you to my church and I'm not asking for your money. I just don't want you to go to Hell when you've been offered to have your slate wiped clean.
"Seems to be that you often not only insult atheists, but dishonor your faith by bearing false witness against them?"
I don't see how I've insulted atheists. I'm not one of the name-callers here. And how did I dishonor my faith? What have I lied about?
Topher the "provoker"
Just by suggesting that someone that does not share your delusion is an insult. Why can't you understand that, I would never want to share your company not because I hate you but because you are obnoxious with your one track mind.
OKfine
"Just by suggesting that someone that does not share your delusion is an insult."
Is your skin so thin you can't be told you're wrong? That's all I'm saying.
Toper the "provoker"
That is not all you are saying you are condemning others to hell if they do not get saved, that is why posters call you a liar. Am I right or not if I chose not to be saved as you have I go to hell?
Topher
Is your skin so thin you can't be told you're wrong? That's all I'm saying.
.
By what authority do you judge?
OKfine
"That is not all you are saying you are condemning others to hell if they do not get saved, that is why posters call you a liar. Am I right or not if I chose not to be saved as you have I go to hell?"
Don't take offense, but I know you've committed sins because we all have. And if you've broken God's laws, you deserve to be punished. That's Hell. So we ALL deserve to go there. So if you reject Christ, God will give you what you deserve — Hell. But if you receive the gift that He's already provided for you, the debt you owe was already given to Christ on the cross. Your sins will be wiped away. "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." And not only will you be seen as innocent on Judgment Day, but God will credit you with the righteousness of Christ (remember He was perfect and without sin) and will be justly rewarded.
Cristeros for Satan
"By what authority do you judge?"
Are you judging me for judging?
if you reject Christ, God will give you what you deserve — Hell.
------
You keep forgetting that not all of God's equal creations know who Christ is, because of scenarios that God implemented. You really think God "gives them what they deserve...hell", because they haven't accepted something they've never even heard of? If God would do that, then God deserves hell.
Madtown
"You keep forgetting that not all of God's equal creations know who Christ is, because of scenarios that God implemented. You really think God "gives them what they deserve...hell", because they haven't accepted something they've never even heard of?"
No, dude, you're missing the point. Those people aren't going to Hell because they reject Christ or haven't heard of Him. They are going because they've broken His laws. The Bible says God gave us the Creation and a conscience to know He exists and will thus have no excuse on Judgment Day.
"If God would do that, then God deserves hell."
No. He hasn't sinned. But you have. And you've been given so much grace to actually know more about it than those people ... to be able to have a Bible in your hands, to able to speak to those who know the truth. But you reject it. How much more will you have to answer for when you were told the Gospel and still refused to humble yourself. He's shown you nothing but kindness. Please, come to your senses.
Topher don't be obtuse. They are going to hell because they never even had a chance to accept Jesus as their savior. If Jesus is the only way to heaven then god should have told everybody in the world about him. It really is that simple. So why did god need to wait 15000 years for Europeans to show up in the Americas and spread his word? Was he not capable of doing it himself, or does he just like to burn Native Americans?
Those people aren't going to Hell because they reject Christ or haven't heard of Him. They are going because they've broken His laws
----
I give you huge credit for 1 thing, you are single-handedly and completely rewriting the definition of the word Buffoon. Let me just quote you again from just above: "So if you reject Christ, God will give you what you deserve — Hell"
Joey
"They are going to hell because they never even had a chance to accept Jesus as their savior."
NO! They are going to Hell for breaking His laws! They lie, steal, lust, blaspheme, don't honor their parents, etc. They know those things are wrong without having read it i the Bible. God wrote His laws on our heart. But they do them anyway.
"If Jesus is the only way to heaven then god should have told everybody in the world about him."
He told us to go into all the world and preach the gospel. So either you'll answer for not taking the Gospel to them or you'll answer for preventing someone else from doing it.
Topher how many souls could have been saved if it had not taken god 1500 years to let the people living in North America know about Jesus?
At best the bible was written as a joke, and god uses sends anyone who takes it literally to hell for not using their brain.
Madtown
"I give you huge credit for 1 thing, you are single-handedly and completely rewriting the definition of the word Buffoon. Let me just quote you again from just above: "So if you reject Christ, God will give you what you deserve — Hell""
So maybe I'm a buffoon, but I don't see where I contradicted myself. If you break His laws, you deserve Hell. If you know about Christ, and reject His offer, God will give you what you deserve. If you don't know Christ, you'll still need to be punished for breaking the laws. You're not going to Hell for not knowing Christ. You're going for breaking the laws. Christ just provides an option for you to get out of it. I don't believe for a second you're not following this.
If your parents beat you on a daily basis do you still have to honor them, or is there some sort of exception in that case? If there is an exception please cite the verse in the bible that allows for it.
Topher, the problem is that god who supposedly loves all humans equally, didn't bother to tell about 90% of the world at the time about Jesus so they were never able to decide if they wanted to use the get out of jail free card or not.
Topher
"If you break His laws, you deserve Hell"
So do you support ALL his laws? Do you tell people to beat their chldren with rods to discipline them? Do you tell fellow Christians they are adulterers for divorcing and remarrying? Do you support slavery?
Or are you just another Christian HYPOCRITE who picks and chooses from the Bible? Aren't you headed for hell?
Observer
"So do you support ALL his laws?"
That are still in play in the New Covenant, yes.
"Do you tell people to beat their chldren with rods to discipline them?"
I believe in corporal punishment, yes.
"Do you tell fellow Christians they are adulterers for divorcing and remarrying?"
They would be, yes.
"Do you support slavery?"
Which kind? The Biblical model? Yeah, we see that at work in today's wars. The kind we had 150 years ago in this country? No.
Or are you just another Christian HYPOCRITE who picks and chooses from the Bible? Aren't you headed for hell?
Supporting slavery in any shape, form, or fashion is clearly immoral.
Observer
"Or are you just another Christian HYPOCRITE who picks and chooses from the Bible? Aren't you headed for hell?"
Whoops, looks like I forgot one. No, I don't pick and choose. I believe it is completely the Word of God. And no, I'm not headed for Hell. I deserve to, though.
Topher
"Do you tell fellow Christians they are adulterers for divorcing and remarrying?" "They would be, yes.
How many Christian family and friends have you personally told that they are adulterers and should divorce again? Number please.
"The Biblical model (of slavery), Yeah, we see that at work in today's wars."
What is that "model"? Why do you support breaking the bones of elderly women slaves without punishment?
What part of this are you not getting? Until you show us evidence for your god or any god, there is no reason for us to believe in it. The christian god is the one most talked about due to the fact that it is that god that is thrust in our faces on a regular basis. I do not hate something that I do not believe exists. In fact I prefer not to use the word hate. I do not believe your bible is true and I do see the horror within it, however, that still does not mean I hate your god. The god of the bible you hold so close is not something to be worshiped. It is a god who says believe or I'll make you suffer for eternity...how the hell do you get good from that? How is that any different from a spouse ordering the other around with the looming fear of punishment hanging over their head??
You're free to believe what you wish but you are not free to impose it in a secular world. That respect christians demand goes both ways.
truthprevails1,
Amen!
Well said! (I would add that although monotheists always demand respect for their beliefs, it is very very difficult to respect stupid. And numerous of their actual beliefs when you really get it into it, are, well.....stupid.)
I have never called your or anyone eles God any names, and there is no rage in me. I do feel a smidge of sorrow for those who are unwilling to open their eyes to the real world that is before them. I know for a long time I felt it was a challenge of my faith to go through life closing my worldy eyes to the very real world around me so that my spiritual eyesight would grow. Sadly this just begets bruised shins and many missed opportunities for growth and will leave you stunted and bruised, not enlightened as opening your eyes can do. Learn true appreciation through experience not through denial of self. Although I do believe eventually a person may reach enlightenment through self flagelation, I do not believe this is the wisest of the many paths that ultimately lead there.
I agree. As a former believer, I was taught not to test the Lord thy God, that if God was not pleased with my life I would spend eternity in hell, and then the reality was that I would be ostracized from my community of church-going friends. Fear and loneliness are powerful motivators, driving people to adhere. Personally I feel freer now without that adherence, that I can select beliefs, friends, and communities that are not bigoted and help me to be a better person. It's all about continuous improvement and challenging myself to do more and be more.
Topher
....Do they also put that much rage in other things they don't believe in? Not likely.
.
Yes, the Easter Bunny....I go in a rage when I see that creepy ba s tard around kids. Then there is Santa, all I see is RED. I make it a point to tell the kids waiting in line he is a fraud and not real. Another one that just bugs the hell out of me.....Salvation Army Bell Ringers.....I just swat the annoying little bell out of their hand when I walk by. RING RING B! tch! I have to really up my meds for Halloween...every 5 minutes some delusional kid who thinks they are a fairy or superhero!
Topher
Answer the question you coward, you can't even give you own opinion without your babble, what a pathetic piece of crap you are.
since when are people's civil rights determined by whether or not they are immoral, gopher?
do you seek to deny the civil rights to immoral people in your congregation, or in your life in general?
how moral is it to allow someone else to take your punishment?
are you giving up some rights, coward?
Topher, Would you call someone who kills children names, or would you praise him?
Hmm, actually no. More like "You guys have fun worshiping that stick. We'll be over here inventing computers and curing disease." No time to hate.
I never met an atheist or agnostic that hates god(s) or has any feelings towards god(s). That would be like saying you hate (or love) Hercules. I do like the story of Hercules though.
I don't believe in Porky Pig©, but I hate him anyway, so it's possible to hate imaginary beings.
Certainly possible, I've not met an atheist that hates god.
tallulah13
"It's amazing how so many believers either lack the ability to grasp that one simple concept or are willing to risk the heaven they believe in just to lie about people they don't like."
If there seems to be confusion from Christians on the definition of "atheist" or "agnostic" its because those people can't agree on one definition either. I've had several conversations on this board on this subject. Just the other day we were discussing Dawkins' recent statements that under the simplest of definitions make him an agnostic, not an "atheist." But I got jumped all over that the Great Dawkins is an Agnostic-Atheist. And from several months ago, the discussion was that there's lots of combinations of those words. None of them can agree.
Why is the precise definition important? I consider myself an agnostic because I can't factually know if there is or is not a god. I am also an atheist because I believe there is no god. There is an enormous amount of evidence that none of the gods invented by man exists, that is every god of every religion devised so far. But that doesn't rule out some stealth god out there.
"an agnostic, not an "atheist."" Technically, it requires absolute proof on God's nonexistence in an infinite universe to be an atheist, but most people don't go that far. But since Atheism isn't a religion, there's no requirement to adhere to a Gospel of Unbelief or memorize doctrines or make offering to Nobody. I can't exactly define why I don't believe in Darth Vader, either, and I don't plan to spend hours working it out for your edification.
I can tell you one thing, though, and that's that most clergymen would likely tell you that you'll never get into heaven with all that hate in your heart. "The Great Dawkins," indeed. Not only are you insinuating that he is worshiped by unbelievers, an indefensible position at best, but sneering at him. I grew out of hating people in my thirties, and never went back to it. You need to figure out how to live without hatred, indignation, and resentment if you intend to someday approach God.
bostontola
"Why is the precise definition important?"
Because it's inconsistant. You get people like Tallulah who then complains we don't get your definitions correct. Because words have meanings and we shouldn't just get to change them willy-nilly.
"I consider myself an agnostic because I can't factually know if there is or is not a god. I am also an atheist because I believe there is no god."
I'd say then that you're agnostic. A = no, gnostic = knowledge. So basically, you don't know. That's just being honest.
"There is an enormous amount of evidence that none of the gods invented by man exists, that is every god of every religion devised so far. But that doesn't rule out some stealth god out there."
There's plenty of evidence in favor of the Biblical God, too. I used to call myself an "atheist" but when I looked into it, I found the evidence in favor of God more compelling than that against. In fact, as we say, it takes MORE faith to be an "atheist."
any and all "evidence" you think you have for your little iron-age middle eastern arab deity, can also be used to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, the existence of Bast, the Cat Goddess, or Odin, true Lord of Valhalla...
Pharty
Ridiculousness.
"Because words have meanings and we shouldn't just get to change them willy-nilly.
I'd say then that you're agnostic. A = no, gnostic = knowledge. So basically, you don't know. That's just being honest."
So, you want to change the meaning of his words? You know perfectly well what Gnostic means in this discussion. Not "do not know," but "can not prove." Huge difference.
Don't give up your day job. "Evangelist" is never going to be your job description. Are you really trying to prove God's existence by arguing about word definitions? And making fun of our beliefs?
If you want so badly to narrowly define atheism, why not first please narrowly define Christianity since there are over 42,000 different denominations out there. If you even remotely accept the 42,000 differing denominations as all "Christian" then you must allow for at least that many splinters of atheism instead of trying to pigeonhole us all into an easily and narrowly defined stereotype.
Bible Clown©
"So, you want to change the meaning of his words? You know perfectly well what Gnostic means in this discussion. Not "do not know," but "can not prove." Huge difference."
He may use that definition, but that's not what it means. This is exactly my point. Just like atheist means no-God, agnostic means no knowledge. I'm not the one changing things.
"Are you really trying to prove God's existence by arguing about word definitions? And making fun of our beliefs?"
Nope, I'm not trying to prove God's existence by arguing word definitions. But it's hard to have a discussion with you if I don't understand your position. And I'm not making fun of your beliefs. I used to be one of you. I just thing I think you're wrong, that's all. I even could make an argument that calling yourself an atheist is dishonest. But I'm not making fun of you. I'm not the name caller here, either.
I am atheist when it comes to the Christian god, but agnostic when it comes to the concept of a god. That is to say that I believe there could be a god or gods, but that it isn't the Christian god as described in the bible.
Topher the "provoker"
You really are a hoot. You can't even figure out what a christian, can you? How many times have you said catholics and mormons are not Christian? If you cannot define your own lot, how could you possibly tell the difference between atheists, agnostics and deists? Can you not see there are gradients of all these terms, probably not, everything is black or white in your view of the world.
OKfine
"You can't even figure out what a christian, can you? How many times have you said catholics and mormons are not Christian?"
They aren't. And they will even agree with that (though their youth have started claiming otherwise for some reason.)
"If you cannot define your own lot, how could you possibly tell the difference between atheists, agnostics and deists?"
I think I DID just define my own lot.
"Can you not see there are gradients of all these terms, probably not, everything is black or white in your view of the world."
I know there are gradients of these things, but you can't honestly combine those terms. Can you be an "atheistic" Christian? Of course not. It's silly.
OKf, Topher has said in the past that he really doesn't like religion. So, he probably isn't too concerned with the details that identify religious sub-groupings.
Topher the "provoker"
You do not have to prove the fool by saying something like atheistic Christian, you know that is not what I meant. Just for a matter of interest how many Christians are there by your definition if you eliminate large groups tha say they are?
@Topher
I believe that it is possible to be an atheistic Christian.
One can seek to exemplify Christ the human's message without buying into the demi-god schtick.
Belief in the supernatural is not required to live a life of humility, charity, compassion and forgiveness.
Doc good point. Thomas Jefferson's condensed bible cut out the OT and all the magical BS to focus on teachings of Christ as a moral leader. You could say he was a Christian deist as he did not believe in a god that interfered in any way with human affairs.
OKfine
"Just for a matter of interest how many Christians are there by your definition if you eliminate large groups tha say they are?"
I've seen one poll say that more than 90 percent of Americans claim to be Christian. I've seen another that said it's more like 70 percent. But if what you are asking is how many do I think are true, saved, born-again Christians whose sins have been forgiven and will go to Heaven ... I've heard a very sorrowful 15 percent.
Doc Vestibule
" I believe that it is possible to be an atheistic Christian. One can seek to exemplify Christ the human's message without buying into the demi-god schtick."
No. If you don't believe in God or don't meet the Biblical standards of salvation you aren't a Christian. So while you might like some of Jesus' teachings, that doesn't make you a Christian. And if you call yourself that without salvation, you're a liar.
"Belief in the supernatural is not required to live a life of humility, charity, compassion and forgiveness."
I agree with that. But let's not forget which group is the largest adopters, which group is the largest builders of hospitals, which group gives the most to charity. It's Christians by a wide margin.
@Topher
Did you know that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people (from the time of Christ) have ever been 'anointed' with 'holy spirit' and have the heavenly calling? Only those 144,000 will ever be born again.
Of the 7 million baptized members of that sect of Christianity, only around 8-10,000 claim to be among that number.
But let me guess – their kilts are too colourful to be true Scotsmen...
He keeps, as they always do, trying to paint a lack of belief as an organized religion opposed to Christianity. He has faith in his definition of "Atheism" and wants to convert us all to his way of thinking. It's kinda cute, like a pit bull puppy.
Topher the "provoker"
Which begs the question, why do you not hit on that 75% of Christians that you believe are not worthy of heaven, why just agnostics and atheists? For example Scalia is catholic so I assume you could not support him. In order to be a Christian in your eyes must I believe every word of the bible to be true and that the earth is only 6000 years old.t his views
Doc Vestibule
"Did you know that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people (from the time of Christ) have ever been 'anointed' with 'holy spirit' and have the heavenly calling? Only those 144,000 will ever be born again."
Mormons have a very similar belief. According to them, once that number fills up, everyone else is just out of luck, even if you did repent and trust in Him. But both the Witnesses and Mormons worship a different Jesus from the Bible. They teach da.mnable heresies and are outside of orthodoxy.
"Of the 7 million baptized members of that sect of Christianity, only around 8-10,000 claim to be among that number."
Baptism doesn't save you, so I'm not sure I understand your point.
"But let me guess – their kilts are too colourful to be true Scotsmen..."
Call it that if you want to, but God gets to set the standard of whose sins are forgiven. Not man.
Topher the "provoker"
So how do I become a saved Christian like you? Believe every word in the bible, believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, admit I am a sinner and accept jesus as my saviour? Please define your idea of saved Christian.
Doc, you might believe it's possible to be an atheistic Christian but unfortunately that is neither logically nor theologically sound
Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)
Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today? Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities: he either speaks the truth or not. If he speaks the truth, he is God and the case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak the truth, then he is not God but a mere man. But a mere man who wants you to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either morally or intellectually.
Fortunately, the Church Fathers settled the question in the second century when they worked through the heresy of Arianism. You might look it up.
OKfine
"Which begs the question, why do you not hit on that 75% of Christians that you believe are not worthy of heaven, why just agnostics and atheists?"
Well, first, NONE of us are worthy of Heaven. That's why what Christ did for us is so exceedingly kind. Second, how do you know I don't? Not saved is not saved, no matter what you call yourself. That is why if you go to a church that doesn't preach the Gospel isn't much of a church. I'm sure there's many in my church who aren't saved. But I can't force them into it. All we can do is give them the information.
"For example Scalia is catholic so I assume you could not support him. In order to be a Christian in your eyes must I believe every word of the bible to be true and that the earth is only 6000 years old.t his views"
I do not support His Catholic views, no. Of course there are some things we'd agree on. No, you don't have to believe every word of the Bible and don't have to be a young earther. I happen to be on the affirmative of those things as you know. What you have to do to be saved is repent (that is, first agree with God that you've sinned, can't make up for it and thus need a Savior, and not just say you are sorry for those sins, but turn away from them) and trust Him to be who He said He was/is and that He could do what He claimed to be able to do. So you don't have to agree with everything in the Bible. For instance, I'm a Baptist. I disagree with Lutherans on Baptism. I say you should Baptize a new believer. They believe in pedo-Baptism. Since this is not an essential issue, a Lutheran and I are still brothers and I expect to enjoy Heaven with them some day. But I do have to warn those who are Christian but don't hold to the Bible's teachings ... you're basically calling God a liar. And that is very dangerous.
Also, have you not seen the discussions between myself and Bill? I like him very much, and I'm not saying Catholics can't be saved, but their church teaches heresies. And if you're staunchly Catholic you too might be in big trouble come judgment day.
For instance, I'm a Baptist
----
Even though you don't care for religion?
At the beginning of the 21st Century, 604 of 4,573 hospitals were religious.
Of those, most are mergers with public hospitals.
36% comes from Medicate, 12% from Medicaid, 31% from county money, 30% from financial investments and the remaining 5% from charitable donations.
The percentage of Church funding for Church-run hospitals comes to a grand total of 0.0015 percent.
Are those religious hospitals more charitable to their patients? Nope.
Less than 2% of their patients are charity cases as compared to 5% of secular public hospitals.
(source: Uttley, L. J, “No strings attached: Public funding of religiously-sponsored hospitals in the United States,” Mergerwatch)
The #1 Charity Organization in the US is the secular United Way.
BD
The one thing Topher and I agree on is that you are going to your hell, no matter how many times you hit the confessional and do penance, sad for you.
Doc- To be a Christian isn't just about living a morally "good" life in accordance with how Christ lived...in fact, I isn't even the primary requisite to be a true Christian.
Madtown
"Even though you don't care for religion?"
Correct. Religion is man's attempts to get to God. It's works-righteousness. Christianity says you can't work your way to God. Jesus Christ has already done all the work for you.
Correct. Religion is man's attempts to get to God
----–
I agree completely. Religion is a creation of man. It's just interesting that you follow it so closely, when you say things like this. But, next time you say anything that makes sense will be the first.
Doc
They try an pigeon hole atheist, agnostic and deist when we are as diverse as the Christian sects, they can't even agree with each other as who is actually a Christian too funny. My earlier prophecy came true the lesser Demon BD, showed up. I am patting myself on the back.
Mormons believe in the Celestial Kingdom and that the afterlife has various levels.
The LDS members, of course, get to the highest levels.
Without knowing the secret Masonic handshakes and passwords, you'll never get into Mormon Paradise!
But isn't it lovely that both you as a Baptist and Bill Deacon as a Catholic can agree that the overwhelming majority of people are doomed to an eternity of agony because they don't follow your particular interpretation of the Bibile?
You can even point your damning fingers at each other from your respective fiery pulpits!
Madtown
"I agree completely. Religion is a creation of man. It's just interesting that you follow it so closely, when you say things like this."
Christianity isn't a religion in the sense of all others. You can take every single religion in the world and lump them into one of two groups. Everything EXCEPT Christianity would go into one group that says if you do good works, pray real hard, go to church, etc., then hopefully you'll have done enough to get into Heaven. Christianity goes into a group alone because it says we don't do good, we do bad. The Bible says all of our good works are as a filthy menstrual cloth because we're already corrupt. There's nothing we can do to earn our way to Heaven. But God loved us anyway and so paid the penalty for us. That's why Christianity is not like any other "religion."
Topher, how does that make christianity better or more true than the other cults? Why do you belief the crap you do?
Christianity isn't a religion in the sense of all others.
----
Ok, whatever you say. I don't like fruit, but I enjoy an apple every day.
Topher,
"Everything EXCEPT Christianity would go into one group that says if you do good works, pray real hard, go to church, etc., then hopefully you'll have done enough to get into Heaven. . . Christianity goes into a group alone because it says we don't do good, we do bad."
God supposedly made us "bad". And you ACTUALLY think this is an endorsement for Christianity over other religions. Good deeds are meaningless.
Amazing! Incredible..
Observer
"God supposedly made us "bad". And you ACTUALLY think this is an endorsement for Christianity over other religions. Good deeds are meaningless."
God didn't make us "bad." He created Adam and Eve perfect. And yes I do endorse Christianity over other religions. God provided for our punishments to be forgiven. None of the others provide complete forgiveness of sin.
Amazing! Incredible..
And yes I do endorse Christianity over other religions.
-----
Even though, as you said above, christianity is not a religion. You better go to work, you've gotten yourself all twisted and confused again. Incidentally, if God created Adam and Eve perfect, then they never would have sinned in the first place. Perfect beings don't make mistakes, don't sin.
Madtown
"Incidentally, if God created Adam and Eve perfect, then they never would have sinned in the first place. Perfect beings don't make mistakes, don't sin."
Of course they could have sinned, and did. They were perfect but also had free will. God loves us. But to love Him back we had to have free will. You can't have love without free will.
Of course they could have sinned, and did.
---
Then they were not perfect.
Topher
"God didn't make us "bad." He created Adam and Eve perfect."
lol. Jesus was perfect too. Would he have committed the original sin?
You don't think things through very well. While there are lots of "bad" people in the world, there are loads of "good ones" too. Your constant trashing of good people is ignorant and thoughtless.
What kind of stupid god make a good universe that is so fragile that one reach of an arm and twist of the wrist causes the whole thing to go into some sort of spiritual nuclear meltdown and become "evil?"
Observer
"lol. Jesus was perfect too. Would he have committed the original sin?"
Straw man.
"You don't think things through very well. While there are lots of "bad" people in the world, there are loads of "good ones" too. Your constant trashing of good people is ignorant and thoughtless."
First, ad hominem. Second, people like to proclaim their goodness, but it won't do them any good on Judgment Day. God said there are none who are good. And if you try to tell Him how good you were, how much charity work you did, you'll be cast away. Jesus will say, Away from me, you who practice lawlessness! I never knew you! You know why? Because the glory is His for what He's already done.
Topher, you have no clue what you're doing, do you? Ad hominem?? really?? Strawman?? Really??
On a scale of 1 to10. I would rate this as 9.9 as the dumbest thread that Topher has ever posted and then he slips into the all so familiar ad hominem mode. Sad yet funny.
Topher
OKfine
"Just for a matter of interest how many Christians are there by your definition if you eliminate large groups tha say they are?"
I've seen one poll say that more than 90 percent of Americans claim to be Christian. I've seen another that said it's more like 70 percent. But if what you are asking is how many do I think are true, saved, born-again Christians whose sins have been forgiven and will go to Heaven......heard 15%
...................
Folks, Topher has a direct link to God. He knows who is and who isnt going to heaven.
bostontola
..... But that doesn't rule out some stealth god out there.
.
Ninja God!
How foolish, the OP.
There is no hate of for something that someone doesn't believe exists. Only annoyance with the proselytizing of the myth-follower.
Disquiet
poet
duet
secret
facet
rivet
reset
picket
forget
kismet
Hey ?!?!?
To my atheist friends ... Thank God you're wrong.
Under Blake's guidelines, you'd be "A Provoker".
Hi, Topher. What's shakin'?
Akira
I've been called a LOT worse. 😉
I'm good. How are you?
I'm doing well, thanks for asking.
You have no proof that I am wrong, therefore you are simply making empty claims. That is tantamount to lying. It's amazing how some christians think it's okay to lie if they can rationalize it. You must have no respect at all for your god.
Like I said, I believe in the Devil because I have seen his Food Cake.
Hey, Congrats on the shout-out Blake gave you.
Not to mention the things he does that don't bear mentioning: like deviling eggs.
That's just advertising, he delegates, they're really just Minioned Eggs
There is a parochialism that has apparently eluded Justice Scalia. He is 99% atheist. I am sure he does not believe in Brahma, Shiva, Allah, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac or Pachacamac.
The Judeo-Christian god is one of thousands mankind has created. He is not even a very well thought through one.
Read John 14:6
Try looking at the world outside your bible, if you have the courage.
It's interesting. The Old Testament uses a stick (fear, punishment, etc.). The New Testament offers a stick (hell), but also a carrot (heaven). You can also have a personal relationship with God. And now we see why Christianity has thrived while Judaism has not.
But Scalia believes in Satan too, so he is less atheist than some. Perhaps he believes in a dichotomy of good and evil. If so, must he, as a judge, accept necessary evil. Does he also sit on another court we don't know about that works for the common evil?
Christian tenets.
1. There are thousands of gods but I reject all but one even though I have no proof of the one I like.
2. If people that do not believe as I do they will suffer for eternity but I love them in some perverse way.
Christian tenets.
1. There are thousands of gods but I reject all but one even though I have no proof of the one I like.
2. If people that do not believe as I do they will suffer for eternity but I love them in some per verse way.
Christian tenets.
1. There are thousands of gods but I reject all but one even though I have no proof of the one I like.
2. If people that do not believe as I do they will suffer for eternity but I love them in some per verse way.
1. There are thousands of gods but I reject all but one even though I have no proof of the one I like.
2. If people that do not believe as I do they will suffer for eternity but I love them in some per verse way.
I was an atheist until Jesus saved me.
Those other names you listed didn't save me. So yea, I'm agnostic or in disbelief about their powers to help me.
What were you saved from, AE? I was saved from going over a waterfall when I was small, but that was by my dad.
I was saved from delusion.
In this age of me/self, it's more and more popular to be critical of people who know in their heart that something, bigger than themselves, exists. To me, belief in God as a higher power goes beyond faith and approaches common sense. Because I cannot fully explain it doesn't push me away from it. I'm typing on a computer and can communicate with people around the world in an instant. And our next closest "relatives" are still throwing pooh at each other and living in trees. That, along with multiple other examples, goes beyond faith – and approaches common sense – that intelligent design exists. Not believing in that takes way more faith than it does to bellieve. Not sure why that is so scary for people.
Oh bullsh.it. The degree to which we are genetically identical to the apes (about 98%) is powerful evidence of evolution.
That statistic is so decieving, and you know it. What "we are 98% identical to apes" means is that they have two eyes, we have two eyes. They have two arms, we have two arms, etc... That doesn't point to a common ancestor as many would have you believe, but instead it points to a common creator.
You may say that the genes of apes and humans are over 98% similar, so we must have come from apes. But then, the body of a jellyfish is over 95% water, so does that mean that the jellyfish came from water? A cloud is 100% water, and a watermelon is 98% water, so does that mean that watermelons are related to clouds?
If evolution were true, then the first "human" would have had to mate with an animal, and the genetic codes of different animals cannot intermingle. Animals ONLY mate within their own kind; it is impossible for a crocodile to mate with a duck, and it is impossible for a human to mate with an ape.
You obviously do not understand evolutionary theory. There are over 3 billion nucleotides in the human genome. 98.7% is identical to that of a chimpanzee. Water is a molecule. Water is present in animate and inanimate things. You are probably getting your talking points from Ray Comfort or something. God does not exist. There is no invisible sky daddy. You need to be self dependent and not codependent on imaginary friends. Its childish and pathetic. Seriously. Evolution is undeniable. Deal with it. Why do you think you have a tail bone if not for a vestigial remnant of our primate ancestors.
"You may say that the genes of apes and humans are over 98% similar, so we must have come from apes. But then, the body of a jellyfish is over 95% water, so does that mean that the jellyfish came from water? "
You are either joking or massively ignorant. DNA and water are more different than chalk and cheese. Ask your dad where "mules" come from, or what a zebroid or liger is. Really, finish high school before you try to lecture grownups on DNA. Do you not even watch CSI?
@Lawrence of Arabia,
"That statistic is so decieving, and you know it."
The corelation between genetic similarities and evolutionary development is very supportive of evolution, as are Human Chromosome-2 and ERVs.
"But then, the body of a jellyfish is over 95% water, so does that mean that the jellyfish came from water?"
If water were used as genetic controls and inhereted, then yes. Since that is not the case, then no.
"If evolution were true, then the first 'human' would have had to mate with an animal,..."
Individuals don't evolve, populations do. Therefore, there would be both male and females in the species to mate with each other.
Kevin,
Similarity in this case does not lend itself to a common ancestor. That is merely an assumption based on wishful thinking. It points to a common designer, not a common ancestor. We both look at the same evidence, but it's interpretation depends on what lenses we see the evidence with.
@Lawrence of Arabia – You absolutely do need to spend a few minutes reading about evolution because it appears that you have very little understanding, and that's somewhat sad given the number of web sites that are at our fingertips. I dare say it's lazy.
Essentially, 98% of the genetic code, ACGT, lines up. The same genetic blue print that is used for the fundamental body structure and chemistry of the apes is identical in every way to that of the human being.
You demonstrate the typical ignorance of the creationist in stating " If evolution were true, then the first "human" would have had to mate with an animal, and the genetic codes of different animals cannot intermingle. Animals ONLY mate within their own kind; it is impossible for a crocodile to mate with a duck, and it is impossible for a human to mate with an ape."
No evolutionary biologist inthe world thinks that. At least argue what evolutionists say, not what you WISH they would say.
Colin, The interesting question is not genomic but statistical. We all agree that the genomic sequence of a lot of different species are incredibly similar, even that of Yeast and humans, but if we apply our current understanding of mutation rate of all these genomic codes and try to back into the age of the universe. Evolution timetable is way too short! But the geo-physicists are pretty precise as to the date of the big bang and the age of the universe. So how can the mutation rate that would allow for the generation of the species suggest a much older universe than the physicist suggest? Something must have accelerated single and multicellular organisms. Maybe that something was some unobservable mutational mechanism that no longer exists, or maybe it was God.
Or maybe it was the cookie monster.
Why would god wait around 13.72 billion years for life to happen.
Why would god allow humans to suffer for 100,000 years?
These are the logical question that you fail to address.
Lucy: Nearly all experts agree that Lucy was just a 3-foot tall chimpanzee
Heidelberg Man: built up from a jawbone that was conceded by many to be quite human
Nebraska Man: Scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig
Piltdown Man: The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape
Peking Man: Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared
Neanderthal Man: At the International Congree of Zoology (1958), Dr. A.J.E. Cave said that his examination showed it to be no different than modern man
New Guinea Man: Dates way back to 1970. This species has been found in the region just north of Australia
Cromagnon Man: One of the earliest and best established fossils are at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man... So what's the difference?
Modern Man: This genius thinks we came from a monkey...
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." Romans 1:22
Lucy – oh bullsh.it. You just pulled that off some crazy "talking snake" website. I have never heard of many of the other "frauds" yo urefer to.
I would be interested to know how you explain the rich, diverse, temporally consistent and vast array of hominid fossils we have acquired over the last170 years. We have found thousands upon thousands of hominid fossils in Ethiopia, Chad, Tanzania, South Africa, Croatia, Isreal, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Moldovia, the Ukraine, Java, China, the Phillipines, Iraq, Pakistan and Iran. They tell an interesting tale and show the gradual evolution in "humanness" including bipedalism, tool use, and brain capacity.
The last common ancestor of man and chimpanzees lived about 6 million years ago in Africa. Around that time, there was a branching in the evolution of the species and any intermediate species between this last common ancestor and modern man (Ho.mo sapiens) is called a hominid.
A number of different species of hominids have been identified. Beginning, roughly with the oldest to the newest, these are –
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Australopithecus afarenses
Australopithecus africanus
Ho.mo habilus
Ho.mo ergaster
Ho.mo erectus
Ho.mo heidelbergensis
Ho.mo neanderthalis (Neanderthal man)
Ho.mo foresiensis
And us, Ho.mo sapiens.
The ages of the respective fossils suggest that our immediate ancestor was Ho.mo Erectus and that Ho.mo heidelbergensis, Ho.mo neanderthalis (Neanderthal man) and Ho.mo floresiensis all went extinct. That is to say, they were not in our lineage, they were our “cousins” although some interbreeding may have occurred.
The above is an over-simplification, omits many other intermediate species and is not without controversy in some areas, but is a useful yardstick to gauge how humans evolved from the last common ancestor we shared with the great apes.
Amen to that scripture!
And that's why the scientific community engages in peer review.
Before the advent of instant, global communication, peer review took much longer to accomplish, but it was done.
If the methodology of a given scientist is found to be flawed, the conclusions drawn from said methodology are rejected.
In science, there are no divine, unquestionable, immutable, dogmatic tenets.
There are only hypotheses to be tested.
Once a hypothesis has been tested and verified to be accurate by multiple groups of detached researchers, it becomes a theory that can be expanded and built upon.
That's interesting. You mean you believe in your heart, because knowing requires proof.
That's fine. I believe... although to "know" is a personal attribute that doesn't require proof. Really semantics.
Faith is defined as belief without evidence, so please explain how it takes faith not to believe. Why do you believe we need a 'superior designer' of sorts to make everything possible?
Thanks for your question – nice to see one that isn't bitter or demeaning. It seems that evidence is subjective to some degree and I guess someone could argue that this whole debate about God or no God can't be fully proven or disproven. If I accept that, then I look to what seems to make the most sense. When I consider what we are all able to do, think, consider, create, etc... I just can't grasp that it's just chance or science alone explains how much we can do without something/someone who was the designer. I know that seems irrational to people...I sometimes wonder myself. But, that thought of "there can't be somebody in charge of all this" is always greatly outweighted by the appreciation and thought of "this is too amazing not to be designed by someone". Hope that makes some sense.
I believe that a lot, if not most things are bigger than myself. I'm just another member of a species of primates on a relatively obscure planet in a relatively obscure galaxy.
I certainly am not so egocentric as to believe that some being that is capable of creating the universe has made me the center of his existence, watching me 24/7 to make sure I follow the rules set down by a specific middle eastern tribe. I certainly don't think that I am so special that I will get to live forever in paradise if I just tell this omnipotent being that I like him best. I leave that sort of vanity to the christians.
Nothing about it is scary. What is scary is, people that use technology, created by geniuses at CERN, thinking that they ARE smarter than scientists that study these things EVERY DAY. Yet others that never dwell upon the subject of EVOLUTION for this example, suddenly think THEY ARE SMARTER than the geniuses that research this as a labor of love, not the CORPORATE GREED OF MONEY. Listen to scientists on a Sunday instead of going to church, you might learn something.
Of course evolution exists to a degree and I thank God for it. Get some joy brother!!!!
God did not invent the internet. Al Gore did.
Actually, Gore pushed a bill that got the internet going over satellites and fiber-optic cables. Remember dial-up? We'd still have it without that bill. No Netflix or iPhone. At the time it didn't seem that important and it looked like a money grab by phone companies, so Gore's backing made a difference. Meanwhile his wife was trying to get warning labels on Frank Zappa albums.
DARPA might also have had some input.
For the LAST TIME people. The INTERNET WAS CREATED BY PEOPLE AT CERN! Look it up. You are SO SMUG with your LAME, UNORIGINAL comments that you reveal an intellectually unreachable possibility. People like you are possibly so arrogant that you are unable to learn anything new unless you benefit from it directly. Knowledge for knowledge sake, WHO CARES, RIGHT?
Actually, it was a DARPA project, ARPANET, that gave rise to the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
That lie about Al Gore was created by the media. He never made that claim. It's funny, a few years into the Bush administration there was an article in Vanity Fair (I believe) reporting on how much the same reporters who perpetuated that lie about Gore were really, really regretting it.
To me, being afraid of the dark goes beyond faith and approaches common sense...
... or natural instinct from being eaten by predators in our prehistoric past.
What? No way, it's the Boogie Man, that's the only reason to be afraid of the dark...!!! It makes so much sense my head hurts! Arrgh why do you taunt me so Boogie Man! Everytime I open the closet you vanish!! But I know you're there! I can just feel it!!
The story is that God created millions of different animals. He had no problem making unique animals like elephants and giraffes, but he apparently had run low on new ideas when he made his greatest creature, man, and so basically did some tweaking to his model of an ape and added a bigger brain.
and this hateful, silly man is a Supreme! The mind boggles
You know, I tend to believe there is truth to that as well. If the Old Testament could be removed from the Bible, as well as the supernatural stuff about Jesus, the philosophical teachings of Jesus could have some value. At least that's what Thomas Jefferson believed. Thomas Paine, on the other hand saw the entire Bible as as fiction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JFI6m6Icav4
Is that Kermit THE Frog?
This is a good movie right here. I am watching it, not done yet, but so far it is very good. I think even if you are a christian, atheist, or whatever, if you genuinely want to learn what the real mythologies say, and not the bullcrap that zeitgeist spews, this is very informative and accurate in regards to mythology / ancient religious culture.
Jesus is NOT a MYTH!!!![youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88GTUXvp-50 version=3&w=640&h=390]
Jesus is a myth.
Myth? Probably not. My guess is that he was as real as you or me. Son of God? Hmm, well this is the way I look at it...What else are you going to tell your new husband and community when you get pregnant by someone NOT your husband in a time when you would get stoned to DEATH for finding yourself pregnant by someone who is NOT your husband.....She gets to live AND get some pretty cool baby shower gifts to boot.
LOL! I hope you realize that this is what the occult believes and the parallels it draws are not even true to the mythologies. The best example being the false narrative of Horus as Horus is never ressurected in egyptian mythology, never has disciples, and his mother Isis was certainly no virgin. Also the zeitgeist creator even noted that his book references for his religious views all come from the well known occult/satanic writers of the late 1800s and early 1900s such as Alice Bailey and H P Blavatsky. It is certainly no secret that zeitgeist was put out as an occultist propaganda piece, and perhaps their most successful one in decieving people at that.
Props for the classic conspiracy though!
Sometimes, if you want someone to at least consider something that is different, you have to put a sign out front that says, "free money inside!" There are some interesting claims made, but I would look to an historian, who did not have skin in the game, for a refutation.
Well you're in luck my friend! A few posts above this one Commentator Jon has graciously provided us with a movie which includes refutations of zeitgeist by christian, atheist, and secular scholars. It also gives the true biblical narratives, the true mythological narratives as the ancient pagans knew them, and of course does a great job exposing zeitgeist as a fraud.
Then again you could have just looked at Zeitgeist Addendum's list of book refernces and realized that they are all famous (or infamous) occult/satanist writers and come to that conclusion faster. But hey, I guess a movie is much more exciting to watch.
Actually, I knew that before posting. The point is, someone will never consider something different or new if the only surround themselves with are people and things that tell them what they already know. "Free money inside!" gets someone out of that comfortable surrounding.
Highly intellegent people are surprised that highly intellegent people don't believe in a intellegent higher power. If you belive there could be life on another planet, why not a lifeform that is more intellegent that created us? If you are an intellectual, please consider, even if to just understand the other point of view reading either Signature in the Cell or Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyers or any book by Physicist Gerald Schroeder, or the Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretences by David Berlinksi
Gosh, I'll field that one. We have no evidence of God. But we do have evidence of life on this earth. We do have evidence of billions of planets in just our galaxy (statistical), therefore it's reasonable to believe that there may be life on other planets, but most likely primitive, just as our current existence is but a mere fraction of the primitive life that has inhabited this planet.
" If you are an intellectual, please consider" Sorry fella, but generally part of being an "intellectual" involves not being easily-fooled or manipulated. I know these books seem convincing to YOU, but . . .
I have a Ph.D. from Yale in Cell Bio, a MS from University California San Fransisco and I'm published in numerous scienfic journals. I higly respect those books and their authors, but obviously you dismiss me has some religious crack pot. Open your mind read, some compelling articles.
Instead of asking us to open our minds, how about you giving us the thought process by which you reach a conclusion that seems to be COMPLETELY without merit.
What do you base your belief in?
Is it fear (i.e. fear of death, fear of hell, etc.), guilt, evidence, ignorance or just because you want to?
Additionally, how do you reconcile Biology with the bible?
Please enlighten us.
In that case, you should do more study of Raelian theology.
They beleive that an ancient alien race seeded the universe with the building blocks of life.
They are basically the only allies that Creationists have in the battle to have "alternative theories" to evolution taught in schools.
Naturalism, Creationism or Raelianism – Teach the Controversy!
"If you belive (sic) there could be life on another planet, why not a lifeform that is more intellegent (sic) that created us?"
Even if it were the case (ignoring the infinite regress problem), it does not justify the sorts of acts committed in his name, nor does his mere existence make him the boss of a free person. It's no coincidence that terms for god are slopping over with royalist and slave/master terminology, because, in all honesty, the mindset of the believer is that of a slave who is not only happy with enslavement, but can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be, imagines that to be the natural state. Pardon me if I don't want to toss hundreds of years of Enlightenment philosophy and the decline of divine right conceptions out the window.
I find religion fascinating. I believe religion is a meme and to some extent an extended phenotype in a similar way that a dam building is an extended phenotype to a beaver. We could never have transitioned from animal to human without it. We are weak compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. We are slow and without natural weapons. We could never have survived as a species without collective groups and compassion. This compassion and need for collective governance turned into religion. Do we need this still today? I think that a percentage of educated and intelligent people can get by without it but for the masses over all I think we do still need it. It is like Conrad wrote in “Heart of Darkness” as well as many of the stories we get from war after war. If you remove the societal restraints religion provides, humans tend to revert back to the dispassionate self-centered animal. Religion is fading in our society and Me First is beginning to be the rule.
A very good comment. Also props for the Heart of Darkness reference. A good book indeed!
"The horror! The horror!" - Kurtz.
Au Contraire!!
Recognizing the flaws, follies and frauds in the foundations of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, the "bowers", kneelers" and "pew peasants" are converging these religions into some simple rules of life. (e.g. Do NO Harm). No koran, bible, clerics, nuns, monks, imams, evangelicals, ayatollahs, rabbis, professors of religion or priests needed or desired.
Ditto for houses of "worthless worship" aka mosques, churches, basilicas, cathedrals, temples and synagogues.
Yes, maybe. But you have to admit it is fun to take a pro-religion stance using evolution as an argument. Irritates everybody.
Scalia's delusional beliefs are evidence that smart people can believe in stupid things.
So, the net out is that one of the highest regarded judicial minds in the USA believes in late Bronze Age Jewish mythology.
Wow, just wow!
There is a list of over 700 scientists that say that Darwinian evolution couldn't have possibly happened. "The Case for a Creator"
But how many of them are named Steve?
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
No, God doesn't speak to me audibly.
@Robert Brown,
Assuming this is related to an earlier question and page, then my point stands, He's free to speak to me directly.
Get out ME II troll this isn't Scalia's hell.
Apparently, I've attracted a following.
I'm flattered, but no thanks...
You've got nothing to say. Your just masturbating through your keyboard.
ME II, my, "your masturbating through your keyboard," comment is for you, to dream on. Poser.
Well GC, clearly late Bronze Age Jewish mythology is true then.
Strobel is misleading about his experts' qualifications. While spending paragraphs touting each of his interviewees' "doctorate-level" educations, he fails to point out that most of them do not have doctorates in the fields dealing with the issues on which they were interviewed. Rather, most of them have doctorates in philosophy or theology, and perhaps undergraduate degrees in a related science.
And how many of these scientists (note: Citing a reference would be helpful) are biologists?
According to Dr. Greg Graffin's PHD thesis , 83.89% of the world's prominent biologists from 22 countries are irreligious; 87.92% reject life after death; and 77.85% affirm philosophical naturalism as their world-view. Only 1.3% of the participants have a traditionally theistic world-view; an additional 3.3% blend theism with naturalism, resulting in the lowest frequency of theistic belief ever reported among a group of scientists, 4.6%.
Just as I wouldn't consult a biologist about quantum physics, I wouldn't go to a specialist in a field other than biology for an opinion about the development of life.
Scalia's father was the NY state head of the FASCIST PARTY during Mussolini's lifetime! What does that tell you? Glenn Beck, another GOP party screecher, says MUSLIMS are Satan worshippers and that Islam is the Devil. Sadly, this TERRIBLE person, Scalia, will be on a court that decides whether or not an individual can contribute UNLIMITED MONEY to campaigns. Just like he voted that a CORPORATION can have unlimited contributions, CITIZENS UNITED, he will again vote that an individual can do the same. Who says that money can corrupt politics? Not the son of the former HEAD of the FASCIST PARTY in NY STATE, Antonin Scalia. Which types of people are possibly the Devil? He has a MIRROR RIGHT? I was thinking more along the lines of Dick Cheney or the Koch brothers. Benjamin Netanyahu?
Too many fallacies, to little time.
...too little time.
Lightweight. ME II is a LIGHTWEIGHT ii-GET IT. ME II apparently doesn't.
@danewrony,
"Lightweight. ME II is a LIGHTWEIGHT ii-GET IT. ME II apparently doesn't."
Assuming this was meant for the post below, you are aware that name-calling is just another form of an Ad Hominem fallacy, right?
What fallacy? Check Scalia's father's life history. I watched Glenn Beck, OUT OF TOTAL DISMAY, do an hour about the Bible's devil worshippers and the signs of WHO THEY ARE. You don't want me, lightweight.
Ad Hominem, guilt by association, Godwin's law, etc,. etc., etc.
Dane...do you even know what a fallacy is?
Who else believes in Satan? Obama, Biden, 50+% of Congress and 67 % of the general population.
They are dopes for that too, but they don't attach a political persuasion to it. This moron condemns all who don't believe, to an afterlife in HELL. Nice to tell an Asian child that, "guess what little boy, in America there are people who believe that if you don't believe what they do, you go to a place where, when you die you are FOREVER TORMENTED and TORTURED." Sounds to me like the son of a fascist.
Reality #2,
Good. Now please tell the tens of millions of mostly rightwingers that they are idiots for thinking that President Obama is a Muslim.
"You know, it is curious," Scalia answered. "In the Gospels, the devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore. ... It’s because he’s smart."
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court jurist chose a bad piece of scripture to cite to support his Bronze Age superst.ition. The "legion" of demons that Jesus exorcised from the crazy man and sent into the 2,000 pigs that then herd into the sea, is actually an allegorical reference to the Roman legion then occupying Jerusalem. After the Romans had put down the uprising that resulted in the destruction of the Temple, they left a legion of 2,000 men to occupy the city and the symbol of this legion was the pig. This is one of the literary devices that enables biblical scholars to date-stamp MArk to circa 73 CE.
Interesting info, Colin. Thanks.
Conservative bible scholars place it at 63, but what is 10 years give or take?
Well, the problem with a pre 73 date is the references to the destruction of the Temple. Dating Mark to pre 73 AD would be like dating an article that refers to tthe destruction of the World Trade Centre to before September 11, 2001.
The greatest lie satan told you was that he doesn't exist, he also told you God doesn't exist.
Wrong. A lot of people decided that God doesn't exist because they read the Bible.
Lol that's not the greatest lie Satan ever told. That's not even in the Bible, that's just new age propaganda.
Colin, that is the more ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Please post how many scholars agree with that crazy comment. Just cause you write it doesn't make it true.
GC,
Read here:
http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/x_fretensis.html
The Legion's symbol was a boar (pig).
Read the link, but don't know any literature (religious or non-religious) scholar that that would agree with this story and say that Jesus was trying to tell some cryptic story about the Roman Legions.
GC,
Some men by the names of Mark and Matthew (or whatever their names really were) wrote that story... perhaps one even taking it from the other. Jesus never wrote a single word. I know of no verified report of the day of 2,000 pigs jumping off of a cliff anywhere... and even if some variation of Mad Cow Disease overtook a herd somewhere, sometime, attributing it to spiritual demons is primitive, unknowledgeable fantasy meanderings.
I don't know who you consider a "scholar", but here's one view for starters:
https://bible.org/seriespage/demons-and-pigs-matthew-828-34
GC,
Looks like I grabbed the wrong link there, sorry.
Try this one (with a slightly different take on it, but also non-supernatural) :
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Swine.htm
The Romans used pigs in battle all the time! Haven't you ever heard the idiom "war pig"?
The Siege of Megara in 266 BC was won by the Romans after they sent a herd of flaming pigs into the offending army's horde of elephants.
GC means generally clueless
Austin – rude, but funny. If you are as smart as you are cleaver, and even if it is to confirm how clueless I am, despite my Ph.D. from Yale, I challenge you to consider reading at least one book from Stephen Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt" or "Signature of the Cell" best, GC (God Confident)
Wait, are you saying that you believe that evolution is not a fact?
I henceforth, DO NOT BELIEVE YOU ARE A GRADUATE IN BIOLOGY FROM YALE.
Is Mark 5: 1-20 (two possessed men, demons and pigs) even historical? Based on the studies of many contemporary NT scholars, it is not. For example, see Professor Ludemann's an-alysis in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, pp. 34-35 "The historic value of the narrative is nil......". Also, see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb228.html.
Sorry I have a hard to take that blog entry serious, compared to the volumes of literature experts. Maybe just consider over the weekend brew yourself your favorite cup of coffee and sit down and read the entire book of Matthew.
Only for the those interested in a religious update:
1. origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482
“New Torah For Modern Minds
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment. “
prob•a•bly
Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
earlychristianwritings.com/
For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".
Current RCC problems:
Pedophiliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!
2 b., Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).
Current problems:
Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,
3. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the ma-ssacre in Mumbai, the as-sas-sinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Ft. Hood follower of the koran, the Filipino “koranics”and the Boston Marthon bombers.
And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.
Current crises:
The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.
4. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) – "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."
Current problems:
The caste system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence.
5. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"
Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circu-mstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.
Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.
Then, apply the Five F rule: "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations". And finally there will be religious peace and religious awareness in the world!!!!!
It continues to surprise me how highly intelligent, analytical minded people deeply believe in god and all the trappings that go with it. I work with a brilliant engineer that has solved the toughest problems that stymied many others. I have a lot of respect for this person. One day we were shooting the sh t after work and the discussion went to religion. This person is Mormon. After explaining it's tenets, I was bewildered. I still fully respect this person, and I'm amazed how the same brain that solves tough problems in the real world believes fantasy is part of that real world.
compartmentalization: the logic centers of his mind are kept seperate from the religious centers of his mind.
it's like their being two of that person inside the same body.
Agreed. My good friend is a smart nurse whose husband is a doctor and brother is a renowned surgeon. But politics, I wonder how she became so stupid. Look at the NEUROSURGEON the GOP trotted out for about 2 weeks, HE WAS BLACK, until he started making STUPID PUBLIC COMMENTS he was celebrated. I haven't heard from him lately. But his skin was so useful.
Highly intellegent people are surprised that highly intellegent people like yourself don't believe in a intellegent higher power. If you belive there could be life on another planet, why not a lifeform that is more intellegent that you and may have even created you? If you are indeed an intellectual, you must be an avid reader, even if to just understand the other point of view consider reading either Signature in the Cell or Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyers or any book by Physicist Gerald Schroeder, or the Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretences by David Berlinksi
"intellegent" ? Aaaaaahahahahahahahaha!
Yes, and he made that error not once, not twice, but three times... and proceeded to post it again a few minutes later!
That is a funny typo I have to admit.
" If you are indeed an intellectual, you must be an avid reader, " I am indeed, and writer, and I also have excellent critical thinking skills( I can correctly spell 'intelligent,' for example). But I don't bother to read religious tracts. Sorry.
If it is some religious BS track, what's the harm in reading it? Read so you can dismiss it, point by point. But maybe you are afraid it might make you question your dogma? Some of the greatest scientist today believe, Franics Collins is probably the most notible, but I too am a scienist, have a Ph.D. from Yale, and it was the more I learned about the complexity of the human body that made me embrace the notion of a creator.