home
RSS
October 15th, 2013
09:42 AM ET

Malaysian court says Christian paper can't use 'Allah'

(CNN) - A Malaysian court ruled Monday that a Christian newspaper could not use "Allah" to refer to God. Ram Ramgopal reports

MORE ON CNN: Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (242 Responses)
  1. Apple Bush

    Allah people don't like god very much just like allah people don't like spinach.

    October 15, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
  2. Alias

    can't use the word? Fine.
    instead, use a picture of Mohamed.

    October 15, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • Joey

      That should go over pretty well.

      October 15, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
      • Apple Bush

        Allah people don't like to see MoMo's face.

        October 15, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
  3. Portland tony

    Apparently the court is messing around with theology they know nothing about. God is God, no matter what word(s) are used to define.God is a supernatural being worshipped by people
    and is known by folks as: Absolute Being, All Knowing, All Powerful, ALLAH, Almighty, Creator, Divine Being, Father, GOD, Holy Spirit, Infinite Spirit, Jah, Jehovah, King of Kings, Lord, Maker, Yahweh, daemon, deity, demigod, demon, divinity, holiness, idol, master, numen, omnipotent, power, prime mover, providence, soul, spirit, totem, tutelary, universal life force, world spirit So what's their point?

    October 15, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • Sir Poopington

      Their "point", as you so quaintly put it, is a stupid and overbearing one: to create a Muslim theocracy where there is no rule of law but only rule of Sharia arbitrary nonsense – where only Muslims are protected by their own arbitrary rules and everyone else is not allowed except by submitting to Sharia (randomly interpreted) "law".
      They have already done this in other countries. Muslims hate the rule of law and always seek to subvert and destroy it.
      Their religion is a religion of hate and violence, not peace. There is only peace for their slaves and each other, not non-Muslims who are to be killed or enslaved. There is no middle ground, no "moderates" in Islam.
      Anyone who seeks to escape their insane religion is killed wherever possible. There is no "freedom of religion" with them.
      Making idiotic proclamations like this one is just part of tearing down the laws around them. The point, as it were.

      October 15, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
  4. Jumpin' Jupiter

    I have almost completely eradicated the use of that blasphemous epithet, "By Jove!" - there is hope.

    October 15, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • Sir Poopington

      By Jove, I do believe you are wrong! Someone wrong on the internet again, I say! By Jove, you all suck!

      October 15, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
  5. bostontola

    I thought Allah was just the Arabic word for God, used in that part of the world in the same way we use God. If so, how can that word reasonably be restricted? I guess if you have a state religion with despotic leadership, it's easy.

    October 15, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Much like the English word "God" – when used in their language, it's not merely the generic name for a deity, it's the name for the Muslim deity. Same goes with English – "god" as in, "Roman gods" is a generic term, but when capitalized, "God" generally really refers to the Christian God. Not the Jewish one (they don't even think it's right to write "God", and use Jehovah), nor the Muslim one, nor the Hindu ones.

      October 15, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
  6. Reality # 2

    Dear Citizens of Malaysia,

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

    The Five Steps To Deprogram 1400 Years of Islamic Myths:

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

    Are you ready?

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

    The First Five of the 77 Branches:

    "1. Belief in Allah"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    October 15, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      From Google Translate – the above in Malay, the official language of Malaysia

      Dari kajian Armstrong, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, Richardson dan Bayhaqi ----–

      Lima Langkah Untuk Deprogram 1400 Tahun Mitos Islam:

      ( Langkah-langkah mengambil masa kurang daripada dua minit untuk selesai – hanya menakjubkan , dua minit untuk membawa keamanan dan rasional kepada lebih satu bilion jiwa hilang – ternilai !)

      Adakah anda bersedia?

      Menggunakan " 77 Cawangan Islam" iman " koleksi yang disusun oleh Imam Bayhaqi sebagai t-itik permulaan. Di dalamnya, beliau menjelaskan kemuliaan penting yang mencerminkan benar" kepercayaan "( iman ) melalui ayat-ayat al-Quran yang berkaitan dan kata-kata Nabi Muhammad saw ." iaitu ringkasan bagus kepercayaan Al-Quran dan Islam.

      Lima Pertama 77 Cawangan :

      "1. Beriman kepada Allah "

      aka sebagai Tuhan, Yahweh, Zeus, Yehovah, alam semula jadi, dan lain-lain perlu ditambah kepada neuron diri pembersihan anda .

      " Untuk percaya segala sesuatu yang lain daripada Allah adalah tidak wujud 2. . Selepas itu, Allah Yang Maha Besar menciptakan perkara-perkara ini dan kemudiannya mereka wujud. "

      Evolusi dan Big Bang atau " Gi -b G- menangkap " (apabila semesta bermula untuk mengitar semula ) adalah lebih munasabah dan " Akas " untuk Allah perlu dimasukkan jika anda terus menjadi " crea – tionist ".

      "3. Untuk mempercayai kewujudan malaikat. "

      Satu perkara utama untuk pembersihan neuron. Angels / de- vils adalah ciptaan mitos tamadun purba, contohnya Hitt – BSC , untuk menjelaskan / menentukan kejadian semula jadi, hubungan dengan tuhan-tuhan mereka , burung yang besar, tiba-tiba angin , pelindung pada malam-malam gelap, dan lain-lain Tidak " thingies wingy cantik / ug -ly " pernah melawat atau bercakap dengan Muhammad, Isa, Maryam atau Yusuf atau Joe Smith. Hari ini kita akan mengklasifikasikan malaikat sebagai f- airies dan " timah ker menjadi- JTB ". Moden de- vils dikelaskan sebagai de- mons de- laksanakan .

      "Untuk percaya bahawa semua buku-buku syurga yang telah dihantar kepada nabi yang berbeza adalah benar 4. . Walau bagaimanapun, selain daripada al-Quran, buku-buku lain adalah tidak sah lagi."

      Satu lagi perkara utama untuk memadam. Tiada buku yang ditulis dalam keadaan semangat Syurga ( jika ada) hanya kerana tidak ada malaikat untuk menulis / menerbitkan / mengedarkan mereka. Al-Quran, OT , NT dan lain-lain adalah semata-mata buku yang ditulis oleh manusia untuk manusia.

      Nabi dicipta oleh penulis purba biasanya untuk memastikan orang ramai un- berpendidikan dalam talian. Hari ini kita memanggil mereka juruwang untuk lagu.

      Ramalan juga invali – bertarikh oleh semula jadi / Tuhan / Allah hadiah Free Will dan Masa Depan.

      "5. Untuk percaya bahawa semua nabi adalah benar. Walau bagaimanapun, kita diperintahkan untuk mengikuti Nabi Muhammad ( selawat dan salam
      saw ) sahaja . "

      Mohammed berkhidmat selama tiga puluh hari " berpuasa " ( legenda Ramadan ) di dalam gua panas sebelum hubungan pertama dengan Allah aka Tuhan dan lain-lain melalui " thingy cukup wingy ". Akal menuntut penghapusan neuron of # 5. # 5 juga merupakan sumber utama Islam vi- olence iaitu berpaling Muhammad " cepat, yang didorong oleh kebuluran" hallu – cinations menjadi realiti dahsyat untuk orang-orang kafir .

      Berjalan ini Lima Langkah dan kami menjamin pemulihan yang lengkap dari cara Islam anda !

      Langkah-langkah yang serupa boleh didapati di atas permintaan anda untuk deprogramming mitos Kristian, Yahudi , Buddha , Hindu dan Paganisme ..

      October 15, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
      • Susan StoHelit

        I got through a little – unless Google translate works magic, it's not going to be any better in Malasian than it is in English.

        October 15, 2013 at 9:34 pm |
  7. JonathanL

    If there is only one God this is just petty. No one even knows for sure. From a logical perspective, in their minds, and this goes back to their cultural origins, there may be many gods. Prior to Muhammed, they were Pagans initially worshipping many statue gods. They were jealous of the Jews and Christians during the second half of the first millenium because they seemed to be more established and organized. They were looked down upon and needed their own religion, one that was more in line with their barbaric traditions too since the concept of love and turning the other cheek was not at all palatable to the fractious male dominated tribes of pagan warriors. Then along comes a self proclaimed prophet among them (and they had to believe him because he was a powerful warrior prince of influence) who encouraged polygamy, allowed them to beat their wives, marry 9 year olds, and insisted that the best way to kill someone is by chopping off their head. Perfect! They don't even have to change the way they live! What is easier than the 'STATUS QUO'? But even though they try to claim Islam is founded on the Judeo Christian scriptures, it fundamentally contradicts the tenets at the heart of Chritianity in many obvious ways, and ignores clear warnings and primary laws. They invented new laws, a new prophet, and it is apparent now they think they even have developed a new God. "My God (AllaH?) isn't your God." "You can't have him" "NYAH NYAH". This is just more religion at its petty childish worst. If the Judeo CHristian God isn't Allah, then doesn't it necessarily follow that Allah isn't God? But since all of this is in their own imaginations to start with I have to them sort it out. We observers are watching and can only hope they come to a tolerant understanding and do not make this another excuse to satisfy their primitive blood lust and start killing each other merely because they haven't yet learned how to disagree gracefully.

    October 15, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • Alias

      A very similar story could be told about the ancient jews.

      October 15, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
  8. adamis88

    Do we even have christian newspaper in MALAYSIA ?

    October 15, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • Rover

      Sad that such religion-tainted newspapers exist anywhere.

      October 15, 2013 at 11:49 am |
      • Topher

        What's sad about it?

        October 15, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
        • Alias

          the sad would be apparent if it was a religion you didn't believe in.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
  9. Rover

    Hey, Malaysian court members:
    Allah doesn't exist and religion is stupid.
    Allah doesn't exist and religion is stupid.
    Allah doesn't exist and religion is stupid.
    Got it yet?

    October 15, 2013 at 11:46 am |
  10. Dyslexic doG

    so can I write "Tooth Fairy" when I really want to say "Santa Claus"?

    October 15, 2013 at 11:14 am |
  11. AverageJoe76

    ..... Ummm.... Thank you, Tammy? ....for that .... thing you just typed..

    October 15, 2013 at 11:14 am |
  12. Colin

    Ah yes, religion, allowing the stupid to feel important and the trivial to become important for 2,500 years.

    October 15, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      How smart can you be though if you've remained unimportant for all that time?

      October 15, 2013 at 11:09 am |
      • Alias

        Ok Bill,
        where does your bible say amart people should strive to be important?
        Or is it just your own stupid opinion?

        October 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • Alias

      not trivial in a theocracy.
      god knows we have had enough of those throughout history.

      October 15, 2013 at 11:25 am |
  13. Roger that

    No this isn't a passage from a Harry Potter book; this is really happening in the 21st century.

    October 15, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • Roger that

      They should use "You-Know-Who" or "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named".

      October 15, 2013 at 11:06 am |
      • Tammy

        Oh – the more syllables, the better when He is talking to me, lips pressed against one of those special places.

        October 15, 2013 at 11:14 am |
  14. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    Religion – dividing people since the bronze age*.

    * and maybe even before that.

    October 15, 2013 at 10:58 am |
  15. WhatTheHeck

    So what the heck is an Allah if it is not God? Some figment of imagination?

    October 15, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • Rover

      Every god is a figment of human imagination. A sad byproduct of an otherwise very valuable evolutionary result.

      October 15, 2013 at 11:48 am |
  16. Topher

    Blasphemy.

    October 15, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • Topher

      This was in reply to a post that got deleted.

      October 15, 2013 at 10:50 am |
      • Alias

        That doen't make it any less stupid.
        Your religion's practices are blasphemy to others.

        October 15, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Of all the crimes made up by man throughout history, "blasphemy" and "heresy" are the most ridiculous.
      At least people in North America no longer get executed for it....

      October 15, 2013 at 11:00 am |
      • Colin

        Always wondered whether mast.urbation or blasphemy is the best definition of a victimless crime. I certainly prefer the former.

        October 15, 2013 at 11:09 am |
      • Topher

        "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Exodus 20:7

        October 15, 2013 at 11:13 am |
        • Joey

          Well it's a good thing the Christian version of god doesn't exist then, Topher.

          October 15, 2013 at 11:21 am |
        • Topher

          Or it's REALLY bad news for you. Though this same God provided a pardon for your sin. So you can't really complain.

          October 15, 2013 at 11:28 am |
        • Joey

          I have nothing to worry about.

          October 15, 2013 at 11:42 am |
        • Topher

          That's fine. You've been warned. My hands are free of your blood. Now ... let's go get a pizza.

          October 15, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
        • Topher

          Austin, is that me?

          October 15, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
        • JWT

          Remember Joey that if you step on a crack while walking down the sidewalk you will break you mother's back. Tophers proxy threats are just like that.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
        • Joey

          Yes, JWT I am pretty scared now.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
  17. Topher

    Why would Christians want to use Allah in reference to God? It's not the same. Unless the newspaper simply wants to use the word in reference to the Muslim god in a story and they are being told it's blasphemy. Either way, it's silly.

    October 15, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Same God, different prophets (and no Messiah).

      October 15, 2013 at 10:18 am |
    • Topher

      No. Not even close to the same. The Muslims would agree with me.

      October 15, 2013 at 10:20 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        It's all Abraham's God.

        October 15, 2013 at 10:25 am |
        • Topher

          No.

          October 15, 2013 at 10:45 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          You seem to know very little about Islam.
          Muslims believe that the Torah and the New Testament are both divinely inspired texts, but they were corrupted over time. They believe that the Koran is "The Truth" as revealed to God's final prophet, Mohammad.
          So far as they're concerned, Christ was also a prophet – but not the Son of God in the Trinitarian sense.
          You can deny it all you like, but all three religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are referred to as "The Abrahamic Religions" becuase all three claim to be descended from Abraham.

          October 15, 2013 at 10:52 am |
        • Colin

          Topher, Doc, I guess whether or not its the same god comes down to how you define a god. Certainly a case can be made that, when the Christians added the Son and Holy Spirit to Yahweh and came up with the Christian god, they invented a different god to the Jews. The Muslims reject Jesus'divinity and the Holy Spirit being a part of Allah, so in this sense, they, like the Jews probably worship a different god too the Christians. The more difficult question is whetehr the Jews and Muslims worship the same god.

          October 15, 2013 at 11:03 am |
        • Topher

          Doc Vestibule

          "You seem to know very little about Islam."

          That may be true, but I already knew what you said here.

          "Muslims believe that the Torah and the New Testament are both divinely inspired texts, but they were corrupted over time."

          They also say to "look to the Book" ... meaning the Bible. So they contradict themselves. You can either trust it or you can't.

          "They believe that the Koran is "The Truth" as revealed to God's final prophet, Mohammad."

          Who teaches an additional revelation to the Bible, which is heresy.

          "So far as they're concerned, Christ was also a prophet – but not the Son of God in the Trinitarian sense."

          More heresy.

          "You can deny it all you like, but all three religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are referred to as "The Abrahamic Religions" becuase all three claim to be descended from Abraham."

          I know they are all called that. But the Abraham in Christianity believes in a completely different God from the Islamic one. Your very statement about on the Islamic beliefs about Jesus proves the point.

          October 15, 2013 at 11:09 am |
        • Topher

          Colin

          The Christians didn't "add" the Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is in the Old Testament, too.

          October 15, 2013 at 11:11 am |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Topher,
          Didn't he borrow the word "Allah" from the name of a pagan moon god when he made up the Quran?

          October 15, 2013 at 11:16 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Trinity is not in the OT.
          It wasn't a part of Christian Dogma until 300 years after the crucifixtion.
          Besides, there are non-trinitarian Christian sects.
          (yes, I know you don't like the cut of their kilts, but they're Christian all the same)

          The idea of a trinity contradicts the most basic tenet of Judaism – that God is One. Jews have declared their belief in a single unified God twice daily ever since the giving of the Torah at Sinai – almost two thousand years before Christians started flogging their sequel.
          In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry.

          October 15, 2013 at 11:48 am |
        • Topher

          Doc Vestibule

          "The Trinity is not in the OT."

          Then you've clearly not ever read the Bible.

          "It wasn't a part of Christian Dogma until 300 years after the crucifixtion."

          Not true. This is what happens when you only read your side's works. You have no idea what the truth is.

          "Besides, there are non-trinitarian Christian sects."

          Then they aren't Christian.

          "The idea of a trinity contradicts the most basic tenet of Judaism – that God is One."

          God IS one. But there's three persons making the one.

          October 15, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
        • Topher

          Austin, is that me?

          October 15, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Any religion that can worship a Trinity and insist that it is monotheistic is capable of rationalizing anything.
          After all this time, you should know that I have indeed read the Bible – Old, New and Mormon Testaments.
          The Bible doesn't teach the doctrine of the Trinity.
          The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it.
          The word "Trinity", nor such language as one in three, three in one, one essence or substance or three persons, is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient Church, taken not from the Bible but from classical Greek philosophy.
          It was the Roman Emperor Constantine who pushed for it to become dogma at the Council of Nicea, despite the fact that the "3 in one" thing was been declared heresy by Dionysius of Alexandria and had been condemned by the Council of Antioch.
          There was no formal, established doctrine of the Trinity until the fourth century abd that was becuase The Emperor demanded it.

          October 15, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
        • Atheist, me?

          No Doc the Trinity is in the OT.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
        • Topher

          Doc Vestibule

          "After all this time, you should know that I have indeed read the Bible – Old, New and Mormon Testaments."

          Then how can you honestly sit here and say the Trinity was invented hundreds of years later? Genesis 1:2 "2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." There's the Holy Spirit. Genesis 3:15: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." First reference in the Bible to Christ. I don't even have to leave the first chapter of the first book and find the Trinity. Also, the "Mormon Testament" is not part of the Bible.

          "The Bible doesn't teach the doctrine of the Trinity."

          See above.

          "The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it."

          This is Jesus mentioning both the Father and Spirit ... John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" ... then there's these verses from Matthew 3:16-17: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Also please check out the following ... I John 5:7; Mat. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14; Mat. 3:13- 17; Gen. 1:26; 11:7; Rom. 1:20 .

          "The word "Trinity", nor such language as one in three, three in one, one essence or substance or three persons, is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient Church, taken not from the Bible but from classical Greek philosophy."

          Neither does the Bible use the words "rapture" or "dinosaur" but they are clearly taught.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
        • Topher

          1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

          Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

          II Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen."

          Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

          Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

          October 15, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
        • Topher

          John 1:1-5 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

          This is what I mean about not doing honest research.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
        • Alias

          Topher,
          You may have different stories/interpretations now, but it is the same original god.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • Shadowflash1522

      If they are writing a paper in Arabic, then they would want to use Allah since that is the Arabic translation of 'God', as Dieu is the French translation. The French do not say "Mon God!", and to expect them to accomodate your Anglo-centric worldview is silly. God isn't even his proper name anyway, it's YHWH. Why do you insist on the unimaginative 'God'?

      October 15, 2013 at 10:29 am |
    • Madtown

      Maybe "God" is just God? As in, only 1? Different religions could be referring to the same ent.ity, it's just that the details are different. And, the details have been crafted by human beings.

      October 15, 2013 at 11:11 am |
      • Atheist, me?

        Well
        All I can say is that Eli is actually pronounced Allahi which is the same way Allah is pronounced in Arabic.
        Remember Eli, Eli lama sabachtani.
        It is read Allahi, Allahi lama sabaktani.
        Muhammed wanted a more logical Bible story thats all.

        October 15, 2013 at 11:45 am |
      • Topher

        Madtown

        If I'm talking with a friend of yours and he mentions you and I say, "Oh, yeah! I know Madtown! He's the red-headed, one-eyed hermaphrodite from Cincinnati." And your friend says, "No, Madtown is blond, has both his eyes and is not a hermaphrodite."

        Are we talking about the same person?

        October 15, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
        • Madtown

          You're very creative today! What I'm saying, is that these details are not known, and cannot be known. No one knows if I truly do have red hair. Some people may have a notion that I do, and they may have even written it down in a journal, but that doesn't mean it's true. Other people yet may indeed think I have blonde hair, but they don't have the real answer either. Both are speculating, even though they are speculating about the same person. Religion COULD be the same way. I don't know, nor do you.

          October 15, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
        • Topher

          But we do know. God told us what He is like. He gave us 66 books (The Bible) to know these things.

          October 15, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
        • Joey

          No Topher, all you have is what some humans wrote down a long time ago, you are free that the bible is from god, but I see no reason to believe that it is.

          October 15, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          The Bible is a reliable collection of historical doc.uments written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses (so basically a built-in baloney detector). They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and they claim that their writings are Divine, rather than human, in origin.

          All that to say I have every reason to believe it's true.

          October 15, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Topher
          CORRECTION: There are 66 books in YOUR Bible.
          There are 73 in the Catholic, 78 in Eastern Orthodox, 81 in Ethiopian Orthodox and 65 in the Mormon (the LDS don't like The Song of Solomon for some reason).

          October 15, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
        • Topher

          Doc Vestibule

          Fair enough. But those extra books were never considered to be divinely inspired ... not by the early church and not even by the Jews.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
        • Joey

          Topher, I wouldn't exactly call it reliable.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
        • Joey

          Moses wrote Genesis, and there is no way he was an eyewitness to creation. One book down 65 to go.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          Why not? Even secular historians agree it is the best historical doc.ument we have.

          Here's a look at the time gap between the original and first surviving copies of some very important books that give us information on important historical figures ...
          Bible: 25 years
          Homer: 500
          Demosthenes: 1400
          Herodotus: 1400
          Plato: 1200
          Tacitus: 1000
          Caesar: 1000
          Pliny: 750

          Now, here's a look at how many of those manuscript copies we have ....
          New Testament: 5686
          Homer: 643
          Demosthenes: 200
          Herodotus: 8
          Plato:7
          Tacitus: 20
          Caesar:10
          Pliny: 7

          Yet we put more faith we know what happened in the Gallic Wars than what happened in the NT.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          Noah's grandfather knew Adam. Eyewitness accounts of the early days were likely.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
        • A Frayed Knot

          Topher,

          Guess who was in charge of preserving doc.uments for the early centuries? The Church. Of course they took better care of their stuff. Actually, the ancient Egyptian gods did a better job by inscribing their stuff on stone, which endures to this day quite nicely.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
        • Joey

          Exactly, Moses was not an eyewitnesses, even you admit that at best it is hearsay. And even that hinges on people living to be 900 years old despite all evidence pointing to the fact that people would not have lived as long back then as they do today. Also none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses' either.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
        • Joey

          Plus Topher, there is more than one book to verify pretty much everything you listed except for the Bible. There are coins with Ceaser's face on them, there are records from all over the Roman Empire that confirm he existed. All you have for Jesus is one suspect book, or 66 suspect books if you prefer.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
        • Joey

          Even secular historians agree it is the best historical doc.ument we have.

          Also, the above statement is laughable.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Also none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses' either."

          Not true. Both Matthew and John were disciples. Mark traveled with the group. Luke is considered to be the world's greatest historian and interviewed eyewitnesses. Paul saw Christ and learned under the apostles. James and Jude were Christs brothers ...

          October 15, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Plus Topher, there is more than one book to verify pretty much everything you listed except for the Bible. There are coins with Ceaser's face on them, there are records from all over the Roman Empire that confirm he existed. All you have for Jesus is one suspect book, or 66 suspect books if you prefer."

          There's more than a dozen secular sources that wrote about Him that we know of. There isn't just the Bible.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          Also, the above statement is laughable.

          NO historical docu.ment has been vetted more than the Bible. If you could find just one bit of historic information that proves the Bible wrong, it would have went away. Instead what you have is the best selling book in the history of the world.

          October 15, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
        • Joey

          Topher, is there a single secular source that mentions Jesus that was written prior to his death?

          October 15, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Topher, is there a single secular source that mentions Jesus that was written prior to his death?"

          To be honest, I have no idea. But even if they were all written after the death it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't prove those people didn't witness Christ and just reject Him at the time. And the time it was written has no bearing. EVERYTHING we write about is something in the past. As you read this comment from me ... I wrote it in the past. I wrote it after I thought about it. If you want to make that argument you should know it's a logical fallacy.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "one bit of historic information that proves the Bible wrong"
          How about Ceasar's "Census" that was supposed to have been the impetus for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem?
          There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1). The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is the census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history. Roman docu.ments show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level.
          Imagine a system of taxation based on people returning to their ancestral homes, going back a thousand years in the case of Joseph. Can you seriously believe that the Romans would have required the itinerant Jews to come back to Palestine, carrying everything they owned?
          Property tax was collected on site by travelling assessors – Joseph had no need to travel.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:17 pm |
        • Madtown

          Topher
          But we do know. God told us what He is like.
          ---–
          "Facepalm". For the upteenth-millionth time......God did not write the bible. If he did, it's curious as to why he wouldn't share it with all his creations. I'd like to pre-emptively say this for tomorrow, in case I'm too busy to hang out here: "God did not write the bible."

          October 15, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
        • Joey

          Topher if there was a global flood, how come nobody in Egypt noticed or was affected by it?

          October 15, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
        • Topher

          Whether the Egyptians have a flood story or not, I have no idea. But I do know civilizations all over the world do. Including Native Americans.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
        • Joey

          Topher, the point is that if the flood happend 4000 or so years ago as you have claimed many times then Egypt would have been destroyed, but there is a ton of evidence that they just kept on living like normal as Noah floated on his boat for 40 days.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Topher
          Just gonna ignore the whole census/taxation inconsistency, eh?

          October 15, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
        • Joey

          Doc, he has to ignore it. How else can he come back tomorrow and claim that everything in the bible happened exactly as written?

          October 15, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Topher, the point is that if the flood happend 4000 or so years ago as you have claimed many times then Egypt would have been destroyed, but there is a ton of evidence that they just kept on living like normal as Noah floated on his boat for 40 days."

          Whatever was there would have been destroyed, yes. But ALL cities and societies we have today came about AFTER the Flood.

          October 15, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
        • Topher

          Doc Vestibule

          "Just gonna ignore the whole census/taxation inconsistency, eh?"

          We already discussed this before. Not only did Rome have tons of censuses (so they could tax the daylights out of these people) but so did the Herods.

          October 15, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          How about this for an extra-biblical account of Christ?

          "Alexamenos Worships His God." Grafitti scribbled onto a wall that shows a man bowing down to a man being crucified who is depicted with the head of a donkey... Much the same way that MANY in this forum would depict Christ. They couldn't comprehend a crucified savior, and many today have that same veil pulled over their face.

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

          October 15, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Topher
          Such a census was not a common occurence.
          Luke says the command came from the Ceasar – which it could not have, otherwise it would be docu/mented.
          The Roman Empire may have been fond of taxation and of gathering census data – but they were equally fond of meticulous record keeping for such things.
          There are detailed doc/uments regarding any Imperial decrees.
          And you've failed to address why the normal, sensible, standard means of tax / data gathering would inexplicably be drastically altered for just the one instance? It makes no sense whatsoever.
          It would be akin to the US Government saying that citizens must travel to the birthplace of their grandfather to vote in the next election.
          The whole thing is a literary device to get Joseph from his home and into Bethlehem so that the Baby Jesus fulfills Messianic prophecy.

          October 15, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
        • Topher

          Doc Vestibule

          "Such a census was not a common occurence."

          Define common. For instance, we know there was one in 6 A.D., recorded by Josephus. We know there was another in 8 B.C. thanks to an Egyptian record. Neither of these come from Roman records. Yet we know they happened and they happened really close together. Who is to say there weren't even more that we just don't have records on anymore?

          "Luke says the command came from the Ceasar – which it could not have, otherwise it would be docu/mented."

          Luke specifically says Caesar Augustus. And that Quirinius was governor of Syria, who we also know was twice governor of Syria and Phoenicia during the reign of Augustus.

          "The Roman Empire may have been fond of taxation and of gathering census data – but they were equally fond of meticulous record keeping for such things."

          See above.

          "And you've failed to address why the normal, sensible, standard means of tax / data gathering would inexplicably be drastically altered for just the one instance? It makes no sense whatsoever."

          I have no idea, but it likely had something to do with the prophecy of the coming king and the strange signs in the sky. You also might remember the slaughter of the innocents that happens soon after?

          "It would be akin to the US Government saying that citizens must travel to the birthplace of their grandfather to vote in the next election."

          Fallacy. You can't impose this countries laws on those people.

          "The whole thing is a literary device to get Joseph from his home and into Bethlehem so that the Baby Jesus fulfills Messianic prophecy."

          Why bother making up a device? Why not make them all already living there if it were just a story? But you are correct, it did fulfil prophecy. One more reason to believe it is all true.

          October 15, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
      • Topher

        Austin, is that me?

        October 15, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
      • Joey

        So even you admit the Gospel of Luke is hearsay at best. That is 2 books down 64 to go.

        October 15, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "So even you admit the Gospel of Luke is hearsay at best. That is 2 books down 64 to go."

          I admit no such thing. Luke may not have been a witness, but his sources were. And since he had eyewitnesses, and wrote during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, that second group would have called him out if he had anything wrong. Automatic baloney detector. Completely trustworthy. Isn't it amazing the books of the Bible were written by something like 40 authors over 1500 years and no one messed it up?

          October 15, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
        • Joey

          If he wasn't a witness and heard about it from witnesses that makes it hearsay by definition.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
        • Joey

          They messed plenty up, but there is no need to discuss that because you will never admit that anything in the bible is wrong. If the Bible said the sky was purple you would come on the internet everyday and try to convince everyone that the sky is purple despite the fact that all anyone has to do is look up and see that it is blue.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "If he wasn't a witness and heard about it from witnesses that makes it hearsay by definition."

          You might have a valid argument if the other three gospels didn't exist. But they do. And Luke's account agrees. It was accepted by the other witnesses and the early church not only as accurate but also inspired. On this one you don't have a leg to stand on.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "They messed plenty up, but there is no need to discuss that because you will never admit that anything in the bible is wrong."

          Because nothing in the Bible IS wrong. There's nothing messed up. Yeah, yeah, I know you atheists like to point out "contradictions" ... and I admit to the novice there does seem to be. But I've yet to hear of a "contradiction" that doesn't have a valid explanation. We've had 2000 years to figure these things out. But if you have one that you just can't get past, let's discuss it. Not promising I can answer it, but I'll do my best.

          "If the Bible said the sky was purple you would come on the internet everyday and try to convince everyone that the sky is purple despite the fact that all anyone has to do is look up and see that it is blue."

          That's a bit of a straw man since the Bible doesn't say that.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
        • Joey

          Topher, why would I care what the early Church believed?

          October 15, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
        • A Frayed Knot

          Topher,
          "that second group would have called him out if he had anything wrong. Automatic baloney detector."

          How do you know that they didn't? Do you think the Church would've kept those doc.uments? Besides that, most of the people of that day couldn't even write. Add to that, the vast, vast majority of people living in that area at that time did not convert.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
        • Joey

          It is not any dumber than thinking that Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. In both cases you have to ignore reality in favor of a 1700 year old book.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
        • Joey

          As far as the other gospels go it appears that most people don't think they were written by eyewitnesses either.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
        • Joey

          A Frayed Knot, as we all know the church has a long history of admitting when they are wrong, and would have never burned any books or had someone executed if they didn't agree with the church.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:17 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "It is not any dumber than thinking that Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. In both cases you have to ignore reality in favor of a 1700 year old book."

          The book's older than that. You claim believing in a young earth is dumb. Yet did you know there's plenty of science that points to a young earth? In fact, more dating methods point to a young earth than an old one. So I'm not ignoring reality at all. I'm just listening to what God has said and seeing that science agrees with that.

          "As far as the other gospels go it appears that most people don't think they were written by eyewitnesses either."

          The only ones who make that claim are those who WANT the Bible to be wrong. Everything we know points to its accuracy.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
        • Joey

          Topher, the vast majority of Biblical scholars don't want the Bible to be right or wrong they just want to get to the truth of who wrote the bible and when and why they wrote it. They go in with no bias and let the facts lead where they may.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
        • Joey

          OH and Topher, can you please name all of the dating methods that point to a young earth? Thanks.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Topher, please provide a reference to even just one young earth scholarly article published in a reputable scientific journal (The Discovery Inst!tute doesn't count) successfully arguing for a young earth. If there's as much evidence for a young earth as you say, this should be trivial. I'm betting that you can't and that you are getting ready to run away from this thread, as is your normal cowardly habit.

          October 15, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Topher, the vast majority of Biblical scholars don't want the Bible to be right or wrong they just want to get to the truth of who wrote the bible and when and why they wrote it. They go in with no bias and let the facts lead where they may."

          That would be nice, but unfortunately we all have something known as a presupposition. Every one of us, when we pick up the Bible for the first time, either believe it is the Word of God or it isn't. Everyone. In theory people can put those things aside, but if you believe for one second the Chicago Tribune won't be cheering in the press box if the Cubs ever won the world series ...

          October 15, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
        • Joey

          We both know they have no evidence to support their theories, and that is why they never present any evidence to back up their claims, and instead try to poke holes in the current scientific theories that they disagree with. I am sure that the first time someone finds something with the name of Jesus on it and dates it using carbon dating to 2000 years ago that Topher will consider carbon dating perfectly acceptable all of a sudden.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
        • Topher

          HotAirAce

          I could provide links to many articles, but what's the point? You'll complain about the author. Or the publication. Or the findings.

          And I haven't run away from anything.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
        • Joey

          Well Topher, I went in with the idea that the bible was True, and came out thinking it was false.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          " I am sure that the first time someone finds something with the name of Jesus on it and dates it using carbon dating to 2000 years ago that Topher will consider carbon dating perfectly acceptable all of a sudden."

          First, we've found many things with that name. The problem is it was one of the most common names from the time period. So the assuaries and things like that are interesting, but they don't prove it was the Jesus of the Bible.

          Second, I'm quite happy with carbon dating. It is one that points to a young earth as we discussed last week.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
        • Joey

          Topher, it should not be hard to find one article from a scientific publication to support you claims. Just keep in mind that any organization that states on the front end that any evidence that contradicts the bible is to be ignored is not doing science. Even then you have thousands of different publications to choose from.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Well Topher, I went in with the idea that the bible was True, and came out thinking it was false."

          Interesting. I went in thinking it was false and came out thinking it was true. I grew up an atheist, but God has changed me.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
        • Joey

          Since it can be used to date things up to about 60,000 years old it doesn't support a young earth at all. At least not as young as you like to claim.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Since it can be used to date things up to about 60,000 years old it doesn't support a young earth at all. At least not as young as you like to claim."

          True, not as young as the Bible claims, but not only can it NOT point to an old earth, it flat-out rejects it. Fossils that, according to your worldview, are supposed to be millions or billions of years old have been found to have carbon in them. That would be impossible if they were that old.

          And I'm not saying you personally have made this claim, but there were several times last week when we had to go over this fact with atheists. They keep trying to use this to support their worldview, but they can't.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
        • Joey

          Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

          Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

          Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
        • Joey

          Now if you disagree with what I posted above you will need to show exactly why it is wrong.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
        • Topher

          First you guys tell me it's 60,000 years. Now it's 20,000. You can't get your sciences straight. But at least it keeps going in the direction of my favor. 😉

          October 15, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
        • Joey

          So you are just going to ignore the parts the point out why your argument is wrong? just like with Doc's post above.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
        • Topher

          [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C3hu2QkTVo&w=640&h=360]

          October 15, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Come on Topher, just one scholarly article to prove you are not a liar or a coward.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
        • Joey

          Has anyone here claimed that Carbon-14 dating disproves the bible?

          October 15, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Has anyone here claimed that Carbon-14 dating disproves the bible?"

          It points to a young earth is the point I posted that. Did you watch it?

          October 15, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
        • Doris

          Will the real "Dr. Snelling" please stand up!

          Andrew Snelling, Ph.D is an Australian and a qualified geologist. According to his biography he " ... completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology with First Class Honours at The University of New South Wales in Sydney ... ".

          Andrew Snelling is also a leading creationist who, despite his scientific qualifications in geology, purports to believe the Earth is only several thousand years old. He is employed as a "Creationist Assistant Professor of Geology" by the Institute for Creation Research in the USA.

          Andrew Snelling, as his biography states, worked in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory and has been involved in research projects with the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) and ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation).

          His biography also states that he has been involved in research with Australian, US, British, Japanese and Swedish scientists as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency.

          None of this would be at all surprising if Andrew Snelling was a working geologist operating within the ethics of his discipline, nor would it be surprising that, again according to his biography, " ... Andrew is involved in writing scientific papers that are being published in international scientific journals.".

          But it IS surprising! It's surprising that a geologist who obtained his qualifications writing about billion year old rocks and later accepting " ... work in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory variously as a field, mine and research geologist.", continues to tout his qualifications and prostitute his learning in order to convince the gullible that mainstream geology is wrong and only geology as practised by Andrew Snelling, Ph.D is valid.

          It's not that Andrew Snelling has abandoned mainstream geology altogether for, to quote from his biography once more, " ... he is still called upon as a geological consultant to Cogema Australia Pty Ltd for their Koongarra uranium project."

          As Dr Alex Ritchie wrote in his article Flood geology: a house built on sand (below):

          "If any geologist were to be caught salting a deposit, falsifying results or engaging in other forms of behaviour likely to bring his/her discipline into disrepute, they would be promptly dealt with by their peers.

          In my opinion it is equally abhorrent for anyone claiming to be a professional geoscientist to indulge in deliberately misleading and deceptive conduct aimed directly at lay audiences and especially at young people."

          October 15, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
        • Doris

          (in response to the video Topher posted)

          October 15, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
        • Topher

          Why should he abandon it? He just has a different presupposition.

          October 15, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Topher, you ran from a thread on page 2 of the Randy Pauly story. That was the easiest one to find. I'm sure I can find others, or that others can easily identify more. It won't be long before you bail out on this, particularly if can't answer a few simple questions, which is a given.

          October 15, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
        • Joey

          I don't have any sound on this computer, so no I didn't watch it.

          October 15, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
        • Joey

          So Topher, should we just ignore all of the other dating methods used to determine the age of the Earth? Or can you point out the flaws in all of them?

          October 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "So Topher, should we just ignore all of the other dating methods used to determine the age of the Earth? Or can you point out the flaws in all of them?"

          I don't think you should ignore them at all. I just don't think you should also ignore all those things that point to a young earth. If you hold to that position, you have to explain things like diamonds, the existance of comets, the moon's distance from the earth, the amount of salt in the oceans, the amount of sediment on the seafloor, the bent rock layers, soft tissue found in fossils, the "faint sun paradox", the rapidly decaying magnetic field, helium in radioactive rocks, stars that should have burnt out a long time ago, etc.

          October 15, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
        • Joey

          Topher none of those things point to a young earth unless you purposely misrepresent the science.

          October 15, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Topher none of those things point to a young earth unless you purposely misrepresent the science."

          No misrepresentation needed. For instance, the moon, according to the math, would have touched the earth at like a million years ago. If the earth is billions of years old, we should see a deeper sea floor, more salt. If the universe is billions of years old we wouldn't have the super-giant stars or we the comets would have all been melted off by circling the sun. All of these things are a problem for the old earther. Not saying young earthers don't have problems too. But you do have those to deal with.

          October 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
        • Topher

          Also, my apologies for my poor spelling and grammar today.

          October 15, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
        • Joey

          You sure you want to keep trotting out that moon argument?

          Once again, Dr. Hovind's figures just boggle the mind! Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddlysquat! Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself.

          A more accurate estimate, based on the present rate of lunar recession, puts the Moon within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago. That is the argument most creationists use. (Since Dr. Hovind's notes match the figures he quoted in his debate with Dr. Hilpman, they are fair game and not a simple slip of the pen.)

          The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.

          The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.

          The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirtyeight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).

          October 15, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
        • Topher

          Who is Dr. Hovind?

          October 15, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Topher, thanks for reminding me of another instance of you running away when challenged. You ran away from a thread on page 8 of "Creationists Taunt. . ." after you were challenged when you posted a similar list of arguments for a young earth. You posted the list but couldn't defend it then and not likely now, especially as you run and hide. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

          October 15, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
        • Joey

          He is one the guy who came up with most of the things you just claimed are proof of a young earth, and you can find literally thousands of reasons why they are all wrong if you want to.

          October 15, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "He is one the guy who came up with most of the things you just claimed are proof of a young earth, and you can find literally thousands of reasons why they are all wrong if you want to."

          I doubt very much one guy is responsible. Whether he did or didn't is unimportant. My sources come from people who currently work in these fields and have many more degrees than I ever will and who are far smarter than I can dream of. If you think you can just wave these things off you are fooling yourself. I understand you disagree, but to not even look into them is doing yourself a disservice. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution as well?

          October 15, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
        • Joey

          Evolution is not something you believe in. That is like asking if I believe in gravity.

          October 15, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
        • Joey

          I am not just waving it off there are literally millions of pages worth of scientific evidence showing how and why everything you just posted is wrong, and you can't even post one article from an actual scientific publication to support your claims.

          October 15, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Topher, did you read the material suggested below (and on page 8 of Creationists Taunt. . .):

          "Topher, google "Specific Creationist Arguments" and get back to us when (you) have read the material by Matson and understand each point. I don't expect to hear from you. Oh, you might want to read the stuff at liesingenesis about which arguments creationists shouldn't use."

          You wouldn't want to do a disservice to yourself would you?

          October 15, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "Evolution is not something you believe in. That is like asking if I believe in gravity."

          What's your favorite evidence for it?

          October 15, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
        • Topher

          Joey

          "I am not just waving it off there are literally millions of pages worth of scientific evidence showing how and why everything you just posted is wrong, and you can't even post one article from an actual scientific publication to support your claims."

          I doubt very much you just looked up "Millions of pages" of anything when you'd not heard of them before. And no, I refuse to post it to some because in the same breath they will just waive off my evidence and say things from certain sites "don't count." Hypocrisy at its finest.

          You know what, forget about young earth and old earth. Neither of them really matter in the end. I think I've given a reasonable defense for the Bible. And if you think I did a bad job there's plenty of smarter people than me with better information that can back it up. What does matter, though, is what happens after we die and where you spend eternity. So IF there's a Heaven, do you believe you're good enough to go there?

          October 15, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          And there he goes – running away again . . .

          October 15, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Topher: Going, going, gone – yet another cowardly exit.

          October 16, 2013 at 8:55 pm |
    • G to the T

      Really? You don't know the answer to that? For the same reason Christians throughout the arab world use Alah for Yahweh. It's the cultural generic "god" and since both say they worship the same god, why wouldn't they use the same word?

      Honestly though, I've always found the translations a bit disingenuous on this point. The translation of "Yahweh" or "El" as "God" or "Lord" obfuscates the history of god as a character in the bible. It makes him appear static when in fact he evolves quite a bit over the course of book (esp if you read in order of when they were written as opposed to how they appear now). It also helps to strip any mythic elements that may be left over but using the generic phrase instead of the god that phrase aslo represented (i.e. Death = Mot).

      October 16, 2013 at 10:18 am |
  18. Theologian

    Christians should use יהוה (YHWH) to refer to the one true God.

    October 15, 2013 at 10:09 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      To the Church of the Subgenius, He is YHVH – "The Stark Fist of Removal".
      Praise "Bob".

      October 15, 2013 at 10:17 am |
  19. Sean

    Allah is not God. Although, Allah is god for Arabic.

    October 15, 2013 at 9:47 am |
    • Frank

      Christians are being asked to use the word 'Tuhan' instead.

      October 15, 2013 at 9:53 am |
      • Observer

        huh?

        Tuhaň (Česká Lípa District) is a village and municipality in Česká Lípa District in the Liberec Region of the Czech Republic.

        October 15, 2013 at 9:56 am |
        • Frank

          One major demand from the Malay protestors is that Christians stop using the word Allah on grounds that Christians can find a simple alternative, that is, simply subst/tute the word Allah with the word Tuhan. Unfortunately, this demand only betrays the ignorance of the protestors.

          I would have thought that any Malay would know that the meaning of the words Allah (God) and Tuhan (Lord, Rabb) are not the same. How can they suggest that Christians simply use the word Tuhan to subst/tute the word Allah? To express the issue linguistically, Allah and Tuhan have different senses even though they have the same reference.

          Both the terms Allah and Tuhan are used in the Malay Bible. Following the precedent set by Arab Christians, Allah is used to translate el/elohim and Tuhan (or TUHAN in caps) is used to translate Yahweh (YHWH). The two words are sometimes paired together as Yahweh-Elohim in 372 places in the Old Testament (14 times in Genesis 2-3; 4 times in Exodus; 8 times in Joshua; 7 times in 2 Samuel; 22 times in Chronicles; 12 times in Psalms; 32 times in Isaiah; 16 times in Jeremiah and 210 times in Ezekiel, etc.).

          More importantly, the word Tuhan is also applied to Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Thus we read of the LORD Jesus as Tuhan Yesus (The word LORD was used to translate the word kurios 8,400 times in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. It refers to human beings in only 400 times and refers to God 8,000 times. Of these 8,000 times, 6,700 are subst/tute for the word YHWH). The transference of the t/tle kurios LORD/YHWH to Jesus Christ is testimony to the belief in the deity of Christ right at the beginning of Christianity
          ~ Source Malaysia Today

          October 15, 2013 at 11:46 am |
        • Sid

          allah walla walla shebang bongo to you muslim girlies.
          allah walla walla shebang bongo
          allah walla walla shebang bongo
          allah walla walla shebang bongo
          allah walla walla shebang.
          So goes the chorus of stupid muslim sheeple

          Dumbest of all the big religions, and that makes it really dumb.

          October 15, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • Arabic Bible

      So, how do you refer to God in the Arabic version of The Bible?

      October 15, 2013 at 11:38 am |
      • Alias

        Obviously, they don't want people of other faiths to refer to him at all.

        October 15, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
        • Which God?

          Uh, "Hey you?"

          October 15, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
1 2 3
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.