 |
|
|
|
|
November 3rd, 2013
06:42 AM ET
The surprisingly badass birds of the BibleOpinion by Debbie Blue, special to CNN (CNN) - As long as humans have been breathing, they've invested birds with meaning. They fly all over the Bible - from beginning to end - and they have a prominent place in the founding narratives of almost every culture and religion. They are not just bones and feathers. They are strength or hope, omen and oracle. In the Bible's first book, Genesis, God hovers over the face of the water like a dove, the Jewish sages suggest in the Talmud. In its final book, birds gorge on the flesh of the defeated "beast" in Book of Revelation. Birds are the currency of mercy, sacrificed to God in the hopes of winning blessings or forgiveness. They bring bread to the prophets. Abraham has to shoo them away from his offering, and a pigeon accompanies Jesus on his first visit to the temple. Jesus told us to "consider the birds." I love this about him, and I've taken his advice to heart. In doing so, I've found paying attention to these wild, awesome animals reveals hidden layers of meaning in the Bible and new lessons for modern Christians looking for grace in unexpected places. Here are a few of the surprising things I've learned about Bible birds. 1. Pigeon Take the one bird everyone thinks they know: the dove. In each of the four gospels, the Spirit of God shows up at Jesus' baptism in the form of a dove. In the popular imagination this Holy Spirit dove is snow white. But the bird at the baptism was more likely a rock dove, a species much more prevalent in Palestine. These birds are grey with an iridescent green and violet neck. They're more commonly known as the pigeon. Though most of us have separate categories for pigeons (dirty) and doves (pure), ornithologists will tell you the names are interchangeable. That means the symbol for the Holy Spirit is just a hair's breadth away from the symbol of urban trashiness. The dove has come to seem a bit bland as far as Christian symbols go. Maybe it would be helpful to imagine the Holy Spirit as a pigeon instead of a dainty white dove. Pigeons are ubiquitous, on the streets. They are forever leaving droppings on our sidewalks and windowsills. What if the spirit of God descends like a pigeon, somehow - always underfoot, routinely ignored, often disdained? 2. Vulture The Hebrew word "nesher" is often translated in English versions of the Bible as eagle, but most scholars agree that "griffon vulture" is at least an alternate, if not a more fitting, translation. When God reminds Moses how He bore the Israelites on "nesher's" wings, and when the prophet Isaiah promises that the faithful will rise up with wings like "neshers'" - think vulture instead of eagle. Vultures may be loathsome to the average westerner, but they are some pretty badass creatures. They are remarkable purifying machines. They take care of rotting remains that could otherwise spread diseases. They have uniquely strong digestive juices that kill bacteria and nasty pathogens. The Mayans referred to the vultures as death eaters. This struck them as a good, godlike thing. It makes sense. We need something to eat death (digest it, rid it of its toxicity). Vultures stare death in the face and fear it not at all. 3. Raven Before Noah sends out the dove from the ark, he releases a raven. Which apparently never comes back. Commentators have often come to the conclusion that the raven must have failed in its mission. Maybe it got distracted while eating the corpses of the people drowned in the flood. Philo, the Jewish commentator, called the raven a symbol of Satan. Augustine said it personified impure men and procrastinators. In the book of Proverbs, we meet ravens plucking out the eyes of disobedient children. But it is also the raven that flies to feed the prophet Elijah when he is stranded in the desert. In Luke, Jesus asks his hearers to consider the raven. He says this might free them from anxiety. This takes on more meaning when you've followed the bird through the text. The raven fails, it blunders; it is noble, it is voracious; occasionally its succeeds in doing the right thing - much like us. Jesus says, consider the raven, and don't be anxious: God feeds the carrion-eating procrastinator, which means God will care for you as well. 4. The Rooster The rooster announces Peter's betrayal on the night before Jesus dies. Other than that, the bird usually doesn't get much attention. It announces the dawn. Yawn. But the rooster is symbolically loaded. The cock has long been associated with masculine virility (the slang term for the male body part is not an accident). The rooster was believed to be so potent that if a man smeared himself with a broth of boiled cock, the fiercest of beasts could not harm him. Rabid lions cowered before it. Even the most terrible monster would be so struck with fear at the sound of a cockcrow that it would simply die of fear. We miss something in the story of Peter's betrayal if we don't consider this barrel-chested badass. 5. Chicken Of all the birds Jesus might have compared himself to, he chose ... a chicken. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings," Jesus says in the Gospel of Luke. It's a loving image, but there's a certain fragility in it as well. The chicken was domesticated from the wild red jungle fowl nearly 6,000 years ago. They've been caged, stuffed with garlic, wrapped in bacon, Kentucky fried. In other words, it is vastly different, in the cultural vernacular, to be a chicken than it is to be the slang term for rooster. That makes me think that God's power may be different than how we're used to imagining it. It's quieter, slower. More like a mother hen than a strutting, crowing rooster. If considering the birds can change our ideas about what holy means, what God is like, then maybe we can begin to see grace in wild places where we’d never noticed it before. Debbie Blue is the author of "Consider the Birds," and a founding pastor of House of Mercy, a church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
« Previous entryAtheist gets her day at the Supreme Court
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
In the beginning
Your name would suggest you are more interested in the end, not the beginning.
the author forgot a few birds in the bible:
Bittern
Cormorant
Crane
Crow
Cuckoo
Eagle
Falcon
Glede
Hawk
Heron
Hoopoe
Kite
Lapwing
Nighthawk
Ospray
Ossifrage
Ostrich
Owl
Partridge
Peac.ock
Pelican
Quail
Sparrow
Stork
Swallow
Swan
seems like the author is searching for meaning where there is none.
Turtledove
Bootyfunk,
Yeah, Harry Potter covers waaaaaay more varieties:
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Birds
A dove is any member of the pigeon tribe; chosen because of
1) Represents a symbol of deliverance (Genesis 8:8),
2) of purity (Leviticus 5:7),
3) of harmlessness (Matthew 10:16), and
4) of endearment (Song of Solomon 6:9).
Kudos for the great bird references in the Bible; a very interesting article, a very thought provoking read.
What was the first animal that Noah released once the rain stopped?
A dove.
Wrong! The correct answer is raven.
Nope. It was a raven... and it came back empty-beaked! Or so the tale goes, anyway...
Atheist- You missed a very important part of the biblical passage and got the answer wrong. Pay close attention when reading the Bible, it is very important you study the Bible carefully.
Generally speaking, going to skeptic bible.com kinda sites as a source for your information is bad for you.
Here is the actual biblical reference for your edification,
...and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. 8Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land.
Astute,
"On 24 June, 1995, one of these owls delivered Hermione Granger her morning's copy of the Daily Prophet. This was "as usual," so it is possible that this paper was always delivered to her by one of these birds,[3] though on 2 September of that year at the start of the new school year, the paper was delivered to her by a Barn Owl instead.[4] Just a bit later in the year, however, she had another copy delivered to her by a Screech Owl.[5]
During the summer holidays of that year, another of these owls sent Harry Potter an official letter from Mafalda Hopkirk telling him that he had been expelled from Hogwarts and that Ministry representatives were coming to destroy his wand.[6] "
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Screech_Owl
Actually, he exhaled, sweated, and likely had several other bodily functions happen between the time the rain stopped and the releasing of a dove, so I would answer microcobes and bacteria ( which are part of the animal kingdom)
Bacteria most certainly are *not* a part of the Animal Kingdom.
It's as "thought-provoking" as this:
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Birds
"Owls are enlisted to aid communication between wizards. Letters, parcels, and Howlers are all delivered by owls. Soft edges on an owl's flight feathers reduce the noise of flight, coupled with their natural camouflage, making them ideal for delivering letters.[2]
Owls must be trained to carry letters. Possibly only certain owls with attunement to magic can be trained for this purpose. Owls are able to find any wizard, wherever he may be, to deliver his mail.
Owls are used for commercial purposes, such as the Owl Post Office in Hogsmeade, and delivering newspapers and magazines such as the Daily Prophet and The Quibbler. The Ministry of Magic formerly used owls for interdepartmental memos, but switched to enchanted paper aeroplanes because owls made too much mess with their droppings and shed feathers.
Postal owls all have different jobs, but it is the duty of a Scops Owl for local deliveries only, as they are small and weak fliers."
in new york and england pigeons are called "flying rats" because they're such pests.
Squab in France because they are tasty flying rats.
Dang, there are a lot of long-winded delusional dorks on here today.
I usually don't post here but I really find it interesting that non-believers come here to belittle, slander, and malign others to make themselves feel superior.
It's okay to not agree with their beliefs but at least have the decency as a human being to respect their beliefs. No one here is saying "believe the Bible or you'll go to hell." That's hogwash (fundamentalists will disagree here). The author was simply writing about the significance of animals in the Bible, nothing more, nothing less. No one needs to prove anything to anyone. If you believe science conquers our explanation of "being," fine but if others believe in an omni-natured God, then let them. There's no need to be pejorative.
"I have my right to whatever I want to say" – Cool! You're right. You do. Just remember, when someone comes to reproach you in a manner that is derogatory, you'll know how it feels to be treated as subhuman. Or, you can take the macho man approach and fight fire with fire since you're offended which will lead to...well, you're smart enough to figure it out. Karma does exist...and even a militant atheist can agree with that since we know what that looks like, right?
By the way, I don't agree with organized religion but I do believe in an "imaginery friend" (Jesus) as you would call it. And to reinforce your ego, if that makes me dumb...I can live with that. After all, Socrates did say, "I know that I know nothing."
How exactly does one slander someone in a text based written forum?
That is impossible, is it not?
"I usually don't post here but I really find it interesting that non-believers come here to belittle, slander, and malign others to make themselves feel superior. "
+++ we're not making ourselves feel superior. we're trying to talk people out of participating in a cult. also, blogs often have debates. you obviously feel threatened by opinions that disagree with your own.
"No one here is saying "believe the Bible or you'll go to hell.""
+++ i've been told a thousand times by christians on this blog that i am going to hell. so get off your high horse and stop pretending the water only flows in one direction.
"It's okay to not agree with their beliefs but at least have the decency as a human being to respect their beliefs."
+++ wrong. i'll respect you, but i don't need to respect your crazy ideas. if i seriously tell you my left nut is god, you don't have to respect that idea - because it's crazy. we think the same about your god and all gods - silly ideas unworthy of respect and serious debate.
"Karma does exist...and even a militant atheist can agree with that"
+++ you want atheists to believe in the magical force of karma? good luck with that.
here's some advice for you:
you don't need to believe in a deity to be a good person. you will find that if you try, you can be a good person without god. treat your brothers and sisters well, help them when you can - no need for a belief in magic to make that happen. god is a lazy explanation - i encourage you to seek deeper answers than "goddidit."
I have one question for you. Where in my post did I imply anything about being a good person without God? I simply said, treat others how you want to be treated. Nowhere in there did I implicitly involve God.
"Where in my post did I imply anything about being a good person without God?"
+++ not sure what you're saying here.
"Nowhere in there did I implicitly involve God."
" I do believe in an "imaginery friend" (Jesus) as you would call it."
+++ sure you did.
Someone,
"Karma does exist...and even a militant atheist can agree with that since we know what that looks like, right?"
Well maybe the Buddhist atheists, and some others, believe in "Karma". I believe in verified cause and effect and natural consequences. "Karma" connotes some kind of supernatural goings-on. I'm not a particularly "militant" atheist... just a realist who shares my views once in a while.
Real Deal,
You're right, Buddist atheists and militant atheists alike. Now I can have a conversation with you. I actually struggled with this. Cause and effect of natural consequences holds some weight. My biggest caveat that I have with karma is, "to what magnitude?" For example, if someone was killed by a stray bullet, what degree of consequence will the trigger man fall prey to? Does he get murdered? Does he get killed in a car accident? Or is it just simply just him breaking his leg or losing his relationship? Even so, when it strikes, he may not be aware of act-X (karma) which may (or may not) have any connection to act-y(original act). It's interesting how the forces of the universe work. It may be supernatural and who knows what's behind the cause. When I think of "natural consequence," a car crash usually comes to mind or an all-out war. He can have the right-of-way making a left turn and then he gets hit on his bumper as a consequence of someone speeding to make the light. Is that how you would define "natural" or is that just simply a consequence of someone misjudging their speed? (No semantics). Just trying to understand here.
(I don't condone violence by the way but for the sake of conversation, I can only think of these examples).
Someone,
The human brain looks for patterns. It helps us survive by sometimes aiding in the prediction of what certain actions will result in. Sometimes, though, we see patterns that are not really there.
It ranges from valid ones, such as, jumping from very high places without mechanical assistance almost always results in death or serious injury to invalid ones, such as, finding a 4-leafed clover will bring one good luck.
Here is a pretty good article about it:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=brain-seeks-patterns-where-none-exi-08-10-03
"I don't agree with organized religion but I do believe in an "imaginery friend" (Jesus) as you would call it. And to reinforce your ego, if that makes me dumb...I can live with that."
+++ not dumb, just brainwashed.
Brainwash =/= free-thinking. I can have a belief WITHOUT "evidence" and still freely think. It's called faith. And read some Paul Tillich if you want the definition of faith. Clue: it has NOTHING to do with God or religion. I didn't think there was a necessary conjunction between free-thinking and brainwashed but we can play your game. Is free-thinking the same as using evidence to disprove theories? I don't "follow." I did research myself and came to terms with my belieft system, whether it's legit or not, that's a matter of opinion.
Have a good one.
you make all kinds of assumptions. please quote where i said faith had something to do with religion. i have faith in my family and friends. my faith has nothing to do with religion. don't put words in my mouth.
" I didn't think there was a necessary conjunction between free-thinking and brainwashed"
+++ there's a negative correlation. if you are brainwashed, you're not thinking entirely for yourself. hard connection to grasp, eh?
" I can have a belief WITHOUT "evidence" and still freely think"
+++ yep, never said you couldn't.
" Is free-thinking the same as using evidence to disprove theories?"
+++ you seem wildly confused. no, it's not. are you really asking that?
I find your statement that so many non-believers come here to belittle etc. offensive. How can you belittle non-believers in this way? There is no need to be pejorative. Why can't you just state your opinion?
Also, no one is saying that religious people are illogical or irrational – that's hogwash (those that think religious people are irrational will disagree).
Sarcasm aside – maybe – just maybe – your judgement is not unbiased. If you look through the comments in the belief section, you will find plenty of religious folk belittling non-believers. And that's fine. We can take it.
No one is forcing you to read those comments. However, people who show up my door on a Saturday morning are quite a bit closer to forcing their opinions on me than those posting here are forcing their opinions on religious folk. It is, after all, a comments section, where disagreement is to be expected. Get over it. When was the last time an atheist has shown up at your door?
For a thousand years Christians could jail and torture non-Christians. We've got a bit of karma coming our way, I think.
very well said.
No one is forcing you to read those comments. However, people who show up my door on a Saturday morning are quite a bit closer to forcing their opinions on me than those posting here are forcing their opinions on religious folk. It is, after all, a comments section, where disagreement is to be expected. Get over it. When was the last time an atheist has shown up at your door?
--------------------
Well put in a very logical and calm manner. A tip of the hat to you sir!
First Amendment. Embrace it. Enjoy it.
I'm a reasonably intelligent (if you believe standardized tests) and free-thinking individual, educated in science at a top research university, with a heavy interest in and understanding of history, cosmology and biology from a purely mainstream perspective. I understand that scripture appears to be in conflict our scientific observations, and with archeology and with non-religious recorded history. I've heard the questions and logical conundrums that make the belief in any god or any spiritual reality seem ridiculous, and I honestly don't have a good answer to most of them. If I could be objective and just weigh these facts, I would likely dismiss religion out of hand and consider it harmful.
However, I have had very powerful, personal religious experiences several times in my life that I cannot deny. I am not talking about some sort of "feeling" experienced during a practice meant to illicit those feelings in a church or anything like that. I am talking about interactions in time and space where God has been real, told me about unlikely events that would happen, and how to react to them, when they did, in fact, happen. I cannot begin to describe what this is like.
How can those two "realities" be reconciled? I don't know, except for the fact that we can never have truly perfect information by observation. My personal belief is that if we did, it would all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle with a real Jesus in there somehow. You could call that "faith".
I wouldn't try to "prove", or really even defend, Christian ideas or assertions that are in conflict with our current understanding, and I know my own experiences are only "evidence" to me alone. But, in the end, all we really have direct access to is our own experiences. I would, however, encourage anyone reading this to at least ask God to make himself real to them. See what happens...
Perhaps you are experiencing a chemical imbalance. Perhaps you should see a doctor about that.
"However, I have had very powerful, personal religious experiences several times in my life that I cannot deny. I am not talking about some sort of "feeling" experienced during a practice meant to illicit those feelings in a church or anything like that. I am talking about interactions in time and space where God has been real, told me about unlikely events that would happen, and how to react to them, when they did, in fact, happen. I cannot begin to describe what this is like."
+++ there's a better explanation for your 'experiences' than god. i encourage you to search for them in the really real world and stop using 'magic' as an explanation.
"I would, however, encourage anyone reading this to at least ask God to make himself real to them. See what happens..."
+++ most atheists were at one time religious. most atheists have at one point begged god to make himself real. most atheists searched religion long and hard before becoming an atheist.
you seem like a pretty smart guy. i encourage you to stop using magic as an explanation and search for the real answers to your questions. religion makes us intellectually lazy - goddidit. god = magic. it's the laziest of all explanations. why search for answers when we know goddidit?
It is possible you have a severe chemical imbalance or perhaps a tumor.
Have you had those checked before you a$$umed it was some god?
More than likely anything you experienced, came from your own head, so you should start there for explainations, not into the fantasy world.
it's not a tumor!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaTO8_KNcuo
I've seen doctors for similar stuff. Tactile hallucination my butt, I believe in ghosts now.
"The c.ock has long been associated with masculine virility (the slang term for the male body part is not an accident)."
+++ and that's why it's in the bible...? it's a secret reference to the pen.is?
btw, her #4 is a rooster and her #5 is a chicken. does this author know that a rooster is a chicken? they aren't different birds, just differents s.exes.
Quran says (Islamic Scripture)
“The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.” Quran [3:59]
“It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” [19:35]
“No soul can carry the sins of another soul. If a soul that is loaded with sins implores another to bear part of its load, no other soul can carry any part of it, even if they were related. ... [35:18]
“They even attribute to Him sons and daughters, without any knowledge. Be He glorified. He is the Most High, far above their claims.” Quran [6:100]
“Recall that your Lord said to the angels, "I am placing a representative on Earth." They said, "Will You place therein one who will spread evil therein and shed blood, while we sing Your praises, glorify You, and uphold Your absolute authority?" He said, "I know what you do not know." [2:30]
“They say , "We live only this life; we will not be resurrected. If you could only see them when they stand before their Lord! He would say, "Is this not the truth?" They would say, "Yes, by our Lord." He would say, "You have incurred the retribution by your disbelief." [6:30]
“We have honored the children of Adam, and provided them with rides on land and in the sea. We provided for them good provisions, and we gave them greater advantages than many of our creatures.” Quran [17:70]
“O children of Adam, when messengers come to you from among you, and recite My revelations to you, those who take heed and lead a righteous life, will have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.” Quran [7:35]
“O children of Adam, do not let the devil dupe you as he did when he caused the eviction of your parents from Paradise, and the removal of their garments to expose their bodies. He and his tribe see you, while you do not see them. We appoint the devils as companions of those who do not believe.” Quran [7:27]
“Losers indeed are those who disbelieve in meeting God, until the Hour comes to them suddenly, then say, "We deeply regret wasting our lives in this world." They will carry loads of their sins on their backs; what a miserable load! [6:31]
Thanks for taking time to read my post. Please take a moment to visit whyIslam org website.
^^ religious babble ^^
did you know there are unicorns, satyrs, dragons and c.ockatrice in the bible? talking snakes and talking donkeys too!
and yet people still take this book seriously...
I honestly did not know that. If I had known it was about unicorns, satyrs, Shrek donkey's and zombies I would have let those nice boys with the white button down shirts into my house.
Sorry Christians, you made it look boring.
i believe unicorns are mention 7 times.
talking donkeys = Shrek
and don't forget there's a guy that lives in the belly of a whale for 3 days - just like in Pinocchio!
I think there are a lot of people who missed the point of this article....pretty sad that the average person would rather fight and argue than take an interesting read with entertainment value for what its worth. Oh well, I guess I can't expect much from the average uneducated type.
It must be tough being superior to those around you.
Nah, I'm not superior to anyone.
"Oh well, I guess I can't expect much from the average uneducated type."
+++ sounds like you think pretty highly of yourself and very little of anyone that disagrees with you.
Do you actually find the article interesting? Hm.
For what's it worth...yes. It's just an informational read about an opinion. It isn't trying to prove anything, dis-prove anything or make and solid claims.
Hm. I seems rather vapid and pointless to me. Just another fluff piece to kill time. But if you learned something, good for you.
It, not I. Wow. It sounds like I just dissed myself. But what I meant to say was that the article seems rather vapid and fluffy.
Hahaha, no worries, I see what you're saying. I agree, it has not standing on anything. Its just as I said, it has entertainment value. I wouldn't say I learned something. But I did read the opinion of someone, which I found entertaining. I'm not a religious guy by any means, so I don't know much about this topic.
then perhaps you shouldn't call people dumb because they disagree with you. makes you look like a d-bag.
Yet, you sit on a blog harassing people who believe in something other than what you believe in. I'm sure you look just golden! For the record. You're the kind of people that I'm speaking of. Those kinds of people who have no interest in discourse or dialogue. The kind of people who are completely incapable of critical, analytical or rational thought. The kind of people who find it impossible to entertain an idea that differs from their own. I'm ignored your comments for the most part because of the reasons listed above. However, I thought you might want to something to think about.
"Yet, you sit on a blog harassing people who believe in something other than what you believe in."
+++ as opposed to you harassing people that don't believe in god.
" I'm sure you look just golden! For the record. You're the kind of people that I'm speaking of. Those kinds of people who have no interest in discourse or dialogue."
+++ wrong. i'm very interested in discourse and dialogue. you're the one trying to censor people. you're telling people not to give their honest opinions because it might hurt someone's feelings. doesn't sound like you're interested in true debate at all - you want to shut people down that disagree with you. "your opinion is mean, so you should be quiet." you promote censorship, not debate.
"The kind of people who are completely incapable of critical, analytical or rational thought."
+++ but you're not being insulting, huh? get off your high horse. you're guilty of exactly what you're accusing me of. what have i said that shows i'm incapable of critical thought? please.... i'm waiting.
"Yet, you sit on a blog harassing people who believe in something other than what you believe in."
+++ as opposed to you harassing people that don't believe in god.
(Matt's response): I've stated several times that I'm not a religious person. So I'm confused as to where you've concluded that I believe in God. However, this does prove my point that you aren't interesting in discourse considering that you are apparently not even reading my comments in full.
" I'm sure you look just golden! For the record. You're the kind of people that I'm speaking of. Those kinds of people who have no interest in discourse or dialogue."
+++ wrong. i'm very interested in discourse and dialogue. you're the one trying to censor people. you're telling people not to give their honest opinions because it might hurt someone's feelings. doesn't sound like you're interested in true debate at all – you want to shut people down that disagree with you. "your opinion is mean, so you should be quiet." you promote censorship, not debate.
(Matt's response): Prove it. Where did I censor anyone or promote the censoring of any response? The burden of proof lies with you. Also, no you're not interested in discourse at all. Where you, you would have read my responses in full rather than make assumptions. Case in point, you assuming I'm a religious individual.
"The kind of people who are completely incapable of critical, analytical or rational thought."
+++ but you're not being insulting, huh? get off your high horse. you're guilty of exactly what you're accusing me of. what have i said that shows i'm incapable of critical thought? please.... i'm waiting.
(Matt's response): You're right, I've posted somethings that could be considered insulting. However, I've also cleared up my responses rather than troll people. You've done NOTHING but name call. I ask you, give me one comment where YOU showed even a glimmer of interest in discourse. Show me where you actually intelligently engaged someone this thread without a demeaning tone. Please....I'm waiting.
sounds like you think you're pretty smart because you liked this fluff article. yes, everyone that didn't like it or doesn't agree with you must have missed the point because we're too dumb. or maybe we do get it and you're just not as smart as you think you are.
Thank you for proving my point.
if you're point was you have a tremendous ego - you're welcome.
What exactly is your point?
Oh boy – another article that sounds like the author is smoking dope while writing.
The bible says. . . . . Such a terrific source/.
Well.....considering this article is about the bible and what birds are present in it.....yes, it is a good source for the topic.
it's just a worthless topic. it's not news. it's a religious fluff piece better found on a christian website.
I absolutely agree, its not news by any means. But, it is on a religiously aimed site. So, it kind of has its place here.
I think it's rather disrespectful to believers. It's rather like CNN is saying "Here's a nice dish of fluffy bubbles. It will make you happy. Enjoy!" Not exactly crediting you believers for having brains.
OH! I'm not a religious person at all. Sorry should have made that clear. But I do agree, some of the language is somewhat patronizing to a degree.
it's a news site,not a pro-religion site, so no, this kind of fluff garbage has no place here.
I'd take a look at your navigation bar and read what it says.
"religion.blogs"
I should have stated "On a religiously aimed portion of the site"
If the bible is the authoritivce source material, then the article need not ahve been written. Just a list of the approriate verses to look up.
That's the other major problem with the bible. Some religious person always feels the need to explain it to other people, as if they can't read for themselves. And to wall paper over the contradictions of course.
I agree, but I just see it as an opinion article on a blog. I do see your point though.
Just think. The author actually got paid for this.
I'm gonna start my own church right away. I wonder if Raphael Cruz has a few pointers. . . .
Tony, it's on a religiously aimed blogged though. So in a sense, they were hired to write this. It's not like CNN is reporting it to the masses via television (at least I don't think they are). This portion of the site is geared toward a particular audience. I'm not religious at all, but upon seeing it I thought it would be interesting to see what it stated. Now, were they reporting it, then yes, I'd probably have a problem with that.
Thank you for reading my post so carefully and responding to the point that I raised – that it may be the fact that they have a reason to be together in a group other than looking for trouble, rather than the particular nature of that reason, that removes one's fears in such a scenario. Although I did not spell out this point explicitly – since of course the question implies it rather starkly – you understood it immediately and without further explanation. I'm gratified that my faith in the average citizen's reading comprehension was not misplaced.
It is always gratifying when someone takes the time to understand your points and address them. You, sir, have restored my faith in the intelligence and integrity of my fellow Americans.
I also thank you for pointing out that I have – up until now – mistakenly believed in the existence of chess clubs, soccer teams, biochemistry lectures and secular alliances. Thanks, once again.
I think there are a lot of people who missed the point of this article....pretty sad that the average person would rather fight and argue than take an interesting read with entertainment value for what its worth. Oh well, I guess I can't expect much from the average uneducated type.
yes, matt, you sounds like an intimidatingly smart person.
Perhaps most people don't actually find this to be interesting, Matt. It's a rather silly article, but if you like it, good for you.
Wow, I'm amazed at how many responses my post generated. I made a dumb mistake; it's a misplaced reply, and can't possibly make any sense where it is.
Maybe I should take that as a good reason to stop posting here.
This article is simply the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Could christians be any more desperate to reach the common man through well known birds?
YES.
Who cares what the bible says about anything. Any book where the god is sanctioning genocide should have been thrown in the trash years ago. Time to grow up people. The god of the bible is a sadistic, bucolic Bronze Age barbarian; and for you Christians who think your wimpy Jesus is somehow different, time to go back to Sunday school. Its called in your circles the "Trinity." Mass murdering god = Jesus. So who really cares what this book of fool's tales has to say about birds?
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only micro-evolution, or evolution within biological "kinds," is genetically possible (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not macro-evolution, or evolution across biological "kinds," (such as from sea sponge to human). All real evolution in nature is simply the expression, over time, of already existing genes or variations of already existing genes. For example, we have breeds of dogs today that we didn’t have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these breeds had always existed in the dog population but never had opportunity before to be expressed. Only limited evolution or adaptation, variations of already existing genes and traits, is possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits.
How could species have survived if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start would be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival. For example, “if a leg of a reptile were to evolve (over supposedly millions of years) into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing” (Dr. Walt Brown, scientist and creationist). Survival of the fittest actually would have prevented evolution across biological kinds! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition).
All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are found complete, fully-formed, fully functional. This is powerful evidence that species did not come into existence gradually by any macro-evolutionary process but, rather, came into existence as complete and ready-to-go from the very beginning which is possible only by special creation.
What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related!
Also, so-called "Junk DNA" isn't junk. Although these "non-coding" segments of DNA don't code for proteins, they have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed, so they're not "junk"). Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce biological traits or variations. It can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The term "natural selection" is a figure of speech. Nature doesn't do any conscious selecting. If a variation occurs in a species (i.e. change in skin color) that helps the species survive then that survival is called being"selected." That's all it is. Natural selection is a passive process in nature, not a creative process.
The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural
selection.
Evolutionists believe and hope that over, supposedly millions of years, random genetic mutations caused by environmental radiation will generate entirely new genes. This is total blind and irrational faith on the part of evolutionists. It's much like believing that randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will turn it into a book on astronomy! That's the kind of blind faith macro-evolutionists have.
Visit my latest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION .
I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, dinosaur “feathers,” the genetic and biological similarities between various species, etc., etc.
Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)
Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East" for my writings on religion and science. I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterward) before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges/universities.
This is a forum, not a lecture hall. Get over yourself!
Wow, he actually pats himself on the back after jerking off. Bravo, sir!
Ok, we have the gold medalist in utter bullsh.it posts for the day. I will address the only semi-alluring point this theologian/biologsi (ya gotta love that self-description) makes:
"Evolutionists believe and hope that over, supposedly millions of years, random genetic mutations caused by environmental radiation will generate entirely new genes. This is total blind and irrational faith on the part of evolutionists. It's much like believing that randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will turn it into a book on astronomy! That's the kind of blind faith macro-evolutionists have."
This is a common misrepresentation of the evolutionist position. No evolutionary biologist believes this. Let me repeat this, because it is a common lie propogated by creationists. NO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLIGST THINKS SUCH NONSENSE. What happens is that small, random, entirely plausible mutations build up over time. They accu.mulate, like sediemnt in a stream or cholesterol in an artery..
"
Real science supporting creation = zip
This supposition does not preclude multiple designers, just like humans invent individually and in teams. So the "one true god" belief becomes rubbish with this concept.
So you have a B.A. in biology/theology? That may qualify you for job as a janitor in a lab. From what college did you get your Bachelor of Arts degree? It sounds like you took a couple of biology classes at your bible college and are pretending to be an expert. I do hope you'll pardon me for preferring to believe the people who actually have doctorates in the topic. They tend to be the real experts.
Please provide references to serious scholarly publications (Discovery Inst!tute doesn't count) where you have successfully argued your beliefs.
Oh wow! The Bible has birds in it! I did not KNOW that. Wow! Whoopeee! How amazing! And you know, the best part? Jesus talks about birds. Awww, I just love him for that. Awww... and the birds are Badas s!!! Wow!! LOL! I'm a Christian and I can say that word! And how about them co cks, huh? Woah....I'm so naughty, but I'm not!
So I guess the reason why the birds in the Bible are so "badas s" is because..um, well, because Jesus mentioned them. Now isn't that just why I love him for? Isn't he just spiffy and funny and sweet and cool and stuff?
Awwwww yeeeeeeeeeeuh.
Seriously, CNN. This "article" and your site in general are jokes. But whatever. I'm glad you used this author to subtly and slyly ridicule Xians by portraying her as typical of that virtue-less creed.
wow your post was even more worthless than the article you're criticizing. nice job
lolly,
His/her comment was very good. Yours... not worth a lick.
what about the marabou stork? what does the Bible say about the marabou stork?
what about the parakeet? what does the Bible say about the parakeet?
what about the barred owl? what does the Bible say about the barred owl?
Hey believers, what are you doing on this blog right now?
It is Sunday, the day you are supposed to be prostrating yourself to your imaginary sky friend.
What would big brother say on your judgement day knowing that you blew it off and instead were on the internet instead?
Plus, all those religious scammers at your various houses of myth need to eat too.
That is where you all come into the Ponzi scheme equation.
Now get to the great communicator to god and give up more of your hard earned money, you sheep!!!
If you think that's what it's all about, you have been surrounding yourself with hypocrites, not Christians. I'm sorry that's the impression you've been getting. Christianity is about drawing in others with love and tolerance, not glowering down upon others in judgment. Judgement is the Almighty's job, and there are way too many undermining our faith by doing things Jesus would never do and then claiming to do it in His name.
Peace be upon you. I think you're alright, even if you do not believe in Him. He still believes in you.
He still believes in you.
You have absolutely ZERO proof of that statement.
Just like I have zero proof that the Pink Unicorn believes in YOU.
Why do you even bother saying "he still believes in you?" A. that's condescending and passive-aggressive to the extreme, and B. that's totally inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of the Giant Scr ot um in the Sky. He really does NOT believe in you – he has little or no faith in man, and has a dim view on the amount of people that will actually get saved in the end. So you better get your facts straight – the doctrine you're preaching is little more than new-age, al coh olics anonymous, power of positive thinking C RAP, repacked, rebranded, ready to wear as the latest Christian doctrine – but most certainly NOT the doctrine of the Nu ts ack of the Nations, the Vas Deferens of the Vast Universe, the Rec tum of the Weary, and the Sphincter of the Suffering – God Himself.
The New Testament is my book, the Law of Moses was fully abolished by Jesus' sacrifice, so I ignore the Old Testament. All I need to follow it is my faith. How you interpret my statement depends on what's in your own head. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for what's in your head. The doctrine I follow is what's been ignored by those who judge and kill in His name. And I will not judge you. I will not hate you. Your words are more dangerous to yourself than they are to me. I wish you peace and all the happiness life has to offer, really. Anger is toxic, and I hope you find freedom from it.
what about the ostrich? what does the Bible say about the ostrich?
Or the Australian flightless Kewi bird?
Oh yeah that's right, the babble does not say anything about any animal that was not in the Mesopotamian area.
Why?
Because those stupid goat herders who made up all those bull sheet azz stories did not know those other animals existed!
Believers are so damn dumb.
Haha,
I guess if I am going to call them dumb, I should not get kiwi wrong.
Just saw that typo.
Anyway, you believers are still dumb regardless of how bad I type.
Well, not to pile on, but the Kiwi is indigenous to New Zealand, not Australia. Just like Russel Crowe......
Oh trust me, there's a verse in there somewhere – like "Blessed is he who considers the ostrich; when his head is buried safely in the sand, he'll never see the second coming of Jesus – until Jesus comes right in his as sh ole."
Boo-yeah!