home
RSS
What I learned moderating the creation/evolution debate
Creationist Ken Ham makes a point in Tuesday's debate with Bill Nye, the "science guy."
February 5th, 2014
08:49 AM ET

What I learned moderating the creation/evolution debate

By Tom Foreman, CNN

CNN's Tom Foreman moderated the "creation debate" Tuesday night in Petersburg, Kentucky, between Bill "the Science Guy" Nye and creationist Ken Ham.

(CNN) - It says something when a person shows up at the Creation Museum wearing a top that says, "This is my atheist T-shirt."

At least that's what I think it said. I saw it in a blur as she passed in the parking lot; a thirtysomething with a young boy in tow, striding through the bitter winds of Kentucky to visit a place that proclaims those who deny the existence of God are dead wrong.

I thought about chasing her down to ask her what had compelled her to come, but it would have been a foolish question.

She was here to see a fight. And I was here to play the referee, to moderate a debate on a question that has raged for well over a century: Was humankind created by God in a rush of divine power, or did we evolve over time with only nature to take the credit?

Or as the organizers put it: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?"

About 900 people snapped up tickets to this event just a few minutes after they went on sale, and I was told they expected at least "hundreds of thousands ... maybe a million or more" to watch as it streamed online.

It was not just the topic drawing the throngs. For this crowd, the debaters really mattered.

On the left (literally for the audience, and figuratively in every other way) was the champion for the evolutionary side.

Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," made fundamentalist Christian heads snap recently when he declared it was flat-out wrong for children to be taught creationism.

I met him in a room behind the stage as the audience milled around, waiting for the event to begin. Having just spoken to an adoring crowd of science fans at a university the night before, he feared he was in hostile territory.

MORE ON CNN: 'Creation debate' recap: Science, religion and terrible jokes

"I think my agent is the only one on my side," he said, only half-joking. "I think the other 899 people in here don't really see it my way."

It was hard to tell. Aside from the woman with the T-shirt, there were others wearing pro-Nye gear, but no good way to count them.

Still, it looked like his supporters were probably in the minority, and I mentioned to him that some scientists were grousing online he was validating the creationist argument by even showing up. "So why are you here?" I asked.

"I'm here for the U.S. economy," he said. "See, what keeps the United States in the game for the world economy is our ability to innovate, to have new ideas, and those inventions come from science."

"And you see creationism as sort of poisoning the well for science?"

"Yes. I mean, I'm all for (creationism) in philosophy class, history of religion class, human psychology class," but bring it into science class, and Nye gets upset.

And that is what disturbs Nye's debate opponent. Ken Ham is a rock star in the creationist community who is quick to point out his own educational credentials and those of other scientists who support creationist views.

He is one of the founders of the Creation Museum, where dinosaurs are depicted as living alongside humans and the Great Flood of Noah is an indisputable fact.

He believes it is fundamentally unfair of folks like Nye to push creationism further into the educational shadows and to deny what Ham sees as its scientific components. (Ham concedes, though, that the great number of scientists and citizens agree with Nye: evolution is real.)

I first met Ham back when the museum was being built, and he greeted me Tuesday night in his affable, Australian manner just outside the room where Nye was waiting.

"I must admit I'm a little nervous," Ham told me looking out at the audience. "I want to passionately present my case and defend what I believe, but we never imagined it would become this big. It's amazing. Just shocked all of us."

It was impressive to see how much interest the event generated. A riser with a phalanx of production cameras sat in the middle of the room, 70 or so journalists were clustered to one side of the stage, and security officers seemed to be all over the place.

I was told that metal detectors were being used to screen the audience, and I saw what I presume were explosive-sniffing dogs quietly working the hallways.

Both sides in this debate know the subject matter can spur extreme feelings, and they did all they could to make sure extreme actions didn't follow.

Just the same, one organizer pointed out a corner some 30 feet behind my spot on the stage. A door there opens to the parking lot, he said, "just in case, for any reason, you need to get out fast."

The advice was appreciated but unnecessary. The crowd proved to be polite, attentive and admirably restrained through the entire 2½-hour debate.

So were the debaters. Although they were firmly on opposite sides of the fence, Ham and Nye presented their arguments calmly and respectfully. Neither tried to shout the other down.

I spent my time listening to what they had to say, watching the clock to make sure they got equal time and trying to ensure people in each camp felt their man was treated fairly. Both debaters shook hands at the end to rousing applause. It was not a fight after all.

MORE ON CNN: Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism

Considering the depth of feelings people have about this issue, I asked both men before we began if they expected to change anyone's opinion.

Ham said, "I will present (my information) trying to change people's minds, but knowing as a Christian it is God who changes people's minds, not me."

Nye said, "Here is my hope: I will remind Kentucky voters that this is a serious issue and that it is inappropriate to include creationism as an alternative to ... the body of knowledge and the process called science."

MORE ON CNN: Bill Nye: Why I'm debating creationist Ken Ham

By the time the debate was done, a fierce winter storm had settled in. I waded through the Creation Museum parking lot ankle deep in snow, with sleet pelting down. And I think it was a worthwhile evening - a debate humankind was created to have, or to which we evolved.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Culture & Science • Evolution • Science

soundoff (3,342 Responses)
  1. Bob

    The whole Jesus-sacrifice-salvation thing, a foundation of the crazy Christian religion, is complete nonsense. How is it that an omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

    Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there, Christians.

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

    February 13, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Bob,

      Why send Jesus? Why not God do the saving? Why Jesus death is a sacrifice?
      Jesus was sent by Good in the New testament to clarify or correct the Old testament. Ole testament that the belief in God should be spread around the world by force. Jesus redefined it or clarified it as spreading the word of God by kindness.

      God did not do it on his own because humans would not learn or would not believe in an intangible being. Therefore, God sent his son Jesus in the form of human to let humans know, it is posssible to spread his word by kindmess.

      Jesus death is a sacrifice because after his death there was a tremendous increase in the affirmation of the belief in God and conversion of non belivers. it made us more moral. as you could see we become more civilized. we have tendencies to go backwards butt the governing tendencies would be in the hands of humans like you and me.

      Peace.

      February 13, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      YOU are pretty ignorant of this God..youthink all He is is omnipotent..you leave out that He is a HOLY and JUSt God....He isn't this way cauyse he FEELS like it..it is His very nature...your argument fails

      February 14, 2014 at 1:51 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Beings that order and commit genocide are not moral and just.

        February 14, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Goodness you have terrible arguments.....Hes not just a mere being..he is the author of Life..He GIVES life..He is Just and reserves right to take it...you are not moral enough to say otherwise; God is the one who gives the life..He can take it.

          February 14, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          You pretend to "know" things you don't know...there can't be any worse of an argument than that.

          February 14, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          you responding to me? saying I pretend to know?

          February 14, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Ummm, yes.... is there someone else in this thread you think I was refering too?

          I also find it fascinating when believers such as yourself claim humans are not moral enough to judge the actions of god...when that is exactly what you are doing. You have just "judged god" to be good. If humans are not able to judge god to be immoral, then by logical extension we are not able to judge god to be moral either.

          February 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ok..first of all..stop pretending you know my thoughts and my beliefs. Stop pretending to think you know what "I know" That's pretty arrogant thing to do. Second, what I am saying is this..WE are not the moral standards, God is...thus who are we to judge God being immoral if it isn't our standards?

          February 14, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "WE are not the moral standards, God is...thus who are we to judge God being immoral if it isn't our standards?"

          If we cannot judge god to be immoral, we cannot judge him to be moral either. The logic of your statement cuts both ways. The only logical conclusion would be that we cannot know one way or the other.

          February 14, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          IM trying t hard to show you the standards...ours vs Gods ...forget the first comment I made..andgo with this one and last one

          February 14, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I mean..by what standard are WE going by to say God is evil?

          February 14, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          The same standard we use to say god is good.

          You can't have it both ways. You can't say that we are incapable of determining god is immoral and then turn around and say "but we are capable of determining god is moral". It would not be an honest position to take.

          February 14, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
        • hotairace

          kermit4jc, unless you can prove the existence of your or any god, you are just bullsh!ting. Your beliefs are no more valid than someone who believes Harry Potter is an actual person. No better than the crap peddled by astrologists. But, go ahead, prove me wrong.

          February 14, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          why depend on me to prove it>If God truly exists..would he not be the best evidence Himself? to merely believe cause I "prove it" is to be dishonest and naïve. NO man proved God to me..He did it on his own...why should I expect less of you?

          February 14, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Belief without proper evidence is gullibility.

          February 14, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          it is a true statement but who is that being? Humans.We blame God.

          February 14, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          No peace,

          I really don't blame god, I don't believe god is real. When I talk about the immorality of the god of the bible I am refering to the actions of a character in a book. I don't really believe that character is real though.

          February 14, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          I think i know you dont believe 🙂

          Iam commenting on your reply. Its true. However, you implied a being that is capable of evil that i presumed a God.

          February 15, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
  2. Peaceadvocate2014

    Fellow Humans,

    Summation of my thoughts:

    Does God exist? Yes, to me. I belive based on the accounts and testimonies in the old and new testaments of the bible. Why there is a new testament that clarified the teachings of God through Jesus. There is no other rational, justification, demonstration, evidence to support this claim. There is none. That is were faith comes in, I will discuss that need and why faith should be tested below. God existence cant be tried in human courts or forum because it is something intangible. I cant blame nay sayers because it is our culture to have definiive proof to accuse or acquit in our courts and forums. What about other Gods? I m not here to debunk other Gods but to promote mine.

    Religion does not make us more moral.
    Maybe. I understand the skepticism in religion. Jesus challeged his own chruch when he was sent by God. In the temple where he said the temple should not be used as a market and make money. What we see in some of our religious inst:tutions today. But let us separate the sins of humans from the message of the inst:tution if we are going to be fair. Religiion established by humans are both divisive and destructive. God did not say call yourself christians, catholics, muslims, buddists, etc. Some would say our parents guidance or laws makes us more moral. Maybe. If the laws and parental guidance is consistent to Gods teachings through Jesus. If humans or parents established both religion and laws, there is a conflict of interest there. Im afraid so. I belive so.

    Is Jesus God?
    Jesus is the son of God in human form. why not a daugther? I do not know.

    Jesus Imperfect.
    Imperfect because is gets angry? When he challenged his own chruch and got crucified by his own people. Isrealites. Thus the fall of the Roamn Empire. Imperfect because he is blunt? Rude? When he encoutered a cananite woman whose daugther is sick. He referred to the canannites as dogs and isrealites as the children of God. He made an analogy based on the perception at the time. He is teaching his isrealite disciples as well as the cananite woman. He did cure the cananite womans daugther because of her faith.

    God is Imperfect.
    God kils or punish enemie in the bible. Reference may be in the Old testament were testimonies came from kings or an established ent:tes with power that could use God for their own self interest. That is why Jesus was sent in the New testament to clarify Gods message. Does God kill? No. Human do.What about other ills? Slavery, birth defects, famine, etc? Im afraid all were done by humans. Its our culture to blame others. If possible something intagible that cant defend themsleves. It convinient. Why God did not create a perfect world? This is not about Gods power but actually for the edification of humans. What would humans do? The hope is to base human actions through God teachings as manifested by Jesus. Humans development of moral applications. In a perfect world faith is not necessary. I stil have not heard any account that God is imperfect.

    Why God need to test our faith?
    To make us more moral. Our evolution. Like what Jesus did when he was confronted by a cananite woman needing help. All she needed was faith to have her child cured. The need for constant affirmation of our belief in God. SINCERITY. Jesus' closest apostle denied him 3 times. A fellow isrealite who saw his miracles, teachings, actions, examples. What more to us or non believers where the mere basis is a book. The denials are understandable. Now, we are left with a choice , do we believe or not. I choose to believe.

    February 13, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "When he challenged his own chruch and got crucified by his own people. Isrealites. Thus the fall of the Roamn Empire."

      You do realize the Roman Empire embraced Christianity before it fell...I guess Jesus was still mad.

      February 13, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        Blessed,

        There goes the saying, i defeat my enemies by making them my friends.

        Peace. Powerful message.

        February 13, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Well in this case it looks more like,

          "I defeat my enemies by making them my friends, and then I burn their house down"

          February 13, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          I did say that.

          Jesus did not raise a finger to burn the empire he sent a message that was not received by all humans because they dont believe. The so called early christians was in fact persecuted. Humans because of their flaws is hard of understanding Gods message, thus the burning. Thats is the more important that all hear the message and prevent or eliminate this evil.

          February 14, 2014 at 1:08 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          The point is after the Roman Empire embraced the message of Jesus, it fell. I did not imply Jesus had a hand in it, maybe he did, maybe he didn't....but regardless he wasn't impressed enough to stop it as you admit yourself.

          Another possibilty is of course that the god of the bible does not really exist...that would also fit.

          February 14, 2014 at 1:44 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          I would not say he was not impressed, but Gods teaching is you cant serve two Gods. As jesus said when one of his disciple wants to follow him. The disciple got rid of all superficial poseesion and followed jesus. I believe jesus was so impressed that roman catholic chruch is located in the Vatican. Although now he wpuld ne disapponted again because of our evil tendencies.

          February 14, 2014 at 2:25 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Heck I won't even serve one god....

          February 14, 2014 at 2:52 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Lol.

          Its hard to serve anybody. We question their authority if it is legitimate or not. I find legitimate authority as an authority that guide not demand. Example, when you guide a child to cross the street, that is legimate authority. We dont have to believe in any God but how would we ne guided to develop our moral applications? Do it on our own? Like i said there would be a conflict of interest coz we would be the same one to determine what is moral or not.

          February 14, 2014 at 3:09 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Peace,

          I have to take issue with the statement..

          "We dont have to believe in any God but how would we ne guided to develop our moral applications?"

          My 12 yr old son does as well as anyone. He is a non-believer and yet asks my permission to volunteer and donate money. He is full of empathy for others and cares deeply for animals. No god needed.

          Not to mention god's "morality" is less than impressive. Even when it comes to the mundane issues like s.ex. You seem to be hung up on the fact that because Jesus said some nice things, things that weren't even original to him, that somehow makes him divine.

          February 14, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          Good morning, it is ok to take issue, i like you coz you ask questions. I did that a lot when this concept of believing in something intagible was introduced to me.

          I am happy for your 12 yr old, he is in good hands. We guide our children with morals for they are our future leaders. What if you are gone or unable to provide that guidance? Who would he turn to? Remember when i said constant affirmation. We also need constant affirmation of our morality. As you can see in our daily lives.

          I still have not heard a good arguement against Gods morality. I answered all the ills is done by humans not God and God power is not the issue. God knows power, does not have to shot it everytime. God prefer humans to do it own their own, determine what is right. So, in a sense you are right about no God needed. But we are not perfect, from time to time we need God.

          I do know what you mean by s.ex. Is it the treatment of women at the time? That eve was the one who expelled us from paradise? That women should be relegated at home to take care of our home and kids? Is it womens rigths? Why a son sent not a daughter? Or is it love making? Why s.ex is demonize if youre not married?

          Some of what jesus said was not origin to him but all were originated from God. All other religion were based on God. The reason for the establishment of other religion was the discontent of what the choosen people (jews) did.

          Have great day. Have to go to the gym and spread the word of God 🙂

          February 14, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Peace,

          Like I have told you I think you a sincere person. The idea of "belief" in the intangable is not new to me. I believed, I no longer believe because the belief in the god of the bible is so absurd as I cannot believe. I will go one step further. Even if you could absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the god of the bible exists...I still wouldn't think that god was moral and just. Bottom line is the contradictions between the actions and behavior of that god and what is considered actually "moral" today is just to great to overcome. There may be a god, I don't know one way or another. But the god of the bible is as likely to be true as Zues is likely to rule from Mt. Olympus.

          You make a lot of declarations of things you "know"....like that even though the ideas of Jesus were not original to him, they did originate from your god.

          Going forward I would like you to ask yourself a question everytime you get ready to make a statement of fact about the "intangable"....How do you "know" it? I mean how do you really "know" facts about the intangable? How does ANYONE know facts about the intangable?

          February 14, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          i am also a sinner. i am not a so called saint but i think this kind of message is worth advocating.

          Maybe at times I wold say I "know", my passion gets the better of me.

          well theres the answer we cant prove it exist. excatly what i said. but i also said i choose to belive. call me nuts 🙂

          February 14, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Peace,

          I don't think you are nuts, I think your belief is based on emotion. And I don't think emotion is a reliable way to ascertain what is real and true. Emotional belief can manipulated even when the believer has the best of intentions.

          February 14, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          You may be right. I may just be over reacting. emotional. I would rather have emotions than none. Imagine the dullness.

          February 14, 2014 at 6:50 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          programmed like a machine. technology. its good to have but not act alike.

          February 14, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Peace,

          You misunderstand me, emotions are fine and good...... but basing "beliefs" on emotion rather than logic is what I am addressing.

          February 14, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          I dont think emotions was my basis of my belief but logic.

          The message in the book and how it applys in our daily lives. Our experiences. The need for morality. God is morality. Miracles mentioned in the book may not be actual miracles, there may be scietific explanation for miracles mentioned in the book unfortunately we dont have csi back in the days.

          I'll expand on our experiences. When we are born. We look up to our parents to guide us. Same with God. We look up to God to guide us. And the book is that guidance. Seems logical to me.

          February 15, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          You cannot demonstrate the existence of a god...any god.

          Go back and read about what I said concerning stating "facts" about the intangable.

          February 15, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        Lol.

        Humans did the burning. Not God 🙂

        February 13, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          You are the one who said

          "When he challenged his own chruch and got crucified by his own people. Isrealites. Thus the fall of the Roamn Empire."

          Not me.

          February 14, 2014 at 12:05 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Sorry, i placed my response above.

          February 14, 2014 at 1:15 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          If you are refering to the destruction of the irealite temple. That may be God. A natural disaster or a coincidence.

          February 14, 2014 at 1:19 am |
    • tallulah131

      You are certainly welcome to your opinion. You are certainly welcome to rationalize them in any way that makes sense to you. But your opinion is nothing more than your opinion. It does not prove the existence of your god. It only proves that you believe in your god.

      February 14, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
  3. Vic

    Jesus Christ Is Lord

    February 13, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
    • igaftr

      or not. Given the infinite number of other possibilities, likely not.

      Do you think you make points with your god by posting this day in and day out?

      February 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Why the need to have to relationships of a feudal society?

      February 13, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
  4. Peaceadvocate2014

    Seems like my post and replies are being block. Sorry guys. Short ones go through though.

    February 12, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
    • igaftr

      likely not blocked but there is a word filter that blocks certain things automatically...like I can't write const!tution without modifying it because there is a t!t in it.
      Check it over for that sort of thing.

      February 12, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        Thanks iga, your response shows we can argue but in the end we help each other. Common goal.

        February 12, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Certain words cause the WP filter to not post, e.g. the t.it in inst.itution

      February 12, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
  5. Peaceadvocate2014

    Test

    February 12, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
  6. johnn23

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_F9nIps46w

    February 11, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
  7. truthfollower01

    I thank everyone for reading the post. I probably won’t respond to everything said below (it is taking a long time just reading and digesting the content!) I will try to give responses more in depth at a later time to some of the objections raised. However I do have a question that may better help me to understand the skeptics view of the situation. Since (the skeptic can use the word “if” if they don’t agree with “since”)EACH breath you take is dependent upon God giving it to you, do you feel that God is doing something wrong if He determines not to give you the next breath? Do you see this as murder? How would you view this exact scenario?

    February 11, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      First you'd need to establish that a god gave us breath and could take it away. Presuming that I think it immoral.

      February 11, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Santa, I think you may have missed the conversation below. This is a follow up in regards to that.

        February 11, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I would view that in much the same way as a child burning ants with a magnifying glass. What is the point?

      February 11, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Blessed, can you please answer the question directly with your honest opinion?

        February 11, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I feel I did answer the question. I have stated very clearly that just because a god has the power to do something does not make it a moral action. Might does not make right.

          An example that has been used by someone making your argument is "doesn't a potter have the right to break his pots"? Sure, I suppose the potter can. But in that example "pots" are inanimate objects. Is that what we are to god...inanimate objects? If that is the case then he should not expect us "pots" to love him.

          Chistianity seems to teach we are gods children, is that how a parent should treat his children, by giving them life and then taking it away when the children don't behave as the parent wants? Now I am arguing in the hypothetic, I don't believe your god exists. This was started with you claiming "Objective Morality" exists, I pointed out that if it is objective it also applies to your god and you have never properly answered the contradiction without resorting to the special pleading fallacy.

          So which is it...are we "pots" or "children" to your god? You seem to argue both sides of the fence.

          And please don't accuse me of not answering questions when you still have not answered this one.

          Is genocide always wrong?

          February 11, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • Vic

          Human to human affair is not the same as God to human affair. Genocide and murder of one person are always WRONG, that's human to human affair. Now, if God takes such an action, there is no human involved in carrying it out, and, we cannot understand nor rationalize such a measure, it is part of the Divine Realm that we don't know and is above us. Like I mentioned earlier, I can only think of God's Sovereignty and cannot rationalize such measure. I also mentioned earlier, the Creator God and the created human are never equal, He can judge us but we cannot judge Him, our lives/existence are from Him, by Him and dependent on Him while He is Eternal in Generation and independent of us.

          February 11, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Vic, I get your argument, I really do. But that argument does not mesh with "Objective Morality". That is the point. Objective Morality either exists or it doesn't. You are making the same "special pleading" fallacy as indicated above.

          February 11, 2014 at 8:43 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Blessed,

          You have not answered the question. Since (the skeptic can use the word “if” if they don’t agree with “since”)EACH breath you take is dependent upon God giving it to you, do you feel that God is doing something wrong if He determines not to give you the next breath? (Yes/No) if so, why? Do you see this as murder?

          My scenario shows that God is ALWAYS sustaining you. The fact that you and I are alive at this moment is because God is giving you and I each breath to breath. God is always at work, sustaining us. Therefore, every second of life is enabled by God.

          "Chistianity seems to teach we are gods children," – Christianity teaches that those who belong to God are in God's family (they are sons of God) and that those who reject God belong to the evil one, satan.

          February 11, 2014 at 9:06 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          YES, I think it is murder....why? Because murder is the unjustified taking of life and justification does not come from giving life. If it did I would be justified in taking my children's lives. Now are you going to answer my questions or not? There seems to be a pattern here of me answering your questions and you evading mine.

          February 11, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
        • redzoa

          For the record, I'm with Blessed here. Again, the power to create is not synonymous with the morality of destroying the created. With respect to your sustaining breath question: If I had an endless supply of water, but refused to allow someone dying from dehydration to drink, my actions would be immoral. Evangelicals like to use the cure for cancer analogy when explaining why they feel they must share their faith, i.e. if someone had the cure for cancer, but they refused to share it, it would be immoral. I think both of these are relevant to your sustaining breath question.

          February 11, 2014 at 11:44 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Looks like follower evaded answering a direct question for another day.

          redzoa, enjoyed your post last night. I thought you expressed the problem as well as any I have seen.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:57 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Hey Redzoa. How are you today? I wanted to follow up regarding your comment you made a few days ago concerning your belief that their is no objective morality (I'm sorry it has taken this long to respond!)

          If morality is not objective, then I see no reason to provide opinions concerning how you arrive at what is moral and what is not. This is not at all meant to be rude to you, but I don't see any reason for it. If there is no objective morality, then morality itself doesn't exist. You can say one certain thing is evil. Someone else can say that that same certain thing is good. To me, this strikes at the core of your arguments that God has done anything morally wrong. It becomes a game of "who says?"

          I'll attempt to respond to some of your other arguments at a skater time and I apologize for not having done so sooner.

          February 12, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Blessed,

          Sorry to change the subject but you say "murder is the unjustified taking of life" and yet you approve of abortion. How do you reconcile the two?

          As a Christian I don't think Noah's flood was morally wrong if that is the question you specifically are looking to be answered. This should certainly not be of any surprise for the Christian to believe this.

          February 12, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          follower,

          I specifically asked the question,

          Is genocide always wrong?

          And you keep going back to Noah's flood. That is not what I am refering to.

          As to your question on abortion. Abortion is not murder, a fetus is not a child any more that a chicken egg is a chicken. The woman carrying the fetus has automony over her body and how to use her body. The choice is hers.

          February 12, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "If there is no objective morality, then morality itself doesn't exist."

          That is akin to saying "If there is no objective music, then music doesn't exist." It is absurd and is a non-sequitor.

          And you have not responded to what redzoa addressed or what I addressed as your "special pleading" argument for morality. You just restated your position without addressing the problem we posed to you.

          Let me see if I can get you to understand. If behavior "X" is objectively morally wrong, why does changing the being (person) doing behavior "X" .... becoming objectively morally right?

          February 13, 2014 at 12:24 am |
        • redzoa

          @TF – Hi again. No worries on the delay, as I'm sure you have a real life beyond this endless back and forth. I look forward to your responses. I'd written a lengthy reply but don't want to overload you anymore than you already are. Still, just a few quick thoughts . . .

          You stated: "If morality is not objective, then I see no reason to provide opinions concerning how you arrive at what is moral and what is not."

          Just because we might accept that absolute or objective morals do not exist doesn't mean that morality can't exist, that a comparison of opinions and their underlying rationales is without merit, or that we can't reach a useful (albeit imperfect) framework that is functional and beneficial. I think it safe to say that we both see inherent value in these discussions, in exposing our reasoning for criticism and in the hope that we both might influence or be influenced to our mutual betterment.

          I would point to the golden rule as the perfect example of a moral framework that doesn't require absolute or purely objective morality to be functional or beneficial. It is inherently subjective, framing how we should behave based on how we want to be treated and it is implicitly relative to a particular situation. But its validation is evident around the world, throughout the various cultures and religions, and across the span of human history.

          February 13, 2014 at 12:44 am |
        • redzoa

          @Blessed – Thanks for the kind words. I've been enjoying reading your posts for quite a while now. Every time I see your moniker, I think to myself, "What's so special about the cheesemakers?" Then I realize that, obviously, it's not meant to be taken literally . . . 😉

          February 13, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          It means "Blessed are all producers of dairy products"

          I especially like that bit from Brian because of the combination of "confusion and misunderstanding" turned into false "certainty and interpretation" , it says so much about human psychology and the flaws of religion....and yet on a basic level it is just silly.

          February 13, 2014 at 1:59 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Blessed,

          "I specifically asked the question,

          Is genocide always wrong?

          And you keep going back to Noah’s flood. That is not what I am refering to."

          Please list the event you are referring to so I can let you know if I think it was morally right or wrong. Is it the Amalekite killings?

          "As to your question on abortion. Abortion is not murder, a fetus is not a child any more that a chicken egg is a chicken." When does the fetus become a baby in your opinion and why?

          February 13, 2014 at 3:28 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "That is akin to saying “If there is no objective music, then music doesn’t exist.” It is absurd and is a non-sequitor." I don't follow your comparison. Please define your concept "objective music". If morality isn't objective, it's just personal opinion and if you say one thing is morally wrong and someone says the same thing is morally good, who's right and why are they right? Richard Dawkins even confirms this when he, speaking from the atheist's view, says that "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." On the atheist's view, morality doesn't really exist. There is no real good or evil.

          "Let me see if I can get you to understand. If behavior “X” is objectively morally wrong, why does changing the being (person) doing behavior “X” …. becoming objectively morally right?"

          God is in a distinct position apart from man. God not only creates life, but God is always enabling life (giving the next heart beat and next breath that you and I take). Our every second of existence is dependent upon God giving us that. We as men do not have this responsibility. I don't see God as owing me anything, including another breath. If He chooses not to give me this, God has done me no wrong. In fact it would be a greater blessing from the Christian perspective because I would then get to inherit eternal life and be with my Savior, whom I long to see. To the Christian, death is a blessing. It is when we get to leave this life to inherit something far greater. Obviously, when you factor in sin and the rebellion of man, it shows that we are deserving of death.

          February 13, 2014 at 4:06 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          follower,

          Why are you so concerned with a specific example of genocide? I only asked a simple "yes or no" moral question, "Is genocide wrong". If Objective morality exists this should be easy. You want to know the situation because your morality is dependent on the situation, which you and your religion have defined. That is where you pull the "bait and switch". You claim "Objective Moraility" but then need situational details to answer. That is not "Objective" as you are defining it and you have demonstrated to me you do not really believe in objective morality, it is subjective to you and your religion.

          The second part of your problem on the issue of morality is that you have no way of empirically demonstrating your "god's" version of morality is the right one. Your "god" is an opinion and therefore your morality is also opinion and further demonstrates its subjectivity. You just believe your morality comes from a greater power, that does not make it true. Your morality and mine comes from the same place, a combination of personal opinion mixed with social mores, ect.

          Claiming morality comes from a god doesn't makes it true or moral. The Amalekites certainly didn't think the Isrealites who were working on orders from their god (so they claimed) were objectively moral, and neither do I.

          As to abortion my opinions are subjective...and so are religious opinions, even Christian ones. Many christians in the history of this country did not have an issue with abortion because many christians believe(d) that the soul did not enter the body until the first breath. It is an opinion, albeit a religious opinion, but that doesn't make it objective...or true. If a Muslim killed you on orders from his god, is he morally justified? If you answer "no" but then later find out his god does really exist... and did order your death... does that change your answer?

          February 13, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Genocide is morally wrong..in the hands of humans..they are not the Judge, or Creator. Only God reserves that right. Certainly, we ALL die, thus it is a "genocide" to the ultimate degree. God is Judge, He is Just He is MOrally righteous. We are not, thus as I said,genecide in hands of people is morally wrong

          February 13, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          kermit,

          Which god? Belief is god is opinion, and therefore so is the morality of the believer. Your statement did nothing to address the issue as I presented it. Your argument potentionally justifies any killing done if the person trully believes their god ordered it.

          Does it bother you that your religious belief justifies the slaughter of wholes races of people? Apparently not...and that to me is sad....and quite frankly a bit frightening.

          February 13, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          The one and only true God..I have KNOWLEDGE of Gods existence..not merely a belief..so it cannot be called an opinion. Second, God of the BIble is the God IM referring to, Third..the God of the Bible does NOT ask us today tocommit any type of killing. The "genocide" of the OT was in ONE instance..during ONE period of time when the Israelites were taking over the land Promised to them by God.

          February 13, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ANY kind of killing bothers me....but who am I to judge God who is the Creator and Giver of life? we ALL die anyways.

          February 13, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Claiming to have knowledge and actually having knowledge are not the same.

          The argument you have concerning "knowledge" is indistinguishable from the Muslim claim (or any other competing religious claim) of knowledge concerning their god and is not in the least bit compelling. In fact it can be dismissed out of hand.

          I don't care why you justify genocide, the fact is you do.

          February 13, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and so what of it that we do?

          February 13, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          You obviously have not read through the thread and understand what is being discussed. The topic is "Objective morality" and the fact that CHristians cannot claim "Objective morality" because their morality is situationally dependent.

          But as an aside I will say that if my world view justified "genocide" and other awful behaviors, which you have admitted yours does....I would re-examine my beliefs. Just sayin...

          February 13, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          awful behaviors...such as? By the way.....why should I have to look again at my bliefs of a God who is Creator and Judge of all who decides when it is time for us to go? A God who is Just to punish the sins of people?

          February 13, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          What awful behaviors? Any behavior you have convinced yourself that your god approves. The only difference between a suicide bomber and you is what you think your god approves of...

          "why should I have to look again at my beliefs of Allah who is Creator and Judge of all who decides when it is time for us to go? Allah who is Just to punish the sins of people through his followers willing to kill the infidels through their personal sacrifice"

          (equally valid)

          February 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        Test of faith.

        February 12, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Truth,

      A good point of discussion, God prohibit killing but God could kill.

      That is a mystery to most. I always hear God work in mysterious ways. It is necessary for the edification of humans. If so, why cant humans do the same? Because humans are not perfect, the killing may not be for the edification of humans. Let us humans be advocates not a judge.

      Peace

      February 11, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        Correction: Human mistake.

        Let us be advocates of good causes and judge according to the teachings of God. If we make a mistake, repent sincerely, correct the mistake.

        February 11, 2014 at 9:39 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Teaching of God: Do as I say...not as I do.

          February 11, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          It is hard to understand. Coming from me who stand up against illegitimate authority. Its for the edification of humans. Faith.

          Better God ( spiritual non physical being) than humans.

          February 11, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
      • redzoa

        @Peaceadvocate2014 – First, just want to say that I appreciate your moniker. I believe the distinction is when one is looking at the biblical deity directly or indirectly taking the lives of children and infants who do not have the capacity to exercise free will. I'd also offer that indiscriminately taking human lives purely for the "edification" of other humans suggests that those lives have no other value than instruments of instruction. It reminds me of a prison camp where the captors randomly shoot 5 prisoners to remind the other 95 of what will happen if they disobey or try to escape. I don't believe most would consider this a moral behavior.

        February 11, 2014 at 11:36 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          @,

          I want to hear gods explanation before i hang him. There is a reason. Believe. It is better to have a spiritual nonphysical perfect being doing it instead of man. You can always blame god.

          I tried to pormote my moniker but failed on tje first try 🙂

          Peace

          February 12, 2014 at 12:28 am |
        • redzoa

          @Peace – "I want to hear gods explanation before i hang him. There is a reason. Believe."

          I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. Perhaps there is a god, perhaps it is the biblical deity and perhaps it had good reason for killing children and infants. I just can't think of one and I've not heard a single apologist provide any (and I've heard quite a number of apologists attempt to excuse these killings). Of course, we'd all love to see the biblical deity actually make an unambiguous appearance and answer a few questions, but I suspect neither of us expects this to actually happen. In the mean while, if I chose to believe simply because I wanted eternal life or because I was afraid of eternal damnation, I would be lying to myself and the biblical deity. With all due respect, I can no more accept an alleged deity's offer to "just trust me" than I could a fellow mortal's if they claimed to have a secret justification for indiscriminately killing children and infants.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:10 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Red,

          i choice to belive not because of salvation or damnation. I believe because the account and testimonies in the old and new testatament section of the bible is very powerful. Why there is a new testament to clarify the message of the old by God sending Jesus. Consistent to Gods message since the beginning up to present. God created humans to think for ourselves, what choices were going to make. To develop our moroal applications. Our evolution.

          Regarding the killing of children and infants. Did you see God actually do it? I thought you dont belive in a supernatural being? God kills for the edification of humans. I say this because it is our culture to blame others. We cant see fault in others but we cant see our own. These sins are human sins, created by humans, killing, slavery, birth defects, gays, natural disaters (we tend to blame God). It is better to blame God. Its convinient.

          February 13, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          SO true! Blame someone else! That's the MO of many skpetics...people nowadays don't seem to take responsibility for their own actions anymore...get pregnant? abort it....too old to live? Let him die.....etc etc..the humans are with no compassion whatsoever for humanity

          February 13, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          kermit,

          its human nature. but there is still hope as we see in our development. we are becoming more civilized. there are tendencies which takes us backwards. but governing tendencies are in the hands of humans like you and me.

          Peace be with you my brother

          February 13, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • redzoa

          @Peace – "Regarding the killing of children and infants. Did you see God actually do it? I thought you dont belive in a supernatural being? God kills for the edification of humans."

          With all due respect, this is a silly question. If you believe the scriptures are divinely-inspired and capture an accurate reflection of the character of the biblical deity, that it is enough. I don't believe I've made any statements regarding my personal beliefs, though I've seen no evidence supporting the existence of god(s). I must concede I could be wrong. But can you make the same concession? Could you be wrong? Is it possible the biblical deity doesn't actually exist?

          You return to the "edification" of humans to justify the indiscriminate slaughter of children and infants. Again, this undermines the notion of judgment according to an exercise of free will, and further reduces these lives to rather meaningless tools used to educate the survivors (by any standard, the lives of killed are worth less than those targeted for the "education"). As I pointed out in my prison camp example, few would find such behaviors moral and I notice you didn't address the comparison.

          You say you don't believe because you're seeking eternal life or attempting to avoid eternal damnation; however, I simply can't find your claim credible. If a criminal suspect was confesses with a gun at her back and the promise of prompt release, the confession would be thrown out of court regardless of whether it was honest simply because the context alone undermines the confession's reliability.

          February 13, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Red,

          Valid point. I could be wrong. I am not forcing my beliefs, I just wannt to be heard. I would still be at peace if im wrong because of the message of my beliefs.

          Edification of humans. This is not about what God could do but wjat humans could do. What would humans do? How eould they develop their moral applications.

          I did not say i dont believe in salvation or damnation, what i said was, i did not choose to believe because of salvation and damnation but bevause of the account and testimonies of the bible. There is a difference. Your criminal analogy is true but our courts rely on tangible things. Maybe it should? How do we know its an honest statement? We are mot perfect beings like the God i choose to believe.

          February 14, 2014 at 1:02 am |
        • redzoa

          @Peace – Certainly not my intent to disparage you and again, I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. Furthermore, I appreciate your humble and cordial posts here. I guess I'm still having difficulty seeing the value of your "edification" rationalization for why a deity would directly or indirectly kill children and infants. I believe my prison camp analogy explains my perspective on indiscriminately killing some for the "edification" of others. Perhaps I'm just missing something in your "edification" argument attempting to justify these child/infant killings. I'd also point out that I don't believe you've offered any response to the contradiction of alleged judgment according to free will v. the killing of children/infants incapable of exercising free will.

          February 14, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Red,

          I do approciate the exchange. Regarding the indiscriminite killings for the edification of humans. The killings is done by humans. A diety has nothing to do with it. We see the horror and determine what is right. Development of our moral applications. Our evolution. Example , playing basketbal we get better by our experiences. We learn. God sent us jesus who showed the way. Some called a fulfillment. What is right. Our guidance.

          February 16, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
  8. otoh2

    "Spreading the good word is harder than i thought even if i perform miracles they would not believe."

    Really? A real smart and all-powerful god didn't **know** that beforehand? And 'he' is totally stymied about how to do it?

    February 11, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
    • otoh2

      ... sorry, that was a reply to Peaceadvocate2014

      (first post on this new system didn't land right)

      February 11, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Otoh,

      God knew it, JC knew it as demonstrated by humans over and over again. Choosing Barabas rather than JC to set free. I am only human like you. Our tolerance and patience is much less. Therefore, I am asking for divine intervention. Provide me strenght.

      Peace.

      February 11, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
  9. Peaceadvocate2014

    Spreading the good word is harder than i thought even if i perform miracles they would not believe. Change is slow but should not be abandoned.

    Peace. God bless America.

    February 11, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
    • Vic

      Yes, God Bless America.

      February 11, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Cheap parlor tricks do not make a god. I expect more from the creator of the universe.

      February 11, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        I rest my case. Not here to argue. I here to spread the good word.

        February 11, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          And I am here as the loyal opposition to the claim that is actually the "good word".

          February 11, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          I understand your position and/ or opposition. Understand mine. With all these discussions i feel like we are getting nowhere. I am left with no choice but to seek divine intervention to reach out to the non believers.

          I will always be your brother. Peace.

          February 11, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          No offense but I think we are getting nowhere because you keep making claims that you can't justify or demonstrate, which you fully admit. If you are going to claim something is true don't you think you should have to show it and not just make unverifiable assertions?

          I think you are on the right track with divine intervention though. If you god truly wanted be to believe he knows exactly what it would take to change my mind.

          February 11, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          I get offended when I am accused of something I am not. I get frustrated when I am justifying and demonstrating that God, a perfect being do exist. I do this by citing examples as shown in our history. No hocus pocus there. If you do not believe in miracles written with testimonies of humans before our time, it is your choice. Some do not have to see miracles to actually believe. I dont blame you because that is our culture. We have to have definitive proof to accuse or acquite somebody. Thats probably why judgement made by humans court is not perfect.

          I caution you in what you wish for. The God I believe in wishes humans to do it on there own, if not, God test of our faith wiuld be more difficult for us to understand.

          Believing in God, a perfect being is good. It makes us more moral because we aspire to be perfect ourselves. To have perfect morals and that is our evolution. A bright future.

          I do appreciate the views presented by some non believers. Some I simply do not understand, resorting to ridicule. I could only speculate the reasons why. I encourage to continue these discussion, not to divide but to understand each others point of view. I say this in the hope that one day humanity would unite. Imagine the accomplishment we could achieve together.

          Peace be with you.

          February 11, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • Pete

          "Believing in God, a perfect being is good. It makes us more moral because we aspire to be perfect ourselves. "

          It's comments like this that deomonstrate why you need to go back to school and take a history lesson espeically when it comes to religions. Oh...that's right you are going to try and side step the fact you belong to the Christian religion. We have gotten more moral through our laws, not religion. If we allowed your religion to rule women would still be second class citizens.

          February 11, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Pete,

          Im immune to ridicule but have little tolerance to certain stupidity.
          That is the only reply I can think of. Forgive me.

          Peace my brother.

          February 11, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • Pete

          LMAO! Thanks for proving my point about you. LOL!

          February 11, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Peace you have not rationally justified or demonstrated the existence of god, no one has.

          And just because someone claim a miracle does not mean it is therefore been demonstrated to be true. Do you believe every miracle claim in every religion? I am guessing you don't, and since that is most likely the case how do you determine the "true" ones from the frauds? You need to study up on epistomology.

          And religion does not make people more moral, you have no evidence to back up that statement...it is just another baseless claim you are making.

          As I have pointed out the god you believe in is not perfect. Jesus was far from perfect.

          Please don't feel offended by me attacking your religious ideas....ideas should be challenged. I am not attacking you personally though often believers feel that way when there ideas are challenged.

          February 11, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Pete,

          I will indulged you. You mentioned its our laws not religion that made us more moral. Maybe. Question: How did our laws get established? Is morality considered in the establishment of these laws? Why? Belief in a God? Make note, I refer to the God I believe in not religion or any religious denomination established by man, opps by humans. My human mistake. It is like saying I will establish my religion and establish my law based on that religion. Both established by humans. Do you think there is a conflict of interest there? I think so, well I know so, unless that human present themselves as perfect beings. You still with me?

          Now, regarding womens rights or as you put it to remain a second class citizen because of religion. I do not know the religion youre referring to. Is it established by man, opps pardon me again it takes a while, establshed by humans? Then maybe. The God I believe in is considerate, but first, what exactly do you mean by it. Does women have to have equal pay? Yes. Rigth to vote? Yes. Have the rigth to abort? Marry another women?. Let me know what exectly do you mean by second class citizen.

          You posts and replies at times are meant to ridicule or full of hate. I hope you do better in the future.

          Peace be with you my brother.

          February 11, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          You tend to see fault in others but you are blinded to see your own. I never mention any of your faults. I am just spreading Gods teachings. To say JC is not perfect, because he made an analogy between Cananites and Isrealites in Matthew 15, you considered Him as imperfect or rude. Where did you get the idea the JC or God condoned slavery? Not the God I believe in. What other action or teachings made you think God or JC to be imperfect?

          Peace

          February 11, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
        • Pete

          "You posts and replies at times are meant to ridicule or full of hate. I hope you do better in the future."

          No, that is how you are choosing to preceive my posts doesn't mean it's true, now ask yourself why did you choose to read it that way. Which god do you follow based on what book? Answer the question. You use the phrase JC that implies you base your god off of Christianity and with that religion that proves what you say about your god wrong.

          February 11, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
        • Pete

          "Let me know what exectly do you mean by second class citizen."

          Read a history book, it would help you with your arguments since all you are doing is side stepping the issues to sell your god.

          February 11, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
        • Pete

          "Not the God I believe in. What other action or teachings made you think God or JC to be imperfect?"

          The bible has been proven not to be a history book, the bible is imperfect. If it's a book inspired by your god, it shows it's got issues.

          February 11, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Pete,

          You are not making sense. Its hard to reply. I'll pray for your ignorance.

          February 11, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Peace,

          When I refer to a "fault" it pertains to your argument, your position, your logic, ect...not to you personally. If you find "fault" with my argument, my position, my logic...it will prompt a discussion, I will not be personally offended. I may get heated, that does not equate to me disrespecting you as a person. I can respect you and at the same time not respect your ideas.

          Regarding slavery, I explained I would expect a perfect god to address this issue and I would expect that god to prohibit owning other people. The fact that the god of the bible does not prohi.bit owning other people, but takes the time to prohi.bit many other trivial behaviors indicates to me that said god is not perfect and is in all .probability a construction of the man, not a god. You addressed this issue by claiming god has a need to "test" us with no reason or logic to justify that conclusion.

          If you would like to read a critical breakdown of the Sermon on the Mount,,,, maybe it will help you understand the position I have.

          go to http://wiki.ironchariots.org and in the search box put in 'Sermon on the Mount'

          February 11, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • Pete

          "You are not making sense. Its hard to reply. I'll pray for your ignorance."

          The ignorances is your's since the world's largest research center has shown that the bible is not a historical book, which is why all the flaws in it keep coming up. Nice side stepping yet again by you and I love the you are trying to be so subtle in your insults since it demonstrates you are fraud and a liar to yourelf when it comes to your beliefs.

          February 12, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          When I say you tend to see faults in others but fail to see your own. It means, it is convinient to blame others, it is our culture. If possible, blame beings that cant defend themselves like JC or God. All these sins or ills in the world past or present are created by humans.

          I'l read up on your reference if I have the time. At this time, I am at peace in my belifs.

          February 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
      • believerfred

        Cheesemaker
        "why is it necessary for god to test our faith"
        =>Biblically there are two types of testing. A negative test would fall into the area of a temptation where darkness is revealed which although a "test" if you want to call it that is a process that robs and takes away from the image of God. A "test" that God allows is one that brings out the light within you one that does not rob or seek to take away but restoration to the full image of God which most of us have long forgotten. It goes to the beginning when God said let there be light and it was so. It's all about the light which reveals.

        February 11, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I understand what you said fred but it does not answer my question. Why is it even necessary to test our faith? Your god gave many people the undeniable proof I ask for...didn't they need their faith tested too? Why does my faith require more testing than theirs?

          February 11, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • believerfred

          Cheesemaker
          Moses, Isaiah and the rest of the Prophets could not describe the substance of God leaving us only with attributes associated with God. When it came to the mind of God they claimed no one could know the mind of God. So, just as the atheist objectively defaults to we don't know I default to "I don't know why God chose the plan of creation as revealed in the Bible". The plan of creation is to bring about a remnant that loves as God loves. The first representatives of mankind and even the greatest of angelic beings eventually had desire greater than that love. Existence as we know it is in that reality which the Bible calls the World which is filled with desire other than to love as God loves. At one point in time there was only Noah representative of a remnant that loves as God loves or at a minimum had the potential to follow the way (Gods plan). They no sooner were brought to safety on top of a mountain (after the flood) that the "testing" began. Noah was tested and fell to temptation as did all but one son in different degrees.
          Note the selection process where to each was given a small amount of faith in the midst of the ways of the world. Few eventually begin to seek out love that transcends the ways of the world.
          Now, this is not biblical but no one could force me to love someone and be real or represent who I am. I could be tricked or deceived into it but some element would not be real. I could be a robot only programed to love in specific ways but that limits creative individual expression only acquired in an environment where limits are self imposed and self directed.

          God has demonstrated through the wonder and awe of creation itself that the void in the darkness of the abyss was separated by the light and that light was the word of God. In the image of God that wonder and awe of creation is termed the Glory of God that was evident in Christ. We were made to be Christ like filled with the wonder and awe of creation. There are no limits that can be put on the Spirit within that is of God that we do not impose by choosing the desires of the world over the desire of God. Nothing has changed since the 7th day when God rested from creation and said it is very good.

          If you desire to love as God created you to love you only need to ask and it will be given. But, much will be asked of you for to him whom much is given much is expected. That little faith you question is being snuffed out by you not God because if there is God then you would expect to have received just the proper amount you needed to seek the true desire of your heart.

          February 11, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          fred,

          You can quote scripture and cite the bible all you want, it is nothing more than mythology. Blaming me for the failures of your god is not going to work. Ball is in his court not mine. I have no reason to think anything pertaing to "god" in the bible is true. Do you believe the Book of Mormon? When you understand why you reject the Book of Mormon you will understand why I reject all religious text as anything more than mythology.

          February 11, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
        • believerfred

          Cheesemaker
          When you ask questions concerning faith relative to God the main source is the Bible. This is why I gave a quick backdrop about Gods plan and how faith fits into that. If you consider the Bible without merit because you believe it to be myth or folklore my comment would not change. You seem to know that your perceived lack of faith is caused by some real agent. I doubt you would be looking at myth or folklore for the answer because you are looking for something real. These alternatives are mutually exclusive and I am betting that the voice you hear is a very real.

          February 11, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          fred,

          Fair enough, but it still doesn't answer the question.

          February 11, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
        • believerfred

          Cheesemaker
          "Blaming me for the failures of your god is not going to work. Ball is in his court not mine."
          =>You are correct in one aspect in that it is God (aka Christ in some cases) who calls you in the Old Testament and in the New Testament it is the voice of the Good Shepherd (Christ) that calls those who are of the flock. Your part is your response to the voice (my sheep know my voice). You either hear something or you don't, you are either presented with circumstances, inclinations or testimony that rings or your not. If you hear nothing or see nothing that is a blessing also as you are only held accountable for what you were given.

          "Do you believe the Book of Mormon? When you understand why you reject the Book of Mormon you will understand why I reject all religious text as anything more than mythology."
          =>Christ rejected the religious who established tradition, ceremony and their ways on top of "the way the truth and the life". The one group that he gave the greatest of warning to were the Sadducees and Pharisees because they were given the truth then perverted it. The Catholics added much as did Joseph Smith etc. to such extent the truth is obscured and most believers are far from the simple image presented by Jesus. This is exactly how we are told it will be.
          =>I do not reject Mormons anymore that Christ would have. I can see how the Old Testament was twisted through Mohammed and its origins based on hatred and cultural mistrust of the Jews. How the Catholic Church became corrupt and where Mormons, Jehovah Witness took on a life of their own. Rejecting that which is inconsistent with fundamental truths beginning with the Book of Job is not that difficult. To assume that suggests 6,000 – 10,000 years of oral and written history is also in error is speculation without evidence. We have evidence where in the past 1,600 years the ways not of God were added to those original works but that evidence also makes clear what is foundational and what is not.
          =>you are right to reject the Book of Mormon. Evidence is in your favor.

          February 11, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I am glad you have been able to cut through the clutter, 33,000+ different versions of Christianity and figure out the truth. As for me, I have nore more reason to trust you have it right over anyone else.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:50 am |
        • believerfred

          Cheesemaker
          If you claim 33,000 Christian denominations there are probably 330,000 or more variations of Christianity. The only thing we can really know is where we are relative to the truth. The vast majority of Christian views are not that extreme so as to block one from seeking God. God does not care about the shape of the church we attend anymore than God cares about the color of our hair or if we shave it. God is concerned with salvation of ones soul. You are not cast into any lake of fire because you are Catholic or Mormon etc. or because your denomination says so because of some strange understanding of select verses.
          Your soul either is or is not inclined towards the things of God. I suspect you actually know what that is yet you reject it out of a motive not lack of evidence. Check your motive for rejecting that which Jesus made abundantly clear as natural bias has motive.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:17 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Jesus has made nothing abundantly clear. The only things you "know" about Jesus are things other people have said about him (none of whom met him or can even be shown to be his contemporaries).

          "yet you reject it out of a motive not lack of evidence."

          You have no idea why I reject it, and it is rather arrogant to imply you do. But you sure make a lot of claims of knowledge that you can't demonstrate. you are really good at pretending to know things you don't know.

          February 12, 2014 at 2:12 am |
        • believerfred

          Cheesemaker
          Not at all arrogant or assumptive. I do not know anyone who has accepted or rejected God absent motive. You would be arrogant if claiming you are the one.....unless morpheus agrees......now go have a cookie.

          February 12, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          fred,

          I don't know anyone who has consciously acted of not acted on any particular thing that didn't have motive, religious or otherwise. If that is what you were trying to say, your point is so generic as to be meaningless. What you seemed to imply is I had an conscious agenda.

          Now go outside and play "hide and go f*** yourself"

          February 12, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
        • believerfred

          Cheesemaker
          I referred to "now go get a cookie" when Morpheus knew the one, assuming you had seen the movie Matrix. It was not an insult but a compliment. Sorry you took it wrong.
          I only engaged as I wanted to share the wonder that is life which so many are distracted from because they seek that which cannot be found absent the love of God. That said I pray for Gods mercy on your soul

          February 12, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          fred,

          If that was your reference obviously I mistook your meaning, and since I have seen the movie I believe you. I admit I was wrong to respond so harshly and I apologize. The comment read at face value seemed to convey condescension and felt very dismissive...hence my response.

          I do have wonder at life, I actually find it much more amazing and valuable now that I am no longer accept christianity as a valid world view.

          February 12, 2014 at 11:36 pm |
  10. truthfollower01

    Observer and Blessedarethecheesemakers,

    Good evening! I thought I would address you both simultaneously since your objections we left off with last night are similar. I'll skip right to what I feel is your main objection and that is the killing of the children. The question is that if God is a morally good Being, how could He do this? I want to first make a point that I believe some atheists misunderstand when they think God must keep the moral commands He gives US. I'll give you an example. If I took the life of an innocent person it would be murder. Therefore, I do not have the right to take the life of an innocent life. But why think God is restricted from taking life? Can not the One who gives life take it as He pleases? I agree with William Lane Craig when he said that "God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative. What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him." If I were to go outside this afternoon and a bullet should strike me, killing me, God has certainly done me no wrong. Remember that each breath of air we take is dependent upon God allowing us to do so.

    There is another aspect that I want to touch on that is very important to this subject. I believe that children and infants who die at a young age, before the age of accountability (which varies by each child) actually inherit eternal life, for God's grace is imparted to them. It is important to remember that God works with eternity in view. God doesn't wrong these children's lives by removing them from the world. They actually inherit the great blessing of being with God where believers, including myself long to be. Even Paul himself said that he desired to depart to be with Christ, which is better by far (Philippians 1:21). Notice that last part, "better by far".

    With all of this being said, I want to briefly touch on some things from our past conversations and how they relate to the killing of the children. Observer, given your criteria for determining morality ("based on the background of the society’s morals AND their own experiences and intelligence"), I see no reason why any of many things you have listed in the past (such as slavery – though I do want to say that the slavery of the Old Testament is no where near that of the chattel slaves of the antebellum South but that is a conversation for another time) are morally wrong anyways. In fact, based on your criteria, the Holocaust is morally acceptable! You try to say something is "morally horrible" when the criteria you give for judging morality proves the opposite! I believe you either need to revamp your criteria for determining morality or stop saying that these things are morally horrible. Your criteria and moral affirmations contradict each other. You sincerely seem to want to affirm that the acts you listed are morally abhorrent but on the atheistic view, you have no basis for doing so other than your personal opinion, which is only equally as valid as anyone else's including Stalin's and Hitler's.
    I certainly agree with Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig when he said "I find it ironic that atheists should often express such indignation at God’s commands, since on naturalism there’s no basis for thinking that objective moral values and duties exist at all and so no basis for regarding the Canaanite slaughter as wrong." Doug Wilson was right when he commentated on the Canaanite killings from a naturalistic point of view by saying, "The universe doesn't care." Richard Dawkins has said, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." If morality is really subjective as Blessed seems to believe, then nothing is truly good or bad as Richard Dawkins stated above. Morality is only a matter of personal taste. Those who believe morality is subjective have no basis for accusing God or anyone else of doing anything good or evil.

    I want to conclude this post by affirming that there is a way we can truly affirm objective morality and it is through God. Remember, if one thing and only one thing is objectively morally wrong, then objective morality exists. The Christian can affirm that moral abominations like the Holocaust are objectively evil, independent of anyone's opinion. I would hope you would want to make this same affirmation, but you need God to be able to do so.

    February 10, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
    • redzoa

      @TF – Not trying to jump ahead in line, but just wanted to reiterate a few points that may have been lost in purges. Rather than rehash, I'm just moving forward with what you've already posted.

      1) If god gives a moral command but doesn't have to keep a moral command in a "do as I say, not as I do" situation, morality is not objective, it is relative.

      2) Similar to your statement before where you expressly stated that torturing/killing children is wrong, you are slightly modifying the situation to say that you don't have the right to take an innocent life (by this, I take it you mean it would be immoral if you did); however, you are suggesting the biblical deity can take an innocent life. Again, this is relative morality, not objective morality.

      3) The ability to create life is simply not moral license to exterminate said life. This distinction is summed up in just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it. Add to this the 2nd greatest commandment/"do unto others" conflict. Again, you are arguing for relative morality, not objective morality.

      4) You seem to overlook the manner in which the biblical deity "removes" children from the world. Even mere mortals use painless euthanasia agents on their pets. Certainly, there were any number of options beside a terrifying and painful death by drowning, or being hacked to death by a short sword. Additionally, the bible indicates these children/infants were judged for the transgressions of their parents, effectively undermining a central tenet of judgment according to an exercise of free will. And not to beat this horse too much, you did say torturing/killing children is objectively wrong.

      5) The comparison of antebellum slavery to the owning of foreign-born slaves as personal property (i.e. chattel) is an appropriate comparison. The distinction between Israelite indentured servants and foreign-born slaves is expressly provided in Lev 25:44-46. I suspect you would find the owning of another human being as personal property to be an immoral practice, yet this is expressly condoned by the biblical deity.

      6) I don't believe in a truly absolute or objective morality because I can imagine no moral precept which can't be confounded by a hypothetical. Morality, IMHO, is situationally-dependent and reflects a complicated calculus of legitimate competing interests. Nonetheless, I believe the empathy implied in the golden rule provides a functional framework. Beyond this, it's simply choose to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. By this standard, I condemn the indiscriminate killing of children/infants as depicted in the bible. I'll leave the holocaust discussion alone because I don't find it a useful comparison to the biblical killing of children/infants.

      7) I would add that what your argument boils down to is a conflicted "Nuremberg Defense" of the biblical deity. You did state it was objectively wrong to torture/kill children/infants, but then double-back to approve this behavior if it is practiced by a perceived authority. This deference requires an abdication of personal responsibility in evaluating the behavior, evidenced in the objective wrong, but ok if god does it dichotomy. Add to this, your alleged objective source of morality bookends the command to obediently accept and believe with a promise of eternal reward and a threat of eternal damnation. Being asked to affirm your loyalty with a gun to your back and a pot of gold in front of you is not a truly free exercise of one's will.

      One last point regarding the "immutable good nature of god" argument you suggested evades Euthyphro's Dilemma. 1) This is just another argument by definitional fiat with no real support (god could defined as malevolent or apathetic with equal support); 2) the argument attempts to constrain god by limiting god's possible behaviors (to be god, it must have the ability to freely choose its own behaviors); 3) the argument is an acknowledgment of the source of good beyond god in that god has no choice but to obey his "good nature."

      Again, I appreciate your thoughtful and cordial comments and it's not my intent to disparage you personally, I just disagree with the basis for your arguments . . .

      February 10, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      First you were arguing for Objective Morality and yet you are making exceptions for certian behavior being "moral" under certain conditions, in this case if the behavior is done by "god" it changes from being immoral to being moral. That is in no way "objective". And notice what has happened, you have gone from accussing others of not being able to denounce the Holocost using their morality...to now you are rationalizing the wholesale slaughter of men, woman and children using your morality. I think it is appropriate you cite WLC because he did much the same thing when he said the real victims in the slaughter of the Canaanites was not the people who died including children watching their parents die before being slaughtered themselves...no it was the poor, poor Isrealite soldiers doing the slaughter. That is what you are defending, with your sick version of morality.

      And yes I am more that familier with this type of argument, it is called Divine Command Theory....or what the rest of us call "Might makes right". Except it doesn't...and it certainly does not mesh with Objective Morality no matter how hard you try and pound that square peg in that round hole.

      As far as your "Age of accountabilty tripe...why would you be concerned with abortion? Those fetuses get a golden ticket to everlasting life in paradise. The only real issue would be that the parents would be condemned for their action. But I bet when you argue against abortion you go on an on about the "rights" of the unborn. Of course those rights are no objective though are they? No sir, the dictator of the universe that you describe as "loving" has veto power over those inalianable rights.

      I bet you go on and on about your god not giving humanity complete proof of his existence because he would be "violating humans free will". But of course ordering and commiting genocide doesn't violate "free will" (sarcasm).

      All you have done is define your god as all powerful and therefore ANYTHING he does is moral, just by the fact of his power. That is not "Objective" and it certainly is not "Moral". I would not worship that "mob boss" you call a god even if I thought he did exist. You are not moral...you are obedient....being obedient is not being moral, it is th absence of acting morally, it is by definition "amoral".

      February 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Tf- "Those who believe morality is subjective have no basis for accusing God or anyone else of doing anything good or evil."

      We have whatever basis we find in ourselves, or whatever basis we subscribe to.

      Tf – "I want to conclude this post by affirming that there is a way we can truly affirm objective morality and it is through God. "

      We began to discuss the problem with God (or God's nature) being, or encompassing, the objective moral standard you believe in – basically that is the so-called second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. If we decide that God and only God determines what is good, that what God does is always good because it is done by God or in accord with God's nature, then we have to be satisfied that arbitrary things originating from God are good. If God if has free will, can do arbitrary things, then morality is contingent. But you want the objective moral standard to be such that some things are always good and some things are always evil. It doesn't look like that can work unless God is constrained somehow.

      February 10, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
    • igaftr

      truth follower?
      It should be belief follower. You do not even know if any gods exist, let alone YOUR version of god.
      You don't want truth, you want your belief to be true.

      February 11, 2014 at 8:09 am |
    • Vic

      I can never accept or digest murder of a single person, let alone carnage. When I read about carnage in the Old Testament, I can never rationalize it; therefore, I don't base any of belief on it, I can only think of one thing, that is God is Sovereign. Why is that? It is because there are other things that tell me there is a God.

      Origin of matter, hence the universe, life, consciousness, mind, basic instincts, intuition, common sense, love, "objective" morality, etc., hence "First Cause," is what I can accept and rationalize to be God.

      By definition, "objectivity" is independent of the human mind, emotions, imperfections, etc., hence, it has to come from outside the human being while the human being is equipped with the functions mentioned above to discern it. That's how we detect "objective" morality. That's totally consistent with the Christian belief that "objective" morality comes from God.

      February 11, 2014 at 9:23 am |
      • Doris

        Vic: "it has to come from outside the human being while the human being is equipped with the functions mentioned above to discern it. That's how we detect "objective" ..."

        Vic, I think most here understand how the believer rationalizes their "detection" of things allegedly "objective". So really it still boils down to opinion and feelings about something for which, to me, the evidence is just not there. I find the objective morality [or fill in the blank] issues especially troubling for theists because verification of such, without aberration, requires itself that objective root-level connection to the deity.

        February 11, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • Vic

          I am glad you quoted me. As you notice, I said "detect" and that does not mean "achieve." We can detect "perfection" but cannot achieve it, hence, it is outside human ability, hence outside the human.

          February 11, 2014 at 11:59 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Don't you think it is a rationalization to excuse the OT with the "God is Sovereign"? Saying god can do whatever he wants and then saying that everything he does, no matter how awful, is good does not mesh with "God is Love". I think redzoa addressed this particularly well in his above post.

        February 11, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • Vic

          Ah, you misquoted me. I said I can never rationalize that; therefore, I can only think of the Sovereignty of God. God's Sovereign Divine Will, Wisdom, Command and Justice, are above our pay grade, we don't know "everything" about them and how they totally work. And that's part of the limitations of created beings.

          February 11, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Vic, I apologize if you think I misrepresented what you said, it truly was not my intention.

          But what I hear you say is that "God is Sovereign"...ok I will concede that point. He can do as he pleases, if nothing else because he is defined as all powerful and so no one could stop him even if they wanted to.

          "God is all good"....of course much of the behavior of that god can be shown to be immoral if it was commited by any human being.

          "Humans are too ignorant to understand the apparent contradiction between the 2 former statements"....This is where the rarionalization comes in. You claim to know there is a god AND that the god is all good. But you can't justify his behavior....so on what basis do you know that god is all good? Maybe he is not "all good"...why should I believe you?

          February 11, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • Vic

          The simplest way to put it is that the Creator God and the created human are not equal, we are from God but God is not from us.

          February 11, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          And a simple way to characterize what you said is..

          "Might makes right"

          And I don't think it does. Humans have the ability to reason and justify morality. If your god is not able to justify his behavior it is not my failure...it is his.

          February 11, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      I thank everyone for reading the post. I probably won't respond to everything said below (it is taking a long time just reading and digesting the content!) I will try to give responses more in depth at a later time to some of the objections raised. However I do have a question that may better help me to understand the skeptics view of the situation. Since (the skeptic can use the word "if" if they don't agree with "since")EACH breath you take is dependent upon God giving it to you, do you feel that God is doing something wrong if He determines not to give you the next breath? Do you see this as murder? How would you view this exact scenario?

      February 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
  11. praceadvocate2014

    I am here to promote peace. Is that immoral?

    Peaceadvocate

    February 10, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      And I thought you were here to promote prace.

      February 10, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
    • blessedarethecheesmakers

      Not unless you use Christian dogma to do it.

      February 10, 2014 at 9:37 pm |
      • praceadvocate2014

        Blessed,

        Point well taken. But most importantly i had to promote the amazing story of JC. Makes you go hmmmm...

        February 10, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Not that amazing, what exactly did he do that was so amazing. Please don't cite any miracles, I consider those mythology and not valid.

          February 10, 2014 at 9:54 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          It is not the miracles but His message.

          To love one another.

          February 10, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          So...? How does that equate to divinity?

          February 10, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Turn the other cheek?

          February 10, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Blessed, he fulfilled prophecy spoken before He was born. Take a look at Isaiah 53 and see who you think that chapter is talking about.

          February 10, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Follower,

          Creating a narrative to fit a prophacy is not at all impressive and I have no idea why you think it is.

          Peace,

          Turn the other cheek is nice, but it is not always good advice and I fail to seel what it has to do as to the question of divinity.

          February 10, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Blessed, are you saying that the writers of the Gospels molded their stories (lied about the facts) to fit ancient prophecy and then were willing to suffer something they knew to be a lie?

          February 10, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          I feel these messages could only come from a divine being. Having tremendous power and yet these are the messages you hear. Forgive me.

          February 11, 2014 at 12:02 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          follower,

          First, the long answer, you are equating the people who actually put the gospels words onto paper with the specific desciples they are named for when that just isn't the case..... and this is common knowledge among textual scholars.

          Now the short answer....yes I am.

          February 11, 2014 at 12:15 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Peace,

          Why would concepts like love others and turn the other check have to come from a god? They are not that amazing.

          I have nothing to forgive you for other than claiming you know things you don't really know.

          February 11, 2014 at 12:20 am |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          If you are God with tremendous power would you send messages as i mentioned? Why not, hit back and let them know who's God. Or i dont have to love everybody, i just have to love the pretty ones.

          February 11, 2014 at 1:22 am |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          Btw, i answered your matthew 15:23 post. Let me know what you think of my reply.

          February 11, 2014 at 1:25 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Peace,

          I am not trying to be arrogant here and I understand if you feel I am...but quite frankly if I was an all powerful gon and I wanted to get a message across to "my children" I could do much better than anything in the bible in both content and presentation.

          I will give one example, if Jesus really wanted people of all races and creeds to love and repect each other why wouldn't he have addressed slavery as the immoral insti.tution that it is. Instead he practically endorses it. "Slaves obey your masters" ....another bit of "amazing" advice from the "perfect" god.

          I will now check out your response below.

          And you might be interested that I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school too....Nuns and everything...long time ago.

          February 11, 2014 at 1:39 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          Why JC or God did not addressed slavery? As i said before, our faith in God needs to be tested. JC showed us the way and it is up to humans to address it. This will enable humans to do the right thing. Make us more moral. It is evident in our history. We are becoming more civilized. The days of slaves are over.

          February 11, 2014 at 11:15 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Peace,

          You keep saying our "faith needs to be tested". You are saying it as if you are certain it is true and yet when I ask the reason for god needing to test our faith you don't know. I think you are a really sincere and nice person but I have to call you out on that one. You claim to know things like ...

          God exists
          Jesus is God
          God needs to test our faith

          But then when I ask a simple question like "why is it necessary for god to test our faith" your knowledge stops. It starts to sound like the answers the Priests and Nuns would give me.

          God works in mysterious ways
          Thats where faith comes in
          ect.

          I don't find that type of reasoning convincing or dependable to what is actually true. It sounds more like guessing. How do I know you are not guessing when you claim Jesus is god?

          And if god is testing me, he failed to get his message accross. It is the message in the bible that ultimately made me reject it as divine. I could not rationalize the injustice of the foundation of Jesus. I would never punish my worst enemy the way god does in the bible.

          February 11, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          I posted my reply but i copied just for you.

          Does God exist?
          Yes, to me. I belive based on the accounts and testimonies in the old and new testaments of the bible. Why there is a new testament that clarified the teachings of God through Jesus. There is no other rational, justification, demonstration, evidence to support this claim. There is none. That is were faith comes in, I will discuss that need and why faith should be tested below. God existence cant be tried in human courts or forum because it is something intangible. I cant blame nay sayers because it is our culture to have definiive proof to accuse or acquit in our courts and forums. What about other Gods? I m not here to debunk other Gods but to promote mine.

          Religion does not make us more moral.
          Maybe. I understand the skepticism in religion. Jesus challeged his own chruch when he was sent by God. In the temple where he said the temple should not be used as a market and make money. What we see in some of our religious inst:tutions today. But let us separate the sins of humans from the message of the inst:tution if we are going to be fair. Religiion established by humans are both divisive and destructive. God did not say call yourself christians, catholics, muslims, buddists, etc. Some would say our parents guidance or laws makes us more moral. Maybe. If the laws and parental guidance is consistent to Gods teachings through Jesus. If humans or parents established both religion and laws, there is a conflict of interest there. Im afraid so. I belive so.

          Is Jesus God?
          Jesus is the son of God in human form. why not a daugther? I do not know.

          Jesus Imperfect.
          Imperfect because is gets angry? When he challenged his own chruch and got crucified by his own people. Isrealites. Thus the fall of the Roamn Empire. Imperfect because he is blunt? Rude? When he encoutered a cananite woman whose daugther is sick. He referred to the canannites as dogs and isrealites as the children of God. He made an analogy based on the perception at the time. He is teaching his isrealite disciples as well as the cananite woman. He did cure the cananite womans daugther because of her faith.

          God is Imperfect.
          God kils or punish enemie in the bible. Reference may be in the Old testament were testimonies came from kings or an established ent:tes with power that could use God for their own self interest. That is why Jesus was sent in the New testament to clarify Gods message. Does God kill? No. Human do.What about other ills? Slavery, birth defects, famine, etc? Im afraid all were done by humans. Its our culture to blame others. If possible something intagible that cant defend themsleves. It convinient. Why God did not create a perfect world? This is not about Gods power but actually for the edification of humans. What would humans do? The hope is to base human actions through God teachings as manifested by Jesus. Humans development of moral applications. In a perfect world faith is not necessary. I stil have not heard any account that God is imperfect.

          Why God need to test our faith?
          To make us more moral. Our evolution. Like what Jesus did when he was confronted by a cananite woman needing help. All she needed was faith to have her child cured. The need for constant affirmation of our belief in God. SINCERITY. Jesus' closest apostle denied him 3 times. A fellow isrealite who saw his miracles, teachings, actions, examples. What more to us or non believers where the mere basis is a book. The denials are understandable. Now, we are left with a choice , do we believe or not. I choose to believe.

          February 13, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
    • rougegeologist

      Hey, I was supposed to be rogue, now I'm makeup. No worries. What's in a name anyway.

      February 10, 2014 at 9:51 pm |
      • praceadvocate2014

        Geo,

        Superficial. What we humans are attracted to. There is hope as you can see with the progress humans have accomplished. We are becoming more civilized. We however have tendencies to go backwards. Tendencies would in the hands for humans like you and me.

        February 10, 2014 at 10:00 pm |
    • igaftr

      peace
      You cannot advocate peace by religious means. Religions are a major source of conflict. Only when people stop their superst!tions can we start to find peace.

      February 11, 2014 at 8:06 am |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        Iga,

        I agree, religious denomination established by humans are divisive and destructive. But God did not say call urself catholics, christians, muslims, buddist, whatever. In Gods eyes we are all equal. All God ask for is to believe.

        February 11, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • igaftr

          ALl god wants is a virgin thrown into a volcano.
          All god wants is a sacrificail lamb.
          ALl god wants is for all to worship her
          All god wants is you to fight valiently in battle
          all god wants..all god wants...

          All god wants is whatever men imagine their imaginary god wants.
          Still no sign of anything existing that fits ANY of the thousands of defined "gods"

          February 11, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Iga,

          these are what humans want to do , not god. there is only one god. it is for humans to determine who that god is. my main qualification of the god is rigtheousness.

          February 13, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
  12. Vic

    I am a born again Christian Protestant.

    I confess Jesus Christ as Lord and my personal Savior.

    February 10, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
  13. Vic

    ♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰

    February 10, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
    • Steve

      ♰ ♰ ♰Aphrodite Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Venus Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Apollo Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Apollo Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Ares Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Mars Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Artemis Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Diana Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Athena Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Minerva Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Demeter Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Ceres Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Hades Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Pluto Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Hephaistos Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Vulcan Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Hera Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Juno Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Hermes Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Mercury Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Hestia Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Vesta Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Kronos Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Saturn Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Persephone Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Proserpina Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Poseidon Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Neptune Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Zeus Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      ♰ ♰ ♰Jupiter Is Lord ♰ ♰

      February 10, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
      • barcs2k

        I am deeply offended by your inconsiderate post. You forgot to mention Horus. He is my personal Lord and Savior and I know this to be absolute truth. It's totally faith based, though, and I absolutely take the Book of the Dead as 100% word of Ra.

        February 11, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
      • barcs2k

        I am deeply offended by your inconsiderate post. You forgot Horus, who is my personal Lord and Savior. The nerve of you.

        February 12, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
  14. therunningtwit13

    Another experiment run amok by the fairy in the sky.

    god: what next do I have on the shelf? Hmmmmm. Let´s try space invaders?

    February 10, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
    • praceadvocate2014

      Space invaders. Aliens? Lol illegal?

      February 10, 2014 at 9:51 pm |
  15. bostontola

    If you accept that genetics is good science, and you accept that there are mutations, not just of a gene here and there, but entire chunks of genes that get duplicated, and that there is genetic merging from micro-organisms impact on genes, etc., and that life has been around for billions of years, then evolution of species is inevitable.

    Now, how it got started is a different subject. Science believes it will have a purely natural explanation and may even emulate life from chemistry in the lab some day, but that shouldn't stop people from accepting the clear truth of evolution of species. If you are a young earth believer, then ignore this, but anyone else, believer in God or not, it is really quite clear if you assess the evidence yourself.

    February 10, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
    • niknak

      Nah, they would rather just go with "god did it" for everything they are too dumb or too lazy to try to understand.

      February 10, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Synthetic biology is making good progress. You can be certain that synthetic living organisms will be deemed by creationists to be too simple to be called alive. As the field matures and the organisms become more complex, the dividing line between life and non-life will move, of course.

      February 10, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
    • believerfred

      bostonola
      "Science believes it will have a purely natural explanation and may even emulate life from chemistry in the lab some day"
      =>Sounds like at best science believes an intelligent agent is required some day to emulate life
      =>Have you just proven that when all is said and done creationists are proven right?

      February 10, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
      • bostontola

        =>Sounds like at best science believes an intelligent agent is required some day to emulate life
        Not at all, how did you draw that conclusion?

        =>Have you just proven that when all is said and done creationists are proven right?
        I proved nothing. I commented that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution of species. I also commented that origin of life is still TBD. Absence of evidence for natural origin of life is not evidence of absence. There are many plausible natural theories for the origin of life already and laboratory experiments where basic ingredients have been formed (i.e. objective evidence), unlike the God hypothesis which has no objective evidence.

        February 10, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • believerfred

          Again you have an intelligent agent (scientist) manipulating the natural to create what has the appearance of life. You require man to create the perfect environment and events to establish life yet you claim no intelligent agent necessary. Worse yet you ignore the math which can calculate the probability of 720 known life events to just happen by accident while even Stephen Hawking acknowledges the veracity of these probability studies which required him to posit multiverse. Yes, it takes an infinite number of universes to mathematically suggest intelligent life by the mechanisms we know of today evolved through natural operations. Stephen Hawking is an extreme atheist but at least presents objective observations.

          February 10, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • insantawetrust

          fred, Low probability does not mean impossible or divine assistance required. Flipping a coin 1000 times and getting heads each time is low probability but possible.

          February 10, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • bostontola

          An intelligent agent (man) creating life doesn't mean it is required.

          February 10, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • believerfred

          bostontola
          You are one who made the claim in your first post that a scientist someday in a lab will emulate life. By your own acknowledgement it is not possible based on evidence without an outside agent and that agent just happens to require intelligence according to you.
          This is my problem with all those who speculate that evolution and natural laws produce life. That is totally unproven. That is pure speculation. If you want to call my belief as based on faith then yours is also. If you want to call my faith nonsense based on science then yours is also.
          You cannot hide behind "we just don't know" because you do know at this moment. You can hide behind we don't know what happened billions of years ago or how evolution absent preexisting information contained within the chemical structure of DNA can generate "kinds".

          February 10, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • believerfred

          insantawetrust
          We are not talking about low odds the odds are acknowledged to present and impossibility if our universe is all there is. What this says is that is the atheist (like Hawking) that is forced to speculate about the unknown. In doing so the faith required to claim the agent of causation is anything but GOD has the appearance of the faith a believer has to know that the agent of causation is God.
          Another way to put it; science cannot be used to claim no god needed as to purpose of life or existence experienced by man.

          February 10, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • bostontola

          fred, I'll say it again, just because an intelligent agent can create life, doesn't mean an intelligent agent is required to create life.

          February 10, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • bostontola

          A Boy Scout can start a fire.

          Conclusion: You need a Boy Scout to start a fire.

          February 10, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • believerfred

          bostonola
          You need a Boy Scout + combustible + combustion agent. Or, combustible + combustion agent. Note the significant change in odds when you add just one requirement a Boy Scout. Consider 720 requirements for intelligent life some of which require extreme fine tuning. I am not Stephen Hawking but he accepted the mathematics concerning the impossibility of life absent an infinite number of universes. That is good enough for me.
          Now, if Hawking and others who line up with the fine tuning argument (experts in the field) accept it then you can argue with them as I do not have ability to do so and thus accept it. In the same way I accept evolution as the results of science running down the Darwinian rabbit hole. It is proven as to the assumptions that confine results to that well beaten path. I put it all together and stand back to say as far as I know science is right. The difference is there is a Boy Scout in the room the size of an elephant and you are trying to bring that elephant down to a size you can understand. It has never happened and that is fact. You can speculate that someday somehow we will find that the Boy Scout actually was a black hole riding on the back of a turtle but that is all it is ..........unfounded speculation and unscientific to boot.
          The difference is that I am honest when I say science cannot and does not have any bearing on the kingdom of God. You are dishonest in support of your bias or you have been deceived to form a belief that evolution or scientific findings suggest anything concerning causation.

          February 10, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • Steve

          Hey bostontola have you figured out yet you are arguing with the troll Chad yet?

          February 10, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • igaftr

          fred
          "The difference is that I am honest when I say god cannot and does not have any bearing on science. You are dishonest in support of your bias or you have been deceived to form a belief that there are gods(or god). ...see how easy that is.

          ( by the way, if you are REALLY honest, you would admit that you don't actually know if any gods exist, you just believe there is at least one...yours....and it/he/she is exactly what you think it/he/she is.)

          At least science is honest about trying to find answers. They don't just make up gods to suit their needs, like every one of the thousands of gods men have worshipped. Ignorance creates gods. Science tries to reduce or eliminate ignorance.

          February 10, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • bostontola

          fred,
          the example was not an analogy between fire and life, it was an example of the same logical fallacy you stepped into (many times).

          February 10, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • believerfred

          igaftr
          Why is it atheists cannot simply admit they fabricate the link between science and "god or gods". Hawking and others are honest when claiming someday a unified theory will once and for all establish no god needed. Someday is not today and today atheists and believers hold a belief. There is no link to science and you believe in something or nothing as to causation that just as my God is not subject to proof in keeping with scientific method. That is my position. You and I cannot point to science to support our belief.
          How can we not agree upon that if you have a common understanding of science?
          The only possibility is that you do not understand science or you have been deceived as bostontola has. Which is it?

          February 10, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
        • Pete

          "Someday is not today and today atheists and believers hold a belief."

          This is the problem with your argument and why you keep going round and round with this argument Chad and why you lose every time.

          February 10, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
        • believerfred

          igaftr
          "( by the way, if you are REALLY honest, you would admit that you don't actually know if any gods exist
          =>actually most "gods" can be dismissed because they are made out of the creation as specified according to their believers with substance science can dismiss with ease.

          "you just believe there is at least one...yours....and it/he/she is exactly what you think it/he/she is.)"
          =>correct, although I will say I have not looked at the other thousands of possibilities.

          =>as to science I have no problem understanding the necessity for objective findings.

          February 10, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
        • believerfred

          Pete
          I am not sure what the basis of your belief is but one thing we can agree upon is that science does not support a godless worldview or a God centered worldview.
          Now, if your belief is without scientific foundation and my belief is without scientific foundation then we have no choice but to approach belief except from a subjective basis. My belief is based upon real personal experience is yours?

          February 10, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
        • Pete

          "Now, if your belief is without scientific foundation and my belief is without scientific foundation then we have no choice but to approach belief except from a subjective basis. My belief is based upon real personal experience is yours?"

          Ok seriously do you even read what you write.... come on Chad we all know you're a great tap dancer but that is all you are. Wow that has got to be the stupidest statement yet.

          February 10, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
        • believerfred

          Pete
          =>I do not see much of Chad these days, I think he is finishing his book.
          =>Perhaps the reason we go in circles is because we cannot agree on even that which is obvious or at least should be. Do you agree that science cannot and does not address God (I am limiting god and gods to the Hebrew God since everyone knows or claims to know the given attributes of God) and accordingly science cannot and does not address your lack of belief.
          Since the only possible answer is yes we can also resolve the issue of belief in God being subjective rather than objective. Let's look at the attribute of love since that is central to God and humans. Beauty for example is in the eye of the beholder yet others would certainly see a different image as they process observation through their life experiences and genetic dispositions. Likewise one would love another human from a very subjective belief about that person. In the same way people "love" many things one of which can be God. No one loves God the same as another because of the subjective element.
          Subjectively you reject God so you "see" only what you want to see. Subjectively you cannot see God or known God.

          Your claim that God does not exist objectively cannot be made because you lack objectivity. Science will not and cannot make such a claim because it goes against scientific method.

          February 10, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
        • believerfred

          bostontonla
          "it was an example of the same logical fallacy you stepped into (many times)."
          =>If there was a logical fallacy it was your original post followed by an example of the Boy Scout. An atheist or agnostic that has built their worldview on the foundation of philosophical natural naturalism does not get a free pass when that very foundation is contrary to known scientific fact. In other words you cannot violate scientific fact to validate a flawed belief in materialism. This was put to rest when quarks were found to exist and not exist in the same time space boundary. Materialism only exists if all known matter has physical properties. Long before quantum mechanics kinetic energy did not have mass and as such there is matter which does not have physical form in wave amplitude.
          That is the Noah's ark of naturalism

          February 10, 2014 at 9:06 pm |
        • Pete

          "Your claim that God does not exist objectively cannot be made because you lack objectivity. Science will not and cannot make such a claim because it goes against scientific method."

          LMAO! Just remember when it comes to the bible. "The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from. The Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

          It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical docu.ment."

          That's right your beliefs are based on folklore.

          February 11, 2014 at 7:58 am |
        • believerfred

          Pete
          Amazing how powerful folklore can be. Certainly you would agree that oral traditions had their place before a tweet Pete. Such traditions are perhaps little different than the mechanisms Elephants use to find their way to survival in 100 year drought cycles which the 3rd generations (having never experienced one) can still find the way. So it is with what you call folklore. That oral tradition was put to writing and still contains the way to survival. Some time latter Jesus said "I am the way" and even though it was the same way known by those understanding the writings of Moses it was demonstrated in full as man was replacing the way (the only way) with self centered religion.
          Interesting enough if you follow the way it will be well with you regardless of there being a God or not.

          February 11, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • Pete

          "mazing how powerful folklore can be. Certainly you would agree that oral traditions had their place before a tweet Pete."

          Oh you mean like Santa Clause and the Easter bunny but that is just the point you have to grow up and know they are not real because they are folklore.

          February 12, 2014 at 11:12 am |
  16. Brother Maynard

    ( Reposting because I got the infamous "Your comment is awaiting moderation." )
    From the article:
    "Ham said, 'I will present (my information) trying to change people's minds, but knowing as a Christian it is God who changes people's minds, not me.'"
    PROOF that free will is a myth by the very xtians that claim it to be true.
    If GOD changes people's minds then I cannot, therefore my choices are non-existent. No Free Will.
    Additionally, If it is GOD that changes people's minds ... why debate? It is futile. Ken Ham is powerless to change the mind of anyone. He is not god.

    February 10, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
  17. Dyslexic doG

    Ahhh religion. You can make it anything you want it to be. It's a license to imagine up your magical happy world and then tell others that it's what god wants.

    what a giggle!

    February 10, 2014 at 11:53 am |
    • Peaceadvocate

      There goes morality :).

      February 10, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        Why do you think morals came from religion?

        February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate

          Humans seach for answers that cant be explained by science nor have a hard time explaining by reason.

          Problem is as humans we compete for that perfect belief, not knowing there is only one and could only be one. Humans have a lot of learning to do to realize this. Our evolution.

          February 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Do you have an answer to the question?

          February 10, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • igaftr

          peace
          That is not entirely true. We can study the social habits of other animals and see all of the same kinds of morality from them, especially other mammals. Science CAN AND DOES explain much of the issue. It seems to be a failing of many religions setting humans above the other animals, as if human intelligence alone makes us better, it doesn't...other animals have other kinds of intelligence that we cannot fathom either. We are animals and have our place among all of the others. Morality is just one trait that animals have.

          February 10, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • niknak

          Not quite sure where you have been, but humans have done a pretty bang up job of finding out answers to almost all of the complex questions.
          We have a few left, but science will solve those as well given enough time.
          Unless you believers destroy the world first in some nuclear nightmare.

          Why do you still need to have a big brother watching over you Peace dude?

          February 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Iga,

          Animals. Do some animals have morals? Maybe. They could be evolving in their moral applications. In the future, would they eventually have moral applications as we humans do? What would be our state at that time? Things we fo not have a definitive answer.

          February 10, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Nat,

          Science is good. Provided the discoveries are beneficial to humans. Beneficial is a whole other debate.

          You can rest assure that this believer would not be the one to support a nuclear atocracy because that is what i am trying to promote. Peace. Although, we are humans capable of sins that is why a belief to a perfect being, a big brother is nessesary. For our own good upbringing.

          Why does govt act like God or big brother? It is not a sin as long as the act is consistent to Gods teaching shown in the life of JC.

          February 10, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • Pete

          "Although, we are humans capable of sins that is why a belief to a perfect being, a big brother is nessesary. For our own good upbringing."

          The history of religion proves this is a lie.

          February 10, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • igaftr

          peace
          "Animals. Do some animals have morals? Maybe"
          Not maybe...Definitely.

          Elephants have societies, communities, co-operatee, and even cry (they have a gland at their temple) when they encounter other elephant bones...it is obvious they know what they are and what they signify.

          Rats will help free trapped rats, even ones they do not know, and will share food.
          Anmials create language, culture, and social hierarchies. Man is the least moral of them because we can indiscriminantly kill all of them, and each other, and the news is filled with exactly that...At your local zoo, when was the last same species murder? Most likely there hasn't been one, but rare and generally only with hominids, or when mating season comes around.

          If you REALLY want to study morality, study the other animals. You will find every emotion man has, you will find every morality reflected in all of the other animals in one way or another.
          Start with Jane Goodalls study of chimpanzees. She got a lot of backlash for giving them names since they were only animals, but her research proved a great deal about the social structure, communication and MORALITY within the troup.
          People were very angry with her for "humanizing" these animals....people still believe that man is a special animal...we aren't. If we have a "soul" so do most animals, if not all. If we have morality, so do the animals. We aren't that special when compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.

          Social species evolved morals...it is best for the social species to have and maintain relationships...in order to maintain relationships, there must be varying levels of "morality"

          February 10, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Santa,

          Why do think morals came from religion?

          I would not say religion but from God, a perfect being. That is what we humans aspire for, to be a perfect being. In doing so, our morals have to be perfect.

          Simpliest answer I can think of.

          February 11, 2014 at 1:13 am |
    • The Running Twit

      after jesus went to heaven:

      god: hello sin! er son!

      February 10, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate

        If you believe you would think God was weeping at the site of His son. I am not God but I would.

        Ridicule to discredit for reasons i could only speculate. I appreciate the input, that means we care.

        February 10, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • OTOH

          Why would an all powerful god 'weep'... unless 'he' **wanted** to? Must be some kind of masochist, since 'he' could remedy all of it in an instant...

          February 10, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate

          Otoh,

          God is weeping because Of humans sins as reflected by the site of JC.

          If God created a perfect world with no wars, famine, slavery or ills we see in the world. How is human faith tested? This is not about God or the religious belief but humans ability to do what is right.

          February 10, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • The Running Twit

          god on religion: it seemed like a good idea at the time! D'Oh!

          February 10, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "If God created a perfect world with no wars, famine, slavery or ills we see in the world. How is human faith tested?"

          Why does human faith need testing...you have never answered this question.

          February 10, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          This is Peaceadvocate. I not sure if cnn changed their format but i have to register to reply and mistype my username. Superficial. I hope my message is wants important.

          Blessed,

          Good questions, why does human faith have to tested by God? I am not God and I do not have all the answers one answer I could think of is to better ourselves, morally. Another answer is the constant affirmation of our beliefs that favors our morals. We cant rely on humans for this unless we envolve into a perfect being. Like the spiritual, supernatunal being i believe in,

          Peace. I will always be your brother.

          February 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • petethepeter

          "Good questions, why does human faith have to tested by God? I am not God and I do not have all the answers one answer I could think of is to better ourselves, morally"

          Oh please, believing in a god does not make you more moral. You have to love it when religious people have blinders on to the truth about the evils that religion has done to society or do you just block those parts of history out of your argument.

          February 10, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          R twit,

          It was a good idea at the time. Why do you think there are still people who believes? Is it still a good idea ar this time?

          February 10, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Pete,

          You do not have to believe in the God to be more moral. You may be right. I certainly hope so.

          The God i beleive in accepts everybody that are rigtheous, moral as shown in the life of JC.

          Peace

          February 10, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • petethepeter

          "The God i beleive in accepts everybody that are rigtheous, moral as shown in the life of JC."

          You are so clueless about the history of your religion. LOL!

          February 10, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Pete,

          I do not know the history of my religion. What is my religion? A religion that was labeled by man to divide us.

          When i was in catholic school, I was ask once by my parents when i got back from school, what did you learn from school today? Did you learn to believe or did you learn to think for yourself? I choose to think for myself.

          What i learned shows in my posts.

          Peace.

          February 10, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • Pete

          "A religion that was labeled by man to divide us."

          LOL! That is priceless. You are good at side stepping our points to try and justify your beliefs but the reality is your rule book and the religion it created has proven it is bad for our society because it does exactly that. LOL!

          February 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
      • praceadvocate2014

        Pete,

        I am not side stepping. Catholics, christians, muslims etc are religious denomination created by man. God did not say call urself catholics christians muslims.

        February 10, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
        • Steve

          So which god are you referring to since there are thousands of them.

          February 10, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
        • Pete

          Yes you are side stepping if you believe in JC (Jesus Christ) and the bible, that is the Christian religion. What you want to do is not label yourself a Christian (by the way in Christ said you had too) then you obviously don't want to acknowledge what your religion has done to our society, divided it. Come on now...don't start lying on us.

          February 10, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Steve,

          The rigtheous God. That is for humans to determine.

          Mine, yours, others...what is rigtheous? Its suppose to be easy but humans have a way of justifying anything to be rigth.

          February 10, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
  18. Toquide

    I have the intuitive feeling that the comments by the netizens had taken some sort of positve effect on the bloggers themselves and possibly the editors in finding the truth.That the belief in panthrotheism had explained the fundamental and basic realities ,making it unnecessary for further discussions .

    February 10, 2014 at 10:46 am |
    • igaftr

      Why are you pushing your great pumpkin agenda....you made it up, it makes just as much nonsense as any other religion, and the definition you provided was flawed, making an impossibility....Panthro is not god, what you described would be pananthrotheism, it has no scientific base since you claim god, and it seems pretty silly.

      Then you post under several names...why...we all know it is just one person pushing just another man made religion.

      February 10, 2014 at 11:17 am |
      • Toquide

        To igaftr,you and the atheist are God sent people act as the opposing force against theists to complete the dialectical process of change towards panthrotheism without you knowing it consciously but you will be rewarded

        February 10, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • OTOH

          Toquide,

          Only in jest would an atheist attribute your campaign to some airy-fairy cause. You are though, in fact, dramatically highlighting the absurdity of theism.

          February 10, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      go peddle your lies somewhere else!

      February 10, 2014 at 11:52 am |
      • Peaceadvocate

        Calm down my child. Dont mind to much about something that cant be explained but the teachings that was passed down as guidance. Its your choice to follow or not.

        February 10, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate

      I beg to differ. Discussions are worthwhile to spread the teachings of JC not to debunk science, evolution or creationism.

      Peace

      February 10, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        And discussions are worthwhile to debunk the teachings of JC as being "divine".

        February 10, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate

          I welcome it. Let me know what you wish to debunk and i will try to answer if i could. Does not have to be a rocket scientist to explain the teachings on the life of JC.

          February 10, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • igaftr

          To examine the "teachings" of Jesus, you should start with the Buddha, and other eastern philosophies. That's where most of what he allegedly said came from. It is obvious that he taught the word of man...still no sign of any gods though.

          February 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          1. No reason to conclude Jesus was divine, none of his philoshophy was new. He did not impart any demonstrable knowledge humanity did not already have.

          2. Teaching that an all powerful god should come before family and other humans is not a moral or ethical position. Teaching that if certain beliefs are rejected by family and friends those people themselves should be rejected.

          3. Teaching that certain people are lesser because of their ethnicity.

          These are but a few.

          February 10, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          In reponse to your 3 point post.

          1. Not conclusive but His message is divine.ccould it be that humanity is veering off course thats why JC was sent?

          2. When you say God before family, it means the teaching of God before family. Example, you want to make money to support your family, dont do it to harm others. Rejection of God depends on the certain belief rejected. If the certain belief is thou shall not kill, do you think God should still accept? No repentance, no remorse?

          February 10, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Opps.

          Blessed,

          3. Teachings is applies the same for all ethinicity.

          February 10, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • blessedarethecheesmakers

          Peace,

          In response to your 3.

          1. It is not only "not conclusive" there is absolutely no reason to think JC was divine and a lot of reasons to think he wasn't.

          2. Teaching people "not to murder" is not the same as teaching "god is real" and should be put first. I don't need god to have reasons not to kill people. You are conflating 2 seperate issues to try and make this concept "fit". It doesn't and I find it dishonest.

          3. Matthew 15 "23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting [j]at us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and began [k]to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” 26 And He answered and said, “It is not [l]good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

          People not of the house of Isreal are "dogs"

          nice guy

          February 10, 2014 at 8:36 pm |
        • praceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          1. I felt the message like that come from a divine being. Forgive me.

          2. It was an amplified example.

          3. I have not read this passage until now. I read the entire verse ( matthew 15) and this is how i interpret it. A Cananite woman approach JC seeking help for her sick daugther. A Cananite was considered not as believer as an Isrealite. A lesser kind in the view of humans at the time. JC knows this and ask the woman why take bread away from a child and give it to a dog. An analogy at the time between Cananites and Isrealites. Woman said even dogs eat the master bread crumbs. Meaning even if she was a Cananite she has a stronger belief. JC said with your faith your daugther is healed. of your faith. She came home and her daugther was healed. It is a stronger manifestation that all ethniticy is accepted. Like i said before amazing.

          February 10, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Peace,

          My answer to your interpretation will fit with what I said above about me being able to present a better message. When Jesus' desciples asked Jesus to send the woman away maybe instead of making a statement that he was only sent for the Jewish people he should have said to them all people regardless of ethnicity, were his children and all deserve equal love and respect instead of implying some deserve "crumbs". And only because she showed "faith" ....which I have argued is a terrible reason to reward and punish people for.

          But regardless of whether my perception of his interaction is correct or not...the story is so convoluted that many competing interpretions could be, and have been, argued with equal veracity. A god should have been able to make his message absolutely clear as to its meaning. I used to think Jesus had a wonderful message, much like you....until I actually started to read more about what he actually said and did.

          Don't get me wrong, some of his philosophical positions are very positive and I subscribe to them to a point. I just look at them with more of a critical eye that one would use on any philosopher that is not elevated to the level of "god". I still use his good stuff, I just don't think he is divine.

          February 11, 2014 at 2:11 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          Its true. Jesus was sent for jewish people to correct their ways. They crucified him for that. But gods message to the jewish people was to spread his good word, his commandments. It is even better if a lesser race who god have not chosen to spread the word to have the belief.

          I agree, there are all kinds of reading materials out there written by humans with testimonies like the bible. Especially now, with the intermet social media but we have to think for ourselves. Consider human behavior. What we see in our daily lives.

          Ok. Will remove the divine t:tle. But do you believe? An inclination?

          February 13, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
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.