home
RSS
February 26th, 2014
03:12 PM ET

soundoff (1,555 Responses)
  1. kermit4jc

    Uh..noooooo..because remember the poiont! It wasnt a real creature!!!! Just because God mentions it does not mean it is a real creature

    March 4, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
    • Doris

      Did you really think it was?? And you're supposed to flush that stuff – why are you hanging on to it. Your place must smell awful.

      March 5, 2014 at 7:18 am |
    • igaftr

      "Just because God mentions it does not mean it is a real creature"

      Just because the bible mentions it does not mean there is any god.

      March 5, 2014 at 10:11 am |
      • kermit4jc

        Bad argument..the fact is..NO Jew believed in dragons..it was the religions that were around themthat did believe..the Jews were aware of the cultures and religions around them...and God would have used..again...thigns the Jews were familiar with...think of this.the BIble was not written for God..but for MAN

        March 5, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • bacbik

          too much capitalization.. too much BS

          March 5, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • igaftr

          "the BIble was not written for God..but for MAN"
          Yes...for men, by men...still no sign of any gods.

          March 5, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
  2. Peaceadvocate2014

    Fellow Americans,

    I dont think religion in Arizona is being attacked. I think the religious advocates felt our society is deteriorating and they overreacted. Creating law that shows bigotry instead of compassion. Gods teachings is to be compassionate amd tolerant to all our differences or inequalities.

    Peace. God Bless America

    March 4, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
  3. kermit4jc

    When you give directions and such to your kids..do YOu tell them the cobnsequences of what happenes if they don't do it? or do you not allow for consequences at all???

    March 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
    • observernow

      kermit4jc,

      My children grew up to be great responsible adults.

      Here's what I DIDN'T do:

      Kill them when they were rebellious and unruly
      Kill them for calling people names
      Threaten them with death.
      Threaten them that I'd make them become cannibals.
      Beat them with rods for discipline.
      Threaten them that I'd make them eat feces.
      Tell them that whatever they did wrong, they wouldn't be punished until after they died.
      Fail to immediately punish them when wrong.

      By biblical standards, I was a terrible parent and they should be monsters.

      March 4, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        BTW IM glad yuo didnt do those things to your kids...God didnt tell the Israelites to do this to children (as in youngsters) MOst of what you posted were for grown kids..and the situation then is totally different from now...They were settling in a new place...you got to pull the weeds out of the garden before you put anything into it..or it dies

        March 4, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
      • transframer

        observernow

        Have you taught your children to "'Love your neighbor as yourself" ?

        March 4, 2014 at 8:28 pm |
        • observernow

          transframer

          Have you taught your children to "'Love your neighbor as yourself" ?

          I have taught them to follow the concept of the Golden Rule and not JUST preach it like so many Christians do.

          March 4, 2014 at 11:07 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          INDEED..for the Bible also says in 1 John 3:18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. and indeed, too bad a lot of preachers don't preach this..nor believers apply it. I will be one of first to admit many Christians don't..doesn't mean we all don't..and doesn't mean we wont mess up from time to time either...we do our best...

          March 5, 2014 at 2:01 am |
        • transframer

          observernow

          That's nice but I find it hard to believe you can teach your children something that yourself can't do

          March 5, 2014 at 6:13 am |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          Do you mean like NOT answering questions like you do? Unlike you, I answer questions.

          So give me examples of when I have violated the Golden Rule. Is it because I ask questions that show the fallacies in people's thinking and their hypocrisy and they would prefer I let their situations go unidentified?

          March 5, 2014 at 6:23 am |
        • transframer

          Let's ask you directly: do you love me?

          March 5, 2014 at 6:37 am |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          Well done. You just displayed your USUAL amount of integrity when it comes to answering questions. Your level of integrity, honesty, and intelligence are EXTREMELY like that of hharri/faith/fake Oberverser, etc.

          I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are the same one.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:56 am |
        • derado8

          Transframer.

          Imagine a squirrel outside. Does he love us? He wishes us no harm, but he knows enough to stay out of our way.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:57 am |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Kermit,

      I admire your post. Keep it up.

      Peace

      March 4, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        thank you

        March 4, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
      • bacbik

        awe kermit found friend. by the way, did Dr. Frankenstein's helper have a love interest?

        March 5, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          you are wasting time and spacewith your childish games...unless you have actual desire for discussion we are through

          March 5, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
    • kudlak

      kermit4jc
      Warnings like Genesis 2:17
      17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you mshall surely die.”

      Did they actually "die" on that day? Of course not! Is God really the kind of parent who makes empty threats?

      March 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        You know nothing of the context and the Hebrew wording..first of all..the plan was they live eternally..no death...ONCE death enters..they start dying..the AGE..in eternal living..they do NOT age...secondl..the Hebrew wording puts it as in dying you die..simply put...you will start dying...you will age...you will have an end...sorry dude...its YOUR lack odf STUDY that puts you at a loss..STOP READING the Bible only...STUDY it..you know what STUDY means do you? try it

        March 4, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          So, you're saying that humans would be immortal if we had access to the fruit of the Tree of Life that was also in the Garden? And you actually believe that it still exists? You should go look for it. You could make a fortune if you make it into a face cream.

          March 4, 2014 at 9:37 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          NOW you show even MORE total ignorance of the Bible..we CAN have eternal life..but not thru a tree....the people had access to immortal life then (Adam and Eve that is) but they made a CHOICE to disobey God..TODAY we can hve eternal life thru Jesus (For God so loved the world that He gave His only SOn that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall NOT perish, but have everlasting life)

          March 5, 2014 at 1:54 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          You're not exactly giving the full picture there, are you? According to the beliefs of most Christian sects, we ALL have everlasting life after death, with the catch being that we whom you judge as unworthy won't enjoy our eternity as it will be in hell, correct?

          If I appear ignorant to you perhaps it's because I don't blindly follow the theocratic dogma, or accept the creative translations and cultural contexts that particular preachers try to pass off as the only "true" way to interpret the Bible. Their idea of "Bible Scholarship" really can be boiled down to it's initials, BS.

          March 5, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • kermit4jc

          UHH>.maybe youshould read my posts again..and maybe I confused you with this "death" thing..we ALL die a PHYSICAL death..and yes..agreed..we ALL live eternally....that either being in hell (death-spiritually) or heaven..life

          March 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Oh.and I hope youre not implying I blindly follow

          March 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          If through my "spirit" is how I experience all the joys and pain of this world, then a spiritual death implies that there is no pain to hell. I think that I would much prefer that to "living" just to worship and serve some master being eternally. I enjoy my freedom and simply cannot understand why anyone would wish to become a slave.

          If you are simply following some preacher's opinion on what the Bible secretly means without researching whether these aren't just things you want to hear, then you are being led blindly. I became aware of this kind of thing when I heard the apologetic that Biblical slavery was just indentured servitude. Guess what, I checked out this claim and found it to be total, made up BS, but I still hear it all the time from people ho really aren't interested in the truth, just in excuses to believe what they want to believe. That's how I know that there's a cottage industry out there in making up answers to Christianity's difficult questions and inconsistencies, and judging from your answers, my friend, you appear to be just lapping them up.

          March 5, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          OK..first if all....you got heaven all wrong..we are not going to be just praising and stuff for God all the time like slaves..we are going to be living...thereus nothing Biblical about what youhave said there..as for blindly following, unfortunately there are somepreachers who demand even that the church take theirword for it...but that too is Unbiblical..we are to use our minds that God gave us..reason things out..study...which is what I do..I study...fortunately for me...all the churches I ever attended..we were encouraged to study for ourslves..not take the pastors words for it.

          March 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • bacbik

          too much BS = kermit

          March 5, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          "Living", how? You won't have any body. We have no evidence of anything living without a body, so isn't this just a wild promise?

          You believe that you will have free will in heaven, but how about your human compassion? Won't you feel bad that some people aren't allowed to live this second life?

          Not just pastors. Most of them get their ideas from popular apologist's books. The kind that weave convoluted interpretations of words and claim weird cultural contexts to excuse parts of the Bible. When I use my mind, which you believe is God given, I look beyond their claims and fact check. I've come to the conclusion that the Bible is as full of mythology as the writings of other ancient peoples, and that the New Testament doesn't actually support the theology of salvation, heaven, and Jesus' divinity that most Christians hold.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          we WILL have bodies...Jesus certainly did when he was resurrected....nothing in the Bible says we WONT have any bodies

          March 5, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          So, you imagine yourself floating around in space, or on some other planet, like the Mormons believe? With bodies, won't you also need to eat, drink, and feel things, including pain? Doesn't sound like anything better than we have now.

          March 6, 2014 at 8:19 am |
        • kermit4jc

          ITs going to be a different REALM...I fdon tknow if we float or such...its NOT going to be same as now..but we will have new bodies...made of flesh...with no corruption

          March 6, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Flesh needs food. Flesh feels pain. Flesh gets old and diseased. Flesh is affected by gravity.

          I think this is where theology paints itself into a corner.

          March 6, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • lunchbreaker

          So supposedly the soul enters the zygote at the exact point of conception. Most people don't have any real memories until they are at least a couple of years old. So what was the soul doing during that time? So I had a soul for years that "I" was not conscience of, why should I believe that "I" will have any knowledge of my soul after my body is dead?

          March 6, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • kudlak

          lunchbreaker
          If the zygote splits into twins, triplets and so on, does the soul get split too?

          March 7, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • kermit4jc

          this shows you have no idea of uniqueness of each and every human being....or so it seems you are doing it with that question....EACH person is unique..which is why IM against abortion..once you get rid of the baby..there will NEVER be another one like it..yes..granted even in DNA it makes him unique..but thats just the material stuff...there more to people than flesh and bones.

          March 7, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Oy! You just don't get it, do you? The problem is that, if you argue that the soul enters at conception, then what happens when there is a split after conception?

          Even if you ever get life ruled to begin at conception, the anti-reproduction rights side that you're on has a fundamental other problem: can you force someone to keep someone else alive? If you can't force people to give up organs that could keep others from dying, and if you can't charge people for not saving others from death, then how can you force a woman to keep a fetus alive? Pregnancy is always risky to the woman. So, how could you ever force anyone to risk their lives to save another?

          March 8, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ahh so God..who is theone putting the soul in , in the first place couldnot forsee a split? WHERE does thesoul come from in first place? keep that in mind whenyou respond

          March 10, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
      • transframer

        Yes, they died spiritually in that day. Their bodies died much later. For men, this is what it counts: the spirit, this is what no animal has.

        March 4, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
        • kudlak

          Why doesn't it say "die spiritually" then?

          March 4, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
        • transframer

          I does say in several places but not exactly using these words. For example in Ephesians 2:1, 5 : "you were dead in the trespasses and sins "

          March 4, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
        • kudlak

          transframer
          Well, you really do have to use a lot of imagination to get that meaning from that passage, don't you? Isn't it possible that this wasn't what was originally meant?

          March 5, 2014 at 10:16 am |
  4. kermit4jc

    WHATEVER..I got evidence..yuo want to deny it..be my guest..not my problem

    March 4, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • Doris

      Lol – poor butt-hurt troll can't put up, nor shut up, evidently...

      March 4, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      So present it. Or did MissPiggynot4jc steal it?

      March 4, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
    • kudlak

      I don't deny that you think you have evidence, I just don't accept that it's actually good evidence, that's all. The folks who believe that they were abducted by anal-probing aliens and the ones who believe that they've had past lives think that they have evidence too, but we as outsiders have only our own experience to evaluate their claims, right? My experience tells me that you're wrong. It's that simple.

      March 4, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
      • transframer

        You are right. The evidence we have is not good enough for everyone. People with faith find hard to believe this but that's the naked truth. However many people don't want to accept even that this evidence might exist. Simple things that are logically solid are rejected only because they come from Bible or Christians. Also I think many people don't know enough about many aspects and facts in Bible. There are a lot of things that can have real explanations and pretty solid foundations but are not known, are ignored or simply rejected without good reasons.

        March 4, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
        • kudlak

          Some things that come from Bible and Christians may be logically solid, but a lot of things coming from them are definitely not. Do you have any particular ones that you wish to champion?

          March 4, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
        • transframer

          It's hard for me to pick one, let's say Noah’s Ark

          March 4, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          Did you REALLY pick Noah's ark story which might be the first work of science fiction?

          March 4, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • transframer

          As I said, many people don't want to accept even that this evidence might exist. This was a really quick confirmation.

          March 4, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          So you REALLY are serious.

          How many MILLIONS OF DIFFERENT animals are there? Take a guess if you haven't a clue.

          March 4, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ARE YOU Serious??? WHo says there were millions of different animals said to be on the ark? I mean think about it..the writer shows the dimensions of the ark..He isn't so stupid as to think millions can fit in it.

          March 5, 2014 at 1:56 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          trans, There are few worse examples. There's no evidence of a global flood in the geological record, the logistics of getting animals from and returning them to the then-unknown Americas and Australia, there is not enough water to cover all land (i.e. Everest) and if there were where did it go, the flood would have killed all life on earth that was not in the Ark, the issue of food for all animals, the issue of predation. None of it holds up to scrutiny.

          March 4, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          REMEMEBER...accordoing to Gensis GOD caused the Flood..thus GOD would e in control of all the logistics...if God CREATED all the universe..would this be childs play for God to be able to handle?? lol

          March 5, 2014 at 1:57 am |
        • transframer

          Unfortunately I don't have too much time now. I can only answer one question now. The number of animals taken on the ark was about 16,000 including dinosaurs.
          Good night

          March 4, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          Too bad. If you had actually stuck around, you'd have to produce support from the Bible that you DIDN'T JUST MAKE UP that number, which DOES NOT EXIST in the Bible.

          Too bad you have to run away AGAIN.

          March 4, 2014 at 11:35 pm |
        • redzoa

          "The number of animals taken on the ark was about 16,000 including dinosaurs."

          1) Why is every last dinosaur fossil found in strata far, far below the first human fossil (or any other extant species for that matter)? 2) Why were no dinosaur bones preserved, e.g. a nice triceratops mount? 3) How did 16K kinds yield the ~8 million species of animals present today in a few thousand years?

          4) Why do humans, as placental mammals, possess a defunct gene for the production of egg yolk protein?

          (Answers: 1) because they lived and died millions of years before humans and extant forms; 2) because humans and dinosaurs never coexisted; 3) this simply didn't happen, but the creationist response is apparently, and ironically, "hyper-evolution" from severely bottle-necked gene pools; and 4) because we share a common ancestor with egg-laying organisms)

          March 5, 2014 at 12:10 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          "WHo says there were millions of different animals said to be on the ark? I mean think about it..the writer shows the dimensions of the ark..He isn't so stupid as to think millions can fit in it."

          There are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of DIFFERENT land animals. The Bible says Noah took 2 to 7 of each animal. Yes, the writer is apparently so stupid as to think millions of animals could fit on it.

          March 5, 2014 at 4:05 am |
        • kermit4jc

          UHH..I do NOT see the word "each" I see the word "kinds" and remember...SPECIES is a new word..a NEW type of classification that didn't come around till the late 1800s....and again given the dimensions no one would be so stupid to think millions could fit in it....

          March 5, 2014 at 9:24 am |
        • transframer

          redzoa

          You have some good questions but let's try to answer them one by one. I'm trying now to answer the question related to the number of animals on ark

          March 5, 2014 at 6:21 am |
        • transframer

          observernow

          The Bible said not all species of animals but all kinds of animals, and not all animals, only land vertebrates. A kind is what is called today a genus (plural genera). There are about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, so that gives us the number of 16000 animals taken on ark

          March 5, 2014 at 6:33 am |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          They never heard of the word "specie" then so don't claim they used "genus" for "kind". If they had, it wouldn't change the fact that there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of DIFFERENT land animals.

          So MILLIONS of species EVOLVED from the 8,000. There is no such thing as an animal that has genus and NO SPECIES.

          March 5, 2014 at 7:00 am |
        • kudlak

          transframer
          I have to agree with the others; of all the things to champion Noah's Ark has got to be the silliest! Great deluge stories exist in the mythologies of many civilizations. Noah himself appears to be modelled on other mythic characters from earlier stories in the region. Pairs of each "kind" of full grown dinosaur, and their food, would fill the ark all by themselves, leaving no room for anything else. What you're championing is just plain ridiculous!

          March 5, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NOW YOU are being silly..WHO said ANYTHINGH about full grown dinos..and WHICH ones? not alldnos were large youknow..many were likesize of house cats...

          March 5, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • Alias

          There were2 of all unclean animals on the ark.
          He took 7 of all the clean animals.
          Even with the 'kinds' of animals argument, doesn't that put the total number of animals over 50,000?

          March 5, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          But lots were huge and, besides, where does God tell Noah to gather only babies of all creatures? I think it's you who are grasping at straws, my friend.

          March 5, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          UHHELLO....it doesn't take a genius to GET younger smaller animals! DUHHHHHHHHH God doesn't have to spell everything out for us...besides..I said PERHAPS>.whereas YOU made a claim it was FULL grown animals!

          March 5, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • fintronics

          How about this... god is a figment of your imagination and you are inventing your own "evidence" for god of which there is NONE.

          March 5, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • transframer

          Hey guys, take it easy. I got answers for everyone, I don't have too much time but I'll do my best

          observernow
          You said "So MILLIONS of species EVOLVED from the 8,000."
          No, there are only around 34,000 land vertebrate species today, the rest are marine animals, insects and other creatures (bacteria, etc). To get to this number from the initial number of 8000 kinds in 4000 years is nothing unrealistic

          March 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          trans, Realistically most the water-dwelling animals would have died – it would be too salty for the freshwater varieties and not salty enough for the saltwater varieties. Most trees and plants would have perished. On the ark there's the issue of food and predation – how would they keep, say the lions away from the antelopes, deer, etc.

          March 5, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Realistically if God is true as reported to be the one who caused the Flood..the freshwater animals would not have died..God would have sustained them....might as well stop wasting time on those argument and show that God doesn't exist...

          March 5, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • transframer

          kudlak
          Exactly because the flood is encountered in so many different and distant civilizations is a great sign that is not a mythology, or at least the mythology was based on real facts. Regarding dinos, there were about 50 kinds of them. Not all of them where gigantic and nobody said they took full grown adults.
          Please point exactly which of all I said so far (in other posts too) is ridiculous?

          March 5, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • transframer

          Alias
          Clean animals are listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. They are just a small part of all animals and the clean land animals are even fewer

          March 5, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
        • Doris

          Gosh I wonder where they kept this giant 30,000 year old virus on the ark...

          http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/world/europe/siberia-giant-virus-discovered/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

          March 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
        • Doris

          I do apologize – I forgot my eyeroll on my last post: 🙄 .

          March 5, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
        • transframer

          In Santa We Trust
          We don't know how salty was the sea before flood. Besides many fish and plants today show a big capacity to quickly adapt to both kind of water. There are many credible explanations for how fish and plants can survive.
          Regarding food and drink water, the required calculated numbers would be around 15% for food and 10% for water (even less if rain is used)
          Regarding predators: the ark had a huge volume, about 500 American railroad cars, each of them able to carry 240 sheep. It's clear that dangerous animals could be accommodate. There is also the possibility that animals hibernated all the way, but we can't be sure and it's not a requirement.

          March 5, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
        • kudlak

          transframer
          Two problems with the flood:
          1) Floods are common enough disasters for many people's to have myths about them.

          2) If there was a common source to the myth, why assume that it bears the most resemblance to the Hebrew version?

          Frankly, the part about including dinosaurs isn't the most ridiculous part about the whole Noah story, not by a long shot.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
  5. igaftr

    kermit
    "..that doesn't verify they are from God!"
    Nothing has EVER been verified that it is from "god".

    You refuse to accept one thing, then blindly accept another.

    March 4, 2014 at 9:13 am |
    • kermit4jc

      I don't blindly accept anything.....I have evidence..just cause YOu may not verify it,,,doesn't mean I cannot

      March 4, 2014 at 9:35 am |
      • Anthony Crispino

        Just don't try that "devil made me do it" evidence in court. A friend of my nephew Toolie tried that and now he's in the slammer for 20.

        March 4, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I never use that stupid thing...devil don't make anyone do anything...that's a pitiful excuse..I chose to do things...

          March 4, 2014 at 9:43 am |
      • igaftr

        kermit
        Odd...you claim evidence of "god".

        How did you exclude all other possibilities, even the ones you did not think of?

        You attribute things to "god" but you do not know if any "god" did anything. Could be coincidence, satan messing with you, aliens controlling your mind, vivid imagination, delusion, nothing at all...on and on and on.

        You say it is god because you want it to be god. You do not want truth, you want your belief to be true.

        March 4, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • kermit4jc

          YOu are pretty arrogant are you not? YOU think you know what I want? thats a pretty arrogant statement..you dont know me..you do NOT know what I want...you make petty assumptions cause you have no other response..typical....I want TRUTH...and when I find truth I keep it..I find God to BE turht..thus you cannot convince me otherwise..NO man proved God to me...what makes you arrogant enough to think you can prove otherwise

          March 4, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • Doris

          kermit: "I want TRUTH...and when I find truth I keep it.."

          Well you shouldn't let your brains fall out when you try to do something like that.

          March 4, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Is that the best you can do? pathetic

          March 4, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          ".I want TRUTH...and when I find truth I keep it..I find God to BE turht"

          LOL...you just proved my statement.

          You have accepted that which you want to be truth as if it were...

          Again I ask, How did you disprove ALL of the other possibilities?
          How do you know the god you think is there is YOUR god?
          and you think I am arrogant...

          March 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Apparently you did not read my post carefully..YOU got it backwards..I did NOT say I wanted GOD to be truth..ahnd then try to fit it in...as YOU implied..what I did was to find out IF God was truth or not..and if He is..then I ACCEPT it.......so again YOu ARE the arrogant one who ASSUMES what I want..you do NOT know my wants cause You are NOT me ok? please refrain from such stupid statements..thanks

          March 4, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • Doris

          kermit: "kermit: "I want TRUTH...and when I find truth I keep it.."

          Well everyone searches to recognize consistency of things in life. I'm sure medieval doctors were searching for "truth" when they thought they had finally licked some ailments using the bloodletting technique common to those times. And they "kept" that practice for a while. Did such a practice remain as a "truth" to this day?

          March 4, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          Again I ask, How did you disprove ALL of the other possibilities?
          How do you know the god you think is there is YOUR god?

          Simply answer those questions and you will prove your point. Do not answer then and you prove mine.

          March 4, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I did not disprove them..GIOD did it Himself..he showed me He was the ONLY true God...

          March 4, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          Thanks for proving my point. You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you had simply admitted it in the first place.

          March 5, 2014 at 8:56 am |
        • kermit4jc

          what point?

          March 5, 2014 at 9:28 am |
        • igaftr

          the point you were arguing, trying to call me arrogant for identifying you did not want truth, you wanted your belief to be true...see above.
          By saying "god" proved it to you, you proved my point. You still do not knwo if it was any of the thousands of gods men have worshipped...you have simply accepted one possible explaination and call it truth.

          THAT point.

          March 5, 2014 at 9:47 am |
        • kermit4jc

          and who are you to tell me I don't know? This is not some mystical stuff...feelings and emotions,.I see it with my own eyes. I have a personal relationship with God....I been a Christian 25+ years and its pretty consistent. to say what if its another god or someone deceiving you...I had enough evidence over the years to know whats going on. and as I said..aPERSIONAL relationship with God...you are being arrogant to assume youthink for me ot tellme what I want..and again YOUR argument has it all backwards..

          March 5, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          "and who are you to tell me I don't know?"

          Not me...your religion's dogma. Faith is required. Faith precludes knowing. If you knew, there would be no need for faith.
          You claim to know, you cannot as per your bible.
          to claim you know, where even your bible says you cannot, is your delusion, and your own arrogance.

          As I asked before, how did you exclude all of the other possibilities?

          March 5, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Again you are sooo ignorant..there is nOTHING in the BIble that says it requires faith in Gods existence..in FACT...if you actually read the Bible..Especially in Hebrews 11 faith lies inGods PRoMISES..not his existence..look at all the examples given in Hebrews 11 and youwill see this..NONE of themwere credited to having faith in His exiatance...

          March 5, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • fintronics

          Kermit..... when you claim "truth" without evidence, you are lying. If you have evidence for god, lets hear it. FYI.... special feelings and thoughts inside your head are not evidence.

          March 5, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          IM tired of repeating myself in these threads...I have presented my evidence like 6 times here already.....and I agree with you..feelings and such are not evidence (Thank God) I actually experience Gods presence in my life..I seen His work in my life and lives of others. I seen healings, miracles....just to name a few (I been a Christian over 25 years) too much to list here, You may say "That's not objective" youre right..it may not be...which is why I don't expect anyone to take my word for it..but to find out for themselves..no man proved God to me..why should I expect different with others?...

          March 5, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          so faith is no longer required...funny, there are many who disagree with you. Pretty much ALL other believers.

          As for gods promise, you quoted MEN, not any gods.
          There is no evidence that any gods exist, and whatever you think is evidence ...well let's just say that the bar for acceptable evidence is EXCEPTIONALLY low with you. I hope you never serve on a jury.

          March 5, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WHERE did I say faithisno longer required? I said we NEED faith.but its nOT in Gods existence,..but in His PROMISES..and btw I do not take the mans word for granted.I USE it in MY life...it is real...

          March 5, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          The bar for evidence for me isnOTlow..it is DIFFERENT......don't ve soarrogant to judge as youdid..btw your comparison to a jury is terrible..for juries don't deal with spiritual stuff..thank you..I cant serve on one anyways..my hearing tis too bad for me to do it

          March 5, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • bacbik

          argumentum ad populum... kermit fail as usual..

          March 5, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          kermit
          "I have presented my evidence like 6 times here already"

          link?

          March 5, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Hopes and feelings are not evidence.

        March 4, 2014 at 10:32 am |
        • kermit4jc

          DID I say hopes and feelings were evidence???? I didnt even IMPLY it

          March 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          The thing is kermit, you haven't presented any evidence.

          March 4, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Evidence. Thats probably why the joke all lawyers are going to hell.

          Just kidding 🙂

          March 4, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
  6. transframer

    observernow

    The solution chosen by god is obviously not the only one possible. However it is possible, it is simple, it has no contradictions so it is logical and scientific. This is what this discussion was about: the scientific credibility of Genesis. If the solution is hypocritical or not we can discuss, but that`s a separate issue. So far I answered all your questions so your claim that `there is NOTHING scientific about Genesis`is false.

    March 3, 2014 at 11:20 am |
    • tallulah131

      Apparently your arguments are only convincing to people who are willing to ignore actual fact.

      March 3, 2014 at 11:28 am |
      • transframer

        If you didn`t follow the discussion, the question was:
        "Where in Genesis does it tell who created the parallel civilization of Nod where the first human baby created by God went?"
        So what actual facts are you talking about ?

        March 3, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          trans, The account in Genesis is clearly not literally true, so any other interpretation is just that – interpretation; there is no science that confirms Genesis except in the axiomatic sense that there is a universe and there is life on earth. As far as I know there is no mention of where Cain's wife came from but that does not match the story of Adam and Eve being the only humans created by god. So many inconsistencies.

          March 3, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • transframer

          Cain's wife being also his sister is a perfectly simple and logical solution. Where is the inconsistency?

          March 3, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "However it is possible, it is simple, it has no contradictions so it is logical and scientific." lol

          I'll accept that "God" could be possible as most people define it, but "simple"? Almost every believer I have ever talked to wants to use the logic of complex creations requiring a creator but fail to grasp the simple and unavoidable flaw in that logic which is that the super complex entlty it would take to design and build the universe would then by its own complexity require a more complex entlty to have created it and so on. So either throw logic out the window and just say "I believe regardless of the logic and facts!" or accept that your argument can only use them so far and then its all hyperbole and unverifiable opinion.

          Oh, and the fact that we share DNA with neanderthals and denisovians does prove Genesis impossible. That along with mountains of geological data (litteral mountains being included) that disprove the global flood theory and the young earth theory and the earth stood still biblical account and the order of creation, pretty much all of Genesis can be discarded as no more than Egyptian mythology repackaged for the Hebrews by their educated ex-egyptian prince leader Moses.

          March 3, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • transframer

          neverbeenhappieratheist

          In this context "simple" was about the solution to this particular problem. Indeed many others are not so simple, such as some of the ones that you mentioned. If you want, we can discuss about them but please bring them one by one at the top level in this forum so they don't mess up

          March 3, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • observernow

          transframer

          "Cain's wife being also his sister is a perfectly simple and logical solution. Where is the inconsistency?"

          God sent Cain to Nod as a punishment. Who was his sister? Was she sent there for punishment? Why did God approve of this MURDERER being allowed to marry? Why did God, who opposes INCEST, support INCEST? Why did God REQUIRE incest so hypocritically TWICE?

          March 3, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WHY did God allowed the man to liv? come on.....youarebasing this argument on shallow stuff...you seem to place VALUE on humansby what they do..not who they are...sad and pitiful to see humans in that way....

          March 3, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          What is "sad and pitiful" is that the perfect and unchanging God told people not to harm a MURDERER before CHANGING his perfect and unchanging mind later to tell people to KILL any MURDERERS.

          March 3, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          what is sad and pitiful is that YOU assume there is nO use for this person...God had plans...and you seem pretty much ignorant to that fact....that you asume youre Gods counselor..you are not all knowing.you dont run the universe//by the way..since yroue arguing this for arguments sake..the bIble makes it clear that DEATH was the consequence...just cause he did not die right away doesn't mean he wasn't punished..he still died...

          March 3, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
        • Doris

          what is sad and pitiful is that YOU assume there is nO use for this person...FSM had plans...and you seem pretty much ignorant to that fact....that you asume youre FSMs counselor..you are not all knowing.you dont run the universe//by the way..since yroue arguing this for arguments sake..the covenant of FSM makes it clear that DEATH was the consequence...just cause he did not puke pasta right away doesn't mean he wasn't punished..he still puked pasta...

          March 3, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WHIO or what is FMS???????????? WHAT are you talking about/??

          March 3, 2014 at 7:07 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          pardon me..FSM

          March 3, 2014 at 7:07 pm |
        • Doris

          Does it really matter? It was just to highlight how ridiculous your post was if some other object of mythology was used to replace the one you were using.

          March 3, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          "what is sad and pitiful is that YOU assume there is nO use for this person..."

          lol. What is really "sad and pitiful" are your attempts to pretend the Bible doesn't say what it does.

          So did the PERFECT and UNCHANGING God CHANGE the rules about how we are to deal with MURDERERS?

          March 3, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          YOU have to remember..that God is all knowing..which include plans for future events....He did not change his mind..he ALREADY had it in mind to enact the law of incest at that proper time.....there is no hypocricy..youre doing a terrible job of trying to discredit God

          March 4, 2014 at 1:51 am |
        • Doris

          kermit: "pardon me..FSM"

          I'm at least glad that you at least have enough sense to not offend FSM...

          March 3, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          That is one of the pitiful explanations ever. By your nonsense, it's possible that NO ONE ever changes their mind because they anticipate what will happen and PLAN to "CHANGE" later.

          Get serious.

          March 4, 2014 at 2:00 am |
        • kermit4jc

          uhh..GOD here..not people..we are not talking of people....you ust don't get this business of being all knowing..and being the Creator of all things...youre lacking in info

          March 4, 2014 at 2:08 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          kermit, No evidence of a god, no evidence that it is "the" creator.

          March 4, 2014 at 9:54 am |
    • observernow

      transframer,

      "your claim that `there is NOTHING scientific about Genesis`is false."

      Does science show:

      You can make a human being from dirt?
      You can create a woman from a man's rib?
      Serpents know languages and can speak?

      Get serious.

      March 3, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        science does NOT deal in supernatural! YOu get serious and think how science is used..it can neither prove nor disprove supernatural..plus science supposedly says we are product of evolution....that does not jive with reality....you think science has all the answers...sorry jack.it don't...now I DO believe in a degree of evolution...different types of cats, different types of dogs,,,etc...but they do not have a common ancestor..neither do us humans and apes have a common ancestor...

        March 3, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          "science does NOT deal in supernatural!". Absolutely. It deals with REALITY. Unlike the Bible, it doesn't CLAIM to have all the answers like talking animals, unicorns, dragons, and the sun and moons suddenly STOPPING in their orbit.

          March 3, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          youASSUME supernatural is not part of reality..I say it IS part of reality...and nowhere does the Bible state that unicorns actually exist, nor do dragons actually exist....the earth stopping in its orbit is supernatural..but just cause it is supernaturla does not mean it is not reality...you think too much inside the box and limit yourself

          March 3, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          "nowhere does the Bible state that unicorns actually exist"

          (Deut. 33:17) “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with
          them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they
          are the thousands of Manasseh.”
          (Isaiah 34:7) “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be
          soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.” [KJV]
          (Job 39:9-10) “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his
          band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”
          (Numbers 23:22) “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” [KJV]
          (Numbers 24:8) “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up
          the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows”
          (Psalm 22:21) “Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”
          (Psalm 29:6) “He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.”
          (Psalm 92:10) “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”

          Ooops!

          March 3, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          OOOOPPS! YOUfailed...NONE of those passages state the unicorns EXIST..first of all..there is still question if they are DEzfineD as unicorn...whether they are or not..NOTICE the USAGE>..they are AS unicorns....and the writer can use FICTIONAL things to compare to.....IM sorry..but you failed to prove the BIble explicitly state the actually exist..

          March 3, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc,

          lol. So Isaiah was LYING when he said "The sword of the Lord is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the Lord hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

          Can we throw out the entire book because of his LYING?

          March 3, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          OH Geez...I guess you knownOTHING abou tpoetry! figures of speech..metaphors! Go to school and learn those things..then come back

          March 4, 2014 at 1:52 am |
        • transframer

          observernow

          By clinging by these microscopic details you just show you couldn't find anything more important to fight. C'mon, there are indeed lots of much more interesting facts in Bible you can look at. Those unicorns could be lots of things but with or without them little changes. In particular this is a translation issue which yourself touched: "and his horns are like the horns of unicorns". You can see that horns is plural, so it's about an animal with two horns. In original Hebrew the word used for unicorn (re'em) doesn't have plural and the so called unicorn was a sort of ox which can be seen in some Assyrian art and is now extinct

          March 3, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
        • observernow

          March 3, 2014 at 7:43 pm |

          transframer

          observernow

          "In particular this is a translation issue which yourself touched: "and his horns are like the horns of unicorns". You can see that horns is plural, so it's about an animal with two horns"

          Guess you missed that UNICORNS is PLURAL too or would you say "like the HORN of unicorns"?

          March 3, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          SIMPLE Fact..They were NOT saying unicorns existed! They used fables and such..things that people were familiar with! I still am waiting for PROFOF they say unicorns ACTUALLY existed...using them as PICTURES (symbols) does NOT make them existant

          March 4, 2014 at 2:04 am |
        • transframer

          That's exactly where the problem was. The correct translation should have been: ‘His horns are like the horns of a unicorn’ but that would have been a contradiction in terms

          March 3, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          You were right when you agreed that "It may not be possible by science". MY point.
          Now explain how a rib can become a woman without a womb to grow in.
          The "serpent" in most religious drawings of the Garden of Eden is a snake. Just another religious ERROR like in the Bible?

          March 3, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          UHHH..if YOU are using the BIble..it has GOD in it too...God made these things possible

          March 4, 2014 at 2:05 am |
        • transframer

          By way of cloning I guess. What did I say about the snake?

          March 4, 2014 at 12:05 am |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          Cloning makes a copy. In other words cloning would make a male like Adam.

          Please read some science books besides a Bible. You won't learn ANY science from a book that claims that all the law of science are OPTIONAL.

          March 4, 2014 at 12:10 am |
        • transframer

          By cloning I didn't mean what our limited science calls identical cloning. I didn't claim I want to learn science from Bible, but you can try it, it may open some windows for you. You can start with simple things like answering the questions, staying on subject and recognizing when you are wrong. This can help more than any science book you'll ever read.

          March 4, 2014 at 12:27 am |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          I haven't been wrong about anything. You are the one saying the Bible is wrong and that a woman can be cloned from a man.

          March 4, 2014 at 12:32 am |
        • otoh2

          kermit,

          Poor answers from you.

          March 4, 2014 at 2:09 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc,

          So Isaiah was LYING and JUST MADE UP THIS STUFF about God when he said "The sword of the Lord is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the Lord hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."?

          March 4, 2014 at 2:09 am |
        • kermit4jc

          go back to school..learn how to read poetry, figures of speech and metaphors.to name a few

          March 4, 2014 at 2:19 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          If you went back to school you could study science so you'd know just how much TOTAL NONSENSE is in the Bible. You might learn about the laws of physics and why the sun and moon could not SUDDENLY STOP in orbit. You might learn about the earth being a sphere and not ENTIRELY visible from any ONE spot.

          March 4, 2014 at 2:23 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Nice try..I KNOW all about that..just because I believe in Gensis and the bIble doesn't mean I don't know jack about science..REMEMBER..I believe in a GOD who CREATED those things and is in ZCONTROL of all things...if HE can stop the earth from oorbiting around the sun for a bit..SURELY he can control the consequences of it....sheesh..youre so pathetic

          March 4, 2014 at 2:38 am |
        • bacbik

          too much capitalization.. too boring.. too much BS kermit

          March 5, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
      • transframer

        observernow

        Yourself noticed that science "doesn't CLAIM to have all the answers like talking animals...". Some facts in Bible indeed can't be explained by the science as we know it but it doesn't change the fact that "there is NOTHING scientific about Genesis" is a false claim. It should be enough only one to make it false and I already showed one. But that's not important now. Let's discuss a bit about your questions.
        Adam was created from dust specifically in a total different way then all the other creation. He is the best of god's work and had to be created using god's personal activity. It may not be possible by science but of course it's possible by an omnipotent god.
        Women was created from man's rib. This is actually, if not possible, at least foreseeable by actual science. In particular note that god took care to put to sleep Adam so the operation can be performed. Also, there is known fact in the medical community that ribs regenerates, thoracic surgeons routinely remove ribs and these often grow back.
        Serpents know languages and can speak. Serpent is actually Satan himself which used the body of a snake to approach Eva. Satan was the one who made the snake speak. Again, no or little science here

        March 3, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          I'm still waiting for you to produce verifiable SCIENCE in Genesis. Your answers consist of saying the Bible is wrong and that it's God's magic.

          March 3, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • transframer

          In case you don't remember I already answered your question about Cain in Nod. Where did I say the Bible is wrong?

          March 4, 2014 at 12:07 am |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          You pointed out that the King James Bible and others are INACCURATE. No disagreement there.

          March 4, 2014 at 12:13 am |
        • transframer

          See my answer above. It applies here as well.

          March 4, 2014 at 12:30 am |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          "the so called unicorn was a sort of ox which can be seen in some Assyrian art and is now extinct"

          You claimed that the King James Bible called it an apparently fictional name of unicorn rather than "a sort of ox". Are there ANY Bibles that aren't INACCURATE?

          March 4, 2014 at 12:42 am |
      • observernow

        kermit4jc

        We both are in agreement that the Bible contains MADE UP NONSENSE. We just disagree on how much and where.

        March 4, 2014 at 2:41 am |
        • kermit4jc

          DONT you dare speak for me moron.....

          March 4, 2014 at 2:44 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          Speaking of morons, you were the one who implied that your EXCUSE for what the Bible says was that it contained "poetry, figures of speech and metaphors.to name a few".

          You really should read what you write before trying to trash someone for what you wrote.

          March 4, 2014 at 2:48 am |
        • kermit4jc

          so YOU don't think there is poetry and figures of speech in the Bible?

          March 4, 2014 at 3:01 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc,

          Of course there is. There's much made-up nonsense in there. There's also ridiculous threats from God in there that reflect on the knowledge and intelligence of anyone at the time who would accept the idea of unicorns, dragons, or angels that killed tens of thousands of people.

          March 4, 2014 at 3:05 am |
        • kermit4jc

          threats by God? what threats?

          March 4, 2014 at 3:11 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc,

          WOW! I thought you had read the Bible. It's full of threats from God involving such disgusting things as cannibalism.

          It's too late to stay here reading a Bible to you, so I'll just leave a couple out of many.

          (Deut. 32:22-23 “My people, I will breathe out fire that sends you down to the world of the dead. It will scorch your farmlands and burn deep down under the mountains. I'll send disaster after disaster to strike you like arrows.”

          (Deut. 28:45-53) “Israel, if you don't obey the laws and teachings that the Lord your God is giving you. . . Then you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the Lord your God has given you” [Moses]

          March 4, 2014 at 3:21 am |
        • kermit4jc

          sheesh..GOD is nOT threatening cannibalism as if he is commanding it to happen..he is speaking of the RESULT of the attacks from others...the sieges that other countries would lay upon Isreal...second....you want God to water stuff and sugar coat things?? There are CONSeQUENHCES to actions..and that happens TODAY....are YOu a parent? do YOU knot give consequences to your kids when they do wrong??

          March 4, 2014 at 3:27 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          sheesh.. another OOOOPS!

          (Jer. 19:9) “And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend" [God]

          Please READ a Bible SOMEDAY so you will have a CLUE.

          March 4, 2014 at 3:35 am |
        • kermit4jc

          STUDY the BIble..maybe YOu will get a clue...that was telling what will happen to them..cause of other peoples coming to take over..thats nOT God doing it to them..you need to define threats..and telling wqhat consequences are....you have children don't you?

          March 4, 2014 at 3:48 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc,

          What part of this quote from God himself don't you understand? "And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend"

          Does the THREAT "I WILL CAUSE" mean something else in whatever language you are speaking? Is English a second language for you?

          Do you understand the differences between "I" and "they", which is NOT there?

          If you don't understand the words, please use a dictionary.

          March 4, 2014 at 3:35 am |

          kermit4jc

          March 4, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I understtod perfectly.maybe You did not understand my response well..yes..GOD ALLOWED the situaiton to happen....that is TELLLING consequences..and yuo have YET to answer MY question..DO you or DO you NOT have anyu kids? yes or no? SIMPLE question

          March 4, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc,

          Yes I have "kids". Fortunately, they grew up to oppose the slavery and discriminations supported by the Bible.

          March 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
  7. Doris

    Why do some Christian scientists sell two different stories about dating methods?

    One only need search for "young earth geology" on youtube to get a plethora of videos from a Dr Snelling who was referenced a few times by Ham in the recent Ham-Nye debate. But what story is this Dr Snelling telling? Another geologist, Dr Alex Ritchie has some interesting insight.
    ==========

    Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

    Dr Alex Ritchie, The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15

    Dr Alex Ritchie received his BSc. (Hons) in Geology and a Ph.D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from 1968 to 1995 where he is currently a Research Fellow.

    For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.

    These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.

    Dr Alex Ritchie, palaeontologist at the Australian Museum, takes up the story.

    There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications – a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

    Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

    But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

    For convenience I refer to them below as follows:

    (a) Dr A A Snelling 1 – creationist geologist, a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo (now CREATION ex nihilo).

    (b) Dr A A Snelling 2 – consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

    Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.
    Snelling 1

    For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia.

    Snelling 1 writes articles for creationist journals and lectures throughout the country in schools, public meetings and churches. Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'.

    Why should Snelling 1's activities concern the scientific and educational communities? To appreciate this, one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.

    CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.

    "(A) PRIORITIES

    1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

    (B) BASICS

    3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

    5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.

    (D) GENERAL

    The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

    (i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

    (ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six
    (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

    (iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

    (iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."

    These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.

    Everything in his creationist writings and activities indicates that Snelling 1 subscribes fully to CSF's Statement of Faith. Where this clashes with scientific evidence, the latter is always secondary to the former and his message, although often cloaked in scientific jargon, is simple and unequivocal; indeed one of his favourite lecture topics is "Why, as a Geologist, I Believe in Noah's Flood".

    From the Gospel according to Snelling 1, the Earth is geologically young, created ex nihilo ("from nothing") by a supernatural being, during a short, well defined construction period of only six days. This miraculous creation event, usually dated some 6000 years ago (around 4004 BC), is not the end of the story. The Earth we live on today is not the same as the original created model, which was almost totally destroyed and remodelled some 1,600 years later (around 2345 BC) by an irate Creator who conjured up an unique, world-wide Flood to do the job.

    This Flood, lasting just over one year, tore down all previous land surfaces, rearranged the continents and thrust up all existing mountain chains. It also destroyed all pre-existing life forms, plant and animal – except for a chosen few saved on Noah's Ark. Thus all of the remarkably complex geology of the present day Earth's crust formed during the one year of Noah's Flood and all the innumerable fossil remains of former animals and plants were all buried and preserved by the same Flood.

    Snelling 1 (1983a) presented his views on Flood chronology in an article, Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. After reviewing mainstream views on geology and evolution, he remarked:

    "On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood....Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisation."

    "However the flood was global, erosional and its purpose was destruction. Therefore the first major fossilisation commenced at this time, and the majority of the fossils are regarded as having been formed rapidly during this event. Creationists therefore regard sedimentary strata as needing to be classified into those formed during the time of creation week, pre-flood, flood (early, middle and late), post-flood and recent" (p. 42)

    Snelling 1 then quoted one J C Dillow, a creationist writing on the Earth's supposed pre-Flood "vapour canopy":

    "It should be obvious that if the Earth is only 6000 years old, then all the geological designations are meaningless within that framework, and it is deceptive to continue to use them. If, as many creationist geologists believe, the majority of the geological column represents flood sediments and post-flood geophysical activity, then the mammoth, dinosaur and all humans existed simultaneously .... Some limited attempts have been made by creationist geologists to reclassify the entire geological column within this framework, but the task is immense." (Dillow 1981, "The Waters Above". Moody Press, 405-6)

    Snelling 1 criticised Dillow and other creationists for restricting Flood strata to Phanerozoic rocks (Cambrian and younger) and claimed that most Precambrian rocks are also Flood deposits:

    "It is my contention that those who do this have failed to study carefully the evidence for the flood deposition of many Precambrian strata and have therefore unwittingly fallen into the trap of lumping together the Precambrian strata to the creation week. The usual reason for doing this is that the evolutionists regard Precambrian as so different, so devoid of life in comparison with other rocks, that creationists have simply borrowed their description." (1983, 42).

    Snelling 1 thus pushes the earliest limits of Flood strata far back into the Early Precambrian (early Archaean) times , before even the first appearance of fossils resembling blue-green algae:

    "What I am contending here is that fossils, whether they be microscopic or macroscopic, plant or animal and the fossil counterpart of organic matter, along with its metamorphosed equivalent graphite, are the primary evidence which should distinguish flood rocks from pre-flood rocks, regardless of the evolutionary 'age'." (1983, 45).

    Lest there remain any doubt, Snelling 1 (1983, 42) stated:

    "For creationists to be consistent the implications are clear; Precambrian sediments containing fossils and organic remains were laid down during Noah's flood. Creationist geologists need to completely abandon the evolutionist's geological column and associated terminology. It is necessary to start again, using the presence of fossils or organic matter as a classification criterion in the task of rebuilding our understanding of geological history within the Biblical framework."

    It is difficult to believe that the writer of the foregoing article has a BSc (Hons) and PhD in geology! However an examination of other articles by the same author in Ex Nihilo reveals that, to Snelling 1, everything geological (Ayers Rock, Mt Isa ore deposits, Bass Strait oil and gas, Queensland coal deposits, Great Barrier Reef, etc.,) can be explained as the result of Noah's year-long Flood.

    DOOLAN, ROBERT & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1987. Limestone caves ...a result of Noah's Flood? Limestone caves... a result of Noah's Flood? (4), 10-13.
    READ, PETER & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1985. How Old is Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Creation Ex Nihilo. 8(1), 6-9.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1982. The Recent Origin of Bass Strait Oil and Gas. Ex Nihilo 5 (2) 43-46.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. Ex Nihilo 6 (1), 42-46.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. What about Continental Drift? Have the continents really moved apart? Ex Nihilo 6 (2), 14-16.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The recent, rapid formation of the Mt Isa orebodies during Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo 6 (3) 40-46 (cf. also abstract 17-18).
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The Origin of Ayers Rock. Creation Ex Nihilo 7 (1).
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1986. Coal Beds and Noah's Flood. Creation Ex Nihilo 8 (3), 20-21.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1989. Is the Sun Shrinking? Creation Ex Nihilo (pt. 1) 11 (1), 14-19. (pt. 2) 11 (2), 30-34. – The Debate Continues. (pt. 3) 11 (3), 40-43 – The Unresolved Question.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A & John Mackay 1984. Coal, Volcanism and Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo Tech. J. 1, 11-29.
    SNELLING 2

    If we now turn to the scientific articles published by the other Dr A A Snelling, consulting geologist (also from PO Box 302, Sunnybank QLD, 4109), we find a remarkable contrast, both in approach and content. None of them mention the Creation or Creation Week, Flood geology or the need to revamp the classic geological timescale.

    The latest paper by Snelling 2 (1990, 807 -812) is a detailed technical account of the "Koongarra Uranium Deposits" in the Northern Territory. It appears in an authoritative two volume work on "Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea" (ed. F E Hughes), published by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. The references list eight earlier papers by Snelling 2 in refereed journals (or symposium volumes) on aspects of uranium mineralisation; three as sole author and five as junior co-author.

    In discussing the regional geology (p. 807) and age (p. 811) of the Koongarra uranium deposits, Snelling 2 describes their geological history in fairly technical terms, however, to avoid the charge we lay against the creationists, of taking quotations out of context, I will quote Snelling 2 verbatim from the paper (p. 807):

    "The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

    For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:

    "The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures."

    There is no question here of "abandoning the geological column and its associated terminology", and the term Myr refers unequivocally to millions of years.

    One further quotation (p.807), "A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism.", is self explanatory.

    There are several further references to ages of millions and thousands of millions of years, and to commonly accepted geological terminology, throughout the paper but, to spare the lay reader, I will only summarise them here:

    1. During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.

    2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.

    3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.

    Nowhere in this, or in any other article by Snelling 2 is there any reference to the creation week, to Noah's Flood or to a young age for the Earth. Nor is there any disclaimer, or the slightest hint, that this Dr Snelling has any reservations about using the standard geological column or time scale, accepted world-wide. The references above to hundreds and thousands of million of years are not interpolated by me. They appear in Dr Snelling 2's paper.

    The problem is obvious – the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other's papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.

    One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?

    Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.

    I think that both Dr Snelling and the CSF owe us all an explanation. WILL THE REAL DR ANDREW SNELLING PLEASE STAND UP?

    POSTSCRIPT

    Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart – Noah's Flood – The Geological Case For and Against.

    I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.

    For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.

    In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.
    ==========

    It seems that some Christian scientists have no problem selling young-earth creationists what they want to hear.....

    March 3, 2014 at 11:11 am |
  8. transframer

    hotairace

    Your language shows serious holes in your education and I wonder if you know who Godel (who, btw, was an atheist) was and if you understand what he's saying.

    March 3, 2014 at 11:03 am |
    • igaftr

      transframer
      You language indicates you think that studying the bible is education, which it is not.

      March 3, 2014 at 11:20 am |
      • kermit4jc

        Studying the BIble is not education???????????? please define study and education

        March 3, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          It is education in the sense that there are many references to the bible in literature, art, and society in general; same way as studying Greek, Roman, Norse, etc. mythology. It is not factual for the large part so it is not education on many topics.

          March 3, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          so education refers ONLY to facts....gotcha..how narrow and inclusive..and biased...trying rel hard to discredit Christianity aren't ya?

          March 3, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          What I meant is you can't use the bible to educate on, for example, science – partly because it does not present itself as a science book and partly because we know that it is incorrect in many respects where modern knowledge is superior. Very little of the history has been verified, etc. etc.
          Do you consider that stories about Zeus and Odin are factual? Are they educational?

          March 3, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Actually..the historical is verifiable ..and we can learn MUCH (not all) of the Jewish culture as well. As for science..the Bible did not present itself as a SCIENcE text, however I would disagree withyou as IM for Creation, which yes, it does contradict secular science..which puports itself to be the only solution...which is biased and inclusive...and should I dare say, against education (since advocates want to censor anything else)

          March 3, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          No. There's no evidence to support creation, origin of species as described by the bible, and all the available evidence contradicts it – same for the global flood, Lot's wife into salt, man living in fish, all of Jesus's miracles including resurrection, man living to 900 years old, origin of languages, and so much more. Some place names are correct but you'd expect that they'd get regional information correct.
          The only evidence for the bible is the bible and that is circular.

          March 3, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
        • Doris

          kermit: "Actually..the historical is verifiable ..and we can learn MUCH (not all) of the Jewish culture as well. "

          Verifiable? Some things in history to a degree. the Bible? Very little really there that can be verified. There's more there to validate what we also know later about Jewish culture because we can compare the present, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, etc. against 2000 years ago. But what elements of the supernatural claims of the Bible can be compared to any supernatural claims of today to validate either one? There simply isn't enough precedence backed up by solid evidence to give it serious consideration.

          March 3, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          so you saying other than culture....the rest of Bible is all supernatural claims? come on...there ishistorical value in it as well..names of people, locations..events (NON supernatural)..sounds like youre trying hard to downplay the value oft he BIble in its historical offerings

          March 3, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Some places, few people and few events can be verified. That doesn't mean that the rest (majority) is correct. We know that much of it is not correct and obviously some things are unverifiable but could only happen with supernatural intervention which hasn't been seen since (unless you believe Joseph Smith).

          March 3, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Oh you are so ignorant...I seen supernatural events today! in MY life anf lives of others! supernatural events are NOT exclusive to HUGE events...like global flood, etc etc....and just cause there are a FEW errors (supposedly) in the regional stuff, that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.thats not how history works..give an example of regional error please

          March 3, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Not sure what you mean by regional example.
          What verified supernatural events have you witnessed?

          March 3, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          well..YOU are the one who brought up about the errors of the cities and regions...as for verifiable...youwant science? (as I said..science does not answer everything in this life) I had things verified by others....they know me...my hearing...my infections...doctors....I get healed of the infections instantly when prayed over....

          March 3, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
        • Doris

          kermit: "so you saying other than culture....the rest of Bible is all supernatural claims? come on...there ishistorical value in it as well..names of people, locations..events (NON supernatural)..sounds like youre trying hard to downplay the value oft he BIble in its historical offerings"

          no, I didn't say that's all there was – but much of what is left is not verifiable – some of it may very very well be true and some may be fiction; some may be a best attempt to retain truth where erroneous transmission kept the true story from being relayed forward; but how can it be verified at this point? (and really because we are not talking about the supernatural parts here, what does it matter?)

          March 3, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          erroneous transmission? (give example please) as for why is it important? the POINT was...someone said that there was no education studying the BIble...which was an ignorant statement...

          March 3, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • Doris

          Santa: "What verified supernatural events have you witnessed?"

          Oh yes, please do tell about that stuff, kermit. I've already seen all these movies showing right now – I need to hear something enthralling...

          March 3, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          YOu mock..why should I waste time?> when you are serious about it I will tell you

          March 3, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
        • Doris

          kermit: "erroneous transmission? (give example please) "

          First of all I said "some may be a best attempt to retain truth where erroneous transmission"

          but you really should be surprised at that possibility. oral tradition over thousands of years and you don't think transmission could have been faulty at times?? And I assume you do know what the word "embellishment" means.....

          Anyway, check out some of those Bart Ehrman videos. He has some very interesting evidence, especially for the New Testament, regarding transmission errors.

          March 3, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          with regards to Bart..I assume you havent really looked into his studies....he has found MINOR "errors" which do not change the story one bit..the majority of the others were not transmission errors..but simply changing of words.for example "Jesus said..." changed to "He said.." which is in fact NOT an error at all..since they are BOTH correct.. ALl one has to do is look at surrounding passages and see it is Jesus that's beoing referred to...Bart pretty much passes this along as an error...which is dishonest on his part...

          March 3, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
        • Doris

          correction: really should not be surprised

          March 3, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          I did bring up the geography. OK so where exactly are Eden, Nod, and Zion? We'll get to others later. I conceded that the bible is most accurate when referring to cities and regions.
          There has never been objectively verified anything as a result of prayer, but I am willing to be convinced. Colin has mentioned this before and new-man promised but then backed off – you could prove that prayer works by nominating an amputee then blog the quantity of prayer along with regular photographs to show the amount of growth.

          March 3, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Zion is another name for Jerusalem...Eden was located somewhere in the Middle east..its exact location is still unkown...and just cause it is unknown..does not make it an error Nod was to the east of that...and once edens location is pinpointed..then we can pinpoint Nod...till then..it is yet an error. As for prayer...whyyouliit iracles ONLY to amputees? doing so pretty much makes youa mocker and not really serious.youwant BIG stuff..not little things...

          March 3, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
        • Doris

          Little things, kermit? Just a few needful things??

          March 3, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..little things..things that don't change the storyone bit...like 1000 horses as compared to 10,000 horses..thepoint is..its a strong army (if it were in the context of an army) and it would not have negated that an army from the story existed!

          March 3, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          If you don't know where Eden and Nod are then they're not verified are they?
          You were the one who said you have verified the power of prayer; I'd say it's you who is mocking amputees if you have the power to heal but won't.

          March 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WAIT..I MYSELF have the power to heal????? I don't heal anyone..nor did I even IMPLY it I dontmock..I allow healings wherever they happen...amputees have been healed in the past..read during Jesus arrest...the ear was regrown..of the one who had it cut off.....IM sure amputees were including in healings of Jesus..the writer is not going to mention every single healing...that's totally ridiculous....You are mocking cause you only select aputees..you wont look at other types of healings....

          March 3, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • Doris

          oh goodness here we go again. does anyone here speak kermit?

          March 3, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          What did you mean when you said "... my hearing...my infections...doctors....I get healed of the infections instantly when prayed over....". It implied that you or someone else prayed and you were healed. In which case you could select an amputee, post before pictures unambiguously showing the limb to be missing – then you or whoever could pray and keep a track of prayer and growth and post them say monthly.
          As you didn't respond (apart from with insults) I'll assume that you concede that most of the bible is not verified apart from a few people and a few more places.

          March 3, 2014 at 8:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I have a life..I work...excuse meok? be patient...you are mocking..period..all You care is the amputee...you don't care if ANY other miracle happens..your dishonest personand from what I gather from you..even IF such a miracle happens that an amputee regains his limb..you still wouldn't believe it...though you think you would..the very nature of your skepticism belies you

          March 4, 2014 at 1:55 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          No kermit, amputees are chosen because the injury cannot be faked or hidden or imagined, equally any healing would be obvious.

          March 3, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          miracles are NOT limited to healings.....you have such narrow vision..

          March 4, 2014 at 1:56 am |
        • bacbik

          miracles don't exist, so who cares how you think they are limited.. dumb kermit..

          March 5, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Same goes for any other event that you might call miraculous. There are typical, average results that people seldom talk about, and there are results that are far from the average. The positive ones people like to call "miracles" and the negative ones people usually file under "bad luck". For every "miracle" there's likely something equally far from the average expectation on the other end of the spectrum. Try looking at the whole picture.

          March 6, 2014 at 11:30 am |
  9. hearthetruth1

    http://www.Hear-The-Truth.com
    and http://HearTheTruth.imgur.com

    March 2, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
  10. Reality

    Attacking and destroying all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!! (only for the new members)

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e. the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    • A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinker bells? etc.) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

    March 2, 2014 at 7:25 am |
    • transframer

      Scores of people, some of them among the brightest minds of the world, devoted their whole lives to study the religion books in the smallest details and they still didn't say they master it all. And yet, from time to time, some poor soul quickly reads some of it or about it and, based on this, claims that he can dismiss it all.

      March 2, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
      • ssq41

        Another Christian denying the right of another to exercise their free will. Funny, transframer, how you dismiss your own theology.

        March 2, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
        • transframer

          I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you want to explain

          March 2, 2014 at 11:07 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        trans, One only needs to read Genesis to know it is not credible. Then comparative religion shows nothing unique about any religion – which is largely determined by geography.

        March 2, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • transframer

          I guess you don't understand Christianity. Genesis, while real, logical and credible is only its history part. And yes, Christianity is unique.

          March 2, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • observernow

          transframer

          "Genesis, while real, logical and credible is only its history part"

          Of course it makes sense. Everyone knows that serpents speak languages and you can create a full woman from a man's rib. Everyone supports INCEST also and not punishing murderers.

          March 2, 2014 at 11:17 pm |
        • transframer

          Genesis, like any history, is part science part art. You have to read it as it is.

          March 2, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
        • observernow

          transframer

          "Genesis, like any history, is part science part art."

          Please get serious. There is NOTHING scientific about Genesis. It violates nearly EVERY LAW of science. It is likely not history either since history usually has some verifiable facts with it.

          March 2, 2014 at 11:36 pm |
        • ssq41

          Tran...you should write a research article for the Creation Research Insti.tute with that as your premise. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal and any number of academic journals of History.

          March 2, 2014 at 11:40 pm |
        • ssq41

          BTW, Tran...the only unique thing about Christianity is Luke 6:27ff...and the Body of Christ is a complete failure in obeying that command.

          March 2, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          AHH yes..as if Christians ar eNOT allow to make mistakes ever..but to be perfect...nice

          March 3, 2014 at 1:57 am |
        • transframer

          It may violate the laws of science AS WE KNOW IT. But even so, I think most of it can be explained using existing science

          March 2, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          Not a chance. Get serious. Maybe you could take a science class or two.

          March 2, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • transframer

          ssq41

          Luke 6:27 (Love you enemy) is not the only unique thing but is indeed the essence of Christianity. If you think that this one alone is true you are almost there. The rest of Christianity is how to get there. But I don't understand the part with body of Christ.

          March 2, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
        • transframer

          observernow

          While I'm not a scientist I may try to answer some specific parts of Genesis that you don't understand.

          March 3, 2014 at 12:06 am |
        • hotairace

          You may as well start at the beginning by proving any god, pick one, any one, exists.

          March 3, 2014 at 12:08 am |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          Where in Genesis does it tell who created the parallel civilization of Nod where the first human baby created by God (who killed the second human baby) went?

          March 3, 2014 at 12:12 am |
        • transframer

          hotairace
          What kind of prove would you like? Is there something that will make you see god exists?

          March 3, 2014 at 12:18 am |
        • transframer

          observernow

          That's simple. There was no civilization there. It was created by Cain and his wife.

          March 3, 2014 at 12:22 am |
        • kermit4jc

          actually..Cain wasn't the only son Adam and Eve had..according to Genesis 5 they had OTHER sons and daughters..Cain and his wife were not the only ones in existence behind Adam and Eve

          March 3, 2014 at 1:59 am |
        • observernow

          transframer

          "There was no civilization there. It was created by Cain and his wife."

          So did he have s3x with his mother or with his sister or both?

          March 3, 2014 at 12:27 am |
        • Doris

          tf: "And yet, from time to time, some poor soul quickly reads some of it or about it and, based on this, claims that he can dismiss it all."

          Do you sit there for hours with each piece of email that went into your spam folder wondering "gee, I wonder if this is really spam?" ?

          March 3, 2014 at 12:31 am |
        • transframer

          observernow

          His wife, who was also his sister

          March 3, 2014 at 12:33 am |
        • hotairace

          Trans, anything you think would stand up to the standards of the scientific method or the justice system's rules of evidence.

          March 3, 2014 at 12:38 am |
        • Doris

          Actually, I've said that line before, but I just realized that the Bible really is like spam in a way. The unknown authors of the Gospels are kind of the message "From: " name where it's difficult to tell where it came from because it was "spoofed" (appearing to originate from one sender, but in reality comes from someone else).

          March 3, 2014 at 12:40 am |
        • observernow

          transframer,

          Lev. 18:9 "The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover"

          Just more hypocrisy and contradiction in the Bible.

          What was her name? Why did to she go where God sent Cain for PUNISHMENT?

          .

          March 3, 2014 at 12:50 am |
        • kermit4jc

          HOW can that be a contradiction when it was NOT EVEN LAW at the time of Cain?? silly

          March 3, 2014 at 2:01 am |
        • transframer

          hotairace

          The Bible has ample evidence of god. But if you want a pure mathematical proof, here you go:http://sas.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology2.html. Note that the proof was recently demonstrated, see for example this link:
          http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html

          March 3, 2014 at 12:50 am |
        • transframer

          observernow

          There is no hypocrisy and contradiction. Leviticus were new laws so they couldn't contradict something that didn't exist. We don't know the details of Cain's wife, but what has to with science?

          March 3, 2014 at 12:55 am |
        • hotairace

          trans, epic fail! We're back at square zero. You need to prove, or at least provide real evidence (scientific method, rules of evidence), before we can move on to using The Babble for anything more than fire starter or toilet paper.

          March 3, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • hotairace

          I think you need to read the second article again. You would have to be a fucking stupid, mentally ill, delusional believer to stretch that article as prove for any god. Are you that stupid?

          March 3, 2014 at 1:14 am |
        • observernow

          transframer

          "There is no hypocrisy and contradiction. Leviticus were new laws so they couldn't contradict something that didn't exist".

          So either the perfect God CHANGED his mind or else it is hypocrisy.

          Same for the SECOND time that God used INCEST to populate the earth. It was his ONLY APPROVED method to do so.

          March 3, 2014 at 1:19 am |
        • kermit4jc

          God didn't CHANGE His mind..remember..He is ALL knowing...at the time it was allowed to populate the earth....God already had plans to change the conditions...so how can one change his mind when it is already set in place to do so???

          March 3, 2014 at 2:03 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc,

          Of course. No person has ever changed his mind. They anticipated what was coming and make the planned change then.

          Get real. God used INCEST the ONLY TWO times he populated the earth. If it was planned, then he is a HYPOCRITE for telling people not to do it.

          March 3, 2014 at 3:26 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NOT neccesarily.....two different times..how else is he gonna allow to populate the earth..plus..do you know ALL that is in His plans? how could you say it is such if you don't know?

          March 3, 2014 at 3:33 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          "how else is he gonna allow to populate the earth.."

          Easy. Just pick up some more dirt and make some men and then pull their ribs out and make more women.

          March 3, 2014 at 3:39 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Again God chooses to do HIS way as HE has a plan.....it would not be hypocritical...different times..different situations....

          March 3, 2014 at 4:18 am |
        • Reality

          As per National Geographic's Genographic project:

          https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

          "Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

          Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

          It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

          o More details from National Geographic's Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

          "Our spe-cies is an African one: Africa is where we first ev-olved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fos-sils of recognizably modern Ho-mo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.

          According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

          Once the climate started to improve, after 70,000 years ago, we came back from this near-extinction event. The population expanded, and some intrepid explorers ventured beyond Africa. The earliest people to colonize the Eurasian landma-ss likely did so across the Bab-al-Mandab Strait separating present-day Yemen from Djibouti. These early beachcombers expanded rapidly along the coast to India, and reached Southeast Asia and Australia by 50,000 years ago. The first great foray of our species beyond Africa had led us all the way across the globe."

          March 3, 2014 at 8:59 am |
        • transframer

          test

          March 3, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • igaftr

          transframer
          " Genesis, while real, logical and credible "

          Not even close. Much of it has been completely disproven by various sciences, such as the whole Noah myth...neeppened.

          March 3, 2014 at 11:18 am |
    • Reality

      Added details as requested:- only for the new members

      1. origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

      “New Torah For Modern Minds

      Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

      Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

      The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment. “
      prob•a•bly
      Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.

      2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

      The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

      earlychristianwritings.com/

      For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

      Current RCC problems:

      Pedophiliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

      2 b., Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

      Current problems:
      Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,

      3. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

      This agenda continues as shown by the ma-ssacre in Mumbai, the as-sas-sinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Ft. Hood follower of the koran, and the Filipino “koranics”.

      And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

      Current crises:

      The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

      4. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) – "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

      The caste/laborer system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

      Current problems:

      The caste system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence.

      5. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

      "However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

      Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circu-mstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

      Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

      Then, apply the Five F rule: "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations". And finally there will be religious peace and religious awareness in the world!!!!!

      March 2, 2014 at 11:24 pm |
    • Reality

      Added details as requested:- only for the new members=================

      1. origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

      “New Torah For Modern Minds

      Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

      Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

      The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment. “
      prob•a•bly
      Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.

      2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

      The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

      earlychristianwritings.com/

      For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

      Current RCC problems:

      Pedophiliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

      2 b., Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

      Current problems:
      Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,

      3. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

      This agenda continues as shown by the ma-ssacre in Mumbai, the as-sas-sinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Ft. Hood follower of the koran, and the Filipino “koranics”.

      And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

      Current crises:

      The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

      4. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) – "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

      The caste/laborer system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

      Current problems:

      The caste system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence.

      5. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

      "However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

      Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circu-mstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

      Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

      Then, apply the Five F rule: "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations". And finally there will be religious peace and religious awareness in the world!!!!!

      March 2, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
  11. Doris

    Why do some Christians from the U.S. travel to other countries and incite violence against people?

    Why do some Christians officially categorizes the Pope as the Antichrist?

    Why do some Christians help spread disease (because of the unrealistic stance on contraception)?

    Why do some Christians let sick child die rather than seek medical care?

    Why do some Christians treat women still as inferiors in their organization?

    Why do some Christians still sacrifice people?

    Why do some Christians believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri?

    Why do some Christians believe that Americans are being killed at war because America is tolerant of homosexuals?

    Why do some Christians believe the OT is superseded by the NT and some not?

    =====

    "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." –Thomas Jefferson

    March 1, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      Its called ABUSE of the Scriptures..YOU cannot do away with that MEzrLY cause people ABUSE it...that's terrible argument

      March 2, 2014 at 1:50 am |
      • Doris

        LOL – if you could only hear yourself. That's what each variety of Christian is claiming you're doing – abusing the "Scriptures".

        March 2, 2014 at 10:01 am |
        • kermit4jc

          The PROOF is in the pudding..ALL one has to do is actually show it..by showing context etc etc..claining such does not neccesarily make it true..yes..I claimed it..and I can ALSO back it up...

          March 3, 2014 at 1:46 am |
        • Doris

          Yes and you continue to prove my point – going in circles to attempt to prove your "Word" is better than the next believer's "Word".

          March 3, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Apparently you are not paying attention..I back it up using context...you know the importance of context to everyday communication..whether it be in writing or speaking???? I always back it up..showing what the context is..those who abuse it usually don't bother to do so...

          March 3, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • Doris

          What context? Does anyone see any example discussing context around in this thread? (Doris looks around under her feet to see if maybe it fell out of the blog and under her feet...) ??

          March 3, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I haven't tried to show context cause YOU haven't shown me anything to use it with!!!! LOL

          March 3, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
        • Doris

          Uh kermit, you know I think readers can pretty clearly see this:

          yes..I claimed it..and I can ALSO back it up...
          March 3, 2014 at 1:46 am

          just several replies above...

          I mean really.....

          March 3, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          UH so? I said I CAN back it up..the abuses of Scripture...I did NOT give any Scripture to look at..neither did hyouor ANYONE yet! My Goodness..pay attention..the POINT is....I can show theyabuseit..now ifyouWANT meto show it..give me an example!!!!

          March 3, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
        • Doris

          Well I don't believe you can. Interesting. You made the claim. You said you can back it up. And how your shy about it. Quite obvious.

          March 3, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          YOU seem to have poor communication skills...I said bring something and I will show you..HOW do YOU take that as being shyt? If I was shy I would nOT have offered you a challenge..seems your the shy one cause you don't take the chalenge

          March 4, 2014 at 1:48 am |
        • bacbik

          kermit can't provide evidence.. no surprise here.. lol – kermit funny like a cartoon...

          March 5, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
  12. stephc37

    10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' " 12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
    -Romans 14

    March 1, 2014 at 8:52 pm |
    • the0g0to0the0t

      Ah yes – "saint" Paul – the man that never met Jesus and yet knew better than everone esle what he taught...

      March 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        Prove he never met Jesus..sure you canh say Jesus was already dead...then what of his experiences...does ANYONE ever DIE for a LIE that they KNEW to be a lie????? Psychologists have looked into the writings of Paul..and it does not show anything of a psychotic man who would die for a lie that he knew to be a lie

        March 3, 2014 at 1:48 am |
        • hotairace

          Dumbazx believers might not die for beliefs they know to be lies but they certainly die for false beliefs. Jonestown and Waco are but two examples.

          March 3, 2014 at 1:54 am |
        • kermit4jc

          HOLD it..that doesn't help the arghument..stick with it....the POINT is..Paul KNEW it to be truth..not a lie..He cannot lie that He met Jesus....that's part of why he (Paul) died..He was a Christianity..claikming to met Jesus) again..if that was a lie.he would not have died for it knowing it was a lie....so the point...Paul told truth..hje didn't make it up

          March 3, 2014 at 2:05 am |
        • hotairace

          At best you can say he believed. You cannot say with any degree of certainty that he knew.

          March 3, 2014 at 2:25 am |
        • kermit4jc

          at vest he believed? and how would you say such? He experienced it...he spoke to Jesus..Jesus spoke to him..no vision (got to understand whata vision is according to Jews) and also other people witnessed itas well

          March 3, 2014 at 2:40 am |
        • hotairace

          Without verifiable evidence, it's just a story. Do you, or any believer, or anyone, have any actual evidence? Thanks, I didn't think so.

          March 3, 2014 at 2:46 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I have spoken to Jesus myself....I don't see why Paul could not have...I know many people who do..and don't go the "psychological route" only wannabes would say we are delusional and such

          March 3, 2014 at 2:51 am |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc,

          What famous person has a voice the closest to Jesus?

          March 3, 2014 at 3:23 am |
        • igaftr

          "I have spoken to Jesus myself...."

          And he calls me arrogant...
          The self delusion is strong in this one.

          March 6, 2014 at 8:35 am |
        • kermit4jc

          WHAT makes me arrogant saying I have spoken to Jesus myself? DID I say I was the only one...did I say I was more special than anyone? and you are not a psychologist..please refrain fro trying to diagnose me as delusional...thanks

          March 6, 2014 at 9:40 am |
        • bacbik

          let's take a vote. OK done. sorry kermit. delusional.

          March 6, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
  13. ihavetopushthepramalot

    Religion isn't under attack but property rights sure are and have been since the introduction of the Civil Rights Act. No private business should be forced to serve anybody they don't wish to serve. That being said, any religious organization which wishes to discriminate must automatically give up their tax exempt status.

    March 1, 2014 at 10:59 am |
    • igaftr

      "No private business should be forced to serve anybody they don't wish to serve."

      So you want the whites only establishments back, the segregated schools etc. right?
      When is your next klan rally?

      March 2, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
      • ihavetopushthepramalot

        Most segregated schools were public, so I have to question your reading comprehension if you think I'm advocating public school segregation.

        Also, shouting Klan is only one step above Godwin's Law. What's racist about protecting property law?

        March 3, 2014 at 4:26 am |
        • igaftr

          and I question your critical thinking ability when you can't realize that your kind of bigotted thinking is what led to the schools being segregated etc. You want to advocate segregation....you just don't seem to want to stomach the long term consequences of intolerance. Your kind of thinking leads to more widespread bigotry.

          March 6, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          No one is forcing you to serve blacks, whites, women, children, people with mullets or shaved heads if you are a private citizen with a private home.

          Now when you go out and decide to start up a business open to the public by law you must apply for a business license and abide by all the business tax laws and federal and state laws that determine how you can run a business open to the public in your town. The people in your town pay taxes for the streets and sidewalks to be maintained so they can frequent the businesses open to the public. So when one of those businesses that agreed they would abide by those laws so they could obtain the license to do business in your town decides it doesn't like your skin color or who you went to bed with last night it can deny you service? I don't think so.

          I think the problem here is a confusion over "private" rights which allow us to be racist and hate all we want in our private lives since we are not denying anyone any service or good. Once you step into the public sphere you now have a different set of standards you must maintain. Who cares if you never clean your own kitchen at home, but if you try to run a restaurant where you are serving people from a filthy kitchen the health inspector will shut you down. Deny gay people the right to come into your home all you want, refuse them sale or service from a business open to the public and advertising products to everyone then you have just violated the law and should have your business license taken away.

          March 6, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Like they used to? Dig out the old signs, update them, and put them in the window – No Jews, No Blacks, No Dogs, No Gays

      March 2, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
      • ihavetopushthepramalot

        Sure. If you don't want Jews, blacks, whites, gays, Hispanics or any other subset of people on you property, what right does the government have to force you?

        March 3, 2014 at 4:21 am |
  14. joeyy1

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_F9nIps46w&w=640&h=360]
    `

    February 28, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
  15. Doris

    Why do many Christians ignore science?

    Why do they disagree with each other so much about science?

    Why do some of them spread not only misinformation, but two different stories at the same time?

    Take Dr Andrew Snelling who was referenced a few times by Ham in the recent Ham-Nye debate. What story is this Dr Snelling telling? Another geologist, Dr Alex Ritchie has some interesting insight.
    ===================

    Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

    Dr Alex Ritchie, The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15

    Dr Alex Ritchie received his BSc. (Hons) in Geology and a Ph.D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from 1968 to 1995 where he is currently a Research Fellow.

    For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.

    These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.

    Dr Alex Ritchie, palaeontologist at the Australian Museum, takes up the story.

    There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications – a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

    Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

    But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

    For convenience I refer to them below as follows:

    (a) Dr A A Snelling 1 – creationist geologist, a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo (now CREATION ex nihilo).

    (b) Dr A A Snelling 2 – consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

    Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.
    Snelling 1

    For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia.

    Snelling 1 writes articles for creationist journals and lectures throughout the country in schools, public meetings and churches. Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'.

    Why should Snelling 1's activities concern the scientific and educational communities? To appreciate this, one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.

    CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.

    "(A) PRIORITIES

    1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

    (B) BASICS

    3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

    5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.

    (D) GENERAL

    The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

    (i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

    (ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six
    (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

    (iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

    (iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."

    These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.

    Everything in his creationist writings and activities indicates that Snelling 1 subscribes fully to CSF's Statement of Faith. Where this clashes with scientific evidence, the latter is always secondary to the former and his message, although often cloaked in scientific jargon, is simple and unequivocal; indeed one of his favourite lecture topics is "Why, as a Geologist, I Believe in Noah's Flood".

    From the Gospel according to Snelling 1, the Earth is geologically young, created ex nihilo ("from nothing") by a supernatural being, during a short, well defined construction period of only six days. This miraculous creation event, usually dated some 6000 years ago (around 4004 BC), is not the end of the story. The Earth we live on today is not the same as the original created model, which was almost totally destroyed and remodelled some 1,600 years later (around 2345 BC) by an irate Creator who conjured up an unique, world-wide Flood to do the job.

    This Flood, lasting just over one year, tore down all previous land surfaces, rearranged the continents and thrust up all existing mountain chains. It also destroyed all pre-existing life forms, plant and animal – except for a chosen few saved on Noah's Ark. Thus all of the remarkably complex geology of the present day Earth's crust formed during the one year of Noah's Flood and all the innumerable fossil remains of former animals and plants were all buried and preserved by the same Flood.

    Snelling 1 (1983a) presented his views on Flood chronology in an article, Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. After reviewing mainstream views on geology and evolution, he remarked:

    "On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood....Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisation."

    "However the flood was global, erosional and its purpose was destruction. Therefore the first major fossilisation commenced at this time, and the majority of the fossils are regarded as having been formed rapidly during this event. Creationists therefore regard sedimentary strata as needing to be classified into those formed during the time of creation week, pre-flood, flood (early, middle and late), post-flood and recent" (p. 42)

    Snelling 1 then quoted one J C Dillow, a creationist writing on the Earth's supposed pre-Flood "vapour canopy":

    "It should be obvious that if the Earth is only 6000 years old, then all the geological designations are meaningless within that framework, and it is deceptive to continue to use them. If, as many creationist geologists believe, the majority of the geological column represents flood sediments and post-flood geophysical activity, then the mammoth, dinosaur and all humans existed simultaneously .... Some limited attempts have been made by creationist geologists to reclassify the entire geological column within this framework, but the task is immense." (Dillow 1981, "The Waters Above". Moody Press, 405-6)

    Snelling 1 criticised Dillow and other creationists for restricting Flood strata to Phanerozoic rocks (Cambrian and younger) and claimed that most Precambrian rocks are also Flood deposits:

    "It is my contention that those who do this have failed to study carefully the evidence for the flood deposition of many Precambrian strata and have therefore unwittingly fallen into the trap of lumping together the Precambrian strata to the creation week. The usual reason for doing this is that the evolutionists regard Precambrian as so different, so devoid of life in comparison with other rocks, that creationists have simply borrowed their description." (1983, 42).

    Snelling 1 thus pushes the earliest limits of Flood strata far back into the Early Precambrian (early Archaean) times , before even the first appearance of fossils resembling blue-green algae:

    "What I am contending here is that fossils, whether they be microscopic or macroscopic, plant or animal and the fossil counterpart of organic matter, along with its metamorphosed equivalent graphite, are the primary evidence which should distinguish flood rocks from pre-flood rocks, regardless of the evolutionary 'age'." (1983, 45).

    Lest there remain any doubt, Snelling 1 (1983, 42) stated:

    "For creationists to be consistent the implications are clear; Precambrian sediments containing fossils and organic remains were laid down during Noah's flood. Creationist geologists need to completely abandon the evolutionist's geological column and associated terminology. It is necessary to start again, using the presence of fossils or organic matter as a classification criterion in the task of rebuilding our understanding of geological history within the Biblical framework."

    It is difficult to believe that the writer of the foregoing article has a BSc (Hons) and PhD in geology! However an examination of other articles by the same author in Ex Nihilo reveals that, to Snelling 1, everything geological (Ayers Rock, Mt Isa ore deposits, Bass Strait oil and gas, Queensland coal deposits, Great Barrier Reef, etc.,) can be explained as the result of Noah's year-long Flood.

    DOOLAN, ROBERT & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1987. Limestone caves ...a result of Noah's Flood? Limestone caves... a result of Noah's Flood? (4), 10-13.
    READ, PETER & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1985. How Old is Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Creation Ex Nihilo. 8(1), 6-9.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1982. The Recent Origin of Bass Strait Oil and Gas. Ex Nihilo 5 (2) 43-46.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. Ex Nihilo 6 (1), 42-46.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. What about Continental Drift? Have the continents really moved apart? Ex Nihilo 6 (2), 14-16.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The recent, rapid formation of the Mt Isa orebodies during Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo 6 (3) 40-46 (cf. also abstract 17-18).
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The Origin of Ayers Rock. Creation Ex Nihilo 7 (1).
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1986. Coal Beds and Noah's Flood. Creation Ex Nihilo 8 (3), 20-21.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1989. Is the Sun Shrinking? Creation Ex Nihilo (pt. 1) 11 (1), 14-19. (pt. 2) 11 (2), 30-34. – The Debate Continues. (pt. 3) 11 (3), 40-43 – The Unresolved Question.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A & John Mackay 1984. Coal, Volcanism and Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo Tech. J. 1, 11-29.
    SNELLING 2

    If we now turn to the scientific articles published by the other Dr A A Snelling, consulting geologist (also from PO Box 302, Sunnybank QLD, 4109), we find a remarkable contrast, both in approach and content. None of them mention the Creation or Creation Week, Flood geology or the need to revamp the classic geological timescale.

    The latest paper by Snelling 2 (1990, 807 -812) is a detailed technical account of the "Koongarra Uranium Deposits" in the Northern Territory. It appears in an authoritative two volume work on "Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea" (ed. F E Hughes), published by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. The references list eight earlier papers by Snelling 2 in refereed journals (or symposium volumes) on aspects of uranium mineralisation; three as sole author and five as junior co-author.

    In discussing the regional geology (p. 807) and age (p. 811) of the Koongarra uranium deposits, Snelling 2 describes their geological history in fairly technical terms, however, to avoid the charge we lay against the creationists, of taking quotations out of context, I will quote Snelling 2 verbatim from the paper (p. 807):

    "The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

    For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:

    "The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures."

    There is no question here of "abandoning the geological column and its associated terminology", and the term Myr refers unequivocally to millions of years.

    One further quotation (p.807), "A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism.", is self explanatory.

    There are several further references to ages of millions and thousands of millions of years, and to commonly accepted geological terminology, throughout the paper but, to spare the lay reader, I will only summarise them here:

    1. During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.

    2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.

    3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.

    Nowhere in this, or in any other article by Snelling 2 is there any reference to the creation week, to Noah's Flood or to a young age for the Earth. Nor is there any disclaimer, or the slightest hint, that this Dr Snelling has any reservations about using the standard geological column or time scale, accepted world-wide. The references above to hundreds and thousands of million of years are not interpolated by me. They appear in Dr Snelling 2's paper.

    The problem is obvious – the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other's papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.

    One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?

    Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.

    I think that both Dr Snelling and the CSF owe us all an explanation. WILL THE REAL DR ANDREW SNELLING PLEASE STAND UP?

    POSTSCRIPT

    Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart – Noah's Flood – The Geological Case For and Against.

    I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.

    For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.

    In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.

    February 28, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
  16. Doris

    I see now that I was silly for asking why the Archbishop of Canterbury hasn't come out publicly to speak against what is going on in Uganda – the jailing of gays; threats to jail those who don't report gays. When Mr. Lively from the U.S. incited violence with misinformation about gays there, there were few voices that might have had even a little impact. And that one voice, an Anglican bishop – Christopher Ssenyonjo, was silenced; given walking papers; essentially excommunicated if he were a Catholic. Supposedly the AC has sent a letter to Uganda; but what can we expect with such extreme factions of Anglicanism under his fold – I'm sure he doesn't want to stir the pot too much in any one direction.

    What were the names of the 500 witnesses again??

    February 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
    • Doris

      From BBC News 31 Jan:

      ======

      "The head of the Anglican Church in Uganda has given a critical response to a letter from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York warning that gays and lesbians should not be victimised.

      Their letter was sent to all presiding archbishops of the Anglican Communion.

      It was also sent to the presidents of Uganda and Nigeria, which have recently introduced anti-gay legislation.

      Archbishop Stanley Ntagali responded that "hom-ose-xual practice is incompatible with Scripture".

      He said he hoped the Church of England would "step back from the path" it had set itself on "so the Church of Uganda will be able to maintain communion with our own Mother Church".

      =======

      Great communion you've got going there Anglicans. I hope you're not trying to impress anyone with that disgusting nonsense.

      February 28, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
  17. Doris

    "What we have here is a portion of the play-by-play of the Brooklyn Nets center Jason Collins, the first openly gay player to actually play in a professional sports game. It happened last night. The Brooklyn Nets against the Los Angeles Lakers.
    This is the Nets play-by-play announcer Ryan Ruocco, as Jason [Collins] – who by the way took number 98 in solidarity with Matthew Shepard, who was, it's now been proven didn't happen, but reputed to have beaten up by a bunch of anti-gay bigots."

    Why does Rush Limbaugh lie?

    Why doesn't Rush Limbaugh read police reports?

    Why do some Christian sects travel to Africa and incite violence against other human beings?

    February 28, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
    • transframer

      Hi Doris,
      Maybe if you ask questions at a slower pace and with more details you'll get some answers

      February 28, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
      • Doris

        There are most likely people being rounded up and jailed this very day as a result of people like Scott Lively. Perhaps my version of time is different than yours. These are things to think about, I'm not expecting many replies.

        February 28, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • transframer

          So you are just spamming these forums? This is a discussion forum, if you just want to present your opinions better get a personal blog.

          February 28, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • Doris

          It's easy to scroll past. I don't think you see too many repeats.

          February 28, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
    • observernow

      Why doesn't Rush Limbaugh read police reports? He doesn't want to see his name there AGAIN.

      February 28, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
  18. workingcopy12

    Why is all the supernatural events in the Bible only backed up by hearsay "historians"?

    (1) Did you expect photographs?
    (2) It's not all hearsay–some of it is direct (i.e. Paul's letters). And, for the good of the order, hearsay does not mean that the evidence it presents in wrong–its simply an issue of weight one should give the evidence (particularly if other evidence is available).

    February 28, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
    • doobzz

      You mean the original letters signed, Love, Paul?

      February 28, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • Doris

      How are Paul's letters direct evidence of anything supernatural?

      Who were the 500? What were their names? What did they write?

      February 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
      • Doris

        Why do some Christians travel to Africa and incite violence against people?

        February 28, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • workingcopy12

          I don't know....why do some atheists come on here and doing nothing but mock and insult–part of the human condition I suppose.

          February 28, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Doris

          So you find traveling to Africa and inciting violence against other humans acceptable because you think it's part of the human condition? Interesting.

          February 28, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • workingcopy12

          Doris...you can't possibly be that dumb...but o.k. Nowhere did I say it was acceptable. However, begin violent, or a jerk, or a fool are, in fact, part of the human condition–of course whether you have the strength to fight those urges and not be violent, or a jerk or a fool is what separates the good from the bad.

          February 28, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • workingcopy12

          ...being violent....(typed too fast)

          February 28, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Doris

          "whether you have the strength to fight those urges and not be violent, or a jerk or a fool is what separates the good from the bad"

          and then there's complacency....

          February 28, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • Doris

          I don't hear enough from the complacent here.. I hear quite a lot in response to the violence from those who still want to blame the victims of the violence, who would still rather remain misinformed...

          February 28, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        WHO says THEY had to write? ANd YOU forget this was a mainly oral society...and also, Paul wasn't about to sit and list all 500 people.he alredy listed some of the people..ALL the readrrs had to do was to go to Jerusalem and check itout...ask for people..this was not some inner society who were in secret.

        February 28, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Doris

          I didn't say they had to. So no, I didn't forget anything. But with no record of the oral, then we pretty much have to take Paul's work for it, don't we? Seems to me Joseph Smith's story is more verifiable. And I'm not buying that one, either.

          February 28, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          UH hello!!!!! He MENTIONS some of the names so people CAN go check it out for themselves...just cause he doesn't mention the other 500 does NOT mean no one will know...as I wrote..ALL they had to do was to go to Jerusalem...seek the disciples...and names could be provided there! THATS why he wrote it.....so that people can go find out for themselves!!

          February 28, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          MR SMith had no witnesses with him whatsoever

          February 28, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • Doris

          (take Paul's word)

          February 28, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Doris

          UH hello – they could – be where's written evidence that cannot be deemed hearsay? Some even look to Peter, but then many don't agree with the authorship of Peter. More holes than swiss cheese. Don't you think an Abrahamic God would have been more careful than to leave so many potholes?

          February 28, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          " ...be where’s written evidence that cannot be deemed hearsay?" I think youre missing a few words there..not sure what you meant. Where is your evidence that "many" didn't agree with authorship of Peter..and what does authorship of Peter got to do with this..

          February 28, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • Doris

          Well some might say someone else knew or studied under Peter. You've never read any questioning of the authorship of Peter? (Not that there's much to look at anyway.)

          February 28, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WHy the focus on Peter only? The other people would have shown as well what Peter had to say..plus..Peter doesn't mention much about whatappened in his letters...they were letters addressed to the Church for issues within the church. You act as if Peter was the only eyewitness the people would have been able to check on..thats far from the truth!

          February 28, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          By the way...I asked you how you got the "many".. I have read things questioned against Peter's authorship..but there hasn't been much that I saw...and again..that has nothing to do with the issue of the witnesses that Paul refers to

          February 28, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • Doris

          I only mentioned Peter as an example. Who else should be seriously considered – you know aside from those hearsay "historians" like Josephus?

          February 28, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Apparently you have not read Pauls letter to the COrinthians..He MENTIONS Jamesand says the 12 disciples (whom everyone pretty much knew who they were) and the 500 people who I SAID several times already that the people can go to Jerusalem to verify for themselves if needed be!!!

          February 28, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • Doris

          Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnddddddd you circle back around to Paul. I guess we've gone full circle back to the Joseph Smith of his day and his story! Well, and I don't buy into Joe's claims – he "knew" some "witnesses". And to be fair – we could probably dig up the bones of Joe's "witnesses".

          February 28, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Either you are not reading my posts fully or youre not using your thinking skills..I said the people CAN go verify for themselves about what Paul says!!!! SO how the heck does that circle back to Paul????

          February 28, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • Doris

          Oh really, well then by all means describe what people would find if they went to verify Paul's words.

          February 28, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          uhhh...you remeber what we are talking about??????

          February 28, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
        • observernow

          Where are Jesus's writings?

          February 28, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          He didn't write..he spoke

          February 28, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
        • Doris

          Yes I do remember – you were trying to make a brie out of swiss cheese.

          February 28, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          YOU have not shown such case....you have attemtprd to..but you got nothing against what I had put..youshould read the Bible to verify what I said...don't take my word for it...its in there..Paul mentions about the eyewitnesses..in 1 Corinthians 15

          February 28, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc,

          What a shame. He could have actually left some physical proof that he existed.

          February 28, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          so you don't believe much of ancient history...the people of those did not exist? come one...that's not how historians work..MUCH of history is gained through historians or eyewitness accounts! NOT all are supported by "physical evidence) If you want to go that route..wed not have much history to read from. Be realistic! Stop depending solely on scientific method

          February 28, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
        • Doris

          Verifying Paul from Paul? LOL. Goodness – very much the hamster in play wheel method you have going on there, kermit...

          February 28, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          OHHHHHH...you mean verification for US TODAY???? Pretty nuch thought your beef was then..make up your mind..as for now...we have plenty of evidence of existence of Jesus...and the bIble has been shown to be very reliable..especially the Gospels

          February 28, 2014 at 5:32 pm |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc,

          The WRITINGS of Homer have been copied since probably 800 years BEFORE Christ.

          Jesus was NOT part of ancient history.

          February 28, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          That don't matter..the POINT is..history relies much on writings

          February 28, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
        • Doris

          I wasn't even debating the existence of Jesus. The stories aren't really of much value to Christians without the supernatural components, no? Where's the verification for such components? Why should any writings be taken seriously that encapsulate the supernatural components when their authorship is so uncertain? You could argue Paul's personal experience, but there again your back at the one claim by one person. May as well consider Joe Smith if you're relying on that.

          February 28, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Backed byu others..remember..he had others with him..they saw something...and if you ask for names...people back then knew the names...again pitiful to try to compare with Joe Smith who had no witnesses

          March 2, 2014 at 1:46 am |
        • kermit4jc

          and also..you think MY belief is based only on what the BIBLE says? then you are not reading my posts or thinking much either...I base it on what I MYSELF experience as well!!! Its my LIFE..I live it..I experience Gods presence all the time..I seen His work..his miracles...etc etc..too much to list here as I been a Christan over 25 years

          March 2, 2014 at 1:54 am |
        • kermit4jc

          ONE person> there were OTHERS WITH Paul who was THERE..UNLIKE Joe...the other people with Paul saw something..happening at THAT time..the "eyewitnesses" to Joe did not see the delivery of the plates....they only saw the plates AFTER deliverance...while the traveling compamions of Paul were right there with Him on the Road to Damascus...go read the Book of Acts

          March 3, 2014 at 2:06 am |
        • otoh2

          99%+ of the Hebrews in Israel at the time did not believe the Jesus legends... and they were right there on the spot in Jerusalem and all of the other places that Jesus allegedly traveled to. Paul of Tarsus & Co. had to peddle the stories to other distant folks who were more gullible.

          For example:

          Corinthians - Corinth, Greece - 800 miles
          Galatians - Turkey - 700 miles
          Ephesians - Ephesus, Turkey - 600 miles
          Phillipians - Phillipi, Greece - 1000 miles
          Colossians - Colossae, Island near Greece
          Thessalonians - Greece - 900 miles

          March 1, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • kermit4jc

          LOLOLO<L...99% and where did you get THAT number?

          March 2, 2014 at 1:48 am |
        • otoh2

          p.s.

          And Rome - over 1400 miles

          March 1, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Paul wasn't one of those 500 witnesses, right? Here he is just repeating something that he heard himself. He doesn't even mention the various Acts accounts of his seeing Jesus on the road. does he?

          March 1, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WHy need to mention it? LUKE already did mention it in the Book of Acts...and again PAUL writes to the churches about various ISSUES they had in the churches...not about his conversion..that was not important in His Letters at the time...get the context

          March 2, 2014 at 1:52 am |
        • redzoa

          "pitiful to try to compare with Joe Smith who had no witnesses"

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

          https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/three?lang=eng

          https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/eight?lang=eng

          If one compares the supernatural claims of the gospels to those of Joseph Smith, the 11 witnesses claimed to be direct eyewitnesses, their testimonies were contemporaneously recorded, and there is an external record corroborating they were in the right place at the right time; the gospels were recorded second hand, well after the alleged events, and there is no extrinsic record corroborating their presence at the right place at the right time. The credibility one is willing to grant these respective narratives invariably turns on subjective faith in the content of the claims. The objective temporal/spatial factors, as well as the # of witness testimonies weighs in Joesph Smith's favor (not that I buy into either of these myths).

          March 2, 2014 at 2:52 am |
        • kermit4jc

          LOL>.they saw the golden plates..thats not the miracles....when Joe had to translate the plates...he had a curtai nbetween him and nother...sorry dude....again not a good comparison....plus...John and Matthew are not second hand..they are eyewitnesses themselves...plus with Joe you got legends...with Jesus..you don't.....try reading it again

          March 2, 2014 at 2:56 am |
        • kermit4jc

          PLUS the Gisoels..UNLIKE Ole Joe..had incredible oral reports...in other words...the reports were passed around...and kept pretty much the same...oh..and don't try the Snoopy game ..or the Chinese calling game..whatever its called...cause in those games you are only allowed to hear it once and never get to ask the person passing it to you to repeat..or check with the one who originated the story....

          March 2, 2014 at 2:58 am |
        • redzoa

          To my knowledge, the golden plates were the miracle that was observed. As I noted before, you dismiss the claims of Smith and his witnesses not on the objective factors, but due to the subjective content of the claims and how they align with your a priori religious belief. Also, I don't pretend to be a biblical scholar, but to my knowledge, John and Matthew are not believed to be the authors of the gospels bearing their names (recorded ~90-100 and ~80-90 AD, respectively); the eleven witnesses signed their own names to their testimonies. Again, the 11 witnesses signed their own testimonies, they were present at the correct place/time, and there is an external record corroborating this. The gospels simply don't have this level of spatial/temporal connection, nor do they have an extrinsic record corroborating their being in the correct place/time.

          Keep in mind that the same reasons you reject Smith and the 11 witnesses are likely the same reason the majority of the global population rejects your preferred supernatural narrative.

          March 2, 2014 at 3:19 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NOT at all..there is nothing as a miracle as golden plates with inscriptions.....what is so miraculous about that? we have gold plates..we can write on them..nothing miraculous about that...the "miracle" would be the translating of it...and no one saw Joe do that...so sorry..yorue grasping at straws

          March 2, 2014 at 3:29 am |
        • Doris

          And trying to prove an empty tomb means something special via unknown authors and a shoddy list of alleged witnesses is grasping at a lot of straw.

          March 2, 2014 at 9:36 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Again ALL one has to do is go find out and check for themselves..are you afraid of them doing that? you seem apprehensive about it....and whether the authors were known or not...the eyewitnesses are still alive..this was not some small group in a large metropolitan area.....you seem to lack geography, and such

          March 3, 2014 at 1:45 am |
        • redzoa

          @kermit4jc – The plates were miraculous as they were allegedly delivered by an angel, possessed divine "reformed Egyptian" inscriptions, and were then returned to an angel. The witnesses claimed to have seen/handled the magic plates prior to their return to the angel and Smith apparently dictated his translations to 3 different scribes (note: some of these sessions were shielded from view, but apparently not all of them). Granted, this miracle is not as incredible as a resurrection, but it is a miracle nonetheless. But the irony here is that one might think the more incredible miracle would have a wider source of contemporaneously recorded accounts; it simply doesn't.

          Again, you are still objecting to the narrative based on its content, not the objective factors relating to the temporal/spatial proximity of witnesses or the number of witnesses. The 11 witnesses signed their names to contemporaneously recorded accounts and there is an extrinsic record corroborating that they were in the correct place at the correct time. The gospels were 2nd hand accounts, recorded many years after the alleged events and there is no extrinsic corroborating evidence indicating the alleged witnesses were there at the correct time/place (and again, the authors of the gospels are widely acknowledged not to be the apostles for which they are named).

          I'm not grasping at straws, I'm merely showing that the objective factors weigh in Smith's favor. That you prefer the gospel narrative over Smith and the 11 witnesses has nothing to do with an objective view of the alleged "evidence"; it is primarily the product of subjective faith in your preferred narrative. Apologists attempt to declare a superior "objective" basis for their faith, but the Smith comparison undermines this claim of "objectivity."

          March 2, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          HOWEVER....UNLIKE Christianity..There was only ONE witness to the actualy "receiving of the plates" those witnesses did nOT claim to seen the delivery itself..but only of the plates...Christianity has MORE then ONE witness seeing the events....thus your argument is very weak and grsping at straws

          March 3, 2014 at 1:50 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Or, maybe, it's just a bit of legendary BS.

          March 2, 2014 at 9:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          if you seriously think it is legendary BS..then yo useem to know nothing of what legends are and how they are formed

          March 3, 2014 at 1:52 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          You believe that legends are historically true, then?

          March 3, 2014 at 10:13 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I think there is some miscommunication here...I said there is no evidence of legends of Jesus in the 4 Gospels...no evidence of addition of miracles..thus....what IM saying is...the 4 Gospels are historically true..not legends.. For legends take quite some time to form, and historians will tell you this

          March 3, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • Doris

          kermit: "I think there is some miscommunication here...I said there is no evidence of legends of Jesus in the 4 Gospels...no evidence of addition of miracles..thus....what IM saying is...the 4 Gospels are historically true..not legends.. For legends take quite some time to form, and historians will tell you this"

          "legends take quite some time.." yes – they may even start in the OT and now all that has to be done is to meld the old and the new together – and make it look like prophecy has been fulfilled, and you've got a very captivating new story!

          March 3, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          You have got to be kidding me. Lots of people have had legendary stories attached to them during their own lifetimes. Davy Crockett, Elvis, JFK, Bruce Lee, ... Maybe Crockett really did wrestle bears and jump over rivers, but no real historians would take those claims very seriously.

          How can you possibly say that the Gospels are historically true? What outside docu.ments collaborate what they claim?

          Couldn't the miracles in the Gospels not all be additions to some real man's life? We know that people did this kind of thing back then. The Emperor Vespasian is said to have performed miracles too.

          March 3, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WHAT are youdoing..only SKIMMING my posts? I did not deny anyonehad legends..my POINT was this..legends come LONG after the facts...as in the days of the Bible times....the Gospels do NOT show evidence of LEGENDS being formed as they were written soon after the events..not long enough time to make legends...according to mosthistorians...and that goes for secular historians on secular works as wellnot Bible alone

          March 3, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • otoh2

          kermit: "they were written soon after the events..not long enough time to make legends...according to mosthistorians...and that goes for secular historians on secular works as wellnot Bible alone"

          George Washington wasn't dead a month before the myths and legends about him began to circulate. People were ravenous for stories of their super-hero. "Pastor" Mason Locke Weems wrote a biography of Washington published directly after his death. Saturated with tales of Washington's selflessness and honesty, "A History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits, of General George Washington"(1800) and "The Life of George Washington, with Curious Anecdotes Laudable to Himself and Exemplary to his Countrymen"(1806) captured the imaginations of many Americans. It took decades (if not centuries) to put the legends to rest. Fortunately, none of them were in the supernatural category.

          There's a fairly new book, "Inventing George Washington: America's Founder, in Myth and Memory" by historian Edward Lengel: "Lengel wants to set the record straight, and he takes on the "cheats and phonies in addition to the well-meaning storytellers who have capitalized on the American public's insatiable and ever-changing demand for information about Washington. It's time to forget the cherry tree mythologies of our schoolbooks. Besides dismissing that tale (and the tellers who perpetrated it) outright, Lengel explores the surprisingly seedy underbelly of Washington biographers. For instance, one of the men who hopped on the George Washington myth-making bandwagon was no less than showman P.T. Barnum. Lengel's account of Barnum acquiring (for $1000) and then parading elderly African-American Joice Heth around the East Coast as "the 161-year-old slave mammy" to George Washington is equally disturbing and gripping; put on display 14 hours a day for a paying public, Heth soon died, and Barnum held a public autopsy-charging 50 cents a head." –http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-George-Washington-Americas-Founder/dp/0061662585/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

          Lots of people still believe these erroneous things about George Washington, even after thorough debunking. No, nobody started a religion according to them, but it shows how these stories got a foothold.

          Who knows how much debunking was going on in the first century. After all, most of the Jews remained Jews. Certainly not everyone who heard those stories was convinced at the time. After the meme got going, of course, belief snowballed.

          March 3, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          youhave to do better than that...Ole George wasn't back in Biblical days..things change dude..wake up..pathetic attempt

          March 4, 2014 at 1:49 am |
        • otoh2

          p.s. And George Washington is just ONE example of this kind of thing happening. Lots of people have legends spring up about them both before and after they die.

          March 3, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          And you have no case for claiming that legend needs a long time to form. What facts do you have to establish this claim? I've already given you examples where legendary elements invaded living people's lives.

          March 3, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          you gave poor example...the way legends go change with time and geography and culture...if you wanna discredit the Bible and such...try showing legends were made in the Gospels

          March 4, 2014 at 1:53 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          The Gospels are full of the same outlandish doings as the stories of Hercules. A god gets a human woman pregnant, there's danger in his childhood, he's charged with doing some great feat before he can join his godly father, he can do amazing things, ...

          About one in every twenty guys who tell a story about catching a monster fish can actually back it up with more evidence than just their words. As they stand, the Gospels are not one of them. Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect, that if the miracles in the Gospels actually did happen, that some outside, impartial source would have recorded them?

          March 4, 2014 at 8:22 am |
        • kermit4jc

          so you mean miracles don't happen even TODAY to confirms that? SOrry..but I disagree....I see miracles all my Christian life....just cause it sounds outlandish doesn't mean it isnot true....you seem to be putting yourself in a "safe little box" and not looking around

          March 4, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          ".try showing legends were made in the Gospels"

          Well, part of the problem is that the legends in the Bible frequently exhibit mythological archetypes that have been employed by countless religions, such as the God martyred for mankind's salvation.
          If you think Jesus had it rough during his torturous long weekend, try thinking of poor Prometheus. That guy has his liver torn out by birds every single day for all eternity just because he gave humans an evolutionary boost.
          The virgin births, born during the winter solstice, the god resurrected in the spring – these are all themes that were present in earlier mythologies.

          March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Actually..just cause there are legends of those..doesn't make Jesus story a legend..thats notproof...you have to look in the text as HISTORIANS look at it...being "mythological" sounding doe snot make it legendary...second..virgin births and such were after Jesus..oh..you may mention Horus and such..but one needs only to look at those stories more clsely...Horus, before Jesus didn't have a virgin birth..that part of Horus cam AFTER Jesus....that's one example...

          March 4, 2014 at 9:34 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Do you know what an archetype is?

          But anyways, a general rule of thumb for distinguishing fiction from non-fiction: if a story contains supernatural elements like magic, miracles and monsters, it is fiction.

          March 4, 2014 at 9:41 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Then mmy life is fiction..NOT....sorry..you cannot degrade my life into fiction..I seen miracles..I know they happen...you cannot convince me otherwise...you pretty much admitted.."GEnerAL" rule of thumb....doesnbt mean you reject it all...

          March 4, 2014 at 9:46 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Depends on what you call a "miracle", doesn't it? If you look at specific events, like surviving a car crash, there are examples of people surviving incredible head-on collisions. It may seem impossible to you that they could survive compared to the mortality rate of lesser accidents, but you have to take into account the number of people who also die from relatively minor accidents. For every "miracle" survival of an accident, there's a mirror "freak accident" where the odds go against the person just as strongly. Miracle believers are simply choosing to only count the positive incidences.

          March 4, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • redzoa

          For the record, contrary to kermit's claim of a single witness to the miraculous plates delivery, the first 3 of the 11 witnesses to Smith's plates claimed they also saw the plates delivered by an angel while hearing the voice of God affirming that Smith's translation was indeed an act of divine revelation. But again, more importantly, their testimonies was recorded contemporaneously with an extrinsic record corroborating they were in the right place at the right time. One might think that an actual resurrection would have been captured immediately in a contemporaneous written record corroborated by many, many independent Jewish and Roman sources rather than a few vested 2nd hand accounts decades after the alleged event. Furthermore, as both are nothing more than myths, to accuse one of "grasping at straws" in the course of defending the alleged veracity of one myth over another is ironic to say the least. The facts are the facts, and the objective factors (# of testifying witnesses, the temporal/spatial proximity of accounts, extrinsic record) favor Smith's witnesses; but at the end of the day, they're both still just myths . . .

          March 4, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          MAN..what fallacious argument! One does NOT need to be at the resurrection the MOMENT it happened to believe it happened! They saw Jesu DEAD...there were witnesses to Jesus being put in the tomb..and then he is GONE from the grave and ALIVE again..does NOT take a village idiot to figure out that Jesus was resurrected! Its a no brainer...unfortunately some skeptics have no brains to figure this simple equation

          March 5, 2014 at 2:03 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          If one follows the Gospel storyline, anyone who witnessed Jesus on the cross wouldn't be in a position to even know that he had actually died. They go to great length to emphasize that they took him down early, and that they didn't finish him off by breaking his legs, as was the custom. He didn't undergo the full crucifixion experience of being fed upon by birds, exposure and suffering days on the cross. Josephus himself records of at least one survivor of crucifixion. Maybe, then, Jesus only appeared to have died in the first place. If he woke up while in the tomb, then all he would have had to do was make a noise to scare away his supersti.tious guards, and get his followers to release him. That would also fit the later sightings of a crucified man appearing only to his close followers in fear of being discovered and properly executed.

          March 5, 2014 at 11:26 am |
        • kermit4jc

          OH GEEZ.....apparentlyyou dontknow anything of injuries that occurred to Jesus..further..when he wasoutof the tomb..he didn't look half dead or anything..what Jesus sufferd would have had hi inCRITICAL condition!!!! apparently you know nothing about whathappens to thebody whenit isflogged and crucified..not to mentionno water or food for over 12 hours....theybreak thelegs to HURRY the death..PLUS...even though the Romans were not doctors..they were good at whatthey do andhad to make sure the pridoner was dead..otherwise THEY get thre death pnelaty...face it man..yourargument is weak...Jesus in his critical condition..IF he survived would not have survived anylonger andnot have opened thetomb himself...let alone WALK..remember..the pierced his feet area!!!IM sory...again you are so ignorant of what happens to the body

          March 5, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          FURTHER>..WHAT kind os testimony is it to preach eternal life of seeing a man half dead???? verysilly is your argument...

          March 5, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Crucifixion was a very common method of execution in that area for a long time. Of course we know what kinds of injuries he would have had, even taking into account any whipping he may have gotten beforehand. There are people every year in the Philippines who have themselves crucified for as long as Jesus supposedly hung from the cross to no lasting effect. It's staying on the cross for days that kills the person, as was the intention. Crucifixion was valued because it was a long and agonizing humiliating public display of what happens to the disobedient. If he wasn't up there but for a few hours it's entirely possible that he could have survived.

          The guy would have had a couple of days to recover in the tomb, but I'm interested in which of the conflicting gospel narratives of the discovery of the empty tomb you think describes a Jesus that supports your case? He wouldn't have looked too bad going in if none of his bones had been broken, so why would he look particularly bad coming out?

          No water or food for 12 hours? This shouldn't have been any problem for a guy who survived in the desert without these things for 40 days supposedly without hallucinating. Besides, didn't he have Passover supper just before this? Aren't those supposed to be rather big meals?

          What makes you think that people can't walk with holes in their feet?

          My argument is that he might not have been "half dead" to begin with.

          March 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          thisis where you are ignorant of the whipping...Jesus was flogged..not a simple whipping...bits of metal, bones or such were in the leather, thus his back was all ripped open, laying bare his insides!! Thismeant he has a huge loss of blood already..include with that the crown of thorns places on his head..more blood loss, and his hands/feet being NAILED..which caused more blood loss...plus..How did the Filipinos get tied to the cross? with no slagging to allow for lifting of body up or not? think about it...its a slow painful death..yes..through asphyxiation...however...as Isaid..jesus had more done to him than the Filipinos would have done...PLUS>.Jesus side was pierced and what cameout/ WATER and BLOOD...which showed a punctured heart sac that had collected fluids due to heart failure and stress of blood loss.

          March 5, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • bacbik

          stupid argument from feelings kermit... kermit's fiction boring though..

          March 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Where does it say in the Bible bits of metal, bones and such in the whip? You're getting your theology from Mel Gibson!

          March 5, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          This is so sad....apparently you don't know how to study...I hope you have not studied to be a doctor...cause seems youd only read ONE book on medicine and you would call that study and get your degree...the Bible can NOT contain every single piece of info! Which is why when one STUDIES>.they look at other sources to find out..reading sources of what Romans used for flogging...now youmay ask me where I got that..that was studies years ago.I don't remmeber the books..but you can look online about floggings by Romans at the time of Jesus

          March 5, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          BTW finding out about floggings and such is nOT theology...its called history...archeology....

          March 5, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          There you go. What I can't understand is how you can have knowledge of what typical Roman floggings were like, but apparently be unaware that the typical Roman crucifixion took days, and that people even survived. Even Pilate was surprised by his quick death. The finishing of Jesus off with a spear only appears in John, the last of the Gospels. That could have been added to address doubts in the story. They had time to break the legs of the other two, but they supposedly didn't have time to break his legs. The Roman who confirmed that Jesus was dead was the same guy who declared that he was the son of God. A follower, then. They fed him some substance just before he supposedly died. Perhaps a drug? They brought in aloes to the tomb. Aloes are for healing, not embalming. Any way you slice it, Jesus did not have the typical Roman crucifixion, and there's plenty of reason to suspect something fishy about this story.

          March 6, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • kermit4jc

          YOUR argument is so weak! Just beccause ONLY JOhn had the spear written about does NOT negate it..its called putting the story together by putting ALL eywintess accoutns together..YOUd make a TERRIBLE investogator for police depts! as for the crucifixion taking days..if they were NOT flogged and INJURED before being put on the cross..then YES>.uit COULD take days...you are serisouly lacking informaiotn..GO read up on floggins done by the Romans in Biblical times!..and they didnt have time to BREAK the legs of Jesus? YOU kidding me? it takes SECONDS to break it...they saw he was dead so they thrust a spear into his side for god measure!!!! REMEMEBR..these people had to MAKE sure the criminals were DEAD!!! PLUS..not all ore used for healing! again...jesus would be in such a critical state he would NOT sutrvive..you sir are embarassing yourself with the lack of ifo.

          March 6, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • bacbik

          dumb kermit. authors not known = not very likely an eyewitness.

          March 6, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ALL stories cooroborate,....they were written at a time when eyewitnesses would still be alive to verify..and NO reports saying that this didnt happen ever came out! how do you explain that????

          March 6, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • otoh2

          kermit,
          "they were written at a time when eyewitnesses would still be alive to verify..and NO reports saying that this didnt happen ever came out! how do you explain that???? "

          How do you know that there were NO reports against it?

          The vast majority of the people living RIGHT THERE at the time did not believe it.

          Most people couldn't even write then, but even if they did, the Church wasn't even able to preserve the originals of its OWN doc.uments from the day - and they were in charge of historical records for centuries - they sure weren't going to preserve evidence against them.

          March 6, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          SOOOOOO..you telling me that ONLY 4 people knew how to write and they wrote the Gospels...and then NO ONE else knew how to write so they couldn't put forth arguments? silly...and uh excuse me? they didn't believe it..sure..they wereindenial..btu they had NO argument to present against it! There is a huge difference

          March 6, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Do you honestly think that they didn't flog and injure typical crucifixion victims?

          Yes, it would have taken only seconds to break Jesus's legs, so why didn't they, to be certain? You still have the same Roman declaring him dead also apparently revealing himself to be a follower by declaring him to be the son of God. Romans typically didn't believe in God. They and their own gods.

          The other Joseph brought in about 75 pounds of aloe, the same kind of stuff we use for burns and healing skin abrasions.

          All you seem to do is yell NO, NO to everything presented to you, without offering an ounce of refuting evidence. It appears to be a waste of time keeping this up.

          March 7, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • kermit4jc

          SIr...first of all..thr zSPEAR in the side made sure Jesus was dead..the romans wre experts in what the do!!! SPear through the heart ensures INSTANTANEOUS death. Second..where doesit say the roman guard who revealed it was same one who was a follower of Jesus> JUST because he said "Surely this was the SOn of God" does NOT make him a follower. Next...Jospeh had NO idea that Jesus would be healed...aloes and such at THAT time was used for BURIAL..youare using ignorant information...just cause TODAY they used it as such does not mean they did THEN..and EVEN then...they still used it for burial..in the cases of DEAD people. Besides..even IF used as a "healing agent" it would NOT have taken Jesus out of his critical conditionhe was in..yousir are getting way desperate to the point of not thinking before you write

          March 7, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          There were many historians, like Josephus, who don't mention the goings on in the Gospels. Isn't it funny that Josephus, who absolutely hated Herod, still doesn't mention the slaughter of the innocent children? How is it possible that he wouldn't have known that this happened and reported it?

          March 7, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • kermit4jc

          soooo.Jospehus is supposed to record every single event? Plus..he pretty much left out the miracles..yes..but he didn't leave out that Jesus actually existed and had followers and that immediately after. the church was formed...

          March 7, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Funny that Josephus lists a lot of Herod's misdeeds, but fails to mention what would have been his worse crime, that of killing children. Except for that one paragraph, the Testimonium Flavianum, that most historians regard as suspect because it really does seem out of place in the text, and because Josephus was never a Christian to regard Jesus as the Messiah, and that he said that his Emperor was actually the Jewish Messiah on several occasions. All he ever does for sure is mention that there were Christians around and that Jesus as called the Christ, and that's no big revelation.

          March 8, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          UH so you saying that historians like Josephus were not biased? Cmon,. of course he would say some things about his Emperor being the Messiah..but the EMperor had nothing to back it up..no prophecies fulfilled..and you say that historians leave nothing out? come on...they are perfect and will record every misdeed? to YOU the child killing could be the worse...maybe not in Josephus eyes

          March 10, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Weren't Paul's letters written 90+ years after your so-called Jesus died? I would call that sketchy hearsay at best... not 'eye witness' evidence.

      February 28, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
      • otoh2

        LET,

        In fairness, some of Paul's letters are dated earlier than that, others are questionable:

        Seven letters ) considered genuine by most scholars:

        First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
        Philippians (ca. 52–54 AD)
        Philemon (ca. 52–54 AD)
        First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)
        Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
        Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
        Romans (ca. 55–58 AD)

        The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic [falsely attributed to Paul] by about 80% of scholars:

        First Timothy
        Second Timothy
        T itus
        Ephesians

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

        Nevertheless - all of them are unverified hearsay.

        February 28, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
      • kudlak

        More like 20+ years, but that's not the point. Paul never knew Jesus while he lived, and he openly disagreed on theological matters with guys who did, like Peter. Plus, he was also a fierce prosecutor of Christians. Yet, he is often seen as a greater Christian authority than even Jesus in the gospels. I find that odd.

        February 28, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • workingcopy12

          Folks–the issue was hearsay–I'm referring to the miracles Paul saw himself (and experienced himself) and wrote about himself. (That's all.)

          February 28, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • kudlak

          workingcopy12
          Paul doesn't mention personally performing any miracles in any of his letters, right? Does he ever mention actually seeing anything miraculous in any of his letters?

          February 28, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • bacbik

          kermit not bright. kermit takes whole paragraph to say what some say in a few words. plus kermit has too much BS in head

          March 5, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        NOT at all..in FACT....one of the earliest of the Books in the Gospels was the letters to the COrinthians which was written about 50 AD....right about 20 years after the death and ressureciton of Jesus...the reports wre spreaking orally long before that

        February 28, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • kudlak

          And there were tall tales told about Davy Crockett while he was still alive. So what?

          February 28, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          The FACT is thatPaul mentions that the eyewintesses were STILL alive (though some have died) that they cango check and verify with! SAD pathetic attempt to try to use Davy as example!

          February 28, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Could they really go check? Do we have any letters back saying that someone did check?

          March 1, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          SHEESH you don't think very much do you? WHY would Paul even MENTION it??????

          March 2, 2014 at 1:49 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          It could as easily have been just some hearsay claim that Paul learned and repeated to his churches. 20+ years after this supposedly happened, how many people in the remote churches would have bothered to go to the Jerusalem area to fact check? Considering everything else they were expected to just take on faith, why would they even bother to fact check something like this to begin with?

          March 2, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Please follow the thread......Paul mentions others who agree with him..the dicsiples..etc.....people that others can go to to verify it

          March 3, 2014 at 1:53 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Paul's claim of 500 eyewitnesses is inconsistent with the rest of the NT. Acts states that the size of the church prior to Pentecost was about 120 believers, not anywhere near the 500+ that Paul advertises.

          Acts 1:15
          "15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)"

          Acts 10:40-42 also indicates that Jesus only appeared to believers, not to the general public or any impartial witnesses that could be cited as dependable due to they're being unbiased.

          Also, doesn't 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 make clear that Paul will say anything to win over followers? Isn't misrepresenting oneself a form of lying?

          March 3, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I said WITNESSES..theydont all neccearily have to be believers at THAT time. Second...it does NOT say thatis total number of believers..but the ones in THAT group. YOu made an error to assume those present were the only ones who believed...Thirdly....even if the 500 were beleivers...Acts does not tell how many, and does not even imply less than 500. Thus for those arguments, you are inserting something that isn't there. As for 1 Corinthians 9, youhave clearly taken thatoutof context...Paul is talking about finding common ground so as to communicate clearly...If Paul was talking to me 15 years ago, and using Jewish terms..I would have NO idea what he was talking about. He would use terms that I understand from MY cultural standpoint. YOuneed to read it all ...

          March 3, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • Doris

          Oh yeah – the 500. So what were their names? what did they write? Who wrote about them besides Paul (you know, who is not just a later hearsay "historian")?

          March 3, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          They chose at that time who would take Judas' place as an apostle. Wouldn't that be occasion for a full group meeting?

          Sorry, but he really does come off as misrepresenting himself. Maybe you're reading a context that's just more convenient to you?

          March 3, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          says WHO? WHO says it is full group to contain ALL the believers? you assume..thats all and thuus youre not really backing up your argument

          March 3, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Oy! Any way you slice it, this is still just a story about there being witnesses. If you found a really old letter between friends which described their killing a dragon would you be forced to believe it? Paul could have easily taught this business about 500 witnesses to whomever this letter was intended for, and they could have just accepted it on faith, like so many other things about Christianity.

          Besides, do we even trust what many eyewitnesses all see today? Did the sun really dance around the sky and be only seen by a mult.itude in Medjugorje? You can go to these very people and interview them. They KNOW what they saw, but the rest of the world simply didn't see it happening on that day. So, no, as a general rule the testimony on many eyewitnesses, even verifiable ones, isn't always reliable, is it?

          March 3, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          what silly and stupid argument..killing a dragon..be more realistic here.....dragons don't exist for one..second..I would go and find those people and verify the story...sheesh..what an idiot

          March 4, 2014 at 1:58 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          "SHEESH you don't think very much do you?"
          The fact that you are unable to articulate your points does not make the rest of mentally challenged.

          "WHY would Paul even MENTION it??????"
          Same reason Joseph Smith mentions golden tablets – to add credibility. Religion is a nice little earner if you're not one of the sheep.

          March 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          you are so pitiful....such a pathetic argument..trying to compare the golden tablets..again...the eyewitrnesses to the golden tablet did nOT see the deliverance..they testimony means jack! SO what they seen the Tablets..that doesn't verify they are from God! Youre comparing apples to oranges and are desperate to the point you had to use such a treble comprison

          March 4, 2014 at 2:01 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          And demigods like Christ and Hercules don't exist either, if we accept a lack of evidence as some kind of proof, which you just did.

          March 4, 2014 at 8:10 am |
        • kermit4jc

          First of all..Jesus isn't a demi God..a half god..He is FULLY God and FUULY man....second.....don't project yourself on me...to you it seems lack of evidence..but I had PLENTY of evidence..not from just a Book...but in my LIFE..which ius why I believe..which is why I have knowledge of God.....

          March 4, 2014 at 9:30 am |
        • kermit4jc

          don't include ME in the we.I HAVE plenty of evidence...just cause YOU don't sseem to find any.does NOT mean NO ONE else will..You are not the standard..ok?

          March 4, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "Eyewitness testimony" is not reliable for events that occurred decades earlier.

          "dragons don't exist for one" – are you sure about that?
          "In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea. "
          – Isiah 27

          "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon? "
          – Isiah 51

          "And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. "
          – Revelation 12

          And what is the Leviathan from Job if not a dragon? It is described as a huge, fire breathing sea creature with an impenetrable double hide, tight scales on its back like shields and tightly joined, immovable flesh.

          There are all manner of monsters in the Bible that Gygax himself couldn't have dreamed up.
          War Grasshoppers (Revelation 9)

          Minions of the Angel Abaddon, these golden crowned insects won't kill you, but they will make you long for death. Unlike earthly locusts, these beasties have human faces, a woman's hair and the powerful teeth of a lion – which ups the creepy factor significantly. Swatting them away seems unlikely as their carapace is as strong as iron, plus they travel in swarms that are louder than a herd of stampeding horses.
          Not only are they nigh indestructible, they also carry a venom in their scorpion-like tails that causes excruciating agony for 5 months.

          Cherubim(Ezekiel 1, 10)

          These guys travel in fours and seem to have four of just about everything.
          Each of them have the faces of lion, a human, an ox and an eagle.
          Their four wings each have human hands.
          While they may have only two legs, their feet are shiny, bronze hooves.
          And the icing on the quad-cake is that these guys are entirely covered in eyeballs.
          At least they're easy to see coming given that they like to travel in clouds of fire and lightning.

          March 4, 2014 at 8:19 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NONE of those verse you mentioned say that dragons EXIST...iin FACT..given the style of writing..IM surprised yo did not recognize that it was figures of speech.....using a mythicological creature to pass a message....using the term dragon does NOT state they exist...people at the time knew the dragons were mythicological...Isaih chose to present his prophecies using pictures for the mind

          March 4, 2014 at 9:40 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Job 41 gives a very detailed physical description of a dragon (or "leviathan").
          It obviously is not symbolic language – it is an exacting portrait of the creature's appearance.

          March 4, 2014 at 10:14 am |
        • kermit4jc

          SIr...it does NOT say dragon..it does not even DESCRIBE a dragon..and even if uit did...I can DRAW a detailed drawing of a dragon...does that make it exist? NO..your argument has no basis whatsoever....just because it is described in detail does not automatically make it as something that actually exists!!

          March 4, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          You're saying that Jesus doesn't fit the definition of demigod?

          demigod |ˈdemēˌgäd|
          noun (fem. demigoddess |ˈdemēˌgädis| )
          a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank.
          • a person who is greatly admired or feared.

          I'm sure that you see evidence of your God existing everywhere. A big chunk of Christian indoctrination is teaching people how to "see" God in all kinds of things. Other religions teach their members to see different gods in the same things, and some who believe in reincarnation see déjà vu as clear evidence of their beliefs. You'd likely join me in disagreeing with that, right? Well, I also happen to disagree with all the typical reasons and "evidence" that Christians put forward as proving their God. If you think that you've got something that I haven't already heard, please feel free to share.

          March 4, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If you take Job 41 in context with Job 40, it is GOD HIMSELF talking to Job and describing a couple of His fiercest creations – the Behemoth and the Leviathan. The leviathan is a dragon by any other name....
          What other word would you use to describe a giant, scaled, serpentine, fire breathing creature?

          March 4, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I KNOW God said it Himself...yet that does NOT mean GOD created the leviathan..in FACT...it does NOT say GOD created it...He only created the bohemeth......you need to rread it more carefully.....GOD can use Whatever picture he wants to use to get his point acorss....try again

          March 4, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • observernow

          kermit4jc

          "I KNOW God said it Himself...yet that does NOT mean GOD created the leviathan..in FACT...it does NOT say GOD created it..."

          Didn't God create EVERYTHING? Most Christians say that. What else in this world was not created by God?

          March 4, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Job 41:33 (talking about the Leviathan)
          "he is made to be without fear."

          God says that He did actually make the leviathan.

          And are you really trying to assert that God created the Behemoth and it was a really real creature, but the very next monster described by God Himself as being made by Him, wasn't a really real creature?

          March 4, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          OH GEEZ..you so desperate arent you? IT did not say MADE as in GOD making it..a MYTHICAL Creature can be "made to be without fear by MAN" in other words..MAN made it up! NOWHERE did God say HE made it....you are putting words into Gods mouth....not good thing

          March 4, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Doc's right, Job states that leviathan was created.

          Now, if God did not create the leviathan, as you stated, doesn't that mean that either a rival god did create it, or that leviathan was the product of natural evolution?

          March 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Yes...It was created..by the mind of MAN..not by God>..duh..its a MYTHICAL creature

          March 4, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Job is portraying it as a real creature, but you're insisting that it's mythical. I guess that means that you believe that the Bible contains mythical creatures. How do you know that God isn't one of them?

          March 4, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          NOWHERE has it been shown that God is using an ACTUAL Creature....again God is using things that people KNOW....they knew of MYTHICAL things like dragons...they knew that other religions had drgaons...they were aware of them having dragons in their myths...God simply chose to use that to make a point...show me WHERE it says it was an actual creature....

          March 5, 2014 at 1:52 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          And maybe the guys who wrote the Jewish scriptures realized that the people knew about mythical god creatures too, and invented YHWH out of whole cloth. Buddy, your argument only hurts your case. Admitting that there's myth in the Bible casts doubt on the whole thing.

          March 5, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NOT at all..looking at context we see intention...thus you re desperately grasping at straws

          March 5, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          What context are you talking about? All nations had gods back then, the Jews included. If you consider all those other gods to be mythical creatures that never actually existed, but you claim that your God was different, then it's up to you to back up that claim and, so far, you have done rather poorly.

          Don't take that as a personal slight: all Christian apologists do a very poor job of defending the belief in God.

          March 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          The only thing I take offense to is you say ALL Christian apologists..granted some do...but not all..and I haven't even ATEMPTED yet....you need to be patient and if you want it..ask...IM not going to waste time giving it to you unless you want it. Now apologize here..but IM going through several conversation...and tried to ook at which of my posts you responded to...can you please remind me what my last one was to you? then I will give you some context

          March 5, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • bacbik

          kermit need to find village that's missing an idiot

          March 5, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Can you name a single Christian apologist that actually makes a logical argument that can't be easily countered?

          March 6, 2014 at 8:02 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          The you seemed to be implying that only the Jewish people had a "context" where they actually took their god seriously, as though the Romans, Egyptians, Hindus, Persians and everyone else with gods back then were just pretending to believe.

          March 6, 2014 at 8:07 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NOOOOO..Context means that when I read the Bible..it is a JEWISH piece of literature..which means I will read it from a JEwISH perspective...understand some JEWISH philosophy, writing, and such...I will read it considering Jewish culture....

          March 6, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Well, first of all only the OT can be said to be purely Jewish scripture. If you read that from a Jewish perspective then I really don't see how you could get the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. The NT is diverging from purely Jewish perspectives. You have to take that in context of being a follower of Jesus, some of whom were Greek and Roman culturally.

          March 6, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • kermit4jc

          On the contrary! First of all..Jesus was prophecied many times in the OT He would die for our sins..be pierced for out trangression (Isaiah) He fullfilled all of the prophecies concerning his first coming! Secondly..the NT is by JEWS for most part..Paul, Matthew John were Jews.and they drew from the prophecies from the OT..Paul especially speak much of the laws of the OT....thus you probably didnt do much reading of it

          March 6, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • bacbik

          dumb kermit. someone writes sequel to old story and suddenly prophesy is met. lol.

          March 6, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          prove it isnt so then...dont name call..back it up..show it couldnt have happened...

          March 6, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          The "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah is actually the Nation of Israel. It states so plainly. Immanuel was to be born of a young woman during king Ahaz's rule. It's a prophecy meant for his son, Hezekiah, not to oppose Assyria. It isn't a prophecy of some future birth as the tenses are all wrong. Christians and the NT get it all wrong. By the time the Gospels start including such OT material the Christians are pretty much kicked out of the synagogues, so they don't have access to the proper teaching.

          March 7, 2014 at 8:13 am |
        • kermit4jc

          UH..that is false..first of all...they did not start out Christian..most started out as JES..who knew the oT pretty well..as for prophevcy...it was for two things..one was for King Ahaz and then a double prophecy..of Jesus being born years later...no rule saying it could not have happened.Jesus perfectly described the Suffering Servant..the Jews didn't like it cause they had their own idea of a Messiah (one whod free them from rule of the Romans-but not all say this..mostly the "elite") such as Pharisees

          March 7, 2014 at 9:30 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          No rule, except that they never did that. They often wrote stuff in the past tense, making it appear to have been fulfilled prophecy, but they didn't build in second meanings. That's Dan Brown sort of conspiracy thinking.

          The Christian view is that God, in the form of Jesus, was his own servant, which is ridiculous in relation to how Isaiah 53 reads.Also, verse 10 reads "he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days". This simply cannot refer to Jesus, who died young and childless, unless you want to argue that he didn't? Maybe he did have kids with Mary M, and go to India?

          Of course the Jews had their own idea of Messiah. Messiah is a Jewish concept, after all. Lots of people were anointed ones in the OT. The expected Messiah was to have heralded an era of world peace, rebuilt the temple, and do a few other things all within an ordinary human lifetime. Jesus fails as the Messiah.

          March 8, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Uhh...the word seed doesn't always mean biological seed..ABraham was to have seed of many children..but it was in reference to those who follow God..not neccesarilyhis own seed....as for Jesus..yes..youre right..it is ridiculous for God to be hisown servant..thats not whatTrinity teaches..Trinity is THREE PERSONS...Father SONand Holy SPirit..thus the SOn is servant to Father

          March 10, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
    • kudlak

      workingcopy12
      If you found a really old letter written by someone claiming to be a 400 year old vampire, would you believe it? What if somebody left a note in their will claiming to be the person who actually shot JFK from the grassy knoll?

      Come on, man! We have no reason whatsoever to distrust L Ron Hubbard's claim that he personally wrote the belief system of Scientology, but that doesn't make it an ounce more believable.

      February 28, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The differences between the "witness testimonies" cast grave doubt as to their accuracy.
      How many people were at the empty tomb again?

      February 28, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
      • kudlak

        Who would have bothered to notice? They were women, after all! 😉

        February 28, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
      • workingcopy12

        Doc...are you applying today's evidentiary standards, or how people 2 thousand years ago understood and interacted in an oral history environment? (Hint...they're different, but equal (at least form the eyes of those experiencing it.)

        February 28, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          You asked what weight should be given to this "evidence".
          I'm saying you probably shouldn't put too much weight on testimonies that differ on important points regarding the same events.
          And don't forget that there are a lot of people who believe The Bible to be literal, inerrant, actual, factual history – not an apocryphal oral history.

          February 28, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
    • kudlak

      workingcopy12
      Would you accept supernatural accounts coming from some other ancient source, like Roman historians, Egyptian holy books, or Hindu scriptures?

      February 28, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
      • workingcopy12

        I don't know–which ones are you referring to? How were they vetted? Is it a collection by numerous authors from different cultures over thousands of years, or just one guy? I'm not walking into this blindly.

        February 28, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • kudlak

          workingcopy12
          Many Christians like to cite Josephus regarding Jesus, but they seem to fail to realize that he also mentions Hercules as a historic figure. Should we then take his writing as proof that Zeus sired a demigod son?

          February 28, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Josephus and any other historian did not write about vetted accounts of Jesus, he wrote about what Christians believe....

          February 28, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      (1) Did you expect photographs?

      No, I expect written accounts verifying that something happened from someone other than a writer with an agenda. There is no information that something "miraclulous" happened outside the bible. Mormons can give the same "evidence" for their belief...but somehow I am guessing you are not a Mormon.

      (2) It's not all hearsay–some of it is direct (i.e. Paul's letters).

      Paul only wrote about personal revelation....do you have any idea how many people claim "personal revelation". Paul proved nothing, he made claims...next

      February 28, 2014 at 5:32 pm |
    • kudlak

      workingcopy12
      How did the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness get into the Gospels? Was there an eyewitness who say the devil take Jesus to the top of the high place and who overheard it all? Did Jesus come back boasting of how he resisted the devil's temptations, or did someone actually interview the devil? Just curious.

      March 1, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        Jesus BOASTING? lol....

        March 2, 2014 at 1:49 am |
        • kudlak

          If they got the story from Jesus telling how he totally outwitted the devil, wouldn't that come off as boasting? It would be hearsay, at the very least.

          If not, then someone was either tagging along with Jesus and the devil on their tour, or they interviewed the devil in order to get the story, right? Which do you believe?

          March 2, 2014 at 9:37 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          youre a sad little person....with Jesus saying something like that to another would not be boasting....to you its only ONE option....sad...you got to use your brain some more...HOW about the fact that he wanted it recorded..not for baosting sake..but for the record?? huh?

          March 3, 2014 at 1:54 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          They just took his word on it, then?

          Nobody suspected that he hallucinated what he saw after spending over a month in the desert alone? If you can believe that, then you really should have no problem believing Native Americans claiming to have been visited by animal spirits while doing similar trials.

          March 3, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WOW>.apparently youeither did not read the rest of the gospels and seen Jesus OTHER miracles...or you are being dishonest and focusing on one and ignoring the rest. Youdecide...When they seen Jesus OTHER miracles..they could have easily seen his wilderness exprrience as truth as well!!! Jesus showed himself to be credible..why doubt it???

          March 3, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • Doris

          Where o where are the witnesses? what o what are their names? why o why did the god of the Christians leave them without evidence?

          March 3, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Im tired of repeating myself..read the thread about the 500 witnesses..if you don't find it..I will repeat once more onlyfor you

          March 3, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • Doris

          Hmm shying away from the 500 witnesses I see. That's a smart move. Joe Smith's witnesses are better evidence than the claim by chatty cathy Paul.

          March 3, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Idid NOT shy away fromit..Ibeen DISCUSSING it over andover here...but since youdont sem to find it..I will repeat once again (BTW don't be so arrogant to assume as you just did–youcontinue to make such statements..I wont respond anymore..chill out ok?) Paul isnot going to sit and name each and everyone of them...the people can go and verify for themselves...Paul mentions they exist becaue he can believe that people willnot be so gullible and go find out for themselves if they really wanted to

          March 3, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          BTW JOES witnesses areterrible..ALL theysaw were golden plates..they did not see the deliverance of them...whereas the witness of Jesus saw Him leave....sheesh...youneed to read upmore

          March 3, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
        • Doris

          "the people can go and verify for themselves."

          well then show me some evidence where any one of the alleged unnamed witnesses did just that....

          March 3, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          I focus on this one because it appears obvious that it's just a made up story, or pure hearsay.

          If you take miracles as evidence, are you willing to accept the reports of Emperors and other, non-Christian, folks performing miracles? Do the miracles of Muhammad impress you? How about the miraculous events surrounding the life of the Buddha?

          March 3, 2014 at 8:55 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Mohamed did not miracles...that's stuff added to the muslim religion...ya need to know more about Islam..second..Mohamed was no prophet of God...Allah does not exist..how do I know? I KNOW the True God! don't take my word for it..that would be naïve and dishonest

          March 4, 2014 at 1:59 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Ok, I won't take your word on it, but I still don't see any reason to believe what you claim.

          March 4, 2014 at 8:07 am |
        • derado8

          Kermit,

          I thought it was OT, then NT, then the Koran (in that order). One building off of the other book. No?

          March 6, 2014 at 8:10 am |
        • kermit4jc

          OT, then NT..no Koran..the Quran doesn't even build off the NT..in fact the Quran says the WHOLE of the Bible is corrupt

          March 6, 2014 at 9:38 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          God = Jahweh = Allah.
          Same God, different prophets.

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

          Christianity is like a sequel somewhat out of sync with the original, kind of like Highlander II.
          A bunch of extra stuff was added, like the Holy Trinity.
          The Trinity is not in the OT.
          It wasn't a part of Christian Dogma until 300 years after the crucifixtion.
          The idea of a trinity contradicts the most basic tenet of Judaism – that God is One. Jews have declared their belief in a single unified God twice daily ever since the giving of the Torah at Sinai – almost two thousand years before Christians started flogging their sequel.
          In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry.

          The Chronicles of Abraham consist of four books, each loosely based on the other.
          Part I: The Spiteful God of the Jews
          Part II: Resurrection Bugaloo
          Part III: Allah You Be Infidels
          and finally
          Part IV: American Jesus

          March 6, 2014 at 8:36 am |
        • kermit4jc

          HOW SHALLOW....NAMES means nothing..CHRACTER means more than anything...and theer are two diferent characters..Muslim God does not send the Messiah Jesus to die for our sins..Muslim God has NO sense of Justice..they say "Allah wil forgive you" justice means sins are paid for..the Muslim don't really believe that..they may use similar terms.but that does not make it the same God...youre only looking on the surface

          March 6, 2014 at 9:42 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          "Muslim God does not send the Messiah Jesus to die for our sins"
          That's actually a point in Allah's favour. Having Jesus die for our sins just doesn't make any sense.

          March 6, 2014 at 11:03 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Does not make sense to YOU cause you dont know the Bible apparently

          March 6, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          It's not the only thing in the Bible that doesn't make any sense.

          March 7, 2014 at 7:59 am |
        • kermit4jc

          well...lots of things about God does not make sense..what did you expect ahout a Being who is above us? BUt if you mean other things as well...then lets study and find out

          March 7, 2014 at 9:27 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          If God is too alien for us to understand, why assume that he's worth worshipping?

          You seem to want me to "study" what the accepted answers are, according to you, where I prefer to study in order to find the actual, correct answers.

          March 8, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          OK..first of all..I never said nor implied God is too alien for us to understand...There are SOME things we can NOT understand..but that doesn't mean we cannot understand anything of Him....and thus throw out the baby with the bathwater...do you understand your friends totally? You are still friends with them are you not? as for the studying..I did nOT even imply studying accepted answers..never said that...don't put word inmy mouth please..I said STUDY..thats all...

          March 10, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
  19. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    @New – Lame retort...

    LET's Religiosity Law #11 – “From there to here, and here to there, funny things are everywhere.”

    February 28, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      This reply should not have posted all by itself

      February 28, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
  20. Doris

    Why don't we know who the authors of the Gospels were?

    Why is all the supernatural events in the Bible only backed up by hearsay "historians"?

    Why do people believe something that has been copied over and over with many errors?

    Why are there so much conflicted information in the Bible?

    Why is it when you point that out to people, they say you don't have the proper interpretation, when their interpretation has manifested itself as over 40,000 sects?

    Why do some sects travel to other countries and incite violence against people in the name of their particular interpretation?

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehnEZtqj2Mo&w=640&h=360]

    On January 24, 2013, the traveling exhibition Manifold Greatness: The Creation and Afterlife of the King James Bible opened at the William H. Hannon Library at Loyola Marymount University.

    The keynote talk for the opening: "What Kind of a Text is the King James Bible? Manuscripts, Translation, and the Legacy of the KJV" was presented by Dr. Bart Ehrman, James A. Grey Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill (PhD, magna cum laude from Princeton Theological Seminary).

    February 28, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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.