 |
|
|
|
|
April 7th, 2014
12:41 PM ET
Megachurch pastor resigns, citing 'moral failing'Fort Lauderdale, Florida (WPLG Miami) The senior pastor of Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale has resigned after confessing to cheating on his wife, according to WPLG Miami. Pastor Bob Coy, 58, reportedly confessed a "moral failing which disqualifies him from continuing his leadership role at the church" to Calvary leaders on Wednesday. A board meeting was called the next day, when he resigned. Coy, who has led the church since its founding in 1985, said he will now focus his full attention on his personal relationship with God and his family. The radio, television and digital media that distributes Coy's teachings have also been suspended. "The governing board of the church is providing counselors and ministers who will help guide him through the process of full repentance, cleansing and restoration," Calvary Chapel said in a statement. Calvary is one of the largest churches in Florida, with some 20,000 members who worship in 10 locations across the state. "Trusting in God's providence, protection, provision and direction, the staff of Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale will continue our mission to 'make disciples' through regular services at all campuses and through myriad other ministries the church has established over the years," the statement said. At an open service at the church Sunday, a letter was read to the congregation from Coy and the board. Assistant pastors who are on staff will continue their usual rotating schedule as teaching pastors for all services, the statement said.
Next entry »Is the Internet killing religion?
« Previous entryArchbishop to vacate $2.2 million mansion
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
what I'm trying to tell you is that EVERYONE starts with a conclusion, no matter what they tell you. Everyone observes the same evidence, the same rocks,
IN my experience most sane people start with a question. In my case it was: Does god exist? I weighed the evidence for and against and concluded that god probably doesn't exist. Anyone who starts with a conclusion is a moron and I highly doubt that is what Krausse did.
Most sane people believe in God.
Wonderful. Now do you think it is a good idea to start any search for the truth with the conclusion instead of a question.
I can respect a person that is challenged by the notion of God, Great Spirit or Higher Power. I dont' have that challenge.
I didn't start with a conclusion in regards to God. I started with a question. I just came to a different conclusion.
Theo said below that everyone starts with a conclusion, I was simply pointing out that is not true and doesn't make any sense.
Ironically you are starting with a conclusion.
IN this case a conclusion that has shown to be true repeatedly. Do you honestly think you can get to the truth if you start with the answer?
I'm not really that familiar with the philosophy you guys are engaging in. It is possible to start with the right conclusion, though.
Not everyone draws the same conclusion as you to the question: Does God exist?
God isn't confined to your standards of what a god needs to exist. That is personal to you.
Most sane people use to believe that the world was flat, and that the sun actually travelled around the earth, but they were wrong.
When was that? A long time ago. Way before Columbus, right? Or do you believe those myths that everyone thought the world was flat?
Dalahäst
What does time have to do with it? They were always wrong, just ignorant of the fact until someone set them straight. They use to justify their incorrect beliefs by appealing to some traditional beliefs and what they "felt" they experienced. Isn't everyone who believes in a god doing the same thing?
No, everyone who believes in God is not doing the same thing as the people who thousands of years ago believed the world was flat.
Maybe people who don't believe in God are doing the same thing. But since you hold that belief you imagine it must not be so.
Dalahäst
"No, everyone who believes in God is not doing the same thing as the people who thousands of years ago believed the world was flat."
How do you know? They thought the world looked flat, and they couldn't imagine a world that wasn't. Theists think that there are gods amongst us, and you can't imagine a world that doesn't. Both have been long held assumptions, but science doesn't just accept long held assumptions without testing them. That's what proved that the earth wasn't flat and, so far, science hasn't found anything to support the notion of gods. That's not to say that it's definite that no gods exist anywhere in the universe, but the time to start believing in something is only after there's actual evidence for it. You may not be wrong, but accepting something merely upon faith is no way of determining actual truth.
I look out on the world and I do not see any indication of there being a God. People who believe in God were taught to interpret certain things as evidence supporting this. Tell me that believers aren't actually taught how to "experience" God?
Comedy Gold! Thanks Dala, you really know how to make a doG laugh! LOLOLOL
You intrust your life to people every day that believe in God. You honestly don't think they are insane. You just think it makes a good insult and makes you feel better about yourself to put others down. You must honestly know most believers in God are sane. And many believers in God contribute to society in ways you can only dream about.
Since most people in the world believe in a god or gods, and most of the people in the world are sane, and most of the people in the world aren't Christian, it follows that most sane people aren't Christian.
Right.
So?
Most sane people also aren't Christian hating atheists that post in message boards of blogs dedicated to faith, belief and religion.
I don't hate Christians, I was just playing with numbers. IN fact most people I know are Christians and that is perfectly o.k., of course they don't act like the atheist hating Christians do on this blog.
Well, good. I'm glad to hear that.
We don't need anymore example of atheists who just hate on others like bigots do. Just like we don't need any Christians or anyone else acting like bigots. Time to run those doGs out of town.
I don't recall seeing a single atheist on here who hates all religious people. I have seen MANY insane religious people on here who clearly hate atheists, gays, freedom in general, etc.
I see enough anti-theists cherry-pick the worst of religious people and compare it to the best of atheists.
It happens enough in society that even atheists and non-religious inst.itutions are mocking and poking fun of the phenomenon.
joey3467
In my opinion Dala... has got that big old plank in his eye.
"I see enough anti-theists cherry-pick the worst of religious people and compare it to the best of atheists.
It happens enough in society that even atheists and non-religious inst.itutions are mocking and poking fun of the phenomenon."
Making fun of the insanity of believing in fairy tales is not the same as hating people. And what is the "best" of atheists? Atheist just means one doesn't believe in a god. It is true that there is a strong correlation between atheism and intelligence, but we're not smarter because we're atheists, we're atheists because we're smater (in general).
Believing in God is not insane. And insisting my beliefs are based on fairy tales is hateful.
The best of atheists? I don't know... some internet atheists imagine being an atheist means they are superior to Christians – because Christians are brainwashed idiots who believe in fairy tales. And that science in somehow on their side.
It is just crap you hear on message boards of blogs and in philosophy books by new atheists.
Thank God most atheists aren't like these internet atheists.
There is also a high correlation between atheism and some mental illnesses, like autism. Some people have difficulty grasping ideas and concepts that are greater than their materialistic and literal understanding of the world.
dala
Autism is not an illness, it is a disorder, and people with autism, and offshoots such as Aspergers have been shown to have more logically inclined minds. They are better with mathematical computations and computer programming. It is difficult to grasp illogical things like belief in something that can not be shown to exist, so is difficult for those minds to logically understand that which is illogical.
That si why the progpogansa and attempts at indoctrination failed with me. At 6, they could not logically answer my questions, showing me that belief was illogical and baseless. I have Aspergers, and I find the study of beliefs to be fascinating, since NO belief has any logical base.
dala
" Some people have difficulty grasping ideas and concepts that are greater "
Or to be accurate, not greater, but illogical.
Your beliefs ARE essentially fairy tales. That is a fact. I don’t hate you for believing in fairy tales, I pity you.
Being an atheist doesn’t mean one is superior to all Christians in every way – it simply means we are not delusional on the single subject of the man-made concept of god. Science is most definitely on our side – through science, we know for a fact that the bible is wrong, for example, and therefore, the Christian god does not exist. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t scientists who delude themselves into ignoring the endless contradictions between science and religion.
I am not sure what an atheist philosophy book would even mean. Atheism isn’t a philosophy, it’s simply a logical, science-based conclusion to a far-fetched hypothesis.
Dalahäst
Would you consider pagan beliefs to be based on something more truthful than "fairy tales"? Fairy tales were meant to be just as illustrative of some moral as myths, or even Jesus' parables, right? A way of teaching people something in a format that they could better understand. So, the comparison really isn't as far off as you might think.
No Dala, most sane people do not believe in your god. Of those sane people who believe in a god, most of them don't believe in yours.
No kidding. And most sane people don't share in your same understanding about God, either.
I didn't make the claim, you did. At least you admitted it was wrong.
No, I just said most sane people believe in God. You added your own conclusions and commentary.
No, I just pointed out that your statement is factually incorrect. Most sane people do NOT believe in your god. You capitalized the word "god", which means you are referring to a specific god, not just any concept of god. I assume you were referring to the Christian god, and most sane people do NOT believe in the Christian god.
why the fuss about a pastor having a moral failing? He follows the bible, one of the most immoral books ever written by man, so it's no wonder the immorality has rubbed off on him.
If he wanted, he could (and might) totally justify his actions using same. If Jacob, who was extra-special to god, could do it with everyone and their servant, why can't he?
amen!
It's the kind of feeling that an AA group would probably get when their leader falls off the wagon after decades of sobriety. It must make some Christians wonder if it's all worth it if even their leaders can't demonstrate that the program works.
Eh, no. In AA if one sticks to the principles of the program, they will continue in sobriety. When one follows different principles or decides to do things their way, they fall of the wagon. After that point they usually die from their alcoholism or admit that they need to follow the program like the AA program suggests.
I've worked in treatment centers. That program works well if someone follows it. Those who can't or won't often struggle. I've even seen atheists testify that AA works.
There is no leader in AA, also. So... sorry.
Dala
Those steps need to be modified to NOT include "higher powers" and other things that cannot be shown to exist. The steps, without the "higher power" garbage are otherwise effective.
I've seen atheists that have to admit their alcoholism, which is something that cannot be shown to exist as a disease – can be treated if it is viewed as a disease.
Basically, a power greater than themselves is controlling them. And it isn't the alcohol that is the problem. The alcohol and alcoholism is the symptom of their problem.
They can often grab onto an idea of something larger than themselves: like the universe, or science – and see recovery.
But they have to follow a lot of principles that were derived from the Bible.
"Basically, a power greater than themselves is controlling them."
False. What is controlling them comes from within them. Addiction is an illness., and can be treated.
And how do you treat it?
Medicine doesn't work.
Spirituality does.
Most alcoholics are spiritually dead inside.
Dalahäst
I was going by Tradition #2 of AA which states "For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern."
The program then only "works" as long as members have absolute faith that there is a loving God who is aiding them resist the compulsion to drink, correct? Surely free-thinking believers such as yourself are not warned against entertaining any doubts whatsoever. For many desperate enough to manage their alcoholism, isn't AA actually recruiting them into theism if they're aren't already believers? If alcoholism is a disease, as AA tends to treat it, then wouldn't this be akin to missionaries supplying needed medicines to the natives as long as they convert?
With this in mind, isn't AA indoctrinating a dependance upon the belief of God to people's maintaining sobriety. This is almost a type of blackmail, isn't it? "Maintain your faith, or the program won't work, and you'll be doomed to be a drunk forever!" No wonder AA has been criticized as a cult.
Some do feel it is a cult. But most people in recovery I know are not interested in religion, but appreciate the help they get from AA.
What is your theory from helping alcoholics recover from alcoholism? Have you seen it work?
I know AA isn't the only way people get and stay sober. But the effectiveness of the program is remarkable.
It isn't blackmail, recruiting others into theism, or similar to missionaries supplying medicines to the natives as long as they convert (who does that?)... unless you want it to be. Then sure, go for it.
Dalahäst
Another way of looking at it is that people are simply swapping one addiction (alcohol) for another (God).
There are secular AA-type meetings which do not require members to anchor their sobriety on faith in a deity. AA often fails if the member has a crisis of faith, making the problem even worse.
Missionaries have been known to hold food ransom since the days of the first soup kitchens. The "Listen to the pitch first, and then enjoy the free breakfast" marketing model has been used successfully in all kinds of situations. Condos in Mexico, golf club memberships, and so on.
Sure, that has happened. It certainly doesn't mean all or most will do such things.
I've witnessed religious groups sacrificing for others in need. Doing the complete opposite of those missionaries that hold food for ransom. There is no "listen to the pitch first, and then enjoy some free breakfast" going on. It is the opposite of a marketing model.
No condos in Mexico. No golf club memberships. No hours spent online and not helping others. But true charity in action.
I hope to hear you do such things.
When I find myself failing to live up to my own standards, like this man describes doing, I find strength in Galatians 5. I often have to admit that I'm wrong and need to live differently. I know the way to do that is clear and available to me, yet like so many others I fail to do the next right thing.
"Life by the Spirit
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: se.xual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, or.gies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."
I have a way and power to live out love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Yet often don't. Lord, help me make the next right decision.
there are lots of other self help books out there like the bible, just in case you can't concentrate on the bible because of all the immorality in it, and because of the constant need to laugh at its fairy stories.
I love this doGie guy anti-theist character with a ragin' bo.ner for anything Christian or Bible related. Who needs fairy tales to laugh at when we got doGgie's irony and failure to live up to his own standards.
What is morality and how is it possible to maintain morality, when the final standard is humanistic preference?
Who did Paul mean by "neighbour" here?
If he was talking about Jesus' concept of a neighbor he meant those we put on our opposite side.
If I'm an intolerant religious person, then an atheist or member of a different religion would be my neighbor. If I'm a ho.mophobe then an g.ay person would be my neighbor. If I'm a rich white person born into American privilege, then the illegal immigrant would be my neighbor.
Dalahäst
Not necessarily. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, several Jews passed their fellow Jew, but did not help. Jesus asked who acted like a neighbour to the man in trouble, indicating that the foreigner acted better to the man than his own people. Since Jesus was quoting Leviticus 19:18 there isn't much reason to assume that he was advocating better treatment of Samaritans and other non-Jews, even when the NT writers talk about loving their "enemies". Otherwise, Jesus would have said plainly "love everyone".
Uh, the Jews refused to help the man because it would inconvenience them. They had all the tools they needed to help the man – wine, oil, cloth for bandaging.
It wasn't a fellow Jew that had been beaten. How could they have known? The man was beaten badly and had all his clothes removed from him.
Did this man have a moral failing? Did he cheat on his wife?
No, he did not cheat on his wife.
Yes, he cheated on wife.
/cheated on his wife.
According to the law of non-contradiction the truth is one. This man could not at the same both have cheated on his wife and not have cheated on wife.
Those two statements can't be both true at the same time.
This man either cheated on his wife or he did not. The principle of non-contradiction is very simple to understand, it is not that complicated.
But it IS complicated. Whether he cheated depends on several things:
Did he get caught without coming forward himself?
Will he be able to cry in front of his parishioners convincingly enough to persuade them that the devil made him do it?
Will his wife be able to put on her best sympathetic forgiveness face for the public?
Does the panel who gets to decide whether he's repentant enough consist only of men?
It's just not that simple, Joe.
Reminds me of "The Good Wife". Interesting how scandal survival is practiced so similarly by both preachers and politicians.
The answer to the question, "Did Bob Coy cheat on his wife?" is a simple "Yes" or "No".
What if you think holding hands and kissing is not cheating, but I think it is.
It suddenly becomes possible for more than one answer to be correct.
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Do you drive a Maserati? The answer is a simple "Yes" or "No"
What do you mean "drive", some people "fly" in their Maserati.
The answer is a simple "Yes" or "No", you either drive a Maserati "or" you don't.
Did Bob Coy cheat on his wife? The answer is a simple "Yes" or "No"
What do you mean cheat on his "wife? It depends, did he have a wife?
Was he married? What do you mean wife?
Mutually exclusive statements are by their very nature "mutually exclusive", they cannot contradict each other, either of the two statements must be right to automatically falsify the other statement.
Both statements cannot be true at the same time."Yes, Bob Coy cheated on his wife" and "No, Bob Coy did not cheat on his wife" are mutually exclusive statements. Either, Bob cheated on his wife or he did not, the keyword is "or".
That is simply the law of non-contradiction, it's not complicated.
Earlier I read a group of entries on this forum that were basically attacking the law of non-contradiction.
I find that odd because we live our everyday lives abiding by this (even if we're unaware of it).
This is because I can be a father and a son at the same time but never in the same relationship. You can be an athlete and a musician at the same time but never in the same relationship.
This law of logic is really that simple to understand; given this, why are there people on here claiming to be champions of rationality...
...while denying the validity of what philosophers and logicians alike consider to be foundational for anything to make sense.
To deny the law of non contradiction is not only irrational but also a denial towards the scientific method itself.
Thank you for reading
Kanye West: Because I am a genius I have ascertained that fish have gills. Doctor do I have gills?
Doctor: He does not have gills
Kanye West: You hear that? No gills! So I can't be a fish! And I'm a genius voice of a generation so I'm not gay! So that is that. Alright! It's over! Now are there any questions!?
Reporter: Do You like Fishsticks?
Kanye West: Love um.
Reporter: You're a gay fish.
Kanye West: No I'm naahhhh!!!
The law on non-contradiction is only valid when the two things are defined. The one attempting to use it, was attempting to show how it indicates some creator, but it was invalid use of it, because he could not define one thing or the other. It was being applied to speculation.
It was theo who was doing it, and he likes to illogically and incorrectly apply logic mechanisms to conclude his god exists, and he fails every time.
I make perfectly logical arguments. You cannot claim that they are somehow illogical just because you disagree with the conclusions that they force you to make.
Theo
The only one that believes your arguments are logical is you. Now tell us all about the first cause and a casual chain, you know you want to, ready, set, go. Hilarious stuff.
No theo, your arguments are not logical because you DO draw conclusions where there is not enough information to make ANY conclusions. You have NEVER made any arguments that indicate any creator or supernatural anything. You say a lot of blah blah blah so it MUST be or Indicates ot implies a creator, when that conclusion is unjustified. Your problem is you are starting with a conclusion, and attempting to find a logical path to the conclusion, where there is no such logical path. You have faied in EVERY attempt at using logic.
There is no logical way to imply, indicate or even have the slightest thing that shows any "creator'. There are simply too many other possibilities to draw any conclusion.
"you DO draw conclusions where there is not enough information to make ANY conclusions."
-------------
But you excuse that in men like Lawrence Krausse. He must redefine what the word "nothing" means in order to posit the eternality of the universe.
He starts with the conclusion that the physical universe must be eternal, because it could never have been nothing, because if it was ever nothing, then it wouldn't ever be something.
What I'm trying to tell you is that EVERYONE starts with a conclusion, no matter what they tell you. Everyone observes the same evidence, the same rocks, the same bones, the same stars, but, because of our various starting points, our beliefs influence our paradigms, and our paradigms drive our conclusions.
Krausse begins with the conclusion that the universe is eternal because there is no God.
The Bible starts with the conclusion that God is eternal because the universe isn't.
Theo, we all love you here on this blog purely for the entertainment value. Your arguments are usually hilarious. Sometimes I feel sad for you but mostly I get a good laugh.
"Krausse begins with the conclusion that the universe is eternal because there is no God."
He actually says this, Theo? Do you have a source?
"But you excuse that in men like Lawrence Krausse. He must redefine what the word "nothing" means in order to posit the eternality of the universe"
When did I excuse that? He did not change the meaning of the word, as I told you already. He simply pointed out that nothing is the wrong word, since there is something , not nothing.
nice attempt at a deflection, but we are talking about you.
When one is speculating and hypothesising, you may start with a conclusion, and SPECULATE as to what is, but when you attempt to apply any logical argument, it fails, since you are trying to apply logic on specualtion.
I have seen you fail on your false causal chain argument which boils down to blah blah blah which indicates a creator. Since you do not know what was before the Big Bang, you CANNOT draw any conclusions, also, you do not know if the Big Bang is part of a natural cycle or not.
You have claimed to be a "teacher"...I would love to sit in one of your "logic" classes so your students could see how to properly apply logic as I shred your "logic". If you teach any of your garbage, you are basically lying to your students.
Your whole causal chain basically boils down to this...SOMETHING caused the Big Bang. That is as far as the argument can logically go. You then leap to it must be a creator, drawing a conclusion from "something" to "creator".
When you take it any farther than something caused it, you then start lying.
Or is it more likely that Krauss is listening to people like Alex Vilenkin?
"He actually says this, Theo? Do you have a source"
-------------
Have you ever heard him speak? His starting conclusions are implicitly evident in his cra.ss and mocking att.itude towards those of faith, as well as his theories that begin from a standpoint of anti-theism that denies even the possibility of special creation, knowing full well that he does not have anough information to make a definative statement about origins based on the tools of science.
"Your whole causal chain basically boils down to this...SOMETHING caused the Big Bang."
--------------–
Yup, that's the FIRST step. And to that, you seem to be in agreement that SOMETHING caused it.
That is as far as the argument can logically go.
--------------
Wrong. The argument states that the physical universe had a cause. Since it had a cause, then there was logically a point where physicality did not exist. Since the physical is known as that which is natural, if there was a point where the "natural" did not exist, then what existed then MUST have been supernatural, or, NOT natural and NOT physical.
You always leave out this point of the argument.
You then leap to it must be a creator, drawing a conclusion from "something" to "creator".
-------------------
So what not-natural, not physical creator enti.ty was it?
When you take it any farther than something caused it, you then start lying.
-----------------
No, that's just when you start disagreeing.
Theo
Are you not a young earth guy, the earth is no older than 10000 years old, created by a supernatural being? Once you make a statement like that, anything you may say after such a statement is illogical.
change your name from Theo Phileo to Theo Unintelligible-o
theo
He's talking to you.
"“I should point out, nevertheless, that even though incomplete data can lead to a false picture, this is far different from the (false) picture obtained by those who choose to ignore empirical data to invent a picture of reality (young earthers, for example), or those who instead require the existence of something for which there is no observable evidence whatsoever (like divine intelligence) to reconcile their view of creation with their a priori prejudices, or worse still, those who cling to fairly tales about nature that presume the answers before questions can even be asked.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing
See if you can work jello in there some how DDog. It's almost lunch here.
"then there was logically a point where physicality did not exist."
False again theo. You do not, cannot know that...again that is speculation. What exactly do you have that showed at some time, there was nothing physical. Do you know what caused the Big Bang? No, you don't
Do you know if anything physically existed before OUR current physicality existed? No.
Please show me the evidence that there was no physicality to what was before the Big Bang, otherwise, you showed EXACTLY the point where you jumped off the logic train.
Theo: "The argument states that the physical universe had a cause. Since it had a cause, then there was logically a point where physicality did not exist."
This is where you are taking things too far, Theo. Vilken (of the BVG Theorem) warns not to take it that far. A beginning to this universe does not mean there was no physicality prior to the beginning of this universe. There are ideas about it, and Vilenkin has some ideas about it, but it's speculation.
Correction: Vilenkin, not Vilken, for first use in my last response.
Theo
When Lawrence M. Krauss redefines "nothing" he means that empty space isn't as empty as most people would like to believe. "Nothing" is apparently quite unstable, and space will spontaneously appear. A true "nothing" wouldn't even have a single dimension, which begs the question whether such a thing could even exist.
I know, it's hard stuff to wrap your brain around, but it's not like he's just inventing a new definition just to fit his conclusions.
"This is where you are taking things too far, Theo. Vilken (of the BVG Theorem) warns not to take it that far. A beginning to this universe does not mean there was no physicality prior to the beginning of this universe."
----------–
And you say that I'M speculating? What scientific proof do you have for a universe other than this one?
"but it's not like he's just inventing a new definition just to fit his conclusions."
-------------
My point was that he starts with a conclusion – that a natural process describes all that there is, and that the universe must be eternal, because there is no God.
Theo: "And you say that I'M speculating? What scientific proof do you have for a universe other than this one?"
There is no proof of anything before the "big bang" – I never said there was. There is speculation, and some of it is seriously considered by Vilenkin who has been instrumental in providing good theory that this universe likely had a beginning with the BVG Theorem. And yes, you are speculating too. I think I'll go with the astrophysicist and cosmologist on this one...
Theo Phileo
So far, all we have are natural processes describing everything that we know exists, correct? No supernatural explanations have ever been proven. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest. Can you provide sources where he states these things?
All I am saying is this, if things aren't going your way and life isn't great, don't worry. Just say, "Hasa Diga Eebowai" and flip off god. That will make you feel better.
Oh, you are repeatedly quoting "The Book of Mormon". A song lampo.oning Mormon mission trips to Uganda.
Those guys are sooo offensive! Lol! I hope it comes to my city, I'm a big fan of those guys.
Are you the guy that used to always post way too many South Park quotes on this blog? If so, at least you found some new material. But try not to run this gag into the ground like the others.
Oh thank god.
Have you seen the play? I've heard some good things about it from Christians. Apparently your attempts to troll all Christians with the verses you pull out is some pretty weak sauce when you put it in context of satire and the commentary about our general society: not just Mormons who happen to attempt mission work in Africa. Right?
Yes I have seen the play. I thought it was hilarious.
Satan: Then, at midnight for dessert, I was thinking we could bring out a giant chocolate fondue fountain.
Hotel owner: Oh yeah. P. Diddy had his birthday here a couple of years back and he had one of those.
Satan: Oh, screw that then. I don't want a fondue fountain if P. Diddy had one.
Satan's minion: Does it matter?
Satan: Yes, it matters! I don't want to do it if Diddy did it.
Satan's minion: How about a donut machine?
Satan: [to hotel owner] Did Diddy do it?
Hotel owner: Diddy did do it.
Satan: A full ice cream bar!
Hotel owner: Diddy did it.
Satan: Dammit, what didn't Diddy do?!
Kyle Broflovski: Jimmy, exactly what part of the fishsticks joke did Cartman write?
Jimmy Valmer: Well, he didn't actually write... any of it.
Kyle Broflovski: Let me guess: you came up with the joke, and Cartman sat on the couch eating Twizzlers?
Jimmy Valmer: Actually, it was potato chips.
It's pretty sad to see some of the things that go on here.
We have people who have no respect for others and no regard for the CONCEPT of the Golden Rule (regardless of belief in the Bible). If there is one concept that I think the entire world could use to improve life, it is EMPATHY. Radical concept, apparently.
We have people so lacking in HONESTY and INTEGRITY that they refuse to answer questions although they claim they have all the answers for life.
We have people that are so BIGOTED that they want laws changed to FORCE people to the fringes of society.
And we have people here who are apparently so mentally disturbed that they need to assume a variety of aliases so they can get people angered enough to talk to them.
We have a great opportunity here to intelligently exchange ideas from around our nation and the world. We should be extremely grateful that CNN is willing to offer this service. It is pitiful to see what we do with its possibilities.
Just sing it with me and you will feel better:
"Hasa Diga Eebowai"
"Hasa Diga Eebowai"
Hasa Diga Eebowai,
You are sounding more and more like you might fall in the 4th category above.
~ It may appear as if the Superior Atheist is not worth dealing with. After all, there will always be people so confident in a world view that they cling to it, desperately fighting off an criticism and attempts to point out the gaping holes in their convictions. Still, the Superior Atheist deserves a chance. Reform is possible. I should know. After all, turn the clock back a few years and I’d fit right into the description of the Superior Atheist. ~
There is hope for Hasa.
http://aafwaterloo.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/your-superiority-complex-annoys-me/
He can overcome his superiority complex. He can learn to follow the Golden Rule.
He doesn't have to be a bigot.
I am not a bigot, and I don't feel superior. So....
"Hasa Diga Eebowai"
You just act like a bigot. And you definitely have a superiority complex.
“Hasa Diga Eebowai” means "I have blind spots, please help me see why I project my self hatred onto all Christians"
It is a cry for help. We hear you, buddy. It is ok. We'll guide you out of this hell into peace.
'“Hasa Diga Eebowai” means "I have blind spots, please help me see why I project my self hatred onto all Christians"
No, that is not what it means.
We do all have blind spots.
Often others see in us what we can't see in ourselves. We build up walls and shift blame onto other people as a defense mechanism.
Some religions have programs to deal with such facts of life. And professional psychologists and counselors are wonderful people to help with such problems, if you can afford it.
Denny Crane!
My friends, my friends, whenever life gets you down, like you get AIDS or a war lord cuts off your clitoris, just say my name "Hasa Diga Eebowai" and flip off god. You will feel much better!
Christians? Nothing from you?
Where is god when babies are being starved and burned by their freak parents. Or stuffed in boxes. Or chained to walls or molested by their parents or starved? Love that god of yours.
Anybody? Christians? No problem with this huh, ok.
observer
Dalahäst
What questions did I not answer? I will answer right now.
observer, that email was meant for the Dalahäst person.
How do you feed the needy and help the sick in your community? How do you do this in other people's community? Do you open your home or workplace to house the homeless in your community?
What principles do you embrace? Do you have any kind of program or system to keep yourself honest? Do you have a support group or community that will hold you accountable to what you say and do?
Are you honestly helping others? Or do you just like to insult Christians?
Do you honestly believe all Christians are really, really, really stupid like you claimed? Even the ones that are paid good money to teach others how to care for others and how to master a science or understanding of technology?
I feed the needy with a spoon at the soup kitchen and help the sick by suggesting they see a doctor and helping them get Obamacare. I spend a great deal of time every week with the elderly.
Donations
Yes
Honesty and fairness
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
And there are Christians that do the exact same as you.
Why do you feel the need to preach to all Christians the need to go and help others? Many are doing more than you are! Perhaps you could see where some are right.
Aren't some of the people you feed with spo.ons at the soup kitchen Christians? Don't Christians need help getting to a doctor for medical care? Don't Christians need help signing up for Obama.care?
Did you know my church offers programs that meet these exact needs for all people in need? They have a lot in common with you. And they are doing just as much, and in some cases even more than you.
That all may be true and that is fine. They are still stupid to believe in god and the bible.
Not believing in God and not believing in the Bible doesn't make you smart. Any idiot can be an atheist.
People that can demonstrate a higher level of intelligence than you do believe in God and in the Bible. And none act or believe in the ways you suggest.
I've seen Christians and people from other religions demonstrate intelligence.
Can you do that? You really haven't proven anything other than you are incredibly closed minded and you really dislike Christians and imagine you are superior to them (despite providing any evidence to the contrary).
WAIT A MINUTE!
You embrace "honesty" and "fairness" principles?
Do you honestly believe all Christians worship slavery, human sacrifice and torture?
Do you really think it is fair to suggest all Christians worship such things?
Are you fair toward Christians? Or do you feel you are superior and don't need to be fair?
You sound like you are full of sh.it.
You obviously have no program or honest people in your life to keep you accountable.
You just do what feels right. And imagining you are superior feels right to you. So you do it
You are no different than the Christians you profess to be better than.
Dalahäst,
Keep in mind that the usual "Christian" troll may be switching sides to get his jollies. Could be. No Salero tonight.
"You are no different than the Christians you profess to be better than."
You are correct sometimes. That is almost certainly the truth.
observer
True. And it wouldn't be the first time I've fallen for such a scheme.
At least I can stay true to my principles.
Do you think your insults and stereotyping of Christians may actually prevent you from helping those in need and healing the sick? What if a homeless person who happens to be Christian needs a home? Are you going to call him or her really, really, really stupid and tell them how good you are?
Do you honestly believe it is easy to be good and honest in this complex and complicated world we live in? Why do all of our popular movies, literature and tv shows seem to challenge your simplistic notion of life? Do you live a privileged and sheltered life? Have you ever gone a period of time without food or a place to live?
" complex and complicated "
Actually it is pretty to understand. No god, ignorant Christians.
"The Superior Atheist believes that its position as an atheist grants it an intellectual superiority above all others. It argues that its position as an atheist allows it access to a truth that more feeble minds have been unable to attain. You may hear it make statements such as, “religion is the sole cause of all wars, 9/11 happened because of religion and no other reason”, or, “the only reason for the existence of faith is a fear of death.” Such statements are, of course, wrong. They are highly simplistic analysis of the complex world in which we live. Failing to account for other factors they leave much to be desired as explanations for how the world and the people in it function."
That was written by an atheist.
I think you are totally guilty of this description: They are highly simplistic analysis of the complex world in which we live.
http://aafwaterloo.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/your-superiority-complex-annoys-me/
You should check that out.
That is a true statement. I don't see an issue.
Haha.
I love this guy!
Peace out Hasa!
So, the author is saying that atheists suffering from a superiority complex are annoying and not smart – and need to be called out. And you have no problem with it?
Why should I? I can't control it.
You can't control your superiority complex?
Not really.
It's ok. The author stated he was able to recover from his superiority complex. I'm sure you can do it, too.
The truth is I have an inferiority complex. You are way off.
""The Superior Atheist believes that its position as an atheist grants it an intellectual superiority above all others."
"You don't know what I believe".... now where have I heard that before??....... friggin hypocrite.
Hasa Diga Eebowai,
There are the questions you asked for. So what are the answers?
Okay. Just a timing problem.
truthfollower01,
You've said that all the main Bibles such as King James, New International Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, etc. ALL CONTAIN ERRORS.
So what is the ONE TRUE BIBLE?
Please answer quickly truthfollower01, men are cutting off the clitoris of women in Africa. It is barbaric, cruel and painful and I just know the TRUE bible will save them.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Like I told you, truthfollower01 doesn't answer questions and so dodges and hides. All trolls do that. It's fun watching him make a fool of himself.
He actually does address most questions. You often ask him loaded questions and than berate and call him names. You sure do love tell others about how he "dodges", which is a term anti-theists use way too much. Especially when they are guilty of doing the exact type of things.
Hasa has dodged all my questions and keeps trying to paint me into his stereotyped view of what a Christian is. You going to hold him to the same standards as TF?
Or are you going to continue with your double standards?
Dalahäst
"He actually does address most questions. You often ask him loaded questions and than berate and call him names."
The only name I call him is troll. Check your facts so you'll know better next time.
If you think he answers questions, then ask him if he supports all the morals in the Bible that he praises as the source for our morals. Go ahead.
Dalahäst
Yes, Hasa should answer your questions.
When he has failed to do so for several days like your man truthfollower01 has done, then he should be held to the same standards.
I'll let you obsess over him for days and days and days. It really isn't that interesting to me. Just curious why you follow him around and tattle-tale on him so much?
Dalahäst,
It works both ways. If you look back, you'll see conversations ended and then the next day he resumed them.
It's kind of interesting to try to find out why someone would continue to troll when it appears likely they might not believe a thing they are saying. His obsession is asking the same two or three questions over and over despite them being answered several times. The motivation is a fascinating question.
Ok, I need to pay better attention. Thanks for the heads up.
The Bible (the collection of human texts which were non-unanimously VOTED into a canon), never saved anyone.
See Dr. Bart Ehrman's new book : "How Jesus Became a God."
The part about how the Council of Nicea cooked up the "god status" is interesting.
You'd do better to pray to Dumbledore/
When your doctor gets the AIDS or your family dies from Ebola, just lift your face to the sky and thank god.
When you post stuff like that, just lift your face to the mirror and say "Why am I such a bigot".
Don't expect any of the internet anti-theists answer that question honestly for you. They'll just support you in the shifting of the blame onto others.
You need to look deep withing yourself and figure out that for yourself. That hate you are projecting onto Christians, is actually something deep down within yourself that you hate.
You will have no peace until you deal with that fact, brother.
Oh I don't hate Christians. I just think you all are really, really, really stupid.
Again, you probably deep down feel stupid and hate that about yourself.
You really are not that stupid. You have good gifts to offer others. Your preaching and insisting you are superior are not those gifts. You need to share those gifts that actually help others. And then you can live up to the same ideals you preach. And you will experience peace and no longer need to stereotype others or hold bigoted views against belief systems that differ from yours.
Look, we are different you and I, you see? I am against torture and slavery and human sacrifice and inequality, while you worship these things.
Ugh. That was dumb.
You are either trolling or have some deep troubles that cause you to lash out in silly ways.
Either way, it really is up to you to deal with these problems inside of you. The evidence you present us is right there. It is ok.
Hasa: In defense of Dala, you have called this one wrong. While his belief in god may not be the best idea, he is by far not the typical hateful christian...he at least attempts to live by the Golden Rule. Painting every christian with the same broad brush is far from fair and doesn't help our side..you just give people like truthhfollower-a true bigot, ammo.
Hasa is a true bigot. There are plenty of bigots on your side, too. Unfortunate to say.
Yes Dala...bigotry is not limited to belief.
Anyone who disagrees with you I see is "troubled". Nice try at evasion. You are not competent to practice Psychology, you charlatan.
You are absolutely wrong. You are not competent to practice psychology either (it is not a proper noun).
Just this guy seems troubled; he tries to stereotype all Christians as inferior to him and imagines I worship slavery. I'm really perplexed by the guy.
Dalahäst
"Ugh. That was dumb"
Why would you say that? It is your bible. I am not the one that believes that nonsense.
Whatever nonsense you imagine I don't believe in.
Do you not believe in the Big Bang because it was fathered by a Christian?
Do you not believe in the civil rights movement because it was led by a Christian?
Do you not believe in modern medicine because it was founded and supported by so many Christians?
I don't worship those things you suggest. I take a stand against such things. Like millions of other Christians have. Many have done more than you have in regards to opposing such things. Like lose their lives. So whatever you are suggesting seems very, very, very silly.
Your questions do not make sense to me. Why would I not believe in things that are real? (unlike god)
Did I try to an'alyze him? No. Again you attempt evasion. Christians can be dismissive of atheists, and "spread the good news". When atheists do the SAME thing, they're "militant".
Hasa,
You said all Christians are really, really, really stupid. Yet some of these really, really, really stupid people master science in a way you can't.
And you entrust your life to these really, really, really stupid people everyday. You would let these really, really, really stupid people operate on your body. Or fly your plane. Or defend your nation as the captain of an army.
If these really, really, really stupid people can score a higher iq than you, demonstrate logic and reason better than you (ie people pay them big bucks for their skills), and carry out actually helping other better than you... what does that make you?
And some of these really, really, really stupid people need help. You are saying Christians need to help others – some of these "others" are Christians. And you certainly aren't helping.
Dalahäst,
You sound like this is a reversal of "sides" and you are dealing with Salero.
Dalahäst
It is really really really stupid to believe in the bible and god. Just to clear that up since you are having a hissy fit.
No. It is really stupid to be a bigot and insist your view that the Bible is stupid is the only acceptable one to hold.
That is closed-mindedness. Nothing smart about that.
In case you Christians don't understand me. I am telling you to put down all of your ridiculous religious books like the bible and go out in the real world where the suffering proves the absence of gods. If there are gods, flip them the bird. Now I am saying quit wasting your time on dogma and church and social circles and jewelry, etc. and feed the hungry.
How does suffering prove the absence of God?
gods don't hate their creations do they?
Who said God hated His creation?
Well your god kills off humans by the millions.
Hasa,
We live in a fallen world corrupted by sin and rebellion against God. The wages of sin is death. Did you answer the questions I listed below? Are you innocent or guilty?
Oh I am quite innocent. Why do you hate yourself so much. Self-loathing is unattractive like Christianity.
You can honestly answer innocently to those questions?
I don't have your hang ups. You are freaky man. I have made mistakes in life that I own. So what, life goes on. Get your nose out of your bible books and open a window. Reality is out there.
We live in a fallen world corrupted by sin and rebellion against God. The wages of sin is death. Did you answer the questions I listed below? Are you innocent or guilty? – fallacyfollower1
- There is not a shred of evidence that the world we live in today was any different at any time in the past. Humans evolved form others, who evolved from primate precursors. The "fallen" world baloney is a pathetic childish attempt by uneducated religionist fundies to explain the world they see around themselves. Dinosaurs, (which DID exist long before humans) got cancer. So much for a "fallen world".
If there were a loving god, it would not permit 7 year old innocent children to die painfully from cancer. If the deity is subject to the Reality of a "fallen" world, and too stupid and uninterested to intervene, then it's not worth worshiping.
Are you innocent or guilty before a holy and righteous God?
tf,
Your "God" character allegedly sends people to eternal damnation or oblivion if they are unable to believe the myths dreamed up by some men in a tribe in the Middle East a few thousand years ago; and this "God" refuses to provide concrete evidence of 'his' existence and desires to all of 'his' creation equally. 'He' certainly must hate the vast majority of people who ever lived or who ever will live.
I am too busy flipping off your silly gods.
Bucky,
Can you give me evidence for a change in kind? Say, canines to felines (that would be a change in kind).
We do live in a fallen world – or a world that fails to live up to its own ideals.
Christians fail to live up to their ideals.
Atheists who embrace logic and reason fail to live up to their own ideals.
Secular humanists fail to live up to their own ideals.
Etc, etc. Everybody seems to fail. Some groups own up to this failure. Some try to rationalize it or shift the blame on others.
We were hopeful with the advances of technology and science to hopefully put these failure behind us, yet they seem to have gotten bigger.
No we got guys like Hasa telling others what they need to do, yet even he can't do what he is asking others. He is living in his own fallen world.
"*Now we got guys like Hasa telling..."
Otoh,
God carries out judgement on the wicked.
Answer a few questions for me if you would.
1. How many lies would you say you’ve told in your life?
2. Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value?
3. Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word? (called blasphemy)
4.have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?(if so, Jesus said you have committed adultery with that person in your heart.)
If you’re like me, you are a self professed lying, stealing, blaspheming adulterer at heart or some form thereof. A holy God must punish wickedness, otherwise He wouldn’t be just. Given your confession, will you be guilty or innocent? If you’re like me and everyone else on this board, you are guilty. However, God provided a way for salvation through the blood of His innocent Son who took the punishment on the cross, that we might be declared innocent. Think of it like this. You’re in a court room. you’re guilty as you’ve professed. Someone walks in and pays your fine for you. Now the judge can legally dismiss your case and let you go. This is the gospel message. What you must do is repent (turn from your sins) and submit to Jesus as Lord of your life. This following is enabled by God when He gives you new desires and a heart that wants to please God instead of the flesh.
Otoh,
Creation itself is concrete evidence of God's existence.
truthfollower01,
You said earlier that God had died. So which is it?
Observer,
Which is what?
tf,
Do you paste that response on every page? It has been rebutted six ways from Sunday. You sound like a drone.
truthfollower01,
You said earlier that God had DIED. Now you are talking like he is still alive. So which is it?
Otoh,
Are you talking about the Gospel message? When you say refuted, are you saying your innocent of those questions?
Observer, Jesus died and rose from the dead.
Some dude allegedly named jesus allegedly die and allegedly rose from the dead, with no actual evidence for any of the allegations.
truthfollower01
"Jesus died and rose from the dead."
Now you have it. It wasn't GOD like you claimed.
Which is the CORRECT Bible that doesn't have the ERRORS in them like all the best-selling ones do about the woman protecting her husband and getting her hand cut off for doing so?
"God carries out judgement on the wicked.
Answer a few questions for me if you would.
1. How many lies would you say you’ve told in your life?
2. Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value?
3. Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word? (called blasphemy)
4.have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?(if so, Jesus said you have committed adultery with that person in your heart.)"
Here's a nice response to this well-worn evangelical "what if" picking up at ~5:30 . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG2ffBV4VbE
Observer, Jesus is God.
truthfollower01
"Observer, Jesus is God."
Read a Bible SOMEDAY. The Bible says Jesus was God's son and called to his father while on the cross. In your version, he was just talking to himself. lol.
Ooooops.
Hitchens: A Zillion – Babble Humper: 0 !!
Christopher Hitchens entrusted his life into the hands of an evangelical Christian.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370145/Atheist-Christopher-Hitchens-turns-evangelical-Christian-doctor-fight-cancer.html
He smoked and drank dangerous amounts of alcohol, which was a very illogical thing to do. Especially when he knew the dangers associated with such actions. Yet, at the same time, he criticized some for being illogical in their religion. Yet, when it mattered, he demonstrated respect and admiration for Christians.
"a holy and righteous god" ...
An interesting string of words. If a god is holy and righteous, then it always had to be that way. That means that for all eternity, along WITH the god, non-existence, non-righteousness, and evil HAD to exist, (or that god is not eternal. That means, of course that god is not the creator of the very Reality that is required for it's own qualities, and in which it MUST participate.
There is not one legitimate academic center in the entire world that questions Evolution. :Kinds" don't change. They have common ancestors. Thanks for demonstrating yet again how ignorant you fundies are about science.
1. How many lies would you say you’ve told in your life?
2. Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value?
3. Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word? (called blasphemy)
4.have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?(if so, Jesus said you have committed adultery with that person in your heart.)
1/2: Both can be criminal 3/4: Merely thought crimes, thus not really crimes. Grow up and learn that not everyone (5 billion approximately) agree with your version, if any, of god.
What makes you think you or your book are the authoritative voices for this world? Do you follow every word in the bible??? Do you own slaves? Do you beat your children? Do you condone a rape victim being forced to marry her attacker? Do you concur that women must remain silent? Do you think that LGBT are wrong for being born that way? Do you believe that women were put here to reproduce and thus should not be allowed to use birth control?
Do you fail to see that your religion is merely a few thousand years old and that the use of it has contributed to many atrocity? Do you fail to see that your views are no longer being taken seriously on a great many issues?? Do you fail to see that if we keep waiting for your imaginary friend to return, we are dooming ourselves? Do you comprehend that approximately 1400 species show signs of LGBT? Do you even care about anything more than making it to the great beyond??
"Creation itself is concrete evidence of God's existence."
Big fat lie..... there is zero evidence for god's existence... why do Christians lie to support their beliefs in the imaginary?
No, he turned to an eminent doctor who happened to be a member of a christian cult. He showed respect for the doctor, not a religious cult. He remained an atheist to the end.
Christopher Hitchens remained an atheist. But he also expressed immense respect for some Christians. His angry atheist rants seemed to be more a schtick to sell books. That was his profession: writing philosophy – most of it was anti-theist and, for some reason, misogynist and often very rude.
If he really thought religious people were delusional, he wouldn't put his life in the hands of religious people.
Bucky,
Please provide evidence for macro evolution.
Observer,
Are you not familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity?
belief follower
There is no such thing as micro and macro evolution. There is evolution, and there is time.
Those terms are used by creationsist in an attempt to poke holes in valid science, but are not in reality anything different, like having adim light as apposed to a bright light. Just different ways of describing the same thing.
So there is a huge amount of information showing evolution has happened, adn continues to happen.
It is in your DNA, and in the DNA of every living thing on the planet, including you.
The term micro or macro evoultion is invalid, and only used by people who do not understand science, like creationists.
I think what they are talking about is this.
Micro-evolution: Let's say you have a lioness. Said lioness lives in a savanna-like climate. Tall, dry grasses. If one of the lionesses, say had tan or fawn fur it would more easily be able to hide and therefore more easily get the jump on prey. Whereas the lioness with say, darker fur would more easily stand out to its prey. The darker furred lioness is more likely to die out because it cannot get food. Therefore, the lioness with fawn fur mates with lions with fawn fur and create more and more lions/lionesses with fawn fur.
Macro-evolution: Where I think non-evolutionists (is that a word?) get tripped up is if someone is to claim that our lion above, over time, would become something completely different, like a wolf.
To be honest, I don't know the answer. I don't think any of us do.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There is only evolution. The other two terms were invented by young earth creationists to express their doubt.
According to UC Berkeley, the terms micro and macro evolution are indeed legitimate.
"Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life. – http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_37
Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction – http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_47
@Dalahast
"If he really thought religious people were delusional, he wouldn't put his life in the hands of religious people."
What Hitchens understood, and what you apparently do not, is that one can be highly-skilled in a particular area yet still hold irrational beliefs in a different or even related area. If your car were on the fritz, would you choose a highly-qualified atheist mechanic or a devout theist gardener? In addition to the poor reasoning betrayed in your tangential replies, I would note that you failed to respond to any of Hitchens comments.
"Please provide evidence for macro evolution."
Positive supporting evidence: Deep cosmological and geologic time; the progressive order of the fossil record; transitional/intermediate forms; phylogenetic analyses of extant and extinct forms confirming the relationships in the fossil record; vestigial anatomical and molecular components (e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve, human gene for egg yolk protein); real-time observations of all requisite evolutionary mechanisms and processes expected given the time frames available (from the production of "novel genetic information" to the evolution of complex anatomical structures to confirmed speciation events); consistent confirmed predictions of these various observations; validation of our understanding of macroevolution (and related scientific disciplines) in direct applications ranging from medicine to agriculture to engineering.
Negative supporting evidence: No observations of forms in the wrong place in the fossil record, no observed constraints on the ability of micro evolution to culminate into gross divergence; no observations of true chimeras; no observations of organisms appearing ex nihilo; etc, etc.
Iga,
Please provide evidence for Darwinian evolution, change in kind. An example would be like a change from feline to canine or vice versa.
Redzoa,
Please provide what you would consider the strongest fossil we have that demonstrates a change in kind.
Redzoa,
When you say "novel genetic information", would this include things like the nucleus of a one celled amoeba? Richard Dawkins indicates that the message found in just the cell nucleus of an amoeba is more than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined.
@tf – "Please provide what you would consider the strongest fossil we have that demonstrates a change in kind."
Asking for one fossil that demonstrates a change in kind betrays a miscomprehension of how fossils support macroevolution. It is the juxtaposition of a given fossil between forms that provides the evidence. For example, we have clear fish fossils and we have clear tetrapod fossils, and then we have Tiktaalik which bears features of both fish and tetrapods. Similarly, we have clear dino fossils and we have clear bird fossils, and then we have Archeopteryx which bears features of both fish and tetrapods. If you were interested, there are plenty of sites which describe progressions of fossils in which transitional/intermediate forms bear traits which bridge the forms below and above. But what's important here is that these two forms I've mentioned (along with many others) simply should not exist according to the genesis narrative, because they, in fact, display traits which directly bridge between what are alleged to be distinct and insular specially created "kinds." Additionally, the simplest fossil evidence for macro evolution is that the major vertebrate classes appear in a discrete order, i.e. first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds. There are similar progressions available for plants and invertebrates. These progressions alone confound all of the creationist models attempting to account for the order. I believe I've mentioned them to you before (i.e. "hydrodynamic sorting," "eco-zonation," "differential escape," "floating biomes," etc); but in each case, the fact that we see forms of similar density, ecology, and geography separated by many, many layers of strata is quite clear evidence that they did not, as required by literal creationism, coexist both before and after the flood (e.g. dolphins exclusively above plesiosaurs, eagles exclusively above pteranodons, modern humans exclusively above all dinosaurs and the vast majority of the hominid and pre-hominid lineages).
"When you say "novel genetic information", would this include things like the nucleus of a one celled amoeba? Richard Dawkins indicates that the message found in just the cell nucleus of an amoeba is more than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined."
I'm aware that you find this analogy very impressive and I agree it is quite impressive. But as I stated, we know that purely natural mechanisms can and do produce novel genetic information. For example, Lenski's E. coli experiment showed the evolution of a novel trait via gene duplication, reinsertion and further mutational improvements (it's worth noting that in relative bacterial taxonomic terms, Lenski's E. coli was approximate to a "kinds" level change). Like actual encyclopedias and the addition of new subject entries, evolution can and does work to consistently expand and refine the informational content of genomes. But unlike actual encyclopedias, genomes can experience significant duplication events, sometimes including a duplication of the entire genome itself (e.g. polyploidy in plants). Furthermore, genomes can add significant information content with relatively minor changes to regulatory pathways. That is, one or a few mutations in a genetic regulatory pathway can have a synergistic/exponential effect. Suffice it say, the known molecular mechanisms of evolution more than account for this impressive collection of genomic information content.
Oops. Should have read "then we have Archeopteryx which bears features of both dinos and birds."
@dala... "Christopher Hitchens entrusted his life into the hands of an evangelical Christian."
Nice try... his being a Christian has nothing to do with how he practices medicine. My doctor is a Christian but he doesn't intertwine his practice of medicine with his personal beliefs.. I also have respect for some Christians, just not lying hypocrites.
"He smoked and drank dangerous amounts of alcohol, which was a very illogical thing to do. Especially when he knew the dangers associated with such actions. Yet, at the same time, he criticized some for being illogical in their religion. Yet, when it mattered, he demonstrated respect and admiration for Christians."
Yup, hitch was a human, with flaws like all humans... now what about your jeebus the hateful bigot god/man? the supposed son of god, or is it god in human form?
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. — Luke 19:27 1"
"“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war”, “His eyes were as a flame of fire”, clothed in a vesture dipped in blood“, and “out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”"
"Numbers 31:17 "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
And Hitch was a journalist, that was his profession. Do you call everyone a "philosopher" ? Hitch spent his life speaking and writing the truth about the destructive nature of religion...
so many deluded believers....... some day the world will be rid of the harmful effects of religion.
Yes!
Christians are helping others. Maybe you should follow their lead. Or perhaps follow your own advice and quit wasting your time with your broad generalizations of others and focus on what you can do. You certainly can do more than get on your soapbox and try to tell others what to do. You sound like someone who really doesn't do anything but talk.
Don't get me wrong. I'm asking you to abandon your ridiculous beliefs and message board postings and to actually do something.
There are AIDS victims in Africa who happen to be Christian, and they don't need a dude like you acting all 'holier than thou' in front of them. They actually need help.
DUPED into being Christian. An idiotic religion like all the rest.
Eh. Most charitable and humanitarians are not as bigoted against other's beliefs as you. All talk, I'm sure. Thanks for sharing.
You are welcome. Thank you.
Good people do good things. Religion is irrelevant.
Human beings have the capacity to do great and wonderful things. And yet, also to do horrible and tragic things.
A religion can encourage a person to seek out the great and wonderful things. Or the horrible and tragic things.
And lack of religion can do the same.
But if you have a good religion based on good principles – you have the capacity to do good things. Especially if you find others that embrace such principles and are devoted to carrying those out.
When you find such a thing – the evidence is overwhelming. God is calling people to such programs. And it is often to people you would say are not "good people". And I have seen evidence of them changing their ways. It is beautiful,
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg
People have twisted science, religion and philosophy to suggest horrible things.
What about my religion is an insult to human dignity? Nothing. That quote is his personal opinion and not very well thought out. Is it possible for religion to insult human dignity. Yes. Does all religion insult human dignity? Absolutely not.
Dala: Maybe not but people use their belief to do horrible things all the time and history is full of it. Just read through tf's postings-wishing to deny equal rights and to step on the personal rights of others....not one care about humanity, just about appeasing the god he/she believes in. You, unlike many believers, are not bigoted or hateful.
Unfortunately way too many non-religious people are bigoted and hateful.
Dalahäst
"Unfortunately way too many non-religious people are bigoted and hateful."
True, but at least you don't see them raising tens of millions of dollars to fight giving equal rights to all or fighting to change the law to discriminate against gays.
No, I just seem them posting on religious blogs. And they don't seem to do anything else but criticize Christians all day long.
Lets hope some day they can actually demonstrate a better way to live. Not just talk about it.
Dala: If christians were not the primary force in this world denying equal rights based on their holy book, they might not be picked on to the degree they are. It is okay for them to have their belief but it is best kept to their homes and churches and out of the public view. You wouldn't want a Pagan or Muslim imposing their belief on you, why do it to anyone else?
Christians aren't the primary source in the world doing such things. Maybe in your mind – your world – they are.
Human beings are the source of such things. It is nothing exclusive to Christianity. You seem to spend a lot of time online. Do you interact in the real world with real Christians?
I know many g,ays that are Christian. Are they opressing themselves of equal rights? No.
You seem to spend way too much time on religious blogs.
Really Dala? Do you pay my internet bill? Thus it is not your business how much time I spend on this blog. This is belief blog, not just for christians, so I will spend whatever amount of time I wish here and when you manage to find a way to pay my bills, then your opinion on how much time is spent will be taken in to consideration. You seem to spend a lot of your time here as well...so your hypocrisy is noted.
Yes it is christians out there largely pushing their belief-in almost every aspect, how you deny that is baffling. I'm not saying all christians but a vast majority. Re-read tf's comments-people like that help to bury christianity because they make it appear like a hateful group.
I didn't say this blog was just for Christians. But it is silly for someone who gripes about the behavior of all the world's primary source of inequality, Christians, to spend so much time on here, looking for reasons to get yet offended again. You live in a free nation composed of mostly Christians. There are Christians who have fought and died for your right to believe the way you do, even when it is silly and even mocked by most reasonable atheists.
You get kind of sensitive when someone mentions the enormous amount of time you spend on religious blogs. Many atheists and Christians like myself wonder how you have time for anything else?
Dala: Who exactly is wondering that? It would be rather hypopcritical of anyone posting here to wonder that...including you! And how exactly is it anyone's business how much time myself or anyone else spends here? I work; I pay my way in this world and I'm not always here...so your fallacious claim is shot.
I get offended when christians try to claim their belief is the only way to go and when they attempt to use it as a ploy in this world to dictate how people should live, just as christians tend to get offended when they are asked to back up their claims.
There is a phenomenon called internet atheist:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet%20atheist
Unfortunately you seem to fit the bill. I'm sure other atheists would agree with me.
Especially in regards to this commentary:
"They usually lack any sense of humor if jokes are made about them, but they find nothing wrong with being incredibly offensive to the point of being disgusting when making jokes about religious people. They also love to show off their knowledge about any subject they might know something about."
You don't have to continue living that way.
Dala, you don't have to continue living as you do, believing in religious crap for which their is no actual evidence.
Sorry to burst that tiny bubble Dala but you're wrong. You don't get to assume anything about anyone based on a public blog and if other Atheist's are thinking the same, they are certainly more quiet about it than you are but I guess in a sense we're all 'internet Atheists'. I'm not debating this when your hypocrisy shows through.
I have evidence, silly ace. Just because you can't or won't see it doesn't make it disappear.
I don't live by your standards, opinions or beliefs. Only you do. So you make the decision that works best for you. You have no idea what I know or believe, so stick to what you know: yourself and how to post your opinions and philosophy on a message board section of a religion blog. You are great at it! If posting personal opinions on the internet was a science, you would be an elite scientist. Good job!
Most atheists are not "Atheists". Atheist just means they don't believe in God. It is not a belief system that requires a capitol A like you hold. Nor do they claim the "Truth Prevails", yet instead of truth post opinions and distortions of facts about groups of people they dislike.
I may be wrong. You claim I'm a decent religious person. I claim you are an example of an atheist who treats atheism like a religion. And you act a lot like the religious people you claim to be better than. Which is incredibly ironic – and kind of sad. But that is the truth as I see it.
Sorry if it isn't very nice. But it is the truth.
@dala... "I have evidence, silly ace. Just because you can't or won't see it doesn't make it disappear."
Here we go again with the hypocritical word twister...... again, your imagination is not "EVIDENCE"
Evidence = "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
Funny.... I don't see "imagination" in there...
"Most atheists are not "Atheists".
How arrogant to claim to know what "most atheists" are....
Dala: There you go assumming again. I have used this alias since I began commenting here years ago. I understand very well that Atheism is not a religion and I don't treat it that way. I'm an Atheist here and in my life outside of here, so you'd be wrong on that also. All that started this retort from you was a simple quote...I'm starting to think you and Kermit are one and the same...but I could be wrong-the beauty of the internet.
Christians you tell the lies you preach against. You waste your time on this Christian fake god. You waste MONEY on luxury after luxury. Shall I make a list? Go feed the needy and help the sick. Let the homeless find shelter in your silly churches. Make them useful. Ridiculous Christians.
Do they make sweeping generalizations and resort to simple-minded stereotypes? Do they get all preachy and try to tell people what to do?
Or is that just what you do?
Why don't you lead by example and actually help others? Why not let strangers into your home to live?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZkjo3mNmsA&feature=kp
You sound defensive. Looks like I struck a nerve. We MUST all do what we can to help our brothers and sisters. We must NOT fill their brains with lies and false hope.
Hasa, without God, I can't see any reason for hope.
Most people who suggest "all atheists do this..." or "all Christians do that" definitely strike a nerve with me.
Can you suggest a practical way to help others? I'm involved with Christian and secular groups that do such things. I have never met a soul that was helping that talked like you do. I have seen some that talk like you and in reality they were just that: all talk.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Don't be sure that the troll truthfollower01 is actually a Christian.
Ask him if he believes in particular morals in the Bible and watch him dodge and hide. Zero credibility. Just so you know.
Observer, there is a great book that addresses many of the moral things you bring up on these boards that you should read and use as a reference. It's called, "Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan.
@Dalahäst
I practice what I preach without the need for a bunch of goofy lies from a phony book.
truthfollower01,
There is a book called the Bible. Why not read one SOMEDAY so you can figure out if you agree with all the morals in it, troll?
@truthfollower01
Christians are defending gods and phony books and even suggesting more silly books ABOUT silly books that I should read instead of doing something productive.
Hasa,
"We must NOT fill their brains with lies and false hope."
Without God, where is hope?
Hope? 200,000 children die horrible deaths every year. Clearly there is no god and no hope.
Haha
So are you judging yourself based on your own standards to draw this conclusion about yourself being able to practice what you preach?
I seriously doubt people like you that try to preach to others how to live. Too often they are hypocrites and often they have blind spots so they are incapable of fixing themselves of this problem.
What principles do you embrace? Do you use any type of program to keep yourself honest?
Like, I follow Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean I follow a bunch of goofy lies from a phony book.
I actually have a set of ideals and principles I strive to follow. And the consequence of living that way makes me more helpful to others, especially those in need.
It works. And I don't have to act like a preachy atheist/Christian like you.
No, you just waste time yapping about your beliefs. Do something.
I'm doing something.
You should do something instead of yapping about your prejudiced beliefs against Christians. There are Christians who are in need of help and they don't need a bigot with a giant ego that goes unchecked preaching against them. That is not helpful.
Bull.
Let me guess? You really can't describe any principles you embrace? And you have no program of accountability? Like, you can just imagine you are helping others, but don't really have to do anything? And you imagine that gives you the right to judge all Christians as inferior to you, despite the evidence that many probably carry out what you are asking better than you?
That would suck. I'd probably act like you, too, if I had to live by your standards.
I am not afraid of life as you are so your weirdness does not apply.
Hasa, without God, I can't see any reason for hope.
-- You need a shrink. You want the sucker for going to the dentist. At least atheists do things for NO reward.
You think the deity who let 20,000 people die in a tsunami provides you some hope ?
Hasa,
You must be afraid of life. Apparently I've struck a nerve. I never said anything about being afraid of life. I asked you how do you keep yourself honest? Or are you simply just imagining you are superior to Christians so that ent,itles you to act like a preacher and get all holy roller on us?
Do you find it hard to be good and honest? I don't. Maybe your bible book is the problem.
It is easy to declare yourself as good and honest.
It is very difficult to actually live that way.
Anyone who says it is easy is incapable of being honest with themselves or others, or is very young, naive and lives a sheltered life.
Or not.
Which is very easy for you to say.
But difficult for you to carry out, hu?
No.
You can't be serious. Not even Forest Gump was that simple minded.
Now you are making fun of the simple minded? They are easy recruits for Christianity huh?
I've never heard anyone offer such simple-minded and child-like explanations as you. Except maybe Forest if he were closed minded and angry.
I disagree. Additionally your complete disregard for the mentally ill is alarming.
What? Forest Gump wasn't mentally ill. He was simple minded.
Are you mentally ill? What are you saying?
I can't understand these Christians man, belly-aching all day everyday about gods and sins and sex. They love the sex. What about the things in life that really matter huh? The down, the sick and the needy. No one needs some phony bible. You waste your time and your brain and your money. Flip god the middle finger and be free man.
Seriously, do you have even an inkling of a clue as to who in large part meets the needs of the "down, the sick, and the needy ."
Only good courageous hard working people who are not afraid to get dirty and risk illness truly help those in need. No gods are needed. I say look to the heavens and flip the gods the bird. Why do you disrespect me foolish one?
Thank you, you've answered my question.
Would you like to tell me about your bible book in your own words, and how a book will help the aids victims?
Doris,
"It's just as reasonable to think that Paul was the Joseph Smith of his time with regard to evidence for his claims."
Remember, Paul received the information in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 concerning the appearances of a resurrected Jesus.
New Testament critic and historian Bart Ehrman indicates that the credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 can be traced to 1 year after the cross. I have included the verses below.
1 Corinthians 15:-7
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
If you would like more info on this I would suggest watching "The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars – Gary Habermas at UCSB" on YouTube.
5 million people in Africa got the AIDS man, but we care about THIS man's sex life and some phony book. Get with reality man.
Hasa,
Answer a few questions for me if you would.
1. How many lies would you say you’ve told in your life?
2. Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value?
3. Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word? (called blasphemy)
4.have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?(if so, Jesus said you have committed adultery with that person in your heart.)
If you’re like me, you are a self professed lying, stealing, blaspheming adulterer at heart or some form thereof. A holy God must punish wickedness, otherwise He wouldn’t be just. Given your confession, will you be guilty or innocent? If you’re like me and everyone else on this board, you are guilty. However, God provided a way for salvation through the blood of His innocent Son who took the punishment on the cross, that we might be declared innocent. Think of it like this. You’re in a court room. you’re guilty as you’ve professed. Someone walks in and pays your fine for you. Now the judge can legally dismiss your case and let you go. This is the gospel message. What you must do is repent (turn from your sins) and submit to Jesus as Lord of your life. This following is enabled by God when He gives you new desires and a heart that wants to please God instead of the flesh.
God provided a way for salvation through the blood of His innocent Son
---–
To everyone? Every human God creates? 'Cuz there are people on earth at this very moment who don't have any concept of christianity. It's this way because God placed them in an area of the world with no christianity. How do they obtain God's salvation, when they'll go their entire lives never hearing the name "Jesus"?
You are BLIND...so much for the obvious. I would say give god the middle finger and don't worry about all that foolishness. People are sick and dying and need help.
#3 is especially funny though I must admit.
"If you’re like me, you are a self professed lying, stealing, blaspheming adulterer at heart or some form thereof."
No reason to trust anything you say or do then.....
Exactly Cheese man, you are correct!
Blessed, are you saying you are innocent of these?
I don't define my character in terms of self hate that your religion teaches.
@truthfollower01
Who cares and why doesn't god care about us? Your nonsense helps no one. Waste!
Hasa,
God died for the lost. He cares.
Oh really? Then why are so many millions of people lost? Brilliant.
truthfollower01
"God died for the lost."
Wow! God is dead !!! Thanks for the scoop. Will wait for the CNN headline.
Hasa,
Many people, including yourself, reject God and His gift of eternal life.
truthfollower01,
People like you refuse to say if they support ALL Bible morals. OOOOOPS, troll.
Hogwash. You hide behind your fake god because you love your "stuff" to much to make true sacrifices. You think dogma will give you eternal life. How about a baby with aids. What will your "god" do about this? You are a fake.
Hasa,
What stuff are you referring to?
Concerning the baby with aids, if he/she dies before reaching the age of accountability, I believe God ushers the baby into an eternity where there is no more death or mourning or pain. It is a place that I as a Christian want to be for eternity.
truthfollower01
"Concerning the baby with aids, if he/she dies before reaching the age of accountability, I believe God ushers the baby into an eternity where there is no more death or mourning or pain"
The GREATEST REASON ever to support abortion. Give your "child" a FREE PASS to heaven. It's the ultimate goal of all Christians. No hassles. No chance to mess up. And a source of consolation for women considering abortion.
Well done.
Observer, we as humans do not have the right to take an innocent life.
truthfollower01,
God NEVER mentioned abortion. Read that Bible thing.
Thanks for your great idea to support ABORTION. Well done.
What is your personal view on abortion? Are you fine with it for any and every situation?
truthfollower01,
I'll answer your NEW question after you answer my OLD question:
(Deut. 25:11-12) “If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.”
Do you AGREE with this moral from the Bible?
I've already told. I believe in a different translation that is supported.
truthfollower01
So is your answer "NO, because the BEST-SELLING versions of the Bible ALL contain an ERROR"?
truthfollower01,
Still STUMPED, troll?
But thanks for your support for women thinking about having an ABORTION.
tf: Are you able to have an abortion? If not, then you really don't merit an opinion.
Are you willing to take in all of the children who are born but yet not wanted as the result of denying abortion? If not, then you don't merit an opinion.
Do you comprehend at all the numerous reasons for why a woman might wish an abortion? If not, set your bible down and do the research.
Do you comprehend that abortion if not gotten legally will be gotten regardless via much worse conditions? If not, do your research.
The bottom line is that what a person does with their perrsonal body is not your business or the business of your god. The issue is long settled (Roe V Wade) and your constant whining won't change a thing about it. Admit you have lost and slink back to your corner like a good troll.
TruthPrevails1,
Whenever TF is cornered by logic and facts, he refuses to answer. This happens most of the time, so all we get is cut-and-paste spammed questions from him.
"Are you willing to take in all of the children who are born but yet not wanted as the result of denying abortion?"
So because the child isn't wanted the best option is to murder it? This doesn't seem fair for the child. Do you think it's right to punish (kill) the child just because it isn't wanted?!?
Uh...... Keep in mind Bart Ehrman is an agnostic. He is speaking to what the story represents – its consistencies, inconsistencies, etc. not to the validity of the claims made by the characters in the story. OK now how are you verifying what Paul wrote or heard about could be true?
Keep in mind that Concerning about what Paul wrote,
Bart Ehrman accepts 7 indisputable epistles, of which 1 Corinthians is one. Skeptic H.G. Wells accepts 8. See "The Resurrection of Jesus: Religious Invention or Historical Fact? Gary Habermas vs. Ken Humphreys" debate concerning the indisputable epistles that Bart Ehrman accepts. Concerning the indisputable epistle of 1 Corinthians, Paul cites an early Christian creed which Bart Ehrman dates to one year after the cross that cites a number of appearances of the risen Jesus.
Also, as Dr. Michael Licona indicates in his debate with Bart Ehrman, a number of ancient sources report that Paul willingly suffered and was willing to die and in fact he did die as a Christian martyr for his gospel proclamation. This shows the sincerety for what he was proclaiming.
The people of the Heavens Gate Cult were sincere to...that is meaningless.
Some of the Early disciples of Jesus were in a position to KNOW whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead. Their lives testified that He did. Liars make poor martyrs.
tf,
82 people died with and for David Koresh in Waco.
909 people died with and for Jim Jones in Jonestown.
They "believed" in their guys and their causes too. Death by "martyrdom" has no bearing on the truth of the claims.
tf01: "Bart Ehrman accepts 7 indisputable epistles, of which 1 Corinthians is one. Skeptic H.G. Wells accepts 8. See "The Resurrection of Jesus: Religious Invention or Historical Fact? Gary Habermas vs. Ken Humphreys" debate concerning the indisputable epistles that Bart Ehrman accepts. Concerning the indisputable epistle of 1 Corinthians, Paul cites an early Christian creed which Bart Ehrman dates to one year after the cross that cites a number of appearances of the risen Jesus."
So what? Many of these scholars think Paul was a real person and for various reasons they think he heard about claims of the resurrection. So what? Paul is able to recite a creed from years ago about Jesus. So what? How does that verify the claims made about the resurrection or any other supernatural event we find in the NT?
tf01: "Also, as Dr. Michael Licona indicates in his debate with Bart Ehrman, a number of ancient sources report that Paul willingly suffered and was willing to die and in fact he did die as a Christian martyr for his gospel proclamation. This shows the sincerety for what he was proclaiming."
What sources?
tf01: "Liars make poor martyrs."
What evidence do we have of their martyrdom?
Let's take for example. The terrorists of 9/11. What's the difference between them dying for their faith and early disciples dying for theirs? The terrorists were about 1400 years removed from the writings of Mohammed. They may have believed that what Mohammed wrote was true, but it's a belief that is 1400 years removed from Mohammed. What we have in the disciples are people who were in a position to KNOW if Jesus did truly rise from the dead. Their lives following this testify to the fact that Jesus did rise! Liars make poor martyrs.
Doris,
"How does that verify the claims made about the resurrection"
The three statements I mentioned yesterday that are accepted by almost 100% percent of all scholars studying the subject today point to the historical resurrection of Jesus.
Doris: "How does that verify the claims made about the resurrection"
tf01: "The three statements I mentioned yesterday that are accepted by almost 100% percent of all scholars studying the subject today point to the historical resurrection of Jesus."
lol – wrong. I think you are grossly misrepresenting the scholars. Show where the scholars are speaking about the truth of the claims versus the likelihood that the claims were made.......
tf,
Koresh's, Jones' and Applewhite's followers lived in the same freakin' compounds as their heroes. They knew them personally and well.
These are only three examples of this kind of martyrdom - and there are others over the centuries. I have no doubt that Warren Jeff's FDLS comrades would die for him too.
tf01, you avoided the question about martyrdom. I didn't ask about how their alleged martyrdom made the story make sense. I asked you: "What evidence do we have of their martyrdom?"
Doris,
I think you are reading too far into what the scholars are agreeing to. For example, Bart Ehrman obviously does not accept that Jesus was resurrected but he does accept that a number of Jesus's followers had experiences both individually and in group settings that they perceived were of the risen Jesus who appeared to them. Bart Ehrman will probably try to explain the appearances in an un supernatural way.
Doris,
"“What evidence do we have of their martyrdom?”"
Josephus for Jesus' brother James. I apologize but I was a having a problem loading up another one of my sources with information on believer's deaths. I will try to post more on this tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.
Doris,
See Clement for the deaths of Peter and Paul.
Did he die for the sins of the humans inhabiting North America at that time? They were not aware of his existence.
Paul claims to have gotten all his information of Jesus from "divine revelation"...that makes him exactly like Joseph Smith.
Blessed,
New Testament critic and historian Bart Ehrman indicates that the credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 can be traced to 1 year after the cross. This is a creed that Paul indicates that he received. I have included the verses below.
1 Corinthians 15:-7
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
If you would like more info on this I would suggest watching "The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars – Gary Habermas at UCSB" on YouTube.
Paul certainly doesn't claim to have started Christianity. In fact, he originally persecuted the church.
So what? He claims all his information about Jesus comes from Jesus talking to him from the spirit world...same as Joseph Smith. I don't care if they traced it to 10 minutes after the fact...makes no difference.
"He claims all his information"
Read the above post concerning the early Christian creed.
What do you think Paul and Peter discussed when Paul stayed with him for 15 days (Galatians 1:18)? Paul also saw James, the Lord's brother (Galatians 1:19).
Paul does not think too highly of Peter and James and what they say about Jesus.
Blessed,
"Paul does not think too highly of Peter and James and what they say about Jesus."
See Galatians 2:1,2,9
Wouldn't matter if I did, I don't trust the bible....unknown authers...forgeries....it is a piece of garbage historically speaking.
When things are down, just tell god where he can go!
Out on the Internet is an article written by Rev. Bob Coy:
"How Much Sin Can You Get Away With?"
NOT a joke.
The answer is like everything else. Depends on if you get caught!
Matthew 12:31,32
"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." (NASB)
No one knows who authored Matthew
This doesn't mean Matthew didn't writenit
"write it"
Could be, but most NT scholars it seems don't think he did. Many think it's a compilation of at these three distinct sources.
The probability is slim considering that Matthew was probably illiterate.
" No one knows who authored Matthew"
Virtually every one of the Early Church Fathers would highly object to your statement. Matthew the Tax collector was universally accepted as the author of the book. That liberal scholarship, relying upon the flawed method of higher criticism, makes the determination some 2000 years after the fact that the author is not Matthew, proves nothing.
Vic,
"any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven"
Does it sound EVEN REMOTELY right that someone could be forgiven for mass murders, but not for some WORDS?
The meaning for these 'blasphemous words' is 'disbelief.'
Vic,
BLASPHEMY: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.
Is there ANY Christian out there who has a clue how to use a DICTIONARY?
It is understood within the context of the NT Scripture that 'Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' stems only from 'disbelief' in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ described this sin while casting out demons by the "Power of the Holy Spirit" during which the Pharisees attributed that power to the Devil instead. NT scholars conclude that 'Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' entails 'rejection of Salvation in Jesus Christ,' hence 'disbelief.'
Vic
Claiming not believing is blasphemy is simply a lie, and whatever NT "schhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhlars" you got theat from are simply wrong.
You have to insult or go against gos in some way, and not believing does not do that.
I cannot blaspheme because no gods can be shown to exist, so it is only speculation that one CAN blaspheme, since it is only speculation that there are any gods to blaspheme against.
By your definition, you blaspheme against all of the other gods..which is ridiculous.
As far as your "scholars", they are trying to expand the definition of the word, and is simply wrong.
It is not surprising, since those "scholars" throughout history have changed the meaning of words, but only within their own house, not as an overall to the language ( for instance trying to claim scripture means something from god, when it simply means that someone wrote it down.
Blasphemy by defintion does not include not believing. One actually MUST believe for there to be blasphemy.
@ observer... "Is there ANY Christian out there who has a clue how to use a DICTIONARY?"
Oh they know how to use a dictionary, but they are masters of word twisting, intentionally changing word meanings to fit their belief in mythology.... take the bible for instance, the great book of "this means that"... errors, contradictions, interpretations, ........
How would one "speak against the holy spirit"? How do you specifically know what not to say?
'Disbeleif.'
'Disbelief.'
Disbelief in what?
How do you force someone to believe?
Disbelief isn't blasphemy.
Not even remotely the definition.
.... an imaginary ghost.... like a child's fairytale,,
Hey Vic, I'm planning to burn some bibles and qurans this weekend. I need to burn some wood and those books would be good fire starters.
blasphemy is a victimless crime
if it weren't for empty proxy threats, christianity would be dead in the water
Zero. You can get away with zero.
Do you think he was speaking for his whole church or was he just being coy?
Wink.
To the beloved readers:
I see a lot of cynicism going around, so don't fall for the snares.
As Christians, we are not to judge nor condemn anyone. We preach the Gospel of Grace and Salvation while we ourselves are sinners. We all fall short of the Glory of God, that's why we have the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior.
Please read The Epistle of John, Chapter 8
Let's not and let's not say we did.
The best way to get rid of people like you is to stop giving to the church. I discourage my kids and many others from following religion. If you stop the money, you'll stop the prayers.
vic: you are a pompous jerkov
It's fascinating to see the Christians on here stick up for him.
If he was an atheist, they'd be crawling all over this blog with more Bible verses than you could count.
As I wrote earlier. Would you take your kid to watch him preach?
I wouldn't take me to see him speak.