home
RSS
April 10th, 2014
10:04 AM ET

Study: 'Jesus' wife' fragment not a fake

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - A team of scientists has concluded that a controversial scrap of papyrus that purportedly quotes Jesus referring to "my wife," is not a fake, according to the Harvard Theological Review.

"A wide range of scientific testing indicates that a papyrus fragment containing the words, 'Jesus said to them, my wife' is an ancient document, dating between the sixth to ninth centuries CE," Harvard Divinity School said in a statement.

Scientists tested the papyrus and the carbon ink, and analyzed the handwriting and grammar, according to Harvard.

Radiocarbon tests conducted at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology produced an origination date for the papyrus of 659-859 CE, according to Harvard. MIT also studied the chemical composition of the papyrus and patterns of oxidation.

Other scholars studied the carbon character of the ink and found that it matched samples of papyri from the first to eight century CE, according to Harvard.

"None of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery," the divinity school said.

At least one scholar sharply disagrees, however, calling the papyrus scrap "patently fake."

Unveiled by Karen King, a Harvard Divinity School historian, in 2012, the scrap has sparked a heated debate over Christian history, archaeological accuracy and the role of women in the church.

The fragment, which is about the size of a business card, contains just 33 words, including: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …" and "she will be able to be my disciple." 

Though she dubbed the fragment, "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife," King said that the papyrus does not prove that Jesus was actually married - just that ancient Christians discussed the possibility.

"This gospel fragment provides a reason to reconsider what we thought we knew by asking what the role claims of Jesus's marital status played historically in early Christian controversies over marriage, celibacy, and family," King said.

Other Christians have suggested that Jesus may have been speaking metaphorically in the sentence fragments quoted in the papyrus. Some New Testament writers refer to the church as "the bride of Christ."

King and other scholars said they are equally intrigued by Jesus' mention of a female disciple.

"The main topic of the fragment is to affirm that women who are mothers and wives can be disciples of Jesus—a topic that was hotly debated in early Christianity as celibate virginity increasingly became highly valued," King said.

5 questions and answers about Jesus' 'wife'

The Harvard Theological Review also published on Thursday a sharp-worded rebuttal to King's hypothesis by Leo Depuydt, a professor of Egyptology at Brown University.

"I personally—and I am not sure whether I share this feeling with anyone—experience a certain incredulity pertaining to how something that is at first sight so patently fake could be so totally blown out of proportion," Depuydt writes.

Depuydt's criticism centers on the fact that the papyrus scrap contains a grammatical error in Coptic - one that mirrors a similar miscue in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas.

The chances that two ancient works would have the same mistake are minuscule, the scholar said, strongly suggesting that the author of the"Jesus' wife" scrap copied from the Gospel of Thomas.

“As a forgery, it is bad to the point of being farcical or fobbish," Depuydt told the Boston Globe. "I don’t buy the argument that this is sophisticated. I think it could be done in an afternoon by an undergraduate student.”

The Vatican's newspaper has also called the papyrus fragment a fake. “Substantial reasons would lead us to conclude that the papyrus is actually a clumsy counterfeit," L'Osservatore Romano, said in an editorial in 2012. 

Vatican newspaper calls fragment referring to Jesus' wife 'a fake'

King and Harvard acknowledge that "nothing is known about the discovery of the fragment." King has said it was given to her by an unnamed donor. 

"All the known data about its origin and circulation need to be publicly disclosed and thus made available for scholarly discussionas is the norm in the handling of manuscripts. Is there some reason we cannot just be told?" Depuydt said.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Christianity • Church • History • Jesus

soundoff (2,539 Responses)
  1. blessed137

    God does not discrimminate according to his standard's only according to man's because man is sinful, and want's to do whatever he wants. Rebellion. God said be holy as I am holy. God is just he demands people to be held accountable for their sin. As for gay people, it is not accurate when people say God hates gays. Yes it is a sin however we are all sinners. It is his desire for all men to be saved. Woman have a right to the heir of the promise. And as for slavery, those without Christ are a slave to sin. God does not change. It was his plan for the new covenant from the beginning. And holding people accountable for committing acts of evil is always just.

    April 12, 2014 at 8:47 am |
    • midwest rail

      " As for gay people, it is not accurate when people say God hates gays."
      And yet, so many of his followers do. Hmmmm.

      April 12, 2014 at 8:53 am |
      • kermit4jc

        youre right..and its sad..people like westboro Baptist church...unfortunately taught that...yet Jesus told us to love all..as God loves all...

        April 13, 2014 at 2:23 am |
        • midwest rail

          Westboro is hardly alone, only the most visible – the fringe has become the center in the modern evangelical movement, and the loudest message is hate.

          April 13, 2014 at 3:31 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Too bad you don't follow the love part...if you did you wouldn't be spewing on about how LGBT make bad parents! You're such a lying hypocrite kermi!

          April 13, 2014 at 7:18 am |
        • kermit4jc

          right..show love to the gay parents..don't show love to the children.again you prove how the gay thing is a self centered egotistical thing.....your posts drip with "screw what the children need and want"

          April 13, 2014 at 7:22 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Did I say not to show love to the children? Stop being an ignorant dolt and assumming.
          The gay thing is natural and you are a bigot for thinking otherwise.

          April 13, 2014 at 7:34 am |
        • kermit4jc

          being natural does not make right..and you words pretty much sum it up about the love for the kids

          April 13, 2014 at 7:37 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Oh my, how very wrong you are!!!
          Are you saying your god screwed up...I mean after all it is your god that is apparently responsible for everything natural-right?
          You're such a dolt!

          April 13, 2014 at 7:42 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I DO love the glbt people anyways...I have no hatred for them..my cousin who was a lesbian would have been the first to tell you to f off cause she knows no hate in me..she knew my stance..she knew I loved her dearly despite my stance....

          April 13, 2014 at 7:23 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          That's not love you dolt...that's pure hate! I feel bad for your cousin...she deserves better than someone who thinks she is sinning in her life!

          April 13, 2014 at 7:35 am |
        • kermit4jc

          no.....My cousin defended mwe against people of your type..she knew I loved her dearly..we grew up together....she wa a month younger than me.......she knew truly I loved her..she attended my wedding reception (y family was not able to attend wedding as I got married in another country) she gave us gifts..we attended family gatherings and visited all the time....she knew I loved her..you are theone with hate that you cant see love at all...

          April 13, 2014 at 7:39 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Does she know that you think she is going to hell? If you love her so much, why would you even wish that upon her? That's not love and you need to stop pretending it is.

          April 13, 2014 at 7:43 am |
        • kermit4jc

          she knew it...but she repented of her sins a few months before she died...she still had issues about the gay thing..but I sincerely believe she is gone to heaven

          April 13, 2014 at 7:49 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          She was doing nothing wrong and you are an immoral ass for making her feel like she was!!! No freak, there is no justification for believing that she is any place other than her grave. She had nothing to repent for when she had not made a choice...stop claiming it is a choice when there is no evidence to support you (you keep claiming there is but when asked for it, you jump through hoops to avoid providing it...such a lying sack of crap).

          April 13, 2014 at 8:07 am |
        • kermit4jc

          BY THE WAY we ALL sin..whether gay or not.....that don't make us worthless...

          April 13, 2014 at 7:40 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Nope sorry, sin is only pertinent to your ilk. Others make mistakes and take responsibility in the here and now.

          April 13, 2014 at 7:44 am |
        • kermit4jc

          then stotalking of it for sake of argument..YOU brought it up.....you are theone who says I was being self righteous and all..then calling others sinners....I merely pointed out that YOU used it wrongly....so don't refer to it if yourenot going to argue it for arguments sake

          April 13, 2014 at 7:50 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I never once called someone a sinner you dolt! You are the one who thinks people sin, I merely say that sin is only pertinent to the 2 billion of you fools who believe the stories!!!

          April 13, 2014 at 8:04 am |
        • kermit4jc

          READ..I di NMOT say you called anyone a sinner..YOU brought it up.....and arguing for arguments sake about it....make up your mind...

          April 13, 2014 at 8:05 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You said we are all sinners!! Wow, you are such a fool!! I see you're in need of another anger management class...it shows through when you start making spelling mistakes and screaming (using the all capital letters without proper punctuation)....oh my, for someone who apparently is so educated you are not showing it.

          April 13, 2014 at 8:16 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..to CORRECT you on your FALSE premise of our beliefs on what is sin..otherwise your post meant nothing then

          April 13, 2014 at 8:18 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I am a recovering Christian you dolt!! I know exactly what your cult deems a sin and what it deems sin is not always something that is wrong. Open your eyes to this century or locate a cave and stay stuck in the past. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What a pleasant day it is when people like you are seen driving people away from the hateful god of Christianity,,,what an immoral god it is and you in turn immoral for following it!

          April 13, 2014 at 8:26 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yuore the dolt to think we ALL think the same..as I said..i was correcting you on what I was talking about in matters of sin.....you were making a blamket statement and assumed I thought like YUR brand of Christanity thought..I heard you expealin abiot your brand..and they didn't teach you much....they taught some Unbiblical carp to begin with

          April 13, 2014 at 8:28 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You're not correcting me...you're being an ignorant ass and thinking you are right constantly...nothing more!
          No-one needs Christianity...the world would be better without it and will be soon enough.

          April 13, 2014 at 8:32 am |
        • kermit4jc

          so whathapens to the hosptials and other orgnaizations run by Christians..you don't need those? when we are gone whos going to take care of them? I certainly don't see atheists doing anything on those matters....

          April 13, 2014 at 8:34 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Doctors without Borders, Red Cross, Unicef...hospitals etc. can be run without religion involved.

          April 13, 2014 at 8:56 am |
        • kermit4jc

          and there you go agaon..blsme others..what drives people away is your own minds that cannot comprehend that God would be a JUST God..that you would rather have a God adhere to the same rules as us...that you rather have it so YOu can judge as God does..cause you cant handle having that..so you left..am I right?

          April 13, 2014 at 8:29 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Evidence based on science for your imaginary friend please!!! Why should anyone accept that your imaginary friend is so good when the only book that speaks of it speaks to such a hateful vindictive monster? You're a dolt for accepting such crap!

          April 13, 2014 at 8:34 am |
        • kermit4jc

          BY the way..WE ALSO take care of it in the here and now as well.again another false assumption...man youre not doing very well.....

          April 13, 2014 at 7:51 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          No, you don't. You think your god will make the judgement and yet you can't even provide evidence for your god without using fallacies and the fallacious stories of the fairy tales/horror stories in the bible!!
          You're a horrible person and it will be a blessed day when your religion is forgotten.

          April 13, 2014 at 8:09 am |
        • kermit4jc

          and you are just as horrible causae you don't believe in consequences to your actions apparently...things of God were done as ZCONSEQUENCES......ohh..how about murder...God judged murderers..Ill bet you cherry picked that don't ya?? you cant stand that God is the standard...cause you want to live a self centered life don't ya?

          April 13, 2014 at 8:13 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I believe in consequences in the here and now, not some afterlife that can't be shown to exist. I don't give a rats ass what your imaginary friend says-it is your imaginary friend, not mine. It is you who is living the self centred life-you think your god is the right one when you have no evidence for your god outside of the bible.
          Murder is wrong...it causes harm-how hard is that for you to comprehend? LGBT do not cause harm-how hard is that for you to comprehend??

          April 13, 2014 at 8:21 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I DO have evidence..just cause YOU cant accept it does not mean I don't have it.....man thata pretty arrogant of You to say.....also..we OD take care of consequences in the HERE and niow as well..if I went out and murdered someone..i STILL have to go to jail and accept those consequences you idiot

          April 13, 2014 at 8:24 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You lie!!! There is no way you have evidence just like no-one else has evidence! What you call evidence has no pertinence outside of your cult...it is not backed by scientific evidence and thus means nothing.
          LGBT can't go to jail for being the way they are, thus there is no equivalency between them and the monster who takes a life!

          April 13, 2014 at 8:28 am |
        • kermit4jc

          so sad when you make science as your god..when you said you were a recovering Christian..and yet you think sicne can prove ir even DISPROVE God? let mne ask you....do you use a fork to measure how much rain fell in your area in the past few months?? using wrong tools..wouldn't youagree? science can NOT prove or disprove God..and science should nOT be your only answers! this is LIFE we are talking about..tjhere is more to life than science..science wil NEVER have all the answers....sorry..but your dependence on science shows..I am not against science...we shold use it..but not beyond what is is intended for...as you are doing with it

          April 13, 2014 at 8:33 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Science is not my god you dolt!!! I rely on science just like you do. Skip the hypocrisy when you also depend on it! I simply don't agree with the crap you're ilk is selling due to the lack of evidence supporting a god, you are the one claiming it exists and the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

          April 13, 2014 at 9:00 am |
        • kermit4jc

          its no hypocricy at all..science can NOT prove OR disprove God..its A FACT..since science ONLY deals with natural world....how hard is that for you to figure out?

          April 15, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Science doesn't try to prove or disprove god you dolt! Apparently it's not as hard for me to figure out as it is for you to figure out that when you claim you have evidence for your god, it is merely a claim not evidence.

          April 15, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          but then it seems Y UObrought up science....so if it does not..then lets leave it out...evidence is not based on scientific ways all the time

          April 15, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Evidence certainly is not supernatural. Gee, for someone apparently so smart you're rather stupid!!

          April 15, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          so you say...you limit yourself..evidence is based solely on scientific method? cmon its not about being stupid....thought you were pretty open minded..I guess not

          April 16, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit...I can't speak for TP, but personally, I'm glad I'm not so 'open minded' that I will believe anything I read in a book even though there is no evidential proof.

          April 16, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • kermit4jc

          IMnot that opened minded either....I don't believe merely cause it is in a book either..thats naïve and even unbiblical

          April 16, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit...unfortunately for me I am just too intelligent to have epiphanies in my bathroom mirror, so I guess I'll just have to wait until such time that your invisible deity decides to shine some sort of ecclesiastical light on me. In the meantime, I hope you can understand my skepticism.

          April 16, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          btw it will never be forgotten...people been saying that for thousands of years.....

          April 13, 2014 at 8:13 am |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          "I certainly don't see atheists doing anything on those matters...."
          The only reason you would not see it, is if you don't look. Another leap to conclusion based on belief. Look into it, you will find you are VASTLY mistaken.

          April 13, 2014 at 8:38 am |
        • kermit4jc

          OH I HAVE...I lhave looed into it long and hard..i see VERY few orgianzations doing such things..pretty much all I see are atheists organziatrions promoting the ideas and fellowshippibng of and with other atheists....

          April 13, 2014 at 8:42 am |
    • MidwestKen

      @blessed137,
      "God said be holy as I am holy. "

      ... and yet isn't it supposedly impossible for humans to achieve that on their own. Who would demand of its own creation an achievement that it apparently designed not to be capable of?

      April 12, 2014 at 9:50 am |
      • kermit4jc

        exactly..it is impossible to do it on our own...God gives us thepower to do so...we need to use that power

        April 13, 2014 at 8:20 am |
        • MidwestKen

          What kind of sadist says do this or be tortured... oh and by the way, it's impossible for you to do it.

          April 13, 2014 at 9:41 am |
        • kermit4jc

          what are you talking about..about the sadist part? the torture comes from oneself...when one does NOT get what they wouild like to have gotten....the sadist is you....you wanna reject peace joy and hope for eternity? that's YOUR choice....you don't want it..you don't get it..very simple..stop balming something else

          April 15, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @kermit4jc,
          Extortion is not a choice. 'Love me or burn for eternity' is not a choice, it's a threat.

          (3) Hell is conscious torment.

          Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
          Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
          Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
          (4) Hell is eternal and irreversible.

          Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
          Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
          Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”

          ( https://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell)

          April 15, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          that's basically what I said..conscious torment....and it is not extortion..unless you consider telling people of consequences of action in any case as extortion..cmon..give me a break..sounds two faced to me..its not Love me or burn..silly....its accept my gift or reject and get the consequences..

          April 16, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit...what 'gift' exactly? And, why is it so ambiguous that I have to even ask the question?

          April 16, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Gift of peace hope and joy for eternity.....it isn't ambiguous...its all over the BIble

          April 16, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....Santa Claus is all over the book 'Twas the night before Christmas'. That doesn't make him real either.

          April 16, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          that had nothing to do with the argument.....you asked about the gift..I told you....

          April 16, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....and your response was that the gift was not ambiguous....that it was all over the bible. I merely pointed out the ambiguity of having a 2000 year old book as your only source of belief.

          April 16, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and that's a very bad assumption.....that's my only source? sorry....try asking next time ok?

          April 16, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit...that is your only source. Your personal experiences, in your imagination only, are absolutely no proof to me whatsoever. I know of people that swear they were abducted by aliens, and I don't believe them either.

          April 16, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          then please clarify that next time..I thought you meant for myself

          April 16, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....the literal meaning of the word 'proof' should have given you all the clues you needed to decipher the question. Next time, try not to miss the intention.

          April 16, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          that still doesnt cut it..proof for WHOM? myself or others??? Please..again just make it clear...asI said..I thought you meant proof for myself..not others....

          April 16, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....proof must be verifiable, even to you. Your imagination is not proof, even to you. The alien abductees proof is that they believe they were abducted. That is not proof, even to them. They are eliminating too many other variables for there to be evidential proof. I still contend that you personally have no evidentially proof....only what you believe to be proof. And, that is not proof!

          April 16, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ok..but youre assuming it is my imagination..I have proof..for myself..I seen itin my life and lives of others..I experience the presence of God..itsnot merely a belief..but actual knowledge of God..the list of proof is endless as I been a Christian over 25 years and seen so much....

          April 16, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....still not proof, as you have not eliminated all other possibilities. The simple belief you have that you are so special that your god will attend to your needs while woefully ignoring the serious needs of others of his creation is utter arrogance on your part.

          April 16, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          no..thatsyou assuming again..God tends to all..but do all accept no.....IM not any more special than anyone else..second..I HAVE elmimnated all others as I have found God to be the True God...if He is the Only True God then logic follows all others are false....again you assume too much of me

          April 16, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit...are you insinuating that nothing bad has ever happened to anyone that has accepted your version of god? I know plenty of people that have accepted your god of the bible, and their lives suck! That is a completely unprovable statement on your part.

          April 16, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          not at all.....everyones life sucks here on earth...atone time or another....at times my life sucked.....God never Promised a good life here on earth with no pain or trouble..certainly..even for Christians Jesus promised there will be trouble

          April 16, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....them what exactly is the point of your god? He seems like quite the useless character here. If he won't help his loyal subjects, why bother with him at all? I could just as easily get the same response praying to my cat. At least I know my cat is real.

          April 16, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          you ASSUME as if God is like a genie in a lamp...that's not the case..and this life is TEMPORARY...God will HELP us through this life when it sucks

          April 16, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          " Love me or burn..silly....its accept my gift or reject and get the consequences..
          "

          A distinction without a difference. That is absurd that if I do not accept the "gift", and have a valid reason why I do not, that the reason is not even taken into account, is part of the human failing to answer questions that are asked, where a god would know and clarify. The whole thing reaks of human myth, no gods invloved.

          April 16, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • kermit4jc

          God does clarify..and even you posted it...anguish conscious torment..all signs of having rejected a gift of peace hope and joy....God offers those..you don't accept them..you dont get them..I offer you a car..the only car in the world...you reject it..you don't get to drive it....you reject Gods offer of heaven..of being his his place..then you go elesewhere

          April 16, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • igaftr

          "God does clarify"

          Really? Where? Do not say the bible since that is just men saying god said. Where did "god" clarify anything?

          April 16, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @kermit4jc,
          First, I think you misunderstand "conscious" in that quote. It is just "awake and able to understand what is happening around you" ( merriam-webster). In other words, the people being tormented are fully awake and aware that they are being tormented.
          You seem to think it is some sort of self-inflicted torment. Why would anyone torment themselves “with fire and brimstone”?

          "ts not Love me or burn..silly....its accept my gift or reject and get the consequences.."

          Second, if the consequences are set up or contrived by the “gift” giver then it is extortion. Someone getting killed because he didn’t give a mugger his money, knew the potential consequences… does that mean that he simply failed to accept the muggers “gift” of not killing him?

          Did not your God supposedly create “hell”? Are unrepentant not “sent” to hell?

          April 16, 2014 at 9:35 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      " As for gay people, it is not accurate when people say God hates gays. Yes it is a sin "

      What??? How is something natural bad enough that it merits being called a sin? If your god is so loving, then it wouldn't call what it apparently created a sin. Grow up and stop the bigotry...this is the 21st century and there is zero need for this horrible way of thinking. And sorry to burst your small minded bubble but no, not all of us are sinners-that is strictly something that belongs to your ilk's opinion and doesn't have any bearing on anyone else....stop pretending to know you're right when you have nothing outside of your bible to show your imaginary friend exists.

      April 12, 2014 at 9:53 am |
      • kermit4jc

        bad logic....it assume that if it is "natural" then it is ok..cannibalism is natural...murder seems natural to some..yet that doesn't make it right....pretty shallow argument I say

        April 13, 2014 at 2:25 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          The difference kermi is that LGBT don't cause harm, those other things do, so your logic as usual fails. Stop being a bigot.

          April 13, 2014 at 5:32 am |
        • kermit4jc

          it does cause harm..for those who have children..younow deny them a mother or father..simoly cause the parents are selfish and want to care for themselves only.....second....it does NOT bring in a stable relationsip whatsoever..sorry..youre living in a fantasy world..and you are a bigot as much as me..we all are bigots at some point....pot calling kettle

          April 13, 2014 at 5:49 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Wrong, studies show that children raised by LGBT do just as well if not better than those raised by hetero couples. How does it harm the children to be raised by two people who love them and in the case of LGBT will have fought so hard to have them? Your logic on this fails.

          April 13, 2014 at 5:56 am |
        • kermit4jc

          those are small studies that do not reflect on reality..so now you are also telling me fathers don't mean a damn thing to children anymore...or a mother doesn't mean a damn thing anymore? this is why society is falling apart....you people live in a fantasy world where you think its ok..when its not..sorry...

          April 13, 2014 at 5:59 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Who are you to say if they reflect reality or not?? Single mothers/fathers raise children every day-are they wrong???
          Sometimes the children are better off without the other parent-I'm guessing you haven't considered that. Not to mention the fact that a loving relationship doesn't always involved having children nor is it a prerequisite for marriage.
          When are you going to clue in that your ilk is on the losing end here and soon no-one will listen to your dark age way of thinking?? What are you going to pick on after this battle is lost? The more you speak out and the more actual evidence that contradicts your bigotry towards LGBT, the more people turn away from your cult of fools.
          Grow up...if you truly has a degree is psychology you wouldn't be speaking like an uneducated dolt.

          April 13, 2014 at 6:03 am |
        • kermit4jc

          ok first o fall..single parents are also denying the children the parent..I work with children..i seen what happenes in the REAL world with single parents...y apparently have NO clue as to the importance a father is to a kids life..or the importance of a mother is to a kids life.....the battle may be lost..but the society will not proser...you all are livingin a pipe dream..and it will catch up with you all..don't tell me to grow up..youre the one who thinks it is ok to deny the children a father...or mother..yuo are the one who thinks parents come first..screw the kids and what they need and want....as Rosie O donnel told her child when she asked why she dosnt have a daddy..rosie said "Cause Mommy wants another mommy" see..its a self centered thing....family is already running down the tubes and you all have your heads in the sand denying it

          April 13, 2014 at 6:09 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I don't agree with you nor do I believe anyone would let you within 50 feet of an innocent child. I raised my daughter as a single parent and she is not doing harm to society; she is a college student doing rather well in this world...so don't pull that crap-sometimes the child is better off without the other parent but you wouldn't consider that due to not being able to pull your self-righteous head out of your ass or bible. You do not speak for all scenarios and thus it is merely your bigoted opinion you are ranting here! Grow up and realize your voice is no longer being heard or taken seriously.

          April 13, 2014 at 6:14 am |
        • kermit4jc

          its a FACT..I work with children..why would you say not to let me 50 feet within them? and second..who says they will do harm ? I didn't..you did....third....imnot self rigfhteous..I live in the SAME society as you do.and I sure as heck am NOT going to allow people like you and those who are glbt ruin it.....and it isn't just religious thing..I knew it was wrong even BEFORE I became a Christian...and I will keep talking..it isn't about growingup..I aint the one living in a fantasy world thinking its ok...thining that the parents seve themselves rather than their children....I am a sinner too..and as I said..I am not going to allow people lik eyou ruin the society I lvie in

          April 13, 2014 at 6:18 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I say that due to the fact that they don't deserve to have someone like you tell them how horrible they have it due to being raised by single parents or have someone like you brainwashing them. I never once said they do harm, you are the dolt saying that children need both parents-a mother and a father, not me.
          Sin only pertains to your ilk, not everyone else...deal with it and live with that fact because until you provide the scientifically backed data that your god exists, it is merely your ilk's opinion that it does and therefore doesn't reflect the remaining 5 billion on the planet who don't share your belief. How do you intend to stop gays from being married and raising children?? Or single parents for that matter?? When are you going to clue in that you're on the losing end here?? The fact is that your voice is no longer being heard and the world is a better place for that.

          April 13, 2014 at 6:25 am |
        • kermit4jc

          OHHH..so now you make a FALSE accusation of what I tell the children..I think YOU need to grow up and learn to ask questions on how I work with eh children and all...youre the one ranting when you made false accusations that I tell children such things..i don't..and when did I ever mention it was a sin?? (yes..NOW I will mention it) but this whole time here..I been showing WHY it is bad..without even mentioning sin...thus youre greasping at astraws now...and just cause it sems Im losing..I aim NOT goping to sit idley by...that would ruin my conscience....I have one..do you? If someone is drowing..and it seems futile..do you sit and watch them drown? or do you try all you can to save them?

          April 13, 2014 at 6:29 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Drowning is realistic and something that can be changed (or so one would hope). Being LGBT is not something that can be changed due to it being purely natural.
          Tell me would you rather a child be raised in a home with two adults who constantly fight or with the peace that might come from those adults not being together? Should all children be taken away from single parents??
          You haven't been showing anything more than ignorance and bigotry. It is not bad, there is no evidence to support that notion-it is all within your small minded head, nothing more. As always, you're ilk is on the losing end here and fortunately your voices are not being heeded....don't like it, move to Russia-Putin likes bigots like you but as long as you reside in a Secular country, you need to suck it up and mind your own business.

          April 13, 2014 at 6:37 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          BTW: What is the name of the clinic you work at?? I'd like to spread the word that people shouldn't trust their innocent children to your care. Bigots like you shouldn't be working with children.

          April 13, 2014 at 6:53 am |
        • kermit4jc

          FIRST of all..its NOT a clinic...second...I aint going to tell you personal info..THIRD>.They ALREADY know my stance..and they KNOW I don't do carp as you falsely accuse me of doing...you are a child..grow up and stop making so many assumptions about me

          April 13, 2014 at 6:56 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I'm not the one making the inept argument about LGBT you dolt! Second not telling me the name of your clinic only proves you are probably lying-why is the info so hard to share if you are so good at what you do? Or do you not care about those children and only the mighty dollar they bring you?
          I'm not the one who needs to grow up-I already support LGBT and would never think they are doing harm to themselves or children and I am not blind enough to think that children always need two opposite gender parents to do well in this world. You reside in the dark ages, time to catch up or be left behind.

          April 13, 2014 at 7:10 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Second not telling me the name of your clinic only proves you are probably lying<-YOU are such a dishonest person..YOU KNOW very well people don't give out personal info like that! and you try to trap me into saying IN lying...Im not an idiot.....stop being childish..grow up and stop playing yur petty games..youare dumb enough to think otherwise about children doing well...history has proven it..and there are MUCH studies shwing you are wrong....and those studies have shown far4 better results than your so called "studies on children with gay parents" does..since they are small and new...

          April 13, 2014 at 7:18 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Not dishonest at all-I'm not asking for your name, I asked for the name of the clinic you work in-that doesn't identify you. Yes you are an idiot! You make fallacious claims against single parents and more so LGBT.
          Judge not lest ye be judged-guess that only applies to those like you who have imaginary friends-right??
          You poor poor persecuted crazy man...stop lying and maybe you wouldn't get called out. Point to the studies and try to ensure they are not backed by the pseudo science of your cult. There is more evidence saying you are wrong and that is the evidence that need attention paid to it, not the crap coming from the crazies like you.

          April 13, 2014 at 7:27 am |
        • kermit4jc

          WHERE I work IS personal info..it can pinpoint me to where I live and such......don't try to play this little game with me and such..just lay off the asking of personal questions..in FACT..lets ask any of the other readers here if they think asking for where I work is a personal quesiotn

          April 13, 2014 at 7:30 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I'm merely asking where you work, not your name, nothing more...people deserve to know where the haters and bigots are so they can prevent their children from being exposed to it.

          April 13, 2014 at 7:37 am |
        • kermit4jc

          uhh..its NOT like Msdonalds...where there are many franchises...again it IS personal..and you are being a bigot for assuming what I do with the klids I work with.....yu oare almost to the point of slandering

          April 13, 2014 at 7:42 am |
        • kermit4jc

          so you don't judge against someone who is a murderer...you will let them come right into your home and entertain them..right?

          April 13, 2014 at 7:31 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Murder is direct harm. It's a false equivalency to compare a murderer to LGBT. LGBT have made no choice and if you truly had a lesbian cousin you would know this unless of course the love you claim to have for said person is disguised in hate. It is when you make fallacious connections like this that makes one wonder if you even made it out of grade 2.

          April 13, 2014 at 7:39 am |
        • kermit4jc

          you missed thr WHOLE point...of the judging....and your post shows it.....and they DO makie choices....and you are such an arrogant person to think such things of me and my cousin.....its sad that the hate from atheists and the life are from those who don't know the other ...such as in the case of you and me...youonly judge so far from posts...but you don't see it in action..in real life..as I had shown my cousin

          April 13, 2014 at 7:46 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          No you idiot, they do not make a choice any more than you have made a choice to be hetero (my sympathies are extended to your wife...she deserves better).
          I'm not showing hate. I respect LGBT and the fact that they are not really different than a hetero person outside of who they have chosen to love!!
          You show hate when you say they are making a choice and when you say they harm the children they raise. How pathetic of you...such a hateful bigoted, uneducated freak...thankfully your voice doesn't matter!

          April 13, 2014 at 7:53 am |
        • kermit4jc

          they do make choices...there is NO evidence they are "born that way" all studies say "perhaps" "maybe" those are nOT conclusive words...sorry to break the news to you....my wife CHOSE to love me...so don't have any condlsences towards her...she says same thing of gays as I do anyways....

          April 13, 2014 at 7:56 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          NO!! You are such a lying sack of crap!! Your wife is a fool for supporting such a bigot!

          April 13, 2014 at 8:02 am |
        • kermit4jc

          are you saying my wife believes it cause I do????

          April 13, 2014 at 8:03 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          No, I'm saying your wife is a fool for wanting to be anywhere near an ignorant ass like you.

          April 13, 2014 at 8:13 am |
        • kermit4jc

          ok....this has got to stop..the way you say such things abou tmy wife....that's getting way too personal.....knock it off and get to the issues ok?

          April 13, 2014 at 8:14 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You brought up your wife to begin with...so skip the hypocrisy!

          April 13, 2014 at 8:22 am |
        • kermit4jc

          HOW did I bring my wife up? and to the point that you had to make such a personal attack against her?

          April 13, 2014 at 8:24 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I'm merely stating that anyone who support such bigotry is a fool and if that applies to her, so be it.

          April 13, 2014 at 8:29 am |
        • kermit4jc

          well..i neverf mentioned about mywife..You mentioned about her first....

          April 13, 2014 at 8:30 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You're such a tool!! You brought her up first but as always you shift the blame-you stated she knew your stance...ignorance is bliss-isn't it? I'm done with you...you're an unworthy bigot and it will be a pleasant day when people like you are no longer listened to-oh wait, that is already happening and you're simply too blind/stupid/ignorant to see it-look around at how many places have legalized same gender marriage-that alone shows that your ilk is not being paid attention to!

          April 13, 2014 at 8:37 am |
        • kermit4jc

          HELLLOOOOO>>>.I asked WHEN I did bring her up..you pretty much stammered and implied that it wasne me that did! if I did..SHOW it..remind me ok?

          April 13, 2014 at 8:41 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You did...once again dolt, you are turning this on me when you brought her up-I wouldn't know you had a wife unless you made mention of it!! You are such a lying sack of crap but go figure, you lying seems nothing new when you make the fallacious claim that your god exists and you have apparent evidence for it.
          This conversation is done....you will forever live is la-la land with your imaginary friend and your hate and bigotry. People like you are damaging to this world and should be shipped to Alcatraz to protect the rest of the world from the delusional lies you tell!

          April 13, 2014 at 9:03 am |
        • kermit4jc

          EITHEAR way you did nOT need to mentio her...now knock off this anger ok> As FAR AS II KNOW I di dnot mention her ok> if I did,.themn sooooorrry! LET it go!

          April 15, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Knock off what anger? I'm not the one typing in all caps and making major spelling error's implying that you're a very angry little boy who needs a time out.

          April 15, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          apparently you are seeting with anger that I "accussed " you of bringing up my wife....your last post to me was seething in it....just keep the wife out of it..no need to make personal attacks against her here....and move on

          April 15, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and people like Y uoare damaging the world just as bad...don't be a hypocrite

          April 15, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          How is standing up against extremist freaks like you harmful to the world? Or do you think that lying is good thing?

          April 15, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          you are damaging by your false accusations that you been aking towards me all along...showing ignorance of my beliefs..my faith..my knowledge.....that's damaging...sahying things to nearly the point of slandering another...that's damaging.....

          April 15, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Wow, not damaging to anyone but you and if you think that is damaging to the world, you need help-you're not that important. Prove slander and try to find me crazy one!
          Ignorance of your beliefs?? Not at all...recovering from the damage caused by people who brainwashed me to believe but most definitely not ignorant.
          You're an idiot!

          April 15, 2014 at 8:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          oh like IM the only one youre doing this to? WHo says it is damaging to the whole world? and how am I damaging to the world then in tat case? pot calling kettle

          April 16, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • kermit4jc

          you are ignorant to MY personal beliefs...try reading ok? MY beliefs are apparently NOT like what you ad..half of what YOu said is not true of MY beliefs.....stop projecting ourself on others

          April 16, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • kermit4jc

          and prove IM a lying piece of carp

          April 13, 2014 at 8:04 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          No need to prove it, you do it with your bigotry that is spewed here when you say LGBT make a choice!

          April 13, 2014 at 8:13 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NICE cop out.....you callme a liar and you cant back it up..I say they have a choice and you call me liar..yet you provide noting to show such....lame excuse..if Im a liar..show me...show the studies....ytouknow yu ocant..cause youknow IM telling truth when thereis NO study out there that's CONCLUSIVE..especialy when they use words like perhaps...maybe...etc etc....

          April 13, 2014 at 8:16 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Here is an article from a group you should know well that shows you are wrong: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

          April 13, 2014 at 8:23 am |
        • kermit4jc

          said page cnt be found..

          April 13, 2014 at 8:26 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.aspx

          April 13, 2014 at 8:30 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You don't love your cousin when you say she is making a choice...that is bigotry and hate. Stop pretending it is anything more!

          April 13, 2014 at 7:54 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I don't pretend..I see it in the real world...you see it thru biased studies that don't have any conclusive evidence

          April 13, 2014 at 7:57 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Yes you do...what you see as love is not realistic!

          April 13, 2014 at 8:03 am |
        • kermit4jc

          BY the ay..in the university..we take courses on statistics..and if youd actually thought this through..youd know there snt a really big sample..cause its a new thing to have gay marriage and the gays having children.....small samples are not acceptable

          April 13, 2014 at 6:11 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Btw: I don't care what your degree may tell you, I'd say everything is against you. You don't follow the golden rule and I truly feel bad for any child left to your hands. You can make all the crazy claims you wish but you like to hold a base for those claims, a base that has never been undated in over 2000 years and thus can't be held up as anything more than the ancient writings by man. Gay marriage doesn't cause you harm, nor has it been shown to cause children harm...so once again your logic fails. Stop using your belief against these people and mind your own business when it comes to their personal lives....that is what makes you a bigot!

          April 13, 2014 at 6:20 am |
        • kermit4jc

          again youre going on small staistics that have no reflection on the real world..second..what do you mean I don't follow Golden rule..how am I not following it? and why feel bad for the child I work with? I been having success in helping the children who have behavior problems...I been in the bisniess 7 years..and we recently got accredited by CARF..and recognized for our work with children.so you are the sad case here..assuming I am unable to help the kids....as I said.i work with them..i see first hand on how family dynamics affect them

          April 13, 2014 at 6:23 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You may see it on a professional level but that doesn't tell you everything. I've seen children raised with both parents present and they don't always fair as well as those raised by single parents.
          The golden-do unto others as you'd have done unto you-by judging these people you do not follow that rule.

          April 13, 2014 at 6:31 am |
        • AtheistSteve

          You argument doesn't follow the reality of the situation. There are far more children growing up in dysfunctional hetero family settings than LGBT ones. Just because the hetero gender mix meets with your favor doesn't mean the father or mother isn't a total ass. Becoming a parent is easy...being a good one takes effort and sacrifice. Raising children must be a desired conscious choice. If society pressures people into following through on something they didn't want in the first place then it's the children who suffer. Single parent children do face disadvantages based on a lack of care and support not because a particular gender is absent. Gay couples who decide to have or adopt children typically do so for the right reasons and provide a far better nurturing environment than apathetic hetero couples.
          You want a society that fosters less suffering for children then you need to advocate for better sex education, encouragement of the use of contraceptives and access to safe abortions. That will ensure the lowest number of disadvantaged children. Not railing against groups that actually approach parenting with the childrens best interests in mind.

          April 13, 2014 at 7:14 am |
        • kermit4jc

          right..so instead of fixing the problem with the parents..you all ifnore it and try to justify gay marriage..sorry..that logic is flawed...yu oare trying to use bad parenting by heteros and justification for gay marriage..that don't work.....

          April 13, 2014 at 7:20 am |
        • AtheistSteve

          No I'm saying you haven't justified your claim that gay couples cause injury to children. Disadvantaged children are unloved, unwanted ones. How does being a loving gay parent injure children? Your insistence that one missing gender is detrimental doesn't hold water if hetero parents can be dysfunctional as they often are. Gender isn't the problem, the desire and willingness to nurture children is.

          April 13, 2014 at 7:37 am |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          "justify gay marriage"

          There is an interesting phrase. It is just in the first place (look up just, and justice). You and your other religious ilk are attempting to redefine marriage to coincide with your book of lies and myths. There have been gay people far longer than your false book has existed. There has been gay marriage almost as long. The practice among native Americans predates your Jesus character. It is you trying to unjustify gay marriage.
          I shudder to think of you working with children, and hope your vile bigotry does not wear off on them.

          April 13, 2014 at 8:35 am |
        • kermit4jc

          and by YUOR logic murder is ok then..murder has been around LONG before the bIble came about...derrrrr

          April 13, 2014 at 8:40 am |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          "and by YUOR logic murder is ok then..murder has been around LONG before the bIble came about...derrrrr"

          I suppose that made sense in your mind, but how is marriage the same as murder?
          That is not my logic, nor logic at all.

          Marriage does not negatively impact anyone, while murder completely disregards the rights of another and does direct harm.
          I find it hilarious when you attempt to use logic.

          Please by all means, explain ( in detail ) your above statement.

          April 13, 2014 at 8:50 am |
    • Madtown

      Yes it is a sin however we are all sinners
      ----
      What's a sin, to be gay? If God disapproves of this, don't you find it curious that he keeps making them that way?

      April 12, 2014 at 9:56 am |
    • sam stone

      blessed: if god is omniscient, there is no free will. if god punishes people who lack free will, he is not just, he is a vindictie pr1ck. thanks for playing

      April 12, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
  2. blessed137

    Now to the invisible, immortal, eternal God, forever praised. Who was, is, and is to come.

    April 12, 2014 at 1:44 am |
    • zendraxus

      Who has never been seen, a supreme power that demands recognition and attention....but is camera shy....demands total obedience too his word and then grants authority to a bunch of middlemen...he used to make appearances – do plagues, part seas, raised the dead of whole cities, destroyed whole cities, flooded the world, etc. ....but for the last couple thousand years has been MIA.

      Youd think such an attention w.hore would be tripping all over himself to take the lead in this world....you know, for his glory and such.....but no...we are stuck with his middlemen and making sure they are nice and comfortable- would be hilarious but for all the misery and tragedy caused by his management teams.

      does not make sense at all....

      s

      April 12, 2014 at 2:17 am |
    • sam stone

      An omniscient, omnipotent being who has a hissy fit if his creations don't constantly praise him

      Sounds like a ego problem

      April 12, 2014 at 5:26 am |
    • frankbeattys

      Why are you calling God invisible? A different explanation is that you are blind.

      April 12, 2014 at 6:19 am |
      • sam stone

        Still another is that you are delusional

        April 12, 2014 at 7:54 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          People like franky-boy-child and this blessed person are truly frightening...they're the ones who if they heard 'the voice of god' telling them to murder their heathen neighbor would more than likely follow through. Thankfully these crazy folk are not being heard so much and are soon going to have their voices be part of the horrors of history. I think they need to start putting Prozac in the water system at all churches, maybe the delusions would clear sooner and we'd see less of this type of person.

          April 12, 2014 at 8:43 am |
  3. bugnotmeplz

    I'm sick of the bible's communistic beliefs. Everyone should live the way they want to, without some stupid beliefs in any books.

    April 11, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Bug,

      "Everyone should live the way they want to"

      Does this include murderers, rapists, etc.?

      April 12, 2014 at 9:12 am |
  4. bostontola

    Some religious people can't understand how atheists can be satisfied with non-absolute morality. Absolute morality of Christianity is an illusion though.

    1. Different denominations have different interpretations of various rules.
    2. Different denominations cherry pick rules differently.
    3. The biblical morals are primitive and not what we would want to live with today.

    Regarding 3, there are ancient rules regarding slavery, women, and punishment to children of transgressors we would not tolerate today.

    Reality is, absolute morality means static morality. Humans have developed much better morality in the last 2000 years. This static system retards learning and improving. Religious people have adapted with the various denominations and slavery is no longer allowed. But then, absolute morality is abandoned. Lots of rationalization is used to preserve the illusion of retaining the absolute morality. This is where one denomination calls out others as apostate.

    From outside the religion, it is easy to see the folly in the self perception within it that they have absolute morality. It's all part of the spell.

    April 11, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
    • blessed137

      So if someone killed your entire family you would consider it primitive? I'm not trying to be a smartass im being serious? I could never be okay with that. I would hold them accountable. That is Good. That is Just.

      April 11, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
      • hotairace

        The prohibition of murder is primitive in origin but still applicable today. Stoning people for adultery and permitting slavery are primitive in origin but have no place in today's society. I understand that delusional believers may not be able to make even these easy assessments because they clearly show The Babble is a pile of steaming bull dodo and their delusions must continue at any cost.

        April 11, 2014 at 8:58 pm |
        • blessed137

          You said biblical principals are not what we would want to live with today. Not murdering is one of the 10 commandments of the law. it is a absolute moral. The law is one. It is written if you keep the whole law and stumble at just one point you are guilty of breaking all of it for when God said thout shalt not commit murder he also said thou shalt not commit adultry. all biblical morals are the authority on what is righteous. Without them there is only immoraltiy.
          As for the death of children of transgressors, etc read the post listed below.

          April 11, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Not murdering is one of the 10 commandments of the law. it is a absolute moral.

          In NO WAY is this an absolute. What exactly do you mean by "murder"? Look at my post below.

          The definition changes with society and time. Some cultures consider capital punishment to be moral. Others consider it to be state-appointed murder and very wrong. Where is the absolute moral there?

          April 11, 2014 at 10:05 pm |
        • observer

          blessed137

          "Not murdering is one of the 10 commandments of the law. it is a absolute moral."

          Nope. That's why we have a legal system to determine if murder is justifiable homicide.

          April 11, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          There is no such thing as "Biblical Principles". Name any one, and we can show it originated in the cultures from which the Bible TOOK them. The Bible "gave" nothing to human culture". Everything in the Bible was TAKEN from already extant human cultural moral, hygenic, and legal systems. The complete fallacy is that ANYTHING humans call "moral" originated in the Bible. Saying that simply demonstrates his utter and complete ignorance of human cultural history.
          Is it a "Biblical Principle" to kill your disobedient children ?

          April 11, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Taking a life is considered moral in many situtations, and believers of all sorts do not agree when a certain situation is moral. Some think capital punishment is always immoral. Some don't. Some think all wars are immoral. Some don't. There is no "absolute morality". It's a fallacy. The "moral argument" is complete BS.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
      • bostontola

        I didn't say every element was primitive. But thanks for picking that one. Murder in the bible is simplistic. Today we have many types, each treated differently. The modern approach to murder is more sophisticated and more fair.

        April 11, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Let's make the distinction between what is moral, what is legal and what, according to believers, is sinful.

          The 6th* commandment (which you would think is very clear cut) is a great example of ambiguity. There are three recent high-profile Florida murder cases:
          – Zimmerman / Stand your ground shooting, Travon Martin (acquital)
          – Dunn / SUV shooting, Jordan Davis (hung jury on murder)
          – Reeves / Movie theatre shooting, Chad Oulson (no verdict yet)

          In each of these cases it seems possible (if not likely) that the accused will not be found guilty of murder. Was the behavior of these people moral? I wonder if the believers here think these people committed a "sin" when in each case the accused willfully took the life of another human who was not in a position to kill them because of an imagined or other non-lethal threat.

          There is very little real consensus on murder and there are plenty of examples of this ambiguity. Exceptions are made for soldiers, state appointed executioners, self defence, the last of which gets extrapolated into homestead and stand your ground laws.

          It amazes me that believers are hard over that abortion is a violation of the 6th* commandment yet happily send people to their deaths when convicted of crimes on the flimsiest or even fraudulent evidence without batting an eyelid. The civilized world has banned many lethal substances (essentially as immoral) that are presently used in the United States for exeuction purposes, leading many states to consider more barbaric means of state-appointed murder.

          The only "moral" of this story appears to be don't live in Florida.

          * Approximately.

          April 11, 2014 at 9:36 pm |
      • blessed137

        Gods Standard of murder is the only standard.
        There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death proverbs 14:12

        April 11, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          So if a woman who has been beaten and abused by her husband shoots him when she finds him molesting their daughter, God says she is a murderer and is treated the same as a mass murderer.

          Makes sense, but mostly to you.

          April 11, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
    • blubonn

      <Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that! well I didn't really say it I posted it.. so where is it?

      April 11, 2014 at 9:15 pm |
      • hotairace

        You probably tried to post something that contained a prohibited word fragment and it was blocked. Then you tried to post the same thing again, hence the duplicate message error. Net result, nothing got posted and won't until you find and edit the offending word fragment.

        April 11, 2014 at 9:19 pm |
        • blubonn

          liar

          April 12, 2014 at 12:39 am |
        • hotairace

          Fuck Off Azzhole!

          April 12, 2014 at 12:43 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I like this post.

      The constant haranguing by the absolutists here is as tiresome as it is baseless.

      Empirically it is evident that morality is relative and changes with time and society.

      April 11, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
    • frankbeattys

      bostontola wrote: " Humans have developed much better morality in the last 2000 years."
      So you are saying that since Jesus Christ taught humans morality, morality has improved? IF you believe what science says that humans are 100,000s of years old, that is very interesting that you think that right after Jesus taught morality that humans improved their morality. Why didn't morality improve before Jesus?

      April 11, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
      • bostontola

        Because most of that time, people didn't live in large societies, they lived in small family groups. Just read the bible, the morals laid out are simplistic, ambiguous, and some are outright obsolete and unacceptable today.

        April 11, 2014 at 9:54 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          Give me some immoral quotes from Jesus himself.

          April 11, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          @Frank,

          Jesus was very clear that marrying a divorced woman was wrong.

          This is not considered immoral, and ironically so by most Christians today despite Jesus' explicit words to the effect.

          April 11, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
        • bostontola

          Only quotes of Jesus are recognized as law in your denomination? The rest of the bible is optional?

          April 11, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @frank
          “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
          —Luke 22:36

          Is a call to arms not an invitation to violence?

          April 11, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          Doc Vestibule wrote:"
          “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
          —Luke 22:36

          Is a call to arms not an invitation to violence?"

          So you think defending yourself is immoral? If you went up to an animal like a lion and took out its claws would that be moral? That cat would be defenseless.

          April 11, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • bostontola

          Defend yourself in one verse, turn the other cheek in another, not very absolute, wide open for contingent interpretation. Right back to relative morality.

          April 11, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
        • observer

          frankbeattys,

          "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back."
          - Jesus

          April 11, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV wrote:"@Frank,
          Jesus was very clear that marrying a divorced woman was wrong.
          This is not considered immoral, and ironically so by most Christians today despite Jesus' explicit words to the effect."

          I think divorce is a bad thing. Divorce hurts children.

          April 11, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
        • observer

          frankbeattys,

          Why do so many Christian HYPOCRITES get up in a lather about gay marriage and totally ignore the MUCH MUCH GREATER number of their fellow Christians who are adulterers because of divorce and remarriage?

          April 11, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • bostontola

          Divorce is bad in general, but not always. What if the husband/father is abusive? This why simple and absolute is a bad combination for morality and justice.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Nothing that Jesus is quoted to have said is reliable. Scholars don't agree on what are authentic quotes, and what are not. You prove to me he ever existed, and that he said what you *claim* he said, then we can discuss the content of the sayings.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
      • observer

        frankbeattys

        "Why didn't morality improve before Jesus?"

        Possibly because of the "morals" that were described in the Old Testament that supposedly lasted for thousands of years.

        April 11, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        If Jesus taught humanity morality, what did God Himself teach His chosen people thousands of years earlier?

        Ethical codices have evolved independently before and after Christianity.
        Moral behaviour is behaviour that enables cooperation amongst humans and thus survival.
        The trouble with religion is that it is usually sectarian and divisive. Especially in the Abrahamic religions, there is an underlying "us vs. them" message that ensures they can never be universally accepted.

        April 11, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
      • hotairace

        Human morality has developed for thousands of years, long before some alleged desert dweller allegedly named jesus allegedly taught stuff in The Babble, allegedly the word of some alleged but never proven god.

        April 11, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
      • hotairace

        Evolution explains the development of morals far better than the crap in The Babble.

        April 11, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
        • blessed137

          science
          : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
          Give an example of observable darwin evolution

          April 11, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          e·volve
          iˈvälv/
          verb
          1.
          develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

          Here's the definition of develop and gradually.

          de·vel·op
          diˈveləp/
          verb
          1.
          grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate.

          2.
          start to exist, experience, or possess.

          grad·u·al·ly
          ˈgrajo͞oəlē/
          adverb
          1.
          in a gradual way; slowly; by degrees.

          One cannot observe it in real time. Non-sequiter.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Blessed137,
          Stop by any hospital lab. Bacteria are evolving there in every lab every day of the week. NOT ONE major academic center in the entire world doubts the validity of Evolution. Only an idiot would attempt to deny it.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
        • hotairace

          We have moved from a male dominated, survival of the meanest and strongest individuals to a more equal situation governed by the rule of law for the collective good. That's evolution!

          April 11, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
        • blessed137

          Therefore is cannot be observed. Therefore it cannot be seen. Therefore it is based on faith.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • blessed137

          and what have these bacteria evolved into?

          April 11, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
        • blessed137

          Hotairace, shfting of man power to female equality is not darwin evolution the changing of kinds. That's merrily a social agenda

          April 12, 2014 at 12:00 am |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          Speaking of observable, show us how something can come from NOTHING and then create EVERYTHING from NOTHING.

          April 12, 2014 at 12:05 am |
        • realbuckyball

          "and what have they evolved into" ?
          Hahahhaha.
          Thanks for demonstrating your complete and utter ignorance of the topic. You would be flunked out of even High School Biology 101. They have evolved resistance to antibiotics. Ever hear of DNA ? DNA PROVES Evolution. Of course you are SO f'ing ignorant you don't even get why that is. Some people are just too stupid to live.

          April 12, 2014 at 12:08 am |
        • hotairace

          Darwin's evolution is more broadly applicable than to just evolution of species. I didn't make any claims about the evolution of species.

          April 12, 2014 at 12:18 am |
        • blessed137

          They may have adapted into a different resistant bacteria. But they are still bacteria. That is not the change of kinds. A species of bird may have adapted to having a different appearance, but they are still birds. Evolution has never been observed which is part of the scientific method. Testing the other part, has been proven to be inacurate. you may choose to put your faith in imperfect man's test results, but I choose to put my faith in knowing that the eternal (past and future) God created everything that is seen. Life cannot come from nonlife. God always was.

          April 12, 2014 at 8:35 am |
      • Alias

        I love the way christians twist history and ignore inconvenient facts.
        Some of the moral low points in history were the treatmnet of peoplr bu the theocracies of western Europe durring the dark ages. Yet you are trying to say your religion teaches morality.

        April 11, 2014 at 10:20 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          Alias wrote: "I love the way christians twist history and ignore inconvenient facts.
          Some of the moral low points in history were the treatmnet of peoplr bu the theocracies of western Europe durring the dark ages. Yet you are trying to say your religion teaches morality."

          That is amazing that you said that. Do you know what the dark ages were? The dark ages occurred during the hundreds of years after the bible was declared illegal. It was illegal to have a copy of the bible during the dark ages in many European countries. Before that, there was higher morality, and then when the printing press started mass producing the King James Bible morality started to come back. The secular government merged with the church and used religion to control the people. The bible was a threat to that authority.

          April 11, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • Alias

          You made my point again.
          The dark ages were a time when the government was the church. Torture was common. Heresy was punishable by death. Science stagnated because the bible was used to answer all questions.
          I know grade school text books claim the dark ages ended with the invention of the printing press, but educated adults should know that is not the truth.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          the BIBLE teaches it...those who are cause of the low points were not following the Bible.....try to see the difference..between what the Bible teaches and what people do

          April 13, 2014 at 2:16 am |
      • observer

        frankbeattys,

        Fortunately, the Bible doesn't determine our laws. We no longer allow slavery. We are working toward eliminating discrimination against women, gays, and the handicapped. We have laws protecting children against being beaten for discipline, etc.

        April 11, 2014 at 10:48 pm |
        • blessed137

          Exactly. However im not speaking of many laws, courts, im speaking of the standard by which He judges man. For the day of judgement. His law is by how he IS going to judge. Man sees man a good. God sees man as corrupt. Dont wait till you have some sort of scientific evidence. Such will never happen. Recieve Jesus as your savior. He took your sins upon himself so you may have everlasting life. This is your choice. to believe or not to believe. Choose wisely. God loves you and does not want you to be separated from you, but he is holy and cannot allow sin in his presence. Jesus Christ blood paid your sin debt. You may think I have not sin or i do somethings bad but not bad enough. God does not judge by mans standard of goodness. Check the 10 commandments and see how you stand.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • observer

          Ten Commandments:
          1: Have no other gods – NOT A LAW
          2: Make no graven image – NOT A LAW
          3: Don’t take the name in vain – NOT A LAW
          4: Honor the Sabbath – NOT A LAW
          5: Honor thy father and mother – NOT A LAW
          6: Thou shalt not kill – NOT UNIQUE TO CHRISTIANITY (long pre-dated it)
          7: Thou shalt not commit adultery – huge number of Christians commit adultery by LEGALLY remarrying
          8: Thou shalt not steal – NOT UNIQUE TO CHRISTIANITY
          9: Thou shalt not bear false witness – NOT UNIQUE TO CHRISTIANITY
          10: Thou shalt not covet – NOT A LAW

          April 11, 2014 at 11:15 pm |
        • blessed137

          Ignorance of the law does not justify breaking the law. you may not aknowledge God and his law however, he who sins apart from the law will perish apart from the law. Romans

          April 11, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          So which of God's laws do you SELECT? For instance, when dealing with gays, do you CHOOSE old negative commands from God or do you CHOOSE the MUCH MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule from Jesus?

          April 11, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
      • sam stone

        The moral pronouncements that jesus "taught" humans were already around

        April 12, 2014 at 5:36 am |
    • ddeevviinn

      Yep, moral relativism, it has worked out so well throughout history.

      April 11, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
      • bostontola

        Our system is far from perfect, but it is far superior to a biblical justice system.

        April 11, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
        • blessed137

          Lack of perfection is not superior

          April 11, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
        • bostontola

          It is superior because the bible morality is further from perfection than our body of laws.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:40 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          Slight problem with your statememt. " our system " is not based upon moral relativism.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          Biblical justice wasn't perfect.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • blessed137

          THe laws of man are close to perfect because they were inspired by God's Law. What makes man;s laws imperfect because they also are composed of man's own laws.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • blessed137

          Ths is to all ive been speaking with.You choose not to believe. Im not going to beat a dead horse with a hammer. I just hope on day before its too late you see that you all are sinners in need of Jesus Christ. I love you all. God bless. I will pray for you.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          Also pray that next time you might be able to come up with any answers to the questions.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
        • bostontola

          devin,
          Our laws come from a political process, it doesn't get more relative than that.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
      • observer

        blessed137,

        God's support of slavery and discriminations are FAR from perfection for most people.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
        • blessed137

          Man's standard of perfect is insignificant considering that the human heart is corrupt. God is perfect. His laws are perfect. He judges sin and holds the guilty accountable.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:40 pm |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          So you agree with God's twisted "perfect" morals like:

          Slavery
          Discrimination against women
          Discrimination against gays
          Discrimination against the handicapped
          Beating children with rods

          It's amazing to hear from someone with the "morals" of people from HUNDREDS/THOUSANDS of years ago.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      "Some religious people can’t understand how atheists can be satisfied with non-absolute morality."

      On atheism, humans can invent morality but it is merely an illusion.
      Think about this. On a subjective view of morality, a man can choose to decide that murder is morally evil and can base that opinion on external references such as the golden rule or he can decide that murder is morally good and base this opinion on other external references, such as for personal power. As sick as this is, each choice is equal with regards to morality on atheism.

      "1. Different denominations have different interpretations of various rules.
      2. Different denominations cherry pick rules differently."

      When you say "rules", are you referring to morals?

      "3. The biblical morals are primitive and not what we would want to live with today.

      Regarding 3, there are ancient rules regarding slavery, women, and punishment to children of transgressors we would not tolerate today."

      You may not tolerate them but on atheism, are they morally wrong and if so, why? I also believe that an atheist can run off a laundry list of acts they deem morally wrong without really looking into the context of the verses they are using. In the past, I have responded in depth to a question regarding slavery as presented in Exodus 21:7,8. I can repost my answer if needed.

      "Reality is, absolute morality means static morality. Humans have developed much better morality in the last 2000 years."

      Says who? On atheism, who or what determines what "better" morality is and why do they get to do so?

      "Religious people have adapted with the various denominations and slavery is no longer allowed."

      Jesus did not come to overthrow the political system of Rome. He came to defeat death. Also, keep in mind Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:21
      "Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

      As an end note, if we can establish that one thing and only one thing is objectively morally evil or good, then objective morality exists. So I ask you a question regarding the following scenario. About 9 years ago in Florida, a 9 year old little girl named Jessica was kidnapped, molested multiple times and then buried alive in a plastic bag. According to Wikipedia, after the police found her, "Her body had undergone "moderate" to "severe" decomposition and according to the publicly released autopsy reports was skeletonized on two fingers that Lunsford had poked through the bags before suffocating to death."
      Was the act of the molester objectively morally evil?

      April 12, 2014 at 10:06 am |
    • truthfollower01

      Bostontola,

      "Some religious people can’t understand how atheists can be satisfied with non-absolute morality."

      On atheism, humans can invent morality but it is merely an illusion.
      Think about this. On a subjective view of morality, a man can choose to decide that murder is morally evil and can base that opinion on external references such as the golden rule or he can decide that murder is morally good and base this opinion on other external references, such as for personal power. As sick as this is, each choice is equal with regards to morality on atheism.

      "1. Different denominations have different interpretations of various rules.
      2. Different denominations cherry pick rules differently."

      When you say "rules", are you referring to morals?

      "3. The biblical morals are primitive and not what we would want to live with today.

      Regarding 3, there are ancient rules regarding slavery, women, and punishment to children of transgressors we would not tolerate today."

      You may not tolerate them but on atheism, are they morally wrong and if so, why? I also believe that an atheist can run off a laundry list of acts they deem morally wrong without really looking into the context of the verses they are using. In the past, I have responded in depth to a question regarding slavery as presented in Exodus 21:7,8. I can repost my answer if needed.

      "Reality is, absolute morality means static morality. Humans have developed much better morality in the last 2000 years."

      Says who? On atheism, who or what determines what "better" morality is and why do they get to do so?

      "Religious people have adapted with the various denominations and slavery is no longer allowed."

      Jesus did not come to overthrow the political system of Rome. He came to defeat death. Also, keep in mind Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:21
      "Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

      As an end note, if we can establish that one thing and only one thing is objectively morally evil or good, then objective morality exists. So I ask you a question regarding the following scenario. About 9 years ago in Florida, a 9 year old little girl named Jessica was kidnapped, mol-ested multiple times and then buried alive in a plastic bag. According to Wikipedia, after the police found her, "Her body had undergone "moderate" to "severe" decomposition and according to the publicly released autopsy reports was skeletonized on two fingers that Lunsford had poked through the bags before suffocating to death."
      Was the act of the molester objectively morally evil?

      April 12, 2014 at 10:08 am |
      • truthfollower01

        Sorry for the multiple post.

        April 12, 2014 at 10:12 am |
    • truthfollower01

      Bostontola,

      "Some religious people can’t understand how atheists can be satisfied with non-absolute morality."

      On atheism, humans can invent morality but it is merely an illusion.
      Think about this. On a subjective view of morality, a man can choose to decide that murder is morally evil and can base that opinion on external references such as the golden rule or he can decide that murder is morally good and base this opinion on other external references, such as for personal power. As sick as this is, each choice is equal with regards to morality on atheism.

      "1. Different denominations have different interpretations of various rules.
      2. Different denominations cherry pick rules differently."

      When you say "rules", are you referring to morals?

      "3. The biblical morals are primitive and not what we would want to live with today.

      Regarding 3, there are ancient rules regarding slavery, women, and punishment to children of transgressors we would not tolerate today."

      You may not tolerate them but on atheism, are they morally wrong and if so, why? I also believe that an atheist can run off a laundry list of acts they deem morally wrong without really looking into the context of the verses they are using. In the past, I have responded in depth to a question regarding slavery as presented in Exodus 21:7,8. I can repost my answer if needed.

      "Reality is, absolute morality means static morality. Humans have developed much better morality in the last 2000 years."

      Says who? On atheism, who or what determines what "better" morality is and why do they get to do so?

      "Religious people have adapted with the various denominations and slavery is no longer allowed."

      Jesus did not come to overthrow the political system of Rome. He came to defeat death. Also, keep in mind Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:21
      "Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

      As an end note, if we can establish that one thing and only one thing is objectively morally evil or good, then objective morality exists. So I ask you a question regarding the following scenario. About 9 years ago in Florida, a 9 year old little girl named Jessica was kidnapped, mol-ested multiple times and then buried alive in a plastic bag. According to Wikipedia, after the police found her, "Her body had undergone "moderate" to "severe" decomposition and according to the publicly released autopsy reports was skeletonized on two fingers that Lunsford had poked through the bags before suffocating to death."
      Was the act of the mol-ester objectively morally evil?

      April 12, 2014 at 10:10 am |
      • truthfollower01

        Sorry for this duplicate post.

        April 12, 2014 at 10:14 am |
  5. The Answer Is 42

    Putting this up hers because the thread is getting too long. Sorry.

    Kermit,

    ....yet there are fragments of the copies of the Gospels found to be as early as 68 AD..now hiow is that possible? hmmmm…as I said I think youneed to update yourknowledge

    Please provide the link for this assertion. Although most books in the NT are thought to have been written between 50-95AD, the fragmentI> were found much, much later.
    As in 2nd and 3rd Century later.

    Thanks for the link in advance.

    April 11, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
    • The Answer Is 42

      HTML fail. Sorry, folks.

      April 11, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
    • Vic

      http://carm.org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it

      April 11, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
      • The Answer Is 42

        Vic.
        I know. I plainly stated "Please provide the link for this assertion. Although most books in the NT are thought to have been written between 50-95AD, the fragments were found much, much later. (For each book.)
        As in 2nd and 3rd Century later."

        He asserted there was a fragment found in 68 AD.
        I want the link to the story of that fragment.

        April 11, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      Its not a link..its from books I read..one of them is called "Why 27" by Brian H Edwards...I cannot think of the other books at the moment..if you want more let me know

      April 13, 2014 at 2:02 am |
  6. jprcox

    This is incredibly dumb. Dating between the 6-9th century...? as if there weren't any heretics during this timeframe that could have written something on a piece of cloth. That is 600-1,000 years AFTER Jesus was on the earth. Who even cares?

    April 11, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
    • The Answer Is 42

      Not really. Most of the earliest know fragments of the NY were found in the 2nd-3rd Century, although it is generally accepted that the books of the NT were written in the mid to late first Century.

      April 11, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
    • sealchan

      There is no evidence that the gospel writers personally knew or heard Jesus speak. Paul, we know, didn't. In the context of scripture, truth cannot be well established beyond hearsay. Better to treat the text as the work of its author and try and understand his/her intent and understanding of who Jesus was. For that we may look to authors from all ages for valuable teaching.

      WWJD if he had a wife?

      April 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Why, then, did some of the disciples claim to see Jesus alive after his resurrection? I don't doubt at all that some disciples claimed this. We don't have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don't think he is making it up. And he knew at least a couple of them, whom he met just three years after the event Galatians 1:18-19)." – from Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus Interrupted

        April 11, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        ""there is no doubt that [Paul] believed that he saw Jesus' real but glorified body raised from the dead."
        – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.

        April 11, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          I think the operative word is believed.

          April 11, 2014 at 8:46 pm |
  7. blessed137

    Kudlak, You asked a legitimate question. What is the image of something invisible look like? It is written God is Love...
    Love is invisible. What is the image of Love?

    April 11, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
    • blessed137

      For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him shall never perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

      April 11, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
      • Madtown

        Doesn't it seem a little strange that an omnipotent God would only beget 1 son? Couldn't he have as many as he wanted?

        April 11, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
        • blessed137

          God is three in one. Father/Spirit/Son Jesus Christ is the Word of God that came into the flesh to die for sinful man. I know it doesnt make sense to you due to the fact that you are trying to discern spiritual wisdom with human logic.

          April 11, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
        • Madtown

          Gotcha. But, it makes sense to you? Aren't you also human? You're making statements as if they're factual, and you know the answers. How is it that you'd claim to "know" these things? The trinity is a creation of the human mind. It exists only because humans developed the concept.

          April 11, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
        • blessed137

          ...The spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgements about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement: " For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:10-16

          April 11, 2014 at 8:36 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          God did not beget any sons

          April 13, 2014 at 2:07 am |
    • kudlak

      Love isn't invisible.

      I can see the love in my family's eyes.

      Got anything else?

      April 11, 2014 at 9:36 pm |
      • blessed137

        The manifestation of love is visible. Parents hugging their children, a nurse bedwashing a wounded soldier. A man carrying a nother person to a hospital 5 miles away. The fruitss of love are evident. You can see them. You you cant your blind and walk around in darkness.

        April 11, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
  8. soysaroth

    Explain to me how they found that piece of cloth written that Jesus mentioned abt someone as His wife? Why would scientists wasted their time on proving something they dun believe in?

    April 11, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
    • The Answer Is 42

      Because scientists do not let their faith get in the way of knowledge.

      April 11, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
      • blessed137

        Do you believe in Darwin Evolution?

        April 11, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          What possible relevance does that have to my post?

          April 11, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
      • blessed137

        Just asking a question?

        April 11, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          Evolution has nothing to do with my posts.

          April 11, 2014 at 8:47 pm |
        • blessed137

          It has to due with faith and science.

          April 11, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          Are you suggesting only atheist scientists should test this fragment?
          Or only Christian ones?

          April 11, 2014 at 9:00 pm |
        • blessed137

          You quoted scientist dont let faith get in the way of knowledge. They do. Darwin Evolution upheld by scientist regarless of whether they are atheist or christians, is taken on faith.

          April 11, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is not based on faith.

          It is based on a preponderance of evidence.

          If you take issue with it, it is only because you refuse to accept the evidence. That doesn't change the fact that the evidence validates the theory.

          April 11, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • hotairace

          Evolution survives because believer scientists, or non-believer scientists for that matter, can't show that it is wrong. Unless of course you can point us to a scholarly article published in a peer reviewed reputable scientific journal that successfully concludes with "some god did it."

          April 11, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
        • blessed137

          Give an observable example of Darwin evolution. Which is the changing of kinds. monkey to man. sea animal to land lizard...etc

          April 11, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          Species Lived where Height Weight Fossil record Discovery/Publ.
          Denisova hominin Russia 1 site 2010
          H. antecessor Spain 5’7” 200 lb 2 sites 1997
          H. cepranensis Italy 1 skull cap 1994/2003
          H. erectus Africa, Eurasia 5’9” 130 lb Many 1891/1892
          H. ergaster East/South Africa 6’2” Many 1975
          H. floresiensis Indonesia 3’4” 55 lb 7 individuals 2003/2004
          H. gautengensis South Africa 3’4” 1 individual 2010/2010
          H. habilis Africa 4’10” 121 lb, Many, 1960/1964
          H. heidelbergensis Eur., Africa,China 5’10” 200 lb Many 1908
          H. neanderthalensis Europe, W. Asia 5’3” 150 lb Many (1829)/1864
          H. rhodesiensis Zambia Very few 1921
          H. rudolfensis Kenya 2 sites 1972/1986
          Red Deer Cave people China Very few 2012
          H. sapiens idaltu Ethiopia 3 craniums 1997/2003
          H. sapiens

          April 11, 2014 at 11:11 pm |
        • blessed137

          No I said observable, pulling bones out of the ground is not observing. It is watching something happen. Seeing. so give an example of observable darwin evolution.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • observer

          blessed137

          "No I said observable, pulling bones out of the ground is not observing."

          The earth is possibly 4,500,000,000 years old and you want to see something change in seconds.

          Are you for real?

          April 11, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
        • blessed137

          Thats the scientific method. Observation. and what happend millions are years ago is not observable. Anytime throughout human history, give an account of an example of observable darwin evolution.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          Blessed, what you ask is a non-sequiter, and I think you know it. This is not the gotcha! you may think it is.

          e·volve
          iˈvälv/
          verb
          1.
          develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

          Here's the definition of develop and gradually.

          de·vel·op
          diˈveləp/
          verb
          1.
          grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate.

          2.
          start to exist, experience, or possess.

          grad·u·al·ly
          ˈgrajo͞oəlē/
          adverb
          1.
          in a gradual way; slowly; by degrees.

          Do you imagine that evolution like high-speed photography of a flower opening up in an instant does?
          Even Christian scientists accept evolution.
          Darwin's writings were 150 ago. It has progressed since then, and more is known now.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:36 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Seeing. so give an example of observable darwin evolution."

          Asking for a real time observation of a "kinds" level change betrays a miscomprehension of the relevant science. Darwinian evolution has been observed from the molecular level up through the divergence of one species into two. These are the expected observations within the relevant time frames. "Kinds" level changes are supported by the progressive order of the fossil record and more specifically by forms that bear traits bridging the alleged insular specially created "kinds"; e.g. Tiktaalik bears features of both fish and tetrapods, Archeopteryx bears features of both dinos and birds. According to creationists, these transitional forms simply should not exist, at all. Add to this, the many, many phylogenetic analyses between both extant and extinct forms which corroborate the macroevolution depicted throughout the fossil record.

          As for a clear example of darwinian evolution, I offer the Pod Mrcaru lizards:
          http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.full.pdf

          To pre-empt the same erroneous response that "they're still just lizards," again, this is the type of observation we expect to see within the relevant time scales; here, a rather profound and incredibly rare development of gastrointestinal anatomy. It should be noted that despite creationist claims to the contrary, they can not point to any biological constraint upon the capacity of forms to acc-umulate changes up through whatever taxonomic level they would associate with "kinds."

          One can have "faith" that god will supernaturally cure their infection and one can have "faith" that antibiotics will cure their infection; however, only the latter form of "faith" is supported by repeatedly validated empirical scientific investigation. They are not all synonymous . . .

          April 11, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Thats the scientific method. Observation. and what happend millions are years ago is not observable."

          What happened millions of years ago is captured in the chemistry of the geologic column and in the progressive order of the fossil record. Every time a fossil is discovered, it is an "observation." And to date, all of these observations confirm evolutionary predictions.

          By this mis-informed limitation on the scientific method, a genetic paternity test is worthless unless the technician also happened to witness the act of conception itself. Taken to absurdum, every observation is a worthless historical conjecture given the delay required for light to travel from the specimen to the observer's eyes . . .

          April 11, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
        • blessed137

          Man's test have been proven to be inacurate. Doctors who swear that a baby that has down syndrome due to some test are born normal.

          April 12, 2014 at 12:23 am |
        • observer

          blessed137

          The Bible has been proven to be inaccurate from claims that the Sun revolves around the earth to the value of pi being 3.0.

          Ooops.

          April 12, 2014 at 12:28 am |
        • blessed137

          Evolution has not been observed with plain sight. Men are imperfect they make mistakes therefore their tests for trying to prove the unseen are no grounds for proving anything. therefore evolution did not happen. I'll tell you what happen. God created the world in 7 days animals according to their kinds. He created man on the 6th day in his image. Adam and eve ate from the tree of good and evil, they rebelled against a Holy God. Man inherited a sinful nature that opposed God and his standard of righteousness to pursue their own way. God holds all men accountable for the sin. God will judge man who refuse to repent and receive forgiveness through the blood of Christ.. This wisdom is from God.

          April 12, 2014 at 12:31 am |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          So why does the Bible contain such OBVIOUS ERRORS?

          April 12, 2014 at 12:33 am |
        • redzoa

          "Man's test have been proven to be inacurate. Doctors who swear that a baby that has down syndrome due to some test are born normal."

          *facepalm*

          April 12, 2014 at 12:34 am |
        • redzoa

          "Evolution has not been observed with plain sight . . ."

          http://redpillpushers.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/jesus-facepalm.jpg

          April 12, 2014 at 12:38 am |
        • hotairace

          No god has not been observed with plain sight.

          April 12, 2014 at 12:40 am |
        • hotairace

          Ooops, mean to say: No god has been observed with plain sight

          April 12, 2014 at 12:41 am |
    • hotairace

      I suggest scientists are not engaged in proving what is written on the fragment is true or not. They are properly engaged in proving if the fragment is likely to have been created when religious scholars or archeologists think it was. In other words, form vs. content and scientists are not concerned with content.

      April 11, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
      • The Answer Is 42

        Thank you. Eloquently said.

        April 11, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
  9. Bob

    Vic, regarding this Jesus stuff that you keep spamming us with, it is a steaming pile of bull output. How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there. The foundation of your whole religion is utter nonsense.

    And then there is the horrid Christian book of nasty AKA the bible that you keep quotedumping from. You should really take a look more critically at the evil instructions in there purportedly from your vicious, murderous sky fairy:

    Numbers 31:17-18
    17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
    18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

    Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

    Leviticus 25
    44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
    45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
    46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

    Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

    And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

    So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

    And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.

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

    April 11, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Bob,

      " You should really take a look more critically at the evil instructions"

      On atheism, why is anything evil?

      April 11, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
      • The Answer Is 42

        "On atheism"... Explanation for this term, please.

        April 11, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
        • Doris

          truthfollower claims "on atheism" means "in a world without God"

          April 11, 2014 at 10:48 pm |
        • Doris

          if that helps at all .... lol

          April 11, 2014 at 10:48 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          No. It really doesn't help. Does truth follower know what atheism is?

          April 11, 2014 at 11:52 pm |
    • blessed137

      The context of your post are concerning the law given through moses. Under the law man is required to obtain his own righteousness. To be perfect as God is perfect. God gave the law because the jews boasted of their own goodness claiming they could do as he commanded. He said be holy as I am holy.
      In God's perfect standard of righteousness man is to be just. Holding people accountable for their sin. The wages of sin is death. Regardless of who that person was to you, husband wife neighbor, child they were to be put to death for sin.

      Ive read several times about in these post people accusing God of being a child killer. However consider this. All men have inherited a sinful nature. Children are not sinners because they sin there sinners because they have a sin nature. Ever hear of the term terrible two's. That child did not suddenly learn how to chuck toys at your face or bite, kick, and scream at you, disobey you with NO!. It was already in them.. By the age of two, they are able to manifest what was already there. God is all knowing. He knows what the children of pagan impires who were at war with his people would become. enemies. Which is why he lead the jewish people and other nations had them put to death with their parents.
      Also even in the Jewish tribes the sins of the father lead to the death of their own children. God told them what would happen if they broke the law. They choose the fate for their children.
      May seem a bit harsh to those who dont understand the conditions of the human heart. God sees and knows all things.

      April 11, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
      • Alias

        So you think your god made children sinful, and it is perfectly okay to send them to hell for eternity because they were born being what god made them?
        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

        April 11, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
        • blessed137

          NO. God created man to be righteous as he is. However when adam rebelled all man inherited a sinful nature from adam.

          April 11, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          God sure misjudged how people would turn out. The very first woman he created caused EVERY person after that to be sinful and the FIRST human baby killed the SECOND human baby.

          God is lucky he doesn't work for Donald Trump.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • Alias

          Even by your logic, god did a very poor job of creating man.
          However, that does not really contradict my main point. Babbies are sinful because they are born human. You think it is okay to condemn them for being born that way. Sick and twisted god you have there.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • blessed137

          He knew what was going to happen before he created the world. It was his divine plan to demonstrate His goodness by forgiving sinful men and bringing them back to himself. It is His will that men choose life, however most will choose death. Men have freewill. They choose evil and this effect their children and others. Not his fault If God were to end evil like all people think should happen, "if there was a God" that would include you. He wants a relationship with man. He does not need one he wants one. He loves you so much Jesus Christ laid down his own life for you. The righteous for the unrighteous.
          It is his desire that all men be saved. He does not discriminate against women, gays, or anyone else. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is his desire that all men repent of their sin and be saved. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Chirst. You cannot earn salvation. No body can do good works and gain approval. It is by faith you are saved, by grace alone. Good night. Till next time. God Bless.

          April 12, 2014 at 12:45 am |
        • observer

          blessed137

          "No body can do good works and gain approval."

          Yes. Not much of an endorsement for the Bible is it?

          April 12, 2014 at 12:52 am |
        • blessed137

          No because people are with sin. Our own acts of righteousness are as filthy rags- isaiah.
          But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:01 am |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          Great system. The nicest person in the world who has NEVER heard of God gets sent to hell by him and the worst mass-murderer who repents on his death-bed goes to heaven.

          Quite an endorsement.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:05 am |
        • kermit4jc

          that is an arrogant statement....it isn't about who is nicest...God isn't looking for best..cause there is none..and besides...that sets people up for arrogance..."IM better than you..so Im going to heaven" we are ALL on equal playing field...."the nicest person" is a selfish earthly system....the nicest person still sins

          April 13, 2014 at 2:20 am |
        • blessed137

          When Jesus was with the little children, the disciples tryed to stop them, he said, Do not hinder them from coming to me for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. ALl children go to be with the lord when they die. I do not believe babies and children are condemned.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • blessed137

          Jesus knew God. He was God. He said I lay my life down willingly and i have the power to take it up again. He is seated at the right hand of the father. He is alive and well in heaven not in hell.
          Yes he paid the sin debt of mass murders. Who repent and receive forgiveness.
          Remember he also died for you. You need Jesus just as much as a mass murder. You have violated his laws, regarless of whether or not you aknowldge it.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:14 am |
        • observer

          blessed137

          " ALl children go to be with the lord when they die. I do not believe babies and children are condemned."

          It's good to see something positive for abortion like this, even if the Bible NEVER mentioned abortion. This short-cut to heaven enables parents to give their fetuses the gift of eternal life.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:16 am |
        • observer

          blessed137

          "You have violated his laws, regarless of whether or not you aknowldge it."

          Of course I acknowledge it. I don't support the owning of another person like God does. Nor do I support the various discriminations that he does.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:20 am |
        • blessed137

          observer, I could argue with you and those like you until the coming of the Lord. But im tired and going to bed. For whatever your reason you have a hard heart toward God. I warned you. I shake the dust from my feet.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:34 am |
        • observer

          blessed137

          "observer, I could argue with you and those like you until the coming of the Lord. But im tired and going to bed. For whatever your reason you have a hard heart toward God"

          I don't have a hard heart toward God. I have a hard heart towards anything that supports things like slavery and discrimination against women, gays, the handicapped, etc.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:40 am |
      • redzoa

        "By the age of two, they are able to manifest what was already there. God is all knowing. He knows what the children of pagan impires who were at war with his people would become. enemies. Which is why he lead the jewish people and other nations had them put to death with their parents."

        Even mere mortals recognize that although incredibly frustrating, 2yr olds do not possess the mental development to properly reason, particularly complex morality and thereby are not truly accountable for their uncontrolled outbursts and misbehavior. This is why we rightly reject adult criminal prosecution for juveniles and those with mental disabilities. Furthermore, even mere mortals find it morally repugnant to punish children for the crimes of their parents.

        Yet you defend the brutal slaughter of children and infants as morally justifiable, despite their being incapable of exercising the free will to actively choose evil or reject god. I'm always left wondering how many children and infants apologists like yourself would be willing to butcher if they should ever believe god demanded it? And no doubt, like good little brownshirts, they would claim a Nuremberg Defense, i.e. they were just following orders and so can't be personally morally culpable . . .

        If the god of the bible exists, then I like to believe that the real test was whether one was willing to exercise compassion and empathy by rejecting such atrocities rather than mere self-serving blindly obedient allegiance. I like to imagine him asking "why did you slander me by suggesting I would actually murder children and infants?"

        April 11, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • blessed137

          God allowed those children to die due to the sins of their fathers. Generational sins. Their parents choose to turn away from God and it affected their children. And yes its true that children are not conscience of their sin. However when a person growns from infancy to adulthood, they are conscience and are guilty. I know this is hard for people to understand because people judge by mans standard and think people are good.

          April 12, 2014 at 12:53 am |
        • blessed137

          Also the Jews were under the law. The law condemns. We are now under the new covenant. Grace. For the law was given through Moses. Grace and Truth came thru Jesus Christ.

          April 12, 2014 at 12:57 am |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          Guess you missed this in the Bible.

          (Eze. 18:3,20) “As I live," declares the Lord God, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore.”
          “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

          April 12, 2014 at 1:02 am |
        • blessed137

          The context regards people being put to death for their own sin under the law. not generational sins. Under the law if a person was caught violating the law they were put to death not their children.
          And that was the law. We are now under grace. Nobody is being stoned, were being saved through the righteousness of Christ.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:22 am |
        • observer

          blessed137,

          It's good to see that God is willing to change his mind, especially when it was a really bad idea to start with.

          April 12, 2014 at 1:25 am |
        • redzoa

          "God allowed those children to die due to the sins of their fathers. Generational sins. Their parents choose to turn away from God and it affected their children. And yes its true that children are not conscience of their sin."

          First, the biblical deity did not "allow" the children and infants to die; he actively and cruelly drowned them (i.e. Gen 7:17-23) and directly commanded their brutal slaughter (e.g. 1 Sam 15:3). By your own words, the biblical deity commanded this judgment not for any exercise of free will by the children, but vicariously for the sins of the parents (alternative apologist arguments suggest "future sin" of the children but this doesn't remedy the issue). So despite the central tenet of Christianity that "free will" is the basis of judgment, the biblical deity arbitrarily and capriciously slaughtered children and infants in complete disregard of this central tenet. Free will becomes effectively meaningless . . .

          As predicted, the defense offered is a Nuremberg Defense betraying zero compassion or empathy, but rather a blind and morally indifferent deference to alleged authority for the clearly self-serving purpose of attempting to curry favor and evade disfavor. Again, I wonder how many children and infants blessed137 would butcher if they believed it was god's will? Gott mit uns!!!

          April 12, 2014 at 2:10 am |
        • blessed137

          Correct. Thus allowing it to happen.

          April 12, 2014 at 8:18 am |
        • alonsoquixote

          blessed137, your posts provide a clear example of the evils of religion. You wrote "All men have inherited a sinful nature. Children are not sinners because they sin there sinners because they have a sin nature. ... God is all knowing. He knows what the children of pagan impires who were at war with his people would become. enemies. Which is why he lead the jewish people and other nations had them put to death with their parents. Also even in the Jewish tribes the sins of the father lead to the death of their own children." That reflects the reasoning that has led to the slaughter of countless millions over the centuries by believers confident that their killings reflect the will of their god.

          Some might think few who reason in that way exist today, but you are not alone. The well-known Christian apologist William Lane Craig makes a similar argument to yours that it is ok to slaughter even infants and children, if that is what your god wants in cases where he doesn't want do do the terrible deeds himself, as he did when he supposedly wiped out almost all of humanity with a flood or sent a plague to kill 70,000 Israelites (2 Samuel 24:1-15), because David conducted a census. William Lane Craig has no sympathy for those slaughtered in the name of Yahweh, but, instead, suggests that it is the Israelites who deserve sympathy, because it must have been upsetting to them to have to slaughter babies.

          The Spanish historian and Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas (1484 – 1566), who accompanied Spanish conquistadors to the New World wrote of the atrocities committed by the Spanish Christians against the native peoples. He sent the following report back to Spain about one expedition:

          "The Spaniards, who were mounted on fine Horses, and armed with Lances and Swords, look'd upon Enemies formally equip'd with the greatest Contempt, and committed the most horrible Slaughters with Impunity. They pass'd through the several Cities and Towns, sparing neither Age nor S_ex, but kill'd Women and Children as well as Men: They rip'd up Women with Child, that Root and Branch might be destroy'd together. They laid Wagers one with another, who should cleave a Man down with his Sword most dexterously at one blow; or who should take his Head from his Shoulders most cleverly; or who should run a Man through after the most artificial manner. They tore away Children our of their Mothers arms, and dash'd out their Brains against the Rocks; others they threw in the River, diverting themselves with this brutish Sport, and giving great shouts while they saw 'em in this misery."

          Of course, they wouldn't want those babies to grow up to be pagans would they? One can find many examples throughout history in many lands of the slaughter even of infants by "good Christians". As just one more example in the New World, in 1853 in northern California a group of citizens from Crescent City attacked 450 Tolowa who had gathered to pray to a universal spirit. One Tolowa man wrote afterwards:

          "The whites attacked and the bullets were everywhere. Over four hundred and fifty of our people were murdered or lay dying on the ground. Then the whitemen built a huge fire and threw in our sacred ceremonial dresses, the regalia, and our feathers, and the flames grew higher. Then they threw in the babies, many of them were still alive. Some tied weights around the necks of the dead and threw them into the nearby water."

          Many might read of such incidents today and recoil at such slaughter, yet there are always other like you who can justify such atrocities by stating that the infants would otherwise have grown up to be heathens, so better to slaughter them at infancy. And let's not forget, Christianity's success over the centuries since its founding was in large measure due to the willingness of Christians to put to death any who refused to convert to Christianity or even a particular version of Christianity.

          When Kim Jong-un punishes the children and grandchildren of those who have offended him by sending whole families to Korean death camps we condemn his actions as barbaric. In January of this year when 3-year-old Nicola "Coco" Campolongo was shot in the head along with his grandfather, Giuseppe Iannicelli, in a Mafia hit in Italy, Italians were shocked and outraged. Yet, by your reasoning, the "sins of the father lead to the death of their own children." If holding children, grand-children, and even further descendants guilty of offenses committed by a forebear is standard practice for Yahweh, why should it not be for Kim Jong-un or the Mafia?

          E.g., Numbers 14:18.

          "The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

          And Exodus 20:5.

          "You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected–even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me."

          Though, not as extreme as 1 Kings 2:33.

          "May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever."

          Of course, there's also the story of "The Fall" in Genesis in which Yahweh punishes not only the first couple for eating of the fruit of the "one forbidden thing" he placed in the garden with them, or which may have pre-existed Yahweh, depending on which Jewish myth you favor, he punishes not only them, but their descendants through countless generations who inherit the sin of Adam and Eve according to you.

          April 12, 2014 at 9:47 am |
  10. Vic

    ♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰

    John 8:23
    "23 And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.”" (NASB)

    Early on:
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/10/study-jesus-wife-fragment-not-a-fake/comment-page-2/#comment-2985758

    April 11, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
    • samsstones

      Jesus Christ is Lord of the Myths

      April 11, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

        April 11, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          Nope. Well maybe for your exclusive "saved" group. You are both hilarious and ridiculous at the same time and oh so superior than the rest of mankind. I just wish your fantasy would remove you already, the final solution.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Jesus Christ is Lord whether you're saved or not. Remember, EVERY knee shall bow ...

          April 11, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          My knee will not bow down.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Dude, I have no idea who you are and I'm afraid for you.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          I have a very powerful dislike of cults, they have had a very ugly history in the history of mankind, you know that. To say that only a very few Christians meet your standard of what a Christian should be scares me even more. I do not really give a good god damn what people think they believe, but a judgemental dick like you is the absolute hypocrite. How many of your special people are going to be saved, not Catholics, not Mormons, not JW"s not whoever that does not believe as you do, is that right?

          April 11, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          I do not really care if you reply or not. Who the hell do you think you and your Baptist freaks are, that gives you the right to tell who is a real Christians or not? The arrogance and pomposity of your very ugly bigoted beliefs just pi$$es me off. No "Golden Rule " in your crowd . Your belief system is garbage, baby jesus weeps.

          April 11, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          ausphor

          "I have a very powerful dislike of cults, they have had a very ugly history in the history of mankind, you know that."

          This has nothing to do with whether God is real or not. Not only that, it's a bad argument. If you and I know each other and I tell you we can't be friends because you know someone who is a jerk ... it makes no sense. You can't judge Christ based on His followers. Besides that, it just goes toward the Bible being correct again. People are sinners.

          "To say that only a very few Christians meet your standard of what a Christian should be scares me even more."

          It's not my standard, it's God's. Read the Bible.

          "I do not really give a good - -what people think they believe, but a judgemental - like you is the absolute hypocrite."

          Yep, I'm a hypocrite. Guilty. But please tell me where I've judged anyone.

          "How many of your special people are going to be saved, not Catholics, not Mormons, not JW"s not whoever that does not believe as you do, is that right?"

          Who is special? I never said anyone is special. And those that are saved are those who meet God's standard/will. Again, read the Bible.

          April 11, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          ausphor

          "I do not really care if you reply or not. Who the - do you think you and your Baptist freaks are, that gives you the right to tell who is a real Christians or not?"

          Being a Baptist has nothing to do with a person's salvation.

          "Your belief system is garbage, baby jesus weeps."

          According to you, Jesus never existed. So what are you complaining about?

          April 11, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          I am simply laughing at you, you are one of the most obtuse people on this blog, you change your views from day to day. How many Christians will see the glory of god and go into the supposed eternal life, just you and yours, really? You are right I am a Deist, no afterlife reward for me, do not need the delusion.

          April 11, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          ausphor

          "I am simply laughing at you, you are one of the most obtuse people on this blog, you change your views from day to day."

          What view have I changed? You're just making stuff up now. And again, more name calling, which only makes you look bad since you clearly don't have an argument for your side. There's nothing about this that's funny.

          "How many Christians will see the glory of god and go into the supposed eternal life, just you and yours, really?"

          I've never said this. Please don't lie. It's one of the commandments and thus you're breaking God's law.

          "You are right I am a Deist, no afterlife reward for me, do not need the delusion."

          True, no reward. Just what you deserve for breaking the laws.

          April 11, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • Madtown

          It's not my standard, it's God's. Read the Bible.
          ---–
          The bible doesn't contain God's standard, because God did not author it. It contains the opinions of men, about what they THINK God's standard may be.

          April 11, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • sam stone

          remember, topher, proxy threats are the sign of a weak argument

          April 12, 2014 at 8:00 am |
        • midwest rail

          "...you are one of the most obtuse people on this blog, "
          Correct. And intentionally so.

          April 12, 2014 at 8:34 am |
      • kevin7harris

        You really think that? Do you realize how far from historical scholarship you are?

        April 11, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
        • ausphor

          Kevin...
          Best to say who you are responding to in a long blog, it makes it clearer.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          Sorry kermit.....you're wrong.....THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION….If you propose the existance of something, you must follow through with the scientific method in your defense of its existance otherwise I have no reason to listen to or believe you....there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, no eye witness of said person to have existed.

          April 11, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          And PS kevin....all info written about this fictional person was taken from the bible and early stories passed by word of mouth ONLY AFTER this person was first written about in Luke Mathew John and Mark 70 years after the so called existence of this person called Jesus was supposed to have walked the land..

          April 11, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          youneed to update yourinfo....70 years after Jesus would be 100 AD..yet there are fragments of the copies of the Gospels found to be as early as 68 AD..now hiow is that possible? hmmmm...as I said I think youneed to update yourknowledge

          April 11, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          Sorry wrote kermit...but meant kevin7

          April 11, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          youneed to update yourinfo….70 years after Jesus would be 100 AD..yet there are fragments of the copies of the Gospels found to be as early as 68 AD..now hiow is that possible? hmmmm…as I said I think youneed to update yourknowledge

          Link, please, to any fragment found earlier than the early 2nd century.

          April 11, 2014 at 8:00 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WHY is it that people are always asking for links? are they so lazy as to get a book? doesn't anyone read books anymore? I get my sources from books...one of them is Brian H Edwards "Why 27?"

          April 13, 2014 at 2:06 am |
      • idiotusmaximus

        You got that right sam...if it were today and he was real...they'd call him a fake as they pull in the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

        April 11, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
    • justme1n1

      Scribbling by ignorant religious goat herders... And?

      Sacred texts of various religions (pulled from WIKI):
      ---------–
      Adi Dam
      Ásatrú
      Atenism
      Ayyavazhi
      Bahá'í Faith
      Bön
      Buddhism
      Cheondoism
      Christianity
      Confucianism
      Discordianism
      Druidism
      Druze
      Ancient Egyptian religion
      Etruscan religion
      Ancient Greece
      Hermeticism
      Hinduism
      Islam
      Jainism
      Judaism
      LaVeyan Satanism
      Mandaeanism
      Manichaeism
      Maya religion
      Meher Baba
      Native American Church
      New Age religions
      Orphism
      Raëlism
      Rastafari movement
      Ravidassia
      Samaritanism
      Science of Mind
      Scientology
      Shinto
      Sikhism
      Spiritism
      Sumerian
      Swedenborgianism
      Taoism
      Tenrikyo
      Thelema
      Unification Church
      Urantianism
      Wicca
      Yârsân
      Yazidi
      Yorùbá
      Zoroastrianism

      April 11, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
      • grr82cu2

        So?

        Would it be helpful to your objectivity to list all the variations and proposed THEORIES about how life began from 'non-god' sources ??

        April 11, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
        • justme1n1

          Now that is wicked. You know, as well as I do, none of us have the answer to this question. However, stating a (put your choice here) did it, is illogical without any evidence to support it.

          April 11, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
    • markcatronmusic

      The Bible often refers to the Church as being "The Bride of Christ" ... so the Hebrew word for "wife" could also be translated "bride" .... I don't know if any of it is true or not, but I have studied and searched for answers in the Bible enough to know that.

      April 11, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
    • skeptic4life

      Hey Vic: Throwing around a few verses from the bible says nothing. What does the bible say about using a computer to post messages in response to news stories? Maybe you missed this passage:

      Steve Jobs 3:24
      "And verily, thou shalt striketh the keys on thy keyboard, and engage in rational intercourse (not the dirty kind) of ideas without plagiarizing authors of the old and new testaments, or thou risk being smote by the holy heartbleed virus. Haveth a nice day"

      April 11, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
    • Bob

      Vic, regarding this Jesus stuff that you keep spamming us with, it is a steaming pile of output of the back end of a bull. How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there. The foundation of your whole religion is utter nonsense.

      And then there is the horrid Christian book of nasty AKA the bible that you keep quotedumping on us from. You should really take a look more critically at the evil instructions in there purportedly from your vicious, murderous sky fairy:

      Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
      18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

      Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

      Leviticus 25
      44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
      45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
      46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

      Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

      Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

      And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.

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

      April 11, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
      • frankbeattys

        The interesting part is that God had to regulate the barbarians because they could not follow a stricter religious law. In other words, they were like you. According to Jesus, those laws were far from the ideal of God.

        April 11, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
        • hotairace

          franky, how does your statement above square with your claim to be an agnostic?

          April 11, 2014 at 9:14 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          hotairace, I am not agnostic. I am Christian

          April 11, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
        • observer

          frankbeattys,

          So God was just being "politically correct" when he issued a long list of reasons to kill people. He really wanted harsher penalties.

          April 11, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
        • hotairace

          Sorry, I miss-read something you wrote about Neil dGT. It makes far more sense that you are a mentally ill, delusional member of the dead jew zombie cannibal vampire death cult aka christianity.

          April 11, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
    • hotairace

      ♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰ Is 100% Pure Bullshit With Absolutely No Actual Evidence to Support the Claim!!

      April 11, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
  11. Dyslexic doG

    Why oh why do Christians keep saying "jesus said this" or "jesus said that" when we have absolutely NO idea of anything your book character may or may not have said. In a time when stories were passed on verbally and people had no idea of how the world worked and so wanted their "god" to be bigger and better than the next man's god, the stories just got better and bigger and more far fetched. I wouldn't trust a story written down a month after the supposed happening, much less 50 years, 75 years, 100 years, 200 years. It's all just so stupendously, mind numbingly asinine, I have trouble even knowing where to begin pointing out the myriad flaws in this belief.

    April 11, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      So, you don't believe that George Washington ever lived? I mean, it's written in a book that was written by MEN of all things...

      April 11, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
      • Doris

        Oh please, Theo. We have the writings and government records from GW; we have familial records; and I'm pretty sure we have general public records of GW, and I'm sure there is plenty evidence for GW outside of the U.S. And I'm sure there is much corroboration between the pieces of evidence for GW. Also, and we have a body, his residence intact. There's no comparison.

        April 11, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Actually, you just made my point even stronger.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • WABoisso

          Ha! Did you hear that Doris? You fell RIGHT into Theo's trap! What a mind-bending turn of the tables!

          April 11, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • joey3467

          How could that have possibly made your argument any stronger? Wait, are you going to claim that because no one has found the body of Jesus that the whole story must be true?

          April 11, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          What happened to the body? Someone steal it? but who? wrong tomb? not really a good theory since this was not a public cemetery that Jesus was placed in..plus the owner and others would have led the people to the correct tomb..etc etc...PLUS..people saw and touched Jesus after his death..the body was gone from the tomb..he ate with the people..so what happened to Jesus then???

          April 11, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • joey3467

          Most of the time the Romans just dumped the bodies of the crucified into mass graves. So the body of Jesus is most likely buried with a bunch of other bodies somewhere. Also, how do you know the body of Jesus hasn't been found, how would one identify some 2000 year old bones as those of Jesus or not Jesus?

          April 11, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          HOWEVER>.youhave to show that's what happened to Jesus body....and tell me..HOW does a church began immediately with the prolaiming that Jesus rose from the dead..when people could have stopped the preaching and say "Here is his body..in this grave" sorry..I don't buy that theory

          April 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • joey3467

          I don't have to prove anything. I have no idea what happened to the body of Jesus, but just because I don't know doesn't mean that he came back from the dead and rose into heaven. The most likely scenario is that the Romans just threw him in the ground somewhere and didn't tell anybody where so that his followers couldn't make his grave into some sort of shrine or temple.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • ausphor

          Kermit....
          S o what happened to Jesus then, well he became a popular fictional character, numerous books and movies have been made of his life and times. In the modern world Harry Potter And the Marvel characters lead the box office, Jesus not so much. The jesus myth will dry up and die, the sooner the better.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Uh..I believe I was referring to Jesus body...after his death...

          April 11, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Empty tombs prove nothing.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
        • ausphor

          krmit..
          Sorry, Jesus' body was thrown into a common grave with those that were also executed, covered with lime and dirt, TRADITION.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          right..and no one was able to correct this story of Jesus rising from the dead huh? no one could have dug up the body to stop the preaching? The stories began to circulate immediately after Jesus' death..so the body could not have decomposed enough to be unrecognizeable

          April 11, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          Kermit,
          The bodies of criminals executed by the Romans were thrown into a mass grave.

          Touching a dead body was unclean.

          Use some thought. Use some logic. Connect the dots.

          Thank you.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          MAYBE you should be the one taking your own advice....it was NOT unclean to touch the bodies according to the ROMANS (who YOu said threw the body in the mass grave)..take your own advice and get info about the people and customs of the times.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
        • ausphor

          Kermit...
          Let me posit on how this stuff works. First guy, I just saw a guy that looks just like Jesus but he was crucified three days ago. No, you probably just saw a look alike wearing the same kind of clothes. Third guy do you know that someone saw that Messiah guy that got crucified walking around. Forth believer guy, the Messiah has risen from the dead. Fast forward to 60 years later, well we have these testimonies that a bunch of guys saw this crap, can we run with it. Well it does not meet journalistic credibility but lets run with it anyway.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          bad argument....you tellingme these people had nO clue who Jesus was and cannot recognize their own teacher? get real....second.....they had INTERACTIONS with Jesus..they did not merely see him..they spoke and ate with Him..and third...60 years is too far off...the Gospels were written BEFORE 70 AD...that's only 40 years at most....with a fragmenst of COPIES of two of the Gospels found ina cave..which was said to have the scrolls and wnat not put in by 68 Ad....with it a fragment of a COPY being dated to 68 Ad..then the originals were even earlier..PLUS>.the early church father salready started to QUOTE from the Gospels as early as 65 Ad....which shows the presence of the writings long before the dates you claim.....sorry..your argument is ignorant

          April 11, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
        • markcatronmusic

          There are also the works of Josephus , a historian, that do mention Jesus. He DID exist, whether he is the son of God or not leaves room for skepticism , I agree... but to say he didn't exist at all is ludicrous... there is evidence that he did

          April 11, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          kermit4jc, you ask "What happened to the body?" What happened to the body of Apollonius of Tyana, who lived in the first century and reportedly restored a young bride who died on the day of her marriage back to life. Philostratus wrote about his ascension into Elysium. What happened to the body of Asclepius, who had the power to bring the dead back to life and reputedly ascended into the heavens after his death. What happened to the body of Ramalinga Swamigal, one of the most famous Tamil Saints who disappeared in 1874 after deciding to de-materialize his body by his own free will. His body was never found. What happened to the body of Sant Tukaram (1577–1650), a devotee of Vitthala, a form of Vishnu. He had miraculous healing powers and is believed to have been taken to Vaikuntha, the heavenly abode of Vishnu, by Garuda, Lord Vishnu's personal vehicle. Since his body has never been found, how else can one explain such a disappearance?

          The myth of Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven is hardly unique.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Bad comparison..there were eyewitnesses to Jesus' death and burial..plus those people are copycats of Jesus and were written about much later than things written of Jesus (Jesus written about within 20-30 years after his death..which followed an oral delivery of the Gospels) those of theones you mentioened were written long after the lives of the main characters///

          April 11, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          There is no question that the cult of Jesus, to which Josephus referred, existed.

          As to Jesus, maybe, maybe not, or probably, it doesn't matter. The issue is the resurrection. There is no reference to it in anything but the Gospels.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          The myth of Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven is hardly unique

          No one here talks much about the ascension. Where exactly did Jesus miraculously 'beam up' to after he was hidden by a cloud. Is he in orbit somewhere?

          Our knowledge of the atmosphere and space is significantly better than that of the first century CE.

          I'm reminded of a old woman who in the 1960s, tut-tutted about space exploration saying we had no business in the heavens. I ask our believers here, how did Jesus' material body go to heaven from the earth's atmosphere?

          April 11, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          Kermit. It would have been unclean for Jewish people to dig the body out of the mass pile of dead bodies. And at that point, they certainly did follow the Jewish laws of God still.

          I asked you to connect the dots because I didn't want to have to spell it out so graphically.

          Stop being so defensive and insulting. You win no points that way. If you would like me to start insulting you, I shall.

          April 11, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          umm..I cleared that up for you in my last post..I agree...unclean for the JEWS to do so..but not for the ROMANS to do so. thus there was still opportunity to show the body of Jesus.

          April 11, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          Kermit. So you are saying that the Romans would have gotten Jesus out of the pit? Is this what you're saying?

          April 11, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          we pretty much see that the romans needed to quiet the cult down..so when the people started preaching the risen Jesus..they would have dug up the body to shut the preaching

          April 13, 2014 at 2:05 am |
        • alonsoquixote

          kermit4jc, you wrote "Bad comparison..there were eyewitnesses to Jesus' death and burial..plus those people are copycats of Jesus and were written about much later than things written of Jesus (Jesus written about within 20-30 years after his death..which followed an oral delivery of the Gospels) those of theones you mentioened were written long after the lives of the main characters". I included Apollonius of Tyana, who lived in the first century, because that is also the time that the Christian god is supposed to have incarnated himself in human form. Many of the biblical tales were created much later than the godman in them was supposed to have died, resurrected, and ascended to heaven. The dates when they were actually written are subject to debate, but the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century. Yahweh, though supposedly inspiring these works, apparently didn't care that the preserving the original copies of his inspired words, so that what we are left with are copies of copies of copies, etc. As scribes made copies they corrected what they regarded as errors, copied marginal notes made by other scribes into the text, so that in their new copies the material was no longer regarded as just some other scribes notes, and made changes or rearranged text to support a particular theological viewpoint. We have the Codex Bezae, Codex Vaticanus, Sinaitic Codex, the Alexandrian Manuscript, Textus Receptus etc., which don't all contain the same material, but not even one original Gospel. The god, apparently, also has much lower standards for consistency and cohesion than people would expect of a human copy editor.

          Some widely accepted dates for when the original version of the Gospels may have been written:

          Mark: c. 65 – 73 AD

          Matthew: c. 70–100 AD

          Luke: c. 80–100, with many biblical scholars arguing for somewhere around 85 AD

          John: c. 90–110 AD. The majority view is that it was written in at least 3 stages, so there was no one date of composition.

          Yet, for cases I mentioned, within a few years, there were tales circulating of their ascension. E.g, for Ramalinga Swamigal, who disappeared in 1874, the South Arcot District Gazette of 1878 notes that people believed he had miraculously become one with God, not the Christian god Yahweh, though, and that "in the fulness of time he will reappear to the faithful."

          Like many Christians, when confronted with tales similar to the ones in the Bible, you can state confidently that they weren't true. You can understand that people can make up stories and embellish ones they've heard from others before passing them on, yet, because of the strong emotional need to believe the biblical tales are true, won't apply even a smidgen of rational analysis to them and refuse to see any similarities between them and the myths, legends, and folktales associated with others.

          You talk of "copycats of Jesus" while the Gospel authors borrowed elements from the myths of other religions that existed at the time their tales were written. E.g., the author/authors of the Gospel of John gives his godman powers equivalent to Dinonysus' power to turn water into wine in the Wedding at Cana story. Dionysus frequently turned water into wine and worship of Bacchus/Dionysus was so popular by the mid-first century BCE that a large golden vine appeared over the entrance to Herod's temple in the late first century BCE, so it's not surprising that the writer of the "water into wine" tale in the Gospel of John might feel a need to give his godman a similar power in his story. As the German theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann, who holds the (nondenominational) chair of History of Religion at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen wrote, John "transformed Jesus into a sort of Christian wine God." This depiction of Jesus is formalized by the celebration of Epiphany on January 6, the traditional feast day of Dionysus.

          Other miracle stories, such as raising the dead Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus, and the young man from Nain are similar to Asclepius bringing the dead back to life. Asclepius, whom I also mentioned, was worshiped long before the worship of Christ started. The worship of Asclepius was popular from about 300 BC onwards.

          In regards to eyewitnesses, if there were any why is there no historical record? Not one historian of that time has any knowledge of the events supposedly associated with Jesus death and resurrection. Apparently no one even took notice of the dead people getting out of their graves and wandering about Jerusalem at that time as related by the anonymous author of the Gospel of Matthew.

          April 11, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I stopped reading your post after you made a bogus statement of my so called "strong emotional need for the biblical stories to be true.....I don't have an emotional need for it to be true..I FOUND it to be truth based on my studies...I made my mind to take the truth wherever it led me...even if it led me to see the bible wasn't true.....stop playing those games and assuming things about people ok? thanks

          April 13, 2014 at 2:11 am |
      • The Answer Is 42

        Can you tell me where I can find the correspondence written in Jesus's own hand? Because I certainly can direct you to where you can find correspondence written in George Washington's.

        Thank you.

        April 11, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          If you want correspondence with Jesus Christ, pray.

          April 11, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          Sir, if you are not going to contribute scholarship, why did you answer me?

          April 11, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
      • sam stone

        i don't recall reading any extraordinary claims about washington raising the dead, or walking on water

        April 11, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Well, there is all that not lying / chopping down cherry trees / wooden teeth / throwing silver dollars across the Potomac stuff, but I take what you mean.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          however....one does not throw the baby out with the bathwater..in concerning history....

          April 11, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          There's so much murky bathwater in the Bible that I see no evidence of any metaphorical babies.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
      • skeptic4life

        Hey Theo: Could you have picked a worse comparison? The one thing that seems to bind believers of all faiths together is their irrational explanations of anything and everything. You can accept your mythical Jesus and all the silliness that goes with it. I'll accept the real Jesus for what he was – a human who rebelled and was killed, and most likely was married – all the normal stuff without the paranormal.

        April 11, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Theo,

      do you believe that Allah talked to Mohammed?

      That's written in a book too.

      April 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Which is why there are systemmatic approaches to determining if what you are reading is bunk or not.

        April 11, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          It certainly isn't bunk to millions of Muslims.
          Their scholars and theologians can argue just as verbosely, passionately and "logically" as any Christian apologist to defend the veracity of their own Holy Book.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • speediejoe

          Well, it is indeed true that there methods to improve your ability to discern what reports are true and what reports are fictional, I don't think there is any foolproof way to do so. Which is among the reasons why the whole idea of a deity using a problem-prone method to deliver his alleged perfect word is pretty silly. However, in the case of Jesus, we have more than enough justification to conclude what is attributed to him in the Gospels is just stories, myth.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        And why both the Bible and the Quran are both in the "religion" section of the bookstore while books about George Washington are in the "history" section.

        April 11, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      sooo..I guess you pretty much strike out most of ancient history then eh?

      April 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
      • joey3467

        No, but you don't just go around believing things that can't be verified one way or the other, and there is certainly more evidence to support George Washington being a real person than there is for Jesus.

        April 11, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
      • speediejoe

        No. You see, the field of history as a rule throws out obvious legends.

        April 11, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          there are no obvious legends....that shows ignorance of how legends develop...and we can clearly see that such thigns s Jesus miracles, etc did not develop over time....but was reported immediately..you may say that you dontbeieve in miracles and such..fine..but legends develop over time..so you may have to use another argument for that

          April 11, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          A legend is a story that is historical but unauthenticated.
          This shows ignorance in the meaning of words.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
        • otoh2

          Kermit,

          George Washington wasn't dead a month before the myths and legends about him began to circulate. I guess that's "over time", eh? People were ravenous for stories of their super-hero. "Pastor" Mason Locke Weems wrote a biography of Washington published directly after his death. Saturated with tales of Washington's selflessness and honesty, "A History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits, of General George Washington"(1800) and "The Life of George Washington, with Curious Anecdotes Laudable to Himself and Exemplary to his Countrymen"(1806). The people ate it up!

          It took decades (if not centuries) to put the legends to rest, and some people still believe them. Fortunately, none of them were in the supernatural category, nor do they affect our daily lives.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          first of all..has anyone ever died for something they knew to be false? Jesus rising from the dead came DAYS>.not even weeks or months later....eyewntesses still alive would have corrected such stories..but we see no evidence of this (Noone wrote to correct it)

          April 11, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
        • otoh2

          Kermit,

          No, the stories were SET in the days after the alleged death. What verified (not hearsay) evidence do you have that there were any eyewitnesses? The ident'ities and fates of the alleged "apostles" or other "witnesses" are mostly unknown. How do you know that no-one said or wrote anything refuting the stories? The Church barely managed to keep copies (not even originals) of the stories - you think they would preserve refutations? The fact that most of the people living right there in Jerusalem at the time didn't believe it is testimony in itself.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          you rip apart yourown argument..if the authors were unknown..then HOW canit be proven they were hearsay and nOT of the eyewitnesses? if YOU don't know..then you yourself cannot claim hearsay second..so what the church" had problems in managing to keep copies (which e really don't see any evidence of having trouble with that anyways) that does NOT mean that those outside the church had same problems

          April 11, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          the people not believing in the stories is not really much evidence..csuse remember..they could have showed the body of Jesus to stop the preaching..we see no case of this..nowhere did anyone try to refute and bring forth evidence that it did not happen

          April 11, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
        • otoh2

          "they could have showed the body of Jesus to stop the preaching"

          It began as just a minor annoyance of a small group of cultists, I'm sure - nothing to go to great lengths to dispel for quite some time.

          And - Jesus could have just appeared in his post-death zombie status to the whole dang city of Jerusalem (for starters) and made the claim a done deal. Why the lame hearsay only...?

          April 11, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          First of all..Jesus could not have been swooned into coming back tolife...he was fully alive..nto zombuie likle..people would NOT preach a true resurrection if it never happened..second...serisously...a MINOR thing? then WHY even crucify him? lol...bad logic there

          April 11, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • otoh2

          "..people would NOT preach a true resurrection if it never happened"

          Then why did the author (?) of Matthew write that a bunch dead people were resurrected from their tombs, went into the city of Jerusalem and were seen by many, when there is not One. Single. Report. of this EVER happening - not even by the other Gospel writers?

          April 11, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          your premise assume that it has to be multiple writings in order for it to be true..hardly the case.....Matthew has not shown any mentality to make up stuff. The other writers would have decided that it did not have bearing to their points they made (remember..each writer of the Gospel had their point of view about Jesus to make) plus....remember....there were many people opposed to the miracles and such..you think that after his resurrection, they would also report something embarrassing like this (Jews for example)

          April 11, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          kermit4jc, you write "there are no obvious legends....that shows ignorance of how legends develop." As a starting point in understanding the development of the myths and legends of the Bible, you could start with the ones in Genesis, the very first book of the Bible. A good reference is "The Legends of Genesis" written by Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932), a German Old Testament scholar. The book is freely available since it is long out of copyright as it was published in 1901. It can be found in audio format at Librivox.org and in various electronic formats, including ones suitable for ebook readers, such as the Kindle, at Archive.org

          You also write "eyewntesses still alive would have corrected such stories..but we see no evidence of this (Noone wrote to correct it)". The stories weren't written until many decades after the protagonist of the stories supposedly died and came back to life, like many another dying and rising god. Nonexistent eyewitnesses to an event that never happened can't step forward decades after the event supposedly occurred to dispute the event. Even the anonymous Gospel authors who, decades after the event supposedly occurred, put the stories in writing can't agree on the details of the event.

          E.g, as just a few of the many discrepancies in their stories, the gospel writers don't agree on who first went to the tomb, even though the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke may have used the Gospel of Mark as a basis for their own stories. I.e., whether it was Mary Magdalene alone as in the Gospel of John, or Mary along with different women in the Synoptic Gospels. Mark has a young man inside the tomb tell Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome that Jesus has risen from the dead (Mark 16:5). Matthew has Mary Magdalene and the other Mary visit the tomb where one angel informs them that Jesus has risen (Matthew 28:1-7). Luke has two men (Luke 24:1-9) and John has two angels inform Mary Magdalene that Jesus has risen (John 20:10-18). In Luke, Mary Magalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women with them inform the disciples of what they saw at the tomb. Did the women see the resurrected Jesus at the tomb? Mark and Luke say no, Matthew says yes and John says not at first but Mary Magdalene did later.

          It is common to find variants of stories in mythologies. One finds variation in the myths of the Greeks, Romans, Norse as well. Often such discrepancies are attributable to different writers relying on different oral traditions, though in other cases the writers may be reshaping the material they've inherited to for a particular audience or to suit their own purposes.

          April 11, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ok..firstof all..witnesses would stil been alive..even Paul mentions this in 1 Corithians 15 that some were still alive to attest to the stories....plus...the Gosoel was written by as late as 30 years after jesus.....so many would still be alive (most likely earlier as fragments of copies of the Gospels were found to date back to 68 AD..thus showing stong evidence that Gopsles were written even before 67 AD second..Mark does NOT aay no that they did not see Jesus at the tomb...and the two men were angels....you need to understand...like going back to Gensis..three angels came to Abraham...they were "men" plus..the stories of the resureciton do not compete..but are COMPLETE....nowhere does it say that that's ALLwhat happened..a good investigator puts the whole story together....so these are not variants at all..but simply needing to put all the info together...

          April 11, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          kermit4jc, you state "a good investigator puts the whole story together." A good investigator also knows that people misremember, sometimes invent details, and sometimes tell tall tales. And as for the Gospel writers not having competing stories, how did Judas die? Did hang himself as the unknown author of the Gospel of Matthew purports in Matthew 27:3-5 or did he fall headlong in a field bursting asunder in the middle with his bowels gushing out as related by the author of Acts 1:15-19? Or, perhaps we could rely on the Gnostic Gospel of Judas, which portrays Judas in a quite different light as the only disciple who truly understood Jesus, which led him to be the one to help Jesus return to the godhead.

          April 11, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          DOES Acts says Judas DIED as result from the fall? does it say he was dead walready when he fell? youre making an assumption..and not putting the story together..obvsiuly he went and hung himself..and evenmtually..his body fell (NOTICE it does not say he jumped off the cliff either) some way or another his body fell..be it being thrown over by others or whatnot....you assumed he was alive when he fell...Acts does not say it..thus in putting the story together......

          April 13, 2014 at 2:14 am |
      • speediejoe

        The claim that legends and myths take a long time to develop is itself a myth. We have evidence of myths that pop up overnight every day. Now, it is true that not everybody believes these myths. Not everybody believes 9/11 conspiracy theories either. Nobody thinks everybody believed the Jesus legends, only the people that happened to write the stories. And in fact that is EXACTLY how legends grow.

        April 11, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          oh yeah..right..like today we have many ways for it to happen overnight with the communication we have today..so bad comparison

          April 11, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
        • speediejoe

          Actually, have today ways to show myths are wrong, and yet people believe them despite the fact that today, we have the easy ability to disprove them.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
      • alonsoquixote

        kermit4jc, you wrote "DOES Acts says Judas DIED as result from the fall? does it say he was dead walready when he fell? youre making an assumption..and not putting the story together..obvsiuly he went and hung himself..and evenmtually..his body fell (NOTICE it does not say he jumped off the cliff either) some way or another his body fell..be it being thrown over by others or whatnot....you assumed he was alive when he fell...Acts does not say it..thus in putting the story together."

        If I am making an assumption, I think it is a reasonable assumption. When an author writes about someone's death, he usually relates the manner of death. Skipping the fact that Judas hung himself, but then inserting that his body fell and his bowels gushed out at a later time into the story does not conform with the manner in which authors relate the events of someone's death.

        You are doing what I often find Christian apologists doing when biblical verses contradict one another. You pick one as the true one and then "harmonize" a conflicting one by using your imagination to add additional material to the story to provide an explanation that isn't in the biblical text. When you say that it is obvious that he hung himself and that eventually the body fell, it is certainly not obvious from Acts. One has to add elements to the Acts story that suppose the author does not relate the story in the customary way, but, instead, entirely omits the manner of death yet relates that the body somehow fell much later with its bowels gushing out, which would be an unusual event, yet the author provides no preceding explanation about the body hanging for a long time prior to the event to allow a possible explanation for the event.

        April 18, 2014 at 7:54 am |
        • kermit4jc

          However,..You are making an assumption as well..i don't think that Luke uintended to say HOW Judas died..but that his body was in the "potters Field" so Acts doe snot even seem to really say anything abt the death....but the field..as for the Apologists thing...sior...I am sorry you felel that tryin g to reaoon things out is a bad thing...yes..i see what APPEARS to be a contradiction.. but I can NOT call it a contraduiction unless ALL other possibilities are ruled out! that's basically how contradictions work! when there is NO other possibility..then it is a flat out contradiction...you yourself are adding additional information as well..by saying he was alive as he fell and then died as result of hitting bottom....You are adding as well..you cannot get around it

          April 18, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
      • alonsoquixote

        I appreciate your perspective regarding the harmonization of the two passages from the Gospel of Matthew and Acts regarding Judas fate. I did want to clarify, though, that when I used the phrase "Christian apologists", I was not using "apologists" in a derogatory sense, since from your reply I thought you may have perceived my use of the word to be intended that way when I meant merely to reference apologetics, i.e. "Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists." (definition from Wikipedia "Apologetics" article)

        April 18, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
    • portlandtony

      No recordings back then! Sayings or thoughts could be attributed to Jesus. However, I'm sure there were quacks in the time of Christ who made up stuff plus you gotta have a pretty good memory to remember words spoken a couple of centuries before you were born!

      April 11, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
    • grr82cu2

      Actually the same arguments/criticisms could be equally lodged against the development of life from non-'god' sources (thermal vents, primordial hot-ponds, planetary infall, etc) because no one knows 'for sure' relative to any of that EITHER – which is why all those well-accepted THEORIES – are called THEORIES !!

      April 11, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
      • alonsoquixote

        Perhaps you are confusing the meaning of "theory" when used in everyday parlance, where it is often used as a synonym for "guess" with the meaning of a scientific theory, which is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." A "hypothesis", which is "a proposed explanation for a phenomenon" is more akin to a proposed explanation that has yet to be verified, which is the meaning people often attach to the word "theory" when they use it in everyday speech.

        April 19, 2014 at 8:30 am |
  12. ifhorseshadgods

    Two accounts of the same incident don't match a day/week/month/year later .. and that's in modern times with audio/video. I find it absolutely absurd that anyone would believe a 2-5 thousand year old story that was written decades to hundreds of years "after the fact" during a time when most couldn't read or write. Especially with stories that themselves are absurd even to the casual thinker.

    April 11, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Then how do you explain the comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls with a modern Bible showing the modern Bible to be an exact rendition of the Biblical text?

      April 11, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
      • joey3467

        Exact copies of a made up story leave you with a bunch of copies of a made up story.

        April 11, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          AMEN!

          April 11, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Try telling Polycarp that it was a made up story.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • otoh2

          Theo,

          Did you ever read David Koresh's final manuscript and his Seventh Seal rubbish... or hear his last interview with the FBI agents outside of his compound. People willingly die for odd/mistaken reasons sometimes.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          HOWEVER>.no one has ever died for something they KNEW was a lie

          April 11, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • joey3467

          I would but Polycarp is dead.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • otoh2

          So Polycarp believed it. So?

          April 11, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • sam stone

          i don't see how you can make that claim, kermy

          April 11, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          i don’t see how you can make that claim, kermy–> sorry...having difficult time finding which of my posts you are responding to with that..refresh my memory please..thanks

          April 11, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • joey3467

          I am pretty sure Sam's point is that someone, somewhere has died for something that they knew was a lie.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          who has? WHo has died for something they knew to be a lie?

          April 11, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • James XCIX

          kermit4jc – "who has? WHo has died for something they knew to be a lie?"

          I imagine plenty of people have died (in the name of preserving family honor, or some such thing) to keep something dishonorable from coming out about their family, group, religion, etc. Consider the practice of dueling, for instance. I would imagine that often both duelists knew the truth of the matter, but one was denying it and was willing to be killed rather than admit it.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          presuppositions don't work here

          April 11, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
        • James XCIX

          kermit – "presuppositions don't work here"

          I don't understand your point. Nobody announces they are about to die for something they know is not true–they have some reason for keeping the truth hidden, after all–so all we can do is suppose plausible scenarios, and it's not too difficult to do that.

          April 11, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          however..the answers yugave me does not fit...the aopstiles died for something they knew to be truth...there isno reason for them to die for something they knew to be a lie...no one to protect..(they could protect themselves by denouncing it..but they did not) these apostles were willing to die

          April 11, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • James XCIX

          kermit – "these apostles were willing to die"

          I disagree, I think my example does fit. And them "dying for what they believe" is just another part of the same story, with no validation elsewhere, so it's hardly persuasive. In any case, them believing it to be true doesn't make it true. Other religions have their martyrs, too–does that make them true to you?

          April 11, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          what the believe? They SAW the risen Christ! they did not merely believe..they KNEW...thus if it were a lie instead..they would nO T have died for it

          April 13, 2014 at 2:04 am |
        • sam stone

          "no one has ever died for something they KNEW was a lie"

          I do not see how you can make THAT claim, kermy

          April 12, 2014 at 8:13 am |
        • sam stone

          "no one has ever died for what they knew to be a lie"

          "presuppositions don't work here"

          funny thing, kermy, your statement that no one has ever died for what they knew to be a lie IS a presupposition

          April 12, 2014 at 8:17 am |
        • James XCIX

          kermit4jc – "what the believe? They SAW the risen Christ! they did not merely believe..they KNEW"

          So the story goes. But it's just a story, tradition with no validation, no reason to believe it happened, and it's certainly hard to imagine basing one's life view on a story with such flimsy support.

          April 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          exactly..I experience things myself with God....you think I go only by the Bible and blindly follow it? then you are sorely mistaken and making terrible assumptions about others

          April 15, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • James XCIX

          kermit – "I experience things myself with God....you think I go only by the Bible and blindly follow it?"

          If your supernatural experiences with your god are the basis of your faith, then surely you can understand the faith of those of other religions who have had similar experiences with their gods, and the lack of faith of those who have not had such experiences at all.

          April 16, 2014 at 9:11 am |
        • kermit4jc

          not at all..because those other gods do not exist...there is ONE true god..all others are false..how do I know? I know the one true God...others may say so..but that does not convince me...man does not convince me..God does...and pretty much all others do NOT admit to a close personal relationship with their god,,...

          April 16, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....you are an idiot. You know how I know? Because god told me last night, and I have cognitive powers that you don't. Your arrogance is beyond comprehension.

          April 16, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • James XCIX

          kermit – "not at all..because those other gods do not exist..."

          All the other religions say that too, of course, and supernatural experience is not as unique to Christianity as you seem to think it is.

          April 16, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          uh excuse me? I know abou tthose others who claim it..so what?

          April 16, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....I believe what he is saying is that even though you believe yours is the one true god, other religions believe just as passionately as you that there god is the one true god. What gives you the cognitive power over them to believe you are right and they are wrong? Their gods told them just as vehemently as your god did that they were the one true god. You all can't be right, but all of you could be, and probably are....wrong

          April 16, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • James XCIX

          gulliblenomore – You're right, but I guess it's time to give up trying to persuade kermit. After all, everyone knows it's only the followers of other religions that are delusional, right?

          April 16, 2014 at 6:05 pm |
      • The Answer Is 42

        And yet I read where you completely dismissed Gnostic writings, Theo. Care to make up your mind?

        April 11, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        @Theo phileo,
        I thought the dead sea scrolls only covered the OT, which myth and not applicable anymore any way, right?

        What's that have to do with JC?

        April 11, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Aren't the Dead Sea scrolls all Old Testament references?

        April 11, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      The last of the NT was written by about 70 Ad...hardly anywhere near 100 years after the fact......plus..the Gospels were told orally in the beginning....

      April 11, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
      • ifhorseshadgods

        " .. written DECADES to hundreds of years "after the fact" Do you not know what a "decade" is? So why would you say "hardly anywhere near 100 years"? Also, the part about them being passed down "orally" makes my point that much better .. orally is far from accurate, especially over the course of "decades" (there's that word again).

        April 11, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          40 years after Jesus is nowhere near 100 years...second..passing down orally CAN be accurate.....don't know why you don't think so....

          April 11, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
      • The Answer Is 42

        Most scholars date Revelation at 95 AD.

        April 11, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          even at that time its still only 60 years..not anywhere near 100 years as the other blogger claimed..and further..Revelaitons was not a story of Jesus here on earth....

          April 11, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          The last of the NT was written by about 70 Ad

          Incorrect. Most scholars put Revelation at 95AD.

          Adjust your knowledge accordingly.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • joey3467

          Revelation, there is no "s" on the end. Is most likely a story about the eventual fall of the Roman Empire.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
      • speediejoe

        The dating of the Gospels is highly under dispute. Conservatives like to date them early, like before the fall of the temple. While skeptics tend to date them later. I won't attempt to to argue for any particular date. But, one thing we do know is, they were not very well read until at least the second century. If they had more early circulation, we would have found more first century manuscripts or fragments.

        April 11, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          First,,thats to assume we found all the fragments there are to find.....which is a bit unreasonable since it is a big area of the MIddle East we are talkingof..second...it was already widely used..cause the early church fathers often quoted fromthen..and a fragment was found in Egypt before 100 AD...(something like 68 AD) which shows wide circulation of the Gospels

          April 11, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
    • samsjmail

      I'm offended by your remark.

      I personally don't believe that stories of talking snakes, 900 year old boat builders, world wide floods, a man who lived inside whales are any more absurd than stories about magic beanstalk or pigs who build houses.

      April 11, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      Great post ifhorseshadgods. Sorry you just wasted your time though. Christian cognitive dissonance means the few who actually read it have already discounted it and recited themselves a few bible verses to ease that frightened feeling and make themselves feel better.

      April 11, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
      • ifhorseshadgods

        It was more for myself than anything. I know I can't wake these people up, it just feels good to let it out now and then.

        April 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
  13. Dyslexic doG

    The Legend of King Arthur is not evidence for Merlin.
    The Greek Myths are not evidence for Heracles.
    The Epic of Beowulf is not evidence for Grendel.
    The American Folk Tradition is not evidence for Paul Bunyan.
    The New Testament is not evidence for Jesus.
    The Old Testament is not evidence for Yahweh.

    The miracles happened ... in the story.
    The prophesies were fulfilled ... in the story.
    The character was emotionally appealing and morally right ... in the story.

    Get out of your stories.

    (author unknown)

    April 11, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      "The New Testament is not evidence for Jesus."
      ------------
      Polycarp sure thought it was. You should read about his last words and death.

      April 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Theo, your faith is just that, faith. There's nothing wrong with having faith but it doesn't mean the resurrection was a historical event.

        April 11, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          True, my belief doesn't create truth, but the truth of the resurrection is the reason for my belief.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          getting dizzy yet?

          April 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "getting dizzy yet?"
          ---------
          Yup, but it's because it's getting close to quitting time, and I've got a LOT of woodworking to do in the shop this weekend, and instead of getting started on something useful, I'm still stuck in the office, and becuause it's Friday, there's nothing to do at the end of the day.... OK, not so much dizzy, as it is nausiating antiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicipaaaation.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Dyslexic:
      "I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage – though it may no doubt contain errors – pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read. I would recommend him to read Auerbach."
      – CS Lewis, Oxford & Cambridge myth scholar

      April 11, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        why post a quote from someone in the same cult as you? What could that possibly prove?

        April 11, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Dyslexic:
          1) do you cast aside any other discipline's work because someone *shares* your views?

          2) he was an atheist for much of his early career.

          3) though you may only know him as a Christian author, he was a life-long myth scholar (long before he became a Christian) at one of the top universities in the world. that comes with peer-reviewed scholarship, academic research, etc.

          who is more qualified to speak on the topic of myths than someone who spent his life studying them?

          April 11, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
  14. Bob

    Theo, hermeneutics arguments regarding the bible truly make the case for the Christian "god" even weaker. You must be pretty desperate to resort to them. Ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

    And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text at all, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.

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

    April 11, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      For the same reason as explained in the following passage

      Matthew 13:10 – And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

      ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
      You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
      For the heart of this people has become dull,
      With their ears they scarcely hear,
      And they have closed their eyes,
      Otherwise they would see with their eyes,
      Hear with their ears,
      And understand with their heart and return,
      And I would heal them.’

      April 11, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
      • Fallacy Spotting 101

        Post by 'Theo Phileo' presents an instance of the Secret Decoder Ring fallacy.

        http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

        April 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
  15. mystixa

    "The chances that two ancient works would have the same mistake are minuscule..."

    Yeah because no language (american) has ever split off and adopted a common error relative to the mother language (british).

    April 11, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
  16. lucidcinner

    Zero bearing on anything reality based.

    [kicking feet on desk and clasping hands behind head] Ahhh, the joys of being atheist.

    April 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
  17. dolfina365

    The only "wife" Jesus has/had is the Bride of Christ, the "body" of Christ, which is the "church". When Jesus refers to His "bride", he is always referring to the Church, (NOT the Roman Catholic, either)

    April 11, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      So delcares you, ex cathedra, straight from your own navel.

      April 11, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      Exactly right.

      April 11, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      why do you talk about your fairy story as if it is real?

      April 11, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
    • mystixa

      citation in Jesus' own words please.

      April 11, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
  18. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    LET's Religiosity Law #6 – If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is an ancient cultural anomaly; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernible by humans; or is just plain magic.

    April 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Some people would have it be that they can read a passage of the Bible and have it mean whatever they want it to mean. That's simply not the case, and there are rules for interpretation that are designed to rule out any personal bias, and place the text into its proper context – this study is called hermeneutics.

      And you would agree that proper hermeneutics are necessary in reading anything in order that one might determine AUTHORIAL INTENT.

      April 11, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        as long as it means what you think it means eh?

        April 11, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Can you tell me what the meaning of the word "is" is?
          No, the Bible means what the Bible means, and we do not have the authority to apply meaning to it (eisegesis), we are instructed to gleam its intended meaning from its pages.

          It's not a piece of modern art that is open to the interpretation of the viewer.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          over 41,000 sects of your cult disagree with you.

          (and it's "glean", not "gleam")

          April 11, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          don't try to be dishonest here....41,000 sects disagree with him? cmon give me a break..

          April 11, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • otoh2

          Theo,

          As one who continually misuses (despite numerous corrections) the word "gleaming" when you mean "gleaning", you are no paragon of word usage and meaning in *any* language...

          April 11, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Huked own fonics werked four mii!!!

          April 11, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          This is where I grew up, and this is how I sound.... Are you suprised that I can't spell? Most people think I can't even talk!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXs9cf2YWwg&feature=player_detailpage

          April 11, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          All that groks is God.

          Since nobody here is a native speaker of Martian and therefore cannot possibly grok what it means to grok, the statement cannot be disproven.

          Now let's all send a cheque to Oberon Zell Ravenheart and join the Church of All Worlds.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
      • Bob

        Theo, really, hermeneutics arguments regarding the bible make the case for the Christian "god" even weaker. You must be pretty desperate to resort to them. Ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

        And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text at all, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.

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

        April 11, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
      • kudlak

        Theo
        Do you use a hermeneutics that simply treats the Bible like any other text, or do you use a special hermeneutics that insists people treat the bible as inerrant, divinely inspired, having to conform to certain theological assumptions?

        April 11, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Do you use a hermeneutics that simply treats the Bible like any other text, or do you use a special hermeneutics that insists people treat the bible as inerrant, divinely inspired, having to conform to certain theological assumptions?"
          ----------------
          Principles of interpretation (Hermeneutics)
          1)Literal Principle – Scripture is to be understood in its natural, normal sense, read literally
          2)Grammar Principle – Deal with what it says in the way it says it, be it using metaphor, simile, narrative, etc.
          3)Historical Principle – Read the Bible in its historical context
          4)Synthesis Principle – No one part of the Bible contradicts any other part (Scripture interprets Scripture)
          5)Practical Principle – It contains a practical application
          6)Illumination of the Holy Spirit – It is the job of the Holy Spirit to enlighten the child of God to the meaning of Scripture, without Him, one is without the ability to interpret Scripture

          Things to avoid in interpreting the Bible
          1)Avoid seeking a point or a result at the expense of the proper interpretation. Do not use the Bible to “proof text” anything
          2)Avoid a lack of study, or superficial study
          3)Avoid “spiritualizing” or “allegorizing” – let the Bible say what it wants to say, don’t put meaning into it (Eisegesis)

          Ask these questions:
          1) Who was the author of the passage?
          2) Who were the recipients?
          3) What is the historical background of the passage?
          4) What is the outline / structure of the passage?
          5) Are any words repeated? Any significance to the repet.ition?
          6) Are there any unusual words in the passage that call for more exploration?
          7) How does the passage fit into the surrounding paragraph? Chapter? Book? Bible?
          8) Why did the author place the passage here and not somewhere else?
          9) In one sentence, what is the main point of the passage?
          10) How would the original audience have been affected by the passage?
          11) How does this passage connect to the overall storyline of the Bible?
          12) How does this passage reveal Jesus as savior?
          13) How does God want this passage to function in my life?
          14) What kind of response does this passage call for?

          April 11, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • kudlak

          So, you're arguing that the only way to read the Bible is to follow what the Holy Spirit tells you it means?

          And you don't see any problems with this method?

          Really!?!

          April 11, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo
          I suppose Jews then can't read their own scripture properly because they don't believe in the Holy Spirit part of God?

          April 11, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "I suppose Jews then can't read their own scripture properly because they don't believe in the Holy Spirit part of God?"
          ---------------
          No, they sure can't, but that's not my words, that's the words of Jesus in Matthew 22 – "But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God."

          April 11, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          I am glad that Christianity saw fit to not only steal the Hebrew Bible, but to send us a Theo to tell the world that they are interpreting it wrong.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          Jesus was talking to one group of Jews here, the Sadducees, about a specific topic, right?

          How do you equate that to a blanket declaration that all Jews cannot interpret their own scripture?

          April 11, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          "No, they sure can't, but that's not my words"

          And the winner of The Most Arrogant Poster on the Entire Internet is...

          April 11, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
      • The Answer Is 42

        Theo: the Bible speaks to every person differently. I know you cannot be so prideful as to think the way you interpret it is the only way the Bible is to be taken.

        April 11, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          the way it is t obe interpreted is in CONTEXT..with the intent of what te author meant to say..niot what we want it to say...we CAN apply it differently to our lives as we see it fit..but interpreting as to AUTHORS intent is one way only

          April 11, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
        • The Answer Is 42

          Yes. In context. And it can be interpreted differently. And it frequently is.
          Which is why there are so many different denominations of Christianity. Because there is no one set way to do it.

          April 11, 2014 at 9:33 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          There IUS a set way to do it..the reason for so many deniminaitons could be because of people not even USING context..as in case of Jehovahs Wintesses...they never use context...

          April 13, 2014 at 2:12 am |
  19. Theo Phileo

    Did you know that there is actually an error in this "Jesus' wife" docu.ment that is the same error in a modern online copy of the "Gospel of Thomas." Each word of it matches that of the online copy of the Gospel of Thomas. Also, they tested the papyrus for it's age, and yes, it is old, but they did not test the ink because they didn't want to destroy the doc.ument... Coiincidence, or forgery?
    Albert Mohler, 04/11/14

    April 11, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
    • doobzz

      "Scientists tested the papyrus and the carbon ink, and analyzed the handwriting and grammar, according to Harvard."

      "Other scholars studied the carbon character of the ink and found that it matched samples of papyri from the first to eight century CE, according to Harvard."

      At least according to this article, they did test the ink. FWIW

      April 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        I was just paraphrasing Albert Mohler from the radio today.
        I suppose it doesn't really make a difference anyway, afterall, it's clear the doc.ument is a fragment from some gnostic – most likely that of the Gospel of Thomas.

        April 11, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • kudlak

          If you like the Gospel of John then you might also enjoy gnostic texts. All that talk of a savour from outside this world returning to gather up his followers and take them away would be right at place in a gnostic text. John sounded so gnostic to some of the church fathers that they were opposed to including it in the Bible.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          apparently you don't know what Gnosticism is...it isn't about merely the lgith and all....John talks about how people (not the world and everything in it) are evil...etc etc...you takeseemingly ONE point that sounded SIMILAR and you made ALL of John sound like Gnostic..hardly honest to me

          April 11, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          I didn't say that all of John sounded gnostic, did I. However, the picture of Jesus as the alien saviour who will rescue only the people who have the secret knowledge that he is God does sound gnostic. It was the favorite gospel of Valentinus, a 2nd-century Gnostic leader.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • doobzz

          Albert Mohler should check his facts then.

          April 11, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Mohler says nothing that isn't in the article. The notion that it is a copy of the Gospel of Thomas is plausible.

      Why would that make it "coincience or forgery"?

      From wikipedia:
      The earliest surviving written references to the Gospel of Thomas are found in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome (c. 222–235) and Origen of Alexandria (c. 233).

      A seventh century copy is plausible.

      The real question is why is the Gospel of Thomas (and others like it) non-canonical.

      April 11, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        @not a goper Gospel of Thomas was written too long after the fact and was not credited to an apostle to be considered canon..and it contradicted the universal taching of the church at large

        April 11, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • joey3467

          Since it was likely based on Oral tradition just like the gospels were I see no reason to just discount it unless you are going to discount the gospels as well. Unless of course you can prove the Gospel of Thomas to be false without having to use the bible as your proof that it is false.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        The content of the New Testament was dictated by the apostles themselves. (Ephesians 3:3-5, 2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-16, Jude 17-18, Galatians 1:1-2, 12, Hebrews 2:3-4, Acts 2:42).

        No book is in the Bible that the Apostles themselves didn’t approve, and all of the authors approved by them are in the Bible – no more, no less.

        April 11, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Bit hard if they're dead.

          But, having said that, what about the Gospel of Peter?

          April 11, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • immortaledei

          Theo Phileo, this is simply untrue.

          While there was strong consensus on the canonical or non-canonical status of certain works, there were other works written by apostles and others that led to deep division of opinion in the early Church as to whether they should be considered as inspired scripture.

          This included not only Hebrews, James, Jude, Peter's epistles, John's epistles and Revelation, but also Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans, Shepherd of Hermes, Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of James, Gospel of Hebrews, and others.

          The apostles never issued any authoritative list of canonical works that would compose the New Testament. That was done by the Catholic Church. If you do not accept the Catholic Church's authority, you have no objective basis for determining which works do and don't belong in the NT.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
  20. bostontola

    Someone said: "Christianity is a divine revelation from God"

    Then why are there over 42,000 denominations of Christianity? That has to be the worst divine revelation of all time.

    April 11, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Because many people would read the Bible to support their own personal bias. Just look at Charismaticism, Word-Faith, and Pentacostalism to name a few.

      Orthodoxy is the cure to theological liberalism.

      April 11, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
      • gulliblenomore

        Isn't orthodoxy a cure for common sense and logical thinking as well?

        April 11, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
      • G to the T

        "Orthodoxy is the cure to theological liberalism"

        "Orthodoxy" = right way. Who gets to decide what's orthodoxy and by what authority do they decide?

        April 11, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Who gets to decide what's orthodoxy and by what authority do they decide?"
          ------------–
          Great question – Scripture interprets scripture. The only authority is the Bible. No passage stands as an island, and every passage in the Bible is interwoven with itself, so that if there is a question about one passage, it is answered by another. The implicit is explained by that which is explicit.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....that is the biggest bunch of hogwash I have ever heard. How can a book decipher itself? It is always open to interpretation. Especially if that book has been translated thousands of times in completely different languages.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Scripture interprets scripture"

          This is not only impossible (physically speaking) it makes the enormous assumption that the bible is a consistent/coherent work and that all of the authors had the same beliefs and intentions. Any amount of textual criticism will show this to not be the case.

          If this were the case, there would be only one religion, even with a group as hemogenous as the Catholics there are variants in interpretation.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • Doris

          Theo: "Scripture interprets scripture"

          Congrats, Theo! You're our second winner today for the award for the Fundy Method of Inquiry & Verification! (For those who don't understand this method, see that video below.)

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FoT_18fJ2k

          April 11, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "How can a book decipher itself? It is always open to interpretation. Especially if that book has been translated thousands of times in completely different languages."
          ------------–
          Easy, take a look at this case... In Acts 1:18, Peter is preaching and says that Judas aquired the potter's field with the price of his wickedness.... Now, elsewhere in Matthew 27, we read that Judas threw the blood money at the feet of the priests in the temple... OK, so which is it? Did Judas buy the field with the money, or did he throw it to the feet of the priests? The answer? Yes...

          Peter of course knew that Judas had hung himself, and that he threw the money at the feet of the priests and didn't personally buy the field, after all, Peter was a witness. When we read ALL of scripture in it's context, Judas had indirectly bought the field when he returned the money to the chief priests and elders who in turn purchased a burial place for foreigners, and Peter just refers to him having bought the potter's field so that he might bring to remembrace the Old Testament passage where this was predicted:

          Zechariah 11:13: Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.” So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord.

          The Bible explains the Bible.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doris,
          Read my response above so that you can see an example of how the Bible interprets the Bible.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          comedy gold!!! Theo, you have better writers than Seinfeld!

          April 11, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....I dare say you have lost your mind. Pray tell....please tell me what the bible meant when Jesus said "if you don't hate your mother and father, you can not be a my disciple". And, since the bible interprets the bible and not you, then let's take the literal meaning behind that. I interpret that to say that if a person does not hate their mother and father, then they can not be a disciple of Jesus. Literal translation. So....is the bible right, or wrong in this case?

          April 11, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          ""if you don't hate your mother and father, you can not be a my disciple". "
          --------------
          From the Reformation Study Bible: This means to love less (cf. Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15–17, where “unloved” translates a word meaning “hated”). Discipleship means loving the Master so much that all other loves are hatred by comparison.

          The issue is really over why you do not let Jesus use literary devices such as hyperbole?

          April 11, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Great question.....too many of these critics, there is only one way to write it..and it is literal..no use of literary devices whatsoever

          April 11, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo
          "The issue is really over why you do not let Jesus use literary devices such as hyperbole?"

          No....the real issue is why you refuse to admit that the bible should not be taken on it's word but on the literary license people like you take on it. Why would you assume it to be hyperbole? Have a deep conversation with Jesus the other day where he explained it was not the literal word hate he meant but a variation of it? Look....believe what you want, I don't really care. But at the very least be honest about the huge amount of ambiguity in your holy book and admit that it is really open to interpretation. If not, then I will have to assume that you are so pompous as to think that you are the only one that 'understands' the bible.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          same question to you gulli....why should you treat itONLY as literal and nothing more? is there a law saying we cannot use CONTEXT to get the intent?

          April 11, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....I'm not sure I understand your point. Theo was claiming that we should take the bible literally, as the Orthodox Christians do. I am contending that nobody takes the bible literally, that it is way open to interpretation, hence about 41,000 different sects of Christianity out there. As for the internet, I have no idea why you are bringing that into the conversation.

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

          hmm..did I say something about internet? as for the 41,000 sects, they are jnot all different due to theology..some are..but not all...we cantake Bible as literal truth..but that does not mean we use each word literally..we can glean literal truth from metaphors, (God is like a hen protecting her young) God isnot a hen...but that He protects zealously like a hen protects her young....

          April 11, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Sorry Kermit...I see you said intent, not internet...been a long day looking at the computer.....

          April 11, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Theo was claiming that we should take the bible literally, as the Orthodox Christians do."
          ----------------
          I don't think that you and I are on the same page with the word "literally."
          To take the Bible "literally" means that Scripture is to be understood in its natural, normal sense, that you are to deal with what it says in the way it says it, be it using metaphor, simile, narrative, etc., and understood in its historical context.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
      • Bob

        Theo, while you are being rigorously "orthodox", make sure that you follow the specific demands made of you purportedly by your murderous Christian "god" in your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, or else your nasty sky fairy will torture you for all eternity. Commands such as these, from both foul testaments of your horrid book, and note the following text re context and interpretation issues:

        Numbers 31:17-18
        17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
        18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

        Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

        Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

        Leviticus 25
        44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
        45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
        46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

        Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

        Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

        And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

        So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

        And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.

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

        April 11, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Bob, you need to learn hermeneutics.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • dolfina365

          All you quote is from the Old Testament, under The Law. Christ ushered in the dispensation of Grace. Amazing Grace/. He said, "I give you a NEW law, that you love one another as I have loved you, (who gave up His life for the rescue of doomed man)

          April 11, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • Bob

          Your post is false, Theo. I demonstrably understand hermeneutics far better than you do, and I address text interpretation issues directly in my post. You had best read what I said again, especially that part, and re why such issues add to the case that your god stories of your bible are just fiction. So, this time, read more carefully, stupid:

          While you are being rigorously "orthodox", make sure that you follow the specific demands made of you purportedly by your murderous Christian "god" in your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, or else your nasty sky fairy will torture you for all eternity. Commands such as these, from both foul testaments of your horrid book, and note the following text re context and interpretation issues:

          Numbers 31:17-18
          17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
          18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

          Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

          Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

          Leviticus 25
          44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
          45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
          46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

          Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

          And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

          So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

          And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.

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

          April 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • Bob

          dolfina. more than one of my posts is from your foul NT, and furthermore, your Jeebus is claimed to have said that the OT laws still apply, no exceptions. You must be pretty stupid. Read it again, more carefully this time.

          Numbers 31:17-18
          17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
          18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

          Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

          Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

          Leviticus 25
          44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
          45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
          46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

          Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

          And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

          So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

          And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.

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

          April 11, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "is claimed to have said that the OT laws still apply, no exceptions."
          ------------
          No He didn't. See? There's more proof that you need to learn proper hermeneutics.
          Matthew 5:18-19 – For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same...

          Did you catch that? Two words: LAW and COMMANDMENTS... Jesus was referring to the Law of Moses, save the 4th Commandment – we are free from that, because Jesus fulfilled our Sabbath rest in Him.

          Through Christ, we are under a New Covenent, a Covenant of Grace that applies to all men, not a Covenant of Works that apply to Jews. that's why we don't stone unbelievers.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • Bob

          Again, Theo, you just directly demonstrated one of my points. Your "omnipotent" creature of your Christian fairly tale is not able to produce a communication that clearly gets its message across. Many interpretations sincerely disagree with yours, and the bible even contradicts itself. So, read again, but more carefully this time:

          Numbers 31:17-18
          17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
          18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

          Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

          Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

          Leviticus 25
          44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
          45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
          46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

          Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

          And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

          So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

          And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.

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

          April 11, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • alonsoquixote

          Theo Phileo and dolfina365, your argument is that once Yahweh, once but a tribal and later national god of the Israelites, incarnated himself in human form by impregnating a woman, to be a sacrifice to himself to ameliorate the ancient curse he had placed on the first human couple and all of their descendants for countless generations thereafter, because they had eaten of the fruit of the "one forbidden thing", that he became a kinder, gentler god, so that he rescinded the 613 commandments and edicts about killing adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), gays (Leviticus 20:13), rebellious sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), fortune tellers and wizards (Leviticus 20:27), unbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13), witches (Exodus 22:18), and so many others? And that after he sacrificed himself to himself, those edicts that would be considered morally abhorrent by most today, which had applied to his former favorites, the Jews, no longer applied to his new favorites, the Christians?

          April 11, 2014 at 8:31 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        So The Eastern Orthodox Faith is the "One True Church" ?

        April 11, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Would I sound too much like Shakespear if I said "what is in a name?" I can sit in a garage and smoke and call myself a car, but that doesn't make me a car. Someone can call themselves "orthodox" without being orthodox.

          Orthodoxy is simply adhearing to the established faith of Jesus and the Apostles. They were the foundation of the church, and our theology must not deviate from what they taught.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Orthodoxy is simply adhearing to the established faith of Jesus and the Apostles. They were the foundation of the church, and our theology must not deviate from what they taught."

          And what part's of the "established faith" do the Greek Orthodoxy not adhere too?

          April 11, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "And what part's of the "established faith" do the Greek Orthodoxy not adhere too?"
          ------------
          We could start with their idolatry through the veneration of Mary and the saints and go from there...

          April 11, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        So God wasn't apparently very clear in his revelation to create so much ambiguity?

        April 11, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          notaGOPer....that alone is the greatest reason to doubt the belief in any god. A true god would have made it crystal clear they exist...no ambiguity at all. Also...have you noticed how chatty god was in the old days? He spoke to tons of people back then. But since then....narry a peep, except to a few inmates in Bellview. I would be embarrassed to cast a belief in such a being.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          here we go again with the silly little "blame the other person" game Youblame God fornot making it crystal and don't take any blame for yourself for not listening??

          April 11, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          The evidence suggests that just about everyone who listens to the "revelation" comes up with a different interpretation.

          There are thousands of Christian sects. Why are they all so different if all of them are trying so hard to get it right?. Do you presume this is Satan's work? Otherwise it has to be that it is the message itself that is confusing, no?

          April 11, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          @ goper that's to assume they are all different theologically....which is not the case....one needs to study the history of the church and different sects...and even look at todays churches...some break away due to misunderstanding (not even of theological, but personal issues), etc etc

          April 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          There's an old joke about 'ask two Rabbis get three different answers'.

          I guarantee you that you can get two Christians in a room and they won't agree to the specifics of the 6th commandment (the easiest one to interpret). Or was that the 5th or the 7th. I guess it depends on which version of the "immutable" big book of smiting that you use.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....here we go again with the silly 'god is infallible and never does anything wrong' concept. Yet, millions of people (myself included) would gladly follow such a being if there was even ONE shred of verifiable proof of his existence. In the meantime, I, and others, just simply can't fathom the idea of believing in something that has bears no proof. I am just not that stupid, thankfully.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Can it with the name calling please.....my point is...the problem is people like you never taking part of blame...you blame others (blame God for not showing us clearly) God HAS made ti clear...so now its on YOUR part...I have found it....andIUNm not stupid..don't be childish and do the name calling ok> thanks

          April 11, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "that's to assume they are all different theologically

          Of course they are. Believers have been killing each other for centuries for the heresy of their fellow believers with what you now contend is an identical theology. If the theology is the same why would they want to do that?

          Your premise is hogwash.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          MY premise is TRUTH..I been to a number of churches thathave same theology..but it was small and minor differences NOT having anything to do with theology..I find YOUR preimise hogwash based on ignorance of different churches

          April 11, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....why don't you take your own advice then? You indirectly called me silly! And....if you read what I wrote, I said I was not that stupid, not that you are. So...you drop the simpleton silly words and I will drop the stupid inferences.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If the One True Deity, Ruler and Shaper of The Universe, wishes their words to be transmitted and adhered to, they should have been a bit less ambiguous. Expecting people to select The Truth out of limitless possibilities on faith alone seems a sloppy way to run things – especially if the punishment for a wrong choice is eternal torment.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          here we go again..blame God for the communication troubles..noooo...we are too good..weknow how to communicate..so thus it is Gods fault..cmon give me a break here Doc..itis very clear..using context..and as far as what I seen here..I hardly ever seen youuse context when referring to the Bible

          April 11, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....why do you people always capitalize the word truth? I do not think it means what you think it means. Something is true if it is verifiable, not just what you believe is true.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Kermit
          I'm not talking about just the Bible.
          There are myriad other "divinely inspired" Holy Books that claim to contain "The Truth".
          Have you read through the Tanakh, Talmud, Midrash, Quran, Sunnah, Nahjul Balagha, Avesta, Vedas, Upanisahds, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Tantras, Sutras, Vachanas, Adi Granth, Purvas, Samayasara, Niyamasara, Pravacanasara, and Pancastikaya; Anupreksa; Samadhishataka of Pujyapada; Tattvarthasutra of Umasvati, Tattvarthasutra, Pali Tripitaka, Jataka,, Visuddimagga, Tripitaka, Lotus Sutra, Garland Sutra, Analects; the Great Learning; the Doctrine of the Mean; the Mencius, Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, Kojiki, Nihon Shoki, K-oki, Ofudesaki, Mikagura-uta, Michi-no-Shiori, Johrei, Goseigen, Netarean Shower of Holy Doctrines, Chun Boo Kyung, Kitab-i-Iqan, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Book of Mormon, Dianetics, or Revelation X with the same kind of mindset as you have The Bible ?
          If not, how can you dismiss them?

          April 11, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          By getting to know God personally..by getting to see where the truth is....you know..my friend who works at a bank tells me that they never teach the workers how to identify counterfeit money by showing them the counterfeits...there are so many ways to make them....instead they show him the true money and what it looks like, feels like...and then when they come across a counterfeit, they know right away its fake...I got to know God and His word...and then I find that others are fake....their writings are far removied from events...unlike the Gospels..which were written only a few decades after the events (along with oral giving of the stories right from the start)

          April 11, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And I presented the "chug" vs. "dur" argument with a Biblical context, citing scriptures that corroborate each other.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          What exactly is the difference between an invisible being and one that you need your imagination to have a personal relationship with? I hear people claim that all the time and I have yet to understand how you have a relationship with anything that is in your mind.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • joey3467

          Believers in every god claim to have a personal relationship with said god, so why should I believe you over anyone else making the same claims?

          April 11, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Have I said or even imply for you to believe me and take my word for it? No...seek for it yourself....don't take my word for it

          April 11, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • believerfred

          Doc Vestibule
          "If the One True Deity, Ruler and Shaper of The Universe, wishes their words to be transmitted and adhered to, they should have been a bit less ambiguous. Expecting people to select The Truth out of limitless possibilities on faith alone seems a sloppy way to run things – especially if the punishment for a wrong choice is eternal torment."

          =>How many times are you going to repeat this and still not see the truth before you?
          =>Did you not observe the most brilliant and prideful of the religious leaders carry out the final atonement as they practiced for thousands of years presenting a lamb without blemish. Did you observe how they chose the perfect lamb for the sacrifice. Did you observe how they paid the 30 pieces......yadda yadda....
          =>"forgive them Father for they know not what they do" Christ pleaded on the Cross

          =>seriously, you don't why the Bible is written as it is? When Pilate asked Jesus "what is truth" did he not know it when the Priests freed a murder and called out crucify Jesus.

          =>The truth has always been right before the eyes of all men, yours more so than others. The Bible is Divine because it always reveals the truth about the disposition of the heart, mind and soul relative to the image and purpose of the creator. Now, you can carry on as did the Priests in the days of Jesus revealing truth as they saw it or you can repent and ask Jesus to help you find truth.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • jwsbmwm3

          god needs to hustle his butt down to Madison Ave. There are some folks there who can help with the 'message'.

          April 11, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
        • believerfred

          jwsbmwm3
          I assume you are speaking about Madison Ave church sign. They post some good messages, God is there is they indeed love others and love God.

          April 11, 2014 at 8:20 pm |
      • gulliblenomore

        Sorry Kermit...I see you said intent, not internet...been a long day looking at the computer.....

        April 11, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          thts ok..it happens

          April 11, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.