home
RSS
May 1st, 2014
09:15 AM ET

Why Christians should support the death penalty

Opinion by R. Albert Mohler Jr., Special to CNN

(CNN) - The death penalty has been part of human society for millennia, understood to be the ultimate punishment for the most serious crimes.

But, should Christians support the death penalty now, especially in light of the controversial execution Tuesday in Oklahoma?

This is not an easy yes or no question.

On the one hand, the Bible clearly calls for capital punishment in the case of intentional murder.

In Genesis 9:6, God told Noah that the penalty for intentional murder should be death: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

The death penalty was explicitly grounded in the fact that God made every individual human being in his own image, and thus an act of intentional murder is an assault upon human dignity and the very image of God.

In the simplest form, the Bible condemns murder and calls for the death of the murderer. The one who intentionally takes life by murder forfeits the right to his own life.

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul instructs Christians that the government “does not bear the sword in vain.” Indeed, in this case the magistrate “is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the evildoer.” [Romans 13:4]

On the other hand, the Bible raises a very high requirement for evidence in a case of capital murder.

The act of murder must be confirmed and corroborated by the eyewitness testimony of accusers, and the society is to take every reasonable precaution to ensure that no one is punished unjustly.

While the death penalty is allowed and even mandated in some cases, the Bible also reveals that not all who are guilty of murder and complicity in murder are executed.

Just remember the biblical accounts concerning Moses, David and Saul, later known as Paul.

Christian thinking about the death penalty must begin with the fact that the Bible envisions a society in which capital punishment for murder is sometimes necessary, but should be exceedingly rare.

The Bible also affirms that the death penalty, rightly and justly applied, will have a powerful deterrent effect.

In a world of violence, the death penalty is understood as a necessary firewall against the spread of further deadly violence.

Seen in this light, the problem we face today is not with the death penalty, but with society at large.

American society is quickly conforming to a secular worldview, and the clear sense of right and wrong that was Christianity’s gift to Western civilization is being replaced with a much more ambiguous morality.

We have lost the cultural ability to declare murder – even mass murder – to be deserving of the death penalty.

Oklahoma's botched lethal injection marks new front in battle over executions

We have also robbed the death penalty of its deterrent power by allowing death penalty cases to languish for years in the legal system, often based on irrational and irrelevant appeals.

While most Americans claim to believe that the death penalty should be supported, there is a wide disparity in how Americans of different states and regions think about the issue.

Furthermore, Christians should be outraged at the economic and racial injustice in how the death penalty is applied. While the law itself is not prejudiced, the application of the death penalty often is.

Opinion: End secrecy in lethal injections

There is very little chance that a wealthy white murderer will ever be executed. There is a far greater likelihood that a poor African-American murderer will face execution.

Why? Because the rich can afford massively expensive legal defense teams that can exhaust the ability of the prosecution to get a death penalty sentence.

This is an outrage, and no Christian can support such a disparity. As the Bible warns, the rich must not be able to buy justice on their own terms.

There is also the larger cultural context. We must recognize that our cultural loss of confidence in human dignity and the secularizing of human identity has made murder a less heinous crime in the minds of many Americans.

Most would not admit this lower moral evaluation of murder, but our legal system is evidence that this is certainly true.

We also face a frontal assault upon the death penalty that is driven by legal activists and others determined to bring legal execution to an end in America.

Controversy over an execution this week in Oklahoma will bring even more attention to this cause, but most Americans will be completely unaware that this tragedy was caused by the inability of prison authorities to gain access to drugs for lethal injection that would have prevented those complications.

Opponents of the death penalty have, by their legal and political action, accomplished what might seem at first to be impossible – they now demand action to correct a situation that they largely created.

Their intention is to make the death penalty so horrifying in the public mind that support for executions would disappear. They have attacked every form of execution as “cruel and unusual punishment,” even though the Constitution itself authorizes the death penalty.

It is a testament to moral insanity that they have successfully diverted attention from a murderer’s heinous crimes and instead put the death penalty on trial.

Should Christians support the death penalty today?

I believe that Christians should hope, pray and strive for a society in which the death penalty, rightly and rarely applied, would make moral sense.

This would be a society in which there is every protection for the rights of the accused, and every assurance that the social status of the murderer will not determine the sentence for the crime.

Christians should work to ensure that there can be no reasonable doubt that the accused is indeed guilty of the crime. We must pray for a society in which the motive behind capital punishment is justice, and not merely revenge.

We must work for a society that will honor every single human being at every point of development and of every race and ethnicity as made in God’s image.

We must hope for a society that will support and demand the execution of justice in order to protect the very existence of that society. We must pray for a society that rightly tempers justice with mercy.

Should Christians support the death penalty today? I believe that we must, but with the considerations detailed above.

At the same time, given the secularization of our culture and the moral confusion that this has brought, this issue is not so clear-cut as some might think.

I do believe that the death penalty, though supported by the majority of Americans, may not long survive in this cultural context.

Death penalty in the United States gradually declining

It is one thing to support the death penalty. It is another thing altogether to explain it, fix it, administer it and sustain it with justice.

We are about to find out if Americans have the determination to meet that challenge. Christians should take leadership to help our fellow citizens understand what is at stake.

God affirmed the death penalty for murder as he made his affirmation of human dignity clear to Noah. Our job is to make it clear to our neighbors.

R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of  The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this column belong to Mohler.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Christianity • Courts • Crime • Death • Discrimination • Ethics • Opinion • Violence

soundoff (2,706 Responses)
  1. justpro86

    The relationship between the Bible and science has been quite clearly set forth by Dr. Samuel G. Craig in the following paragraph:

    "It is one thing to say that the Scriptures contain statements out of harmony with the teachings of modern science and philosophy and a distinctly different thing to say that they contain proved errors. Strictly speaking there is no modern science and philosophy but only modern scientists and philosophers - who differ endlessly among themselves. It is only on the assumption that the discordant voices of present-day scientists and philosophers are to be identified with the voice of Science and Philosophy that we are warranted in saying that the Bible contains errors because its teachings do not always agree with the teachings of these scientists and philosophers. Does any one really believe that Science and Philosophy have yet reached, even approximately, their final form? May it not rather be contended that they are so far removed from their ultimate form that if the teachings of the Bible were in complete harmony with present-day science and philosophy it is altogether certain that they would be out of harmony with the science and philosophy of the future? If, for example, the anti-supernaturalism of the dominant science and philosophy of today is to be characteristic of science and philosophy in their final forms, then, unquestionably the Bible contains many errors. Who, however, is competent to assert that this will be the case? But unless it is certain that the science and philosophy of the future will be essentially one with the dominant science and philosophy of today, we go beyond the evidence when we say that the Bible contains proved errors on the ground that its teachings contradict the teachings of present-day scientists and philosophers" (Christianity Rightly So Called, p. 217).

    May 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • colin31714

      Nice apologetic junk show. The bible clearly states the entire Universe was created in six days and that all humans descended from Adam and Eve. That is garbage. The bible is wrong on that. 100% flat wrong. It was only after Darwin, Hubble etc. showed it to be nonsense that apologetic garbage like you just quoted was spun up. For 2,000 years before that, it was supposedly literally correct.

      Just look at this blog. Some still think it is!!

      May 2, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Following the publication of The Origin of Species, various enthusiastic Darwinists began looking for the "missing link" in the so-called human evolution. Racist evolutionists believed that the native aboriginal peoples of Australia were one of the primitive stages of human evolution. In order to prove this misconception, they began stealing corpses from Aborigines' graves and selling them to American and European museums. There were also docu.mented cases of people slaughtering Aborigines in search of the "missing link."

        And if we are all just animals "dancing to our DNA," then there was nothing wrong with that.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • colin31714

          So? Even if every word you wrote is true and even if your hypothetical is a conundrum, that does not make evolution false. It just means you have discomfort with some of the consequences you believe flow from it.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          If you believe that the racists and primary killers of the aboriginal people had anything to do with Darwin or atheists in general you are a bigger moron than I had previously thought, and that is saying something. I would laugh at you but that would be just like making fun of a disabled person.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "In 1859 Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species popularized the notion of biological (and therefore social) evolution. Scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with races able to ascend or descend a graduated scale. The European was the "fittest to survive." [The Aboriginal] was doomed to die out according to a "natural law," like the dodo and the dinosaur. This theory, supported by the facts at hand continued to be quoted until well into the twentieth century when it was noticed that the dark-skinned race was multiplying. Until that time it could be used to justify neglect and murder." (Sharman Stone, Aborigines in White Australia: A Docu.mentary History of the Att.itudes Affecting Official Policy and the Australian Aborigine 1697-1973, Melbourne: He.inemann Educational Books, 1974)

          May 2, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "used to justify"

          If you actually cared about the plight of the aboriginal people you would not make such moronic statements trying to prove somehow that Darwinism and atheists and evolution backers were their primary attackers. Even a cursory inspection of the history shows it was the Brittish colonials who between 1824 and 1908 the settlers along with the Mounted Police in Queensland killed more than 10,000 Aborigines, who were regarded as vermin and often hunted for sport. The colonists involved in this were predominately Christian though some did try to "justify" their murderous actions by claiming the aboriginies were merely animals.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          And yet, atheist, it is impossible to use the Bible to justify what they did. So you cannot, no matter even if they claimed it to be so, you cannot say that they did it in the name of Christianity.

          Darwinism on the other hand, makes the slaughter make perfect sense.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • joey3467

          Theo, only if you are a total moron.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Joey,
          so, backed into a corner, you resort to insults? Quit acting so childish.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • joey3467

          It is a statement of fact, not an insult, only a moron would think that the Theory of Evolution is a good reason to kill someone.

          May 2, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
      • justpro86

        More misconception LOL

        May 2, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • colin31714

          Really? What did I get wrong?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • Doris

          "More misconception LOL "

          Ah. Well we all know who are the experts telling each other that they have a misconception about the Bible.

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

          May 2, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • justpro86

          The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1

          Samuel Adams

          May 2, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • Keith

          So, you really believe that Samuel Adams had something to do with the founding of America? Since you are making up names I assume you are making up quotes too.

          May 4, 2014 at 9:58 am |
      • awanderingscot

        prove it.

        May 2, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • colin31714

          Sure. Here are a few of the many, many reasons why we know the Noah story is sheer nonsense.

          Of first and most obvious importance is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor likely wiped them out.

          Layered in the fossil record are the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years ago) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the 700 odd known species of dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths and hairy rhinoceros of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.

          Indeed, the fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?

          Not only did a Tyrannosaurus Rex eat a lot of food, but that food was meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark for the entire 360 odd days Noah supposedly spent on the ark. T-Rex was not even the largest carnivorous dinosaur we know of. Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were all larger and ate more even meat. Even they were not large enough to bring down the largest sauropods we know of, many species of which weighed in at close to 100 tons and were about 100 feet long. This is in addition to the elephants, hippopotamus, giraffes, and other large extant animals (not to mention the millions of insects, bacteria, mites, worms etc. that would have to be boarded). A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships larger than the D-Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the ark.

          Coming on top of that, of course, there are the various races of human beings. There were no Sub-Saharan Africans, Chinese, Australian Aboriginals, blonde haired Scandinavians, Pygmies or Eskimos on the Ark. Where did they come from?

          Oh, second, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large, often Carboniferous Period forests, in the case of coal, or tiny marine creatures in the case of oil. For the fossils to develop into oil or coal takes tens or hundreds of millions of years of “slow baking” under optimum geological conditions. That’s why they are called “fossil fuels.” Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this.

          Laughingly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13, 700,000,000 years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see the collective, misty light of many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny accusatory witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.

          In fourth, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims, the Universe about three times the age of the Earth.

          Next, fifth, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed.

          Sixth, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ simplistic and patently absurd explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.

          Seventh, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.

          I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics. Even large parts of medical research would be rendered unusable but for the fact that monkeys and mice share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs.

          In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders copying then extant mythology were wrong. Creationists aren’t just trying to swim upstream against the weight of scientific evidence; they are trying to ascend a waterfall.

          Now your turn, prove your "six days and a talking snake" theory.

          May 2, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Please explain to me how and why 'scientists', i call them that for lack of a better expression but they are really deceivers attempting to manufacture fact, so how is it possible that tree rings are able to calibrate and confirm radiocarbon dating? Do trees live billions of years? or even millions of years? You've never answered this.

          May 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • colin31714

          I answered it yesterday. Dendrochronology is only useful for hundreds or, at best, thousands of years. It has nothing to do with establishing the age of the Earth, nor does carbon dating.

          Now for the fifth time YOUR evidence please.

          May 2, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          so how sir can you state evolution categorically as fact when you cannot even establish the age of the earth? you need billions of years to establish your God-denying fantasy and you just cannot do it. thus your theory remains just that, a theory. intelligent design? explain to me how in your world the process of metamorphosis, specifically the metamorphosis of a monarch butterfly going from a caterpillar to a butterfly including the time it takes to do that. how is that possible in your world of evolution? at what point would the process of metamorphosis be halted due to the constraints of the environment? and in your world would this not spell the extinction of the species? please answer.

          May 2, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • colin31714

          So, got no evidence, hey? So, you will keep asking question after question and not provide it. I have provided my evidence in the lengthy post above, but you refuse to provide yours. All you do is keep trying in vein to point out flaws in the accepted scientific view. At his point, I am happy to conclude that you have no evidence to support your creationist view, but feel free to prove me wrong by posting some.

          May 2, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Friend. i gave you an example of intelligent design, that is metamorphosis, asking you how evolution can be reconciled with it and you don't have an answer. How can you look around you at the beautiful flora and fauna and not have an appreciation for it? How can you feel the warm breeze on your cheek, hear the music of a songbird in your ear, see the beautiful trees on the mountain and not be in awe and appreciation? Picture a supernatural creator preparing a paradise earth for the eternal pleasure of His crowning creation of mankind, the delight in pleasing a being made in His own image only to have that creation betray and rebel against Him almost immediately. To have the creation spit in His face as you do saying "you didn't make me", "all of this came about by chance", "furthermore, i will go one step further and say... i don't even believe you exist". How callous and hard-hearted can you be? And then when others try to warn you of the consequences of your rebellion and show you the love He has for you still, and the olive branch He holds out for you; you then continue to blaspheme Him, blaspheme them, and hate them, and hate Him, have you no shame at all sir? So now, answer the question then, how do you reconcile evolution with the process of metamorphosis?

          May 2, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Friend. i gave you an example of intelligent design, that is metamorphosis, asking you how evolution can be reconciled with it."

          Evolution is itself an "intelligent designer" demonstrated to be capable of producing novel "specified-complex" biological "information" from the molecular level, e.g. Lenski's E. coli, right up through gross anatomical divergence, e.g. the Pod Mrcaru Lizards. Regarding insect metamorphosis, see:
          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/

          Evolution explains these concentrated changes in morphology as a reflection of various selection pressures including predation escape, food source timing, mating, etc. Intelligent Design offers neither a "how" nor a "why" explanation for such observations. In other words, there is no means to test for intelligent design and there is simply no explanation for why an intelligent designer would choose such unusual means to generate the final form (why not just specially create the butterfly to begin with?). Evolution explains both the general rules and the anomalies, e.g. contingent evolutionary history, convergent evolution, etc. ID always focuses on the apparent complexity with arguments of incredulity, but invariably fails to account for evidence of poor design, e.g. male nip-ples, a defunct gene for egg-yolk proteins, recurrent laryngeal nerve, bad knees/backs/necks/wrists, etc, etc. ID/creationists often argue the common designer position, but this too fails in light of similar forms bearing clearly distinct lineages, e.g. new world v. old world vultures.

          Bottom line, and as held in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Bd., ID is a non-scientific religious view. It's only application is apologetics . . .

          May 2, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        the THEORY of evolution needs millions, even billions of years to be even considered plausible. Atheists and evolutionists still will not concede that radiocarbon dating is OUTDATED, and proven to be useless in dating the age of the earth. a carbon 14 half-life stands at roughly 7500yrs but somehow you can extrapolate and make it useful going back billions of years, yeah they do believe in the easter bunny.

        May 2, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • colin31714

          First, I asked you for evidence of your theory. I get that you reject the widely accepted scientific version, now provide evidence of your theory. No more dodging now, provide your evidence.

          Second, as I explained yesterday, no scientist uses carbon dating to establish ages older that a few tens of thousands of years.

          But, back to point 1. Your evidence please?

          May 2, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      This was in reply to the previous page where you asked for inconsistancies but since you ask it here as well:

      Number 1 inconsistancy in the bible for me: The two different personalities for God. In the Hebrew scriptures you have an angry jealous God who demands fealty on pain of death, there shall be no other Gods before him, while in the Greek scriptures you have the Son who says if you have seen me you have seen the father also as the meek teacher who turns the other cheek when struck and spat upon. If God is unchanging, what happened? Where did the fire and brimstone God go?

      This inconsistancy works well if you understand that the concept of the Hebrew God evolved over time and changed with the needs of the people worshiping it, much like the Churches of today. As the people changed, so did their God. This however means that their God is not a God at all but a theology of a specific people for a specific time. Churches just 60 years ago here in America were preaching how the dark skinned "sons of Cain" should be kept away from the clean pure white daughters of Gods people. Now we have Churches who look back at that and claim "well they weren't true Christians!" and so now they allow interracial marriage, but not that unholy same gender marriage! Until their Church evolves and realizes that gay people are just people.

      I have many many more factual inconsistancies such as the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and how our DNA proves that never happened. The global flood account that geology has proven never happened. The fosil record that shows millions and millions of years of life on earth and the tree of life we are all a part of that includes our cousins the neanderthals and denisovians. We interbred with neanderthals over 20,000 years ago as proven by ancient burials, DNA along with cave art going back nearly 60,000 years.

      When taken as a whole, anyone who tries to justify the bible account with the actual evidence has to invent completely bogus theories like "Historical science" that have zero evidence backing them up. All they have is a person of faith saying "well how do I know if the universe worked the same 10,000 years ago...". You can know just like any educated scientist can, by doing the research and accepting the actual data found instead of struggling to invent new words to explain how you might still be right.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • Keith

        Most of the Theists on these pages do not even understand that their are three different "gods" between Genesis and Revelations. I have never met a single Christian that knows anything about the Jewish Cosmology. And I have not met any that realize that Moses changed "gods" for the Israelites. Then the Christians invented the "Three in One" god and don't find it to be a problem at all to justify a major theological change in doctrine.

        May 4, 2014 at 10:05 am |
  2. Concert in an Egg

    Topher, you will proud of me. I am playing drums for a Methodist church fundraiser this weekend. I have to go to church every day for four days! So far, the roof has not fallen in.

    May 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      See, dude?! There's hope for you yet! (smiley)

      May 2, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
      • samsstones

        Topher
        How did you get away with murder? Should you not do the moral thing and turn yourself into the police or are you going pedophile priest on us, lie and cover up?

        May 2, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • snuffleupagus

          Samsstones, got your reply. Thanks. So I now wonder if topher married the mother of his child? Last I knew she was still his gf. One strange and dangerous person, who thinks he's been absolved of his deeds through his sky-fairy

          May 2, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • samsstones

          snuffle
          It is the audacity of the likes of Topher preaching his BS from a pedestal of guilt that p!sses me off, what garbage.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
      • Concert in an Egg

        Topher, do you have a visual image of god that you hold in your mind?

        May 2, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        Of God the Father? No.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          That is a good start. Now imagine he looks like nothing at all because either he does not exist or perhaps if there were a creator of the universe, he is nothing at all like humans.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          God the Father is a spirit, so I don't even know that we'll see Him. But we have seen Christ and will see Him again.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          But....he is dead. What you are saying is crazy, do you realize that?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Concert in an Egg

          "But....he is dead."

          No, He's not. He rose physically from the grave defeating death.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          That's why Muhammad can't save you. He's dead. Same with every other religious leader out there. They are all in the grave. Except Christ. He lives. And only He can save you.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Why are you prejudiced against all the other zombies but not Jesus?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Ridiculous.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
        • sam stone

          claims are awfully easy to make, gopher.

          i find it amusing that you desire eternity with a being from whom you have to be saved

          but, i guess slaves are like that

          May 2, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • sam stone

          gee, gopher, you come on with the claim that death is unnatural and call other people ridiculous?

          you are comedy gold

          May 2, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
  3. Doris

    Christians Say the Darndest Things

    Like 'Atheists do hate god because they formed this "Evolution" '

    (maybe this will help answer Russ' question to me a bit earlier)

    "Young-earth" Christians also say the darndest things. Some times they do it for profit. Sometimes they do it for profit by selling legitimate science to one customer and then selling a different story to someone else to support their customers beliefs.

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

    Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    For convenience I refer to them below as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "(A) PRIORITIES

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

    (B) BASICS

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

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

    (D) GENERAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    POSTSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

    May 2, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      You take the case of an individual to try to make a statement about ALL?

      May 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
      • Doris

        No. But in that recent Nye-Ham debate, this snake geologist Snelling was referenced more for "scientific" support for Ham's position than any other.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          So? Evolutionists all reference Darwin, and everyone knows that he made up that fairy tale for adults.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • Doris

          Theo – I know what I posted is long, but did you happen to catch the notion that this person was selling two conflicting notions allegedly both from science simultaneously? Apparently you didn't. That was the gist of this other scientists question to this Dr. Snelling.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          No, I did actually read over your whole post. What does it prove? There's hypocrites everywhere. There's hypocrites in both the religious AND secular societies. BOTH need repentance.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • Doris

          Repentance? No – that's the trouble with theologists trying to take the place of civil law – you wind up with things like children abused by priests; the Salem witch trials, etc.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • sam stone

          gosh, corn pone.....you have been the studying the minutae of your fairy tale for 30 years. you even fvcking preach about it. jeebus is waiting on you do you have the courage to go see him?

          May 2, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
  4. snuffleupagus

    awanderingscot

    Pro – don't engage these unregenerate God-haters here. They were sent by their father Satan to bait the sons of God.

    To bait, or not to bait. I think scot may masterba...Nah you guys aren't worth baiting, chuming maybe, but not baiting.

    May 2, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
    • snuffleupagus

      Dang it, posted in wrong spot. Sorry.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
  5. justpro86

    It gives us no little satisfaction, however, to know that as scholarship and archaeological discovery have advanced the great majority of the supposed "Biblical errors" which were so confidently paraded by skeptics and atheists a few decades ago have been cleared up. Today scarcely a shred of the old list remains. It gives us even greater satisfaction to know that despite all of the merciless attacks which through the ages have been made on the Bible, and despite all of the fierce light of criticism which so long has been beating upon its open pages. not so much as one single error has been definitely proved to exist anywhere in the Bible. Without exception up to the present time where the conflict has been joined and the verdict rendered the skeptic has been proved wrong and the Bible right. Those supposed discrepancies remain today as only too readily forgotten warnings against those who in their eagerness to do violence to the Scripture doctrine of inerrancy throw historical and literary caution to the winds.

    It is to be noted further that the alleged errors have been for the most part trivial. In no cases have important doctrines or important historical events been in question. When fuller light is turned on them most of them, like ghosts, melt away from sight. Few if any of them are anything more than mistakes on the part of copyists or translators; and certainly no one has a right to say there are errors in the Bible unless he can show beyond reasonable doubt that they were in the original manuscripts.

    May 2, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      So it is up to you what got thinks is trivial or not?

      btw, there are thousands upon thousands of errors in the bible. Fact.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
      • Akira

        It might be worth answering this guy when he has an original thought that hasn't been stolen from someone else, as his entire post has.
        He is intellectually dishonest, and an unrepentant thief, which doesn't squared at his repeated protestations that he's a Christian.

        Curious.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
      • justpro86

        Fact no there is not

        May 2, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Any legitimate bible scholar will verify that their are thousands if not tens of thousands of mistakes in the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies....of the bible you are reading today.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • colin31714

      A few quick things off the top of my head that the Bible claims that we are now pretty certain are flat wrong:
      • The Universe is about 6,000 years old
      • The Universe was created in 7 days
      • Giant human beings once waked the Earth
      • Snakes can talk
      • Donkeys can talk
      • There were plagues throughout Egypt, including the death of the first born male child in every house
      • Pretty much the entire Exodus story
      • Food falls from the sky
      • The Red Sea split
      • The sun can “stand still”. Vis-à-vis the Earth it does not even move. Lol

      If something can only be "wrong" in the bible if we can prove beyond reasonable doubt it was in the original manuscripts, then the same applies with something being true. In which case all of Christianity is in deep question as we have no original manuscripts for any book in the bible.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        ignorance..the Bible NOWHERE says the earth is 6000 years old....the Bible does NOT say there are giants as you presume it to say....the Bible NOWHERE says that DONKEYS and snakes (PLURAL) can talk..nowhere does the Bible say the sun itself stood still either.....sorry..you r attempt to debunk is fultile

        May 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • colin31714

          You! When are you going to answer my question about the evidence you have to support your "six days and a talking snake" theory for the origins of the Universe?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • colin31714

          Quoting directly from Genesis, Chapter 3: Now the snake was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from [a]any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the snake, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The snake said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

          If that is not a snake talking, what is it?

          Quoting from Numbers Chapter 22 ”When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam was angry and struck the donkey with his stick. 28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 Then Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now.” 30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.”

          If that isn’t a talking donkey, what is it?

          Quoting from Genesis Chapter 6 “Then GOD said, “I’m not going to breathe life into men and women endlessly. Eventually they’re going to die; from now on they can expect a life span of 120 years.”
          4 This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.

          If that isn’t giants, what is it?

          Quoting from Joshua 10:12 “Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon." 13So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.…

          If that isn’t the sun standing still, what is it?

          The age of the Universe is discerned form Luke, tracing back the ancestry of Jesus to Adam (and by simply following the chronology in the Tanakh).

          May 2, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          READ my posts again..I sais donkeys and snakes PLURAL.....you implied plurality......as for giants...I see nowhere that it is referring to giant in SIZE of bodies...and as I said..the Bible does NOT say the SUN itself stopped....you have tp prove they are not using a figure of speech (we do it today...sunrise sunset) and the age of the earth is nOT discnerned that way.....first of all.....youhave to take inseveral considerations..Jews were known to add multi generations under one name..second..HOW long did Adam live BEFORE he ate of the apple...csuse as I read it..Adam didn't have an age yet..he was to live eternity....age has no earing on that....the day he ate of the apple..he started to die..thus making age...also...the earth was formless and void..how long did it stay that way? TOO many quesiotns to go thru before discerning age of the earth

          May 2, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • colin31714

          Oh yes and ONE snake talking and ONE donkey talking is a lot more realistic. lol.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          yeah...thats right..yuodont believe in a god in the first place to allow this to happen...you made science your god instead

          May 2, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • colin31714

          So, for the fourth time, please provide the evidence for your theory on the creation of the Universe.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          This is evidence given to ME and others by God...that He is the True God..that He is the Creator..I will trust he says what He says, since he has shown Himself to be trustworthy to me....I find it very difficult for atheists to say the earth/universe suddenly appeared out of nothing...with nothing to kick start it...they say it started with chemicals..well...where did those come from? etc etc....whereas with God being Creator...it wasn't something from nothing..but something from God...makes much more sense...in fact I deem it delusional to say things appeared fromnothing...it just happened....

          May 2, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • colin31714

          So, your evidence is what? I know you have trouble with the widely accepted scientific version, but what I am asking is for you to back up YOUR theory of six days and a talking snake with evidence. And after five attempts have got zero in return. the closest you have come is to say , "This is evidence given to ME and others by God…that He is the True God..that He is the Creator..I will trust he says what He says, since he has shown Himself to be trustworthy to me."

          Just psycho-religious babble, no evidence whatsoever.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • snuffleupagus

          Kerrrmiii: Joshua 10:13 & Gen 6-8

          May 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          what about Joshua and Genesis 6-8?

          May 2, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "This is evidence given to ME and others by God"

          To claim it is god is fallacious given that you can't provide evidence for that god's existence. What you see as evidence is not likely the same as what another Christian see's and is usually very biased due to the fact that you believe in the god, thus this so-called evidence must be directly related to your god. It doesn't hold validity to anyone but you. How do you decipher that it is the Christian god and not a pagan god or Zeus or Odin or any of the other numerous gods that man has imagined? The fact is you can't possibly decipher that given your bias towards the Christian god. Until you provide evidence that directly points to that god without simply saying it is god, there can never be justification (outside of laziness for and not caring about evidence) for believing and that is all it is-belief, not knowledge (two very different things).

          May 2, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
  6. SeaVik

    In response to New-man's claims that I shouldn't critique the bible since I have not read the entire thing:

    Ok, fair point. I haven't read it. So maybe I"m wrong in thinking that the bible claims that a man rose from the dead after being dead for days. Maybe I'm wrong that the bible claims that a man put one of every animal on a boat to save them from a flood. Maybe I'm wrong that the bible says a man walked on water.

    If I am wrong about those things, then you have a valid point. If, however, the bible does indeed make those claims as is my understanding, then we know that the bible is factually untrue.

    May 2, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
  7. Theo Phileo

    "SQUIRREL!"

    Anyone ride motorcycles? I'm looking at a Triumph Bonneville and wanna know if anyone's ridden one before.

    May 2, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      I have a friend who owns one...great cruising bike. You won't regret owning it.

      May 2, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
  8. lunchbreaker

    I would think the falibility of men would be enough for Christians to oppose the death penalty. The fact that by our own human error, a wrongfully accused human could be convicted and executed. When it comes to life and death, perhaps you should leave that to your infallible God to be the executioner.

    May 2, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
    • Akira

      I think anyone can find the Bible supports whatever particular belief they hold. I'm unsurprised that Mohler is doing it, also.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
  9. Concert in an Egg

    I understand the argument against the death penalty and don't necessarily disagree, but I do think that if there are eye witnesses that can identify the killer and the murderer is convicted, he should be put to death.

    May 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Eye witnesses can lie.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
      • Concert in an Egg

        That is why there must be more than one to corroborate the evidence.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Eyewitness accounts are notoriously fallible. However, if they are supported by a preponderance of other evidence, including DNA, then I have no problem with a death sentence.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
  10. Dalahäst

    Jesus Christ refused to meet violence with violence and hate with hate.

    I pray for the strength to be like him.

    May 2, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      Why pray, just do it. You can't do it?

      May 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Prayer helps me. But prayer means nothing without action. Yes, I sometimes can not do it, especially when violence or hate is inflicted upon me.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Just chill man. Sticks and stones.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm chill. You asked a question, no?

          May 2, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Good. We are just chill...

          May 2, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
    • colin31714

      Well, maybe. As a religious kook he, along with all religious kooks, had a violent side if he felt his authority was questioned. We all know of his temper tantrum in the Temple which has been spun to be an altercation with moneylenders (which it may or may not have been). In addition to that, he was clear that he would prefer to drown any parent who had the audacity to not let their children follow him. As he himself said:

      "If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea”
      (Mark 9:42) – repeated in both Luke and Matthew as Luke 17:2 and Matthew 18:6 respectively.

      And, he was quite prepared to tear families apart to keep his followers in line. Again quoting words from his own mouth.

      Matthew 10
      Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.

      Luke
      I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

      The perfume-perfect picture many have of him today is quite different to the likely real story – ha was just another ranting apocalyptic religious kook given to outbursts when he did not get his way.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        You've copied/pasted that before.

        What did Jesus do before he had his "temper tantrum"?

        I know you don't seriously believe Jesus suggested parents drown their children. You use the same tactic he used to get his point across (hyperbole).

        May 2, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • colin31714

          How else does one extract direct biblical quotes other than copy/paste?

          Oh but I do think that his being this violent is feasible (which is about as certain as anyone can ever get about events in the life of Jesus). Religious nuts like Koresh, Jesus are well known for outbusts of violence.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Jesus is fierce. That wasn't a temper tantrum. That was a fight for what is right. He took the time to make a whip. He knew what he was doing.

          Are you a non-religious nut for having all your non-religious replies saved and filed away for quick replies?

          May 2, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • colin31714

          A
          whip to strike those who disagreed with him. Doesn't sound very nonviolent and peace loving to me. The primary school simple version of Jesus as a gentle soul lying in a field with lambs is as obviously fiction as pictures of pixies in a garden. Some adults realize that.

          No, I am not a "kook." A kook or crazy person is somebody who believes in magic/divine acts based on nothing more than late Bronze Age mythology, wouldn't you agree?

          May 2, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          if youre referringto Jesus chasing the money changers out of the Tenmple....righteous anger has its place....he was angered that the people would use the Temple to exploit people..and even if not in the Temp[le..the money changers took advantage of the people

          May 2, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • colin31714

          So, he did not "turn the other cheek" or "love thy enemy." Pretty human shortcoming for the son of god, wouldn't you say?

          May 2, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          NOT at all..again God is JUDGE......there is NOTHING wrong with righteous anger and getting people to leave their home...turning the other cheek does NOT mean one lets others use them as a door mat....Jesus is not going to keel over and let people just do what they want in His house

          May 2, 2014 at 5:52 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Hey, I don't accept the primary school simple version of Jesus you are imagining!

          Not at all. Jesus can be fierce and was not always meek. But he asks his followers to pray for our enemies, not destroy them.

          No, you can be a kook or a crazy person and not believe in magic/divine acts based on nothing more than late Bronze Age mythology.

          You seem like the atheist version of the right-wing religious nut-case. I often think you are the atheist bigot that Einstein warned others about.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • colin31714

          You said, "No, you can be a kook or a crazy person and not believe in magic/divine acts based on nothing more than late Bronze Age mythology."

          True, but a person who does believe such rot is much, much more likely to be in need of a good therapist than somebody who doesn't, right?

          May 2, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Not really.

          Most people don't describe belief in God the way you do. I'm sure you place your life in the hands of people (pilots, doctors, scientists) who you would dismiss as "kooks" on this blog. You are just a message board troll who hates people based on their beliefs. You try way too hard to insist your beliefs are sound, logical and reasonable. But you really are just as "kooky" as the people you devote way too much time hating and plotting clever insults.

          I think you need a good therapist.

          May 2, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • colin31714

          To respond to the one part of your post that is not a worthless vituperation, you said " I’m sure you place your life in the hands of people (pilots, doctors, scientists) who you would dismiss as “kooks” on this blog."

          Yes, but not in their kooky side. Many people are rational outside of their religion but total nutters within it. I sure as hell would not rely on a pilot who prayed the plane was safe but did not maintain it nor a doctor who prayed he knew what ailed me but did not check me. That's the thing about religion, it only works when we silently acknowledge it is all make believe.

          May 2, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You entrust you life in the hands of religious people every day. This is just your message board fodder. I'm sure a therapist would say you are doing it to make yourself feel better. Usually people that insult others like you do are very insecure.

          May 2, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          @"kermit4jc

          if youre referringto Jesus chasing the money changers"

          http://seattletimes.com/html/books/2017202522_outlaw12.html

          In my church we are taught not to see Jesus as just being meek and passive. He can be fierce and aggressive.

          It is funny because I was reading this part of the book "Beautiful Outlaw" last night (which pretty much suggests not to believe what Colin imagines all religious people believe about Jesus):

          http://seattletimes.com/html/books/2017202522_outlaw12.html

          -Depictions of Jesus as a gentle and meek soul don't align with verses such as John 2:13-17, in which he drives money-changers out of the temple.

          Acting alone, he created a wildly chaotic scene.

          "Jesus is a locomotive, a juggernaut," Eldredge writes. "For all practical purposes, he is the bull in the china shop. But is this the Jesus of our worship songs? The religious fog sneaks in to obscure Jesus with lines comparing him to, 'a rose trampled on the ground.' Helpless, lovely Jesus. Vegetarian, pacifist, tranquil. Oh, wait — that was Gandhi. Not Jesus."--

          May 2, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
  11. Doris

    “The problem with religion, because it's been sheltered from criticism, is that it allows people to believe en masse what only idiots or lunatics could believe in isolation.”

    ― Sam Harris

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR-y1yuUcXc

    May 2, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Doris: what's got you so angry today?
      you've been trolling for 3 pages of comments now.
      it's like you've become the atheist version of the old "atheism isn't healthy for children..." prayer bot guy.

      May 2, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        No kidding!

        May 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      So Sam Harris uses a slide from Monty Python to represent God ... and we're supposed to take him seriously? Yeah, there's no bias there.

      May 2, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
      • Concert in an Egg

        What image would you use to represent god Topher?

        May 2, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          I wouldn't use something that's a mockery.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • midwest rail

          That wasn't the question, but no surprise you didn't answer it.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          If we're talking God the Father (which is the representation here) I wouldn't use anything like this that purports to show what He looks like. If we're talking God the Son, we could reasonably use the portrays from a couple of movies, though even those won't be accurate.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          "...even those won't be accurate..."

          No kidding Topher. lol

          May 2, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • samsstones

          Toper
          Redrum, redrum, the guilt just oozes out of you.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • samsstones

          I meant Topher.
          Top of page 5 @ 10:00 am answer the question, don't play the coward yet again.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
      • joey3467

        You think Noah's Ark is a true story, and people are supposed to take you seriously?

        May 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • Concert in an Egg

        What would you use....and B, what makes that picture a mockery? Or are you just biased against Monty Python? I think they got the Christian vision of god spot on.

        May 2, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Not biased against Python at all. I think they were often hilarious. But no, they weren't even close to the Christian God. Just watch The Life of Brian.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • samsstones

          Topher
          You have yet to answer that since you are a self confessed murderer, why you were not executed and why you are apparently walking around in society as a free man?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • Akira

          Topher,
          You know that Brian is a satirical view of overzealous Christians and that Brian doesn't represent Jesus, right?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Akira

          Yes, I've seen the movie.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • samsstones

          Topher
          C'mon coward, answer the question.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • snuffleupagus

          samsstones, topher murdered someone? Really? What's the story here?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          What's the question?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Akira

          Then you must know it wasn't meant to be a Biblically accurate documentary.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Akira

          I know that, too. The problem was it was clearly mocking. They should stick to lumberjack songs and parrots "pining for the fiords."

          May 2, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • samsstones

          snuffle...
          Go to page 5 at the top 10:00 AM for the info.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • samsstones

          Topher
          You may want to direct your replies to a specific person. The question is how did you get away with murder?

          May 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Sam

          Jesus Christ paid my fine in His life's blood taking the punishment I deserve. Not only that, but I'm credited with Christ's righteousness.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Akira

          Topher, you had the choice to go see it. You clearly knew the subject matter before you saw it.
          It is you who should change your behavior, not the ones you want to censor.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • samsstones

          Topher
          No wonder you got born again, the great crutch of jesus, he paid the price, you don't have to, how can you live with yourself, coward.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Akira

          I saw that movie YEARS before I became a Christian. Even then I didn't think it was that funny ... though for different reasons. Holy Grail is really funny ... but the best Python film is "And Now For Something Completely Different."

          May 2, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • Akira

          Topher,

          That doesn't change the fact that because you personally don't find it funny, or that it dare makes one examine the wisdom of zealotry, they should change their style of humor.
          They're absurdists.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
      • sam stone

        "death is unnatural" – gopher

        why should anyone take YOU seriously?

        May 2, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
  12. new-man

    God Doesn’t Remember How Bad You Were

    Hebrews 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

    Perhaps you have heard people say of others: “Oh, if only you had seen my husband in the early years of our marriage. He had such an explosive temper that I used to seek shelter in my mother’s house!”

    “No one would have ever guessed that she had such a promiscuous past.”

    “As a young boy, he would always lie through his teeth and not even bat an eyelid!”

    Man looks at you and remembers what you were like in the past. But when God looks at you through the new covenant, He declares, “I will be merciful to your unrighteousness, and your sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

    He states it plainly in His Word as if to assure us: “When you come to Me, don’t think that I am thinking about your sins. Don’t think that every time I look at you, I am reminded of your sins. Not only am I not keeping a record, but I am also not mindful of your failures and shortcomings. I am telling you that I will remember your sins no more, never again!”

    God can say that all our sins He remembers no more because there was a time when He remembered them and punished every one of them—in the body of His Son at the cross. He punished every single one of them until Jesus cried out, “It is finished!” (John 19:30) That is why today, God can justly say, “Your sins I will remember no more.”

    We all know that we sin from time to time. But the good news is that all our sins have already been dealt with at the cross. They have been washed away by Jesus’ blood. Now, when we come into God’s presence, He sees us without our sins. So beloved, forget your past failures. Believe that God remembers your sins no more and be the righteous man that you already are in Christ!

    Thought For The Day: All our sins have been dealt with at the cross, so we can come boldly into God’s presence.
    Fr: JPM

    May 2, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
  13. Doris

    I guess when Pope Benedict accepted the Christmas gift from Uganda's senate representative that they would "kill all the gays" in Uganda, I think that speaks a lot to the result we see today – widespread panic and fear for ho.mose.xuals living in Uganda, knowing that they can be jailed or killed at any time since this recent bill passed there. I think it also is very telling about Catholicism – I mean if you start from the top down...

    I suppose when the only Anglican bishop that was making a difference to quell hysteria and fears there over gays was stripped of his position, that only contributed to the same hysteria we see today. I think that is also very telling about Anglicanism.. if you start from the top down….

    I suppose when Scott Lively and his team of evangelicals from the U.S. traveled to Uganda and incited hysteria and violence against gays, that had a lot to do with the situation we see today. That's a bit different. There doesn't seem to be a "top" of evangelicals. And so we just see more divisions, more conflict of interpretation, more difference in judgment upon one another.

    Why should we be at all surprised at what is going on in Uganda and elsewhere?

    Has the new pope publicly expressed his view of the crimes against humanity in Uganda? I'm not impressed by complacency when people are dying, being jailed and committing suicide in large parts of Africa and elsewhere because of an uneducated stance on hom.ose.xuality from alleged "righteousness".

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

    One poster adds "even worse than these laws were signed is that they were instigated by US evangelicals, who having failed with their anti-gay hatred in the US, are now spreading it in sub-Saharan Africa."

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2014/0225/Uganda-s-anti-gay-bill-refocuses-attention-on-US-evangelical-influence-video

    Another poster added : "What's even worse is the common practice of correctional ra.p.e, where they will ra.p.e someone so that they will no longer be gay. Often this is done by gangs and the victim sometimes dies."

    May 2, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
  14. Doris

    === Theo Phileo on the Holocaust (comments recently) =======

    They suffered because they violated their covenant with God formed in Deuteronomy 28:15-68.

    [Akira:] "Explain how the Jews violated this covenant, and explain how you know that every single Jewish family violated it."

    Idolatry, apostasy, and unbelief. [..] The fact that Judaism still exists today in denial of the Messiah is evidence to their apostasy.

    [Akira:] "And now you are claiming that Hitler to be an instrument of God? That's what you seen to be implying."

    Yup. In the same sense that Judas, who betrayed Jesus was an instrument of God. In the same sense that the Jews who had Jesus crucified were the instruments of God. The Bible tells us that God will use even an unrighteous and a sinful people to judge those whom God deems worthy of judgment, even if those to be judged are beloved of God.

    I can only relate what the Bible has to say, and it tells us that the Jews' hearts are hardened due to their apostasy, and because of their apostasy, God will punish them, until such a time that they repent of their unbelief.

    === (Doris) =========================================

    Wow. Now let's see – unbelief of what? Well, there are the Gospels of unknown authorship. There is hearsay from Paul. And let's see there is Peter saying that Paul's word is divinely inspired in Peter 2, except that – oh yes, most NT scholars agree that Peter did not author Peter 2. A belief instilled by fear of the most immoral promises for belief, non-belief: the afterlife with forgiveness of one's wrongdoings, otherwise eternal punishment. A belief that needed a defense that Satan was able to perform plagiarism backward in time....

    "These lots and lots of copies are from many centuries after Mark was written. How could we know that these copies stemmed from a correct copy, instead of an errant copy? Our earliest ones are all highly errant." –Bart Ehrman

    And from THAT "foundation" Theo feels justified that HIS god has exercised his "righteousness" will on Jews. And from THAT "foundation", we have "righteous" evangelists who traveled to Africa recently to incite violence and the killing of people there.

    Disgusting!

    ===========

    “The problem with religion, because it's been sheltered from criticism, is that it allows people to believe en masse what only idiots or lunatics could believe in isolation.”
    ― Sam Harris

    option:

    "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history. "
    –John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 09/03/1816

    May 2, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
  15. justpro86

    What kind of Atheist should I be today? A total buffoon with no life coming on a Christian Blog to post stupidity all over the Blog about How we poof in existence by accident?

    May 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
    • Doris

      A Christian blog?? LLLL OOOOO LLLLL

      May 2, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
      • samsstones

        pro
        You are just another fundie jesus freaking nutter that can't stand anyone telling you your delusion is bullsh!t. Suck it up whiner.

        May 2, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
    • Akira

      This isn't a Christian blog, justpro. It's a Belief blog.
      If you want a Christian blog, visit one of the blogs you are inordinately fond of plagiarizing from.

      May 2, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        When you are a Christian, you think everything is yours. It's a "Christian Nation" and a "Christian Blog" a "Christian Holiday" a "Christian School" a "Christian Hobby Lobby"...

        May 2, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Justin is nothing more than a thief. First he steals the words of others and pretends they are his own, then he tries to steal a publicly open blog by pretending that the only valid "belief" is his own. Calling Justin a troll would be giving him the benefit of the doubt; if he is truly a christian as he claims, then he is one of the worst examples imaginable. He may think himself a good christian, but he is a lousy human being.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
      • justpro86

        BLAH BLAH BLAH I just get the facts out

        May 2, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • Doris

          Facts? Apparently you think that facts are as easy to discard as your Depends.

          May 2, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • justpro86

          Facts is all I know I won't post anything that is not true

          May 2, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Simple fact: Justin is a liar and a thief and he's too proud to admit it. He only fools himself.

          May 2, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
        • justpro86

          Simple fact your a dunce

          May 2, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
  16. justpro86

    What kind of Atheist should i be today? A total buffoon who has no purpose in life? or believes that we come from monkeys? or believes morality can be determined by sinful lustful men?

    May 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
    • Doris

      Aww – poor butthurt theist peeking out of his cave – how cute.

      May 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
      • justpro86

        Aww poor atheist wasting her time on a christian blog

        May 2, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Akira

          Hindus are really Christians in disguise, right?

          May 2, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • justpro86

          ah no but there is nothing here that is pertained to hindus

          May 2, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • Doris

          Watch out Jews, Hindus, etc. – justpro86 says you're not allowed here! (huge eyeroll)

          May 2, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Pro – don't engage these unregenerate God-haters here. They were sent by their father Satan to bait the sons of God.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • justpro86

          The thing I dislike is these Bible nonbelievers is to trashing it in its entireity and coming on a christian blog and trolling the believers posts on their feelings on the subject manner and disrespecting them.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • Doris

          Ah yes – good old Satan. Christians because quite dependent on Satan to explain themselves early on. They claimed that Satan performed plagiarism backward in time. That was their excuse. "Diabolic mimicry" they called it.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • Doris

          Of course, regarding diabolic mimicry my question is – how do you know how much "Satan" was tricking people. He might have had his hand in the pot to a much greater extent. Maybe Paul was one of his best works...

          May 2, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • justpro86

          LOL now that is funny stop posting your drivel go troll somewhere else

          May 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "unregenerate God-haters"?

          I think it interesting that people of very very low intellect often claim atheists "hate God" when in fact that is far from the truth. I hate God about as much as I hate leprechauns, which is to say, not at all. This fellow shows his intellect with a word most Christians don't even understand (unregenerate) but he used it well which is surprising that an intelligent person could also make such a stupid statement like "God-haters" when they likely know better.

          May 2, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • justpro86

          Atheists do hate god because they formed this "Evolution" Just for the sake of taking God out of main stream

          May 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Akira

          Yes there is. A few pages back there is an article on Hindus.
          So that makes your assertion that the Belief Blog is a Christian blog false.

          May 2, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • justpro86

          Thats why I never commented on them because it was for Hindus

          May 2, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
      • Akira

        So you don't comment on stories that don't concern you personally?

        May 2, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
  17. Doris

    What kind of Christian should I be today? The kind that believes the NT supercedes the OT or the kind that brings all of the OT in with the NT?

    May 2, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
    • Doris

      What kind of Christian should I be today? The kind that promotes the spread of disease across the planet because of an unrealistic stance on contraception?

      May 2, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
  18. Doris

    What kind of Christian should I be today? The kind that believes that Americans are being killed at war because America is tolerant of homosexuals?

    May 2, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Doris: the kind of Christian who admits Jesus had to die for me... I am the problem as much as anyone else.
      and yet the kind who celebrates: there is One who sees my filth to the bottom & still loves me to the skies.

      If he can change even me... there's hope for everyone & everything.

      as GK Chesteron famously answered the essay: What's wrong with the world? "I am."

      May 2, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      Denying God is a wicked sin, but you still have time to repent and seek His mercy. what may be known about God should be plain to you because God has made it plain to you; His creation attests to His eternal power and divine nature but you willfully remain ignorant and therefore condemn yourself.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
      • Doris

        @awanderinglemming

        save you energy for the street corner junior

        May 2, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
  19. Doris

    What kind of Christian should I be today? The kind that believes that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri?

    May 2, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
  20. Doris

    What kind of Christian should I be today? The kind that travels to Africa and incites people to kill other people?

    May 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
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.