 |
|
|
|
|
May 20th, 2014
03:24 PM ET
U.S. to Sudan: release Christian womanBy Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] (CNN) - International pressure is mounting on Sudan to release a pregnant Christian woman sentenced to death for apostasy, with members of the U.S. Congress asking Secretary of State John Kerry to intervene on her behalf. On Wednesday, a bi-partisan group of four senators introduced a resolution condemning the sentencing of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim by a court in Khartoum on May 15. The proposed resolution encourages Sudan to respect religious rights if it wants the United States to normalize relations or lift economic sanctions on the African nation. “I am disgusted and appalled by the inhumane verdict Ms. Ibrahim has received, simply for refusing to recant her Christian faith," said Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "I also commend Ms. Ibrahim’s courage in refusing to renounce her Christianity, and I encourage her to remain steadfast. The world condemns her verdict and will stand by her in her moment of need," said Rubio. The resolution was co-sponsored by Sens. Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma; Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware; and Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey. The proposed Senate resolution adds more voices to the international outcry over the situation of Ibrahim, a Christian wife and mother who is pregnant with her second child while shackled in a Sudanese jail. Ibrahim's husband, Daniel Wani, is a U.S. citizen. In a public letter to Kerry last Friday, Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Roy Blunt of Missouri, both Republicans, called the sentencing of Ibrahim "outrageous." "We request your immediate action and full diplomatic engagement to offer Meriam political asylum and to secure her and her son's safe release," the senators told Kerry. After State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Monday that the Department of Homeland Security would have to oversee any asylum application filed by Ibrahim or her family, Ayotte and Blunt followed up with a letter asking the two departments to coordinate on the matter. "Due to the nature of this case, it is critical that there is clarity between your departments regarding the status of the family and their previous requests for assistance from the United States," the senators wrote on Wednesday. "Any gaps in communication between the departments during this time are simply unacceptable." The worst places in the world to be religious Ibrahim, 27, faces a long and unpredictable legal journey, according to her lawyer and international experts. On May 15, a court in Khartoum convicted Ibrahim of apostasy, or the renunciation of faith, and sentenced her to death. But variety of factors - Sudan's legal system, differences between its constitution and Sharia law imposed by the sentencing judge, her pregnancy - ensure there will be no execution any time soon. Ibrahim's lawyer argues the sentence should not stand, and an international outcry could pressure Sudan's government to intervene. Sudan has not carried out an execution for apostasy for almost two decades, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. In 1985, a man was executed for apostasy and sedition, according to the commission, for criticizing Sudan's implementation of Shariah, or Islamic law. Rep. Trent Franks, a Republican from Arizona and chair of the House's International Religious Freedom Caucus, echoed the U.S. senators' calls to free Ibrahim. "Such blatant disregard for the value of human life - and religious freedom - is an indescribable disgrace," Franks said in a statement. The congressman also encouraged the State Department to get involved in Ibrahim's case. Marie Harf, a spokeswoman for the State Department, has said the department is "deeply concerned" about the death sentence and called on Sudan to respect religious freedom and "approach this case with the compassion that is in keeping with the values of the Sudanese people." Government officials in Canada, England the Netherlands have also condemned Ibrahim's sentencing. Andrew Bennett, Canada’s ambassador for religious freedom, said his country is "shocked and appalled" that Sudan would impose the death penalty on a pregnant woman merely for practicing her religion. Ibrahim was born to a Sudanese Muslim father and an Ethiopian Orthodox mother. Her father left when she was 6, and she was raised by her mother as a Christian. Her lawyer, Mohamed Jar Elnabi, said the case started after Ibrahim's brother filed a complaint against her. The brother alleged Ibrahim had gone missing for several years and that her family was shocked to find she had married a Christian man. Because her father was Muslim, the Sharia law court considered her to be the same. It refused to recognize her marriage to a Christian and also convicted her of adultery, with an additional sentence of 100 lashes. Before imposing the sentence, the court gave her an opportunity to recant her Christian faith, but Elnabi said Ibrahim refused to do so, declaring: "I am a Christian, and I will remain a Christian." Attempts by CNN to contact Sudan's justice minister and foreign affairs minister about the case have been unsuccessful. (CNN's Tom Cohen and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.)
Next entry »Pope Francis in the Holy Land: 5 things to know
« Previous entryThe worst places in the world to be religious
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Theo, well you certainly have some extreme views, for example not being able to tell a slave from a servant. Going golfing, later.
Missed the reply button, oh well.
Romans 6:12-13 – Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
My member is an instrument of righteousness.
"Hearing voices no one else can hear isn’t a good sign, even in the wizarding world."
-Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
"Well, la di fricken da!" – Matt Foley
Logic and facts vs. hearsay and hysteria; the dead end discussion rages on around the world. Who is right? Who is wrong? Fortunately that is an easy question. Atheists are correct and the religious are wrong. Facts trump fantasy.
[religion.blogs.cnn.com] is the url for this blog, you are on the wrong blog, here is your blog address [atheists.hateful.godless.com] why don't you go play there.
You did not address my statement. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes.
By the way, this is the "Belief" blog. URL's are not web page titles.
Following this logic, the wandering one should be happier wandering over to http://www.givemeatheocracy.com
Cute, now you're trying to suppress freedom of speech. Funny that you repeating this only hurts you and your ilk, it only shows people why not to join your cult and yet you fail to see that.
we preach belief, you preach unbelief. we preach love, you preach hate, what more can i say. you are here on a religious blog [religion.blogs.cnn.com] even though you hate people of faith. what are we supposed to do, go over to [atheism.hateful.godless.com] and spew venom and hate as you are doing here? you lie all the time because your father the devil is the father of the lie and you only do what comes natural to you.
If more Christians would actually heed Matthew 6 and keep their faith private, there'd be less animosity coming from non-Christians.
awanderingscot
"we preach love, you preach hate".
Christian HYPOCRITES just "preach love". Then they IGNORE the Golden Rule so they can put gays down. Same for when they deal with pro-choice supporters. It's just PICK-and-CHOOSE from the Bible.
@Scotty
Read the side bar:
"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."
Religions and beliefs affect the irreligious and non-believers too, ergo they are a legitimate voice in this global conversation.
i think the key word here is 'faith' of which Godless people have none. are you going to tell me now that you have faith? you should probably look up the definition of faith before you answer so as not to make more of a fool of yourself.
"faith": believing something without a single shred of proof.
it amazes me that religious folk see this word as a badge of honor while any logical thinking person sees it as a mark of foolishness or insanity.
quite a disconnect.
awanderingscot
"i think the key word here is 'faith'"
No, the key word here is 'conversation'.
One angle is that faith is a vritue. This belief is necessary to the religionist's worldview.
Others think that faith is the emotion that precedes thought.
It is the cave-man instinct that comes upon us when we're confronted by something we don't understand.
In general, non-believers don't think faith (in the religious sense) is a virtue whereas religion is predicated on faith. The willing suspension of critical thinking required to accept a proposition despite a lack of evidence (or evidence to the contrary) is anathema to the skeptical mind. Faith in your fellow man (including preachers) is indeed important becuase without faith there is no reciprocity in your relationships – and relationships are important. Having faith that your preacher is legitimately trying to do good is not the same as suppressing rational analysis so as to have faith that what he says is fact.
doG, git yer face outta that vomit boy, faith is not something that requires an absence of evidence. man don't you know anything?
i may have been remiss in stating that atheists have no faith. in reality they probably do, placing their trust in things such as science. science, the quest for knowledge and a desire to create order out of the natural order will always be flawed because men are flawed, and yet atheists are quick to place their faith in science. science does not and cannot PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of supernatural being they cannot see because they don't have a mechanism for doing so and don't even know where to begin. These same scientists believe and don't deny the wind even though they cannot see it, only it's effects. For this reason it is irrational to outright deny the existence of God. Those who deny that God exists because they cannot see him do so out of ignorance and disbelief. This is irrational behavior.
scot
" Those who deny that God exists because they cannot see him do so out of ignorance and disbelief. This is irrational behavior."
Just as irrational as claiming that god DOES exist, because you also are ignorant if there are any gods or not.
Ignorance is what spawns gods in men's imaginations.
Why does the sky flash like that and the loud boom after? (several gods created to explain lightening
Why does the ground shake and the mountain spew smoke? ( several gods created to explain volcanoes)
Your god is no different.
Why are we here, how did we get here, what is life? ( The abrahamic god, created to answer those questions.)
IG, thank you for being honest to say your unbelief is just as irrational. you are halfway there at least.
thus my 'cause' for lightning and thunder (God) is just as reasonable as your 'cause' (science). can you fully explain lightning and all natural phenomena? no you can't, and lightning? don't go into negative/positive charge, balance or easily understood things or the sort or we'll start talking about trigger mechanisms and stress mechanisms that are still not adequately explained.
scot
I did not say that even slightly. I have not reached any conclusion because it is irrational, I do not know if there are any gods, but I do not believe in any of the gods that men have defined.
Why is it that you keep putting false words in peoples mouths?
It is irrational to jump to ANY conclusion, since there is insufficient information to conclude anything. It is the CONCLUSION that is irrational.
and yes scot, I know how lightning works, since the interaction of various energies is part my current field of work, including electrostatic charges.
My point was that men create gods to fill the voids in his knowledge....thousands of them. I see no reason to believe that your god is any different.
Religion was born to serve the same purpose as science; it answered questions about the world and how it worked. Of course, when we required religion as a psychic salve science was unable to answer such questions; science didn't even exist except as a "hey, stop pushing me into the water or I'll get wet" practical exercise.
Religion was the first symptom of our sentience, of our consciousness and of our acknowledgement of our own subjectivity.
When early man, his little brain bent upon survival at all costs, discovered that the world worked independly from how he thought it worked, (or at least how he had hoped it worked), early man was frightened and scared. That can't be! said early man to other early men. There must be some explanation, nature can't just be arbitrary!
Ugg, said other early men, and thus "God" was born–or, more appropriately, gods. Early men weren't really very good at generalization, and since everything seemed to work independently from everything else, several gods were needed to explain the "stuff" that affected early man so profoundly. But instead of "Gravityman," "LightWavesWoman," "FractalDemon," and "FunctionChild," early man, unaware of such mystical things as provability and objectivity, figured that somebody just like him, but a little smarter, must be responsible for how and why the world worked like it did.
Religion is now the safe haven of people who don't take their reality straight up, who don't like to think about some things while thinking about other things at the same time.
Religion is an impossiblity our mind allows because it makes us feel safe, the ultimate goal of earlyman survival; religion is the ability, honed by our parents in our youth by the impatient hushing of our incessant "why?"s, to completely fail to learn how to reconcile some parts of one's knowledge with other parts into a coherent worldview.
Religion happens when people aren't paying attention.
Religion is the cave-man instinct that comes upon us when we're confronted by something we don't understand.
Religion is the emotion that precedes thought
I disagree Doc. you make a supposition that man was less intelligent in ancient days and also make an assertion that religion is merely a way to explain the world around us. religion is more than just a way to explain the world around us and is more about human interactions and morality. we are different from animals not just because we are more intelligent; we are different from animals on a higher level. morality is innate and not acquired. Sure we can learn what are acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, even animals can do this. This shows that intelligence does not have anything to do with morality. So how did humans become moral beings if not due to intelligence? Religion? No, just look around you at society, if there is not an apparent consequence for an action or a law to be broken then people will naturally do as they desire. And yet it is heard so oftentimes "i wish i had not done that" and "it wasn't the right thing to do". So where did this conscience come from? Animals don't have it. The answer is apparent, we inherited it. from our parents you say, ok well where did they get it from? from their parents .. and so on and so forth. Ultimately one has to come to the conclusion that a source or progenitor was responsible. We're not more moral because we're supposedly more intelligence. we're not any smarter than our forebearers, just having more knowledge available. On both accounts intelligence and morality rational beings will conclude a source or progenitor to be responsible. Thus we have no reason to boast as though we created something when in reality it was given (inherited) to us. We were made in the likeness of God. Get over yourself.
scot
You said several things there that are simply wrong
First, Doc indicated that people back then were more IGNORANT, not less intelligent. Second you BELIEVE that humans are different from the animals, but we ARE animals. Also, studies of animals, and even plants are showing us where our morality evolved from. By studying the natural world around us we are discovering that we are really no different than the other life forms. As far as intelligence, that depends on what you mean by intelligence. For instance, the cottlefish ahd the ability to change the color shape and texture of its skin nearly instantaneously. It requires a huge amount of its oversized brain to accomplish this. It is an intelligence we do not possess, so are we more intelligent, or is it that we have a DIFFERENT intelligence. Plants react to disease, and to attack, even have been shown to nurture their young, but they have no brain...what form of intelligence is that? We don't have that, or do we? Many animals have languages, morality, emotions, cultures, problem solving intelligence, tool making and the ability to change the world around them, yet you simply dismiss them. You argument is completely based on belief and ignorance.
on a side note Doc, you are mistaken concerning the ancient 'gods' as they were all associated with emotions or morality; and thus you have the Goddess of Love, the God or War, etc etc etc ... and they were trying to make sense of their own innate morality which they could not logically explain. instead of seeking God, they wickedly denied the Creator and He judicially darkened their foolish hearts. they worshiped false 'gods' 'gods' of wood and stone and were guilty of idolatry, The Lord turned His face away from them saying ok i'll be like your worthless wooden and stone 'gods' and will not hear you when you cry out to me. these heathen even sacrificed their young to these 'gods'. so when our Creator ordered them destroyed, using the Hebrews to do so, He was justified and righteous in doing so.
IGftr, here is what was said by Doc, "When early man, his little brain bent .." this implies a lack of intelligence and not ignorance. you are wrong, once again.
And IGftr ... just so you know, when a woman calls a man in her bed an "animal" she doesn't always mean it and she NEVER means it literally. get over yourself.
scot
Whether you acknowledge it or not, all humans are animals. The proof is in your DNA. Attempting to proclaim otherwise simply shows your ignorance.
If humans have no soul, and are merely evolutionary advanced animals, is ‘love’ anything more than instinct or hormones?
When a man says, “I love you,” to his wife, he is simply expressing something about his hormonal levels toward her as a mate. What he is really saying is, “My hormones surge for you,” not “You are my soul mate,” because the atheist doesn’t believe in souls or metaphysical connections between humans.
Incidentally, a man’s hormones might start surging for another woman (or several women) at some point. The same man might also be ready to say, “I love you,” to these new women, too.
This position, if true, would produce the most dreadful Valentines cards, such as:
“Would you be my Valentine? I want to buy you dinner. My evolved breeding instincts respond well to you.”
“Your physical appearance sets off a hormonal response in me to mate with you.”
If there is no soul, then there is only the bubbling of the brain. There is only the response to stimuli and hormones.
We root love in the soul. The problem for atheists, of course, is that the soul is a metaphysical reality that assumes the existence of God, or at least the supernatural.
When I love a friend, as a Christian, I mean, “I love you, body and soul.” But for an atheist, friendship is an evolved behavior related to living in a pack or herd or tribe. At root it has to do with self-protection and food acquisition.
First off, the distinction between "ignorant" or "less intelligent" is moot in this case as I certainly wasn't presenting an anthropologically accurate picture of the evolution of belief.
What I mean by "early man" is humanity prior to the advent of organized religion.
Animism was perhaps the first expression of supernaturalism – and it is pervasive during the early development of culture throughout the globe. It is still the normal worldview for any number of indiginous tribes, plus Ja/panese Shintoists and certain Hindu sects.
Anthropic pantheons with their various representations of both nature and human emotion/habits came later. Due to their relative complexity, those kinds of religions usual breed a caste of shamans to tell the stories, interpret the will of the gods and commune with them in ways the average person can't.
A clergy caste cannot exist until a settlement is sufficiently advanced to have a surplus of food and shelter since, in general, shamans aren't required to do work in the sweaty, laborious sense.
As for early man's "search for God" and his wicked rejection of the Abrahamic one – well, Jahweh hadn't yet been formally conceived. Zoroastrianism is the earliest monotheistic religion of which we are aware, and it wasn't even about Jahweh.
And while it is horribly unromantic, neurobiology has pretty well explained the mechanisms of love, and the "soul" doesn't enter into the equation. Oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, serotonin, endorphins – numerous endogenous morphinergic mechanisms, coupled to nitric oxide autoregulatory pathways all play a part.
Etymologically, the very word "love" has it's root in words meaning “desire,” “yearning” and “satisfaction”and shares a common root with “libido”. The term expresses love's connection with reward and pleasure phenomena,as well as appet.itive and addictive behaviors.
While there won't likely be many poems written about the neuro-physiology of love, we are gaining a much more detailed and specific understanding of it in humans and in other life forms.
what is there to address? you opine about nothing. all that comes out of your mouth is a denial of God, negativity. you offer no proof at all that He doesn't exist and expect people to believe you. how are you any better in that respect than people who do have a faith, who do believe?
We can offer a lot more reasons to think the bible is fiction than you can offer to think it is real.
oh right, go ahead and point to the natural order, His creation, it's been created by Him. the logic of that bb bouncing around in your skull just won't cut it Alien
"you offer no proof at all that He doesn't exist and expect people to believe you"
Do you perhaps have access to some sort of proof that Zeus does not exist? No? Then why not believe in him? Is it perhaps because the vast preponderance of the evidence is against his existence?
"preponderance of the evidence" ... hmm you mean like the trees, the mountains, the ocean, all the creatures on earth, the stars above... HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DO YOU REQUIRE? do you ever go outside? ever?
And what's your evidence that those things weren't created by Zeus?
awanderingscot,
That same "preponderance of evidence" can be used to "prove" that the world was created by Zeus.
Try again.
stop obfuscating and prove that He does not exist. i await your 'proof". (you can get uncle fester on the line if needed, it's ok)
How is that obfuscating? Why are you holding yourself to a different standard than that to which you are holding us?
While it is not completely impossible to prove a negative – it is prohibitively, vastly, incredibly difficult. If you say "there is no life anywhere but Earth", you'd have to have surveyed every single planet in the entire Universe to provide proof of your statement's accuracy.
Atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in gods – and that means any gods.
The amount of evidence proving the existence of any one of them is exactly equal in that there is none.
You have faith that your God exists, but how does your personal faith disprove the existence of Angus, Belenos, Brigid, dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Thuno, Tir, Weyland, Woden, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Black Shuck, Herne, Jack in the Green, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fu.kurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac, Viracoc.ha, or Zaramama ?
Doc, don't make stupid statements then such as "God does not exist"; because you have no proof that He doesn't exist, (you have not surveyed the entire universe to conclusively say). Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.
awanderingscot – "don't make stupid statements then such as "God does not exist";"
Why then do you continue to avoid the question of why you don't believe Zeus exists?
wandering: "Doc, don't make stupid statements then such as "God does not exist"; "
uh – just where did Doc say that?
yammeringscot: "denial of God"?
A disbelief in God really. Are you just now realizing what atheists don't believe in?
yammeringscot: "negativity"
Consider it a reaction to what many find negative from fundamentalist "know-it-all"s.
yammeringscot: "you offer no proof at all that He doesn't exist and expect people to believe you."
Ah, for a moment I thought you were starting to understand the basics of atheism. This shows you do not. Generally, atheists do not claim to know that deities do not exist. They simply don't hold a belief that deities exist. Do you see the difference? Claiming knowledge of something beyond the natural whether you be a theist or a non-theist puts you into that very self-righteous "know-it-all" category.
Doruss, you just described an agnostic essentially. better call uncle fester for a redefinition.
And you're just now learning that most atheists are highly agnostic. Wow, maybe there's hope for that little head of yours...
I don't have proof of nothing because that is not possible. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. You are an atheist too.
yerbooty, that's so stupid i won't even address it.
"Atheism is a lack of belief " just as your unregenerate cellmates have claimed, "this is a "belief" blog, so what are YOU doing here Yerbooty?
You won't address my post because you know you can't. Why am I here on the belief blog? To debate and share ideas about world belief systems and the affect they have on civilization.
but you have NO BELIEF do you?
Australia's winking Prime Minister, Tony Abbott:
1970s: ”I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their apti.tudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons.”
2002: Virginity “is the greatest gift you can give someone.”
2010: ”What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it’s going to go up in price and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up.”
2010: ”I probably feel a bit threatened” by hom.ose.xuals.
Evidently Abbott grows more unpopular by the minute. More recently for his decision to allow the dredging of the famed Great Barrier Reef.
And recently, the Guardian reported Abbott’s daughter had received a $60,000 “chairman’s scholarship” to a prestigious design school where a big Abbott donor chairs the board of governors.
Downloaded more than 50,000 times, a new popular browser extension automatically replaces online pictures of Abbott with kittens. lol.
drifting again Doruss? who cares about Australia really or that you hate men.
Actually I love men. (Don't tell Archie I said that unless you show this in context.) But I do like to veer off course here occasionally when I see nothing in the comments but the same arguments over and over.
Wander all you want Doris. That wanderingscot is kind of a douche.
I hope you won't let him annoy you Doris.
You aren't nearly as hateful as many on this blog, so I'm forced to wonder if wanderingscot isn't just battling an inferiority complex.
The bible is a great source book to keep them uppity women in ther place.
Religion is like a pen1s. It's fine to have one and be proud of it, but when you take it out and start waving it in my face we have a problem!
lol. True, dog. And most of these religious extremists can't even dance, much less attempt a proper wave.
you must like it waved in your face since you are here on a religious blog. [religion.blogs.cnn.com] you're just another unregenerate hater.
Sure and right at the top of the page it says BELIEF blog...it doesn't specify a set of beliefs and it doesn't specify a religion, so get over it. Maybe you should take your own advice and find a blog specifically meant for people who are Christian, otherwise it's not your damn business who posts.
[religion.blogs.cnn.com] is the url for this blog, you are on the wrong blog, here is your blog address [atheists.hateful.godless.com] why don't you go play there.
hey Scot ... please keep wandering ..
the DoG returns to his own vomit.
@wandering
Religion blog? LOL. Do you always categorize the themes of web pages by their URLs?
That's nuts. Just plain nuts.
[religion.blogs.cnn.com] is the url for this blog, you are on the wrong blog, here is your blog address [atheists.hateful.godless.com] why don't you go play there. evidently your reading comprehension is lacking Doruss
Sad that you've turned into this broken record. So is your idea of wandering to nail one foot to the floor?
you're alot like another hater calling herself doruss. hates religion but here you are both on a religious blog hating on people of faith, you're both pathetic.
Stop whining, it sounds like you're a 5 year old not getting their own way! If you don't like the comments, don't read them@!
you should practice what you preach you Godless hypocrite.
If ANYONE knows what a HYPOCRITE is, it is awanderingscot.
oh Scotty, Truth may be godless ... which is a compliment really ... and is all that "atheist" means ... but I have never seen him be hypocritical on this blog.
I think being hypocritical is when people say that they believe an ancient story book is the word of their god, but then they don't live their lives by EVERY LETTER of it. That's hypocritical.
[religion.blogs.cnn.com] is the url for this blog, you are on the wrong blog, here is your blog address [atheists.hateful.godless.com] why don't you go play there.
awanderinghypocrite
Not all. But I do have a strong dislike for certain people of faith. For instance, the people charging the woman in the article. Or the people of faith who fly planes into buildings. Or people of faith like Scott Lively and his team of evangelicals who traveled to Africa to incite the killing of other people. Or the people of faith who let their kids die rather than seek medical care. Or the people of faith who promote the spread of disease across the planet for an unreasonable stance on contraception. Yes I do have a strong dislike for some of them.
hear, hear!!!
yet supports slavery where 8-year-old girls can be sold to strange men for their USE.<-that's a false assumption..you think they send the children without supervision? and to strangers? who said anything of strangers? sorry..but youre trying to make up silly hypothetical situations that probably never happened....plus.....you might then assume the "man" who has bought the child lives alone.....stop pretending the society was in USA today.....multiple generations shared the home.....don't think he could get away with it??
"Bought the child"
When has buying anyone ever been acceptable? Oh right, if it is condoned by your god or in the book written about him, you agree with it and somehow make yourself believe it is okay...after all your god approves and to you this imaginary creature could never do wrong-it's clearly a delusional way of thinking.
The passage in Exodus regarding selling one's daughter into slavery did not refer to foreign "buyers" – it was strictly intra-tribal.
That's why it stipulates that if the owner of the girl arranges for her to marry his son, she is thereafter to be treated as a daughter, not a slave.
To the ancient Israelites, marriage to a gentile was unfathomable.
Exodus reflects rules appropriate for a tribal society.
The rules for slavery laid out in Deuteronomy are more for a nation state than a small tribe.
Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus all lay out the rules for how to treat your fellow Jews with some measure of respect, even if they are your servants.
They do not, however, advise any such consideration for non-Jews. Foreigners were chattel to be used and abused any way you like – inheritable property, forever in submission to your family.
When God wasn't commanding the wholesale slaughter of foreign villages, He encouraged taking women and children (especially virgins) as slaves once the men had all been killed and the houses burned.
kermit4jc
"that's a false assumption..you think they send the children without supervision? and to strangers? who said anything of strangers?"
(Lev. 25:44-46) “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
".....multiple generations shared the home.....don't think he could get away with it??"
There are plenty of stories of molestations in a home where the molester has a wife and other kids.
Get real. You are the one with the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.
No..yuo are making the assumptions just as much...sorry Charlie......again you assume there is no supervision of the parents? second....the Israelites were t CARE for others..the slaves....yes..MAYBE you get one or two bad seeds...but that is NOT a reason to not have the law......im sorry..youre trying to make up little things like a pesseimist
So sad – making excuses for slavery even to this day.
May as well change your moniker to slavery4jc, kermie.
yeah..IM sorry you feel terrible that God made a way for people to pay off debts when they are poor....what would You have them do? get a welfare system lie we have today and let them suck off society like many who abuse the system today?
kermit4jc,
The Bible said the daughter was to be SOLD by her FATHER. As usual, the mother was secondary.
You can live in your fantasy world that everyone followed the Bible, but in that world there is NO REASON at all for God to discuss BEATING slaves with rods.
ok.so lets get rid of school system too....we send children there and many get used by the staff......see how silly your logic is? just because someone abuses a system doesn't mean we should get rid of it......seriously....Lets take YOUr logic and shut down the schools
Or abolish slavery, which the Bible neglected to do.
When a religious group forces their ideology on people it surely shows that it is not from God But from the devil!
The devil isn't real either. It's like wrestling. You need a good guy (god) and a bad guy (devil). That setup has made Vince McMahon millions. Same for the church.
nail on the head
At least McMahon pays taxes on carnival show. The church? Not so much.
Can't tell the difference between god and devil.
YES! YES! YES! YES!
[religion.blogs.cnn.com] is the url for this blog, you are on the wrong blog, here is your blog address [atheists.hateful.godless.com] why don't you go play there.
LOL.
I can assure you it does not show that. It does show a group of nuts or thieves.
The devil is merely an extension of your imaginary friend god and neither exist. Grow up...it is merely a fear factor put in place to make you be good and not stray from the flock.
[religion.blogs.cnn.com] is the url for this blog, you are on the wrong blog, here is your blog address [atheists.hateful.godless.com] get crackin.
LOL.
You atheism logic will lead you right down the yellow brick road to hell kiddos. ^_^
It didn't take long for my name stealer to make an appearance. What is the matter faker, still butt sore?
All you are doing is hurting your atheism idiot. Go ahead you make my job easier.
This looks like Mutt Romney flip floppin' back and forth!
There are christians like you that swear George W. Bush is going to heaven. They believe this despite the fact the man lied about the Iraq war. That action led to the death of over 5,000 U.S. troops, over 30,000 injured and countless others with emotional issues that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Bush has more blood on his hands than Bin Laden. So guess what? BUSH IS MY BENCHMARK. If he's going to heaven, I KNOW i'm going to heaven. I haven't killed anybody. So I'll be right there with you putting a shine on the pearly gates!
Satanism is basically a branch of atheism. Seems like atheists are desperate for religion! Hypocrites!!!
Like the saying goes. "If you have to lie to make your point, you have no point" It's amazing how "deeply religious people" will lie in a heartbeat to make their point. Face it, your "god" fails 99 percent of the time. The other 1 percent plain 'ol dumb luck. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So keep believing that a bearded guy is watching all of us to see who's naughty or nice. (sounds like Santa claus, another made up character) then sorts us out like UPS packages to see who stays or who goes. (sounds more like a bouncer to me)
Your satanic atheist cult will find out just how real God is in time kid.
Oh my, I'm scared.
Too late to be scared for you. Hope you have lots of sunscreen.
Like i said before. Bush is my benchmark. So you and I will in the same place. In a hole in the ground rotting or in a oven cookin'.
Hey Ken I'm guessing that you believe in evolution. Well then please tell me how one species of life can change into another species of life, because in the theory of evolution we all came from one life form and not formed from God's own hand? Species of life adopt but in kind they do not change!
dannelson1959,
So tell us how MILLIONS of animals were on the ark and try to explain without mentioning evolving into different species.
For evidence/proof of human evolution, look no further than the color of human skin. When the first humans moved from Africa some 60,000 years ago, their skin was dark. As they moved to colder regions that had less Sun exposure, human skin became lighter and lighter.
e.g. http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/.../Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf
how's that tailbone doing, dan?
and, how do you make the logical leap from the possibility of a creator to a "God"?
tailbone is not vestigial as many think.....
Anyone who denies evolution in the 21st century is just proof that the education system is failing. It is blatant, willful ignorance to do so. Even if evolution were not true (which it is), it still would not prove a god of any form.
kermi: You're wrong. This site may open your mind as to why that is and given that it is a science site with actual evidence, it is safe to say it is right and trustworthy.
http://www.livescience.com/21513-vestigial-organs.html
kermit
"tailbone is not vestigial as many think....."
That is only true if you have a tail. Do you have a tail?
The coccyx is the VESTIGIAL structure that , in our ancestors, supported the tail, but now has no use in humans, unless you have a tail.
wowwhat ignorance!!!! I suggest yoyu look up what the tailbone in humans does..it is NOT useless....get some educaitonon anatomy..google it
kermit, In humans and other tailless primates (e.g., great apes), the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail, but still not entirely useless; it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments.
But it only has those uses from when it was a tail.
Satanism is about hedonism...
hedonism is the idea that pleasure, and seeking pleasure is the only intrinsic good. It has nothing to do with satan.
I agree. But that's what modern day "Satanists" preach.
religions sure are tolerant of one another.
Yeah you can smell the "tolerence" in the air. Smells like elephant sh.it
Atheists are becoming extremely intolerant towards non-atheists. Care to tell those atheists they are intolerant? No? Buzz off, kid.
Please quit using my name kid. One finisher is enough and I can spread my own message.
criticisms are fine, which is what you seem to be crying about.
jailing someone for their religion or non-religion is ridiculous.
"On the dogmas of religion as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."
~ Thomas Jefferson (source: "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation" by Jon Meacham
If they are about to kill you, then you accept what ever religion they want you to have. Religion and thinking rarely go together, this is a prime example.
Got that right. I'd worship bugs bunny if I had to.
me too
Sam Harris Science can answer moral questions Ted Talks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPijRRTJ194
If your father is Muslim, you're a Muslim.
If your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish.
If you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, you're a Christian.
If the three groups could quit hating and killing each other, they could theoretically breed a race of Uber-Abrahamics!
SInce the muslims HATE the jews, and the christians support the jews, and the jews are living right in the midst of many muslim countries, there will always be conflict.
MAny gorups of christians hate other christians, same with muslims. It is all simply ridiculous, but shows that if religions exist, peace will not.
Some of the hate for jews comes from the fact they kicked people off the land and stoole it for themselves.
With the full suppor of the UN.
More hate for the jews comes from the way they treat the palistinians.
There are solutions, but the best armed group in the region would have to be the ones to change before you could expect any real progress.
dont blame religion..its only a tool......its almost like saying if we got rid of guns...no one will be murdered....guns are not hthe problem..religion is not the problem..it is HUMANITY that is the problem.....as long as there are humans on this earth..there will be NO peace...humans will find something else to use to kill (btw I do not support NRA)
You are a MAJOR AZZHOLE. Another phony pro lifer that makes excuses for gun nuts to have guns. Isn't god supposed eliminate all violence humanity creates. Aren't we an "image of our lord and creator" why did HE make us soooo violent! That so called god of yours is just like the rest of us. Which means he's not a god at all. Just a made up scam to get brain dead religious whack jobs to give up their money so the pastor can get another benz.
youre the real idiot here..I said I AM NOT a supporter of the NRA!!! I am NOT one who is militant about bearing arms.....sober up sir.....God did NOT make us violent..WE made ourselves such....stop blaming God..another idiotic argument...blame people for the bad decisions THEY make cause they think of themselves (like you seem to be doing here) and not of others..btw my pastor doesn't make muxh moneyt too idiot..you are pathetic...get off your drugs, sober up and get real
@kermit
On this point, you and I agree.
There is no rational reason to destroy one another, so we invent irrational ones to justify killing our brothers.
Religion, racism, classism – any old rhetoric will do.
Asinine and too simplistic. Your ignorance of the subject matter is abundant.
The root post is an example of what some scholars refer to as "jocularity".
.
One problem. Muslims are not really "Abrahamics". The pattern during the conquests of the Arabic Empire (which invented Islam), was to accept whatever deity was the local deity in the area they conquered. The fact is, we know that Allah's origin is consistent with the Arabic god "Sin" (Yahweh's brother in the Babylonian pantheon), and NOT Yahweh. Whoever invented Islam tried to make the claim Islam was "Abrahamic" History tells us otherwise. Sin had 3 divine daughters. The 3 divine daughters removed from the Quran (in the Satanic Verses) were the SAME 3 as Sin had. Yahweh had no daughters. "Abrahamic" was a ficti'tious invention of the creators of Islam. The Hebrews are scolded time and again to stop worshiping Sin. It's fiction that Islam is "Abrahamic". The origins of Islam are entirely Arabic. Al-Ilah was the crescent moon phase (originally) of the Arabic god Sin. Why do you think the crescent moon is ubiquitous in Islam ?
If they are soooo "god fearing" where is the hate coming from? I thought god was all about peace and love. You want a peaceful world? Get rid of god and guns.
And if you're born into an atheist family, you'll be a brainwashed atheist unable to question your parents beliefs. Your belief(atheism) is a baseless claim. Grow up.
"And if you're born into an atheist family, you'll be a brainwashed atheist unable to question your parents beliefs."
Tell me finish last. If you're born into an "atheist family" what beliefs are you going to question?
Your Satanism is the belief you will brainwash your children into believing kiddo.
Show me one atheist that believes in Satan.
What a travesty! That's a lovely portrait of the wedding, the bride looks beautiful!!!!
Yeah, she looks beautiful. That's why they want to give her a arab haircut. It starts and stops at the neck. Instead of hanging her picture on the wall, They'll hang her head instead. Give it that 3-D look.
As we jabber on and on about this stupid christian woman non-story...
I am appalled that this is happening right here in the U.S. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/21/justice/new-york-child-porn-bust/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Perhaps it will be addressed if it is discovered that only christian children were abused.
Child po.rnography is illegal, and yet, here in Georgia it is perfectly legal for a 12 year old to walk absolutely naked down Church Street as long as they aren't doing anything "se.xual." Define hypocrisy. And yes, this is true. We have in my town a nudist camp where they have a sign that says "watch for naked kids." I unwittingly delivered a piece of furniture there once, and after being appauled, I went to the police department, and although the officers there agreed with me, there was nothing they could do. Naked kids in a camp that doesn't do any kind of background check for those who go there. That's sick.
We are all naked under our clothes.
Get over it.
So you would have no problem with an 8 year old being naked in front of complete strangers, any number of whom could have criminal backgrounds?
Well I would imagine in a nudist camp everyone is naked. So in your scenario at least if would be easier for all to see who's packin' heat.
"So in your scenario at least if would be easier for all to see who's packin' heat."
---------------
Depends on how fat you are. Skin folds are great places to hide guns!
Hey, in Georgia, I had a policeman tell me one time "it isn't a question of who has a gun, but who hasn't got one."
Nudist camps =/= child pornography.
Doris, you are correct.
Theo Phileo,
Everything you need to know objectively about the advantage/disadvantage of owning guns comes from the statistics used by actuaries to set Insurance prices.
Owning a gun INCREASES the chance for insurance companies to have to pay off, rather than LOWER rates.
"Owning a gun INCREASES the chance for insurance companies to have to pay off, rather than LOWER rates"
-----------------
That's not even what this discussion is about.... I didn't even bring up guns, I just made a snide remark about them. BUT, since you brought it up. I am a responsible gun owner, have been since I was od enough for my feet to hit the floor, and my guns hae never hurt anybody.
Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people.
"OLD enough"
Theo Phileo
"Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people."
PEOPLE use guns since they are the easiest and most efficient way to control and kill people alone or in masses.
Theo
I do not have your hang ups about nudity.
I wouldn't want to have children around criminals with their clothes on either.
BTW – clothes are not a significant form of protection. You seem to be uncomfortable with exposed skin.
Alias: Theo was the one who had an issue with woment breast feeding in church. Or, maybe that was under his previous incarnation, Larry of Araba.
He sounds like a bitter old man
I used to deliver furniture. That beats any delivery story I've got.
I was VERY thankful that it was in December and everyone was in heavy coats... But the sign was up, and was certainly cause for concern.
Theo Phileo,
"Define hypocrisy"
HYPOCRISY can be demonstrated when some is "appalled" by naked children and yet supports slavery where 8-year-old girls can be sold to strange men for their USE.
Well done.
Child po.rnography is illegal, and yet, here in Georgia it is perfectly legal for a 12 year old to walk absolutely naked down Church Street as long as they aren't doing anything "se.xual." Define hypocrisy
Where has he supported slavery of 8 year old girls who get to be used in any way their masters wnats? what you got there?????
kermit4jc,
He supports the Bible's position on slavery. Read it.
The Puritans are long gone... but their legacy still lingers on.
There is nothing inherently or morally wrong with being naked... however, there is something definitely wrong with adults sexually exploiting/abusing children
I would disagree with that, the Puritans are not gone, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Steve Lawson, Paul Washer, Justin Peters – there are still men who are committed to living a holy life, and as long as that is so, then the Puritan legacy will never be gone. I would that there were men today of the caliber of Jonathan Edwards, but I'm pleased with any who are not just sitting comfortably in their repentance, but rather strive after holiness and sanctification.
don't forget "Douglas". I always thought Douglas was a gay shaker.
"I always thought Douglas was a gay shaker"
----------
Gay shaker? What's that? A ho.mose.xual on a Harley Davidson?
Misfire apologies.
No – sorry – I should have capitalized Shaker. "a religious sect founded in the 18th century in England, having branched off from a Quaker community". They were extreme in their practice of celibacy so they didn't stick around long. Excellent cabinet makers evidently.
(Wikipedia:) "Due to their belief in celibacy, which resulted in the thinning of the Shaker community, many of the other Shaker settlements are now village museums, like Hancock Shaker Village in Massachusetts."
How could anyone possibly know if background checks are done or not?
Nudist colonies are very good at checking the backgroud of people wantiong to move in. In many ways they are safer than the rest of the country.
Yes, the one nearby is very good at checking backgrounds. Which is why I was wondering how Theo could state so emphatically that the one experience he had at the particular camp didn't.
I think the sign was intended to be humorous, much in the same way a sign that says "Children left unattended will be towed away at their owner's expense". If one takes that literally, then they're just plain silly.
"Which is why I was wondering how Theo could state so emphatically that the one experience he had at the particular camp didn't"
---------------
Because I was working with the police for a number of weeks while the place was under investigation. They don't perform background checks, and they can't be forced to either.
Philioidiotism
Theo why would the police need the help of a carpenter to carry out an investigation for a number of weeks? Lets review some of your claims; being a biblical scholar/philosopher for decades, a sometimes, an architect, a home builder, a boat builder, a carpenter, a bowyer and now a police consultant. I think you have lost touch with reality, your posts are my evidence. I see you more as the American version of Ranier Helmut Brandelion (spellin?) as a bigot and a psychotic.
oops...a sometimes teacher,
samsstones,
You seem to have a problem with the fact that I actually do things.
My day job does virtually nothing for my desire for creativity, that's why I do so much with the time that I'm not at work. Why does that sound like its not true? Are you not a creative person? I just can't sit back and watch TV in my spare time, I feel like I'm wasting my life – I'd rather be in my wood shop making something.
samsstones,
Do you need proof? Here's oe of the latest bows that I've built. This one I built for my wife.
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,46627.0.html
Philioidiotism
Theo, I hardly think that the police would need a carpenters help in an investigation. If you say you are a gifted bowyer an carpenter, I accept that and also that you are an unwittingly furniture delivery man. Many of the things you do seem you be unwittingly. I also wonder about your hang up about nudity. Do you not have public pools and gyms with showers in your area where all ages would be nude, of course separated by the s&xes? Do you think everyone should have a security check if they go into a change room at the beach, really? Of course it would have been swell if they checked out the clergy before allowing them to have power over kids, teachers also.
"Theo, I hardly think that the police would need a carpenters help in an investigation."
-----------------–
I would think that they didn't need my help either, but they used it anyway.
"If you say you are a gifted bowyer an carpenter, I accept that and also that you are an unwittingly furniture delivery man."
----------------
I delivered a piece of furniture that we sold on a website. It wouldn't fit into the guy's car, so since it was around lunchtime, and he said he lived in town I figured that my wife and I would deliver it for him with our truck, and then get lunch while we were out. He didn't tell us where he lived, we followed him there.
"Many of the things you do seem you be unwittingly."
-------------------
To you, sure. But what others think about me is none of my business.
"I also wonder about your hang up about nudity."
----------------–
It's not "my hang up." I am expressing the Biblical position. The flaunted nudity of warped naturalists or the perverted nudity of po.rnographers or rock singers or movie actors may be called freedom, or a return to nature and innocence, but in reality it is not, because one cannot recover innocence in this life. (Romans 7:14-25) Rather, it merely parades the victory of the flagrant sinner over reasonable shame – they have become callused to sin due to their constant practice of it.
What is the name of this camp? I'm interested in the reasons why this camp in GA, out of the rest of them, was investigated, by who, and why.
Tell us Theo-do you hear voices? I call BS on this unless of course you wish to point directly to something that wouldn't give reason...it's a little too outlandish to seem accurate and like much else, you are probably taking something out of context.
Is appauled anything like being appalled ?
A Rabbi. A policeman. A Scoutmaster and Little League Coach.
Nurses, paramedics, architects.
The people involved are everyday people.
Reprehensible.
Lock them up, castrate them slowly and never let the bastards see the light of day again!
Death, remorse, can you see me? I have been here so long. There is no way out and I am hungry. Leave me alone. I don’t want to feel you cry, but if that is the way god has planned you then I will wipe your tears and it will go away. I must be here sleepwalking...mustn’t I?
Aah, everybody, get on the floor
Let's dance
Don't fight the feeling
Give yourself a chance
Shake shake shake, shake shake shake
Shake your booty, shake your booty
Oh, shake shake shake, shake shake shake
Shake your booty, shake your booty
Aah, You can, you can do it
Very well
You're the best in the world
I can tell
Oh, Shake shake shake, shake shake shake
Shake your booty, shake your booty
Oh, shake shake shake, shake shake shake
Shake your booty, shake your booty
Excellent song.
I had the LP when I was a kid...
I feel old. Stop that.
I was born in the best year for cars and music... 1967
I am literally a child of the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Hmmm. LET, born in '67? I was two years in the service by then. Man, I DO feel old, hehe.
Which service?
Time again for the Great Kibosh:
Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
• A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.
Added details available upon written request.
A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.
e.g. Taoism
"The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.
Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "
Hey,"Reality"you still around, dude? Still spouting that same tiresome "kibosh"rhetoric, huh? Sigh.How sad. (Good to heat from ya, though!)
As a good student, you have read the reiterations of the "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of religion. Therefore the seeds have been planted in rich soil. Go therefore and preach the truth to all nations, reiterating as you go amongst the lost, bred, born and brainwashed souls of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism as Rational Thinking makes its triumphant return all because of you!!!!
Great to hear voices in support of human rights from various continents. Keep the pressure on, the world needs to band together against any form of human rights violation.
Freedom to practice religion is a fundamental human right and must be recognized as such by all states of the world.
There is no scope for such gross violation and denying of fundamental human rights by any nation in this century.
But many disagree with you (not me) and believe their god is right.
Freedom is great and valuable to us all. But all freedom comes with responsibility. Your jurisdiction may allow you to shoot off fireworks, but I doubt they would say it's ok to aim them at your neighbor's houses. So it goes with religion as well.
"Now I got the gun you got the brew
You got two choices of what you can do
It's not a tough decision as you can see
I can blow you away or you can ride with me" I said, I'll ride with you if you can get me to the border
The sheriff's after me for what I did to his daughter
I did it like this, I did it like that
I did it with a whiffleball bat
So I'm on the run the cop's got my gun
And right about now it's time to have some fun"
excerpt from debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi Wolpe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-zo9tLGCSI
Sweet Elvis reference...
The video is a non sequitur. People SAW Elvis die, and witnessed to the fact that he was dead. People SAW Jesus resurrected, and witnessed to the fact that He was alive.
Theo: "People SAW Jesus resurrected, and witnessed to the fact that He was alive."
There are hearsay accounts of people allegedly seeing a resurrected Jesus. Please try not to exaggerate, Theo.
Your claim to the Biblical account as merely heresay is only so because you, yourself are so far removed from the actual events described. It cannot be argued however, that a mere distance in time from a claim has any bearing whatsoever on the veracity of that claim.
"veracity" – lol. That word always seems to pop up when things are reduced to just hearsay. Of course then there are assumptions that people grew up with that upon further inspection are poor. Such as Peter's alleged approval of Paul's works as Scripture. Of course now we understand that most modern NT scholars agree that Peter did not author Peter 2.
"Of course now we understand that most modern NT scholars agree that Peter did not author Peter 2."
------------
This is a lie, and you know it.
First, there is the clear claim to authorship in verse 1:1. He refers to his first letter in 1:14, he refers to the Lord's prediction of his death (John 21:18); and in 1:16-18, he claims to have been at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-2).
The reason there is any doubt over it's authorship is due to the differences in Greek style between the two letters. But that is very easily answered in that for the first letter, he used an amanuensis named Silvanus. In 2 Peter, he either used a different amanuensis or he wrote the letter by himself. Furthermore, the differences in vocabulary are due to the different themes in the two letters. (But, of course there are also remarkable similarities in vocabulary between the two books)
Scolars have said that there are as many similarities in vocabulary b/w 1 and 2 Peter as there are b/w 1 Timothy and Ti.tus, both letters that are unanimously agreed upon as to have been authored by Paul.
Differences in themes between the two books also account for certain emphases differences.
Saying that Peter didn't author 2 Peter is just plain stupid.
Reading comprehension issues, Theo? I didn't say "that Peter didn't author 2 Peter".
I said: "Of course then there are assumptions that people grew up with that upon further inspection are poor."
and: "that most modern NT scholars agree that Peter did not author Peter 2."
Let's put it this way – most NT scholars agree that there are very good reasons to think that Peter did not author Peter 2. That's what I mean by a poor assumption that many of us grew up taking for granted.
(And therefore, continuing to accept, hook, line and sinker, what church spook-meisters dish out as assumptions regarding the divinity of Paul's word, IMHO, is just plain stupid...)
Well, you make a good point in one sense, that we should never just blindly believe what we're told – And to that extent, anyone who has even a cursory understanding of the Bible, knows how stupid it is to make a claim like "Peter didn't author 2 Peter."
So jesus rose from the dead and only let his close friends see him?
Why not another sermon on the mound or fly-by over Rome?
we should never just blindly believe what we're told
---–
Irony alert.
"So jesus rose from the dead and only let his close friends see him?"
----------------
Actually, no, there were over 500 witnesses. And during that time, Paul, in his letters suggests to his readers that they go and interview them to see if Paul's testimony was true.
"Actually, no, there were over 500 witnesses"
ALLEGEDLY 500 witnesses. They couuld have not existed and they were simply made up like most of the story.
The could have existed and been fooled by illusion.
They could have all been in on it to lend credibility...far too many un answered questions to claim anything about these alleged witnesses. And even if the "witnesses" saw something, who's to say it wasn't part of a trick. There were many who claimed things about George Washington that weren't true at all, even though many people claim to have witnessed the things that were not true about him.
...or it COULD be true.
Theo,
And where are any of those "interviews"?
Could be one of the reasons that 99%+ of the Hebrews in Israel at the time did not believe the Jesus legends... and they were right there on the spot in Jerusalem and all of the other places that Jesus allegedly traveled to. Paul of Tarsus & Co. had to peddle the stories to other distant folks who were more gullible.
For example:
Corinthians – Corinth, Greece – 800 miles
Galatians – Turkey – 700 miles
Ephesians – Ephesus, Turkey – 600 miles
Phillipians – Phillipi, Greece – 1000 miles
Colossians – Colossae, Island near Greece
Thessalonians – Greece – 900 miles
Rome – 1400 miles
Who was going to bop over to Jerusalem from those far-flung places?
"Could be one of the reasons that 99%+ of the Hebrews in Israel at the time did not believe the Jesus"
-------------–
No, the reason that Jesus was not received by the Jews was because the leaders of the people feared Jesus because they felt that should the people follow Him, they would lose their power and influence, so they plotted to kill Him. Because they had the power over the people to kick them out of the synagogue, and in their belief, that meant they would not go to heaven when they died, the people followed their leaders... Jesus was rejected out of jealousy, fear, and pride – the same as today.
Theo,
So "Jesus" couldn't even be bothered to convince the hundreds of thousands (million+?) of his very **own** people about his godhood - the regular Hebrew man-on-the-street: the Sols, Abies, and Jacobs; the Miriams, Ethels, and Esters?
How many verified the account?
They claimed the jews in charge saw jesus for themselves, but the jews denied it.
The jewish leaders called him a fake and accused the desciples of stealing the body.
He did. That's why there are Messianic Jews to this day.
BTW – How many people witnessed Mohamad performing miracles?
Why not believe them instead?
Wait –
Paul never met jesus. Was he one of the (alleged) 500?
"Paul never met jesus. Was he one of the (alleged) 500?"
-------------------
Yes he did. On the Damascus road.
Please elaborate. Was jesus calling from heaven or something?
Acts 26:12-19
Like I said, Paul NEVER MET jesus.
A vision induced by sun stroke doesn't count.
@theo...yes..plus....where is there a law/rule that an author can only write in one style? Im a poet, and a story teller....my writings varies depending on subject and what style I wish to use...Im not limited to one style....no one is
NO two persons can experience the same "vision" etc..your argument is flawed...for one..there were OTHERS with Paul who HEARD something and SAW something (bright light) read the rest of the story and see how your argument lines up..it doesnt..sorry.....this is most basic understanding in Psychology (no two persons hallucinate same thing at same time, and hallucinaitons mostly are from what people expect to see//Paul diod not expect to see this....again..this doesnt work)
Kermit,
I don't think you can claim what these people saw is a hallucination;
hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind.
uh read again please..i didn't say they saw hallucinations....the person said it had to be a vision as perhaprs a result of sun stroke..again the point is..NO TWO person experiences it.....there were others with Paul who experienced hearing a noise and seeing something....that's not a vision of Paul....it don't happen
Uh and what were their names, Kermie? And how do we come to know about the "others"? Hmmm?? Through what separate sources and how many of those sources are hearsay?
Kermit, I read it again. It remains as unclear as ever; on relation to Paul, I get that the other people did not see what Paul saw.
I didn't being up hallucinations.
You did.
What did the other people see? A vision or a hallucination?
What did the 500 witnesses see?
I would appreciate an answer that wasn't snarky. I cannot imagine you treat your clients this way.
Allegedly saw, Theo Puffy Words.
Theo, you are incorrect. When people die, they do not then come back to life. Death is final. There are also no ghosts so don't you try to pull that one on me you...!
Oh, so you're a Sadducee then? I didn't think they existed anymore?
I am not Jewish, so no.
Oh, but it was the Sadducees that didn't believe in the resurrection – that's why they were so sad, you see?
How do you know that, "Sheik Yerbuti"? Have you ever been dead?
You are joking I assume.
@cyprian2:
nope but i put enough people in the ground in iraq to know that people don't come back from the grave.
... and people have claimed to see Elvis alive as well!
It is testament to the utter failure of religion that this poor woman is in this horrible predicament. Religion forces poor, uneducated violent nations to live in a hell governed by laws 1500 to 2000 years old. It is extremely important that the United States become involved in this situation and shows leadership when it comes to combatting this kind of cruelty.
Again, involvement should be limited to economic sanctions and helping persecuted persons escape Sudan. No form of "boots on the ground" is warranted. And this is not the worst case of religious persecution. Why all the fuss?
This is far more worthy of a "fuss" then what we are spending money on at home.