 |
|
|
|
 Catholics attend Mass in Seoul, South Korea. When Pope Francis visits the country this week, he will find a thriving Catholic community .
August 12th, 2014
05:08 PM ET
Why South Korea could be the church of futureOpinion by Candida Moss, special to CNN [twitter-follow screen_name='CandidaMoss'] (CNN) – When Pope Francis arrives in South Korea on Wednesday for a five-day visit, he’ll get a look at just the kind of church he’s been trying to create worldwide. The trip, planned to coincide with Asia Youth Day, marks the first time a pope has visited the country since 1989, and is part of a new papal focus on globalization in general and on Asia in particular. (Francis plans to visit Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Japan in January.) The time has long passed that the Catholic Church is elderly white men and women in European enclaves. The last papal conclave and the election of the first Latin American Pope raised awareness of the Catholic Church’s growing presence in Africa, but Asian Christianity was hardly mentioned at all. Even if it is rarely discussed in the media, Korean Catholicism is among the most vibrant in the world. Here are five reasons South Korea might be the future of Catholic Church. 1. It’s growing. Catholics make up almost 11% of South Korea’s 50 million population. This may seem like a small percentage, but consider this: In 1960, they only made up 2%. In contrast to Europe, the majority of South Korean Catholics – as is the broader population of the region – are young. Vocations to the ministry are also strong. At the end of 2013, South Korea’s 5.4 million Catholics were served by 4,261 priests, with a further 1,489 seminarians in the pipeline, according to church statistics. In other words, not only is Christianity growing in South Korea, but it’s increasing in popularity among young people. And, in contrast to Europe and the United States, there are enough priests and seminarians to minister to this expanding group. 2. It’s rich. Catholics in South Korea are increasingly prosperous. In an interview with Catholic News Service, Bishop William McNaughton, who served as the first bishop of Inchon from 1962 until 2002, recalled that when he arrived in the country, most of his congregation was poor. Now, he says, they wealthier than average. While the economic prospects of Catholics have undoubtedly risen with those of South Korea as a whole, McNaughton attributes the financial success of Catholics there to the excellence of Catholic education. Whether or not the prosperity of Korean Catholics is because of Catholic education or regional economic growth is less important than the encouraging contrast it forms to the church in other parts of the world. Church attendance in Europe and the United States has been declining for decades. Meanwhile, in poorer, developing countries, the church has expanded and taken on an increasingly fundamentalist character. The decline of the Catholic Church in wealthy countries is often linked to the rise of secularism, access to higher education and economic growth. The fear is that as people acquire more education and money, they no longer need God. This doesn’t seem to be the case in South Korea, where wealth, education and church expansion continue to go together. 3. It competes in a tough environment. Some commentators have speculated that Christianity in South Korea succeeds because of the spirituality in the region. That’s not exactly true. In 2005, nearly half the population describe themselves are “irreligious.” The region has a rich religious history, but today South Korea is among the most secular countries in the world. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI identified the “secular state” as one of the chief threats to the Catholic Church in the 21st century, crediting it as one of the causes of declining church attendance in Europe. That Catholicism continues to flourish in a culture that is broadly speaking nonreligious should encourage church leaders. It proves it can be done. 4. It’s self-supporting. The history of Christianity on the Korean Peninsula involves not only growth and increased prosperity, but also persecution and martyrdom. Christianity was legalized in then-unified Korea only in 1886 and for much of that time has been largely self-sufficient. In the wake of World War II, the country was divided in the communist North and the capitalistic South in 1945. The CIA Factbook notes that autonomous religious activities are "now almost nonexistent" in North Korea. The geographical distance from the Vatican has allowed local bishops to have more autonomy and decentralized the church. As Tom Fox, author of “Pentecost in Asia,” has said, “the starting point of the Asian church has always been the local church.” This is the model of local governance and evangelization that Pope Francis has tried to encourage and promote in the church in general. 5. It’s committed to social justice. Korea was largely evangelized by lay activists, not organized missionary campaigns. This history gives the current church in South Korea an independent streak. Masses end with instructions to “evangelize the world” rather than return home, a call that local Catholics take to heart. This missionary activity is matched by a focus on improving the living conditions their troubled neighbors in North Korea. That charity endears the Catholic Church to both religious and nonreligious South Koreans, who might otherwise be suspicious. It’s for all these reasons that Francis told Il Messaggero in June that “the church in Asia holds great promise.” In the Pope’s mind, it seems, the South Korean example may hold the secret to the future of the Catholic Church.
Next entry »5 ways Pope Francis is tougher than you think
« Previous entryDramatic rescue as Yazidis flee ISIS
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
awanderingscot,
"- show me the passage in scripture that supports the theory of evolution."
Are you seriously positing that if it is not represented in the Bible then it is not true?
Gravity? Germs? Atoms? Nuclear fusion/fission? Genetics? Plate tectonics? orbital mechanics
Penguins.
Not in the bible, so I don't believe thay exist.
But bats are so they exist, although apparently they are birds...
Did you find your theory in the bible or not?
Did you find penguins in the bible?
awanderingscot,
I wouldn't expect to find one, even if I'd looked. The fact that you asked the question, demonstrates your rather extreme view of the relationship between the Bible and reality.
what is reality for you is different for the next person, so having Biblical reality is not extreme especially when compared with one whose entire reality is confined to his carnality.
new-man,
Your're making some assumptions about reality, aren't you?
I don't think many people would consider a "Biblical reality" to be restricted to only that which is explicitly stated therein. So, extreme, even for "Biblical reality", seems warranted.
Oh newman, it must be comforting for you to live in your own little reality. The world outside your cult bubble must be a frightening place though.
Baseline facts we can all agree on:
Humans were brought into a very complex and immense observable universe.
Some humans have the curiosity, intelligence, and drive to explore understanding of that universe.
Some aspects of objective reality, explored by the scientific method, have been shown to be describable mathematically. These mathematical descriptions have allowed an explosion of technologies that have improved the human condition (medical, food growing, communication, navigation, weather prediction, entertainment, etc.) While these technologies can also be misused, the net balance (for good or bad) is a matter of opinion not fact.
No aspect of objective reality has been shown to not be describable mathematically.
Hypothesis 1:
The universe came into being naturally without the aid of any agent.
Hypothesis 2:
The observable universe came into being by an intelligent agent (not omniscient or omnipotent, no relationship with it's creation).
Hypothesis 3:
The observable universe came into being by an intelligent, self aware agent (not omniscient or omnipotent, no relationship with it's creation).
Hypothesis 4:
The observable universe came into being by an intelligent, self aware agent, omnipotent (not omniscient, no relationship with it's creation).
Lots more hypotheses with various different combinations of characteristics.
Hypothesis N:
The observable universe came into being by an intelligent, self aware agent, omnipotent, omniscient, is capable of and wants a relationship with it's creation.
Hypothesis N+1:
The observable universe came into being by an intelligent, self aware agent, omnipotent, omniscient, is capable of and wants a relationship with it's creation. In addition, this agent gets mad when it's creation doesn't behave as designated, even though it already knew that because it is omniscient. This agent kills vast numbers of it's creations due to their imperfections. This agent levies punishment on future generations of transgressors even before they are born. This agent leaves an ambiguous book of rules and creation stories that conflict with objective reality, and leaves it to it's creation to interpret the book leading to many different interpretive sects that fight among themselves, killing for dominance,. To clarify matters, this agent appears on earth as a human baby, grows up to send the message that love is the answer, but if you don't get that answer, you burn in pain for eternity. This human form of the agent is sacrificed symbolically (it is resurrected to be with the original agent as one) representing forgiveness if accepted. Even this new book is interpreted thousands of ways resulting in wars killing many of the agent's creation. There is lots more to this hypothesis, but this serves as a brief intro.
Hypothesis N+2:
Ancient Egyptian creation and religion.
Lots more creation and religion hypotheses.
Going back to the baseline facts, Hypothesis N+1 doesn't seem likely.
Yes, N+1 does not seem likely within our human understanding of the material world. As I think we have discussed earlier, belief in N+1 requires a prerequisite experience with and thus a belief in the spiritual world. Apparently, from what I read here, most of you think that is fantasy. Thus, we will likely not agree on a lot other than that we disagree. Science is designed and purposed to study the material/energy world/universe. Thus, those methods are not going to be useful in producing any evidence that would be acceptable to you or your colleagues.
At least I have learned that on this site.
steve,
Almost every hypothesis on this list involves things outside science. This was not a science vs. religion post.
The point is there are many hypotheses regarding our origins. Many involve(d) people with strong spiritual connections to their beliefs, just as strong as yours. They felt it just like you do. They could "see" their God's work just like you do. In other words, their spiritual claims are just as valid as yours.
I'm not saying Hypothesis 1 is right, how would I know? I'm saying that Hypotheses that have stories and rules as out of step as Hypothesis N+1, are among the least likely to be true.
That said, I respect your right to hold your beliefs and defend your right to them. And I like you.
Religion is the diaper of humanity’s childhood;
it’s OK to grow out of it
— PZ Myers
"All humans are born with 2 diseases; Life which in inevitably fatal, and faith that keeps us searching for a cure to the first"
-Stolen from Somewhere
Great description and summary.
"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can."
- Frank Zappa
Evidently his own advice contradicts and especially if his own children are any indication of happy and mentally health children.
Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. In the early 1900s, evolutionists touted it as the first walking fish, the transition between fish and tetrapods. That is, until 1938 when one was found alive and unable to walk. Evolution theory says that pressures from compet-ition and the environment force changes over time. In chapter 9 of his book, Darwin wrote of ancestor species in general: "If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants." The coelacanth is alive today and unchanged like many "living fossils". Where is the evolution?
The lies you cling to are just pathetic.
As foolish as Christianity is, there are a lot better points to cling to than the outdated, long disproved rubbish you keep posting.
Could you really be so foolish? Perhaps you are just a very disciplined troll.
Coelacanth?
so ... a troll then.
Can you illustrate where finding an example of a live species formerly thought to be extinct negates anything except it's not extinct?
Can you tell me Akira why you continuously choose to believe man when your creator tells you otherwise?
Scot,
I don't.
Can you tell my why you won't answer my question?
I told you; evolution and belief are not mutually exclusive.
"I told you; evolution and belief are not mutually exclusive."
– prove it.
– show me the passage in scripture that supports the theory of evolution.
Are you serious?
The same constriction that showed why birds are bats in the Bible are the same reasons evolution isn't mentioned; they were going by what was known to them at the time.
My goodness.
And the thousands of scientists who are believers also shows why it's not mutually exclusive.
Good gravy, get a clue.
Why awanderingsnot rejects evolution
1.) Because I don’t like the idea that we came from apes… despite that humans are categorically defined and classified as apes.
2.) Because I’m too stupid and/or lazy to open a book or turn on the Discovery Science Channel.
3.) Because if I can’t immediately understand how something works, then it must be bullshlt.
4.) Because I don’t care that literally 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution as the unifying theory of biology.
Bella,
Scot is correct. Currently, all life here on earth comes from seed. You came from seed.
How does God create? – He speaks it and it becomes- which is why our words are so important.
Since creation God did not have to create or recreate new life... as He spoke it such that every living thing carries the seed of life within itself. See Gen1:20-30
Debating bats vs. birds is manufactured distraction from the word of God. For every O Lord thy word is settled in heaven. When we choose to disbelieve the words of our creator, we ultimately disobey Him because we have fallen for the lies of the enemy thereby submitting to the enemy- and make no mistake, the enemy comes ONLY to rob, kill and destroy. This life is much more than you think it is.
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
do you see that, you can prove what is good, acceptable and perfect before God.
New-man,
Scot is incorrect.
And do please show me within this thread what I have said is incorrect.
Thanks.
Bella,
I said Scot is correct, you said he's incorrect. Do you now expect me to go through the thread and point out where you are wrong.
I've said what I wanted to say on the matter, and it's closed for me. I don't try to argue people to believe my way.
New-man,
Here are my posts in this thread; I'm making it easy for you.
Can you illustrate where finding an example of a live species formerly thought to be extinct negates anything except it's not extinct?
Scot,
I don't.
Can you tell my why you won't answer my question?
I told you; evolution and belief are not mutually exclusive.
Are you serious?
The same constriction that showed why birds are bats in the Bible are the same reasons evolution isn't mentioned; they were going by what was known to them at the time.
My goodness.
And the thousands of scientists who are believers also shows why it's not mutually exclusive.
Good gravy, get a clue.
Please show where I'm wrong.
Bella, let me be more precise since my comment was more overall and not much to do with the thread.
Scot is correct that evolution is nonsense. I gave my reasons above, plus this that I mentioned to Alias below:
you have over 100-trillion cells in your body, and in each of those 100-trillion cells you have 60,000 proteins which are in 100 different specifications.
The proteins must be in a specific configuration or that cell will NOT function. What are the scientific odds that those 60,000 proteins could/will self assemble?
People would rightly ridicule a person for thinking the most complex factory just self-assembled with no input of information, yet these same people believe a cell which is much more complex than any factory somehow just occurred by happenstance.
Okay, new-man, thank you for acknowledging that nothing I said was incorrect, but that you believe that evolution doesn't exist.
I understand you now.
new-man: "What are the scientific odds that those 60,000 proteins could/will self assemble?"
"self-assemble" implies that there is a predetermined design to meet for the "assembly". Don't you think it's a bit absurd to argue against a few different than yours primarily because it doesn't meet the PREMISE FOR YOUR VIEW, new-man????
Same thing goes for this ridiculous notion of "fine tuning" of the universe in the context that it is evidence for design. That leap is pure self-serving presupposition.
What may appear to be complex to us may simply be a result of many conditions where the impact of many factors are only understood by humans to some degree.
"against a few different"
should be "against a view different"
At least you know that with evolution, there is no need to believe in any gods.
You have taken one step in the direction of reality.
correct, just take a big puff and dreamily gaze at the transformation artist's depiction of the supposed "ancestor".
I bet if you hadn't taken its crutches away it would have walked just fine.
You christians are a strange bunch.
"one was found alive and unable to walk"
– i especially love the pretty transformational artist's sketch of this creature showing it looking much like the one we see today only millions and millions of old. LOL (much like all the evolution crap, done by an artist)
– evolution is complete and utter nonsense.
Science is dumb. It classifies animals that are warm-blooded, and have fur, and their babies are born alive, and a baby lives on its mother’s milk, as mammals. Bats do all those things, but bats are clearly birds as the bible instructs us. The bible is never wrong.
You finally made a truthful statement, that the bible is never wrong. Also, in ancient times the bat was indeed grouped with the birds
Then in ancient times they were wrong, and probably shouldn't have put it in the bible if they didn't want the bible to be wrong.
Joey,
And yet he wonders why evolution isn't mentioned in the Bibke. This is clearly why; they were going by what was available knowledge back then.
But I suppose since the Bible isn't wrong, bats must be birds.
*Bible
Obviously.
Reasons why awanderingdolt rejects evolution;
5.) Because I prefer the idea that a (insert god of choice) went ALLA-KADABRA-ZAM!!!
6.) Because I can’t get it through my thick logic-proof skull that evolution refers ONLY to the process of speciation, not to abiogenesis, or planet formation, or big bang cosmology, or whether God exists, or where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, or why the sky is blue, or how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.
LaBella
@LaBella
"But I suppose since the Bible isn't wrong, bats must be birds."
– so you believe the Bible is "wrong" Akira? What else in the bible do you believe is wrong?
Scot,
Are bats indeed birds?
I gave the explanation that they were working with what was available knowledge at the time...what's your explanation?
Just out of curiosity scot, is there a specific reason you still refer to LaBella as Akira? She has made it no secret her name had to be changed, and I doubt you are doing it out of sentimentality.
Lunch,
probably because that's what it was before, i don't know. Why does it matter to you when it obviously doesn't matter to her?
wandering
"probably because that's what it was before, i don't know. Why does it matter to you when it obviously doesn't matter to her?"
You don't think it might confuse posters who are not intimate with name changes? A cynic might suggest that it is passive aggressive behavior.
Scot,
He asked it, as he stated, out of curiosity.
Lunchbreaker,
He thought he was getting one over on me the first time he mentioned it. As if I'd deny it. Kind of strange, since he uses LaBella in one part if the post, and Akira in another; it may be habit, I dunno.
As an aside, to this day my Akira account is useless.
Santa,
It has to be said.
As I said scot, just curious.
I googled "what does a coelacanth taste like". If God did create the coelacanth, He didn't intend us to eat it.Although if plentiful enough would be a natural laxitive.
It's 'laxative, not 'laxitive'. There are alot of things that are not appropriate for eating. The point is that there are animals living today that have not 'evolved'.
– evolution is complete and utter nonsense.
Of course there are species around that haven't evolved. Who ever said that they must?
It's never occurred to you that the species evolved into their current form and stopped? Why not?
LaBella,
He thinks that since Darwin said something like that it is "written". Scot's penchant for accepting his own "Scriptures" as unchangeable fact seems to make him think that that's what science does. It has been pointed out to him that Darwin's writings were a jumping-off point for exploration of how things really are and are not idolized and adored like he does with his ancient writings.
Otoh,
Well, that's just plumb silly.
That was a joke scot. Don't take everything so seriously.
More reasons why awanderingnumskull rejects evolution;
8.) Because science has yet to produce any transitional species… except for the magnitudinous numbers of them found in the fossil record which don’t count because… I uh, OOH LOOK! A SHINY OBJECT!!! *runs away*
9.) Because I know nothing about Darwin except that he had a funny beard.
10.) Because the theory of evolution (which, according to scientists, perfectly explains the richness and diversity of life on Earth) contradicts biblical literalism… ya know, flat Earth with a firmament that keeps out the water, talking snakes, people rising from the dead, bats are birds, flamey talking bushes, virgin births, food appearing out of nowhere, massive bodies of water turning into blood… etc etc.
11.) Because I think the word “theory” actually means: “random stabs in the dark” when it really means: "an explanation of certain phenomena that is well-supported by a large body of facts and often unifies other similarly well-supported hypotheses" i.e. atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, cell theory, some-people-are-dumb-theory, etc.
Do you have any evidence for creationism?
Try rephrasing that as "Do you have something you can cut and paste from a creationist website?"
Hey scot – the Tibetans live in high al-itudes because of a mutation – no ?
Or do you live in this state Scot ?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2014/08/03/south-carolina-legislator-wants-to-force-students-to-learn-creationism/
Oh, my.
South Carolina's legislature is thisclose to being a parody of itself.
Maybe Lewis Black or John Oliver should do a parody about it – with a little commentary thrown in from CNN BB?
Lewis Black. Definitely Lewis Black.
I suppose now I should root for Texas A&M next Thursday.
As if there aren't any people in Texas trying to do the exact same thing.
Also, Rick Perry is an A&M fan
That was a joke, of course. But I will actually be rooting for SC. I want them to get to the SECCG so they can get beat by Bama.
OH so you want to be my arch enemy then? As I want Bama to lose every game they play.
Only in good fun. But I am a Bama Alum.
I was just messing around as well, since I graduated from Auburn.
Well I was messing around about the arch enemy part, but not the part about Bama losing every game they play.
I have way to many friends who are Auburn fans to get too caught up in the rivalry.
I am one of those SEC homers, so I actually root for Auburn out of conference, I hope you guys stomp K State.
I'm with you on that one. I also cheer for Bama against the Vols because I am from TN and my Vols friends have annoyed me pretty much my entire life considering not one of them even went to school there.
I was rooting for the 8 year old on her fossil Bill too.
Just to make it all a bad joke, god gave us an error ridden book to know how to save ourselves. This ‘bible’ has been proven wrong by science, reason, and is full of immoral values like slavery. Even those who accept it as ‘god’s word’ cannot agree on what is says.
Just for fun, since scot likes to bring up fossil identification misshaps on behalf of "evolutionists", check this out:
The Massachusetts Puritan Cotton Mather believed that mastodon fossils found near Albany, New York, in 1705 were those of giants who had perished in Noah's flood. "The Giants that once groaned under the waters," he wrote, "are now under the Earth, and their Dead Bones are lively Proofs of the Mosaic history."
http://archive.archaeology.org/0511/etc/giants.html
Let’s look at the big picture of christianity. Some all-powerful, all-knowing god wanted a one garden with a pet made in his image, so he created billions and billions of stars. Next, he set the whole thing up to fail by putting a tree in the middle of the garden that he knew Adam would eat from. Kind of bad judgment there, in my opinion. Just in case Adam wasn’t going to do it up by himself, god let Satan into this garden in the form of a serpent that could talk.
So, when Adam finally ate the forbidden fruit – this fair, just and loving god slapped every person who had yet to be born with a curse that would send them to eternal damnation. So, a few thousand years later, god sent his only begotten son to be sacrificed. (I have to pause here for commentary. I know it adds to the sacrifice thing to give up your only child, and we are supposed to feel sorry for the parent who lost a child, but why couldn’t god have another child if he wanted one? Also this wasn’t really that much of a sacrifice because his son rose to be with him after his death.) Anyway, this was very, very necessary. This was the only way for the all-powerful god to fulfill the law he had previously given us. If god hadn’t done this he would not have been able to forgive us for the sin we did not commit and instead of judging us based on our actions the all-powerful creator of the universe would have had to send us all to hell for eternity.
Well, I read it twice and I think I will leave it up to someone with more time than I have to waste for a response.
reading it once was a waste of time. where do they get this stuff?
And they talk about us making it up!
jhg45
it came from your bible. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
not MY Bible since what he shares is terribly twisted and I have many Bibles that teach a different story. why not get it right?
Then please take this opportunity to spread your faith, as commanded in your bible.
Tell me exactly where I am wrong on any significant point.
Can't debate it, so dismiss it.
Wow, what a deep and meaningful post.
No, I just don't debate mockers. Mockery is insult beginning to end, so there's no real point.
It takes a lot of denial to be a christian.
nice dodge
dog, Not a dodge, just wise advice.
Proverbs 9:7
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults; whoever rebukes the wicked incurs abuse.
ragansteve, you are notorious for dodging the point with an insult or lame excuse when you have no answer to posts that show the foolishness of your primitive bronze age cult. You imagine yourself to be a Christian soldier but you are a coward.
Every point he made is a legit problem with Christianity as far as I'm concerned so I don't see how you get mockery out of it. Of course my main problem with Christianity is that it hinges on a literal Adam and Eve for the Jesus sacrifice to make any sense whatsoever, and Adam and Eve never existed.
dog, See what I mean?
Joey, Mockery is a tone, an att itude. One gains nothing but insults from debating someone who mocks, as is evident from the responses to my post on Proverbs.
Joey, last point. Whether one believes Adam and Eve existed, as I do, or they believe they are allegorical, and many others do, there is a lesson there for humans. To question that is legitimate. To mock it shows a complete lack of respect for the other person in the debate. In order to have an honest debate, people debating must respect each other. Clearly one who is mocking the other person (I.e., me in this case) has no respect for that person.
steve,
People get respect. Ideas and beliefs have to stand or fall on their own. I can respect you but that doesn't mean your belief gets respect. The problem with religious believers is they associate their "beliefs" with their sense of self to the point they can't seperate the two. If you mock my belief it will prompt a discussion....if you show that I hold an untenable belief I will discard it.
There is nothing wrong with ridiculing the ridiculous.
"ridiculing the ridiculous" has within it the assumption that what I believe is ridiculous. How much more mocking can a person get? The core issue here is whether or not one can believe in the spirit world. Clearly Alias will or can not. (I'll leave the past debate on whether there is a difference between can and will to someone else.) I can.
You may think my experiences are my emotion, psychological lapses, fantasy, random chance, or what ever you like. But they are my experiences and they fit the major themes of the Bible.
You may think that all there is to the world is dirt, stars and planets (more dirt), along with energy. But I believe, based upon my experience and the experience of others,both others that I know and that I have read about, that there is more than that.
So, if you think what I believe is ridiculous, then we don't have much we can talk about, right? Hence, why debate?
Ragan,
"Whether one believes Adam and Eve existed, as I do, ... To question that is legitimate. To mock it shows a complete lack of respect for the other person in the debate."
So you'd respect an adult who believes in the tooth fairy or unicorns or leprechauns, etc.
BATC,
you do realize a person's belief is integral to who they are. how do you separate a person from their beliefs... aren't the decisions you make a result of what you believe?
As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. You are what you believe.
See: I am the righteousness of God in Christ.
what you choose to believe is entirely up to you.
I think your examples are a quiet way of mocking, once again. We all pretty much know that the examples you gave were never part of any religion. Just as Santa Claus is a favorite with children, we know that he was based upon a generous Christian Saint, Saint Nicholas, who went around distributing gifts. No one has a religion based upon Santa Claus either.
regansteve
Your religion is so ridiculous that it deserves to be mocked.
The same way I would mock a Harry Potter fan who tried to brew potions and cast spells.
steve,
The point is religious belief and believers think their ideas should get automatic respect. No other type of belief besides religious asks for respect, those beliefs have to earn respect. Why should religious belief be different? If you make a claim there is a spirit world...AND you know the source of that spirit world (Christian god) don't be surprised when people ask you to validate those claims, and if you can't, don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously. There are many people that make claims about a spirit world that contradict yours. They can't validate their claims either. You can't all be right....which means many, if not all of you, are wrong.
The reason there is nothing to debate is because the foundation of the belief lacks substance. I can't argue about your personal experience since it is by definition "personal". But your personal experience is not empirical evidence either.
His core points are well made, though. As I posted below, once you make your god omnipotent and omniscient, it becomes very, very hard to explain things that took him by surprise, mistakes he made, emotional reactions he has or things he "had to do", like sending his son to die.
Christian theology is fundamentally flawed at its very tap root.
Colin,
"His core points are well made, though." As I said, it is not about the points he made. I will not respond to someone who mocks me, or my faith. Period. I will also not respond to someone who lies about me. That also has happened on this site.
"As I posted below, once you make your god omnipotent and omniscient, it becomes very, very hard to explain things. . ."
I agree. I have a lot of trouble with some passages in the Bible. But rather than dismiss it as a book of fairy tales, I try to learn what I can from it and understand that it was written in a totally different era and a totally different culture. I try not to mock people who I cannot completely understand. Because I cannot go back in time to walk in their sandals, I try to give them a break.
"took him by surprise," I doubt God was taken by surprise. Disappointed perhaps.
"mistakes he made" I'm not sure what mistakes you think God made, but I haven't found any.
"emotional reactions" God's whole point, according to the Bible and what I believe, is that He made us in His image. Do we not get angry, sad, happy, and so on?
"he has or things he 'had to do', like sending his son to die" Personally I don't believe God "had" to send His son. That was a voluntary act of love. Others may think differently, but I don't think there is anything in the Bible that supports a "had to" conclusion.
"Christian theology is fundamentally flawed at its very tap root." That's an opinion that you are free to hold, and welcome to. Of course, I disagree.
See, whether you believe me or not, I can debate if people treat me with respect. Again, you may think "my imaginary friend" is leading me astray, but at least your tone was civil and your questions reasonable.Thanks for that.
you seem to want to blame the creator for man's disobedience. he gave him everything but all he asked for was his loyalty and that is why we are in this boat. adam put the hole in it and Jesus offered the plug. why not learn what the Bible really teaches since I can not possibly tell the whole story here why not go to jw.org and ask for a "free" home Bible study at your time and place of convenience. these people have been answering my every question with scriptural backing to show how much sense it makes to know what the truth really is. why not take a look? (or just make some criticism) it's your life.
That so reminds me of my friend Hank from jhuger.com
Yesterday morning there was a knock at my door. A pleasant and enthusiastic young couple were there.
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the guts out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the guts out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, we have faith in Hank. It’s good to have faith in Hank and bad to question, doubt or think skeptically of what Hank says. Hank will kick the guts out of you if he finds out you do that.
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the guts out of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the Desk of Karl
1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the guts out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the guts out of you.
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the guts out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it plausible that it might be made of cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists don’t know everything, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind.
don't you have something new?
From he who still adheres to 2,000-2,500 year old Jewish mythology.
I'm not mocking the creator.
I'm denying that your god exists.
I'm simply showing that it takes a lack of critical thinking to accept the bible.
I have taught other subjects and have studied the Bible with others but never have I had history, evolution, archeology, theology and a thorough knowledge of the Bible make more sense. have you ever given these people more than 5 min.except to just criticize them? Don't just listen to the negative comments from those that could not keep up. why not check out their web site and you may just like what the Bible really teaches. you also may see the creator in a new light, a real bright one.
But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
It's a lack of critical thinking to accept that you evolved from a single cell, with no thought as to where the information came from to form that so-called single cell.
you have over 100-trillion cells in your body, and in each of those 100-trillion cells you have 60,000 proteins which are in 100 different specifications.
The proteins must be in a specific configuration or that cell will NOT function. What are the scientific odds that those 60,000 proteins could/will self assemble?
while you ridicule others for their belief, you've neglected your own ridiculous beliefs, but what's important is that a man not be found spiritually naked or worse dead when the Lord returns.
Peace and love my brother, Seek the Lord while there is time. God Bless you.
newman; I wasn't sure who you were responding to but all I could think of while reading was Wow look what Jehovah can do.
and for all the believers and critics why not give a thought to the little Amish girls that were abused, molested and left in such fear. I know it is not of this subject but believe it should be soon and how these things are ever going to end. maybe some would pray for them.
jhg45,
Try reading the Bible sometime rather than listening to the "kindler and gentler" watered-down version they teach you in church. Pretend it's the Quran, and read it again for the first time.
The difference New-man is that the science can be tested.
The information explaining how one cell can evolve is available if you chose to learn it.
Your religion is the same as all the rest, no proof of any kind. It requires blind faith.
Alias, I heed the warning of Scripture, you'd be wise to do the same- ..., avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called.
Turn away from the irreverent babble and godless chatter, with the vain and empty and worldly phrases, and the subtleties and the contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge.
hmmm... what is that single celled amoeba waiting on to evolve into an Alias.
jhg45- so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Alias,
the fact that you think faith is blind shows who is truly blind.
Now faith is the substance [the confirmation, the ti.tle deed] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Do you see that? Faith is substance and it is evidence.
As posted before:
Without Faith, it's impossible to please God!
Faith is not blind as unbelievers love to say.
In God's kingdom, Believing is seeing! You're not designed to go somewhere you cannot see!
when you can see things others can't, you can go where they can't; you can have what they can't; you can do things they can't because believing is seeing. we don't see with our eyes, we see with our minds. that's why we're called to renew the mind, not the eye and this is crucial because your feet cannot take you to where your mind has never been.
Faith is your evidence... it is your "ti.tle deed". You have to possess it, show it, and use it.
For God to evict satan, He has to see your "ti.tle deed" (your faith).
Satan cannot invade what is covered by faith/your legal ti.tle deed. The devil knows and understands spiritual principles and uses them against mankind every day. The ones ignorant of this are the ones going around decrying Faith, while simultaneously asking 'where is [your] God?
cr. Bill Winston
roger; you must have me confused with someone else. who were you referring to ? I have read the Bible in its entirety in more than one translation and do not attend any of your churches or listen to the liars on TV. but I have found a place where the Bible is taught and not contradicted. if you look at some of my posts you would know that jw.org is where you can go to learn what the Bible really teaches.
So you accept it as truth because it says it is.
This is not proof.
You stated "Now faith is the substance [the confirmation, the ti.tle deed] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Do you see that? Faith is substance and it is evidence."
This is just a play on context. IT PROVES NOTHING.
There is no proof of your god.
You must believe without any proof, which is blind faith.
AS I said, it takes a lot of denial to be a christian.
The beauty of religion is that it's effortless. All you have to do is decide to believe. Critical thinking is not only unneeded, it's to be avoided at all costs. All you have to do is believe what you are told and you'll be fine.
There's only one book to study, so you don't have to keep up with new discoveries and information. You don't have to worry about silly things like facts and truth. Your religion hands you a list of things to believe, so further questioning is not necessary. Religion takes away the need to be honest, the need to be honorable, the need to be an adult.
Alias
"Let’s look at the big picture of christianity."
=>wrong, that is not the big picture it is only the skeptics picture which ignores the most important aspects
"Some all-powerful, all-knowing god wanted a one garden with a pet..... so he created billions and billions of stars."
=>wrong, based on current scientific consensus Planck epoch led to the Inflationary epoch the affect of which is a septillion stars in our field of observation alone. Stars are the affect of singularity while the pets are the effect of fine tuning. In Genesis 1 we see God the creator and in Genesis 2 see the anthropomorphic personal touch of God on man. One cannot confuse the perspective of science that deals with physical star creation with the purpose and meaning of existence.
"he set the whole thing up to fail by putting a tree in the middle of the garden"
=>wrong, the whole thing was set up to evolve a soul with capacity to reflect the Glory of God. Adam and Eve did not fail and neither have you. Current cancer experiments focus on chemically "lighting" up dangerous cells so they can be selectively removed so that life can continue. The tree/serpent lit up the sin in man so it could be removed so life can continue ..........eternally in Christ.
"So, a few thousand years later, god sent his only begotten son to be sacrificed."
=>The cure for what brings death like a cancer is love. Christ brought love and gave it to the patient so he could have life eternal. All that sin (cancer) was absorbed in Christs love to the point of death. Perfect love casts out sin and just as Christ has life eternal we also have life eternal. It is sin that brings death not God.
1) So what are the most important aspects of christianity, if the death of JC doesn't count?
2) increasing the number of stars only supports the point I was making.
3) "the whole thing was set up to evolve a soul with capacity to reflect the Glory of God. " Where does the bible say that?
4) Love does not cure cancer. Love does not cast out sin. You are babbling.
Alias
"the sin we did not commit"
=>Can you think of a human that has not committed sin
Yes. New born children are without sin.
Your religion teaches that as soon as a child takes its first breath it has become responsible for the original sin and deservers to suffer for all eternity.
No, it does not.
The sin nature in man is that genetic desire to touch what we are told not to touch. That is in us from the time we were formed. The Bible had no way to communicate genetic code and we still do not know why we have that tendency. As I explained above existence is designed to reveal that tendency and because we cannot fix it we need a savior, we need forgiveness, we need redemption.
Fred
You are confusing a desire to learn with a desire to sin.
Reptiles and birds are very different. Reptiles have no genetic information for wings or feathers. To change a reptile into a bird would require the addition of. . .complex information. . . . I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large scale evolution. What they really can’t account for is the build up of information. . . .And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information” – Lee Spetner, Biophysicist
– evolution is complete and total nonsense
Do you have any evidence for creationism?
Evolution is an unproven myth and therefore creation has a creator. Please see another example of the fallacy of evolution (shown above)
Yeah, well .... I was watching Shark week, and they showed a Great White shark breaching the water. Yep, the entire 15 foot long fish was out of the water and flying for almost 2 seconds. How can you deny the obvious link to birds?
Pointing out gaps in our knowledge of evolution does not mean that it is not fact and it certainly does not make the case for creationism. Do you have any evidence for creationism?
and more reasons why awanderingtroll rejects evolution
12.) Because the fact that science is self-correcting annoys me. Most of my other beliefs are rigidly fixed and uncorrectable.
13.) Because I am under the severely mistaken impression that evolution implies someone in my very recent ancestry was a chimp.
14.) Because everything appears designed to my mind which was expertly tuned by nature to perceive design, probably as a survival mechanism.
15.) Because some secretly fabulous closet-dwelling televangelist (who unironically preaches hate towards gays) told me that evolution is Satan’s way of leading me away from God.
Go away troll...
Spetner is Jewish creationist. Although his education in biophysics was a long time ago, application of his education professionally to include teaching involved physics: electronic systems, classical mechanics, electromagnetic theory, etc. Upon retirement, evidently Spetner moved to Israel and became interested in evolution. Like young-earth creationists, Spetner accepts "microevolution", but not "macroevolution". Spetner is a critic of the role of mutations in the modern evolutionary synthesis. Spetner claims mutations lead to a loss of genetic information.
Spetner believes in the Jewish creation myth that there was 365 originally created species of "beasts" and 365 birds. It is quite clear from his religious views that he has no interest in embracing any evidence for evolution.
Once again, Scot shows he has to resort to old, religious nut cases at the fringe of science to lend support to his delusion.
Spetner must be close to 90 if not already. Received his PhD back in 1950. I'm guessing when he's not "searching" for more information on evolution, he's hunting for buffets.
Quoting any individual scientist is a fools errand. There are no authorities in science, it is a distributed system.
Scientific knowledge is highly resistant to individuals' biases. Ideas are tested, verified, etc. Ideas that run that gauntlet are discarded.
A beautiful example of this is Einstein. Undisputed genius, changed the way humans view the universe's existence. He made fundamental advances in light, spacetime, etc. He also had biases that led to errors in his work. The scientific process has revealed those errors and corrected them in his lifetime. His views on God changed over his life (as in many people). None of those views matter, other than illuminating his biases.
The key point is, none of that matters. Objective test and verification decides, not individual scientists.
Dr. Spetner has biases, just like all humans. His science stands on the tests and verification. He has produced no science that conflict with evolution, just hypotheses founded on belief. These have no standing in the scientific community.
Hypotheses are like opinions, everyone has them. Science is differentiated in that hypotheses are recognized as not part of scientific knowledge until they are tested and verified. Hypotheses are the starting line, not the finish line for knowledge. It's too bad that so many people don't make that distinction (sometimes scientists among them).
Ideas that CAN'T run that gauntlet are discarded.
Science is dumb. It classifies animals that are warm-blooded, and have fur, and their babies are born alive, and a baby lives on its mother’s milk, as mammals. Bats do all those things, but bats are clearly birds as the bible instructs us. The bible is never wrong.
Translation error, the original hebrew is the word for 'winged creature'.
I just made that up, but it sounds good right?
Another good reason to doubt the bible:
The entire fallen angel story. This is unbelievably stupid, and I don’t know how a thinking individual could believe it. According to the Christians, an angel who knew god, talked with god, lived with god, and was fully aware of who/what god was tried to take over in heaven. Blaming vanity does not cut it as an excuse. While 5 billion people deny the existence of the Christian god, no one would challenge a god if they knew he actually existed and was powerful enough to create the entire universe. There are some forms of insanity that cause people to do things that are either suicidal, or very dangerous, but that is not the story the bible gives. Let’s not forget that a third of all the other angels abandoned god and went with Satan when he was thrown out. Right. This is unbelievably stupid.
You reckon all rebels are insane?
No, his point is that the story is insane. An angel rebels against an omnipotent being. Makes no sense. God could have smited it in an instant. Also, because he is "all knowing" he would have seen the rebellion coming.
This same problem dogs most of Judeo-Christian mythology. Once you make a god all powerful and all knowing, no reaction by that god, no surprise of it, no delight or anger exhibited by it makes any sense. The only human emotion that it makes any sense to attribute to an all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal being is endless, perpetual, mind-numbing ennui.
You" rebel against an omnipotent being" so why is it unbelievable that an angel would rebel against said omnipotent being.?
An angel is a spirit being, how do you propose "God could have smited it".
When you know something is coming you prepare for it... God's beginnings always have clear endings. Read the back of the book to get the clear ending. He was gracious enough to share it with you, the least you can do is read it.
Ahhh so here you are thinking you understand heavenly things when you don't even understand earthly things. It's always good to keep in mind that God is not limited by your understanding, however you are severely limited by YOUR understanding of God.
new,
Pointing out the implausible elements of the myths is not rebelling. No evidence of an omnipotent god is the important point to note.
Santa,
you have evidence of God; you have just chosen to ignore it.
Jesus gave us symptoms that are descriptive of a hard heart: (1) unable to perceive, (2) unable to understand, (3) unable to see, (4) unable to hear, and (5) unable to remember. These are all speaking of inabilities in the spiritual realm.
A hard heart is characterized by an inability to perceive spiritually. And when spiritual things are perceived, a hard heart will keep a person from understanding the few things they can perceive. They might see what the Lord is trying to show them, but they can’t get a hold of it in a way that they can apply it to their life.
One of the benefits of understanding what causes hardheartedness is that you can reverse this process and use it to become hardened against the devil. That is absolutely true. You have the power to determine what your heart accepts or rejects.
AWMI
New-man
we do not rebel against an omnipotent being.
We realize it does not exist.
This is similar to accusing you of rebelling against a fire breathing dragon.
new,
I mean objective evidence that would indicate a god, and indicate that it was your god.
The self-serving circular logic of the bible doesn't qualify.
If the odds of success are zero, and the punishment is eternal pain, then it would be insane.
Not all rebellions face these odds and consequences.
Look at what Red 5 accomplished, for example.
I see the devil has you working hard today to promote doubt, unbelief and disobedience to the Word of God. Not the way to go Alias, not the way to go.
Make no mistake about this: You can never make a fool out of God. Whatever you plant is what you’ll harvest.
I planted some Rosemary and some Habanero peppers recently. I'm pretty sure that's also what I'll be harvesting later barring any unforeseen pest problem.
the same manner in which you remove the weeds that can come up to choke the plants and render them unfruitful, is the same manner in which you should plant the word of God in your heart, guard it by weeding out the things that have you conformed to this world, so that it will form strong roots, bear good fruits, perhaps 30x, 60x, or even 100x.
new-man
Do you really think that your idle threats mean jack sh!t to the 5 billion people that don't believe in your myth? Grow up already and stop threatening non believers, it is unbecoming of you, you naughty christian, baby jesus weeps.
Make no attempt at debating what I posted, just attack me instead.
Very convincing argument.
hmmm... you and ausphor must be really convicted in your spirits, seeing that my response has been received as a threat by one and an attack by the other.
"those who have never heard the gospel will be judged according to the secrets of their hearts and according to their deeds. Their conscience either approves or disapproves of their actions. Their judgment will be more tolerable or less tolerable according to that which they knew and did.
But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. (Acts 10:35)"
just to be clear, the above does not apply to you guys posting on this board. You've all heard the good news of the gospel.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things
3 posts telling me I'm going to hell.
Nothing debating the content of what I posted.
new-man,
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
Yet we see you "professing to be wise" all over the place here...
So in order to be a christian you must accept the bible without thinking about what it really says.
And you are calling ME a fool?
" You can never make a fool out of God"
Of course!... you can't make a fool out of something that doesn't exist
One reason the christian faith will not be around too much longer:
The bible says the world is unmoving and flat, and the sun orbits the earth. The church taught this until the 17th century.
Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books and forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism. Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII. He was tried by the Holy Office, then found "vehemently suspect of heresy", was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
Those of you apologists who claim he was only at odds with the church because he insulted the pope are in denial of the truth. Galileo was trying to show that the Earth was round and orbiting the sun, which was in contradiction to what the church was teaching at the time.
Luke 18:8
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.
And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros—a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra—a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it.
The fact that you have to lie regarding what the Bible actually says shows desperation on your part. You are correct though regarding the teaching of the church; however that teaching was not Biblical.
Have a Blessed day filled with divine favor.
Where exactly did I lie?
The church was teaching geocentrism up until the middle of the 17th century.
I as a Christian I acknowledge all Christian family members, be them Catholics or Protestants or other group. One main common denominator is acknowledging your a Christian by not be ashamed of it or by the way you live or struggle in this world. In this world there be always struggles of some sorts, that is why it is said entering in to God's rest when one's time is up here.
That's the purpose of religion; convincing people that they will have it better after they die. Now make out your check to Any Church USA.
They forgetting or ignoring the Protestants of South Korea. There you have the long standing fight between Catholics and Protestants. They are brothers in a way, but do not acknowledge one another as much.
They're not forgetting about them; however, this story is about Roman Catholicism's spread, not Christianity in general.
The leaders of the catholic religion are devil worshipers. Check out the video of pope francis and the others leading an easter mass singing praises to lucifer in latin. .youtube.com/watch?v=6Jc61xBfcGI
The catholic religion is only man made pagan traditions of origin tracing back to devil worship. Their traditions are not biblical. Do the research. Everything from their clothing, symbols, and traditions. Pope Frances is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He is a member of the illuminati and is in favor of the new world order. They deceive those that have a heart for Jesus into partaking in pagan devil worship. I pray that people wake up. If your a Catholic and after your initial shock of being angry look into the origin of your religion. God bless those that love the truth.
Give us a break with all the RCC and devil worship stuff. I was a Catholic for 65 years and your characterization is completely inane. The RCC is definitely flawed when it comes to theology and history but they were and never will be in union with Satan as devils as with angels do not exist now or have they ever existed in the past.
That's a long time. How long were you attending as an atheist?
It was a clean break.
I understand that. My question is, were you a faithful Catholic for 65 years, or were you attending at some point as an atheist for family or other reasons? I think a lot of people do that.
I think it's rare for someone to leave the faith later in life. It reminds of Ronald Franz in the book/movie "Into the Wild". He became an atheist late in life after his friend Chris McCandless died in Alaska.
All religious cults, and that includes all religions, are based on unsupported bullsh!t. You may think your flavor is better than the rest but don't be surprised if they think you are the devil worshipper.
Sounds like you may need a tinfoil hat.
Ah...no. But your Protestant brethren have done a good job with their propaganda of hatred towards the RCC.
You're a good student.
The Christian God does seem to be under significant constraints. The whole mechanism of salvation (from its Creation gone awry) is very closely defined – "narrow is the way". I think it is thought by most Christians to be confined to doing good things and logically possible things. Are there even more constraints that Christians know of and will share?
the last command (suggestion) Jesus gave at Matt. 28:18-20 is interesting since I only see one group doing that as Jesus did and taught.(despite many constraints)
Hey Tom,
I hope you had a good trip. I’m not sure what you are looking for as far as constraints. We understand through the word that God is not constrained by time, as we are. The bible tells us God resides in eternity, outside of time. We understand he is not constrained to the physical world we perceive. God is spirit. Last night we were discussing whether God is limited to what he would do, would God lie to accomplish his purpose. I expressed it as he can’t lie because of the many verses that tell of his honesty, trustworthiness and fulfilled prophecy. I have found God to be faithful and to do what he has promised in my own experience. So, what is it you are searching for concerning constraints?
"The Bible tells us God resides in eternity, outside of time"
- Where exactly does it say that ? And while you're at it, explain why anyone should pay any attention to what it says about anything.
Hey Bucky,
I hope you are having a good day. Here is where it says that;
Isaiah 57:15
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
As to why, it contains the words of life.
But Robert, those are all words written by a priest or holy man ... sitting there in a church or monastery composing the words out of his head based on his own imagination of how things worked. I find this whole "inspired by god" thing pretty weak. Anyone could write any fantasy they liked and claim it was "inspired by god" ...
Dyslexic,
Have you read Isaiah? I don’t know where he did his writing, but I don’t think there were churches or monasteries back in his day.
Isaiah was a prophet. For a prophet to be considered true, they had to pass a test. They had to declare something was going to happen or not happen and it had to come true. If it came true, they were accepted. If not, they were killed.
I declare there will be a tornado in the Midwest U.S. within the next year!....
See? I get to live!
These are the verses: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
The way that leads to life is narrow because Jesus is the ONLY way... how's that for narrow?
Look around you, even many believers are on the broad way which leads to destruction, (it's not talking about hell)... there are many people who are on destructive paths – drug abuse, self-abuse, alcoholism, adultery etc.
when you've found and taken the narrow way which leads to life, you will reign in life, you will be above all things because the very life of Christ resides in you. This is the narrow way. I pray you are amongst those who find and take it.
Blessings!
Tom, I think you're asking for constraints when the whole purpose of becoming a Christian is to become more free. Surely we are to some extent constrained in this world by our material existence. We cannot "magically" zap something and whatever we want happen. We pray and ask the one who is not constrained to act within His perfect will when we cannot solve a problem.
I am pretty sure that is not what you are looking for, but I can't think of anything else that would help.
Not being a Christian gives me an extra 52 days this year to enjoy life rather than sitting and listening to someone telling me that I'm a bad person.
If your would be pastor were telling you that you are a bad person that many days a year, either you are really bad, or you would be attending the wrong church.
I was referring to the "you're a bad person as soon as you pass through the birth canal because some woman ate an apple" story.
Ah, I see. Well, that can be fixed. But in any case, I don't hear that preached very often. Mostly its how to live a better more productive joy-filled life.
How sad that you need religion to live a productive, joy-filled life.
How is a joy filled life sad? If I find joy in reading good literature, is that sad? If I find joy in watching nature, photography, is that sad? If I find joy in a sunset, Is that sad? Why would finding joy in religion be sad?
It's sad that you need religion to live a joy-filled life. That's the entire point.
I am not constrained by any measure. The Holy Spirit regenerates the believer to have the desires of God when the believer allows the Spirit to work in their lives. I dont want the things of this world. I have been set free from evil desires that corrupt man. I am a new creation in Christ. Non believers have this image of God of being a non fun zone, dictator when that is far from the truth. God tells us not to do certain things because they cause destruction and death. He is our creator, he knows all, he knows what gives man life, and what brings chaos and death. Since God is life, to be separate from him by sin brings death. Jesus Christ came to die for our sins and give us eternal life.
Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
-Matthew 11:28-30
Amen
Robert, do you approve of blessed's blatant Catholic bashing above ?
midwest,
No
Robert, thank you, One more question, since you're here...what is it about these forums that makes Christian posters so reluctant to admonish other believers for bad behavior. The only replies to blessed's hateful, paranoiac rant sre from those who identify as non-believers. From the Christians.....crickets.
Midwest,
You are welcome. I don’t know. I don’t do much admonishing either way. I don’t know much about the Catholic religion either. I think they believe Jesus is the son of God, if true, then I wouldn’t call them devil worshipers.
Thank you, Robert, I have noticed the absence of malice either way in your posting style. Have a good week.
You too
MidWest, I dont care who agrees with me or not. I expose the deception of evil. You can call it bashing if you choose. I dont hate catholics, the people that are deceived, but I do hate lies, deception, satan and his rcc. I have done my research. i dont recant what i said. Have nice day.
Dress your hateful paranoia up in any pretty words you wish to choose. Hate is hate. Your "research" is stunningly flawed.
It is such the pity that lying to proclaim your faith has the exact opposite effect of what you intended, "blessed."
Robert Brown, we are to admonish its biblical:
He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ. -Colossians 1:28
And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another. – Romans 15:14
Admonishing is considered by the world to be hateful, bashing, rude, bigotry, malice. It is written they will call good evil and evil good. Most christians are afraid to judge with righteous judgement and call sin sin, or expose the fruitless deeds of darkness. They are serverley persecuted for doing so. As you can see. Jesus admonished, the prophets before him were also and were killed. He called Herod a fox, the pharisees a brood of vipers and children of the devil.
I will not allow the world to shove me in the closet. I speak the truth. I encourage you to do the same. God Bless.
Midwest, I'm not an unbeliever, but I can state emphatically that I am not "blessed's" version of a believer, either.
@Blessed
It's refreshing to see a believer on this blog who does not equivocate on what the bible actually teaches. New-man, Topher, Theo and a few others also speak God's truth. I do agree with you that the RCC is steeped in idolatry and false teaching; and Protestantism is most certainly also ripening with yeast as well. The apostate church and deism are certainly on the rise, as evidenced by the unscriptural belief in evolution, a disbelief in the bible as the inerrant word of God, and idolatry by 'graceless professors' of the faith. Peace and Grace be unto you.
– For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. – 2 Timothy 1:7, NKJV
I praise God for true believers that stand for God's Word and speak the truth. Its refreshing that im not the only one on this blog that is not blind. I praise God that He has kept me from being deceived. Many are falling away from the faith. I agree with you about the protestant church, it is about 2 steps behind the rcc. I pray for my brothers and sisters that they will overcome. Thank you for the scripture. Grace and Peace to you as well.
And he is before all things, and in him all things consist. – Colossians 1:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ
Spam
Jesus Christ has returned
with BIBLICAL EXCELLENT MIRACLES for the Salvation of all.
See him now, with your own eyes, right here:
http://www.19covenant19.com
Christians perform "miracles" every day by changing bread and wine into human flesh and blood. Not a big deal. Now stopping a hurricane in its tracks would be a miracle. Has that been done lately!!!
Miracle working wandering preachers were a dime a dozen back when. "Biblically excellent miracles" actually were an abomination, according to Leviticus. Jebus said :"Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it."
The whole Jesus-sacrifice-salvation thing is a steaming pile of bull back-end output. How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
bob, I hope you have looked below for my response to your earlier mistaken comment. you should find some help to learn what the Bible really teaches and keep an open mind since someone has sadly misled you about so much.
Bob,
1. why was it necessary for Jesus to be born a man- flesh and blood human being?
2. how do you propose that God "do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla?"
3. how do you propose that God "just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?" seeing that Jesus is uncreated and eternal.
newman: "why was it necessary for Jesus to be born a man- flesh and blood human being?"
Actually, I'm not sure there is any proof that his parents planned for his birth. It's pretty obvious that they caused it, though.
spam
Do you suppose God might lie in order to save more people?
Why would you ask? You don't even believe in God. But, no, I don't think so.
People look for facts in every word of the Bible – supposedly the inerrant word of God. This leads to very strange thinking, as we've seen. Maybe it is inerrant. Is it truthful?
Some people do look for facts in each word. That, IMHO, is a little foolish since the Bible has been translated so many times out of ancient Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and so on. In order to get to the meanings of each and every word, one would have to be not only a Bible scholar, but also a linguist in ancient languages. I am neither.
So, I simply look for the basic truths in the Bible. As I, and I think probably we, have discussed before, I don't fuss much about minor errors, interpretations, and so on. I am content that there is sufficient information in the Bible that I can live to be more like Christ each day, although I do not expect to become like Him in this life. I would settle for simply becoming a better person each day and ending up with my integrity in tact.
Elsewhere I referred to divinely inspired fiction. Suppose much of the Bible is that. Could you learn to be Christ-like from fiction about Christ?
I admit I am susp icious. If I were to answer "yes," then the obvious resp onse would be "so why does it matter whether the Bible is truth or fiction?" If I answer "no," then all of the literature out there (which as an English major for my BA I find important and useful to learn about the human co ndition) would be susp ect. So, I think I will identify this as a "go tcha" question and pree mpt by saying, "yes-but" the fact that I can learn from fiction does not mean that everything I learn from is fiction. I do learn from science books, history books and so on. And that is also true of the Bible, IMHO.
Ragansteve,
I would venture a guess that TTTOO asks questions of believers for the same reasons you pose questions to atheists.
The only stupid questions are the ones that remain unasked. (IMO, lol)
God point, except that, for the most part, I ask questions in response to posts already there. I am not usually trying to start a debate but simply prvoiding what I believe to an ongoing discussion.
Ragansteve,
Sure, but I don't see any rules against starting a thread if one is an atheist...especially one that hasn't been addressed before.
Certainly there are no rules against that. But to your second point, I think this has been discussed before, albeit perhaps in different terms. We are discussing the "truth" in the Bible, right? We are discussing "facts" in the Bible? I think we have established that you all do not believe there are facts in the Bible, and the truths that are there are minimal outside of what human society has come to consensus on. Correct? Most of what I have heard from heists is that the whole thing is myth or fantasy. Right?
So, is this really a question, or simply bait?
LOL heists should be atheists, but it is funny.
"We are discussing the "truth" in the Bible, right? We are discussing "facts" in the Bible? I think we have established that you all do not believe there are facts in the Bible, and the truths that are there are minimal outside of what human society has come to consensus on. Correct? Most of what I have heard from heists is that the whole thing is myth or fantasy. Right?
---------------------
Let's separate "truth" (as a philosophical construct) from "facts".
I unreservedly say that the Bible contains many "truths" about the human condition – just like the Qur'an or the Tao Te Ching equally do. But does it contain *the* "truth"? The definite article makes all the difference in the question.
It also contains many things that are factual. No one will argue that Pontius Pilate was the governor of Palestine or that Herod the Great was a King of Judea.
Whether Pontius Pilate condemned a prisoner we know as Jesus Christ or whether Herod the Great ordered all the boys under two in Bethlehem killed are not things we can consider reliably to be historical facts.
Most of the Old Testament is myth and nationalistic hero stories magnified in the telling and retelling. The entirety of the Exodus is so preposterous and in the absence of archeological evidence, there does not seem to be any reason to suggest any of the story is factual.
The New Testament had an agenda to define Jesus Christ as being the messiah. Very little of the specific miraculous claims of the stories can be considered factual. People can believe in them, but that is based on faith, not history.
Ragansteve,
If it has been addressed before, I haven't seen it; the original post posed the question "Tom, Tom, the Other One
Do you suppose God might lie in order to save more people? rather than "is the Bible true?", which, to me at least, are two entirely different questions.
GOP er,
If you are interested you can look up some of sir William Mitchell Ramsays work on the accuracy of New Testament facts.
What did Sir William have to say about the alleged divinity of the alleged desert dweller known as jesus and his alleged miracles?
GOPer
Faith is part of history and part of what we as human. I understand fully the need of those who believe in the myth of popular evolutionism to pretend that faith is not a part of the human experience but the reverse is true. We have a history of science and a history of faith both of which depend upon consensus to establish fact. What Abraham, Moses and Jesus did was based upon faith, exactly what kind of evidence do you expect faith would leave behind? Why must it be the evidence you use for say the myth of evolutionism?
LaBella, I see the bait was taken.
Ace,
His story is really interesting. In short, he set out to prove the bible wrong. He found it to be perfectly accurate and became a Christian.
Are you sure he became a member of the christian cult? I've read articles to the contrary. . .
And you didn't answer my previous questions. He seems to have limited his comments to physical facts and didn't get into the supernatural aspects of The Babble.
HHA, any advice on Calgary hotels? We will be there on Friday night in three weeks.
Unfortunately nothing specific as it's been years since we stayed in a hotel in Calgary. All your standard brands have hotels near the airport and on the west side in "motel village" (near the university at about 16th Ave NW and Crowchild Trail). If you want to be on the extreme west side for easy exit to Banff/mountains, there're a few hotels near Canada Olympic Park (Highway 1/Trans Canada Highway and Canada Olympic Drive) including a Sheraton.
Ragansteve,
Not by me. I don't conflate the two.
Ok, thanks
No, God can't lie.
Wow, someone actually knows something.( yes knows.)
**CLAIMS to know**
I sense a paradox coming on, Robert.
What do you have in mind?
You mean God is constrained? To the extent that there are things God can't say?
God has no motivation to lie, it would be the opposite of his character. For example, the devil is the father of lies. God can't be constrained and can say what he wants. He is truth.
But you said he can't lie, Robert. Perhaps you have something else in mind: a thing is always true when God says it because God says it?
The Devil can't do anything without god allowing it...so essentually any lie told by the devil makes god complicit in it.
You could put it that way if you like Tom, I think of it more as God is holy, perfect, and honest. He can't or won't lie.
Blessed,
God allows all sorts of things. If you equate that with doing them, then you are correct. I don't equate allowing with doing. He can overrule but he does allow.
If you say so Bob...but if he had foreknowledge I would still say that he is complicit if he could do something about it and didn't.
Robert, you did say can't. Do you need to soften that? Or we could go into how can't and won't aren't particularly different.
Oh well – got to catch a flight to Quebec in the early morning. Some other time, eh, Robert?
After reading your exchange with Bob, I think my two cents ought to be worth at least that. It appears to me that we are back in the middle ages arguing about the ability of an all powerful God. A favorite debate then was, "Can God create two mountains on a flat plain with no intervening valley?" Absurd questions do not deserve an answer. I suspect He could somehow, but I in my finite knowledge cannot conceive of how.
If you believe in the God I serve, He is the God of love and would not=could not lie.
Thanks for listening/reading. I'll forgo the two-cent charge.
It's not antiquated, or rhashing settled question, to ask if God is constrained to do logically possible things,Steve. Or are (all) impossible things possible with God?
How would you know if god can lie or not? Who told you god can't/won't lie?
Blessed,
We know he can’t through the word and our own experience. If you would like some bible verses on this attribute, let me know.
Tom,
I know you are not convinced of God, so I’ll frame it this way. If there is a God who created the universe and life, by whatever mechanism you wish, is there anything that would be impossible for him?
There are plenty of "Liars for Jesus".
I think of it as Machiavellian Christianity.
Why would He need to lie to save more people when His Son died to save the entire world.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Then there is the other question. Do you suppose God might lie in order to kill more people?
"It's not a lie...if you believe it" George Costanza.
Does that work for God too?
No.
And it is really quite easy to change the mindset with some education:
Again, a summary of said education from my scrapbook of essential theology and religious history:
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
Nice try. NO sale.
Not a surprise considering that the extent of your religious breeding and brainwashing.
You might call it "brainwashing," i suppose. But you have no clue about my breeding. Many, many Christians aren't "bred" in the faith. Word of advice: You probably should not assume things about people you don't know or you end up looking like the fool you think we all are.
Ragansteve1 – well, not so fast. About 99% of people ARE the religion they are because they were taught it from a very young age. Children of Christians, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists tend to be, respectively, Christians, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists. Most people adopt the religion they were brought up in and never change. Rare indeed is the person who studied all the competing faiths and decided "this is the god for me."
Secondly, the supernatural elements of religion like Christianity – life after death, a virgin birth, an all knowing, supervisory god etc – really have to be taught from a very young age to be accepted. Educate a child of reasonable intelligence in everything except religion and then try and convince them of gods, miracles etc. at age 18 and see how far you get.
Colin, Nice try, but that was not my experience, the experience of my family, nor the experience of many people I know and more that I have heard tell their stories. Do you have a source for your 99%. I think that is highly speculative, if not downright error.
Whether it was the experience of your family is not the point. It is a fact. Look at a map of the World. What % of people in Iran are Muslim. What % in Saudi Arabia. What % of people in the USA are Christian? What % of people in Israel are Jewish. More to the point, the % does not change much from generation to generation. People stick with the god they were taught about as children. In fact, of the top 20 religions in the World, how many can you honestly say you have seriously considered?
I am sure, with a little digging I could find an article to support what I say, including the high percentage. It is as obvious a fact as claiming that people tend to speak the language they were brought up with. There is nothing genetic about any religion.
Ragansteve1 – I did a quick Google search and found this. It doesn't say anything about people changing frrom one of the main branches, say Islam to Judaism or Buddhism, to Christianity, but it does have some interesting things to say about drift within Christianity. Apparently about 44% of Christians drift from one denomination to the other, or drift from being Christian to not having any religion whatsoever.
The Catholics are suffering the greatest loss in numbers and the unaffiliated are increasing the most – a pleasing sight to my atheist eyes.
Sorry, this is the Pew Research article I was referring to. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux/
colin
Lucky for you there were not to many. Consider the effect on religion from one man Saul of Tarsus born Jew with sudden conversion became Paul. Consider the 3,000 after Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit that converted from the faith of their parents.
Mass conversion events from monotheism to secularism, naturalism and scientism further prove you wrong.
Reality,
Yes, the Pew study always uses self-report data on religion of choice. In that sense it may be accurate to say that 99% of the people who claim to be Christian are bred Christian. However, the overwhelming majority of each religion are really secular in their att itudes and behavior. That should be obvious if one only co mpares what is taught as life principles with what is practiced by adherents. Nonetheless, without those few, humanity, I believe, would be in hopeless chaos.
The term “Christian” as I use it is defined the same as it was in the first century in Antioch, “Christ follower.” That was a term of derision (so you could legitimately use it that way now) and even a pejorative. How many Christians do you think actually follow Christ’s teaching? How many Muslims follow Islam? Etc.
E. Stanley Jones has been credited with the 1926 Ghandi quote, “I love your Christ. I do not like your Christians.” Whether that is a direct quote or a summary thought, Ghandi is more reliably quoted saying some similar but less pithy things. And, that is a sad but often accurate co mmentary on humanity. Indeed, when I have had the most trouble following Christ, it has been when I took my eyes off of His model life, and started to look at Christians.
I suspect that the same is true for most religions. I have no data to support my opinion other than observation, but I would guess that fewer than 20% of the people who claim Christianity are actually “Christ followers” in action. I would never judge an individual, but as a group, all religions appear much to materialistic, self-absorbed, and, as has been pointed out on this site by many atheists, too violent to really be following Christ's example. But as I said earlier, without Christianity, we would be much worse off, IMHO.
ooops. That last one should have been for colin, but it will work for you as well. Sorry.
From my scrapbook of essential history of religion:
"John Hick, a noted British philosopher of religion, estimates that 95 percent of the people of the world owe their religious affiliation to their god to an accident of birth. The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when. Those born in Saudi Arabia will almost certainly be Moslems, and those born and raised in India will for the most part be Hindus. Nevertheless, the religion of millions of people can sometimes change abruptly in the face of major political and social upheavals. In the middle of the sixth century ce, virtually all the people of the Near East and Northern Africa, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were Christian. By the end of the following century, the people in these lands were largely Moslem, as a result of the militant spread of Islam.
The Situation Today
Barring military conquest, conversion to a faith other than that of one’s birth is rare. Some Jews, Moslems, and Hindus do convert to Christianity, but not often. Similarly, it is not common for Christians to become Moslems or Jews. Most people are satisfied that their own faith is the true one or at least good enough to satisfy their religious and emotional needs. Had St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas been born in Mecca at the start of the present century, the chances are that they would not have been Christians but loyal followers of the prophet Mohammed." J. Somerville
It is very disturbing that such religious violence and hatred continues unabated due to radomness of birth. Maybe just maybe if this fact would be published on the first page of every newspaper every day, that we would finally realize the significant stupidity of all religions.
Want to know about evolution at no cost? http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
want to learn what the Bible really teaches "at no cost" go to jw.org.
Hey and it looks like it not the fear of god(s) – Comedy Gold.
Fox News' No. 1 fear: Atheists
Salon - 20 hours ago
Now, CNN is not Fox News, but she acts like she has never heard of the Republican Party's media arm: Fox News. For the past few years, Fox
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/15/fox_news_1_fear_atheists_partner/
Please send one of your cult members to my home to pick up the piece of crap propaganda they left behind while I was out. Your imaginary friend should be able to give you the address. Please do not litter my premises again.
if you do not want them to visit just tell them and they will take care of it and in the meantime why don't you read what they left?
Your persistent does not hide your stupidity and inability to read for comprehension, but in the interest of educating the apparently simple, I've read enough to classify jw literature as crap and propaganda and have no need to read more.
your original statement was clear and I thought mine was also. I told you what to do and you do not understand that?
If you read and comprehended my earlier message you would not have suggested I read your cult's crappy propaganda. Do *you* understand now?
they are not a cult and not mine but I have looked into it enough to give them the respect they deserve and your language tells me I should have dropped it long ago after the first "crap" came out of you.
What the bible teaches us:
•Exodus 32: 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf.
•Numbers 31: After killing all men, boys and married women among the Midianites, 32,000 virgins remain as booty for the Israelites. (If unmarried girls are a quarter of the population, then 96,000 people were killed.)
•Joshua: ◦Joshua 8: 12,000 men and women, all the people of Ai, killed.
◦Joshua 10: Joshua completely destroys Gibeon ("larger than Ai"), Makeddah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. "He left no survivors."
◦Joshua 11: Hazor destroyed. [Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), estimates the population of Hazor at ?> 50,000]
◦TOTAL: if Ai is average, 12,000 x 9 = 108,000 killed.
•Judges 1: 10,000 Canaanites k. at Battle of Bezek. Jerusalem and Zephath destroyed.
•Judges 3: ca. 10,000 Moabites k. at Jordan River.
•Judges 8: 120,000 Midianite soldiers k. by Gideon
•Judges 20: Benjamin attacked by other tribes. 25,000 killed.
•1 Samuel 4: 4,000 Isrealites killed at 1st Battle of Ebenezer/Aphek. 30,000 Isr. k. at 2nd battle.
•David: ◦2 Samuel 8: 22,000 Arameans of Damascus and 18,000 Edomites killed in 2 battles.
◦2 Samuel 10: 40,000 Aramean footsoldiers and 7,000 charioteers killed at Helam.
◦2 Samuel 18: 20,000 Israelites under Absalom killed at Ephraim.
•1 Kings 20: 100,000 Arameans killed by Israelites at Battle of Aphek. Another 27,000 killed by collapsing wall.
•2 Chron 13: Judah beat Israel and inflicted 500,000 casualties.
•2 Chron 25: Amaziah, king of Judah, k. 10,000 from Seir in battle and executed 10,000 POWs. Discharged Judean soldiers pillaged and killed 3,000.
•2 Chron 28: Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Judeans
•TOTAL: That comes to about 1,283,000 mass killings specifically enumerated in the Old Testament/Torah.
The New Testament has only one major atrocity, that of god committing filicide assuming you believe in this Christian mumbo jumbo. Said atrocity should be enough to vitiate all of Christianity
the only problem here is blaming it on Moses. He didn't kill any but one Egyptian. just maybe the rest had it coming.
And then there is this update:
origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482
“New Torah For Modern Minds
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment. “
The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel – not one shard of pottery."
same nonsense. nothing new from you.
Archeological evidence shows that the exodus from Egypt never happened. There was never a significant population of jewish slaves, therefore there was no need for the plagues or the murder of first born sons described in the bible. Of course there was no Egyptian record of those events, either. The Egyptians left a lot of writing, and not just the official records. If a generation of sons had been killed, there would have been a mention somewhere other than the bible. So no exodus. Do you ever wonder what else the bible got wrong?
So the Bible isn't factual. It must be divinely inspired fiction.
tal; you have been so misled I really do not know where you get this stuff. probably from the same ones that gave us the Piltdown man.
Glad I don't have your post-modern mind. And think about this, World War I – over 75 million ki lled either directly by the conflict or indirectly by diseases caused by the war. World War II – perhaps as many as 50 Million ki lled in the same ways. Then of course there is Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, and Libya. If you think the Bible and Jews were violent just take a look at modern man and his secular wars .
for all the talk about wars and killing you can be sure none of those killed in any of these wars have been killed by Jehovah's Witnesses. if they were the only religion there would be no wars or killing of any kind. that was only one of the reasons I have decided to check them out and it has not hurt or cost me anything financially. all they do is help people all over the world to learn what the Bible Teaches while they help their neighbors in time of need no matter what background..
Many children have died because their idiotic deluded Jehova's Witless parents did not allow them modern medical treatment. Their cult doctrine does not permit it. Get over your backward cult already, jhg. And don't come to my door trying to sell it or you'll get more than an earful.
bob; so sorry you feel that way but you have them mixed up with someone else. you can not buy their religion, they teach for free unlike so many others and as far as medical treatment you are very mistaken. please check again since they offer "free" home Bible studies and go to hospitals just like the rest of us.
No, jhg45. I get my information from real studies and honest archeologists. I don't cling to lies like you do, because I don't fear the truth. But if it makes you feel better to lie and to insult, please do so. Your words don't offend me. I'd have to respect you for your words to have the power to offend.
tal, so sorry you feel that way I was trying to inject a little humor but can see how it might not be taken that way. also I have seen many of your comments here and like so many you can not claim to be the only one who has not criticized others and I believe without merit. so why don't we put down the sword and realize that some comments just get taken the wrong way and some are uncalled for. I still, think the Piltdown man leaves the science community with a good laugh when they can take it. peace?
You called me a liar, jhg45. I fail to see the humor. The facts are there, whether you accept them or not. Archeological evidence shows that the exodus didn't happen. I wonder what else the bible got wrong.
tal, why make up words where there are none? I said you were misled and you say I called you a liar. That is about as accurate as your archaeology. see how things get twisted? maybe the Bible is also but your evidence is so full of holes I will keep looking into the Bible for awhile. where I have been looking I have found backing and evidence I never saw before. why not check it out. go to jw.org to learn what the Bible really teaches.
If the Exodus had happened as described in the bible everyone living in Egypt would have died or left. As the plagues would have left Egypt with basically no food or water, and nothing to trade for food or water so if you stayed you would have starved to death pretty quickly.
And for more fun, and hilarious facts about jw's, and their insanity, check out :
http://www("dot"jwfacts.com/watchtower/failed-1914-predictions.php
sorry, not facts at all.
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION
Number 18
– 18 – Fallacy of False Relationships. This is the error of proving a relationship on the basis of inadequate evidence.
(1) "Hydrogen must have clumped together to form stars, for how else could they have gotten there?"
(2) "It was predicted that if rough background radiation with a temperature of 5K was found, that would prove the Big Bang; perfectly smooth background radiation with a different temperature was later discovered, so that proves that the Big Bang occurred."
(3) "All the planets have six of the 92 elements, so this indicates common origin."
(4) "Because different species have similarities, therefore they must have had a common ancestor. "
(5) "Because mutated fruit flies have produced damaged wings, therefore evolution was caused by mutations."
(6) "All living things have cells, therefore they must have come from a common source. "
(7) "All living things are interdependent, so this shows evolution."
(8) "Rock strata time charts prove long ages. "
(9) "Migration of populations into new areas has occurred, therefore this is an evidence of evolution."
(10) "Aging changes in the lifetime of an individual is a proof of evolution."
(11) "Woodpec-kers punch holes in trees, so they must have evolved this ability. "
(12) "Man with careful planning can selectively breed new sub-species of dogs, therefore random mutations can develop new species."
(13) "There are various species of extinct animals, therefore evolution must have occurred."
(14) "Owls eat the white mice first, and this is an evidence of evolution."
(15) "Different creatures are found in different places in the world, therefore evolution occurred. "
(16) "Because there are several different creatures that looked like horses (although they had differing numbers of ribs, etc.), therefore horses evolved."
(17) "The earliest organisms were smaller and slower, and the later ones were larger and faster, therefore only evolution could explain why that happened."
(18) "A larger number of species are found in the higher strata than in the lower, therefore evolution must have occurred."
(19) "Charles Darwin proved evolution, therefore we know it occurred."
(20) "Variations exist among people (eye color, height, etc.), therefore evolution occurred. "
(21) "Geographic isolation produces changes within species, therefore evolution across species occurred."
(22) "Predators kill animals, and this is an evidence of evolution."
(23) "Teeth become smaller with age, and this reveals evolutionary change."
(24) "Flowers, insects, etc., mimic one another in shape, color, etc., therefore this is an evidence of evolution."
(25) "A Devonian fish must have climbed out of the water and become an animal, and this would be another evidence of evolution."
(26) "Evolution has been nearly established, for we will soon have found the missing link of man."
(27) "Given enough time evolution will occur, and we know from theories about fossils and strata that long ages have indeed occurred."
(28) "Minks change color in the winter, therefore evolution has occurred among minks."
(29) "We know that man has lived on earth for long ages, for we have found stone arrowheads and other stone artifacts."
(30) "Dinosaurs once lived on the earth and later they became extinct, therefore evolution has occurred."
(31) "At an earlier time some people lived in caves, therefore they must have been very ancient and evolution must have occurred."
(32) "Evolutionary theory is not under natural law, therefore it could easily have occurred."
(33) "Evolutionary theory cannot be proven, therefore it cannot be denied."
(34) "Evolution is non-refutable, and is therefore outside the realm of falsification."
– Fallicies of Evolution, 13-18, Evolution Encyclopedia
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
Harlan Ellison
Evolution is non-refutable, and is therefore outside the realm of falsification." This statement isn't the least bit true, and also, is it your contention that starts aren't made of Hydrogen?
Again thankfully this should be the last from. http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/3evlch38.htm
Not one of those crap statements even remotely affects whether the Theory of Evolution is our best explanation at the moment or not. Snotty is even more screwed up and obsessed than we had imagined. Science is very compet'itive. If there were any way a real scientist could refute Evolution she/he would be working day and night to get the Nobel that would follow accomplishing that task. They aren't, and they can't and they won't. There are mountains of evidence for it, and no legitimate evidence against it. But thanks Snotty, for demonstrating yet again, your stupidity for all to see. Maybe your Jebus will help you do better next time.
ameanderingsot – Here is an even bigger fallacy. Evolution is false, therefore there is a creator that lives outside of time and space.
Hey Scot – wander over (fred and the gang should wander over there too) to your public library and look for Parasite Rex by Carl Zimmer or Amazon.
Or
How The Universe Works: Extreme Stars – Full Epilogue
{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=royz6sL19Tw}
None of the statements that I read had the sound of coming from anyone speaking with authority on behalf of science. Each statement sounded like something any science nerd would cringe at as needing to be restated.