 |
|
|
|
 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.  |
|
|
|
The minions of the magical man in the sky claim him to be all-powerful, but then assume that their "god" needs them to defend him . . . which is, in the last analysis an affront . . . . and a contradiction.
I think they are really defending themselves for believing in such things.
the pride of not wanting to admit you are wrong is a powerful force.
But not surprising considering Christians believe that their imaginary sky daddy created this entire universe just for them and wants a personal relationship with them. It's the ultimate conceited, egotistical, narcissistic, self absorbed view!
d dog
Love the last line, can I use it to needle Dalahast? Got to love that guy who goes beyond faith and belief to actually knowing that his god exists, strange for an educated person.
use it to your heart's content ...
Problem is those aren't the views I hold. And the last line is an opinion, not a fact.
Dala
And your "knowing" god is what, opinion, faith, belief or delusion, got any "facts" to back up you assertions? Elucidate please.
I don't believe God is a magical man in the sky. Nor do I feel that God needs me to defend Him. I don't think God created this world just for me. In fact I believe we are created to be in relationship with each other. And specifically God loves and wants me to love other people. Being that we are creatures made to be in relationship – that is how I best understand God. Through relationship. I am a self-centered and selfish. And I think it is just silly to say belief in God is the ultimate conceited, egotistical, narcissistic, self absorbed view. But I do admit that I do have a conceited, egotistical, narcissistic, self absorbed side. And I have many others flaws and character defects that plague me. In fact, we all do. My ideal is to avoid such a view, but it is hard. Those things do separate me from God. It makes it harder for me to know His will.
And Dala... pulls out one of his favorites, a little self deprecation to avoid providing any of those hard to find "facts" that he really "knows" god. Dala... reminds me of trout fishing, when you reel it in the fish looks fine, even beautiful, but you know when you touch it, it will be slimy. The other cheek, remember, you Christian guys are such a hoot.
One of the beauties of the religious mind is that it can be internally inconsistent.
Christians believe that God hears their prayers but deny that they believe that a being powerful enough to have created the entire Universe reads their minds, even though it is exactly the same thing.
Christians believe that they will go to heaven but deny that they believe they are immortal and will live happily ever after, even though it is exactly the same thing.
Christians believe that their prayers are answered, but deny they believe that a god intervenes to alter what would otherwise be the course of history in small ways to suit their whims, even though it is exactly the same thing.
Christians believe Jesus died to give them eternal life and to atone for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, but deny that they believe that a god impregnated a Greco-Roman Jewish virgin with himself, to give birth to himself and then sacrifice himself to himself to forgive the original sin of a couple we now all know never existed, even though it is exactly the same thing.
Come end of the day, I actually think that, deep down, many Christians know just how absurd their beliefs are but just don't care. I guess when death is inevitable, having a solution, even a pretend one, is better than none at all.
Good ones, Colin.
But not all Christians believe how you insist they do.
I used to try and stereotype them in a similar fashion. It made it easier to hate and insult them. If that is your goal, good job. I really believe you do hate them and love to insult them.
An omniscient being doesn't have to read your mind, 13.8 billion years ago it knew every thought you would ever have and will have. Same for every action, decision, etc. Seeing it unfold slowly must be quite a bore.
That is what omniscient means, yes. The idea that is boring or slow is an interesting take.
And Dala.. pulls out the "hate" word used by so many Christian posters. You are really are mistaking ridicule and sympathy for your delusion as hate, really? Good lord all you jesus freaks that are trying to proselytize to the heathens show more derision/hatred to your fellow man than any atheist/agnostic/deist, all they are doing is stating there is no hell, stop fretting and live your only life you have in the here and now. I have yet to see a non believer say you are going to rot in hell like so many Christians, of course not you Dala... you are just so superior to your Christian brethren.
Ausphor
I do think the few posters on here that routinely ridicule me do hate me.
Most of the posters don't do that. So I don't think they hate me. Perhaps we disagree. Sometimes the disagreements get heated. But it rarely comes to name calling and stereotyping others. I'm grateful for that!
Also, I used to hate Christians. And when I did, I liked defining them by their negative qualities and stereotyping all of them by that definition.
" The idea that is boring or slow is an interesting take."
Given that the omniscient being knew everything instantly, any transpiring of time could reasonably be characterized as slow. As to boring, I agree that is my projection. Redundant would be a better characterization.
I have a tough time imagining God is bored. I also don't know what standards an omniscient being has to live by, or what it would be like to create and to continue creating in this world.
The idea of attributing any human emotions to the Jude-Christian god is all play anyway. Each believer has their own internal vision of this being and, given that it only exists in the minds of believers, the can attribute any emotions they wish to it. They do not even have to be logical or sensible and can be quite ridiculous (such as an omnipotent, omniscient being getting "angry" at human beings).
Christianity is a church marbled with logical fallacies and inconsistencies, not least of which is giving its god emotions that humans evolved with in order to enable them to eat, survive, dominate or be submissive to their peers, avoid predators and mate and pass on their genes.
God would only have a similar tool belt of human emotions triggered by the same external stimuli if he evolved along side the various ho.monids.
I guess, in a purely mental sense, he did.
That is not quite what my experience or understanding of God is like. Is it fair to say you have your own internal vision of what it means to be a Christian and what that entails? And you can attribute anything you want to that? I've observed that you are not immune to committing logical fallacies and committing inconsistencies yourself – nor can I imagine any group that you belong to free of such shortcomings. Do you imagine it is any different?
You regularly attribute human emotions to your god – love, eagerness, pity, forgiveness, revenge. I have copied and saved some examples of you doing so if you would like them.
I'm not denying that I attribute human emotions to God. I think I even explained earlier how and why I do that in another thread.
But, sure, if you are copying and saving my examples of doing them, please share!
Hopefully I can explain how I'm not just simply applying any emotions I want to, nor am I trying to build a God based on the survival skills human beings have developed to survive in this world. It seems that idea is based in your imagination, though? Right? Kind of like what you say others are doing, you are doing yourself, too?
Can u pls explain here how and why you attribute the emotions you do to the Judeo-Christian god?
This was the point I made earlier in another thread in response to someone asking how I could conceive of God as a person (which I don't do) – "God is much more than a person. For explanation purposes I personify God at times – but I know that doesn't do him justice. He is much more than whatever I can conceive him to be. I know artists, filmmakers and authors have portrayed him to be a person – and maybe they actually think he is that person. Or else they find personifying him makes it easier to understand him."
That wasn't really on the topic of emotions, so if you want to ask about something else I shared about that you remember I can address that.
doesn't quite identify any emotions, but anyway, I have to run. later
Later!
Dyslexic,
If you were convinced there were two paths and one led to peace and life, the other to turmoil and death, would you try to convince those you love to follow the right path?
I'd say that if life came down to only two paths, Robert, I'd suspect oversimplification and re-examine my beliefs and thinking.
oversimplification? how so? how many paths do you imagine there are?
yes, I can see you saying countless... but it matters not, they all come back to two paths.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live,
and just in case anyone is too stupid to know what to choose, He gave us the answer. Choose LIFE.
Yes Tom, it was an overly simple illustration. There are many complicated paths that lead to turmoil and death.
Indeed, Robert. Turmoil and death are overarching features of history. I do not blame it all on religion, but when people don't know why they want to be inhumane, they often look to God's will for justification and it obliges.
Robert Brown,
Wouldn't it be more realistic to say two path, one that has a sign saying life and peace and the other with a sign that says turmoil and death?
Although, in all honesty, the situation is exactly like life, you're dropped in a field with an infinite number of paths and a seemingly infinite number of signs, quite a few of which claim peace and life.
God is that which created the Universe – fine, ok. The Universe was "created" in the sense that appropriate meteorological conditions create a hurricane. What suggests and supports the idea that such a thing is a person?
Agency without purpose is the same as any other naturalistic causation.
That GPS we observe installed within mankind since Neanderthal is guiding us home. Science has as much knowledge about this chemical code as it does with why Monarch butterflies head to their home without every seeing it or knowing where it is.
I assume you are being poetic, Fred.
Why do people look up instead of down when pondering the wonder and awe of existence. Why do the majority of religions that believe in gods see them as being high rather that low. We raise our hands in worship rather than sit on them.
Why even conceive the notion of God in the first place if it was out of fear a Potter blanket of invisibility that folded nicely in your pocket would do.
Some people look at clouds and see fantastic animals, faces, all sorts of things. Some people just see clouds. In either case they are just clouds.
fred,
What evidence do you have that purpose was prior to existence? Purpose is central to the Theory of Evolution, survive. It is an emergent phenomenon of complex systems. Do you have evidence that purpose predates that?
If you knew anything at all about information theory you would not make this statement. Complex systems require intelligence. Complex systems are not happenstance or random and are purposeful in nature. This is another reason that evolutionists cannot deal with entropy. They say that because earth is an 'open' system, that entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply, which is not true at all; but for the sake of argument suppose that it is. Information theory and intelligent design are still needed and cannot be dismissed as not necessary. Complex systems absolutely require it. A computer needs a programmer, engineers are needed to design machines. In the same way biological organisms and elements need an intelligent designer. For example a cell. No scientist would ever claim a cell to be anything but complex. No randomness at all. It absolutely needs an intelligent designer.
– evolution is about randomness, not purpose. it is predicated on materialism
– it is folly to suggest that order is derived from disorder without intelligence.
"Complex systems require intelligence" No they don't. Self-organizing complexity is common.
yes, your complex god would certainly need a greater god to have created him ...
Simple: food must exist before there is desire for food.
Sex must exist before there is desire for sex.
God must exist before there is a desire for God
Single-cell organisms feel desire? Food and sex go back that far. God is an invention. A lot of people don't desire God.
bostontola
seriously? peptide bond formation had a survival purpose? Your myth is indeed greater than my myth. Time to sacrifice a ribozyme or two and appease the peptide before it's too late !
Yes, peptide bonds do form spontaneously – the bonds are simple amide bonds. They can be catalyzed in a variety of ways. In fact, ribozymes have been seen to "evolve" in vitro that have that ability. RNA predating the modern protein-driven world, perhaps.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
"Single-cell organisms feel desire? Food and sex go back that far"
=>Single-cell organisms ............you mean they were not married and having sex.........I say stone em
So, if agency was a chemical there is no purpose for existence only states of matter and energy. Do you actually believe that?
Marriage is an invention too. And stoning.
Purpose is something we ascribe to things, Fred. The word and the concept are part of human thought.
scot,
Your tactics are childish. Do you really think that forcefully asserting things will make others believe it? I have taken many graduate level courses in information theory. I have patents related to information theory. As the saying goes, I have forgotten more about info theory than you will have ever known. All your assertions are false and reveal your ignorance of the mathematics and science.
fred,
I am surprised that you would equate desire and purpose. Many living things have purpose that can be identified as emerging through evolution. Abiogenesis would be the initial emergence of purpose, a network of chemicals that reached a critical complexity allowing reproduction. The purpose emerged; to reproduce.
"Complex systems require intelligence" "No they don't. Self-organizing complexity is common."
– This is a scientific oxymoron. Only the carnal mind can conceive of things not man-made as being self-organized. Can you explain how something as complex as a seed might self-organize if the instructions were not are already there? How did the instructions or commands get there in the first place? Random? Or how is cell division self-organizing complexity without code already being programmed into the 'hardware'? Is there some magical look ahead blueprint in the code saying this is what the end result will look like, and also that this is random? Where is the programmer? Where did the intelligence come from? It's absurd to conclude that randomness produces self-organization. Evolution is for irrational dreamers.
fred,
Back to the original question:
What evidence do you have that purpose was prior to existence?
scot,
You're right back to asserting falsehoods forcefully. Using pure mathematics, simple programs with very simple rules are set in motion. Very complex behavior emerges spontaneously. This has been demonstrated many times. Non-linear recursive systems often spontaneously generate complex behavior. It's just math.
Simple, scot. I refer you to Conway's game of life. Random patterns tend towards stable and self-replicating forms, some quite complex. Plus it's a lot of fun.
scotty: "How did the instructions or commands get there in the first place?"
Your problem, is the limitations you constantly impose on things not completely understood, scotty. "Instructions" and "commands" can imply from the start a source for such. You choose that opinion throwing out other possibilities – so in essence you are simply restating your overall world view. But "instructions" and "commands" in this context where there is still much unknown can also just be words to denote the appearance of part of a process for something where we may note consistency in certain phases of the process as well as the outcome.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
We need purpose otherwise that pesky question of why do I exist will not rest. We do not know why Neanderthal buried artifacts with the dead however there was purpose. The purpose we assign to existence is a subset of the existence itself. If the universe has no purpose and we are a subset of that universe there can be no purpose for existence as a whole. We both agree man must assign purpose so how do we reconcile this conflict?
Here you are scot: http://conwaylife.com and http://golly.sourceforge.net (and you thought watching terriers kill rats was fun).
fred,
No one is disputing that purpose is important. The question is cause and effect. Did purpose come first then existence, or did complexity come into existence and purpose emerged?
bostontola
"What evidence do you have that purpose was prior to existence?"
=>set theory. If B is a subset of A then A must contain all the points contained in B. A is the known universe and B is earth. If B has purpose then A has purpose.
"Why do I exist?" has a trivial answer, Fred. I exist because I exist. I don't really crave a metaphysical answer. Details from the mundane physical Universe are interesting, though.
I think if A was the set of things with a purpose and B a subset of A then all of B would have a purpose. Set theory works that way.
Sorry fred, your proof only shows that the universe has purpose, not that it preceded existence. The universe got purpose when the earth did by your proof. Both earth and the universe may not have had purpose until it emerged on earth (it may have emerged elsewhere first, but the point is the same). Your proof doesn't address priority.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
Spinoza had a great argument based upon the fact there is no such thing as non existence. If you exist then you cannot not exist presented an eternal state. Observation is that the organic component of you will change state but your awareness of existence will never change state because it is not organic nor tethered to the physical.
Do you ignore existence beyond the present moment or have you reconciled existence with the fact there is no such thing and non existence in some other way?
"Observation is that the organic component of you will change state but your awareness of existence will never change state because it is not organic nor tethered to the physical."
fred,
I had to live through my grandmother and an aunt that slowly drifted away by Alzheimer's. I observed their awareness of existence change dramatically, it was terrible. That hypothesis has no grounding in reality.
Fred, regarding the ideas you present: I can instantiate "nothing" by referring to it so that it then exists . But "nothing" does not exist.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
You cannot single out as spontaneous the emergence of purpose with peptide bonds without violating the process of cause and effect in a closed system. All points in B are the affect of all points in A and we cannot go beyond Planck Epoch so we have a closed system. Our purpose is a delusion or existence itself has purpose. That is the conflict and we must choose one or the other
"You cannot single out as spontaneous the emergence of purpose with peptide bonds without violating the process of cause and effect in a closed system"
fred, You keep ignoring the central point: Purpose could be the effect rather than the cause. You assume purpose is the cause as an axiom. The objective evidence supports purpose as an effect that came into being much after existence did.
Re: teleology, see intrinsic vs extrinsic
Tom, Tom, the Other One
" I can instantiate "nothing"
=>That would be an aspatial form transcendent to time. We call it the Holy Spirit. You may as well go to church Sunday because you're almost there !
As near as I can tell, Fred, you use fairly standard ideas (e.g. Hume) on causes. Are you pleading for us to believe that nothing occurs un-caused?
Indeed, Fred. I can instantiate God by claiming God doesn't exist. Trivially: God only exists as an idea – something I don't believe in.
Bostonola –
"I have taken many graduate level courses in information theory. I have patents related to information theory. As the saying goes, I have forgotten more about info theory than you will have ever known. All your assertions are false and reveal your ignorance of the mathematics and science" (the words of an arrogant and prideful person)
– Are you smarter than God? Do you really know more than Him?
– When a person trumpets his qualifications it is a clear indication that they are really lacking. Many here have college degrees myself included but don't go around boasting about it. You really are a tool.
(the words of an arrogant and prideful person)
==>That may be true, that doesn't make the facts wrong. You asserted that info theory proved that complexity had to come from intelligence, that is just false. More arrogance from me: That is a classic rookie mistake regarding complexity, conflating complexity and information content. There is a huge difference. Things can be very complex and appear to have much more information content than they actually do. An example is the Mandelbrot set. There are many more, life included. One way to look at evolution is that it is a search algorithm through computational space to find lower information content solutions with high survival value. Evolution finds information efficient solutions.
– Are you smarter than God? Do you really know more than Him?
==> If there is a God, then no. There are plenty of humans that know more than me. I do know what I know though, and when you (often) venture into what you don't know, I can clearly see it.
– When a person trumpets his qualifications it is a clear indication that they are really lacking. Many here have college degrees myself included but don't go around boasting about it. You really are a tool.
==> That may be, I may be a tool. It doesn't change the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding info theory, evolution, complex systems, or the scientific method. You definitely bring out the tool in me. Your profound ignorance in these fields, coupled with your unabashed willingness to feign knowledge makes me enjoy debunking you. Stick to what you know, your beliefs.
@Doris
Your problem, is the limitations you constantly impose on things not completely understood, scotty. "Instructions" and "commands" can imply from the start a source for such. You choose that opinion throwing out other possibilities – so in essence you are simply restating your overall world view. But "instructions" and "commands" in this context where there is still much unknown can also just be words to denote the appearance of part of a process for something where we may note consistency in certain phases of the process as well as the outcome.'
– hmmm, yes thanks for that . But it is physics and logic that apply the constraints and limitations, not me. Let me give you an example of physics applying these limitations. Take for example the arthropod. Arthropods are limited to how big they can get due to their own physiology; namely an exoskeleton, jointed legs, and a respiratory system that won't permit what is attainable in an animal with an endoskeleton. The constraints that prevent them from growing to monstrously large proportions are because of physics. God created the laws of physics and aren't you glad for this?
– I've chosen to use quotes from scientists and those prominent in the field to expose evolution for what it is. I choose to use quotes that express doubt and in some cases outright confession because they lend extra credibility to my claim that evolution is pseudo-science. You have made it manifest that you don't like it; too bad, get over it, i'm not changing just because some unregenerate wants me to. You've not made a convincing argument that evolution is scientific fact either.
scotty – imho, what you described with arthropods is a great example of a product and its likely limitations of various conditions in a certain ecosystem – one of many things that "wound up this way". You obviously make a great leap with your last statement – the same kind of gap that Neil Tyson speaks of I believe.
wandering
Posting quote-mines often out of context does nothing to dent evolution; the fact that our knowledge is incomplete does not mean evolution is not correct. Evolution is taught at all reputable universities around the world whereas creationism is not – the reason for that is that there is no evidence of the latter.
Start your education for example at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
scot: "If you knew anything at all about information theory you would not make this statement. Complex systems require intelligence."
So me providing my credentials is just a direct response to your assertion.
Quoting other people is not a proxy for your own knowledge. Every quote you provided, EVERY quote, was that person's opinion. It wasn't a scientific conclusion based on experimental test data, just opinions with no evidence. You then weave that into absurd yarns about the nonsense of evolution.
I will repeat – You are profoundly ignorant regarding evolution, complex systems, information theory, and the scientific method. Draping that ignorance in the quotes of other people's opinions is less effective than lipstick on a pig. Stick with your supernatural beliefs, there is no factual argument against them.
scotty: "- I've chosen to use quotes from scientists and those prominent in the field"
Uhh – no. You consistently:
1. Misrepresent evolutionary biologists. Identification of much of this misrepresentation has been easy since reuse of these quotes has been docu.mented by others repeatedly.
2. Reference outdated information or information by scientists whose focus of study has not been biology.
3. Reference "scientists" who are obvious young-earth creationists. You know – people who are either crazy or have found a way to make money off of crazy people.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
=>I combine the physical meaning of the causality relations with Hume's doctrine of necessity.
=>As to your comment :"Trivially: God only exists as an idea – something I don't believe in." I wonder how that could be. Certainly God exists in concept which has resulted in the most significant impact on reality as we know it. The actual existence of God would not have changed what we have observed in reality up to any past point in time. The affect of the concept is the same regardless if God is real or as Hebrews so well puts it "the conviction of things not seen". The cause is God or "conviction of things not seen" and since the effect is the same (God ->observed reality = concept of God -> observed reality) the statement God = observed reality is true.
Since I can't distinguish between reality with and without God then God exists, Fred?
“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do”. (Robert A. Milikan, physicist by provision and a Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society).
– But for all your blathering and trying to sound intelligent, I believe this guy is probably smarter than all the evolutionists on this blog combined. I'll agree with him.
Awanderingscot,
Do you think science has stood still since 1953?
No kidding, LaBella.
scotty: "Robert A. Milikan, physicist...."
This guy is so old all the google pictures of him I see are in black and white..lol. Thanks for supporting my point #2 with this, Scotty (in my 8:09 reply in this thread).
TTTOO
It would be an interesting project if a renowned Doctor of Divinity were to take the best and most logical bits out of each of the religious tomes that have been written by man and make up a brand new worldwide religion. As far as creation myths go, I like the Hindu creation myth the best, that would be a great start. The FSM version of heavan and hell is also quite appealing.
as long as they don't continue to keep that asinine "holy trinity" thing. That just destroys any credibility.
I think people should devise a religion at some time in their lives. Give careful though to what sort of god(s) people want and how best to build self-reinforcing belief into the religion. They might come to some useful conclusions about existing religions.
careful thought
TTTOO
As a modern day Desist I think that science will one day figure out by observations of nature and the universe along with experimentation how life as we know it came to be, without some scam based on the supernatural having anything to do with it. Just star stuff, no god required.
God is much more than a person. For explanation purposes I personify God at times – but I know that doesn't do him justice. He is much more than whatever I can conceive him to be. I know artists, filmmakers and authors have portrayed him to be a person – and maybe they actually think he is that person. Or else they find personifying him makes it easier to understand him.
I would say how God creates the universe is different than how the right meteorological conditions creates a hurricane, though.
and all of that is your opinion based on your imagination ... not really a rock solid statement in the "fact" department.
Do you imagine you are in charge of the "fact" department or something? I'm sharing my understanding, just like you do.
Dala...
About the Swedish horses ass thing? D doG has given me permission. so. "It's the ultimate conceited, egotistical, narcissistic. self absorbed view!" When you are done tap dancing, take a bow.
Thanks for sharing your opinion with me, again. Uh, good one? I really have no idea what you are talking about sometimes, but this seems to have devolved into personal attacks against each other. And that is not what I'm here for. Lets find other people to talk with, ok?
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. – Genesis 1:11, NKJV
– "according to it's kind", "whose seed is in itself" self-existing, no mention of evolving into another kind
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. – Genesis 1:21, NKJV
– "according to their kind", no mention of the kind evolving into another kind.
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. – Genesis 1:24, NKJV
– "according to it's kind", no mention of a kind evolving into another kind at all.
“..Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," – Matthew 19:4, NKJV – my Lord Jesus Christ makes it all too clear that GOD created.
– God created the heavens and the earth and everything else. No allegory or parable is spoken in this.
Is your position one of that if it isn't mentioned specifically in the Bible, it doesn't exist?
I don't believe there is any other way to interpret this using proper exegesis.
That isn't what I asked.
God created the heavens and the earth and everything else.
==>That may be true.
No allegory or parable is spoken in this.
==>If by 'this' you mean Genesis, many think the form and literary structure of Genesis was intended to reflect a historical account, not parable, poetry or other. If so, literal Genesis is the strongest evidence that while God may have created the universe, it's not the God of the bible. Thanks for the clarification.
I am not worried that He is unable to vindicate Himself and you will find out soon enough what a fearful thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God.
ok
What is the modern taxonomic equivalent to a Biblical "kind"?
Family, I believe.
If that's the case, I wonder on which day He created aquatic mammals...
They aren't mammals. They are fish that God chose to design on a pattern similar to the one he used for mammals.
odd that he would ignore (by number) 99.99% of living creatures on the planet, isn't it?
I guess all single celled organisms are later implants by Satan.
By genetic information, humans are even further on the margins than that.
please don't feed the troll.
"No allegory or parable is spoken in this."
Correct – they were speaking in mythic terms – not allegorical or in parables.
Let's look at 2 different posts:
1.
It would appear that the 2 accounts of the purchase of the potter's feild in Matthew and Acts are in conflict.
How do Christians account for this?
______________________________________________________________________________________________
2.
It would appear that the 2 accounts of the purchase of the potter's feild in Matthew and Acts are in conflict.
-Christianity is total and utter nonsense
___________________________________________________________________
One invites open discussion, one does not.
The fact that, scot, as of reading this you are now aware of that fact, please continue to end your posts as such so everyone else who reads this will now understand you are not interested in an open discusion and can ignore you.
Good point and excellent rhetorical construct.
There is no conflict whatsoever!
Matthew 27:7 and Acts 1:18 Judas took the 30 pieces of silver which he threw back at the Jews. Matthew 27:7 the Jews could not keep blood money by law so they bought the potters field.
It is like if I give you $1 and you buy a cup of coffee with it. Who bought the coffee...........technically I did.
I think you missed the entire point of the original post there Fred.
bingo, you're right........coffee is on me.
Still, thank you Fred, for engaging in a civil discussion of the matter. I actually had another very in depth, civil discusion on that subject with Theo last Friday. I actually got a satisfactory answer on the matter.
It is shocking that there are a significant number of people that deny the Theory of Evolution. It reminds of the (abridged) history of the Round Earth Theory.
Plato hypothesized a spherical earth about 2,400 years ago, but provided little evidence. Most people ignored this and went with their perception that it is 'obvious' that the earth is flat. Shortly thereafter, Aristotle took the hypothesis seriously and provided objective evidence. He showed that stars and constellations were in different positions in the sky depending on the north/south location of the viewer. He also described the lunar eclipse as the earth's shadow, and it was observed to be consistent with a round earth and moon. Since Alexander the Great was Aristotle's student, that idea and data spread east. Educated people in the west (Europe) accepted a round earth later, but many were not convinced until 1,800 years later when Magellan's expedition circu.mnavigated the earth.
It also took a long time for people to accept that the earth is rotating on it's axis. It was 'obvious' that we are stationary on the earth and the heavenly bodies are orbiting us.
That is a bad sign for the Theory of Evolution. It could be a long time before people drop the 'flat earth' denials of evolution. The vast majority of deniers are from the Abrahamic religions. They have strong motivation to deny facts. It's scary when your foundational worldview beliefs are in conflict with scientific fact. That must be a terrible feeling.
"It's scary when your foundational worldview beliefs are in conflict with scientific fact."
Yes, and what's worse, it doesn't have to be that way. The Bible, at least the way I read it, does not prohibit the theory of evolution. Now, I am sure I will be attacked by both sides now. But that is the price of putting it out there.
steve,
I couldn't agree more. About 3/4 of the people i know are Christians. Almost every one of them believes that evolution happened. They think their God had a hand in it, but never the less, they see evolution as a fact.
Yes, as I have said on this blog before (and been ridiculed for) there are at least five creationist theories. Only two or maybe three do not admit the possibility of evolution. And one of the theories specifically endorses it. Only one I think, completely denies the possibility. Those are "young earth creationists." I am not critical of them, but I think the evidence is clear that the earth is more than 6-7,000 years old.
steve,
I agree with you. My only small disagreement with your statement is calling the Creationist ideas theories. I would call them Hypotheses. To be regarded as a Theory, there must be predictions that have been tested and verified. It's too bad that you get attacked for putting hypotheses forward.
Sure, that works. For the layman like me it's tomayto, tomahto.
I have literally never met a person who says "tomahto", but of I ever did, I don't think it's a point I would ever argue, lol. Potahto, either.
steve,
The difference between hypothesis and theory is more like the difference between a picture of a tomato and an actual tomato. The latter is much more nourishing.
Okay, Okay, As my granddaughter says, "whatever!"
LaBella, I have, but only in the context of the comparison.
steve,
It's none of my business what you should find important. But the distinction between hypothesis and theory in describing the physical world is key for critical thinking.
I agree steve,
CHristianity is in no way dependent on a young earth...in fact it really isn't dependent on any particular view because as you say it is all in how you read it. Which I find odd if an all knowing god was behind its production...the message should be crystal clear to anyone who reads it.
Cheese,
"as you say it is all in how you read it." Well, that's close to what I said. But it is a bit more complex than that. One has to go back to the ancient Hebrew in order to get away from the "day" thing. And then one has to realize that adding up all the ages in the old testament doesn't actually mean the earth couldn't have been there a long time. I am not saying you can read it any old way you want. But this is close enough for agreement on the probability of evolution.
The message is crystal clear. You like every other unique human (yes we are unique just like everybody else) filled with your genetics and life time socioeconomic experiences reveal your true nature when you hear the message. Not Gods error but Gods intent. You prove the Bible true and Divine every time you comment on it:
"For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do."
If the message was crystal clear there would not be 30,000+ different versions of CHristianity. Christianity is divergent...not convergent as one would expect if the message was actually clear. The evidence does not support your conclusion fred.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
Two problems one is the Tower of Babble where man was scattered because convergence of belief is absolute power in the hands of sinful, prideful man. Diversity is what we see and is the plan. In the image of God our capacity to create is unlimited and as such one would expect an unlimited expression of worship and an unlimited expression of love for God.
Sorry, no brown shirts allowed
2 Problems.
The Tower of Babel is just as much mythology as Noah's flood.
And convergence of what is true does not lead to Nazi German. If your god planned for his message to be a convoluted mess he did a fine job.
I also agree. I've said before that belief and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
I do not see why it has to be one or another.
I love belonging to a church that isn't afraid of scientific knowledge. In fact with it we get a better understanding of this world that God created. I've heard most religious people fully embrace science. In my day-to-day life I find this to be true.
So What do we know about Dala....
Dalahast (Swedish name) for a Dalecarlian Horse, which is an impressionistic wooden carving of a horse that it is then painted in gaudy colors, much like a peac0ck. We also know that our Dala... is smarter than everyone else (pompous and arrogant come to mind) who posts on this blog and that without knowing them can analyze other posters mental capabilities (this analysis does not of course occur if that poster is a fellow apologist, no matter how much Dala... may disagree with them). We also know that Dala... is a Missourian, I assume by choice, one wonders why. IMHO our Dala... represents the rear part of the Dalecarlian Horses anatomy, tail up.
Some of what you accuse me of (pompous, arrogant), which I am guilty of, is some of the same things you do. And I've seen others do it, too. Even my fellow believers.
But, please tell me when I've analyzed other posters mental capabilities? Who specifically are you talking about? And when you say "we", who do you think you are speaking for?
You have some major misunderstandings – for example even though I was born in Missouri, I have never legally lived there. I stayed in that state for a brief time but that was over 5 years ago. So whoever "we" knows that I'm a Missourian is wrong. I suspect you just mean you, and are not speaking for anyone else but you.
Dala...
Perhaps you should not make statements like Sam Wong Lee took my city by storm, was that just an error or can't you keep your lies straight.. You also stated that some of the posters are having mental issues without being specific, you amateur psychiatrist you, with no other knowledge other than what they post. I am just playing the same game you are, you can't seem to handle any criticism, poor baby.
I don't mind criticism. Nobody really enjoys it, but I think I can handle it fine. I'm not sure why you imagine I can't handle it.
I stated I should lay off some people, because I think they may have some mental issues. Yes. As I recall an atheist agreed with me on the observation. I didn't intend to mean that all members of a specific group didn't have the mental capacity to be smart or psychologically healthy.
Oh, and the metropolitan I live in encompasses 2 states. Lee did come to my state, too. And my city – he was just 6 blocks from my home one afternoon. It created quite the buzz in my hood.
Hey, can you also show me an example of one of the lies I told you? You seem to promote this idea that I lie all the time – and I think this will be the third time I've asked you – but, can you show me what you are talking about? Help me out if you can.
Dala...
You do more tap dancing than the whole cast of River Dance, good lord man many posters have come to the same conclusion about you that I have, deny all you want. I love how defensive you get. I, along with others, have pointed out your "misrepresentations" numerous times, look them up yourself. Was your old handle Chad?
It is just a few people that have called me a liar. And they also seem to personally hate me, and call me lots of other insulting names.
I've had some really get on my back, yet not show me what they meant. And I've even had some atheists come to my defense and tell the insulter to leave me alone – that they were just antagonizing me for personal reasons.
I didn't think you had any specific lies or information to help me understand what you are talking about. I'm not too worried about what names you call me. If asking a question is getting defensive, so be it.
No, I'm not Chad.
I have been "preaching" for years that Christians even worying about evolution is a fool's errand. The mere existance of Christians that also accept evolution should be enough for them to call the dogs off.
The problem is that the strict creationist minority have had a disproportionate influence when it comes to things like science curriculum.
Right up until this year, Texas employed citizen review panels for selecting topics covered in classrooms. A small but extremely vociferous group of "concerned parents" made it their mission to ensure that evolution was downplayed and intelligent design, though not scientific because it is nether falsifiable nor predictive, was included in biology textbooks. They also placed an undue amount of emphasis on the role of religion in American history.
Because the state of Texas is a major purchaser of text books, their decision set the standard for everybody else.
Thankfully the Texas state school board has come to their senses and is limiting the role of these citizen groups and is instead putting greater emphasis on the opinions of teachers and professors as to what should be included in the course materials for their areas of expertise.
So good bye "Of Pandas and People". You won't be missed.
Of Pandas and People – O, Pap!
(pap: something lacking solid value or substance)
Can you prove Plato was an evolutionist? Before you go hitching your mythical bandwagon to science, you might want to check all the facts. Science is verifiable, the pseudo-science of evolution is not. Science is factual, evolution is not. Science is repeatable, evolution is not. Scratching in the dirt and rocks is not science no matter how much you want it to be. Evolution is complete and utter nonsense.
Please tell me how you derived Plato was an evolutionist from the sentence "Plato hypothesized a spherical earth about 2,400 years ago, but provided little evidence."
"Can you prove Plato was an evolutionist?"
That's like asking "can you prove Jesus was a Republican?"
scot,
You repeatedly demonstrate a lack of understanding of science and the scientific method. Experiments are repeatable.
Theories make predictions. Predictions are tested experimentally, i.e. in an verifiable and repeatable fashion. You don't have to repeat a historical set of contingent events to support a theory.
You also don't have to test every prediction. There are many predictions of the Theory of Relativity that are not testable, like what is inside the event horizon of a Black Hole. Plenty of other predictions of Relativity have been tested, so the theory has been validated. The same is true of the Theory of Evolution.
I am not one to disagree with evolution too fervently. I really just don't care all that much what happened back then. I do wonder sometimes about the consequences of evolution and what it could mean for society as a whole.
You ever think that, because most cultures have an idea of God or gods, the need for gods is a product of evolution? If that is the case, then clearly, the need for gods created some sort of fitness that contributed to the species's ability to reproduce. If that is the case, do you think that those who do not believe in God or gods are somehow flawed from a fitness perspective because they are missing out on the God gene that proved so helpful when mankind was developing?
There are many people who argue that religion is a result of evolution. For example, here is one take
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/04/18/304156771/how-do-we-explain-the-evolution-of-religion
Or religion could be one way for a government to control the people.
It is difficult to advance as a society without order and stability.
guidedans,
I have given a lot of thought to that (great questions). I believe that belief in God did provide a very large survival advantage. It was a sociological one. Societies with God belief did better, that is a simple fact that persists to this day. The reasons for that are speculative. I think there are many positive effects of God belief, from coping with turmoil and disaster, to minimizing moral cheating in the society as a whole. This effect is similar to all our domesticated species (animal and plant). They have done stupendously well because they were domesticatable. Religion/God belief could be argued as a factor in humans domesticating ourselves (not necessarily wittingly). It is also speculation as to whether we still need religion/God belief, or whether secular law is sufficient.
Where Are All the Half-Evolved Dinosaurs?
When someone says something like this it is a sure sign that they don't know the first thing about evolution and that everything they say about it should be ignored because they don't know what they are talking about.
But where's your crocoduck???
Also, bananas prove intelligent design.
Put that in your evilutionist pipe and smoke it, Charles Darwood.
I'd been assuming that bananas are the intelligence behind the design. They are clearly unique observers, at least.
Duck roasted inside an alligator tail is quite good.
Is there anything that someone hasn't tried to smoke?
If there is someone should find it and try to smoke it.
I thought it was Charles Derwood.
Asilisaurus. It was a non-dinosaur reptile, that had transitional features of dinosaurs.
I find it somewhat amusing that us two guys educated in the deep deep south of the Bible belt can get it.
I even attended Christian schools up until college.
Shut the front door. I attended a private Christian school from the age of 4 to graduating high school.
joey,
If you don't mind me asking, when did you stop believing in that religion?
well I was never Catholic I just went to a Catholic high school. As far as my parents were concerned I was Episcopalian, however, by second or third grade I didn't really buy it. I of course kept that to myself for a long time.
The Catholics are known for giving one an outstanding education.
joey,
I had a similar experience. I must have missed the class when they told us that it was supposed to be real. I thought it was all fables until my parents talked about it like it they thought it was real. I kept quiet about it until I was done with college.
My only complaint about my high school is that it was an all guys school.
I'm glad we differ there. Although I was quite distracted from my academic lessons sometimes by attention on girls, it was worth it.
If have a friend who now teaches, and he says that in his experience coed schools have less distractions for guys because just having girls in the room can reign some of them in.
So what you are saying is that the seed fell on stony soil?
No, what he said is "I find it somewhat amusing that us two guys educated in the deep deep south of the Bible belt can get it."
"So what you are saying is that the seed fell on stony soil?"
No – but I can understand why you feel you have believe that.
awandering,
Obviously, you still have not completed the following course:
University of California, Berkeley
Welcome to Evolution 101! – Understanding Evolution
evolution.berkeley.edu/.../evo_01
Get back to us when you do.
I did see all the pretty pictures of animals, some of which still exist today. It reads like a fairy tale. Again, you have no proof at all that evolution exists simply because an artist can draw pretty pictures. You probably also have pictures of Peter Pan and Tinkerbell in your bedroom next to the dinosaurs.
You can make all the posts you want such as the one below and it won't mean a hill of beans, Scotty. Not when you use outdated sources; not when you misrepresent peer-reviewed scientists; and not, as in the case below, you reference bogus scientists.
Babu Ranganatham holds a B.A. with concentrations in theology and biology from Bob Jones University. BJU supports young-earth creationism, and all their faculty are young Earth creationists. Until 2005, BJU had virtually no accreditation, and since has only joined the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.
Where Are All the Half-Evolved Dinosaurs?
June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
Java Man skullFossilNeanderthal Skull
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?
In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.
The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.
Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.
Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible.
The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body during this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.
Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether they are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.
Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless Nature has the capability of performing genetic engineering.
Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.
The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.
However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.
Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.
Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of previously existing genes – not because of mutations.
Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.
Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.
Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could have descended from Adam and Eve as the Bible teaches. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.
Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, our first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the varieties and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but Adam and Eve did possess such genes.
All varieties of humans carry the genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown, green, blue) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.
Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.
What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!
Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.
The law of entropy in science shows that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. In other words, the universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.
It is only fair that school students be exposed to the scientific arguments and evidence on both sides of the creation/evolution issue.
– BY: BABU G. RANGANATHAM
– a thoughtful and informed article that appeared in Russia's newspaper
– evolution is complete and utter nonsense that appeals mostly to godless people.
This is from a country where news organizations were saying that MH17 was really MH370 carrying corpses. Very believable.
Do you have any evidence for creationism?
@Santa
– As previously stated, i do have evidence of creationism but in order to understand you will first need to deprogram yourself from the myth of evolution. Let me know once you've accomplished that and we'll go from there. I'm really trying to help you but there are things you have to do for yourself.
– By the way, you'll need to deprogram yourself concerning the Santa Claus myth, in addition to your evolution myth.
wandering,
So no evidence then – apart from the believe to believe nonsense.
Thank you for the humor...you're extremely funny. Failure to understand satire and failure to understand evolution...gotta be a set up for Ken Ham's Comedic Hour on CrazyHour.
More reasons why wanderingdummy rejects evolution;
34.) Because plenty of respectable people like Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (who are not scientists) don’t accept evolution, and that somehow validates my opinion.
35.) Because my mother didn’t know not to drink while she was pregnant. She also didn’t know not to repeatedly throw herself down a flight of stairs in an attempt to undo the accident of screwing someone who voted for Bush both times.
"As previously stated, i do have evidence of creationism but in order to understand you will first need to deprogram yourself from the myth of evolution. Let me know once you've accomplished that and we'll go from there. I'm really trying to help you but there are things you have to do for yourself."
So you have to believe before you can believe? See, that's not how my mind works. I need evidence that supports an idea and then I can evaluate it on it's own merits. Even if you did manage to discredit evolution (which I haven't seen you do yet), it wouldn't mean I accept your alternate theory. It's not an either or proposition.
So please – finally – provide ANY evidence at all that you have that supports creationism being considered a scientific theory. Otherwise you are doing yourself and your cause a disservice here.
a thoughtful and informed article that appeared in Russia's newspaper
Well that is not something that you hear everyday.
Articles by a conservative christian are not exactly unbiased.
Babu G. Ranganathan – A conservative Christian (Reformed Baptist) and a Creationist troll. His opinions have the same credibility as awanderingdolt and Bozo the clown.
I have the solution.
Here is my curriculum to teach students both creationism and evolution:
Students there are 2 prominenant theories as to how we got here.
The first is "God did it."
We will spend the remainder of the school year we will be discussing evolution.
*We will spend the remainder of the school year discussing evolution.
You could spend all year long teaching and explaining the wonder and complexity of God's creation.
OR
You could spend the entire year teaching the lies and half-truths of a myth called evolution.
Why you suppose it is that creationism can't be taught to children and evolution can be? Could it be that creationism is fallacious and evolution isn't? I understand that you don't comprehend that, the intellect of a 3 year old and all that!
The only problem scot, is that anything more than "God did it" would be endorsing a specific religion.
Reasons why wanderingmoron rejects evolution
38.) Because I have no imagination, learning is too much effort, I don’t like proven facts, change scares me, and I think deoxyribonucleic acid is something I’m supposed to clean my bathroom floors with.
39.) Because evolution means that I absolutely MUST reject everything else I know, abandon all my beliefs, and start aping around my house like a friggin monkey. OOOh-ooohh-ooohohh -OOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!!
40.) Because I haven’t put my cave on the market and moved into the 21st century yet. I’m waiting for the cave market to rebound from the recent financial meltdown.
@EvidenceNOT
– You're deceived and deluded if you think that somehow DNA proves evolution, it does not, just as the fossil record clearly does not. The fact that all living organisms on the planet share 85-100% of genetic code proves nothing.
– your asinine insinuation would have humans related to jellyfish since much of the code is the same, simply ridiculous.
– evolution is complete and utter nonsense.
EVERYONE is laughing at you Snotty!
LOLOLOL. Babu Ranganatham holds a B.A. with concentrations in theology and biology from Bob Jones University. BJU supports young-earth creationism, and all their faculty are young Earth creationists. Until 2005, BJU had virtually no accreditation, and since has only joined the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.
Please stop feeding the troll.
tallu: but the scot-troll is so cute and fun to play with...........can't we please take it home with us? – pleading child's tearful face-
i promise to walk it and feed..........i promise i will.
LMFAO
That's logical considering snotty has the brain of a hamster.
LOL
Okay... But if you don't take care of it, it's going back to the pound.
It's surprising that a traditionally Buddhist country would adopt a polytheistic religion like Christianity. Why move from a peaceful philosophy to worshipping 3 gods and a book full of slaughter and genocide?
For the same reason we get so many Buddhists in US – the attraction of the exotic?
ok for all my religious friends out there, if you know anyone in missori right now would you be so kind as to pass on this link of bible verses about how very un-christian they are all acting right now.
thank you
LINK: http://christianteens.about.com/od/Bible_Verses_On/a/Bible-Verses-On-Turning-The-Other-Cheek.htm
Thank you zhillaPOPEwasp, i will be sure to get your message to ALL the Christians in Missouri.
scot: awwwww really?
i will "keep them in my prayers" lmao
i would seriously enjoy asking each of these people roiting as to whcih faith the perscribe to......wouldn't surprise me if they all said christain.
it also wouldn't surprise me if i was to show them these lovely "be happy" verses that they then put me to the sword for being a heretic, misquoting or not interrpting their holy book properly.
They may be just like you were at one time WASP, identifying themselves as Christians when in reality the seed fell on stony soil.
"They may be just like you were at one time WASP, identifying themselves as Christians when in reality the seed fell on stony soil."
No worries scot – I understand why you think you have to believe that.
scot,
"... when in reality the seed fell on stony soil."
What kind of stupid farmer knowingly casts precious seeds on stony soil?
Seems to me they're "all" (as you so presumptuously put it) acting very Christian.
"◄ Matthew 10:34 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
Once again you quote scripture without any spiritual interpretation and so once again you get it all wrong. You are like a 3 year old flipping through the pages of a college level textbook.
What is the "correct spiritual interpretation" of "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Coming from you troll.... the irony is almost too much to take.
"yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” – Luke 2:35, NKJV
– His arm is not shortened, and He will quicken whom He will quicken, none can resist.
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. – Hebrews 4:12, NKJV
– the sword will convict even the unbeliever, so that he will have no excuse when he comes before God in judgment
"And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." – Hebrews 4:13, NKJV
– you may deny God all you want, it will not protect you when you go before Him in judgment.
Oh my scot, you need to learn the definition of hypocrite...
awandering numskull rejects evolution because...
42.) Because I don’t know that evolution explains methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and also provides the answer in preventing it from turning into a superbug and killing massive numbers of people.
43.) Because I don’t know that evolution is routinely used in medicine to diagnose and treat certain illnesses such as genetic ailments, bacterial infections, and viral infections.
44.) Because I believe there is a strong comparison between designed inanimate objects such as buildings, paintings, and watches (which we know were pieced together from identifiable components by human beings) and living organisms (which reproduce with genetic variation under the effects of environmental attrition).
@EvidenceNOT
Because I don’t know that evolution explains methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and also provides the answer in preventing it from turning into a superbug and killing massive numbers of people.
>>> resistance to external threats and adaptive traits have always been inherent in these bugs, has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. even the different types of flu virus are adaptive traits for that particular genus. you obviously don't know there is such a thing as adaptation. It's not evolution Einstein. – FAIL
43.) Because I don’t know that evolution is routinely used in medicine to diagnose and treat certain illnesses such as genetic ailments, bacterial infections, and viral infections.
>>> predisposition to certain disorders has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. the responsible gene passed down to another generation is not an addition of genetic information, it's simply information, and nothing to do with evolution. – FAIL
44.) Because I believe there is a strong comparison between designed inanimate objects such as buildings, paintings, and watches (which we know were pieced together from identifiable components by human beings) and living organisms (which reproduce with genetic variation under the effects of environmental attrition).
>>> information theory has been proven, design requires intelligence, these things do not occur spontaneously. your idiotic theory has it that matter randomly came together, randomly mutates in a beneficial way to produce a new organism is unscientific and idiotic. – FAIL.
Bucky said it best...... "Only the seriously uneducated in 2014 question Evolution"
More on the lack of archeology problems of the OT from my scrapbook of essential religious history:
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."
“I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum.
I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind,
have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence”.
– Johnathan Wells, 'Icons of Evolution'.
Johnathan Wells? LOL.
Wells is an author and advocate of intelligent design. He joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism." He gained a PhD in religious studies at Yale University in 1986, then became Director of the Unification Church’s inter-religious outreach organization in New York City.
In his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (2000), Wells said that a number of examples used to illustrate biology textbooks were grossly exaggerated, distorted the truth, or were patently false; he said that this shows that evolution conflicts with the evidence, and so argued against its teaching in public education. Some reviewers of Icons of Evolution have said the Wells misquoted experts cited as sources and took minor issues out of context, basing his argument on a flawed syllogism. Wells's views, of course, on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community.
Misquoting experts – goodness, he must be one of scot's idols on that attribute alone....
I don't know if it's irony, or what to call it, but Sun Myung Moon was Korean!
Only the seriously uneducated in 2014 question Evolution. It no longer rests on the insights of Wallace and Darwin. There are mountains of evidence for it, as every major academic center in the world attests. (The very same academic centers which Snotty would access for scietific (medical) care, should he need it. On the other hand, in the last 250 years the historicity of the Judeo-Christian texts (the Bible) has been destroyed by science (Archeology). Any double nut-job who on the one hand dismisses that for which there are mountains of evidence, and on the other accepts that for which there is none, can be written off as a double-edged crackpot. Snotty is just such a crackpot.
Good morning Bucky,
Why do you claim archeology destroys the bible?
See the above comments from the New Torah for Modern Minds.
I might be able to help with that. From what I can see, it did at first appear that archeology was supporting some aspects of the bible. Further research (since the 60's) has discovered that there is no evidence of the Exodus or any signs of violence in area of Canaan. What we do find is that people who were already in that area went from herding to a more sedentary lifestyle. Is it possible that they took in a "lost" tribe of slaves from Egypt? Possibly, but not on the scale assumed in the bible. So the most likely scenario is that the early Hebrews were in fact, Canaanites.
awanderingdolt: What does Evolution have to do with the article? Why the need to sound like a broken-record?? You have yet to prove Evolution wrong and more you try, the more you appear like the poster child for the local asylum (you're rather delusional and in need of being medicated).
Ignorance must truly be bliss!
Please don't feed the troll.
Religion in general must be stopped. Considering the recent number of closed comments, one must wonder if this religion blog is the start of finally getting rid of religion once and for all time.
– Don't you find it ironic that atheists are always talking about God?
It's a noble cause to stop the ignorance that is ruining our world...just look at the news around the world and the fighting amongst religious groups heads the list.
amen!
Yes, I guess you can say that it is ironic. Like Reality, a lot of us here are former believers. I find religion much more interesting now that the trance has been broken and I'm looking at it from the outside.
Yes, I would guess were all believers at one time especially thinking of growing up and being sent to Sunday school. We get indoctrinated at a very young age when we don't know any better or thinking that's it false and then there's this threat of hell. Today education, the internet, with the research available on the religious subject, and the relaxed stigma of questioning or going all the way to claiming to be an atheist, is OK. Today we can make decisions based on research.
Nope not ironic at all-we probably know it better than you do, but what is ironic is that you-who obviously never made it past the 3rd grade, speak of Evolution constantly. Maybe you should get an education before making a further fool of yourself, it'll help cure you of the religious virus and bring you to the better path. Your service to the side of disbelief is good but that's about the only goo you do when you post.
Please don't feed the troll.
It is a belief blog so... no?
You'd be surprised how rarely it comes up on the Godzilla fan sites...
Reality,
Why do you believe religion must end?
Look at how many people use it to create problems in this world and you're wondering why it would be beneficial for it to end...you can't be that blind or stupid-can you?
Surely you cannot be this much a bigot. can you?
For your education: (please read the last two words)
big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
It's not bigotry to point out the obvious. People do use religion all the time to account for committing crimes against humanity.
I have no problem with religion when it isn't being used to promote hate, wars, denial of equal rights...sadly people take things to the extreme and use it for things they should use it for.
Sorry you're too blind to see that.
You might not want to go around calling other bigots when your own belief system promotes it...look in a mirror and don't be a hypocrite!
oh and btw: Before spewing about education to someone with numerous college degree's you might wish to get one outside of the bible yourself.
Follow the Golden Rule and be a better christian
Nice try. But Merriam-Webster doesn't say anything about education levels. It simply says religious groups. And it is not abrogating the golden rule to defend either one's faith or another person.
Right and it's not bigotry to point out how religion is used as a tool. Oops seem you have yet again failed at your uncalled for attack. You best look at your own belief system and the bigotry it promotes before screaming persecution and calling others bigots.
TruthPrevails1
If you are defneding this statement, which you were, then that is the very definition of bigotry.
"Religion in general must be stopped. Considering the recent number of closed comments, one must wonder if this religion blog is the start of finally getting rid of religion once and for all time."
It's not an "attack" to defend one's faith, once again for those too bigoted to see it the first time.
My faith does not promote bigotry. Some religious extremists, including some Christian groups do. But that is not my faith.
Your faith promotes bigotry by saying that LGBT are sinning...so try again!
I didn't say that, so stop twisting words. I pointed out why religion isn't necessarily a good thing-you took more from it than there was...wow!
Oh and BTW: I'm not screaming and I'm not persecuted.
But thanks for caring.
Believing that a particular lifestyle is not the best for either the people involved, is not bigotry. I am not involved in discriminating against them, defaming them, or calling them stupid. What was it you said? "you can't be that blind or stupid–can you."
People who throw stones . . . should not live in glass houses.
It is not a lifestyle, so yes it is bigotry! Do you think they are sinning? Do you think they have the right to marriage and equal rights? If not, then bigot is what it is!
Those who show intolerance should not be shown tolerance.
"People who throw stones . . . should not live in glass houses." This does not apply-to say it does would imply that I claim perfection and I'm not so ignorant! So, oops, as before you have failed but good try!
Believing that a particular lifestyle is not the best for either the people involved, is not bigotry.
I can agree with that, but the second you put your beliefs into action and try to ban something like gay marriage because you don't agree with it I would consider you a bigot.
Joey; To call LGBT a lifestyle or to believe it is one is bigotry. We know that it isn't a lifestyle, no choice has been made.
Mmm. You're writing seems to contain a lot of anger. I am sorry about that. But that you will have to deal with yourself. I also believe that living with someone of the opposite se x outside of marriage is not the best choice. I also believe lyi ng is not the best choice. There are many things that I believe, that you obviously don't believe. But unless I act on those beliefs to the detriment of people who disagree, I am not demonstrating bigotry.
I happen to have members of my family who are g ay and I am very happy to love them dearly. They are not second class citizens in our family. And if they marry, that is their choice. They are Americans.
No anger at all...
So you're not using your belief against them, kudos to you...that says a lot about you, sadly not all Christians think the same and do use their belief to justify denying rights.
It isn't a lifestyle though, they have no chosen this...it is the way they were born.
Joey, Please read above. I think I answered your post before I saw it.
Thanks,
" sadly not all Christians think the same and do use their belief to justify denying rights."
Sadly, you are right. But that is also true of some members of every group of humans on the planet.
I'm glad to live in a time when my culture is learning to put aside irrational bigotry and is granting equal rights to a group long denied them. It's wonderful to watch my friends celebrate and (finally!) marry the people whom they love. It's wonderful to know that my friends have the same legal protections as any married couple. The sort of ignorance that calls being gay or lesbian a "choice" is being left in the dust where it belongs.
Tallulah: Absolutely.
talulah13
Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. When my best friend was dying we picked up a Bible in hopes of a miracle when we were floored to discover the harsh words of Paul that homosexuals don't get to heaven. We knew nothing of God or the Bible so quickly tossed it aside and assumed since it was a Catholic Bible it was intended for Priests. I still do not know what to make of that condemnation other than to keep it in the same context as heterosexual sin.
Although Paul could be wrong the Living Word of God is never wrong. If I were to adopt a non loving attitude towards others for whatever reason and used the Bible to justify it I have committed two great sins. One is the lack of love towards others the second using a verse out of the Bible I do not understand to commit a known sin (judging others). God would not set such a trap for me but the best intentions of Paul certainly have revealed what we really are inside.
Thank you for recognizing the conflict, fred. Not all christians do.
Fred,
One may not deny equal human rights to our citizens based on what the Bible says. I'm sure you would agree.
" I still do not know what to make of that condemnation other than to keep it in the same context as heterose.xual sin."
You may wish to have a conversation or three with your fellow evangelicals, fred.
Labella
What planet are you from that you think we have equal rights? Heterosexuals cannot get married in many churches for many reasons and cannot always legally get married period. The most harmful aspect of discrimination is not the legal issue but issue of heart. Things people say and people think is where inequality begins. Jesus said if you think wrong of another you have committed murder. Unfortunately we have not figured out how to fix what is broken inside man that destroys equality and eventually leads to hate.
"...many reasons and cannot always legally get married period."
Disingenuous misdirection. Please tell me where in the U.S. a heterose.xual couple cannot be married solely because they are heterose.xual.
Labella
=>What planet are you from that you think we have equal rights? Let me rephrase that to say: the notion of equality is out of this world !
=>I was thinking when Henry Kissinger commented on words being important. You can tell a woman that when you look at her time stands still or you can say your face is enough to stop a clock.
Fred,
What made you make the leap to your rant from "One may not deny equal human rights to our citizens based on what the Bible says. I'm sure you would agree."?
Whoa. Dial it back a notch.
Church weddings by themselves are not legal anyhow; one needs to be liscensed by the State.
midwest rail
Age, medical, proxy marriage, incarceration, citizenship and prohibited degree of kinship etc.
More dishonesty. None of that meets the distinction of their being denied SOLELY because of their se.xual orientation. But you already knew that.
Labella
Sorry about that, when someone says equal rights I notice a tick in my neck. I help disadvantage people where equal rights are words on paper.
Midwest rail
Orientation is still a factor in some states but is simply one of many possible license requirements.
Seems that age is the main factor but that stands to reason. This site provides the laws for each State:
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml
That was never the point of contention though, was it ? Either you can name somewhere in the U.S, where a heterose.xual couple can be denied a license to marry based SOLELY on their orientation as hetrose.xuals, or you cannot.
mr.brown: i would have to agree with most of my anti-theist, atheist associates.
all throughout history great sources of knowledge and beacons of knowledge were destroyed due to one religious group or another.
we can take a modern example if you will; isreal/palestine.
now the obvious envasion of palestine's lands at the end of ww2, the main question is why they find it so important to remain there and fight over that little piece of dirt?
the main reason i see; it's holy land claimed by the big three religions.
islam
catholic
jewish
now seenig this land has such religious importance to namely the jewish people and the islamic people, they will fight to protect what "their god" said was theirs; kindof how you fight a bully for trying to take something your mom gave you in grade school.......you fight dirty and refuse to hnd it over.
so without the importance of that land; yes i know they may find a different reason to fight, but that would make the fighting less hostile. one group could just get tired and leave because the land has no value other than being land.
So, what land has God stated belongs to Israel? All of the land modern Israel currently possesses, plus all of the land of the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza), plus some of Egypt and Syria, plus all of Jordan, plus some of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Israel currently possesses only a fraction of the land God has promised.
mr. brown: so isreal must continue fighting to reclaim those lands promised to them by their god.
they shouldn't ever surrender to the invading heretics.
they are god's chosen after all..........even if those lands have no true value outside of religious value.
however never give up faith the valent efforts of the devoted jews will reclaim those lands for their god.
LMFAO
"Well Mr. Cheesemaker why did you bulldoze the houses and kill your neighbors that live around you"
"God, promised me their land in this book 2000 years ago."
"Ok...carry on"
Is the Bible a legal land deed, now?
Wow Robert, really?? You seriously think that the Palestinians have no rights because your bible says the land belongs to the Israelites? So a self-fulfilling prophecy is being played out, lives are being lost needlessly...as long as there are people that think like you, this war won't end.
Because religions are based on cons, myths and embellished lives. The details have been previously presented.
Yes, people use religion to steal people’s money, because this happens, doesn’t mean all religions are false.
"Israel currently possesses only a fraction of the land God has promised."
And there you go....
Good morning, Robert. Religion means dedication to unfounded beliefs to the exclusion other systems of knowledge and morality. It can certainly be dangerous. Perhaps a verifiable religion will come along. Even then, I'd stay away from absolute devotion to it.
Hey Tom,
You have a unique definition of religion. It is true that some religions can be dangerous and it is a good idea to avoid absolute devotion to ideas and acts promoted by people in the name of religion, especially if they involve violence.
Personally, I don't have anything against religion per se – it is the certainty of some religious believers that take issue with. Once you are certain about a position, it's very hard for you to accept contrary evidence.
For the new entry —closed for comments— :
"Pope says ISIS must be stopped. But how?"
STOPPED they shall be, that's definitely the right sentiment, and HOW is definitely the right question.
In the news yesterday, ISIS just executed 700 civilian people because they were not Sunni Muslims, can you believe that?! I am still trembling with anger over it. Those murderers are not humans, they are ANIMALS!
I am no military expert but I believe airstrikes are the best approach right now, especially given the USAF unmatched superiority. Also, I remember in the last Iraqi War, John Kerry stressed upon sealing the borders to cut the supplies to the insurgents, I believe that's key but I don't know how that could be done without massive ground troops.
Vic ...I agree.. this ISIS are anti human.. any human.....i said it before that IMO that if you could enlarge the Ebola virus to human size you would have the ISIS ! That virus and the ISIS add nothing to humanity just death and misery. At least evolution equipped us with a genetic chance for some of us to beat Ebola perhaps... but ISIS ....
"Those murderers are not humans, they are ANIMALS!"
Treating humans as things is the one and only "sin" in my opinion. That being said, calling people "animals" in an attempt to dehumanize them is the first step on that road.
4 pope stories with closed comments in a row.
Scroll down...
They are closed in my browser.
Oops, I just yours, sorry.
I'm just glad someone else finds it odd.
Yes. Dr. Burke claimed it is now CNN policy to not allow comments on every article. It is interesting that the last 4 pope articles were closed, and no others. That could be a small sample size phenomenon, but it is still a low probability to happen that way.
I saw somebody complaining that some CNN's regular stories are not open to comments anymore, either; Mr. Burke did say it was a company wide decision.
Although I could guess as to why the Pope stories specifically would be the ones focused on for closed comments.
Bostontola: jinx, lol.
Akira,
I don't believe Dr. Burke would protect the pope while leaving others open to comment. The bigger concern is pressure from higher up in the CNN chain.
Bostontola:
I should hope not. It is curious, however.
Is Daniel Burke a Doctor?
Akira,
I just checked, it looks like he's not a PhD. My mistake.
Jesus says ...
Luke 19:27 – But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.
This is a really stupid assertion. Jesus did not ask that anyone be killed as you imply. This is the last line of a parable about a king and evil servants.
I believe that this post would qualify as a lie.
Your quotation is a really stupid assertion. Jesus did not ask that anyone be killed as you imply. This is the last line of a parable about a king and evil servants.
I believe that this post would qualify as a lie.
Sorry for the duplicate. Disqus strikes again.
But people have been killed who opposed Christianity of various sorts. I'm sure Jesus abhorred it and did all he could to make his feelings known. Doesn't the New Testament say "Anyone who shall take a life in my name shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven.". No? I was sure it did.
No. But He did say forgive those who spitefully use you. And turn the other cheek if someone strikes you.
You really are dyslexic!
fooW
Interesting that we have another story concerning the Pope where the comments are closed. This has clearly become a pattern in search of an explanation.
CNN doesn't like negative Pope comments. Think of the Pope as Justin Bieber and CNN as a 13 year-old girl.
Aw, man. That's just disconcerting.
Well, given that Pope-A-Dope is the leader of a criminal organization, and perhaps a criminal himself, maybe CNN doesn't want to give all his cult members, pumped up on a Jesus Juice, a forum.
Just curious. Unless you're just bored and/or like arguing with the single-cell christian named thewanderingmoron... we do you guys keep engaging him?
All he ever does is troll evolution-denying creationist anti-science garbage...
You're right. Most of the really strident anti-science types can be ignored
I would be scared that someone might take silence as proof that Scot is right, which would be bad.
I'll remmeber not to ask why his god is not powerful enough to create animals that could evolve.
I am sure that will go over well.
I thought you said you will remember TO ASK, so please ignore my response.
and the always interesting question of "if god designed all creatures and over 99% of them have become extinct over history, does that make him a REALLY bad designer?"
LET
I have only responded to thewanderingdolt a few times when he has posted something so outrageously moronic that I couldn't resist.
Could you tell me why people use the phrase "the devil made me do it" and why it is so popular, do you Lucifer really force your will upon people? Why don't people say "god made me do it"? Oh sorry I forgot they do; I drowned the kids in the bathtub because I heard god tell me to do it. I asked new-man, austin, topher, theo, etc. what would they be compelled to do if they really BELIEVED it was an order from their goddieguy? No answer of course, these guys have that in common ducking questions.
1st – My name is not Lucifer. 2nd – I agree. How does Lucifer, who for some reason is portrayed as the bad guy, a cast out angel outsmart and derail God's plan all of the time? Is God stupid? Blind? Not as omniscient as Christians are led to believe?
What kind of second rate god creates his own arch-nemesis in the first place?
=>You exist because there is no such thing and non existence. If you believe there is then please explain non existence without reference to that which exists.
=>You have not nor cannot change the will of God or thwart Gods plan. Have you forgotten that on the cross Jesus said it is finished? The forgiveness of sin is a done deal with all things working for the good of those who are in Christ.
=>The eternal separation of light from darkness was in the beginning when God said let there be light as in the beginning was the word and the word was with God. In him was the light of man yet the darkness knew it not.
=>God is a burning holiness that would consume the soul of man as none of us are good but God alone. Evil exists and needs only to be allowed in as when Eve thought first entertained rejecting Gods word. Eve let it in and it became part of the existence in creation.
=>God turns it for good no matter what you do. Consider the act of the Priest when they offered the perfect lamb of God for sacrifice just as they practiced for thousands of years. Jesus said forgive them for they know not what they do. Then the most horrific display of evil was poured out Jesus. Everything evil you could possible do to a man turned out to be the biggest blessing, the greatest gift to man and it was finished.
Fred – another cult of nonsense troll... I don't usually read any of your verbal diahrea
No doubt, because if you are your namesake then it is written Satan knows the Word of God so there would be little I could add to your knowledge of the Bible.
Given there is no such thing as non existence do you really desire that your being is tethered to eternal darkness when there exists an alternative?
Fred .You exist because there is no such thing and non existence. If you believe there is then please explain non existence without reference to that which exists. Ok so according to you then.. an explanation of non existence does not exist,, there fore non existence is real.
evolveddna
Ha! Thanks for the chuckle.
You are correct, "the EXPLANATION for non existence does not exist". There is no such thing as non existence there cannot be an explanation. Kinda like calling a round square a circle.
"The Devil Made Me Do It " was a tag line from a comedian named Flip Wilson many years ago. I think it had a lot to do with the popularity, although I don't know if it originated there.
Alias
What you see is what you get. Kind of sad that the Christians that have been scammed by the myth can't see that.
I'm pretty sure that it originated on the Flip Wilson show. At the very least, that's where it gained it's popularity.
Geraldine, lol.
ausphor,
I don't recall you asking this question of me... now that I've seen it, I will give you my answer.
==> [I asked new-man, austin, topher, theo, etc. what would they be compelled to do if they really BELIEVED it was an order from their goddieguy? No answer of course, these guys have that in common ducking questions.]
What I would be compelled to do if I really BELIEVED it was an order from God is heal the sick, cleanse the leper, raise the dead, cast out demons, share the good news of the gospel of the kingdom of heaven.
Thank you. I keep hoping that people will ignore this troll so that he'll go away.
I'm curious. Most religions have things in their backgrounds that are embarrassing, shocking, or even horrifying. Things involving stones in hats, ritual mutilation, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, deicide (horrifying only if actual gods are involved) and so on. I think some religions try to bury such things quietly. Others seem proud of it. Why?
An almighty Creator God created the heavens, earth, and spirit beings called angels to perform various functions in the universe, with the exception of creation, this was God’s province only. It gave the creator great pleasure to create all things in the universe including the laws of physics.
It was also God’s will to create a special place in the universe called ‘earth’ and to populate it with other beings only these beings consisting of matter. God went even further according to His good pleasure to create a special being in whom He endowed with a spirit.
In the meantime, one of the spirit beings called an angel in whom He had also endowed with free will began to get very prideful; he had a special role in the universe. Lucifer, was his name, did not check his pride nor humble himself to his creator and began to foment a rebellion against his Creator.
The Creator God of course knew what was happening and could have summarily destroyed the rebel and the ones who joined him in rebellion but in His sovereignty chose not to do so at that time. He chose not to do so in order to glorify Himself, in that He had endowed them with free will; and He knew many who would continue to love and worship Him. Indeed they would provide a forceful testimony against those who chose to rebel.
Those beings on earth who were spiritually endowed and who would continue to love and worship Him would go on to become exalted beings and would ultimately replace the third of the heavenly beings who rebelled. Those other beings on earth who chose to rebel (those whose spirit did not come back to life) followed after the being once called Lucifer, now called Satan, and would ultimately to be imprisoned, along with all the others who had rebelled, in a place called Hell. “..because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened, professing to be wise, they became fools..”
[Those who continue to love and worship the Creator God do so because of all His perfect attributes; the solitariness of God, the decrees of God, the knowledge of God, the foreknowledge of God, the supremacy of God, the sovereignty of God, the immutability of God, the holiness of God, the power of God, the faithfulness of God, the goodness of God, the patience of God, the grace of God, the mercy of God, the love of God, the wrath of God, and the contemplation of God.]
Do you have any evidence to support your assertions that a god did it? Any to show it was your god and not any the multitude of other gods?
This story is complete and utter nonsense.
Pride does not explain why Lucifer would do anything so stupid as defy a god.This is just one more unbelievable story from a book of fables.
Just like the one about a man living in a great fish for 3 days
Or all the animals on one boat captained by Noah
Or the tower of bable
aren't you living proof that human or angels, will defy the living God?
why do you say "living" god?
scot,
I respect a person that positively supports their belief while not harming others. This post is well above the ones where you negatively attack others' ideas. Keep it up.
Nice story. Needs more dragons and vampires though.
Is that the story Mommy told you before she tucked you in last night?