prounion,

Evilbible.com is Dead.

Large portions of evilbible.com being considered, dissected and declared fallacious on very many levels.

Two examples of this fact are as follows:

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of getting in the way of good fallacious assertions.

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile Pagans who were not worshiping the God of the Bible but various false gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans in worshiping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but only condemns the Jews.

Links to the posts which provide the evidence are found at this URL:

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/0...

Hank is your point that god is a social construct like santa?

500

Yes he did. They found him hanged.

He did? I didn't know. Sorry. I meant no disrespect.

Pro: Trust me I do partake in all the beautiful things out there in this world. I wish I could travel more and see the world but financially just can't do it so I read about it. :) Our life here is so short and should be enjoyed. I treasure and remember the little things that to some don't matter. It goes so fast and before you know it it is gone. When you are young you think time is so slow but as you get older you wonder where the time went! It seems like only yesterday I watched my toddlers play and laugh and cry and now they are grown. I spent time with them and gave them the normal childhood that I didn't have but still I know there were times when I should have let the housework go and spend more time with them. You are correct, make the most of your life while you have it, too soon it is over and many regret later in life that they didn't make time for the things that mattered. I am not rich, but I am rich with love and friends and my family. :)

We will have to agree to disagree on the praying thing. I believe, I have faith and I pray. If you could see the life I had and the things I dealt with and then see the difference my faith made in making my life better you would understand my feelings. My faith has given me peace and love that was never in my childhood and for that I am thankful every day and for all my blessings. :)

ncpanfan, Grasshopper died today, show some respect.

ncpan - I like your honesty. Some folks on here have tried to make the case that it is easier to believe than to not believe, I think you make a pretty solid case that it takes a continous mental investment to maintain faith without physical evidence.
.
I would say thought that once you stop investing your mental capacity towards those efforts there is a whole wonderous world out there for you to enjoy. We have a brief spark of life, don't waste it praying to something that doesn't exist.

gazette: Oh wise grasshopper thank you.

Let's see if I can do it this time. LOL Thank you for lifting the curse and I will keep it our secret! :)

I hope you can pull those strings, they are really good people and don't deserve to get in trouble because they associate with a "believer" Ha ha

ncpanfan, at end of a paragraph press the "return" key as you normally would, then press the "space" key, then press the "return" key again, then type your new paragraph.

In effect, you are creating an "empty" paragraph composed of nothing more than one space. Don't tell anyone how to do this.

We've had an eye on your friends lately and as a result of their connection with you they are facing a reprimand. I'll see if I can pull some strings.

LOL It must be a conspiracy gazette, I did the space bar and it looked just fine and then whammo it disappeared. Am I being punished by an atheist curse for being a believer? LOL

gazette: I tried the space bar but it didn't work?

LOL I don't think I can get in trouble for something you do, however at my house "It wasn't me" used to get in trouble alot. I don't think I would pass the inspection to attend anyways but thanks for the offer. You know other than this pesky believer / atheist thing we do share alot of the same opinions on other things in the world.!

That reminds me I ran into my atheist friends in the store yesterday, wonderful people and not once did they insult me. Hee hee They are even coming to my house for the grad party, you won't kick them out of the association for associating with me will you? :)

You don't even need the period. Just hit the space bar instead. A space is a character. bibledude is a character too, but not in the same way.

ncpanfan, if we deemed you an honorary atheist at the next Congress of Interplanetary Atheists, would you get in trouble with the lord?

Being human I have had faith in my friends, have I been let down? Yes; faith in my family, have I been let down? Yes;faith in the system to provide justice or fairness, etc.. have I been let down? Yes; faith in our government? Well no I think our government is full of alot of hypocrits, thieves, etc... with a few good members so no I don't think I have ever really had faith in them but if I did yes I would have been let down :( Faith in God, Yes have I been let down? Not yet. Of course the only way to know would be when I die and even if I was right or if you were right I wouldn't be able to tell you if I had been let down or if I hadn't (and I hope I still have some time here to see my children have children)
.
Regardless of what some say I think it takes alot of courage to believe in someone or something, to be totally trusting; and to believe in a being that you cannot touch or see or prove exists and remain true to that faith when it would be easy to just give up, well that takes courage too.

Thank you.
.
I mean He is the only one who knows what the true explanation of the verse was, others can only guess and come to their own conclusions. Sorry for any confusion.

If you insert a period in the line after your thought.
.
They will end up on separate lines.
.
If no one knows what they mean except for god - how do we come to these conclusions about jesus, sin, and forgiveness.
.

Okay someone help me. When I type my words I put in the spaces to separate but when they show up they are all together. How do you get them to stay separated? LOL

I would agree that you make a good point, however once again I would have to say that each person perceives things differently, thus the many variations of a belief.

- My faith tells me God is all knowing and has a plan. I can't explain it, I just have to trust in it. I can tell you my life has been better with God in it than it was before I knew Him. I know that probably irks you and doesn't help but I won't pretend to have the answers to something I don't know? Isn't it better for me to be honest with you than to try to prove something I can't prove. All I can say is that people who have a relationship with God or have faith see things differently than those who don't with regards to that faith. -

In regards to your questions of the New Testament. Basically the new covenant was to Love one another as God has loved us. I can see how when one reads the old testament they would say you call that love? However, Jesus taught a different message and that was about love.I do find Revelations interesting to read but very hard to understand and try to figure out. I have heard many different theories on the meanings of the verses and those are from churches and scholars and ultimately no one but God knows what they mean...

Would you and others agree at least that god himself is unchanging even if his covenants with the human race change?
.
I think there is a point to be made to support that the angery (evil?) god of the old testament did indeed to some extent transfer over to the new.
.
Hell comes into play int he new testament - where one could behave badly for 30 or so years then spend all of eternity being burned and tortured. It seems reminicent of the slaughterfest/cruelty god exibits in the old testament.

pro: I am confused. Where did I say I would explain a passage? I would never pretend to be able to explain something that could be viewed by ten people and 10 people could come away with 10 different explanations for the way they viewed it and what it meant? That is why people argue over meanings in the bible, because when one person reads it they take it to mean one thing but the next person says oh no it means this, etc... Now if everyone who reads it is willing to talk and listen they might come to an understanding or a similar conclusion but no guarantees of that.
I could give you my take on a verse but I would never claim that my view is correct and the only way to see it. :)

The story you mentioned is from the Old Testament and yes I have read it but I admit that usually when I read from the Bible it is from the New Testament because it is my understanding (mine, not everyone) that although the Old Testament was important that after Jesus came we were under the covenant of the New Testament and the new laws?

Bucky Fan - thanks for the post. Excellent reading.
.
It seems that god was angry with Pharao so he prevented him from bending to god's will so that he could further punish him. Lets say for a moment that is true. How would the guy working in the fields all day with no influence over the pharaoe's action deserve to have his son killed?
.
It seems that god created a great deal of collateral damage to prove his point that his is superpowerful. However - that seems inconsistant with him being a loving god that cares about each human on an individual basis.

Looks like we might have two christians going at each other's throats -political differences! Not all christians have the same politics? Wow! Shouldn't they all have the same politics that Jesus would have? I hope a jihad doesn't breakwout!

Bill - I guess your explantion of god's behavior towards Abraham makes sense - that's why I gave my three children a revolver with one bullet in the chamber ( I secretly took out the bullet though). I told them they needed to make a sacrifice to me to prove thier love. Then I had them aim it at thier puppy and pull the trigger, the one that pulled the trigger the most times was clearly the one that loved me the most.
.
You see how that is not actually love?
.
Also you mention that he needed to see if Abraham was someone god could trust - doesn't god know everything already?
.
I will ask again, if god wanted to forgive our sins why not just do it - why the slaughter?
.
Yes I already know the answer - the bible was written by 1st century men from thier point of view, thats why it is filled with blood and violence and death and superstition.

"God, God, why have you forsaken me?!"

Part2
And while we are on the subject of Christ’s crucifixion, perhaps we can put to rest the contention that God is not a God of love, in spite of the fact the He is also a God of justice. It has been contended by Gazettefan and Prounion that when God commanded that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar, that was somehow an abomination, that a loving God would never do such a thing, that God was just on some kind of an ego trip, making Abraham do something awful, just to appease Him. Now I could probably write 3 more parts of 3000 characters each rebutting each of those contentions, but I’m just going to focus on why God did what He did with both Abraham and Christ. With Abraham, God had more than one purpose for His command. The first was to establish Abraham as a person who trusts and obeys God. God had promised Abraham a son and now that he had one, God wanted Abraham to give Isaac back as an act of faith. The second was to demonstrate the love it takes to sacrifice a son for the benefit of another. But one detail the scoffers overlooked is that God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son and instead, provided a different sacrifice for Abraham to offer. That was a prophesy of God offering up His own Son, Christ, for the benefit of all, a substitutionary atonement, salvation. The difference is that Christ knew that was His purpose and that He willingly participated in that ultimate act of love.
.
Was that sacrifice necessary? Why couldn’t God just give us a pass? After all, we’re not all that bad. But the fact is we are all that bad. We, each and every one of us, have at one time or another usurped the sovereignty of God in one form or another many times over. Again, some may say that if God is love, he wouldn’t be so unforgiving. But in fact God isn’t unforgiving. He has offered a way to settle our debt, as it has been likened to. In fact, He has paid the debt Himself, and all we have to do is acknowledge that debt and accept that gift that he offers, our debt paid in full through Christ’s substitutionary atonement. But, if we insist that we have no debt, or that we want to pay it some other way, then we face God’s justice alone. Some may claim that God has no right to judge. But since God is our creator, and the creator of everything else, then He has absolute sovereignty. That’s what it means to be God.

Part1
Gazettefan had written below on May 31 at 11:06pm, “Jesus was a rabbinical Jew who taught the Torah. He also believed he was a messiah who would with god repel the Romans and establish a new earthbound kingdom of god. Jesus was to be the King of Israel, as he was supposed to be a descendant of David. Jesus was not considered divine by any of his family and other followers nor anyone else.” The verse I offered in contradiction on June 1 at 2:01pm was John18:36, “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” It’s a straightforward verse that leaves little to misunderstand yet the context of it is still all important. It was Jesus responding to direct questions from Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea after He was arrested by the Jewish priests the night before He was crucified. Pilate had asked Christ in verse 33 “Art thou the King of the Jews?”. Christ knew that the Jewish High Priest and his council had told Pilate that Christ had claimed to be King of the Jews believing that the Romans would execute Him for it. Christ then replied to Pilate saying “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?” knowing that the High Priest and his council were not telling Pilate the truth. Then Pilate said “Am I a Jew?”, since Pilate had no direct knowledge of Christ and His preachings, not being a Jew. Then Pilate asked Christ “Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?” Then Christ said the quote I posted “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” Then Pilate said in verse 37, “Art thou a king then?” And Jesus answered,” Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” Then in verse 38 Pilate said “What is truth?” since he recognized the spiritual context of Christ’s remark (he didn’t believe it but he understood it) then as verse 38 continues “And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.” Since Christ did not claim an earthly throne in rebellion to Roman rule, Pilate would not condemn Him. Of course, the Priests convinced him to do so later for politically expedient reasons, but these verses make clear the fallacy of the contention that Christ was interested in repelling the Romans to seat Himself on the restored throne of David. That was clearly not His aim as His prayers and statements just before His arrest also made clear.

It looks like You-Know-Who is getting sensitive. I can understand that. Anyone who claims he’s something that he is so obviously not is likely to feel insulted when he’s shown up for what he is.
.
As I recall, I have offered very few biblical quotes on any GazetteXtra comment board, and most of the few I have offered were in rebuttal to some wildly distorted biblical commentary make by a self-proclaimed expert that doesn’t like to examine any verses that offer meaning beyond the simplistic ones he offered (a trait that seems to be popular among the cynical crowd). However, since the concept of biblical context seems to be beyond the grasp of certain individuals, and as such the notion has become an object of ridicule, I will attempt to demonstrate using the last verse I quoted in the following parts.

Prounion, thank you for requesting answers to some of the most debated Bible verses. While it is true you can seek out the answers posted by some of the great theologians of all time, you instead seek answers from those who read and comment in these blogs.

And while I really have no desire to debate them with you (see explanation of why in my previous posts), here's a small portion of a commentary by Shaul Magid of the Jewish Theological Seminary on God hardening Pharaoh's heart.

"Maimonides posits free-will as the correlation between sin and repentance. Because free-will enables one to sin it must also exist in order to enable one to repent. However, this is not without limits.

"It is also possible that one commit a grave sin or many sins so that the true judge (God) determine that just punishment for such sins, done willfully and knowingly, is preventing the sinner from the way of repentance. God prevents the individual from repenting so that he dies and is destroyed in the sins that he committed. Therefore, it is written in the Torah I will stiffen Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 14:4), because he sinned earlier and acted wickedly toward Israel when they dwelled in his land, as it says Let us deal shrewdly with them, so that they might not increase (Ex. 1:11). Therefore, God judged that they be prevented from repenting so that they be punished. Therefore, God hardened his heart (Laws of Repentance 6:4-6)."

This explanation of unpardonable sin is backed by Jesus' New Testament statement in Matthew 12:32. I'll let you look up that verse...it's clear you know how.

I will be unable to reply for some time. But as I've said, there's a whole slew of information elsewhere online that addresses your verses. Feel free to google.

Hey, I'm still reading along and chuckling at the inflammatory posts and Gazettefan's acerbic wit.

Dr. Talk, here's a transcript of the interview you've quoted. You'll find more explanation of his beliefs here. If the link doesn't work, just google "I am a Christian. I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths"

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpoli...

GF- You are the one who mentioned Acts may have been written in the early second century. Do you read you own posts? Your explanation of makes no sense and reason and method one professes and lives out their faith are extremely significant.

bibledude, the reason and method of the president's claimed religiosity is unimportant. Get out of the coven once-in-a-while and examine how people behave, talk, and think. Do they appear like they are carrying the splendor of the all mighty creator of the universe as an accoutrement of their everyday experience? Answer: No!

Now how could Clement possibly make reference to Acts? Ah, let's see, how about Clement's epistle was written (circa late 0090s) after Acts!!! The probable time range of when Acts was written certainly allows for this.

Next question.

DrTalk- I never said I voted for him or that I agree with all his views but that he has expressed faith in Christ. That does not mean I agree with his Theology. Like you, I didn't vote for either one.

bibledude,
Here's what Obama said in a 2004 Chicago Sun-Times article: "I am a Christian. I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place..."
.
Where in the Bible does it teach there are many paths to the same place, i.e. heaven?
.
Here's what Obama said about prayer: "It's not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. ... I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why I am doing it. The biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass."
.
Shouldn't he ask God questions instead of asking himself questions?
.
How does he reconcile his stance on abortion with what the Bible teaches?
.
Sorry, but I don't think Obama or McCain answered the faith questions well enough. That's just one of the many reasons why I didn't vote for either one. I did vote, just not for either of them.

GF- Sure, among others Clement quoted Acts 13:22, 20:35, 26:18 among others. In regards to pandering by politicians to get right wing votes, I think that is true in some regards but you can tell. They avoid the subject like the plague. When they are forced to talk about faith they are very uncomfortable and out of sorts. McCain seemed to try to placate right wing voters but one questions how vital of a role faith played in his life outside those campaign moments. Obama was not that way. He spoke often and quite readily about his faith. His devotion to Christ and how He had changed His life. He did so without being asked, he elaborated when asked.

Yeah, Prounion. billnewbie is definitely cured of leaving verses. It's become too much trouble with putting them in context and explaining that they don't really mean what they appear to mean.

Uh oh, I feel some insults from billnewbie coming on.

Also from the top ten you might be a fundamentalist christian if...
.
Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
.
I have not researched the Joshua story yet - I am sure Billnewbie could put it into context for us?

Welcome back Bill! Awesome post - a very lengthy one that states you won't provide context to the quotes that I post because you want to save space, excellent. At the same time you indicate that it would be so easy to just read a little further to see that god is indeed loving, all powerful, all knowing, ect.
.
Bill if you could provide some evidence that life came from the "living" christian god that you mentioned that would be awesome. As I see it the bible is your answer - yet you will not elaborate since I have been deemed a heretic, oh I mean cynic.
.
npcfan - thanks for agreeing to explain one passage - which ever you would like but if I had to choose I would be very interested in the explanation of a god that loves humans but hardened Pharaoe's heart so that he could commit genocide in Egypt.

It’s good to see that Prounion is giving some of the credit where credit is due for some of the sources of his cynicisms now. If only he would do his own research and actually read the chapters of the bible where all those verses come from, then he may yet find the answers that such research brings. I could post those other verses, but that would needlessly take up GazetteXtra space since Prounion knows where to find them himself.
.
So, Prounion now revels plainly the contempt he holds for Christians and their beliefs. That explains why he wants to cross-examine all the Christians he has been trying to bait on GazetteXtra. He’s not really looking for the truth, he just wants to ridicule. All the pretentious sincerity has melted away. I hope that’s a permanent development as that’s actually a good thing as honesty; even about antagonistic motivations is always beneficial. And now at least we know conclusively what we are dealing with.
.
I noticed that Prounion is trying to ridicule Christians for believing that humans were created by God from dirt. Does he also ridicule evolutionists who claim that life was created essentially from dirt, too? At least Christians understand that life has to come from something living (God), whereas evolutionists think life just sprang from the dirt with no living help whatsoever. If the dirt was induced to bring forth life by an invisible undetectable force of nature shouldn’t evolutionists be challenged to prove it to be taken seriously just as Prounion said of those who believe in God on May 15 at 7:53 am on this story below, “Otherwise if you are saying there is an invisable undetectable force out there, prove it.” Ultimately, whether one believes that “nature” is the creator or that God is, that belief is an act of faith since neither proposition can be proven. So maybe one day Prounion will stop cynically ridiculing what he doesn’t want to fully understand then he may find the answers he says he seeks.

Katy, what are you talking about?! I never said nor implied that it was a conspiracy. The fact that it isn't a conspiracy is proof of its truth.

bibledude, there is no conflict re: the accurate late date of Acts re: anything about Clement. State some details to explain and support your claim.

And, your president is a politician. His "belief" was and is a tactic to steal some of the thunder of the right. Everyone knows that.

GF- Care to respond to Clement quoting from Acts in his 1st century writing? How did he manage to quote 3 times a book that had not yet been written? This is a challenge to your late date for Acts theory.

Pro- I agree we are not ready as a country to embrace a candidate who does not profess belief in God. However, that is far from saying that every professing believer in politics is not sincere and only doing to please the masses. In essence you (not you personally but that opinion) are disrespecting them and saying they are hypocritical. I think there are some who are playing the faith card for votes, but to say they all are or most of them are is quite a stretch. In the case of our president, he has made his views on faith very clear and expressed them numerous times in numerous ways. To say that is all disingenuous to him does a great disservice.

Hi Prounion- I have seen your posts and I do appreciate the gravity of the problem. Any believer who tells you they have all the answers is not being intellectually honest with you because they don't. I have seen the scriptures you have posted some I would have quick answers for others long answers and sometimes no answers. I really don't have the time to address every scripture you post, I'm barely finding time to respond to GF's jibber. Your questions are very valid and entire books have been written about these subjects so there are in depth answers out there. This type of forum is not conducive to the lengthy responses these questions deserve. Can you pick one of the scripture problems you addressed, narrow it down a bit? The last question you have posed is too board. Is there one specific passage of the ones you've quoted you would like me to address? Before I retire tonight I'll attempt to respond as best as I can.

Katy - so you think if a presidential candidate were to come out and openly state that there is no god the religious right would not have a field day attacking that candidate? Churches around the country would organize against that person.

OK GF, I really can't let your June 4, 8:03 a.m. post go unanswered.

"As for the president and other high profile "believers", non-belief is a measure of higher intelligence. People who are successful in any way in the public arena don't really believe, they just say they do. We are still in a transition period when such is the case." It explains a lot about your mindset, which seems to be infused with paranoia and potentially (and ironically) a persecution complex. I will not site examples of public believers who are successful, intelligent and rich in order to engage your mental illness. I will simply say that your denial of their belief does not make it true that they are non-believers. "Belief in a Higher Power has enriched my life and contributed to my success." is not code for "I'm just saying I'm a believer to keep all the biblethumpers off my back." Certainly believers have made life miserable for non-believers in many ways across the face of our planet through the ages. They have also made life miserable for those who believe differently than they do, and vice versa. But your statement presuming a great conspiracy among self-professed believers who happen to be successful is undoubtedly beyond the pale.

Bibledude - maybe you can live up to your moniker and help explain some of the bible to us - maybe you can take a stab at explaining how a loving, all knowing, allpowerful god would inflict harm on so many?

GF- I'm sorry I didn't recognize you until now. You are God. You know everyones thoughts and motives, even the President. I now take back the Dodgeball remark. So Gazettefan, have you read the President's book? He speaks a great deal about his faith, I guess that is all an act? Maybe someone else wrote it for him? Oh oh, there is that dog gone recorded version, how do you debunk that? So since the president doesn't mean what he said about Christ changing his life, its all a big act to get elected, then that would make him a hypocrite according to your version of reality. Do you have a copy of the study that shows non-believers are more intelligent than believers? Maybe you can explain the big words to me. Joe and Bill, are you guys out there? The rambling coming out of GF's keyboard is classic! Honestly, you can't be a real person. You are a plant from theists to make atheists look bad aren't you?

Another from the top ten - you might be a fundamentalist christian if....
.
You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

Bibledude - you may also want to consider the polling that indicates that the imaginary realms and friends crowd is still too numerous to elect an openly athiest president before you tout any political person's "faith" as proof that god exists.

bibledude, the culmination of this process is always the same. People of your ilk can no longer attempt to present their stance with even a pretense of reason and can only sling insults. With, of course, the claim that the believer is steadfast in his or her beliefs.

As for the president and other high profile "believers", non-belief is a measure of higher intelligence. People who are successful in any way in the public arena don't really believe, they just say they do. We are still in a transition period when such is the case.

Given all your studies, you should be aware that non-believers must maintain the facade in order to avoid the wrath of the institutionalized false moral highground of you and your ilk.

GF- I haven't changed my thinking one iota. I've clarified you misrepresentations, clarification of your misguided logic is not changing my mind. Of all the posters I read on the boards your posts are the most irrational by far. I have no idea what your political views are but our president seems like a pretty intelligent person. He is also a man of faith like I am. So he is irrational based on your twisted views?

bibledude, you seem to have confused yourself in an effort to confuse the points in general.

True on FOTH. The challenge to the rational person (me) comes from the irrational person (you) who attempts to present an untenable stance with "reason." I knew this from the beginning. And I knew that continuing to press the point would change how you think.

So, your degrees don't depend on belief in the supernatural. That's good.

billnewbie has also painted himself into a corner: now he can't post verses anymore more because he'd have to abide by his own requirement that each verse be stated "in context" and be accompanied by an "explanation" of some sort.

GF- Must be a typo on your part here, I'm not trying to refute an early date, I am doing just the opposite. I think FOTH makes a good point.
Congrats on the brewski thing.

bibledude, your deflection by misstating the chronology of "indeed" and "open to scholarly debate" is obvious. You are still wrong about that chronology.

And you write your June 3, 3:14pm post with a surface claim that is belied by its true content: You didn't supply any information that refutes that Acts was written between 0070 and 0100. Go back and look.

gazettefan: expert bible scholar extraordinaire

and co-inventor of the word "brewski."

Evilbible.com - has a great top ten list of you might be a fundamentalist if....
.
thanks Bill!
.
You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

"Your worldview does not allow the existence of God, mine does. If God exists then resurrection is possible." --bibledude

That isn't a trivial point. If you think about it, it is not logical for two people to have a discussion about something when one of them is convinced the subject of discussion doesn't even exist.

GF-I forgot to answer your question. No, I did not have to be a Christian and agree with all my profs to graduate. I'm gone till tomorrow, barely found time to get this post in today. I'll catch up with things in the morning.

GF- If that is not the pot calling the kettle black. You simply make up a fact and present it as true because its your opinion therefore it must be true as Bill has pointed out. Another proof of the early date for Acts in that the book is quoted by both Polycarp and Clement who were born in the 1st century. In fact, Clement lives basically his whole life save one year in the 1st century. Amazing how he could quote a book that doesn't exist yet isn't it?
In regards to sheepskins, you are the one who keeps sending out the digs in this regard. I have never claimed to be a scholar, that's your lofty position not mine. Your worldview does not allow the existence of God, mine does. If God exists then resurrection is possible.

Are you guys not mandated by god to engage in debate with us?
.
I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at[a] His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 2 Timothy 4 (New King James Version)
.
I did not see an unless you think they might be a cynic clause.
.
Also FYI - the passage before this one seems to say that the old testament is important too, not just to be cherry picked and/or ignored.

Actually GF Joe's "Indeed!" came after he copied and pasted my post regarding the early date for Acts when I said "Paul and Peters [martyrdom] would have been as well ... There is also no mention of the Jewish revolt and destruction of the temple in 66 and 70 respectively"
In the same block Joe types "Indeed!" All you have to do is drag your cursor down, I provided the day and time for you.

Too many christians; not enough lions.

John 14:13-14 (New King James Version)
13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask[a] anything in My name, I will do it.
.
Biblegateway.com.
.
Anyone want to test this and pray that I don't make another post? Certainly that would be within god's abilities - unless he was just a social construct?

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse. (1 Peter 2:18 NAB)
.
Bill also from Evil bible - did you want to post the correct verse?

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him. (James 5:14-15 ASV)
.
Bill - this one I got from Evilbible.com! I am sure the same verse in your bible at home is completely different from this one.
.
At any rate last month a teenage girl died of diabetes after slipping into a diabetic coma while her mother prayed over her.
.
Some say why mess with educating the ignorant that they are worshiping figment of thier imagination, this is one of the reasons.

bibledude, if you're conceding the point that my point is not to be judged by the possibility that it may be on the radical fringe and that my point should be judged on its merits, why do I have to cite a published source? Nevertheless, here are some sources: the Old and New Testaments.

Re: the date of Acts: Just from memory, joeflint's "indeed" comment came prior to his "open to scholarly debate" comment. Point being, I transformed his earlier "indeed" comment to the much more erudite "open to scholarly debate" position. As a budding scholar, you should respect the importance of chronology when it comes to the importance of developing thought.

Also, in the matter of your slinging your sheepskins all over the place: you are only exhibiting a variation on another fallacy of argument: the appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). In this case you are depicting yourself as the authority. Fine, you got some diplomas; however, you are still obligated to make your case on the merits of your argument. Question: is your belief that Paul had a conversation with a dead guy a basis or requirement for the award of any of your degrees?

Do any of you realize just how idiotic you look? You are all trying to be right and the hell of it is, you are not even talking about what the article was about. Rule #8 has been HUGELY violated. (look above the text input box)
I believe the Bible has a quote about that... "Beware the zealot..." You all are acting selfish. Grow up and stop intellectualizing.

GF- The Dodgeball analogy fits like hand in glove for you. You dip, duck and dodge. You stated your viewpoints are not fringe yet you can not produce one published work that supports your views. Now that does not mean they are wrong simply because few hold them but it certainly means they are radical fringe. I stand by my viewpoints on the date for Acts for the reasons I've stated. Joe was simply agreeing that there is debate in modern scholarship and that is true. When I cited textual evidence for an early date for Acts Joe chimed in by saying "Indeed!" see his post on May 23, 2009 at 1:06 a.m. You make digs at my credentials. The college and graduate schools I attended made the list of top universities in the country on both U S News and World Report and Forbes. You are a self proclaimed scholar, do you hold a degree or have any earned credits from an accredited school in this field?

Well, you-know-who, I guess from now on when you post a happy-smiley verse, it'll be in context with other verses with a full explanation as to its allegorical meaning. Because it can't possibly mean what it apparently means and is unable to stand alone without an explanation. Am I right?!

Actually I got the quote off of a christian site that is nice enough to also have the text from the "good book" from both before and after the text I quoted.
.
Lets say for arguement's sake I got the Hosea quote from evilbible, could you please provide the correct one?
.
Also any comment on the context?
.
My theory is that it was written by a dude in the first century, not by an eternal all loving god.

I'm glad to see that you've accepted, even embraced the fact of your cynicism, Prounion. But can you overcome it? Now, if you keep reading the scripture you're posting, a dangerous act for one with beliefs such as yours, you may find it changing your mind, if you don't let your ego get in the way like "you-know-who" has. So keep on posting scripture, you may get curious about the context and actually read a chapter or two so that you can make up your own mind and not just follow the likes of Chris Thiefe blindly, which, as it happens is just as you cynically contend that Christians do.
.
Did you notice that even the folks at Evilbible say "If you copy material, common decency says that you should include a reference to the EvilBible.com web-site"? Now I realize that you've been limiting your copy and pasting to scripture verses only, putting the commentary into your own words when you comment at all, but even so, you are not doing your own research and like the guys at Evilbible say, common decency says that you should give credit where credit is due, unlike "you-know-who", who would have us all believe that he is a bible scholar.

GF - good point. I expect three possible responses:
.
1. No response at all.
.
2. That I took it out of context and I am being cynical, but no real effort to provide the non existant context.
.
3. A reply that simply says I am a cynic and I am cherry picking from the bible.
.
I think I will just keep posting quotes about the all loving, all caring, all knowing, all powerfull all mighty one.

prounion, wait'll you-know-who gets here to "allegorize" it or put it "in context." LOL

Hosea 13:16 (King James Version)
.
16Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
.
God rocks!

1 Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

"A reporter interviewing A.J. Muste, who during the Vietnam War stood in front of the White House night after night with a candle, one rainy night asked, "Mr. Muste, do you really think you are going to change the policies of this country by standing out here alone at night with a candle?" Muste replied, "Oh, I don't do it to change the country, I do it so the country won't change me.""

Andrea Ayvazian

Have a good day. And try not to frighten anyone with the good news.

bibledude, anything in Acts and Luke that counters what I said about Jesus and his followers is bogus. (By the way, even your friend, joeflint, concedes that the dating is a matter of scholarly debate. While you claim that dating that stuff after 0700 is outright fraudulent.)

And your harping on the claim that my viewpoint is on the fringe is a slight variation of the fallacy of argument know as: argumentum ad populum. It makes no difference whose view is most popular. Here, your argument has to stand on its merits.

Your disparaging high school references to dodge ball and my noggin are very high school of you. Is this how those schools you went to dealt with free-thinking. Snap out of it!

GF- I'm out till tonight, please don't declare victory because I'm not here to respond to your posts.

GF- If your views are not fringe as you claim then it would seem like at least ONE book could have been published. So everything in Acts is fabricated right? No sermon in Acts 2 by Peter? No conversion of thousands of people at Pentecost? No stoning of Stephen by Saul (Paul) all a big hoax right? My guess in Dodgeball is you were nailed quite hard in the head, which explains alot. Then after you recovered you claimed the hit never happened and claimed victory.

In dodge ball I was particularly good at nailing*** the opposing players, rendering THEIR attempts to dodge as futile.

*** If you'll pardon the expression.

bibledude, it seems YOUR use of the word "church" needs clarification. If you're referring to "church" in the sense of Luke and Acts and other scripture, those accounts of "church" are bogus.

I've already stated what the survivors of the crucifixion did. Scroll down.

And I formed my opinions from my reading and my ability to analyze humans. I did what the people who write the books do.

And, again, your version of what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus does fatal harm to your credibility when it comes to understanding scripture and the human experience.

GF- I'm guessing in high school you were good at Dodgeball.

GF- I believe Jesus was God incarnate and that He rose from the dead. The "dead guy" you referred to is my Savior and He changed my life and Paul's too. Now back to my questions. ONE book please, title, author, publishing company you know what a book is since you've read thousands. Out of the thousands you've read surely you can direct me to one that espouses your point of view. I'd like to see the evidence for your claims. I'll ask you again, what did the church believe about Christ and salvation before Paul began his missionary journeys?

bibledude, I already told you more than a few times:

Rabbinical Jews
Observe the Torah
Repel the Romans and Hellenization
Kingdom on earth
Descendant of David to be king
A new world order with god

Now it's your turn. What was going on in Paul's head when he thought he was having a conversation with a dead guy?

GF- You can't give me the name of ONE book that espouses your views of the New Testament??? I have a question for you that I'm sure is answered in some of the thousands of books you've read. Paul was seeking to destroy the church when you claim he has a meltdown. What was the church's Christology and Soteriology prior to Paul's conversion?

(Exo 12:29 NRSV) At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.
.
All this after the lord made sure that Pharaoe would not comply with his demands.

(2 Ki 1:10 NRSV) But Elijah answered the captain of fifty, "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty." Then fire came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

bibledude, if the lives of all those "believers" were to be examined, you wouldn't count all of them as your own. When a christian does something bad, other christians say that he or she wasn't a real christian. Most people only become believers if the subject is lightly broached. People do not live as though they are believers. That's why if you went up to a random person and started to talk about how heavily you are into being a believer that person would think you are crazy.

My views come from reading thousands of books also. Including scripture and everything that didn't make the cut of what went into the Old and New Testaments.

GF- If you are not aware your beliefs regarding Christianity are not main stream you are worse off than I thought. Billions would be accurate. What books are your views even published? My views have been published in thousands and thousands of books. I promise you I'll read it.

bibledude, your equation of toddlerhood and free-thinking is revealing. Your clergical propensity for having power over children so as to nip free-thinking in the bud is showing.

And are you sure it's billions and not millions? It doesn't really matter.

And your claim that I said scripture is baloney with the idea that it is something other than orthodox is curious:

It is not true that my beliefs are on the fringe. But whether your beliefs are mainstream and mine are not was never the point. How did you get that idea anyway? It's a red herring. A self-protecting psychological deflection.

The point is: what you believe and the source of your belief can't stand the light of day. It's all a glorified fiction.

GF-I have to correct you more often then a toddler. My point was not that Christianity is true because billions of people believe it. That does not make Christianity true in and of itself. My point is that you totally dismissed my beliefs about scripture as being "baloney" as though they are extremist points of view, when my point of view is orthodox. Your interpretations are the ones on the fringe and by fringe I mean radical fringe.

billnewbie, you obviously haven't caught on yet.

And you might want to use your vast psychoanalytical skills to examine why you're firing all that intensity at me.

The stuff in the bible is true because the people who believe in the stuff in the bible say it's true.

The above is the p-pour quality of your and bibledude's reasoning.

Speaking of bibledude and logic, he recently accused me of using a fallacy of argument. I forgot which one. Wait, it may have been the argumentum ad populum. Interesting, because he just use the same fallacy himself. He verified the truth of scripture by claiming millions of people believe it.

Don't be embarrassed to admit it Gazettefan. You cited me in a comment on a story about the Madison Diocese not long ago where I offered no comment, remember? What was your purpose if not begrudging admiration? That’s not the first time you’ve done that either. So remember the next time you chant my name in print, unlike the candy man, it may not take 5 invocations to get my attention, but if I’m busy doing something else, it may take more. Just don’t let it go to your head that just because I may not post a comment for a while, that you’ve driven me off. A lot of times too, you just don’t write anything worth the effort to rebut, as unbelievable as you may find that to be.
.
I guess, like always, when I draw your attention to your incorrect biblical analysis, you simply dismiss it without any consideration, offering only cynical references to the “foolhardiness” of those of us who think differently than you. And you say my ego has no end!
.
So, what are you saying then, that John didn’t quote Christ correctly, or that John misunderstood what Christ said? To bad you weren’t there to set him straight. But then John was there. So who do we believe, a guy like you, Gazettefan, who is guided by only your arrogant presumptions, or John who was an eye witness? That’s strictly a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious.
.
Again it’s noteworthy to examine a statement you made, “Yes, the only value of the synoptic gospels comes from close reading. To take them literally is foolhardy”. I heartily agree with the first half of that statement about closely reading the synoptic gospels, but are you aware, oh biblical scholar Gazettefan that my quote from the gospel of John is not part of the synoptic gospels? Apparently, to take seriously your claims about yourself and the bible is foolhardy indeed. But seriously, you don’t really think of yourself as a bible scholar do you? You’re just copying and pasting this stuff from some other source, isn’t that right? Because if you really do think of yourself as a bible scholar, well, that just doesn’t seem possible what with all the errors you have made. So what really is your source? Certainly your not going to continue the incredible claim that a person like you, so hostile to the bible, Christ and Christians has actually spent any significant time studying that which you so thoroughly hate, are you? So share your source. I take reading assignments!

billnewbie, you might be on to something re: Hitler and Stalin.

And is there no end to your ego? The similarity of your and bibledude's name and similar stances couldn't possibly account for a typo. It's all about billnewbie. By the way re: you and bibledude, I noticed you disappeared during bibledude's schmoozing with joeflint and his science, which was pretty good stuff.

Yeah, you couldn't handle bibledude's embrace of evolution and other scientific truths.

Yes, the only value of the synoptic gospels comes from close reading. To take them literally is foolhardy. Remember, Paul became a "christian" because "Christ" talked to him on the road to Damascus. There's a problem though, Jesus was dead at the time therefore the conversation never took place. That "conversation" is a really bad start as a basis for a rational argument.

Bill if the Ballroom Dancing Association actively helped the Nazi's before, during and after the was both actively and passively would you be a dues paying member of the BDA?

It looks like Gazettefan just can’t get me out of his mind since he addresses me when he means to address another. I must be more effective than I realized.
.
So Gazettefan, do you have a problem with ballroom dancing too? Is it too supernatural for you? Do you presume that its founders and adherents promote anti-Semitism? Do you detest its disciples? Maybe you think Hitler was a ballroom dancer and therefore all ballroom dancers are Nazis? Maybe you think Hitler and Stalin ballroom danced together at secret meetings while collaborating to divide the world? Maybe you think that Stalin stepped on Hitler’s toes during a ballroom dance and that is why Germany invaded Russia. And you must think that since ballroom dancers have not specifically condemned either Hitler or Stalin, the acts of both must therefore be laid at the feet of ballroom dancers everywhere? Or maybe you just like to condemn and ridicule people who think and do things differently from you, like ballroom dancers and Christians, even if you have to make up things to condemn and ridicule them for.
.
There's really no need to rebut Gazettefan's drivel, it disqualifies itself on its face from serious consideration. But it is interesting to note Gazettefan’s contention for what it says about him, “remember that "chrisitianity" is based on supernatural events that never took place”. Of course what he really means is that supernatural events cannot take place, as he, in his “wisdom” and by virtue of his “vast” experiences has determined that they cannot (and his determination is all that is required since his judgment is the standard of the universe and we should all recognize that fact for our own good) which displays a depth of arrogance that can never be overcome.
.
Gazettefan’s disregard and contempt for scripture is well illustrated where he wrote that Christ “believed he was a messiah who would with god repel the Romans and establish a new earthbound kingdom”. But that statement is completely negated by the following quote from John18:36, “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence”. I suppose that John’s gospel will be dismissed with the same presumptuousness that Luke, Acts and all the epistles of Paul have been since what’s written there doesn’t fit Gazettefan’s anti-theistic ambitions.

bibledude and joeflint, Marcion chrystalized the anti-Semitism of the early "christians" perfectly. His big mistake was to trash the Old Testament to the degree that he didn't even want the lingeage to Abraham. His other big mistake was to claim that there were two gods. And his other big mistake was to preach celibacy to all his followers. This pre-Darwinian nod to evolution is appreciated by this scholar of scripture, yours truly, and all humanity awaits the day when the whole christian thing goes the way of Marcion's insane thing.

joeflint, that the gospels have been ofsicially sanctioned by the church works diametrically against them as an accurate source of what happened. We can discern the truth about Jesus and his people by close reading. Paul made a up a bunch of stuff that had to be in contradiction to Jesus and his posse because they were devoute Jews and Paul trashed Jews and Judaism.

You are caught up in the wrong syllogism.

> The synoptic gospels were written decades after the Romans killed Jesus. John, Mark, and Luke are especially not to be believed.

There is certainly much truth to the first part of your statement; anyone with eyes can easily see there are inconsistencies between the four Gospels. Even the links I provide state as much. It is evident that there was an oral tradition that was passed down for some time and some debate about earlier documents, e.q. Q.

However this is all immaterial, unless you can provide compelling evidence to the contrary, because the Gospels _are_ what Christians have believed since the fourth century. The synoptic Gospels are the cornerstone of the New Testament since the Bible was ultimately codified, correctly or incorrectly, at Nicea in 325.

The Gospels, whether they are correct or wrong, have not changed since then as evidenced by the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other surviving fragments.

So if you are going to argue about what Christianity has wrought, you must axiomatically accept the Gospels, whether or not they are correct, for they are what Christians have relied on for sixteen centuries (unless you can provide compelling evidence to the contrary).

GF-Matthew is one of the synoptics, let's throw that out too while we are at it.
Joe- The heresy of Marcion was the main thrust behind the Muratorian Canon of 170 A.D. The church's sacred writings were under attack and an official list needed to be recognized long before Nicaea. Being anti-semitic he rejected almost all the NT but unlike GF he accepted much of Luke. Off to enjoy the day with the wife. Peace to all.

bibledude and joeflint, I'll be back later.

But for now, bibledude, the anti-Semitism discussed here shows itself with your comment: "...the Jews attempted to stone him..." Like all the Jews alive at the time participated or the Jews mentioned represent all the Jews.

Jesus and his followers were not even marginalized by Jews in general. Jesus' posse functioned within the Jewish community. This is what's lost in the shadow of Paul's invention of Christ.

The synoptic gospels were written decades after the Romans killed Jesus. John, Mark, and Luke are especially not to be believed.

> Importantly, to that end, Paul and the Paulists were attempting to invent a new religion for the purpose of destoying Judaism. This was the origin of anti-Semitism and the mentality that led to the Holocaust.

He affirmed Jesus Christ as the saviour sent by God and Paul as his chief apostle. He declared that Christianity was distinct from and in opposition to Judaism. He rejected the entire Hebrew Bible.

He and his followers believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

His Bible consisted of eleven books: his Gospel and ten of Paul's epistles. All other epistles and gospels of the New Testament were rejected. He credits Paul with correctly transmitting the universality of Jesus' message.

Who is he? Because _this_ is what you have been describing, gazettefan. I had read about him long ago and it took quite awhile for me to find him again...

He is Marcion of Sinope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

Marcion was promptly excommunicated ca. 144 AD (about eighty years after Paul's death) and much of early Catholic (from Greek katholikos meaning ‘universal') dogma was constructed specifically to refute his teachings. It was Marcion's vision of Christianity that was anti-Semitic, not Paul's. Marcion appropriated (literally: "take something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission") Paul's teachings and epistles and twisted them.

If you are insistent on drawing a direct line between the foundation of Christianity and the Shoah, you might want to direct your at least some of your blame at Marcion of Sinope and not Paul, who was, you know, a Hellenized Jew.

Isn't this fun?! :D
I'll admit I never thought I'd be doing this given the many shortcomings of institutionalized Christianity but once again I must respond:

> Jesus was a rabbinical Jew who taught the Torah.
Partially true; he subsumed and in his own words fulfilled the Law.

> He also believed he was a messiah who would with god repel the Romans ...
False: he never purports to do so: "Render unto Caesar" (Mk 12:13, Mt 22:15, Lk 20:20), "you will always have the poor but you will not always have me" (Mark 14:7), etc.

> and establish a new earthbound kingdom of god.
False. "The Kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). See also the ~100 mentions of "Kingdom of God" within the New Testament, almost every time spoken of in a parable or allegorically.

> Jesus was to be the King of Israel, as he was supposed to be a descendant of David.
False; "My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. ... My kingdom doesn't have its origin on earth" (John 18:36).

> Jesus was not considered divine by any of his family and other followers nor anyone else.
False or the synoptic Gospels are wrong.

> Read Matthew for a relatively accurate gospelian description of Jesus. Be sure to ignore nonsense like the virgin birth.
Consider it ignored and yes a very weird addition to the Jesus movement; you are referring to the Hebrew word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 which has been variously translated as "virgin" or "young woman" and the cause of debate since the close of the first century. Certainly, Jesus has brothers in Luke 8:19: "Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him."

> The writer of the Gospel of Luke (whatever his name was) was also the writer of the Book of Acts.
True.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_...

> The Gospel of Luke shows that Acts was falsely attributed to circa 0070. It was written years later.
Still under scholarly debate... modern scholarship dates Acts to 70-100 AD.

> "Prophesies" of the Old Testament were made to look like prophesies by the writers of the New Testament. They fabricated stuff to make it appear that the Old Testament foretold the future.
A serious claim not backed by any references nor most scholarship. Taking advantage of questionable translation of one word (e.g. "almah") is not the same as outright fabrication of Old Testament prophesy. See previous responses, particularly regarding authorship and also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_ca...

GF- Great come back, how long did it take you to come up with that? I love how you fail to address any of the points I make and simply say that my interpretation, which is the same interpretation of Orthodox Christianity, is baloney. You say you are not a conspiracy guy yet everything in the Bible is a hoax or interpolation. You use it when you think it supports your theories and dismiss it when it does not. Can't have it both ways GF. My beliefs are held by billions of Christians through the ages, yours are held by you and what was the name of the other person? If my theology is baloney what does that make yours? Something similar to the dung Paul refers to in Phil. How you can have any credibility on these boards is beyond me. I read the posts of the others whose views differ from mine, we may disagree but at least they make sense and I respect their opinions but you on the other hand......

bibledude, your "interpretation" of scripture is a bunch of back-pedaling baloney. Of course this baloney is consistent with the chronic claims of violations of the laws of nature.

Correction: bibledude

billnewbie, Jesus was a rabbinical Jew who taught the Torah. He also believed he was a messiah who would with god repel the Romans and establish a new earthbound kingdom of god. Jesus was to be the King of Israel, as he was supposed to be a descendant of David. Jesus was not considered divine by any of his family and other followers nor anyone else.

Read Matthew for a relatively accurate gospelian description of Jesus. Be sure to ignore nonsense like the virgin birth. The writer of the Gospel of Luke (whatever his name was) was also the writer of the Book of Acts. The Gospel of Luke shows that Acts was falsely attributed to circa 0070. It was written years later.

"Prophesies" of the Old Testament were made to look like prophesies by the writers of the New Testament. They fabricated stuff to make it appear that the Old Testament foretold the future. Therefore, it is laughable that you make a derisive reference to fiction when the "Christ" version of the Jesus phenomenon is pure fiction.

If this isn't explanation enough for you, remember that "chrisitianity" is based on supernatural events that never took place.

GF-The Christology Paul uses is not new with Paul. Study the Kerygma of the early church. Read 1st Peter, Pauline theology is not contradicted by anything Peter states but rather reinforces it, unless you think Peter is in on the "marketing" ploy too. Jesus begins His ministry by attributing the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy to Himself with the reading of the scroll in Luke 4. Jesus addresses Himself as the Son of Man, a Messianic and Divine eternal figure of the Apocalyptic vision of Daniel in the Old Testament. The Jews attempt to stone Him because He takes the covenant name of I AM and applies it to Himself. When He asks why the Jews reply they want to stone Him for Blaspheme, "because you a mere man make yourself out to be God." Your rendering of the New Testament reads like fiction from a Dan Brown novel.

joeflint, thanks for the acknowledgment but my point (re: lineage): was that Paul and others (with the invention of Paul's "Christ") were strategically attempting (for marketing purposes) to mimic the Roman myths and history where lineage was paramount.

Importantly, to that end, Paul and the Paulists were attempting to invent a new religion for the purpose of destoying Judaism. This was the origin of anti-Semitism and the mentality that led to the Holocaust.

> Joe you know your link brings up some good questions

Yes, that is why I provided it.

> who are these other gods that you god had to outclass?

Any of the ancient Near Eastern gods -- Babylonian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Amelkelite, Hittite, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_o...

> Also does the need to compete with other gods justify genocide?

In short, no.

But you are using a strawman argument by attempting to quote an Old Testament verse and trying to assign it to Christianity.

I have explicitly stated throughout this thread that the Old Testament has little to do with Christianity, or more properly, with the Jesus movement of the first century.

As even gazettefan has stated, Christianity's use of the Old Testament is twofold: 1) providing a kingly / priestly lineage for Jesus (important for persuading Jews of the first century since only certain ancestries were allowed to hold certain high offices, rabbinical or priestly duties, etc. -- if Jesus were not a rabbi, then he would not be "allowed" to teach) and (where gazettefan and I differ significantly) 2) build upon the Mosaic Law but utterly subsume it.

As I previously wrote:

In Matthew 5, Jesus states "Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill." He then restates several unequivocal laws, e.g. do not kill, and magnifies their meaning, e.g. "However I say to you, everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." This is the sweeping away of the Law of which I have written; one can no longer simply rely on the Ten Commandments or the mitzvot.

(In this same vein, gazettefan has without context chosen a passage from Matthew 10.)

In short, not only should Christians not sin, they should make an effort to purify not just their deeds but also to purify their thoughts -- a very tall order, indeed.

Further, throughout the New Testament are exhortations to pray for one's enemies; to turn the other cheek instead of striking back; this is in considerable contrast to wrath and vengeance described in the Old Testament.

I agree, Joe. "Why" preceded religion. The first human to ask "why" was probably the smartest person in the cave and the first philosopher.

bibledude, I agree with you that most folks do tend to wonder why. I also understand why you might find it fascinating when someone does not. I don't recall an age when I did wonder, though I may have. Wondering why we are here presupposes some conscious, intelligent plan and I see no reason to presume one, though I can empathize with those who do. Personally, I am comfortable with the conclusion that the meaning of life is an endless process of evolution with no predetermined goal, though the course is predictable. The best description I can offer is that it is a state of consciousness that feels totally comfortable and quite normal. Think of it as extrapolating the present forward instead of backward. Did any of that help?

Joe you know your link brings up some good questions - who are these other gods that you god had to outclass?
.
Also does the need to compete with other gods justify genocide?

Joe - the evolutionary advantage is clear - its an enhanced tribalism, people grouping together for a common advantage. This is also why for the most part it depends on where you are born as to what religion you ascribe to. The danger now is that when the religious take power its not your conventional genocide that we need to fear its - nuclear war.

Let me slightly rephrase my question:

What evolutionary advantage is there in the development of belief systems?

I would rather counter: If evolution is correct, the "why...?" questions preceded the development of religion.

Of course, no one can ever know as it is prehistoric (literally before written history) which (religion or "why...?") actually came first but stone age and other prehistoric idols seem to indicate worship of for instance fertility idols (common across almost every prehistoric culture). Would one develop a fertility cult in absentia of both human repoduction and seasonal planting and harvests? Or would one have pondered "why are there seasonal crops?" and "why do women become pregnant?" and form a religion around that?

FOTH-I'm not doubting you, I just find it fascinating that you do not ponder those ultimate questions. I remember asking the why questions long before I came to any kind of faith. To me that seems like such a natural response to the world around us, regardless of time or place of ones birth.

Yes Joe, the remark is a protest, not any sort of recommendation.

The field of evolutionary anthropology seeks answers to questions about the development of higher brain functions in primates, including man. Fascinating stuff.

Just a comment about deeply philosophical "why" questions. Personally, the only such "why" questions I have ever pondered were those CREATED by religion. Since becoming an atheist, I have not had need to ask such questions and am always taken aback whenever I hear someone say, "Why did such and such happen?" Though I couldn't say for certain, I would guess that most atheists agree in this regard.

And actually the Greek version of Galations 5:12 means to "cut themselves off" as in cut themselves off from the body of Christ (cf. Mark 9:42-50 for Jesus' own views on the matter). And yes, to preempt questions on this, it is meant, not surprisingly, as an allegory or parable.

Much of the New Testament and quite a bit of later writings (e.g. St. Basil) speak of the Church in terms of the body of Christ -- the eye is just as important as the foot though they serve completely different functions.

Those who wished to strictly follow the rabbinic Law did not understand or appreciate the beliefs of the Jesus movement and would do well do "cut themselves off" from Christianity and instead become / remain Jews.

I still think that you are taking things in less than full context, Gazettefan.

Gazettefan then quoted Phil 3:8 "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish [or dung], that I may gain Christ." Then stated. "This is Paul calling Jews and Judaism rubbish or dung." WRONG Paul was citing his personal achievements and advances and comparing them to knowing Christ. In comparison to knowing Christ his reasons for boasting in his flesh was like dung not that the Jews were dung. This is exegesis at its worst. I would recommend a good hermeneutics class.

I thought this thread was dead and gone. I was surprised to see it listed as a popular thread again. When the thread when dead I stopped following and now I see it is very much alive again. If I go back and read the posts I missed I'm sure I would find Gazettefan lauding himself over his "victory" in our Paul discussion. Speaking of the aforementioned Gazettefan I read his scripture posts (how come he can do that but I can't?) He quoted Gal 5:12 "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" Then said, "This is Paul speaking. He wants Jews to castrate themselves."
WRONG- This is Paul referring to the Judaizers. The believed that salvation was gained by following the Torah, which would include of course circumcision. This group would agitate crowds listening to the Apostle Paul. Paul taught salvation in Christ and through Christ alone. The Judaizers were stating if they chose to follow Jesus they must still keep the law. They had caused Paul to be beaten and imprisoned, they were they ones to whom Paul made this remark not to the Jews as a people. I will continue in the next post.

prounion> why do you believe in god? Really why does anyone that is being intellectually honest?

For the reasons I have already stated... there is no answer, no scientific answer, to the questions WHY are we here? WHY _do_ bad things happen?

Religion and philosophy attempt to address these questions.

If you can truly imagine this, you will feel emptier than you ever have: why is the Universe here at all? What void did the Universe fill? How did this happen? Why did the Universe begin at all? When people get wrapped around the axle about evolution vs. creation of human as-is, I chuckle because they are in my opinion missing a bigger and far more compelling question. I study the intersection of cosmology and quantum mechanics and though we have theories and even some observations that can take us back to less than a second before it all began, it doesn't answer (nor can it hope to) what came before and why did it all start?

One can easily agrue that there is no _reason_ for anything whatsoever to exist, at all. Scientifically, it remains impossible for us humans to address this question... nevertheless, we ponder it.

I will ask the question again: why did humans (dare I say) evolve to be capable of holding belief systems?

There are intellectually honest questions, wouldn't you agree?

prounion - You have selected one verse, with no context, from the Old Testament, which is a supplemental and background text to Christianity. Secondly, if you have read any other ancient texts (obviously not), slaughter of the first-borns is a common allegorical textual device to indicate that one's enemy has been completely overcome since the first-borns were the inheritors of land and power. Third, certainly had such disasters befallen Egypt, the world power of the time, there would be additional hieroglyphic evidence. Fourth, this was a world in which even the Jews would have believed in the existence of other culture's gods (cf. Jewish creation of golden calves en route to Canaan), just that their God was the superior one, the "living God." The plagues can be read as the superiority of God over the Egyptian gods. Fifth, continuing the supernatural theme into the natural scheme, this was a world in which very much "might made right"; even if the slaughter of the newborns is 100% completely accurate (someone actually conducted a census of every single Egyptian household?), it is nothing compared to the wholesale destruction of small towns and settlements (cf. David towards the end of 1 Samuel), the Assyrians impaling captured soldiers through the groin on spikes and leaving them to die along the roads (a forerunner to the barely more humane form of Roman capital punishment known as crucifixion), etc. I could go on but I shall direct you to the Wikipedia page in which you will find doubt of the 100% historical veracity of the plague stories even amongst the finest minds of scholarship as well as your very question: what kind of God would do that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_...

Christianity is the "Jesus movement", cf. the Gospels. Good luck finding any acceptance of or direction to commit any such crimes in the New Testament.

Natch, early Christians in particular were willing to die, quite gruesomely and publicly, for their belief rather than submit and perform a sacrifice to the Roman gods.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetua
etc...

billnewbie, what's next from you? ballroom dancing?

I guess you are done defending you faith? What about all the children out there that were reading your posts - is a ryme really the best you can do Bill? Maybe pray on it get some divine inspiration? Just a suggestion.

Neither Cynics cranks crabs and churls
Detractors defamers disparagers nor depreciators
Emanating extensive excremental effluence
Shall deter my venture into whimsical rhyme

Bill really - I am just being cynical? Is that not a valid point I just made? Or is genocide/mass murder acceptable to christians?
.
Its too bad the church isn't in power anymore Bill - us cynics would have been terminated for opposition to folks like you.

it sure is good thing I that didn't chime
because that would have totally gummed up the rhyme

;~)

Billnubie wake up and smell the coffee you've been outclassed.

So now I do see
from the cynics three
feeble repartee
wholly unworthy
of riposte from me
(a billnewbie original, no rights reserved)

I was reading the bible - Bill and others were so sure about the truth I thought it was worth another read.
.
I don't understand the loving god wanting to "harden" Pharaoh's heart then succeeding in that, kill the first born of the entire Egyptian population.
.
I am not sure why I can feel empathy for some father that had no influence over government having his first born son killed, but god does not share that feeling?

Religious people always talk about the "truth". But it is just that - talk. When you ask for proof, they call you cynical, and state that they know the truth. How? How if there is no evidence can you possible know the truth. This is referred to as Cognitive Dissonance. Certitude is not a form of evidence and never will be otherwise we would have cold fusion and a cure for cancer. Though neither would actually work.

RNcares, how can you miss the meaning of that verse? It means you should put something very demanding but nonetheless imaginary over your family members. And in a very militant way!

Well, I don't know about wanting to rile people up ;~) but it seems billnewbie has somehow got all worked up into a state.

Thanks for chiming in. I'm sure you're an above average nurse: No bedpans in the freezer, right?!

;~)

gazettedude, all that means is you should put God first, before yourself (which He deserves because he created you in your mothers womb), then care for yourself next so that you may care for others. Of course I won't be arrogant enough to pretend i understand the rest. There is no way I can understand everything. I'm happy with what I feel in my heart and know deep in my soul. I may not have all the research and fancy words at the tip of my brain, I work full-time and take care of a large family plus animals and don't really have time for this kind of thing. but it is fun to rile people up once in a while isn't it?

RNcares, are you serious? (I know you're reading this). All billnewbie is doing is slinging hate and contempt like he is the devil incarnate. (OK, now you can go away. And what a shame, you had so much to offer.)

(But wait, here's verse for you to enjoy today.)
---
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

-------------Matthew 10:34-39

(OK, now you can go.)

bilnewbie, you ROCK and are blowing cynical gazetteman out of the water. he's just mad cause he's runnin' outta steam, You won't hear from me again, back to work and waaaayy too busy to be on the computer. lovin'life and all the higher consciousness and beatiful spirits out there, whether they know they have a spirit or not. PEACE.

Not directing this at anyone in particular but only to mention that, as Dennis Miller recently explained to Jay Leno, one is presented with an epistemological quandary when one attempts to rip a new one in one who is one.

Bill you sound just like one of the apostles spreading the good news.

billnewbie, your propensity for prevarication and your propensity for projection must leave you with a very long nose.

What are you doing now? You're filling the space with insults instead of substantial support for your point of view. What ever that point of view is, it apparently isn't sustaining you. You're tapped out.

Tell me anything you like, Gazettefanatic but when you lead by example.....
.
You don't take reading assignments (you don't even read most of the posts you denigrate), and I don't take cynical questions or requests, particularly from you. besides, you have no real interest in my answers. To imply that you do is typically disingenuous of you, isn't it?
.
Prounion, it must be perplexing to you that there are people, intellectually gifted and honest people, who believe in God. Either they are completely wrong, or you are. Perhaps the intellectual dishonesty is yours, since you ask why I believe in God and then denigrate me as intellectually dishonest before you give me a chance to answer. You'll never find the truth as long as you are that cynical no matter who you challenge to lead you to it.

Bill why do you believe in god? Really why does anyone that is being intellectually honest?

You forgot to leave your contextual explanations for the two verses.

And what did I tell you about being so impolite?!!!

And I guess you won't be quoting scripture anymore.

You forgot to leave your contextual explanations about the two verses.

And what did I tell you about being so impolite?!!!

Repeating your points over and over don't give them credibility.
It's not possible to compare your context with anyone's since your quotes have no context. And it was you that said that quoting scripture doesn't make for much of a discussion, I was just pointing out your hypocrisy and your rudeness, both of which you seem to have no problem with when you engage in them.
It's too bad my simple example seems to have been beyond your comprehension. But I wonder,is your bafflement real or feigned, just as I wonder if your strange scriptural interpretations are real or feigned, since having read and re-read those passages over and over in context, I come to starkly different conclusions, as do every reference source I consulted. If real, how odd that you come to those conclusions and if feigned, how reprehensible.

Wait'll we get that guy, he's going to be sorry.

So is it good to cite scripture or not? make up your mind. Are you a hypocrite! My point is that citing scripture works more against you than for you.

And explain, in context, the two verses in question. And why your context differs from mine. Spare us the allegorization.

-----
Gal 5:12 "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

This is Paul speaking. He wants Jews to castrate themselves.
--
Phil 3:8 "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish [or dung], that I may gain Christ."

This is Paul calling Jews and Judaism rubbish or dung.

Now explain how your examples apply here.

And pull yourself together, you're being very rude.

Let’s see, didn’t I just read something written by the fanatic about citing scripture….? Oh, yes, here it is - “Being able to understand what scripture means is more important than citing it. I can cite it all day. Doing that wouldn't be much of a discussion”, straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were. Yet here on his last post he cites scripture. Also I can remember a particularly bellicose admonition not to “cherry pick”, yet here the fanatic cherry picks (for the second time) 2 carefully extricated from context verses along with his distorted analysis revealing how little he correctly understands, or cares to correctly understand scripture.
.
To demonstrate the inaccuracy one encounters when one “cherry picks” scripture out of context, I offer a simple demonstration. If one were to pick a verse randomly, by simply opening the bible and picking out a verse arbitrarily, one may choose Matt 27:5 where it says “So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.” Stopping there, if one moved on a few pages and looked extemporaneously upon the second half of Luke 10:37 one would find “Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise." If I were a fanatic I might claim that God drew me to these 2 verses and that the bible says that we need to throw our money into the temple then go and hang ourselves to be true to the word of God. Or, if I were an anti-Christian fanatic, I might well promote them as a creed, cynically challenging Christians to do what the bible says. But a true bible scholar knows that context means a lot towards accurate scripture interpretation. The fanatics who misinterpret scripture out of context demonstrate that they are not bible scholars no matter how vehemently they may so claim to be.

We gotta find that guy and deal with him harshly!!!

------

Here's some scripture for those who love it. Included are contextual explanations.

Gal 5:12 "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

This is Paul speaking. He wants Jews to casterate them selves.
--
Phil 3:8 "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish [or dung], that I may gain Christ."

This is Paul calling Jews and Judaism rubbish or dung.

There's just no reasoning with fanatics. They have no tolerance for differing opinions, characterizing those who hold them as naive, insane, unintelligent or lazy. They reject well established references that differ from their opinions without consideration as they hold to their own unsupported opinions as if they are indisputable. Then, when the uselessness of reasoning with the fanatic becomes apparent and people find something more constructive to do, the fanatic brags from his conceit that he has driven away his opposition, congratulating himself on his victory, oblivious to the real reason people have left the discussion, that his fanaticism is repugnant and so obviously false as to need no further comment.
.
It would be funny if his intent weren’t so contemptible, that the fanatic “slams” people who disagree with him as just making “stuff up” while exhorting them to “keep-up” (as though they are not bright enough to understand him because if they were then they would agree with him) and “don’t distort” (since facts presented that contradict his thinking must be intentional distortions) while complaining of being slammed.

Katy, there is no scientific evidence that supports anything about god and religion. joeflint chose to participate in that discussion. Being able to understand what scripture means is more important than citing it. I can cite it all day. Doing that wouldn't be much of a discussion; and citing it didn't prove joeflint's case, it only worked against his case. He admitted he's not that knowledgeable about scripture. A thorough study of scripture does make the case that its anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust. And as you can see in my recent citations of verse, citing scripture can more than cancel out anything good in scripture.

His discussions re: science are good. I didn't disagree with any of it.

I'm not trying to out-shout anyone. I'm trying to engage in debate. The ones who can't keep-up drop-out. And they just make stuff up like you're doing now. Try to keep-up and don't distort what's going on here. Make your own case, don't just slam someone.

Joe Flint:
In a contest of scholarship between you and gazettefan, you win hands down. I don't know much about the specific references you cite, but since you provide your sources, it is simple for me to research if I so desire. The point I'm trying to make is that you make your points and use scientific method to support your statements. Gazettefan's primary purpose is apparently to offend anyone who disagrees with him. He who shouts loudest is not necessarily most right.

I think we can all agree that discussion of Nazi Germany's atrocities committed against Europe in general and Jewish faith in particular runs a bit far afield from a scientist reaching out to both sides of the evolution/creationism debate.

The German people thought Hitler was the Messiah.

Hey did we already talk about the protestant and catholic chuch's complicity with Hitler and the Nazi party during the war? How about how the Catholic church smuggled Nazi party members to safety in South America after the war?
.
Clearly the bible and the church is the source of moral integrity.

joeflitn:

The only truth in the synoptic gospels has Jesus as a rabbi who taught the Torah and who claimed that Israel would be returned to to the Jews with a its own non-divine king. This was also the teaching of Jesus' brother, James, and those Jews who survived the crucifixion.

A comprehensive study of early christianity shows that the only thing Paul and Justin wanted of the Old Testament was a lineage to Abraham for the purpose of legitimizing "christianity" -with a long history- to impress the Romans and other gentiles.

To render everything in the Hebrew Bible as invalid -except "christian" lineage to Abraham- is to do, at a minimum, severe damage to Judaism.

If christianity was supposed to be the moral backbone of Germany -as all christians claim about their countries- then christians were certainly collaborators in the Holocaust. The very idea of destroying the Jews is consistent with the effort to destroy Judaism during the early centuries of christianity.

"each man responsible." True. And when each man's actions are in lock step with many other men, then that is a group. In this case, the group is the christian church in Germany.

It's easy to know what goes on in a person's head when they don't do the right thing. They don't care about the victims or they outright approve of what happened to the victims and they, in some way, collaborated in what happened to the victims.

The relatively peaceful associations between christians and Jews in our culture is the product of the free-thinking inherent to democratic societies. The extremism is dissipated. If this were the christian theocracy that the fundamentalists would like it to be, then life here would be very, very different.

If you like cited verse, here's some:

Gal 5:12 "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

It is Paul speaking in reference to the Jews and circumcision.

Phil 3:8 "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ."

In this one, Paul is referring to Judaism as "rubbish."

Good luck with your bible studies. Keep an open mind and don't pretend that what's there isn't there. Don't cherry pick. If it's there and it's horrible, nothing else that's there can undo how horrible it is. It's why Paul's invention of christianity caused the Holocaust.

Gazettefan, In brief, I have said that you raise valid points -- I even agree with some of them -- but that your unequivocation detracts. Here are my "sound bite" answers.

"To tell the Jews that they have to adjust ... is Antisemitic." Then Jesus himself was at times an antisemite or the synoptic Gospels are wrong.

"Paul and Justin attempted to destroy judaism..." Disagree but for lengthy reasons.

"[They] manage to do serious damage to the image of the Jewish people." Concur, very much do so in certain regards, but I hold that the ultimate outcome was not intended and that your unconditional statements are not fully truthful.

"... rationalizations..." Perhaps. But the Pope nor the Church built the camps nor pulled a trigger. Perhaps Existential, but each man is responsible for his (immediate) actions.

"Why? What is going on in the heads of the principals...?!" I cannot know that! --- If it were me, I'd like to believe I would effect that change.

"You are an example of how inculcated Antisemitism is in the mind of christians." I would rather like to believe that my previous four Jewish girlfriends, my observance of the Mourner's Kaddish (eventually in Hebrew) for the requisite eleven months when one's mother passed, my circle of friends, my occasional attendence at inter-faith dialogue sessions, my occasional attendence of synagogue (I have even blown the shofar), my (quite admittedly lacking) study of both the Old Testament and of rabbinical writings says otherwise. But I could be wrong.

"Kindly express your views without the clutter of citations and quotations." Complex thoughts require substantiation. (Extraordinary) claim require (extraordinary) evidence. Even modern Bibles are littered with references. I stand by my use of footnotes and original sources.

"You aren't such a scholar. You should endeavor to become one." It is indeed one of my very long-standing goals to formally study Biblical criticism and/or theology, particularly in the fuller context of the historical realities in which both Judaism and early Christianity occurred and in at least one ancient source language.

For now, I am but a lowly scientist, a sinner, seeking, as all men must, his way forward.

faith never evolves !

joeflint, Matthew masterfully and politically played both sides on the issue of Jesus. He knew they were rabbinical Jews and said as much. To tell the Jews that they have to adjust or change their beliefs and adopt the ideas of heaven and Jesus (as Paul's christ) is Antisemitic. You seem to be accepting the claim of Paul and Justin that Jews are required to accept Paul's christ despite the fact that the whole christ idea is antithetical to judaism. The Jews believed that the big change would happen on Earth with either Jesus (their rabbi) or another "descendant" of David as the new king of Israel. The Romans would be gone.

You do not seem to have a grip on the fact that Paul and Justin attempted to destroy judaism and did manage to do serious damage to the image of the Jewish people. To say that the Torah was a stepping stone to the world of Paul's christ is Antisemitic.

And your last two posts are merely rationalizations to let chrisitianity in Germany and the Vatican off the hook for it's major part in the Holocaust.

It might take 400 years to excommincate Hitler because it took that long to re-communicate Galaleo?! Why? What is going on in the heads of the principals now that keeps them from excommunicating Hitler right now?!

You are an example of how inculcated Antisemitism is in the mind of christians. You cannot manifest the proper thought processes that would allow you to see the truth. Your thinking is an example of the institutionalization of Antisemitism in the christian mind.

And, I do no take reading assignments. Kindly express your views without the clutter of citations and quotations. Those things only make your posts ramble.

Absorb and comprehend the material and express yourself in your own words. That's what I do because I am a scholar of scripture. You aren't such a scholar. You should endeavor to become one.

> Instead, the power of the church aligned itself with the Third Reich.

Yes, over five years before WWII and before it had become obvious to the world the menace that Nazism had become. Hitler fooled Chamberlain ("peace in our time"), Stalin (partition of Poland, status of Ukraine, invasion of Russia), Miklas (Austrian anschluss), Mościcki (invasion of Poland vis-a-vis status of the Free City of Danzig), Lebrun (invasion of western Europe), ... etc. And Hitler fooled the Pope, nearly five years before fooling most everyone else who held a position of authority. I am not excusing the Pope's actions, just putting your remarks into a much fuller context.

No less an expert than Shirer in his Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich wrote: "Hitler, nominally a Catholic, had inveighed against politcal Catholicism in Mein Kampf and attacked both of the Christian churches for their failure to recognize the racial problem...."

Shirer continues: on July 20, 1933 the German government and the Vatican signed a concordat which allowed the Church "[regulation of] her own affairs... [it] was hardly put to paper before it was being broken by the Nazi government.... five days after the ratification of the concordat, the German government promulgated a sterilization law, which particularly offended the Catholic Church. Five days later the first steps were taken to dissolve the Catholic Youth League. During the next years thousands of Catholic priests, nuns and lay leaders were arrested... Erich Klausener, leader of Catholic Action, was, as we have seen, murdered in the June 30, 1934 purge" (pp. 234-5).

Much later in the book, Shirer writes "No comphrehensive blueprint for the New Order was ever drawn up, but it is clear ... that Hitler knew very well what he wanted it to be: a Nazi-ruled Europe whose resources would be exploited for the profit of Germany, whose people would be made the slaves of the German master race and whose 'undesirable elements' ... would be exterminated." A footnote to page 937 remarks "As early as September 18, 1941, Hitler had specifically ordered that Leningrad was to be 'wiped off the face of the earth.' Ater being surrounded it was to be 'razed to the ground' by bombardment and bombing and its population (three millions) was to be destroyed with it." Hitler had many evil aims, elimination of the Slavs ranks right up there with the elimination of the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, political activists, leadership in organized religion, ...

For all of his faults, do you honestly think that the Pope would have signed a concordat and aligned the "power of the [C]hurch" in 1933 knowing what was to come? What little support (e.g. money laundering) the Church gave was due to anti-Communist tendencies within the hierarchy, including the Pope himself.

A fairly honest look at a complex and very ugly time:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...

> Hitler never renounced his catholicism or his christianity.

True; however, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that Hitler had a deep and abiding Chrisitan faith; further, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that any faith, as we think of the word, drove any policy of the Third Reich.

> The Vatican never excommunicated Hitler

True; however as already discussed earlier, it took nearly 400 years to "absolve" Galileo. Is it likely that the excommunication will happen? Something to ponder.

> Any anti-christian remarks made by Hitler do not out weigh the above facts.

Why? The Vatican's silence is absolutely regrettable; however, your claim here lies in the same logical territory as blaming an automobile manufacturer for a traffic accident. Religion, in and of itself, did not cause nor was the cause of the actions of those within the Third Reich. I direct you to Shirer's Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Browning's Ordinary Men, or many of the other scholarly and reputable books on the subject.

> Christian adherents and clergy in Germany did almost nothing to stop the Holocaust.

This is not true. Certainly many who would have or who had the voice to do so were silenced long before the Final Solution, as documented following.

> He allegorized the covenants and laws of the Torah and said those things never had any real world purpose and in no way reflected the spirituality of the Jews.

First, I reiterate that Justin Martyr took Scriptural references out of context. Secondly, the Torah certainly had a real world purpose when he repeatedly wrote of its depth and age and how it set the stage for the Jesus movement (I Apol. xxxi - xxxix, etc.).

Every Jew that I have known, from Reform through Black Hat Orthodox, would agree: the Law is the code by which to live; most Jewish scholars agree that the 613 mitzvot are but a construction. Indeed, one can make the comparison between the tzitzit of the tallit to the beads on a Rosary, a construction to help strengthen or guide one's faith. Adherence to the Mosaic Law and intense study of the Torah is simply obedience to God, saying nothing about individual or collective spirituality.

> His point was that what the Jews believed in did not come from god.

No, Justin does not argue with Trypho that what the Jews believe is not from God but rather that the Jews do not even know what they have. Justin repeatedly, through most of the Dialogue, utilizes Old Testament Scripture -- the beliefs of the Jews -- to motivate them into believing in the divinity of Christ.

First, I will not defend every thing that Justin Martyr wrote or believed; however, I believe the truth is more nuanced than you make it out to be and am thus responding.

> Paul and later Justin Martyr, in writing, institutionalized the "invalidity" of the Jewish religion. Justin said that the Torah is entirely invalid.

Not by a long shot. The Near East had by the time of Justin Martyr been under strong Greek influence for over 400 years; despite nominative Roman rule, the East remained Greek. While Justin Martyr certainly makes out-of-context Scriptural references and inflammatory statements, look at the world in which he wrote: the Temple had been destroyed only ~70 years earlier; even Titus refused a victory wreath as he felt that he was merely the instrument of God's wrath against the Jews. (*) Justin Martyr, schooled in Greek philosophy, argued for a union of Greek thought with Christianity and that the great Greek philosophers had been granted a foretaste of ultimate wisdom. He also helped usher in some of the ideas that came to be known as Free Will (see also the Pelagian controversy about 300 years later).

Now, presumably you are referring to Dialogue xxix (**) wherein he arrogates the Old Testament: "They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them."

In Matthew 5, Jesus states "Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill." He then restates several unequivocal laws, e.g. do not kill, and magnifies their meaning, e.g. "However I say to you, everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." This is the sweeping away of the Law of which I have written; one can no longer simply rely on the Ten Commandments or the mitzvot.

You are twisting Justin Martyr's arguments: he never wrote, even paraphrasing, "that the Torah is entirely invalid." His argument relies on Matthew 22 where Jesus says "concerning the resurrection of the dead, haven't you read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?' God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Thus it must be true that since Moses had not yet received the Law before the deaths of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, that the Law, in and of itself, was not necessary to attain heaven. This, indeed, substantiates Paul's position that faith is requisite -- not sufficient!

Indeed, "at last [Justin Martyr] became acquainted with Christianity, being at once impressed with the extraordinary fearlessness which the Christians displayed in the presence of death, and with the grandeur, stability, and truth of the teachings of the Old Testament." (***)

(*) The Life of Apollonius of Tyana 6.29
(**) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi...
(***) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi...

joeflint, Paul and later Justin Martyr, in writing, institutionalized the "invalidity" of the Jewish religion. Justin said that the Torah is entirely invalid. He allegorized the covenants and laws of the Torah and said those things never had any real world purpose and in no way reflected the spirituality of the Jews. His point was that what the Jews believed in did not come from god.

Matthew put it in writing that the Jews killed Jesus, (or because Paul renamed Jesus: the Jews killed Christ -Jesus was not know as Christ in his lifetime). The Jews did not kill Christ. The full explanation of Matthew's account is this: Pilate in front of a few Jews who were aligned with the Sadducees (who were rich collaborators with the Romans) put it to those few people as to whether they should kill Barabbas or Jesus. That these few people chose Jesus is no reflection on the Jews in general. After all, the whole thing was a ruse to make it look as though the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. Not true. Jesus' posse was entirely made up of Jews. And, again, there was no true representation of Jews at Pilate's ruse. It was the Romans who killed Jesus.

Matthew's fiction labeled Jews as Christ killers. Add this to the fact that Paul and Justin and others were the sources of the assertion that the Jews were never people of god. They totally invalidated the religion of judaism.

This is what filled the heads of christians as christianity spread throughout Europe.

That the Jews fought with others in the Middle East prior to Paul etc. does not account for the fact that the Holocaust occurred in far off Germany almost two thousand years later. The institutionalized contempt for Jews and judaism in christianity gave "morality" to other historical forces that contributed to the Holocaust.

Hitler never renounced his catholicism or his christianity. The Vatican never excommunicated Hitler, not even posthumously. Any anti-christian remarks made by Hitler do not out weigh the above facts. Christian adherents and clergy in Germany did almost nothing to stop the Holocaust. Instead, the power of the church aligned itself with the Third Reich.

TopherD, to answer directly your first question regarding evolution versus Adam and Eve:

Suppose, for a moment, that evolution as a scientific theory is accurate. (*)

That theory posits that we evolved from "amoebas" (as you put it) to our present state. It is posited that chimpanzees (or some other higher ape) were our immediate predecessor. There ___still___ had to be a first human!

What I mean by human is someone who has gained (or been blessed by God with) consciousness, self-reflection, self-awareness, self-proprioception, etc. Interestingly, science is not even remotely close to understanding HOW the human mind works let alone WHY it works the way that it does. (To our limited knowledge) Humans are the only creatures on this planet capable of constructing or holding a belief system. Could "original sin" be defying God? Is this not precisely what an allegorical reading of Genesis states?

Science, as I have stated multiple times, does not -- CANNOT -- rule out the existence of God since such a construct is outside of testable, repeatable actions in our everyday experience. That humans (dare I say) evolved to be capable of holding belief systems is certainly interesting to consider, whether one is a believer or not.

(*) As I've stated multiple times: a successful scientific theory must make testable predictions.

The man who said "It has often proved true that the dream of yesterday is the hope of today, and the reality of tomorrow" is the "anti-christ"?!

Gazettefan, while you are correct that one can interpret the Apostolic Decree as instituting a dual-covenant theology, your claims of Pauline Christianity being a de facto anti-Semitic religion are false. Your claim, mentioned at least twice, that Pauline Christianity led directly to the Shoah ignores nearly all of history: there were anti-Jewish pogroms before Christ just as there are periods when Judaism flourished under local Christian rule. I find it unfortunate that you include such provocative statements as they detract from your valid arguments.

"Jewish Christians eventually constituted a separate community from the Pauline Christians and that they remained part of the Jewish community. There was a post-Nicene 'double rejection' of the Jewish Christians by both Gentile Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. It is believed that there was no direct confrontation, or persecution, between Gentile and Judaic Christianity. However, by this time the practice of Judeo-Christianity was diluted, both by internal schisms and external pressures. The traditional understanding is that the original Jewish Christianity continued until the fifth century, after which there are no more references to Jewish followers of the Jesus movement. Those remaining fully faithful to Halacha became purely Jews, while those adhering to the Christian faith joined with Gentile, Graeco-Roman, Pauline Christianity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Chris...

bibledude, watch your tone, you're lucky I'm even talking to you.

Acts was written between 0090 and 0125. This scholarly fact corrects the fraudulent intent of the writer of Acts who was also the unknown writer of the Gospel of Luke; that both these bits of scripture were written by the same person further verifies the time frame above. (You obviously are in trouble with the date problem; that's why you didn't respond to this issue at the appropriate time.)

Again, Acts is in contradiction with Paul's own account of what he did after his breakdown. Read your bible. Especially: Galatians 1:16. No, it certainly isn't "rocket science;" rocket science being the work of the anti-christs.

And I have a way of misrepresenting the truth?!!! Are you kidding!!! The whole basis of your non-Jesus christianity is worse than being a house of cards. It's a house of cards with a foundation of only one card: Paul's "supernatural" breakdown on the road to Damascus.

Remove that card and your whole kit and caboodle topples. As indeed it does whenever close reading and clear thinking are applied to the foldoral of scripture.

Gazettefan- I'll quote scripture as much as I like. In case someone is reading these posts they can see how you twist and distort scripture. I already addressed your fraudulent claim on dating Acts. So if I don't refute it every time you make it I'm conceding your point? That defies logic. You have a way about you that by simply you saying something you think it makes it true regardless of evidence to the contrary. Paul is traveling with his companions in Acts 9 and subsequent to encountering risen Christ he is assisted by disciples small "d." In Matthew 28, Christ gives the commission to go and make DISCIPLES of all men. Prior to that point the title disciple is used of the 12. From then on we see a shift in how the word disciples is used from the Apostles to disciples as being followers of Christ at large. In Acts the word disciple is used for all followers of Jesus. In Galatians Paul makes reference to his meeting with the Apostles 3 years after his encounter, there is no contradiction here, this is not rocket science Gazettefan.

Why do you suppose I have so many tall, Christian friends, GFan? :~D

You better start wearing a lightening rod on your head!!!

That was the church BELLS, GFan. I have played In-A-Godda-Da-Vida and Stairway to Heaven on a church organ with 32-foot pipes, if that counts as corruption. :~)

Until I get back, let it be duly noted that bibledude has apparently conceded my point as to when Acts was written.

Also, bibledude, shame on you for sinking to the level of billnewbian half-baked --no, quarter-baked-- psychology. As a matter fact, I am repulsed by the use of the claim of conspiracy to explain all manner of things -including the JFK assassination. I am also very positive about life and the human experience despite the perfidy that seems intrinsic to that experience.

As for your Gal citation: it says what I said it would say -Paul alone. It contradicts Acts which has Paul meeting with his "disciples" etc. (not "apostles" as you not so deftly tried to confuse the issue). Therein lies the contradiction. As thekid would say: Keep up!

Also, kindly refrain from cluttering up this debate by over-quoting scripture -especially by quoting god or people talking about talking to god or listening to god as though any of that proves anything.

And, foolonthehill. When I read your post about playing Louie Louie on the church organ, I said to myself: I always knew that foolonthehill was an outlaw.

It's all Hebrew to me.

Sorry Joe, good to have you onboard. I've got some stuff to do. I'll check back to see what's happening here later on today. Peace!

In Gal 1 Paul writes, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."
How is this a contradiction? The disciples he encountered were simply other Christians in Damascus, Ananias being one of them. The "breakdown" as you call it had caused physical blindness for a time. He did not encounter the Apostles until several years later. There is no mention in Acts 9 of Paul encountering the Apostles. The word disciple was a common word used for anyone who followed Jesus not just the 12.

Actually... I'm "listening in"

Gazettefan- Nice try, I do appreciate getting a response though. Have you read textual criticism before? Scholars, whether liberal or conservative, play by the same rules, they just interpret the facts differently. Your worldview taints your interpretation of the facts so everything takes on a conspiracy twist. I don't know you personally but I'm guessing your skepticism is pervasive in all areas of your life. Skepticism is not all bad, in many respects it is healthy, unless you blinds you from seeing truth. No one debates Jesus was a follower of the Torah, the Talmud He was always in confrontation with. They had the letter of the Law down but not the spirit of the Law. One important point about Paul is he loved the Law too. He had spent his life studying the Law. Phil. 3 reads "If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith." Paul came to understand it was not observing the Law which saves of but the person of Christ as Jesus Himself taught "Unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins." Jesus did not say unless you observe the Torah He said "unless you BELIEVE I am He." In regards to Paul having no contact you must be speaking about Galations 1, I will address that in the next post. I think you and I are the only ones who seem to care about this topic by the way.

bibledude, since this is "one more time" I hope you really apply your comprehension skills here. That Acts was written in the 60s is an outdated claim. The scholarly consensus now is that it was written past the 60s and may well have been written as late as the early part of the second century. As for the omission of some deaths and the inclusion of others: the writer was very sly and though he clearly attempted to deceive, his mistakes reveal only more the deception involved in Acts -and scripture in general. One of the reasons for accurately placing Acts after the 60s is that it naturally flows from the last part of Luke.

As for your "citing verse" game, that's what you had to endure with your special schooling. I'm not compelled to do such; but it's what you've been trained to do in order to perpetuate the ruse of expertise. You are trained so that in the event of someone citing scripture to your detriment, you are to cite countervailing scripture. Scripture is wrought with the Orwellian devices of double-think and double-speak.

Go to scripture and then explain here why the account of Paul's behavior in Acts after his breakdown is significantly different than Paul's own account. e.g. Acts: Paul already had "disciples" and had contact with people; e.g. Paul: I had no contact with anyone, let alone "disciples." (By the way, when Acts was written is irrelevant to the matter of the contradictory accounts of Paul's behavior after his breakdown.)

And one more time, the purpose of Acts was to deflate the importance of Jesus' posthumous posse while tapping into any stature that posse had, for the purpose of making Paul's thing appear to flow from Jesus, the man (which it did not). Jesus' posse was rabbinical and it devotedly adhered to the Torah. Paul hated the Torah and he hated Jews. Paul's simple minded mysticism and his lies and the lies of his people and manipulative networking eventually destroyed the true following of Jesus and allowed Paul's crazy thing to succeed. And then the Holocaust happened.

> Paul and Peters [martyrdom] would have been as well ... There is also no mention of the Jewish revolt and destruction of the temple in 66 and 70 respectively

Indeed!

> joeflint, I do hope you avoid discussing the implications of fiddling with Planck's constant. You break it, you bought it applies here! ;~)

Hilarious!

Gazettefan- I'll try one more time. How does his account differ in Acts from the epistles. Please stop talking in vague generalities and be specific. As to Acts being written after Paul's death that is inaccurate. Acts was written in the early 60's shortly before his death under the Neronian persecution of 64/65. Dr. Luke was along for the Roman imprisonment and wrote of the account in the 1st person plural in the later portion of the book. The death of Paul would have been recorded had he died before Acts was written. Key events such as the deaths of Stephen and James were recorded, certainly Paul and Peters would have been as well as he and Peter both were killed around the same time. There is also no mention of the Jewish revolt and destruction of the temple in 66 and 70 respectively, these were major events in the history of the early church and would have been included in the narrative had Luke wrote as late as you suggest.

bibledude, The Book of Acts was written after Paul was dead. Why does Act's account of Paul's actions after his breakdown significantly differ from Paul's own account of his actions after his breakdown.

billnewbie, get it straight, don't distort it, no one's telling you that you can't state your opinion e.g. "fanaticism" "suppression of thought" . Your insistence that this is the case mirrors much of the lies and false history contained in scripture as indicated above in my comment to bibledude.

Your problem is that you can't handle the criticism that your view points so naturally draw.

Yes I know, that last post was somewhat facetious but the point I'm trying to make is that what one person defines as junk science may only be a reflection of what that person wants to believe, particularly when an entire group of people are excluded from (or driven from) serious consideration for their opinions based on their "religiosity". In spite of the contentions of many, science is not the exclusive domain of atheists and agnostics, nor should it be, just as it is nonsense to impugn the reasoning powers of people who accept the existence of God. To exclude all such people is to limit the scope, and therefore the accuracy of scientific thought.
.
In the past, an autocratic hierarchy developed around and was controlled by a religious group within the power of governments that excluded those who did not ascribe to its orthodoxy. Those times were notable for their lack of scientific advancement as well as many other immoral excesses. Do we now ignore the lessons of history and establish a new orthodoxy controlled by a new autocratic hierarchy? Is it reasonable to expect different results if we do? If there’s one thing the history of our country should teach us it is that the more inclusive we are, the better we do. Shutting out the opinions of the religious due to bias or even revulsion to them is just as fanatical as those who shut out the non-religious all those years ago. When it comes to God, I have little in common with Einstein, but since so many do I found this quote to be quite relevant to some of the comments posted on GazetteXtra,
“I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” Einstein had no use for the concept of a personal God but he also seemed to have contempt for those fanatical atheists that use the same tactics of religious fanatics and for much the same aim, suppression of opinion. So, do we simply ignore history, and if “the worm has turned” and atheism is ascending, are we simply going to exchange one worm ridden autocracy for another?

Or wishful thinking?

joeflint, I do hope you avoid discussing the implications of fiddling with Planck's constant. You break it, you bought it applies here! ;~)

Gazettefan-As a bible expert I'm sure you know 3 of the main types of textual criticisms are form, source and redaction. Regardless of which type you are using you have to cite more than opinion for it to be valid, there has to be valid textual proof. Please furnish it or there is really no way to take your arguments seriously.

I must take issue with the statement made, “The false belief that one has indeed learned everything has no causal relationship with that is, or what could be, knowable.” -Billnewbie

I don't think we have any issue there. That was just a very poorly constructed sentence that seemed to make perfect sense at the time I wrote it. My error. My point was that the totality of knowledge in the universe has nothing to do with what mankind already knows. In other words, knowledge is not a carrot on a stick.

*

As for keeping religion out of science, by that I suspect what’s really meant is keeping religious morality out of science. -Billnewbie.

Absolutely NOT! The practice and application of science without morality is, well... Adolf Hitler leaps to mind. We may disagree on the origin of that morality but not the need for it. Reasonable people can and do disagree on the morality of abortion, cloning, etc, regardless of their religiosity. Let me be clear: keep pseudo-science, faux-science, junk-science, etc, out of SCIENCE regardless of its source of inspiration, whether that be religious, myth, fairy tale, Spielberg film or otherwise.

> And as with the case of radiometric dating, it cannot be considered as accurate unless we can say unequivocally that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes has always been constant.

This is absolutely, 100% correct. As I previously stated, there are some axioms in physics, first and foremost that the laws of physics as observed today were correct yesterday and will be correct tomorrow.

If we drop this axiom, then physics (or science in general) would no longer be PREDICTIVE! If the laws of physics changed every day, no one would know what tomorrow would bring.

Now, first... radioactive decay is only one method of dating rocks. I have briefly mentioned others.

Secondly, believe it or not, the constancy of the fundamental constants in physics is actually an open question. (**)

However, to directly answer your point: While it may certainly be true that at some point in the past, physics was different, we know for a FACT, with OBSERVED EVIDENCE (*), that physics has NOT CHANGED IN TWO BILLION YEARS! That is AMAZING! The constancy of physics is actually somewhat alarming (see links below).

(*) A natural nuclear reaction on the Earth; this has allowed a very detailed measurement of the constancy of physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuc...

(**) This is a serious, very deep, and very fundamental question. The following links will only underscore what I have previously written: physicists and not content to rest on their laurels, we do not know everything nor do we contend such; however, as I have also stated, this drives us towards seeking a deeper understanding by contemplating ever-more refined models and new theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_struct...
In particular, the section "Is the fine structure constant truly constant?"

Also, I recommend:
http://www.maths.qmw.ac.uk/~jgg/page5.ht...

And most importantly:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/open.quest...

4. Sediment transport over long distance
Their hypothesis relies on the underlying assumption that the sediment transport occurred as if the landforms were identical to what we see today. One hypothesis, off the top of my head, is that sediment from the Appalachia was able to reach the west is because a) the Mississippi valley did not yet exist and b) the Rockies had not yet uplifted.

5. Rapid or no erosion between strata
First, which is it? One cannot have both if a global flood of very short duration (40 days and nights) is responsible... unless one proposes additional mechanisms. Secondly, traditional geology can explain this: in some areas a series of ancient layers is laid down; next the area faults downwards and is eventually covered by a watershed or even a sea; the action of the water erodes the top most layers; the area faults upwards / the river changes course / the sea dries up; and deposition begins occurring again. The author states: "[The traditional geologic] view has a problem, however. If the fossil-bearing layers took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate, then we would expect to find many examples of weathering and erosion after successive layers were deposited." We do in fact observe this; I have just provided one hypothesis for this. Further, if a single flood laid down all of the strata in a very short time, why would we observe different erosion rates between different strata?

6. Rock does not bend
Neither does a strip or sheet of wood ___if___ I try to quickly bend it in a very short time, it will catastrophically snap; however, If I slowly apply pressure (and possibly heat and moisture) over a long time, I can radically warp it. This is how, for instance, rocking chairs are made.

For completeness sake, further questions to ponder based on the other points raised at the Answers in Genesis site:

First and foremost, I have no problem whatsoever hypothesizing a global flood covering the entire Earth: it would take an additional 1,067,000,000 cubic miles of water, or less than 1/2 percent of the volume of the Earth. However, global flood hypotheses do not agree with the results of testable predictions.

If hydrologic sorting were the mechanism for global stratigraphy, it implies that most of the Earth's surface rock was in suspension in all of that water. If so, why are there mountains? The prediction that I would make from hydrologic sorting is that most of the Earth would be pretty flat.

Catastrophic plate tectonics advocates are quick to point out that there is no observed evidence (within experimental error) of North America drifting apart from Europe and claim this is evidence that all of plate tectonics theory is wrong. They willfully ignore other evidence such as Hawai'i being observed drifting westward (over a hotspot in the mantle which is why there is a line of volcanos). One hypothesis is that North America is being slowed down by the Pacific plate which is being subducted below the West Coast (which is why there are earthquakes and volcanos up from Alaska through California). The distance between the East Coast and Africa and Europe is a little over 3,000 miles. If the Earth is 6,000 years old, it would require at least a half a mile per year for the two continents to have come to this distance apart -- if we observe no motion, how did 1/2 mile per year of motion suddenly cease? If North America got here sooner, than it requires a velocity even greater than 1/2 mile per year. One should also see evidence of ancient earthquakes on both the East Coast of America and the west coasts of Europe and Africa if the landforms are as recent as only 6,000 years.

2. Rapid burial of plants and animals
We have seen just a few years ago in New Orleans how possible mechanism for the rapid burial of plants and animals, on an admittedly very small scale. If everything was buried at one time over a very short timespan, why are there different fossil beds at different locations on the Earth? Should not everything be buried in the same way if it was all buried at the same time?

3. Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
Why not globally? What interrupted the process so that we only see similarity over vast areas? See also the above point.

As for keeping religion out of science, by that I suspect what’s really meant is keeping religious morality out of science. When a conversation erupts concerning abortion or embryonic stem cell research, invariable if one argues with conviction against either they are called religious bigots or imposers of religion. And even though some say that morality is really just refined herd instinct, the common perception, particularly among atheists is that if scientific research is opposed on moral grounds, there are religionists behind it. And I can understand their position to a point since religion, Christianity particularly, holds life as sacred whereas atheists and scientists who embrace evolution may have a different view. Christians believe that God has had a part in the creation of each and every one of us but evolutionists think that we are all just products of evolution with no more significance than any other life form (except of course for me!). From Christianity’s prospective, it is wrong to impose a sacrifice of a human’s life even in the embryonic stage for the benefit of science, medical advancement or the common good. Scientists around the world are engaging in ever more amoral experiments, human cloning for instance, where eventually humans will be cultivated for their body parts. Such things are already happening in that some people have actually had babies in the hope that an organ can be harvested for the benefit of a sibling. Gene splicing is another field that may have terrible consequences in that new and potentially lethal diseases may be artificially constructed either by design or accident. Science without moral direction is dangerous indeed and God is the source of morality. The effort to keep religion out of science may well be catastrophic for humanity.

I must take issue with the statement made, “The false belief that one has indeed learned everything has no causal relationship with what is, or what could be, knowable.” If one thinks one knows everything, or more accurately, that one knows everything worth knowing, then one may well close one’s mind to anything that challenges that conviction, thereby preventing not only new discovery but also the uncovering of error. And so it is with the finite pool of the knowable. One cannot be certain that the pool is shrinking unless one is first certain that what one knows is actually true. And as with the case of radiometric dating, it cannot be considered as accurate unless we can say unequivocally that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes has always been constant. It’s true that we have determined to the best of our ability that it is, but as I’ve contended, our abilities are limited and as such, untrustworthy. All we can really say with any conviction is that radioactive isotopes decay at an observed rate under present environmental conditions. We cannot know if that rate is constant under all conditions just as we cannot know the precise conditions that existed eons ago and therefore our estimations of the age of the earth is probably in error, not that anyone is actually willing to go out on a limb and state precisely how old it is since scientists do still concede the possibility of error even though some may minimize it.

fool, great posts, I've enjoyed reading them. I read Collin's book and enjoyed it too. I think Collin's message that religion should stay out of science is an important one. I will say though that his constant references to scripture and CS Lewis to prove his points were not convincing. I'm OK with a prominent scientist believing in a God, but believing in the miracles presented in scripture leads me to believe Collin's is simply playing Pascal's Wager.

There seems to be an understandable need for clarification on the issue of the "shrinking unknown".

The false belief that one has indeed learned everything has no causal relationship with what is, or what could be, knowable. If the universe is finite and the quantity of knowledge is steadily increasing, then that which remains unknown is steadily decreasing at the same rate. Even in an infinite universe, the quantity of potential knowledge is not altered by the act of learning it. (Infinity-k is still infinity.) Of course, the axiom of finite knowledge doesn't negate the philosophical concept, "the more I learn the more I realize there is to be learned". That is merely a statement about one's own growth and limitations. I.e., wisdom.

The above, however, has nothing to do with my point in the context of this discussion. My point about the shrinking unknown was with regard to those questions, which, prior to science, were considered the exclusive domain of religion. For example, such claims as the 6,000 year old Earth; a geocentric universe; a man "planting his seed"; and many other such claims of "scientific" knowledge and insight. Answering such questions is the domain of science, not religion. Still, some religions desperately claim sole authority over such knowledge, only to ultimately concede each and every battle to science. Each and every one. Since dogma is finite, its claims to scientific knowledge is also finite and, therefore, shrinking. That's a fact.

The lesson? Whenever science says, "Sorry to say this folks, but religion got this one wrong." Well, science WILL win that battle. It always does. On the other hand, science has always recognized religion as sole authority in the realm of faith. Religion should wave the white flag and, once and for all, surrender the realm of reason to science! Otherwise, religion has its wagon hitched to a dying horse.

The greater point --and, I think the point being made by Francis Collins is-- keeping religion out of science is a win-win scenario for both.

To underscore my previous point:

Suppose tomorrow I observe some radioactivity that does NOT decay exponentially.

We might not chuck the entire existing theory out the window since it has provided accurate enough answers; however, we would absolutely seek to understand the new decay rate and once we had a hypothesis that made correct predictions, we would use that.

In science, a really successful theory will "in the limit" still explain all of my old observations.

This is exactly what happened one hundred years ago when Einstein, Minkowski, and others gaves us relativity. There had been certain observations, in particular the orbit of the planet Mercury, that just did not fit Newton's Laws. Relativity was able to correctly predict the motion of Mercury; critically, using general relativistic equations in the limit where one is far enough away from the sun (far enough away so that the gravitational field is not too strong), one retrieves the Newtonian formalism.

In other words and not to belittle Newton's stunning accomplishments, suppose I have this big piece of expensive, difficult to use heavy machinery but a screwdriver will get the job done most of the time. Which tool do you use? It's those times when the screwdriver doesn't get the job done that you pull out the heavy equipment.

> which by the very nature of those assumptions cannot be substantiated.

Not strictly true: as I've labored to state, scientific hypotheses must make testable predictions. Certainly there are ideas that the general public might think are "scientific" but which really are not. Now, you would be correct to state that we cannot put some radioactivity in a rock, wait a few million years, and see if we're right; however, radioactivity occurs at different rates for different materials but so far as has ever been observed, it is ALWAYS an exponential decay. Therefore, one only needs to accurately measure a few weeks or months or even years to determine the decay constant of something that might actually take millions of years. How do we get away with this? Because in roughly a pound of material, there are 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. Even if the decay time is millions of years (only 6 or 7 zeros), there is a good chance that we will observe decay of one of those 6 x 10^23 atoms in a relatively short time. Therefore, due to the very widely observed exponential decay law and those very large numbers working in our favor, we can determine radioactive decay rates, without waiting around millions of years to be sure. As I've also labored to state, science is a ___predictive___ tool, not a belief system. It tells us how the atom decays, not why, a subtle but crucial point.

> The problem lies with our limited ability to perceive our universe. We know so little. I read from another poster not long ago that the field of what is unknown is shrinking, but it seems that just the opposite is true, that the more we know, the more we realize how much more there is to learn.

Agreed. And truly learned scientists, Penrose, Feynman, Einstein, Newton, (I could go on) have all stated so. Penrose has an entire beautiful book, The Road to Reality, where he discusses in great detail much of what we know but critically frequently touches upon the very point of the (current) limits to our knowledge as well as the gaps that currently exist in physical theories. As I've also stated, gaps in a theory, gaps in our understanding, experimental surprises merely invalidate an old model: one must pursue a better model, either by refinement or trying an altogether different hypothesis.

One hundred and twenty years ago, some physicists were of the belief that all of physics had been "discovered." (*) There were a few experiments that could not quite be properly explained at the time, they were just "corner cases" though. Then Maxwell, Michaelson, Morley, Einstein, Heisenberg, Pauli, and the whole lot came along and within twenty years we had relativity (really huge scales) and quantum mechanics (really small scales), both far removed from our every day experience.

(*) For instance, a Platonic question: are we capable of "creating" new mathematics or is it already extent, something waiting to be discovered?

The author continues: "Hydrological sorting readily explains the layered pattern found in rocks within the context of a Global flood..."

No, it has not yet done so. Let us now apply some science!

Hypothesis of hydrologic sorting, per the author's web page: the density of material should affect the outcome of the sorting.

I have iron filings (density 7.9 grams / cubic centimeter), aluminum shavings (2.7 g / cm^3), gold shavings (density 19.3 g / cm^3), fine dry sand (~1.7 g / cm^3), and graphite (density 2.2 g / cm^3).

Prediction: their hydrologic strata will occur in this order, bottom to top, every time: gold, iron, aluminum, graphite, and sand on top.

You too can perform this experiment, certainly the iron filings, graphite, and sand are readily available. I used an old half gallon glass jug filled about half way with water and a paint stick to thoroughly stir. I used approximately equal amounts of ingredients, about four handfuls of material (only one handful of gold shavings).

Experimental outcome (made do with what I had available): the prediction is NOT quite verified! What happened? The fine sand is nearly evenly distributed throughout the other strata; they are occurring in the predicted order.

Now, this is where science becomes interesting: we had a "that's funny..." moment with our experiment.

It turns out that the size mattered. Certainly, as an extreme example, if we had a room filled top to bottom with bowling bowls and we then poured sand into the room, the sand would find a way to fill all of the gaps.

If hydrologic sorting were solely responsible for global stratification (it may well be responsible in small locales under small time frames), should we not find, everywhere, that denser materials are deeper? Further, should not find certain small crystals, pebbles, and fine sand evenly distributed throughout all strata? We do not. We have a contradiction with our hypothesis that "Hydrological sorting readily explains the layered pattern found in rocks within the context of a Global flood..."

That does not mean we have to throw the idea out; however, it certainly indicates that there needs to be refinement to this model. To not do so is not scientific.

Indeed, the author concludes: "However, hydrological sorting in the context of a global flood would only play a small role in the reformation and deposition of the earth" which contradicts his own statement about "readily explaining" global stratigraphy.

Gazettefan- You didn't read my posts? John 3:16 is Pauline in its essence. Jesus is saying the sacrifice of His life is a gift we must receive by faith. That is the heart of Pauline doctrine. Jesus said "unless you believe that I am He you will remain in your sins." Our righteousness must surpass the Pharisees to see the kingdom, theirs was a works righteousness and Christ said it was not good enough. Paul taught the same things, he did not contradict he reinforced. I'm not going to take the time to write these if you won't read them. As to your charge that the 3 accounts of Paul's Damascus in Acts contradict his epistles you have to be more specific, give an example from the Biblical text and I'm happy to respond.

bibledude, why didn't Paul teach the same thing that Jesus did?

What account of Paul's actions after his breakdown do you believe? The one in the Book of Acts or Paul's?

joejack - It is not clear who you are addressing, the Pauline discussion or the scientific one. If it is latter: I am thankful every single day to still be alive. I am thankful for the food that I eat. I pray for wisdom, spiritual and otherwise. A.M.D.G. and all that.

Topher - To answer your last statement first: it is not just the interpretation of facts, it is also the ability to make testable predictions... which leads us to...

Hydrologic sorting
===========

OK, I have gone and educated myself on this theory. (*) The site linked below states, quite correctly, right up front that the sorting is "based on factors such as size and density." Gold star, A+, 100% correct, if incomplete on what those other factors might be.

He continues: "... the disposition [sic] rate is determined by the rate of influx of material. [correct] This means the thickness of the layers is not related to the disposition [sic] rate, but only to the nature of the particles being deposited. [wrong]"

The layer thickness would also depend on the length of time the material is deposited. You can test it for yourself: if a cement truck pours cement into a deep hole for a minute, one will have a certain depth of cement. If the cement is poured in longer, that layer will be thicker.

Continued...

(*) http://creationwiki.org/Hydrological_sor...

Gazettefan- Speaking of dodging you have furnished no Biblical textual evidence to substantiate your radical opinions of Paul, nada, none, zero, just your subjective "close reading" opinion. Even theological liberal scholars using source criticism support the Pauline authorship of Romans without dissent yet that epistle completely contradicts your assertions of Paul.
You offer some sort of strange redaction criticism the likes of which I've ever seen with no textual reasons to support it other than that you say its true. Talk about a tautology.

Gazettefan- Marketing strategy? What did he gain by this marketing strategy? Prison? Shipwreck? Riots? Death? In Lystra a crowd attempts to stone him and he goes right back into the same city to continue his "marketing strategy." What did he gain Gazettefan? The truth is from an earthy perspective he suffered loss. Lost of his position as a Pharisee (See Phil. 3), friendships that he held dear, his health. Man what a marketing genius!
Paul taught that we can not earn our salvation because it is the gift of God received by faith that is true. It was not a marketing strategy it is truth. Jesus said "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." That verse is the heart of Pauline theology not a contradiction to it. This is Soteriology 101.
Both my college and Graduate school encourage the student to think for themselves thank you for asking.

The way I see it is this:

Devoted atheists are either very right or very wrong. It's the same for believers. They're either right or wrong. There's a 50% chance either way. More to the point, God cannot be proved or disproved. I don't know how long people must hear this before they actually comprehend it.

Another thing I see tossed around is that believers believe in God because they are weak and simpleminded. This is simply not true. I struggle and question my faith every single day of my life. Will I ever get to a point where I'm absolutely certain? Most likely not. I just fail to see how believing in a higher power restricts my reason. I think evolution is a solid theory. I don't think the earth is 6,000 years old. I like science,especially astronomy, very much. None of it disproves God.

One more thing. I'm very curious as to how criminals in jail were brought into this conversation about God. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

The biggest line of bunk provided is that creationists and evolutioonists are running around trying to discover, find and/or create their own facts. It's a race to see which side can come up with more and the evolutionists have an unmeasurable amount compared to the creationists. This is simply not true. Both sides have the exact same number of facts. We use all the same facts. The differences come when the sides interperet those facts. People then have to decide which interpretations make better sense or seem more plausible.

And, bibledude, nice attempt at deflection: I didn't say Paul was lazy. Manics and histrionics are not lazy. I said he created something (for marketing purposes) that appealed to the relatively lazy; relatively lazy compared to the Jews who observed the demanding covenants in the Torah.

And don't go dodging my 9:14 post.

JoeFlint wrote: "The ___scientific___ evidence -- from observed fact, through constructed hypothesis, to generally agreed upon model -- is that the Earth is approximately 4,600,000,000 years old; the Universe itself is currently generally agreed to be about three times older at 13,700,000,000 years. I am rather afraid to tell you that there is no, none whatsoever, scientific evidence that the Earth is only 6,000 to 7,000 years old. As I said, I am at your disposal to scientifically discuss this but this would be a two way street. As a Catholic, I would hope to not challenge your beliefs but rather strengthen them."
-
I rather like this. It seems that God, or to be fair, whomever, got an early start. I think where we silly humans fail is where we start to think that whomever created everything, that he actually gives a damn or has any influence over it. Again, I have no doubt that there is a god, and I use that term loosely, I just don't think I'll ever sit down with him for a chat. I also don't think I'll live in mortal fear for the rest of my life that if I don't do what some homeboy thought we should do (pay homage to the gods), that I will do anything other contribute my carbon to the scheme of things, whatever that is. The meaning of life, after all, is 42.
-
Most people don't know that the 99.9999% of all birds are actually black. Only one species I know of actually has any pigment in their feathers. Their color comes from the reflection and refraction of light through complex barbs in their feathers. I find this fact to be a proof that life was created - ties in with my "beauty" comment. Just a thought.

bibledude, was that Paul or Indiana Jones?!!!

Why are Paul's actions after his breakdown depicted differently in the Book of Acts than the way Paul depicts his actions in his own account.

Also, is there academic freedom at these schools you attend?

Gazettefan- Yes Gazettefan that's Paul to the the tee, just kick back do nothing and wait for heaven. Let's let Paul's words speak for him.
"Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked."

Ouch! my thoughts and prayers go out to myself.

You two did not go into your studies with the tool of critical thinking. You were predisposed to tow the party-line due to your need to believe in the supernatural. Paul's magic is still working. All you have to do is have a few odd ideas and you are filled with the joy of no death and eventual heaven and the special privilege of walking with the almighty while here on Earth.

Well, I guess it's a whole lot easier than being an Orthodox Jew. No covenants or laws to follow, no facing a larger portion of what life is all about; merely believe and that does the job.

This having faith thing explains why over 90 percent of the people in prison are believers -most of them christians. Just believe and all this other stuff doesn't really matter e.g. irrational thinking re: scientific endeavors, and occasional criminality. Continue with the abominations and every once in a while pray and ask for forgiveness -and throw in a crucifixion tattoo for good measure.

Gazettefan- Sometime in 2010 I will have my doctorate in Biblical studies to add to my Masters and Bachelors in the same field. In my 27 years of ministry I have never read anything close to your ramblings about Paul, even from his staunchest critics. Your depiction of Paul has no basis in truth and is a complete distortion of the Biblical record. It is also an affront to Dr. Luke. The book of Acts has stood of to scrutiny by historians and scholars over the centuries. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Everything Gazettefan just wrote is completely discredited due to it being based totally on his own bigoted assumptions. No one who ever seriously studied the writtings of Paul could come to such silly conclusions. But Gazettefan's purpose yet again is to throw more garbage against the wall and see what might stick.

biblbedude, Paul had no contact with Jesus and almost no contact with Jesus' posse. The posse was rabbinical and believed in the the laws or covenants of the Torah and a new kingdom here on Earth. Paul's contrivance was mysticism that had a large appeal because people got the promise of heaven and whatnot for little more than faith. Paul's contrivance was also calculated to tap into the appeal of pre-existing elements (e.g. "virgin birth) of the Roman stories as well as the stories of others. This garnered adherents -no laws or covenants of the Torah; instead: comfort ideas. Networking by Paul and his posse and lies and manipulation and historical forces allowed Paul's thing to take off.

Acts has no credibility because its depiction of Paul importantly contradicts Paul's own depiction of himself! The fictitious purpose of Acts was to allow Paul to piggy-back on the gravitas of Jesus and his posse but Paul was in fact hostile toward Jews and the Jewish religion -especially the Torah. You can learn this from close reading.

Part3
Now I realize that our scientifically inclined posters will object to the young earth idea based on the radiometric dating of rocks. But even that method makes some rather bold assumptions. For instance, the only way one can determine the age of rocks with this method is to assume a standard that there are certain radioactive elements in new rock and an absence of those same elements in their decayed state. If the environmental conditions were different than those presently observed would that affect the accuracy of this method? Perhaps not, but one cannot completely discount the possibility. Suppose the Lord God created the earth not as a molten ball as science believes, but as solid skin with a molten core much as it is now (in other words, with the appearance of age)? Wouldn’t that skew the radiometric method?
.
The problem lies with our limited ability to perceive our universe. We know so little. I read from another poster not long ago that the field of what is unknown is shrinking, but it seems that just the opposite is true, that the more we know, the more we realize how much more there is to learn. And the more enamored we become with our abilities to perceive and hypothesize, the more error prone we become.

Part2
Is it unreasonable to assume a young earth given all the best guesses and enlightened conjecture of our most educated and able minds? From my own point of view I suspect that the earth may well be very old. But I cannot dismiss the possibility that it is young. Many people dismiss Genesis as anything but allegory not just due to its creation account. In the second chapter it says that at that time immediately after creation that the Lord had not yet caused it to rain. Since we, as modern humanity have never observed the earth rainless even for a day (as it is always raining somewhere), we find that account hard to accept. Then there’s the problem of just who did the sons of Adam marry. Sisters obviously, but since in our experience, brothers and sisters conceive defective children, again, we find this hard to accept. Then there’s the account of all those very old people, some living 10 times as long as the oldest people now living. How can a modern scientifically oriented person accept such an account when nothing like it has ever been observed? Obviously they cannot unless one can accept the possibility that the conditions of the environment that exists now are not the same as they were then. It’s true, such conditions have never been observed, except through the account written in Genesis and a few other ancient scripts, but to summarily dismiss the possibility is I think a mistake. After all, isn’t it modern day scientists who tell us that the environment has changed catastrophically from time to time? Isn’t that the consensus view of what caused the extinction of dinosaurs? So, if modern day scientists can speculate about the changing environmental conditions of eons past and its effect on life so can bible believers, and with just as much authority since both groups make assumptions which by the very nature of those assumptions cannot be substantiated.

In the first chapter of Genesis it is written in the verses listed-
“ 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. “
From these verses of the creation account, one can see that it was not until the 4th day of creation that days as we know them came to be counted. From that one can conclude that the days of creation were not 24hr days. How long were those days of creation? The bible doesn’t tell us. Could those days have been millions, even billions of years long? Very possibly. But they may also have been 24hr days just the same.

joeflint,
Regarding the rock layers: What about hydrologic sorting?

21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Romans Chapter 1

AMEN

The layering process of rocks and sediment is well understood. Even in Biblical archeology one must use knowledge of the layering process to understand that, in general (certainly not always), if one digs deeper, then one is looking at older material.

As archeology began in earnest about two hundred and fifty years ago, the easiest unknown sites to discover in the Middle East were abandoned "tells" (*) where human occupation of a site over a very long time frame accumulates new material on top of old. All one had to do was look for a hill.

In fact, many early Christian churches were built on top of older structures, which were often built atop of still older structures. We don't really do this today because we have heavy machinery to completely remove the old building before constructing the new. Also, ancient cities were very, very compact as one needed to stay close to reliable water, etc. and were often walled which obviously led to size restrictions. Modern cities build outwards (sprawl) instead of upwards.

In general (but not always), this is how the deposition of rock layers occurs. When you look at the pictures of synclines and anticlines, one can observe the different strata and a priori assume that the layers on top nearest the surface are the youngest.

Then, one must use radiological, chemical, magnetic, crystallographic, and still other methods to determine the age of the rocks. While there are certainly exceptions, the evidence obtained by laboratory measurement agrees that, in general, deeper rocks are older.

More to come...

(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell

ARRRRGH! gazettefan, Someone who presented with Paul's claims and behavior and ability to write complex elaborations about unreal things would be viewed differently by you if that person appeared today, I be thinkin that scally-wagg Morman founder were thee last to talk to Christ RAmen

Thank you joeflint, very thought provoking entry.

bibledude - if everything was set "just so" and then the "curtain was lifted", then all of the science that we have remains valid. It remains a powerful, predictive tool that we can use. Also, in short, there is no other way for us to know otherwise!

Since we cannot freely travel in (or out of) time, it is an AXIOM of physics that time is continuous back to the beginning of the Universe. We cannot step "outside of time" and perform an independent measurement to determine if there was a "starting" time (makes no sense if you think about it, anyways) before which there was or was not any thing or any time.

So, if I measure the CO2 content, or the radioactivity, or the mineral content, or the magnetic alignment of the crystals in a particular rock sample or the redshift of a distant galaxy and from those measurements derive a date, I have to assume, based on all of the other underlying physics, that the value I calculate is meaningful in some sense.

That said, it is actually a trivial calculation to show that if one started with a randomly arranged Universe that slowly changes into its present form over a long period of time -- versus -- setting up all at once all of the complex structures as we observe today, well, it would take TREMENDOUSLY more energy to perform the latter. To turn a favorite debate tactic of the intelligent design crowd back: which is easier to do? Follow a recipe and bake a cake -- or -- sit there and meticulously "create" a cake as a finished product? The ID crowd argues that it is too difficult for complex systems to arise spontaneously; I argue quite the opposite, physics is quite clear that it is easier to slowly build up a complex system (with or without a recipe!).

As I stated, once embedded in the Universe as we are, we cannot tell which actually happened. This becomes a metaphysical or philosophical problem at this point: if God set everything up just so only 6,000 years ago, did the laws of physics get written first or were they post hoc additions to what had been created? However, if we state that the Universe began a very long time ago and has "evolved" to its present state, it is obvious that the laws of physics came first.

First, the linked site (and I have just read a considerable fraction of it) provides what appears to be scientific evidence but is not: they have made observations, they have a conjecture (based on Scripture), but they do not make any predictions nor do they perform any tests to ascertain the validity of their conjecture.

By definition, this is not scientific. They are not scientists, even if they purport to be.

Now to discuss their points:

1. oceanic fossils at high elevation
The fastest rate at which the Himalaya are currently being uplifted is 1 cm / year; most mountain ranges are undergoing uplift much more slowly. This rate of mountain uplift was originally measured using regular surveyor's equipment; it is now monitored both by in situ GPS measurement and by radar satellite. You, with very simple equipment and only a few years apart, could measure this value for yourself!

Now, 1 cm / year is about a half an inch per year. There are only 12 inches to a foot and only 5,280 feet in a mile, so at even a tenth of an inch per year, it would take merely 636,300 years to uplift rocks one mile. The height of K2 is 28,251 feet which is 5.35 miles above sea level. It would only take, at a tenth of an inch per year, only 3.4 million years to take K2 from the elevation of the ocean to its current height. Of course, mountains actually built up much more slowly than that, by about a factor of 20, but this is still only 60 million years. If we, for the moment, accept the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years, it took only 1.3% of the Earth's age to create the Himalaya.

Now, erosion helps out: by carrying rock and sediment off of a region, that region becomes lighter and can be uplifted more quickly. The rate of mass loss can be calculated and with this number one can refine the original model of uplift and predict a more accurate value.

I am going to couple a brief response to their #6 "rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle" right here.

Why is there uplift? Take a long piece of soft (not too soft) taffy and push the ends together. What happened? Either it sagged downwards even more or you put the right force on both ends to make the middle arch upwards. Here's a picture (search for syncline or anticline)...
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~schlisch/str...

It turns out that rocks do indeed flow and bend, just over very long time scales. Glass actually behaves in many of the same ways.

I shall have to continue tomorrow...

Thank you joeflint. Do you think the theory I described is at all plausible?

OK...

bibledude, I shall respond in brief: parts of the Pentateuch, particularly relating to dates or time spans, is allegorical; much of the Old Testament has considerable historical fact, it is indeed a written record of events. Like _all_ written records, it is at times embellished and at times incomplete.

Now, this will indeed get interesting...

First, if you have not done so, please scroll down and read my "how" vs. "why" entry.

Secondly, the scientific method: observe, form a conjecture or hypothesis, make a prediction based on that conjecture, and finally test. A subtle point: the test must be repeatable. If the conjecture predicted the outcome of the test, then the conjecture is valid until either a) shown to be incorrect for some tests or b) outright improved.

> In all reality the true age of the earth can never be known

It can be known, to a certain precision and to a certain accuracy. Precision: if I throw a hundred darts, how closely are they grouped? Accuracy: did any land near the bulls-eye? My darts might have a great grouping, but that does little good if they are all four feet to the left of the board! Likewise, if I hit the bulls-eye, that's great! Unless, all of my other darts are all over the wall.

In all reality the true age of the earth can never be known. Creationists and evolutionists see the same facts, i.e. layers of rocks, fossils, mutations, etc. It is how we interperet these facts that constitues our understanding of the world we live in. Dating methods used by evolutionists are inaccurate and untrusting, especially when the dating methods were created after macro evolution was widely popularized. If you taking a cup of dirt, put it in a jar with a two cups of water and close the lid. Shake it and you can watch the particles seperate into layers. When we look at the rock layers we can assume that layers could have been layed over millions of years or the dirt could have been layered by a flood like the jar of dirt. When you look at petrified forests with trees running through multiple layers of rock, that provides a problem for the different layers being different ages. I know this will receive attacks as well as some rebutals, but the information is out there for people to read, think about and discuss. Now before it comes let me cut it off at the pass. "The groups or people that don't believe in evolution are uneducated, ignorant, or Christian extremist radicals and are a danger to our children and society!" Anyone who thinks that or says that shows their own ignorance and closed mindedness. There are thousands of educated degree holding scientists that believe in Creation and/or a young earth. There are lots of groups that do research to find evidences for their theory. Here is a link for young rocks: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...

joeflint-what are your thoughts on the notion I've often heard that the Earth gives the appearance of age? The theory goes something like this, that creation in like the curtain being lifted on a drama that appears to be already in progress, even though the play has just begun. That Adam gives the appearance of a full grown man when he was in actuality after creation "new." Do you see the Genesis account as an allegory?

To put it one other way...

Humans wrote down the Word; if you believe that God is infinite or omniscient, would he not be even greater and more unimaginable than we could possible believe (or construct)?

The young Earth theory did not even appear until the 17th century (the Ussher chronology). Before then, the age of the Earth (or the Universe) was assumed to be incalculable.

To put it another way: a 6,000 year-old Earth shuts the door on an even more majestic and an even larger and more incredible Creation.

joeflint- your posts are very interesting to read. Thank you for your input, very educational.

... and Topher, I rather think that if you were to ask myself (obviously), billnewbie (who has shown some rather deep intellectual roots within), bibledude, and/or gazettefan about how literally accurate the Bible is, particularly Genesis, I think that you would receive the same answer from all four of us, despite our differing interpretations about the New Testament.

And that last bit, "our [four] differing interpretations" should ring loud alarm bells for you.

As a scientist, I know quite acutely that I will not nor could I ever hope to "know" or understand everything. No one person can fully understand everything. Do you believe that the prophets who received the Word were able to commit to text every nuance?

If so, do you believe that every copy throughout the millennia and that every translation from an ancient to a modern language is infallible? No mistakes were ever made?

There are some glaring errors in even the KJV version of the Bible if one consults original Greek or Syriac or Hebrew texts.

What to believe, indeed?

No, sorry.

As an extremely devout [Eastern] Catholic and as a scientist, there is ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH ___scientific___ evidence for a young Earth. I am at your disposal to scientifically refute any so-called "evidence" for a young Earth. But in order to hold up my end of the bargain, you must commit to your end of the bargain: you must be willing to learn some math and some science.

Allow me to share with you one grain of sand on the beach...
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0905/mwc...

If you were to go outside, away from the city where one can actually see the stars, and then hold at arm's length a dollar bill, it would entirely cover that image. Within this image, what I am currently calling a "single grain of sand," there are well over a million stars, our Sun is just like most of them. (If you look at the lower right corner, there are two almost fuzzy, star-like points that each comprise about a quarter million stars each; now count the rest of the picture).

It turns out that our entire galaxy, comprised of nearly 100,000,000,000,000 Suns is just a grain of sand as compared to all of the other galaxies in the Universe.

The ___scientific___ evidence -- from observed fact, through constructed hypothesis, to generally agreed upon model -- is that the Earth is approximately 4,600,000,000 years old; the Universe itself is currently generally agreed to be about three times older at 13,700,000,000 years. I am rather afraid to tell you that there is no, none whatsoever, scientific evidence that the Earth is only 6,000 to 7,000 years old. As I said, I am at your disposal to scientifically discuss this but this would be a two way street. As a Catholic, I would hope to not challenge your beliefs but rather strengthen them.

See also my comment below:

"There are beauties within deep, very deep, science (quantum mechanics, astronomy, genetics, mathematics, ...) that scientists would love to share...; however, observing the Universe so intimately really can only be described as a joy."

I was at a point in my life, about 6 years ago where I reached an all time low. I had been raised in a Christian home. My dad on the church board, both Grandpa's were former Pastors. My mom was the children's ministry leader and my sister and brother in law youth leaders. Religion was all around me. You could say I was forced every Sunday. When I hit my low, I was alone. Crying. I told God, (not sure if I was talking to anyone) that I'm done with religion and Christianity if I was not shown proof that He existed. Why do things because my parents said it was wrong or right? Why do things that I didn't want to do or not be allowed to do things I wanted to do, just because some book said some invisable being at the end of universe said so! I waited. Two days later, I turned on the TV. Flipping through the channels, I came across a man giving a lecture on Why the Bible can be trusted. I stopped to listen, Let's see if he has anything worth hearing, ya know? This part of a series, was about how, if you cannot believe the very first chapters of the Bible, you can't believe ANY of it. That makes sense to me. He also said that true science never conflicts with the Bible. ??? Then he talked about how because of evolution, many have lost their faith in God and in the Bible. He described sharp contrasts between the two views and how they can effect how people live their lives. He appeared several more times during the next couple of weeks as the rest of his series played. I started doing research and found other people who said the same thing and had more information. I have read books on both sides of the debate. I gotta say, my faith has been completely rejuvinated and even stronger than ever. I grow every day in my faith nowing that there are thousands of SCIENTISTS who have done research and expirements that give evidence for a young earth. Evidence that confirms the Bible as historically and scientifically accurate. If I can believe the Bible is true, and I have a Creator, He deserves my love and respect and honor. His laws or rules are not to keep me from having fun or enjoying my life, they are to keep me safe, and healthy, and free!

And in the words of that great sage, Willy Wonka, "You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about." Being a master of nonsense, I'm sure you understand and agree, Gazettefan.

I see from Gazettefan's response to Talking_Monkey, he thinks he's found a "silver bullet". That brings to mind yet another Shakespearean quote, "Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek". Gazettefan isn't going to let any 2 horned "myth" upstage him!

As a bible scholar, Gazettefan you should well know that the letter of Peter to James is not nor ever was considered to be scripture. It was a letter written pseudonymously in the name of Peter and is only found as a preface to the Homilies of Clement, a collection of legendary stories and sermons of Clement of Rome. That this letter contends a dispute, even a rivalry between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem is nothing new and was settled as written in the book of Acts. When you read the contents of the first and second books of Peter (real books of the bible), the fact that Peter and Paul settled the dispute in favor of Paul's position is clear.
.
So, are you going to retract your obvious slander or not? Maybe you think that you can keep changing the subject and thereby outlast the critics.

Gazettefan- Are you referring to pseudepigrapha? Peter did not write a letter to James he wrote to the Diaspora. You claim that Paul's soteriology is different from that of Jesus. Jesus taught that He fulfilled the Mosaic law. He further stated that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. Theirs was a righteousness based on works of the Law, Christ taught a righteousness based on faith in His sufficiency, "Unless you believe that I am He you will remain in your sins." Paul taught the same, that we are not justified by works but by faith in Christ alone. Still waiting for your textual evidence concerning your claims about Paul.

TalkingMonkey, thank you for your interest but if you had really been keeping up you'd know what a bombshell The Letter From Peter to James is.

I doubt if we'll be hearing from billnewbie and bibledude again.

But just in case we do: to quote bibledude:

"This will be fun."

I'm impressed by how much faster it's going downhill... Didn't think that was possible :O

OK, now I can tell, you're really stuck!!!

Rudeness is also in the eye of the beholder Gazettefan. "I must be cruel only to be kind". The Bard's words still ring true! And again, "And since you know you cannot see yourself, so well as by reflection, I, your glass, will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of."
and once more, "I am not bound to please thee with my answers". Sound familiar?

bibledude, you are in arrears re: points I have made.

However, here's something to chew on:

The Letter of Peter to James

PS billnewbie, you can have a bite too.

billnewbie, you are incredibly rude.

But, nonetheless, I will present your concerns at the next meeting.

---------------gazettefan: bible scholar

As a bible scholar, Gazettefan, you would do well not to try to make a living at it. People that hire bible scholars expect them to know something about their field of expertise. So, don't give up your day job!

So, Gazettefan is it your contention that since Paul is a public figure that you can slander him at will? That may be true legally, since who's going to sue? But morally, a lie is still a lie even if the guy you're lying about has been dead for 1950 years or so. That's an interestingly relativists moral statement you mode though. I must say, you can rationalize with the best of them!

The thin about THIS particular debate? It's going NOWHERE fast.

No, Gazettefan the supernatural doesn't work for you because you would never let it, but it does work for me and many people. Many of us know intrinsically that there is a God, that there is a supernatural and that there are miracles. The fact that cynics like you condemn the notion of the supernatural out of hand without anything beyond your own limited experiences and your bias(even if you had seen a miracle you would deny it) is proof of your conceit. You're just another stubborn egocentric fanatic who cannot accept the possibility that you may be wrong.
.
So, how about a retraction concerning Paul's "psychosis" and his self-hating "anti-semitism", or are you willing to accept the title "anti-theistic fanatic"? Don't worry, your allies will understand and compliment you on your display of intellectual integrity and that the ploy just didn't work this time. They'll still support you. After all, you can still be the cynical point man for the anti-theists here in Janesville provided you don't discredit yourself which your retraction will go a long way toward preventing.

billnewbie, I as a bible scholar would not use the "circumcision" verses to help with your side of the dispute.

Gazettefan- Who are you trying to kid by trying to say my points regarding the Apostle Paul are tautological? The proof text for both of us here is the New Testament. Paul is a key figure of the New Testament and the history of the 1st century church. What other primary source document would either of us turn to in a discussion of Paul besides the New Testament? Billnewbie and I have cited passages from the New Testament that blatantly refute your assertions. Can you please site biblical passages that support your theories that are objective? You need more than Paul was psychotic or telling a lie when making these outlandish assertions. Where is your textual evidence?

darwin1-You should probably stick to science though I'm happy to engage in a debate on Biblical textual criticism. Yes we read about Paul in the Bible. The Bible which Gazettefan distorts for to fit his presuppositions. Within the Bible there is overwhelming scriptural support to refute his claim, Billnewbie has cited some as well, prove us wrong.

By the way, billnewbie, I was talking about Paul, who you may well know is a public figure. You are obviously trying to give the impression that I'm breaking the rules here. Stop with the malarkey and just try to keep up.

billnewbie, how appropriate that my most recent post applies to your most recent post, even though I have only just now read it.

You two must realize that embracing the supernatural does not work for you. Also, as darwin1, points out, using the bible at face value to justify the "veracity" of the bible is also not impressive.

bibledude, if Hitler had succeeded with his wish to change the world, would that terrible change in itself be proof of his greatness in the positive sense? That Paul changed the world is not proof that what he did was good.

And, yes, Paul's claims of a supernatural event certainly works against him. There has never been any evidence of a supernatural event anywhere at anytime.

The alleged "danger" of Paul having contact with James was more than offset by his, Paul's, collaboration with the Sadducee and the Romans. Paul was a sly one, like Hitler.

Someone who presented with Paul's claims and behavior and ability to write complex elaborations about unreal things would be viewed differently by you if that person appeared today.

You're missing the meaning of Paul's sparse contact with James. Why weren't Jesus' survivors intrinsic to Paul's activities, studies, and preachments?

There is something called "close reading." Close reading is a high level skill that sometimes reveals the true story behind the face value of the written word. Close reading is not to be confused with Paul's propensity for having supernatural explanations for his weird behavior and his bizarre baloney about Jesus and what Jesus stood for.

Next befuddlement!!!

That claim Gazettefan makes that Paul is psychotic is an interesting one. It verifies what I’ve been saying about him and other anti-theists who call themselves atheists. They need to feel superior to theists. Either theists, and Paul was certainly that, are mentally deficient or mentally diseased according to them. And it verifies their fanaticism in that they invent these “facts” and post them as if they were credible. A person can search the internet and the local library and the only corroboration one may find for Paul’s “psychosis” is from other fanatics who assume (that is, believe) that since Paul could not have actually seen Christ on the road to Damascus (which is a summary dismissal of the scriptures) that he must have been psychotic. So, since they don’t believe in the miraculous, then anyone who contends that a miraculous event took place is either stupid or psychotic, an assumption based in conceit in that since they reject the miraculous, it does not exist. It’s an interesting tactic though, to make up a “fact” and present it as such then draw amusement from the outraged denials posted in response while basking in the glowing admiration of one’s equally egotistical peers, a tactic drawn directly from Alinsky’s rules for radicals.

Gazettefan must have missed a few verses written in Romans by Paul where he said,
Rom 2:10 “But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile”
Rom 2:29 “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Rom 3:1 " What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? “
Rom 3:2 “ Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."
Rom 3:29 “Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 “Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

.
Now I realize that Gazettefan, being a self-proclaimed “biblical expert”, knows that when Paul the Apostle refers to “circumcision” he means Jews and when he refers to “uncircumcision” he refers to Gentiles, so since Gazettefan should know these things as a “bible expert”, and since he often refers to Paul’s writings, therefore he should have more than a passing familiarity with these passages of scripture. And since these passages clearly show that Paul is not a “self-hating Jew” who advocates anti-semitism, then there can only be two possible conclusions about what Gazettefan contends, that he is ignorant about what’s written in scripture in spite of his claims of expertise, or he has intentionally misrepresented scripture in a fanatical effort to discredit it. Since Gazettefan goes on at length contending that Paul was psychotic, a contention Gazettefan likes to make against people who he disagrees with, the more obvious reason is his fanatic anti-theism, which he has displayed time and time again on GazetteXtra.

What overwhelming biblical support? I noticed you didn't use the word evidence. Then there is overwhelming Harry Potter support that Harry Potter and witchcraft are real.

And the debate rages on... and on... and on...

You jumped the gun Gazettefan, I'm not that fast of a typer. Now you can read and respond.

bibledude, how in the world does that help your point?!

Paul made up all that spiritual stuff. It has noting to do with Jesus and his rabbinical work. What Paul says condemns Jesus. Don't you know anything about Jesus' life?

Gazettefan- So then according to you the Apostle Paul was a psychotic, hypocritical liar. He says in the text below "I am telling the truth I am not lying" yet you say he is, on what basis? Your worldview does not allow for any kind of supernatural event, that his experience with the risen Christ was real therefore it must be a psychotic breakdown. Paul was a changed man after that experience. His message changed radically, he had changed and then he changed the world. Is that the usual result of a psychotic breakdown? Are his complex theological teachings the product of someone with psychosis? Talk is cheap you say, well actions aren't, we can both agree on that. So In Acts 21 Paul returns to Jerusalem to meet with his friend (who you say is his enemy) James. He has been warned this might cost him his life earlier but he makes the journey anyway. James asks him to go to the temple to demonstrate that he is not against the law of Moses. He is asked to accompany four other men into the temple to take a vow of purification. Paul agrees to go even though he knows this will put his life at risk, he even pays for their purification rites. The end result was he was arrested and almost killed. He put his money where his mouth was. You make bold assertions with no evidence to support them. There is overwhelming Biblical support to refute your audacious claims. Next question!

Gazettefan- Here is Paul's a sample of Paul's anti semitic "hate speech" from Romans 9. "I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen."

bibledude, Paul was an anti-semite because he was a self-hating Jew. This fact is related to his psychotic breakdown on the road to Damascus. What else would explain his obvious contempt for the Jewish people than your paraphrasing of what he said: Something on the order of: he would be willing to spend eternity in hell if the Jews would become christians, -or some such thing. (By the way, I'm not impressed by a person's promise of great sacrifice when that great sacrifice is totally impossible.)

One of Paul's greatest marketing ploys was truly a masterstroke: No more of the covenant with the lord that required circumcision. (It would certainly work for me!!!)

Now where were we, oh yeah: The first four books of the New Testament which were extremely altered, and Paul's writing were strategically placed to make it appear that Paul's christianity naturally flowed from that of Jesus and Jesus' surviving followers.

Jesus and his surviving followers were as I described them in my previous post. Jesus and they preached the Torah with the added element of a new world on Earth with god and with Jesus or one of his true followers as the corporeal and rightful descendant of David and therefore the non-divine king of Israel.

The supernatural stuff about Jesus didn't start until Paul's marriage with psychosis. He brought in all that stuff about the virgin birth, heaven, and Jesus being one/third of that crazy little thing called the trinity.

Among Jesus' true followers were his numerous siblings.***

***Except for Jesus' wise-cracking kid brother, Shecky Christ, who was persona non grata.

Next question.

DeGriz, the reasons you listed as to why we won the cold war are important aspects of our secular country. If we were like bibledude and Jesus' idea of getting along (love your neighbor), we would have been like the Amish. But we would have only been like the Amish up till the early 1940s at which time we would have been absorbed into the Third Reich.

Or, if that didn't happen we might have become a part of Maoist China. But most likely, if it weren't for our secular system, the Soviet Union would still exist and we would be in it.

The other religious extreme would have had us like Islam, only much more modern and therefore much more dangerous.

Religion is permitted here (as it should be). But we are a secular/democratic county -this has caused the inherent danger of religiosity to dissipate here; and we and the world are better off for it.

DiGriz- Paul was not an anti-semite he WAS Jewish, many of his friends and associates were Jewish. He was not against his own race. Luther was not anti-Catholic. He wanted to bring reform, to stop the letters of indulgences and the Tetzel outrageous means of funding the Basilica but he did not want to defect from the Catholic church originally.

That would be the easy way out Sponge Bob... Never gonna get to the bottom of something if you stop digging...

G-Fan: "And it was the democratic secularity of the U.S. that finally defeated the Soviet Union."
-
Ok, what I meant on this one was that I have always thought that the downfall of the Soviet Union had more to do with hmmmm, let's say a cold war, an arms race, corrupt government, and an unsustainable drain on their economy just to name a few ultimately resulting in....lots of little pieces of Soviet Union, some of which now belong to NATO. That's what I meant. Sorry if unclear. Please now explain how the separation of church and state in the United States had anything to do with the little-bitty pieces part of what I just said. No need to call me stupid or be defensive because I'm curious, is there?

G-fan: I don't see how a person like me can tow the party line as it relates to religion...since I don't believe in any one religion, per se, only that there is a god. If you want to say that Paul was an anti-semite, fine. I'd agree with that in the same light that I would agree that Martin Luther was anti-catholic. NP there. But you missed the point of my questions, I think. It had nothing to do with Paul being an anti-semite. Please re-read.

Maybe we should talk about something a little less debatable.

.....So, what's the deal with abortion?

One more thought... Seems to me that religious people (not all, mind you) have a lower IQ than those with "atheist" tendencies?

Here's another thought: What if religion is really "moralized" co-dependancy?

Interesting perspectives, Talking_Monkey. Although, I have to say the "'shoom hypothesis" seems to be a far more plausible explanation than FF video. ;~)

By the way, Jesus was a VERY real person, who walked against then-current ways of thinking. I think the newest Jesus is among us. Where, I have no idea, but he certainly is SOMEWHERE. If I was him, I would be hiding in the darkest areas of society...

I think God was contrived to try to control the masses of people who were violent, insecure, emotionally disturbed, and other uncontrollable behaviors. Carrot and stick, anyone? Also, the bible was written by people who were considered "crazy" back in the day, mostly because they were not of the usual school of thought. So I think that people who interpret the bible literally are asking for trouble. What if what Moses really saw a fast-forward video of evolution and it just took seven days to see it?(fast-forward is a new concept, by the way, Moses never would have known the difference.) Another thing, I think it's quite possible that religion is full of people with untreated OCD, among other things. The bigger the need created by bad parenting the more religion will likely play a part in quelling the emotional disquiet. God, real or not, is not going to go away for quite some time.

Gazettefan- I'm chomping at the bit, this will be fun.

DeGriz and bibledude, I'll get to your questions when I can. But for now, it's easy to see that you two have really feasted on the party-line. How you two can't see the anti-semitism inherent in Paul's christianity is a glaring indication of your lack of scholarship.

"Paul broke away from the Torah and created an anti-semitic religion that led to The Holocaust."
-
I think that sentence needs a little clarification, too. It's like saying "Little Jimmy stepped on an ant, which resulted in a major earthquake on Easter Island which destroyed all the moai and led Velupillai Prabhakaran to create the Tamil Tigers" in Sri Lanka because he knew the ant personally in another life and wanted to create a safe-haven for ants."
-
One can't say that had Christianity not been created, the holocaust scenario would not have happened anyway, can they? If not Hitler, it would have been some other whacko. Hitler wasn't the first person to try to wipe out the Hebrew Nation, was he?? We sometimes don't give the brutality of the human race the credit it deserves.

Gazettefan- I'm not sure where your knowledge of the Bible comes from but its not from the Bible that's for sure. I don't even know where to stop. This is like a tangled ball of yarn. You make Jesus sound like He was simply parroting the Old Testament. He repeatedly said " you have heard it said... but I say to you." Love your neighbor was not new I agree but love your enemies was radical. Eye for an eye was what the Law called for but Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and let your enemy strike that one as well. He taught the greatest among you is the servant of all. These and MANY other created a new paradigm for what it meant to be a God follower. If He had embraced the Law the scribes, Pharisees and the like would have loved Him. As to Paul being an anti semite he said in Romans he would give up and soul and be eternally condemned if it meant that the Jews would come to know Christ. That's some hate there, I hate you so much I'd take your place in hell if I could. Paul and James were not at odds, read about the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Paul started Christianity? The Kerygma of the Gospel was in place long before Paul converted. Read Peter's sermon in Acts 2, Paul could have preached that same sermon, it contradicts nothing Paul taught in his epistles. I could go on but someone is giving you some bad counsel on this subject.

G-Fan: "And it was the democratic secularity of the U.S. that finally defeated the Soviet Union."
-
Since you threw that one in there, and it's an awfully general statement, please explain exactly what you mean, or define democratic secularity as you percieive it to apply to the context of the statement. Just curious.

joeflint, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who taught the Jewish covenant with god -the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. He also built heavily on the Old Testament ideas about the afterlife. That afterlife was not spiritual or of another world.

The afterlife that Jesus taught had people abiding by the covenant prompting the appearance of god on Earth. Righteous people alive at the time would live forever. Dead righteous people, like Moses, would be resurrected and live forever in this world on Earth.

Jesus got "Love they neighbor." from the Old Testament. "Love they neighbor" also predates the Old Testament.

Paul schismed from the remaining true followers of Jesus and his and their rabbinical work -among Jesus' followers was his brother, James, who was crucified about 30 of 40 years after Jesus.

Paul invented the "christianity" that almost everyone now believes is the chrisitianity of Jesus -it is not. Again, Jesus was a rabbi who taught the Torah.

Paul broke away from the Torah and created an anti-semitic religion that led to The Holocaust.

It is impossible to debate logically with someone who believes that Stalin's mass murders were somehow due to too much religion. Congratulations, I am speechless.

well said Joe...

> Note the command and sanction for mass murder and slavery by god in the bible. Much of it committed by god himself.

Yes... in the Old Testament. At the very great risk of going waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic, I must respond.

The Sermon on the Mount swept away the old Law of Moses and replaced it with love thy neighbor. With your example from the Old Testament or a "Christian" too strongly relying on it (off the top of my head, Leviticus when dealing with homosexuality), it is the OLD TESTAMENT... and therefore neither person is talking about Christianity (as it was intended, at least).

Class? What was Jesus' mission here on Earth? Instate the NEW COVENANT. Relying on the Old Testament and claiming one is a Christian is a fallacious belief that does not truly, deeply understand what Jesus attempted to do.

Ignoring the Book of Revelations (written, for the record, as an allegorical denouncement of Roman rule and suppression), there is NOTHING in the New Testament that advocates any violence; and in that last book, it is talking about a supernatural battle of Good versus Evil, again, not to belabor the point, in terms of then current Roman rule.

This is why when I see polls that indicate that Christians are MORE inclined than atheists to approve of "enhanced interrogation" I think to myself 'there is something truly wrong with modern, American Christianity.'

In fact: the opposite: turn the other cheek. Our dear Christian leader was incapable of such a thing, he wanted and got Old Testament style wrath instead.

Western Christians would do a great service unto themselves if they spent a year or so in an Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox parish; it would shine a very different light on Christianity as a whole.

When was the last time anyone prayed FOR one's enemies? Not a prayer to convert them, not a prayer that they "see the light," but a prayer to inwardly forgive someone who has done great harm to you.

When was the last time your pastor, instead of railing against the terrorists, preached the Beatitudes? Blessed are the meek, dontcha know?

One thing that I forgot to mention about DNA and which is actually crucial is that in fact molecular theories aboout it actually RELY on the "messiness" (the amount of disorder) increasing.

Entropy truly works best, by definition of thermodynamics, when one has a LARGE system of particles. There can be apparent "violations" of thermodynamics when once starts to consider very small systems, i.e. consisting of only a few thousand molecules. But on average, these "violations" average out in larger systems.

A very crude example: water waves on the ocean can be thought of as small disturbances, any one wave can be particularly large or small, but on the whole the ocean is flat... but now compare the surface waves to the much larger currents and to the tides. Totally different scales.

Anyways, to my point: When you have string, or shoelaces, or an extension cord... what happens to it? It tends to get all balled and knotted up, right? In other words, things do NOT usually stretch out all by themselves.

Well, if one studies, very closely, chemical reactions of large protiens, they tend to fold up or link up in often what seem to be unexpected or even counter-intuitive ways... until one considers the entropy. This protein folding is a very active area of current research.

There is a very excellent illustration of this at the top of this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_fol...

While performing this experiment at home would of course be difficult, one can as already stated perform a complementary experiment with regular household items:

Put a few different kinds of string or shoelaces in a box, maybe shake it up quite a bit (to simulate the constant molecular vibrations and rotations), and see what you have: a knot.

I do not claim, of course, that this explains in and of itself DNA but it is an important underlying piece of the physical theory.

Knot theory is a fascinating branch of mathematics...

gazettefan,
Just Google "Stalin's ape army" and you'll get plenty of links.

LOL, always funny pastafarian.

No doubt Stalin's propensity for slavery and mass slaughter was inspired by his biblical student days in a seminary.

Note the command and sanction for mass murder and slavery by god in the bible. Much of it committed by god himself.

ARRRGH! Me thinks the bilge rat Stalin would need this missing link.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm RAmen

Well if Stalin believes it then it must be bad. Stalin had a cop/pornstar moustache too so all cops/pornstars must be Stalinists.

Ha ha, DrTalk, your post is missing the usual hyperlink to a supporting site.

Stalin was a big believer in evolution. That's why he tried cross breading apes and humans to create a mutant ape army.

kinsohn, I was referring to the thousands of women murdered, as "witches" in Europe by the Church prior to the Salem murders.

Also, Stalin's murders were the product of the irrationality of religiosity: a tapping into the religiosity of millions by an all-powerful, unelected leader (sound familiar?). Atheism had nothing to do with it. Worship and churches were never banned in the Soviet Union. Stalin allowed the existence of religiosity to stunt any rebelliousness.

And it was the democratic secularity of the U.S. that finally defeated the Soviet Union.

But, isn't "leftie" a prejudgment, kinsohn?

Blaming Cristianity for the warped actions of a few - like the Salem witch trials - is like blaming atheism for Stalin's gulags and Soviet pograms. Please lefties, spare us the prejudgements you supposedly don't have.

Welcome to the discussion, Joeflint! Why is why I am atheist. Hmmm... maybe that should that be, "Why is how I am atheist".

Thanks for that link. I've seen short video segments of Bonnie Bassler but nothing that lengthy. Educators worried about America's standing in the world should figure out how bottle and inject Essence of Bessler into every teacher. She's great.

Oh yeah, house arrest and the threat of torture is not as bad as torturing and murdering women for being "witches."

And for those of you who say in defense: "Well that was a long time ago.": one of the modern ways the church has for abusing women is to insist that it should control what goes on in a woman's body.

Also, for more torture of women: watch those nuns on ETWN.

DrTalk-it crossed my mind that she was probably talking about Galileo, except, as you said, he had strong religious connections himself so I wouldn't think prounion would use him as an example of persecution by Christian's (it should have been a dilemma for her to decide who was worse, the Christian Galileo or the Christian church for chastising this Christian).
AND the "couple hundred years" was not something you'd expect from someone who is so knowledgeable.
joeflint's "Science = how? Religion = why?" post was, to me, more an example of an "enlightened", civilized-and interesting-way of looking at things, as was lakennedy's. Both are (IMO) fair views that should be easily digestible by either side of the equation, and a good tone on which to base a discussion, especially for those who wish to, as lakennedy suggests, (peacefully) coexist. There will always be some, of course, who could produce a contentious several hundred post thread over whether the day should be considered "partly sunny" or "partly cloudy", preferring that over peaceful coexistence. (I DO know this is a little deeper than that, but...."easily digestible/palatable" is much more apt to be happily consumed.)

And it should be noted that around the time in question: Christians were torturing and murdering women for being "witches."

joeflint, I know what your post says. It would still be an improvement for some believers to get a grip on it.

Ummm... yeah. Please read my other two posts; I'd hoped those would spark a more informed discussion.

But, fyi, Galileo knew damn well what he was doing when he used Pope Urban's words as the words of the fool in his book.

The FACT that the Vatican kept and then pushed for the publication of Galileo's work speaks volumes, pun most certainly intended.

Dr.Talk, any comments on house arrest and the threat of torture?

joeflint,
If only gazettefan would read and understand your post.

gazette: I am getting old dude!!! LOL I think it comes with the aging process...

joeflint, if only the chirstians on this blog would read and understand your post.

(Though I wouldn't downplay house arrest.)

> Christians have no credibility when it comes to people like Galileo. Only outside pressure causes the church to make positive changes.

First, I'll come half way and agree that outside pressure against authority is usually a very good thing, in the long run.

That said... actually the Pope and Galileo were friendly, to an extent... enough so that he was sentenced to house arrest instead of a worse fate.

Galileo was not tried for his cosmological ideas but rather for his political / religious commentary which did not paint the authorities in a very flattering light.

The Church already knew and privately agreed with but did not publicly support heliocentrism. The reason? It would have been yet another blow against the "infallibility of the popes."

He died in 1642. "In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of an edition of Galileo's complete scientific works which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue." [wikipedia]

The Catholic Church actually publicly has endorsed the theory of evolution, in the context of science. They also have a very active astronomical research branch -- the Vatican Observatory, with one of their several observatories located in Arizona.

And yes... it was quite foolish to wait about 360 years to "absolve" him... (bureaucracy at work?! :D )

ncpanfan, what's with all those aches and pains? I'd like to pray for you but....well... you know.

good post Lake!

As a scientist, I need to chime in on the DNA banter...

I will gloss over the religion part of the argument, solely stating that WHY matter and energy exist is a question that lies outside of science. The Universe came into existence once, thus it is not a repeatably measurable process.

Now, on to the science...

We all agree that matter and energy exist. The most fundamental "law" of physics is that the total mass-energy content of the Universe if fixed, i.e. one cannot create or destroy matter. The 2nd "law" of thermodynamics states "that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." [wikipedia] In plain English, this means that, in general, things tend to get messy.

Examples: If I put some salt in a glass of water, it dissolves. The salt will not spontaneously come back out of the water. If I drop a cup and it breaks, it will not spontaneously reassemble. If I bake some bread, the smell will diffuse into the room and not the other way around.

"Aha!" some say, this "proves" that something as complex as DNA cannot spontaneously be created.

"Aha!" counters science... the Earth is not an ISOLATED system (go ahead, recheck the definition of entropy). The Sun is constantly pumping about 1370 W per square yard of power onto the earth ALL THE TIME. In the say 4 billion years that the Earth has been going around the Sun, that adds up to (assuming I made no conversion errors) about 2.25 x 10^31 kWh of power. That's a 2 with 31 zeros behind it. It looks like this: 22,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kWh. For those who prefer SI units, that should be 3.85 x 10^31 J. So, bottom line, we have a constant influx of energy. A lot of it. On a sunny day, you can go outside and feel it on your face. Now, what molecular biology and evolution try to do is explore HOW something as complex as DNA formed. One can construct a model and with that model explore differences between species, genus, family, ..., and kingdoms. If the model does not make good predictions, the scientific method demands that you improve the model or throw it out and try a different model. The best model that we currently have is that *very* early in the Earth's history, very simple organisms had very simple genetic codes; as organisms evolved, mutated, adapted, and grew more complex, more genetic information needed to be encoded.

And as far as (paraphrasing) 'only intelligence can effect some form of communication', I most heartily disagree:

Electrons... the double slit experiment and the compelling Aharonov-Bohm experiment indicates that electrons seem to trace out all of the paths available to them -- and those that are not! How does the e- "know" about a magnetic field that it cannot possibly (classically) "see"?

This stunning video:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bonni...

Christians have no credibility when it comes to people like Galileo. Only outside pressure causes the church to make positive changes.

They are idiots when they attack science with junk-science. They are even bigger idiots when they destroy the education and analytical skills of children with junk-science.

They think they have special privilege to destroy a reasonable debate by relying on nonsense. If they were only off in some harmless covens, like the Amish, they wouldn't be drawing the heat.

Gazette: Now you know I don't drink. I am always the designated driver for my friends who do. :) Sorry just high on life I reckon! LOL

RUSerious,
The man who was persecuted for saying the Earth revolved around the sun was Galileo. But the atheists on this site like to point out that he was persecuted by the Catholic church, but they always fail to mention that Galileo was a godly man who believed the Bible.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/g...

Christians are just as interested in making this world a better place as you and I are. This debate has taught me one very important thing. In today's society, Christians are definitely under attack by non-christians. I am (hopefully was) a big part of that problem. My belief that homosexuals should be able to marry is really no more important than Christian's belief that they should not. My belief that centers around a pro-choice argument is no more valuable to open discourse about the issue as pro-lifers. I think that we who aren't touting the Christian faith like to make them out to be idiotic zealots. That's not the case, and is a dangerous line of thought. I do not believe in a lot of the stories from the bible, and take issue with people trying to justify them by using terms "reason and logic," but I suppose those who believe think the same thing about me. The real question is weather we can all put our beliefs aside and co-exist. I'm hoping we can.

Science = how?
Religion = why?

Why is this so difficult?

There is ZERO intersection between the two except for those who wish to create controversy where none exists.

Science does NOT nor will it EVER try to prove or disprove God or miracles. The scientific method is based on being able to REPEATABLY perform the same experiment. Every time you turn your TV on, you are repeatably performing an action. A miracle -- by definition! -- is something that does NOT repeat, thus cannot be measured or explained by science.

Likewise, religion does NOT nor will it ever try to explain how an internal combustion engine or a cell phone or any thing else works. We do not invoke God to explain why your flat screen TV or rockets or anything else works.

Evolution is a THEORY, a very good one, about HOW life works and HOW it changes over time (yes, there are quite a few REPEATABLE and compelling experiments as well as very good field observations); it is NOT a theory about WHY life is here. Religion is about WHY we are here (e.g. God created us, He has a plan for us, etc) and not about HOW life changes over time.

Even at the molecular level, religion cannot explain HOW a chemical reaction proceeds; science cannot explain WHY we are even here to observe such things.

You would be surprised at how many scientists hold some belief, even if as a hedge against Pascal's wager; many hold very deep beliefs stimulated from both a spiritual and intellectual perspective, myself included.

There are beauties within deep, very deep, science (quantum mechanics, astronomy, genetics, mathematics, ...) that scientists would love to share with people but are inherently impossible to explain without a lot of specialized study; however, observing the Universe so intimately really can only be described as a joy; this is why it is so sad to me that there are some hold scientists or science in general in contempt.

And please don't cast stones... :D ...he who is without sin, and all that...

bibledude, It is happening in EVERY community, (individual Christians and faith-based groups-and of course others as well) but how can you even take seriously the comments from someone who says: "I really don't have anything against make believe in general" .....but makes believe anyway with this statement: "Its really too bad that the christians are not concerned with making the world a better place." Believe in a higher power or not, but this statement as a generality is inexcusable.
She even digs up raunchy old bones from the "dark ages" and attributes them only to Christianity, and to believers.
And concerning the statement about the scientist from "a couple hundred years ago" (1809!!??) who was tortured for his beliefs about Earth being the center of the universe....who was that? (If I can be enlightened about this, ok, but I truly don't know who it was.)

prounion-When you say Christians aren't interested in making the world a better place have you read some of the stories in the paper recently? There is some pretty nice things happening to help the poor and hurting in our community that Christians are doing. That's just in our community.

Its really too bad that the christians are not concerned with making the world a better place. I really don't have anything against make believe in general - its just when they block scientific progress, block attempts to educate, and encourage the spread of AIDS, I start to think - hey maybe these folks should not be ignored.

prounion-I hope that's not true. No one could justify a position like that.

The Catholic Church.

prounion- What group is advocating married woman not used condoms with infected husbands? That is truly crazy. I know thousands of Christians and can't think of a one that would agree with that.

Gazettefan-Sorry I missed your question. My computer crashed so I fell behind in reading the posts and did not see it until FOTH mentioned it. I am not trying to make any kind of connection between the natural order and the God of the Bible. My point is that the genetic code gives information and information always comes from a mind. That is the only point I was seeking to establish.

BD - you are correct the church no longer imprisons scientists that do not believe the Earth to be the center of the universe.
.
The arguement over the woman married to the man with HIV and if condom use is approved is still dogma today, and apparently they are considering changing it.
.
In the meantime Bush suspended all but abstinance only education funding for AIDS prevention, costing untold numbers of lives. Fruits indeed bibledude.

prounion- That argument is weak. There are morons, idiots and lunatics that claim to be theists and the same is true of some who are atheists. People are responsible for themselves. You note extremist radical behavior that is immoral done by those who have identified in Christianity. Jesus said "by your fruits you will know them." The behavior you mentioned is behavior no true Christian would condone or commit. I do not try to hold atheists responsible for the crimes of Stalin it gets very old and tiresome to hear people try to equate Christians with the extremism you mentioned.

LOL. Gazette, you just keep printing these articles for pure amusement don't You? ;o)

And, ncpanfan, you might want to consider just sipping the vodka in the evening.

No,ncpanfan. Someone with fibro-mialgia was praying for you.

Bibledude- religion has a long history of this type of ignorance. Let us not forget it was only a couple of hundred years ago when the scientist of his time was held in captivity until his death, after being tortured, all because he went against the biblical truth that the Earth was the center of the universe.
.
In the meantime current interpretations of the loving will of god involve the teaching that if a young woman is married to a person that is HIV positive condom use is still forbidden.
.
So please bibledude - answer Gazettefan's question that FOTH reminded you of - if you are sucessfull in you answer maybe all of the death and pain that christianity has caused, along with the constant attempts to cloak the human race in ingnorance were really nobel endevours and not just submission to an imaginary god.

Bibledude, you may as well cite the Bible as your scientific reference. Please cite a reference broadly recognized by the scientific community, whose author didn't lie under oath about its peer review. Speaking of the Bible, I am also interested in hearing your answer to Gazettefan's May 17, 6:34 p.m. question.

FOTH- Please explain to me then how information such as DNA came to be without some form of intelligence behind it. I will then forward it to Dr. Behe, the molecular biologist who wrote Darwin's Black Box, so he can know why he is wrong.

gazette: I pinched myself and I am alive!! LOL It is a pleasure to be alive but there are days when my body feels like it is 110 years old and has been run over by a dump truck. That wasn't you was it? hee hee :)

Bless you, buckyfan.

foolonthehill, Joseph Conrad said: "The mind of man is capable of anything, because everything is in it."

Everyone, to some degree, is a schemer. Many "religious" scientists are lying about being religious to avoid a cruel response from so-called believers. Scientists who are believers are scheming in the sense of Pasqal's Wager -whether they realize it or not. No one's perfect. There's a little bit of the evil genius in all of us.

-----

RE: Beauty: The idea of beauty has much to do with the human appreciation for the conceptual diode of freedom and order. Humans seek a balance of freedom and order. Individuals of our species who are extreme toward either freedom or order are evolutionarily weeded-out for marginalization, if not extinction. After many centuries of this process there is much agreement among humans as to what is beautiful in nature, art, and science.

Religion has been intellectually marginalized due to its extreme bent toward oppressive order. Religion is largely tolerated now as an oddity in democratic systems where the tensions between freedom and order produce the urge for balance. The tension involved in this pursuit is as desired as balance itself.

Believers fear the tension involved in the pursuit of balance and have tricked themselves into believing they've found the easy way out. Instead, they only deny themselves the exquisite pleasure of being alive.

Darwin1, wouldn't you agree the most beautiful things on Earth are the products of evolution? The logical basis for their beauty makes them all the more beautiful to me.

Gazettefan, I understand your compartmentalization explanation. I would like to hear how the religious scientist views the subject of personal integrity --in the wholeness or oneness meaning of the word. I think this is where I'm getting hung up.

What I find most interesting is the cognitive dissonance. "I know god exists." How do you know? There is beauty or complexity is the usual answer or we are provided with some rather convoluted analogy. Neither of these are acceptable forms of evidence in the real world. It doesn't matter how often you attack me or science. It just makes people feel better about their lack of curiosity and scientific laziness.

Oh Gazettefan, I love your posts!

Talk about deception, buckyfan: There is nothing in your post that contradicts my post and the Einstein quote. Apparently you thought Katy wouldn't read or would erratically speed read your post.

Shame on you!!!

Katy, Gazettefan only quoted part of Einstein's letter to lead you to believe he no longer believed in a higher power. As I've said in a previous post, further paragraphs show that Einstein still reveres Spinoza (and one might infer, Spinoza's God). Here are the translated paragraphs:

"... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

"... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

"In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

"Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e., in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. "

Katy, our scientists had to develop the atomic bomb before Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did. I do believe that dropping a second bomb on Japan was unnecessary. Developing the atomic bomb here kept the Soviets from later using theirs on us.

Also, you have no reason to believe that Einstein's thinking about religion was important to him re: his happiness -and especially his state of mind at the end of his life. As a matter of fact, we have good reason to believe that he would resent the way you describe him. It was his intelligence that allowed him to determine that belief in the existence of god is foolhardy.

foolonthehill, I still say it's compartmentalization. George Orwell's 1984 shows us that humans can maintain belief simultaneously in opposing ideas.

Good post, Katy. I accepted the reality of the religious scientist long ago. I want only to understand "how" they are able to do it as a practical matter. Ironically, I find it far easier to empathize the thought process of a religious fundamentalist than a scientist who practices one of the ancient religions. However, no one wants to address this issue directly. Is this because no one has any answers or because they are ashamed of the only answers they do have to offer? When no one provides any alternative explanation, it is very easy to write it off as denial so don't be too hard on the more skeptical atheists here. Regardless of one's personal opinion of Dr. Collins, he deserves respect for having the cajones to risk alienating Christians and scientists alike with the public statement of his position.

(As for controversial online articles, I am sure they have much higher hit rates, which has to be good for business. No, that wasn't cynical so don't shoot the messenger. We all want Gazette to prosper.)

I enjoy these lively discussions and often wonder if the Gazette posts these articles just to prompt the extremists among us into posting. The religious themed articles seem to be well followed based on the number of comments each one gets. None of the posts has changed my own belief system, nor do I suspect have they changed the minds of any other readers. There does seem to be a theme running throughout posts by the more adament people who do no believe in a higher power that is troubling to me. Some of their posts infer that scientists who are believers in a higher power are delusional, dualistic or both, and that they cannot possibly be the best scientist they could have been without this albatross of belief around their neck. It's somewhat superior to take such an approach. It is ironically a trait many scientists need to guard against assuming amongst non-scientists. I can spot a supercilious scientist a mile away. All people bring their own gifts to the world. It would be a bleak world populated only by scientists, though it is the beauty of science I most appreciate. And even though Einstein evolved to a place of renouncing God at the end of his life, it could be argued that he saw the importance of belief in the world for much of his productive scientific lifetime. It could be further argued that the deployment of the atomic bombs in WWII, an abomination of his lifes work, skewed his belief system. It's likely he renounced his faith in human beings at the same time.

Ah, yes, foolonthehill, it is with children that they get away with that crap. How manly!!!

Bibledude, I have explained this before. Your entire thesis is simply a variation on the rationale, "Since I don't understand, it must be God." Your reasoning relies on abominated definitions of the words "intelligence", "faith" and (most ironically) "create" in order to obfuscate your circular logic. It also violates the law of causality.

I know no other way to say this other than harshly but, if you honestly do believe your reasoning, then you will never understand the lengthy explanation of why it is so specious. Regardless, it is a dishonest argument so please don't use it on children.(Seriously.)

bibledude, I'll answer your questions when you explain how your view of physics and nature explains your belief in the Abrahamic judeo-christian-god.

FOTH- Sure I'm happy to explain. The naturalist believes there is matter and energy but has no explanation of how matter and energy came to be. They have no explanation for how life came to be at its most fundamental level of molecular biology. DNA is a genetic code, a code is information. Matter and energy are used to communicate information but do not create it. Information always comes from intelligence. To say that a chemical language that communicates information came from something other than intelligence but instead from non-living matter takes a high level of faith. I'll check back later, time to od on sports.

Correct, GFan. Plus that pesky "minor" detail of not NEEDING to believe in a deity. That is the axiom, once everything else is whittled away.

foolonthehill, because you don't believe it NOW!!! You rationally need to hear it as a result of the scientific method!

Gazettefan, that was exactly my point below (May 16, 9:48 a.m.). The assertion of "atheist faith" only confirms a fundamental misunderstanding of rational atheism. As a truth-seeker, I will be the first atheist on board if science ever demonstrates ANY predictable casual relationship between a cognizant deity and the natural universe. Why is that concept so difficult to grasp?

foolonthehill, "the more I learn..." claim renders the bible as meaningless (there's nothing in the bible that encourages education and enlightenment); this of course flies in the face of bibledude's name and his entire endeavor re: bible scholarship. The claim is an act of desperation; it's a claim absent of the will to see the world as it truly is.

bibledude's claim that atheism is a faith is a hackneyed attempt to include clear-headed people in the sophistic mental morass that burdens those who believe in the supernatural. Atheism merely eliminates the supernatural from its clear headed examination of the world.

Thank you for your service, DiGriz. Thank you VERY much!

The feelings are mutual, bibledude. Just what "faith" do you claim I behold? I believe only what evidence and experience demand I believe. I believe exactly the same as in a hypothetical world without words like "religion", "deity" or "theism". How is that faith?

Gazettefan, perhaps I misunderstood one or both of them. I was addressing only the commonality of the "the more I learn, the more reasons there are to believe" argument. Are you suggesting I should have waited until my serum caffeine reached normal levels first? ;~)

FOTH- You know I always respect your opinion even when I don't agree. I can not speak for others but my experience has been quite the opposite. The more science learns the more convinced I am of the existence of God. As we decipher the human genome we find greater and greater complexity. To me the atheist viewpoint is the one that requires the greater faith and that will be the ones retreating.

TopherD, May 15, 2:19 p.m. To answer your question, Topher, yes, there is a God. I don't believe in him. I don't have faith in him. I know there is a God, so I have no need for faith or belief. Life didn't just happen. It was created. The other side of the coin is that life evolves. It has to in order to change with the ever-changing climate, which has naturally changed for 4.5 billion years. But - Life didn't evolve into what it is today. Anyone who thinks so is like Darwin1. I'm sure that I don't need to explain that analogy....

Just think, for example, of the concept of beauty. Why, if we evolved, would we ever look at a landscape and think "wow, that's gorgeous!" Would you think the same thing about a saber-toothed tiger chasing you down and killing you? No. I think not. That would be a reason to evolve faster legs. What does beauty provide for survival's sake? Nothing. It's a gift. Someone wanted us to appreciate what we have. That's just one of the reasons why I know God exists. I personally don't believe in religion, though I go to church for the sake of my family. My wife respects what I think, BTW. Religion is why I'm approximately 6830 miles from Janesville in a building made out of shipping containers (quite sturdy) in a land full of people who want to kill me in the name of God. Well, killing in the name of God seems to me like prostitution to support chastity... I won't pretend to know the why and the wherefore, but I do know that God exists. If I was like Darwin1, I'd have it all figured out by now and would be telling everyone that they are all idiots compared to me. But I'm not like that. God did not create religion. Man did that, just as man created war. That's why I'm here, in Afghanistan. Some religious zealots who think they are going to get 72 virgins when they die blowing me up with them thought it was God's will that they impose their beliefs on me, my family, and my country. I got some bad news for them. I'm not going down without a fight, and they are not getting any virgins. It matters not that I don't believe in any one of the 6000 some recognized religions that only have one thing in common. What matters is that I am allowed to believe as I wish, in a free country, without someone trying to kill me because they believe something different. I think if everyone on this planet would practice such tolerance and understanding, I wouldn't be here right now. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That must have been about 4.5 billion years ago. Other than that, I don't care. I appreciate the life I was given. Pity that others do not.

much less retreat

foolonthehill, Katy is in much greater retreat than bibledude -his name is a give-away. This business of the "incomprehensibility of god" is merely an age-old ploy to protect belief from criticism and to preserve a clergy-class. That "incomprehensibility" is also an unwitting or witting admission that god doesn't exist.

Katy, Einstein's disparaging statement about religion was made in 1954, the year before his death, making much more clear his ultimate opinion of religion.

If there are legitimate scientists who claim to be believers, they can only be legitimate if they thoroughly compartmentalize that belief away from their work. Belief can in no-way interfere with their work.

Thanks for your responses, Bibledude and Katy. You seem to share similar perspectives, if not different viewpoints of the same coin. If I infer correctly, each of you cites the narrowing field of yet to be explained mysteries of the natural world as confirmation of a Supreme Creator. I see this basis as inevitably fateful to your own faith, as it forces you into continuous retreat mode as science marches forward with accelerating speed. At least Collins relegates his God to some fifth dimension beyond time and space. (Nya nya na nya na! Can't touch me here.) Well, he is correct in that regard. Personally, I can't accept the "it's all just too complex and elegant" argument for a Supreme Creator because that only forces me to ask for an explanation of who or what created the Creator... and so on, ad infinitum.

I've never had any desire to find the closet atheist in anyone who claims to need faith. What would be the point of that? My only problem is with truth-avoiders. If truth is an absolute and we all seek it honestly, then we will all reach the exact same conclusions in the end.

Einstein did not like to be considered an atheist, despite his unorthodox (especially given the times in which he expressed them) views on religion. His reference to the passion and faith of scientists who continued their work in the face of often insurmountable odds and pressures of the organized religions (read human-generated abominations of true religion, whatever God one worships)puts into perspective that he didn't believe that science would have evolved without the framework of faith to sustain it.

An arguably mature Einstein wrote a treatise entitled "Science and Religion: Irreconcilable?" in 1948, 18 years after the "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" quote. The treatise began, "Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion." " As with many things, Einstein managed to capture the essence of this conflict in an elegant way. I am not trying to convince anybody to believe or not to believe. I only wish to point out that there are many scientists for whom their pursuits and study simply validate the existence of a higher being and by extension, their own faith. I state this based on my 20 years of experience working with scientists as well as my own perspective.

FOTH- Can I chime in on that? I think what you are saying is true but I think it goes both ways. I think "free thinkers" think if they can just present their case to the theist, the naive uneducated theist will realize how wrong they have been and covert to atheism. I listen to free thought radio on 92.1 all the time and I enjoy it. I read books like Dawkins God Delusion and think "is this all you've got?" Science has actually strengthened my faith. To know that DNA is a chemical LANGUAGE and languages only come from intelligence strengthens my faith in intelligent design. DNA is incredibly complex. Evolution has no theory or answers to the origin of life of a molecular level. This looks like it has been a good discussion, sorry I missed it.

Gazettefan, Prounion, Darwin1, correct me if you disagree but I've come to the conclusion that many believers presume atheism can result only from not yet "hearing" their "truth". In other words, they appear to be unclear on the fundamental difference between rational atheism and the sort of atheism previously practiced by C.S. Lewis, Dr. Collins, etc.

And RNcares: a few questions that might help you to prepare your presentation:

Does having an open mind require that we agree with you?

Faith in what?

Hope in what?

darwin1, believers think that if they lie about Einstein they have proven the monumental fairy tale.

RNcares, where are you?! We can't wait!

Katy, every atheist posting here has a different opinion on the subject of scientist/believers. (The Christian fundamentalists here won't even discuss Collins.) My hunch is that scientist/believers must maintain reason and faith as two separate realms using rational and arational thinking, respectively. In other words, different states of consciousness.

Why don't you enlighten us?

darwin1: Read my first statement again.

i.m too tired, I'll come bak tomorrow and explain how you all are being tooshort-sighted and not abstract enough in you thinking. Of course there are numerous scientific data/laws of nature that give support to a divine creator. But there is no proof that yes there is a God and I believe this is intentional. There may or may not ever be proof that there is or is not a divine creator-Thus we have rational thought and free-choice, as our creator intended. This is a subject that will always be open to debate, and especially fun to debate with those that have an open mind,faith, and hope. If you have already made up your mind and think you know it all, then you will never see all the evidence out there pointing to a divine creator. So lets keep this debate to people with open minds and hearts. Closed minds and hearts, your rhetoric will not do much to enrich the discussion. Move to the next story that requires your final word. Look forward to chatting with you all tomorrow, or when I've had a few moments to gather some insightful thoughts and evdence. you all have a safe and good friday night.

I am not exactly sure why we are quoting Einstein so much. His quotes don't prove anything. Of all the articles I have read in Nature and Science I can't remember anyone quoting Einstein's views on God.

Nice try, Katy. But your quote is subsumed fourteen years later by a more mature Einstein when he said:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this."

Furthermore, to appreciate the beauty of the Krebs Cycle, god is not required.

My favorite Einstein quote about religion is:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Einstein was not an atheist at all. He intimated in one of his essays (Religion and Science) that he agreed with the sentiment that "serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people." Anybody who has studied the Krebs cycle in Organic Chemistry or Biochemistry will have an appreciation for Einsteins views here.

I still want an answer to the question, if there was no real Adam and Eve who sinned and brought death, why is there a need for God to send Jesus His only Son to die and redeem us of "sin" The Bible refers to the first adam and the last adam. It says I believe in Romans through Adam all have sinned, through Christ all may recieve life. I will post the question again! If you can't even believe the first book of the Bible how can you believe ANY of it?

Thanks, CallitasIseeit. I wonder who makes up that shocking 44 percent of Americans who believe in a 10,000 year old universe? Maybe it's a generational thing.

FOTH=I won't speak specifically for them but the way I understand the earlier books of the old testament including Genesis are men's writings to explain how they got to that point. The later books are taken mostly literally as is the new Testament. That may be right or wrong but the point is they do not believe the world is 10.000 years old as ChrisD says they might.

Buckyfan, so you don't accept Dr. Collins word that the case for evolution --yes, humans, too-- is so overwhelming that virtually all scientific evidence would have to be thrown out in order to discount it?

IndysGirl, did you not read the comment by evansvillehousewife and my response? Nevertheless, please clarify what you mean by wars motivated by meddling with science?

If you mean that you'd be willing to bet more people died from wars motivated by religious fundamentalism vs. weaponry developed through science, I'd be willing to take that bet. Start compiling the data.

TopherD, while you make a good argument, I have to disagree. I believe in evolution and natural selection. What I do not agree with is the Big Bang Theory; instead I believe it was God. And until proven otherwise, I will hold to my belief that we did not evolve from lifeless matter to a living cell and so forth.

That does not mean that I am sticking my head in the sand. If there ever is conclusive proof that we evolved from apes, I'll certainly change my thinking. And I'm not opposed to research to do that.

CallitasIseeit, I'm not sure I understood you. Are you saying your Catholic friends pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe literally; they believe none of it literally or; something else altogether?

"Science kills as often as it saves."
~
If it were not for science, the bubonic plague or smallpox would killed off most of the human race a long time ago, and "God" would have just sat on his hands.
~
I am willing to bet that more people have died in the history of mankind from wars motivated by religious fundamentalism than from the result of people meddling with "science." Religion transcends logic and breeds intolerance. Science is not motivated by emotions, but by logic and a deeper desire for an understanding of the tangible world to benefit of our well-being. Why do some deeply religious people blindly discount scientific advances that have improved life for humanity as playing "GOD"? I further don't understand why anyone who has a broad educational background can even entertain the idea that what the Christian Bible says about creation is factual.

I know a lot of Catholics and are related to most of them (I myself am agnostic). I do not know one that believes the earth is 10,000 years old. None believe Adam and Eve were real people, only that they represent the evolution of man from a form without a conscience to one that had one and doing so could commit sin. Maybe other religions believe the world is 10,000 old and there were dinosaurs on the ark but I don't think their are many catholics that do. My knowledge of what they believe comes from gentle debate usually over a beer and Topher your theory would not hold water with them.

Flawless sense, TopherD. The Bible makes sense only in context of the limited knowledge and beliefs of the humans who wrote it.

Topher- The Higher Power is too Big for our little human minds to completely comprehend. You know, all those Om words that mean all seeing allknowing allmighty etc. How do we know what 6 days is to God? What if a Day to him is really like millions of years to us. You people who have your opinions and your judjements all wrapped up and think you've got it togethor so well, I feel sorry for you. Don't forget, we're just like a speck in this Universe.

Topher as an ex-Catholic the Catholic church agrees with evolution and believes that the Bible like all stories is a source of inspiration and not information.

Good post, TopherD.

But, yet, the confabulaters abound.

I would like to see who agrees or disagrees with what I'm about to say. Alot of the comments went completely away from the article, but still somewhat on the subject. However, the main point of the article was to let Christians know that they can believe in God AND evolution. That may be true. You might be able to believe that God used evolution as his mechanism of creativity, however, If you do believe that to be the case, you CANNOT believe the Bible. Evolution in its broadest sense, completely contradicts what the Bible plainly says in black and white. Evolution, An ameoba taking billions of years to change into all the organisms we have on the earth today, or the Bible, God created everything in 6 days about 10,000 years ago fully formed, functional and aged. If a Christian says they can believe both, then we cannot believe the Bible. If the Bible is wrong in one part, how could we believe anything it says? Especially when it's the first chapters that are believed false? If the earth wasn't created in 6 days, it stands to reason there was really no Adam and Eve and therefore no "sin" so there would be no need for a "Jesus" (God's Son) to come die and "save" mankind. If you cannot believe the Bible then you have no basis to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Does this logic make sense to anyone else? Let me know which way you think.

Here is a huge collection of Einstein's quotes about religion collected by a professor of physics. It does a good job of clarifying his beliefs--a higher power but not a personal God. As I said when I posted this link on a previous thread, a fascinating read:

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/index...

I know some posters here and on other threads have stated their wonder on how one can be a scientist and still believe.

I asked some of my scientist friends, and their responses went something like this:

Just because scientists believe in a higher power does not prevent them from wanting to understand the world around them. Why should it?

If there are parts of science believers (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc) find objectional (embryonic stem cell research, for example), they don’t work in those areas.

While there are Christians who claim to be scientists who are getting a lot of press for their push to legitimize intelligent design without the scientific proof, the vast majority of scientists who believe in a higher power have no problem working in their chosen fields while still believing in their God.

Good reading........

****

I do love to read the bickering back and forth :D

If you say there is no truth, why do you say it like you're right?- Conor Oberst

buckyfan, I had never heard of Spinoza, but his idea of God( believe, be a good neighbor, respect others) without the baggage of the Bible(according to him a cobbled together piece of man`s ideas not Gods word, written by not the people it was attributed to, but various scribes and scholars, edited, rewritten, complete books left out) and the dogma of organized religion to control the masses makes more sense than anything I`ve seen in a long time. Also, his idea that the Jews were not the "chosen", but just happened to be there is where Einsteins thoughts on the subject come from. If religion could get rid of the temples, preachers, rites and fear, it would be a better world. Love thy neighbor, love a God, do good works, and respect others, that is all that would be necessary. But, there is no money or control in that idea, so it will never happen.

Go, Einstein!

(Regarding Einstein's religious beliefs)

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news...

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." --Albert Einstein, January 3, 1954

Shoulda said, "Here is the paragraph to which I refer..."

OK, Evansvillehousewife, you got me. But from your response, you also clearly understood the point I was trying to make, however overstated it might have been.
---
To Pharm, what does the Einstein quote you added prove? That he doesn’t believe in a personal God? I’ve already said that. Later in the letter he refers with reverence to Spinoza. And if you do a little more digging, you will find he commonly spoke of his belief in Spinoza’s God.
---
Here’s the paragraph I’m to which I refer (http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/...

"In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary."

Bingo, GFan: Need.

I don't think Collins has any interest whatsoever in converting non-believers, Partarican1. His primary motivation appears to be educating fundamentalists who think religion is "science" and science is just "theory".

What a joke..This article does not and will never make me a believer. My advice-stop lying to your children and forcing your religion down their throats. Let them choose their religion or no religion for themselves on their own time. Solid connection between god and science? Those words should not even be in the same sentence.

Yes, foolonthehill. It's also a manifestation of a NEED to believe, even when the belief has no basis.

Hey Matthew,

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

--------------------Matthew 10:34-39

"Interrogating believers always reveals that deep down inside even they don't believe."

That's why I find someone like Dr. Collins so fascinating, GFan. The most logical explanation is that he's practicing some sort of variation of Pasquale's wager, wouldn't you agree?

Hey gazettefan, you can take this to the bank:
GOD'S Word presents a different definition of success - one centered on a relationship with Jesus Christ and a love for God that allows us to love and serve others.  God gives each one of us unique gifts, abilities and passions.  How well we use those qualities to have an impact on the world around us determines how "successful" we really are." (Tony Dungy)

Interrogating believers always reveals that deep down inside even they don't believe.

Just like most religious people you talk about respect but show little. Most people who are ignorant and wish to remain so think everyone is talking down to them. Your lack of comprehension is what makes you think I said nothing.

Boston - I don't think he is trying to puff himself up, the burden of proof really does lie with the person making the claim.
.
As I have posted before - if you claim an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god then I can disprove that pretty easily. Otherwise if you are saying there is an invisable undetectable force out there, prove it.

darwin1: Thank you for your wonderful dissection of my post. Oh! By the way, you didn’t prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God. You espoused the usual rhetoric and while trying to puff yourself up, you actually said nothing. Talking down to someone, as you just did, only demonstrates flaws in your own personality. If you’d like to try again, I’m willing to listen. Show me some proof.

Oh My! No wonder the world has become so dark and cold. People are losing their faith in god.

BostonBill, there are several problems with your statement. First, if you make a claim that god exists the burden of proof is on you and not on me to disprove it. In fact, in science you are not only required to prove your claim but you are also required to try to disprove it yourself and you are even required to prove it wasn't just a coincidence. This is called the "null hypothesis".
Secondly, science has an excellent track record of explaining what was once believed to be inexplicable - religion lazily says "God did it". Finally, you get respect when you're not trying to sell me bunk while calling it truth.

As I have said before, two things I hate to discuss are politics and religion. Okay, three things….Brett Favre. But I won’t go there now.

I like this article.
I will state that I was brought up in a strict, Irish, Catholic family. (Hmm! BostonBill) I will say that I have a LOT of issues with the Catholic Church. Geesh! Who doesn’t! No. No abuse. I have an advanced education, though it may not show sometimes *w*; I consider myself somewhat intelligent; I try to be objective; I love people; I can even conjugate the verb, to see. Lol
Okay, here goes. Can anyone prove to me, absolutely and unequivocally, that God exists or doesn’t exist?
Obviously, the answer is NO. Mankind created religion.
Here is my belief: We came from somewhere. I believe in a higher Power. Call IT what you want and I will still respect you but there are some things that cannot be explained by religion or science as we know it. We are humans and we need to respect each other. JMO

god lovers are just on drugs it turns out, which explains a lot. i have no way to back it up or any facts, but i hear the drug is called IGNOREITALL.

buckyfan says:
And science kills as often as it saves.

Um, I'd like to see hard line data on that one, please. Given that there is a 100% mortality rate for every organism on earth, I'd like to see how you intend to compile data on death caused by man's science (from guns, germs, and steel) vs all mortalities from "God's" i.e.; "natural" causes.

Don't forget the statistical projection of disease control by vaccination vs vaccine reactions; also factor in the regression data of now extinct diseases that God made but Man destroyed.

Have fun. It should take you a while.

Einstein said things that both theists and atheists claim support their ideas of his view of God, but he made it quite plain in a letter to Eric Gutkind a year before his death when he said, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Common knowledge, Gazettefan?
---
I wrote this in the previous thread:
"Interesting article on Albert Einstein, who was not a Christian but came to believe in a "God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists": (link to Time article).

You wrote this:
"That's a lie about Einstein. Some believers made it up. They did the same thing with Darwin. It's just more lies from believers, they make me sick, I wish there was a hell they could burn in!!!..."

Good for you, buckyfan, I consider it common knowledge.

Gazettefan: "Einstein outright rejected a personal god."
---
Uh, yeah, that's what I said in the post on this tread. And, because that post was originally directed at you during one of our previous threads, it's also what I said to you before...

Also, justsaynotomath, I already knew your name was a rip on creationist Christians. You've said it more than once before. Just because I do not post as frequently as you does not mean that I do not read.
---
And science kills as often as it saves.

Justsaynotomath...the slave quote in that post was from Einstein. So, I guess, people should be mad at Einstein.

Kettleblack, where has evolution ever suggested that a chicken turns into a monkey? Or that a fish turns into a cow? I'm going to put myself out on a limb here and assume that your problem with evolution stems from the primate/human thing, but if so, I think you're trying to simplify something that isn't simple just to wrap your mind around it, and you shouldn't be looking at it that way. You do agree that dogs exist, and wolves exist, yet are not the same species, right? I challenge you to find one breed history book that does not suggest dogs evolved from a different species, be it wolf, fox, whatever. If adapt is your euphemism of choice, that’s fine, but it doesn’t change the scientific proof that evolution is fact, not theory.

The early christian clergy-class started this heaven and hell stuff as a marketing tool to maintain and garner adherents. The pitch appeals to unhappy people who can be easily bamboozled into thinking that the giddiness that comes from shutting down the intellect is happiness.

And, the music of the spheres has nothing to do with a judaic-christian-islamic god.

Einstein outright rejected a personal god.

on a more funny note my user name is a joke on religion. the earth is not a few thousand years old, it's more then 4 billion years old. i think it's funny, but i can see how religious people may not. i get a lot of flack for it from people who really think i am saying no to math, but it's worth it. i would wear my user name on a shirt in town, but crazy people with guns are a concern of mine. peace people !

buckfan, you say there is a god and i say there is not. neither of us is going to change our minds. i do commend you for trying to find common ground it seems. even after calling me a slave which i am sure relatives of actual slaves will not be to happy about. it was god loving men who enslaved them to begin with. it was god loving men who went to war and killed children. it was god loving men that almost brought our country to it's knees during the civil war. Bush said his soul is all that matters and he is right with god. do you see a running theme here. god kills and kills, and kills. Science saves lives everyday, so you can see how science became my god. science discriminates against no one, it does not care if you pray or not and their are no ultimatums. Science will save you someday unless you plan on not going to the doctors anymore. if it's your time then your just interfering with god's plan. science is our only savior.

Bucky - yea I went back and read some of his other quotes, you are correct. I though these of special interest though because that is what some have been saying to the christians.
.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)
.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

Yes Bucky - if you are saying there is some sort of general but undetectable force out there than your assesment is correct I cannot prove it. Just like I cannot disprove that there is an Invisable Unicorn - because its invisable or that Russel's teapot is in space just out of the detection range of our telescopes.
.
Justsay no - walking dead - wow. Your are right on.

Justsaynotomath: "Living for the afterlife is no life, it's called the walking dead"
---
If I were only living for the afterlife, I would agree that it would be a sad, sad life. But I would submit that I live this life much like non-believers (enjoying nature, loving my family and friends, taking care of my pet, cleaning my house, watching my favorite TV shows, reading, etc.) The only major difference is God is part of the equation for me.
---
I would also submit that we all will die sometime, so in a sense we’re all walking dead.

being an Atheist is to be free ! you sir are the slave ! a slave to god, a slave to your fellow believers, shall i go on ? living for the after life is no life, it's called the walking dead !

Prounion: Regarding your "god is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful" argument. I would agree with you if my belief in God were such...but it is not.

Prounion, I've already been through the Einstein discussion in previous posts. Here is one of them:

Just want to make a clarification about Einstein. I have never said he was a Christian. In fact, he said throughout his life that he didn't believe in a personal god.

But from the writings from both the sites I linked in previous posts, he did believe in something greater that created the universe.

"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Justsayno - that is exactly why its so important to them that mother teresa not be proven to be an athiest. Same thing with Eisntien - he was very clear about the subject that he was an athiest. You can post the quotes a million times but the pastors keep making those flase statements in church, and keep the misinformation flowing.

I am a life long Atheist and Mother Theresa has nothing to do with that. i just thought it was interesting that she lost her faith and died writing about the fact that there is no god and therefore no Jesus either. you can take from it what ever you want. Atheist know there is no god and that will never change. just because you were brainwashed is not my fault, it's yours. you offer no debate just blind faith, i suggest a seeing eye dog.

Bucky - I would submit that if we are to approach the issue from the christian idea that god is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful we can in fact logically prove that he does not exist.
.
The bible is replete with examples of his jealous murdering rages, innocent children killed left and right.
.
His passivity at the terrible horrible things that happen in the world are inconsistant with one or all of the three presupositions.
.
If the nasty things on Earth are the result of the cosmic war with Satan then the all powerful supposition needs to go.
.
If you remove the presupositions regarding the qualities of god then I agree. However then you just have the Invisable Unicorn arguement, at that point why bother.

buckfan, if you had bothered to read the articles you would know only 40 of the more the 100 letters have been published. I have no faith, just facts as we know them.

Science, which requires proof of a claim, is not a form of faith. It is a system that requires facts. So, the bible says that its ok to be intellectually lazy? Next time I take a science class it will be a breeze. Every answer will be "I don't know. God did it."

wimom- I know several WELS people who told me to my face that unbaptized children go to hell.
yep, this guy is a picture of Christian goodness.. goes to church every week and tithes too.

Justsaynotomath, I challenge you as I did Darwin1, show me the additional letters. Otherwise I will have to say it is your blind faith that there is no God that is holding you back.

Prounion, sorry this has taken me so long to post—I just got swamped at work.
---
You are correct that your intentions (and those of your cohorts) cause people like me to avoid debating the Bible with you.
---
So I don’t engage any of you unless it’s regarding tangible things; things I can back up with proof—the type you’d also like involving the existence of God. We all know that God cannot be proven, just as He cannot be disproven in that tangible way (no matter how much some bloggers claim otherwise). So I only post to refute false claims for others who might be reading the thread.
---
You seek to debate the bible, but your intentions seem to be insincere—you seek not to gain knowledge and understanding but to ridicule and make those who attempt to do so look foolish.
---
Nevertheless, here’s my response, disappointing and unsatisfying as you will find it:
---
There are no answers in the Bible to your questions on why God set things up as he has.
---
Much like the answer He gave Job (Job 38-41) on why bad things happen to good people, it is apparently not ours to know.
---
Your questions are not original; they are the same questions that have been debated throughout time by believers and non-believers. None of the questions, though, prove or disprove God.
---
So now you’re probably licking your chops, preparing to pounce on me on why I then believe in God (or the Christian God in particular). And there, of course, I choose not to answer because most details are too intimate.
---
I will share that my faith in a higher power comes from thinking similar to Einstein’s “music of the spheres” comments. I ponder, though, about how hands-on or -off God is (along with many other things).

Not to be pedantic, Gazettefan, but wouldn't it be better (i.e. more accurate) for you to state, "...is like when there is no god.", instead of, "...would be like if there were no god." To me, the latter phrasing seems wrong for an atheist statement, or am I missing something implicit in your approach?

Oh but wise grasshopper my belief requires me to have faith and to not question God's ways which I do not understand. I have mentioned before that as a human I would be a liar to say I have never questioned things or why they are as they are but my faith allows me to believe that the end results will far outweigh the evil that is in this world now.

:) Please at least take a peek at the book because it is such a good story and explains things far better than I can.. While I may fail miserably at convincing you of my faith and my God I shall not retreat and give up. I will never convert you but you will never convert me, hee hee....

Yes people get angry at God because He does not step in and stop evil when He can and that is natural and some get past the anger and others do not. I did. I was very angry growing up in the abusive, dysfunctional family I had but at a certain point I stopped questioning why I was born to that to realizing what a stronger person it made me in the end and how I took that crappy life and turned it around so that I knew when I had my own family we would never be like that!

buckyfan, can you say blind faith ? you choose to read what you want and see it how you see fit. you over look the information provided and stick to your limited understanding. i would never expect a God lover to listen to evidence when your entire belief system is based on a lack of evidence, hence the blind faith. i will agree that god lovers do NOT evolve. you pray to the sky just like men did thousands of years ago and with limited understanding of the world around you.

ncpanfan, having free-will (which we do) is the way the human experience would be if there were no god. When believers invoke the idea of free-will, they are unconsciously admitting that there is no reason to believe in god.

This is consistent with your reluctance to describe "god" in the same way you'd describe a real person if that person failed to prevent harm to another person. Somewhere inside, it occurs to you that "Yes, there is something wrong with this belief in god."

Then you rely on the free-will "explanation" which resonates the non-belief. Which, as we have determined in my first paragraph, is a description of what the human experience would be like if there were no god.

kettleblack, first the religious say evolution doesn't occur, now they say it does within species but not outside of species. So, there is evolution and adaptation but it somehow magically restricts itself to species. Do species know about this restriction? We can prove that they evolve into more complex organisms because DNA is used by ALL species to promote inheritance. Your still explaining it with "God did it". Its a lazy explanation.

If God steps in all the time then there goes the promise of free will he gave us. I have a hard time explaining it and you would of course pick apart my explanation (LOL) anyways. If we didn't have free will then in my perspective because I believe then I would be no more than a slave and forced to do what I am told no matter what which is why He gave us free will to make our own decisions whether they be good or bad. In your perspective as a non-believer then it wouldn't matter anyway because your life would continue as it always has. I can't show what would happen in my life because God didn't take my free will away. I know this is confusing because it is confusing even to me and it is even harder to explain ( so please don't run me over, ha ha for that)

Might I suggest a book for you to read? I found it to be quite interesting and it is a fictional story but it deals with the very topic we are speaking of about evil and free will and where is God during it? It is called The Shack and there is another book that discusses that book called Finding God in the Shack.

Bacteria ADAPTING to utilize a substance it was previously unable to use is suggestive of an organism evolving within it's OWN SPECIES. This bacteria that has been offered for proof of evolution did not switch species, in fact, it did not "evolve" from a bacteria into a fish into a chicken into a monkey into a human. That is something that has not been able to be "proven." That is why I think a lot people, including myself, have such a problem with this theory. And, until that can be proven, it remains what it is. A theory, not a fact.

ncpanfan, how about an example where there is no risk to the the potentially helpful person; just like there would be no risk to god?

If the potentially helpful person didn't help, how would you describe that person? And would you describe god in the same way?

Prounion, I'm working on my response to you, but it's a little more involved. And it's probably going to disappoint.

Again, justsaynotomath, two letters out of the 125 you've made claim she wrote...Read the rest of the story.

buckfan here is what you left out.

"Where is my faith?" she wrote. "Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness... If there be God — please forgive me."

Eight years later, she was still looking to reclaim her lost faith.

"Such deep longing for God… Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal," she said.

As her fame increased, her faith refused to return. Her smile, she said, was a mask.

"What do I labor for?" she asked in one letter. "If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true."

gazette: I guess it would depend on the situation. I think if you can keep someone from being harmed then you should but there are times when that might seem hard to do, for example a gang of people on one and you step in to help and become the second victim. Our world is very scary these days. Our neighbor's daughter (in high school) was jumped by middle schoolers on her way home, like 10 of them all because she showed that she was afraid of the big group of them by walking across the street to the other side. They came up behind her and started punching. People stopped and of course they ran and of course she didn't know who they were so nothing was done about it. One more thing, she is white, they were not. Why would kids that age be doing crap like that?

Buckyfan - you seem to be actively posting can you answer some of the questions I asked Nellie?
.
Nellie - we promise not to make fun of you. Unfortunatly we can't seem to find any christians to engage us in debate, its seems that thier concern over our intentions make it impossible to share the "good news" with us.
.
You mentioned "He sent his son to take my place so that my sin could be forgiven" I have not be able to get an answer as to why. Here is what I mean:
.
God created everything is all knowing and is all powerful.
.
Why does he need to sacrifice anything, let alone his son?
.
Another one I have not been able to get an answer on is the free will god loves me theme that you mentioned in one of your posts and has been in many other's posts as well.
.
The old testament is full of stories of Isrealites using their free will and getting ripped apart by god in sometimes nasty ways. There are two questions: if I held a gun to your head and asked you to hand over your wallet - did you give me you wallet of your own free will? Also - if I killed you or your family as a result of you chosing not to worship me - do I love you?

You might start by getting her name right. It's Mother Teresa, not Theresa.

Really Darwin1? I would contend you haven't read any more of her letters than what is touted by the atheist blogs. Twist it all you like, but as the Time article said, only two out of the many, many letters included any doubt. If you think you're right, show me more...

buckyfan, whonellie's and my words mean the same thing.

And it was whonellie who brought up her reasons for her conversion. It's only reasonable for her to say what those reasons are. If she wants to express herself only by email that's OK too. But I shouldn't be required to "intend" to being born again.

buckyfan, I find it interesting that you read the first three words of Mother Theresa's letters and that was pretty much it. Children have imaginary friends but that doesn't make them real. She didn't have faith - period. Yes, she was a good person but the church had this discussion a long time ago and decided that faith was more important than good deeds.

Gazettefan, I believe you’re being deliberately obtuse. Whoanellie didn’t say you have to open your heart BEFORE she/he told you. Only that you “intend” (or have a plan/desire to) open your heart.
---
I see it in the context of everything else written there that if you want to know to ridicule, then Whoanellie will not answer. If you want to know because you have a serious interest in knowing God, go ahead and email privately.

Funny, justsaynotomath, I had previously read both the links you attached and strongly suggest you re-read the Time article. It explains in far more lengthy terms what I said in my post.
---
An especially meaningful part of the story states that there were only TWO LETTERS out of MANY (you say 125) she wrote that sounded “any note of doubt of God’s existence.”
---
Or how about the last line of the story and the quote at the beginning of that page: “Teresa considered the perceived absence of God in her life as her most shameful secret but eventually learned that it could be seen as a gift abetting her calling.”
---
“If this brings You glory — if souls are brought to you — with joy I accept all to the end of my life.”

Great post, writergrl.

ncpanfan, and when someone uses his free will to harm an innocent person, god allows it to happen. This is the case even though god is supposed to be all-loving, all-powerful, and ever-present everywhere. How would you describe a person who could have stopped an innocent person from being harmed but didn't?

bucky..., she said I have to open up my life and heart to a creature that doesn't exist. Re-read her post.

I suffered an intense identity crisis when I found out Santa wasn't real.

buckyfan, Mother Theresa did not believe and yes she was an Atheist. she wrote over 125 letters saying this over and over again. she had to pretend to believe to save lives. you need to read more then a few, but i seriously doubt you read even one. this has been well documented.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/2...

I think the free will boils down to the basics. You live your life and you make your decisions. They are your choices. You can choose to do right or wrong, something bad or something good, etc... and then remember that in the end you are responsible for the consequences of your choice. Too many people want to blame others when their choices go bad or cause bad things to happen instead of accepting their own responsibility.

This article is poorly conceived at best. Why the emphasis on evolution vs. creationism? Clearly the people who think that only one of these “theories” is correct have no idea what evolution is. Perhaps if the article was tackling a debate like “big bang theory” vs. “creationism theory” there would be some merit to the discussion. As it stands though, evolution isn’t a theory, it’s a scientific fact that has been recorded, see: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affa... or take the flu virus for example, it has to evolve (some prefer the term “mutate”) to spread. Evolution doesn’t argue whether or not there is a god or if creationism is the “start.” It makes me wonder how people can vehemently deny evolution when they don’t seem to know what it is, yet are so content to believe sans-evidence in some friend in the sky.

Nellie - we promise not to make fun of you. Unfortunatly we can't seem to find any christians to engage us in debate, its seems that thier concern over our intentions make it impossible to share the "good news" with us.
.
You mentioned "He sent his son to take my place so that my sin could be forgiven" I have not be able to get an answer as to why. Here is what I mean:
.
God created everything is all knowing and is all powerful.
.
Why does he need to sacrifice anything, let alone his son?
.
Another one I have not been able to get an answer on is the free will god loves me theme that you mentioned in one of your posts and has been in many other's posts as well.
.
The old testament is full of stories of Isrealites using their free will and getting ripped apart by god in sometimes nasty ways. There are two questions: if I held a gun to your head and asked you to hand over your wallet - did you give me you wallet of your own free will? Also - if I killed you or your family as a result of you chosing not to worship me - do I love you?

Darwin1, your argument that Mother Teresa was an atheist is a stretch.
---
I’ve read some of the letters and the history behind them, and although she struggled with her faith and went through a very long “dark time,” Mother Teresa still believed.
---
Even in the quote you used, she is speaking to “Lord, my God.” Do atheists normally write letters to God? And do they continue to confess their struggles to priests?
---
She wrote those letters in confession to share her personal struggles with faith. Her intention was for them to be destroyed upon her death. That the Catholic church instead made them public is utterly offensive to me.
---
I understand the dark time she’s described. I’ve been through such a time where I don’t feel God’s presence, where I struggle with my faith, where I lose my zeal. But I still believe, and I long for a renewing of that close relationship with God.

Gazettefan, I don’t think whonellie was suggesting you have to agree with what he/she was saying before it’s said.
---
But the answer that you have requested is so intimate, it isn’t something you want to share online to be read by those who mock and ridicule.
---
I too am willing to share my story with people who are sincerely searching, but it’s of such a personal nature that it’s not something I would share on a blog.

nellie what planet have you been living on?
In letters recently published she said

“Lord, my God, you have thrown [me] away as unwanted - unloved,” she wrote in one missive. “I call, I cling, I want, and there is no one to answer, no, no one. Alone. Where is my faith? even deep down right in there is nothing. I have no faith. I dare not utter the words and thoughts that crowd in my
heart.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...

Sounds like disbelief to me Maybe you should try reading more.

whonellie, let me see if I got this right. In order for you to discuss the feelings that directed you to your christian beliefs, I have to first agree with what you say before you say it. Is that correct? Shouldn't you first present yourself as an example? I won't make fun of you.

Wouldn't it be helpful to others to just say what it was that caused you to adopt your current beliefs?

I beg to differ with you on mother teresa, She did believe in God!! Where do you get your info, the fnny papers?? I will not put my feelings as you call them up for you to make fun of them. It was my decision and you will not change it. If you ever get to the point where you'd seriously like to discuss this, with the intention of opening you heart and life to God, email me through the gazette. btw, darwin I did not have to pay a price for my salvation, God did. He sent his son to take my place so that my sin could be forgiven, If I so choose to accept it which I do. I will be praying that you do too.

If you have to pay a price for your choice then there isn't anything free about it. I would think that if a being is truly divine it wouldn't matter one way or another. Mr Theresa made a choice to be a good person but not believe in god. Is it divine to split hairs?

whonellie, LOL.

And please describe the feelings you had that prompted your need for your stated beliefs.

Maybe the rash will remind you that you have a choice to make?! And if there is no God ,why do you have a rash?? anyway God does love you and he gives you a free will to make the choice, that's how much he loves you. Do you love your children even if they make a choice you don't agree with?? enough said. I will continue to pray for you, get some itching powder! and I am not making this choice for myself because I'm not intelligent, I saw a need in myself and made the choice. I didn't check my brain at the door, I invited God in. I hope you do the same.

Now who's being hostile, Gazettefan? Tsk, tsk.

wimom, did you get the impression that Collins is a supporter of "intelligent design" or creationism? If so, you may want to re-read the article. If not, then I misunderstand what you wrote.

Yes, god loves you unless you don't believe. There is little reasoning in anything you have said. The world is complex so it must have been made by a supernatural being? Then something must have made the complex supernatural being. There is that wall of reality again.

whonellie, I don't like people praying for me: it only shows up as a rash.

Someone of your stance is a carrier for fundamentalism: You don't have to know what your faith really involves; just as long as you help keep the idea of religiosity alive.

I know what I know and that's all there is to it. I'm very comforted for myself by the way, I'm not very comfortable for you though. I'll see you at the judgement, I pray we will both be on the same side. I agree with wimom too in that I don't believe children or babies go to hell. there is an age of reasoning and that is where they make the choice. God loves everyone, even athiests, but there comes a time when we all have to choose.

whmom, they believe it, they just don't think about it. They shy away from the underlying mentality that is the true basis of their beliefs. Listen to what clergy says about people who aren't christians or "good" chrisitans.

And I hope you've taken special note of billnewbie's hostility.

I am amazed at how cynical and hateful people get when the conversation turns to God. I thought this article was wonderful. It's about time that the media reports on Scientists who actually believe there is an intelligent design. How surprising that so many people think that this world was an accident...look at nature and it will speak of God's exsistance. By the way none of the Christians I know believe that children and babies will be sent to hell, its called the age of reasoning.

Bill - reality is real. Can we make that assumption? If so then you and god should be able to break through our cynicism, which you have mentioned before was instilled un us by satan.
.
In fact you could even use some humor to make us feel like we had not really even seen reality clearly until you smacked us in the face with a healthy dose of sarcasm.
.
Of course that all hanges on your belief system being based in reality, and reality being real.
.
Keep it real Bill and hit us with some logic!

Careful there Prounion, Fool_on_the_hill doesn't like it when people respond to posts aimed at other people! You wouldn't want him to say that you have a super-inflated ego, do you? Though that's not very likely to happen as he views you as an ally.
.
I don't answer cynical questions. You should already know that since I've previously explained that to you in detail. Someday I hope you'll ask serious questions, then perhaps you'll be open to serious answers.

Yes, yes Bill, its really the athiest's attitude that ensures that you don't have legitimate answers to the questions that have been presented to you. Either that or there is no god regarless of if FOTH is flippant or not.

flip·pant adj.
Treating serious matters with inappropriate light-heartedness or lack of respect [probably from flip]
flippancy n
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

Flippancy seems to define most of your posts well, Fool_on_the_hill. And if you don't want your comments critiqued by the deluded and befuddled such as me, then why do you put them on a public forum?

whonellie, I am comforted by the fact that I have the courage to face the reality of the human experience. I have an intellect that allows me to regard the human experience as endless interesting. My intellect also allows me to reject your cowardly delusion; a delusion that suffocates your ability to truly enjoy the human experience -for you have turned your back on your own intellect. Further, you share in a delusion that has non-christians -including children and babies- burning eternally in hell.

How charming and comforted do you feel now?

The problem is that science and religion are not equal. Science has standards of evidence and religion does not. What you believe is fine until it creeps into public policy then you have to prove what you believe is true otherwise you're just selling snake oil. Science isn't always right but there are mechanisms in place to correct it when it is wrong. Religion has no mechanism. It continues with its delusions until it becomes so irrelevant that no one trusts it anyone. God is not a growth industry, but science is.

The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th edition, defines "faith" as a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Whether or not you believe in God, and his existence, rests solely on your view of faith. Sometimes we cannot explain why something happens. People are not all-knowing, even though most on this blog think they have it all figured out. Is it impossible to imagine that the creation of our world is both explainable and unexplainable at the same time?

If you want to believe that you started from scum that's your right, I choose to believe that there is a God and that he sent his son Jesus to die for me,a sinner. I now have the right to heaven when I die and I find that comforting, what comfort have you? What do you think happens when you die?? I hope for your sake gazette & union & fool, that you would be open to the truth. I have faith and I believe in God.You be happy in your belief and I'll be happy in mine. (yet I will be praying for you).

MiltonR - as I see you are the one making the claim that there is a diety, it seems that the burden of 'proof' falls to you. Does it not?
.
However if you would like me to prove that your particular brand of imagination does not exist I would love to take a crack at it. Could you tell me more about your god?

Just as you don't understand the definition of the word 'proof'

You don't understand the definition of the word 'opinion.'

Still awaiting proof, not opinion.

MiltonRedman, The Holocaust is proof that god doesn't exist.

Also, the christian definition of god has god being everywhere and involved in everything. Yet there is no evidence of it. There is also no evidence of god's or Jesus' miracles i.e. no evidence that events ever took place that violated the laws of physics and physical science. All this is proof that your Abrahamic god nor any other god doesn't exist.

Justsaynotomath, I don't think they can come together, per se. They have to coexist in separate realms.

What's with this "flippancy" delusion of yours, Billnewbie? My first post here was a response to Prounion's post. If you carefully read my post, you just might realize my comment to Prounion was an opinion about Collins' style of religiosity being benign --of no concern to an atheist. If not, first read Prounion's post then re-read my response repeatedly until you get it, Bill.

Besides, who are you to critique my comments about Collins? He has no problem with people like me but thinks people like you are dangerous and damaging to children! (Still waiting for your comments on Collins, by the way. With God on your side, what are you so afraid of? Are you afraid God is on Collins' side, not yours?)

science is based on facts as we know them. faith is based on faith. i don't see how the two can come together when they are polar opposites.

Please reference my name-calling post, Bill.

Calling me befuddled doesn't justify your flippancy towards them or me, Fool_on_the_hill. You, Gazettefan and Darwin1's descension into name calling and derision is telling as well, telling of the vacuity of your argument. Under those circumstances, flippancy may be your best option, but it does you no credit.

I believe in evolution. I am a Christian. I believe without a doubt that God exists. Dr. Collins provides great insight into a solid connection between science and God and the notion that science does not discount God. Until there is evidence proving otherwise (and Gazettefan saying he has evidence that God doesn't exist is NOT proof), I will continue to firmly believe in both God and science.

Very good article.

The idea that a god created "laws of nature" and set things in motion was around during the time of Darwin. Evangelicals are just too stupid to realize this because they don't read anything other than the bible.

Historically speaking science is very good at filling in the blanks with actual explanations of how natural phenomenon work. Religion's response is an incredibly lazy: God did it.

lakennedy, in the very last scene in the remake of Inherit the Wind, the Bryan character drops dead. Ironically, that was George C. Scott's very last scene before he died.

Bill, I suggest you read a little more about Collins and Lewis before suggesting that I don't understand where they are coming from. Both admit to needing religion. As much as it pains and befuddles you, at least consider the possibility that I don't.

I didnt' know that Bryan died only five days after the Scopes verdict...wowsers. You learn something new everyday I guess.

billnewbie, your "big comeback" to cogent reasoning and clear facts is to merely slam the other person's ability to judge.

Yet it is you who believes in something that doesn't exist.

That's a telling comment, Fool_on_the_Hill. Your self-assurance in your own ability to answer those questions and fill in those blanks does say something about you, that you may well think more of your own judgement than you should. I suggest that you do a little more soul searching before you so flippantly reject the convictions of people like Collins and Lewis.
.
Prounion, I am willing to accept your tithe and I assure you that I will use it exclusively for the promotion of Christianity towards atheists. You can email me with the details including financial data for the purpose of establishing the appropriate figure and payment schedule at billnewbie@live.com. I anxiously await your submission.

You've been writing some good humor lately, Prounion. :-D Collins is talking about what we might call humanistic, abstract philosophical stuff. Ethics, morals and affairs of the heart, if you will. I'm sure you have that realm, too. Like C.S Lewis, Collins just had trouble answering those questions and filling in the blanks on his own. No biggie, really.

Questions to which science had no answers? Ok well then clearly there is a god. Lets not consider that it wasn't that long ago that we did not know what made the sun rise in the sky, or the rain to fall, nope the answer to any question we don't know the answer to is, of course, because the invisable force did it, and also there is this book called the bible so it must be this particular invisable force. Where should I send ten percent of my income - I am sold.