"Don't Want To Be An American Idiot"

Video Transcript: -

Here is one simple piece of evidence which supports the theory of evolution. Protein sequence is produced through the translation of a non-lapping degenerate triplet code.

All code for alanine = GCA, GCT, GCG, GCC

All code for proline = CCA, CCT, CCG, CCC

So these 2 mutations will not effect the protein. And therefore have no effect on the organism.

But there's a complication. Condon bias can effect the rate of translation and therefore have an impact on fitness.

So these mutations are not as neutral as we thought. In humans though, one amino acid is special. Glutamic acid coded by GAA and GAG shows no bias. Therefore switching the codons has no effect on fitness.

So where does all this get us?

The theory of evolution makes a simple prediction. Since mutations occur at a low rate, closely related species should use the same condons for glutamic acid simply because there has not been enough time for divergence.

Intelligent Design/ Creationism make no prediction and therefore not testable and are not science.

So what do we find?

We are going to look at condons for glutamic acid in the alpha and beta chains of hemoglobin. We are going to compare 3 closely related species. 1. human 2. chimp 3. rhesus monkey

In both the hemoglobin alpha and beta chains ALL THE CONDONS MATCH.

Twelve of twelve positions use exactly the same codon in two species closely related to us. The probability of that occuring by chance is 1: 16, 777, 216.

But it didn't occur by chance. Evolution predicts this result. (Since mutations occur at a low rate, closely related species should use the same condons for glutamic acid simply because there has not been enough time for divergence.)

And that is only 2 of the 30,000 genes in our genome. And we only compared 3 species. This is only one of millions of pieces of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Think about it.

For further information on evolution see:

• The Talk Origins Archive
• Molecular Biology and Evolution
• Molecular Biology and Primate Phylogenetics

evolution , natural selection , biology , genetics , intelligent design , creationism , greenday , green day

Does Religion Make You A Better Person?

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:

The USA is one of the most religious countries in the world. Does that make it the best country in the world? Is it the most moral country in the world? Logically the most religious country in the world would also be the most moral. Logically the least religious country in the world would also be the most immoral.

How do we determine the morality of a country? Crime rate? Sexual behavior? The least religious large country is Japan. 80% of japanese accept evolution and only 10% believe there is a god. This is out of 100 million people. Japan has one of the lowest crime rates and teen pregnancy rates in the developed world. Next in line as the most moral countries are Norway, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. Approximately 60% of the population of these countries accept evolution as a fact. Fewer than one in three believe in a deity. They have very little teen pregnancy and the homocide rates are approximately 1-2 per 100,000.

How does the USA stack up against these godless countries? Approximately 82% believe in god and 13% accept evolution. The USA is the most religious developed country in the world. It should be the most moral country in the developed world. Is it? It is just the opposite. The USA is the most religious and the most immoral country in the developed world. The USA has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. The USA has the highest homocide rate in the developed world. It is five times greater than these godless countries and 10 times greater than Japan.

The correlation is very clear, the more religious a country is, the more immoral it is. Religion does more harm than good. Religion tends to weaken rather than strengthen people's ability to participate in society. Religion makes it less likely that they will respect social customs and laws. Does religion make you a better person? Religion absolves them of all other responsibilities.

Those who are "born again" have dimished respect for others who do not share their belief. Convinced that only the bible has "the truth", they lose their intellectual curiousity and their ability to reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in, but themselves.

The more people prioritize themselves rather than those around them, the weaker society becomes. As for sex, religion encourages ignorance rather than responsible behavior. In these godless countries (Japan, Norway, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands) sex education includes contraception reducing the risk of unwated pregnancies.

Such an approach recognizes that young people have the right to make their own choices and helps them make decisions which benefit them and society as a whole. In America, faith-based abstinence programs deny them that right. The results are soaring rates of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.

Abstinence programs rest on the same weak intellectual foundation as creationism and intelligent design. Faith discourages unpredjudiced analysis. Reasoning is subverted to rationalization that supports rather than questions assumptions. The result is a self contained system that mantains an internal logic no matter how absurd. Despite all its fine words, religion has brought in its wake violence, prejudice and sexual disease.

Families that pray together stay together. No! Divorce rates are significantly higher amongst christians than other groups. Approximately 90% of divorces among "born agains" occur after they have been "saved." Atheists and agnostics have a much lower divorce rate than christians.

US Prison Populations:
Believers - 99.791%
Christians - 79.99%
Non-believers (16% of the US population) - only .208% of the prison population.

Does religion make you a better person? No! Does religion make our country better? No! Be a patriotic american. Give up your superstitions.

"Tut, tut, child," said the Duchess. "Everything's got a moral if only you can find it." - Lewis Carroll 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland'

youtube , religion , morality , crime rate , atheist , christian , agnostic , USA , teen pregnancy , abstinence , faith based

One Woman's Rapture Is Another Woman's Hood Ornament

Quotes of a similar type:

• One man's magic is another man's engineering.
• One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.
• One man's loss is another man's gain.
• One man's justice is another's injustice; one man's beauty another's ugliness; one man's wisdom another's folly.
• One man's folly is another man's wife.
• One man's remorse is another man's reminiscence.
• One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
• One man's spam is another man's art.
• One man's cult is another man's cult. (Haha)
• One man's frankness is another man's vulgarity.
• One man's treasure is another man's trash.
• One man's pork is another man's poison.
• One man's diamond is another man's paving tile.
• One man's thorn is another man's thistle.
• One man's prison is another man's castle.

These sayings suggest that everything is just a matter of personal opinion. They suggest that there is no objective reality and that we all just exist in our own separate subjective realities of our own making, and that each opinion on reality has as much validity, credibility, weight and veracity as the next opinion.

Firstly, whether or not each of us have a personal view of the world, does not make each personal view reasonable. So how do we measure, assess, and evaluate information?

Human beings do not individually think the same, process information in the same manner or come to the same conclusions. We don't think the same way because we are all individually products of not only our environments, cultures, education etc, but we are also individuals according to our genetic prescriptors.

Having stated that we are all individuals with individual potentials, how do we assess or test information for veracity? One way to do this, and the most successful way of examining or critically analysing information so far, is through the use of reason. So, how each of us come to conclusions and the steps we use to arrive at those conclusions can be examined and tested according to reason and the laws of logic.

In the case of argument, reason is the ability of the human mind to form and operate on concepts in abstraction. Reason is used in accordance with rationality and logic in order to come to a decision about propositions, ideas, concepts, or beliefs.

Reason is the process of thinking which allows one to differentiate between a logical argument and a flawed argument. For example: If it can be shown that there is a flaw in one of the thought steps, then the conclusion is also likely to be flawed.

If, an individial lives in a world where they believe that everything is possible, it could be argued that they are essentially dooming themselves to a life of stasis, paralysis, and intellectual immobility.

Without the use of reason, everything we can imagine becomes a possibility as there is then no method to test for what is reasonable.

Therefore, if you claim to believe that everything is possible, what is to stop you from believing that if you think of a terrible human-eating monster that it will appear? And if you believed that it is possible for a monster to materialise simply through wishing it, you would try to not think, just in case your thoughts miraculously created said monster on top of your computer monitor.

Many things that humans can imagine, are considered to be highly improbable and are summarily dismissed through the use of reason.

What is also interesting is the notion that the above sayings only offer two choices. The choices of loss or gain, spam or art, treasure or trash, thorn or thistle. This type of thinking encourages people to think in black or white, either this or that, and is an example of the false dichotomy or the false dilema.

Flawed thinking often results in flawed conclusions. Just as flawed beliefs can result in human hood ornaments.

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason." - Benjamin Franklin

rapture , prophecy , reason , logic , beliefs , sayings , youtube

Who Said Which Quotes?

Who Dislikes Atheists?

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

Who Is Patriotic?

"What we have to fight for is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the creator."

Who Dislikes Public Education?

"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."

Who Hates Liberalism?

"The main plank in the program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

Who Is In Favour Of A Christian Nation?

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

Who Is For Family Values?

"It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

Who Hates Blasphemy?

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

Who Hates Secularism?

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."

Who Believes That Might Makes Right?

"Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills."

Who Protects Free Enterprise?

"We stand for the maintenance of private property. We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."

Who Is A Fundamentalist Christian?

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders."

Who Loves Jesus?

"I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

Who Hates Sin?

"Blood sin and desecration of the race are the original sin in this world and the end of a humanity which surrenders to it."

Who Is Concerned With Morality?

"Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."

Who Hates The Left?

"For not only are we ourselves aware of the element of weakness lying in our democrats, pacifists, and centrists; it is recognized even more by foreign countries, which measure the value of a possible alliance with us according to the weight of this burden."

Who Hates Communists?

"We have been engaged in a heroic struggle against the Communist threat to our nation, against the subversion of our culture, the destruction of our art and the corruption of our public morality. We have put an end to atheism and blasphemy."

Who Hates Prostitution?

"Prostitution is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures, pious intentions, etc.; its limitation and final abolition presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions."

Who Supports Stay At Home Moms?

"For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. But what would become of the greater world if there were no one to tend and care for the smaller one? The great world cannot survive if the smaller world is not stable. We do not consider it correct for the women to interfere in the world of the man. We consider it natural if these two worlds remain distinct."

Who Believes Men Are More Intelligent Than Women?

"Love and devotion to a man are the highest virtues in a woman. Intelligence is not very important. My mother was certainly no genius, but she gave a great son to the people."

Click Here For The Answers ~~ Quiz Answers

quotes , George Bush , Adolf Hitler , Pat Robertson , Ann Coulter , atheist , christian , patriot , liberal , quiz

To Beep Or Not To Beep

"To beep or not to beep, that is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of the outrageous coyote,
Or to run like hell and let him injure himself."

(with apologies to Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, scene i.)

Screw the coyote, he can get take-out.

beep , meep , beep beep , coyote , roadrunner , road runner , cartoon , hamlet , shakespeare , soliloquy

Family Planning

From : ~ Drunken Tune - I Kid You Not

Family Planning Quotes:

• "A birth control pill for men, that's fair. It makes more sense to take the bullets out of the gun than to wear a bulletproof vest." - Unknown
• "Condoms aren't completely safe. A friend of mine was wearing one and got hit by a bus." ~ Bob Rubin
• "Contraceptives should be used on every conceivable occasion." ~ Spike Milligan
• "It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry." ~ H.L. Mencken
• "Those who in principle oppose birth control are either incapable of arithmetic or else in favor of war, pestilence and famine as permanent features of human life." ~ Bertrand Russell

family planning , quotes , humor , humour

Does Your Invisible God Wear Invisible Clothes?

And now, for your bedtime story, a little fairy story originally from Demark with a philosophical interpretation.

Once upon a time, many years ago, there lived an emperor who was quite an average fairy tale ruler, with one exception: he cared much about his clothes. One day he heard from two tailors named Guido and Luigi Farabutto that they could make the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they said, also had the special capability that it was invisible to anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position.

Being a bit nervous about whether he himself would be able to see the cloth, the emperor first sent two of his trusted men to see it. Of course, neither would admit that they could not see the cloth and so praised it. All the townspeople had also heard of the cloth and were interested to learn how stupid their neighbors were.

The emperor then allowed himself to be dressed in the clothes for a procession through town, never admitting that he was too unfit and stupid to see what he was wearing. For he was afraid that the other people would think that he was stupid.Of course, all the townspeople wildly praised the magnificent clothes of the emperor, afraid to admit that they could not see them, until a small child said:

'But he has nothing on!'

This was whispered from person to person until everyone in the crowd was shouting that the emperor had nothing on. The emperor heard it and knew that they were correct, but held his head high and finished the procession.

Most of you will recognize this story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Anderson. The story is a morality play with a cautionary message: -

Just because everyone else believes something is true, doesn't mean it is. Or believing something doesn't make it true.

Many of us clothe ourselves in our beliefs. Those beliefs may be religious, political, cultural or economic. Sometimes these beliefs are loosely based in reason, but more often than not, they are based on something else. Many times they are based on our emotional and psychological desires.

The emperor was motivated to believe that he was wearing wonderful clothes because he didn't want to appear to be stupid or unfit for his station as emperor. So everything that his logical, rational mind told him concerning the non-existence of those clothes, he ignored. He ignored his logical, rational thoughts because he wanted his beliefs to validate and affirm his opinion of himself.

If you have firm beliefs, instead of being like the emperor and continuing on regardless of the absurdity of the belief; ask yourself why you believe what you believe. Most of us believe things because there is a payoff. That means we believe something because we think the belief benefits us in some way. We want the belief to validate us and to affirm our opinion of ourselves or the world we live in.

That is, people hope for an emotional or psychological payoff so that they will feel good about themselves. Unfortunately for the emperor, believing in the existence of something because he didn't want to appear stupid backfired.

The irony is, he didn't save himself from appearing stupid, or from appearing unfit to be emperor; his willingness to believe in an absurdity indicated that he WAS stupid and that he WAS unfit to be emperor.

"A believer is a bird in a cage. A freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing." - Robert Ingersoll

emperor's new clothes , hans christian andersen , belief , invisible , god , robert ingersoll , morality story , fairytale , stupid , stupidity , freethought

"Christianity's Flying Circus"

From: - Stardust Musings and Thoughts for the Freethinker

Song by Genesis - Sung by Phil Collins

Lyrics

You see the face on the tv screen
Coming at you every sunday

See that face on the billboard

That man is me

On the cover of the magazine

There's no question why I'm smiling

You buy a piece of paradise

You buy a piece of me

I'll get you everything you wanted

I'll get you everything you need

Don't need to believe in hereafter

Just believe in me

Cos jesus he knows me

And he knows Im right

I've been talking to jesus all my life

Oh yes he knows me

And he knows Im right

And he's been telling me

Everything is alright

I believe in the family

With my ever loving wife beside me

But she don't know about my girlfriend

Or the man I met last night

Do you believe in god

Cos that's what I'm selling

And if you wanna get to heaven

I'll see you right

You won't even have to leave your house

Or get outta your chair

You don't even have to touch that dial

Cos I'm everywhere

And jesus he knows me

And he knows I'm right

I've been talking to jesus all my life

Oh yes he knows me

And he knows I'm right

Well he's been telling me

Everything's gonna be alright

Won't find me practising what I'm preaching

Won't find me making no sacrifice

But I can get you a pocketful of miracles

If you promise to be good, try to be nice

God will take good care of you

Just do as I say, don't do as I do

I'm counting my blessings,

I've found true happiness

Cos I'm getting richer, day by day

You can find me in the phone book,

Just call my toll free number

You can do it anyway you want

Just do it right away

There'll be no doubt in your mind

You'll believe everything I'm saying

If you wanna get closer to him

Get on your knees and start paying

Cos jesus he knows me

And he knows I'm right

I've been talking to jesus all my life

Oh yes he knows me

And he knows I'm right

Well he's been telling me

Everything's gonna be alright, alright

Jesus he knows me

Jesus he knows me, you know...

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991

~*~

And I guess that means that I don't have to be nice to you either.

circus , christianity , evangelical , fundamentalism , christian fundamentalist

The Blog Tag

The Atheist Jew has a tag going about blogs. Anyone who wants to be tagged, can answer the questions and pass the tag on.

• 1-Do you like the look and the contents of your blog?
  
  It looks ok. I have had various people say that the font is too small, and that might be something I take into consideration in the future. It is a "girlie looking blog" because I am an old girlie. The blog layout is a little complicated looking, but I am basically too lazy at the moment to change it.
  
  I based the idea of my blog around a couple of fictional characters. The first one is the roadrunner from "The Roadrunner Cartoon." Of course, the roadrunner doesn't say much except for "beep beep" or "meep meep", which I interpret to mean, "get out of the way, here I am."
  
  The other source for the format of this blog is Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" which is a story I have enjoyed since I was a child and that is why many of the initial quotes on the blog are from that source. In the story "Alice in Wonderland", Alice meets a cheshire cat. The cat appears and disappears at will, and engages Alice in sometimes amusing but sometimes vexing conversation.
  
  The cat also tries to point out philosophical points that annoy Alice. Symbolically, I am NOT Alice, I am the cheshire cat to whom visitors (or Alices), ask questions.

• 2-Does your family know about your blog?
  
  Some do. I haven't advertised it to the family nor to friends, as frankly, they wouldn't be interested in the world of blogging. I am sure most of them would consider it a complete nonsense, and it probably is!.

• 3-Can you tell your friends about your blog?
  
  As per above.

• 4-Do you just read the blogs of those who comment on your blog?
  
  Or do you try to discover new blogs? Sure, I read many blogs, some daily, some more erratically. It depends on how much time I have and how motivated I am..

• 5-Did your blog positively affect your mind? Give an example.
  
  I think that writing is a positive experience. It keeps the mind active and chugging along on 3.5 cylinders. Through using a process of composing arguments which encourage discussion and debate, one is able to improve reasoning skills.

• 6-What does the number of visitors to your blog mean? Do you use a traffic counter?
  
  Of course anyone who posts articles on the internet wants them to be read. And I hope that anything I post, whether it is my argument, or the argument of others is read and that people find them interesting, enjoyable and thought provoking.

• 7-Did you imagine what other bloggers look like?
  
  I wouldn't have a clue what most bloggers look like, and it is of little interest to me. What I am amazed at daily is how well some of the younger bloggers put together an argument.

• 8-Do you think blogging has any real benefit?
  
  Well, aparts from the personal benefit which I mentioned before, yes. Everytime a person clicks onto a blog they need to make a variety of decisions. The primary decisions needed to be made are whether the argument or points being expressed are logical, coherent, and consistent. If they are, then they might have passed some sort of critical analysis or test for veracity.
  
  Reading other people's blogs also allows an insight into how people think. Not just what they think, but the processes of thinking that they use, and if they think logically. I am not claiming, by the way, that everything I say is completely logical.

• 9-Do you think that the blogsphere is a stand alone community separated from the real world?
  
  The blogsphere is a window into how other people think. A huge variety of people blog. So, it is a snapshot of how some of these people think.

• 10-Do some political blogs scare you?
  
  The rule of thumb when it comes to all sorts of controversial topics but especially politics, sex and religion is that they are traditionally known as the subjects to be avoided in polite conversation. When people are not standing eye to eye and sharing their thoughts, the need to be polite for many people, seems secondary. I try to be polite, but I am by no means completely successful at it.

• 11-Do you think that criticizing your blog is useful?
  
  I don't mind people criticizing either my blog, or the variety of ideas expressed here. If we all agree, there is little point in writing a blog in the first place. It isn't freedom if it is only the freedom to agree.

• 12-Have you ever thought about what happen to your blog in case you died. If I shuffle off this mortal coil, I am sure there will be some people who will be relieved. In fact, some of them will probably be hoping that I am getting my comeupance in hell. (Limbo isn't taking anymore people as it's existence is in review from a religious point of view.)

• 13-Which blogger had the greatest impression on you?
  
  Hmmm. I am not sure. There are a few favourites, but I read such a variety of material, it is difficult to say.

• 14-Which blogger you think is the most similar to you.
  
  My blog has things in common with other bogs which discuss religion, science, philosophy and logic. Perhaps other Australian blogs are the most similar to me potentially because we share, even unwittingly, a similar cultural psychology.

• 15-Name a song you want to listen to?
  
  I am not sure what this has to do with the above line of questioning, but I will pick anything by Bob Schneider from the infamous "Bob Schneider and the Scabs."
  
  I will also tag anyone who wants to be tagged this time.
  

blog , blogger , tag , tags , blogsphere , blogosphere , alice in wonderland , cheshire cat , roadrunner

Homosexuality is Natural

Male Chinstrap Penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan.

From : ~ Birds and Bees may be Gay:

The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals.

With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural."

"We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear -- homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said.

Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature," told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them."

Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent homosexual behavior among hyenas 2,300 years ago but evidence of animal homosexuality has often been ignored by researchers, perhaps because of distaste, lack of interest or fear or ridicule.

Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are among extremes in having sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. "Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them," Soeli said.

Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end.

Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, he said.

And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women," he said

Nature: ~ "Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical universe, material world or material universe. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general."

So if a behaviour is observed and demonstrated in the natural world it is considered natural. Homosexuality is oberved in the natural world and is therefore natural.

LINK: Homosexual behavior in animals

Naturalism , natural , nature , unnatural , homosexual , homosexuality

Was Jesus Gay?

Suddenly many aspects of the New Testament make sense. Jesus never married. He preached love, tolerance, and forgiveness of sins. He did not condemn and vilify as his so-called followers do today. He surrounded himself with men whom he loved. The Bible says nothing of Jesus' sexuality, yet we are taught that he was both divine and fully man. Why did he never marry? Why is the New Testament silent about his sexuality? Perhaps Jesus was gay and that is why he understood hatred and bigotry at first-hand. So, was Jesus gay?

• 1. He had long hair.
• 2. He wore a dress and sandals.
• 3. His white dress was always perfectly clean even though he lived in the desert.
• 4. He hung around with 12 other guys.
• 5. He asked those 12 other guys to eat his flesh in order to remember him.
• 6. He liked it when a specific disciple laid on his bosom.
  (John 13:23,25 & 21:20 "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?" 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?"
• 7. In the secret gospel of Mark 10.34 and 35 "And after six days Jesus gave him an order and, at evening, the young man came to him wearing nothing but a linen cloth. And he stayed with him for the night, because Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God."
  (The Secret Gospel of Mark was rediscovered in the library of the Mar Saba Monastery near Jerusalem in 1958.)
• 8. The four Gospels contain no specific statement by Jesus against homosexual behaviour.
• 9. The New Testament does not single out homosexual behaviour as worse than heterosexual immorality.
• 10. John 19:26-28, Jesus is described as seeing his mother and an unidentified man: "the disciple standing by, whom he loved."
• 11. And for anyone who still has doubts about Jesus' sexual orientation, I suggest you watch this Youtube production.

satire , jesus , gay , homosexual , secret , christianity

Noah's Ark - Looking at the Evidence

"The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine?"- Judith Hayes

Comments are Welcomed

bible , noah , ark , christianity , religion , old testament , genesis , flood

RE: Kingdom Advancer

Image from: - Christian Right Propaganda Posters

A Reply To Kingdom Advancer

RE: "This is written as a Christian retort to an atheist who attempted to turn Scripture against itself to show that "nobody can get to heaven." Of course, this atheist doesn't believe in heaven. She's just saying that nobody could get there by Jesus' standards, anyway, because the bar is set so high. She lays it down as an eight-step, biblical process."

Firstly, it is not my argument, it is the argument of "Rational Idiot Productions" of which I have no affiliation. So that is your first mistake, to claim that it is my claim and my production.

Secondly, you are of course welcome to disagree with that production, but you are not allowed to claim that it is MY argument.

Thirdly, the transcript is the words from the video, not my words. But of course you are welcome to comment on them.

RE: "Step 1, according to her, is found in Luke 10:25-28:And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself?" And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this and you will live." Now, the atheist thinks this step is pretty simple. I do too.

Firstly, once again, it is not my claim, but I will refer to the claims made by the production for the sake of argument.

Secondly, the argument expressed in the production relies specifically on the words in the bible which refer to how someone can be saved, as these are of primary relevance to the concept of salvation.

RE: "However, Jesus is not implying that we can earn our salvation here.

Firstly, if Jesus is not implying that salvation is to be found by loving the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself and that this is the way to salvation, why was it said?

Secondly, if your claim is that no one has been able to keep this part of the law, then the argument is over, as god, if it exists, has sent mankind on an impossible mission from the beginning.

RE: "All have sinned," (Romans 3:23) "There is none who is good," (Luke 18)...and the list goes on. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my Commandments." (John 14:15) This includes His command to repent, turn from your sins, accept Jesus as your Savior and Lord [a.k.a. the road to salvation.]"

Firstly, Romans 3:23 does not mention how to be saved, it mentions that all have sinned. "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Secondly, John 14:15 does not mention specifically salvation, it talks of obedience. "If you love me, you will obey what I command."

RE: The "second step," Luke 18:18-22, is where her thought-processes get interesting:A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."You know the commandments. 'Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'" And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth."

When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." The atheist came across with the false impression that Jesus is saying--in order to enter heaven--everyone must sell everything they own.

Firstly, Luke 18:18-22 is included because it is specific to the argument where Jesus asnwers a man's question of how he will attain eternal life. And after mentioning the usual commands, this one is also mentioned.

Luke 18:22 "When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Secondly, if Jesus did not mean that you have to sell everything and give it to the poor, as part of the process towards salvation, why bother saying it?


RE: "This is what I say: First of all, look at what the ruler said, "What must I do to be saved?" This teaches us two things about this encounter:1.) Jesus' general advice could apply to everyone's salvation, but any particulars apply only to the individual.2.) The man was showing his self-righteousness and self-reliance. He wanted to know what HE could do to be saved. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and THAT NOT OF OURSELVES, it is the gift of God." (Ephesians 2:8, emphasis added)"

Firstly, your opinion or interpretation of Jesus's intent, is of no value to me. We are discussing what was actually said, not what you infer or interpret the words to say.

Secondly, Ephesians 2:8 States that you are saved through faith, so this is relevant to the discussion of salvation.

Ephesians 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"

Thirdly, but this only presents more questions. If you are saved by faith, what is the point of mentioning all the other requirements for salvation? And if it is a package deal, which the video suggest, then this just is another requirement for salvation.

RE: "Jesus FIRST told the man to keep the Law; the man thought he had. But no one has kept all of the Law, all of the time. And if you break one part of the Law, you're guilty of all. (James 2:10) That's why Jesus questioned the man's assessment of good. The man likely had a misunderstanding of the Law, and Jesus also knew that He was breaking the First Commandment continously, by making a "god" out of his wealth."

So no one can follow all the law. I think you covered that previously. But if no one can follow all the steps nor all the laws, then no one can have salvation either, which is exactly the argument of the video.

RE: "Note verse 23, which says that man was "very sad," because he was "very rich." He did not want to give up his money to be saved or in order to follow God. The Bible tells us that we "cannot serve God and wealth." (Luke 16:13)Jesus was not saying that everyone has to sell all their belongings."

So, Jesus wasn't telling people to sell everything, in order to gain salvation, it was just a suggestion. Uh huh...

Luke 16:13 does not specifically mention salvation, but I will treat it as an aside.

Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

Notice how it doesn't mention salvation in the verse, because it was previously mentioned that you had to SELL EVERYTHING in order to attain salvation. And I guess there is no point in God being redundant.


RE: "He was pointing out that the man could do nothing himself to be saved for he had already violated the Law and was still violating the Law: He would need Jesus. If he sold all he had, it would be the equivalent of repenting--it would demonstrate that he had removed his god of money--but He would still need to follow Jesus.That being said, Christians are merely "stewards" of God's wealth and should be using it for His will and glory."

Firstly, Ahhhh... I wondered how you would try to interpret SELL EVERYTHING so that you didn't have to fulfill this part of the steps for salvation. So, once again you interpret the words to fit what you are required to do. You are not prepared to SELL EVERYTHING so therefore you interpret it to mean something else.

Secondly, it has already been stated that one of the steps towards salvation was to supposedly follow Jesus. So to mention it again seems a bit redundant on your part.

Thirdly, but the question does arise as to whether Jesus literally meant for him to be one of his disciples by following him from place to place while he preached, or whether he meant to figuratively follow his teachings two thousand years in the future. No doubt, you will pick the latter, though this makes less sense as Jesus made reference to the end of the world happening in HIS lifetime, not two thousand years down the track.

Mark 13:30: [After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]
"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place." So, I suggest that "follow" meant to literally follow Jesus during his lifetime, as Jesus saw the end of the world happening in HIS own lifetime.

RE: Step 3, Luke 14:26-27, 33:"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions." The atheist feels there's some hypocrisy here. How can you hate your parents and honor them? How you can hate everybody and love everybody? This is what I say: Here another thing is taken out of context. "Hate" is used here in a statement of hyperbole. Jesus is making an extreme comparison. Jesus, again, is saying that God must be our priority--again referencing the First Commandment.

So, "hate" doesn't mean"hate" and "sell everything" doesn't mean "sell everything" and "follow" doesn't mean to literally "follow." But amazingly, coming back from the dead IS taken literally. What double standards you have.

Once again, there seems to be no way of ascertaining the meaning or intent of a passage except subjectively which is what all believers do, even those who believe in the words of "Thomas the Tank Engine." But I get the message, you get to interpret it to fit your preconceived beliefs and I am supposed to accept your beliefs over what it says literally.

Now, as we have ascertained that the bible is open to interpretation; that is, the literal meaning is not intended, I interpret the resurrection to symbolise the path of the sun as it passes through the signs of the zodiac. My interpretation is therefore as valid as yours as I arrived at it using the same process of subjective interpretation. If you view your interpretation to be correct, then I can view mine as being correct.

And by the way, "love your ememies" always seemed a little threatening to me, as the god of the old testament liked to love his enemies to death. And Jesus is god, so I am not convinced that god has a very balanced perspective on "love" in the first place.

RE: "Step 4, John 6:53-57:So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me." First of all, I think when an atheist turns to the topic of communion, it shows that they really don't have a great argument."

Firstly, the concept of sacrifice is ancient. The idea that blood contained the power to give life is probably as ancient as mankind, which is why sacrifice of not only animals but people was a popular past-time. Sometimes that human sacrifice was a willing one, that is, there was no coersion required. Sacrifices occurred in most cultures and rituals developed around the belief that to drink of the blood or to eat of the flesh would impart the "powers" of the sacrifice into the recipient.

That is, that the flesh and blood literally contained the power or "essence" of the individual or animal. To sacrifice a wild dangerous animal to the gods and to drink its blood etc, was seen as a way to assume the power of that animal. Sometimes the sacrifice was a willing human.

The influence of culture and the fact that one would be seen as a hero, albeit a dead hero, didn't put a lot of people off from being a sacrifice. Especially if they were promised that their life would protect the lives of all of their village/tribe etc. So, the idea that it took ONLY one sacrifice to save everyone, is just an evolution of the idea of sacrifice. The fact that the "jesus sacrifice" retains all the other elements of ancient sacrifice strongly suggest that this was just an evolution in the concept of human sacrifice.

RE: "Anyways, the atheist thinks this is "grotesque" and "satanic."

Actually, I say it is an ancient practice which evolved into the idea of one human sacrifice instead of many.

RE : Step 5, Matthew 18:3-4:He said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." The atheist thinks there's something strange with this. I don't see anything strange here. She says it doesn't have anything to do with humility, but I say: 1) Look at verse 5: "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." So it has nothing to do with actually becoming a child. It's about losing pride and humbly asking for forgiveness, for "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5) So yes, humility is a big part of salvation--becoming "like a child" is a big part of salvation. Humility is a natural precursor to salvation.2) The atheist seems to think that being like a child means being gullible. I say:It certainly does not mean gullibility. And I must say, anyone who believes in atheism, evolution, and the lack of a need to believe in absolutes, definitely does not have room to talk about gullibility.3)This passage likely partially means dependence on God and in Jesus. Like a child would trust and depend on his parents, so are we to depend on and in God."

Once again, it depends on what qualities you associate with children. You choose one and claim that is the attribute required for salvation. Let's assume that the attribute is humility. Humility is a great attribute if you want to be be a follower. Not a great attribute if you want to be a self-determining adult. Other qualities associated with children are an unquestioning faith in leaders, either ones based in reality, or ones based in mythology or religion. All leaders want compliant and obedient followers who just have faith in them and believe everything they say. In order to be compliant and obedient, one needs to prefer faith over reason. Little children have under-developed reasoning power, so of course a god would claim that people need to remain gullible and trusting like children.

RE: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

The concept of baptism or purification is also as old as religion itself. This is just a revised version of a ritual which was performed thousands of years prior to christianity. One of the earliest recorded instances of baptism is in Egypt. Water was purified in ancient Egypt, both for the living and the dead. Indeed, washing in water was essential to the resurrection from the dead in ancient Egypt, just as in the idea of christian baptism. The initiation of an Egyptian priest was a baptism in a sacred pool. This pool was symbolic of the waters of Nu, the Cosmic Ocean, which washed away all evil. Then the priest candidate was sprinkled with oil and water as purification. So, I am hardly surprised that "being born again" or having ones sins washed away through a ritual involving water is part of the christian cult as well.

RE: "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everything who is born of the Spirit." First things first. The atheist says that "Jesus is completely wrong here. We do know where the wind comes from and where it's going." Well, a couple things to note: 1.) Certainly people of those times didn't have knowledge of the currents.2.) Secondly, we cannot track with complete accuracy the wind."

Well, we are not talking about "people of those times not having the knowledge of the currents," we are talking SPECIFICALLY about the fact that JESUS DIDN'T. A man-god who can cure people of leprosy, and raise people from the dead, DOESN'T know about the wind.

Secondly, we cannot PREDICT exactly where the wind will go, but we can accurately track wind currents. I suggest you go to this page just for one example. I am sure there are many. Wind Tracker Display

RE: " Jesus was not necessarily talking about major currents; He might've been merely talking about the unpredictable breeze."

Sorry, but that excuse is just hilarious.

RE : Step 7, Matthew 5:20:"For I [Jesus] say unto you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." The atheist thinks that this means we really are expected to follow the 600+ laws that the Pharisees followed. But Jesus was actually saying two other things: 1.) First of all, the Pharisees had corrupted the Law. They had narrowed some parts and expanded others. They "tithed mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law," (Matthew 23:23) like the essence of murder and adultery, hate and lust. (Matthew 5:21ff)2.) Jesus was once again showing us that--to enter heaven on our own merit--we'd have to be "perfect, as God is perfect."

Firstly, it is your assumption that Jesus is saying that the pharisees have corrupted the law. Secondly, the pharisees claim that Jesus corrupted the law. You remember the old testament? The one you purloined in order to create your own god myth? The old testament explains quite well what happens to false prophets who attempt to change the law. Jesus's claim, if he existed, was that the law of the pharisees was corrupted, so the law did not apply to him. That makes him a political dissident, but not a god or the son of a god.

The jews certainly thought he was trying to corrupt the law and that he was a false prophet. Jews who practice judaism still consider jesus to be a false prophet who was trying to corrupt the laws. Jews also believe that allah is a false prophet, even though islam also uses judaism as a stepping stome in order to create its own religion.

In Deuteronomy 13, god describes this false prophet as a member of the Jewish people (13:2- 7) who would tell true prophecies and would have the power of miracles. God would give this false prophet the power to perform miracles and reveal prophecy, but the false prophet would try to seduce the people away from god's law and towards strange gods unknown to Judaism. The purpose would be to test whether jews were truly committed to living under the law, or whether they would be dazzled and fall for the temptation to join a false path to salvation (13: 3-6, 7-8, 11).

In this bible passage, god repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls. So, the jews certainly believe that jesus came to corrupt the law as a test from god to keep them faithful to the jewish law. Deuteronomy 13:5 "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you." In other words, if you worship Jesus as a god, you are corrupting the law.

RE: "(Matthew 5:48) This is impossible--not even Christians can match up to this standard, for it would require total perfection--past, present, and future--not just future perfection. Therefore, we need Jesus' sacrifice, for there “ is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

The penny finally drops. It is an impossible list to achieve, therefore no one can get into heaven. Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

RE: "Lastly, I realize I'll be accused of "interpreting" the Bible according "to what I want to believe," but that's false. In all factuality, what I'm doing is called "keeping things in context," or--in other words--doing the exact opposite of what this atheist is doing. ~Kingdom Advancing.

p.s. If anyone genuinely wants to know how to be saved by Jesus Christ from their sins, let me know and I'll do my best to help you out. - posted by Kingdom Advancer"

Yes, you will be accused of interpreting the bible according to your own needs, desires and comprehension problems. By the way, have you worked out yet that you misinterpreted Matthew 5:22 yet?

Was it a deliberate misinterpretation to suit your own needs, desires and preconceived beliefs? Or was it just a lack of comprehension skills? If it is the latter, I suggest that you do not rely on your own ability to make sense of the bible, as your own ability is obviously flawed.

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:"

"and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council:" (That is, whoever calls his brother worthless shall be in danger of the council.)

"but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Each statement has a separate consequence. In the first one, if you are angry without cause, you are in danger of the judgement. In the second one, if you call someone worthless, you are in danger of the council. And in the last one, if you call someone a fool, you are in danger of hell fire.

As you have demonstrated your inability to comprehend this passage correctly, based on your inability to understand punctuation and word meaning; I have little trust in your ability to comprehend other passages in the bible. That is, your ability to comprehend and therefore make valid judgements is in doubt.

Now, I know you have created a webpage on your own site in an attempt to rebut any arguments I may put forward. But I want you to know that I will not be visiting your site to rebut them. I will rebut them here. Afterall, I want MY blog to receive the traffic, not yours :)

PS: You also seem to have an inability to comprehend whose argument is whose. You wish to attribute the video to me. Nothing on the original article expressed my thoughts concerning the ideas expressed in the video. So, in future, please respond to the correct source. You should have addressed your argument concerning the video, not assume that it was my video or my words.

And then I may, or may not have chosen to respond to the comments and argument put forward in the video. But as you seem to have your panties in a bunch, it might be difficult for you to be able to discern where the argument lies and its origin.