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?
(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?"
(The Secret Gospel of Mark was rediscovered in the library of the Mar Saba Monastery near Jerusalem in 1958.)
satire , jesus , gay , homosexual , secret , christianity
posted by beepbeepitsme | 9:20 pm
56 Comments:
Oh-HOH! Very funny.
I think you left 1 little oddity out, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Jesus
"However, the Gospel of Mark (and only Mark) adds the somewhat enigmatic coda that a young man, wearing nothing but a cloth to cover his genitals (a loin cloth), had been following Jesus, and still remained. Mark states that when the guards tried to grab this mysterious youth, they caught hold of the cloth, but the youth abandoned it, and escaped naked.
The mysterious youth is unidentified, and isn't referred to directly again. However, some scholars think it may the same youth as the similary mysterious youth clad in a white robe that Mark says was later present at the Empty Tomb of Jesus. The ancient (and controversial) Secret Gospel of Mark is usually considered to argue that these two youths are one and the same, as well as being the rich man that Jesus once spoke to, and a Lazarus-like figure. The youth has long been suggested by a small minority of people to have been taking part in some form of homosexual act with Jesus, either as a ritual, or as his boyfriend, the beloved disciple, and this speculation has been fuelled by the potential implications of the Secret Gospel of Mark."
Better lock your doors, dear: I imagine there's a mob w/torches & pitchforks headed your way. Hehehehe.
You convinced me :-)
RE ka: Of course it wouldn't bother me if jesus was gay. But, I figure it would bother a lot of rightwing christians.
Beep, and here I thought I was controversial! Better visit my blog for some light relief.
Hehehe... Nice one Beep. I wondered if you'd dedicate a post to this after your comment...:)
We are taught, as Christians, that Jesus was too busy doing other things (you know, healing people, teaching controversial ideas like tolerance and charity)to have time for romance, of any kind. There is a spell of about 20 years that aren't accounted for, and I suppose most anything could have happened. I don't know if sexual preference is terribly relevent to His message. Mocking Him, putting Him in a box, or twisting His words won't change that message.
He had (has) a feminine side, for sure, as witnessed by his unprecedented tenderness toward children and women. Culturally at that time, that sort of thing didn't happen.
I realize the Religious Right has made Him into a convenient target for people who who don't know any better. It won't be the first time He's been made fun of. Somehow I doubt He'll let it get to him.
Re: item #3 - I'm not sure I remember a lot of Jesus-laundry-specific references in the new testament, so this may be just a construct of history, like the way all the paintings have Jesus being a thin white gentile. OMG - not only was Jesus gay, he was David Bowie!
RE rootietoot:
Thank you for your comments. And let me say that I can understand how frustrating it must be to not to be a rightwing christian, as they certainly are giving christianity a lot of bad press.
RE: " I don't know if sexual preference is terribly relevent to His message. Mocking Him, putting Him in a box, or twisting His words won't change that message."
I think sexual preference is crucial to the message. If jesus was gay, he wouldn't want homosexuals to be treated badly. And if he was gay, he wouldn't consider my blog to be mocking his homosexuality.
RE: "I realize the Religious Right has made Him into a convenient target for people who who don't know any better. It won't be the first time He's been made fun of. Somehow I doubt He'll let it get to him. "
People who don't know any better? Please, no illogical appeals to intellectual authority.
Beepbeep. Quite frankly I was disgusted with that movie, but I figured I had to watch it for the sake of debate. Yes Jesus preached the forgiveness of sins, but he did not tolerate the sin. After He saved the adulteress woman from being stoned (they didn’t appear to have conclusive evidence anyway), He told her to leave her life of sin. (John 8:11)
Your points.
#1 +3 He had long hair and his white dress was always perfectly clean. Really!? You have a picture dated A.D. 30 or somewhere around there? If so I would really like to see it! (You would also be a multi-billionaire.) The truth is that no one knows the length of His hair or what the color of His cloths were. Jesus was always pictured with white clothes in Christian pictures to symbolize His purity.
#2 He wore a dress and sandals. Once again no one is absolutely sure of that fact, but considering that EVERYONE dressed like that back then, it is a pretty safe assumption. But everyone and the Jews esp., had certain differences between men’s’ and women’s’ clothes that distinguished them.
#4 He hung around with 12 other guys. True, they were his disciples and followers. I’m a guy and I hang out predominately with guys. Does that make me gay? In that case I hope that you don’t hang out with mainly girls or that might make you lesbian!
#5 He asked those 12 other guys to eat his flesh in order to remember him. Read John 6 : 35- 58. Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven. "They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
In this Jesus was referring to his sacrifice on the cross. He was saying that you must accept Him in order to have eternal life.
#6 He liked it when a specific disciple laid on his bosom. I noticed that you picked out a translation that seemed to fit with your point instead of sticking with the NIV, witch is more accurate and is in contemporary English which says, ‘One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means."
Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?"’
And in the second passage, ‘Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"’
It didn’t say that the disciple was practically in Jesus’ lap, just that when that disciple had a question, he leaned against Jesus. And nowhere did it say that Jesus enjoyed it when that happened.
#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."
You’ll notice that the above said gospel was not included in the biblical cannon. That would be either because it contained historical error or heresy.
#8 The four Gospels contain no specific statement by Jesus against homosexual behaviour. True they have no recorded statement by Jesus against it, however, we know that he followed the law, which prohibited homosexuality.
#9 The New Testament does not single out homosexual behaviour as worse than heterosexual immorality. Your right, sin is sin. If I lie just once, I am as worthy of hell as the worst murder. James 2 :10 says, ‘For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.’
#10 John 19:26-28, Jesus is described as seeing his mother and an unidentified man: "the disciple standing by, whom he loved." In the end of the book of John, that disciple is identified as John. John 21:20-25 says, ‘Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
#11 And for anyone who still has doubts about Jesus' sexual orientation, I suggest you watch this Youtube production. I don’t see how this disgusting production proves anything any more than the War of the Worlds proves that Martians invaded earth.
Daniel
Wow, imagine if he was. Lots of homophobes are going to have a lot of 'splainin' to do when they cruise up to the pearly gates.
"People who don't know any better? Please, no illogical appeals to intellectual authority."
I'm sorry - I wasn't trying to do that. What I am saying is that someone who mocks Christ probably doesn't have a clear understanding of who He is and what He has done for the sake of humankind (left, right or center), because if they did, mocking Him wouldn't make sense. At least not in my opinion. It pains me to see anyone mocked, who doesn't deserve it. It is especially painful to see Someone I worship as a target. I know that if such public mockery were made of Mohammed, or Vishnu, there would be loud public outcry and much backing down and excusery. Jesus Christ, however...it's open season.
I do not claim that you have no right to those opinions, I am merely making my own public(ish) outcry.
I am not claiming to know the mind of Christ, or of having a deep understanding of who He is. I am simply baffled that anyone would want to make fun of Him, when the real target (in my opinion) should be the folks who perpetrate such hate and venom in His name. By all means, make fun of televangelists, church ladies, and people who "just praise the name of Jesus for just every little thang"
It's unfortunate (tragic, even) that the face of Christianity has ceased to be the face of Christ (whom no one alive has ever seen...He might not even have had a beard!), and instead become some boof-haired guy with a rolex and leather Bible sweating and crying on TV.
But Beep, I know folk who frequently claim to have intellectual authority when debating issues.
As to the gayness or otherwise of Jesus I can't say. He seemed to be a fairly serious person, one not given to telling jokes at parties! Cheers
Considering the fact that people who die don't let anything get to them (worms etc, not-withstanding,) I'm hafta to say that rootie's spot on with her last sentence, anyhow.
People believe silly things out of habit and a desire to explain the inexplicable. Either that, or they gather evidence and learn as much of empirical reality as they can, and deal with the continuing mystery of the rest.
I always figured Jesu was gay, until I realized that he was probably more likely just an amalgam of several different real people and a bunch of myths which had some popularity at the time of the growth of his myth.
If it weren't for all the loonies thinking their fading religious beliefs were under "attack", I wouldn't care at all by now.
RE anonymous daniel:
RE: "Beepbeep. Quite frankly I was disgusted with that movie, but I figured I had to watch it for the sake of debate."
I don't consider the video to be disgusting. It is only disgusting to those people who think that homosexuality is disgusting.
RE: Points 1- 5. Surely you can see that these points are satirical? (Maybe not) If you saw a guy today had long hair, wearing a dress and sandals, you would probably consider him gay.
Yet you do not consider this to be synonymous with "gayness" when it is part of the depiction of your jesus character. It is an interesting double standard.
It isn't normal for a person who is supposed to be fully human to hang around with men for the whole of one's life as jesus supposedly did.
If jesus was fully human, he would have felt sexual desire like the rest of the fully human population do. To imply, as christians like to, that as a fully human adult, jesus did not have a sexlife, just seems ludicrous to me.
There is no mention of jesus going to the cross as a 30 year old virgin, and I kind of figure that the claim of virginity would have boosted his stakes in the god market if they had been able to claim it.
I am aware of the claims of the Eucharist, or Communion. I was confirmed into a church which practised those rituals every sunday. And to me, the communion has little difference from the practices of ancient sacrifice which precede it.
In the ancient world the sacrifice of animals and people was a common practice, used to appease the gods and to appeal to them to grant favours. So, the concept of eating flesh and drinking blood in order to "commune" with the spirit of the sacrifice is basic to many superstitious rituals.
I just don't see this communion or sacrifice to be one which differs markedly from the previous thousands of similar rituals which occurred all over the ancient world.
The evolution of the concept of sacrifice has always gone hand in hand with the cults of hero worship. The ultimate hero being the one who sacrifices his life for other people. A willing sacrifice is just the continuation of this superstition.
Yes, he did like it when a specific disciple laid his head on his bosom. Why did he like it? Because he was "the disciple whom jesus loved." If, as you will no doubt wish to claim, that jesus loved all his disciples, there is no need to qualify specifically that jesus loved this disciple.
Examples: 1."One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved," 2. "Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them." He is specifically qualified as the "one whom jesus loved in at least 2 instances.
If it was a general love jesus had for all his disciples, there is no need for this disciple to be singled out.
In the secret gospel of Mark 10:34-35 it certainly could have been edited out because of the possible reference to jesus' sexual preference. Which doesn't make the bible the inerrant word of god, but the word of men.
If jesus followed the law, that is the jewish law, he wouldn't have preached against the law. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
And yes, it does seem that John was Jesus' favourite. The disciple whom he loved. It is relevant at this point to point out that many cultures had accepted homosexual relationships as not being sinful.
It is mainly christianity and islam who consider these relationships to be sinful. The ancient greeks considered homosexuality to be socially acceptable, as did the ancient romans.
It is possible, that jesus was preaching against the laws of judaism, in more ways than one.
RE rootietoot: "I'm sorry - I wasn't trying to do that. What I am saying is that someone who mocks Christ probably doesn't have a clear understanding of who He is and what He has done for the sake of humankind (left, right or center), because if they did, mocking Him wouldn't make sense. At least not in my opinion. It pains me to see anyone mocked, who doesn't deserve it. It is especially painful to see someone I worship as a target."
Firstly, I don't see it as mocking jesus. I think that all beliefs can be questioned. This includes political, economic, cultural and religious beliefs. Sometimes the beliefs are questioned through the use of humour. I agree that there is a basic problem when questioning religious beliefs, as many people consider that their religious beliefs should not be scrutinized.
This idea is fine and dandy when religious beliefs are not part of the political arena. But when religious beliefs become politicized, they are subject to the same level of scrutiny as any other political belief.
If it was me, I would be criticising the political groups in my society who are using religious beliefs as a political tool, but I don't see many christians doing this.
RE: " I know that if such public mockery were made of Mohammed, or Vishnu, there would be loud public outcry and much backing down and excusery. Jesus Christ, however...it's open season.
I do not claim that you have no right to those opinions, I am merely making my own public(ish) outcry."
Many religious people condone the open questioning of the validity of every religion EXCEPT their own. So, they don't worry too much if other religious belief systems are questioned, but they do get their panties in a bunch if their own is.
In the interests of fairness, either all are questioned or none are. I question the politicization of both islam amd christianity, as when governments claim to be doing the will of a god, they inevitably use it as an excuse for a bit of wanton destruction. Or to use a phrase from "A Clockwork Orange", a "bit of the old ultra violence".
In my opinion, the rightwing are doing more disservice to the concepts of christianity, than any other individual or group could ever do.
The fundamental rightwing christians do not want to live in a secular country where people have a right to choose a religion and practice it.
For myself, I accept that people have a right to a religion and a right to practice that religion, but they do not have the political right to enforce their religious beliefs upon everyone else.
People have a right to a belief, but when they want to demand that I share that belief, they are overstepping the mark, and they need to be told. This includes islam, judaism, hinduism, buddhism and any other religion you can think of.
It appears that many religious people in the secular west have forgotten that some of their ancestors fled political persecution because their religious beliefs were contrary to the nations in which they lived.
As religious minorities they had no protection from politically based religious persecution, and now that they assume a majority, they believe they have the right to politically persecute those who do not share their beliefs.
They have gone from the persecuted to the persecutors and they need to be made aware of this.
Islam, in my opinion is even weirder, as it sees NO disconnection between government and religious law; making it in my opinion, even more of a danger to a secular society.
Unfortunately, the western world is under attack from religious fundamentalists, some of whom are muslim and some of whom are christian.
Re: beep:
""If you saw a guy today had long hair, wearing a dress and sandals, you would probably consider him gay.
Yet you do not consider this to be synonymous with "gayness" when it is part of the depiction of your jesus character. It is an interesting double standard.""
Lol, consider the different cultures.
RE: under the mercy:
So it is ok for jesus to dress like a gay person, but not gay people..
Let's attempt some consistency. Consistency ~ Something religious belief seems to have a great deal of difficulty with.
Beepbeep.
‘Surely you can see that these points are satirical?’ Nope. For Christians, an attack on Christ is a very serious issue.
‘If you saw a guy today had long hair, wearing a dress and sandals, you would probably consider him gay. Yet you do not consider this to be synonymous with "gayness" when it is part of the depiction of your Jesus character. It is an interesting double standard.’ That would depend on the culture. If it was here in the U.S. or other western countries, yea, I probably would. If he was over in the Middle East, especially back in the 1st century A.D., no.
‘It isn't normal for a person who is supposed to be fully human to hang around with men for the whole of one's life as Jesus supposedly did.’ You forget that He was also fully God.
‘If Jesus was fully human, he would have felt sexual desire like the rest of the fully human population do.’ I don’t know. He probably did, He felt everything that normal people feel.
‘To imply, as Christians like to, that as a fully human adult, Jesus did not have a sex-life, just seems ludicrous to me.’ So no one on this planet has ever abstained form sex for their whole life? I’m pretty sure that there has and during the 6,000 years that the earth has existed, there has probably been plenty of them too.
‘There is no mention of Jesus going to the cross as a 30 year old virgin, and I kind of figure that the claim of virginity would have boosted his stakes in the god market if they had been able to claim it.’ Are you kidding? People long for gods that allow them to do whatever they want! Just look at the ancient Greek and Roman ‘gods’ (and any other for that matter), they supposedly had sex all the time. People even had shrine prostitutes in order to have sex, which they thought pleased their ‘gods’.
‘I am aware of the claims of the Eucharist, or Communion. I was confirmed into a church which practiced those rituals every Sunday. And to me, the communion has little difference from the practices of ancient sacrifice which precede it. In the ancient world the sacrifice of animals and people was a common practice, used to appease the gods and to appeal to them to grant favors. So, the concept of eating flesh and drinking blood in order to "commune" with the spirit of the sacrifice is basic to many superstitious rituals.’ Was the church Catholic? If so, you were in the only church that practices transubstantiation, which is the belief that when the priest says a prayer or something and the bread and wine gets turned literally into the body and blood of Christ. This doctrine is found no where in the Bible.
‘Yes, he did like it when a specific disciple laid his head on his bosom. Why did he like it? Because he was "the disciple whom Jesus loved." If, as you will no doubt wish to claim, that Jesus loved all his disciples, there is no need to qualify specifically that Jesus loved this disciple.’ Could it be that He loved all His disciples, but He loved John especially?
‘In the secret gospel of Mark 10:34-35 it certainly could have been edited out because of the possible reference to Jesus' sexual preference. Which doesn't make the bible the inerrant word of god, but the word of men.’ Or is the Bible the inerrant word of God and the secret gospel of Mark a pack of lies written to deceive people, and thus the reason for its exclusion from the Bible?
‘If Jesus followed the law, that is the Jewish law, he wouldn't have preached against the law.’ If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a hundred times, JESUS DID NOT PREACH AGAINST THE LAW! He followed the law to the minutest detail. He followed the law 100% and He fulfilled the messianic prophesies 100%.
‘And yes, it does seem that John was Jesus' favorite. The disciple whom he loved.’ Yea, so what?
‘It is relevant at this point to point out that many cultures had accepted homosexual relationships as not being sinful.’ But definitely not the Jewish culture. In the law, homosexuality was punishable by the death penalty.
‘Unfortunately, the western world is under attack from religious fundamentalists, some of whom are Muslim and some of whom are Christian.’ How is Christianity attacking the west? For us it is becoming a battle just to practice our beliefs. But yes, I agree with you on Islam. Muslims will kill you if you don’t agree with them, where as Christians will merely plead with you to accept Christ.
‘So it is ok for Jesus to dress like a gay person, but not gay people.’ Don’t you realize that 1st century dress was different from modern dress?
‘Let's attempt some consistency. Consistency ~ Something religious belief seems to have a great deal of difficulty with.’ If Christians have difficulty with it, than atheists and evolutionists are a hundred times worse.
Daniel
RE: anonymous daniel or kingdom advancer (whichever name you are going by today)
RE: "Surely you can see that these points are satirical?’ Nope. For Christians, an attack on Christ is a very serious issue."
Firstly, satire is: "a literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. " It is literary or graphic commentary which can be used to make a political point.
If you remember the hubbub associated with the Islamic cartoons which were published in Denmark, you will know what I mean.
RE: ‘If you saw a guy today had long hair, wearing a dress and sandals, you would probably consider him gay. Yet you do not consider this to be synonymous with "gayness" when it is part of the depiction of your Jesus character. It is an interesting double standard.’ That would depend on the culture. If it was here in the U.S. or other western countries, yea, I probably would. If he was over in the Middle East, especially back in the 1st century A.D., no.
The game of "cultural relativism" is a dangerously inconsistent game for a believer to play. Remember that YOU are the one who believes in absolutes, not relativism. So, to say, it was ok in biblical times but not now, indicates that you accept that morality is relative to the time period and or culture from whence it comes, rather than believing in one abiding, universal morality which has no borders, or time restrictions.
It is a little bit like making excuses for Lot and his daughters based on the fact that you don't approve of incest, whilst not accepting that Lot and his daughters had an incestuous relationship. An incestuous relationship, by the way, which is not disparaged in the bible.
RE: "‘It isn't normal for a person who is supposed to be fully human to hang around with men for the whole of one's life as Jesus supposedly did.’ You forget that He was also fully God."
You believe he was fully human and fully god, I don't. And not all christians do either. And how does "fully god" have anything to do with one's sexual preference, or one's choice of male friends over female friends?
Unless of course, male gods like to hang out with men more than women. Male gods created for males to further enforce a patriarchial god-head which mirrored the patriarchial human system.
RE: "To imply, as Christians like to, that as a fully human adult, Jesus did not have a sex-life, just seems ludicrous to me.’ So no one on this planet has ever abstained form sex for their whole life? I’m pretty sure that there has and during the 6,000 years that the earth has existed, there has probably been plenty of them too."
There are lots of rumours about virginity, but these rumours are usually associated with women, not with men. And if you are a new earth creationist who believes the world has only been around for 6,000 years, it further explains your inability to understand science.
RE: "There is no mention of Jesus going to the cross as a 30 year old virgin, and I kind of figure that the claim of virginity would have boosted his stakes in the god market if they had been able to claim it.’ Are you kidding? People long for gods that allow them to do whatever they want! Just look at the ancient Greek and Roman ‘gods’ (and any other for that matter), they supposedly had sex all the time. People even had shrine prostitutes in order to have sex, which they thought pleased their ‘gods’."
I don't long for a god that will allow me to do whatever I want. I don't believe in their existence. I think that all the gods are products of the human imagination. But it is true that people choose a god belief which is in sympathy with their own pyschological and emotional needs.
Violent people like violent gods. People who are afraid of death like gods which promise them an eternal life.
No, I am not catholic and I am aware of the belief in transubstantiation. The only real difference with tha catholic position on the communion, nd that of many protestants, is that the catholics believe in the literal meaning of the last supper.
That many protestants do not, is just another indication of the evolution of the concept of a sacrifice.
It is strange to me how all the various sects of protestantism claim to each have the right interpretation of the bible, when, without the catholic faith, they would have nothing from which to evolve their god beliefs.
Catholicism is the direct link between the concepts of ancient, ritual sacrifice and the literal drinking and eating of the flesh of the sacrifice to gain favour with a god or gods. As catholicism was an evolution in god belief, from many gods to one god, from many sacrifices to one sacrifice, so are the various sects of protestant christianity.
In a modern world, the concept of sacrifice is made more cuturally sympathetic with the emotional and psychological needs of the modern believer who wants his religious belief to be separated from its pagan roots.
By this, I mean, the pagan sacrifice of animals and people and the literal drinking and eating of flesh. So the blood sacrifice of jesus is watered down, from a blood sacrifice to a symbolic one of wine and wafer which is more culturally sympathetic with people's needs.
RE: "Could it be that He loved all His disciples, but He loved John especially?"
He could have loved all his disciples, but he certainly DID love John specially. It is the potential for "specially" that is under discussion. You have a problem with the concept that jesus and john may have been lovers. I don't.
RE: "Or is the Bible the inerrant word of God and the secret gospel of Mark a pack of lies written to deceive people, and thus the reason for its exclusion from the Bible?"
There are many apocryphal texts. Some of the list includes: 1. The Forgotten Books of Eden 2. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo 3. The Gospel of Thomas 4. The Sibylline Oracles 5. The Book of Enoch 6. The Book of Jubilees 7. The Book of Jasher 8. Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary 9. The Gospel of Philip.
And let's not forget the thousands of Dead Sea Scrolls which didn't get a look into the bible either.
These texts and many others were selected OUT of the bible. They were selected out of the bible by men. There was an obvious cherry-picking of text in order to present a document, the bible, which suited the religious and political ambitions of the people who had a part in the selection process.
That is, the bible was created in order to create and propogate the religion of christianity.
RE: "If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a hundred times, JESUS DID NOT PREACH AGAINST THE LAW! He followed the law to the minutest detail. He followed the law 100% and He fulfilled the messianic prophesies 100%."
Jesus preached against the law as he attempted to take the jews away from god. Jesus is still viewed as a false prophet by the jews and certainly not a god. Their Torah and Tanach told them of a false prophet who would try to do this.
Jesus attempted to corrupt jewish law by becoming a "man god" and trying to tempt jews away from god.
The jews see christians as idolators; those who worship the images of men. And so do the muslims for that matter, they see christians as idol worshippers; those who worship a man and believe him to be a god.
So, they certainly do not think that jesus fulfilled jewish prophecy in any way, except as a false messiah, which their jewish books warned them about.
RE: " How is Christianity attacking the west? For us it is becoming a battle just to practice our beliefs. But yes, I agree with you on Islam. Muslims will kill you if you don’t agree with them, where as Christians will merely plead with you to accept Christ."
There is no battle for you to practice your beliefs. That is a crock of horse manure. There are thousands of churches in the US and I don't see any of them being threatened with closure.
There are hundreds of tele-evangelists fleecing people of their money and the only thing that manages to stop some of them is prosecution for tax evasion.
Just because you cannot force everyone to believe through law, you think you are being persecuted. What a joke you are.
And only someone who does not know the history of the christian church would make the claim that christianity has not spread its doctine and dogma through violent means.
If I don't accept you message, you equate it with persecution. You are like a persistant shop assistant who having failed to make a sale, stalks the customer until the customer tells you to piss off.
Then you claim that the customer persecuted you. It is the customer who is being persecuted by YOU, not the other way around.
RE: under the mercy
Stop posting as anonymous and under the mercy, it is a desire to deceive which makes you do this.
I’m pretty sure that there has and during the 6,000 years that the earth has existed
Well, that tells me all I need to know!
I'll get back to you on your post in a while, but first of all, I am not kingdom advancer or under the mercy. I post under anonymous because I don't have a blogger name because I just started looking at this stuff and posting recently and I'm not sure if or how long I'll comtinue.
Daniel
lol, I have no clue who posted that. Look at my comment history and notice that it is extremily rare for me to post long comments.
The point of my first post was that there wasen't exactly Nike and New Balance shoes to choose from back then. EVERYBODY wore sandels and lots of people had long hair, (btw how do you know Jesus had long hair?).
Beepbeep
‘Firstly, satire is: "a literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.”’ But I would not consider this satire.
‘If you remember the hubbub associated with the Islamic cartoons which were published in Denmark, you will know what I mean.’ Yes, and you’ll notice that you don’t have angry mobs of Christians at your door after your head.
‘The game of "cultural relativism" is a dangerously inconsistent game for a believer to play. … So, to say, it was ok in biblical times but not now, indicates that you accept that morality is relative to the time period and or culture from whence it comes, rather than believing in one abiding, universal morality which has no borders, or time restrictions.’ So you say that there is no way that culture and dress can change over the centuries? Just look at the differences between now and 200 years ago.
‘Remember that YOU are the one who believes in absolutes, not relativism.’ I do not see how cultural change over the centuries is against absolutes.
‘It is a little bit like making excuses for Lot and his daughters based on the fact that you don't approve of incest, whilst not accepting that Lot and his daughters had an incestuous relationship.’ I make no excuses for Lot or his daughters. Their relationship was incestuous and thus wrong.
‘There are lots of rumors about virginity, but these rumors are usually associated with women, not with men.’ And your point is? So you’re saying that no man has ever abstained from sex his whole life? And using your (errant) version of the age of the earth it gets even better, so you’re saying that no man has ever abstained from sex his whole life throughout the MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of years that the earth has been around (or however long that you say that man has been around).
‘And if you are a new earth creationist who believes the world has only been around for 6,000 years, it further explains your inability to understand science.’ My inability to understand science? Go ahead, give me your best shot, there is nothing that I’d love more than to turn this into a creation/evolution debate.
‘I don't long for a god that will allow me to do whatever I want. I don't believe in their existence. I think that all the gods are products of the human imagination. But it is true that people choose a god belief which is in sympathy with their own psychological and emotional needs.’ If you have no other god, than you are your own god. You may not think that in so many words, but who is your number one priority? You are. You may have other people that you care about, but your #1 concern is yourself. What can you do that makes you happy or brings you enjoyment.
‘No, I am not catholic and I am aware of the belief in transubstantiation.’ I was not asking if you were catholic if you were, why would you have this kind of a web page? I was asking if the church that you went to was catholic.
‘It is strange to me how all the various sects of Protestantism claim to each have the right interpretation of the bible, when, without the catholic faith, they would have nothing from which to evolve their god beliefs.’ I believe that my denomination is the correct one, and thus was the original one that was founded by Jesus and his disciples. The Catholic Church started like that but over time became corrupt. The very name Protestant, as you are probably aware, means protester. They were protesting the corruption of the Catholic Church. And I believe that it was at one of the counsels of Trent, that the pope declared that anyone who was not catholic was going to hell. That completed the separation of the Protestant and Catholic Churches.
‘He could have loved all his disciples, but he certainly DID love John specially. It is the potential for "specially" that is under discussion. You have a problem with the concept that Jesus and John may have been lovers. I don't.’ As I showed you, there is no evidence whatsoever for that.
‘There are many apocryphal texts. Some of the list includes: 1. The Forgotten Books of Eden . 2. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. 3. The Gospel of Thomas .4. The Sibylline Oracles. 5. The Book of Enoch. 6. The Book of Jubilees. 7. The Book of Jasher. 8. Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary .9. The Gospel of Philip.’ As I said, the reason that books like these were excluded from the Biblical cannon was because they were shown to have either historical error or heresy.
‘And let's not forget the thousands of Dead Sea Scrolls which didn't get a look into the bible either.’ When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, only a few minor differences were found between then and our modern translations. And the translation that I use, the NIV, took those scrolls into account while it was being worked on.
‘Jesus preached against the law as he attempted to take the Jews away from god.’
‘Jesus is still viewed as a false prophet by the Jews and certainly not a god.’ There are many Messianic Jews (Jewish converts to Christianity) it the world, and with myself being part Jewish, I would consider myself among them.
‘Their Torah and Tanach told them of a false prophet who would try to do this.’ The Torah said to watch out for false prophets, but it also promised a Messiah, who would save them from their sins. And the Tanach also clearly points to the coming of Messiah. Those predictions of a Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus to the letter. Did you know that the Jews do not read Isaiah 53, even though it is in the Tanach? Do you know why? It is because it points indisputably to Jesus as Messiah.
‘Jesus attempted to corrupt Jewish law by becoming a "man god" and trying to tempt Jews away from God.’ No, he tried to turn then back to God.
‘There is no battle for you to practice your beliefs. That is a crock of horse manure. There are thousands of churches in the US and I don't see any of them being threatened with closure.’ The United States was a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. You were free to worship when you liked, where you liked, and how you liked, in public or in private. That freedom is being taken away by atheists and humanists, who want no religion but their own to be publicly. Christians are not being allowed to talk about God in public schools, or allowed to meet in public libraries. Providentially, there have been some good Christian lawyers who have been successfully defending many Christians’ cases for free.
‘There are hundreds of tele-evangelists fleecing people of their money and the only thing that manages to stop some of them is prosecution for tax evasion.’ I’m not sure that I would consider those people Christians.
‘Just because you cannot force everyone to believe through law, you think you are being persecuted. What a joke you are.’ I would not want to force everyone to become a Christian; neither would any other Christian that I know. When other people are trying to force me to keep quiet about my beliefs, then I would consider that persecution, though not major.
‘And only someone who does not know the history of the Christian church would make the claim that Christianity has not spread its doctrine and dogma through violent means.’ I assume that you are specifically referring to the crusades. Perhaps you forget that that was also a defensive war and at that time the Moslems had recently conquered Spain, Portugal, France, and a bunch of Italy. Now I had not realized that you would rather have been born a Moslem under Sharia law, and with your being a woman, with no rights at all.
‘If I don't accept you message, you equate it with persecution. You are like a persistent shop assistant who having failed to make a sale, stalks the customer until the customer tells you to piss off.
Then you claim that the customer persecuted you. It is the customer who is being persecuted by YOU, not the other way around.’ Give me an example of Christians that have hounded you to become a Christian when you had asked them to stop.
‘RE: under the mercy
Stop posting as anonymous and under the mercy, it is a desire to deceive which makes you do this.’ Like I said, I am NOT kingdom advancer or under the mercy, nor do I have a desire to deceive any one. Kingdom advancer and under the mercy do seem to have similar beliefs to mine though. Are you feeling pressured that there are many people disagreeing with you?
You are also getting off track on the discussion of weather or nor Jesus was gay.
Daniel
RE: anonymous daniel:
RE: If you don't consider this satire, then you need to place an argument or some reasons why it isn't satire. Just stating that you don't believe it is, doesn't achieve much.
RE: Islamic cartoons
Whether or not I have angry christians at my door is irrelevant to whether or not those cartoons are a valid form of political/religious comment.
For myself, even though many muslims found the cartoons to be offensive, people do not have the right to be not offended.
In other words, a society which values free speech cannot guarantee, by law, that people will not be offended. I am offended on a daily basis by many opinions, ideas and concepts that are expressed. That I find some things offensive, does not give me the right to threaten, harrass or physically harm anyone.
The best way to handle situations which offend the individual is to express your opposition in reasoned argument.
RE: cultural relativism
I know that cultures change. It is evident. Remember, I am not the one who expresses the existence of an absolute, perfect unchanging god whose moral code is the same for all people, in all
countries, and in all time periods.
RE: Lot and his daughters
What? No excuses about how it wasn't really incest? I am impressed.
RE: new earth debate
If I want to believe that the earth is 6 thousand years old, I will read answeringgenesis by myself, I won't need you to read it and cut and paste from there.
RE: "If you have no other god, than you are your own god. You may not think that in so many words,
but who is your number one priority? You are. You may have other people that you care about, but your #1 concern is yourself. What can you do that makes you happy or brings you enjoyment."
I certainly do NOT think I am my own god. What a silly semantically loaded claim. Let's not forget who worships the "man-god" in this debate, and it isn't me. You are a worshipper of men, and hence YOURSELF, as evidenced by your religious idol, a man who claimed to be a god.
You certainly have no idea what I care about, and whether I care about anything, something or
nothing, but you sure do like to make assumptions straight from the new earth creationist handbook of illogical religious assumptions.
And I consider it perfectly natural to do what makes yourself and others happy. The caveat attached to "happiness" is balanced by a social responsibility to others.
So, I certainly wouldn't recommend going around and torturing small furry animals on the grounds that it makes an individual "happy" as that would be considered psychopathic. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that people can and do, act, live, work and exist responsibly without a fear of some retributive invisible parent in the sky. If you need to believe in a god, so that you won't become an axe-wielding, homocidal maniac then I suggest that you should believe in the existence of ALL the gods just in case.
RE: the catholic church
There would be no bible for you to vigorously defend without the catholic church. There would be no dogma for you to protest about, if not for the catholic church. Churches are corrupt from their
origin, you trace your origin to the seed of the corruption, the catholic church which was created to encapsulate all the citizens of Rome under the power structure of one religion.
If you own people's hearts and minds through a social/cultural construct such as a religion, you ensure your political and economic power. The major protesting against the Vatican and hence catholicism occurred because the money associated with tithing, taxing and indulgences went straight back into the coffers of the Vatican.
If the catholic church was not recognised as god's ultimate authority on earth, churches did not have to send the economic proceeds of religion back to The Holy Roman Empire.
So, we had Henry 8th retaining his power base in England by divorcing hinmself from the catholic empire and setting up his own church and we have Luther, divorcing the Germanic peoples from the influence and power of the Vatican, and establishing new Lutheran Churches in Germany etc etc.
In order to be economically independent of the Roman church, some of the doctine of the Roman
Church had to be changed, or protested. That is, protesting doctine allowed for more financial and political independence from The Roman Empire.
RE: Jesus gay?
No, you haven't shown me that there isn't any evidence for homosexuality.
RE: apocryphal texts
You believe that they contained historical error or heresy because that is what you have been told.
The reality is, you trust in men who cherry-picked scriptural content. Their agenda was to create a religion which would specifically enforce the will and power of the Holy Roman Empire.
A created religion which chooses information rather than one which accepts all information as being relevant,is not acting objectively. You have no way to ascertain why certain things were accepted and others were deleted. You just accept that the picture you have been given is the right one, which is essentially all that faith can ever do.
Rather than the church fathers asking themselves why the texts did not comply, why they were inconsistent, or why they contained contradictory information, they just deleted the bits which were not part of their agenda. Contrary information allows for doubt, doubt is the last thing the founders of a religion want to encourage.
RE: Dead Sea Scrolls
NO bible contains all the information associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Once again, a process of cherry-picking information occurred. This complies, so this goes in, this is contrary to what I want to the message I want to project, so this is removed. Etc etc.
This is the problem when you have a belief, only information which
supports the pre-existing belief is accepted. Anything which is contrary to it, regardless of veracity, is excluded.
RE: Messianic jews
There is no such thing as a messianic jew. 1.You are either a jew who practices one of the various sects of judaism. 2. A jew who is an atheist or an agnostic. 3. Or you are a christian who has some cultural/ethnic ties to judaism.
It is a complete contradiction of terms. If the jews had accepted jesus as the messiah, they would still be calling themselves jews, not christians, or christian jews.
RE: Jesus fulfilled all prophecy. RE Isaiah
Isaiah Chapters 24-34: This section is seen by Jews as describing an actual king, a descendant of their great king, David, who would make Judah a great kingdom.
A number of modern scholars believe that these chapters describe King Hezekiah, who was a descendant of David, and who tried to make Jerusalem into a holy city.
Christians believe that it describes jesus, who according to Christian genealogy, is descended from David. Christians usually claim that Jesus is descended from David through the bloodline of Mary.
Jewish law does not consider the question of descent through the female line. So, according to the jews, the messiah must be descended from David through the male line of descent.
Since a man born of a virgin and a holy ghost has no mortal father, it is impossible that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph who descended from David. Thus, Jesus' birth could not have fulfilled the messiah prophecy.
Even if by some form of convoluted logic you want to present a case for Mary being a descendant of David, it wouldn't matter since lineage was never traced back through the female.
Women did not count in determining descent because it was believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg wasn't discovered until 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted and therefore lineage was NOT tracked through women.
So jesus CANNOT fulfill prophecy because he is not descended from the line of David. If he is not descended from the line of David, he is not the messiah.
In Matthew 24:34, Jesus says (after talking in depth about the end of the world) - "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
For this prophecy to have been fulfilled the end of the world had to occur in the lifetime of the people to whom jesus preached.
That is, to the people of HIS generation. This is unfulfilled prophecy, further suggesting that Jesus was not the messiah that the jews were waiting for.
RE: christians being persecuted
Get real. You have "In god we trust" on your money. I hardly consider that to be persecution. You have freedom to practice any religion including the thousands of different sects of christianity. You do not have the freedom to impose your particular relgious beliefs upon others through law.
If you make a specific religious ritual, prayer or observance, part of a formalised public procedure, you are in fact overstepping your right to a religion and attempting to impose your beliefs upon others.
There is NO religious freedom if it is only the freedom to agree with the tenets of one specific religion.
The US does NOT have an officially defined state religion, it is defined officially as a secular nation. And regardless of whether the majority of people define themselves as being one of the sects of christianity, christianity is NOT the official state religion.
A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. There is NO official state religion in a secular state.
If you want to live in a nation which has adopted officially a specific religion, you need to move to a nation which has officially, a state religion. I suggest Haiti, so you can get back to the roots of christianity by experiencing Catholicism firsthand.
RE: who is a christian and who is not
Fortunately for the rest of the christian world, YOU don't get to decide who is allowed to call themselves a christian or not.
Christianity has at it's centre, the belief that Jesus died so that others can be saved from sin. If you believe that Jesus is god, and that he came to save people from sin through the crucifixion and the ressurection, you are a christian.
It is hoped, according to christian belief, that belief in jesus will effect a positive way of living in the world but this is NOT a mandated condition for someone to be able to call themselves a christian.
As we are all sinners, once again according to christians, christians are also capable of sinning. If a christian does a bad thing, it doesn't mean they are no longer christians, just christians who sin, and as sin is unavoidable for imperfect beings; hence imperfect christians sin, and STILL remain christians.
RE: Christian persecution?
The problem with a highly marketted product like evangelical christianity is that they are like Amway salesmen. NO matter how many times you tell them you are not interested in buying their product, they feel offended if you don't.
And because you don't want what you condier to be a dubious product, they get grumpy if you tell them you don't want it, need it or consider it of any value.
They consider this an attack on their product, rather than just realising that they do not have the right to expect everyone to buy it.
RE violence and religion:
Exactly my point. Religions are known for their ability to harness huge armies for the state because if you own the hearts and minds of people through faith, they will die for their gods with a smile on their faces.
Until you begin to realise that religions are political/social and economic constructs which herd people to do the political will of either a king, queen, dictator, president, or prime minister, you are never going to understand how religion is used primarily as a political tool.
And I am not claiming that the opposite hasn't occurred as well. Leaders have gained political power by confronting the political power of religion in their countries, and some of those people, Stalin for example, have committed terrible atrocities to fulfill their political ambitions. Neither god belief nor the lack of it, is a guarantee of moral or ethical actions.
History has seen both sides of the coin. It has seen persecution committed in the name of religion and it has seen persecution of religion.
If people learn from history, which they seem loath to do, they will embrace the middle ground. The middle ground is the secular state. I am more than happy to support your right to a religion and my right not to have one.
Beepbeep.
Before I answer any of your comments, I would like to mention a debate that I would like you to read (and anyone else who is following this debate). It is the debate of Dr. Greg Bahnsen, a Christian, vs. Dr. Gordon Stine, an atheist. There is no declared winner for this debate, but before it, Dr. Stine was debating pastors all over the U.S. and destroying their credibility. After the debate, he just faded out of the picture. Here is a web address where you can view a transcript of the debate in pdf form. www.popchapel.com/Resources/Bahnsen/GreatDebate/GreatDebate_v1.3.pdf Please don’t respond until you have read the whole thing. I know that it is looong, but just take your time and carefully read through it with an open mind.
Well, back to our own debate.
‘If you don't consider this satire, then you need to place an argument or some reasons why it isn't satire. Just stating that you don't believe it is, doesn't achieve much.’ Now I respect your right to disagree with me, and I have no problem with it. But the Islamic cartoons had a lot of truth in them, as anyone can read in the news. The video didn’t have the slightest grain of truth in it, as I have shown you. It was a simple mockery of Christ.
‘Whether or not I have angry Christians at my door is irrelevant to whether or not those cartoons are a valid form of political/religious comment.’ That comment was not made for the validity of the video, one way or the other. It was merely a contrast.
‘In other words, a society which values free speech cannot guarantee, by law, that people will not be offended. I am offended on a daily basis by many opinions, ideas and concepts that are expressed. That I find some things offensive, does not give me the right to threaten, harass or physically harm anyone.’ And Christians do none of those things.
‘I know that cultures change. It is evident. Remember, I am not the one who expresses the existence of an absolute, perfect unchanging god whose moral code is the same for all people, in all countries, and in all time periods.’ So you’re saying that because man is imperfect, God cannot be perfect. Hebrews 13:8 says, ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.’ You still haven’t proven that Jesus had long hair or that He wore a white dress, and I have shown that you can’t prove it.
‘What? No excuses about how it wasn't really incest? I am impressed.’ Are you being sarcastic or honest? But yes, sin is sin and nowhere will you find it condoned in the Bible.
‘If I want to believe that the earth is 6 thousand years old, I will read answersingenesis by myself, I won't need you to read it and cut and paste from there.’ Who says that I would cut and paste it? Are you saying that I am incapable of formulating my own arguments?
‘I certainly do NOT think I am my own god. What a silly semantically loaded claim. Let's not forget who worships the "man-god" in this debate, and it isn't me. You are a worshipper of men, and hence YOURSELF, as evidenced by your religious idol, a man who claimed to be a god.’ No, I worship God, who became man, so that He could take the punishment for my sins. And how is it a ‘silly semantically loaded claim’? Who is your number one concern in life?
‘You certainly have no idea what I care about, and whether I care about anything, something or nothing, but you sure do like to make assumptions straight from the new earth creationist handbook of illogical religious assumptions.’ Your right, I don’t know. But logically, if it’s not God or the Devil (yes some people worship him), than it’s yourself that you worship.
‘So, I certainly wouldn't recommend going around and torturing small furry animals on the grounds that it makes an individual "happy" as that would be considered psychopathic.’ Neither would I.
‘You don't seem to be able to comprehend that people can and do, act, live, work and exist responsibly without a fear of some retributive invisible parent in the sky. If you need to believe in a god, so that you won't become an axe-wielding, homicidal maniac then I suggest that you should believe in the existence of ALL the gods just in case.’ I don’t fear God, I have no need to. I respect Him, but I do not fear Him as He has taken my punishment on Himself. You have said yourself that there is absolutely …o yea… you don’t believe in absolutes, well no apparent evidence for the existence of those other ‘gods’ and I don’t believe there is either. About the ‘axe-wielding, homicidal maniac’ part, some of those kind of people became Christians and ceased to be ‘axe-wielding, homicidal maniacs.’ Coincidence?
RE: the Catholic Church
That just goes to show how corrupt the Catholic Church was. I agree with nearly all of what you said except the first part. The Bible was canonized before the Catholic Church came into existence, and last I checked, the New Testament was written before the Catholic Church was formed. If you were a student of the New Testament, than you would know that Most of what the Catholic Church wound up doing was unbiblical. That is why the Catholic Church ended up trying to include the apocryphal books in the Bible, to justify their actions. And let me say that it is sin to have a pope because Christ is the head of the church, not the pope.
‘No, you haven't shown me that there isn't any evidence for homosexuality.’ All right, go back and read your article, than read my response, than mine, than yours etc, and just skip all the other topics that have been brought in. I have pretty much shot down your original arguments, and you didn’t answer most of my points from my first comment. Wow, this has gotten a long way from the original debate!
‘You believe that they contained historical error or heresy because that is what you have been told.’ I have read a bunch of the content of some of them so it’s not just what I’ve been told. Someday soon, I’m going to try to get a copy and just read through it. Some of them aren’t included for the same reason Aesop’s Fables wouldn’t be. Nice stories, good lessons even, not historically accurate.
‘The reality is, you trust in men who cherry-picked scriptural content. Their agenda was to create a religion which would specifically enforce the will and power of the Holy Roman Empire.’ The Holy Roman Empire was in the west, the canonization of the Bible took place in Constantine, remember?
‘A created religion which chooses information rather than one which accepts all information as being relevant, is not acting objectively. You have no way to ascertain why certain things were accepted and others were deleted. You just accept that the picture you have been given is the right one, which is essentially all that faith can ever do. Rather than the church fathers asking themselves why the texts did not comply, why they were inconsistent, or why they contained contradictory information, they just deleted the bits which were not part of their agenda. Contrary information allows for doubt; doubt is the last thing the founders of a religion want to encourage.’ Do you have any idea of how much debate went into those meetings? And how many people were included?
‘NO bible contains all the information associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Once again, a process of cherry-picking information occurred. This complies, so this goes in, this is contrary to what I want to the message I want to project, so this is removed.’ They compared the Dead Sea Scrolls with all the other manuscripts that they had and they went with whichever variation had the most agreement. If you’ll notice, in the NIV there are footnotes wherever there were disagreements between the texts. Yes, they cherry-picked, they cherry-picked the ones that appeared to be the most accurate.
‘This is the problem when you have a belief, only information which
supports the pre-existing belief is accepted. Anything which is contrary to it, regardless of veracity, is excluded.’ Except the Bible, as shown above.
‘There is no such thing as a messianic Jew. 1. You are either a Jew who practices one of the various sects of Judaism. 2. A Jew who is an atheist or an agnostic. 3. Or you are a Christian who has some cultural/ethnic ties to Judaism.
It is a complete contradiction of terms. If the Jews had accepted Jesus as the messiah, they would still be calling themselves Jews, not Christians, or Christian Jews.’ All Jews have not accepted Jesus as Messiah, but you are wrong in stating that none have. So yes there is such a thing as a ‘Messianic Jew.’
‘Jewish law does not consider the question of descent through the female line. So, according to the Jews, the messiah must be descended from David through the male line of descent. So Jesus CANNOT fulfill prophecy because he is not descended from the line of David. If he is not descended from the line of David, he is not the messiah. Women did not count in determining descent because it was believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg wasn't discovered until 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted and therefore lineage was NOT tracked through women.’ Ain’t technology great! Now we know the truth! Regardless, that’s why Jesus’ legal was Joseph.
‘In Matthew 24:34, Jesus says (after talking in depth about the end of the world) - "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
For this prophecy to have been fulfilled the end of the world had to occur in the lifetime of the people to whom Jesus preached.
That is, to the people of HIS generation. This is unfulfilled prophecy, further suggesting that Jesus was not the messiah that the Jews were waiting for.’ This is an error that many, MANY Christians make so I don’t blame you one bit for it. That prophecy was about the fall of Jerusalem to Titus in 70 A.D. so that generation didn’t pass away before they were fulfilled.
‘Get real. You have "In god we trust" on your money.’ HaHaHaHa! Like that means anything anymore. That was started back in the mid-1800’s and happens to be carried on to this day. Not that there’s any truth to that phrase any more. But rest assured, there are activist groups trying to fix that.
‘I hardly consider that to be persecution. You have freedom to practice any religion including the thousands of different sects of Christianity.’ As long as we keep it private.
‘You do not have the freedom to impose your particular religious beliefs upon others through law.’ Nor do we try. We desire the freedom to worship freely. We also desire the try to convince other people of the truth (alright, for you that is subjective). Is there anything wrong with that? You have this website in order to convince others of atheism (and possibly other reasons that I know nothing about).
‘If you make a specific religious ritual, prayer or observance, part of a formalized public procedure, you are in fact overstepping your right to a religion and attempting to impose your beliefs upon others.’ How?
‘There is NO religious freedom if it is only the freedom to agree with the tenets of one specific religion.’ And as I said, I acknowledge and respect the rights of others (and you) to disagree with me.
‘The US does NOT have an officially defined state religion; it is defined officially as a secular nation. And regardless of whether the majority of people define themselves as being one of the sects of Christianity, Christianity is NOT the official state religion.’ While it is true that we don’t have a state religion, as prohibited in our constitution, the U.S. is (or was) defined as a Christian. If that term is still in use, it is no longer appropriate. I have to qualify ‘no state religion’ for the U.S. Secular humanism, Atheism and evolution are quickly becoming our state religion. In our public schools, you are for the most part free to do or say whatever you want IF it falls into one of those three categories. For example, you can wear pro-gay shirts in school, but kids who have worn pro-Christian shirts in school have been ______
‘If you want to live in a nation which has adopted officially a specific religion, you need to move to a nation which has officially, a state religion. I suggest Haiti, so you can get back to the roots of Christianity by experiencing Catholicism firsthand.’ I am not Catholic, so why would I go there? I am not complaining about no state religion, I’m complaining about when the state interferes with my freedom to practice my religion.
‘Christianity has at its centre, the belief that Jesus died so that others can be saved from sin. If you believe that Jesus is god, and that he came to save people from sin through the crucifixion and the resurrection, you are a Christian.’ Yes, by grace alone, through faith alone, I agree. It is the faith + works that disqualifies people.
‘As we are all sinners, once again according to Christians, Christians are also capable of sinning. If a Christian does a bad thing, it doesn't mean they are no longer Christians, just Christians who sin, and as sin is unavoidable for imperfect beings; hence imperfect Christians sin, and STILL remain Christians.’ Yes, we cannot be sinless, but it is our goal to sin-less.
‘The problem with a highly marketed product like evangelical Christianity is that they are like Amway salesmen. NO matter how many times you tell them you are not interested in buying their product, they feel offended if you don't.
And because you don't want what you consider to be a dubious product, they get grumpy if you tell them you don't want it, need it or consider it of any value.
They consider this an attack on their product, rather than just realizing that they do not have the right to expect everyone to buy it.’ Than I don’t know any of the Christians that you know.
‘And I am not claiming that the opposite hasn't occurred as well. Leaders have gained political power by confronting the political power of religion in their countries, and some of those people, Stalin for example, have committed terrible atrocities to fulfill their political ambitions. Neither god belief nor the lack of it is a guarantee of moral or ethical actions.’ I agree, there have been corrupt ‘Christians’ in the past present, and probably in the future, though I would also consider the crusades (at least partly) defensive military campaigns that could have been better directed, but allowed us to have the world as we know it today. Though I wonder if all of them were real Christians as the two greatest laws in the Bible are ‘love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and strength, and love your neighbor as your self.’
Daniel
P.S. Sorry if I sound harsh at times, I just get wrapped up in the debate quite easily.
Oops! I was looking for a word and forgot to put it in that space in my comment! 'Punished' will have to work.
Daniel
RE anonymous daniel:
RE: "But the Islamic cartoons had a lot of truth in them, as anyone can read in the news. The video didn’t have the slightest grain of truth in it, as I have shown you."
Exodus 20:1-17 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
No idol. No representation of god. No representation of god as a man either. No Jesus figurines, no Jesus on the cross representations and no Jesus videos.
Therefore the video is only a problem to you if you worship a representation of god which you are instructed not to do in the first place.
Let's also not forget that these commandments apply to those who believe in god, not unbelievers or non-believers.
RE: "That I find some things offensive, does not give me the right to threaten, harass or physically harm anyone.’ And Christians do none of those things."
Christians threaten nonbelievers with hell all the time and the pastors threaten their flocks with it on a continual basis as well.
Christians harrass the general community by demanding that people must accept jesus as god.
Christians physically harm people as much if not more than non-believers.
The majority of people in prisons call themselves christians. Many of them are there because of illegal physical violence.
It is not enough to say, "they are not real christians" as we have already established that someone can call themselves a christian if they believe that jesus died and was resurrected to save them from sin.
They are "real christians", just ones who sin.
RE: " You still haven’t proven that Jesus had long hair or that He wore a white dress, and I have shown that you can’t prove it."
Jesus is represented in cultural iconography as a dude with long hair, in white or cream flowing robes and wearing sandals. You know it, I know it, you are just trying to pretend it isn't so.
RE: 6,000 year old earth and "Are you saying that I am incapable of formulating my own arguments?"
There is NO argument which would be able to convince me that the earth is 6,000 years old. It requires faith and a distortion of science in order to believe that it is.
RE: "Who is your number one concern in life?" It doesn't matter what my number 1 concern is in life, as I am not requiring you to worship me or my life. You, on the other hand, are demanding that people worship a man whom you claim to be a god.
RE: "About the ‘axe-wielding, homicidal maniac’ part, some of those kind of people became Christians and ceased to be ‘axe-wielding, homicidal maniacs.’ Coincidence?"
Not a coincidence, a temporary stay of insanity. They have swapped one insanity for another and may go on to be axe-wielding christians chopping up muslims, atheists, jews, hindus, or anyone else who doesn't accept their god.
RE: " the New Testament was written before the Catholic Church was formed."
There is evidence of old manuscripts, but the new testament itself was not arranged, edited and formatted until much later.
Not all the old manuscripts and papyrii are part of the new testament. There was a considerable amount of collecting, weeding out and final redaction of texts.
This was performed in order to arrive at a body of supposedly inspired and foundational literature to support the emerging orthodoxy of a church centered on Rome.
These are the oldest known versions of what christians call the "new testament."
The following old Greek manuscripts contain most of the Bible or the NT:
1. The Vatican manuscript 350 AD= Bible.
2. Codex Sinaiticus 350 AD= NT.
3. Codex Alexandrinus 425 AD= Bible.
4. Manuscript of Ephraem 450 AD= NT.
It is THESE documents that modern christians consider to be the foundation of their religious belief.
What is not being debated here is whether ancient texts exist, as we know they do, what is being debated here is how, when, why and WHICH writings were included to become the "new testament."
Basically, the new testament in the form that modern christians know it is not evidenced before 350CE (AD)
The earlist copy of the new testament is to be found in the The Codex Sinaiticus dating to 350 AD.
The First Council of Nicea was held in Nicea in Bithynia,in present-day Turkey. It was convened under the orders of the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325.AD
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or of similar substance as God the Father.
This is why there are no texts dated prior to 325AD which talk about jesus being a god.
It was at the first council of Nicea, through the order of Constantine, the Roman Emperor, that Jesus attained godhead status.
(It actually was a vote, but quite a few who opposed the "jesus is god vote", mysteriously died or couldn't show up that day.)
So, it is through the Roman Empire that you have your first copy of a "new testament" which was arranged to create a religion which suited the political needs of the powerful Roman Empire.
Do you have a copy of the original manuscripts of the gospels?
Or are you relying on the earliest known copy of the new testament, contained in the The Vatican manuscript dated 350 AD which states that jesus is a god?
I think I know which one your bible version is adapted from and so should you.
From : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4739369.stm
"A manuscript containing the oldest known Biblical New Testament in the world is set to enter the digital age and become accessible online.
The Codex Sinaiticus contains the whole of the Christian Bible; specifically, it has the oldest complete copy of the New Testament, as well as the Greek Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which includes books now regarded as apocrypha.
The Codex Sinaiticus is believed originally to have been one of 50 copies of the scriptures commissioned by Roman Emperor Constantine after he converted to Christianity. It dates from 4CE."
Beepbeep.
‘Therefore the video is only a problem to you if you worship a representation of god which you are instructed not to do in the first place.
Let's also not forget that these commandments apply to those who believe in god, not unbelievers or non-believers.’ Right now, my argument is against the picturing of Jesus being gay, not with the movie itself. There isn’t the least shred of creditable evidence of it.
‘Christians physically harm people as much if not more than non-believers.
The majority of people in prisons call themselves Christians. Many of them are there because of illegal physical violence.
It is not enough to say, "they are not real Christians" as we have already established that someone can call themselves a Christian if they believe that Jesus died and was resurrected to save them from sin.’ And do they believe that? I am 100% sure that those people are not Christians, unless they became Christians after they landed in prison. If your statement were true, than the U.S. would be a Christian nation, wouldn’t it.
‘Jesus is represented in cultural iconography as a dude with long hair, in white or cream flowing robes and wearing sandals. You know it, I know it, you are just trying to pretend it isn't so.’ The key word there is ‘represented.’ And the white robes were supposed to symbolize purity.
‘6,000 year old earth and "Are you saying that I am incapable of formulating my own arguments?"
There is NO argument which would be able to convince me that the earth is 6,000 years old. It requires faith and a distortion of science in order to believe that it is.’ It is not a distortion of science. I could say the exact same thing about evolution, that it ‘requires faith and a distortion of science in order to believe that it is.’ And if evolution is ‘fact’, why is it that creation scientists have repeatedly offered evolutionist scientists millions of dollars to debate with them on national TV, and the evolutionists have always refused. The two groups used to debate on TV but the evolutionists got trounced so often and so badly that I guess that they are getting ‘gun shy’. I would really like to bring Creation vs. evolution up, but as it does not come into this present debate, I will not take about it unless you do. And that was not my question anyway. My question was, ‘Are you saying that I am incapable of formulating my own arguments?’
‘Not a coincidence, a temporary stay of insanity. They have swapped one insanity for another and may go on to be axe-wielding Christians chopping up Muslims, atheists, Jews, Hindus, or anyone else who doesn't accept their God.’ Christians and Jews worship the same God, the Jews just don’t believe that Jesus was deity. The Catholics are the only ones that ever persecuted the Jews, and Hitler did that, only to a much larger degree., so atheists have nothing over the Christians in that respect. Even if it wasn’t their main goal, the crusades were also defensive wars, so don’t give me any of that garbage about Christians persecuting Muslims. Who’s after your and my head right now, the Christians or the Muslims? I don’t know of any wars where Christians persecuted Hindus. Their bad blood is with the Muslims, who DID persecute them. And by the way, the Muslims are coming after the U.S., England, and Australia, even with your country’s limited involvement in the war on terror, which I do appreciate, by the way. Don’t feel to bad though, they’ll get Germany, France, Italy, and those other anti war countries, just as soon as they get rid the people who are smart enough to oppose them. I can’t wait until they gat fighting with the commies though! Two people who don’t care what the world says and who will never say die. Maybe I can wait, that would probably mean WWIII.
‘There is evidence of old manuscripts, but the New Testament itself was not arranged, edited and formatted until much later.
Not all the old manuscripts and papyri are part of the New Testament. There was a considerable amount of collecting, weeding out and final redaction of texts.’ Just the same as is done with scientific evidence.
‘This was performed in order to arrive at a body of supposedly inspired and foundational literature to support the emerging orthodoxy of a church centered on Rome.’ The Bible, if you’ll remember, was canonized in Constantinople, not Rome. And because the Bible didn’t justify all the things that the Catholic Church was doing, they had to add other books.
‘350CE (AD)’ Just a point of interest, even though you (though not you in particular, even though you use it) have changed B.C. into B.C.E. and A.D. into C.E., you still divide B.C.E. and C.E. at the same point as people divide B.C. and A.D. So even though you have changed the names, you still acknowledge the advent of Christ by where you divide the two eras. And the week is also interesting. I mean, years are based on the rotation of the earth around the sun, and months are based on the rotation of the moon around the earth, but where did the week come from?
‘The earliest copy of the New Testament is to be found in the The Codex Sinaiticus dating to 350 AD.’ Are you talking about partial manuscripts or just of manuscripts that have the complete New Testament and/or the whole Bible? Because there are manuscripts of either partial books or sets of books that date pre 200 A.D. I would have to double check, but I’m 90% sure that they’ve found a few manuscripts that date pre 100 A.D.
‘It actually was a vote, but quite a few who opposed the "Jesus is God vote", mysteriously died or couldn't show up that day.’ Could you give me references to material that says that?
Daniel
RE: anonymous daniel:
RE: "Right now, my argument is against the picturing of Jesus being gay, not with the movie itself. There isn’t the least shred of creditable evidence of it."
There is less evidence that he was heterosexual.
RE: " And do they believe that? I am 100% sure that those people are not Christians, unless they became Christians after they landed in prison. If your statement were true, than the U.S. would be a Christian nation, wouldn’t it."
It is true that some prisoners become christians after they are incarcerated. It is true that some prisoners turn to some form of god belief while they are incarcerated. But, the % of christians in the US is very high.
By far the majority of people in the US consider themselves to be christians, so it is logical to think that many christians end up in jail as well. The CIA factbook has the breakdown on religions in the US. (Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10%)
That means that at least 70% of americans consider themselves to be christians. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates and it shows that around 70% of prisoners call themselves christians.
Approximately 70% of americans identify themselves christians and about 70% of prisoners identify themselves christians. This makes christians the highest % of prisoners.
Furthermore, the % of christians in a country does not make it a "christian country." It is officially a secular nation. That is, there is no official state religion.
RE: "The key word there is ‘represented.’ And the white robes were supposed to symbolize purity." Ok, that means there is no reason why I can't represent him as a dude in a tigerskin lap lap with high heels, as it is only a representation.
RE: "I could say the exact same thing about evolution, that it ‘requires faith and a distortion of science in order to believe that it is."
No one is stopping you from claiming that. I hope you have a good case, but I doubt it. Evolution IS fact and also a scientific theory.
Evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. This has been observed and is why it is called a fact.
But you make the error that many believers make. You think that if you can disprove evolution, that by default that makes your god real.
The claim for a god has to rest on the evidence for a god and the claim of evolution has to rest on the evidence of evolution.
If you wish to provide a logical, compelling case for the existence of god, go right ahead, but I do not think that it will be logical, compelling, or consistent.
RE: Religious persecution.
Throughout history, most religious groups have persecuted other religious groups.
Egyptians persecuted those who did not worship their god/gods and so on down the line of history. Jews persecuted pagans, phillistines, non-believers and heretics as they were not jewish. The bible is full of those gory accounts, especially the old testament.
Catholics persecuted pagans, heretics, non-believers, muslims and jews. Muslims have persecuted pagans, infidels, heretics, non-believers, christians and jews. Protestants have persecuted, catholics, pagans, heretics, non-believers and jews.
In other words, it was common for a conquering people to: 1. Kill those who did not accept the same god/gods, 2. Demand conversion of the conquered. 3. Assimilate the conquering religion into the conquered culture.
With the advent of the "Age of Reason"in the 17th C and "The Enlightenment" in the 18th C, there was a move away from irrationality, superstition, and tyranny.
Reason advocated the establishment of ethics and logic to be the basis on which societies should tackle their differences. The concept of persecuting people because of a differing religious belief was argued to be unjust.
The persecution of jews during the late 20th C was not only based on the idea that jews had a different religion.
Like all persecutions before them, it was based on a variety of motivations. These motivations included at least these factors: religious differences, political desires, and economic desires.
Hitler was a dictator who used at least these 3 reasons to persecute not only jews, but anyone else who politically opposed him. This meant he persecuted catholics who did not agree, and protestants who did not agree.
He reserved a large portion of blame for jews whom he believed were responsible for bolshevistic ideology.
Bolshevism began as a form of socialism in Russia which developed into communism and was considered to be the cause of the Russian Revolution.
Fearing a similar revolution in Germany, the Nazi ideology stressed the racial purity of the German people and saw Jews and communists as the greatest enemies of Germany.
Hitler and the nazis did not consider the jews to be germans, based on this concept of racial purity. (This is similar to many rightwing fascist parties today, like the National Alliance and the KKK.)
Hitler was raised as a catholic, and the belief that the jews should be persecuted for not accepting jesus as the messiah, also probably played a part in his overall thinking.
But regardless of this, the majority of Germany and the majority of Europe during this time period was predominately christian.
This included a very large protestant and catholic population in Germany and also in the rest of europe.
The majority of germans, who were catholic AND protestant, were led to believe that the jews were the problem. There were breakaway churches during the time of Nazi domination, but the majority of people in Germany, both catholic and protestant accepted the belief that their plight was at least in part, the fault of the jewish population.
This was achieved with the use of highly successful forms of anti-semetic propaganda which blamed jews for everything from spreading bubonic plague, to blaming them for the defeat of Germany in WW1.
The scale and magnitude of this persecution is one of the reasons why many countries today have laws against persecution of people based on 1. their race 2. their religion 3. their gender 4. their sexual preference. (Hitler also persecuted homosexuals.)
RE: "Who’s after your and my head right now, the Christians or the Muslims?" Both. I figure that if christians had enough political power to impose the death penalty on heretics, and unbelievers, they would.
RE: "I don’t know of any wars where Christians persecuted Hindus."
Try reading about the colonisation of India by the british protestants.
RE: "And by the way, the Muslims are coming after the U.S., England, and Australia, even with your country’s limited involvement in the war on terror, which I do appreciate, by the way."
There are too many religious nutcases to count and they all threaten the secular west.
RE: "Maybe I can wait, that would probably mean WWIII."
I am sure you would love WW3. It would be your golden opportunity to play "Child of the Rapture".
RE: "Just the same as is done with scientific evidence."
Nope. And for someone who hates science as much as you seem to, you sure do spend a lot of time on the computer. You can thank science for that.
RE: "The Bible, if you’ll remember, was canonized in Constantinople, not Rome. "
So what? Constantinople was part of the Roman Empire at this time. Constantinople was the capital of the Roman Empire between 330CE and 395CE.
RE: AD/BC I use BCE and CE. Get over it.
RE: "Are you talking about partial manuscripts or just of manuscripts that have the complete New Testament and/or the whole Bible? Because there are manuscripts of either partial books or sets of books that date pre 200 A.D. I would have to double check, but I’m 90% sure that they’ve found a few manuscripts that date pre 100 A.D."
We are talking about the earliest complete known record of the new testament, the book on which you base your religious faith.
RE: "It actually was a vote, but quite a few who opposed the "Jesus is God vote", mysteriously died or couldn't show up that day.’ Could you give me references to material that says that?"
By 150CE, there were hundreds of texts in existence, some of which were in contradiction with each other. By the 4th Century, Constantine , in an attempt to re-establish one empire with a unifying religion to back it up, felt that there should be a consensus as to what books should be the basis for this religion.
At the time, there were two opposing camps of Christian thought, both centered in Alexandria.
Arius felt that Jesus was a supreme human, but no God. Opposing him was Athanasius, who felt that Jesus was both man and God.
In 325CE, Constantine I convened the First Council of Nicaea and decreed that only one creed should emerge from the council.
Once settled, the Nicene Creed banned Arias and his fellow Arians as heretics and the need for a common scripture became more pronounced.
Six years after Nicaea (331CE), Constantine commissioned Eusebius to create an official Christian Bible.
Fifty copies were made at state expense to be put in churches Constantine had planned to build throughout his capital at Constantinople.
Eusebius included all 18 books he had referred to in his earlier work. As opposed to Marcion, he felt that the Jewish writings should also be included and lumped them together into the Old Testament.
Unfortunately, none of those 50 copies are in existence today. The closest we have are two 4th Century codices: Codex Vaticanus (found in the Vatican Library) and Codex Sinaiticus (taken from St Catherine’s Monastery at Sinai and placed in the British Museum).
Both codices differ from what is on Eusebius’s list (ie. Sinaiticus has included the Gospel of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas).
Forty years later, a final list of 27 New Testament books was canonized by the Christian Church. This official list excluded many popular books.
The Arian Controversy - Arius, the heresy named Arian after him
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm
Egyptian Christianity, The Arian Controversy
http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/EgyptArians.html
A Chronology of the Arian Controversy
http://ecole.evansville.edu/arians/arianchr.htm
"...Soon after, a faintness came over him, and, together with the evacuations, his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines. More over, portions of his spleen and liver were carried off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died." - (Athanasius relates the death of Arian, whom his followers said was poisoned, in a letter to Serapion, on the authority of a priest, Macarius of Constantinople (De Morte Arii, Opera, ed. Bened. torn. I., pp. 1., 340)
Beepbeep.
‘There is less evidence that he was heterosexual.’
I meant to include this passage yesterday but it slipped my mind. Luke 8:1-3 which says, ‘After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.’ Uh-oh, He had some women with Him! Do gays hang out with women?
‘By far the majority of people in the US consider themselves to be Christians, so it is logical to think that many Christians end up in jail as well. The CIA fact book has the breakdown on religions in the US. (Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10%)
That means that at least 70% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates and it shows that around 70% of prisoners call themselves Christians.
Approximately 70% of Americans identify themselves Christians and about 70% of prisoners identify themselves Christians. This makes Christians the highest % of prisoners.’
And here I thought that you were a smarter-than-average person. If you believe that than I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll sell you cheep. I could consider myself Chinese and it wouldn’t make a hoot of difference on whether or not I was. The fact is that very few are real Christians. Christians should be defined as people who believe that they are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Most Americans believe in faith + works. For example, I’m pretty sure that Jehovah’s Witnesses are included in the Protestant group. The problem is that they believe the faith + works formula, which is not in the Bible, so I can’t consider them Christians.
‘Ok, that means there is no reason why I can't represent him as a dude in a tiger skin lap lap with high heels, as it is only a representation.’
What would you be trying to symbolize?
‘No one is stopping you from claiming that. I hope you have a good case, but I doubt it. Evolution IS fact and also a scientific theory.’
I have a very good case and I would say that I could shoot down almost anything that you could throw at me. As we have agreed elsewhere, science can’t PROVE anything. And also, evolution can’t be both a fact and a theory.’
‘Evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. This has been observed and is why it is called a fact.’
I agree with natural selection, which is why blacks live in if hot places like Africa and whites life in colder weather. I also agree with macro evolution, I would say that all dogs, from poodles, to Dobermans, to hyenas were probably descended from a wolf-like dog. However, I strongly disagree with micro evolution where all dogs, from poodles, to Dobermans, to hyenas were probably descended from rocks! You’ll probably say that they were descended from something else, but go back to where the something that that something came from came from!
‘But you make the error that many believers make. You think that if you can disprove evolution, that by default that makes your god real.’
No, but it would lend great credibility to my claim.
‘The claim for a god has to rest on the evidence for a god and the claim of evolution has to rest on the evidence of evolution.
If you wish to provide a logical, compelling case for the existence of god, go right ahead, but I do not think that it will be logical, compelling, or consistent.’
Wait a second; I thought that we were talking about where everything came from.
‘Egyptians persecuted those who did not worship their god/gods and so on down the line of history. Jews persecuted pagans, philistines, non-believers and heretics as they were not Jewish. The bible is full of those gory accounts, especially the Old Testament.’
The only people that God told to exterminate completely besides the Amorites were the people occupying Palestine.
‘Catholics persecuted pagans, heretics, non-believers, Muslims and Jews.’
Don’t forget the Protestants.
‘Muslims have persecuted pagans, infidels, heretics, non-believers, Christians and Jews.’
Basically everyone, including other Muslims.
‘Protestants have persecuted, Catholics, pagans, heretics, non-believers and Jews.’
Maybe my memory is failing me (at seventeen I hope not!), but except the Salem Witch Trials, which were apologized for afterwards, what persecution have the Protestants done?
‘Reason advocated the establishment of ethics and logic to be the basis on which societies should tackle their differences. The concept of persecuting people because of a differing religious belief was argued to be unjust.’
Tell the Muslims that.
‘Hitler and the Nazis did not consider the Jews to be Germans, based on this concept of racial purity. (This is similar to many rightwing fascist parties today, like the National Alliance and the KKK.)’
I challenge you to find any Christians who would affiliate themselves with the KKK. And I have not heard of the National Alliance.
‘Hitler was raised as a catholic, and the belief that the Jews should be persecuted for not accepting Jesus as the messiah, also probably played a part in his overall thinking.
But regardless of this, the majority of Germany and the majority of Europe during this time period were predominately Christian.
This included a very large protestant and catholic population in Germany and also in the rest of Europe.
The majority of Germans, who were catholic AND protestant, were led to believe that the Jews were the problem. There were breakaway churches during the time of Nazi domination, but the majority of people in Germany, both catholic and protestant accepted the belief that their plight was at least in part, the fault of the Jewish population.’
You seem to be inferring that the Nazis and Hitler were Christians! They were not. I know of only one person affiliated with the Nazi party that I find grounds to call him a Christian. The concept of racial purity comes from evolution. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Marx were all disciples of Darwin.
‘Both. I figure that if Christians had enough political power to impose the death penalty on heretics, and unbelievers, they would.’
Never have I seen any evidence of that, nor are there any movements for that position.
‘Try reading about the colonization of India by the British Protestants.’
Yes, colonization, but not on the account of religion.
‘I am sure you would love WW3. It would be your golden opportunity to play "Child of the Rapture".’
You assume that I am not a post millennialist.
‘Nope. And for someone who hates science as much as you seem to, you sure do spend a lot of time on the computer. You can thank science for that.’
In no way shape or form do I hate science. I find it very interesting and relevant.
Got to go.
Daniel
RE: Anonymous daniel:
RE: The women who for a short period of time followed jesus.
That women followed jesus for a short period of time, doesn't mean he was heterosexual. Are there any compromising passages in the bible concerning the women and himself? LIke them lying their heads on his breast?
The fact is, many women like gay men and identify with their personalities. Gay men call these women "fag hags."
RE: % of christians in prison
"And here I thought that you were a smarter-than-average person. If you believe that than I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll sell you cheep. I could consider myself Chinese and it wouldn’t make a hoot of difference on whether or not I was. The fact is that very few are real Christians. Christians should be defined as people who believe that they are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Most Americans believe in faith + works. For example, I’m pretty sure that Jehovah’s Witnesses are included in the Protestant group. The problem is that they believe the faith + works formula, which is not in the Bible, so I can’t consider them Christians."
First of all, I am smarter than the average person and you must be average, as I know how to spell "cheap" and you don't. "Cheep cheep" is the sound a christian makes on easter sunday when they find easter eggs.
Secondly, if being chinese means genetic characteristics which a particular group of people share, then it would be possible to test for those characteristics or markers.
Either way, ethnicity could be verified geneologically, or genetically. This is contrary to christianity which requires a statement of belief but no test of belief.
All the faith in the world isn't going to make someone chinese. It is a declaration of faith which allows people to call themselves christian.
There is no test for christianity. If a person says they believe that jesus was crucified on the cross and resurrected in order to save them from sin, then they can call themselves a christian.
This does not mean that they agree with the definition of christianity according to your sect of christianity, but they are a christian none the less. It is hardly my fault that christianity has thousands of sects all of which disagree with each other over issues of faith.
But basically, someone is a christian if they say that they believe in jesus, his death and his resurrection. The rest of the "christian stuff" is for the various christian sects to fight over.
I know that some christians believe "the faith + works formula", but as I said, there is no standardised test which mandates who is allowed to call themselves a christian, it is a matter of faith.
So, anyone can call themselves a christian and may believe they are a christian simply because they accept jesus christ into their lives.
You do not have the ability, or the right to say they are NOT christians simply because they do not attend the same church as you, or because they do not share exactly the same dogma as you.
They are entitled to call themselves christians through belief and faith.
RE: The dude in a tiger skin lap lap and high heels and what would it represent?
It would represent a primitive male religious symbol who had a shoe fetish.
RE: "I have a very good case and I would say that I could shoot down almost anything that you could throw at me. As we have agreed elsewhere, science can’t PROVE anything. And also, evolution can’t be both a fact and a theory."
Firstly, if you have a very good case, lay it out. I will examine it.
Secondly, no one can definitively prove anything. But, the weight of evidence suggests that science provides the best models to explain the natural world.
RE evolution, fact and theory
Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Natural selection is the theory which explains the mechanism of evolution.
RE: " I strongly disagree with micro evolution where all dogs, from poodles, to Dobermans, to hyenas were probably descended from rocks! You’ll probably say that they were descended from something else, but go back to where the something that that something came from came from!"
You have your ideas arse about face, but that is ok, I forgive you. I am totally unaware of any scientist who claims that hyenas were descended from rocks. That sounds more like the christian version of how we came from dirt.
GENESIS 3:19 "You will work for food from the soil until you return to it, for you were fashioned from it, from the dirt you are and to the dirt you will return." Oooops, the bible claims we came from dirt.
Or the International version: GENESIS 3:19 "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
RE: "Disproving evolution lends credibility to god belief."
No it doesn't. The only way for god belief to be seen as credible is for it to have a logical argument. It is not logical to base a worldview on the false dichotomy of either science, or the talking snake theory.
Once again, if you wish to provide a logical, compelling case for the existence of god, go right ahead, but I do not think that it will be logical, compelling, or consistent.
RE: "Maybe my memory is failing me (at seventeen I hope not!), but except the Salem Witch Trials, which were apologized for afterwards, what persecution have the Protestants done?"
Protestants made up approximately half of nazi germany. Protestants comprised a large % of europe during the time period we are discussing. It is uninformed to claim that it was only catholics who were nazis.
In the original programme of the Nazi Party drawn up by Adolf Hitler, Anton Drexler and Gottfried Feder 1920, religious freedom was promised for all those religions EXCEPT those which endangered the German race.
The nazis believed that the jews endangered the "pure aryan race" and any other religious person or group who opposed hitler politically, was dealt with usually by sending them to a concentration camp.
Hitler and the nazis mixed religion with government, and received widespread support from the Protestant and Catholic Churches in Germany.
Germany represented the most Christianized country in the world in the 1930s and 40s. Nazi Christian soldiers died as Protestants and Catholics and their grave markers testified to their religion.
The German Christian Movement was a rightwing branch of German Lutheranism and was one of the main Protestant branches supporting Nazi ideology.
The German Christian Movement reconciled Christian doctrine with German nationalism and antisemitism.
Only a very few number of Christians opposed Nazism such as the "Confessing Christians" (a Church movement not recognized by the Protestant orthodoxy) headed by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
The support of Nazism by the majority of German Christians and German Christian leaders shows the danger of mixing religion with government.
RE: "I challenge you to find any Christians who would affiliate themselves with the KKK. And I have not heard of the National Alliance."
From: http://www.kkk.com/
Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan! Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!
From: http://www.kkkk.net/
The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization in multiple Supreme Court decisions, and has received a Charter from US Congress. In the past the KKK received a Charter from US Congress because of our great moral and good Christian behavior. We come in the name of THE LORD God JESUS CHRIST, Amen.
RE: "You seem to be inferring that the Nazis and Hitler were Christians! "
Many nazis were christians, sorry to have to be the one to burst your bubble. Read above.
RE: "Try reading about the colonization of India by the British Protestants." Your reply, Yes, colonization, but not on the account of religion.
Christianity in India, underwent major transformation following European contact and British colonisation, because of laws instated that limited the rights of non-Christians. Limitng the rights of non-christians signifies a desire or will to christianise the country.
The goals of the christian missions in India included "education of all kinds and grades, among their instruments for the evangelization of India" (Mayhew 161).
Success of the colonization largely depended on the 'enlightenment of India by Christian secondary schools and colleges" (Mayhew 161).
The British Government provided most of the funding. So, like the conquerers in history before them, conquering the gods of other nations became a way to exert control and domination over the conquered peoples.
RE: the rapture
If you don't believe in the rapture, there might be some hope for your sanity, but it could go either way.
Beepbeep.
‘That women followed Jesus for a short period of time doesn't mean he was heterosexual.’
They are also mentioned in Luke 23:49, which says, ‘But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.’ So it seems that they followed him for more than a little while.
‘Are there any compromising passages in the bible concerning the women and himself? Like them lying their heads on his breast?’
No, as that would have been inappropriate.
‘First of all, I am smarter than the average person and you must be average, as I know how to spell "cheap" and you don't. "Cheep cheep" is the sound a Christian makes on Easter Sunday when they find Easter eggs.’
Let’s not start mud slinging over grammar. You ignore my occasional spelling errors, and I’ll ignore your spelling errors AND your capitalization errors.
‘"Cheep cheep" is the sound a Christian makes on Easter Sunday when they find Easter eggs.’
You are assuming that I agree with the practice of Easter Sunday, and Christmas for that matter.
‘This does not mean that they agree with the definition of Christianity according to your sect of Christianity, but they are a Christian none the less. It is hardly my fault that Christianity has thousands of sects all of which disagree with each other over issues of faith.’
Actually, the thing that separates the TENS of thousands of ‘Christian’ denominations is the question, ‘what is sin’. And if you believe in faith + works, than you are not a Christian.
‘You do not have the ability, or the right to say they are NOT Christians simply because they do not attend the same church as you, or because they do not share exactly the same dogma as you.’
Far be it from me on the grounds of church attendance. That is not my issue. And I am not saying that people that believe that faith + works will land someone in hell, the Bible says it. I do have the ability to say it (I am saying it), AND I have the right to say it, or do only atheists, humanists, evolutionists, gays, and left-wingers have the right to ‘the freedom of speech.’ In essence, I have only the public freedom to agree with you.
‘It would represent a primitive male religious symbol who had a shoe fetish.’
No accurate, but hey, we live in free countries.
‘Firstly, if you have a very good case, lay it out. I will examine it.’
No. I am denying evolution, the ‘burden of proof’ lies with you. Present your evidence and I will counter it.
‘Secondly, no one can definitively prove anything. But, the weight of evidence suggests that science provides the best models to explain the natural world.’
Yes, I agree. Science points clearly to a creator, however, it does not prove it.
‘You have your ideas arse about face, but that is ok, I forgive you. I am totally unaware of any scientist who claims that hyenas were descended from rocks. That sounds more like the Christian version of how we came from dirt.’
You believe that dogs came from some lower life form, which came from a lower one, etc, which came from goo, which came from rocks. Or maybe I just haven’t kept up with the latest evolutionary theories. You can’t blame me, you have to admit they do change pretty fast.
‘Protestants made up approximately half of Nazi Germany. Protestants comprised a large % of Europe during the time period we are discussing. It is uninformed to claim that it was only Catholics who were Nazis.’
I don’t claim that the Nazi party was made up of purely or even mainly of Catholics. And the Christian that I was talking about was General Erwin Rommel.
‘In the original programme of the Nazi Party drawn up by Adolf Hitler, Anton Drexler and Gottfried Feder 1920, religious freedom was promised for all those religions EXCEPT those which endangered the German race.’
As you know, that freedom was taken away.
‘The German Christian Movement reconciled Christian doctrine with German nationalism and anti-Semitism.’
Exactly my point, they had to try to reconcile the Bible with the Nazi Party.
‘Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan! Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!’
What you see here is the KKK aligning itself with Christianity, not the other way around.
‘The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization in multiple Supreme Court decisions, and has received a Charter from US Congress. In the past the KKK received a Charter from US Congress because of our great moral and good Christian behavior. We come in the name of THE LORD God JESUS CHRIST, Amen.’
Just goes to show you how corrupt the Supreme Court is, and they are definitely not Christians. Matthew 7:15-23 which says, ‘Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Rather apparent to me.
‘Many Nazis were Christians, sorry to have to be the one to burst your bubble. Read above.’
Some yes, most no.
Christianity in India
England colonized India, like most of the other areas it colonized, for the cheap (I spelled it correctly!!) labor and natural resources. Christianizing was secondary. The only place that I can think of that was colonized for other reasons was Australia, which was used as a place to send criminals (absolutely not directed against you in any way).
Daniel
RE anonymous daniel:
RE: the women who followed jesus.
As I said previously, women following or being friends with gay men is not uncommon. They are colloquially known as "fag hags."
RE: appeals to authority followed by grammatical/spelling errors.
If you make an ad hominem attack in the form of casting an aspersion on an individual's intelligence, followed by a spelling error, you leave yourself wide open to derision from whomever you have attacked.
It is best to not try and argue from a position of authority as this is in itself a logical fallacy, as is an ad hominem. You discredit your argument immediately when you attempt to do either of these things.
So, regarding the "cheep cheep joke" - you asked for it, by using illogical debating techniques. I hope you learnt your lesson.
RE: capitalization
I rarely use capitals for proper names and I know that all of us make spelling errors. Your problem was making a spelling error while you were trying to tell me I wasn't too smart. (chortle)
I rarely use capitals in proper names as they indicate to me, at least, an appeal to authority. So, I use them at the beginning of sentences or discrete thoughts, but not always in the flow of everyday argument.
RE: easter
I don't care if you tie small, stuffed, toy animals to burning stakes at easter, as long as you don't claim that everyone has to do it.
RE: "Actually, the thing that separates the TENS of thousands of ‘Christian’ denominations is the question, ‘what is sin’. And if you believe in faith + works, than you are not a Christian."
You still don't understand that it is ONLY your opinion that they are not a christian. Millions of people have the right to call themselves christian based on the premise that they believe that jesus will save them from sin.
This is the basis of all christian doctrine, and is why there are thousands of opinions from the different sects of christianity who ALL claim, that their interpretation of sin, jesus, heaven etc is correct.
Many of those sects no doubt claim that YOU are not christian. This is what happens when you get a rag tag army of believers who all create their own bastardized version of christianity.
For the record:
Christianity: "the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christianity
Christian: "of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian
RE: The ability to say who is a christian and who is not.
You have the literal ability to say whatever your mouth or typing skills allow, but you do NOT have the AUTHORITY to claim who is or or is not a christian.
It is only your opinion who is a christian and who is not, as there is NO standardized test for christianity. So, you have the capacity to say it, but not the skill, training, or other qualification to state who is a christian and who is not.
RE : Your claim that evolution is wrong.
" I am denying evolution." This is your claim. Go right ahead and lay out a case as to why it is wrong.
RE: Your next claim. " Science points clearly to a creator." Go right ahead and lay out a case for how science points to a creator.
RE: The christian concept of humans coming from dirt.
I see you have prefer to not recognise your own projection. Firstly you claim derisively that scientists say that we came from rocks and then you choose to ignore the biblical account of human beings coming from dirt or dust. Methinks thou projects too much.
RE: religious freedom in nazi germany
Nazi germany permitted religious freedom as long at it wasn't directed against the state, or against hitler. That is, as long as the various religions were not politically active against the state.
As religions are basically political entities who claim a god of gods as their leader, not all the churches in nazi germany were going to agree with keeping their noses out of the political arena.
It would be more realistic to say that the churches had religious freedom, but not political freedom. Religions have always acted with a political agenda (which changes, depending on the church, the religion, the time period and geopolitical influences.)
Hitler, the nazis and various bishops, cardinals, pastors and priests agreed that the christian faiths should support the nazi state, and of course, some didn't.
Those that didn't, were persecuted. They were not persecuted because of their belief in a god or for wanting to practise religious rituals either privately or publically. They were persecuted for political activism against the state.
In Hitler's version of christianity, it was ok to persecute jews for various reasons. Some of these reasons were based in his religious beliefs and some were based in his political beliefs about jews.
For example: Hitler often made reference to biblical passages or phrases in his speeches. One that stands out concerning his political belief about jews is this one.
"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."
This refers to jesus supposedly overturning of the tables of the money changers in the temple.
Matthew 21:12 "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,"
(I would like to qualify at this stage that I am not advocating any of Hitler's actions, I am merely presenting information concerning the nature, and beliefs associated with nazism.)
RE: "The German Christian Movement reconciled Christian doctrine with German nationalism and anti-Semitism."
Just as many religious organizations reconcile their doctrine to comply with their political beliefs. In fact, the history of religions suggests quite strongly, that people interpret their religion through their political and cultural beliefs, or they try to change the tenets of their religion to fit their political ideology.
RE: "What you see here is the KKK aligning itself with Christianity, not the other way around."
The KKK is another example of people forcefitting their political, racial, economic and social beliefs into their religious beliefs, or interpreting or chamging religious tenets to fit their preconceived political ideologies.
Either way, they still get to call themselves christians if they worship jesus and they still represent, whether you like it or not, a section of christianity.
What happens for many believers is this, I think. They go through a process like this.
1."Those people do not think like me.
2. I don't agree with them.
3. Therefore, they can't be "real christians."
And what both sides or all sects of christianity don't realise is that ALL of them still get to call themselves christians.
You would be better served to argue against their beliefs if you don't like what they stand for, rather than each group saying inanely, "but they are not real christians and we are."
RE: "Many Nazis were Christians, sorry to have to be the one to burst your bubble. Read above."
Many or most called themselves christians. You seem to be incapable of recognising the fact that YOU personally do not get to state who is and who isn't a christian. Being a christian is a matter of faith. If a person believes they are a christian, they are a christian.
RE: colonization
When I grew up, large parts of the world globe was painted red, not because it was communist, but because a large % of the world was ruled by the British Empire. All the globes produced during tis time represented the world in this way.
Conquering countries is made easier if you control the hearts and minds of the population, which is why religious indoctrination (commonly called missionary work) went hand in hand with colonization or imperialism.
The english at this time period also had another name for it, "whiteman's burden". I suggest you go and read about that too.
If you look at the history of colonization or imperialism, you can tell which countries imperialised which parts of the world based on which sect of christianity predominates in which country.
For example: If you look at South America, it is predominately catholic because it was imperialised by Catholic countries.
Australia is predominately protestant because it was imperialised by a protestant country, Great Britain. If you look around the world you will notice this trend.
Historically, imperialist countries have used their weapons to invade a country, and their religion to subdue dissent.
"There is a story, which is fairly well known, about when the missionaries came to Africa. They had the Bible and we, the natives, had the land. They said "Let us pray," and we dutifully shut our eyes. When we opened them, why, they now had the land and we had the Bible." ~Desmond M. Tutu
RE: penal colony
Australia was colonized by Great Britain after it had already been sending convicts to the Americas.
BRITISH CONVICTS SHIPPED TO AMERICAN COLONIES http://www.dinsdoc.com/butler-1.htm
For many individuals, groups, nations, their religious belief IS their political ideology.
This applies to many christians, many jews, many muslims, many hindus and many buddhists.
Those of us who consider ourselves atheists, or agnostics, probably are aware of this more so than any other group, as we see all religions jockeying for more political power.
Beepbeep.
‘As I said previously, women following or being friends with gay men is not uncommon. They are colloquially known as "fag hags."’
That explains why it said, ‘Joanna the wife of Cuza.’ Since when does a married woman hang around a bunch if gays?
‘If you make an ad hominem attack in the form of casting an aspersion on an individual's intelligence, followed by a spelling error, you leave yourself wide open to derision from whomever you have attacked. … I rarely use capitals for proper names and I know that all of us make spelling errors. Your problem was making a spelling error while you were trying to tell me I wasn't too smart.’
It was not an attack on you intelligence. It is a expression and I was basically saying ‘come on, your smarter than that.’ And as I said, let’s not start grammatical mud-slinging. Mud-slinging is usually the sign of someone who is losing an argument and is getting desperate, so I try not to use it (and I am not saying that you are getting desperate).
‘RE: Easter
I don't care if you tie small, stuffed, toy animals to burning stakes at Easter, as long as you don't claim that everyone has to do it.’
Sigh. Please reread my question. ‘You are assuming that I agree with the practice of Easter Sunday, and Christmas for that matter.’
‘This is your claim. Go right ahead and lay out a case as to why it is wrong.’
Fine. Since for some odd reason you seem hesitant to lay out a claim for evolution I guess that has left it up to me(and isn’t it kind of dangerous to let me pick my own battles?) The watershed of the Mississippi River transports huge amounts of slit downstream to the Gulf of Mexico. Every year the deposit in the delta is getting bigger by a certain known amount. There is no indication that any of this slit has been carried out to sea. At the present rate, the entire Mississippi River delta would have accumulated in less than 5,000 years. But science acknowledges that the river has been even bigger in the past. What’s up with this? Or could it be that the North American continent and for that matter, all the other continents haven’t been in their present positions that long?
A news article on March 23, 1980 made this statement, ‘The sun’s diameter appears to have been decreasing by about one tenth percent per century.’ Scientists have been watching the sun for over one hundred years and the evidence is conclusive. The sun shrinks 5 feet every hour. Of course that isn’t much knowing that the sun is approx. 840,000 miles id diameter. But wait! If the sun shrinks 1/10% pre century, that means 1% per millennium. If the earth is approx. 6,000 years old, no problem. A 6% decrease isn’t a big deal. But if the sun was 100,000 years it would be 2x bigger! And 20million years ago, it would have been touching the earth! As far as scientists can tell, this rate has been constant since the origin of the sun. But the also say that stars that are much larger than the sun burn hotter and faster. That simply means that 1million years ago life on earth would have been impossible! Could it be that the sun and earth aren’t that old?! I love this stuff!!! Don’t worry, I’ve got lots more ammo but I’ll let you chew on that while I respond to the rest of your article.
‘Your next claim. “Science points clearly to a creator." Go right ahead and lay out a case for how science points to a creator.’
You asked someone (and you said that you were serious) if they had passed elementary biology or something like that. While I now pose the same question to you. Didn’t you notice the intricacy of everything? We now know that there is no such thing as Darwin’s ‘simple cell.’ Everything is so complex! And you believe that it all happened by chance? Go stick all the parts for a car in an empty shed and make sure that only your great, great, great grandchildren open it. You can even throw a lit stick of dynamite in there to get it started. When your great, great, great grandchildren open it, are they going to get a nice brand new car? Nope. They are going to get a jumble of rusted and disintegrating parts. What happened? You had all the materials, time, and even an energy source to get things started. That’s what you believe about the world, and yet the world is so much more complicated than anything that man has ever made or even dreamed of making. Psalm 19:1-4a says, ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.’
‘I see you have preferred to not recognize your own projection. Firstly you claim derisively that scientists say that we came from rocks and then you choose to ignore the biblical account of human beings coming from dirt or dust. Methinks thou projects too much.’
Here is the difference. I believe that the omnipotent God created the universe from NOTHING. So it is not a far stretch that He was able to take some dirt and make a man from it.
‘Nazi Germany permitted religious freedom as long at it wasn't directed against the state, or against Hitler. That is, as long as the various religions were not politically active against the state.’
Ahhh. Freedom to say what you want, just as long as you agree with me. What kind of freedom is that?
‘In Hitler's version of Christianity, it was ok to persecute Jews for various reasons. Some of these reasons were based in his religious beliefs and some were based in his political beliefs about Jews.’
Because the Jews were an inferior, less evolved race. Ring any evolutionary bells?
"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."
Didn’t you read my last post? Matthew 7:15-23 says, ‘Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
‘(I would like to qualify at this stage that I am not advocating any of Hitler's actions, I am merely presenting information concerning the nature, and beliefs associated with Nazism.)’
I think that you misunderstand some of the information, but no I can see that you are not a Nazi.
‘Just as many religious organizations reconcile their doctrine to comply with their political beliefs. In fact, the history of religions suggests quite strongly, that people interpret their religion through their political and cultural beliefs, or they try to change the tenets of their religion to fit their political ideology. The KKK is another example of people force fitting their political, racial, economic and social beliefs into their religious beliefs, or interpreting or changing religious tenets to fit their preconceived political ideologies.’
No, most people try to fit their political beliefs with their doctrine.
‘Either way, they still get to call themselves Christians if they worship Jesus and they still represent, whether you like it or not, a section of Christianity. … And what both sides and all sects of Christianity don't realize is that ALL of them still get to call themselves Christians.’
Like I said, claiming the name of Christ does not make people Christians.
‘What happens for many believers is this, I think. They go through a process like this.
1."Those people do not think like me.
2. I don't agree with them.
3. Therefore, they can't be "real Christians."’
Actually, I know a number of people that I would consider to be ‘real Christians,’ who don’t agree with anywhere close to all of what I believe to be true doctrine.
‘You would be better served to argue against their beliefs if you don't like what they stand for, rather than each group saying inanely, "but they are not real Christians and we are."’
And I do debate with those people.
‘Many or most called themselves Christians. You seem to be incapable of recognizing the fact that YOU personally do not get to state who is and who isn't a Christian. Being a Christian is a matter of faith. If a person believes they are a Christian, they are a Christian.’
No I don’t, the Bible does.
‘RE: colonization
When I grew up, large parts of the world globe was painted red, not because it was communist, but because a large % of the world was ruled by the British Empire. All the globes produced during this time represented the world in this way.
Conquering countries is made easier if you control the hearts and minds of the population, which is why religious indoctrination (commonly called missionary work) went hand in hand with colonization or imperialism. If you look at the history of colonization or imperialism, you can tell which countries imperialized which parts of the world based on which sect of Christianity predominates in which country. For example: If you look at South America, it is predominately catholic because it was imperialized by Catholic countries.’
‘Religious indoctrination,’ as you call it, came, with the exception of parts of Africa, after the countries were colonized. And only the Catholics forced people to become ‘Christians.’ Also Africa, which is mainly Muslim and India, which is mainly Hindu, where, as you said, colonized by the Protestants, who forced NO ONE, to become Christian.
‘Australia is predominately protestant because it was imperialized by a protestant country, Great Britain. If you look around the world you will notice this trend.’
Yes I notice that if countries were SETTLED by them, than that is true.
‘RE: penal colony
Australia was colonized by Great Britain after it had already been sending convicts to the Americas.’
You missed it! I said that that fact was not directed against you, and now in your desire to retaliate, you have opened yourself up. You admit that colonies were used for other reasons than Christianization. And (not denying what you said) the Americas were settled for their natural resources first and foremost, convicts came latter.
‘Those of us who consider ourselves atheists, or agnostics, probably are aware of this more so than any other group, as we see all religions jockeying for more political power.’
‘All religions jockeying for more political power,’ including atheists. Add that and now I agree with your statement.
I am now starting to get curious. Have you even looked at the Dr. Greg Bahnsen vs. Dr. Gordon Stine debate?
Just a notice. Seeing as how far off topic we have gotten, I will not debate anything other than already mentioned topics. If you wish to debate anything else, write an article on it.
Daniel
RE anonymous: Women don't hang around gay men primarily because they want to have sex with them. It doesn't matter if the women are married or single, many women enjoy the company of gay men.
RE: It wasn't an ad hominem attack.
Yes, it was and so is your attemoted attack on arthur about the spelling of mathematician. Don't lie daniel, your god doesn't like it.
RE easter:
I still don't care whether you celebrate easter, passover, ramadan, or diwali or all of them. I consider all of them to be based on superstitious mumbo jumbo.
RE: " I am denying evolution." This is your claim. Go right ahead and lay out a case as to why it is wrong. "
How does the watershed of the Mississippi provde an argument against evolution? If you want to provide an argument against evolution, you need to define what evolution is, and then work from there. Burbling on about a river doesn't do anything for your argument.
RE: The sun and it's supposedly decreasing diameter
What has the diamter of the sun got to do with presenting an argument against evolution? Once again, go and look up what evolution is, and present an argument from that basis. I think you are probably confusing abiogenesis with evolution.
RE: Who have I asked if they passed elementary biology? I want more information about this before I comment on it.
If you are going to lay out an argument for god based on intelligent design, you haven't done so very successfully.
This is aparts from the obvious, which is that science does not, nor can it, assume a god, nor does it dismiss the idea of a god, it simply cannot test or find evidence for any god.
RE: everything from nothing.
I don't think that everything came from nothing. You on the other hand think that your god came from nothing.
Theists accuse non-believers of believing that the universe came from nothing, whereas, this is your own projection of your own inadequate argument.
In fact, theists believe that their god came from nothing. And that their god made human beings from dirt. Your original claim was that I believed that hyenas or something came from rocks. It is YOU who believes that something, (a god), can come from nothing, and that this god created everything from dirt.
RE nazi germany and religious freedom
Freedom of religion, not political freedom. A lack of political freedom is the problem in all dictatorships, but people and churches in nazi germany DID practise religious freedom, just not political freedom.
It certainly was not against the law to believe in jesus, god and the bible. In fact christian faith was encouraged.
Example: "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."
RE Hitler's racism against jews.
Racism didn't originate in the third reich.
That racism existed throughout history shows that some people are more than willing to make up pseudo-scientific reasons to justify their political aspirations. I think you are probably confusing eugenics with natural selection.
RE: false prophets
What you fail to realise is that I am not agreeing with hitler. I am merely trying to show you that religious belief can be used as a political tool and weapon. There is no way to ascertain who is "a real christian" and who isn't, as people determine for themselves if they are christians.
They determine it by believing they are christians. Hitler could still consider himself to be a christian. He could still believe that he was a christian. Any horrible things that he did, did not stop him from being a christian, because being a christian is determined by belief.
Re: political belief and religious doctrine.
Some people try to fit their political beliefs into religious doctrine. Some people try to make their religious beliefs their political worldview. And some people try to make their religious beliefs EVERYONE ELSE'S political worldview.
RE: Who is a christian and who is not.
If they believe they are a christian, then they are a christian.
RE: "Actually, I know a number of people that I would consider to be ‘real Christians,’ who don’t agree with anywhere close to all of what I believe to be true doctrine."
And your test for "real christians" is?
RE: The bible says who is a "real christian."
Which bible?
RE protestant
By your protestantions about protestant colonization, I see you want to believe that protestants have never persecuted anyone. Nazi protestants did. English protestants did when they colonized large %s of the world's land mass.
Protestants have systematically killed thousands of native americans, native australians, native africans and native indians. If you want to look at racism and persecution perpetrated from a protestant worldview, you need only look at the history of slavery in the Americas.
The curse of Ham was used throughout history to justify racism. By the late 1600s, the curse of Ham was well entrenched as divine sanction for slavery. In colonial America, the belief that Ham was black, and that Noah's curse was race-related, was widely subscribed to in both the North and South.
By the 1830s, when the American anti-slavery movement had become a political force, slavery advocates had developed a defense of slavery, arguing from scripture. Haynes writes, "Noah's curse was a stock weapon in the arsenal of slavery's apologists, and references to Genesis 9 appeared prominently in their publications."
For example, J.J. Flourney, writing in 1838, says, "the blacks were originally designed to vassalage by the Patriarch Noah." Even many blacks accepted this as their God-ordained state.
The Curse of Ham legitimized and validated the social order by divine justification. No matter how irrational or circular, the arguments were accepted because they supported society's beliefs and practices, and with biblical and protestant approval.
Belief in the curse of Ham didn't stop with the abolition of slavery. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, the notion that the lowly status of black people was divinely ordained was repeated in sermons and speeches.
Noah's curse re-emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, when southern white Christians used it to justify racial segregation in the face of the civil rights movement.
Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia read the text of the Noah story and curse into the Congressional Record as part of a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying, "Noah saw fit to discriminate against Ham's descendents."
Beepbeep.
‘Yes, it was and so is your attempted attack on Arthur about the spelling of mathematician. Don't lie Daniel, your god doesn't like it.’
I am not lying, if you will not accept my word, than there is nothing that I can do about it. And I have no idea what ‘your attempted attack on Arthur about the spelling of mathematician’ is all about, unless you are again accusing me of posting as multiple people, which I deny.
‘I still don't care whether you celebrate Easter, Passover, Ramadan, or Diwali or all of them. I consider all of them to be based on superstitious mumbo jumbo.’
You keep missing it! You are assuming that I celebrate Easter and Christmas.
‘How does the watershed of the Mississippi provide an argument against evolution? If you want to provide an argument against evolution, you need to define what evolution is, and then work from there. Burbling on about a river doesn't do anything for your argument. What has the diameter of the sun got to do with presenting an argument against evolution? Once again, go and look up what evolution is, and present an argument from that basis. I think you are probably confusing abiogenesis with evolution.’
I am attacking the idea of the earth being millions of years old. Without that centerpiece, evolution falls apart. And here is an interesting tidbit about the moon. Did you know that scientists have observed that the tidal friction and other things are making the Earth’s rotation speed slow down a very tiny amount every year? Though it’s not big enough to make an impact on the Earth over even a few billion years, but it causes something else that’s very interesting. The moon’s distance from the Earth is decreasing by 2 inches per year! Two inches per year may not sound like much, but going back 2 billion years the moon would be touching the Earth. But that, of course, is ridiculous. At the current rate, if the moon started at a realistic spot, than if the Earth was 5 billion years old, than the moon would be out of sight by now!
‘RE: Who have I asked if they passed elementary biology? I want more information about this before I comment on it.’
I’m looking for the exact quote, but I’ll get back to you with where I found as soon as I can.
‘If you are going to lay out an argument for god based on intelligent design, you haven't done so very successfully.’
No, I’m showing you the improbability of everything coming into place randomly.
‘This is apart from the obvious, which is that science does not, nor can it, assume a god, nor does it dismiss the idea of a god, it simply cannot test or find evidence for any god.’
Science finds evidence that suggests a designer of some sort. Evolution assumes that there is no God.
‘I don't think that everything came from nothing. You on the other hand think that your god came from nothing.
Theists accuse non-believers of believing that the universe came from nothing, whereas, this is your own projection of your own inadequate argument.
In fact, theists believe that their god came from nothing. And that their god made human beings from dirt. Your original claim was that I believed that hyenas or something came from rocks. It is YOU who believes that something, (a god), can come from nothing, and that this god created everything from dirt.’
If you mean by saying that I ‘believe that God comes from nothing’ that I believe that God has always existed, than you are correct. You believe that everything came randomly from goo/rocks. I believe that everything was designed by an omnipotent Creator. Big difference.
‘Freedom of religion, not political freedom. A lack of political freedom is the problem in all dictatorships, but people and churches in Nazi Germany DID practice religious freedom, just not political freedom.
It certainly was not against the law to believe in Jesus, god and the bible. In fact Christian faith was encouraged.’
Heavily restricted, but allowed.
‘Example: "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."’
Than how come the only schools in Germany were secular?
‘RE Hitler's racism against Jews.
Racism didn't originate in the third Reich.
That racism existed throughout history shows that some people are more than willing to make up pseudo-scientific reasons to justify their political aspirations. I think you are probably confusing eugenics with natural selection.’
I know that, just as evolution didn’t either.
‘What you fail to realize is that I am not agreeing with Hitler. I am merely trying to show you that religious belief can be used as a political tool and weapon.’
I know that, and I am not saying that you are a Nazi. In fact, I would be worried if you were. And I do not deny that ‘religious belief can be used as a political tool and weapon.’
‘There is no way to ascertain who is "a real Christian" and who isn't, as people determine for themselves if they are Christians.
They determine it by believing they are Christians. Hitler could still consider himself to be a Christian. He could still believe that he was a Christian. Any horrible things that he did, did not stop him from being a Christian, because being a Christian is determined by belief. … And your test for "real Christians" is?’
Read Matthew 7:16-20 again, which says, ‘By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.’ Did you catch that? ‘By their fruit you will recognize them.’
‘Re: political belief and religious doctrine.
Some people try to fit their political beliefs into religious doctrine. Some people try to make their religious beliefs their political worldview. And some people try to make their religious beliefs EVERYONE ELSE'S political worldview. ‘
And…?
RE: "Actually, I know a number of people that I would consider to be ‘real Christians,’ who don’t agree with anywhere close to all of what I believe to be true doctrine."
‘If they believe they are a Christian, then they are a Christian.
RE: The bible says who is a "real Christian."
Which bible?’
Sigh. Why do I feel like I am having to repeat myself over and over again? And why do you use circular arguments instead of giving my questions direct answers? You average Bible that you can pick up at any ‘Christian’ book store. You know, the one that has 66 books from Genesis the Revelation. The one that was canonized in Constantinople.
‘By your protestations about protestant colonization, I see you want to believe that Protestants have never persecuted anyone.’
Everyone in history has persecuted someone at sometime in history.
‘Nazi Protestants did. English Protestants did when they colonized large %s of the world's land mass.’
Here’s the problem, you think that the Nazi party was predominately Christian, I disagree.
‘Protestants have systematically killed thousands of Native Americans, native Australians, native Africans and native Indians. If you want to look at racism and persecution perpetrated from a protestant worldview, you need only look at the history of slavery in the Americas.’
Ahhh. Evolution at it’s finest!
‘The curse of Ham was used throughout history to justify racism. By the late 1600s, the curse of Ham was well entrenched as divine sanction for slavery. In colonial America, the belief that Ham was black, and that Noah's curse was race-related, was widely subscribed to in both the North and South. By the 1830s, when the American anti-slavery movement had become a political force, slavery advocates had developed a defense of slavery, arguing from scripture. Haynes writes, "Noah's curse was a stock weapon in the arsenal of slavery's apologists, and references to Genesis 9 appeared prominently in their publications."’
Noah cursed Canaan, see Genesis 9:24 and 25, which says, ‘When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."’ And Canaan’s decedents were for the most part wiped out by the Israelites.
You still haven’t gotten back to me on the Bahnsen vs. Stine debate. What’s your opinion on it? What do you think?
The other day, I talked with one of said people that I disagree with, and he got me thinking. Correct me on any of the following content if I’m wrong. When you said that you were confirmed, and your familiarity with the doctrine of transubstantiation, that leads me to assume that you at least attended a Catholic, or a similar type of church when were younger. And the fact that you are now an atheist, leads me to believe that you got fed up with all the hypocrisy around you and you turned your back on the church. If anything like that is your back round, than I cannot blame you for your turning to atheism. In that case, I can only hope that someday you will give the church (not Catholicism) and second chance.
Daniel
Just a thought. Why don’t you look up ‘Bahnsen Debates’ on Google? You’ll find that he debated other atheists and many other topics. I think that a logically minded person would enjoy the debates.
Daniel
RE anonymous daniel
Either you or under the mercy left this as a message in the Family Planning Article.
"Anonymous said...
Who or what are mathemations, Arthur?"
RE easter:
And you keep missing the point. I don't care which, if any, religious practice you observe. I consider all of them to be silly.
RE: "Did you know that scientists have observed that the tidal friction and other things are making the Earth’s rotation speed slow down a very tiny amount every year?"
The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.
The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).
The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.
The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth.
Regarding all the other new earth creationist claims, they have all been dismissed numerous times by people who understand science.
Many of them are refuted here: Specific Creationist Arguments
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/index.shtml
So don't bother posting any of your "new earth claims" until you have a rebuttal for all of these rebuttals.
RE: "No, I’m showing you the improbability of everything coming into place randomly."
Scientists don't say that everything "came into place randomly."
The theory of evolution most emphatically does not say that humans arose purely by chance. Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.
Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature.
The principles by which evolution works, including random variation and recombination and natural selection, have proven successful and useful for designing new drugs (Coghlan 1998), for designing better enzymes for detergents (Pollack 2000), and, as genetic algorithms, for many other applications.
RE: "Science finds evidence that suggests a designer of some sort. Evolution assumes that there is no God."
Where does science suggest a designer or god? Intelligent design isn't science. So don't bother quoting that. Evolution doesn't assume nor not assume a god, science cannot test for a god.
RE: "If you mean by saying that I ‘believe that God comes from nothing’ that I believe that God has always existed, than you are correct. You believe that everything came randomly from goo/rocks. I believe that everything was designed by an omnipotent Creator. Big difference."
This is the bones of your argument.
1. Everything comes from something.
2. Everything comes from something, except god.
Now, I want you to tell me the logical fallacy associated with your argument.
I don't believe that everything came from goo/rocks - that is YOUR bible claim. Let's get the claims right.
RE: religion in nazi germany
Religion was NOT heavily restricted. Political opposition WAS heavily restricted. Some of that political opposition came from catholics and protestants.
RE: secular schools in germany
The Reichskonkordat is the concordat between the Holy See and Germany when Adolf Hitler was Chancellor. It was signed on July 20, 1933 by Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli and Franz von Papen on behalf of Pope Pius XI and President Paul von Hindenburg, respectively. It is still valid today in Germany.
The main points of the concordat are:
1.The right to freedom of the Roman Catholic religion. (Article 1)
2.The state concordats with Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929), and Baden (1932) remain valid. (Article 2)
3.Unhindered correspondence between the Holy See and German Catholics. (Article 4)
4.The right of the church to collect church taxes. (Article 13)
5.The oath of allegiance of the bishops: "(...) Ich schwöre und verspreche, die verfassungsmässig gebildete Regierung zu achten und von meinem Klerus achten zu lassen (...)" ("I swear and vow to honor the constitutional government and to make my clergy honor it") (Article 16)
6.State services to the church can be abolished only in mutual agreement. (Article 18)
7.Catholic religion is taught in school (article 21) and teachers for Catholic religion can be employed only with the approval of the bishop (article 22).
8.Protection of Catholic organizations and freedom of religious practice. (Article 31)
9.Clerics may not be members of or be active for political parties. (Article 32)
Shortly before signing the Reichskonkordat, Germany signed similar agreements with the major Protestant churches in Germany.
The Protestant Church in Nazi Germany was really a collection of a number of churches. The Protestants themselves were split. The "German Christians" were lead by Ludwig Muller who believed that any member of the church who had Jewish ancestry should be sacked from the church. Muller supported Hitler and in 1933 he was given the title of "Reich Bishop".
RE: "Read Matthew 7:16-20 again, which says, ‘By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.’ Did you catch that? ‘By their fruit you will recognize them.’
I agree that hitler was a sinful christian. It doesn't alter the fact that he could legitimately, call himself a christian. If your claim is that a "real christian" is without sin, you need to go and read your bible again.
The fruit quote only allows people to read into it what they subjectively consider to be "good" or "bad."
RE: " The one that was canonized in Constantinople."
The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicea in Bithynia (in present-day Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first ecumenical[1] conference of bishops of the Christian Church. It wasn't canonized in Constantinople.
And ....
You try to make your religious beliefs EVERYONE ELSE'S political worldview.
RE: The bible says who is a "real Christian."
Which bible?’ The bibles are different which is why there are so many different versions. There are different versions because they do not all say exactly the same thing.
State from the bible what you use the definition of a "real christian."
RE: The Nazis based in christianity
Roughly two-thirds of Germans were Protestant, almost all of the rest Catholic. The pagan minority claimed at most 5 percent. Explicit nontheism was limited to an intellectual elite and to committed socialists. Just 1.5 percent of Germans identified themselves as unbelievers in a 1939 census, which means either that very few Nazis and National Socialist German Worker's Party supporters were atheists, or that atheists feared to identify themselves to the pro-theistic regime.
Most religious Germans detested the impiety secularism, and hedonistic decadence that they associated with such modernist ideas as democracy and free speech. If they feared democracy, they were terrified by Communism, to the point of being willing to accept extreme countermethods.
Thus it was a largely Christian, deeply racist, often antidemocratic, and in many respects dangerously primitive Western culture into which Nazism would arise. It was a theistic powder keg ready to explode.
According to standard biographies, the principal Nazi leaders were all born, baptized, and raised Christian. Most grew up in strict, pious households.
RE evolution
You have a major difficulty in your understanding of evolution as a scientific model. I don't have the time nor the incentive to help you to understand what evolution is and what it is not. I suggest you go and read extensively on the subject.
A good place to start is Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/
You don't deny that protestants haven't killed thousands of Native Americans, native Australians, native Africans and native Indians and that it is racism and persecution perpetrated from a protestant worldview, you just prefer to blame a scientific model of which you obviously have little if no understanding.
You have no rebuttal for the racism perpetrated through the interpretation of the bible, you just try to dismiss it by asking me if I have watched a debate. I consider you to be one of the most disingenuous posters to my site that I have come across.
Your excuse for anything which christians have been shown to have done is dismissed with a non-convincing "they are not real christians", yet you assume to be the authority on what a "real christian" is.
You have not posted at anytime a passage from the bible which supposedly says what a "real christian" is, but you keep alluding to your own supposed authority on the subject.
Let me make it perfectly clear to you.
ALL PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT THEIR VERSION OF WHAT A REAL CHRISTIAN IS THE THE RIGHT ONE.
You are no different in this respect. When and if, you post something from th bible which has some fuzzy definition of what a christian actually is, you will claim that YOUR interpretation of it is correct and dismiss all others.
Beepbeep.
‘Either you or under the mercy left this as a message in the Family Planning Article.
"Anonymous said...
Who or what are mathemations, Arthur?"’
Wasn’t me. And I have only briefly looked at that article once. If it was me, why would I not sign myself off as ‘Daniel’ like I normally do? So I explicitly deny having anything to do with that comment, and with posting under multiple names. What would I gain by it anyway?
‘Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago…’
And how do you know the age of coral?
‘Regarding all the other new earth creationist claims, they have all been dismissed numerous times by people who understand science.’
I don’t mind if you copy and paste, I’ll look, but why not bring the arguments to me instead of making me chase them?
‘Scientists don't say that everything "came into place randomly."’
Than what do they say? You can’t say that they don’t say it, and not tell me what they DO say.
‘The theory of evolution most emphatically does not say that humans arose purely by chance. Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.’
I said that I agree with ‘natural selection,’ what I don’t get is how you can get a fish to sprout legs and walk. The legs would be a great hindrance in it’s survival in the water, and in order to survive, at the SAME TIME, it would have had to have gotten the ability to breath air.
‘Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000).’
You’ll have to explain what exactly that is and all about.
‘The principles by which evolution works, including random variation and recombination and natural selection, have proven successful and useful for designing new drugs (Coghlan 1998), for designing better enzymes for detergents (Pollack 2000), and, as genetic algorithms, for many other applications.’
My problem is the adding of new information. Like monkeys turning into people. Mutations destroy information (just look up the definition of ‘mutation’), it does not add any. The monkeys would have to have had ALL the information in their genes for both people AND monkeys.
‘Where does science suggest a designer or god?’
As I said, if you just look at the complexity of everything, how on earth can you assume anything other than a creator?
‘Intelligent design isn't science.’ How so? And if you’ll remember, I have previously said that I do not agree with ‘Intelligent design.’ I agree with creation. And Creation is science and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
‘I don't believe that everything came from goo/rocks - that is YOUR bible claim. Let's get the claims right.’
No. I believe that God made everything from nothing. Except man, which He made from the dust that He had already created. You deny that you believe that everything came from rocks. Fine. But where did the first life form come from then? As you have said, you cannot deny something without stating a replacement answer.
If you don’t mind, let’s move the evolution part of the debate to your article on evolution.
‘Religion was NOT heavily restricted. Political opposition WAS heavily restricted. Some of that political opposition came from Catholics and Protestants.’
Ahhh… agree with me or you’re dead. You consider that freedom? Remind me to keep out of the country that you rule.
‘The Reichskonkordat is the concordat between the Holy See and Germany when Adolf Hitler was Chancellor. It was signed on July 20, 1933 by Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli and Franz von Papen on behalf of Pope Pius XI and President Paul von Hindenburg, respectively. It is still valid today in Germany. … Shortly before signing the Reichskonkordat, Germany signed similar agreements with the major Protestant churches in Germany.’
Number 5, "I swear and vow to honor the constitutional government and to make my clergy honor it," like I said, free, IF you agree with me. The freedom to agree; got to love it.
Number 7, ‘…and teachers for Catholic religion can be employed only with the approval of the bishop.’ And they had the approval of the state because of number five. No worries there.
‘The Protestant Church in Nazi Germany was really a collection of a number of churches. The Protestants themselves were split. The "German Christians" were lead by Ludwig Muller who believed that any member of the church who had Jewish ancestry should be sacked from the church. Muller supported Hitler and in 1933 he was given the title of "Reich Bishop".’
And the more you agree with me, the more I’ll reward you.
‘I agree that Hitler was a sinful Christian. It doesn't alter the fact that he could legitimately, call himself a Christian.’
Galatians 5:19-22 says, ‘The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.’ How many of those did Hitler fulfill? James 2:14-26 says, ‘What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.’
And you expect to believe that Hitler was a Christian. And do you deny that he was an evolutionist?
‘If your claim is that a "real Christian" is without sin, you need to go and read your bible again.’
I would never claim that. All I have to do is look at myself and I know that that is a false statement.
‘You try to make your religious beliefs EVERYONE ELSE'S political worldview.’ How so? Is it wrong to try to convince other people of the validity of my position? You are trying to convince me of the validity of yours. What applies to me applies to you as well. And if there are no absolutes, than who are you to tell me what is right and wrong for me?
‘Which bible?’ The bibles are different which is why there are so many different versions. There are different versions because they do not all say exactly the same thing.’
Just about any literal, non-paraphrase translation of said Bible with the 66 books from Genesis the Revelation. The English of the KJV is old, which is why I generally don’t use it. Pretty much the same goes for the ASV.
‘State from the bible what you use the definition of a "real Christian."’
To keep it short and simple, John 12:47+48 would work. ‘As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.’ Acts 16:31 says, ‘They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."’ John 3:18-21 says ‘Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."’
‘Roughly two-thirds of Germans were Protestant, almost all of the rest Catholic.’
Instead of ‘were’ you should have typed ‘claimed to be.’
‘You have a major difficulty in your understanding of evolution as a scientific model. I don't have the time nor the incentive to help you to understand what evolution is and what it is not. I suggest you go and read extensively on the subject.’
Translation. ‘You are not as easily convinced of evolution as I had hoped, and I have no answer for you. Thus I am going to brush you off and tell you to read elsewhere, even though I wouldn’t be caught dead reading a Creationist web page.’ I get it. If this translation is wrong, than prove it.
‘You don't deny that protestants haven't killed thousands of Native Americans, native Australians, native Africans and native Indians and that it is racism and persecution perpetrated from a protestant worldview, you just prefer to blame a scientific model of which you obviously have little if no understanding.’
I do not deny that Protestants have killed many of those people. You deny that the evolutionary concept of those people being an inferior race helped them justify their actions. If I have ‘little if no understanding’ of evolution, than please help me understand so that I may become enlightened like you and will no longer live in the darkness of religion. (As you can see, I have a problem with sarcasm.)
‘You have no rebuttal for the racism perpetrated through the interpretation of the bible, you just try to dismiss it by asking me if I have watched a debate.’
I showed you the MIS-interpretation of the Bible clearly. It is not my fault that people misinterpret the Bible to fit evolution. And Bahnsen debates were a side issue. As they were theist vs. atheist, I thought that you would be interested in them. What are you yelling at me for? And you still haven’t answered my question.
‘I consider you to be one of the most disingenuous posters to my site that I have come across.’
If you are calling me a liar, than show me your grounds for that statement.
‘…yet you assume to be the authority on what a "real Christian" is.’
I don’t, the Bible is. I am merely repeating what the Bible says.
‘You have not posted at anytime a passage from the bible which supposedly says what a "real Christian" is, but you keep alluding to your own supposed authority on the subject.’
Just did above.
‘ALL PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT THEIR VERSION OF WHAT A REAL CHRISTIAN IS THE RIGHT ONE.’
I agree.
‘You are no different in this respect. When and if, you post something from the bible which has some fuzzy definition of what a Christian actually is, you will claim that YOUR interpretation of it is correct and dismiss all others.’
Wow! Are you some kind of a prophet or something!?
Daniel
RE anonymous daniel
I am so glad and relieved that you have allowed me your permission to copy and paste on my own blog. lol
RE: "Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago…" And how do you know the age of coral?
If you have a problem with how the age of corals is assessed post it. But, I am reasonably confident that I can copy and paste the rebuttal for your argument (only with your permission of course! lol)
RE: "Scientists don't say that everything "came into place randomly." Your reply - Than what do they say? You can’t say that they don’t say it, and not tell me what they DO say.
If you have a problem with a specific scientific claim, you can state that problem. I am not going to post every scientific claim from every scientist who ever lived. Go and read some science yourself.
RE: "I said that I agree with ‘natural selection,’ what I don’t get is how you can get a fish to sprout legs and walk. The legs would be a great hindrance in it’s survival in the water, and in order to survive, at the SAME TIME, it would have had to have gotten the ability to breath air."
Australia is in an inenviable position when it comes to "weird species." Australia is described as an extremely isolated and old continent and as a result, it is home to many species considered anomolies in any other part of the world.
Because of its geographical isolation, the species here really are quite outstandingly different compared to the rest of the world which has not been so geopraghically isolated.
As you may recognize natural selection occurs according to environmental influences. In other words, species adapt according to the pressures or influences of the environment in which they find themselves.
This adaption in natural selection terms does not refer exclusively to adaptive behaviour, but also to genetic adaption.
Therefore, the animals which are native to australia adapted genetically to the environment in which they lived. This is the concept of natural selection and "survival of the fittest."
Survival of the fittest does not refer to the organism with the biggest muscles or to the animal which is the strongest. It refers to the organism which is best adapted biologically to survive in a given environment.
This explains not only why the native animals of australia are so remarkably different biologically to the native animals of other countries, but also why the native animals of other countries differ from australian native animals.
One of these animals in the lungfish. Lungfish developed lungs which allows them to breed are in waters with low oxygen levels. These lungs are similar to those found in primitive amphibians.
Lungfish will also come out of the water to gulp air if the oxygen levels in water are extremely low.
Lungfish have both gills and either a single lung, or a pair of lungs. The Queensland Lungfish has a single lung, whereas all other species of lungfishes have paired lungs.
During dry periods when streams become stagnant, or when water quality changes, lungfish have the ability to surface and breathe air.
RE: walking fish
Axolotyls, commonly called Mexican Walking Fish are classified as amphibians. They have external "fern-like" gill structures that are not covered (as are gills in fish and in frog tadpoles).
Axolotls are permanently aquatic, never undergoing the metamorphosis to a terrestrial form characteristic of amphibians. Though they are not classified scientifically as fish, they exhibit biologically, fish-like attributes.
They have gills. They do not survive out of water. Their entire life cycle occurs in water and yet they have legs like other amphibians.
RE: "Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000)." Your reply - You’ll have to explain what exactly that is and all about.
Well, no I don't have to explain what it is all about. You have a computer, if you are genuinely interested, you can research it. The information is there if you want to find it.
This might get you started - Contrasting Evolutionary Forces in the Arabidopsis thaliana Floral Developmental Pathway http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/160/4/1641
RE: "My problem is the adding of new information. Like monkeys turning into people. Mutations destroy information (just look up the definition of ‘mutation’), it does not add any. The monkeys would have to have had ALL the information in their genes for both people AND monkeys."
Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests.
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon. Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones.
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS or to heart disease. There is a mutation in humans makes bones strong.
Transposons are a common mutation, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity.
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme.
Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored.
Sickle cell anemia is an example of this. SCA is a disease caused by point mutation in the hemoglobin beta gene.
Carrier frequency varies significantly around the world, with high rates associated with zones of high malaria incidence, since carriers of the sickle cell anemia gene are somewhat protected against malaria.
The sickle cell anemia mutation is beneficial for an indiviual who lives in Africa or South East Asia where the probability of dying from malaria is high.
In that environment, the mutation is beneficial as it offers resistance to the disease of malaria. In nations where morality rates are high from malaria, the sickle cell anemia mutation is beneficial.
RE anonymous daniel
RE: "Where does science suggest a designer or god?’ Your reply - As I said, if you just look at the complexity of everything, how on earth can you assume anything other than a creator?
Once again, science does not assume the existence of a god, you do.
RE: Your claim >> "Creation is science." No, your claim, you now have the burden of proof to make good your claim.
But I will give you a hint. Science makes predictions which are falsifiable. In order to be called science, the prediction must be falsifiable.
For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an observation that would show the proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made.
The logical precondition of being able to observe something of a given description is that something of that description exists.
Now, go to it. Show how creation is science.
RE: "No. I believe that God made everything from nothing. Except man, which He made from the dust that He had already created. You deny that you believe that everything came from rocks. Fine. But where did the first life form come from then? As you have said, you cannot deny something without stating a replacement answer."
Oh, I don't claim to know all the answers to life the universe and everything, god believers do. And their answers are quite entertaining, in a hunerous kind of way. I especially like the bit about the talking snake.
RE: "Religion was NOT heavily restricted. Political opposition WAS heavily restricted. Some of that political opposition came from Catholics and Protestants."
Your reply - Ahhh… agree with me or you’re dead. You consider that freedom? Remind me to keep out of the country that you rule.
I didn't claim that they had complete freedom. No one in any society has complete freedom. Your inability to be able to distinguish between religious freedom and political freedom is really quite troubling.
‘I agree that Hitler was a sinful Christian. It doesn't alter the fact that he could legitimately, call himself a Christian.’
RE galatians
Regardless of Galatians or any other passage in the bible, Hitler can still call himself a christian if he believes he is one. He might be a sinful christian who goes to hell (if you believe in that kind of thing), but he gets to be defined as a christian regardless of whether you believe that he is a "good christian" or not.
If you believe in the christian religion, "good christians" go to heaven. "Bad christians" go to hell along with all the muslims, hindus, buddhists and other assorted heathens like myself.
But, you do not get to judge who is a christian, or who is a "good christian" or who is a "bad christian". If you call yourself a christian, you believe that it is only god who can judge that.
RE: "And you expect to believe that Hitler was a Christian. And do you deny that he was an evolutionist?"
You must be a little slow on the uptake. YOU do not get to decide who can call themselves a christian. If you consider yourself to be a christian, you know that it is god who decides who is a christian and who is not. Not you.
Just a refresher for you from the Council of Nicea. "And on the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the righthand of god the father almighty. From thence HE WILL COME TO JUDGE THE QUICK AND THE DEAD." (I use the old format, accustomed as I am to an older version.)
The "quick and the dead" is more modernly interpreted as "the living and the dead."
But regardless of interpretation, it is quite clear, if you consider yourself to be christian, that it is god who decides who is a christian, who is a good christian and who is a bad christian and who isn't a christian at all.
RE: " Is it wrong to try to convince other people of the validity of my position? You are trying to convince me of the validity of yours. What applies to me applies to you as well. And if there are no absolutes, than who are you to tell me what is right and wrong for me?"
The problem with your argument is that you want to be able to dictate politically what a christian is. Where political law is derived from faith and not from reason, there is historically lots of turmoil and shedding of blood.
"Just about any literal, non-paraphrase translation of said Bible with the 66 books from Genesis the Revelation. The English of the KJV is old, which is why I generally don’t use it. Pretty much the same goes for the ASV."
And all of your bibles originate from the original catholic bible put together after the first council of Nicea. What wonderful irony, your book is based on a religion you consider to have been corrupt.
RE: "State from the bible what you use the definition of a "real Christian."
Right, so specifically, a good christian does not question what is written in the book. But he/she can interpret it according to their own subjective viewpoint. Which is why there are as many interpretations of the bible as there are believers.
RE: "Roughly two-thirds of Germans were Protestant, almost all of the rest Catholic." Your reply - Instead of ‘were’ you should have typed ‘claimed to be.’
You are very slow on the uptake. Once again, indiviuals get to decide if they are to be called christians or not. You do not. There is no test for christianity. Those who profess to believe that jesus rose from the dead to save them from sin get to call themselves christians.
That you believe they are not, doesn't alter the fact that they are defined as christians. You do not test who is christian and who isn't. The judgement, if you believe in god as a christian, is with god.
RE: "Translation. ‘You are not as easily convinced of evolution as I had hoped, and I have no answer for you. Thus I am going to brush you off and tell you to read elsewhere, even though I wouldn’t be caught dead reading a Creationist web page.’ I get it. If this translation is wrong, than prove it."
I don't care if you acknowledge the veracity of evolution. It is you who is frightened of science as you fear that evolution conflicts with your "talking snake theory."
And this blog isn't all about you. I think I am quite fair with the amount of time I spend answering both yours and under the mercy's comments.
RE: "I do not deny that Protestants have killed many of those people. You deny that the evolutionary concept of those people being an inferior race helped them justify their actions. If I have ‘little if no understanding’ of evolution, than please help me understand so that I may become enlightened like you and will no longer live in the darkness of religion. (As you can see, I have a problem with sarcasm.)"
I am glad that your god has finally allowed you to see the light. Protestants have persecuted many people. I am sure your god will reward you handsomely with this admission.
But if you become muslim, the reward will be 72 virgins plus paradise. This may be a better offer. Personally, I consider all the supposed "god offers" to be pie in the sky, but then, I am an atheist. ;)
Where does the theory of evolution say that human beings should kill off other human beings in order to create a super race?
I know how the bible has been interpreted in order to promote racism, hatred and killing, Ham, for example. But where in the theory of evolution does it state that the mass killing of people is a good thing?
RE: "I consider you to be one of the most disingenuous posters to my site that I have come across."
The "no true scotsman fallacy" comes to mind.
RE: "You are no different in this respect. When and if, you post something from the bible which has some fuzzy definition of what a Christian actually is, you will claim that YOUR interpretation of it is correct and dismiss all others."
This is also makes you at least deliberately obfuscative, or unintentionally disingenous.
RE: "Wow! Are you some kind of a prophet or something!?"
Unlike believers, I don't claim to have "special god-like powers."
Beepbeep.
Back to Jesus being gay, you say that the women that were proven lesbian because they were with Jesus and Jesus was proven gay because He hung out with 12 other guys? Sounds kind of weak to me. Unless you can give me any proof that I have not already refuted, this debate is closed and I will continue the evolution part of it in your more current article. Any answers to the evolution part of my comment I will answer in above mentioned article.
‘I am so glad and relieved that you have allowed me your permission to copy and paste on my own blog.’
Since you were against my coping and pasting off of AIG, than I figured that you would follow your own rules and not do the same. I was just saying that I don’t mind fighting regurgitated arguments.
‘If you have a problem with how the age of corals is assessed post it.’
I was wondering what method you use to determine the age of the corals, or do you just think up an age at random and assign it? And you had better not say C-14, because I’ll absolutely blast you out of the water.
‘If you have a problem with a specific scientific claim, you can state that problem. I am not going to post every scientific claim from every scientist who ever lived. Go and read some science yourself.’
Why am I sensing a brush off here? I have read science, and I have found evolution to be a bunch of baloney. If someone comes onto this site wondering about whether creation or evolution is right, what will they think after reading our debate? I try (not that I always succeed) to write so that other people who read this (not just you) will become convinced of my position. That is why I don’t just tell you to go read Answers in Genesis.
Lung Fish. It would seem to me that no fish would ever survive in those conditions long enough to develop lungs. (I am ignoring the FACT that nothing can ADD any new information.)
‘Survival of the fittest does not refer to the organism with the biggest muscles or to the animal which is the strongest. It refers to the organism which is best adapted biologically to survive in a given environment.’
Which is why Alaskan Huskies live in Alaska and Dingos live in Australia. Tell something that I don’t already know.
As far as mutations go, let’s take the example of the blind fish. This fish lives in subterranean lakes and rivers, and, over the years, has lost its sight, do to lack of need for it. This mutation has had no necessarily bad impact on the fish. It had the information in its genes to make working eyes, but now has lost it. If it started living in open lakes and streams for generations, would it get its sight back? No. It has lost the capability to have sight and will never get it back. You could mutate it until you were blue in the face and it would never see again. When something mutates, it never gains information, only loses it. Sometimes, the mutant genes can turn out helpful, but even then they can have their drawbacks. And no new information is added. In your bit about SCA, the mutation IS beneficial, but also causes problems. In one case it was found that out of 10 West African individuals carrying the sickle-cell trait and living in the UK, there were five who had the genetic predisposition to stuttering (which is known to be high in West Africa). The temptation to use natural selection explanations to link the stuttering gene frequency to child-hood malaria and sickling overlooks some important sociological facts. Most who have the stuttering tendency in Ghana in particular are left-handed, which is a major social disadvantage. Relatives heckle and bully the left-hander for doing household jobs with the ‘wrong hand’. You will find a high number of left-handers, and thus more stutterers, in any academic institution. If that institution is in northern Nigeria, for instance, 30 per cent of these stutterers will also be sicklers, simply because 30 per cent of the rest of the population are sicklers. This has nothing to do with malaria and selection, nor does the fact that of the five consultants in the haematology department of a famous African teaching hospital, 80 per cent had the sickle-cell trait. (I had some help with that last part.) And while I’m harping on mutations, did you know that 1) mutations are rare, and 2) 99.99% of mutations are either harmful or deadly?
And please tell me why all the ‘missing links’ are still missing.
‘Once again, science does not assume the existence of a god, you do.’
You’re right, but it does lend credibility to the claim.
‘No, your claim, you now have the burden of proof to make good your claim.’
Too late, I have already denied evolution, you must support your claim, but I know that you’ll balk at this because you have no good proof, so I’ll probably wind up doing it.
‘Oh, I don't claim to know all the answers to life the universe and everything, god believers do.’
Than what point are you defending? Stand still so I can shoot!
‘I didn't claim that they had complete freedom. No one in any society has complete freedom. Your inability to be able to distinguish between religious freedom and political freedom is really quite troubling.’
Than how free is free?
‘Regardless of Galatians or any other passage in the bible…’
Up, just as I thought, I post proof and you dodge it.
‘If you believe in the Christian religion, "good Christians" go to heaven. "Bad Christians" go to hell along with all the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other assorted heathens like myself.’
The ‘good Christian/bad Christian’ division is Armenian, I am a Calvinist.
‘But, you do not get to judge who is a Christian, or who is a "good Christian" or who is a "bad Christian". If you call yourself a Christian, you believe that it is only god who can judge that.’
Nope, but through the Bible verses that I showed you, I’ve got a pretty good guess.
‘You must be a little slow on the uptake. YOU do not get to decide who can call themselves a Christian. If you consider yourself to be a Christian, you know that it is god who decides who is a Christian and who is not. Not you.’
See above.
‘The "quick and the dead" is more modernly interpreted as "the living and the dead."’
I’m pretty good at old English, but thanks anyway.
‘And all of your bibles originate from the original catholic bible put together after the first council of Nicea. What wonderful irony, your book is based on a religion you consider to have been corrupt.’
Can you tell me when the Holy Roman Catholic Church was established? Do I hear after the canonization of the Bible? So let me correct you. A religion that is corrupt happens to be based on the Bible.
‘You are very slow on the uptake. Once again, individuals get to decide if they are to be called Christians or not. You do not. There is no test for Christianity. Those who profess to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to save them from sin get to call themselves Christians.’
Who’s slow on the uptake? Didn’t you read the TWENTY-FOUR verses that I showed you? Yes there is a basic test for Christianity. Do they make any kind of effort to exhibit the ‘Fruit of the Spirit?’ You can call yourself whatever you want and it doesn’t change anything. You even say that we’re all advanced monkeys but that doesn’t change the fact.
‘I don't care if you acknowledge the veracity of evolution.’
So in essence you’re saying, ‘you’re wrong, I can’t prove it, but you’re wrong.’ I am right until you prove me wrong.
‘And this blog isn't all about you. I think I am quite fair with the amount of time I spend answering both yours and under the mercy's comments.’
Where did that come from? Unless you are AGAIN accusing me of commenting as multiple people, which I AGAIN deny.
‘I am glad that your god has finally allowed you to see the light. Protestants have persecuted many people. I am sure your god will reward you handsomely with this admission.’
What do you mean by that? That my God will reward me for the admission, or for the persecution?
‘You deny that the evolutionary concept of those people being an inferior race helped them justify their actions. If I have ‘little if no understanding’ of evolution, than please help me understand so that I may become enlightened like you and will no longer live in the darkness of religion.’
And you dodged my question.
‘But if you become Muslim, the reward will be 72 virgins plus paradise. This may be a better offer.’
Nah, in order to be assured of it, you have to become a martyr first, and I don’t feel like dying young.
‘Where does the theory of evolution say that human beings should kill off other human beings in order to create a super race?’
I have four words for you. ‘Survival of the Fittest.’ And it isn’t the Christians who are advocating euthanasia and assisted suicide either.
‘The "no true scotsman fallacy" comes to mind.’
Please reiterate.
‘This is also makes you at least deliberately obfuscative, or unintentionally disingenuous.’
I don’t get it. You type something that you had said, and then insult me. You still haven’t presented me with any proof, so until then, I have no need to change my ways.
‘Unlike believers, I don't claim to have "special god-like powers."’
Just in case it went over your head, I was being sarcastic. And neither I nor any Christian I know claim to have "special god-like powers."
And you still haven’t said whether or not you even looked at the debate I mentioned.
Daniel
RE anonymous daniel:
RE: evolution.
To save time, here is the index of creationist claims and their rebuttals
Index to Creationist Claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC
RE anonymous daniel
Aparts from you, myself and your mother, not many people read this far back in a blog.
RE anonymous daniel
RE: the differences between natural selection, eugenics etc.
I will be posting an article about this in a couple of days, then you and your mother can read it at the beginning of the blog.
RE anonymous daniel
RE Was jesus gay?
He was a sensitive, young man with delusions of grandeur; quite similar to yourself. So, my speculation is that he was gay.
I'd just like to add that, regardless of whether Jesus was gay, long hair and wearing dresses are rare for the contemporary gay man.
RE zooplah:
I agree. Not all men who wear dresses and sandals are gay. Not all men who don't wear dresses and sandals are gay.
But their boyfriends probably are.
Beepbeep.
Re: evolution
I’ll read ‘www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC’ as long as you promise to read ‘www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm.’ Deal?
‘Apart from you, myself and your mother, not many people read this far back in a blog.’
We were in the middle of a debate, what was I supposed to do, concede and quite when I still had plenty of arguments left? No way! I don’t know about you but I HATE losing. And I don’t think that my mother ever knows about your blog.
‘I will be posting an article about this in a couple of days, then you and your mother can read it at the beginning of the blog.’
I look forward to it.
‘He was a sensitive, young man with delusions of grandeur; quite similar to yourself. So, my speculation is that he was gay.’
You have to back your statement up. And what do you know about my personality except that I can be rather sarcastic?
Daniel
You may not be gay, but your boyfriend is.
Just like Haggard's boyfriend.
Smear tactics, I love it. No answer to my questions? Than debate over, I win. Been nice chatting with you.
Daniel
Don't forget to say hi to your gay, pedophile pastor Rev Haggard.
Not my pastor. And don't forget, not all of the facts are in yet.
Daniel
True, we don't know if he was the pitcher or the catcher yet.
He is an example of a "real christian", one who spews fire and brimstone at people while HE is the prime example of what he hates.
A "real christian" hypocrite.
Post a Comment
<< Home