Bible-wielding couple arrested for trespassing at Pride

More terrorists, ready to emulate Jesus. Sniff.

I wonder if the church these people attend would let gay people have a table at their events?

Now we’ll hear about how homosexuals want the ban the bible.

And this is news why? 3 people arrested for trespassing makes news these days I guess.

The Fox TV news coverage I saw last night mentioned the people were arrested for handing out Bibles, but failed to mention the number of religious groups that were included in the festivities. It perpetuates the impression that being gay is anti-religion which is not true for all gay people.

I love it that two people from Wisconsin took the time out of their lives (can we say too much free time on their hands?) to try to crash the Twin Cities Pride festival instead of trying to help the poor and impoverished which Jesus would have done.

Wtg. God bless this family for standing up for there rights to help the lost. God says the Homesexuality,sexual immorality are sins. So not just homosexuality is a sin. If your having sex outside of marriage it is a sin to God,he calls it fornication. However that is the worst sin,there isn’t a sin worse than another sin. Sin is Sin in God’s eyes. We all sin and fall short. That is why Jesus died on the cross so that we can be saved. So repent of your sins today and ask God to forgive you. Turn from your sinful ways and trust in Jesus as your Lord and savior. If you don’t than you will suffer God’s wrath on judgement day. God bless you.

Dave: I am sorry you have a cold. I believe your obstructed sinuses may be also affecting your cogntive reasoning skills. They are terrorists how? That is quite a stretch even for the most liberal minds. And Acts of terrorism do not, in any way, emulate the acts of Jesus.

Miller: I am pretty certain that if other religious groups were allowed to participate in the festival they were pro-homosexual “religious” groups. Allowing people who agree with your point of view to participate can hardly be seen as an act of virtue.

Erica: How would you know what Jesus would have done? Are the sins of homosexuals above (or below) Jesus’ time and consideration? Jesus did not come to Earth from heaven to take care of the poor, you know. He came to save people from their sins. Homosexuals need forgiveness of sins just like everyone else.

Thank you Frank for the clear Gospel message – the true message of Jesus when He came and died. Homosexuality is such a hot topic these days, when in fact it is no different in eternity from those of us who have lied (Revelation 21:8). Any one who has broken the law of God, 10 Commandments, is in danger of judgment by God. We must Repent, turn from our sins, and trust Christ to save us from judgment. Jesus Christ was the only one who lived a sinless life to pay for our sins. We must trust in His goodness, not our own goodness which is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).
To God be the Glory!!

Frank, this family doesn’t have any right to a vendor table to “help the lost.”

Unfortunately, you do have the right to live in a alternate unreality. Your silence in the future will bring peace to us all, maybe even yourself.

So Doc, I assume by your use of quotes around the word religious, that you don’t think that any group or church that accepts gay people can be a reglious group.

This event was a celebration of gay pride, just as other celebrations are for other things. Are you implying that if someone thinks that celebrating the Aquatennial (for instance) is sinful, they should be allowed to have a float in the torchlight parade? I personally think that the Hollydazle parade is pretty stupid, but I wouldn’t expect the organizers to allow me to participate so I can slam them.

Jerry:
Groups or churches that condone homosexuality can indeed be “religious”. However, they are not biblical. Religion is a man made institution and usually has very little to do with God or the truth. I particularly do not like religion. My use of quotes around the word religious may have been innappropriate as they indeed can be religious but they are not Chrisitian in the true sense of the word.

Erica – I completely agree! I also find it ridiculously pretentious that so many people are claiming that the people at pride were “lost” and need to be saved by Jesus. They were at a place to celebrate who they are. They’re happy and fulfilled, and I seriously doubt something is missing in their lives. Not everyone needs religion. Especially this brand of intolerant, neo-conservative born-again crap that seems to be so popular of late.

Also to Doc – Have you seen the documentary Jesus Camp? Evangelical born-again Christians do have an agenda that many would consider to be terrorism. They are literally training their children to be “warriors for God”. The kids bluntly discuss how they are ready to die in the fight for God. Can you say future suicide bombers?

Shannon:
Can you say ignorance? The Bible makes referneces to “war” and “soldiers” when it comes to being in the fight between good and evil. Just because someone is willing to die for Christ does not equate that someone is willing to kill for Christ. Especially since God has commanded that we should not kill and Jesus commanded we love each other including our enemies. Our battle is not with flesh and blood but with principles and principalities. It is a spiritual battle; not a battle for power, money, or land. We should be willing to die for what is right and die defending our faith. But the weapons of our faith are not bombs, or guns, or knives, or Anthrax. Our weapons are prayer, love, truth, faith and the Word of God. Anyone who is a “christian” who hurts or murders someone or advocates the doing of such things, even if it is while defending one’s faith is doing something against the very teachings of Jesus and is acting very un-christian-like.

“Bible-wielding”????????????????????
Everyone should be thankful one of them didn’t go off!

Shannon:
Also regarding to your previous comment to Erica: Anyone who has not repented of their sins and placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ is lost. But worse than that, the wrath of God abides on them because of their sins and they are in danger of hell. Why? Well, it has nothing to do with “religion” or having “something missing in their lives”. It has to do with forgiveness of sins. We have all (including me, you, Erica, and everyone in the gay pride event) broken God’s laws. God has said “Do not lie” yet we have all lied. God said, “Do not steal” yet we have all taken something that didn’t belong to us at some point (when and the value of the item is irrelevant). God said, “Do not take my name in vain” yet we have all done that at some point. Jesus said, “If you look at someone with lust you committ adultery in your heart” and God had said, “you shall not committ adultery”. Who has never looked at someone with lustful thoughts? Jesus says, “If you hate someone you are a murderer at heart” and God said “you shall not murder”. Who can say they have never hated at least one person at some point? So you see God being Holy and Just has said that He will punish sin wherever it is found. He declared that “the wages of sin is death” and “the soul that sins it shall die”. He will do this by sending those who have sinned to a place called Hell. And rightly so because we have broken His Laws. We have all done wrong and sinned. We all deserve Hell. But God also being rich in love and mercy did not desire for men and women to go to hell so He provided a way out of our predicament by coming down from heaven to Earth as Jesus Christ to die and take our punishment that we rightly deserved. You broke God’s Laws and Jesus paid your fine. It is as simple as that. So whoever repents of their sins and places their faith and trust in Jesus Christ will have eternal life and avoid the wrath of God and hell not because they deserve it but because of what Jesus has done for them. The choice is yours. It will never be forced on you. Neither by Christians or by God. It is for you to decide. However, the decision is a matter of life or death. If you reject God’s gift of love and mercy you are rejecting the only thing that can save you from Hell and, therefore, you choose to pay for your own sins. Ultimately, you choose death. I do not tell you these things because it is easy for me to say. I tell you because, even though I do not know you, I care what happens to you and I care what happens to others. I would not wish Hell on my worst enemy. But I can only tell you, I cannot choose for you. The decision is yours. Carefully consider what is being said and choose wisely.

Why aren’t these people repenting? They are acting very shamefully and are ruining themselves and others; Jesus could make them clean, if they would repent and believe what he says.

i was once asked if i had 3 wishes what would i ask for. i answered that all people were twice as intelligent, twice as compassionate and twice as wise. that will never happen so we will always have religions.

[...] Read the rest here: Bible-wielding couple arrested for trespassing at Pride – Minnesota Independent [...]

Don’t forget, dear Shannon, God wants you to live in fear of Hell that He created. God wants you to live in fear, Shannon. Just like Doc says. Don’t worry, there will always be people just like Doc to tell you what’s a sin and how to avoid it, because the list gets longer all the time. Remember, you need to live in fear to be saved….

Doc: Not sure how you can seperate religion from the Bible; they were both created by man.

God loves you so much, that he condemned you to eternal damnation based upon the actions of Adam and Eve (original sin), but if you accept Jesus according to whichever sect you want to follow (the rules are different for Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. etc. etc.), then you won’t be sent to hell because God loves you so much. Just not enough to not send billions of people to hell. Of course, God doesn’t want to send you to hell, that’s just the rules. Oh, God made the rules. Well, God can’t change the rules once he made them. That would make God all powerful. Oh, God is all powerful. Oh, well just remember how much God loves you and how much God doesn’t want to be forced to send you to hell. Got it?

Dave:
You can mock all you want. Mockery is usually used by those who have no intelligent arguement to make; so they mock. I do not live in fear, nor do you need to live in fear to be saved. In fact, If you knew anything of the bible you would know that Jesus said many times ” Do not fear”. What you do need is to be humble and admit that you have sinned and need forgiveness. But if you are like many your pride will not let you see the truth, so you reject it. I do not define what sin is, God does. And He has already given His Laws and said sin is transgression of those Laws. God has already spoken. No one can help you if you refuse to listen to Him.

Jerry:
I am sorry but your statement is not true. Religion and the Bible are not the same and indeed should be separated. Although the Bible was physically written by men the words contained therein are from God.

Re-read your post, Doc. Your post is full of the rhetoric of fear, then claim “nor do you need to live in fear” when called on it. Try being honest, at least with yourself.

Doc,
You wrote “Mockery is usually used by those who have no intelligent arguement to make; so they mock.”

I disagree. Mockery is usually used by those who see the ridiculousness of something. So they mock.

If you said “Making unfounded claims and asserting that they are true just because you believe them is used by those who have no intelligent argument to make, then I’m with you.

Doc, no need to preach the fire and brimstone crap at me. I was born and raised Roman Catholic. I know exactly what choices I am making. I’ve chosen empirical reasoning instead of make believe. I’m much happier and at peace with myself. There is no hell, so I’m not afraid to go there. Now being sent to the Bible Belt… that might be frightening.

“I am sorry but your statement is not true. Religion and the Bible are not the same and indeed should be separated. Although the Bible was physically written by men the words contained therein are from God.”

Boy Doc, you’d better read the Bible again; it’s full of inconsistencies, like the number of animals of each kind taken on the ark and many others. The men who wrote the bible may have felt they were inspired by God, but the words are not his. If they were, I would think a god could have done a better job of editing it. Also, doen’t the present-day bible exclude a lot of books for various reasons? Again, if they’re all God’s words, why did he allow these kinds of deletions?
Lastly, as been pointed out by others, if the Bible is God’s inspired word, why do many people pick and choose which rules should be enforced and which can be ignored? (Keeping slaves, killing witches, etc.)

Dave:
Don’t need to re-read my post, I wrote it. If you truly desire honesty you would honestly seek after the truth. If you are honest with yourself you would admit you have sinned and need God’s forgiveness. There is no rhetoric of fear in my post, only truth. I do not live in fear of Hell because Jesus has saved me from hell. Why would I be afraid of it? Now, you if you reject such a great gift of love and mercy from God it is you who should be very afraid. Jesus said that unless you repent you shall perish. Honestly.

Tim:
You have the right to disagree. But the Bible is not true because I believe it…I believe it because it’s true.

People; I am so tired of this gay thing that I could throw up. Don’t you people have anything else constructive to do? If you don’t agree with same sex marriage, good, then go your way, live your gospel principles and leave other people to do their own thing.

We all have been given the gift of agency. This means we have the right to choose what we do with the time alloted us in mortality. It is not right to infringe upon someone else’s choices. If people don’t believe that what they are doing is wrong, or violate the moral code of natural law, then leave them to find out on their own. There is a saying, “the more you stir s*** the worse it smells.” By continuing to give attention to a subject such as this does nothing but fuel the flames. Going on and on about this matter only shows our ignorance and lack of cultural. Stop it please!!

Shannon:
Wow. You claim to be Roman Catholic but proceed to call biblical truth “crap” and then claim there is no Hell. You are not even in agreement with your own religion. Roman Catholics believe in hell and God’s judgment. Catholicism teaches the Bible is the word of God. You don’t even know what your own religion teaches. Better give the Vatican a call. It is not a matter of being at peace with yourself but being at peace with God. It is not a matter of happiness but of righteousness. Should God not punish murderers and rapists? If a judge lets a murderer go even though he has admitted to the crime he would be a corrupt judge. For God to allow sinners into heaven He would be a corrupt judge. He isn’t corrupt. He is Holy and Just. Therefore, by His very nature He must punish sin. but He is so Holy that He will even punish liars and adulterers and blasphemers, not just murderers. If you truly used empirical reasoning you would believe the words of God because they are ture. The evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is overwhelming if you take the time to sudy it.

There Church probably would not because of what homos like to do to each other at gay pride sex nudity sodomy the gay life style is a perversion of Gods command and porpuse

Jerry:
You’d better read the Bible with an open mind for the first time. There are no inconsistencies in the Bible. None. It is remarkably consistent despite the fact that the scriptures contained within the Bible were written by 40 different people of all walks of life, on 4 different continents, over thousands of years yet all incredibly consistent in theme and content and message. The present day Bible does not exclude books. Those books were never viewed as “God breathed” (inspired by God) by the early Church. Those books were added later by the Roman Catholic church. As for people “picking and choosing” that is the result of fallible, sinful, imperfect humans trying to do things thier own way. That is why we have so many religions in the world and why I hate religion. Everyone trying to do it their own way. If we would all just stick to the truth God has revealed to everyone we wouldn’t have these issues. There are answers to all those questions you have (including the number of animals on the ark) if you are willing to seek them.

Jesus is gay.

Wow, what those crazy cultists won’t do to spread their hatred and fear. God is quite pissed off at these nutters, and the Taliban, and the rest of the psychotic oppressors. God would much rather they blamed their actions on something or someone else instead of blaming God for their destructive behaviors and inability to get along with the rest of society. God would also greatly appreciate it if they’d stop picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they want to follow and which they’d prefer to ignore. Yep, that came straight from God.

Nathaniel said it beautifully:”…we have the right to choose what we do with the time alloted us in mortality. It is not right to infringe upon someone else’s choices. If people don’t believe that what they are doing is wrong, or violate the moral code of natural law, then leave them to find out on their own.”

Dave:
I do not know of anyone who wishes to infringe in a person’s right to be a homosexual. This is not Iran. In this country you have the right to be a homosexual if that is what you desire. And I agree, rightly so. That is the freedom and liberty this country provides us through the grace of God. No one is trying to stop gays from being gay or from engaging in homosexual activities. However, even homosexuals need their sins forgiven and need to get right with God. Even homosexuals need salvation. We all do. That was the purpose of that “Bible wielding” couple’s presence at the Pride celebration. To bring the message of salvation to the gay community.

Doc, I said I was born and raised a Roman Catholic. That doesn’t mean I still am one. I’m an atheist.

“If you truly used empirical reasoning you would believe the words of God because they are ture. The evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is overwhelming if you take the time to sudy it.”

Just… no. There is no room for a deity in empiricism, because the existence of a deity cannot be proven. You clearly do not understand empiricism very well, or you would know this.

I HAVE taken the time to study the bible; I went to church twice a week for 18 years. I concluded that the bible is about as important to my life as Aesop’s fables are. If you want to take the bible as the absolute divine truth handed down to us from God, you go right ahead. But you don’t have the right to force your opinions upon others, especially those of us who have indeed studied religious texts in detail and made up our own minds. I am my own judge, I don’t need some scary invisible overlord to force me to live an ethical life and prevent me from murdering people. I am strong enough to do so on my own.

“…No one is trying to stop gays from being gay or from engaging in homosexual activities.” Then why would anybody fight keeping discrimination legal? Funny it’s always the same crowd, and a lot of them speak just like you, Doc.

“That was the purpose of that “Bible wielding” couple’s presence at the Pride celebration. To bring the message of salvation to the gay community.” .. Umm, noooo, Doc, be honoest. Their purpose was to share the message that “homosexuality is a sin.” Any rational, aware person would find that sort of in-your-face proselytizing offensive.

You can’t get anymore empirical than Jesus’ eye witnesses. So, Jesus has been proved.

Shannon:
I’m sorry but the existence of a dowry (God) can be proven. It is proven with simple logic and reasoning. If you see a building how do you know there was a builder? Even if you never see the builder what kind of evidence would you need to know there was a builder? Would not the existence of the building be absolute proof there was a builder? Yes, because buildings don’t build themselves. The same is true for creation and a creator. The fact that this universe and every living thing in it exists is proof that there is a creator (i.e.- diety).
And if you have taken the time to properly study the Bible you would know of the overwhelming archeological evidence confirming the accuracy of the bible, plus the overwhelming manuscript evidence of the bible, and the overwhelming prophetic evidence of the bible. The evidence is overwhelming to the point that to deny it is to bury your head in the sand.
Neither I nor anyone else is “forcing” my opinion on you. Relax, no need to be so defensive. This is not Iran. No one is putting a gun to your head and “forcing” you to take on these “opinions” as your own. Your are sadly mistaken when you sat you are your own judge. I pray God may have mercy on your soul.

what a bunch of ignorant bible thumpers here!

Moderate the boards, do we?

Screw this little conversation, since you allow limited discourse.

They support their claims with a 3000 year old Hebrew law that tells priests how to live. It also forbids playing with the skin of a pig. Why don’t they pass out their Bibles at a Packer game?

Doc-and YOU would know what God or Jesus have to say about homosexuality or anything in the bible word for word for that matter? That’s hilarious. The bible is nothing more than interpretations written down by MAN, not God or Jesus, and this is one of the reasons why am an atheist. I have a difficult time taking the “word” of God when it was written by man. Finally, wouldn’t it be much more productive to help those who are poor and impoverished (like Jesus did) than to spread such negative energy like Sally Kern and her disgusting ilk? I think so.

I should have noted that when I went to church as a child I was taught through lessons and by actions that Jesus DID help the poor and impoverished, contrary to what that bible expert Doc has to say. And it was through him that I learn to apply the golden rule with other people. Too bad the bible bangers today don’t do that.

I am left with one question: Doc, of which version of the bible do you speak? I see three on my shelf in front of me right now. I am no scholar, but I can tell that each one of them uses different words, all written in English, and each one is a translation of previous texts. I also know there were many versions that came before these. I am told, there have been significant changes made since the original transcripts were written. One example is how current bibles refer to God as the “Father.” The original word for God had no sex assigned to it, and by assigning a sex, the editors have greatly affected the interpretation of the entire book. Many men don’t believe this change has influenced the real meaning of the word but many women I know disagree. So which version of the bible do you consider the one inspired by God that is all truth? Do you think each of the editors through the passage of time was equally inspired by God or is it possible that they were influenced even the tiniest bit by the religion that they subscribed to at the time? Possibly even the religious organization that was feeding them and providing them shelter. You tell us now that you don’t align with organized religion because it has been unduly influenced by man, but did you pause to consider the bible you are reading today may have been possibly altered by a religious organization in the past?

Psalms???

Oh for pete’s sake!

Grow up and use your head for something besides a hatrack!

I scoff at your god(s) and laugh aloud that anyone with half a mind can read the bible (any version thereof) and take it as the gospel truth!

Ignorant fools!

Heaven doesn’t await your timely death, nor does hell. Live your life free and happily!

Dave:
You asked why would anyone fight to keep discrimination legal. Who is trying to keep discrimination legal? Who here has said that gays should be discriminated against or even that the current laws in place allow or permit for discrimination of homosexuals? Legally, homosexual citizens in this country have the same rights as non-homosexuals. Also, there are no laws in this country against being homosexual. So I am not sure you understand what is going on here. What is offensive is not the “in your face” proselytizing as you put it but the message being brought to them. They hate the truth and the light because they love their sins and the darknesss. That is why they are offended. But really this has nothing to do with their homosexuality because it is a sin just like any other. Even if they were not homosexual they would still be sinners and in need of repentance and in need of God’s forgiveness in order to be saved just like everyone else.

Erica:
The Bible was written (physically) by men but the words contained in scripture are “God breathed”. In other words, they were inspired by God and esentially are what God wanted written down. The Bible is supernatural in origin because no man can predict the future and there are hundreds of prophesies written in the Bible that were written hundreds and thousands of years before they were fullfilled. Man would not be able to predict the future unless the information came from a supernatural source. Also, archeological finds have time and time again proven the accuracy of the Bible. There has never been any archeological find that has proven anything in the Bible to be innaccurate yet there have been thousands of archeological finds that have confirmed that what is written in the Bbile is accurate. The reason you are an atheist is because you love your sins and do not want to give them up not because the bible was “written by men” or because there is no proof of the Bible’s reliability. It would be better if people repented of their sins and placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ because then there would be no more poor or impoverished. Jesus is not a soup kitchen. He did not come down to feed the poor or help the impoverished or to show us how to do this. He came to provide a sacrifice for us so that our sins could be forgiven by God and we could have eternal life. Helping the poor and the impoverished is something we do because we love our fellow man. I don’t know how warning people that God has declared a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness and that all those who die in their sins will be judged and sent to Hell but God being rich in love and mercy and because He loved us instead sacrificed His Son so that those who repent and believe in Jesus would be forgiven for their sins and receive eternal life is somehow “negative energy”. It is the most positive news anyone could give or receive.

Erica:
I never said Jesus did not feed the poor or help the impoverished. He very much did. But, for one, He did those things to also provide spititual truths and realities not just to fill people’s stomaches. And if that is all you know about Jesus it only demonstartes that you have not read or studied the Bible with much detail because you have missed the whole point of why He came and why He died.

Jo Jo:
There is only one “version” of Holy scripture. Those are seen in the original manuscripts. However, there are in existence different translations of the Bible. Some are poor translations and some are completely accurate translations of the original manuscripts. The good “versions” are not translations of previous texts, as you say, but are direct translations of the original manuscripts. And although there may be certain words that are translated differently it does not change the overall meaning of the text. The most reliable Bibles, and the ones I use, are those that were translated directly from the original manuscripts. Many of the Bibles we have today are exactly the same as Bibles in the First century and exactly the same as the original manuscript except translated into modern language (English). So there have not been “changes” from the original manuscripts, as you say, in the King James, NIV bibles for example.
While it is true the original word for God has no sex assigned to it the word “God” in modern translations also do not assign a sex to that word. So when the original word for God was used in the original manuscript the word “God” (non-sexual) is used in modern translations. But God Himself refers to Himself as a “Father” and the word Father is used in the original manuscripts to describe God. Even Jesus refers to “my Father in heaven”. The original manuscript does not say “My God in heaven” and then modern translations translated it to read “My Father in heaven”. If that is what you have been told you have been misinformed. If the original manuscript uses the Hebrew word for God, then it is translated as “God” (Engilsh). If the original manuscript uses the Hebrew word “father” then the word “Father” is used in English. The Bible has not been edited as you claim. It has only been transcribed and translated. That is why scribes spent years and years stuck in a monastary transcribing the original manuscripts painstakingly, not just word for word, but letter by letter so as not to alter the scriptures. The reason I know this is because I have indeed “paused to consider” the origin of the Bible I read as you asked. We have over 24,000 of the original manuscripts all exactly the same word for word so the evidence is abundant and clear.

ZNOFOB:

“A fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’!” (Psalm 14:1)

Doc thinks there’s an original manuscript somewhere that we can check. I’ll bet he also thinks that the written language of the day translates directly into English. Remember, sometimes the dead sea scroll writers lived in caves.

“Legally, homosexual citizens in this country have the same rights as non-homosexuals. ” This statement constitutes further proof that you are either ignorant or dishonest.

“Who is trying to keep discrimination legal? ” For example, every group that has help fight the passage of ENDA. This statement constitutes further proof that you are either ignorant or dishonest.

Doc Says “What is offensive is not the “in your face” proselytizing as you put it but the message being brought to them.” ………yeah, I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of people being proselytized to these days are somewhat offended by it when the religions are not close enough. For example, you just don’t see Wiccans or Unitarians or even most Catholics harassing people and getting away with it. There mostly happy to do their own thing, maybe accept the ones who go looking for them, and pretty much keep to themselves. A perfect example that you and everybody like you should follow, Doc.

Doc Says “They hate the truth and the light because they love their sins and the darknesss. That is why they are offended. But really this has nothing to do with their homosexuality because it is a sin just like any other. ” ……I think this is what the Christian community calls “Righteousness.” Wonderful, isn’t it?

Dave:

Dave seems to think that there are no biblical manuscripts despite the fact that there are over 24,000 of such manuscripts. I am sorry that you are ignorant of this fact.

““Legally, homosexual citizens in this country have the same rights as non-homosexuals. ” This statement constitutes further proof that you are either ignorant or dishonest.”

Then please cite which current federal laws specifically allows for the discrimination of homosexuals. Which laws specifically state that homosexuals do not have certain rights or which laws deny homosexuals certain rights. There are none. But I’ll wait for your example.

“For example, you just don’t see Wiccans or Unitarians or even most Catholics harassing people and getting away with it.”

Maybe because those religions do not have anything worthwhile to offer, such as eternal life and forgiveness of sins. And it is not harrassment. If I had the cure to cancer would you prefer I “keep it to myself”? If I had the cure to cancer but never bothered telling anyone about it what kind of person would I be? You would prefer for Christians to keep quiet that way you do not have to be confronted about your sins and unrighteousness. But it would be to your detriment and everyone elses.

“I think this is what the Christian community calls “Righteousness.” Wonderful, isn’t it?”

Yes, righteousness. And it is wonderful. Righteousness means being right in God’s eyes. Self-righteousness is different. Self-righteousness is claiming to be tolerant of others but villifying anyone who disagree with you. Self-righteousness is telling others their wrong but refusing to acknowledge their own wrongdoings. And so you know, the reason I am a Christian is because I am a terrible sinner. I have done wrong. God has revealed that to me through His Laws which are His standards of truth and righteousness. I have looked in the mirror of God’s Laws and have been found wanting. I implore you to do the same. Your life, your eternal soul, depends on it.

Show us an original manuscript, Doc. I’m sure someone has scanned it in and put it on the internet. Show us some documents that verify where it came from, who wrote it, etc.

Doc says “Then please cite which current federal laws specifically allows for the discrimination of homosexuals. Which laws specifically state that homosexuals do not have certain rights or which laws deny homosexuals certain rights. There are none.”……………………………..More dishonesty. Doc probably knows or at least, is ignorant of, how the law works. It is legal to fire gays from their jobs for their sexual preference because it has not been specifically banned, not that there is some law that specifically allows it. Thus with technical correct but very deceitful wording, Doc can claim “There are none.” How far away is that from bearing false witness, Doc? Not far enough.

This reply of Doc’s is worth repeating:…………“For example, you just don’t see Wiccans or Unitarians or even most Catholics harassing people and getting away with it.”

“Maybe because those religions do not have anything worthwhile to offer, such as eternal life and forgiveness of sins.”

“Your life, your eternal soul, depends on it.”……….sounds like you’re trying to say I should be afraid, Doc. You don’t live in fear, do you? You wouldn’t want that for your fellow Americans, do ya? To live in fear?

Doc says: “You would prefer for Christians to keep quiet that way you do not have to be confronted about your sins and unrighteousness.” ….. If the confronted believes that what you would call “sins and unrighteousness” are an acceptable or even essential part of their lives, they have every right to be offended. Lots of behavior, offensive to only some, is not legal in public.

Interesting how Andy puts “born again Christians” in quotation marks as if it’s some sort of strange, questionable phrase, but doesn’t do the same with gay.

As far as I’m concerned, gay will always mean happy… not homosexual.

Dave:
A very quick and rudimentary search of “biblical manuscripts” in Wikipedia discusses all the biblical manuscripts discovered and total counts. Dave, they even have pictures. Oh my!

You were the one that said discrimination of gays was legal yet admitted that there is no specific law that allows it. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Who is the dishonest one? And for the record, I am for ENDA.

“You don’t live in fear, do you?”

No I do not. Why should I? My sins have been forgiven by a merciful God. Jesus has saved me from the wrath of God and from Hell. How about you? If not, then, yes, I would be afriad if I were you. But you don’t have to be if you repent of your sins and place your faith and trust in Jesus Christ, the Savior. Because then you can rest, without fear, on God’s promises of forgiveness of sin and eternal life. I don’t want my fellow Americans to live in fear. I also don’t want them to go to Hell. That is why I share the good news of the gospel with them.

You said: “If the confronted believes that what you would call “sins and unrighteousness” are an acceptable or even essential part of their lives, they have every right to be offended”

The only one that has a right to be offended is God. That is because He has given you (us) life and you (we) have spit in His face by refusing to obey His Commandments and living sinful lives. I did not deem these things “sinful or unrighteous”, God did. What man calls acceptable God says is an abomination and considers sin to be exceedingly sinful to the point He says: “And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.” (Matthew 18:9) The only thing that is “acceptable or even essential part of their lives” is what God declares “acceptable and essential”. He makes the rules; not you, me, or anyone else.

Why is ENDA even necessary? Re-read my post, Doc.

Where is the original manuscript for Genesis, then?

Doc says “The only one that has a right to be offended is God.” I’ll bet you have a lot of non-Christian friends.

Most of your answers speak pretty well for themselves, Doc, and match things I have heard and read elsewhere from people like you. In between all the jibberish, that is. Thanks!

Dave:

“Why is ENDA even necessary?”

Ultimately because people do discriiminate but not because it is legal to do so but because people are fallible. But if individuals would treat others as they would like to be treated themselves (a biblical and christian concept) ENDA would be irrelevant. I believe people should be hired on their qualifications to do the job, period, regardless of any other factor. However, if there was something intrinsic about the candidate that prohibited them from performing the duties of that particular job then the employer has the right not to hire them. For example, if a pedophile applied for a job at a local school, the school should have the right to refuse employment for obvious reasons. OR if a man applied for a job as dorm attendant at an all girls school, they have the right not to hire them soley based on the fact that he is a man. But really shouldn’t there just be a general law making discrimination illegal based on anything other than job qualifications, period? Why add all these specifics? When will it end? We have race, gender, religion, and likely soon to be sexual preference. What if later someone wishes to add pet owners to the list, or single people, or people with big noses? Why not just make a general law not allowing discrimination period without getting into this ridiculous political game of making provisions for each specific group of people? The list will eventually be endless when it could have been taken care of with a simple law that states individuals should be hired based on qualifications period and not based on any other factor.

Dave:

“Where is the original manuscript for Genesis, then?”

St. Petersburg, Russia, in the Russian National Library (Saltykov-Shchedrin), where it has been since the mid-1800′s.

“I’ll bet you have a lot of non-Christian friends.”

As a matter of fact, I do.

“Most of your answers speak pretty well for themselves, Doc, and match things I have heard and read elsewhere from people like you. In between all the jibberish, that is.”

“People like you”? Wow, talk about being biased and intolerant. I hope I have been clear and well understood in my “conversation”. If there is something you didn’t understand let me kow and I will try to explain it better. If you can find something I said that is untrue or incorrect let me know and I will apologize. Unfortuneatly, you have a lot of misinformation and are ignorant on what is true especially regarding Christianity. Your sins blind you and do not let you see the truth.

So, these are God’s words?

When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.
Exodus 21:20-21

For those who believe that the bible is word-for-word truth, how do you explain verses like this that are inherently wrong?

So the SOMALIS who HARASSED A GAY MAN weren’t arrested but these two were? FOR GIVING AWAY BIBLES?

Just WAIT of the HATE CRIMES LAW, and all Christians will be rounded up and killed.

Get your guns and ammo ready folks, it’s time to start a hot war.

The subject of the veracity or lack of same, in the bible reminds me that of the many stories in the bible, are not “original” in the bible. The first one, genesis, has been shown to be an abbreviated version of a much much older script from Sumeria, copies of which were found in Akkadian, called “Enuma Elish” or, “when in the heights..”. It tells how the gods (plural, as in elohim) decided to make man as a slave and servant, and the pictures on the texts show man as serving the GODS as naked, treated mostly as a highly functioning slave. It said the chief god was En.ki who was the chief science officer of the nefilim, or those who from heaven to earth came. The mother of us all was called Nin.hur.sag, and she was the Nefilim’s birth goddess who took the ‘essence’ from a young male god, and mixed it with the essence of a young female ape-person they’d captured, and oila’ man was made. This was written several thousand years before the texts that make up the bible were written down. Explain that if you can!!

Zoe:
You claim those verses are inherintly wrong. According to who? You? The problem is you do not know the proper hermaneutics for reading the Bible. If you understand the Old Testament and history you would know that slavery was in existence at that time. God was establishing His Laws for the Hebrew people. It does not make any inferences to the morality of slavery. It does not say that slavery is good or acceptable. It does not condone slavery from an ethical standpoint but only seeks to establish rules and limits for the practices of that time. God often works within the framework of man’s sinful world system for His purposes. And if you are concerned that by saying “for the slave is the owner’s property” it somehow means that God was establishing or condoning slavery, don’t be. The intention of that verse is only to state a fact regarding the existing system of slavery and not seeking to establish slavery because at that time a slave was the owner’s property. Also, the system of slavery used by the Isrealites at that time was not the same as slavery of blacks in the south. At that time if you owed something to someone but could not pay your debt you offered yourself as a “slave” for a period of time to pay off your debt. After you served your time basically as an “employee” for that person you were free from your debt and were free to go. What God was establishing was to protect “slaves” and prevent their abuse. And do not forget that later on it was the work of Christians in England and eventually in the US that lead to the ending of slavery in those countries.

Terry:
Yes I can explain that. The explanation is that you have been misinformed. The biblical “stories”, as you call them, are indeed original and true. They are historically accurrate and are confirmed to be accurrate and true by history, archeology, and science. Much of the information you cited is erroneus. Genesis has not be shown to be anything other than Old Testament scripture from the Hebrew Torah. It has not been shown to be an abbreviated version of anything. I am sorry but your data is incorrect.

Zoe:
You can not just read the Bibble and just expect to understand like you are reading a book. You need a proper Christian translation. Otherwise you will be “ignorant on what is true.”

JOE says “Just WAIT of the HATE CRIMES LAW, and all Christians will be rounded up and killed. ”

It’s the rapture coming, JOE, get ready!

Doc

You said to Terry that the bible stories are true. Most of them are not. Most of them were hypothetical stories by a man that was a teacher named Jesus. Even the original christians claimed him to be a man and not the son of god. He was sentenced to death by the Jewish leaders of his time for heresey. He started to claim to be the son of god. He did not become accepted as the son of god untill after 300bc. Many of the stories have been changed through out the centuries. Daniel was originaly a woman and the lions that protected her were female lions. The premise to the story was female empowerment but the christian leaders were chauvenistic pigs that wanted to control and abuse their wives. So that story had to change. Eve was not the first woman. The original woman would not submit to Adam so he had god kill her and make a new one. There are many stories in the bible that have been changed or omitted to better control the population. Yes a man named Jesus existed also Job and Lot. David existed as well as Solomon. Mohammed also existed and was a prophet. The difference between Mohammed and Jesus is that the later went off the deep end and claimed to be god’s son. Charlie Manson also claimed to be the son of god didn’t he? Maybe in 4000 years there will be a large following of people that believe that as well. Now Doc I am sure that you will leave a lengthy post trying to debunk what I have said, do not bother I am not going to check to see what you have written. I will leave all of you out there with this simple task, do your own freekin research. Don’t take for granted what the bible says or what the first athiest web page you find says. Do actual historical research. This is alot of work, but if you are going to blindly believe what other people tell you to believe you might as well just stay at home and play Xbox.

Ciao all and enjoy the sun and the flowers. All people deserve to live free from all persecution.

MPB

mpb:

Wow! Just wow! Even though you (mbp) state that you will not read my response (why would you. Why would you want to hear the actual truth) I must respond so that others who may read this may not be deceived as you have been. other than your first and last sentence, everything you wrote is complete and utter fabrication. It is a web of lies that you have, unfortuneatly, been caught up in. Where did you get all this erroneous information? It is just so completely off the wall that does not even merit direct rebuttal that is how stupid it is. Not even the most liberal biblical scholars say the foolishness that you just wrote. What you just wrote is the most idiotic, insane, incoherent garbage that anyone has ever read. Everyone is now dumber for having read what you just wrote. I do slightly agree that there are only 3 possibilities with regards to who Jesus was: 1) either He was crazy (as you mention those who claim to be the Son of God are)[He thought He was the Son of God but really wasn't] 2) He was a liar [He knew He was not the Son of God but claimed to be anyways] or 3) He actually was the Son of God. Everyone has to decide for themselves which one of the 3 Jesus was. But choose carefully and wisely because the decision is a matter of life and death. Eternal life and eternal death. But before you decide first get a clue. Do not be deceived like mpb has been. There are great biblical resources out there that study the bible in depth with proper hermaneutics, in the proper context and from the original language.

You forgot #4, Doc : He was made up by religious zealots.

“Not even the most liberal biblical scholars”

Does that include the ones that aren’t Christians, Doc?

Dave:
Again, Dave, yes, even non-Christian biblical scholars that are credible don’t say Jesus never existed and was “made up by religious zealots”. I am sorry to say but you are clueless.

Doc

You state that MPB is stupid and has caused everyone to become dumb just by reading that post. Actualy you are the one that is blind to the truth. The first council at Nicaea in 385ad (I believe that is the correct date) actualy debated the very stories about Adam and Eve and did change the story of Daniel. What you need to understand is that the council was ecumenical. Now what that means is that it only included people from the Roman empire. And those that were invited pretty much all taught the same christian beliefs. There were not many dissenting voices. The story of Eve originated long before Jesus was ever born. She had no spouse just a living phallus created for her own sexual pleasure, the serpent. Some ancient people considered Eve and the serpent the original parents. The secret of God’s “Name of power,” the Tetragrammaton, was that three-quarters of it invoked not God – but Eve. YHWH, yod-he-vau-he, came from the Hebrew root HWH, meaning both “life” and “woman” – in Latin letters, E-V-E. With the addition of an “I” (yod), it amounted to the Goddess’s invocation of her name as the Word of creation, a common idea in Egypt and other ancient lands. Doc, you really need to actualy study what you claim to know because it is you who is SOUNDING stupid and ignorant.

John:
Again, Wow! Thank you for contributing to making everyone a little dumber. Are you from the same erroneous organization as mpb? Where do you guys get these fanciful stories and plainly erroneous information? Do you just sit around and make up stories in an attempt to discredit the Bible and Christianity? Try if you must, but you will not succeed. People have been trying for 2,000 years but christianity remains and the Bible remains the top selling book year after year. If you are serious then you also have been deceived. Your father the devil is a liar and he is the Father of lies.
So as to not have lies and erroneous information floating around I will correct your errors.
The First Council of Nicea was called by Emperor Constantine to quell the growing heresy regarding the person of Jesus Christ. At that time there were groups of people teaching false doctrine (heresy) regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ (not unlike today). The Council was called mainly to deal with this disunity within the Church and to come to one accord regarding who was Jesus Christ in an effort to promote unity in the Church. The end result was the writing of and accepting of the Nicene Creed AFFIRMING the deity of Jesus Christ. They did not make it up at the time, they affirmed what the scriptures had already declared to be true and what was already being taught as orthodox christianity. That was the big topic that was dealt with at the council of Nicea. Other issues such how the date to celebrate Easter should be calculated and other Church issues were discussed. NOWHERE did the Council discuuss changes to scripture. That is a pure, flat out fabricated lie. There is no evidence that the stories of Adam and Eve or the story of Daniel was discussed let alone changed. What proof do you have of this? Unless you can come up with proof from historical records it is made up lies. As for the council being ecumenical, that was the point. But that does not mean that it only included people from the Roman empire that all taught the same christian beliefs. The very fact that it was ecumenical means the opposite of what you claim it means. Ecumenical means that all parties within the Church are invloved. It includes all parties within and without who agreed and disagreed. Therefore, bishops from the East and the West were invited and participated in the Council not just those of the Roman empire. Get your facts and definitions straight before you comment on things you do not know about. For completions sake the following is a list of topics discussed at the Council of Nicea according to historical records:

Main topics included:

The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being;
The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
The Meletian schism;
The validity of baptism by heretics;
The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius

Other topics covered:
1. prohibition of self-castration; (see Origen)
2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen;
3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion;
4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan;
5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually;
6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome, for their respective regions;
7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem;
8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists;
9–14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius;
15–16. prohibition of the removal of priests;
17. prohibition of usury among the clergy;
18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist;
19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics;
20. prohibition of kneeling during the liturgy, on Sundays and in the fifty days of Eastertide (“the pentecost”). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics. (In time, Western Christianity adopted the term Pentecost to refer to the last Sunday of Eastertide, the fiftieth day.)[35]

Regarding your other comments regarding Adam and Eve I think your comment of “She had no spouse just a living phallus created for her own sexual pleasure, the serpent” speaks for itself. Such vile stupidity is not worth commenting on. Unbelievable!

Doc: Your antagonism towards those who don’t agree with you is hardly the epitome of Christianity.

Paul:
Those who make the outrageous claims above are not just people “who don’t agree” with me, as if that even matters. They are people who deliberately fabricate lies against the truth or propogate those lies which, in turn, results in the deception of many others. It is dangerous. Any antagonism is an imperfect attempt to confront the lies and untruths that has been so destructive to so many lives and is born out of frustration against the relentless assault against the truth. If one stands for the truth one must be antagonistic, in the true sense of the definition, against lies. However, I thank you for bringing to my attention any unloving and unkind attitudes I may possibly exhibit towards those I interact with. It was not my intention. I will try to do better.

Doc

Wow you are an odd duck. I use the council of nicaea (CON) to show that christians could not agree on the status of Jesus in relation to their religion a mere 300 years after his death. After Constatin died, his son, Constantius abolished the creed that was produced by the CON and exiled priests that continued to follow it. This was a mere 10 years after the CON. There has been many councils and synods since because christians can’t even agree among themselves on the relationship between Jesus and their faith. Judaism says that Jesus is a “stumbling block”. Islam (which is based on the torah, nevi’im, and the ketuvim) says that Jesus is a prophet that ascended to heaven alive. The old testament has been accepted as a mostly historicaly accurate book where as the new testament, of which I assume you follow mostly, contradicts itself. The first four books don’t even fully agree on the geneology of Jesus. I believe Mark states that Jesus is decendent from the kings Solomon and David. Luke states that he is decendent from the priest Levi. In my research I have noticed that biblical christianity has been in a constant state of evolution. Genesis says that god created the universe in 7 days but now you have intelligent design. Which is it? And will you call other christians that have a different view on this heretics and the sons of satan? The story of Eve and the serpent I used above is to show that many of your beliefs are not original. Many christian beliefs are based on pagan stories. I do not appreciate being called stupid and vile because I don’t agree with your absolutism. You really need to look at yourself and try to figure out why you are so hateful.

John:
“Wow you are an odd duck”
I will take that as a compliment.

“I use the council of nicaea (CON) to show that christians could not agree on the status of Jesus in relation to their religion a mere 300 years after his death.”

That is an erroneous statement. Around the time of the council of Nicea Christianity was at its birth and individuals began teaching different doctrines regarding Jesus (which Jesus and His disciples previously said would happen). The Council, in fact, demonstrates that Christians could come together and agree on the status of Jesus. That was the whole point of the council; to officially and collectively establish the truth regarding Christ as a church and to refute heresy. The truth regarding the deity of Christ was already known and being taught by many. Those who taught differently were described in the Bible as “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. And although this was the beginings of the development of the Roman Catholic Church it had nothing to do with religion and more with keeping order within the church and promoting the truth while refuting error.

“There has been many councils and synods since because christians can’t even agree among themselves on the relationship between Jesus and their faith.”

That is because many did not adhere to the truth of scripture and wanted to do it their own way. (which is typical of man). Man does not establish what is true; God does. In my opinion, this is where the Church began to go astray. Rather than sticking to the truth as God had revealed through scripture, men began coming up with their own doctrines and traditions, many of which were unbiblical. Thus, we have the Roman Catholic Church as it is today. But regardless of that, the scriptures remain true and accurrate and have been unchanged in content since they were first written and that is what we should rely on. That is why I do not like religion. The things you speak of relate mostly to religion and religios objections which is different from the truth as found in Jesus Christ.

“The old testament has been accepted as a mostly historicaly accurate book where as the new testament, of which I assume you follow mostly, contradicts itself.”

A truth, followed by an assumption, followed by another erroneous statement.
I agree the Old Testament is a historically accurrate book.(truth) I follow both the Old and New Testament(assumption is that I mostly follow the NT). The Old Testament testifies of Jesus Christ. The New Testament contains the gospels (Historical accounts of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ/Messiah), and epistles to the churches regarding doctrine and theology. You are mistaken. The New Testament does not in any way contradict itself (erroneous statement) nor contradcit the Old Testament for that matter.

“The first four books don’t even fully agree on the geneology of Jesus”

You are mistaken. First, only 2 of the gospels even provide the geneolgy of Jesus. Matthew and Luke. Not all 4. Secondly, the geneologies are not contradcitory but completely different lines because Matthew was following the legal & royal line of descent to Joseph, whereas Luke was following the natural & blood line of descent to Mary. Maintaining of genealogies was an important Jewish custom. It was also critical for Jesus, as the promised Messiah, to be able to demonstrate that He was indeed descended from both Abraham and David, otherwise His claim to be the long awaited Messiah would be regarded by the Jews as invalid. Thus, Matthew begins his gospel record with this statement, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). Jesus is called the “Christ” … the anointed. His claim to be the Messiah is declared in the very first statement of the NT canon, and the basis of that assertion is immediately declared: He is descended from both David and Abraham, the two men to whom the promise was made by God. Unto Abraham it was promised, “And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 22:18). The apostle Paul explains — “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ” (Gal. 3:16).The Jews knew only too well that the promised Messiah would descend from both Abraham and David. Any person claiming to be that Messiah would have to demonstrate legitimate descent from both men. Matthew writes for Jewish Christians in order to establish them in their faith that Jesus is the Christ promised in the Old Testament. It is absolutely vital, then, that we should know that Jesus Christ is the direct and true descendant of Abraham through David. For if He were not, He could not possibly be the Messiah. The two lists likely serve different functions and should not be interpreted as contradictory. Matthew’s genealogy presents Joseph as the legal father of Jesus, which makes Jesus legally the heir of David and of Abraham. If Jesus had been born without a legal father, of Mary without a legal husband, His legal right to the inheritance from Abraham and David by virtue of the divine promise would have been void. Although Joseph was clearly not the natural father of Jesus (having been conceived by the Holy Spirit of God), he nevertheless was considered the legal father, which would have sufficed legally to assure Jesus of His place in the lineage of Joseph. However, to remove all possible doubt, Luke traces the lineage of our Lord Jesus back to David and Abraham through Mary, thus establishing the physical and blood right of Jesus to be counted a descendant of these two men to whom the promises were given. Therefore, both genealogies were actually needed to make the case for Jesus, as His origin was unique among men. Luke, in contrast to Matthew, traces the ancestry of Jesus to Adam. The significance of the genealogy in Luke probably lies in the emphasis on Jesus as a member of the human race, a son of Adam. This would be a natural emphasis for one writing primarily for a Gentile audience. It relates the Messiah to all men, whereas the emphasis of Matthew, writing for a Jewish audience, was far more concerned to show Jesus as the rightful, legal heir of David’s throne, and the fulfillment of promise to both David and Abraham. In other words, there is no contradiction.

“I believe Mark states that Jesus is decendent from the kings Solomon and David. Luke states that he is decendent from the priest Levi.”

Again, no. You are misinformed. Please read above.

“In my research I have noticed that biblical christianity has been in a constant state of evolution.”

Your research may show that Christian religions may be in a constant state of evolution but biblical christianity is not and has not been. And they are not one and the same. Your sources for your research may be erroneous or inadequate. That is because biblical christianity is founded on the Holy Scriptures and has not changed since the time of Christ and the apostles.

“Genesis says that god created the universe in 7 days but now you have intelligent design. Which is it?”

Genesis states that God created the universe in 6 days, not 7. On the 7th day He rested. Intellegint design in no way refutes this or is contradictory to this. Intelligent design only states that the universe and everything in it was created by an intelligent being (i.e.- God). That in no way contradicts the account found in Genesis. Intelligent design does not address how God created as Genesis does but only that the creation reflects the work of an intelligent Creator.

“The story of Eve and the serpent I used above is to show that many of your beliefs are not original. Many christian beliefs are based on pagan stories.”

More erroneous statements. The accounts of the Old Testament and New Testament are historically accurrate and have been proven true using extra-biblical historical documents, archeology, and science as well as the prophetic accuracy contained within it’s pages. What proof do you have to make such claims? You don’t have any.

“I do not appreciate being called stupid and vile because I don’t agree with your absolutism.”

I did not call you stupid nor vile but only stated that what you said was stupid and vile. Also, I provided you with historically accurate information regarding the historical accounts of the Council of Nicea that refuted your erroneous information but you never addressed that only focused on the “stupid and vile” comment. Was it because you do not have proof that what you claimed at the Council of Nicea ever really happened? I wonder.

“You really need to look at yourself and try to figure out why you are so hateful.”

I am not hateful nor do I hate you. My question to you is why do you hate God so much that you fight against Him?

This guy “Doc” says “I am sorry to say but you are clueless.” I take that as a compliment from people like this.

He also said “Those who make the outrageous claims above are not just people “who don’t agree” with me, as if that even matters. They are people who deliberately fabricate lies against the truth or propogate those lies which, in turn, results in the deception of many others. It is dangerous.”

What pathetic arrogance. I’m sure how he really feels about “those who make the outrageous claims above” is much more severe. This is someone who may never have had any awareness of any reality outside of his little Biblical world, except to label it as “stupid and vile,” since childhood. It’s pointless trying to discuss conflicting facts with people like this; that is, except for what the answer reveals about them. Anything in conflict is automatically a lie that can’t be “confirmed to be accurate and true by history, archeology, and science.” Totalitarianism is okie-dokie in the name of God.

Then it should be no surprise how someone like this would never see anyone’s differing beliefs as worthy of respect, in this example, why Pride goers might not like being told that they are sinners for being gay, might even be offended, because he is not capable of viewing it or anything like it outside that viewpoint, because that would be “fighting against God.” Probably can’t even imagine that somebody that was deeply familiar with Christianity might choose to walk away from the all-consuming nature of it and somehow not “hate God,” that they must be trapped in “a web of lies” against their will, presumably.

“They are people who deliberately fabricate lies against the truth or propogate those lies which, in turn, results in the deception of many others. It is dangerous.” Dangerous that someone might come to believe differently, apparently. Again, Totalitarianism is okie-dokie in the name of God.

Dave:
What you fail to realize is that what is being discussed here is not a matter of “opinion”. This is not just a discussion regarding “differing of opinions” but a matter of truth vs. error. A matter of truth vs. untruth. You and I are not the authors of truth. God is the author of truth and the truth does not change. So, you see, this is not a simple discussion about what our favorite foods are or what our favorite colors are. You may say that the color blue is the best color and I may say the color red is the best color. That is a differing of opinion. Whether the Bible is true and the Word of God, whether Jesus is God, whether lying and stealing is wrong are not a matter of opinion. It is either true or it is not. I don’t know what “Totalitairianism” has to do with it. While I do respect other’s opinions because those are subjective claims that have nothing to do with being true or not, if I know something is true why would I consent to something that is not true? If you know something is absolutely true about a particular matter then everything else that is oppossed to that truth is not true and to accept the other thing as equally true is absurd.
One of your statements, however, is very telling. You said: “Probably can’t even imagine that somebody that was deeply familiar with Christianity might choose to walk away from the all-consuming nature of it and somehow not “hate God,””. If you are “deeply familiar” with Christianity then you would know as fact whether it is true or not. If you are “deeply familiar” with Christianity then you would know that Jesus said, “unless you repent you will perish”. You would also know that God hates sin, God will punish sin by casting unforgiven sinners into Hell for all eternity, you would also know that God, being rich in love and mercy, provided atonement through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ so that all who repent of their sins and place their trust in Jesus Christ will have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life. If you are “deeply familiar” with Christianity and knew all that why would anyone in their right mind “choose to walk away” from that incredible gift of forgiveness of sins and everlasting life when the alternative is eternal damnation in Hell? You may say, well, I don’t believe that. Frankly, it doesn’t matter what you or I believe. What matters is “Is it true?”. I can say all day long that I don’t believe in gravity but if I jump out of an airplane without a parachute I am dead no matter how strong my belief is.

Dear Doc, My post was not directed at you. Thanks for the confirmation, though.

Dear Dave:

My post WAS directed at you because your comments on your previous post, addressed to no one in particular, made erroneous claims regarding my “beliefs” and thoughts and I wanted to clarify them. I am interested, however, on your comments or thoughts regarding my previous post addressed to you. Thanks.

Doc

This is a discussion on opinion. There is no proof in any form of existence that your god is real or that Jesus was his “son”. None, period. On the discussion of creation vs intelligent design, there is a huge difference between the two. Genesis says that man was created in gods image, but if that is true we would not have the evolution of man. And if there is an evolution of man, that means that gods image is that of the earliest man. Which would then mean that we now have greater intelligence than that of your god.

John:
Whether Michael Jackson is the greatest singer of all-time is a matter of opinion. Whether he molested children is not. That is either true or it is not. Someone’s opinion on that subject is irrelevant. Whether God exist, whether Jesus is God, whether the Bible is true is not a matter of opinion. It is either true or it is not. There is ample amount of evidence that God exists and that Jesus is His Son and the One living God. There is ample evidence to the point that people are without excuse for failing to recognize that evidence. It is not scientific evidence but evidence based on simple logic, reasoning, and common sense. The evidence is so overwhelming that 90% of the world’s population believe in God. Only 10% are foolish enough to deny something that is so self-evident. The existence of God is axiomatic. It is self-evident. Man was created in God’s image. That does not mean we look like God because God is Spirit. He does not have a physical body. It means that man has the qualities of God such as the ability to think, to have emotions, to reason. Animals cannot do that. Only man. There is no such thing as the “evolution of man”. Man is essentially the same now as he was in the begining. Evolution is a farce. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution. None. Period. Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.

Um, actually animals do have the ability to think, reason, and have emotions. Animals use tools and even the lowly mouse is able to retain memory. Man has gone through evolutionary changes in just the past 300 years. Humans are now taller than we have ever been in history. Couple quick questions. You say there is ample EVIDENCE that your god exists yet you have given none. All you have given is your own opinion, which you are completely and totally free to have and to express. Can you please just give one piece of evidence that your god exists as you have described it without using the bible? When did the dinosaurs exist? How old is the universe? And how did oil become oil?

To mnindy I do apologize for sabotaging your wonderful web site with this bantor doc and I have had. I will try to not do it again.

John, I wish I could succinctly state the sweet irony of someone denying the knowledge that the various disciplines of science has brought us, then posting that denial using a computer hooked up to a giant network. Or, my personal favorite, seeing a doctor for a deadly infection and getting treated with antibiotics created by modern molecular biology. Or, worse than that, voting to convict as a juror, a murderer based only on DNA evidence. I’m not sure irony is the right word…

Something that would fit on a bumper sticker, preferably.

Dave

I am a little excited to see what doc has in store for us when he answers my questions. I swear to you doc, I will give you the the closing words on our little discussion here. It’s time for this page to be put to sleep. Just please answer my four questions.

From our friends at Fox News: Dogs Have Innate Sense of Fairness, Study Finds

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463467,00.html

Prepare for disappointment.

John:
Umm, actually no they don’t. Animal behavior is the result of innate instincts not higher cognitive reasoning. Although animals may have the ability to learn certain basic behaviors that may appear to demonstrate higher reasoning and logic much of it is mimickry or the result of naturalistic, innate instinctual patterns of behavior given to them by God. Because, you know, whenever I go to the zoo to see the monkeys I am always on the other side of the glass.
Man has not gone through any “evolutionary changes” ever. Man is essentially the same today as he was in the begining. Man growing taller over the past 300 years is not, in any way, evidence or proof of Darwinian evolution because even though man may be taller, due to better nutrition and modern medicine, we are still human. Man is still man despite being taller, fatter, and stronger. It hasn’t evolved into any other creature. Regarding the existence of God it is not “scientific evidence” as if you could identify God in a test tube or under a microscope. The existence of God is ascertained through simple logic and reasoning. It is self-evident. If I were to show you a building, what kind of evidence or proof would you need in order to know without a doubt, as fact, that a builder existed? Would not the building itself be absolute proof that a builder existed? It would because buildings cannot, and do not, build themselves. The same logic can be applied to a painting and a painter and creation and a creator. That fact that we exist, that this entire universe exists, is absolute 100% proof that God exists. You don’t need to see Him, touch Him, smell Him, or taste Him. You don’t need the Bible and you don’t need faith. Logic and reason tell you this is true. Because even though you may never see, touch, smell, or taste the builder of a building, having seen the building, logically you know a builder must also exist.

Dave:
Who has denied the knowledge that the various disciplines of science has given us? I sure have not. Science has done wonderful things for mankind. I love science and am in the scientific field. I love science, but good science. Science done well. However, science does not always get things right. Science has been wrong in the past on certain things and will be wrong again in the future. Science is not the end all of truth. That is why science literature is littered with a lot of words such as “maybe”, “perhaps”, “might be”, “possibly”. If you are refering to my denial of evolution my answer to you is learn what true science is. Evolution is not scientific. It is massive speculation without bases in scientific data and is “junk” science. There is absolutely no scientific proof or any scientific data that proves evolution to be factual. If you can provide such proof be my guest but I am afraid that it will be me that is largely disappointed. And by the way, if you can provide any scientific evidence for evolution you can make yourself some money. There is a challenge out there on the Internet that will give $10,000 for anyone who can come up with actual scientific proof for evolution. It has been out there for several years now and so far no one has taken up this challenge.

Doc, did you copy and paste that little evilution diatribe? You managed to hit most of the standard talking points in a concise little paragraph. Good job!

Based on your little diatribe, I would bet you’re in the scientific field tangentially at best, a tenured embarrassment, or at worst, a liar. Then again, it’s not really possible for “people like you” to talk about basic biology without becoming a liar sooner or later.

Doc

Please answer my questions. When did the dinosaurs exist? How old is the universe? And how did oil become oil? I also asked for evidence and you give me “just because it’s there”. That is a statement that a kindergartener. Makes. Also science does not use the words “maybe”, “perhaps”, “might be”, etc. Scientists create a theory based on testing and intelligence. They then present it to there peers who then try to debunk it and analyze it. Only after years of investigation does a theory become a law.

Dave:
No I did not “cut and paste”. Regardless, rather than refuting what I said by providing scientific evidence for evolution you instead resort to crying about my “diatribe” and then call me a liar. Why don’t you prove I am lying by actually providing evidence? That is because you can’t. The evidence does not exist. Please educate yourself before entering into discussion about things you do not know because otherwise you just look foolish. Your resorting to insults rather than providing something that appears like an intelligent arguement or providing some sort of evidence only serves to prove that you have no intelligent or logical arguement to make. I am not surprised.

Doc

Please answer my questions.

John

I don’t debate modern synthesis with anybody. You’ve got a computer, you know how to use it. Even Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of christianist malarky refuted point by point. I think it’s funny how “people like you” think you win something by winning a rhetorical debate on something like that, assuming you could. Doesn’t change the evidence, interpretations, or conclusions. That would require what, class? More evidence.

I can paste links to any number of sources with evidence for you, and you know it. You would then claim “Lies” based solely on your extensive knowledge of a book written by people who lived in a time when facts were determined by who uttered the declaration, as if it was still possible now. You might get away with stating “the evidence does not exist” to the ones who share your baseless opinions, but elsewhere it just makes you look …….

When I have insulted you directly, it will be because you have earned it.

Doc, please answer John’s questions.

Dave

I have a feeling this is not the first time that our friend Doc has had this discussion. He knows that he can not answer my questions and still adhere to his claim that the bible is the only truth. I hope he has not tucked his tail and ran but I don’t think we will get any answers from him. (sigh). I might miss him.

No-one will ever get any answers from someone like that which contradict The Book. Some people are better off living that way for a number of reasons.

Don’t worry, there’s a lot more out there.

By the way, as far as I could tell, the oldest known version of Genesis out there in its current form is in the Dead Sea scrolls, which pre-date the Codex (partially) located in a Russian library. But I assume because they weren’t in an official buy-bull, they don’t count.

I also remember reading about uncanny similarities between the stories in Genesis and a number of stories from various sources from ancient Mesopotamia, but I really don’t have any interest in wasting the time to find it now. It’s too nice outside.

Thanks, John!

John: 
My, my we are an impatient bunch aren’t we? I do have a life you know other than answering your questions. I have other responsibilities. However, I will play your game of question and answer. Your first question, regarding proof for the existence of God I already answered. Although apparently the answer was over your head despite being a kindergarten level answer, according to you. The answer was not merely “because it’s there” but had to do with the fact that things cannot create themselves. Things cannot come into existence by themselves out of nothing. Something you apparently believe and want me to believe. That is a scientific immpossibility. So, if it is immposible for things to come into existence spontaneously out of nothing, therefore, it logically concludes that if the universe exists someone or something brought it into existence (i.e.- God or a supernatural intelligent being). Speaking of intelligence, the fact that we have intelligence is further proof of an intelligent supernatural creator because intelligence can only come from intelligence. Thirdly, DNA is also proof of an intelligent supernatural creator. Our DNA contains genetic codes that convey purposeful information. Information can only come from and exist from an intelligent being. The conveying of purposeful information demands that there is an intelligent mind behind it. 
As for your other 3 questions of which no one, not even yourself or secular scientists,  have the exact answer to I will educate with the following (disclosure: some of this is cut and pasted only for the sake of convenience and time and, frankly, because sometimes others can say it better):

1) When did the dinosaurs exist?
Short answer: A long time ago.
However, I can answer that question as well as your question “How old is the universe?” together with the following: 

Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages:

1) God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.

2) We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children’s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.

As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.

2) How did oil become oil?

For more than 100 years oil has been the “black gold” that has fueled transport vehicles and powered global economic growth and prosperity. So how does oil form, and what is its origin? Oil deposits are usually found in sedimentary rocks. Such rocks formed as sand, silt, and clay grains were eroded from land surfaces and carried by moving water to be deposited in sediment layers. As these sediment layers dried, chemicals from the water formed natural cements to bind the sediment grains into hard rocks.
Pools of oil are found in underground traps where the host sedimentary rock layers have been folded and/or faulted. The host sedimentary or reservoir rock is still porous enough for the oil to accumulate in spaces between the sediment grains. The oil usually hasn’t formed in the reservoir rock but has been generated in source rock and subsequently migrated through the sedimentary rock layers until trapped.
Most scientists agree that hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are of organic origin. A few, however, maintain that some natural gas could have formed deep within the earth, where heat melting the rocks may have generated it inorganically. Nevertheless, the weight of evidence favors an organic origin, most petroleum coming from plants and perhaps also animals, which were buried and fossilized in sedimentary source rocks.2 The petroleum was then chemically altered into crude oil and gas. The chemistry of oil provides crucial clues as to its origin. Petroleum is a complex mixture of organic compounds. One such chemical in crude oils is called porphyrin:

Petroleum porphyrins … have been identified in a sufficient number of sediments and crude oils to establish a wide distribution of the geochemical fossils. They are also found in plants and animal blood. Porphyrins are organic molecules that are structurally very similar to both chlorophyll in plants and hemoglobin in animal blood. They are classified as tetrapyrrole compounds and often contain metals such as nickel and vanadium. Porphyrins are readily destroyed by oxidizing conditions (oxygen) and by heat. Thus geologists maintain that the porphyrins in crude oils are evidence of the petroleum source rocks having been deposited under reducing conditions:

The origin of petroleum is within an anaerobic and reducing environment. The presence of porphyrins in some petroleums means that anaerobic conditions developed early in the life of such petroleums, for chlorophyll derivatives, such as porphyrins, are easily and rapidly oxidized and decomposed under aerobic conditions.
It is very significant that porphyrin molecules break apart rapidly in the presence of oxygen and heat. Therefore, the fact that porphyrins are still present in crude oils today must mean that the petroleum source rocks and the plant (and animal) fossils in them had to have been kept from the presence of oxygen when they were deposited and buried. There are two ways this could have been achieved:

1. The sedimentary rocks were deposited under oxygen deficient (or reducing) conditions.

2. The sedimentary rocks were deposited so rapidly that no oxygen could destroy the porphyrins in the plant and animal fossils.

However, even where sedimentation is relatively rapid by today’s standards, such as in river deltas in coastal zones, conditions are still oxidizing. Thus, to preserve organic matter containing porphyrins requires its slower degradation in the absence of oxygen, such as in the Black Sea today. But such environments are too rare to explain the presence of porphyrins in all the many petroleum deposits found around the world. The only consistent explanation is the catastrophic sedimentation that occurred during the worldwide Genesis Flood. Tons of vegetation and animals were violently uprooted and killed respectively, so that huge amounts of organic matter were buried so rapidly that the porphyrins in it were removed from the oxidizing agents which could have destroyed them. The amounts of porphyrins found in crude oils vary from traces to 0.04% (or 400 parts per million).10 Experiments have produced a concentration of 0.5% porphyrin (of the type found in crude oils) from plant material in just one day,11 so it doesn’t take millions of years to produce the small amounts of porphyrins found in crude oils. Indeed, a crude oil porphyrin can be made from plant chlorophyll in less than 12 hours. However, other experiments have shown that plant porphyrin breaks down in as little as three days when exposed to temperatures of only 410°F (210°C) for only 12 hours. Therefore, the petroleum source rocks and the crude oils generated from them can’t have been deeply buried to such temperatures for millions of years.
Crude oils themselves do not take long to be generated from appropriate organic matter. Most petroleum geologists believe crude oils form mostly from plant material, such as diatoms (single-celled marine and freshwater photosynthetic organisms) and beds of coal (huge fossilized masses of plant debris). The latter is believed to be the source of most Australian crude oils and natural gas because coal beds are in the same sequences of sedimentary rock layers as the petroleum reservoir rocks. Thus, for example, it has been demonstrated in the laboratory that moderate heating of the brown coals of the Gippsland Basin of Victoria, Australia, to simulate their rapid deeper burial, will generate crude oil and natural gas similar to that found in reservoir rocks offshore in only 2–5 days. However, because porphyrins are also found in animal blood, it is possible some crude oils may have been derived from the animals also buried and fossilized in many sedimentary rock layers. Indeed, animal slaughterhouse wastes are now routinely converted within two hours into high-quality oil and high-calcium powdered and potent liquid fertilizers, in a commercial thermal conversion process plant. All the available evidence points to a recent catastrophic origin for the world’s vast oil deposits, from plant and other organic debris, consistent with the biblical account of earth history. Vast forests grew on land and water surfaces in the pre-Flood world, and the oceans teemed with diatoms and other tiny photosynthetic organisms. Then during the global Flood cataclysm, the forests were uprooted and swept away. Huge masses of plant debris were rapidly buried in what thus became coal beds, and organic matter generally was dispersed throughout the many catastrophically deposited sedimentary rock layers. The coal beds and fossiliferous sediment layers became deeply buried as the Flood progressed. As a result, the temperatures in them increased sufficiently to rapidly generate crude oils and natural gas from the organic matter in them. These subsequently migrated until they were trapped in reservoir rocks and structures, thus accumulating to form today’s oil and gas deposits.

So you see, there are legitimate answers to all your questions. I know you will scoff and say all this is BS and blah, blah, blah but the truth is there are answers. I can answer your questions but since we are playing this game can you answer my questions? Please answer the following questions:
Is it wrong for people to rape and murder? Is it wrong for people to lie, cheat, and steal? 
 

Dave:

You said something about how you don’t debate and that you could provide links for proof of evolution and how I have a computer and how all I will do is call it lies and it doesn’t change the evidence and blah, blah, blah, blah. The fact is and the evidence shows that you haven’t provided anything and can’t because it does not exist. Where are all the transitional forms that should be so abundant in the fossil records from millions and billions of evolutionary changes over millions and billions of years? I provide you with more than enough information for you to at least try to come up with a logical arguement or try to refute it but you don’t. What do you do? You dismiss it with a hand wave as if that magically makes the truth disappear. You bury your head in the sand like an ostrich. But just remember, when you bury your head in the sand you put your ass in the position where your brain should be.

Doc

On petroleum (not oil, sorry) you are slightly wrong. For the most part you nailed it but changed one word. You used the word Anaerobic. This is incorrect. Close, but incorrect. The proper word is Anoxic. Anaerobic is a lack or loss of oxygen which could happen if there was a sudden massive flood. Algae uses up the oxygen and none is produced. Petroleum is mostly found where there was Anoxic waters. What that means is that the water has lost its oxygen due to haveing restricted flow or exchange. This will describe it better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_sea_water
Now, if all the oil came from the great flood, there would be no Anoxic water because there would be no restricted flow. I am impressed that you know about the Abiogenic theory. That has been debunked. Some gasses are produced that way (methane), but at extremely low levels. I assumed (correctly) that you would say that the universe is only a couple thousand years old. According to accepted science it is actualy close to 14 billion years old. Yes we CAN measure this. There are several different ways to measure the age of the universe. One way is Hubble’s Law. It states that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. Read these links.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_constant
NASA says the universe is 13.73 billion years old. They measured the background radiation (residual heat) from the big bang. They used the WMAP that was launched into orbit in 2001. The data sent back was awarded as the “breakthrough of the year 2003″ by science magazine. Please read links.
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

Doc, all this information that I have given here is accepted as correct and true. It can be proven (and has) by scientists and mathmaticians. You may wave your hand and dismiss the truth, but we will never show up at your churches and try to force you to listen to us. We will never punish you for having dissenting views (heretics). Your leaders throughout history have oppressed scientists and their studies. Da Vinci had to hide his research and write in code to avoid punishment. Science to trying to better the world and advance our civilizations. Religion in no way will ever advance the quality of life. The leaders want us to live according to rules that were written thousands of years ago by people that did not even realize the earth was round. No thank you. Have a wonderful day.

John:

Regarding anoxic waters you said, “Now, if all the oil came from the great flood, there would be no Anoxic water because there would be no restricted flow.” This is a false statement. Why would there not be restricted flow if a global flood covered all dry land? There would be in such a case. In fact a world-wide catastrophic flood is the most plausible explanation for many of the other geological findings we see today not just oil/petroleum.

Your assumption that it is my belief that the universe is “only a couple thousand years old” would be wrong. The universe is slightly older than that most likely 6,000-10,000 years old as I stated previously despite what “accepted science” states. Many years ago “accepted science” said eating eggs was bad for your health. Now they say eggs are good for you. They said drinking coffee was also bad for your health. Now they say drinking a few cups a day is beneficial. Which is it? Measurements can be wrong. Science has been wrong in the past. Even the Big Bang theory, which you mentioned, is being “modified” by scientists as they realize that the data does not fit their theory despite being “accepted science”. For nearly every “accepted” scientific interpretation I can find several other scientists who conclude differently and who do not agree with the “accepted science”. There are many, many things in the past that was “accepted” by science that we laugh at today. There are scientists today who are challenging the “fact” that the universe is billions of years old because of flaws in the measurments of background radiation and the like.

You say science is “trying to better the world and advance our civilizations”. I don’t dispute that. But that does not mean science always gets things right? Far from it. Many people throughout history have died or been hurt in the name of “science”. How many drugs have killed people from unknown or unwanted side effects from medicines science has deemed safe? You state, “Your leaders throughout history have oppressed scientists and their studies.” I only have one leader. His name is Jesus Christ and He never oppressed anyone, harmed anyone or sinned. He was an innocent man yet He was murdered anyways. The bible and Christianity are not oppossed to science. Science confirms and corroborates the claims of the Bible.

You also say, “Religion in no way will ever advance the quality of life”. While I do not agree entirely with that statement as the quality of life has been advance in some aspects by religion, the issue we are discussing is not religion but truth. To me and many others, Christianity is not just a religion but the truth of the world as given to mankind from God.

You also stated: “The leaders want us to live according to rules that were written thousands of years ago by people that did not even realize the earth was round. No thank you.”

Actually, God is the one who wants you to live by these rules as they are His rules and are truth itself. And as a matter of fact, you are once again incorrect in thinking that those people did not realize the earth was round. The Bible states the fact that the earth is round many hundred years before “science” discovered this fact. In Isaiah 40:22, written about 2,000 years before Columbus, it mentions the shape of the earth. In fact, it was Christopher Columbus’ knowledge of scripture that convinced him he was correct in saying the earth was round when the rest of the world, not those who read and believed the scriptures, thought the earth was flat.

Bottom line you basically believe that nothing created everything which is a scientific impossibility. No thank you.

(One more thing. You did not answer my questions. Please answer my questions. I must insist. Is it wrong for people to rape and murder? Is it wrong for people to lie, cheat, and steal?)

Doc says “You said something about how you don’t debate and that you could provide links for proof of evolution … The fact is and the evidence shows that you haven’t provided anything and can’t because it does not exist.” Correct in one part, I have not provided anything. Incorrect in the other, there is no evidence in these fascinating posts that I can not provide evidence. Must not be a fact, then, that it does not exist. Maybe an unsupported conclusion is the correct term…but then, that sounds like a euphemism for fabrication, doesn’t it?

Here John, does this look familiar? http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/originofoil.htm

“How many drugs have killed people from unknown or unwanted side effects from medicines science has deemed safe?”

This statement is pretty indicative of most of the diatribe about science and its practitioners. Think of Fen-Phen for a minute. Doc seems to think science is responsible for all those injured hearts. Probably has absolutely nothing to do with the corporation AHP raking in dough from its marketing efforts and sales, while ignoring and suppressing negative results. Probably has nothing to do with a business-friendly government entity overruling its own chief medical officer to approve its sale. Yep, its those untrustworthy scientists.

Dave:
 You said: “Incorrect in the other, there is no evidence in these fascinating posts that I can not provide evidence. Must not be a fact, then, that it does not exist.”

No, although your failure to provide evidence does not prove, as a fact, that the evidence does not exist it also does not prove that it does exist. Just as your failure to find evidence for the existence of God does not mean the evidence does not exist; only that you haven’t come across it yet. The evidence may be there but you just don’t know. Which actually makes you an agnostic rather than an atheist. That is because in order for you to claim “God does not exist” you would have to have proof He doesn’t exist which is impossible because you can’t prove a negative. So He may exist but you just don’t know it. That is called agnosticism.
I agree, however, that your unsupported conclusion regarding evolution does sound more like a fabrication or just a case if being misinformed. Only you would know that. 
   

Dave:

So are you saying science never gets things wrong and never makes mistakes? Scientists have never made false claims or come to erroneous conclusions? Scientists have never misinterpreted the data? Is science the ultimate source of truth?

“No, although your failure to provide evidence does not prove, as a fact, that the evidence does not exist it also does not prove that it does exist.”

No failure involved, Doc. I would call it a choice. I am quite sure that it is not possible for me to convince you of anything. I have known too many people that share so much with you to think otherwise.

“Just as your failure to find evidence for the existence of God does not mean the evidence does not exist;” …one more time: no failure involved Doc. I don’t remember posting anything about it. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I don’t remember posting that gawd does not exist, either. Maybe I posted something which, in your world, means the same thing, but I can’t be responsible for misinterpretations.

“So are you saying science never gets things wrong and never makes mistakes? Scientists have never made false claims or come to erroneous conclusions? Scientists have never misinterpreted the data? Is science the ultimate source of truth?” …………….You know, earlier Doc posted this: “I love science and am in the scientific field.” If that was remotely true, you would not be asking those questions. At least science, in general, corrects itself over time. With the Werd of Gawd, that’s not possible, is it?

If you prefer a life where the scientific (or whatever) conclusions can only support and not conflict with the Werd of Gawd, and no other answer is possible, that’s fine. Good for you, if it makes you happy. Life is a lot bigger than scientific or spiritual questions, anyway. I just don’t think that’s being honest with yourself, or to others. Most people deserve better than that.

Doc

Either you are Andrew A. Snelling, or you are a plagiarist. Good luck getting a good review in the American Journal of Science. Now murder and rape ae punishable by law in most countries. Lying, cheating, and stealing are a whole different story. Are you talking about the lies that Ted Haggard told his congregation every week? Or the lies that Bush and Cheny told that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Now I am confused, he said he talked to god, so did god tell him to kill the innocent or to lie to the America public? What type of cheating? Jim Bakker cheated on his wife but also cheated his congregation out of millions of dollars. I suppose that could be listed under stealing as well. I am not going to get into a discusion on the philosophies of life with someone as narrow minded as you are. Thank you for your time and have a nice day.

Dave

This is for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals

Dave

This is also for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_genesis
Have a great day.

John

Dave:

“no failure involved Doc. I don’t remember posting anything about it. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I don’t remember posting that gawd does not exist, either. Maybe I posted something which, in your world, means the same thing, but I can’t be responsible for misinterpretations.”

Are you saying God does indeed exist? Speak clearly then. You know, so there are no “misinterpretations”. Or are you not capable of doing that? Speaking clearly, that is. You like to dance around the issues and play semantics with your words but that only serves to demonstrate your lack of honesty or your unwillingness to admit the truth.

“You know, earlier Doc posted this: “I love science and am in the scientific field.” If that was remotely true, you would not be asking those questions. At least science, in general, corrects itself over time. With the Werd of Gawd, that’s not possible, is it?”

So if you love something that means you are blind to the truth of its failures and shortcomings? That’s called “not living in reality”. Science, in general, corrects itself over time because it has to. Because it makes mistakes and gets things wrong and misinterprets data. That is because scientists are human. The word of God doesn’t not have to correct itself because God is never wrong. God is the source of all truth. And when I say God I do not mean “religion”. Those are not the same things.

“If you prefer a life where the scientific (or whatever) conclusions can only support and not conflict with the Werd of Gawd, and no other answer is possible, that’s fine. Good for you, if it makes you happy. Life is a lot bigger than scientific or spiritual questions, anyway. I just don’t think that’s being honest with yourself, or to others. Most people deserve better than that.”

What you again fail to understand is that Christianity and science are not in oppossition. Science confirms and corroborates the scriptures in many ways. I agree life is a lot bigger than scientific questions (which has been my point from the beginning) but how can anything be bigger than God? I have been honest with myself. That is why I can admit that I have done wrong. I have sinned. I have lied, I have stolen, I have committed adultery, I have lusted, I have dishonored God and dishonored my parents. I have broken God’s Laws. I was honest enough with myself to realize that and see my need for forgiveness. If you would be honest with yourself you would admit the same. But most likely you are like so many whose pride will not allow them to “be honest with themselves”. If you were honest with yourself you would admit that the world around us screams about the existence of God without saying a word. If you were honest with yourself you would admit that it is impossible for nothing to have created everything and that the existence of God is logical and reasonable and the only viable conclusion to our existence. And this God is rich in love and mercy and has provided a way for the sins of the world to be forgiven through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for everyone who believes and puts their faith/trust in Jesus. Otherwise you are left in your sins and will have to face a Holy and Just God upon your death.

(By the way, I think the spell-checker on your computer is broken. It keeps mispelling “Word” and “God”. You should have that fixed.)

John:

“Now murder and rape ae punishable by law in most countries. Lying, cheating, and stealing are a whole different story.”

Ah, you did not answer the questions. I am asking you, John, if murder, rape, lying, cheating, stealing are wrong? It is really a simple “yes” or “no” question. IO am not asking what is “punishable by law in most countries”.

“Are you talking about the lies that Ted Haggard told his congregation every week? Or the lies that Bush and Cheny told that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Now I am confused, he said he talked to god, so did god tell him to kill the innocent or to lie to the America public? What type of cheating? Jim Bakker cheated on his wife but also cheated his congregation out of millions of dollars. I suppose that could be listed under stealing as well.”

Are you saying those things were wrong? Interesting how rather than answering the questions you avoid them by changing the subject or trying to somehow turn the tables to try a little misdirection. Seriously, my question to you was sincere and genuine. I am interested to know if you believe those things are wrong. I answered your questions. Please pay me the compliment by answering mine.

“I am not going to get into a discusion on the philosophies of life with someone as narrow minded as you are.”

So, when the rubber meets the road you tuck tail and run? When the questions are turned around you can’t take the heat. Very telling. That says a lot. Maybe it would behoove you to be a little more “narrow minded” rather than accepting any and all lies that are fed to you. You claim I am narrow minded as if you are somehow someone who is so “open minded”. Yeah, right. You are open minded as long as it doesn’t have to do with God or Christianity. How is that being “open minded”? I thought that when we got to some of the core issues you would “tuck tail and run”. You didn’t disappoint. Not very open minded but not surprising.

Dance, Doc, Dance!

Dave:

???????

Doc

I actually went to school at The Summit Ministries in Manitow Springs CO. From 1st-6th grade I went to a biblical grade school called Victory Academy. I was told all the stuff that you are saying, it’s nothing new to me. I soon realized that the people that were lying to me were all my teachers. I am not going to run and hide with my tail between my legs. I have had these discusions before. It is pointless. I say you are narrow minded because you are. Thank you and have a nice day. And yes I did answer your questions, I just did not give the answer you wanted me to give. I will no linger look at this page. You may ridicule me all you want but it will do no good. It will only make you less of a man. If you are Andrew.

John:

You have been deceived. You are blind to the truth. You may call me narrow minded but you are not even willing to consider the possibility of the existence of God and are not willing to consider the claims of Christianity. Yet somehow you believe yourself to be so “open minded”. Regardless, being narrow minded is another word for discernment. You should be a little more discerning rather than accepting things as fact without any evidence, such as evolution. You can lie to yourself and say you answered the question but you know you didn’t. You danced around it and began trying to change the topic. It was a simple “yes” or “no” question. But it appears you are incapable of basic honesty. You tucked your tail between your legs and ran unwilling to answer questions that would reveal your dishonesty and lack of discernment. If you had a Christian background then did you ever know the Lord? I doubt that is a question you will ever answer either. It appears you like to dish it out but don’t have the courage to take it. I was at least man enough to answer your questions and take your mockery and insults. Buy when I ask you a simple question you tuck tail and run. What does that make you?

Ha! Stumbled upon this thread, only to find Dave and Doc having a Matelin/Carville-style across-the-aisle love-in (I guess with John, it’s something of a three-way). You guys won’t convince each other of the righteousness of your cause. So why don’t you just arrange to grab a beer together and consummate your animosity instead?

Oh, let’s just cut to the chase. Mrs. Betty Bowers explains it all perfectly here: http://bettybowers.com/bibleinterpretation.html .

And that’s all you need to know.

I abso-freaking-lutely LOVE that, funny, hilarious, yet a little sad at the same time, because it’s so freaking true!