If it’s true that you are what you eat, I’m an egg. I love eggs, and I thank God for them. They are so incredibly well-designed, from the shell, to the yolk, to the white. But there’s more to the egg than meets the mouth. You probably know that when an egg is fertilized, the chick is ready to hatch by the 21st day. Up to this point the little fellow has been receiving his oxygen from the circulating newly made blood. But now his demand for oxygen will be much greater, as he exerts himself to break out of the shell. Have you ever noticed the flat spot on the top of a hard-boiled egg when you peel it? It’s on every egg that has ever been made. It is actually an air sack. The chick begins to gasp for air as the lungs start to work, but by this time he has developed what is known as an “egg tooth” on the outside of his beak. Without this tooth, he would suffocate. He uses it to break into the air sack to get air. But he only has six hours of oxygen in there. He has the instinctive information that he can’t rest. He must continue to work on the shell with his tooth until he breaks a hole in it, and can start breathing outside air. All of this has to happen exactly as it does, at exactly the right time, or the chick dies. Chicks hatch on exactly the 21st day every time, and it's happened billions of times. To say that God is awesome is the understatement of eternity.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Incredible Egg
154 comments:
Ray's argument:
Chickens lay eggs, eggs contain air for chicks to breath while they break out...therefore, god exists.
Non sequitur.
I don't think Yahweh was responsible, the egg was the work of Vishnu. Or was it the Easter Bunny? Or maybe the chicken was responsible for making the egg.....hum.
Amen to that, Ray!
*waits for the evolutionists to try to explain the egg to the "uneducated"* hardy-har-har-har!!
wow I had no idea!! I always wondered about that flat spot...how awesome!! :D :D
I love eggs to, actually I spent almost 15 years of my life having for dinner almost everyday, as long as I was home for dinner, Yellow(or Ripe) Plantain with 2 fried eggs! My favorite dish...this was up until i started my diet...
I read an interview with Jonathon Ives - now there's a design god - and he reckoned that good design had more to do with what you left out... Jon designs gorgeous, straightforward, easy to use pieces of machinery - they are elegant to look at and oh so simple to use...
Compare that to "he has developed what is known as an “egg tooth” on the outside of his beak. Without this tooth, he would suffocate. He uses it to break into the air sack to get air. But he only has six hours of oxygen in there..." ad infinitum...
Yahweh needs to go back to the drawing board... too much STUFF.
Is this the second coming of banana-logic?
The egg does fit perfectly in my hand for throwing at houses...
Ray,
You certainly are peristent in using flawed illustrations and analogies when trying to peddle your wares. I've given examples of bad analogies on my website (you know the URL) but you continue to use them. That seems quite dishonest to me.
--Former Follier
The Great Noodler just told me that Vishnu makes eggs. Well, the info was "revealed" to me, so who are you to discredit it?
Anyways,
Carbo Diem
God is indeed marvelous!
On a side note:
Can we begin putting posters in time-out if their post contains the words 'non-sequitur' or 'straw-man'???
I mean really, quit dodging the real issue atheists. There is overwhelming evidence that there is Divine intelligence behind creation. The Bible tells us that God created it. Perhaps if you would begin to contemplate this you would start to see how truly marvelous He is and then you would start to wonder WHY He would even want to have a relationship with us. This is the beginning of humility.
Bill
clostridium said, I don't think YAYWEH was reponsible-- please tell me clos who was responsible?
You are very quick to to say this is not the way it is, but fail to say how it happen. I for one want to learn!
Please do not say that the ocean washed it to shore and then hached! Heard that one!
One thing I noticed Clos is you used God's name! Thanks! I mean that is amazing.
...and to add to your egg analagy -
I have always been amazed that the hen does not lay her clutch of eggs all on the same day (ouch!). She lays about an egg a day until she has the right amount in the nest. Then she starts setting on them. The chick embryo does not start growing until the hen sets. If they began to develop as they were laid you would have chicks hatching out each day and the hen could not care for the unhatched eggs and the hatched chicks at the same time. God takes care of every detail.
As to proving if this means God exists - it is the overwheming volume of evidence. But you (Clos and others) keep trying to put the cart before the horse. You want the answers before the faith - and it just doesn't work that way. The faith comes first. You can rail against that designed order, but it doesn't change what is.
Do you read the Bible with a heart seeking after truth?
Blessings,
Patti
The chicken is an agg's way of making another egg.
You here so your DNA can replicate itself Yeee HA!
I'm officially hijacking this thread
@ All the Athiests
A challenge for you. One of your main arguments is that people don't have to be Christians to be "good." They don't need some musty old book telling them that stealing is wrong. Then you say that morals are obviously innate in every human being. However, when I ask where morals come from then, I can't seem to get a straight answer.
From dale I heard that morals are survival skills that we developed from the early humans. But then I showed that stealing, adultery and murder might just enhance my own personal survival. So they're not just survival skills.
Then dale tried to say that they evolved just like the human did. Ok, I'll give you that. So just like every other trait that evolved, are our morals in our DNA? There is no spiritual realm right? Said another way, we are all just matter in motion. If we are all just matter in motion, where in our brain or our DNA (same thing basically) do we get our morality from and how did it get there?
Clostridium said, "Chickens lay eggs, eggs contain air for chicks to breath while they break out...therefore, god exists."
Where did Ray say anything about the existence of God in relation to his chicken example? He was just giving God the glory for another wonderfully made aspect of His creation, not trying to prove the existence of God through chickens. How about this instead:
"Clostridium reads a post by Ray giving God glory for an aspect of His creation... therefore Ray was proving the existence of God."
Non sequitur.
In Jesus,
Cory
Bill:
On a side note:
Can we begin putting posters in time-out if their post contains the words 'non-sequitur' or 'straw-man'???
When Ray and the rest of you stop using them, we'll stop calling you out on it. They aren't legitimate forms of argument.
I mean really, quit dodging the real issue atheists. There is overwhelming evidence that there is Divine intelligence behind creation.
No one is dodging the issue. We've given you plenty of reasonable explanations for why your evidence is not overwhelming. Simply repeating that the evidence is overwhelming to you, doesn't make it so for everyone else.
""All of this has to happen exactly as it does, at exactly the right time, or the chick dies. Chicks hatch on exactly the 21st day every time, and it's happened billions of times. To say that God is awesome is the understatement of eternity.""
Excellent proof that evolution is wholly incompatible with creation, just one of many proofs.
Fantastic - just listened to the Todd Friel show thing... Comfort - you did not know who Erasmus Darwin was?? And you have spent literally MONTHS typing a book on evolution?
As the toddly himself would splutter - wowsers.
Ray,
Please continue to post illustrations like this one. This is a prime example why evolution should be questioned in the classrooms. After a teacher teaches one of these marvelous examples of exactness and design in nature, he/she could calculate the chances of that occuring (maybe the math department could get involved). Then the teacher could ask the class, "Which sounds more reasonable? Blind luck or that Someone designed? You decide."
Science classes don't have to teach about God. It's sufficient to calculate the possibility of design in nature to occur by chance.
Matthew, I would like to hear God's reaction on Judgment Day when you point out how He could have improved on Creation. Of course, He might point you to the book of Genesis, where we see that creation became corrupted after people rebelled against Him.
God bless you,
Erik
Erik sayeth "Matthew, I would like to hear God's reaction on Judgment Day when you point out how He could have improved on Creation."
So would I - he has done a rubbish job, honestly. How many of us have back pain? And don't get me started on my urethra!
"From dale I heard that morals are survival skills that we developed from the early humans. But then I showed that stealing, adultery and murder might just enhance my own personal survival. So they're not just survival skills."
Cypress,
I have discussed this previously many times, researchers who apply game theory (specifically "tit for tat" and "reciprocator") to evolutionary theory in regards to this dillema the resolution is clear; punish cheats and reward altruism. Much of Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" explains the scenarios in very fascinating detail. If everyone is a "cheat" there is no one to parasitize. It turns out that there must be a balance between selfishness (his title doesn't suggest there is a gene for "selfishness", the stress is on "gene") and altruism. The most stable strategy in a group of socially interacting members is to reward good behavior and to punish bad. This is precisely what we do; this is common sense...this is what almost all social animals do.
There are almost certainly genetic predispositions for social and anti-social behavior (I don't study this so I would have to research it) but much of this is learned culturally as well. We learn the mores of our culture and when people act outside of those norms we give them weird looks, or tell them to stop, or lock them up, or end their life....we employ the game "tit for tat" and "reciprocator". When someone lets us cut in in traffic or holds the door for us we thank them either vocally or by jesture; if they fail to do this we "punish them" either vocally or by jesture.
There are obvious biological reasons why we should be intollerant of stealing, murder and rape/adultery. Think about environments where food is the only possession...what if some other member steals your food; constantly? You would starve. Think about if all members of the group shared with each other, but one stole and never shared. What would the rest do with that member? Rape/adultery are obvious, particularly when it is your kin that are the victim; what about your mate in species that are mainly monogamous? The offspring won't be yours; why would you excert all the effort raising them when they aren't your own (I'm not saying adoption is silly, so please don't say this, it is difficult to explain in biological terms, but we do see it in other species, not just ourselves)? Intollerance of murder is almost too obvious to mention...we don't want this to happen to ourselves, so it is outlawed except under very strict conditions, by elders to 'make an example' same with punishment for anything else....we want others to think 'if I do this action, I will be punished too'.
I know you have your own chickens Ray so you probably get your eggs from them but most people get their eggs from chickens that are treated absolutely dreadfully. Did god foresee this horrible consequence when he created the desire for the egg in the human and the ability to suffer in the chicken? I'm sure it all stems from the devil's corruption, but a lot of Christians munch down their eggs without remorse happily justifying their lack of compassion with bible teachings they interpret as 'man owns animals, and can do with them as he choses, as long as he eats up the mess'.
What Ray is invoking here is the Chickenocentric Argument. We should not be surprised that chicken eggs work because chickens have persisted from the past until modern times. :-D Sorry, just had to try that one on for size.
He's accidentally made a pretty good argument for selection pressures - Strains of chicken (and other egg layers) who were incapable of laying efficiently formed eggs would have eventually been thinned out high death rates of unborn chicks.
Ray's been accidentally making so many arguments in our favor lately that I'm beginning to think about invoking Poe's Law here.
Proof of the existence of God
The argument from Ray:
I post cutsie stories
Therefore God exists.
And, yes, that is a non-sequitur.
That means "not in sequense" or "does not follow," and yes they are thrown around here like crazy!
The problem is that uneducated people cannot tell a non-sequitur when they see one. That would take a half a brain.
That is why some people will continue giving their money to the likes of Benny Hinn, et al even though everyone else can see he is a phoney.
Erik says,
"he/she could calculate the chances of that occuring (maybe the math department could get involved)."
The odds don't matter. We're here.
When you realize that each woman carries about a million eggs in her when she is born, and all the women and all the generations before you, the odds that you would be here are infitisimally small, about 500 million-to-one over just 10 thousand years, yet here you are!
Cypress-
I've never met a Christian bat. Most bats actually seem pretty naturalistic in their little bat worldviews. Vampire bats, however, exhibit reciprocal altruism - Vampire bats that fail to feed during their nightly forage receive regurgitated blood from the other bats in their group to sustain them. Bats that take lots of blood without giving much in return are remembered and eventually shunned when it comes time for hand outs. This is functionally a moral system whereby group norms are maintained by rewards and punishment.
Now, maybe my bat history is a little muddled, but I'm not aware of Bat-Moses coming down from the mountains with the ten bat-commandments. Here we have a non-human creature spontaneously exhibiting a moral system. What is your answer to that?
It's also a good illustration of how moral behavior is better explained by group selection pressures rather than individual selection pressures. Both of them have a hand in evolution. But I'm sure you knew that. :-)
Cory-
Nice rhetorical try with attempting to turn the non sequitur thing around on Clos, but we all know that every time Ray starts going off about what a job the "designer" did he's talking about Yahweh. If any of you guys thought for 5 seconds that Ray was talking about how well Xenu or Mothra designed the egg this blog would be cleared out before he could type "LOL J/K".
Bill-
Am I to take it that your main evidence of creationism is that the Bible says that's how it is? Because that's how it read to me.
Oh, hey, you guys use the KJV right? The King James Bible On-line Search returns six references in the KJV to the existence of unicorns. Do you find that to be compelling evidence of their existence? If someone on here made a claim that unicorns existed because the Bible references them, would you back them up? If not, if maybe that bit of the Bible reflects something that is inaccurate, on what grounds except for your own subjective judgments can you say that the rest of the Bible is perfectly accurate?
Just curious.
Love and peace,
-Skippy
Rando said:
No one is dodging the issue. We've given you plenty of reasonable explanations for why your evidence is not overwhelming. Simply repeating that the evidence is overwhelming to you, doesn't make it so for everyone else.
Just how OVERWHELMING does the evidence have to be for you to believe it? Is this how you make all of your decisions, based on OVERWHELMING evidence?
Clostridium,
Do you have a job? You spend lots of time writing short stories on this blog. I hope you're not stealing time from your employer to create such interesting fiction literature. God will not be mocked.
Ray- This has nothing to do with this post but, there is a show on tv called "Moment of Truth". I don't watch it but a friend of mine called me and told me this story. A women was being asked questions thru a polygraph machine and one of the questions was "Do you consider yourself to be a good person". The women thought about it and said "yes". The tests reveils weather or not her answer was truthful. The results showed that she was lying. Even a losts persons self conscience knows that they are not a good person. The built in conscience is a powerful thing.....<'}}}><
Actually, not every chicken egg will hatch on the 21st day. It takes perfect conditions, and while it is true that the vast majority do, there are exceptions and some do take up to 26 days to hatch.
Moreover, not every egg hatches at all. What about the eggs which never hatch because the chick never developed correctly? What about the ones which do hatch to reveal deformed or otherwise unhealthy chicks? How is that a perfect design?
Why is it that chicken eggs almost all take 21 days, while turkeys are 28, geese are 28-34, and so on? I mean, an egg is an egg right? What's the point of having all these variations if an all-powerful God designed them? I guess we simply can't understand the random idiocies of God.
Theists never seem to understand that you cannot prove the existence of something which must be taken on faith. They contradict each other. Also, the Bible is not proof that God exists. By that logic, Allah exists. Zeus exists. Vishnu exists. Spiderman exists. Every imaginary character that humans have ever described on paper exist, because they have just as much authority as the Bible does. Without faith, it's nothing more than a book. Faith is not proof.
Ray why aren't you deleting these comments? The majority of them are crude and disrespectful to our Lord. Why are you even entertaining them?
I loved this post, and it is truly amazing how all of creation testifies of God's magnificence.
@ Clos
I appreciate finally getting an thoughtful response to this. If I had seen this argument before I would not have asked you to repeat it.
"It turns out that there must be a balance between selfishness (his title doesn't suggest there is a gene for "selfishness", the stress is on "gene") and altruism."
I don't know if I understand. So people actively practicing evil are needed for society to function correctly?
"we employ the game "tit for tat" and "reciprocator". When someone lets us cut in in traffic or holds the door for us we thank them either vocally or by jesture; if they fail to do this we "punish them" either vocally or by jesture."
I understand what your saying. But here is the problem with it. Your scenario requires a PERFECT set of events. If someone doesn't recieve these "tit for tat" or "reciprocator" games when they are young, and in fact recieve the opposite or some warped version of them, then they will have a whole different sort of morals. Not only will their morals be different, but they will be LEGITIMATELY so. Meaning that their warped moral code will be just as valid as the "perfect scenario" moral code.
Let's say that their warped moral code includes being able to annihilating those that they view as evil. They will have every right to act on that moral code (a la the Third Reich). And no one would legitametly be able to tell them it's wrong because we would never know for sure the cultural mores that individual, or group of individuals, learned.
"what if some other member steals your food; constantly? You would starve."
But if I'm the one stealing then I don't starve and I don't care about anyone else but me.
And clos, your view about our morals being cultural is what leads to murderous getting off because they grew up with an abusive father. That individuals "culture" was so warped that they are not responsible for their actions. In light of the different cultures individuals can be exposed to, almost anything is permitted as long as you can find an legitamite excuse for your actions.
Guitar425:
Just how OVERWHELMING does the evidence have to be for you to believe it? Is this how you make all of your decisions, based on OVERWHELMING evidence?
I at least need be more than "whelmed" to model my life around the belief that there is some invisible creative force behind the universe cares what I and every other person on the planet thinks and will punish us for all eternity if our thoughtcrimes offend it. To accept that, yes, I need overwhelming evidence. I have yet to see it. I imagine you don't see overwhelming evidence for the truth claims of other religions, so you reject them. I do the same for Christianity.
Skippy -
Really? Unicorns? Do you really want to go there? Now it is YOUR ignorance that is showing. Anyone with a Bible dictionary knows that the word translated as 'unicorn' does not reference the one-horned horse:
UNICORN:
the rendering of the Authorized Version of the Hebrew reem , a word which occurs seven times in the Old Testament as the name of some large wild animal. The reem of the Hebrew Bible, however, has nothing at all to do with the one-horned animal of the Greek and Roman writers, as is evident from (deuteronomy 33:17) where in the blessing of Joseph it is said; "his glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of a unicorn ;" not, as the text of the Authorized Version renders it, "the horns of unicorns ." The two horns of the ram are "the ten thousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh." This text puts a one-horned animal entirely out of the question. Considering that the reem is spoken of as a two-horned animal of great strength and ferocity, that it was evidently well known and often seen by the Jews, that it is mentioned as an animal fit for sacrificial purposes, and that it is frequently associated with bulls and oxen we think there can be no doubt that, some species of wild ox is intended. The allusion in (ps 92:10) "But thou shalt lift up, as a reeym , my horn," seems to point to the mode in which the Bovidae use their horns, lowering the head and then tossing it up. But it is impossible to determine what particular species of wild ox is signified probably some gigantic urus is intended. (It is probable that it was the gigantic Bos primigeniua , or aurochs, now extinct, but of which Caesar says, "These uri are scarcely less than elephants in size, but in their nature, color and form are bulls. Great is their strength and great their speed; they spare neither man nor beast when once; they have caught sight of them" --Bell. Gall. vi. 20.-ED.) Smith's Bible Dictionary
UNICORN:
described as an animal of great ferocity and strength (Num. 23:22, R.V., "wild ox," marg., "ox-antelope;" 24:8; Isa. 34:7, R.V., "wild oxen"), and untamable (Job 39:9). It was in reality a two-horned animal; but the exact reference of the word so rendered (reem) is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo; others, the white antelope, called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes the Bos primigenius ("primitive ox"), which is now extinct all over the world. This was the auerochs of the Germans, and the urus described by Caesar (Gal. Bel., vi.28) as inhabiting the Hercynian forest. The word thus rendered has been found in an Assyrian inscription written over the wild ox or bison, which some also suppose to be the animal intended (comp. Deut. 33:17; Ps. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10). Easton's Bible Dictionary
The King James Version Dictionary renders it as 'wild-ox' as well.
So, yes....I do believe unicorns existed.
Next.
It appears to me that the evidence of functionality in nature is only evidence of divine purpose to people who haven't bothered to figure out how such mechanisms actually work. The rainbow also used to look like divine intervention until Newton worked out some of the laws of optics.
You'll note that if you claim that it was God who laid down those laws in the first place, you'll then have to prove that such divine legislation was necessary, and that such laws won't work without outside meddling.
And as for all of the "overwhelming" evidence for creation and/or against evolution, I note that such evidence consists of either unsupported assertions from the Bible, or exclamations about how wonderful the world is, neither of which really demonstrate anything. When evidence for a naturalistic, non-directed universe is presented, on the other hand, it consists of documented facts that are the product of research. Apparently the tens of thousands of papers on biology that are published every year, all in agreement with modern evolutionary theory, aren't really "evidence", while a few lines out of scripture are. Interesting standard of proof, that.
Where is all the supposed research that so-called ID/creationist "scientists" are working on, anyway? Just wondering.
@skippy
No, my main reason for believing Creationism is Creation itself. It exists therefore someone had to create it. Things just don't 'POOF' themselves into existence. Someone had to have created it. The Bible explains this quite well - God spoke and it came to pass.
Also, exactly what unicorn references are you talking about?
@dale
I understand what a non-sequitur is. My point was that it is far too easy to dodge an explanation by simply chalking it up as a 'NS' or blaming the big-bad 'Str*w M*n'.
As for the evidence of Creation, it is overwhelming. The problem is that atheists would rather spend the rest of their lives trying to find alternative explanations as to why we are here and how we got here. Instead of just accepting the OBVIOUS fact that there is a creator, who is God.
It all boils down to pride really.
Bill
Isnt it funny (not really) how this post was just a word of thanks to God. I mean, even if the atheists (whatever that means anymore) dont believe Ray to be correct, why do they feel it is their duty to try and opress his thankfulness? In the friendly, enlightened (dark ages), utopia we live in today, one would conclude that any thankfulness to whatever deity (most give theirs to Baals) would be welcomed. This once again proves they hate Him without a cause.
Hey, Skippy! The KJV is something called a translation. Let me get the dictionary.com definition of translation out for ya:
1. the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language.
2. a version of such a rendering: a new translation of Plato.
Or how about this: "—Synonyms 2. Translation, paraphrase, version refer to a rewording of something. A translation is a rendering of the same ideas in a different language from the original: a translation from Greek into English. A paraphrase is a free rendering of the sense of a passage in other words, usually in the same language: a paraphrase of a poem. A version is a translation, esp. of the Bible, or else an account of something illustrating a particular point of view: the Douay Version. "
Hope that helps you understand why Christians, in general, don't believe in the existence of unicorns. (Waits for more garbage about how the Bible has errors, etc. You atheists are so predictable.)
Difference between design and evolution: evolution only has to be good enough to work, i.e. enough air in the egg for some chicks to hatch (not all of them make it). Designers (at least, intelligent ones) leave room for error, so a designed egg would contain more air than the bare minimum in order to give the chicks a decent chance, after all you wouldn't fill your car with exactly the right amount of fuel to make it to your destination, would you?
Evolution doesn't care whether or not the chicks make it out of the egg alive (it is merely a process without a guiding intelligence, it can't "care" about anything), but those that make it get to go on and make more eggs, and so on. An egg with more air in it has no advantage over one that has just enough (assuming that you don't care about dead chicks), so there is no mechanism to drive any further evolution in that direction.
The same applies with the reproductive systems of all animals; not all pregnancies go full term, not all eggs will hatch, not all baby birds will live long enough to get to lay eggs of their own, but as long as some do then a species will continue. If not enough do, extinction occurs, as has happened in cases where the introduction of a new predator to an ecosystem prevents enough young organisms from reaching a breeding age.
bill, a non-sequitur is a non-sequitur regardless if you say it is or not.
Then you say:
"As for the evidence of Creation, it is overwhelming."
Actually there is not one iota of empeical evidence for a supernatural creator. If you have some, you will be the most famous person to have ever existed.
Question:
Which came first the chicken or the egg?
@ skippy
"Now, maybe my bat history is a little muddled, but I'm not aware of Bat-Moses coming down from the mountains with the ten bat-commandments."
Are you seriously comparing bats helping each other out to the Commandments like, "thou shalt have no other god's before me", and "honor your father and mother"? Do bats do those? That's not even a serious argument.
"This is functionally a moral system whereby group norms are maintained by rewards and punishment."
The problem with this is that it all depends upon wether I am punished for what I do wrong. What if I'm not. Then I'm off the hook for anything I do wrong. Because I never knew? Just because my parents never punished me? You said it yourself, it's a "moral system." The Third Reich's moral system included the right to murder Jews wherever they found them. While that's an extreme example, I'll give you another one: Americas moral system includes the right to defile yourself and anyone else involved by watching other people have sex. It's not hurting anybody so it's not wrong.
Charles,
Well said,
"Where is all the supposed research that so-called ID/creationist "scientists" are working on, anyway? Just wondering."
To the haters of science.
A perfect example is a group I have seen mentioned here, ICR, The Institute of Creation Research.
Very funny. They don't do any research. They constantly will take a snippet from some study and freely associate it with some verse in the bible and declare the paper untrue.
In the meantime a group of scientists have spent the last twenty years vetting and publishing their findings for other scientists to review.
Oh, you think Ray Comfort should review them? No need to answer. The question was purely academic, and, I rest my case.
In 2004, Zhonghe Zhou and Fucheng Zhang (Chinese paleornithologists) discovered a 121 million year old, fossilized egg, complete with a well-developed embryo. The embryo reportedly did not have an egg tooth.
I'd be interested in learning more about that discovery. Was it just a single egg or did they find more than one?
google Zhonghe Zhou
It just so happens that we are purchasing some hens in the next few days for the very purpose of producing our own eggs! And so that the kids can observe yet another of Yahweh's brilliant creations for themselves.
Free range eggs... YUM!
P.S. I'm glad Dale hasn't gone away, I'd miss him.
Archaeogical discoveries verify the historical reliability of the Old and New testaments.
When compared to other books, the BIBLE is unique in that it is the oldest, as testified by the places, people, titles, and events mentioned in the BIBLE,and the language and literary formats used to compose the BIBLE.
The discoveries of archaeology can be helpful in removing (Doubts) that a person or person's might have about the historical trustworthiness of the BIBLE.
These discoveries fall into three categories.
1. Archaeological demonstrates the historical and cultural accuracy of the BIBLE.
2. The BIBLE message of a loving creator GOD who interacts in the affairs of mankind and has provided a means of Salvation stands in sharp contrast to the pagan fertility relgions of the ancient world as, revealed by Archaeology.
3. Archaeological findings demonstrate that the BIBICAL prohets accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred--something that lies beyond the capability of mere men.
Allen
ps- how my doing cos.
Joshua-
Just because one point follows logically from another in a discussion doesn't invalidate it. The fact that so many of you sprang on me like a rottweiler on a hot-dog about quoting a -mistranslation in the Bible- is kind of telling. You're very quick to write off something that is patently ludicrous by today's standards as erroneous, allegorical, or a shoddy translation. (You'll have no complaints from me as far labeling the KJV shoddy - I only quote it here because it's a Protestant staple where I live.)
On the other hand, dozens of posters on here go on and on and on about how the Bible is the inspired and protected word of God that has somehow magically survived unchanged and with its message fully intact all the way up to the present. BUT, when faced with something that you know to be indefensible you back off - the Bible is inerrant and literal, except when it's an allegory; the Bible has been protected and inspired perfectly, except when something doesn't make sense, in which case there's been a mistranslation.
Now THAT is predictable. :-D
The whole "unicorn" really means "ox" etc. thing is out there everywhere (Google "bible unicorn" - I suspect some of you already have), and I knew before I posted that comment that people would be pulling that or something similar out as fast as possible. The unicorn was just bait to make a point about Biblical interpretation and errancy.
Once again, when you can peddle Biblical or pseudo-Biblical ideas that still have some kind of social currency you play it to the hilt - the Bible is the inerrant word of God and you'd better do what it says or you're hosed. However, once you're faced with something that know to be absolutely laughable, then oops, there's been a translation error or it was just meant as allegory. It's same stuff when it comes to who you're allowed to hate: Hating gay folks still plays in the U.S., stoning your neighbors for being non-Christian doesn't - Surprise, turns out we -don't- have to stone our heathen neighbors, but we still get to hate the gays! (I'm waiting for "love the sinner, hate the sin platitudes".)
Again, utterly predictable. :-\
I know there's some folks on here who aren't complete literalists, but there are enough folks who won't even give an answer about the age of the Earth (Ray included) that it's better-than-even odds that some of you are. This point is aimed squarely at those folks.
Maybe, just maybe, when the Bible talks about unicorns it -means- unicorns, and maybe, just maybe, some of you should entertain a notion that seems to be perfectly obvious to you about every -other- holy book: That maybe it's a socially constructed, humanly-authored set of stories rooted in the sensitivities, politics, and spirituality of its place of origin and borrowing heavily from other, earlier indigenous religions - nothing more, nothing less.
Love and peace,
-Skippy
Paul, in implying that God is not intelligent, you are overlooking one thing in God's design: it works. Evolution...is a figment of someone's very fertile imagination.
Think about this, Paul (and all you other atheists): eggs are the only way that chickens reproduce. Tell me: how many chickens would you have to have at first in order to make enough mistakes figuring out how to get to eggs--not to mention eggs that work--in order for the species to survive? And how did they get there?
I remember cornering an atheist on the street, and when I finally got him to admit that God is the only answer, he responded, "But that's infantile!" To which I responded, "Of course it is! Because God uses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise!"
It is amazing how long and hard evil people will search for a reason not to give credit to the One on whom they depend for their very next breath. Just amazing.
Even more amazing: they are still breathing! God loves you guys, so take that to heart.
MAPS - an acronym that you can use to support that the Bible is devine rather than human:
Manuscript evidence - there are literally thousands of original manuscript evidence which support that the Bible is not a bunch of fairy tails. Bibliographical evidence is there. Eye-witness accounts abound in the Bible. Even external evidence shows that this book contains words of life written by our Creator.
Archaeology - we keep digging good evidence out of the earth proving events, places, names are all true and linked to the Bible.
Prophesy - Jesus fullfilled all of the prophesies about himself, enough evidence here to prove the Bible is devine in origin.
Statistics - the chances that our Savior fullfilled these prophesies himself without being God is impossible.
MAPS acroym taken from www.equip.org - thanks Hank!
How many rings would the first tree have in the garden of Eden?
"@ Clos
I appreciate finally getting an thoughtful response to this. If I had seen this argument before I would not have asked you to repeat it."
Well then stop asking the same question then because the answer remains the same.
I said, "It turns out that there must be a balance between selfishness (his title doesn't suggest there is a gene for "selfishness", the stress is on "gene") and altruism."
Cyp replied, "I don't know if I understand. So people actively practicing evil are needed for society to function correctly?"
Not a need, but a realization that there will always be cheats.
I said, "we employ the game "tit for tat" and "reciprocator". When someone lets us cut in in traffic or holds the door for us we thank them either vocally or by jesture; if they fail to do this we "punish them" either vocally or by jesture."
Cyp replied, "I understand what your saying. But here is the problem with it. Your scenario requires a PERFECT set of events. If someone doesn't recieve these "tit for tat" or "reciprocator" games when they are young, and in fact recieve the opposite or some warped version of them, then they will have a whole different sort of morals. Not only will their morals be different, but they will be LEGITIMATELY so. Meaning that their warped moral code will be just as valid as the "perfect scenario" moral code."
Well, possibly, there is a balance between nature and nurture and it depends on what and how the children are taught. This, unfortunately is the world we live in. Look at kids being groomed for suicide bombing in the middle east.
"Let's say that their warped moral code includes being able to annihilating those that they view as evil. They will have every right to act on that moral code (a la the Third Reich). And no one would legitametly be able to tell them it's wrong because we would never know for sure the cultural mores that individual, or group of individuals, learned."
Correct, and that is why there are those of us here that want to see this nation educated, able to think rationally, to understand why we have a Bill of Rights able to think skeptically and ethically. We are largely a product of our culture. My concern is that "magical thinking" is impeding progress in this way and pitting rival groups who worship the same god differently or worship different gods. Any type of dogma, and unquestionable authority is dangerous.
I said, "what if some other member steals your food; constantly? You would starve."
Cyp replied, "But if I'm the one stealing then I don't starve and I don't care about anyone else but me."
True, but you have to take into consideration that you are stealing from a member of a group which has decided that if a member steals there will be retribution. Therefore you have to weigh cost benefits in your decision. If you have no food to begin with and are starving, the benefits of having that food might outweigh the retribution that may face you if you are caught. I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind why we are intolerant of stealing, and much of it boils down to you asking yourself "would I want to be stolen from". This makes one more think more objectively and come to the conclusion that the group should agree that stealing is wrong, but sharing and trading are good. This way, your interests are being looked out for by the group; putting much more pressure on would be thieves.
Cyp said, "And clos, your view about our morals being cultural is what leads to murderous getting off because they grew up with an abusive father."
No, that is simply the reality. If you want platitudes delivered from on high, I have none to give. The Bible is hardly a source of morality and we don't need it to arrive at what is good in it. What do you want me to tell you, that everything is black and white? That we don't have to think about things and try things out before we realize they don't work? This is life. If you don't agree with it, work to change it.
Cyp said, "That individuals "culture" was so warped that they are not responsible for their actions. In light of the different cultures individuals can be exposed to, almost anything is permitted as long as you can find an legitamite excuse for your actions."
That is why before the abolition in the US clergy were free to publically endorse slavery. They got their justification both from scripture and their culture's mores. The problem is they used the "ultimate authority" on the matter making it difficult to argue with. This is why reason and not dogma should be introduced into moral discussions so we can find the best solutions. We need more ethical thinking if we are going to have a stable society. There are no human institutions that are perfect, so there is no cure-all source for morals or direction or truth. We have to be skeptical and examine claims, ask questions and be honest during the process. I know that you want an absolute lawgiver that is above all humans....but I don't see any. It's just us here as far as we can tell.
Still wait for all the research papers providing the "overwhelming" evidence for divine creation.
Waiting.
Waiting.
Still waiting.
Skippy, you can continue to make excuses about a single translation, but a translation is just that--a translation. It isn't the original text (which we don't have anyway). To insist that the Bible itself teaches that there are unicorns is absurd. The Bible wasn't written in English.
Look, you can say what you want about that being an excuse for the Bible--the Bible doesn't need my excuses to defeat your false claims. Recheck the dozens of other translations out there. Or, hey, maybe learn some Hebrew and do a translation yourself! At least then, you'd really know the truth (but you don't care about the truth).
Skippy
"Oh, hey, you guys use the KJV right?"
Nope! Unicorns in KJV is a good reason not to use that TRANSLATION of the original language, as is the fact that approx 600 words now have a different meaning in modern English!
Peace to you too!
Charles said
"Where is all the supposed research that so-called ID/creationist "scientists" are working on, anyway? Just wondering."
Largely, to show that the evidence offered by naturalistic science, when viewed through a non naturalistic philosophy, comes up with a different result altogether. I.E. -Naturalism says we are in a closed system, no supernatural imput, all life the product of time and chance, having evolved over the eons through small changes, environmental factors, etc. Forgive my pedestrian definition, is it wrong? I know it is incomplete, but you get my drift... When THAT is how all this got here, you will come up with certain conclusions that fit that model. When, however, you apply a Creator, without defining that creator at all (this is ID) or if you define that creator(this is creationism), the implications of the SAME evidence is seen as being completely different for the same exact evidence. This points out that there is a large philosophical construct that influences the interpretation of said evidence. The naturalists refuse to deal with this or call it science, boo hoo, fine, carry on. But it should strike you as interesting and SHOULD cause everyone to question how much philosophy has to do with influencing evidence and its interpretation.
Charles said
"Still wait for all the research papers providing the "overwhelming" evidence for divine creation."
There does not need to be overwhelming evidence, just adequate evidence. Its out there.
Sean,
1. You have thousand of pre-printing press manuscripts -- or rather, fragments of manuscripts, which is to be sure a lot. Guess why? It's because in nearly illiterate world, the few people who could write at all were almost assuredly Christian scribes. We have a relatively large number of scriptural manuscripts because that's the thing they were most interested in copying Also, Christians had a pronounced tendency to destroy any writings that weren't the Bible or otherwise part of their faith. So I fail to see why an abundance of manuscripts has anything to do with their validity. Similarly, the fact that all of these "eyewitness" accounts abound in the bible likewise carries little weight. A book can be perfectly self-consistant and have nothing to do with actual events. All you have, really, is a bunch of unconfirmed statements. Without outside corroberation, they don't attest to anything other than the fact that they were written down.
2. Okay, archeology. Your claim that recent archeology continues to reveal confirmations of biblical stories - which would indeed be the sort of outside verification required to bestow some validity to your manuscripts - is pretty mixed. Some stuff seems consistant with Biblical accounts, but it's hardly the sort of evidence you need to prove a perfect historical document. What you have are some confirmation of the names of places and even some individuals. Fine. The problem is, the further you get away from common facts, like the existence of the Canaanites, and the closer you get to miraculous events that appear only in scripture, the real world evidence rapidly disappears. So we can pretty much accept the existance of a city called Jehrico, which was destroyed and rebuilt a number of times, as were many Bronze Age cities. On the other hand, there really doesn't seem to be too much evidence of a worldwide Flood that destroyed every living land-based creature about four thousand years ago. Please don't make me go through all the evidence that contradicts this account: the presence of layers of sedimentary rock that had to have been laid down over the course of millions of years. The failure to find a single layer of all the animals that supposedly died in the flood, all of them mixed together. The impossibility of forming a feature like the Grand Canyon all at once. The best you can do if you want to dispute the piles and piles of geological evidence (not that any of the creationist here appear to actually look up any evidence) is to say that God only made it look the Earth is billions of years old. How clever of God. So sorry, you don't have archeology to support any significant Biblical accounts.
3. Prophecy. Oh wow! Goodness! You've really got me there.
Not.
It's really rather easy to fulfill a prophecy if you're writing your version of a story after the supposed prophesied event has already taken place. Here's an example of how gospel accounts were doctored to make them line up better with Hebrew scriptures. One of the prophecies that Jesus would supposedly have to fulfill in order to be considered the Messiah, according to some interpretations, is to be born in the "City of David," i.e. Bethlehem. Well, you've got a problem -- Jesus was a Nazarene from Galilee. So how to get him over 90 miles of mountain roads in time to be born in the right place? The census, of course! Joseph had to return to the city of his ancestors to be counted. Problem is, this census is fictional. There was no "world-wide" census decreed by Augustus recorded anywhere. At best, you have a local census by the governor Quintus about 5 or 10 years after the other approximate dates of Jesus's birth. And this census would certainly not require everyone to get up and move to a place where some distant ancestor lived a thousand years previously. (Also, has anyone ever wondered why there's so much effort put into trying to establish Joseph's lineage back to David, or even Adam, when Joseph has absolutely no biological relationship to Jesus?) So yes, the bible is full of accounts that show clear evidence of being written or rewritten in order to make them agree better with earlier stories and prophecies. Again, when you look at outside evidence, the stories start to show their seams and patches.
4. Statistics. See Number 3 above for an explanation of doctored prophecies.
Manuscript evidence, eh? Actually my friend, if you were to read some works on biblical textual criticism, perhaps some work on the Documentary Hypothesis (which, by the way, has rabbinical and Church roots that long predate its discussion in secular academia), some comparative mythology, etc. you would be hard pressed to ignore the very human authorship of the Bible. Likewise, large swathes of the Bible, including the Gospels, were not written as eye witness accounts. The four gospels are of unknown authorship and are called Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John only out of tradition. The epistles are at least claimed to be written by specific church fathers and much of their authorship is generally accepted, but they don't deal with the real meat of the faith, they deal with the administration of missionary churches and the clarification (and alteration) of doctrine - hardly the stuff you'd base your life on.
We further have solid evidence of modifications and alterations of the Bible over time. For example, the earliest manuscripts we have of the Gospel of Mark do not contain the final 12 verses that we find today -at all-. They do not show up until substantially later texts. Also of note is the Johannine Comma, (1 John 5:7-8) - the only explicit delineation of the Trinity in the Bible. It did not exist in its current form in the oldest (Greek) manuscripts we have - it only came into being in a form most Christians would recognize with the creation of the Latin Vulgate. It was Erasmus who manufactured a Greek version of it in the 16th century.
Archaeology - Many of the locations and events in the Bible, specifically the OT, are referenced anachronistically or simply don't appear to have existed. One especially pertinent example is the Exodus - not only do we have no outside attestation to the existence of Moses, but there is precisely squat in terms of archaeological evidence of a million+ Jews living as nomads in the desert for 40 years. Indeed, the population of Egypt at the alleged time Exodus is unlikely to have been sufficient to warrant even having a million+ Jews as slaves to begin with. Likewise the destruction of Jericho is archaeologically dated to the 16th century BC rather than 13th - 15th century BC dates variously suggested by biblical interpretters. (See Kenyon, 1957) Other sites like Sodom and Gomorrah may not have even existed at all, and even their general location based on biblical interpretation is disputed. Likewise, the Bible references the Pishon, Tigris, Euphrates, and Gihon rivers as being sourced by a single river running through Eden despite the fact that these rivers are not now and to all appearances have never been connected.
In short, the Bible is FAR from verified by archaeology.
Prophecy- I would point out that "Spider-Man 2" fulfills everything that was foreshadowed by "Spider-Man" but we accept neither as fact. It is a simple matter to write scripture that corresponds with earlier scripture. Likewise, Jesus was obviously familiar with Jewish scripture and therefore could have consciously been saying and doing things to correspond with its prophecies.
It is also worth noting that the majority of Jews certainly don't see the NT as the fulfillment of the OT, so the validation of OT prophecy by the NT is a matter of dispute among the religious as well.
Statistical "evidence" at this point would amount to subjectively arrived at values assigned to events whose reality is in dispute, and thus is of essentially no value whatsoever.
It looks like your MAPS might not lead you anywhere. :-\
Love and peace,
-Skippy
Joshua and Garret-
Funny how everyone -knows- that their translation is the best. :-)
I attack the KJV because it's a Protestant mainstay, especially in my part of the country. (Try getting into a biblical debate with a Kentucky Baptist using anything else - they'll immediately claim you're using a Satanic corruption.) I'm well aware of substantially better translations out there. My usual reference Bible is the NRSV, since that is the one accepted by most American biblical scholars.
Don't the plethora of vastly disparate translations, the abject lack of early manuscripts, and the vast differences in events, chronology, and even basic theology in the manuscripts we -do- have give you a moment of pause? If I handed you a Muslim or a Buddhist holy book with the exact same set of circumstances behind it you'd see through it in a second, so why can't you apply that to your own?
Too bad that the blinders of faith trump all facts and reasoning that you might otherwise bring to bear.
Love and peace,
-Skippy
Bill said, "The Bible tells us that God created it."
Circular reasoning. "We know that God inspired the Bible because it says so right in the Bible." Sorry, this is not evidence for anything except your own credulity.
"Clostridium,
Do you have a job? You spend lots of time writing short stories on this blog. I hope you're not stealing time from your employer to create such interesting fiction literature. God will not be mocked."
Soul sista, thanks so much for your concern. I actually quit my job so that I can devote all my attention to Ray and his ministry. Thanks so much.
Peace and Pasta.
"Isnt it funny (not really) how this post was just a word of thanks to God. I mean, even if the atheists (whatever that means anymore) dont believe Ray to be correct, why do they feel it is their duty to try and opress his thankfulness? In the friendly, enlightened (dark ages), utopia we live in today, one would conclude that any thankfulness to whatever deity (most give theirs to Baals) would be welcomed. This once again proves they hate Him without a cause."
Isn't George W. Bush enough reason?
"Prophecy- I would point out that "Spider-Man 2" fulfills everything that was foreshadowed by "Spider-Man" but we accept neither as fact. It is a simple matter to write scripture that corresponds with earlier scripture. Likewise, Jesus was obviously familiar with Jewish scripture and therefore could have consciously been saying and doing things to correspond with its prophecies."
I wish everyone could think like Skippy, well put!
Skippy
when you enter johannine comma 1 John 5: 7-8 into Google, the first choice points out the problem with your statement.
Liberal theology has TONS of problems- a good thorough and HONEST work on this subject- "The Jesus Legend a case for the Historical reliability of the synoptic Jesus tradition" Eddy and Boyd. It CRUSHES and brutalizes liberal theological concepts with a stunning array of references and evidences- a project that took four years for the authors to complete. It is also honest about modifications that have had to been made in scholarship because of these challenges! I have no concern about nor does anything you or dale says on the subject bother me because of this book, (among others). I highly recommend that anyone interested in the subject get this book. It is very technical and dry, though you can skip to relevent chapters.
Cypress-
Sorry brother, you got lost in the shuffle what with the unicorns and all that. Let's see here...
You said (and pardon the ellipses):
"...watching other people have sex. It's not hurting anybody so it's not wrong."
Hey, we agree on something! :-D
Hehe, just kidding, I know what you meant. Surely YOU'RE not implying that watching two willing, consenting adults hump each other is the same as shooting a guy in the face for his wallet. Part of life is admitting that there are some things you personally find unseemly without vilifying everyone who doesn't. I don't drink, but I don't pontificate about the demon alcohol to everyone I see with a beer in his hand. Shockingly enough, not everything is legitimately a moral issue.
Oh, by the way, surely you understand that trying to say that singular worship of Yahweh is a criterion for morality rings hollow to an atheist. Likewise, it may not always be moral to honor your father and your mother. What if -they're- evil jerks? On the other hand, in terms of, say "thou shalt not steal" the bat example applies swimmingly.
I note that you're either trying to ignore or have forgotten about the discussion we had about universal moral norms against things like in-group murder and incest. (This discussion has sprawled across like six sets of posts so I can see how you might have lost track.) Those kinds of taboos exist among all humans and are very plausibly explained as a matter of group selection. The monogamy issue is, as I said, nicely discussed in the Diamond book I mentioned.
As for "getting caught" being the deciding factor of what is moral or immoral...
a.) -Threat- of punishment and shame within the in-group are just as powerful a set of motivating factors for socially acceptable behavior as actually getting caught and -being- punished.
b.) Altruistic behavior may be motivated by factors distinct from punishment such as in-group prestige and the potential for later reward.
c.) Individuals in a group find that they are -all- better off by enforcing social norms on other members of the group, reducing the opportunity for cheating (see the bit about the bats again).
Hobbes was kind of peculiar and I don't like to hinge my arguments on him, but his idea of the formation of enforcement mechanisms within groups (In his case he was talking about the state as enforcer, but we can apply even to approval/disapproval from peers) as the result of a rational choice to trade some amount of freedom to do as we please (even cheating) for a corresponding amount of security rings true for our purposes here. Like it or not, it accounts for some degree of social norm enforcement behavior.
You may also want to check into Shibutani's work on the "generalized other" that we form regarding the expectations of us on the part of the various peer groups with whom we interact.
Also remember that societal norms and game theory don't have to work 100% of the time to be valid, they just have to work -enough- to maintain something close to the status quo.
Love and peace,
-Skippy
Yo, Skippy, high five, my brother! That was a two-for-one!
Garret,
Still waiting for any evidence, then. Fieldwork? Statistical surveys? Hypotheses that can be verified by data? Independently verified sample specimens? Reproducible experiments? Whatcha got?
What is a testable hypothesis to provide support for creation "theory" anyway?
Of all the atheists I've debated with, they've always given me reasons not to believe in God, but never once have I been given a valid reason to not believe in God. I'm *still* waiting for a logical answer to the question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". I know that's an age old question but I've not yet received an answer that makes sense and that doesn't in some way misdirect or try to avoid the question. The same with "where are the missing links". They're missing because they've never been there.
Guys, what have you got to lose in truly seeking to know whether God does exist and saves souls from destruction? If we're wrong we will lose little, but if *you're* wrong you'll lose all, your whole life will have been futile and you'll spend eternity in regret. If only you'd put your pride aside and ask God to reveal Himself to you. You'll be in for such a ride if you do.
charles said "Still wait for all the research papers providing the "overwhelming" evidence for divine creation.
Waiting.
Waiting.
Still waiting."
Yer, about that, look - it might be a while - in the meantime can I interest you in some flying pig literature?
@ Clos
"Well then stop asking the same question then because the answer remains the same."
Well, clos, I was attempting to be cordial but I guess that's not possible with you.
"Well, possibly, there is a balance between nature and nurture and it depends on what and how the children are taught. This, unfortunately is the world we live in. Look at kids being groomed for suicide bombing in the middle east."
For once and maybe only, you and I agree on something Clos. This is precisely my point.
"My concern is that "magical thinking" is impeding progress in this way and pitting rival groups who worship the same god differently or worship different gods. Any type of dogma, and unquestionable authority is dangerous."
See, this is what I don't understand. You admit that you're own explanation of morality doesn't produce moral people. Yet you are against a moral code that gives someone a reason to act moral ALL the time and doesn't let them get away with it (by claiming the "I'm just a product of my culture" excuse).
"That we don't have to think about things and try things out before we realize they don't work?"
Why think about what we already know is right and wrong? The only thing to decide is what is right to do in that situation, that's all you can do.
"They got their justification both from scripture..."
I'm so tired of hearing that the Scriptures promote slavery. Give me a verse where it says slavery is good. You know where the west got their idea that slavery was ok? They looked at the fact that they have culture and that the people populating the African continent were (they thought) savages and concluded they have EVOLVED more. Therefore making them superior and able to do what they wanted.
"This is why reason and not dogma should be introduced into moral discussions so we can find the best solutions."
I'm a dogmatic Christian so I can't use reason? What have I been doing on this blog for over a month? Using reason to defend Jesus Christ, that's what.
"There are no human institutions that are perfect, so there is no cure-all source for morals or direction or truth."
EXACTLY. God's truth is not man made. That's why your system is morally bankrupt and a society that listens to your world view will be just as bankrupt. "Let's take God out of our schools"! "Wait, why are kids shooting eachother?"
We all need a measured degree of fear for our actions. So what if I go to jail, it's 3 square meals a day. So what if I get shot by police, there is nothing after this life anyway. Wait, there is something called hell that I could go to if I'm not right before a just and holy God? Now I'm listening and now I'll think before I do things. Does the guy doing wrong really care about social "games"? That's why society is so confused about what's going on right under their noses.
"We have to be skeptical and examine claims, ask questions and be honest during the process. I know that you want an absolute lawgiver that is above all humans....but I don't see any. It's just us here as far as we can tell."
I completely agree that we need to reason through everything, be honest and ask questions. But your reason will always be warped because of your refusal to see God in anything. You bury your intellect in your biology, have so many questions but still refuse to see the most logical answer. You label God as "impossible" straig