"Why give that idiot a platform?"
"Someone please find out how we pose questions to this charlatan and post the solution here. Then we can inundate him. Let's make Noah's flood seem like a mere tear drop in the ocean."
"What a little ray of comfort. NOT!"
"Did you see those Einstein and Hawking quotes in the heading of RC's blog? Is that fabricated or what."
"You MUST capitalize god and jesus."
"I'm ashamed he was born in a country neighboring my own."
"Comfort is a complete idiot, and should be ignored."
"Seriously? Deleted for not capitalizing 'God'?"
"Ugh. Ray Comfort bores me to tears."
"That moron Comfort is a natural disaster and is not caused by his imaginary god."
"He actually lets most comments through which is more than can be said of other blogs of his ilk."
"He's also the master of the drive by comment/post."
"Ok, Mr. Comfort. Put down the mouse, it's time to take your meds."
"I still read Ray Comfort's blog, mostly for laughs."
"I remember once flicking onto the Christian Channel on pay TV and there Ray Comfort was (though I didn't know it at the time) telling everyone how the earth is a prison and we are all prisoners."
"On behalf of the people of NZ [New Zealand] I would like to thank the people of the US for taking . . . comfort off our hands. Perhaps you could find a better use for him."
"Why anyone pays attention to this guy is beyond me." [You are not alone Mr. Atheist. I have asked the same question].
Friday, June 27, 2008
Quote-mining From an Atheist Site
89 comments:
Ray,
Don't worry about it. We still love you!
I can't profess to love in a noble spiritual sense as I don't have a soul but I love you in my own gangly, tree-hopping, hairy, primative way.
Now who is up for a collective social grooming session?
Hi Ray,
"Quote mining" is usually when people deliberately take quotes out of context. You're not doing that this time. I'm afraid that these quotes you gave really don't need any context. Their meaning is pretty much as indicated.
And, Mr chimp, I'm in for the grooming session. I like nit picking :) I also watched "Meerkat Manor" last night. They seem to enjoy it too.
Strange how most Christians take criticism as encouragement.
Strange that your religion encourages you to believe without proof and tells you to expect criticism. It's almost as if the founders of it knew something you don't...
Ray, you should read PZ's blog more often. You might actually learn something about how science really works instead of the strawman version you keep throwing out there.
You and your readers should prepared for some strong language however. I understand colorful wording sometimes offends a few of you.
@
Ray...
Where did you find these comments at?
Just another clear indication of the depravity within atheists.
@ celtic chimp...
How is that you and some other atheists protest "friendly love" towards Ray, and yet, day after day, you make it a point to belittle him? That's not love... Perhaps you should get your dictionary out and look up love and hate. Love and hate are both proven by word & deed. If you say you love and then act on the contrary, you are deceiving yourselves.
Ray, I find that list of comments very distressing.
Oh, not that they were posted - I agree with most of them wholeheartedly - but because you LEFT MINE OUT!
I was the one who asked one of your fellow Kiwis if he was as embarrassed by you as I am of ex-pat Australian Ken 'Flintstones Theme Park' Ham.
But I've learned my lesson - obviously, I'm just not trying hard enough. I'll attempt to do better next time.
Again, Mr. Comfort, for someone professing to have absolute truth, you spend an awful lot of time saying absolutely nothing useful.
You could help your cause. You could actually be trying to "save people" as you believe. But what do you do? Insult people and belittle them and then condemn them for doing the same to you.
Gary, you are not a monkey. Get over it.
aww sweet comment celtic chimp!
Ray, I don't know how you do it... you are an inspiration, I wish everyone hated me so much.
Ray,
You call Pharyngula an "atheist" site, but it could also be called a science blog, as today like many other days it discusses peer-reviewed research.
Geoff
"On behalf of the people of NZ I would like to thank the people of the US for taking bananaman comfort off our hands. Perhaps you could find a better use for him. Soilent green maybe?"
Even quote-mining you leave out the funnier parts.
While I don't worship you or put you on a pedastal, I do think that WOTM is a wonderful thing and it has changed my life.
You are just a regular, Godly man who speaks the Truth unashamedly.
For that, I am thankful. Keep up the good work!
:)
One would think that Ray would take a hint from these comments, and maybe hire an image consultant (The easy way out) or at least take a few adult education/continuing education courses, to help him with his educational issues.
Ray, it is sort of bad journalism to post a bunch of quotes without giving credit for them, and telling us where they come from. For all we know, you could have just made them up. Good journalism practice requires that if you use another person's quotes, you specifically state who they are, and where you got the quote from.
Not crediting quotes is nothing short of Yellow Journalism -- And that's not good if Yellow is your favorite color.
P.S. I'm still wondering why you don't allow URLS or even suggestions of URLS to be posted.
I tell ya, Ray, I don't have the strength for all that. I admire you for what you do. I am thankful to God for giving you that strength and the courage to continue on each and every day. I always learn something here and even though they don't want to admit it, I am sure the "atheists" do too.
Haha.
Ambiguity intentional.
pssh...those dang atheist make me sick! We should round 'em all up and ship 'em to New Zealand!
hmmm...I wonder what their thoughts on abortion are????
Ray,
It only confirms the weakness of the atheists' argument when they must resort to name calling and childishness. God Bless.
I hope you keep reading that site - PZ provides many, many scientific examples of transitional fossils, and talks about it at length.
In fact, his most recent post was about recent discoveries.
I'm sure, since you've studied evolution for 30 years (or however long you've claimed), you'd be up for a rousing debate with him? He appeared in Expelled, o clearly isn't afraid to face the crushing absolute arguments you certainly have to back up your point.
@ Ray:
Congratulations, you have successfully demonstrated that atheists are readily irritated by your antics, and prone to expressing that irritation in a rather sharp-tongued fashion. You still haven't shown that we're wrong about what we believe (or rather, don't believe).
@ Celtic Chimp:
Now who is up for a collective social grooming session?
I am! I am!
Ah, now I am experiencing nostalgia for my college days. I lived in a women's dorm, and just about every night there would be about a dozen people sitting together in the hall, studying or discussing Serious Ideas . . . while brushing each other's hair. I don't know if the thought occurred to me at the time, but looking back . . . wow, we were a bunch of primates.
Human social behavior is so very similar to great ape social behavior. You have to wonder how some people fail to make the connection.
Amen Ray, great post!
First the "water is wet" post, now this! I'm surprised that I've been agreeing with you so much recently.
By the way, I recognize some of those quotes, but care to share the sites/blogs where the others came from? I could always use some more humorous reading material.
Seriously, Ray, I think that it is disingenuous of you to have that quote from Einstein at the header of your website.
Einstein was not a Christian, and he did not believe in Jesus, nor did he beleive in a personal God.
You should remove that quote and replace it with some bible verse.
What is this guys problem? Why does he have issue with the posting rules here? And since he dosn't like them dosn't he know he is welcome to not post or visit? There are truly some morons on this site but, Ray, you are not one of them...and as a US citizen I am very glad you are in our country!
Ray, take 'comfort' in knowing it's not you they're railing against, but God.
Come on Ray admit it.
You are the ultimate Poe.
I mean why else would the atheist crowd point and say "look at how ridiculous this guy is" and the Creationist crowd say "um... we're not associated with this guy"
You rock!
There is no place in the entire internet where stupid is defined so well. You've raised it to an art form. Cudos.
"On behalf of the people of NZ [New Zealand]..."
I love that the spokesperson for the entire country of New Zealand posted a commment - that is very impressive. I mean, thats got to be great to be able to speak for an entire country.
Can I give it a try...and, actually, play a sort of trump card: On behalf of planet earth (top that), we (earth) welcome Ray Comfort and his views and insights. If my collegue, the spokesperson of New Zealand, has a problem with that, he/she can find a new planet. Take that silly, minor spokesperson.
Looks like these guys spend most of their waking hours thinking of YOU, Ray. Oh yes, and of us "Ray-tards" too.
"Benjamin Franklin said... seriously, Ray, I think that it is disingenuous of you to have that quote from Einstein at the header of your website.Einstein was not a Christian, and he did not believe in Jesus, nor did he beleive in a personal God.You should remove that quote and replace it with some bible verse."
I have never said that Einstein was a Christian, that he believed in Jesus or in a personal God. He wasn't dumb. He knew there was a Creator, because creation couldn't have created itself. Something that didn't exist, can't create itself...because it didn't exist. It's impossible. Whatever created, had to be eternal. That's obvious to a thinking person.
scmike said...
"It only confirms the weakness of the atheists' argument when they must resort to name calling and childishness. God Bless."
These quotes were taken from other atheist's blogs, as they discussed Ray, without Ray actually participating.
I am not just sure, but pretty positive that you Christians all say similar things about atheists when talking to each other about us. Don't ask me for examples, because I have a bunch right here, ready to post. They're taken from Ray's blog, and various Christian boards and forums, and they say pretty much the same types of things about us. I mean, Ray is a major offender himself. He issues lame put-downs to atheists on a regular basis.
Well, despite what they claim to think about you, they sure keep coming back for more!
"Whatever created, had to be eternal. That's obvious to a thinking person."
This is wrong. Einstein's discovery of the relationship between Gravity and Space-Time requires that the Universe is not "Eternal".
Time itself started at the Big-Bang. That's why calculations go awry around there, because you start dividing by 0, which is a no-no. Even God can't divide by 0 (some omnipotent being, He couldn't even create a rock so big that He couldn't lift it).
That said. Einstein's "God of the Gaps" came when breakthroughs were made in Quantum Mechanics. The contradictions contained therein troubled Einstein, as it created an incongruency with his theories of how Gravity impacted the universe.
I know it's tough to understand Ray, and that's alright. I'll even accept that *you* require a God to explain it for yourself.
However, some of us understand enough to have the choice to logically accept that a God is not required to solve these fundamental issues.
I'm not saying you are not smart, or that people who believe in God are not smart. What I am saying is that people who can ably describe such things are smart enough to choose to believe (or not believe) in God.
I chose not to believe in God.
If you are going to post quotes, how about some citations? Even atheists know it's dishonest to just post random quotes with saying where they come from. Prove you aren't just making it up.
Ray had posted from an atheist... "Comfort is a complete idiot, and should be ignored.
"That moron Comfort is a natural disaster and is not caused by his imaginary god."
Wow! no love there and where there is no love there is hate.
Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. - NASB
Ray wrote:
"I have never said that Einstein was a Christian, that he believed in Jesus or in a personal God. He wasn't dumb. He knew there was a Creator..."
No, when he denied that there was a personal God, he was denying that there was a creator. His concept of a non-personal God was of physical laws bringing about the universe, not of a pre-existing creator who willed it to happen.
You still don't get it, Ray.
@ Scott:
Can I give it a try...and, actually, play a sort of trump card: On behalf of planet earth (top that), we (earth) welcome Ray Comfort and his views and insights.
On behalf of the entire universe, I would like to say that we're sure Ray is a nice guy and we wish him all the best, but we still think he's kind of silly.
irukandji said:"Human social behavior is so very similar to great ape social behavior."
Actually, I believe that human beings are classified as one of the great apes. Which, as I'm sure you'd agree, means that we share a lot of social behaviors.
Not monkeys. Apes. Please, show some respect.
As pointed out above by Chris, you don't understand what you are being accused of when we catch you quote mining.
Quote mining is ignoring the real meaning of what a person is saying and instead repeating snippets that, on their own, convey a false impression of the author's intent. (That's what you are doing with Einstein and Hawking. You are misrepresenting their views.)
For instance, I could quote you as saying:
"I have never said that Einstein was a Christian, that he believed in Jesus or in a personal God. He wasn't dumb."
Based on this quote, I could claim you are saying that Einstein wasn't dumb as shown by the fact that he didn't believe in a personal God.
Am I the only one who reads Ray's posts and can't help but thinking he'd make a great character on Flight of the Conchords?
Something that didn't exist, can't create itself...because it didn't exist. It's impossible. Whatever created, had to be eternal. That's obvious to a thinking person.
I'm getting you a nice new butane lighter for your next birthday. That or maybe even Christmas *wink
That way you'll have a much longer supply of fire to burn all the strawmen you like to build.
Ray,
Thank you. For hypocrytes, lost sinners, and fear-filled Christians, God has used you to bring us the knowledge sin, the call to repentance from sin, and the tools to call others to the same. Praise God that He has showed us our sin through the Law, that we might turn from it and to the One He has appointed as authority over all things, His Son, Jesus Christ.
If you are going to post quotes, how about some citations? Even atheists know it's dishonest to just post random quotes with saying where they come from. Prove you aren't just making it up.
Well most if not all of those are from PZ Myers blog, Pharyngula (Google will take you right there). I suggest that everyone spend some time there and at the other blogs connected to it. Many of the commenters are in dire need of science education. There are plenty of good articles on science. You can ignore the ones that may offend. It's easy to pick those out.
I can take ownership of a few of those quotes. Particularly, from the top #5, 11, 12.
Am I the only one who reads Ray's posts and can't help but thinking he'd make a great character on Flight of the Conchords?
Funny, I actually mentioned this to my wife the other day when she asked me what i was laughing at. She's a huge fan of Flight of the Conchords.
Yes those of you in shock, we atheists have loving families too!
Michelle said...
@
Ray...
Where did you find these comments at?
Just another clear indication of the depravity within atheists.
@ celtic chimp...
How is that you and some other atheists protest "friendly love" towards Ray, and yet, day after day, you make it a point to belittle him? That's not love... Perhaps you should get your dictionary out and look up love and hate. Love and hate are both proven by word & deed. If you say you love and then act on the contrary, you are deceiving yourselves.
We're sick of the lies, of the willfull misrepresentation of science (see "crockaduck"), we're sick of the condensension (the claims that Ray accurately represents science when he obviously knows nothing about it, then claiming that the reason people don't agree with him is becuase of our sin), we're sick of the fact that people like him and you are working against and ridiculing honest scientists who are actually trying to learn more about the world, thus driving american educational standards even lower than they already are, we're sick of people who blame the worst atrocities of history (anti-semitism) on people who have had virtually nothing to do with it ("darwinists") while ignoring centuries of religious anti-semitism which even the Nazis admitted was their inspiration, we're sick of people who use the fact that they're so easily offended as "clear indication" of the "depravity" of the other side while excusing away things like baby killing, rapes, etc. ordered by the deity they themselves worship, also we're sick of the fact that you criticize people like PZ Myers and his commentators for their "depravity" while it's your "side" who's always in the headlines for some case of child molestation, some kid dying because the parents relied on prayer instead of medicine (as the bible teaches) and on and on.
Let me know if I left anything out.
stuart!
""If you are going to post quotes, how about some citations? Even atheists know it's dishonest to just post random quotes with saying where they come from. Prove you aren't just making it up.""
And how do we know that you're not making up the statement that "atheists know it's dishonest to just post random quotes with(out) saying where they come from"? Citations please :) God Bless.
Keep up the Great work Ray! We need more people like you more than ever in America right now!
God Bless,
Brittany
david w. irish,
""These quotes were taken from other atheist's blogs, as they discussed Ray, without Ray actually participating.""
It's called slander and it's dispicable. Surely you're not defending these statements...are you?
""I am not just sure, but pretty positive that you Christians all say similar things about atheists when talking to each other about us.""
Is this an attempt to justify slander?
""Don't ask me for examples, because I have a bunch right here, ready to post. They're taken from Ray's blog, and various Christian boards and forums, and they say pretty much the same types of things about us.""
You're still trying to justify this behavior, David. Two wrongs don't make a right.
""I mean, Ray is a major offender himself. He issues lame put-downs to atheists on a regular basis.""
I have never heard Ray issue a personal attack against or slander any atheist on this blog or elsewhere. I think he has been rather gracious to provide you with an open forum to share your views free of charge. Perhaps a little gratitude is in order? God Bless.
Sullivan is an immigrant from the UK and a gay conservative Catholic. (Apparently it's possible to be all three.
The problem with the Catholic Church has always been that they refuse to hold to the Word of God, which is why we see pedophilia rearing its ugly head when those in authority knew. 1 Cor. 6:9-11 knocks that stance right off the block. No homosexual or any sexual deviant including fornicator, adulterer, pornographer will inherit the kingdom of heaven. Paul said but such WERE some of you (past tense.)
I mention this because John Willis recently tried to smear gay marriage activists in California by claiming that they sued to get their sexual preference endorsed by others.
Not just their sexual preferences but their deviance and then claiming it was in their DNA and placing themselves in the category of black men who fought long and hard to win their civil rights. What a travesty! What an atrocity and a smear for these black men who had so much integrity!! To say sin is the equivalent of how a man is created by God with more melanin in his skin is unconscionable.
Vera
Sullivan is an immigrant from the UK and a gay conservative Catholic. (Apparently it's possible to be all three.
The problem with the Catholic Church has always been that they refuse to hold to the Word of God, which is why we see pedophilia rearing its ugly head when those in authority knew. 1 Cor. 6:9-11 knocks that stance right off the block. No homosexual or any sexual deviant including fornicator, adulterer, pornographer will inherit the kingdom of heaven. Paul said but such WERE some of you (past tense.)
I mention this because John Willis recently tried to smear gay marriage activists in California by claiming that they sued to get their sexual preference endorsed by others.
Not just their sexual preferences but their deviance and then claiming it was in their DNA and placing themselves in the category of black men who fought long and hard to win their civil rights. What a travesty! What an atrocity and a smear for these black men who had so much integrity!! To say sin is the equivalent of how a man is created by God with more melanin in his skin is unconscionable.
Vera
I am not just sure, but pretty positive that you Christians all say similar things about atheists when talking to each other about us.
That is where you're wrong, PD. We don't sit around talking about you, coming up with ideas and strategies to bring you down (because that isn't our objective), conniving or putting you down behind your back. If I say something about you, it is for you to see. Perhaps the only person I have spoken about on this list that is not here to say something is Richard Dawkins and it is only because it is my firm belief that he is leading many people astray in terms of atheism.
I think it is neat that we are in our homes without any affirmation but the Holy Spirit.
Vera
Reynold,
We're sick of the lies,
Those are things you and your friends said behind Ray's and our backs. How is it a lie?
of the willfull misrepresentation of science (see "crockaduck"),
How is that different than a tyrannosaurus rex becoming a feathered bird?
we're sick of the condensension (the claims that Ray accurately represents science when he obviously knows nothing about it,
He allows my posts to go through and I am one who looks very carefully at the facts. If he really wanted to misrepresent, he would block my posts.
then claiming that the reason people don't agree with him is becuase of our sin),
Do you believe in homosexuality, lesbianism, fornication, adultery, pornography, divorce and remarriage, abortion as a means of birth control? Do you believe that there are no absolutes in terms of right and wrong with sexual depravity? Do you enjoy the fact that you live in a delusional world where you can lust and do as you please? This is the main reason people reject God.
we're sick of the fact that people like him and you are working against and ridiculing honest scientists who are actually trying to learn more about the world, thus driving american educational standards even lower than they already are,
I will say it again. The reason the church had a knee jerk reaction is because the theory of evolution has always had an agenda to tear down Christianity. They have imposed their standard on every single child in America. Science is not the only truth. It is one aspect of it. By removing all other truth from the study of science, there is an imbalance of truth.
Both sides are wrong. Reasons to Believe is bridging that gap by many scientists coming together to build a creation model that includes our Designer. Their predictions and models are standing up against what is unfolding.
we're sick of people who blame the worst atrocities of history (anti-semitism) on people who have had virtually nothing to do with it ("darwinists")
I am perfectly willing to admit that one part of the church did not hold to the truth of Jesus Christ at that time and that Hitler was able to exploit them and manipulate them through propaganda probably because they didn't know how God would judge them in the end. Jesus predicted this would happen in John 16:2
Nevertheless, there were Christians that did do what was right.
Now what bothers me is the way the Darwinists refuse to admit their role in this and they did have one and it is documented.
we're sick of people who use the fact that they're so easily offended as "clear indication" of the "depravity" of the other side
I am typically offended when people misrepresent themselves. Your quotes are exactly what I would expect from you. If you repented and turned to God, that would be refreshing and new.
while excusing away things like baby killing,
This was only done a few times and the obvious reason was that these children were too far gone in terms of their psychological torment. What God did for them was a mercy. Haman the Agagite was one that was saved that fate. He is probably in hell's fire.
Nevertheless, you believe in the murder of millions of innocent babies each year through abortion and sanction it in the name of the lie of overpopulation. So how can you point the finger at God?
rapes, etc. ordered by the deity they themselves worship,
See it is hard for us to judge these things because we weren't there. I don't think you have a clue. If this is the incident I think it is, these girls were happy to have an Israelite husband. Again, it was a mercy.
also we're sick of the fact that you criticize people like PZ Myers and his commentators for their "depravity" while it's your "side" who's always in the headlines for some case of child molestation
Please note that the majority of this is the Catholic Church whom you have already pointed out acquiesces to homosexuality. The reason we don't see the rest in the paper is because it doesn't make for the kind of gossipy news people like to read today. The headlines read: Atheist Caught Molesting Child. Nobody cares about that. We do, however, get a paper once in a while with a picture and address of sexual offenders in our area and they do not look like Christians.
, some kid dying because the parents relied on prayer instead of medicine (as the bible teaches) and on and on.
But you would at least turn your back on a baby being aborted before he/she ever got a start in life. How is this any different?
These are isolated incidences in terms of Protestant Christianity and it is definitely not overtly taught from the pulpit. I've never heard such a message in my 36 years of being a Christian. Jehovah's Witnesses are more inclined to allow their children to die because of their belief against blood transfusions, which we had to get a court order to override at times. That's right. Modern medicine can get court orders to supersede the parent's wishes. I saw all kinds of atrocities from non-Christians as a nurse from abuse to children who were on strict vegetarian diets that nearly died. Real Christians are not irrational people and go to the doctor when needed. But I will tell you this. We pray first and it makes a world of difference in terms of diagnosing a problem and finding a quick solution. The stories I could tell you if we had the time.....
Vera
Regarding that last question, I have learned something from paying attention to you.
Regardless of our disagreements, I have learned a great deal from the way you approach hecklers. I especially liked watching one of your videos and hearing you say "Excuse me, sir, that's my heckler! Please don't bother him!"
To Scmike:
Um, it's not slander. For one thing, slander's spoken. For another, all the statements Ray quoted are clearly opinions and as such are not considered slander (or rather, libel). Simply saying one doesn't like Ray Comfort, or thinks that he's a horrible person, no matter how strongly worded the statement, doesn't qualify.
verandoug:
Reynold,
We're sick of the lies
Those are things you and your friends said behind Ray's and our backs. How is it a lie?
The lies that I'm talking about were coming up next in my comment, starting with "willfull misrepresentations of science..."
The stuff Ray quoted from PZ Myers site is only our justified reactions to the people here.
of the willfull misrepresentation of science (see "crockaduck"),
How is that different than a tyrannosaurus rex becoming a feathered bird?
Well, let's see it's the descendents of the T-Rex (or whatever dinosaur it was -- check Talk Origins if you actually care to learn something) who eventually became birds. It did not happen that we got a half-hybrid like that. Think mosaic, like Archeopteryx...again, look at the appropriate sections of any science site.
That statement of your is EXACTLY the kind of misrepresentation of science that I'm talking about!
we're sick of the condensension (the claims that Ray accurately represents science when he obviously knows nothing about it,
He allows my posts to go through and I am one who looks very carefully at the facts. If he really wanted to misrepresent, he would block my posts.
No, your posts already misrepresent the facts, like your statement about the T-Rex above.
Ray lets everything go through, probably because he thinks he's winning. That does NOT stop him from misrepresenting the facts.
then claiming that the reason people don't agree with him is becuase of our sin),
Do you believe in homosexuality, lesbianism, fornication, adultery, pornography, divorce and remarriage, abortion as a means of birth control?
No, that stuff is either immoral, unnatural, or dangerous. I'm pro-life. One doesn't need religion to know that adultery can ruin relationships. If the marriage is abusive, then divorce is necessary. Otherwise, I'd just leave the couple alone to settle their own problems. Pornagraphy, there are limits, as there is to anything. Anything that encourages harm to minors or to anyone is illegal.
At least with homosexuality it's seems to be genetic, so long as they don't force it on anyone. Mind you, that applies to pretty much anything. BTW, lesbianism is homosexuality, it's just the female version of it.
Glad I could have the chance to enlighten you.
Do you believe that there are no absolutes in terms of right and wrong with sexual depravity?
I've answered that above.
Do you enjoy the fact that you live in a delusional world where you can lust and do as you please? This is the main reason people reject God.
Do you enjoy making up what kind of stuff that people who disagree with you are supposed to be in in order to avoid the fact that maybe they've just found the evidence for your deity wanting? Whatever happened to "thou shalt not bear false witness"?
Speaking as an actual athiest myself, I can say that's Wrong. The main reason people reject "God" is that there's no evidence for him. If you don't believe me, check out the testimonies of a few pastors Dan Barker and Farrell Till.
Go to ex-christian dot net to their testimonials section and learn something about athiests from the athiests themselves as opposed to what you get from the pulpit or your "holy book". (real objective, btw)!
we're sick of the fact that people like him and you are working against and ridiculing honest scientists who are actually trying to learn more about the world, thus driving american educational standards even lower than they already are,
I will say it again. The reason the church had a knee jerk reaction is because the theory of evolution has always had an agenda to tear down Christianity.
Another misrepresentaion. Thanks for helping me prove my case. Again, go to Talk Origins and read their "evolution and God" section. Or just any science site that isn't YEC!
They have imposed their standard on every single child in America.
Yeah, just like they did with the germ theory of disease or the heliocentric view of the solar system.
Why? Because that's where the EVIDENCE is! Check out the transcripts for the Dover trial. The ID people under cross examination had their case completely fall apart. Unlike the evolution/science side! Read Behe's testimony. It's especially informative as to the actual emptiness of "intelligent design".
Heliocentrism is just as much against a literal reading of the bible as is evolution. Most religious people have finally given up on fighting heliocentrism.
Except for the biblical literals at geocentrism dot org!
Science is not the only truth. It is one aspect of it. By removing all other truth from the study of science, there is an imbalance of truth.
So what? It's science that disproves YEC and ID. Those topics talk about the physical world and how it came about. When describing the physical world, that's all you need.
What other kinds of "truth" are you talking about anyway? If science disproves something and the idea is discarded because of it, you're just removing a falsehood, not "imbalancing truth".
Both sides are wrong. Reasons to Believe is bridging that gap by many scientists coming together to build a creation model that includes our Designer. Their predictions and models are standing up against what is unfolding.
Not according to either Answers in Genesis who call Hugh Ross a compromiser or to the real scienctists who just call him a crank.
You want predictions that do have stood the test of time? Try 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution on the Talk Origins site.
we're sick of people who blame the worst atrocities of history (anti-semitism) on people who have had virtually nothing to do with it ("darwinists")
I am perfectly willing to admit that one part of the church did not hold to the truth of Jesus Christ at that time and that Hitler was able to exploit them and manipulate them through propaganda probably because they didn't know how God would judge them in the end. Jesus predicted this would happen in John 16:2
First honest, accurate thing you've said here. Too bad that many if not most, Christians don't agree with you.
Nevertheless, there were Christians that did do what was right.
Just as there were non-christians too. Remember, Darwin himself never said anything about the Jews.
Now what bothers me is the way the Darwinists refuse to admit their role in this and they did have one and it is documented.
Miniscule compared to the religious influence. Something that most christians refuse to admit. I refute that kind of statement of yours in the Comfort post Expelled Reviewed.
So in other words, you carry on with the scapegoating anyway.
we're sick of people who use the fact that they're so easily offended as "clear indication" of the "depravity" of the other side
I am typically offended when people misrepresent themselves. Your quotes are exactly what I would expect from you. If you repented and turned to God, that would be refreshing and new.
What would be really "refreshing and new" would be if you stopped making up stuff about people who disagree with you! Those quotes are exactly what would be expected from people who have been regularly lied about and slandered by people like Comfort and you. Deal with it.
while excusing away things like baby killing,
This was only done a few times and the obvious reason was that these children were too far gone in terms of their psychological torment. What God did for them was a mercy. Haman the Agagite was one that was saved that fate. He is probably in hell's fire.
See what I mean? Thanks again for proving my point. Couldn't the ancient Isrealites have taken them in and raised them properly? Good grief. How "far gone" can a baby be??
It's just savage people in a savage time trying to survive. They've attributed those commands to their "God". Then, when farming and better technology arrived, those actions became unnecessary, and laws were put into place against them. Morality evolved, but you people are still stuck with that same deity, so now you have to find some way to excuse his actions while still calling yourself "pro-life".
Nevertheless, you believe in the murder of millions of innocent babies each year through abortion and sanction it in the name of the lie of overpopulation.
No, I don't!. See, you're misrepresented me again! I am pro-life. Why do you think I'm making such a fuss about those babies in the OT? If there was not "God" to bail them out then nothing could be done...but there was!
So how can you point the finger at God?
Easy. I am pro-life. Nice idea to try to focus the moral problem back to me by lying about my pro-life stance to do it!
rapes, etc. ordered by the deity they themselves worship,
See it is hard for us to judge these things because we weren't there.
That doesn't stop court cases, now does it? Nice reasoning.
I don't think you have a clue. If this is the incident I think it is, these girls were happy to have an Israelite husband. Again, it was a mercy.
Speaking of not having a clue, look at your own argument. Happy to have an Israelite husband? The same guys who wiped out their entire FAMILIES??
Yeah, they must have been real grateful...
also we're sick of the fact that you criticize people like PZ Myers and his commentators for their "depravity" while it's your "side" who's always in the headlines for some case of child molestation
Please note that the majority of this is the Catholic Church whom you have already pointed out acquiesces to homosexuality.
Not just them though, do a little reading.
The reason we don't see the rest in the paper is because it doesn't make for the kind of gossipy news people like to read today. The headlines read: Atheist Caught Molesting Child. Nobody cares about that. We do, however, get a paper once in a while with a picture and address of sexual offenders in our area and they do not look like Christians.
Don't kid yourself. If a famous scientist like Dawkins or someone like that got caught, the papers would be rife with it. As evidence, look how any famous people are attacked in the media. Maybe most scientists are just too busy trying to learn about the real world...that, and things like peer review and scientific reputation keeps them in line. At least better than the "Holy Spirit" seems to keep you people in line.
Sure, I never said that atheists don't do those things, but why do you people keep doing it? Isn't the "Holy Spirit" able to control you people or not?
, some kid dying because the parents relied on prayer instead of medicine (as the bible teaches) and on and on.
But you would at least turn your back on a baby being aborted before he/she ever got a start in life. How is this any different?
You do remember that I am pro-life right? So, the only way you can turn this back on me is to lie about my pro-life stance? Thanks.
These are isolated incidences in terms of Protestant Christianity and it is definitely not overtly taught from the pulpit. I've never heard such a message in my 36 years of being a Christian.
Then you haven't read the bible much, have you?
Let me help:
Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Jehovah's Witnesses are more inclined to allow their children to die because of their belief against blood transfusions, which we had to get a court order to override at times. That's right. Modern medicine can get court orders to supersede the parent's wishes. I saw all kinds of atrocities from non-Christians as a nurse from abuse to children who were on strict vegetarian diets that nearly died. Real Christians are not irrational people and go to the doctor when needed. But I will tell you this. We pray first and it makes a world of difference in terms of diagnosing a problem and finding a quick solution. The stories I could tell you if we had the time.....
Yeah, right. Given that I've caught you making misleading statements about me in this very post, I doubt it. Didn't your prayers accurately tell you that I'm actually pro-life?
Here's something else you may be interested in reading:
Follow-Up Study on Prayer Therapy May Help Refute False and Misleading Information About Earlier Clinical Trial
by Nathan Bupp,
Director of Public Affairs,
Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health
AppleJack said "Am I the only one who reads Ray's posts and can't help but thinking he'd make a great character on Flight of the Conchords?"
Well, I never though that. But, now you say it, I reckon it's a great idea! It's a fantastic show full of strange people.
Verandoug asked, in response to Reynold's statement that he was "sick of the lies, of the willfull misrepresentation of science (see 'crockaduck') ..."
How is that different than a Tyrannosaurus rex becoming a feathered bird?
I'll let Reynold handle the rest of this, but no one holds that T. rex was the ancestor of birds. Tyrannosaurs shared a common ancestor (almost certainly feathered already) with the ancestors of birds, but was itself only a middling-close relative of those ancestors. Of course, there is a fossil of a small (ca. 5 ft long overall) tyrannosaurid, Dilong paradoxicus, that shows impressions of downy feathers, but it presumably wasn't a bird ancestor either.
Much earlier, in the late Jurassic, contemporary with Archaeopteryx (itself likely a close relative of the ancestor of modern birds, rather than the direct ancestor itself) is Compsognathus, a very birdlike small theropod, but with no signs of feathers. However, it is very like the Cretaceous Sinosauropteryx, which does shown impressions of a downy coat, and Compsognathus probably had a similar downlike covering, as did the (unknown) last common ancestor of Compy and Archy earlier in the Mesozoic. Note that the fossil record is very incomplete; not every species leaves a trace in the fossil record, and not all fossil species that were preserved have been discovered and described. It seems likely that species much like Compsognathus and the Cretaceous Microraptor (a fascinating dinosaur, with true contour feathers covering its body, and feathered arms and legs that resemble wings but seem too short for actual flight, but would have worked for gliding between branches rather like a flying squirrel) lived in the earlier Jurassic before Archaeopteryx. Many of the distinctive anatomical features of birds, such as forelimb joints that allow for complete rotation of the forelimb, show up in theropod species that lived before Archaeopteryx, although these fossils don't have skin impressions so we cannot be sure what sort of feathers, if any, they had.
This may seem to you like a lot of wishful thinking and guesswork. But again, many intermediates between primitive theropod (bipedal meat-eaters) dinosaurs and modern birds exist. Since the fossil record is incomplete (both species and, in most cases, details of skin covering are missing), the fact that not all these intermediates show up before the earliest birds is not a good reason to suppose that very similar species did not exist before birds. Even intermediate stages of feathers themselves are known from a few fossils (and developmental biologists have reconstructed the changes needed to transform scute-like scales into true feathers).
Note that none of these intermediates looks like a "crocoduck," a modern bird body attached to a head that isn't even properly dinosaurian (although it is, to be sure, archosaurian: the dinosaurs were a subgroup, or two subgroups, of archosaurs). That is why the crocoduck is different from the idea that tyrannosaurs shared a feathered (or at least a downy) common ancestor with modern birds.
scmike:
""I mean, Ray is a major offender himself. He issues lame put-downs to atheists on a regular basis.
I have never heard Ray issue a personal attack against or slander any atheist on this blog or elsewhere. I think he has been rather gracious to provide you with an open forum to share your views free of charge. Perhaps a little gratitude is in order? God Bless.
You have got to be kidding me.
The Atheist Worldview
Today's Atheist Memory Verse
Atheist Converts
Regarding your question about atheist converts. They often have "hard" or "stony" soil. They lack the good and honest heart necessary for the seed to take root. This is because they lack what is commonly called "reason." They will concede that a painting necessitates a painter. Only a fool would say that paintings happen by themselves. They will concede that a building necessitates a builder. Only a fool would say that buildings happen by themselves. However, they will suddenly become unreasonable when asked if creation necessitates a Creator. This is why God’s Word calls the professing atheist a "fool" (see Psalm 14:1). The Bible even predicts that the fool will then pat himself on the back and say that he is intelligent (see Romans 1:22). That sure sums up the average atheist.
But there is a reason for their denial of simple logic. The Bible tells us (in Romans 8:7) that their problem is a moral one. Their "carnal mind" is in a state of hostility towards God and His Law.
If you want to see the flaws in his analogy, do a little reading on Talk Origins or any science site. The development of life is not at all like a painting. There is no reproduction, no genetics, no mechanism for variation in later generations, etc.
Then of course, there's
Happy National Atheist's Day
David W. Irish said...
One would think that Ray would take a hint from these comments, and maybe hire an image consultant (The easy way out) or at least take a few adult education/continuing education courses, to help him with his educational issues.
You atheists just don't get it. Ray isn't bothered about what the world thinks or says about him. He is a soldier for the Lord and will continue to do his duty for the Kingdom of God regardless of what critisims come his way.
All these negative comments must just encourage Ray since the Bible says that Christians will be hated by the world.
Tessa Enright said...
Strange how most Christians take criticism as encouragement.
Strange that your religion encourages you to believe without proof and tells you to expect criticism. It's almost as if the founders of it knew something you don't...
1. Christianity is not a religion.
2. We are not asked to believe without proof.
3. Christ "the founder" of Christianity knows everything and knew that we would be persecuted because He was while here on earth
Point: All this criticism just shows the bible and the words of Jesus to be true! :)
You want to know what I am tired of?
I'll tell you.
There are many of you bleevers and some atheists too, I think younger ones that can't write a coherent paragraph or use the proper conventions to delineate who, in your, comment is who.
I try reading some of these responses to be continually mired down because I can't tell who is saying what to whom.
Get on the stick and clean this up for crying out loud or I'll have to do something about it.
I'm not commenting any more until you get your act together.
Oh, it's not just the RC Church, Vera dear:
The Nashville Scene
June 19, 2008
Elizabeth Ulrich
"Save Yourselves"
Last week, Southern Baptist officials stood before a sea of church members and representatives more than 7,000 strong and announced a plan to confront the recurring threat of pastoral sexual abuse within the denomination’s churches: They would do nothing at all.....
The full article can be found by Googling nashville scene elizabeth ulrich save yourselves.
We are very well aware of that problem, weemaryanne. For the most part, that is our ministry. We work day and night to try to share with so called Christians that they are not saved if they continue in sin. That is what we do.
We find that the number of Christians at these recent sex parties popping up all over the country is overwhelming. Prior to starting this ministry, we assumed it was only certain people groups such as the Catholic Church. For the last several years, we realized that this problem is encompassing every segment of Christianity.
Ray's premise is to get them to come back to God through the gate of repentance. Most people do not realize what it is they are coming to when they come to the Lord. They think it is all about forgiveness and fixing their problems. It's not. It's all about repentance and being set free from your sin and sometimes that includes facing the consequences of your sin. Unfortunately, there is a host of leadership (false teaching) that teaches that Christians can sin and be saved. The Bible teaches an opposite message.
The Catholic Church does not stand against sexual sin and will allow a homosexual to be a priest as long as they are not practicing the act. There is a major problem with that outlook. They acquiesce to the sin by allowing this and it is why there are pedophiles in their ranks. To avoid fornication, you are supposed to get married. People that are practicing sexual sin, which is any sex outside of marriage, will inherit hell's fire no matter how many sinner's prayers they prayed. That is why we take the flack from so many people because we know what's at stake.
I started to write a book on this subject but I think God wanted to show me a few more things first.
Vera
Stephen J,
This is from RTB called
New Challenge to Bird-Dinosaur Link
By Fuz Rana
In the Liaoning Province of The People’s Republic of China, researchers are combing an extremely rich fossil site, the Yixian Formation. It contains remarkably well-preserved remains of plants, insects, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and dinosaurs.1 Arguably, the most interesting fossils from the site are theropod dinosaurs–-some of which have been interpreted as bearing feathers. These specimens have been touted by evolutionary biologists as key transitional intermediates linking birds to dinosaurs.
The initial dating of the The Yixian Formation seemed to support that possibility. Using the method called biostratigraphic correlation, scientists identified the fossils as late Jurassic (more than 135 million years old), making the “feathered” theropod dinosaurs contemporary with and thus a possible progenitor of archeopteryx, the oldest true bird. (This dating technique uses index fossils to estimate the age of one formation by comparing it with a formation of known age that contains the same index fossils.)
Because of its importance, several research teams have focused with more robust and demanding methodologies on the dating of the Yixian Formation. Two recent studies used a radiometric dating technique, 40Ar-39Ar. Each study measured the age of the Yixian Formation to be between 121 and 125 million years old.
These new dates place the Yixian Formation within the early Cretaceous period, making archeopteryx at least 20 million years older than the so-called “intermediates” leading up to it. The theropods from the Yixian Formation, like all theropods, now fall within the “temporal paradox.” That is, all theropods, despite their declared status as progenitors of birds, show up in the fossil record well after the first appearance of birds.
Order of appearance in the fossil record remains important in establishing the validity of the evolutionary paradigm. Thus, the re-dating of the Yixian Formation has profound implications. It significantly weakens the theropod dinosaur-to-bird connection and renders the origin of birds unaccounted for by the evolutionary model.
Hope that helps.
Vera
Oh come on, Reynold. You knew I was joking about the t-rex. I bet you couldn't wait to jump on that one. LOL When I am giving a scientific point, trust me, you will know it.
Sexual sin-see you have left yourself a little room to participate by saying this, "Pornography, there are limits, as there is to anything. " OK, so there is a place you draw the line? Do you believe in a world where we should be free do those things or not? I don't remember if you are single or not. But if so, do you feel the freedom to have sex before marriage?
BTW, lesbianism is homosexuality, it's just the female version of it.
Since these terminologies of sexual preferences connate certain choices, I like to make sure we are all on the same page.
Dan Barker - typical of every other member of your local apostate church. All one has to do is to look in his background to see he was destined for failure. He was a follower of Kathryn Kuhlman. Of course, he never found God through that line. Look at my icon. Just 1% off the mark from the vertex and in the end, my friend, you totally miss the target.
As to Farrell Till, is not this the nut that wrote the book about all the problems with the Bible that had to finally apologize?
Go to ex-christian dot net to their testimonials section and learn something about athiests from the athiests themselves as opposed to what you get from the pulpit or your "holy book". (real objective, btw)!
Please don't make me do that. How many of these stories do I have to hear before you will believe that I've heard that story about a million times. -snore- I could quote it in my sleep.
Heliocentrism is just as much against a literal reading of the bible as is evolution. Most religious people have finally given up on fighting heliocentrism.
Well one thing's for sure. This universe, in more ways than one, has caused life to flourish on this little microdot. And so far, we haven't seen those parameters anywhere else.
What other kinds of "truth" are you talking about anyway? If science disproves something and the idea is discarded because of it, you're just removing a falsehood, not "imbalancing truth".
Science builds a model based on what's expected. The expectation in terms of evolution is considered by many absolute truth. What RTB did was also build a scientific model of what one would expect with God as a Creator and then takes the scientific evidence by peer reviewed papers to see if those things are not in line with that model. They are also willing to adjust when new evidence is brought to light as we should do in science.
Of the 29 examples of macroevolution, not one of them is proof positive beyond a shadow of a doubt and many of those things can easily be refuted. I could start with vestigial organs that we now know have purpose and function. Claiming a sea cow is a whale with legs is not exactly pure truth.
Whale Ankles — No Support for Neodarwinism
By Hugh Ross
Proponents of gradualism often trot out so-called “transitional” whale fossils as evidence supporting their view. In my book, The Genesis Question, I explain why no other animal has a higher risk of rapid extinction and a lower chance of natural advancement than the whale. My short explanation for the fossil record’s “transitional” whales is simply that God likes whales. He repeatedly made new ones to replace those that went extinct.
A new challenge to the claims of naturalists and Darwinists comes from the first-time discovery of some relatively complete ancient whale ankle bones. Theorists have insisted that modern whales descended from either artiodactyls (archaic hippos) or mesonychians (archaic ungulates). Thus, expectations ran high that this discovery would settle the question. The surprising answer is that ancient whale ankles do not look anything like artiodactyl ankles or mesonychian ankles—or any other known ankles, for that matter. The Bible’s claim that God specially created the great sea mammals receives further affirmation.
See that is only one example where we are given a partial truth from a skeptic. Who is the one misleading people now?
I refute that kind of statement of yours in the Comfort post Expelled Reviewed.
You gave a counterpoint to which I showed the errancy of your position. The biologists that were the higher ups in Hitler's regime were Darwinists.
What would be really "refreshing and new" would be if you stopped making up stuff about people who disagree with you!
Same to ya. :-)
Couldn't the ancient Isrealites have taken them in and raised them properly?
Adoption works sometimes but for the most part, historically speaking, people have a tendency to idolize their unknown parents. Can you follow what would happen next? Babies do grow up to be adults. It is pert near impossible, even in this day and time, to convince such a person that their parents were evil and deserved to die.
Then, when farming and better technology arrived, those actions became unnecessary, and laws were put into place against them. Morality evolved,
Whatever you say, we did not become moral and thrive until after Jesus died on the cross. It was then and only then that people began to act civil and love their enemies, forgive those who hurt them, live morally pure, etc. For heaven's sake, what kind of mentality takes a hammer and nails someone to a tree to watch them die an agonizing death? You can start right there. That was the civilized world.
See it is hard for us to judge these things because we weren't there.
That doesn't stop court cases, now does it? Nice reasoning.
In that day though and for most time periods even up until the last hundred years, women have not had much say so in a man's world. In that day, it was worse. Israelite men were more moral than the men in the rest of the world. They didn't torture people per se unless they started doing what their neighboring friends did at which time, God would lower the boom.
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
We have already discussed this. This is talking about one being sent out, not a child that is ill.
Yeah, they must have been real grateful...
How do you think the lady that was kept for 24 years in a basement would feel to anyone that served justice to the man that had been torturing her and her children? The word "grateful" comes to mind. But no, in your book, she is out there defending him and telling people to be nice. After all, it's her dad. Give me a break.
Yeah, right. Given that I've caught you making misleading statements about me in this very post, I doubt it. Didn't your prayers accurately tell you that I'm actually pro-life?
I believe you when you tell me that you are against abortion. However, I must point out that you stand with and support those who are not. I won't even give a dime to United Way because they support Planned Parenthood.
Sure, I never said that atheists don't do those things, but why do you people keep doing it? Isn't the "Holy Spirit" able to control you people or not?
Yes He can, absolutely and I will shout it from the rooftops to anyone that will hear because that, my friend, IS THE MESSAGE!!!, and that is our message to anyone that will hear. Through faith in His great power, you can be set free. Anything less will not afford you a place in heaven.
Follow-Up Study on Prayer Therapy May Help Refute False and Misleading Information About Earlier Clinical Trial
If you are sinning and trying to ask God for help, you are wasting your time. it is the fervent prayers of a righteous man that availeth much.
My prayers for you tell me that you enjoy being on the winning team and you are willing to put your whole heart into it because you want to embrace truth alone. You don't see that Christianity works and so you think it is a sham. But I'm here to tell you that the Bible is true and that the Holy Spirit has reconciled me to God.
Vera
verandoug:
Oh come on, Reynold. You knew I was joking about the t-rex. I bet you couldn't wait to jump on that one. LOL When I am giving a scientific point, trust me, you will know it.
Problem is with Poe's Law it's hard to tell. One would think that Ray would be joking about evolution, only he seems to be serious. One can never tell.
For the longest time I thought that Sye TenB was a Poe (just kidding around and not believing what he was saying), but he's persisted so much, I'm starting to wonder...in the meantime I've acted as if he's sincere.
Sexual sin-see you have left yourself a little room to participate by saying this, "Pornography, there are limits, as there is to anything. " OK, so there is a place you draw the line?Did I not say that?
Do you believe in a world where we should be free do those things or not? I don't remember if you are single or not. But if so, do you feel the freedom to have sex before marriage?
I've answered that well enough for you beforehand. If there are limits, that means that there should be (and are) laws in place to prevent abuses of those kinds of things...what does that have to do with the evidence of the existence of a deity or not, or whether evolution is true or not?
Before people can be "guilted" into repentence, they must first be convinced that "God" exists!
Dan Barker - typical of every other member of your local apostate church. All one has to do is to look in his background to see he was destined for failure. He was a follower of Kathryn Kuhlman. Of course, he never found God through that line. Look at my icon. Just 1% off the mark from the vertex and in the end, my friend, you totally miss the target.
Look who's talking...he credits his bible reading to his falling away. Not Kuhlman. Besides, if there was something to this "Holy Spirit" of yours, don't you think that an "honest" evangelist could have set him straight later on, or even the "guidance" of the "holy spirit" itself?
As to Farrell Till, is not this the nut that wrote the book about all the problems with the Bible that had to finally apologize?
Perfect refutation. Calling someone a "nut". You've missed my point. He and Dan Barker were both preachers; both people who wanted to believe the bible, but after thorough reading, couldn't.
Ad-hominem, a choice weapon in the creationist/apologist arsenal.
Go to ex-christian dot net to their testimonials section and learn something about athiests from the athiests themselves as opposed to what you get from the pulpit or your "holy book". (real objective, btw)!
Please don't make me do that. How many of these stories do I have to hear before you will believe that I've heard that story about a million times. -snore- I could quote it in my sleep.
Given that you've messed up Dan's reasons for leaving the faith, I guess you haven't read them as often as you claim to have. Time to read Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist by Dan Barker
Chapter 3
Heliocentrism is just as much against a literal reading of the bible as is evolution. Most religious people have finally given up on fighting heliocentrism.
Well one thing's for sure. This universe, in more ways than one, has caused life to flourish on this little microdot. And so far, we haven't seen those parameters anywhere else.
And that has what, exactly, to do with the bible being wrong about teaching geocentrism?
What other kinds of "truth" are you talking about anyway? If science disproves something and the idea is discarded because of it, you're just removing a falsehood, not "imbalancing truth".
Science builds a model based on what's expected. The expectation in terms of evolution is considered by many absolute truth.
Science builds a model based on what's known. They make predictions about what may be expected to happen, but they know that it may not be the case. Otherwise, how'd we ever learn anything new?
What RTB did was also build a scientific model of what one would expect with God as a Creator and then takes the scientific evidence by peer reviewed papers to see if those things are not in line with that model. They are also willing to adjust when new evidence is brought to light as we should do in science.
From what I've seen, no. Look at the "whale ankle" information I give later.
Of the 29 examples of macroevolution, not one of them is proof positive beyond a shadow of a doubt and many of those things can easily be refuted.
In isolation, no. All together, with the confirmed predictions, they make a strong case. If evolution wasn't true, those predictions wouldn't have been confirmed.
I could start with vestigial organs that we now know have purpose and function.
I could point you to a little discussion about the historical origin of that term, and show you that when Darwin first coined the word, it did not have to mean completely without function. See below. Why did you leave that out?
From 1. Vestiges can be functional from the 29+ Evidences for Macoevolution FAQ:
Third, regardless of popular misconception, from the beginning of modern evolutionary theory a complete absence of function has not been a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp. 601-609; Dodson 1960, p. 44; Griffiths 1992; McCabe 1912, p. 264; Merrell 1962, p. 101; Moody 1962, p. 40; Muller 2002; Naylor 1982; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886; Wiedersheim 1893, p. 2, p. 200, p. 205). Sarfati's claim is based upon ignorance, and he of course provides no historical references showing that evolutionary biologists actually changed the definition. As an obvious counterexample, Charles Darwin never claims vestigial organs must be functionless. In his famous section on vestigial organs in On the Origin of Species, written nearly 150 years ago, Darwin in fact emphasizes that vestiges can be functional and gives several examples: article goes on...
Claiming a sea cow is a whale with legs is not exactly pure truth.
Not many biologists I've heard of seriously use that allegory, and those that do go on to explain the rest of the differences. You're leaving that out.
Whale Ankles — No Support for Neodarwinism
By Hugh Ross
snips article for brevity...
Check the Talk Origns archive: type in whale ankles in their search function or go to the evcforum dot net and do the same.
Or, try Whale ankles _ Opposing views March 24, 2008 9:35 PM
on the care2 dot com site. That claim of Ross's is directly discussed. I'll just give the ending. You can read the data for yourself.
HUH??? Are we even talking about the same things on both websites?
Never assert anything unless you can back it up with evidence. That is the most basic lesson of science!
See that is only one example where we are given a partial truth from a skeptic. Who is the one misleading people now?
When it comes to talking about vestigial organs, it's still you.
I refute that kind of statement of yours in the Comfort post Expelled Reviewed.
You gave a counterpoint to which I showed the errancy of your position. The biologists that were the higher ups in Hitler's regime were Darwinists.
Not really. If you remember the comment I made in the post talking about this, I pointed out that Darwin's book was banned in Nazi Germany!
If you'd read Darwin's works you'd have known that he'd have never gone along with the "master race" and "eugenics" stuff they were pushing. Even Neitsche didn't like it...he hated the Germans because they messed up everything they got their hands on. You could do a little reading on both men.
All you really did was say that maybe Luther was wrong, and then proceeded to blindly dismiss the other facts I brought up. Good grief. Darwin never even mentioned the Jews.
What would be really "refreshing and new" would be if you stopped making up stuff about people who disagree with you!
Same to ya. :-)
I've given examples where you've misrepresented me, now it's your turn to show where I misrepresented you.
Couldn't the ancient Isrealites have taken them in and raised them properly?
Adoption works sometimes but for the most part, historically speaking, people have a tendency to idolize their unknown parents. Can you follow what would happen next? Babies do grow up to be adults. It is pert near impossible, even in this day and time, to convince such a person that their parents were evil and deserved to die.
Why let the kids even know they were adopted? Even if that's impossible, if they never learn about how messed up their society was, then they could never emulate all the bad things that were in their society, because they'd be getting raised in a different society!
Then, when farming and better technology arrived, those actions became unnecessary, and laws were put into place against them. Morality evolved,
Whatever you say, we did not become moral and thrive until after Jesus died on the cross. It was then and only then that people began to act civil and love their enemies, forgive those who hurt them, live morally pure, etc. For heaven's sake, what kind of mentality takes a hammer and nails someone to a tree to watch them die an agonizing death? You can start right there. That was the civilized world.
I never said it was perfect, did I? Do some reading on ancient Greece. Do some reading on ancient European history in general. Look up the Ancient History Sourcebook:
Code of Hammurabi, c. 1780 BCE You claim that it was "then, and only then" after Christ died that we started acting moral and civil?
Look up the history of Europe in the Dark Ages. Witch hunts by both Catholic and Protestant, the fightings, the persecutions, etc. Humanity didn't really markedly improve aftet Christ's arrival now, did they?
See it is hard for us to judge these things because we weren't there.
That doesn't stop court cases, now does it? Nice reasoning.
In that day though and for most time periods even up until the last hundred years, women have not had much say so in a man's world.
Care to guess why? Read Nontract #10
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.
Why Women Need Freedom From Religion
In that day, it was worse. Israelite men were more moral than the men in the rest of the world. They didn't torture people per se unless they started doing what their neighboring friends did at which time, God would lower the boom.
No, they'd just practice genocide and forced sexual slavery. No different than those around them.
You may want to read Creationists for genocide
By Hector Avalos on the talk reason website. Read from The ethics of biblical genocide section onwards.
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
We have already discussed this. This is talking about one being sent out, not a child that is ill.
Try reading carefully the last part of that verse...they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. That's what those parents did instead of sending the kid to a doctor. The kid died.
Yeah, they must have been real grateful...
How do you think the lady that was kept for 24 years in a basement would feel to anyone that served justice to the man that had been torturing her and her children? The word "grateful" comes to mind. But no, in your book, she is out there defending him and telling people to be nice. After all, it's her dad. Give me a break.
What are you talking about here?
Yeah, right. Given that I've caught you making misleading statements about me in this very post, I doubt it. Didn't your prayers accurately tell you that I'm actually pro-life?
I believe you when you tell me that you are against abortion. However, I must point out that you stand with and support those who are not.
What? Then using your logic, since you're a christian and believe the bible like he does, you "stand and support" people like Fred Phelps. It's impossible to find a group of people who will agree with you on every single point of doctrine.
There are athiests who are pro-life, and we do have arguments among ourselves about that kind of stuff. Just because we agree with each other about some things, does not mean that we agree with each other on everything. You're projecting the religious borg mindset onto us. Don't.
You're just trying to justify your usage of "broad-brushing" or misrepresenting me. Won't work.
I won't even give a dime to United Way because they support Planned Parenthood.
Sure, I never said that atheists don't do those things, but why do you people keep doing it? Isn't the "Holy Spirit" able to control you people or not?
Yes He can, absolutely and I will shout it from the rooftops to anyone that will hear because that, my friend, IS THE MESSAGE!!!, and that is our message to anyone that will hear. Through faith in His great power, you can be set free. Anything less will not afford you a place in heaven.
So, are you saying that once a person truly converts, they no longer sin? Remember, any sin counts, even bad thoughts. Like "looking on someone with lust", etc.
If that's what you teach, then you've lost. Every one, even after conversion, still sins. Even if they give up a bad lifestyle that they had before, everyone still sins somewhat, and any sin is enough to make you loose heaven.
Follow-Up Study on Prayer Therapy May Help Refute False and Misleading Information About Earlier Clinical Trial
If you are sinning and trying to ask God for help, you are wasting your time. it is the fervent prayers of a righteous man that availeth much.
How do you know that the people in the study that failed were still sinning? Did the data show that? Of course if a "pure" person doesn't get their prayers answered, you could always say that "God" did answer it, he just said "no". A dodge for every occasion.
Even so, how do you know that they hadn't asked forgiveness for their sins just before they prayed?
If you say "their prayers failed because they were still sinning" you've got a problem:
Everyone sins...even after accepting "Christ". Everyone. You're the only person I know who claims otherwise.
Just another dodge to blame the person praying for the failure of prayer. Remember, according to the bible, no one is truly righteous!
That remark you said to weemaryanne about We are very well aware of that problem, weemaryanne. For the most part, that is our ministry. We work day and night to try to share with so called Christians that they are not saved if they continue in sin. That is what we do.
You've got a lot of work to do...namely everyone who calls themselves christian. Sure, some may make big changes in their lives, but so do non-believers. Problem is: to your deity, sin is sin. Everyone still sins, even if it's small ones.
My prayers for you tell me that you enjoy being on the winning team and you are willing to put your whole heart into it because you want to embrace truth alone. You don't see that Christianity works and so you think it is a sham. But I'm here to tell you that the Bible is true and that the Holy Spirit has reconciled me to God.
Have you ever sinned at all since then? If so, your testimony falls apart.
Keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1Peter 3:16-18)
For Verandoug:
I was unaware that the Yixian had ever been dated to the Jurassic (and thanks for the info); I noted in the post to which you are replying that the fossils in it are dated in the Cretaceous, after Archaeopteryx.
So why are the Yixian fossils regarded as transitional? First, they are, regardless of their age, intermediate in form between other species: Microraptor is pretty much what evolutionary theory would lead us to expect in a transitional between something like Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx. The fossils show that the intermediate forms did exist once.
Second, as more than one evolutionist has pointed out, "nothing ever made a living as a transitional form." Every intermediate form had to be able to live with the features it had in some environment; if its ecological niche persisted, it might endure with little change even after more evolved relatives had appeared to occupy different niches. A number of modern species are known as "living fossils" because they look little different from relatives that lived tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, from the okapi to the horseshow crab; many of the Yixian fossils could have been "living fossils" before they became unliving ones.
As I pointed out, the fossil record seems to be very incomplete (one measure of this is the lack of fossil records for many species that exist right now; another is the constant discovery of new fossil species). Henry Gee, in his book In Search of Deep Time points out that we can never know that the earliest appearance of a fossil species (or a fossil genus, family or order) is the earliest time it existed, or that its last appearance was the last time it lived (call that the coelacanth principle).
And most fossil skeletons carry no skin impressions at all, so we don't know for sure if they had feathers or not. There are a couple of fossils of Archaeopteryx that were at first taken for ordinary theropod dinosaur skeletons until someone noticed feather impressions on them. Some museum drawer may contain a mid-Jurassic version of Microraptor that has never been recognized for what it is because only its bones, not its skin or feathers, were preserved.
Aw, you didn't take a quote from my site again this time. I was disappointed!
reynold,
As I said before, I have never seen or heard Ray issue a PERSONAL ATTACK or SLANDER any atheist.
The excerpts you provided are directed at the atheistic worldview in general. HUGE difference. God Bless.
No, there is no difference. He's addressing his comments to athiests.
If I started going on and saying stuff like "Christians are this, and Christians are that", would you, or would you not take that as an insult?
therine,
""To Scmike:
Um, it's not slander. For one thing, slander's spoken. For another, all the statements Ray quoted are clearly opinions and as such are not considered slander (or rather, libel). Simply saying one doesn't like Ray Comfort, or thinks that he's a horrible person, no matter how strongly worded the statement, doesn't qualify.""
Thanks for the definition correction :) However, personal attacks are always dispicable whether written or spoken. Don't you agree? God Bless.
reynold,
""No, there is no difference. He's addressing his comments to athiests.
If I started going on and saying stuff like "Christians are this, and Christians are that", would you, or would you not take that as an insult?""
Depends on your motive and the validity of your comments. It has been rightly said that the truth only hurts when it should. God Bless.
Vera, your June 28, 2008 7:24 PM uses science the same way that a drunk uses a lamppost -- for support rather than illumination.
If you look at scientific discovery from a humanistic point of view where mankind if the ultimate source of truth, you will not be illuminated with an understanding of who God is. Therefore, it is actually you that is leaning against the lamppost of human reasoning. I am leaning on the Everlasting Arms.
Vera
Reynold,
I really appreciate your heart to ask questions. Don't ever stop asking questions. For the sake of everyone's time, instead of taking this point by point, I am just going to respond in a general sense.
Firstly and most importantly, the Bible is central source of truth. Forget Poe's Law. Poe's Law would suggest that I am trying to win you to my club using arguments that would appeal to you. If you suggest that giving up your sin is appealing to , please let me know. Because frankly, I haven't met anyone that appreciates that message. That's why you never hear that message because nobody likes that message. We like our flesh to feel good. We like that message that says we can sin and still go to heaven.
Actually, most people are like you. They believe that to have a pure heart is impossible. In my own strength, I agree. Some people believe that purity of heart is wearing a robe and hood and walking around humming all day with praying hands. All that is is the same ole same ole of man trying to achieve something unobtainable through His own human strength and reasoning. Most people come into Christianity this way because of Poe's Law. It is that very thing that is muddying up the waters. All the evangelist is concerned about at that point is getting you to agree to join and then let's pass the plate. blah phooey. That is not the message!!
I can speak for Dan Barker's experience because I know the charismatic message. It doesn't surprise me in the least when people like that grow close to those in authority and discover the rampant sin. I have seen many clips of Kathryn Kuhlman. She was a theatric nightmare and if I'm not mistaken, she nearly went through with adultery. The reason I called Till a nut is because he is backtracking all over the place.
Well one thing's for sure. This universe, in more ways than one, has caused life to flourish on this little microdot. And so far, we haven't seen those parameters anywhere else.
And that has what, exactly, to do with the bible being wrong about teaching geocentrism?
That is how man read the passage but the passage was not saying that. It spoke of the sun being AS a bridegroom coming out of His chamber. Then it talked about how the sun has a circuit, which it does around the Milky Way and that nothing is hid from the heat. Nothing on this planet is hid from the heat. Why can't man take the science and reality to understand what is being communicated? Why is that so difficult? Both the record of nature and the Bible are from the same source. They compliment each other.
Now you might suggest that this mirrors the Hindu Vedas, for example. But there is absolutely no way to reconcile the fact, not even metaphorically, of a nonexistent civilization on the dark side of the moon or on the sun.
If an organ has a function, you can no longer calling it vestigial. Vestigial, by its very connotation, implies an organ that was once used but no longer has function. If the organ or strand of DNA has a function, that shows design. I have already proven that with HERVS, male nipples and can do so with the appendix and the coccyx. Design is absolute proof of a Designer.
One thing about your whale ankle is that the type of whales being sited are not listed. How can we know where this evidence comes from? What whale flipper are we comparing this to? What is the source of the ancient whale ankle? This is very typical of this camp. You give information, the bottom line that you propose is absolute truth that nobody can refute but nothing one could verify. And you wonder why Christianity reacted to your "theory."
As to children having the influence of their parents, please see my blog for some Youtubes on the upbringing of Muslim children. Now Jesus said not to judge them when He gave us the parable of the wheat and the tares. He said that the angels would take care of that judgment in the end. Our heart is to see souls saved.
It is man that likes to keep women in their second class position. It is God that liberated and exalted them by giving them places of authority and speaking directly to them. In the church, women were given a great deal of respect. Please do not site the silence in the church passage as that was talking about ordering a gathering and not the overall picture. Women praying and prophesying publicly meant that they were speaking in church.
You're just trying to justify your usage of "broad-brushing" or misrepresenting me. Won't work.
Big difference. If you see me on someone's web site or coming along side someone, then you know we are pretty much in agreement. You stand with people that are pro-choice and support them wholeheartedly.
Darwin, as has already been sited, did believe in a human hierarchy. I don't believe he was condoning the behavior of the Nazi Darwinists. But see, what you keep misunderstanding is that sin grows like cancer. The term sin means missing the mark. We start at that vertex with an idea. When we reach the end, we aren't in the ballpark. You are back at the vertex claiming the 99% truth but totally not admitting the 1% lie that lead to the influence in German society of a higher race. To be honest, I think that mostly the hierarchy of German society had that mentality. But you have to have the other folks do the grunt work. So they used Martin Luther to propagate their ideas to the masses. Those who Hitler would have considered less evolved with brown hair and brown eyes did the dirty work because of the Christian brainwashing. This is almost identical to the support you give to those that murder babies. They couldn't survive were it not for people like you that do the grunt work.
This brings me to my next point. If you are not in the Word daily and the only spiritual food you get is from your local pastor or teacher, I guarantee you that you will be easily led astray. If you don't ask questions and say, "Is this what the text is actually saying?" you are most likely going to fall into deception. We can come at the Bible from many different directions. We can look at it as a means to live a successful life here. You could look at it focusing on one attribute of God such as love and kindness. But in so doing, you might conclude that God is tolerant of sin and understands that you want to have sex with the beautiful blonde secretary and that Jesus will cover your sin because He understands, when if you read what it really says, He will be forced to judge you to hell's fire.
When I began to read the Bible realizing how much God hates sin, His character in dealing with sin, His overall being of who He is and how His love was extended in the cross to give mankind a means of being free from it to be reconciled to Him and know Him, the entire message began to fit.
You know how I came to know God, Reynold? I repented, plain and simple. I let go of my homogenized mochochino fairy take view of Him and began to see Him for who He is - the one that created the soft fuzzy rabbit and the great white shark. The one Who created the cute little puppy and the cockroach. The one Who hates sin in every form and the sinner who performs the acts while paradoxically loving the sinner by extending His hand of mercy in the cross to set him free from sin. That is what He is doing once again for you today. He is extending His hand to you. Repent and be set free.
Vera
Stephen J,
So why are the Yixian fossils regarded as transitional? First, they are, regardless of their age, intermediate in form between other species: Microraptor is pretty much what evolutionary theory would lead us to expect in a transitional between something like Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx. The fossils show that the intermediate forms did exist once.
The point is that the one didn't give rise to the other. The new dates pretty much rule that out.
A number of modern species are known as "living fossils" because they look little different from relatives that lived tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, from the okapi to the horseshow crab; many of the Yixian fossils could have been "living fossils" before they became unliving ones.
Is this not because these particular species were able to survive both types of climates when the sun was young and today? That doesn't seem that remarkable.
As I pointed out, the fossil record seems to be very incomplete (one measure of this is the lack of fossil records for many species that exist right now; another is the constant discovery of new fossil species).
We can't have it both ways, Stephen. Either the fossil record is absolute proof that contains all the information we need as is often presented in terms of evolution or it is incomplete in which case we can't suggest to the world that evolution fits all the parameters. The DNA studies seem to be looking at one type of DNA and not all the parameters.
Henry Gee, in his book In Search of Deep Time points out that we can never know that the earliest appearance of a fossil species (or a fossil genus, family or order) is the earliest time it existed, or that its last appearance was the last time it lived (call that the coelacanth principle).
Right, which is why suggesting that an animal fits a transitional form model cannot be proved. The Bible clearly states that life progressed from simple to complex ending in mankind. This is exactly what we see. Prior to life appearing in the fossil record, there were cataclysmic events that prohibited life.
And most fossil skeletons carry no skin impressions at all, so we don't know for sure if they had feathers or not.
I have heard of some dinosaurs being preserved with skin. I think was it you that suggested that there was some type of downy hair on some of these creatures? Also, because of some new research, it is now believed that the dinosaurs were warm blooded and not of the genus of reptiles.
Some museum drawer may contain a mid-Jurassic version of Microraptor that has never been recognized for what it is because only its bones, not its skin or feathers, were preserved.
Are you sure? The one fossil I saw looked to contain feathers. From what I understand, it is not that easy to get a perfect fossil because of the conditions in which it was preserved.
What is even more interesting is seeing that many of the life forms that were supposed to evolve from others are oceans apart. Please check out RTB's web site for more information.
Vera
verandoug said...
Reynold,
I really appreciate your heart to ask questions. Don't ever stop asking questions. For the sake of everyone's time, instead of taking this point by point, I am just going to respond in a general sense.
Firstly and most importantly, the Bible is central source of truth. Forget Poe's Law. Poe's Law would suggest that I am trying to win you to my club using arguments that would appeal to you.
Sorry, different laws, same name.
A person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing. Due to Poe's Law, it is almost impossible to tell if a person is a Poe unless they admit to it.
It's a commentary on how crazy the fundamentalist is spouting off, to make the readers doubt that the person is being serious. I mentioned that in comment about Sye TenB's posts...that, and what his username looks like.
Actually, most people are like you. They believe that to have a pure heart is impossible. In my own strength, I agree. Some people believe that purity of heart is wearing a robe and hood and walking around humming all day with praying hands. All that is is the same ole same ole of man trying to achieve something unobtainable through His own human strength and reasoning. Most people come into Christianity this way because of Poe's Law. It is that very thing that is muddying up the waters. All the evangelist is concerned about at that point is getting you to agree to join and then let's pass the plate. blah phooey. That is not the message!!
Do you still sin, or not?
I can speak for Dan Barker's experience because I know the charismatic message. It doesn't surprise me in the least when people like that grow close to those in authority and discover the rampant sin. I have seen many clips of Kathryn Kuhlman. She was a theatric nightmare and if I'm not mistaken, she nearly went through with adultery. The reason I called Till a nut is because he is backtracking all over the place.
Dan Barker didn't mention Kuhlman in his deconversion story, so why assume that it's her attitude that affected him? He and Till were both preachers, both wanted to believe, and couldnt'.
Check out ex-christian dot net and check out the numerous deconversion stories there.
Well one thing's for sure. This universe, in more ways than one, has caused life to flourish on this little microdot. And so far, we haven't seen those parameters anywhere else.
So far...though one has to wonder why make all those stars (that we can't even see from earth) since if we can't see them, they can't be used for "his glory" now, can they?
The very number and distance of stars, galaxies, etc. (think billions of light years) goes against a young universe view.
And that has what, exactly, to do with the bible being wrong about teaching geocentrism?
That is how man read the passage but the passage was not saying that. It spoke of the sun being AS a bridegroom coming out of His chamber. Then it talked about how the sun has a circuit, which it does around the Milky Way
Wrong. Explain how it mentions the galaxy, please. How can the sun complete even one circuit if the universe is as young as the bible says?
and that nothing is hid from the heat. Nothing on this planet is hid from the heat.
Wrong. The sun can't reach down to the deep ocean floor now, can it?
Why can't man take the science and reality to understand what is being communicated? Why is that so difficult? Both the record of nature and the Bible are from the same source. They compliment each other.
Not from what I've seen so far from your examples...you try to shoe-horn biblical science into real world science, and it's failing.
Now you might suggest that this mirrors the Hindu Vedas, for example. But there is absolutely no way to reconcile the fact, not even metaphorically, of a nonexistent civilization on the dark side of the moon or on the sun.
Just as metaphorically, many biblical "facts" can't be made to reconcile with reality.
If an organ has a function, you can no longer calling it vestigial. Vestigial, by its very connotation, implies an organ that was once used but no longer has function.
Did you, or did you not read what I had posted? You're just disregarding the orignal meaning of the word, as coined by actual naturalists and substituting your own meaning!
That's not honest.
If the organ or strand of DNA has a function, that shows design. I have already proven that with HERVS, male nipples and can do so with the appendix and the coccyx. Design is absolute proof of a Designer.
You can only "prove" your case by disregarding the original and actual meaning of the word "vestigial". You can't keep doing that if you expect to be taken seriously in matters of science.
One thing about your whale ankle is that the type of whales being sited are not listed. How can we know where this evidence comes from? What whale flipper are we comparing this to? What is the source of the ancient whale ankle? This is very typical of this camp. You give information, the bottom line that you propose is absolute truth that nobody can refute but nothing one could verify. And you wonder why Christianity reacted to your "theory."
They're dealing with ancient whales...the fossils they've unearted refute Ross' claims. You can learn more yourself by going to the various sites I listed. They have pictures that help with the verification.
Don't confuse your laziness with lack of evidence.
As to children having the influence of their parents, please see my blog for some Youtubes on the upbringing of Muslim children. Now Jesus said not to judge them when He gave us the parable of the wheat and the tares. He said that the angels would take care of that judgment in the end. Our heart is to see souls saved.
Yeah, children, not babies, right? I'm talking about kids who are too young to have been indoctrinated or even introducted into their parents culture. Does Jesus say just how the angels would do their judgement? Would it be the same way that the ancient Israelies did theirs?
It is man that likes to keep women in their second class position. It is God that liberated and exalted them by giving them places of authority and speaking directly to them.
The cases that you could cite were, if anything, exceptions to the rule. I'm referring to the rules/verses that talk about women in general. Again, see the readings I posted in my last comment. See also the verses they list and their contexts.
In the church, women were given a great deal of respect. Please do not site the silence in the church passage as that was talking about ordering a gathering and not the overall picture.
Sorry, but the context of Pauls' verse did not just imply a single gathering.
Women praying and prophesying publicly meant that they were speaking in church.
How do you know that it was in church that they did that?
It seems to me you're trying to sanitize the bible's attitude towards women.
You're just trying to justify your usage of "broad-brushing" or misrepresenting me. Won't work.
Big difference. If you see me on someone's web site or coming along side someone, then you know we are pretty much in agreement.
Unless you specifically say that you disagree with them on a certain point, or declare that you believe different about a particular topic then the others do, such as I do with the "pro-life" stance.
Here, try looking up the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage
A nontheistic and nonreligious opposition to the life-denying horror of abortion
"... because life is all there is and all that matters, and
abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being."
You stand with people that are pro-choice and support them wholeheartedly.
Try telling that to the group I just posted above.
Darwin, as has already been cited, did believe in a human hierarchy.
Actually, if you'd bothered to read his works in any detail, you'd find that that's an idea that he was growing out of.
I don't believe he was condoning the behavior of the Nazi Darwinists. But see, what you keep misunderstanding is that sin grows like cancer. The term sin means missing the mark. We start at that vertex with an idea. When we reach the end, we aren't in the ballpark. You are back at the vertex claiming the 99% truth but totally not admitting the 1% lie that lead to the influence in German society of a higher race.
Care to guess where the other 99% of that lie came from?
To be honest, I think that mostly the hierarchy of German society had that mentality. But you have to have the other folks do the grunt work. So they used Martin Luther to propagate their ideas to the masses.
Not just him, not by a long shot. There were centuries of religous anti-semitism in Europe by that time, something you seem to refuse to admit in your eagerness to try to blame it on "darwinism" as much as you can.
Again, check out the sources I listd in the "Expelled reviewed" post.
Those who Hitler would have considered less evolved with brown hair and brown eyes did the dirty work because of the Christian brainwashing.
That part's true.
This is almost identical to the support you give to those that murder babies. They couldn't survive were it not for people like you that do the grunt work.
Ok, I'm getting ticked off here: I have explicitly stated, MORE THAN ONCE that I disagree with them. How in blazes can it possibly be interpreted as "support"! What is wrong with you?
Even if I agree with them on other ideas that does not make them stronger when it comes to abortion!
If I were to use your messed-up "logic", then you and every Christian out there are giving support to things like slavery, religously inspired genocide, etc. Why? Because you support the other ideas the bible (which condones such actions) has in other respects. Even though you may be against slavery itself.
This brings me to my next point. If you are not in the Word daily and the only spiritual food you get is from your local pastor or teacher, I guarantee you that you will be easily led astray. If you don't ask questions and say, "Is this what the text is actually saying?" you are most likely going to fall into deception. We can come at the Bible from many different directions. We can look at it as a means to live a successful life here. You could look at it focusing on one attribute of God such as love and kindness. But in so doing, you might conclude that God is tolerant of sin and understands that you want to have sex with the beautiful blonde secretary and that Jesus will cover your sin because He understands, when if you read what it really says, He will be forced to judge you to hell's fire.
It was reading the bible thoroughly that dissuaded me from this religion in the first place.
One problem with your example above: What happens if you sin just before you die, before you have a chance to ask forgiveness for it, even if you converted earlier?
When I began to read the Bible realizing how much God hates sin,
Yeah, so much so that he'll kill the babies of those who "sinned"...
His character in dealing with sin, His overall being of who He is and how His love was extended in the cross to give mankind a means of being free from it
Too little, too late. What about those in the New World who wouldn't here about this until the missionaries came? Why not send angels to minister to them in the meantime?
to be reconciled to Him and know Him, the entire message began to fit.
You know how I came to know God, Reynold? I repented, plain and simple.
In other words, you just blindly accpeted his existence first, before you could find him? Don't let Sye TeB hear that; he'd accuse you of "vicously circular reasoning"!
I let go of my homogenized mochochino fairy take view of Him and began to see Him for who He is - the one that created the soft fuzzy rabbit and the great white shark. The one Who created the cute little puppy and the cockroach. The one Who hates sin in every form and the sinner who performs the acts while paradoxically loving the sinner by extending His hand of mercy in the cross to set him free from sin. That is what He is doing once again for you today. He is extending His hand to you. Repent and be set free.
Evidence, please. Besides, how is baby-killing "loving the sinner"?
If he truly "loved" us, why did he put the fallen angels on the same spot where he put the first humans? Why not put them in hell right off the bat? Negligent, to say the least.
scmike said...
reynold,
""No, there is no difference. He's addressing his comments to athiests.
If I started going on and saying stuff like "Christians are this, and Christians are that", would you, or would you not take that as an insult?"
Depends on your motive and the validity of your comments. It has been rightly said that the truth only hurts when it should. God Bless.
Don't you know that lies such as slander and libel also hurt? That's the cause of many a lawsuit, you know.
My comments are valid; check out the posts I mentioned earlier; Ray insults and degrades athiests in general on a regular basis here.
@Scmike
You're welcome. On the issue of personal attacks-I work with lawyers; personal attacks are an every day occurence. :-P But as to your question, "Personal attacks are always dispicable, don't you agree?" Speaking in general terms, I'd honestly have to say that depends. Let's say Joe Smoe cheats on his wife. You're a friend of his wife's; and you find out about it, and so you confront Joe about it, and the confrontation gets verbally ugly, calling him evil, the scum of the earth, etc. Is that a personal attack? Perhaps, but not an unwarranted one.
reynold,
""My comments are valid; check out the posts I mentioned earlier; Ray insults and degrades athiests in general on a regular basis here.""
You misunderstood my post. You asked if I would be insulted if you said that Christians were "this" or "that". My answer is: it depends on the motive behind the statements made and whether those statements were valid (i.e. truthful).
The fact is, Atheism is rebellion against God pure and simple. A person who pretends that God doesn't exist by ignoring all evidence presented to them is acting in an unreasonable and foolish manner.
These are not Ray's thoughts about Atheism, they are God's. Ray gave you scripture to confirm each one of his comments.
Atheists are not the victims here, Reynold. Each of you has willfully chosen to make yourselves an enemy of God and to stand in defiance against your Creator. Despite countless pleas for you to reconsider your position and to listen to reason you choose to put yourself in danger of everlasting damnation.
I make no apologies for what the Bible says about that. God Bless.
therine,
""You're welcome. On the issue of personal attacks-I work with lawyers; personal attacks are an every day occurence. :-P But as to your question, "Personal attacks are always dispicable, don't you agree?" Speaking in general terms, I'd honestly have to say that depends. Let's say Joe Smoe cheats on his wife. You're a friend of his wife's; and you find out about it, and so you confront Joe about it, and the confrontation gets verbally ugly, calling him evil, the scum of the earth, etc. Is that a personal attack? Perhaps, but not an unwarranted one.""
I like this scenario better: instead of calling Joe names, let's say I use the 10 commandments to convince him of his sin and then share the gospel with him. Let's then say that he repents, God saves him and makes him a new creature. Joe is then reconciled to his wife and their marriage is saved.
I have seen this happen with my own eyes. It's amazing what a little love and God's mercy can do.
God Bless.
It's amazing what God's mercy and love can do.
weemaryanne,
""SCMike,
"Each of you has willfully chosen to make yourselves an enemy of God ...."
It's not possible to be an enemy of something that ain't there.""
I'm honored that you would quote me. I'll respond with an excerpt from that same post:
"A person who pretends that God doesn't exist by ignoring all evidence presented to them is acting in an unreasonable and foolish manner." God Bless.
The fact is, Atheism is rebellion against God pure and simple. A person who pretends that God doesn't exist by ignoring all evidence presented to them is acting in an unreasonable and foolish manner.
These are not Ray's thoughts about Atheism, they are God's. Ray gave you scripture to confirm each one of his comments.
Atheists are not the victims here, Reynold. Each of you has willfully chosen to make yourselves an enemy of God and to stand in defiance against your Creator. Despite countless pleas for you to reconsider your position and to listen to reason you choose to put yourself in danger of everlasting damnation.
Bottom line, it's your arrogant assumption that your deity exists that makes bigotry against non-believers possible.
Wrong. It's not a deliberate decisions to rebell...read carefully. Atheists do not believe that your deity exists in the first place.
Obviously your holy book is going to paint non-believers in the worst possible terms, duh!
Muslims, who think that they have the true faith can say the exact same thing about atheists and Christians.
@ Reynold:
Muslims, who think that they have the true faith can say the exact same thing about atheists and Christians.
Actually, a great deal of muslims don't think that we're rebelling against God at all. They just think that we're being duped.
reynold,
""Bottom line, it's your arrogant assumption that your deity exists that makes bigotry against non-believers possible.""
It's YOUR arrogant assumption that God does not exist that makes bigotry against believers possible.
How do you like your argument now?
""Wrong. It's not a deliberate decisions to rebell...read carefully. Atheists do not believe that your deity exists in the first place.""
""Obviously your holy book is going to paint non-believers in the worst possible terms, duh!""
Reynold, imagine a man who denies that air exists while breathing it. What would be YOUR opinion of such a man??
""Muslims, who think that they have the true faith can say the exact same thing about atheists and Christians.""
Irrelevant. What one believes has nothing to do with Truth. Truth is exclusive by definition. Muslims are suppressing the Truth that God has revealed to them and so are you. God Bless.
Ray, don't feel bad about this. I too have had my share of being ridiculed of by a guy named "Don Exodus" on YouTube...
I'm the "idiot" on facebook running the group called "I don't believe atheists exists"...I know it's a grammatical error, but to be really creative...
That 's' at the end? It evolved! It really did! What? Why are you guys staring at me? I mean I should believe you that we are apes, so why can't you believe me that the 's' evolved? It started as a smudge and then later it magically formed an 's' without any "intelligence" to help it along.
scmike said...
reynold,
"Bottom line, it's your arrogant assumption that your deity exists that makes bigotry against non-believers possible."
It's YOUR arrogant assumption that God does not exist that makes bigotry against believers possible.
How do you like your argument now?
There's the little facts like:
1)the existence of your deity can't be proven
2)athiests don't go around trying to "convert" people into athiesm, we don't try to subvert science to enforce our views on schoolkids, etc.
*Before you say it, evolution itself does not require athiesm, check out the Talk Origins' God and Evolution FAQ.
"Wrong. It's not a deliberate decisions to rebel...read carefully. Atheists do not believe that your deity exists in the first place."
This statement is true, and I stand by it.
"Obviously your holy book is going to paint non-believers in the worst possible terms, duh!"
Reynold, imagine a man who denies that air exists while breathing it. What would be YOUR opinion of such a man??
Bad analogy. Why? We can physically feel air. We can test it! We can physically see it's effects. None of which applies to any diety.
Try again, with less condenscenion please.
"Muslims, who think that they have the true faith can say the exact same thing about atheists and Christians."
Irrelevant. What one believes has nothing to do with Truth. Truth is exclusive by definition. Muslims are suppressing the Truth that God has revealed to them and so are you. God Bless
Prove this "suppression", please. In the non-theological world, it's "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around.
What's to stop me from just turning that around and saying that christians and muslims are suppressing the truth that there is no "God"?
Post a Comment