Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism. He has worked for NBC, CNBC, PBS television, and the Fox News Channel where he currently appears on the weekly media critique show, “Fox News Watch.” Thomas has authored ten books, including Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?, A Freedom Dream, Public Persons and Private Lives, Book Burning, Liberals for Lunch, Occupied Territory, The Death of Ethics in America, Uncommon Sense and Things That Matter Most. His latest was The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas. In 1995, Thomas was honored with a Cable Ace Award nomination for Best Interview Program. Other awards include a George Foster Peabody team reporting award, and awards from both the Associated Press and United Press International. Common Ground, which Thomas writes for USA Today, offers insightful discussion of contentious social issues with his friend and political counterpart, Bob Beckel. The two are working together on a book to be published in 2007.
Close.
Cal Thomas
Syndicated political columnist
Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism.
more »
Well, hopefully, at least you now know one Christian (me) who thinks much differently. And, not only that, but I stand on the Bible, which does not tell me to railroad anyone, but to love them.
It's true that atheists have been more active recently in bringing court cases. But it isn't always atheists, and it was hardly any on the earlier cases.
I don't think a cross on a war memorial is something a reasonable person should go to court about. There must be something more important to spend their money on.
"Hopefully you can see why it makes no sense to force my faith on people; I CAN’T force my faith on people because THEY have to believe on their own. I can’t do it for them. And, I could choose to force my moral convictions on people, but what would that accomplish? If we are not ‘saved’ by our good deeds, what difference will it make if someone is forced to live a Christian lifestyle, but they have no faith, no relationship with God?"
Damn well said. Unfortunately, there is a large, organized movement of Christians out there who haven't thought of this. And probably don't care. I don't think they care about bringing people to God. I think they're burning with power lust, and a war on homosexuality is merely a means to an end.
Why do I care so much about the assault on homosexuals? A: Because they're fellow human beings, and there's a wave of destruction crashing down on them. B: Because a disproporionately large part of the arts are created by homosexuals (I have a theory why this is so), and I remember what happened to the arts in the 1980s when so many gay men went under the earth. C: Because a number of people I care about very much are homosexual. D: As it happens, I swing both ways myself, so I'm a target.
Persecution of Christians: You can't go by Eusebius. Something I read recently traced out the history of persecution by the Romans, and found that active persecution came in three periods that totaled about five years. This, of course, is more than bad enough, but not nearly as bad as the Church would have you believe based on Eusebius.
The murderousness of Christianity: I stand on history: The persecution of the Gnostics, burning of heretics, witch hunts, crusades, murder of the the Taborites, the arrest of Wencelaus IV (one of the best kings there ever was), it goes on and on. It's a curious thing: most people are really nice and really decent, and concerned with pursuing their happiness, but religion can turn them into Hell on wheels. It can make them torture, pillage, and murder, because they _think it's right._ I believe Christianity is ancient, mumbling evil, and you won't convince me otherwise, any more than I'll convince you.
I'll start with your last point. On that issue, we agree completely. Well...almost. As I wrote in my last post, I oppose Christians forcing non-Christians to live Christian lifestyles. The Holy Roman Empire was a great example of what NOT to do. Believing in Jesus is a choice. If God gives us this choice, who is man to force it on people?
Here's where we disagree: It was not always this way. If we go back and look at the first three hundred years of the church, we see persecution against Christians. All but one of the apostles was put to death. Christians were fed to lions, crucified, stoned to death, and burned at stakes, by the Jewish leadership or by the Roman government. In 325 AD, a Roman emperor adopted Christianity and began to force it on people. BUT, it was not biblical Christianity he was selling, it was a brand new religion - - - Catholicism. I can speak freely, because it’s pretty much just you and me here on this thread now. Catholicism is recycled paganism packaged as Christianity. From your previous posts (and your last name) it seems you were raised Catholic. So was I. If I am right, we have both come out of that system (which shows that some things have changed since the Dark Ages, since no one executed us for it).
This is no small distinction. Catholicism, like every other religion on the planet, is a system designed to get the believer to heaven, or Paradise, or Nirvana, or oneness with God, or some higher state, through careful obedience to set laws or rituals or principles. Now, if you believe that, then you can force these religious laws on people and think that you are doing them a favor. You are bringing them salvation. If you kill them for refusing to follow your rules: Hey, they were going to hell any way. BUT, Christianity, as defined by the earliest believers, as recorded in the Bible and the writings of the earliest (pre-Catholic) church leaders (“fathers”), does not work that way. The Bible is very clear in saying that no man can ever satisfy God by doing good works, following laws or living life a certain way. It is by faith and trust, and by establishing a personal relationship with God, through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, that we are ‘saved’ and that we inherit eternal life.
I know you don’t believe all of this, but I want you to hear it so you can understand the problem more fully. What I have just described is pure biblical Christianity. Hopefully you can see why it makes no sense to force my faith on people; I CAN’T force my faith on people because THEY have to believe on their own. I can’t do it for them. And, I could choose to force my moral convictions on people, but what would that accomplish? If we are not ‘saved’ by our good deeds, what difference will it make if someone is forced to live a Christian lifestyle, but they have no faith, no relationship with God?
I know what I am about to say has been rejected all over this website, on many threads, whenever Christians say it, but I have to do it: Christians who are willing to kill, steal people’s rights and force them to live as Christ did, are not living like Christ themselves. I really believe that a minority of those who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. I rarely am willing to discuss homosexuality, but you repeatedly mention it, so I will tell you why I haven’t addressed it. First, as I just described, I cannot make someone become a Christian by forcing them to conform to a Bible-prescribed lifestyle. I would prefer to love them as Jesus did, and let HIM change the person as they get to know Him. The other reason is that sin is sin. And, God sees sin as it is. Unlike humans, He does not consider one sin worse than another. Sin can be defined as rebellion against God, and any rebellion against God is bad, and separates us from Him. (Again, I know you think this is ridiculous, but I want you to see my perspective). If that is true, what does it make me if I tell a homosexual they are sinning, but I myself am having an affair with another woman, or divorcing my wife, or sleeping with my girlfriend, or watching pornography? Answer: it makes me a useless hypocrite. A hypocrite because I am also disobeying God. Useless because God cannot use me; I am giving a bad witness. I try really hard to practice what Jesus preached when He talked about removing the log in your own eye before being able to help others with their tiny little splinters.
This is why I have to disagree with your contention that Christianity has always been evil and murderous. For three hundred years, it was not that way. In fact, for two thousand years, it has not been that way. In every generation, there have always been at least a small number of biblical Christians who lived as Christ did, and resisted the legalism of Catholicism (and now Fundamentalism).
What I am sharing with you is not something the mainstream media covers. There are many of us Christians who feel this way, and there is a movement under way to turn the tide back from forceful judgment to true Christian love. But, you will only experience it one Christian at a time, as you are now. Here is my advice for you: whenever a “Christian” judges or condemns you, show them that you understand true Christianity better than they do, and say something like, “Don’t you have sins to deal with yourself? Does God take your sins any less seriously than mine?”, or quote Jesus on removing the log from your eye (chapter 7:1-5).
Now, some smaller points:
- By “banning any mention of God”, I was referring to the removal of “God” from the pledge to the flag in classrooms. I was not referring to teaching Christianity in our public schools.
- You say these laws are generally brought by members of other religions, not Atheists. That case in California involved the Atheist father who is still trying to get God removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. (“Christ” is not mentioned in the pledge, so why would Jews or Muslims object?)
- Attempting to remove that cross from a memorial was not an act of vandalism. I was referring to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial in San Diego. There was a court battle to prevent the cross’s removal by those who felt it was inappropriate to have a cross at a war memorial.
(These misunderstandings are my fault. I did not give enough details to be coherent. Sorry!)
" If we believe Christ will return to set up His kingdom, what are we doing trying to run the government now, without Him?"
That's an excellent point. Let me think about that.
"[T]here are many atheists who are trying to remove the rights of American Christians to share their faith in public."
There are people (I don't have the details on whether they're atheists or not; most of the relevant court cases are not brought by atheists, but by people of other religions) who seriously go too far, such as trying to prevent school kids from having prayer meetings at recess. There are other case of unnecessarily monkeying with symbols, such as taking after creches in public places, or renaming the Easter Bunny. Taking a cross off a war memorial is simple vandalism.
On the other hand, bringing a ten commandments statue into a courthouse is an attempt to conflate temporal law with Biblical injunctions, and is a clear case of violating separation of church and state.
Atheists (or Jews, Hindus, what have you) frequently shoot themselves in the foot, confuse what is essential with what isn't, and confuse Constitutional issues with opinion issues, which gets Christians so upset that they do likewise. Then reasoned discussion stops and war begins.
Now.
About banning the mention of God from any classroom. First of all, it isn't any classroom. It's government classrooms. It's an important point that public schools are run by the government. Teachers discussing God in class therefore has the appearance of a governmental endorsement of religion. It looks to me like a clear violation of separation.
Also, as an atheist from the age of fifteen, I can tell you it's upsetting and oppressive to people who don't believe as the teacher believe. It's also scary, because it reminds you that you're one among many, and seems to point that out to the many. Remember, atheist children (Jewish children, Muslim children, Mormon children) are forced by law to be there. I don't think it's fair to force them to listen to even the shortest sermons, or to call attention to their very small minority status. Nor is there any pedogocical need for it.
Going back to a previous point:
"You, at the very least, hate the IDEA of God, don’t you?"
Absolutely not. I'm fascinated by the idea of God. That's why I've been immersing myself in the history of religion. I'm positively jolly toward the idea of Sufiism. It's cool as anything. Wrong, of course.
What I hate is the idea of Christians forcing me to keep my mouth shut, forcing me to conduct my sex life by their lights, forcing me to go to church, forcing me to give money to their causes... forcing me to do anything. And don't tell me they wouldn't. Did you ever hear of the Cristeros War? 90,000 people lost their lives over the question of what the Catholic Church had the right to force them to do. In 1844, Catholics and Protestants fought each other with cannon fire in the streets of Philadelphia. Christians burned or crushed seventy-some people to death in Waco because they wanted to live outside Christian society.
Christians have been violently forcing their beliefs on people for 2000 years, and it's time it stopped.
Conolley:
Things just got interesting. I disagree with A LOT of what you just wrote, but I am intrigued, and I would like to discuss some of this further, if you are willing.
Before we do, I like to request that you refrain from insulting me by calling God my "imaginary friend". I would like to have a more civil conversation, and I know we are both capable of it.
You said: "And "moderate" Christians, such as yourself, are in the same positions as moderate Mohammedans...If you aren't educated about what's going on in your religion, and if you aren't speaking against it, you look like part of the problem."
I don’t think I am a “moderate” Christian. My faith in Christ is the center of my life. It is who I am. I read the Bible in a way that most people would call “literal”. But, I do not agree with the people you are criticizing. And, I am vocal about it.
While Christians are called to share their faith with everyone around them, I do not see where in the Bible I am told to demand that the entire world live according to God’s principles. In fact, quite the opposite, believers are told to obey the government. We are not called to control the government, picket, boycott, go on Larry King, threaten candidates with our social agenda, lobby politicians, govern from the pulpit, or even judge those who live apart from God. We are to live a loving, selfless life and give ourselves to those around us. If asked why we do so, we are to explain the love of Christ that motivates us to act this way.
On the one hand, I strongly disagree with what some people who call themselves Christians are doing. They are off target. If we believe Christ will return to set up His kingdom, what are we doing trying to run the government now, without Him? This, I believe, is the crux of every problem throughout history involving the “church”. The Holy Roman Empire forcing its citizens to be Christians, Crusaders killing non-Christians, Catholics persecuting Protestants, Inquisitors murdering non-believers, Catholic Ireland at war with Protestant Northern Ireland, Imperialists and Colonists owning and trading and abusing slaves, are all examples of Christians exerting power over governments and their people. This is not biblical. We are to live such good lives that those around us see our faith at work. Christians are called to be good, obedient citizens, obeying the authorities, respecting our leaders and paying our taxes.
On the other hand, Christians are called to witness, regardless of the consequences. The only time when I see the Bible endorsing the act of defying the government occurs when a believer is asked to stop worshipping God, or when asked to worship other gods. Daniel refused to stop praying to His God, and he was thrown to the lions, willingly. Daniel’s three friends refused to bow down to a statue of Nebuchadnezzar, and they were thrown into a fiery furnace, willingly. Peter and John refused to stop preaching Christ, and were thrown into prison and beaten. They thanked God for being considered worthy of suffering for Jesus. Paul spent time in prison for spreading Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. He considered himself blessed for it.
I really hope you admit, John, that there are many atheists who are trying to remove the rights of American Christians to share their faith in public. Removing a cross from a war memorial, banning the mention of God from any classroom, taking Christmas trees out of malls, renaming the Easter Bunny the “Spring Bunny”, and other recent actions get most Christians worked up over their right to openly practice their faith. I, myself, am not worried. Like Daniel & his friends, John & Peter, Paul, and scores and scores of martyrs over the years, I’ll go to jail and die if I have to. I won’t whine about my rights being violated by you atheists. Jesus never whined.
Some misguided souls? This is a highly organized movement. And "moderate" Christians, such as yourself, are in the same positions as moderate Mohammedans, who are being asked to speak out against the fundmentalists in their religion. They don't do it, so the assumption is that they actually support the terrorists, whether they do or not. If you aren't educated about what's going on in your religion, and if you aren't speaking against it, you look like part of the problem.
You further look like part of the problem for statements like this: "[T]he MAJORITY of Americans do not support legalizing gay marriage." The majority of Americans, according to polls, until recently supported equal rights for homosexuals. With the huge activism by Christians, this number has gone to a minority. It looks like hate to me. Here's something Goldberg has to say on the subject:
"And you see the gay people in these areas, where these anti-gay measures were used to get out the vote, and what they're feeling is real terror. They're looking around and thinking, these are my neighbors. They've always been nice to me. We've always smiled at each other. Who are these people?" (from an interview at buzzflash.com)
I blame you because I think all Christians (all monotheists?) are blinded to reality, and pursue dangerous, hurtful, destructive, even evil, paths, because they think it's right. And no one can tell you anything, no one can educate you, and when reality is shown to be against you, you go away resenting it an mumbling about conspiracies. Where's "David" right now? Did he concede the evidence seemed to be against him? No, he just vanished. I think this is willful blindness, and I blame anyone who commits it or is party to it, because that road leads to death.
I think this conversation has degenerated into random assertions, but your last question is legit, so I'll answer: Who is trying to take away the constitution? Christion Dominionists. Christian Reconstructionists. Dominionists are a small movement, but they've had significant influence on government policy in the current administration. Christian Reconstructionists aren't so small.
No bills have been introduced in Congress yet, but there are most distinctly Christians who want to and will if they get a chance. Or bypass Congress altogether, if they get a chance.
For details, read _Kingdom Coming, The Rise of Christian Nationalism_, Michelle Goldberg, Norton, 2006. If you do love the Constitution, this book will scare the living crap out of you.
Your latest rant was hard to read, but I want to be respectful, so here are my answers to your points:
"I can't hate an entity I don't believe in.” You, at the very least, hate the IDEA of God, don’t you?
“Do you think Hindus came to the hills of West Virginia and made me hate Christianity?” Cute, but you did not understand me. I am saying that because you hate the idea of God, you hate the idea of Christianity.
“And if Christians don't hate homosexuals, where did all the hate legislation suddenly come from?” Hate legislation? I think SOME Christians want to limit marriage to heterosexuals, but the MAJORITY of Americans do not support legalizing gay marriage.
“You have to turn a studied blind eye every day to the myriad evidences from science, history, archaeology, patristics, textual analysis, and plain common sense to protect your belief in your invisible friend.” Funny, I could say the same of you. You ignore the obvious existence of God whenever you enjoy a sunrise, are amazed by nature, witness the miracle of birth, or gaze at a canopy of stars. You ignore the obvious fact that the size of the earth, its distance from the sun, its distance from the moon, its gravitational laws, and its speed of rotation are too perfect not to have an intelligent Agent behind them. (Even the great minds who discovered them admitted that.) You ignore a Designer when you cut yourself and don’t bleed to death, when you feel pleasure, when you experience love, and when you inherently discern between right and wrong. You ignore the parallels between the Bible and science, the Bible and history, and the Bible and archaeology.
“Christianity has always been a vile and hateful religion.” You won’t see that in the New Testament, which details the beginnings of the Christian movement. SHOW ME.
“You aren't going to tell me you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Augustine or Aquinas, are you?” Well…umm…actually…I might be. Neither of them read the Bible faithfully. They both interpreted the Scriptures allegorically. Everything was always a picture of something else. I’m sorry, but I choose what the Bible plainly says over some dead guy’s vivid imagination.
“I don't know how many Christians have threatened to beat me down for simply remarking that I'm an atheist.” That’s unfortunate. I am truly sorry to hear that. That doesn’t happen here in the Rust Belt.
“And the Hebrew Bible is an atrocious, murderous, hateful document if ever one was written.” You are ignoring all of the loving things God says in the OT. You are glossing over His promises. You are oblivious to His mercy and kindness, mentioned all over the Hebrew Bible.
“I do seriously resent the concerted effort by Christians to force him on me, and even to take away the laws of the United States and replace them with Leviticus. Stoning women for not being chaste? Stoning children for disobedience? Come on.” Who is trying to take away the Constitution? I love the Constitution. The Bible tells us to follow the rules of our government, not change them. And, you are making MY point with your Levitical list. What Christian is introducing bills in Congress to stone women and children? YOU come on!
"You hate God. You resent Him. You want Him to go away."
To quote Va.Tech. Professor Mapantsula (approximately, from memory), "I can't hate an entity I don't believe in. This is not the high school silent treatment."
"Weak and manipulative answer"
You asked my about my emotional state. Ask a personal question, expect a personal answer.
And if I can't blame my hatred of Christians (actually, it's my hatred of Christianity; there is a difference) on Christians, where does it come from? Do you think Hindus came to the hills of West Virginia and made me hate Christianity?
Christianity has always been a vile and hateful religion. I don't know how many Christians have threatened to beat me down for simply remarking that I'm an atheist. And, as Sam Harris, among others, have pointed out, Augustine found reason in the Christian Bible to torture heretics. Aquinas found reason to burn them alive. (You aren't going to tell me you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Augustine or Aquinas, are you?) And the Hebrew Bible is an atrocious, murderous, hateful document if ever one was written.
And if Christians don't hate homosexuals, where did all the hate legislation suddenly come from? It wasn't Muslims. It wasn't atheists.
And no, I'm not about to admit that you're right. You're from insanity. You have to turn a studied blind eye every day to the myriad evidences from science, history, archaeology, patristics, textual analysis, and plain common sense to protect your belief in your invisible friend.
Now, I'm not interested in taking your invisible friend away from you, if that's what gets you through the night, but I do seriously resent the concerted effort by Christians to force him on me, and even to take away the laws of the United States and replace them with Leviticus. Stoning women for not being chaste? Stoning children for disobedience? Come on.
What a weak and manipulative answer you just gave. The Christians I know don't want to murder judges, don't hate homosexuals, don't teach that God hates people, don't feel bound by the laws in Leviticus and don't want to subject an unbelieving world to God's law against their will.
We make good comments, and always try to show why we believe what we believe. We have made many good arguments on this thread, but you are predisposed by your hatred to reject every one of them.
You can't blame your outright hatred against Christians on us. Be honest, John. Your disgust goes much deeper than strangers on the internet. You hate God. You resent Him. You want Him to go away.
I don't know your story, but you are not alone. We all, at one time, lived selfish lives apart from our Creator. I personally can tell you that my life was not complete, my life was not hopeful, my life was not at all meaningful, until I stopped running and faced the God who wanted to erase my past and give me a future.
I can't see you admitting that I am right. You may not even know it. Your selfish hatred may go so deep that you do not even understand it. But, it can all go away in the blink of an eye, when you're finally ready.
Lest you think I am judging you, let me ask you this: Would I be judging a man if I observed he was drowning and I threw him a life jacket?
What makes me so "aggro?" I'm talking to Christians, in an era when Christians are openly advocating the murder of federal judges. When Christians have to be bought off from picketing a funeral with "God Hates Fag" signs. When Christians are teaching two-year-olds to sing "God Hates the World." (Go to http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net/specialav/2007/20070407_ghtw.html Watch it all the way to the end. If you can stomach it.) When Christians are advocating that the American Constitution be replaced with the laws of Leviticus. Why am I aggro? Because YOU can't face an argument directly, never admit when you're defeated (just stop talking, see "David" above), weasel about in all directions, and argue about Wikipedia when all your other arguments run out. I think you are invincibly ignorant, I think Christianity is evil, and I think you're parties to it. That's why I'm aggro.
True true re: the English lessons; and free lessons mind you!
Also, this garbage that he alluded to when saying that anyone who is a Biblical scholar cannot argue (or is not qualified to argue) in a scientific manner about God etc. due to bias!! I mean COME ON, does this dude make the rules as he goes along? The facts for intelligent design etc. far outweigh anything darwin or evolutionists have to offer and him and other just simply refuse to acknowledge that this evidence exists.
On what basis does he dismiss scholars etc? I have tried getting into the mind of this individual but it is a wasted effort. And then there are the insults etc. when you don't agree with him and the dismissive attitude he adopts. Just try and insult him in turn; then just see what happens!!!
Look, I debate, and have done so publicly before and never have I encountered such puzzling behaviour from an individual such as this.
He's almost as bad as that total idiot Richard Dawkins. I'm more amused than anything else...
Wikipedia is not reliable, and neither is Carbon Dating. I did err (sorry) - the dried lava at Mt. St. Helens was obviously not dated with carbon. But, carbon dating is one of many similar systems. My point with Mt. St. Helens is that we cannot reliably date rocks, and very often this 'technology' is used to date achaeological objects found with the rocks.
We obviously are talking about the existence of God. If the Old Testament is true, it goes along way to showing that He exists. We can't forget that the book is full of predictions of events that subsequently happened. And, no human could make so many accurate predictions of the future.
"The discussion was on whether the OT stands up to archaeology. It's generally acknowledged by scholars Jewish, Christian, and secular that it doesn't. Previously, it's been held that anything before the United Kingdom is a mythical story disproved by archaeology. Now, it's beginning to look like the United Kingdom doesn't stand up either."
- These statements are simply not true. "Christians", at least, know that many of the places, customs, and peoples mentioned in the Old Testament have been verified, often by secular researchers. Only a minority of 'scholars' hold that the Old Testament is mythical. The United Kingdom is not under question by the majority of scholarship.
The problem is that a small group of dissidents (mostly the Jesus Seminar people) has spun up some tall tales. They are the ones who appear on every television special on Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity. They have no proof of what they teach, and they are the source of the nonsense Dan Brown lists in his silly DaVinci novel.
Listen, bubba, I'm not one of your students, and I'm not interested in your opinions of Wikipedia. And I expect I've read as many books as you have. Kindly get down off your high horse.
In any case, the discussion wasn't on whether God exists. Every proof of the existence of God was shot down long ago. The discussion was on whether the OT stands up to archaeology. It's generally acknowledged by scholars Jewish, Christian, and secular that it doesn't. Previously, it's been held that anything before the United Kingdom is a mythical story disproved by archaeology. Now, it's beginning to look like the United Kingdom doesn't stand up either.
And I still don't know what you were talking about vis a vis Mount St. Helens. Do you?
What's all this about Mount St. Helens? It seems utterly incoherent to me. How can you date a volcanic cone? It's not an entity; it's a mass of stuff. I suppose the stuff could be arbitrarily old.
Also, isn't Mount St. Helens all cone? It's a volcanic mountain. It's been around a long time.
And no scientist has ever claimed to date anything to 2.4 million years ago using carbon dating. Carbon dating goes back, what, 50,000 years, tops?
Help up out here. What in the world are you talking about?
My daughter is not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference for any project at her high school. It is not a reliable source. My university students know not to quote wikipedia to me; I will laugh. So, Conolley: "Ha, ha, ha!!!"
The walls of Jericho fell at least four times.
Carbon dating is not reliable. Scientists have dated the cone at Mount St. Helens to be 2.4 MILLION years old. And, we know that it went off in 1980, so that cone is only 27 years old. OOPS!
The radio carbon dates used by Wood were provided by the British Museum, which later retracted the dates because their machinery had been out of calibration. The corrected radio carbon dating confirms Kenyon's dating.
I think this is a fair and unbiased site about Jericho. You tell me to read about Kenyon and I did. Her conclusion was what you said it would be. But at the end of this article archaeologist Bryan Wood re-evaluates Kenyon's claims. Using carbon 14 dating, his conclusion is that the Israelites under Joshua could have had a conquest of Jericho. There is no way either could come to a solid conclusion on this due in fact to the walls of Jericho have been destroyed and rebuilt several times in history. So neither does this suggest the story was true or false. It is inconclusive. But the last evidence to come out with carbon 14 dating suggests the timing of Joshua and Jericho were correct. Did he have a conquest over Jericho?? No one knows and may never know. But there for sure is no evidence that suggests without a doubt the story in the Bible is false.
Here's a quote from the wikipedia site you said you read about the Hittites.
Moreover, in the account of the conquest of Canaan, the Hittites are said to dwell "in the mountains" and "towards the north" of Canaan — a description that matches the general direction and geography of the original Hittite empire, who had been influential in the region prior to the Battle of Kadesh.
Looking it up in McDowell doesn't count. McDowell quotes Garstung, whose work has been superseded by the great Kathleen Kenyon. Kenyon's methods at Jericho (the "Wheeler-Kenyon Method") are now the standard of archaeology.
Very well. I looked up the Hittites. I didn't have to go far. This is what I found at Wikipedia:
'Genesis indicates that the "Hittites" (sons of Heth) were descendants of Ham through his son, Canaan. However, it is uncertain, and there has been some debate, as to whether this designation was intended to signify any or all of: 1) the original Hattites of Hatti, 2) their Indo-European conquerors (Nesili), who retained the name "Hatti" for Central Anatolia, and are today referred to as the "Hittites" ..., or 3) a Canaanite group, who may or may not have been related to either or both of the Anatolian groups, and who also may or may not be identical with the later Neo-Hittites.
'The Biblical Hittites are said to be a great power who dwell "in the mountains" and "towards the north" of Canaan. Some scholars, on the basis of the Documentary Hypothesis which holds that the Hebrew Bible was redacted well after the fall of the Hittite Empire, assume these Biblical references may be to the "Neo-Hittite" (Luwian) polities.'
In other words, nothing solid.
Now.
If you're actually interested in intellectual discussion, rather than assertion, please look up the fall of Jericho. Archaeology asserts that Jericho fell about 2400 BCE, which is 900 years before the supposed time of Joshua. When Joshua was supposed to have "fit the Battle of Jericho," Jericho was an abandoned heap of stones. Don't believe it? Look it up. Then tell me what archaeology proves about the Bible.
Hey!!! John Conelly is back!! How bout those Hittites huh? I'll give you a word of advice Mr. C. How about looking up both sides of the argument. Infidels.org??? The name just says it all. Real non-biased site ya have there buddy. So, last time I talked to you, you told me to "go to hell!" I hope your feeling a little better. So anyway, just wanted to say hi and I hope you found that the Hittites were a real people in one of many confirmations of the OT. Take care
I assumed you _had_ read it for yourself. And the site doesn't trash the book. It started out as trash.
I refer readers to that site because I don't want anyone to get the impression that the book hasn't been answered, because that might lead to the free-floating feeling that it's unanswerable.
Phantom:
My wit is dim? I refer you to your "top lip" remark.
David:
I will put together a summary of what I have on Miller and that aspect of evolutionary theory. I will also give you references and a link to a useful website.
Stay tuned...
Conolley:
Why send people to a website that trashes McDowell's book instead of inviting people to read it for themselves? Don't you want people to think for themselves? Are you scared that they will not think it is 'half-baked' and actually like what he has written? Do you really need to control people to that extent?
Incidentally, for those who don't know Josh McDowell, he wrote a book called _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_. My "page 94" reference above was to _The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict_, in one volume, from Nelson, 1999.
The book is a collection of half-baked mythologizing and hand-waving, and is the source of most of the goofy arguments the fundamentalists come up with. You can see it very thoroughly refuted here:
"And by the way; the smell you're smelling is not green cheese; it's your top lip!"
My apologies. I thought I was talking to an adult.
Listen, kid, you're on the wrong site. Grownups meet here. Your brain is not yet matured to the point you can discuss ideas at this level. Come back when you're fifteen or sixteen.
Incidentally, since English is not your first language, let me make a friendly correction: It's idiomatic English to say _upper_ lip.
"Ha Ha Ha!! That was the funniest comment ever. I really cant stop laughing."
Thank you. That's very enlightening. I'm now prepared to sum up the argumentation methods of fundamentalist Christians:
Begin by quoting whatever canned answers you can remember from Josh McDowell.
Ignore any and all points your opponent makes.
Jump on any little word that can be misconstrued.
If you have an extraordinary memory (for a fundamentalist), quote more McDowell.
If worst comes to worst, actually go and look up something in McDowell (the Hittite reference comes from page 94 of the Nelson single-volume edition).
If all else fails, babble nonsense ("Ha, ha, ha"? Dude, you typed a false laugh) until no one will talk to you anymore, then declare yourself the winner.
Try to make some kind of a show of superiority:
"If you decide you want to know more about God and the Bible let me know." As if you're some kind of Biblical scholar.
Well, it worked. I'm not talking to you anymore. You're the winner. Revel in it.
Thanks John for the compliment. Since I am sure you are way more knowledgable than me in the sciences, I was hoping to ask you a question. I continue to look for origen of life sciences and I find conflicing reports. But I was curious if you know, or heard, about Stanly Millers experiment in 1953. Supposedly it was tainted in favor of his findings. But the closest he got to creating a livving cell from chemicals were 11 of the necessary 20 amino acids needed for a living organism. I know there were no needed nuclei found and then the process would have to be repeated 100 times to make a protein molecule. Do you know if this is the closest science has come up with on creating living cells out of non-living cells? And if so wouldnt you conclude that mathematic probabilities would be so overwhelming against a particle to people theory? I'd rather ask a fellow believer so I know I dont get lied to.
Why is it that when I post what I believe to be the truth, you say I am trying to 'inspire others', but when you post what you believe to be the truth you say you are trying to educate people? WOW. You really do employ a double standard. At least I am being honest enough to say that there is no absolute proof on either side, and each person has to choose what they believe.
And, yes, I have a degree in Molecular Biology and Genetics, and I am a doctor and a professor at a large university. Each year, when I give a presentation on the problems with evolution, I get a lot of accolades (and thank-you's). (And, I live in a BLUE state, NOT the Deep South!)
Thanks for the input. (I'm not sure, though, if science even knows how God did it. That Chinese scientist concurs with other findings I have seen that show that organisms pop into the fossil record fully formed. Sounds more like special creation to me!)
Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.
Also, Darwin was know to be agnostic, recognizing that he even knew someone must have created all this.
I must admit that the majority of the science community recognizes the theory of evolution as fact. But more and more evidence is pointing against and not for evolution. Ex: gaps in the fossil record. The Wall Street Journal reported this:
A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin 's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."[13]
Ah, so true. Eventually, this theory will most likely be found false. As we search deeper into the fossil record, more and more evidence is being shown that it could possibly not be true. Is it inconclusive? Yes, but so was this theory since its inception.
I think people use science as a means of TRYING to prove there is no God. But in time science has just shown how God did it.
Speaking of quacks, I hope you are one and not a real biology major. I hope you're a just another fundamentalist "hothead blowing smoke” (to borrow your phrase relating to atheists) thinking that your arguments here will inspire others to your way of thinking.
E Favorite:
I did comment on the Exodus. All you have is no evidence. I spoke to that.
So, the fact that there is no evidence for evolution - the very evidence its founder said would be necessary - is acceptable to you. Creatures have been evolving and changing and morphing for BILLIONS of years and we have NOT ONE fossil to document it, but, no evidence for people wandering BRIEFLY through an inhospitable desert, and it must not have happened?
There is a double standard here. And, to set the record straight, it is the evolutionists who have ruled our classrooms and the media since the 1950's. The scientists are the ones who are misleading people. I have a degree in Biology, and I was lied to. Period. I was told we had a lot more evidence than we do. All we have is a well developed myth that never happened. 'Because people are made of the same elements as animals, we must be related.' That's about it.
So, when faced with no evidence, each person has to choose what to believe. So, please stop making it sound like Christians are denying science and believing in myths as reality, since those who believe in evolution are doing the same thing. Just like you, I have researched this very throroughly. When the theory of evolution crumbled in front of my eyes, I decided to embrace Jesus, whom I had always rejected in favor of the 'quack' science that had been sold to me.
Hi, John M - I don't believe I've mentioned my views on evolution, but of course, it is not disproved, though there are some people who don't believe in it - or anything else that in contrary to bible stories.
Also, what you say about Jesus and the gospels simply is not so. There is no solid evidence for Jesus and the gospels were written much later - Mark was the first, written in the late 60's. Most people in those days died before reaching 50.
Dan Brown's book is not an issue, since he clearly labeled The Da Vinci Code as a work of fiction.
You didn't comment on the information I provided about the Exodus story. That's your option, of course, but I hope other people see it and think about it and notice the difference in how you and I present information. I also hope you stop by a conservative Temple some Friday night and check out the reference I mentioned.
We do each have a choice about what road we travel. We don't really have a choice about was is a fact and what is not, though. I hope you give that some additional thought.
You know, no one has EVER found any fossils of transitional forms as evolution would require. Darwin said his theory would be disproved if millions of transitional fossils were not soon found. So, he would have abandoned his theory by now. By contrast, modern evolutionists are making up new theories to hang on to the idea that evolution could have somehow happened, even though THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
Funny that you abandon the idea that there was an Exodus but you are okay with a disproven scientific theory.
And, what about Jesus? He was a real person, and the gospels were written and distributed while most of his contemporaries were still alive. We have the writings of early second century Christian leaders, in which we see that they had the same theological beliefs as modern-day evangelicals. (Dan Brown and CCNL are wrong about a Roman Emperor making everything up a few centuries later.)
So, you have made a choice. And, IMHO, you made the wrong choice. I so wish I could change that. But, the choice is yours and I respect it.
John – When I became curious about religion in general and the Bible, I started doing research – on the internet, in libraries and bookstores. I was thorough, weighing the quality of the information, because I became aware early on that some things are written to push a particular point of view and others are written objectively. I would never settle for one source of information and would always be sure that my sources were well referenced. In my search, I heard about the book, the Bible Unearthed (mentioned above) and then found it at the local Border’s and bought it. It is written by respected professors from respected universities. They happen to be Jewish, so have no reason to want to disprove Exodus. I read several reviews of the book, including one from the NY Times, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00EEDE173FF937A35751C0A9679C8B63
which said this:
“In expounding their view of the Bible as a national epic that shaped and sustained a people, Finkelstein and Silberman juxtapose this narrative with the discoveries and interpretations of archaeology. They say their predecessors tended to use archaeology to argue for the historicity of the biblical record. By contrast, they use archaeology as an independent source to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel. Yet respect for earlier scholarship, especially when they reject it, lends integrity to their own work. It sends the salutary message that the new vision of today inevitably becomes the old vision of tomorrow. Drawing on new methods, excavations (even of old sites) and assumptions, they turn the traditional argument on its head. Archaeological studies, they argue, undercut rather than support the historicity of biblical traditions about the origin and rise of Israel. Their detailed analysis yields conclusions that are startling to the uninitiated: the search for the historical ancestors has failed; the Exodus did not happen as described; the violent, swift and total conquest of Canaan never took place; the picture of judges leading tribes in battle against enemies does not fit the data; David and Solomon existed in the 10th century B.C. but as ''little more than hill country chieftains.'' There was no golden age of a united kingdom, a magnificent capital and an extended empire.”
In another review, http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
Finkelstein, one of the authors, says: During our Pesach seder, my two girls, who are 11 and 7, didn't hear a word about the fact that there was no exodus from Egypt. When they are 25, we will tell them a different story.
Then I learned, here on the “On Faith” forum, actually, that the Conservative Jews had added
All Comments (388)
towner levin grumphy grubbiness compliment hoarsen washroom fruitwood
Asiaweek
http://cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/11/11/anthrax.post.offices/index.html
December 15, 2007 5:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 15, 2007 17:48
Yeah, you remind me of Molly Ivins. She was a liberal, but at least she wasn't a fuzzy-headed liberal.
April 29, 2007 9:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2007 21:48
Well, hopefully, at least you now know one Christian (me) who thinks much differently. And, not only that, but I stand on the Bible, which does not tell me to railroad anyone, but to love them.
April 29, 2007 9:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2007 21:21
It's true that atheists have been more active recently in bringing court cases. But it isn't always atheists, and it was hardly any on the earlier cases.
I don't think a cross on a war memorial is something a reasonable person should go to court about. There must be something more important to spend their money on.
"Hopefully you can see why it makes no sense to force my faith on people; I CAN’T force my faith on people because THEY have to believe on their own. I can’t do it for them. And, I could choose to force my moral convictions on people, but what would that accomplish? If we are not ‘saved’ by our good deeds, what difference will it make if someone is forced to live a Christian lifestyle, but they have no faith, no relationship with God?"
Damn well said. Unfortunately, there is a large, organized movement of Christians out there who haven't thought of this. And probably don't care. I don't think they care about bringing people to God. I think they're burning with power lust, and a war on homosexuality is merely a means to an end.
Why do I care so much about the assault on homosexuals? A: Because they're fellow human beings, and there's a wave of destruction crashing down on them. B: Because a disproporionately large part of the arts are created by homosexuals (I have a theory why this is so), and I remember what happened to the arts in the 1980s when so many gay men went under the earth. C: Because a number of people I care about very much are homosexual. D: As it happens, I swing both ways myself, so I'm a target.
Persecution of Christians: You can't go by Eusebius. Something I read recently traced out the history of persecution by the Romans, and found that active persecution came in three periods that totaled about five years. This, of course, is more than bad enough, but not nearly as bad as the Church would have you believe based on Eusebius.
The murderousness of Christianity: I stand on history: The persecution of the Gnostics, burning of heretics, witch hunts, crusades, murder of the the Taborites, the arrest of Wencelaus IV (one of the best kings there ever was), it goes on and on. It's a curious thing: most people are really nice and really decent, and concerned with pursuing their happiness, but religion can turn them into Hell on wheels. It can make them torture, pillage, and murder, because they _think it's right._ I believe Christianity is ancient, mumbling evil, and you won't convince me otherwise, any more than I'll convince you.
April 29, 2007 9:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2007 21:15
Hi, John Conolley:
I'll start with your last point. On that issue, we agree completely. Well...almost. As I wrote in my last post, I oppose Christians forcing non-Christians to live Christian lifestyles. The Holy Roman Empire was a great example of what NOT to do. Believing in Jesus is a choice. If God gives us this choice, who is man to force it on people?
Here's where we disagree: It was not always this way. If we go back and look at the first three hundred years of the church, we see persecution against Christians. All but one of the apostles was put to death. Christians were fed to lions, crucified, stoned to death, and burned at stakes, by the Jewish leadership or by the Roman government. In 325 AD, a Roman emperor adopted Christianity and began to force it on people. BUT, it was not biblical Christianity he was selling, it was a brand new religion - - - Catholicism. I can speak freely, because it’s pretty much just you and me here on this thread now. Catholicism is recycled paganism packaged as Christianity. From your previous posts (and your last name) it seems you were raised Catholic. So was I. If I am right, we have both come out of that system (which shows that some things have changed since the Dark Ages, since no one executed us for it).
This is no small distinction. Catholicism, like every other religion on the planet, is a system designed to get the believer to heaven, or Paradise, or Nirvana, or oneness with God, or some higher state, through careful obedience to set laws or rituals or principles. Now, if you believe that, then you can force these religious laws on people and think that you are doing them a favor. You are bringing them salvation. If you kill them for refusing to follow your rules: Hey, they were going to hell any way. BUT, Christianity, as defined by the earliest believers, as recorded in the Bible and the writings of the earliest (pre-Catholic) church leaders (“fathers”), does not work that way. The Bible is very clear in saying that no man can ever satisfy God by doing good works, following laws or living life a certain way. It is by faith and trust, and by establishing a personal relationship with God, through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, that we are ‘saved’ and that we inherit eternal life.
I know you don’t believe all of this, but I want you to hear it so you can understand the problem more fully. What I have just described is pure biblical Christianity. Hopefully you can see why it makes no sense to force my faith on people; I CAN’T force my faith on people because THEY have to believe on their own. I can’t do it for them. And, I could choose to force my moral convictions on people, but what would that accomplish? If we are not ‘saved’ by our good deeds, what difference will it make if someone is forced to live a Christian lifestyle, but they have no faith, no relationship with God?
I know what I am about to say has been rejected all over this website, on many threads, whenever Christians say it, but I have to do it: Christians who are willing to kill, steal people’s rights and force them to live as Christ did, are not living like Christ themselves. I really believe that a minority of those who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. I rarely am willing to discuss homosexuality, but you repeatedly mention it, so I will tell you why I haven’t addressed it. First, as I just described, I cannot make someone become a Christian by forcing them to conform to a Bible-prescribed lifestyle. I would prefer to love them as Jesus did, and let HIM change the person as they get to know Him. The other reason is that sin is sin. And, God sees sin as it is. Unlike humans, He does not consider one sin worse than another. Sin can be defined as rebellion against God, and any rebellion against God is bad, and separates us from Him. (Again, I know you think this is ridiculous, but I want you to see my perspective). If that is true, what does it make me if I tell a homosexual they are sinning, but I myself am having an affair with another woman, or divorcing my wife, or sleeping with my girlfriend, or watching pornography? Answer: it makes me a useless hypocrite. A hypocrite because I am also disobeying God. Useless because God cannot use me; I am giving a bad witness. I try really hard to practice what Jesus preached when He talked about removing the log in your own eye before being able to help others with their tiny little splinters.
This is why I have to disagree with your contention that Christianity has always been evil and murderous. For three hundred years, it was not that way. In fact, for two thousand years, it has not been that way. In every generation, there have always been at least a small number of biblical Christians who lived as Christ did, and resisted the legalism of Catholicism (and now Fundamentalism).
What I am sharing with you is not something the mainstream media covers. There are many of us Christians who feel this way, and there is a movement under way to turn the tide back from forceful judgment to true Christian love. But, you will only experience it one Christian at a time, as you are now. Here is my advice for you: whenever a “Christian” judges or condemns you, show them that you understand true Christianity better than they do, and say something like, “Don’t you have sins to deal with yourself? Does God take your sins any less seriously than mine?”, or quote Jesus on removing the log from your eye (chapter 7:1-5).
Now, some smaller points:
- By “banning any mention of God”, I was referring to the removal of “God” from the pledge to the flag in classrooms. I was not referring to teaching Christianity in our public schools.
- You say these laws are generally brought by members of other religions, not Atheists. That case in California involved the Atheist father who is still trying to get God removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. (“Christ” is not mentioned in the pledge, so why would Jews or Muslims object?)
- Attempting to remove that cross from a memorial was not an act of vandalism. I was referring to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial in San Diego. There was a court battle to prevent the cross’s removal by those who felt it was inappropriate to have a cross at a war memorial.
(These misunderstandings are my fault. I did not give enough details to be coherent. Sorry!)
April 29, 2007 4:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2007 16:41
" If we believe Christ will return to set up His kingdom, what are we doing trying to run the government now, without Him?"
That's an excellent point. Let me think about that.
"[T]here are many atheists who are trying to remove the rights of American Christians to share their faith in public."
There are people (I don't have the details on whether they're atheists or not; most of the relevant court cases are not brought by atheists, but by people of other religions) who seriously go too far, such as trying to prevent school kids from having prayer meetings at recess. There are other case of unnecessarily monkeying with symbols, such as taking after creches in public places, or renaming the Easter Bunny. Taking a cross off a war memorial is simple vandalism.
On the other hand, bringing a ten commandments statue into a courthouse is an attempt to conflate temporal law with Biblical injunctions, and is a clear case of violating separation of church and state.
Atheists (or Jews, Hindus, what have you) frequently shoot themselves in the foot, confuse what is essential with what isn't, and confuse Constitutional issues with opinion issues, which gets Christians so upset that they do likewise. Then reasoned discussion stops and war begins.
Now.
About banning the mention of God from any classroom. First of all, it isn't any classroom. It's government classrooms. It's an important point that public schools are run by the government. Teachers discussing God in class therefore has the appearance of a governmental endorsement of religion. It looks to me like a clear violation of separation.
Also, as an atheist from the age of fifteen, I can tell you it's upsetting and oppressive to people who don't believe as the teacher believe. It's also scary, because it reminds you that you're one among many, and seems to point that out to the many. Remember, atheist children (Jewish children, Muslim children, Mormon children) are forced by law to be there. I don't think it's fair to force them to listen to even the shortest sermons, or to call attention to their very small minority status. Nor is there any pedogocical need for it.
Going back to a previous point:
"You, at the very least, hate the IDEA of God, don’t you?"
Absolutely not. I'm fascinated by the idea of God. That's why I've been immersing myself in the history of religion. I'm positively jolly toward the idea of Sufiism. It's cool as anything. Wrong, of course.
What I hate is the idea of Christians forcing me to keep my mouth shut, forcing me to conduct my sex life by their lights, forcing me to go to church, forcing me to give money to their causes... forcing me to do anything. And don't tell me they wouldn't. Did you ever hear of the Cristeros War? 90,000 people lost their lives over the question of what the Catholic Church had the right to force them to do. In 1844, Catholics and Protestants fought each other with cannon fire in the streets of Philadelphia. Christians burned or crushed seventy-some people to death in Waco because they wanted to live outside Christian society.
Christians have been violently forcing their beliefs on people for 2000 years, and it's time it stopped.
April 29, 2007 3:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2007 03:20
Conolley:
Things just got interesting. I disagree with A LOT of what you just wrote, but I am intrigued, and I would like to discuss some of this further, if you are willing.
Before we do, I like to request that you refrain from insulting me by calling God my "imaginary friend". I would like to have a more civil conversation, and I know we are both capable of it.
You said: "And "moderate" Christians, such as yourself, are in the same positions as moderate Mohammedans...If you aren't educated about what's going on in your religion, and if you aren't speaking against it, you look like part of the problem."
I don’t think I am a “moderate” Christian. My faith in Christ is the center of my life. It is who I am. I read the Bible in a way that most people would call “literal”. But, I do not agree with the people you are criticizing. And, I am vocal about it.
While Christians are called to share their faith with everyone around them, I do not see where in the Bible I am told to demand that the entire world live according to God’s principles. In fact, quite the opposite, believers are told to obey the government. We are not called to control the government, picket, boycott, go on Larry King, threaten candidates with our social agenda, lobby politicians, govern from the pulpit, or even judge those who live apart from God. We are to live a loving, selfless life and give ourselves to those around us. If asked why we do so, we are to explain the love of Christ that motivates us to act this way.
On the one hand, I strongly disagree with what some people who call themselves Christians are doing. They are off target. If we believe Christ will return to set up His kingdom, what are we doing trying to run the government now, without Him? This, I believe, is the crux of every problem throughout history involving the “church”. The Holy Roman Empire forcing its citizens to be Christians, Crusaders killing non-Christians, Catholics persecuting Protestants, Inquisitors murdering non-believers, Catholic Ireland at war with Protestant Northern Ireland, Imperialists and Colonists owning and trading and abusing slaves, are all examples of Christians exerting power over governments and their people. This is not biblical. We are to live such good lives that those around us see our faith at work. Christians are called to be good, obedient citizens, obeying the authorities, respecting our leaders and paying our taxes.
On the other hand, Christians are called to witness, regardless of the consequences. The only time when I see the Bible endorsing the act of defying the government occurs when a believer is asked to stop worshipping God, or when asked to worship other gods. Daniel refused to stop praying to His God, and he was thrown to the lions, willingly. Daniel’s three friends refused to bow down to a statue of Nebuchadnezzar, and they were thrown into a fiery furnace, willingly. Peter and John refused to stop preaching Christ, and were thrown into prison and beaten. They thanked God for being considered worthy of suffering for Jesus. Paul spent time in prison for spreading Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. He considered himself blessed for it.
I really hope you admit, John, that there are many atheists who are trying to remove the rights of American Christians to share their faith in public. Removing a cross from a war memorial, banning the mention of God from any classroom, taking Christmas trees out of malls, renaming the Easter Bunny the “Spring Bunny”, and other recent actions get most Christians worked up over their right to openly practice their faith. I, myself, am not worried. Like Daniel & his friends, John & Peter, Paul, and scores and scores of martyrs over the years, I’ll go to jail and die if I have to. I won’t whine about my rights being violated by you atheists. Jesus never whined.
April 28, 2007 1:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 28, 2007 01:19
Some misguided souls? This is a highly organized movement. And "moderate" Christians, such as yourself, are in the same positions as moderate Mohammedans, who are being asked to speak out against the fundmentalists in their religion. They don't do it, so the assumption is that they actually support the terrorists, whether they do or not. If you aren't educated about what's going on in your religion, and if you aren't speaking against it, you look like part of the problem.
You further look like part of the problem for statements like this: "[T]he MAJORITY of Americans do not support legalizing gay marriage." The majority of Americans, according to polls, until recently supported equal rights for homosexuals. With the huge activism by Christians, this number has gone to a minority. It looks like hate to me. Here's something Goldberg has to say on the subject:
"And you see the gay people in these areas, where these anti-gay measures were used to get out the vote, and what they're feeling is real terror. They're looking around and thinking, these are my neighbors. They've always been nice to me. We've always smiled at each other. Who are these people?" (from an interview at buzzflash.com)
I blame you because I think all Christians (all monotheists?) are blinded to reality, and pursue dangerous, hurtful, destructive, even evil, paths, because they think it's right. And no one can tell you anything, no one can educate you, and when reality is shown to be against you, you go away resenting it an mumbling about conspiracies. Where's "David" right now? Did he concede the evidence seemed to be against him? No, he just vanished. I think this is willful blindness, and I blame anyone who commits it or is party to it, because that road leads to death.
April 27, 2007 12:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 27, 2007 00:39
Even if you are right, if there are some misguided souls claiming to be Christians, why blame me and the other true Christians on this thread?
April 26, 2007 11:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 26, 2007 23:53
I think this conversation has degenerated into random assertions, but your last question is legit, so I'll answer: Who is trying to take away the constitution? Christion Dominionists. Christian Reconstructionists. Dominionists are a small movement, but they've had significant influence on government policy in the current administration. Christian Reconstructionists aren't so small.
No bills have been introduced in Congress yet, but there are most distinctly Christians who want to and will if they get a chance. Or bypass Congress altogether, if they get a chance.
For details, read _Kingdom Coming, The Rise of Christian Nationalism_, Michelle Goldberg, Norton, 2006. If you do love the Constitution, this book will scare the living crap out of you.
April 26, 2007 11:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 26, 2007 23:10
Conolley:
Your latest rant was hard to read, but I want to be respectful, so here are my answers to your points:
"I can't hate an entity I don't believe in.” You, at the very least, hate the IDEA of God, don’t you?
“Do you think Hindus came to the hills of West Virginia and made me hate Christianity?” Cute, but you did not understand me. I am saying that because you hate the idea of God, you hate the idea of Christianity.
“And if Christians don't hate homosexuals, where did all the hate legislation suddenly come from?” Hate legislation? I think SOME Christians want to limit marriage to heterosexuals, but the MAJORITY of Americans do not support legalizing gay marriage.
“You have to turn a studied blind eye every day to the myriad evidences from science, history, archaeology, patristics, textual analysis, and plain common sense to protect your belief in your invisible friend.” Funny, I could say the same of you. You ignore the obvious existence of God whenever you enjoy a sunrise, are amazed by nature, witness the miracle of birth, or gaze at a canopy of stars. You ignore the obvious fact that the size of the earth, its distance from the sun, its distance from the moon, its gravitational laws, and its speed of rotation are too perfect not to have an intelligent Agent behind them. (Even the great minds who discovered them admitted that.) You ignore a Designer when you cut yourself and don’t bleed to death, when you feel pleasure, when you experience love, and when you inherently discern between right and wrong. You ignore the parallels between the Bible and science, the Bible and history, and the Bible and archaeology.
“Christianity has always been a vile and hateful religion.” You won’t see that in the New Testament, which details the beginnings of the Christian movement. SHOW ME.
“You aren't going to tell me you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Augustine or Aquinas, are you?” Well…umm…actually…I might be. Neither of them read the Bible faithfully. They both interpreted the Scriptures allegorically. Everything was always a picture of something else. I’m sorry, but I choose what the Bible plainly says over some dead guy’s vivid imagination.
“I don't know how many Christians have threatened to beat me down for simply remarking that I'm an atheist.” That’s unfortunate. I am truly sorry to hear that. That doesn’t happen here in the Rust Belt.
“And the Hebrew Bible is an atrocious, murderous, hateful document if ever one was written.” You are ignoring all of the loving things God says in the OT. You are glossing over His promises. You are oblivious to His mercy and kindness, mentioned all over the Hebrew Bible.
“I do seriously resent the concerted effort by Christians to force him on me, and even to take away the laws of the United States and replace them with Leviticus. Stoning women for not being chaste? Stoning children for disobedience? Come on.” Who is trying to take away the Constitution? I love the Constitution. The Bible tells us to follow the rules of our government, not change them. And, you are making MY point with your Levitical list. What Christian is introducing bills in Congress to stone women and children? YOU come on!
April 26, 2007 9:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 26, 2007 21:21
"You hate God. You resent Him. You want Him to go away."
To quote Va.Tech. Professor Mapantsula (approximately, from memory), "I can't hate an entity I don't believe in. This is not the high school silent treatment."
"Weak and manipulative answer"
You asked my about my emotional state. Ask a personal question, expect a personal answer.
And if I can't blame my hatred of Christians (actually, it's my hatred of Christianity; there is a difference) on Christians, where does it come from? Do you think Hindus came to the hills of West Virginia and made me hate Christianity?
Christianity has always been a vile and hateful religion. I don't know how many Christians have threatened to beat me down for simply remarking that I'm an atheist. And, as Sam Harris, among others, have pointed out, Augustine found reason in the Christian Bible to torture heretics. Aquinas found reason to burn them alive. (You aren't going to tell me you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Augustine or Aquinas, are you?) And the Hebrew Bible is an atrocious, murderous, hateful document if ever one was written.
And if Christians don't hate homosexuals, where did all the hate legislation suddenly come from? It wasn't Muslims. It wasn't atheists.
And no, I'm not about to admit that you're right. You're from insanity. You have to turn a studied blind eye every day to the myriad evidences from science, history, archaeology, patristics, textual analysis, and plain common sense to protect your belief in your invisible friend.
Now, I'm not interested in taking your invisible friend away from you, if that's what gets you through the night, but I do seriously resent the concerted effort by Christians to force him on me, and even to take away the laws of the United States and replace them with Leviticus. Stoning women for not being chaste? Stoning children for disobedience? Come on.
April 26, 2007 12:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 26, 2007 00:54
Conolley:
What a weak and manipulative answer you just gave. The Christians I know don't want to murder judges, don't hate homosexuals, don't teach that God hates people, don't feel bound by the laws in Leviticus and don't want to subject an unbelieving world to God's law against their will.
We make good comments, and always try to show why we believe what we believe. We have made many good arguments on this thread, but you are predisposed by your hatred to reject every one of them.
You can't blame your outright hatred against Christians on us. Be honest, John. Your disgust goes much deeper than strangers on the internet. You hate God. You resent Him. You want Him to go away.
I don't know your story, but you are not alone. We all, at one time, lived selfish lives apart from our Creator. I personally can tell you that my life was not complete, my life was not hopeful, my life was not at all meaningful, until I stopped running and faced the God who wanted to erase my past and give me a future.
I can't see you admitting that I am right. You may not even know it. Your selfish hatred may go so deep that you do not even understand it. But, it can all go away in the blink of an eye, when you're finally ready.
Lest you think I am judging you, let me ask you this: Would I be judging a man if I observed he was drowning and I threw him a life jacket?
I am praying for you, John.
April 25, 2007 12:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 25, 2007 00:17
To David:
D00d (_) vv323 pwn23/)!!11one
Admit it.
April 24, 2007 11:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 24, 2007 23:59
What makes me so "aggro?" I'm talking to Christians, in an era when Christians are openly advocating the murder of federal judges. When Christians have to be bought off from picketing a funeral with "God Hates Fag" signs. When Christians are teaching two-year-olds to sing "God Hates the World." (Go to http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net/specialav/2007/20070407_ghtw.html Watch it all the way to the end. If you can stomach it.) When Christians are advocating that the American Constitution be replaced with the laws of Leviticus. Why am I aggro? Because YOU can't face an argument directly, never admit when you're defeated (just stop talking, see "David" above), weasel about in all directions, and argue about Wikipedia when all your other arguments run out. I think you are invincibly ignorant, I think Christianity is evil, and I think you're parties to it. That's why I'm aggro.
April 24, 2007 9:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 24, 2007 21:39
Anyone who calls Dawkins an 'idiot' is my friend! Who made him an expert on theology?
April 24, 2007 7:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 24, 2007 19:09
No really now,
Re: John Conneley:
True true re: the English lessons; and free lessons mind you!
Also, this garbage that he alluded to when saying that anyone who is a Biblical scholar cannot argue (or is not qualified to argue) in a scientific manner about God etc. due to bias!! I mean COME ON, does this dude make the rules as he goes along? The facts for intelligent design etc. far outweigh anything darwin or evolutionists have to offer and him and other just simply refuse to acknowledge that this evidence exists.
On what basis does he dismiss scholars etc? I have tried getting into the mind of this individual but it is a wasted effort. And then there are the insults etc. when you don't agree with him and the dismissive attitude he adopts. Just try and insult him in turn; then just see what happens!!!
Look, I debate, and have done so publicly before and never have I encountered such puzzling behaviour from an individual such as this.
He's almost as bad as that total idiot Richard Dawkins. I'm more amused than anything else...
April 24, 2007 7:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 24, 2007 19:01
Phantom:
You may have to tell Conolley what AGGRO means. Remember...he thinks only Americans know how to speak English. (hee hee)
April 24, 2007 6:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 24, 2007 18:25
John M,
I agree with you.
John Conneley,
Why ARE you so aggro? If someone doesn't agree with you, you seem to go slightly ballistic! Come on man!
April 24, 2007 6:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 24, 2007 06:21
Wikipedia is not reliable, and neither is Carbon Dating. I did err (sorry) - the dried lava at Mt. St. Helens was obviously not dated with carbon. But, carbon dating is one of many similar systems. My point with Mt. St. Helens is that we cannot reliably date rocks, and very often this 'technology' is used to date achaeological objects found with the rocks.
We obviously are talking about the existence of God. If the Old Testament is true, it goes along way to showing that He exists. We can't forget that the book is full of predictions of events that subsequently happened. And, no human could make so many accurate predictions of the future.
"The discussion was on whether the OT stands up to archaeology. It's generally acknowledged by scholars Jewish, Christian, and secular that it doesn't. Previously, it's been held that anything before the United Kingdom is a mythical story disproved by archaeology. Now, it's beginning to look like the United Kingdom doesn't stand up either."
- These statements are simply not true. "Christians", at least, know that many of the places, customs, and peoples mentioned in the Old Testament have been verified, often by secular researchers. Only a minority of 'scholars' hold that the Old Testament is mythical. The United Kingdom is not under question by the majority of scholarship.
The problem is that a small group of dissidents (mostly the Jesus Seminar people) has spun up some tall tales. They are the ones who appear on every television special on Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity. They have no proof of what they teach, and they are the source of the nonsense Dan Brown lists in his silly DaVinci novel.
April 24, 2007 4:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 24, 2007 04:00
Listen, bubba, I'm not one of your students, and I'm not interested in your opinions of Wikipedia. And I expect I've read as many books as you have. Kindly get down off your high horse.
In any case, the discussion wasn't on whether God exists. Every proof of the existence of God was shot down long ago. The discussion was on whether the OT stands up to archaeology. It's generally acknowledged by scholars Jewish, Christian, and secular that it doesn't. Previously, it's been held that anything before the United Kingdom is a mythical story disproved by archaeology. Now, it's beginning to look like the United Kingdom doesn't stand up either.
And I still don't know what you were talking about vis a vis Mount St. Helens. Do you?
April 24, 2007 12:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 24, 2007 00:34
If wikipedia is not good enough for a HIGH SCHOOL paper, why would I respect it to help in these discussions on whether or not GOD EXISTS?
Get off the internet and read some REAL books and REAL research papers!
April 23, 2007 10:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 23, 2007 22:32
I looked it up in Wikipedia (we aren't writing research papers here, for God's sake). Carbon dating goes back about 60,000 years.
April 23, 2007 8:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 23, 2007 20:10
What's all this about Mount St. Helens? It seems utterly incoherent to me. How can you date a volcanic cone? It's not an entity; it's a mass of stuff. I suppose the stuff could be arbitrarily old.
Also, isn't Mount St. Helens all cone? It's a volcanic mountain. It's been around a long time.
And no scientist has ever claimed to date anything to 2.4 million years ago using carbon dating. Carbon dating goes back, what, 50,000 years, tops?
Help up out here. What in the world are you talking about?
April 23, 2007 8:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 23, 2007 20:07
Here are my two cents:
My daughter is not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference for any project at her high school. It is not a reliable source. My university students know not to quote wikipedia to me; I will laugh. So, Conolley: "Ha, ha, ha!!!"
The walls of Jericho fell at least four times.
Carbon dating is not reliable. Scientists have dated the cone at Mount St. Helens to be 2.4 MILLION years old. And, we know that it went off in 1980, so that cone is only 27 years old. OOPS!
April 23, 2007 6:49 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 23, 2007 06:49
Notice your argument is refuted by a site with "Biblical" in the title. If even the Biblical sites are against you, it really doesn't look good.
As for the Hittites, "general direction" is pretty general.
April 23, 2007 12:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 23, 2007 00:47
The radio carbon dates used by Wood were provided by the British Museum, which later retracted the dates because their machinery had been out of calibration. The corrected radio carbon dating confirms Kenyon's dating.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php
Wikipedia says: "Bryant G. Wood is currently the Creationist Director of the Associates for Biblical Research."
This means Bryant Wood has no respect for science, and thus should not be adduced as a support for any kind of scientific conclusion.
April 23, 2007 12:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 23, 2007 00:44
John Connelie, :)
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/jericho.html
I think this is a fair and unbiased site about Jericho. You tell me to read about Kenyon and I did. Her conclusion was what you said it would be. But at the end of this article archaeologist Bryan Wood re-evaluates Kenyon's claims. Using carbon 14 dating, his conclusion is that the Israelites under Joshua could have had a conquest of Jericho. There is no way either could come to a solid conclusion on this due in fact to the walls of Jericho have been destroyed and rebuilt several times in history. So neither does this suggest the story was true or false. It is inconclusive. But the last evidence to come out with carbon 14 dating suggests the timing of Joshua and Jericho were correct. Did he have a conquest over Jericho?? No one knows and may never know. But there for sure is no evidence that suggests without a doubt the story in the Bible is false.
Here's a quote from the wikipedia site you said you read about the Hittites.
Moreover, in the account of the conquest of Canaan, the Hittites are said to dwell "in the mountains" and "towards the north" of Canaan — a description that matches the general direction and geography of the original Hittite empire, who had been influential in the region prior to the Battle of Kadesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites
There's the site. I suggest you read the whole thing. It's pretty convincing that the Biblical Hittites were a real people.
By the way too. I didn't look up any of this in Josh Mcdowell's books. Have a great day.
God bless
April 22, 2007 11:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 23:20
P.S. to David:
Looking it up in McDowell doesn't count. McDowell quotes Garstung, whose work has been superseded by the great Kathleen Kenyon. Kenyon's methods at Jericho (the "Wheeler-Kenyon Method") are now the standard of archaeology.
April 22, 2007 10:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 22:21
P.S.
You guys see my name every day. It's not hard to spell. It's only 8 letters. It's CONOLLEY.
April 22, 2007 9:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 21:42
David:
Very well. I looked up the Hittites. I didn't have to go far. This is what I found at Wikipedia:
'Genesis indicates that the "Hittites" (sons of Heth) were descendants of Ham through his son, Canaan. However, it is uncertain, and there has been some debate, as to whether this designation was intended to signify any or all of: 1) the original Hattites of Hatti, 2) their Indo-European conquerors (Nesili), who retained the name "Hatti" for Central Anatolia, and are today referred to as the "Hittites" ..., or 3) a Canaanite group, who may or may not have been related to either or both of the Anatolian groups, and who also may or may not be identical with the later Neo-Hittites.
'The Biblical Hittites are said to be a great power who dwell "in the mountains" and "towards the north" of Canaan. Some scholars, on the basis of the Documentary Hypothesis which holds that the Hebrew Bible was redacted well after the fall of the Hittite Empire, assume these Biblical references may be to the "Neo-Hittite" (Luwian) polities.'
In other words, nothing solid.
Now.
If you're actually interested in intellectual discussion, rather than assertion, please look up the fall of Jericho. Archaeology asserts that Jericho fell about 2400 BCE, which is 900 years before the supposed time of Joshua. When Joshua was supposed to have "fit the Battle of Jericho," Jericho was an abandoned heap of stones. Don't believe it? Look it up. Then tell me what archaeology proves about the Bible.
Phantom:
Apology accepted.
April 22, 2007 9:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 21:29
Hey!!! John Conelly is back!! How bout those Hittites huh? I'll give you a word of advice Mr. C. How about looking up both sides of the argument. Infidels.org??? The name just says it all. Real non-biased site ya have there buddy. So, last time I talked to you, you told me to "go to hell!" I hope your feeling a little better. So anyway, just wanted to say hi and I hope you found that the Hittites were a real people in one of many confirmations of the OT. Take care
God bless
April 22, 2007 5:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 17:53
John Connely,
Ok, peace then. Let's stick to the topic at hand and leave the personal remarks out that both of us are guilty of.
I'm sorry, and I mean it.
April 22, 2007 5:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 17:24
John M:
I assumed you _had_ read it for yourself. And the site doesn't trash the book. It started out as trash.
I refer readers to that site because I don't want anyone to get the impression that the book hasn't been answered, because that might lead to the free-floating feeling that it's unanswerable.
Phantom:
My wit is dim? I refer you to your "top lip" remark.
April 22, 2007 3:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 15:58
My my my John Connely,
Grouchy old man aren't you?! Why don't you try and take me on with your intellect as opposed to your wit, dim as it is.
And, I'm only 14 but most people say I look AT LEAST 18...
Idiot...
April 21, 2007 1:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 21, 2007 13:30
David:
I will put together a summary of what I have on Miller and that aspect of evolutionary theory. I will also give you references and a link to a useful website.
Stay tuned...
April 21, 2007 12:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 21, 2007 12:37
Conolley:
Why send people to a website that trashes McDowell's book instead of inviting people to read it for themselves? Don't you want people to think for themselves? Are you scared that they will not think it is 'half-baked' and actually like what he has written? Do you really need to control people to that extent?
April 21, 2007 7:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 21, 2007 07:08
Incidentally, for those who don't know Josh McDowell, he wrote a book called _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_. My "page 94" reference above was to _The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict_, in one volume, from Nelson, 1999.
The book is a collection of half-baked mythologizing and hand-waving, and is the source of most of the goofy arguments the fundamentalists come up with. You can see it very thoroughly refuted here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
April 21, 2007 12:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 21, 2007 00:34
Phantom:
"And by the way; the smell you're smelling is not green cheese; it's your top lip!"
My apologies. I thought I was talking to an adult.
Listen, kid, you're on the wrong site. Grownups meet here. Your brain is not yet matured to the point you can discuss ideas at this level. Come back when you're fifteen or sixteen.
Incidentally, since English is not your first language, let me make a friendly correction: It's idiomatic English to say _upper_ lip.
April 20, 2007 9:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 21:53
David:
"Ha Ha Ha!! That was the funniest comment ever. I really cant stop laughing."
Thank you. That's very enlightening. I'm now prepared to sum up the argumentation methods of fundamentalist Christians:
Begin by quoting whatever canned answers you can remember from Josh McDowell.
Ignore any and all points your opponent makes.
Jump on any little word that can be misconstrued.
If you have an extraordinary memory (for a fundamentalist), quote more McDowell.
If worst comes to worst, actually go and look up something in McDowell (the Hittite reference comes from page 94 of the Nelson single-volume edition).
If all else fails, babble nonsense ("Ha, ha, ha"? Dude, you typed a false laugh) until no one will talk to you anymore, then declare yourself the winner.
Try to make some kind of a show of superiority:
"If you decide you want to know more about God and the Bible let me know." As if you're some kind of Biblical scholar.
Well, it worked. I'm not talking to you anymore. You're the winner. Revel in it.
April 20, 2007 9:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 21:49
John M,
Thanks John for the compliment. Since I am sure you are way more knowledgable than me in the sciences, I was hoping to ask you a question. I continue to look for origen of life sciences and I find conflicing reports. But I was curious if you know, or heard, about Stanly Millers experiment in 1953. Supposedly it was tainted in favor of his findings. But the closest he got to creating a livving cell from chemicals were 11 of the necessary 20 amino acids needed for a living organism. I know there were no needed nuclei found and then the process would have to be repeated 100 times to make a protein molecule. Do you know if this is the closest science has come up with on creating living cells out of non-living cells? And if so wouldnt you conclude that mathematic probabilities would be so overwhelming against a particle to people theory? I'd rather ask a fellow believer so I know I dont get lied to.
thanks
God bless
April 20, 2007 5:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 17:18
E. Favorite:
Why is it that when I post what I believe to be the truth, you say I am trying to 'inspire others', but when you post what you believe to be the truth you say you are trying to educate people? WOW. You really do employ a double standard. At least I am being honest enough to say that there is no absolute proof on either side, and each person has to choose what they believe.
And, yes, I have a degree in Molecular Biology and Genetics, and I am a doctor and a professor at a large university. Each year, when I give a presentation on the problems with evolution, I get a lot of accolades (and thank-you's). (And, I live in a BLUE state, NOT the Deep South!)
April 20, 2007 5:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 17:03
David: the last post was mine!
April 20, 2007 5:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 17:02
David: the last post was mine!
April 20, 2007 5:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 17:00
David:
Thanks for the input. (I'm not sure, though, if science even knows how God did it. That Chinese scientist concurs with other findings I have seen that show that organisms pop into the fossil record fully formed. Sounds more like special creation to me!)
April 20, 2007 4:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 16:50
Einstein has been quoted as saying:
Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.
Also, Darwin was know to be agnostic, recognizing that he even knew someone must have created all this.
I must admit that the majority of the science community recognizes the theory of evolution as fact. But more and more evidence is pointing against and not for evolution. Ex: gaps in the fossil record. The Wall Street Journal reported this:
A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin 's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."[13]
Ah, so true. Eventually, this theory will most likely be found false. As we search deeper into the fossil record, more and more evidence is being shown that it could possibly not be true. Is it inconclusive? Yes, but so was this theory since its inception.
I think people use science as a means of TRYING to prove there is no God. But in time science has just shown how God did it.
April 20, 2007 3:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 15:43
John M -
Speaking of quacks, I hope you are one and not a real biology major. I hope you're a just another fundamentalist "hothead blowing smoke” (to borrow your phrase relating to atheists) thinking that your arguments here will inspire others to your way of thinking.
April 20, 2007 1:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 13:30
E Favorite:
I did comment on the Exodus. All you have is no evidence. I spoke to that.
So, the fact that there is no evidence for evolution - the very evidence its founder said would be necessary - is acceptable to you. Creatures have been evolving and changing and morphing for BILLIONS of years and we have NOT ONE fossil to document it, but, no evidence for people wandering BRIEFLY through an inhospitable desert, and it must not have happened?
There is a double standard here. And, to set the record straight, it is the evolutionists who have ruled our classrooms and the media since the 1950's. The scientists are the ones who are misleading people. I have a degree in Biology, and I was lied to. Period. I was told we had a lot more evidence than we do. All we have is a well developed myth that never happened. 'Because people are made of the same elements as animals, we must be related.' That's about it.
So, when faced with no evidence, each person has to choose what to believe. So, please stop making it sound like Christians are denying science and believing in myths as reality, since those who believe in evolution are doing the same thing. Just like you, I have researched this very throroughly. When the theory of evolution crumbled in front of my eyes, I decided to embrace Jesus, whom I had always rejected in favor of the 'quack' science that had been sold to me.
April 20, 2007 6:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 06:33
Hi, John M - I don't believe I've mentioned my views on evolution, but of course, it is not disproved, though there are some people who don't believe in it - or anything else that in contrary to bible stories.
Also, what you say about Jesus and the gospels simply is not so. There is no solid evidence for Jesus and the gospels were written much later - Mark was the first, written in the late 60's. Most people in those days died before reaching 50.
Dan Brown's book is not an issue, since he clearly labeled The Da Vinci Code as a work of fiction.
You didn't comment on the information I provided about the Exodus story. That's your option, of course, but I hope other people see it and think about it and notice the difference in how you and I present information. I also hope you stop by a conservative Temple some Friday night and check out the reference I mentioned.
We do each have a choice about what road we travel. We don't really have a choice about was is a fact and what is not, though. I hope you give that some additional thought.
Thank you for sharing too.
April 20, 2007 12:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 20, 2007 00:07
E Favorite:
Thanks for explaining your story.
You know, no one has EVER found any fossils of transitional forms as evolution would require. Darwin said his theory would be disproved if millions of transitional fossils were not soon found. So, he would have abandoned his theory by now. By contrast, modern evolutionists are making up new theories to hang on to the idea that evolution could have somehow happened, even though THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
Funny that you abandon the idea that there was an Exodus but you are okay with a disproven scientific theory.
And, what about Jesus? He was a real person, and the gospels were written and distributed while most of his contemporaries were still alive. We have the writings of early second century Christian leaders, in which we see that they had the same theological beliefs as modern-day evangelicals. (Dan Brown and CCNL are wrong about a Roman Emperor making everything up a few centuries later.)
So, you have made a choice. And, IMHO, you made the wrong choice. I so wish I could change that. But, the choice is yours and I respect it.
Thanks again for sharing.
April 19, 2007 8:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 19, 2007 20:26
John – When I became curious about religion in general and the Bible, I started doing research – on the internet, in libraries and bookstores. I was thorough, weighing the quality of the information, because I became aware early on that some things are written to push a particular point of view and others are written objectively. I would never settle for one source of information and would always be sure that my sources were well referenced. In my search, I heard about the book, the Bible Unearthed (mentioned above) and then found it at the local Border’s and bought it. It is written by respected professors from respected universities. They happen to be Jewish, so have no reason to want to disprove Exodus. I read several reviews of the book, including one from the NY Times, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00EEDE173FF937A35751C0A9679C8B63
which said this:
“In expounding their view of the Bible as a national epic that shaped and sustained a people, Finkelstein and Silberman juxtapose this narrative with the discoveries and interpretations of archaeology. They say their predecessors tended to use archaeology to argue for the historicity of the biblical record. By contrast, they use archaeology as an independent source to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel. Yet respect for earlier scholarship, especially when they reject it, lends integrity to their own work. It sends the salutary message that the new vision of today inevitably becomes the old vision of tomorrow. Drawing on new methods, excavations (even of old sites) and assumptions, they turn the traditional argument on its head. Archaeological studies, they argue, undercut rather than support the historicity of biblical traditions about the origin and rise of Israel. Their detailed analysis yields conclusions that are startling to the uninitiated: the search for the historical ancestors has failed; the Exodus did not happen as described; the violent, swift and total conquest of Canaan never took place; the picture of judges leading tribes in battle against enemies does not fit the data; David and Solomon existed in the 10th century B.C. but as ''little more than hill country chieftains.'' There was no golden age of a united kingdom, a magnificent capital and an extended empire.”
In another review, http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
Finkelstein, one of the authors, says: During our Pesach seder, my two girls, who are 11 and 7, didn't hear a word about the fact that there was no exodus from Egypt. When they are 25, we will tell them a different story.
Then I learned, here on the “On Faith” forum, actually, that the Conservative Jews had added